851. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #154201 by MaxD on April 2, 2008 at 9:08 pm

Hey, I accidently flagged your last comment (BrianCWC) as offensive or something, sorry touchy laptop.
Apologies!

852. Fleabytes

Comment #153724 by MaxD on April 2, 2008 at 12:17 am

Clearly not thinking in clearthinking kind of way, Clearthinker said:

And we all bow down and say Amen - this is the way it is. But I agree that the universe is the way it is - regardless of whatever you or I believe. Your belief (for that is what it is - you have no evidence for it and willfully shut your eyes to evidence against it) does not change either the existence of God nor the nature of the universe.

There can be no evidence for the negative God does not exist, because you can continue to retreat into the well what about this gap, or that space, or this particle. You well know this is true of any negative. Go out to my trunk and prove there is no elephant in the trunk of my car to use a clever example by Penn Jillette. Oh didn't see one, it was probably hiding, did I tell you it was really small? Well keep looking.

You would rightly say, listen Max maybe there is such a being in the trunk of your car, but you'll have to produce some evidence of this microscopic pachyderm because it seems outlandish to me. No, no don't be offended, I'll happily help you fund your elephant endeavor once it is established multiple times. Right now it just defies all we know about Elephants, I can't wait to be proven wrong.
You might, Clearthinker say all these things but I doubt you'd hold your breath. And you would be right not too. In the same way you don't hold your breath (you aren't holding it for Unicorns, yetis, lochness monsters, FSMs, minotaurs, Yggdrasil, fairies, vampires or werewolves, witches, Odin, Zeus, Thor or Loki). And of course you feel no pain for not judging the probablities of these ideas as at least very very close to nil. Your God is on the same evidentiary footing Clearthinker. As such one can justifiably, and easily live life without worry about what your particular instantiation of the sky-daddy myth has too say.

Clearthinker goes on to say:

And if you want to enquire, why do you deliberately and distort the views of those you disagree with.

Perhaps you might clean this up a bit. And remember that you are the one who just pulled out a smattering of quotes and picked them apart and didn't address the body of her critique, but the easy points you could play emotional rhetorical cards.

And soaring to new question-begging heights Clearthinker fails in the clearthing task with the following:

We see every human being as made in the image of God, every human life as precious, every human life as infinitely valuable. And we do see every human being as having that image polluted and perverted. The facts bear these things out.

Do they? Do they really? What um...facts bear out this made in the image of god business? What studies demonstrated that it is your sky daddy, or any sky daddy? How is it polluted? Isn't it just possible-and more parsimonious to boot-that human nature would be neither wholly good or wholly bad based on an evolutionary history fraught with different selective pressures. We see the same tendencies in our close relatives-other great apes- the same tendencies tendencies toward more or less moral actions. As such there are some genuinely good things we carry innately, and things we don't like that we carry.

On the other hand you have this rather quaint Western middle class notion of the innate goodness of human beings (except of course those 'deluded' by religion) and well, you just KNOW you are right. You have to be right. You must be right. Oh, and in case anyone dares to disagree - you are right.

Nobody I know of no one in here that believes this nonsense. It is the scientists who actually have a nuanced view of human psychology not the theists. We at least don't posit invisible help, or cause when evidence of the very existance of that help(er)is non existent.

Good night.

853. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153705 by MaxD on April 1, 2008 at 9:37 pm

Al-rawandi said:

Remove the oxygen from the fire, and deal with the remaining embers harshly.

I think one of the embers of this fire, and maybe this has been addressed, is unsecularization. What I am referring to is the goofy multi-culturalism that makes certain ideologies off limits because they are practiced by lots of people. This results in all kinds of problems here in the US and I presume in the UK where a lot gets tolerated and uncritisized under the headings of Religion and Spirituality. Since it is practiced by the majority of people and because in both the US and UK one is kind of this thought mode is more privilaged than the rest allowances get made. This is both self-preservation for the Christianities practiced in the majority, and a blend of the multi-culturalist respect that religion is afforded.

I think this point was most graphically made in the UK by the Arch Bishop of Canterbury whose defense of limited (how so I wondered) Sharia seemed nothing so much like self-interest. Well we can't very well tell them no. Then folks will say, since we aren't going to approve that....what about these other, goofy religious institutions we support? Even the ACLJ (the Christian counter point to the ACLU here in the US, though they recently meddled in the peace process between Israel and Palistine) will pay lip service to the idea of religious freedom, while I think the actual number of non-Judeo-Christian cases on church state issues is quite limited.

Multi-culturalism in the sense of being open to other experiences and cultures is of course commendable. The approach taken too far is of course silly, and dangerous in that it limits critique in the name of tolerance and sensitivity.

The simple approach to this is more secularization. Simply stop supporting, fiscally with tax money Faith endeavors. No tax bucks to faith school, or ed programs or charities. I'm also loath to continue simply granting faith based orgs tax exempt status, not without more hoops at least. I am not advocating an suppression of such orgs either. It just doesn't require my support, respect or approval.

I hope my point is clear. Secularization might just reduce the grip Gov officials find themselves in by by religious groups.

854. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153695 by MaxD on April 1, 2008 at 8:55 pm

Fighting Falcon.
Just read your post on Atlas Shrugged as recommended reading. I suppose we all have to read her at some point but why not Fountainhead, it was so much better.
I have never, ever been able to get through the tedious, didactic and clumsily written Atlas Shrugged. Every time I tried, I got about mid way through and shrugged myself.
I just couldn't bring myself to care who Galt was.

Al-rawandi said:

It is not the job of Australia to rehabilitate British citizens.

If you are not a citizen and you are actively support extremism and terror, you should be sent back to your country of citizenship. Done deal.

What is so difficult about this? Where is the moral hang up?

I'm fine with this I think, though I am cool with people speaking and writing whatever they want. THough I do cringe at some of the wants. However if you openly support violence, by funding, transport, arming, fighting for organizations that are actively trying to overthrow the government then yeah, you go. Either to jail, or back to your home country.

855. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153683 by MaxD on April 1, 2008 at 8:28 pm

Nairb said:

To be clear I am not against freedom of speech, I am saying we should at least consider that limits may not be a bad thing particularly when it incites hatred of minorities through unbalanced commentaries like this video.

Sorry. I'm an adult and I'd not trust other people to proof what I am allowed to see. I will happily report things like child exploitation or any criminal acts of course. Further I am unhappy with the tendency of people to think that promoting, hate, discussing hate, or love or what ever is somekind of crime. Currently Scientology tries to get critiques of their religion classified as hate speech, or at least accuse its opponents of bigotry, and hateful. Do you think the critiques of Mark Bunker ought to be shut down? His videos about Scientology are only tamer because Scientology, while a financially powerful and dangerous organization, is actually a small group, capable of small evil.
Islam is not a small minority in the world. It just surpasses Catholicism in numbers. It is an ideology worthy of criticism because even if not every muslim (not even a majority) carry out Jihad a rather large portion of Muslims do. And many more can be hard pressed to roundly condemn such acts when they are carried out.

One day some of you who argue for limiting free speech because it incites hate, or violence may have that kind of obtuse legal language turned on you.
Isn't it better to have the hateful perspectives on full display so we can adequately ridicule them and combat them with out martyring, or driving such seething sentiment underground where it is sure to erupt again. Only then it will be a surprise we can less easily combat or control.

856. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153655 by MaxD on April 1, 2008 at 6:41 pm

Steve and Al,
Why did you say this thread made you fear for the athiests. (just trying to spare myself a lot reading through the thread before going to bed)

857. Who wants to kill the elderly?

Comment #153654 by MaxD on April 1, 2008 at 6:30 pm

Doc Benway!
This kind of thing you are talking about, is exactly the kind of thing religious folks like to ignore, not know, or understand.

858. Who wants to kill the elderly?

Comment #153644 by MaxD on April 1, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Teratornis,
are you a teetotaler?
Also,
others have noted the weakness of the analogy but let me add another. I, as a drinker, do not try to force my love of Guiness and Jameson on my fellow humans, nor do I hold myself morally superior because of my choice of poison. Clearly I am better than those assholes who wallow away the hours sipping Boone's Farm, but.....
So...where is the circle you needed squared?

859. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152625 by MaxD on March 31, 2008 at 9:17 am

Riki said:

You can't publish works that incite violence. But at the same time you need to defend freedom.

I'm not sure how you would define that incite violence part. Many of our "holy" works incite violence, towards certain groups. What is inciting violence? I ask that as a legitamate question because I think its a term that is bandied about but not terribly well defined.

In any event this film, shallow, without nuance, and manipulative, doesn't seem to promote any kind of violent ideas toward anyone. And no one making the film harmed anyone at all. That bill goes directly to the Islamic Jihadis.

I don't know what the film makers values are, but I would certainly like to see more people putting their foot down for ideas that the West has actually gotten correct. Democracy, huge personal freedoms etc, science etc needs uncompromising defenders.

860. Expelled Overview

Comment #150960 by MaxD on March 27, 2008 at 8:00 pm

A note to stryer,
I will see this film, but it will be one I bootleg.
I think one of the reason's people are reticent to see the film in the theaters is at least two pronged.
The first prong is that most of us don't want to fund the stupid, hypocritically dishonest propaganda machine that Creationist/IDers have.
The second is that its rather obviously going to be yet another dishonest attack. Full of misquotation, mis=information and self-righteous bullshit. IF you have read one of these tracks then you have likely read them all.

861. Fleabytes

Comment #150932 by MaxD on March 27, 2008 at 5:12 pm

I'm sure this has been covered but mylearnedfriend said:

I also realise that people in the past have died over interpretations - which is why a good hermeneutic is important. Also I do subscribe to the 'what is the obvious meaning' approach rather than having to dig around for a hidden meaning.

People in the past? People still die over this kind of thing. Religious doctrine has infected the public debate on actual real life and death matters. Not to mention quality of life matters.

862. Fleabytes

Comment #150918 by MaxD on March 27, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Weighing in on the Beer business.
Guiness has to be one of the best. (It is in fact one of the only beers (G. Stout is my favorite and nearly the only damn thing I drink, though I had the Foreign Extra Stout when I was being a travel Junkie in Ireland over Christmas and it was great.)
Moosehead is good.
ESB is pretty good.
Sam Adams
NewCastle

863. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149377 by MaxD on March 25, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Dr. Benway said:

Now, a clever commander will try to think up a post-hoc justification for his actions that seems like a valid reading of the orders, just to cover his ass. But if he could be honest he'd say, "I couldn't be sure of the order so I simply used my best judgment."

I believe that much of the fundementalist tradition springs out of a need to explain their own beliefs to themselves. Michael Shermer explains it well in the phrase, "Smart people are good at rationalizing things came to believe for non-smart reasons." I suspect that even the liberal traditions of certain theological minds are equally gifted at such internal obfuscations.

In any event many of theistically inclined people tend to grab onto those biblical texts that support the beliefs they had already come to believe.

That of course can't be the whole story but it certainly seems likely to be part of the whole story.

864. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149179 by MaxD on March 25, 2008 at 8:26 am

Bonzai

Do you know for sure that the whole of Genesis was meant to be literal? In Hebrew "Adam" simply means "man" and I was told by some Jews that the ancient Jews didn't take the story of the Garden of Eden literally. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in Judaism can shed some lights on it.

I think that assumes that various sects can offer any thing to one another. Clearly you and I could modify our positions on the texts by saying, Ah...well in the original meaning this meant that, and that meant this. Well that changes everything. I'm not sure that is always the case with the believer and certainly it can be hard to get different faith traditions to do much more than tolerate each other, leaving alone the cross faith critique.

You say of the conversation with Artful Dodger on biblical metaphor the following.

Those are all fair questions that an honest believer would have to answer. But that is quite different from saying that since there are ambiguities the only "authentic" Christianity is to take all words as literal truth, It is dumb and ridiculous. Supposedly rational and informed critics of religion should know better,

I personally think the brilliance of the point isn't that the only authentic Christianity is a literalist approach but that doing one or the other highlights the problems of using these religious texts as anything more than literature causes. I personally don't feel a liberal Christian, whose bible is a metaphorical spiritual guide (who really has no other authority than a debatable interpretation and intuition about God's character) is on any firmer ground than the literalist (the bible isn't nearly exact enough for this, and resembles a contradictory nightmare of moral certitude when read in such a way). The former is forever out of the rational discussion. They can always find away out, and a justification for adhereing to some denominational label and for believing in ancient myths however watered down. The latter has at least the consolation-were they actually open to the evidence-that their beliefs could be confirmed or rendered null by collision with the evidence. Both ways seem kind of like wastes of time to me. I guess I kind of agree with Steve Zara that the literalist way is a more honest textual way to interpret, whereas the the liberal method becomes kind of morass of smoke and mirrors. I don't care either way. I think they are both silly ways to look at the Bible

Again, you tend to bemoan the sweeping generalizations of others but make more than a few yourself. You say that literalist approach is variously, "ridiculous and stupid," and such readings are, "shallow and naive." I think that of the two styles I've discussed, the liberal theological model, and the literalist model neither is very worthwhile.

I personally prefer to talk to the literal minded fellow. They at least have something concrete to say. The liberal theologian prefers to dance around absolute statements and play in a world of unknowable mystery while occasionally saying something provocative like God is love, or God is that mystery we have no name for, or God is the ground of all being. Fine, but also so what?

865. Fleabytes

Comment #148751 by MaxD on March 23, 2008 at 7:46 pm

Didn't Pathfinder say it was Hep A?
If it was Hep A or D (I think) only about 1 % of A and D cases become chronic and thus the vast majority 99% heal on their own. More than this every body is not the same and I am, until I see otherwise willing to chalk up a great deal of the imprecision of medical treatments, prognastication, diagnosis and outcomes to human immuno-variablity.
Doesn't that seem reasonable? Why do you not marvel when some strangely healthy person just falls over dead. That happens too. No explanation, just something wasn't working. I mean are you going to count all that for the devil's work? Makes no sense.

866. Fleabytes

Comment #147852 by MaxD on March 21, 2008 at 12:31 pm

In response to artful dodger,
God that would be a horrid way to end a climb. You have to take a break after such an arduous climb, but it would be hard because then you have to sit with a bunch of vacuous mumbo jumbo talkers.

What a smug, smug little quote though. Ah scientists those prodigal sons. What condescension. Not food for thought really just more of this bald assertion and smug confidence.

867. EXPELLED!

Comment #147832 by MaxD on March 21, 2008 at 11:49 am

Dr. Benway,
Allow my appreciation of...

These aren't the droids you're looking for.

Sadly I think this was even better than my own MI-6 comment.

868. Fleabytes

Comment #147830 by MaxD on March 21, 2008 at 11:45 am

But kind of effete depictions.....
Uh oh. Conversion. I'm outta this den of viperous infidels!

869. Fleabytes

Comment #147825 by MaxD on March 21, 2008 at 11:34 am

Wow.
I stand in awe of that goofy post!
Amazing. Breathtaking.
An intellectual colossus....
With that I say,
Good Day.

870. Fleabytes

Comment #147823 by MaxD on March 21, 2008 at 11:18 am

Clearthinker said regarding my point about the argument from incredulity:

Resurrections don't happen! I can't believe that God would raise someone from the dead! I can't accept the idea of atonement! I can't believe that God would speak through a bunch of semi-literate shepherds! Actually this is what much of TGD does - argues from incredulity.

I don't think you could have illustrated my point any better about the different ways the theist and the scientist uses to look at the world. I fear that the divide is unbridgeable but allow me to offer a rebutal.

Actually he is not arguing from incredulity on the resurection point, or the parthenogeneisis point. The great history of what we know about humans militates against this idea. Humans, and evidence demostrates this time and again do not rise from the dead. People are not born of virgins. It just doesn't happen. That is a sound inferance on my part. And for me to find the claim compelling I'd have to see something of real statistical substance, or irrefutable evidence that the Resurection of Jesus actually occured. This, as you well know is a hell of claim that, were it true, would require some dramatic, expensive and painful changes on the part of every person on the planet. So I require some very serious evidence that the sound inferences I have from my biological education, and experiance are wrong on this point.
So to be clear...
I'm not saying parthenogensis in the case of Mary is impossible, just extremely unlikely given what I know of mammalian reproduction, if we were reptiles..... Resurection too seems unlikely and we have no good evidence believe that either thing happened. (You may not be a stickler on the virgin birth thing as the whole article of faith stems from a mis-translation anyway, but I don't know. I throw it in for good measure.)

You may say well these are one off supernatural events. They are not biological events that we would expect again, like typical biological phenomena. If that is the case then we really are at an impasse unless something more solid comes in from the historical data. I think here you have to at least concede the point that there is no very strong independent corroboration of any of the major articles of faith, and that your beliefs are based on your own faith in the religious propositions. Faith in things unseen but hoped for, and all that.

871. Fleabytes

Comment #147815 by MaxD on March 21, 2008 at 10:46 am

Clearthinker said:

For example 'Edgardo's story was by no means unusual in Italy at the time. How does Dawkins know this? What are his sources?

.
Strange, as I look at the chapter in question I found one of Dawkins' sources right away.
The Kidnapping of Edgardo Moratara by David L. Kertzer. I mean in the second paragraph. Several jewish organizations in Italy argued against the Canonization of Pope Pius IX because of this very thing and his general quarrelsome attitude toward the Jews. In fact at the time Church policy was that no Christian (baptized in the approved canonical way or through subterfuge) child could be raised by Jews.
It seems unlikely that the vicars of God should get the morality of this so catastrophically wrong don't you agree?

872. Fleabytes

Comment #147813 by MaxD on March 21, 2008 at 10:25 am

Pathfinder said:

Love the Atheist approach to "evidence". Not hepatitis... can't be... just ISN'T...no...no....no. Er...Why not? WELL, IT JUST ISN'T CONVENIENT!

It isn't evidence. As it fails several criteria. We'd need medical records, we need to know the subject really had hep. And we need a larger sample size of hep patients. At least two forms of hep are often defeated by human immune sytems by themselves anyway. Is prayer healling people more than the incidence of that? If not we can safely chalk it up to common human immunoresponse. In fact the Hepititis A that you mentioned only develops into a chronic case in 1% of the population. So are you begining to see the problem we have accepting anecdotes like this?

873. EXPELLED!

Comment #147808 by MaxD on March 21, 2008 at 9:59 am

Benway,
Tufted Titmouse?

874. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #147570 by MaxD on March 20, 2008 at 10:46 pm

Hey ufcarazy, is part of your name a reference to the UFC?

875. EXPELLED!

Comment #147569 by MaxD on March 20, 2008 at 10:43 pm

Uh...holy shit. Surely had someone said they would not allow PZ Myers to see the film, one would not have beleived it. But it is funny that Dawkins slipped past. His years in MI-6 I suppose.
Oops did I let that out...

876. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147513 by MaxD on March 20, 2008 at 7:34 pm

Al-rawandi said:

This is an important point to be made. Indeed the vast majority of Christians do support political secularism even though some would like to influence public policies through lobbying and political campaign,--which is their right in a democracy. Even Jerry Falwell's followers distance themselves from ultra extremists like the Dominionists who call for a full blown theocracy.

The vast majority? I'm not so sure.
Falwell, supported prayer in schools, I believe, ten commandments, believed this was a Christian nation, and thought our policies ought to reflect Christian principles.
I think that among evangelicals there is lot of this misconception and desire. It would be interesting to actually do a study on this before making a sweeping statement like "the vast majority of Christians support political secularism."

Certainly it is true that many progressive Christians feel this way. Probably many middle way christians feel this way too. The fundis not so much. Before we can sweep aside our concern that political discourse is losign its secular flavor we might note that it is decidedly non secular in tone, and that religious intrusion prevents many secular polices and seperations. Now this could be simply that it is the product of a good lobbying campaign or it could be that there are simply a damn lot of these style Christians, or it could be some combination of many factors. Many christians I know and interact with in small town america are not what you might call devote secularists. But even I don't know what the full tally might be. What is clear is that there are more and more pushes by this non-secular campaign to reduce the wall of seperation.
Sorry if this has all been covered already.

877. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #147377 by MaxD on March 20, 2008 at 8:50 am

I believe the reason is that it doesn't esteem either fencing or the grappling arts enough. That seems the only reasonable explanation to me Epeeist.

878. Fleabytes

Comment #147365 by MaxD on March 20, 2008 at 8:20 am

Clearthinker Said:

how do you get life from non-life?

Science has several plausible hypotheses for this very important question. Regretably circumstantial evidence seems to point to several ofthem! It is still an open question to be sure. But so what? You are proposing a god of the gaps here and history has shown that to be terrible for religious explanation. And say that it was proven that life needed some outside force to get started, that would in no imply your particular version of the cause. Why not FSM? Or the Force? Perhaps Scientology has the real answer. I'm not trying to be flip, it just a common mistake, it seems, of the Christian apologist to assume that if science can't answer a certain question, obviously the Christian answer is then the only other plausible option.

That should make sense to you. The arguement from incredulity is and always has been terribly weak. So even if we find the question ultitmately unanswerable that would be no reason to posit a god of any kind. It seems clear that evolution has happened and not needed any outside help (it proceeds on its own perfectly well in the modern world does it not?)

I have discussed RD's religious indoctrination child abuse thing on another thread but I will ask a question. Is it moral to terrorize kids with hellfire and damnation? There is no evidence for this vicious place? Is it right to torment them with such fear mongering?

There are plenty of types of abuse we tolerate in society where children are concerned. We let kids stay in foul-mouthed homes where they are exposed to rantings of white (or black) supremecist ideology without removing children from the homes. Unless the kids get beaten or molested, or neglected, we are loath to remove kids from homes. In fact most homes here in the US had certain racist, and sexist dogmas spouted daily and with certainty for years. In the height of the civil rights era no one advocated taking kids out of homes and re-educationg them, or at least no serious person did. However the conversation changed because people challenged the prevailing notions of race, and sex in the court of ideas. That is all RD is trying to do. He is asking whether or not the notion that kids ought be burdened with such identities and certainties is good for them or society as a whole. Its a debate worth having.

Edit:
DR, please don't immediately jump to the conclusion that I am comparing your theology to the racist and sexist ideas of US history. I am just saying that a thing can be abusive (as I do think scaring kids with hell fire, divine disapproval etc can certainly be. Is such stuff always worse than sexual abuse, no, and most people here, including RD, have said as much)with out necessarily requiring legal action, but requiring debate. Minds can be changed it seems the case is strong enough.

879. Fleabytes

Comment #147122 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 9:35 pm

I always wondered why he never did more. I mean he handled the balrog pretty abley. In the books he battled all the wraiths on weathertop too by himself and drove them off. Why not more ass whompin magic? I agree. Though not an hour shorter please I love the films.

880. Fleabytes

Comment #147118 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Cartomancer!
The question was admantium vs mithril (really). Though now that I think about it seems we were goading for a fight between an elf and wolverine.
Hmmmm
Sadly though I think you maybe right about the way the battle goes between lady galadriel, or Glorfindel. But legolas? He couldn't even beat Gimili's record at Helm's Deep. The Candadian wins hands down against Legolas I tell you!
But Hulk beats troll. Would be smitten by Lady Galadriel though.

881. Fleabytes

Comment #147106 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 8:14 pm

I'm not sure if he believes that but in the clip this guy calls Barak Obama an emmisary of the devil and claims that no one had heard of Obama until his name was splashed "across a couple of huge tits." Those are the preacher's words not mine just so you know.
Its hillarious I'm telling you.

882. Fleabytes

Comment #147104 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 8:07 pm

Here is something I just found on Huffingtonpost. Is this Christianity?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/19/antiobama-preacher-unlea_n_92471.html

883. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147101 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 7:50 pm

About sexuality and birth order in males...
For a decent introduction to the topic, see wikipedia at the following link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_order,
you will find these two good papers in the bib.
Blanchard, R. (2001). "Fraternal birth order and the maternal immune hypothesis of male homosexuality." Hormones and Behavior, 40:105-114
and
David A. Puts, Cynthia L. Jordan, and S. Marc Breedlove (2006) "O brother, where art thou? The fraternal birth-order effect on male sexual orientation." Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA. 103:10531-10532. [1]
That is a good place to start.

884. Fleabytes

Comment #147096 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 7:40 pm

Frankus,
That is exactly correct. Hulk could start pressing around 80 tons but could indeed quickly out pace nearly every other character when he snapped and went from annoyed mad to crazy angry mad.
Like Joe Frazier, you wanted to catch Hulk early.
Now hopefully you don't feel alone in nerddom!

885. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147095 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 7:36 pm

Bonzai,
Apologies, I didn't mean to ignore your point. The sample sizes on the twins reared apart studies aren't as large as anyone would like, but large enough to reject the single anecdote rebuttal. You make a valid point though and I'd not make smaller or larger than it actually is.

My point about the Hox genes was there here was a hugely complex thing, brains, nervous systems etc controled by a relatively few genes. A complex system and under-at base-under the control of a small number of genes. Simple complexity needn't rule out simple control of one or a few genes. The ant may be simple, and the rat maybe considered simple too, but you were asking for behaviors controled by single genes and I provided you with them. Simple though they are they show genetic control of behavior. Again it simply shows we needn't be incredulous at the very notion.

I think the rest of your characterization of the problem is fairly accurate. Hell birth order seems to play some role in the expression of homosexuality. It is a complicated issue.
No argument there.

886. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147076 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 6:41 pm

I think that homosexual tendencies are probaly more common in humans than people want to admit and maybe a pretty common feature of human sexuality. I think bonzai and others are right about the expression of such drives and tendencies is certainly limited by cultural norms. That wouldn't mean that there wasn't a genetic component to the behavior. After all there are homosexuals in every culture weather approved of or not.

887. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147072 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 6:34 pm

yes lets trot out a single sample to disprove what appears to be a statistical rule.
Thanks for the anecdote about Cartomancer. I have an uncle that lived well into his late 80s smoked and drank all his life so clearly abusing alcohol and cigarettes have absolutely no effect on the stastistical likelihood of cancer and liver damage.

Foraging behaviour in Solenopsis can be affected by the change in a single gene. A relatively simple few HOX genes make the difference between me having a head or not. Risky behvior in rats is affected by the presence or abscence of a single gene. I'm not saying that human sexuality is so simple a case but it could be and there is no reason to take a stance on it one way or the other yet. I'm genuinely curious as to how it will turn out and I certainly don't give a shit one way or the other what it might turn out to be.

888. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147066 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 6:24 pm

I think that Bonzai is making a terribly important point, adn I think that the fact that while there is an obvious genetic component to homosexual behavior, if it isn't highly heritable from parent to child, but identical twins seem to show us the genetic component, this indicates that it could be a behavior whose genetic component arises from some pleotrophic effects. that was a messy way to suggest that it isn't adaptive at all and just something that arises from time to time (these times do appear to be pretty frequent) and not necessarily an adaptive phenotype.

The final answer will really depend on the several lines of evidence that are not yet fully in.

889. Fleabytes

Comment #147061 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 6:16 pm

The cave troll! Excellent point. Now no less than the hulk could dent admantium (he once punched Ultron and dented his chest plate).

Now I think we could have a the Cave troll and The Hulk punch admantium and try to puncture mitril with a spear. In this way we would be solving two age old dilemas in one experiment, the obvious Mithril vs Admantium question, but also the which is stronger question trolls or the Hulk?
I do like the idea of Wolverine vs an Elf in mithril.

890. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147057 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 6:06 pm

Down Syndrome is a simple replication error. It is genetic and can be passed on, but isn't necessarily "hereditary" in that it is a problem of non-disjunction during gamete formation, and typically such people as suffer from it do not reproduce. As I said, it is chromosomes not properly seperating. Most of the time this happens the embryo isn't even viable and boom spontaneous abortion! There are a couple of chromosomes that do permit viablity when non-disjunction occurs. It is something we might expect when bodies make massive amounts of sex cells, even the best copying and replication machinery will admit some error.
Why the mechanism hasn't been corrected maybe a mystery but I don't really think so.

Most of this happens in older women well past what would have been prime breeding years in humans. It is only relatively recent I thinkthat women were reproducing in later years. It was probably a problem invisible to selection in our environment of evolutionary development. Like Huntingtons disease.

891. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147043 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 5:46 pm

Bonzai says:

2) Having a "genetic component" is not the same as saying that there is a gay gene. I think the connection leading from genes to sexual behaviour is complex and convoluted, it is not like your eye colour or nose shape.

It can't be too much more complicated, or unlikely. Other behavior patterns seem terribly affected by the presence or absence of certain genes, sometimes single genes. The prediliciton toward homosexuality seems terribly heritibable in drosophila to give but one example. And while it may be true that homosexuality is not very predictable based on parentage, statistical likilhood goes up with identical twins. This seems to indicate at least two factors very important to the influence the environment in the womb, and genetics.

892. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147034 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Identical Twin studies (especially of twins reared apart) are also indicative of the genetic component. Location in the womb seems to have effects too. It is certainly a complicated issue.
But it seems there is enough evidence to suggest there is a genetic component to human sexuality.

893. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #147018 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Allow me to apologize for confusing the authorship of the Robot rules with Clarke's rules.
I am feeling particularly dense now I tell you.

894. Fleabytes

Comment #147015 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 5:10 pm

My daughter just posed a powerful scientific quesiton to me and I have no way to adequatly answer. It isn't my area of expertise. But since this thread is a catch all for all subjects I figure this is the place to pose the question.
Mithril vs admanitium? Which is stronger?

895. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147013 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 5:03 pm

You make a good point Sir Diacanu

896. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147001 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 4:36 pm

I am constantly baffled by the theist's rejection of secularism. Secularism protects everyone's ability to practice or not practice the religion of their choice.

897. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #147000 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 4:30 pm

I will look into this more. I honestly haven't heard much about any medical benefit for circumcision until the recent study demonstrating some link between lower rates of AIDs/HIV and (if memory serves) hepatitis and other sexually transmitted diseases contraction in circumcised males vs un-circed.
I certainly don't want to be dogmatic in my approach to the subject.

898. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #146963 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 3:26 pm

I think the key to the ThoughtsonCommonToad's comment was the phrase, without medical reasons. THere is some recently surfaced evidence that circumsion may actually help prevent the trasmission of certain sexually transmitted diseases. Prior to this it, I think, amounted to sexual mutilation for which scarcely any good medical evidence was extant. Many religious and secular scholars suggested that it was good to reduce sexual pleasure, and thus the drive to immorality. In any event the practice seems dubious at best.
Though if the practice is as excellent at reducing contraction of AIDs/HIV I find it terribly hard to believe that the cost of 180 per procedure: 100 per health benefit stands up.

Though of course I am unsure about it. It seems that there is no real need to perform the ritual though. Especially the female version of the excersise.

However Iwill certainly read up on purported health benefits of circumcision, because you bring up good points.

899. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #146809 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 12:44 pm

PostSecular Ph.D Said

Now I ask is there really nothing disturbing in the above quote from ThoughtsonCommonToad for you all? Leaving aside for the moment the breath-taking philosophical and religious ignorance

Would you elaborate on this breathtaking philosophical and religious ignorance? That is a sincere request, nothing more.

, the factual falsehood,

Again elaboration please. You've engaged in some of this yourself-either inadvertantly or othewise by saying that Dawkins suggested that raising a child catholic was equivalent to sodomizing a child.
In fact look a bit more closely at what Dawkins says,

Admittedly, the sexual fondling she suffered in the priest's car was relatively mild compared with, say, the pain and disgust of a sodomized altar boy. And nowadays the Catholic Church is said not to make so much of hell as it once did. But the example shows that it is at least possible for psychological abuse of children to outclass physical. It is said that Alfred Hitchcock, the great cinematic specialist in the art of frightening people, was once driving through Switzerland when he suddenly pointed out of the car window and said, 'That is the most frightening sight I have ever seen.' It was a priest in conversation with a little boy, his hand on the boy's shoulder. Hitchcock leaned out of the car window and shouted, 'Run, little boy! Run for your life!' .... it is entirely plausible that words could have a more long-lasting and damaging effect than deeds. I am persuaded that the phrase 'child abuse' is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven mortal sins in an eternal hell

He does accept that there is a gradient, he is just saying that the case could be made that such indoctrination is a form of child abuse. In third grade I myself suffered a none to short term insomnia over my worries about hell and my prospects and my friends prospects and later my mother's when I learned she'd been excommunicated. That stays with me more than anything else I can remember from my third grade years. There are all kinds of ways to abuse people, or hurt them that the law doesn't care about at all. You can for istance raise your children in a foul-mouthed, racist, white-supremecist gang and so long as you aren't having sex with the child, or violently beating the child it can stay. Surely you see the misery that will cause later and wouldn't defend it. Many people historically have raised their kids in the US in just this way. Women, it was taught belong in a kitchen making home, boys were to be breadwinners and other races were, pick your epithet. What got people to change the way they discussed this was people saying that was wrong and it should change. No one said take kids from racist homes and families. It was an effort to get people to think differently about what many considered okay. Dawkins is trying the same thing here on this subject.

and the overwhelming intolerance for free thought expressed here,

You are free to say what you want. People in a free world are just as free to find what you are saying uncompelling. I find your concerns actually worth addressing because I think they are based on a misunderstanding and a concept of abuse that is different from what Dawkins is talking about.

what is strikingly clear is that anyone who doesn't educate their children in accordance with ThoughtsonCommonToad's worldview is guilty of child abuse. Anyone who doesn't teach their children that the scientific method is infallible, is absolute Truth, and is the only method of evaluating truth claims known to humanity is guilty of a crime and should be removed from society with the full force of the law. As I sit in my son's bed and type this while he sleeps, I have shivers running down my spine! Steve Zara thinks I'm dreaming of child-snatchers just to get myself steamed up and assures me that's utter nonsense. Read the passage from Dawkins again. It's not very far at all from the attitudes expressed on this thread to the day the government decides it needs to protect my children from my "abuse". I don't have to "dream" about child snatchers when there are so many individuals out there who either explicitly or tacitly support such views.

Again take a breath. Exhale. No one is saying this. No one is saying that the scientific method is infallible. It is the only method that can adequately deal with truth claims. I am sorry it just is. It may not be able to adequetly address all truth claims but that remains to be seen. Its doing a bang up job so far.

Do you think terrorizing children with talk of things like hell and demons is a good thing? Or that teaching them to accept things without evidence is good and noble? I think such teaching is necessarily a handicap in a world that requires us to be assess, and deal fully with reality without invisible means of support. Indoctrination is bad and some forms of religious instruction I'm sure you agree, are forms of abuse, certainly hurtful and for what? ON what evidence does the evangelical at Jesus Camp drive children to such self hate and pain and tears? Isn't that a form of abuse?
Simply teaching your kids that it is okay to believe things when because it makes you feel good or on scant evidence isn't child abuse. I doubt it could be called sound advice though! Terrorizing children with hell could be abusive, certainly hurtful. Convincing kids a host of propositions about the cosmos are true based on the ramblings of ancient book, may not be abusive but it isn't helpful. Convincing kids that the only thing that is important is God and Jesus, and spreading his word and disconnecting with others could be considered abuse as it is so limiting and sometimes hateful, and also painful. I listen to lots of Christian radio for my blog and something that comes up time and again, "Never mary a non christian." Unequally-yoked will you be. Think of the couple who has already fallen in love and the nasty way people can fight over this issue. That can certainly be abusive.
I think you are hung up on the word abusive and applying it in the legal sense and I don't think that Dawkins meant it in that way.

I stand by my whining comment. You guys run the show, yet often you claim persecution, when what you really mean is people aren't paying attention to our rules against this or that.

900. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #146784 by MaxD on March 19, 2008 at 12:05 pm

I think ThoughtOnCommonToad is proably right. But I know when i got asked this by my own daughter I told her that I didn't think there was any reason to believe in it. She in fact didn't like that answer and I had to further explain that it was entirely possible that I was wrong on the subject and that she should continue to think about it, read about it, and come to her own conclusion.
A few years later she recently confessed to not believing in God, and she used as her evidence a question, "Why so many religions?" A month after that discussion she talked to me about souls even though she didn't believe in God. They are somewhere around ones chest or stomach I guess. Its very interesting to watch her progression on this subject.
Sorry about the digression, but I do think honest non-dogmatic answers are always preferable to white lies.