801. Beware the Believers

Comment #156106 by MaxD on April 6, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Cool.

802. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #156105 by MaxD on April 6, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Wow.
MikejsWalker was mighty pissed. Yes it is exactly like "Pigs head on stick in here."

I'm not sure what the indignation is about. I mean humor, sometimes dark, sometimes absurd, sometimes plain mean, (perhaps you will remember, "The carcas of Jerry Falwell was found on the floor of his obscure offices," or "if they gave him an enema they could bury him in a matchbox" to deal with difficult subjects. I'm not sure why that is so bad. Sometimes people have troubling mental illnesses, that doesn't make some of their actions unfunny. In fact this kind of gallows humor is utterly common in fields that have to deal with such behavior. Having worked in mental health in between field work, I have seen it first hand.

There was a guy who, in an effort to help a friend find out what was wrong with his truck, tied himself beneath it to identify where the noise was coming from. Naturally he was killed. It is sad, but man it is also funny too. I don't feel bad about laughing.
What else are you going to do?

803. Fleabytes

Comment #156100 by MaxD on April 6, 2008 at 6:11 pm

He's done it with a couple of my posts. I remember thinking, okay but why not address a more difficult point?

804. Fleabytes

Comment #156097 by MaxD on April 6, 2008 at 5:32 pm

One of the things that Robertson seems a facile hand at though is quote mining. I mean doesn't he pour over this post and often pick the least cultured, most irreverantly stated phrases to find offense and respond to from on high.

He does this with individual posts too. Where he picks the easiest thing to respond to-very often out of context of course-while leaving the meatiest bits unexamined

805. Beware the Believers

Comment #156038 by MaxD on April 6, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Karda,
Though, as I said my initial strong disaggreement with you arose from an honest mis-interpretation, and since I did apologize, I think that grants me full opponent status. As I demonstrated the full capablity of opponenthood in that I was quite capabable of altering my tone and position.
What do you say?

806. Beware the Believers

Comment #156033 by MaxD on April 6, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Oh, read the post Kardashovel that characterized me as the half-opponent.
I'm fine with that, because after I came to the conclusion that I had mis-interpreted his position I said so.
I did apologize for any mischaracterization I had made and then tried to ask you some questions to clarify why you believed as you did. Because I find your position hard to understand.
Not because it is outlandish, or stupid but because you and I see the situation differently, and I would genuinely like to understand what you think.
So again, for the record, I am sorry mis-interpreted what you thought. I was not deliberately trying to paint you into a corner you hadn't made.

Hopefully that settles that.

807. Beware the Believers

Comment #155561 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 9:15 pm

Cartomancer!
Dude, Steve Zara and I both tried to raise those points with him. Well get him to elaborate more on what he thought. I pressed him for the potentials argument. However he seems to have manufactured some indignation toward the both of us, and aside from refering to me as a woman hasn't seen fit to address my questions even though I rather graciously acceptted that I could be wrong about his moral/ethical stance toward abortion. (It turns out I was closer to understanding his moral stance just not his look at applications/legislation).

What kind of pisses me off about the whole affair is that I genuinely give a shit if I have gotten something wrong and felt kind of bad that I had maybe painted him the wrong way. I am curious about the potentials argument too and I think that it presents problems for him because the process from sperm meets egg to bouncing baby isn't a smooth progression.

But just think, if your argument had been taken up by someone not you, you wouldn't have had the chance to craft your thoughtful, and sharp rebuttal!

808. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155559 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 8:58 pm

I hate to say it but M.Gilks was right when he said:

It is a waste of time to talk to most theists, they are intellectually dishonest, often plain stupid, and completely uninterested in any amount of intellectual rigour. They are interested it believing what they would like to be the case, and in dictating reality based on ignorant and flawed intuitional assumptions.

This is certainly true of the Fundies who haven't the technical knowledge (and anyone with a library card can aquire enough to talk sensibly about evolution say) to hold an intelligent conversation about most of the topics discussed here. They would like to think they are honest they won't do the necessary leg work it seems.

The people pumping out apologetic crap for the Fundi are often dishonest. I mean low, out and out dishonest. They mis-represent, quote out of context, publish false info, etc, etc.

The liberal theologian seems far to shifty to be worth the time. Listen to McGrath or Robinson, good ole' Rowan Arch of Cant. Maybe they aren't dangerous or intentionally dishonest, but you couldn't say they make much sense either.

809. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155554 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 8:17 pm

Sometimes vanquishing peoples Gods is like shooting swamp rats back home in Beggar's Canyon.

810. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #155553 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 8:09 pm

You guys were probably wondering what real God-crazy looks like.
Here you go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaKP4WfG3F4

811. Beware the Believers

Comment #155544 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Kardashovel said:

can only hope they would choose to keep the kid, but I cannot make their decisions for them as there is not a clear cut subject and I think it defies legislation.

If they did decide to abort, I can only hope that they would not tarry because the more the fetus develops, the more brutal the consequence.

This is entirely reasonable and kind of something the legislation in the States reflects.
I still have my questions though.
I am still wondering why it is so terribly immoral to terminate a blastocyst, embryos, and zygotes.

812. Beware the Believers

Comment #155513 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Teapot...uh
Don't all the forms of contraception kinda prevent the development an embryo? So why tolerate any of it?

813. Beware the Believers

Comment #155405 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Well I must away,
Back for more fun later. And perhaps we will unearth the mystery of who the half opponent is.

814. Beware the Believers

Comment #155401 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Quezt,
Who knows? I was looking for some divine insight from you actually!

I thought I had come to some reasonable conclusions and asked good questions. My intent was never to be disengenuous, or mean. I think he has essentially proven to have the opinion of the morality involved in abortion what I suggested it was. That isn't to say my picture was the way he thought it was. I've tried to admit where I was wrong in his characterizations.

That he feels the way he does is absolutely fine with me. That is why I am not in my mind one of his opponents. His position isn't mine and I was curious as to how he came to his position.

815. Beware the Believers

Comment #155397 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Why is potentiality so important for a zygote or blastocyst say and not for the materials immediately preceding such formations? Potentiality seems like the kind of thing, especially in the modern era that would make any living human cell sacred. Wouldn't it?
And why demarcate implantation as an important point?

816. Beware the Believers

Comment #155391 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 12:26 pm

I wonder why I got the woman comment and none of the other guys did. Must have pissed Kardashovel off.

817. Beware the Believers

Comment #155388 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Okay I just saw this post:

Kardashovel said: My opinion is that it is immoral from the day of conception, but that the degree of immorality increases as the fetus develops.

Is it immoral to have and IUD that simply prevents implantaintion then? I noted that you said the conceptus only has potential after implantation.

818. Beware the Believers

Comment #155385 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Kardashovel,
First off I'm not one of your four opponents. I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from. I don't understand your position or its justifications and I am genuinely curious how you come to your views.
I didn't see the post where you said any thinglike:

I have repeatedly stated that I believe that it should not only be legal for a woman to choose abortion, but that in some cases it might be the best moral decision among bad choices

Again posts move fast. But you do think that it is wrong to eject a zygote right? Morally. Do you think it is further wrong to stop conception/fertilization from happening? Do think it is all one huge slippery slope? Hopefully you will see fit to answer these questions before you bid adiu do a disengenious guy like me.

819. Beware the Believers

Comment #155382 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Karda,
I actually didn't see those post where you said that.

820. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155358 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 11:51 am

I used to give Artful the benefit of the doubt but man he runs off all the time.

821. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155335 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 10:45 am

Artful Dodger said:

and the bodily resurrection is the most plausible explanation for the events of the Sunday after his burial.

If the resurrection could be SHOWN not to have taken place, the whole thing would fall apart.


Of course because so many of the contemporary historians of the time have records complete with the details of Jesus's life and death. And all the marvelous things that happened are perfectly described by later historians that passingly mention christians and Christus?

No Artful the supernatural bullshit is only mentioned in the bible. No other historical record mentions Jesus's crazy last day.

822. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155315 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 10:18 am

Bonzai,
regrettably Paula beat me to the punch.
I have heard the Wager argument ad-fucking-nauseum. They do use it seriously and seem to think it has some power as a lever to thinking in modestly theological ways.

I am a little shocked, as a frequenter of this site that you haven't noticed it.

823. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155273 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 9:43 am

Artful,
Dodging.

A point about love. Isn't a bit of stretch to love someone you don't really know? I mean you speak in pretty concrete terms about God. He loves us even though we come with self-serving motives. "That is what is so incredible about grace!" "God wants to live there himself."

Isn't what your are doing just the rankest question begging?

824. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155257 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 9:28 am

Jiu-Jitstheist,
Not sure what the latter one is.
Purple belt in BJJ here.

Al-rawandi,
better not switch to Nostradomus, you will be speaking undeciferable quatrains and leaving us wondering what you are predicting. Be concrete in your language, you know, like movie psychics.

825. Beware the Believers

Comment #155256 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 9:23 am

Jesus Christ I am surrounded by immorality. Now Annabanana too!
Oh wait, I think I am immoral as well. Damn it. Off to flog myself.

826. Beware the Believers

Comment #155251 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 9:16 am

Consider yourself IMMORAL STEVE ZARA from now on.

827. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155244 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 9:09 am

JiuJitsu, is it BJJ? It better be!

828. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155242 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 9:08 am

I will keep an eye out for that Al maybe try to act psychic on the next theist I meet and end up debating.

829. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155238 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 9:05 am

Paula,
It is devious but i thought that was obvious. I mean when boiled down all you have left for allaince with God(s) is a a self-interest. Clearly one cannot be on board with God of the old testament because of his morality, or even the New Testament God, holy Spirit and Jesus because hell and original sin are so catastrophically imoral.

Even the story of Abraham, often heralded as a brilliant testament to faith comes down to doing what god says out of self-interest. (It wasn't a faith issue after all because God and Abraham were pals, they walked together (as with womankind?) and God had already done well by Abraham. So he was doing what he was doing because God would keep dishing the goods, but the price was obedience.

Sorry for the digression but I think at root all argument for hanging out with Yahweh can be reduced to self-interest and that curious, immoral fact tends to come out.

830. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155235 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 8:56 am

Al-rawandi, Epeeist,
Is that what you guys have been noticing? Pascal's Wager comes out as the argument of last resort? If that is the case its truely terrible strategy. I know comedians generally put their worst material at the front of an act.

831. Beware the Believers

Comment #155231 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 8:53 am

Annabanana!
Ouch.
Spot on though, spot on.

832. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155227 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 8:49 am

Paula,
At least you know your Great Uncle exists!

833. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155217 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 8:39 am

Artful Dodger said:

What's your point scottishgeologist? If the God of the Bible does indeed exist, there might be a very strong case for being prepared to meet him, don't you think? If he does not, not all that much is lost by believing in Him.

As other people have said there is certainly money wasted. But what about all those vast amounts of time? Religion is a hugely wasteful endeavor considering there is so little-none really-independent criteria for comeing to belief in supernatural things. You could actually be out with your family enjoying them, or your significant other, or with a book, or enjoying legitimate mystery, and wonder in nature.
The only thing that could possible motivate the Wager is fear. Is that really a good reason? I mean I know people who won't go into various woods at night and not because of some real danger that might be in them, but because they heard they were haunted.

Look at it another way. There is, maybe, a cancer in your body. Hmmmmm, there is no evidence of this but wouldn't it be better to act as if there was. Go on get the treatments, take the drugs what are you really losing. If you don't have the cancer no harm right, but if you do then voila you may have cured it before it got going. Surely that seems like a reasonable wager right?
Of course it doesn't. Unnecessary chemo, radiation, are of course terribly hard on a body.
You only want to invest in the time, and sacrifice of a fight against cancer on good evidence.

This is the main problem with Pascal's Worthless Wager, it assumes the costs of faith are cheap.
They aren't.

834. Beware the Believers

Comment #155193 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 8:20 am

Kardashovel said:

I don't personally have any negative connotations about the word 'tryst', and I am unsure why you would seize on one word in contrast to the rest of what I wrote. But there is no point in arguing it; I'm thinking you've understood me now.

Not to flog a dead horse, but it wasn't just one word that did it. Tryst was just the final bit of tone that made me think you were moralizing. Complaints about promiscuity, bits about "responsiblity" and the like led me to believe I understood your notion of responsiblity. Namily that you thought anyone who got preggers needed to take care of the baby that could pop out. That is any possible conceptus must be taken to term because clearly a zygote has rights that trump the person carrying it. And clearly I was right about that.
Two points to me.

Are you against morning after pills and other types of emergency contracetive procedures? Which often just prevent fertilizaiton or cause the zygote to be booted?

835. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #155167 by MaxD on April 4, 2008 at 8:03 am

I always prefered Dawkins as "Darwin's Greyhound."
Look at my avatar, I am the one who wants to be called Darwin's Rottweiler! Guess I better get to writing some books and articles (on more than just my blog and local papers!)

836. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154902 by MaxD on April 3, 2008 at 11:46 pm

Epeeist!
Your diligence on this metaphor point is really quite something! Artful Dodger sadly isn't as deft as his namesake would suggest.
I think it was a meta-litero scalding. And this as we all know is the very worst kind.

837. Beware the Believers

Comment #154899 by MaxD on April 3, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Kardashovel,
You said:

they should consider the consequence that nature intended for their tryst.

You also said some things about promiscuity and wondered why women were satisfied with it as if it is more rampant now than it has ever been. I was not tilting at windmills. I was looking at what you said and challenging your notion that religions instill more values and such.

Now you try to act like you didn't imply that you meant we should pay attention to nature. You used the phrase, "nature intended for their tryst." That seems like the kind of thing that is privilaging Nature as an arbiter of right action and wrong action, while at the same time adding a word of often negative connotation I mean tryst.

You say I have misread you. Fine. I would just say it was honestly read and I didn't go looking and no I am not shell shocked. If you cannot see how I might arrive at my conclusions based on what you said then so be it.

838. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154896 by MaxD on April 3, 2008 at 11:07 pm

Its an odd one to be sure. But he seems nicer in the vid than he does here. Its weird, but he has the same stump all the time. "When I first read the book (that was going to unjustifiably make me money off my guillible friends) I got angry, then I blah, blah, blah."
His earnest delivery also seems terribly fake, like he is trying to do an Alistar McGrath impersonation or something.
He makes nearly as much sense as and Alistar McGrath. That of course isn't lot.

839. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154891 by MaxD on April 3, 2008 at 10:47 pm

He doesn't look like what I expected.

840. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154856 by MaxD on April 3, 2008 at 8:24 pm

Fighting Falcon,
Don't forget God's extreme displeasure at the removal of Christian prayer from the schools.
That will always help get the blood flowing.

841. Beware the Believers

Comment #154848 by MaxD on April 3, 2008 at 8:03 pm

I have to say I was hoping it was not fundy based. I mean I really thought it was more postmodernist. Not that it would be better if it were. I mean that postmodernist luddite tone is right out there (from the "quaint ideas are stupid line, to the Science degree line we can see they aren't terribly impressed with science), but the old style Communist propaganda style videos weren't really very flattering. But the assessment of Scopes and kind of waxing friendly about Darwin make it seem like that mish-mash of post-modernism. Every body is equally right and wrong for the PMist.
Ah well.

842. Beware the Believers

Comment #154843 by MaxD on April 3, 2008 at 7:55 pm

Kards said:

they should consider the consequence that nature intended for their tryst.

Does it necessarily have to follow that we should care what nature intended? I mean seriously, nature intended tribalism, kin favoritism, resource exploitation, male on male violence, and perhaps other nasty things besides.
So please lets not be looking to nature for our "oughts." Wouldn't be prudent.

Simply because nature intended for it doesn't lend it any moral crediblity. Promiscuity needn't involve the procreation or carrying to term any thing nature intended. Condoms are quite effective. Morning after pills, and emergency contraception is at least equally effective if not more.

Also, I'm not sure what "brave words signifying nothing" was supposed to mean. I hope it felt good when you wrote it.

843. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154804 by MaxD on April 3, 2008 at 6:18 pm

Interesting Carto!

844. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154796 by MaxD on April 3, 2008 at 6:04 pm

I think what is really really stupid is the thought that only Dawkins People will come see him. This is so obviously not the case as to be almost funny. I mean haven't we all seen the theist (an army of them) who thinks they've got to the total argument clincher stand at a Dawkins talk, or a Harris talk. Perhaps against all the odds they think they will be the one to phrase the most crushing argument ever put forward by a creationist and the Evolutionary walls will come tumbling down.
"Uh...Professor Dawkins, What If You Are Wrong?"
"What about Stalin?" "SHOW ME ONE TRANSISTIONAL FOSSIL!" And on, and on, and on. The thing is the believers show up in droves. You would almost think it was a Scientology debunking talk the way the believers turn out for Dawkins. I know I have only been to one creationist talk (though, uhg, I listen to alot more of it and have "God's Plenty" about the subject from the sources themselves.) The theist isn't going to say anythign interesting, they are just going to utter their unwarranted certatude as religiously justified fact.

Clearthinker must think he has crafted the perfect rebuttal to Dawkins, and atheism but it is his arguments that seem so trashily sixth form, ancient and dogmatic.

845. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154550 by MaxD on April 3, 2008 at 12:34 pm

I think the thing that heterosexuals of the fundementalist stripe are really really annoyed by is a deep sense of jealousy. I imagine they have pretty boring sex lives. I think they are annoyed that other people are enjoying things like raucous oral sex on a pretty frequent basis. And they get it only on Christmas and maybe on Easter.
That might seem like an ametuer analysis but I put it out there for your consideration.

846. Beware the Believers

Comment #154440 by MaxD on April 3, 2008 at 9:08 am

Kardshovel said:

I do not believe that we should legislate morality; so I believe that religions, properly separated from the state, are our best hope of encouraging moral behavior. It would be far preferable, in my mind, had American men listened to their pastors and quit their wanton philandering; likewise I cannot understand the pride that some women have in the achievement of the general acceptance of promiscuity without consequence.

Uh....what are you talking about? Who pays attention to their pastor. They just ask forgiveness on sunday. And the Pastor goes and finds someone to ask forgiveness for when they get out of line. Look at all the great success religion has had at legislating morality (and yes like Doc Benway said, that is kind of what it does). I would submit that it hasn't been terribly successful on that front.

Moreover the way you phrase your moral outrage indicates the religious tendency to have outrage but no real rational, or thought behind it.

Your last comment about promiscuity without consequences is a perfect case in point. Why is sex bad? Is it bad in all cases? When should people have sex, and why does one think the way they do about it. The religious conception of sexual relations is easily one of its most terribly backward and rigid dogmas. Many argue against condom use, or contraception thus causing people who would like to behave responsibly to not do so. (People have always had sex outside of this wedlock thing. Always. Pre-marital, extra-marital, intra-marital etc. Modern sex ed ought to do more to educate people about healthy relationships and safe sex, and responsible sex than trying to instill the morality of some backwards cult's breeding explosion plans.)
The religious ideas about sex are causeing us to not discuss the problem sensibly but rather to couch it in terms of moral outrage and sin.
Isn't that just a bit silly?

847. Beware the Believers

Comment #154439 by MaxD on April 3, 2008 at 8:54 am

It is does have that postmodernist critique of everything going on though. And that is annoying. But easy to overlook.

848. Fleabytes

Comment #154430 by MaxD on April 3, 2008 at 8:16 am

Reverend,
You said :

This is one of the hardest types of humour to carry off well, but it happens here far more than anywhere else. It is sadly lacking from mainstream comedy - the sophistication of Mel Brooks doing the "Give to Oedipus' joke in History of the World Part I - to my mind one of the great examples of this difficult art.

Funny you should say that. When asked by a reporter "Uh who is going to like this movie?"
Brooks said something like he was betting Intellectuals and kids would enjoy it.

849. Fleabytes

Comment #154424 by MaxD on April 3, 2008 at 8:01 am

Phillip made this excellent point:

I would use Tiktaalik as an example of just how wrong you are - this fossil was not found by chance, it was found by scientific research, the team that found it in April 2006 planned to find it WHERE THEY SAID IT WOULD BE!

To which I say bing-fucking-go. I've been thinking that our predictabliity with regard to where to find fossils is really a moment of argument ending clarity between our side and the creationist side. Why aren't fossils more randomly distributed throught the geological column? Why aren't there fossil hominids ever found with fossil dino livestock? That is facetious but you see my point.
Anyway excellent point Phillip.

850. Beware the Believers

Comment #154208 by MaxD on April 2, 2008 at 9:50 pm

Daniel Dennet as a pimp was hilarious. More than this I think that their use of language-even implied words like fuck, etc- rule them out as fundies.
Anyway, it is really well made, clever and good for a laugh.