1. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148917 by Bad on March 24, 2008 at 4:01 pm

I concur: I think Dawkins is quite misleading when he says that his values are "unDarwinian." If we know nothing else from Darwin on, it is that the idea that evolutionary fitness is all about aggression is nonsense. Sometimes, the fittest creature is the one who runs away from conflict the best. Sometimes its the one best capable of banding together with a species group against other groups. Sometimes its about mere efficiency: requiring less food, for instance. And so on.

The idea that conquering and destroying everything around you is the one and only best evolutionarily endorsed strategy is a myth. Conquering and destroying things takes a heck of a lot of effort. That's why most species don't spend their time trying to excel merely by going out of their way to destroy or tear down their fellows. Competition and success in survival can come in just so many different ways, through so many different methods.

2. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148733 by Bad on March 23, 2008 at 5:27 pm

clearthinker: the producers have made zero secret about being evangelicals who came together and had a great idea on how to attack evolution. They've been grassroots promoting the film almost entirely through church groups, all the early showing have been to clergy and religious right members, and they are even paying "Christian" schools per kid that they send to the theaters. They don't mention Jewish or Muslim schools, despite the fact that Jews and Muslims also believe in a "creator being of unspecified name" that ID is all about.

So, yeah, Jesus is what's going on here.

3. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148732 by Bad on March 23, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Professor Dawkins, I know you pretty rarely read comments here, but I still really want to know the context of the remark they have you saying in the intro of the film, the one where you say "...I"m pretty hostile to... a rival doctrine..."

It's pretty obvious that they cut off an important part of your statement in this case, but I've never seen you give the background this particular misrepresentation. As someone who blogs on this topic regularly, it's a loose end I'd like to see tied up.

Does anyone know if this has been addressed by Dawkins already, or if he can be made aware that there are people who want to know what was going on this case just as much as the "aliens" misrepresentation?

4. Discussion on PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled

Comment #148045 by Bad on March 21, 2008 at 9:52 pm

I believe that someone said that the animation sequence is LIKE the version Dembski pilfered, but not the same: they may have paid to remake a lookalike version. These guys do have decently deep pockets.

5. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #67670 by Bad on September 4, 2007 at 9:39 am

So, to recap, Shermer is telling the "new" atheists to:

So to recap, you've failed to provide evidence that Shermer is asking anyone to appease anyone. You simply stated what he does call for, and then CALL that appeasing, without any justification.

His point about Darwin is not about appeasing anyone (was Darwin an appeaser, btw?) but rather about what is more likely to convince people, and what is more likely to be a waste of time.

His point about not personally being a dick is well, a point about not being a dick: totally lost on some, I guess, but still nothing to do with appeasing anyone (is Dawkins appeasing anyone when he is unfailingly polite to his opponents?)

His point about being respectful is NOT, as you VERY dishonestly assert, that we must respect the content of religious beliefs, but rather that we respect our opponents enough to listen to them and treat them with the respect we want to be treated with ourselves.

6. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65817 by Bad on August 26, 2007 at 10:28 pm

The only knee jerk reaction I see is coming from Shermer and the rest of the appeasers towards anything which might begin to resemble something that could, remotely, look like militancy (or as I prefer to call it, forthrightness).

Show me where in Shermer's piece he argues for not being forthright then.

You can't, because that's not his point at all, and he's not talking about "appeasing" anyone.

7. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65804 by Bad on August 26, 2007 at 7:51 pm

[quote]I could fisk your original post...[/quote]

I guess we'll never know if you could or not. The fact remains that Brain overreacted in a silly way.

[quote]The Rational Response Squad has had a big influence on the god debate in the US.[/quote]

Not really. That's not to rag on them, just to be realistic: they are one voice amongst many many others. Nor do I have to agree with everything Brian says, or even be interested enough to register for his site. I just happen to disagree with the views of some people on this site that his discussion of Shermer's article was sensible and warranted.

8. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65655 by Bad on August 25, 2007 at 11:23 am

"According to your reading of the article, atheists should refrain from sneering."

Well, actually, everyone should probably refrain from sneering when they are trying to make good arguments... for exactly the reasons I outlined. It's just a generally good idea unless the person your intention is just to be a comedian, or spice up dull prose, and so on.

"Yet the obvious disdain in your post is outrageous."

I've re-read my post again, and I don't see the disdain. I don't disdain Brian. But I do I think his attitude has lulled him into an overreaction that in many ways validates Shermer's point, and I'm being forthright about why I think so.

"Perhaps you should not be looking down your nose at the arguments of others but instead give them serious consideration."

I _do_ give them serious consideration... which is exactly why I'm writing such a critique and making such arguments.

"As a result youv'e underestimated your opponents, leading to a clumsy response."

This is the messageboard equivalent of saying "I'm rubber, you're glue." I made my criticisms for specific reasons, which I outlined. Simply saying "same to you buddy" without explaining any reasons is not a counter-argument.

Worse, lets say that you were right, and I was just being disdainful... and that, as I argued, made my points lousy. Doesn't that mean that you are agreeing with me? In that case, it seems like my argument was fairly convincing after all. :)
__________________
http://badidea.wordpress.com/

9. Rational Atheism

Comment #65470 by Bad on August 24, 2007 at 10:53 am

The problem for Shermer is simple.

Irrational exuberance is a real danger, and success can make people sloppy. I don't have much fear of that for the named folks in Shermer's article, because all are articulate and thoughtful enough not to cross the line from bold and unrelenting criticism into just being carelessly hostile. But other people can and do cross that line, and Shermer wants to remind folks why that's a bad idea.

So how can Shermer discuss these principles without making people defensive? In my opinion, he did his utmost to make his short article as friendly and collegiate as possible.

And yet, somehow, some people are STILL so hostile as to take it as a broadside against everything Dawkins and others have said and argued. People will try to argue that it's Shermer's fault for not putting even MORE disclaimers, praise, and not writing clearly enough. Maybe. But at least be willing to consider the possibility that how you might have interpreted the piece tells you something about yourself too.
_____________________________
http://badidea.wordpress.com/

10. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65468 by Bad on August 24, 2007 at 10:41 am

Brian Sapient:

Honestly, I think your fisking here is mostly a travesty of breathless misreading. Shermer very carefully and specifically worded his piece so as to NOT to accuse any of the people he was writing to of not necessarily doing or agreeing with the things he's saying. His piece is a "let's all remember to keep these things in mind as we move forward" and NOT a "oh you naughty atheists!"

In fact, your response is in many ways a perfect example of what Shermer is talking about. When someone is constantly outraged and disdainful, they get sloppy. Sneering at everything becomes a habit. They consider the arguments of others too trivial, too beneath themselves to give them serious consideration, and as a result, they underestimate their opponents, leading to clumsy responses.
______________________________
http://badidea.wordpress.com/