1. Dole Ad Fabricates Audio Of Opponent Yelling 'There Is No God'

Comment #275703 by Upgrade01A on October 31, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Guess I misunderstood. I took Dole's claim that her opponent was godless to be a positive statement about her. I think that is why her opponent is taking the lead. ;)

2. Richard Dawkins at Conservative Party Conference 2008

Comment #264476 by Upgrade01A on October 14, 2008 at 1:26 pm

In as much as Government is based on Authoritarian doctrine, we should perhaps do as much as possible to limit "The Government Delusion" with as much vigor as "The God Delusion". At least the Authoritarian God of Abraham does not actually exist and does not actual exercise his/her/its power.

Should we consider alternatives to Government? At least to the extent that Government is a monopoly on power, ultimately backed by the force of the gun and by violence. We should at least acknowledge what is really going on when we ask the government to redistribute wealth or to create victimless crimes or to go to war. We should at least realize that the government does not produce anything - it only redistributes and holds a monopoly on legal force.

Is it not the case that those in power actually are receiving more power than they otherwise would have if left in the private market place? It seems that in reality that those in power are actually in the pockets of those who have the most power in private, and thus only magnify what power they already have. It is not all that different than the power that is generated through organized religion, with the exception that organized religion is the result of mostly voluntary actions - at least the way it is practiced in Western Democracies.

Perhaps we should limit government to protect our life, our liberty and our pursuit of happiness?

3. Bill Maher's Religulous Opens Today

Comment #261185 by Upgrade01A on October 6, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Very funny movie! It made it into the top ten in box office numbers too.

10.Religulous: $3,500,000 October 3 - 5, 2008 estimates (opening weekend). I think it only opened in 500 theaters.

FYI - Expelled: $7,690,545 total lifetime gross,
Opening Weekend: $2,970,848.

4. Closest Look Ever At Edge Of A Black Hole

Comment #243895 by Upgrade01A on September 7, 2008 at 5:31 pm

You will not see any black holes from the Hadron collider. If theoretical black holes emerge, which is doubtful, they will be subatomic in size, disappear almost instantly, and not produce enough energy to light up a flash light.

The earth receives cosmic rays from deep space every day. Some of these rays far exceed the energy to be produces at CERN.

5. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242939 by Upgrade01A on September 4, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Faith is not necessarily a bad thing. Reason only takes us so far and then faith takes over and this is well known by anybody who has taken even an Intro to Philosophy course.

Ah, ok. If they teach it in an Intro to Philosophy course, then it must be true.

It depends on what you mean. Which definition. What I am talking about is the glorification of belief without evidence. As in the belief in a magical man with an invisible gray beard who lives in the sky and answers your prayers.

The informal sort of faith as in "trust," "belief," or "hope" - well that is different. My "trust' or "belief" in my family and dear friends is evidence-based. The evidence is not necesarily empirical, repeatable or based on a falsifiable rigorous hypothesis, but there is the kind of evidence one can see in another's eyes and on their past actions. Subtle hints that us social animals have evolved to pick up on.

One can have "hope" or have optimism for a better tomorrow. - as in "having faith in the future". This kind of "faith" is very different than "I have faith that Thor will bring thunder down upon our enemy."

6. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242877 by Upgrade01A on September 4, 2008 at 4:31 pm

931. Comment #242875 by Yahonatan on September 4, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Obama's views are clearly different than Palin's. They both call themselves Christians, but Obama takes up a much more rational (less fundamentalist) view. Listen to this video and compare the two:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odsDYodanxQ

More rational religious views, or at least more skillful at hand waving, but his economics are based on belief in magical powers. ... but then the actions of most republican politicians are fundamentally no different in practice.

He does say "I have faith .... blah blah blah ..."
Still glorifies belief without evidence. I agree he is much less scary sounding then Palin on religion.

Well intended and well meaning regulations and bad economic decisions kill people too. For example, rewarding people for setting up homes in dangerous places or bailing out those involved with bad loans at the expense of the rest of us.

Another example is the security policy. Every time the airports raise the security level to "orange", leads to more people driving to their vacation spots instead of flying. Driving is 30-40 times more dangerous per mile than flying. At least 3000 additional lives have been lost since 9/11 due to this alone.

Not being so wacky about religious beliefs is no guarantee that the laws that get voted on will leave us any better off. You kind of have to choose your poison I guess.

7. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242870 by Upgrade01A on September 4, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Comment #242474 by torgosPizza on September 3, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Upgrade01 - I'm not sure what you're talking about. But it sounds like you haven't been paying much attention.

Both parties, regardless of what they say vote for record spending well beyond the revenue collected. They all make wacky statements about God and country in every speech. Both parties are avid Keynesians in practice if not in their speeches. I am paying very close to their actions. Both parties have violent, interventionist policies that ends up killing more innocent lives. I am paying attention to the fact that the United States has a military presents in over 130 countries and we have an embassy larger than the Vatican in Iraq.

I certainly do not trust the judgment of a person who believes in the rapture and that the earth is only 6000 years old. I worry about politicians who take the bible literally and how that translates into foreign policy in the middle east.

However saying that we should spend the money at home with more socialist programs, using paper money, not backed by anything is pretty scary stuff too.

Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum were two characters in the Alice in Wonderland story who made little sense and it is common to compare the rhetoric of politicians those fictional twins. See: "metaphor" ;)

hope that cleared up your confusion.

8. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242468 by Upgrade01A on September 3, 2008 at 8:00 pm

once again we have tweedle dee vs. tweedle dum.
Do you want more government or MORE government. Both parties continue to vote for MORE government. Let's elect a president who wants to legalize freedom. Free market the market places of ideas as well as economics. Taxes make little difference with a FED that prints up trillions of dollars. Get out of the war, our bedrooms, and our brains. I took 13.7 billion years to get here and I have a right to my life, my liberty, and my pursuit of happiness. I have over a trillion cells on my side and we will live our lives our own way without interfering in other self-aware, rational super-organisms... I will choose to spend my earnings and my life the way I see fit - not the way Kennedy, Obama, Bush, or McCain see fit. Government is backed by force and mob rule. It should be used to protect our fundamental rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness regardless of the internal world view of our leaders.

9. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232029 by Upgrade01A on August 17, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Richard is getting so polished with this lecture. It is fun to watch and listen to the variations and mutations of his talks on this tour. Reminds me of Bob Dylan's variations on his song "Desolation Row" in a very weird sort of way ... I am not sure why that is - don't worry about it. Never mind.

10. Vicar supports Life of Brian ban

Comment #222399 by Upgrade01A on July 31, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Somebody please make a movie making fun of my wife, or me, or my dog, or my daughter! That would be way cool. Zombie movies are making fun of Jesus too- are they banned? One of the core claims of Christians was that Jesus was a zombie and he could make other zombies when he felt like it.

11. Daniel Dennett: Autobiography (Part 1)

Comment #220382 by Upgrade01A on July 28, 2008 at 11:41 am

Nice Autobiography Daniel! Interesting stuff.

I have enjoyed a few of Daniel Dennett's books and liked his talks on TED, YouTube, and the Four Horsemen here at this sight. I do not always agree with him, but he always makes me think.

A couple of his books that I really enjoyed are:

"Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" - it is a little long and dry at times, but well worth the read.

"Freedom Evolves" - I read this one pretty much straight through over just a few visits to my local coffee shop - very interesting approach to the concept of freedom and what is important about it. However, I am still convinced that philosophical free will is an illusion, and I think Dennett's view is really talking about something different than free will... read it and see for yourself. I wonder how much he sees I to I with Douglas Hofstadter's GEB, and "I am a Strange Loop" books. I wish Douglas would put his two cent's worth in on Atheism as well.

http://upgrade01a.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/the-free-will-machine/

12. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210356 by Upgrade01A on July 14, 2008 at 10:30 am

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html

Susan Blackmore at TED on Memes and Temes. :-)

Upgrade01A, what did you have for a drink? Fractals on ice with Fibonacci's numbers?
Should I want the same? :-)

Hyperbolically speaking? Yesh! It all depends how you look at "it". Some people examine "it" and understand recursion, while others think only of scary clowns. Sorry if I repeat myself, but I am feeling loopy today. Guess it is time for a break statement.

13. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210342 by Upgrade01A on July 14, 2008 at 9:44 am

Nice post, MG. That last sentence was gold.

What? You cannot tell the difference between a sentence and gold?

Sentences are sometimes used as units of mememic exchange. Gold is sometimes used as a standard for monetary exchange.

Gold (Au) is an element with atomic number of 79 (a non-twin prime number!), with a melting point of 1064.18 °C.

Although some groups of sentences may lead to a heated debate, a sentence, has no mass and therefore travels at the speed of C. This is paradoxical, because sentences are known to change their form over time, and only particles with mass can do that (that is why we know neutrinos have mass). Therefore, a sentence has negative mass, travels faster than light and travels back in time. Evidence supports this, because one can find many sentences trapped in books written hundreds or even thousands of years ago.

Like neutrinos, sentences may travel through your head without notice. They both have weak interaction with ordinary matter. Sometimes sentences allegedly interact with gray matter, but evidence for this is purely subjective and anecdotal. Gray matter is extremely rare is not to be confused with dark matter - a completely different matter believed to account for 25% of the mass of the Universe - a very big place. Gray matter is known to distort information, leading to information loss over time.

For more information and other non-related massless sentences, please visit:

http://upgrade01a.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/telepathy-verses-cell-phones/

On Dennett:

http://upgrade01a.wordpress.com/2007/06/09/tedtalks-dan-dennett-february-2006

Note: some of the youtube links are no longer available - just scroll down and you will find several videos there that are available still.

14. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #209993 by Upgrade01A on July 13, 2008 at 5:48 pm

Go to www.ted.com join up! or search on "Dawkins", "Pinker", "Dennett" ... you will not be disappointed. Dennett has a couple of talks. One of my favorite sites. Lots of info on the brain, technology, some nice music as well. The video quality is much better than here or youTube.

15. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #209177 by Upgrade01A on July 11, 2008 at 6:45 pm

I am an atheist, but it does not seem strange to me that once the concept of a theist god is accepted - Like the God of Abraham - a creature who can do pretty much everything, including the paradoxical; would not have any problem doing the kinds of miracles that John Lennox claims to believe. I do not understand how that increases the craziness or kookiness of the believer.

Someone else mentioned that the brain is a very complex machine. I agree. There are plenty of very bright people who believe all kinds of weird things. Is that not what is expected in a world of causal chains - that there will be all kinds of strange beliefs, misconceptions and delusions? The only area we should expect consistency in is in the ability of the majority to reproduce and pass on their genes.

Believing the world is only 6000 years old or believing that the son of God was resurrected does not appear to stop people from eating, breathing, providing shelter, figuring out where food is, and reproducing.

As a reductionist materialist atheist, I would be surprised if it were otherwise. Our brains are computers made out of meat. We ultimately cannot help but be who we are. We are highly sophisticated robots programed by natural selection. Enjoy your good fortune!

I have not researched the following, but for all I know, John Lennox may see eye to eye politically more than Richard Dawkins and I, although I am certain that I agree more with Dawkins on the relatively unimportant god question... I too am a 6 on the Dawkins scale of 1-7. I really enjoyed all of Dawkins books and never read or heard of Lennox until I listened to the conversation.

16. The Boundaries of Belief

Comment #207201 by Upgrade01A on July 9, 2008 at 10:10 am

Harris said:

"Granted, it is not clear what the phrase "personal God" might mean to men and women who have wandered so far from the plain meaning of words, but we can only assume that they believe in a God of the sort that 71% of Americans worship: a deity who can hear earnest and blameless prayers�"as for the remission of childhood cancer�"and fail to answer them, while granting those of far lesser gravity nearly every day (I rely upon the reader to insert here the most mortifying expression of religious awe ever uttered at the Grammy Awards). "

I think it is misguided to say "we can only assume" A "personal god" could mean many things. One might say "I believe I am my own god... my own personal god". or "I believe that many people have a personal god that they believe in and do not realize that is their "right" brain, or a "critic" resource in the brain - therefore I believe in a personal god."

Or - "I believe this and all surveys suck, so I will put "yes" for the "personal god" question"

Some people change their mind from time-to-time. On a bad day some may try prayer and for a percentage - it may actually appear to work. On another day, they may return to not believing in a theist god.

17. The Boundaries of Belief

Comment #207192 by Upgrade01A on July 9, 2008 at 9:37 am

We only have to be consistent with the laws of physics. People are more like tornadoes than rocks. We are more like a "process" than a "thing".

No person is self-consistent in a logical sense throughout their lifetime. We are a product of our genes and memes, not our logic. Further: it cannot be helped. If you are among the group of people who are logical, successful, intelligent, ... then you are extremely lucky. You were born at the right time to the right parents, exposed to the right set of inputs in the right environment. If you are an atheist, and always consistent at all times, it is purely by accident.

All of your thoughts and beliefs are based on previous causes. 99.9% of your thoughts are processed subconsciously. Your conscious resources in your brain consist of at least 400 separate processes that are a product of evolution and natural selection. The "I" inside of you is smeared out over several parts of your brain and you have nothing to do with that. You cannot help who you are.

If all of this is true, then we would expect to see a world exactly as we do today. Many people with many different beliefs - and many crazy concepts.

The brain only has to be good enough to keep you from running into walls and to replicate your genes. Christians and atheists can both do that. They are both consistent with the laws of nature.

Logic is a good tool to model different situations so that useful tools can be made. Believing the world is 6000 years old or 13.7 billion years old does not effect ones ability to hold a job, buy a home, raise children. Life forms are very robust machines in this regard.

Spending a great deal of time thinking about how stupid other people are is a waste of resources. Only a tiny fraction of people commit violent acts based on faith. A lot more commit violent acts for monetary or strategic gain - mostly governments and organized criminals are in control of this. Peoples actions are much more important than their thoughts or beliefs.

The chart above showing "Liberal" vs. "Conservative" is kind of silly. Some people consider themselves to be "libertarian" - a belief that is neither "conservative" or "liberal" or "somewhat" either. Hitchens is an atheist and many would consider him to be very conservative - yet the chart shows 0 atheists at that scale....

I would rather have a government run by a christian libertarian than an atheist who believes in redistribution of wealth through taxation (force of a gun)... and I happen to be an atheist.

18. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207181 by Upgrade01A on July 9, 2008 at 9:20 am

robotaholic - go look up the word "faith" in the dictionary if you do not believe me.
There are multiple meanings. Evidence and faith are not mutually exclusive terms in all contexts. Lennox clearly states that he is using the term faith in a context that permits evidence.

No one is redefining any words. Multiple definitions of the word "faith" have existed for a very long time.

19. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206637 by Upgrade01A on July 8, 2008 at 3:37 pm

robotaholic - Bertrand Russell was clearly using the term "faith" in a different context than Lennox was using in his conversation - Russell was clearly referring to the definition: "belief in absence of evidence." That is clear, since Lennox is claiming to have evidence, he must be referring to the definition that I pointed to earlier. Whether or not evidence was or was not adequately provided is a different matter.

Quoting a famous person's remarks in the way that you are now doing is known as "Appeal to Authority" - A logical fallacy.

20. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206511 by Upgrade01A on July 8, 2008 at 12:32 pm

robotaholic - you missed the context on how "faith" is applied. Faith and evidence are not mutually exclusive in the context of what Lennox was using it.

"Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."

One can gain confidence when one has evidence. A perfectly acceptable use of the term.

As in: "I have faith that my wife loves me, based on her actions..."

That is one reason the phrase "blind faith" was invented and is necessary. Blind faith zeros in on the kind of faith that is NOT based on evidence.

The problem is we all do not know the meaning ... now you should belong to the set of people with a more clear understanding.

Similarly, the term "religion" can mean:
"something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. "

Or the use of the word "agnostic" is often used to say one is unbiased on any topic.

Language evolves and can be confusing, but if one pays close attention to the context and spirit in which it is given, then the meanings can be more apparent. If one comes into a conversation, with an antagonistic attitude, then it is easy to fall into the trap of misunderstanding.

Just one more -- an "atheist" is literally a person without belief in a theistic god - such as the god of Abraham; however it as since evolved to include all gods by many atheists. It is usually best to get a clarification. For example one could believe in a deist god, believe in astrology, or have many other beliefs and technically be considered atheist. I have met many in my lifetime to realize that this is the case - it is best to get a clarification.

"libertarian" is another term that many claim with very widespread differences when you get down to the details.

21. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206353 by Upgrade01A on July 8, 2008 at 9:49 am

I enjoyed listening. Thank you for providing this conversation.

One point that should be picked up on is that the word "faith", like almost every word uttered by humans, has more than one meaning. I am not sure why Richard Dawkins seems to have a problem with that particular word.

Here are just a few:

faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Not misleading really. The context is usually quite clear.

I recommend: "Language, the Stuff of Thought", by Steven Pinker.

Another point was that it was a "conversation" the two were having, not a "debate".

22. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #136272 by Upgrade01A on February 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm

The God of Abraham is one of the most authoritarian gods ever invented. I live my life, I pursue my happiness, I avoid authoritarians whenever possible... reminds me I gotta do my taxes this weekend.

Is it really moral to do evil up until the last minute of your life, as long as you believe Jesus is Lord and Savior?

Is it true of false that Mohammed had a wife 'Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr - married at six year's old, but he waited 'till she was 9 to do the deed? Or is that just right-winged, Christian propaganda? Either way, does not look so good for one or the other religion.

Apparently the God of Abraham did it with Mary when she wasn't looking, using some sort of tiny holy ghost-ish type sperm (or something), and she would have been 12 or 13. God likes 'em young I suppose. I guess it makes sense that Jesus would be blond with blue eyes...His genes would dominate. No? Maybe I should not believe everything I see in paintings.

Legalize Freedom!

23. Belief in Belief

Comment #120974 by Upgrade01A on February 2, 2008 at 8:28 pm

Biblebeltheretic on January 29, 2008 at 2:55 am
Upgrade01A

"I do not believe most religious people perceive their beliefs in anyway close to what is often depicted by Hichins, Dawkins, or Harris. Some of them do."

It's quite clear you have never spent time in the Bible belt!!

Is it quite clear? Then I was wrong about the population there? I never realized that most religious people in the world lived in the Bible Belt. Had I spent more time there I would have been amazed by the gigantic cities that must be there to accommodate such a huge population of well over 2 billion people...No way! I think you are just fooling with me.

Of course what you did was to strip the spirit and the context away from my comments, so I suppose doing the same back in a fun sort of way is fair.

24. Belief in Belief

Comment #120467 by Upgrade01A on February 1, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Comment #120446 by Upgrade01A
Comment #120455 by Radesq
I agree with most of what you say, but I think military intervention in Darfur is sufficiently in our national interest in as much as stopping the genocide there will help this country regain some of its international goodwill. Apart from the fact that failing to stop such an awful fight when it is within our power to do so is shameful in my view.

I believe that is the role of charitable organizations, that an invasion by military forces would be a mistake. However, if Congress made a Declaration of War after being asked for it by the Commander and Chief, and was strictly focused against those involved in the genocide, then that would be the proper means of achieving your goal.

Darfur is not a threat to the United States, so I doubt that any Commander and Chief, whoever that turns out to be after the next election will ask Congress to go to war there.

I think private, humanitarian aide is the far better approach since it is within our means to do so. In addition, if the locals need weapons to defend themselves, then those with the funds should get together and purchase as many as it takes. Those who feel very strongly about this should find a way to get over there and participate.

Darfur would be a good place to start practicing some new paradigms to replace the ancient, failed art of war. People will be suprised at what they can achieve if they really truly feel as strongly as you do about this.

There are other approaches to stopping awful fights without adding to the fighting - the Nation State is a big, clumsy authoritarian beast with no head. A more dynamic approach is preferred.

Military intervention will likely end up with the exact opposite of its intended effects in my view.

25. Belief in Belief

Comment #120446 by Upgrade01A on February 1, 2008 at 4:44 pm

The role of the Federal government is to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens. If other countries are not following that line, then it is up to others to help out as best they can. Charity, however is a voluntary concept. Taxation is not.

Surely the role of government is whatever the majority of people in a democratic country want it to be.

The United States Declaration of Independence declares:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That says "all men". They all have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. This is (in most parts) a wonderful and revolutionary document because it expresses the idea of the universality of human rights.

I would have hoped that this idea of universal rights would have been a major influence on foreign policy.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, but the Constitution is. That aside - it indeed says all men. I agree (all mankind). That includes those the liberty of those who would have their liberty (property) taken away from them to pay for a bad way to solve a problem. It includes the innocent lives caught in the middle of the bad paradigm of war - which does not work well. Invading and occupying other countries does not fix the problem.

The Federal Government of the United States was set up to protect the lives, property, liberty (pursuit of happiness) of its citizens. We pay for its services. What you imply is outside of the scope of its mandate. It is not part of its contract. The government is given a monopoly on force to protect its own people - those who funded it.

I am not proposing to stop any citizen from voluntarily going over to another country to fight for a cause. Again, war is a bad paradigm, even for if it is funded and fought with completely voluntary means. There are almost always, if not always better approaches.

We have ammendments to the constitution to protect the tyranny of the mob rule of the majority. The Germans did not have a strong constitution in their country when Hitler came to power. What you are stating is that surely the majority have a right to trample on the rights of the minority.

I do not agree that war is the answer. I have to contribute funds to pay for the services of the US Government by force. I think invading another country is immoral and tramples on those very rights you mention.

Of course, now we have strayed way off topic ...

26. Belief in Belief

Comment #120427 by Upgrade01A on February 1, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Do not invade countries that are of no threat to the United States.

Not even as part of a UN force attempting to stop genocide?

If you personally feel strongly about it, I would not try to stop you personally from joining in an invasion or using private funds to do so. Just so long as you do not extort funds from me to pay for it and you do not kill innocent people. If you kill innocent people, then you are not being much help to those individuals.

I may even contribute funds that I have saved with having paid less taxes (see the rest of the comment that was not included with the out-of-context bit that was cut and pasted - for details). Would need to feel confident that those who command an invasion or some alternative know what they are doing and will not be negligent in their actions.

The role of the Federal government is to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens. If other countries are not following that line, then it is up to others to help out as best they can. Charity, however is a voluntary concept. Taxation is not.

Genocide is horrific, but the war paradigm has not proved itself as a solution in this area. There are so many unintended consequences. For example, a political vacuum is created and a new dictator moves in. Additional innocent lives are lost from collateral damage, and so on. I have proposed several alternatives. It is time to re-think all of this and look toward more innovative solutions. Usually genocidal maniacs have enemies within the country. Sometimes they have wives or lovers who are not exactly satisfied with their lives. Consider funneling money into strategic parts or clever people within the country that is under attack from within, rather than invading it. There are all sorts of alternative courses of action that could be taken to resolve the issues. Most civilians love free trade and free exchange of ideas. Others are good at placing small explosives inside of genocidal authoritarian dictator's limousines - given the right incentives. I am sure I have not provided the optimal solution for any specific case - this is all purely hypothetical. All I am saying is that a tyrant's life can be made to be a very unpleasant experience. Most of the countries where tyrants rule are not very wealthy.

I believe others, more clever than I could solve issues of tyrants better than me without introducing any loss of life, outside of what is absolutely necessary. As technology improves, I would expect that the solutions would become much cleaner still.

27. Belief in Belief

Comment #120333 by Upgrade01A on February 1, 2008 at 1:35 pm

walk on February 1, 2008 at 11:31 am
avatarUpgrade01A,

Thanks for the answer.

I'm still kind of curious as to what you mean when you mentioned the "optimal solution". The Islamic extremists have declared war on all the people of the west. They promise to convert, enslave, or kill us. They're teaching the next generation to hate all in the west. They hate us simply because we're "not Muslim". It seems that they are not willing to negotiate. How do you suggest we put a stop to this without violence?

By all means, go after anyone who has committed a violent crime against other individuals. Go after them like the criminals they are - use similar techniques that would be used to go after any organized gang. For example, similar to how we would go after the Mafia or Pirates. Avoid innocent bystanders, and be sure to look for them in the countries where we know or have good reason to believe they are hiding out.

Meanwhile, stop invading and occupying entire countries - especially those in regions that have nothing to do with the crimes that were committed. Occupying territory that does not belong to you tends to upset the locals.

Stop carving up countries and setting up puppet regimes for the interest of a few limited liability corporations so that they can pump oil and reap the benefits at the owner's expense, thereby artificially creating lower prices and discouraging research into alternative fuels.

Consider the following:

Suppose a small gang of bank robbers from Germany entered the United States, robbed 2 banks in NY City, killing 100 people in the process, and fled in airplanes to England. Authorities investigate the matter and find out that their leader is hiding out in the Philippines. Should the authorities now bomb Paris, France in hopes that they can attract the world's most powerful bank robbing gangs there to fight back? If we did such a thing do you suppose the extreme people of France might start hating us instead and declare war on the United States? Do you think the gang that did the robbing will now move to France and start robbing there? Even if they did, is this fair to the people living in and around Paris?

The above sounds crazy and would never be done, but it is not very much different from what we are now doing in Iraq. On top of that the United States and England are the very countries that set up the problems in the Middle East to begin with.

The current policy has achieved the following results:

1) increased terrorist organizations throughout the world.
2) increased the size of the federal government in the united states through the creation of yet another bureaucracy TSA - Thousands Standing Around.
3) decreased American freedom and world freedom
4) increased the power of the executive branch to dangerous levels approaching king-like powers.
5) decreased security in the United States making us more vulnerable than ever to attack.
6) created a deficit that is the greatest in history.
7) used up huge amounts of oil to support the military industrial complex, move aircraft carriers, tanks etcetera, so that they are using up nearly as much as they are getting back from stealing it. We could have bought it already instead of imposing sanctions that lead to the hunger and bad-health of the Iraq people. Sadam was one of the puppets we imposed in the first place. Then before that, there was the Shaw of Iran. In addition, we give 3 times more aide to the Saudis than we give to Israel. Both countries are supported by a form of extortion known as taxation - money that could have instead been retained by the American people to invest in innovative new ideas through free trade and voluntary cooperation.

We are merely adding more fuel to the fire and helping the extremest we all want to get rid of. We are creating more crazies by our foreign policy.

The best way to reverse this trend is to stop worrying about religion so much and start thinking about more innovative ways to stop crazy authoritarians on both sides.

How about this novel idea: Require that the executive branch follows the Constitution of the United States. Require a Formal Declaration of War before attacking another nation. Do not invade countries that are of no threat to the United States. Use free trade as a means of improving our economy and the economies of the world. Dramatically cut taxes and leave the money in the productive people who created the wealth to begin with. Eliminate laws that give group rights to people - this means removing limited liability to corporations (and unions - but they are simply a reaction to the corporations exemption from the same laws that ordinary individuals must obey). Legalize freedom. Allow people to live their own lives and think their own thoughts without artificially introducing authoritarian laws and artificial crimes. In other words, go after true criminals who actually take other's property, commit fraud, rape, steel, or murder. Reduce pollution by restoring property rights, increased privatization, and permitting direct law suits against polluters on your land - as opposed to the legalized pollution levels granted by the authority of the EPA - a group that very effectively has legalized pollution and dictated the levels that you must tolerate on your own property.

Stop worrying about Mother Teresa. Go after the authoritarians. They come in all colors, religions and from all world views. Religion is bad, but authoritarians are dangerous, regardless of what they believe. I would rather be neighbors with a pacifist religious nut who believes the world was created by a magical being who lives in the sky, then a rational authoritarian atheist scientist who believes in bombing innocent people, at tax payers expense, in order to protect his own ass and oil. Of course, ideally, I would rather that the pacifist neighbor were also a good looking and friendly atheist who enjoys Mozart, Dylan, Richard Dawkins, Pink Floyd, Bach, Frank Herbert, Steven Pinker, Victor J. Stenger, and Stephen Hawking - but that does not happen so often. Life does not work that way.

28. Belief in Belief

Comment #120128 by Upgrade01A on February 1, 2008 at 9:30 am

Belief in belief and misguided religious belief is bad, but it is not as bad as forcing others to do what you think is best for them at the point of a gun. Christopher Hitchens supports a war effort that does just that. In two ways: (1) Federal Income tax takes money from net tax providers (productive people) and transfers that wealth to non-productive, violent people (military industrial complex). (2) Supports an outmoded and foolish paradigm designed in the ancient past to stop enemies - called war. A belief system far more irrational and hurtful to innocent lives than religion. They often do go hand in hand. It is at its worst when it is waged against people who never attacked us and who never had the means to do so. A far superior paradigm is the concept of criminal justice. Violent criminals are pursued in a much more efficient manner with little or no collateral damage done. Combine this concept with voluntary, free and open trade of goods, services, ideas, and charity. Where Mother Teresa used words and text to persuade others to follow her, Mr. Hitchen and other followers of the insane, and irrational foreign policy that has inevitably led to death and destruction of the innocent, reduced the freedom and security of the Americans and others throughout the world. Our unconstitutional and immoral foreign policy breeds far more terrorism and destruction of free thinking, and free trade and the free market of ideas and liberty, than all of the religions combined (although the authoritarians on all sides of war use religion to brain wash their young into fighting and dieing for the benefit of those who profit from it).

29. Belief in Belief

Comment #120058 by Upgrade01A on February 1, 2008 at 8:16 am

walk:

Upgrade01A (17.) I think that especially Hitchins misunderstands foreign policy, the cause of 9/11, and the optimal solution.

Perhaps you could enlighten us.

Sure: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard95.html http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/national-defense/ http://upgrade01a.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/foreign-policy-and-homer/ That will get you started. A point that you stripped out of my comments is that there is a wide spectrum of political beliefs and those are far more important than religious. It is how people behave - especially authoritarians that is far more important than what a person's religion is or is not. Hitchens advocates the paradigm of war which inevitably leads to the death of many innocent people. Now more than Bin Laden caused (over 3000 innocent). Normally, when there is a murderous criminal loose, the authorities are expected to pursue him and his cohorts. Instead, they go after different groups of people who had nothing to do with it - and they do a bad job at that as well. In actuality, the current foreign policy has lead to death, less freedom and less security than before, when we followed the constitution, protected our borders and had free trade with all nations. The last declaration of war was by Congress when asked by President Roosevelt. That was the last real war USA won. Interesting how people claiming to be rational and logical are the same who advocate extorting money from one group and redistributing to another because they "know better". They say and claim they believe in free markets, voluntary exchanges of ideas, but their actions indicate otherwise. Meanwhile, they worry so much about others getting it all wrong about the age of the universe or whether or not it is rational to believe in an intelligent creator (or course it is not rational). It is authoritarians who are the problem - regardless of their religious leanings. People can afford to get some things wrong and still function quite well. The human machine will avoid walking into walls, find food, shelter and a mate just fine. The mind's algorithm is extremely robust in this way. What does not work well, is when bombs drop on top of you. Authorities should not be permitted to decide which random innocents get to die for their "wise foreign policy" - which by the way has failed miserably over the last 50 years. These are the dangerous people. Bad religion is important, but not as important.

30. Belief in Belief

Comment #118692 by Upgrade01A on January 30, 2008 at 9:11 pm

MPhil: I read "Freedom Evolves". I recommend looking a little closer at it. The "wiggle room" is just not there and Dennet is indirectly saying he does not really believe in free will in any traditional sense. Hofstadter does the same in his book "I am a Strange Loop". He starts out sounding very much like he believes that the "I" exists, then he slowly and very articulately makes it all vanish at the end - including free will. I enjoy both authors.

my real point is that politics matters more than religion or other silly beliefs. if there is a smidgen of free will in there somewhere, it is very slight. I like Dennet, but reading his book really sent me in the other direction on that philosophical debate on free will. Freedom is a different matter and is defined in a unique way in his books.

31. Belief in Belief

Comment #118681 by Upgrade01A on January 30, 2008 at 8:44 pm

Shuggy: Yes, of course I did! As you did and I have to write this. Our brains are made out of the same atoms as everything else in this Universe and subject to the same laws of nature. Of course, like everyone else, it sure feels like I am freely choosing, but then it really looks like that beautiful woman is really being cut in half on the stage. Both illusions are performed by keeping a lot of information hidden from view.

Zoom in and look behind the scenes - where most of our thoughts are busy "deciding". If you look closely and accurately you will see the synapses sparking commanding your finger to press the "Submit" button around 500 miliseconds prior to your conscious choice to do so. The previous statement may be a part of a cause to your decision to think about pressing the Submit button a full minute before you press the button. All of the feedback looping going on in your head while you ponder this, simply adds to the illusion.

Just as there is no god in heaven, there is no ghost in the machine. If god exists, then who made god? If there is a ghost in the machine (in your head), then how does that help you freely choose?

What really matters is this: are you an authoritarian and do you believe it is alright to cause the death of innocents in order to achieve your goal - be it to eliminate foreign presents in your country or to grab oil or spread democracy. Your stance on this: "Are you an Authoritarian or will you support other Authoritarians for your cause or do you follow the golden rule and live the life of the libertarian? These sort of issues are far more important than "Are you a Godist or do you believe in Inteligent Design?" Even if you disagree with my libertarian stance, I think the issues are of a much higher importance for the future of everyone.

I am much more concerned that Obama will increase my taxes by $450 per year or that some nut on the right will decrease my security and freedom simultaneously by their wacky foreign policy, or the new mathers who call a decrease in the acceleration of the increase of some budget X a "budget cut", than by some guy who prays to a wooden image of a revered guy on a cross with an awesome six-pack every third Sunday.

32. Belief in Belief

Comment #117445 by Upgrade01A on January 28, 2008 at 8:41 pm

Free will is an illusion. The other side cannot help what they believe any more than us non-believers cannot help our lack of belief.

Christopher Hitchens had to write what he wrote because of the state of his mind just prior to the writing which can be traced back to the books he has read, and many other environmental conditions, including his upbringing, genetic makeup, sibling and friends.

If one tries explaining how free will can possibly exist, they find themselves getting tied up into strange loops and layer of patterns looking for "wiggle room" that does not exist. Perhaps Mr. Hitchen's comments will collide with a believer in such a way as to cause them to change their mind.

We do what we want, but not what we will. One should not take one's self, nor others too seriously.

Atheists are merely lucky to have collided with logical, rational, and objective concepts - meme patterns that are not viruses of the mind. Others are not as fortunate.

On the other hand, Mr. Hitchins is confused about foreign policy, whereas Mr Ron Paul, a Christian, has a better grasp of both foreign policy and economic theory, but has no chance of winning the presidential election. JS Bach, a religious Christian, was fortunate to have collided with musical patterns far superior to either Hitchins or Paul.

Nice article overall, but I am starting to get bored with the topic, but then I do not make my living as a writer.

I do not think people's religion is as important as people's views on authoritarianism. As both a libertarian and an atheist, I place more value on a person's view on the golden rule and on taxes than I do on their mistaken belief of the age of the universe or the god of Abraham.

I do not believe most religious people perceive their beliefs in anyway close to what is often depicted by Hichins, Dawkins, or Harris. Some of them do. I think that especially Hitchins misunderstands foreign policy, the cause of 9/11, and the optimal solution.

33. Chimps beat humans in memory test

Comment #94131 by Upgrade01A on December 4, 2007 at 9:49 pm

It was cool to see that chimp memorize numbers so fast, but did they give the college students a treat each time they succeeded and did they get as much training as the chimp? The chimp looked like it had a lot of practice - still very impressive. Just get them to say (or press a button that plays the message) "would you like that super-sized?" and we can take advantage in a loop hole in the minimum wage laws here in the States.

34. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #94127 by Upgrade01A on December 4, 2007 at 9:41 pm

How many times did that invisible woman mention that it would be a great stocking stuffer, then snicker? I think I heard the two of them mention it at least 3 or 4 times combined.