Glider

Unlikely, especially as it (by which I mean both the emotion and the associated patterns of sympathetic arousal) is a component of so many other emotions. If you eliminate fear, things like riding a roller coaster become an intellectual exercise. There would be no point to paragliding, skiboarding and surfing would be boring and asking somebody you really like out on a first date would be a rather dull and mundane event and not memorable at all. Life would be really rather pointless. Of course, but it's largely a question of degree (although there are other factors). Pain, or the capacity to experience it, is absolutely neccesary for life. Those who are born with a universal insensitivity to pain rarely live into their 20s. Pain has both protective and restorative functions, but too much pain can completely immobilise a person, and so is maladaptive. In the same way, the ability to detect threat and the immediate physiological arousal that brings are absolutely necessary for life. But, as you say, too much arousal can be overwhelminng and result in people 'freezing' and so is maladaptive. However, fear, with practice and training, can be better and more effectively controlled than pain. Yes, the feeling of threat is your signal to react in a particular (adaptive) way. Monkeys with Kluver-Bucy don't react to large snakes appropriately. They will approach them without caution and poke at them (increased levels of curiosity is another symptom of Kluver-Bucy syndrome). Even if the snake isn't hungry, being poked at or mounted (oh yeah, hypersexuality is another symptom of Kluver-Bucy syndrome too), by something the size of lunch is going to piss it off sooner or later. No, that would be pointless. But mild to moderate pain does mean that you will act appropriately in its presence. You will change position if lying down (that'll prevent you getting bed sores). If the pain is in a joint in your leg, you will walk with an antalgic gait . That will facilitate healing. If the pain is in your body, you will sheild the area. If the pain is due to your leaning against a radiator, you will get off it before any damage is done. People with congenital universal insensitivity to pain will do none of these things, which is why they don't live very long. Fear is exactly the same in principle. Mild levels of arousal will keep you from approaching a dodgy looking pit bull without appropriate caution. It will stop you from walking backwards into the road and keep you a safe distance from the platform edge at train stations. It will keep you from doing things with a parasail that you don't feel you are competent to do and from climbing higher up a cliff than you think you can get down from. It will keep you from approaching a certain kind of bend above a certain speed on a morotcycle. It does all these things all the time and mainly on an unconscious level. We become aware of it only when we aproach, or accidentally exceed our limit. That's the sudden flush and tingle you feel when, for example, you trip at the top of a flight of stairs, but don't actually fall. A major part of the more adventurous passtimes (like paragliding) is to get close to that limit and experience those levels of arousal; the levels you get just before everything goes tits up. The threshold of arousal is different for different people. This is partly congenital and partly determined by experience (for example, particularly high arousal thresholds in children is associated with ADHD). We need a certain level to function properly, so knocking out your ability to feel fear or percieve threat would be a really bad thing. Even if you didn't get yourself killed really quickly, you would find little point to living.

Or the sympathetic arousal (which is a significant part of the emotion) that is so often necessary to get you out of danger. It is an interesting question though. In many cases, how would you know you're in danger if you don't feel threatened? The absence of fear wouldn't increase your capacity to deal with threat, but it would delay your recognition of threat significantly, which would surely have a negative impact on your ability to deal with it appropriately. It is one of these widely accepted, but unwritten priciples that the difference between a courage and stupidity is fear. A brave person feels fear but but doesn't let it control their actions and so still manages to do the right thing. Stupidity is simply failing to recognise a threat (as in Kluver-Bucy).

Reversible pitch rotors.

Yes. You can induce a condition known as Kluver-Bucy syndrome which can result from lesions (bilateral) in the anterior temporal horn or amygdala (medial temporal lobes). In humans, this condition can be seen occasionally in survivors of herpes simplex encephalitis. However, fearlessness is not the only effect of such lesions.

No, I don't think it is.

Just checking

a) Because they're the media, and it's their job to sell stuff, and loud, scary stuff sells where scientific truth is less popular. b) I have no idea. I don't disagree with you. I don't have any particular sympathy with sociology(ists), which is a bit of a 'non-job' as far as I know, but I have much less for the media bacause they do have a role and more often than not, they abuse it deliberately because selling copy trumps truth. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged What are you classing as social sciences?

Those of us in the *real* sciences also don't base conclusions on inadequate evidence or hearsay. It was not a direct quote. It reads "The sociology professor suggested that tuberculosis could merge with AIDS to form a deadlier virus, and that the Russian mafia might sell a nuclear bomb to any number of groups that want to harm us." Knowing the media (I have been a victim of them myself), I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was the reporter's idea of what he thought the guy meant, rather than what he actually said. Of course, I might be wrong, but so might you. The point is, we don't know.

Yes, the horizon is the square root of 1.5 times the height of your eyes (if you measure in feet) at sea level (e.g. for someone whose eyes are six feet off the ground at sea level, sqrt (1.5 * 6) = 3 (the value is in miles)).

It gave you a hit now probably because your nicotinic ACh receptors have had a chance to re-set. Whilst you were a smoker, constant levels of nicotine had many of these blocked and so your body had generated more to compensate. When you quite (well done), a large part of the reason for the physical withdrawal is the increased numbers of N-ACh receptors which made these synapses overly excitable. Over about a month, these synapses re-set and the numbers of N-ACh receptors drop back to pre-smoking levels. Now, when you introduce nicotine into your body, you'll get a larger hit again. Dopamine injected directly can't cross the blood-brain barrier. People with Parkinson's are given dopamine precursors (e.g. Levadopa) so that the remaining cells in the substantia nigra can produce more dopamine. I think it pretty much has. All 'drugs of abuse' share the common effect of elevating DA levels in the reward pathways. They have a variety of other effects and differ in the way they achieve the common effect (e.g. some inhibit GABA systems, which are inhibitory, so they 'inhibit the inhibitor', others through direct stimulation). Anything (including behaviours) that elevates DA in the reward system is rewarding (in the psychobiological sense) and so potentially addictive , so my question is 'Why would you want to?' The hit given by a drug, and thus its 'addictiveness' is due less to the level of dopamine elevation and more to the speed it elevates DA levels. The faster you can get DA to spike in the reward system, the more of a rush it provides and the more addictive it is. There are already plenty of drugs that do this (e.g. drugs like crack cocaine elevate DA levels very quickly), so in effect, it has already been done. I certainly don't see any reason to try to 'improve' on crack cocaine. There are a number of substances people take to enhance the effects of orgasm.

Dylan Moran is one of my favourites.

They do. If you look at long bones (e.g. humorus, femur, etc.), towards the ends, you can see the holes where perforating vessels pass from the periosteum into the bone.

No worries. ..and students. Yes, extreme precision can be annoying. It’s why friends, relatives and colleagues who know each other well tend to resort to a kind of verbal short-hand that, when you know the person, is sufficient to accurately impart their meaning (or, from which their meaning can be divined with acceptable reliability). It only gets tricky when you don’t know the person, especially in debate and particularly in debate about religion (or other mythical/fictional things for which objective evidence is lacking). No worries. I quite enjoyed the exercise. Yes, your magenta swan could be made to exist, but only by virtue of swans already existing (take a swan, dye it, bingo!). Not so easy with gryphons. Yes, an idea can be perfectly defined, at which point it becomes a perfectly defined idea. I think the problem here is an idea can be anything and relate to anything, so what we end up doing is debating different classifications of ideas. The idea of a dragon is no less an idea than the idea of sustainable fusion. An idea can relate to, or in some way explain reality (or at least attempt to), or it can be purely fictional (and a number of things in between). None of these ideas are any more than ideas, but some have greater merit by virtue of logic or evidence. It is not that an idea is an idea that makes it difficult or silly to deny it, it is its merit that determines that. Ideas are easy to reject. Nobody is ever under any obligation to accept an idea. Ideas that are supported by evidence are no more difficult to reject, but it becomes more foolish to do so.

Sorry. This will have to be brief. I have a lot of work to do today. With the clear qualifier ‘...in Germanic paganism and its subsets...’, which clearly provides context and denies ambiguity. My use of the word ‘can’ would be clear by its context. The use of the word ‘is’ often requires that the context be made clear. The statement ‘Thor is a god’ exists without context and is thus ambiguous. The statement ‘Thor, god of thunder in Germanic paganism and its subsets...’ has context and is thus clear (as an aside, I have been courteous towards you. Please avoid name calling). As long as you know s/he is an atheist. In this example, it is the knowledge of their atheism that provides the context. Without that knowledge, it is not at all clear which definition they are using. You wonder why you suspect I am less insistent on clarity under different circumstances? How can I know that? And under what different circumstances? In any case, I’m not sure it’s sensible to wonder why I am less insistent on clarity in other circumstances, when you only suspect it to be the case. I think it would be more sensible to wonder about a thing after its truth has been established (there’s pedantry for you). Seriously though, I suppose there are three main reasons I insist on clarity. One is that I’m a lecturer and spend a significant amount of time marking written work by students. I think that makes me sensitive to ambiguity and, no doubt, a little pedantic. Another is that without clarity, any meaningful discussion becomes a lot more difficult. Finally, in any debate concerning God, Gods, or anything to do with religion, their proponents tend to be quick to leap on any careless or ambiguous phrase and take it out of context (which is why Richard Dawkins wants there to be a tape recorder at his side when he dies). However, they seem to rely a lot on ambiguity and equivocation themselves, so I think whilst atheists have nothing to prove, they do need to be extremely careful and precise in their use of language, or give up the right to expect it from their opponents in debate. I think that’s a fairly good general philosophy anyway. Are you seriously asking me to provide evidence for the non-existence of a thing (my belief)? That aside, I’m not sure why I would look silly not believing you, regardless your expertise in your imaginary swan. I don’t believe The Archbishop of Canterbury when he said “And when the world is created, it is created in such a way that those eternal objects of God's loving wisdom become actualities - interacting with one another, relating to God in the finite realm. (Dr. Rowan D. Williams). I can’t deny he believes that, but I am not obliged to accept it for myself, and I don’t think I look silly in not doing so, even though Dr. Williams is an extremely intelligent man and is one of the foremost experts in theology. As I said “ Whilst it is true that I can’t deny your idea, there is no obligation for me to accept it either. That is the nature of ideas.” Quite simply, without evidence I don’t have to believe you, nor present any case for why I don’t. I am free simply to dismiss the idea. Now your argument is, if not completely dependent, then at least leaning heavily on the fact that swans exist. You could not apply that argument to another imaginary animal such as a gryphon or a dragon. I’m not entirely sure how you can argue for a distinction between magical and non-magical imaginary animals anyway. That seems a fruitless direction, so let’s not go there. No, each of these words presents a single defining characteristic of a thing. They do not represent a list of what a thing is not. Yes, the definition of animal (that is still not mine), does exclude trees, motorcycles and kitchen implements by virtue of the fact that they do not fulfil the criteria it sets out for animal. It does not list trees, motorcycles and kitchen implements as examples of what an animal is not. That’s because the concept of ‘animal’ is a label that refers to and defines in the minds of people, extant things. To have reason to change the label, either the thing itself, or people’s understanding of it (e.g. with the appearance of new evidence), would have to change. That is not true. The author is completely free to change the idea at whim, as is any new holder/interpreter (i.e. subsequent author) of the idea. It requires no alteration to reality, no new evidence, nor even the agreement of other people. Look, for example, at the idea of the Assumption of Mary. Ideas concerning heaven, hell and means to get to either were fairly widely accepted throughout Catholicism. Yet, with no new evidence or any alteration in reality; “On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII solemnly declared: ‘By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory’ ” (Wikipedia). The Assumption of Mary, despite it appearing in no text or as any part of the original idea of Catholicism, is now official Catholic dogma, created on the whim of (one of) its authors, and not even an original author. Likewise, and on similar whims, many things have been dropped from original dogma. So, no, the idea does not remain (at least as the original idea), nor does it 'retain all the attributes of it that were communicated'. It changes on the whims of subsequent authors. It evolves and becomes, in essence, a new idea (and thus a different idea). I don’t need to. I can’t deny your idea, but I am free simply to dismiss it. You cannot prove that something does not or cannot exist. The term animal is a taxonomological label. It is used to class extant things. In and of itself, it is a subjective concept, evoking certain schemata in the minds of people and these schemata are likely to be different according to people’s understanding of the term. What does the term ‘Wanyama’ evoke in your mind? Not much? It’s not surprising, it’s Swahili. It means ‘Animal’. The point is, you are confusing the label with the labelled; the subject with the object. It doesn’t matter what label you apply, ‘Animal’ or ‘Wanyama’, the object (and reality) remains unaffected. In the case of your magenta swan, the label is all you have and is all there is. Your claim that your swan has tissue and that tissue has certain properties (“ your definition of animal does not require that it exist, only that it have certain properties (which my imaginary swan does indeed have). ” (bold added)) is just that; a claim. I think we passed nowhere some time ago. I have to withdraw now as I have data to enter and stuff to do before tomorrow. I think, over the last few posts, I have made my case, but through time constraints, I’ll have to let it stand or fall on its own merit from here on. I'll let you provide the parting salvo. It’s been a hoot.

The term ‘mythical’ is used to describe all characters in the list. It describes Zeus as a God under the heading: “List of Greek mythological figures”. The header clearly defines the context so no ambiguity or equivocation is possible (and being a list of Greek mythological figures, it does not even list Thor let alone 'go on to call [him] a God'). According to the definitions of the word “is” that you provided, the statement “Thor is a God” can mean either ‘Thor ‘exists as’ or ‘belongs to the class’ God’. If the person making the statement has not made the context clear, then the statement is ambiguous. It requires others to make an assumption concerning its actual meaning. As I said in post #74, “The onus is on [the author/speaker] to make it clear to the reader, not on the reader to divine [their] meaning from ambiguous or equivocal statements.” I don’t think so. I am comfortable with the definitions of “is”. I have been trying to point out that the dual definition of the word is a source of ambiguity (or equivocation). There are still people who believe in the Norse Gods (or at least profess to). If a person makes the statement ‘Thor is a God’, which definition of the word ‘is’ are they using? Likewise, if it is asked ‘Is Thor a God?’ which question is being asked? Without context or clarification, each requires an assumption. Would I prefer "Thor has the properties that a god has"? No, not really. I would prefer ‘Thor has properties attributed to Gods’. Most authors make their context/meaning clear and do not try to blur the distinction between the two different meanings of the word “is”. In any event, leaving aside the obvious problems associated with the claim that things that do not exist can be classified meaningfully using a system designed to define relationships between things that do exist, your assertion fails on two different fronts. The difference between an animal and the idea of an animal (or any fictional character) is not only that an animal must possess the attributes of an animal to fulfil the criteria of the definition (1), but is also limited to them (2). 1) Animals must possess the attributes of ‘animal’: The magenta swan exists only as an idea. I am happy to accept that idea (and suspend disbelief), as long as the story of the magenta swan engages me. The idea has only the power I choose to give it. If I become disenchanted with the idea, or you begin to assert that the magenta swan is an animal and can be classified meaningfully as such, I can simply choose to withdraw that power. Things are then reduced to: “Magenta swans are animals.” I don’t believe you. Provide evidence. “I am claiming that their (purely imaginary) tissues conform to the definition of an animal.” I don’t accept your claim. Provide evidence. I am under no obligation to accept your assertions and, as they are your assertions, the burden of proof lies with you. It is true that “Fictional characters can belong to whatever categories and possess whatever characteristics their authors wish.”, but the characteristics attributed to a fictional character by its author are attributed to the character by the author. It is precisely because the character exists only as an idea that it may possess whatever characteristics its author wishes (i.e. there are no physical limitations) and, for exactly the same reason, nobody else is under any obligation to accept it. The character does not possess its characteristics independently and they cannot be verified by any measure. All that exists is the claim. 2) Animals are limited to the criteria for ‘animal’: I can accept the idea of a magenta swan. But, it is magenta only when searching for a mate. It is more usually blue. If attacked on land, it will run to the edge of the nearest water, its head will turn brown and it will hold it straight up so it can watch its attacker and then the swan will invert its wings and become a clump of bulrushes. As long as it is not fully submerged, it can reclaim its swan form at will. However, if attacked on water, it will submerge its head, open its beak wide and disgorge itself in the form of an eel, leaving only a shell of feathers on the surface to act as a decoy. However, once in the form of an eel (and thus has been fully submerged), it has to remain that way until it can find a feather, which it must eat before it can return to the form of a swan. This is why you sometimes see eels out of water, moving through long wet grass. They are looking for feathers, so they can become swans again. It is still true that “Fictional characters can belong to whatever categories and possess whatever characteristics their authors wish.”, but this is a large part of the reason why fictional creatures cannot be classified as animals. A fictional animal can be attributed with whatever characteristics its author wants and is not limited to the criteria for animal. An idea can possess any characteristic anybody who holds the idea wants and these can change from person to person and from day to day. It is an idea and thus is not limited in terms of possible characteristics. Animals are. No sensible definition attempts to define a thing by what it is not. The definition of animal (it’s not mine), does not exclude trees, motorcycles or kitchen implements either. But as none of them (including ideas) fulfil the criteria for ‘animal’ it is not necessary to list (even as exclusion criteria) everything an animal is not. No they don’t. They are ideas. You are simply taking extant characteristics (or characteristics of extant things) and claiming them as attributes of your idea. Whilst I have said that fictional characters (or creatures) may possess whatever characteristics their author wishes, these characteristics must be attributed to the character by the author. The creatures do not independently possess any characteristic nor any of the physical attributes required to be animals, but nor are they limited to the characteristics that define an animal. Does that sound like a paradox? Well, that’s another difference between ideas and animals; paradoxes can exist as ideas in the minds of people, but not in reality. The term ‘animal’ is an accepted taxonomological label. The accuracy or validity of taxonomy is not the issue here. I have, thank you. It is the ambiguous or selectively interchangeable use of definitions 1 and 2e that is the problem (the former use is simply confusing and the latter use is deliberate equivocation). No, you only claim it has, and your claim is the only evidence you have in support of that claim (i.e. I claim this statement is true, and it is true because I claim it is). It possesses no properties independently and outside of your mind and I am not obliged to accept it has the properties you claim for it. Whilst it is true that I can’t deny your idea, there is no obligation for me to accept it either. That is the nature of ideas. Does the same go for Superman, or Batman or the X-Men? I would say a non-magical dragon is in the class theropsida (synapsids). But being ideas, and thus possessing no varifiable physical characteristics outside of our own minds, should we get into a debate concerning which classification for dragon is correct (which is not going to happen), the only possible outcome would be that ‘my dragon is in the class theropsida and yours is in the class sauropsida’. It would be a pointless and futile debate (but, I suspect, is exactly the kind of debate that resulted in the reported 38,000 denominations of Christianity). I agree, but it’s funny how agreed definitions become possible when dealing with things that independently possess objectively verifiable attributes though. Y’know, like animals and stuff.

I'm not dismissing ideas. I have acknowledged that ideas are real. My point is merely that the idea of a (mythical) creature is a real idea, not a real creature. This is the distinction I'm trying to make. Ideas are real, but only hold power if they capture the imagination of people. Political and religious ideas can change history and often do, but the power of an idea comes from the people whose imaginations are caught by it. They are the ones who provide the impetus and make the changes. In politics and religion (and other ‘non corporeal’ ideas, i.e. ideas concerning systems, rather than objects, creatures or characters) the evidence for their reality only as ideas rather than some objective entity is in: a) The need for interpretation. The same idea can mean different things to different people (hence a reported 38,000 denominations of Christianity for example), whereas objective entities require less interpretation. b) Their transience. Imagine the number of ideas that failed to capture the imagination of the people; that came and went in the minds of few but were soon forgotten. Are those ideas that fail to catch on and are forgotten any less real than the ideas that catch on? Is the reality of an idea determined by the number of people that hold it? An idea is real whether it’s held by 1 person, 100, 1,000 or 1,000,000 people, but the only difference ultimately is whether or not it’s remembered. Ideas come and go with unreliable frequency and it is of note that the lifespan of an idea is determined mainly by its popularity, rather than its merit. That’s true, but their irrationality does not make those things objectively real. I do understand what you’re saying. It’s similar, in principle, to a person experiencing an hallucination. If a person hallucinates some horrendous creature, there is no way anyone can say that creature is not real to that person. It is, absolutely. It’s real enough that the person will jump out of a high window to escape it. The fact that nobody else in the room can see it makes it no less real to that person. However, if the person does jump out of a high window to escape the creature, were they killed by the creature, or themselves? If they stand still, are they in danger of being killed by the creature? Is anyone else in the room in danger? It exists only as an idea and it has no independent power. It only has the power that people give it.

Are you implying that the reason for the word ‘mythical’ is only because the list includes non-God characters and therefore that the listed deities, gods and goddesses are not mythological? That’s not what I said. I said “Fictional characters can belong to whatever categories and possess whatever characteristics their authors wish.” (i.e. you can call them whatever you want to, but it does not make them so). I also said “I am quite happy to accept that these characters exist as characters in literature” (i.e. as ideas). “I would not be happy for that to be taken as a statement regarding my beliefs concerning reality”. There’s a subtle but important difference between calling (i.e. classifying) a thing a God or a Pirate and stating that the thing IS a God or a pirate. The poll is flawed, we agree on that to an extent. I think to ask a hundred theists whether they believe in God would evoke a hundred positive responses, but I also think that there would also be a hundred different ideas of God driving those responses so, yes, it is an idea driven system of categorisation (any new idea becomes a new category). However, this is not relevant to my argument concerning the apparent difference we have concerning the concept of ‘being’ or ‘existing’. Of course: “Animals are a major group of multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa. Their body plan eventually becomes fixed as they develop, although some undergo a process of metamorphosis later on in their life. Most animals are motile, meaning they can move spontaneously and independently. Animals are also heterotrophs, meaning they must ingest other organisms for sustenance.” (Wikipedia). This is a fairly standard (though not exhaustive) definition. It presents certain criteria that an organism must fulfil in order to belong to the category ‘Animal’. Gryphons, dragons, unicorns and so-on. do not fulfil any of these criteria. Be aware that if you say they do, then I will ask you to send me a tissue sample of any of these creatures so I can check for myself at least the first criterion listed. I don’t doubt it, but that doesn’t mean they are animals. They are ideas. This is our bone of contention. I would say that fictional animals are a subset of ideas, not a subset of animals. They do not exist outside of the minds of people and the pages of books. I’ve bolded the problem word. Something that does not exist cannot be anything more than an idea. I have said (several times) that fictional things can belong to whichever categories and possess whatever characteristics their creators wish. But that does not make them real. It only makes the idea of them real. As I keep saying, I am happy to accept the idea of gryphons, dragons, unicorns, or that Long John Silver is a pirate or that Zeus is the father of the Greek Gods. However, none of these are. They are nothing more than ideas. They are not animals or Gods or pirates, they are ideas that possess the characteristics their creators chose for them, and I don’t expect to encounter any of these things in reality. You can call or classify a fictional thing whatever or however you want, I have no problem with that, but it does not make it anything more than an idea. Swans exist but, as far as is known, magenta swans do not. So far only the idea of a magenta swan exists. However, to dye an extant swan magenta or to create a swan that is magenta would result in a magenta swan. I don’t see your point here. Why do you think I would be left scratching my head wondering about this? Only because swans exist (as do trees). You are equivocating again, this time on the meaning of ‘fictional’. James Bond is a fictional character. The character was (classified as) a man. Men exist. Thus, the character of James bond possesses the characteristics of ‘a man’. This does not make James Bond real. You can learn nothing more about men by studying the character of James Bond (although you might gain some insight into the psychology of his creator, Ian Fleming). What about dragons? What characteristics must a dragon possess in order to be categorised as a dragon? What anatomy must it possess? What physiological processes must it perform? You would place it in the animal kingdom: “ I'd say fictional animals are a subset of animals.” But what phylum? What class? A dragon is an idea, nothing more. They are about people’s beliefs concerning the current state of reality. There is a difference. In any event, as I have said, fictional characters can possess any characteristic their author wishes. I also think that every theist is the author of their own God. Thus, I suspect any attempt to identify a universal definition of ‘what “god” means’ is futile. There will be commonalities, but many differences in the detail. Yes, and they receive the same response.

To be clear, the action potential only refers to the depolarisation of the cell membrane at a given point. Movement of the action potential down the axon is called propogation.

It should be noted that the header from your link in post #68 reads; “List of Greek mythological figures”. The word ‘mythological’ is the operative. In any event, Wikipedia also classifies Long John Silver as a pirate, Biggles as a WWI fighter pilot and states that “Commander Sir James Bond, (KCMG, RNVR) is an officer of the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) (more commonly, MI6)”. My question is, what would you have me say about my beliefs concerning these characters? As I have indicated, I am quite happy to accept that these characters exist as characters in literature. I would not be happy for that to be taken as a statement regarding my beliefs concerning reality (i.e. that I believe they exist(ed) as people or deities). This is where your equivocation becomes an issue. Which question are you asking? It doesn’t confuse me at all. I’m just happier when people don’t try to blur the line between fiction and reality. In reality, the statement ‘A magenta swan is an animal’ is predicated on the existence of a magenta swan. If a magenta swan does not exist, then it cannot be an animal. This is a fairly simple concept. However, if a magenta swan appears as a character in some fictional tale, then I am more than happy to accept the idea of that fictional swan being magenta, or that it speaks, or that it is magic, or that it was Zeus in disguise when he raped Leda, in the same way that I am happy to accept the idea that Long John Silver was a pirate. Fictional characters can belong to whatever categories and possess whatever characteristics their authors wish. The whole thing only gets confusing when you equivocate between reality and fiction. The original question “Do you believe in God?” seems to me to be asking people to state their belief concerning the current state of reality, and not whether they believe there is a whole pantheon of God characters in literature. I may be wrong. In any case, if it will make you happy, my answers to these entirely different questions are no and yes, respectively. What? I accept the Universe exists (belief has little to do with it). However, I would not be prepared to respond to any poll in which a positive response to one category equates to a positive response to all categories. Further, I would not be willing to have my positive response to the question ‘Do you believe the Universe exists’ misinterpreted by the logic; ‘He believes the Universe exists; the Universe is God; therefore he believes God exists’. If you want clear, unequivocal and unambiguous answers, you must ask clear, unequivocal and unambiguous questions. Or possibly that you are not making yourself clear. You are the author of your own argument. The onus is on you to make it clear to the reader, not on the reader to divine your meaning from ambiguous or equivocal statements.

Really? Are you sure? I think you are still equivocating. This time between belief in the existence of a character in a story and belief in the actual existence of that character (e.g. the difference between the lead in a fictional novel and the subject of a biography). I think the thing that is troubling me here (as before) is your use of the idea of God (a character in a book) Vs God (an actual creative force in the Universe). The sentence "people would consider Thor, Apollo, Allah, etc, non-existent rather than non-god" is the tricky one because if true, then it requires those people to hold to the argument 'X does not exist, but X is a God'. This argument only makes sense if the original question was 'Do you believe in the existance of God characters in ancient cultural mythology?'. If that was the original question, then my answer is yes. I do not believe that Ammon Ra, Horus, Anubis, et al. exist, but I believe they were Gods, in the same way as I do not believe Long John Silver exists (or existed), but I believe he was a pirate. However, that was not the original question. The original question was 'Do you believe in God?' (with the addendum 'use any common definition you like'). In this case we are being asked not about the existence of a character in a myth, but (by most common definitions), the existence of a creative and intelligent force in the Universe that has a direct interest in human affairs. In those terms, the agrument 'I don't believe X exists, but X is a God' makes absolutely no sense. I certainly belive the character in the books exists (as a character in the books), and as such is a God. However, I do not believe a Universal creative intelligence with an interest in human affairs exists and so the question of whether or not that force is a God is as pointless as the question 'Do you believe Bertrand Russel's celestial tea pot actually contains tea?' Yes, they are all characters in stories and exist as such. But that was not the original question. In this, Yaweh (the character) and I agree. Even though all three Abrahamic religions acknowledge certain commonalities, each of them considers the other two to be fundamentally false. I agree with all three of them.

I'm fairly confident most Americans don't consider Allah a God in the same way they consider 'God' a god. I think you are equivocating on the word 'God'. Most people in the US have fairly firm beliefs concerning God (and his role in the origin of the Universe). Whilst I am sure they are aware of Thor and Apollo et al., I think it's more likely that they consider them characters from Norse/Greek mythology. I seriously doubt they consider them 'Gods' in any real sense of the word. Otherwise, it would be more like ancient Rome, where the population recognised and acknowledged a whole range of gods, but built family shrines to their favourites. Having said that, it's very hard to be certain, as even the Judeo-Christian God acknowledged other gods. Otherwise the commandment 'Thou shalt hold no other Gods before me.' would have been unnecessary.

Going by the majority definition of Gods that have gone before, 'creator of the world' and/or 'creator of mankind' would have to be included in the definition. As these two processes are pretty much understood, it would make the leap from God-like to God quite difficult for many.

Only if you're willing to ignore the leap from 'God-like' to 'God' (actual).

It has little to do with aggression and more to do with the physical exertion. When you flex (work) all your muscles or beat up your pillow, you are increasing the amount of CO2 in your blood. This tends to help with the symptoms of panic attacks. Panic attacks are often accompanied by hyperventilation, which reduces the amount of CO2 in your blood. For O2 to be extraced from your blood effectively, there needs to be a certain level of CO2 and if you reduce the level of CO2 too much by hyperventilating, O2 can't be used properly, which leads to the feeling of being short of air and that you can't catch your breath. This feeling is a significant symptom of a panic attack and just makes things worse. Through physical exertion you are increasing the amount of CO2 in your blood, which helps. Re-breathing exhaled air by breathing into a bag for a few minutes also helps with this aspect. Hypochondriasis is not an hereditory condition or trait. It doesn't run in families and it can't be contracted, transmitted or passed on to your children. Hypochondriasis can be reinforced by those around you, but anybody could do that, not just members of your family. Anger is not hereditable either, but if you are prone to anger, or have a lot of anger that you are just supressing rather then actually dealing with, that is likely to be a factor in your panic attacks. A good Psychologist could help you. Or, more accurately, guide through the process of helping yourself. If you were to look for a Psychologist, I would recommend you look for a Cognitive Behavioural Therapist.

Yay!