1. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #180959 by Bonzai on May 16, 2008 at 7:55 am

Goldy

if communism is so good, why do people have to be forced into it (I'll accept that those with nothing are not forced, but then, they have nothing to lose..

Well capitalism was/is also forced. Remember the land enclosure?

I think there is a misunderstanding that capitalism simply means having a market. The market exists in all kinds of societies, but the capitalist ideal is about allowing the market as the sole allocator of resources. Its pure form can never sustain itself and no least due to great resistance, Karl Polanyi's "the great transformation" would be a good source to understand the history of capitalism, It is not the "natural" system of default that many people seem to assume here. It was an invention as much as Marxism,

In the developed world the image of salvage capitalism seems to be a thing of the relatively remote past, but it has several centuries to adjust and it didn't have to face any external challenge in its infant stage like all the nominally "communist" countries,

But in the "third world", capitalism is represented by child labour, sweatshops, IMF forced widespread poverty and the loss of common resources to private interests accountable only to the deep pockets. It is forced on the population and is being resisted everywhere. I heard the other day that with the rise in food price, many people in India face starvation, The travesty is that India is actually a food exporter and it has more than enough to feed its own people, but it won't happen because the few people who own the land and food producing resources think that it would be more profitable to sell to those who can afford the high price instead of the starving poor, many of whom are actually farmers who work for next to nothing,

China is communist, follows the Manifesto (with Chinese characteristics) but allows capitalism to flourish because it knows the system doesn't work. With no reward, there's no incentive. With no incentive, there is no production...etc, etc.

I don't know about that. China's 1949 revolution and its policies in the following decade can be much better understood in the context of Chinese history, peasant revolution and the challenge of the West. Mao only appropriated some Marxist terminologies in the same way that the Tai ping rebels used a very idiosyncratic reading of the Bible to articulate their cause,

When Mao was a junior leader of the CCP he had been criticized by the orthodox Marxists within the party for exhibiting "small peasant tendencies", meaning he was acting like a peasant revolutionary in the traditional Chinese mode rather than a real Communist. When he became the supreme leader of the CCP in 1942 the first thing he did was to purge all the Soviet trained Marxist theoreticians.

I think it is an example of seeing what you want to see to attribute the lack of motivation in China before Deng's reform for the absence of monetary rewards and material incentives alone. It is like seeing a chain gang at work and conclude their lack of enthusiasm is the result of the absence of money dangling in their face, while ignoring the more obvious reason that these people are in chains and
can't choose what they want to do and decide how they do it.

Lack of control over one's work and not believing in what one must do in making a living is a sure way to kill motivations.

If monetary and material rewards are all that count would you explain the great enthusiasm to build new China in the 1950's and early 1960's when the people were even poorer than they were in the two decades that followed? Many foreign trained Chinese professionals actually migrated back after 1949 to "build socialism", giving up considerable material privilege abroad. I am not talking about a few people here and there, it was a huge wave, People felt that they were working for something huge, something worthwhile at the time even though they had to put up with a lot of material deprivations,

The dissolutions after the cultural revolution, and the increasing tendencies of totalitarianism of the CCP in my opinion contributed a lot more to the legendary zombie work style in the late Mao period. It was indifference mixed with passive resistance.

On the other hand it would be a sad situation if money is all that motivates a person to work. There would be a big chance that the person may want to cut corners or even sell you counterfeits in order to maximize profits. This is China today,

There is a complete break down of ethics in China after the reintroduction of "incentives". It is a traumatized country. Cynicism and even nihilism prevails after the cultural revolution and a moment of hope was again crushed in 1989, it would be a very superficial diagnosis to say all they need is a little material inducement at work

2. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180183 by Bonzai on May 14, 2008 at 10:48 am

How is Robert Trivers a Greek name? Why does he call himself the last Greek standing?

3. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #180178 by Bonzai on May 14, 2008 at 10:39 am

TCT

These extremely intelligent people almost always use the argument from awe.

I did say some extremely intelligent people. I avoid making general, categorical statements on this matter along the line of "they all compartmentalize, they are all indoctrinated or they all argue from awe."

The people I have in mind actually never argue from "awe", which is an emotional expression rather than an argumemt. Often they are motivated by some odd experience or obsevations, or paradoxes of some kind and try to think it out with some grand crazy theories.

4. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #180137 by Bonzai on May 14, 2008 at 9:00 am

My own view is that intelligent people who do have faith either compartmentalise as is iften argue or I see it as a bit of a character flaw (I know that sounds bad) in that they haven't the strength/courage to reject the indoctrination. It certainly shouldn't be used for point scoring on an indivisual basis as I beleiev on the whole the correlation between lack of education/intelligence and religiosity holds.

I think that is a very simplistic analysis. I know some extremely intelligent people who are religious. Yet they are religious is a very unconventional way. They have crazy beliefs which are irrational, yet in very original ways and they can even be interesting. You can't attribute that to "indoctrinations" because these beliefs are highly eccentric. They would have been too sophisticated and heretic for the conventionally religious who are supposed to have done the "indoctrinations".

Also, intelligent people are much better in rationalizing their strange beliefs. They are not easily indoctrinated, but tend to fall into the trap of self deceptions.

5. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179802 by Bonzai on May 13, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Fanusi

I referred to the Muslim Arabs who committed genocide against the maronite Christians as scum.

There seems to be a very slanted way of putting it, The atrocities were on both sides. The Moronite Christian militia were cut throat thugs themselves and they were certainly not your "turn the other cheek" variety of Christians.

6. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179560 by Bonzai on May 13, 2008 at 11:54 am

Walid Shoebat notes that they considered themselves Jordanians up until the sixties - yet another abomination from that decade

I really don't think this guy is that credible so stop parading him like some kind of poster boy for Palestianian honesty. The fact is he is a turn coat,--for whatever reasons,-- and has to rely on the Israelies and their friends for protection. He would be stupid not to say what they want to hear just to have his ass covered, and probably make a few bucks in the process,--afterall being a former terrorist is not a most marketable skill to put on your CV.

7. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179500 by Bonzai on May 13, 2008 at 10:38 am

sickofgod.

Who do you prefer the oppressor shaa of Iran, or the crazy Humaini?

This is the wrong question. If the U.S. hasn't overthrown the democratically elected, secular government of Mossadegh in 1953 in Iran to bring in the Shah in order to control the oil, you wouldn't have the Islamic revolution. What do you expect when the Shah, with the help of the CIA, managed to destroy all secular oppositions? The only thing left that was potent enough to fight the tyrant would be something even more deadly, namely Islam. Kind of like natural selection, really.

8. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179327 by Bonzai on May 13, 2008 at 5:55 am

Also, my bus is usually half-empty and those cars I see are usually SUV's with just one person.

Well Americans probably don't like car pooling because it is too suspiciously communist to share your resources. Public transit also sounds dangerously socialist, "public" appears to be a dirty word in some segments of the U.S.

9. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179323 by Bonzai on May 13, 2008 at 5:50 am

But GM et al have failed to respond adequately.

I could be wrong but I think GM et al may not even be making the bulk of their money through selling cars. There are other lucrative undertakings like the stock market and military contracts. Lay offs don't always reflect the absence of financial health of a company, as long as share holders and CEOs are getting paid large sums of money. We should all know by now.

10. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179313 by Bonzai on May 13, 2008 at 5:31 am

Mphil

Sorry, I think you are the one spewing dogmas here and I doubt that I misrepresnted you unless you have misrepresented yourself with your own words.

11. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179307 by Bonzai on May 13, 2008 at 5:16 am

Mphil

It postulates non-physical entities with some connection to the real world.

What is "non physical"? Here is an example of why I am having so much trouble with philosophical "discourse".

It is all words and words which in the end probably don't mean anything other than a sophisticated verbalization of our thinking habits.

I have no idea what "materialism" or "non materialism" really means because "matter" is a loose concept whose meaning changes with time. Not until E=Mc^2 and probably the atomic bomb many "materialistic" philosophers argued dogmatically that energy was not "matter" but a property of matter, just like being red, say (or reflecting light of a certain wavelength under room temperature). The more sophisticated philosophers might argue that potential energy was just a book keeping device introduced to preserve conservation of energy and thus it might just reflect the way "our brains process information" blah blah blah followed by big words. It just shows you that kind of word games don't really advance knowledge in any real way.

With regard to dualism. It is interesting to observe that it is tacitly assumed by people like Dawkins and Pinker when they argue that we are able to overide the 'selfish gene' imperative without saying exactly how. Pinker puts it rather bluntly when talking about his childless lifestyle, he said basically he told his genes to take a hike. Where does his "free will" of telling his genes to fuck off come from? Now there is a way out of this provided you recognize civilization has a "real" existence above the biological level, in other words dualism can be overcome in this context only at the cost of rejecting reductionism (actually pan selectionism).

Mathematics is work with a formal system. Deterministic production and testing (proof-theory) of statements which are logically true. The entities are abstractions, which in turn are mental objects, which in turn are specific processes in the brain - and those are linked to the world via perception and via being a biological system that does information-processing, ie processing of information about the "outside" world as well as about itself (meta-level information processing).

Sorry, that is bloody nonsense for anyone who actually works with mathematics instead of just making arm chair theories based on crude caricatures.

First of all, to say that mathematics is just a formal system not only confuses form with substance, it also forgets Godel's theorem.

Secondly to say that mathematics is a "mental process" is like saying we see colour because of certain neural chemical responses in the visual cortex. This is true in a sense but it answers the question of the physiologist who tries to understand colour perception, not the physicist who seeks to discover the laws of optics instead of say, drug induced hallucinations of seeing colours. Optics is not just a physiological response.

This accounts for the applicability of mathematics, since the brain and its structure follow the same "rules" of biology and physics as everything else, it's - I think - no wonder that a system that can process information that well can model quantity and properties of quantities, set theory, arithmetic and the whole of mathematics.

No, the paragraphs cited above (and below) don't answer any question regarding the effectiveness of mathematics. It is a lot of hand waving.

Set theory, for example, talks about a whole heirarchy of infinities (of ordinals and cardinals) and such things don't exist in physics. So you may argue that set theory is just a game of axiomatics, which I think is not a unreasonabe idea, many mathematicians who work in "real math" think that way too.

But here is the rub. There are very specific theorems in arithmetic which can only be proved by making a detour into the transfinite numbers. Arithmetic is about very concrete properties of whole numbers and you can demonstrate (not prove) by say, listing the first million instances and check them with a computer. Now why is it that by some mumbo jumbo about transfinite numbers we are able to "predict" the outcome of ALL "experiments" of the type I just described for ANY finite set of integers that you can actually carry out if you have a powerful enough computer?

Why does symmetry considerations alone allow physicists to predict the existence of new particle which were later confirmed by experiments? (Note that theory preceeds data here, as is often the case in theoretical physics)

It's the capacity to construct a formal system (a narrowly defined language-game with highly specific axioms, inference rules and statements) and that the structure of the information processing in the brain as a physical system reflects the laws that determine the behaviour of physical/biological systems.

What laws, what logic? Why must the world conform to any rule or logic? Are you not then indulging in dualism?

12. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179292 by Bonzai on May 13, 2008 at 4:31 am

Maybe those fat Americans will save some money and get some exercises if they start walking to KFC instead of driving. At least they get to burn off some calories after pigging out on junk food. Idiots.

13. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179180 by Bonzai on May 12, 2008 at 8:36 pm

Now I get it. I've been hearing alot of people screaming "jesus christ" when filling up. Who knew they were just asking for help with being able to drive their SUV's.

Guys who scream "Oh! My God!" during sex must be praying for help in getting it up. :)

14. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179172 by Bonzai on May 12, 2008 at 8:20 pm

This is a joke, right?

I predict Teratonis will show up and give us another of his book length lecture. But at least he will be on topic this time.

15. $271 Million for Research on Stem Cells in California

Comment #177807 by Bonzai on May 9, 2008 at 6:08 pm

The terminator rules!

16. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176825 by Bonzai on May 8, 2008 at 6:03 am

Smith was wrong, on many count. I wrote a long post on this thread in a week or so ago. I will either link to it or write a more comprehensive rebuttle later when I get the chance.

17. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176821 by Bonzai on May 8, 2008 at 5:55 am

Bonzai - How do you decide who gets the grants enabling them to "think and tinker"?

How does the NSF give out grants?

I don't see your points really. So because government agencies are not always wise in giving grants therefore private industries are better decision makers because .. ? Maybe as far as profit making is concerned but why must profit making coincide with public interest and the logic of scientific discovery and technological innovations? The processes of discoveries and innvovations are really a lot closer to freelance thinking and tinkering than executing business plans. (EDIT: It is interesting the R&D crew are the only people in a big company who can get away by not acting "business like" )

I think any one who wants to make the point that somehow private greed somehow serves society best overall would have a lot of work to make their case.

I also cannot see what the grant giving process have anything to do with the qeustion of what motivates inventors.

I will reply your long post later tonight.

18. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176814 by Bonzai on May 8, 2008 at 5:39 am

Philip,

Wooter logic man like coffee no tea logic like coffee no tea too like wooter

19. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176810 by Bonzai on May 8, 2008 at 5:21 am

hungarianelephant

But others need a staggering amount of money to develop them. Arkwright might have come up with the idea of the Spinning Jenny in a different society, but it took him years and lots of resources to develop it to a usable level. He's probably not going to invest in such a concept unless he thinks he can make some money at the end of it. Same goes for most of the inventions that created the industrial revolution.

I don't know anything about the story behind the spinning Jenny. However, it is not surprising that
Arkwright would want to make some money in the end of the day, he did need to buy food and pay rent (if he didn't own a house). But I would suspect also that if money was his prime motivation he would have done something less risky, easier and would generate faster return, say opening a grocery store chain or get involved with the fur trade or joining the gold rush.

So if he could get a steady source of fundings, say a grant from some national science foundations, to develope his idea and allow him a relatively comfortable existence to think and tinker, it probably wouldn't have taken away his motivation to fine tune his idea.

To make it clear, I have no problem with monetary incentives perse, but I don't believe it is typically the prime reason, or even an important reason for people who innovate, except for the basic fact that like everyone they need to make a living somehow.

However, I do have a lot of problems with the unsubstantiated claim that the profit motive and the drive of getting ever more,--pure greed,--is intrinsically tied to innovations and that without it, society would become stagnant. This is a myth propagated by economics textbooks, and it is stated as an axiom without any supporting evidence.

20. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176806 by Bonzai on May 8, 2008 at 5:07 am

hungarianelephant

The biggest share of non-military R&D spending goes into the pharma industry. There are a few brilliant individuals who are able to invent (or "discover") a new molecule, and demonstrably don't do so purely for profit - as you say, they are on fixed salaries and sign over the rights to their invention to the company. That alone won't get you anywhere. The aim is to turn it into a product which will help people's health, and for that you need resources, and for that you need profit incentive

So you are basically saying that the inducement of profit is necessary for innovations because that provides the incentives for folks who own a lot shit to deploy their resources in such a way to get more shit and we get the shit we want in return. More succinctly, bibery in necessary if we want innovations. It is true, but only because private, unaccountable horders are allowed to own a large portion of a country's resources and production capacity and to do as they please with these assets to begin with.

Your argument, while correct, is not much different from the hypothetical argument I came up with in my previous post that the Church (and the lords) was necessary for the arts because no one else would spend so lavishly on paintings, sculptures and fine music. Well, true technically but it was historically contingent.

Indeed your argument would be a strong case against the unaccountable concentration of wealth, It does not support Al's original contention which was about the psychology behind innovations

If development has to rely solely on market force and the profit motive then we are likely screwed because R&D is a high risk undertaking, discovery is a hit and miss process and it may take a while before new discoveries become marketable. If we have to count on people who see only opportunity to make money in R&D what is there to prevent them from diverting their investments to more profitable ventures that bring faster return, say the stock market and speculations? In fact, governments (and military in the U.S.) in developed countries underwrites most of the research costs and the private sector only takes over when development reaches a stage where it is profitable. Telecommunication and aviation being the most obvious examples.

There is not a single country which manages to build its industrial and R&D sectors based on the free market capitalist model.

You brought up the pharmaceutical industry, well again most innovations could have taken place in university labs if they are not so underfunded and have to rely on deep pockets which often have strings attached to their "donations", including selective reporting of data,--this has been revealed by whistle blowers. Also, pharmacology has to be built on basic research in biology, physiology and chemistry, all of these are done in university labs mostly funded by the government (hence tax payers). The pharmaceutical industry benefits directly from these research and pays not a red cent for them except for its normal share of taxes (which is quite minimal comparing to the money it has to cough up in order to do all the necessary R&D itself)

21. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176792 by Bonzai on May 8, 2008 at 3:21 am

Is the platypus friendly? It is soooo cute. I wish I have one as a pet..

22. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176648 by Bonzai on May 7, 2008 at 8:34 pm

lastgreek,

How do rioting over Mohammmad cartoons and making death threats to writers who criticize Islam have anything to do with Western policies and oil??!!

23. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176639 by Bonzai on May 7, 2008 at 8:12 pm

I think maybe Wooter is just pulling our legs in order to provide some entertainment. No one can be that stupid.

24. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176597 by Bonzai on May 7, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Al,

But I will say, attempts to integrate must be combined with an unforgiving system for punishing or deporting people who refuse to accept the basic tenets of western secular democracy.

Yes, I agree with that, you need a balance between the carrot and the stick.The fire band clerics have no business to be in the West and Saudi infiltration of the mosques needed to be monitored and stopped. But I think Fansusi type rhetorics is not helping, it is all stick and no carrot. By tarring all Muslims with the same brush it actually would create more alienation and isolation from the mainstream, this is a very strong incentive for otherwise moderate Muslims to close rank with the extremists.

But you have called multi-culturalism out quite well. No faith schools with public money... but that seems to be on the rise in the US, largely because the liberals don't stop them. Liberalism needs to be reviewed and re-organized. You can see massive defections everywhere (Hitchens etc...). We need to re-focus ourselves on what our society will represent and how we can get others on board.

I am careful in putting "multiculturalism" in quotes because, as an immigrant myself I am all for it if it is practised properly. I think it actually works very well in Canada, where it is not a disincentive to integrate, but rather, it allows a comfort zone between the old world and the new. Perhaps because Canada is a young country, identity is more fluid than it is in Europe and the U.K. In Europe and the U.K, ethnic and religious identity is binding, "multi-cultralism" becomes in practice a way to pin down people and limit them, whereas, here, it is relatively easy for people to have multiple identities and slip in and out of them, at least for those who are well educated and fluent in English (or French).

I know we are not perfect.I am not saying everything is rosy, discriminations do exist and there are genuine grievances from those who are on the receiving end, but I think we are doing a very good job overall comparing to Europe and the U.K in terms of integrating immigrants.

25. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176585 by Bonzai on May 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm

Al

So in this world, how do you achieve innovation and forward thinking. If there is no greater reward for those who work hard and innovate, isn't that going to handicap the innovation?

Are you saying that innovators are primarily motivated by monetary rewards?

I can be wrong, but I have some serious doubt that Richard Dawkins got into science expecting to find a pot of gold for his efforts. Thomas Edison, one of the greatest inventors in history, actually wasn't quite sure what most of his inventions would be good for, let alone to make money from them.

Perhaps love and passion also count a little in motivating people? Maybe some people just love thinking and tinkering? Maybe humans are a little more complicated than they are depicted in econ101 textbooks?

Most scientists and researchers are employed by universities, government labs or large companies on a fixed salary. If they are motivated by getting ever more there would be very little incentive to work once they are secure in their job.

Many very creative artists and writers were dirt poor in their lifetime and only got recognized after they died. If profit is the prime motive behind human endeavors all struggling artists would have gone to business schools instead.

You do know a scientist working for a company has to sign away all rights to his innovations as a condition for employment, don't you? All innovations are owned by the company.Many writers and musicians don't own the copyright to their works, the publishers and record companies do and they make the bulk of the money.

So the capitalists get rewarded for other people's innovations just because they own their work. I don't see how their existence is necessary for the innovation process. It is like saying the Church is necessary for great art work because it patronized many great artists in history. Well it did, only because it was allowed to accumulate great wealth and the artists (and others) would have to work for it to make a living.

In fact, one can argue that the profit motive is harmful to innovations because it encourages corporate secrecy and other attempts to undermine the free flow of ideas and information, which are the oxygen of innovations, Anyone who actually engages in creative work would tell you that even though corporate lawyers may say something different.

I am also quite curious about how incentives allegedly work for different people in the economists' universe. For those who already have a lot, like CEOs, the argument is usually that we need to give them even more for otherwise they wouldn't have enough incentives to continue "innovating" and "taking risk",-- with other people's money instead of their lives and limbs like miners and firefighters do. But for the poor who are barely making enough, the argument goes, we should take even more away, make them more desperate in order to motivate them to work hard. The psychology of "incentive" apparently is class dependent. Different strokes for different folks?

26. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176541 by Bonzai on May 7, 2008 at 2:54 pm

I thought this is about Richard Morgan's latest conversion. I was wrong.

27. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176528 by Bonzai on May 7, 2008 at 2:42 pm

PBUM

I said "What Eminen would call." I know he has been accused of homophobia before (I'm not so sure about that, though he is in a pretty homophobic part of the music industry). Its clear that he did not mean that line literally...

I was only joking. :)

As a gay person you should be ashamed! :) The best thing about being a gay man much surely be the ease of finding some, surely?

What the hell are you talking about? I do have very high standard. :)

28. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176443 by Bonzai on May 7, 2008 at 10:50 am

Al

There are moderate Muslims, but when the first bill for shariah gets introduced, who will the moderates stand with. So far the moderates only whine about Islamophobia and racism, and don't even acknowledge the Muslim source for Occidentphobia, bigotry, sexism, death, and expansionism. So the moderates are no help, they are a cover which the fundamentalists can use to say "Ya I am one of those Muslims who goes to soccer games and votes and stuff, so nothing to see here."

I understand your general sentiment. I think though, it is not as simple as you make it out to be. The problem is not the number of nominal Muslims in your country, but how integrated they are. This is not a purely demographic issue.

The unintegrated Muslims, as you say, when push come to shove, would likely close rank with their more strident co-religionists.

On the other hand, at least in my province of Ontario, it was the moderate Muslims who were most instrumental in stopping Sharia dead on its track, A number of Muslims, especially women, mounted a truly impressive and highly visible campaign against allowing Sharia in family arbitrations while our politicians were about give it the green light. The secular "progressives" were mostly in favour of Sharia in the name of "multiculturalism".

I think a few lessons can be drawn.

1) The moderates don't always enable the fundamentalists, in this case this assertion is refuted very dramatically

2) The secular, "multi-cultural" elite,--who are mostly middle class and white,--are often most effective in undermining the genuine liberal causes they claim to uphold. They are worse than the "moderates" by being enablers of Islamic fundamentalism

3) Policies that encourage segregationist tendencies in Muslims have to be stopped and drastically reversed in countries like the U.K.

Muslims per se are not the problem, but when you have a large number of unintegrated Muslims in your country, you are asking for troubles. To encourage integration, you must stop the special treatments , accommodations and state funded faith schools, but hitting people with a stick is not good enough, you must also offer genuine rewards for integration.

The U.K practices a kind of perverted "multi-culturalism" which is basically an adaptation of colonial techniques to manage its own minority populations. Minorities are encouraged to segregate themselves in their own ghettos so that the mainstream doesn't have to suffer the inconvenience of really opening up to new comers. So, "new" racism with a "muticultral" appearance dovetails nicely with good old boy racism.

29. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176436 by Bonzai on May 7, 2008 at 10:21 am

"Jesus saves" sounds like a slogan of some super cheap store that sells crappy products made in sweatshops in the third world.

30. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176397 by Bonzai on May 7, 2008 at 8:33 am

pbum

I belive what you actually got was what Emimen calls "some intense, serious ass fucking"

Excuse me?! Is there anything wrong with making passionate love? Me think Mr. Slim Shady has some issues to deal with.:)

As a gay person I would like some intense,serious ass fucking but unfortunately haven't gotten any action lately because I spend too much time on Rd.net ... :(

31. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176382 by Bonzai on May 7, 2008 at 8:11 am

rain

It simply means that his 'm' key is where his 'b' key should be.
Either that or he's a moron.

Yep, he's a boron.

32. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176336 by Bonzai on May 7, 2008 at 7:32 am

Has anyone seen the dreadful bus adverts in central London lately... with that kid grinning whilst staring at a marquee stating "Islam Is Peace"

Sorry, what is a "marquee"?

33. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175794 by Bonzai on May 6, 2008 at 3:38 am

Dannyjgb

Is the murder of thousands by pressing a button more defensible than one beheading?

No. But no one defends these actions as a matter of principle. Indeed they happen because the West fails to uphold the very principles it professes to represent.

Western governments can be rightly accused of hypocrisy. However, the beheadings, amputations and stoning, the misogyny, intorence and executions of apostates are defended as a matter of doctrine, these are Islamic ideals in action,--at least according to many mainstream Islamic "scholars".

So, by pointing out our own wrong doing for failing to uphold our own values does not in any way make Islam less of a god damned aweful ideology than it is.

So, perhaps we should also think about putting our own house in order while we address the issue of Islam?

Creeping Islamism is gaining ground in Europe and the U.K, it is "our own house".

EDIT It is also naive to think that all Muslim radicalism is always a reaction to Western foreign policies. When home grown, second generation Muslims got radicalized and join the jihadists it has little to do with foreign policies. When young Muslim radicals tried to bomb a bar because they thought "the women there are all sluts", as they did in the U.K a few years ago, it has got nothing to do with foreign policies.

34. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175783 by Bonzai on May 6, 2008 at 3:05 am

With Al-Shifa I think Chomsky jumped the gun.

From what I gathered no one, except for Ramsey Clark, backed his grim prediction that tens of thousands would die as a result of drug shortage because of the destruction of the factory, not one single NGO and human right group that works on the ground would lend credence to that prediction. It appears that he got his numbers from some rather obscure source and he took the words of the Sudanese government on face value. This government is made up of the same thugs who deny it has anything to do with the slaughters in Dalfur, it is hardly a very trust worthy source of information.

The bombing of Al Shifa was certainly a violation of international law and the U.S. should definitely pay for the damage (which hasn't) It is also true that the U.S. itself would never tolerate even much lesser provocations from a foreign power. However, it was not a major humanitarian disaster that Chomsky made it out to be,--as far as I know.

35. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175770 by Bonzai on May 6, 2008 at 2:21 am

epeeist

pretentiousness masquerading as intellectualism

You mean citing obscure philosophers and using multi-syllable big words to make a simple point? ;) I don't find that problem with riverrun even though his profuse citations are a bit tedious.

36. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175621 by Bonzai on May 5, 2008 at 5:57 pm

I think the key word here is "state", not "secular".

Keith strangely left out the word "state" altogether and changed it to "secularism worship", god only knows what that is.

37. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175606 by Bonzai on May 5, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Vineletric

BBC: More than 500 British Muslim religious leaders and scholars have issued a fatwa in response to the London bombs.

Well, the Saudis outlaw AlQueda, there were Wahabi and Salafist 'scholars' who condemned the bombing and 9/11, but it is hardly a proof that Wahabism and Salafism are not dangerous, intolerant and toxic ideologies.

I always think it is a mistake to focus entirely on terrorism. Sure, it is attention grabbing but it is mostly confined to the fringe,

By exaggerating and fixating on terrorism one gives the wrong impression that Islam is otherwise ok,

In the U.K., it seems that a Muslim can be considered a "moderate" or even deemed fit to sit on committees to advise government officials as long as he draws the line at outright terrorism. Otherwise he may have really grotesque views about non believers, Jews, women and homosexuals, he may think that stoning is acceptable(Tariq Ramadan?), he may think apostates should be put to death, he may hate secular democracy and advocate for eventual Islamic take over and imposition of Sharia,--through peaceful means, of course.. Anything can be forgotten and forgiven as long as he says no to terrorism. Thus, Ken Livingstone praised Qaradawi as a great moderate.

The bar seems to be set pathetically low for Islam moderation.

38. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175133 by Bonzai on May 4, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Rtambree

The west may be more sane than Islam, but it spreads around a lot more military clout (trillions in 'defense' spending), and the consequences are that the west causes more violence & suffering of innocent lives over the last 60 years (whether from negligence, incompetence or whatever) than the intentional actions of Islam's suicide bombers.

While that is true, I think the reason many people are having difficulties with such a formulation is that they do make an instinctive distinction between ideal and practice, but often only vaguely aware of it.

When the West commits atrocities, it is a deviation of what it nominally believes. It is not because of Western professed ideal of humanism, enlightenment and democracy that the violence and sufferings occur, but a failure to uphold them. On the other hand, when Islam kills and oppresses, it is actually the faithful execution of its ideals.

The West is guilty of hypocrisy because it doesn't live up to its own ideals, while the Islamic ideal is itself evil.

I don't think you intend to create a moral equivalence between Islamic and Western values and certainly not Chomsky, his criticisms of Western policies are always rooted in his enlightenment convictions But some self described, "leftists" and "multiculturalists" actually think this way. I have debated quite a number of them on Zmag's old forum. People who don't have a very nuanced understanding of "the left" would easily take your statement in the wrong way and see it as an apologetic for Islam.

I actually don't think terrorism and suicide bombings are the biggest problems of Islam, these are relatively rare incidents and confined to the fringe, what is infinitely worse is a fundamentally illiberal, barbaric ideology which is mainstream Islam. It keeps a large number of Muslims in the dark age. The biggest victims of Islam have always been Muslims themselves.

39. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #175026 by Bonzai on May 4, 2008 at 7:42 am

TCT

Essentially belief in God is emotional and therefore genetically determined.

Huh? I never said belief in God is "genetic". Being emotionally based and being genetic are not the same.

40. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175025 by Bonzai on May 4, 2008 at 7:36 am

Based on what I read here, I don't think Vinelectric is apologizing for Islam, he is simply asking people to inform themselves and form an opinion based on knowledge instead of kneel jerk, emotional responses, I cannot see how that is an unreasonable position for people who apparently advocate for reason and evidence.

While I am very aware of the danger of conservative Islam taking a foothold in the West, I think Fansusi's BNP like rhetorics is not helpful. To destroy Islam? How does he propose to achieve that? Round up and intern every Muslim? That is not only unrealistic, it is morally reprehensible.

41. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175024 by Bonzai on May 4, 2008 at 7:29 am

While we are on the topic, what do you think of Westerners who voluntarily act as a vehicle to the infiltration of radical Islam?

Australian university soliciting funds from Saudi Arabia for its Islamic study program. Based on these reports it doesn't seem to be an above board, no string attached donation.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2008/2231782.htm

42. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174878 by Bonzai on May 3, 2008 at 5:37 pm

But the dials are something rather than nothing, no?

EDIT Actually, from what I understand, according to the fine tuning argument, it is not that nothing would exist if the "dials" were set incorrectly, but that it would be very different universe which either immediately collapse upon itself, or no stable, complex structure would arise, etc. So it presumes "something", at least in the beginning.

In any case, this is a recent argument. The trend is that the theists try to insert God in any gap they can find in our knowledge. When our knowledge expands, God is being exorcised to the far end of the universe and the beginning of time, so it sounds much grander than the tribal God of Israel, yet at the same time, a lot more restricted, remote and impotent in actually intervening. This is a paradox the theists don't seem to realize.

43. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174871 by Bonzai on May 3, 2008 at 5:21 pm

TCT

The argument from order, essentially why there is something rather than nothing,

I don't think they are the same, MPhil may have something to say about it, so have your dictionary handy.:)

I don't know why you need God, or how does God help in explaining why there is something instead of nothing. One can ask why there is a God instead of no God.

I think it was probably not until the medieval time or much later that people ask this question and think that God is the answer. It sounds like a question that would only arise if you accept certain theological or philosophical premises. The apparent reasonableness of the answer "God" is due to cultural conditioning rather than the logic of the arguments. Many pre-Christian civilizations believed that Gods were secondary creations from some primordial order (e.g the Greeks). For those mystics, the existence of some primordial order didn't need explanation, but the existence of gods did.

44. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174856 by Bonzai on May 3, 2008 at 4:54 pm

That is, it is not so much 'order and harmony' as the First Cause argument that they go with.

I think the first cause argument is probably the last refuge after all 'other cause arguments' have been shot down. In itself it is not an argument for a God with any nice properties. If there is no harmony in the stars,--assuming we still exist to contemplate about God,-- the first cause God may be either insane or an absentee God somewhat like a deadbeat dad, not a very good reason to build a religion around it.

Paley's argument was that creatures were evidence of a designer, and Darwin responded. Perhaps in the ensuing controversy the 'creatures are evidence of design' argument got elevated to something it had not been before?

I think that is because Paley was born long after Newton, Laplace etc. He could no longer point to the stars and argued that was evidence for God.

45. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174842 by Bonzai on May 3, 2008 at 4:20 pm

The point about Darwin (or better, evolution by natural selection) is is that he/it provides a way of explaining apparently designed creatures without needing to invoke a designer/god.

Maybe it is just me, I don't think the apparent design of creatures is any stronger an argument for God than the order and harmony exhibited by celestial bodies. Indeed the ancients saw God in the stars, not in the chicken or the pig. Newton, Laplace, etc had shown that you don't need God to explain the stars.That would be as severe, if not more of a blow to theism than Darwin.

Darwin aroused intense reactions from the religious not because he provided a mechanism for apparent design, but because evolution addresses *our* origin, that hits too close to home, and hence evokes strong emotion.

I think this site sometimes does demonstrate some bias in favour of biology over other sciences. :)

Moreover, the belief in God is ultimately emotional rather than logical. Even if Darwin didn't exist or evolution totally wrong, Hume critique to the theory of the ultimate creator is still valid (hence ID is not a science regardless of whether there are holes in evolution). Actually, the Chinese poet Qu Yuan asked Hume's question in a long poem around 300BC.

46. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174828 by Bonzai on May 3, 2008 at 3:46 pm

I don't hold that against anyone from before Darwin, or perhaps even before the knowledge of DNA.

I was of course only jesting with regard to Euler. He was a great mathematician regardless of his religious belief. But it was true that he was deeply religious I don't really care that religious folks trotting out great scientists who are/were believers to argue their cases. Argument from authority is not a valid argument anyway.


But I do have a slight problem with the attitude expressed in the statement quoted.

Darwin certainly has delivered a heavy blow to religious beliefs, but that is only because many people think we have a special place in the universe.

But on a grander scale, there would probably be very good reasons for not believing in an intervening God since Laplace, or perhaps even Newton. There has never been any good scientific reason believing in the God of the bible anyway. I don't really think Darwin was so special as far as atheism is concerned. Also, Darwin's theory was not that firmly established in his lifetime. Thompson was indeed correct in showing that evolution was impossible based on 19th century science. EDIT So a Thompson or a Newton could indeed legitimately dismiss Darwin's theory based on 9th century science, hence I think the statement quoted above is somewhat overstated.

47. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174807 by Bonzai on May 3, 2008 at 3:11 pm

exp(2*i*pi)=1, welcome aboard. Another Euler fan

I should point out that Euler was a religious fanatic. :)

48. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174501 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 2:06 pm

There is a real socialism which is really great. Anyone of the various people who attempt to implement it (all end up being brutal tyrants, by accident I am sure) fail. It has no wages.

Which "socialist" country has no wage?

Even attempting to implement socialism leads to massive misery and death, leaving aside what would happen if it was implemented.

Why don't you answer my post #390?

When you are at it, why don't you tell us how do you define "socialism",

EDIT Would "socialized medicine" be a defining feature?

49. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174484 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 1:44 pm

My point is that socialism clings in some circles, for various reasons, which I will enumerate if I get the answer I think I will get.

Libertarian, "the market knows best" Capitalism such as what you espouse also has most adherents in some circles. So why don't you stick to the arguments instead of trying to play the armchair psychologist?

50. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174477 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 1:37 pm

D'Arcy you never answered, what do you do for a living? For capitalist wages that is...

That is a stupid question. If you ask a peasant in the Medieval time the same question, he would say he worked for his Lord. Does it follow that Feudalism is inevitable?