951. The brain in love

Comment #215150 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 12:05 pm

I've never been in love. I've feigned it a few times though. I might be too big of a narcissist to ever fall in love with anyone else.

I am however deeply interested in the idea, and do very much hope to one day experience it. Even if it does end in rejection, though hopefully it will not.

I also read and watch a lot of romantic fiction and drama. Given it is all yuri, heterosexual equivolent stories don't interest me at all for some reason. I always just hate the guys, and resent the women for liking them. I'm weird like that.

952. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215131 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 11:03 am

252. Comment #215127 by Barry Pearson

Paternity testing wouldn't change our genetic predispositions. It merely makes such a disposition obsolete.

253. Comment #215128 by decius

I only whipped the other one together in about a minute. I actually spent a couple minutes on this one. Even if I went over the edges of the last one and gave it a black even boarder it would have looked a lot better. I'm just chronically lazy.

953. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215125 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 10:38 am

245. Comment #215119 by decius

That better?

954. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215118 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 10:12 am

I guess I could have adopted his background. Maybe that is what I should have done.

955. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215116 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 10:09 am

240. Comment #215113 by decius

I know, but it is hard to work with such a small picture. When you enlarge it to do the cutting it is too pixelated to do clean.

956. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215110 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 10:01 am

236. Comment #215107 by bugaboo

It sure is. I pilfered it when he let his guard down for that split second, and I'd do it again!

957. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215092 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 8:57 am

I regret things I remember I did while on drugs, but I did nothing overly awkward I remember when I was drunk. I was once arrested for public intoxication and got to spend the night in the drunk tank. That wasn't very fun.

958. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215088 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 8:54 am

222. Comment #215081 by al-rawandi

I understand now that it was speculation, as you explained. I was only saying why I got the impression. No need for further elucidation...thanks.

959. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215086 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 8:50 am

223. Comment #215085 by al-rawandi

Well, less than Rookie now. I gave up drugs alcohol and ciggerettes four years ago. Well...that isn't entirely true. I bought an ounce of weed last year on my birthday, but nothing since then.

I used to hit them all pretty hard.

960. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215078 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 8:45 am

216. Comment #215072 by Tyler Durden

Good'ol "morning wood".

961. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215077 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 8:44 am

217. Comment #215074 by al-rawandi

You said in 208. Comment #215063 "I got plenty 'hard'". That seemed to me something you would need to remember to know. So, my mistake.

962. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215071 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 8:38 am

211. Comment #215066 by al-rawandi

I would have to disagree. My metal state is important. I don't know about emotional state, but they couldn't be gross.

963. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215069 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 8:35 am

208. Comment #215063 by al-rawandi

Couldn't have been that drunk if you remember. The only things I regret doing when I was intoxicated I was informed about the next day.

964. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215059 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 8:25 am

202. Comment #215056 by mixmastergaz

They could violate you in other ways though, that may constitute rape. I think we would have to start getting into a discussion of what constitutes rape before that question could be answered. Surely sexual intercourse is not all that does, as then the word could not be applied to nonconsentual sex between parties of the same gender.

965. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215054 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 8:19 am

197. Comment #215050 by Dhamma

You could be considered innocent, but a court couldn't find you innocent. They could only fail to find you guilty.

966. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215051 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 8:18 am

194. Comment #215046 by al-rawandi

You must be superman Al. I can't...proform (*cough*)... If I'm too intoxicated.

967. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215048 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 8:15 am

One little nit to pick. A court cannot find you "innocent" they can only fail to find you guilty. Thus "not guilty".

968. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215040 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 8:08 am

182. Comment #215032 by hungarianelephant

Also, if I'm not mistaken, it is enough to know that consent was not given to constitute rape. Since a drugged, or extremely intoxicated victim may suffer no injury whatsoever, nor protest at the time of the rape.

969. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215037 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 8:04 am

178. Comment #215028 by Rachel Holmes

To my utter and complete revulsion, I have also heard such sentiments espoused.

970. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215033 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 8:01 am

Pretty damn disgusting, for sure.

Carto, I also don't understand the permiscuity thing, when it doesn't involve you, but I do understand it when it does. For evolutionary reasons I would think that genes of individuals that took extreme precaustionary measures to insure that they were not raising anyone else's kids would be favored, while those less likely to take extremely action toward infidelity would be more likely to be raising other people's children, and reduce the amount of their own offspring in future generations.

If I'm not mistaken, when a male lion takes over a pride, the first thing it does it kill off all the cubs. I would think that in a patriarical society, it would be important to control women in such a way to ensure that they are not just cheating your trust, but the perpetuation of your genetic information as well.

Though, a less complex explanation, and one that could also be true, is that the foundations of such concepts were themselves jealous and insecure individuals, and the people that continue to perpetuate it, and abide by it just have to think that it is the will of Allah, and don't need to justify it beyond that point.

971. Antony Flew reviews the Index of The God Delusion

Comment #215002 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 7:13 am

120. Comment #214981 by Nephite

I don't actually consider the truth paramount. I'd lie whenever I found it ethically justified to do so, and I would also probably perpetuate a lie if I thought that the truth was damning enough. So I do understand the mindset of some more (for lack of a better term) crusading theists.

I think at the very least its benefits do not out weigh its downfalls, but more importantly, I am unaware of a single actual benefit of religious beliefs that cannot be acheived through secular means.

So I think that campaigning against dangerous and harmful religion is morally necessary, and compaigning against just wrong religion is justified.

Though I definitely think that a distinction between the two is important, and would determine the level of our tactics, and the severity of our tact.

972. Antony Flew reviews the Index of The God Delusion

Comment #214999 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 7:05 am

117. Comment #214971 by Steve Zara

If that is the case, maybe trying to work out the dissonance of the supernatural/natural dichotomy is the only thing keeping Flew marginally lucid.

I know I'm a cruel bastard.

Anyone else notice that he refers to himself in the third person once?

[article]

What is important about this passage is not what Dawkins is saying about Flew but what he is showing here about Dawkins.

973. Jefferson Bible reveals Founding Father's view of God, faith

Comment #214953 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 5:37 am

One representative even said that the Bible and the Declaration of Independence were the two best things ever written.

974. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214935 by Mitchell Gilks on July 21, 2008 at 4:42 am

334. Comment #214780 by Dr Doctor

Living vicariously through Teratornis?

Seriously though, I'm not all that interested in winning arguments, or "one uping" anyone. I'm interested in a free and civilized exchange of ideas. To be understood, and to understand.

I failed in being understood, and if by backing out of the exchange I have "lost" by default, then fine. I guess I done been "owned". If that is his purpose here, than I am happy to have indulged and obliged.

975. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214711 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 8:04 pm

314. Comment #214698 by Teratornis

I see nothing I feel the need to respond to. If you only wished me to explain what I meant by "irrational" and "nonrational" then I have attempted and failed. I do not feel the need to go to exhaustive lengths to explain it to you.

976. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214709 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 8:02 pm

316. Comment #214702 by thewhitepearl

As irrational as someone who believes in celestial teapots.

Preumably they require justification for beliefs, they do not just believe stuff. If they require justification for beliefs, then holding beliefs that are not justified does not cohere with their rationale, and is thus irrational.

977. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214659 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 6:25 pm

311. Comment #214623 by thewhitepearl

If it is important to you to hold justified true beliefs, and you are aware of the philosophical criticisms of holding such a belief. Then I really do think you are being irrational for just holding a belief in any deity. For the sole reason that it is not rationally or evidentiarily justifiable to do so.

978. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214615 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 5:11 pm

304. Comment #214608 by Teratornis

I'm not trying to be offensive, but you appear to be misunderstanding through an effort on your part. You may want to allot some charity in conversations.

I never said "entirely" opposed to reason. Clearly a word like "irrationality" is vacuous void of context. They would only ever be being irrational with respect to a context.

It may be part of some ritual for some, but for me it is not. I do it for no reason. I just do it. I also grind my teeth and chew my nails. There may be a cause for all this, but there is no reason.

(you have a talent for adding quantifiers that were not stated, and then arguing against what you have stated. "Entirely" "necessary" for instance. I would avoid this, it at the very least boarders on strawman territory)

It would only be necessarily irrational if your goal of pleasure trumped your desire to do the thing that caused you pain on account of the pain it caused. It would not be irrational if you considered the pain worth whatever result you desired that the pain was a side effect of.

979. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214606 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 4:51 pm

302. Comment #214604 by Apathy personified

Teratornis,
No - I'd mark them irrevelant if i could, but not offensive.

980. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214594 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 4:35 pm

295. Comment #214587 by Teratornis

Irrationality is opposed to reason, while nonrational is not.

Putting my hands on my forehead when I think = nonrational

Doing something that causes myself pain when my goal is pleasure = irrational.

981. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214586 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 4:25 pm

289. Comment #214573 by physicist

You ask some very good question, and raise some very good points. I'm glad that you decided to chime in.

I don't know if you read the entire thread, but eariler on I argue that attacking supernaturalism is not attacking irrationality, but merely a subset of irrationality. So with that point, I couldn't agree more. There is a ton of irrational beliefs around, and I don't even think that supernatural ones are necessarily the worst. I think that dangerous ones are the worst, whether supernatural or not.

Fact has different meanings, and it means something differently in both of those contexts. I was refering to fact (in that instance) as being something that coheres with how things really are, with the objective world. In this context I also meant evidence that can be used to establish these facts as being coherent with the objective world. This limits that particular context to the natural sciences, yes.

Not all religious claims are about how reality operates, but supernatural claim necessarily are.

982. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214561 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 3:47 pm

281. Comment #214546 by phil rimmer

I want results now too, and I think were getting them, and the rational have been getting them since the first hominid made a noise s/he meant to convey meaning.

I think that we have come leaps and bounds. Could you imagine what would happen if the rationalists of the world were to shut up and sit down, letting irratinality reign?

The process might be slow and gradual, but it is powerful. There will never be a utopian ultra-rational perfect society of course. I might not be happy with, but I am content with, two steps forward and one step back.

983. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214556 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 3:43 pm

280. Comment #214543 by physicist

Sorry for keeping you awake. All words are relative in at least some sense, and "reason" doesn't address anything objective. It refers to a cohesive way of thinking. What it is coherent with is what matters.

A person cannot both claim to care about what is as a matter of fact true, evidentiary, and/or rational justification for their beliefs that presuppose a goal of being coherent with the facts, and hold supernatural beliefs, without being irrational.

All I need to presuppose is that they care about what's true, and having justification for believing what they do, and then I can accurately call them irrational. How many people don't claim to care about such things?

984. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214538 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 3:30 pm

268. Comment #214509 by hawt4dawk

Instituting thought crimes, as in a totalitarian regime.

985. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214536 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 3:25 pm

270. Comment #214515 by physicist

Oh, indeed rationality cannot be defined in an objective way. It is relative to one's goals, aims, desires, and premises. (I discussed this briefly in another thread).

My speaking about irrationality presupposes people care about what is true, and what corrisponds with the facts.

If your goals, premises, and desires do not necessitate that your beliefs cohere with the facts, then it could very well be rational to believe things that are not true.

It is only irrational when your behaviour, views, or beliefs contradicts your desires, goals, and premises.

If you care more about feeling good, or having fear of oblivion after death offset or strifled, than you do whether your beliefs are actually true or not, then it would be coherent with such a world view to believe things that aren't true, but achieve your desired ends better than the truth would.

This I fully concede. I presupposed my own goals and desires when I talk about rationality. As I do of my own views on ethics and morality when I talk about morality and ethics.

It may sometimes result in misunderstanding and confusion, but it isn't practicle to outline all of my views on either before I mention them. I do so with the impression that at least in the most drastic of cases our views overlap.

986. Jefferson Bible reveals Founding Father's view of God, faith

Comment #214527 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 3:14 pm

I think that expert linguists impress me the most. I don't really know why, but I just find the idea of speaking a multitude of languages amazing.

I have plans to master Japanese French and Latin in my lifetime. I'm working on Japanese right now, I think I'll save Latin for last, because it is the least practicle of the three.

987. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214504 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 2:35 pm

265. Comment #214500 by phil rimmer

Active campaigns, conversational intolerance, and raising the importance at every opportunity is all we've got. I'm not willing to force people to think like I do, no matter how sure I am that I'm right.

There is a sad dilemma in this. It can be frustrating, and it can be infuriating to watch as the vast majority of people live an irrational, and ultimately harmful life. The alternative is simply worse.

There needs to be checks and balances. I also think one is niave if they think a system that allowes for forcing people to think and act a certain way will work in their favor, and not against them. We are the minorities, you are entangling yourself in chains if you support such an idea.

988. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214495 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 2:20 pm

255. Comment #214474 by mordacious1

I think that philosophy is very important. I find that a lot of mathematicians, and people in the formal sciences are far less likely to even think about the soundness of a proposition, and instead focus on its logical validity. Logical validity means nothing, and is less than impressive if the premises cannot be rendered sound.

989. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214491 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 2:15 pm

252. Comment #214463 by Radesq

I was once threatened by a rough looking character that was missing a finger for making a crack about Jesus in public. I quickly shut my mouth...

990. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214487 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 2:11 pm

224. Comment #214413 by Teratornis

My only comment is that I think you have created a false dichotomy of rational/irrational. To the exclusion of the nonrational.

227. Comment #214418 by hawt4dawk

I'm getting there I think. Not too annoying anymore.

Well, I'm an anti-social recluse, so I don't have any of those problems. Also, when I am in public, most tend to think I'm a prick, because I don't keep my opinions to myself.

229. Comment #214420 by hawt4dawk

But of course. I often pondered and discussed a gods proported attributes. When the omnixxx attributes are examined, they are either contradicted by the evidence (in the case of omni-benevolent) or incoherent (in the case of omniscience and omnipotence). That is ignoring perfection, toss that one in and it's a whole new game.

232. Comment #214427 by thewhitepearl

Well I had the pleasure of having a kidney stone a few months ago, so I can appreciate the pain involved. Though my recovery was fast, and not uncomfortable, and it wasn't preceeded by months of awkward and uncomfortable body changes.

We can thank an evolutionary patchwork job for that specific thing however.

991. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214406 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 11:58 am

221. Comment #214402 by hawt4dawk


I think that cheap, dumb, lame, and obvious puns and plays on words are the bread and butter of the media. I just roll my eyes and continue reading.

992. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214363 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 10:18 am

215. Comment #214361 by mordacious1

It's trade mark. You don't need to stroke my ego, I do that myself quite regularly...hope it's not a sin. Sometimes it does feel nice to have someone else give it a rub though.

993. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214362 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 10:15 am

I should mention that I don't think such all encompassing rationalism exists. Or an "ideal rationalist". Surely we all hold plenty of irrational beliefs. This could be due to a lapse in reason, ignorance, or more likely, the fact that most knowledge is 3rd,4th,5th,6th, or in the case of something like the bible, 10,000th-hand information. Errors are always present, and often plentiful.

What I think matters, is the willingness to be rational when it comes to everything. The willingness to change your mind, and drop a belief if you fail to be able to rationally justify it when challenged. This is what supernaturalists (of any kind) fail to do, so I do not consider them rational.

994. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214360 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 10:04 am

211. Comment #214355 by Styrer-

I think you are conflating intelligent, skillful, knowledgable, and good at one's job with rationalism.

I don't know of such people. Some people may even be quite rational when it comes to some things, but they are not rational when it comes to all things, so they are not rational.

Hume obliterated any justification for accepting a supernatural explanation for anything. Completely annihilated it with his problem of induction.

Knowing about this, not being able to solve his problem, and continuing to do what he showed unjustified. That cannot be a rational person, in my opinion.

995. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214357 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 9:58 am

209. Comment #214351 by mordacious1

Hey, now here is a response I can give in both english and japanese.

Boku wa sugoi desu, ne?

I am great, aren't I?

996. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214349 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 9:36 am

207. Comment #214348 by mordacious1

What'chu talkin' 'bout Modacious1? Wasting my mind? Didn't you see my tenticle-beast metaphor? That took some heavily intellectual lifting.

997. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214346 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 9:29 am

204. Comment #214345 by mordacious1

That's correct. There is no sense continually going for the regenerating limbs of the tentical-beast. You gots to go for the heart! At best you only attack the limbs to get them temporarily out of the way, to make the heart vulnerable.

998. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214336 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 9:00 am

198. Comment #214334 by Steve Zara

From the strength of your language it seems you would prevent people even writing fairy stories, and would ban Tolkien.

999. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214333 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 8:57 am

189. Comment #214320 by Styrer-

If one were rational, then they would reject supernatural explanations. If one rejected supernatural explanations, how does this necessitate that they are rational? They could reject them because their parents told them they are wrong, and harbour a multitude of irrational political, economic, environmental, and societal irrational beliefs.

Also, saying something is a subset of something hardly is saying they are "seperate entities". Drama shows are a subset of genres of television programming, that hardly makes them a "seperate entity" from television programming. The former could not exist without the latter, but the latter could do just fine without the former.

I don't remember if I added that later, though I fiddle with all of my posts after posting them for like ten minutes, so it is probable. If it is the case then I apologize. Though, it was not meant as an insult. It was meant as a clear point, that what you said was clearly misrepresenting what I said, which would have had to have been on purpose. Though it seems that I was wrong in thinking that was the case.

1000. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214313 by Mitchell Gilks on July 20, 2008 at 8:03 am

Well, not all of us are totalitarians.

I'm an intellectual anarchist, I will fight tooth and nail against any form of goverance of ideas.

You also appear to be falling into I mindset I would advice against. That supernaturalism is the problem, instead of irrationality. Supernaturalism is only a subset, or class of irrational modes of thought. Stifling it will not make people rational. Making people rational will stifle supernaturalism.

I also specifically said "I am however unsure if they can be kept seperate, or to themselves, but to the extent that they can be, I have no desire to interfere." I find ignoring the fact that I specified a condition telling.


If you want to ring the horn of the thought police, then count me out.