1. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210813 by youmemeyou on July 15, 2008 at 5:28 am

Comment 650 by Mitchell Gilks reflects exactly what I think about this thing. PZ Meyers is obvious in no danger of being sacked because of his opinion that desecration is acceptable. His wry proposal was itself juvenile and so he should not be surprised that he attracts the lowest common denominator in response.

I think that the student's stunt was in incredibly bad taste. It reflects a generally ignorant attitude towards religious beliefs. Quite frankly, a lot of secularists simply don't care to grasp religion.

2. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192275 by youmemeyou on June 12, 2008 at 4:16 pm

Have you heard that more intelligent people are more likely to be atheists? So have I. Lets tell it to someone else, but not forget
cause and effect.

3. Five Things Humans No Longer Need

Comment #185035 by youmemeyou on May 26, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Darwin's point
"It is found in a substantial minority of people and takes the form of a cartilaginous node or bump on the rim of their outer ear, which is thought to be the vestige of a joint that allowed the top part of the ancestral ear to swivel or flop down over the opening to the ear.

Technically considered a congenital defect, "

Functions that can be adaptive in future modifications of auditory acuity are 'technically' a congenital defect? It's not even a cosmetic defect in my view. It's our defective aesthetic.

Goes to show that evolution is blind, not altogether unlike us.

4. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #180739 by youmemeyou on May 15, 2008 at 4:38 pm

God is a suitcase word, and irrational conviction that he exists derives from the truths attributed to it. Until atheists learn the habit of simultaneously attacking the suitcase while distinguishing its contents, we will continue to be misunderstood.

For instance, there is a vast amount of non-conscious communication between people of a society. When we get feedback (say, people look at you critically or encouragingly) we may not be able to attribute the source of that information. Thus we say it is God. To deny God seems like denying a truth unless we are lucid in distinguishing the suitcase word from it's useful elements.

A good analogy are the consciousness denialists, the unbelievers of experience. It does not intrinsically advance understanding to deny experience unless you appreciate the way in which cognitive work can be distributed and time stamped.

5. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177082 by youmemeyou on May 8, 2008 at 2:21 pm

The question of which God we don't believe in is worth while. It should emphasized that, in asmuch as we reject Gods, we can still replace much about them that is worthwhile. The fact is, greater truths and goodness than god is to be found in biology. We don't believe in any god, but some gods are more hollow than others.

The most sophisticated believers do not speak of eternity as an endless succession of days. "Each moment is a facet of eternity." as they say in Opus Dei. (My parents are active members.) This is almost begging for secularization, requiring only the subtlest semantic tweaking to acknowledge the spiritual truth of death.

As Dennett points out, it's often mostly a tactical question of whether we choose to believe something with modification or deny it and replace it with something else.

That is a basic difference between many believers and atheists. That is why the disagreement is so perplexing: there is only a number of subtle disagreements rather than a single essential one.

6. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176605 by youmemeyou on May 7, 2008 at 6:44 pm

Well, I admit that I have been reluctant to criticize islam because I know virtually nothing about it. I cannot adduce specific criticisms.

I of course do not believe the nonsense that it is immune to criticism in the english translation. (Ok then, I'm only criticizing the english translation. That's enough.) I should read the thing.

They can fairly point out that the bible is every bit as horrific. I only know that they do not have the interpretive wiggle room christianity had because the koran was spoken by god himself.

7. Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

Comment #176233 by youmemeyou on May 7, 2008 at 1:09 am

Many of you underestimate the importance of men like him. He is not an aberration to tolerate. This is a treasure.

I hope most of you realize that you could learn a great deal more from the spirituality of our ancestors than you will learn in your fleeting lifespan. I say this as a function of the limitations of the human mind as compared to the evolutionary wisdom aggregated by societies. Men like this - those who realize that religions have still more to learn from amoebas - should be taken as permanent allies, not more temporary than our own state of mind.

8. The Atheist Next Door

Comment #157970 by youmemeyou on April 9, 2008 at 11:05 pm

I'd note the omission of non-monotheistic religions.

9. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #156485 by youmemeyou on April 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm

O
rganic phenomenon which can influence the chance of their recurrence are subject to selection. To the extent it can be selected, it will be.

Species and orders experience extinctions and radiations. Splitting or collapsing genetic lineages can have an identifiable effect on the evolution of species around them. The language of evolution can and should be applied to ecological dynasties. It's a useful way of dealing with large changes.

He's one example where the 'specie's eye view' could be of use. I typed it up from from E.O. Wilson's "The Diversity of Life.":

"*Ants, beetles, lizards and birds display what has been called the taxon cycle. Some of the species adapt - more precisely, their member organisms adapt - to habitats from which it is easy to disperse. Such places include the seashore, edges of rivers, and windswept grasslands. Quite coincidentally, these habitats are also the best staging areas for long-distance dispersal."

Speaking loosely, the introduction of an organism into a favorable area is a sort of mutation. Birthplace, to some extent, is heritable and is a major survival factor.

Secondly, there are distinguishable regularities that arise at different scales or domains. It's no sin to discuss the dynamics of stars, even if you insist that it's not a star but 10^57 atoms.

By the by, am I the only one who thinks discussion of "Levels of selection" is infected with the mythological row between holism and reductionism? We need a vaccine for that one.

Inter-theoretic reduction involves connecting different modes of representation. Grouping and chaining concepts are cognitive prerequisites to applying low-level theories. The two are not opposites.

10. EXPELLED!

Comment #147542 by youmemeyou on March 20, 2008 at 9:36 pm

Creationists are, indeed, the ultimate under-dogs. Isn't it all too likely that the very production and display of a movie in their defense manifests malfunctional defensiveness.

11. The atheist delusion

Comment #144215 by youmemeyou on March 15, 2008 at 11:37 am

ThoughtsonCommonToad:"Science itself is merely a method for separating fact from fiction."


There's something about this formulation that makes me uncomfortable. A little like people who define reason as unemotional, linear processes of deduction. Which it is not, however powerful this individual tool in the suitcase term of 'reason'.

12. Minnesota Atheists Interview Richard Dawkins

Comment #114816 by youmemeyou on January 23, 2008 at 12:25 am

"Kareem Zreik
While I genuinely respect what people had to say, I think the first three callers should have asked questions instead of just calling into comment!"

There's nothing wrong to calling into comment. However, phrasing a comment in terms of a question serves two purposes. First, it serves to drive the exchange of conversation. Secondly, it requires the discipline to focus the conveyance of the message.

13. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75363 by youmemeyou on October 2, 2007 at 11:59 am

I don't think that atheists can rationally seek to minimize suffering and maximize survival. I suspect that would amount to evolving towards a worm-like or bacterial state. "Nematode man" suffers little compared to the homo sapien, and will survive after the surface of the earth is parched dry.

14. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66623 by youmemeyou on August 30, 2007 at 4:01 pm

stereoroid One more thing: did anyone notice the following CH statement?

"I tend to believe that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence."


On the one hand, this is an obvious logical fallacy - there might be evidence that you have not (yet) seen. I hope he doesn't literally believe that.

15. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #63277 by youmemeyou on August 13, 2007 at 7:35 pm

I hope the critical rationalist movement will show more sophistication about the underlying motivations of religious belief.

There are layers of rational, useful wisdom built up in religion. Rather than try to knock it down (where it can default to it's strength), we are better served to re-interpret it in a naturalistic framework and defuse the meme's defensive measures.

Find what is good about religion and show that you appreciate it and you will do more to undermine irrationality than if you harshly dismiss categories of belief wholesale.

16. Unreasonably superstitious

Comment #62853 by youmemeyou on August 11, 2007 at 10:53 pm

I'm looking forward to a presentation on new age ideas that exhibits a fluent comprehension of the psychological alchemy that underlies them.

A considerable extent of superfluous critique originates in the assumption that the explicitly stated claims of superstitions are what is precisely so interesting about them. This is wrong.

17. Susan Blackmore interviews Dan Dennett

Comment #58456 by youmemeyou on July 24, 2007 at 11:25 pm

Daniel Dennet and his teacher Willard Van Oman Quine have had an enormous influence on me. What is consisted of was helping me overcome some very basic stumbling blocks in my philosophy.

In general I urge you to pay very close attention to his treatment of intentionality(And not just in the technical treatment in 'The Intentional Stance').

His is some of the best formulations of blind, bottom-up intentionality. The logic of this is very important to the idea of God.

The 'intentionality' of God is generally considered to be a matter of foresight. But when we realize that this variety is [i]derivative[/i] of non-conscious processes, we can better describe how God works blindly. (That is, how it is that nature anticipates, is intelligent and yet is blind.)

Some people get more out the articul-ent style than others. But I give him credit for helping me achieve the most profound psychological experiences of my life.

18. Physician, Heal Thyself

Comment #55925 by youmemeyou on July 12, 2007 at 11:15 pm

nothing

Your name is an affective clue. In any case, let me be the first to present to you 160 well-educated, strategically selected reasons for optimism:

http://edge.org/q2007/q07_index.html

You're welcome.

19. Interview with Dan Dennett on Danish TV

Comment #54760 by youmemeyou on July 8, 2007 at 9:51 pm

[quote=hasty toweling]
Nice talk. Dennet's point of view is interesting to us non-believers, but memetics is far too abstract and sophisticated for believers to understand.[/quote]

A well-conveyed idea makes thinking easier. The fact is that our skills as communicators have to evolve adaptively. Telling people they are too stupid to improve their thinking is not a boost for you. It is simply unkind.

That is not the effect we should be having.

Most people are not conservative pundits, and even their listeners can be receptive if a good idea is well told.

20. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50990 by youmemeyou on June 20, 2007 at 10:16 pm

USA_Limey Most importantly, I think you miss the point that we are never likely to convert believers no matter how polite and rational we are. Nor will we succeed with Hitchens approach; this should NOT be the primary goal. The aim should be to give confidence to the millions of closet atheists who have felt cowed into submission and silence.

I disagree. Frankly, I don't give a damn whether or not somebody wants to cling to words. At least in my context, there are a dreadful lot of opportunities to change people's minds. I will take the practical course, namely learning more from others than I presume to teach.

I make no secret of my Atheism, but I am more interested in Evolution and physics than political muck and theological acid trips.

21. The God Delusion - Dawkins Feature

Comment #50988 by youmemeyou on June 20, 2007 at 9:43 pm

I have an extremely strong conviction that people are highly variable in how they believe.

Any rationalist deserving the name must understand the insensitivity of polls to the actual state of people's highest conviction.

When Socrates or Emmerson speak of Gods, I get the sense that their implications are far removed from Pat Robertson. And quite frankly, for very specific reasons, I regard Muhammed as the Shakespeare of gangster Rap.

22. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50986 by youmemeyou on June 20, 2007 at 9:28 pm

Insightful Ape
"God is your heart, not in your mind".

Steven Colbert lanced that one through the heart with his exceptional "Truthiness" speech.

23. Richard Dawkins: Atheist

Comment #50985 by youmemeyou on June 20, 2007 at 9:21 pm

BAEOZ
This to me, is one of the biggest problems we face trying to get reasoned discussion. If someone thinks that they have a "right" to hold irrational and possibly dangerous beliefs and that "right" includes us respecting it. And we play along by assuming the duty of saying that their view is valid. We're all screwed.

With steady orbit, in around the sun, the oceans could be dry in a billion years. Cyanobacteria have been found out to 3.5 billion. We're definitely screwed, but I'm still going to respect people who take spiritual questions with some rigor and seriousness.

So long as they maintain a sense of humor, I suppose.


Vardu, Thanks for the Tip.

I differ from Dawkins in my esteem for engaging the poetry of mysticism on it's own level. More often I prefer traditionalists' resourceful dissonance to the slightly offhanded professions of diplomatic doctrinal vagaries.

The wisdom in ANY great religions is far greater than my mine. Though as Hamlet-in-Nietzsche misquoted: 'there is more wisdom in your body than in your philosophy'.

24. Prayer can improve physical health

Comment #43771 by youmemeyou on May 22, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Proud Okie Atheist
"Subsequently, my doctors were amazed at how quickly I was healing. "Way ahead of schedule" was how it was put to me. All because I actively participated in my recovery."

This is exactly why people who actively participate in a religion are healthier. Clearly God is the reason 'active participation' is healthy.

25. Prayer can improve physical health

Comment #43769 by youmemeyou on May 22, 2007 at 2:30 pm

I think a lot of you are missing the boat on this one. Stop just giving believers ownership of everything their claim for their own.

They call it spiritual prayer because there is a long history behind it. That is, there has been an evolutionary process with many skilled practitioners seeking after what works. As unscientific as it is, this kind of evolution is not random. Many of these 'spritual' practices, particularly in eastern religions, do not necessarily have any supernatural component!

Cultivating somatic awareness (body/mind - I use the term somatic to avoid the false dichotomy) and control of anxieties through mental exercises can very plausibly have positive physical effects. The most obvious is stress hormones. I feel in my own case that practicing feldonkrais's exercises has attenuated control of my pelvis, reducing back pain.

26. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38179 by youmemeyou on May 7, 2007 at 7:20 am

I'd say that positive scientific works have done more to supplant my theological superstition than philosophy. If the non-existent 'religion of atheism' has nothing to offer (being absent), atheists do not lack.

27. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38164 by youmemeyou on May 7, 2007 at 6:45 am

I happen to agree with her assessment that many atheists do not prove their familiarity with the kind of games played mystical language. There is also an extent of naive demonization of all religious historical influences.

Bunting, like many journalists, has decided to take these weaknesses as the defining features of modern Atheists. This is simple bigotry and exhibits the same kind of mental simplicity she criticizes in athists.

28. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34208 by youmemeyou on April 23, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Steven Mading, with all due respect, it is not anti-atheist propaganda to accept some various definition of religion.

I for one could care less for such gerrymandering. My position is not at all weakened by it.

29. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34204 by youmemeyou on April 23, 2007 at 1:59 pm

In my own case, I came to understand the nature of what 'God' is long after I ceased to believe in any sort of deity.
Quite frankly, I am dismayed by the irrationality of atheists who don't attend to the overwhelming dominance of common ground.
That's why atheist's accusation that this reverend is 'soft on religion' rings hollow. This is not a battle between good people and evil. It is a struggle between rational harmony and unreason, a struggle that goes into the heart of every living human. If you think you are exempt, you are as deluded as any of us.

30. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33207 by youmemeyou on April 19, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Mr. Dawkins, the best of luck to you. It's a wide exposure under the worst of circumstances.

31. Dawkins vs Haggard: the Python Edition

Comment #30308 by youmemeyou on April 7, 2007 at 1:39 pm

One might almost say there is a mystical harmony at play. Surely *even* evolutionists cannot maintain that this is mere chance!