1. The Stupidity of Dignity

Comment #179191 by adonais on May 12, 2008 at 9:07 pm

Bobby G:

I'm confused by your comment. It seems to me that your definitions of innate and acquired dignity are circular (you use "dignity" to define dignity) and overlapping with morality. I thought Pinker made a good case that dignity is not a robust enough concept to found an ethic on. I'm wondering if you're confusing dignity with morality, which is a better grounded concept than dignity.

2. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #177977 by adonais on May 10, 2008 at 5:27 am

Spinoza wrote:

... Adonais (btw, that's quite the ironic moniker!), the thing is, there's no reason NOT to call theology a "subject" in the same way that there's no reason not to call "women's studies" a "subject".

Fair enough, but how much longer can theology be a subject that scientists are required to debunk on its own terms? Theology has a habit of moving the goalposts in order for that never to happen.

Are scientist still required to debunk palmistry, astrology and voodoo etc by first becoming expert shamans and palm readers (or whatever)? We've passed that point long ago, these subjects are now properly shelved under occult, hardly vying for academic respect or scientific recognition - how much longer for theology?

Btw, the irony of "Adonais" is, well, not intended. It refers to the poem by Shelley, the elegy for Keats (although Shelley might have constructed it from the hebrew Adonai and the greek Adonis, maybe that's what you were thinking of)

3. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #177912 by adonais on May 10, 2008 at 12:21 am

Comment #177904 by Spinoza

The knee-jerk defensiveness of people on this site confuses and saddens me.

I'd be inclined to agree, I mostly thought it was an interesting article until I arrived at that Dawkins paragraph. Collins has really missed one of the MAJOR points that Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al have been trying to make: that religion has for millennia enjoyed absurd measures of undeserved respect, and that it is highly questionable whether theology is a subject at all in any other sense than a historical one. Collins seems to saying that things should rather stay as they are, let's keep pretending that theology is a subject and let's respect their academic and scientific pretensions. For that he deserves to get flamed :-)

4. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177331 by adonais on May 8, 2008 at 11:28 pm

Comment #177290 by Eric Blair

Did Dawkins really think he could compare anyone - let alone a Rabbi - to Hitler, in any respect, and then pretend it was an innocent statement? Either he intended to be malicious or he is terribly naive.

I have an alternative theory. Maybe Dawkins noted, like maybe a few others also have, that theists are in the habit of comparing atheists to Hitler on a daily basis. One might be led to believe that this would blunt the stigma of the connotation, seeing as they happily use it so generously and generally. Must really sting for Boteach to have that name, in his view the paragon of moral nihilism, launched at himself - even if it was only a superficial behavioral comparison. But never underestimate the hypocrisy of the blessed.

5. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177257 by adonais on May 8, 2008 at 8:34 pm

Comment #177243 by Styrer

Permit me my opinion - while Boteach is clearly a self-serving, self-publicising chancer of the worst kind, your response to him here is an absolute disgrace.

Your opinion sucks. Scientists aren't in the business of pandering to demagogues who make their livelihood and fame off deceiving the public. Dawkins has dedicated decades of his life to educating the public, but people like Boteach and Stein et al repeatedly demonstrate themselves to be beyond educating. They can't be debated anymore than you can play chess with pigeons, since they evidently don't understand the rules ("they knock the pieces over, crap on the board, and fly back to their flock claiming victory"). For them, I have nothing but scorn and contempt, and I applaud it when they occasionally get it served to them in public. That's just my opinion of course.

6. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177161 by adonais on May 8, 2008 at 5:06 pm

Boteach is a genuine slimeball. See for instance this clip: Rabbi Shmuley - Idea City 2007 - Part 2

7. A Conversation with Expelled's Associate Producer Mark Mathis

Comment #164900 by adonais on April 20, 2008 at 8:35 pm

OMG listen to part 2 - Mathis is getting disemboweled! Everybody should listen to this.

8. Expelled Overview

Comment #149558 by adonais on March 25, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Comment #149504 by Styrer- on March 25, 2008 at 7:03 pm

Really, Adonais? No special treatment? In enunciating a verdict on a film you have never seen - 'I think Expelled is a piece of trash'- you are not giving special treatment to your appraisal of it?

I think you are.

Well you think wrong. I'll be honest and let you know that my impression of you from reading your comments here on RDF is that of one who likes to argue for argument's sake. Which I think is what you're doing here.

While I am often guided to buying a book because of decent reviews, I am never dissuaded from buying a book in which I have some interest because of negative reviews.

Neither am I, IF I really have an interest in it.

It is not the case, as you seem to think, that deep down I really have an interest in this movie, and that I am being willfully dissuaded by the negative reviews. I have read several (both positive and negative) reviews from people of various creeds who have attended screenings at different times. There is NOTHING in all that I have read that makes me interested in the movie. Got it? I have NO interest in this film. I have NO interest in seeing it merely for attaining some elevated intellectual platform from which I can give it "fair appraisal." From all that I have read, I think it is trash, that is my appraisal. If I'm wrong, well that's too bad, but I can always catch up later and change my mind if it turns out to be the case. Not holding my breath though.

9. Expelled Overview

Comment #149499 by adonais on March 25, 2008 at 6:35 pm

For fuck's sake, people - see it for yourselves before you endorse another viewer's opinion of it (no matter how highly you respect said viewer's opinion).

Just an FYI, Styrer, I will not see this film on the same general principles that I do not waste my time on other films that I think are a piece of trash: I think Expelled is a piece of trash. That clear enough? No special treatment.

That being said, since it is not unrelated to other things that I take an interest in, I am thankful to people like Josh who post their thoughts on it to help me decide whether to waste my time and money or not - what can you possibly have to object to that? No different from reading a review of a book before deciding whether to buy it and read it!

10. Expelled Overview

Comment #149483 by adonais on March 25, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Thanks Josh, that tells me everything I wanted to know about the film, I feel no need to sponsor the maker of this kind of humbug.

Now I'll just sit back and wait for the glorious moment when PZ Myers finally gets to watch the film, and the subsequent disemboweling of its contents on his blog and "any print venue that wants me" as he put it himself.

I'm sure you're right, the deeply religious will love this film, it appeals to the very emotional uncertainties and fears that probably drove them to "accept Jesus" in the first place - but I'm pretty sure the media attention isn't going to go the way Mathis is hoping. This is one that the scientific community is not taking lying down, as "Expelled Exposed" already demonstrates, and I rather suspect that most of the media focus will be on all the falsehoods of the film. I think it'll actually be quite fun to watch the aftermath, if not the film itself.

11. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #138011 by adonais on March 3, 2008 at 6:33 pm

I hadn't seen this one before, although it's from 2003 - it appears even Dennett has some fleas:

C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason

12. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133704 by adonais on February 26, 2008 at 2:55 pm

al-rawandi: forget I said anything! I didn't think I was getting into a pissing contest.

13. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133674 by adonais on February 26, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Fastest man alive.... Michael Johnson is how tall? 6'3".... 200 lbs?

Right; and after 50 meters tell him to make a 90 degree turn.

This is silly...

14. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133665 by adonais on February 26, 2008 at 1:40 pm

309. Comment #133636 by al-rawandi

Also Force... is technically....

Newton's Second Law:

Mass x Acceleration.

I believe it was a vector differential equation in the "Principia Mathematica"

LOL!

Your approach to martial arts is like taking a tank on the Dakar rally.

Also, Newton's second law is good, but how about the first law: "An object that is in motion will not change its velocity until a net force acts upon it." For all your force F=ma, if I'm not there, your energy is wasted.

15. The Encyclopedia of Life, No Bookshelf Required

Comment #133609 by adonais on February 26, 2008 at 12:33 pm

The moonshot equivalent of biology, truly an awe-inspiring project.

Unsurprisingly, the eol.org web site has been flaky and mostly unavailable all morning...wonder why :)

EDIT: whoops - here it says the new pages will available on Thursday? That's not what it said on BBC earlier today....(maybe hence the server load!)

16. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133571 by adonais on February 26, 2008 at 11:31 am

(amazingly off-topic, but I can't help myself)

For generating force in most martial arts; all the power in the universe rests in the hips. A move that ties the hips in will be more forceful than someone, even a very, very, big someone using just their arms... most of the time.

At one point, I was training in a monkey-style kung fu school, and the teacher posed the question what sort of punching or hand technique we though could deliver the most raw power into a blow, if we were allowed to move in whatever way we wanted. Answer? A simple, open-palm slap, using the entire upper body pivoting on the hips to give angular momentum to the arm, angled slightly downward at the final stage to pick up a little help from gravity as well. And damn, was he right :) (kids and girlfriends - don't try at home!) Now where was I....

17. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133556 by adonais on February 26, 2008 at 11:15 am

273. Comment #133545 by Polydactyl

But until atheists can address seriously the (until now) almost universal human need for some sort of divine mythology, the two groups will just continue to talk past each other.

But I'm not sure the "need to believe" is really a universal human trait, although it might have come to seem like one by accident of history. To the ancients, belief in deities was probably a lot more rationally defensible than it is today; less a matter of universal need and more a matter of simply trying to interpret the world. This "Need Delusion" (not to be confused with nerd delusion, which happens to me a lot) is another myth that needs to be shattered.

18. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133108 by adonais on February 25, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Comment #133047 by Storeo

I find it an interesting insight more than anything, especially given the amount of 5* reviews it has received on Amazon.

There was apparently some astroturfing going on right when the thing was published (see the discussion below), nothing unusual.

19. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132925 by adonais on February 25, 2008 at 12:09 pm

They think their arguments must have equal merit as our rebuttals.

Well, my view on that is, the parts that are concerned only with historicity are not going to change, so when at one point we think we have arrived at the proper conclusions (which I think we have, with the Hitler et al. argument), our rebuttal won't need to change either. Like someone said (I guess it was Dawkins), it is quite possible for one side to simply be wrong. And they are :)

20. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132915 by adonais on February 25, 2008 at 11:56 am

One begins to despair for the human race, but I might give this one a go; at least, he appears to be able to write soberly and without the ad homs (at least in the introduction). That's a huge step up from, e.g., "The Irrational Atheist," if the trend lasts. Of course the table of contents gives away what we'll encounter, including the Brutally Bad Atheists, but we already have standard rebuttals for most of that. It could potentially be interesting to see if this guy comes up with anything that is new..

21. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132729 by adonais on February 25, 2008 at 7:02 am

I agree! But the question remains - do we call them Gods?

That would be a matter of history. Unless these creative aliens show a propensity for answering prayers occasionally, or sending in avatars like angels and demons or whatever, we might as well call them Chuck.

22. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132720 by adonais on February 25, 2008 at 6:53 am

108. Comment #132692 by Steve Zara

Suppose (as is feasible according to some ideas), this cosmos was created in some alien laboratory? That alien would indeed be fundamental to our reality.

We can still probe the laws of physics that are independent of the aliens, but if the aliens choose to never interact with us in any way, we will have no way of deducing that they actually exist, even if we can speculate about the physical process that spawned our little table-top universe. But if the aliens interact with us or with the universe, we stand a chance of detecting their presence - their effect would distinguish itself by appearing magical and impossible to describe by physical law. We will not be able to write down a formula and predict what they're going to do. But the primer is of course that they interact with our universe in the first place.

I think. :)

23. Fleabytes

Comment #132654 by adonais on February 25, 2008 at 4:53 am

935. Comment #132615 by clearthinker

...rehashing of old atheist arguments...

Well, at least he didn't call us the New Atheists here, I guess we could throw him a bone for that, bravo. As for the rest...I won't bother.

24. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132452 by adonais on February 24, 2008 at 7:07 pm

"No believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong."

In other words, "whatever evidence you might present I can adopt an assumption (ad hoc) that allows me to disregard your evidence." What infantile drivel. Do these fruitcakes grow on trees or what.

25. Fleabytes

Comment #132361 by adonais on February 24, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Do you think that maybe I should have a go at translating TGD into Latin, for the benefit of all those poor benighted souls up in Popetown?

Why not Klingon... Then finally it might live up to the "militant, strident, shrill" reputation. Qapla'.

26. Fleabytes

Comment #132344 by adonais on February 24, 2008 at 4:00 pm

It doesn't matter that much attacking this book (unlike the excellent work Paula has done), as this guy is not a significant flea.

Oh dear, I'm afraid you've hurt his feelings now.. There's no greater insult to someone's overweening pride than to be told one does not matter!

The blog post you might want to address, which appears to be the most recent one having anything to say about "Dawkins.Net," is: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/02/empty-shell-of-dawkinsnet.html

27. Fleabytes

Comment #132319 by adonais on February 24, 2008 at 3:35 pm

"Religious conflicts are probably less of a problem than non-religious ones, as all the one side has to do is convert to the other's religion, and there is no longer a problem."

This is why I couldn't read TIA, I started frothing at every other sentence. Got dehydrated.

Anyway - Steve Z, where are you planning to post the review? On the Forum (Book Nook), or submit it as an article, or somewhere else? Just want to make sure I don't miss it :)

28. Fleabytes

Comment #131992 by adonais on February 23, 2008 at 7:52 pm

593. Comment #131670 by clearthinker

Freedom from the depressing view that the universe is cold and meaningless and that I am just a blob of carbon, floating from one meaningless existence to another.

You might be a blob of carbon, I don't know, but I am a living, thinking, feeling human being.

"If you prick us do we not bleed?
If you tickle us do we not laugh?
If you poison us do we not die?
And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"

And all this without needing to require that the universe holds some higher meaning, or that we were created by some super-human controlling power. What meaning is there in God, that would be any more valuable to me now than the meaning which I share with my family and friends just by being around for them, for each other? God is pathetic compared to humans.

Freedom from the power and oppression of sin.

A concept which your church invented in the first place, your self-imposed oppression does not apply to me.

And Freedom from a philosophy which says that all that is, is chemical. It is wonderfully liberating.

If the philosophy you're thinking of is "science," the you owe your modern comforts to it. You're reaping the fruits of science by living in a house with electricity and plumbing (did God invent the plunger? I think not). You might drive a car or a bicycle, or take the subway; you travel by air to conferences; you are surrounded by semiconductor technology, optics, electronics, mechanics; you might take medicines; you might drink chemically purified water and eat chemically or biologically preserved foods. Modernity, our technological civilization, owes its existence to the philosophy which you deplore, but I don't see you practicing what you preach. Or you find that it is fine reap all the benefits yet complain about the philosophy when it serves your purposes?

Know the Truth and the Truth will set you free.

But you're not free at all, since your "truths" were established for you thousands of years ago. Being shackled by your belief, you have no freedom to look for truth, you are forced to think you know it already. On the chance that you might be wrong, you're going to stay wrong forever. You are the least liberated of all human beings.

29. Fleabytes

Comment #131988 by adonais on February 23, 2008 at 7:05 pm

656. Comment #131871 by Steve Zara

It [TIA] is a rather sad book. Each chapter is a series of ad-homimens, followed by a personal interpretation (which many have shown to be wrong) of historical evidence.

Not once, so far, is there any response to the challenge to provide evidence for God.

I think the whole book can be summarised like this:

Dawkins expresses an option on cheese. We know that his tastes regarding dairy produce is subjective. Therefore, how can we trust anything he has to say about evolution or God? Therefore God exists.

If anyone is interested in a thorough review of this book, I will hold my nose and work through it. It may be a laugh.

I shall be very interested to read your review and extremely impressed if you manage to pull through, although I fear for your sanity. I tried reading some, but only a few pages proved to be too much for me. To be clear though, I believe the author with the ridiculous pseudonym states in the preface that the book deliberately does not address questions of God's existence, or anything else we might accidentally find interesting, so you should not focus too much of your criticism on things he will just brush off as irrelevant to the book. In other words, he is very open about the fact that the sole purpose of this book is to "dissect the unholy trinity," i.e. he's thrown down the gauntlet and picked up a mountain of mud. Let the hurling begin.

Incidentally, the author has already claimed victory over Dawkin's "followers" over on his blog, where he wrote (among other hilarious things): "they've got neither the collective capacity nor the courage to confront the refutation of their hero contained in TIA." Just an FYI.

30. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #130016 by adonais on February 19, 2008 at 10:49 pm

I wrote down some of my thoughts on the fine-tuning argument, probably nothing original, but nevertheless, my personal spin :)

The so-called fine-tuning argument, that the universe appears to be exceptionally well constructed to allow biological life forms such as ourselves, is in essence an argument from ignorance as well as an anthropocentric fancy.

The argument bases itself on the theoretical observation that very minute changes to any of the fundamental physics constants (the strong nuclear force, the electric charge, gravitational constant, etc) would lead to a universe that appears to be unable to support life (atomic nuclei become unstable, stars could not ignite, galaxies could not form, etc). Hence the suggestion that the physical laws appear to be very finely tuned in order to allow biological beings such as us, and the question is why. The theological answer is that this fine-tuning could not happen naturally but requires a designer, and is therefore taken as evidence for God.

There are several problems with this.

First, the above argument is essentially an argument from ignorance and lack of imagination. While it is true that very minute adjustments to the physical constants would appear to make the current universe hostile to life, we must admit that we do not know what possible forms of life and intelligence might arise in a vastly different kind of universe. Can we state with confidence that ALL other combinations of fundamental physics constants would fail to produce either life or intelligence? If we allow for more forces and dimensions? We simply can not know that (yet), in part because we don't (yet) understand fundamental physics that well, and partly because we don't (yet) have the computational power to examine all alternative possibilities. Consider the following analogy as an illustration.

The sets of physical laws and their constants form a multi-dimensional function system that is capable of describing all the complexity that we observe in this universe. As a simile, compare this cosmical function system to a much simpler one, a mathematical fractal that produces a two-dimensional pattern on your computer screen. By very finely adjusting the parameters of the fractal it can produce astounding complexity and regularity on our computer screen, like e.g. a fern-like recursive spiral (http://www.twelfthnight.se/ff3/g5.htm). Now adjust the parameters only slightly, and the beautiful pattern is quickly destroyed and reduced to chaos and noise - we say that the fern fractal resides in a "sweet spot" in the fractal parameter space. Similarly, our universe appears to be sitting in a sweet spot in the parameter space of physical law, and it only takes a small adjustment to destroy the delicate balance. But look again at the fractal: if we search around the parameter space (we can do this in practice because the function is simple), we can often find several other sweet spots in a completely different part of the parameter space that produce a different kind of complex regularity - a different kind of possible universe.

This analogy must not be taken as an argument that there must be other sweet spots in the function system of physical law, that could correspond to other, completely different, universes that might support life. It is merely an indication from mathematics that there could be such sweet spots. However, we simply do not possess the resources to explore the parameter space of physical law in order to look for sweet spots that could represent "interesting" alternative universes. It is too computationally demanding, and we currently don't even understand the laws of THIS universe well enough to undertake such a task exhaustively. Maybe some futuristic quantum computer will be able to run such a project and search for alternative recipes for making bio-friendly universes, but currently we are not able to.

And so, even though small adjustments appear to destroy the bio-friendliness of the current universe, we can not state with confidence that there could not exist a completely different set of physical laws that also allows for intelligence to arise. The possibility of such alternative universes renders the notion of fine-tuning irrelevant. Beings that evolved in a completely different kind of universe might pursue the same investigation of physical law, and eventually come to consider their universe exceptionally finely tuned for them.

Which leads us into the second major problem with the fine-tuning argument, the anthropocentric bias. What makes us say that our universe is Fine-tuned, and not just ok-tuned or half-assed-tuned? By what yardstick do we measure it and decide that it's "fine"? Like so often throughout history, this makes the assumption that we are the pinnacle of perfection and intelligence, the culmination of all possible universes attaining self-consciousness, we're definitely it. Of course this is simply because we assume that we're the only show in town, and we don't know anything else.

Perhaps measured by some other yardstick, our universe could be regarded as BADLY tuned, it's lowly inhabitants hopelessly retarded and inferior on every account to the entities populating a much more sophisticated sister-universe. Maybe a different set of forces, physical laws, spatial and temporal dimensions etc could have given rise to a much more spectacular universe than ours, with intelligent entities putting our paltry human capabilities to shame. In such a comparison, we would no longer be justified in calling our universe "fine tuned," and again the fine-tuning argument melts away.

Given all this, the most honest formulation of the fine-tuning argument that we can accept is to say that: IF this is the only universe that could possibly exist, THEN there is a legitimate question as to why it is constructed in this particular way. This is a much weaker statement, since we really can not know that this is the only possible universe that might support life. The only thing we can really say is that we are here in the shape that we are because the universe is the way that it is; had the universe been vastly different we probably wouldn't be here, at least not in this shape - but something else might be.

31. Fleabytes

Comment #129936 by adonais on February 19, 2008 at 7:31 pm

Oh and - the title is marvelous, I hope the meme sticks:

Fleabyte (noun, pl. Fleabytes)
A rhetoric, sound bite, or treatise that bases itself on and attempts to refute a specific work of another author (cf. "sound bite"). Common in Christian apologia. Origin: W. B. Yeats - "But was there ever a dog that praised his fleas?"

32. Fleabytes

Comment #129885 by adonais on February 19, 2008 at 5:58 pm

Wow - what a tour de force! Very good material and interesting discussion in there, and I haven't even read it all yet :) I would add to Cosmological Question #4 "Cause" that the classical or Kalam cosmological arguments are shooting themselves in the foot by their own premises, as they apply our empirical notion of causation outside of its domain of validity ("before" the universe began), where we have no basis for knowing whether time and causation have the same meaning as in our mundane logic.

33. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125096 by adonais on February 11, 2008 at 12:32 am

THANK YOU! Yasmin, for offering the archbishop the perspective he sorely lacks.

I doubt you'll hear an apology from Williams...at best, maybe a concession that he could have worded things differently. Besides, whom would he apologize to that it would not stir up even more discord?

34. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #123221 by adonais on February 6, 2008 at 4:16 pm

John Allen Paulos offered a simple and solid refutation of the argument from first cause in his "Irreligion." Based on his reasoning I formulated my own version of it, which goes something like this:

The first premise of the cosmological argument is:

[1] Everything must have a cause.

This may or may not be true, and even theists eventually wind up needing to have it both ways at the end of this argument, as we shall see. Skipping ahead and omitting the remaining premises for the moment, we arrive at the hypothesis:

Hypothesis: Because the universe exists it must have a cause; God is that cause; therefore God exists.

There are many problems with this. First, either [1] is a truly universal principle, in which case God must also have a cause, and God's cause also needs a cause, and so on - we get an infinite regress. To terminate the infinite regress, theists invoke another premise:

[2] Causal chains can not go on forever.

Sounds reasonable perhaps, but how do we actually know it's true? In reality we can't know that, and we certainly can't rely on it being true for drawing conclusions about metaphysics, so taking it as a premise means making unjustified assumptions. It is a glaring caveat often glossed over by theists that we have no concept of time and cause outside of or before the universe. Can our concept of cause and time, let alone infinite regress, exist in that state, whatever it be? We simply can not know these things, yet theists happily pretend that the logic which we have built from our notions of time and cause also applies to an unknown (and maybe unknowable) state, of which we have no notion at all.

But even if [2] was somehow discovered to be universally true, there is still more trouble in the woods, because this means that premise [1] has been falsified. To be consistent, premise [1] must be reformulated as:

[1*] Either everything has a cause, or there is something that doesn't.

While this is consistent with God being without cause, thereby qualifying Him for being the first cause of everything that followed, the argument now also allows a number of alternative conclusions. If there is something that does not have a cause, then why could not this be the universe itself? Such a theory is also consistent with [1*] and [2]. Why invent an undefined entity of unimaginable complexity beyond the universe just so that the universe can be caused by it? This is as far from parsimonious as it gets. Or maybe our universe was indeed caused by something beyond it, but this something might be no more than a quantum foam, whatever that might be, sharing none of the amicable characteristics of God as the theists imagine Him. Such a theory is also consistent with [1*] and [2], and a great deal more parsimonious than the God hypothesis.

Given that these more economical and scientifically admissible alternatives exist, what reason is there to assume that God was the creator of the universe? Note the formulation of the previous sentence: "assume that God..." etc. because ultimately this is what it boils down to: theists claiming the cosmological argument as "proof" are actually assuming that which they purport to prove, since there are alternative theories of much lesser complexity which are also possible "conclusions" from the stated premises. This is a classical logical fallacy called "begging the question," and by now it is clear that the whole cosmological argument for God is nothing more than an exercise in sophistry completely devoid of logical, let alone factual, merit.

The bottom line is, if you can use the cosmological argument to "prove" that God exists, then I can use the same arguments to "prove" that the Universe itself is the first cause, or that quantum foam is, or anything else that I like to prove. An argument that can be used to prove anything you like of course proves absolutely nothing at all, and is quite worthless.

35. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91338 by adonais on November 28, 2007 at 4:53 am

I understand you're pissed, but of course being angry isn't an argument.

First - I'm not pissed (in the american sense). Second - that's exactly what I've been trying to say all along! Those of you who are being "angry" with Sam Harris are merely venting frustration that someone you cared a lot about is not acting according to your script - this is not a driving Argument, and should not be presented as such.

I still have yet to hear why we can't have Ayaan's saftey without offering Warren the moral highground.

Well I have no idea why the two should be correlated in the first place. Maybe start by explaining this to us? How did they connect? Exactly how has Warren attained the moral high ground? Anybody, please feel free to explain to me as if I were a child. I'm much happier learning something new at the expense of looking like a fool, than learning nothing while looking wise.

36. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91275 by adonais on November 27, 2007 at 10:40 pm

"As I said before, Sam told us that we have a "moral obligation" to help him fund-raise for Ayaan Kirsi Ali. Turn around is fair play, especially when we are trusting our money with him."

Whatever Sam might have told you or me in his appeal for support for Ayaan, I didn't volunteer my donation because I believe I have a moral obligation. I donated because I wanted to help Ayaan in any small way that I can, no strings attached. Are you saying that you donated not because you felt that it was the right thing to do, but because of some rhetoric of Sam's that convinced you that you have an obligation to? You're supposed to be a free-thinker.

"No one is saying Harris doesn't have the right to say whatever he wants. What we are expressing seems more on the line of, 'if he wants to ask for my money, he better well be more careful with what he says'."

In other words, your donation comes with strings attached to it?

"Hey Sam - even though the money isn't for you, unless you guard your tongue from now on I'll claim for a refund. While I'd feel sorry for Ayaan, it's all your fault really, nothing to do with me."

I'm sure that's not what you mean, because it's patently absurd. The problem I have is that I can not come up with any other interpretation of the like-minded statements in this topic that aren't equally absurd, so I'm still wondering what on earth you (guys) are on about, really.

As for "personal attacks," I'm pretty sure I wasn't doing that; however harsh the language might become, I meant only to address arguments, not persons. If I failed and you took offense personally then I apologize for that.

37. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91252 by adonais on November 27, 2007 at 7:12 pm

mejdrich:

Don't be daft. First off, it was a rhetorical question, starting with an "if" and ending with a "?" - I didn't accuse anybody of the crime, yet.

However, secondly. Everybody who is complaining is saying variants of "Sam has undermined our cause" or "Sam has given the christian right the moral high ground," or "Sam has given them more material to twist to their purposes," or whatever twisted logic you come up with. That I completely disagree with all these suggestions is separate from the fact that you are indeed whining about them.

Now then, are you trying to bullshit me into believing that the underlying implication behind all this whining is NOT that he ought to have said something more to your liking, and that he does indeed have some sort of obligation toward "us" to keep his voice (and jokes) in check? Particularly, he must be mindful of Texans and South Carolinans, who don't have it easy.

Let's review what you yourself have said:

mejdrich:

"it's not unreasonable to ask (via forum that he may not even read) that he choose his words carefully"
"it doesn't seem unreasonable that Sam may have some responsibility to Atheists"
"If, in the middle of this, I can exercise self-control, and if Richard Dawkins can (and he does), then it's not out of line to ask the same of Sam Harris."

Finally, I'll point out to you that I was replying specifically to Jack Rawlinson, who have written, among other things:

Jack Rawlinson:

"'jokes' like this will be leapt upon by our enemies and turned right back in our faces"
"he has undermined our solidarity and given the religious something to use against us"
"the danger is also increased by having a prominent atheist suggest - even in jest - that Christians might be more generous than atheists."
"he's being a bit careless, to say the least."
"'Silly jokes' such as this one of Sam's are gifts to such people. ... And that annoys me, and I think it's a tactical error."

You can try to convince me that none of the above was implying that (you feel that) he has a responsibility towards us to say in public only what the atheist hive mind approves of, which in the logical extension leads to the rhetorical questions I asked. You can try, but I won't buy it.

I'll say what the bloody hell I want, and I'll defend Sam's right to do the same. If something he says pisses me off, that's that, but I won't for a second entertain the notion that I have some right to tell him what to say and what not to say.

Do we not often say amongst ourselves, as one of our major debate points, that blasphemy is a victimless crime? Well, now a bunch of atheists are accusing Sam Harris of something that probably doesn't have a name, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - let's call it blasphemy. And you have decided to make yourselves the victims just to prove a point. The irony is rich here, but not funny at all.

38. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91219 by adonais on November 27, 2007 at 4:40 pm

Has it entirely escaped your notice how ravenously eager these people have been to misrepresent atheist arguments, to take atheist ideas and statements out of context, to outright lie about what atheists say?

It has not escaped us. However. Do you seriously believe that, if we atheists all bridled our tongues and deprived ourselves of free speech for fear of feeding the christian trolls, that fact, their propensity for misrepresenting us, would change in the least? If we voluntarily have to silence ourselves, then what the hell were we fighting for in the first place?

39. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90942 by adonais on November 26, 2007 at 6:37 pm

Thank you, queen5102, you took the words right out of my mouth. I am frankly amazed and somewhat alarmed at the reaction of a bunch of irate atheists to something so petty. If somebody would be able to be truly offended by such a remark, or attempt to take advantage of it for their own purposes, then I'm afraid that their problem runs much deeper, and Sam having refrained from that one joke would have made no difference at all!

40. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90871 by adonais on November 26, 2007 at 2:30 pm

For the life of me, I can absolutely not understand why people suddenly are acting so incredibly thin-skinned at some off-the-cuff jibe from Sam Harris. Can someone explain to me what all the fuss is about? I really don't get it. I see nothing at all to take offense at.

41. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #90369 by adonais on November 24, 2007 at 9:02 pm

Geez. I suppose I should not have written "[*insert convoluted logic here*]" if people were going to take me literally.

But she did lie, correct?

If I killed somebody and then I come clean years late, does that mean that the killing never took place and now everything is cool? Talking about logic...

ex-bahai.

You are too far removed from reality to be discussing this under the pretense of sincerity. Please find some other topic to heckle.

42. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #90252 by adonais on November 23, 2007 at 7:23 pm

Lrac Rendiew:

Apart from being an embarrassing piece of shoddy and biased reporting, that clip is pretty much obsoleted by her own book "Infidel" which was only four months away from being published when this "documentary" aired. They should have just waited a few months and read her book instead, and spared themselves some embarrassment (Mahad and Osmam are blatantly lying before the cameras, but the reporter team never once pauses to question *their* integrity and motives, only Ayaan's!) And in the end, the VVD already knew about it all anyway! More on that journalism debacle here:

http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/2006/05/ayaangate-zembla-defends-itself.html
http://ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl/ayaanhirsiali/2006/05/zembla_over_aya.html

As far as I'm concerned, Ayaan has come clean about her past. If you are suggesting that some Dutch are holding a grudge towards Ayaan because of [*insert convoluted logic here*], then that's only a statement of their own f***ed-upness.

43. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #90076 by adonais on November 22, 2007 at 5:48 pm

ex-bahai:

I have read through your economic plans to improve upon Sam Harris's blunt charity attempt, but the main question remains: who's going to carry out your plan? Unless it is put into practice, your words are just that, words. Would you hijack Sam's initiative to enact your own plan? For all your good intentions and rational reasoning, I somewhat doubt that you have the capacity to make happen what you say ought to be done, but I'm happy to be proven wrong, and I encourage you to.

So, while have no objections to your plan, you need to put your money where your mouth is, pardon the cliché, in order to make it count. And until you do, fact remains, here is Sam Harris doing something, in practice, offering people a way to lend their support. Maybe it's not the optimal way according to your calculations, but it's one that is real and exists right now.

44. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #90044 by adonais on November 22, 2007 at 1:37 pm

#89917 ex-bahai:
"I personally think that it is going to be a waste of valuable resources that we can otherwise be better utilized for the cause."

That's easy to say, but is it really true? Could you give some examples of what you think are better uses for the money towards the cause, and I'll consider donating to those as well. It's hard to put a price on Ayaan Hirsi Ali's unique position as a spokesperson. Is there anyone else whose voice carries the same weight when speaking of oppression of women under islam?

#89917 ex-bahai:
"Again, I find it sad that people here ain't analyzing this rationally."

I'll offer the possibility that it may be you who are overanalyzing it. I still maintain that it is very simple: Sam's original appeal was exactly that, an APPEAL for support, a plea to your philanthropy and good moral senses. It was not meant to be taken as an intellectual challenge - you only have to decide whether you want to donate or not, it's really not any more complicated than that.

I'm not criticizing those who decide to not donate, but I think it's way beside the point - and perhaps even damaging to her cause - to turn this discussion into a competition of who can come up with the best reasons for NOT donating. That seems rather mean-spirited.

45. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89904 by adonais on November 22, 2007 at 5:13 am

I made a one-time donation of $100. I could make a long list of idiotic and pointless things on which I've spent many times this amount, over the years, all of it a complete waste. Donating to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whatever the circumstances, I do not for a second consider to be a waste of my meager savings, if it goes some however small way towards supporting the important work that only she can do.

To those of you who argue that it's not your responsibility to "finance her move to the US" (or some variation on this) - it's very simple: if you donate, you are helping her and supporting her cause in a direct way, regardless of whether you think you have a responsibility to or not. Arguing that it's not your responsibility, you may have a case, but you're not helping. Simple as that.

46. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77576 by adonais on October 9, 2007 at 6:07 pm

Pretty bad, and very unnecessary article by PZ Myers, he lost a little of my respect there. It seems clear to me that the misunderstanding is still with Myers, and not Harris. That he accuses Harris of living in a dreamworld shows exactly how he fails to grasp the content, the idea, of the message Harris was sending out, Myers just comes across as sputtering with atheist indignation as he attacks a straw man. What a shame.

47. Come Out!

Comment #59617 by adonais on July 30, 2007 at 12:18 am

I think it's a great idea. One can always bicker about designs and what statements they make, but the bottom line is we're here because we feel that atheism NEEDS to be a movement, and not just a private little cozy club where we sit in seclusion and take tea and comfortable advice.

So I put the logo on some of my web sites - it has just the right shape for being fit snugly down in the lower right corner of any web page :) (here's one example: http://www.twelfthnight.se/ff3/home.php)

48. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58691 by adonais on July 25, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Great comment #58689 by Lil_Xunzian, well said. Hedges's article can be easily summed up as: sophistry, obfuscation, and intellectually dishonest. Another "my religion isn't what he's attacking" type of apologist.

49. Despite what the scholars say, God isn't dead yet

Comment #43888 by adonais on May 23, 2007 at 3:30 am

Enh. So it is to this "poetic dimension of the spiritual life" that Dawkins and Onfray et al should be looking for evidence of God? Did it pass dear Rachael by that this is the central question raised by atheists? Not, I'd venture, the questionable but ultimately irrelevant creed of historical (i.e. stone-f*cking dead) megalomaniacs, but the non-existence of a personal god? But alas this is the question which no defender of the faith has the guts to grapple with.

And: "the readiness of 'rational' scientific types to help mad regimes to deliver untold suffering to millions." ??? Methinks she got her history backwards somehow, or is otherwise confused about the term "rational." Let no one waste another synapse on this buffoon.

50. The God Delusion

Comment #21786 by adonais on February 11, 2007 at 5:13 am

Orr wrote: "It's one thing to think carefully about religion and conclude it's dubious. It's another to string together anecdotes and exercises in bad philosophy and conclude that one has resolved subtle problems."

I thought rather the latter is what theists have been doing for thousands of years. It's hard to see what rationale Orr may have in mind when attempting to shift the errors of his own peerage to Dawkins. The problem facing anyone serious about investigating religion is that, well - it pretty much amounts to anecdotes and bad philosophy, so what is a scientist supposed to do with it?