951. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #144880 by MaxD on March 17, 2008 at 12:33 am

So...uh what is a private individual?


Also I agree that media types might ask themselves pointed questions before they bring on a Swaggart, or Falwell or a Robertson or even a generally harmless guy like Billy Graham. Or Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

But if you are going to ask for say the preacherly perspective you can hardly limit their speech just because you don't like it. I mean if you have a devote christian on, you can't really expect them to wander very far from the "god hates fags" script. They may dress it up as some liberal theologians do. But if they are honest about the texts they read they can't get away from it. Catholics do not hold that scripture is the final word though and are free to add on any kind of crack pot idea, and just as free to be "led" away from ideas that have become too crackpot to be palatable to the enlightened masses. As such they are free to imagine such conspiracies like the one led by Sir Ian McKellan. And if we have them on a talk show we can't very well say, this, this and this is okay, but you will not say this. Its like having Hitch on and then telling him he can't be mean about Falwell.

I suppose it would be nice if media types said when asked about getting the theological perspective on some subject they would react as many of us do to the theological claim of correctness. "Not Odin though, or Allah? Why is that?" I mean it would be different for media types. They could nix the the single or even triple theocratic perspect so often found on talking head "news" shows, by realizing, like good secularists, that we can't privilage one or even three over the thousands of others. No Lets respect all religions and freedom thereof, but lets admit that we can't have every sect, tribe and parish on to discuss this issue so in the interest of fairness lets have none.

952. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #144876 by MaxD on March 17, 2008 at 12:00 am

Steve,
Then others in that organization should speak up. Look at what happened to that idiot Geraldine Ferraro. She made an assine statement and was quickly brought down for it. She has said she stands by her critique and that is that as they say. Other people have voices and they ought to use them.

You also keep using a scary vague term. Private.

People in private can say what they like...So is private just in my home? Or in my car? WHat if my car window is rolled down? Is private just not being a person with a platform? Is Fred Phelps and his ridiculous mob private or platformed? What about Jimmy Swaggart? Pat Robertson?

No I think you have hit upon one of your rare bad ideas.

953. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #144875 by MaxD on March 16, 2008 at 11:55 pm

Bonzai said

My rule is that ideas are fair game, but targeting people is no no. It's ok to say Islam is a ridiculous religion but it wouldn't be ok to say that all Muslims are scumbags who should be locked up. I don't believe that people should be threaten with arrest for saying stupid things about homosexuality and 'homosexual conspiracy", but I draw the line if they advocate doing harm to gay people, perhaps killing them.

I know sometimes the line is not easy to draw, but that is my basic position.

Bonzai,
When would it be okay to call for violence against someone or some group? When would you let it happen?
I'm very reticent to give that decision to someone else other than me the citizen. When you get into the hate speech bullshit you get into that whole mission creep business. OH this might offend someone, or this might scare person x, or on and on and on. I think it is high time we stopped trying to shut people up because we are...offended, or hurt or frightened by what they say. Instead our first response ought to be fighting back with better ideas.

954. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #144873 by MaxD on March 16, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Steve Zara
Said:

I also think it is appropriate to act against hate speech when someone is appointed as a group representative, supposedly with authority. I believe this is different from what an individual says in private.

It is important to act against hate speech, but not with laws limiting speech. I don't care what that silly twit says, in public, or private. It doesn't matter. He can say it. I am just as free to challenge him, with argument or ad hominem. But limiting speech is always a bad idea.

955. The atheist delusion

Comment #144806 by MaxD on March 16, 2008 at 7:07 pm

Grayling saying that humans are moving in the right direction is quite something different from saying there is some progressive trend in history, or that we are moving along it. One can have a suspicion of what the best course for some thing is and then say we are moving in the right direction without believing in some Marxian vision of history.

956. Fleabytes

Comment #143893 by MaxD on March 14, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Quetz said,

what Clearthinker doesn't seem to get is that "Western Ideologues" don't argue against abstinence and faithfulness. They argue against them being the ONLY things taught.

True that. I was shocked by his leap at our own moral backwardsness. We were upset by the abortion permitted-no funds-then stance taken by the US Administration, not soley because it denied women rights but because there would be further cascade effect on other services that would limit the spread of HIV/AIDs, not to mention extend contraception to people to avoid unwanted pregnancies. I know that the admin has toyed with the idea of limiting funding to only programs that are abstinance-only. A ridiculous damn notion that one, considering the damning evidence against that sex-ed design.

957. Fleabytes

Comment #143886 by MaxD on March 14, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Bonzai reveals his hand in the following quote!

Well in fact I am against abstinance education at least philosophically because it portraits sex as something dirty, wicked and dangerous that one should avoid except as a means towards an end,--procreation or as a leash to tie down someone you love. I think this is unhealthy and is a natural development of Christian theology which in general holds the body in contempt.

HEATHEN. Didn't we all see that coming.

Kidding of course and your point is well made.

958. Fleabytes

Comment #143818 by MaxD on March 14, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Clearthinker!
You said the following bullshit.

Who are the dogmatists? The 'Western Liberals' who insist that their views on sexuality and abortion be tied into their Aids provision - in other words they are putting their ideology before the health of the people they are supposed to be serving, or the Christian groups who operate for example the ABC principles as in Uganda. I understand that the Anglican church in Uganda and the government have operated together on this principle and it has seen a considerable drop in Aids. A = abstain, B- Be faithful and C- condoms. This seems to be something that works. It makes sense and is practical. And yet Western Liberals who operate within a very narrow ideology (including the belief that sex is a recreational activity and appetite which should be indulged wherever and whenever, and also the belief that the child in the womb is disposable) insist that only their views are humane. I agree totally that is wrong for the Catholic Church to ban condoms. It is just as wrong for Western Ideologues to argue against abstinence and faithfulness.

WTMFHMF?!!JFC!!

The limitations on funding for those areas that provide abortions is an unnecessary and theocratically inspired move that in no way will improve health. In fact the very real possiblity is that AIDs/HIV would increase because other practices (like education, condoms, contraception) would become less available. The imposition of a minority view among american evangelicals, that is no abortion for anyone on a continent suffering AIDs as it is constitutes at the very least callous indifference. (While most Christians do adopt a pro-life stance personally most polls indicate that it ought to be up to individuals especially during the first trimester.) So why deny the aid that will go to more, far more than just abortions?
Further, you will note that not one of us on this site is against abstinance education. We are all (I think)against abstinance-only education because it doesn't fucking work. In fact all kinds of new risky behavior ensues because of abstinance-only ed (More oral sex, more nonprotected sex when it happens, and most humorous of all, more anal sex). Your ABC program has all the components of an effective program because it also teaches about condom use.

So... you dense bastard, it has nothign to do with our wanting to foist our sexually liberal ideas on people, but rather we are wanting to see a deadly disease stopped, and see that people don't have to deal with its effects. Who the fuck on this site has said lets export our hedonistic orgy policies? Who has said let sex occure whenever and whereever it is desired? Huh?

959. Fleabytes

Comment #143807 by MaxD on March 14, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Bonzai said,

Many Christians would have no problem acknowledging that the bible was not intended to be a scientific text book and secular Biblical scholars agree on this point as well.

The question is how many of them think the nicer liberal interpretive business or the harderline one? And certainly most of them believe some of the silliness literally. While a nice fellow like Allistar MacGrath is quite willing to concede modern cosmology all of its points, and Francis Collins is quite fine with all of evolutionary biology, both seem to think that Jesus became a zombie (hopefully he resembled the Marvel Zombies. Zombie Captain America, Zombie Hulk, Zombie Spider-man.) So even within the liberal tradition their is some seriously weird belief business occuring.

You also say

I really don't think it is such a devastating blow to point out that the Biblical authors believed in the flat earth theory.

.
Maybe but doesn't it seem kind of strange that God is so bad at this book writing business?

960. Fleabytes

Comment #143787 by MaxD on March 14, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Clearthinker, finally responded saying, (to my question about what I thought, and still kind of think was his dishonest use of Genesis).

Ok - you asked for it. I guess you guys really think that if you repeat the
mantra often enough it will be true (Altogether now..The Wee Flea is a liar). I quoted
from Genesis 1:2 about the ËÅ"chaos'. You accused me of lying about this.
This would of course be pretty stupid of me because even I can work out that
you could check the quotation. So why would I lie? The Hebrew words used
(and perhaps I should point out here that I am not using a)wikipedia, b)
atheist apologist websites or c) Christian apologist websites). I did
actually spend three years studying Hebrew - including several months on
this passage) are bohu and tohu. Tohu (lit. without form) is used to mean
a wasteland, emptiness, chaos and metaphorically what is baseless and
futile. Bohu means void and is only ever used when it is paired with tohu.
Thus Genesis 1:2 is stating simply that at the beginning of the earth there
was â€ËÅ"chaos’. But again I ask ' why would I lie about something so obvious?
Can you not think of some other accusation? Perhaps sometimes you might even
manage to argue that I could be wrong but not lying? Why is everything so
extreme for you?

I wasn't being extreme. I was infering from a long history of your tactics. Furthermore, how could I know you were utilizing your knowledge of Hebrew? You framed your case in English sans appropriate caveats. I simply made the logical leap that you were using your bible. That is where I got my quote from my own copy. Not from any of the websites you implied.
You said,

Exactly. That is precisely what the Bible says. In the beginning the earth was �quot;formless and empty, chaos' - Genesis 1:2.

You did not say in the original Hebrew. You said in the MFin' bible bro. If I made a mistake then I submit to you it was an honest one. And if you intended no sophistry then allow me to extend my apologies.
Let me though quote you again and at length though because you chose to whine about my worry that you were being dishonest and further avoided the critique, which went beyond the biblical quotation. Here it is again.

You say,

3. Chaos
If the universe had a beginning (such as an act of creation), it would have had to have begun in a state of high order necessarily imposed from outside. Stenger demonstrates that our best current cosmological understanding shows that, at Planck time (i.e. 6.4 x 10-44 second after Big Bang) the universe had "no structure or organization, designed or otherwise. It was a state of chaos."

Exactly. That is precisely what the Bible says. In the beginning the earth was �quot;e formless and empty, chaos' - Genesis 1:2

.
Do you see what you have managed to do with this passage? You've conflated two different problems into one. Namely you talk about the Big Bang and the formation of the Earth as if they were synchronous events. This isn't even remotely the case. But it must be how you think of if you are going to claim that Genesis is â€"by any translation- an accurate description of the beginning of the Universe. By all means if it isn't you should elaborate.
Can you see the error in your statement above? "Stenger says that in the beginning the universe had no, structure or organization, designed or otherwise. It was all chaos"
You then say, "Exactly." You actually say exactly, and then quote the bible, "In the beginning the Earth was formless and empty, chaos.' That isn't exactly even close to demonstrating correspondence with what we know. You are talking about the Earth. Stenger is talking about the Big Bang. And clearly the bible has nothing useful to say, scientifically about the formation of either. Are you using the Universe and Earth more or less interchangeably? Or have you just made a mistake by focusing on the word chaos and forgetting you and Stenger are talking about two different things.
I quoted the Genesis, admittedly my English translation, and demonstrated the ways in which it wasn't up to the cosmological task. In the beginning it says, several things about the creation, and manages to get all things wrong. Sequences, events etc, if you want to subject the book to the rigors of science, then the Genesis Cosmology has been roundly falsified. As a myth it is of course fascinating in the way all myths are.

A final note:
I also made it perfectly clear that your biblical translation may indeed contain a bit about chaos. That was a nod to the astonishing varieties of the unalterable word of God. I added verses, as they seemed to carve out a Cosmology. What I noted was that you were being slippery with your quotes, and stopping where it seemed to suit your purposes. It is hardly material though, the biblical passages I mean, because they focus mostly on the creation of the Earth as the focal and initial point of the creation.

961. Fleabytes

Comment #143762 by MaxD on March 14, 2008 at 11:11 am

Where does DR arrive at the conclusion that Dawkins doesn't like to debate. I remember an article about some God centered debate many years ago, (before TGD) where he debated some clerically bent fellow, and reporters having a sports writer field day with it. Dawkins 6; Clergy nil. Or something like that.

Also, he did the three person team debate with Hitch, and Grayling against 3 theists, and as Hitch so eloquently said, "We left them for dead."

Further in the un-edited talk with MacGrath it isn't Dawkins who looks the wooly headed buffoon.
I think Steve Zara is correct in his interpretation of DR. "Pick me!" He wants to be worthy of the mantle of a Macgrath, or Polkinghorne, and I guess he feels the exposure of an engagement with Dawkins would give him his theological tipping point.

962. Fleabytes

Comment #143751 by MaxD on March 14, 2008 at 10:53 am

Mphil said

The evidence shows that certain animals can plan and interact socially on a complex level... but this can be explained more parsimoneous than by attributing a mentality nearly as complex as our own.

I don't know too many people working in animal cognition that would go that far. I think the thing most people interested in the intelligences of our animally kin would say is that our minds aren't wholly new kinds of minds, and that we are just at one end of a continuem. I suspect that if we had the whole of the hominid line currently with us, we would see more clearly that our minds differ only by degree.

963. Fleabytes

Comment #143744 by MaxD on March 14, 2008 at 10:46 am

5265. Comment #143541 by Cartomancer

Cartomancer, that was wonderfully edifying post.
Thanks.

964. Fleabytes

Comment #143736 by MaxD on March 14, 2008 at 10:40 am

Was the Carolina Parakeet exhibiting mobbing behavior? I wonder....

965. Fleabytes

Comment #142349 by MaxD on March 12, 2008 at 11:13 am

My learned friend,
I am unsure the specific links but it would appear the Israelites enslavement and mass exudous from Egypt is-as yet unproven. This point is admited by at least one major christian evangelical. No historical record of the jews escaping Egypt exist. Nor is there a shred of archeological evidence for the 40 years in the desert.
That isn't to say that the bible is all wrong, or all right on its history. However, one would expect a book written by the creator of the universe to get it all right even with the translation problems from divine tongue to mortal tongue. All powerful. All knowing. Those two concepts don't admit for flawed texts do they? If they do you have provided a huge loop-hole for yourself. The bible is absolute truth.....except in those numerous instantces where it gets it wrong and then we can't blame it on the bible but on fallible scribes.
Does that seem very reasonable?

966. Fleabytes

Comment #142339 by MaxD on March 12, 2008 at 11:00 am

Regarding Paula Kirby's post 4803 above,

I am constantly amazed at DR's incistance on this point about Dawkins and DR's magazine. The RD.net email seems utterly reasonable and polite, much more so than it needed to be. And after reading the RD.net email, one can only suspect mendacity of a calculated kind on DR's part. I for one don't blame Richard D, for not wanting to write a piece to such an organization as they (apologistic orgs., creationists etc) have a long history of taking quotes way, way way way way way, as in cosmic distances way out of context. Further clearthinker himself has engaged in some of this very action hasn't he?

He is determined to see everything on this site in negative ways and our thinking as equivlent to his own faith position. I don't have faith there is no God. Nor do I have faith there are no unicorns, or yetis, or lochness monsters. Its just that the evidence for these propositions runs a narrow range from non-existant to extremely scant. As such I can go about my daily business as if they don't exist because the evidence doesn't favor any change in my worldview or my daily actions.

David Clearthinker's arguments such that they are often boil down to the argument from incredulity. "The laws of physics just happened? Yeah right!" Clearthinker incredulously opined.

His other argument technique seems to be mostly about avoiding the charge to provide some evidence, or misunderstanding what evidence is. The theological mind sets great stock in their gut instincts and feelings, and introspection. But so far I have yet to see him produce evidence of his fantastic claim. Real evidence.

In my mind the atheistic position isn't a positive stance. It is simply being without belief in such beings at this time. It is a negative stance that essentially amounts to waiting around for the evidence. What DR seems incapable of understanding is what I think is the most damaging argument of the God Delusion. We are all atheists about most of the gods that have ever been. We are all a-fairiests for the same reason. We only take a hit when we are atheists about some god, god-concept that is still widely cherished or held.

967. Fleabytes

Comment #142330 by MaxD on March 12, 2008 at 10:36 am

Still no response from DR on my misquoting the bible business. That is to say my commentary on his misquoting the bible for his terrible, and intellectually dishonest ends. Hmmmm.

968. Fleabytes

Comment #142073 by MaxD on March 11, 2008 at 10:01 pm

(Clearthinker here was something I posted for you while you were away defeating liberal arts school atheist professors and clearly had no internet access to keep up with the board)
Clearthinker (would that this name were more indicative of you)

You begin your rebuttle of point six as follows:

Paula, Thanks for your admittance that you are not remotely qualified to comment on this subject. And of course you choose Stenger because he supports your atheism. However that can hardly be cited as a review or evena refutation of my book.

I'm not sure how that wasn't calculated to stir up an emotional response. Stenger's book is fine and draws a great many points you would do well to dwell on before you go spouting off your own-baseless-certainities.

Moving on.
You assert:

2. Big Bang must have been caused by God you can't explain it any other way
No. You can explain it another way. It just does't make much sense.

This is a simple assertion on your part for which you have no proof other than the fact that you want it to be so. I find it odd that nary a physicist I know, and as it happens I know more than few, feels the need to invoke any extra step in the Big Bang or any other aspect of their physics. In fact we find atheism quite high among them-especially cosmologists- higher I think even than among biologists. Regardless I was wondering how qualified you were to be writing about this and then I read this.

Your gem, and crowning achievement in the reasoned arts:

3. Chaos
If the universe had a beginning (such as an act of creation), it would have had to have begun in a state of high order necessarily imposed from outside. Stenger demonstrates that our best current cosmological understanding shows that, at Planck time (i.e. 6.4 x 10-44 second after Big Bang) the universe had "no structure or organization, designed or otherwise. It was a state of chaos."

Exactly. That is precisely what the Bible says. In the beginning the earth was �quot;formless and empty, chaos' - Genesis 1:2.

.

It was at that point I realized you weren't very qualified. Not even to quote the bible. Or to understand that which you were quoting did nothing to help your case. The Bible actually says; 1In the begining God created the heavens and the earth.
2. and the Earth was formless and void and a darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
3. Then God said, "Let there be light."
Okay enough of that.

Nothing about chaos, though maybe your translation has that bit in there. What you will note though is that light came after the waters, and Earth, and this we know with a very high degree of certainty that light came before earth, and water and complex atoms came after (very much after if you must know) the light in the nuclear furnaces of stars. Okay nice try though with the Bible verse. But as you hopefully just learned we can all trot that out!
And you will hopefully further note that what you said was not precisely what the bible says and that the bible didn't precisely say what you wanted it to say about the Big Bang. No doubt where it is errant we will find the magic of the metaphor!

I'm beginning to see why people find you such a slippery character.

Clearthinker said:

4. Because we do not see a cause does not mean there is not one.

True but just because we don't know yet what may or may not have caused the universe's instantiation doesn't give you carte blanche to just posit any thing you like, or that every explanation is likely to be of equal probablity.

5. The laws of phyisics just happened - yeah right!

More of that Cosmology qualification of yours I see.
Tediously you say:

6. Stengers arguemtn re fine tuning is here farcical. Paul Davies, Polkinghorne etc just don't understand physics?! Even RD has the sense to recognize the fine tuning argument.

Paul Davies is impressed with the apparent fine tuning. And it is important to note that it-the universe- isn't all that fine tuned. Life as it happens isn't all that abundant and most places in the universe, 99.99999999 % seem down right hostile to the prospect of replicating entities. But go on marveling at how fine tuned the universe is for life.

Unable to stop yourself at the very precipice of the abyss...

7. Who said that the Universe's purpose is humans?

Well I didn't. Paula didn't. Maybe Steve Zara..no he's much to cautious for any thing so silly as that. You're the one droning on about how fine tuned the universe is for life and as all we know is that life has arisen here on Earth its really all we can talk about. It seems that the religiously minded assume much of the universe and God's attention revolves round them. I thought your God had created the heavens so that we could marvel at his greatness. But that is your area of, uh, expertise.

All in all Stengers arguments are very weak and could only be made by someone who starts with the presupposition that whatever else, we cannot allow God. His arguments only appeal to his fellow believers and thus it is no surprise that Paula cites them - but they have nothing to do with either my book or TGD.

All his arguments? Even his rather reasonable objections to dualism? To his collegue's insistance that the supernatural is off limits, that parapsychology has been studied its just that the claims of ESP, remote Viewing, Qi (chi) have all just been flat out falsified or the methodology is so terrible we must reserve judgement.
All of them? Come the hell on boyo!
(this is a somewhat edited, and updated version of the post I wrote to clearthinker awhile back.

969. Fleabytes

Comment #142068 by MaxD on March 11, 2008 at 8:55 pm

robotaholic,
Brazilian Jiu-jitsu man. Or as the brazilian's say, bro.
Train hard, fight hard no time for drinking when you get bit by the BJJ bug.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqjSnr0AM48
here is some for your examination.
Boredom good bye!

970. Out of the Blue

Comment #140867 by MaxD on March 8, 2008 at 11:59 pm

So is your point that you don't like the formulation, mind=brain? I suspect that they are implying the same thing. But it is good to clarify.

I suppose it doesn't matter. You've conceded my point. mind=brain at work. It's physcial processes that can be altered when the function of the brain is altered. Thats all I'm saying. I fully accept that we don't yet understand it as fully as we do other physciall processes. But simply because we don't there is no reason to go making any crazy claims about conscioussness.

971. Out of the Blue

Comment #140865 by MaxD on March 8, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Bonzai said:

First of all this is silly, it is like saying the music is your CD. Doesn't make sense.

No your analogy is just shitty. Or at least not fleshed out.
Sorry the preponderance of the evidence does indeed favor the mind=brain at work. I know you hate the idea. But there is a vast literature on this business. It may turn out to be wrong. However it isn't silly to assume based on the evidence currently available. You are very reminiscent of the smoking lobby in your refusal to acknowledge it.

Also:

Transhumanism is nothing but a kind of eugenics on crack championed by a few over overeducated, overprivileged Westerners and geeks with an overdeveloped brain but too little experience with real people to know their hope and fear. It is a dream to remake the world in their own image,--the disembodied, umber "rational" mind for which more computational power is the be all and end all.

That ain't an argument or even a useful point.

And you said:

I recommend Dan Dennett's "Consciousness Explained"


What a pompous title. I always think that that man can use a little humility.

Well, I can think of at least one other person who could maybe use a little of that as well.

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

Comment #140862 by MaxD on March 8, 2008 at 11:19 pm

Jac12358,
You also failed to address the Ozone point, to which I handily dealt the death blow.

When I was asking for evidence of something is wasn't for the non-global warming side of the issue. I was asking for the evidence of SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE thereof. You claimed it was suppressed, and ignored. I told you about papers I've read calling GW into quesiton or casting doubt on the models etc. You keep discussing the conspiracy against the skeptics...so produce the evidence of it, or quit making the claim.
You also say:

You mention SUVs which reminds me once again of the "hypocracy" of many of GWs proponents, who justify it as a necessary "means to an ends" (like jetsetting to all of their conferences, though I'm not sure how a capitalistic-society-acquired-mansion fits this exemption), or try to "buy" their way out of it with "carbon offsets." I'll be the first to say that hypocracy in itself is not proof of the falseness of the hypocrite's claim, so in areas where the reality is uncertain it does render their claims less credible if they can't "walk the walk" or preach "do what I say, not what I do." If only for fairness sake, it is worth mentioning when many atheists make a point of how religious people can be hypocrites as well, skimming money from their church proffers and fondling altar boys. In both cases, it is their HUMANITY which determines which they "choose" (ah, I can't wait to get into the debate on free choice! - another "can of worms") what to believe, and that belief has nothing to do with the actual facts, whether we know them or not, or can know them in principle, or to what extent, or with what probability of being correct.

This is just some Glen Beck stupidity. Added to it are some examples of that another of your specialities: nonsequiters. I mean I am sorry but spades must be called thus. I'm sure you are refering to Al Gore's house about which you or I know very little, but your bringing it up was deeply instructive to me. Your snide comment about his "capitalistic-society-aquired" digs makes no real sense to me. I will chalk it up to your unpleasentness toward the idea that we might be causeing some unpleasant changes to our planet.
Off topic but to reject your broadly directed charge of hypocrisy....

I myself drive a small fuel effecient car. I turn off my lights when I leave rooms, and walk, or ride my bike when I can. The fact that I like the idea of SUVs is simply an ancillary point I made to establish that I'm no different than any one else on this issue. I live in an area in which there is often inclement weather and such contrivances as SUVs would be horribly handy. Most of my environmentalist friends who do try to offset their ecological footprint aren't being hypocrits, they are being responsible citizens, of country and globe. There is a difference between people who are what you would call environmentalists and people who simply think GW is occuring. The former have changed their way of doing business, as much as they can, while the latter are still on the fence. Most of my enviromentalist friends intenetionally make as small a foot print as possible. They buy the offsets anyway. They recycle.

Moreover your confusion on the point about GW is striking. It isirrelevant to the religion point as Geoff so eloquently pointed out. One can be an avid church goer and be convinced by the evidence that GM is indeed happening (as most-and I do mean most of the evidence points) or not. On things not directly in opposition to their faith, and GM has no doctrinal significance whatsoever, the believer is no different from anyone else (we can see some evidence that this is by the laudable effort of E.O. Wislon-somewhat successful-to join with evangelicals and other religiouisly moved folk on the issue of a broader, and inclusive environmentalism). An atheist can be unconvinced or convinced on the GM point(Michael Shermer was for years unconvinced until recently that this was the case. Michael Crichton thinks that the warming is indeed caused by human action he just suspects that it will be overcome by new technologies.) GM isn't a religous issue. Its truth or validity will in no way impugn the rationalist or faith enterprise. Nor would it influence a mind in one intellectual direction or another no matter how it turns out.



The free will point is not relevant either. I'm not sure why you brought it up. You say:

We are also in agreement on Pascal's Wager, so I am not sure if you understand why I brought it up again. I'm sure you believe and are comforted by the opinion that you have free will and can, to a certain degree, have some control over your life. But there is no subjective proof. Nobody can run the experiment again, with everything in the universe (or in your "causal space") as it was, or change events in your life to create different experiences or memories which would influence your apparent "choice" - it may all be an illusion. And yet you behave - as we all do - as if we DID have free will. We all make a Pascal's Wager. We all believe in something for which there is no demonstrable objective evidence. (There's a preview!)

As it turns out I neither believe in or am comforted (nor discomforted) by the notion of free will. As it happens I think it is an illusion or at least very very limited in its freedoms, (maybe we make our choices like slightly more sophisticated versions of Asimov's difference engines?). But nor do I think anyone goes around making pascal's wager again and again concerning their actions. In fact I don't think people are terrible introspect of on the poitn of our actions. Again though you chose to bring up pascal's wager. I understand what you are saying. You think that everyone who isn't in the sciences are making it when they accept the findings of science. But again you neglect the fact that people can and do see the offerings of science. I mean real world, spectacular offereings. And that in itself is a strong kind of evidence. People also understand, probably more than you think, the independent labs discovering the same thing principle that lends strength the endeavor of science. In short science produces. You are communicating on a medium that owes everything to very deep understandings hard won from nature. It is a reason to be more confident in the method the scientists discuss. The theologian can say no such thing. The don't have the powers of prediction, or the tools to produce-with any degree of reliablity-new knowledge. They can return to their texts and perform lit-crit and pretend that it has some meaning in the real world.
So again I think your Pascal's Wager gambit fails to work in even the general sense because there is still more evidence for favoring granting the greater weight to the scientific establishment based on it long history of success, openess, and independent rigor. It is no mystery why the relgious apologist searches high and low for the religous scientist to bolster their case.

973. Fleabytes

Comment #140851 by MaxD on March 8, 2008 at 9:56 pm

I'm not sure Bonzai is right about the box of choclates. It seems like there is some truth to what is being said, but there is in the box a host of silly wicked thought that most if not all the chocolate eaters do partake.
Most peoples goofy metaphysics (even taken a la carte) can get in the way of rational discussion. I have several quaker friends and it is impossible to get them to speak rationally about the use of violence. It is easy to get them to rationalize their beliefs but impossible to get them to even entertain the notion that sometimes violence might be preferable to non-violence.
While many US xians do not abide stoning, they do by and large disavow gayness. They oppose abortion, and get in the way of various medical proceedures. (On the medical front if it isn't xians of one sect or another, it is the morons from the alternative health lobby, and their flaky new age kindred). It isn't the people that are necessarily the problem. They aren't stupid, but they are trading in a lazy way of looking at the world.

974. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #140567 by MaxD on March 7, 2008 at 9:59 pm

That this was even a debate in the western industrialized enlightenment nation is something strange in itself. Terrible Strange!

Though I hope it will be put a brake on the rush to adopt Sharia law, or some other such clerical nonsense in Britain.

975. Leaving the Faith

Comment #140535 by MaxD on March 7, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Thanks....

976. Leaving the Faith

Comment #140440 by MaxD on March 7, 2008 at 10:47 am

My confusion is an embarassment to all of my reasoned brethren. I go now away from thee(s) in head hung shame.

977. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #140436 by MaxD on March 7, 2008 at 10:41 am

I'm not sure why all the long posts, I've handled the Wooter argument. See comment# 149. I think its the clincher.

978. Fleabytes

Comment #140424 by MaxD on March 7, 2008 at 9:38 am

Dr. Benway said:

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

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

I agree with you on both counts. The moderate/lib theologian tends to find these "other ways of knowing compelling" and takes the anecdote as evidence without thinking it very carefully through. An intelligent guy like Francis Collins walks through the woods and sees a frozen triune waterfall absorbs the general beauty of the day and makes the spectacular intellectual leap that Jesus Christ is his lord and savior. Anyway they are loath to take such experiences away from other people by being borish skeptics even when they find somebody else's Ah-Ha moment to be frivolous and unbased.

This kind of thing I get all the time. The other trick that annoys me when talking to these moderat/lib theologians is their tendency to pull a Paul Tillich on you when you ask for evidence of whatever faith proposition is in question. I think Paula Kirby alluded to this tactic. They say, ah I don't need evidence because, that would a tawdry thing for God to be giving. My God is too grand for that they might say. Then they will go on giving evidence of their "feelings" and intuitions about the universe.

979. Fleabytes

Comment #140135 by MaxD on March 7, 2008 at 1:59 am

Diacanu,
I just explained to Wooter what you were trying to say. I think you will agree with my translation.
-Max

980. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #140133 by MaxD on March 7, 2008 at 1:57 am

What Diacanu means to say-I think- is that you aren't really saying anything of substance Wooter.
You are doing what many theists, god bless em, do. You are putting your cart before your horse and then shooting your horse in the head, and then setting your cart on fire, and then saying look at my magic burning carte dead horsey thingy. Thus GOD.
I admit not an analogy of such power can only take us so far, but I think you get the idea.

981. Fleabytes

Comment #140114 by MaxD on March 7, 2008 at 1:20 am

I think something that will definately get served in hell was my favorite drink in High School.
Southern Comfort and Gatorade.

982. Fleabytes

Comment #140112 by MaxD on March 7, 2008 at 1:17 am

Cartomancer:
IMO your erudition on this subject was very helpful.

IMHO I think you have helped me to become a better member of internet society.

983. Leaving the Faith

Comment #140108 by MaxD on March 7, 2008 at 1:13 am

Playball!!!
You probably could outrun me, but I might catch up over the long distance. But maybe not.
However in the boxing ring...or on the tatame mats one can only run so far....
However, I'm actually a nice guy!
Really....
Here let me prove it.
The documentary is called Enemies of Reason and it is two parts.
Here is part 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2293483151556804649

And Part II
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6004927014381716642

984. Fleabytes

Comment #140101 by MaxD on March 7, 2008 at 12:59 am

I myself think the fine tuning argument is a bit silly anyway. We are marveling at something about which we don't understand yet, at least not enough to go marveling about "fine tuning."
It like marveling about winning the lottery. Somebody had too, and mayby no body else did. Was the lottery fine tuned then?
That isn't a perfect analogy I know but I think it gets a bit at the nature of it.

Further I don't think the universe is all that fine tuned. We don't know how common life is in other solar systems, much less in the rest of our universe. Carts before horses and all that. Its not that it isn't interesting that we are here at all, its just that we don't yet know what kind of universe we live in and that it seems to me is an important point.

985. Fleabytes

Comment #140089 by MaxD on March 7, 2008 at 12:50 am

I'll finally get to master chess playing without the pieces.

Cartomancer lamented:

daemonic attendents will be straight and right-handed I shouldn't wonder

I think I read somewhere that they swing bothways. Handedness I am not so sure about.

986. Fleabytes

Comment #140082 by MaxD on March 7, 2008 at 12:44 am

WTF?
Spray condoms have been invented? I was just about to put the finishing touches on my calculations before Diacanu could get back on track. Damn.

Hey as I am a chatting newbie, what does IMO mean. Surely it will be something obvious. But do help me out.

Clodhopper! CONCERNING HELL. They better allow board games, and DVDs and porn, ESPN, and any other distraction. It is going to be hella crowded and without diversion there will likely be a revolt.

987. Fleabytes

Comment #140074 by MaxD on March 7, 2008 at 12:35 am

Steve did you not see my question?

He seems to think that are physical theories are simply the result of how we observe, and that there is really not that much to the universe at all... a fascinating approach, although I don't find myself that convinced.

Who thinks what? Stenger thinks...? And Rees thinks...?

988. Fleabytes

Comment #140044 by MaxD on March 7, 2008 at 12:08 am

Steve,

He seems to think that are physical theories are simply the result of how we observe, and that there is really not that much to the universe at all... a fascinating approach, although I don't find myself that convinced.

Which one thinks which?

989. Fleabytes

Comment #140041 by MaxD on March 7, 2008 at 12:05 am

Clodhopper,
A fellow fallen Catholic! I remember my own bout of fright at the thought of hell and that I might get to go there. And I worried about my friends and my mom who had been excommunicated for marrying my dad. She was still good Catholic though and went to church. It was during some point in all this I thought you know what, I'd rather go to hell with my friends. I still believed in God, I just thought he was a huge dickhead.

990. Fleabytes

Comment #140034 by MaxD on March 7, 2008 at 12:00 am

MPhil Said:

And I agree, I too sometimes push an idea with a lot of effort just so as to see where it leads and how justified it is.

I think this is what good philosophy is suppose to do. If it didn't it would then be useless.

991. Fleabytes

Comment #140029 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 11:54 pm

I think some of the Cav Scout vehicles I am going to be learning how to operate are amphibious. Not the Humvee but the Striker is amphibious I think.

992. Fleabytes

Comment #140018 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 11:44 pm

Steve,
I was joking about the mysterian business. Not sure you caught that. You like became my hero with your philosophy concerns!

993. Fleabytes

Comment #140013 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 11:41 pm

I don't think Mphil is acting like my pal, he does press evidence into his philosophical examination. And I think his opposition to what we would call dualism stems from what we already do know about the brain.

Though after I read through your posts I don't think you were describing dualism. I don't know what I think of qualia yet but it didn't sound like anything that fit into dualism. And I do understand your question better than I did before so voila learned something new, and thought about something difficult.
Bravo.

994. Fleabytes

Comment #140009 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 11:35 pm

Steve,
I agree with you. The extremes do show us the limits of our knowledge. I never said anything like we have discovered all we need too, or that we have reality mapped out. I'm just saying we can't intuit the models that we have of any of the phenomena outside our range of perception without the help of some other appartus. Because like you said reality is strange. Or like Mencken said and you like to repeat because at heart you are mysterian. See I can throw around labels too!

Agreed exciting time. Much to discover. Never said otherwise and I didn't mean to imply it if I did.

995. Fleabytes

Comment #140003 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 11:29 pm

But Steve Zara makes an important point.
I am in a debate with friend who is a philosophy/theology guy. And it is hard to discuss things with him because he is always calling me philosophical names and not always addressing my points because I'm an -ism or and
-arian who has made an epistomilogical commitment to my -arianisms. But not much really about what we see. No return to the lab.

That he is theological too has added to our difficulties. Ah well, I think philosphy at its best does what LorienRyan suggests. It can clarify our thinking. But sometimes it all seems like a bit of sophistry.

996. Fleabytes

Comment #139996 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 11:20 pm

Yes there is something real out there but its a secret.

997. Fleabytes

Comment #139992 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 11:18 pm

We can't intuite spacetime very well, but I think mathematically we have a good idea what it means. But I see what you mean.
Dawkins 'creatures of mid-world' is enormously helpful I think in understanding the likely reason for why this might be so.

998. Fleabytes

Comment #139990 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 11:13 pm

Bonzai Said:

I don't think they will start preaching God the shitty designer at your nearest evangelical church any time soon.

Didn't George Carlin work this out already? ontologically proved it? He looked at the world and said,
"Judging by these results I think we can say he is at least incompetent, and maybe, maaaybe just doesn't give a shit."
Its not a position that doesn't get the treatment it deserves in theology classes I don't think.

999. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #139951 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 7:41 pm

I was very surprised at how without political voice, or narrative judgement the film was. Its kind of like David Robertson and his arguments. The film was an example of what happens when enough rope is given to someone who doesn't need a rope or is unfamiliar with its handling.

1000. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #139949 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 7:34 pm

No she never cried foul. She was actually proud of it. I didn't know it was from harrassment though.