1051. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144208 by Bonzai on March 15, 2008 at 10:30 am

Vaal,

I have just revised and edited my post tremendously.

1052. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144197 by Bonzai on March 15, 2008 at 9:59 am

Vaal

Are you not surprised that it took to the 19th Century for somebody to come up with evolution. It seems fairly obvious, although with the benefit of hindsight.

Hmm.. actually it is not fairly obvious even with hindsight. At least to me anyway, maybe I am just dense. :)

It is one thing to make a wild guess that animals transform into each other, which is a common theme in many mythologies, it is quite another to actually find a detailed way to show that this actually happened and to explain how it happened convincingly.

In fact at Darwin's time evolution was not without problems. Besides not having a mechanism to explain how inheritance was transmitted,--genes,--evolutionary theory was in irreconcilable conflict with contemporary physics,--a much more sophisticated and well established scientific discipline than 19th century biology. Kelvin showed that the earth could not have been old enough for evolution to have taken place in the way Darwin described. According to his calculation, the earth would have been much cooler if it had been around for such a long time.

Kelvin's calculation was completely sound and consistent with the best theories of 19th century physics. Darwin himself conceded that, all the objections of the scientifically uninformed religious people not withstanding, Kelvin had struck a fatal blow to evolution.

It wasn't until the early 20th century that we found out what's wrong with Kelvin's calculation. The temperature of the earth is sustained by nuclear reactions in the core,--a fact that they didn't know at Darwin's and Kelvin's time.

Despite his acknowledgment that Kelvin had "blown me out of the water", Darwin stuck to his gun. He had no argument other than that he knew it in his guts that organisms did evolve. He based his convictions on his field work through which he came to know nature intimately, in a first person sort of way , Evidence from direct observations of bones and fossils was messy and open to different interpretations at a time when they didn't have very sophisticated dating techniques and forensic technology,

So evolution was in clear conflict with physics at the time and evidence for it was circumstantial and messy. Yet Darwin was unrepentant (no pun intended) I think many hard nose "rationalists" here would have easily dismissed Darwin as an irrational crackpot if they don't have the hindsights.

(Aside: A moral one can get from this story is that science is not a simply a process where scientists collect evidence and test theories in a straight forward, objective and rational manner.There could be a lot of twists and turns. The verdict may not be in for quite some times before a theory is declared dead or vindicated. In Darwins' case the verdict was in but the ruling was overturned a few decades later when new, completely unexpected evidence came to light from an apparently completely unrelated discipline,--this incidentally showed the beautiful internal consistency of science.)

Even with all the evidence, I have to say that evolution is still very counter intuitive . Those who learn it in biology classes may think it is obvious probably because they have not let the message sink in, I find that it is a common problem with learning anything from school. You listen to the teacher passively, read text books where everything is laid out and do a bunch of exercises and write exams. You don't really reflect on what is being taught until much later. Otherwise they are just facts and "information".. It is not unusual to hear physics undergraduates saying that they understand quantum mechanics, by that they mean they know how to do text book problems and get good marks in exams.

I believe many people have a problem accepting evolution exactly because it is counter-intuitive,even as it is logically and scientifically compelling, especially when we contemplate ourselves in that context, It is one of those things that you know in your head but may not in your guts.

Dawkins did a terrific job in simultaneously conveying the inevitability of evolution yet at the same time how utterly unexpected it is. He captures that sense of improbability and awe which remains even when all the logic and inner workings are laid bare. I think his books on evolution are real gems in the genre

1053. Deadly Sins 101

Comment #144175 by Bonzai on March 15, 2008 at 8:49 am

The Hitler Youth thing is a cheap shot, even Ratz doesn't deserve it, give it a rest.

1054. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144173 by Bonzai on March 15, 2008 at 8:45 am

Why do they have to use the word "selling" as if it involves something dishonest? I usually avoid people who talk to me because they want to sell me something,

I don't know how Dawkins would feel for the implication that he is somehow on a par morally with a guy trying to sweet talk you into buying used cars from him.

1055. The business of natural selection

Comment #144162 by Bonzai on March 15, 2008 at 8:27 am

It is yet more hype.

At one point it was using neural networks to pick stocks, which died a quiet death.

A few years ago they were talking about using chaos theory to do business,.I heard business professors on TV and obviously these clowns knew nothing about chaos theory beyond a few sound bites. Maybe they meant creating a lot of confusions so that they can make money by pulling a fast one, I have no idea.

I actually hate business type with an even bigger passion than I do religious fundamentalists. At least the fundies have some genuine human emotions, I can't say the same about the talking suits. The other day I was reading a book in a coffee shop, this woman behind me began to yack away on her cell phone. She was going on and on about "synergy", "the butterfly effect" and so on, for almost half an hour she was babbling gibberish in business lingo peppered with bastardized scientific jargons. I couldn't even be sure the conversation made sense to her, certainly not to me. I felt like telling her to STFU and pouring coffee all over her notebook. But then I decided to leave before I lost it and got arrested for assault.

1056. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #144154 by Bonzai on March 15, 2008 at 8:08 am

While I am not a big fan of Harris' and I find his explanation of Islamic terrorism very simplistic,--Scott Atran really ripped him to pieces over this IMO,--I can't say he is "comfortable with torture" based on that article.

It seems he was making a "lesser evil" kind of argument. It might be flawed but it is not like he was "comfortable" with torture in the way most of us would understand the phrase "comfortable with". That conveys the impression that he thought torture is no big deal and recommended it as an acceptable, normal way to do business. I don't think that is a fair representation of his position.

1057. Two More Fleas

Comment #144142 by Bonzai on March 15, 2008 at 7:45 am

ww

surely for something to be "fine-tuned", there has to be an agency/force/intelligence doing the fine-tuning..

As a simplify analogy, the word "creature" implies a creator.But the fact that there are many creatures around doesn't prove God's existence except for wooter and his multiple personalities (who refer to each other in the third person)

Language has a way of subtly leading our mind into directions that are not warranted by the facts we seek to describe. Natural language is very powerfully suggestive because it is associated with meanings on many different levels. There is no one to one correspondence between words and meanings, they are entangled like a web,

That being the case it is important to identify the problem clearly and express it in a way that would eliminate the pitfall of language by using precise definitions.

"Fine tuning" is actually misleading on many levels. Aside from what you point out, it also leads us to think in directions that somehow involve the origin and possibility of life, which in turn leads to non answers based on the anthropic principle that roboholic cited in his posts.

The plain way of putting it, without all the confusing emotional associations is simply this: "Why do these constants have the values that they do? Do we have a theory to fix them, or do they have to be fixed by hand? If there is multiverse what are the probability distributions of these constant across the multiverse, what does it mean in a precise way and how we can test these ideas."

In its proper context the question really has nothing to do with the possibility of life. Life arises later. By "tuning" our minds to think in that direction we are opening up ourselves to some kind of teleological thinking, which is rarely useful or meaningful in science.


(Aside: I think language may have an important and non obvious way in shaping the religious mind though I can't quite express it clearly)

1058. Two More Fleas

Comment #144137 by Bonzai on March 15, 2008 at 7:07 am

Brian English,

Science shouldn't care what others read into discoveries. All that matters is that science seeks the truth. Where ever that goes. There will always be numbnuts who misuse or misrepresent scientific knowledge.

Exactly. I tried to make this point rather clumsily on other threads before. You summarize it better than I could have.I am sure I would be a better writer if English is my last name!

1059. Fleabytes

Comment #144007 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 9:10 pm

Who's the dude?

1060. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143995 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 8:18 pm

Jestyr,

Suicide bombing and other forms of terrorism are an effective threat in an asymmetric struggle. However, here we have to look at morality.

Saying that it is effective doesn't imply that it is moral. Indeed I did say explicitly that it is "desperate, morally repugnant but also effective".

1061. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143994 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Styrer

Their acts are entirely faith-based; they are entirely religion-based. For you to suggest otherwise is moving dangerously close to a notion that is guaranteed to piss me off beyond your little and immoral endorsement of: 'blame the fucking victim'.'

Have you stop beating your wife yet?

Respond to the substance of my question or piss off.

Best,

Bonzai

1062. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143987 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 7:45 pm

Styrer,

You have added precisely nothing to the discussion with your above post

This was exactly what I intended. I gave you exactly what you deserve for your rambling non sequitur.


Best,

Bonzai

1063. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143983 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 7:33 pm

And that's not faith-based? Faith doesn't have to be religious.

Is the desire to revenge faith based? How about war over resources and land? How about revolution against tyrannies, or war against foreign occupiers like in Iraq?

If you define "faith" so broadly it wouldn't be very meaningful to ask what is faith motivated because then in a sense everything that appears paradoxical to the survival imperative would be "faith based", maybe even giving up your life to help a stranger or smoking.

Edit: A generic "faith causes it" is just as intellectually lazy as the "God did it" one size fits all answer invoked by some theists to every question and it is almost just as bad, "Almost" because sometimes faith is indeed the culprit but God doesn't exist so couldn't have done it,

1064. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143980 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Styrer,

They were driven - entirely - by faith-drenched doctrines inculcated from the earliest age that their oppressors could manage.

By repeating the same simplistic "bollock" over and over doesn't make it more right. You can type in caps and that wouldn't make an iota of difference.

With all the reserves of patience and of courtesy I have

I would prefer people who are upfront about their emotions rather than hiding behind a facade of fake politeness while making abusive and snide remarks like your usual reptilian self.

And stop pissing me off

Glad I did. At least you sound more genuine,

Best,

Bonzai.

1065. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143975 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 7:09 pm

I invite you to respond to the substance of my complaint against you.

There is no substance in your complaint. There you go.

1066. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143972 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 7:00 pm

Styrer,

Shouting "utter bollocks" and ranting against "leftists" like a charging fanatic shouting "Allah akbar" is not going to make your argument more convincing or logical. I notice your tendency to insult and bully others quite a while back, If I have an ignore button I would have pressed it unhesitatingly whenever I see your condescending, simplistic and incoherent bollocks.

Best,

Bonzai

EDIT Please elaborate how does saying suicide bombers are motivated by politics instead of religion is "blaming the victims"? Not that I care for reading your rants anyway but others may want to know how you make that connection.

1067. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143967 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Suicide bombing is a way of waging asymmetric warfare. It is a way for the weak side in a conflict to inflict maximum damage on an overwhelmingly stronger adversary by turning themselves into human bombs and set themselves off at "soft targets". It is desperate, morally repugnant but also effective when the playing field is very lopsided.

While suicide bombing is relatively modern, sacrificing one's own life in order to achieve political-military goal is not new. Religion doesn't have to be involved.

History is repleted with examples of people who died willingly and knowingly for all kind of political causes: assassins went on missions that they knew for sure that they wouldn't come back alive; resistance fighters launching attacks on much more powerful enemies knowing that they would be anihilated; people who willingly sacrifice their lives for political principles, etc. Despite the survival instinct, people can and do often give up their lives for causes they find worthy enough. Politics alone can be quite sufficient a reason, the promise of virgins is not really necessary,

Islam is strongly against suicide, the torture for those who die by their own hands in the after life is quite horrific and most Islamic scholars agree that suicide bombing is not martyrdom. The normal definition of martyrdom is that one has to die by the enemy's hand. Suicide bombing would be the last thing a Muslim would do if he is motivated only by religious fanaticism because mainstream interpretation of the religion is overwhelmingly against it.

There is a minority view which equates suicide bombing with martyrdom. But why are the bombers more receptive to the minority view if religion is all they care about? It seems that they do pick and choose the interpretation that happens to justify what they have already decided to do before hand. Religion is only a kind of rationalization, if the normal interpretation of the religion doesn't provide the justification they seek, they simply find another interpretation that would. So I wouldn't agree that religion is the primary trigger,

EDIT Corrected some typos and made some stylistic improvements.

1068. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143965 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 6:35 pm

I think the Tamil Tigers are Maoists.

1069. Fleabytes

Comment #143830 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 1:37 pm

MaxD

Further, you will note that not one of us on this site is against abstinance education. We are all (I think)against abstinance-only education because it doesn't fucking work.

Well in fact I am against abstinance education at least philosophically because it portraits sex as something dirty, wicked and dangerous that one should avoid except as a means towards an end,--procreation or as a leash to tie down someone you love. I think this is unhealthy and is a natural development of Christian theology which in general holds the body in contempt.

There are risks in sex like in all other good stuffs in life. The attitude we should instill in young people should simply be get educated, play safe and act responsibly just like we would teach them about everything else, no more, no less.

1070. Fleabytes

Comment #143813 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 12:57 pm

MaxD

but doesn't it seem kind of strange that God is so bad at this book writing business?

My point was that many Christians don't believe God wrote the book except maybe in the U.S. Many would say God inspired humans wrote it. Christians are not theologically obliged to say God dictated their book like Muslims do,--but even Muslims are not obliged to be "literalists" because no where did their God say he was one. Religion is fascinating exactly because it is such a human phenomenon.

The question is how many of them think the nicer liberal interpretive business or the harderline one? And certainly most of them believe some of the silliness literally.

They certainly do, but how does it follow that they must accept the whole book literally? Christians do cherry pick, but not arbitrarily, there are complicated systems of songs and dance to do that, at least for the sophisticated ones.

EDIT But sometimes it is not even "cherry picking". I read in a Chinese history book that describes a particularly brutal battle thus, "the battle field was flooded by a river of blood and even the heaven opened up and wept for the dead" Now I don't see any "cherry picking" if a reader believes the actual battle did happen while the narrative I just wrote are just literary embellishment. Any reasonable reader would.Believing that the battle happened doesn't oblige one to accept literally that the battle field was flooded and heaven actually cried for the dead. It would be silly for anyone to insist that the reader must accept everything literally or nothing at all. Sometimes I do feel that kind of silliness reading some atheists here,--I don't mean you particularly.

1071. Fleabytes

Comment #143809 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 12:48 pm

There are just different rates of gradualism.

Sorry, by that way of thinking even water boiling is a kind of "gradualism" only at a vastly different rate if you choose your time and length scale appropriately. I think you need to choose one time scale through out the discussion in order to say what is "gradual" meaningfully.

1072. Fleabytes

Comment #143795 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Steve,

I think it is more parsimonious to assume a continuity from humans to animals.

I don't want to take sides between your debate with Mphil, but just want to point out that the assumption of continuity is often wrong for systems with a large number of degrees of freedom because phase transitions are quite commonly observed. There are probably good theoretical reasons to expect that they do occur quite a bit across the scale of complexity stretching between say the bird's brain the human's.

Parsimony is not much of an argument because it is justifiable only under the assumption of perfect ignorance.it is kind like assuming all faces of a die are a propri equally likely to turn up just because we don't know anything more about it, but when you throw the die 100 times and see that it is always a 6 that turns up you can't argue for uniform distribution because of parsimony. The less parsimonious theory that the die is indeed loaded is probably more likely correct. When you have two theories with identical observable consequences or when you have no good theoretical reason to bias for a more complicated model. Parsimony is a reasonable criterion to pick one because again, empirical observation and theoretical considerations are neutral, this is in a sense a state of perfect ignorance as far as picking the theories are concerned.

1073. Fleabytes

Comment #143442 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 5:48 am

Sargeist,

It would bring up the interesting prospect of future technology being able to carry out in some mechanical way, all the steps in the full gestation period. Which would suggest that abortion would always be wrong, since the fertilised egg would always be able to become a person.

Of course I mean without that kind of artifical interventions, which religious folks would oppose anyway.

With future technology it may be possible to clone an entire person with a skin cell, but it would be absurd to say that since the technology exists to turn a skin cell into a person, it is murder everytime you scratch your nose.

1074. Fleabytes

Comment #143437 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 5:40 am

Ah, I see what you mean. I was talking about deciding when the "person" first appears.

The appearance of some brain maybe? In that case clearthinker has never become a person, this is not to say he should be aborted though cause he is obviously viable. :)

1075. Fleabytes

Comment #143425 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 5:31 am

Should a being be considered less of a person because it is dependent on another? I am not sure.

I am not just talking about survival, but being actually able to grow into a person. I may be wrong on this, but I think if you remove the feotus before a certain stage of development and keep it alive in a machine, it will not turn into a baby. If you put a fertized egg in a Petri dish will it turn into a baby if it doesn't die? At what point will it be able to develope on its own? These may be really stupid questions because I have no common sense about embryo grow at all.

1076. Fleabytes

Comment #143417 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 5:22 am

Steve

I really don't know myself what the answer is. Is birth a special change in status?

I think viability may be a good criteria. If a foetus can survive and develope outside the womb then I think it should be considered a seperate "person". Before a certain time a foetus would not turn into anything if it is removed from the mother's body even if kept alive in a machine and it should be considered a part of the woman's body.

1077. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143381 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 4:21 am

Brian

The only tricky bit is, we need to let these biggots speak and be rebutted publicly.

I think there are certain things that are so dehumanizing that even entering into the debate lends them undeserved legitimacy. For example, we don't debate whether Blacks are fully humans. Legal banning of such speech is a way to send a signal that such ideas are simply not debatable, just as it is not a debatable matter whether we should send handicaped people to death camps. There is a point where ideas cease to be just abstract ideas and become a form of persecution. This is what I am trying to get at.

For the gay muslims in the youtube link I provided, the idea that gays are sub humans is not an abstract philosophical proposition. It is a form of real persecution and people get killed because of that. I think there should absolutely be legal consequences. The society needs to make a clear and loud statement that this is not acceptable, not through debating clubs but the court.

I understand that in practice there are grey areas and lawyers would have to work them out. I am only stating a general philsophical position with blatant disregard of technical details.

1078. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143375 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 4:08 am

That could be a bit of a problem to introduce, seeing as how certain religious groups well-established in the UK aren't exactly in favour of equal rights for women, for example.

That would actually be excellent because if these nutters would dare to declare openly that women should be treated as second class citizens based on their religion, it would be enough to bury them as well as undermining religion in general in a very public way.

1079. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143371 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 3:53 am

Other than incitement I also think that there should be law against those who teach or preach that an identifiable group of people are subhumans who don't deserve human rights.

1080. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143369 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 3:46 am

Once we agree to one form of speech censorship, how can we logically argue that others shouldn't be stopped?

My rule is that ideas are fair game, but targeting people is no no. It's ok to say Islam is a ridiculous religion but it wouldn't be ok to say that all Muslims are scumbags who should be locked up. I don't believe that people should be threaten with arrest for saying stupid things about homosexuality and 'homosexual conspiracy", but I draw the line if they advocate doing harm to gay people, perhaps killing them.

I know sometimes the line is not easy to draw, but that is my basic position.

1081. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143364 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 3:40 am

Having had a long chat with my wise husband about this, I have realised I was wrong(*). The best way is indeed to allow such speech, no matter how nasty.

I draw the line when someone actually says homosexuals should be killed, as it is happening in some mosques in the U.K. Such people need to have the full force of the law brought on their sorry arses.

1082. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143353 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 3:23 am

He replied pathetically saying he must love her, but hate her sin or something stupid. Wanker....

At least he didn't tell her he would kill her with his bare hands.

Pell is one of the most conservative Catholic Cardinals around. It would be a great progress when you can get your average traditional Islamic cleric in the U.K. to tell his gay brother I love you even though I hate your sin.

I think the Catholic Church is an easy target because no one really takes it seriously anymore, at least in most of the Western world. I think Islam is way worse in terms of hatred towards homosexuals and a few other things

1083. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143346 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 3:08 am

The link again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f80pNyoL6A&feature=related

1084. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143344 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 3:05 am

On the other hand, knowing kids these days in the UK, he is probably going to make himself look a total ass.

Not in the Muslim community, for example. I think there is a case to really bring the law down on those who preach hatred against gays in extreme cases because people are getting harmed, badly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f80pNyoL6A&feature=related

Though I feel sorry for the guy on the radio in part1 I have to say he is pathetic. You have to be a masochist to remain a Muslim if you are gay.

1085. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143341 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 2:54 am

The Bishop is a model of "tolerance" comparing to the Islamic nutters.

1086. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #143316 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 1:54 am

Lose track of the "off-switch" for your mind. I have never found mine.

Meanwhile I have problems finding my "on switch".

1087. Two More Fleas

Comment #143274 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 8:44 pm

Re: How do you answer the fine-tuning argument?

Current science doesn't have an explanation for fine tuning. In a sense it is not even entirely clear how the question should be formulated or to what extent it is a real question. There are many speculations, opinions and plausible ideas but nothing really concrete. In short we don't know. I think that about sums it up honestly.

While an interesting and perhaps important question in physics, fine tuning is a non issue as far as the God debate is concerned.

While science doesn't have an explanation for question X, it doesn't follow that "God did it" is a legitimate explanation. It doesn't 'explain" anything even though it may look like an explanation because of the way we use language.

There is no way to describe how God fine tuned these constants, no mechanism is suggested, there is no way to test the God "hypothesis" which can be invoked to "explain" anything for which we don't know the explanation. It is infinitely flexible, infinitely ad hoc, infinitely vague and doesn't have to satisfy any constraint of consistency imposed by what we do know.

I would argue that science doesn't have answers to certain questions is a demonstration of its strength, rather than its weakness. In science there is a very high standard for accepting any proposed answer. It has to pass many tests, make precise quantative predictions and fit into our over all understanding of the world because unlike theology, science is a coherent body of knowledge, if one piece doesn't fit the whole structure may fall apart, the requirement of consistency is that stringent. That's why answers are so difficult to come by in science. The "God explanation" is cheap because it does none of these.

Religion has no standard and so not surprisingly it seems to have an answer for everything and it is always the same answer. It is not a strength to be able to produce answers that don't conform to any standard. Quite the opposite, it is a fatal flaw for any system that claims to have insights into deep knowledge.

Anyone can come up with answers, they are as numerous as digestive gas. The difficult question is how do we know we have the right answer,--even in some provisional sense. "God did it" offers no clue to how this can be ascertained.

Victor Stenger is wrong in calling God the failed hypothesis, that is giving it too much credit. It is a non hypothesis that only looks like one.

So indeed we can turn the table against the theists if they use fine tuning as an argument for God because it proves beyond the shadow of doubt that they have not a clue on even what it means to have an answer, let alone having one.

When believers trying to argue for God by invoking fine tuning, it is basically the "I don't know, therefore God exists" non argument, as Brian English said "Non scimus, ergo Deus extat". It is nothing but a shameless celebration of intellectual laziness.

1088. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #143256 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 6:57 pm

I noticed that in many cases people were laughing before the punchline, like they were trying to express an opinion with their laughter or, like groupies at a pop concert, they were erupting in response to hearing the first few chords of their favorite song.

Or going to see the Rockey Horror Picture movie.

1089. Deadly Sins 101

Comment #143255 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 6:48 pm

roboholic

Mabye in heaven I can take off my mask.

What made you think that you are going to heaven?

1090. Deadly Sins 101

Comment #143251 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 6:38 pm

The Vatican released a list of seven new sins on Monday.

Yawn.

Some people have too much time on their hands, how about the Popes and Bishops start making an honest living for a change?

It just strikes me as odd that there are actually people whose only purpose in life is to invent sins, stupid rules and make up scary stories about being sodomized by demons after you die if you sin as if they have experienced it first hand,--sorry that was Father Max who buggered you when you were 6, not a demon. They then solemnly announce their rules and stories to the world as if we should take them seriously just because they wear funny cloths and believe in fairies. I mean, grow up.

The sad thing is too many people do take them seriously instead of just laughing them off as the clowns that they are. This is beyond irrational, it is insane.

1091. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #143242 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 5:52 pm

Who is the horse?

1092. Ban anti-Catholic books in schools, says bishop

Comment #143201 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 4:11 pm

ut surely this cannot be becoming that widespread that people are starting to believe it in this country?

No, I don't think so.

I quote:

The bishop's summons to appear before the committee followed a document he produced last year which angered some MPs because of its strict line on sexual morality.

and this

The committee also heard faith schools were creaming off wealthy and bright pupils at the expense of children from the most disadvantaged homes.

It seems the Bishop was asked to explain himself to a hostile audience who demanded to know WTF was going on. By all indications, he was put on the hot seat instead of being treated as a rock star in concert by an adoring crowd.

1093. Ban anti-Catholic books in schools, says bishop

Comment #143196 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 3:53 pm

They should ban faith schools instead.

In a way it is good that the Bishop speaks up. He is probably digging his own grave if his outlandish opinions raise enough eye brows, this is afterall the U.k and not some Eastern European country where the Church is held in the highest regard.

PS Is this the same guy who thinks gays should be in jail on the other thread?

1094. Fleabytes

Comment #143180 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Steve

Some of my best friends are women...

Oops, my witticism backfired. :)I meant to say "like I need a woman in bed" But then I decided to keep it implicit and change "I" to " a gay man" as I realized my sexual preference really had nothing to do with the thread.

You know I almost prefer the honesty of the creationists. You know what you are dealing with, and they recognise that NOMA is nonsense.

Actually I don't mind NOMA if religion holds up its end of the bargain.

The problem is religious people would never officially give up claims that intrude into science because to do so would be to acknowledge that their God is just a feel good fiction and an occasional gap filler, though a small number of theologians like Bishop Spong are honouring their end of the deal admirably in that sense.

Even without going that far I have no problem with religious moderates who compartmentalize their brains to such an extent that they do in practice honour NOMA even though they may still listen to stories of resurrection and virgin birth without much resistance on Sunday. Many of them fight on our side to keep creationism out of the classroom. I think that needs to be acknowledged.

And sorry, no, I don't prefer the "honesty" of Creationists,--get a taste of that "honesty" with Wooter. That is not honesty, just consistent stupidity. It is better to be wrong only sometimes than to be wrong consistently all the time. Consistency is not a virtue in and of itself.

1095. Fleabytes

Comment #143163 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Steve

I think some people find religion comforting because it offers such a small view of the universe. They may call God infinite, but I am sure many really mean is that God is simply a celestial superman, big enough to defeat all enemies and look after me.

It is actually kind of ironic.

On the one hand believers endow their God with omnipotence and credit him with all creations, insist that he is infinite and beyond space and time. But it would be difficult to believe that a God bigger than the universe itself would give a flying fuck about their petty lives any more than we would care about the lives and happiness of an amoeba.

So while talking big talks in truth they actually believe in a God small enough to be like us in order to feel snuggly. Kierkegaard knew the implications of a God who supposedly set the heavens in motion and presides over eternity, he didn't want that remote being and cried in anguish, "I don't want the God of the philosopher, give me the God of Abraham and Issac." Yes, he wanted God small and snuggly and unlike many contemporary theologians at least had the honesty and insight to acknowledge it.

1096. Fleabytes

Comment #143152 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Steve,

Religion is a parasitic flea not just on writers like Dawkins, it is parasitic on science. Whenever something new is found, you hear some theologists claim that this "simply expands our understanding of God's creation". I despise this. It is like a child, who finding a new toy around the house, immediately declares "that's MY toy!", claiming ownership of everything just in case.

It shows that they are desperate. What I find most unbearable are people who smugly intone that science and religion need each other, in a truly ecumenical fashion while it is obviously religion that is trying desperately to hang on to science's coat tail. Science needs religion like a gay man needs a woman.

1097. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #143058 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 11:56 am

Steve,

Could we distinguish "studying the supernatural" from "trying to showing religions true"?

I think we can.

I don't think we can. I think if we try, we will always get people claiming we are doing the latter, and that this gives religion scientific legitimacy.

Should we make our decision based on what people may misunderstand? The news media often paints a rather misleading and simplistic picture of science, just look at all the "study finds" headlines. I don't think that is a good enough reason to stop any research that can be justified on its own ground.

For example, if someone wants to claim that prayer works, what are we actually studying? If there was, hypothetically, some effect, how are we supposed to distinguish some direct "psychokinetic" effect from an intervention by supernatural beings?

You say it yourself. Honest and competent scientists should be able to follow up and decide which is which.

BTW, I can certainly imagine psychologists and neural scientists being interested in studying whether there is a correlation between health and praying.

Neural scientists do study Buddhist monks who practice meditation. I think that is a legitimate project even though it can be easily misrepresented.

No matter how much we insist that the first explanation is the more reasonable, due to simplicity, you can bet the "god did it" explanation would be the one that would be accepted.

If people insist they can always insert "God did it" no matter what you find. The Catholic Church doesn't go out of business because it accepts evolution. It can still say God did it by "guiding evolution"!

I understand your PR concerns and I am also quite tired of the attempt to validate religion with science but I just don't agree that certain research should be off limit to respectable scientists simply because it may be misconstrued.

As I said before, if we ask theists to supply evidence for their claims it seems unreasonable to take such a dismissive attitude the moment they do try to investigate those claims with science and appear to be doing so honestly. I think there is a qualitative difference between TF and outfits like the Discovery Institute, it is not fair to tar them with the same brush (I know you don't, but many here seem to be doing just that).

1098. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142919 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 7:48 am

Steve,

Sorry, but I am with Harold Kroto on this (very good company). Once you start religious-oriented research under the guise of science, you give religion credibility as a rational basis for understanding the workings of the universe, and it it can start to be mentioned in science education.

I heard Kroto on the Beyond Belief conference, I was at first in agreement with him but I come to revise my view a little.

I could be wrong on this, but based on what I read the TF funds science that may have some kind of religious overtone if people choose to interpret them that way, but they are not religion disguised as science, these are two different things. The study of prayers, for instance, while obviously had religious significance no matter how the result might have turned out, was a genuine scientific study adhering to all the protocols of such investigations.So I wouldn't call that religion in disguise even though it addressed a religious theme.

Now we atheists always demand evidence from the theists, we should welcome the effort to put religious claims in scientifically testable hypotheses. I doubt that anything extraordinary will turn up, but at least it shows that some theists do accept that it is valid to apply empirical tests to empirical claims made by religion and are willing to carry out these investigations honestly,--as far as I know there has been no accusation that the TF is engage in anything scientifically dishonest like the ID crowd. Since the TF is paying for the bills I don't see why we should be upset about it,

1099. Two More Fleas

Comment #142641 by Bonzai on March 12, 2008 at 11:27 pm

I experience some kind of spasm whenever I see a hooter, I mean a wooter post and have to press the troll button, It must be the devil who makes me.

It is a waste of time to try to reason with him/her. I don't see the point of deconstructing his/her inane arguments the nth time unless you are doing this to practice your writing skill.

1100. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142636 by Bonzai on March 12, 2008 at 11:15 pm

I am a bit surprised that some people here are comparing TF with the RC Church and hell fire and brimstone Christians. I may be mistaken, but I am not aware that the TF has any particular religious affiliation. Its agenda, based on my possibly erroneous understanding, is an attempt to build a bridge between science and some kind of vague, wooly "spirituality", which is not specifically Christian, it is not even necessarily theistic,--"God" or "divine" can be a shorthand for a lot of things if it is not tied to any specific doctrine..

You may still find that distasteful, but I think it is knee jerk to react as if it is some kind of Church sponsored operation.