Comments by decius

101. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #231246 by decius on August 16, 2008 at 3:48 am

Comment #231238 by Laurie Fraser

He has already been banned under several identities and keeps on returning, undeterred.

What an obnoxious, ignorant twat.

102. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #231187 by decius on August 15, 2008 at 11:30 pm

Sarmatae,

I have a question. Would you call a social democracy a form of collectivism?

103. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #231039 by decius on August 15, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Comment #230415 by Durant

Durant, I am glad that I didn't reply early, because your later comments made it abundantly clear that you haven't read Dawkins - not just TGD, but none of his books. This is surprising, given the strength of your opinions. You will agree that second-hand knowledge of a given subject is an insufficient bastion against the scrutiny of more informed interlocutors.

It isn't too late to set yourself straight, though. What about reading a thing or two and then report back? Watching a debate or a lecture isn't enough, I am afraid.

Before I address parts of your original Gish Gallop, I need to point out a first inconsistency of yours. Namely, none of your charges apply to the material contained in the DVD in object, nor would they begin to discredit it, even if you were right on all accounts.
In this DVD, RD demolishes new-age beliefs, medical quackery, and ancient superstitions such as astrology.

Does your agnosticism extend to such tripe as homoeopathy and astral projection?

To make things easier, I'd prefer if we debated your points one at a time, if you have no objections.

Dawkins ignores the historical complexities involved in the relationship between science and religion, invoking the oft-discredited notion that they're "at war";

Science and religion make mutually-incompatible claims about the nature and origin of the universe and of mankind. One accumulates empirical evidence out of which theories are formulated and constantly corrected, the other binds by immutable dogma.
Claiming that there is no conflict between them is disingenuous at best.

Invoking "historical complexities" is of no consequence, here. This war is fought on the turf of epistemology. Either the underlying mechanisms of objective reality (e.g. laws of nature) are to be unlocked through the scientific method, either revelation will suffice. If no conflict existed, then revelation and empirical investigation should yield identical results.

Incidentally, history portrays a very different picture from what is implied by you. Da Vinci, Galilei, and Bruno would certainly agree with me.

104. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230868 by decius on August 15, 2008 at 11:19 am

Comment #230852 by Durant

Durant, I know that I haven't replied, yet. It doesn't mean that I won't.

Be patient, I am in the middle of other things.

105. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230728 by decius on August 15, 2008 at 4:41 am

Comment #230722 by princezephyr

You are a quote-miner and a liar.

Eldrege ACCEPTS evolution, he is in the camp of punctuated equilibrium. A different interpretation of evolution.

But of course, to a lying creationist this wouldn't matter, would it?

Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium in 1972. Punctuated equilibrium is a refinement to evolutionary theory which describes patterns of descent taking place in "fits and starts" separated by long periods of stability.

Eldredge went on to develop a hierarchical vision of evolutionary and ecological systems. Around this time, he became focused on the rapid destruction of many of the world's habitats and species. Throughout his career, he has used repeated patterns in the history of life to refine ideas on how the evolutionary process actually works.

Eldredge is a critic of the gene-centric view of evolution and the notion that evolutionary theory can be held accountable to patterns of historical data. His most recent venture is the development of an alternative account to the gene-based notions of evolutionary psychology to explain why human beings behave as they do.

106. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230721 by decius on August 15, 2008 at 4:34 am

Comment #230661 by Steve Zara

I'm a little sceptical of this. I think one could just as easily argue that long leg size or large wing size could increase the rate of evolution, as they allow animals get to explore new niches.

Exactly. Wasn't it called evolvability?

107. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230431 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Actually, for once there is a theist who can at least write.
This is a rare event, and should be cause for celebration.

I am about to go to sleep, but if Durant is so kind to return tomorrow, I will gladly contribute to dismantle some of his unfounded accusations, half-truths, outright lies, and uninformed misconceptions. However, I am sure that others will precede me.

Good night, all. Be kind to him, just answer his points.

108. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #230423 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Comment #230421 by SilentMike

Download the torrent version.

http://www.mininova.org/tor/1686690

109. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230407 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Comment #230393 by Teratornis

If I wrote that I had, or had not, would you just believe it?

I tend to assume good faith in this forum, so I would believe you. I am a sceptic by nature, and I rarely believe anything with absolute certitude, unless empirically proven. On such trivial matters discussed for the sake of conversation, I would accept your word on it.

it looks to me like the latter option isn't very popular.

I agree and it doesn't surprise me, given that I don't find elderly women aesthetically attractive. Hence my curiosity if someone did.

Edit- I sit in Finland, at the moment. I am Italian.

110. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230384 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Comment #230379 by Sciros

111. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230361 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Interesting to note that Teratornis was lamenting the ad-homs in this thread, earlier.
Then the mere admission by someone of driving a car elicits from him such an agitated and scathing reaction.

112. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230324 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Comment #230313 by Teratornis

Your earlier comment suggesting that men who download porn could hit on elderly women made me curious to know if you spoke from personal experience.
And if so, how was it?

113. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230314 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Comment #230300 by Quetzalcoatl

I feel only your antipathy only partially on my skin.

I have always been a cyclist, I used a car for some ten years until I moved to the civilised world (where public transportation works).
Ah, and I love good wine.

114. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230295 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Comment #230293 by Steve Zara

Only teetotally cycling counts, and then, you have to have sex with your bike.

115. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230291 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Comment #230287 by Steve Zara

Your are not going to need a sex-bot any time soon, I am afraid.

116. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230274 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Comment #230240 by Teratornis

I agree, but I probably define "socially inept" quite a bit more broadly than you do.

For example, I'd include every divorced person.

Since you asked for it, I shall logically correct this hasty generalisation.

It is true that many people do rush into relationships with unsuitable partners, or that they can't live up to their long-term commitments, but you omit to consider the mitigating circumstances that exculpate some of them.

Commitments are often undertaken under the hype of falling in love, which in itself causes a biochemical unbalance and some confusion.

There is such thing as growing apart. Your young, desirable, and sweet partner can gradually turn into a bitter hag, sometimes within a very short time. Sometimes life itself alters people, and the same circumstance can affect two partners in completely different ways, pulling them apart.

Finally, some people find the right partner after one or more failed marriages.

117. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230238 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Teratornis,

do you actually hit on crones?

118. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #230154 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 11:25 am

Comment #230120 by Teratornis

If you are a man, you only have to spend a few minutes talking to a woman to realize she doesn't know the first thing about men. Women have told me they draw the corresponding conclusion about men not knowing the first thing about women

This description applies to teenagers, reclusive persons, and the socially inept.

It is true that man and women think and operate in different ways, but the differences are not as big as you let transpire. A modicum of social interaction is sufficient to accumulate enough clues to allow for mutual empathy, and to be able to interpret and fulfil the needs of a member of the opposite sex.

And of course anyone who knows the least bit about evolutionary psychology speaks in ways that are alien to most of the pre-scientific majority.

I don't see what EP has to do with this, social skills aren't to be learnt in books. However, if you need to know, only recently have I read a couple of books on the subject, including the Blank Slate.

119. The God Delusion

Comment #230097 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 9:00 am

Comment #230088 by Peacebeuponme

Very perceptive of you, given that that was his first day here.

I am fine with the idea of granting a certain amount of time for acclimation, if someone is really impatient to join in. A month after, all flexibility has been exhausted.

120. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #230086 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 8:41 am

Comment #230067 by Scep

So what? No one here subscribes to the view that christianity is morally superior to islam in its fundamental tenets.
Yet, the enlightenment has emasculated christendom by means of reason and criticism, while the islamic world still lags behind in the Dark Ages.
Failing to recognise this, while reciting mea culpa, is myopic and uninformed, to say the least.

121. The God Delusion

Comment #230084 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 8:35 am

Comment #230065 by Steve Zara

Thank you.

122. The God Delusion

Comment #230050 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 7:44 am

Comment #230048 by irate_atheist

Well, it really is not about the language. It's about negativity, unwarranted aggressiveness, nihilism, misogyny, and bad taste.
I wouldn't object for a second to anything you ever said. You are a great comedian, sir.

123. The God Delusion

Comment #230039 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 7:27 am

Dr Doctor,

I think Steve has a point, even though he has probably expressed it poorly, this time.

I disagree with Steve as to Kkelly representing in any way gay people, here - he only represents himself. I also don't give a toss about how a D'Souza could succeed in tarnishing our image by cherry-picking nasty comments. People like him will always find a dishonest way to discredit opponents.

There is something more at stake, here. Over the years, this site has succeeded in setting new standards of web civility, in spite of being largely unmoderated. This is something we should be rightly proud of. Just visit other fora and compare - the difference is striking.

In my opinion, a new-comer, anywhere, is welcome as long as he or she doesn't presume to subvert all established etiquette at his or her whim. This is universally accepted as basic rule of thumb in all social contexts. In kkelly's case this has never happened. He started from day one to vomit all the worst (and trite, he isn't even original) internet sleaze and to attack people at random with venomous remarks that he calls "humour", without ever being provoked.
It is a pity, because he doesn't lack intellect and knowledge to impress favourably, when he so chooses.

Kkelly has the whole internet at his disposal to find like-minded people who would appreciate his antics. What he doesn't have, instead, is the right to undermine the social experiment represented by this site by steam-rolling over its foundations.

124. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229981 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 6:00 am

Comment #229975 by BFKate

That happened to me once.

To be arrested on a beach for lewd acts?

125. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229968 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 5:48 am

Comment #229959 by BFKate

What's NOT insulting about calling someone Blow Job?

That depends on the person, someone might take it as a recognition.

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN1441724120080714

Night, Laurie.

126. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229918 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 5:19 am

BFKate,

even if it wasn't a typo - a circumstance that I doubt, knowing a bit Fanusi - I think you have already reciprocated in kind. Perhaps we could move on from there.
Assuming good faith is a good rule of thumb in public fora, btw.
Please, don't take this as a personal criticism or as an attack.

Back to topic - I find this article too good to be Hari's brainchild, quite frankly. Too well thought out and eerily similar to what has been said in this forum many times. In fact, almost verbatim reminiscent of older posts.
Still commendable, but perhaps we should sue him for plagiarism.

Hari, are you listening? Confess, ya bloody cunt.

127. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229424 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Comment #229419 by Brian English

Argentine, as it was found in Argentina, which is proving to be one of the best place to discover new species.

Incidentally, a pivotal discovery was made there. There were carnivorous predators capable of taking on those giants. Prior to this, it was believed that the largest predators such as T.Rex appeared only in the Cretaceous (after the diplodicidae's disappearance).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060418174738.htm

128. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229417 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Goldy,

excellent stuff. :)

BTW, if you like those beasties, I suggest that you check out the Titanosaurs (for instance Argentinosaurus), or Supersaurus among the Diplodocidae.
Prepare to be overwhelmed.

129. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229403 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Comment #229401 by Goldy

Brontosaurus doesn't exist. It was a collage of fossils of 2 species, mistakenly lumped together.
One of those is now called Apatosaurus.

The family is Diplodocidae.

Edit- I checked and apparently it was the same species mistakenly classified twice. When the error was uncovered, only the name Apatosaurus was kept.

130. The God Delusion

Comment #229394 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Comment #229392 by Steve Zara

Which is it?

Elementary, my dear Watson.

131. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229391 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Comment #229388 by thewhitepearl

I'm not sure if that's an insult or not

Of course it is, to Isthatclear.
It was an elaborate way to call him a sordid wanker.

132. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #229383 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Comment #229381 by thewhitepearl

I casually scroll through this and I see my name popped up all over the place,

And you should see the walls of the men's room.

133. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229348 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 11:56 am

Comment #229322 by Bonzai

You are, first of all, confusing "nature" with "selected".

Not at all.

The essay that you linked words the diatribe exactly as Pinker does, mentioning the blank slate metaphor at least four or five times.

So, either you reject in toto Pinker's phraseology, either you accept it.

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/papers/nature_nurture.pdf

The pan-selectionist characterisation is plainly ridiculous, as nowhere Pinker suggests that everything is explainable by the effects of natural selection.
You may want to actually read the Blank Slate.

134. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #229295 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 10:29 am

Cranks are the funniest, really. They make creotards look like the paragon of sanity.

135. Al-Qa'eda in Iraq alienated by cucumber laws and brutality

Comment #229256 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 9:27 am

Comment #229251 by J Mac

Congratulations. That's what I call sophisticated theology.

136. Al-Qa'eda in Iraq alienated by cucumber laws and brutality

Comment #229249 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 9:12 am

Comment #229243 by J Mac

That would sketch a rather bizarre, albeit interesting picture.

"Salomon using wind to fly on a carpet muncher".

137. Al-Qa'eda in Iraq alienated by cucumber laws and brutality

Comment #229241 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 9:03 am

Comment #229237 by J Mac

Guess what else didn't exist then Al-Qa'eda: AIRPLANES!

Yeah, but they had flying carpets and winged horses - it's in the q'ran.
Clearly, aeroplanes are just modern equivalents.

138. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229227 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 8:41 am

Comment #229149 by Cartomancer

Carto, wouldn't you agree that Richard's tailor should be hanged?

139. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229224 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 8:39 am

Comment #229139 by Steve Zara

I take back my statement :)

You shouldn't. The long article posted by bonzai raises some serious issues, but misrepresents evolutionary psychology.
It treats it as if it were an evidence-free pseudo-scientific endeavour, which certainly is not. Many experiments validate its fundamental tenets, and its speculations - based on such empirical evidence - are tested whenever possible.

And yes, Pinker is a serious scientist.

The case for Nurture has been demolished. Get over it, Bonzai.

140. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229086 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 4:50 am

Comment #229081 by Oystein Elgaroy

If I fail as an astrophysicist

Just co-author a paper with your father-in-law. It should do.

141. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229084 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 4:48 am

Comment #229071 by irate_atheist

My friend, that sounds really noble to me. I renew my admiration for your attitude. I am far more selfish, I suppose.

142. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229067 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 4:18 am

Comment #229063 by Dr Doctor

That's a tough question, but probably I wouldn't divorce them on those grounds only. I imagine a strong bond being already in place.

143. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229066 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 4:16 am

Comment #229062 by Tyler Durden

Well, I know myself well enough for being able to affirm that with a certain degree of certitude. Also from past experience of occasional sex with women theists, the fun was over the moment they spoke.

144. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229061 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 4:04 am

Comment #229011 by irate_atheist

It must be tough. I admire your patience and open-mindedness.

Personally, I couldn't get married or engaged with a theist. This may sound smug, but that's the way it is. I don't really respect their intellect and attitude towards life. Therefore, I can't imagine a deeper feeling developing.
I can't help it.

145. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229059 by decius on August 13, 2008 at 3:58 am

Comment #228987 by Dr Doctor

Now she is pretty old and limits her efforts to ~~teaching~~ indoctrinating children in third-world countries. She is in India as we speak.

Prior to this - as a "missionary" - she would proselytise adults for her particular brand of fundamentalist lutheran creed, also in places where it is explicitly forbidden to do so (like Israel and China). She got in trouble a few times, got deported, and she is now banned from Israel.

It is interesting to note how these people consciously prey on the ignorant and poor. Here in Scandinavia there are plenty of atheists and free-thinkers - one would think that they constitute a prime target for proselytisers. Far from it, they entirely direct their efforts abroad on the economically weaker part of the population of a given troubled country - enticing people with food and distributing bibles.

I don't know the details of the fundie-boat episode, only that they failed to comply with security regulations and overloaded the vessel with people, most of which were her co-religionists.

In fact, I never get to talk with her about anything consequential, as she would always ascribe the most mundane event to supernatural intervention, never accepting scrutiny of her claims. Thus, I have completely lost interest in engaging her. To be honest, I avoid meeting her as much as possible without appearing rude.

To be fair to her - her church is not preaching hatred or anything particularly nasty. It is fundamentalist with regard to the level of superstition and to the holier-than-thou proselytising approach.

146. Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Comment #228830 by decius on August 12, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Comment #228825 by phil rimmer

He now is a sort of Marvel superhero.

the Ivy Man

147. Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Comment #228821 by decius on August 12, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Comment #228818 by Brian English

Precisely.

148. Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Comment #228816 by decius on August 12, 2008 at 3:06 pm

. Comment #228815 by Brian English

His husband mistakenly sprayed him with fertilizer and the foliage took over.

149. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228805 by decius on August 12, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Very beautiful places, good choice.