Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Mango


101. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92976 by Mango on December 1, 2007 at 9:10 pm

to comment 160: I agree -- Dinesh uses Nietzsche to support his idea of what happens to a society that abandons Christianity. Yet Dinesh also told us how misogynistic and misguided Nietzsche was on some social issues, so he kind of cuts the legs out from the authority he's drawing upon.

102. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92974 by Mango on December 1, 2007 at 9:05 pm

edejard; So what you're asking, then, is why are the laws of physics they way they are, which is the step beyond glibly reciting the anthropic principle. Dinesh frames the question as if there are "dials" that have been turned, painting for the listener a scene ripe for a turner of dials. And since he flatly rejected parsimony nothing stops him from a "leap of faith."

For me, and the people I converse with who are not deep into physics, the anthropic principle suffices. It holds water, even though it's not an explanation at a deeper level of understanding of how the laws of physics arose.

103. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92964 by Mango on December 1, 2007 at 8:43 pm

. edejard wrote: He [D'Souza] has said that if you respond to the fine tuning argument by saying, "Of course the universe -- or at least one small part of it -- is capable of supporting life, whatever the improbabilities, since, well duh, we're here to think about it" you've basically missed the point, because you haven't explained the improbability!


No, you missed the point. The anthropic principle IS the explanation for the improbability. What you are doing is seeking *agency* where none need be assumed.

104. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92933 by Mango on December 1, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Every time Dinesh has a turn to speak he ends up going into a false voice to mimic Dennett, the questioner, or whoever. Very immature, unappealing rhetorical device.

105. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92917 by Mango on December 1, 2007 at 6:29 pm

Looks like Dinesh stuffed yesterday's clothes into the shoulders of his suit coat.

106. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92914 by Mango on December 1, 2007 at 6:24 pm

I was relieved that Dinesh didn't open up with his "mosquito in a nudist colony" joke, but instead he hit me in the face with a more revolting image -- him w/o pants.

107. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92900 by Mango on December 1, 2007 at 5:27 pm

Off topic, but since it came up already: I think for some atheists there *is* an "atheist community". I was at the AAI meeting in September and there was a sense of what I can only call community. It was wholly different than any professional meeting I've attended -- there was a common purpose, understanding, excitement, conviviality, and support. The session on parenting especially comes to mind.

In the context of Dr. Dawkins' recent article and its reverberations, I'd rather use the word "movement" to describe this recent florescence of atheist discourse. And yes, I think the article can and will be used by many theists to denigrate the movement.

108. Sudan demo over jailed UK teacher

Comment #92590 by Mango on November 30, 2007 at 8:52 pm

I wonder if Sudan had a tourist industry. Had.

109. Sudan demo over jailed UK teacher

Comment #92411 by Mango on November 30, 2007 at 12:58 pm

A woman goes to a poor, strife-ridden country to be a teacher. While there the woman is jailed for blasphemy.

I think there's a connection between 1) what is wrong with Sudan that she was needed in the first place, and 2) why she was jailed.

110. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92289 by Mango on November 30, 2007 at 8:37 am

Keith. I interpreted your thought experiment as a world inhabited by superstitious-free people in the pre-modern era who had no rational advisers like ourselves to offer any explanations.

After reading your last post (#206) I think we're saying the same things now. I do believe that with better education and the use of reason more people will abandon religion (although look at Francis Collins). But the evolutionary angle I'm putting forward is that even though educated people won't believe in virgin births or the like they can still subscribe to unproven ideas (e.g. homeopathy). Perhaps where our remaining difference lies is in how much weight we ascribe to the power of our evolved psychologies.

111. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92281 by Mango on November 30, 2007 at 8:07 am

Keith wrote: How about if we were to create a world in which superstition wasn't taught or discussed? If those that were genetically predisposed to a belief in the supernatural weren't exposed to any supernatural beliefs, would they still believe in the supernatural?


While acknowledging that in all times and places until the historical era human groups believed in the supernatural, I postulate that over the generations these inhabitants of your superstition-free world would, by dint of possessing abstract language, self-consciousness, and an innate need to explain the world, formulate supernatural beliefs.

112. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92280 by Mango on November 30, 2007 at 7:52 am

Keith,
You are of course right. "Dr" would show manners -- but I speak about him so often in conversation that I simply say "Dawkins" and that carried over into my post.

But to your point -- yes, environment is important. But these evolved tendencies (supposing the supernatural/unproven [e.g. homeopathy] and monogamy) find easy expression in culture. In fact, I think environment (culture) and evolution are reinforcing each other in what Dr. Wolpert calls "gene-culture evolution." Monogamy, like polygamy, can be inculcated but I think that the former finds easier expression in people's lives because of it's evolved status in our psyches.

113. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92245 by Mango on November 30, 2007 at 6:02 am

notsobad: your Vulcan-like logic is laudable but not practical for us Terrans.

114. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92230 by Mango on November 30, 2007 at 5:30 am

notsobad, comment 188, -- I'm not familiar with Mrs. Tarrant's story, but regardless of the extent of her vindictive anger she was nonetheless justified to be angry. That's why Dawkins' use of her breaks down.

115. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92226 by Mango on November 30, 2007 at 5:18 am

Building upon what Dr. Benway is telling us about psychology and how we form relationships, this matter of open relationships appears to involve too much complexity in the human psyche to be an aspect of society that can be handled with "consciousness raising." The people who are psychologically amenable to open relationships are probably already in them -- I don't think many people are so made. Perhaps it's analogous to the number of atheists -- the number will reach a plateau and never increase because supernatural beliefs, like monogamy, are evolved.

116. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92223 by Mango on November 30, 2007 at 5:09 am

Dawkins,
Your follow-up statement doesn't clarify what I think is the main fault of your article, which is that it's normal to be angry when a vow of monogamy has been broken. Mrs. Tarrant was lied to and made a fool of by her husband, no? She was not engaged in a pre-established open relationship, so your use of her to make your point strikes me as heartless and haphazard.

117. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91973 by Mango on November 29, 2007 at 4:19 pm

I think what Dawkins fails to acknowledge when he advocates dumping the term "cheating" is that "cheaters" are having affairs and lying about it. The woman whom he offers as an example of behaving poorly was not "jealous" -- she was lied to and made a fool of by her unfaithful husband. It's good and well to have sex with people other than your spouse IF you both have agreed to it. Dawkins needs to differentiate between jealousy in a mutually-agreed to open marriage and anger from having being cheated on and lied to about it.

118. 'Secular Believers'

Comment #91469 by Mango on November 28, 2007 at 11:54 am

There's an amusing part between 0:45 and 1 min in part 2. The host is on screen and says "a place where the nation could" then it cuts to a different shot and his voice continues "honor its great men" and then, OBVIOUSLY added on later during editing, you hear him say "and women." Cherry.

119. Discover plagiarism at the Discovery Institute

Comment #91052 by Mango on November 27, 2007 at 5:49 am

In some circles this indiscretion will follow Dembski for the rest of his career.

120. Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock

Comment #90598 by Mango on November 25, 2007 at 5:46 pm

He [Kurt Wise] veered suddenly from his usual hyperactive mode to contemplative. "It's a pain in the neck," he said. "It fits the evolutionary prediction quite well."


I just can't help but pity him and his misplaced trust in the Bible.

121. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

Comment #90033 by Mango on November 22, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Psychologists have plenty of high-tech machines for peering into the mind yet all these researchers did was *ask the right question* and use wooden toys.

122. 'Secular Believers'

Comment #88426 by Mango on November 16, 2007 at 2:57 pm

What an amazing program. But it's inconceivable that a show like this would air nation-wide in the US. Only a handful of stations chose to air Jonathan's Miller "Brief History of Disbelief."

123. African Crucible: Cast as Witches, Then Cast Out

Comment #88206 by Mango on November 15, 2007 at 10:53 am

"Even the professional workers believe that witches exist."


This makes the entire culture sound "backwards" but replace "witches" with "Jesus" and it puts it into context. It's an endemic lack of reason, there and here.

124. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88100 by Mango on November 14, 2007 at 5:13 pm

It seems to me that a large percentage of theists who retort that "Evolution is only a theory" know that they are playing a rhetorical trick.

125. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87263 by Mango on November 11, 2007 at 3:39 pm

We never called the IRA Catholic terrorists.


Were the IRA conducting terrorist activities all over the world, as Muslims do, then we might refer to them as "Catholic terrorists."

126. Holy communion

Comment #86937 by Mango on November 10, 2007 at 1:20 pm

This points to the danger of over-generalising about religion and about religious believers.


in TGD Dawkins addresses belief in the supernatural that pertains to all theists. He *has to* generalize, and his generalization does no injustice to what defines a theist.

127. The good that comes from belief

Comment #86814 by Mango on November 10, 2007 at 7:58 am

If a judge sentences a person to do some community service, does that "volunteer work" have the same ethical value as someone who does community service because he believes God wants him to?

128. The good that comes from belief

Comment #86574 by Mango on November 9, 2007 at 4:23 pm

Gracias for the clarification, 'migo.

129. The good that comes from belief

Comment #86566 by Mango on November 9, 2007 at 4:09 pm

Some may see religion as a tired old superstition, but it does produce our most ethical and caring young adults — believe it or not.


And also our most inhumane, sadistic, murderous young adults.

And I'd like to know how "ethics" and "caring" were measured. If they'd have asked, "Do you think most people alive today will burn forever in Hell?" how well do you think the religious would have done?

130. Georgia plans service to pray for rain

Comment #86562 by Mango on November 9, 2007 at 4:06 pm

I'd like to see him invite some Native Americans to perform a rain dance.

131. On Being Not Muslim Enough

Comment #86265 by Mango on November 8, 2007 at 9:47 pm

This phenomenon of "not [insert adjective here] enough" has long been around. In America, if you're "not black enough" you can get called an Uncle Tom (from Stowe's novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin") or an Oreo (black on the outside, white on the inside).

It's a simultaneously interesting and despicable way of a minority group self-policing its members.

132. Losing faith in Quebec

Comment #86263 by Mango on November 8, 2007 at 9:32 pm

"We think it is up to each religion to give instruction to its supporters," he said. "It's not up to the public schools to do that."


EXACTLY!

133. Washoe, the sign-language chimp dies

Comment #85382 by Mango on November 5, 2007 at 4:16 pm

This chimp used language like any trained parrot. Just because it's a primate and not a bird doesn't mean it's actual abstract language.

134. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85254 by Mango on November 5, 2007 at 11:16 am

A professor I spoke with this weekend decried that the new atheists are not bringing any new ideas. I replied, "Yes, but who has yet to respond to Russell's teapot?" He moved on.

This is more of an accomplishment, in fact, than it may appear. The race to the bottom has been fast and furious.


Harris is hilarious sometimes.

135. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #85164 by Mango on November 5, 2007 at 7:47 am

comment 48. These deathbed conversions always remind me of Brideshead Revisited.


Brideshead came to my mind as well -- theists with their faculties (and agendas) intact prey on the senescent. But this politicization of Flew is beyond the pale.

136. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83603 by Mango on October 30, 2007 at 3:28 pm

It's always odd to hear about countries like Chile that are more socially progressive than the U.S.

137. AAI 07

Comment #83230 by Mango on October 29, 2007 at 11:13 am

What should be a matter of debate is the level of government-provided heathcare, education, the minimum wage etc.


Pathetically, in the U.S. we still need to convince the populace that *everyone* deserves *some* basic level of healthcare. Only then we can then bicker on what the level should be.

138. AAI 07

Comment #83224 by Mango on October 29, 2007 at 10:42 am

comment 172

Since most of the jobs are unskilled, there will always be more "losers" than "winers" no matter how you slice it.


But can't everyone be a "winner" if we define winning as having healthcare, a federally-mandated minimum number of paid days off each year, a reasonable minimum wage, et cetera? And then we all become winners if we also view winning as diminishing people's use of religion as an emotional/socioeconomic crutch.

139. AAI 07

Comment #82913 by Mango on October 28, 2007 at 8:38 am

scooternyc. What about the WIC (women, infants, and children) program that we have here in the States? I assume you'd say it's the woman's fault for having a child when she's not financially able to care for it, so the gov't shouldn't ensure that the child is fed?

140. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82901 by Mango on October 28, 2007 at 7:57 am

comment 159

I was just wondering, what are atheists good at beside postulating the non-existence of God?


Don't expect to receive from atheism a coherent philosophy by which to lead your life. You might explore Humanism for that. Atheists create their own meaning in their lives. However, what we are "good at" as you say is upholding the separation of church and state and promoting science and reason over superstition.

Let say, I am feeling depressed and down now, and I need a mental-antidote to make me feel better. Do you think atheism can offer me this?


Atheism, if anything at all, just offers someone the realization that this is our one and only life, and therefore atheism is quite life-affirming. However, from that point of departure it is up to you to explore philosophy, poetry, novels, nature, inter-personal relationships, and so on in order to sooth your mind.

141. AAI 07

Comment #82899 by Mango on October 28, 2007 at 7:45 am

Jack Rawlinson: It's like a total blind spot with some Americans: this utter inability to imagine a single circumstance in which a perfectly decent person might fall into a position where they simply cannot afford health care - especially at the astronomical cost it comes in America. One can only surmise such people are either heartless, ignorant or severely lacking in life experience. Horrible.


Heartless and ignorant, yes, but why are so many of my fellow Americans like that? Because of a hegemonic discourse that all quarters of society drill into each us from infancy, "If you fail in America, it's your own fault. You can be president, if you work hard enough." Pile on top of that our politicians who are in the pockets of Big Healthcare exhorting that socialized medicine will give us long waits and degraded care, and you have the recipe for the kneejerk reaction you describe. It's a spell, Dennett might say.

142. AAI 07

Comment #82728 by Mango on October 27, 2007 at 11:32 am

Before hearing Chapman's talk I wondered how America could be such a highly Christian nation yet we have 1) the death penalty 2) no universal healthcare 3) no federal law for a minimum number of vacation days 4) widespread gun ownership, and so on. But Chapman made me realize I was thinking about the situation backwards -- America is not highly religious in spite of our barbarism but rather *because of it.*

For example, when a person knows that if he loses his job his children won't have healthcare it's no wonder that he attends church and throws his lot in with a supernatural Father to comfort him.

This is seen worldwide; the most stable and cared-for populations abandon religion, e.g. Western Europe. Countries in which the people live in fear have a populace unwilling (or even emotionally able) to abandon God.

143. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82699 by Mango on October 27, 2007 at 9:03 am

But let me add: I think it is for the sake of scientific etiquette that Dawkins in TGD says that he's a "6 leaning towards 7" in his atheism. And I wonder that if I could read his mind I'd find that he's actually a 7. I'm a 7 and my confidants know it, although like Dawkins I must publicly say that "technically I'm agnostic."

144. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82695 by Mango on October 27, 2007 at 8:58 am

When I discuss my religious views with a sophisticated theist I must eventually make the omission (or concession?) that, "Yes, technically I'm an agnostic because I cannot disprove anything, but only agnostic in the same way that I'm agnostic about unicorns. Functionally I'm an atheist."

So how do we who self-identify as atheists *really* differ from "skeptical agnostics." Perhaps not calling ourselves agnostics is why theists slap the labels "arrogant" and "militant" on us?

145. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82204 by Mango on October 25, 2007 at 9:27 pm

Thanks, Veronique, for informing me that Stephen Roberts is the originator of those ideas (comment 82100). It's something I've had in my head a long time and had no idea of the attribution.

146. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82105 by Mango on October 25, 2007 at 5:14 pm

commment 10: I think we would be better off if we would call ourselves Rationalists or Humanists.


I see your point, but it can sound condescending.

Theist: "I'm Catholic, what are you?"

Atheist: "I'm a rationalist."

147. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82100 by Mango on October 25, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Related to the term atheist, until recently I thought it was clever to say to a theist, "You're an atheist when it comes to Zeus or Wotan, so you're just like me except I go one god further." But that's not right at all. Christians and other theists today are not atheists when it comes to those gods -- they are merely non-believers. Atheism by definition denotes belief in no god(s), and only those people who do not worship any gods can really be atheists. So I've changed my tactic to instead say to a theist, "When you understand why you don't worship Zeus you'll also understand why I don't worship your god."

148. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82093 by Mango on October 25, 2007 at 4:57 pm

If someone says, "I'm Catholic, what are you?" I can say naturalist, rationalist, or ramble on about not believing in the supernatural, but when I'm done speaking the person is going to say, "Oh, you're an atheist." Not labeling ourselves does no good because it's the most accessible, common term for us that our neighbors have.

The real problem with the term "atheist" is that our communities do not know how normal, centered, and friendly atheists can be. Let's claim the word and be examples of admirable people who make it unreasonable for theists to use it as an epithet or stereotype.

149. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #81389 by Mango on October 24, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Rebuttal: "Proving an emotion and proving the existence of an intellectual being are two very different tasks. No, I can't prove to you that I love my wife, but I can prove that she exists. Nevertheless, I expect a reasonable person to believe me when I say I love my wife. Likewise, I believe you when you assert that you love God, but I refuse to believe that God exists on only your word. I'm afraid you have a very real love for a very imaginary being."

150. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81225 by Mango on October 24, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Bill O'Reilly and D'Souza think it denigrates scientists to remind them that they don't know all the answers to life's big questions. Scientists are happy to say they don't yet know, yet theists see that as a weakness and feel comforted by their own revealed Truth.

It's a basic misunderstanding of how science works that D'Souza exploits to win over a scientifically-ignorant audience.

D'Souza says it's as big of a leap of faith not to accept God as to accept him. I can't accept that he actually believes the bile he vomits during a debate.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next