51. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111120 by DasSquid on January 13, 2008 at 4:22 pm

I'm fairly sure that the hypothetical is that they're relatively similar if not the same jobs, it wouldn't make sense if in the hypothetical that the jobs were so radically different.

If the 100k job was boring and the 50k job was a whole lot of fun, then for sure I'd go for the 50k job, 50k is more than enough to get me by and get me on some fantastic holidays, and since I would be having fun at work then I'd feel pretty good all the time, so certain things can be taken for granted, such as this.

52. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111110 by DasSquid on January 13, 2008 at 4:03 pm

PS Does that mean that life is easier for those who want to attract "members" of the same sex?
Do you have to be a member?
Where do you apply?
Are there conditions for joining?
Does anyone ever get thrown out for not attending the AGM?

To be honest, I think yes indeed it is easier for homosexuals to attract each other (obviously once they've identified each other) but this is merely a thought, I have no experience so I'mma stay out of that. To be a member all you need is a personality and a wish to enjoy life!

And you don't get thrown out for missing the meetings, you just miss out on enjoying yourself!

I just had a first date last night with a particularly fantastic lass, and so I'm REAL high right now, better than any drug. But I'm earning a pittance in comparison to the people who attract women with money, and I'm so far from being an 'alpha male' in that instead of having a 6 pack I've a keg ;) It's all about the brains and personality baby!

I also tend to preach against plastic surgery and everything like that as well (except in the cases of accidents and cancer etc.) I sincerely would LOVE to be able to officially speak on these subjects, but how would one start? It's particularly rampant in Korea (which is where my... 'near wife' is from). Plastic surgery is unbelievable common there as to be what you get your child for their 16th birthday or some such, I'd LOVE to go over there and talk about how they should love themselves for what they are etc.

Saying all this about 'screw' money and all that... and I'm posting from work... *sigh*

53. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111102 by DasSquid on January 13, 2008 at 3:30 pm

I enjoy not being a fool, though sometimes it is indeed a fine edge.

In the above hypothetical situation, I'd certainly choose the $100k job and earn less than others than the 50k job and earn more than others, to ME it makes absolute sense.

Though I must say that in this view on life I am absolutely not normal, I'm not the kind who wants to get married, or have 2.3 kids a dog and a mortgage... no sorry, I'm not wanting to be another faceless 'cog' in the economic 'machine' ...

Hah, now I just sound like a crackpot.

People who think that they need to earn more money than others for something like sexual attraction are attracting the wrong kind of women. I'm (relatively) poor, a tubby man, but I've personality and am a fun person, so I don't NEED money to attract members of the opposite sex, and the ones that I DO attract tend to be fabulous individuals because I'm not attractive leeches, I'm attractive PEOPLE... Sorry, this is one of my pet peeves, people who believe they need things, money/cars/blah to attract members of the opposite sex.

Hah! A Pox on them! and I believe that the kind of women that are attracted to nothing but money ARE a pox, so it's fitting really.

54. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109276 by DasSquid on January 8, 2008 at 5:39 pm

I love it. Hitchens is the nice cop, RD is the nasty cop. I think Emily Condon has been smoking too much crack.

Indeed, for anyone to perceive it this way it's quite possibly opposite land there.

THE ONLY way in which people could POSSIBLY conceive RD as the bad cop in any situation is not a matter of what he says, but perhaps of his voice.

It seems that traditionally, when there is the 'bad guy' in american cinema, and when said bad guy is English, he often shares some qualities with RD, namely the elderly man with the thin voice and just oozing intelligence from a position of power. (I consider where RD is sitting as a position of power, yes.). Comparing that with the 'down to Earth' style of Hitch, his support of America's involvement in the war, Hitch's views on popular topics are more likely to gain him more stead in the view of people of like-minded view.

Obviously I can't say for certain but I would assume that the writer of the article is pro-war.

55. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109205 by DasSquid on January 8, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Ah, wit is quite probably the highest form of all humor, and this is a weapon RD can wield without even the slightest of effort.

In regards to the post, I think it absolutely ludicrous to think that RD could even POSSIBLY be a misanthrope. I honestly believe that RD does what he does from a stance of absolute love for his fellow humans, even if they hate him or disagree with him, he persists in attempting to get people to recognize the truth, often with hilarious consequences.

I think the face RD pulled on the 'Have your say' program at the Stalin question, or was it the CBC interview? either way, it was just comedy genius. As a stand up comic I truly wish I could wield wit to the caliber of our beloved Richard, however I am not up to that task.


P.S.: Though I guess the writer was also trying to make a (poor) joke in saying Dawkins was a misanthrope...

56. Changing my Mind

Comment #106289 by DasSquid on January 2, 2008 at 3:56 pm

And yet I don't agree with Sam Harris's objection to the use of the word "atheist" to describe ourselves. It's the underlying negative association you have to work to change, not the word - otherwise the negative association just attaches itself to whatever new word you find instead.

In a way, I agree with Sam Harris, but in other ways I do not in regards to this sentence.

It is indeed imperative that we do have a banner to fly until the theists quiet down.

I really do wish I could just speak to you all I'm an abhorrent writer. I'll give it a shot though.

Up until the point where it's a moot point to say we're atheists do we need to identify ourselves as such, however in a society like we have today with Religion being, unfortunately, the matter of life and death for so many that we need to take a stand and indeed label ourselves as standing out against this. Just, as Richard Dawkins loves to point out, as the gays flew their banners, the more and more of the gay community that came out it made it just that little bit easier for each successive person to come out until today, it's very much a moot point. This has indeed happened in many people's lifetimes here (unfortunately not me, I'm a young sod.).

The way I see it, again paralleling it to the gay movement, there is a 'critical mass' of atheists who've come out for each successive atheist to come out of the religious closet. Then, as the voice gets stronger, the more and more people are becoming atheists until eventually it becomes a moot point because of a changed mind about so many things. We've seen it for racism, we've seen it for queer-o-sexuality (I'm sorry, I still find that hilarious) but seriously, I believe we truly DO need to label ourselves under the ONE banner as opposed to the many difference banners of atheism that are flying about.

Secular Humanists
Brights
Atheists
blah blah, they're all the same, and if they pooled their numbers together under the one flag then more and more would feel a lot less pressure about coming out, until finally everyone who is truly atheist but is oppressed into being 'theists' is out!

What do you all think? Is my writing legible? haha. Again I'm a speaker, not a writer.

57. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #105888 by DasSquid on January 2, 2008 at 4:35 am

I just finally watched this video.

Everything that could be said has already been said by others.

But, honestly, wow. The interviewer cannot even grasp what an analogy is.

A great many kudos to Professor Dawkins to be able to put up with this.

58. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104198 by DasSquid on December 28, 2007 at 4:47 am

Philip1978

Quite so!

The one that gets a lot of people is the life after death thing. About a year ago I was thinking about this myself, I was a bit depressed, then I think it may have been in The God Delusion, or elsewhere I truly can't remember, but it was a quote on the lines of "I don't remember what it was like before I was born, so why should I care to know what it's like after I die." I KNOW that this isn't the quote, but it's something like that, and that one quote alone satisfies it for me.

Once again, even it's described to me in great detail by someone who has come out of the situation and had their eyes open, surely I can sympathize with them and congratulate them, however I'm afraid that I cannot empathize too well. It is a 'flaw' of mine, others happen to be a touch of arrogance amongst other things. Hopefully my generation is the generation where belief in the supernatural is truly unbelievable.

Just as if someone walked up to me and started to attempt to explain quantum theory, I'd stare at them just as puzzled as someone walking up to me spouting religious belief, though at least with the latter I'd have a short argument on my hands.

I just plain olde do NOT understand it on a personal level. I do however understand it on the level for which we have to fight it.

59. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104188 by DasSquid on December 28, 2007 at 4:02 am

Once again Philip, I agree.

Do they not, after giving until it hurts, look at this person who they're giving to and wonder why he is also not giving?

In regards to secularism I must say I have lived a very fortunate life. When I was young I never had anything forced upon me in the vain of religion, I did however get put into a Christian school, however even there I remained an atheist. (to be honest there was no pressure, it was a small school and after my first year there being grade 6 they expanded into High School and I stayed there until year 11, there was one true church going christian in my class only.)

This is truly my only experience with the relious. Of course in that school were Youth Groups and what not, and for about a month I feigned interest just to try to fit in, but I truly couldn't do it. I'm still young, granted, but I've somehow just... known there is nothing out there, even after being in such a setting for so long. Surely I did get kicked out of class OFTEN when I snickered as the creationism was presented however we were taught Evolution and proper science too.

I guess it's Australia... Our big churches in the city of Melbourne are already (effectively) just big museums, at least the oldest of them is. I've also spent a large amount of time in Japan, and well... that's about as secular as I can ever imagine.

I sometimes wish I had been brought up in such a community and broken free so I could feel a little more like atheist is a gift, but for me, it's just my life.

60. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104185 by DasSquid on December 28, 2007 at 3:50 am

You see Stormkahn, what you suggest is probably the best thing to do for the world, and since it has been previously made quite clear that the Christians are here for the next life, they need no care for nor take care of the world.

Religion of this form is and always will continue to be the prime example of hypocrisy, though no faith-head will see this, they'll just say

'Hey, his Church isn't like my Church.' ...

-=Shakes his head=-

61. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104176 by DasSquid on December 28, 2007 at 3:34 am

Philip1978

I must say that I do understand where you're coming from and what you're saying.

However I'd have to argue the point they even the worst off of these people have to know of other options. I agree with you and sympathize with them only if it was certain that they definitely knew no other way of life. Granted for me it's an oh so easy to see choice and for them it's likely not so easy.

However I posit that these people at least KNOW of other options, was it Benny Hinn (I hesitate to capitalize the letters in his name.) that said "God wants you to give until it hurts." ? Whoever it was I am continually shocked at those who agree and do in fact give until it hurt.

Though I guess that it's another tactic of these nutjobs. Give 'til it hurts, then come to us for help.

Sigh, makes me sick. Just remembered that we used to get these psychos on TV here at around 3-4am, thankfully I stopped watching TV when I was 17.

62. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104156 by DasSquid on December 28, 2007 at 2:55 am

I don't know... I'm rather cynical...

Would this count as some sort of Natural Selection?

These people are stupid enough to give so much money to these charlatans that they can't even feed themselves nor their families. Eventually they'll die and their gullibility genes will die with them.

Again, cynicism in it's truly most awful state but that's all I have left for these people really, I truly can't feel sympathetic to people who effectively kill themselves slowly through nothing but their own willpower.

63. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101104 by DasSquid on December 19, 2007 at 9:01 pm

Though I'm just an Australian having never been to America I feel I should add my perspective.

In Australia, Christmas has long since lost it's religious meaning. Only those who attend a church regularly actually go to their churches to sing carols. For the community carols we often have them held in large gardens/parks/amphitheaters, further reducing their religious connotations.

In regards to music I must admit I'm a bit of an odd sort, I like rock and I like a few operas, Don Giovanni being my favorite. Just like any Christmas carol I may sing (however terribly mind you) I believe the words just as I believe the words to Don Giovanni or any of the rock songs I listen to, I don't.

In response to the person before talking about the transformation of words into song and suddenly having them change meaning, I personally think that this is truth, not only do the words change meaning altogether, but there are just some things that can be expressed in song that cannot bear representation in words alone, and these meanings are for the characters in the song, not factual meanings. I struggle to find a good example that many here may know (as I speak other languages I have a slight preferrence for non-english rock.).

Only one comes to mind, and that is 'I would do anything for love.' by Meatloaf. Were this song a play, his speaking of the words would carry far less meaning, I believe, than when the man sings them. I know this example is inadequate but as I'm pressed for time, there isn't much I can do. (posting while I should be working)

I tend to be terrible at conveying my meaning properly through the written/typed word, I'm rather good when speaking however. I guess what I'm trying to say is that music is something that is there to be enjoyed, Christmas Carols just happen to be a seasonal thing and from where I'm standing in Australia I agree that it would be hypocritical of me were I to go singing them at a Church, however I think it not hypocritical of me were I to attend a park, or in Melbourne we have Carols by Candlelight on Christmas Eve and it's just a huge event with lots of plays for the kids with Santa and many of the Children's favorite characters from TV.

But then again, I'm an Aussie, what do I know? ;)

64. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #100895 by DasSquid on December 19, 2007 at 2:47 pm

The twit knowingly uses the dishonest tactic of arguing from different definitions of the same word.

And this is the fundamental problem between those who can think/are willing to change their minds and those that are not. From speaking three languages fluently I know for certain that the English language is a very poor language indeed. It is my honest belief that DD cannot grasp the difference between an imposed law and an implied law. Imposed obviously being the 'Stop sign' type, where we CHOOSE to obey or not, and disobeying (and getting caught) just means a fine. An implied law is a set of 'rules' that we attribute to witnessed behaviors.

I know you all know this, but the beauty of the English language is... it's simple to invent words. I'll leave that up to the scientists, but they REALLY need a new word for the 'laws' of nature or the 'laws' of society. Perhaps even just renaming 'laws' of society to 'rules' or some such? who knows... but it desperately needs to be done.

65. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #99384 by DasSquid on December 16, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Tyrion, the only problem there is that we as atheists are unable to do that. We argue from a point of logic and tend to continue to be logically minded folk from there. We are unable to bring ourselves to spout half truths because if we had someone do that it would make the rest of us look a whole lot less reliable.

I agree with Dawkins in his stance on not being subject to open debate, from seeing this D'Souza's debates with both Hitchens and Dennett, I have to admit that it would truly be difficult to best him in an oral, live debate. He just goes too fast throws out far too many half truths for them all to be countered.

The particular one that gets my goad up the most is when he talks about the 'laws of nature' and how he does that whole comparison of the 'laws' of gravity and things like that to a stop sign. There is no possibility for gravity to just stop working or refuse to obey that 'law' however it's more than easy enough for humans to disobey a law like 'stop' it happens all the time.

I know my counter argument may be weak but I just can't think of much more right now... The more I listen to this man the more ill I become, I swear if one could become ill from what they hear, Dinesh D'Souza would give every audience he has cancer.

66. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93071 by DasSquid on December 2, 2007 at 5:56 am

Well, I have finally finished listening to it all, and I must tell you, it took some doing.

I must say I wish I had the time and the patience to sit down and disect what was said, however I think it a poor use of my time as not only would it be preaching to the choir, but all my arguments have probably been posited by my brothers and sisters here.

The worst thing that spouts out of the orifice of that awful being is just ignored by his opponents as opposed to confronting it. His comparison between the laws of nature and a stop sign.

Though I'm sure someone else here has spoken about it, but this is the thing that infuriates me the most. I think often it is a major problem with language, he freely interprets the word 'law' in whichever way he chooses, as I assume he does the same with the word 'truth'.

I wish I could say more, but I honestly believe that this failure of a human... D'Souza has just completely robbed me of my wit, mood and words. I can't understand how anyone debating him would not get exasperated.

67. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93036 by DasSquid on December 2, 2007 at 3:25 am

Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, all these people, NONE of them did anything evil or kill anyone in the name of atheism.

Thinking of morals and everything. If I ever met this man, I'd love to kill him in the name of atheism, and show him the difference... I'm pretty sure his yelling has given me cancer. I'll post properly when I finish listening to this.

68. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #91242 by DasSquid on November 27, 2007 at 6:26 pm

When it comes to the concept of morality it's a sticky situation for me.

I have my own set of morals... which many people find reputable, but they're there. I don't go and rape people, I don't steal, I don't murder and whatnot.

There are other things that we have to take into account when thinking about morals these days, and that IS one of punishment. Certainly not from any divine power, but from that of the boys in blue. If I look into myself, I can certainly justify the killing of some people, very few, don't think me too much of a crazy man. But, you know, the kind of people that 'the World would be much better off without.' What stops me is not god, but the big man that would greet me in my cell in prison.

I'll not nominate who any of those people are, but I don't do it for human reasons, not religious reasons, certainly not for religious reasons.

Other than my sheer contempt of fools I'm very much like the rest of you in most situations, kind, hold up a tram for someone running for it for no reason whatsoever other than I hope that one day if that person gets the opportunity they will do it for someone else. etc.

Yeahhh shut up, I have anger issues.

69. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #90589 by DasSquid on November 25, 2007 at 5:12 pm

I finally finished listening to this.

I do firmly believe that I caught a cold during this it was that terrible. As Professor Dawkins said, the only way in which D'Souza 'won' this debate was due to the decibel level.

It was plain to see that Hitchens dismissed his opponent very early on and found everything that the man said contemptible, as any rational thinker could. D'Souza's only appeal is to a very much uneducated response. Granted, I do believe that Hitchens was pretty drunk or even ill during the debate, many things piled up to make the debate completely useless in his eyes.

"All thats important though is that D'Souza is miles away from right. "

And this is the most important point. We (presumably) anti-theists are so aggressive about these topics because the fact that we find the pursuit of truth is far more important than that of consolation or anything of the such.

70. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #90578 by DasSquid on November 25, 2007 at 3:52 pm

This is the first time I've posted here, and I'm happy about it.

After listening to D'Souza speak for the first time, I kid you not, I felt physically ill that someone 'educated' (ha!) could get things so very badly wrong. I find it ludicrous that people actually believe that in the year 2007... The human race is in a very sore position indeed.

As a person being rather used to speaking in front of audiences (I'm a, hopefully, up and coming stand up comic) one can easily tell that there was no way in hell that Hitchens was going to win this debate. He was clearly speaking way over the heads of those in the audience, with D'Souza seemingly knowing the audience very well.

What's possibly worse are the people who are making comments in the YouTube movies that I'm watching. All his pathetic little quips at the beginning of his speeches obviously appeal to the audience.

And the more I listen, the more ill I get, I'm going to brave it. I'll get back to y'all...