1. Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion

Comment #114492 by bruno_burned on January 22, 2008 at 10:01 am

"Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation's capital."

Ron Paul denies evolution. He's a nutter.

2. Stop House Resolution 888

Comment #107957 by bruno_burned on January 5, 2008 at 4:52 pm

1. History is a narrative, not a fact. It is evidence-driven fiction. History is interesting, but not a good source for a belief system.
2. Our founding fathers were Christians, some more Progressive than others. They were also men. And white. And landowners. That does not mean you can claim America is a Christian Nation, a Male Nation, a White Nation, a Landowner Nation.
3. God was left out of the Constitution on purpose

3. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #54955 by bruno_burned on July 9, 2007 at 12:41 pm

currently fashionable, gender, culture, culture, culture, patriarchal status quo, role of culture, cultural construct

It often catches me off guard that many atheists visiting this site are also (M)ulticulturalists/Constructivists. I'm fine with it, it's just unexpected. Of course, evolutionary psychology/neuropsychology (the only two psychology fields that have any decent explanatory power) would irritate anyone who thinks there is a "mind", or that "culture" is some non-natural phenomenon. My sociology department detested biological determinism like it was the plague.

4. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48051 by bruno_burned on June 6, 2007 at 12:08 pm

One sentence summary: Atheists should be polite to those people with paranormal delusions who are really, really nice.

*yawn* Is there any originality left in the world?

5. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45213 by bruno_burned on May 26, 2007 at 11:07 pm

Even when I stand back and try to evaluate the situation as removed as possible, I still don't see Dawkins as being all that negative. I see worse insults on Seinfeld, I see more horrendous words from politicians, and I hear far more negativity out of my uncle during the Superbowl.

Maybe theists are a bunch of wimps :)

6. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44339 by bruno_burned on May 24, 2007 at 11:38 am

Strange: Most of Chris Hedges's arguments are the same arguments I use *against* theism.

Namely, that many theists are actually using the word "God" for a variety of human experiences, such as awe, reverence, humility before the universe, respect for moral character, etc. They actually don't believe in God the entity, they believe in these human feelings; they 'believe in belief'.

These liberal Christians are slippery, deluded little kittens, aren't they?

7. Ask Richard!

Comment #41773 by bruno_burned on May 16, 2007 at 11:45 pm

CDG, I agree that a scientific explanation of evolution can be a little bland for kids.

But... I think evolution can be wordsmithed into an absolutely beautiful, life changing, and inspiring phenomena. And something very palatable for kids.

Dawkins does an amazing job of this in Unweaving the Rainbow - I highly suggest it.

This would be a good forum post! "How to wordsmith genes and evolution for children".

8. Why Christopher Hitchens is not Great

Comment #40590 by bruno_burned on May 14, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Poor Christians - they still don't get that many atheists really do equate ALL religions into one big pile, and toss in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Yes, Mr. Christian, I see *no difference* between your religion, their religion, their religion, and their religion - regardless of who 'their' is. For me, Bible==Harry Potter (although Potter has a more compelling story and far superior grammar).

9. Among the Disbelievers

Comment #40571 by bruno_burned on May 14, 2007 at 1:49 pm

I agree that religion needs a replacement. And I think Harris, Dawkins, and especially Sagan offered a replacement countless times!

Replace it with awe and reverence for the universe as it is. Replace it with a life mission of exploration and service to your fellow human beings. Replace it with love of family, art, and just being lucky enough to be alive!

Theists always balk at me when I tell them that I think their powerful, emotional experiences they have during prayer are natural phenomena, and that an atheist could have them too (if they wanted to). Prayer (the meditative technique of using powerful archetypal visualizations) is nothing mysterious. It's nothing a neuropsychologist couldn't collect meaningful data on.

So bottom line: Replace religion, and all of its rituals, with the beauty and elegance of naturalism. It's far better, IMHO, than Bibles and Churches!

10. The Greatest Act of Human Hubris

Comment #40561 by bruno_burned on May 14, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Hmm.. I wonder if I could claim that all theists are "fringe thinkers" in their own religions... :)

11. The Greatest Act of Human Hubris

Comment #40560 by bruno_burned on May 14, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Wow this is great! I had never thought about this argument before, but I think it is very strong. Not only does Mr. Theist believe in a minority religion, but he is the minority within his own religion. So what truth claims is he trying to make?!

Very cool. I gotta find a way to wordsmith this down to a few conversational points :)

12. Martin Amis reviews The Islamist: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left by Ed Hussain

Comment #37607 by bruno_burned on May 5, 2007 at 10:59 am

I pretty much just copy and paste this in response to the "Argument from Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot":

---
Hitler specifically wanted atheist groups purged. Hitler (and this is in context): "We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out".

Russian Freethought organizations, Intellectuals, and yes Religious theologians, were targeted in the "Great Purge" under Stalin. Liberal freethought, possibly more than any other worldview, stands in direct opposition of Marxism - the open inquiry, the individual, the free expression, the self-determination... none of this is helpful in Marxism via Stalin. In fact, Stalin rejected Darwinism and genetics because both indicate a "fixed" humanity, which is in opposition to a "molded" communist humanity.

Freethought was maimed under Mao's Hundred Flowers movement. He drew them out under the banner of free expression, then silenced or murdered them a few months later. Pol Pot targeted freethought intellectuals alongside religious intellectuals.
---

13. The Damned

Comment #36887 by bruno_burned on May 2, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Does anyone know what happened to www.celebatheists.com? That site had an enormous list of celebrity atheists, both dead and alive.

But it has been down for at least a week now. I'd hate to lose all that great data.

14. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31321 by bruno_burned on April 12, 2007 at 2:47 am

theory of purely random selection

I cannot stand the 'random chance' misunderstanding anymore!

I'm going to start calling Darwinism: "Evolution by ITS NOT FRIGGIN CHANCE selection".

15. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #29784 by bruno_burned on April 4, 2007 at 5:00 pm

That agnostic was the most annoying windbag I've ever heard in media on this site. I *kinda* wanted to punch him. Just kinda.

16. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29664 by bruno_burned on April 4, 2007 at 1:16 am

puusio: Someone should start a counter-movement of sorts that encourages people into using the clearest possible language when communicating ideas and warns of the dangers of equating hard-to-understand with deep.

Charles Sanders Peirce worked on pragmatism to address the problem of clarity, and was enormously influential in the creation of the modern day scientific method. Personally, I think the most effective scientists are the most accessible - not those that dumb down, of course. But those that, at the least, value parsimony.

irvine-intervention: What happens when you combine postmodern philosophy with christianity?

You think that's bad - check out the Emerging Church of Christianity. I've debated with these folks before. Not only can you not debate them on the truth of God, you can't even debate them on the existence of "truth". Its unbelievably insane.

17. The God Debate

Comment #29155 by bruno_burned on April 1, 2007 at 10:49 pm

re: Hitler - I think its safe to say Hitler despised atheists. In his words, "We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out".

re: Stalin/Mao - Correct me if I'm wrong, but Stalin despised and put to death freethinkers (atheists, scientists, etc). Mao's "Hundred Flowers Campaign" is in the same vein. They rejected both Darwinism and genetics - both damaging to the idea that society can be "molded" entirely via communism.

18. The God Debate

Comment #29147 by bruno_burned on April 1, 2007 at 10:02 pm

Paul in First Timothy and Ephesians and Colossians supports it

I kinda wish Harris would not even open a bible in his debates. It gives the theist way too much respect. Debating theology with a pastor is like debating D&D with a geek - unless you're a geek also, you're best just making fun of him and his silly little dice.

BTW - No offense to the geeks. I played D&D when i was a kid too :)

19. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26497 by bruno_burned on March 19, 2007 at 7:09 pm

when its practical implications are compared with those of the Christian viewpoint, evolutionary biology may not be attractive as a way of life.

With this one sentence, he summarizes his entire argument, the depth of its fallacy, and an important challenge to the atheistic replacement of theism.

20. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26454 by bruno_burned on March 19, 2007 at 12:28 pm

denoir, tell ya what. I'll believe your ideas if you convince the National Institutes of Health to add homosexuality to their list of genetic defects.

Deal?

21. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26450 by bruno_burned on March 19, 2007 at 11:55 am

At this point I chose to end this discussion as it is not worth my time.

That's usually how my discussion with fringe thinkers ends. Especially when they cannot support their arguments with evidence. In fact, a recent local ACLU debate with Intelligent Designers ended in such a way.

I wish you luck with your unpublished "Genetic Defect Theory of Homosexuality", your new eugenics transhumanism efforts, and your paranoia of evangelical spies.

I'll stick with the evolutionary adapative benefits of homosexuality and with human enhancement for therapeutic reasons.

22. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26374 by bruno_burned on March 19, 2007 at 1:21 am

Homosexuality is not a genetic disorder. Homosexuality has adaptive benefits seen across cultures. I base this on the evidence and not my subjective interpretation of "The Selfish Gene".

dubois, I'll help you with your research. For starters, read this paper from the Proceedings of the Royal Society, which concludes that "genes influencing homosexuality can readily spread and become polymorphic under a wide range of conditions".

This paper offers several models for selection, kin selection, and sexually antagonistic selection. No group selection, so don't you worry.

Study the three models for each type of selection, then add the models for maternal effects and combination.

Then, apply your brilliant read of the "Selfish Gene" to discredit the 8 models.

Or.. just inform me why I should trust the unpublished "Dubois's Genetic Defects Theory of Homosexuality" over a paper published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society? Oh and I have several more published papers by respected evolutionary biologists if this one makes you feel uncomfortable.

"How would you like if your mother had aborted you?"

Close. My argument is: "How would you like if your mother had aborted you because you're black?"

you are on the eugenics side

Well said, dubois. The natural selection advocates are practicing eugenics, and the artificial selection advocates are practicing... uh... eugenics... you're right, I'm confused.

Your position is that the choice should be such that society remains diverse and mine is that the choice should be to make life easier for the individual.

Hmm, let's be a little more honest with your sentence structure, dubois. I'll fix it for you: "bruno's position is that the genome should remain diverse, dubois's position is that it should be uniform. bruno's position is that skin color and anal sex do not matter in happiness, dubois's position is that they are genetic defects and society hates them so we should change them." Doesn't that sound more accurate?

This is either a theistic decision ...or... pro-social

Or... the position is one that trusts natural selection over artificial selection. I think I have good empirical reason to trust natural selection over artificial selection.

riley: a 'designer baby' is the modern-day version of sexual selection.

I think designer babies for nontherapeutic reasons are the modern-day version of eugenics.

dubois: suspect that you are an evangelical in disguise.

You're getting a little paranoid, dubois. BOO! haha just kiddin, didn't mean to scare ya.

23. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26339 by bruno_burned on March 18, 2007 at 6:22 pm

dubois: on a biological level it is a defect.

Incredulous?

I do not see evidence for homosexuality to be grouped with autism, diabetes, heart disease, and other genetic disorders. I do think several evolutionary hypotheses for homosexuality (some discussed in this thread) are valid and sound.

Your genetic defect research question is great though; thanks for sharing.

dubois: 1) is individual centered where you think about the future child. 2) is socially centered where you sacrifice the future individual for the sake of a better society.

debois, all I read is your desire to design babies to fit the cultural whims of the day. This decade, black babies are not fashionable, so you better make 'em white! That decade, broad noses are seen as too barbaric, so you better make them narrow!

It's your insecurity, not your child's.

Unless you want to convince the minorities on this website that their social status is too painful and their parents should have designed them better.

Honestly, at this point, we're just updating old eugenics arguments. You want to artificially select for non-therapeutic reasons, I don't.

24. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26291 by bruno_burned on March 18, 2007 at 12:25 pm

denoir: "defects", "sadism", "defective genetic code"

I interpret denoir as equating homosexuality with a genetic disorder.

Based on the literature, I do not think homosexuality is a genetic disorder. It is a variance, just as with black/white skin, long/short noses, curly/straight hair, etc. In these posts, I am talking about designing babies for social acceptance - not for physiological/mental health.

me: A natural birth does not "use" a baby for anything. It's the designer babies that make a statement.
denoir: if you are an ID proponent that sees purposeful design in nature

You missed my point. A natural birth is just that.. natural. The resulting genome of a natural birth does not require artificial selection to exist. A designer genome does require artificial selection. It requires intentional human action.

It is this intentional act which is "use" for a sociopolitical statement, to "make a point" as you put it. A sociopolitical statement is made when the African parent designs their children to have Caucasian features. If the African parent does not do this, then the birth certainly cannot be seen as "use" to "make a point".

So back to my original statement: If you want to design your babies so that the world is more comfortable with your offspring, then go ahead.

It's your insecurity, not your child's.

Unless you want to convince the minorities on this website that their social status is too painful and their parents should have designed them better.

25. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26236 by bruno_burned on March 17, 2007 at 11:51 pm

denoir: Is it ethical to use a child so that you can make a point about discrimination being bad?

A natural birth does not "use" a baby for anything. It's the designer babies that make a statement.

Is it ethical to use a child so that other people don't have to think?

If you want to design your babies so that the world is more comfortable with your offspring, then go ahead.

26. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26222 by bruno_burned on March 17, 2007 at 7:26 pm

eddie.river
The explanations provided so far seem more like excuses, and have failed to hit the spot.

Hopefully, you realize that "hitting the spot" happens after significant data is gathered and tested. Until then, we only speculate.

Right now, we know so little of the complex neurology of sex. For that matter, we know so little of complex neurology... period. We barely understand the genetic influence of type 2 diabetes. We can bet that the neurological/genetic explanations of something as enormous as human sexuality are decades away (if not more).

So whats the data? I think the most consistent findings are in birth order - gay men tend to have more older brothers. The probability increases with each subsequent birth, so that by the 10th brother in a row (guesstimate), the chances are 50/50. This is an exercise in statistics, of course.

Brothers of gay men have a 22 percent chance of being gay, whereas the brothers of straight men have only about a 4 percent chance (similar findings reproduced). Multiple studies have found high concordance rates between identical twins - one study reaching 52 percent.

A recent 2006 study show mothers with one (and especially with more) gay sons show significant inactivation within the X chromosome across cells.

Sexual differention of mammals tends to happen hormonally in fetal development - so a prenatal cause of homosexuality is a good place to look. Checking out the brains of sheep and humans, there is a trend for groups of cells (which relate to sexual behavior) in the anterior hypothalamus to be smaller in gay rams/men and in straight ewes/women, and respond differently to fluoxetine. Gay men and straight women perform more the same on visuospatial tasks and object location memory.

There are several more relevant data, but I can't do a lit review tonight :)

Personally, I don't think the only relevant question is how does homosexuality increases the homosexual's chance of reproduction.

With all this data surrounding the X chromosome, prenatal development, androgens on the brain, etc, my question is: How do the mother's genes benefit by starting off with sexually competitive male sons and then decreasing this trait in subsequent sons? ...particularly in an EEA band of families. What is the difference between a 10th son and 1st son in respect to natural selection in the EEA context?

Just questions :) I haven't seen any evopsychs address the birth order/twins studies yet.

27. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26164 by bruno_burned on March 17, 2007 at 10:53 am

Will S:
genetically determined (as I understand it, this is also highly controversial

Frederiksen78:
At the moment, there is little evidence showing that being homosexual is a disability

Fellow Dawkins readers,

There is no need to so tentatively frame the latest research of homosexuality. You can safely state with affirmative grammar: Based on the literature, homosexuality is very likely a biological phenomena. Full stop.

There is NO evidence "showing that being homosexual is a disability". This is "highly controversial" in the same way global warming is "highly controversial".

Unless you read journals with <50% Impact Factors, you will see data in the literature consistently supporting the prenatal hormonal theories (which I believe is the strongest right now), genetic theories, or neutral results. Same goes with studies on gay parent quality compared to straight parent quality (they're equal in study after study).

28. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #25904 by bruno_burned on March 15, 2007 at 3:38 pm

I usually find a lot of value in literature reviews. I think Hodge's review about intercessory prayer is decently executed (yet poorly concluded), and I can see how it passed peer review.

I was actually more surprised at the methodology in other studies! I am amazed researchers study intercessory prayer with participants who know that prayers are being sent their way! Even double blind, that is not a very objective ground from which to build a study. With that heavy and obvious bias, the data is more relevant to a study of self-meditation effects on stress levels and healing rates, not on distant healing via prayer.

Hodge admits that prayer can't come close to meeting the APA standard ("These criteria were rarely met"). Hodge doesn't like these standards, though, because they a) require clear, measurable concepts (yea, right, with prayer?!) and b) require therapists to administer the technique, not faithheads. So he does a fairly subjective "meta-analysis", which is always a sketchy method IMHO, to reach his conclusions.

Although he claims that 12 of the 17 studies tend to favor prayer, he is really stretching his own methodology. Based solely on his own data, I'd say its more like 7 of the 17 with slight positives, the rest insignificant, inconclusive, or negative.

I want to see some researchers hit this topic with some real double-blind kickassery. Why does distant healing need to inform the patient before hand?

29. Out There

Comment #25265 by bruno_burned on March 11, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Absolutely mind boggling. I feel like I just took a bunch of LSD, snuggled up near a campfire, and pondered the universe: "Whoa, dude, just, like, imagine, like, whoa dude".

There is far more "spirituality" (of the material monist variety) in this article than any holy text I've ever read.

I really enjoy layman-friendly explorations of cosmology and quantum physics. I wish there were more. And no, not that 'What the Bleep' crap.

30. Science, Faith, and Evolution

Comment #24867 by bruno_burned on March 9, 2007 at 1:06 am

Preacher Dowd seems to have a deep reverence for evolution, human connection, compassion, and awe for the cosmos. That's all I hear. He doesn't even seem to care about the Bible. He just doesn't realize he doesn't need "god". He can feel all these things by just being human.

This is what I run into a lot with my family: They mistake reverence, meditation, awe, love, compassion, etc, for "god". Once they are convinced they can have these emotions without god, it is easy to get them to be (politically correct) "agnostics", or even better atheists.

31. Atheists Take On Religion

Comment #24300 by bruno_burned on March 5, 2007 at 6:47 pm

A crucial point that fails to get mentioned is that religious people too can be secularists as it is a political idea.

Well said, Homo economicus.

When people pull the old "This is a Christian Nation!", I remind them that the Christians who founded this country were refugees fleeing the persecutions that result from nonsecular government, and that *they* created our secular government. I usually win the debate on that one.

32. Lewis Wolpert and William Lane Craig on Religion

Comment #23928 by bruno_burned on March 3, 2007 at 3:12 pm

Craig claims that you cannot prove the foundations of Realism, therefore scientists believe in Realism without evidence.

My Christian friends have occasionally pulled this Solipsist argument against Realism on me ("Brain in a Vat", "five-minute hypothesis", "Evil Daemon", "The Matrix").

My response is that both the Realist and the Solipsist still have to make a decision on how they're going to understand their world. Whether I live in a real, material world (the Realist) or I live in a subconscious illusion (the Solipsist), I still have to decide how I will think.

I have to decide if I will base my explanations on the evidence presented to me (by either the reality or the illusion), or on what other people tell me (be they flesh-and-blood or just mere phantoms), or on whatever I dream-up (my dreams reflecting specialized evolved mechanisms or a soul).

So until Morpheus comes to unplug me from the Matrix*, I might as well pick the most productive epistemology - empiricism - to understand my reality/illusion.

* sarcastic tone.