patrick.net

Like Parlor tricks?

All through this comic until I got to the last pane, I was thinking, yeah that wouldn't matter if it didn't affect state policy via religious politicians and the voters who put them in office.

It's like when Bush said, "God told me to invade Iraq.". At that point, it's no longer an academic issue. Over a million Iraqis dead, including children, because some dumb ass president is listening to the voices in his head.

Dan8267 says

It's like when Bush said, "God told me to invade Iraq.". At that point, it's no longer an academic issue.

did he actually say that?

Dan8267 says

Over a million Iraqis dead, including children, because some dumb ass president is listening to the voices in his head.

One word: oil.

Actually the Earth is more like 19 years old. The main question is what are you using to determine the length of each year. My years are based on the length of time it takes the solar system to revolve around the galaxy. Which is about 230 million Earth years per revolution. If anyone believed in the Bible was on Pluto, they would firmly believe the Earth is 1,488,000 years old (Each Pluto year is 248 Earth years).

uomo_senza_nome says

did he actually say that?

Yes. Scary, isn't it.

uomo_senza_nome says

One word: oil.

Oil, religion, region control, a boost in the polls, and the threat of Saddam selling oil in euros instead of dollars. There were a couple of reasons for the U.S.-Iraq War 2, but none of them official.

Dan8267 says

Oil, religion, region control, a boost in the polls, and the threat of Saddam selling oil in euros instead of dollars. There were a couple of reasons for the U.S.-Iraq War 2, but none of them official.

Also, war is the neo-cons equivalent of the stimulus packages.

Also interesting: More than 80% of Americans believe in evolution. more than 80% of Americans believed in WMD in Iraq. I.e., most of Americans (at least 64%) believed in both. Or, in other words, believing in evolution does not add to your ability of critical (or any level of logical) thinking.

Moreover, 60+% of Americans believed in Hussein Al-Qaeda links. That means that at least 48% of Americans are absolutely ignorant, while believing in evolution :)

Dan8267 says

Or, in other words, believing in evolution does not add to your ability of critical (or any level of logical) thinking.

back for more I see? What do you mean believing in evolution? It is a logical conjecture based on overwhelming scientific evidence.

michaelsch says

more than 80% of Americans believed in WMD in Iraq

based on fabricated evidence as we now know. do you mean to say evolutionary evidence is fabricated, LOL?

michaelsch says

That means that at least 48% of Americans are absolutely ignorant, while believing in evolution :)

You're comparing totally different things and confusing the discussion.

michaelsch says

Also interesting: More than 80% of Americans believe in evolution. more than 80% of Americans believed in WMD in Iraq. I.e., most of Americans (at least 64%) believed in both. Or, in other words, believing in evolution does not add to your ability of critical (or any level of logical) thinking.

No, but understanding evolution and the evidence for it does. Science is not faith. It's critical thinking skills, evidence, and healthy skepticism.

michaelsch says

more than 80% of Americans believed in WMD in Iraq

The stupidity of the American citizen never ceases to amaze me. It was obvious that Bush was out-right lying about the WMDs because

1. The UN inspectors found absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
2. Despite this, the UN was willing to search every rock and pebble, but Bush kept saying, "there is no time".

Bush knew there were no WMDs and he successfully got America to go to war before rational minds could prevail. This is exactly why there should be legal consequences for anyone involved in starting the US-Iraq War 2 including senators, representatives, Bush and his cabinet, the intelligence officers, and any generals/brass who war mongered.

I don't know. something got messed up in the code I guess. But you know I meant michaelsch.

Dan8267 says

The stupidity of the American citizen never ceases to amaze me.

:). Dead on.

michaelsch says

Also interesting: More than 80% of Americans believe in evolution.

Yeah, but a bunch of them believe it's something that happens after creation.

Understanding of evolution is low. People pointing to a current event representing what they think is strength and then saying, "Darwinism," is not evolution. Any process taking millions of years aludes common conception. Many people are struggling to conceive of the next year.

Dan8267 says

Over a million Iraqis dead, including children

Will you share your source for that info? I've been hoping to spread whatever facts I can find on the number of deaths bought in the name of U.S. taxpayers

Over one million Iraqis have met violent deaths as a result of the 2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by the prestigious British polling group, Opinion Research Business (ORB). These numbers suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq rivals the mass killings of the last century—the human toll exceeds the 800,000 to 900,000 believed killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and is approaching the number (1.7 million) who died in Cambodia’s infamous “Killing Fields” during the Khmer Rouge era of the 1970s.

ORB’s research covered fifteen of Iraq’s eighteen provinces. Those not covered include two of Iraq’s more volatile regions—Kerbala and Anbar—and the northern province of Arbil, where local authorities refused them a permit to work. In face-to-face interviews with 2,414 adults, the poll found that more than one in five respondents had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, as opposed to natural cause.

This is from Project Censored. There were a whole bunch of articles and estimates by human rights groups a few years ago. I don't remember where they are though.

The main problem with estimating deaths is that politicians like to count dead bodies precisely because this grossly underestimates the number of casualties. After all, if you blow up a body, you can't count it because all the pieces are too small.

The correct way to estimate is to look at the Iraq population before the war and then count the living after the war. Subtract the two numbers and calculate the rate of population growth. Compared the actual rate of population growth to the projected growth based on the previous decade. The difference will give you an estimate of the number of deaths caused by the war itself. Non-war related deaths including natural deaths and homicides would have already been included by using the projected rate of growth from historic numbers.

FunTime says

Will you share your source for that info?

Google 'The war you don't see'.

Dan8267 says

These numbers suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq rivals the mass killings of the last century—the human toll exceeds the 800,000 to 900,000 believed killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994 ...

I'm willing to bet that the Average Iraq citizen would be more than happy to have Saddam back if they could have there dead relatives back too. While Saddam was ruthless dictator and his sons treated any women they wanted as there personal sex slave, overall the average citizen really didn't have all that much contract with them. There something to be said about a Dictatorship with safety and security than Democracy with chaos and insecurity. Well at least they died "free" citizens.

TechGromit says

There something to be said about a Dictatorship with safety and security than Democracy with chaos and insecurity. Well at least they died "free" citizens.

The dictator himself was propped up by the US, which is the mother of all irony.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/tjuUWr9vaXo

Dan8267 says

Over one million Iraqis have met violent deaths as a result of the 2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by the prestigious British polling group, Opinion Research Business (ORB). These numbers suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq rivals the mass killings of the last century—the human toll exceeds the 800,000 to 900,000 believed killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and is approaching the number (1.7 million) who died in Cambodia’s infamous “Killing Fields” during the Khmer Rouge era of the 1970s

Isn't this just evolution? In other words, the strong prevailing over the weak in the endless and bitter struggle for limited energy resources? I thought that's what evolution was all about.

I think war is horrible. But wouldn't Darwin say that war is good, since it elminates the "unfit" and enhances "natural selection"?

wthrfrk80 says

I think war is horrible. But wouldn't Darwin say that war is good, since it elminates the "unfit" and enhances "natural selection"?

Tsk, tsk. Is this what's really at the heart of all evolution deniers? They think that evolution is suppose to be a moral code? Evolution is a tale of morality in the same way that nuclear physics is. I.e., not at all.

Evolution is a theory that explains how life works, not how you should live your life. Evolution is a cold-hard fact like the existence of gravity. Just because the law of gravity implies that jumping off a cliff will cause you to plummet to your death, doesn't mean you're suppose to do it.

Yes, war does affect human evolution as does genocide. However, evolution only explains how things work, not whether or not a change or a method is "good" or "moral". In fact, evolutionary theory predicts that some species will drive themselves to extinction due to short-term interests such as fighting and sexual preferences.

The assertion that evolution is a tale of morality can only be based on the principle that your genetic self-interest is all that matters in the universe. Certainly, this is the prerogative of your genes, but does that mean it is your primary goal?

Dan8267 says

Evolution is a theory that explains how life works, not how you should live your life. Evolution is a cold-hard fact like the existence of gravity. Just because the law of gravity implies that jumping off a cliff will cause you to plummet to your death, doesn't mean you're suppose to do it.

But don't words like "should live" and "suppose to do" imply the existence of will? Don't those words imply that I have some control over my actions and am not simply pre-determined (ever since the big bang) by physics to take certain courses of action?

Morals don't really exist if we are all completely under the control of impersonal laws of physics. Ex: a person commiting a "crime" has not done anything "immoral", they are simply doing what they have been programmed to do by their brain chemistry.

World Cycle is 5000 years divided into 4 parts (Golden, Silver, Copper and Iron Ages, each of 1250 years), it repeats again and again. Now we are in Iron age and going in future to Golden Age soon.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/5200event.htm

wthrfrk80 says

But don't words like "should live" and "suppose to do" imply the existence of will? Don't those words imply that I have some control over my actions and am not simply pre-determined (ever since the big bang) by physics to take certain courses of action?

No and no. And even if they did, words do not get to change the laws of physics. You can imply gravity does not exist, but that has no effect on the experiment of jumping off a cliff.

crazydesi says

World Cycle is 5000 years divided into 4 parts (Golden, Silver, Copper and Iron Ages, each of 1250 years), it repeats again and again. Now we are in Iron age and going in future to Golden Age soon.

crazydesi says

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/5200event.htm

That shows one abnormal event occurring 5200 years ago. What cycle are you talking about?

I think you might be referring to the Yuga concept as described in Sanskrit, but even then a Yuga is 432,000 years. Not a puny 5000 years.

Either way, that doesn't make the earth 5000 yeas old.

Dan8267 says

But don't words like "should live" and "suppose to do" imply the existence of will? Don't those words imply that I have some control over my actions and am not simply pre-determined (ever since the big bang) by physics to take certain courses of action?

No and no.

Really??

(1) Common definition of morality: the assertion that a person should choose a certain course of action rather than another

(2) Your whole worldview (assuming I understand you correctly): everything, including every person's behavior, has been pre-determined according to the laws of physics since the Big Bang. A person CAN NOT choose a certain course of action.

(3) Logic: Morality can not exist accoding to your whole worldview.

Which statement(s) is(are) wrong? (1)? (2)? (3)?

wthrfrk80 says

Which statement(s) is(are) wrong? (1)? (2)? (3)?

All three statements are wrong in at least one way. Who cares what the "common" definition of morality is. If that definition sucks or if the common man's model of morality is insufficient, than change it. Quite frankly, I don't think that the common man actually thinks deeply enough about morality to even have a systematic model. Most people just go on instinct. In any case, why should a systematic model be limited by what a common person, not thinking about the subject matter, currently understands?

Statement 2 is utterly meaningless unless you precisely and non-ambiguously define "choose" in context of free will. And that's really what's at the heart of the issue. I've been too busy recently to write another 10 page thesis on this site, but eventually I get around to writing about how morality really works and should be modeled. It's not something I'm going to attempt to explain in a single paragraph.

Statement 3 is completely wrong. However, that's not your fault. As I haven't explained what my worldview is, there is no possible way you could know or understand it, especially since you've never heard of anything like it before. But don't worry, I'll explain it when I write about the true nature of morality. For now, I'll let you in on one tidbit: morality does not depend upon free will in my world-view, and blatantly so.

Dan8267 says

All three statements are wrong in at least one way. Who cares what the "common" definition of morality is. If that definition sucks or if the common man's model of morality is insufficient, than change it. Quite frankly, I don't think that the common man actually thinks deeply enough about morality to even have a systematic model. Most people just go on instinct. In any case, why should a systematic model be limited by what a common person, not thinking about the subject matter, currently understands?

I'm pretty sure, from previous comments you've made, that you think (for example) that the war in Iraq was immoral. In other words, you believe that Bush et. al. should not have started it. Bush should have chosen a different course of action. You may not have used the exact word "immoral" anywhere, but you strongly implied it. Therefore you were using the same "common" definition as everyone else. If the "common" definition is wrong (since you're so much smarter than everyone else), than you probably shouldn't use it.

But according to your own worldview, Bush didn't actually have control of any of his actions! All of his "decisions" were really just chemical reactions in his brain working according to the immutable laws of physics. Same goes for religious people. Their religious "thoughts" are nothing more than chemical reactions taking place. If religion is just a "phenomenon" like galaxies, gravity, black holes, etc; than how can you say "religion is bad" any more than you can say "gravity is bad"?

I'm really not trying to "win an argument" or anything. I'm just trying to understand your point of view. I don't understand it because you seem to be making two very contradictory assertions:

1) everything JUST IS and is predetermined. There is no WILL to direct anything. What we humans percieve to be "free choices" are not, they are actions that act only according to physical laws.

2) some things are bad (like religion) and/or immoral (like the Iraq war), even though they are just natural phenomena acting in the only possible manner via the laws of nature.

If everything JUST IS and everything is pre-determined, why complain about anything? Those things you don't like JUST ARE and simply MUST BE accoring to the immutable laws of physics.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Does anyone else?

Dan8267 says

All three statements are wrong in at least one way. Who cares what the "common" definition of morality is. If that definition sucks or if the common man's model of morality is insufficient, than change it.

Why? Does it really matter? You and I we both gonna die and get forgotten. Why would one care what's right and what's wrong?
If nothing we do have any eternal meaning, why do we want to have a meaningful life? And we do.
If there is a truth in "religion is just a fear of death", than "atheism is just a fear of life." And yes there may be something to fear. If anything I do is not wiped out by time it may be a bit scary. If the life is real and the suffering in it is real but meaningless it's very painful (ask Buddha).

From Buddha to Freud and Nietsche this fear of life is the source of atheism.

Dan8267 says

No, but understanding evolution and the evidence for it does.

Here we may get close to an aggreement. My point is: the way they teach evolution in American schools (including colledges) does not contribute to understanding. It's more like indoctrination and brainwashing.

And evolution or not has nothing to do with the existance of the Creator. That's a completely different question related to believe in the objective existence of meaningful life and the value of our decisions not reduced to social contracts and physical/genetical predestination.

wthrfrk80 says

Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

Yes, but in order for you to understand what I'm saying, I'm going to have to write a complete thesis. You are operating under the false assumption that freedom and free will mean the same thing. They don't. Just be patient, when I have time to sit down for an entire afternoon and right about it I will.

uomo_senza_nome says

I don't know. something got messed up in the code I guess. But you know I meant michaelsch.

You can edit your post to fix it.

michaelsch says

It's more like indoctrination and brainwashing.

I haven't taken any college courses in evolution, so I cannot confirm or deny your statement. However, I sincerely doubt that college teaches evolution the way that a parochial school teaches religion. I highly doubt that. Are you speaking from personal experience? If so, which school, class, professor are you referring to?

michaelsch says

And evolution or not has nothing to do with the existance of the Creator.

Actually, it does for many Christians. Christian mythology is utterly incompatible with evolution. Christians can't accept that Jesus is descendant from a monkey. Christians can't accept that the flood did not wipe out all creatures on the land and that 2 does not make a breeding population. Christians cannot accept that the world is demonstrably way over 6,000 years old. And Christians cannot accept that our species, the entire human race, was simply the result of lots of accidents rather than planning.

Of course, some Christians can accept these things, but the most vocal Christians, the ones influencing legislation, cannot.

Dan8267 says

Are you speaking from personal experience?

From looking at my son's biology books. He is currently an MD/PHD student, but did his Pre-Med BSc. at Berkeley.

And my daughter, who started with Biology at UCSD, but later on switched to a different major.

Dan8267 says

Actually, it does for many Christians. Christian mythology is utterly incompatible with evolution. Christians can't accept that Jesus is descendant from a monkey. Christians can't accept that the flood did not wipe out all creatures on the land and that 2 does not make a breeding population. Christians cannot accept that the world is demonstrably way over 6,000 years old.

Come on, you equal Christians to Prootestant Fundamentalists and keep beating this strawman, talking about monkeys and 6000 years.
But Prootestant Fundamentalism is as unchristian as American Happy Shopping Holidays. (They literally believe in Sola Scriptura, while any sect of theirs use a custom translation tailored for its need. Plus these translations are based on choosing Hebrew Massoretic version edited in the 2nd century AD partially to wipe out any Christian interpretation. Plus they ignore the fact that the New Testament was compiled of the books selected by the Church between 4th and 7th century AD.) Indeed, very easy a strawman to beat, even an idiot like Dan Brown can do this.

michaelsch says

you equal Christians to Prootestant Fundamentalists

It took the Catholic Church 400 years to apologize for locking up Galileo and condemning anyone who said the Earth was round as a heretic. It's not just protestants.

michaelsch says

From looking at my son's biology books.

Take a picture of the offending chapters and post. Then we can discuss whether or not the book is brainwashing. If it is, then it's a bad text, but I can't make that judgement without reading it.

Dan8267 says

Christians can't accept that Jesus is descendant from a monkey.

...nor would anyone who knows anything about how human evolution actually happened.

Kevin says

...nor would anyone who knows anything about how human evolution actually happened.

If you are suggesting that our species isn't descendant from monkeys, make your case. Then I'll tear it apart with concrete evidence.

If not, then explain your statement.

Dan8267 says

Kevin says

...nor would anyone who knows anything about how human evolution actually happened.

If you are suggesting that our species isn't descendant from monkeys, make your case. Then I'll tear it apart with concrete evidence.

If not, then explain your statement.

Well, if Jesus was conceived by the holy ghost and Mary, who herself was immaculately conceived that would make Jesus only one-quarter monkey descendant...

Dan8267 says

Take a picture of the offending chapters and post. Then we can discuss whether or not the book is brainwashing. If it is, then it's a bad text, but I can't make that judgement without reading it.

That would require my looking for 10 to 4 years old texbooks, which are of course not in possession of anyone I know right now. I probably could use libraries for this, but it's not my highest priority. For now I would appreciate would you just accept the existance of my perspective and whenever deal with materials proclaiming evolution just try to see if it may be applicable.