1451. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163099 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 1:54 am

Wonderful. That is one good way to deal with this nonsense - well-produced satire.

1452. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163098 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 1:51 am

Comment #163094 by Brian English

Even though I have been commenting, I think we should put the Richard M business aside. It is understandable to feel a bit hurt when someone like that "changes sides" and slags us all off, but, really, does it matter that much? I don't think so. Also, it does give perhaps un-earned publicity to one person. Anyway, that is just my thoughts.

On the other hand, any subject which leads Brian to post does have an advantage!

This business of generalising about atheists is common, and has turned up in a place that was unexpected for me. I have been having a formal debate (my next response up soon) with a theologist. I assumed we were on good terms, but then he goes and blogs about "atheists sneering about faith", in the context of his wife having been ill (but fortunately fine now) during her recent pregnancy. He may choose to believe God helped his famility, but I would give all the praise to doctors. However, to leverage that for an attack on "atheists" was pretty awful emotional manipulation. In a friendly manner, I objected to this, but got back the reply that I was an unusual exception, and anyway he was talking about the "Dawkins" types.

Maybe we need some kind of classification of atheists, so we can use the "not my kind of atheism" excuse? (I am not an atheist of species Atheistus Dawkinsii) Or perhaps not...

1453. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163093 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 1:40 am

What is macro-evolution but micro-evolution taken to greater lengths?

The macro/micro evolution distinction is confusing. My sense of what macro-evolution is supposed to be is some significant change in a single generation. That does happen! Polyploidy - duplication of the entire genome - is common in plants, and a new species can arise from a single copying error. Most large-scale changes are a problem, as they move an organism far from the naturally selectected phenotype of the parents, but polyploidy seems to be a common exception to this rule.

What we should be talking about is the matter of single or multiple copying errors or mutations. The argument against macromutation is that it would require co-ordinated gene changes to get a whole new species, and so this can't happen in nature. Polyploidy indicates that we can get macromutation (and new species) through a single mutation.

1454. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162842 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Comment #162830 by Santi Tafarella

As for the ID film, why is this an either/or proposition with you? Can't you concede that you might leave the film with a bit of fresh cultural insight, and maybe even an isolated point or two on which you might conclude, "Maybe in this regard, the makers of the film are on to something that I should stay sensitive to"?

I go along with mesomodel.

These people are liars. ID is a lie. It is not a harmless little lie. It is a deliberate attempt to sneak creationism and religious ideas into science lessons. So what am I going to get from this film? Why should I trust any insights or points made by these liars? Why should I be sensitive to their points of view?

1455. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162826 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Maybe if they are like... super ugly, then this becomes less of a reality. And, a friend wants to know.... what are these ways?????

Prostitutes. Also, you would have thought they would have got a blow-up friend of some kind rather than molest children if this was purely sexual frustration.

1456. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #162823 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Possibly the advent of agricultural societies made it less necessary to have non-reproductive individuals in each family, but they were still knocking around thanks to their evolved genetics and had to find something else to do to make themselves useful?

Yes, that sounds reasonable to me.

1457. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162822 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Comment #162818 by MPhil

What you say is true, but these are priests. They have a support network, and aren't surrounded by people pressuring them into this activity. If they seriously want to get laid, there are ways.

1458. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162815 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Comment #162811 by Podaar

I'm sorry to say Steve, I have some pretty compelling anecdotal evidence that suppression may lead to rape. I think the subject deserves study.

This probably means that supression can lead to rape in the kind of person who would rape. What I was concerned about was the implication that supression can lead to rape in a typical person.

Comment #162810 by al-rawandi
Yes, I think you have got it right. I don't think that getting rid of celibacy would reduce the frequency of child abuse. I think it would simply lead to less of the abusers becoming priests.

1459. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #162813 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 1:49 pm

So is this kind of social structure an evolutionarily stable strategy for managing the affairs of human tribes? Might it have evolved that way?

That is a probably a bit above the level at which selection can work. I think we need to look more closely at how homosexuality can be an advantage to the reproduction of close kin. I suspect it may be the non-reproducing uncle and aunt aspect. This may be indicated by the observation that the younger children of a family tend be gay more than the older children. It could partly be a hormonal switch from the mother which says (to put things simply) "right then, that is enough reproductive children. It would not be a bad thing if the next child was gay, so that they can help around the house".

It would be interesting to see how the frequency of homosexuality varies (if it does) with social group size in different species.

Also, it is worth pointing out something obvious that people usually miss. The fact that the frequency of occurrence of homosexuality is different in different species is a pretty good indicator that it has a genetic basis.

1460. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162802 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Comment #162727 by Dinah

Vacuum cleaners don't have feelings, and don't suffer trama from sexual activity.

Healthy adult sex is about consent, as you have to persuade the partner. Sex with children is a form of rape. I don't think it is reasonable or acceptable to say that supressed sexual activity can lead to rape. People are, in general, better than that.

Comment #162798 by al-rawandi

I think the priesthood may well attract molesters. Attempts at celibacy may be a way to supress awkward sexual appetites.

1461. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162784 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Comment #162774 by MPhil

This is just a minor thing, but I think this could be phrased better:

Well yes, my friend, but your "better" includes the requirement of needing considerable use of wikipedia. (Not that that is a bad thing :)

By the way, thanks for the PM. It has required a bit of thinking... I'll reply to you soon.

1462. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #162780 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Comment #161594 by jac12358

If you can show me the non-biological-but-not-genetic source of this "proclivity" and

how it sustains in our species, then please do.

You have made the common mistake of assuming that only traits that are expressed in reproductive individuals can assist with the propogation of genes. This is not the case at all. Just to give one example, there are many cases in nature where non-reproducing inviduals assist their siblings and/or parents with the raising of offspring. This is genetic - there is an inherited tenency for there to be individuals who don't have offspring. This actually increases reproductive fitness.

Homosexuality is very widespread in nature, and as far as I know there is no great ape species in which there aren't gay individuals. The functionality of same-sex activity can be different in different species, but in general it seems to have a role in maintaining the coherence of society.

It may also more directly increase reproductive fitness because of the "uncle/aunt" role that gay and lesbian individuals can perform. There is good reason to believe this may be important in humans as our children require a lot of care. Indeed, we have other non-reproductive individuals whose presence is beneficial - grandparents! It is true that average lifespans in the past were much shorter, but many adults would probably still have survived into their 40s, 50s and even 60s.

Homosexuality is not "more of a capacity" in most gay people - it is a genetic tendency. It isn't 100% genetic (but not much is), but the fact that the sexual preference of identical twins is highly correlated shows that there is a high genetic contribution (yes, something can be 50% genetic).

And regarding the rest of your post, Cartomancer deals with it eloquently. I do have to say though that you are talking a lot of twaddle. Who cares about reality in a programmes like Doctor Who or Torchwood? If you are that concerned about sampling populations correctly, better get rid of the Gallifreyan. If you are really concerned about representation, then there are more important things to worry about - where are the over 50's in such programmes? Where are the black people? Where are the obsese people? Heck, where are the ugly people? Funny how people get so worked up because of homosexuality....

Either there is "something nasty" about homosexuality, or there isn't. If there isn't, then why do you care about what proportion of people in TV programmes are gay? What is your issue? What has been sexually explicit? A kiss, or a flirt?

1463. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162740 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 11:39 am

Comment #162739 by mesomodel

You are way out of date. We have updated our dogma. We worship Kiwis now. They are solitary birds, so the capacity for odour is probably more limited.

1464. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162738 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 11:34 am

Comment #162736 by al-rawandi

So I could compromise and say all morality is absolute and defined in the essence of the Kiwi bird.

Works for me. There might be some slight confusion though as Kiwi is also a brand of shoe polish. Mind you, "Penguin" is also a brand of chocolate biscuit.

1465. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162735 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 11:27 am

Comment #162728 by al-rawandi

I like to use penguins in this context:

The laws of logic and the foundations of absolute morality of requires penguins.

I mean, why not? Penguins are cute, and it makes as much sense as to say "Big Sky Fairy". It also might make people more concerned about global warming.. fewer penguins, less goodness and logic.

1466. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162726 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 11:08 am

Comment #162715 by thisisme

Like the laws of logic, which I believe are self-defined within God's character

I have come across this view before. It seems quite common, but even the briefest attempt to try and understand what it is supposed to be shows that it really is bizarre.

It is highly problematic to suggest that logic needs "defining". For example, could there be a set of laws in which there were not an infinite number of primes? I say not, and if not, there is no need for any "defining".

Even if the laws needed defining, to say that they are defined "in God's character" has no basis unless some kind of mechanism for that defining. Of course, such mechanism would require some kind of laws to describe it... and round we go in circles. Without providing such a mechanism, it is pretty arbitrary to imply that the laws are somehow provided by a big mind rather than some sort of vague "essence of logic".

The idea of logic coming from God also raises some serious theological problems as it has been shown that any useful system of logic is either inconsistent or incomplete (Godel's Theorem), which, I am afraid, does not sound very God-like.

1467. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162687 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 8:45 am

Comment #162685 by Dinah

It should be obvious that a celibate priest with no other outlet for satisfying his sexual urges may seek out young children who are powerless and unable to protest.

I don't think that is obvious at all. Firstly, there are plenty of other outlets, including prostitution. Secondly, a sexual attraction to children is quite different from the attraction to adults - it is not a substitute.

1468. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162668 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 7:57 am

Bonzai-

But I don't know whether he is motivated by his "moderate" religious belief or by traditional belief that the King should represent all his subjects and British styled "multi-culturalism", which is a secular idea.

If the latter were true, he would indicate support for humanists too...

"Defender of faiths and no faith"

1469. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162667 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 7:54 am

Comment #162665 by irate_atheist

I think what brother john may be saying is:

Being entirely reasonable is just so awful, therefore I can believe in God.

1470. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162633 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 6:52 am

Comment #162632 by Bonzai

True, but he is someone, and someone with, unfortunately, influence.

1471. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162629 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 6:48 am

Comment #162624 by Frankus1122

All I am after is a label on packets of faith:

"Warning - can seriously endanger your mind"

1472. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162627 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 6:45 am

Bonzai-

You can question them on what criteria they use, but no one ever makes blanket endorsement of any faith.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/30/nchas30.xml
Prince Charles has done more than any other member of the Royal Family in history to understand Islam. He said in 1994 that when he became Supreme Governor of the Church of England, he would rather be "defender of faiths" than "defender of the faith".

1473. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162618 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 6:22 am

Bonzai-

No, they should be classified by their methods
to believe. There are moderates who are intense in their beliefs, just that they don't think the belief should only be derived from one book and that it doesn't preclude other data.

Even if their intense belief is amenable to change based on data, it can still be a problem.

However, I have used the wrong language. I should have said "flexibility" regarding beliefs.

1474. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162615 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 6:19 am

Bonzai-
What my smoking example was meant to show was that just because the majority of people may not be significantly harmed by something does not mean we should not consider that thing a real problem.

It was to show that it was reasonable to put forward the position that "moderates" could be empowering "fundamentalists" by claiming that faith was good. The issue of whether or not they are empowering fundamentalists is another question. Personally, I believe they do.

1475. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162612 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 6:13 am

Bonzai-

Sorry man, you're begging the question. By using smoking as an analogy you already subsumed that any kind of belief is not only harmful, but toxic,

Not any kind of belief. Religious belief, particularly when institutionalised.

I don't want to get into another endless debate with you over this here because I don't have a lot of time today

Oh go on - you know you want to :)

My point, which we have discussed probably beyond reasonable length before, is that the distinction between fundamentalist and moderate believers is probably meaningless. We should instead classify people by the intensity with with they hold beliefs, not by what they believe. A supposedly nice and moderate Christian could believe very strongly that homosexualty is wrong, but because they don't believe that Adam and Eve existed, we seem to think they are OK.

1476. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162605 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 6:02 am

Many months ago I noticed that those who seemed to be the most "well-balanced" (who am I to judge?) either posted quite rarely or didn't stay long

So that labels not just the admirable and robustly sane Quetz, but also me, epeeist, Benway, AlanW, Philip1978, Cartomancer MPhil and many, many others as loopy.

Well, I might be - I will leave that to others to judge, but I am not comfortable with that kind of labelling of others.

I find it really sad that Richard M has turned nasty. I am afraid I gave him the benefit of the doubt over his occasional unpleasantnesses. I was wrong.

Honestly, Quetz, I think he's best ignored.

Good advice, as usual.

So, instead, I will compliment cartomancer on his new picture. I think it looks rather Doctor Who-ish: "Look at these pieces of psychic paper"

1477. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162593 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 5:42 am

But I can't quite reconcile that with some of the people I know and love who, although they drive me crazy with their inability to see that what they believe seems a bit silly, are nonetheless lovely people.

Think of it like this. Smoking doesn't kill everyone, but we would not approve of people saying that it is not only harmless, but a jolly good thing.

1478. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162553 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 4:06 am

Comment #162542 by Sargeist

The problem is when the idea of believing things that are not true is considered a good thing in general.

1479. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162535 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 3:47 am

Comment #162514 by Egomaniac

The mechanism in my mind is that a higher power manages those processes.

Ah well. I was hoping for some kind of explanation of the mechanism by which the higher power does that managing. This has always puzzled me.

1480. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162497 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 3:08 am

Comment #162494 by Egomaniac

You are still confusing "hope" with "meaning".

Is there any other conceivable mechanism for such a thing to happen?

What is the mechanism?

1481. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162486 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 2:54 am

Comment #162482 by Egomaniac

You seem to be confusing "hope" with "meaning".

Neither of these seems possible without the existence of some higher power, does it?

Why not?

1482. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162472 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 2:39 am

Comment #162468 by Egomaniac

Perhaps you could explain something that has been puzzling me for some time. Why does the supposed existence of a God who can do anything to us any time he likes, and who watches our every move and knows our every thought add meaning?

1483. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162277 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Comment #162272 by Diacanu

Yes. But don't worry. I have become even more atheist to compensate.

1484. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162269 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Comment #162266 by epeeist

I am over 40. Hence I have no idea of these "bot-nets" of which you write.

1485. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162268 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Steve Zara: I was a theist until I was 23, I'm now just about 30. It was a very difficult process to let go of theology, especially in regards to death.

I know what you mean. I tried to replace the idea of heaven with re-incarnation.

I am beginning to come around to Dawkins idea that religious teaching to children is abuse.

1486. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162263 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Comment #162251 by Bonzai

Dammit, I am going to have to agree with you again.

I have no doubts that D-I-Ogenes was him.

1487. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162262 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Anyone who really wants to be understandable to the largest potential audience will write on a wiki.

Oh please.

Me, I think e-mail spamming is a far better way.

1488. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162259 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Comment #162167 by Sargeist

My conclusion has been for some time now that, in some way I cannot quite fathom, they must *know* that their beliefs are nonsense, that they are skating on thin evidentiary ice, that they are wasting their time on an insubstantial apparition of a parody of a worthwhile endeavour. And because they know that everything will crash down at the slightest breath, they really cannot permit themselves to acknowledge any chinks of doubt.

Having being a theist until about age 18 or 19, I can say it isn't quite like that. You feel that the beliefs have a different kind of truth. One knows about the reality of the universe, but one keeps trying to seek God in there. There is plenty of doubt, but not quite enough to give up. It takes quite a bit of rational thinking over many years to finally let go.

1489. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #162210 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 10:53 am

Now that it is available as DVD's, I don't know if anyone is buying it.

I did :)

1490. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162140 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 8:14 am

Al-

I made a New Year's resolution to have zero tolerance for bull shit and morons. I generally let loose on people who fit in either or both of those categories.

I don't really feel bad. And neither should anyone else. We are held in utter contempt by the credulous fucktards, I don't see why we owe them any kindness.

I don't think it is a case of what we owe credulous people or morons. It is more, for me, a matter of what we want to achieve.

Sticking to Dr Benway's guidelines, I am going to be specific.

If someone comes here and I want to talk to them in a calm way and find out what their views are, it would be a distraction if you were calling them an asswipe at the same time. On the other hand, you have a perfect right to call them an asswipe. I don't know what the solution is. I am not even sure if there is a problem.

Perhaps it would be a matter, in that situation, of negotiation between us about who wanted to do what. I have a concern that you jumping in with the "asswipe" comment in that situation would set the tone before any such negotiation had taken place. What do you think?

1491. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162128 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 7:57 am

Dr B-

The dyad does not provoke the curious question, "which group do I belong in?"

Both sorts of group statements provoke the question, "what did I say?"

Good points. I see what you are saying.

A kindly mentor, like mom, offers much praise and only muted criticism. It's rather nice when someone puts your artwork up on the fridge.

That seems particularly relevant considering the "fleabytes" music.

1492. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162114 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 7:24 am

Comment #162113 by Dr Benway

To be fair, he did say "some who post here".

I am not sure, but might it not be reasonable, if someone has concerns, to say "I feel that some posts here can sometimes be a bit too [mild/angry/whatever]", as long as they don't say "You lot are all...."?

1493. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162102 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 6:51 am

Comment #162094 by BillySands

What I do find bizarre, and also just a bit upsetting, is why would RM turn to Robertson? He knows David has lied. He has seen David's attempts at emotional manipulation. For goodness sake, if RM wanted to go back to religion, there are plenty of far nicer preachers and far nicer religions. It seems every so slightly masochistic to me.

1494. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162093 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 6:42 am

Comment #162092 by hungarianelephant

We are having such a friendly rational debate about this. I can imagine on some Christian forums there might be talk of "hearing the Devil"...

1495. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162091 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 6:38 am

Comment #162089 by al-rawandi

As you approach the speed of light won't your mass increase exponentially? I don't know if I want to put on that kind of weight.

Only from the point of view of other people. Anything pointing in the direction of travel will also seem shorter to them (probably best say no more about that).

1496. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162087 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 6:32 am

Comment #162085 by Peacebeuponme

So what you are saying is that, if we started to move one end of a wormhole around now, and kept doing so, then future generations would theoretically be able to come back to an earlier point depending on how fast we could move the end, but that we can never go further back than now?

Yes.

What does this mean for time travel in to the future?

That is far easier. Just accelerate to close to the speed of light, or hover very close to an intense gravitational field, and time will pass slower for you than for others.

1497. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162083 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 6:21 am

Why shouldn't people congregate in churches? They just don't need to pray.

If you are an ex-believer like me, churches can seem odd and uncomfortable places.

1498. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162080 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 6:15 am

Comment #162077 by Peacebeuponme

Theoretically, you can use wormholes for time travel. That isn't the problem with what Karda is saying.

The problem is that you can only use a wormhole for time travel once you have set it up as a time machine, which involves moving one end of it around at close to the speed of light, so it is subject to significant time dilation.

Suppose you move one end around so fast that over a period of a thousand years, it only experiences ten years of duration. There is then a 990 year time difference between the ends!

A wormhole may have been around for a billion years, but that does not mean you can get back to a billion years ago.

1499. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162066 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 5:33 am

Steve, I commend you, but you are talking to somebody who hears voices in his head. You can debate till the world turns to ice, it won't change an iota of his opinion. The thread is already deteriorating to "science smacks of faith" after a relatively promising start.

I suspect you are right. I just feel I have to step in when someone is trying to use crap science to defend faith though.

Karda doesn't seem unintelligent and seems likeable, he reminds me a little of Revcourt,

He is beginning to remind me of Dianelos.

1500. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162061 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 5:14 am

Comment #161983 by MPhil

I am not that sad about RM. If he finds happiness, good for him. What is sad he fell into the clutches of the lying toad David Robertson.

What I feel RM was after was a mentor - someone charismatic to provide comfort. He didn't find that here.

It does illustrate a point some rationalist campaigners make: what support or community do you provide if you take away religion from someone's life?