Heh.
I found this article to be pretty nicely written and presented.

Enzyme? Care to comment on it? It's a subject we debated a few times between us. I'd like to hear your take on this article...
( The Resident Loon Not a demographic. Do not measure., Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:29, 65 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

Way to start an argument.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:34, Reply)

Nah, not really.
Enzyme and I had a bit of a difference of opinion on this subject, and I was unable to clearly enough express my stance on the subject, I think. I found the linked article through Jerry Pournelle's blog, read it and found that he expressed the concepts more clearly than I could have, so I'm bringing it to Enzyme's attention because I'm interested in his response to it.

Hardly an argument- he has his views and I have mine, and I'm unlikely to convince him. I just wanted to know his reaction to the article.
( The Resident Loon Not a demographic. Do not measure., Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:38, Reply)

You'd think that but it'll probably end up with someone getting banned.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:39, Reply)

Only if he complains to cr3 about me.
Highly unlikely, as both of us are reasonable men and would hardly get into a serious fight over this. Enzyme is a very nice guy- I've met him- and I have nothing but respect for him.
( The Resident Loon Not a demographic. Do not measure., Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:43, Reply)

He's totally gonna get your sweet ass booted off b3ta for that sort of comment.

(Bazongaloid, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:44, Reply)

Nonsense.
I'll simply swell up my manly chest and DEMAND that I be allowed to stay. None can refuse me.

And then I'll go curl up in the corner for a good long weep over being so hated.
( The Resident Loon Not a demographic. Do not measure., Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:49, Reply)

Send Cr3 a photo of yourself
he'll get so wet he'll ban anyone who dares to question you from that point forward.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:51, Reply)

Or gazzed

(Flim-Flam the Magnificent "You is talking loco and I like it!", Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:43, Reply)

I've recieved more gazes in the last few days than ever before.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:53, Reply)

It's because you're so
popular now! This has elevated you to celebrity b3tan status!
(Flim-Flam the Magnificent "You is talking loco and I like it!", Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:01, Reply)

I'd rather it hadn't to tell you the truth.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:05, Reply)

Are you having trouble dealing with the pressure
of being fabulous all the time?
(Flim-Flam the Magnificent "You is talking loco and I like it!", Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:16, Reply)

It is tough, how do you do it?

(PsychoChomp, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:30, Reply)

Well...
*flicks hair*
I try to keep appearances up by commenting randomly each day and I generally spend a lot of time fluttering my eyelashes and talking about doughnuts… it seems to do the trick!?
(Flim-Flam the Magnificent "You is talking loco and I like it!", Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:39, Reply)

but I hardly know anything about doughnuts?
oh man, this is going to be tough.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:44, Reply)

Indeed
*eats doughnut*

Indeed
(Flim-Flam the Magnificent "You is talking loco and I like it!", Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:47, Reply)

No, no, no, no, no.
It's not enough to say that one person has some views and another has others. If those views are in contradiction, at least one must be wrong.

You can't then back away and retain a slight shred of intellectual integrity.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:55, Reply)

But to prove which is wrong
would mean to prove the existence or non-existence of a deity, which cannot be done.

Were we debating about Dark Matter vs the Modified Theory of Newtonian Dynamics (reference here) that might apply- but just as I can't prove that a god exists, you can't prove that there's definitely nothing there.

Ergo, I'm willing to accept a difference of opinion and leave it at that.
( The Resident Loon Not a demographic. Do not measure., Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:05, Reply)

Surely the burden of proof is on the person claiming something exists and that nobody can disprove it.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:12, Reply)

This ^^^

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 15:40, Reply)

Dear Loon,
That article is a crock of shit.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:37, Reply)

Really?
Why do you say that? I've long felt that atheism is basically a religion in that it assumes that there is no god and goes from there. As there is no way to definitely prove one way or the other, it's a leap of faith. Declaring that There Is No God is just the mirror image of All Must Worship. It's still a matter of faith.
( The Resident Loon Not a demographic. Do not measure., Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:47, Reply)

Oh, for fuck's sake.
You don't have to prove that there's no god, any more than you have to prove that there's no enormous pot of strawberry jam orbiting around Proxima Centauri.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:52, Reply)

I like this example
I think it's time we had a modern version of "Russell's Teapot" - strawberry jam floating round Proxima Centauri, or has anybody got any better suggestions?

A highly advanced species of badger carrying out their strange and convoluted 20-year long mating ritual on the flattest part of Deimos?

Edit: Yeah, sorry Loon, but I'm with the wookiee. It's shite, and it's completely missed the point.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:16, Reply)

I wish I could remember where I read it
but there is the idea that if you can imagine it, it exists.

So I can imagine a large raspberry jam eating badger that mops up after asteroid showers on the dark side of the moon.

And lo! It exists.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:29, Reply)

Isn't that one of the First Laws of the Interweb?
That is, if you can imagine it, then however unusual, esoteric, seemingly impossible or disgusting...it's probably been done, somewhere on the interweb.

*imagines giant pot of glue, parked slyly behind Phobos, that the huge, raspberry jam-eating badger uses to repair the damage done to the cratered surface of the moon after each asteroid shower*

*Google search currently fruitless*
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:34, Reply)

It's definitely one of the laws of the internet.
But I think it might have something to do with the Multiverse (as opposed to the Universe) and many worlds theory.

So somewhere there is a version of Chickenlady who rules the world and wears a size 8 despite surviving on a diet of donuts and chocolate.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:40, Reply)

A Supreme Crow who is charming, witty and attractive
with a stunning wife and his own brewery to run in the basement of an idyllic British pub, and who can actually talk to the crows, rather than just pretending?

Google search reveals nothing...but I'll track this bastard down and usurp him if it's the last thing I do!
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:55, Reply)

tl;dr

( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:40, Reply)

I tried but it was too long
so I skimmed it and found references to Atheism and it's "leaders".

Which is a stupid fall back position, Dawkins himself is on record as saying he is sick of being the person people call when they want an interview with an athiest, he would like them to be calling other people rather than holding him up as the "leader" of atheism.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:44, Reply)

I went to Michael Shermer's lecture in Bristol last Februrary.
It consisted of an hour long PowerPoint presentation saying how daft people were for not believing in evolution. It seemed to me that none of the audience needed convincing so he was wasting his breath.

Self-congratulatory talk ended; I went and got pissed in a Wetherspoons and copped off with a devout atheist so the talk had its uses.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:47, Reply)

YES!
Snogging in Wetherspoons FTMFW!
(Bazongaloid, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:51, Reply)

classy bird, me.
I was even drinking the wine from the bottle rather than the wine on tap. 10p more expensive per glass.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:56, Reply)

You posh fucker
I bet you use a napkin after you've had your pork scratchings.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:57, Reply)

I kept reading that as "autism"
Shows how my mind works!
( Lampito rise with the moon, go to bed with the sun, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:51, Reply)

You can happily swap the two
and it still makes an enjoyable read.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:55, Reply)

Sorry, Enzyme:
"Now, noone thinks that autism demands pure rationality and nothing else besides. That'd be nuts, and would exclude all kinds of valuable things like friendship and love. Autism is just as happy with the non-rational as with the rational. So the article is fighting a straw man on this. It also fails with its Ayn Rand analogy: maybe she was an autist, but noone takes her seriously as a thinker; the fact that she's hopeless, though, doesn't dent autism in the slightest."
( Lampito rise with the moon, go to bed with the sun, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:57, Reply)

See!
Much more fun to read.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:58, Reply)

Lol.
Now I'm retiring to bed with my copy of Lustrum, some cold pizza and very sore shoulders. Must move my bed nearer to the ethernet cable...
( Lampito rise with the moon, go to bed with the sun, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:07, Reply)

my copy of rum, some cold pizza and very sore shoulders. Must move my bed nearer to the ethernet cable... for a good old wank
(Bazongaloid, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:15, Reply)

I'm kinda busy -
but as a quick response, the article is pretty dismal.

First up, I'm not sure about all the faff concerning "new atheism": I think that that's just a label that's caught on, and possibly not one that's all that useful.

Now, noone thinks that atheism demands pure rationality and nothing else besides. That'd be nuts, and would exclude all kinds of valuable things like friendship and love. Atheism is just as happy with the non-rational as with the rational. So the article is fighting a straw man on this. It also fails with its Ayn Rand analogy: maybe she was an atheist, but noone takes her seriously as a thinker; the fact that she's hopeless, though, doesn't dent atheism in the slightest.

The charge that atheism, like religion, blatantly selects is methodology to suit the conclusions it wants is simply false; the methodological naturalism that underpins atheism demands, on the contrary, that we reject our intuitions if the evidence is against them. When people do turn propagandist, they get torn a new one - and rightfully so.

The writer of the article demonstrates his incompetence when he treats feminism and postmodernism as unified doctrines. They aren't, and a reasonably decent undergrad should be able to say why. Moreover, the wilder claims of PoMo and feminism have been, and continue to be, lampooned - look up the Sokal hoax as wonderful evidence for this. None of this can be said for any religion.

When people try to enlist moral claims as support for atheism, they go wrong, by the way. The moral arguments won't influence the metaphysical or ontological ones. They can't.

Atheism is not a creed: it is a result of methodological naturalism. Hence to call it a "stealth religion" is utter bunk. There is no central belief, unless you want to call a committment to evidence a belief. If you do, then there's no hope for you.



Look - I'm not happy about defending atheism, just because I don't want to fall into the trap - set by your article - of treating it as an -ism. It ain't any such thing. There's no point in defending atheism to theists, because the belief in anything supernatural is so obviously hokey that to dignify it with a full engagement is simply an overreaction.

I could go on like this for hours, but I have to go...



Short answer: there're about three words in that item that didn't make me want to punch the writer.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 13:51, Reply)

tl;dr

( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:02, Reply)

I haven't read the article
but as long as it advocates the general awesomeness of kittens, where's the harm?
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:13, Reply)

^This ffs.

( girlinthehole, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:14, Reply)

Fuck off you fluffy tosser.
I hope you drown in custard and huggles.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:14, Reply)

*waves tomato at DG*

( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:17, Reply)

omato its
(Bazongaloid, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:18, Reply)

AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!
*runs from tomato*
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:21, Reply)

omato its
(Bazongaloid, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:22, Reply)

Are you calling me a gay?
You big hat wearing beardy cavalier.

I'd never run from tits, NEVER!
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:25, Reply)

I don't care
I don't mean that in a cunty way. I just mean some people think there's a god and some people dont. It doesn't matter to me.

The Lord will smite us for discussing it anyway...
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:18, Reply)

It will matter to you if those pesky God botherers got their way and made you get rid of your nipple clamps.

( girlinthehole, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:21, Reply)

God-botherers are well into torture
They'll put the clamps on me and not realise I'm loving it.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:22, Reply)

They don't have the Spanish Inquisition any more sweety.
It's sad, I know : (
( girlinthehole, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:24, Reply)

Well when I hear them approach...
I'll put the clamps on, and they'll be tugging at them for ages trying to remove them.
That'll learn 'em! :-P
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:25, Reply)