Comments by Robert Maynard
301. Dawkins' Christmas card list
Comment #45955 by Robert Maynard on May 29, 2007 at 7:31 pm
NMcC said:
I'm always intrigued when people like you attribute the murders of the Stalinist regime to 'Marxists'. I've read quite a lot of the writings of Marx and I can't remember reading anything he wrote that would give the slightest encouragement to anyone to engage in mass murder.As you will know, Marxism frames the class struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Communism necessarily requires the dismantling of all centralised institutions, like businesses and churches.
Not being the guy who had to carry this out, the implications of this are absent in Marx's idealistic writings. Absent too, is much advice for how to deal with people who resist these changes.
The extension of these ideas into violent repression did indeed stem from Stalin's twisted ideology, which were later adopted and modified again by Mao. [Here's a brief description of Stalin's contribution to Marxism, for anyone interested]
..So people who say that are technically mistaken. However, I don't think this should excuse Marx and Marxist philosophy entirely. The class struggle and the necessity of dismantling large parts of societies to establish communist states kind of inevitably imply some kind of repression of people who don't like these bad ideas - whether or not Marx foresaw it.
302. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars
Comment #45253 by Robert Maynard on May 27, 2007 at 1:59 am
Corylus:
Is it common knowledge in Australia what Ted subsequently got up to??The Daily Show and Colbert Report is delivered to the Comedy Channel on Australian cable, but that's really the only place I saw the news about him outside of the internet. So.. I doubt it.
I also can't imagine how many Australians would care to know that we are responsible for that slug Ken Ham, and his wretched creation museum in America. :P
303. Al Gore on Reason
Comment #45101 by Robert Maynard on May 26, 2007 at 11:42 am
Harvey Gillette:
"The fact of the matter is we really don't fully know the impact and the ramifications of human activity in relation to global warming"We can't "fully" know anything, so that was a shifty qualifier..
What "good science" does know is substantial enough to render that statement entirely incorrect - please take it up with the IPCC, Doctor (..you are a doctor, right? When you say "we don't know..", you do mean scientists like yourself don't know, and not just ..you? ..right?).
It shouldn't have anything to do with politics, but insofar that it does, the way in which politicians respond to the issue affects my political affiliations - not the other way around.
304. Al Gore on Reason
Comment #45093 by Robert Maynard on May 26, 2007 at 11:09 am
Tim and Steve:
"I gratefully accept the rebuke" :P
Functional inefficiency of definition conceded.
Wombat:
Dang, the book content you've described is also disappointing, given the ominous title. :|
305. Al Gore on Reason
Comment #45073 by Robert Maynard on May 26, 2007 at 5:24 am
steve99: likewise on your defense :)
However, I actually think you're being overly specific on defining creationism. Deeply inherent in Christian belief is the notion of "special creation" - that one way or another, the earth is here for the benefit of man, it has been especially created for man, who himself has been especially created in the image of his creator.
Sure enough, creationism today exists largely to counteract evolution, but this does not stop at biological evolution and life. For example there are agendas specifically related to poking holes in the theories on stellar and planetary evolution. Creationism is driven by the concept of special creation to oppose the implication of all evolutionary models, which unavoidably conclude that we (and all things) are the result of heartless and discriminatory processes, and we are therefore extraordinarily lucky to be here; Creationists believe that the Universe's existence is contingent on our presence, instead of the other way around.
So when Al Gore puts up a slide with a caption that explicitly delineates a distinct and meaningful transition event from ape to human 200,000 years ago - to an Adam and an Eve (and we can't even say he meant it in the "mitochondrial" sense - Dawkins, The Ancestors Tale, p.55-56), I think it is cause for defining him as a believer - if not in the particulars of modern creationism - at least in the notion of special creation.
If he quotes Genesis 1:28, or 2:15 in a presentation (I'm not sure what he quoted, but these both describe Man's prescribed dominion over and responsibility for preserving the natural world - whatever that even means in the ceaselessly perfect, deathless microcosm of the Garden of Eden), that too demonstrates a belief in special creation.
Besides all this, I am quite willing to believe he inserted these ideas in a very political sense, to win the hearts of his audience while dealing with potentially confrontational facts about human history. But in the nuanced variation the definition of creationism allows for, Al Gore is very likely one.
306. Al Gore on Reason
Comment #45056 by Robert Maynard on May 26, 2007 at 3:49 am
It is honestly disappointing that Mr. Gore is a creationist, despite his admiration for science. It's not surprising, given the demographics, but it's disappointing.
What is unquestionably more disappointing is how vicious the comments here are, criticising him because of personal beliefs which he does not push in the public consciousness (citing that slideshow as an example would only be valid if it was contained in An Inconvenient Truth, which was seen by many millions more than have attended his presentations), and not praising him for consistently pushing critically important issues into the public consciousness.
It's perfectly valid to criticise him for employing a double standard, but the guy is putting the right ideas out there, and mostly keeping the wrong ones to himself. It doesn't help any dialogue, anywhere, to cast him as an enemy of reason - this is plainly not the case, and you should sit down and take a breather.
If he's arming people with the right way to approach questions - with reason, as he is in this book - the religious beliefs are completely incidental to his case, and ultimately harmless, because the outlook he unwaveringly promotes erodes religious belief when fully applied.
If he says in the book, and I read the great excerpt in Time so I know he does, :P
"Faith in the power of reason—the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power—remains the central premise of American democracy."is this not a good passage for someone, ANYONE, to read? Should people NOT be reading this passage, because they know that the man who wrote it is, say, a deluded hypocrite? Would it be any less correct if it was written by a puppy-raping schizophrenic? No, you idiots!
We should be judging the value of ideas on their own merits, rather than by the merits of the other ideas that co-inhabit Gore's mind. Many of you are essentially saying ideas that we think are good are worth less (or even worthless) if they are accompanied in a persons mind by ideas we think of as bad - even if the ideas we don't like are never particularly salient and the good ones are. An oasis isn't devalued by the surrounding desert - it's even more valuable for its very existence!
Some of you are being unconscionable jerks about someone who is ultimately a great and important public figure, and I for one look forward to the book being sold in Australia.
Comment #44703 by Robert Maynard on May 25, 2007 at 7:39 am
debaser71 summed this up perfectly.
308. The God question
Comment #44257 by Robert Maynard on May 23, 2007 at 10:01 pm
"non-religious ID secular humanist"
..Wait, I know those words, but the order makes no sense. :(
309. Liberty U student plotted to set off explosives, police say
Comment #44244 by Robert Maynard on May 23, 2007 at 9:13 pm
The idea of 'evil' as carried out by people isn't much more than a medieval explanation for the actions of dysfunctional individuals, who we now know are directly affected (as we all are) by varying degrees of crazy-brain, which they are less than entirely responsible for. :PBizarro: "..the basic human tendency towards evil."Benway: "I vote the guy is more nuts than evil, but I dunno."
..so you're both right, but in different centuries.
310. Shark virgin birth mystery is solved
Comment #44022 by Robert Maynard on May 23, 2007 at 7:40 am
..nope!
Comment #43761 by Robert Maynard on May 22, 2007 at 1:19 pm
I have to agree with poseidon,
Beyond understanding the cultural influence of the Bible, discussing the particulars of verses not only opens up an interpretive can of worms for the apologist, it also gives the illusion that this is esteemed literature worth the study of the non-scholar.
I realise that, for example, there haven't been (m)any fundamentalist Muslims coming to this particular site to set up shop as trolls. But when we only go after one particular ancient text, pulling up "offensive" quotes from the Bible while sparing the colourful spectrum of other ridiculous traditions, it re-enforces it as something important. It perhaps also re-enforces simplistic notions of a dichotomous conflict, between "christians" and "atheists", or "good" vs. "evil", on both sides, frankly.
Mulling over the starting and ending points of parables in the Gospels gives them way too much credit. It's just a waste of time, unless the claims made by the Gospels could be corroborated, their authors credibility established (let alone their identity), their contradictions reconciled, and their superiority over the non-canonised "heretical" gospels demonstrated to be anything other than the result of dogmatic politics.
This can't be done. We have no especially good reasons to believe any of the words attributed to Jesus are his, other than that the words are printed in red.
The Gospels are a bunch of words, with little more claim to historical truth than Homer's Odyssey, traipsing into our modern discourse with dirty sandals. And we let them get away with it when we quote them like they reveal something important or even negative about the "true" character of Jesus, whoever he even was.
At least Homer's Odyssey is kinda fun.
EDIT: knldgspwr, it's not that we should ignore trolls, it's more that we should demand they speak in rational terms. Failing that, they should probably explain why rational terms aren't the best way to talk about absolutely everything. ..Failing that, THEN we ignore them. :P
Comment #43694 by Robert Maynard on May 22, 2007 at 10:04 am
In what sense, exactly, is Dawkins or Harris close-minded, chadvader123? Is it because they're squarely devoted to empiricism, or rationalism?
Is there some more "open" minded stance you're aware of? An appreciation and receptiveness to something.. more mysterious, more vague, more ethereal, vaporous, ..imagined, eh? Smokey McHashpot?
313. Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure
Comment #43235 by Robert Maynard on May 21, 2007 at 2:06 am
At one point, Hitchens proposes a thought experiment that goes like this: Practically everything in civilization is wiped out. The human race has to start all over again. "If we lost all our hard-won knowledge and all our archives, and all our ethics and all our morals...and had to reconstruct everything essential from scratch, it is difficult to imagine at what point we would need to remind or reassure ourselves that Jesus was born of a virgin."Is that really true? I hope it's cited, because that line is an almost verbatim lift from a practically identical thought experiment in Sam Harris' The End of Faith. The only difference is that in Harris's scenario, people simply have a tower of Babel moment, and everyone forgets everything they know, and can't read or communicate. I realise that one can't truly own information - but a good thought experiment deserves recognition.
Suppose that the Creator God deliberately made a world of probabilities and failures, of waste and profusion, of suffering and hardships and frustrations. Suppose that He loved the idea of an unformed history, slowly developing (almost like an organism), nearly everything good won the hard way. Suppose that He loved chance, crossing chains of probabilities, freakish accidents, wild and unnecessary profusion, contingencies of every sort — to keep even angels guessing. Suppose He desired a world of indetermination, with all its blooming, buzzing confusion, so that within it freedom could spread out its wings, experiment, and find its own way.I wish the author would at least acknowledge that this is not the god found in the first verses of Genesis.
314. Catholic Church Reconsiders Limbo
Comment #43232 by Robert Maynard on May 21, 2007 at 1:49 am
Shut up, stupid.
Seriously, you're just spamming now.
We have already discussed the fraudulence of associating the philosophy of social darwinism with actual darwinism, with particular reference to the book that article cites, From Darwin To Hitler. The whole article rests on this simply bad argument.
Stop cowardly spamming CMI garbage and give us something to talk about.
315. Manufacturing belief
Comment #43002 by Robert Maynard on May 20, 2007 at 9:16 am
"I believe it to be a pipe dream. The idea that you could persuade people not to be religious is in my view a hopeless aim. It comes from people's personal experience, rather than logical arguments."Give it a few generations. The so called 'project' to get rid of religion is not something that we can pretend will work out in a single generation of focused persuasion.
In a world where practically any of us could teach Newton a thing or two, why is so farfetched to imagine a future where the average person is at least as intelligent as someone from today's National Academy of Sciences (a majoritively atheist group)? To say nothing of the supposed relationship between intellect and religiosity, it is nevertheless a predictable course, that so long as average intelligence scales in tow with the knowledge of experts, atheism amongst the public will increase.
316. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73
Comment #41330 by Robert Maynard on May 15, 2007 at 11:36 pm
For once, I have to agree with Bizarro.
Quoting Falwell's own bigotry was all well and good, and I feel absolutely no remorse for this mans passing, but a few of the comments here have been really ugly.
When I linked the story on my own blog, I tracked it to the source article rather than this page, so no one would have to see all the comments from you snarling teenage atheists.
317. How dare you call me a fundamentalist
Comment #41329 by Robert Maynard on May 15, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Robert O'Brien
[Dawkins,] You are a fundamentalist in that you are fundamentally wrong.Woah, zing!
Wrong about what, Mr. O'Brien?
318. State Darwin museum
Comment #41297 by Robert Maynard on May 15, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Thats what you get for rejecting communism, you silly capitalists.What are you talking about? Russia isn't a communist nation.
319. The Creation Museum: Prepare to believe
Comment #40957 by Robert Maynard on May 15, 2007 at 8:48 am
...where are the primitive feathers on that raptor?
Oh, right.
Comment #40817 by Robert Maynard on May 15, 2007 at 3:43 am
BAEOZ said
Trolling devolved?I would never be too sure what devolved knows in any given situation. :P
Abiogenesis is a separate theory to evolution. How life got started is immaterial to how evolution functions. I'm pretty sure you know this and are just trying to be a pain.
Sometimes I even wonder if he is a bot script deployed by CMI
The worst part was when he quoted "More recently, Eugene Koonin and others tried to calculate the bare minimum [of genes] required for a living cell.." [emphasis mine]
This suggests that he (and whoever he quoted) is not familiar with some basic abiogenesis, which involves the smooth gradient between chemical particles and replicating structures, before becoming securely insulated and cellular in nature.
321. How dare you call me a fundamentalist
Comment #40813 by Robert Maynard on May 15, 2007 at 3:13 am
weefree/knox/The Wee Flea/David Robertson said
He knows that he and his followers have evolved to a higher consciousness.I didn't say this straight out last time we exchanged comments, but you are a bizarre man, with bizarre opinions, Mr. Robertson.
I presume you are deriving this view from the phrase Dawkins has often used, "raising consciousness" - but to get from a phrase describing social awareness to equating atheism with some doctrine of cognitive ascendancy brought on by evolution is a chasm-leap straight out of a Roadrunner and Coyote cartoon.
I hope you will explain yourself.
322. How dare you call me a fundamentalist
Comment #40806 by Robert Maynard on May 15, 2007 at 3:00 am
5537P06 said:
He and his kind (myself included) simply refuses to accept a postulation without sufficient evidence. He is ready to change his mind on any matter, but one -- the principle that "belief" requires evidence. This is the FUNDAMENTAL principle of science and the scientific method.I don't know why you'd bother trying to reclaim a term with such negative connotations as noble. You're basically saying, "No, hey guys - being a fundamentalist is cool, so long as you're being unreasonable about the right stuff!"
The problem is that "fundamentalism" isn't a useful term for an entirely sensible position. It is the same reason that we do not bother calling ourselves fundamentalist when we assume that the world we interpret through our senses is a representation of a consistent and real world, instead of a false and illusory one. It is just a waste of time to speculate otherwise, when our default assumption allows us to interact with and learn about the world we find ourselves in.
Likewise with evidence, we all must use observations and reflection (on past observations) to form literally any thoughts. It is not the case that skeptics are alone in demanding "evidence", while others do not. For many, the Koran is evidence of Muhammed's signficance, or the Gospel for Jesus's. For others, they may have had an experience they could only describe as spiritual or transcendental, which has led them to trust the opinions of psychics. These beliefs are all formed by "evidence", but only in a casual, colloquial sense. They are information and observations which have helped people form opinions about the world.
This is how our brains work. There is simply no other way to believe something, then to find reasons to do so. How then, could a desire for evidence be considered "fundamentalist"?
What skeptics and scientists do demand, is a higher standard of evidence, as informed by the scientific method. Could it really be argued that passionately promoting this methodology constitutes "fundamentalist" adherence, when the method is a critical distillation of our learning process, is responsible for literally everything we've ever learnt as a species, and has no competition?
Comment #40740 by Robert Maynard on May 14, 2007 at 9:12 pm
tl;dr.
And by the look of the comments, that was a good idea.
324. Cataloguing every species on earth
Comment #39990 by Robert Maynard on May 12, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Glad you mentioned coal Robert. It's one the best pieces of evidence for catastrophe and a young earthREALLY..?
Looking over the "evidence against a swamp theory", my jaw literally dropped when I saw this-
"But the evidence indicates that these brown coal deposits did not accumulate in a peat bog or a swamp. First, there is no sign of soil under the coal, as there would be if the vegetation grew and accumulated in a swamp. Instead, the coal rests on a thick layer of clay and there is a 'knife edge' contact between the clay and the coal."I really hope that you caught this bald-faced distortion, buddy, and saw it for what it was.
Because if you didn't know that soil requires active surface interaction with the biosphere - that is, the products of organic matter, water and air - if you didn't know that soil is simply a description of shiftable sediment rich in biological nutrients supplied by living things and the atmosphere, stuff not supplied by COAL - and if you didn't know that plants and swamps do not grow endlessly upward on a permanent base of soil as this article demands, but that soil is always at the uppermost layers do to its aforementioned contact with the biosphere, then I am sorry, but I simply cannot help you. You may have some kind of degenerative disease.
EDIT: No, that's cruel. The important thing is, now you do know! You've learnt some lessons about the nature of soil, and why this part of the article is pure bullshit. Right? :D
..But I mean, surely you did notice that, right? You thought it was worth posting.. for other reasons, right?
Then I saw this-
Then there are a number of distinct ash layers that run horizontally through the coal. If the vegetation had grown in a swamp, these distinct ash layers would not be there. After each volcanic eruption, the volcanic texture of the ash would have been obliterated when the swamp plants recolonized the ash, turning it into soil. Not only is there no soil, but the vegetation found in the coal is not the kind that grows in swamps today.Just to note, brown coal is known for high ash content, which is consistent with a region repeatedly treated to dousings of volcanic ash, some of which are large enough to stifle connections to previous soils and start the process again. Anyway, I love how, if the creationist model were true, this would imply that the real answer is that the Flood apparently involved random bursts of volcanic ash, which settled in uniformly distributed layers during an apocalyptically violent deposition of churning, wet sediment, and the writers don't bat an eyelid. It's an ultimate Biblical expression of godly wrath, yet when it needs to be, it can carefully lay down thin layers of undisturbed ash, before getting back to instantly pulverising plant matter delivered fresh from New Guinea into coal sludge. Moreso, I love how they explicitly say "the vegetation found in the coal is not the kind that grows in swamps today" but simply do not connect the dots. The mountain plants are the "best match", they are not "the match", precisely because the plants found in this mixture do not exist anymore, anywhere, because they are the ancestors of local plants, which now fill many ecological niches and environments.
So, what was that, another roughly thirty minutes of writing for me, and another two minutes of linking from you. Woah, and just an hour after your last article-linking! Take a break, devolved, you must be getting sweaty! Have you learnt anything along the way?
325. Cataloguing every species on earth
Comment #39980 by Robert Maynard on May 12, 2007 at 1:39 pm
"95% of the fossil record consists of shallow marine organisms such as corals and shellfish. Within the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils, including the vegetation that now makes up the trillions of tonnes of coal, and all the other invertebrate fossils including the insects."I see.. so about 4.75% of our fossil record includes the trillions of tonnes of fossil fuels, or specifically coal.
So either this is implying that the fossil record contains some 20 trillion tonnes of "shallow marine" and "coral" fossils, or you've missed some valuable details in your ruthless quote-mining.
On the subject of tonnage, I'm genuinely curious as to how this claim was quantified? By number of specimens, weight, frequency of distinct species? All of these values have disadvantages. Just for starters, it's no surprise that in any large-scale fossilisation, you can simply fit more tiny invertebrates and small plants into an area.
As for weight, vertebrates can get pretty gigantic, and then there's also the problem with the weight advantages conferred to all of these fossils by virtue of mineralisation.
With distinct phenotypic diversity, this problem is compounded by factors like predicted ecology and, again, size. Not only can you fit more small specimens in a smaller area, you can also fit more in if a lot of them got along fine and carried out their lives in close (by our standards, not to mention geological standards) proximity. Larger things, on the other hand, are not only generally harder to kill and fossilise (a raptor can get away from a landslide a little faster than a snail), but their larger scale and more competitive ecologies could serve to ensure that the victims of rapid depositions were rarely diverse in form.
I also think it's pretty unlikely that human and dinosaur fossils would appear together.. but this is mainly because dinosaur fossil do not appear in strata much younger than the 65 million year old K-T boundary, which humans were not around to see.
As for challenging CMI, it is not the job of atheists to dismantle such places, insofar as it doesn't effect our lives what they think.
I wouldn't care what you thought, as long as you hadn't tried to stir up some trouble with unscientific arguments which are very much a waste of time, at a website ostensibly promoting science (among other things).
I'm not going after CMI for the same reason I don't lose sleep directly criticising TIMECUBE.
326. Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off
Comment #39763 by Robert Maynard on May 11, 2007 at 9:55 pm
I saw the bootlegged video of the taping on Pharyngula, and I didn't think Kelly was as level-headed as Brian in the debate, but she was definitely the easiest to look at. (<- hey look, now I'm a sexist!)
If the editing thing is true, that just makes the whole debacle a bigger waste of time than it already was. Nobody should be giving Comfort and Cameron a forum, just to let them spew pre-Darwinian design arguments identical to Paley's watchmaker.
327. Cataloguing every species on earth
Comment #39743 by Robert Maynard on May 11, 2007 at 8:15 pm
1. So when presented with a scientific challenge you dismiss it by calling it a'waste of time'.We would dismiss it because it does not constitute anything scientific in nature, nor a challenge to science. And also because we've put in plenty of effort to demolish your "scientific challenges" in the past, with no reciprocation or acknowledgement from you. It's a waste of time, but I'm willing to keep doing it on the off-chance you'll just leave in shame. That's how much I dislike you.
2. You presume but cannot prove that there are rocks 'older than a few hundred thousand years old'.I never get tired of pointing this out, but only to individual people, not the one guy repeatedly. Smarten up, you fucking idiot.
Science is not about proving things. Science is seeing what we can learn by discarding false predictions. It's like saying we can't prove that the Moon landing took place, or who is guilty in a murder case, because we weren't there. Well, that's true, but we can look at the evidence, of which there are mountains, and make reasonable assumptions based on that evidence. It's up to the creationists, or the conspiracy "theorists", or the defence for the murderer, to establish reasonable doubt in the facts. Can you imagine a lawyer whining "Your whole case is based on the presumption that this court can trust the evidence given, but you can't PROVE my client murdered all those people, because there were no eye-witnesses.. no one survived!"
Have you established reasonable doubt?
No.
What you've done is post links and ask us to criticise them. When we do, and you run out of articles to post, you then literally abandon that argument and post a new link on a different topic. And here we see the exact same process repeating itself. You posted a link with seven year old exposition on evolutionary lineages. I briefly explained why its conclusions were nothing of the sort, you posted another seven year old exposition, and then switched gears by posting two other articles on different topics, which may as well have been titled "How Scientists Are Dogmatic and Misleading - In which we point out that Newton was pre-darwinian and imply that his work in any way supports the design perspective." and "Hand-waving Away Geochronology - A Practical Guide". When can we expect your rebuttals to our rebuttals?
You gave me a link last time we met and asked me to show you the scientific problems with it. I did. How about you step up now and show us the scientific problems with that explanation of geochronology? Hopefully you won't start crying about presuppositions, because we have also already been over that, with Tim Marsh here discussing the utility value of certain "presuppositions" over others - another line of argument you previously abandoned.
When we argued with you last time, you stopped addressing topic after topic before disappearing altogether, so we assumed you'd given up or even changed your mind on certain issues. So help me, I will repost (or at least link to) every comment we made on that Limbo article until you stop commenting on this thread or show some humility and/or balls.
3. "..tell us why there are no humans and dinosaurs fossilised together"MAN, this is so juicy! For the sake of keeping my comment smaller I'll try to only address the part dealing with Billy Sand's question. We can come to the rest of it later, seeing it deals, in part, with issues we've already explained ourselves on.
With pleasure, follow the link unless you've already closed your mind to the possibility that you could be wrong in which case it would be a waste of time (but for the wrong reason)
"Many historical accounts of living dinosaurs, which were known as 'dragons', are good descriptions of what we call dinosaurs ... the account in Job 40 of Behemoth sounds like one of the big dinosaurs."
I'm surprised it didn't bring up the Loch Ness monster, seeing its so willing to extend the purview of a "credible argument" into the realm of folklore. "Historical account" and "Idiot myth" are two different things. As for what could have served as original inspiration for such beasts, there is well documented evidence of reptilian (and mammalian) megafauna flourishing throughout prehistory, well into the rise of human domination. There is little doubt that something like a giant alligator would be seen as a 'dragon', and in Asia, the larger forms of monitor lizards are much more reminiscent of asian dragon myths then dinosaurs. Such beasts would have arrested the oral history of humans wherever they first encountered them. Where does the fire thing come from? Possibly a mixture with serpent myth, relating to the effects of poison.. also explicable without dinosaurs. What this article didn't even try to explain was how these myths began to include wings on their monsters. And not feathery wings (which would be intriguing, seeing modern birds are descended from dinosaurs), but giant leathery wings, like those on pterosaurs or mammalian fliers. Pure legend, and its laughable that this would bring it up.
As for Job 40, the big dinosaurs, such as Apatosaurus and brachiosaurus, were not grazing animals as is spelt out in Job 40:15, not only because their giant faces and mouths wouldn't be very good at taking in such low-lying vegetation, but also because grass had not evolved yet. :P
There is a false equivocation going when they use the line "he moves his tail like a cedar" to imply "his tail was as large as a cedar." That's a pretty artful interpretation!
Meanwhile, it makes zero mention of the gigantic necks of Apatosaurus et al, which WOULD warrant a cedar-analogy. Why is it, devolved, that Job 40 does not describe the neck of Behemoth, or his scales? I would think that both of these characteristics would be.. pretty notable amongst other grazing animals. And why do old representations of Behemoth feature a short stubby neck and a strong resemblance to mammalian megafauna?
"Unmineralised dinosaur bones..."
On this occasion, I think I've earned an allowance of "Follow this link.. unless your mind is closed (or some other snide comment)!!"
This TalkOrigins article gives a rundown of the damaging misconceptions that arose from the "recent" news story about preserved blood and tissue in a T-Rex dinosaur bone.
"Rocks bearing dinosaur fossils often contain very little plant material... so what did they eat?"
Heaven forbid that most of it simply wasn't fossilised, for whatever reason. There is plenty of plant matter in the Morrison formation, and the fossil record in general, thanks.
Questioning entire theories based on singular examples of fossil-bearing strata, is like examining a photograph of a family at the beach, and saying "where are the topless sunbathers? Aren't there supposed to be topless sunbathers at beaches? I don't see them in this photo! What about the jellyfish? This highly selective sample of what a trip to the beach is like calls into question many of my cherished assumptions!"
I should be grateful the article didn't ask what dinosaurs drank, seeing there's no fossilised water. Urgh.
You're never going to run out of ammunition with these nonsense articles, and you don't seem open to convincing, so is it really a discussion we're having here?
If there's an exchange, in which all one side does is post links to creationist articles, and the other side puts time in to explain the problems in them, only to have the other side throw out an article on a different topic, to give their cognitive dissonance time to wipe the memory of all opposing arguments, who might we say is in the wrong place, on a website for "clear thinking"?
328. Cataloguing every species on earth
Comment #39417 by Robert Maynard on May 10, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Ooops another big hole appearing in the evolutionary story. Look at this linkUrgh, devolved.. why are you such a tool?
This is somewhat similar to the problems that arose when Newsweek brought the public up to date with the current state of the hominid fossil record.
When our hominid fossils numbered in the single digits, scientists placed them in a neat linear line. As more hominid fossils revealed more diverse morphologies, and many leads turned into dead ends (literally, lineages that went extinct), the hominid family tree became a necessarily more complex - and more accurate - representation of our ancestors. Likewise, when our understanding of the early lifeforms of Earth was simple, there was nothing wrong with placing them in a leat line side by side, as distinct paths cleanly drawn from common ancestors, for the time being.
In both cases, the fact that the "family tree" of all life becomes more complex as we "zoom" in to various sections and discover more, does literally nothing to contradict or force us to discard the notion that these forms had a common ancestor, just as the incompleteness of our increasingly complex hominid family tree hasn't lead any serious scientist to question our ape-ancestry.
Let's quote-mine some of this quote-mining:
"There's so much lateral transfer that even the concept of the tree is debatable."
Yep. I suspect we'd find a similar picture of incessant cross-pollination if we tried to map, say, the lineages of viruses flourishing in host-rich human populations today. After all, it is part of the reason they mutate so very fast (the main reason being their desperately short 'generations')
Of course, none of this genetic tangling discounts the fact that morphological diversity increases as time progresses from this point, and decreases as we look back, and the same can be said for any point on the timeline (save perhaps extinction events). If you look down the chart - less diversity; look up, more.
This is the literal symbolism of the 'tree' of life, and you should be grateful, because there are few principles to be found in science which are so simple yet profound.
What I find simply stunning is the inability of this piece (and you) to see how situations with lower replicative fidelity and insecure barriers allowing for rampant cross-pollinations might dramatically increase the generation of so-called "new information", through rampant variation. You're basically staring at a giant bacteria orgy and saying "Nope, I can't see how this could possibly have freaky, unexpected consequences. Like ..oh I don't know, eukaryotes!". Phwoosh!
"It is as if we have failed at the task that Darwin set for us: delineating the unique structure of the tree of life."
Darwin's theories of natural selection and common descent were formulated without the benefit of genetics and genetic transfer, so why is it surprising that the intricate and nuanced details of pre-sexual replication eluded him?
Also, instead of one single organism at the root of the tree, a community of primitive cells is now believed to be the common ancestor
Actually, the consensus and the evidence still points to a single ancestor, with a revised and fresh understanding of the details, in exactly the same sense that scientists have revised our hominid ancestry in light of new evidence that changes our minds. That's kind of the whole point of science..
This is the best part..
Evolutionary theory simply keeps changing its 'goalposts' to produce reworked models that suit the current scientific beliefs.
It's almost as though the theory is improving itself to more accurately reflect reality! Seriously, is this article suggesting that revising your ideas in the light of new information is unscientific?
P.S. I could not help but notice that the piece and its citations are at least seven years old. Methinks you should write to Creationontheweb.com and request that they keep up with the real scientists.
Comment #39338 by Robert Maynard on May 10, 2007 at 10:59 am
I heard about this on Pharyngula. Hugely ambitious, but if there was ever a time when technology allowed for such a project, it's now! The idea of an essentially peer-reviewed wiki (except in this case, with experts, if I've got my facts straight) with scalable detail is head-explodingly, tear-jerkingly fantastic.
I can't wait for it to get up and running.
I look forward to the announcement for the Encyclopedia of Creation, a rival project funded by creationist think-tanks to counter EOL's liberal, evolutionist bias.
330. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)
Comment #39266 by Robert Maynard on May 10, 2007 at 8:36 am
doesn't it make any of you jealous that they are so happy?
Lisa: Don't worry Dad, we're part of the MTV generation! We feel neither highs nor lows.
Homer: Really? What's it like?
Lisa: Meh..
331. Hamas 'Mickey Mouse' calls for Muslim domination on kids' show
Comment #39060 by Robert Maynard on May 9, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Wait, wait, are you trying to tell me that hardline Muslims are a pack of psychopaths?
...that blows my mind!
Comment #38504 by Robert Maynard on May 8, 2007 at 11:51 am
I could just as easily say that if someone was being unreasonable they were not being Christians. The definition of atheist as someone who is essentially reasonable and who would not do unreasonable things is one that is to say the least, questionable!The important thing to realise is that there is no atheist doctrine, so the atheist demographic has natural personality variations which are not easy to generalise across the board. When I say "here's what an atheist should be, and whoever is an unreasonable jerk isn't a very good atheist", I'm just making inferences based on what kind of processes might lead one to be an atheist. It's important to remember that atheism is not a belief state, it is a state of disbelief (in religion). There are many and varying motivations for the disbelief in any particular religion, and by extension all of them. Atheism motivated by rationally bankrupt notions (such as emotional defiance, gross misinformation about religions, existential incredulity or subscription to theology-excluding but nonetheless irrational doctrines), do not hold the intellectual high ground over religious paradigms that atheism motivated by rational science does.
My point about comparing jerks to the National Academy of Sciences was that people who are atheists for "all the wrong reasons" find themselves on the same end of my disapproval as theists, because both groups would benefit from swift education on the weakness of their positions, and the potential problems arising from their various misunderstandings.
If I went around saying I am a "rational materialist" or something similarly obtuse, people would probably say "You're also an obfuscating prick!" - while a term like "atheist" just rolls off the tongue and can (historically, at least) be associated with both those concepts. The kind of atheists I identify with are the ones who would object to a political dogma that began systematically discriminating against religious people, just as quickly as they object to the influence currently enjoyed by fundamentalist religious groups today.
At the moment, I can generally refer to the atheists that embarrass me as "teenagers". As those people become adults, and as the "New Atheist" movement carries on and diversifies, or even acquires political and (dare I say it) doctrinal cohesion (dogma boulevard! :O), it may become prudent to add qualifiers like "ethical rationalist" to distance myself from angry atheists not sobered by adulthood and historical instruction, in the same sense that moderate religious people hasten to marginalise and distance themselves from fundamentalists.
That does not stop this site putting up videos and articles by 'religious' nutcases and then claiming that all religion is to blame.The site offers little to no editorial opinion beyond the mean distribution of opinion found in articles on the news feed - most of the opinions on the site are coming from readers commenting on the articles, and the opinion you mention is made by very few people, and is one which we already know Dawkins disagrees with in principle (insofar as we need to appeal to him for support :P), "No single thing is the source of all anything" (referencing his objection to the title of his BBC documentary "Root of All Evil?").
I think it takes an extraordinary amount of faith to believe that there is only the material.Why?
No. You missed one. There could be a combination of 1 and 2.If supernatural phenomena do exist and don't interact with the Universe - they are completely irrelevant to our lives and our knowledge of the world, because they will not figure in any of our explanations, and we'd never need to invoke them. In which case they may as well be spaqhetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, or intelligent quantum treehouses. The real competition, I should think, is between predictions 1 and 3, both of which are as non-disprovable as 2. :|
Yes indeed. You seem to be reverting to the fundamentalist sterotype here – that only one answer is possible. Mao wanted to remove anyone who was a threat. Many intellectuals of course flourished under him as well. But it takes a peculiar form of ideological blindness to not see that his atheistic presuppositions were not a major guiding and motivating force. This is not the same as saying that all atheists are Maoists – any more than saying Bin Laden is motivated by Islam (amongst other things) is saying that all muslims are terrorists.Our ability to go around in circles on this topic simply demonstrates the difficulty in prescribing doctrine-like causal influences to a literal non-doctrine. It is true to say that Mao's philosophy institutionally requires "atheism" in order to function, just as it is also paradoxically true that "atheist" worldviews are the best suited for empirical inquiry and rational ethics. This is because atheism is by definition and etymology everything that theism is not. Just as belief in a theology that is mutually exclusive to others requires one to be an "atheist" to the competing theologies (eg. you are an atheist, in regards to the Islamic conception of god), an equally irrational but non-supernatural belief in a social dogma like Marxism, requires atheism to all theologies. This does not make a meaningful link between Marxists and atheists as you are likely to encounter them in the real world or on these message boards, as people who identify themselves merely as "atheists" (as opposed to further descriptions such as Marxists, anarchists etc.) are commonly identifying themselves as rejecting of not only theological dogmas, but dogmatism itself.
I am an "atheist", and use that very word, specifically because there is no dogma or doctrine that describes my beliefs. In the absence of such things I am necessarily an atheist and a "rational materialist" (and a prick), and such is true for very many people who choose the word atheist as the best description of their position.
Thus the position of atheism (which is to say, atheism in isolation) is directly opposed to the political agenda of "Comrade Mao", much in the same way and for the same reasons that it is opposed to the agendas of the Pope. They are not rationally derived, they defy rational ethics, and are blatantly suppressive of honest intellectual inquiry. I attribute your ability to be confused by this, to an unfortunate inadequacy in the technical definition of atheism. It's fixation exclusively on the domain of religion allows you to draw tenuous and false connections between atheism that is motivated by an overall emphasis on reason and evidence, and atheism that exists simply to support an irrational belief that just happens to require the absence of supernatural agents.
Realistically, Mao was not an atheist because of a love of reason and evidentiary proof (because even the psychology and sociology of the day predicted the long term failure of communist systems). Mao was an atheist because he insisted that his people believed there to be no authorities higher than himself.
Despite the fact that there are many reasonable scientists who believe in God you still maintain that atheism is de facto the only reasonable and scientific position.I said, "to say nothing of atheism" - I repeat, REASON and SCIENCE are the only clear thinking positions for real understanding, even for theistic scientists. The respectable ones know not to bring God into the lab, so to speak. They'll generally apply a Gouldian sort of NOMA philosophy to it - looking to religion for mystical, even philosophical questions, looking to the scientific method when they want real answers to real questions. Because once you begin introducing untestable hypotheses, you're just not capable of doing science.
I happen to think that, in the light of reason and science, atheism (or at least agnosticism) is the only honest position to take, and that scientists who do not bring the scientific method to bear on their religious beliefs are happily deceiving themselves.
I remember reading an article here about a brilliant geologist who is a young earth creationist, yet happily produces high quality, relevant research papers involving million year old strata. He discussed the discrepancy by explaining that he was able to relegate his thoughts, his beliefs and his work to different paradigms. He understands, and doesn't criticise the science behind radiometrics, but he is quite unapologetic about literally believing in a <10000 year old earth. That, to me, is self deception of the highest order - in either direction. Defending a young earth belief and denying geochronology would be incorrect, but at least it's ignorance, not willfull deceit.
I don't recall atheists starting too many schools or founding many UniversitiesIsn't this a bit like saying "I don't recall atheists painting any masterpieces during the Renaissance (when all such projects were directly funded by mega-rich churches)!"? Anyway, I hope you're not suggesting that places of learning should remain loyal to the interests of the groups that established them, even when the beliefs of these groups contradict the most beneficial curricula..
Once we get them going, pay for them and set them on their way with Christian principles, atheists come in cuckoo like, take them over and get others to pay for them.
Now – forgive me if I'm mistaken but is it not the case that the US spends far more per head on science than any other countryI think you are mistaken.
The 2007 federal budget devoted $25 billion to science and technology, or $83 a head.
It was difficult to get an exact figure, but China's research expenditure is at least 1.3% of their GDP, which is roughly $10 trillion. So that would mean their science budget wouldn't be much less than $130 billion, around $100 a head. Not much ahead of the US, but frankly, they have a lot of heads (over 700,000,000 more)
Admittedly though, I have trouble believing that US science expenditure (with these figures, 0.1% of their GDP) is so abysmally low. For perspective, NASA (which forms part of that $25 billion figure) currently has an annual budget of $16.8 billion. The figure I got from Wikipedia is sourced as "science and technology" while China's figures have been sourced as "research and development", which may or may not overlap with generic research, like say, advances in civil engineering.
If it is true, it would certainly help explain the privatisation of science in America, particularly with the government limiting stem cell research so severely, and not funding ANY alternative energy projects.
Does anyone have different figures?
Comment #38470 by Robert Maynard on May 8, 2007 at 8:13 am
Before I get to writing a response to David's latest comment, I should correct Bonzai - He is more than likely referring to Bob Dylan's "Rainy Day Women #12 & #35", eg.
They'll stone you when you're walking on the street
They'll stone you when you're trying to keep your seat
They'll stone you when you're walking on the floor
They'll stone you when you're walking to the door
But I would not feel so all alone..
..Everybody must get stoned!
334. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it
Comment #38239 by Robert Maynard on May 7, 2007 at 9:47 am
Brian Coughlan said:
Are any ideas so dangerous and contagious that people have to be killed, or imprisoned to prevent their spread? I don't think so, and religion doesn't qualify, precisely because it is so ludicrous and intellectually threadbare.Hm, I was thinking of isolation as a form of preventing the acting out of dangerous ideas, rather then preventing the transmission of dangerous ideas.. but that is interesting.
Part of the problem is that simply carrying an idea in ones personal worldview says nothing of their capacity to act it out, without further information.
Someone might believe in the particulars of Islamic martyrdom, for example, but may also not have the motivation, the know-how or the stomach to turn themselves into a martyr. In that case, they believe in a concept which is inherently dangerous to other people, but to borrow a term from cancer diagnosis, it is essentially benign. In such a case, it's a matter of distinguishing between benign presence of an idea (or meme, if you want to go that way), and the presence of other dangerous ideas in its company (eg. irreconcilable hatred for a group or ideology, knowledge of ballistics/explosives) that force us to intercept a person. And even then, desire doesn't inevitably lead to action. :|
..it's pretty thorny.
335. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it
Comment #38222 by Robert Maynard on May 7, 2007 at 9:00 am
Logicel said:
Why not say, "... be ethical to imprison people for believing them". And even that change is a bit redolent of tyranny.It is already policy for Western society to keep a close eye on people who, through their beliefs or their actions, pose a threat to themselves and others. This has traditionally been reserved for people with severe psychological dysfunction, and few people dispute that it is ethical to isolate unfortunate people whose minds are dangerously impaired.
I definitely disagree with Harris's suggestion (at least as a basis for social policy), but it is fortunately only a suggestion. Nevertheless, mightn't it be ethical to at least isolate people that we can identify as holding ideas in forms so severe they pose a threat to other people?
The concept of ideological dysfunction has steadily crept into US social policy post-9/11, and with plenty of controversy. But the idea that people who believe significantly dangerous things should be identified and isolated should not be a controversial idea, in principle (unless someone is ready to defend the rights of sociopaths, with an impaired sense of empathy for the suffering of others, to mingle freely and say, own a gun)
What we should be wary of, is state-defined, controlled and enforced definitions of 'dangerous ideology'.
When the danger of ideologies can be emphasised as dangerous to the state, to a greater extent than the entire community of individuals that make up a state, you've got a recipe for fascism. Then the state can say things like "Oh, political discourse? Criticism is a danger to the integrity of the state. You don't want the state to be endangered do you? If you do.. you're also a danger to the state. We knew you'd agree."
Anyway, it is a delicate balance, and a difficult problem. How can we identify dangerous elements in our society without violating the basic rights of the society at large? And how can we form useful definitions of what is threatening and what is harmless, particularly on continuums of "irrational belief"?
...that went a bit off-topic, but it's an interesting issue.
336. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it
Comment #38174 by Robert Maynard on May 7, 2007 at 7:09 am
By proof, I wonder what she means? A scanned copy of a receipt for TGD? Three photos of yourself, first with a Bible, then The God Delusion, then nothing, and ..a smile? Do some religions have membership cards/certificates they could tear up for demonstrative purposes? :P
I see "New Atheism" as taking the same course as feminism and the gay pride social movements. Dawkins has said as much himself, that this activist attitude must be taken, if not to
"turn everyone" atheist, at least to just get it out there, and plough the issue into the social consciousness, to "raise consciousness".
Like feminism and homosexuality, the best way to counter a prevailing attitude of 'don't ask; don't tell' is basically to go "hysterical" for a few years. It's never necessarily an organised push, I don't think, so much as a critical mass of blossoming solidarity and community.
In the aftermath, once your foot is in the door of social awareness, and your stance is acknowledged as common and respectable, it's ripe to become sheltered by the progressive consensus, stereotypes are slowly eroded, and you are then in a position to pursue changes to any social policies that made your life a secret hell before you found you weren't alone (such as workplace discrimination, twisted educational reform, or undermining the first amendment)
Total (or even mass) deconversion will probably not be a reality anytime soon (especially in America), but that doesn't make the activism of "New Atheism" any less desperately important or worthwhile, for the general welfare and legitimacy of atheists as equal citizens of the world.
Comment #38032 by Robert Maynard on May 6, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Thanks :D
I have to give proper credit to geek-comic xkcd for the catchphrase - I couldn't think of an appropriate Dawkins quote small enough to use.
The comment posting guidelines provide instructions for comment formatting.
Comment #38028 by Robert Maynard on May 6, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Absurd? I think if you posted a video of an honour killing on this site you would get lots of people saying that it is religion that does this and would then lump together all religions and religious people as being fundamentally the same.Such flights of passionate upset are understandable oversteps given the content - I don't enjoy chiding fellow atheists, but it is an example of hasty out-grouping, forming flash-fast stereotypes in reaction to bursts of distressing information. I lightly criticised one of the posters who you mentioned on that thread in a reply to you.. and I do disagree with generalisations that extend to all religions and religious believers without cautious qualifiers. If I didn't feel like I had to respond to theistic elements (and also conduct activities in my life beyond the internet), I might spend more time chiding atheists who go too far in their proclamations in my view. ..I used to do just that, in fact.
I am sorry but this [idea that atheists are not motivated to commit violence] is an extraordinary statement without any empirical evidence. I can take you to a number of people who have been beaten or tortured because they were believers. I myself have experienced atheists who have called me a Christian Bastard etc and threatened to kick my head in.I could play a game with words and tell you "that's not atheism - that's anti-theism.. totally different!", but that's a bit cheap, seeing I've called you derisive names in my responses (I hope you didn't cry about it) from a standpoint of atheism. All I can really point out to try and illustrate the point I originally made is that these actions were the result of religiously motivated discrimination, and not the results of being too reasonable.
If an atheist forms a preconception through bad experiences that, say, "All Christians are scum", and applies that understanding without investigation in day to day life, that is categorically ignoring what I consider important about atheism.
You could call me out as "moving the goalposts" for saying that - escaping your anecdotes by defining atheism in a way that excuses it from blame in these incidents, but only if I had applied my understanding of atheism inconsistently elsewhere. When I talk about atheism, I am specifically referring to atheism primarily derived from a rationalist and scientific worldview, and am emphatically not endorsing atheism primarily derived from personal incredulity, adolescent disillusionment or rebellion. I have grave doubts that someone from, say, the National Academy of Sciences (essentially an atheist organisation), would threaten you with physical violence for no reason.
The basic tenets of secularism. There is no God. Naturalistic philosophy. Materialism. Logical positivism.I guess I should have seen that coming - this argument essentially amounts to a claim that a materialist paradigm is based on a faith-based assumption equal in arbitrariness to any supernatural paradigm. That is, materialism rests on an untestable principle, taken on "faith", that there is nothing beyond what we can observe in the natural universe.
However, it is a false charge that "believing" in materialism requires anywhere near as much faith as a supernatural belief, and it is also "desperately untrue" to claim they are anywhere near equal in validity. I will here save time by quoting the words of my good friend Tim Marsh, who made these remarks on the same issue while arguing with devolved in the comments of this article
"The [materialist paradigm] forms the basis of problem-solving inquiries, dealing exclusively in the observable, conservatively conscious of their own ability to be disproved. Essentially every useful technological and medical breakthrough in history is the result of this method.
The [supernatural paradigm], however, has an inherent problem, in that crediting unknown and unknowable values in explanations is essentially an infinite sphere of freedom. As there are no criteria for judging the merit of one non-disprovable supernatural assertion over another, all are equally valid, and equally invalid. Hence why assertions of celestial teapots, invisible pink unicorns and flying spagetti monsters are useful in demonstrating that just because an idea can be articulated, doesn't make it credible."
The materialist "faith" only incorporates elements which take no faith to acknowledge as "real". Even if one was to play the phenomenology card and suggest the Universe is an elaborate illusion - it is an illusion consistent enough to allow for predictions and repeatable experiments, such that regardless of the true nature of the physical Universe, it is as real as is available to us. While asserting the existence of unobservable supernatural dimensions (which can by definition never be anything more than speculation) takes unsupported certainty about issues no one can honestly claim to be certain about. A materialist paradigm is willing to admit ignorance in regards to the Universe, and only discuss what can be observed. Nobody can honestly assert that a lack of reliable evidence for supernatural phenomena rules it out entirely - this would also be a false certainty about things no one can be certain about (which is why, for example, that chapter in TGD is "Why there is almost certainly no God", as opposed to "Why there is no God")
What science does give us are three possibilities regarding the supernatural -
1) There are supernatural phenomena which interact with natural phenomena
2) There are supernatural phenomena which do not interact with natural phenomena
3) There are no supernatural phenomena.
For 1), we can only enter an endless process of falsification - if scientific observations are confronted with an undeniable confirmation of such a phenomena, 2) and 3) are false. 2) is a possibility which constitutes a last line of defense for God, should all the "gaps" in the materialist worldview become more or less filled. However, it is really quite logical to assume in the meantime that, with very poor (that's being kind, the actual amount is zero) evidence suggesting otherwise, 3 is true.
Phew!
My wife works as an Mental Health Officer and there are plenty people who do not have 'dogmatic' beliefs who do bad things.Yes, exactly, that's why I specifically described that bad actions without the help of dogmatic beliefs are consistently linked to varying degrees of psychological impairment, when I said "sciences of the mind can attest to the fact that people don't do bad things without some cognitive misunderstanding or inability to see that it is bad". Which sounds exactly like the unfortunate humans your wife must encounter in her work.
I accept that there is good religion and bad religion. You guys seem to think there is only bad.Not exactly true. I am merely concerned that the bad may outweigh the good. If (for example) I had to choose between thousands of alcoholics not reforming through Jesus and Bush Jr. vetoing stem cell bills.. do you see where I'm going with this?
["Robert: I double dare you motherfucker"] - Charming. Is it not the case that one has a weak argument when one feels the need to swear or shout louder?"I don't know where you heard that.. it sounds like something some prude came up with to imply that the converse - not swearing - leads to better arguments. Now that is a weak argument!
In terms of Mao – no problem. I have met and interviewed several Chinese communist officials who went through the cultural revolution – they all said that all religions and religious people were to be put down because they contradicted 'scientific materialism'. In late 1954 Mao told the Dalai Lama that 'religion is poison'. It's been a while since I read his 'Little Red Book' but I do recall his hatred of religion is clearly expressed in that.Did you ask them why intellectuals, particularly university students, had to be "put down" (suppressed, killed, or otherwise)? Did they also offend 'scientific naturalism', or Comrade Mao's atheist sensibilities? I wonder why it is that there are so many quotations from Mao and the party promoting the implementation of Marxist ideology, which happens to include the removal of old ideas about culture and ideas, and competing forms of influence that might "compromise" the minds of the proletariat (intellectuals, dissenters, churches), but so few "I am doing this and this and it's because I'm an atheist." quotes (that is, none). The Cultural Revolution had many goals, and it is disingenuous to single out the persecution of religion and attempt to correlate it with Mao's atheism, when the perfectly tenable alternate hypothesis of Marxism is staring you in the face.
Mao's socialist vision called for a complete overhaul of Chinese society in ALL areas, and a consolidation of the party's authority over the proletariat. This naturally involved dispensing with potential sources of dissent - religion was not alone in its suffering at the hands of Chairman Mao.
Just as with science, the best hypothesis for accounting for Mao's actions is the one that can explain ALL the data. If we predict that Mao's persecution and hatred of religion stemmed from his stated atheism, are we also left to assume that his accompanying intolerance for the bourgeoisie and capitalism stems from his stated atheism? Or that his hatred and persecution of university intellectuals stems from his stated atheism?
So atheism is anti-religious, and also anti-capitalist and anti-intellectual, according to this theory.
In this light, atheism starts to sound a lot like... oh I don't know, Marxist ideology? Hang on, did Mao ever state that he was also a Marxist? ...He did? HMMMM...
Calling out a Marxist for persecuting religion because of their atheism, when the Marxist dogma itself is already anti-religion, is a pretty awkward claim.
Don't believe everything adverts tell you. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. This site has all the characteristics and hallmarks of a fundamentalist churchI will only agree to the extent that nearly all internet forums are wretched, dank places, crammed with endless pages of precisely nothing, squawked by a menagerie of weirdos - and the forum at RichardDawkins.net is no exception. Beyond the forum (the forum doesn't include article comment pages like these of course) - I really have to disagree. Don't fundamentalist churches (churches in general) involve authoritative and linear communication to an audience? What fills that role on this website? I could only say that the news feed does that, but as you've just admitted, the news feed has liberal editorial control and relies on user submissions - I don't submit stuff myself, but I would encourage you to submit Christian stuff that relates to science/reason/dawkins if you are unsatisfied with the content and want to expose atheists to alternative opinions.
I'd love to hear what you consider the websites equivalent of those stupid bands, speaking in tongues and faith healing. :P
Yes you do [want something besides ideological freedom]. You already have that 'freedom'. However you want to impose it upon other people as well. You have a desire to politiciz[e] your own opinions and philosophy as the only clear thinking position.Polls attest to the second class status of atheists in America, and this is an intolerable position they are justified in fighting against (As an Australian, I have found myself am generally spared from such a stigma, but anywho). As for ideological imposition, you are stereotyping a multi-layered community based on little more than the most salient spokespersons for that community (which is similar to atheists generalising religious people with reference to fundamentalists, so I guess there's room for discussion there).
As for our alleged elitism, to say nothing of atheism, "reason and science" ARE the only clear thinking positions, so I'll have to concede that one. Intelligent design and Christian dominionism aren't going to help save America's slowly crumbling dollar. A healthy science and education budget would have (I know, for an Australian, my explanations refer to America a lot. That's because ..it's kind of a big deal)
A fine example of Orwellian Newspeak! 'trying to think clearly' is obviously a euphemism for 'thinking like an atheist'.That argument could be made. Except that I have explained what I meant by "clearly", in accordance with the central "themes" of the website - thinking in terms of science and reason. You've already gone on record as rejecting the primacy of scientific naturalism without very good reasons - but I assume you've not yet completely abandoned reason.
I also do not think I can be accused of ignoring arguments – that is why my posts are so long!See my response to your repetition of the Tamil Tigers-secularism argument, at the end of this comment.
There is very little listening.I hope you will identify where my correspondence has avoided important points in your comments addressing me in future.
Empirically [the idea that suicide bombers with a secularist philosophy are highly unlikely] does not work. The Tamil Tigers are a secularist group who suicide bomb.I could have sworn we'd already covered this. You are using the term secular in ways which are not correct.
I am going to repeat my previous repudiation of this claim, but I should not have to say something to you twice for it to sink in, and ALSO be expected to not insult you.
"You've essentially implied that because the goals of the Tamil Tigers are non-religious (secular) in nature (the creation of a separate state for Tamils), that they are
a) specifically motivated by a non-religious worldview.
b) a demographically secular group - that is, a group of non-religious people (which is incorrect, they are predominantly Hindu.. a belief riddled with metaphysical concepts of re-incarnation - WOOPS!)"
Both of these insinuations are incorrect.
339. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy
Comment #37943 by Robert Maynard on May 6, 2007 at 11:15 am
David Robertson said:
How do you know [that this case was religiously motivated]? I asked an Islamic sociologist about the whole question of honour killings and she told me that honour killings are not part of the religion but part of the tribalism of certain areas. I see no reason to doubt what she is says. But I doubt that anyone on this site will actually consider the wider scenario.Oh, you went and asked a sociologist? ..You could have just read the article - "Miss Aswad, a member of a minority Kurdish religious group called Yezidi, was condemned to death as an "honour killing" by other men in her family and hardline religious leaders because of her relationship with the Sunni Muslim boy." [emphasis mine]
I'm getting pretty tired of you saying condescending things like "I doubt that anyone on this site will actually consider the wider scenario" when you can't even read the fucking article.
It's not the issue that honour killings are "not part of the religion". Complaints about the damage done by religion need not be restricted only to the founding texts of the doctrine. The problems extend into peoples social (yes, that includes tribes) application of these doctrines in the real world, and the ongoing implications of the divisive worldviews they foster. The grievances leading Sunnis and Shias to kill each other in Iraq, or Catholics and Protestants to kill each other in Northern Ireland, are not concepts included in their holy texts, because they are sectarian divisions that have arisen in the time since the authoring of the texts in question - but this doesn't mean they're not considered religiously motivated violence.
We can conceivably draw in-group/out-group distinctions over just about anything. The reason you don't see sectarian violence between the left and right handed, or between Vin Diesel fans and.. uh.. fans of The Rock, is because it is part of religious doctrines to ideologically distance oneself from other groups (on equally arbitrary grounds), all the while convinced that your differences are irreconcilable and eternally relevant.
Would this murder have occured if Ms. Aswad's family didn't think that the exclusion of other religions was just about the most important thing in the world? No. Would this murder have occured if the very culture of the area wasn't heavily influenced by a religious text that does advocate situational murder? No! Would this murder have occured if her families biologically ubiquitous moral intuitions and powers of reasoning were not superseded by prehistoric ritual barbarism? Absolutely not!
Is that a wide enough scenario for you, you clown?
Comment #37853 by Robert Maynard on May 6, 2007 at 3:11 am
Yes - the same leap that atheists make when they assume that because people are religious or even use religion when they are committing their crimes, then somehow it is all the fault of all religion.I don't think that an atheist would assume that if their house was broken into, and christian perpetrators are caught, that they would literally account for their motivations with religion. That's absurd. You're absurd. Could you.. stop being absurd?
On the other hand, when groups of college-educated kids fly planes into buildings, and the religious motivations of their group are proclaimed, confirmed, and spelled out by the leader in video after video, I can't see why you would have such a problem taking his word for it. Generally I think we do (or should) only surmise the role of religion when it's explicitly explained, often by the perpetrators, as the most parsimonious explanation for their acts.
We are not making tenuous correlations based on demographics, religion only counts as a cause of misdeeds when it's motivational, not incidental.
This is a fundamental schism between our claims and yours - both theism and atheism can be equally (almost) incidental to misdeed, but a religious doctrine is capable of motivating a misdeed, while atheism isn't. Wrongdoings are named as such because they are just that, wrong. Under rational review, wrongdoings are exposed for what they are, not supported. It is precisely the deceptive power of religion to encourage not reviewing the reasonableness of your actions that provides it with its potential to make otherwise good people do bad things.
Are you suggesting [secularism] is an incoherent belief system? If so I am inclined to agree!Wow, you got me! Nice one.
Secularism is not a belief system. It is literally nothing more than a description of things which are neutral in regards to religion. Look it up, for the love of words. Making a damn sandwich is a secular act.
If you believe it to be a belief system, I expect that you will need to describe its basic tenets for us, as we are unaware of them, and certainly do not follow them.
I think you will find that RD cites Dennett (?) to the effect that there are good people in the world who do good things and bad people who do bad things but for good people to do bad things it takes religion. A hopelessly simplistic Bushesque type of statement.Weinberg, actually. Also, that doesn't say anything about the cause of all violence/crime being attributable to religion. I think maybe you missed the section "bad people do bad things". Do you think, just maybe, that we can conclude that includes the fascist and communist dictators you love to bring up? I think the basic point is that sciences of the mind can attest to the fact that people don't do bad things without some cognitive misunderstanding or inability to see that it is bad. If a psychopath does something bad for example, we can be pretty sure it's because his mind has a diminished sense of empathy.
The cleverness of the quote is its identification of religion as a distorting paradigm which allows for the framing of rationally bad actions in a positive light, through the authoritarian assertion (not argument) that the bad act and some good outcome are related. Without a religion (or similar dogma), you could not make such a claim, as in the light of rational inquiry the immediate immorality of the actions is inescapable. Without dogma, you don't have a preconceived 'end' to jump to from your means.
I'm afraid that this is the crux of the matter. In my experience many atheists can be just as dogmatic as religious people - and it is not self-evident that you are more reasonable than other people. Although believing that you are is part of your creed. If you want I could write the rest of your creed for you?!I think you're mistaking the word 'dogmatic' for one of its proximal meanings, 'enthusiastic'. It is safe to say that almost all dogmatic assertions are enthusiastic ones, but not all enthusiasm represents a dogma, as one can be just as enthusiastic because of abundantly clear evidence and reasoning. I'm well aware that you have it out for clear evidence and reasoning with your consistent rejection of "materialist fanaticism", but this really comes down to nothing more than your inability to see the non-assumption of an unprovable claim as being our cognitive "default position". In your eyes materialism is simply an "alternative" to one particular unprovable claim that you have simply assumed is true for a very long time. Much like it is difficult for us to conceive three dimensional space without a notion of absolute "up", because we have lived our whole lives with ground under our feet, you find it difficult to conceive of the reasonable null hypothesis for explanations in nature because you have spent too long looking through Jesus-tinted glasses.
Yes - I could [make a case that the actions of Stalin and Mao were motivated by their atheism]. At least as much as you can make a case for many religious people.I've already spoken about the difference between an incidental connection and a visibly causal (motivational) connection. Tell me, do you think this man was simply being otherwise motivated to make the following claims, while co-incidentally being an islamic fundamentalist?
"When Almighty God rendered successful a convoy of Muslims, the vanguards of Islam, He allowed them to destroy the United States. I ask God Almighty to elevate their status and grant them Paradise. He is the one who is capable to do so."That was a few small extracts from one of Osama Bin Laden's statements following the September 11th attacks. Explicit citations of Islam as a motivation, Paradise as a reward for terrorism, and an oath sworn by God to keep sponsoring terrorism over a territorial dispute which explicitly originates in Islam and Judaism. Or maybe he was just being poetic. It is the same thing, over and over, from one fundamentalist to the next. As you've said, we cannot claim to know the mind of a person (let alone one long dead), so we can only speculate as to their personality by examining their words, their actions, and their lives. I dare you, I double dare you, motherfucker - to find a quote from Josef Stalin or Mao Zedong, which gives us a similar glimpse into the motivational role of their respective atheisms, while they were dismantling educational and religious groups alike.
"I say that the matter is clear and explicit. In the aftermath of this event and now that senior US officials have spoken, beginning with Bush, the head of the world's infidels, and whoever supports him, every Muslim should rush to defend his religion."
"As for the United States, I tell it and its people these few words: I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed, may God's peace and blessing be upon him."
The sad thing is you really believe that ["it has nothing to prove, nothing to defend, and no agenda to advance"]. Despite having read TGD and come on this site. The notion that this atheistic website has nothing to prove, nothing to defend and no agenda to advance' is seriously laughable.Sad for your case, maybe. RichardDawkins.net is hardly some kind of online "atheist church". As it says in the banner of every page, it is a "clear thinking oasis". This is not so much a website to 'attract' atheists, where we can all share in our atheism, so much as a place which attracts and encourages fans of Richard Dawkins in addition to simple fans of clear thinking and reason. ...many of whom just so happen to be atheists. Do we have any stated aims? Do we move as one? Do we uniformly want anything, aside from the acknowledged freedom to hold no supernatural beliefs?
I noticed you moaning elsewhere that "it does appear as though this 'oasis of clear thinking' really does limit that thinking to only those who tow the party line". Yeah. The 'party line' being "Try to think clearly."
All I can say is that you've been excluding yourself, by repeating nonsense claims without evidence, and ignoring the arguments that contradict your claims. While I myself personally wouldn't have blocked your old username, in our natural variation I accept that many atheists have much shorter tempers than me.
341. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy
Comment #37763 by Robert Maynard on May 5, 2007 at 4:21 pm
David, I'm sorry to hear you are being excluded from discussion by unidentified elements of the community who are sick of you - I for one do not mind your presence, though I do take umbrage, as others have, with the irritating fact that your posts are not only full of nonsense and lies, but consistently so, despite our rebuttals. That time-wasting, relentless will to be incorrect, is technically troll-like behaviour. But let's not dwell, we need to christen (pun not intended) your new username with a patient rebuttal! EDIT: I'm too slow!
That is not an extreme statement - witness Stuart's post "Religion = mental illness. Fuckin. End. Of."We could certainly discuss the particular meanings of "mental illness" as it relates to religion - I wonder why you're surprised, when the central thesis of The God Delusion is that religious belief is delusional (obviously a milder phrase than mental illness, but nevertheless..) - methinks in this case Stuart overstepped the boundaries and expressed the comparison in terms of a colloquial understanding of "mental illness". Few of us are trained psychologists or doctors, so naturally if someone said "Religion = totally fucking retarded" it would go without saying that they either don't know the specific requirements of mental retardation and were speaking out of turn, or they do, and were passionately making a tenuous and generalised connection. I wouldn't advise either, but I'm also not Stuart's father, and that's his business.
I have waxed elsewhere about defining atheism as an outlook which stresses the importance of reason and evidence, so maybe some of the distressed comments here have led to conclusions which are unsupported and out of line. In light of this, perhaps the next phase of your learning, after distinguishing between secularism and atheism, should be learning to distinguish between atheism and so-called "anti-theism".
"Most 'honour' killings (what a disgusting use of the 'honour' term) are done within a tribal/racial context and have little to do with religion."Woops, no evidence! Have there really been studies parsing the contextual motivations for 'honour killings'? That's a serious question - I don't know. Even if it were the case that most are non-religious, and rely on some other source of unjustified patriarchal bullying besides religion, it is not the case in this particular story.
"The notion that human beings are basically good until the ignorance of religion gets hold of them is one that is of course very attractive to many atheists."That's a very dry straw man. Once again, it is not claimed by atheists that all social problems are directly traceable to religion. What we do point out (for starters), is that there is a statistical correlation between religiosity and various social problems, where the opposite is true of secular populations. This does not therefore mean that becoming an atheist makes you automatically good, or that becoming a Christian automatically makes you worse, and no one should claim such a thing without some solid evidence. These are merely weighted statistics.
But what it does suggest (to me) is that some people who live their lives by simplistic ancient philosophies are finding the modern world increasingly difficult to reconcile with their worldview. I don't need to quote you the statistics, as I'm sure you've come across them. We can all take from them what we will, whether it stands as evidence of a society sinking into iniquity and the crosshairs of divine judgment, or evidence that people who believe this stuff are going to have less and less enjoyable lives as time goes on, or whatever!
"And please stop using disgusting incidents like this to further your own philosophy."It is a sad tale, that most people could have done without. It's also a sad reality, that we can't afford to ignore.
On the other hand, it's pretty rich to criticise the processes that lead to it being posted here as being the machinations of anti-religious bias. All it takes is for one person to submit something to the site - then Josh or someone else that helps run the site will decide whether to put it up, then it's up - I can't speculate on the editorial control beyond this (it is, at the end of the day, a news portal for atheists - thus contributed to predominantly BY atheists), but I think it's safe to say that it's not the case that Josh forwards 10 potential articles to Dawkins, who sits on a gnarled throne, tosses aside 9 which are pro-religion, and sneers "They'll get a kick out of this inhumane stoning story!" - the site frequently features pro-religious content (Unless I am mistaken, a submission regarding your work is the reason you haunt these halls?). We really wouldn't begrudge Muslims, or indeed Christians, if they put up videos of people being stoned to death by atheists on their niche news portals, in an attempt to further their respective philosophies. We'll try and let you know when that event transpires.
But yes, perhaps it was wrong to "use" this horrible incident to further a philosophy here, by showing a story which explicitly demonstrated the mortal dangers of faith. I hope that in the interests of "overcoming ignorance" and the simplistic exploitation of tragedies, you promptly wrote a letter to Ken Ham following the Virginia Tech massacre, voicing your similar disapproval at his (in this case, completely baseless) attempt to link the killer and evolution/naturalism.
342. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy
Comment #37739 by Robert Maynard on May 5, 2007 at 3:02 pm
I don't want to have anything to do with this kind of spectacle.
Iraq is a deep pit of uninterrupted suffering; what we dare to post and watch on the Internet is just what the dim light from our torches reveals when we gather the courage to peer into the abyss. Don't even try to picture what a YouTube video of the reported revenge killings would look like, with 23 innocent men forced off a bus and shot dead by the side of the road.
America has technically brought Iraq freedom. Complete, lawless freedom, to follow their barbaric ideologies all the way to their predictable, sad and bloody conclusions. This whole situation is an embarrassment to the global community.
Comment #37723 by Robert Maynard on May 5, 2007 at 2:28 pm
_J_, the phrase "No one wants me to kill you!" has made my morning. :D
Comment #37659 by Robert Maynard on May 5, 2007 at 12:31 pm
I am surprised that he didn't mention Hitler in his letter...Dare we hope that this indicates progress? :P
Comment #37624 by Robert Maynard on May 5, 2007 at 11:38 am
The largest number of suicide bombings in the world have been done by the Tamil Tigers, a secular group. I do not know what Stalin and Mao shouted as they sentenced millions of their countrymen to death in the name of their atheism, but I do know that they provide the lie to the myth that secular hatred and fanaticism are non existent.Haven't you made a bit of a leap there?
You've essentially implied that because the goals of the Tamil Tigers are non-religious (secular) in nature (the creation of a separate state for Tamils), that they are
a) a demographically secular group - that is, a group of non-religious people (in your opinion)
b) specifically motivated by a non-religious worldview
To that, I can only echo the reaction of Keanu Reeves as Neo, having just seen his mentor Morpheus leap fully 100ft from one skyscraper to another.
"Woah"
Seriously, I am in awe at your ability to warp reality.
This is quite the can of worms you're trying to pry open, as by associating all non-religious acts with "secular" ideology, you could thus frame any violence not explicitly motivated by religion as acts of secular (and thus atheist) violence. The problem is that you are intent on reviewing secularism as a coherent belief system, as opposed to say, a word which can be used to describe anything that isn't influenced by religion.
In this bizarre light, the non-religiously motivated bombing of Pearl Harbour potentially becomes evidence of atheist/secular hatred. After all, it was an entirely secular act. I'm surprised you didn't invoke the suicide bombers of Japan, the legendary kamikaze pilots, as evidence of your profoundly twisted application of secularist fanaticism.
I'm even more surprised you didn't bring up Saddam Hussein, the secular dictator who once persecuted the Kurds so cruelly. You would apparently argue that even though Saddam was a Muslim, or that even though the Tamil Tigers are predominantly Hindu, the fact that their horrible actions are not informed by their religious beliefs, means that they represent the outcome of "secular beliefs", therefore "non-religious beliefs", therefore "atheistic beliefs"? Laughable.
Once you make the (fallacious) connection between any and all non-religious acts and "secular ideologies", you have ample evidence that, surprise surprise, humans are gripped by other forms of life-destroying dogma, like nationalism, or racism, for example. I can't think of a single (reputable) atheist that has ever claimed that ALL violence is directly motivated by religion, and if one has, they're demonstrably wrong. I can only call out the "atheist myth" you've referred to as a straw man. Or better yet, a "myth about atheists".
The central flaw of your "analysis" is the consideration of atheism as a specific competing doctrine to any and all religions. This has to be repeated: Atheism is not a doctrine, it is the expression of an absence of doctrine. If it has a characteristic feature, it is a reliance on reason and evidence in decision making, where non-atheists tend to rely on dogma. While such atheistic reasoning can certainly be said to motivate a great many things, none of the atrocities you have attributed to "secular fundamentalism" are among them. You could never make a case that the actions of Stalin and Mao were motivated by their non-religiousness. To quote Sam Harris, these men were not examples of "reason run amok", so to speak. You must understand that an atheist motivated by reason characteristically rejects dogma itself, in both religious and non-religious expressions. Without nationalistic dogma, or the dogmatic support of communistic ideals, it is quite safe to say that Stalin and Mao would not be the monsters they turned out to be.
You can not find a single example of violence motivated by atheism itself, precisely because atheism is a non-doctrine, which makes no authoritative claims, nor arbitrary distinctions. It has nothing to prove, nothing to defend, and no agenda to advance. If there is an imperative to action to be found anywhere in atheism, it is simply the suggestion to think matters through rationally and empirically, which just so happens to be the functional opposite of fundamentalism.
346. The kiss that brought immorality debate to a head
Comment #37605 by Robert Maynard on May 5, 2007 at 10:42 am
I guess that's definitely plausible. There's definitely grounds to foresee a "poof" (or maybe PSSSSHHHHHHT FPBLTPBLT!) if we try to imagine what will happen to places like Saudi Arabia in a decade or so when the world makes its inevitable shift away from petroleum dependence and the country realises that their second largest export is cultural suppression of human happiness.
But if you're talking about the youth, we're really making projections on a generational timescale, like 10 or 20 years, and cranky old men can do a lot of damage in that time. :|