2301. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164889 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 7:55 pm

Well I am not a biologist so I don't have a definitive opinion on this, but I often wonder whether the contention that evolution only operates on the gene level is hard established science or just a particularly influential dogma.

I have the feeling that it is one of those things like some cosmological models, which the science itself is not really that definitive about despite the strongly held opinions of advocates.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia on group selection.

In recent years, the limitations of earlier models have been addressed, and newer models suggest that selection may sometimes act above the gene level. Recently David Sloan Wilson and Elliot Sober have argued that the case against group selection has been overstated. They focus their argument on whether groups can have functional organization in the same way individuals do and, consequently, if groups can also be "vehicles" for selection. For example, groups that cooperate better may have out-reproduced those which did not. Resurrected in this way, Wilson & Sober's new group selection is usually called multilevel selection theory.[11]

Although Richard Dawkins and fellow advocates of the gene-centered view of evolution remain unconvinced (see, for example, [12][13][14]), Wilson & Sober's work has been part of a broad revival of interest in multilevel selection as an explanation for evolutionary phenomena. Indeed, in a 2005 article[15], E. O. Wilson (often regarded as the father of sociobiology) argued that kin selection could no longer be thought of as underlying the evolution of extreme sociality, for two reasons. First, some authors have shown that the argument that haplodiploid inheritance, characteristic of the Hymenoptera, creates a strong selection pressure towards nonreproductive castes is mathematically flawed (e.g. [16]). Secondly, eusociality no longer seems to be confined to the hymenopterans; increasing numbers of highly social taxa have been found in the years since Wilson's foundational text on sociobiology was published in 1975[10], including a variety of insect species, as well as a rodent species (the naked mole rat)

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

2302. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164881 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Do you forget the great wisdom from Conan, when he was asked what is best in life?
"To crush your enemies before you,
to see them driven before you,
and to hear the lamentation of their women.

Sounds like Biblical value rather than evolution.

2303. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164862 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 7:01 pm

I am more of an artsy type when it comes to movies. Never much like action flicks. :)

2304. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164856 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 6:55 pm

It would be like the character in a movie being able to travel outside the screen.

I remember there is a Woody Allen movie like that. I think it is called the purple rose of Cairo or something like that. Watched it on TV.

2305. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164850 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 6:44 pm

I wonder where did Karda gets his ideas from (the voice?) and be so damn sure about it, but at least it is more entertaining than conventional Christianity.I will give him a star for originality and good sci-fi plot, I don't believe in that, but it sounds cool. I don't believe in reincarnation either, but it is also a cool idea. One life is not enough..(I don't mean only duration, but just being one person..)

2306. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164438 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 8:56 am

So, again, my point was: what has it to do with science? Why is Dawkins making this his life work -- instead of devoting himself to biological research?

What does it have to do with the points he made?

Dawkins' job description is to promote public understanding of science, which is very broad mandate, but it doesn't include doing active
research.

Dawkins has earned his reputation as a scientist and generally regarded as a senior statesman of science but no longer doing active research. He is perfect for the job of promoting science and rational thinking to the public. Science is not just cool facts and gadgets, it is also a way of thinking and knowing which insists on evidence and rationality. Religion represents the opposite of it, especially in its fundamentalist forms, Dawkins does a great job for his mandate.

2307. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164395 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 7:38 am

Religion ascribes false authority and makes abuse of power that much more possible.

Come now. Do you think this guy derived his authority from religion? "God said thou shalt lay with thy local school principle if it is a Christian school.." I just don't see it happened like that. He offered to bend the rule in exchange for a sexual bribe, it is as simple as that.

2308. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164391 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 7:24 am

Taking your PZ example - we don't have his whole blog replicated here do we?

Thankfully we don't.

IMHO PZ is hardly an example of outstanding journalism. Some times he comes off like a hack.

I also wonder how someone who is supposed to be doing active research and teaching has so much time for his blog and extra curricula atheistic activism. It is not that I think these activities are not valuable, but I just want to know his secret so I can organize my time better.

2309. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164382 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 6:58 am

PBUM

With or without this article this site is doing a marvellous job of #1, but a fucking terrible job of #2, in my opinion.

I don't see how a story like this promotes #2. It shouldn't if people are rational about why they reject religion. The same kind of abuse could have (and has) happened in secular settings, and just because the guy has a job in a religious school it doesn't follow that his behaviour is inspired by his religion. It certainly discredits the school in question, but nothing much more.

2310. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164348 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 5:24 am

Steve,

I think I am perhaps trying to be optimistic. Stupidity isn't curable, whereas ignorance may be.

Well, that may have the unintended effect of encouraging someone to remain ignorant so he/she doesn't have to consider the possibility that he/she may actually be stupid.


I knew this girl who did very badly in school, but she was also extremely lazy. I asked her why didn't she work harder, she explained that if she didn't work hard and fail she could always tell herself she was only lazy, but if she worked hard and still fail, the only explanation would be that she was stupid. She would rather be lazy than stupid, because "laziness can be fixed, but there is not cure for stupidity". She was actually very bright, though in a devious kind of way..

2311. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164015 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 12:32 pm

I have not used profanity, called anyone a name, or made any sort of personal attack..

And you have not answer the questions that are put to you except repeating the questions in rhetorical "answers" like a bot. Why don't you answer epeeist's questions for a start.

What is it that makes ID science? You haven't told us. You haven't told us of any predictions that it makes or any crucial tests it has undergone. You haven't told us whether it passed those tests.

2312. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164004 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Really, is that your "private musing".

Oh, very smart. My "musing" is based solidly on evidence, which is your spam.

Four things you can always count on when dealing with atheists.

1. a filthy mouth

2. Censorship of dissenting thought.

3. An abundance of false premises and self-defeating statements.

4. a blind faith UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE.

1. What is so filthy about calling you an idiot? Would a fool sound better?

2. I see no evidence of any "thought" being expressed by your cut and paste spams.

3. Such as?

4. Why don't YOU TRY TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS
for a change, as others have been telling you?

2313. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163983 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 11:55 am

The private musings of scientists are just their personal opinions, not science. All these quotes appeal to emotion, rather than any sound argument.

Quit spamming the thread, you idiot.

2314. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #163950 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 10:50 am

Creationists do the same thing.

No, they don't. "Updating" is a systematic process in science. It has to fit with data, other pieces of science and it has to be a coherent, logical extension of existing theory. New predictions would have to be made, new tests performed.

It is not making up ad hoc stories as you go along like in creationism.

2315. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #163944 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 10:29 am

I don't even know why we bother to put up with this BS. All science is wrong because there may be small wrinkles here and there,--while they exist, most of what put forth are strawmen objections and ignorance in basic science,-- but the Broze age mythologies of the Genesis written by a bunch of smelly, ignorant, half crazed goat fuckers are right, even though they don't pass ONE single test.

I see no point in even debating these brain dead morons. The bible must have dropped on their fucking heads when they were babies.

Sorry for pulling a Styrer, can't help it.

2316. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #163938 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 10:10 am

Wiley

No one "believes" in the big bang "on faith". Our scientific picture is never complete. There is no "final word". It is constantly being updated in light of new data, that is why science is a robust way of knowing,--unlike dogmatic systems such as religion,--that is exactly its strength.

You only have a problem because you try to project your religious mindset on science and expect it to offer certainties like religion by fiat. You have it completely wrong, science is not a competing faith.

Science answers some questions, some with more certainty than others, some answers are tentative and speculative, some we don't even know how to begin to formulate the question.

But the bottomline is religion doesn't answer any question

When religion provides one honest answer instead of just using "God did it" as a one size fits all bogus "answer" to shorthand our ignorance, we can have an honest debate.

The failure of science to produce answers for some questions is its strength rather than weakness. Scientifically acceptable answers are difficult to come by because they have to meet very high standard. Anyone can make up a whole bunch of cheap answers as they go along like in religion.

2317. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #163924 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 9:41 am

ZekeCDN,

I can't recall whether Krauss was on Richard's informal short list of Americans who would make interesting candidates for his Oxford Chair (I'm fairly certain that Carolyn Porco and Neil DeGrasse Tyson were mentioned ... and that my own first choice, Steven Pinker, was not), but if so this sure was a heck of an interview!

I don't know if any scientist still active in research would want a position like that. It is a position perfect for senior statesmen of science at the end of the research careers such as Dawkins.

2318. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #163922 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 9:36 am

This peacock tail filter ensures that only the most committed and intellectually conformist people get to be doctors.

I knew it! House is just a TV show.

2319. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163905 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 9:09 am

Even if the theory of evolution is all wrong, it doesn't validate the Bronze age myth of the Bible by one iota.

There wasn't one shred of evidence and not one compelling logical reason to believe in the Biblical stories even before Darwin. It is very easy to see that for those of us who were raised in cultures where Christianity is not the default mode of belief (It would be just as easy for Christians to see that even if Darwin was wrong 100%, there would still be no reason to believe in Zeus)

2320. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163897 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 9:00 am

Clod,

I can't see my farts either but I believe in them.

But you can see your wet suit expanding like a balloon,

2321. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #163880 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 8:40 am

Steve,

Does the term "Church's position" fill you with enthusiasm for anything that is going to follow? Or does it give you the same sinking feeling I get?

It is also the "Church position" of the RC Church to oppose the invasion of Iraq and global inequality, I agree with that. I think the Church has a much more sensible stance on economical justice, than say atheist Randoids.

2322. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #163875 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 8:32 am

Russell,

see nothing wrong with this research whatsoever. All the arguments that have been put up by the Vatican, by Leon Kass, etc, etc, are pretty much rubbish.

They may be. But the questions nevertheless needed to be raised. Just because they are asked by religious people doesn't mean that they are by necessity religious arguments.

Some countries have no such debate, for example, China. They also happen to see nothing wrong in harvesting and selling organs of executed prisoners, eugenics and other human right violations.

On closer examinations, the objections may turn out to be invalid, but the fact that they are being raised and taken seriously does reflect on the attitude of a society on humanistic values. Unless you agree with Henri Bergson the poster, I don't think these values are uniquely Christian.

I'm by no means one of the MAJOR voices of reason in the debate so far - go and have a read of On Cloning by John Harris as a good place to start. Who's Afraid of Human Cloning? by Gregory Pence is another good book on the subject

How about designer babies? Do you have a problem with that?

I am not just talking about the single issue of therapeutic cloning, but the whole sleuth of opportunities and pitfalls that are opened up by the possibilities of fundamentally changing the meaning of being humans through artificial means and "design". I am weary of the near orgasmic rush to embrace all the latest techo fads by some posters on this site.

I am frankly quite unease with some transhumanist types who almost see humanity as an embarrassment. Their bad rendition of Nietzsche by Frankenstein doesn't impress me.

As for cloning yourself, it is not so much "fear", I just don't see the point of it, unless, as I wrote somewhat tongue in cheek, you want to have a sex orgy with yourself.

2323. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163865 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 8:01 am

Are we talking about Planet Of the Apes? I like chimps, they're cool.

2324. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #163859 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 7:45 am

I'm all for this type of research if it's true-as some one posted previously, science cures disease not religion-a world free from all types of disease or the church wringing it's hands piously saying it's wrong?

I am not sure what scientific merit there is in cloning oneself. This doesn't really tell you anything you don't know before other than that it can be done and someone did it,

I think it is a strawman to suggest that only the religious would feel unease about certain types of research that raise some thorny questions about how humanity sees itself.

Like I have written in another thread, a society which sees no need to properly debate the ethical implications of bio techology probably treats humans as just body parts and has no problem with the most grotesque human right violations.

I am not saying I am against controversial biological research, all I am saying is we should welcome debates and address the concerns raised if they are reasonable, instead of summarily dismissing them as the deluded ravings of the religious. Just because the religious person raises a question it doesn't automatically makes it invalid.

Edit

It is also very naive to think that a very powerful technology would only be deployed to do good such as "curing diseases". I find this is the attitude of many posters here, it is as if their unbridled optimism allows them to only see the up side of technology, so any word of caution would be dismissed as religious induced delusion. Their faith in techno Utopia is actually quite religious in nature.

Technology is always a double edged sword. What can be used to enhance human freedom can also be used to curtail it. All possibilities need to be considered and explored.

2325. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #163851 by Bonzai on April 19, 2008 at 7:23 am

To top this someone should clone himself and than marry himself. The ultimate orgy of narcissism.I do find myself very attractive. Too bad I am not a biologist and likely can't afford the service of one.

EDIT I wrote "himself" because I think mostly men are into having non stop perverted sex with themselves, no disrespect for the ladies.

2326. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #163656 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 6:00 pm

That does not mean I wish to peek in their bedrooms, much less have my kids peek likewise, whether on the real thing or else a televised depiction, watered down or not.

So that means you wouldn't mind if your kids peek into the bedroom of straight couples? No one is saying that we should show gay people having sex on kid's show. I don't think you would see heterosexuals having sex on children show either, I don't know what your problem is.

True. Let's just leave it up to parents to decide if their kids should view it in programmes purportedly made for them,

Parents can switch off the TV if they don't like Ernie and Burt or the tele tubbies (well, though I heard it is a show more for thirty something stoners) They always have the decision.

2327. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #163652 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 5:52 pm

Steve,

Oh, and I am a far better person to talk about gay icons with than Carto, if he will forgive me. I have followed everyone from Streisand to Mika.

I can't stand Streisand. It is funny that I have never been able to get into the "gay culture" thing. All gay men I know like the sound of music, I hate it with a passion, indeed I hate most musicals, with the exception of the South Park Movie, the Man of La Mancha and Jesus Christ, Super Star,--admittedly the last one is very gay with all the macho types bearing their hairy chests and wearing leather.

I also can't stand Queer as folks, at least the American version.

2328. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #163648 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 5:30 pm

Jac,

I think you may be mistaken if you think I am "on your side". I am gay, I just don't think Steve's speculation that homosexuality is a selected trait is on solid scientific ground (though it can still have a genetic basis and very likely so, but that is a different story altogether, not everything genetic is the result of selection.)

The bottom line is, we shouldn't have to justify ourselves with "we were born that way". No one asks or cares whether your preference of hot food is the result of nature or nurture.

The way I see it, even if homosexuals are born, those who hate us would still say it is a genetic disease, so "blaming the genes" doesn't really get us very far as long as we still see the need to "blame" something for who we are,--for whatever reason. I shouldn't have to be apologetic of the fact that I am attracted to men and I won't.

We are here and we are here to stay. I don't need to justify my sexual preference any more than you have to justify yours. In a rational society no one should even care about anyone's sexuality, whether in real life or on TV.

What I find more objectionable is that the "token gays" in TV are often based on stereotype than reality, and they often appear only in shows that have something to do with "gay themes", I think having gay characters on TV shows shouldn't be seen as a "special event", period,

2329. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163394 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 9:39 am

gr8hands

Bonzai -- all religious concepts are the result of indoctrination. Children are not born knowing the concept of god or believing in one.

Since children are not born with any knowledge,--well assumming there is no reincarnation,-- what is not "indoctrination" by your definition?

Feral children do not spontaneously develop the concept away from parents/society.

I don't know about that. Where do you think the concept of God originally come from? (I don't mean organized religion)

But even if you are right, it only proves that the notion of God is not an instinct for animals capable of abstract thinking and apprehending symbolism. But most things probably aren't instinctive in that sense.

And there are many examples of isolated pockets (even a single household) of one religion surrounded by a society of a different religion -- think jew or jehovah's witness or wiccan.

These enclaves form internally coherent communities with high degrees of conformity. But many of their children do eventually break away.

As for single household of different beliefs, they only prove that there are loners and non conformers and there are people who never talk to their neighbours. How do their children turn out?

2330. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163349 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 8:22 am

Annabanana,

He feels that not only does he have a need for community but he has a "god-shaped hole" (to use DR's words) that needs to be fulfilled because of what he was indoctrinated with as a child.

That "God shaped hole" could be a short hand for a lot of emotional yearnings. I don't think it is necessarily the result of being told things which are factually not true.

2331. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163341 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 8:12 am

Podaar,

I think RM has an emotional need that has to be filled.

His needy personality might have been due to his upbringing, but I don't think it has anything to do with the truth claims he was "indoctrinated" into. He wants community, from what I gathered from his posts on Robertson's. His new found religiosity is the result, not the cause.

He hopes that these claims are true because of his needs, not that he thinks the truth claims are credible or compelling. Based on the latest he might have succeeded in his effort to self delude, but it is not like he was told some BS at a young age and retains them because he thinks they are true.

You guys all make it sounds like belief is some kind of intellectual exercise which at some point stumbles because of bad logic and poor empirical thinking. "Facts" and logic are often not the point at all as your own example of RM shows.

2332. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163332 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 7:56 am

Sargeist

The reason why it is dangerous to tell children certain things is evidenced by the time I told my niece that the reason I am so tall is that I was stretched by the doctors as soon as I was born. Her unquestioning belief in what I was saying as a member of her family caused me to immediately tell her I was joking. But that was the occasion when I realised exactly how careful one has to be.

C'mon now. If she still takes your "tall tale" seriously when she gets older I think you will have more to worry about her intelligence than having lied to her.

Give children some credits. They are not morons.

2333. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163330 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 7:52 am

Phatbat,

They do have minds of their own, but well meaning people prime that mind to believe things on insufficient evidence. Once the mind is primed to accept this as a virtue then it can be very dangerous for the individual when they grow and develop the mind of their own.

I think you take the word "believe" too literally, as if all beliefs are conveyed always as certainty and recieved as such.

You make the assumption that if a person is irrational in one belief, he must be consistently irrational in everything. I think that is a rather strange assumption. Most of us are not always consistent in our views and actions, and it is particularly strange that you would assume perfect consistency from the very people who subscribe to irrational theistic beliefs.

2334. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163325 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 7:44 am

Steve,

True, but that was never the intention of the FSM.

May not have been for its creators, but for some posters here it is. I wouldn't bother to dig up any
sample, just make a special note to pay attention next time when they come up.

2335. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163319 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 7:41 am

Sargeist

I have no problem with the data, I just don't agree with the interpretation.

2336. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163316 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 7:39 am

I had always assumed it was because of the (apparent) fact that, e.g., almost all Catholics are the children of Catholics.

Religion is not only belief, it is also a cultural and communal experience. What do you expect a cultural Catholic to become in say, Italy or Northern Ireland where Catholicism is so interwined with the culture? A Zoroastrian?

Religion, as it is practiced in the real world, is not only a set of metaphysical beliefs and truth claims. People who genuinely think that the FSM is a good caricature of real religion is missing something in their understanding.

2337. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163313 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 7:28 am

And is there a never-ending supply of virgins, as once one has been deflowered, she's no longer a virgin.

Virgins they may be, but there is nothing to say that they must be beautiful. A 300lb virgin with a foul body odour and a big mole on her chin is still a virgin,--and probably not difficult to understand why she is one. The fine print only says "all God's creatures are beautiful", that can be deceiving.

They simply cannot accept that we (all life) are here for no other reason than the fact that our parents/ancestors reproduced

I think that is simplistic. Many "home grown" jihadists go radical to rebel against their parents who are only cultural Muslims. I find this whole thing about childhood indoctrination rather poorly supported by data. Children do have their own minds and agency.

Edit On re-reading I realize how political incorrect I was in making fun of obess, not so good looking people who happen to be virgins. I hang my head in shame.

2338. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163304 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 7:01 am

Greyman

Ah. What? I'm not parsing that last phrase. How can a meaning be real if it is not true?

Ever read a work of literature or watch a film that moves you?

On the other hand, quantum mechanics may be "true" (I mean that in a provisional sense in case the philosophers here want to nitpick), it has absolutely no meaning to most people. They do use gadgets created from applying QM, but that is not "meaning" in the very specific sense that we use here.

Maybe "real" is the wrong word, but I do think meaning and truth are two separate things, though they sometimes coincide. Meaning is subjective and first person. "Truth" in the sense of science is objective and third person.

Myths have meanings in a metaphorical way and they are reinterpreted by each generation. While not "true" in a literal, objective sense, they nevertheless have an important role in conveying wisdom, intuitions and lessons. These are essential in nurturing and sustaining civilizations. Dawkins is not a good source on these subjects. I suggest reading some anthropology instead.

Yes, that's so. More precisely, we do not see any indication that anything was created for a purpose. It does not follow that we cannot find a reason to continue to exist.

I agree. I would go further to say that even if we are created for a purpose there is no reason we should obey it. We may be created as slaves or as yes-men and women to some egomaniac,--I don't mean the poster,-- cosmic dictator (as in the Abrahamic religions) but there is no reason why we shouldn't rebel. Having a mind means we can create our own purose.

Oh. I see. So... if I understand that, you are saying that: it's not the content of belief that matters, only that it provides comfort? Since false comfort is better than none?

Content of belief doesn't necessarily means its truthfulness. There are vicious lies to harm and white lies to comfort. Even though both are not true, but there is no moral equivalence.

Nothing wrong with seeking "false comfort" in and of itself. Why do you insist on operating on people without anesthetics? What good does it do? I don't think "truth" is good or bad, it just is. You are saying it is always better to be truthful, this is a subjective value judgement.

2339. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163260 by Bonzai on April 18, 2008 at 5:34 am

I agree with Clod.

2340. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #163024 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 8:58 pm

That is a probably a bit above the level at which selection can work.I think we need to look more closely at how homosexuality can be an advantage to the reproduction of close kin. I suspect it may be the non-reproducing uncle and aunt aspect. This may be indicated by the observation that the younger children of a family tend be gay more than the older children

How do you know it has to be selection at work? I find it a bit presumptuous.

Sorry, man I think this is the kind of pan adaptationist bullocks which people like Dannett and the evolutionary psychologists are pushing. The nurturing gay uncle theory is just a plausible sounding speculation without a shred of evidence.

I don't know where did proponents of this theory get the idea that homosexuals are more "nurturing" than their heterosexual counterparts. I just cannot see myself babysitting for my brothers.

Like a large part of evolutionary psychology, this sounds like making up a good story as one goes along in order to force observations to fit a prefabricated theory (that everything is the result of selection)

Homosexuals are not sterile and they can reproduce and in many cultures they did (and do) reproduce. Getting married and having children were (and still is in many places) a social obligation which had (has) little to do with personal preferences, fulfillment and romance, these are relatively modern concepts.In the same way heterosexuals were often arranged to marry and have children with partners for whom they feel no sexual attraction whatsoever just to get the job done, so to speak.

If for some reason most of the world's population is wiped out and there is a dire need to repopulate the earth I think many homosexuals would probably be having children for the sake of perpetuating the human race.

If homosexuality is a selected trait it has to be hereditary somehow, There is zero evidence that it is, There are no data which indicate that children of homosexuals,--yes, they do exist,--are more likely to be homosexuals themselves.

2341. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162674 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 8:01 am

As Tina Turner said "What's love got to do with it?"

It is silly to suggest that one is incapable of love if he rejects superstition,

2342. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162647 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 7:04 am

Is love the greatest power found in the human race?

Is it a bubble gum pop song, like those cheesy shit mass produced by Paul McCartney?

P.S. IMO the Beetles are over-rated (John is somewhat ok)

2343. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162641 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 6:58 am

True, but he is someone, and someone with, unfortunately, influence.

But I don't know whether he is motivated by his "moderate" religious belief or by traditional belief that the King should represent all his subjects and British styled "multi-culturalism", which is a secular idea.

I think in the U.K religion and tradition is so intertwined that you sometimes cannot tell them apart. To me it is not any more absurd to have Bishops on committees than to keep the Monarchy in the first place. I doubt that Bishops would be sitting on the House of Lord if the Monarchy is no more.

BTW, she is our Queen too so I think I do have a right to comment on that, and Charles will be our King when she dies or retires. Shudder the thought,

2344. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162634 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 6:52 am

I don't agree with copyrighting songs and music 30 years later, when they become part of the general cultural fabric, It may be sweet to see the "Expelled" crew being screwed, but I don't like the way that this happens.

2345. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162632 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 6:50 am

Prince Charles is an idiot. Being an adulterer he would be wise to shut up on the topic.

2346. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162622 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 6:34 am

Russell,

I left a message on your blog regarding art and religion. Want to hear your thought on it.

2347. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162620 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 6:24 am

It was to show that it was reasonable to put forward the position that "moderates" could be empowering "fundamentalists" by claiming that faith was good.

We have gone through this before. This is a strawman, No moderate I have heard ever said any faith is good, regardless of content.

You can question them on what criteria they use, but no one ever makes blanket endorsement of any faith.

EDIT

Is buying someone a cake on his birthday "encouraging" obesity?

2348. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162614 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 6:18 am

We should instead classify people by the intensity with with they hold beliefs, not by what they believe.

No, they should be classified by their methods to believe.

There are moderates who are intense in their beliefs, just that they don't think the belief should only be derived from one book while precluding other data.

Many confuse a religious moderate with a weak believer, that's why I think "moderate" is actually not a very good label.

2349. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162613 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 6:14 am

"Uncle Mark, is there a god?" "Er..., um... well, a lot of people think there is, but I don't, but I wouldn't like to tell you that there isn't, er.., um ..., bluster"

Well, I think that is a good answer. I would have said "I don't believe there is one, some people think there is. You would have to decide it for yourself when you are older, but I will be always happy to tell you my ideas at that time.."

Damn, just notice Paula has beaten me to it.

2350. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162601 by Bonzai on April 17, 2008 at 5:56 am

Steve

Think of it like this. Smoking doesn't kill everyone, but we would not approve of people saying that it is not only harmless, but a jolly good thing.

Sorry man, you're begging the question. By using smoking as an analogy you already subsumed that any kind of belief is not only harmful, but toxic, I don't want to get into another endless debate with you over this here because I don't have a lot of time today, but it suffices to note that people who object to Richard's slogan don't necessarily agree with that premise. It would be like wooter trying to argue for design by saying a painting must have a painter, we don't agree that it washes to compare the universe to a painting, which already subsumed that it is an artifact.

By the way I don't know of anything which is not harmful when doing to the excess.

The question is not necessarily whether something is "moderately harmful" but what benefits you may derive from it, and whether they outweighs the harm, this is at least partly a question of subjective preference and choice.

I cannot thinking of any good health reason for eating deserts, but it would be absurd to argue that cakes are harmful and therefore should be eliminated. In case there is any misunderstanding I am not using cakes as an analogy for religion, I am just questioning the logic that anything with moderate "harm" in some way is necessarily undesirable. Humans don't operate on binary logic.

BTW, according to recent announcements by health Canada obesity and related ailments "kill" more people in Canada than smoking, Of course "kill" always needs to be qualified in this kind of statements (Just as smoking "kills" x number every year)