701. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161353 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 7:43 am

Karda

I heard the voice twice, and the last time was two years ago. I have never heard voices before that, or since. If the voice had told me to do anything that was immoral or life-altering, I would be a lot more concerned about myself.

I think this is the approach of the "moderates". "Moderate" may be an inappropriate word because it seems to carry a connotation of a lack of faith. I use this to simply refer to the method of believing, not the intensity of belief.

I have no problem with people who believe in this way as they all seem to be rational enough on worldly matters. I don't think that you would just go out to murder your first born because "the voice" tells you to since by your admission. you have other means to decide whether to listen to the voice or not. So it is not my intention to "deconvert" you, what you believe in privately is your business.

But intellectually it does raise some questions. Since ultimately, you rely on criteria which are not so different from the non believers to make your final judgment, why listen to the voice at all?

Secondly and more importantly, if God were to make himself known to you through this way of whispering in your ears, he must indeed tell you to do things which you, based on your own judgments would not otherwise have done, and convince you of things, which based on your everyday good sense, would find ridiculous. Otherwise "the voice" can simply be written of as rationalization of what one already knows and believes in, nothing new is revealed. So, by actually filtering the voice through your own intellect, moral and common sense, would that defeat the whole purpose for the voice?

702. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161331 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 7:16 am

Tyler

And why would the alleged "creator of the known universe" care about the mundane details of your business???

I have asked that question too, but not to Karda.

Religion for some people is a way to visualize one's relationship with what is larger than the self and humanity.

Science is one way, but it is too grand and impersonal, the self melts into nothing.

The cosmos has to be cut down to size to accommodate the ego, hence this anthropomorphic invention called "God". In the abstract God is so grand that it is bigger than the cosmos revealed by science, but in practice it is just small enough to whisper to the ears of those who are too afraid to live without imposed structures, too lost in a world where one has to invent his own meanings and values.

This way believers can have their cake and eat it too. A God that looks big, but actually small enough to care about them,

For me it is atrocious to project our ape-ness in the form of a personal God onto the impersonal universe, blemishing its beauty, It is aesthetic homicide.

703. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161326 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 7:05 am

PBUM

I don't know, I think scooternyc deserves a unit for himself. While henri is a (philosopher) prick, scooternyc is an arse hole so the units are not really convertible.

To the family readership of rd.net. I am NOT talking sex, OK?!

704. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161300 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 6:23 am

if ignorance is bliss then your life must be like a non-stop orgasm.

I have to say that is really good!

705. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161275 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 5:16 am

Did Henri Bergson study philosophy because he is a prick, or did he become a prick for studying philosophy? Or is it just coincidental that he happens to be a philosopher and a prick?

The philosopher-prick is a deadly combination.

706. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161272 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 5:02 am

Quine

did something bad happen to you as a child at the hands of a philosopher, perhaps a Jesuit?

No, just that my ex is a philosopher.. I am kidding. I just can't stand pretentious verbosity.

Thanks for the book recommendation though I think a good book is a good book, not because it was written by philosophers. As you said it yourself, there is no big word and verbal diarrheas, that means it doesn't require any skill unique to the philosopher so it could have been written by an intelligent non philosopher. BTW, I do think philosophers are generally smart people.

707. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161266 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 4:48 am

So Artful are you a cosmologist or something? If not I wonder what qualification do you have to talk about how God being external to the universe and interacting with it and so on with such confidence.

How do you know?

You can't even find that stuffs in the bible.

708. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161262 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 4:41 am

I watched two of these videos and was bored out of my skull by the mutual admiration and pomposity.

In my boredom I clicked around youtube and found Feynman's old interview with the BBC. I haven't watched them for a long time. I decided to watch them again for old time's sake.

Wow! Feynman still rules even though he is long dead. He was sooo cool !

Feynman was passionate, completely unpretentious and had such interesting, original things to say.The contrast with these Dawkins-Krauss videos was like day and night.

I am ashamed to admit that I was in a roboholic hero worship mode instantly.I was born too late.

709. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160773 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 11:33 am

epeeist

,.. enough about the philosophy of science to know that Intelligent Design isn't science (though you would want a professional philosopher like MPhil, Quine or Spinoza if you want more depth).

No you don't. "Professional" philosophers have a tendency to be tricked by their own words. You don't need to know the big words to make a sound argument. Kant said such and such, according to so and so doctrine blah blah are basically invoking authorities to cover the lack of argument,--though often done just as a way to show off, in that case they are unnecessary distractions.

710. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160755 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 11:17 am

So let's say ID is given equal time. What do they have to teach other than saying Darwinism is wrong?

Naysaying is not much of a scientific program, is it? Show us some positive content man. Tell us something about how the intelligent designer accomplished his task.

711. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160753 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 11:13 am

Steve,

Why don't you address Chomsky's substantial points?

Most people who do journalistic work and political analysis outside the scholarly circle don't have any
footnote, peroid. Chomsky doesn't consider his political work "scholarly".

With due respect, I think you are digressing into something rather secondary.

You made the very specific charge of "omission", give us an example. You conceded that you can't find anything factually incorrect in his work, but you then went on to say you don't like his slant, again can you be more specific about it? As far as I can tell his "slant" is basically that the same standard should apply to us and our official enemies and that we are primarily responsible for our own action,--see my first post on the Chomsky in this thread,-- sounds reasonable enough.

712. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160737 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 10:37 am

Palestinians were treated very badly in Jordan and Lebanon as well. In Lebanon they are still festering in refugee camps though peope mostly only hear about the West Bank. I think the Arab countries also exploit the Palestinian situation as a way to score points against Israel. It is a very cynical game on all sides, with the Palestinian trapped.

713. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160726 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 10:23 am

Al,

Further, my point is that, there is a claim, to an inhabited land, based on a religious, 2,500 year old real estate contract. Why not give the Jews a piece of Germany? Europe would be a far less hostile neighborhood for the Jews... No?

Well I think that is the crux of the matter.

When indigenous people discriminate based on ethnicity, as in the cases of "old" countries such as China and Japan, it is somewhat acceptable and is not considered intrinsically racist,--or if it is, it is excusable. The problem is that European Jews are not "indigenous" to the ME, as are the whites in South Africa.

But the situation is trickier because the Palestinians, while always there, they didn't have a national claim until recently.

"The land without people" is a throughly discredited lie though you still can see it being tossed about in North America by the right. However, until the end of WWI the Palestinians were Ottomann subjects and apparently never had their own country.

The Zionist began mass migration to Palestine in the mid 19th century and buying land from absentee Ottomann landlords. In a legal sense they did have certain rights to the land apart from their Biblical claims.

The Zionist movement in the 19-20th century was mostly secular Nationalism, the Bible bit was thrown in as an after thought because Theodore Herzl needed to persuade the conservative Eastern European Jews to support the project.

In the early 20th century Zionism was in a collision course with the new, rising Arab nationalism among the Palestinians. Both versions of Nationalism were ethnically based and exclusive and you have the unavoidable clash.

I think what is often missed in these debates is that it is not about Jews and Arabs as individuals, but which group is entitled to the claim of nationhood,--so it is not about whether the Jews have a problem with Arabs living in their mist and vice versa, you and ofir both say there is no problem . This kind of nationalism is "racist" from the get go on both sides, as it is the standard in ME politics.

I think the only way out of this is a genuine and fair two state solution,--not the crap that is offered to the Palestinian in Oslo and beyond,--I just don't see a single bi-national state feasible for either side especially for the Jews who are losing demographically due to low birth rate.

714. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160692 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 9:36 am

True. Are those racist?

They are, but that is considered acceptable internationally. No one would call China or Japan inherently racist states because of that.

In most parts of the world, until very recently, the notion of "nationhood" has been based on ethnicity. The multi-ethnic nationality is primarily the result of mass migration,--the immigrant experience.

Now of course historically multi-ethnic states and empires were common, but with rare exceptions individuals were usually identified as members of tribes rather than citizens in a universal sense.

What is ironic in this discussion is that the whole conflict is based on ancestral rights to the land and roots, yet the idea of multi-ethnic nationality itself is the product of migration.

715. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160681 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 9:20 am

OK. So, now, do you consider a citizenship requirement based on ethnicity acceptable?

Actually citizenships for many countries are based on ethnicity. China for example.

716. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160653 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 8:57 am

Karda,

If it is a source of conflict, then discuss and justify based on laws, conventions, and ethics...

In that case why not go to law, conventions and ethics etc directly and cut out the middle man of inner voice?

717. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160642 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 8:51 am

A better question might be what happens when our still, small, inner voices tell us to kill someone.

Like Abraham hearing his instruction to slay Issac. It is supposed to be a virtue to follow the order and "trust God". If he failed to obey, that would be his fault because he didn't have enough faith. That is what I gathered from Karda's reply.

718. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160591 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 8:08 am

Karda

It isn't pretty, but God could not steer us from primitives to Christians by snapping His fingers. The process is still ongoing, and it is still subject to massive setbacks.

Well exactly how he did it by rewarding Abraham's blind obedience? Zeus punished a king who offered his son as a sacrifice, but Abraham got rewarded for it.

I am afraid you are talking in vague terms. There is no evidence that we are steered away from primitive because of God, on the contrary, God becomes more civilized in our image after we have progressed. You have the cause and effect reversed.

719. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160584 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 8:02 am

Karda

But I am a modern man, with the context of Christianity to guide me... Abraham's context was much different. In general, this is my feeling about much of the Old Testament. It must be understood in the context of humanity lifting itself out of animal ethics, and into harsh legalism and an organization that permits cohesion and technical progress..

I don't see how reading in context would refute my post #1305 about the questionable ethics of your God or how "faith" expressed by Abraham would be a virtue.

The Bible is supposed to teach a moral lesson, not skill to survive hard time with harsh measure. For that we don't need God, or we wouldn't have survived until God allegedly showed up to speak to Abraham.

720. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160571 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 7:54 am

thisisme

I believe in a God who has set the standards.

Ok, so you did tell us what you believe, I missed that.

Read my post #1310, or Dr.Benway's #1343.

721. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160561 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 7:46 am

thisisme

Dr Benway, what we need is a standard. Otherwise nothing can be right or wrong so how we feel makes little difference.

And how do you suggest we should get that standard and apply it?

As epeeist said, until you tell us what your position is it is difficult to have a meaningful discussion.

722. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed

Comment #160460 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 6:03 am

Teratonis

The cost of computers keeps dropping. If Moore's law continues far enough, it might eventually deflate the costs of scientific research to the point that machines can do it. Then anyone with a computer might potentially embark on forbidden research.

Yeah right. In Star Trek, everytime when they were caught in a jam they just incanted some incomprehensible techno babbles and got out of it. Techno babbles were the all purpose salvation for the Enteprise crew.

Your all purpose salvation is the magical black box. Sorry, invoking the magic box wouldn't help you to do meaningful research if you're an idiot or don't have a sound undertstanding of concepts, which takes years of hard work to acquire.

Get off the computer sometimes and smell the coffee, or the dog shit, anything real. Having sex with a real person wouldn't hurt either.

EDIT:
I wonder how many people in the third word are actually wired. What to do with the computer illiterate,--which is probably over 80% of humanity,-- in the brave new world of Moore's law? Keep them as pets or slaughter them for meat?

723. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160399 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 3:17 am

A lot of great art work do owe their existence to religion, but not in the way the author intended. These works was great because they manage to cleverly subvert the religious stricture for their own end. In the same way many great art works in the former Soviet Union owe their existence to the oppressive system.

As a general point, art often feeds on despair, A lot of great works of art are subliminal expressions of human angst and suffering. Without war and slaughter you wouldn't have the great paintings and sculptures of Goya and kathy kollwitz. But this is hardly an argument for killing and mayhem.

724. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160383 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 2:27 am

So where on earth does RD think he's deriving all his 'oughts' in this long and derogatory article? If matter is all that exists, where are the moral standards coming from? Perhaps we can all set our own. There doesn't seem to be any reason not too..

Yeah, where do you think the "oughts" come from, or should come from?

This is an interesting question but it is irrelevant to the debate here because "God" doesn't offer any answer, it is just an "x" for answer unknown,--even if we pretend for argument's sake that atheistic philosophies don't have a satisfactory answer.

Why should we be always expected to have answers for your questions? We never claim to be the Oracle of Delphi for heaven's sake. The bottom line is you have no answer to any of the questions you raise, indeed not a single honest answer to any question. At least we have some pretty good ones and try to get more, as honestly and rigorously as possible. Your "revelation", on the other hand, is just a smug celebration of ignorance.

God cannot possibly be the answer to where morality comes from because God never talks to us, we only hear from humans who claim to know what God wants but they all disagree with each other, sometimes violently. They cannot even agree on how to interpret their own "holy books"(that leads one to wonder if God might have needed a course in good communication)

The morality of the OT is atrocious, we can do better morally without that kind of a God even if he exists,--see my post above on Abraham and Issac for one example of this God's moral bankruptcy.The morality in the NT is rather mundane, to the extent that it makes sense. Many pre Christian civilizations had developed highly sophisticated moral philosophies and ethics that makes the NT look like exactly what it is even when viewed in the best light,--semi coherent babbling of a somewhat original amateur moral philosopher with some good insights as well as a lot of nonsense.

Religious morality is fluid, its interpretations change over time. It is religious teachings that adapt to the changing moral Zeitgeist, not the other way around, Man created God in his image, As man becomes more civilized, God also become less savage.

Wherever we get our "oughts" from, they are not from thousand year olds "holy book" written by ignorant savages for sure.

725. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160335 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 1:05 am

Kardashovel

As for the story of Abraham, you'll note what God did when he saw that Abraham's faith was strong enough to carry out the deed... He staid his hand. No one staid the Romans hand when God offered His son up for sacrifice... but God's faith in us was strong enough to permit it to happen.

It was a "test", but a test for what?

God gave Abraham an order to carry out a brutal act, with the promise of making Abraham "the father of many nations" if he carried out the act. For those who don't know how the plot unfolds this sounds like a police entrapment. Undercover cop offers a reward if you commit a crime for him and bust you when you do.

One would expect Abraham to fail the test and be busted if he were to carry out God's inhumane command, as one should expect from any God worthy of worship.

But no, Abe did as he was told and was actually rewarded for that.

Whether God finally intervened to save Issac was irrelevant to the moral of the story, he could have not and Abraham would still win his prize for being obedient. Is blind obedience in the face of a completely immoral order a virtue for your God, and of course with a little material incentive thrown in?

No, for any moral God with a meaningful "test" Abraham should have failed.In Greek mythology, Zeus turned a king into a wolf as a punishment for sacrificing his son (to Zeus). But since this is a morally bankrupted egomaniac of a God Abraham was rewarded for behaviour worthy of a Nazi officer,--he executed his order faithfully, no matter how upsetting the order was to his conscience.

Well, unless Abraham was confident in advance that God would back track, in that case it wasn't so much a proof of his faith, but his ability of placing bets and that God was not only immoral, but stupid enough to be fooled.

P.S. I wonder what would have happened if Abraham actually behaved like a moral human being with dignity and told God to fuck off.

726. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160103 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 4:17 pm

That, in my view, is how things should be.

No, it is not the way it should be. The key word here is "opinion", science is not based only on opinions.

727. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160100 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 4:10 pm

csrbm

I think it is because everyone has an imprinted set of right/wrong. I know you guys don't think that. So why?

We also have imprinted impulses to do nasty things too. Where do you think those come from? It would be a sweet deal for God to take only the credits.

728. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160081 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 3:47 pm

While not "right", social darwinism is not even "true".

It is a way of social engineering with the goal of selecting traits which have nothing to do with nature or Darwinism, If the social Darwinists are true "Darwinists" they would favour selecting drop outs who become grandmothers by the age of 30.

Where do I find "survival of the richest" in the origin of species?

729. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160076 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 3:40 pm

I'm not dismissing him. I am simply not happy to accept his word to justify his role in controversies. I would apply the same rule to a scientific matter.

Not accepting his words and ignoring his words are not the same. You may still decide that he was full of shit after actually hearing what he said and evaluating all the evidence availiable.

But by refusing to even read the link given to you seem to be saying you would base your judgment exclusively on the opinions of others, some of whom evidence shown have fabricated quotes and misquoted him to push their agendas.

I am sure you are not so lazy with your science.

730. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160066 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 3:31 pm

The methods of scientific investigation can still be used, especially when we are looking at historical events and their causes.

But it is exactly the point of Chomsky that the mainstream commentators are not adhering to those methods. If he is right,--which I think he often is,--what is the worth of that consensus of opinions?

731. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160057 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 3:21 pm

1.Politics is not science. "Consensus" is probably just as good as most people at one time believing in a flat earth. In politics often there is only consensus of opinions

2.Chomsky became well known in his field because he challenged the "scientific consensus" of behaviourism successfully.

I have disagreements with his methods and conclusions , but it would be shoddy to dismiss him simply because he doesn't fit within the mainstream.

732. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160040 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 2:46 pm

I think kardashovel is trying to yang your chains here.

He is not talking to you guys, but talking down to you. He speaks with a smug and condescending tone, writing cryptic one liners that may appear witty to himself but never really engages in making any substantial point. It is all along the line of "Oh, you are so narrow minded, of course you don't get it" but never telling you what "it" is. When pressed he would tell you to ask Jesus himself.

733. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160036 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Steve

No, Dianelos's argument was far weirder (if I remember it right). It was that because if all arrangements of particles are equally likely (like all arrangements of cards in a deck after shuffling), then the arrangement of things that produces a creator is no less unlikely than any other, so God involves no complexity (or something like that). He was ignoring that the issue is the proportion of arrangements that does what you are looking for (acts like a God), as against all possibilities.

Yeah, I vaguely remember this one too. But he also made the argument with the future robots because I have tried to debate him on that but he never replied. He made several different arguments to try to get around the problem of a complex God.

734. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160020 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Steve,

Day goes on to discuss how complexity can arise from simpler beginnings in an attempt to explain how complex creators can arise. Or, at least, that is my reading of a rather strange chapter.

Actually I remember that argument from Dianelos.

I think that is confusing a "progenitor" and a "designer".

The origin of something complex can be simple, we all know that. Evolution, for example. But would they argue that the single celled organism is somehow godly and worthy of worshiping because it is our progenitor in the sense they use here?

Dianelos then went on and say it is conceivable human scientists may design robots who would one day become more complex than us. I don't know if it can be done through "design" alone, without some sort of evolutionary process to build up the complexity, but if these robots are going to be more sophisticated than we are, it would be odd to think that we would appear to be "supernatural" to them at that stage and command their awe and worship. We will probably appear to be just like outdated models. Is that what they really think when they speak of God,--an outdated model?

735. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160005 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 2:05 pm

kardashovel

You see, Dr. Benway... I am in support of your own personal relationship with god, even if it is the god who wasn't there.

Reminds me of a late Jewish friend.

He said he prayed to God everyday but he didn't believe God existed. He said either God didn't exist or didn't care, either way he wouldn't be listening to his prayers, but he would rather believe in a non existent God than a non caring God. So he prayed to a God that he hoped and believed to be non existent.

736. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159861 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 9:23 am

Only idiots would believe in the Austrian school. When Hayek was sick, I suppose he would have gone to a doctor instead of waiting for nature to take its course because he didn't know all the possible side effects of medical interventions.

But then only idiots would think a hack and a tenth rate writer like Ayn Rand was a genius.

737. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159860 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 9:20 am

Frankus,

Well, if everyone was like me we would have no problems whatsoever. Can we try that?..

What happens when the name calling starts is that it reflects badly on the person doing the name calling. It also dirties the pool. To stick with this metaphor,..

You really are a teacher..:)

738. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159828 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 8:02 am

Here we are promoting "conversational" intolerance regarding religion yet some people think saying atheism sucks is "bigotry" without a hint of irony, would you say this regarding Islam, Christianity, capitalism or communism?

Get a grip.

739. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159818 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 7:48 am

Swearing is not that big a deal. I thought styrer was an asshole, but after reading a few of his posts more carefully, I think he is just a cranky guy with a colourful vocabulary. I can take that, but there are genuinely nasty people who like to shoot you with snide remarks behind a facade of civility, such as a certain minister.

740. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159808 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 7:30 am

Hi, David,

Long time no talk. Glad to see you being able to circumvent the ban and find a way to post under your real name again,

Its not really that difficult - unless you are a fundamentalist who thinks that there is only one absolutely literal way to read anything. When Jesus said I am the door - he did not mean that he was made of wood and had a handle. He meant that he was the way to God. That is how metaphor works

Sure, you are right, I don't think there is only one literal way to read the Bible.

So can you tell us what is your way? Do you actually have a system or do you just do whatever you feel like and make free associations like when I listen to Japanese rap?

741. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159807 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 7:26 am

I think styrer swears too much and at times abusive. Jon makes too many links (see I asked him not to, nicely) and is rather, as styrer said, verbose and too much of a pedant (but wait til styrer meets Terantonis)

Problem is both you guys take yourself too fucking seriously, though I must say it is a talent to be able to swear like styrer. Whenever I read something about Saudi-fucking-Arabia I wish I have that kind of command of the English language..

Now the cat is out of the bag and ole me is ducking for cover,

P.S. I am probably a fukwit who is also a fruit to boot. Hey it rhythms! I should become a poet and shake my tosh..

742. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159797 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 7:11 am

epeeist

You [bigcanuck] have qualifications in biology (where from?), you call evolutionary biologists "Darwinists" and you either don't know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution or are prepared to accept that Stein is dishonestly trying to conflate the two.

Something doesn't quite ring true I'm afraid.

When I taught in a community college to supplement my income I met a few people who had Ph.Ds in biochemistry and they were quite poor in their general understanding of science. One guy couldn't even solve a quadratic equation, I am not kidding you. It seems there are ways to get your doctorate by being very narrowly focused and don't have a clue outside whatever narrow topic that is the subject of your thesis if you choose to work on something sufficiently isolated.

My highschool biology teacher also has a Ph.D. in zoology but he was the most incompetent and clueless science teacher I ever had, who actually succeeded in turning me off biology for life.(This guy would turn on a Busen burner and then started looking for matches, we were all ducking for cover everytime when he did some demonstration in the lab)

I don't doubt bigcanuck's credential. Maybe he was one of the "expelled". Michael Behe does have a doctorate and a professorship afterall.

743. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159640 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Bigcanuck

To discount any possible answer is against the scientific method and since science hasn't proven God doesn't exist...

No, of course not because the God people haven't even come up with a decent existence claim.

If they claim God exists then they have to at least be more specific about its properties, instead of using it as a one size fits all "answer" for all questions that we don't know the answer. Science cannot prove "God" doesn't exist if it is just a stand in for "I don't know".

If they want to claim that God is responsible for such and such, say fine tuning the universe or starting off the big bang, tell us "how" instead of just "God did it by some magic", which again is not an answer because anyone can say that and it has absolutely no content and doesn't advance our knowledge by one iota.

744. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #159631 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Oh I should clarify, there is no "transcript" as the "debate" was in the form of a few back and forth articles like the Casey one I linked to. It was not a live debate.

745. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #159628 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 4:44 pm

ungodly.

You used to be able to find the debate at

www.zmag.org

under the "debate" link.

But I haven't visited there for quite a while and now they have redesigned the site for the worse and I have problems navigating it. If you want to you can check that out, or maybe you can just google and see if some archived articles turn up.

746. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159618 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Styrer,

So all of the theists - against whom I've been tentatively arguing that we NOW have understanding of precisely how something can emerge from nothing, thanks primarily to Stenger - will be quite entitled, following your research, to shout loud and clear 'I TOLD YOU! Something CANNOT come from NOTHING!'

Ask them where did God come from next time.

I always think it is bad idea to be put in a position where we tacitly agree that it is only rational to disbelieve if science has comprehensive answers to all the questions that may arise.

Well science certainly doesn't have all the answers, may never have them.

But the bottom line is religion has given NO answer whatsoever. The onus is on them to provide even just one honest answer.Why should we be always expected to have the answers while they are making the claims?

Sorry man, I was quite rude to you the other night, I think I got you mixed up with someone else.

747. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #159613 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 4:13 pm

ungodly

I am sure read in context he is doing no such thing as equating equivalency to the two acts?

Actually he did. Based on his premise on the damage to Sudan's drug supply his deduction would have made sense, but he apparently jumped the gun in that his factual premise was quite shaky.

He has had several debates with Leo Casey on znet.
Here is Casey's article, you can find Chomsky's replies on the same site.

http://www.zmag.org/casey.htm


For what it is worth here is a rather through and IMO fairly even handed evaluation of Chomsky's political work.

http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/chomsky.html#3

748. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159604 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Liquid He has a condensation fraction of less than 10% while for dilute BEC it is close to 100%. Also BEC states are in a sense "adjustable" over a wide range with say, light.

749. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159595 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Bose-Einstein condensation is a state where a few thousands to a few billions bosons,--
a boson is a particle that has integral spin,-- occupying the same low energy single particle state at low temperature under very delicately maintained conditions. Since all the particles have the same quantum state, they essentially become "the same" in some sense.

What is peculiar about the BEC state is that the atoms behave in a completely coherent way and together become in a sense, a gigantic atom instead of a large number of atoms.

From quantum mechanics, we know that particles behave like waves, now since all these particles are completely in step, the waves amplify each other and give rise to a large amplitude wave that can be observed macroscopically. BEC is the manifestation of QM in a macroscopic world.

However, Dr.Benway is talking about a kind of "Bose Einstein" condensation of Fermions (particle of half integer spins), This is quite strange because unlike Bosons which can be "squeezed" into the same quantum state thus giving rise to the coherent behaviour in the macroscopic scale, It is impossible to put two fermions in the same quantum state because of the Pauli exclusion principle, so rather different physics may be at work.

750. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #159543 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Steve,

To me, having read several sources, it seems that Chomsky is pretty much out of line regarding this issue compared with the "mainstream".

That goes without saying. But Chomsky's point is exactly that the mainstream is systematically biased. While one may or may not agree with his specific take on a given issue, his point of departure is quite different from the mainstream in that he insists on two things

1) We should apply the same standard to ourselves and our allies as we do to the enemies, at least on international affairs.

2) We are primarily responsible for our own actions, not that of our enemies. It is therefore important to hold our own governments accountable for their actions while there is little point to take pot shots at "official enemies".

I think in his political work Chomsky engages the world primarily as an activist and an American, not necessarily as an impartial, detached observer. One must keep that in mind when reading Chomsky,

In that sense he is "biased", but since the system that he criticizes is not neutral either even though it pretends to be, Chomsky's bias is also in a way corrective.