if people were shoving in your face about believing in fairies and attempting to change government policies, and children's education around it.. then you'd feel the need to call yourself one of the people that don't believe in those fairies. same with the need for the atheists, gotta counter the claptrap.

Biblical zoo... whatever next? a zoo for every other work of fiction?.. crazy apes.

there was a misunderstanding of the semantics of some words by the caller.
he sees the word logic to mean 'to reason something' rather than that things in the universe can simply run in a logical order. they should have slowed down and simplified the argument without the terminology perhaps then the reason for the disagreement would be obvious.

would surely work better without music, more embarrasing. could shove music on nearer the end whilst doing some slow-mo bit , hehe

what about just puttign all the feeds in your browser, that's what i do.. i have about 50 of them. there's a few firefox plug-ins that make it even nicer doin git like that. does anyone know if this is a worse idea?

you can create feeds of your favourite sites even if they don't have one themselves, just need to google how you go about it..

he's not his usual disheveled self here...

many so-called intellectuals, such as chris hitchens, argue a case for anything that would serve them purpose, rather than being open to other possibilities. in this case it's how he slanders anyone that thinks september 11th may have had more to it than the official story lets on. just because there are some unfounded theories doesn't mean that they all are.. he takes his side and sticks with it because he's so blindly pro-american.

i thought you were being sarcastic.. you're probably right that he's great at interviewing in some ways, but i've seen some were he just constantly rudely interrupts them.

i don't even like aniseed, but this guy makes me think this would taste just great...

he has been swaying minds in a big way, regardless of the fundamentalists..

the Q&As are usually the most interesting parts of these, i'd just prefer them to start talks with them and flow from there.

he's such a good communicator, such enthusiasm is infectious.

o jeez, i really didn't mean to, i think after i was logging in with the new account i must have thought i never upvoted some (i didn't check as that would take forever). i haven't purposefully used the johnald128 account for a long time, i use the johnald_chaffinch one now. i did ask for the other to be deleted i think but i can't remember getting a reply. thanks

*1 the people that committed the act were part of an extremist muslim group, basically a cult. they would not have done this act if they weren't in this group and reasoned in that way. thus being motivated by it, yes.

*2 yes, "he is currently pursuing a doctorate in neuroscience at UCLA, using functional magnetic resonance imaging to conduct research"

*3 an illogical belief like believing something supernatural which any intelligent person would easily see why such a thing should be dismissed (such as fairies at the end of my garden). nothing like eating a vegetarian pizza, i could just tell someone was peeved at a reasonable person because i suspect they have vested interests in the beliefs being dismissed.

check out this short talk by sam harris, the best thing by him i think :
http://www.videosift.com/video/Sam-Harris-lectures-on-the-dangers-of-both-religious-fundamentalism-and-religious-moderation

also, i'd add that john searle and alan watts are bad recommendations for views on such subjects. john searle is like a small child in comparison to derek parfit's knowledge of the brain and self. also i'd recommend susan greenfield instead of alan watts (he just talks half truths loosely based on buddhism).

>> .

Jonny,
*the 9/11 attack was religiously motivated
*leaders could probably not find groups of people motivated to fly planes into buildings without religion
*he does understand the first thing about brains and mind - as he actually studies them
*he isn't fundamentally wrong on these subjects or superficially right (whatever that's supposed to mean) -
you sound so peeved with him it's obvious it's because you have vested interests in your own illogical beliefs.

Sensationalism (propaganda even). methane is not likely to equal life and they know that.
it's not just unlikely that would be the cause of methane but take into account the improbabilities of lifeforms evolving on two rocks right next to each other, independently...

yes okay it's nice to hope but we are being fed this tripe for a reason, they're just attempting to get more funding for the space program through sensationalizing scientific findings, or something thereabouts.

somewhat related food for thought :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox