51. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #125620 by GSP on February 11, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Goldy,

I meant it net terms. The number of diseases we have had in the West, since the invention of modern medicine, but more specifically, civilization, has increased rather than decreased, despite medicine's best efforts.

As for those other diseases you mentioned, we did not find a cure for them, we merely found ways to isolate those that had them to the point that the disease basically died out (this is of course a culture-specific statement, as this diseases still exist in other parts of the world).

As far as vaccination goes, this is not curing the disease, this is merely stopping it from never taking hold. I am not sure I would call this a cure. When I think of cure, I think of some sort of disease which takes hold in a body, from which we can then stop it from spreading or getting worse, put it into remission, and then have it never again appear in the same body.

52. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #125614 by GSP on February 11, 2008 at 5:26 pm

I am not sure how to answer this. This is the second time you have asked me. Since you seem to think there is some motive underlying why I am questioning you, I wonder what you think it is?

I mentioned "disease as a phenomenon." By that I meant that the fact that we are talking about it means we have some sort of concept of "disease." That is all. I am assuming that you and I have the same concept of disease, that is, when we think of the human body functioning optimally, we think of it functioning without disease. This seems to be the idea underlying modern medicine; to rid an otherwise optimally functioning human body of this trait and restore it to what the body would be like without it.

So I am asking if you believe that what we call disease can be cured, and not on a reductionist model. It is interesting that you brought up the example of homosexuality. Only a few years ago, the majority of scientists would swear up and down that homosexuality was a disease which did have a cure. However, no scientific test could determine whether we defined homosexuality as a disease or not. The shift came not from any sort of scientific method, but from a paradigmatic shift in our zeitgeist. I wonder if you think this same thing could not happen for other traits we label "disease."

53. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #125601 by GSP on February 11, 2008 at 4:55 pm

I happen to think some of his views are dangerous.

People will die if people start to share his dislike of vaccinations, and an insufficient proportion of the population is immune to certain diseases.

54. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #125599 by GSP on February 11, 2008 at 4:49 pm

As opposed to the reductionist education you undoubtedly received, I supposed I am asking if you believe disease as a phenomenon can be cured.

BTW, toddaa, I just watched the youtube video put up by crich83 and Maher does seem to believe in germs.

55. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #125591 by GSP on February 11, 2008 at 4:35 pm

I don't know that I necessarily have an agenda, and my background is a life-long critic of methods, ideologies, and practices, especially those that are culturally specific, that claim a monopoly on truth. My comments are generally in the interest of questioning supposed authorities on certain subjects. Nothing more.

Now I am interested. Do you, Steve (my middle name by the way, good name...), believe disease is something that can be cured?

56. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #125581 by GSP on February 11, 2008 at 4:18 pm

To say that antibiotics address the cause of disease is nonsense. And to have a PhD in such a subject is to say little more than you have been indoctrinated into the common "wisdom" of the discipline at the highest levels. It is sort of like a divinity degree; so you know a lot about god, does that make you right?

The fact that Western medicine has grown in the last few hundred years to see disease as something than can be cured is to reveal its irrationality as a discipline. Disease is something that cannot be cured, and modern medicine has utterly failed to reduce the number of diseases. It has had its victories in the elimination of certain diseases, but the number of disease has grown overall, not been reduced. And as the example of antibiotics has shown, evolution will always win out, given the opportunity.

57. U.S.: 'Demonic' militants sent women to bomb markets in Iraq

Comment #121568 by GSP on February 3, 2008 at 5:25 pm

I'm sorry, I just don't believe this, literally. I think this is just one more piece of propaganda put forth by Washington and their lackeys in Iraq. This administration and those involved with it have lied about EVERYTHING. I am surprised people on this site would accept what they now have to say so uncritically.

58. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115223 by GSP on January 23, 2008 at 6:57 pm

Yeah, good point Diacanu. That thought crossed my mind half way through my writing it. But I thought, "what the hell?" And the rest is history. Well, virtual history.

59. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115213 by GSP on January 23, 2008 at 6:49 pm

Allow me to play the devil's advocate:

We hear from Sam Harris, et al., that we must "take religion at its word," so to speak. The bible has value judgments which today we find unacceptable (stoning, slavery, etc.). So we take what we need from the bible (the good stuff) and leave out the bad (those specific value judgments). But the "New Atheists" say if you are going to take some, you have to take all.

So, why can't I as a (jesusfuck it hurts to say this) Christian demand the same from "Darwinists?" If you are going to take the theory from the person who developed it, why should I not force you take take all his ideas? Why are you allowed to cherry-pick and I am not?

60. Islam in Europe

Comment #114509 by GSP on January 22, 2008 at 10:44 am

"Modern Islam, if you'll pardon the expression..."

Classic!

61. Interview with Neil Shubin, author of 'Your Inner Fish'

Comment #112959 by GSP on January 18, 2008 at 10:36 am

I'm afraid that we have to admit that scientists trying to fit the principles of evolutionary biology into 3 second sound bites are doing more harm than good. I mean, I know what the guy is trying to say, but that is because I am a regular on this site as well as a student of evolutionary theory.

However, I just don't think the general public is going to take what this guy has to say seriously. For someone will next to no background in evolutionary biology (a majority of the American population) I imagine this guy sounds absolutely insane.

We are at a point where the responsibility for learning about the natural world rests on the shoulders of individuals, not on comedic television shows.

62. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106399 by GSP on January 2, 2008 at 8:06 pm

After reading this idiocy, I can only come to a simple conclusion: Sam Harris must have been beyond the legal limit of intoxication when he wrote this incoherent ramble.

63. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97250 by GSP on December 11, 2007 at 8:09 pm

What must've been going through that poor girl's head when she realized her own father was killing her?

I hope he at least had the stones to face her and look her in the eye as the life slowly slipped out of her...

64. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #96569 by GSP on December 10, 2007 at 6:03 pm

This is all pretty funny to me. Besides Don Quix's valid points, lets not forget that these same people called for a boycott of the Da Vinci code, and that movie went on the become one of the highest grossing (if not the highest) films of all time.

65. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96055 by GSP on December 9, 2007 at 10:22 pm

Spinoza

GSP, your last statement is not really based on any evidence.

Seems to me that the data says that circumcised orgasms are just as intense as non-circumcised...

66. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96047 by GSP on December 9, 2007 at 9:30 pm

Ha! I was just thinking about this today on my drive home from work... wishing I still had my foreskin. I don't see justification for it. I see superficial justifications, supposed health justifications, religious justifications. But none of them hold water. As for the health justifications, why not just cut the whole thing off? Then you are guaranteed no ill health effects (barring infection).

It is a painful process being born. In the womb we are probably at our most comfortable, more so than at any other time in our lives. And then birth, under bright artificial lights, switched from one person's hands to another, and then being taken from your mother, and then pumped full of immunizations, and then getting sick because of it, and then, to top it all off, then chop part of your penis off. I mean, come on!

Sexually also, circumcised men have been shafted (no pun intended). How many nerve endings do we lose because of the Jewish faith. I'm pissed!

67. Ask The God Delusion author Richard Dawkins

Comment #94498 by GSP on December 5, 2007 at 8:01 pm

This should be interesting.

68. Chimps beat humans in memory test

Comment #93768 by GSP on December 4, 2007 at 7:25 am

I wonder if chimps asked us to let them out of captivity and stop experimenting and torturing them in the name of "Science," if we'd listen.

69. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #93612 by GSP on December 3, 2007 at 6:22 pm

I do have to say... great outgoing music!

70. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92942 by GSP on December 1, 2007 at 7:44 pm

To both of you (eXcommunicate and Don_Quix) that answered my post with a (paraphrased) "what Dawkins meant was 'confidence:'" Do not the religious have confidence that God exists? Even confidence does not work in this context. Dawkins can be confident in his "faith" and the religious can be confident in theirs.

My point is: what does Dawkins mean when he says he "knows" we will find the Darwinian explanation for altruism? This is faith, no? What kind of faith?

71. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92558 by GSP on November 30, 2007 at 7:09 pm

Dawkins: (paraphrased) "We do not have a Darwinian explanation for altruism, but we will find it."

This is most assuredly a form of faith. Perhaps not faith in the sense of "God exists," but faith nonetheless. At the very least it is faith in a process.

It is faith because he may be wrong. It is faith because he is making an assertion about a future prospect with no evidence for it in the present. It is an inference, similar to "the sun will rise tomorrow." I cannot prove it, but given the way things have been, it will probably happen.

As atheists I think we need to clarify "faith" as a concept. For instance, faith such as we mean when speaking of the religious is an assertion of some reality in which that reality relies on faith to exist. Faith in the Dawkins sense is inference and doesn't rely on our faith for it to exist. It is almost a faith in ourselves. A faith that our observations have given us all we know, and that they will continue to do so. It is a faith that is worlds away from the sort of faith the religious mean, but it is a faith in the modern sense of the term.

72. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #91785 by GSP on November 29, 2007 at 9:27 am

AWESOME! I cannot wait! I saw Dan Dennett give a lecture when he came here to the University of Michigan and really enjoyed it. He is a great speaker.

73. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90476 by GSP on November 25, 2007 at 9:04 am

I would just like someone's opinion because I feel I am somewhat unschooled in the matter. What of the argument that science is merely a way for us to understand the world we can observe. Is this true? It seems to me it would be necessarily so. But I am not sure.

Science as an activity gives us knowledge. This knowledge is what comes to us through our senses. But surely we wouldn't claim that our senses give us "true" knowledge about the universe, only knowledge that we can comprehend.

It seems to me that Davies piece would be better if focused on the epistemological considerations of a philosophy of science.

I don't know, just thinking aloud.

74. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89610 by GSP on November 21, 2007 at 8:46 am

wednesdayguevara

ahh, yes. civility. It is something lacking from this board. So I am going to do something unthinkable on this board. I am going to do something I have never seen in a forum. I am going to admit that I was wrong: I assumed that Ali had been working for AEI since 2003. My bad.

But now I find myself wondering, why someone would join such an organization after it was so obviously wrong on so many counts. But perhaps that is a different discussion.

75. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89604 by GSP on November 21, 2007 at 8:31 am

35bluejacket:

Thanks for the insult. Thats two in a matter of a couple hours.

Perhaps you can answer me this question. Why the insult? I have not insulted you. For someone claiming that the "evil" (whatever that means) Abrahamic religions have brought "this" (what is this?) upon themselves seems to imply it is because of their arrogance.

I ask you, how do you differ from them? You too are arrogant.

76. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89596 by GSP on November 21, 2007 at 7:50 am

wednesdayguevara

It's dangerous to assume the AEI does not still play a role in the Middle East.

Beyond this, the fact that Ali would join an organization whose stated goals (American imperialism) have failed so miserably in the policy arena, speaks volumes.

Not to get too much into psychological motivations here... pure speculation... but I wonder if having grown up in an imperialist-type environment led her, once she escaped it, to seek the secular version. What has been created, and what Ali is supporting, is US imperialism v. Islamic imperialism. There are no winners here.

77. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89592 by GSP on November 21, 2007 at 7:27 am

Mike,

Read up on the American Enterprise Institute.

78. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89588 by GSP on November 21, 2007 at 7:21 am

Dr. Benway,

Can you explain your insult please?

79. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89580 by GSP on November 21, 2007 at 7:01 am

I know Sam Harris and others like to pretend that the only reason someone would seek to kill Ali is because they are Muslim. Being a political scientist, however, I am forced to reason with facts. And this is simply not true. This is not to say it doesn't play a part in their motivations, but in general the argument is simplistic, self-serving and naive.

That being said I am also forced to reckon with the fact that Ali has played a major role in creating the mess in the Middle East. Since the neocons have had their way extremism, suicide attacks, etc., have been on the rise. To quote Peter Bergen and Alec Reynolds: "the year 2003 [after the neocon attack on Iraq] saw the highest incidence of significant terrorist attacks in two decades, and then, in 2004, astonishingly, that number tripled."

So the question becomes, someone whom has taken an active part in creating a more violent world, killing, at least, tens of thousands of people, leading to the mutilations and torture of so many innocents, now wants my money to protect her?

You've made your bed, now lie in it.

80. Sir David Attenborough on God

Comment #87148 by GSP on November 11, 2007 at 10:42 am

I have yet to see a good argument on this board as to why those that have beliefs in something other than the empirically-knowable natural world should be banned from holding public office.

I don't even see how the two are related. I don't understand why a belief outside of naturalism necessitates how a person will act in the natural world. I can see how it could (I live under a such a president's rule) but I don't see why it must.

I am somewhat disheartened to learn that self-proclaimed "free-thinkers" believe in banishing from public life those that do not hold their same beliefs. This is the militancy that turns so many off to the eloquent arguments of atheism. It is an authoritarian strain in the atheistic community that must be weeded out.

It's the unwavering certainty in this mindset that scares me. Some of us seem to be elevating science and rationality to a god-like status. Science and rationality are not infallible. Logic, too, can sometimes be wrong.

For the atheistic community to end the freedom of thought and belief is a path I cannot agree with. It makes us no better than those with an unshakable conviction in god.

81. Sir David Attenborough on God

Comment #86838 by GSP on November 10, 2007 at 9:27 am

monoape: "If you believe, without any evidence, that there is a bloke sat on a cloud, who clicked his fingers, created the cosmos and takes a keen interest in our sex lives and headwear, you are deluded. By my definition and, I would imagine, every vaguely cognisant person on the planet. There's no equivocation, no wriggle room available."

I am afraid that if you did not create a straw man in your first post, you definitely have here. You cannot define god in your own way (man on a cloud, etc.) and then claim those individuals you named (et al) believe in that god.

In the United States there is an organization called "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State." They do great legal work in keeping "the wall" as high as possible. And the founder and executive director is Barry Lynn, an ordained, practicing, minister. You cannot claim that because someone believes in god, they must be unable to function in any other aspect of civic life.

As Bonzai stated, we are all delusional to some degree or another, whether it be in love, economics, politics, metaphysics, etc. We must not forget that science does not deal in "proof." It is limited in the sense that it is only able to explain the world in terms of what we understand.

Descartes' philosophy led others to believe that only humans could feel pain. This resulted in experiments upon living creatures of the most brutal persuasion.

To us, to claim that animals do not feel pain is deluded. But back then, they could not know they were deluded. And since no scientist in their right mind would claim we know everything about everything, it follows that as of this moment, all of us could be deluded about one thing or another. But this should not disqualify us from participating in public life.

82. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #85974 by GSP on November 7, 2007 at 4:27 pm

The reason a lot of right-wingers (and in-denial lefties) hate Chomsky is because he is a vocal critic of the United States. People (especially Americans) cannot handle that. They live in a dream world in which the US can do no wrong. Chomsky's purpose in his political writings is mainly to educate about these matters.

The United States has forcefully invaded 30+ countries, not since its beginning, not in the last 100 years, but since the late 70s! This is appalling and the true mark of an imperialism the world would be better off without.

83. American kids, dumber than dirt: Warning: The next generation might just be the biggest pile of idiots in U.S. history

Comment #83273 by GSP on October 29, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Henri,

Weren't we talking about capitalism?

84. American kids, dumber than dirt: Warning: The next generation might just be the biggest pile of idiots in U.S. history

Comment #83054 by GSP on October 28, 2007 at 6:46 pm

Henri

If intellect entails blatant racism and insulting those who do not share your ignorant views, I want no part of it. However, I don't believe it does. In fact, I think it has been successfully used against the ignorance such as you posses.

Now, to get to your other comment. Contrary to your obviously well-thought out belief, I am in no way in agreement with you. Even if (big if) capitalism somehow sought to actively encourage multiculturalism in favor of making profit, this is, ultimately, of little importance. The point of capitalism is, of course, to profit above all else. If somehow multiculturalism is encouraged by it, then so be it. But the opposite would also have to be true: that nationalism and mono-culturalism would negatively effect profit. Do you have any examples of this?

85. American kids, dumber than dirt: Warning: The next generation might just be the biggest pile of idiots in U.S. history

Comment #83021 by GSP on October 28, 2007 at 3:04 pm

Henri, if you're joking, you're not very funny.

I said it before and I'll say it again. A lot of this mess we are in (not to mention world-wide environmental degradation) is the consequence of the elite's faith in the free-market (yeah, I said faith), i.e., capitalism.

What do tv, dvd, cell phones, text messaging, computers, etc have in common? They are all heavily marketed and "necessary" in a capitalistic world.

A capitalist viewpoint, a viewpoint which encourages constant growth, is, fundamentally and by definition unsustainable. Is it really any surprise that we are starting to see the effects of capitalism on this scale? It had to happen. There is no way around it.

86. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80714 by GSP on October 22, 2007 at 6:46 pm

Wow, D'Souza is a master of rhetoric. Sophists of the world, unite!

87. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80159 by GSP on October 20, 2007 at 9:44 am

I think Riley and the one, maybe two, others on this forum are coming close to a valid criticism of Hitchens. His absolutism.

Statements such as "religion poisons everything" is an absolutist statement. None of the other "Big Three" have made such a claim. Dawkins refuses to claim absolutism even in a non-belief of God, and has said, in the God Delusion and in speeches, that religion can motivate people to do good things.

Hitchens makes himself an easy target with absolutist statements. He's fun; to read, listen to, etc. But I think atheists main allegiances should lie with Harris, Dawkins and Dennett. Hitchens loves to argue, it is obvious, and nothing produces confrontation faster than absolutist statements.

The interesting thing about this is that atheists decry as one of the pitfalls of religion its absolutism and then claim Hitchens' side when he makes absolutist statements. I see an irony here, does anyone else?

88. How China Got Religion

Comment #78231 by GSP on October 12, 2007 at 8:03 am

Thanks Mat and Bonzai. I didn't even consider the implied assumption in my statement; that social cohesion is necessarily positive. It's an interesting argument.

89. How China Got Religion

Comment #78104 by GSP on October 11, 2007 at 9:23 pm

I am beginning this comment from the assumption that capitalism destroys social community (such as was implied by Zizek). If you do not agree with this, please do not take it up here; we can do it in the forum section of this site.

So, given that capitalism has been the source of disintegration within social groups, and assuming further that religion has traditionally provided that cohesion, if religion is removed, what will take its place (if we need anything)?

It seems to me that perhaps we have a (evolutionarily) built-in repulsion toward people who question "our" religion; this is reason why people take it so seriously and get so offended. But it also makes sense on a social scale; religion provided commonality for people within a group, so to question this religiosity would be to, in effect, threaten one's very existence (not to mention after-life).

90. I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer

Comment #76937 by GSP on October 7, 2007 at 10:12 pm

The ethics here is what interests me. Creating a life-form to do our bidding. It's a concept we have never dealt with on this level. And if science has proven anything it has shown that it can be tremendously ignorant and brutal, from dissecting animals with no pain killers in Descartes day, to doing the same thing today in laboratories. It is a very human-centered approach which generally has little to no regard for other life forms.

So this question of creating an organism to do our bidding; where do we get the right? Going further, which scientists undoubtedly will, we will eventually create living beings which can evolve consciousness. Will these beings, simply because of our ability to create them, be our servants? I don't see where we would get the right to do that. But then looking back, is consciousness the mechanism at which we determine whether we can control one type of life over another? Surely not, for many animals, including those we eat and experiment on, have consciousness and awareness which causes them more than mere physical pain. So consciousness can't be the mechanism. So what is?

Do we just keep going and doing what we want simply because we can? Does 'might make right?'

91. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74868 by GSP on October 1, 2007 at 12:26 am

Hello Corylus.

To deepen my question then: Can religion be a force for good (in the sense that a democratic regime is better than an authoritarian regime). I think yes. Can religion produce the motivation for others to overcome their authoritarian oppressors and push for democracy? yes.

For whom? People in general.
Are these actions good in themselves? Do you mean do the ends justify the means?

92. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74866 by GSP on October 1, 2007 at 12:16 am

Ok, thanks, Baeoz, I'm appreciative, even if I don't come off that way through this computer.

I guess just a further question for anyone interested. Baeoz said "atheism has no positive belief" and then s/he said "I didn't say an atheist couldn't have positive beliefs."

I am just curious, Can an atheist have a positive belief?

If yes, could not this atheist, as long as that belief coincided with their action, theoretically act upon that action, potentially producing negative consequences which would in turn be the result of their atheism?

If no, then what does it mean to have a belief in nothing? Is this not in fact a belief in something?

93. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74862 by GSP on September 30, 2007 at 11:58 pm

But I am saying it is possible that an atheist believes that atheism entails there is no morality. Why couldn't he? (I think maybe this is where I don't understand.)

94. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74859 by GSP on September 30, 2007 at 11:52 pm

You say "atheism has no positive belief to inspire evil actions" but then you say "I didn't say an atheist couldn't have positive beliefs." So an atheist can have positive beliefs. This atheist could be Nietzschean in the sense of morality and thus do evil things in the name of atheism.

95. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74857 by GSP on September 30, 2007 at 11:41 pm

I mean, isnt the statement "I believe in nothing," although inconsistent logically, a statement in reality? For me to believe in nothing is the same as me believing in something; that something is nothing.

96. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74856 by GSP on September 30, 2007 at 11:37 pm

Ok, Baeoz, be patient with me, because maybe I truly don't understand.

This differentiation between positive and negative beliefs. You say an atheist cannot have positive beliefs, but isn't an atheist, by saying "I believe in no god," in a sense a positive belief? I guess in a way I am asking is saying you don't believe in something the same as holding a belief in something?

97. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74854 by GSP on September 30, 2007 at 11:26 pm

BAEOZ...

I don't agree that an atheist has no positive beliefs. I think that an atheist can believe in no morals and thus act upon the assumption that there are no morals.

98. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #70399 by GSP on September 15, 2007 at 10:39 am

Ahh, yes. The "liberal media" again rears its ugly head. The "liberal media" that continually smeared Clinton's name over a bogus sex scandal. The "liberal media" that directed no questions toward the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war. The "liberal media" that fired Bill Maher for making a comment against Bush. The "liberal media" that fired Phil Donahue because they didn't think his "progressive points of view" would adequately represent MSNBC in these "times of war." The "liberal media" who discusses topics with "experts" who are overwhelming centrist and right-leaning. I could go on and on.

Though I guess you could be right, Dreamer's Dilemma, maybe it's just that the liberal media has genuine self-hatred issues.