101. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137160 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Scooter,

I'm sympathetic to your political opinions. I think you've definitely been the target of lots of political animosity as I have been in the past for my non-liberal political sentiments.

But, what do you think about how this thread has turned into what seems like a domestic argument? For the sake of diplomacy and good relations among atheists of all political stripe, and also in the interest of us all learning to be better skilled in the practice of not pissing each other off. Is there something that could be done or said?

How does one quench an argument that has decayed into a brawl like this? I'm sure you don't want to be seen as a bully.

And to Steve, Cartomancer, Styrer, SharonMcT, mikejswalker, Diacanu (probably others, too). Do you want to be seen as a gang of bullys? I'm guessing not. Is there some way that a peace settlement could be acheived?

We're all intelligent people here, so it doesn't make sense that we find it so hard to lay off the ad hominem's.

Anyway, I don't want to be burned by getting in the middle of a flame war, but it just seems like a waste of time to continue this thread, unless some truce could be reached.

102. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137153 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 12:30 pm

You can know everything about sport physiology and still be lousy in playing real sport. On the other hand, great athletes rely on experience and instinct and don't need to know anything about physics and physiology to play a good game. Knowing (or knowledge in the third person like science) and being (knowledge in the first person) are two separate issues,

Bonsai, the issue of whether you can play sports or not and have good instincts in playing sports is not something that is off-limits to science. What you're trying to say, if I understood your point, is that you don't have to be a scientifically trained sports physiologist to be a good athlete. In other words, that it's more of an art than a science. Right?

Well, yes, that's true. But couldn't you gain an added 10% performance by having a coach who was versed in this science? This argument is leading us down a blind alley, because I think your language is too imprecise. Define what you are arguing, and let's go from there.

I don't treat science as a religion. It's really a tool for understanding. I don't have rituals or scientific meditative sessions. When dealing with questions, I advocate the use of science (or the scientific method) to get answers. No, I don't do all the science myself, but I rely on a system of checks and balances, namely skepticism and evidence, in science to help get answers to questions. Saying that "science is not everything" is a bit of jibberish nonsense. What do you mean by this? Who said science was everything. No science is not language, nor art, nor music... but who said it was?

"Science's" answer--if I can call it that,--to many of these problems is pills, pills and more pills which often just amounts to chemical lobotomy.

There is no such thing as "science's answer", unless you define the question. Science's answer is indeed a pill, if your question is "what's the best solution for my headache?"... Buddhism is probably not the answer for my headache... it will just get worse because I cannot stand BS.

103. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137118 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 11:25 am

Steve, if Buddhism can be compatible with Atheism, how about just dropping the word Buddhism, and forget the meditation and any Buddhist custom. Just be as we are anyway. Is that an acceptable Buddhist outlook? If so, then it's like deism... how can you disbelieve in God (defined by deism) if you define "God" as the laws of physics?

In other words, you don't get any extra info about somebody by saying they are Buddhist. It's just jibberish.

104. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137116 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 11:21 am

Well, not everything in life reduces to "science', for example, first person experience.

Name one item in life that is not touchable by scientific ideas?

Also, you are probably not involve in any real science research so science is just a soundbite to you.

What a non-sequitor! Ok, yes, I'm an engineer not a scientist. But I find science to be way more than just a "soundbite". It's my entire understanding of the universe. You consider Einstein's General Relativity to be just a soundbite? Or evolutionary biology?

Here's a scientific application for an everyday problem: somebody just robbed my house, but he left a hair on the front mat. I use a scientifically testable hypothesis called dna testing, to find out who did it. How would a Buddhist, in this example, find the culprit? By meditation??

105. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137105 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 11:01 am

Science also "actually" encourages people to explore to finding the right path. I find it 100 times more palatable than Buddhism. If scientists would all start wearing special costumes, shave their heads, have rules or customs like the Buddhists have, then they'd be equally subject to criticism for "religious" and I might add, a dogmatic, philosophy. It's not just the superficial idea of customs and rituals that bothers me. It's the entire meme which is pursuing a mass market for consumption of its ideas and practices. That somehow, you are practicing a mystical path to "truth". BS. If anyone can take any path to it with no rules, then how about just giving up the whole concept of Buddhism entirely, and let people find their way and don't even bother mentioning the word Buddha at all??

106. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137094 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 10:45 am

By the way, for Steve... not about Bill Maher, but there was an excellent spoof of Oprah Winfrey n SNL, and it's sort of in the spirit of this current discussion about Buddhism. I wouldn't be suprised if some day Oprah is found to have converted to Buddhism:

Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8OHYQotsh0

...Sorry it was axed... Seems that Oprah has a really good censorship bot out there, preventing this spoof from going up on the web.

107. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137091 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 10:38 am

I agree with Sturmunddrang,

I can think of a few faults immediately. Why should independent people finding "the way" themselves without any influence from an overlord priest all come to the same conclusions that lead them on the same path, for example, all wearing the same orangish garb, all shaving their heads, and all (as far as I understand it) believing that women cannot be Buddhist leaders? I remember my sister telling me that they have signs in Bali telling women that if they are menstruating, that they are not allowed to enter the Buddhist holy shrines. What about this is not religious in the perjorative sense of the word??

108. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137077 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 10:16 am

Cartomancer,

I can see why your statement "I think homosexuality is disgusting" was met with such disapproval - if you phrased it like that then what did you expect? I am assuming that what you meant to say was "I have a visceral response to homosexual acts, I wouldn't want to engage in them, but I am fine with other people doing them."

Correct. I guess part of my motivation for participating in this blog in the first place is to learn, myself, how to improve my communications and argumentation practices. It's an uphill struggle. I think my early days of political discourse (in my life, not on this blog) must have been really bad, because my family refuses to discuss religion with me... I was way too undiplomatic in arguing with them.

Nowadays my sister is part of a fairly dogmatic sounding Christian religious social circle, and I have no chance to convince her otherwise, because I've burned all my credibility. I pissed her off long before I could really present any convincing arguments myself... I just acted like that guy D'Souza who instead of argument with good arguments, raises his voice to "win" his arguments.

Civilised conversation is so much easier if people actually think about the way they phrase their points beforehand, and try to modify those statements which are not only offensive but those which are easily misconstrued as offensive

Amen to that. ;-)

Similarly, this site is not entirely about forging an atheist political lobby with unified goals.

No, but I think it's a good idea for us all to have the idea at least in the back of our minds, that despite our left-right political persuasions, our best/natural allies are other Atheists. Or at least, it would make the foundation for some sort of agreement, seeing as we all agree on something so important and central to all other philosophical issues.

109. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137055 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 8:37 am

AfraidToDie,

Thanks for that. Next time I lift a glass of beer I will toast you!

I have to check the web if there is a joke about Bill Maher... I've heard so many jokes about Bush that they are definitely NOT funny any more.

110. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137050 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 8:27 am

Frankus,

Well, I haven't (i.e have NOT) grown out of my Ayn Rand phase. I don't agree with everything she wrote, but I think a lot of her writing is right on the money. Are you telling me that you read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged and cannot agree with them at all? Again it comes down to the avoidance of towing party lines... I wouldn't say that anybody has the right answer for political questions. They're just too ambiguous for that.

I just admire the questioning of some basic moral assumptions in society like the general assumption that "selfishness is evil" or "sacrifice is good".

111. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137047 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 8:18 am

Steve, Would you really call that dogmatism? I find that to be more of a political assessment of people's motivations.

Anyway, I tend to agree with scooter on that point. Hope you don't get pissed at me for saying so.

112. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137044 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 8:11 am

SharonMc:

Can you point out a comment I made on this thread where I came off as being a fascist?

Nope, can't say that I can. Then again, I also don't see where scooternyc was being dogmatic.

Many of my ideas have evolved and changed over time and I don't think that I have come to a final conclusion on anything.

Sounds like you are a thoughtful person. Maybe we all just need some diplomacy skills on this site. Say, some training on "how to express your views without pissing everybody else off."

113. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137042 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 8:04 am

Steve,

I remember the first debate I had on this forum, when I was defending Ayn Rand. I made the statement, something to the effect that "I find homosexuality to be disgusting". I was subsequently attacked/insulted by people who didn't like this statement... Almost non-stop. Especially homosexuals. I had to emphasize really strongly, in about ten postings that I wasn't espousing anti-homosexual political views. Nobody would listen to me. Things can definitely get overcharged emotionally on this site, very fast. But, I never told any of the insulters to stop posting. I remember that some of my attackers did tell me this.

So, I can definitely sympathise with scooternyc, because it looks like a concerted effort of ganging up on him in a fairly partisan way starting with gun control.

But, I agree with you that things ought to be handled without calling each other names and unrelinquishing assaults on one another.

It's a shame if atheists can't come together because of political differences. We have more in common than the petty political disagreements which separate us.

I hope that we all (including myself) learn to be less dogmatic on political issues. Although, I think politics is where it's just so hard to know when you are doing this. It's not like science where you can do an experiment and out pops the answer. Politics is very ambiguous.

So, yes to the amicability of disagreement settling. No, to telling people to go away or stop posting because we don't like what you're saying.

114. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137034 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 7:40 am

I think you leftist atheists ought to give your political enemies the benefit of the doubt once in a while... at least on this forum, because it's just not worth making enemies of people who are likely to be swayed by logical arguments.

In my experience here, the flame wars here seem to start and get out of hand when one atheist expresses non-left leaning political views, and then everybody starts attacking them as though they just said something about the glory of Jesus.

I'm happy to have people on the left as my co-combatants against the forces of religion and mysticism, but when you start ganging up on the political opinions, it makes me a lot less happy. I'm sure I probably speak for others on "the right".

115. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137024 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 6:43 am

As an aside about funny... there's an interesting website at laughlab.co.uk

It had some interesting experimental results about humor across nationalities:

Fascinating differences also emerged between nations in terms of the jokes they found funny. People from The Republic of Ireland, the UK, Australia and New Zealand expressed a strong preference for jokes involving word plays, such as:

Patient: "Doctor, I've got a strawberry stuck up my bum."
Doctor: "I've got some cream for that.

Americans and Canadians much preferred gags where there was a sense of superiority - either because a person looked stupid, or was made to look stupid by another person, such as:

Texan: "Where are you from?"
Harvard grad: "I come from a place where we do not end our sentences with prepositions."
Texan: "Okay - where are you from, jackass?"

Finally, many European countries, such as France, Denmark and Belgium, liked jokes that were somewhat surreal, such as:

An Alsatian went to a telegram office, took out a blank form and wrote:
"Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof."
The clerk examined the paper and politely told the dog: "There are only nine words here. You could send another 'Woof' for the same price."
"But," the dog replied, "that would make no sense at all."

These European countries also enjoyed jokes that involved making light of topics that often make us feel anxious, such as death, illness, and marriage. For example:

A patient says: "Doctor, last night I made a Freudian slip, I was having dinner with my mother-in-law and wanted to say: "Could you please pass the butter." But instead I said: "You silly cow, you have completely ruined my life"."

Interestingly, Germany was the exception. Germans did not express a strong preference for any type of joke - this may well explain why they came first in our league table of funniness - they do not have any strong preferences and so tend to find a wide spectrum of jokes funny.

116. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137012 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 6:25 am

Funny, that's how I feel about Bill Maher. What an arrogant bunch of pricks to have on tv. John Stewart and Bill Maher have spent essentially years repeating the same joke over and over again. Arrogantly proclaiming how stupid GW Bush is.

Hitchens has one overriding positive characteristic that makes him more agreeable to me than any other Atheist or political speaker out there. He's non-partisan. On all issues, he doesn't care what the party line is. He uses his own brain to think about issues.

117. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137002 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 5:39 am

Ok, I blame you.

118. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #136999 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 5:34 am

In Finnish, there's a phrase for people who lack a sense of humor... "tosikko"... literally, it means "truthist".

If I could rewrite the Finnish language, instead, I would use the term, "paskakko", i.e. "bullshitist".

I needn't elaborate on what this implies.

119. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #136992 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 5:13 am

I'll tell you one easy way to get peaceful bliss. Just start taking psychedelic mushrooms or smoke pot. Why do you need all the hocus pocus BS for that?

I can't resist repeating this famous joke:

A Buddhist walks up to a hotdog stand. "Make me one with everything," he says. He takes the hotdog and gives his money. When the vendor accepts his money without saying anything, the Buddhist asks about his change. "Change comes from within," says the vendor.

120. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136985 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 5:06 am

This debate seems like another attack on a fellow-atheist, because he isn't towing the party line.

I don't think anybody should be the judge and jury about whether people are being dogmatic. Why don't you guys take a time-out and stop telling people that they "do positive harm to this site". It takes somebody outside of the argument to be objective.

We don't need to be so judgmental.

And to scooternyc, I don't think you sounded so bad. I haven't read this entire blog, but don't be discouraged... it does seem to be a quite cliqueish blog. You're either "in" or "out". That happened to me early on, too. I think that Atheists ought to avoid being so perochial. That's the way religious people behave.

121. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #136967 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 4:39 am

Roland, I recommend that you reread Hitch's excellent discussion about Buddhism and Sri Lankan Hinduism vs Buddhism "peace" (God is Not Great, starting from p. 198). I don't buy the Buddhist BS anymore than the Christian.

As RD likes to say, even if Buddhism would turn the Earth into a Shangri-La Utopia of shiny happy people. What on earth does that have to say about whether it is true or not?

122. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #136956 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 4:21 am

Finding out about something new isn't always fun. It can also be a waste of time. There are plenty of Christians telling us the same BS about happy lives, once we would find Jesus.

123. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #136951 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 4:14 am

Well, to be fair, I wouldn't want Atheism if it could only be valid if we all were Republicans either. I like an a-political form Atheism.

To set the record, I would never embrace any invisible forces into my life without a fight. But, if Atheism doesn't mean just this, i.e. if you have to carry along all the political baggage that goes with Bill Maher type atheists, then you can count me out. Hopefully that clears the air.

124. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #136943 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 4:01 am

Here's a question to sum up my feelings about Buddhism. Do I need to waste my time thinking about it? If so, why?

125. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #136937 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 3:52 am

Does one really need to understand the theological nuances of Buddhism to know that it's just another one of man's wrong ideas? To me, any idea that is dogmatically telling people what to think about the big questions of life, i.e. the what's, the how's and the why's of the universe, is not appealing, as a source for truth, because it refuses to admit when it is wrong. Any valid philosophy should certainly not be based on dogmatism. That's the essential flaw in Buddhism without even getting to the debate about whether or not Buddha is this or that. Who cares. Why waste time debating such BS?

By the way, another vote for Atheists who hate (well maybe that's too strong), but anyway, dislike Bill Maher very much. I don't want to be part of a leftist Atheist movement. If Atheism cannot live without being tied to leftism, then I don't want any part of it.

126. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #134279 by AtheistJon on February 27, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Hi all,

I used to be an exclusive science fiction / fantasy fan (with a few exceptions). But when I became an adult I switched first to classic fiction and then history and non-fiction, especially science but also biographies. Nowadays I find reading slightly dull, since you can spend a hell of a lot of time finding wothwhile material in multimedia format from the Internet and places like this, to be frank.

I guess these are my favorite 5, if I have to choose:

Fiction:
1. Sinuhe, the Egyptian (Sinuhe Egyptiläinen) - Mika Waltari
2. A Tale of Two Cities - Dickens
3. The Bonfire of the Vanities - Tom Wolfe
4. The Fountainhead - Ayn Rand
5. The Tin Drum (Der Blechtrommel) - Günter Grass

Non-Fiction:
1. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - William Shirer
2. The Big Bang - Simon Singh
3. The Conquest of New Spain - Bernal Diaz
4. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People - Stephen Covey
5. How to Stop Worrying And Start Living - Dale Carnegie

It's really hard to nail down which books to put down here. I have read a total of 320 books in my life, but I find that if I go back and reread an old book that I liked, I either don't like it anymore, or I like it but for different reasons. Same goes for classic movies.

127. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #134244 by AtheistJon on February 27, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Matt,

I have to add one other hilarious joke (which came with the last joke which I found by Googling)... and then let the conversation return to RD...

An Englishman, a Scotchman, and an Irishman are sitting at a bar, each with a beer in front of them. All of a sudden, three flies zoom in and land right in each of the beers. The Englishman pushes his away in disgust, gets up, and leaves. The Scotchman simply pulls the fly out, tosses it on the ground, and continues drinking. The Irishman however, pulls his fly out and begins beating it against the bar while shouting, "Give it back, give it back!!"

By the way, the picture of me is from a trip to Dublin, Ireland a couple of years ago. The funny thing to me was that in Dublin, there's a huge Guinness brewery, and right on the adjacent street to the brewery is an alcoholics rehabilitation hospital. ;-)

128. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #134239 by AtheistJon on February 27, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Guinness, naturlich ;-)

Reminds me of a joke:

After the Great Britain Beer Festival, in London, all the brewery presidents decided to go out for a beer. The guy from Corona sits down and says "Hey Senor, I would like the world's best beer, a Corona." The bartender dusts off a bottle from the shelf and gives it to him.

The guy from Budweiser says "I'd like the best beer in the world, give me 'The King Of Beers', a Budweiser." The bartender gives him one.

The guy from Coors says "I'd like the only beer made with Rocky Mountain spring water, give me a Coors." He gets it.

The guy from Guinness sits down and says "Give me a Coke." The bartender is a little taken aback, but gives him what he ordered.

The other brewery presidents look over at him and ask "Why aren't you drinking a Guinness?" and the Guinness president replies

"Well, if you guys aren't drinking beer, neither will I."

By the way, I thought I read on one of the other items, that RD was retiring from Oxford. Yet during this interview, the lady never mentioned it.

129. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #134225 by AtheistJon on February 27, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Isn't Richard fed up with having to trot out the same replies to the same dreary questions every time he speaks?

After all, Dawkins is described as being a "professor of public understanding of science at Oxford", which is the sort of job, if I had to guess what his job responsiblities are, that would have to tirelessly answer the same old stupid questions. Really, there probably are many strategies to educate people out of their mythical thinking, but I suspect that radio interviews such as these with Q&A sessions are one of the many highly effective methods one would use.

Carl Sagan has several biographies (I've read 2 of them) which talk about his role as public communicator of science. They say that he was only tangentially or superficially involved with any really deep scientific work once he got famous, years after he did his PhD work on Venus, and that this was a cause for resentment by his colleagues at Harvard, Cornell, etc... For example, when Sagan wrote The Dragons of Eden, "real" brain researchers resented the fact that he wrote a book with lots of speculation on the subject because any non-famous person would be criticized for it. Many scientists even felt he was taking credit (by popularizing the ideas) for research that they had done. Of course, this is a far cry from books on religion... I doubt any biologists would be complaing about Dawkins stealing the limelight by writing TGD, for instance.

I hope that RD doesn't have to suffer the same kind of resentment for doing public education kind of work. I don't know his personal story well enough to guess if he has been treated similarly by other biologists who do "real science". It'd be interesting to know.

Maybe Dawkins will write his own autobiography one day, rather than relying on someone else to tell the tale.

130. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #131752 by AtheistJon on February 23, 2008 at 6:05 am

Thanks Mitchell Gilks for your response.

Just to follow up on this. I noticed that RD and Ventner agreed to take their disagreement about ancient vertical inheritance vs lateral inheritance offline.

I wonder what the final result of this discussion was. Did RD change his mind about the mobility of different animal genomes across species? If so, what conclusions are we to draw? That contamination of "native genes" by introduced European species, eg. in Australia or through ship water ballast from one ocean to another, is not a criminal act? Or did RD maintain this position?

It would be interesting to hear the results of the offline/backstage discussion.

131. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #130832 by AtheistJon on February 21, 2008 at 11:10 am

I really enjoyed this video, because
1) It was sooo much more interesting than the typical modern political and religious debate that goes on, for example, in the "flea" genre of books.
2) Real science can lead to wonderfully interesting discussions about things one has never heard of before. I certainly hadn't heard of the lateral movement of genes across species.

I was wondering if anybody on this web site coud answer a couple of questions that came to my mind while watching this:
1) When Ventner said that genes move laterally across species. How does that happen? I thought genes were inherited from your parents with a high degree of fidelity. He also said that our genomes were composed of 30% virus genomes. How does a virus genome get fused into an animal's dna?
2) Ventner mentioned BP doing some project or other, but is there actually anybody out there today producing fuels out of the sort of Carbon Dioxide sinks he referred to by introducing some kind of artificial biological cells /invention with designed genes that would do the work of converting CO2 with the help of sunlight and producing fuels? Or is this just science fiction? In other words, how much of this is just bold speculative fantasy, and how much of it is reality?
3) If it is possible to do this, but too expensive, compared to digging oil out of the ground. What makes it expensive?

I also liked the fact that Ventner was not sucking up to RD in the fashion that we bloggers on this web site tend to do. He even dared to suggest that he didn't like the Selfish Gene when he first read it.

I do have a strong liking of RD (and all of the other 3 horsemen, too), but I think hero worship probably is a bad thing, so it's nice to get a change of heroes from time to time. Ventner is definitely on my media radar now! Hope that he appears in the future, too... seems like a brilliant guy.

132. Fleabytes

Comment #130057 by AtheistJon on February 20, 2008 at 1:55 am

Hi all,

I haven't been posting for some months, but I just wanted to pipe in my 2 cents here... or actually with a question:

Where do you guys find the time
a)to read all those "flea"s
b)to write thoughtful reviews of things you've read
c) consistently make postings on this blog?

Don't take my question the wrong way... I don't criticize you for it. Just wondering what about my life is consuming so much time that I wouldn't begin to have the time to do all this.

I barely have time to read the blogs which I post on myself let alone reading other people's postings. I was in a rut of posting on this site, but then I think I realized I was online too much when my back started to hurt ;-)

So, for me, it's not just unhealthy reading flea books, but also spending time posting to blogs.

133. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #107734 by AtheistJon on January 5, 2008 at 5:17 am

Guys,

Back to the HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray format debate.

It seems that today, the news shows that I was wrong about HD being the leading industry standard. See the following website:
http://www.hddvd.org/hddvd/

Which had 2 items of news today.

It says that Warner Bros. & New Line will stop offering HD-DVD format DVDs starting in May. So, speaking of the topic "Have You Changed Your Mind"... I have to admit I was wrong. Sorry about that.

So, Blu-Ray only, please, for the Four Horsemen (and any other future Atheist) DVDs!

134. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106907 by AtheistJon on January 3, 2008 at 4:56 pm

I make a huge amount of typos with this interface... that's why I'm constantly EDITING my posts, after the fact...

Thank you for the calm discussion!

135. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106903 by AtheistJon on January 3, 2008 at 4:50 pm

I didn't say that atheists should or would agree on this topic, just that they should be able to discuss it in a calm manner.

*EDIT* But, you might be right... atheists aren't always calm and rational, afterall, are they? Especially when it comes to politics.

By the way, how is it that you make such fast postings on this site? Do you use the regular web browser editor + submit button, or do you have some shortcut method?

136. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106895 by AtheistJon on January 3, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Steve,

I, for one, agree totally with you about what you just said, so I don't mind if you inject an occasional word of support for "rational discussion".

But, perhaps you're right. This issue does seem to cause intense anger even among atheists. You'd think atheists would be able to calmly discuss this issue... On the other hand, war and people who are "teaching the kids, ten and twelve, how to cut folks' heads off", are definitely subjects that have a tendency to stir up emotions (and also seems to polarize us atheists).

137. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106882 by AtheistJon on January 3, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Anyway, to reiterate to you, Steve, I agree with you in the fact that I don't feel entirely comfortable making confident claims about Iraq, either, since I'm also not personally an expert. However, I don't think I'm disqualified from repeating Hitchens' views or the first hand observations from my Dad. Or is it better to abstain from discussion totally on this?

Regards,
Jon

138. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106878 by AtheistJon on January 3, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Steve,

Sorry. The bottom part of that post was directed to Al Rawandi... I don't think that we disagreed at all about this issue.

Jon

139. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106869 by AtheistJon on January 3, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Steve,

It seems we are more in-sync than I thought we were, after our first blog-argument. I agree fully with "embracing lack of confidence". Yes, everybody wants to think that history favors their own political view. So, you're right, let's wait for it!

Now, that being said I have to give Al Rawandi a piece of credit on his Arabic skills. I asked my Dad and Uncle (both who speak very good Arabic) about the word "Estishehadeyeen"... you disagreed with in that article about Jihadists. This one:

http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/07/prewar_algerian_jihadists_in_i/

Here's what they wrote:

Hi Nonner,
I'd say the term means something like "achiever or seeker of martyrdom", not necessarily through suicide which the article specifies. Don't know if that helps or misleads but the word for suicide is "intihar" and that does not seem to be a component of "Estishehadeyeen".

Hey, Nonny,

Yes, Istishhaad means to become a martyr. i know there were Arab terrorists here from other countries not only teaching suicide bombers but cutting folks' heads off, because during the Albu Bali campaign last year I talked to a woman who admitted her husband had been a terrorist...the police told me she had hideouts under the floor of her house for the foreign fighters, and that her husband had been teaching the kids, ten and twelve, how to cut folks' heads off.

So it isn't just stuff made up by some politician.

Dad

So, I guess you can take that as primary source material to our "debate" or argument.

By the way, you (ar) mentioned a fallacy of the false dichotomy. Is that the same as the fallacy of the excluded middle? Anyway, I think that I agree with you that the debate isn't just a binary decision of either agreeing with Hitch or being a Michael Moore traitor. There's definite a middle ground. Personally, I'm very much in line with Hitchens on this, but that doesn't mean you can't disagree and still be a reasonable person.

140. Changing my Mind

Comment #106536 by AtheistJon on January 3, 2008 at 5:24 am

Hi all,

Just saw a funny joke that y'all might appreciate:

The heretic

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

141. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106164 by AtheistJon on January 2, 2008 at 12:48 pm

I don't care what Hitch has to say. I was interested in what you had to say.

Unfortunately, in this case I am more a consumer of ideas than a producer. I have listened to Michael Moore, you, Osama bin Laden, many others. Haven't agreed with their positions in the slightest. I think even you would agree that Michael Moore's arguments are nonsense. Osama bin Laden doesn't argue, he preaches death to the Americans. BTW Richard Dawkins also had some things to say about Iraq in TGD, and I would characterize them as positions that are not coming from an expert in the field. He was more interested in picking on George Bush and American bullheadedness/vulgarity, I think. But his arguements do tend to be on your side.

But of all the debaters whose arguments I have "consumed" the one who's argument seems to be the most consistently principled and valid are those of Hitch. (Sam Harris also has some valid things to say about Iraq in The End of Faith). That's why I recommend you listen to what Hitch has to say. Of course, I can repeat the things he has said which I found to be good arguments.

Anyway, let me ask this. Would you have been in favor of Americans going after those Jihadists in Algeria? If not, why not? Are you a supporter of the Jihadists? If not, then why are you bending over backwards trying to criticize the US efforts to attack terrorism?

I can accept your critique of that article when you say he mistranslated "Estishehadeyeen"... you're probably right about that. However, dismissing his arguments because he is a Lebanese Christian is what is known as an "ad hominem - marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made" - Webster's dictionary.

Do you have any articles which would convince me of the opposite position? That Saddam was a completely secular guy, etc... By the way, you should really watch that video clip I mentioned, because Hitchen goes off on people who say one of two things: 1) OK, Saddam was a bad guy. 2) He was a secularist. He says that if a person takes position 2, then he knows that you don't know anything about Iraq and Saddam.

Maybe you care to counter his claims which he made during the AAI?

142. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106137 by AtheistJon on January 2, 2008 at 12:09 pm

By the way, you never commented on that link I posted showing that there was plenty of Jihadism in Iraq, pre-invasion.

The justification of the Iraq invasion in the wake of 9-11 consists of multiple arguments. I believe Hitch has espoused them quite eloquently. For example on Charlie Rose (I think it was 2002 or so), but also on many other occasions. Hate to use him as my primary source, but he really does know Iraq well, so I think your calling him "off his rocker", or that it is "stunning for him to believe that nonsense" is really not a good way to argue your case.

Actually, I found the quote I was looking for earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox5OUn7ZNwc

If you go to Hitchen's Q&A at the AAI this year (part 2) go to 18:14. There is a man who asks Hitch why the US didn't invade Iran instead of Iraq... as you seem to be doing (okay, you list N. Korea, half of Africa and Pakistan). But, I really recommend listening to him with an open mind. He has some very good points. Don't just castigate him "willy nilly"... Al Rawandi. He's actually quite an intelligent man, I'm sure you'll agree, no? So he deserves to be listened to in a manner which I don't think you have yet done.

143. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106122 by AtheistJon on January 2, 2008 at 11:43 am

By the way, Al-Rawandi, Hitch (and I) will agree with you that the US is highly responsible for the presence and evils done under Saddam. However, where our opinions seem to diverge is that you seem to back the position that removing him was a bad thing. Do you really think that we should have just left him in power? Hitch also has a great quote about people who say "Saddam is an ass-hole" and leave it at that. I'm looking for the quote, but so far I haven't found it... he has done so many debates this year.

144. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106118 by AtheistJon on January 2, 2008 at 11:32 am

Al-rawandi, just click on the text [Comment Posting Guidelines], and you should see the correct instructions.

I know that "terrorist" is an overused word, that it is sometimes applied in the wrong cases, but to me terrorists are those who kill people willy-nilly irrespective of who they are, just to kill as many people as possible.

If you are willing to agree that harboring terrorists in Iraq is bad. I'm definitely willing to agree the same in the US. This, by the way, is a matter of principle.

145. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106084 by AtheistJon on January 2, 2008 at 10:41 am

Copernic. Just type (blockquote)text(/blockquote)

except instead of ) use > and instead of ( use <

146. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106081 by AtheistJon on January 2, 2008 at 10:38 am

So, are you saying that you are okay with terrorists being harbored?

How many children had to watch their families being killed by Saddam Hussein's regime?

If I believe my own father (who you know is in Iraq doing work)... his account of American activity in Iraq seems to indicate to me that there's far less killing of Iraqi's by American soldiers than killing of Iraqi's by the bombs of other Iraqis who happen to be members of Al-Qaeda. So, are you saying that my father is killing innocent Iraqi's while the Al-Qaeda killing is all acceptable... nothing to do with Jihadism?

147. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106075 by AtheistJon on January 2, 2008 at 10:32 am

By the way, here is a source which backs up my claim of Jihadist's in Iraq, pre-invasion.
http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/07/prewar_algerian_jihadists_in_i/

Another argument that Hitch is right about. Suicide-Terrorists who were bombing Israel were paid huge sums of money by Saddam. Isn't that another example Jihaddism support before the invasion. To me it doesn't really matter whether it was before or after the invasion... the point is that Jihadism should be fought. Whereever and whenever feasible.

148. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106070 by AtheistJon on January 2, 2008 at 10:17 am

You seem to be excusing each of those terrorists as though Iraq was an innocent den of simple goat herders until the US invasion. So, you won't admit that Abu Nidal was a Jihadist? Doesn't the fact that Carlos the Jackal was in Iraq before the invasion indicate to you that Iraq was a sponsor of terrorists? What about Abu Abbas, the guy who killed Leon Klinghoffer? Are you going to excuse him as the fault of the Israeli's, too?

Anyway, I'm sure more Jihadists came to Iraq when the Americans invaded, but all the easier for the US coalition forces to kill them now... rather than later. Taking up arms against them is good whether they were originally in Iraq or elsewhere.

149. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106054 by AtheistJon on January 2, 2008 at 9:59 am

How can you say that Iraq was devoid of Jihadists when iraq was the safe house for Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, al Zarqawi, Carlos the Jackal, the list goes on and on?

150. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106020 by AtheistJon on January 2, 2008 at 9:30 am

StarSpangledEagle,

It has been hard to see the whole view on Islamic extremists due to subversion of the issue by the "religious right" in this country.

I am also enthralled by Hitchens' arguments. Not only are the arguments convincing, but they are emotionally and intellectually very deeply based on noble principles. I would say the main argument which I learned from him is about, masochism. In other words, the following argument: People who oppose the war, claim that by fighting the Jihadists we only create more terrorists. This is masochism. Masochism is defined (in Webster's) as: Pleasure derived from being physically or psychologically abused, whether inflicted by oneself or by others. Should the reaction to 9-11 have been to say "sorry Osama, we won't do it again"? Should our political position towards Jihadist Islamists be, "yes we deserve all the bombings and fatwa's you deal upon us"? Or should we take up arms against it all?

One point though, is that I have to slightly object to your "religious right" term. IMO there is also a "religious left", just as bad (or worse) than the religious right. Islamists would fall into this category, as would Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Bill and Hillary, Obama. I have yet to see a Democratic candidate who will openly admit to being an atheist. Therefore, they are just as guilty as the religious republicans.