³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Pope Benedict XVI

mccamleyc,

I might actually agree with you, for different reasons from you I would suspect.

He was the one person that David Cameron, Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg were all able to unite on and publicly state their disagreement with and opposition to the Popes stance on women, homosexuality, fertility and the use of condoms to fight HIV/AIDS. A momentous achievement in Pre-Election UK.

Julian Assange

Charlene Barr.

Can't disagree with you for once Helio. She would be a very worthy winner.

I'm with ynda20.

Despite the serious allegations in Sweden that have a extradition order put against him, what he does and who he stands for is something seriously lacking in most democracies these days - openness.

Any democratically elected government that objects to 'embarrassing' information being made public is, in my opinion, doing something wrong. Hopefully the collective nations of the world will hesitate before doing something 'grey' in case it comes to light.

I have mixed feelings about Assange and the wikileaks stuff. Openness is indeed a good thing most of the time. But I don't see how that would explain yesterdays list of critical sites world wide. It contained three sites in my home country of the Netherlands, the port of Rotterdam and two small coastal towns where two big cables head out from the continent onto to sea floor. They carry most of the internet and phone traffic from continental Europe. How does the openness consideration play out there? Or for the bits where junction points of big oil and gas pipelines were pointed out?

A wikileaks spokesman said they had made it public to show that US officials had been gathering such data. So what? I'm not impressed.

And the wikileaks stuff probably has more mind share for many people right now because it is in the news this month.

So I'll choose the pope as well, for the negative reasons that probably made Dave pick him too.

Theologian David Stevens who recently passed away

Sometimes I think it is pretty difficult to argue that religion is a force for good in world; there are certainly occasions when it doesn't take a Hitchens to demolish the contention.

I still remember the livid rage I felt when I first saw a production of The Crucible. No other work better illustrates the utility of religion or demonstrates the attraction it holds for the greatest of scoundrels because of the opportunities it offers for selfish advancement.

The evil of Salem is still very much in evidence in the world today and now, as then, it cloaks itself in the garb of religion and calls on the name of God. In this context I would nominate Aasiya Bibi, the Christian Pakistani woman under sentence of death for blasphemy. W&T's person of the year may not equate to the Nobel prize but every tribute, every protest may just help tip the scales in her favour and bloggers might consider petitioning for her release.

Linda Norgrove.

Christopher Hitchens

Interesting choice LSV, I would not have expected you to pick a convinced humanist/atheist as your person of the year.

Warren Buffett for his charitable work and donations.

John le Carré recently quoted Balzac on the radio: "Behind every great fortune there is one great crime." Balzac could be wrong!

nobledeebee (@ 13) -

"Interesting choice LSV, I would not have expected you to pick a convinced humanist/atheist as your person of the year."

I'm not tribal.

And neither is God.

Aung San Suu Kyi

You are funny LSV. The God of the Old Testament is most definitely tribal and ruthlessly destroys any other tribe that interferes with his chosen people.

As for you....well thats a moot point as they say.

nobledeebee (@ 17) -

"The God of the Old Testament is most definitely tribal and ruthlessly destroys any other tribe that interferes with his chosen people."

The meaning of the word 'interferes' is a matter of interpretation. Certainly there were judgments on evil nations who sought to undermine Israel, but there were also very many judgments on Israel when they turned to evil. So, at least this latter point proves that there was no tribal bias.

Certainly Israel was originally called (through Abraham) to be a 'blessing to all nations' - Genesis 12:3.

As for Linda Norgrove... I have never disputed that there are atheists who are more 'godly' than a great many 'Christians'. To use a Christian cliche: God sees the heart.

Or allow me to quote another verse of the Bible: "Whoever lives in love lives in God and God lives in him (her)." 1 John 4:16

As for whether I am 'tribal', would you mind presenting evidence to support that view, since you say that it is a 'moot point'? Or are you suggesting that my intellectual rejection of atheism implies that I am required to agree with everything professing Christians do, and that I am also duty bound to 'hate' and 'condemn' people who are professing atheists?

I think it is pretty obvious that it is possible to respect and appreciate a person's actions, while at the same time disagreeing (even very strongly and emotionally) with some of their views, and also asserting that their actions may not always be consistent with the logical implications of their worldview.

If you don't agree that this is valid, then perhaps you ought to consider your own tendency to 'tribalism'?

LSV, your rejection of atheism is hardly intellectual - it is as you say, strong and emotional. Which is why you have such difficulty Getting Over It, or understanding why people do what they do, and value what they value.

Another candidate: Peter Robinson, for highlighting the NI educational apartheid.

Heliopolitan -

"LSV, your rejection of atheism is hardly intellectual - it is as you say, strong and emotional. Which is why you have such difficulty Getting Over It, or understanding why people do what they do, and value what they value."

Well done. An excellent example of twisting someone's words by the master of auto-suggestion ("If I push my atheistic claims enough times and with a sufficiently convincing air of confidence, then people might think I know what I am talking about. And I might even believe it myself!")

I don't suppose you possess the intellectual capacity to work out that it is possible to have strong feelings about something that is actually true? Or is something only intellectually valid if your heart is not in it?

As for your little bluff (or attempted bluff) comment "your rejection of atheism is hardly intellectual", I don't suppose you could actually support that comment with some evidence, could you? After all, you seem to be claiming to be an intellectual, so let's see the evidence.

Furthermore, I am not aware that I do have difficulty 'getting over it' (since I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about), and I certainly have no problem at all understanding why people do what they do, and value what they value (it's called "being made in the image of God" and therefore "having a God given moral sense and sense of purpose and meaning" - something that fits very nicely into my worldview, but, from the sheer arrant nonsense I read on the Jesse Bering thread, something that makes absolutely no sense in your deluded view of reality).

So quite how you managed to derive your assessment of my 'lack of understanding' from what I have written on this thread, is a real mystery.

I nominate Will, for putting up with all the argy-bargy that goes on on his superb blog.

Well done Will :-)

Christopher Hitchens

For his continued peerless articulation of critical thinking, particularly courageous in view of his debilitating and life threatening illness.

The students; for standing up to and against the coalition or is that the demolition government.

It's a real screamer, isn't it, LSV going on and on to various posters about evidence in support of what they say.

LSV spoke of guilt transference on another thread, and I said he would make an even worse psychologist than scientist or philosopher. And indeed rather than 'guilt transference' the term for a statement of his like

"If I push my atheistic claims enough times and with a sufficiently convincing air of confidence, then people might think I know what I am talking about. And I might even believe it myself!"

is 'projection', I think.

And sorry to be adding weight to what natman said in post 21.

PK -

"LSV spoke of guilt transference on another thread..."

I always knew that truth hurt, but I really didn't expect it to hurt this much. Clearly I've hit a sore spot, eh?

If anyone on W&T ever needs any evidence, just give PK a call. He's your man for 'evidence'. I mean, wasn't it just a positive screamer when Mr Klaver produced irrefutable evidence to support his claim that a contributor was posing as someone else on this blog? I mean, who could possibly dispute such facts? (It is pretty difficult to dispute the 'fact' of silence!)

Now that's what I call 'real' science, and isn't the world all the better for such intrepid warriors for truth as Mr Klaver with his wild and totally unsubstantiated accusations!!

(And then the dear old soul accuses me of dishonesty! I see that Mr Klaver is a fantasy writer in his spare time.)

Yes, Natman, I agree with your recommendation, but perhaps for reasons slightly different from Mr K's.

second nomination

Ladies and Gentlemen I propose ....... LSV

because he twists and turns like a .... twisty turney thing

I'm not sure how we get the lesser spotted vacuosity back on the rails. His sole weapon is the ad hominem, fluffed up with an almost Plantinginous inability to apply logic. It's endearing of course, but adorably pathetic.

Anyway, here's the deal - atheists can and do act morally. Atheists have reasons to act morally. They are the same reasons that Theists have for acting morally. Moral behaviour is perfectly logical and consonant with an atheistic worldview. Good without God. Indeed, you can be Christian without God, and many people are.

Aung San Suu Kyi is my nomination. The woman has shown great courage and determination

"Indeed, you can be Christian without God, and many people are."

I like people who are Christian with out God, Helio. Its the ones who have God but are anything but Christian that annoy me.

You can be good without believing in God, but it's God's grace that is helping you to be good.

But you can't be Christian without God - you have to believe that Jesus is Lord. That doesn't make you a good Christian, but it's a start.

This is all a bit far from the nominations.

Pope Benedict XVI, whose arrival on these shores for his "heart to heart"* in September was a moment of true 'enlightenment', showing up the spiritual ground zero into which so much pagan western culture has degenerated.

*"Heart speaks unto Heart" was the theme of his visit, taken from the writings of Blessed John Henry Newman.

I'll go with Christopher Hitchens. I think he has been dignity personified over the past while. He utterly trounced smiling Tony during the Toronto debate just a few week ago, and continues to hold true to his understanding of the world.

Either him or the comedy genius that is LSV. Some of the things he posts you couldn't make up! Oh, wait...

E-volve -

"Either him or the comedy genius that is LSV. Some of the things he posts you couldn't make up! Oh, wait..."

Well, e-volve, I (a.k.a. 'cre-ated') can only express my admiration for you, as you have clearly evolved a deep sense of appreciation for the finer things in life, since you admit that you find an appeal to logic entertaining and even comedic. You must live a very happy life to find logic so delightful.

One can only wish that some of your philosophical bed buddies come round to the same level of appreciation. I do try to spice up my constant appeals to them to furnish us with something called 'evidence', but it seems that Old Mother Atheist Hubbard's cupboard really is bare.

But then again I suppose that they probably think that I am merely employing a 'grokesxian' type of 'informal logic', which apparently doesn't count as 'real logic' (ref. his deeply enlightening expatiation on the Open Thread). I can only assume that 'a is not non-a' is a lazy, informal, yawny sort of logic, whereas '1+1=2' is the real McCoy.

Still, I rather like the informal flavour of logic - it's so much more relaxing after a hard day at the coalface, don't you think?!

Theopane. I never know if you're for real. Post 33 comes over as a sarcastic take on humour. No-one can be that cringingly idolatrous. He's done some good things,he's done some bad things. Your one way propoganda machine just backfires.

Aung San Suu Kyi for her patience and stoicism

Any takers for Liu Xiaobo? Are people less likely to take the Nobel commitee seriously, after last year's award to President Obama, on the grounds that he shelved an astronomically expensive 'Stars Wars' missile defence programme; "Technology that doesn't work, in countries that don't want it, to face a threat that doesn't exist"? It was hardly rocket science.

LSV, lots of us here love and appreciate logic. But you're not exactly a master of the art. Or maybe you are, in the same way that Les Dawson was an amazing pianist. Hard to tell.

Any votes for Vince Cable..?

grokesxian' type of 'informal logic', which apparently doesn't count as 'real logic'

Where did I say that? Can you actually read?

Oh and another vote for Aung San Suu Kyi.

"Or maybe you are, in the same way that Les Dawson was an amazing pianist. Hard to tell."

Better to have played the piano seemingly and comedically badly, than never to have played it at all.

Now from responding to the ridiculous to getting back to the sublime:

My second 'nomination' for Person of the Year goes to the late Zilda Arns.

grokesx -

"Can you actually read?"

That has got to be one of the funniest questions I have ever read! I hope other people can see the irony of asking someone such a question through this method of communication.

Classic.

(Oh, by the way, if my point about Godel involved the use of 'real logic', then what exactly is your objection to it?)

@LSV

Sorry, my bad. I naively assumed that somebody who could read would know that different doesn't mean not real.

(Oh, by the way, if my point about Godel involved the use of 'real logic', then what exactly is your objection to it?)

We'd need to continue this on the other thread, but, really, look at a book or something first, as this seems to be yet another subject you think you know more about than you actually do.

grokesx -

I agree that this isn't the right thread for continuing this discussion, but I will make one small point (or perhaps two)...

Superciliously telling someone that they don't know what they are talking about or that they need to read a certain book etc, does not count as a coherent argument, unless, of course, you care to provide evidence to show why the other person doesn't know what he is talking about (which you have singularly failed to do). It's a cunning ploy to appear to be winning the argument, but such a tactic gets a bit boring after a while, along with all your attempts to pin 'logical fallacies' on me.

Either Godel was using logic to make his point or he wasn't. What's it to be?

Back to the Open Thread we go...

Agree with mab89 about David Stevens.

1. Christopher Hitchens

2. Linda Norgrove

2. The parents of aid worker Linda Norgrove - for refusing to jump aboard the blame game bandwagon following the death of their daughter; for acknowledging that those who were attempting to save her were risking their own lives in doing so and did their very best in the circumstances; for their rare and remarkable dignity and restraint when speaking of their loss; for shunning the public spotlight in order to grieve privately; for quoting TS Eliot in honour of their daughter's passion for what she believed in. In an age of constant recrimination, where most people will seize the chance for their 15 mins of fame, no matter what the circumstances, and where things like privacy, public restraint and having an internal life with its own value are regarded by many as anathema, John and Laura Norgrove are special and remarkable people.

I think when we mention or nominate Linda Norgrove we should not forget Karen Woo (and her colleagues) whose courage, dedication and sacrifice were no less than that of Ms Norgrove. There is after all a precedent for joint awards.