1351. Fleabytes

Comment #137439 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 9:31 pm

He is a fascinating fellow, in fact the whole wave of theists that have visited us has been interesting. Not their arguments of course which are wanting even with the most sophisticated of theists. Rather it has been instructive to see what they think constitutes good proselytization, argument and evidence. It is also neat they tend to prove our points about where the arrogance lies. It is almost like they are shouting their "truths" at us while their hands are securely clapped over their ears. The theological equivalent of blah blah, la, la I'm not listening, I'm not listening.

1352. Fleabytes

Comment #137391 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 7:30 pm

You think? Hmmmmmm.
I'll consider it. I was trying out rigid thinking, and absolute certainity.

1353. Fleabytes

Comment #137386 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 7:12 pm

That you have taken time to deny it Dr. Benway is all the proof any of us needs to convict you.

1354. Berlin gallery in Islam art row

Comment #137384 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 7:02 pm

It is strange that Islamist always claim that theirs is a religion of peace but they can always be counted upon to demonstrate at what price peace is purchase under their scheme.
Oh yes there will be peace when you other infidels do whatever we say and like.

I know the muslim moderates are not doing this..I know. But the very fact that we can take their religious bullying seriously enough to stop art shows, plays, remove books from school reading lists isn't nothing. I think it is indicative of the larger religious tendency to feel entitled to respect, and at least the passive observance of religious ritual. It is currently just taken to the extreme by many Muslims.

So I think the art show should go on.
What some small groups think oughtn't matter.
Its important to remember its just a picture and
Not obscene, or violent or inciting violence. We
Expect that free speech can be uncomfortable.

1355. Fleabytes

Comment #137318 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Steve said:

Presumably Robertson considers that theology has some value, either in terms of demonstrating truth, or to act as intellectual tar-pit into which Dawkins will get stuck.

I know which one I think it most resembles....but I might have used the term quagmire. A minor quibble...

1356. Fleabytes

Comment #137306 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Hello, Hello.
I can't help but notice that you just attempted to pick a fight on different thread. Why is that not surprising? Maybe you noticed how much more reasonable it was over there, despite the vast amount of disagreement. Hopefully you found that lesson in discourse useful.

1357. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137303 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Steve,
Thanks I think I see more of what you are saying.
Some of the techniques are good alleviating some of your intense phobias and as such have great utility.
This is something that seems like science could understand more, and perhaps even refine by research. That is it could be treated like a medical research program. I bring this up only to show that it could be researched.

Certainl buddhism is vastly different than the Abrahamic myths but the ultimate foundations of buddhism seem just as flimsy. That isn't to say that they haven't stumbled upon important techniques of mental control, and relaxation. Clearly though many people who are professed buddhists are supersticious and share many of the same problems of dealing with reality that our Abrahamic friends do.

1358. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137274 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Steve,
I find it really interesting that scientific ideas don't do much to dispell your phobias. Not because I find the proposition outlandish, certainly it makes sense. But it reveals a bit more of your thought on the subject. Your outlook on usefulness seems then like a species of Dennett's belief in belief.

For me I am constantly using statistical thinking to asuage my worry. Whenever I get on a plane I always think about the stats. How likely is it that it will be my plan that goes down? I am always thinking statistically. That is my antidote to the plague of things that our news medias inadvertantly have us worring over. It doesn's always work of course but I find it enormously helpful.

1359. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137197 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 1:57 pm

On a subject not about Buddha, i do think Bill Mahr is less and less funny. I have just watched most of Mahr's "The Decider." I have to say, I worry that he is becoming more and more like Dennis Miller. That is to say not funny. I like his new rules most of the time and the comedy on his show. But the Decider just was not all that funny. I didn't necessarily disagree with his commentary, I just thought hmmm, when am I suppose to laugh?

1360. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137187 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Steve,
So are you saying then that Buddhism can be all things, and all answers to all people at once? Just researching their own experience to find the truth of....what?
I think it was you who refered to the Dalai Lama on this post. Do you favor his Buddhism? His sect has christened Steven Seagal as a reincarnated buddha, replete with magical abilities like healing powers, and clairvoyance to name just two of his powers.
If not that buddism then what buddhism? I have heard vaguely interesting things uttered by buddhists before but the key word is vague. It all seems so vague as to be useful only in the new agey circles.

1361. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137177 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Well the metaphysical business of many (most?) sects of Buddhism doesn't impress me as being too different from any other religious metaphysics.
But we could measure the effects of any practice of meditation and compare it to other forms of physcial training and no training at all to see if this meditation business is worth pursuing.

1362. Fleabytes

Comment #137174 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 1:25 pm

D'Arcy,
I think the problem people have with the accusations of nihilism is the smugness with which it is constantly asserted.

Certainly Robertson has given us a trenchent insight into the way he misunderstands the term evidence by trotting out the anecdote of the school bus trip and the nearly bounced check, as evidence of the prayer's efficacy.

One of the other things that I find troubling is the notion that we who don't think there is any reason to believe in gods and such ought to be actively organizing our lives around some Darwinian program. As if we were somehow being untrue, or hypocritical to our beliefs. It is a charge both Robertson and Hello among others like to make. Again they tip their hand by revealing what they don't understand.
Evolutionary theory is just an explanation for the diversity of life. Unlike your myths, we don't impart to this scientific understandimg any kind of moral weight. I'm not sure why this crop of theists thinks this.

1363. Fleabytes

Comment #137155 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Robotaholic said,

I'm tired of the assumption that atheists value life less than the theist. That is definitely backwards thinking. If anything we have greater respect for life due to the fact that this is all there is. That throw-away survival machine comment is completely backwards.

nah dude. It would be better to ask who among we atheists hasn't resorted to mind-numbing casual sex, while whacked out on drugs, avoiding the sense of abiding meaninglessness that comes through drifting through an an utterly dismal pointless existance on a tiny spec in an insignificant galaxy. Where is my meth.....

Actually you said it Robotaholic. That silly bromide about our purported nihilsm and indifference grates on my nerves too. I cannot stand it. I'm quite fine coming up with my own points with out depending on the universe, or God or the FSM to provide me with any.
In fact I think that the perspective that there is nothing after this life- or at least there is no evidence that justifies confidence in any such proposition- makes life in the here and now seem so very much more precious.

1364. Fleabytes

Comment #137148 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Paula said, "But to exploit the tragedy of grieving parents for such trivial ends was, in my view, utterly unforgivable. So no, I don't think we took it too seriously. "

Paula,
Christians are always resorting to this though. Using the grief, or fear of others as if it somehow lent crediblity to their case. What I think is shocking about David is how he uses these tragedies is the almost casually callous way they are employed. Oh we had a six year old girl die today....thus proposition x is true.

Troubling but less shocking, is the way he seems unable to grasp anything Richard Dawkins, or any other poster here, has to say about the particulars of evolutionary theory and the way altruism can arise even though genes seem maximized for something we might call selfishness. Robertson continues to misrepresent, or just not understand, what the New Synthesis is really saying, and how effective the paradox of altruism was in helping us (I say us because science is that most encompassingly human enterprise) solve some of the mysteries of evolution. Something I find neat about science is that when it illuminates a mystery it doesn't do so in the language of theological gobbledygook but rather with data, and experiment.
Evolutionary discussions about a gene's 'strategy' for maximizing copies of itself say absolutely nothing about the motivations of the biological machines they create. Robertson cannot of course represent the very reasonable, and not terribly controversial gene's eye view as it really is. And he cannot do it for several reasons.
I deeply suspect that most important reason for this is that he just doesn't understand biology well enough to explain it to lay readers in such a way that would contextualize his critiques..... such that they are.
I could be wrong about that of course. Maybe he does get it, maybe he even gets the major works of Dawkins, The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype. (His constant harangue about meat puppets, machines etc seem to spring from his distaste for the central and apparently, misunderstood ideas of this duology) But to offer any kind of serious critique of these works to a scientific laymen would be a great deal of work for an author whose target audience is likely to be unfamiliar with, if not hostile to biology. And Robertson's style of argument seems decidedly too lazy for any such endeavor.

1365. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137098 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 10:51 am

Steve could you give us a bit more on Buddhism? I mean I see all kinds of it. The Savage guy on this show mentioned that most American Buddhism is of something he called the "Gimmme" variety.
So when you say...

Well, apart from the fun of finding out something new, it seems to be a recipe for living a happy life that can potentially be free of superstition. So it seems at least worth looking at to me.

.

It is often neat to learn something new but as my brother in Guinness mentioned that is a slightly strong generalization. I suppose I'd wonder what kind of buddhism you think is worth looking into. Sam Harris's? His version almost flirts with supernaturalism-which you've noted we ought to be wary of such tendencies. It seems that many buddhists flirt with this language.
Or maybe you mean something like the Da'lai Lama's Buddhism? I would note that he and some of his orange clad crew have said the great and wise Steven Seagal is a reincarnated buddha.

I suppose you are right though that we can garner some worthy kernels of advice from many buddhist traditions. But we could do the same with Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and Hinduism and Shintoism.

1366. Fleabytes

Comment #136900 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 2:07 am

On Dr. Benway's definition of atheism.

Some people define atheism as the belief that there is no god. I prefer to say that God or gods have not been proven to exist. In this way I make it clear that I'm not asserting a positive belief. I concede that I cannot defend such a position.

I completely concur. I've always taken the prefix A- in the zoological sense. Anura(without tails), Apodidae (without feet-though not literally) seem to illustrate my sense of A. Theism, I've always taken to mean uh...theism 'belief in a creator that intervenes.' that is from my Oxford English dictionary. Without that theism. Of course our lack of theism could be remedided much more rapidly than selection pressures and mutation events could change a swifts foot and a frog's tail.

What I find so unappealling about the term is how little it actually says about the general scientific skepticism you and I and I dare say almost everyone in here seems to hold. I am always shocked to read about how horribly rigid the "athiest Philospopy" is. Luckily this is a characterictur driven by author's who haven't done their homework. It isn't that we couldn't be convinced of the proposition that God(s) exist, its just that, as yet this evidence has yet to be forthcoming. Until such time we will just have to be without theism.

1367. Fleabytes

Comment #136895 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 1:07 am

I'm sure someone will have commented on this already but I can't resist. Hello's obsession with gravity and its near perfectness as an analogy for Godi Goodness seems to have reached perfections of ignorance with this statement.
He uttered it after Al-rawandi helped refresh the overworked brain of other ways "God" has affected people.

Nothing defies gravity. Birds don't just lift off sans effort, nor do people, nor do bats or insects. In all those cases there is a balancing act going on, a certain amount of downward thrust must be maintained at x speed to maintaint altitude.
Irate-athiest defies manners by cleverly calling you a fucktard. There is no cost in this.
I defy the good sense and taste of my literary friends by pushing things like Stephen King and Frank Miller into their hands and telling them these authors are some of the best you could ever read.
No body defies gravity. We always, always obey its rules.

1368. Fleabytes

Comment #136891 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 12:32 am

Hmmmm. I don't post for a few days and look how this board has grown!
A couple of my good friends happen to be liberal religious folk, the typical academic liberal theologian types. They have bookshelves full of Paul Tillich and Joseph Campbell and Monty Python and they argue with me alot. But they at least admit that the there is no reason to believe any other one religion is better, or more likely to be true than any other. They at least know that the the preponderance of evidence is on the athiest's side. They even note that the substance of rationalist thought is quite compelling.

One style of arguing seems to be to do this goal post shifting thing. Ah.. you were talking about X no, no old by I was talking about y. Anytime they get cornered, they rather craftily move out of the cross hairs and then I argue with them about why that ought to be considered an illegal move. There are worse moves though.
This metaphor arguement that theologians like to use is a perfect example thereof. It isn't even worth discussing because they have no way to determine which bits are and which bits aren't. It is just based on their whimsy it seems. It is a constant-so they hope- get out of the jail of reason free card.

The other neat move I see done alot by folk like the unfortunately named "Artful Dodger" is to completely ignore the points of the otherside, especially after having artfully dug a trap of your own making. Ignore the points or call them metaphors.
"Where does the bible say the earth is flat?" Indignant tone...
"Uh....here, here and here and here, and did I mention here?
"DON"T YOU UNDERSTAND METAPHOR?"

I guess no one here does, just like you guys don't understand ad hominem attacks and the concpept of irony.


This business of talking with you folk whose dodging is so, so much less than artful, is precisely as much fun as talking to a brick wall.

1369. Taking evidence seriously

Comment #135413 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 11:37 pm

Hey JuxtaMonkey may I recommend Fiasco by Thomas Ricks as the essential text on the Iraq war and the run up to the war. It highlights all the errors and hubris that has gone into the intervention in Iraq.

1370. Fleabytes

Comment #135411 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 11:27 pm

Not if the late 1980s Mighty Mouse was helping them!

1371. Fleabytes

Comment #135401 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Diacanu,
I've totally been meaning to tell you this for awhile....that hero ninja from ninja scroll would totally drop Vampire Hunter D.
Like in two moves even.

1372. Fleabytes

Comment #135389 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 10:37 pm

Robotaholic asked the reasonable,

Will someone please fill me in on the Christian response to this because I have no idea really what their answer would be.

I don't think you will get a reasonable response from our new friend David Robertson. But let me take a crack at it having had to deal with people who take both the alegorical stance and the literal "ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE" stance.

The former tend to do a lot of arm waiving, hand wringing and while muttering some suitably vague liberal theological gobbldygook. While the those who believe in a literal Adam and Eve simply ignore reality. I've encountered alot of both perspectives, and both leave me shaking my head.

1373. Fleabytes

Comment #135383 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 10:30 pm

Steve I agree with you.

It's about power. Robertson wants publicity. He wrote his book, but that does not seem to have been enough. His current campaign is for a debate with Dawkins. The problem for him is that he really isn't that good. He can't even come up with any new arguments, he simply recycles tired old half-understood bits of theology. I suspect he aspires to be some kind of British Dinesh D'Souza, with lucrative book deals and invitations on chat shows. The problem, and I say this in all honesty (having read some of his "letters") is that he has neither the charisma not the intellect to achieve that.

The more he whines about himself the more he reveals. I am also noticing his deep confusion about ad homs. Every critique is an ad hom no matter if it is specifically based on his conjectures and "arguments" or if they really are ad homs. What is that old phrase...? "come down off the cross we could use the wood."

Not only is he that kid in the class desperately wanting someone's attention, he is every preacher that believes that christians are being utterly persecuted in this country. Despite the fact that this couldn't be further from the truth, especially in the US, Canada and Brittain. He is every believer who thinks there is a spiritual war going on and he is on the front lines taking one for Jesus, and I presume God and the Holy Ectoplasm oozing Ghost.

1374. Fleabytes

Comment #135369 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 9:58 pm

DR said:

Which is why so many of you get so mad when we don't all see the light and join in your hatred of God.

I don't hate God that would just be silly. That would be like going into a foaming paroxyism over someone like the Archfiend Magneto.
Or that prick The Beyonder.
No, no. I reserve hate for things, and people that exist.

1375. Fleabytes

Comment #135356 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 9:29 pm

Brian English,
I think DR is honest in his committment to Christ. But dishonest in his style and presentation. Half-quoting Darwin say, or Dawkins. Misquoting Harris was a salient example of this tactic. He isn't Emperor Palpatine or anything but not exhibiting the qualities of Christ either. This seems, given all they say about the power of the almighty, like a tell of sorts. If they have to resort to such dishonest tactics to score debating points their case was never all that good to begin.
Such is the temptation of the dark side I guess.

1376. Fleabytes

Comment #135349 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 9:16 pm

David Robertson said the following enlightening thing in response to an assertion about the image of god and what a Christian might mean by saying the word God.

The paragraph that begins with this simply argues against a list of assertions that Christians do not make. Why not ask a Christian, rather than yourselves? The answer to the question is not that difficult. We mean that we are made rational, spiritual beings with a capacity for personal relationship. God is Logos and we are Logical. We can reason, think, love, communicate. To be in Gods image is to be reflective of his communicable attributes.

We are given the bald assertion of being spiritual beings but again as if it just stating would make it so.
Then we get God is Logos and we are Logical. Allow me to quote one of our text book writers, "That sounds like white-noise to me." This is no less white-noisy, "to be made in God's image is to be reflective of his communicable attributes."

I think you have to establish in some way that this critter, God, or Shiva or the Force even exists before you get to this point about talking about its attributes. I am sure you will point me in the direction of the Bible but that is a book I am just not convinced by.

And when you say we can think, reason, love and communicate why do you think you are saying anything that makes us unique. Most research suggests that our minds our different only by degree from other animals. Dogs can think, reason, experience the same neurological events we would call love, and they can certainly communicate. Maybe they are made in God's image. It has been noted before that Dog is God spelled backwards. Or maybe God IS Dog spelled backwards. Holy shit. Maybe Dog made us to take care of dog kind. Maybe dog let us invent tennis so that tennis balls would be invented that his prized creations would have bouncy playthings thrown to them by their servant animals.
Man maybe I am on to something....
In Dog's name I pray.
I know I am not the first person to have discovered dog theology, but I bring it up for DR's benefit, clearly he hasn't become aquainted with it.
Ooops my master is barking oh I mean summoning me for his nightly oneing and twoing.

1377. Fleabytes

Comment #135328 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 8:48 pm

Diacanu Said:

Wonder if any of it'll soak into David's head, or if he'll just throw up an ink cloud of BS and make a hasty retreat.

Hmmmm....while it was a brilliant rant, I am going to say you should have your bleach stick stain remover handy for that inkcloud, repeated bursts of it too.

1378. Fleabytes

Comment #135322 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 8:36 pm

Paula you said an interesting thing,

I'm convinced that he absolutely believes what he says he believes. I don't doubt it for a moment. This is one of the reasons why I decided that it should be his book, rather than the others, that I should deal with in detail. I think he absolutely believes that the whole of "creation" is the battlefield between God and Satan, good and evil, and that Jesus is the only solution to that battle so far as humans are concerned. I find that an utterly bizarre belief, and like most other contributors here I see that it has desperate consequences for the way he views life and the way he interacts with other people (particularly those who don't share his beliefs), but I have no doubt whatsover that he holds these beliefs with total sincerity.

I find this with alot of the apologists. After meeting them, and listening to them I am more or less always shocked when it isn't a scam, when they really believe. The little apologists, local apologists, priests and preachers can maybe be excused for simply buying into the tracts, and other materials. They, after all, arent responsible for the errors and obfuscations that tend to permeate every bit of religious apology I have ever read.

The authors of these tomes though, many of whom are obviously true believers, cannot be let off so easily. They are always the first to claim that religion imparts the most sure morality, and virtue in people yet they tend to engage in deeply dishonest tactics in the presentation of their own ideas and those of their intellectual foes. Isn't it shocking that the use of dishonesty is so prevalent among influential believers. It is a game of half-truth, quote-mining (sans the context of course), no truth and anti-truth.

What is sad is that David Robertson is so un-unique in his approach to his apologetics. By that I mean so dishonest.

1379. Fleabytes

Comment #135186 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 5:02 pm

I just read a response This clearthinker character wrote to an atheist in which he misrepresented Sam Harris in the following way.

I assume you have read Sam Harris's latest astonishing statement that there are some people who deserve to be killed because of their beliefs?

I think this line by Harris is taken entirely out of context as it was focused on the curbing of relgious inspired violence by such communities as were so addled by such beliefs as to be beyond the influence of rational discourse. I suppose we already do some of this when we send missles into caves filled with Al Qaeda members. They may not have yet killed Americans or Brits but we are essentiall killing them for those beliefs that drive them to kill us. It wasn't simply a blanket statement about killing people whose beliefs with which we simply disagee. Moreover it was line embedded in larger philosophical discussion on our moral action in war.

1380. Fleabytes

Comment #134938 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 11:08 am

Clearthinker are you sure the following line is from the Blind Watchmaker,

"in a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference' Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker.

It isn't that I care one way or the other. I think it accurately reflects the universe we are in. I just remember it or a line very like it from River Out of Eden (which I think is an excellent primer for school children on evolution.)

1381. Fleabytes

Comment #134932 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 10:56 am

Paula said:

It would take Wee Flea logic to interpret this as quaking in their boots, but then, that's the only logic (sic) you seem to have access to. Fact is, David, you are determined to distort everything to force it to fit in with your view of the matter, no matter how devious or transparently dishonest you have to be in the process. Please don't think for one moment that anyone is fooled by your antics.

I just wanted to repeat it for the cheap seats.

1382. Fleabytes

Comment #134928 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 10:45 am

clearthinker said:

'Dachau is wrong is not a fact'. I cannot prove that Dachau is wrong to an atheist, because a consistent atheist is a materialist for whom the only facts are those that can be empirically proven.

I'm not sure how you could not convince or prove to an atheist that Dachau was wrong. I am not sure how you have come to convince yourself this is a fact based on line from Betrand Russell. It seems that one need realize that we are all more or less equipped with the same basic psychological hardware to recognize that other people-regardless of their enemy status-share the same pain receptors and same drives. Simple human empathy would get you to that point with any atheist that was unwilling to engage in the kind of nationalism inspired in group/out group demonizing that often goes on in conflicts. The sciences of human nature have done more to put the commonality of the human family on an evidence based footing than the ancient religions.

Clearthinker you also make the mistaken case that our suspicion that there is not a supernatural world to consider is itself a claim of faith.

I have done this already and now do so again. Your atheism is not just simply an absence of belief in God. It is a an absence of belief in God based upon a materialist/naturalist philosophy. In other words you start from the presupposition that there is only the natural, there is only matter and that any claims to the supernatural are de facto false. That is a faith position and a self contradictory one because ironically the statement that, only that which can be proven materially can be objective fact, is itself a statement which cannot be proven materially and therefore cannot be objective fact.

I wouldn't presume to speak for everyone here but it certainly isn't a faith claim on my part. Clearly as a scienctist I favor any approach that attempts to explain phenomena with a maximizing of parsimony. However I would be quite fine with any reasonble demonstration of supernatural phenomena, whose research methodology was well described and submitted itself to the scrutiny of the rest of the scientific world.

If anyone could demonstrate in a repeatable way ESP, telekinesis, out of body experience, life after death, angels (what a taxonomic nightmare that might be!) or any other such claim I'd happily review it and send my tax dollars in to examine it some more.

My skepticism on the supernatural point though has to do with the almost cosmic amount of nothing that has been found in support of any supernatural hypothesis. I used to be very open to many supernatural ideas, as well as to the cryptozoological. I am tempted to the snide, "but I then grew up and graduated high school." Certainly maturing in my thinking was a factor. The main one though is just that there is no evidence for any supernatural claim. One has to lose hope in an endeavor after decades of failed work. Wouldn't you say?

1383. Are they running for President or Pastor-in-Chief?

Comment #134784 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 7:55 am

It is deeply annoying. I wonder how many of my of my fellow americans roll their eyes when they hear these characters drone on so about Jeebus. I know I do. I have to hear this kind of shit at sports games, and in politics. And of course you can't go more than two weeks in this country-in most places- without having some television show pontificate about the glories of faith and its god-damn necessatiy. (This just happened while I was watching the first season of The Unit. It almost ruined the show for me.) And of course you will run into many an evangalizer if you get out very much at all.
It is a strange counrty where ones fantasy life can be percieved as a something you want to export to your neighbors.
I wonder if my evangelical neighbors would find themselves edified to hear about my new found obsession and worship of Juxtamonkey? Would they like it when I quoted her at great length?
I'm not sure I think I will go try it.

1384. Are they running for President or Pastor-in-Chief?

Comment #134493 by MaxD on February 27, 2008 at 10:05 pm

Testujin,
You said,

Putting yourself in their shoes, how would you sidestep those ridiculous questions without raising concerns or losing votes? Keeping in mind that this is a popularity contest.

I think the easiest way to sidestep these kinds of assine quesitons is with the following statement or style of statement.

"I think that the American people are tired of politicians pandering to them in this obvious way. Our country values religious freedom and expression, just as much as if values freedom from any government establishment thereof. As your (plug elected office in here) I will strive to act in ways that help all Americans regardless of who or what they worship. What I categorically won't do Mr. Russert is answer this frivolous question. I will not do this not because I am afraid of what the American public would think of me. I am refusing to answer your question because it isn't in any way germaine to the business of governance."

1385. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #134454 by MaxD on February 27, 2008 at 8:08 pm

"Why do you uh..say its uh..bad?"
Joy has had a great deal of the new age quacks on her show. I think she has a bit of the post-modernist "oh well it all good....if it is right for you it can't be wrong."

"That just means we have a poor education system." Refering to a point Dawkins made about the widespread belief that the Earth is 6000 years old. This is just moronic. It has nothing to the education system. I've read dozens of science text books and not one of them has ever said the Earth is between 5.6 billion and 6000 years old. The 6000 year belief is a product of religious indoctrination and as such gets hammered into kids I daresay a bit more often than the time they spend doing science. Ms. Cardine is either too dense or too polite to point that out, or accept it as damning the religious mindset.

1386. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #134136 by MaxD on February 27, 2008 at 10:11 am

My personal favorite of this kind of documentary is probably
Attenborough's The Life of Mammals. The Life of Birds is also a huge pleasure to watch.
Comparing the Cosmos series with the Attenboroughs work or Dawkins isn't quite fair I don't think. They are not focused on the same things. I think most of Attenborough's docs are equal in quality and excellence to Sagan's cosmos. As does Root of All Evil. But to put one above the other seems to miss the point.

1387. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #133810 by MaxD on February 26, 2008 at 9:39 pm

Will there be another trip to the Galapagos lead by the RDF any time soon?

1388. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #133807 by MaxD on February 26, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Bitter and confused. Bitter and confused.
That is what I think.

1389. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #133589 by MaxD on February 26, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Teratornis,
I just don't like your terminology I am afraid. Social Darwinism, Sexual markets for instance seem to be evoking several ideas into the broken service of defending your malaise about this 90/10 business.

The simple fact is that people chose sexual partners much of the time because they have recieved several cues/clues that the mating will be a good thing. Much of it is thoughtless on the part of the maters. But instinctively they are picking up signals about good genes, especially when the goal is simply about whether or not they should have sex with a person. If you are lucky enough to be found attractive by a potential partner, you will be instantly funnier, better looking, more of turn on, more sensitive more everything. Thus you will be more likely to get laid with at least this person.
This isn't necessarily the same thing as long-term mate selection. For this other clues are sought. Sometimes there is an overlap of the two types of signal searching, sometimes there isn't. I'm going to guess-though I know of no studies that have made this specific finding- that where that overlap is strong partnerships tend to have more fidelity.

Teratornis also said:
"I don't know why so many people seem to assume that because two people married each other, that tells the whole story about what they find attractive. That would be like saying all the people who scrub other people's toilets for a living have their dream jobs. People at the top of the employment market are probably a lot closer to doing what they want to do for a living, than are people at the bottom."

I certainly never said any such thing about what marriages imply about mate preferences. I think I've said that they are complicated by several factors. I am further saying that what people may choose in a long term mate may not be the same thing as what, or rather who, they choose for sex.

I think you have identified something rather salient about sex after 40. But you have missed something at the same time. Male mate preferance doesn't alter that much (think of how many marriages go the way of the dodo because the male-over 40- decides to trade his old model in for a 20something new model). I am not sure female preferences change all that much either. However Males, certainly established ones, seem attractive to younger women. Older men (women tend to prefer men between 5-10 years older) are an ancient signal of good genes (that may be a false signal with medicine prolonging the lives of people who in the environment of our evolutionary history would have been smilodon food). Older males have survived and that has, for most of human history, not been an easy thing. While older women may still prefer men older than themselves after 40 (or at least men the same age) they are much less likely to find such mates. Their reproductive age is behind them along with all the physical factors men find attractive.

1390. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133578 by MaxD on February 26, 2008 at 11:36 am

Juxtamonkey,
Having just read the verse, " Quetzalcoatl 4:69:87:577:fuck." I think I understand the verse though it is deeply profound. It has me wondering....
Uh...could I get in on this new, or is it old religion.

1391. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133563 by MaxD on February 26, 2008 at 11:22 am

Frankus,
Is your avatar a McFarlane drawing?
-max

1392. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133558 by MaxD on February 26, 2008 at 11:16 am

Well said Igor!

1393. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133548 by MaxD on February 26, 2008 at 11:00 am

OMFG as they say in these internet parts.
Did this guy even read the books he so confindently waxes on about? Does he understand anything repeatablity? Does he understand that Dawkins seeing an Angel would constitute no proof of anything unless we could repeat the process in a predictable manner.

I was well into my paroxyms before this line, "The striking naivete of this viewpoint becomes clear," but after that I felt like punching my computer screen. Alas.

What is naive is that this guy thinks one person's "vision" of an Angel constitutes-how I'm not sure- proof of anything. This is a ghastly place to have come with smarts that are purportedly greater than those of a Dawkins or a Dennett or a Harris or a Hitch, or for that matter for someone whose smarts are greater than that of my dog. Even my dog may know better than to engage in this kind of sloppy reasoning.

If you are going to be religious you have to more or less place your faith on its own ground which isn't the fertile one of science. That is why they call it faith. Those people claiming that science proves the existance of God have fucked up royally because of course there is nothing like proof or evidence for the assertions of faith. There are anecdotes surely. But they exist for every crack pot idea you might come across. We can't credit every anecdote with out replication or some other form of experimentation that supports it.
NOMA while quite easy to discredit gets at least that much right. If someone said "my belief in God is based on faith that it is so" has essentially precluded themselves from a rationale discussion of said beliefs. They are off the hook because they aren't making claims about objective reality that can be tested. But you can't step in to the scientific realm and not expect other scientists to handle your pet claims, hypotheses with kid gloves just because you are attached to the outcome of such testing.

This apologist doesn't understand that.

1394. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #133123 by MaxD on February 25, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Is it supposed to be fiction?
Well here are my 5 fiction faves in no particular order.
1. Lord Of the rings (including the Hobbit..a bit of a cheat I know)
2. It: Stephen King
3. Watership Down: Richard Adams
4. Franny and Zoe: Salinger
5. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns: Frank Miller
Honorable Mention(s):
The Maltese Falcon: Dashell Hammett
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: Mark Twain
Animal Farm: George Orwell

Worst Fiction Book Ever:
The Taking: Dean Koontz (It was a gift to me. Ugh.)


Fave Fiv
e Non-Fiction again no particular order
1. The Demon Haunted World: Sagan
2. Cosmos: Sagan
3. The Selfish Gene: Dawkins
4. The Extended Phenotype: Dawkins
5. The Blank Slate: Pinker
Honorable Mention(s)
The Blind Watchmaker: Dawkins
The Dinosaur Heresies: Bakker

1395. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #132990 by MaxD on February 25, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Teratornis,
You said:
Sex is the last bastion of Social Darwinism. The sexual market is ruthlessly efficient, sorting people according to their value in that market (their sexual market value). An oversimplified summary: rock stars get the supermodels, and everybody else has to settle to some degree.

It isn't the last bastion of Social Darwinism. It is just darwinism. Its called assortative mating. People tend to mate with people of like physical characteristics. Most couples are good matches for things like symmetry, major-histocompatiblity complexes and the like. Does money and power often figure into mating choices? Sure but it is less a factor in our sexual choices. Here the host of neo-darwinian clues are sought, most without anyone being any wiser.

Women and men are looking for mates with good genes and they are looking for signals that demonstrate such qualities. There is the assortative mating calculus (unknowingly calculated) that tends to see most long term couples assorting in which the spouses more or less match each other along an array factors that indicate status, health, symmetry etc.

You owe it to yourself to review evolutionary theory before you try to co-opt to make one of your points. You also need to find out what social darwinism is.

1396. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #132182 by MaxD on February 24, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Teratornins.
I think you are the only one who doesn't get what I am saying. I don't trust you because of your self-righteous moralizing. I don't like reading your stuff because it is chalk full of rude insults and condescension. I've tried to be more or less friendly in our exchanges until the last post. And that is because you essentially talk past anyone who doesn't quite share your view. You could just say, well I'm not convinced by what you say, provide your links and shut the fuck up.

But every time you say "now take a deep breath it can be really hard to connect dots" I just tune out. I hear what you are saying, I've read what you wrote. I remain unconvinced on a few points. I am also unconvinced on the peak oil business. But it remains something I am going to continue researching. You may be right, but I doubt it. We have been hearing this end of the world business for 40 or 50 years. It becomes a matter of chicken little type skepticism on my part. And I will have to see something more convincing than wikipedia to make me quake in my boots. You are right though about one thing. Everything YOU write is easy to evaluate from its written expression alone. That is to say it is condescending, self-righteous, long-winded shit. Equal parts paranoid bull and of general variety.


I'm glad you love wikipedia. I'm glad you love your computer. And that you have group bike trips with people who are able to tolerate you.

1397. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #131892 by MaxD on February 23, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Sweet Evil Jesus. Teratornis you are a dense fellow who seems intent on confusing things.
Not only do you miss the point of what I am saying, you continue to write excessively about what you have misunderstood.

Oh and that moronic bit about moving through wires was not only not entirely accurate, but condescending to boot. Fuckwit.

All I am saying is that at the moment human nature is bent toward face to face contact for establishing trust and reciprocity. Ebay has some methods built into it that help us navigate our natural distrust. Namely the ability to look at the satisfaction of other people who have done business with the person we have never met. This capitalizes on our need to kick tires and shit that I was refering too. This can be done on forum like ebay, but not as much when picking our leaders. We can of course go looking at their voting records, but that is for the more conscientious voter and not the average voter who is picking their leader along other criteria. Namely personal factors. Teleivision is a descent medium for us to see our candidates and leaders interact with others. And maybe it would be enough if that is all they were allowed to do. But again, look at the candidates that didn't submit to the travel junkie business. They got fucked. Television is a nice medium to be sure, but the candidates needed to be in the states for more than just the debates to be seen on local tv more and by the population in those states.
Fuckwit.

Humans didn't evolve to adapt. We are lucky to be a highly adaptable species. Maybe even capable of doing what you are saying but not with out more training, education. Which I am sure you would advocate. I would too. Humans have not been able to overthrow several hold overs from the environment of evolution, namely as Pleistocene hunter/gatherers. This has reprocutions your simple, "stop being travel junkies" slogan doesn't address.
Fuckwit.
That is all I am saying. I haven't been condescending to your dumb ass. I've argued my case and you continue to misunderstand because you like your nice simple vision.

Futhermore I give not two shits about changing yoru myopic, blinkered mind. I was just saying that human psychology poses some problems for your picture. We do communicate on this forum, but I don't know you. Don't trust you (how can I establish in a few posts on a forum). I don't like you and we aren't friends. Some of these factors would likely change if we were discussing this daily at work, or a pub.
Back later for another one of your cut and paste jobs.
fuckwit.

1398. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #131071 by MaxD on February 21, 2008 at 9:46 pm

Oh shit, bats are really birds. So much the worse for the Aves.

1399. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #131069 by MaxD on February 21, 2008 at 9:40 pm

cerireid,
I had been meaning to speak to the point about being a pop diva but felt I would come off like that "leave brittany ALONE!" guy. However you answered the question in a way that I hope robotaholic will find as eloquent as I did.

1400. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #131048 by MaxD on February 21, 2008 at 7:45 pm

Damn,
someone just ruined my hamster propulsion idea. I better call the patent office and tell them it was a wash.