Judith Iscariot may get her revenge

Now that's an amusing turn of fate. Shame it won't really make that big a difference now, but a lifting of the ban would be a nice symbol of the progress the uk has made in the last few decades. Not a revolution, but a healthy strolling away from the last vestiges of religiosity.

Hey, PZ, is it true you were kicked out of the premiere for that too?
;-)

Ah, the movie made fun of jesus. What if the movie had been called the life of Santa with the same theme; would it have been banned? Substitution of insanity, from one imaginary symbol to another, depending on the severity of the demented malaise. How about "The Life Of A Cracker: From the Oven To Mass Hysteria". Morons.

yeah! up British humor. down censorship.

But Michael Davies, the owner of Aberystwyth's Commodore Cinema, said he was sure it was still in place. "As far as I know the Life of Brian is still banned from being shown at the cinema," he explained. "My father ran the cinema when the ban was imposed and I suppose it would have had a commercial impact at the time because it was a huge film and made a fortune.

Mr. Davies Sr. was adversely effected by the ban. Somehow I doubt the Aberystwyth church leaders will reimburse him or his son. Christian charity at work.

Oh yeah? Well, I just dare her to repeal the ban on the anti-Islam movie Submission, written by Ayaan Hirsi Magan and directed by Theo van Gogh.

Oh, wait, what? It wasn't banned? Hmph, just more proof that the liberals are so hateful of Christianity and in love with Islam that they'll--oh, wait.

Well I'm still mad, and given enough time I'll find a bible verse that proves it's someone's else's fault.

If you get the chance, look up the interview between a couple of the python crew and some bishop of where-ever on youtube (starts about 2 minutes in).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14HPYBUFs6k&feature=related
The 30 pieces of silver comment pretty much sums it all up.

For something a bit funnier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykN-00i7VVs

Awesome. Just awesome. My home town gets a mention on Pharyngula!

I would like to add that Aberystwyth is not conservative or religious. It is a university town, a liberal progressive place where shops are open on Sunday. A bar called "The Academy", situated in the town center, used to be a church - something that perhaps Prof. Myers and Prof. Dawkins would approve of ;o)

Regarding the ban it is most likely that people forgot it existed like many old arcane by-laws present throughout the UK. Scrapping this ban is long overdue and maybe students will mark this occasion by showing the film in their university cinema.

If any visitors of Pharyngula are in Wales this summer, take time to visit Aberystwyth. You won't be disappointed.

Speaking of silly laws and the Welsh - I'm pretty sure it's still legal to shoot a Welshman withing the city walls of York after sunset. But it has to be with a crossbow, anything else and it's murder.

@ Henry #9,

York as well? Oh shit. Chester has or had a similar law too. How many other places want to shoot Welshmen?

Those of you familiar with the movie

I was watching it on DVD just a few days ago (before my TV died)!

may remember Sue Jones-Davies as Brian's girlfriend, Judith Iscariot.

I never knew her name and it took me a while to figure out why the other characters were calling her Welsh (I'd been relying somewhat on the subtitles rather than the sound and she didn't seem to have a strong accent). I thought she was good in it though.

@ #3

the movie made fun of jesus.

Actually, no. It explicitly made fun of the stupid and ridiculous attitudes and behaviour of many "normal" people back then (which unfortunately still applies to far too many people these days as well).

I was at university in Aberystwyth in the late 60s (yes I do feel old) and in those days the only place open on a Sunday was the National Milk Bar.

#9, #10:

I think you'll find that it was Shrewsbury, which is much closer to the Welsh border than York.

In York, Vikings would be a legitimate target.

The thing is, Life of Brian really doesn't make fun of Jesus. Jesus only appears briefly, distantly, and practically inaudibly ("I think he said, 'Blessed are the cheese makers.'"). What the film really makes fun of is religion - the ridiculous constructs people build around a figure like Jesus. And that's really why it's so offensive to some people. It's not the blasphemy, it's the insightful observations of human nature.

Life of Brian is probably the greatest satire of religion ever.

I watch the movie every year as my Easter observance. Good to see the "Welsh Tart" is still doing fine. I hope she rubs their noses in it, big time.

Went to Aberystwyth in '84 to visit a friend at Uni...funny old painted house place...the local Chinky got shut down for serving seagull...the (younger) inhabitants were a bit menacing asking what you thought of the Welsh...you could serve yourself a pint of beer from a barrel and put what you thought it was worth in a box...quickly ran out of shekels...Oh! yes! and Whitesnake were on in Cardiff, class!

Ah, it would apear that it is a Scotsman you could kill in York, but only if they carried a bow and arrow. Even then you could still end up with hastle in court under with the "no true Scotsman..." argument.

# 12 and 15 Just by dint of making a funny movie of a mythical person and those that convulse over this mythical creature, the premise is the same.

I live about 30 miles south of Aberystwyth and have visited the Commodore cinema. I hope the owner decides to put on "The Life of Brian". I never got to see it in the cinema first time it was released.

With regards the ban, there is a film classification board in the UK that decides what age rating a film should receive. Without such a rating it is not legal to hold a public screening of a film. Normally local councils just accept the film board's classification but they do have the power to impose their own decision, including an outright ban. They seldom achieve much other than making the council look stupid and increasing business for cinemas in nearby towns.

On this subject, I trust you all know about this:

Not the Nine O'Clock News - General Synod's Life of Christ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykN-00i7VVs

Ah, the movie made fun of jesus.

The thing it, it didn't. At the time people were crying blasphemy on it, but Jesus' brief appearance in the film is played perfectly straight. As Terry Jones said, if the film is anything it's heretical, not blasphemous, and John Cleese wouldn't even concede that much - he argued that it's about what happens when people disagree with each other and fail to engage in critical thinking (as relevant today as ever, I think).

The infamous Saturday Night Sunday Morning discussion with the Pythons, the Bishop of Southwark and Malcolm Muggeridge was memorably revealing because they (the church side) showed up late for the private screening, missed the start and left with the impression that Brian WAS Jesus, which meant they were arguing a position that didn't even reflect the subject of the film. I get the impression the vast majority of the outrage was based on similarly false impressions. But hey, any excuse for a good old foam at the mouth, right? Honestly...

Dinesh@9,

I agree, Aberystwyth is a great place - stunning countryside all round, less than 10,000 permanent residents, but the cultural opportunites of much bigger places, as there's nowhere larger nearby. It houses the National Library of Wales as well as a university. I lived there nearly 2 years in the late '90s, lecturing at the Uni., and was very sorry to leave. I have a print of the funicular going up Constitution Hill right in front of me. Oh, and if you think you know how to pronounce Aberystwyth, try the town just down the road, Machynlleth!

#19:

# 12 and 15 Just by dint of making a funny movie of a mythical person and those that convulse over this mythical creature, the premise is the same.

It's only the same if you accept that the characters are equally mythical.

"It's only the same if you accept that the characters are equally mythical."

Well Jesus is mythical. In fact it is really only Jesus who is mythical, Brian is just fictional.

I suspect you do not know what mythical actually means.

#15:

And that's really why it's so offensive to some people. It's not the blasphemy, it's the insightful observations of human nature.

Yet most people won't admit, perhaps not even in their own minds, what really upsets them.Take John Lennon's remark about the Beatles being more popular than Jesus, and the subsequent outrage. How many people (present company excepted) even considered for a moment that this was a statement about the public's preferences, and not about Jesus at all? Lennon wasn't saying that the Beatles were deservedly more popular than Jesus, just that the public had made them so.How people react when criticism hits close to home can be very interesting...

I suspect you do not know what mythical actually means.I suspect that you have missed my point, namely that Holbach's assertion that "the premise is the same" is not correct.Thank you for your possibly-unintentional support.

Ted,

I think I maybe did get the wrong end of the stick in what you said. I apologise.

Nick,

I can pronounce Machynlleth correctly (at least when sober). It has a very good Indian restaurant, or did about four years ago.

"There's a balm in Gilead to make the wounded whole"

Dawkins presents us with a reflection from Richard Swinburne who postulates that God cannot achieve anything that is logically impossible. Why not? Well, that question should not stump either Dawkins or Swinburne. God's nature is SIMPLE in its perfection. So,it cannot brook any contradiction. It God was asked to draw a square circle, he could not do it, not because it was particularly impossible but because it was contradictary to the perfection of God's nature. Simply put, a square circle is a flawed construct and God's perfect nature does not allow for flaws.

Now that shouldn't be too hard to understand.

Aberystwyth is quite a far way from me in London, but when this ban if lifted, I assume that a local cinema will plan a showing the next day. I'll do my best to be there.

Does anyone have the slightest idea what Verret is on about ?

Matt per your #30, Max Verret @ #28 is showing that flaws of nature can exist.

Hmmm, need to correct that, he is demonstrating a flawed construct. Sorry Max, did not mean to imply you were a physical mutant, just that you are mentally flawed.

Pax Nabisco

JeffreyD,

Thanks. I don't suppose you can offer any ideas as to why he might think it relevant to this discussion ?

Matt, nothing Max has said on this blog to date has shown much evidence of relevance, why spoil perfection? Simply, he will insert himself into nearly any thread at this point, whether it is of value or not. This thread is only very tangentially associated with religion, but that is enough for Max to leave brain droppings.

Pax Nabisco

Matt. 33

I'm afraid relevance depends on the next level of evolutionary development. If you're locked into the Darwinian Imperative you might never see relevance. The next level of course is the Wilsonian Imperative (E.O.Wilson, that is). When you view the evolutionary paradign as a social matrix where there is no starting point or ending point but only an all-inclusive interactional tour d'force then the relevance is not difficult to see.

Hope this helps you out.

Wait, let me get this straight, there's a politician that's NOT trying to cover up nude pictures of themselves?

Boy she was hot.

Max @28 You certainly ascribe much to your imaginary god. Your god(notice the lower case and manic possessive) has a nature simple in it's perfection. Wow, that is really deep, as in the depth to what shit can be piled. No, your imaginary god is imperfection as applied to simpletons. Can you prove that your imaginary god does not exist? Read that carefully before you charge off with illogical negatives. And while you ponder that, here is a cracker you can chew on with salivating gusto!

#35: I'm afraid relevance depends on the next level of evolutionary development.Somehow, this posting brings to mind http://xkcd.com/451/

For whatever small increment of irony it is worth: "Aberystwyth" is also the name of the tune of the hymn "Jesus Lover of my Soul". It's really a very nice piece of music which deserves to be rescued from the lyrics and given a secular setting.

Max: It's paradigM, and tour DE force. Please stop before you embarrass yourself further.

Holbach @37

"Can you prove that your imaginary God does not exist?"

I would much rather attempt to prove that God does exist instead of charging off to attack the null hypothesis. As a matter of disputation let me tell you this. Like Dawkins, I am not enamored with the "five ways of Aquinas" but for much more sophisticated reasons than Dawkins presented in his most recent book which, by the way, was the worst book he ever wrote. It was certainly not of the caliber of The Blind Watchmaker or River out of Eden. Science has really gotton past the Selfish Gene. So it is not fair to make a comparison there.

When I was first introduced to the Aquinas work in the early '60s, it was somewhat impressive. However, the five ways really come down to one way and that depends on the exclusivity of linear causality. Of course we now know of recursive cause in systems that operate by their own interactive integrity where there is no real starting or ending point.

When the human brain has evolved to the point that we can comprehend that the mathematics of superstring theory is correct and that we live in a ten dimentional universe, then the existence of God will be quite evident. However, I don't think we have wait another million years. A pretty fair job of proving God's existence can be done now.

Max @ 28 Overlooked your insane comment at the end of your rant, "god's(lower case to denote nonexistence) perfect nature does not allow for flaws". Then how do you account for retardation ,as in yours, and many other examples througout nature, especially in the human species who are supposedly fashioned inn your gods' image? How about those tornadoes that smash both the godless and the god afflicted (sic), hurricanes, earthquakes, and all manner of natural catastrophes that are "acts of god" and certainly flawless in their wanton vengeance on flawless humans? And the unstable minds, such as yours, that harbor such flawless ideas that an imaginary flawless being exists in a flawless state of insanity? Are you flawlessly mad or just flawlessly delusional? Your imaginary god exists no where but in your flawless insane mind, if a degree of insanity can be termed flawless. Your comments are flawless, just your brain is flawed.

When you view the evolutionary paradign as a social matrix where there is no starting point or ending point but only an all-inclusive interactional tour d'force then the relevance is not difficult to see.

0.6 Timecubes, I'd say, perhaps on a par with the less remarkable sentences in "Transgressing the Boundaries".

A pretty fair job of proving God's existence can be done now.
- Max Verret

I'm agog.

"When the human brain has evolved to the point that we can comprehend that the mathematics of superstring theory is correct and that we live in a ten dimentional universe, then the existence of God will be quite evident. However, I don't think we have wait another million years. A pretty fair job of proving God's existence can be done now."

Did Thomas Aquinas say anything about not putting the cart before the horse?

Out with it Max, don't be coy. Present your "proof" of god's existence, get it published, and turn theology into a science.

There'll be a Nobel in it for you, if you succeed, you know.

When you view the evolutionary paradigm as a social matrix...

When you view the evolution as a scientific theory rather then some pseudo-sociological bullshit maybe you'll be able to get your head out of the clouds and see things how they really are.

BTW, Max seems pretty confident that humans will be around one million years from now, even more confident that most godless secularists.

It seems he does not ascribe to the Book of Revelations.

Rey Fox, me ol' vulpine, do you not mean putting Descartes before Horace?

Somebody please find out what Comrade Ferret has been smoking and then have a few ounces sent to the Archbishop's bedchamber. The dear old man needs some help with his next sermon.

The MadPanda, FCD

I'm afraid relevance depends on the next level of evolutionary development. If you're locked into the Darwinian Imperative you might never see relevance. The next level of course is the Wilsonian Imperative (E.O.Wilson, that is). When you view the evolutionary paradign as a social matrix where there is no starting point or ending point but only an all-inclusive interactional tour d'force then the relevance is not difficult to see.

I know all these words and I still can't parse this.

" There's a balm in Gilead to heal the sin-sick soul".

Holback@42

"Your comments are flawless,just your brain is flawed."
I think that's what we call an enigma.

In order to achieve the kind of creation, past, present and future, that God intended, those flaws you mentioned must be permitted. Man attains to the perfection of the Beatific Vision; it in not given to him straight away.

People who attribute hurricanes and earthquakes to "Acts of God" are poor cosmologists and even worst meteorologists. Throughout human history people have explained such phenomenon at their level of understanding, i.e. magic, idols, the sun, etc. (See The Golden Bough by Frazer and a representative reference). What they had in common was that they were all trying to come to grips with an understanding of God. To their credit, they did not throw up their hands and say "There is no God".

And lest I forget, a hearty round of applause and bamboo biscotti for all in honor of Her Mayorship's efforts on behalf of a terrifically funny movie. The sudden Latin grammar lesson and the first scene with Pilate ("what's so funny about the name Biggus Dickus?") are two of my all-time favorite Python bits!

(Plus, as M. Loubet says, she was hot! The joy of a politician not hiding nude footage of themselves is deliciously novel...)

The MadPanda, FCD

I was at college, living in the dorm where the kids who went to the various-denominationed Campus Fellowships lived, when The Life of Brian was released. I remember all the outrage so many of the kids were expressing, even though none of them had seen the movie (and weren't going to see it by God! Why would anyone ever want to see such blasphemous filth?!?!). This was the first time in my memory that I noticed this phenomenon, often-seen since, of the relgious condemnation of a book, movie, etc., sight-unseen. None of them had even talked to anyone who had seen it. Their ministers who condemned it from the pulpit hadn't seen it. How could they know? And then, I did see it, and saw that they had no idea what the film was really about, but didn't want to hear any different.

I count this as an important step in my awakening to the realization that religion and religious belief were a lot shadier than I would ever have thought, and that Hypocrasy was J.C.'s middle name in practice.

What they had in common was that they were all trying to come to grips with an understanding of God.

No, they were trying to come to grips with an understanding of Isis, but they got sidetracked.

To their credit, they did not throw up their hands and say "There is no God".

They had undoubtedly been told that God ruled the universe, loved them, and so would protect them. Then they were struck by an earthquake or a hurricane. Why is it to their credit to have missed the simple inference from what had just happened to them - that no powerful and loving god such as they had been told of, could possibly exist?

Amphiox@48

"It seems he does not ascribe to the Book of Revelations".

I do "ascribe" to the Book of Revelations as I do to the Book of Daniel. I accept them in the light of historical criticism as most biblical scholars do today. These apocalyptic writings were written at a time when the Israelite people were having a bad time of it. There were designed to encourage them in their struggles. They were supposed to boost their confidence in their God and tell them that things were going to get better. They were never meant to end up as end-time prophesies of doom and destruction. If you are going to read these Books, I would suggest that you read them in the literary genre in which they were written.

By the way, even considering the holocaust, things have gotton a lot better for the Jewish people.

I will buy this movie the first chance I get. Up until now, I have only seen bits of it.

Nick@#55

"Why is it to their credit to have missed the simple inference from what had just happened to them."

Yes, why indeed. Why did they persist. The intuitive course would have been for them to throw up their hands and say "There is no all-powerful God to protect me". But they didn't. Could it be that the human consciousness is hard-wired to believe in God and that when one throws up his hands and says "There is no God" he is acting contrary to his nature. I would suggest that therein lies the nexus for the proof of God's existence. However, that is a thesis that requires considerable explication, but I will share it with you s time goes on.

Max @ 41 First off, I have as much regard for Aquinas as I do Dinesh D'Crapa, and my excoriated spelling of his name only enhances my contempt for this religious cretin. So even if we prove string theory and worm holes as truly existing, this automatically proves your gods' existence? This insane idea is as probable as proving that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy also exists. Notice that I have given higher cases to these fantasty entities than to your fantastical non entity. I see nothing of your god in the observable universe, and certainly not in the unobservable universe which I believe harbors nothing that we may eventually comprehend with time and faster modes of travel. The universe existed before your god ever came into human creation. This is so simple that even you with your god demented brain can understand. There was no religion or gods before humans came along; just as there were no humans before the creation of those gods appeared. It is the human brain that has given thought and substance to those imaginary gods; without our brains, how could the idea of gods ever exist? Do animals, who also possess brains harbor such illogical ideas? Converse with your cat and dog, and even the advanced dolphin, and ask them about gods. Since they cannot reply to your request, your imaginary god remains nonexistent and only in your brain from which the idea first germinated. There are no imaginary gods in my head, but yet they exist in yours. How do you explain that fact, considering we have the same evolutionary brains to start off with? I can think and live without that nonsense and yet you cannot. This is not so much a process of something missing on my part, but a useless and imaginary addition to your life on your part. Would you be able to brush your teeth, start your car, catch a train, and blog on Pharyngula if you ceased all reliance on an imaginary nothing that rules your thoughts and life? Does that blatant and simple fact ever impress itself on your self-afflicted brain? We may prove string theory, but we will never prove there is a god. I am so confident of this that it enhances my life to such a degree that I contrive to get as much out of this life as possible without any need or thought to things that do not exist. My mind encompasses the universe; the uinverse has never been encompassed by the nonexistent which gave it birth. If you can prove that your imaginary god exists, then I will believe it, just as you can hand me an orange and say here is an orange. Don't show me your empty hand and say here is your god. Show me a cracker and I'll believe it is a cracker, nothing else, before or after.

Well Max, at least you're not a biblical literalist. Thank heavens for small mercies. I credit Revelations with inspiring some cool science fiction. Nothing more.

"the human consciousness is hard-wired to believe in God"

Perhaps it is. That tells us something about human consciousness. It tells us nothing about god. Unless you define "god" solely in terms of human consciousness. I would accept that. It would have no relevance to anything in the real world except for human relations, of course.

Why, oh why, do I have that terrible limerick going through my head right now?

"There once was a lady from Aberystwyth..."

Every time PZ mentions a place, any place, on this blog, someone posts who lives there.

Is there anywhere on this good green earth that Pharyngula cannot reach?

I swear this blog is more omnipresent that some minor religions.

Max @ 51 Let me clarify what I said at # 42. When I stated that your comments are flawless, there was no enigmatic intent offered, but just that your comments are flawless bullshit, so precise that the reasoning behind them is lost in flawless idiocy. Just thought I'd clear that up. Here, have another cracker to produce more flawless crap.

And Brave Sir Max Ran Away, ran aWAY, RAN AWAY!

Best limerick ever:

Nostalgic in old Aberystwyth,
I sat down and made out a list, with
The names of the rude
Lovely ladies I'd screwed,
And the chaps I'd gone out and got pissed with.
(RON RUBIN)

I was so impressed, I actually went there and did just that.

Nick@#55

"Why is it to their credit to have missed the simple inference from what had just happened to them."

Yes, why indeed. Why did they persist. The intuitive course would have been for them to throw up their hands and say "There is no all-powerful God to protect me". But they didn't. Could it be that the human consciousness is hard-wired to believe in God and that when one throws up his hands and says "There is no God" he is acting contrary to his nature. I would suggest that therein lies the nexus for the proof of God's existence. However, that is a thesis that requires considerable explication, but I will share it with you s time goes on.

As a performer in this film, isn't the Mayor due for a slice of its takings at the cinema?

This clearly shows a gross conflict of interest. Why, she could be using the publicity of her announcement to enrich herself by as much as several farthings.

Max Verret wrote:

If you are going to read these Books, I would suggest that you read them in the literary genre in which they were written

Which genre is that, Max? Junior Fantasy For The Intellectually Vacuous? Does it have a Dewey Decimal number?

amphiox @ 62 Please don't denigrate Pharyngula in reference to religion. Better to compare this site with the minor celestial bodies in space, as I am sure our comments will eventually be intercepted by the Andromeda Galaxy whose inhabitants are unsullied by that pernicious pox.

but I will share it with you s time goes on.

max is vying to be the next dungeon inhabitant, I see.

Get on with it!

#61: Who took grain to the mill to make grist with...

Is it near Llanddewi Brefi?

Holbach@59

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with Dinesh D'Crapa

"There was no religion before humans came along".
Of course not, religion deals with man's relationship with God. How could humans have a relationship with God before there were humans?

"Hand me an orange and say this is an orange and I will believe it"

Well, if you were a Thomastic realist or an empericist that might be true. However, if you were from the philosophical school of idealism, you would only believe that you had only a mental image of an orange in your hand; not necessarily a real orange. So, from an idealist point of view you would believe that the idea of having an orange in your hand was real. Yet if someone else had the mental idea of there being a God in their life - that you would not believe. If someone was shown something that was beautiful and everyone agreed that it was beautiful but one person said it was ugly, it would be said that something was wrong with the latter. Yet, if from the dawn of human experience people have have the image of God so much so that no civilization has ever not had a religious institution but then a handful of people came along and said there is no God in my imigination. Why wouldn't we say that there was something wrong with the latter. We are talking about hardwired images. As good evolutionists we knoww that natural selection is efficient. So the hardwired image is there for a reason - to believe.

J Dog@#64

"brave Sir Max ran away"

No I did not. There was a popup appeared on my screen that said that I had made too many comments in too short a period of time. So, my comments would not post. I do not think this was a technique for shutting someone up when he was making some people uncomfortable.

There was a popup appeared on my screen that said that I had made too many comments in too short a period of time. So, my comments would not post.

yes, the internalized BS and insanity detector is rapidly learning your posting habits.

That pop-up is just letting you know it's working.

soon, not only will it prevent you from posting, but all of your posts will surreptitiously disappear down the rabbit hole.

muhahahahaha.

@62 ... Antarctica?

I can't believe I haven't seen ay videos posted yet. Here's one of my favorite clips! :-)
(Alms for an EX-leper)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U74s8nFE7No

"Bedazzled" was good, too. "Lillian Lust, the babe with the Bust" et al...

Max @ 74 You might know Dinesh D'Crapa as Dinesh D'Souza, but his correct name does nothing for my interpretation of him as a rabid religionist and not deserving of recognition. And What In the Wide World of Sports, with a nod to Slim Pickins, are you confusing an unknown first cause with what came after? How in the name of reason can there be a thought of a god without a thinking brain giving birth to that idea? Did you miss this entirely, can you not comprehend this, or is your religion soaked mind not conducive to any other reason for existence? You cannot plunge that imaginary god from your brain, so it will not allow any semblance of rational process to consider otherwise. Our brains give thought and sensate meaning to all that we are and experience. You mean to tell me that your god instilled the idea of it's existence into the human brain and our brains took it from there to populate the earth with mindless insanity. Where did the word or thought of god come from except from our brains as they progressed through evolition. There was no god before the human brain deigned it so. If there were no brains, there would be no gods. Why is this such a mental hangup with you? Are you truly irrational or just a religious dolt who adheres to what he has been brainwashed with by his demented forebears and current papists and ministers and is just too damned gutless to think for himself? Can you not see and understand the illogic predictament you have wasted your life with? When you die you will be alone with your demented thoughts and only the worms will consider you as is their wont. You started life with a whimper and will end it without a prayer and with no place to go. You will lie there and never know that you are there, and with no god to deem it otherwise, your brain will have been wasted on the insanities of religion, and all because you chose not to reason otherwise. You will be dead, but there will be no future in it, certainly not of the imaginary kind which you hope to achieve but will not. I don't pity you for what you have done to a working brain, but only blatant contempt in wasting what others have made excellent use of. You are useless. However, you are still deserving of a cracker.

Posted by: Max Verret | July 20, 2008 9:46 PM

Yet, if from the dawn of human experience people have have the image of God so much so that no civilization has ever not had a religious institution but then a handful of people came along and said there is no God in my imigination. Why wouldn't we say that there was something wrong with the latter.

Because your assertions as to the existence of the belief in "God" since the dawn of man are patently false. Early humans held a naturalistic faith, connected in every way to the world in which they lived, and that early faith posited a multitude of gods, not your narrow interpretation of religion that allows for only one god.

Because even though religion has always been an aspect of human existence, so too has the disbelief in religion been such an aspect. Your post asserts that in those societies of antiquity there were no disbelievers is both solipsist and ignorant of the facts. Attempting to prove god's existence based on the actions and thoughts of inherently imperfect beings on this planet is futile, because you're basing your argument on a subjective premise and wild assumption.

There was a popup appeared on my screen that said that I had made too many comments in too short a period of time. So, my comments would not post. I do not think this was a technique for shutting someone up when he was making some people uncomfortable.

Sop why would you mention the possibility of such? Apparently you wanted to throw that suggestion out there without having to carry the baggage of having to defend such a ridiculous assertion. That has happened to many of us, and occurs when you try to post two comments in quick succession - and it is a problem that clears itself up as long as you wait about a minute. And since there is about a half-hour gap in between your post and your attempt to come back and answer for it, reason would suggest other reasons for your delay in replying. (Such as not being able to come up with a valid refutation to the arguments posted, though in retrospect, valid argumentation hasn't been a strong suit of your posts.)

Could it be that the human consciousness is hard-wired to believe in God

It's possible. We are, after all, brimming with flaws. The "design" of the tubes we use for eating and breathing give us the privilege of choking, for example.

But given the sheer variety of religious beliefs displayed by humankind over the last umpty-ump thousand years, how can we pick one belief and say "This is hard-wired"? We can't. We may have predispositions and common failure modes bequeathed to us by our genetic heritage and the architectures of our brains, but that doesn't make our shared delusions real. Consider sleep paralysis and hypnogogic/hypnopompic hallucinations: feeling a weight pressing one's immobilized body down upon the bed and experiencing bizarre, sexually charged visions does not mean succubi or probe-happy aliens are real. What if the propensity for sleep paralysis is "hard-wired" into our brains — would that mean that aliens, or succubi, or reanimated Egyptian mummies (in the case of Dorothy Louise Eady) wired that capacity into us? Which do we blame: little green men from Epsilon Eridani, or the lovelorn Pharaoh Seti I?

and that when one throws up his hands and says "There is no God" he is acting contrary to his nature.

That doesn't follow.

I would suggest that therein lies the nexus for the proof of God's existence.

Best to keep that in the subjunctive. We are "hard-wired" to see only a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum, but this does not imply the nonexistence of ultraviolet or infrared light, only a shortcoming on our part. Likewise, even were we to accept the debatable and simplistic assertion that God-belief is a congenital aspect of the human psyche, that would still only be a fact about human cognition — a barrier, like our limited vision and fallible memory, which impairs our ability to understand the natural world.

Matt, nothing Max has said on this blog to date has shown much evidence of relevance, why spoil perfection? Simply, he will insert himself into nearly any thread at this point, whether it is of value or not. This thread is only very tangentially associated with religion, but that is enough for Max to leave brain droppings.

Thanks for the 411. Killfile is a wonderful thing.

Max Verret #74

Yet, if from the dawn of human experience people have have the image of God so much so that no civilization has ever not had a religious institution but then a handful of people came along and said there is no God in my imigination. Why wouldn't we say that there was something wrong with the latter.

Once upon a time, a long time ago, or rather, several long times ago, in various places, people started asking themselves questions like "what is that bright, hot, shiny thing in the sky and where does it go at night?" and "what makes thunder and lightning?" and "what happens to us after we die?". Since no one could come up with any reasonable answers to these questions, people did what they always do. They made up stories. These stories were about special people who could do things that ordinary people couldn't. Obviously an ordinary person couldn't make lightning hit a tree, so it had to be a very special person who did lightning. In this fashion, the gods were born.

Since the stories were made up at different times and different places by different people, they were all different. After a while, various families, clans and tribes got together and decided to combine their stories and the gods in their stories. Also, some smart people realized that they could make a soft living if their stories became the official stories of the particular group they were in and they become the official story tellers. So the stories became the basis for religion and the story tellers became priests.

After a while, the story telling priests started to believe their stories and did all they could to get everyone to believe the stories. If someone didn't believe that the gods were real and the priests were in charge of the gods, then that person was a danger to the soft life the priests were living. So the priests would tell everyone else: "See that guy who doesn't believe in the gods? Well, the gods are really angry that he's still here. You don't want the gods to be angry, or else you'll be hit by lightning. Kill that guy." Thus started two other aspects of religion: (1) that gods had the maturity of spoiled five year olds and (2) unbelievers should be punished.

After a while, people started figuring out where the sun went at night and what caused lightning. So the priests latched on to the remaining question: "What happens to us after we die?" They got a whole thing going about how, if the gods liked you, you were going to a really nice place after you died, but if the gods were annoyed at you, you were going to a really nasty place forever. The priests also came up with a bunch of rules for keeping the gods happy. Some of these rules were really picky, but fortunately there were the priests around to interpret the rules for the people. This became a major priestly function. Occasionally, one priest or group of priests would disagree about various rule interpretations. There would be fights among the priests, ranging from minor squabbles to murder to war between the followers of two or more priestly groups.

If one bunch of people ran into another bunch of people, the priests might try to poach some of the followers of the other set of priests. Again, this would lead to fights or wars. It was common for priests to denounce unbelievers as non-human and urge their followers to kill them.

So the gods were invented to answer otherwise unanswerable questions. Priests and their followers perpetuated the beliefs even after most of the questions could be answered.

Shorter Max, in two parts:

1. People can believe in god, so there must be a god.
2. Our understanding of science has not reached a point where we can explain how absolutely everything in the universe works, so there must be a god.

1+2 = woo.

Some of these rules were really picky, but fortunately there were the priests around to interpret the rules for the people.

Posted by: JoJo | July 20, 2008 10:53 PM

Which goes to show that when a set of irrational beliefs becomes so untenable - due to intellectual and social progression in the pursuit of knowledge - that it simply no longer accurately relates to our situation, there arises a necessity for a class of apologists whose function is to "interpret" those beliefs, so as to maintain their declining relevance to the world we inhabit.

Dinesh (#8) said "I would like to add that Aberystwyth is not conservative or religious."

I lived there in the early and mid 70s and at the time there were several groups including the older and more conservative townspeople, the students/academics from the university and Welsh nationalists. There were, IIRC, 31 pubs (my room-mate could locate all on a map and comment on the quality of the beer) and 32 churches and chapels in a town with 10,000 residents and 2,000 students. No doubt it has changed considerably in the interim, in fact, I know several chapels have been demolished or changed use.

Sue Jones-Davies sounds rather different from an earlier councillor who, in the days when the university was buying old hotels for student residences and for office space (before they got the new campus) complained that the university was 'like an octopus, spreading its testicles over the town.'

I too enjoyed living and working there. It is excellent country for walking and is stuffed full of history.

I remember back when my friend's mom took him and me to see it in the theater. Damn, she sure was hairy (Sue Jones-Davies, not my friend's mom). The mom said that was nothing, and that I would undoubtedly encounter plenty of women as hairy or even more so. Well, 30 years later, still waiting.

BTW, how is it that some asshole like Max Verret comes on here and now it's all about god and shit, when it really should be about wolf nipple chips (get 'em while they're hot, they're lovely)? Now fuck off!

Blake@80

"Common failure modes bequeathed to us by our genetic heritage and the architectures of our brains but that doesn't make our shared delusions real."

Of course it does. In this respect I would refer you to the seminal work of C.G.Jung, particularly his work on the collective unconscious and the shared archetypal forms that guide our lives. They are part of our genetic heritage and the architecture of our brain; they are shared and they are real. If, by chance, one would look upon atheism as an addition then I would invite him to focus particularly on the archetype of the Demon Lover. Of course, the same could be said if Christianity or drugs were looked upon as an addition.

. In this respect I would refer you to the seminal work of C.G.Jung, particularly his work on the collective unconscious and the shared archetypal forms that guide our lives.

and having studied Jung myself (when much younger) I would refer YOU to a single word:

apophenia

grow up and dump the psycho-metaphysics.

Henry @ # 18: come along now, no True Scotsman would carry a longbow. A crossbow or a musket maybe... but never a longbow.

The ban of the movie was lifted in Swansea a few years ago. Eric Idle was shocked: "What a shame. Is nothing sacred?"

When the human brain has evolved to the point that we can comprehend that the mathematics of superstring theory is correct and that we live in a ten dimentional universe, then the existence of God will be quite evident. However, I don't think we have wait another million years. A pretty fair job of proving God's existence can be done now.

How dementional, or - should I say, demented?

And do you actually comprehend the mathematics of superstring theory, or are you merely blowing smoke out your ass?

Since "a pretty fair job can be done of proving god's existence" why don't you just bring it on, then? Your Nobel Prize, James Randi's $1million, and armies of the newly converted await you.

Or, you're just a pompous idiot.

Seriously Max, WTF?

I think the whole point of the comment section is to comment on the blog post and not randomly stroll in and blab some stuff. Even if you had some good arguments (it doesn't look like it the way you're getting obliterated by people who can argue much better than me) then they don't really belong here.

Go spout your arguments bilge somewhere else.

And no. I ahven't seen the Life of Brian but did watch The Meaning of Life and The Holy Grail and I had to have surgery because I split myself laughing.

ichthyic@88

Apophenia is a good word of fairly recent vintage. The appropriate context has become a little muddled lately. Originally, as Conrad intended it, the word was supposed to refer to connecting mental ideations which had no empirical pattern, i.e. a Rorschach type response. However, pattern recognition has become a highly developed scientific discipline. I think Jung's work would fall closer to the latter than the former. At any rate, to lump all of pattern recognition under the rubric of "apophenia" would, to me, be a mistake

. However, pattern recognition has become a highly developed scientific discipline.

If you think that Jung's musings were early precursors to the work on modern pattern recognition, you're bugfuck nuts.

good to see you can google-look up words though.

...and if you think 58 is "recent", you must also be an old nutter.

...something tells me instead of reading Jung, you should be reading Brugger:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0786409843/roberttoddcarrolA/

and seeking therapy.

...more Brugger:

Leonard, Dirk M.A. and Peter Brugger, Ph.D. "Creative, Paranormal, and Delusional Thought: A Consequence of Right Hemisphere Semantic Activation?" Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, and Behavioral Neurology, 1998, Vol. 11, No. 4 pp. 177-183.

Have to turn in - have a long drive tomorrow. Enjoyed the repartee - look forward to doing it again sometime, but probably not too soon. These teaching sessions wear me down.

Marcus Ranum:

And do you actually comprehend the mathematics of superstring theory, or are you merely blowing smoke out your ass?

Easy enough to tell. Hey, Max, can light-cone-gauge quantization handle the case of zero-dimensional Dirichlet branes, and why or why not? What's the relationship between string tension and the slope of a Regge trajectory?

(See, physicists obviously don't know everything there is to know about string theory, but if you aren't conversant at least with what the physicists know right now, then how can you possibly make predictions about what a more complete understanding will mean?)

These teaching sessions wear me down.

ah, so THAT'S what you call your ramblings.

I was more picturing you in rags, standing on top of an overturned cracker-barrel, pounding your fists together.

a duck

It's scary how the religulous think science is going to help their cause rather than hinder it.

No doubt when the first telescope was presented many of them dreamed that it would allow them to see into heaven and confirm god's existence - nope, didn't happen.

The microscope probably had them hoping it would reveal god's handiwork; perhaps toolmarks, or his holy building blocks - but ala, still nothing, even though fools like those at the DI still throw terms like 'irreducible complexity' about based on what they think they see.

Quantum theory, string theory - just more to add to the seemingly never-ending list. For every new discovery in science there are optimistic theists, hoping that it'll give them something for them to cling to - or, failing that, theory that will be described in such a way that there's still enough of a gap for them to cram their ever-dwindling god into.

It would have taken far less words to teach exactly the same thing. The message came across very clearly some posts back - you're nuts! Each subsequent post only served to put icing on the turd, as it were.

Please, take ALL the time you need before your next 'teaching session'. My Dolt-O-Meter can't take strains like that too often!

It would be an awfully expensive sort of joke, but I'd love for the town to show the film in the cinema; you to arrive with one of the sacred crackers; then (by prior arrangement with the mayor, the cracker is stopped and forced to stay outside, but you're allowed in. Sort of a send up of the great cracker war and expelled-from-Expelled all at the same time. And I'm pretty sure telling "Jesus-the-baked-good" he's not allowed in is sacrilegious enough in a silly sort of way.

I can't believe that there are still people in Britain who haven't seen this film! It's not as if you can't buy it on DVD you know. I recommend the new remastered version, it costs a bit more but it's worth it for such a classic piece of entertainment. I have friends who are very religious, and even they can recite every line in it to perfection. XQZ: you'd better give your doctor advance warning if you intend to watch it - it might just finish you off!

Life of Brian is the funniest film EVER. Now write it out 100 times. If it's not done by sunrise I'll cut yer balls off.

"engage in critical thinking"

Counts as blasphemy in most religions.
Actually there is one religion I know of in which not engaging in critical thinking is considered bad form (I\it couldn't be blasphemy because it doesn't know the concept of blasphemy). Many adherents still don't do the critical thinking part, but such is the way of humans.

Max

When you deign to mingle with us again, remember woo with big words is still woo.

We don't do woo.

Aberystwyth is a great town, deserving of this lovely lady as mayor. If you'd like to tell her you approve of her overturning the ban you can e-mail her at sue.jonesdavies@gmail.com

There's a webcam but it's down at the moment, keep trying - just Google 'Aberystwyth webcam'.

I'm off to West Wales now for the rest of the summer, no phone, no internet, no stress, no pressure. Just lots of walks, sea air, good food and wine and pleasant company. If you'd like to see where look here.

Perhaps you'll see me beach-combing. I'll wave!

PS Meanwhile you could try pronouncing Llanfihangel-ygh-Ngwynfa!

And to think, while some of the people in my East Texas hometown were so worked up about this film that they were picketing a packed theater, I got extra credit in my Latin class from that same town's high school. I was the first person to see the movie in that class, and my teacher thought the scene was both hilarious--and a wonderful education tool.

The lesson from "Romanes Eunt Domus" is the only Latin I still remember!

How can anyone ban such a great movie?

Go, funny mayor!

Cosmic@106

Ready for some more "woo"?

Richard (Dawkins) is stumped again or should we say still.
He sees two great species markers in humankind: language and religion. Science, he says, has done a pretty good job of explaining the biology of language. But, religion "cries out for a biological explanation. It is "a ubiquitous phenomenon but a puzzling one." He notes that this is going to be an "ambitous attempt".

Poor Richard, he still doesn't get it. He is still wedded to the fragmentation of the human psyche. He doesn't see any divinely ordained hierarchy to the architecture of the human psyche and he doesn't understand that the farther he goes the closer he gets to the Lord of the Dance.

Have to go - have a long drive today.

Max, since this ostensibly about The Life of Brian, I think it appropriate to use a Monty Python expression, "You're a looney".

Religion and belief in gods is simply a holdover of the psychological development of childhood. As an infant mother is "god", a little older and father enters the pantheon. As we mature to the point of learning that they are simply people, that psychological need for an all powerful parent combined with ignorance of how the universe "works" becomes mysticism.

Poor Richard, he still doesn't get it. He is still wedded to the fragmentation of the human psyche. He doesn't see any divinely ordained hierarchy to the architecture of the human psyche and he doesn't understand that the farther he goes the closer he gets to the Lord of the Dance.

Actually, the Lord of the Dance is getting closer to Richard. They'll be in Oxford by October.

That Max Verret character is annoying. I mean, he even said "Gotton". I thought "gotten" was bad enough. The past participle of GET is GOT. G. O. T, GOT. I get, I got, I have got.

"Gotten" is the ..... well, I don't know the proper name for it, possibly a gerund or something, but it's when you use a word that is normally the same as the past participle in an adjectival phrase to imply an action having already occurred, such as "well-thumbed volume" or "ill-gotten gains", and that's the only time it is proper to say "gotten". I'm sure some cunning linguist can put me straight on what that part of speech is properly called.

BTW, JoJo, I liked your explanation for religion. Can I borrow it sometime?

What, no response to my string theory questions? Come on, I'll be generous in grading. . . .

The lesson from "Romanes Eunt Domus" is the only Latin I still remember!

Darn.

Max.
Please stop preaching.
I detest preachers.
If I wanted to be preached to, I'd go to church.
I don't.

I've always thought it weird that there was no protest over "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". I mean, that actually has God in it, and a rather petulant, arrogant God at that. ("Stop grovelling! I can't stand grovellers!") "Life of Brian" has Jesus in it twice, only briefly (Nativity and the Sermon on the Mount) and portrayed both times exactly as in the Bible.

Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.

So there.

"Life of Brian" has Jesus in it twice, only briefly (Nativity and the Sermon on the Mount) and portrayed both times exactly as in the Bible.

Or rather, exactly as in the conventional montage which we absorb as "the Bible", taking a bit from this gospel and a bit from that, with hefty amounts of stuff made up for the lulz factor later. The three wise men are in Matthew, where they find Jesus in a house in Bethlehem; after their departure, the family flees to Egypt, eventually to return and settle in Nazareth. The manger business is in Luke, wherein Joseph and Mary travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem (to fulfill the mandate of a census which can't be identified with any event in recorded history). They are visited by an angel, they return to Nazareth — without a side trip to Egypt — and twelve years later their kid runs off to argue with rabbis in Jerusalem.

The idea that the nativity happened in December was tacked on later, of course. Notice how Christmas always falls on the 25th, while Easter bounces around? This is what you get when one holiday is defined on a lunar calendar and the other was made official centuries later, when everyone was using the Roman calendar, which under Julius Cæsar had been established as solar calendar of Egyptian descent.

Back in 1985, I was leaving a showing of "Life of Brian" when I suddenly realized it was Good Friday. Oddly enough, I was not struck down by lightning, nor was I plagued with boils or locusts. I may have lost a couple more hairs from the top of my head, though.

Verret "Could it be that the human consciousness is hard-wired to believe in God and that when one throws up his hands and says "There is no God" he is acting contrary to his nature."

Quite possibly. The Stellar's Jay near our house is also hard-wired to attack his reflection in the back window. That doesn't mean the reflection exists.

Some years ago, when Eric Idle was told that the town of Swansea had repealed its ban, he replied, "Is nothing sacred?"

kitty #107 You're right about Aberystwyth, and the Mayor.

Picky but it's Llanfihangel-yng-Ngwynfa. Llanfihangel-ygh-Ngwynfa would,as you suggest, be nearly impossible to pronounce.

Have a great time at Rhossili!

Must... not... feed... troll...

Totally off-topic, but a treasure trove of tapes by Delia Derbyshire has come to light:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7512072.stm

Hopefully, a compilation of the works of this largely unsung genius will be released in the near future.

"Llanfihangel-yng-Ngwynfa" sounds like something H.P. Lovecraft coined for a hymn to Cthulhu. I'm not knocking the Welsh, one of my prized possessions is a recording of a Welsh version of the Alarm's "Sold Me Down the River"-"Gwertoch fyy lawr yr afon"

Max, that Richard Dawkins may be stumped by it shows a) that he probably hasn't read some of the things I have on the subject of how or why it came about, b) fails to see it as a logical consequence of the need to fill "gaps" in knowledge with comfortable and personally satisfying ideas, and c) that he doesn't know everything. His assertion that it needs explanation, as though no one has a plausible explanation yet, annoys me quite a bit. But, unlike you, I don't expect him to know everything.

You, however, annoy me even more, since instead of looking for existing explanations, and instead of erroneously asserting that someone needs to come up with explanations, since there are none, you just throw your hands up in the air, profess that there is no explanation needed, and that god must have done it to make sure we would screw up and believe in everything from unicorns, to elves, to house spirits, oh, and occasionally also the one true god... lol

I always thought it was "Judith Ithcariot."

I always thought it was "Judith Ithcariot."

You mutht be mithtaken, thir. I'm thure Mr. Myerth got the name prethithely correct.

"The Spirit is moving like a river to set the hostages free"

And they say miracles don't happen.

I actually think Dawkins is beginning to get it. He quotes David Wilson of Binghamton U. "Secularism is very maladaptive biologically. We're the ones (athetists) who are at best having only two kids. Religious people are the ones who are not smoking and drinking, are living longer and having the health benefits." He thinks this makes an interesting point. He notes that "evolutionary biologists usually turn out to be atheists and would be surprised if the scientific study of religion did not end up supporting their point of view. However if a propensity for religious behavior really is an evolved trait, then they have talked themselves into a position where they cannot benefit from it. He concludes, "Maybe, therefore, it is God who will have the last laugh after all - whether He actually exists or not".

Note that Richard capitalizes God and He when it refers to God.

That's a good start Richard, keep up the good work.

I capitalize all personal names including God's I don't capitalize "he" unless it comes at the start of a sentence.

Even if belief in God is beneficial, it doesn't mean that he exists.

Even if he exists, it doesn't mean I have to worship non-human, alien beings.

I am a humanist. Only Man is sacred to me.

I always capitalize "Man" because it is the proper name of the human species. It also distinguishes from "a man", an individual of the male sex.

Max, very few religions forbid smoking, and many religious ceremonies involve drink. My vegan atheist brother is a teetotaler, and my religious views have nothing to do with my refusal to be anywhere near cigarette smoke-- rather, it's my severe reaction to all the toxins in it.
Do you REALLY want to stake the high ground for religion based on nonsmoking teetotalers, when there are endless contrary examples to be given? I mean, for goodness sake, you could try less stupid arguments.

Samanta@129

"you could try less stupid arguments"

Its not my argument; its Dawkins'. Complain to him. Apparently, Richard thinks religious people don't smoke or drink and consequently enjoy long life and good health as opposed to atheists. Richard seems to make the argument for the high ground for religious believers.

Picky but it's Llanfihangel-yng-Ngwynfa. Llanfihangel-ygh-Ngwynfa would,as you suggest, be nearly impossible to pronounce.

Nearly.

You mutht be mithtaken, thir. I'm thure Mr. Myerth got the name prethithely correct.

"I'll come with you, Pontiuth; I may be of thome athithtance if there ith a thudden crithith!" - Biggus Dickus

"well, well...a little ego trip from the feminists..."

--Reg

Max. Since you seem to have missed my damn point. Let me make it clearer for you. Dawkins not only doesn't know everything, one cannot reasonable **expect him** to know everything. This is a drastically different perspective from most priests who know, often, absolutely nothing at all, but claim to be able to receive, via prayer, "revelations" about what is true or not. I can understand how the difference confuses you. When a priest says black is white, because his god says so, you are supposed to believe it. If it turns own the priest is wrong, he has to spend a lot of time babbling about misinterpretation, lying about what he previously said, or finding something else to whine about, so everyone forgets he got it wrong, because, if he is wrong, **everything** he said is questionable.

When Dawkins says something like that, **we** are allowed to say that he is wrong, misinformed about that specific subject, and maybe even a fool, with regard to that specific subject, without it automatically invalidating anything he **does** have expertise in. None of which matters, because all you are doing is quote mining for things to support your position, and we refuse to let people play that childish game. Most of us gave up on that when we realized our parents where not so *stupid* as to never talk to each other and that quote mining one to the other, to make it "sound" like they had agreed to something, didn't ever fracking work, since they saw right through the tactic. Personally, I always found that it was far more effective to a) repeat verbatim what was said, without leaving anything out, when it helped me, b) cut my losses when I had no way to win by trying that, and c) pointing out **their** mistakes and bad assumptions. It tends to unsettle people, including parents, when you point out that X would have never happened if they hadn't done Y for the 10th time in a row, and they damn well should have known better. That, almost always worked, or got me in less trouble. Trying the BS you are, of selectively quoting things that you "think" bolster your position, while presuming we are all so dumb that we never read it, or know the original context/intent, never worked *at all*. Then again, they had two other kids before me, so maybe for the first born, it might have worked the first 2-3 times... For some of you, just having someone wave their hands around and mumble one time, then having the intended result happen seems to be "sufficient" to prove to you that is always works, even if it never does again. I pity people like that.

"Note that Richard capitalizes God and He when it refers to God."

Probably an editor did that. And it's a real cheap point to make anyway. Of course, that seems to be your stock and trade.