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

Comment #106004 by AtheistJon on January 2, 2008 at 9:15 am

I've told it a couple of times on the forum now, and referred to it again in one of my earlier posts on this thread, so I'll just give you the potted version.

Sorry 'bout that. I guess that shows how relatively little I have read on this forum, so far! Anyway, thanks for telling your story. I think it shows you have a conscience and willing to listen to it. Mother Theresa it seems had this conscience effect, according to recent revelations, but she never listened to them, so I guess we atheists can honestly say that we have more morality than Mother Theresa, don't we?

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

Comment #105878 by AtheistJon on January 2, 2008 at 4:00 am

Paula,

I don't know how anybody could be not nice to you. You seem to me like an angel of a person... secular angel, I guess ;-) You have been very nice and fair with me, thanks for that!

By the way, how did you become an atheist? If you care to tell your own personal story?

Best Regards,
Jon

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

Comment #105742 by AtheistJon on January 1, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Richard Morgan wrote,

AtheistJon : I appreciate the clarity of your thoughts.
You quote Sagan as saying that he didn't think with his gut.
Probably true for scientific matters, or anything that needs to be approached by reasoning.
...
What does matter to me is the transition from thought to action. I have noticed that for most so-called "believers", their religious beliefs don't interfere much with their day-to-day behaviour.

This is where I would agree with Richard Dawkins, in TGD, where he says that essentially religion is a scientific matter. So, it should be dealt with appropriately. I guess you put your finger on the essential problem with how people deal with religion.. They think of it as a political issue which requires their heart, rather than their mind to be involved. Couple that with the fact that scientists, like me, are not very good, generally, at thinking and talking with their gut, so I guess that's why you end up with the current status of religion vs science. One side uses their brain, the other their heart.

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

Comment #105739 by AtheistJon on January 1, 2008 at 5:54 pm

Radesq, I would say flip-flop is one of those demonizing words, that _J_ was talking about. In other words, how I understand the word, it's when you change your principles like you change socks. When your principle becomes unpopular you abandon it. Rather than what I would call, modifying your guiding principle because you found something wrong with it. In both cases you change your mind about your principle, but a flip-flop is something you do "too often". How would I define "too often"? I suppose that's where the real game theory/politics comes in.

Luckily, in science, you don't have to deal with that problem.

BTW. People in Finland call me Joni (Yonny), because the name Jon is awkward for them to pronounce. Jon McGill, if you must know my real name...

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

Comment #105736 by AtheistJon on January 1, 2008 at 5:32 pm

It would seem people equate a "flip flop" with weakness, when in fact it can show immense courage. jcw

But would you admit that flip-flopping in science is intrinsically strong because it shows open mindedness in the face of objective evidence; whereas flip-flopping in politics can be a sign of weak principles?

AJ.. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth, and I apologize for misunderstanding you.

No sweat.

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

Comment #105734 by AtheistJon on January 1, 2008 at 5:26 pm

_J_ You wrote:

That's not hypocritical, surely? That's forming your opinion based on available evidence. Strictly preserving a former opinion in spite of any new data that contradict it is, essentially, what we criticise religions for - putting their conclusions before their research.

No, it's not hypocritical, you're right. Hypocrisy probably wasn't the right term for monday morning QB. It's definitely okay and good to check your guiding principle. Although those principles are still, ultimately based on an ambiguous set of rules. So, it's definitely not something you can always justify with facts. I guess I was mainly just criticizing somebody who would say that, now that they know there were no nukes in Iraq, they would second guess their decision back before any knowledge was available. If they do this, then it means their principles were wrong. Which by the way, is okay as I already said, but I have to again reiterate this question: What kind of politician would you favor, one who's principles change all the time, or one who has relatively stable principles? I guess what you are arguing (and I guess also in RD's article) is that Thatcher and Blair never change their principles? If that's the case, then there's a problem.

Agreed.

(By the way: as part of my ongoing campaign to un-demonise certain words, I'd like to admit that I'm a hypocrite, and to accuse everyone else of being hypocrites, too. Just like we're all liars, to some degree. Some words seem to have gained a pejorative power so overwhelming that it's impossible to use them in a measured, descriptive way any more.)

Of course, lying and being a hypocrite is just part of being human, isn't it? But, would you admit that we all strive
not to be hypocritical and liars? In other words, you're not proud of that, are you?
Probably not something you would like written on your epitaph?

Some people: eg, Mother Theresa, Jerry Fallwell, Bill and Hillary Clinton lied and acted hypocritically so often, that IMO they really deserve those "demon words" to be written under the R.I.P., don't they?

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

Comment #105730 by AtheistJon on January 1, 2008 at 5:10 pm

kaiserkriss, you said:

I personally would disagree with your original premise that politicians have to live and fall by their current perception of an issue. We live in a dynamic world, and nothing is more dynamic than politics.

This definitely was not my original premise. Although, I can understand why you took it this way. I wasn't clear enough. Here's my premise:
politics is intrinsically different from science. In politics you make decisions based on principles which can be right sometimes and wrong at other times. So, your decisions cannot be "right" or "wrong" in the same way that a scientific question can be. So, my point to RD's article was that making blanket comments about changing your mind, should keep this dichotomy in mind.

However, this being said, I would definitely agree that principles can be wrong and in such a case should be modified. However, one question to ask yourself. What politician would you prefer, one who changes his principles on a monthly basis or one who changes his principles only every once in awhile (for example, when finding that the principle failed to deal appropriately with a new modern life situation). Personally, I'd prefer the more stably principled person.

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

Comment #105721 by AtheistJon on January 1, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Radesq, to take your example. BTW I would call this example a definite political decision. Isn't it? So, you make the decision based on your set of principles. The principle in this case would be this: if somebody beats up my little brother, I retaliate.

The issue is still a political issue, even afterwards knowing all the facts. If you stand by this principle beforehand, then you should stand by it for all time.

Your example was good, because I had to think about this. I think your example just shows that the principles are wrong, i.e. one should never retaliate without being sure who is at fault.

So, I guess you are correct that the guiding principles can be wrong. And in such a case they should be modified.

So, your point is well noted. I guess the revision I would make is that the overall principles should be definitely revisited and checked if they were correct.

But, this being said, in the case of Iraq, I wouldn't characterize the guiding principles for invading as so simplistic. Christopher Hitchens has a list of principles that he often quotes about why the US was justified in invading Iraq. I don't think those principles have been modified after the fact. However, if somebody like Hillary Clinton based their vote on less wise criteria, then indeed they should probably admit that the principles were wrong.

Yes, you got me.

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

Comment #105715 by AtheistJon on January 1, 2008 at 4:16 pm

But look at Dawkins' examples. Blanket statements of inflexibility from Thatcher and Blair. Lib Dems who, years after the matter of whether or not to go to war has passed, still refuse to revise their opinion in face of major changes to the available information on that matter.

I see your point. However, I still maintain that any political issue is intrinsically different from a scientific issue.

To cover two response, I take Paulua's response here, too...

I think it is possible that new information can come to light that causes you to change your previous assessment.

So, in this example of WMD "evidence" coming to light. Does all that make the Iraq policy at all akin to an objecive scientific question? I would say it's just as "grey" now as it was before the invasion. In other words, the original decision cannot be monday morning quarterbacked... (which is another form of hypocrisy).

RD said this:

Leading Democratic Presidential candidates, whose original decision to vote in favour of invading Iraq had been based on information believed in good faith but now known to be false, still stand by their earlier error for fear of the dread accusation: 'flip-flopper'.

I would claim that the accusation of flip-flopper is rightly to be dreaded in a political context because it's hypocrisy to say, after the fact, that I was wrong. An ideal politician would act the same way (guided by some sort of principles) again. Given new information doesn't give you the right to go back and say, what I did before was wrong, because, basically, it's a question of whether the guiding principles that decided to invade were right or wrong... not the facts which were discovered after the fact. Frankly, in my opinion, any politician who would now go back, after knowing the true status of nuclear weapons development in Iraq, and change there minds about what they should have voted are practicing principle-less politics.

The only way in which I would think changing your mind would be appropriate in this case, is if, before the invasion, you said something like "there are nukes in Iraq". This is a scientifically verifiable claim, so it's imperative to change your mind. The political decision that was made, is not something that should be as malleable.

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

Comment #105712 by AtheistJon on January 1, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Steve, I can sympathize. I was never a full blown Presbyterian, but I used to go to church with my family, and vaguely "believed in God"... it wasn't until I really thought about it (actually, with the help of Carl Sagan) that I changed my mind.

Doesn't that go to show (also in your case) that there is a big human element in how we make scientific decisions. Like I was arguing earlier on a different thread. Humans aren't computers, so getting the right conclusions on a matter of this sort takes the right kind of communication for the message to get through. Sometimes the pure facts written down in plain language (in an internet blog, for example) isn't enough to make you understand the facts. Admittedly, religion or not religion (God or not God) is an objective issue, but as with all objective questions, humans have a very robust decision mechanism.

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

Comment #105706 by AtheistJon on January 1, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Thanks Paula for your comment!

I got the feeling that Dawkins was chastising politicians for not changing their minds about Iraq. I would argue that a politician who does change their mind on issues like Iraq are vote chasers not objective scientists.

Wonder if you agree?

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

Comment #105705 by AtheistJon on January 1, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Richard Morgan, not sure if you read my post, but you made a similar point as me, and I would ask you the following: aren't "changes of heart" related to non-scientific questions? Therefore held to a different standard of "change is good". In other words, take love of a person. Do I or don't I. This is a decision you would make in a game theory context, not in an objective scientific scenario. So, doesn't it follow that changing your mind (or heart) is not necessarily a good thing? In scientific matters changing your mind is imperative (assuming the evidence is convincing enough, which might be the sticky point in science, i.e. how much and what kind of evidence convinces you).

I mean when you look at a factual issue, such as Richard Dawkins' evolutionary biology and male masochistic tendencies, the question shouldn't require you to use your heart, but rather your mind. As Carl Sagan once said, "I don't think with my gut".

My point is that it is morally quite different to change your mind on a political (game theory issue) than when you change your mind on a scientific topic.

Would you agree?

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

Comment #105699 by AtheistJon on January 1, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Ian, don't take this comment the wrong way (I change my mind, too, on issues that I don't understand fully). I used to be a liberal democrat, I even voted for Michael Dukakis back in 1988.

But, when it comes to political views, is it really a clearly good thing to change your views often? Let me give you an example of what I mean.

An election is coming up, you are a candidate, so you take the view that taxes should be lowered. Then you are elected and find that there is a budget crisis, so you change your mind and raise taxes.

Or another example (politics of dating, or game theory, really); you meet a woman, tell her that she's the most beautiful person on earth... the next minute you meet another woman, and you go, to yourself, "I was wrong", and tell her "you are the most beautiful person on earth, and on and on.

When does this changing your mind become double-talk? Hypocrisy?

Nobody commented on my earlier post and I'm actually really curious to hear if anybody agrees with me that what RD wrote about politicians flip-flopping is a fallacious argument.

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

Comment #105688 by AtheistJon on January 1, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Thanks BAEOZ. I didn't notice that part.

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

Comment #105684 by AtheistJon on January 1, 2008 at 2:19 pm

By the way, does anybody know the history of new years day? When and who decided that January 1st would be 10 (?) days after the winter soltice?

Wikipedia says this:

The ancient Roman calendar had only ten months and started the year on 1 March, which is still reflected in the names of some months which derive from Latin: September (seventh), October (eighth), November (ninth), December (tenth). Around 713 BC the months of January and February were added to the year, traditionally by the second king, Numa Pompilius, along with the leap month Intercalaris. The year used in dates was the consular year, which began on the day when consuls first entered office — fixed by law at 15 March in 222 BC[1], but this event was moved to 1 January in 153 BC. In 45 BC, Julius Caesar introduced the Julian calendar, dropping Intercalaris; however, 1 January continued to be the first day of the new year.

But it fails to mention why they picked Jan 1 to be where it is relative to the winter solstice.

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

Comment #105673 by AtheistJon on January 1, 2008 at 1:55 pm

I think there is a fallacy in the above discussion regarding politicians and changing their mind, i.e. flip-flops.

In politics, you aren't in the business of figuring things out or solving problems, the way that a scientist or engineer is.

I would agree that in human society, it is a noble thing to be able to admit it when you are wrong. But when it comes to politics, the job is to stand up for a set of principles that are not unambiguously correct the way scientific and engineering principles are. Take for instance abortion... is it unambiguously correct that abortion is moral? Immoral? How about raising taxes? Is there a position on taxes that is unambiguously correct? Or Iraq, for that matter, to take RD's example political issue. I would claim that there is no objective way to claim one way or the other on these issues, so when a politician makes a decision on this kind of issue, it shouldn't waver like a flag in the wind, because it means that the guy is a liar who will say anything to get the vote. Politics is really a sort of game, which everybody plays (whether you like it or not) because you have to make decisions on ambiguous questions.

Of course, there are rules to this game which most people understand, like if somebody cheats, than he is not to be trusted. I would say that changing your position on political positions is akin to cheating in this game.

In science and engineering, the questions over which somebody would change there mind are not decided by the outcome of games (or they shouldn't be, that is). Rather they are subject to objective and unambiguous standards of truth.

I was thinking that perhaps the difference in scientific inflexibility vs political inflexibility is reflected by the two words dogmatism and principle?

Dogmatism would apply to the inflexibility in a scientific context, whereas principles would apply to the game theory/politics context.

Two other words come to mind, also. Open-minded and hypocritical. In science, a flexible person is open-minded, whereas in politics, a flexible person is hypocritical.

Or is that all BS? I am willing to change my mind about the above issue, if somebody gives me a good reason why what I said is wrong.

167. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105520 by AtheistJon on December 31, 2007 at 9:08 pm

Here, here, rod-the-farmer. My sentiments exactly.

What a waste of time to participate in a blog where people

1) Gang up on others with whom they have some grudge, regardless of the validity of their posts.

2) Insult the said persons.

3) And hold great hostility and anger in general, rather than hold calm and reasoned discussions.

Even the worst idiot, religious quack, political idealogue, doesn't deserve to be told, "Fuck off" or "Go Away". Otherwise, this blog becomes a farce.

168. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105215 by AtheistJon on December 30, 2007 at 10:54 pm

Wow, ad hominim's galore. What a pleasure to debate with you. How about if you fuck off first? Idiot.

There, now you can say I bullied you, too.

I never bullied you... just made arguments. Grow up.

169. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105204 by AtheistJon on December 30, 2007 at 9:50 pm

Styrer, dude. I fail to understand your hostility.

Just because I'm not in academia doesn't mean I'm only pursuing money. Where did you get off assuming that? Anyway, what do you do for a living where you have the luxury of despising people who want to make money?

And for that matter, I fail to understand how communication via visual aids or body language is somehow not truthful. Or were you just assuming that I meant that somehow you should obfuscate everything with non-verbal pictures? I really don't understand you... obviously communication on this blog has failed you. Would that you could make a better presentation. Maybe you could draw me a picture?

Actually, when I do training with a group of engineers, 9 times out of 10, it's not about getting money, rather, it's about making a new idea understood in a way that might be inspiring to their own work. I'm actually honestly interested in getting engineering problems solved, and I don't see why you would detest that.

If I present something to a group of engineers and don't do a good job presenting it to them, then it's not about having failed a "parlour game", it's about not having communicated something properly and hence having everything get all fucked up. Wasting both their time and mine. I hope that's not what you're suggesting.

I wasn't belittling language, anyway, so why all the hostility? So much detesting... what did I ever do to deserve it?

170. Submission, 'Part 1'

Comment #105201 by AtheistJon on December 30, 2007 at 9:38 pm

I used to live in Saudi Arabia, and my mother hated it there due to the restrictiveness. She couldn't drive, couldn't work, couldn't do anything almost, outside of our compound.

My Dad who speaks Arabic, told me that the Muslim women are supposed to greet their husbands at the door when they come home from work with 2 objects, a cane and a bucket of water. The bucket of water with which to wash his feet, and the cane for him to beat her with, while she is washing him.

I can only say one thing about this... Thank God I'm an Atheist!

171. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105189 by AtheistJon on December 30, 2007 at 8:48 pm

Styrer, please enlighten me with why this is a hole? I'm not religious about any particular presentation style... do you think you can get away with a presentation style where you just stand in front of an audience, hands in pockets, and read verbatim off a prompter and expect to have an impression on anybody? Or better yet, just have a voice synthesizer do your presentation for you, and stay home? Or do you have a better method in mind?

How is what I was taught in presentation training, wrong? How is this a deepening hole? By the way, I don't pray. ;-)

Roach, you're right. I never noticed Harris' hand movements until just now when you commented. I guess Hitchens must have more memorable gestures... he sort of dramatizes with his hands, while Harris is just explaining things with his hands. Or is this an inaccurate impression?

172. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105184 by AtheistJon on December 30, 2007 at 8:37 pm

Styrer, obviously, on the internet you have nothing else to go by than the words, do you? But let me give you a concrete example. A gorgeous woman comes up to you in a bar and says (in a sultry voice) "Sure is a nice moon tonight." While saying this she looks you in the eyes and runs her fingers down her cleavage. What topic do you pursue with her:
a) Lunar astronomy
b) Sex fantasies and how you love drinking beers together with strange women during full moon nights.

173. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105176 by AtheistJon on December 30, 2007 at 8:07 pm

Styrer. I wasn't saying that this presentation style is the way humans should communicate. Merely the way we do communicate. Perhaps it's the animal in us that doesn't live solely on bit streams of information... humans aren't computers... we have all these other trains of thoughts going through our mind, like, this guy's an idiot. This guy's gay. I'd like to fuck her (sorry women) ;-) -- They say that people think about sex at least once every minute or something outrageously high on that order (witness all the comments on this blog so far talking about sex), so you wonder how people can concentrate on their Bloggings.

that only 7% of you recognise 'content of words' as important with other humans!

I think you misunderstood this. What the training was saying is that when you are trying to get a message through to another person only 7% of the message will be transmitted with the words alone. Not that the words were only 7% important.

174. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105173 by AtheistJon on December 30, 2007 at 8:01 pm

robotaholic, is that a compliment or critique?

Anyway, take it for what it's worth, I thought it was a fairly apolitical post... other than the part about Hitchens vs Dawkins speaking abilities. I wouldn't want to insult prof. Dawkins, because he is pretty good, but he lacks the body language that Hitchens has. Auditorily they are both awesome... I would say Dennett (and to some degree Harris as well) have pretty good voices, too.

Hitchens is the only one who repeatedly uses his hands when he communicates. Like when he flipped off the Bill Maher audience (my personal favorite)...

175. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105157 by AtheistJon on December 30, 2007 at 7:25 pm

Steve,

I'm not in academia, but I do technical presentations in my job. A big problem with this kind of internet forum (i.e. blogging) is that people mainly don't pay all that much attention to mere words.

In the presentation training which I went through, we were asked the following question:

When humans communicate with one another live and in person (i.e. not on the internet), given these three categories of communication
1) Content of words
2) Body language, i.e. Visual Signals and gestures such as facial expressions, hand motions, etc...
3) Auditory Signals (volume of voice, inflection, tone, etc...)

What percentage of actual communication is transmitted through #1?

The answer which was claimed in my training was 7%.

So, it ain't no surprise to me that people generally miscommunicate on these internet blogs, since 93% of the communication bandwidth is lacking here. I suppose nowadays, we could always just use a YouTube comment to alleviate this effect, but it adds alot of overhead to the quickness of responding. But wouldn't you think the quality of discussions would go up, if every comment had an accompanying video snippet?

However, it says a lot for the abilities of people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris who spend a considerable amount of time communicating with live audiences and speakers, because to impress people as an expert you must master all 3 of these communication categories. I would say that Hitchens is the best speaker, because he uses very communicative hand gestures, together with his lovely Oxford accent... Dawkins does a pretty good job, too, especially in his lecture show "Growing up in the Universe" where he uses all kinds of visual aids. Dennett and Harris aren't so bad either, although I have seen less of them then Hitch and RD. I'm not so impressed by the speaking abilities of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but I suppose you cannot expect her to be as good as the others when English isn't even her mother tongue.

By the way, that same presentation training did agree with your lecture strategy, but with one exception. Yes, do the

1) say what your gonna say
2) say it

But at the end of your lecture you should first give time for questions. And then after the questions you should do the summary of what you said, and you're suppose to conclude any good presentation with a rousing exhortation or application of the ideas presented that the audience will remember. If you do the questions last, you run the risk that some question will be unsatisfactorily answered, and the whole presentation ending on a sour note which would of course linger with the audience. In other words, go out with a bang, not with a whimper.

I suppose we don't have that issue on internet bloggings since the discussions seem to go on indefintely... almost unendingly, until people get bored with the topic or have nothing further to argue about.

176. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #104907 by AtheistJon on December 29, 2007 at 11:45 pm

It wasn't really the blow-job itself which raised my ire... it was the lies (denial for months before finally admitting it), the perjury, the subornation of perjury, the obstruction of justice, the hypocrisy of the feminists in not condemning him just because he's a democrat, the revelations by Kathleen Willey, the attempt to destroy people like her (and BTW also "that woman" Ms. Lewinsky during the early days), the vast right-wing conspiracy theory, the visitations to the White House of Rev. Jesse Jackson together with pregnant girlfriend, the revelations of rape of Juanita Broderick which were never thoroughly investigated.

If you read the Biography of Bill Clinton by Dave Maranis, you'll also find that Clinton's own biological father was a, I guess the word is, polygamist, or scam artist who married and impregnated a string of women and then left to the next woman. No, it wasn't just the BJ which was infuriating about the Clintons.

Then there was the Whitewater scandal, the Rose lawfirm scandal, the Susan McDougal scandal, the Chinese nuclear spying scandal, the last minute pardons scandal, the trashing the White House scandal. Need I continue?

On a related theme, anybody read Hitchen's work on the subject? I still haven't read No One Left to Lie To, but I will if it's any good. He has a great series of fraud exposure going... Mother Theresa, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton. Maybe Princess Di as the next target?


What a corrupt administration.

177. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #104901 by AtheistJon on December 29, 2007 at 11:06 pm

Yes, I'm happy to have missed living in the US for the latter 5 years during those oh so wonderful days. Let's not go there, because Clinton had nothing to do with the budget surplusses... Or if you count the fact that Congress remained in gridlock throughout those years, seems they failed to spend enough to keep up. Or do you seriously believe it was the result of the law which Clinton signed mandating his new tax hikes to go towards paying down the debt?

At least you can't blame Bush for stopping traffic at LAX so that he can have a Beverly Hills hairdresser give him a hair-cut.

Guliani for President '08!

178. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #104896 by AtheistJon on December 29, 2007 at 10:45 pm

You'd be better off today if the Republicans had lost the election eight years ago.

No, but we would have been better off if Ross Perot had defeated Bill Clinton, back in '92.

179. Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Comment #104892 by AtheistJon on December 29, 2007 at 10:40 pm

True. I thought the Giants were gonna pull it off, too... should've known better.

I don't have very high hopes for the Steeler's playoff run this year. Oh well...

180. Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Comment #104884 by AtheistJon on December 29, 2007 at 10:19 pm

Steve,

Just out of curiosity, since you seem to have the background on this issue. How many molecules (moles?) of DNA does a typical bacteria have in it? RNA? How long would it take to synthesize a single programmed RNA strand? I'm just trying to do a order of magnitude estimate on how long it would take to synthesize a bacteria (let alone something more complicated),

Also, how would one handle other practical things like synthesizing cell membranes, ribosomes, endoplasmic reticuli, golgi apparati, mitochondria, lysosomes? Is it enough to make just the DNA or RNA molecule?

Be gentle with me, since it's been years since I studied biology.

181. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #104870 by AtheistJon on December 29, 2007 at 8:46 pm

Don't be so masochistic Cruc...

British Broadcasting company had plenty of scandals relating to faked footage, phony shows:

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/London_48/BBC_engulfed_in_fake_footage_scandal.asp

So, it's not so wonderful if you look beyond this single interview. Anyway, you can objectively measure what country produces the best shows by looking at the % of shows, eg. here in Finland, that are imported from the US.

Check this out:
http://www.telkku.com/?ks=0

In case you can't make out the show names because of all the Finnish, I would say more than 50% of the programs on these (the main Finnish tv channels) are US (I only see 1 British show). So, US is at least more interesting to Finnish viewers, by far.

Also, the news is very left leaning here (even more so than in the US, if that's possible) at least here in Finland. In Britain, I think it's more driven by scandal-mongering topics. Stuff about the Royal family, Madelein McCann, etc... sometimes it drives you nuts. But, I'll grant you that there are some good shows on BBC like 'Hardtalk' and the 'Have Your Say' show.

182. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #104846 by AtheistJon on December 29, 2007 at 4:34 pm

The highlight of the show was when the ignorant guy from Poland (sounded like he was African) asked what RD would do if, when he dies, he found out there was a god. RD's answer was perfect. i.e. he'd ask, "Which God are you?".

That was a wonderful example of confronting an idiot of the world with a perfect retort. The reaction was tremendous confusion. He also ignored RD's comeback question, "What would you do if you died and found out that there was Baal?" Once, I would like to see a religious blindman, say something like, "Oh yeah, I see your point." Instead, they either take it as an insult, or start speaking in blitherish, as in this case.

Yes, the same questions get asked over and over. Or to be more accurate, they are stuck with the same answers. Rather than questions with no answers, the religious prefer answers with no questions. At least they won't answer your questions, especially if they are good ones like RD's. But, as Hitchen's would say, why should you expect them to change? They've been using the same stale ideas for several thousand years.

183. Carl Sagan's COSMOS begins airing on Jan 8th

Comment #104794 by AtheistJon on December 29, 2007 at 12:55 pm

I have to admit to also being one of those who caught the science bug from Carl back in 1984. I have to also give credit to my junior high science teacher who made us watch several episodes... Otherwise, I wouldn't have known about it since my family has a non-scientific and religious background. I guess the impressive thing to me isn't how long the list is, but how impressive are the names on that list (well, other than mine, that is). I think Carl succeeded in his objective.

I think Simon Singh must have been on that list, too, as he has a dedication to Carl in The Big Bang. If there were a Cosmos II, it should include the fascinating discussion that Singh wrote about the discovery of the cosmic background radiation and the competing cosmological theories of the Big Bang universe vs Fred Hoyle's eternal static universe. In the Cosmos update (the one at the end of The Lives of the Stars, Carl actually touched on the Kobe satellite which provided the proof of the lumpiness of the CBR. The other fascinating topic from this book that should go in Cosmos 2 is the subject of how astronomers actually figured out the distances to far away stars and galaxies... Carl never touched that subject in Cosmos. Also, the use of the anthropic principle, by Fred Hoyle, on the question of how 3 He (Helium) nuclei can fuse together to make Carbon, and hence the accounting of all other matter (other than Hydrogon) as the byproduct of fusion within stars. Also, Singh gives a much better/fuller account of Edwin Hubble's discovery of the Big Bang based on galactic red shift... i.e. not just focusing on the efforts of Humason.

Anyway, for those of you who are fans of Cosmos, but haven't read Simon Singh's Big Bang... you don't know what you are missing! Hate to say it on the Dawkins website, but it was far more interesting than The God Delusion, which is a good genre of book, but maybe too focused on the unfortunate problem of dealing with idiotic religious ideas rather than moving forward with the really big questions in science.

By the way, the regular Discovery channel also has another good show which is about FBI investigations (not sure what the English title for this show is). Real crime investigations are far more interesting to watch than the flood of crime fiction that floods prime time and pop movies. Nevertheless, I agree with your assessment of Discovery programs... how many episodes of American hot rod and chopper shows can one stand to watch?

184. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #104787 by AtheistJon on December 29, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Don't worry, in Europe they have religious TV shows on tv, too. America isn't the only place where you have to suffer through it. And come to think of it, most of the good programs also come out of the US, too. I've never seen Cosmos broadcast here in Finland. Dawkins interviews on BBC are pretty few and far between... I was lucky to have been tuned to the show then... tried calling in to ask a question, but it seems they only wanted to have questions from the religious. I don't know why... I'd much rather see Dawkins answering a question from a fellow atheist rather than an air head priest.

Perhaps he just needs regular debate practice to keep sharp?

185. Carl Sagan's COSMOS begins airing on Jan 8th

Comment #104370 by AtheistJon on December 28, 2007 at 11:41 am

I wish somebody in today's world would do an up-to-date Cosmos. There's a lot of new info in the Cosmos updates, 10 years later, and that was way back in early 90s. Would be fun to see a Cosmos II series, hosted eg. by the four-horseman, and maybe written by Simon Singh...

If anybody has some video links of "Desert Island Discs", I would like to see it. I have put some videos on YouTube which are related to Cosmos. The series, Mechanical Universe (1985), for example, re-used some of the Cosmos footage:

Link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SxKLP4SG1c

Also added a Charlie Rose video interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU192A1Oz4k

By the way, there are lots of excerpts from Cosmos on YouTube, so you don't have to wait until January 8th.

186. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104355 by AtheistJon on December 28, 2007 at 11:11 am

I can tell that you aren't speaking like an Egyptian. Most of my Arabic comes from my Dad, Uncles and Grandparents who lived in Cairo for many years. By the way, you will laugh when you hear what the "business in Egypt" of my Grandfather was... He was a Presbyterian missionary. See how much I adhere to party lines ;-) I try to avoid the topic of religion when I am home visiting, but he's not totally unreasonable. Presbyterians, especially in a place like Egypt, tend to focus on practical things like education, and a lot less on the religion. But I have had to sit through my share of sermons, which I have learned from early on to question...

Anyway, one difference in your Arabic is the word "here", they say "hina" in Egypt. I have been learning a little bit of Arabic nowadays, since my Dad got this job in Iraq. However, my main foreign languages are Finnish and German, in both of which I am fluent and use them in my work.

With classical Arabic you will have an edge over my father who had to relearn everything since there is a lot of colloquial Iraq dialect. Have you ever considered getting a job with, eg. Titan? They pay very well, and as I said, there ain't that many Americans who can speak Arabic. And it's a good cause, at least IMO ;-)

I still can't believe a rational guy like you would support an immediate withdrawal. Don't you think that would be disastrous thing to do?

187. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104329 by AtheistJon on December 28, 2007 at 10:37 am

I studied Arabic and Middle Eastern Studies (theology and philosophy of Islam) in college.

I always feel bad that I didn't learn to speak Arabic fluently when I lived in Saudi (but then again I was only 8 years old, and only lived there for a year). But anyway, I'm just curious, to flesh out your story if you'll indulge me... are you ethnically an American or other? It is rare to find Americans like my Dad who are white but speak very fluent Arabic. Ana bekelim Arabie Zayiz Zift ;-) Ana min Amriikka wa ana aish fil Finlandi. Abuya min Masr (born in Tanta) wa Giddiya min Pennsylvania.

188. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104324 by AtheistJon on December 28, 2007 at 10:28 am

By the way, as an opponent of the US and the war, I wonder what your current position is. In other words what should happen?

Do you consider the work that my Dad is doing helping translate for the US military an immoral activity?

Recently he did work translating for General Patraeus when he met with Sheikh Ahmad Bajee Faeikhan Abu Risha. One of many excerpts from this interview (I can give you the full transcript if you want it), I find to be an example of the noble intentions of the US forces there:

The general: One final thing I would like you to help me with, and that is the repair of four electrical towers between Haditha and Western Baghdad damaged by the terrorists. We want to connect these lines with the main power grid, and by that the city of Ramadi will benefit from this service.

The sheikh: Give me the location exactly, and we will do our best to repair these towers.

189. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104315 by AtheistJon on December 28, 2007 at 10:14 am

Al rawandi, before getting into this discussion any deeper. I'm really curious to know how it is you met the Bin Ladens. You don't have to tell the story if you don't want, but I think it would be quite fascinating to hear. More interesting than engaging in a debate, for that matter, since, as I admitted, I am no expert, so would rely on other sources, like Hitch, etc... to engage you on those.

190. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104305 by AtheistJon on December 28, 2007 at 10:00 am

Ok, glad to see some reasonableness about conspiracies, etc... on that we are agreed. By the way, I'm curious to hear how it is that you know the Bin Ladens??? Could be a fairly interesting story.

Ok, if you want to argue about Iraq, let's take your point 1) The evidence used for the war would not have been made up.

I am extremely leery of this point. To me, after seeing the documentary I referred to, Joe Wilson, the guy who "refuted" the evidence of Saddam trying to acquire uranium in Niger was a less than objective source who, when his story was checked out turned out to only have ever gone to Niger and sipped sweet tea with a bunch of Niger head honchos. How is that supposed to repudiate George Bush's evidence for the war? For that matter, which evidence, exactly, do you claim that the Bush admin "made up"?

191. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104299 by AtheistJon on December 28, 2007 at 9:44 am

Calm down al rawandi. I wasn't trying to insult you... Iraq has far more voices like Michael Moore and his ilk than rational people like Hitch, so it struck me that you were siding with Michael Moore. But you say you disdain him. I think if you asked him about your list of 7, Michael Moore would agree with all 7... so tell me where you guys differ?

192. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104297 by AtheistJon on December 28, 2007 at 9:39 am

I really don't know what the political distribution among atheists is. Would be interesting to see a survey, broken down on issues of a large group of atheists to see what we really believe. Something like this:

Isssue | Favor Republicans or Democrats or Neither
--------------------------------------------------
Abortion |
Iraq |
Taxes |
etc...

Maybe such surveys have been done already. Anybody ever heard of this?

Anyway, as I said before, I appreciate people who can cross party lines in their politics. I have the feeling that atheists tend to be generally more left, but still are more likely than other groups to cross the party lines. But without data the samples of left and right on this blog are all anecdotal examples.

The only thing you said that is true is that you aren't an expert on Iraq.

I know enough to give my opinion. So, I assume you are claiming expertise here? If so, I'd rather prefer seeing a single clear and un-Michael Moorelike reason why "the war against Saddam is illegit".

193. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104286 by AtheistJon on December 28, 2007 at 9:17 am

Al-Rawandi, If you haven't seen the documentary called "Confronting Iraq, Conflict and Hope", which features an interview with Hitchens and others, I would highly recommend it if your only source of information is the Michael Moore / George Galoway side of the debate. To be honest, I'm not an expert in Iraq, though my Uncle and Dad have both spent considerable time there (and though I myself have lived in Saudi Arabia). But, what you are saying strikes me of ignorant Michael Moorish like statements.

194. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104272 by AtheistJon on December 28, 2007 at 8:54 am

phil rimmer, this post seems to me to be leading to more of the same kind of ad hominem's that have taken too much of my time, to be frank. BTW, I didn't see anybody apologize to me for blantantly trying to offend me. This strikes me of more of the same, "you're really a closet homo, so therefore you claim to be disgusted by it." Bullshit. When it comes to sex, I like women. On Kinsey's scale of 0-6, I'd say I'm a 0. Just don't have any attraction whatsoever to penises. And I don't think an atheist forum is the best place for me to psychoanalyze my own sex life, thank you very much. If others would like their own sex lives to be an open book for an atheist forum, feel free. I prefer privacy on my own personal sex life.

195. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104070 by AtheistJon on December 27, 2007 at 6:22 pm

Steve, well, now I think we know each other better. Anyway, do you think that your views are an exception among gays?

As I said, I like Hitchensists. Gay or straight, doesn't matter! So, happy to know you. I agree with you about Iraq, too. It's quite complicated... I love watching Hitch talk about the subject as he is a lot more knowledgable than most pundits of politics (and me). He has spent time in the area and understands the politics very well. Did you ever see his debate with Scott Ritter?

By the way, I have a personal interest in Iraq, too, as my Dad is working there as an interpreter. I consider his work there to be a good thing, and I'm proud of him regardless of all the politics that surrounds the issue. I happen to think that Bush was correct to invade Iraq.

Dr. Benway, I can think of a better perjorative to lob against leftists than "fags". I'd use the insult "Clintonian".

By the way, what do y'all think of the assassination of Bhutto?

196. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104068 by AtheistJon on December 27, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Robotaholic, is it a matter of stereotyping to say "gays tend to be politically leftist"? It's a straightforward assertion... could be false, but is it?

I want to just say that I admire people who hold cross party views (go figure, I'm one of them), regardless of the sexual orientation. So, if you're gay and libertarian or similar, I'm happy to know you.

Christopher Hitchens is a fine example. I would have said Ayn Rand is also a good example, since most Republican's are not generally atheists. Just out of curiosity, is there a term for conservative atheists? Liberal atheists?

197. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104061 by AtheistJon on December 27, 2007 at 5:56 pm

unless one avoids linking "homosexual" with a political group one despises (e.g., "leftists"), one will likely convey a political intention.

To me, the political link comes in argumentation (not in the mere statement of one's feelings). Now when it comes to arguing, don't people tend to lump "gayness" as a leftist issue? I would be happy if that were not the case, because I'd prefer to have more let's say "Hitchenists" (I don't consider myself conservative or Republican, and since Rand seems to be politcally incorrect on this blog, let me link myself to Hitch). I think it's apparent that I was villified on this site, by some who had knee jerk (I would say) leftist reactions, of people assuming lots of views (i.e. all the baggage that comes with the Republican agenda) that I actually don't have. I'm actually willing to hold cross party views, and I wish gay people would, also, rather than just towing the (left) party line.

What the heck are you talking about regarding Hobbits and pods?

198. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104053 by AtheistJon on December 27, 2007 at 5:36 pm

I have met gay people who declared in public how heterosexual sex was disgusting. I reprimanded them too!

I wouldn't have reprimanded them. Isn't it their own perogative to have this feeling? It seems to me that having such a feeling is devoid of a moral element. It's the acting on those feelings that is the key here.

To continue your point about Rand. Did she ever act on her homophobia/anti-feminism? Maybe she did... in which case I wouldn't be a fan of that.

even saying what you feel is an act.

Only in a world of spin. No, maybe it is an act, but not much of one... especially when saying what you feel is in response to a question.

199. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104045 by AtheistJon on December 27, 2007 at 5:19 pm

There is all the difference between attempting to explain that one finds views wrong or offensive, and trying to police thoughts. Thoughts should be changed by persuasion, not compulsion.

Steve, Is finding gay sex gross actually a "view" to be declared wrong or offensive? I don't understand how you can declare it a view? In other words, it's not an opinion, is it?

200. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104042 by AtheistJon on December 27, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Steve,

I have to apologize to you more than to others, since you were the worst hit by my angry words.

Just one follow-up (you should also reread my post, since I updated it post-facto). Do you consider necking affection? I would be more inclined to call it pre-sex. If there were guys who were simply holding hands or hugging, or a quick kiss, I'd consider that affection, and wouldn't have a major concern with that. But I'm talking sex here.

To answer your hypothetical question about a gay son. I would love my son, no matter what his choices in life turn out to be. Including if he would become gay or for that matter religious. These are not my preferences for him, so I can't deny that I would be a tad disappointed, but that's not to say I would ever stop loving him in any way. I don't think he would be upset with me for shielding him, because I really feel I am encouraging him in his life to be a successful person. That's not to say you couldn't be gay and still be successful... perhaps there's also a selfish interest on my part of how I would like my family's fate to look like (i.e. grandkids, etc...).