201. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160238 by Dr Benway on April 13, 2008 at 8:43 pm

When someone calls god-belief a "delusion" they are commenting on many people's inner relationship with God. Have you taken this serious matter up with Richard Dawkins?

Any claim about God that is incompatible with the line in the sand I drew earlier is not plausible.

202. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160230 by Dr Benway on April 13, 2008 at 8:38 pm

How do you know, for example, that it is not God's will, that for PBUM God appears as the God who is not there?

That may very well be, but I hardly know the guy so I can't say.

How well you know PBUM is beside the point. You can never see the world through the eyes of another, nor can I. You can never bear witness to PBUM's relationship with God. And no one can bear witness to your inner relationship with God.

203. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160220 by Dr Benway on April 13, 2008 at 8:26 pm

Moreover, you have now commented on my personal relationship with God repeatedly, while asserting that I cannot take the same liberty? Look to your own floors... they need sweeping.

If that seems so I apologize. I mean to draw the line in the sand thus: each person bears witness to his own inner voice; no person can say what the inner voice of another is.

How do you know, for example, that it is not God's will, that for PBUM God appears as the God who is not there?

204. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160216 by Dr Benway on April 13, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Again with the hasty conclusions, Dr. Benway. I simply have faith that God will do His will. I don't "know" about the inner voice of God in PBUM or in you.

From context, "faith that God will do His will" means "faith that God will draw PBUM toward theism." You see, you are speaking about PBUM's inner relationship with God.

But the relationship between PBUM and God is private. You cannot experience it. When you deign to speak of it, you intrude where you do not belong.

205. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160196 by Dr Benway on April 13, 2008 at 7:47 pm

kardashovel: Well, in my case, it has led to theism. But my experiences are quite different from your own, I guess. I have faith that time will change your mind on this matter. We shall see.

You know something about inner voice of God in others. Remarkable. Perhaps we ought to ignore our own inner voice and listen to you instead.

206. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159971 by Dr Benway on April 13, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Not at all. God will treat you in your own way, not the way He treats me. We are joined, but not the same.

That's an example of presuming to know the mind of God. Speaking for God.

And we were getting along so well.

207. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159956 by Dr Benway on April 13, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Robertson never sees how he provokes a negative reaction with his insults.

Doosh.

Kardashovel: But if you think I'm interesting, you should try talking to God.

That would be like my listening to the ringing in your ears.

208. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159938 by Dr Benway on April 13, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Kardashovel: How curious.

When you said you did not speak for God, I was content.

If you don't mind my asking, what denomination were you aligned with, when you were a theist?

Catholic until age 13. Went to a charismatic Southern Baptist church from 13 to about 16ish.

209. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159924 by Dr Benway on April 13, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Oh I actually put you on my side of the table, Kardashovel. :o)

210. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159874 by Dr Benway on April 13, 2008 at 9:55 am

Styrer: Corylus, don't forget. The theists already know.

Terrifying.

Well yes. But I was once a theist. Look at all the non-believers who were fundamentalists until well into their adult years - e.g., Michael Shermer, Dan Barker, briancoughlinworldcitizen.

So there is hope.

It would be nice to triage our efforts somehow. I'd prefer not to waste time on someone who for either cognitive or emotional reasons will never escape the delusion.

211. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159844 by Dr Benway on April 13, 2008 at 8:32 am

Hmm. A meta-discussion. Ok, I'll join in.

What's the ratio of believers to non-believers posting on RD.net? 1/100 maybe?

Of the believers posting here, what percentage would fall into the categories below:
1. Drive-by trolls (e.g., "Dawkins is your God")
2. Lunatics (e.g., wooter)
3. Point-scoring wanks (e.g., Robertson)
4. Bible-bots
5. Not frankly crazy, but the clutch slips a bit (e.g., Dianelos)
6. Unschooled; e.g., may believe that "vigorous argument" means "red-faced fist-pounding"
7. Honest, reasonable; aware that "irony" does not mean "like iron"

Sadly, I can only think of one believer from category 7. We've had a few volleys with people from #5 and #6 that have proven productive. But the vast majority of believers posting here fall into categories 1-4.

When a new face appears potentially representing #5-#7, many of us get excited: "Oh boy! Someone to play catch with! Woohoo!" Others are more cynical and less hopeful, understandably. So there's a mis-match of intentions among us.

The hopeful want to start off on the right foot. They let trivial insults slide. For example, when bigcanuck said "You too have created your own little reality..." I chalked that up to inexperience with debate.

In the midst of the tentative courtship dance, an impatient old salt will demand the believer cut-to-the-chase. Naturally, this pisses off the hopefuls.

Another problem: excitement over a new face leads to a dogpile. A brief post from the believer is followed by several lengthy essays. This must be a bit overwhelming for the new guy. He must wonder if he's obligated to respond to all the follow-up.

What to do about all this?

212. Scientists take drugs to boost brain power: study

Comment #159673 by Dr Benway on April 12, 2008 at 7:04 pm

All drugs are poison. They all have side effects. Some we probably won't realize for many years.

The only reason to take a medication is because it offers some clear, significant benefit that outweighs all potential risks.

The hype around meds is a problem.

Years ago, a lot of people were into this life extension stuff. I had friends taking mega doses of vitamins and other "neutraceuticals." They swore by them.

But I realized that they were all aging just like everyone else.

The med hype reminds me of sneakers. When I was a kid, a new pair of sneakers would make me run fast. I could feel it.

213. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159667 by Dr Benway on April 12, 2008 at 6:49 pm

Julius Morche, you forced me to re-listen to the clip. You're right; Dawkins says with comedic astonishment, "He does?!" Then he follows with, "In that case ..." as you said. You good; me bad.

You see, my brain felt the conditional in there, and so I remembered "if that's the case" instead of "in that case." I hallucinated the "if."

Still, I believe the conditional, although unspoken, is understood.

People are naturally a little less precise about the opinions of third parties who aren't present. That's why Dawkins was saying, "maybe he believes this; maybe that." And that's why Maher's "absolutely" was a joke. The whole dialog is a familar television snowclone:

Person A: It can't be X.
Person B: Trust me, it's X.
Person A: It is? *eyes bug out* Then I jolly well... blah blah BLAH!!

Dawkins is not taking Bill Maher's word for what Collins believes.

214. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159656 by Dr Benway on April 12, 2008 at 5:58 pm

Ugh. Me sicka wooter.

Julius Morche, you missed the word "if." Dawkins said, "If that's what Collins believes then..."

To me, a Catholic mass is a splendid synthesis of many branches of the arts, including architecture, drama, music, and literature.

Some years ago I went through a lonely phase after moving to a new town. So I decided to go to mass. Hadn't been in forever.

Not fifteen minutes into the service, I was miserable. It all came back to me, the feeling of being a restless kid looking out the window at a beautiful day. Oh, the agony. I used to read some of the better old testament stories in the monthly missalette again and again, just to stop myself from screaming (most the NT readings were too dull).

One man's drink is another's poison.

215. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159651 by Dr Benway on April 12, 2008 at 5:34 pm

I'm not clear from your post 1002, bigcanuck, what you mean by "You too have created your own little reality that is influenced equally as much by your own personal bias."

It's not enough simply to consider a wide range of hypotheses. No scientist writes a paper saying, "could be this; could be that; the end."

The hypotheses must past some test before anyone takes them seriously.

216. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159641 by Dr Benway on April 12, 2008 at 5:17 pm

bigcanuck: You show your own prejudiced point of view when you discount a possible option for any scientific experiment.

By "option" I assume you mean hypothesis. Yes, a good scientist ought to consider all possible explanations for some phenomenon.

To use an example: imagine a man comes home to find his TV set missing and a window broken. What happened? Well, perhaps someone broke in and robbed him. Or perhaps his housemate took the TV in for repairs, and the window was accidently broken in an unrelated incident. Or perhaps an angel of God took the TV, and the devil broke the window. Or perhaps the neighbor across the street is actually an alien from another planet, and he zapped the TV into oblivion with his ray gun.

After generating a list of as many hypotheses as seems reasonable, the next step is to consider ways to confirm or rule-out these competing explanations.

If you can't imagine any way to rule out some hypotheis, you can ignore it. Most supernatural explanations fall into this category. Because anything supernatural doesn't follow natural laws. We can't predict how it ought to behave, and so we can't test if it is involved or not.

217. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159625 by Dr Benway on April 12, 2008 at 4:39 pm

bigcanuck: He quite distinctly states that since Darwinists have no answer for how life began, there is obviously large holes in their theory.

All theories are incomplete models of the world we experience. We're constantly making new discoveries and revising our theories.

Ben stein is a very intelligent man and I don't think you'll find anywhere that he discredits science...

Before any scientific study is published, it's sent to experts in the field for review. The reviewers look at the methods, statistics, and conclusions and make comments. Some studies are done poorly and really shouldn't be published. Some just need a bit of tweaking.

Scientists get together annually for large meetings in their area of study, to discuss important work being done. At those meetings, they ask questions and look for limits or flaws in the work presented.

The intelligent design advocates aren't submitting original scientific work to the journals for publication. If they were, and if those papers were being rejected by the journals due to bias rather than genuine problems with the work, Ben Stein would have a point. In fact he'd be a hero for revealing the suppression of important findings by prejudiced individuals. But that's not what's happening.

The few papers that the intelligent design advocates have produced don't stand up to scrutiny. So they're trying to bypass the peer review process. They're taking their case to high school kids and the uninformed. This is cheating!

The peer review process is absolutely essential to science. It's how we keep bad science, pseudoscience, and outright fraud out of the scientific literature.

Ben Stein is probably a very nice person and a well meaning guy. But he got suckered into something that's actually bad for science and bad for our country.

218. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159615 by Dr Benway on April 12, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Steve: The Bose-Einstein condensate is a collection of atoms where the idea of each atom having a separate identity becomes meaningless. It has seriously weird properties, like the ability to reduce the speed of light through the material to zero.

Fuckin' A!

219. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159544 by Dr Benway on April 12, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Hey visitors from Expelled, check this out:

http://www.fi.edu/franklinawards/08/laureate_bf_physics-jin.html

A young woman, Deborah Jin, and her colleagues have managed to observe what happens to subatomic particles cooled to just billionths of a degree above absolute zero. They've created "the first quantum coherent gas of fermions - achievements that have opened a new area of quantum physics which bridges atomic, molecular, optical and condensed matter physics."

What they've seen confirms predictions made by Einstein in 1925. Awesome! Stuff like this makes me proud to be an American.

Now, based upon the reviews and excerpts I've seen, the movie Expelled seems a clear attack upon science. It's cleverly done and likely will confuse children and poorly educated people regarding the nature of the scientific method. The rules of evidence used in science aren't anti-freedom; they're necessary.

Science is more about papers than people. Tell me, what papers concerned with intelligent design have been rejected by scientific journals? Were they rejected due to bias, or due to inadequate or improper methods, statistics, and reasoning?

Please don't hurt America. Just say No! to this bad movie.

220. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159537 by Dr Benway on April 12, 2008 at 12:29 pm

myarbrough61: One other thing...I would rather spend my life believing that I was created by God than to believe that I descended from a rock!

Aw, some rocks are kinda pretty.

But more seriously: basing your beliefs upon your wishes is a bad strategy. Seek what is true above all else.

221. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159534 by Dr Benway on April 12, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Young earth creationism is nuts.

An ill-defined "God of the gaps" is not nuts. Sure, the proposition that such a god exists is not compelling. Yet it is not nuts, povided that God behaves himself and doesn't venture beyond the gap alloted to him.*

And thus we can show a bit of epistemic generosity to certain liberal religionists who might help us in our battle against the theocrats.

_______________
*caused the Big Bang, somehow tickles our subjective experience subtly; that's about it I think

222. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159530 by Dr Benway on April 12, 2008 at 12:13 pm

tron22: You're a light-weight in this universe...get over it.

Most of us here aren't particularly interested in Richard Dawkins' personality. For the sake of argument, how about we concede he's an ignoramus.

Now what would you like to discuss?

223. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159528 by Dr Benway on April 12, 2008 at 12:11 pm

bigcanuck: I'm curious how there can be so many opinions on this film when it hasn't been released yet. For a forum that prides itself on intelligence and thinking for one's self, I would think it would be difficult to critique something that you have not seen.

Such scattershot criticisms are not helpful. We'll have a more productive discussion if you quote something someone has said that bothered you, and you direct your comments to that person specifically.

224. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159522 by Dr Benway on April 12, 2008 at 12:02 pm

whatrutalkingabout: I'm amazed at how you can state that the movie basically forces their ideas down your throat when that is EXACTLY what this blog is doing!

I can only speak for myself, not Dawkins or anyone else here. I have no problem with someone expressing opinions in a movie or a blog which I can view or not. I'm more worried about the state forcing us to accept opinions without evidentiary support.

By demanding that the state base its opinions on corroborative evidence, we set necessary limits upon its power.

Supernaturalism is a blank check. The Discovery Institute's "wedge strategy" is a sneaky method for handing the government a blank check. Good for the powerful. Very bad thing for the little guy.

225. Fleabytes

Comment #159498 by Dr Benway on April 12, 2008 at 10:24 am

I should add to what I said above, that the larger problem for me on a daily basis is not too many numbers, but too few. My co-workers would like me to accept their gestalt, their opinion, or their subjective report at face value. Counting stuff can be a real pain in the ass.

Experience has taught me that statements like "John's been a lot more aggressive lately" are not trustworthy. If John hit a staff person that morning, sending the staff to the ER, people will reflect upon other recent aggressive incidents. Highly salient recent event plus selective recall = delusion.

I want to be able to say, "John had 10 AGPs (aggression to persons) this month as compared to 5 last month." Or perhaps, "John had fewer restraints this month." or "John spent 4 hours in restraint this month as compared to 1 hour last month."

Behavioral variables will be fuzzier than physical measures like temperature or weight. But there are relatively more objective ways of describing them.

226. Fleabytes

Comment #159483 by Dr Benway on April 12, 2008 at 9:24 am

"Scientism" is a slur meaning "looks sciency." It's the appropriation of the social authority of science for dodgy assertions. "Blinding them with science" = "bamboozling them with bullshit" = "shilling the rubes."

As Bonzai said, there are non-scientists who will demand that subjective, impressionistic information be expressed numerically for some purpose, with no attention to the validity or reliability of the measures. Often the person wanting the numbers demonstrates frank innumerancy. Example: "Customer satisfaction is up from 56.75% to 82.36%."*

Physicians in the US have had the experience of arguing with an insurance co rep over the phone - someone with a bachelor's degree in management or social work quite often - about putting someone in the hospital. The rep follows a checklist to determine if hospitalization is indicated. This is supposed to make the decision more "objective." Until you learn how to game the system - what to say and not to say to these people - you are at their mercy.

_________
*FYI for the kids: too many significant figures.

227. Fleabytes

Comment #159444 by Dr Benway on April 12, 2008 at 7:57 am

^Now now, flying goose.

So long as you can tell the difference between fantasy and reality, you can enjoy both.

228. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159439 by Dr Benway on April 12, 2008 at 7:43 am

I wouldn't give anyone a hard time for trying to find a positive aspect to some horrible event, like a rape or cancer or losing a loved one. This is what humans are forced to do.

Sometimes there are but two choices:
1) accept the horror
2) log yourself.


Y'know, the log to the head.
The final log off.

229. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #159426 by Dr Benway on April 12, 2008 at 7:12 am

Hmm. That link I posted before died. Looks like you have to sign up for Limbaugh's site for full access. So no one need be subject to that, I'll quote the startlin' stoopid here:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Ben Stein has a new movie out. He brought it by my house Friday afternoon to screen it for me. It's called Expelled. It is powerful. It is fabulous. And here's the premise of his movie. The premise is that Darwinism has taken root, taken hold at every major intellectual institution around the world in Western Society, from Great Britain to the United States, you name it. Darwinism, of course, does not permit for the existence of a supreme being, a higher power, or a God. His interviews with some of the professors who espouse Darwinism are literally shocking. The condescension and the arrogance these people have, they will readily admit that Darwinism and evolution do not explain how life began. One of these professors said it might have been that a hyper-intelligence from another planet came here and started our race. This from some professor either in the UK, I forget where it was, but can't be God. These people are so threatened by the existence of God, they will not permit intelligent design to be discussed. Professors have been fired, blackballed, and prevented from working who have deigned to try to combine the whole concept of evolution with intelligent design.

Ben Stein's new movie is going to open to a thousand screens pretty soon, it's not out there yet. It's called Expelled. But the point of it is that these people on the left are just scared to death of God. It threatens everything. We, on the other hand, recognize that our greatness, who we are, our potential, our ambition, our desire, comes from God, and as part of our Creation, this natural yearning to be free and to practice liberty. That is how we think this country came to be great. It is how we think this country will continue to be great and to grow.

END TRANSCRIPT

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

Comment #159403 by Dr Benway on April 12, 2008 at 5:55 am

BFKate: If representative davis has done more than express a silly point of view then she should be brought to account. But she is entitled to say what she did and even how she did it.

I'm going to exaggerate to make a point.

There are persons and there is the anti-person, aka da gubment. Our attitute toward the anti-person should be the opposite of our attitude toward the persons.

To the persons you say, "Sing, dance, be free!"

To the anti-person, you say:
Down!
Sit!
Bad dog!
STFU!
Congress shall make no law!

To maximize the freedom of the persons, you minimize the freedom of the anti-person. The anti-person, like an ill-tempered child, requires firm limits. This is because humans plus power over other humans plus freedom = abuse. Give an inch to power and it will take a mile.

If need be, I can tell you stories about state caseworkers and police officers who ruin lives. Think: 4 year old child removed from her mother and placed in foster care for no fucking reason.

Rep. Davis, as a private citizen on her own time, is a person. Rep. Davis in her official role at a governmental hearing and in relationship to a private citizen offering testimony, is the anti-person. If she were on the witness stand offering testimony before a judge or other administrator holding some power over her, she could be seen as a person, depending upon the topic under discussion.

When in her role as anti-person, there's no reason to stand up for Rep. Davis' freedom of speech. The anti-person does not require freedom of speech. That's for persons.

It's perfectly reasonable for people to speak out against Rep. Davis' opinions as expressed in the hearing. Many Americans do not believe in God. Those Americans ought to share the same rights as everyone else. When people in power say otherwise, they're wrong and need to be corrected.

Under our system of government, we "fire" people by not voting for them come election. Getting rid of elected officials between elections, assuming they've committed no crime, is a bad idea.

231. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #159265 by Dr Benway on April 11, 2008 at 7:38 pm

The stoopid..... it burns!

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_040808/content/01125112.guest.html

232. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #159231 by Dr Benway on April 11, 2008 at 5:36 pm

mikejswalker: I know you have genuine love for the fallen.

With mike around, who needs Ipecac?

233. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #159182 by Dr Benway on April 11, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Visual representations of cell structures cannot be like photographs. They must be inventions or abstractions because we can't actually look at the innards of functioning cells in real time.

XVIVO "Reclining woman

Expelled "Reclining woman"

234. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #159163 by Dr Benway on April 11, 2008 at 2:17 pm

I agree with the spirit of Teratornis' post re: threats (although I'm not sure I agree re: copyright; artists need to eat). Usually there's nothing to be gained by threatening legal action.

If you're considering legal action, be quiet as a mouse. The less known regarding what you feel, intend, or know, the better.

Because I sympathize with XVIVO I'm ambivalent about discussing Bolinsky's letter further.

235. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #159098 by Dr Benway on April 11, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Good point. I made a similar one on some other thread (hence the praise).

Great minds think alike. ;)

Reputation is part of the checks-and-balances system in science.

A shady businessman can get caught cheating the public. He may be fined and his business may go under. But generally he can start a new business with a new name and carry on.

But a scientist can't hide behind a corporate entity. Once his reputation is injured due to publicly revealed dishonesty or idiocy, he can't recover. That's it for him.

So yes, I imagine that after rejections from several journals for pseudocientific methods, if the bloke doesn't wise up quickly he's going to be toast. Publish or perish, eh? Time to start looking for a private industry gig.

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

Comment #159084 by Dr Benway on April 11, 2008 at 12:27 pm

BFKate, we atheists won't enjoy freedom of speech for long if we allow our political leaders to tell us to shut up because "it's dangerous for kids to even know" about atheism.

237. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #159074 by Dr Benway on April 11, 2008 at 12:11 pm

yusell23: Thank you

Happy to help.

"Expelled" makes the case that certain scientists have been hassled for questioning "the Darwinists."

Note the emphasis in this thesis upon people rather than papers. A very clever misdirection. I'm surprised I haven't heard much talk about this angle yet.

Science is a battleground of papers not people. A scientific paper today may be alive and valiantly fending off attacks even though its author died long ago.

Wouldn't it be nice to know which papers were denied publication due to anti-ID bigotry?

Hmm. For some reason I'm imagining the sound of crickets chirping.

238. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #159049 by Dr Benway on April 11, 2008 at 11:29 am

yussell23: My problem is that I'm equally suspicious of the ID people and the non-ID people because any charlatan could manipulate the evidence, and I don't know enough to be able to detect when I'm being lied to. What shold I do?

We're all in the same boat. No one is an expert at everything. So we have to set up a system of checks and balances to catch the bullshit. Then we can periodically check the system to make sure it's not being corrupted. Checking the system is a lot easier than having to check every claim by every expert in every field.

Anti-bullshit aspects of the current system, off the top of my head:

1. Scientists compete with each other for recognition and publication space. So typically they're not shy about criticizing each other.

2. Anonymous peer review provides a reasonable means to give feedback to the author of a bad study so he can improve his work.

3. The reviewers don't talk to each other. They submit their remarks independently to the editor of the journal, who shields their identities. Thus they can be honest without fears of retaliation.

4. Scientific papers have a defined structure. Each part must be clear enough to allow replication or corroboration of the data by an independent party.

5. Often the names of the authors of the study are removed prior to sending it out for review. Criticism must be directed at the methods, statistics, reasoning, and conclusions. There's no place for personal attacks against the authors.

6. Important papers are discussed in detail at professional meetings. Go to one of these meetings and you'll see that people love finding flaws, just like little kids love "Where's Waldo?"

Scientific reports have to jump all these hurdles before they're taken seriously.

Whenever you hear about a study in the news that hasn't jumped these hurdles, that's a red flag. Trial by media or by high school classroom is a cakewalk compared to trial by peer review.

The intelligent design advocates are taking their case to the high school kids and the general public rather than the scientific journals for a reason. The cold fusion guys did this also. Same with a lot of alternative medicine claims, free energy claims, perpetual motion machines, etc.

It's always the same bullshit: "Let us tell you what Big Science/Big Pharma/Big Gov't don't want you to know! Listen to us and judge for yourself!"

But if the "Bigs" have become so corrupted, we non-experts are all totally screwed, across the board. Might as well drink the Kool-Aid now.

239. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #158988 by Dr Benway on April 11, 2008 at 9:56 am

Once we uncover the EXPELLED animation dollar trail, and bring it to light, we will have even more fun.

Don't attorneys generally discourage their clients from making such statements? Surely David Bolinsky has representation.

240. Scientists take drugs to boost brain power: study

Comment #158983 by Dr Benway on April 11, 2008 at 9:31 am

I've always been curious to try LSD. But there are two problems:

1. The people I could connect with to get me some likely wouldn't keep quiet about it. I have one of those jobs where you just can't get in trouble.

2. The logistics of including my husband, but not at the same time as me. He's very sensitive to stimulants. Candy bars used to put him into atrial fibrilation until he had heart surgery.

Well, it's something on my bucket list.

241. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158605 by Dr Benway on April 10, 2008 at 8:13 pm

He melted in our mouths, now he melts our hearts.

Oh noes! I got teh lulz!

242. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158585 by Dr Benway on April 10, 2008 at 7:33 pm

D.I. Ogenes is just the tonic I needed. I've been spending too much time here this past week. Tons of things backed up to finish.

After scanning the last couple pages of this thread, I think my addiction to this web site has been cured.

Praise!

243. Fleabytes

Comment #158413 by Dr Benway on April 10, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Some dramatic moments at RD.net involving Richard Morgan:

The Beatlemania Slander
Thread: "The Sacrifice of Reason"
Date: 8-2007
RM condemned the people at RD.net for generally exhibiting undignified "gooey eyed hero worship." A moderate row ensued.

The Pseudonym Debacle
Thread: "Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?
Date: 9-2007
RM condemned people for being cowards hiding behind pseudonyms. The argument devolved into threats of legal action against RM from Prufrock. RM quit RD.net for a couple of months.

The Log Basher Bashers
Thread: "Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday"
Date: 4-2008
RM and his sockpuppet condemned people for laughing at a story about a cult leader hitting himself in the head with a log as a means of suicide.

Several of the more interesting posts on all the above threads are no longer present.

Moral of the story: scattershot criticisms against several people at once and generalized, vague condemnations will provoke confused reactions and heightened emotions. Conversations will be more productive if people focus their complaints against one person at a time, with reference to the specific comment that caused them upset.

David Robertson stirs the pot in the same way as Richard Morgan. He drops off a large, scattershot response to many people at once. He makes general criticisms of "you people" or "you atheists" or "the atheist fundies here."

We should try to nip the scattershot approach when it starts. We're not a corporate entity. We're not the Borg or a cellular syncytium. We should insist people don't lump us into a group, or even a couple of groups.

If David Robertson returns, we should ask him to break his responses to questions or comments from others into separate posts. That's a small, structural change that might help establish the fact that the people here are independent entities. David can balance the increased hassle of creating several posts rather than one by decreasing the number of responses he posts at once. Less is often more.

244. Fleabytes

Comment #158361 by Dr Benway on April 10, 2008 at 11:45 am

Diacanu, if you read the Russian cult leader thread from the beginning, you can infer what was in the missing posts from RM and Diogenes2008, based on quotes and responses that follow. The sequence of events leading up to the deletions is evident in that thread.

245. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #158138 by Dr Benway on April 10, 2008 at 6:00 am

More fun with the mentally ill. This one from yesterday:

Retarded boy C plays hangman with a couple other boys and a staff person. A half hour after the game ends, the boy suddenly rocks forward and yells out "KYUUUUUUUU!" (aka "Q"). People realize he's still playing hangman, just reeeeally slowly.

246. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #157942 by Dr Benway on April 9, 2008 at 7:51 pm

I was upset and wanted you to tell me in a professional capacity why these people would say such a thing.

I think Cartomancer answered your question in his post about mental representation.

We have a virtual reality machine in our heads. That machine models other people. Our emotions are bound to those models NOT to actual people, which are beyond our experience.

When the VR machine in our heads has very little real information to go on, the models it creates aren't very detailed or realistic. They might even seem like cartoons.

This is normal. It doesn't mean you are surrounded by serial killers.

I am just as nuts as everyone else is. I had a moment here, when I wondered, "Where are the men to protect me from this fucking rapist?" That's what the virtual reality machine in my head did to me.

So it goes.

247. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #157934 by Dr Benway on April 9, 2008 at 7:15 pm

I would never make such a remark in the way you refer. Never. I protest strongly at your persistent claims that i did.

Mike, I think it's best to let the curled-toes-rug remark go for now. Repeated assertions that you meant it in a different way than I heard it aren't helping. If you find a web link to someone using it as you describe (man with toupee curling toes upwards (ouch!)), that will help change my view. Note that you need only google a little for the common usage of "rug" as minge and "toe curling" as orgasm.

But this straw-that-broke-the-camel is a late distraction. My primary beef with you was earlier and is unrelated to my sex.

I did not like your quote-mine post. You didn't say who you were quoting and that made it difficult to figure out the context for the statements. For example, you quoted this:

I actually roared with laughter at the cartoon /mental image of the guy

Scanning back I found this from phil rimmer:

I roared with laughter at the sheer slapstick of the image then felt the pain of the wood on my own head (it still rather haunts me) and the bottomless well of despair.

The first part of that sentence was so similar to what you quoted, although the entire sentence conveys a different feeling. I had to go back to your post to re-check the quote to recognize that you must have lifted it from someone else.

My response to your quote-mine post was a simple request for clarity and directness: "If someone says something that upsets you, quote that person and address that person directly."

You basically told me to bugger off: "I figure these cats are adult enough to know what quote is what."

And you followed that up with the hyperbolic insult: "It feels like lord of the flies here sometimes. The anger seems deep seated enough to ridicule anything that moves."

Now, anyone making such a blanket condemnation of a group of people must be pretty upset with those people. Irony, no? Slagging people for being angry, while being angry?

Even without resolution I'll get over my upset over the curled-toes-rug thing as time passes. I'm slow to boil and slow to simmer. Probably by next week it will be behind me. But only if my attention is not repeatedly drawn back to it.

248. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #157909 by Dr Benway on April 9, 2008 at 6:06 pm

Ok mikejswalker, I'll grant you that "her" refers to dawn. Just before I quoted your old posts above, I'd clicked on "other comments by mikejswalker." Scanning for my name in your post, I saw the word "her" and didn't realize that referred to "dawn."

Although it seems strange to interpret the word "husband" as "male gay partner" rather than the more common, other sort, I will grant that this assumption is possible.

At this point in time, I'm not willing to accept the toupee joke, however. I find your interpretation unfamiliar and improbable.

I'm still pretty angry about being spoken to like that. If it were but one insult, I don't think it would have provoked me quite so strongly. But you've offered a string of "there theres" and condescending, demeaning remarks that have troubled me for quite some time. And you don't own up to them.

249. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #157870 by Dr Benway on April 9, 2008 at 4:33 pm

To reassure you, Mark, I'm sticking to broad diagnostic impressions familiar to the laity; nothing from the DSM-IV here. The categories include: dishonest wanker, person of poor character, annoying troll, etc.

I understand your sympathy for mikejswalker here. I've tried to close this debate. But this chap comes back for more.

There's something to learn from this. The first lesson is this: yes, there really are people like this among us.

In March I mentioned that my husband shares the same birthday as Richard Dawkins. On the Fleabytes thread, in Comment #149684 on March 26, 2008 at 5:51 am Mike posted to me:

Happy birthday to your fellow.

Another post on Fleabytes, Comment #148586 on March 23, 2008 at 10:59 am, shows Mike referring to me as "her."

Vadjong said,

You can shoot me at dawn, Dr. Benway.

Depending on your weight and size this might damage her for life.
Also depends on how sharp your head is.

I do feel it's a little quiet here today.

250. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #157848 by Dr Benway on April 9, 2008 at 3:51 pm

You're right, mike. Upon reflection, it's clear to me that you were trying to make me laugh by alluding to old jokes about men with toupees curling their "little toes" upwards (I know, it's a joke because everyone knows toes actually curl downwards. Well, unless your legs are in the air. But that never happens, does it?).

Hardly a day goes by I don't hear someone making a toupee joke. Hahaha!

You're such a kidder.