601. Fleabytes

Comment #142172 by Dr Benway on March 12, 2008 at 5:37 am

mikejswalker, you can't have a productive debate with a person who won't agree to rules of evidence. You can hang out, schmooze, watch TV, eat, drink, tell jokes, but no debate is possible.

Many theists assume the evidence is there because they've not thought deeply about the issues. Debate can be productive with such people, as it can raise their awareness of the evidentiary problem. For example, many are taught that Moses wrote the pentateuch. They've never heard of "J" or the "Elohimist" or "Priestly" writers. They may do a bit of googling on their own to find out more, and so learn that Biblical literalism is silly.

602. Fleabytes

Comment #142160 by Dr Benway on March 12, 2008 at 5:11 am

Richard Morgan: "Where were you when the boys were taking their "O" levels?"

Assuming your side of the story is accurate, your ex wife's statement is unfair to you. She wants to have her cake and eat it too. She took the initiative to move away, to lie to you about her whereabouts. She cannot then blame you for your lack of involvement.

Strategically, it can be to your advantage to pretend you don't notice mistreatment. But don't kid yourself about it. Don't bend over backwards to defend it.

Ask yourself this question: If the shoe was on the other foot, would I do what this other person has done to me?

If the answer is, "Not in a million years," that's a big red flag suggesting that you may be dealing with a pod person - someone who looks human, but isn't fully capable of mutuality and empathy. Beware! Watch yer back!

603. Fleabytes

Comment #142154 by Dr Benway on March 12, 2008 at 4:47 am

mikejswalker: we have to do a fuck of a lot better than "show us the evidence'. Hold back those rockets, let's talk about it over a beer.

Well I don't own any rockets. I have many theist friends, and sharing a beer is always nice.

But this is the fight: the authority of evidence or the authority of special privilege.

There aren't two camps or groups here. All humans are our enemies and our allies, as we all are prone to grant authority where it is not deserved.

We could have wiped polio from the earth. Thanks to the loony anti-vaccination crowd peddling in fear and conspiracy against the weight of the evidence, we're stuck with that horrible disease.

I'm not moving the goal posts. I'm not reframing the argument. We must have evidence that we can properly weigh. No one gets a pass.

604. Fleabytes

Comment #142147 by Dr Benway on March 12, 2008 at 4:25 am

clearthinker: "Besides which I do not speak for God. He can speak for himself."

Then STFU you lying bastard. Get out of the way and allow God speak to us directly. You're no credit to the Christian cause.

I've been here a year. It's always the same with you. The distortions and slippery meanings initially seem small, as with the "comission" issue, or your misrepresentation of Genesis regarding "chaos" at the beginning. But it never ends. Never.

Never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never.

And it never will. The music of truth is all around us. Sadly, you are tone deaf. And you don't realize your deficit.

605. Fleabytes

Comment #142065 by Dr Benway on March 11, 2008 at 8:20 pm

robotoholic:

Serious question - what do you guys do with your spare time- how do you not get beers or booze?- what else do you do? - and is that an addiction in itself?

What is this thing "spare time" you speak of?

- laundry
- floors
- dishes
- cooking
- cat boxes
- bird feeders
- sweep porch and steps
- get groceries
- taxes
- CMEs, journals
- piles of mail
- how do I get on that "no junk mail" list?
- overdue reports to finish
- EMR program needs constant tweaking
- troll Dawkins' site
- translate Bible into LOLcat
- catch up on design sites like mocoloco
- download stuff from audible.com
- LED project
- silent PC project
- home office over garage project
- rec room in basement project
- husbands friends over to play games
- Car Talk
- This American Life
- House

I enjoy 1-2 beers with dinner, but not every night. Drinking makes me sleepy. For this reason I could never be much of an alcoholic. Don't have the energy for downers.

Good luck, robotoholic.

606. Fleabytes

Comment #141779 by Dr Benway on March 11, 2008 at 7:35 am

clearthinker: That is as logical as saying that when you defend science you are defending Mengele's experimentation on Jewish children.

Actually, Mengele sits on your side of the table. Like you, he accepted a number of dodgy ideas without a proper evidentiary basis. In his case, the unfounded ideas concerned the "Jewish race." In your case, the unfounded ideas concern Yahweh.

When you assert the right to speak for God, you extend that same right to everyone else, including Osama Bin Laden.

607. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #141569 by Dr Benway on March 10, 2008 at 4:42 pm

Mark1958:

Here are some images taken from the Stanford Event
http://www.pbase.com/markay/dawkins_krauss

Nice pics. Krauss has gone far in spite of his apparent color blindness, so good on him!

608. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141284 by Dr Benway on March 10, 2008 at 8:32 am

Can you guess who I am? I gave several hints, my avatar should be the biggest one.

Gay Jesus?

609. Fleabytes

Comment #141267 by Dr Benway on March 10, 2008 at 8:13 am

Corylus: Have to say though that one thing that I do find really reprehensible is 'concern trolling'. Why start off a relationship (even if it only an internet discussion) with a lie? Whatever happened to 'the truth will set you free'? I simply do not see any good reason for doing that.

Why do they do it?

Perhaps some believe that their ideas won't get a fair hearing if they present them wearing the hat of a theist.

From my vantage point, religious propositions are merely one set of poorly supported claims in a much wider set of popular, dodgy notions. Claims about Jesus do not seem special in this light. See below:

A man named Jesus died on a cross for our sins.
Muhammad was God's last and greatest prophet.
Thimerosal causes autism.
Antidepressants don't work any better than a placebo.
9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration.
The moon walks were faked.
Antibiotics help you get better faster when you have a cold.
Doctors don't learn much about nutrition in medical school.
Psychoanalytic psychotherapy is an effective treatment for OCD.
The flu shot will make you sick.
There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The Pope is the antichrist.
Global warming doesn't exist.
Global warming exists, but has nothing to do with human activity.

"Let's look at the evidence" may be a debate stopper. But there is no other way to procede.

If I were trying to sell a wobbly claim and someone asked me for evidence, what would be my next move? Of course I'd accuse my opponent of bad faith, of bias, of unwarranted contempt toward me or my idea. At of course, at that point, my opponent would feel contempt toward me. And I would deserve his contempt.

And I'd convince a few wooly headed who wished for my idea to be true that I was not receiving a fair hearing.

So it goes. There is no other way forward.

610. Fleabytes

Comment #141203 by Dr Benway on March 10, 2008 at 6:59 am

3 strikes and your out seems strange to me.

I'm not rigid about the number three. How does it work in cricket?

We wouldn't treat a child with contempt. And I think that is what we are dealing with sometimes.

I agree and I don't actually feel contempt toward anyone. I'm not really wired like that. When someone mistreats me, I typically feel more anxious than angry. I have to do a bit of method acting to get the anger going when I need it.

Contempt aside, I don't think any adult would allow a child to kick him in the shins again and again. Forceful punishment of bad behavior is sometimes necessary.

Some people, particularly those brought up to "turn the other cheek," don't stop abuse quickly enough, and so feed the sadists among us.

It's an art more than a science, knowing when to shift from patient dialog and "oh that's no slight; just a bit of friendly kidding" and "he's not learned the rules of civil discourse yet" and "he seems to have overlooked my question" and "perhaps he didn't understand me" to "liar, your pants are on fire."

I saw a debate on this site between Hitchens and a rabbi. In the context of trying to establish some credibility with the audience regarding his understanding of evolutionary theory, the rabbi bragged that he'd debated Dawkins at Oxford. In another thread Dawkins said that this rabbi moderated a couple of debates, but hadn't actually been a participant.

I haven't had time to double-check the rabbi's claim to make sure I heard him correctly. But if he did say he'd "even debated Dawkins," I'd say that's contemptible. I'd demand that he correct his misstatement, even if he is only a child.

611. Out of the Blue

Comment #140999 by Dr Benway on March 9, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Evolution does not select for minds that work with fear as an abstraction...

Until the moment when creature A must provoke in creature B, who doesn't see the tiger, the impending experience of the tiger.

612. Fleabytes

Comment #140983 by Dr Benway on March 9, 2008 at 11:59 am

Don't confuse facts with objectives. Reason helps us sort fact from fiction. It establishes what *is*. What ought to be is another matter.

613. Fleabytes

Comment #140977 by Dr Benway on March 9, 2008 at 10:30 am

^I'm defining "toxic" as "harmful actions resulting from erroneous ideas."

Of course people can have an accurate understanding of reality and still do harmful things.

Two separate problems: nutters and assholes. Filtering out the nutters won't necessarily save us from the assholes. Still, that's no reason not to try to filter out the nutters.

614. Out of the Blue

Comment #140970 by Dr Benway on March 9, 2008 at 9:30 am

Consciousness may be something like, "Look what I was thinking 300 milliseconds ago."

615. Fleabytes

Comment #140967 by Dr Benway on March 9, 2008 at 8:56 am

We speak of them in tones of contempt.

Well, many from the theist side throw down insults in their very first post.

Among those who aren't insulting from the start, I try to respond in a civil manner. Eventually a great many begin to cheat the rules. That starts the "three strikes rule." After repeated attempts to get the person to stick to the topic at hand, the conversation shifts to what's wrong with the person. Seems natural to me.

I think most theists debate in order to reassure themselves of their faith. The mere fact of "debate" provides enormous reassurance. After all, it says in the Bible people won't believe what you tell them. Gosh, it's amazing how accurate the Bible can be.

Imagine if someone argued, "I don't believe in calculus. I know those "s" shaped thingies are just bollocks." Imagine hiring a meeting hall for a public debate on the issue. From that social reaction to the "questioning of this so-called calculus," the anti-calculus argument would accumulate more esteem that it ought.

616. Fleabytes

Comment #140965 by Dr Benway on March 9, 2008 at 8:41 am

polydactyl: Similarly euthanansia and abortion are still thorny issues: they can be argued for rationally, but conflict radically with religious positions. So are the 'rational candies' always non-toxic?

Reason is the only method we have for separating fact from fiction.

When you defend "religion" you are defending Osama bin Laden's ideology as well as your particular favorite set of unfounded assertions.

617. Out of the Blue

Comment #140839 by Dr Benway on March 8, 2008 at 6:29 pm

...cuz that would enable us to make a better Whopper!

I can haz?

618. Fleabytes

Comment #140837 by Dr Benway on March 8, 2008 at 6:24 pm

clodhopper, I like the box of chocolates analogy.

To expand:

A traditional factory produces something called "Ye Olde Sweets." Over 90% of the candies are fairly good. A few make certain people sick, and occasional pieces cause a strange reaction in some that results in an irrisistible urge to kill someone.

Then a new factory springs up making something called Reason's Pieces. It's pretty good stuff. Absolutely no mass murders in any box.

Sadly, many chocolate lovers have grown attached to Ye Olde Sweets and resist making the change. They point to all the delicious bon bons that never did anyone any harm. They're angry with the Reason's Pieces supporters, who "insist on condemning all of Ye Olde Sweets confections, when only a very few cause any problems."

619. Out of the Blue

Comment #140833 by Dr Benway on March 8, 2008 at 6:03 pm

Another important facet of this sentient AI is the ability to really, and truly, modify its own programming, and to design future versions of itself.

Why would it want to do that?

620. Out of the Blue

Comment #140828 by Dr Benway on March 8, 2008 at 5:50 pm

...the ability to "fork" copies of itself

Perhaps. But like identical twins, with every passing second the copy will become more unlike the original. There are just too many forks, each with too many paths.

621. Out of the Blue

Comment #140825 by Dr Benway on March 8, 2008 at 5:31 pm

But there still must be some wires which are pre-thickened, and others which are pre-shrunk, to get those reflexes...

Yes, there's a fair amount of information processing power present at birth.

There are repeating teams of neurons standing in columns in the cortex (and the retina). Some inhibit; some amplify, and the whole column inputs and outputs to nearby areas and far off areas.

There are systems for mirroring processes in one hemisphere to the corresponding area in the other hemisphere.

The neocortex largely inhibits the rest of the nervous system. Damage the cortex and you do more stuff more often. But you will not get more done. You will, however, annoy more people.

To get a mind that we would recognise, we may have to give it human experiences from the earliest stages.

At the very least, we must get it moving, and must provide it with objectives and an internal reinforcement system.

To make a machine that seems human, we must program it to value communication events that are mutually rewarding.

622. Out of the Blue

Comment #140816 by Dr Benway on March 8, 2008 at 4:59 pm

10,000,000,000,000,000 synapse operations per second is pretty complex.

623. Out of the Blue

Comment #140813 by Dr Benway on March 8, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Imagine it's like this: the DNA says, "fill up this empty room with wires, floor to ceiling." Over time, the wires that get used grow fatter and the ones that don't get used thin out until they vanish. Experience thus creates identifiable circuits the DNA never imagined.

624. Out of the Blue

Comment #140806 by Dr Benway on March 8, 2008 at 4:26 pm

The DNA doesn't have to know everything. The environment, including the self-created environment of neighboring neurons, alters DNA expression.

And there are many ways to solve the same problem. No two brains likely solve many problems in quite the same way, although the output of these brains might seem identical.

625. Out of the Blue

Comment #140799 by Dr Benway on March 8, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Humans come with several inborn motor reflexes, such as grasping, sucking, stepping, Moro, Babinski, etc.

Humans also experience cyclic states of discomfort that provoke increased activity and interaction with the environment.

Relief from discomfort is associated with activity in the nucleus accumbens, which inputs to the hippocampus and prefrontal areas involved in memory and the initiation of motor schemas - i.e., "you just did a good thing."

Thus human babies learn to interact successfully with their environment.

Many robots have servo mechanisms for modifying their own behavior given certain conditions. More independent, complex machines will require several simultaneous objectives and a general "that was good/that wasn't good" system operating across all those objectives.

We will define what is "good" for these machines on a basic level. Likewise, "what is good" was provided to us before we every became self-aware.

626. Out of the Blue

Comment #140790 by Dr Benway on March 8, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Think of the value system as an input, like a mouse or keyboard. The input is determined by a self-assessment procedure which compares some state of affairs against a predetermined value.

1. Equip the machine with an appendage that can grasp objects.

2. Program it to reflexively grasp objects presented within a couple of feet of the appendage.

3. Program it to value grasping and holding the object as it moves it about in its hand, and to "dislike" dropping the object prematurely.

4. Associate motor output just prior to running the self-assessment routine with the results of the self-assesment.

Over time, the machine will learn to modify its own grasp reflex to accommodate mugs, raisins, or ping pong balls, accordingly.

627. Out of the Blue

Comment #140780 by Dr Benway on March 8, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Steve: I am not sure what you mean by that phrase - could you explain it further?

By reinforcement I mean "you just did a good thing" or "you just did a bad thing," and all the shades of joy and sorrow in between.

628. Out of the Blue

Comment #140719 by Dr Benway on March 8, 2008 at 12:30 pm

For this particular project, there won't be a programmer setting these sorts of algorithms.

The machine will just sit there doing nothing unless it's programmed with some sort of internal reinforcement system.

629. Crossing the Divide

Comment #140715 by Dr Benway on March 8, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Godfrey's father eventually asked that he stop mentioning evolution, as the topic was too upsetting to the family, who believe that their afterlife depends on embracing creationism.

A statement like that would have helped me out of Christianity sooner. It's just impossible to accept. What if it were this:

...who believe that their afterlife depends on embracing string theory.

630. Out of the Blue

Comment #140698 by Dr Benway on March 8, 2008 at 11:36 am

RSP: As I understand it, this simulated brain would have no stimulus and more importantly no biological chemicals to create emotions right?

There's nothing special about a wet medium as opposed to a dry medium for information.

Emotion is an organizing program for motor schemas. Schemas associated with positive emotion have a higher probability of disinhibition as compared to schemas associated with negative emotion.

The programmer might set general parameters for output, such as "A human smile just after your do something means what you did was positive." We won't know how the machine *feels* when a human smiles. But its behavior will appear to us as though it *likes it* when someone smiles.

631. Fleabytes

Comment #140678 by Dr Benway on March 8, 2008 at 10:29 am

OT -

I just read a medical code of ethics statement which states doctors on the webs should "refrain from engaging in or condoning personal attacks." There are cases of net personalities getting outed to employers and others leading to varieties of brouhaha.

Sigh. Dogooders are always tring to take away the fun.

I have my own code:
1. don't throw the first punch
2. troll for the sake of truth and justice, never for evil

632. Fleabytes

Comment #140649 by Dr Benway on March 8, 2008 at 8:11 am

whatthe?: (I reply) Hmmm. You concede that you cannot defend your position yet you demand that I offer proof for mine.

No. I made it clear that I am not asserting a positive belief that requires a defense.

Is English a second language? Or are you the sort who twists words to suit yourself? I've no patience for the latter.

Your evidence for your God is the argument from design. If you understood natural selection, you wouldn't accept this argument.

But let's imagine there was a designer who set the constants of the universe at the moment of the big bang. Not much follows from that. It's still a long walk to "God hates fags" or "kill the infidel."

633. Fleabytes

Comment #140558 by Dr Benway on March 7, 2008 at 9:26 pm

Ephesians 5

Ceiling Cat haz teh Whup Ass
1 Be liek Ceiling Cat, cuz u noes he luvs u. 2 and luv teh uthr kittehs leik Jebus luvz u. Membr Jebus give hiz life an even all hiz cheezburgerz fur u. Dat nice prezent from Jebus smell leik fresh cookies out de oven to Ceiling Cat. 3 Now wen I sais "luv" I iz not talkin bout goin in heetz! An I iz not talkin bout luvin cookies so much u taekz em wid out askin! Ceiling Cats kittehs not liek dat. 4 Do not sai liek teh Tom Cats, "Hai secksy puss, show me sum ur tail..." DAT BE UBSEEN! Ceiling Cat NO WANT UBSEEN TALK! 5 Iz tellin u de troof: no nasteh, greedeh kitteh gonna get teh cookie from Jebus or Ceiling Cat. 6 Kittehs who say, "Iz not nasteh; iz natral" iz lyin. Ceilin Cat don wanna heer dat kind uf talk. An Ceilin Cat got big can whup ass readeh fur kittehs who do not do wut He sai. 7 So do not hang wid de slutteh kittehs.

Lite. U haz it now
8 U iz kitteh of Lite, metafurkleh speekin. So live leik a kitteh uf teh Lite, k? 9 Lite haz froots, mix-metafurkleh speekin. Dat fruit is gudnes, rityusnes, an troof 10 Wut maekz teh Loard happi? 11 If u sai, "lite frootz" u iz correct. If u sai "dark froot" u failz! "Dark" iz nuther metafur, an means stuf Ceiling Cat no wantz. If u see kitteh wid dark froot, u tell uthr kittehs bout him. 12 Srsly, iz totly embarasin wut bad kittehs do wen dey finks no wun iz lookin, LOLs! 13 If u see bad kitteh doin bad, u tell uthr kittehs to go see. If u haz camera, maek YouTube video. 14 All teh kittehs lookin will maek bad kitteh totly embarised. Der iz paper sais, "Waik up, sleepeh kitteh! U iz not dead. Jebus shines lite on u an taek picture, hahaha!" 15 So don be stoopid. 16 Time coems u can do gud, u bettr do gud an not evil liek uthr kittehs. 17 An don be silly. Fink bout wut teh Loard wantz. 18 Do not roll in teh catnipz, wot maeks u act stoopid an getz u in trubble. U shud let Hovr Cat mark u wid hiz scent. 19 An no secksy talk, srsly! Insted u shud sing all teh tiem bout how awsum Ceiling Cat iz. 20 An sai thx to ur Daddy in de Ceiling for evreh thing, an thx to Jebus. 21 No fites nether, cuz u respect Jebus, K?

Wimmins an teh mens
22 Wimmins, u do what ur mens sai, liek u do what Ceiling Cat sais. 23 Teh mens pwns teh wimmins liek Jebus pwns teh kittehs he went an gots from de bushes nstuff. 24 Teh kittehs do wut Jebus sais, an u wimmins got to do wut ur mens sai. Mens is teh boss of teh wimmins, an teh mens no want back talk, srsly. 25 Now mens shud luv teh wimmins, like Jebus luv teh littl kittehs.26 Mens shud cleen teh wimmins up an wash teh wimmins brains wid words. 27 Den u see teh wimmins iz all cleened an glowin an eyez iz glazed liek nuthin goin on inside. 28 Den mens gonna luvs teh wimmins leik dey is a body part. 29 D00ds, u feedz an cares for yurselfs, rite? Well dats how u cares for teh wimmins. Iz liek Jebus carin for teh littl kittehs, puttin down plate uf milk an noms. 30 Laidys membr iz not bad bein pwned. We all iz pwned by Jebus. 31 Der iz paper sais, "A mens moevz out teh moms basement wen him gets a wimminz, but he don eated her." 32 Wai iz liek dis? Wai? I dunno. Iz leik Jebus, he don nom de kittehs nether. 33 So mens don nom de wimmins. But wimmins do what u iz told, kthx.

634. Fleabytes

Comment #140422 by Dr Benway on March 7, 2008 at 9:31 am

Steve: The opinions and writings of respected local religious authorities based on traditional interpretations of words in a holy book.

Well, I'd class this under "ruling" or "opinion" or "law" rather than "evidence."

A man stands before a Sharia court accused of stealing a bike. He'll present evidence in his favor; the prosecutor will do the same.

I can't imagine anyone making a distinction between "religious" and "non-religious" evidence in such a case.

635. Fleabytes

Comment #140400 by Dr Benway on March 7, 2008 at 8:56 am

Umm... Sharia anybody?

Ok. What does religious evidence look like, as opposed to non-religious evidence, under Sharia?

All you have to do is accept that God exists and then you will be able to see His glory and His hand in His creation all around you.

Many do just that, but find no experience that can't be explained in more ordinary, psychological, non-supernatural terms.

636. Fleabytes

Comment #140388 by Dr Benway on March 7, 2008 at 8:33 am

Well, two theists may not. Shouldn't we just be clear that there is only one way of "knowing": that by which the evidence is in favour of a proposition to a high degree?

There is a "way of knowing" that can't be easily countered: uncorroborated direct personal knowledge. We don't have to argue against this way of knowing. We merely have to assign it a lower evidentiary status as compared to well corroborated information.

Theists and non-theists use the same rules of evidence, althought in the context of a debate with an atheist a theist may pretend otherwise.

Name one courtroom where a distiction is made between religious and non-religious evidence.

637. Fleabytes

Comment #140375 by Dr Benway on March 7, 2008 at 8:11 am

^Right. But the believer then is left with a serious problem. Without an evidentiary standard, there's no defense against toxic religious claims.

638. Fleabytes

Comment #140370 by Dr Benway on March 7, 2008 at 8:02 am

Quetz: ...don't forget that there are also "other ways of knowing". A guy I debate with uses that one a LOT.

I used the term "collective understanding" for this reason. A shared understanding requires at least two persons voting to accept some proposition as a fact. The two parties, of necessity, will establish a few rules of evidence between them.

Example: Sometimes one of us will see X; sometimes both of us will see X together; sometimes both of us will see X independently. We'll have some confidence that X is real in the first case, a little more in the second case, and a lot more in the third case.

639. Fleabytes

Comment #140368 by Dr Benway on March 7, 2008 at 7:54 am

Paula: ...it isn't appropriate to demand natural evidence for supernatural claims. How do you respond to that one?

So say those who stone their daughters for holding hands with the wrong boy.

640. Fleabytes

Comment #140353 by Dr Benway on March 7, 2008 at 7:28 am

Comment #139618 by Bonzai: The truth claims, which Richard Dawkins thinks are the most important part of religion, IMO are almost an add on for the sake of completeness for many believers, they were told they have to buy the whole package, which they do, but many barely open the wraps.

I distinquish between people and ideologies. I'm opposed to false ideologies. I'm not necessarily opposed to people, who may or may not understand and live the ideologies they claim to embrace.

Moderate or liberal religionists often stand up in support of religion generally. They seem not to realize that their defense applies not only to the helpful aspects of their favorite religion, but also to Osama bin Laden. They haven't thought through a method for separating what, from their vantage point, seems like benign religion from more toxic religious practice.

In fact there's only one method that will work: religious claims must be subject to the same rules of evidence we apply in all other areas of collective understanding.

641. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #140341 by Dr Benway on March 7, 2008 at 6:59 am

wooter: How do you overcome this fear of being gone forever?

It isn't easy, wooter. But the fear of many things can fade with time.

When I was young, I remember first hearing about mastectomies for breast cancer. It seemed to me like an impossible horror. But at my age now, although I'd be freaked and upset for a time, I'm sure I'd gradually come to terms with the experience if I had to go through it. It helps a lot to have people who care about you around.

Humans invented something called "compassion" to help with the tough times. They also invented denial, escapism, and magical thinking. All these things help somewhat. But compassion works the best.

642. Fleabytes

Comment #139909 by Dr Benway on March 6, 2008 at 5:11 pm

Kittins uv Lite
17 K, if u driftin off, wake up an lisen now. Dis imortant: don act leik teh stinky kittehs!
18 Stinky kittehs no haz lite. Lite iz metafur, means nowlege uf Ceiling Cat an Jebus.
19 Stinky kittehs jes do watevr dey wantz cuz dey don care bout Ceiling Cat. Dey alwais goen heetz, eat all teh cheezburgers, an fites.
20 But u noes Jebus don act leik dat.
21 U noes troof bout Jebus, K?
22 U iz not spose te fites, an yowls, nom all teh cheezbugers, an go crazy in heetz liek u uzed to.
23 Jebus no wantz an u iz leik him now.
24 Ceiling Cat changed u into gud kitteh inside.
25 So don BS uthr kittehs (i noes is contradiction u is gud but still need me tellin u not to lie; oh well).
26 If uthr kitteh piss u off, be caerful u don make invisbl err. An stop bein pissed if de sun is goen down.
27 When u iz pissed, debil kitteh can taek ovr ur mind.
28 An WTF is wid kittehs bogarten all teh cheezburgers?!! Dat sheetz gotta stop, srsl. U shud hunt and bringz back noms fer de littl kittens or de sick kittehs.
29 I dun wanna heer no moer trash talk from u kittehs nether, even if iz funny. Dat bad fer kitteh self esteem.
30 Don make Hovr Cat cry. Membr, he marked u so Ceiling Cat noes u iz Hiz.
31 U ragers an haters got to chill, srsly.
32 Be nice to each udder, jes liek Jebus be nice to u, k?

643. Fleabytes

Comment #139907 by Dr Benway on March 6, 2008 at 5:04 pm

They say the Velvet Underground's first album only sold 100 copies, but everyone who bought that album started a band.

This Dawkins community may be a similar font of inspiration.

I was out with a migraine today. No real work done, but I drafted a translation of Ephesians 4. First part:

No fites in Jebus tairtory
1 U is marked wid Ceiling Cats scent so evrbody noes u iz totly pwnd by Him. So do not be embarasin Ceiling Cat!
2 U gotz to be humble leik littl kittin. No fites. No meows if u haz to wait fer stufz, or if uthr kittehs gettin on ur nerves. U gotz to act leik you don mind.
3 Even if kittehs iz askin fer it, do not fite, srsly.
4 All kittehs in Ceiling Cats tairtory no fites. Member wuntz u wuz out, now u iz in. Same fer all Ceiling Cats kittehs.
5 We all gots one Loard who pwns us wid Hiz scent.
6 We all gots one Daddy, an He iz de boss of us.
7 But each kitteh get a cookie from Jebus.
8 Der iz paper sais, "When Jebus climb up to de ceiling, he carried de kittehs, and he gived the kittehs a cookie."
9 Now, if Jebus goed up to de ceiling, he gots to get back down to de floor. Dat iz jes commin sentz.
10 Jebus goed up and he caem down, so he been both plaises.
11 Jebus gived some cookies to de old kittehs
12 so dey kin halp de new kittehs
13 an all kittehs kin be groed up kittehs noin bout Jebus an Ceiling Cat.
14 Then we iz not itteh bitteh babeh kittehs no moer, all fraid of scary noises nstuffs, an totly gulbal an lettin meen kittehs taik ar cheezburgers.
15 Instead, we iz leik pride uv big, roarin lions wid Jebus de king.
16 An all Jebus kittehs luvs each uther an halps each uther. An each do him job, maekin de pride strong.

644. Fleabytes

Comment #139134 by Dr Benway on March 5, 2008 at 7:19 am

Stryer, I'm not trying to be cryptic. I'll go back over the exchange to clarify my meaning here.

I said that gullibility is bad. To underscore my point, I quoted a fictional character, "Skeptic Cat" saying: "OMG WTF??!!1! Coolaid??? NO WANT! Srsly!"

"Coolaid" is a reference to Jonestown, where a large group of cult members of the People's Temple apparently all knowingly and willingly drank Coolaid laced with cyanide and died.

Steve responded with "LOL. I can haz massacre," which is pretty funny. Here, I make other similar funnies:

"One massacre to go please."
"I'll take three massacres, hold the onions."

If none of this strikes you as silly-funny, then your brain simply is not like mine.

You responded to Steve asking if he was talking street slang. I posted a link about LOLcat speak, to show you more about the language which is more like anthropomorphized cats speaking pidgin English than street talk.

Perhaps I could have been clearer. I could have said, "No, it's not street slang. Read this link."

Now I'm late and I really have to run, but I hope this helps.

645. Fleabytes

Comment #139113 by Dr Benway on March 5, 2008 at 6:49 am

Styrer, I have a weakness for cute stuff, silly stuff, and irreverent stuff. Thus I find LOLcats a trifecta of joy. I make a daily pit stop at http://icanhascheezburger.com/ for teh funneh.

The fact that people are translating the Bible into LOL speak is awesome. And powerfully subversive. The project may do as much for atheism as The God Delusion.

Do not feel stupid if LOLcats ain't your cuppa. My husband says, "I get the joke; don't see why I have to keep getting it."

To each his own.

Now I'm off to do some real work.

646. Fleabytes

Comment #139105 by Dr Benway on March 5, 2008 at 6:23 am

Comment #139101 by Styrer:

Street slang?

http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=How_to_speak_lolcat

647. Fleabytes

Comment #139103 by Dr Benway on March 5, 2008 at 6:20 am

Comment #138985 by MaxD, quoting a believer:

Discussing religion is more like discussing the humanities or finding something compelling in one of Shakespeares characters.

No disagreement here.

I'm happy to encourage a shifting status for religion, from a position of authority over facts about the world to a branch of the humanities wherein people seek answers to questions such as, "what is the good life?" We can make common cause with believers who think like this.

However, I note that the more liberal believers often try to have things both ways. They use a sophisticated, metaphorical language with us but revert to literalism with their co-religionists. Or they stand up in defense of religion generally without taking pains to define the boundary between good religion and toxic religion.

The only defense against toxic religion that I can see is in removing the special status of religion with respect to truth claims. Religious claims must be subject to the ordinary rules of evidence we apply in every other area of collective understanding.

648. Fleabytes

Comment #139085 by Dr Benway on March 5, 2008 at 5:37 am

clearthinker:

The theists prefer to fight over metaphysical matters.

Another Homer Simpson moment. Doh! And when RD writes a book about God is that not metaphysics?

You seemed to have missed my point, clearthinker. I'll try again.

A God who intervenes in the universe will leave evidence. The evidence may or may not be easy to find. If God moves one atom a hair to the left and nothing more, I suppose we'll never know of it.

A God who makes a woman pregnant, mind-melds with a few humans, walks on water, reanimates dead bodies, tickles the limbic system of His worshippers, answers prayers, hovers around a book to protect it from bad translators, and so on, will leave lots of evidence of His particular actions.

Humans are often crap witnesses for many reasons. Thus we've established rules of evidence to help sort fact from fiction. We generally don't allow uncorroborated hearsay testimony in criminal trials, for example. Journalists are supposed to seek independent corroboration of novel information before printing it, particularly if the information is damaging to some party.

We have a word for people who believe stories without applying basic rules of evidence: gullible. Unvaccinated kids get polio thanks to gullibility. Countries start wars thanks to gullibility. Gullibility kills. It is a very bad thing.

The believers who come to RD.net are often shy about stating their particular beliefs. Ask a question like, "So are homosexuals going to hell?" and they'll dance around.

The believers play even more games when asked for evidence in support of their beliefs. A favorite game is to go round and round about how there is something rather than nothing, the fine tuning of the physical constants, consciousness, word games around the notion of "objective" verses "subjective", and so on.

But a win for a believer regarding abstract or metaphysical problems doesn't actually help their side much. It's a long walk from dualism or idealism to "Christ died for our sins."

We all know the reason for the dance: there ain't no evidence. Still, the dance goes on.

"Take my word for it" is not a good argument. "My beliefs make me feel good" is not a good argument. "Shared beliefs hold a community together" is not a good argument. There are many ways to feel good and many ways to build a community that don't require gullibility.

As Skeptic Cat says, "OMG WTF??!!1! Coolaid??? No want, srsly!"

649. Fleabytes

Comment #138293 by Dr Benway on March 4, 2008 at 7:00 am

Oh one could list so many flea irritations.

The "Dawkins' followers" annoys because he's been asked not to call us that, but he does so anyway.

I dislike the term because it's not true. I'm not a follower of Dawkins. I happen to agree with him regarding belief without evidence, and I admire the way he communicates his ideas. But I don't need him to live my life.

I also dislike the term because of its implicit message. Robertson is accusing us of being just like the religious believers, the flock following their shephard. The "you're just like us" argument conveys a disturbing sense of envy.

Why bring us down when you could simply bring your side up, Robertson? Your flock need only be followers for a short time if its shepherd were to teach independent thinking skills.

Teach the ordinary rules of evidence we use in court. Look up "evidence" and "hearsay" in Wikipedia, for a start. Explain why these rules are necessary.

Explain why we need to consider alternative hypotheses for events before settling upon one particular explanation. If someone prays for a good thing and that good thing happens, it might be God, or it might be chance, or it might be some other process at work. Challenge your flock to imagine ways to test such rival explanations.

Get them thinking and soon they won't need you to tell them what to think. Won't that be great?

650. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #138287 by Dr Benway on March 4, 2008 at 6:34 am

.





.