201. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104033 by AtheistJon on December 27, 2007 at 4:28 pm

Well, back from Xmas and it seems this conversation has gone on with lots of harsh words and arguments directed at me. Nice to know that I'm so popular among my fellow atheists (with some notable exceptions... thanks Paula for defending me!)

None of the arguments have really persuaded me that I have been an irrational idiot, as a matter of fact, they have just pissed me off. But, that being said, I'm trying to put myself in the position of Steve Zara and other gays who have been criticizing me. I do feel regret for all the ad hominems that have gone on, and I apologize for those. I would much prefer being on a friendly basis with people who are on this site, since I am guessing that you tend to be rational and reasonable people, generally. I must apparently repeat my position which is one of benevolence (or at least neutrality) towards gay people, just not the gay act. That doesn't mean I would outlaw the gay act... My only motive here is to advocate my preferences as to how I would prefer to live (eg. which behavior I would prefer to see in a movie or in a book). It is my opinion that preferences are matters of taste and cannot usually be objectively or scientifically justified... To exemplify, I think preferences are like this: person A: "I prefer tea to coffee." person B: "Well, I prefer coffee to tea." Who's right? Nobody. I really have not been persuaded that the mere physical reaction that I have (which by the way is not to be exaggerated...) is a reason to be castigated by homosexuals. Anyway, I'm not saying that I die from barfing at gay acts, just that I get a tad grossed-out, and again I'm sorry to the gays on this site who are of a different preference than I, that this is so. My reaction is not necessarily the "correct" reaction nor is it the "incorrect" one... it's merely the one I have. Anyway, I regret the animosity that this instills in gays, as I am on your side on the political debate of social rights and seemingly also on the religious debate.

The thing that bothers me here (and I suppose I have beaten this horse to death already) is the tendency to be dogmatic about what thoughts are and are not to be tolerated. I still haven't understood it. Explain to me how this is not Orwellian thought police? Isn't it really the choice of how to act on my thoughts that matters, morally?

Also, to conclude, I have a question for the gay people who were offended by my postings. Would you have preferred pretence? In other words, when I was asked, do I or do I not defend the position of Ayn Rand that homosexuality is disgusting, would you have preferred a reaction that belied my true feeling? Wouldn't you rather know what people like me truly feel when witnessing homosexuality on (eg) a train? By the way, is it really fair to criticize me for wanting to shield my children from that?

202. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103485 by AtheistJon on December 25, 2007 at 7:55 pm

And after saying all that about how un-unanimous, politically, atheists are. It's amazing to me, that somebody said to me yesterday:

I find your disgusting opinions revolting.
Why don't you keep them to yourself?

Are my opinions not allowed on this forum unless they match "Mr. Disgusted"s?

203. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103483 by AtheistJon on December 25, 2007 at 7:42 pm

I was looking for it, but now I don't find it... anyway, I agree with your claim that Atheists don't (or at least shouldn't) have anything in common other than their disbelief in something. However, I find, time and again, atheists speaking on behalf of all other atheists, when it just doesn't make sense. If I find the video link that I was thinking of... I will edit this post and put it here: ...

204. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103477 by AtheistJon on December 25, 2007 at 7:16 pm

Radesq. I can agree with that. One thing I mentioned earlier was how it was a contradiction when Christopher Hitchens brought up the issue of religious secular violence in the context of atheist morality. Isn't it a contradiction of the above view that atheists are non-uniform in their political views, to say that atheists would or would not (eg. burn down a mosque)?

205. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103474 by AtheistJon on December 25, 2007 at 7:08 pm

Hey whig, finally somebody who sounds reasonable. I will grant you that Atlas Shrugged was fairly dogmatic (as also the Fountainhead). I think she must have been using that style of talk in her writing to indicate what a strong foundation/position hers was. But, I agree with you in your criticism... I would say that even a strong philosophical argument would necessarily need to be one that was full of imperfection and hence subject to question and revision.

In End of Faith, Sam Harris makes the case for a new modern based set of morality/ethics. Remember that?

My feeling is that objectivism has many potential nuggetts that would be worthy of inclusion in any ethical system, but I definitely don't agree with every jot and tiddle from Ayn Rand. Not sure how I got thrust into that position...

And for Sam's idea, obviously, as witnessed by the discussion in this forum, I think it'll be rather challenging to agree on the foundations of ethics. If that is the case, does it make sense to ram certain views of ethics down people's throats? Isn't that also dogmatism?

206. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103473 by AtheistJon on December 25, 2007 at 6:51 pm

I don't think it's a waste of time if you want to turn the issue into something like the following:

Should Atheists have a party line on all political topics? And to the degree that they don't allow any dissent whatsoever (even if the dissent is purely an involuntary physical displeasure of something advocated by the atheist party line). That being said, I'm willing to end this "debate", if people are manly/womanly enough to admit that they were wrong in criticizing me for "openly insulting people". If someobody said that to you, would you just ignore it?

A party line seems pretty narrow and unworthy of what I always considered to be an openminded group of people with whom I am generally very proud to be associated.

207. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103466 by AtheistJon on December 25, 2007 at 6:19 pm

You chided me not to Argue from Ignorance. How about you? Aren't you now arguing Ad Hominim?

So, in the interest of wanting to be liked by fellow Atheists, I will ask the following if I may be so bold... What about me is so unattractive? Do you really think you know me well enough to make such a judgment. My, my, my liberal comrade, aren't we quick to pass judgment on people, now? Is it my dissension from the ranks of the Atheists on a liberal issue? I'm sure, if the discussion had turned more towards why can religionists get away with X... or some similar topic, I would have been greeted with both arms (right and left), but it seems that one issue kills me on this forum, aye?

Not towing the party line enough? I wouldn't have said so, until this prediction of yours. but perhaps those air-headed Christians are correct, afterall, in their "Stalin was an atheist" argument... No, can't be... I think atheists are more free thinking and tolerant of dissent than that? Anyway, maybe your particular style of tolerance is symptomatic of your not giving me advice.

208. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103464 by AtheistJon on December 25, 2007 at 6:03 pm

I would agree with you, if what you are implying is that "right vs left politics" is a lot more full of hot air than such mundane issues like that. I studied political science when I was at Caltech, and there is some level at which politics can be understood. But, I think that I actually agree with your sentiments above.

209. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103462 by AtheistJon on December 25, 2007 at 5:59 pm

notsobad - just to give you an example... my children being with me, would be one instance where I am forced to pay attention to what's going on around me. I find it rather annoying to have gays bragging about being gay in front of my innocent kids (9 years and 5 years old).

By the way, the President of Finland (Ms. Conan O'Brian look alike, Tarja Halonen) is a reputed lesbian. I don't have any evidence of that in case somebody nags me about it, but you know how rumors of that sort tend to be accurate... I might be wrong, but I don't think any serious skeptic would fully accept her marriage as evidence to the contrary.

I never made any irrational opposition to Ms. Halonen, so I don't see why I should have to pay the penalty and witness gay parades on a daily basis. Anyway, that's certainly their right to do, but my only contention here on this point is that I shouldn't be thought controlled into saying "isn't that lovely, a gay parade" when I honestly find it disgusting.

210. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103459 by AtheistJon on December 25, 2007 at 5:46 pm

Dr. Benway, please enlighten me as to what politics you have in mind where there is no "gap in our understanding of some problem"? My opinion is not that "right wing politics is correct". Rather, more of the opinion that left wing zealots tend to think of themselves as geniuses, when they're just as dogmatic as the rest.

211. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103456 by AtheistJon on December 25, 2007 at 5:41 pm

As I said, I live in Finland. Hub of European liberalism.

212. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103454 by AtheistJon on December 25, 2007 at 5:37 pm

Forced in the same sense that you are forced to see nativity scenes during Christmas. There is an intentional injection of homosexuality (gay parades) to force social acceptance. And believe it or not, gays are not all locked in closets, are they? Some of them will sit next to you on a train and start acting out their fantasies in public. If you want to call that my imagination, then I guess that's more thought control for this thread...

213. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103447 by AtheistJon on December 25, 2007 at 5:09 pm

phil rimmer, disgust isn't always irrational. In the case of homosexuality, I'm willing to bet there's a very rational and biologically based scientific explanation for why my body feels disgusted when I am forced to see gay men in the act. Same can be said for the sight of blood. I take umbridge with the idea that I went out of my way to offend gays... the subject was brought up, not of my choosing. If somebody asks me a question point blank, i.e. "Ayn Rand considered homosexuality disgusting, do you disown her for her views"... then I am not morally responsible for offending the homosexual community. Nor does it seem that the liberal politically-correct sensibilities extend to somebody who could characterize himself as an Ayn Rand fan... By the way, Bill Clinton is a very probable rapist. For those of you who feel that being a fan of somebody, means you are responsible for each and every aspect of that person's life... please rationalize how then, it is, that you are fans of Mr. Rapist Clinton? By the way, there is plenty of evidence on this... for those who are not blinded by left wing views and alliances.

214. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103446 by AtheistJon on December 25, 2007 at 4:54 pm

On the other hand, Mr. Steve Zara is somebody who seems to waste his life blogging (based on the volume of his activity I see here on this forum), and would love to bend over backwards being polite to gay men, but refuses to be polite towards an Ayn Rand fan. By the way, I know just enough about Ayn Rand to consider myself a fan. I never claimed to have been a champion of every aspect of her character... The things I have read, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, are masterpieces in the collection of bullshit literature that is out there (eg. Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy). For me, it just clicked... I'm not prepared, however, to do a literary analysis, nor a biography on her. Just to give a sanity check with where you are going with this "you must disown Ayn Rand" thread... would you disown Carl Sagan because of the way he betrayed (some would say abused) his own spouses and children? I am an adamant Sagan fan, too, but am I going to disown being a Sagan fan? No way. I realize that he had his flaws, as all people do. Are you saying that Ayn Rand was a wicked person? I find that counter to what I have read about her.

I'll concede one thing. You are right that saying "homosexuality is disgusting" is not an objective fact. That would necessitate research and a standard definition of the word disgusting. But, if I qualify the statement to add, "to me", would that satisfy you? i.e. "homosexuality is disgusting to me." I'm sure Ayn Rand probably implied that, also, since it's a word one would generally use with a matter of taste, isn't it?

Are you seriously proposing that an atheist forum like this is not a place for offending anybody? I hear people say out loud: "I don't like Atheists/Christians" or "I don't like Americans/America" (I live in Finland, BTW... I've even heard this said in the US), "George Bush is an idiot", etc... all the time. Do I chide them for saying this because they might upset somebody? No, because it's their own personal taste and unless they are making conclusions based on this preference it isn't something that should be up for debate. You were the one who brought the entire subject up, anyway. You make it seem like I began a thread entitled "Why gays are all disgusting, and should therefore be locked up in mental hospitals". The fact that I have to defend myself on a matter of personal taste (of which, BTW, I am not in the least morally or even consciously responsible) reeks of liberal left wing political correctness. And, truth be said, there is indeed one issue which I am angry about, the dominance of atheist forums by leftist idiots like you.

215. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102886 by AtheistJon on December 23, 2007 at 8:09 pm

Darwin offered his hypothesis on the origin of species and interspecies evolution. How does that speak to spontaneous inexplicable design?

If I may help the doctor retort you on this dsouzphile. Evolution is a mechanism whereby a complex object might arise, seemingly designed, but was merely the result of dispassionate selection a la survival of the fittest. You ought to take a look at Dawkins "Growing up in the Universe", where he lectures about Designed and Designoid objects. See the follwing link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8165848317250752475

216. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102877 by AtheistJon on December 23, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Agreed, happily. It's never fun to be on the losing side of a debate (or football game), is it? I'm just happy that I get to see football nowadays. I've been living in Finland for the last 12 years, and only last year did I finally find a cable channel that shows it.

217. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102866 by AtheistJon on December 23, 2007 at 7:40 pm

Dr. Radesq. Amazing to see you write something that I agree with... Well, maybe you aren't all bad, even if you are a Patriots fan.

218. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102849 by AtheistJon on December 23, 2007 at 6:36 pm

Matt7895 I'm not able to defend my feelings of "gross" or "disgusting" any better. As I said, it's an involuntary physical reaction. My wife took me to see Brokeback Mountain, and I had to avert my eyes on many occassions. Can't help it... I have no problem watching a man and a woman kissing in public. And although I admit that I don't consider lesbianism gross, I do feel uncomfortable when 2 lesbos kiss each other in public (especially if my kids are around). By the way, I disagree that homosexual kissing is just a sign of affection. Most of the homosexuals I have seen kissing each other in public kiss each other out of sexual lust (as do heterosexuals, too, for that matter), which has nothing to do with affection, does it? If it's just a peck kiss out of affectionate love, then I would admit that it's less gross. Why should everybody be forced to swallow homosexuality without admittting that they have a natural revulsion to it. This is leftist politically-correct dogmatism, IMO. Would you honestly be ok with bringing your kids into a room where homosexuals are kissing each other lustfully?

By the way, nobody commented on the question I posted earlier: How do you get the photo icon next to your name?

219. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102847 by AtheistJon on December 23, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Radesq, I have a DVD of a game on October 31, 2004 that fills me with equal satisfaction. Guess what the score was on that occassion? I have to admit though that the Patriots are doing awesome this year. Quite admirable teamsmanship... but, I still root for the Steelers.

220. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102844 by AtheistJon on December 23, 2007 at 6:26 pm

Matt7895, Yes, some heterosexual sex is gross, too. Take anal intercourse, for example. I just have a natural aversion to homosexual sex. I don't find it gross for a father to kiss his son, but I just have a natural disinclination to watch two unrelated men kissing (or worse) in a sexual way. You admitted it yourself:

and I don't understand how a man can find another man attractive but not a woman

The word gross and disgusting, means that I don't enjoy watching it and would prefer to avoid seeing it, if at all possible.

221. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102841 by AtheistJon on December 23, 2007 at 6:17 pm

Well, another word might be "gross". I find it "gross". I do live and let live. Why can't you understand that rather than assuming all kinds of homophobic baggage? This is like the inquisition.

BMMcArdle you seem like an idiot. And the reason I don't "keep my disgusting opinions to myself" is because this is a comment blog, on which somebody posed a question to me, and which I answered. Are you honestly suggesting that I be censored? So, I'd be willing to end the debate with you, right now. Whereas, anybody who wants to actually present arguments (and not just argue), does have the ability to influence me, since I am actually a rational person who listens to reason...

222. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102835 by AtheistJon on December 23, 2007 at 6:06 pm

Radesq. Did it occur to you that racism can be in favor of mixed races? Ever heard the expression "he's sooo white". In other words, some people are racist against white people. However, I don't personally consider it my or anybody else's duty to tell people what mating preferences are "correct". About abortion, I actually support a woman's right to have an abortion, so it seems you are misreading my posts. Just don't think it is as serious an issue in today's world of terrorism, recession, and environmental catastrophe. I also didn't equate the beheading with homos. I would say I am more disgusted by the beheadings... but I am disgusted (as a straight male) by homosexuality, so what are you saying, that I should claim to be open to it? This is thought control.

223. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102830 by AtheistJon on December 23, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Mattt7895, I also agree with Hitch. I don't have a bias against gay people. I just consider what they do, disgusting. Does that really make me "biased"??? Sounds like thought-control to me.

What an amazing bunch of knee jerk reactions. I would have thought an Atheist forum would be the slowest to condemn somebody without first understanding what it is they are condemning. I have not once said that I would in any way penalize somebody for homosexuality. Only that I find it personally revolting.

224. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102826 by AtheistJon on December 23, 2007 at 5:46 pm

I would think sexual preferences are a matter of personal taste, not opinion. Opinions are generally things you should be able to defend in an argument. Am I wrong to think that matters of taste are undebatable? It's when I consider my taste (eg. Black-and-Gold over Blue-and-Red) superior to others that it becomes an argument, isn't it? I never said that you had to agree with my tastes.

By the way, Willie Parker was way overrated. He generally only does well when the rest of the offense was already scoring. Steelers need a new running back.

Radesq, do you really consider choosing your mate a selfless, color-blind, act? And do you really consider Abortion a top issue? Okay, I might put it in the top 30, but definitely not a criteria for choosing a President. I'd be much more interested (and worried) to know if the President is a devoted Mormon or if she planned on imposing socialized medicine or if she planned on raising taxes in the middle of a recession.

Keep your ignorant opinions to yourself

Great debate... Worthy of an atheist forum? I wouldn't have thought it.

225. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102818 by AtheistJon on December 23, 2007 at 5:33 pm

She was witless and a shitty writer to boot. She was no Nietzsche

Have you ever tried reading Nietzsche? Talk about shitty writing. Maybe it just takes perserverance, but I never got past page one. I did manage to get through the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and I would admit, at least one thing... they both could have been condensed by 50%. But then again, so could Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy.

226. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102814 by AtheistJon on December 23, 2007 at 5:26 pm

I also dislike the New England Patriots. I suppose that makes me willfully ignorant and disgusting aye? Being a fan of the Pittsburgh Steelers that I am, I must be a homophobic anti-feminist racist, huh? What pitiful debaters.

227. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102811 by AtheistJon on December 23, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Well Mr Steve Zara, you do a wonderful job of arguing, don't you? I feel like I might be a victim of Ad Hominims here... Just because I am (not of my choosing) averse to male homosexuality, therefore all my arguments are false. And "willfully ignorant" to boot, aye? Where are the atheists who use reasoned argumentation. In other words, attack the argument rather than attacking the arguer.

228. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102807 by AtheistJon on December 23, 2007 at 5:17 pm

The question here should be, can you separate your "disgust" of certain things, i.e. your involuntary natural aversion to something, from your desire to dogmatically impose an ideology on others to accept your natural preference. I certainly can separate them. I would never support an outlawing of homosexuality, though I find it disgusting.

229. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102804 by AtheistJon on December 23, 2007 at 5:10 pm

No, I am not physically nauseated by seeing two women kissing. I'm not on any Leviticus crusades of making homosexuality a sin worthy of death.

Well, at least you have the honesty to express such prejudices openly on a public forum.

How is it "prejudiced" for me to physically react that way to homosexual men. I have no control over my physical reaction here. It's like when I see somebody get their head sawed off... I cannot control my physical reaction to this... and I term this reaction disgust, so I don't see how I can be faulted by this thing which I have no control over.

230. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102801 by AtheistJon on December 23, 2007 at 5:05 pm

I see. So, the testimony of Juanita Broderick doesn't constitute evidence?

Saying you are a fan of somebody, at least to me, encompasses more than just opinions. You take a person, vices and virtues, and decide you like them. I like Ayn Rand. She fled Russia when the world was becoming Red because she recognized the immorality of the system. I weigh that issue above the issue of homosexuality. I guess my perspective on life differs from you. It
reminds me of the issue of abortion... I am totally pro-choice, but I consider abortion such a minor issue of all issues that exist, that I wouldn't ever base my vote on whether the candidate were pro/anti abortion.

Now you brought up racism. That's such a boneheaded opinion to stake your core values. I don't think human beings are capable of being non-racist. Okay, you'll ask me what I mean by "racism". Racism isn't just committing genocide, joining the KKK, or hating some race. I would define racism to be more general, i.e. the favoring of one race or species of life over another. Choosing your mate is nominally a racist act... you're favoring (selfishly) a certain set of racial characteristics that you would desire in your own offspring. To me that is perfectly acceptable.

231. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102797 by AtheistJon on December 23, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Saying that you are a fan of somebody doesn't in any way, blanket endorse all aspects of the person you are a fan of. If it did, it wouldn't make sense to be a fan of anybody, since there is nobody in the world that you will share 100% opinions on every subject. Take Hitch... I'm definitely a fan, but I loathe smoking and smokers.

By the way, I would agree with Ayn Rand that homosexuality is disgusting. I'm physically nauseated to see 2 men kissing each other. That's an honest recognition of what disgust actually means. Not sure that it's immoral though. My definition of morality doesn't encompass sexual behavior beyond infidelity and rape. Question for you, do you consider rape immoral? Let's say somebody was a lawyer and was able to successfully avoid being convicted of the rape he committed... would he still be immoral? If the media failed to seriously pursue the truth of the matter when a highly prominent public figure were accused of rape, would that be immoral?

232. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102787 by AtheistJon on December 23, 2007 at 4:31 pm

I don't blanket agree with anybody on anything. That's what dogmatic liberals seem to do when they support the Clintons. As far as the doctrines of "anti-feminism and homophobism" that you claim she supports. Assuming you're correct, I'd have to take those issues on more concrete cases. Give me an example of something Rand would specifically oppose that you think is good, and then I'd be willing to weigh in on the matter.

BTW. I don't claim to be an Objectivist nor an expert on Ayn Rand. I have read "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged", so my admiration is qualified by saying I admire these books, and also some random tidbits, such as the interviews I linked to, where I agree with her.

233. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102784 by AtheistJon on December 23, 2007 at 4:19 pm

That would be the Ayn Rand of the "altruism is not a virtue" who fled commmunist Russia after having seen first hand the flaws in that particular philosophy. I continue to admire her, eg. in the following interviews, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go62Gl7aik4 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGFytGBDN8, where she talks about how the idea that love is above self interest is foolish. By the way, she was also a staunch atheist and promotor of the value of man's reasoning.

By the way, how does one setup those picture icons next to ones name in this blogging system?

234. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102779 by AtheistJon on December 23, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Wonderful in the sense that, "wonderful, the POTUS is not a lying rapist!" That's just one reason. Leftism is clearly a dogmatic branch of thinking in the modern world. How else do you explain the ignoring of this simple case. Its astonishing how no leftist will go up against the immorality of the Clintons. Reminds one of a beloved communist dictator. I would be happy if people would be more engineer-like in their approach to politics, but I find leftists the most annoying group, since even this one single and simple concrete example of Clinton's behavior just slips through the cracks and they still find Bush bashing more worthwhile than wondering how Hillary Clinton (accomplice to a rapist, liar, briber) can possibly be considered seriously for the Presidency. On the other hand, I'd be willing to bet that 25 years (perhaps longer) from now, people will be looking back at Bush's presidency and, unlike Clinton or Carter, find a hero. Just imagine the day that the first terrorist nuclear bomb explodes somewhere. Who are they going to get mad at? Bush?

235. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102544 by AtheistJon on December 23, 2007 at 7:36 am

Whig, thanks for your post!

Can you give me some more specifics about the interesting Objectivist material you referred to?

I've always been a big fan of Ayn Rand, but I have to take umbridge if that guy considers Clinton "not bad", in any respect. After 8 years of Mr. Rapist "intellectual" Clinton, and his friends on the religious left. I found myself strongly allied with the Rush Limbaugh crowd (to my astonishment). I remember feeling extremely satisfied with having Bush become president. Cannot comprehend liberals acceptance of all the Clinton horrors. And then hypocritical treatment toward GW Bush. Imagine what the media would do if Bush would trash the White House or pardon real criminals who are fugitives. Of course, I don't endorse his religious views, but I think the degree of his fundamentalism is exaggerated by the left. As far as Iraq and foreign policy is concerned, personally, I think Bush has done a wonderful job, although I also think that it is difficult, today, to be objective about such a hot political topic. I enjoy seeing Hitch debate peolple like Scott Ritter, it is extremely informative. I'm definitely on Hitch's side on this debate... and I think GW Bush is also on Hitch's side. Maybe Hitch should be President? (Let's see if a constitutional amendment will allow Arnold to run, and if so, then Hitch should immediately run ;-) Actually, I'm just joking, because I would miss his regular debates and articles on religion and politics.

Eventually I will get to reading Dennett... I have enjoyed his public debate appearances. He has a different approach/angle than the Hitch/Harris/Dawkins "religion is stupid" approach. It seems to have worked more effectively on my mother, too. How do you convince your own mother that religion is stupid? Not by introducing them to Hitch or Harris... but Dennett might actually work. Hitchens and Dawkins have been getting some really awesome debates/interviews on tv of late, so I might be wrong about this approach. They have been perfecting the atheist sound bite. But, the religious seem to have an unfair advantage in the eyes of people like my mother who when watching these types of interviews cannot seem to accept the "wishful thinking is not honest nor true" argument, nor can she understand, despite Dawkins' wonderful eloquence using the Teapot theory, erase the "atheism is fundamentalism" oxymoron/spin which apologists for religion (like my Mom) always use.

It also doesn't help that I still have an infatuation with Carl Sagan (who my mother still thinks is a nerd). She might be right, but I still think he was one of the most eloquent atheists of all time. Even his leftist politics seemed palatable, because his views never seemed carved in stone, rather they were reasoned and malleable. Perhaps that also has a lot to do with his wonderful use of Vangelis music! I also think that the marriage of astronomy and biology is something that more scientists ought to do. Simon Singh is one of the best substitutes for Carl Sagan, but to this day, only in book form, as far as I am aware.

236. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #102230 by AtheistJon on December 22, 2007 at 5:06 am

As for Palestine. There is evidence of an Arab and proto-Arab presence in the region (Hebron, etc...) dating back about 3,000 years. The Nabataeans were in Palestine at about 300 BCE (see Diodorus Siculus, Herodotus, Josephus). The Israelis have left Nabataean artifacts un-excavated to cover up the alternate claims of history.

I can give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe this is true, but you didn't answer my question. Was or was not Jerusalem the location of the Temple of Solomon long before there was any Islam? Also, weren't the Serbians in Kosovo long before the islamic Albanians? So, by your logic, Serbians then have indeed a justification for never relinquishing "their" land, right? Doesn't this logic also promote endless real-estate wars. I have no sympathy with the Palestinians whatsoever. My advice to any Palestinian would be to move to Saudi Arabia or Jordan and get on with your life, and stop playing the victim. Anybody can come up with 10000 reasons why their particular ethnic group is the victim. Wouldn't the world be better off if all these ethnic borders would vanish? I can understand their desire to be racistly favoring themselves over any other group (this is built into their genes), but if they would expand their definition of their group, then I'd imagine they'd be a lot better off. If you would look at a Palestinian from 1500 miles away, wouldn't he look just like a Jew?

There are way more secular Jews in the world than there are secular Arabs, and I think that is the cause of Arab backwardness and Israeli dominance.

237. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101619 by AtheistJon on December 20, 2007 at 3:20 pm

When I was 8 years old, 1977-78, I lived in Dhaharan, Saudi Arabia (I'm an American... now living in Finland). Anyway, rather than resorting to insulting Arabs by using names or terms like backward... let me instead recall some true and honest backwardness of the culture. I.e. the memories of life in Saudi and the Middle East (also spent time in Jordan, Tunis and Egypt). Driving in the middle-east is somewhat like bumper cars. My impression was that Arabs were behaving like children (like me) at the time. Rather than being adult and seriously responsible about driving, they played games like the game of "let me see how far I can drive down the wrong side of the highway at night with my headlights off" or "aaah, that guy's backing up into that parking spot, let me beat him to the spot to piss him off, then roll down my window and laugh at him", or "how many cars can I wreck and still survive" or "how ornate can I decorate the inside (and outside) of my vehicle with curtains and jewelry (and Xmas tree lights)" or "let me see if I can blow my horn and act as obnoxious as possible and scare my way in front of all the rest of the traffic"... or "fuck traffic lights, let's just drive and fuck you if you get in my way".

And it wasn't just the driving... the whole society is run by a sort of childish mentality... Did you know that if you report a crime in Saudi Arabia, they put you in jail until they can verify that what you told them was true? Once, while there, somebody made the egregious mistake of reporting a crime and it turned out to be one of the hundreds of Saudi princes who was the perpetrator. I would be interested to know if the person who reported that crime ever lived to tell the tale. The culture reeks (and I mean this literally, as they had no use for sewage systems... they just let it flow into the streets and had lakes of sewage that you could smell for miles) of the attitude let me screw you before you screw me. And you can't say that Saudi Arabia is unable to afford the infrastructure. Last year, I visited Israel for the first time in my life and was refreshingly surprised to visit the first "civilized" country that I had ever visited in the Middle East. I mean in Israel you could almost think you were in California (I'm of course talking more about Tel Aviv than old Jerusalem)... almost, until you get near to one of the Arab areas where the "screw you" mentality starts rearing its ugly head (this is probably why NYC is the place in the US which I dislike the most).

So, in conclusion I would tend to agree with al-rawandi that suicide bombing isn't the monopoly of religious thinkers, but it sure does fit into Arab culture. By the way, weren't there Jews in Israel (and Jerusalem) long before there ever was any Islam (maybe not before there were filistines, but isn't it agreed that the Temple of Solomon existed at the location of the El Aqsa mosque?), so if it's a battle of real estate and who was where first, weren't the Jews the first ones there? And if it's okay to forgive the Babylonians and Arabs for conquering and taking over areas of land, why not also forgive the Jews? It seems the Palestinians are the only ones in the world who's "I was here first" lament strikes a chord in the liberal media. You never hear Karelian Finns who want Karelia back from the Russians committing suicide bombing nor could they then, in such a theoretical case, expect the liberal media to forgive them the bombing due to an understanding of their oppressed Karelian society and for their desire for winning back their homeland.

I mean it's all ridiculous to me really. If you go back far enough our ancestors all used to live in the ocean, so in a way, we all have equal claim to all tracts of land on earth, don't we?

238. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101597 by AtheistJon on December 20, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Al Qaeda: open to questions
They're all open to questions, it's just too bad the answer's always the same:

"Kneel before my Invisible Lord, or die, infidel scum!"

Funny and sad. However, I'd say that this tends to mean that they are not open to questions. To atheists, "open to questions" generally means questions without answers. To the religious, they generally prefer answers with no questions.
So, I'd say "open to questions" is a definite deception here.

Here's a question: -if one day, Al Qaeda woke up and found that all the non-islamic peoples of the world had perished by some fluke accident, what would the surviving Islamic Jihadists do to fulfill their religious duties? Maybe kill each other?-

239. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #100739 by AtheistJon on December 19, 2007 at 8:54 am

I tend to agree with Hitchens and Harris the most of all the Horseman. Hitchens has the most credibility when talking politics since he seems to have the most personal experience in actually visiting places abroad like Iraq. I just don't agree with Hitch about smoking (especially about forcing your friends to breath your second-hand smoke). His drinking seems also a bit over my limit, but that's sort of a minor disagreement. I find myself disagreeing with Dawkins the most... often about politics, although he seems to have eschewed/avoided the political Iraq discussions which Hitch was trying to bring up. I agree with Dawkins very strongly though about his attitude to truth and science... which is odd. I guess it goes to show that politics and truth are separate fields... Maybe the world needs to adopt a more scientific approach to politics (aha political science). Anyway, it would be a shame to link politics with atheism... since it would divide us in the same manner as with Christian denominations or Sunni's and Shia's.

On the other hand, it is nice to discuss politics with fellow atheists, despite our political differences, because you know that the foundations of our discussions are amenable. I wonder if anybody has done polling of atheist's political views? Hitchen's likes to say, "if you know that a person is atheist, you know nothing else about that person" (usually in the context of the Stalin discussion), but then when defending the morality of atheism, he tends to use the quip that "atheists wouldn't ever do that" (i.e. burn down your church)... Aren't these two views sort of a contradiction?

Regarding Daniel Dennett, my only gripe is that he tends to be too nice towards religion. Of all the 4 horseman, he's the only one who's books I haven't read (only watched his debate/YouTube appearances)... who has time for reading nowadays, when everything appears on YouTube?!!!

240. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #100463 by AtheistJon on December 18, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Anybody who owns an Xbox-360 will be able to playback an HD-DVD (but not a Blu-Ray disc). And, if I'm not mistaken, the HD-DVD format is commonly (in the industry) believed to have won the battle.

IMO, anyone who has actually seen a comparison of HD vs regular video is not likely to want to go back to normal PAL/NTSC quality videos.

I would say this is the case even for talking heads. An mp3 audio wouldn't give you the irony of Sam Harris' barbed comment towards Hitch about smoking... I was wondering if any of the other 3 horsemen would have the guts to say anything about it to him ;-) Professor Dawkins and Dan Dennett apparently have too much polite society drilled in to their psyches to admonish a friend.

241. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #98117 by AtheistJon on December 13, 2007 at 5:15 am

Well, as I said before, it is more honest to be racist in the instances where your true preferences really truly favor one race. If you always try to be racially altruistic, I think it's analogous to the forced love examples I gave earlier and which Ayn Rand decries. There is a virtue in selfishness, in that it is honest to oneself.

In another sense, preferences are a matter of taste. And I find it incredible when people consider some racial tastes to be more cultured or more civilized than others. IMO, tastes are not objective and cannot be argued. They have a saying here in Finland "Makuasioista ei voi kiistellä" which translates to: "Matters of taste cannot be debated".

Do you see where I am coming from?

242. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #97787 by AtheistJon on December 12, 2007 at 4:20 pm

Definitions are never easy. I agree that the term racism can have many definitions depending who you are talking to. Sort of how you never know what a person means when he says he believes in God.

Anyway, in lieu of a definition, I'd give these examples of what I mean when I say racism. Preference for one race in dating, when your children are dating, when hiring, when making friends, when picking teammates on a baseball or football team, when deciding what neighborhood to live in. I think race also impacts people's political opinions to quite a large extent, so I'd say it is also racist.

At a more general level, perhaps I'd claim it's not unreasonable to extend the definition to animals also. Eg. isn't it racist when we prefer certain breeds of dogs to others? Certain cultures prefer sheep and goats to pigs, and vice-versa. Roses to tulips, oak trees to pines. In a way, it's our artificial selection methods which are in a sense racist. Although, I would admit that most people are talking about humans when they use the term. I just see it in a more abstract sense, since the idea is the same when extrapolated to animals.

243. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #97282 by AtheistJon on December 11, 2007 at 8:58 pm

Found it. Here's actually a better quote from Ayn Rand which I was thinking of in my previous post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go62Gl7aik4

Go to 6:43 (or earlier) for the gist of the argument I am borrowing from her in this context of racism (although I know she also disagreed with racism for other reasons).

By the way, for Livliest Crib: I am not an isolationist race-hater, nor am I advocating race hatred. I do admit to racism from time to time. I just wanted to point out that racism (including racism towards whites) may be morally justified IMO and to deny it (admittedly not always) is to be disingenuous. Doesn't the person protesting "I am not a racist", sound like he is protesting just a little too much? And in the Atheist community, I see a blanket denial and distancing from the concept in all cases, and I believe this is dishonest.

244. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #97248 by AtheistJon on December 11, 2007 at 8:05 pm

Sorry Livliest Crib. Noticed your post after I commented... I will respond later to you.

245. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #97230 by AtheistJon on December 11, 2007 at 7:32 pm

briancoughlanworldcitizen, you must hang out with Richard Dawkins, since your speech (or text) sounds extremely similar to what I just watched recently in the "Growing up in the Universe" DVD ;-)

Anyway, I just had 2 more points about what you wrote above. The main point of my original question was to point out that the anti-racism rhetoric we see alot during atheist discussions is a bit disingenuous. (Perhaps some are trying to spice atheism with a bit of palatable political views for public consumption). Anyway, perhaps it's not a great question of interest, but I was sort of trying to relate it to the biological world, and how Prof. Dawkins given his area of expertise would try to rationalize it in a human-evolution sort of way. I think you did this to some extent, i.e. you came up with a way of justifying it to yourself. Thanks. But being apparently a contrarian among atheists, i.e. I am somewhat more Republican leaning (or perhaps Ayn Rand leaning) than most, I would tend to disagree with what you wrotte about what constitutes a dubious conclusion.

Ok, so the first thing you said that I had a follow-up for was:

It's an absurd and useless injunction, no one (that isn't mentally ill) loves anyone even as much as themselves that isn't directly related to them by blood

Perhaps it is absurd, but isn't communism and social welfare politics (eg. racial quotas, minimum wage) or for that matter altruism in general trying to force society into "loving" each person equally without allowing any other external judgment criteria? So then to some extent you would then be agreeing with me that social welfare is absurd (disregarding the part about laws and consensus which you brought up)? At least from the individual's point of view, is it not? Ayn Rand explains what I am thinking, very succinctly here on the donahue show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUwTHn-9hhU

Now then leading on to the part on laws you said:

I certainly don't see how laws emerging from a broad consensus can be considered immoral by either of us.

If I may give an example, the law about donating a certain percentage of one's tax money to the Church of England in UK... the Lutheran church here in Finland. Isn't that emerging from a broad consensus? Isn't that immoral? At least to you and me, I should think this would suffice as an example to you.

246. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96980 by AtheistJon on December 11, 2007 at 7:42 am

I'm highly confused about where you're going with this. :)

Livliest Crib... I think that briancoughlanworldcitizen was somewhat able to guess what I was driving at.

The best society can expect to acheive is that people respect, tolerate and where this is not possible, generally ignore each other.

I'd elaborate it like this. Since I would also agree with you that forced love is immoral (i.e. no to all of the above questions I asked)... I would classify modern politically correct/anti-racist attitudes/zero tolerance hate crime legislation as a kind of forced love (maybe ameliableness is a better word). Would you disagree with that?

I'm not talking about the kind of racism that entails genocide, ethnic violence, and other clearly immoral aspects of racism in the same way that murder, theft, and adultery are also immoral. I'm talking more about the rules of multicultural politically correct thinking which tends to come out of the political left regarding attitudes. Haven't you heard the hippy adulation to "Love your Brother Man..."?

Although, I didn't really mean to use the word "love" as an argument. I'm definitely not supporting any Christian ideas... to the contrary. I didn't understand how my statements could be interpreted so.

Anyhow, in political science terms, I would define love as meaning that in any one-on-one game with another person, you would always go for win (win-win/win-lose) options that favor the loved person. So, hopefully, that makes it more scientific. I disagree that I was embracing any theistic ideas about morality. I'm a little cynical about the term morality, anyway, since in some sense it all boils down to a majority rules political game. Political preferences can lead to different sets of morals. Some would prefer A to B, B to C, C to D; others B to A; A to C; C to D.

Anyway, I believe that liberal political discussions tend to paint racism in such a black-and-white manner (i.e. that one is duty bound to hire, date, befriend all without discriminating on race or other factors and be happy about it). However, isn't it more honest to ones own political preferences to love or favor people for whom one has biologically inclined biases?

Because it is dishonest to ones preferences, I view political correctness as immoral in a similar way that profession of religion is immoral by being dishonest to one's true beliefs about reality.

247. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96672 by AtheistJon on December 10, 2007 at 8:15 pm

I would agree with your argument that all things that natural aren't necessarily moral. That wasn't really what I was trying to say.

But before I respond to your points and clarify where I was going with the question of prevalance of racism/specism in nature. I would just like to ask this:

Is it moral for Christians to require (from society) love of Jesus? For Muslims to require love of the Koran? For Jews to require love of the Talmud? For North Korean society to be required to love the North Korean leader Kim Jung Il? For Americans to be required to love George W. Bush?, Etc... For that matter, is it moral, in general, for society to require love of anything or anyone?

If you cannot answer yes to that question, then you can probably guess where I'm going with this train of thought in the context of racism.

248. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96493 by AtheistJon on December 10, 2007 at 4:09 pm

"the great majority of callers were on my side"

Professor Dawkins, I was one of the many who called in to the show, but was not heard. Admittedly I firmly support you and the Atheist side of the discussion, but my question to you would have been sort of a counter to your argument that the probablity of God is very low. I'm sure one of the philosophers of science (probably Karl Popper) has made the argument that just as we cannot prove truths (i.e. via induction and use of evidence) you cannot even put probability estimates on truth since our knowledge is imperfect. So, we cannot state that the probability of God is 50-50 and we cannot state that it is very small. So technically, there is a stronger case for being agnostic than you have represented.

Also, I was planning on asking you about race and racism. Many of you "new-Atheist"s are talking about the one absolute evil of racism as if that were a moral issue that cannot be disputed. I would guess (and you surely have better knowledge about this than I and would be glad to learn from you the truth) is that racism is quite prevalent throughout the natural world (i.e. it's not just limited to white Anglo-Saxon American men). So, if it is so natural, then why should we consider racism immoral? Would a bengal tiger be exhibiting superior moral character if it tolerated, say, siberian tigers (as mates or neighbors) just as much as it did it's own kind? I guess it comes down to the game-theory problems of poli-sci and what actions in this game would we define as moral. Quite a problem, and I find myself leaning towards the politically incorrect side of the issue, only because its the more honest side (just as atheism is more honest than wishful and blind religious thinking).

249. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #93201 by AtheistJon on December 2, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Prof. Dawkins is very good. I'm really impressed by his interviews. Reminds me of Carl Sagan in his lucid explanations that work even if the interview is so short that you'd risk being sound-bited.

In case he ever needs it, I have a couple of good bites for him:
1. Science and philosophy are about questions without any answers. (Mysteries as TGD talks about); whereas, religion is about answers without any questions.
2. Things that are invisible and things that don't exist sure do look alike.

Keep at it professor! (If only your political persuasion were similar to Hitch, you'd be an idol for Americans like me).

250. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93129 by AtheistJon on December 2, 2007 at 9:25 am

I just wish there was an objective way of measuring performance in a debate. To me the fact that D'Souza failed to answer Dennett's questions meant that he lost the debate.

I agree that D'Souza was annoying. Used the same exact joke that he used in the previous debates,and thereafter failed to make one humorous remark.