Comments by Wosret

851. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282324 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 3:16 am

143. Comment #282319 by Steve Zara

I'm not arguing that the idea of the supernatural is coherent, Steve. I'm saying that regardless of coherence, you cannot tell someone what their position or propositions are. That is Straw-maning. Even if your straw-man is a tougher opponent than they are.

852. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282321 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 3:13 am

141. Comment #282316 by Mark Jones

I think that the brain in a vat can be dismissed based on observation of people, and the world.

The world behaves far differently than people's minds do, or your own mind does. It has a consistency and coherence about it that a brain does not.

I think that contrasting the two allows one to conclude reasonably that a world that was merely all in your head, would not behave as we see the objective world behaving. Or at least we would not expect it to.

This is only circumstantial evidence, and perhaps not even very good circumstantial evidence, but I think that it is evidence as least no matter how slim. Which is more than the idea that we're brains in a vat has going for it.

853. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282317 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 3:07 am

140. Comment #282314 by Steve Zara

I agree that it doesn't exist, but I think you're Straw-maning them if you tell them what Supernaturalism means when they are the ones forwarding the concept.

You need to argue why their concept doesn't make sense to them each time, you can't just presuppose your redefintion even if you think that your arguments for doing so are correct.

Isn't that claiming victory in advance?

854. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282312 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 2:59 am

133. Comment #282305 by Steve Zara

To be fair, Steve, I'm not sure that I've heard your definition of "supernatural". I'm also not that sure how many supernaturalists you could get to agree to that.

855. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282309 by Wosret on November 12, 2008 at 2:53 am

It doesn't make sense to ask for a test for naturalism. Naturalism is what supernaturalism is suppose to usurp.

I have written else where in some length about the conspiracy theory of theism. The idea that there is no such thing as natural at all. Everything is contrived and designed as is to appear to operate self-sustainably, and things merely appear to be of natural origins. The truth being that there are super beings vying for our souls in the background, and all of reality is contrived to fool our perception.

It is the matrix theory of theism. Creationsim works on this conspiracy theory.

It cannot be disproved of course, but it is neither apparent, evident, or even intelligible an idea. What is asks is for everything we perceive and understand, and discover about the world to be ignored, and forgotten, because it was designed to fool us.

It strains credulity that people would even give such a loony idea a second thought, let alone plan their lives around it.

If you assume the above, then you're right. There is no test that could prove that reality is not deceptively designed supernaturally by some omnipotent being. It does not need to be disproven however, for it is the ravings of a mad man.

856. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282271 by Wosret on November 11, 2008 at 11:35 pm

478. Comment #282270 by root2squared

Yeah! I've always wanted to disappoint two women at the same time!

857. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282268 by Wosret on November 11, 2008 at 11:08 pm

455. Comment #282242 by cerebate

I think you're conflating criminal and civil law. They operate quite differently.

Besides, even in criminal law the nuances are generalized, and normative. Based on precedence. Also the time and money we are willing to put into criminal law is different because it has greater implications over society at large.

In any case, I think that Bonzai is right that what you suggest is simply impractical.

858. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282265 by Wosret on November 11, 2008 at 11:02 pm

456. Comment #282243 by Cartomancer

If anyone should get additional state benefits it's those of us who AREN'T able to secure a long term relationship, because we cannot reap the day-to-day financial benefits that couplehood brings.

Hear hear! Why doesn't society care about the weird and unlovable? Like me?

859. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282263 by Wosret on November 11, 2008 at 10:58 pm

452. Comment #282239 by cerebate

I agree with him. The problem is, as Bonzai points out, and has been arguing quite well in my opinion, the law is a wide brush. It must generalize and make normative judgments. All because an equal polygamous relationship can exist in theory doesn't mean that they do in practice. In practice, they are do not turn out like that.

860. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282260 by Wosret on November 11, 2008 at 10:54 pm

450. Comment #282237 by cerebate

I think you've begun to confuse the issue of polygamy and incest. We are speaking about the legality of incest relationships in any form, not just marriages.

861. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282233 by Wosret on November 11, 2008 at 10:22 pm

440. Comment #282226 by cerebate

Ah but it is clear that the relationship isn't causal.

Yes it is, that is what I've argued. It is the fact that the relationship is polygamous that makes it unequal. Carto even did some affection calculus for you.

862. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282230 by Wosret on November 11, 2008 at 10:18 pm

438. Comment #282224 by cerebate

No. I meant that knowing there might be problems would help the couple decide if they wanted to adopt instead. I doubt there are any tests that would determine a flaw 100% or that science wouldnt be able to come up with cures eventualy.

What they can tell you is if you share any dangerous recessive genes with the person you want to have children with. They can't tell you whether they will manifest themselves or not. Also, something rarely mentioned is that people that share a close relation not only have a higher change of sharing dangerous recessive genes, but they also have a higher chance of sharing beneficial recessive genes as well.

I would say the test would be something like a form you have to fill when you get married or a drug test for a job. Refuse to fill the form and you can get married elsewhere.
I'm not sure but aren't AIDS tests mandatory in some places when you want a state approved marriage?

I don't know if that is true or not, but I find it absurd if it is...I hate to break this to both you, and those that require AIDS tests for marriage...but people can have children, and sex when they aren't married. If anything, one would think that married couples are less likely to sleep around. I don't see how denying marriages in either case would help anything.

863. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282217 by Wosret on November 11, 2008 at 9:57 pm

427. Comment #282213 by Eric Blair

I believe that Bonzai was in agreement with me about the incest thing actually.

428. Comment #282214 by cerebate

If it could be shown that atheism was the cause, then yes.

864. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282215 by Wosret on November 11, 2008 at 9:54 pm

425. Comment #282211 by cerebate

You'd be willing to bar people from having children? What would you do about those that would not submit to testing? What would you do to women that were impregnated without having been given state permission?

Eugenics, in a voluntary form doesn't seem bad to me, but all of its examples of compulsory implementation throughout history are things most of us look back at with disgust.

865. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282207 by Wosret on November 11, 2008 at 9:35 pm

420. Comment #282206 by DarwinsPitbull

If they were true it would be why they couldn't have children perhaps. But I did offer a counter to that argument that you chose to ignore.

866. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282204 by Wosret on November 11, 2008 at 9:31 pm

415. Comment #282199 by cerebate

I can't answer for Bonzai, but since he sounded like he had the same objection to it that I do, I will explain what I mean by equality.

Equality as in under the law. In a just a civil society we want civil equality? Do we not? The same reason we (as in me, and those that have argued in opposition here) oppose Sharia courts, and are in support of same-sex marriage. We want equality. Equal rights and privileges.

I see polygamy as being counter to the above. It recognizes unequal relationships are legally valid and binding.

As Bonzai points out, and has been pointed out with regard to Sharia courts, they can do whatever they please legally. Two or more people can agree to any unequal, and unfair contract arbitration, or relationship (that are within the confines of the law) but that doesn't mean that society at large has to recognize, and sanction these unequal contracts.

867. Clever Monkeys

Comment #282193 by Wosret on November 11, 2008 at 8:50 pm

That prick.

868. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282190 by Wosret on November 11, 2008 at 8:40 pm

406. Comment #282178 by Bonzai

That is the same problem I have with polygamy. Also, on a personal note, I don't think it is romantic. Name me a good romance about polygamy?

869. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282187 by Wosret on November 11, 2008 at 8:33 pm

396. Comment #282013 by OakHarp

No, I don't think that there are any secular arguments against incest by itself. Though I do think that laws need to be in place to prevent sexual exploitation at the home.

Mutual, and grown adults though, I don't see a moral problem with.

Arguments about genetic problems are actually not strongly supported by the science, and even if they were relatives are not the only people that have a chance of carrying a dangerous recessive gene. People that are not related by any significant degree can still share dangerous recessive genes. If people want to argue from that angle, then they are talking about eugenics. At least in the form of people getting genetic compatibility tests done with potential lovers to make sure that they both do not share the same dangerous recessive gene.

870. The 'Great Debate' in Texas

Comment #281946 by Wosret on November 11, 2008 at 5:53 am

I'm not sure whether to cheer or be upset. I'm no fan of ID, but I actually like Berlinski -- if this is true, then I find that saddening.

871. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281842 by Wosret on November 11, 2008 at 12:14 am

I don't know the answer to this question. I don't even know what "free will" really is. I think before we can even begin to answer this question, we need to understand the nature of consciousness, and the nature of "decision" making in brains.

When asked about free will, there are so many unknowns, and questions about the very concept that I don't even know where to begin.

872. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #281803 by Wosret on November 10, 2008 at 9:25 pm

Where is Mitchell?

This is what everyone should be asking when I'm not around!

873. Cassini

Comment #281172 by Wosret on November 9, 2008 at 10:22 pm

95. Comment #280980 by ridelo

"There is most probably no god." We could speak with some authority after such an event...

Not if there were any homosexuals, feminists, or infidels around to blame.

874. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #281168 by Wosret on November 9, 2008 at 10:02 pm

173. Comment #281167 by MPhil

My mistake. I meant at the end of 2007, I got confused there. Yes only a year ago. I can imagine how much yours must have cost two years ago...

875. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #281166 by Wosret on November 9, 2008 at 9:55 pm

171. Comment #281165 by MPhil

I built this one at almost the exact same time. I put a thousand into it.

876. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #281164 by Wosret on November 9, 2008 at 9:36 pm

169. Comment #281162 by MPhil

Better than mine. I need to build a new one. I've had this one for almost a year now.

Machine name: Utena
Operating System: Windows Vista™ Ultimate Edition 64-bit
System Manufacturer: Custom
System Model: Custom
Processor: AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual Core Possessor 3800 2.01GHz
Memory: 4g RAM
DirectX Version: DirectX 10

Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GST 512 MB DDR3.
Mother Board: Win Fast NF4SK8AA:
Storage: (my oldest computer component, and I don't recall it's manufacturer) 300gb ATA device.
19" Widescreen 1440 by 990 LCD.

877. Obama will move to veto Bush laws

Comment #281159 by Wosret on November 9, 2008 at 9:00 pm

The oppressee has become the oppressor. As they said on the daily show.

878. Obama will move to veto Bush laws

Comment #281146 by Wosret on November 9, 2008 at 8:10 pm

All good news. I do hope to hear more good news as well. Perhaps the type of news Carto wants to hear...though somehow I am less than optimistic about that one.

879. Supernatural science: Why we want to believe

Comment #281135 by Wosret on November 9, 2008 at 7:35 pm

I'm curious though...now I don't agree that claiming anything is supernatural is justified ever. That includes ghosts and ESP and all of that nonsense, even if they were shown to be real...but bigfoot? UFOs? Those aren't even things we couldn't explain right now with little investigation, and would have nothing sufficiently unknown about them that we couldn't offer workable naturalistic explanations right now. I don't think they would be even difficult to explain, let alone couldn't be explained, and would make someone assert that they couldn't possibly have natural origins.

Just a thought.

880. Supernatural science: Why we want to believe

Comment #281134 by Wosret on November 9, 2008 at 7:16 pm

110. Comment #281124 by vampireangel4

The supernatural is an incoherent and meaningless concept. It purports that there are events that occur that cannot occur naturally. Anyone that makes the claim that the supernatural exists is also claiming to have a complete knowledge of nature, and to know what can and cannot happen by natural means.

Are you omniscient? On what basis do you purport to know what can and cannot occur naturally?

881. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #281087 by Wosret on November 9, 2008 at 3:54 pm

162. Comment #281083 by sbooder

Vista 64 bit ultimate.

It is pretty.

882. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #281084 by Wosret on November 9, 2008 at 3:49 pm

161. Comment #281079 by Paul Dunlop

I had no idea what those numbers meant. I didn't think they were percentages.

It is simple. A "large number" is ambiguous, and does not necessarily imply a large percentage.

If we have ten billion of something, then 10% of that is still a large number, but not a large percentage of the entirety.

883. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #281078 by Wosret on November 9, 2008 at 3:36 pm

158. Comment #281071 by Bonzai

I've often found that unsettling -- not the incompleteness theorem, because I didn't know about it -- but that having one's self as the standard by which everyone and thing else is judged is obviously problematic...but that is the way things are with regard to a lot. Formal systems that are the collaboration of many are best, but in absence of such systems, we are left to make judgments ourselves, and only with ourselves with which to weigh it against. Oh, bothersome.

884. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #281069 by Wosret on November 9, 2008 at 3:07 pm

156. Comment #281068 by Bonzai

If you aren't very rational then how could you be confident that you aren't very rational? You best just assume that you are, how could you lose?

That's what I do!

885. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #281066 by Wosret on November 9, 2008 at 2:59 pm

153. Comment #281063 by Paul Dunlop

Well, I'm not a very good person to judge, I'd suggest asking Steve, or Bonzai what they think the ratio is. They would be better equipped to judge than I would.

Just from my perspective of people I find to be impressively rational, I'd say maybe 30% of the people here.

886. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #281058 by Wosret on November 9, 2008 at 2:13 pm

128. Comment #280986 by Nova

I think that you're generalizing from the few dozen people you see hanging around the new atheist sites as being representative of most atheists. This is a mistake. Frankly this is the only place where I regularly meet rational atheists. Most atheists I meet in other places rarely have impressive rational skills.

Also, to be even more of a prick, a large number of the atheists I meet around this site are not impressively rational either, though a large number of them are.

These people are rational because they are geniuses, scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, or professionals in other fields that require rationalism to be preformed. I see nothing that indicates that their rationalism is related to their atheism, but rather their atheism is related to their rationalism.

887. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #281055 by Wosret on November 9, 2008 at 2:02 pm

120. Comment #280967 by Lightnin

There is no need to apologize to me, I didn't think you were being rude at all.

124. Comment #280979 by Nova

Maybe I expressed that wrong, I should have said atheists tend to have a higher degree of rationality per person than theists - surely you'd agree with that?

Sounds like the same thing to me. Can you support this? I think that atheists tend to be more educated (which there is data to support), but not necessarily rational, no. I haven't seen any studies suggesting that.

I'm saying almost all words have connotations as well as direct definitions.

A words connotation is contingent on the definition. Can you provide a definition of "atheist" which includes all of those connotations? If not, then I think that you have invented them and I not only have not heard them before, but don't agree that it is true.

888. Cassini

Comment #280960 by Wosret on November 9, 2008 at 2:49 am

87. Comment #280704 by Steve Zara

Stop it Steve...you're scaring me!

889. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #280959 by Wosret on November 9, 2008 at 2:47 am

114. Comment #280956 by ev-love

Those are just forum ranks. You increase your rank by posting on the forum. So many posts and your rank updates. They all start out lowly.

I use phpbb version 3 for the forum of my website. I believe they use version 2 here. Anyway I had to change the lowest rank on my forum because it was not well received. I thought it was funny anyway.

890. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #280958 by Wosret on November 9, 2008 at 2:41 am

113. Comment #280953 by Lightnin

And I bumped the button on my mouse that sends my browser back...

I hate it when that happens!! Whose idea was it to put those buttons on the mouse? They deserve painful reprisals!

Anyway, I didn't say people can't do things that don't make sense. All because there is a "queer community" that you don't have to be a "queer" to join doesn't mean that that makes any sense.

People do stuff all the time that doesn't make any sense. If P.Z. is using words interchangeably that are not equivalent or even related, and using words superfluously and misleadingly then I think he is wrong, and needs to clear that up. If however, as I suspect, he means exactly what he says, then I have the original problems I outlined with the idea.

891. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280946 by Wosret on November 9, 2008 at 1:21 am

1076. Comment #280945 by Dr Doctor

I don't think that he necessarily overemphasized the roll the US played, rather than only mentioning their roll, because the roll the other allied nations played was not relevant to the context?

At least that it how I read it.

892. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280943 by Wosret on November 9, 2008 at 12:34 am

1074. Comment #280942 by MPhil

Since you've outlined your views on Iraq, I feel sufficiently forced to reveal mine. I sent a rather lengthy PM to Bonzai about it a few hours ago, so I will just paste the relevant parts it in here. I don't address whether the US should leave or stay in Iraq, but I agree with your sentiments in this regard.

What I think of the war is that I was pretty damn close to being for it, WMDs or not. If I thought that we could reasonably, effectively, and with precision overthrow every dictatorship in the world, and grant democratic power, and self-sustainable infrastructures to all of these countries, then that is what I would do. It pains me deeply to hear about the horrors going on in the world, and the repression, and enslavement of women as property in so many countries. It tortures the soul. One can't act on emotions, and blind ideals alone though. I'd love to see a world society. A completely global democratic civilization, with no single leader, but a working collaboration of elected leaders from around the world. A political system of complete socialism. Complete equity for everyone. Where we worry about sustaining a healthy population, and the planet for future habitation. If it required the invasion and conquering of some countries, then that is what I would support.

This is all a pipe dream however. The US is incompetent and hardly the ideal society in the first place. We need to fix our own problems before we turn to other countries. My breaks are halted by the achievability of it all. I don't think that the war is equally contemptible from every vantage point, no. I think motivations, and goals of the people involved determine that (which means I also agree with you about the soldiers of axis nations during world war II, and Iraqis on the opposite side. They all aren't equally contemptible. A wide brush can't paint them all without understanding their circumstances and motivations). Legality is another story however, it is strictly an illegal and unjustified war. From every angle.

I think that it is terrible that we have to harm or kill anything, this doesn't mean that I think that harming and killing is always contemptible behavior. There are many many conceivable scenarios were it is the most moral action one could take. The circumstances, situation, and repercussions need to be weighed. Often we have to check our emotions, and be cold and analytical.

I deeply wanted to specify exactly what I thought, but I knew that it would just give Zero things to hide behind, and pretend he has a point, or an argument about something relevant to put forward. The idea of sharing my thoughts so that he may assess them and cast judgment leaves an unsavory taste in my mouth. That's right, I'd rather make my point and let people get the wrong idea about what I think than to just let it go. I'm an odd duck indeed.
.

893. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280940 by Wosret on November 9, 2008 at 12:08 am

1072. Comment #280939 by zeroangel

Are you clinically insane? How many times did I explain to you my point? Do I have to draw you a colouring book before you understand?

That’s not what you said though. You maligned countless soldiers and you got called on it.

This is a lie. Quote me saying anything remotely like that. All I did was call you on your yet to be justified smears. Showing that they served no other purpose than for you to demonize and moralize.

You are frankly delusional if you honestly think that you are at all right in this.

894. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280937 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 11:55 pm

1070. Comment #280936 by zeroangel

Please! Highroad? You mean by contributing nothing but smears to the conversation? Failing to address points, and willfully distorting what I said?

Some highroad. I'd hate to see what you consider playing dirty.

895. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280935 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 11:46 pm

1068. Comment #280934 by zeroangel

Listen you dimwit. You showed up on this thread making all of these accusations and smears towards "the far-left". With absolutely no point behind it from what I could see. All I did was get your smears out of the way to show that you had nothing of substance to add. What was your point is waging all of these accusations that you have still failed to support with anything other than absurd rationalizations in the first place?

I merely showed that you were merely here to moralize and demonize a group that you disagree with, but without actually waging any king of cogent points against any positions they may hold.

896. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280933 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 11:40 pm

1066. Comment #280932 by zeroangel

You are frankly dishonest if you do not appreciate what I said. I'm not worried about your distortions though. I'm confident that MPhil has read the thread himself.

897. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280931 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 11:36 pm

1061. Comment #280925 by zeroangel

I would ask though, do you hold the same view Wosret seems to hold? That is, that any US serviceman serving their nation in Iraq is worthy of contempt regardless of if they uphold the rules of land warfare and regardless of how they conducted themselves personally?

Care to quote me saying anything even remotely like that?

898. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #280930 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 11:34 pm

108. Comment #280923 by Lightnin

But it isn't a word, it must be phrase you are referring to, because you couldn't deduce the meaning of "a community of only atheists" from a single word. P.Z. does say "Atheist Community" (albeit only in the title), but he doesn't explicitly say an atheist only community. Perhaps too fine a distinction, however he later illustrated this meaning by the comment;

Yes, I dispute the word "atheist" within the phrase. It is too exclusive. It's like saying "lets start a 'straight community', but gay people can join too".

...That doesn't make any sense.

By having this dialogue, you and I are part of a community, a group of people who frequent richarddawkins.net. This doesn't just include people who post everyday, but the intermittent posters, the lurkers, and even the trolls (though I certainly don't think they're a very productive aspect of the community).

Sure, but it is common interests that brings me back here, and I said that I don't have a problem with communities, just not exclusive ones.

899. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280926 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 11:24 pm

1059. Comment #280919 by MPhil

Well put.

900. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #280920 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 10:18 pm

99. Comment #280832 by Nova

That's rather silly, most atheists are rationalists, so its not unrelated. You must realize surely that PZ doesn't literally intend just a community of atheists, that he would rebuff a new age atheist whom believed in various woo as quickly as a Christian.

Nonsense. On what do you base that "most atheists are rational"? Sadly my own experience disagrees.

Oh? Am I not interpreting P.Z. correctly? If he doesn't mean a community of only atheists then why does he use the word? I shouldn't take it literally? I should interpret him to mean not only atheists when he says atheists?

no one really calls themselves an atheist unless they really also mean rationalist.

I don't mean that when I say it. I actually find self professed "rationalists" rarely live up to their self-professed title.

We all wish we could be our own critics. I'll let others decide if I'm rational or not, a self-professed title means nothing when it isn't about a position, but a -- rather difficult -- way of thinking.