Simon Mathews

[Simon Mathews]

I agree, Ron, it’s barbaric what they did. Where do you stand on the “nothing to do with Islam” debate. Some people claim they literally are just thugs and happen to be using Islamic ideas such as a caliphate (presumably because they are too stupid to come up with anything original). Others say they are the quintessential embodiment of Islam – carrying out the Qu’ran to the letter.

[Simon Mathews]

Hi Michelle, I agree with @bellerose. The idea of Heaven is one way of dealing with grief and some people do find it effective but I think it has its problems. It’s one of those concepts that as soon as you start to analyse it issues reveal themselves. Just one example is: Let’s say you have two people who are basically good people and will both go to Heaven but they don’t like each other (a personality clash, say). Presumably for each of those people their Heaven would not have the other person in. Does that mean we each have to go to our own Heaven? If so, what is the inclusive set of people who are there with us, etc, etc.

The point I am trying to make is that whilst Heaven is superficially a nice idea it doesn’t bear up to scrutiny and therefore I personally do not gain any comfort from it. It is a false comfort, rather like saying it’s ok because after someone’s dead Santa will look after them and give them lots of presents. It’s a nice idea but not much real comfort.

As Belle says it is actually more comforting to think of things in terms of the “Circle of Life” (I’ve also got kids). This type of thinking is more comforting because it corresponds with reality. It is a harder frame of mind to get into than the idea of Heaven but hard work often yields good results.

I respect you for having released yourself from the “preachy” phase you went through. There’s no shame in it and you will probably find you have a better perspective than a lot of other atheists now.

[Simon Mathews]

Here’s an example study but there is a wealth of academic research on the topic if you search for it.

I used to work at the University of Surrey with a professor who’d essentially spent 20 years of his career investigating flavours of this hypothesis which is how I know about it. It’s amazing how many studies are done in academia about seemingly the most esoteric of subjects.

[Simon Mathews]

Unseen wrote:

How are these two words different from “light blue” and “dark blue”? Also, if there are two words, then I would think it would make determining which word to use in borderline cases more confusing than easier.

The difference is that the use of the two words describe a distinct boundary (like our blue/green). There is no distinct boundary between light and dark blue in English. It is a categorical distinction in Russian rather than a continuous one.

I see what you’re saying about the two words making it confusing but that is not actually the task. The task is to be able to discriminate between two very similar hues and say whether they are the same or different. It is not to take a single hue and ascribe it to a category. Russians find it easier to say whether hues that can be considered to be in the “middle” of light and dark blue are different from one another.

[Simon Mathews]

Language is only one of the faculties in which we have a greater capacity than animals. Of course other animals communicate but no other species has the richness and nuance that we are capable of (as far as we know).

One of the other important ways in which we differ from animals is our frontal cortex. Whilst our hind and mid-brains are still fairly similar to our close cousins (with the notable exception of the motor cortex as we have more dextrous digits) our frontal cortex is much larger and more complex than that of any other animal.

The frontal cortex is thought to be the seat of abstract thinking, planning, strategy, etc. It is also the area of the brain that allows us to inhibit our “animal” instincts (for example to go on a hunger strike on principle). People with damage to the frontal lobes become disinhibited and seem to completely change personality becoming more “animal-like”. They tend to live more in the now and have trouble with abstract and organisational thinking.

It’s interesting that you brought up the point about language allowing us to conceptualise. This is known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and arguments rage about its veracity. An even more interesting research area is around the idea that language controls our perception not just our thoughts.

The Russian language has two colour terms for blue (siniy for dark-blue and goluboy for light-blue). Studies have shown that it is easier for Russian native speakers to be able to perceive a difference in two very similar shades that fall around this boundary. For English speakers, for example, this boundary doesn’t appear to be so perceptually relevant.

An even stranger example is the Himba tribe in Namibia (source). They only have four colour words (zuzu stands for dark shades of blue, red, green and purple; vapa is white and some shades of yellow; buru is some shades of green and blue; and dambu is some other shades of green, red and brown). The Himba have more trouble distinguishing the colour boundaries English speakers use such as the difference between a very bluey-green and a very greeny-blue.

In summary, I think it is more than language that sets us apart from other species. Of course this does not make us “better” than them. My capacity for strategical thought and nuanced language will not help me out-run a cheetah or win a tug-of-war against an elephant.

[Simon Mathews]

Strega wrote:

Having read all (and I do mean all) of the Jeeves and Wooster books he wrote, I was ecstatic when Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie played Jeeves and Wooster respectively in an adaptation series from the books. If you haven’t seen them in action, I’m pretty certain YouTube will have full episodes available. Pip pip, old friend, no time like the present…

Not only have I seen them, I know them pretty much by heart. I had the whole collection on VHS (for anyone under 25 that is an archaic media storage medium).

Hugh Laurie in particular is excellent. I always laugh thinking of people who have only seen him in House seeing him as Wooster. No-one does upper-class bafflement quite like Laurie.

One of my favourite lesser characters is Roderick Spode and another Stilton Cheesewright. Both seem to spend their entire time trying to “break Wooster’s spine in 3 places.”

[Simon Mathews]

Unseen wrote:

Just enjoy his antics knowing that he’s a clown.

Without having followed proceedings this is pretty much my take on it.

An amusing and cringe-making sideshow before the real business begins.

[Simon Mathews]

I tend not to follow the news as it depresses me so when someone told me about this I seriously thought it was a joke. Here’s a recent tweet from Trump:

“Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn’t feel good and changes – AUTISM. Many such cases!”

Wow.

[Simon Mathews]

erock68la wrote:

Ha ha. A filibuster.

Quite.. Jacob Rees-Mogg would be all over it.

[Simon Mathews]

That’s great. Very well written.

[Simon Mathews]

Hi @dubitator, welcome to AtheistZone. Yes, this is the legitimate successor to Think Atheist. There were various reasons for the change in site, notably issues with how the old site was hosted. The TA content has been retained as an archive.

If you want to read the background see the TA forum post

[Simon Mathews]

Unseen wrote:

How about a license to kill 007-style on drug dealers? “Drug dealer hunting season runs from November 15 through March 15. $10,000 for each verified drug dealer pelt.”

I like it.

[Simon Mathews]

I’ve kind of gone in the opposite direction from Simon P. I used to think horoscopes were a load of rubbish but then I saw this one that completely changed my mind. Amazed by its accuracy.

[Simon Mathews]

Unseen wrote:

Money made issuing hunting permits is used in conservation efforts…

I see the dilemma here but wouldn’t it be the same if it was stated that money made from selling sex slaves or selling heroin was put into conservation efforts? I don’t think we would then condone this.

• This reply was modified 10 years, 9 months ago by Simon Mathews.

[Simon Mathews]

SteveInCO wrote:

…the (fake) flat earther’s response was perfect; he claimed the astronauts couldn’t possibly have actually gone up or they’d have seen he was right.

Ha… love this. Even though the site was satirical I’ve heard people give similar sorts of responses in arguments. You have to admire the sheer bullishness of it.

[Author]

Posts