1. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #213210 by gr8hands on July 18, 2008 at 9:37 am

Sciros, I hope you're using this same tactic on anti-choice people who claim that abortion is murder, since abortion is legal.

2. Ten Commandments' of race and genetics issued

Comment #213196 by gr8hands on July 18, 2008 at 9:12 am

Epinephrine, I'm sorry. I was wrong. I apologize. I should not have included psychologists in my list. I'll try to be more careful next time.

3. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #213185 by gr8hands on July 18, 2008 at 9:00 am

Mitchell Gilks, you are in error about the impossibility of doing evil as an ethical action.

You are also confused that state sanctioned murder is somehow not murder because it is sanctioned by the state. Murder is killing. Execution is killing. We use the euphemism "execution" to make it palatable. Killing someone who killed someone, to show that killing someone is wrong, doesn't make sense.

Unless you're backpedaling on your statement

Indeed it is, but two wrongs don't make a right. Stealing from a thief is still stealing, and murdering a murderer is still murder.

In a civil society we don't go by an "eye for an eye". I take the moral highroad, and I expect others to do the same, at least if they want to be ethical.

My opening statement is merely re-stating your own words.

You're confused about what a "slippery slope fallacy" is. This might enlighten you: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

Mitchell Gilks, we agree on more points about this than you imagine. For instance, I'm also against capital punishment. I'm just pointing out where more thought needs to be given because of internal inconsistencies.

4. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #213163 by gr8hands on July 18, 2008 at 8:32 am

Radesq, thank you for the Animal House reference. Loved it!

5. Ten Commandments' of race and genetics issued

Comment #213161 by gr8hands on July 18, 2008 at 8:30 am

I was a little confused about what input historians, psychologists, social scientists, and philosophers would have on the subject of genetics that would be scientifically germane.

In my conversations with geneticists (including Frank Collins, head of the Human Genome Project), there isn't a split down the middle about race -- the overwhelming majority believe the science shows it is completely arbitrary, and there is only a human "race."

The article incorrectly makes it appear that there's a big struggle on this topic in the geneticist community -- there is not. Much like there is no big struggle among biologists about evolution.

6. Researchers Discover Remnant of an Ancient 'RNA World'

Comment #213136 by gr8hands on July 18, 2008 at 7:54 am

Since we already have proven that in ice, chemicals naturally combine to form pre-RNA and RNA . . . this is another nail in the coffin to those saying "life cannot come from non-life." We have all but one of the steps -- going from simply RNA to DNA.

However, that is the easiest of the steps for researchers. ("easiest" being relative, considering the extreme difficulty of this entire field of study)

Sorry to any creationists, but Science to the Rescue!

7. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212825 by gr8hands on July 17, 2008 at 6:04 pm

Mitchell Gilks, I presume you find all death penalties in all cases unethical.

In fact, to take this to the next logical step, since imprisoning someone is also a crime, then all prison sentences are unethical -- as that is also depriving someone of their freedom.

Let's take this to the next logical step. So, it would be unethical for parents to discipline their children, because it would be "commited toward someone they figure 'has it coming.'"

Such a slippery slope.

The "freedom fighter" who wins independence against an oppressor regime becomes a national hero. If they lose, they're called "terrorist" by the oppressor regime. But are their actions any more or less ethical based on the outcomes?

All civil disobedience is criminal, but is it unethical?

Of course, you're presuming that the person's ethics are towards good. If the person's ethics are towards evil, then any evil action is ethical for them.

Definitely a slippery area.

But as a simple matter, I would challenge anyone to find the word "eucharist" in the bible. Or "trinity". Or where it says the bread is "sacred" or "holy" or "becomes the body of jesus" or even suggests anything like that.

This will help: www.biblegateway.com/

(hint: it is not in the made-up bible. It's just made up.)

They're getting all worked up over something that doesn't even exist in scripture!

8. The Return of Religion

Comment #212817 by gr8hands on July 17, 2008 at 5:41 pm

All spirituality is based on some concept of a non-corporeal, ineffable, undetectable essence -- a "spirit".

A "soul" is the most common example given of this, but some theists also give the notion to otherwise inanimate objects (like a manitou).

Until it is demonstrated that such spirits actually exist anywhere, it is foolish to discuss spirituality or consider it a serious topic.

However, our language is full of references using the word but not necessarily meaning soul:
"She has a quiet spirit."
"His guests improved his spirits."
"You could feel the spirit of freedom in the air."
"The choir sang with spirit."

The theistic apologists wish to confuse the issue by re-defining spirituality into ever more vague concepts.

When atheists use the term spirituality, I hope they mean "philosophy," or "state of mind," or "mental attitude," or "mental discipline," or something like that. If they do mean something more, related to a soul, I believe they are clearly in error.

9. Let's Get Rid of Darwinism

Comment #212631 by gr8hands on July 17, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Cartomancer, according to Merriam-Webster, Darwinism first appeared in language in 1864.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/darwinism

Main Entry:
Dar·win·ism
Function:
noun
Date:
1864

1 : a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors" compare evolution 4, neo-Darwinism

2 : a theory that inherent dynamic forces allow only the fittest persons or organizations to prosper in a competitive environment or situation " compare Social Darwinism

10. The Return of Religion

Comment #212009 by gr8hands on July 16, 2008 at 1:11 pm

hobofabby, "the human yearning for the transcendental" has been artificially created and carefully nurtured by the theists for as long as there have been theists. It justifies their existence and paychecks.

It's just like the beauty magazines -- they try to destroy any self-esteem by making women feel ugly, then sell a product to make them beautiful (according to their own arbitrary and constantly-changing standards).

Theists demand a reason "What is the purpose of Life?" because they feel insignificant otherwise. It is a question based on fear and ignorance.

Theists want a deus ex machina solution to their problems.

They want a celestial policeman to protect them from the boogey man.

They want a divine champion to fight for "their" side.

They want supernatural healing when medicine fails.

They want something to comfort them from the horrors of death. (This alone proves they do not really believe their dogma. If they did, no one would express sadness at a funeral of a loved one -- how could they? Not if they really believed they were in perfect immortal bodies with jesus in heaven and would be able to see them soon.)

No, hobofabby, theists can artificially create all kinds of "metaphysical" questions, but the only possible way to answer them would be through the scientific method. And the questions would not necessarily reflect anything real.

The "what is the purpose of Life?" question pre-supposes that Life has a purpose, and that it is known by some entity. It pre-supposes a creator.

11. Bisexual Species: Unorthodox Sex in the Animal Kingdom

Comment #209788 by gr8hands on July 13, 2008 at 10:48 am

The even more accurate term for humans would be: sexual. No further qualifier required.

And Eshto, those "straight" high school football guys engaging in homosexual activity are not usually "just horny and would have screwed a stump if it had a hole in it." Mostly they are being bottoms, rather than being tops.

12. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209777 by gr8hands on July 13, 2008 at 10:12 am

This research confirms what I've known from my own personal (translated: anecdotal, therefore not scientific) experience.

I was born into a jehovah's witness family, which discourages associations and influences outside their faith, yet even as a pre-school child I disagreed with their dogma. I believed all people were deserving of love and the full measure of god's bounty, not just those who were jehovah's witnesses.

This was frowned upon, punished, and I quickly learned not to say such things out loud. However, I knew a loving god could not possibly do or allow such evil as there was in the world. Which is why I had such a long struggle to try and reconcile this with what I had been taught and raised. And, of course, why I eventually decided I was an atheist.

In fact, it is why I state that I've been a "goodie-two-shoes" from birth, because I didn't have to be taught empathy, or a desire for fairness or justice applied to everyone. I didn't have to be taught the dogma of the faith my family held concerning not lying or stealing -- I was definitely "pre-wired" with such beliefs.

It is also my opinion that we, as a species, are evolving to a point where this pre-wiring is more dominant. There are more altruists now than ever before, there are more philanthropists, more people donating blood, etc.

13. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #203794 by gr8hands on July 3, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Robert O'Brien, I just got around to reading the link you provided as a refutation to jesus blessing a same-sex couple.

Dr. Gagnon, while an associate professor, reasonably well versed (one hopes) in the history and language of the new testament era, is simply wrong. He has let his own homophobia cloud his scholarship.

Let's take just one little example. Gagnon writes:

(1) Sex with male slaves not a universal phenomenon. Not every provincial or Roman officer was having sex with his slave so Jesus could hardly have assumed such behavior was going on.

This demonstrates that Dr. Gagnon doesn't believe jesus was divine, or had the capability of knowing what was in the mind of the Centurion (unlike when he knew what was in the mind of the woman at the well).

How about another example? Gagnon writes:

(2) Jesus would have had to have been endorsing rape in this case. We know that the form which much master-slave homoeroticism took in the Greco-Roman world included not only coerced sexual activity but also forced feminization, up to and including castration.

That is totally illogical, even if it were true (which historians know it is not). Again, it shows Gagnon doesn't believe jesus to be able to discern the truth.

Or another example? Gagnon writes:

(3) Jesus' fraternization with tax collectors and sexual sinners does not suggest support for their behavior.

Wrong again. jesus repeatedly tells these people to "go and sin no more." But he didn't with the centurion and his lover.

No need to go further, I've demonstrated enough errors on Dr. Gagnon's part. Not everyone with letters after their names turn out to be right, even in their particular field. Humans make mistakes. Particularly when they let their theology blind them to reality.

Robert O'Brien wrote:

You obviously do not know the first thing about Attic, Koine, or the NT.

are you claiming knowledge of Attic, Koine, or the NT? I have taught those subjects at the college level.

You know, Robert O'Brien, you write like a first year college student with a penchant for wikipedia and a thesaurus. It was so amusing to have you claim superior knowledge by using 'apprehend' as a synonym of 'comprehend' when all it did was show your lack of understanding that the 'grasp' wasn't 'grasp' in anything other than the physical grabbing sense.

Now, you can feel free to run a Google search and pretend to understand Greek (it's clear you don't), or history (it's clear you don't), or physics (it's clear you don't), or philosophy (it's clear you don't), or logic (it's clear you don't). You can make silly and childish insults, but really, that isn't something you should be proud of, is it? Of course, we don't care if you continue, it merely reinforces the overwhelming evidence that theists are not rational.

We're laughing at you, but there is the slightest bit of hope that eventually the thickness of your skull will be eroded, and you'll embrace the truth.

Put down your cross and come with us!

P.S. With hundreds of nukes, the United Kingdom is certainly nothing to ignore. But then, since you've managed to get so much of everything you've written about wrong, this is just one more detail.

14. Faith schools undermined by 'Government witch hunt'

Comment #203604 by gr8hands on July 3, 2008 at 8:22 am

hungarianelephant wrote:

Steve - I wouldn't bother with gr8hands. He's been caught making stuff up to suit his argument and all he has left is bluster.

Another lie.

hungarianelephant wrote:

It's actually quite amusing to watch him assert that he knows more than me about a school I attended for seven years, and which he knows only through its web page.

Another lie.

hungarianelephant, you seem to suffer from the malady which does not allow you to honestly look at yourself, the things you cherish, etc. You strike out in anger whenever someone has the temerity to express a different view, and then just dig in your heels, resort to lies and insults, . . . sounds remarkably like how theists work.

Feel free to apologize to me -- I will graciously accept, because I don't hold a grudge. Or you can brood behind a wall of hurt feelings.

15. Faith schools undermined by 'Government witch hunt'

Comment #203602 by gr8hands on July 3, 2008 at 8:22 am

Steve Zara wrote:

Indoctrination is not the same as teaching. It is distinguished from teaching because you are given ideas that you are supposed to accept uncritically.

Are you now suggesting that when the young children at the CofE schools are being taught "Christian skills" "in a Christian environment" that they are completely and utterly free to voice criticisms at their teachers and curricula? Without any kind of repercussions? Really?

Are you really suggesting that a young child who kept responding to the teacher's statements about god or bible stories with "but there is no god" would be tolerated without negative comments or actions?

I think you're getting caught up in the mistake of equating "indoctrination" with "brainwashing" -- which is why I suggested hungarianelephant actually look up the word. You are adding in "supposed to accept uncritically" which is not part of the denotation.

16. Faith schools undermined by 'Government witch hunt'

Comment #203219 by gr8hands on July 2, 2008 at 1:23 pm

hungarianelephant, the "last word" is simply that you are common in the refusal to say the two hardest small sentences in the English language: I'm sorry. I was wrong.

You need to review what iconography is. (hint: it's artwork of any kind, including visual aids for student lessons. I am certain even the faith schools you attended used visual aids in some way, and that every classroom has them.)

You also need to review what indoctrination is. (hint: one of the definitions is "teaching" and I am certain that even in the faith schools you attended, there was some "teaching" going on)

My very first suggestion was that you look up the words -- if you had sensibly followed that suggestion, you could have avoided looking like a fool.

Feel free to ask Steve if any of the above was too advanced -- he's very good at explaining difficult concepts.

hungarianelephant wrote:

You issued a challenge in grandiose fashion, and I answered it.

You answered it incorrectly.

hungarianelephant wrote:

You have now tried three times to change the point of the discussion in order to suggest that I have not answered your points.

Wrong again. I have never suggested that you didn't answer my points, only that your examples were wrong. You are also wrong that I have tried to change the point of discussion.

Since it appears you have forgotten the point of discussion, it is: indoctrination.

So, I suppose the "last word" is that you're a liar.

17. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202924 by gr8hands on July 2, 2008 at 6:45 am

Robert O'Brien wrote:

manure-covered yokel

I suppose this is an example of his best work, sad to say. But hardly steamrolling over me.

But at least he's shown that vocabulary can be had without actual comprehension of content. Perhaps he is also a film critic? You know, lots of words, nothing of value to say, believes he's right without the benefit of evidence to back himself up.

Surprising, since he claims to work in a math intensive job.

18. Faith schools undermined by 'Government witch hunt'

Comment #202918 by gr8hands on July 2, 2008 at 6:37 am

hungarianelephant -- if you were to actually follow the link I provided and looked at the photos, you would see the iconography being carved along the visible sides of every pew. Ignoring it won't make it go away, just as ignoring my accurate comments won't correct your erroneous ones.

My comments about their indoctrinating curricula was to point out the error of you claiming there was no indoctrination going on. Again, you are simply wrong -- and it says something significant about your reading comprehension and being a weasel. (You were aware that we were talking about indoctrination, not merely iconography, right? You seem confused, so perhaps you should re-read what I've actually written, and not rely on your obviously faulty memory. Sorry to be snarky, but when you can't recall or scroll up to check what I've written, then you invite a certain amount of ridicule.)

19. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202631 by gr8hands on July 1, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Any physicist who writes:

the natural order does need God in order to continue to exist.

should be fired with extreme prejudice for gross incompetence. Unless they can provide the evidence to back up such a retarded claim.

20. Faith schools undermined by 'Government witch hunt'

Comment #202351 by gr8hands on July 1, 2008 at 11:16 am

Sorry, hungarianelephant, but you fail. Miserably.

http://www.astburyschool.org.uk/ on the main page clearly shows several photos of the students in pews in a chapel (what class would that be?), with a priest in full garb. Their text says

The school strives to promote quality and endeavours to build the foundations of a good academic, social and Christian education.

Clearly indoctrination.

If further states

It envelops the social, academic and Christian skills required to assist in their growth, creating a favourable environment for the children to develop a love of reading and literature and increase their skills in mathematics, sciences and the arts.

What are "Christian skills"?

I didn't bother to investigate your other school since you blew it in your first example.

Also, you presume that I was only talking about United States education, because I never said any such thing. I have been involved with worldwide ecumenical organizations, including those discussing school curricula. Again, you are in error.

21. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202336 by gr8hands on July 1, 2008 at 10:32 am

Now Nova, there you go making a rational suggestion. Where will that get you?

I'm reminded of when I attended a white (I'm white) fundamentalist church service Sunday morning in a nice suit. I was utterly ignored. I enjoyed the music, so I went back for the Sunday evening service, in the same suit, and was politely acknowledged and greeted. What was the difference? A tie. In the morning, I didn't have one, wearing the shirt collar outside the jacket in a business casual fashion, and in the evening I wore the tie as traditional.

It appears the lack of a tie branded me as a dangerous outsider to be scorned and ignored, yet a traditional tie enabled me to be welcomed as one of the group. Nothing to do with my name, gender, background, color, race, creed, orientation. Just the tie.

If someone or some group wants to discriminate, they will manufacture a reason.

As for the resumes, where did they send them? Locally focused businesses typically have a different clientele and cadre than international businesses.

22. Faith schools undermined by 'Government witch hunt'

Comment #202322 by gr8hands on July 1, 2008 at 9:44 am

hungarianelephant, I'm surprised at the thin skin you're exhibiting. You know full well that I'm not "redefining" the word indoctrination, but that you're simply refusing to see how that word is appropriately used to describe all faith schools. Which is a little out of character.

Yes, my use of "perhaps" and "seem" is a a good way to start -- rather than using insulting language, or poor logic, or any of the typical responses people here use all too frequently (not you, specifically).

As a theologian affiliated with a seminary, I frequently visit all manner of faith-based educational facilities, from kindergartens through colleges, so I am very well acquainted with what they do or do not display, what they do or do not teach. I have been on a number of panels concerning the educational materials being submitted (and I provided my insight into what should be included in curricula after reviewing many).

If your knowledge comes from only your personal experience at your school, then I would say it does not qualify you to discuss what is "typical" about many or most schools.

I challenge you to provide the name of just one faith school which does not have any iconography or religious artwork anywhere visible to students. Just one. Unless you do, you must accept that you are in error. Or you can try to retreat behind the erroneous "redefining the word indoctrination" stance, but it doesn't provide any legitimate cover.

23. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202307 by gr8hands on July 1, 2008 at 9:21 am

Here, here!

24. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202295 by gr8hands on July 1, 2008 at 8:39 am

decius, you appear not to have read the link I provided, as it goes into detail about how jesus gave his blessing to a same-sex couple without telling them "go and sin no more" as he is reported to have done for heterosexual sinners.

You are also confused about what the bible has proscribed: the Leviticus versus were dealing with heterosexual men who were acting as homosexual temple prostitutes as part of idol worship.

jesus himself is reported to discuss those "eunuchs from birth" (which is how homosexuals were often described at that time) as being particularly blessed.

The actual words condemning "homosexuality" are actually about homosexual rape (often done by heterosexuals as a degrading act), pederasty and done as part of idol worship. There is nothing against loving same-sex relationships -- which were as common then as now. To deny that is to expose ignorance about history.

You are also in error about jesus upholding the teachings of the old testament in their entirety! Do a little search for the phrase "... but I tell you ..." where he rejects the old for a new way. (I, too, do not believe there is proof that jesus was a real person)

You might also wish to re-read the gospels about the situation with the "apostle whom jesus loved" and what appears to be a description of a sex act between them.

25. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201986 by gr8hands on June 30, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Robert O'Brien is painfully unaware of the errors he makes concerning biblical references to homosexuality. Errors of mistranslation caused by homophobic theists started and perpetuated this particular proscription.

That is not 'eisegesis' but linguistic and historical fact. Yes, facts are pesky things, which we require here.

I suggest he look up http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html for some education on the topic.

And I suppose I should point out the hypocrisy in suggesting that private consensual gay sex is okay with him, but giving equality in government recognition of gay relationships is not.

Perhaps Robert O'Brien is a competent statistician, since we know nothing of his skills in that career, but he demonstrates an appallingly puerile understanding of historical documentation when he uses Josephus as a source for the existence of jesus. Sad, really, since he has a decent vocabulary.

And, he still has not provided evidence for the existence of god. I would label that "strike two."

26. Faith schools undermined by 'Government witch hunt'

Comment #201968 by gr8hands on June 30, 2008 at 1:41 pm

hungarianelephant wrote:

The image of vicars and priests indoctrinating kids day after day is just not true, and makes secularists look stupid.

Perhaps you might want to reacquaint yourself with what "indoctrinating" means, as it appears you are confused.

By definition, the vicars and priests in their garb and/or with their titles, indoctrinate others in showing them respect not due, not earned, and not based in reality. Even the names of their schools often cannot be substantiated as being named after legitimate humans proven to have ever existed! (It is as valid as attending Harry Potter Middle School.)

I am certain the faith schools all have the iconography and artwork relevant to the particular faith strategically placed all over the place -- again, more indoctrination. Perhaps signs with scriptures, or sayings attributed to a deity or so-called prophet -- again, more indoctrination.

All of which have no place in the education of children by the government.

27. Faith schools undermined by 'Government witch hunt'

Comment #201965 by gr8hands on June 30, 2008 at 1:32 pm

hopeful, take anything Steven Pinker says about children with a large grain of salt -- he has none of his own (and only a fool would believe that children act the same when they're around a non-parent as when they are around their parents or when they are alone). He's brilliant in his own way, but he's also a bit of a nutjob in several key areas. Good science in some areas, really poor science in other areas.

28. A War On Science

Comment #200704 by gr8hands on June 28, 2008 at 6:18 am

Sorry, Cartomancer, I was obviously confused by what you wrote in Comment #200019

I suspect a lot of the rest have started out studying theology for religious reasons (I can think of few other reasons to do so, save getting an easy degree or trying to understand the theistic mind-set, neither of which would be much incentive to make a career out of it), and before they know it end up teaching theology for a living.

Thanks for clearing up what you meant.

29. A War On Science

Comment #200075 by gr8hands on June 26, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Cartomancer, as a trained theologian who is affiliated with a theological seminary, I can confirm that there are representatives of all portions of the theology spectrum: from strong atheist to strong theist. Not only in the faculty, but in the student body! I would say that there are more agnostics than atheists "rampant" in the halls of a seminary, and only a very few really strong theists outside of fundamentalist organizations.

I would correct you on one point: theology or divinity is not an "easy degree" by any stretch of the imagination.

The rest of your analysis is spot-on! The focus is much more towards humanitarian pursuits, social justice, equality for all, and ecumenical pluralism. Most seminaries don't focus on dogma much any more.

30. The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete

Comment #199956 by gr8hands on June 26, 2008 at 2:33 pm

I suppose I'm the first to mention the specific errors in Chris Anderson's inaccurate rant relating to language.

That's why Google can translate languages without actually "knowing" them (given equal corpus data, Google can translate Klingon into Farsi as easily as it can translate French into German).

Clearly Anderson has not actually looked at the Google website, where they actively solicit fluent native speakers in languages to help them make Google available in other languages.

And why it can match ads to content without any knowledge or assumptions about the ads or the content.

What a joke! The ads have a tremendously low (and ridiculous) match rate! And Anderson is obviously ignorant about website metatags.

Anderson is also confused about the validity of the number of incoming links actually providing data -- when you're doing a search! If you want to find information on griffins, perhaps you would think www.griffin.com would be high in the listing, or a website that has the word "griffin" on it a large number of times, but not necessarily!

No, he's clearly . . . I'm not sure how to end that sentence.

31. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #199341 by gr8hands on June 25, 2008 at 2:43 pm

vanwall, look up www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/gao.pdf to see 1,069 rights that married people have that same-sex couples don't -- then review your silly post about what gays want.

It is the straight community which has special rights.

And if your dictionary doesn't mention the historical fact that throughout most of recorded history most "marriages" were polygamous, then your dictionary isn't very comprehensive. You must not be aware that even in the bible (which so many anti-gay people love to tout) most of the people were involved in polygamous marriages -- they were even required to when a brother died with a widow.

So, history is against you, the bible is against you, the current special rights for straight couples laws are against you.

You might want to re-think your post.

32. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #199335 by gr8hands on June 25, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Tyler Durden, to answer your question, no same-sex marriages can be legally performed anywhere in the United States except in Massachusetts and now California. Las Vegas, however, has been performing holy unions and other kinds of same-sex celebrations for years.

33. Richard Dawkins Public Lecture - Liverpool 08

Comment #198288 by gr8hands on June 23, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Watch for yourself: http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2007/08/10/video-the-presidential-forum/

34. Richard Dawkins Public Lecture - Liverpool 08

Comment #198284 by gr8hands on June 23, 2008 at 1:43 pm

And Obama's stated main reason for not supporting same-sex marriage is his religion. He was quite clear about that in the misnamed "debate" with the candidates on gay television.

35. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #194135 by gr8hands on June 16, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Are you complaining about man's best friend? One of god's precious creatures? Shame. (smile)

36. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194134 by gr8hands on June 16, 2008 at 12:57 pm

In "Contact" the bible-thumping character's first reaction to the proof of extraterrestrial life was "we don't even know if they believe in god."

I somehow don't think reality will be much different, unfortunately. The religious will worry about evangelizing the planet, or contact with dangerous alien ideas and blasphemies.

37. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #194117 by gr8hands on June 16, 2008 at 12:43 pm

esuther, you also miss the most important point: How can you be sure someone claiming to be a heterosexual really is one?

One can be fairly confident that someone claiming to be a homosexual actually is one -- or at least on that end of the orientation spectrum.

But (when I was single) I have personally had gay sex with men who refused to acknowledge that they were not heterosexual -- they would not use the word "bisexual" and certainly not "gay" even though we were having male-on-male intercourse. That makes any study reasonably suspect and difficult to accept.

My partner was married, fathered and raised a family before coming out, divorcing and meeting me. I, myself, was married, and fathered a son. Technically we're both bisexual, but choose to live solely with men. The study doesn't go into that rather unsubtle nuance.

But, it's a necessary next step in the research.

38. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #186601 by gr8hands on May 30, 2008 at 8:04 pm

bhima, you are confused about what "ironic" means.

Perhaps I should express my statement a bit more directly: The people who want socialism expect to be on the top rung, the ones pulling the strings, the elite, exempt from the regular rules. It is never started by people expecting to end up on the bottom rung, crushed under the boot.

There. Now do you understand? The only "safety net" of socialism is the grave.

Socialistic democracy is not socialism by any stretch of the imagination, so your example, which is not entirely accurate, is not germane.

39. Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, 10 Commandments

Comment #186598 by gr8hands on May 30, 2008 at 7:55 pm

DamnDirtyApe -- that scene with G'Kar teaching you quoted is one of my favorite in the whole Babylon 5 series!

40. Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, 10 Commandments

Comment #186359 by gr8hands on May 30, 2008 at 7:59 am

Include the lord's prayer only if they include the Treaty of Tripoli clearly stating that the country was not in any way a christian nation -- and it must be displayed equally prominently.

Of course, since they are required to include a statement of the historical significance, I am sure the national motto's statement will be that it was thrust upon the country as a bit of anti-communist propaganda in the 1950's.

41. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186355 by gr8hands on May 30, 2008 at 7:53 am

What about the groom? Was he supposed to be a virgin as well? Why no "honor killings" of the men who are not virgins?

42. Altruism in social insects is a family affair

Comment #186091 by gr8hands on May 29, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Science to the rescue!

43. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #186089 by gr8hands on May 29, 2008 at 2:06 pm

I suppose D'Arcy is unaware of the concept of "nationalization" -- which has been done by all socialist regimes for most of the infrastructure.

Puts the "takes possession of the productive forces" into proper and historical context.

The people who want socialism don't expect to be on the bottom rung.

44. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185753 by gr8hands on May 28, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Sorry, but from a gay perspective, al-rawandi just looks attractive, not intimidating. And we have a slightly different interpretation when someone says "you want a piece of me?" or "bring it on."

(I know al-rawandi is not gay, nor a homophobe, so he'll be able to handle my comment without getting upset.)

Yes, please find and show your high school football photos.

huzonfurst appears confused about what "neo-fascist" means.

45. Six 'uniquely' human traits now found in animals

Comment #185626 by gr8hands on May 28, 2008 at 8:06 am

I believe the problem is that comparison between humans and animals isn't really comparing apples to apples -- mostly because of all the direct and indirect linguistic/communication training all humans get. To be on equal footing, you'd have to compare animals to humans who had not ever been exposed to human language in any form.

Why? Because it is quite likely that animals are prewired by evolution to communicate in a certain way, to the exclusion of almost anything else. Bats, for instance, don't have to be taught to echolocate (and no human could possibly be taught to do so), which may be one aspect of their communication.

We know that elephants use subsonics to communicate -- again, something human beings cannot perceive or duplicate using our own physiology. Same with dolphins, etc.

We also know that part of the communication in animals is body posture, direction of gaze, scent, and all kinds of social structure that we're only beginning to scratch the surface on -- which as humans we left behind when we developed spoken and written language.

Any animal which does any kind of mimicking, is demonstrating a keen self-awareness. By trying to manipulate their own bodies to mimic some other being shows a lot more cognitive capability than was previously acknowledged.

It's even more amazing when birds do this with sounds -- which are not native to them -- because they're using their vocalization equipment for something foreign. It is a mistake to dismiss this extremely difficult cognitive and physical capability that only a tiny handful of humans could duplicate.

How much language/communication is prewired in animals? Who knows? We're studying that and learning more all the time. How much language/communication is prewired in humans? We're studying that and learning more all the time.

But I guarantee you that playing dolphin clicks/buzzes/noises -- aspects of their language -- for human infants instead of any human speech, will not enable them to recreate those same sounds, and it will leave them severely mentally retarded in the process. If the lack of human language goes on past just a few years, the human cannot ever learn to use language/grammar correctly. This has been shown again and again in all the feral children studies.

Which leads to the conclusion that humans have evolved with the predisposition and requirement for humanistic communication, verbal and non-verbal. It is equally obvious that other animals have also evolved in a similar fashion. We have just been fortunate enough to develop an opposable thumb to aid in fine tool use for writing.

Do the Aborigines know about structured grammar, science, propositional meta-linguistics? No. Yet they clearly communicate with each other, and if given formal education they are as capable as anyone else.

There have been studies of human babies who were never touched (except to change their diapers and insert bottles of food) or spoken to. Unsurprisingly they either died outright, or were severely mentally/emotionally handicapped.

Deaf and/or blind parents (or parents of deaf and/or blind infants) are particularly at risk of not providing enough human communication contact for their children to prevent mental/emotional/communication problems.

All of which only shows that humans are geared from birth, by predisposition and parenting, to regard only human communication as communication. It takes extreme efforts to bypass this natural prejudice.

46. Six 'uniquely' human traits now found in animals

Comment #185223 by gr8hands on May 27, 2008 at 8:19 am

MPhil, you supply another couple of long-winded posts without admitting the very obvious that currently researchers do not understand the language of any other species besides humans.

Therefore, all extrapolation of cognitive capability is pure speculation based solely on external behavior interpreted through the lens of what humans consider communication.

I notice you ignored the scenario wherein you were the subject of evaluation and would fail to demonstrate intelligence or cognitive capabilities. Or the mountaintop guru scenario. Both of which show the folly of your so-called evidence.

It is all predicated on the "what humans believe to be cognition" prejudice. There are species that appear to communicate by pheremones -- clearly that is totally foreign to humans, so it is highly unlikely we would be able to determine what concepts are possible to convey.

It is only parsimony when you ignore the possibility of answers beyond your experience or ken. Occam's Razor uses the phrase "tends to be" because it is not an absolute. I hope you're aware of that.

At least you admit "They warrant ascription only of the cognitive capacity they test for, obviously." But you appear to choose to ignore the obvious -- that you cannot possibly design a test of another being's comprehension of their own native-language-based cognition without comprehending/translating their native language.

Even working with humans, archeologists can't tell if wall drawings were ceremonial, fictional literature, historical documents, merely decorative, or some other unknown function!

MPhil, I'm not trying to say that animals have the same complexity of cognition in all areas that humans do. I am only pointing out that your statements that animals don't, is only supported by faulty, prejudiced, humanocentric test results.

I am pointing out that without understanding their language, there is no logical way you can prove what they do or do not know or understand. You're just making guesses based on behavior. It's as valid as telling me that everyone attending church, mouthing the prayers, singing the psalms, paying tithes and doing all the rituals is a devout believer -- we know there are many atheists and agnostics who do all of those behaviors.

Observation does not tell you what someone thinks, only what they do. Sleep walkers - no conscious thoughts, but certainly behaviors. Dogs moving their legs while asleep - no one can say what they're experiencing with any real validity.

There are people who are gay, who end up dying never having had any same-sex experiences, having been married to women, fathering children, etc. But inside their own minds, they are gay. They fantasize about gay sex. They dream about gay sex. But if they never physically do anything about it, no one would be able to know.

Repeat: Observation does not tell you what someone thinks, only what they do. For observation to even partially work, you have to have all the relevant societal or cultural understandings (Why did that person touch their chin and forehead?), but certainly a knowledge of their language is imperative for any real understanding.

I suggest you look up the work of Karen Landahl, PhD, a linguistics expert I knew (and am working with the manuscript of her last book she died while writing -- yes, I am a trained linguist, so I am well aware of your errors concerning grammar and language) and her language research lab.

I suggest you look up the language research showing different dialects from pod to pod of dolphins (you do know that their mode of communication allows them to see through objects? Which gives them a view of their environment we can't even really conceive because it's extremely foreign to us, and quite superior to our vision, hearing and tactile capability?).

I suggest you read The Blind Watchmaker where Dawkins discusses bat's echolocation capability to determine surface textures. Dawkins readily admits there is no way to know what a bat actually perceives -- it's just too foreign to humans, and we can't ask them (at this time).

All "the actual experiments have shown" is that a lot of guesswork is being made because the researchers don't understand the language of the animals they're studying. It is "bad science" to conclude, on this basis, much of anything about animal cognition.

47. Six 'uniquely' human traits now found in animals

Comment #184847 by gr8hands on May 26, 2008 at 9:39 am

Sorry, MPhil, but you need to look up "ad hominem" because you are confused about what it means.

You claimed that animals do not "think about thinking" when there is no possible way you can know that -- without actually being able to communicate with them about the concept.

If you have evidence to support that extraordinary claim (that only humans think about thinking), I know a few hundred researchers who would be glad to know of it.

All your discussion about language/grammar/etc. is based on the presumption of the human concept of language/grammar. It is arrogant to think that it would or should apply to any other species. More simply put, because you don't understand the communication of any other animal, then it must mean that they aren't using grammar or anything else.

Without knowing what animals are communicating to each other (and we've only very recently discovered that elephants communicate in subsonics that humans can't even detect without special equipment), we can't tell if they're having philosophical discussions, religious discussions, or any other kind of discussions.

You are also arrogant to believe that such communication would be obvious to scientists. There was a woman in Washington state who was in a mental institution for 60 years -- because she was grunting like an animal, incoherent, raving as a lunatic. It was only after 60 years that someone visiting a relative heard her and recognized an obscure language. The woman had been institutionalized because no one recognized that she was speaking a foreign language. They locked her up because not one doctor, nurse or researcher thought she was speaking a human language. This was in the last 20 years!

We know a number of animals show obvious signs of grieving over the death of their members. It isn't "emotionally charged" (I think you like to inappropriately use that as a dismissive statement) to say that.

You are also still confused about "straw man".

Your comments about language and grammar show an astounding lack of education about the topic -- but, again, you'll twist that into an accusation of an ad hominem attack (the repeated improper use of words/phrases supports my "ignorance" description).

Pretty much the rest of what you wrote can be summed up as the "because I said so" argument, which is supportive of my "poor science" description.

If you were to take a cognitive test given in a language you do not understand, where the instructions were complex and completely foreign to you, you would fail. You would be labeled as having only rudimentary intelligence. You would be labeled as not having meta-linguistic capabilities, or demonstrating grammar, etc. I hope you can see how that would be erroneous.

If you were to observe the proverbial wise man sitting on the mountaintop, you would not see tool use, or technology, or science, or theatre, or art, or music -- but none of this would tell you the truth about that person's capabilities. Surely this is instructive and germane.

You are confused about cognitively incapable and physically incapable -- a dolphin may not have the hands to write literature, but you cannot prove that they do not have the cognitive capability to learn a written language -- in fact, there is tons of evidence that they do understand written symbols. The problem is that we don't have a way to translate from their language to ours and vice versa.

As for "the cognitive tasks humans are capable of is far beyond what animals can do" there are cognitive tasks animals are capable of that humans are not -- as one example, try navigating thousands of miles to a place you've only been once without any technology or understanding of astronomy.

A point of order is that you started the name calling, so "your conduct in this exchange however has been less than admirable" while mine has been explained several times. Pointing out where you have been wrong is not insulting you, even if you feel insulted by it.

Your statement "All that I'm claiming is that we cannot infer anything from the available evidence" does not match your statements that animals do not have certain capabilities -- a clear inference and conclusion.

Anyway, I have to go to a movie now.

48. Six 'uniquely' human traits now found in animals

Comment #184482 by gr8hands on May 25, 2008 at 1:14 pm

MPhil, you are in error in a number of places. Here are a few:

1. My statements are not "pre-theoretical" but are in fact what the articles referenced by the New Scientist are about. Perhaps you might consider reading them prior to commenting on them.

2. Dismissing my comments as "emotionally charged" is inaccurate, puerile, and does not counter their accuracy.

3. You are clearly ignorant of the research demonstrating that a number of animals have language and grammar (elephants, dolphins, just to name two) -- this is old news.

4. You are also confused about humans and grammar -- it is not innate, but taught. Perhaps you are ignorant of the fact that feral children do not spontaneously develop grammar, and in fact if they are not re-introduced back into human society by a certain age, they are unable to develop or use human grammar correctly.

5. Your information on the prefrontal cortex is (to be kind) not entirely correct. I suggest you study it further.

6. You are clearly confusing all communication with human speech/language/writing -- again demonstrating a puffed up sense of human capability.

7. You are confused about what the results of the ape touch-screen tests convey. Surely there are more interpretations than the single one you gave. The researchers themselves gave more. Unless you didn't really read their research. The fact they do it faster than humans says significantly more than the fact they can do it at all.

8. You're confused about the capability of doing math at the level of some humans (not all humans can do more than simple arithmetic), and the capability of doing any kind of calculation at all -- which a number of animal species have demonstrated time and time again.

9. Your biggest mistake is the use of "but compared to the above" and then conclude that animals don't have it. My statements, and those of the New Scientist article, are that animals do have these capabilities, albeit in most cases quite rudimentary.

10. You need to review what a strawman is, as I have not created one. Perhaps you have my post confused with someone else's post.

11. You are very confused when you claim that animals don't "think about thinking" -- how can you possibly know that? That's like thinking blind deafmutes must not either, since they don't communicate, can't read, etc. (I think Hellen Keller had a thing or two to communicate about that.)

12. I don't doubt that you can "claim" to know what you're talking about, but the evidence shows otherwise -- which is exactly what the New Scientist article was about. Of course, you can "claim" that the article is completely wrong, which, I suppose, is what you're doing, but you'd have to do better than toss around buzzwords that you aren't using very well.

Imagine that instead of animals, you use the the example of feral children, or blind deafmutes. Would that alter your statements? Or would they apply equally, because the subjects wouldn't be able to communicate to you in a way you understood as communication, cognition, etc.?

It doesn't take much effort to see that while you have some points, they do not lead to the conclusions you've written. Your arguments are not persuasive, and clearly you are irritated to be called on it, because you've resorted to name-calling.

No, MPhil, I was not inaccurate in my last two lines, so I will not retract them. Your long-winded and erroneous reply has not changed the errors of your previous post, it has only compounded it.

I am sorry if hearing that truth has insulted you. (It's clear you are unaware of some of what I've pointed out, so that means the "ignorance" comment was accurate. Your confusion about grammar, etc. supports my comment about "poor science". Just because you're working with scientists, doesn't automatically mean you're on the right track. Failing to accept that, is another symptom of "poor science".)

Perhaps you are in the wrong line of work if you have learned so little, and arrive at such wrong conclusions -- I do not write that maliciously. Not everyone is suited to their chosen profession.

Perhaps you might show our interchange to the researchers you work with, without comment, and see what they say about it. That would also be instructive.

49. Six 'uniquely' human traits now found in animals

Comment #184346 by gr8hands on May 24, 2008 at 5:59 pm

MPhil, I would say that you appear to have very little experience on a day-to-day basis with animals, based on the erroneous statements you're making.

Clearly animals analyze their situations, make predictions about the future consciously and integrate memory. They have a society, morality and culture (the main point of the article).

While not as developed in some aspects as most humans, I would say that the empathy of any household dog is substantially higher than the empathy of president bush for the dying soldiers and civilians, for those poor people who actually suffer because of his policies, etc. bush, his mother, cheney, and many others come to mind immediately -- not as a political statement, but a statement of factual observation.

By writing "deception in animals is cunning" you've just chosen to use a dismissive word to describe their capabilities so you can ignore how similar they actually are to human capabilities.

We've seen examples of primates who don't know how to swim jump into the water to save another creature from a different species -- and drown in the effort. That altruism exceeds those humans who stand by watching someone drown and do nothing , even if they know how to swim!

No, I would have to say that you are choosing to ignore the obvious, either out of ignorance (and I would suggest you get a rescue dog, which would be instructive), or poor science, or a puffed up sense of humanity's importance.

50. The Faith of Flanders

Comment #184340 by gr8hands on May 24, 2008 at 5:39 pm

Don_Quix, don't forget that The Simpsons actually started years earlier on The Tracey Ullman Show.