251. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227122 by Bonzai on August 9, 2008 at 11:28 am

Clearmind, Edit: opps, I mean clearthinker

I think that spiritual death was a result of the Fall - I am also curious as to how the fall affected the rest of the environment - because I think it did.

Can you elaborate on "the fall" and how it fitted in with natural history and evolution?

252. Gerin Oil

Comment #227005 by Bonzai on August 9, 2008 at 7:01 am

Hi Jerrry

The life of Foucault was filled with searching, both personally and professionally, and, like any philosopher (although he was trained in psychology), his personal life overlaps with the professional. Like the Greeks of old, I believe one must live a good life, not merely be able to talk one.

I may be wrong, but I think the central theme of Foucault is "power", if that is the case may S&M be actually an enactment of his philosophy? Again, not claiming any expertise on Foucault, it seems that at some level his philosophy can be summarized as "civilization is one big S&M orgy."

So, if there is any truth in my observation,I think he did exactly what he preached in a sense. But then I may be talking total nonsense.

I am gay, so I was a bit disturbed by your statement about Foucault dying of AIDS, written in a manner as if to say he deserved it. But then I probably misunderstood in light of your explanation.

I do disagree with your take on S&M. Though S&M is not my thing, but I think it is just another kind of sexual expression, I don't think it should be regarded as "sick" or depraved as long as it involves only consenting adults.Sex is a dark and mysterious realm, folks get turned on by all sorts of things that would be considered "shocking" and "perverted" by the Victorians,--say oral sex. The gentlemen and ladies were publicly shocked while privately enchanted,--in thought or in action,-- they then sought absolution from the confession booth on Sundays,

253. Gerin Oil

Comment #226795 by Bonzai on August 8, 2008 at 5:13 pm

dead,

"But a philosopher who is caught equating the erectile organ to the square root of minus one has, for my money, blown his credentials when it comes to things that I don't know anything about."

That was you on Lacan. Sure sounds a lot like:

"I don't know about all this fancy science, but the Bible has all the answers I need, so I don't need to investigate this demonology further."

In order for the analogy to hold you need to show that there is indeed some similarities between "fancy science" and Lacan's writing. So without us making uneducated guesses and thus making fools of ourselves before sophisticated people maybe you can kindly explain to us what profound truth is revealed by equating the square root of -1 to an erected penis?

Thanks in advance.

254. Gerin Oil

Comment #226790 by Bonzai on August 8, 2008 at 5:04 pm

dead

I am merely stating that cannot let ourselves be corrupted by our own beliefs and ideologies to the point that our "non-belief" becomes so vehement that we wave our copies of "The God Delusion" in the air acting like its infallible, just like many religious people do with their Bibles/Korans/Bhagadavita/What-have-you.

Who does?

I notice that you have conveniently ignored JHJEFFERY's more substantial points and focused instead on one throw away sentence about Foucault,--which by the way I do think it is in bad taste.

255. Gerin Oil

Comment #226782 by Bonzai on August 8, 2008 at 4:48 pm

dead

While science is of utmost importance for technological development, we still need thought development. We still need critical thinking.

If you think science is only the servant of technology and that somehow you don't need critical thinking to do science you clear have no clue what you are talking about,

On the other hand, I see very little thinking, critical or otherwise, emanating from those Pomo writers you seem to be so fond of. It is all unargued assertions mixed with incomprehensible psycho-babels dressed up in polysllable words, it is a collage of words and sound, it may be an interesring art form for the aficionados , but it has absolutely nothing to do with critical thinking.

256. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #226724 by Bonzai on August 8, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Apathy,

I don't remember the detail, I scanned it in the library a while back.

Just one point. How did the author know what Mao was thinking as if she was living inside his head? How did she know all the details in the privacy of his bedroom? Did she hide under his bed?

This is a one dimensional portrait of Mao that basically starts with the assumption that the man was evil incarnate and then she set out to get any gossip, fabrication and rumour to support her thesis. There is no nuance, no complexity and most importantly, no source. For example, she alleged that Mao cheated on his wife,--which could be true,--but how did she know? Because a friend of Mao's mistress told her...I have no idea why that even merited mention.

It is not even a good fiction, let alone a serious scholarly work. It is more like the National Inquirer but dripped with venom.

257. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #226696 by Bonzai on August 8, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Al,

I looked at your link.

Anyone who cites Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's "Mao: the unknown story" as an authoritative source of Chinese history is, let's say, not in the position to criticize Chomsky's or anyone's journalistic integrity. Even Chinese people who are unsympathetic to Mao and the Communists generally think that it is a hatchet job by a woman with a personal axe to grind. The whole book is basically rumour mongering with no source for most of its outlandish claims.She somehow was able to get the book published apparently because of the influence of her boyfriend/hudsband,--Mr. Halliday.

I stopped right there. No point in continuing,

258. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #226643 by Bonzai on August 8, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Look Al,

I am not what you would call a Chomsky fanboy, I agree with somethings he says, and disagree with others,--for example, I think he jumped the gun on the Sudan bombing. I have linked to sites that are critical of him, and I have noted that he has made citations out of context. So, no, I don't get defensive about criticism towards Chomsky.

However, I do think that he plays a useful role as a U.S. foreign policy critic and he often has insights about U.S. double standards and hypocrisies that you won't find in the mainstream media.I also think that he is motivated mostly by noble intentions.

There is a difference between legitimate criticism of his work and smear jobs and he is indeed quite often the victim of cheap shots and smears simply because of his non mainstream views. Let's face it, he would have gotten away with sloppy scholarship and out of context citations with no one even batting an eye if he is toeing the "partyline". He never claims that his political works constitute "scholarship" in an academic sense. If you judge him by the usual standard of political journalism I think he compares quite favourably with most big name pundits in terms of intellectual rigour.

259. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #226626 by Bonzai on August 8, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Al,

Give it up. You realize that I wasn't quoting my numbers from Chomsky.

As for the citation thing, why don't you take it up with your cheer leading captain twp. I was responding to her. She apparently thought that Wikipedia was not scholarly enough for her intellectual standard, which is mostly demonstrated by her skills of making personal comments,--that is, comments about herself.

260. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #226608 by Bonzai on August 8, 2008 at 12:15 pm

I still don't understand why it's so popular for everyone to quote wikipedia like it's the damn end all be all of sources. I try to avoid wikipedia with all its damn addicting hyperlinks. I failed today.

Because those are Al's numbers. I think he got the 50,000 ET deaths from Wikipedia too, At least I give a source.

261. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #226604 by Bonzai on August 8, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Al

This was one of my points. Did you address the others?

Well having seen your scholarship at work for "one point" is quite enough.

I suspect even if Chomsky did lie, he would at least not screw up simple arithmetic or not being
able to tell whether 22% is bigger or smaller than 11%.

As for Faurisson, your own quote of Chomsky did include the disclaimer "I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read ..". BTW, Norman Finkelstein is also linked by neo Nazis and anti-Semites,

262. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #226594 by Bonzai on August 8, 2008 at 11:42 am

Al,

The population of Cambodia.... 14 million. 1.2 million killed..... 11% of the population (roughly).


Population of East Timor: 1,115,000. How many killed by indonesia? 50,000 (roughly). That is 22% of the population (roughly).

So this is a comparable scale? No, it is a lie, like much of what Chomsky has to say.

So, based on your own caculations, the death toll in ET was twice that of Cambodia as a percentage of the total population, so what was Chomsky lying about? That he didn't go far enough in condemning the Indonesians?

Actually, 1.2 million out of 14 million is 8.6%, not 11% and 50,000 out of 1,1115,000 is 4.5%, not 22%. Get a new calculator.

But no matter, your numbers are suspect. The total population of Cambodia in 1974 was about 7 million, not 14 million, while the population at East Timore at 1975 was about 650,000, not 1,115,000. I have no idea where you get your numbers from.

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/peo_pop-people-population&date=1974&ob=ws

Now the number of deaths in ET as a direct result of Indonesian invasion was between 50,000 to 100,000, according to Wikipedia. But the number of 1.2 to 2.2 million you cite for Cambodia included all the deaths as a result of starvations and diseases during the reign of KR

When similar considerations are given to ET, that puts the death tolls of both countries to be somewhere between 21% to26%.

I would say that is very comparable.

"The Demography of Genocide: Cambodia and East Timor" (Critical Asian Studies, 35:4, 2003)"

Click the pdf link at

http://www.yale.edu/gsp/east_timor/index.html

263. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #226564 by Bonzai on August 8, 2008 at 9:44 am

4) About 50-75,000 people were killed in East Timor, while between 1 and 1.2 million were killed in Cambodia,... and Chomsky said these events were "Comparable in scale".

He said comparable in scale, meaning as a percentage of the total population. What were the total populations of Cambodia and ET?

Furthermore, Chomsky defended Faurisson, not just for free speech and the right to deny the Holocaust, but actually said that Faurisson "was not an anti-semite" which he clearly was. Faurisson counts Ernst Zundel as a friend, his bigotry is obvious.

Where did he say that Faurisson was not an anti-semite? Please provide a link with context so we can figure out exact what was said and what he intended to say.

264. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #226555 by Bonzai on August 8, 2008 at 9:25 am

Also, discredit of him has been generated in particular by Alan Dershowitz

There are fair criticisms that can be made against Chomsky, but certainly not by a habitual liar and a propagandist such as Alan Dershowitz.

EDIT

Maybe the neocons are not evil, but the way their policies have played into the hands of the oil industries has generated considerable "evil" and intolerable irresponsibility.

Actually, Chomsky would never use words such as "evil" to describe the neocons. In his view all states are amoral, foreign policies are driven by strategic interests as seen by the power elite. Chomsky is a "structuralist", his critiques always focus on the institutional level.He always avoids personalizing politics,almost to the extreme of denying the agencies of individual players..

265. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226540 by Bonzai on August 8, 2008 at 8:38 am

Padester76

Islamism is a utopian ideology that says violence now is a necessary and heroic step towards creating utopia tomorrow. '

And christianity is a dandy old picnic!

In most of the world today, yes.

Is there any place where Christians still run Inquisitions and burn heretics? There are many Muslim theocracies where blasphemy is still a capital offense. Is there any Christian theocracy except for the Vatican,--even which doesn't run according to the law of Moses? But there are many Muslim theocracies and all of them impose Sharia.

EDIT: I remember debating some "multi-culti" who think that Christianity and Islam are equally oppressive towards gays. I said in many Muslim countries gays are executed judicially and even in the West there are Muslim clerics who preach that homosexuals deserve capital punishment. To which my opponents retorted, "So? Here we have Christians opposing to same sex marriage and some gay people were so upset that they killed themselves."

How do you argue with people who insist on sticking their heads so far up their arses for the sake of being PC? Everytime you criticize Islam it is mandatory for the good "progressive" to "balance" the picture by bashing Christianity even though there are no analogies in Christianity for some of the most egregious barbarities in Islam.

BTW, I don't know of a single case where a gay person killed himself/herself for being denied the right to marry same sex partners.

266. Darwin's bulldogs

Comment #226534 by Bonzai on August 8, 2008 at 8:31 am

As Cartomancer eloquently implies, you can't have the light without the dark.

As I asked Catromancer, it seems that the religious can argue the same way to "explain" why a perfect God allows suffering.

P.S. Of course "perfection" would be subjected to the same dialectical logic. Perfection is impossible without blemishes.

267. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226475 by Bonzai on August 8, 2008 at 6:19 am

Problem is Alberta's tarsand is a very "dirty" source of energy and the way it is extracted is very damaging to the environment as well as inefficient energywise. For this reason I heard that there has been a decline in demand for Alberta oil. There are suggestions that perhaps Alberta should go nuclear and then uses nuclear energy to extract the oil out of the tarsand.

I am sure Teratonis would have much to say about it.

268. Darwin's bulldogs

Comment #226457 by Bonzai on August 8, 2008 at 5:41 am

From article

There is in fact a worrying trend for Muslim children to be taught the myths of creation, and the pseudoscience of "intelligent design", as an explanation of the origins of life.

But there is no "Muslim children", only children of Muslim parents. Sorry for the nitpicking but I agree with Dawkins on this.

269. Darwin's bulldogs

Comment #226455 by Bonzai on August 8, 2008 at 5:37 am

Carto

I think it is perhaps an unwelcome inheritance from saccharin-sweet Victorian hypocrisy that many people find it difficult to reconcile the beauty and grandeur of nature with its cruelty and savagery...

The narrative of human historical progress has a grandeur to it which is underpinned by wars, famine, suffering and death. Such things are an integral part of history's weave, as much in evolutionary time as in recorded time. What majesty would a story have were it devoid of highs and lows, unmarked by the rich tapestry of light and shadow? How trite and unsatisfying the tale would seem were it simply a catalogue of easy successes - won with little effort and at little cost..

Can the religious also not use this as a way to answer why suffering exists? (e.g. The Book Of Job)

270. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226060 by Bonzai on August 7, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Goldy

Was it not also a central theme in Chinese culture?

Not really, it was mostly a feature of late Confucianism but institutionalized misogyny has been throughly trashed as an ideology since the beginning of the 20th century.

In the rural areas boys are more precious but that is a holdover from agrarian society, it is not enshrined in any holy text.No one would argue for misogyny as a principle.

Nor is the inequality of the sexes institutionalized in law like in most Muslim countries.

Finally, Chinese parents don't do honour killings. Those who practiced infanticides are punished by death, it is not like in many ME countries where honour killing may get you a few months in jail and then everyone thinks you're a hero when you get out and here I am talking about only those countries where honour killing is actually a crime.

Sorry, your comparison is way off base.

271. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226011 by Bonzai on August 7, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Fanusi,

It isn't just the Jihadis who hate women or believe them inferior

I agree, misogyny is a central feature of mainstream Islam.

It is a mistake to focus solely on jihadism and terrorism. Unreformed Islam as a whole is an anathema to the civilized world.

The problem of seeing only jihadism and terrorism as a problem is that politicians would turn a blind eye to, or even praise Muslim clerics who hold very repugnant views on almost everything but renounce outright jihad.

Thus you have the surreal situation where the "exposed meat Mufti" of Australia was once called a "moderate", Josef Qarawadi was labeled a "liberal" by Ken Livingstone and Islamists from the MCB are invited to advise the government on Muslim integration.

272. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226002 by Bonzai on August 7, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Goldy

Let them find out what their culture is really like back home (best do it quick before the western supported Wahabis stop by with their petro-money....)

I am sorry, I am not sure what point you tried to make with the link. According to the article many Western Muslims are "disillusioned" after a trip "home" not because they are appalled by seeing Islam at work, but because they think folks "back home" are not Islamic enough for their puritanical minds, thus it was shocking to this young Sudanese Canadian Muslim woman that men and women dance together at weddings in Sudan.

There is no indication that they become less fanatical as a result. Instead they seem to be more convinced that they alone know the right path, this can explain the appeal of Saudi exported Islam among some young Western Muslims.

I think these people are pathetic, really.

273. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225671 by Bonzai on August 7, 2008 at 7:29 am

The question I get is usually: so which one do you like more?

Well if I am not interested in the person who asks the question I would simply say I am a narcissist and I like people who are just like me:)

274. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225667 by Bonzai on August 7, 2008 at 7:22 am

Sargeist

I thought the official response to us bisexuals was that straight people think we're playing at being gay, and gay people think we're playing at being straight.

I always wonder why should anyone care about your sexuality unless he/she wants to sleep with you.

When people inquire about my sexual orientation, I consider it a come on. :)

275. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #225652 by Bonzai on August 7, 2008 at 6:54 am

twp

s that a form of kung fu or is it it's own martial arts category?

Wu Tang was a school of martial art.

276. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #225649 by Bonzai on August 7, 2008 at 6:51 am

Wu Tang Clan?

Yep, the group adopted the name, which actually pronounced "Wu Dong".

The most famous Wu Tang kung Fu style is Tai Chi.It was originally for combat. It then bifurcated into many schools. The slow movements that you see old people and new agers practicing in parks are an adaptation from the original Tai Chi which has all the combative features removed.

277. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #225643 by Bonzai on August 7, 2008 at 6:36 am

Sciros

There are different styles of kung fu. In the case of Bak Mei I suppose it would be the style taught at the Shaolin. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about kung fu styles so your Wikipedia browsing would be about as good as mine on this.

No, actually the style of Bak Mei (meaning "White Brows") was Wu Tang.

Wu Tang was Taoist while Shaolin was Buddhist.

278. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #225632 by Bonzai on August 7, 2008 at 6:22 am

Corylus

Incidentally (slightly off topic) book recommendation for those interested in dietary foibles, including religious restrictions.

Here is another one.


http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Cow-Abominable-Pig-Touchstone/dp/0671633082

279. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #225621 by Bonzai on August 7, 2008 at 6:02 am

So we keep out both Muslims and wussy veggie liberals?

I think Fanusi would like that.

280. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #225619 by Bonzai on August 7, 2008 at 5:58 am

Actually it is kind of easy to tell if someone is Muslim. Just serve him/her a glass of complimentary wine and a welcoming sausage when he/she applies for immigration.

Jews would probably fail the sausage test but they would drink the wine. The Muslim would fail both, If you are a vegetarian non drinker, too bad for you.

281. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #225611 by Bonzai on August 7, 2008 at 5:46 am

Steve

To put in flippantly, would you have a box that would be ticked asking:

"Please mark here if you are one of those naughty Muslims. If you don't bother to put a mark here, we will let you in".

It is not flippant at all.

Well before I got my Canadian citizenship I needed a visa to visit the United States. On the application form they asked questions like "Do you intend to commit crimes in the U.S?" "Do you intend to work illegally in the United States?" "Do you come to the United States to traffic narcotics" etc and you have to check one of the yes/no boxes.

I guess if they do catch you doing any of those things while you have checked "no" for all of them, they can punish you harshly for lying. After all Al Capon was nailed for tax evasion, not for murder and extortion.

282. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225296 by Bonzai on August 6, 2008 at 12:05 pm

I have the impression that there is a rise of creationism in the U.K. I wonder if this perception is correct or perhaps I get this impression just because I didn't pay attentions before. I used to think creationism is mainly an American thing.

283. Is our universe fine-tuned for life?

Comment #225291 by Bonzai on August 6, 2008 at 11:56 am

Oystein Elgaroy

The relative strengths of the two forces at low energies is determined by the details of how the symmetry that relates the two forces is broken, and that is not something that we can predict. I suspect that this feature will still be present in a more fundamental theory.

You're right. I shouldn't have said "fixed by theory". But if there is a theory that can constraint the constants modulo spontaneous symmetry breaking I think it is probably the furthest we can get.

284. Is our universe fine-tuned for life?

Comment #225273 by Bonzai on August 6, 2008 at 11:42 am

fizhburn

The problem is that "why" is the wrong question. "How did a universe with such-and-such physical constants appear?" is a tractable question, but the why of it is like asking why a specific virtual particle appears in a vacuum.

Is science there is no "why" question without "how".In sciency talks "why" and "how" mean practically the same thing. For example, why does the earth stay in orbit? It is because of gravity.Implied in the answer is that there is a way to actually make precise descriptions and calculations using the theory of gravity.

This way of using language is well understood by most people on this site except maybe for theologians who try to smuggle in agencies and intentions and philosophers who try to be smart asses.

So, I will continue to say "why" in the scientific context and ignore philosopher's nitpicking. I have a reputation for philophobia around here:)

285. Is our universe fine-tuned for life?

Comment #225269 by Bonzai on August 6, 2008 at 11:36 am

Steve

The question of whether or not complex structures and life appear is a pretty important one when trying to develop theories about the fundamental constants, as if you end up with values of the constants that don't allow at least complex structures, you know you have got things wrong, because we exist!

Of course. That goes without saying, all theories must fit observations. What I meant was that the formation of structures or the existence of life should not be used as some kind of backward "explanations" for why the constants appear to have certain values. I am not saying that you are doing that, but often people do without noticing, it is easy to be trapped with the 'wrong' perspective.

286. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #225128 by Bonzai on August 6, 2008 at 8:50 am

I see people are still trying to start petty fights with Al.

You're wrong. I didn't start the fight.

287. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #225125 by Bonzai on August 6, 2008 at 8:49 am

Al,

It was your quote of my post.

Being a jackass is not going to add credibility to your argument, and stop trying to bully people like a big fat obnoxious American that you are. Oh, and that is a joke too.

288. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #225117 by Bonzai on August 6, 2008 at 8:40 am

AL

How did I ever get that wrong. Feel free to take the whole thing personally.

Ok, it seems that you really need that to be spelt out for you so I will go very slowly.

I was commenting on Epeeist's use of the phrase "economical imperialism", which is a general term referring to the situation I described in your quote. I never said anything specific about Saudi Arabia, the ME, or oil price (though I could have elaborated on it in that particular context, but I haven't)

So you may disagree whether the arrangement with the Saudi Royal family, for example, qualifies as "economical imperialism" but that has nothing to do with my original point about etymology.

I should also add that it is very naive to say that people are not being "ripped off" simply because you pay a high price. Since we all agree that there is no democracy in the oil producing regimes in the ME, it is a curious assumption that somehow the windfall of oil profit would be shared equitably.

289. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #225108 by Bonzai on August 6, 2008 at 8:24 am

$140 per barrel and we are ripping them off? You have a strong sense of irony I see.

I was commenting on the meaning of the phrase "economical imperialism". You have a reading problem I see.

EDIT: But you are only seeing the superficial even with oil price. Many "friendly" dictators around the world are propped out by the U.S. to "manage" their resources. Whatever you pay for the resources not a red cent goes to the people, the money will then be reinvested in the U.S or other Western countries by the dictators. So how do the people benefit from that kind of deal? This is usually what "economical imperialism" means to the majority. Yes, you pay a lot for oil, but primarily to enrich a small cartel of local elite who work closely for the interest of big U.S. corporations, I won't blame the peasant for being thankful about such an arrangement.

290. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #225091 by Bonzai on August 6, 2008 at 7:36 am

Epeeist

Economic imperialism

Huh? I am sure you don't mean it in the way it is usually understood, namely, to rip them off economically to ensure that they hate what the West stands for even more.

291. More than 100,000 rare gorillas found in Congo

Comment #225085 by Bonzai on August 6, 2008 at 7:15 am

Quetzalcoatl

1. Do you believe that you have an absence of belief in God?
2. How do you know that you have an absence of belief in God?
3. If the absence of belief in God is a requirement to qualify as an atheist, how does one achieve this?

I think she was trying clumsily to argue along the line that "an atheist cannot reject God if he doesn't know what he rejects, therefore in order to reject God, he must be able to concieve of the existence of God, therefore athesism is inconsistent(or therefore God exists, depending on the version)".

The original argument was stupid. Her paraphrasing indicates that she was even dumber. That is my take on her strange questions.

292. Review interview: Richard Dawkins

Comment #225060 by Bonzai on August 6, 2008 at 6:31 am

I wonder if the first two paragraphs of this article can be considered sexism,--objectification of men. Richard Dawkins was depicted like a sex object, I am outraged. :)

Roboholic

Get a hold of yourself, geeze.

293. Is our universe fine-tuned for life?

Comment #225057 by Bonzai on August 6, 2008 at 6:17 am

I think the question should be whether the constants can be fixed by theory. It is easy to fall into the
trap of teleological reasoning by thinking too much about "what if" scenarios, like whether life or complex structures would be possible if the values of the constants were a bit off. These are interesting speculative exercises but we can't expect them to provide an answer to "why these values instead of others?", at least I can't see how without "cheating".

"Life" has nothing to do with the issue, it is a distraction from what is bascially a question of physics as far as I can tell.

294. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #224540 by Bonzai on August 5, 2008 at 4:53 am

Steve

I have just watched an interview with the MSNBC anchor Brian Williams, who recently had unprecedented contact with Ahmadinedjad. His message was "don't take Ahmadinedjad at his word - things are far more complex than they might seem"

I agree. I think the guy is a much more sophisticated politician than the impression he conveys. This is evident in the skillful way he handled the captured British soldiers. I think he plays the "mad man" only when it suits his purpose.

295. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224537 by Bonzai on August 5, 2008 at 4:48 am

27b-6

What is the central doctrine of Christianity? I don't think you can point to one single doctrine as the central one, especially given the wide variety of ideas that exists within the religion, but you can safely bet that if an idea does not appear either in the creeds or in the New Testament then that idea is not the central doctrine.

Surely some Christians don't subscribe to the version of Christianity Dawkins described in TGD, but many others do.

This is the problem. If even Christians cannot figure out what their God's "revelations" really say why do you think that the confusion of mumbo jumbos that is Christianity would offer anything useful in understanding the world?

Also, if Christianity is from God, do you think he would at least have the ability to communicate clearly?

In an attempt to discredit Dawkins, you shot yourself on the foot.

P.S. The same observation applies to all "revealed" religions.

296. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #224190 by Bonzai on August 4, 2008 at 9:30 am

Who the hell is going to marry Joe Morreale?

His nine year old sister.

297. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224119 by Bonzai on August 4, 2008 at 6:32 am

27b-6

The idea of atonement might be central to Christianity but original sin is not. It is not mentioned in the creeds or for that matter in St Paul or anywhere else in the New Testament.

Atonement for what then? If original sin is not a central dogma of Christianity what was the mission of Jesus? What did he supposedly die for?

298. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224116 by Bonzai on August 4, 2008 at 6:19 am

27b-6

And the traditional word for this ... the soul. The soul might not be a supernatural entity, it might turn out to be an entirely natural phenomenon, but I think you are very premature in dismissing its existence completely.

So let's suppose there is a soul? What is it like? What are its attributes?

What is the essence of you? What are those characteristics that define who you are? I would say they are your personality, your experience, your memories, your likes and dislikes, your little quirks etc.

But all these things are tied to the body. This is a fact that doesn't require any speculation about the possibility of an afterlife to establish We know this empirically.

Memory can be destroyed as a result of brain damage and diseases such as Alzheimer. Personality can change drastically as a result of drug use or because of changes in chemical balance such as the onset of puberty or menopause. More disastrously, a radical change in personality can be brought on through a tumor growing on the frontal lope, say--as demonstrated in a recent court trial.

In short, all those qualities that uniquely define who you are can be altered as a result of adjusting your brain state and chemical balance, through natural or artificial means.

Now extrapolate that. When you die the brain is no more. If there is a "soul" left, it must retain only those qualities which are independent of the body state. But what are those residual qualities? Since everything that defines you as a person is tied to the body,what is left of your soul when your personhood is subtracted away? Is it "pure computational power"? Can you even visualize such a thing? If such an entity exists, in what way can you say it is more intrinsically tied to you, than say the water molecules of your body?

Words have a way to deceive. You can invent a word for things that have no actual designate. "God" and "soul" are examples of such words because on closer examinations, they don't have any meaningful attributes in the way they are used conventionally. You can't claim that something "exists" without listing some attributes, as the idea of "pure existence" without any attribute simply makes no sense. Therefore, statement such as "the soul exists" is a vacuous statement without an accompanying list of attributes. I have yet to see anyone who insists that the soul exists come up with such a list that cannot be easily shown to be inconsistent with known facts,--the same goes for the statement "God exists".

Edited for clarity.

299. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224009 by Bonzai on August 4, 2008 at 1:37 am

Laurie

Dostoevsky remains my favourite author, even though I find his politics lamentable

I feel the same way.

300. Breeding for God

Comment #223904 by Bonzai on August 3, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Fanusi

It (Islamification) links up with things like the French riots and the encroachments on freedom of speech and the craven dhimmitude of our politicians.

No, it doesn't. The French riots was the result of poverty and social exclusion, it happened for reasons similar to the LA riot in the U.S. There is not a shred of evidence that it was religiously motivated or that it had anything to do with Islam other than the fact that the rioting youths were second generation immigrants from Muslim countries.

I have read several in depth reports during the riots.

The typical rioter was a young immigrant who had no job, no prospect, little education and spoke no language other than French He didn't identify with the culture that he came from because everything he knew, everything he learned was French, yet he couldn't connect with the larger French society because he was marginalized and was not considered "French enough" to be a "true Frenchman" by the society. He wanted to be in but his entry was denied.

If these youths become radicalized eventually, it will only be the result of the profound alienation and rejection they experience.To overcome this feeling of not being here or there they may anchor themselves to Islam in order to create an identity.

This is a fundamental problem I have with jihadwatch type analysis. They desperately try to construct a link with Islam whenever something bad happens, even when such a link is weak or completely unwarranted.Anything to paint an apocalyptic picture of impending Islamic take over. So if some guy called Mohammad robs a store, you will find that on Jihadwatch, as if Mohammad was motivated by Islam to rob the store simply because he has a Muslim name. This kind of "journalism" is simplistic, dishonest, manipulative and the worst part is that it obfuscates the real problems.