2401. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160591 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 8:08 am

Karda

It isn't pretty, but God could not steer us from primitives to Christians by snapping His fingers. The process is still ongoing, and it is still subject to massive setbacks.

Well exactly how he did it by rewarding Abraham's blind obedience? Zeus punished a king who offered his son as a sacrifice, but Abraham got rewarded for it.

I am afraid you are talking in vague terms. There is no evidence that we are steered away from primitive because of God, on the contrary, God becomes more civilized in our image after we have progressed. You have the cause and effect reversed.

2402. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160584 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 8:02 am

Karda

But I am a modern man, with the context of Christianity to guide me... Abraham's context was much different. In general, this is my feeling about much of the Old Testament. It must be understood in the context of humanity lifting itself out of animal ethics, and into harsh legalism and an organization that permits cohesion and technical progress..

I don't see how reading in context would refute my post #1305 about the questionable ethics of your God or how "faith" expressed by Abraham would be a virtue.

The Bible is supposed to teach a moral lesson, not skill to survive hard time with harsh measure. For that we don't need God, or we wouldn't have survived until God allegedly showed up to speak to Abraham.

2403. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160571 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 7:54 am

thisisme

I believe in a God who has set the standards.

Ok, so you did tell us what you believe, I missed that.

Read my post #1310, or Dr.Benway's #1343.

2404. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160561 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 7:46 am

thisisme

Dr Benway, what we need is a standard. Otherwise nothing can be right or wrong so how we feel makes little difference.

And how do you suggest we should get that standard and apply it?

As epeeist said, until you tell us what your position is it is difficult to have a meaningful discussion.

2405. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed

Comment #160460 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 6:03 am

Teratonis

The cost of computers keeps dropping. If Moore's law continues far enough, it might eventually deflate the costs of scientific research to the point that machines can do it. Then anyone with a computer might potentially embark on forbidden research.

Yeah right. In Star Trek, everytime when they were caught in a jam they just incanted some incomprehensible techno babbles and got out of it. Techno babbles were the all purpose salvation for the Enteprise crew.

Your all purpose salvation is the magical black box. Sorry, invoking the magic box wouldn't help you to do meaningful research if you're an idiot or don't have a sound undertstanding of concepts, which takes years of hard work to acquire.

Get off the computer sometimes and smell the coffee, or the dog shit, anything real. Having sex with a real person wouldn't hurt either.

EDIT:
I wonder how many people in the third word are actually wired. What to do with the computer illiterate,--which is probably over 80% of humanity,-- in the brave new world of Moore's law? Keep them as pets or slaughter them for meat?

2406. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160399 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 3:17 am

A lot of great art work do owe their existence to religion, but not in the way the author intended. These works was great because they manage to cleverly subvert the religious stricture for their own end. In the same way many great art works in the former Soviet Union owe their existence to the oppressive system.

As a general point, art often feeds on despair, A lot of great works of art are subliminal expressions of human angst and suffering. Without war and slaughter you wouldn't have the great paintings and sculptures of Goya and kathy kollwitz. But this is hardly an argument for killing and mayhem.

2407. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160383 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 2:27 am

So where on earth does RD think he's deriving all his 'oughts' in this long and derogatory article? If matter is all that exists, where are the moral standards coming from? Perhaps we can all set our own. There doesn't seem to be any reason not too..

Yeah, where do you think the "oughts" come from, or should come from?

This is an interesting question but it is irrelevant to the debate here because "God" doesn't offer any answer, it is just an "x" for answer unknown,--even if we pretend for argument's sake that atheistic philosophies don't have a satisfactory answer.

Why should we be always expected to have answers for your questions? We never claim to be the Oracle of Delphi for heaven's sake. The bottom line is you have no answer to any of the questions you raise, indeed not a single honest answer to any question. At least we have some pretty good ones and try to get more, as honestly and rigorously as possible. Your "revelation", on the other hand, is just a smug celebration of ignorance.

God cannot possibly be the answer to where morality comes from because God never talks to us, we only hear from humans who claim to know what God wants but they all disagree with each other, sometimes violently. They cannot even agree on how to interpret their own "holy books"(that leads one to wonder if God might have needed a course in good communication)

The morality of the OT is atrocious, we can do better morally without that kind of a God even if he exists,--see my post above on Abraham and Issac for one example of this God's moral bankruptcy.The morality in the NT is rather mundane, to the extent that it makes sense. Many pre Christian civilizations had developed highly sophisticated moral philosophies and ethics that makes the NT look like exactly what it is even when viewed in the best light,--semi coherent babbling of a somewhat original amateur moral philosopher with some good insights as well as a lot of nonsense.

Religious morality is fluid, its interpretations change over time. It is religious teachings that adapt to the changing moral Zeitgeist, not the other way around, Man created God in his image, As man becomes more civilized, God also become less savage.

Wherever we get our "oughts" from, they are not from thousand year olds "holy book" written by ignorant savages for sure.

2408. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160335 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 1:05 am

Kardashovel

As for the story of Abraham, you'll note what God did when he saw that Abraham's faith was strong enough to carry out the deed... He staid his hand. No one staid the Romans hand when God offered His son up for sacrifice... but God's faith in us was strong enough to permit it to happen.

It was a "test", but a test for what?

God gave Abraham an order to carry out a brutal act, with the promise of making Abraham "the father of many nations" if he carried out the act. For those who don't know how the plot unfolds this sounds like a police entrapment. Undercover cop offers a reward if you commit a crime for him and bust you when you do.

One would expect Abraham to fail the test and be busted if he were to carry out God's inhumane command, as one should expect from any God worthy of worship.

But no, Abe did as he was told and was actually rewarded for that.

Whether God finally intervened to save Issac was irrelevant to the moral of the story, he could have not and Abraham would still win his prize for being obedient. Is blind obedience in the face of a completely immoral order a virtue for your God, and of course with a little material incentive thrown in?

No, for any moral God with a meaningful "test" Abraham should have failed.In Greek mythology, Zeus turned a king into a wolf as a punishment for sacrificing his son (to Zeus). But since this is a morally bankrupted egomaniac of a God Abraham was rewarded for behaviour worthy of a Nazi officer,--he executed his order faithfully, no matter how upsetting the order was to his conscience.

Well, unless Abraham was confident in advance that God would back track, in that case it wasn't so much a proof of his faith, but his ability of placing bets and that God was not only immoral, but stupid enough to be fooled.

P.S. I wonder what would have happened if Abraham actually behaved like a moral human being with dignity and told God to fuck off.

2409. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160103 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 4:17 pm

That, in my view, is how things should be.

No, it is not the way it should be. The key word here is "opinion", science is not based only on opinions.

2410. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160100 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 4:10 pm

csrbm

I think it is because everyone has an imprinted set of right/wrong. I know you guys don't think that. So why?

We also have imprinted impulses to do nasty things too. Where do you think those come from? It would be a sweet deal for God to take only the credits.

2411. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160081 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 3:47 pm

While not "right", social darwinism is not even "true".

It is a way of social engineering with the goal of selecting traits which have nothing to do with nature or Darwinism, If the social Darwinists are true "Darwinists" they would favour selecting drop outs who become grandmothers by the age of 30.

Where do I find "survival of the richest" in the origin of species?

2412. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160076 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 3:40 pm

I'm not dismissing him. I am simply not happy to accept his word to justify his role in controversies. I would apply the same rule to a scientific matter.

Not accepting his words and ignoring his words are not the same. You may still decide that he was full of shit after actually hearing what he said and evaluating all the evidence availiable.

But by refusing to even read the link given to you seem to be saying you would base your judgment exclusively on the opinions of others, some of whom evidence shown have fabricated quotes and misquoted him to push their agendas.

I am sure you are not so lazy with your science.

2413. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160066 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 3:31 pm

The methods of scientific investigation can still be used, especially when we are looking at historical events and their causes.

But it is exactly the point of Chomsky that the mainstream commentators are not adhering to those methods. If he is right,--which I think he often is,--what is the worth of that consensus of opinions?

2414. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160057 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 3:21 pm

1.Politics is not science. "Consensus" is probably just as good as most people at one time believing in a flat earth. In politics often there is only consensus of opinions

2.Chomsky became well known in his field because he challenged the "scientific consensus" of behaviourism successfully.

I have disagreements with his methods and conclusions , but it would be shoddy to dismiss him simply because he doesn't fit within the mainstream.

2415. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160040 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 2:46 pm

I think kardashovel is trying to yang your chains here.

He is not talking to you guys, but talking down to you. He speaks with a smug and condescending tone, writing cryptic one liners that may appear witty to himself but never really engages in making any substantial point. It is all along the line of "Oh, you are so narrow minded, of course you don't get it" but never telling you what "it" is. When pressed he would tell you to ask Jesus himself.

2416. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160036 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Steve

No, Dianelos's argument was far weirder (if I remember it right). It was that because if all arrangements of particles are equally likely (like all arrangements of cards in a deck after shuffling), then the arrangement of things that produces a creator is no less unlikely than any other, so God involves no complexity (or something like that). He was ignoring that the issue is the proportion of arrangements that does what you are looking for (acts like a God), as against all possibilities.

Yeah, I vaguely remember this one too. But he also made the argument with the future robots because I have tried to debate him on that but he never replied. He made several different arguments to try to get around the problem of a complex God.

2417. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160020 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Steve,

Day goes on to discuss how complexity can arise from simpler beginnings in an attempt to explain how complex creators can arise. Or, at least, that is my reading of a rather strange chapter.

Actually I remember that argument from Dianelos.

I think that is confusing a "progenitor" and a "designer".

The origin of something complex can be simple, we all know that. Evolution, for example. But would they argue that the single celled organism is somehow godly and worthy of worshiping because it is our progenitor in the sense they use here?

Dianelos then went on and say it is conceivable human scientists may design robots who would one day become more complex than us. I don't know if it can be done through "design" alone, without some sort of evolutionary process to build up the complexity, but if these robots are going to be more sophisticated than we are, it would be odd to think that we would appear to be "supernatural" to them at that stage and command their awe and worship. We will probably appear to be just like outdated models. Is that what they really think when they speak of God,--an outdated model?

2418. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160005 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 2:05 pm

kardashovel

You see, Dr. Benway... I am in support of your own personal relationship with god, even if it is the god who wasn't there.

Reminds me of a late Jewish friend.

He said he prayed to God everyday but he didn't believe God existed. He said either God didn't exist or didn't care, either way he wouldn't be listening to his prayers, but he would rather believe in a non existent God than a non caring God. So he prayed to a God that he hoped and believed to be non existent.

2419. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159861 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 9:23 am

Only idiots would believe in the Austrian school. When Hayek was sick, I suppose he would have gone to a doctor instead of waiting for nature to take its course because he didn't know all the possible side effects of medical interventions.

But then only idiots would think a hack and a tenth rate writer like Ayn Rand was a genius.

2420. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159860 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 9:20 am

Frankus,

Well, if everyone was like me we would have no problems whatsoever. Can we try that?..

What happens when the name calling starts is that it reflects badly on the person doing the name calling. It also dirties the pool. To stick with this metaphor,..

You really are a teacher..:)

2421. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159828 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 8:02 am

Here we are promoting "conversational" intolerance regarding religion yet some people think saying atheism sucks is "bigotry" without a hint of irony, would you say this regarding Islam, Christianity, capitalism or communism?

Get a grip.

2422. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159818 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 7:48 am

Swearing is not that big a deal. I thought styrer was an asshole, but after reading a few of his posts more carefully, I think he is just a cranky guy with a colourful vocabulary. I can take that, but there are genuinely nasty people who like to shoot you with snide remarks behind a facade of civility, such as a certain minister.

2423. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159808 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 7:30 am

Hi, David,

Long time no talk. Glad to see you being able to circumvent the ban and find a way to post under your real name again,

Its not really that difficult - unless you are a fundamentalist who thinks that there is only one absolutely literal way to read anything. When Jesus said I am the door - he did not mean that he was made of wood and had a handle. He meant that he was the way to God. That is how metaphor works

Sure, you are right, I don't think there is only one literal way to read the Bible.

So can you tell us what is your way? Do you actually have a system or do you just do whatever you feel like and make free associations like when I listen to Japanese rap?

2424. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159807 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 7:26 am

I think styrer swears too much and at times abusive. Jon makes too many links (see I asked him not to, nicely) and is rather, as styrer said, verbose and too much of a pedant (but wait til styrer meets Terantonis)

Problem is both you guys take yourself too fucking seriously, though I must say it is a talent to be able to swear like styrer. Whenever I read something about Saudi-fucking-Arabia I wish I have that kind of command of the English language..

Now the cat is out of the bag and ole me is ducking for cover,

P.S. I am probably a fukwit who is also a fruit to boot. Hey it rhythms! I should become a poet and shake my tosh..

2425. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159797 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 7:11 am

epeeist

You [bigcanuck] have qualifications in biology (where from?), you call evolutionary biologists "Darwinists" and you either don't know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution or are prepared to accept that Stein is dishonestly trying to conflate the two.

Something doesn't quite ring true I'm afraid.

When I taught in a community college to supplement my income I met a few people who had Ph.Ds in biochemistry and they were quite poor in their general understanding of science. One guy couldn't even solve a quadratic equation, I am not kidding you. It seems there are ways to get your doctorate by being very narrowly focused and don't have a clue outside whatever narrow topic that is the subject of your thesis if you choose to work on something sufficiently isolated.

My highschool biology teacher also has a Ph.D. in zoology but he was the most incompetent and clueless science teacher I ever had, who actually succeeded in turning me off biology for life.(This guy would turn on a Busen burner and then started looking for matches, we were all ducking for cover everytime when he did some demonstration in the lab)

I don't doubt bigcanuck's credential. Maybe he was one of the "expelled". Michael Behe does have a doctorate and a professorship afterall.

2426. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159640 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Bigcanuck

To discount any possible answer is against the scientific method and since science hasn't proven God doesn't exist...

No, of course not because the God people haven't even come up with a decent existence claim.

If they claim God exists then they have to at least be more specific about its properties, instead of using it as a one size fits all "answer" for all questions that we don't know the answer. Science cannot prove "God" doesn't exist if it is just a stand in for "I don't know".

If they want to claim that God is responsible for such and such, say fine tuning the universe or starting off the big bang, tell us "how" instead of just "God did it by some magic", which again is not an answer because anyone can say that and it has absolutely no content and doesn't advance our knowledge by one iota.

2427. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #159631 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Oh I should clarify, there is no "transcript" as the "debate" was in the form of a few back and forth articles like the Casey one I linked to. It was not a live debate.

2428. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #159628 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 4:44 pm

ungodly.

You used to be able to find the debate at

www.zmag.org

under the "debate" link.

But I haven't visited there for quite a while and now they have redesigned the site for the worse and I have problems navigating it. If you want to you can check that out, or maybe you can just google and see if some archived articles turn up.

2429. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159618 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Styrer,

So all of the theists - against whom I've been tentatively arguing that we NOW have understanding of precisely how something can emerge from nothing, thanks primarily to Stenger - will be quite entitled, following your research, to shout loud and clear 'I TOLD YOU! Something CANNOT come from NOTHING!'

Ask them where did God come from next time.

I always think it is bad idea to be put in a position where we tacitly agree that it is only rational to disbelieve if science has comprehensive answers to all the questions that may arise.

Well science certainly doesn't have all the answers, may never have them.

But the bottom line is religion has given NO answer whatsoever. The onus is on them to provide even just one honest answer.Why should we be always expected to have the answers while they are making the claims?

Sorry man, I was quite rude to you the other night, I think I got you mixed up with someone else.

2430. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #159613 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 4:13 pm

ungodly

I am sure read in context he is doing no such thing as equating equivalency to the two acts?

Actually he did. Based on his premise on the damage to Sudan's drug supply his deduction would have made sense, but he apparently jumped the gun in that his factual premise was quite shaky.

He has had several debates with Leo Casey on znet.
Here is Casey's article, you can find Chomsky's replies on the same site.

http://www.zmag.org/casey.htm


For what it is worth here is a rather through and IMO fairly even handed evaluation of Chomsky's political work.

http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/chomsky.html#3

2431. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159604 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Liquid He has a condensation fraction of less than 10% while for dilute BEC it is close to 100%. Also BEC states are in a sense "adjustable" over a wide range with say, light.

2432. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159595 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Bose-Einstein condensation is a state where a few thousands to a few billions bosons,--
a boson is a particle that has integral spin,-- occupying the same low energy single particle state at low temperature under very delicately maintained conditions. Since all the particles have the same quantum state, they essentially become "the same" in some sense.

What is peculiar about the BEC state is that the atoms behave in a completely coherent way and together become in a sense, a gigantic atom instead of a large number of atoms.

From quantum mechanics, we know that particles behave like waves, now since all these particles are completely in step, the waves amplify each other and give rise to a large amplitude wave that can be observed macroscopically. BEC is the manifestation of QM in a macroscopic world.

However, Dr.Benway is talking about a kind of "Bose Einstein" condensation of Fermions (particle of half integer spins), This is quite strange because unlike Bosons which can be "squeezed" into the same quantum state thus giving rise to the coherent behaviour in the macroscopic scale, It is impossible to put two fermions in the same quantum state because of the Pauli exclusion principle, so rather different physics may be at work.

2433. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #159543 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Steve,

To me, having read several sources, it seems that Chomsky is pretty much out of line regarding this issue compared with the "mainstream".

That goes without saying. But Chomsky's point is exactly that the mainstream is systematically biased. While one may or may not agree with his specific take on a given issue, his point of departure is quite different from the mainstream in that he insists on two things

1) We should apply the same standard to ourselves and our allies as we do to the enemies, at least on international affairs.

2) We are primarily responsible for our own actions, not that of our enemies. It is therefore important to hold our own governments accountable for their actions while there is little point to take pot shots at "official enemies".

I think in his political work Chomsky engages the world primarily as an activist and an American, not necessarily as an impartial, detached observer. One must keep that in mind when reading Chomsky,

In that sense he is "biased", but since the system that he criticizes is not neutral either even though it pretends to be, Chomsky's bias is also in a way corrective.

2434. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #159509 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 11:17 am

Steve,

Interesting you bring up hero worship on this site, where Dawkins' hero status is quite comparable to Chomsky's among his fans.

2435. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159508 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 11:15 am

Intelligence is measured by assessing one's reasoning, logic, and problem solving skills. So if someone is irrational and illogical, that would directly translate to a lower intelligence than someone who is more rational and logical.

Says who?

2436. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159506 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 11:00 am

In any case, as Layla quite rightly says, why should he bother to remember which particular person holds which particular set of cherry-picked beliefs?

Well he should if he wants to make a point, or agree to a point made about a specific person's belief, especially it is an outlandish point concerning a very prominent fellow scientist such as Francis Collins. If he didn't remember, he should have said that,

2437. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159497 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 10:21 am

Peacebeuponme

ertainly by the time Francis Collins has written the book he has had a long time to think about how his faith fits in with such events.

I don't know how this works, but it seems plausible that sometimes the shock is so great that the personality may suffer some kind of permanent scar which makes it difficult to be "rational" and detached when that wound is revisited, even many years later. Things get tugged away somewhere, but don't really go away. They are not just stored in a warehouse, but they continue to exert influences on our thinking and emotions. For example, childhood traumas have very long lasting effects into adulthood.

I'm sure Benway would have a better way to explain that.

2438. Fleabytes

Comment #159482 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 9:24 am

Frankus,

You can have an intellectual understanding of the world as you believe it really is based upon evidence that confirms your belief. 'Scientism' is flexible.

Well to me "scientism" is characterized by an over confidence and certainty of our methods in getting and evaluating "evidence" which then becomes rigid.

In principle of course we agree. But in practice things are always more murky if you cannot do a lot of repeated runs in a lab. This would exclude most situations concerning human affairs.

Nowadays everything becomes a science, so you have political "science", management "science" and the social sciences in general. It is fashionable. There has to numbers and measurements attached to everything in order to sound respectable. "Evidence based" is the new buzzword to get fundings. But "evidence" for what?

I can tell you based on first hand experience (anecdotal "evidence") that their methods are very dubious scientifically to say the least.

In fields that involve human activities, it is very seldom that we can actually disentangle all the factors and study effects based solely on "evidence", unless the question is very stripped down to the point of near triviality, and even then the numbers may still be just bunks,

To cite an example which you, as an educator would be familiar with. Why is it that many teachers have to go out of their ways to create a bell curve for grade distribution? If it is based on any real science I am afraid I don't understand, even though I would say I probably know more statistics then your average university grad in the discipline. Then there is another question, what do grades really measure?

The opposite to scientism is not religious faith, but the humility to acknowledge that we actually know very little concerning human affairs and our methods can be wrong and often not applicable, Indeed if we look at history almost everything "science" informed us confidently about human nature in the past had turned out to be extremely naive or totally wrong,

The opposite to scientism is to accept uncertainty.Faith, on the other hand, is an attempt to restore false certainty and rigidity when science cannot offer them, so it is not an antidote to scientism, but a big leap in the completely wrong direction.

2439. Fleabytes

Comment #159467 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 8:50 am

flying goose,

" the problem with scientism is that it fetters human thought as cruelly as any authoritarian belief system has ever done"
Seeing as I have got to write an essay on this stuff I would be interested in your enlightened thoughts.

Can you clarify what do you mean by "scientism"?

Science often has very little truly relevant to say about the human experience.

Science provides a third person narrative while often humans want a first person one.

So I agree that "scientism" is naive. It would be tyrannical if pesudoscientific methods are adopted to run society without check and balance. Everything would be measured and classified and controlled in a "rational" way.. when we actually know very little about what we are measuring and classifying.

There is a cult of science and measurement taking hold in some circles, but usually this is not from the real scientists, rather it originates from government bureaucracies, the corporate boardrooms and purveyors of pesudoscience such as management schools.

Dostoevsky wrote that humans are irrational beings, if you put them in a palace of reason they will rebel. But I am not sure if the very idea of a palace of reason,--the worship of "reason",--is that reasonable and rational at all.

2440. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159461 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 8:32 am

Roboholic

The man is striaght and married. Shame on you.

2441. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159460 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 8:29 am

For those who Bash Bill Maher let it be known that he is the only person on TV/Cable in the USA that openly bashes god and religion for what it really is and does it no matter who is on his panel.

So what? Should we then endorse every dim witted, obnoxious, attention seeking celebrity who just happens to be an atheist?

2442. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159456 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 8:25 am

Peacebeuponme

Its not about finding a positive aspect to some terrible event. Its about believing in a god who allows such events, and still finding a way to call that god loving and good.

I think Benway is right on the money.

When you wrote "believing", you seemed to be thinking of an intellectual activity. But this is probably not the case here. It is a coping mechanism, probably an instinctive response rather than a well thought out rationalization.

When horrible things happen, sometimes people need some reasons, no better how bad or absurd the reasons may be. For some traumatized people, bad explanations are still better than no explanation,--like saying shit happens, move on.

2443. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159432 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 7:27 am

I cannot stand Maher. The guy is shallow, smug and ugly, he is not even funny. Just one of those loud mouthed, witless, talentless twits who infest American night time television for whom smart arses remarks are somehow equated with "comedy".

2444. Scientists take drugs to boost brain power: study

Comment #159424 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 7:09 am

Well the point of this is probably not that scientists are abusing prescription drugs (LSD doesn't count, sorry), but that they do this for a specific purpose, namely to gain a competitive edge. If there is truth to it it shows an aspect of science as a social institution that we should worry about.Namely that it has becomes a very competitive industry perverted by money, ego and the pressure to produce rather than the desire to seek truth.

2445. Fleabytes

Comment #159422 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 7:03 am

Philip

I keep thinking of the word genitals but thats just my filthy, delinquent and substandard mind at work, must be all that Marilyn Manson I listen to!

I thought only roboholic listens to Marilyn Manson all day.

2446. Fleabytes

Comment #159416 by Bonzai on April 12, 2008 at 6:43 am

Quetzalcoatl

What does it say about you if you've never heard of Albert Tatlock?

Some possibilities.

1) You are not British

or

2) You are young

or

3) You have a life and have better things to do than watching a never ending 40 year old soap opera.


These are inclusive ors, meaning and/or in common usage.

I have no idea who Albert Tatlock is until now, I looked that up from the Wikipedia. I swear on Richard Dawkin's sacred name that is the truth!

************************

Happy birthday Geoff.

2447. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159269 by Bonzai on April 11, 2008 at 8:02 pm

Epinephrine

Rep. Davis wasn't speaking as an individual, she is a representative of the government, speaking in a government setting. It was completely inappropriate, and she should be fired, just as any person who works a retail would be if they were incredibly rude to a customer. You bet your ass a clerk will be fired if he hands someone their purchase and says something bigoted/threatening

How is it different from an elected official saying liberalism is a menace, or conservatism is a scourge? Should he be fired because he supposedly also represents citizens who are liberals or conservatives?

The point is Davis did not have the legal power to evict Shermer from the chamber. She told him to leave but he was not obliged to obey, and he didn't. Davis was not speaking on behalf of the state because her words had no legal authority.

If she actually used her official power to prevent him to speak,--say by starting a formal motion to ban atheists from speaking in the chamber,--that would have been a different story. While certainly boorish and overbearing, she hadn't crossed the line into abusing power.

2448. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159149 by Bonzai on April 11, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Quetzalcoatl

it is hard to believe that a queer-hating surgeon, who might well despise and discriminate against gays in every other aspect of his life, would suddenly become even-handed when he had "one of them" on the operating table in front of him

So should an atheist doctor who loathes religion be allowed to work in a Catholic hospital and treat religious patients? Have you watched the TV series "House"?

Strange it may sound, I think many professionals do have ways to separate their personal likes and dislikes from what is required to be done professionally. This is indeed a huge part of professionalism.

Until there is evidence that the doctor is unable to make this distinction, I don't believe he should be banned for thought crimes.

2449. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159145 by Bonzai on April 11, 2008 at 1:47 pm

blackwolf

. Evidence shows that the death could have been easily avoided

If there is evidence that the patient was dead because of easily avoidable mishaps the doctor should be fired and face investigations anyway, It is completely irrelevant whether the patient was homosexual or not, and whether the doctor hates homosexuals or not.

On the other hand, the hospital boss should not be able to deny the surgeon a job based on his private thoughts if he is the best candidate for the job One may argue that the applicant's views on gay should be considered part of the hiring criteria. Perhaps, but it doesn't have to be.

So, no, the hospital boss should not go,

2450. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159139 by Bonzai on April 11, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Annabanana

If you have a true hatred for a portion of the population, do you really think it is really easy to put that aside when doing your job?

Good question.

The answer is maybe, maybe not. But the price to live in a free society is that we do assume people are capable of conducting themselves in a responsible manner until proven contrary. I would rather err on given people too much credit instead of too little. I don't want to see people being fired from their jobs or otherwise punished because of "improper thoughts".