101. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176817 by keith on May 8, 2008 at 5:50 am

Windweaver,

Al, okay you don't like the guy and think he's a liar.I can accept that. But why do you have to stoop to calling Chomsky a nit-wit. You're losing all credibility the longer this debate continues.

That claim sounded awfully all-inclusive, as though the majority of members of this site were slowly lining up against Al, and I suspect that isn't really the case. Perhaps in future you ought to limit such comments to saying that Al has lost all credibility with you, rather than suggesting that this is a widespread phenomenon.

Truth be told, even if he turned out to be wrong about Chomsky (which I suspect he isn't), I would still prefer the way he has argued. There's been far less posturing and a far greater attempt to answer awkward questions, rather than select the questions he can deal with and leave the rest unanswered.

And let's be honest Windweaver, trying to make out that it is some kind of crime to call Chomsky a nit-wit in the context of a heated argument is in reality just a bit of mischief-making on your part. Al has said all along that Chomsky has done some brilliant stuff in the past so he clearly doesn't think that Chomsky is a nit-wit - just a liar. Such literal-mindedness on your part really does you no credit, at all.

102. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176801 by keith on May 8, 2008 at 4:36 am

Alovrin,

And keith (or Reg) if you prefer( how apt you pick him).

Why apt? Because I too left my clothes on a beach and feigned my own suicide?

I didnt say I support any thing Rousseau wrote, twit.

Wow, you're really are volatile, aren't you? And this is especially funny because I never suggested that you did support Rousseau. I was letting you know that I knew about his 'noble savage' idea. Calm down a little and you might not get things so twisted.

Noble savage heard of that concept?

Er, if you look I actually included it in my post and you even used it when quoting me. Perhaps you ought to lie down for a while. Oh, just before you sedate yourself, commas heard of that concept?

103. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175786 by keith on May 6, 2008 at 3:15 am

Quetz,

It's now three times. You missed post 224, which is the same but with an extra paragraph at the beginning. Posts 230 and 237 are the shortened versions of this original.

104. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175784 by keith on May 6, 2008 at 3:08 am

riverrun,

I've argued my case, in response to Keith's original question to me.

Question? What question? As far as I know I didn't ask you about Sam Harris, at least not regarding the things you've written about. The only thing I can think of is this:

Though I have no idea what Sam Harris's views on a nuclear strike are, I completely agree with his position on torture. How about you?

What I was asking you was whether you agreed with Sam Harris on torture. However, what you have written about doesn't touch on this.

Maybe I'm going nuts and I did ask you. Or maybe you were determined to write about these things, whether asked or not?

105. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175749 by keith on May 6, 2008 at 1:06 am

riverrun,

You're your own worst enemy. I got this far and then gave up:

When it comes to state crimes the intellectual class have a rare gift for conformity. After all, they know which side their bread is buttered on, and would hate to become toast. A kind of faith in the benign intent is commonly implicit, if not explicit. Safely distant from reality, this soi-disant class can't help themselves in joining the doctrinal hymn, singing chorals to democracy, freedom and ineluctable "exceptionalism", a word metaphorically carved on the gravestone of each and every empire. They are always forgiving of the odd bum note, but sing a dissonant one, outside the accepted range, and you're out, usually accompanied by a stream of furious epithets. For those who sing within doctrinally accepted octaves, the song remains the same: Hymns with titles like "Operation Enduring Freedom" are sung without the slightest hint of irony, or appreciation of the phrasal verb "endure", meaning 'to put up with despite the hardship'.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and even less enthusiasm to make the effort to find out. I have no idea what either 'the benign intent', 'soi-disant class', 'ineluctable' or 'exceptionalism' mean. I suppose I could look them up, but why should I have to?

Surely the reason for using metaphors and 'flowery langauge' is to make things clearer, perhaps to make visual some abstract idea. I'm damned if any image at all comes to mind on reading this other than Darwin's 'entangled bank' that he moaned about getting caught up in at the end of The Origin of Species.

In one of my previous posts I said that I was having difficulty understanding you. You put this down to your use of nuance. My thought at the time was that you were being overly charitable - towards yourself. I can more or less get to grips with nuance but lack of clarity tends to floor me. However, I held my tongue for once. I now see that I should have just blurted out what was on my mind, which was: please write more clearly.

As to my views on the Chomsky quote that you asked for, did you actually read them? Did you agree or disagree with them? When you said you would be interested in hearing my views, did you mean that as a simple statement of fact and not a request for me to actually write them down?

Incidentally, 'endure' isn't a phrasal verb, though 'put up with' is.

106. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175742 by keith on May 6, 2008 at 12:41 am

Lastgreekstanding,

Sam Harris is out of his league here.

Which league did you have in mind? The league that agrees with your point of view? The league that advocates the same reading list as you? If that's the case, why not simply say that you don't agree with him rather than getting all sniffy about his credentials?

So, let's hear why you think he's not up to this particular task. You seem to be insinuating that Sam doesn't know his arse from his elbow on the question of Islam but that you do.

Okay, fire away...

107. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175654 by keith on May 5, 2008 at 7:37 pm

riverrun,

Keith. I'm keen to here your response to the quote from Chomsky:

"There are certainly dangers in holding on to unverifiable beliefs. The most dangerous, I think, are secular state worship, of the Harris-Hitchens variety. The atrocities they support go vastly beyond anything attributable to Islamic fundamentalism".

I'll take them sentence by sentence.

There are certainly dangers in holding on to unverifiable beliefs...

In the first place, I find this a strange thing to say; almost meaningless. There are many things that are unverifiable including Humanism, Nazism as well as 'secular state worship'. But these are ways of living, not facts that can be proven to be either true or false. Maybe I have simply misunderstood the meaning of verifiable. Either way, why a belief in these things should be dangerous, not because of their content, but simply by dint of being unverifiable, is unclear to me. If we can't verify atheism, is it therefore dangerous?

The most dangerous, I think, are secular state worship, of the Harris-Hitchens variety...

As mentioned before, I don't understand why 'secular state worship' should be singled out as uniquely dangerous. Also I don't understand why 'belief' has now morphed into 'worship'. Or rather I do. By turning a belief into worship, it has gone from being something respectable to something mystically unreasonable. This is precisely the tactic that religionists use to attack atheists: we worship Richard Dawkins, we worship science, so we are therefore as irrational as the people we are attacking. The insinuation here is that Harris and Hitchens are so fanatical in their love of the secular state that their vision of reality and their moral instinct has become warped and twisted. Had they been described instead as believers in, or supporters and defenders of, the secular state, such an insinuation would not have been possible.

This is actually my main gripe against Chomsky: I feel that there's often more than a grain of truth in what he says. The problem is that this grain then becomes, for him, the whole beach. In my own view, neither Sam Harris nor Christopher Hitchens worship the secular state. They support it.

The atrocities they support go vastly beyond anything attributable to Islamic fundamentalism.

As stated before, I don't think either men supported the atrocities in Maoist China, Kissinger's cynical actions in Chile and other countries, or Clinton's missile attack. Hitchens and maybe Harris supported the invasion and subsequent policing of Iraq, which I also do with some reservations. This, to me, was not an atrocity. However, one man's atrocity is another man's best course of action.

Whether or not Harris and Hitchens' support for this invasion can be construed as a blind worshipping of the secular state rather than it being a thought-through position is a matter of opinion. Clearly it is in Chomsky's interest to depict it as such. By calling it 'worship' he can dismiss it out of hand.

Neither do I believe that any 'atrocities' that Harris and Hitchens are said to support (though I'm by no means sure to which atrocities Chomsky is referring and I feel he should be more specific here), are likely to 'go vastly beyond anything attributable to Islamic fundamentalism'.

I find decapitation and stoning atrocious enough, and simply because many more people may have died due to decisions taken by the heads of secular states than those beheaded by Islamic Fundamentalists, hardly means that these are more atrocious, or that these atrocities are automatically defended by supporters of the idea of the secular state.

Without knowing exactly which Harris-Hitchens-supported atrocities Chomsky is referring to, it is hard to say much more. Maybe you could ask him which ones he has in mind?

108. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175620 by keith on May 5, 2008 at 5:56 pm

_Riverrun_,

Sorry for getting your name wrong. I also like Joyce, though I'm still working my way through Ullyses. I doubt that I'll ever make a start on Finnegan's Wake, since I'm told it's virtually impenetrable.

Anyway, thanks for the reply. This time I get it. I'm still not sure why you believe that secular state worship is the most dangerous kind of unverifiable belief, but at least I know that you do.

109. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175608 by keith on May 5, 2008 at 5:24 pm

River_run,

Thanks for the comments. Even so, I found your argument a little difficult to follow. Is it not possible to put it more simply?

Let me ask again, do you agree with the following quote from Chomsky?

There are certainly dangers in holding on to unverifiable beliefs. The most dangerous, I think, are secular state worship, of the Harris-Hitchens variety. The atrocities they support go vastly beyond anything attributable to Islamic fundamentalism.

Without wanting to distract you too much from the above question, I just wanted to comment on the following comment you made:

His [Harris's] positions on torture and the possible need for a nuclear strike, are well documented.

(Can you imagine the response had Chomsky written even a sentence close to this? I'll leave that with you as a thought experiment.)

With "had Chomsky written even a sentence close to this", I imagine you mean "if Chomsky held these views", right? Hmm, this can hardly be categorised as a 'thought experiment' since the answer is obvious. The same people who are up in arms about Sam Harris's views would also be up in arms if Chomsky held them. What else could be the case? You appear to think that Chomsky is maligned simply for being Chomsky, when in reality he is maligned for his views.

Though I have no idea what Sam Harris's views on a nuclear strike are, I completely agree with his position on torture.

How about you?

110. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175595 by keith on May 5, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Peacebeuponme,

I didn't get the quotes quite right as I was working from memory so maybe I didn't do Chomsky justice. The following is, in fact, what was said:

Chomsky: He [Hitchens] must be unaware that he is expressing such racist contempt for African victims of a terrorist crime, and cannot intend what his words imply.

Hitchens: I "must be unaware," he [Chomsky] writes, that I "express such racist contempt for African victims of a terrorist crime." With his pitying tone of condescension, and his insertion of a deniable but particularly objectionable innuendo, I regret to say that Chomsky displays what have lately become his hallmarks...Thus I think I am indeed "unaware," with or without Chomsky's lofty permission, of my propensity for racist contempt.

Chomsky: Hitchens claims that I accused him of a "propensity for racist contempt." I explicitly and unambiguously said the opposite.

Whether what Chomsky said is really the opposite of what Hitchens thought he said, is a moot point. However, the suggestion that he was expressing racist contempt was what Hitchens was objecting to. The fact that this then translated itself in his mind into an accusation of him having 'a propensity' for racist contempt was not wholly accurate though understandable. Either way, Chomsky's analysis that anybody who couldn't see the equivalence between the 9/11 attacks and Clinton's missile attack on the Sudanese factory was expressing racist views still stood and didn't go down well with anyone who thought that both acts were wrong but that they weren't necessarily equivalent.

111. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175578 by keith on May 5, 2008 at 4:15 pm

River-run,

Thanks for the reply. I have to admit that I got a little lost in the details since I was only asking a fairly simple question about your opinion on the Chomsky quote. I already knew Chomsky's opinion because it was there in the quote itself.

I have to say that some of your pasted quotes, for example, the whole first part where Hitchens defends Chomsky, didn't really relate to my question. I'm well aware that Hitchens believed, and still believes, that Chomsky was a wonderful observer of some world issues in past decades and Hitchens makes no secret of this.

The question I posed was, do you agree with the following quote from Chomsky?

There are certainly dangers in holding on to unverifiable beliefs. The most dangerous, I think, are secular state worship, of the Harris-Hitchens variety. The atrocities they support go vastly beyond anything attributable to Islamic fundamentalism.

I had Initially thought that 'atrocities' here was referring to the invasion of Iraq, but from your last post, I understand that Chomsky was referring to the millions of deaths in China due to Mao's reforms, and perhaps even the missile attack on the Sudan pharmaceutical factory.

I don't want to get into too many details about who supported what; I don't, for example, believe that either Hitchens or Harris supported either Mao's policies in China or Clinton's decision to attack the Sudanese factory. In fact, Hitchens was one of the first to denounce the latter. This only came into question when Chomsky attempted to find an equivalence between the Sudanese rocket attack and the 9/11 attacks and subsequently to accuse Hitchens, if not exactly of being a racist, then of acting from racist motives. This was because Hitchens refused to see both attacks as being equally morally outrageous.

Chomsky's fine distinction between 'being a racist 'and 'acting from racist motives' was lost on Hitchens and, quite frankly, most other people at the time. I have to say that I found Chomsky's attempt to subsequently deny ever having called Hitchens a racist an exercise in pure sophistry.

Whatever. As I have said, none of this is really the issue and I'm digressing in the same way I accused you of having done earlier. So, let me get back to my original question. Please correct me if you think I'm putting words into Chomsky's mouth, something he claims that his critics regularly do.

In the above quote, Chomsky seems to be saying that the atrocities supported by Harris and Hitchens - the missile attack on the Sudanese factory, perhaps even the millions of deaths from starvation in Maoist China, things that in reality neither men supported, at all - had something to do with their 'worshipping' of secularism.

Now, it seems to me that it is possible to support secularism without supporting atrocities and whether Chomsky wishes to call Harris and Hitchens' support of secularism 'worship' is up to him. I'm sure they wouldn't put it quite like that. Either way, would you go along with Chomsky in saying that this support/worship of secularism is dangerous, in fact, according to Chomsky, the most dangerous of all 'unverifiable beliefs'? If so, why is it precisely worship of secularism rather than say, 'theocracy worship', that is the most dangerous? Is the underlying suggestion, perhaps, that it inevitably leads to Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot? Where have we heard this argument before?

Could you let me know your opinions on this, perhaps without too many quotes from Chomsky, since, as I stated before, I'm not sure just how relevant some of your previous quotes were and some only served to make both of us take our eye off the ball of what was the real issue. Thanks.

112. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175130 by keith on May 4, 2008 at 2:05 pm

River_run,

There are certainly dangers in holding on to unverifiable beliefs. The most dangerous, I think, are secular state worship, of the Harris-Hitchens variety. The atrocities they support go vastly beyond anything attributable to Islamic fundamentalism.

Since you have gone to the trouble of posting the above quote by Chomsky on this website, it would interest me to know if you agree with it. If so, can you give reasons. If not, why did you post it? Would you say that Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens support atrocities? If so, can you give details?

113. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175036 by keith on May 4, 2008 at 8:22 am

While we are on the topic, what do you think of Westerners who voluntarily act as a vehicle to the infiltration of radical Islam?

I think they're very naughty. What do you think, Bonzai?

114. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175010 by keith on May 4, 2008 at 5:39 am

Vinelectric,

Fanusi Khiyal

...any opnion that does not conform with the way you see the world is automatically disregarded.

Surely that's true of everyone, isn't it? Or are you claiming that you carefully read Fanusi's posts, mull them over for an hour or two to see if they are capable of converting you to his way of seeing things, and only then dismiss them? If so, you're the most open-minded person I've met.

My target audience is anyone with the sense or interest in knowing the other side to the story. Such is life, there always is.

Yes, there are usually two sides to every story and one of them is usually wrong.

With your lack of any substantial contact with the culture you're attacking (you amditted you could not understand the arabic websites I linked to you once) then you need to be slightly more open minded, so that you become better informed on your subject of fetish-like interest.

Having written the above, how would defend Richard Dawkins from those who claim that he isn't close enough to the religious community to really understand religion? Are you like Chris Hedges, who thinks that because he has worked in Arab countries for many years and has many Arab friends, that he is in a unique position to offer an unbiased view of Arab affairs? Isn't it just as dangerous to be too close to something as to be too distant?

As regards language, by your logic, unless you know Russian, German, French and Spanish, you aren't allowed to offer up an opinion on War and Peace, Faust, Remembrance of Things Past or Don Quixote respectively?

I would say that restricting yourself to just what was originally written in your own language is a recipe for a narrow-minded worldview. Reading in translation is a much better idea unless, of course, you're prepared to master every language to almost-native speaker level. As far as I can see, it is better to read Crime and Punishment in translation than try to muddle through it armed only with your schoolboy Russian and a dusty dictionary. Of course, if you are bilingual that's great, but if you aren't, this shouldn't bar you from taking part in debates. Neither should the criticism 'You don't really understand' be constantly hanging over your head every time you disagree.

I find it odd that you have such little faith in professional translators. Do you think they have completely distorted the message of the Koran? If so, why not put it right yourself and earn yourself not only lots of money, but also the plaudits of people around the world?

You can not even begin to absolve yourself from the responsibility of seeking some kind of unbiased source.

This, surely, is the crux of the problem: Where to find an unbiased source and how to recognise it when you find it. Is such a thing even possible? I would suggest that it isn't as easy as you're suggesting. By the way, would your 'unbiased source' be a source you agree with, by any chance?

115. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174997 by keith on May 4, 2008 at 4:44 am

epeeist,

From what you are saying, it sounds like ideas on religion have polarised. I'd like to think that those that were in the middle ground - the C of E and Catholics, by the sound of it - have drifted over to us, rather than joining the Fundamentalists. Any idea if this is true or not?

116. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174974 by keith on May 4, 2008 at 2:31 am

MPhil,

...I think the quality of education at home - the fact that many patients don't encourage learning, trusting the scientific method etc...

This has to be the most perfect example of a Freudian slip.

Corylus,

It starts off with some dreadful individual saying to Ben Stein 'You are like the smartest man I know'.

Did the interviewee state in what way Ben Stein was like the smartest man he knew? Same hairstyle? Similar taste in clothes?

117. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174653 by keith on May 3, 2008 at 4:15 am

Eagles12,

Wow! I can't believe Richard's arrogance. After close examination of the human cell how can anyone question the evidence for a designer? Not one scientific fact supports evolution yet blinded humanists continue to believe it because they can't bear the thought that there is a final authority to whom they must give an account.

Eagle, I'm with you on this one. I have also wondered what Evolutionists do all day: Go round pretending to examine imaginary fossils? Go to conferences on evolution as part of a conspiracy to pretend they're all talking about something real? Do they sidle up to geneticists and try to persuade them that they can see changes in the DNA of one of God's immutable creatures? If so, and I believe it is, what a stupid waste of time and money! And it's us that pay their taxes!

On the other hand, I would happily fund research into a genuine subject, something solid like, say, Theology. There, at least, we have some genuine evidence and not just imaginary data. And as for the Holy Bible, who could doubt the veracity of such wisdom?

Even so, there is one thing that bothers me a little. If Richard Dawkins is really hiding the fact that he and all his fellow evolutionists don't have a single fact about the truth of evolution, he really should admit it. After all, denying the reality of Our Lord is a serious business and even Professor Dawkins knows the consequences of such an action: precisely, amigo mio, we're talking an eternity in hell.

Surely RD must know he's bound there in a few years' time. After all, he's not a spring chicken. Why would he consciously choose a few more years of fame, knowing that the price he'll pay is to be skewered on the end of a kebab-stick? Forever!

My only conclusion is that he really doesn't know that he's denying Our Father the Creator and that he genuinely believes in all this nonsense about genes and fossils. And this is my point: if this really is the case, can we still call his denial of God 'arrogance'. Can we accuse someone of arrogance for not believing in something? To believe in God and then to deny Him, sure, that's arrogance. But the Prof. doesn't seem to believe in Him in the first place.

Therefore Mr. Eagle, shouldn't RD's crime be commuted to that of simple ignorance? I rest my case and leave the matter in your wise hands.

118. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174616 by keith on May 3, 2008 at 1:19 am

kjmastaw,

It seems to me that if Dawkins (and all atheists for that matter) is right, none of us will ever know - because we'll all be dead forever. So, the believers in God and eternal life will have only been fools for a lifetime.

However, if Dawkins is wrong, he and all atheists will be shown to be fools for an eternity.

This would be true if we chose what we believe. However, we believe what we believe and no amount of telling ourselves how convenient it would be to believe otherwise can change our minds. This is why Pascal's Wager makes no sense.

Even so, riding to the rescue is a phenomenon called 'wishful thinking', whereby weak-willed and dishonest people try to convince themselves that the truth is not what it seems. This takes all kinds of mental gymnastics but some people do manage to fool themselves, if not completely, then at least at some level of consciousness.

Religious people often point to uncertain data that seems to suggest that they live longer, are happier, recover from illness quicker and that their males have larger sex organs. For some strange reason this often indicates to them that God is real and that Jesus really is our saviour. To me, what their unseemly rush to accentuate the positive reasons for believing in God indicates, is that these people have their eyes very firmly set on whatever will benefit them and would believe in Santa Claus if they thought it would buy them an extra day on Earth. Just ask yourself, if they really believe that they are going to a 'better place', why they are just as scared of death as we are? And how do they manage to do embarrassing things like go for a dump, pick their noses, and have sex (perhaps with themselves), if they really believe that He is always watching? The truth is that deep down they don't really believe it, at all. As Bertrand Russell pointed out, it is precisely for this reason that they are so touchy about the subject of religion. If they were more sure of their beliefs, they wouldn't care what others said about them.

This is why I think the best tactic to adopt when arguing with a religious person is to put on an ironic, knowing, half-amused smile that seems to be just on the verge of bursting into fully-fledged laughter, a smile that seems to be saying, "You little kidder! You're doing this on purpose, aren't you? Please stop now or I'll have to laugh out loud." What you actually say with words is irrelevant because they are immune to logic and since the Enlightenment hundreds of years of rational argument haven't swayed them yet, so I don't think it's ever likely to. Okay, it must be bloody annoying to have someone smirk at you while you are in the process of deceiving yourself, but what other course is open to us when rationality no longer counts for anything?

By the way, Pascal's Wager is not the all-gain tactic it at first seems. The price the religious pay for this self-deception is an occasional nagging doubt that they haven't looked at things quite squarely. Added to this drawback is the disadvantage of having to wear an inane, self-satisfied grin to all public places. Such smugness, of course, annoys most right-minded people they come into contact with. Whether they continue to wear this grin in private is a matter for speculation.

Incidentally, even if Richard Dawkins and all other atheists turn out to be wrong on the day of judgment we still won't have been foolish. With the evidence we have available, only a fool would believe in God, even if he does turn out to be right. And why would God reward such foolishness?

119. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174597 by keith on May 2, 2008 at 10:14 pm

Alovrin,

The obvious conclusion I would have thought ...a hint. Rousseau. Can you work it out now?

That would be the Rousseau who is pretty much dismissed nowadays for his naive and romantic belief in the noble savage? Though I'm vaguely aware of who Rousseau is, I have no idea how he relates to your comments. Perhaps it would be easier if you simply said what's on your mind rather than leaving tantalising hints regarding famous personages you have (or haven't) read.

Now I would like to deal with one person on this AI if he wants to. And as it is an open forum you can follow the exchange that is what I would prefer, you can throw in your thoughts but I will probably not respond if I am engaged with Al.

Hmm, tempting as it is for me to comment and then be totally ignored I think I'll decline your kind offer. Thanks anyway. Still, I have to say that you're the first person I've met who isn't capable of responding to more than one poster at a time. If you're so set on talking only to Al, why not use the personal messaging system instead of this forum? Or do you perhaps think that your interchange with him will make a great spectator event?

120. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174358 by keith on May 2, 2008 at 9:36 am

I remember Hitchens saying that Chomsky has in later years adopted 'a pitying tone of condescension' and that really is what comes through most strongly in the above remarks. I can't imagine either Richard Dawkins or Dan Dennett resorting to such condescension in a so-called rebuttal. Actually, it was less a rebuttal than an exercise in name calling.

There was even one part that made no sense to me at all.

Chomsky: Assuming he is not illiterate, he is objecting to my position at the time that the US should put in ground troops to deter impending "genocide" (my word). It would be interesting to know why.

What does this mean? That if he is indeed illiterate then he isn't objecting to Chomsky's position? Where is the relevance of literacy in all this? And this man is supposed to be one of our top intellectuals? Jeez, we are in a bad state.

121. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174348 by keith on May 2, 2008 at 8:07 am

Alovrin,

Keith: Maybe the 'obvious conclusion' isn't so obvious because I have no idea what it is. And for those who aren't so slow, what's wrong with coming to obvious conclusions? It's only a bad idea if they are wrong. Obvious conclusions are, more often than not, right.

Alovrin: Wrong.
And as to your other point...

This, I suppose, does constitute an answer of sorts, but as far as an explanation as to why I'm wrong goes, it's not exactly overloaded with detail, is it?

And as to your other point very little is known because we have to reconstruction from what was left. And all we can do is make educated guesses.

This was precisely my point. If we have to reconstruction the past from such scant evidence, what leads you to assume that "for most of humanities existence on this planet there were many groupings that could probably be said to be communistic"? I could equally claim, and with just as little evidence, that for most of humanity's existence on this planet there were many groupies that could probably be said to be proto-Capitalist. Without evidence to back up our assertions, either of us can claim whatever we like. I'm quite willing to believe that what you say is true and perhaps the evidence really is there. I just want you to tell me what it is.

Butt out keith.

What, you mean I shouldn't disagree with you on a public forum? Perhaps you've misunderstood the nature of an open debate.

122. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #174281 by keith on May 2, 2008 at 1:54 am

Robotaholic,

Wow, that is by far the worst avatar I've seen! Trying to read a comment with so much going on next to it is like trying to watch a movie while the bloke next to you plays his favourite thrash metal record full volume.

Any chance of you changing it for something less annoying?

123. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174245 by keith on May 1, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Teratornis,

Ben should realize that ID is just a theory, and thus it could be wrong.

I think you are being too generous. Calling ID 'a theory' is like calling me 'a singer' because I sometimes sing in the bath.

124. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174233 by keith on May 1, 2008 at 11:18 pm

alovrin,

...I would...say that for most of humanities existence on this planet there were many groupings that could probably be said to be communistic, but of course they wouldnt have called themselves that or have even known what it meant. But there is very little record of this.

If there's little record of this, how do you come to this conclusion?

It doesnt transfer successfully to a large scale it seems, something that often happens.
And please dont jump to the obvious conclusion.

Maybe the 'obvious conclusion' isn't so obvious because I have no idea what it is. And for those who aren't so slow, what's wrong with coming to obvious conclusions? It's only a bad idea if they are wrong. Obvious conclusions are, more often than not, right.

125. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #174227 by keith on May 1, 2008 at 11:09 pm

I think the adjective to describe Pat Condell's diatribes is 'unhelpful'. This is only a problem for those who feel that all opinions should, in some way, be 'helpful'.

126. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166051 by keith on April 22, 2008 at 5:27 pm

You are attempting to limit God who is outside of the natural world to the laws of the natural world.

Excuse me for asking, but how can you possibly know what lies outside the natural world? Have you ever left this universe to look outside? If so:

1 When did you go?
2. What did it look like?
3. Do I need to take a warm jacket if I go there?

127. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166036 by keith on April 22, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Remnant,

You, "Oh please - you doubt the existence of black holes?"

They are theoretical. I never said they did not exist. Putting words in other's mouths is not being intellectual honest.

Wow, tou-chy! Maybe he just thought you doubted black holes because you said they're just theorectical. Isn't that more or less saying the same thing? Either way, it's a big jump from that to accusations of intellectual dishonesty.

I simply was showing how science uses supernatural deductions when it suits them.

Er, where is the 'supernatural' in these 'supernatural deductions'? Or do you simply mean 'deductions'? In what way are black holes supernatural?

You reveal how little you know about God.

I think you mean, "You reveal how little you know about what I believe I know about God". Not really the same thing at all.

128. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165962 by keith on April 22, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Clodhopper,

Very funny. I also have a 'Pearly Gates' joke:

St Peter is standing at the Pearly Gates when twenty Liverpudlians arrive at once (in England people from Liverpool [rightly] have a reputation for being criminals. St. Peter doesn't know what to do with so many new arrivals so he runs off to find God.
"Lord, there are twenty men from Liverpool waiting to come in. What should I do?".

"Let enter only the five most virtuous", thunders God, and with this Peter runs back to the Pearly Gates.

Ten minutes later St. Peter runs back to God, agitated and breathless: "Oh God, it is a terrible thing that has happened. They've gone! They've gone!"

"What, all twenty of them?" thunders God.

"No! No!" says Peter "Not the Liverpudlians. The fucking gates!"

129. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165947 by keith on April 22, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Podaar,

You have my sympathies for living in such a neighbourhood. Bad luck.

130. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165929 by keith on April 22, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Chewmanfoo,

You don't think that you're perhaps a little obsessed with being 'The Man Who Stands Alone', The Wanderer of the Road Less Travelled', 'The Independent Thinker', do you? Just as in the case of our own body odour, I'm not convinced that as individuals we are best placed to judge our own talents/abilities/independence of thought etc. Do you, for example, know anyone who proudly announces that he rarely thinks for himself and prefers to follow like a sheep? If not, what would cause you to think that you were any different, any more of an independent thinker? Could it be that the others in your congregation are just a little less...how shall I put it?...less full of themselves?

Given the traffic on this site, I am claiming it [i.e. my view] is the road less traveled by. If you doubt it, list the teeming horde who have spoken in my defense on this site.

Well, considering that this is an atheist website, that's not really surprising, is it? If I were to go to Answers in Genesis, I too could claim to be on the road less travelled and an independent thinker, no?

I come to church and can count on one hand those in the congregation who believe as I do. Ain't nobody on this road but me.

Well, apart from the other four people sitting in the pews around you. Even so, surely what is more important is not whether you are one of a select band of people who hold a certain view, but whether or not these views cohere and stand up to scrutiny. I, for example, might believe that I am George III of England reborn and come back to live as a postman in a dull Midlands town. And unlike you, I could count on the fingers of one finger those who believe as I do. Does this, in any way, recommend my belief to you?

It seems to me that the path you have chosen is less an almost unique one than one of simple compromise: you want the intellectual respectability and benefits of some scientific beliefs while also clinging to the comforts of a God that watches over you. So maybe the difference between the rest of the congregation and yourself is not so much that you dare to think your own thoughts while they don't, but simply the fact that they come down unreservedly on the side of religion while you have chosen to sit on the fence. What is there to choose between two such views? One is simple delusion while the other is delusion with bells on.

When we all get to heaven, I'll say, "I told you so!" You'll all say, "well yeah, but x squared minus the square root of 9 billion plus the... never mind."

It might surprise you to learn that there are atheists who detest Maths and the idea of having to discuss calculus up in heaven, when I made such a good job of avoiding it down here, is just depressing.

No, in the unlikely event that we do find ourselves next to each other in the queue outside the pearly gates and you insist on wallowing in your glory and shouting, "I told you so!", something other than maths problems would be going through my mind. Like how to get away from you.

131. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165175 by keith on April 21, 2008 at 7:12 am

Comment #164284 by mmurray

Michael,

Your comment was exactly the sort of answer I wanted: clear, concise and without the qualifications I'm more than capable of imagining for myself. Thank you.

Good to see Reggie's smiling face again :-)

Since choosing the avatar it has occurred to me that some, especially American, posters might conclude that this is a picture of me. I'm more than happy about this since Reggie possesses the kind of visual presence that I don't. I suspect you didn't choose your avatar for the same reasons. Er, well, I hope not. I assume you have more visual presence than a...sea slug?

In my few failed attempts to finish Dan Dennetts 'Understanding Consciousness'[...]

Yes, that's a problem with all philosophy. There is a tendency to get lost in the detail and then you can't think for the life of you what the main thrust of the book was. Dennett helps here by first telling you what he's going to say, saying it, and then telling you what he has just told you. This should be enough for most people but I still find myself unable to see the wood for the trees.

I think the whole thesis should be written on the back cover and anyone who wants to understand the ideas in greater detail (e.g. rival philosophers, close friends and family members who should be seen to be taking an interest) can actually open the book and read bits of it.

In this spirit, I feel that Daniel Dennett's books should ideally be about half a page long. In this space he could simply state what he considers to be the case and spare us the reasons why he believes this, or the evidence that backs up his beliefs. I, for one, would be willing to take it on trust that he has looked into it all and come to a saner conclusion than I ever could. I would judge the claims of rival philosphers who disagree with him, not after ploughing through their books, but by seeing how annoying they are in interviews and deciding if their clothes and haircuts suggest any annoying tendencies.

This way, the time that Dennett doesn't spend on writing the other 434 (and a half) pages of his books could be used to go onto other subjects, such as working out why it isn't physically possible to stay awake during a Wim Wenders movie, and other mysteries.

I, in turn, could use the extra reading time to finally finish Ullyses. (Novels, unlike books of ideas, do need the details).

132. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #163927 by keith on April 19, 2008 at 9:45 am

ThomasR,

This peacock tail filter ensures that only the most committed and intellectually conformist people get to be doctors.

You must surely know how this sentence sounds to people who don't know you, people who only know that it was written by a failed medic?

133. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163919 by keith on April 19, 2008 at 9:31 am

Pacman,

Pacman: I really have to go.

Really? So soon? Just when we were getting to like you. Still, if you must go...

Pacman: Okay, one final post...

YES!!! HURRAY!!! YOU BIG TEASE!!! And you've written...such...a...lot. Oh, I see. You've just cut and pasted someone else's work from the internet. We were sort of hoping to hear your own views. And perhaps in fewer words. You see, we all have other things we ought to be doing. Maybe we should all just cut and paste and have done with the boring old exchange of our personal views.

Anyway, down to business. The main thrust of 'your' essay seems to be that life on Earth, or anywhere else for that matter, can't have come about through natural processes and even when life was up and running, evolution wasn't up to the task of actually evolving things. Therefore God must have done it. Or you think it's more likely that God did it.

Hmm. It's hardly what you'd call an explanation, is it? Explanations usually explain how things came about. Simply saying that "God did it" is less of an explanation and more of a simple statement of your opinion. Would you be happy with an explanation that consisted purely of, 'Evolution did it', with no supporting evidence?

Still, your opinion is good enough for me. I'm convinced. Now, to which God must I prostrate myself and in which direction should I face? East? Towards Iceland? Heavenwards? Must I wear anything in particular? My best sandals, perhaps?

134. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163895 by keith on April 19, 2008 at 8:59 am

Comment #163855 by mmurray,

Wonderful post, Michael. By the way, you might remember that a while back you gave me some idea of what Sam Harris was talking about when he seemed to be advocating living in a dripping cave for 20 years. At the time I could see neither where the fun, nor the point, in the whole enterprise lay.

I still suspect that I wouldn't really like meditation - it all seems a bit self-focussed, precisely the opposite of the direction I want to go in. However, I would like to know why I appear to be most content when I have nothing better to do than stand at the window, mindlessly staring. I'd like you to assure me, if you can, that this is neither bone-idleness, nor a symptom of getting older, but instead something grander. Am I, in short, unwittingly ersatz-meditating?

Yours,

Lost in Leicester

135. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163843 by keith on April 19, 2008 at 6:56 am

Remnant,

The points made are about as devoid of meaningful substance as the fossil record is of transitional fossils.

You tell us what would constitute for you a transitional fossil and we might just be able to find you one. How's that? And if we managed to come up with something, would you be persuaded? Even just a little? Or would you think we had tricked you or somehow lied? In short, have you perhaps already decided where you want the evidential trail to lead, regardless of whatever we might show you? Are we on a fool's errand in trying to show you something you're claiming doesn't exist?

136. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163839 by keith on April 19, 2008 at 6:39 am

Remnant,

Professor Dawkins, the desperation you are showing, in trying to discredit this documentary, reminds me of a child scraping the bottom of a pudding pot.

Er, right. So a child scraping the bottom of a pudding pot is a 'desperate' child, right? At the times that I find myself picturing a child scraping the bottom of a pudding pot, which I confess aren't often, I imagine he is either contented, or excited, or perhaps even craving for more pudding, but 'desperate'? It's not a word that is immediately conjured up by the image.

Or could it be that you were thinking of 'scraping the bottom of the barrel' but you wanted to throw in an extra insult? So you hit upon the idea of likening a respected adult professor to a child. Yes, that should do nicely! You then bolted the insult onto the idiom and ended up with...Well, an image that, to be honest, didn't really work. Was that it?

137. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #163835 by keith on April 19, 2008 at 6:15 am

Peacebeuponme,

You're absolutely right, I too think I may be guilty of unnecessarily psycho-analysing something which RD has already stated explicitly several times. I suppose I just find it odd that having said that the truth, rather than changing minds, is his main concern, he is often taken to task over the wisdom of his blunt approach when it comes to winning people over.

I think the question of the usefulness of RD's strategy for proselytising purposes is largely beside the point. And maybe it should be stated more loudly that winning converts isn't his main objective. Perhaps then we could drop the discussions about best strategies: If you want to convert, use the Krauss/de Grass Tyson Method; if you want the unvarnished truth, plump for Richard Dawkins, but don't imagine that the two methods have the same goal. It's a case of 'horses for courses'.

138. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #163796 by keith on April 19, 2008 at 3:47 am

Richard Dawkins is often asked to justify why he won't compromise when selling evolution to the faithful. The accusation often sounds something like this:
"You're alienating the very people you, and the rest of us atheists, are trying to reach. By being so unbending and not meeting the religiously-minded half way, you put them off from the start and hobble your chances of getting them to listen to you. This is counter-productive. You have to be smart, you have to wrap it up in nice paper, you have to market it. Basically, you have to sugar-coat the pill".

We all have our reasons for doing things and RD must have his for writing The God Delusion, giving lectures and making TV programs about religion. Even so, I can't help but think that what impels him to do these things is more of a gut-reaction to bullshit and lying than a rational desire to un-convert the converted. Though he may, in fact, want the latter, I think this is more of a rationalisation of his actions, more of a by-product than the product itself. It's possible that the real driving force behind his campaign is simple exasperation that the truth is being corrupted by an inane idea. And more annoying still is that some people on his own side don't seem to mind.

By rights, the religious should be grateful that they have such a forthright opponent, rather than one who tries to win them over by cunning. Whether atheists should also be grateful is less certain. I personally feel much happier with the Dawkins approach than with that espoused by Lawrence Krauss, though I can see his reasoning. Still, as was stated in the discussion between them, maybe there is room for both approaches.

139. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161221 by keith on April 15, 2008 at 3:39 am

Sometimes I wonder if it's we atheists that don't quite get it. Yes, we realise that neither we nor Christians get our morals from God. How could we when He doesn't exist? However, if you are a Christian and you believe that morals come from God, then it makes sense to say that a lack of belief can lead to evil, especially if you take the view that we are born sinful and have to achieve virtue. It's for this reason that a lack of belief in God is not the same as a lack of belief in fairies. Fairies don't teach us to behave well.

Of course, if this really is the case and we do get our morals from God, then David and his ilk would have to explain why being atheist doesn't inevitably lead to Auschwitz and why all atheists aren't bad. Perhaps because some good has rubbed off on us through living close to our Christian neighbours? By taking on their behaviour but not their beliefs?

I have no desire to come to David's rescue but I thought explaining things this way might give us a break from the dull thudding sound of heads banging against walls.

140. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed

Comment #160785 by keith on April 14, 2008 at 11:45 am

Christopher Davis,

I agree completely. I wasn't thinking about the temporal part. I was concentrating only on a cross-section taken at some moment in time. Of course, no one will ever be able to point to the first human/bird etc.

Geoff,

Really? Is there a sliding scale of more or less viable? Does this mean 'still able to survive with a handicap'? Surely this goes against the general rule that a great leap across genetic space will almost invariably end in disaster.

141. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160772 by keith on April 14, 2008 at 11:32 am

Thanks for the details, Doc, but it has only stoked my desire to know what B" is really like. Still, one day I might meet her/him/it and that old story, told thousands of times already, of Boy meets B" will be played out again.

142. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160580 by keith on April 14, 2008 at 8:00 am

Dr. Benway,

To describe this article, I must invent a new term: the sexy strawman. Here's how it works:

Person A is arguing against person B.
Person A misrepresents B's argument with a strawman B'.

Person C largely agrees with B but wants to get into bed with person A.
Person C creates a sexy version of B', B'', hoping to impress A.

Could you fill in a few details for me because I enjoyed the outline of your story:

1. What do the three people involved look like, where do they live and how old are they?
2. How does it all end? In some kind of weird love triangle?
3. Do you have B's telephone number?

143. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160568 by keith on April 14, 2008 at 7:53 am

It was the bloody revolutions single poster if anyone was wondering.

Ah, that one.

144. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed

Comment #160557 by keith on April 14, 2008 at 7:43 am

Geoff,

a "species" is essentially a man-made pigeonholing of what is more of a sliding scale. "Ring Species" are a good example of this.

Hmm. I agree that this is, to some extent, a problem of a 'sliding scale', but this is not simply another example of the way that, say, one colour merges into another at some point along a continuum.

Yes, at some point green becomes blue and you would be hard-pressed to say precisely where one becomes the other. However, in the animal world there exists a natural line, namely, that of the unviability of offspring. This barrier is not simply a phenomenon of language or how human minds interpret reality, but a real facet of the natural world. And even if this barrier isn't 100% leak-proof, this still doesn't reduce the concept of 'species' to a man-made construct.

Neither does the rather rare existence of ring species convince me that we would be right to view the idea of 'species' as simply one of human convenience, for which there is no correlation in the natural world.

145. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed

Comment #160463 by keith on April 14, 2008 at 6:07 am

Christopher Davis,

The basic definition of a species is one that cannot have viable offspring with another species (though there are some grey areas e.g. some very close species don't like the look of each other though they probably could interbreed).

Surely not being able to interbreed with another species is not simply 'a man-made construct' but an obstacle that exists in the real world?

146. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160455 by keith on April 14, 2008 at 5:58 am

Sbooder,

CRASS were an anarchist band from the 70s & 80.

How does an anarchist band ever agree when to rehearse?

147. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed

Comment #160452 by keith on April 14, 2008 at 5:48 am

Yussell123,

You don't need to read a book to understand the non-random part of natural selection. As long as you can see why a creature with slightly better eyesight or slightly longer legs might survive better and pass on these characteristics to its offspring, then you have understood the non-random element.

Natural selection has a random element: the mutation of a gene which can be either good, bad or neutral for the organism that is born with it. Then there is the non-random element, i.e. the genes/characteristics that help you to survive in the world. Bad mutations will probably handicap or kill you, thus making your chances of passing on your genes smaller; neutral mutations will have little or no effect; and good mutations can help you survive and pass on your good genes.

So, survival depends on having the best genes for your niche in the environment and there is nothing random in this.

148. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160405 by keith on April 14, 2008 at 3:24 am

A lot of great art work do owe their existence to religion...These works was great because they manage to...

Bonzai, are you, by chance, from Norfolk?

149. A New Flea

Comment #160391 by keith on April 14, 2008 at 3:05 am

Fides,

I find it sad that people who claim reason so firmly as their standard, dismiss him so quickly, seemingly without investigation. To someone of faith, it's this attitude which seems most at odds with the supposedly rational claims of athiests.

No need to feel sad, Fides. If you know the fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf then you'll understand the Atheist' response. Would you feel sad every time the boy cried wolf, people didn't come running and there wasn't a wolf? If you still insist on feeling sad, precisely who would you be feeling sad for? The lying boy? The people who refuse to be taken in by his lies?

After 2,000 years of coming running every time someone cried wolf, I'm sure that you'll see that it can get a bit tiring. And I'm sure you'll also understand that life is simply too short to read every book that claims to contain irrefutable proof of God's existence. Until now those books have never kept their promises. Why should this one be any different?

There, I hope I've cleared things up for you and you can now banish your sadness and cheer up a bit.

150. Fleabytes

Comment #158504 by keith on April 10, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Steve,

I can imagine being in a situation where a friend is being "talked about" on-line, and I wanted to stop that without revealing any confidences, and the best one could come up with is "you don't know that person".

I feel it's "friend" that you should have put in quotation marks rather than "talked about" since Brian has never actually met his friend or is even sure that what he's heard about him is true. Given the trickery of RM, it might even be fair to say that Brian can't be sure that RM even exists. Still, it was nice of you to stick up for him. I find a kind word goes a long way and costs nothing.

What would you do in that situation? Would you stand back and say nothing? Perhaps that is the best way.

I would think that if my "friend" had decided not to reveal the fact that there were extenuating circumstances then I should do the same, especially if I had no idea if any of this was true or not. However, I'm willing to believe (your comment implies as much) that you would have done the honourable thing and partially spilt the beans. Again, it's nice of you to support Brian on this, though he has himself suggested that he perhaps didn't do the right thing.

If anyone thinks I am making a career out of being nice...

Er..."anyone"? (Fearfully raises his hand) Well, Steve, I think I might have said something vaguely to that effect.

they can ... fuck off :)

Well, really! No half-measures there, then! It's either Albert Schweizer or Albert Tatlock but nothing inbetween. Or maybe the smiley face at the end is trying to say something? Something like, "Although I'm telling someone to fuck off, I'm doing it in a 'nice' way"?