201. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #175167 by Cartomancer on May 4, 2008 at 5:39 pm

bringing out the latin is something you unfortunately share with some of my fellow atheists. They seem to turn into freshers when it comes to wannabe pretentious use of latin alternatives.)

Aww, no fair! pretentious use of Latin soubriquets on the internet is one of the few pleasures left to me these days. I've even started using classical Greek ones on some, less than salubrious, websites...

You should have seen the graffiti in the toilets of the Bodleian Library before they were refurbished. I don't think I've ever seen anyone deploy Catullus or Aristophanes in that setting before, let alone someone else come along to correct their grammar. At least I ended up learning a few dirty words for future reference. And you were never quite sure whether the scratches on the cubicle doors were just scuffing or someone's painstaking attempt at early Hittite cuneiform...

202. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175151 by Cartomancer on May 4, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Actually, I am a little disheartened at the way the interviewer dealt with the homosexuality issue. I get the feeling she is not homophobic herself, but she did present the position of religious homophobes without the antipathy it deserves from a public figure in the media spotlight. I almost got the impression she respected it as a viable moral position to take - even that's going too far for someone in her position.

Richard, as ever, made no such compromises. He sure is an unlikely public champion of gay rights, but a welcome one nevertheless. In fact I think he brings something very special and important to the cause - the link with rationality, sensible ethics and scientific understanding. I warmly approve.

203. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #175148 by Cartomancer on May 4, 2008 at 3:49 pm

I just noticed, while perusing the RDFRS site, that I live less than 300 metres from the UK office of the RDFRS. Well who would have thought it...

204. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #175144 by Cartomancer on May 4, 2008 at 3:23 pm

By 'we're' you mean 'you' presumably, in which case 'I'm' is probably more appropriate.

No, I think I speak for a greater constituency than just myself here. Of course I would never dream of putting myself forward as a self-appointed spokesman for all atheists on all matters everywhere - that's the great thing about atheism, no prescribed thinking. But here, on this thread, on RD.net, I think I am expressing a very common point of view. To wit, the point of view that it is important to speak out against and combat this particular kind of revolting (and highly popular) anti-scientific drivel, but that if theists keep their opinions privately to themselves and don't try to foist them on others then they are perfectly entitled to believe in whatever they wish.

In fact, it's not just a common sentiment, it's pretty much the sentiment explicitly endorsed by this site, by Richard Dawkins and by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Observe:

http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/foundation,ourMission

You will note, perhaps, dear credulitas_et_ratio, that I did not say "we atheists". I did not even say "we RD.net atheists". I simply said "we". Membership of this "we" group thus extends precisely to and no further than those who approve of the sentiment. Given the mission statement of the foundation I cannot but conclude that it falls within this category, as, by extension, do those who sympathise with its aims. That a large number of people on this forum do sympathise with its aims is hardly a leap of imagination great enough to require the support of something so worthless as faith...

205. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175123 by Cartomancer on May 4, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Humans are the only animals we positively know have subjective consciousness? I would have thought that one's own self is the only entity we 'know' to have subjective consciousness

That is a rather pedantic thing to say, especially given that Richard is clearly talking as a scientist here (i.e. the evidence for the existence of subjective consciousness in humans is overwhelming, in other animals less so) rather than as an abstract epistemologist (i.e. absolute knowledge of subjective phenomena in others is impossible). To take that as a serious argument against the existence of extra-personal human consciousness in the real world is much akin to the "well you can't disprove the existence of god" line we usually get.

Though if you want to be even more pedantic still I might point out that the language used is sufficiently imprecise to admit either meaning. Take the following syllogism: I am human. I know I am conscious. I do not know of any other being which is conscious. Therefore the category of humans is the only category I know to contain conscious beings. That could quite easily be contained in the phrase "Humans are the only animals we positively know have subjective consciousness".

I shall resume underlining all the split infinitives in the newspaper now...

206. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #175039 by Cartomancer on May 4, 2008 at 8:34 am

A much more balanced approach is taken by many Christians. These approaches don't seem to gain much coverage in the athiest [sic] world.

But we're not in the business of pointing out where religion leaves science alone and keeps quietly to itself without interfering - we're in the business of pointing out where it oversteps the line and starts pretending in public that it has good answers to the questions that legitimate academic disciplines ask.

Do people who campaign against paedophile abuse spend some of their time congratulating people who aren't paedophiles for not abusing children? Do animal rights people go around patting people on the back who don't abuse animals? Do those who fight against holocaust deniers give prizes for people who admit that it happened?

We're here to address a problem, not write a sociological study of differing cultural prejudices. Given that 45% of americans have apparently been taken in by this kind of facile nonsense I think there is more than enough of a problem to tackle, don't you?

Also, I'm not sure what other worlds there are apart from the atheistic one. Our world is 100% atheistic because there are no gods in it anywhere! This is the world that everyone, whether they understand that fact or not, has to live in - and anything which damages their ability to do so cannot but be a negative imposition.

207. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #175033 by Cartomancer on May 4, 2008 at 8:19 am

The thing that really strikes me about these kinds of legal wranglings is the nature of the two sides involved. The creationists would like to give the impression that it's one large, powerful, overbearing corporate organisation called "science" on the one side and a small, idealistic group of freedom fighters on the other.

But that's so far from the truth it hurts.

What we actually have is the concensus of the entire world's scientific opinion on the one side - no corporate organisation, no spin-doctoring, no agenda, just facts, collected evidence and the products of effective human reasoning - and on the other we have a small american marketing company. Oh, and some crazy muslims from Saudi Arabia, but they're a different issue. The narrow parochialism of it all is simply crazy. Reading the Discovery Institute paperwork you would be hard pressed to find even a single acknowledgement that a world outside the United States exists. I can understand such parochialism in terms of national culture, but the idea that scientific truths are a part of national culture, rather than universal, is deeply disturbing and unsound. It takes a breathtaking closed-minded arrogance to believe that one's subjective religious convictions hold a greater importance than the objective facts of the real world as we understand them. I cannot even begin to fathom the workings of such a mind.

When you think about it like that, the very idea that the ID movement, the discovery institute and creationism could be taken seriously by modern legislators is utterly laughable. And yet they still do. Utterly baffling.

208. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174665 by Cartomancer on May 3, 2008 at 6:17 am

I see we have a new day trip of the deluded with us today. Looks like moron tourism is big business in internet land.

Welcome to RichardDawkins.net dear creationist coach party, we hope you have a pleasant and bracing stay. Breakfast is served from 8.30-10.00 and if you can't shake off your stupidity on your own then just ask a local to help you - they're very nice really.

209. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173695 by Cartomancer on May 1, 2008 at 6:15 am

Cartomancer: (Can someone with a better grasp of Wooterish furnish me with a translation please? Much obliged..).

(IQ level is needed. Please furnish it first.)

Oh, right, I get you. So if I keep banging my head against the table and sticking knitting needles through my ears I might eventually end up with an IQ low enough to understand what you're saying.

I think I'll pass on that one if it's all right with you...

210. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173691 by Cartomancer on May 1, 2008 at 6:01 am

That at least tv and movies reflect a clear cut line between good and evil, and obvious righteous action and evil action where the line is far more nuanced and blurred in Japanese culture... Often having no good guys or bad guys, just people doing what they think is right, and being wrong and right in their own ways. Something that is extremely rare in western pop-culture.

Ah, there's another one. "Good" and "evil" in the cyclopean, metaphysical way we understand them are not really concepts which the traditional Japanese world view entertains either. "Right" and "wrong", "appropriate" and "inappropriate", or even "harmonious" and "discordant" are closer to the Japanese understanding of ethics. There is, in general, much less concern with putting moral labels on people than on actions - we in the west are used to thinking of "good men" who will generally do good things, and "bad men" who will generally do bad things, but without the idea of this kind of internalised absolute compass the eastern view is that there are just men, who can choose what they do freely, and the actions themselves are to be censured. I suspect a lot of this comes from a lack of exposure to middle eastern dualistic religion - The pre-christian European cultures of Greece and Rome did not view good and evil in the same way we do either. Of course the ideas of good and evil have entered in to Japanese culture through contact with western thought (and hence it is in popular culture that they are most often found), but it is still much less common to find the same clear-cut good guys and bad guys in Japanese storytelling than it is over here. If anything that's a hangover from the traditional world view too, though the changing cultural dynamics do produce some interesting interplay and creativity with the attitude.

211. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173505 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 8:21 pm

Yes, but are the modern notions of a prime mover and so forth any more different from those of the bible than medieval ones? The old testament does not mention prime movers at all - it's an entirely non-biblical notion that, presumably, the semitic tribes of the first millennium BC did not have. How, therefore, can Aquinas' concept of a prime mover be more like that of the bible than Swinburne's when there isn't a concept of prime movers in the bible for either of them to be like?

I think the big difference is between archaic thought on the christian god (i.e. uncritical) and medieval/modern thought which actually tries to understand him as a phenomenon in the first place. The idea that god even has attributes in the sense we understand them is not one that would occur to an old testament prophet.

212. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173497 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 8:14 pm

I think the Crusaders were all committed vegetarians, and just went on crusade for something to put their Saladin...

Or they just wanted a good knight out...

213. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173491 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 8:05 pm

I seriously doubt they were as far from this as those of Swinburne or Plantinga.

I'm not sure there's really any standardised way to judge the distance of one idea from another. I suppose Augustine, Abelard, Aquinas and the rest considered the old testament to be an accurate historical account of real events, where Swinburne, Plantinga and the moderns do not. But the fourfold interpretative framework medieval theologians placed on scriptural and historical events (literal, allegorical, tropological and metaphorical) makes even that a difficult thing to argue - historicity as we understand it is not a universal concept.

Actually, and Swinburne would probably be the first to admit this, most modern theologians draw their systematic approach to their discipline largely from Aquinas. The fundamental idea that god is a scientific force which can be understood on abstract terms (a prerequisite for "theology" narrowly defined) is common to most medievals and moderns, but entirely lacking in the archaic texts themselves. I can't really think of a single instance in the bible where a systematic, intellectual understanding of the nature of god is considered as something one might want to acquire.

214. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173479 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 7:54 pm

but let me ask, were the Crusades necessarily a bad thing?

I think you need Sellars and Yeatman for this question, not me! On what criteria do you want to judge a number of international military expeditions to the near east?

215. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173469 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Check out the God of the middle ages....

The Middle Ages were a dark time and the Pope was only out for power back then, that's also why He ordered the Crusades.

Ye gods no! Hold me back somebody, hold me back please before I have an aneurism or something...

I should probably refrain from sarcasm in this, but I can't help it. Precisely which of the 160 or so popes from 500-1500 AD was "only out for power back then"? You perhaps mean Otho de Lagery (Urban II) who "launched" the first crusade in 1095 at the Council of Clermont? In response to ambassadors of the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I? And who was also a regular correspondant of Anselm of Canterbury (he of the ontological proof fame), patron of scholastic learning, reformer of church law and administrative organisation and player in the political games of the Imperial, Sicilian and French kings? I am so glad that the multifarious activities of he and his fellow pontiffs across ten centuries can be effectively summarised in one line of misrepresentation. Makes my job a hell of a lot easier I must say...

And as for perceptions of god, the medieval centuries saw much, much more ink spilled over questions of the nature of god than has been spilled on them before or since. High Medieval theology was about as far from the monolithic, simplistic, violent accounts of the old testament god as it is possible to be. In fact the idea of an almost deistic god who came up with the laws of the universe, set them in motion and then stepped back to let everything take its course developed in a large part from the astronomical works of men such as John of Sacrobosco (1195-1256) who coined the term "machina mundi" for this kind of regular clockwork universe that did not need constant tinkering and intervention to make it work - either on a cosmological or on a human scale.

The nature of god was considered to be the highest and most important philosophical question a man could bend his mind to, and the methods for investigating this question were extremely subtle and sophisticated, not to mention clandestine and arcane. Aristotelian logic, literary scholarship, allegory, natural observation, ethical speculation, textual criticism, mystical contemplation and more were brought to bear, and the resulting god that emerged from the schools was such a complex and abstract thing that nobody really understood or agreed on everything that he was supposed to be about. And that's before you take into account the vast corona of saints' cults, relic cults and other phenomena of popular piety that fleshed out the Medieval religious picture.

216. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173378 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 5:27 pm

To be honest I only argue with creationists for sport myself. And I've found that they're a pretty unsatisfying quarry on the internet - much more fun in person when you have them pinned and can see the looks of spluttering outrage on their faces.

I'm probably a bad person because I enjoy arguments in which I know I have the other guy hopelessly outclassed. "Vincent", I tell myself, "You really are better than this - leave the poor man alone, he isn't hurting anybody". But hey, I can be spiteful too. I often rationalise it that I'm standing up for reason and logic and good intellectual practice, but really I just want to make someone else look like a fool and impress upon the world how much smarter I am than him. My brother once said that the only way I would be entirely satisfied in my arguing with religious people is if they fell to their knees at the end and grovelled in abject obeisance about how foolish they had been to doubt me. I wish I could say he wasn't right...

Oh well, C'est la vie...

217. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173370 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 5:13 pm

I don't have the energy or motivation to post or debate here any more. I am fed up with ID nuts posting the same old nonsense, and religious sympathisers like Bonzai posting the same old apologetics.

Oh dear, Steve is grumpy again. Perhaps he is still suffering from the cold he mentioned earlier? Would it help if I changed my avatar back to cheer you up Steve?

218. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173364 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Cartomancer, you're my hero. That is a great analysis. :)

Well, a significant portion of the credit for my knowledge on this issue does have to go to my brother Gavin, without whose studies of Japanese culture I would know very little indeed. Often do we thrash out the great cultural divide between east and west over a 24 can pack of cokes and the best part of the night. He does look at my posts on here occasionally, so I had better say as much.

219. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173351 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 4:54 pm

The idea of obedience being a high virtue didn't have anything to do with supernatural beliefs.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the use of "natural" and "supernatural" when describing traditional Japanese beliefs. It is not a dichotomy that most pre-modern Japanese would have really understood. The influence of Plato's thinking on our own cultures is hard to underestimate, but his division between the above and the below is not something traditional Japanese thought has ever really emphasised. To them the world is not split into the magical and the mundane - it's all of the same substance and kind. The term Ki (Chi in chinese - energy or life force), which is often taken to be a term for supernatural magical force by western commentators, applies as much to the flow of blood or muscular force and the blowing of the winds as it does to the movements of dragons and the powers of gods. In fact, "gods" is a somewhat misleading term for the Japanese Kami, which were never omnipotent, omnibenevolent or even particularly special, and never divided off so utterly from mortals as Homer divided them for the western mind. This inability to think in dualistic terms, more than anything else, has infuriated christian missionaries to Japan for half a millennium and more.

If pressed I would say that hierarchical obedience was such a fundamental part of Japanese thought that it took on a powerful metaphysical significance. It certainly extended beyond the sphere of human interpersonal relations to become the central pillar of the Japanese world view.

220. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173343 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 4:34 pm

The Kamikazi pilots were not motivated by religious beliefs and the rewards in the afterlife either. It was nationalism, honour and peer pressure.

I think you could do far worse for a description of early twentieth century national shinto than the religious idealisation of nationalism, honour and peer pressure! Nevertheless, just talking about shinto is missing the massive degree of syncretism and eclecticism in Japanese religious practice. It is often said that the Japanese are born in a shrine (shinto), married in a church (christian) and die in a temple (buddhist), and there is much truth to this caricature. To the Japanese, there is little or no hypocrisy attached to such picking and choosing of venerated cultural practices. Furthermore, it was less "peer pressure" in the sense we understand it than a deep conviction of the absolute authority of military command that made the kamikaze pilots' decisions for them. Most kamikaze pilots made the ultimate sacrifice because they were commanded to, they did not volunteer. Japanese society had for centuries organised itself around a strongly hierarchical ethic. Obeying orders and not questioning the will of a superior were (and in many ways still are) fundamental tenets of Japanese philosophy, culture and identity, derived in part from native cultural practices like shinto but also massively from confucianism.

One nineteenth-century Japanese commentator put it something like this:
"Morals were invented by the Chinese. This is because the Chinese are a terribly wicked race and do not follow the will of their superiors like they should. The Japanese do not need morals, because we have Obedience."

Even going back to the earliest stories from the Heian period, the central tension in Japanese literature between obedience to authority and personal needs / wants is pitched rather differently to the way we have viewed it in the west. Japanese cultural heroes are people who do the right thing (follow the orders of a superior) in spite of how painful or difficult it is to do so, and how much they stand to lose by it. There is tragedy in their depictions of the conflicting demands of life (love, warrior pride, defence of family and people, etc.) but unlike in the West where our heroes have generally got the freedom to stake out their own solutions to these conflicting responsibilities (think Hector in the Iliad, or Shakespeare's Prospero), in Japan there is always only one right thing to do - anything else is dereliction of the natural order of things.

The moral conundrums in traditional Japanese stories tend therefore to be ones in which there are two conflicting orders or expectations from two conflicting superiors. Generally the solution is to pick one responsibility to fulfil, and then kill yourself because you have failed to fulfil the other. The tale of the 47 Ronin is perhaps the most famous of these.

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

Comment #173279 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 3:12 pm

I quite liked curmudgeonly old Richard Morgan myself.

222. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173267 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 2:59 pm

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried".
- Winston Churchill

223. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173258 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 2:47 pm

"Hello, and welcome to the Atheists Answer Your Stupid Questions Hotline. Your call is important to us. If you want to spout nonsense about irreducible complexity, press 1. If you have a bee in your bonnet about Hitler and Stalin, press 2. If you think atheism is just another religion, press 3. If you need to bring up that tired old objective source of morality guff, press 4. If you just want to make crude ad hominems at Richard Dawkins until you feel better, press 5. Your call will be charged at normal network rates and may be monitored for staff training purposes. All proceeds go to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science..."

224. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173240 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 2:33 pm

The previous comments are right, these kinds of shows have a tendency to be very samey and repetitive. I guess that we here at RD.net occasionally lose sight of the fact that most people are not so well acquainted with the old recycled bad arguments - certainly most people who listen to popular radio broadcasts such as this one.

For my own personal gratification I would prefer different questions and discussions on air, but I accept that it is important to raise the consciousness of as many people as possible, so I am happy to forego more esoteric ruminations on public media if the result is a greater diffusion of the basics.

225. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173175 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Bureaucrates? Wasn't he a 5th century Athenian philosopher who sat in the agora talking to passers by and doing their paperwork for them?

226. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173164 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Cartomancer CARTOONS: "Find love while arguing with Wooter",
Bored now. Can we have someone with something interesting to discuss instead? Or how about another game of Mornington Crescent, or some more baking recipes?
Clearmind clears: Hmm, I do not think that they can find love while arguing with me. But surely they can find LOGIC.

Clearmind clears: You can date someone since you can't find any argument against LOGIC. Since this web page turned into a dating web page.

Can someone with a better grasp of Wooterish furnish me with a translation please? Much obliged...

227. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173019 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 8:34 am

Perhaps you could come up with some appropriate verses for Atheist Grace before meals?

How about we just adapt the famous grace from Christ Church College, Oxford, like so:

Nos ridentes homines et gaudentes, pro cibis quos nobis ad corporis subsidium acquiremus, nullo, non presertim Deus omnipotens Christianorum, qui "Pater Caelestis" vocatur, gratias reverenter agimus, nec Quetzalcoatlo, nec Zeu, nec Monstro Volenti Spaghettifacto et cetera; simul optantes, ut iis sobrie, modeste atque grate fruamur.
Per Ricardum Daucines, exemplum nostrum. Amen.

We joyous and smiling people, for the food which we gather for the sustenance of our bodies we give reverent thanks to no-one, especially not to the almighty god of the christians, the so-called "Heavenly Father. Nor do we give thanks to Quetzalcoatl, nor Zeus, nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster etc. At the same time we hope to enjoy this food with sobriety, moderation and gratitude. Through Richard Dawkins, our example, Amen.

I'm sure Dan Dennett would have much preferred that formulation when he was doing his DPhil there!

228. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172993 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 8:18 am

I have evolved a recipe over the years. I will explain what has been selected.

Hmm, what with the Pat Condell anthology swelling the RDFRS commercial catalogue (and the new dating section of the site going live!) perhaps it's high time for a RichardDawkins.net Atheist Cookbook to hit the shelves?

229. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172979 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 8:13 am

Bored now. Can we have someone with something interesting to discuss instead? Or how about another game of Mornington Crescent, or some more baking recipes?

230. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172912 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 6:58 am

I'm afraid I don't play the personal insult game well.

Oh dear, Such a shame. I consider myself a veritable grand master of that particular sport. I could give lessons...

I am done responding to any of your posts until this time tomorrow.

Ecce gratum et optatum, ver reducit gaudia!

231. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172883 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 6:37 am

Looks like RD.net is fast becoming the hottest dating site on the internet! And not just of the radiocarbon kind.

This could be a wonderful opportunity for marketing slogans. "Find love while arguing with Wooter", "You can still find your soul mate if you don't believe in souls", "RD.net - romance on a scientific footing"...

232. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172871 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 6:26 am

I assume you are trying to say if it's based on 'confirmed facts of physics and chemistry' is should be reliable? Since both dating methods qualify, why does one show tens of thousands of years and the other billions?

What you have uncovered here, if indeed your statement is accurate (and I have my doubts), is an area for further research into the accuracy of our technology and the reliability of certain of our dating methods. You have not demonstrated that radioactive dating methods should be disregarded or abandoned. We have many, many dozens of different types of radioactive dating methods, not just the two you bring up, and most give remarkably similar figures. The outliers can thus be investigated and their accuracy doubted. The principle behind them all (the confirmed fact of physics and chemistry I mentioned) - the regular rate of decay in radioactive nuclei - is not in doubt. There are also numerous other scientific methods of dating things which broadly agree with the radioactive dates - epeeist mentions tree rings and ice cores, to which you can add soil strata, astral spectrometry and others.

Written historical evidence on the other hand, especially when it is as scant and diffuse as anything we have from 2492 BC is, has much less by way of a corroborative framework to vouch for its reliability. The chances it was all faked are much, much higher. Mostly we have to take the dates given by ancient sources on trust, or speculate about why they might not be trustworthy, what biases the author might have held and how he might have misunderstood his own sources.

And yet the evidence of material culture does fit with our scientific estimates of the age of the universe and the earth. Scriptural accounts, however, have nothing to reccommend them as evidence in the slightest because they conflict with the reliable evidence of science and came about through idle, unfounded speculation by men utterly ignorant of the evidence we have for the age of the world.

Can you prove all of space is a vacuum as you conceive it and where does the force of gravity fit into your equation?

I'm no astrophysicist, but if you seriously want to argue that gravitational phenomena and non-vacuum areas of space could realistically account for a 99% reduction in the observed ages of the stars down to 4500 years then I'm sure there are plenty of better qualified minds here to pour scorn over your ignorance.

233. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172833 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 5:57 am

So you're theory covers all bases?
Billions of years in case science is right, and thousands of years in case the "ancient texts" are right?

I'm not sure I'd call that a "theory", more a complete lack of certainty.

If that were all it took to qualify as a theory, I could come up with a comprehensive theory of everything in a heartbeat:

"res sunt quod sunt" - things are what they are.

There. No need to do science anymore. All explained. Pack up and go home everyone.

234. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172821 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 5:46 am

Written records, artistic records, both are products of human ingenuity. I see no difference in the degree of trustworthiness for their dating.

Radiocarbon dating, Potassium-Argon dating - the difference is one of details not of principle. It's all scientific data analysis based on confirmed facts of physics and chemistry.

And the light from distant stars travels at a fixed speed through the vacuum of deep space, so it is a very reliable way of telling us how long ago those distant objects emitted light, and hence how old the universe must be at minimum.

Why do you trust mere historical evidence more than you trust scientific evidence? The writings and material culture of egyptian and near eastern peoples would be far easier to fake than the readings of spectrometers and radioactive dating. Also, why the cut off point for 2492BC? Surely we have cultural evidence from cave paintings much, much earlier than that? Or does the written word have some magical truth value to it which images and other evidence do not have?

235. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172801 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 5:32 am

I see some individuals that could benefit from reading some of the debate logs

"I have seen the future, Kain, and you're not in it..."

236. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172799 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 5:31 am

Cartomancer: You still using the avatar from the flag fiasco?

I thought I'd change it back today, but when I got to the edit avatar screen, somehow I couldn't bring myself to do away with him just yet...

237. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172789 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 5:24 am

I believe both the universe and our planet are at least 4500 years old and beyond that, the sky's [and the theories are] the limits.

But why 4500 years? What evidence do you base that figure on? Why is evidence from 2492BC utterly convincing to you while evidence from 3000BC or 10,000BC or even 4 Billion years BC not so convincing?

Why should the artistic stylings of early Egyptian ceramics be a better source of evidence than the radiocarbon dating of prehistoric bones and the light distortions from distant stars?

238. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172783 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 5:12 am

Perhaps we need an answersinabiogenesis.com?

239. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171344 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 12:50 pm

Can you tell me exactly how you are an oppressed minority in 21st Century England?

I'm not. I didn't say I was. In fact I even said that here in Britain the marches are rapidly becoming depoliticised. What I was saying was that the marches came about (in the 60s and 70s) as a response to oppression and discrimination. They're still all about that in places where it genuinely goes on, and there is still the idea that we need to show solidarity with those less fortunate than ourselves.

240. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171330 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 12:40 pm

what I meant with flaunting in public is the flamboyant behavior and those damned parades. They fuck up traffic, seriously. I don't really hate gays, just the fact that they're too demanding and they whine all the god damned time. They took all the good things from the straight guys, the color purple used to be cool, now it's gay. The rainbow used to be for kids, now it's gay. I love Queen, especially Freddy Mercury, but the ones I know in general are whiny and bitchy

You try being an oppressed minority, then see how important it is to make big public displays of pride and confidence. In my country pride marches are rapidly becoming depoliticised, because the fight has been substantially won, though there is still residual homophobia to battle against. In your nation, however, which is still rife with homophobia and treats its gay residents as second class citizens, the marches have a hugely important political function to play. Go to places like Riga in Latvia, which recently held its first ever pride march in the face of massive popular hostility, then complain. And even in places like the UK where we are accepting and tolerant, there is still the need to stand up in solidarity with those who are less fortunate.

To complain because it slows down the traffic is the most fatuous piece of mean-spirited philistinism I have had the misfortune to chance across in a long time.

And just because gay people warm to certain symbols and colours and modes of expression doesn't mean they're forbidden from straight people. Hardly any of my straight friends would think twice about wearing a pink T-shirt or a pair of purple jeans. My twin brother dresses in a far more stereotypically gay manner than I do. And children can still enjoy rainbows. And if the worst comes to the worst and someone thinks you are gay, where's the problem in that? Gay people get mistaken for straight all the time - do you hear us batting an eyelid? (well, most gay people anyway. I was reliably informed by my students the other day that I cannot pass for heterosexual under any circumstances.)

241. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171317 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 12:30 pm

But don't whine when people question your loyalty to our Republic

I have no loyalty to your republic. There is no reason why I should have.

I understand the use of symbols and symbolism. I know the rivers run deep. It is irrational yes, but a certain amount of controlled irrationality is positively good for people. We need ritual and pomp and ceremony, or at least they are harmless enough things which help some people. I just think that sometimes it can go too far.

The degree to which citizens of the United States fetishise that flag is one of those times. Important British dignitaries and soldiers have the union flag draped on their coffins. Important Japanese dignitaries do the same with the Hinomaru. That's a fairly ubiquitous tradition. But do you find anyone other than americans coming up with such silly, antiquated totemic customs as never putting the thing on the ground or wearing it like a cloak? Those are military practices which date back at least as far as the Middle Ages (where it originated with battle standards and heraldic devices), but enter modern usage from early modern regimental custom. Only stuffy old retired colonels would talk like that over here. British people have seaside beach towels with the union flag on them. We put it on commemorative pants and gaudy tourist mugs. Hell, we even paint our faces with it for sports fixtures. It's a common joke over here that the Germans use their tricolour towels to mark out their deck chairs and sun loungers on holiday.

And none of this rouses even the slightest ire from British nationalists, let alone ordinary subjects of her majesty.

If the symbol is important to you, then great! Keep doing what you want to show your appreciation. What I object to though is the assumption that others should follow your irrational practices too, even others who do not have the same respect for your traditions. Where is the difference between that and religion?

242. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171278 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 12:04 pm

But it's a SYMBOL. It's not the thing symbolised. Doing things with a flag does not affect your precious republic one whit. That's crazy poppet magic with a vengeance! Weird voodoo nonsense! Utterly irrational!

And what if some people find the symbolism of wearing it as a cape more powerful still? What if people think that laying it on the ground is symbolic of the values it stands for being the foundation of your liberty or similar patriotic guff? Just because it means one thing to you doesn't mean you have any right to impose that meaning on others.

You simply cannot impose an arbitrary code of semiotics on other people without their say so.

243. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171269 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 11:59 am

At best it is unsanitary... he is laying FACE DOWN.

I have got one of him lying face up, but it's not really suitable for a family website like this...

244. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171266 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 11:56 am

The flag should never touch the ground and/or be used as an article of clothing.

But why not? Why not? What is so special about a bit of old cloth? That phrase sounds suspiciously like talismanic magic to me - i.e. pointless irrational superstition...

245. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171256 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 11:52 am

pretty hilarious, but still disrespectful

It don't think it's disrespectful at all. I would be proud to have such a fine specimen of masculinity reclining on my country's dear union flag. He's american, he's beautiful, he's gay. Perfectly simple. Where's the disrespect?

246. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171247 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 11:48 am

But what's wrong with flaunting one's sexuality, whatever it may happen to be? What is so bad about that and why should people not do it if they want to?

247. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171243 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 11:45 am

Now if only I really did look like that. I was going to change back straight away, but I think I might just keep him around for a while longer...

248. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171236 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 11:38 am

Sorry, couldn't help myself there...

249. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171209 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 11:18 am

Honestly can't really tell you why it doesn't fit, but when I picture the ideal America they just don't fit in. IDK why not, but if you want to pick my brain, it might take you a while.

But there are millions upon millions of gay people in the USA and there always have been. There always will be. Wherever there are human beings, indeed wherever there is pretty much any kind of sexually reproductive animal, there are homosexual individuals.

If you can't specify a reason, might I suggest you need to rethink your opinion. Prejudiced gut reaction is no way to run one's life.

Since you mention engineering and the keyboard, how about realising that superlative renaissance engineer Leonardo da Vinci had homosexual preferences, and we wouldn't even have computers without the genius of Alan Turing.

250. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171194 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 11:06 am

I don't think that gays fit into the picture of an ideal America. He drapes himself in the flag which is a privilege that is not earned cheaply and he uses it for his ways.

Why don't gay people fit in to your "ideal america" then? What is it about attraction to one's own gender that does not fit? What harm does it do? And why should your version of "ideal" automatically trump everyone else's?

And why should the wearing of flags and symbols be a privilege? If that were so then you wouldn't be able to buy the things in just about any shop you care to name. What's so special about a bit of cloth with some spangles on it?