251. Bible Theme Park Faces Opposition in Tennessee

Comment #180826 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 10:55 pm

I think a fun activies stop would be,
"Make your own Crown of thorns! Come for the day, but try to make the scars last a life time! After all the emotional ones our religion will last a life time too!"

Or how about this one....edutainment at its finest. See who is right, Biblical writers or Da Vinci. Nail actual cadavers to crosses! You pick the spot and solve Christianity's most boring riddle!

252. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #180823 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 10:51 pm

Wow. I didn't think much of Starbucks but that they aren't changing their logo for some whiny assholes bumps them up a bit in my estimation.

253. Bible Theme Park Faces Opposition in Tennessee

Comment #180820 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 10:26 pm

I tell you I think in the freshman year of every highschool in the US (and many other places besides) they ought to have a critical thinking course, and at least one of the texts they have to read ought to be Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World.

I think that might be a good start toward turning this shitty mess around.

254. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180800 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 8:25 pm

Frankus,
I go with Caudimordax here.
A very conscise gut check. Nicely done.

However it will prove just as futile I think. Imagine Txpiper reading Williams, Adaptation and Natual Selection with out a creationist cliff's notes quotemine primer. Or something as effecient and lean as The Selfish Gene.

But since we don't mind pushing boulders up hills here Txpiper are my two cents. Were I giving it my advice might be to start with Matt Ridley's excellent text book Evolution followed by John Alcock's Animal Behavior.

An excellent introductory text on the whole of biology is the textbook by Raven and Johnson, Biology. These will give you the basic and intermediate concepts, and point you toward the primary sources.

255. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #180773 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 6:34 pm

Teratornis,
You said:

Most of us are rational enough to understand prayer is a waste of time - but is ignoring the oil problem any smarter? Is jabbering about things like the Expelled movie any smarter than praying for cheap fuel? I'm serious here. If your house is burning down, what is your highest priority at that moment? Perhaps everything else can wait. After we solve the energy problem - if we can solve it - there will be plenty of time to worry about creationism, religion, God, etc. again. Before we call the religious stupid one more time, let's show some ability to be smart about energy.

I do always get skeptical about end of the world preaching. I am reminded sometimes of sweaty-faced preachers as they hold forth on things like revelations when you really get your grove on.

But this thread really is an appropriate place for you to post on the issue about which you are most passionate, so I am actually reading your posts on this thread. What I have to take issue with is your insistance that these other issues aren't important. As it turns out they are important skirmishes in the general campaign of unreason. If you think it would be a good idea to let things like expelled, ID in the schools get a foothold then not only are you a one issue trick pony, but you would not be very bright either.

Do we just let the forces of unreason march into our schools? Our governments? Part of the reason we get no traction on issues of dramatic ecological importance is because we've let unreason go unchecked for so long. We've let the virulent strain of American anti-intellectualism spread.

No, it is important to have these other discussions because it helps people understand how science works. On your advice we would only focus our attentions on this one issue and let everything else go. Do you not see why this would be catastrophically bad? Not everyone is an expert on this question, but they are expert on other questions. It is good that people apply their expertise where it is most needed.

Now I must get back to reading your tomes.

256. Bible Theme Park Faces Opposition in Tennessee

Comment #180744 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 4:48 pm

What about Revelation Horror House!

Or abortionist hell!

Those would be super rides. Maybe instead of whack-the-mole they would have hit-the-male-children-and-all-the-non-virgin-women!

That would keep them coming back for more.

257. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180741 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Goldy,
If you want you may go
Comment #180675 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Comment #180653 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Comment #180629 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Comment #180530 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 7:05 am
You will see that I have actually succumbed to the beast! Not the one RM fell to, but the coarse language beast!

EDIT
Dammit! How do I make these things link up? Goldy just go to my comments there are some examples of my recent swear fits

258. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180736 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 4:35 pm

As guy who grew up Catholic,
It is a mixed bag here too. Not homogeneous, but tending more and more rightward as time goes on. that is an anecdotal reporting on my part. I wonder if that would be the kind of thing we could study.....
I bet it is.

259. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180733 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Caudimordax!
Perhaps you've hit the nail on the head.

Diacanu,
Did you read it. Have you recovered? Thoughts?
Please hold nothing back.

260. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180728 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 4:26 pm

I understood it was a goof on Al, I just was unsure exactly how it was all related to what was being said.

It [the grammar/punctuation thing]was never meant to be a sticking point. I just thought your meanings might be made more clear. I had said my piece and was content to have it accepted or ignored. I thought that much was obvious. However it clearly was not.
I mean did I ever point out punctuation or grammar errors after I made my post?
No.

I think you have unnecessarily continued to badger me on the point. I have said all I think needs to be said on the subject. It is all water under the creakey bridge as far as I am concerned.
I'll read your posts, if they aren't clear to me I will ask you to be clearer.
If you keep up with the negative tone I will be insulting and generally unpleasant toward you. Now you may not be intending to be negative but it is hard to interpret,
"When I want your opinion I will ask Anna." and some of the other things you have said in anyway other than insulting.
Anyway that about covers it for me.

You were saying something about Haditha I believe. Continue.

261. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180702 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 3:15 pm

No I am fine. I appreciate your helpfulness.

262. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180700 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 3:14 pm

There are plenty of people here who I don't agree with but I am not bothered by that. I like that there are actual real difference of opinion and interpretation here. I don't mind the coarse language, though I of course would never stoop to its usage.

I am a little shocked at RM's strange act of prudishness. It was he after all who put up that flashing picture of the brazlian butt girl (the avatar that occilated from brazilian flag to tanned, thonged ass), and who managed to get a little too forward with some of our female members.

263. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180696 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 3:08 pm

And this was something I didn't really follow. Though it could just be me.

Wow you really are a tuff guy
you know slang for as tough as volcanic rock

Not sure what you trying to go for here. Joke gone awry?

And here I am unsure what you mean.

Max
If you cant make your way thru that I was completely wrong. I am so sorry

Are you saying you are sorry that I am unable to make my way thru the fact that I was completely wrong? Or are you saying sorry because I am missing the fact that you are saying it was you who was completely wrong. And you just want us all to get along?

On the camaraderie point, I should have said, from which you, maybe, felt excluded. That would have kept my mind reader status more under wraps.

264. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180685 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Here is one.
By the way TUFF guy

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
tuff1 Audio Help [tuhf] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"adjective Slang.
tough (def. 13).
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

And I just grunted out 9 reps with 50lbs so beat that
ass clown?

265. UC Berkeley is going to court over Evolution website

Comment #180684 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Darwin's Badger,
I suspect you are quite correct and was one of his major problems, and was responsible for alot of his more overheated pronouncments.

266. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180681 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Goldy!
Be sure you want to spend that five minutes doing what you just asked. Do you really want to read it? Are you sure you've the stomach for the contents? Its kind of like watching a car wreck. Its something you cannot look away from but something you feel guilty for watching.

Best of luck!

267. UC Berkeley is going to court over Evolution website

Comment #180677 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Here, here Darwin's Badger.

However, I think the likelihood of a retraction is somewhat unlikely given that he never ever retracted he and Lewontin's crappy, crappy treatment of E.O. Wilson. Or much of anything he ever said about sociobiology in general.

268. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180675 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Vergil,
You said,

I don't know if I can explain it any more clearly. When creationists criticize proponents of natural selection for believing that an eye just came about randomly, they are attacking a claim that the proponents of natural selection do not, in fact, make. They are misrepresenting the claims of natural selection. And when atheists criticize the Roman Catholic Church for asserting that evolution did not occur, they are attacking a claim that catholics do not, in fact, make.

I suspected that you meant something like this. However there are Catholics that do believe in things like a more or less literal interpretations of Genesis (they do tend not to be the preponderance of members of Cathol).
It certainly isn't one of my main points of critique when addressing the mass of their sillyness (lets face it, simply saying "Oh yeah evolution up to this point, but ensoulment here and a sketchier take on the bible isn't much better than biblical literalism, is it?) I don't think it is the main thrust of Catholic criticism here either. It may be and I've just missed it.

Allow me to correct a meaning of my own. I said:

Is it okay to believe in aliens in absence of evidence? I suppose, intellectually, it certainly would be. I think we can say, well, given the fact that there are 100 billion billion stars in the observable universe and the stuff of organic chemistry seems pretty abundant it would shocking if there were no life elsewhere at the moment we don't know.

What I meant to say was, Is it okay to believe in aliens in absence of evidence? No. I suppose, intellectually it would be okay to speculate on the probablities.......And I am all for things like funding the search and all.
I don't think what I was trying to say was clear enough in the above post.

269. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180661 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Al,
I'm not sure why folk say such things.

270. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180659 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Quetz,
Clearly.

271. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180656 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Awww come on SharonMcT, I could've swore I saw a bit of brilliant hand wringing in there. Amid the anguish I mean.

272. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180653 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Jayalenik,
Tosswad was in response to your tone, which wasn't very nice and just the tiniest bit smarmy. Negative tone can produce reprisals. You got a gentle one with tosswad.

Ah..and you are a mind reader too. You have me figured out. Clearly I just wanted to impress Annabanana. It couldn't possibly be that I was just thinking the same thing and decided to state it. Nope. Nothing that simple.

Clearly you say you don't give a fuck what other members think of you grammar or you bench press. I have my doubts. When several of us were joking around about excersize are you sure you weren't jealous of camaraderie from which you were excluded? Maybe you gave enough of a fuck to feebly attempt throwing of cold water on our fun with your worthless insults?

I was nice. But you had to go and inject all that negativity into the tone thus....tosswad, fucktard douchebag, oh and that funny diaper bit. About me minding my own business I'm unsure how that gets done on such a forum as this. Its not like I am butting in on a private conversation. We all seem to be talking to each other. Anywho I said all I really wanted to say about the punctuation thing in my first post. As I said you are the one who keeps crying about it. I even made a pretty bad error myself earlier, you pointed it out, I read through too hastily posted, and blamo had to eat my words. Happens. Who gives a shit? I'm not crying about it over and over and over. Like you.

EDIT: I corrected my mispelling of excersize. Any errors that remain are completely those of my editors.

273. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180641 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Lastgreekstanding I was going to respond to this thing addressed to Keith

Keith, you also wondered if...

"Now, if I understand this correctly you are saying that if the Yanks and the Brits pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan then there will be no more killings, is that right? I can't see any other way of reading it. Please let me know, on re-reading what you have written, if this is still your seriously considered opinion."

That's a 10-4, Keith. Over and out. :)

I think Muhammed Ali said it best when he said to a white college student (who had suggested that Ali not spend money because it had white faces on it)"Now, now, now you just talkin' crazy."
EDIT: I forgot the L in talkin'.

274. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180637 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Lastgreekstanding,

MaxD,

I didn't sign off as RT. lol That's RT's ending of his letter to the WJ. (See explanation in first paragraph above).

Sorry about the mistake. I don't think it was clear but I will certainly acknowledge my part in the error.

As for SH not being a rabid necon, what's that old saying? "Show me the books you read [or recommend] and I'll tell you who you are." Dershowitz? Bernard Lewis? Fuck! How neocon can you get!

Two books. I notice he has on his list more books by Dawkins, Dennet, and Diamond. All of whom are deeply liberal. Oh look Eienstien. Kind of liberal. Turned down office in Israel. And Marc Hauser strikes me as kind of liberal. None of which matters by the way.
I've read books and watched commentary by William F. Buckley. Found them interesting, not fully correct but challenging for all of that. Recommending a book isn't the same thing as agreeing with it completely.
Besides whatever Dershowitz may be I don't think you could call him a strict neocon.

And one more thing. Regarding RT, his areas of studies are evolutionary biology AND SOCIOBIOLOGY. He was more than ampy qualified to give the speech at Harvard. Why the censonship? Why the fuss?

Not sure what you are talking about here. I wouldn't have advocated censoring him, nor did I.

275. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180629 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Vergil,

It seems a bit hypocritical for posters to complain about creationists bringing up the old "chance" arguement because they misunderstand the Theory of Evolution, and then make fun of the Roman Catholic Church for believing in literal interpretations of the Bible.

Why does it seem hypocritical? If someone brings up the old "there is no way we can have come about by pure random chance" argument don't we have kind of an obligation to correct that error?

And if someone holds to a literal interpretation of Genesis I think it is probably okay to make fun of that. I'm not sure where this hypocrisy part you charge the entirity of the RD.net users with goes.

You also state:

There are plenty of things with which to make fun of The Church without creating straw men. Know thine enemy!

Yes there are. No straw men are being manufactured that I can see. We kind of do know the enemy, though I'd prefer we just call them the deluded.

That the "official church astronomer" thinks that it's okay to believe in aliens is, to me, a good thing. What scares me (among other things) is the current Pope's apparent step backward in promoting ID, as opposed to John Paul II's apparent acceptance of Natural Selection

My problem is that the whole fatuous enterprise hinges on this belief in absence of evidence bullshit.
"Its okay to believe in aliens," says Father Assbob. Well to hell with Father Assbob anyway. Does the evidence favor a belief in proposition X? I'd like to hear Vatican astronomer Father Assbob speak to that question. He won't because he doesn't like the word evidence or the conceptual rails it often nails one to.

Is it okay to believe in aliens in absence of evidence? I suppose, intellectually, it certainly would be. I think we can say, well, given the fact that there are 100 billion billion stars in the observable universe and the stuff of organic chemistry seems pretty abundant it would shocking if there were no life elsewhere at the moment we don't know.

The vatican astronomer might want to put his scientific training to use and speak like a fucking scientist.

As to Benedict's new, direction for mother church. It isn't really that new. John Paul II while feeling a bit magnanimous toward the sciences on the evolution point still inserted wildly unsupported and unsupportable dogma into his address on his "truth cannot contradict truth" crusade (in itself one of the dumbest phrases uttered by a Pope in quite a long time). This is just an example of the Catholic Church's long history of just making shit up to stay current, fashionable and acceptable.

276. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #180622 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 11:38 am

What a wonderful book this Irrational Atheist seems like it will be......
Uh...not.

277. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180616 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 11:08 am

Diacanu,
Take the plunge. You don't know what you are missing!

278. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180613 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 10:42 am

Quetz,
ugh.

279. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #180590 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 9:00 am

Txpiper enjoys just stating things as facts when he says stuff like:

Once again, the odds are stacked enormously against evolutionary ideas about mutations changing fish to amphibs, amphibs to reptiles and reptiles to birds and mammals.

I assume your extensive knowledge of anatomy, the geological record, and your understanding of molecular genetics makes you eminently qualified to make such pronouncements. Don't you ever scratche your head and ask yourself, hmmmmm why is it that the vast majority of ID/creationsist folk are religious? Why is it no researcher in their field is troubled by the creationist meanderings and strawmanderings?

The evidence favors Evolutionary theory. Sorry to say.
You dislike the use of some of these small organisms? Too bad. They are ideal for a number of reasons, short generation time and thoroughly understood genetics being only two.

To make that pitiful notion more so, only one out of millions of candidates are going to actually be involved in reproduction.

This is just rank ignorance. Many will mate, some will just mate more, or leave more successful offspring and thus do gene frequencies change. This is elementary population genetics. That you don't understand it suggests that you need to pull away from the creationist sites and look up some real science.

To think that the mutants would consistently be the lucky ones often enough to define something like the ten layers in the retina of the human eye is again, beneath ridiculous

Not when you take into account what I said above. Nor when you think that most animal, except for long lived big animals, tend to produce larger broods provideing plenty of experimental tweaking for natural selection.
Sad to say it but....
Txpiper, you're wrong again!

280. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180576 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 8:29 am

Sorry Quezt!
I'll call off the good professor.

281. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180571 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 8:16 am

Quetz,
Why are you enslaving mutant kind. I am directing a certain headmaster of a certain school for gifted youngsters your way and since he had no problem mopping the floor with the Shadow King, I think you ought to let his mutant people go.
Remember,
(Professor) X marks the spot!

282. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180569 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 8:12 am

quetzalcoatl,
Go ahead shoot one my way.

283. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180568 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 8:10 am

This is almost as bad as post-modernist speak. But at least we are only joking.

But Phillip1978 under any other circumstances yuiopqwert! would be completely out of line. But note Annabanna found it to be generally the case. This stems from her understanding of yomiqwerbnobs//$* which simply states, #rruertc?ferkFwarkoneunommmxz//.>
This is all elementary.
Al,
I do hope, avmnr03934g you buddy! wasn't directed at me. If so asdcxzqwe iujhnb!

284. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180563 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 8:03 am

Artful Dodger,

Quetzalcoatl, I'm sorry but you need to read Dawkins' words more carefully. He says on the one hand that "nature is pitifully indifferent".

This simply means there is no pattern of concern in nature for humans. Bad things happen, good things happen more or less randomly. It also means that the processes of evolution only maximizes the number of successful genes from one generation to the next. Actual human faculties of emotion, or the goal of having a long life are of no concern to mindless nature.

Is everything included in his definition of "nature"? If so, then there can be nothing IN nature that he can possibly invoke do give us either the inclination to "overreach" our selfish genes or the wherewithal.

Our "selfish genes" have gained an enourmous boost in replication by building organisms with a sense of themselves and importantly a sense of empathy. That is we understand that other people, indeed other organism aren't simply meat-puppets that fail to experience the same sensations and emotions. Recognizing this simple fact paves the way for all moral reasoning.

If his definition of "nature" does not encompass everything, then we are appealling to some quality or property that transcends nature, which is clearly dualistic and even mystical.

Here you are just reaching, or being deliberately dense. Nature has created system of empathy and intiutive psychology in people because it helped those who possesed it lever more of their genes into the future. That is all nature, as it is described in biology is "concerned" with. Of course it isn't concerned with anything. Dawkins has said else where, and I paraphrase, nature is simply about the survival of the stable.
In any event, what we have is the idea is that all people feel the same kinds of thing, everyone can be made to suffer, or be happy, or to love. We all realize that we don't like our feelings denied or trampled on so we often extend that courtesy to others of our family, and tribe etc.

It is mystical and mystifying because it appeals to an unexplained, unexamined "upper storey" which is exempted from the pitilessness and indifference that define nature. When he says that human being are unique, in what sense does he mean this? Well he says so quite explicitly. We are unique in the sense of having more highly evolved brains. But on what grounds does this allow us to no longer be dictated to by our genes, which are our "natural" legacy.

The main reason is that our genes built a system that was excellent for maximizing reproductive success in bands of about 100 individuals or more. Our genes built a brain with greater flexibility, while also giving us a nuanced record keeping system. We are unique in simply having a flexible mind that seems more attuned to building allainces, even in abscence of family ties than most of the other animals on earth. We are just fortunate to have a suite of adaptations that enable us to see larger pictures of the world and ourselves.

We don't think about reproductive goals as we build allainces, help friends or even strangers, or have sex (though in this activity we often think, man I hope this doesn't make a baby). It is just something we do because it feels good. Its lucky for us that all we have is the imperitive and not some goals attached to it. That allows our focus to remain on the things that effect human emotional states.

A bird could similarly ask, how is it that we dinosaurs so came to dominate the air? (Only a corvid would ever ask such a question.) The answer is somewhat simple and somewhat complex. The simple part is luck. Dinosaurs just happened to have a lot of characteristics that made the transition from land animal to sky master an easier one than it was for any other group. Pneumatiscized bone, probably they were warm-blooded, feathers. The complex part is the evolutionary and behavioral pressures/tendencies that actually led them to the air.

Are we thus moving into a territory where "nature red in tooth and claw" no longer prevails. What is that territory? Where is it, if it is not part of the natural realm, which is pitiless and indifferent?

I don't think so. Nature is indeed pitiless and indifferent, but it has created a few species that are not wholly so. We are one of them.

285. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180544 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 7:24 am

Tezcatlipoca,
Uh...that doesn't seem to wimpy. Meanie.

286. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180541 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 7:23 am

Keith, Al, Annabanana,
You said it. There is no point in talking to clearmind. Ridicule us the only real option for him.
Annabanana (for you only),
zxcv/nmm,.///yuiopqwert! Thus yhnujm/> bgtrfv%//qazxsw?
Don't you think?

287. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180539 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 7:14 am

Annabanana gets PMs from the gods....I am in awe!

(I orignally wrote that as "pms from the gods..." However I thought it might be interpreted as PMS. That would be a funny confusion to make, but as there are Gods involved I thought changing the structure would help. I don't want to get struck down by lighting or whatever wimpy things South American gods do to infidels. Oh, bother as Pooh might've said.)

288. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180530 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 7:05 am

Jayalenic,
You crazy bullshitter!

It is so good to hear from you! You may have been too dense to get this but...in my very first post to you I really was trying to be helpful. It was actually hard to understand your posts. I was not alone in that unhappy sentiment. So I don't think it was simply a mistake on my part.

I am sorry that you are such a fucking tosswad that you could not see that I was actually trying to be the nice guy. Of course you just didn't get it did you? I guess being a douchebag fucktard has that effect on people. I wouldn't know. That is your lookout not mine. If it thrills you, by all means point out my errors. It will give you something to do here since you seem incapable of actually contributing to discussion of any kind.

You said:

This grammar thing you want to harp on makes you look like a fucktard, or is that a tosswad, I forget.

I don't want to harp on it. I never did. I just pointed out that it would be helpful to all involved if you would simply use punctuation, and post more clearly. I said it once, and I said it without any attitude at all. You are the one who keeps coming back to it, wearing your wounded pride and damaged feelings, like a petulant little baby that has just filled his/her diaper with a great steaming mess. I will let our fellow members decide who looks like the bigger fucktard.

289. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180519 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 6:38 am

I also alter spelling and grammar mistakes without saying so.
No biggie that.

Richard Morgan,
You could further the debate, or conversation or whatever it is you come here for by simply stating the events, epiphany experience here in an open and public forum. And here is why that might be something you would want to do.

Here at RD.net many of us have engaged in what I suspect is an often futile pursuit. We debate the creationist/id proponent. I suspect most of us are not laboring under the illusion that we are likely to change any minds. Such folk are too radically set on the position. However there are likely many people who read this site who are curious and have an open mind and are actually willing and able to be swayed by quaint devices like evidence, logic, argument and good humor. Here is your opportunity to explain the religious experience for those still on the fence, willing to be convinced (like most of the posters here I hasten to add, were the evidence compelling) of the worthiness of such endeavors.

If you do not want to do this that is quite fine. But it doesn't speak well for your position, or its strength.

290. Is Science Killing the Soul?

Comment #180429 by MaxD on May 14, 2008 at 10:14 pm

I don't think he does.
He does not for instance believe in a homunculeus at the screen somewhere in our brain watching our inputs on a movie screen.

Here he is discussing it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A_r6_GGv3U

291. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180423 by MaxD on May 14, 2008 at 9:38 pm

Jesus Christie-O Clearmind
You sir have hit a new low.
P
A
T
H
E
T
I
C
!

292. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180418 by MaxD on May 14, 2008 at 9:26 pm

Richad Morgan,

I have never denied that the scientific posture enables considerable intellectual freedom.
(Pat answer N° 1)

Pat and, not entirely consistent with the "strict and limiting" charge you hurled early in this thread.

But I have found a new freedom which I was unable find either in the intellectual brilliance of some posters here, (not this particular thread, alas) or in the "hate'n'bile", mockery posts.(EDITED)

For a fellow who decries the negative tone in this forum you don't mind injecting a little negative into the tone now do you? This is kind of David Robertson trick.

You seem confused by something I've said.

New phenomena? Religious and mystical experiences are "new" phenomena? I think maybe I ma misunderstanding your use of the word "new" in this context.

You may remember that I thought you were discussing consciousness not religion, or mystical experiences. Allow me to address them though. It seems as we don't yet have a good scientific account of religion, though we can explain many spiritual experiences. So yes I think a new, insightful explanation has yet to be proffered for religion and the ill-defined religious experience.
Phenomena can indeed be quite old and still be in need of explanation and research. I was merely saying my own world view would be capable of absorbing new informantion, and new views of the cosmos based on the evidence. More than this I am much more comfortable with ambiguity than you. I'm content to live as if there is no God, not because such a being has been completely disproved, but because there is no proof this being exists, and no reason to infer one there is also no need, as yet to bother with it.

And the argument from incredulity swings for the fences...

And forgive me for being a little suspicious when I read that "consciousness...all boils down" to something. Have you read Pinker on "The Mystery of Consciousness" - "the hard question"?

It may be a mystery, that doesn't mean, insert more-made up-mystery in an attempt to explain an already difficult concept. There may come a point where all the available evidence points toward something non-physical but until then what we do know about conscioussness (still an ill defined concept in my opinion and not one that has yet impressed me as anything more than a Macguffin), let me say human mental states, and awareness seems well rooted in the minutia of the physical. Anyone who finds this hard to even credit as the reasonable position is ignoring the past thirty years of research and discovery.

It is also interesting to read how atheists here are happy to try to describe an experience they have never had. Their favourite word is "fuzzy", but I can assure you that the epiphany experience I had on April 12th was anything but "fuzzy".

I think you would be forgetting that many people here, and many among the non-believing community in general were once believers themselves and know quite well the kinds of experiences of which you speak.

I for one would be anxious to hear about your epiphany experience. I think many folk here would be.

Which brings me to my unanswered point about "qualia" (And I think that this is a good thread for speaking about qualia - don't you?)Maybe you have something to say on that subject?

I think the notion of qualia is putting the cart before the horse, and it seems to neglect all that research I was discussing.

You said:

MaxD Said: it is hard to avoid this clear thinking oasis I know.

Just out of interest, how many of the 86 posts in this thread would answer your definition of "clear-thinking"?

Here is more of that negative Robertson style tone. This is an open forum RichardM, largely unmoderated. Whining about it won't do much to change it, nor does it constitute responding to an argument.

Sauveterre (and anybody else who is interested) - if you are motivated by a genuine sense of inquiry concerning my epiphany experience, then I would be happy to send you a copy. But if you are just looking for another opportunity to mock and insult me, I think I'll have to ask for a rain-check on this one. (Although, if you are really interested, you could find what you want in a few seconds on Google.)

I suggest you just post it here. You were quite content to have your dialogue with Robertson be public despite the ridicule you were sure you would recieve. (You will note that the preponderance of the response here was one of worry for you and your mental state.) I suggest you just brave the storm and publish your epiphany here. I am sure you are right that there may be some ridicule. What are you so worried about?

293. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180217 by MaxD on May 14, 2008 at 11:36 am

Reverand Dark,
I think you have missed some key evidence that suggests that Middle Earth actually was within the scope of human history.
Gandalf will be back one day....
I just know he will.
Now I have to go prepare an acheological exploration for Aragorn's lost tomb. I'm in talks to have Geraldo Rivera do a documentary about the excavation. It should make for some riveting TV. Like discovery channel programs about dragons, and yetis.

294. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180213 by MaxD on May 14, 2008 at 11:32 am

Hello Richard Morgan, it is hard to avoid this clear thinking oasis I know. But what do you hope to find here now that you have found Jesus? You are trying out some neat pat answers. Hopefully you will not avoid answering the tough questions sent your way in return. This is, sadly, an altogether common tactic of the theists who visit our little on line community. So if you are going to stay do so in the spirit of actual dialogue.

You said,

My question is this: how does saying that it's all down to molecules and neurones make "atheism" any less "strict and closed"? Are you saying that since that which is apparently being perceived in the "religious" experience in unverifiable by scientific method, it's best to stick to the experience of perception which can observed and described to a certain extent?
If so, what do you make of the whole "qualia" aspect of all this?

It is quite simple, suggesting that it (what do you mean by it exactly I am assuming consciousness) all boils down to molecules and neurons actually fits the known facts. Adopting the scientific posture enables the freedom you don't think is there. You see my world view can adopt new phenemena and their explanation as evidence comes in to support them.

The religious experience itself seems easy enough to observe. It is all the accompanying metaphysics that is the problem. It is the fact that simpler explanations will do while the grander proclaimations of faith sit and stew in a great big fat nothing. No evidence.
None.
Zip.
Zilch.
Nada.
Nil.

Theology-that is the study of the mind of god, and his/her attributes, is an empty intellectual picnic basic. It looks nice on the outside, but inside you have nothing.

295. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180204 by MaxD on May 14, 2008 at 11:15 am

Al,
A key part of achieving a goal is actually setting it in the first place! You are well on your way to success sir!

About the Lastgreekstanding post, I expected a better class of argument from Robert Trivers.

296. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180202 by MaxD on May 14, 2008 at 11:12 am

Al,
I see how that could easily be the case.
I know at my own college, none of the Palestinian women I hung out with wore the veil. Though they fell differently on drinking, and sexual activity some leaning more western, and some no so much. However I did notice that many of the muslim men were more or less vicious in their critique of the highly westernized, sexually active, and freely drinkin' Palestinian women. The men were this way even if they themselvese were less than observant Muslims. I don't want to draw too much from that. It is a small sample size after all. But it always bothered me.

297. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180193 by MaxD on May 14, 2008 at 11:01 am

Jayalenic,
I am not sure the word who was necessary to my sentence, or would be considered a gramatical mistake of the class you so often make. But if it is then I thank you for the correction. I will have to go look the expected usages up to be sure.

EDIT: Horrible, horrible read on my part, it was actually completely necessary and the kind of error you so commonly make. I apologize. Silly me. Thanks Jayalenik, now you will get to point out two of my errors! Enjoy!

298. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180188 by MaxD on May 14, 2008 at 10:55 am

I have to say, I like watching Al and Fanusi spar. I like that there are serious points of agreement and disagreement between them. It gets heated sometimes but I think I learn alot, find things to go look up, and in general feel quite edified.
Thanks guys.

299. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180179 by MaxD on May 14, 2008 at 10:42 am

Lastgreekstanding (Are you reallyRobert Trivers? It is not entirely clear as you refer to him in the third person, and then sign off as him later)
Well if you are Robert Trivers...

In the past, I've found your work to be fascinating however your brilliance in one area doesn't seem to necessarily translate to brilliant and cogent argument in another.

I think that you might want to actually read the work of Harris more thoroughly before attributing racists sentiments like "brownie" to him. This is a low way to begin an argument. You will want to note that Harris is campaigning hard to set up funds and faciliaties for oppressed muslim women, and is a staunch defender of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Has Sam missed the fact the she is also one of these "brownies?"

Perhaps you would do well to watch his debate with Christopher Hedges where it is clear was not in favor of US policy in Iraq, and nor has he been anything but a staunch critic of any fundementalism, whether it be Christian, Jewish, or Islamic. He is not the rabid neocon you seem to wish him to be. Agree or disagree with him this is quite fine, but you will have to drop the bullshit tactics ascribing racist sentiment to him.

300. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180169 by MaxD on May 14, 2008 at 10:18 am

Al,
Its important that Fanusi, were he to join, keep in mind that being highly emotional can get you, and yours in a lot of trouble. With the enemey, with superiors and of course the law.

He could get some money for college, or having a degree (if this is the case) he could enter as an officer. Though sometimes foreign Universities are not vetted sufficiently so degrees (esp in medicine and health related fields) are not always recognized.

Was that the kind of imput you were looking for Al?

Also you said,

Well having discussed this with many Muslim women, I notice they defend the institutions most vigorously. In fact on Egyptian University campuses, women have taken to wearing the veil as a way of asserting their identity. It shouldn't be assumed that Islamism is solely male dominated.

Is this trend of women wearing the veil as a sign of pride and solidarity a growing trend? At my wife's med school there were several Muslim women wore the veil as part their "muslim identity." Whatever the fuck that might mean. At least one of them drank in a manner any westerner might label, excessive.