301. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161165 by AllanW on April 15, 2008 at 1:49 am

Clearthinker; wrong, wrong and wrong again.

My position is not self-contradictory just pragmatic; it feels nice when you stop banging your head against a brick wall.


'I post a great deal of information '; no, you propogandise.


'You can't answer the arguments ' no; you have been answered many times and you refuse to acknowledge that fact.


'Perhaps Allan you will not engage in the conversation because you actually have nothing to say. ' wrong again as I've posted here many times and have points of view and offer evidence across many threads.

You amply demonstrate my initial point; I thank you. You are demanding attention for every inane and despicable ejaculation you make with the retort that if it is not responded to you have 'won' and we exhibit fundamentalist attitudes by not engaging; these are the tactics of a fundamentalist and maroon.

BTW what's this I hear about a cheque? I'm seriously thinking about making this phrase my sig on any posts to you.

302. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161155 by AllanW on April 15, 2008 at 12:58 am

PZ: just a piece of friendly advice. Clearthinker is not only a misnomer (as you can see from his post above and previous comments) but has been shown on this site to hold and promote particularly odious, lying and nasty ideas.

Do what you wish with this information. As for myself (and I suspect a growing number of regular posters here) I am refraining from engaging in posted conversations with him as he exhibits the worst characteristics of fundamentalists the world over; a refusal to consider any point of view or evidence that contradicts the fiercely-held ignorance in his head.

303. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #160360 by AllanW on April 14, 2008 at 1:47 am

'A recent poll in The Economist'. I read that too and had a few problems both with the premise of the poll and the conclusions drawn. I think your comments in the succeeding paragraph contain the nub of the issue; it is politically expedient at the moment for both parties to SAY that they will be more protectionist of American jobs. It's an electoral pose. 'John McCain has mentioned it a little bit but I think tries to avoid the subject.' Exactly; neither side has abandoned free market positions but at the moment one side says they might tinker with regulation and intervention and the other side is keeping very quiet . I'm glad that you accept the point I made and I'm happy to agree that there could be a period in which it's poor tactics to be an open free trade advocate. On to the next point ..

'We in America are moving from a nation where the individual tells the government what it can do to a nation where the government tells the individual what he or she can do. The end of this road is inevitably tyrannical rule of government.' I entirely agree that a change is taking place between the citizens and the nature and style of government but disagree with your characterisation of what that change is. You capture it well in the gap between your two statements; 'I am entirely convinced of the fact that everything the government touches will inevitably become corrupt, inefficient and worthless.' and 'I didn't mean to give the impression that I oppose the police, national defense force or the courts. As it is, those are the only three proper forms of government that I believe in.' You will have to move away from the first stance towards the second more overtly in my opinion (and as you accept implicitly) if America is to remain a power on the world stage. Modern conditions demand it. The problem is that the vast majority of citizens feel disenfranchised with the political processes that currently pertain. How this plays out will determine how successful America is in halting the headlong slide into third-rate nation that it is currently on.

For me, the problem is to balance the personal freedoms and sense of entrepreneurialism that capitalist philosophies can support and engender with humanitarian structures and support that both curb the worst excesses of free market results and provide a means of bringing about the conditions to perfect the ability of markets to in fact deliver growth and prosperity. I repeat, the theories of market capitalism are useful. The problem is that the assumptions they make (perfect knowledge, market conditions, rationality etc) do not exist anywhere in real life so we must try to bring them about through interventions and regulation in whatever form is necessary.

A few links about related topics;

Interesting post about perceptions of income distribution that absolutely negates Randian ideas.

http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/04/13/do-people-care-about-inequality/

A current NYT article about economic perceptions at the moment;

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/opinion/14krugman.html?ex=1365825600&en=58d23f2779b8b70a&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

And another on the current economists zeitgeist with the trend moving away from non-intervention in markets;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-madrick/the-end-of-the-age-of-mil_b_94228.html

304. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159935 by AllanW on April 13, 2008 at 12:29 pm

FightingFalcon;

'I didn't know I had any fans on here :-)' I wouldn't go as far as 'fans' because very little on this site is unquestioning but I appreciate the job you do and the viewpoints and insight you express here.

'my views are not shared by nearly half of America'. Not true; the vast majority of Americans share the free market views you espouse. They have elected free-market, non-interventionist, no universal health-care etc parties since the early Sixties. As a measure of this look at the policies you mention by the current Democratic nominee-aspirants; you disparage them as being interventionist and I guess left wing. And in America they may seem so but the political spectrum over there is skewed heavily to the right. As a marker for you, both parties would be seen as at best centre-right if not extreme right wing in most European countries.

'Corporate charters exist for no other reason than for government to reach its greedy paws into areas that it doesn't belong.' I sometimes post quickly in response to a point on this site. I'm sure you do as well and I believe this may be one instance. If not, this viewpoint is a clear example of the prejudices you hold with regard to government and society. Of course the 'American way' meme is strong, of course the history and popular culture of the wild west and the pioneers is a strong one and of course there are elements in these memes and stories that pull powerfully at certain entirely human parts of our psyches so I can understand your point while being absolutely convinced that it represents the worst options for how to organise human societies in modern times. Every man for himself until someone stops you at the point of a gun is a crude, unnecessary and uncivilised way to live a life in my opinion.

We live in a world that is so complex, so interconnected and so technologically advanced that the power to affect other people around us and large segments of global society are within the reach of many people. Yet, as Christopher Hitchens eloquently put it in his debate on free speech; "Our frontal lobes are too small." We have developed personal morality and actions based in physiology that is minutely removed from cave dwellers. The danger this poses is vast.

So to start from a point that any government cannot deliver any service or good or be of any use whatsoever is to ignore the benefits that higher-level social organisations can and do deliver; it is a reversion to roving-band idealism.

'Corporate charters are an old relic of the initial Joint Stock Companies and have no place in our current economy.' Maybe I was unclear in my choice of words. The basis for existence of any corporation is currently within the powers of government to bestow, withhold or withdraw. Why would you have it any other way? Do you seriously want me to accept that the creation of any form of organisation endows it with an existence and power that from that moment on is untouchable by government? I'm sure that a moments' reflection will tell you that this would lead to anarchy.

'I will never agree to a company ever having a societal responsibility'. Why?

The next section of your post I can agree with (referring to the detailed workings of the corporation). I meant that intervention is conducted not at this detailed micro-economic level but normally at a macro-economic level. Apart from legislation to ensure things such as lack of racial, sexual or ageist prejudice in employment practices and certain kinds of non-exploitation of workers (working conditions etc) I would expect regulation in whatever form, as I said in my original post, to work towards moving actual market conditions towards those at which our economic models tell us the maximisation of utility occurs. The models work; I believe in the theory but the real world differs and can be made, through regulation, to approach ideal conditions.

'Personally, I would argue that government intervention in the market place has never helped - only hindered - economic growth.' I disagree. Economic growth would be miniscule but for the intervention in certain areas of governmental regulation. Don't forget, governments can just be the reflection writ-large of the aggregate of individual viewpoints. An illustration; how much would your personal economic productivity and growth be hampered if there were no police force, national defence force, fire service, healthcare system or public service organisation for roads, utilities etc? I venture to suggest that without these services and economic goods you would in effect be living in an anarchic, third world country where the safety and integrity of you personally and your family would entirely depend on your own ability to wield a gun or otherwise deter thieves. These services would never be provided in a free market. Studies have shown time and again that these societal goods (justice, the rule of law, personal property rights etc) are NOT provided without government mandate and are never provided under free market conditions.

I'm enjoying our chat. I have wanted to discuss these issues (and others besides) on this site for awhile now as not only are they my own area of expertise (not being a scientist and all) but I believe they are the back-drop, the framing references for the issues we spend most of our time discussing here and are important therefore. Please don't think for a second that I'm aiming these notes at you. As I explained before, I'm not and I welcome a frank exchange of our varied viewpoints.

All the best.

AllanW

305. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159766 by AllanW on April 13, 2008 at 4:31 am

Jon_sociologist;

Calm down, man. I'm afraid you may be guilty of the viewpoint I've mentioned on other threads; that what we have here on this site, what we are engaging in is a detailed, one-person-at-a-time conversion process. We are not and this site is not capable of providing that service. The results you are aiming for are not possible.

This is a mass-media vehicle. Are you really expecting a co-ordinated effort to take each individual example of posts, each individual poster and painstakingly walk them through a conversion process to reach the other side? I'm sorry but that is unrealistic.

Just off the top of my head; how can you be sure you understand the precise circumstances of every interraction? What is going on in the posters' head? How can you be in control of their perceptions and what message they take from any posted words here? Do you begin to see my point?

The only thing we can reasonably aim for here is to be consistent in putting forth a message that rationality is preferable to superstition. That will inevitably result in a range of responses (a distribution of colours of reaction) that will, inevitably, switch some people on, turn others off and pass many by.

The trend of groupwide results is the only thing we could have any confidence in, not particular individual interreactions or individual outcomes.

We are part of a movement, nebulous though it is at the moment, but one that is nevertheless gaining momentum and prominence. To expect anything else is not productive or reasonable in my opinion.

306. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159762 by AllanW on April 13, 2008 at 4:02 am

Fightingfalcon in comment #159688

And here we depart. Please don't take any of these comments personally as I've enjoyed your contributions over many threads here recently but you exhibit the typical American views on free markets so I'll use you as an opponent if you don't mind :)

Corporations exist as part of society not apart from it. Their existence is formed by a grant from whatever organisation is empowered to govern society. As such, even after they have been created, they remain within the reach of those powers. This point has been lost by many, typically free market, supporters. To be even clearer; the corporations' objectives (even though they may be changed from time to time and embody purposes other than to make profits) remain subservient to societies wishes and corporations can be amended, closed or reformed in any manner the government chooses should they produce results in any form which that society deems to be unwelcome. The fact that this does not happen in America does not support the typical contention that this is the right or best manner in which to act.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/books/2001/0107.rowe.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_/ai_n6019798
http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=3702

As for regulation; all economic models are based upon a series of fundamental assumptions about the nature of competitive conditions in markets as well as the actions of participants being to maximise rational, selfish utility (however measured). Again, these assumptions have been forgotten (if they were ever learned) by typical free market adherents.

What they mean in practice is that the applicability of these models to real world conditions is virtually nil as the assumptions (perfect knowledge, open competition, rationality etc) are never present.

To make any market approach these conditions requires regulation in a wide variety of forms. Taxation, regulatory bodies, legislative actions etc all attempt to move actual real world conditions towards those in which economic models and their theories would apply. And this is done because market capitalism is the best, most productive model that humanity has developed so far to increase the welfare of society as a whole. You see, I believe in market theory :) the difference between us is one of purpose and pragmatism.

I've gone on for too long but see the thread below for an interesting discussion about precisely this issue (one of many currently doing the rounds in economic blog circles inspired by the current market failures).

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/04/the-deregulatio.html

307. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159729 by AllanW on April 13, 2008 at 2:16 am

Before the Verbiose Wars started, bigcanuck made a few points about the scientific method and openness. These were well answered by Steve, Dr Benway and Mark Smith (as well as by, I suspect, a large number of people reading this thread who weren't as quick to post).

bigcanuck came back with comment #159646 in which he revealed that his own personal, belief-based prejudices have clouded his mind and a firm understanding of the scientific method (open to all options, sheesh!).

bigcanuck;

We haven't created our own reality here, we only try to deal with the one we all experience; stop projecting.

You have a blatantly skewed view of the scientific method that has been carefully explained to you above. Do you see where the 'Goddidit' explanation falls down?

Nobody ridicules hypothetical options in scientific papers using just personal prejudices or biases; they do it by pointing out the failures in good scientific practices and methods. There is a difference.

The ID crowd submit none of their 'science' to be evaluated through the normal channels so scientists smell a rat.

Equally, non-scientists should be taught to smell this rat by demonstrating just how underhand, lying and distorting the ID crowd's methods, tactics and content are.

'Teach the controversy' indeed. You have been suckered by your personal, religious viewpoint my friend; shame on you for trashing your science degree and falling for their hogwash.

308. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159538 by AllanW on April 12, 2008 at 12:29 pm

'I would rather spend my life believing that I was created by God than to believe that I descended from a rock!'

Only because you desperately wish to distance yourself from your current close resemblance to one. Enjoy whatever delusion you wish, my friend and have a lovely vacation from reality. Let us know how it was when and if you ever return to us.

309. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159516 by AllanW on April 12, 2008 at 11:37 am

I'm curious how someone can read this thread and so completely misunderstand its contents. No-one is commenting on the film having not seen it. Some people are commenting after seeing previews and others are commenting upon their impressions. Others are noting details about the making of the film etc.

I see lots of intelligence and thinking for oneself going on here; why do you not, bigcanuck?

I'm glad that people are drawn to this site by controversial issues and popular people but worry, as it seems Epeeist does above, that some of our more recent members may be carrying some particular baggage with them. I'd like to think they are drawn here the same as I was which was to read, learn something and maybe participate.

310. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #159353 by AllanW on April 12, 2008 at 2:21 am

Thanks for that ASMarques.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

311. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #158854 by AllanW on April 11, 2008 at 5:57 am

Yep, Steve, entirely agree. It plainly is not 'behaving as if you are God'. Two points;

- Does any questioning of faith invoke a knee-jerk hostile reaction as it (however politely) posits their gullibility?

- How does the idea of arming yourself with practical scepticism (a pragmatic and useful thing in itself IMO) get translated into being a de-humanising worldview (as we are so often accused of)?

312. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #158839 by AllanW on April 11, 2008 at 5:33 am

I'm glad someone posted on this message as it made me re-read the original article. Maybe it's just a coincidence but it reads remarkably like a sanitised (and un-capitalised) version of D.I.Ogenes' rants on another thread.

313. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158787 by AllanW on April 11, 2008 at 3:31 am

D.I.Ogenes;

Is your whole argument that if a person is tricked by someone once in their life that all they achieve or think for ever after is worthless idiocy? I think it is and you reveal yourself to be the most judgmental nincompoop and idiot.

314. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158770 by AllanW on April 11, 2008 at 3:05 am

'A High Priest from Academia has yet to prove Speciation either through observed evidence or through laboratory experimentation.' Wrong; read and follow the links.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000855.html

'From the complete Fossil Record, a High Priest of Academia has yet to show from start-to-end all intermediate steps taken that gave rise to a now existing species.' Specious; how many steps is 'all'? Enough should be enough to show the progression unless you wilfully ignore the evidence..

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

'The conjured Darwinian Evolution Story gives a Positivist Foundation for Political Control of folks and environments'. Yep, it must be true if you say so. The secret Scientist Conspiracy organisation controls the world and aims to persecute you poor, humble Christians. Wake up and smell the coffee.

http://www.rad.bham.ac.uk/files/resourcesmodule/@random44e5ca0f65727/1162216949_DemographicsAndTrendsInReligiousAdherence.pdf

'Every High Priest of the Church of Academia who has masqueraded Darwin's Conjecture as a legitimate theory ought to be run from town wearing a scarlet letter for the millions of deaths that hinged upon their Positivist excuse making.' Thanks for sharing your loving and forgiving religion with us.

315. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158735 by AllanW on April 11, 2008 at 1:46 am

I agree with Epeeist; I've seen more intelligible output from chatbots. You have to distrust any post that deals exclusively in Capitalised Nouns.

There is no content to address merely arse-gravy.

316. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #158695 by AllanW on April 11, 2008 at 12:55 am

iBELIEVEinJESUS; 'I would like more feedback on 85, anyone... '

How very droll considering the thread topic's main actor ...

Despite a tinge of the demanding infant about your post, see below. Try using the internet to access the vast range of scientific papers on this subject.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3014747.stm

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19225731.800-the-animal-roots-of-human-morality.html

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m103764mx815748x/

317. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158682 by AllanW on April 11, 2008 at 12:13 am

Ah! Another driveby troll, whytebread this time.

Almost a cut-and-paste rebuttal as the substance of his post is so tired, cliched and stale (hehe).

'Legitimate, intelligent scientists are being fired and "thrown out"' - wrong; you mean like these?

http://scienceblogs.com/neurotopia/2008/02/shocker_gonzalez_denied_tenure.php

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/09/beckwith_tenure_denial_reverse.php

'highly feasible alternative theory.' wrong; - http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/not-science.html

'Evolution is a religion' wrong; - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html

Thanks for playing but you don't get out of the first grade. Try reading a few 'other' books and come back when you have extracted your head from your rectum. Bye bye.

318. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #158397 by AllanW on April 10, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Yep, that's ten minutes of my life I'll never get back ...

Just had a look at good 'ol Kevins site; man, the stupid burns so hot!

As for Rep. Davis she remains bigoted and close-minded despite the apology. I agree with mesomodel that an apology to the public for so signally failing in her public duties is the least they should expect.

319. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #158260 by AllanW on April 10, 2008 at 9:08 am

I know some people here find it juvenile or retrograde to the cause of atheism but, boy, I laugh every time at 'fucktard'. Maybe I'm childish but the word itself is ridiculous, the delivery is always varied and interesting and the target always deserves the ridicule.

Ho hum cup of tea time.

320. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #158251 by AllanW on April 10, 2008 at 8:57 am

Re; comment #158182 kjmastaw

- atheism is religion - wrong http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/11/29/075801.php
- worship at the altar of science - just plain demonstrably wrong; we disagree with each other, expert posters etc all the time :)
- cannot explain the scientific method - wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
- cannot cite evidence for evolution - wrong http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
- RD is high priest - wrong. He doesn't wear vestments to the best of my knowledge.

As you seem to have set a new record high score for fuckwittery in one post may I make a suggestion? Oh no, I'll leave that to Irate :)

321. Beware the Believers

Comment #157996 by AllanW on April 10, 2008 at 12:25 am

Heeheeheeheehee.
It's always enjoyable to wake up to a fresh shower of stupid in the morning in the same way as everyone enjoys a fall of snow overnight; thanks Kyrie Eleison.

Specific points?

- 'Every line in the Rap, and even parts of lines, are all from scripture and the context is unflattering; bullshit. Dealt with by MaxD.
- 'With each new discovery in the area of constants, the possiblity of "accidental" life mathematically decreases'. No it doesn't if you're referring to abiogenesis. And you must be as the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection has little to do with accidents and chance. As for abiogenesis, try a little reading from here; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
- 'The best minds; Newton, Bacon, Pascal, Galileo, Polkinghorne, were Christian'. How many times does this non sequiter need to be rebutted? Any individual's personal beliefs have nothing to do with their scientific findings and evidence. And that is apart from the fact that the prevailing orthodoxy forced them to conform personally while fundamentally challenging the dogma of organised religion.
- 'Humanity has to do with thought, belief, memory, volition, etc., all of which is non-material' Aha! I suspect we may have a theologian on our hands. Explain then, kind person, what is the mind, where it resides, how it is formed and when and how it might relate to any concept of soul that you might have, please? BTW by rejecting any form of materialism or naturalism you stray into philosophical territory that is the purview of other posters here.
- 'To teach one theory only is indoctrination' Absolute balderdash my friend. To teach only one theory as if it were fact despite the evidence is indoctrination. To teach the best theory that has been empirically tested, refined and continues to provide the only fitting ideas about an area of human knowledge is not only good practice but necessary to avoid blatant ignorance. If you have a better theory get it evaluated and it will be taught.
- 'Darwinism is disturbingly useful to the government and anyone wanting to justify actions that might harm another person.' Oh dear  you just shot yourself in the foot again but thanks for playing; next contestant? I call argument ad Hitlerum and end of contest. The evidence supports you in no way whatsoever. Just consider the use by every government for the last two thousand years, from the Romans onwards (and probably before, my history before this is murky at best) of religion as a suppressor of enquiry, tool of political power and justifier par excellence of oppression and war.
- 'There isn't a lack of evidence, only a supression of evidence' Sigh. And here was I thinking you did not wear a tinfoil hat. I'm sad; you join the ranks of the nutjobs for that comment alone. It's been dealt with by others but please consider, seriously your assertion that the evidence exists but has been completely, totally successful in being suppressed for two thousand years by every government organisation in every country of the world. Not very likely, huh?

Overall a D grade, I'm afraid. Promising start but developed poorly and descended into whackjob-land. Get out a little more. Come back again in a few years when you've assimilated a few other ideas. Thanks for playing and goodbye.

322. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #157815 by AllanW on April 9, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Re; comment #157754 sane1

That passage is terrific; many thanks for posting it. Is it too much to ask for it to become everyones sig. file to disseminate the view more widely and forestall the 'atheists believe in nothing/have no morality/are evil' meme?

Just a thought.

323. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157786 by AllanW on April 9, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Finally finished watching and it didn't disappoint. I'm pleased to say that Dawkins' performance continued to be as direct and clear as it started. His manner of dealing with the religiously deluded continues to get better and shows progress from, for example, the radio show he did in the States. Personally respectful to the questioner but not backing-up one inch on the ideas expressed; bravo.

Parts of his conversation with Paula and a few of his answers in the Q A deserve to be distributed as a primer to schools for civics lessons, they are that well thought-out and transmitted.

324. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157344 by AllanW on April 9, 2008 at 12:48 am

Many congratulations to both RD and Paula.

Dawkins' knowledge, passion and integrity shone through the handicap of his voice. Paula appeared relaxed after the first few moments (understandable) and did her job here well.

I've yet to see the second part of the questions but already the radio show host seems to have revealed himself as either a religiot or just plain vacuous. His handling of the questions is not great so far which is disappointing as his fulsome introduction promised more.

The responses from the audience are revealing, aren't they? Polite applause for some witticisms, polite silence for most of the talk and then generous applause for a few responses from Dawkins that contained real nuggets of information presented with authority and insight. I didn't sense that people (apart from the already committed :)) were put off by the frank and open nature of the arguments and the words used. In other words they were remarkably adult about it.

I'm looking forward to finishing the viewing tonight.

325. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156668 by AllanW on April 8, 2008 at 5:59 am

Re; comment #156666 (hehe) Philip1978

Congratulations on this post; I wholly agree.

Have a celebratory cuppa on me :)

326. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156661 by AllanW on April 8, 2008 at 5:46 am

'The minimum wage has helped a considerable number of people, and so have the improved rights for parents. It seems a bit odd to claim they don't have any resonance for the majority of working people.'

I didn't; reread but I accept that it may be my writing that is unclear rather than your understanding. I dealt with minimum wage along with other workers rights in the first substantive para.

And this is not an argument of 'not MY traditional values'; sorry, I set you up for that by the way I wrote. I'm a cultural conservative with changing views recently :)(getting more liberal).

327. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156656 by AllanW on April 8, 2008 at 5:42 am

hehe yussel123; then don't worry about it. No way to undo it :)

But good for you for having the balls to admit it; good on yer.

328. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156651 by AllanW on April 8, 2008 at 5:34 am

Thanks Steve and irate_atheist for those lists. I know this is off-topic but I'll post once and we can take it to PM if you wish.

You're impressed, huh? I'm not. The only traditional values you mentioned, Steve, were new rights for part-time workers and parents along with the minimum wage; not a huge turnaround of the Thatcher years IMO that stripped rights away across the board.

Your second list, irate_atheist, was a litany of the repackaging initiatives this government has indulged in that has had no effect whatsoever on employment rates and the state costs they incur compared to what was there before; shuffling deckchairs in the Titanic comes to mind as an apt simile.

I suppose to be fair we might include the Reform of the House of Lords as a traditional Labour issue but only to dismiss it in the next instant as it has been a botched and elongated dirge still incomplete.

The rest of your list may be of importance to you personally but please don't believe they have any resonance whatsoever for the vast majority of working people in this country; they remain (yes important and needed) minority issues espoused by the urban fashionably-socialist segment.

I would have expected to see a list containing nuclear disarmament, repeal of the anti-strike legislation, House of Lords reform, curtailment of corporate malfeasance and greed legislation, pension safeguards etc etc None of which have happened and all of which have continued the vein established by the tories during the eighties and nineties.

Net effect? Read the link below for one indication. Then tell me that this government hasn't been to all intents and purposes a conservative one (deliberate small 'c').

http://www.poverty.org.uk/04/index.shtml

And don't even get me started on their management of the economy ...

329. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156638 by AllanW on April 8, 2008 at 5:00 am

Re; comment #156633 yussel123
'If Dawkins wasn't so "in-your-face" about his atheism, perhaps people on the "other side" would give him a hearing.'

The evidence does not support this assertion. Both in this country and the US many more people have examined the issues and moved towards a more secular, rational viewpoint over the last ten years with the publication of scientific and popular science books etc than did before with a more sotto voce approach.

See also the 'framing' argument on Pharyngula for more information and current comment;

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/hrynyshyn_on_framing.php

330. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156630 by AllanW on April 8, 2008 at 4:42 am

Re; comment #156624 Steve Zara

'I am personally rather glad that someone actually managed to get the Labour party back in power.'

I notice you use the label 'Labour' party; I'm interested in what traditional Labour issues you believe have been advanced in this last eleven years?

331. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156594 by AllanW on April 8, 2008 at 2:15 am

Good work The Duke. I hope it has some effect.

332. Fleabytes

Comment #156146 by AllanW on April 7, 2008 at 12:41 am

My, my; the Wee Flea spent his Sunday composing messages. The usual self-serving, myopic dreck unfortunately. He clings to his interpretation of events as surely and comfortingly as he clings to his religious delusion.

The detail is not worth bothering with tbh.

I just hope he keeps his thoughts to himself from now on.

As for the mindless inanity of 'somehow you would wake up to what is all around you and have your minds opened to the truth.' then 'physician, heal thyself'.

333. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #156142 by AllanW on April 7, 2008 at 12:33 am

Aha! A variation on the 'not my God' theme; the introduction of the 'not one of my flock'. Can I name this new excuse as I commented first, please?

For a man who insists he does things in God's name, you sure appear to try to milk personal ego-massage.

And 'OEC'; hehe let the ripping of a new one begin brothers and sisters :)

334. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #156140 by AllanW on April 7, 2008 at 12:27 am

I'll leave it up to the others who can be bothered to counter your attempts to inflate your flacid ego but this one stuck out;

'can you demonstrate one lie?'

No, several.

BTW what's this I hear about a cheque?

335. Fleabytes

Comment #153996 by AllanW on April 2, 2008 at 11:15 am

Frank Zappa lyrics (just a small selection from many possibilities). And solely about religion. I should have warned you not to get me started on the genius of Frank Zappa :)

FRANK ZAPPA Song: Heavenly Bank Account

And if these words you do not heed
Your pocketbook just kinda might recede
When some man comes along and
claims godly need
He will clean you out right through your
tweed

That's right, remember there is a big
difference between kneeling down
and bending over...
He's got twenty million dollars
In his Heavenly Bank Account...
All from those chumps who was
Born again
Oh yeah, oh yeah

He's got seven limousines
And a private plane...
All for the use of his
Special Friends
Oh yeah, oh yeah
He's got thousand-dollar suits
And a Wembley Tie...
Girls love to stroke it
While he's on the phone
Oh yeah, oh yeah

At the House of Representatives
He's a groovy guy...
When he Gives Thanks
He is not alone...

He is dealin'
He is really dealin'
IRS Can't determine
Where The Hook is

It is easy with the Bible
To pretend that
You're in Show Biz

They won't get him
They will never get him
For the naughty stuff
That he did

It is best in cases like this
To pretend that
You are stupid

He's got Presidential Help
All along the way

He says the grace
While the lawyers chew
Oh yeah
They sure do

And the Govenors agree to say:
"He's a lovely man!"
He makes it easier for
Them to screw
All of you...
Yes, that's true!

'Cause he helps put The Fear of God
In the Common Man
Snatchin' up money
Everywhere he can
Oh yeah
Oh yeah

He's got twenty million dollars
In his Heavenly Bank Account
You ain't got nothin', people
You ain't got nothin', people
You ain't got nothin', people
Thank the man...oh yeah

FRANK ZAPPA Song: Jesus Thinks You're A Jerk

There's an ugly little wasel 'bout three-foot nine
Face puffed up from cryin' 'n lyin'
'Cause her sweet little hubby's
Suckin' prong part time
(In the name of The Lord)


Get a clue, little shrew
Oh yeah, oh yeah
Jesus thinks you're a jerk


Did he really choose Tammy to do His Work?
Robertson says that he's The One
Oh sure he is,
if Armageddon
Is your idea of family fun,
An' he's got some planned for you!
(Now, tell me that ain't true)


Now, what if Jimbo's slightly gay,
Will Pat let Jimbo get away?
Everything we've heard him say
Indicated that Jim must pay,
(And it just might hurt a bit)
But keep that money rollin' in,
'Cause Pat and naughty Jimbo
Can't get enough of it


Perhaps it's their idea
Of an Affirmative Action Plan
To give White Trash a 'special break';
Well, they took those Jeezo-bucks and ran
To the bank! To the bank! To the bank! To the bank!
And every night we can hear them thank
Their Buddy, up above
For sending down his love
(While you all smell the glove)


Jim and Pat should take a pole
(Right up each saintly glory-hole),
With tar and feathers too --
Just like they'd love to do to you


('Cause they think you are bad --
And they are very mad)


'Cause some folks don't want prayer in school!


(We'd need an ark to survive the drool
Of Micro-publicans, raised on hate,
And 'Jimbo-Jimbo' when they graduate)


Conviced they are 'The Chosen Ones' --
And all their parents carry guns,
And hold them cards in the N.R.A.
(With their fingers on the triggers
When they kneel and pray)


With a Ku-Klux muu-muu
In the back of the truck,
If you ain't Born Again,
They wanna mess you up, screamin':
"No abortion, no-siree!"
"Life's too precious, can't you see!"
(What's that hangin' from the neighbor's tree?
Why, it looks like 'colored folks' to me --
Would THEY do THAT...seriously?)


Imagine if you will
A multi-millionaire Television Evangelist,
Saved from Korean Combat duty by his father, a U.S. Senator


Studied Law --
But is not qualified to practice it


Father of a "love child"
Who, in adulthood, hosts the remnants
Of papa's religious propaganda program


Claims not to be a "Faith Healer",
But has, in the past,
Dealt stearnly with everything from hemorrhoids to hurricanes


Involved with funding for a 'secret war' in Central America
Claiming Ronald Reagan and Oliver North as close friends


Involved in suspicous 'tax-avoidance schemes',
(Under investigation for 16 months by the I.R.S.)


Claims to be a MAN OF GOD;
Currenty seeking the United States Presidency,
Hoping we will all follow him into --
The Twilight Zone


What if Pat gets in the White House,
And suddenly --
The rights of 'certain people' disappear
Mysteriously?


Now, wouldn't that sort of qualify
As an American Tragedy?
(Especially if he covers it up, sayin'
"Jesus told it to me!")


I hope we never see that day,
In The Land of The Free --
Or someday will we?
Will we?


And if you don't know by now,
The truth of what I'm tellin' you,
Then, surely I have failed somehow --


And Jesus will think I'm a jerk, just like you --
If you let those TV Preachers
Make a monkey out of you!


I said:
"Jesus will think you're a jerk"
And it will be true!


There's an old rugged cross
In the land of cutton --
It's still burnin' on somebody's lawn
And it still smells rotten


Jim and Tammy!

336. Fleabytes

Comment #153941 by AllanW on April 2, 2008 at 8:50 am

Re; #153817. The post? Certainly;

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2409,Beware-the-Believers,RandomSlice,page7#152400

337. Fleabytes

Comment #153805 by AllanW on April 2, 2008 at 5:36 am

Ho hum, Robertson is evasive again.

He comments on a post of mine from looooong ago and merely to ask a question; in fact he projects my answer (quite incorrectly) while also ignoring my much more recent post showing how he lied.

Situation normal then. BTW what is this I hear about a cheque?

338. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152479 by AllanW on March 31, 2008 at 6:05 am

Re; comment #152469

'And that is yet another reason for complete, non-negotiable freedom of speech.'. I agree. You'll be as worried as I am about this then;


http://www.iheu.org/node/3123

339. Beware the Believers

Comment #152400 by AllanW on March 31, 2008 at 12:21 am

Sigh.

Is that shit-stirrer 'clearthinker' still hanging around doing what he is known for? Seems so.

No, Robertson, 'don't upset the (non) believers or you will be expelled' is yet another example of deliberate falsehood; when will you extract your head from your rectum? The sheer fact you can post the message negates its content.

You lie as regularly as you breathe.

340. Beware the Believers

Comment #151589 by AllanW on March 29, 2008 at 3:09 am

I think there are enough pro-science lyrics in it to think it rests on 'our' side. Plus the visuals are quite ironic in many cases. I can understand a little confusion but I put that down to muddled and mangled use of the language (which I believe is normal for this kind of music). On the whole it's entertaining IMO.

I think I'll have a hard time getting the image of Eugenie Scott rubbing her bikini-clad (and plainly male) body out of my head ...

341. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151279 by AllanW on March 28, 2008 at 11:33 am

'Correct me if I'm wrong, but so does evolution? But it's not a mystery because it just hasn't been discovered yet.'

You are wrong; you mean that you just haven't discovered it yet. Read a book.

342. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #150518 by AllanW on March 27, 2008 at 3:55 am

'we need hard facts'

I have the matter in hand ...

I'll get my coat :)

343. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #149811 by AllanW on March 26, 2008 at 8:49 am

Wow. Sickened by the story and by the links above; a truly disturbed woman.

344. Fleabytes

Comment #149181 by AllanW on March 25, 2008 at 8:30 am

mikejswalker; thanks for the reply. Apologies for the delay in responding, I've been in meetings.

I agree that civility costs nothing and, to some people, says more about the speaker than the receiver.

Yet I cannot agree with your metaphor nor with the parallels you seek to draw with other conflicts. Maybe it's the word conflict that I used that misleads here.

The religion versus rationality issue is not parallel to any of the geographic conflicts you mention; there are no geographical boundaries, there are no defined battle-lines drawn (whether literal or metaphorical), there are no clear economic or political goals that are the measure of the end-point or winning conditions. They do not compare. So using such metaphors or parallels does not help to choose tactics or support criticisms of certain behaviour.

This conflict is not capable of being sorted out by sober, serious and unswearing people over a table in Stormont, Yalta or Versailles. It's a different animal. If I tried to think of a parallel it would be something like gay rights or slavery; a movement that has moral dimensions but no geography; a movement that is not time-specific or related to particular incidents that sparked it but to a state of mind; an idea whose time is coming and which has implications that will play out not exclusively in regions or sub-sets of society but in all.

Here's the test; solve this issue by naming and getting together the leaders of both sides and getting them to agree to a set of discussion protocols and negotiation groundrules. Hell, they're even trying to get somewhere like this over Palestine! Best of luck.

My guess is it cannot even be conceived of let alone attempted. It's a different animal. In my opinion it needs a whole range of tactics, routes, methods, people, messages applied over a great deal of time. It needs to generate and develop a widespread, broad 'church', directional not specific groundswell of support before it can start to apply pressure in specific places for specific actions; That's when the spokespeople need to be taken seriously.

345. Fleabytes

Comment #149056 by AllanW on March 25, 2008 at 4:03 am

clodhopper; it's probably not your understanding but my eloquence that is deficient here :)

The emphasis I was trying to put on this aspect of our ongoing debate was the scale and range of interractions that occur every day. Thinking about the conflict between religion and rationality/secularism in terms of this site, some of the poeple here and the threads that we have is a very limited perspective in my opinion. As such I think it's a waste of time and energy to define tactics, impossible to construct models of cause and effect for different circumstances to achieve particular goals or outcomes.

This is a mass-medium; further, it is a user-defined medium. Access to the content here can cover the full range of visits from occasional to frequent to constant. Participation from never to constant. Each post and every thread (I'm sure Josh and his team have some statictics here) will, I expect, be read by many more people than post. Why do people think it's possible to engineer or manage peoples' perceptions of the posts?

Add to this picture that the people who do reach this site have a choice of millions of other sites to visit; add to this that they view or hear other channels of mass-media; add to this the complexity of their personality and upbringings, education and mood at this moment and you have a picture of massive complexity for any message to pitch into. Just what elements of this are controllable or, I would argue, should be controlled?

I reiterate; it is a lack of perspective that leads to this view; this is not a polite debating club or a refined gentlemans club it is worldwide mass media. You would expect to see as wide a range of views, tones and language as you would in the population of the world. That's not controllable in any singular degree; but can be seen in aggregate.

346. Fleabytes

Comment #149042 by AllanW on March 25, 2008 at 3:10 am

mikejswalker
While attempting to keep these remarks impersonal (please take them as such) I think you have too limited a perspective. This issue is related to the one on another thread (on which I saw you supported Spinoza) in that you both seem to want all protagonists in the engagement between religion and rationality/secularism to abide by polite debating rules. To conduct themselves with straightforward analyses of the opponents positions, debate the issues not the personality involved and to conduct this exercise in the rarefied atmosphere of cultured, academic sterility. Your argument is that this would protect the 'movement' from any criticisms ('tactics too heavy handed, too smarmy, too loud, ridiculing') and avoid any undecideds being repulsed by the obnoxious manner displayed. It would also placate the feelings of unease you and others are starting to feel about the tone used by some participants.

I repeat; in my view this misses the scale and nature of the conflict that is going on. That approach may be appropriate perhaps in the UK or in polite circles; in academia or when presenting in court; when making lobbying presentations to Government committees or having a calm discussion with friends and relatives over a pleasant meal. But I would argue that this represents the tiniest fraction of the possible conflict points where these issues affect people all over the world in their daily lives.

The issue we are dealing with and participating in manifests itself in a whole myriad, a full spectrum of circumstances; from the ones described above to ones where daily life for un-outed atheists is a repressive hell dealing with family and work colleagues; where children are home-schooled by ignorant, delusional parents; where religious missionaries actively prevent the use of contraception that could prove vital in preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa; where Christian ministries collect money daily to fund the Discovery Institute or Benny Hinns next limo. To fret over how politely some people express themselves on this site is to obsess over one small aspect of the set of occasions when religion comes up against rationality.

We are dealing with issues that have a global reach and affect all people; as such the range of possible actions, tones, responses and outcomes is a whole distribution-curve of possibilities. Sorry to burst your bubble but every day there are religious people getting annoyed at what they perceive to be those uppity atheists; every day there are uncommitted people having one side or the other of the debate reinforced or turned-off for them in a hundred different ways; every day, atheists are expressing themselves poorly in a discussion on a website. And these interactions are miniscule in comparison to the scale of such interactions going on all the time; the crucial measure is not the individual interaction (outcome or effect) but the aggregate. The image in my mind is of the molecules in a glass of water; some are not really moving, some are frenetic. Some clash into other molecules some float in blissful isolation. What matters are the conditions of the glassful as a whole.

So, yes, I understand your points and yes I see that sometimes the effects you describe may occur. But I think that a change of tactic in some circumstances is not only overdue but necessary to achieve a change that has not happened in many parts of the world which remain mired in irrationality.

347. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #149022 by AllanW on March 25, 2008 at 1:29 am

TonyA; many thanks for those links. The write-up makes a great read and certainly conveys the excitement that the author felt. Thanks.

348. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #149018 by AllanW on March 25, 2008 at 1:11 am

'I just personally would prefer that people who want to engage with THEISTS about THEIR beliefs wouldn't straw-man the arguments.'

Entirely agree.

Nancy; thanks for a number of points well made especially comment #148985.

349. Fleabytes

Comment #148911 by AllanW on March 24, 2008 at 2:51 pm

'Don't you get that?'. To be honest, no. You have still failed to justify your original comment viz 'But we are slowly cultivating a label that is being questioned by all concerned.'

What label? What questions? Exactly who are 'all concerned'? Or are you merely projecting your own anxieties upon a wider public? We have all been guilty of that on occasions (lol).

350. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148906 by AllanW on March 24, 2008 at 2:37 pm

What was the extremity of my initial position?

'The New Atheism is a wholly plebeian movement... to the chagrin of most intellectuals.'

What have I backtracked on?

1. 'the writers that have raised the public consciousness about religion/god-belief hold vastly more well-thought out positions on all counts than is apparent from the meat of their pop-books (some might say "pot-boilers")' vs 'I like pop-science books.. I never said anything about them... I was talking about potboilers in particular, with the caveat that the intention of the authors may or may not have actually been to write a potboiler... and it may or may not be the case that one or more the the popular atheism books is such.'
2. 'I didn't say intellectuals are saddened by it... I said the pop-culture "movement" "The New Atheism" causes them chagrin, which is to say, embarrassment/annoyance', 'I often have to explain to fellow academics' vs 'I was using "intellectual" and "academic" in the weakest sense possible...'
3. 'It often looks, quite clearly, like the followers are ignoring the most important things their "leaders" are saying... not least of all on THIS website, and on PZ's, and among people I have met at "atheist" meet-ups on university campuses...' vs 'I do read PZ Myers site, SteveZara, but I think that is wholly separate from what I was criticizing'
4. 'It's not SNOBBY or ELITIST to want people to THINK before they speak, or to be AWARE of what it is they disbelieve in or are speaking out against.' and 'but it's more that I'd prefer it if they thought before they spoke, or paid more attention to details' vs 'I wasn't making any normative claims about what you should or shouldn't read or know...'


Why is that amusing?

My sense of humour is tickled when I see pomposity deflate (also when I see pomposity and arrogance displayed with such lack of self awareness).