Skip to main content

HEAVY DEXTERS last year


At the Oxford festival - me on drums.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Funky sheeet!?

As an aside, was just wondering about the thinking behind the title 'Believing Bullshit'?

Was singing the book's praises to a mate last night, and how the arguments are laid out in a clear, non-pretentious and non-directive way; but we both accepted we couldn't recommend it to some of our more ardent believer friends, as we'd offend them almost immediately. It seems a shame, as the mood and implication of the title isn't necessarily extended into the rest of the text (though I'm only halfway). Was just wonderring whether you have any other feedback that the title might be a bit of a barrier in reaching the very people who might benefit from it?

Ta.

Adzcliff

P.S. We conceded we couldn't come up with an equally engaging and impactful title, and suspect this was a balance you and/or your publishers had to consider?
I like the percussion break down. Over all it's what the cool kids call acid jazz. If y'all ever get to Northern California in the summer...there are hella festivals and your sound would go over very well. awesomeness,

Kriss
Alex said…
Good stuff! Is there some other video or recording where the sound is better? I think your snare sounds good, but have nothing to go on with toms and bass. What's your setup?

(Btw, on that second tune, tell your perc to use bells instead of bongos on that opening ... would be awesome!)
Stephen Law said…
Adzcliff - it's swings and roundabouts with title. Maybe recommend the book as a book about supernatrual stuff/conspiracy theories... which it is, of course.

Alexander - It's not v good recording I'm afraid. That kit was DW collectors with Brady jarrah ply snare (with wood hoops).
Anonymous said…
Cheers Stephen!

Hopefully they'll get far enough before they realise we're talking about them...
Anonymous said…
you and Dave Chalmers should start something..you can call yourself ZombiePhilos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiEVkDdmIF8&feature=related

Popular posts from this blog

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...