1. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157816 by AtheistJon on April 9, 2008 at 2:59 pm

I tend to doubt that RD would want this interview to be included in his "greatest hits"... considering his hoarse voice, aye ;-)

For a novice of the religion vs atheism, evolution debate, I'll agree that this event was well done. For more serious stuff, I'd prefer tougher and more original questions.

2. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157807 by AtheistJon on April 9, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Paula: What can I say? He was very charming, very interesting and excellent company - despite feeling rather beleaguered because of his horrible cold and croaky voice.

I met some famous people here in Finland, and for me it's always hard to get by the initial "celebrity" magic which makes you want to kneel down and bow. After a while though, they start to become average folk with whom you could have a regular conversation.

So, probably in your next engagment with him, you will be quite comfortable to sneak in a few hardish questions, aye? ;-)

Anyway, I'm sure all the people on this blog are immensely jealous! RD really is an icon. I always used to want to meet Carl Sagan and talk with him. When I went to Caltech (in the summer of 1987), I had the pleasure of meeting Richard Feynmann, but during the lecture he gave I think the 3 questions I was able to ask were rather lame. If you ever read Surely, You're Joking, he even mentioned that he hated it when students asked him about his Nobel prize... and guess what topic I asked about ;-) If I had it to do over again, I would have asked Feynmann a more technical question. One about special relativity, for example.

3. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157767 by AtheistJon on April 9, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Well, I have to agree with you there. I was unaware of the makeup of the audience.

Hopefully, you will get the chance to try the "rough and tumble" interview some other day ;-)

Anyway, did you have any thoughts or personal impressions about RD himself that you could share with everyone? Wasn't this the first time you two had met?

4. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157748 by AtheistJon on April 9, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Paula,

Don't take this the wrong way. I think the interview was done very cleanly and neatly and it was nice that you let RD do most of the talking, but I have a criticism about this interview which is, in a nutshell, this:

Does RD really need somebody to throw him softballs (pardon the americanism) like you did?

Why not ask him a lot harder questions. Ones that haven't already been asked a million times before? I should think that an atheist like you who has seen and heard all of these same old arguments and discussions a million times already would be bored to tears by the interview you gave?

Why not ask RD some more juicy questions (not that I can come up with lots of juicy questions myself either (at least not without a fair amount of preparation)? I should think something like the discussions that go on in this blog where people digress and digress until you really get to know somebody's core beliefs?

Were you instructed to give such easy questions or was this your own choice?

Wouldn't you agree that your questions were almost the epitome of "softballs"?

Regards,
Jon

5. Beware the Believers

Comment #152003 by AtheistJon on March 30, 2008 at 1:25 am

I think TwiddleFare is right about this. As I said originally, I think the lack of clarity and the "I'm smarter than you" mockery makes this a never very funny video anyway. Wouldn't an actual atheist somehow have used the irony of the 'expelled from Expelled' episode?

I think some of you have turned this simple bit of Flealike anti-RD video, into a "subtle", "postmodern", "incongruos", "culturally modern" rap video, but to me it's just the Emperor's New Clothes effect.

If there's any place for atheist's to show their "I admit it when I'm wrong" ability (which the religious people lack), then I think this is a great case.

Of course, if I'm wrong and this really is a spoof of "Expelled" (rather than a spoof of RD and company), then I will admit it when enough evidence is brought forth. However I would still reserve the judgment that the video just isn't funny anyway.

I'm with robatoholic, rap should die out yesterday... but, ok, I'll admit that it's definitely a matter of taste. I never liked rap, never will.

6. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151912 by AtheistJon on March 29, 2008 at 4:44 pm

Well explained, Steve.

By the way, any advice to me for dealing with my "moderate" religious family?

Just curious, how do you deal with religious folks in your family?

7. Beware the Believers

Comment #151893 by AtheistJon on March 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Whether the video maker is pro or anti RD/PZ, I still think the "humor" lacks much beyond the superiority theory of humor level of thought. Sheer mockery of sth because it is "stupid" in the eyes of the mocker... I would think a fan of RD could put together a much funnier video.

There is so much more deeply funny things about the religious viewpoint and defenders of creationism.

The great teapot: What are you talking about?

By the way, there is a new laughterexperiment site with the laughlab:

http://www.laughterexperiment.co.uk/
http://www.quirkology.com/USA/index.shtml

It's quite interesting... Recommended for the Dr. Benway thread.

8. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151878 by AtheistJon on March 29, 2008 at 3:51 pm

The defense I'm hearing, from my "moderate" religious family members as quoted above, is the same old argument you always hear from the religious, i.e. "those are the extremist wacky Christians"... "real Christians" don't do that...
(same kind of response that "moderate" Muslims gave to 9-11)...

9. Beware the Believers

Comment #151875 by AtheistJon on March 29, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Steve,

I don't think it's even a matter of taste. I think this is supposed to be superiority theory humor. Excerpt from the laughlab.co.uk website:

Superiority theory

Why do people tend to laugh when someone slips over a banana skin or has a custard pie slapped into their face?

Well, according to one theory of humour, we laugh because these types of situations make us feel superior to other people. The person who tripped over the banana skin, or was the recipient of the custard pie, has been made to look silly and that makes us feel good. In fact, it makes us feel so good that we laugh.

The superiority theory also explains why we laugh at certain types of jokes. Many jokes make us feel superior to other people. In these types of jokes, people appear stupid because they have misunderstood an obvious situation, made a stupid mistake, been the hapless victim of unfortunate circumstance or have been made to look stupid by someone else. According to the theory, these jokes cause us to laugh because they make us feel superior to other people.

Here is a classic 'superiority' joke from LaughLab:

A woman goes into a cafe with a duck. She puts the duck on a stool and sits next to it. The waiter comes over and says: "Hey! That's the ugliest pig that I have ever seen." The woman says: "It's a duck, not a pig." And the Waiter says: "I was talking to the duck."

The flaw with superiority theory based humor is that you just cannot laugh at the "joke" if you are among the "spoofed" group. At best, if you are very self-secure, then you find it simply boring and unwitty. As I guess we do.

10. Beware the Believers

Comment #151855 by AtheistJon on March 29, 2008 at 3:08 pm

I don't think it's your age Richard. You aren't that old ;-)

The Simpson's is absolutely brilliant. Especially their take on religion!

This video is pointless/unhumorous to me, too, and I'm "only" 38.

11. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151850 by AtheistJon on March 29, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Thanks Geoff...

It is sad to live in a family where you can't bring up the topic of religion at all because they all take offense from your position rather than being able to discuss things objectively.

I guess that's why they say to never discuss politics or religion when visiting somebody's house. But then again, this is my own family... I feel ashamed of them.

12. Beware the Believers

Comment #151840 by AtheistJon on March 29, 2008 at 2:44 pm

I have to go back to the laughlab pages to try and understand this "humor". I'm with RD and Steve... it didn't strike me as funny at all... or at best one of those SNL skits at the end of the show which are so off the wall that they are only barely funny.

Under the laughlab site: http://laughlab.co.uk/
There are several categories of why things strike people as funny. I think this humor falls under the Superiority Theory. My interpretation is that the video maker wants to feel superior (kind of a meta superiority) to Atheist advocates by putting the "I'm a scientist and I'm smarter than you" line in our mouths.

I'm with Steve, I don't consider this self deprecating humor. Self deprecating humor is more obviously humorous. My favorite recent such humor is the weird Al video "White and Nerdy" which mocks us white nerds but also the rap culture, since it's a spoof of the song "Riding Dirty"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xEzGIuY7kw

13. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151412 by AtheistJon on March 28, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Well, I'm not sure that it's so wise to ask for personal advice on this blog, but hey, what the heck. I guess most Atheists can sympathize with me on this.

I forwarded a link of this story to my moderately religious family members, thinking that it would be another chink in their defense of this crap. But I got back the following emails:

My email:

Dear Family,
Hate to go back to a sore topic for you, but here's another tragedy caused by religion:

This foxnews story provides the essence of why I think that the concept of prayer is such a bad one:
Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Love,
Jon

It seemed to have hit a nerve because I got 4 immediate responses (from folks who generally don't write to me that often except to forward an occasional good joke)

#1 response (step-mom):

No matter what you say.... we are all STILL PRAYING FOR YOU!

xoxo "Step-Mom"

#2 response (sister):

Obviously these people did not know anything about prayer, or they would have known that they should do the right thing and find all the help for the poor girl that they could!

Don't blame Jesus (not religion--Jesus was against alot of religious tradition himself!) for something some idiots did!

Love,
"Sister"

-------------
#3 response (from great Uncle/Aunt):

Jon-You may not want it but we will continue to pray for you. Love "Aunt and Uncle")

----------------
#4 response (from mother):

Jon Since you have never had much religious training, (my fault), you don't understand that most Christians don't agree with this either....and the persons you are sending this to also don't believe your lack of understanding about their beliefs. It is probably better to keep that to yourself as you will never influence any of these people to your point of view, and you just alienate them.

Love, Mom

-------------
I'm open to any suggestions of how to deal with relatives like this from anybody with a sense of understanding. Please no flamers.

14. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150117 by AtheistJon on March 26, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Adding my Happy Birthday congratulations!

Even though idolotry is probably unhealthy, I have to say that I think RD is a wonderful guy!

And what a great year, aye? Anyway, I got to know RD through TGD and his online video appearances, so I think it was a fine year for being an atheist!

15. Expelled Overview

Comment #149422 by AtheistJon on March 25, 2008 at 3:30 pm

It is amazing to me, the lies and deception that is alive in this crap. Really makes them seem like very bad people. I have strong feelings of love towards america, but I would never lie to forward my own political views.

Josh,
Oletko Suomalainen? Sun sukunimen perusteella, luulisin että on ainakin suomalais sukujuuret. Suomessa on myös hirveitä uskovaisia, mutta onneksi täällä tuntuu olevan ennemmän ateistit.

If you didn't get that, I was suggesting that you sound like you might be Finnish.

;-)

Jon

16. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #141006 by AtheistJon on March 9, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Steve,

Did you ever find any jokes about Bill Maher? I haven't been following this thread. If you do find one, you can contact my personally, too, since I often don't have time to follow these blogs on a regular basis.

By the way, just a recommendation for the other atheists out there on this site. If you haven't seen "There Will Be Blood", you should definitely see it. You will be pleasantly surprised at the ending.

Best regards,
Jon

17. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137880 by AtheistJon on March 3, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Careful Zamboro,

As a counter-point to the Buddhism love-in going on in here:

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d21/lardnardo/9TM.jpg

Are you sure Buddhists don't have anything like fatwa's for cartoons that mock their mediative tradition?? ;-)

18. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137218 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 2:23 pm

My mental problems are more on the depression side of the brain. I wouldn't say I definitely don't have any phobias, but nothing comes to mind as a definite phobia. I do get scared in a plane when there is turbulence, but the reassuring method for handling this situation is just to think about how rare a crash actually is. Of course, breathing healthily and relaxing (take your shoes off) can help, but these are again, scientific methods to alleviate a mental condition.

For depression, it's harder for me to think of a good scientific method (short of prozac) to alleviate the conditions. I suppose one good solution would be to travel to sunnier climes more often. I've heard that sunshine helps mental depression.

19. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137211 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 2:15 pm

And to take another angle on this discussion, if you wanted to concentrate on the mental aspects of worry, and fear. As a scientific person, you could ask questions like "why do I worry?" "Am I afraid of death". These are all questions that could be handled "scientifically" by a psychotherapist. Again, no need for Buddhism's elimination of doubt rather the contrary, remain doubtful, but understand more deeply by asking questions.

20. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137205 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 2:08 pm

I would say there is a scientific approach to that example. With a certain set of scientific questions, you could figure out the odds of any trouble happening. Teach yourself how planes work with aeronautics, work on planes as a mechanic asking questions like "what can go wrong". These are all scientific methods, so no need for Buddhism. And they do not eliminate doubts, just give you a scientific basis for justifying your willingness to fly. The Buddhist method is like all religion lacking in serious questions. It's more like crossing your fingers. So, what were we arguing about again?

21. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137195 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 1:55 pm

In the lab where I work, I would love to pschy myself out with all kinds of mystical eliminations of emotional doubt. Cross my fingers, hope to die. But it doesn't do one lick of good. I might be emotionally very secure and not doubtful at all. But whatever I do is indifferent to my emotions, they have no influence at all on the objective realities of the lab environement. The bug is still not fixed even though I convince myself that this time I really, really, really, really fixed it. The bug is only fixed when the evidence proves it to be so.

There is a difference between personal emotional doubts and skeptical enquiry and challenging beliefs.

I think you need to give me a concrete example... otherwise we're lost in a sea of jargon.

22. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137189 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Steve,

First, if this were so, then I would repeat again my view then there is no Buddhism per se.

You lost me on the two kinds of doubt explanation. I think you were saying that the other type of doubt is being scared or insecure, right? So then, isn't doubt as I said above. i.e. when you aren't sure about something. So, what does a doubter do? He asks questions. What are the chances of this plane crashing? etc... But somewhere in this thread, I thought I heard it said that Buddhism strives to eliminate doubt... hence eliminate questions. This seems to be unscientific.

In the face of Murphy's Law, doubt and the questions that arise from doubt should never be eliminated. Elimination of doubt is the antithesis, at least, of good engineering practice, if not science also.

23. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137179 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 1:32 pm

The thing I like about science is that it doesn't claim to have "the answer".

You have to start this kind of discussion with the questions. Only then can you get into the answers.

Religion wants to give us answers without any questions.

In Science there's actually the possibility that there are no answers to our questions. Religion (and I suspect that Buddhism is just as guilty as Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism) thinks it has the answer to all questions, and it allows no questions. That's the point that Sturmunddrang was saying about doubt.

Doubt is really simple. Doubt is asking questions when you are not sure. Religion is about being sure when there is no valid reason for being sure.

24. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137173 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Hi Scooter,

Just to make it clear. I wasn't blaming you for starting this. Just trying to give you a chance to say something like "Hey guys, can't we all get along"? ;-) No, I don't think you'd be wasting your time on this blog if you didn't, at least at some level, like the society of other Atheists, leftists (liberal facists ;-) included). No?

I agree with you that if you get called a cunt, then you can't be blamed for starting the flame.

This is a diplomacy job. We all gotta get better at arguing, and I would imagine that nobody wants to get into this kind of war everytime you talk with certain individuals.

25. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137164 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Sorry Geoff... typo. I removed your name from the "other side" of the war. Truly sorry about that.

26. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137160 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Scooter,

I'm sympathetic to your political opinions. I think you've definitely been the target of lots of political animosity as I have been in the past for my non-liberal political sentiments.

But, what do you think about how this thread has turned into what seems like a domestic argument? For the sake of diplomacy and good relations among atheists of all political stripe, and also in the interest of us all learning to be better skilled in the practice of not pissing each other off. Is there something that could be done or said?

How does one quench an argument that has decayed into a brawl like this? I'm sure you don't want to be seen as a bully.

And to Steve, Cartomancer, Styrer, SharonMcT, mikejswalker, Diacanu (probably others, too). Do you want to be seen as a gang of bullys? I'm guessing not. Is there some way that a peace settlement could be acheived?

We're all intelligent people here, so it doesn't make sense that we find it so hard to lay off the ad hominem's.

Anyway, I don't want to be burned by getting in the middle of a flame war, but it just seems like a waste of time to continue this thread, unless some truce could be reached.

27. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137153 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 12:30 pm

You can know everything about sport physiology and still be lousy in playing real sport. On the other hand, great athletes rely on experience and instinct and don't need to know anything about physics and physiology to play a good game. Knowing (or knowledge in the third person like science) and being (knowledge in the first person) are two separate issues,

Bonsai, the issue of whether you can play sports or not and have good instincts in playing sports is not something that is off-limits to science. What you're trying to say, if I understood your point, is that you don't have to be a scientifically trained sports physiologist to be a good athlete. In other words, that it's more of an art than a science. Right?

Well, yes, that's true. But couldn't you gain an added 10% performance by having a coach who was versed in this science? This argument is leading us down a blind alley, because I think your language is too imprecise. Define what you are arguing, and let's go from there.

I don't treat science as a religion. It's really a tool for understanding. I don't have rituals or scientific meditative sessions. When dealing with questions, I advocate the use of science (or the scientific method) to get answers. No, I don't do all the science myself, but I rely on a system of checks and balances, namely skepticism and evidence, in science to help get answers to questions. Saying that "science is not everything" is a bit of jibberish nonsense. What do you mean by this? Who said science was everything. No science is not language, nor art, nor music... but who said it was?

"Science's" answer--if I can call it that,--to many of these problems is pills, pills and more pills which often just amounts to chemical lobotomy.

There is no such thing as "science's answer", unless you define the question. Science's answer is indeed a pill, if your question is "what's the best solution for my headache?"... Buddhism is probably not the answer for my headache... it will just get worse because I cannot stand BS.

28. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137118 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 11:25 am

Steve, if Buddhism can be compatible with Atheism, how about just dropping the word Buddhism, and forget the meditation and any Buddhist custom. Just be as we are anyway. Is that an acceptable Buddhist outlook? If so, then it's like deism... how can you disbelieve in God (defined by deism) if you define "God" as the laws of physics?

In other words, you don't get any extra info about somebody by saying they are Buddhist. It's just jibberish.

29. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137116 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 11:21 am

Well, not everything in life reduces to "science', for example, first person experience.

Name one item in life that is not touchable by scientific ideas?

Also, you are probably not involve in any real science research so science is just a soundbite to you.

What a non-sequitor! Ok, yes, I'm an engineer not a scientist. But I find science to be way more than just a "soundbite". It's my entire understanding of the universe. You consider Einstein's General Relativity to be just a soundbite? Or evolutionary biology?

Here's a scientific application for an everyday problem: somebody just robbed my house, but he left a hair on the front mat. I use a scientifically testable hypothesis called dna testing, to find out who did it. How would a Buddhist, in this example, find the culprit? By meditation??

30. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137105 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 11:01 am

Science also "actually" encourages people to explore to finding the right path. I find it 100 times more palatable than Buddhism. If scientists would all start wearing special costumes, shave their heads, have rules or customs like the Buddhists have, then they'd be equally subject to criticism for "religious" and I might add, a dogmatic, philosophy. It's not just the superficial idea of customs and rituals that bothers me. It's the entire meme which is pursuing a mass market for consumption of its ideas and practices. That somehow, you are practicing a mystical path to "truth". BS. If anyone can take any path to it with no rules, then how about just giving up the whole concept of Buddhism entirely, and let people find their way and don't even bother mentioning the word Buddha at all??

31. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137094 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 10:45 am

By the way, for Steve... not about Bill Maher, but there was an excellent spoof of Oprah Winfrey n SNL, and it's sort of in the spirit of this current discussion about Buddhism. I wouldn't be suprised if some day Oprah is found to have converted to Buddhism:

Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8OHYQotsh0

...Sorry it was axed... Seems that Oprah has a really good censorship bot out there, preventing this spoof from going up on the web.

32. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137091 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 10:38 am

I agree with Sturmunddrang,

I can think of a few faults immediately. Why should independent people finding "the way" themselves without any influence from an overlord priest all come to the same conclusions that lead them on the same path, for example, all wearing the same orangish garb, all shaving their heads, and all (as far as I understand it) believing that women cannot be Buddhist leaders? I remember my sister telling me that they have signs in Bali telling women that if they are menstruating, that they are not allowed to enter the Buddhist holy shrines. What about this is not religious in the perjorative sense of the word??

33. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137077 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 10:16 am

Cartomancer,

I can see why your statement "I think homosexuality is disgusting" was met with such disapproval - if you phrased it like that then what did you expect? I am assuming that what you meant to say was "I have a visceral response to homosexual acts, I wouldn't want to engage in them, but I am fine with other people doing them."

Correct. I guess part of my motivation for participating in this blog in the first place is to learn, myself, how to improve my communications and argumentation practices. It's an uphill struggle. I think my early days of political discourse (in my life, not on this blog) must have been really bad, because my family refuses to discuss religion with me... I was way too undiplomatic in arguing with them.

Nowadays my sister is part of a fairly dogmatic sounding Christian religious social circle, and I have no chance to convince her otherwise, because I've burned all my credibility. I pissed her off long before I could really present any convincing arguments myself... I just acted like that guy D'Souza who instead of argument with good arguments, raises his voice to "win" his arguments.

Civilised conversation is so much easier if people actually think about the way they phrase their points beforehand, and try to modify those statements which are not only offensive but those which are easily misconstrued as offensive

Amen to that. ;-)

Similarly, this site is not entirely about forging an atheist political lobby with unified goals.

No, but I think it's a good idea for us all to have the idea at least in the back of our minds, that despite our left-right political persuasions, our best/natural allies are other Atheists. Or at least, it would make the foundation for some sort of agreement, seeing as we all agree on something so important and central to all other philosophical issues.

34. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137055 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 8:37 am

AfraidToDie,

Thanks for that. Next time I lift a glass of beer I will toast you!

I have to check the web if there is a joke about Bill Maher... I've heard so many jokes about Bush that they are definitely NOT funny any more.

35. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137050 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 8:27 am

Frankus,

Well, I haven't (i.e have NOT) grown out of my Ayn Rand phase. I don't agree with everything she wrote, but I think a lot of her writing is right on the money. Are you telling me that you read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged and cannot agree with them at all? Again it comes down to the avoidance of towing party lines... I wouldn't say that anybody has the right answer for political questions. They're just too ambiguous for that.

I just admire the questioning of some basic moral assumptions in society like the general assumption that "selfishness is evil" or "sacrifice is good".

36. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137047 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 8:18 am

Steve, Would you really call that dogmatism? I find that to be more of a political assessment of people's motivations.

Anyway, I tend to agree with scooter on that point. Hope you don't get pissed at me for saying so.

37. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137044 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 8:11 am

SharonMc:

Can you point out a comment I made on this thread where I came off as being a fascist?

Nope, can't say that I can. Then again, I also don't see where scooternyc was being dogmatic.

Many of my ideas have evolved and changed over time and I don't think that I have come to a final conclusion on anything.

Sounds like you are a thoughtful person. Maybe we all just need some diplomacy skills on this site. Say, some training on "how to express your views without pissing everybody else off."

38. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137042 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 8:04 am

Steve,

I remember the first debate I had on this forum, when I was defending Ayn Rand. I made the statement, something to the effect that "I find homosexuality to be disgusting". I was subsequently attacked/insulted by people who didn't like this statement... Almost non-stop. Especially homosexuals. I had to emphasize really strongly, in about ten postings that I wasn't espousing anti-homosexual political views. Nobody would listen to me. Things can definitely get overcharged emotionally on this site, very fast. But, I never told any of the insulters to stop posting. I remember that some of my attackers did tell me this.

So, I can definitely sympathise with scooternyc, because it looks like a concerted effort of ganging up on him in a fairly partisan way starting with gun control.

But, I agree with you that things ought to be handled without calling each other names and unrelinquishing assaults on one another.

It's a shame if atheists can't come together because of political differences. We have more in common than the petty political disagreements which separate us.

I hope that we all (including myself) learn to be less dogmatic on political issues. Although, I think politics is where it's just so hard to know when you are doing this. It's not like science where you can do an experiment and out pops the answer. Politics is very ambiguous.

So, yes to the amicability of disagreement settling. No, to telling people to go away or stop posting because we don't like what you're saying.

39. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137034 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 7:40 am

I think you leftist atheists ought to give your political enemies the benefit of the doubt once in a while... at least on this forum, because it's just not worth making enemies of people who are likely to be swayed by logical arguments.

In my experience here, the flame wars here seem to start and get out of hand when one atheist expresses non-left leaning political views, and then everybody starts attacking them as though they just said something about the glory of Jesus.

I'm happy to have people on the left as my co-combatants against the forces of religion and mysticism, but when you start ganging up on the political opinions, it makes me a lot less happy. I'm sure I probably speak for others on "the right".

40. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137024 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 6:43 am

As an aside about funny... there's an interesting website at laughlab.co.uk

It had some interesting experimental results about humor across nationalities:

Fascinating differences also emerged between nations in terms of the jokes they found funny. People from The Republic of Ireland, the UK, Australia and New Zealand expressed a strong preference for jokes involving word plays, such as:

Patient: "Doctor, I've got a strawberry stuck up my bum."
Doctor: "I've got some cream for that.

Americans and Canadians much preferred gags where there was a sense of superiority - either because a person looked stupid, or was made to look stupid by another person, such as:

Texan: "Where are you from?"
Harvard grad: "I come from a place where we do not end our sentences with prepositions."
Texan: "Okay - where are you from, jackass?"

Finally, many European countries, such as France, Denmark and Belgium, liked jokes that were somewhat surreal, such as:

An Alsatian went to a telegram office, took out a blank form and wrote:
"Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof."
The clerk examined the paper and politely told the dog: "There are only nine words here. You could send another 'Woof' for the same price."
"But," the dog replied, "that would make no sense at all."

These European countries also enjoyed jokes that involved making light of topics that often make us feel anxious, such as death, illness, and marriage. For example:

A patient says: "Doctor, last night I made a Freudian slip, I was having dinner with my mother-in-law and wanted to say: "Could you please pass the butter." But instead I said: "You silly cow, you have completely ruined my life"."

Interestingly, Germany was the exception. Germans did not express a strong preference for any type of joke - this may well explain why they came first in our league table of funniness - they do not have any strong preferences and so tend to find a wide spectrum of jokes funny.

41. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137012 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 6:25 am

Funny, that's how I feel about Bill Maher. What an arrogant bunch of pricks to have on tv. John Stewart and Bill Maher have spent essentially years repeating the same joke over and over again. Arrogantly proclaiming how stupid GW Bush is.

Hitchens has one overriding positive characteristic that makes him more agreeable to me than any other Atheist or political speaker out there. He's non-partisan. On all issues, he doesn't care what the party line is. He uses his own brain to think about issues.

42. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137002 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 5:39 am

Ok, I blame you.

43. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #136999 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 5:34 am

In Finnish, there's a phrase for people who lack a sense of humor... "tosikko"... literally, it means "truthist".

If I could rewrite the Finnish language, instead, I would use the term, "paskakko", i.e. "bullshitist".

I needn't elaborate on what this implies.

44. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #136992 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 5:13 am

I'll tell you one easy way to get peaceful bliss. Just start taking psychedelic mushrooms or smoke pot. Why do you need all the hocus pocus BS for that?

I can't resist repeating this famous joke:

A Buddhist walks up to a hotdog stand. "Make me one with everything," he says. He takes the hotdog and gives his money. When the vendor accepts his money without saying anything, the Buddhist asks about his change. "Change comes from within," says the vendor.

45. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136985 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 5:06 am

This debate seems like another attack on a fellow-atheist, because he isn't towing the party line.

I don't think anybody should be the judge and jury about whether people are being dogmatic. Why don't you guys take a time-out and stop telling people that they "do positive harm to this site". It takes somebody outside of the argument to be objective.

We don't need to be so judgmental.

And to scooternyc, I don't think you sounded so bad. I haven't read this entire blog, but don't be discouraged... it does seem to be a quite cliqueish blog. You're either "in" or "out". That happened to me early on, too. I think that Atheists ought to avoid being so perochial. That's the way religious people behave.

46. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #136967 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 4:39 am

Roland, I recommend that you reread Hitch's excellent discussion about Buddhism and Sri Lankan Hinduism vs Buddhism "peace" (God is Not Great, starting from p. 198). I don't buy the Buddhist BS anymore than the Christian.

As RD likes to say, even if Buddhism would turn the Earth into a Shangri-La Utopia of shiny happy people. What on earth does that have to say about whether it is true or not?

47. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #136956 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 4:21 am

Finding out about something new isn't always fun. It can also be a waste of time. There are plenty of Christians telling us the same BS about happy lives, once we would find Jesus.

48. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #136951 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 4:14 am

Well, to be fair, I wouldn't want Atheism if it could only be valid if we all were Republicans either. I like an a-political form Atheism.

To set the record, I would never embrace any invisible forces into my life without a fight. But, if Atheism doesn't mean just this, i.e. if you have to carry along all the political baggage that goes with Bill Maher type atheists, then you can count me out. Hopefully that clears the air.

49. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #136943 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 4:01 am

Here's a question to sum up my feelings about Buddhism. Do I need to waste my time thinking about it? If so, why?

50. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #136937 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 3:52 am

Does one really need to understand the theological nuances of Buddhism to know that it's just another one of man's wrong ideas? To me, any idea that is dogmatically telling people what to think about the big questions of life, i.e. the what's, the how's and the why's of the universe, is not appealing, as a source for truth, because it refuses to admit when it is wrong. Any valid philosophy should certainly not be based on dogmatism. That's the essential flaw in Buddhism without even getting to the debate about whether or not Buddha is this or that. Who cares. Why waste time debating such BS?

By the way, another vote for Atheists who hate (well maybe that's too strong), but anyway, dislike Bill Maher very much. I don't want to be part of a leftist Atheist movement. If Atheism cannot live without being tied to leftism, then I don't want any part of it.