451. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171234 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 11:37 am

I said above, if you engineer things all day, it would be easy to look at other things and deduce that they were also somehow engineered by someone

True. But a good engineer should also notice that if there is a designer, he got to be a very lousy engineer for obvious "defects" in our physiology that many have pointed out. We should also have retractable wheels instead of feet.

452. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171221 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 11:25 am

Annabanana

If there is any such trend, I would attribute it to their lack of knowledge in the life sciences. For example, I work with a brilliant electrical engineer, but he has demonstrated to me in several conversations that he hasn't the slightest clue about biology. Incidentally, if I remember correctly, there was a poll somewhere that suggested that biologists have a higher incidence of atheism than any other scientific field...

I work in mathematical physics, I must protest the suggestion that biology is somehow the most scientific discipline. :)

My take is that engineers are taught to tinker and solve problems but not so much in conceptual thinking. Coupled with this is the tremendous workload, when other university students are partying, having a social life they are slaving away in the lab working 26 hours a day. The frustration,--especially sexual frustration,-- eventually builds up. The looney (lonely) geek either becomes an alcoholic or a Jesus freak, in either case all hell break loose.

I am not being entirely serious, this is of course just a caricature in case a very well rounded engineer like sent2null wants to take me to task.

453. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171205 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 11:14 am

Karda #5277

Interesting post.

You do have an interesting and imaginative perspective even if your arguments are not entirely convincing,

I don't have time to give a detail response right now, I will think about it and get back to you later.

In the mean time I want to hear others' take on it, IMO you are much more deserving of a thoughtful response than Dick.

454. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171176 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 10:52 am

Annabanana

That isn't very comforting. Although, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

I always wonder about engineers, There seem to be a disproportional number of religious fanatics in the engineering profession. Many "Creation scientists" have engineering degrees. Many Muslim terrorists are also engineers.

455. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171165 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 10:44 am

Why are people responding to an incredibly obvious troll when there's an interesting conversation to be had on the voice inside Kardashovel's head

I agree. DON'T FEED THE TROLL

456. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171154 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 10:40 am

He was also flagged because of the disgusting picture of his face that he posted in 5201.

457. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171128 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 10:23 am

Karda,

You said the Bible, in spite of its flaws is enough to "get the job done". Can you elaborate what the job is and how the Bible fits into the picture.

If you have answered that before you can refer me to an earlier post, I haven't been keeping up with all the posts.

458. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171112 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 10:15 am

The Troll button is where it was. What are you guys talking about??

459. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171107 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 10:12 am

I have flagged "Dick Dawkins" for offensive posts.

Please do the same.

460. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171061 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 9:31 am

Karda,

Sorry to butt in, but I don't find any mention of time travel in the Bible, nor do I find any suggestion that God is our descendant who comes back from the future to fix things,--if I understand you correctly, it has been a while by internet time.

I think you are just reading whatever you want in the Bible. This is no different from most believers even though you may be taking a bit more creative license.

461. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #171049 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 9:14 am

Mitchell

It may be a minority opinion, I actually like your poem better than Cartomancer's,

Maybe that is because I experience existential angst much more often than romantic feelings so I can relate to your poem more than Carto's. :)

To be honest it is a lot more easy for me to get passionate about ideas than with people, I can fall in love with ideas easily, but with people it is hard.

I think human interaction is a bit like listening to the radio in a stormy night. The reception is in general poor. Once is a while the channel clears up. In a fleeting moment you get a 90% reception and you exclaim "wow!"

But soon the channel shuts down and the white noise reigns again. You try to fix it by adjusting the dial, shaking the radio, putting it closer to the window.. all in vain. After a while you are fed up and decide it is better to change channel or simply switch off the radio and go to bed.

I don't know, it seems to me that people don't fall in love so easily. Maybe they are just lonely, or they are just in love with whatever they create in their minds. It is like you think you are listening to amazing music when you are stoned even if the radio is full of static or actually turned off.

I have never experienced the kind of strong infatuation that Carto expressed in his poem.It is alien to me,To be honest that kind of passion about another human being would scare the shit out of me. I am like a vulcan, though a crazy one.

Another good thing about your piece is that I don't need to reach for the dictionary.:)

462. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #171021 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 8:44 am

Nice pic

Although the method required too much skill for him to master, he was later able to improvise by using the pole to catch fish already trapped in the locals' fishing lines.

So he is really stealing rather than "fishing". Naughty monkey.

463. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170567 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Mphil

It's not a theory of chance. The mutations are random, yes - but natural selection is not.

Actually to really have a feel for how this work, some computer demonstrations/similations would be nice. There is a program in Dawkins' book the blind watch maker that generates complicated stick figures based on a natural selection type process. Does anyone know where to find it?

I am sure Adam would be interested, I would too.

464. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170531 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 8:14 pm

phasmagigas

adam, and of course that because it didnt, only actual mutations and odd events like meteors and trampling on ants are the chance events. natural selection is the non chance component as such, you can show this yourself by mowing your lawn, weeds below blade height or that have flowers held below blade height are selected for, they keep growing or spread seeds, its so very, very simple, in fact its terrifyingly simple!

To add to that, nature has many ways to achieve the same task, So the Rubik Cube analogy used by creationist is not valid, There is only one right way to assemble a Rubik Cube, which correspond to a small probability if all configurations are equally likely, But organic structures that perform a certain function can be put together in many different ways,evolution is more robust than creating a "fragile" configuration such as a Rubik cube, which wouldn't be right if one piece is in the wrong place.

465. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170505 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 7:51 pm

Melessajoy

. We are born sinners. Sin entered the world through the deception of Satan to Adam and Eve. I don't resent Adam or Eve for that. They are human, just like us. They fell victim to Satan's lie that is still being used today (look at the New Age teachings): you will be like God. I'm just thankful God banished them from the garden before at they ate of the tree of life, and lived forever in their sinful state. Did you catch that part of the story in Genesis? "And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken." THANK YOU, LORD! He didn't want us to live in sin forever

I really have a problem with that. If God is omniscient why didn't he foresee that Adam would be tempted? Why would he leave the forbidden in the garden? It almost seem like a set up.

So, Adam has eaten the fruit. Why is it so big a deal? Why is it such a huge transgression? Why is it such a horrible "sin"?

As you say God kicked Adam and Eve out and condemned them and all their descendents,--us,--because of FEAR, that we may become godlike. As the gnostic asked, "What kind of a God is THAT?" Would you kick your children out of the house, make sure that they have a life of hardship because you are AFRAID that they may one day they may become more knowledgeable and more successful than you? What kind of loving mother is that if you do that? And by what right to you have to seek apologies and love from your children after you have kicked them out and curse all their children as well?

More curiously, Why would you be "thankful" that God kicked them out before they ate from the tree of life? With due respect, I think you have some very messed up morality if you think eating from a tree is a big sin while going on murdering spree to demonstrate one's power is to be cheered as the manifestation of "love" of a "just God".

I don't care that you believe in fairy tales, but the morality you subscribe to is horrendous beyond the pale. You are right, we can't measure up to that standard of depravity, probably even Stalin couldn't.

466. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170492 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Adam,

That is very big of you, Thank you for the apology and the honest admission that ID is not science.

467. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170466 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 6:53 pm

Diacanu

Leading my life based on what my genes want, or what religions prescribe, would be to be the very mindless puppet of genes and memes that religionists accuse atheists of being.

Yeah, modern medicine is how the knowledge of evolution is used to subvert natural selection.

It is kind of ironic, isn't it? Some religious folks reject the theory of evolution because of the cruel and indifferent world it reveals, but the only way to protect ourselves against the terrifying force of natural selection is to understand it and know it intimately, Praying to God would not help.

468. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170452 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 6:37 pm

smell

Hey, just wanted to bring up a funny point. Not meaning to start an argument about this, but it isnt it kind of funny that people who don't believe in Darwin's theory are probably the ones who are the most viable under it. I mean, religious people breed a lot more than others.

Yeah, but you forget the other part of the equation. If it weren't for the people who "believe" in evolution to come up with medicine and other modern amenities for supporting life most of those babies popped out by the God fearing breeders would not have survived.

You raise an interesting point. Throughout most times in history humans produce more offsprings than that would survive, hence the incredibly high infant mortality rate.

If babies die of natural causes on a large scale like they did in the Medieval time is God responsible? How about religious people who continue to procreate knowing that only a small factions of their offsprings would survive? Are they worse than abortionists?

469. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170361 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Stuart Paul Wood

You yourself alluded to this when you mentioned somebody having a nervous breakdrown brought on by religious belief. So you agree with me on that.

I said it provides comfort for some people, how does the fact that some other people suffer hurts my argument?

I also said the specific content of belief is important. If "truth" is the only thing that matters there would be a moral equivalence between radical Islam and the belief in Santa Clause, I think even the most militant of atheists would not make that claim,--but then I can be wrong, someone may actually argue that.

Scientists motivated by God - so what?? Ballyhoo for them. What about the poor sods who'll never know better BECAUSE of religion. How many times Bonzai my dear fellow?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I notice you keep using "religion" as if all beliefs are the same. Why don't you tell me what is a religion to you?

My view is that the mere profession of believing in some God, without any additional dogma or specific properties of that said God, tells you almost nothing about the person's attitude on practical issues, including how he or she sees science.

I didn't say truth was the highest goal! I said one of! And then I said it came higher than mere comfort. If you disagree fair enough but what a mad path that belief could potentially set you on!

I still disagree, as my Star trek example shows.

The Star Trek thing.

1) Its fiction

Are you not able to infer lessons from art or fictions?

2) Is it really so bad that people accept evolution, say, and lose part of their illusion? Its totally incomprable to your example of being awoken from an artificial dream only to find oneself totally emmaciated!

When did I say I am talking about evolution? I am questioning your point that truth is always a higher goal than comfort. Sometimes it is, as in the case of evolution, other times it may not be.

Lastly - "I have asked some Rabbi". Are you serious? You're actually admitting that that is how you "know" that the Jews didn't take Genesis literally? You're prepared to say categorically (as that's you're buzzword) that they didn't? You're mad!

Why not? That is at least one supposedly informed opinion. Do you have other source that told you they did, other than your own speculations?

AGAIN I contend that religion OVERALL has a negative impact on our species' advancment. I have provided examples.

That is not the point. Over-all, is an average. I am questioning the contention that any religious belief is necessarily harmful.

470. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170352 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 5:05 pm

MaxD

I've read the Atran papers, though it was a little while ago. In any event I don't think they are terribly robust, nor do they say anything about the idea that belief is important as a lever to action.

He did. His analysis on "religious"terrorism is far more convincing and better supported by evidence than anything written by Harris and Dawkins on the topic.

Nor do they hurt the general case against relegion made by Dawkins and Harris.

What is that? The "general case" of course can be so unspecific that nothing can really hurt it, sort of like a Deist God perhaps. Some of the claims, like the moderates enables the fundamentalists is easily demonstrated to be wrong even without Atran.

I for instance don't find much in your ideas about consciousness, or your belief in belief compelling but I'd not refer to you as a hack.

I don't publish on these topics and I don't present myself as some kind of authority, Yes, I do find Dennett over-rated and somewhat of an windbag and has the bad tendency of handwaving problems away with big words and definitions. But let's not get into it, it is not a review of his books.

Atran's work doesn't really support you thesis that religion is harmless. It just says that religion is one factor among many.

I never said religion is harmless, I am saying that not all forms of religion are harmful and that "harm" has to be more clearly defined. There is a big difference.

471. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170343 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Stuart Paul Wood

I agree it didn't stop Newton or Crick in their acceptance of their discoveries, good thing too. But can this be said for everybody?

I never said this is the case for everybody, even most people. I was disputing your categorical claim that religious belief must have a negative impact on scientific discovery because of some kind of intrinsic logical inconsistencies.

There are scientists who at least claim to be motivated by a desire "to know God" to undertake science and that they say science is the way God reveals himself. In those cases, probably rare in our secular times, religion actually provides the motivations for making scientific discoveries.

Wouldn't you agree that science (truth) has been heavily resisted by religion to the detriment of the whole of humanity?

I never said otherwise.

But religion in what form though? As vague, first person musings or as organized political force adhering to rigid dogmas?

So many people refuse to accept evolution because of religion, I think that this shows that religion is actually worse than useless.

I don't know if it is because of religion or because of a particular way of interpreting their religion, coupled with some cultural, sociological and historical factors that make fundamentalism the default brand of Christianity in the U.S.A.

Many Christians, including many mainstream Churches, do support evolution in the creationism v.s evolution debate. Mphil also told us before that in Europe creationism is rare even among conservative Christians.

I don't think you can generalize the U.S, experience as "typical" in some sense. It has its own historical reasons that goes beyond merely believing in the Christian God, let alone just some vague, unspecific God.

Again, I'm less interested in the individual believer and how they assimilate science or not. What concerns me is religion's powers of limiting the advancement of us as a species.

Well then you shouldn't have made your statement so categorical.

Truth isn't a mere "value judgement"

I never said it is. But to hold that truth must be the highest goal in all circumstances is a value judgment.

I saw an old Star Trek rerun on TV, The origin series.

Kirk and crew went to this planet to rescue a certain Captain Pike who was believed to be captured. They found out Captain Pike was actually burned beyond recognition and became a vegetable from an accident, He was too far gone for the medical technology to fix. The aliens hooked him up to some virtue reality machine so that he could experience his life as a vibrant, handsome young man just like it was before the accident even though only in his head. In other words, the aliens created this delusion to keep the poor man happy.

Kirk agonized over whether to bring Captain Pike back according to order, or just to leave him there with his delusion. In the end he lied to his superior that Pike was dead and returned empty handed.

I think Kirk did the right thing,

Never much of a Trekkie but this is a good episode.

I say I question what others say about comfort - I don't totally disbelieve them. If people want to say that it comforts, fine, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are being truthful even to themselves.

In some cases may be they are not being truthful, but in the absence of additional evidence I would take people's words for their own feeling. I think it is arrogant and patronizing to tell people we know how they feel better than themselves,

How can you say that the Jews in x BC didn't really take the story of Genesis literally? That's slightly categorical of you is it not?

I have asked some Rabbi.

472. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170328 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 4:03 pm

TCT

This seems to be Bonzai's common refrain. Religious belief isn't evidential all this bothering about whether it is actually true is wasted time, its about their feelings. A believer in belief.

First of all, I don't consider "believe in belief" necessarily a dirty word.

Secondly, I never made the point that all beliefs are good. I say it depends.

However, I am more interested in why people actually believe, than to insist what they must believe by reading religious texts in abstraction.In other words, I am interested in religion as an anthropological phenomenon.

There are anthropologists who actually study religion. For example, Scot Atran has pointed out that the Dawkins-Harris way of looking at religion as primarily truth claims completely misses the point. He has the data, Dawkins and Harris don't and they just invent pesudoscientific "explanations" such as memes (and Dannett is just a hack anyway). I would rather go with someone who has gathered and studied the evidence, That is the scientific attitude.

My point is the argument from awe, which Bonzai always raises as the main motivation for religious belief

I say it is a motivation and perhaps an important one for some believers. Never said it is the main one.

are not only insulting to someone who also experiences profound awe but doesn't have the audacity or unbelievable arrogance to suggest the universe was created so I could experience it, but it must also be ultimately dishonest.

You are pretty dishonest in distorting my view.

But how is it an insult to you? Different strokes for different folks, are you so arrogant to suggest your way is the only way to express awe?

Some of the greatest work in the arts and science are inspired by some kind of "religious sentiments", though others are not. It is you who insist that everyone must think a certain way and everything else is negative or harmful,

I am tone deaf to certain genres of music, like the stuffs that Roboholic listens to, but would I tell him it is insulting to me because by listening to those stuffs it implies I am not able to appreciate music of any kind?

You have to ignore the reams and reams of cruelty, God-made ineptitude and wanton disregard for humanity and all other species. The argument from awe is specious and ridiculously selective; As I have said before and will continue to say ultimately dishonest.

Again you assume these people always subscribe to a coherent belief system. They don't. And why don't you actually ask them what they believe in instead of assuming what they must based on your thinking?

473. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170313 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Roboholic

Bonzai, it technically takes up your time which could be used pursuing actual nature

So do posting on internet forums, beating off to Marilyn Manson and raising a family.

474. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170299 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Stuart Paul Wood.

I see all supernatural belief as negative as it tends to hinder the realisation of certain truths

No, it doesn't follow. Newton believed in the supernatural, so do Francis Collins and Ken Miller. I don't think believing in the supernatural necessarily prevents one from discovering and seeking scientific knowledge, As I said, it all depends on what one actually believes and how rigid that belief is. A Deist like God or a God who "reveals himself through science" has almost no scientific significance. It is more of a psychological motivator.

Your categorical contention that "truth" always have a higher importance than comfort is a value judgment and it cannot be discovered through science.Sometimes it is, but not always. I can see many situations where telling little white lies are better than telling the truth, I am sure anyone who is not a complete hermit would have no problem thinking up scenarios like that.

Persistence in the face of defeat may be a neglect of "truth",--at least "truth" in the sense of probability,--call it delusional, but there is something noble in fighting on despite unfavorable odds.

As for helping people get to sleep at night, I have to wonder whether it actually does. When my mind was infected with religious ideas in my youth I found it to be a great cause of anguish especially when I was trying to get to sleep.

That would depends what you actually were taught to believe. I am sure for some people religion create guilt and the notion of an unforgiving, ever watching God would bring on a nervous break down, but I am saying for some people their belief do seem to keep them at piece, so serves a useful function for them. I am not making categorical statements here, you are.

The religious think they already have a truthful explanation which why I suppose they don't consider that they might be wrong

I don't believe most people are drawn to religion because they seek "explanations", at least not the scientific kind. I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what religion means to many believers. The "truth claims" may be important to fundamentalists and some formal theologians, but to many believers I think it is quite secondary, almost like it is thrown into the package for completeness. I know many Christians, some even quite devout, none really care or know about evolution, creationism or "fine tuning". Scientific puzzles are just not that important for them.

Religions begin in mythologies, and they were often understood to be allegorical by contemporaries. I don't think Jews reading the Genesis in several centuries BC really "believed" the world was 6000 years old and that there was a flood 4000 years ago and so on. They didn't really care, those are modern inventions. The medieval Church has made Christian doctrines more like truth claims but that was again the invention of later theologians and philosophers.

475. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170284 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 3:00 pm

How does Goodall's belief interfere with you TCT?

I don't find that arrogant at all. Her "religion" seems to be just a way to capture and express her awe. That is what I meant in my last post that for some "believers" religion functions like a literary device.

Some people express their awe in Dawkins, Sagan or Einsterin's way, some people has a more anthropocentric way of putting it and find it aesthetically wanting. But she didn't go on to say God's command is in the Bible and homosexuals should be stoned, did she?

476. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170279 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 2:46 pm

My Ph.D. has 68000 assembler code as an Appendix.

Assembler codes??!! When was that if you don't mind me asking.

477. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170266 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 2:31 pm

If people are drawn to religion for emotional reasons I cannot see how "science" would make it obsolete. Science doesn't address emotional needs. It is better to ask if God would be obsolete if everyone is happy and content.

478. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170259 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Stuart Paul Wood

My point is however is that because it possible to know better I as an atheist can see how belief is negative, counter-productive and useless for the actual believer even if they cannot.

I think that depends on what they actually believe, and what you mean by "belief", I think sometime atheists take the word "belief" too literally while to many theists it is not like a pledge of allegiance, it is more ambiguous and open ended. Religion can be seen as symbolisms, fables and literary short hands, which makes it functionally more like a literary device than a fix set of specific dogmas despite the nominal supernatural "beliefs".

I wouldn't say it is necessarily "negative", that depends on the actual content of the belief(I know Dr.Benway would disagree but I won't get into that debate now).

As I said, utility is subjective. If believing in some kind of deity gives some one peace and keeps the insomniac asleep at night, who is to say it is not "useful" for him? Depending on the actual belief it may have less side effects than the sleeping pills and cheaper.

Edit Church is also a vehicle for people who otherwise would be home bound to have a community and meet friends.

479. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170240 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 1:57 pm

gr8hand

I own no Barbara Streisand, Bette Midler, Judy Garland or Madonna recordings

Neither do I, I hate Streisand with a passion. Bette Milder is way too popish for me. I only have a dim impression of things from the Graland era and most turn me off.

My music taste is probably rather unusual for the stereotypical gay man, I like Dylan, Springsteen (is he hot) and yep, Tom Waits, he is the personification of cool.

480. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170207 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Speaking of my experience in school for being gay, that is rather strange and I don't think it is typical.

I didn't have a clue about my orientation, but then it has always been a rather ambiguous thing, it is not like one day you wake up and decide to smell some guy's smelly arm pit and get a hard on, it is never like that with me.

However, I hanged out with odd characters who were actually straight but went around telling people they were gay and they "acted gay" by smooching each other and so on. They thought it was a very cool thing to do. There was no problem at all, I think on one level, no one really took them that seriously, at another level, I went to a boy school (not religious though) and horseplay was quite common.

481. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170193 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 1:22 pm

rain

The pretending doesn't have to be particularly conscious, just learned behaviour to deal with some situations

Well then it is not pretending. Pretending has to be willful deception by my understanding.

482. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170185 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Mitchell and Rain


I don't know if it is pretending or genuinely clueless. I think I am quite clueless about certain emotional things, and genuinely feel uncomfortable in situations where there is too much touchy feely stuffs going on. I am a fairly "abstract" person in general.

There goes Teratonis stereotype that gay men must be gentle and nuanced like Cartomancer. :)

483. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170182 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 1:13 pm

You may say so but if we agree that there is no evidence for God then how can belief in God be truly useful?

Please define usefulness.

484. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170177 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 1:09 pm

It depends on what people believe in God for. If they take their belief as some kind of scientific hypothesis to "explain" natural phenomena, then God was obsolete long time ago, and it has never been a good explanation even for something mundane like rain and thunder anyway.

But I don't think this is the main reason why people believe in God though, especially in the developed world.

One reason is perhaps to remedy that feeling of alienation induced by the impersonal universe that science has revealed. It is the longing to find an emotional anchor in an universe, which is "ultimately meaningless", to quote Stephen Weinberg.

Another thing is that with rapid changes in technology, economy and social norm in general, many people cannot catch up and feel disoriented as a result. They want some old certainty in a world that is always in flux.

So, paradoxically, science not only doesn't make God obsolete, but actually makes it more urgent for people of a certain disposition.

485. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170175 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Stuart Paul Wood

Whatever reason people believe in God has no bearing on whether it is actually useful don't you think?

Of course it does. Utility is subjective.

P.S. I edited and repost my post below.

486. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170141 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Cartomancer

Traditional Japanese love stories almost always have an unhappy ending, so my brother tells me. Rather like the Greek tragic theatre. Life imitates art here I suspect - in my case at least...

Don't know how much of that is true. I remember reading Ruth Benedict's "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword" as a teenager. In it there is a chapter on Japanese aesthetics. According to Benedict in Japanese culture a flower is most beautiful when it has just died and the peddles are falling off, but not quite hit the ground yet.

This reminds me of the ending of Kawabata's novel " the snow country" which describes in great detail how the dead body of the female protagonists fell horizontally (physically impossible) from a fire scene and almost suspended in mid air for eternity.

I can't say how much of Benedict's book may be based on old stereotypes though.

487. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170126 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Steve

The female gender is quite simple to explain. They are just like people, only more complex. They can do things like multitasking and remembering precise details from 20 years ago

Yeah, the ability to remember details is quite freaky, like my straight friends told me, whenever they had break ups, the girl friends would go over a litany of old complaints and grievances that the guy couldn't even remember and their jaws just drop, not knowing how to respond at all.

488. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170117 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Mitchell.

Of course it has to do with chemical balance. Probably all our behaviours are governed by chemical balance, the question is how flexible it is and what may induce a shift in balance. If monogamy is genetically programmed as in some birds and wolves than it is probably very rigid, but the same is not true with humans or say, chimps.

Complexity gives rise to phenomena which are completely novel in that they can't be simply treated as small "perturbations" of what we essential know from vastly simpler situations. It creates something qualitatively different. Nonlinearity and emergence is a science unto itself. It is not like you just add a bit of complications while in principle it is just the same old hat. That's why "vulgar reductionism" doesn't work in that it may not answer the right questions, which may be only meaningful at some higher levels. It would be like trying to reduce biology to quantum mechanics.

EDIT ALL our behaviours operate on a biological substrate, and that whatever factors that modify or alter our behaviour have to work through it, this is a truism and indeed nothing much insightful can be gleaned from that alone. The question is how these mitigations come about and how flexible or rigid our behaviour patterns are.

489. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170109 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 11:43 am

Corylus

Men can multi-task. E.g, reading whilst sitting on the lavatory is a prime example. I'm always impressed by that one :-)

Huhh? What are you talking about? I always have female roommates and without exceptions they all take reading materials into the toilet.

Speaking of toilet, I want to ask Mphil if it is true that German boys are trained to urinate sitting down. I lived with some German women and girls before and that was what they told me. I have some suspicion that they might be saying that just to get me to keep the toilet seat down.

490. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170095 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 11:21 am

gr8hand,

Clues? It's really a binary situation -- either there is homosexual behavior or not.

Well, my hunch is that with Bonobos, as with humans, sexuality is not binary, unlike, say in some birds or goats if I understand the claim correctly.

Exclusive homosexuals are rare in humans if you go by historical and anthropological data. We have a very flexible range. Sexuality in humans is multi-layered, mitigated by many other factors than simple biology. Bonobos is probably the closest animal species to exhibit even a small range of that complexity in their sex lives.

The very notion of "homosexuality" itself may not be all that well defined for humans (or even Bonobos)

The emergence of civilization has two implications. 1) Our evolutionary heritage has to be sufficiently rich to give rise to civilization, 2) our evolutionary heritage has to be sufficiently flexible and diverse to sustain civilization, thus allowing it to interact "non linearly" with biology. This creates a loop which I don't believe can simply be reduced to biology.

I think wolves are monogamous, as are some birds. But it would be a mistake to try to study monogamy in human societies based on those examples and conclude that monogamy is "genetically programmed".

Despite the superficial similarities, "monogamy" in human societies has very different meanings and context than "monogamy" in wolves or birds. They are not the same phenomenon.

EDIT I think homosexual "behaviour" should also not be confused with homosexual "identity", the later seems to be a theoretical construct, except perhaps for relatively few people that it may indicate something intrinsic.

491. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170091 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 11:07 am

I don't know about other people, but I don't date friends(as in buddies) as a rule.A boyfriend may eventually become a friend, but not the other way around. I remember there is an episode of Seinfeld about the awkwardness of that situation.

492. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170052 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 10:10 am

Instead of talking about Bonobos,--though they are cute no doubt,-- please answer my main question to Mitchell Gilks
(and Teratonis)

Is it because of evolution that men make more money than women so income become a trait the female select for? Why is it that it has become less important a trait in places where women have better access to education and well paying jobs?

493. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170044 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 9:58 am

Heard of Bonobos? Everyone wants to have fun!

Everybody? Or just Bonobos and (perhaps) Dolphins?

I think if you look at Bonobos for clues of homosexuality you will get some very different data than say,from looking at goats and birds.

494. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170033 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 9:39 am

Mitchell Gilks

I know you are not going to like this, Bonzai, but I think I can make Terotornis's case for him, though clearly he is wrong in how he has presented it.

I think I can reduce it to an evolutionary explanation. In nature females chose the males, this is almost universally true. Males have to strut their stuff, as it were. Display their attributes to be attractive to the female. The mistake is in thinking women are only attracted to wealth, power, or possessions. Clearly many are, though clearly many are not. Athletism, intelligence, charisma, good-looks, even height or a million other things that could attract a female. Now this also isn't universally true, like most things about human beings, we no longer obey our natures as much as we once did. Or else sperm banks and such would not exist.

I am always cautious about attempts to directly apply observations of the animal world to humans. You are assuming procreation must be the goal of dating, what if the ladies just want to have fun? How do you explain condoms with evolution?

Please read my link to Kenan Malik from my post to Teratonis.

But regardless, what you write above was not what Teratonis said . He basically said women take men (him?) to the cleaner, he was referring to wealth and material possessions. Within your theory the man can still have gotten the lady(ladies) to pay,--or at least to pay for herself which is often the norm for younger folks anyway,--if he has other attractive qualities.

Now why is it that wealth and material possession are often the "stuffs" that men have to "strutt" in order to win the lady? My mother told me in her generation a man can be a real ugly toad and a total bore but if he has a good professional job he would have a lot of women waiting to marry him. Too bad for Teratonis, I don't think it is like that anymore.

Women were more attracted to men with good income in my mother's generation than they are now, why? Have they undergone some mutations?

It is not because of evolution that men in general make more money than women, it is a socio-political-cultural thing.

Teratonis' idea that wealthy women must have gotten their wealth from some other men is also quite ridiculous. I don't know how old he is, but all my women friends work, and some are doing quite well financially, Oh, I know, Teratonis would tell us that they are probably sleeping with their male bosses.

495. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169835 by Bonzai on April 26, 2008 at 11:17 pm

Provide evidence without quoting your pathetic bible fairytale that your particular god exists.

Why are you guys always insisting on existence proof? She already told you in very reveling way what that God represents. If he exists he's got to be the biggest arse hole and cosmic criminal, that would alone justify rebelling against him. So even if that God exists, it in no way validates her worship of him.

496. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169825 by Bonzai on April 26, 2008 at 10:48 pm

Melisajoy

So anyway, the plagues of Egypt were brought on to show the awesome power of God. The Egyptian magicians were unable to compete with the power of God, and it is through this power revealed in history that this story has lived on and on.

So was it fair for God to hardened Pharoah's heart? Well, yeah, because it was how God showed His power to the world. The world was aching to see and know God. Just like it is today. But God (luckily for us!) doesn't have to act in such ways today, because HE ALREADY DID BACK THEN! He doesn't have to do it over and over again. This story has been told to generations SINCE then.

Well, like Cartomancer I think you are well meaning so I will try to be polite.

So it is all about power and intimidation, isn't it? This is blackmailing. How about inspiring people through wisdom, reason, kindness and knowledge?

The way God carried out his blackmail has to be the most despicable thing that any bully can do, let alone a God: to murder the innocent in order to show off his power.

To put it in human terms, it would be like the U.S. nuking some small country into ashes in order to show Russia or China who the boss is.
This is crime against humanity of the highest order.

Was it fair for the firstborn sons of the Egyptians to be killed? Well, yeah, they were killing ALL the Bebrew boys, not just the firstborn. Before Jesus, everything was an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. That's why there's a lot of rules and regs in the Old Testament regarding stoning people for this and that.

What did innocent children have to do with their parents' crime? Why should ordinary Egyptians be punished for their Kings' and Genrals' misdeeds?

Perhaps in your eyes children are just property, so it is like I smash your vase you would smash mine in return so "yeah, that is fair"?

It's God's way of showing we can never measure up to His standards,

I certainly hope we don't measure up. I don't sense any irony on your part though.

thus revealing His mercy to us through Jesus.

Mercy for what? I am sorry, I really find your morality repugnant beyond words. As I said to Remnant the other day,the "love" of your God is a master and slave, S&M relationship.It is not love,it is abuse.

Just a final question.

Why would God even care about us worshiping and "loving" him? This sounds pathologically needy and petty for the supposed master of the universe

497. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169801 by Bonzai on April 26, 2008 at 8:53 pm

Teratonis

There's no maybe about it. Most female humans appear to view a man more favorably when he is willing to expend resources on them. I seem to be as bound by that law as any other man I know.

Well then how do you explain my friend Gus, when he dates the women always pay. How about the handsome swindlers who cheat the savings out of wealthy ladies? How about all those men who attend higher social status and wealth by marrying up such as Prince Philip and Mohammad?

Admit it, you just don't have enough charm. :)P Being a MCP(Male Chuavanist Pig) with a sour grape in the mouth instead of an apple doesn't endear you to ladies either. :)P

Primatologists have reported similar behavior among chimpanzees, wherein the male chimpanzees kill monkeys and give them to the female chimpanzees in exchange for sex.

But I wonder how much of that generalizes. Humans have civilizations, that may interact nonlinearly with out primate nature. A lot of evolutionary psychology is probably bunk

http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/fallacy.html

Maybe you are one of those exceptionally lucky guys who gets all the sex he wants with all the women he wants, and you get to mooch off all your girlfriends in the bargain while insulting them and making them feel worthless. Unfortunately, most guys aren't so lucky, and at some point, in some way, we have to pay to play. Maybe not upfront, but see what happens at the divorce. Cha-ching!

I am gay, so women are just good friends. Seeing that you seem to really hate women, maybe you should consider switching team? Then I would be able to show evidence that sexual orientation is not genetically determined. :-)

Disclaimer: I am in no way saying that being misogynistic is a characteristic of gay men, just saying that Teratonis can solve his problems with women by becoming gay.

Mostly I'm looking to Moore's law to bring up the quality, as the cost of imaginary dating has always been zero.Even if simulated women never make it across Uncanny Valley for you, as long as you're in the market for real women, you have every reason to hope real women will finally get some serious artificial competition. (Reason - that's what we're about on this site, remember?)

Imagine how the playing field might tilt a bit toward level once men no longer need women more than women need men.

But long before artificial companions get all the way over Uncanny Valley, I expect purely conversational computers to completely hook everyone shortly after they appear. Conversational computers will be able to tell people exactly what they want to hear, and that is going to be more addictive than crack.

I hope you are just being tongue in cheek, otherwise I really feel sorry for you.

498. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169783 by Bonzai on April 26, 2008 at 7:36 pm

MaxD

I think your example is a bit flawed because while it may have been a choice to marry the guy, it probably wasn't her choice to fall in love with him.

But what if that was her choice? I cannot see why that would require an excuse other than that she loved the guy.

I just disagree that an absence of choice,--real or imaginary,-- should be invoked as an alibi to defend what you believe to be right.

I mean, do we expect people to give us rights because they feel sorry for us? To insist on the point that we have no choice being gay seems to imply that had we have the choice, we would choose not to be, so society should be compassionate about our lack of options. But this should never be about compassion and options in the first place.

Try to understand how absurd this is in a race context. The black man deserves equal right because he is an equal human being, not because he cannot choose not to be black, for that would imply being black is somehow a handicap that the individual is inflicted with and that if he has better luck he would have been born white. No, that is not how the argument should run and it is seldom being put forth that way,--even though I do notice occasionally some commenters saying things like "people cannot choose their races" as if it should matter at all, that is a lousy argument.

499. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169776 by Bonzai on April 26, 2008 at 6:36 pm

MaxD

I think this is too bad to be sure because I think it is an interesting question and one that has been more than hinted at by the research. But since I think the evidecne favors more one explanation over another I can't possibly be object I must be 'for' some side or another.
(I understand that isn't anyone in here, unless Remnant and TruthID end up in this thread).

I think depending on how strongly one wants to make the claim of biological determinism and how narrowly one wants to define a homosexual, the evidence is open to interpretations. (Edit: there are also more than two alternatives, not born doesn't have to imply a choice, and born doesn't have to be gene determined only)

However, that is not what I am getting at. I am simply saying that trying to use biological determinism,--even if it is valid,-- as a political argument for gay rights is unprincipled. For those who don't accept us, it is basically a plead that we were born freaks so we are not responsible for our feelings and choice.We may be able to get that point across, but a born freak is still a freak. It is not much of a victory on principle

500. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169769 by Bonzai on April 26, 2008 at 6:08 pm

PGFM

There is a huge problem when you are gay: you think normal people hate you intrinsically, at a sexual identity level, in your formative years.

Maybe your friends are very traumatized. I am gay, I don't feel that way about people in general, Some people, yes. So I am careful who I come out to, but no, I wouldn't jump as soon as I hear expressions like "you're so gay".