201. Priest Antonio Rungi wants beauty contest - for nuns

Comment #236517 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 6:19 pm

"Someone help me out here...I seem to recall something about some "deadly sins." Does this fall under Pride or Envy?"

Don't forget lust. Isn't that one?

Anyways it doesn't really matter the poop... I mean pope, just made seven NEW deadly sins. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if he did away with the old one's soon.

202. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #236478 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 4:57 pm

"Here we hit upon a difference of opinion in ethics, perhaps."

We certainly have. I now understand the confusion, and quite frankly your view, while well explained is deeply disturbing to me.

"take them out of the wild where they suffer and abuse each other, and put them in a nice safe place."

That is a disturbing arrogance. Lets preserve nature by destroying it?

We do have a fundamental difference in our ethical views which you correctly pointed out, and I don't imagine either one of us will be swayed, so I will wish you well and be on my way. In seeing where you are coming from I can understand why you'd be against granting them rights. But I could not start from where you do.

203. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #236475 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 4:45 pm

"you can't communicate intelligent, scientific observation to sheep. Not even possible, I'm quite sure of that. "

I disagree. At least some of them you can. By most standards I was one of those sheep for a good portion of my life. The wool never was comfortable, but it's all I knew. Things have changed.

204. Priest Antonio Rungi wants beauty contest - for nuns

Comment #236468 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Wow, this is disturbing and simultaneously humorous at so many levels. Has the church become so troubled as to stoop to whoring the nuns for attention?

205. Robot with a Biological Brain: new research provides insights into how the brain works

Comment #236465 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 4:36 pm

As long as they have a robot body to stick my brain in before I get too old.

206. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #236324 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Wow.

You took the figurative part of my post and took it literally and ignored the literal parts.

Of course apes wont have a "nation" as we do. They're not gonna elect a leader and join the UN. I really didn't think I had to point out that I didn't expect that.

" apes can't run nations."

But they seem to do pretty well on their own. Who are we to say our way is right. Fact is their way seems better.

"Nations have to be run by somebody."

You don't think apes have a hierarchy and society? That is just ignorant. They have quite a complex social structure.

"They kill each other."

Ok, but what business is that of ours? Thats my point. Why is it our business to interfere in their wars? They don't interfere with ours.

207. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #236312 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 1:24 pm

"Other animals don't need our trite "rights" to live their lives."

Completely agree. But I see granting certain rights to animals as a way of limiting our own greed and destruction.

208. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #236289 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 12:49 pm

"if there's an animal that essentially a like a human child where rights are concerned, how can we let it live where it is likely to die painfully at the teeth of a predetor or because of some desease? "

In this regard I think they should have the same rights.

Note, that humans have human rights, but we still go on living even though there are children starving without food and dying from diseases we have treatments for. We should help these children, but it is not a legal imperative that I sell my home to care for starving children in Africa even though I admit they have human rights.

Most of the criticisms of granting primates rights similar to what is granted to every human is making an extreme leap to privileges that are NOT extended to every human. We do NOT ensure that every human has three square meals a day. But they still have rights, we would not go take away any food they happened to acquire on their own.

Granting rights to primates does not mean we need to bend over backwards to care for them. We just have to NOT violate their rights.

209. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #236274 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Yes, and would that experiment have any different results with a human?

Give me an example of when and where in our evolutionary history we humans may have been infused with this thing you call consciousness.

"My point is that you shouldn't assume consciousness or capability of suffering only because you feel some similarity with humans."

It's not a feeling. Their neuroanatomy IS extremely similar to ours. You assume that there is some qualitative difference in humans as opposed to other primates? THAT is a huge assumption. From where could such a difference arise?

By your logic how could I assume that humans are capable of suffering? I have not done experiments on every human being. We learn about humans, and we extrapolate based on the data to other humans. We do the same with animals.

"Do experiments. "

As a neuroscientist what exactly do you think it is that I DO. I'm not making shit up here like you seem to be.

210. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #236267 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Fanusi,

"When I refer to an idea as Evil, what I mean is that, if put into practice, it will cause unbelievable human suffering (hence it is anti-life; we feel pain when we're damaged in some way, it's our biological warning system). So, when I refer to Islam as evil, I am saying that it provably and demonstrably will lead to massive suffering and death. And when I refer to an individuals behaviour or ideas as evil, I mean the same thing, only scaled down to the individual level. "

But who is the judge, or what is the measure of "unbelievable human suffering." Particularly the criteria of "unbelievable" is clearly subjective. Human suffering we could attempt to quantify, but again it is still a subjective quantification. I suspect the muslims you refer to think they are relieving suffering by bringing others to islam or riding the world of the "infidel." While I have no sympathy for their cause I highly doubt that even the most extreme of the islamic terrorists see themselves as "evil." They think they are doing good.

On slavery:
"demonstrably and provably, caused huge amounts of human suffering. Period. "

While I certainly do not want to justify slavery Im sure the people engaging in it could justify it. They would claim that having slaves work the fields, or having that hierarchy and structure or organization actually minimized human suffering. The history of our species was a challenging one, and it should not be so easily dismissed that we would have made it through if it weren't for tactics such as slavery and other things we currently find repulsive.

DID slavery cause more harm than good? Again I want to be very clear that I in no way endorse or excuse slavery. But if we are working strictly on the results I am not convinced that it caused more harm than good all in all. By a strictly utilitarian view slavery could be viewed as morally neutral, or perhaps even good. On what grounds can we say it caused more suffering than any of the alternatives?

As an illuminating comparison let us look at the first act of the RSPCA (Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; british equivalent of ASPCA). Prior to the groups formation in the early 1800's dogs served many useful purposes. Dogs ran in wheels in shops to power machinery and pumps. Dogs pulled carts in the streets. The dogs were not always well fed or well cared for, but what can we expect, people could not feed and care for their family. The dogs were used as tools for a purpose, and their lives were far from pleasant.

The RSPCA banned all such use of dogs. The dogs and other animals could not be used for any labor purposes. So instead of dogs now people put children in the running wheels and attached the street carts to kids. Even if we over look that blunder (that animal welfare predated child welfare) what happened to the dogs? Well, they no longer served a purpose, so there was no reason to provide them even with the minimal food they had been getting. They no longer had a job to do so they just got in the way and were an annoyance. Dogs were killed by the dozen, some through starvation, some by a shovel to the head. Hardly an improvement from their previous "suffering."

Now I'm sure I'll catch a lot of flack for drawing a parallel between dogs and slaves, but it may illuminate my point, not that slavery was good, but that on strictly logical grounds we cannot dismiss it as quickly as you do as "evil" or even of causing suffering.

Certainly slavery caused suffering, but I'd say that is not the relevant criterion. Did it cause MORE suffering than alternatives? Perhaps it did, but that is anything but obvious.

211. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236252 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 12:04 pm

"I wasn't saying this as a justification; I was merely pointing out that the idea that booting out guys like Abu Hamza would send us into a spiral that could only end in totalitarianism was utter nonsense, given the historical evidence we have. "

Fair enough. But then it leaves me wanting a justification.

212. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #236250 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 12:02 pm

"Primates probably can experience pain but can they suffer? "

Thats where.


What's the evidence that they are capable of suffering?
Any textbook or journal on animal behavior, neuroscience, comparative psychology or the like.

Why would you think they are any different from humans in that respect? Unless you think humans and humans alone are somehow infused with a soul capable of suffering which animals lack. That theist viewpoint is complete crap, but at least it is coherent.

"Of course, our dispositions to react in a certain way is to some extent hard-wired, but to ascribe content to behaviour is culturally dependent."

That is just bullshit. I used to be good at responding to this social science bullshit more politically, but frankly I'm fed up with the nonsense. Read any scientific text or journal.

Steven Pinker's "Blank Slate" might be a good starting point.

213. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236235 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 11:51 am

"given that far harsher methods were used in the past"

Reminds me of being stuck in the backseat of the car with my sisters on a long road trip when I was four years old. "She hit me first" was a perfectly legitimate excuse. But like I said, I was four.

214. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236223 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 11:39 am

I agree the pork issue in and of itself is a little trivial.

What I find disturbing is that when people in one breath say it is a form of torture for the muslim, then in the next breath say that we have the right to torture them.

Trivializing whether or not offering them pork would be torture does not negate the other disturbing idea that we are justified in using any means of punishment we see fit. THIS is what I see as a problem.

215. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236218 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 11:35 am

"how about pork grease on our bullets then? "

I knew guys who did that.

216. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236206 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 11:24 am

Diacanu said it all in #190.

" I dissolve the contract. "

I've been planning on dissolving my contract with America for a while now. I think France would be nice, but as much as I've tried I cant get their fucking language. Spanish was easy enough.

England looks promising, but who knows what islam will have achieved there in a few years.

Australia here I come (in a couple years).

217. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236203 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 11:21 am

""repect the muslim faith-stop the sadistic revenge" "

Its not about respecting them. It's about self respect. Something I loose more of every day that people like GW run my countries values into the dirt.

218. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236196 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 11:14 am

Actually I'd convert to holy cowism.

My religious tradition requires that naked supermodels serve prime rib for every meal.

219. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236194 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 11:12 am

If I go to jail can they offer a pastafarian diet?

220. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236189 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 11:10 am

Damn this thread is moving. I can't get caught up to get a finger in edgewise.

But I'd like to agree with what has been touched on by many including lastly Mark Till:

Our tactics should not match those against which we fight. If we find the tactics of the terrorists horrendous and worthy of punishment, our punishment cannot be equally horrendous.

Although I'm saying this as an embarrassed american citizen. GW Bush has met one form of terrorism with another. It is sickening. In what way can we say we are the "good guys" in a war where are tactics are more horrendous than our enemies?

We may be able to call ourselves the victors, but not the "good guys."

I for one would rather loose the war and save my dignity.

221. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #236178 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 10:59 am

Mike, I liked your last post. But we are comparing two ends of a false dichotomy here.

Human rights does not mean the rights of citizenship in any nation. There could be an ape nation.

Grant them sovereign status a a nation, they can handle their own internal disputes, but no other nation or people should be allowed to trample over them, enslave them, or attack them without reason.

I don't like every other nation's legal system. I'd say some nations mistreat their own citizens, but until it reaches a critical level of tyranny it's really none of my business as an outsider.

Questions are being raised about whether another nation should intervene in China's affairs as the treatment of their own citizens (and their support of other crap) is reaching a level of tyranny that the international community will not stand for. However America's laws and Swedish laws are quite different, yet America feels no need to intervene on behalf of their citizens.

I cannot over emphasize this point: Extending similar rights that would be granted to any human does not imply granting citizenship, nor does it imply that the recipient would be granted the rights or responsibilities of citizenship in any nation.

I cannot go over to France and start massacring French men, raping the women, and enslaving the children. That would be a violation of their human rights. But if one Frenchman hits another over the head with a stick and takes his lunch what business is it of mine? None.

222. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #236170 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 10:41 am

Oh, and I neglected to highlight this gem last time:
"Primates probably can experience pain"

Probably?! PROBABLY?!

Read a fucking book. I could tolerate the question as to whether or not they experience suffering, which by the way they certainly due, the evidence is overwhelming. But doubting whether they experience pain?! What do you think all those nerve endings are for?

"I am not trying to call people names" -Hawt4Dawk.

I cannot be as polite as her. Thinking animals might not feel pain is so stupid I cannot even come up with names to call you, but unlike H4D I'm trying to.

223. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #236168 by J Mac on August 24, 2008 at 10:37 am

"we share the amygdala -- the seat of emotions -- with most, if not all, other mammals (not just primates)??"

In fact we share our entire limbic system with other mammals. Which by the way the limbic system IS where emotional responses such as suffering take place.

There is a difference between pain and suffering, suffering has moral significance. Primates probably can experience pain but can they suffer? Also, there is no such thing as "the seat of emotions". What we call and make of our emotions and how we reason is not hard-wired in our brains, but is instilled by our (human) culture.

224. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #235817 by J Mac on August 23, 2008 at 3:58 pm

They are not going to put on business suits and sip starbucks capaccionos while reading the new york times. They are chimps. They have their own society and their own culture. China's laws are different than america's laws. Japan's laws are different yet. Extending rights to an individual does not mean that they have to be assimilated into our culture.... THAT would be cruel.

225. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #235815 by J Mac on August 23, 2008 at 3:52 pm

No the "humans are nasty" part was meant to be humorous, though it is true.

My point was:
"If you see apes as having moral responsibiliy, how can you justify the killing of young? How can you justify the forming of raiding parties that kill members of neighbouring groups?"

We don't have any trouble justifying it when humans do it. So why should there be a problem justifying when chimps do it?

If you can show me the animal correlate of homicide I'd be awfully impressed. It just doesn't happen. They do go to war, but so do we. In fact our wars are much more brutal than theirs, and for much less significant reasons.

226. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #235806 by J Mac on August 23, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Ahh, where'd my post go. Lemme try again:

"Chimps can be quite nasty. They use violence to get their way, kill each other, and have been known to practice cannibalism."

The same can be said of humans.

"Would you put ape killers and ape rapists (of other apes) in ape jail?"

There is a difference between homicide and justified killing. The last several people I've met who killed other people got medals not prison sentences.

If you're going to look at both sides of the coin, use the same glasses.

227. Q&A with Richard Dawkins after lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #235794 by J Mac on August 23, 2008 at 2:58 pm

I'd like to know as well Vin.

So far I haven't found anything on it.

228. A Letter From Hell

Comment #235792 by J Mac on August 23, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Hmmm,

How can so many Bible thumpers not realize that there is no scriptural or theological basis for hell?

Samson, if you're going to spread your crap please first get an education.

229. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235779 by J Mac on August 23, 2008 at 2:36 pm

RE 8teist's post

"Stephen Jay Gould wrote that science simply cannot "adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature""

I have a great deal of respect for the incredible contributions SJ Gould has made to evolutionary biology, yet somehow every time he opens his mouth he just pisses me off.

230. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #235778 by J Mac on August 23, 2008 at 2:29 pm

"The issue is that if they are given "rights", it will be more difficult to experiment on them."

Oh?

Ever try to get a primate research proposal through an IACUC? It's already easier to experiment on humans as humans can give consent.

231. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #235765 by J Mac on August 23, 2008 at 2:06 pm

"Giving rights to something that isn't as smart as us is a very, very sticky area."

I've worked with MANY species of animals in many environments. And while this is said a bit in jest, it's also a bit true that most non-human animals I've worked with are far smarter than many religious fundamentalists I've worked with.

"Obviously a wild gorilla can quite easily kill a human, given sufficient cause"

True, but far fewer gorillas will kill a man without sufficient cause while men kill men with virtually no reason at all.

232. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #235645 by J Mac on August 23, 2008 at 10:38 am

It's ok. Misunderstandings and perhaps I misunderstood you. Basically what I got out of the post was responding to is that good things are good and evil things are evil (along with a few more adjectives) but that doesn't clarify what is good or evil.

Certainly whatever someone's judgement of good, that good will be associated with ideas such as happy, pleasing, and the like; but that says nothing about which behaviors would fall into that category.

Saying "the Holocaust" was evil is an odd statement. I can agree superficially but I'd prefer to clarify specific behaviors of people. "The Holocaust" can refer to a period of time or a point in history. A period of time can't be evil, though evil behaviors happened during that time. Anyways I'll leave that point aside for the moment as it can be clear enough that you are referring to those behaviors under the titles of the holocaust and the gulag.

I'd agree that those are/were wrong/evil. But I don't agree that it is a given that those judgements are an absolute fact. Just because many people agree does not make it an objective fact. God's existence is not an objective fact, and it would not be even if everyone believed it.

We can certainly come to consensuses on some issues, but would we come to the same consensus in all times in all places? I'd say the answer to that question is no.

Slave owners long ago did not see slavery as wrong. This is not because they were delusional or evil people. They were not psychopaths, but they lived in a different time and a different environment.

233. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #235602 by J Mac on August 23, 2008 at 9:00 am

Fanusi,

While I strongly disagree with your views you have presented your case and you are arguing it rationally. Or you were until:

Simplistic or not, you've conceded that those examples do, in fact, qualify as moral absolutes.

234. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235588 by J Mac on August 23, 2008 at 8:48 am

RD is kind enough not to enter a battle of wits with against an unarmed man.

235. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235581 by J Mac on August 23, 2008 at 8:41 am

Live fossils huh? That'd be interesting. Perhaps the first thing you should do is buy a dictionary. Bu bye troll.

236. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235332 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 7:37 pm

"I think many women may be more interested in their partner's loyalty to them personally"

Yes, but in choosing who to pursue a relationship with they can't know this. How do they know who will be loyal to them before they are in a relationship. They look to cues of which men are loyal to other aspects of life.

But more important than the loyalty issue is in-group membership. If a man plays an important role in a group or society he should be more desirably than a man who is not involved in any such group. In fact it is a primary strategy of many animals to form coalitions for mating purposes.

237. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235324 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 6:22 pm

"is if the devotion is needed, or just the appearance of devotion?"

Interesting question. Hard to answer as my idea was complete speculation bordering on bullshit to begin with. :o)

I certainly think there could be something to it, but its so highly undeveloped of an idea that addressing the detailed questions is a bit odd.

I may have to look it up, I recall a similar idea in an Evolutionary Psychology text. I suspect the appearance of devotion would be sufficient; but in related ideas there is evidence about deception and how the most effective way to deceive others is for one to deceive themselves first. In other words devotion would be much easier to fake if the faker actually believed it.

238. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235320 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 6:18 pm

"Richard is defining CREATIONISM to include the rejection of evolution"

It wouldn't be his definition.

Creationism is the movement to teach children in science classes that the world was created in 6 days approximately 6 thousand years ago. Among the ideas of this view is that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. It is not an ambiguous term, at least not in america.

And as I have done many times I'd like to quote Lewis Black:
"I can't be kind about this, these are the people who are watching The Flinstones as it it's a documentary."

239. A flea we missed?

Comment #235307 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 5:23 pm

"And, crucially, who gets to define the rules? "

Well the pope of course. And with the new 7 deadly sins I expect all christians to starve to death. As if they eat nearly ANYTHING they will be going to hell for breaking one of the new 7 deadly sins.

ALL of our food has been genetically engineered.

240. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235304 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 5:13 pm

I think SpiderDancer said it quite well:

"...the devil or an intelligent teapot seeded the planet with life"

While the ambiguous and meaningless term "god" is not inconsistent with science, any concept of god worthy of the name can be proven not to exist.

241. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235296 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Just to chime in as a biologist, but not as a philosopher.

The compatibilist position is absolutely unparsimonious. It takes a concept for which there is abundant evidence (evolution) and just takes on a rider (god) which has no evidence what so ever.

Evolution is compatible with fairies as well, but I think it is foolish to talk of fairies.

The fact that a concept of god (not the concept given in the bible mind you) is compatible with evolution in no way supports the idea of god.

242. Supernatural science: Why we want to believe

Comment #235292 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 4:33 pm

We should all get together and go church-hopping. We'll get liquored up and sit in on sermons and homilies. It'll be a nice little game, whoever laughs first buys the next round.

243. Supernatural science: Why we want to believe

Comment #235281 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 4:12 pm

"It's pure, wonderful escapism with very little relation to the real world."

Do you go to church to? Could serve the same purpose. :o)

244. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235276 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 4:06 pm

AAAAH.

Damn laptop. In trying to navigate around with my touchpad I accidentally just flagged someone as something.

Josh please disregard that if you read this. I think I hit it on phasmagigas post.

Sorry phasmagigas.

245. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235260 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 3:58 pm

"The majority of pro evolutionists I have talked to cleary state that the pro evolution argument starts after the origins of life. You cannot prove there is no God or Intelligent Designer regarding the origins of life. "

Well technically one can't prove that there is no god regarding the origin of species. But no god is needed. Evolution works just fine without him. Abiogenesis is similar. No god is necessary for the origin of life, it can be explained in detail without any reference to a deity. As Laplace said to Napoleon we have no need for that hypothesis.

You are correct that the "pro evolution" argument starts after the origins of life. But now you remind me of Ben Stein claiming "evolution doesn't explain gravity." Well no shit fuck-nut; evolution explains the origin of species. Gravity was explained by Newton, and amended by Einstein. Different fucking theory. Abiogenesis explains the origin of life, again a different fucking theory.

246. Pastor Michael Guglielmucci spun gospel of lies

Comment #235251 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Have we entered into the pathophysiology of the religion meme?

247. Supernatural science: Why we want to believe

Comment #235250 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Also hated X-Files. I think I've sat through one whole episode. I regretted it.

248. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235248 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 3:47 pm

P T Abiogenesis is an active field of research. I never claimed it was definitively answered though there are several very promising hypotheses.

I claimed that you were lying when you said that most evolutionists stay away from the issue. This is simply, as your name-sakes would point out BULLSHIT.

249. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235241 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 3:39 pm

"Most pro evolutionists stay away from the origin issue and start their basis of debate after the origin of life. They claim not to have the answer for the origins of life."

Site your source. Or just admit that it was a made up lie.

250. No credit for creationism

Comment #235232 by J Mac on August 22, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Evidence for geocentrism could go as follows:

Prediction: Tomorrow the sun will come up at 6am and set at 7pm.

The following day the prediction could be confirmed or rejected. As it turns out many such predictions were confirmed.

Evidence for ID:

"Its all around you"

Thats not a prediction! Its question-begging.