1. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148776 by Combine_Dave on March 23, 2008 at 10:41 pm

I'd like to see how Mathis response to RD's article above.

In the interests of free speech, and of course further opportunity of hilarity at the expense of stupid creationists :P

2. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #120916 by Combine_Dave on February 2, 2008 at 6:43 pm

I think Sam's is a fairly reasonable conclusion to come to. Not so sure about interpreting it as a call to arms for transhumanism though.

Having said that, clearly GE (of humans) is another one of those helpful technologies. Like a chimp using a stick or me driving to the store.

@ Diacanu ; I'm sure glad to have to "lost the part of my humanity" that was the drudgery of having to walk everywhere.

I'm sure some people would (mis?) use such technology to make their offspring beautiful, but is that necessarily a problem or more specifically my problem? - More eye candy about the place couldn't hurt, and if they were prove to be more intelligent and disease resistance to boot than that's great too.

Of course individuals will use this technology in ways I disapprove of, but thanks to the capitalistic/democracies that most of us live, it will be our own choices that matter to us. I doubt anyone’s going to try and force improvements upon me *just think of the expense!

Forced GE on the rest of us, is a little unrealistic. Where's the profit percentage in that? In just giving it away?

Let others do as they please, just don’t be surprised if they surpass you.

As for Transhumans not being human, if these future humans are still able to breed with us, and thus still belong to our species, than they are still human. And if(and that’s a big if) they become magic nanite fairy clouds, and its 10000000 years in the future, why should you care?

At least they could remember us ;-)

PS: Since we are of nature, nothing we do is against it :-) Unless you’re referring to the sky daddy’s little sister Mother Earth, and I’ve heard they’re both imaginary!

Combine_Dave

3. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71422 by Combine_Dave on September 18, 2007 at 6:27 pm

Looking at Revcort's my space page I can see why any man'd become a fundy....

Its for the chicks!

Combine_Dave

4. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45662 by Combine_Dave on May 28, 2007 at 7:43 pm

@ Steve99

Thanks for the tip! I might have to wait until it's in the local library. I have more than enough political books already! ^^

I do appreciate that one can rationally decide to hide behind an apparently irrational idea in pursuit of a greater good/goal. I tend to disapprove of this, as there is much misinformation in the world already.

As for Hitchen's I have not heard of him much before his "God not Great" book was released. Does he have a unique take on this or does rehash the same points that Dawkin's makes?

BTW - Thanks for your many responses to my posts!

Cheers
Combine_Dave

5. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45611 by Combine_Dave on May 28, 2007 at 1:17 pm

@ Bonzai

My point is (in a thread entitled "Gore on Reason") that whether Gore is a good salesman for enviromental causes is irrelevant to whether he is a champoin of reason.

It is you who is engaging in a strawman. I have never said that he is wrong on GW, merely that as a politician (with a need to pander to the public) he is not as an approrpriate champion of reason as Dennett or Pinker would be.

@Steve99

Do you have any evidence that he actually supported science while in office? Ie; through increase funding?

Your quotations from the book certainly look very nice. I'll have to grab a copy ;-)

Cheers
Combine_Dave

6. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45538 by Combine_Dave on May 28, 2007 at 5:03 am

@steve99

Clearly you are not familiar with logic. I have pointed out why it is a fallacy to conclude that because Richard Dawkins has applauded Gore's work on GW Gore is a champion of reason.

You have been unable to provide any actual examples of Gore actually supporting science or not believing that God created man and controls evolution.

Dawkin is a supporter of reason, but it does not logically follow that all Dawkin's favours are rational.

As for your posting. I merely checked the main forum itself, not the .net website to test my theory that you were a troll blown to defend Gore.

If you require clarification of the many logical fallacies you have committed, please check out the following.

Equivocation
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2006/06/equivocation.html

Strawman
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2006/09/aids_fallacies.html

Ad hominem
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/07/ad_hominem.html

Appeal to authority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Cheers,
Combine_Dave

7. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45530 by Combine_Dave on May 28, 2007 at 4:30 am

@Veronique

1 - I imagine this means that he is both used to and adept at pending the truth, not for the sake of deception but to meet his political purposes - As any good politician would. This does not make him a champion of reason though.

2 - True but you have not submitted any evidence to suggest that he does not believe what he promotes in public.

3 - It is great that Gore is not rabid. However not being rabid is hardly good reason to suppose Gore is a champion of reason.

4 – I have seen only one poster in this thread who denies this. Gore's promotion of the GW cause is laudable but not indicative that he is a champon of reason.

5 – Yes Gore did travel the world (with much carbon emissions ^^), and has made much money. This does not concern me, and does not indicate that he is champion of reason.

The creators of the movie "the secret" have made many profits. They can hardly be considered champions of reason just because of their success.

6 – I take issue because all Gore is definitely a politician, not a man of reason. The net benefits of his actions are irrelevant to this point. - The point of this thread.

The makers of the secret have also impacted heavily on many people all over the world. This does not make them or Gore anymore rational for all that.

[Quote]Why is it that you guys want to push his disqualifications when he has been able to lift people's consciousness to the point where they are taking notice of climate change? Is it a bad thing that he has appealed to their understanding of climate change while also exhibiting his 'belief' in some 'higher being'? Is he a lone prosetyliser for climate change? I don't think so.[/Quote]

Please provide evidence of his pro-science credentials. Please provide evidence that he does not believe that God created man/controls evolution. His championing of GW is irrelevant to whether he is a champion of reason.

[Quote]He's a 'name', for god's sake. Why can't you give him credit instead of vilifying him for having been brought up a Southern Baptist and mentioning Adam and Eve (most of his audience would identify with that anyway).[/Quote]

I have merely stated that he is not such a great champion of reason. This is not vilification. As for your second point appealing to popularity is a logical fallacy.

[Quote]Let him be; he has done more for the understanding of climate change than any one of us of this comment thread. Just stop it.[/Quote]

His environmental credentials are great. But this is of course no consequence to the unaddressed (by you) question of reason. What you are engaging in here is a variation of the logical fallacy Equivocation. He is right in regards to GW therefore he must be right on things relating to reason. Not so.

[Quote] So he's rich and most of us aren't. Is it possible that I smell intellectual superiority and jealousy here? I would hope not. Please understand that what Gore has been able to achieve, is more than the sum total of all posters here; just stop being petty, erudite tossers. [/Quote]

Nice Ad Hominem. But I do not envy the rich. Hawkings maybe. ^^

[Quote]now, go on, vilify me. Hit me with every scientific and exclusionist argument you can muster.[/Quote]

Pot meet kettle. You've labelled anyone who doesn't agree with you as a tosser yet you claim to be vilified? Nice victim mentality you've got there. Please provide any evidence that you have been vilified.

BTW: Don't you think that the use of scientific arguments would exclude the use of an ad hominem?

[Quote] You haven't added to a global understanding of climate change. Gore has. I don't hold with any irrational belief, but the world is a 'real' place and he has done well. Now get off your soap boxes and applaud him for things you have never achieved and, I might add, are unlikely ever to achieve. [/Quote]

An appeal to authority and an ad hominem all rolled into one. Can you please detail how this proves his credentials on reason?

When you enter into the real world, you'll find that many people do not possess the same homogenous opinion. I'm sorry if this disappoints you.

Combine_Dave

Ref:

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2006/06/equivocation.html

8. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45456 by Combine_Dave on May 27, 2007 at 9:48 pm

@ steve99

As far as I am concerned such a person (a politician) does not embody the side of reason. In the defence of reason, I would prefer Dennett, Pinker or Dawkins.

[Quote] OK. Time to shut you up [/Quote]

Such a nice attitude you have there. Just because Richard Dawkins supports Gore on GW doesn't mean that Gore has transformed into a champion of reason.

I suggest you look up the logical fallacy "appeal to authority"

BTW: As a matter of curiosity, what other topics have you responded to here on Richard Dawkins.net?

@ Autarkh

[Quote] I wouldn't waste my money on Gore's book. I don't need to hear some politician telling me about 'reason' [/Quote]

That's my point ;-)

@ cmacblue42

So the ends justifies the means? As I said before all his goods works are irrelevant to whether or not he is a suitable champion of reason. I have presented my arguments/evidence as towhy he is not. Aside from attacks and a lot of wailing about GW I haven't seen any reason (and certainly no evidence) to alter my position.

@To All Al Gore's Fanboys,

Please provide evidence (preferably internet links) that indicates Gore's support for science (excluding climate science), and his opposition to creationism. After all of your posts none here have managed to do this.

Your extraordinary claims; that Gore is credible on reason (not just GW), require evidence, please present it.

Combine_Dave

9. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45223 by Combine_Dave on May 27, 2007 at 12:03 am

@ a-teapot-ist,

[Quote] Or perhaps you're stating that the worldwide concern over greenhouse emissions is simply a front by which Gore might sell both his movie and his books? [/Quote]

Nice strawman, but I have never suggested that. Environmental credentials are irrelevant when it comes to reason and science.

I don't think Gore should not be considered a spokesperson for reason because he is a "cannibal" (which would have been an ad hominem), but because he has expressed creationist ideas and a support for teaching creationism in US schools.

To quote Daniel Dennett -

" To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant - inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write."

As far as I am concerned such a person does not embody the side of reason. In the defense of reason, I would prefer Dennett, Pinkter or Dawkins any day over a Gore.

Combine Dave

10. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45208 by Combine_Dave on May 26, 2007 at 10:37 pm

@HarveyGillette

Lol. I hear they have a cream for that.

I wonder if there is somekind of Gore/GW blog sending people this way.

Seems to be a number Gore supporting first time posters here (a-teapot-ist, Steve99, carnitine, chapstick08).

Is there an admin who can tell if these people have the same IP address (ie sock puppetry)?

Combine_Dave

11. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45206 by Combine_Dave on May 26, 2007 at 10:28 pm

[Quote] "It appears as though those who still question the damage we're doing to our own environment need to share a bench with those who think that tobacco is a perfectly fine "natural substance", and the cancer "supposedly" caused by it is just a fiction created by the medical establishment. You folks seem to work the creationists' strategy of "still not enough evidence". What do they need to do, convene a meeting of all the leading scientists in these fields in your FSM forsaken living rooms, and present charts to you in three different languages in order to get the point across???" [/Quote]

Mr Gore is not one of these scientists you refer to; he is not a scientist of any kind. I like it how this thread has deteriorated into a debate about GW rather than addressing my previous points and questions. It almost proves my point about him not being a champion of reason.

No one has provided any contradictory evidence to suggest that Mr Gore does not believe in ID or support creationism in public schools.

[quote]"if some baby raping cannibal stumbled over the cure to either AIDS or cancer, would you toss it aside due to the perverse character of its discoverer?"[/quote]

If a baby raping cannibal claimed to have cured cancer, and you believed him without evidence, what does that say about you? Can you provide evidence that baby raping cannibals have made any worthwhile discoveries that were ignored by this forum?

[quote] "As is Gore, who dealt with the farce of an election 7 years ago with composure, and headed up an administration that advocated science over wishful thinking. The only one that I've experienced, in memory, thus far." [/quote]

As I recall he screamed blue bloody murder and tried to take them to court. But aside from that I have seen little if anything to support the idea that he has ever advocated science (aside from climate science). Can you provide evidence of this?

I do not hate Mr Gore, but if his supporters are any guide to his own nature than he may not be as great as I formerly believed.

BTW- I have not once denied human induced GW, evolution or the dangers of passive smoking. To date I think only one other poster has done so early on in the thread.

Combine_Dave

12. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45192 by Combine_Dave on May 26, 2007 at 7:22 pm

@carnitine:

I am still awaiting evidence from you that Mr Gore is pro science and not a supporter of I.D
I have posted my links, please provide yours, so that I may verify this.

A quote from Gore explicitly denying this would be good. I am not a fanatic and am willing to change my opinion if some evidence would demonstrated.

[Quote]"Creationist wacko who invented the internet zomg!"[/Quote]

Would you care to address my points above, rather than inventing strawmen?

I'm sure it would not be very hard to demonstrate that Mr Gore did not in fact invent the internet, and this was never my argument.

[Quote] Is this one of those topics where we turn off our brains and just believe what we want to believe about him, the same that some people do about God?[/Quote]

For many people he has become an idol, and as such to criticise him is to threaten their own world view/self identity.

I have merely submitted my opinion with supporting facts. I was not the one who claimed dissenters to my opinion are trolls or ignoramuses.

My underlying point is that a politician particularly one burdened by religiosity is not likely to be a great source of reason. If he is not a supporter of creationism but gave lip service for political purposes, than how can anyone be certain that this not the case with his promotion of reason?

His many good deeds are irrelevant in a conversation as to whether he makes a good poster boy for reason. To point this out is not to demonise him or anyone. Catholics might point out the many good deeds of a Pope or other religious leader, this would not automatically make them "reasonable".

Combine_Dave

Ref:

Richard Dawkins. (2006) The God Delusion.

Paul, Gregory S. 2005. Cross-national correlations of quantifiable societal health with popular religiosity and secularism in the prosperous democracies. Journal of Religion and Society 7:1.

http://blog.antidelusionist.com/2007/04/23/al-gores-slideshow.aspx

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article1026182.ece

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/creation082799.htm

http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2007/05/al-gore-creationist.html

13. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45184 by Combine_Dave on May 26, 2007 at 5:40 pm

@steve99

[Quote]I apoligise to all. I should have recognised a troll. -[/Quote] - apparently directed at HarveyGillette (not a troll).

Pot meet kettle.

Steve99, I know you have come here to defend your hero Al Gore (no posts have been made by you about other issue aside Gore), as well as sharing your emotions re: the environment, and I respect that.

But this website/forum (as far as I understand it) is generally about science and reason and not about how great and wonderous Al Gore is at saving the planet.

Combine_Dave

14. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45178 by Combine_Dave on May 26, 2007 at 5:17 pm

@Russell Blackford

"he is actually on the same side as all of us. "

If Al Gore believes in a magical sky daddy who created us and watches everthing we do, then he is not on our side nor the side of reason.

Those effected by the god delusion can not be assumed to speak for reason.

Read chapter 8 "What's wrong with religion?" of Dawkins book if you are unconvinced.

PS: Thanks Russell, I has hoping you'd take that as a joke and not an ad homien. Was concerned you'd blown in with the latest troll!!

Cheers
Combine_Dave

Ref:

Richard Dawkins. (2006) The God Delusion.

15. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45166 by Combine_Dave on May 26, 2007 at 4:48 pm

"as most of you now seem to agree."

The consensus has been reached.

The debate is over.

Adam and Eve are real. (acc to RB)

DO NOT QUESTION THE GORACLE!

16. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45150 by Combine_Dave on May 26, 2007 at 3:37 pm

@carnitine:

Please provide evidence of this. No your private opinion posted on your own blog, as interesting as it was, doesn't qualify.

Merely making an assertion doesn't make it true, as much as I'd like to believe it as well.

@Harvey:

I like steve99's attitude to you above. So long as you weren't willing to contradict him, he was willing to be "nice".

A better question that should have been asked would be if a certain ex vice president of America claimed that god created man (for whaever purpose, earth stewardship in this case) doesn't this indicate that he is a creaionist or at least an ID believer (a matter of nuance it would seem).

I'm sure many of us here have had heroes that champion the causes that we believe only to find complete incompatibility on other issues.

Aside from having done "good" things for the environmental movement I am yet to see any evidence that suggests Gore has anything to say on "reason".

Combine_Dave

17. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45136 by Combine_Dave on May 26, 2007 at 1:57 pm

@Steve99

If you prefer we can refer to it as its latest guise - intelligent design.

If Gore as a politician is prepared to say anything to sell his message, then why should we assist him (or any politician) in his attempt to paint himself as a defender of reason.

The nature of his "work" (selling GW movies) has no bearing on whether he is right or wrong. And is OT in this context,

I must say I am surprised to see proponent of ID/creationism so heavily defended on this forum.

Combine_Dave

18. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45039 by Combine_Dave on May 26, 2007 at 1:11 am

@carnitine

Forgive me if I dare to question the credibility of a professional politician, lecturing the world on "reason".

Particularly a supporter of creationism in US schools.

"Gore supported teaching both creationism and evolution, his running mate Joe Lieberman asserted that belief in a creator is instrumental to "secure the moral future of our nation, and raise the quality of life for all our people" (2005, p. 4). [/quote]

[img] http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/images/commandments.jpg [/img]

Combine_Dave

Ref:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article1026182.ece

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/creation082799.htm

http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2007/05/al-gore-creationist.html

Paul, Gregory S. 2005. Cross-national correlations of quantifiable societal health with popular religiosity and secularism in the prosperous democracies. Journal of Religion and Society 7:1.

19. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #44989 by Combine_Dave on May 25, 2007 at 6:20 pm

@cassdenata

Nope he is a creationist. From the blog site -"Neurotransmission"

[quote] "I had read blog comments before which indicated that Al Gore is a religious man, which intrigued me, because from his movie, he comes across as a man who is ready to accept science as the proper methodology (versus evangelical faith in biblical literalism). He did not mention any kind of religious beliefs in the movie, and often used graphs plotting data back hundreds of thousands of years. Obviously, he isn't a Young Earth Creationist, who believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I assumed that he wasn't an atheist or agnostic, because he's a politician, and according to the polls, it would be near impossible for an atheist or agnostic politician to ever get elected by the public (who apparently, according to the polls, trust homosexuals more than they trust atheists).

During his live slideshow today, however, he showed his true colors. One of his slides was a quote from Genesis, which he used to show that humans are the stewards of biodiversity. I have no problem with people quoting from the bible (as long as it makes sense), but I found it kind of funny that he went out of his way to announce that he did not mean to push his religious beliefs on people by using the scripture in his slideshow. I didn't really see the need for this disclaimer, because I actually agreed with the use of the scripture.

The slide I found particularly interesting/shocking/sad, was his new(?) slide containing a graph of human population growth over the past couple hundred-thousand years. It started off good. He pointed at the beginning of the graph, showing the population of humans on Earth from 200,000 years ago, and referred to the "rise of humans."

Cool beans. So he believes that Homo sapiens evolved from other hominid ancestors, right? Nope. In the very same breath, he then continued to explain that according to his religious beliefs, this "rise of humans" was God's creation of mankind - apparently 200,000 years ago. His graph then changed to include the caption "Adam & Eve" above this starting point.

I started laughing, and I had to consciously blink my eyes and double-check the screen to make sure I was seeing it properly. Let me get this straight...the guy's entire presentation exists in order to present people with the scientific data showing that human-caused climate change is a fact. He does his very best to include references in all of the slides, showing to any thinking person that this data is not made up, that it comes from the forefront of our scientific research (there was many slides containing data from Science journal, and a few from Nature)." [/quote]

Ref:
http://blog.antidelusionist.com/2007/04/23/al-gores-slideshow.aspx

20. Der Digitale Planet (lecture)

Comment #42784 by Combine_Dave on May 19, 2007 at 2:47 pm

That is excellent.

@StephenH

Thanks for the file!

21. Der Digitale Planet (lecture)

Comment #42634 by Combine_Dave on May 18, 2007 at 7:53 pm

Is it possible to get this in a different video format?

22. The Fastest-Growing Religion

Comment #42327 by Combine_Dave on May 18, 2007 at 4:29 am

Another pile of woo.

Just because a belief system isn't christianity doesn't mean that it's not rubbish.

Worshiping rocks and dirt? And a mysterious earth mummy? That's a great substitute for reason.

/scarcasm

Combine_Dave

23. Pope Warns of Globalization, Marxism

Comment #42323 by Combine_Dave on May 18, 2007 at 4:12 am

Finally an article where the world's three worse religions come together.

Cathlocism, marxism and anti-globalism.

A great parade of unreason ;-)

Combine_Dave

24. Pedal power takes Islamic shape in Iran

Comment #42321 by Combine_Dave on May 18, 2007 at 4:08 am

[Quote]Plus, I for one am very glad that a theocratic state is doing its bit to fight global warming. [/Quote]

When religions collide ;-)

25. Economics and human evolution

Comment #39524 by Combine_Dave on May 11, 2007 at 3:59 am

The author,

I guess Christianity isn't the only religion (dogmatic system of unreason) that people fall for. – as ably demonstrated by yourself of course

I don't see why exchange of goods, culture and knowledge, and the division of labour by skills wouldn't be evolutonarily beneficial.

Cheerio ;-)

Combine_Dave

"Socialism is workable only in heaven where it isn't needed, and in hell where they've got it" - Cecil Palmer

http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/oclc/247148?tab=details

http://students.depaul.edu/~mjablono/religion_for_me.html