51. Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam

Comment #22989 by nine9s on February 25, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Pantore:

Aaaah yes the 'holy' Ayaan.
American Enterprise Institute is more evil than all the religions on Earth combined.
Can you imagine how evil that must be?

Here we go again. In the name of Islam, Ahmadinejad of Iran wants to "wipe Isreal off the map," thus starting Armageddon and hastening the coming of the ninth Imam. And AEI is more evil than that. More evil than nuclear war. Because they publish the wrong ideas.

52. Is America Too Damn Religious?

Comment #22666 by nine9s on February 20, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Michael Ledeen, holder of the "Freedom Chair" at the American Enterprise Institute is an outspoken proponent of fascism.

Jesus christ, how about some citation for such a serious and specific charge? "Outspoken proponent of fascism?" What kind of hyperbole have you been smoking?

The "Straussian" philosophy, which dominates the AEI

Citation, please.

(and by way of the AEI, the White House)

Do you really think that a goddamn think tank is more powerful than the president of the United States? If the president gets some of his info from AEI it's because he wants to get it from there, not because AEI has him by the throat. Next you're going to tell me who really shot Kennedy.

This is the same kind of moonbat, nonsensical, non-thinking that gets people believing in transubstantiation, reincarnation, and an eternity of hell for Gandhi. You're not interested in the truth; you're interested in enemy-bashing, political tribalism, and feeling superior. Get a life, man.

53. Believing Scripture but Playing by Science's Rules

Comment #22054 by nine9s on February 12, 2007 at 8:15 pm

If a person has fulfilled the requirements for a degree, in all fairness that person should receive it. All the same, there are serious ethical questions about Ph.D. candidates writing dissertations that they don't believe to be true. "Dr. Ross" essentially lied through his teeth to get that degree. The creationists/IDers have to either scientifically defend YEC or lie in their dissertations. The "paradigm" crap is, I think, a wink to their fellow Christians, a way to beat the postmodernists at their own game. One thing the Christians actually do well is innoculate themselves against postmodern rubbish like "you create your own reality."

54. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21712 by nine9s on February 10, 2007 at 6:12 pm

Please excuse me if someone already posted on this; I've only gotten through about half the responses. But Debbie Schlussel's blog reveals her to be a complete f#%@ing idiot. With all the political extremists on TV and radio, I've never heard anyone say anything as stupid as

"So to you hate-filled atheists a/k/a future Muslim extremists (redundant)...."

How in the world did CNN ever see fit to allow this laughingstock anywhere near their studios?

55. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #21343 by nine9s on February 8, 2007 at 8:56 pm

Sam Harris never fails to amaze me with how he cuts right to the heart of the matter. I was thinking, reading Sullivan's last letter, that it was quitting time, that the conversation was functionally over. Thanks for showing us how it's done.

56. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21304 by nine9s on February 8, 2007 at 3:35 pm

[shaking head] Don't you hate it when the Dark Side gets so clever?

57. 'Everyone Is Afraid to Criticize Islam': Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #21052 by nine9s on February 7, 2007 at 12:17 pm

She joined one of the worst she could have possibly picked. Here's some better ones:

Rockridge Institute
EPI
IPS
FFRF
Center for Inquiry/Transnational

I've never even heard of the first three, and the other two are in no position to offer her the kind of platform or resources that AEI can. We're talking about one of the most consequential intellectuals of our time, and you want her to work for the Freedom From Religion Foundation? No disrespect to FFRF, but they just aren't there yet.

She works for a very agressive institute that has only one goal: USA world domination.

Evidence? Mere speculation? Or does it just feed nicely into your ideological and irrational hatred of the US? I am getting sick and tired of all the America-bashing going on around here. When we try to help people around the world, we're accused of meddling and colonialism. When we take that advice and mind our own business, we're called isolationists. When we try to help Iraqis we're Satan incarnate, and when we don't try to help Darfur we're selfish. Well, fuck it. And people wonder why we don't take world opinion seriously.

58. 'Everyone Is Afraid to Criticize Islam': Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #21029 by nine9s on February 7, 2007 at 10:47 am

How has she aligned herself with Bolton, Cheney, Gingrich, Perle, etc? If she can only join a think tank where everyone agrees with her, she can't join any of them. Do you think any of the liberal think tanks would take someone who so aggressively takes Islam to task, who defends the West so strongly and articulately?

AEI, I think, is a good place for her, since it's a mostly libertarian/center-right organization. They host lots of speakers and position papers, and I can't remember (I may be wrong) them doing anything that was specifically religious. The Cato Institute is more libertarian than AEI, but it focuses more specifically on government than on general cultural trends, so I don't think she'd fit in there.

59. Interview with Alister McGrath, author of 'The Dawkins Delusion?'

Comment #20822 by nine9s on February 6, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Jeebus flippin christ. The same old nonsense being trotted out, over and over and over and over again. Has he actually read the book he names his book after? He can't actually have read the book and still talk the way he does. Can he?

This article brings to mind a Goethe quote: "Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him."

60. Give us back our bones, pagans tell museums

Comment #20801 by nine9s on February 6, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Had to refrain from posting until my barrage of profanity was over.

What exactly makes those remains "theirs"? The British scientists are descended from those ancient people too, just like the "pagans" are. Just because some people play "Pagan" like some kids play "House" doesn't entitle them to anything.

61. Taking the fight to Islam

Comment #20632 by nine9s on February 5, 2007 at 9:04 am

...[T]he truly creepy bit is about the man cutting off the threads used to sew up the the clitoris with his teeth...What exactly is going on when a man gets his nose and mouth so close to a child's vagina?

Yechhh. It's not like they don't have cutting implements available -- otherwise what did they cut out the clitoris with? And is it a man who's doing the cutting and sewing? Getting his fingers up in a little girl's genitals? Friggin christ.

62. Taking the fight to Islam

Comment #20631 by nine9s on February 5, 2007 at 9:01 am

In truth the VVD is a right wing conversative patry. They are liberal only about economical issues. This party is of the main stream parties here the most opposed to immigration and immigrants.

I went to the VVD article on Wikipedia and it didn't seem to be all that unusual. Could you elaborate on the VVD and what makes it objectionable? Do they totally oppose immigration, or do they support limits on certain countries? I'd like to learn more about it, and by extension, more about the Dutch and their political views.

63. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20626 by nine9s on February 5, 2007 at 7:41 am

Regarding Bruce Bower's While Europe Slept:

Does he give any sources in his book?
Can you trust the statistics he gives?

I saw one comment about the book that made me not want to read it:
No footnotes, no endnotes, no bibliography--moreover, Bawer routinely paints the secular Baathist Saddam Hussein as part of the Islamist movement.

I don't know about the Baathist part, but he usually puts relevant endnote information into the text itself. Take an example from WES taken at random: "On September 1 [the previous paragraph sets the stage in 2002], Dagbladet ran an article headlined My Children Wait Every Day to See Their Daddy and accompanied by a large close-up photo of Krekar's wife staring plaintively into the camera." Apparently, this is how journalists cite relevant information in their articles, and he seems to have done the same with his book.

64. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20624 by nine9s on February 5, 2007 at 7:16 am

Although freedom of speech is guaranteed by Article 5 of the Grundgesetz (Germany's constitution), some restrictions exist, e.g. against personal insults, use of symbols of unconstitutional organizations, or Volksverhetzung. Volksverhetzung includes the spreading of nazism, racist, or other discriminating ideas.

Yikes. Restrictions against "personal insults"? So when Dawkins calls religious people "faith-heads" he could be prosecuted? Is it "discriminating" to say that Islam predisposes people to medieval worldviews? Or maybe that only applies if written in German. Well, Ich hesse der Islam. There. Come and get me!

In one case, about 10 yrs ago, a hate preacher called for the murder of an "enemy". Not only the murderers were sentenced to prison but the "kalif of cologne" as well, because he used his religious authority to order and sanctify the killing.

You can outlaw incitement to murder without outlawing personal insults or unpopular ideas. Is there anything in Germany that atheists are not allowed to say?

65. Root of All Evil? Discussion

Comment #20436 by nine9s on February 2, 2007 at 12:05 pm

God is "love?" So "love" created the universe, people pray to "love," Jesus was "love" incarnate, and "love" sends unbelievers to hell. Suicide bombers kill in the name of "love" and when we can't explain a gap in the fossil record, "love" did it.

Gosh, I never saw it that way before! All this time I disbelieved in love and I didn't know it!

66. Massachusetts Atheists?

Comment #20329 by nine9s on February 1, 2007 at 10:15 pm

There are all sorts of bizarre laws on the books that no one takes seriously anymore. There are lots of comedy books out there that document them.

67. God and gorillas

Comment #20262 by nine9s on February 1, 2007 at 10:31 am

It's very convenient to define religion so broadly. You get to look like the happy moderate that everyone appreciates, and you still get to be snide with people you disagree with. Forget that Dawkins blatantly points out in TGD that if this is how you define religion, he is religious.

68. Interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson

Comment #20180 by nine9s on January 31, 2007 at 8:41 pm

I'm interested... is there anywhere on US public TV networks that enlightened programmes can be found?

Sigh. I really do get tired of all the America-bashing that goes on around here. But to answer your question, some really good channels are the Discovery Channel and its offshoots (Discovery Health, the Science Channel, Discovery Times, Animal Planet [which hosted Crocodile Hunter], The Learning Channel), along with the History Channel, History International, C-SPAN 1, 2, and 3, and some of the news networks. Comedy Central is only good for South Park and the occasional Jon Stewart interview.

By the way, the BBC America channel is probably the trashiest channel on American TV. I wish I were exaggerating. Every show I've seen on it makes every character a scheming, bitchy, amoral bastard. The only thing I've seen on BBC America that's worth watching is Whose Line Is It Anyway?

69. Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #20101 by nine9s on January 31, 2007 at 11:19 am

It's very impressive that she can state such strong and controversial opinions with such a genteel and mellifluous voice. She doesn't sound like she's out to get people.

70. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #20087 by nine9s on January 31, 2007 at 9:59 am

From Andrew Sullivan:

Take, for example, the question of historical truth. You rely in your books on a lot of historical facts to buttress your empirical case. But these facts are not true - and could never be proven true - by the scientific method that is your benchmark. There are no control groups in history. There are no experiments. But there is a form of truth. Discovering that historical truth is the vocation of a historian - and it is a different truth than science, and reached by a different methodology and logic.

Utter, utter, bollocks. As Aristotle said, some things do not admit of the same level of certainty as mathematical proof. But it's not like we abandon rigorous thought when it comes to history; to the contrary, we have to be even more careful with the data we do have because we can't do anything else with it. We just have to settle for a little less certainty than we have with chemistry and math.

Similarly, mathematics can achieve a proof that has no interaction with the physical world. It may even be the closest to divine truth that human beings can achieve. But it is still logically separate from empirically verified truth,

He does realize that the rules of logic are based how the "physical world" works and how it cannot work, right? Logic doesn't exist in a vacuum. He'd never know what logic was if it weren't for empirical evidence.

My point here is to say that once you have conceded the possibility of a truth that is not reducible to empirical proof, you have allowed for the validity of religious faith as a form of legitimate truth-seeking in a different mode.

Un-freaking-believeable. "This question is incredibly hard to solve, so science can't do it, so you might as well believe whatever you want."

71. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #20085 by nine9s on January 31, 2007 at 9:43 am

From Andrew Sullivan:

So you allow for a space where the logic of science and of materialism does not lead us toward truth, but may even mislead us about it, and lead us away from it.

What the hell is he talking about? Scientists don't yet have perfect knowledge, so science is leading them astray? How does a mind get so convoluted? How else are we supposed to find out what may be beyond the mind/body dichotomy other than through science and reason?

Such an argument must rest on a notion of ultimate truth that is deeper than science, beyond science.

Abracadabra, alacazam! You are now confused beyond measure, so I win! Nah, nah, na boo-boo.

72. Young, British Muslims 'getting more radical'

Comment #19781 by nine9s on January 29, 2007 at 10:51 pm

Janus on abolishing faith schools:

I don't think it's such a scandalous idea. It can be argued that parents have the right to teach their children whatever they like, but children also have the right not to be indoctrinated to believe falsehoods;

That sounds nice in theory, but what happens when the religious nuts get control of the school board? They'll say, "Children have the right not to be indoctrinated into the falsehood of evolution." A good rule of thumb is to advocate only the kinds of laws you'd still want in place if your political opponents were in charge.

Of course, we can't (and shouldn't, except perhaps in extreme cases) regulate what parents teach their children at home, but at least we can make sure they're exposed to reality when they're at school.

What's the difference between parents teaching their kids creationism, and parents hiring a school to teach their kids creationism? To shut down schools for teaching incorrect ideas is blatant censorship; it's a kind of state regulation of speech that should be horrific to us atheists especially -- who do you think would be the first ones to get prosecuted for teaching children dangerous ideas?

73. Young, British Muslims 'getting more radical'

Comment #19775 by nine9s on January 29, 2007 at 10:13 pm

I vote TheCodeCracker as troll of the year. I don't think he believes a thing he says. Probably a Muslim fishing for someone here to justify his precious sense of oppression. His spelling leads me to think he's a non-native English speaker -- how do you spell "troll" in Arabic script?

Also, I want to ask a question of the Brits here: When you talk about banning faith schools, you're only talking about ending state funding for religious schools, right? You're not talking about forcibly shutting down schools that teach religion, are you? There seems to be some confusion on the thread....

74. Are politics in your DNA?

Comment #19487 by nine9s on January 27, 2007 at 3:24 pm

I think criminality has much more to do with environment than genetics. But then what to do with the cross-cultural fact that men commit the vast majority of crime? Are men and women equally empathetic and concerned for others? It's obvious that environment has a very large role in this, but does it make sense to dismiss the possibility of genetic variances?

Mango, are you arguing that genetics has nothing to do with any of this? I'm just arguing that it's a blending of genes with environment; I'm not arguing against environmental influences, or even against the superiority of environment over biology.

75. Are politics in your DNA?

Comment #19478 by nine9s on January 27, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Really, you're going to have to show me the "criminal" gene before anything becomes inevitable.

I don't think there can be any such thing as a "criminal" gene any more than there can be a "doctor" gene or a "basketball" gene. But a person can have a certain combination of features (height, athletic build, endurance, good hand-eye coordination) that, put together, give that person a natural advantage at basketball, even though the game is an entirely learned activity. Similarly, if someone has high levels of aggression and testosterone, and low levels of empathy, regard for the opinions of others, and ability to project into the future, that person would be more prone to committing crime than others would be.

Now, none of this means that a person is predetermined to become a criminal, any more than a tall person with stamina is predetermined to play basketball. But as biological beings, our biology plays a part in our outlooks and our internal reward/punishment systems (emotions).

As for Fargo and NYC, yes, the issue may be entirely social. There's nothing the nature/nurture symbiosis that prevents one side from dominating the other. Also consider that conservatives born in NYC are likely to be uncomfortable there and may move elsewhere.

76. Are politics in your DNA?

Comment #19471 by nine9s on January 27, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Like NoLongerHaveBelief, my political views have changed radically in my lifetime. I went from a diehard Democrat to a libertarian in the course of about six months. A lot of one's political beliefs stem from what one thinks government is capable of doing, and that's a matter of learned information.

It also seems inevitable that genetics also has something to do with this. Babies are born with their own personalities, and while a lot can be done with that, it probably can't be completely overthrown. Bugaboo makes a good point:

Genes certainly do contribute to "criminality". The most obvious example being that males are more violent than females.

The study seemed to be making a similar point: that party affiliation is due almost entirely to environment (learning) while attitudes were a mix of learning and genetics.

As an interesting side note, conservatives have 41% more children than liberals, and children share their parents' political affiliation 80% of the time. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=2344929&page=1

77. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19400 by nine9s on January 27, 2007 at 12:03 am

'If only you knew the books that I know, if only you knew the scientists I know, you would be great, like me.' I listened to that several times. Haggard is not referring to RD but to himself.

Haggart here is mocking Dawkins, not saying what he himself actually believes. Right after Dawkins says, "You obviously know nothing about the subject of evolution," Haggard scolds Dawkins for his "intellectual arrogance" and says, "I don't communicate an air of superiority over people because 'I know so much more, and if you only read the books I know and if you only knew the scientists I knew then you would be great like me.'" Frankly, I don't see how this could be mistaken as Haggard claiming to be great because of the books and scientists he knows.

I don't want to stretch this thread out too long. But I do want to say that non-atheists continually talk about how smug and arrogant atheists come across, and it behooves us to be able to see other people's perspectives and to grant those people some normal amount of good will if we want to influence them. Common courtesy is not too much to ask.

It seems that atheists have a severe blind spot when it comes to accurately seeing what's going on in the heads of theists, and an irrational eagerness to believe the worst possible meaning in whatever believers say or do. How many more people need to comment on atheist smugness before that perception gets taken seriously? What would Dawkins have to do before you'd say, "Damn, that was arrogant of him."?

Ok... I promise this is the last thing I post on this thread. It's rather disconcerting having to defend Haggard while taking Dawkins to task.

78. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19327 by nine9s on January 26, 2007 at 8:32 am

2001 Gallup poll:
45% of Americans believe that: "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so"

The "at one time" clause is easy to miss. A normal, not-very-religious person could hear that question as "Did God finish making us pretty much the way we are now 10,000 years ago?" Most people in the U.S. believe some form of "God guided the evolutionary process," so I could see a lot of people who accept evolution saying Yes to this question. [edit: Nevermind. I just found the poll you're talking about, and it said only 27% of Americans accept both God and evolution. My bad for publishing before I research. ;) ]

November 18-21, 2004 CBS poll:
65% of Americans want creationism taught along with evolution in schools and 37% want evolution science outright replaced by creationism in schools.

Isn't this a lot like Dawkins saying he wants religion to be taught in schools? Wouldn't a lot of scientists want their kids to know the creationist arguments so they can counter them? (Amusing that 65% and 37% add up to 102% and technically the two categories are mutually exclusive.) And as for the 37% who want evolution to be replaced by creationism... sigh. Sometimes it's embarassing to be an American.

79. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19319 by nine9s on January 26, 2007 at 8:01 am

the Tv show you're talking about (which is not called The God Delusion by the way - that TV show aired a year earlier than that book came out)

Sorry--that's what the title on Youtube called it.

was not an attempt to persuade Haggard. It never pretended to be. It was an attempt to document his behavior for others to see.

It was supposed to be a conversation between two public, um, "intellectuals" (Haggard doesn't quite qualify, but anyway), not the provocation match it turned into, which was both their faults. It's possible for two people to have a repectful conversation even when their ideas are totally at odds, and all I'm saying is that Dawkins seems to have a hard time with this. Most of us would. And it reflects badly on us when his documentary shows him getting angry so early in the conversation. Someone who doesn't already agree with Dawkins would be struck by his quick temper. And who knows what got cut during the editing process, but the program shows Dawkins getting snippy first.

It wasn't just a matter of Haggard "being wrong" about evolution. He was claiming knowledge of something that he obviously knows nothing about, and then disseminating that misinformation to his flock. That IS arrogance."

That's clearly a bad thing to do, but I wouldn't call it arrogance -- maybe dishonesty, intellectual laziness, deceptiveness, fear of the truth, etc.

Indeed, this is why it's understandable for an expert to become annoyed when someone else claims to have all the answer yet hasn't spent a single hour reading or speaking to a good biologist who could set him straight.

True, but what did Dawkins expect? He could have provided that "hour speaking to a good biologist." If he really wants to persuade people, he has to work on his patience. That's all I'm saying.

80. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19187 by nine9s on January 25, 2007 at 12:53 pm

It's interesting to note that you can't see how it was actually Haggard who was being arrogant. He was spouting off nonsense about evolution (Dawkins' turf) and NOT listening to an expert in the field.

Being wrong doesn't make you arrogant. Wouldn't you argue against a political science professor you disagreed with? Granted, among experts there isn't the kind of debate on evolution that there is on political issues, but Haggard didn't know that. His whole life has been lived in a sheltered fundamentalist bubble, and the way to reach people like that is through patience and a willingness to explain before you spout off.

81. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19184 by nine9s on January 25, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Comment #19179 by John Turner

You make good points. There is a difference between arrogance and losing one's temper. I've lost my temper trying to talk sense into people, myself.

I'd have to say, though, that with Dawkins it's not just a matter of being ticked off at a particular person at one particular time. He gives cheap little jabs rather often. In the God Delusion documentary, he says, "If you want to experience the medieval rituals of faith, the candlelight, incense, important-sounding dead languages, no one does it better than the Catholics." This is not a neutral statement of fact; it's a loaded sneer meant to draw cheers from "our side." And at the Lynchburg reading, he goes after a soft-spoken, gentle-sounding girl as if she had just insulted his family. She probably walked away from the microphone in tears.

So if the encounter with Haggard had been a one-time event, I could chalk it up to frustration or momentarily losing his temper. But this seems to happen rather often, and it seems to be a recurring personality flaw -- not that we don't all have a few. There are definitely worse things to be than a brilliant scientist/writer/philosopher with a temper.

82. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19178 by nine9s on January 25, 2007 at 11:41 am

I know I'm inviting a battery of flame here, but Dawkins was, indeed, arrogant in his interview with Haggard.

There was a spot where Haggard mentions the "how could the parts of an eye evolve" argument, which is prime ground for educating someone on what evolution really means and how biologists explain complexity. Instead, Dawkins let loose on him, scolding, (approximately) "I have never met a single biologist in all my life who believes that [eye parts came together randomly]." Haggard, surprised: "Never?" Dawkins, angrily: "No, never in my life." Haggard clearly didn't understand evolution, and instead of explaining it, Dawkins prefered to beat him up for it. A prime example of arrogance.

Don't get me wrong, I love Dawkins. I wouldn't be on this website every day if I didn't. But the guy does have a problem with arrogance and self-righteousness.

83. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19177 by nine9s on January 25, 2007 at 11:40 am

There is a moral plumb line, and we need to rise up to it.

Does he really not realise a plumb line hangs vertically?

I think he was just mixing his metaphors. If he knows what a plub line is, he knows it hangs vertically.

84. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19168 by nine9s on January 25, 2007 at 10:59 am

From a European (Swedish) perspective, I cannot help but to marvel at the cultural differences. "Coming out" as an atheist? Absolutely amazing. I mean, I would not be surprised if we were talking about Saudi Arabia or Pakistan - but I somehow tend to count the US as a modern western society.

Oh, we are -- just a modern Western society that is still highly religious. But really, it's not as bad here as the news reports sometimes make it seem.

How did Europe lose its religiosity? It doesn't seem like there was ever any "atheist movement" that got rid of it. Was it just a matter of education, or learning about evolution? Lots of people say Europe's state religions got stale because they didn't need parishoners to get funding, and since there weren't many alternatives, religion just withered away. Is that true?

85. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19025 by nine9s on January 24, 2007 at 12:16 pm

The term "bright" is an utter embarrassment. We'll never gain respect or "converts" if we go around insisting that we're "brighter" than everyone else. It makes us look hopelessly immature and arrogant.

A deliberate word game like this is bound to fail, anyway. A better analogy is how homosexuals took back the word "queer." It was once an epithet and now it's not, precisely because gays stopped being afraid to use the word. As long as we unapologetically identify ourselves as "atheists," the stigma should go away on its own.

86. Some stars and planets in scale

Comment #18571 by nine9s on January 21, 2007 at 6:00 pm

Did any of you guys see this?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060315_dna_nebula.html

It's a nebula that got twisted into a DNA shape! Can you imagine the implications? That there is a certain combination of forces that just naturally spins matter into a DNA shape? Or am I jumping to conclusions? (Isn't RNA antecedent to DNA?)

87. Neither intellect nor faith will save humanity

Comment #18510 by nine9s on January 21, 2007 at 11:13 am

All right, a lot of people are throwing the word "bigot" around. Let's have a definition. How about: "Prejudice against an individual because of the group that individual belongs to."

To meet a person and later say, "Goddamn, that person is ignorant as hell, and he smells bad" is not bigotry. To see lots of individuals who behave or think similarly and classify them ("churchgoers" or "atheists") is not bigotry. To see a person in a cowboy hat and immediately think, "Ignorant hick Bible-thumper" is bigotry. Seeing someone with dark skin who speaks Spanish, and calling them a universally-recognized insult, is bigotry. And casually throwing the word "bigot" around when people disagree with you can be bigotry in itself. "Those libertarians don't want to outlaw homophobia? Bigots."

88. Neither intellect nor faith will save humanity

Comment #18507 by nine9s on January 21, 2007 at 10:26 am

A redneck is most readily identified by his accent and cowboyish attire. Genus most often found in rural areas. Not into "book-learnin'" but not necessarily unintelligent. Often a Bible-believer. Generally a self-sufficient being, requiring little if any public support.

White trash is an order below the redneck. White trash is sloppy, does not bathe, has body mass index of 35+ unless on crack. Gives birth in teens. Intellect not high enough to be a Bible-believer. Leaches off society through general laziness, stupidity, and lack of dignity. 98.82% of existing Homo Sapiens prefer the company of fingernail chiggers.

89. Neither intellect nor faith will save humanity

Comment #18505 by nine9s on January 21, 2007 at 10:06 am

Mere centuries? This is a very strange remark coming from a learned Evolutionary Biologist such as Dawkins. Why would he say "centuries" when he (above all else) KNOWS it took us humans MILLENIA - not merely a few centuries - to get to where we (most of us) are today, i.e., to reduce our natural tendency to kill each other?!

The reduction of humanity's violence did not come about through natural selection, but by cultural change and modernization. When people can significantly improve their lives through their own labor, the status awarded to warriors weakens and becomes irrelevant. It has everything to do with culture and memes and almost nothing to do with genes.

Dawkins seems to be (unconsciously) reinforcing the White Man's delusion (oops!) that the "natives" are inherently evil (cannabilistic) and if it weren't for the Missionaries - or the (White) Police - then they (the natives) would have gobbled themselves all up!

Steven Pinker writes about this in The Blank Slate. The evidence is simply overwhelming that tribal peoples kill eachother and die in wars in far greater proportions than people in modern societies do. You can wax contemptuous all you want, but the Noble Savage myth just doesn't hold up.

90. Conservative Atheists

Comment #17726 by nine9s on January 15, 2007 at 6:29 pm

I care about the disenfranchised and I care about our planet (I'd say this is rational but some would disagree), and this leads me to a liberal stance more often than not.

I'm a libertarian, and I sponsor a little girl in Columbia named Michele. The biggest misconception I had when I was a leftist was that conservatives didn't care about the poor. In fact, the political right cares just as much about the poor (in my experience) as the left does, but the right says that liberal methods (welfare, income redistribution, minimum wage) don't actually work. An economy is much like an ecosystem -- you mess around with one area, and the secondary and tertiary consequences often cause more harm than good.

Also, I know global warming is a catastrophe. My fellows on the right seem to be engaging in mass groupthink on this issue; it's as if they just want to be contrarians against their political opponents.

91. Conservative Atheists

Comment #17567 by nine9s on January 14, 2007 at 7:45 pm

It's hard for me to think of conservatives as rational, whether or not they believe in supernatural forces.

That's okay. It's hard for me to think of liberals as rational. ;P

92. Religiously Arguing: A response to Michael Novak

Comment #17565 by nine9s on January 14, 2007 at 7:17 pm

"I'm still not sure about her motives. I read and ask myself why a conservative would put herself so far apart from conservative (American) orthodoxy."

I too am a conservative (libertarian) atheist. Speaking for myself, I don't decide what is true based on what group I want to belong to. If by your comment you mean, "Why is she writing about this when she would catch flak for it," I'd say it's just a matter of integrity. You say what you think is true, and let the chips fall where they may.

I think it's very important not to slip into groupthink when it comes to our political opinions. One big reason I was once such a die-hard liberal (up until the middle of college) was that I just had no respect for religious fundamentalism, so if they were wrong about religion, I thought it plausible that they were just stupid and therefore wrong about everything else, too.

93. 10 Questions for Heather Mac Donald

Comment #17564 by nine9s on January 14, 2007 at 7:02 pm

Heather MacDonald writes some excellent essays in the magazine City Journal. Here's a link:

http://www.city-journal.org/author_index.php?author=126

It includes the "Hispanic Family Values?" article.

94. Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

Comment #17408 by nine9s on January 13, 2007 at 11:17 am

This is one reason (among others) why I support homeschooling. If the whackjobs who indoctrinate their poor kids at home were instead in the school system, this is what they'd try to do. Let them keep their ignorance to themselves and leave us alone.

95. 2006 Koufax award nominations are open

Comment #16885 by nine9s on January 9, 2007 at 11:37 am

"This is one the reasons why I've always thought of ageism as "the last prejudice." It's the knee-jerk willingness to associate thoughts and ideas you don't like with age."

What makes you think my comments were "knee-jerk"? Because they were "thoughts and ideas you don't like"?

Perhaps the "last prejudice" is the assumption that people you disagree with are ignorant and prejudiced.

By the way, there are meaningful differences between adults and children. One of those differences is that children do not take full responsibility for themselves, because they can't, since they're not old enough to take care of themselves. When a person becomes old enough, and they still don't take care of themselves, it makes sense to call them childish.

96. 2006 Koufax award nominations are open

Comment #16749 by nine9s on January 8, 2007 at 12:44 pm

"It has always been difficult for any new blogger to "break out" in the blogosphere, but even more so for women and minorities,[...]"

What the hell is she talking about? It's harder for (us) women to get on a computer and start typing? Is she stark-raving mad? This is a feminist?!

"[...]particularly those who tend to focus on issues of gender, sexual identity (LGBT,) economic, and racial inequality."

Maybe because those areas have largely been won, and to endlessly harp on them is to wallow in one's perceived victimhood and encourage others to join you -- an endless pity party.

This mindset doesn't lift people up; it encourages them to bitch and complain about how the world done them wrong, blaming others for their own lot in life. It keeps people childish. Maybe the hated "white man" doesn't care about such blogs because he is the only one in society that is still expected to take care of himself, and he has no patience for self-absorbed excuse-making.

97. 2006 Koufax award nominations are open

Comment #16746 by nine9s on January 8, 2007 at 12:25 pm

"Lefty blogs" only? Well, it's their awards, they can do what they want...

98. Let's Hope It's A Lasting Vogue

Comment #16118 by nine9s on January 4, 2007 at 4:44 pm

"People *need* Thor."

BWAAAAHAAAHAHAAAHA!!!

I love it!

99. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #15878 by nine9s on January 3, 2007 at 1:13 pm

I'm profoundly ambivalent about the death penalty. My primary objections are 1) possibility of mistaken guilt, and 2) lengthy appeals processes that render any additional deterrence factor above and beyond imprisonment mute. Neither case here is applicable to Saddam Hussein.

Since almost everyone here is against the death penalty, I'll focus here on the good arguments for it. First of all, keeping him in prison as an "example of civilized behavior" will be read by the terrorists as a sign of weakness, not of strength. Treating Saddam with any more than minimal dignity would fuel the idea that mass violence gets you respect.

Also, if you give someone who murders hundreds of thousands the same punishment as someone who murders one, it kills any incentive to stop murdering once you get started. And are any other dictators in the world going to be intimidated by the prospect of sitting in prison while all their bodily needs are met? I doubt it. Will they be deterred by the prospect of being hanged while the people they oppressed are taunting them? Could be.

Finally, in prison you can still read, have visitors, remember, write, and even hope for the equivalent of a presidential pardon. In Saddam's case, there was probably no shortage of people willing to risk their lives to break him out of prison. While there are certainly fates worse than death, being confined to a room while still being taken care of (like a naughty child) isn't one of them.

Some here have said that "a prisoner has rights," and that Saddam had "a basic right to live." My impertinent question is, how do you know? What convinced you that no amount of evil you commit can ever deprive you of your right to life? What could convince you that you're wrong?

Some say, "How can the state murder someone to show that murder is wrong?" Well, how can the state hold a kidnapper against his will to show that holding someone against their will is wrong? We already accept that to infringe on rights means that you give up some of your own, and for an evil bastard like Saddam, the only fitting punishment is, in my opinion, death. (BTW, we've already studied serial killers and historical evidence from Stalin, Hitler, etc. What more could one more case study yield, even assuming that Saddam cooperated?"

100. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15447 by nine9s on December 31, 2006 at 11:52 am

Warning: Off topic.

From Veronique: "nine9s: Just a small comment to your post.It is this:The poor will not always be with us.And they haven't always been with us either.In hunter-gatherer societies of the pre-neolithic and indeed in todays foragers(for example in Borneo) there are no poor.For there are no rich."

You have got to be kidding. Cavemen struggling to survive, living in the most abject ignorance, dying from the most preventable diseases (not to mention from lack of food) and this isn't poverty? You reduce the problem of poverty to an envy issue: "Those people have more than me. Waah." The problem of poverty is not a status game; it's a problem of survival and flourishing. You are implying that the only problem with living a miserable life is knowing that other people have it better than you.

By the way, the phrase "The poor will always be with us" is a Biblical quote I used ironically. There's no reason why involuntary poverty can't be eliminated at some point.