401. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164810 by Mitchell Gilks on April 20, 2008 at 6:02 pm

The important thing to remember about science, is that it is discriptive, not prescriptive. It can only tells us how things are, not how they ought to be.

I have heard many different aguments from homology...similar body stuctures...DNA based, etc...and they all seem to provide different "family trees". If the science is truely as sound as it appears to be, shouldn't there be more convergence in the research?

I don't understand the question. There is nothing to converge on. There is no goal or end to evolution. Evolution merely means changed basically. Things change to suit their environment, there is nothing for evolution to converge on. There is zero convergence. Some particular traits are discovered indepentently of each other, like the eye. Is that what you mean?

In which case why should any amount be expected? Let alone more be expected?

402. Religion is 'the new social evil'

Comment #164789 by Mitchell Gilks on April 20, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Thanks Raiko. I just wish I could have fit the whole picture in. It is an exceptionally beautiful picture, and I am always pained when I am forced to cut any amount of such excellent art-work in order to fit these little avatar boxes. Because I like this one so much, I am planing to go and recut it, and see if I can get the whole thing in without making it too small to make out.

403. Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

Comment #164783 by Mitchell Gilks on April 20, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Heh. This proves nothing!! This is merely an example of microevolution, not macroevolution!! So there you big dumb dumbs.

Goddidit! Q-fucking-E-fucking-D. Son.

Seriously though, I am most interested in the change in behaviour so rapidly. From being territorial to being lazy, and aloof. "I should go chase that other lizard away from my shrubbery, but, meh."

404. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164768 by Mitchell Gilks on April 20, 2008 at 5:04 pm

A letter? As in, on paper? Wow.

Yeah, really...snail mail? What is this? Horse and buggy time?

405. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164754 by Mitchell Gilks on April 20, 2008 at 4:48 pm

Well, that is rather sad. Things like this make me thing think that, like Nietzsche, I am not a pessimist who is waiting for it to rain, I'm already soaked.

I feel bad for German people. No one lets the Nazi thing go. No one brings up the fact that the pilgrams that formed the US and Canada massicured 80% of the 100 million or more natives in the americas.

Not as if I am saying to forget about it, but it seems no one can shut up about it, while at the same time being completely ignored of the actual events and causes of the events. I think Japan is barely even mentioned in this because they got nuked, and people don't like to mention that. Though Germany too a massive beating to it's population and cities as well.

Anyone, I just think it must be increasingly frustrating if you're German. It seems no one can mention German without Nazism being in the sentence along with it. Which simply isn't fair.

406. Religion is 'the new social evil'

Comment #164558 by Mitchell Gilks on April 20, 2008 at 12:08 pm

This is encouraging.

WTF does impurity mean? Doesn't that require context to hold any meaning?

407. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164259 by Mitchell Gilks on April 19, 2008 at 9:48 pm

I liked the host, she asked pointed questions, and gave the interveiwee an much time as they wanted to respond. It was quite well done.

I would through a debate with D'Souza, it would be a headache, and physically painful to even glorify any of his arguments with a response.

They are so sickeningly idiotic, that I would be at a lose for words. If anyone buys what he has to say, then they are unreachable with logic and reason.

I am trying to explain big bang cosmology (to the best of my knowledge) and the way logic is used to a theist, and they completely reject everything I've said because they think I'll trying to disprove god or something, no matter how many times I try to tell him I'm not, he just won't listen. He has it in his head that if he agrees that I'm right about anything, it will kill god or something. I have no idea how to deal with it.

408. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164239 by Mitchell Gilks on April 19, 2008 at 7:37 pm

I think that the deeply religious are often evil and sick people. That feel that they need forgiveness for their sins, and lack the courage and integrity to seek forgiveness from the people they've wronged, and reframe from doing such things again.

Instead they opt, not only for the forgiveness from an imaginary friend, but for the permission to keep doing it. Because we are lowly evil humans, and it's all Satan's fault. Luckily anything you do is forgiven as long as you ask your imaginary friend.

Martin Luther once said in so many words "Jesus died for our sins, it would be both a shame, and a slap in the face if you don't make his sacrifice worth it. Otherwise he died for nothing, so sin, sin, sin."

409. Flea of the week

Comment #163829 by Mitchell Gilks on April 19, 2008 at 6:02 am

I am always blown away at how they can make such big claims with no support for them. They must expect people to just buy the book and not read it, and have them think the work is done. "Ha, there! All those evil atheists have been rebutted by this guy." They sit and wait, and no one responses to the book they bought..."AHA! They must not be able to."

Then they rush to make their homeopathy, chiroprator, and hypnotherapy appointments.

410. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #163152 by Mitchell Gilks on April 18, 2008 at 3:09 am

I highly doubt that there are "gay genes". I am unaware of any significant evidence of homosexuality being hereditary. Also, the whole idea of a preference being genetic sounds rediculous to me.

That said, I don't think that heterosexuality is genetic either. Merely sexuality, and sexual preferences, I think are likely developed at a very young age. For whatever reason, 90% aim them toward the opposite sex, while 10% aim them toward the same sex.

I think that the idea that is is genetic is latched unto with vigour, so they can just claim "see, it's not my fault, I can't help it. I was born this way." Without realizing that is a non-issue, and doesn't matter. Even if people just arbitrarily decided to be homosexuals, I still fail to see a rational case to be made why there would be anything wrong with that. I think that too many homosexuals are buying into the complete non sequitur that if they could help it, or even it wasn't genetic, that would be somehow bad.

Now, I could be wrong, it could be genetic, I just highly doubt it. Unless someone can demonstrate evidence of it's hereditary transmission. In fact, I would take any demonstration of the hereditary transmission of any preference, as evidence that at least preferences can be hereditary.

I also don't think that it is a conscious decision, as I don't think that any preference is. They are developed over time, and not something we have control over. Though I really don't see how it would matter in the slightest if we did.

411. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #163040 by Mitchell Gilks on April 17, 2008 at 9:50 pm

Homosexuality isn't restricted to males, and there is absolutely nothing that says homosexuals can't reproduce or have offspring. In case you haven't noticed, a good chunk of the majority of people are unattractive. It is not strange, or in anyway unheard of for people to have offspring with people they are not attracted to.

Because of the stigma against homosexuality by society, straight people tend to be adverse to the idea of even getting near a member of the same sex, untop of not being attracted to them. I am not sure, but I doubt this translates to the other extreme. I don't think there is a social stigma against homosexuals being near or having sex with members of the opposite sex, so I don't see a reason why they would be anymore adverse to the idea then they would be of having sex with anyone they don't find attractive. I could be wrong about that last part though, and it likely varies between people.

412. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #162975 by Mitchell Gilks on April 17, 2008 at 6:32 pm

Oh, oh, oh...but the earth isn't perfectly round (*ducks beer bottle*)

413. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162934 by Mitchell Gilks on April 17, 2008 at 5:23 pm

That made my day.

414. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162723 by Mitchell Gilks on April 17, 2008 at 11:00 am

Damn flordanians! Learn a thing or two about stuff already!

415. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #162362 by Mitchell Gilks on April 16, 2008 at 6:27 pm

The point, I think, is that science, properly viewed (if you agree that J.B's view is proper) can serve as a check against the kind of dogma (whether racist, political, or pseudo-scientific -- Nazism was all of these) that is a necessary (though perhaps not completely sufficient) cause of such atrocity. That is why I have been disappointed for many years that Bronowski's view (as I see it) has faded into obscurity.

"If you can get people to believe absurdities, then you can get them to commit atrocities." - Voltaire.

I agree with you, and Voltaire, dogmatic belief in absurdities may not be a sufficient catalyst for atrocities, but I think it is a necessary one.

416. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161962 by Mitchell Gilks on April 15, 2008 at 9:33 pm

Subjective doesn't equal relative steve. Facts, meaning and values are very much subjective. Unless you can give me an example of some removed from subjects.

Whether they accurately reflect reality or not is different than them themselves being reality. Which is what I meant by the distinctions between the "out theres".

417. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161839 by Mitchell Gilks on April 15, 2008 at 7:20 pm

I don't see him claiming that Steve. He was merely attempting to show the logical possibility that they were wrong, whether you disagree with his specific examples, I hope that you agree with the sentiment.

I think that I explained it better, I find that often attempting to give examples is a poor way to explicate something. Just explaining it as best you can is better.

I really don't think that he was trying to say anything more than what I said above. I just think that he was confusing your (I think warrented) confidence for absolute certainty.

418. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161830 by Mitchell Gilks on April 15, 2008 at 6:47 pm

Very well said, AmericanGodless, and I am, and have been with you on that 100%. I hope nothing I said implied otherwise.

I did think that the whole thing about the world not being a perfect sphere was a big overblown. I think that at least most people know that such a thing only exists in mathematical abstractions, and when we talk about round things in reality, we only mean it is roundish, or more round than other shapes. So, I thought that was somewhat unnecessary.

The only problem I think I have with what you say, is that you make it sound as if you are being an absolutist if you are extremely confident about the truth of something. Sometimes, although fallible, and although probabolisitic, somethings are so evident that it is a virtual certainty that it will never been shown wrong.

We can have extreme warrented confidence in provisional truths.

Sometimes people seem to have a hard time differentiating between what is "out there" as it were, and our best explanations of our observations of what is "out there". Thinking that they are the same thing, and exist independently of ourselves. Although I don't see that happening very often.

In any case, so is the limits of induction. We can only ever say that the evidence implies our conclusions, not necessitates them. Though, as I said, many conclusions are implied so thoroughly, and forwardly by all the evidence, that it is almost inconceivable that our conclusion is wrong, though it is still always logically possible.

419. Teacher Expelled Over Religion

Comment #161595 by Mitchell Gilks on April 15, 2008 at 12:40 pm

I seen a new lawsuit crowning the horizon! They should make a movie "Science education: No science allowed"

420. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #161540 by Mitchell Gilks on April 15, 2008 at 11:44 am

I'm sure he will try hard to avoid another scandle...and maybe he can do something about the sexual predation while he's at it...you know, if he has the time.

421. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #161506 by Mitchell Gilks on April 15, 2008 at 10:58 am

This is just a reason why religiously based schools need to die a quiet death.

Don't worry, buck up, as social acceptance of homosexuality gets to the point that it becomes a real problem for the church, they will magically figure out that "lying with a man as you would a women" doesn't mean homosexuality at all, but something completely different.

422. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161366 by Mitchell Gilks on April 15, 2008 at 8:06 am

I think he did say he is a philosophy professor, so in a professional sense at least, he is a philosopher.

He might have said it, but I highly doubt it. I have an extremely limited knowledge of philosophy, and even I knew many of the people he quoted don't agree with him.

I frequent a philosophy forum, which does have several professional philosophers. It is not hard to tell when someone is knowledgable in philosophy, and when they aren't.

423. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161360 by Mitchell Gilks on April 15, 2008 at 7:59 am

I have a problem with the poverty of the place making such an occupation almost necessary. I have a problem with the preasure, and the lack of other options. I have a problem with the patron's of ones family coaching, and driving young girls into such a occupation, which therefore is not their own decision. I also agree that contractual work requires a certain degree of intellectual maturity. The legal age of consent is not 18 (except for homosexuals) in any place I know of, it is 14 in canada, and I am pretty sure it varies between states in the US but it about the same. While the legal age to enter any contract is 18, for intellectually reasons, and I agree with this.

That aside, I don't personally have a problem with prostitution in principle, I don't think it should be illegal either, which does nothing more than promote extortion, crime and disease where it need not be.

My problem with this is not the prostitution aspect (the call of racism is just pathetic, and stupid. Surely you don't think posters here would be ok if people of their own ethnicity were doing it? Or that they don't think that they ever have done it? I think you are wrong in both cases if you do) it is the far more complex elements. In my opinion, this is no different than selling her off as a wife.

I'm not going to voice a huge outrage (and this is my first address to the article) because it is perfectly possible that her life would be worse if she didn't before a prostitute. Her only other perhaps somewhat better options would be to be sold to someone permanently. I think there are far more important things to address then there culture, which I think has little to do with it. Durring the depression a large amount of people in several particularly effected countries, quickly turned to doing quite similar things. As they would surely again if we were put in their position. I don't think that many disagree that it is not good, but they don't have very many options. I am by no means excusing them of doing what they are doing, but it is to be expected of people in their situation, and many deplorible things are in certain situations. These are problems caused by poverty, and conditions, not cultures.

424. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161347 by Mitchell Gilks on April 15, 2008 at 7:38 am

Henri is by no means a philosopher. He clearly didn't know what he was talking about in any case. He did what a hell of a lot of morons do, he read some snippits here and there, and then took what he wanted to get out of it. Regardless of what it actually said.

He then went on to argue a point no one really disagrees with, and then claiming he has thus proven a conclusion that is a complete non sequitur, (.i.e. values and meaning isn't absolute and objection, therefore value and meaning don't exist, and are fictions.) while ignoring the way they are meaningfully used.

This is what nilhists always do, they start with a dozen or so unjustified, and unvoiced assumptions, mainly that only absolutes matter, and that meaning and value only matter if they are objective. They then argue that they are not, which they won't find much disagreement with, then they declare they conclusion of the valuelessness of existence, and meaninglessness of life, and call you illogical and irrational for not accepting their fallacious argument. All the while not making the same assumptions about the human contructs that also aren't absolute and removed from people's interpretations and opinions that they attempt to employ to prove their point.

All they are is theologians that don't believe in god. They act as if god has just disappeared and now we're fucked. Without ever considering that most of us (at least the rational ones) never considered a theological mode of thought meaningfully reflective of reality in the first place.

To put it simply, they are absolutists, that don't believe in absolutes.

425. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161128 by Mitchell Gilks on April 14, 2008 at 9:27 pm

Groan - are people really still on about the values thing?
I know I do this every time, but I recommend reading "Ethics - Inventing Right and Wrong".

Evidence and logic make a very strong case against non interest relative, intrinsical, objective moral values. But some moral values are close to being universally shared - there is intersubjectivity of statements about moral values. While statements about moral values as implying objectivity are wrong - ethics and political philosophy is still possible.

Furthermore, given a shared goal (such as a stable society), imperatives can be derived - we can derive the necessary conditions for erecting and maintaining a society we are prepared to call just. Consequentialism in ethics is absolutely possible and can be totally coherent.

Nihilism fails to see these most basic truths.

MPhil, I would have liked to see you get here sooner. I agree with the above completely. I haven't read the book that you mention. I will add it to the list of books I plan to get through eventually. Though, it is a large list.

I'm rather inept in discussing the works of philosophers, as I have no more than an extremely superficial understanding of them. Though, I felt that Nietzsche was by no means a nihlist, and took the position that only the weak minded succum to nihlism after loosing their faith in absolute moral dictates, and "mourned the death of god" as it were because he felt this would be the reaction of the general public. Though I have not actually read Nietzsche, so I didn't feel I was in a position to comment. Is this not the case?

Ethical philosophy interests me the most. I find it troubling that a meaningful discourse is not being persued about ethics and morality, because it appears to me that one large percentage of people are absolutist, and don't think it makes sense to discuss it, because they already know what to do, it has been dictated to them. Then another large percentage think that it is arbitrary and relative, and thus also doesn't make sense to discuss. While I see no reason why it can't be treated like a system of logic. I see no reason why moral decisions cannot follow from our collective interests, and values, as a culture, as a people, as a species, and ultimately as living things.

426. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161051 by Mitchell Gilks on April 14, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Nihlism is easier to beat than extreme skepticism. Both of which can be turned on themselves. They are internally self-contradictory positions.

For the record, the lesbians I use are never from porn. It is from proper anime, but with lesbian characters. Anime in general isn't afraid to have gay characters. There is a large amount of sexual diversity in anime. I like anime that has female lesbian protagonists, though there is also many anime that have gay male protagonists called "yaoi" anime with lesbians is called "yuri" though they are not mutually exclusive. They had a yuri couple of a yaoi anime called "loveless" that I watched two episodes of to see.

Two of the main characters on sailor moon (though I've never actually watched it) were openly lesbian and lived together. Inuyashi frequently had gay characters making an appearence.

Not that I don't like porn, but it has no more involvement with yuri or yaoi than any anime featuring straight characters.

Sorry to go off, but it is a point that I think is important to make.

427. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161041 by Mitchell Gilks on April 14, 2008 at 5:23 pm

The existence of assertions of value can be proven, but not the content of the assertion itself.

Huh? I value warm clothing on a cold day. Runs tests, and observe if my actions reflect my assertion, if they do, then it is proven, at least inductively. Which is the only wany something can be proven about the world.

In what way do you mean proven?

428. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161035 by Mitchell Gilks on April 14, 2008 at 5:17 pm

If there is no God then why bother to be moral?

This question, MaxD, is just as easily asked to theists. If there is a god, why be moral? In a theistic universe is still doesn't imply ought, it would still come done to what you want to do. Either that, or apply to conditionals, which I think I have demonstrated can easily be done in a atheistic universe. It is a non-issue.

429. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161029 by Mitchell Gilks on April 14, 2008 at 5:13 pm

No, Henri, but assuming that truth should be valued is implicit in your arguments. Same with logic, and reason, or else it wouldn't make use of them.

Without demonstrating why this is, and just assuming it is the way it is (implicitly by making use of them to begin with) you are on no higher ground then people pushing a moral position, and your arguments against it work equally well when applied to your unvoiced assumptions.

430. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161026 by Mitchell Gilks on April 14, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Simple error there - assertions of fact can be proven; assertions of value cannot. So therefore I can judge others' assertions of value to be meaningless whereas you cannot judge my assertions of fact as being so.

Nonsense, they can both be demonstrated the same way. By observation, and testing. Sure, you can be fooled about what someone values, even then, but you can be fooled about anything.

431. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161018 by Mitchell Gilks on April 14, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Of course conditionals are not affected by the is-ought problem; but morality cannot be a conditional without attributing to humans a final cause/purpose. And only religion can do that. Therefore, when 'god is dead', we have no purpose. If you attribute the purpose 'preservation of species' or 'getting on in civilisation', that is subjective not objective.

I don't agree that the words "purpose" and the concept "final purpose for humanity" are meaningful to talk about in an intrinsic or imposed sense.

You are merely using words differently than I do. You appear to be the one hung up on a religious mode of thought.

Secondly, I never claimed that people should care for the truth, I simply am pointing it out for my amusement.

Then at best your a hypocrit with self-defeating arguments.

432. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161016 by Mitchell Gilks on April 14, 2008 at 5:00 pm

The dichotomy of absolute and relative is a false one. Firstly, there very well could be absolute truths, they are merely out of our grasp, the best we have are provisional truths. My point was to demonstrate that a non sequitur is a non sequitur to everyone, it doesn't magically follow for some people and not others, yet the concept holds no meaning outside of people to grasp it. They can't be seperated.

I don't want to argue these points though, they are long and drown out, and extremely involving.

I am only out to show that Henri is no more justified to make a case that we should be logical or rational or listen to anything he has to then I am for saying someone should be moral.

Just beginning to argue that it isn't rationally justified to do so begs the question.

433. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161010 by Mitchell Gilks on April 14, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Preservation of the species' may be an instinct;

That makes no sense, individuals have instincts, species don't. Seems like the compilation fallacy.

434. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161007 by Mitchell Gilks on April 14, 2008 at 4:50 pm

My question is what are you doing here? Why are you arguing? What justifies your implicit assumptions, and opinion that people need to care what is true or logical? Why is it that one can't use the same line of reasoning you are here, when turning to morality?

Why is it you can say that it is moralizing, and indefencible to suggest something is moral or immoral well at the same time it is okay for you to claim something is true or logical, and people should care?

What is the difference? Aren't you being a hypocrit at best?

Also, I mean to outline that the is/ought fallacy only entails one can't claim things just ought to be a certain way based on how things are. It does not apply to conditionals, such as: "if you want to make money, you ought to get a job." That is a fact.

Also, I find it curious that you can dismiss my posts as being "muddy" without worrying about addressing anything that I had to say. Rather evasive.

435. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160986 by Mitchell Gilks on April 14, 2008 at 4:15 pm

But truth fears no debate, eh?

Define truth, and then demonstrate your definition removed from people.

Once you fail, is truth relative?

Demonstrate mathematics removed from people.

Once you fail, is mathematics relative?

Demonstrate logic removed from people.

Once you fail, is logic relative?

I suspect you will answer no to those, then why require that morality be relative unless it is absolute? Yet such a thing is not claimed about logic, math, or truth? At least by anyone who knows better. There is equally no "one ought be logical" "one ought follow the rules of mathematics" "one ought to believe what can be best demonstrated to accurately reflect reality".

People seem to demand so much more from morality than anything else. I say that you defeat your own argument when you attempt to suggest that people need listen to your points, obey logic, or care about truth. These are implicit assumptions in your argument that are just as subject to the is/ought fallacy.

436. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160975 by Mitchell Gilks on April 14, 2008 at 3:56 pm

The sad part about this debate here, is that Henri can even argue against most of you, because you don't have a defencible moral outlook. He/she's right in saying that the way you present the case, it is merely what you think, and what you would prefer to be the case.

That is why I am always stressing that anyone and everyone's moral outlooks need vigorous examination. Why are things wrong and others right? How do you jsutify it and why should be listen?

My case is simply, I never claim things to be factually true, in some absolute sense, or some sense that exists without people. I don't think that about anything in fact, let alone moral precepts. What I do do is point out that all living thigns strive for what benefits them, and avoids what damages them (this is of course no accident, you can't surivive in a competting, constantly evolution world without acquiring such a value) and I then have a universal standard, an evaluation that we all agree upon. I then only need to demonstrate that certain courses of actions cause more harm than good to the greatest number of people, while other actions cause more good than harm for the greatest number of people. Given my outlined goal, of achieving the ends of suviving and suviving well. Happiness, and health, I can in fact demonstrate what needs to be done in order to achieve this goal. At least in limited situations. It is more a line of reasoning, then a set of precepts. Unique situations require unique considerations.

I can't demonstate that you one ought do these things just because, but I can make a damn good case that in order to achieve certain ends, some actions are better than others. Factually so.

The point about lions and killer whales is a false dichotomy. We (well I personally don't) eat other animals, and most of us (I do) don't have a moral problem with this. So, in that respect, lions and killer whales are no different. Now, actually make a correct anology about a lion killing another member of it's society, or a killer whale killing another member of its...or any social mamal in fact, and you will find the result is drastically different. There are consiquences, not by us, but by members of their own societies. If we don't step into the affairs of other cultures and countries when they have internal conflicts (at least as a rule we don't) then it is unreasonable to expect it for other animals.

Though clearly you are playing devils advocate, and are a christian that believes this is the logical necessity of atheism, nihlism. This is false conclusion the weak minded reach when they loose god. Though it isn't for anyone that can see the illusion and indefencibility of an authoritarian totalitarian dictatorship was never, and could never be a place to rationally derive moral outlooks in the first place. Supposing such a god did exist, it could only inform us of the best moral choices because it would be the most rational being, they would not be moral by virtue of its whims. Thus it is a redudency for the rational mind.

I do think that three things happen for the atheist, either they rational derive a moral outlook, they neglect to think about it and go with kneejerk reactions and intuition, or turn to moral nihlism. I greatly encourage everyone to seek the former.

Henri, to envoke logical fallacies, and quote a philosopher here and there that supports you, while at the same time ignoring the millenia of philosophical thought on ethics and morality without a passing glance is both intellectually lazy, and philosophically irresponsible. I am definitely not the one to be debating on philosophy, but I do hope that one of the better read site contributers appears soon. I will enjoy the carnage.

437. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #160804 by Mitchell Gilks on April 14, 2008 at 12:10 pm

I saw RD get blasted on CBC yesterday morning, calling him an "atheist fundementalist" and an "absolutist" and such. They brought on Chris Hedges to set up some straw-men for them to embrace. It was rather infuriating.

438. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #160761 by Mitchell Gilks on April 14, 2008 at 11:23 am

what about people like myself who DON'T think that christian'art' is so great- I don't like seeing fat naked or half naked women- everytime I see the work of some 'great' painter I think oh great another fat naked woman or another jesus - just my two cents

Well clearly you should avoid it like everything else you avoid because you don't personally like it. Surely you don't mean to imply it should be done away with because you don't like "seeing fat naked or half naked women".

As long as people keep saying "oh it's part of the historical culture...and you must know about the bible and what it says to appreciate the context of alot of our history" then it will be true that you must.

No...I think for as long as it is true, it will be true.

Surely we can't do away with any literature, especially literature that has had such a profound and lasting effect on our literary history.

439. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160508 by Mitchell Gilks on April 14, 2008 at 7:03 am

What a condescending, narsisstic, moralizing dick-hole.

"And then god smote them, and their boils broke, the ooze of which ran down all over their bodies. God's people slue their emenies until the streets ran red with blood, and that night, god's soldiers raped the infidel's virgins on stacks of hay, soak in their kinmen's blood...oh, you've follen asleep (*pats head lovingly*) goodnight Jimmy."

At least Hansel and Gretal has candy in it.

If you wants to claim christianity has the only possible inspiration for good things, like art and music, then he must equally accept that it was the only possibly inspiration for all the evil done by the mad-men that claimed to be doing gods work. He can take on and not the other. I personally don't think either is true, artists and writters will find inspiration for good, and the things they do, as all the world societies without christianity and the time before christianity atests to, and evil maniacs will find inspiration for evil without christianity. The different is, for many evil things a direct link to doctrine can be established. I don't think a direct link to someone's artisitc ability can be so linked.

No one is saying that the artists he mentions were secretly unbelievers, what a huge straw-men. The argument was that the church had the money, artists need money, regardly of what they believed, they did it for the money. If it was some other religion who had the money (as the beautiful art of other religions also atests to) then that is what their art would have reflected. It is disengenuous to miscontrue such and easily graspable point. The guy can't be that stupid.

Last point, no one is suggesting ridding the world of christianity in anymore than a political sense (at least I'm not, and I know that none of the four horsemen are either). So that is another straw-man.

A guy in comedy, uses suggestively ironic words for someone like Dawkins and this guy takes it seriously. Some people's willingness to misconstrue, and misunderstand is astonishing to me.

440. British schools are falling for the pseudoscience of Brain Gym. Why fill kids' heads with nonsense?

Comment #160475 by Mitchell Gilks on April 14, 2008 at 6:30 am

I read the whole thing thinking it was brian gym too, I didn't notice until you pointed it out Sally.

This was a hilarious read, I cracked up in several places. This guys needs to fly off about more stuff.

441. A New Flea

Comment #160246 by Mitchell Gilks on April 13, 2008 at 8:53 pm

According to my imagination, a god has to be all-powerful, all knowing, all capable, all loving, a lover of freedom and democracy, to name a few things. I imagine many Christians would say that I just named their god.

Why? None of the hundreds of gods I am aware of fit that description, they are still gods. Are you say they need to fit that description before you will believe in them? If so, then you grounds for atheism are no more rationally defencible than a theists grounds. Our imaginations and preferences don't dictate reality, there is no more reason to believe in a god so decribed than there is to believe in an evil one.

442. A New Flea

Comment #160235 by Mitchell Gilks on April 13, 2008 at 8:42 pm

A rational case that something exists without empiricle evidence for its existence? The man is a professional philosophy and be boasts such a thing? I'd like to see him prove a rabbit exists without appealing to empiricle evidence.

From what I've seen of that video that was linked, he is going to ask you to presuppose his base assumptions. Assert some unjustifiable claims, and then ad hoc, ad hoc, ad hoc, until everything fits nicely into his pretty little hypothetical world where he is king.

Perhaps note a fair analyses from how little he got to speak...though it is troubling that how little he got to speak revealed all of the above about how his mind works. Perhaps he has gotten infinitely more rational and logical since then however. It could happen!

I think some people here don't grasp the concept of Fleas. They aren't Flea books for writing a book supporting, in favor, or even arguing against criticisms unless they are riding the coat-tales of one of the four horsemen by using them as marketing tools. By way of using titles similar to theirs, or mentioning their names in the titles.

443. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed

Comment #160210 by Mitchell Gilks on April 13, 2008 at 8:01 pm

I totally agree Mitchell gilks - My dad tries to talk religion to me and finally one day I told him that it all just boils down to him trying to get me to beleive in invisible people with magic powers and of course talking snakes.-

How CAN anyone fall for that crap?

I am not saying that I haven't fallen for fallacious reasoning before, or deceptive tactics. I have. I just think that it is complementary to refer to the completely obvious bullshit spewed by the groups mentioned in the artical as sophistry. Their arguments are not subtly fallacious, they are no plausible. Those people are clearly, bat-shit-crazy. Scientists and members of the academic intelligencia don't roll their eyes, call them morons, and walk away for no reason. They are supposedly smug, arrogant egotists, the scientists and such, yet they seem to expect far more from the general public in the way of reasoning then is warrented. They don't argue against these people, because they are clearly wrong, obviously wrong. Without a question, wrong. There is nothing to argue, no debate to take place, the best you can possibly do is recommend them some reading material, and point out, point by point, the flaws in their reasoning. They don't have cases, they don't have arguments.

Just look at how PZ Myers' "debate" with that creationist went on the radio. What could he do other than tell him he's wrong, and needs to crack a fucking book?

I agree that something needs to be done, but debates cannot be had. There is nothing to debate on either issue, and if there were, it would clearly not be with people that have a lesser understanding than average of the issue. When they shrug and say we need better education, and better means of informing the public. That is simply true. The issue is that the general public don't know any better. It is hard to debate someone who knows the issue by name alone.

I for one don't know what can be done. Since there is a long precedence of things just like this happening. I don't see anyone putting a stop to it anytime soon. I surely would like to see it, but I don't see it happening. Time will put a stop to our current "controveries", as they did with heliocentricity/geocentricity flat earth/round earth and such. As the older generations die, and the newer ones irrationally steamroll more current things they don't like the sounds of but don't know, or care to know anything about.

444. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed

Comment #160035 by Mitchell Gilks on April 13, 2008 at 2:39 pm

I don't understand how anyone falls for their obvious crap to begin with.

445. Ancient serpent shows its leg

Comment #159639 by Mitchell Gilks on April 12, 2008 at 5:15 pm

watashi wa hebi no ashi ga kawaiku nai to omoimasu. (koko ni wa minna nihongo o wakaru n'desu)

Fried Griskard, I just noticed your imput, and I don't understand most of it. I think you are disagreeing with me, and saying that you don't think that snake legs are cute in the first part. I have no glue what the second thing you are saying is, I think it ends with asking if I understand. Which I don't..sumimasen. I understand the words watashi, as the most formal version of "I". Kawaiku nai to mean "note cute" and omoimasu to mean "I think". I thought that "wa" was used when refering to people, and "ga" used when refering to things...or is "wa" also used when refering to animals as well?

I'm incredibly knew to learn it. Which I'm sure you must have picked up from my inaccurate sentene.

446. Ancient serpent shows its leg

Comment #159634 by Mitchell Gilks on April 12, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Geoff, I (hopefully marginally legibly) said "cute. Snake legs are cute". Though I'm certain I got the structure wrong.

My Japanese is pathetic, though I'm learning. Snakes are one of the animals of the zodiac, I know them, and I know the body parts. So I thought I'd attempt a sentence.

Raiko, I can't read a single Kanji symbol. I'm going to work on learning to speak Japanese before I work on learning to read it. I am extremely envious if you can read Kanji. There is a huge score of manga I'd love to be reading right now. It is the reason I want to learn Japanese, so I don't have to wait years after something comes out in english. Besides that, what you wrote didn't even come off properly, it looks like nonsense symbols to me "蛇ãÂ�®è¶³ãÂ�Å'ãÂ�‹ã‚Â�ãÂ�„ãÂ�„ãÂ�§ãÂ�™ãÂ�Å'ã€Â�無益ãÂ�ªè¶³ã‚‚æ€Â�ãÂ�ˆã‚‹ã€‚" . Otherwise I could have attempted to run it through a translator, though that likely wouldn't have worked, because I don't know how to seperate the words either. I haven't even attempted to learn anything about Kanji yet.

Curious, what did you say?

447. Ancient serpent shows its leg

Comment #159567 by Mitchell Gilks on April 12, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Kawaii! Hebi ashi ga kawaii desu.

448. The List: The World's Worst Religious Leaders

Comment #159562 by Mitchell Gilks on April 12, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Atheism isn't a view. At least not for me it isn't, it is a result of my epistemological position. We simply have a name for it, while we don't for not accepting the millions of other propositions rejected as a result of my epistemological position.

One need not be an atheist to campaign against totalitarianism (for atheism is surely merely a thought crime at best), or being forced to adhere to a system of belief.

I think that some people make it easy for theists to turn atheism into something more than just another one of millions of things we reject, and often they reject aswell.

449. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159545 by Mitchell Gilks on April 12, 2008 at 1:08 pm

ThoughtsonCommonToad, none of what you quoted "proved" the unreliability of IQ tests, mainly because a variance of up to 24 points is expected, and factored in. It is something that what you quoted construes as a problem, that simply isn't a problem.

We all know that multiple factors figure in to how well you with preform intellectually in a task. Ranging from emotionally, to physicologically, to chemically (i.e. your emotional state at the time, how you feel physically, and your deit, and health.) Expecting people the scores to be static rather than dynamic is unreasonable because people's proformances are dynamic.

I remain unconvinced of just how accurate they are, for completely different reasons, but it is at least clear that they give a general idea of someone's intelligence.

It is no coincidence that people that are recognizably stupid score low on them, while people that are recognizably smart score high on them.

Now there is an argument to be made about the types of questions it asks, and how they are clearly biased toward how people think in the modern developed world, and how they would not, and are not accurate for people of different eras, or societies.

Clearly they are not perfect, completely accurate, or work at all for everyone. Though since no one is claiming otherwise, it is a non-issue.

450. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159518 by Mitchell Gilks on April 12, 2008 at 11:44 am

I think you both misunderstood, IQ doesn't solely involve ones reasoning and logical skills, as it also tests memory, language skills, and spacial visualization skills, I didn't mean to imply that if I did. However, being poor in either of these areas reflects poorly on your over all intelligence. If logic and reasoning kills were not necessarily linked to one's intelligence then that would not be put to the test during IQ evaluation. However they are.