You don't have any idea of what I "believe" because I've never specifically stated what I believed. You're making assumptions.

I probably won't seriously object to your beliefs about an alien spaghetti monster being interested in designing life on earth UNTIL you write a book claiming that no such thing exists, then turn around and say that it's possible. You know, like Dawkins did.

I think I can safely say that the point that Richard was making was that the case for a deistic god could at least be based on arguments that are not totally disreputable, as opposed to the arguments for a theistic god, which are in the main just silly. This does not imply that the former argument actually has any validity. Saying that one argument is more reasonable than another does not imply that either are reasonable in some absolute sense.

It was so plain to me that this was Richard's intention that I was rather stunned to see this line of attack used by the theistic side when reporting the debate, because to present this as Richard re-evaluating his position, or stressing that there is actual evidence for a deistic god, is either wilful misrepresentation or simple stupidity. (Ditto his throwaway like about granting Lennox the existence of a historical Jesus, which was done for the sake of the argument, not as confirmation that it was true.)

I myself am rather fond of the approach that Deleuze and Guattari take to this problem, and their solution of joining the personal ("unconscious") with the social using the concept of production: desire-as-production (as opposed to the Freudian desire-as-lack); and society as a machinic composite.

Some do not like the idea of people as 'human machine parts'; but anyone who has ever worked in a factory knows just how true that can be.

Since the concept of 'assemblage' becomes pivotal in this kind of analysis, the whole question concerning how "any essentializing arguments in the end fail empirically" is displaced by considerations defined through assemblage: variation is defined by the fitting together of the components, not in any 'essential character' of those components.

You tell me about your lifestyle, when you voice your opinion.

One cannot guarantee the conclusions exactly. So one has to form a deduction based on multiple different statements, to put together a cohesive whole. Also, one only gains a probable lifestyle, as it is not guaranteed. But one can deduce much from someone's statements, simply if one is willing to consider multiple stated opinions, paying particular note to the details of how those opinions are expressed, and one use careful analysis, so as to be very careful to not be too eager to draw unlikely conclusions.

I have read enough of those quotes to realise that according to Nietzsche, the Nazi viewpoint was simply to promote their chosen desires, to raise themselves to be a master elitist overlord over everyone else.

Ironically, Nietzsche's own words state that Hitler was just someone trying to promote his own desires.

Many religions have already expressed this idea in another manner, in the form of a consciousness of a whole people. I have read enough religious texts to say that the idea of a group consciousness has been made clear many, many times.

If the philosophers you cited do not consider such a consciousness as being possible, even if similar to an assembly of machine parts, then you would be right to state that the ideas you were citing were not the ideas I was referring to. Is this what you meant, that such consciousness is not possible?

That is your right.

It is merely an outgrowth of the moral obligation to help others, that wish to be helped. If you have no desire to do so, then that is your choice. But I would regard it no differently than helping an old woman across the road, who shows that she wishes to be helped across the road.

Bear also in mind, that my mother's grandparents were from Europe, one from Vienna, one from the border of Poland and Russia, and so many of my family were wiped out in the Holocaust. So I am not using these terms lightly.

Put up, or shut up. If I really have a problem, you should inform me, in order that I might do something about it. If not, then every action that I take in that vein, is with your open approval.

You have neither the justification nor the right to make any declarations in my name, nor to imply my tacit approval for your doing so.

If you don't think it is close to murder, to have someone you know say that they don't mind murdering someone, and you say nothing about it, then that is your philosophy. But I think it is. If you have a chance to stop evil happening, merely by informing someone, then it only makes sense to say something politely. It doesn't mean that the person will definitely listen. But it will be something that is then brought attention to their consciousness, and will be something that plays on their mind. It will make a difference.

Neither is the familial structure the main source of consciousness or of bonding in religion. It is simply the most commonly found unit of bonding in the populace. As religion needs to take account of biological structures, the family unit becomes important to consider, when it is beneficial, and when it is destructive. If you peruse religious literature, then at least in some religions, if not all, one finds that the main unit of bonding and of common consciousness, is shared values and shared goals, nothing more, nothing less. Only when the family has those shared goals and shared values does the family exhibit a consciousness, but normally, such a consciousness is described only in the identification of an entire people, or a large sect that treats itself as if it was a people separate from the rest.

That might be your view. It is not mine. AFAIK, philosophy is composed of ideas. So are scientific hypotheses. Some of those ideas can be tested via analytical methods, such as experimentation.

Granted, that might be a rather radical viewpoint. But I have always tended to think that where it could be possible, a scientific approach might lend light on an issue.

If people are not careful to realise that with the removal of religion, that the same type of intellectual authority is removed as well, someone can easily replace scientists and other academics in their place, and this can be observed directly with the historical development of societies where religion has waned, or been removed altogether. Religion, and G-d, threaten the power of the academic to claim that others should accept his views, merely because he claims to know more, because they project an alternative authority to listen to, forcing the people to think before they accept the word of an academic.

OoooKaaay… only six pages of text this time. Well, let’s have a look:

So what you are actually saying, is that someone tells you about their lifestyle when they tell you about their lifestyle. Or do you not accept the possibility that very many people will make statements of opinion based upon belief or upon principle? That very many people will voice opinions based upon what they have heard, or read, or seen through the media, regardless of the fact that they are speaking of things with which they have had no direct experience?

Let me give you an example: say someone who is trying to BS their way into appearing to have a grasp of a philosophic concept makes a statement about that concept, despite never having read any text in which that concept is introduced or developed. Should I then say that their lifestyle must include such philosophic considerations, because their opinion implicates them in some form of direct engagement with the thinking of that concept in its own right? No, of course not: what I need to say instead is that they are full of it and don’t know what they are talking about.

Once again, Nietzsche’s point was that when one makes an observational connection between a lifestyle and expressed opinions, then one can gain a fuller understanding as to the MEANING of the words used to express those opinions. Nietzsche established this insight through his early philological research.

I am not well versed in Deleuze and Guattari but the little I know of their works leads me to wish I did. I do know that many labeled their work as postmodern which I am not sure fits well with the "concepts". I like their idea of the "Rhizome"much better than Dawkins memes simply because it forces us to observe and approach phenomona as if it was a jungle and we are somwhere in it. The best beginning is in the middle and see where the strands lead I suppose. Like I said though I wish I knew more of their works.

"History is always written from the sedentary point of view and in the name of a unitary State apparatus, at least a possible one, even when the topic is nomads. What is lacking is a Nomadology, the opposite of a history" (A Thousand Plateaus)

Another example is something that I learned about, that Jews are supposed to lean on the left, not the right, during the Seder, because the oesophagus and the trachea is more on the right, and you might come to swallow your food down the trachea and come to choke. I never really understood this, because we lean on chairs, and so we only lean a little bit, and one would hardly expect to choke by leaning to the right a little. However, when I went to Morocco, we met a native, who took us to his home. He lived in very similar conditions to the people of the Talmud. He had chaise longues all along the walls, with little tables for food and drink by each one, with a central table in the middle. He would lean on his left side, and so did we. But now, we were really leaning down, almost horizontal, like on a bed. If you did lean to the right, then you'd be almost horizontal, and if you swallowed any food, gravity would pull it straight down to the trachea, presenting a real problem of choking when you were eating.

But I'd never have understood that, unless I'd actually lived that way for a bit.

Wrong, and wrong again. The trachea and esophagus are arranged fore-and-aft, not side-by-side. In both cases above, you lean to the left so that you're not using your arse-wiping hand to eat your food.

See how ignorance of the science of anatomy has lead you astray?

EXACTLY. Just making simple assumptions, based on simple knowledge, without having really tried to live that way, means you didn't test it out experimentally, and that is very likely to lead to huge ignorance, and even leading to give advice that kills people.

Care to guess if gravity acts on those pipes? Care to guess if you pour liquid in a an open vessel, with 2 pipes, one lower than the other, if the lower pipe is likely to catch some liquid simply due to gravity?

No matter how hard you cling to your mistaken assumption, if you look at the anatomical structure of the throat, leaning right or left has no bearing on the positioning of the epiglotis, trachea, or esophagus. Now, eating laying on your stomach might slightly increase the risk of choking, but it's minimal due to the construction of the junction of the trachea and esophagus.

People can quite successfully swallow while standing on their heads!

But hey, I really appreciate you taking the time and effort to try and turn this into me giving advice that will kill people. srsly.

Even when it's really just you parroting some rationalization based on an incomplete understanding of the system, after the original causes for putting the restraint in place have been lost to antiquity.

Yes, I understand that your rabbinic tradition holds that leaning left minimizes choking, but if you bother to stop and think about it, it's far more likely based on right-handedness and the tradition of wiping one's arse with the left hand... just like any other right vs left hand "issue" over the last few thousand years. Hell, 6 out of 7 people are a lot more COMFORTABLE leaning left so they can eat with their primary hand. But far be it from me to argue with a teacher. *laughter*

And, given your self-professed superior ability to logically think through an issue, I'm sure this will be taken as a grave insult, but it's not: YOU HAVEN'T THOUGHT THIS THROUGH. You're relying solely on the tradition you have been taught and one instance of anecdotal evidence!

(And really... how many people choked, leaning left OR right, while you were within the anecdote? I thought so.)

But then, you haven't really considered that I read any Nietzsche, or thought about what he wrote, from an entirely different angle than you, did you? All you decided was that they didn't match what you were taught.

At times in my life, I've found them incredibly reliable, such as when someone says "because I'm your friend, I'll do such-and-such for you", then they are usually screwing you over, doing something for you, that is less than they would do for a stranger. I've found that when friends do favours for you, they never even mention the friendship, because it doesn't NEED mentioning that they are doing favours for you because you are a friend. That's why they're doing them for you.

young dawkins was hot

Just to reiterate...have you seen Sam Harris? *swoon* Cute guy+brainiac= Hawt.

read Sam Harris' book

you've started at the end and are working your way back.

when someone keeps going: "Me, me, me me me memememmem