Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

101. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137412 by prettygoodformonkeys on March 2, 2008 at 8:18 pm

Sturmunddrang; the way we DISCOVER the core is by careful and personal observation (scientific research) over years and years (oh boy, is this going to bite me) but it seems the tipping point for you is over "automatic thoughts". Do you not find that these are observed / experienced in terrifying array in meditation? Isn't this the way we really get to know ourselves, and sit with who we are until we take ownership of ourselves?

You can't "think more rationally in a balanced way" unless you are "in the moment" as a mindful participant, and have experienced your unobstructed flow of thoughts - "stewed in your own juices", as it were, automatic thoughts included. If they pop up unacknowledged, your psychotherapist (or ZM) will be there to point them out in a way that is helpful.

I'm sorry, I don't want to over-simplify, and what you say sounds true, but said in postmodern psycho-jargon, and is really just what I am describing.

102. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137402 by prettygoodformonkeys on March 2, 2008 at 7:54 pm

Positive psychology: "cutting edge" - "only eight years old" - "leading proponent, only 36 years of age"...

Freud was born in 1856, and in 1999 we legitimized the study of healthy people to learn the psychology of humans. We're excited about it!

Academic molasses.

103. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137397 by prettygoodformonkeys on March 2, 2008 at 7:45 pm

Sturmunddrang: thanks for the links, I'll give them a look. Glad to learn of this direction in the wacky profession. I only took a couple of years, but it was too f--ked up for me.

Signing off for the day; good posts, everyone!

104. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137395 by prettygoodformonkeys on March 2, 2008 at 7:38 pm

Sturmunddrang: the posting on this thread is too fast for me...

mindfulness.....call it what you will, it doesn't exist if no one is practicing it (it really doesn't exist); and if (we) don't practice it, (we) don't understand it

That's all I'm saying, other than I'm glad to hear CBT is finally using mindfulness instead of just talking about it; but it is still the core.

You were ordained? As what? In what organization?

As I said, a monk; Sotoshu, HQ: Tokyo. My Zen Master is from Nagoya, and flew to British Columbia in 1991 for his first time out of Japan, and his only English at that time was "Good apple!".

105. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137388 by prettygoodformonkeys on March 2, 2008 at 7:22 pm

Sturmunddrang: if I have anything to do with a Buddhist organization it is just to sit with other people, not to get clubby with the teachings (of that particular shard). I am well past my grappling, and it was hard-won.

I completely understand the aversion to the term "Buddhist"; I have jettisoned a lot of it, consciously I hope, but I have seen a great deal of sincere practice help a lot of people. My (secret) preference would be to change Buddhism instead (because it always changes when it moves to a new culture, especially in N. America), because of the interpersonal contact available only in groups. I miss that somewhat, though I rejected it wholesale in my 9-11 deconversion. The door comes down hard in my ancestry. The alternative seems to be constructing a new, rather sterile, philosophy, and being a bit of a loner I don't really want to recommend it.

Trust me, chakras, reincarnation and the rest don't have much sway with practicing people - they don't even come up.

I don't think we have to worry about the Dangerous Idea of "No-Self"; we have more to worry about by obscuring or delaying the discovery of truth - "there's nobody home, but here we are" (mine). It's wonderful, it's natural, it's rational. Discovering it is just a change.

It's a juggling act to 1) not throw out the baby with the bathwater, and yet 2) not drag a boat through a desert because it once helped you cross a stream.

Sorry; that's the way my mind seems to work!

106. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137374 by prettygoodformonkeys on March 2, 2008 at 6:20 pm

LorienRyan:

a scientifically researched book into the nature of a truly human benefiting mindset

Have you read anything by Abraham Maslow? He postulated that the entire history of psychoanalysis is based on the study of aberrant personalities, and that the study of the healthy human is waiting to be written.

I haven't followed this thread up for 20 years; something must have been done(?).

107. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137369 by prettygoodformonkeys on March 2, 2008 at 6:03 pm

Steve: I don't have to deal with reincarnation (or its absence) until I'm dead, so why think about it? (edit: define Rationalist Buddhist)

BTW: like your posts.

108. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137368 by prettygoodformonkeys on March 2, 2008 at 6:01 pm

Sturmunddrang:

we need a book ripping apart Buddhism

When you say things like this you make the baby Buddha cry.

Anyway, bring it on, but do it with the same integrity as Dawkins, Hitchens, Stenger, and Harris and the core of that discovery by primates about what it is to be here on this cooling ball of magma has nothing to fear. If it singes off all the bullshit accumulated over 24 centuries, it's good.

BTW: were you abused in a Buddhist monastery? Just asking.

109. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137365 by prettygoodformonkeys on March 2, 2008 at 5:48 pm

Sturmunddrang:

The belief in rebirth, the belief in karma, the belief in enlightenment and the belief in Chakras are simply not in line with a naturalistic, rational, scientific view of the universe or life. I think that people who claim that naturalism is compatible with this are doing a disservice to naturalistic philosophy. Again, Buddhism is not the answer.

I was ordained by a traditional Japanese Soto Zen Buddhist monk (can't believe I'm saying this), and didn't have to believe in any of those fantasies. It simply isn't on the test. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy was invented in India 2,400 years ago, and was called mindfulness. But call it what you will, it doesn't exist if no one is practicing it (it really doesn't exist); and if you don't practice it, you don't understand it.

It's not about dogma, or the baroque constructions of the average person trying to relate to it within their culture and IQ: Buddha as deity, praying, ritual, repetition of names, etc etc. It's bullshit in any culture; on this we can probably agree.

110. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137122 by prettygoodformonkeys on March 2, 2008 at 11:35 am

Sturmunddrang, I can't keep up to the number of things you could be corrected on, nor the speed and energy with which they are fabricated. I can't comment on reincarnation, because I have never subscribed to it because it isn't necessary to practice, though it is necessary if you call yourself a Buddhist.

Simply, though: if I eat nothing but raw pineapple for a week and it burns my ass, is that "revealed" to me?

The difference is here: and the Lord said "thou shall not eat of the raw pineapple, for the ass-burning shall be great thereof."

I find psychological research into mindulfness to be much more important than ancient writngs on the same topic. Why? I care about the truth and I care about progress, not the ramblings of ancient people

If you actually cared about mindfulness instead of either the research or the ancient writings, you wouldn't have written "mindulfness". It seems picky, but that is exactly the difference academics can't see.

Dogen ultimately is interpreting the Buddha's writings. I thought everyone knew this

Your straw men are already knocked over without you bothering to set them up. Who the fuck said anything about this?

You say some true things, but they're ultimately off topic and you've missed the point entirely.

I have to get on with my life; it's a beautiful day here. Too beautiful a Sunday to ruin with (eww) Religion.

111. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137112 by prettygoodformonkeys on March 2, 2008 at 11:13 am

MaxD: I'll take a stab, although Steve and Bonzai are doing fine with their responses.

There's no way to adopt someone else's "Buddhism" and still have integrity, IMHO. Copying Richard Gere's clothing and hairstyle is no different from repeating something just because the Dalai Lama said it. You have to answer the questions of life (for yourself) in a critical way. Examine anything from "Buddhism" or "naturalism" or "psychology" or anything else, and if it stands up, use it. The core of Buddhism is this, that's really all the guy (other people called Buddha) had to say: find out who you are, find your actual "self".

The experience of doing this is like playing a "shell game" with yourself, because we hide from ourselves the knowledge that we have no self (we are mammals, after all).

But IMHO there is a solid evolutionary basis for thinking we are individuals and not "towering hotels of organized bacteria", so unless these questions are an intense personal quest, it's better to not go down that road.

It's madness, after all, to lose your self.

112. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137099 by prettygoodformonkeys on March 2, 2008 at 10:51 am

AtheistJon,

This is exactly why I left the organization of "Buddhism", because I couldn't eat shit. But read Steve Zara:

There is no "supersitious nonsense core" that you have to hold your nose about to extract the sense. There is a central, reasonably rational core to which a lot of superstitious nonsense was later added

This looks like any other rationalisation, but if you look closely, it is a major difference. People always fuck things up when everybody gets involved, adding their own crap to the mix, but:

strip the crap away from Buddhism and you are left with "if you work at trying to find your 'self', you will fully experience your world";

strip the crap away from monotheism, and you are left with "you have to do what Magic Guy told me to tell you to do".

Huge difference.

113. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137086 by prettygoodformonkeys on March 2, 2008 at 10:33 am

Sturmunddrang: that was not a defense of Buddhism, you just had almost everything wrong, not just out of context. And now you're getting yourself all fussed up because you've been caught out.

Never said there was anything sacred, exactly the opposite; just get it right, that's all.

114. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137079 by prettygoodformonkeys on March 2, 2008 at 10:24 am

Steve Zara, I did get the point. The concept of a "self" is the same as the concept of a "species", or a "glass of water", or a "river", or a "country". When you examine anything, you find it has no edges and actually depends on everything else. We just never apply reality to ourselves.

Yes, it is a "dangerous idea", but only to the "self". That's the whole point of the practice.

115. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137074 by prettygoodformonkeys on March 2, 2008 at 10:03 am

Sturmunddrang:

This is similar to Buddhism, but different in a key respect, there is no soul or "life force" needed

There is no soul in Buddhism

the more radical doubt that we exist.......is my candidate for Dangerous Idea

A Zen teacher would say "show me this self"

one of the 5 hindrances in Buddhism is "doubt." HOW CONVENIENT! If you doubt the Buddha's teachings, then you are hindered.

This is the doubt that one will ever be able to see for oneself. In actual practice, this doubt is one's best friend, and you have over-simplified the concept and inserted "faith".

Again, consider that it is a revealed religion with a prophet, the Buddha. The Buddha has a special intimate knowledge of something that ONLY he can teach you

This is a complete fabrication. Buddha's enlightenment experience was a result of his own personal search, and his "teaching" is that you can do it for yourself. It was not "revealed" in the sense of a deity showing us the truth from the "other world", as in monotheism. You obscure the discussion with your facile overviews.

Please read Post #67.

116. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137036 by prettygoodformonkeys on March 2, 2008 at 7:47 am

Just in case Buddhism is still in the thread:

Zen is based on personal experience (Satori), seeing what is there when you just sit, without any beliefs or expectations. This is not a scientific experiment, and there will be no result (including a philosophy) that you can show to others.

It is the only personal path left for some people who are being driven mad by the pointlessness of existence and the absurdity of religion and are willing to face everything with no preconceptions or trusted tools of logic.

The experience itself does not come with a dogma attached, and the practice is as simple as watching your breathing. That is what a certain monkey, called Buddha, discovered, and this is the teaching of that monkey: question everything honestly, and see for yourself.

Having said all that, I am an ordained Zen person (they say monk, I say monkey) who left the fold because of the baroque dogmas, visualizations, obedience, and hierarchy that have become attached throughout history.

117. Taking evidence seriously

Comment #136541 by prettygoodformonkeys on March 1, 2008 at 11:32 am

Here in British Columbia, Canada we fund faith-based schools. I have sent the following letter to our Minister of Education. Please feel free to use any parts of it for your own letter, but please, write a letter. I waited much too long to send mine.
- PGFM

The Hon. Shirley Bond, MLA,
Minister of Education

Ms. Bond,

I am writing as a taxpayer of 58 years (my parents paid for the first 16) to express my opposition to the tax-free status of superstitious institutions in my province, and my opposition to the funneling of education funds (that are meant for public schools) into religious institutions and religious home-schooling.

This diversion of funds erodes the effectiveness of public schools, and encourages unsubstantiated superstition over proven scientific theories ("theories" such as: Electromagnetics, Gravity, Mathematics, Atomic Theory, Probability, Plate Tectonics, Cell Theory, Evolution, Microbiology, Relativity, etc) that are based on observed evidence and rigorous scrutiny by peer review. These theories and their implications are generally contested by the claims of religion. Superstition is the opposite of education, and I don't want us to pay for it. This diversion of tax money also obscures the issues of the funding shortfalls of local School Boards, and so as Public Servants, in all these things you do a huge disservice to the public.

I am happy to pay taxes for education, but you abdicate your responsibility to educate by using our education money to help teach: original sin (the sin of being born!); magical redemption from this sin by the suicide of a supernatural being; guilt from this personal sin (yet, not from any personal action) having caused the death of this being; and the required obedience to the people who profess to know (but cannot prove) that this is all true - the priesthood, and their appointed teachers. They teach guilt, caused by the supposed sin of existing. In the crucifixion, they teach scapegoating, which is the opposite of our justice system. They teach blind faith, which is the opposite of learning and the scientific method. They teach fear of both life and death.

These are the rules of your government: religious institutions do not pay property taxes, and therefore have an advantage over publicly-funded schools that must pay taxes. And what is the difference? It's simple - churches simply say they have the truth, although they have no evidence for that claim. Schools, who do have evidence for their teachings, find their funding siphoned off to spread the fearful fabrications of bronze-age sheep-herders who knew nothing of: 1) the germ theory of disease, 2) the true cause of lightning and earthquakes, 3) how hailstorms and floods occur, 4) the probability of coincidences, and 5) why you should not kill witches (people) for having magically caused any of the above.

Public education should distance itself from these ancient fantasies, and should concentrate on teaching only that which has been learned by the careful observation of evidence. We should not be taxing working people to pay for the spreading of these ridiculous ideas, and these enterprises should not be conducted free of income or property taxes. A Tarot parlor is taxed, so we must tax churches. A palm-reader is taxed, so we must tax churches. A Horoscope fabricator is taxed, so we must tax churches. There is no evidence for, or benefit from, any of them - other than false comfort. The money presently being lost could be used to create some actual benefit to the people whose money it is.

Tax them. And stop giving them tax money.

Respectfully yours,
(etc)

118. The Encyclopedia of Life, No Bookshelf Required

Comment #134109 by prettygoodformonkeys on February 27, 2008 at 9:08 am

I suppose if we look deep in the old Aramaic texts we may come across the List of Everything. After all, there's no point in naming everything (as the only man on earth, and it's your most important job directly from God) unless someone eventually wrote it down.

Never mind that most haven't even been found, has it occurred to any fundies that most of the existing names are not in Aramaic? They may have a name for Ant, or Camel, but surely not Platypus?

119. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133476 by prettygoodformonkeys on February 26, 2008 at 8:19 am

vinelectric:

right wing screaming-banshees / retards screaming "Fuck Islam" while others scream "Fuck the West" retardingly ever after

Just a little emotional about the word "fuck", aren't we? Pretty strong PC mis-characterisation based on a few calmly printed words that are (irony, anyone?) in favor of free speech.

It's not enough they want us all to shut up about their religion, they want to MAKE us shut up, to control and legislate it. Dawkins, Hitchens, et al (even Paula) are eloquent and we come to the site to read it all, but what good does it do to start a long-winded dissertation when the thought police are already patrolling the streets and censoring your internet connections? They are already KILLING people for this stuff.

Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck.

Pin the tail on Muhammad.

120. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133200 by prettygoodformonkeys on February 25, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Please line up here to offend Islam.

Fuck Islam.
I slam Islam.
Muhammad sucks.
Pin the tail on Muhammad.

Next.

(edited)

121. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129174 by prettygoodformonkeys on February 18, 2008 at 8:17 pm

Diacanu:

From one thread-killer to another, I agree with you on reading. Also on attitude.

Not that I'm gay or anything.

My daughter is so like me, when she was 4-5 she said: " I DO love you, I just want you to know I am not sucking up to you and mom."

So I get it. But if you were like me you'd claim I didn't, and you'd be right. Like me telling you what it feels like when you read.

122. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129043 by prettygoodformonkeys on February 18, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Most of the geography I know I got just from being interested about the world around me, and just looking at a map; what's so difficult? Same with literature and science and religion, etc.

Why they are not interested is a better question, because if you don't have that basic interest, then more talking at the front of a classroom isn't going to help.

The background wallpaper of most US life is: we live in the best place on earth and, you can get Thai food there, too! It's spicy!

123. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128683 by prettygoodformonkeys on February 17, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Congratulations, V X Y!

I toast you with libations tonight.

Sincerely,PGFM

124. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128681 by prettygoodformonkeys on February 17, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Great exposition of Williams' muddy thinking and strategy to further religion of all kinds. Even if he is naive about Islam, there is no reason I can see for Protestantarianism (sic) or Cathoholics (double sic) to promote sharia (sharia, for crap's sake!) other than for the kick-back benefit (for the religious) of multiculturalism overpowering human rights and Common Law. Tough, I suppose, for him to pay proper attention to the way that has been working out so well over the last 50 years (never mind centuries) when his head is so full of that sky-daddy mush. I live on the west coast of Canada, and multiculturalism here is breeding a politically-correct stew of ancient grudges.

alan baylis: I disagree; I think he should be encouraged to speak as much as possible. It's perfect. I only wish I could watch him as he explains it, with his noble brow shining and his nose lifted with constant theatricality towards what the primitive used to call "the heavens", to better sniff the afterlife. Or whatever.

125. Exorcism undergoes a revival across Europe

Comment #126744 by prettygoodformonkeys on February 14, 2008 at 5:35 am

"People are worried about the potential for crazy people coming here," said Ksawery Nyks, 50, a longtime resident.

The "potential", huh?

The craziness is clearly closer than you realize.

126. How Evolution REALLY Works

Comment #112514 by prettygoodformonkeys on January 17, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Nice try, Satan.

127. 'Letter to a Christian Nation' now available in paperback

Comment #111244 by prettygoodformonkeys on January 14, 2008 at 6:10 am

Someone where I work "shared" with me the anti-evolution "In Six Days" book because of our conversations about it, and because he is "born-again", but oddly, a good friend, and a talented electronics technician. So I read the 384 pages and made notes with my researched rebuttals for their ridiculous claims, and gave the book back in two weeks. And yes, I did bring up the fact that electronics is based on "theories", like evolution, and they are "proved" in the same way.

When Letter to a Christian Nation came out, I thought it was fair to "share" it with him. Three months later I asked for it back and he was only about 1/3 the way through it, but he "could see where it was going". I said that it's basically written on a napkin, and he said he's been pretty short of time.

At least I won't have to read anything like "Six Days" again.

*shivers*

It was horrible.

128. Two Ex-Jehovah Witnesses to Tell Why They Became Atheists

Comment #110277 by prettygoodformonkeys on January 10, 2008 at 8:41 pm

Maybe they could join the Jehovah's Witness Protection Program

129. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109950 by prettygoodformonkeys on January 10, 2008 at 6:24 am

106. Comment #109886 by epeeist

Great link, thanks! Now I am even less unconfused than when I made my initial proposition. BTW, Steve Zara: don't let ignorance stop you, it doesn't stop me! But: if singularity is purely mathematical and doesn't occur in nature, isn't the First Cause argument claiming to know what happens before there IS nature?

It still appears that predictions of cause & effect at that 'level' follow a much different logic (singularity or not) than the common sense that has evolved with we chimps, and especially if that common sense is extrapolated into "before the moment of creation of the universe". Isn't it a little like saying they not only know there WAS a big bang (and therefore a singularity), but they also know what will happen to a steel ball rolling down an inclined plane in the first micro-second before and after the big bang?

I'm asking; I really am ignorant.
But, I have to go to work on this side of the world, & the IT guys are starting to watch computer activity, so I'll find this thread later...

130. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109845 by prettygoodformonkeys on January 9, 2008 at 10:42 pm

63. Comment #109775 by Greyman

1. Everything that exists has a cause.
2. God (First Cause) does not have a cause.
3. Therefore: God does not exist

I love this also! But I think we overuse logic at the quantum level. It's pretty much accepted that the laws of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics (cause / effect) break down in a singularity, which is another way of saying that the "laws" applicable in a singularity are the ones to understand the origin of the universe with, not our simplistic logic (satisfying as it may be, to our smart monkey-minds).

We should simply dismiss the first cause argument, and not be drawn into it. Second choice in a debate: go with the ouroborus logic of Greyman, which nibbles the tail of the argument and swallows it whole, though it uses the same premise, and basically says that: (EDIT) "Apples are red. My car is not red. This is the reason my car does not taste like an apple"

Nevertheless: is this any worse than the "First Cause" argument?

131. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108993 by prettygoodformonkeys on January 8, 2008 at 5:32 am

257. Comment #108925 by epeeist

Excellent; thank you. I always learn something when I trot out one of my half-baked ideas in front of others!
PGFM

132. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108896 by prettygoodformonkeys on January 7, 2008 at 9:58 pm

ADH: ".....the fact that that which begins to exist requires a cause external to itself, the anthropic principle..."

Whether it's string theory, or quantum-mechanical, or something wonderful we have yet to discover in the physics of a black hole, one thing is already clear: the rules of the universe as we see it now are not the rules of the universe at or before the instant of its first appearance. This is a common mistake, but, very simply, the understanding we live by every day is not adequate to explain reality at the most fundamental levels. "Cause" and "effect" and "state" of "things" are concepts that mean nothing at all in terms of what can be grasped by the useful monkey-mind.

Therefore, to maintain that something in "existence" must have been "caused" to have come to be is ludicrous, and is (I'm sorry) an infantile way of processing the concepts. It is in the same league as a small child planning to one day ride his tricycle to the moon, and explaining to everyone how simple it all is.

133. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108427 by prettygoodformonkeys on January 6, 2008 at 8:53 pm

Steve Wrathall:

"we don't sacrifice children anymore in the hope that the weather will be changed.
Actually that's exactly what the Kyoto Treaty seeks to do"

Dude, WTF?

How do you see an actual parallel here? One is slicing open the neck of a child in the darkness of superstition that it might rain, and the other is an attempt to act on the knowledge gained over centuries of careful observation and discussion.

BTW: NASA maintained that 2005 was the warmest year on record. That is, until 2007.

134. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108194 by prettygoodformonkeys on January 6, 2008 at 8:24 am

Why do we always accept the debate premise that

"the new atheists are against moderate religion because it protects radical religion"

It's another straw man and is easily knocked down because you have accepted 'good' religion vs. 'bad' religion. The real reason moderate religion deserves dismantling is because it just doesn't make sense, and it would have been easy for Sam to correct Wolpe on this point as he tried to make it.

Sam made a very good recovery by countering the North Korea / South Korea argument, and overall I loved the style of debate. No whack jobs on the stage would be a good ground rule.

135. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107149 by prettygoodformonkeys on January 4, 2008 at 7:43 am

Huckleberry and Chuckleberry.

Three cheers for Norris:
Up Chuck!
Up Chuck!
Up Chuck!

136. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106420 by prettygoodformonkeys on January 2, 2008 at 9:52 pm

Kirk: excellent attitude, brother!

PGFM @57

137. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106405 by prettygoodformonkeys on January 2, 2008 at 8:48 pm

159. Comment #106294 by Riley

"Again, you're ignoring the calculation of alternatives.

The alternative: a market without any regulation is not necessarily better than a market with regulation. In fact an overwhelming amount of evidence suggests that markets with some regulation outperform markets without regulation. Some regulations are good, some regulations are bad, of course."

Horsepuckey. This means nothing.

Visible, conscious regulation of markets is only necessary to counter the background manipulation that is already there. You are idealizing that there is a pristine system at work. Markets are ALREADY creations of monkeys, not creations of nature.

You should read... oh fuck, read anybody.

Diacanu: I've got your back.

138. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106338 by prettygoodformonkeys on January 2, 2008 at 5:19 pm

wake up to this, then...

EeekiE:

"then your kind of mind will die. It will be artificially selected as weak, and will be one with the Trilobytes (sic)"

- Trilobites last 300 million years -

"I don't care how long the trilobites lived for as it is irrelevent (sic) to the meaning of the sentence I used it in"

Sam says:

"The fossil record suggests that individual species survive, on average, between one and ten million years"

*.....tumbleweed rolls through the center of town....wind whistles mindlessly....all is one....*

139. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106285 by prettygoodformonkeys on January 2, 2008 at 3:51 pm

EeekiE-

You do know that trilobites lasted for about 300,000,000 years, right?

Did you read everything Sam said, or just the parts you feel hopeful about?

140. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106275 by prettygoodformonkeys on January 2, 2008 at 3:41 pm

150. Comment #106252 by Riley
You're correct, I do disagree, but not the way you mean.

Just because Sam points out that nature is blind does not mean that we (the essentially random product of mindless natural process) can do better, or even that he thinks we can do better - we simply have no choice at all. To call this a "calculation of alternatives" is thin gruel.

And to point to market manipulation as a successful example is even less convincing. Are you in the market? Did you watch your investments go down the tubes as the Savings and Loan bandits were bailed out with your own tax dollars? How about the present debacle involving loans to people without a pulse? Another bailout, one that serves to illustrate what we can accomplish when we put our ox-gored brains to it.

To reiterate: "it's all we can do, and I love us all for doing it". I'm sorry, but we are just monkeys that have seen too much.

141. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106207 by prettygoodformonkeys on January 2, 2008 at 1:32 pm

99. Comment #105874 by Paula Kirby

All Sam's pointing out is that we're now at the stage technologically where we are able to choose: EITHER to leave the direction of our future development in the hands of utterly indifferent nature, OR to take a hand ourselves and exercise some control over it

I don't think he's even saying THAT. He's saying 1. Nature is not supportive, 2. we are not optimally designed for ANYthing, and 3. we are incapable of figuring it out properly and then re-designing it. He's just saying he's changed his mind about Nature, and now believes in nothing. I think many here have pumped the bellows of faint hope into his last comment, when everything else he says is quite clear.

I'm with Diacanu. I feel we are posting on these sites and doing REALLY WELL with our analyses; at LEAST as good as a Socrates; well OK - a Socrates who has had his head smashed in by a Doric column, but lived.

But it's all we can do, and I love every one of us for doing it.

142. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104986 by prettygoodformonkeys on December 30, 2007 at 9:26 am

11,000 word post without making any sense. Tough to accomplish without religion.

143. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104976 by prettygoodformonkeys on December 30, 2007 at 8:35 am

For a Christian, this is above all shown in the willingness of God to enter the flux of history, to redeem it from within

So our morality comes from magic redemption. As bcwc outlines above (9. Comment #104935), animals also have morality. Jesus must have died for the animals as well! Except we were being redeemed from our animal nature, and the animals are still animals. They must have been very, very bad. Especially mosquitoes.

144. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #104862 by prettygoodformonkeys on December 29, 2007 at 7:05 pm

I love Dan! How did he so eloquently explain (without explaining) that knowledge only works for us monkeys (chimpanzees, whatever) on our level, and ignorance is how everything else.... just happens?

More mysterious still: why does this make me happy?

145. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104531 by prettygoodformonkeys on December 28, 2007 at 5:47 pm

41. Comment #104462 by robotaholic

the best place to live by far is not usa, it's Milford Sound New Zealand

Thank you for the nice pics, but I beg to differ. I suggest that British Columbia, Canada, is (to me) the best place in the world to live. For its combination of beauty, wilderness, art, music, people, life choices, towns - and the most beautiful city in the world, Vancouver. Come visit & I'll prove it!

146. Man and God

Comment #103648 by prettygoodformonkeys on December 26, 2007 at 12:10 pm

al-rawandi:

"The French sure are lazy"

All people of your nationality make sweeping generalizations.

147. Survey finds most Americans believe Jesus born of virgin

Comment #102414 by prettygoodformonkeys on December 22, 2007 at 4:40 pm

1) Jesus had brothers, children of Mary, and so she was not a virgin. This view is unpopular with the church, and history has been re-written.

2) The average IQ is 100; enough said.

148. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101542 by prettygoodformonkeys on December 20, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Al Qaeda: open to questions

They're all open to questions, it's just too bad the answer's always the same:

"Kneel before my Invisible Lord, or die, infidel scum!"

149. A universe that follows 'laws' implies a 'law giver'

Comment #99040 by prettygoodformonkeys on December 15, 2007 at 10:07 am

Semantics should not be dismissed - it's the heart of a debate.

I think the words "law" or "rule" should not be used for this sense; they are loaded in the same sense as "design", and "theory". A better task would be to find an unambiguous term, and it puzzles me that we haven't found one. Could it be because the "monkey mind" of common sense is so ingrained by evolution that we can't help seeing events first in anthropomorphic light, then reason much later? The universe is not rational, after all, we are just looking at it rationally for the time being, and so it is rational conclusions that we come to.

It's important to keep in mind that the audience of a debate must be won, not just the debate itself. These terms carry their implicit anthropomorphism into an ostensibly objective sphere, and instead of reason prevailing in the listener, the preconceptions of "lawgiver" and "designer" are actually reinforced in the listener's mind with the full power of science itself. This is the strength of those creation science videos that we ridicule but are powerless to defuse; it is also the strength of the non-rational view, which we have excluded from our initial premise and are then vulnerable to.

We need better terms; I can't seem to find one.

150. A universe that follows 'laws' implies a 'law giver'

Comment #99033 by prettygoodformonkeys on December 15, 2007 at 9:43 am

monoape: