1. Pastor Rick's Test

Comment #233810 by DrShell on August 20, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Jinx, Mango! (Not that we believe in such superstitions, of course.)

:)

2. Pastor Rick's Test

Comment #233806 by DrShell on August 20, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Of course the candidates have been invited to such a forum and, as far as I know, are still declining to appear:

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php

(Sorry--no idea how to create a link here.)

3. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233669 by DrShell on August 20, 2008 at 7:56 am

It's not possible to "boost the immune system." The statement is meaningless. I guess you could say that inflammation and allergic reactions denote a "boosted" immune system, but who wants that?

And while I don't believe that working for money makes anyone evil, it's not like providers of "natural supplements" are going hungry. Check out the chemist's shelves full of crap like Airborne and a range of expensive multi-vitamins that can do healthy people no good whatsoever. Unless you have a condition that causes a specific vitamin deficiency you don't need supplements. Yet they market them to us as if they'll make a difference in our health or "immune system" and it's bollocks. And they make a lot of money.

4. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #229426 by DrShell on August 13, 2008 at 3:00 pm

This doesn't explain why the most individual-hating philosophies of the twentieth century drew on the poisonous muck of Romanticist philosophy.

Hmmm. I'd have to think about some examples, but my initial reaction to this is that what other people do later isn't necessarily Romanticism's fault, my slap at their later crap-writing minions notwithstanding.

Also, industrialization has freed incalculable millions from bondage, from the drudgery of rural life.

Of course. I wasn't saying otherwise, just noting that the transition from rural to industrial was scary at the time. Someone like WW was coming from a privileged position, obviously, as I doubt he ever experienced that poverty or drudgery, though there was plenty of such to go around in factory/city life as well. I guess you could start with Blake more than WW for that.

Romanticist philosophy isn't about the individual; it rejects reason, the most individual of all characteristics. It is an expression of the eternal savage, hating the Universe for being orderly, desperately trying to live in defiance of reality - no matter how many bodies it may pile up.

You may be able to find evidence of that somewhere else, but it's a misreading of the Romantic poets for sure. They came at the individual differently, that's all. They saw subjective experience, particularly the experience of emotions, as the ultimate in individuality. They wanted to create art that encouraged a "writerly" engagement in the reader, thus the reasoning behind experiments like the intentional fragment. No, say what you will, but one thing the Romantics were not was "anti-individuality." That's the problem most people have with them after all--their raising of subjectivity over objectivity.

Cheers-

5. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #229355 by DrShell on August 13, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Well, while I could wish Romanticism hadn't set itself against the Enlightenment it did, at least, trumpet the importance of the individual, which is quite modern. All the anti-industrialization panic is understandable for the time; once you've been to the Lakes it's not difficult to grasp why Wordsworth would've been terrified to think of losing any of that glory to pavement.

The poets did write of emotion and subjectivity as preferable to reason, and of course wee Keats had his infamous lament about the rainbow. I don't know. I think the worst they did was convince a bunch of losers that anyone who experiences a feeling can write poetry. Wretched legacy, that.

6. Kenneth Miller on Colbert Report

Comment #195152 by DrShell on June 17, 2008 at 8:05 pm

Sam Harris did Colbert's show too. (And it's also funny.)

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=62694

7. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190747 by DrShell on June 9, 2008 at 1:39 pm

If you check votesmart.org you can see that McCain voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, for the Religious Memorials at Schools Amendment, for the inane flag desecration amendment, and for No Child Left Behind. They don't list his vote on stem cell research.

He's really not the maverick he likes to portray himself, unfortunately.

8. Beauty ad banned after Christian outcry

Comment #142400 by DrShell on March 12, 2008 at 12:50 pm

ARRRRGH! Are they serious? THAT's their reason for finding this offensive? The problem here is the systematic denial of women's needs and internal lives, this idea that our only concerns involve (and should involve) stupid superficial nonsense like our hair curls and whether we're winning the eternal beauty contest and making other women despise us enough. I hate this shit so much.

Oh, I'm so angry now. These jerks clutching their pearls all "gasp, my sacred religion associated with women and sexuality" but never "gasp, women portrayed as foolish halfwits who can't even do something as stupid as Christianity right."

9. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #128648 by DrShell on February 17, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Oy. At the risk of tossing petrol on the fire...

I'm sorry to say that I found Hitchens's comments disconcerting, almost fetishistic. I love his books and debates and even his persona most of the time, but that smarmy moment where he calls her his "love" and then throws out the macho chivalry about standing between her and those who would harm her was...ugh. He doesn't make Rushdie into some medieval damsel in the tower. If I were she I would've been really offended by such patronizing paternalistic treatment.

10. Scientists Say Mummies' Lice Show Pre-Columbian Origins

Comment #124209 by DrShell on February 8, 2008 at 7:08 pm

"I conquered the New World and all I got was this lousy...

...louse"?

[Sorry.]

11. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #122996 by DrShell on February 6, 2008 at 10:37 am

From the 1970s! So current as that! /sarcasm

And, gosh, maybe that literature refers to the hegemonic tyranny of the "traditional family unit" as working against gay rights, not the existence of people living in those families? Like, gay right activists didn't want to eradicate the traditional family, only dethrone it? Dismantle the heirarchy? Perhaps?

The dirty liars. HATE.

12. Huckabee Stands by Christmas Campaign Ad

Comment #102813 by DrShell on December 23, 2007 at 5:25 pm

If he's hanging out with Hagee you know he sucks. I once spent about 4 hours watching a Hagee tv special in which he explained--beginning of course with Eve--that every problem humankind has ever experienced stems from men not taking proper control of their women. I could not look away; it was the most frightful spectacle I had ever witnessed.

I am not extrapolating, by the way. He was not at all shy about using those very words. He railed about the evils of feminism in great detail as well. I'll never forget it.

13. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92028 by DrShell on November 29, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Hmmm. Compelling indeed.

I winced at the Clinton example myself, because my problem at the time was that my president lied about an affair not out of privacy concerns but essentially to deny a citizen due process. The investigation that brought the affair to light was being conducted by Paula Jones's lawyers, who were searching for the pattern of behavior (of pursuing sexual relationships with subordinates) that would allow them to bring her case against Clinton to trial. I have no idea if she was telling the truth (though he did pay her in the end) but he showed an appalling disdain for the justice system by lying--and having Lewinsky lie as well--so that he did not have to face Jones in court.

That was my issue, for what it's worth.

As for jealously, I have the same mixed feelings as many of you. I certainly see the point, but I also know that I feel happy and secure in my marriage in part because I know I'm not in competition with anyone for my husband's romantic love. Is that a learned, inculcated happiness? Very likely. But not everything culturally derived is harmful.

Besides, so much of the harm from sexual jealousy is really harm from misogyny, which is the real problem we should confront, IMO.

14. In a consumer society, browsing for belief

Comment #87566 by DrShell on November 12, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Best church sign I ever saw--and I SWEAR I'm not making it up:

"Repent or Die."

15. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79299 by DrShell on October 16, 2007 at 7:01 pm

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the resurrection as a "historical event" like the crossing of the Rubicon. Did he really argue that the resurrection ITSELF isn't important, just the discussion of what it means? That people literally witnessed it and instead of going "OMGWTF?!!?" just mused, "Huh, I wonder what that MEANS?"

That's rather a large question he just begged off, isn't it?

16. There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet

Comment #66268 by DrShell on August 29, 2007 at 2:20 pm

*Sigh*

This old crapola again.

17. A Matter of Faith

Comment #64715 by DrShell on August 21, 2007 at 12:34 pm

I set my DVR to record this and ended up with nothing but local talking heads showing hour upon hour of the same weather images. It stormed in Oklahoma, you see. Shocking!

I'm not so angry about missing it as I was on Sunday, though. The religious studies dweeb got more air time (spouting inaccuracies at that) than the atheists, with the possible exception of Sweeney, whose atheism was presented like some sort of adolescent rebellion. That was really disappointing.

18. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62413 by DrShell on August 9, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Is that supposed to be Sam Harris in front? That's...offensive.

19. Sam Harris Strikes Back

Comment #46130 by DrShell on May 30, 2007 at 9:50 am

"Or we could just call them names."

Yes, like Hedges called Harris a racist.

The problem with this debate, IMHO, is that Hedges showed up to a debate about religion and tried to debate something else, this "god is the laughter of children" whatever. Sam was right to be frustrated by that because it's dodgy.

20. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #41976 by DrShell on May 17, 2007 at 11:49 am

Well, seriously.

She didn't do so because of scripture but in spite of it, so why give it any credence at all? I swear I do not understand this idea of "evolved" religion. Either the book is true or it isn't; the whole business is based on such. Ugh.

21. The stone is cast

Comment #41502 by DrShell on May 16, 2007 at 7:49 am

I loathed Falwell, not because he was a clergyman but because he was a vile, hateful hypocrite. And I imagine their common disdain for women would give Falwell and Flynt plenty to agree on. They can both sit on my x-chromosome and spin.

22. Intellectual Diversity or Intellectual Insult?

Comment #39674 by DrShell on May 11, 2007 at 1:51 pm

quote:"While I, just as everyone else here, deplore the idea of creationism being introduced into the science curriculum, I cannot help but criticize the lack of intellectual diversity provided in the humanity departments of American institutions. Debunked, insupportable theories, such as Marxism and strands of postmodernism, are taught with the utmost zeal while alternatives are not allowed to stand trial. Dogma in the form of political ideas, rather than religious, dominates campuses across the country. The liberal arts faculties, rather than providing their students a complete and rigorous intellectual experience, resort to the same indoctrination and inculcation that one finds at her nearest church, synagogue, or mosque."/quote

I'm sorry, but as an English professor I have to challenge this ridiculous strawman. I teach Marxism as a school of thought and as a tool for reading literary texts. I never try to convince students of anything other than that Marxism exists and can be interesting. When I teach different disciplines I teach what they are, nothing more insidious. What would constitute "intellectual diversity" in the humanities for you?

23. We aim to misbehave

Comment #35160 by DrShell on April 26, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Comment #35079 by Fanusi Khiyal:

Let me continue with the metaphor of feminism. The phrase "feminazi" has developed, not out of bigotry, but for a damn good reason.

Furthermore, the feminists have been AWOL in a very specific fight : the disgraceful treatment of women in Islam.

Bullshit to both.

You can't compare anything but Naziism to Naziism. Particular to this case, suggesting that people who fight for cultural change are genocidal murderers is intellectually bankrupt and ethically vile. People can debate whatever they want. Are you saying some over-reaching power of the feminine caused that man to be thrown in jail for his comments? Tortured? Murdered? He got in trouble at work because he said something that made his employer uncomfortable. It's happened to most of us; it's happened to me. That does not mean there's some cabal of militant chicks ruling the world and working to eradicate men's speech. That's dishonest rubbish.

As for feminists and Islam, we've complained about honor killings and burkas and the Taliban and the lack of education for girls in our literature for decades. The problem is that no one in power wants to hear it, in part because of the very issues we discuss on this site: If something falls under the protective umbrella of religion we all are expected to duck our heads and reserve judgment. While we'll raise hell about human rights violations when they stem from political attitudes (i.e., China) when they come from a religious place we have to "respect" differences. It's a nightmare, but not one of feminists' making.

On a happier note: Firefly/Serenity rulez.

24. Study: Religion is Good for Kids

Comment #34857 by DrShell on April 25, 2007 at 1:14 pm

I suppose I could buy their children's being more obedient in general. The Santa Claus myth causes some children to behave differently around Xmastime too. That doesn't make Santa real.

25. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25820 by DrShell on March 15, 2007 at 10:28 am

"We still cross our fingers for luck."

We...do? And actually believe we will receive luck? Do we? What an odd claim.

He's definitely on the ropes now and swinging wildly. "Oh, yeah? Well...you're going to DIE." Nice one. (Not.)

I never understand that argument for God anyway. It's the fact that we suffer and die that (in part) informs my lack of belief. It's a dumb system, not to mention a cruel one.

26. Wash. school board restricts Gore's global-warming film

Comment #17779 by DrShell on January 16, 2007 at 9:30 am

I'm going to try to be objective for a moment and suggest that perhaps these people wouldn't have a problem with global warming being discussed in the school, per se, but they're worried about privileging Gore's perspective because he is a political (and politicized) figure?

Yeah, the problem is easily solved by, like, watching the damn video, so...I don't know.

27. Wash. school board restricts Gore's global-warming film

Comment #17723 by DrShell on January 15, 2007 at 5:38 pm

You know, I just finished watching the final sessions of the Beyond Belief conference, and I spent some time today pondering my own feelings about the argument between the attendees on whether the more aggressive stance of Dawkins and Harris is preferable to that of advocates of "tolerance" and "understanding" and so forth.

This right here is where the kinder, gentler camp loses me. Dawkins talks about indoctrination of children as abusive--and I agree--but a more insidious problem, in my view, is the Christian drive, indeed the responsibility, from their perspective, of indoctrinating other people's children. All children. I cannot tolerate this.

I could go on and on about what I have faced with my own son since moving to Oklahoma. A short list includes: a teacher who provided sample ideas for her (public school) 3rd graders to copy for their "I am thankful for..." assignment and included "I am thankful for God's blessings"; an invitation to a guest night carnival at a local church, at which my then 6 year old, attending without his parents and as a guest not a member, was instructed to close his eyes and ask Jesus to come into his heart so he could "go see him after he died" after being plied with cotton candy and bounce houses all evening; and most recently, a Jack Chick tract about eternal damnation slipped by some vile coward into my little boy's plastic pumpkin during this year's neighborhood trick-or-treating.

I watched those BB videos, as some speakers called Harris and Dawkins "angry" as if that's automatically a bad thing. I don't think it is. I'm the biggest wuss you'll ever meet in many, many ways; I hate anger and conflict. But you bet your life I'm angry about this. These people aren't satisfied with telling their own children lies; they're coming after OUR children as well, and they want to use the schools to do it. They want to deny ALL children accurate science educations. It is absolutely untenable, and there is no room for tolerating it.

28. God-less

Comment #16745 by DrShell on January 8, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Dawkins also argues that none but the most freakishly fundamentalist/literalist Christians can argue that morality must originate in scripture, since they do not follow every moral absolute presented therein. If you look at the Bible and decline to accept, for example, that adulterers should be stoned in the public square, you have demonstrated your ability to draw a moral principle from something outside the Bible.

How do you decide which aspects of the scriptures inform your moral code and which ones do not? You follow a moral compass outside of those scriptures. If you can do that in some cases, why not in others? Why not in all?