151. Council pays psychic for exorcism

Comment #126501 by Spinoza on February 13, 2008 at 11:25 am

I've never been able to understand how people can utter/believe blatant contradictions like "the poltergeist was bombarding them" or "the poltergeist was contained in the room"...

That's a fucking CONTRADICTION IN TERMS... a poltergeist is BY DEFINITION non-spatiomaterial. That is, not made out of STUFF, and NOT IN SPACE.

Fine, as Kant put it, space and time are our forms of intuition - the only way we can know the world around us... that ENTAILS though, that one or the other of the claims has to go out the window. EITHER poltergeists really ARE spatiomaterial, in which case, they are natural, not supernatural (this is obviously false) OR no one REALLY experiences them, or anything related to them (this is obviously true).

So tired of unthinking bullshit... it just never ends does it?

152. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #122598 by Spinoza on February 5, 2008 at 2:48 pm

I love when Hitchens mentions Spinoza.

His interlocutors don't even know who that is!

Ha~! (and you'll catch Mr. Jackson's explicit ignorance of Spinoza... who THEN SAYS HE WENT TO GRAD SCHOOL FOR PHILOSOPHY. What a moron.)

153. Dusty Clues: Study suggests no dearth of Earths

Comment #122181 by Spinoza on February 4, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Life is everywhere

154. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

Comment #120356 by Spinoza on February 1, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Gilbert Ryle's seminal "The Concept of Mind" (1949) debunked this view [Ghost in the Machine] 59 years ago :)

(and technically, Spinoza debunked it 350 years ago... but no one listened to him).

Good stuff PZ!!!

155. Dawkins is third most prolific internet Briton

Comment #117675 by Spinoza on January 29, 2008 at 11:08 am

Imogen Heap is a singer/musician (originally in the group "Frou Frou") who has this really neat track on Youtube where she creates all these layers with her own vocals... called "Just For Now"... That's probably where she gets #1 on that list from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSIbfzK2spg

156. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117480 by Spinoza on January 28, 2008 at 11:30 pm

I am SOOOOO not REALLY a pantheist!

157. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117467 by Spinoza on January 28, 2008 at 10:49 pm

To be perfectly honest, the point about "atheists" turning to neo-paganism and superstition is a fair point... not about ALL atheists, but about the kind that "convert" or view atheism as a cause... the ones who don't care about it, intellectually speaking...

I know SO MANY people who say "I don't believe in organized religion, but I do believe in a higher power, but I don't know what it is... Gaia, or Nature... whatever." ... which annoys the hell out of me, because they're just not thinking clearly enough... but of course, we can't expect the majority of people to be capable of the sufficient amount of thought required for intelligent ANYTHING...

Such is the world we live in...

Ah well, I remember when I first showed up here and I said that I really did wish that Atheism were still an Ivory Tower, academic, esoteric phenomenon... one that could afford to be righteous because it was so well thought out and well argued...

I admire the sentiment of the whole movement to get people to own up to their atheism... I mean, I really do agree with it, I do think a lot of people are just afraid to say it out loud or in public...

But it really does scare and annoy me that with larger numbers, atheism will inevitably have to deal with a lack of intellectual rigour amongst the majority its proponents.

And most don't seem to care (of course, why would they?!)

... you can lambaste me for this post... but I think it always needs to be said...

158. Vatican slams California firm's cloning experiments

Comment #114051 by Spinoza on January 21, 2008 at 9:24 am

I don't get it...

159. Honour Killings

Comment #113694 by Spinoza on January 20, 2008 at 10:49 am

There are hundreds of state schools where Muslims are in majority. Such schools may be handed over to Muslim educational Trusts or charities for their management.

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

Comment #109786 by Spinoza on January 9, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Just going to clear something up. Someone said mathematics is "a formal system based on logic".

Which isn't exactly true.

Logicism failed (at least in part because of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem... if I recall my philosophy of mathematics lectures correctly).

In any case, mathematics certainly involves logic, but it is, at least, apparently, impossible to reduce all of mathematics to logic.

161. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108037 by Spinoza on January 5, 2008 at 9:47 pm

There's only one good reason to be an atheist.

1. Because it's true.


*the upshot of this is that if it turned out atheism were false, there would be no good reason to be atheist... even if there were good 'pragmatic' reasons for "acting atheist".

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

Comment #105614 by Spinoza on January 1, 2008 at 8:41 am

John, well sure they could try that, but we didn't teach kids Zahavi's Handicap Principle (I'm pretty sure they don't teach it now either) until it was proven...

And since ID isn't even a scientific theory, it's not scepticism, but blunt obviousness that allows us to rule it out.

163. Submission, 'Part 1'

Comment #105205 by Spinoza on December 30, 2007 at 10:05 pm

AtheistJon, your dad was exaggerating about the bucket and cane.

The first paragraph is true though, and disgusting.

164. For the Love of Christ

Comment #101716 by Spinoza on December 20, 2007 at 8:08 pm

I'd either break that guy's confidence in 5 minutes, or he'd just ignore me.

165. This Week's Flea

Comment #100515 by Spinoza on December 18, 2007 at 7:17 pm

the_blur, unfortunately Dennett's book, the best of the bunch, is also the most intellectually demanding, and has sold the least copies.

Ergo, the fleas are incapable (intellectually speaking) of providing a response to him (it would require them to be able to understand the book).

166. Jumbo shrimp, creationist astronomy

Comment #99208 by Spinoza on December 15, 2007 at 11:50 pm

I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much dumber for having actually watched that.

This is aggravating, not so much because it's ignorance... but because these people DON'T GIVE A SHIT!

If it were mere ignorance, at least one could argue that they could be given some basic astronomy lessons.

167. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #98926 by Spinoza on December 14, 2007 at 11:14 pm

It is interesting to note the STARK difference between these four men and the majority of their "followers"... on this website and youtube at least.

168. People who've experienced God KNOW that God exists

Comment #98493 by Spinoza on December 13, 2007 at 6:56 pm

3PD > 1PD

QED

169. If you don't have religion, where do you find your sense of community?

Comment #98489 by Spinoza on December 13, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Atheists are loners.

170. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #98477 by Spinoza on December 13, 2007 at 5:54 pm

At this point it's a combo philosophy/neuroscience question.

And it's not looking good for libertarian/incompatiblist free will.

That is, my namesake, Spinoza, was probably right when he said it thusly:

"In the mind there is no absolute, or free will. The mind is determined to this or that volition by a cause, which is likewise determined by another cause, and this again by another, and so ad infinitum."

:)

171. What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

Comment #98470 by Spinoza on December 13, 2007 at 5:23 pm

I am a duck with four wooden legs.

Don't believe me?

Yeah, well I don't believe in your God, so we're even.

The evidence for my amputee mutant talking typing duck status is actually higher than for religious beliefs anyway. hehe

172. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #97952 by Spinoza on December 12, 2007 at 9:44 pm

In a nutshell i honestly feel that my sexual pleasure is reduced by circumcision and that fucks me off as we only live once.

173. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #97950 by Spinoza on December 12, 2007 at 9:42 pm

Comment #47:

If I had a kid and decided I didn't like its earlobes, I doubt I would be able to find a surgeon willing to remove them for me.

174. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97317 by Spinoza on December 11, 2007 at 9:55 pm

Damien, Judaism requires it too (generally practiced in Orthodox only, but try and figure out how many Jewish women wear wigs... I bet you wouldn't even know had I not just told you!), and Christianity used to.

Only recently has Christianity stopped with the modesty of dress requirement.

ALL religions have misogyny and anti-sexual elements.

It just happens to be that Islam is the largest one left that has the most of those two elements still left in practice.

It is that old xenophobic 'rag-head' (or in this case, 'bag-head') sort of talk that makes me angry at my fellow atheists.

It isn't that they require a 'bag' to be worn on their heads, the women wear head-scarves because it's the traditional way to meet the requirement for modesty (hijab). Some sects go further, but in the Quran it is not mandated that women be forced to wear anything... it just says that women should dress modestly... whatever that means.

As Janus pointed out, there is a significant 'Arabization' that occurred in Islam, and has resulted in a lingering tribal mentality and a really piss-poor morality.

175. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97072 by Spinoza on December 11, 2007 at 11:08 am

Err... well... it is certainly true that there is more to "religion" than belief... Any atheist who denies that is lying to themselves... or is just an idiot...

One of the reasons religions are so pervasive is that they encompass culture and nationalism and law AS WELL AS resting on a foundation of supernaturalism.

But that foundation is not the religion itself, that foundation is God-belief (or theism).

We atheists need to quit making the same error the religious are making.

When we criticize RELIGION, we need to focus only on religion. When we criticize god-belief/theism, we can safely ignore religion and abstract away from it.

They are two separate issues.

Other than that though, this article is quite stupid.

176. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96758 by Spinoza on December 10, 2007 at 9:58 pm

Perhaps some atheists should be quiet lest they make themselves look like idiots?

177. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96755 by Spinoza on December 10, 2007 at 9:56 pm

Diacanu, what exactly is it that is making you so terse?

178. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96749 by Spinoza on December 10, 2007 at 9:52 pm

Someone hasn't read their Freud.

Lol. (cf. "Oceanic Feeling")

In any case... Diacauu... Your point is moot, since it doesn't really matter whether people are born with tendencies to deify or with innate supernatural leanings... they'd still be false beliefs even if everybody had them.

179. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96743 by Spinoza on December 10, 2007 at 9:45 pm

I would add that we are at least CLEARLY born A-religious.

The born-atheism argument is tougher, since it is, in all likelihood, the childish notion of attributing spirit where there isn't any (imaginary friends, animated inanimate objects, etcetera) that lead to God-belief in the first place.

So one might say we are all born without religion but with a naive "god-belief"... it just so happens that that little gem of evolutionary trickery develops into a lot of arbitrary and false beliefs...

180. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96740 by Spinoza on December 10, 2007 at 9:43 pm

The Burden of Proof is on the promulgator of a theory, not on the denier of it.

181. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96565 by Spinoza on December 10, 2007 at 5:57 pm

God not existing has nothing to do with religion.

Q.E.D.

182. ...and another FLEA...

Comment #96518 by Spinoza on December 10, 2007 at 4:57 pm

HA! I just realized... this stuff is like Fan-Fiction for Atheism Books...

Inspired by it, but with far poorer skill!

Now if only they'd do an MPreg version... ahahah.

:|

183. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96062 by Spinoza on December 9, 2007 at 10:52 pm

Is it just me, or are those guys who use weights and stuff to try and create a new foreskin FUCKING INSANE?

That shit is even weirder than circumcision is in the first place!

... oh, and as for the "getting there"... that was my point, it can be seen as beneficial, in that uncircumcised men might "get there" too quickly.

184. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96049 by Spinoza on December 9, 2007 at 9:47 pm

GSP, your last statement is not really based on any evidence.

The original motivations for circumcision are crazy, yes... (it has always been amusing to think of how it must have come about...)

However, to say that it's automatically a negative is a bit odd...

Seems to me that the data says that circumcised orgasms are just as intense as non-circumcised...

Not only that, but one could make the case that circumcision allows one to last longer in bed...

It's a tough question, certainly...

I probably won't circumcise my kid(s)...

185. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #94001 by Spinoza on December 4, 2007 at 3:05 pm

In accordance with the rules of Islam, Muslims are required to pray five times a day.

186. Chimps beat humans in memory test

Comment #93684 by Spinoza on December 3, 2007 at 10:52 pm

That is an incredibly idiotic statement JanChan.

The Burqa isn't even a "Muslim" garment... it is an interpretation of the command to dress modestly in the Quran. The Quran itself doesn't mention the Burqa at all... it's more a product of patriarchal control of women than anything.

And second of all, MANY Muslim women in the west DON'T wear burqas (neither do most of them in Turkey or Lebanon or other non-Islamic states with majority Muslim populations...).

Thirdly, many Jewish and Christian (orthodox) women often wear wigs or head-scarves in public JUST AS many Muslim women do... this is a more lax form of the call for modest dress... and it has a long tradition in ALL the Abrahamic religions.

Fourthly, it's none of your damn business what they wear. Just as women in the West can choose to wear halter-tops and mini-skirts without being harassed, so too can Muslim women choose to dress modestly.

Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with what religious people WEAR.

For fuck's sake.

187. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #93653 by Spinoza on December 3, 2007 at 8:24 pm

So far it's boring me... ugh

188. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93171 by Spinoza on December 2, 2007 at 11:10 am

Ya know, such an article wouldn't bother me in the slightest, if it weren't totally ignorant of the history of religious criticism.

The same irrationality and writing off of criticism has been going on for hundreds of years in academic form.

People need to go back and read the letters that were written and the articles that were published during the Atheism controversy of the late 1700s (in the wake of a revival of Spinozism).

That and the earlier controversies over Spinoza's philosophy when he first wrote it.

See: http://www.bookrags.com/research/atheismusstreit-eoph/

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fichtejg.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism_controversy

http://home.earthlink.net/~tneff/let7476.htm#TOP

Etc.

189. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93008 by Spinoza on December 2, 2007 at 12:01 am

Denevius, what? That's exactly the same as saying "Women can complain all they want, but non-suffrage is here to stay as long as women are emotional and non-rational."

Surely that is not what you meant to say.

I think you meant to say something else, and I think you may be right... What you seem to have meant is that the majority of people on earth are too stupid to think for themselves, or do the intellectual leg-work to come to the realizations that intellectual atheists have come to...

But I think it's scarier than that...

... I also think we need to TRY our damnedest (no pun intended), to BRING THE FACTS to people, and to try and lift them up out of their "dogmatic slumber" as Hume did to Kant... and as public education has improved the intelligence of enormous numbers... so too could continued (and length) criticism of religion (which began the instant religions were created) bring more and more people to the truth.

And there is much value in that.

190. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92994 by Spinoza on December 1, 2007 at 10:52 pm

... This is the most idiotic display of sophistry I have ever seen.

The loudest too.

I want to debate Dinesh.

I would destroy him.

191. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92738 by Spinoza on December 1, 2007 at 11:23 am

I wonder what people here think of Dennett's proposition that we should teach world religion.

192. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92597 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 9:39 pm

Christ, how I dislike Christianity.

193. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92595 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 9:22 pm

Yes, I was glad to see him make that point about Einstein (one that I make ALL THE TIME, seeing as how Einstein was as big a fan of Spinoza as I am, if not bigger...).

I have recently begun to try and develop a position explaining why Pantheism, at least in the Spinozistic or monistic naturalist sense, is effectively equivalent to atheism, and differs only with respect to the use of that one little 3-letter epithet. The one that makes people think Einstein was a theist.

Careful reading of many seemingly theistic philosophers of the early modern period often reveals a calculated and extremely effective means of undermining the orthodoxy... whilst simultaneously SEEMING to retain non-heterodox language.

That is "Spinoza: The God-intoxicated atheist."

Or Hobbes, who was clearly a materialist, atheist, who mentions God many times over in Leviathan... (for obvious reasons).

I have often thought that a great way to destroy "religion" (as it has been hitherto practiced for the most part) would be to simply usurp and redefine the word "God", as Spinoza's God... and to redefine "pious" in Spinoza's terms... as love of "God" (meaning nature).

In such terms, Prof. Dawkins (as I'm sure he knows) is one of the most pious men alive. (as are all we men of the mind who live by knowledge or rationalism).

... which is why I come down so hard on the apparently anti-intellectual side of the "new atheism" movement...

It does matter WHY people believe what they believe, insofar as rationality requires it of you.

194. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92588 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 8:47 pm

I like this guy. And I'm one of the biggest critics of my fellow atheists.

... really well-spoken.

Whoever thinks he's crude is just using the word wrongly.

He is being RUDE, but not unjustifiably :)

195. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92539 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Quine, yes, but lets be CLEAR. Con men make their business in ambiguity and ignorance (of Sinn and Bedeutung).

Philosophers make their business doing just the opposite, in the Aufklärung and Abklärung of words.

196. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92538 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 6:09 pm

A good friend of mine (a Palestinian by origin) who grew up in Saudi Arabia will point out that many Muslims do not care about lying to kafirs... they will utter blatant contradictions, and think nothing of it.

... I'm no racist, quite the contrary, but Ed Husain... though I cannot see him, gives off a sense of insincerity about him... that sort of "I know Islam so I can tell you whatever I want about it and you have to believe me."

Don't like it....

197. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92529 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 5:42 pm

What the hell. :|

He did it again.

EPISTEMOLOGY IS THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE, NOT ONTOLOGY!!!

... good reasons to keep philosophers around :)

We don't play GAMES with words.

'Words' is serious business.

198. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92524 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 5:31 pm

Gregg messed up the meaning of 'epistemological'.

He meant 'metaphysical'.

"Why are we here?" is NOT an epistemological question, Mr. Gregg. Go back to PHL101 please.

199. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92521 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 5:21 pm

I have a sneaking suspicion that about 30-80% of Americans like fucking with polls.

200. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92456 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Atheism could be regarded by some as a "type of moralism", particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries, to protest against the injustices of the world and world history, he said.