Comments by Kardashovel

Comment #161885 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:10 pm

No, I am gay, used to be considered abomination by God fearing people and should be put to death, I guess I am yet another failure for the trainee God.

First of all, being gay does not stop you from having children, if that is what you wish to do.

Secondly, the developing God needs more than genes. He also needs memes. Fight the good fight. Never let the shitheads define the terms.

202. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161877 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:05 pm

I didn't design fish or their behaviour...

You aren't suggesting that I blame God are you? No that's not it.

203. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161872 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 7:59 pm

Steve if that is true I will not forgive you.

204. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161869 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 7:58 pm

Sorry, but I am going to have to mention the fact that Cichlid species do care for their young.

NANANANANANANANANANANANANANA!

What?

205. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161867 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 7:56 pm

A God in training?

You are beginning to grok what I am saying... but more like a God in development.

Do you have any children, Bonzai?

206. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161864 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 7:51 pm

Are you a vegetarian? I forgets...

Pescatarian. I eat any species from any taxonomic class that has no members that care for their young.

I don't want to cause unreasonable suffering, and any animals that don't care for their young are beneath my radar when it comes for capacity for suffering.

207. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161860 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Complex creatures are merely the crust on the icing of this cake we call Earth.

So true. The line that connects us to the proper allocation of the fine structure constant is ever so thin. That is why we must have faith to pull through the darkest hours, Goldy. Never fear... God is here.

208. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161858 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 7:46 pm

If God did have a purpose in all of this, why does he keep changing the goalposts?

Goldy, I realize that you are only in the initial stages of your infection with the God meme, but whatever could you mean by that?

Oh... and single cells? Fuck them. They're worse than plants. No respect.

209. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161856 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 7:44 pm

I note that my little screed above was rather animal centric, whereas I should really be talking more generically about life.

Well screw that. Plants have no nervous system. I eat plants. No intellectual respect for plants.

Booyah!

210. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161852 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 7:39 pm

Hello Cartomancer and Dr. Benway.

I hope each of you are doing very well. I like comment above about Friar Occam, Cartomancer. I envy you for studying history for a living.

211. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161848 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 7:28 pm

My apologies for leaving suddenly... God was on the phone.

So, let me get this straight... an amoeba is more complex than a human being, in your estimation. I'm sorry, but I'm just taken aback by the notion, and I suspect that any objective reader is with me. We are stumbling on the definition of complexity here.

First of all, the number of base pairs in DNA is hardly a reasonable measure of complexity, even if we confine the discussion purely to genetics. But we're speaking English here, not genetics. Any reasonable measure of the complexity of an organism surely must consider the details of the phenotype, if not also the information content of any particular organism (including information in the brain).

I asked you which would be easier to simulate by computer, an amoeba or a human being; you dodged by saying it depends on what you want to simulate. If I say I want to make a full simulation of each organism, down to the molecular level, you will rightly point out that both simulations are impossible; but I'm sure you would agree that the human would be many orders of magnitude more complex, simply because we've got 10^11th more molecules than an amoeba. True, but that would mean that whales could be ten times more complicated than me, whereas common sense tells me that this is not the case. So brute-force computer simulation is not a good measure either, I'd concede.

However, you're not off the hook by a long shot. Here are my questions and comments:

1) Were the original single celled organisms as complicated as an amoeba? I'm guessing not. If so, the conclusion is that evolution has produced increased complexity in single celled organisms, supporting my contention that evolution tends to produce complex organization.

2) Pointing out that the majority of biomass is composed of simple creatures does not impress me. It is a red herring. I did not say that the end result of evolution is that all animals that live are extremely complex. I just said that the process of evolution will generate increasingly complex phenotypes, given the energy (and time) to explore the space of possible phenotypes. Complexity itself is certainly not a survival advantage... which brings me to:

3) Again, I am not impressed that evolution reduces the complexity for any given animals on some branch of the tree of life. It is an optimization algorithm, so of course it will reduce complexity to the degree possible until further culling creates a liability. Ten legs on your insect don't do any better than six? Well mutations will make some of them have six, and both species will survive for a while... until the extra space on their hard drives (chromosomes) is needed to code some other survival advantage, leading to the extinction of the ten legged guys. Ten legged guys need to eat more too, what of it? But just because evolution tends to refine the "design" of a species, does not mean that the overall process does not lead to more complex species in the big picture. If that were not so, the rodents of 150 million years ago would not have turned into the wide variety of mammals we have today (many of which are more complex to my gumby mind, if not as measured by their number of base pairs). Nichts var?

4) Speaking of which, let's not forget that my statement is sufficiently nebulous to count the entire ecosystem as complexity. So while you can recommend that I read about parasitic reductionism, I can note that the variety of parasites, as well as all of the other creatures in the ecosystem, is increasing as evolution explores the phase space of viable phenotypes. I'd be willing to bet that the total number of genes is increasing, generally (neglecting setbacks). So why is that important to my God-theory? Only peripherally (ask me if you're curious), but you all are the ones arguing that evolution decreases complexity in the face of overwhelming fossil evidence. It's bizarre.

5) The interconnectedness of nerve cells in the phenotype has to count for something. You cannot sit here and tell me about the complexity of amoeba DNA and ignore the majesty of the human brain. I'm sorry. You may think it makes your point, but I'll ask anyone else here that is not a biologist to back me up and call your bullshit for what it is. Nice try. But it isn't all about winning arguments by being petty. And if it is all about crafting the meaning of the word "complex" so as to win the argument, then I say complexity is about the number of molecules in a specimen, and whales are the most complex creatures on the planet, so I win. Let's try to avoid pedantry.

Now the original statement that Steve made was that randomness in evolution, indicates that there can be no purpose to evolution. I object, because evolution is capable of producing complex organization out of randomness, and that could very well serve someone's purpose. The biologists here object, and trot out total number of base pairs as some arbitrary measure of complexity, which I have responded to above. But I will note in closing that many folks use evolutionary algorithms for the purpose of industrial design optimization.

Your ball, Steve.

212. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161716 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 2:24 pm

No, we aren't. Do you know which organisms we know about have most information complexity?

Amoebas.

Fascinating, but probably wrong. I don't know. Does junk DNA have information content? What about amoeba junk DNA?

Edit:

We may be complex in terms of the information in our heads, but not biologically.

Fascinating Steve. So you don't think that the information in our heads is biological... what is it?

Which do you suppose would be easier to simmulate effectively, on a computer: an amoeba or a human?

213. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161715 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Okay. It could be true.

Tell that to Steve. He effectively said that it could not be true.

214. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161711 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 2:19 pm

I am sorry, but if what you are after is some kind of plan that leads to vast future intelligences, you are out of luck.

Nice try Steve. You said that evolution cannot have a purpose, because it depends on random processes. That statement is illogical.

The idea that we, and all of the other animals that are gifted with complexity in excess of a single cell, are just lucky campers... is ludicrous. Now, that doesn't mean that God did it. It doesn't mean that it happened for a purpose.

But it does mean that your argument that we might as easily have evolve into simpler forms is spurious. The overwhelming evidence is that evolution produces complexity, in spite of randomness.

As such, randomness is no guarantee of purposelessness.

215. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161699 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 2:12 pm

I think you are wrong.
Doesn't random mean without purpose?

What of it?

"Random" is also an adjective, in this case modifying the noun "Evolution", which is what Steve is claiming has no purpose. Try to stay on the ball, professor.

216. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161696 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 2:09 pm

There isn't even a trend of increasing complexity.

I guess that depends on how you look at trends, doesn't it? But at least this is one argument where you can't accuse me of lack of evidence.

You are all living proof that evolution can successfully progress from simple forms to something miraculously complex. Al-rawandi suggests that it could all be dashed away due to global warming... talk about your faith-based reasoning.

217. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161687 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Not necessarily. Insects have fewer appendages than theur ancestors. We have lost olfactory genes, ice fish have lost haemoglobin genes, genomes become less organised etc

Those are fascinating trees you're examining... meanwhile the whole forest is growing from single celled organisms to a planet that includes a species with a brain that consists of billions of neurons and tens of thousands of connections between them (on average).

Do let me know when you've grasped the point.

218. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161683 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Or it leads to extinction.

Of some species. But overall, the process is quite creative.

219. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161681 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 1:56 pm

To suggest random mutation implies a larger purpose seems to me completely without foundation.

I did not suggest that randomness implies purpose. I am saying that it is not logical to suggest that randomness implies lack of purpose. Get it straight.

220. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161676 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 1:52 pm

You would likely have more success trying to see the face of God in the static of a TV set than in the random and chaotic process of evolution.

Eh, what? God isn't sitting there ensuring the randomness.

The point is that in spite of the randomness, evolution generally leads to more and more complex forms of organization, assuming that you keep pouring energy into the system.

A God that is looking to foster a civilization of time travelers will need complex life forms to arise, somewhere along the way. I don't accept the ID notion that He sat down in the lab and dreamed them all up. Instead He uses evolution.

Now you may not accept that is what is happening. But you also have no reason to reject that evolution, and randomness, might serve a purpose. Do you agree?

221. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161664 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Could evolution merely be a mechanism in a larger objective?

No. Evolution is selection based on random mutation. The fact that the mutation is random, and that the entire process has been regularly interrupted by global disasters means there is no larger objective.

Well Steve, that is a bit of a stretch. The fact that mutations are random, or even the likely randomness of natural disasters, do not in any way imply that the process of evolution cannot serve some larger purpose.

222. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161628 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Frankus,

Yes... it was about reincarnation.

223. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161626 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Now you think I'm square? Why I oughta...

224. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161624 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 1:07 pm

God loves his children...

225. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161609 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Just trying to adjust to the new RD.net...

226. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161607 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 12:55 pm

al-rawandi

Allow me to say, that Anna thinks you are a little whacky as well.

WHAT? Screw you, dood. What did you say to her about me?

I'm totally gonna kick you in the mangina and wear you like a snowshoe! Don't come around when Anna gets here or you are landfill.

Anna said she likes me. Don't fuck that up for us. Sheesh.

227. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161409 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 9:12 am

I don't mean to demean but because you will not share what exactly the voice said to you that you could not have otherwise known we have no reason to believe that your voice was anything other than you. The reason I believe this are for reasons that Tyler stated in an earlier post.

I stopped reading what he writes.

Could I be wrong? There is a non-zero possibility. But the only other explanation that makes any sense is that this voice was generate by my own mind.

I am simply not as quick, informed, and capable of future predictions as the voice was.

Frankus, I've got mixed feelings about talking with you. You seem to look at me the way my cats regard a mouse they've caught. You are not rude, but you are somewhat disrespectful, and you always insist on bringing the conversation back to your favorite game: Prove that there is a God.

Earlier in this thread I proposed a topic of discussion that we might cut our claws on. I am surprised that it has never been discussed here. Unfortunately I don't know too much about it, so I'll need to research more to be sure it's worth it. Perhaps it is too trivial to discuss. But Sam Harris mentioned it, so I'd wager it could put some gas in the tank.

Maybe I'll catch you on the flip side, but right now you're just too toothy.

228. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161397 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:46 am

Where is annabanana, by the way? It would be wonderful to hear from her again.

229. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161395 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:43 am

Quetzalcoatl, the entire discussion about me hearing voices was sparked when the lovely and incisive annabanana was asking me about what led me to become a theist.

I answered honestly. Since that time it has occupied the majority of the bandwidth devoted to questioning and ridiculing me.

If I asserted that you should believe in God because I heard voices, then I could understand your comment. But as it is, you just sound like someone that thinks every conversation should revolve around your wishes. Good luck with that.

230. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161393 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:38 am

Does that mean you don't think I'm an asshole* anymore, Steve?

*aka, Vox

231. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161391 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:37 am

LOL.

232. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161389 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:32 am

We could go around all day on this, unless you tell us specifically what was said, and how it could not possibly have been information, a solution or a stance that your own cognition could have worked out, as per its usual function.

That is true.

Care to share?

Not really. I'm sure that will be a disappointment to those that think I'm here to make converts.

I have observed that many atheists think that every conversation about the supernatural should involve a proffer of evidence.

I might be interested in such a discussion, but not today, and not with my personal information.

233. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161386 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:27 am

What would be cool is if there was a feature that allowed you to block out the comments of certain people, on a per-user basis.

But that would probably overwhelm the server with per session data. It would probably need to be accomplished client-side through javascript.

234. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161381 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:24 am

Hmm. Never said he was God either.

That is correct. I infer that He was God.

235. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161378 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:22 am

The sense of this eludes me.

I speak to people in dreams. It is clear in dreams that they aren't me, but I wake up.

It wasn't a dream, Steve. I was rested, relaxed and wide awake. In my dreams, the voices of the characters are not my own inner voice. Nor are they as sharp, quick, knowledgeable, and capable of predicting future events.

Believe me when I say that the sense of it is hard to grapple with. But since I was already on the threshold of belief from the first conversation, the conclusion was pretty natural.

236. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161371 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:13 am

Again. What did the voice tell you about itself?

He steered me away from those types of questions, essentially by insisting that He was there to talk about me, and the future. I was distracted by the rest of the discussion, and I felt that, given the situation, He wasn't gonna stick around to be interrogated.

To answer your earlier question, He never explicitly said that He was not me. But it was pretty clear to me that He was not me, even though he spoke in my inner voice.

That may not be satisfying to you, but bear in mind that I am not here to convince you that the voice I heard was God... Frankus thinks I'm trying to start the next Scientology and trolling for converts. No.

I am here for the reasons that I discussed with Dr. Benway in this thread.

237. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161365 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:05 am

How do you know the voice is not from the Devil?

That is essentially one of the first questions that I asked. There was no direct answer to that question... what came back was, "Walk with me."

From the context of what was advised, I do not think that this was the Devil. If so, he wasted his time on me, that's for sure.

238. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161359 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 7:57 am

Do these private hearings ever divulge to you information you did not previously know, and could not possibly have known?

The first one, no. The second one, yes.

239. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161346 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 7:36 am

My compassion has just run out. As far as I'm concerned, you're just another self-deluded wilfully ignorant fucktard. A danger to yourself and others.

Irate-atheist giveth, and then he taketh away. Somehow I'll survive. I'm not the one who is walking around bitter and angry because of voices in the head.

I'm sure, from your comments, that you have availed yourself of psychological help to deal with the circumstance that befell you. You have my sympathy, and I wish you well.

240. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161343 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 7:31 am

Irate-atheist:

I am serious. This is a degree of compassion you don't normally see me display on this site - but it is genuine.

I appreciate that. Thank you. And I am sorry for your painful situation regarding your wife.

I'm also sorry if I sound flippant about all of this. I do take it seriously.

I heard the voice twice, and the last time was two years ago. I have never heard voices before that, or since. If the voice had told me to do anything that was immoral or life-altering, I would be a lot more concerned about myself.

But while this experience was one out of several that changed my world-view, it did not really alter my strategy (just my tactics, in a way that worked out quite nicely).

241. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161334 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 7:20 am

Why would an archaeologist be interested in the mundane details of Roman society?

To carry that analogy further, imagine that the archaeologist could travel back in time and speak with a Roman. How would he avoid sounding like an idiot when discussing that Roman's family and acquaintances? The archaeologist would mainly be asking questions, not distributing advice and information.

Keep running with the Kardashovel thinks God is an alien thing, Steve. It's a long rug and I have plenty of time before I need to yank it out from under your feet.

242. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161329 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 7:12 am

Tyler, do you think that Steve, Bonzai, Dr. Benway, etc. are idiots, as you apparently think about me?

If not, then why are they bothering to ask me questions that are non-trivially relevant to what I have written? You may want to do a little digging into what I said before you keep asking questions that can be answered in three words: "God needs us."

Your tone and wit resemble the guy without a date at last call. Drink up, and start thinking about what fantasy you'll employ to masturbate.

243. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161321 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 6:59 am

Be careful.

You sound serious, but the look on your face makes me uncertain.

I haven't spoken to a shrink about this stuff. Do you think I want to end up paying through the nose to talk circles around some "objective" but caring observer?

No thanks. My marriage is intact, my children and my business are flourishing, I am generally happy when I'm not stressed out.

Besides, I have the wonderful people around here to help me with their expert diagnoses.

244. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161317 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 6:51 am

Quetzalcoatl, the answers about those people and situations were definitely not part of my psyche. Nor were the issues that He wanted to discuss.

245. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161313 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 6:44 am

What does your psychiatrist think of your ideas?

I assume you mean my psychologist... shall I get his head out of my deep-freezer and ask it?

246. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161312 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 6:43 am

So what you're basically espousing is almost a traditional liberal (in its original meaning) secular position.

I consider myself a paleoliberal, and certainly a supporter of secular government. In modern American terminology, I can best be described as a leftist-libertarian.

Presumably, based on your earlier posts, you think there is a difference between someone who takes a position because of deeply felt conscience, and someone who does something just because he feels like it. Assuming you can properly distinguish between the two [sidenote - Tony Blair?], and assuming that there is a conflict with someone else, do you think the conscience-position should carry any particular weight? If so, why and if not, why not?

How could we avoid letting our emotions and deeply held convictions inform our arguments and decisions?

Now if there is a conflict, these types of convictions don't hold much sway with me nor should mine with you. Ultimately the resolution needs to be worked out according to discourse governed by secular law, underwritten by a constitution. Unfortunately this is not what happens anywhere in the world that I have traveled to (four continents and counting)...

247. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161308 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 6:33 am

Can I ask how you don't know that the voice or dialog isn't with telepathic aliens?

Steve, that thought occurred to me too, but I ruled it out as illogical based on the content of the conversation, and the nature of the beast.

In terms of the technology necessary to do what I experienced, and perhaps also in terms of the depth, clarity, and light-speed processing involved, the alien concept might work (I don't know).

But here's the thing... why would an alien species care about the mundane details of my business? Especially in how it intersects the business of many others that they probably don't speak to... If they need me for some other task, then perhaps they could show an interest in me and my dealings; but this conversation followed my interests too, and there was no question that did not have an immediate answer.

Now having said all of that, I'm sure you'll remember that I think that God is actually a time-traveling descendant of ours, from the distant future, probably residing somewhere other than Earth for that matter. So, I suppose that the alien explanation technically qualifies too. But this alien is very cognizant of what happens here on Earth, in our time... almost like His life depends on it.

248. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161282 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 5:41 am

Alovrin, if ignorance is bliss then your life must be like a non-stop orgasm.

Why are you so fascinated with me?

If you are really interested in what motivates me to post here, you could simply read what I have written on that subject instead of flogging your errant speculation.

Your bitterness betrays a deep inner pain. Perhaps you just need a good cry, my friend. Let it all out and I'm sure you'll feel better.

249. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160759 by Kardashovel on April 14, 2008 at 11:22 am

What do they have to teach other than saying Darwinism is wrong?

Butterflys are purdy.

250. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160717 by Kardashovel on April 14, 2008 at 10:11 am

The claim, which many here are debating, is that agnostics cannot have any objective basis for morality... be that as it may, that does not imply that an agnostic cannot be good.

This is obvious to even a casual observer. It would take a real sponge head to assert that anyone who does not believe in a god is evil.