451. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110916 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 8:10 am

Will to power sounds of megalomania to me. Unless it is the power to tell other people to mind your own business.

452. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110908 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 7:44 am

I think sarcasm is often the most honest form of communication.

453. The Group Delusion

Comment #110906 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 7:41 am

Many people on this site have engaged w00ter in discussion reasonably at first but have over time learned from his inane cutting and pasting of non-responsive materials that he is not interested in serious debate but rather "de-baiting". So when a well reasoned inquiry or statement is posted by him it will get due respect. Until then he will get sarcasm from me. Americans might recognize my reworked jingle -- "call robo w00ter, that's the name -- and away goes reason down the drain..."

454. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110901 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 7:28 am

Just as a sci-fi hypothetical: What if a genetic mutation (man made or otherwise)caused humans to become carriers of a contagious disease or other problem that was deadly to children under a year old? Let's say it took around 40-50 years to develop this condition. Would it then become moral to commit suicide or to kill all adults by age 38? Would selection favor new generations that did not have a genetic predisposition against killing adult humans, even family members?

455. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110894 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 7:08 am

In response to Dr. Steve If it only takes a minor change -- why do you think some morals will last indefinitely? Are you predicting there will be no environmental change to select new morals? Which ones do you think have staying power?

456. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110893 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 7:05 am

I should leave this alone, but I can't help myself. Just like the Shermer book thread -- I think the Gates thing is a systemic issue with Corporate Capitalism. The ethos of maximizing corporate financial return leads to predatory behavior. It does not seem possible to provide a "fairly" priced product or service these days (perhaps it never has been and there were no good old days). Somebody is always taking it on the chin (it may be the consumer or it may be labor); but most corporate directors (and by extension shareholders)seem to be unwilling to make a nickel less than they can squeeze out of whatever it is they are selling. Does it have to be that way? Are margins so slim? I'm thinking of Walmart, ExxonMobil, MicroSoft, etc. here. Should Gates give MS products away -- no -- maybe he should sell them for cost plus a "reasonable" profit meaning not as much as the market will bear. Then he could consider the money his customers save as charity.

457. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110887 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 6:45 am

Dr. Steve -- There would only have to be a really powerful or really prolonged environmental change for long ingrained instinct to be overridden by selection -- right?

458. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110882 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 6:31 am

Or maybe I should read the title of the piece "The Moral Instinct" (sorry) Sometimes these threads get me side tracked from the starting point of discussion. So if we evolve traits that lead to successful social interactions - are these inherent morality? That makes sense to me. But as Steve said above these can be (and are, I think regularly) overridden by culture. Not only that, but can be changed by selection over time as the environment requires and therefore are not absolute. Even morality carved in stone tablets will not withstand erosion given enough time.

459. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110880 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 6:20 am

OK but I thought there might be a moral difference between something that is "good" and something that is "useful". A survival instinct is useful (and "good" compared to dying) but not what I think of as good for the sake of being good; that is to say what I thought morally good meant.

460. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110875 by Radesq on January 13, 2008 at 5:56 am

I'm not following the discussion here. To say there is an objective morality (genetic?) that says it is wrong to kill -- that can't be right. Humans kill all the time (especially other species, but also other humans in "defense of" self, family, property, country, religion, way of life,etc...)Do you mean to say we have a genetic predisposition not to kill those that we like or who at least do not seem to be a threat to us? That doesn't seem like morality to me but rather survival instinct.

461. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110726 by Radesq on January 12, 2008 at 7:38 am

Bill Gates could certainly afford to buy some church indulgences if not sainthood -- so he's got that going for him -- which is nice.

462. New attempt to end blasphemy law

Comment #109764 by Radesq on January 9, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Interesting that we don't have such a thing in Puritan USA. If you are being honest over there in Britain is this action (to remove legal protection for religion) made more possible by rationalism or by a growing Muslim population? Go ahead and shoot the messenger if you will, I think it is worth arguing. Also "tabling" an amendment in the USA essentially means killing it. Funny isn't it?

463. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109589 by Radesq on January 9, 2008 at 8:39 am

To Roger at 370 -- w00ter has already won an award for his submissions on this thread. See my 118 -- and he apparently hadn't even warmed up yet. w00ter is as w00ter does -to me it's entertainment.

464. The Mind of the Market

Comment #109344 by Radesq on January 8, 2008 at 10:09 pm

This book looks like it could be good. I read the review and it talked about some interesting propositions about capitalism. I can't honestly say I would pick this up with an open mind though. I've just played the Monopoly board game too many times. Plus I live in the USA which I think favors the hyper capitalist rather than the free market.
edit --
I just looked up hyper capitalist and that may come with more philosophical baggage than I intended. All I meant to imply is that the ethic seems to be make as much money as possible for it's own sake, not for any other particular purpose.

465. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109336 by Radesq on January 8, 2008 at 9:42 pm

For whatever you think it's worth, I agree with AndreG as far as he goes. Being atheist does not confer any special goodness on a person. I'm certainly not shy about my imperfections. But I think one of the things that Dr. Steve is saying is that atheists do not have to accept the morality of the Bible or whatever Holy book you choose -- in total. Those books (and the religions that spring from them) come with both good and bad. Atheists can choose to agree with all, some moral precepts or none (do they always choose wisely -- probably not) that flexibility is important in an ever changing world. On a related note the sun must be about to come up in Coventry and Dr. Steve is still typing away. Amazing!

466. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #108879 by Radesq on January 7, 2008 at 7:04 pm

Now I understand what you are saying. However, as silly and counterintuitive as it may seem I think voters actually understand and accept that some candidates are simply paying lip service to theism and don't really believe what they are saying. So are these voters rewarding politicians for lying to them. Yes, in a way, or at least excusing them because they know that it is impossible to get elected President of the United States without mouthing certain words. Is this hypocritical, irresponsible, uncourageous? Absolutely, and entirely necessary.

467. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108870 by Radesq on January 7, 2008 at 6:49 pm

Perhaps we should use "submit" to evolution -- that might work with the folks I know.

468. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #108867 by Radesq on January 7, 2008 at 6:47 pm

I suppose if you are a one issue voter, then yes if theism/atheism is your one issue then you would vote for an atheist candidate of another party. I am not a single issue voter, and there is no atheist candidate to vote for. Shall I just take my ball and go home? Should I not vote for the candidate least likely to appoint a fundamentalist to the Supreme Court? In a strictly binary world your point makes sense but it is not pragmatic or politically useful.

469. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #108860 by Radesq on January 7, 2008 at 6:34 pm

Wrong, you are seeing the mirror image of what has actually happened. The American Republican party has been overtaken by the religious right...so Liberals and Democrats wrongly assume that Republicans and Conservatives have no interest in atheism as they are too busy trying to get school boards to teach ID and allow prayer in schools.

470. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108818 by Radesq on January 7, 2008 at 4:52 pm

I saw the War of the Roses -- Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner -- crap. By the way which one is the Specific Ocean again?

471. Blind Faiths

Comment #108806 by Radesq on January 7, 2008 at 4:02 pm

That worldview built the west

472. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #108378 by Radesq on January 6, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Wasn't it Thomas Hobbes who said the life of man in the state of nature is like many of qster's posts?

473. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108366 by Radesq on January 6, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Paula: I don't know if it is a better idea. But I find it intriguing that Brian Coughlin often drops in on Christian blogs and does his thing there. I am considering doing the same thing but I am going to create another e-mail address to do so - in case they want to spam me with a bunch of Evangelical email.

474. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108363 by Radesq on January 6, 2008 at 2:44 pm

I want to add another reason to the list. I am watching American Football right now and when this game is over somebody will be interviewed and almost certainly say "first I want to thank God for this victory". (Make that reason 6.5 maybe) As if an omnipotent God would take sides in a sporting event. I notice however that when the losers are interviewed they never sarcastically say "thanks a lot God for helping the Giants win". This got me to thinking about when the Israelites would claim in Judges that God let some heathen tribe or other conquer them in war because they had "sinned in the eyes of God". How did the "chosen" manage to commit more sin than the unwashed? Would they really be comparatively deserving of death and enslavement (even if temporary) as opposed to their oppressors who had the temerity to believe in other than the one true God? Is this progress or backsliding? I'm not sure.

475. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108336 by Radesq on January 6, 2008 at 2:07 pm

ADH Those three items have a high correlation with atheism but they are not characteristics of atheism or caused by atheism. Steve is right if he is saying that those things are more descriptive of rational inquiry.

476. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108004 by Radesq on January 5, 2008 at 8:09 pm

8. Theists

PS Haven't heard the term frelling since they frelling canceled Farscape

477. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107931 by Radesq on January 5, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Krisking: Am I a vegetarian? No, infact I just finished eating my dinner (or maybe I should say supper) in any event for the rest of my answer to your question please see Paula Kirby @ 236.

478. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107911 by Radesq on January 5, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Alright, alright just don't make me say aloo-minny- um!

I find the Noah flood story one of the least credible and most morally reprehensible stories in the whole mess. Where to begin? Where did all the water come from, where did it go, why kill blameless animals, did animals that can swim survive, how did Noah's family repopulate the earth without committing incest, how could they mathematically produce enough offspring in the time allotted by the Bible to repopulate the Earth? Of course it goes on and on -- if you really want to look at a story that fails to pass muster Noah is your man.

479. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107894 by Radesq on January 5, 2008 at 2:47 pm

OK thanks Paula, I thought so. The only time I came to England I flew Northwest Airlines not British Aeroways so it was a little confusing. Wink back atcha.

480. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107883 by Radesq on January 5, 2008 at 2:40 pm

aeroplanes? Is that British for airplanes?

481. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107753 by Radesq on January 5, 2008 at 7:15 am

Summer Seale @ 109 Wow, what it must have been like being in front of those crowds and yelling over and over again "We've got Spirit yes we do! We've got Spirit how 'bout you!?!" I can't imagine. ;)

482. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107750 by Radesq on January 5, 2008 at 6:47 am

Teratornis -- I see you came back to the people don't want to give up their irrational religion because -- they enjoy it (and they don't appreciate a killjoy logician sticking his finger in the birthday cake)explanation (right Summer Seale?). That was sort of my point earlier on in the thread when I also mentioned the similarity to smoking. It relates in a way to the different styles of debate that might be effective, but also that sometimes debate may not be of much use.
L'il Blasphemer reminded me that there is also coercion preventing rational thought from prevailing in cases like this. I think fear of ostracism or causing pain to loved ones would be the issue over fear of eternal punishment (if you've gotten to the point where that's all that's holding you to religion why wouldn't you just choose to drop that too?)

Still, while I agree with the coincidence of the tribal and idolizing aspects of religion and sport -- I think the analogy breaks down after that. Absent my (irrational you would argue) tribal affiliation -- when I watch a sporting event between two away teams I often still enjoy the spectacle and the talent of the players. I just have a difficult time deciding who I would like to see win and why. Again even though there is a team called the Angels -- they are just people playing a game, they are not invisible, all powerful, etc..

483. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107640 by Radesq on January 4, 2008 at 10:02 pm

Summer Seale I suspect that Teratornis would ask you if you are willing to suspend you rational thought for sport why not for religious belief? But then he or she can speak for him or herself on that. It's one in the a.m. here in this part of Red Sox Nation. I'm going to sleep.

484. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107636 by Radesq on January 4, 2008 at 9:52 pm

Teratornis: That's an interesting perspective. I must admit I had not put much thought into it (it appears you have). I think there are some other issues to consider...the sports teams do not simply exist in order to make money for players and owners...that is their function perhaps but like any other form of professional entertainment or any business really -- they exist to provide a service which people are willing to pay for to experience. Now are those reasons irrational? Not entirely I think but you make some insightful points. As to rooting for the furniture company - no. That is not really part of the experience, I can appreciate any person or business that excels in providing their product or service (regardless of the amount of financial gain they receive). Of course part of the enjoyment of watching a professional competition whether a sport like baseball or a chess match is being familiar with the players getting an idea of their strengths and weaknesses of their game etc. and then rooting for them as opposed to the other teams "tribes". This isn't always based on geography but that does assist in the familiarity. The idea that the Red Sox franchise is a representative of the greater Boston area is pretty arbitrary I grant you (they have many fans elsewhere in the world also). In terms of group dynamics is it like organized religion? Yes I suppose in many ways it is. However, I think it is sufficiently different in the ways I mentioned before and perhaps some other ways as well that I will have to sleep on. I will keep in mind however, that to be a fan is perhaps to be a fanatic.

485. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107598 by Radesq on January 4, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Don Quix I agree that Sam always does a really good job every time I see him. Not only seeming reasoned but reasonable; even when he says something like Mormonism is just Christianity plus - a bunch of really stupid ideas.

486. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107583 by Radesq on January 4, 2008 at 7:34 pm

Teratornis: OK, that's helpful thanks. We all act irrationally at times. However, I think the correlation between my rooting for the Red Sox and believing in all powerful invisible deity is a tad weak. There is a team and another team and a competition for me to witness and be entertained by and if I hope that the team I favor is successful -- what is so irrational about that? Now if I thought that Babe Ruth or Ted Williams were going to return from the grave to lead the Sox to another World Series victory next year then maybe it would be apples to apples. Anyway thanks for your input please add to it if you like.

487. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107548 by Radesq on January 4, 2008 at 6:06 pm

LB Yes I do think you may be right in many cases. I need some instruction on these things from those who have been in the flock previously. I see people in church on tv and I assume they are there because they want to be -- not because they are afraid what people or God will think of them if they aren't. They often appear to be having a good time. I'm just trying to understand -- because I have this conflict of knowing that there are a lot (seemingly a majority) of people who believe what I think are ridiculous fairy stories and not even the best ones I have heard. A least a fair proportion of these people are very smart otherwise well adjusted people. I just can't dismiss all of these people as morons (as much as I might like to). But I just don't get it and I would like to do something about it.

488. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107544 by Radesq on January 4, 2008 at 5:52 pm

LB I can believe that, but do they admit that to you or is that just a logical conclusion you come to from thinking through the possible consequences they would face both in this world and the supposed afterlife?

489. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107541 by Radesq on January 4, 2008 at 5:39 pm

notsobad @33-- On the subject of debates like these: It seems to me the intellectual arguments were probably won long ago. Although the debates are worthwhile; it seemingly takes more than logical arguments to get most people to let go of a thought habit they enjoy and don't want to give up. I don't know but I think it takes visibility and peer pressure. Very difficult to do with something people are so defensive about. I don't know how to say it delicately -- but in the USA the best analog I can think of is smoking. Once wildly popular, it is now discouraged and looked upon by many as a weakness and something the poorer and less educated among us do (is that fair or correct? I don't want to give an opinion on that -- but it has been effective)...as such it has decreased smoking substantially. Of course it also involved many laws and ordinances being passed against smoking in public spaces. I wasn't in favor of that tactic for smoking (though also effective, and pleasant for me as a nonsmoker)and I think it was more a product of the peer pressure than a cause of it. That part could not be done for faith in the USA (nor would I advocate it). I'm sure none of this is news to regulars here but I think it might be worth thinking about again.

490. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #107520 by Radesq on January 4, 2008 at 4:57 pm

lindajean I obviously don't know Hitchens and I'm not really well versed on his works. I have read some and seen some of his interviews and debates. However, I feel like I recognize in him traits some positive and some negative that are more like me and the people I know than the other three "Horsemen". I think in total he is a definite plus for the group.

491. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107484 by Radesq on January 4, 2008 at 3:48 pm

eXcommunicate at #8 -- That look says to me: in the movie "The Four Horseman" the part of Sam Harris will be played by Ben Stiller.

492. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107000 by Radesq on January 3, 2008 at 8:36 pm

No Rtambree it is not circular it is pragmatic. I don't believe in the devil. Bush did not win a majority of the popular vote vs. Al Gore and but for the self important crusade of Mr. Nader GWB would not have become President in 2000. It was not any strategy of mine that failed. It was the failure of glossy eyed true believers who let the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good" and so ended up with neither. IMO

* But I'm not bitter about it.

493. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106995 by Radesq on January 3, 2008 at 8:16 pm

If there's only two choices, sure, I agree with you. But we were talking more than two choices.

494. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106989 by Radesq on January 3, 2008 at 7:46 pm

Sent2null -- BLASPHEMY! What an outrageous thing to say! Good beer is like manna fro... oops...nevermind.

495. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106979 by Radesq on January 3, 2008 at 7:27 pm

Who? Shall I repeat ...should we just (for all practical purposes)let the Religious right elect the President unopposed?

496. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106972 by Radesq on January 3, 2008 at 7:15 pm

Rtambree & Scooter: Many American atheists probably would like to vote for the atheist candidate. But since there isn't one should we just stay home and let the religious right pick the next President with no opposition? A believer can still respect the Constitutional separation of church and state (doesn't mean they all will). There are also other issues beyond theism to consider.

497. Changing my Mind

Comment #106950 by Radesq on January 3, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Not exactly a fair trade -- but I suppose with the paperback out it might at least be an affordable one.

498. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106941 by Radesq on January 3, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Iowa Caucus 15% reporting: Huckleberry 36%, The Angel Moroni Guy 23%, Law & Order guy 14%.

499. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #106930 by Radesq on January 3, 2008 at 5:44 pm

lindajean -- Perhaps Hitchens just needs to think that there cannot possibly be anything even as close to God as the supernatural or the transcendent or he would have to give theists partial credit for being right. He might be unwilling to do this because of his disrespect for their intelligence or dislike of their methods. Or it is entirely possible and far more likely that I am just projecting my own biases on to Hitch.

500. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106908 by Radesq on January 3, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Oh alright Anna have it your way. It is after all a matter of taste. At least you aren't extolling the virtues of Miller Chill.