Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Hmm. Depends, what is the "evidence" that it was designed? 
> 
> Oh, and as an aside, if you want a fun fiction book involving the search 
> for scientific proof of the existence of a Creator, the book 
> "Calculating God" by Sawyer is a fun read.
> 
That was the one that can be summed up like..

O = L * 1/G + C

I.e., Odds = chance of leprechauns existing * 1/odds of finding pots of 
gold coins + number of 4 leaf clovers in your lawn. lol

Yeah. Had a real good laugh at that one. Its "almost" as funny as the 
stuff the ID people come up with for the odds of evolution or 
irreducible complexity. You know, the rules of both impossible things 
you can "prove" actually happen with a simple computer program running 
for like 2 minutes, in Javascript.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:39:47 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Sometimes it's not a question of supporting (directly or indirectly)
>>> the bad part, but supporting the good part.
>> See, I don't think that is at all relevant. 
> 
> I could see why you think that, but I disagree.  Even bad people can do 
> good things, and given a choice between supporting a program that feeds 
> starving people that is sponsored by someone who is bad and having those 
> people starve to death, I'd rather they got fed.  But before supporting a 
> program run by "the bad guys", I'd first look for alternatives that 
> didn't have that baggage.
> 
All I can say to this is.. If it was the **only** group doing it, I 
might provisionally agree with you. Yet, it usually isn't, and if 
anything, its the ones with an alternate agenda that promote themselves 
so much its not always "obvious" that an alternative even exists. Good 
example of a case where good is intended, and done, but not as much as 
"should be", which is a similar case, is "breast cancer awareness". 
There are thousands of groups that collect "specifically" for breast 
cancer research, but they are overshadowed, and nearly unheard of, 
because of one highly visible group, who spends close to 80% of 
everything they take in, "advocating" for the group, instead of giving 
it to the research projects. So.. What happens when such a highly 
visible group has "little or no" intention of helping "anyone" beyond 
promoting their own appearance of "goodness"? Say.. most mega-churches. 
People that help feed the poor, not because they, as a group, really 
want that, but because "appearing" to do so helps bring in more 
supporters, and more money.

Its like the old days with the church, in Europe. Take in the equivalent 
of millions, if not billions, build a lot of temples, but.. when 
feeding, clothing or "helping" the poor or hungry, buy the cheapest 
cloth, the poorest food, etc. Feed them what the clergy wouldn't touch, 
and the not "quite" so poor wouldn't feed their pigs.

We can thank "secular" systems for making it so that the modern 
equivalent to this is almost a feast by those days standards, but it 
doesn't change the actual "intent", or "thinking" of those in charge, 
one bit. Just makes it harder to call them on it.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> Hmm. Depends, what is the "evidence" that it was designed? 
>>
>> Oh, and as an aside, if you want a fun fiction book involving the 
>> search for scientific proof of the existence of a Creator, the book 
>> "Calculating God" by Sawyer is a fun read.
>>
> That was the one that can be summed up like..
> 
> O = L * 1/G + C

HuH?  WTF are you babbling about?

> I.e., Odds = chance of leprechauns existing * 1/odds of finding pots of 
> gold coins + number of 4 leaf clovers in your lawn. lol

I take it you didn't actually read the book, right?

Incidentally, he also did one called "Terminal Experiment" which examines 
what happens if you find scientific evidence for the soul, reincarnation, 
life after death, etc.  Also a fun read, altho not (for me) as thought 
provoking or discussion-worthy.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:51:10 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>> of Independence, the Bill of Rights, etc.  "All men are created equal"
>> didn't apply to "all men" (and certainly didn't apply to women).
>> 
> And.. A logical examination of the "evidence", even then, would have
> shown that the there wasn't any "factual" evidence to be had at all in
> the argument. 

Sure, there wasn't.  But again, that's a product of hindsight.  Some 
people thought there was incontrovertible proof that "white" people were 
superior.

> If you ignore the historical reason why some communities are they way
> they are.. there is more "evidence" today of the possible inequality of
> some people, than there ever was back when it was simply "assumed".
>
> Feeling you can prove something is **not** the same as having solid fact
> to support it. I don't give a frack what someone "feels" they can prove.
> They invariably trot out a lot of things they "imagine" no one has
> responded to before, make a lot of assertions about evidence they can
> never actually provide, then eventually just admit, if honest, that they
> only "feel" that its right, and "imagine" that someone, someplace else,
> has better evidence of the view.

The standards of evidence are something that has changed over time.  
Applying today's standards to the historical application of what was 
accepted as scientific evidence is an application of hindsight.  It was 
observable that the sun revolved around the earth and not the other way 
around.  That was something that was not disputed often and those who did 
dispute it tended to be ridiculed even by their scientific peers.

>>> Some things either work or don't, and if you can motivate someone out
>>> of doing them right, there are 50 other people, far better equipped,
>>> to motivate them to do it wrong, or not at all.
>> 
>> Sometimes life ain't fair.  I don't like that, but that's a fact proven
>> again and again.
>> 
> These are people that stuff 10 aces up their sleeve, then get cheered
> when they claim to win, while you are booed, for pointing out that *no*
> poker hand has 6 aces in it. Its not that life isn't fair, its that one

It sure seems to me like you're basically saying "but it isn't FAIR!".  
Because if life was fair, then this:

> side has no honor, morals, or compunction against cheating, but
> everyone, due to indoctrination from childhood, and being told that
> "some people" are above suspicion or skepticism, 

wouldn't be a factor.

> calling them on it hasn't any. Fair and unfair imply "the possibility"
> of fairness. But, when you know you will lose in that circumstance, and
> you have no honor, you make sure that the dude you want to lose has no
> armor, a blunt stick, once hand tied behind their back, and that, when
> it comes time for the fight, its an 600 pound, hungry lion, not a 3 inch
> field mouse, they find themselves confronted by. Oh, and.. You glue
> mouse ears on, and shave, the lion, and take blurry photos, so you can
> still claim it was "seasoned warrior vs. field mouse" to the newspapers
> when the guy is bleeding on the ground at the end.
> 
> Fair? I would settle for just honestly "unfair".

"Unfair" implies the possibility of fairness, just as "fair" does.

Some people fight dirty.  Ugly little fact of life.  Some people fight to 
win, and they generally take the stand that the winner is the one left 
standing and that they should fight to win at all costs.  Again, sad but 
true fact of life when it comes to debating ideas.

>> I could see that.  It's a very similar reaction that those who feel the
>> foundation of their life is under attack from someone who doesn't
>> understand it.  That's the sort of thing I mean when I say "put
>> yourself in their shoes" - you've been there, done that, and reacted
>> badly to it. It shouldn't be so difficult to understand why others
>> react that way when they feel the basis of their life is under attack.
>> :-)
>> 
> But, that's just it. If someone is attacking the foundation of your
> life, ask why, don't just get pissed about it. 

When the attack takes the form of "You're wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong 
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong 
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong 
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong 
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong 
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong 
WRONG WRONG WRONG!", it's (a) a little hard to get a word in edgeways, 
and (b) again puts the recipient on the defensive.  Defensive people tend 
to not examine their own motivations, but to question the motivations of 
the people who are putting them on the defensive.  It's rare that the 
motivations of the offender are viewed in a good light in such 
circumstances.

> At the very least, *you*
> may be seriously wrong about what the foundation is. And, frankly..
> anyone that thinks their "faith" is the foundation, not their family,
> life experiences, loved ones, and friends, are doing "massive"
> disservice to everything that actually "means" anything. Anyone claiming
> that their faith means "more" than that.. well, I haven't seen too many
> who think that way, when being honest about it, and the few that do,
> have no friends, rejected their families, and are usually seriously
> unhinged, if not dangerous.

I have seen people like that, and they generally are very good people.  I 
had a good friend who died recently (sudden heart attack) who was 
absolutely convinced that Obama being elected was a sign of the coming 
apocalypse, that his being elected was going to cause Bush to have to 
take a nuclear shot at Iran, and all sorts of really bad shit was going 
to happen.  Frank was otherwise a very kind and gentle friend (and I miss 
him very much - we debated on topics like this a lot and rarely if ever 
saw eye to eye on politics or religion).  His life experiences brought 
him to a conclusion that differed from mine, and he knew (both in his 
heart and in his head) that he had seen proof of God's existence.

Who are you or I to say he didn't?  It's what gave him comfort, and if he 
happened to be right, he's watching me have this discussion with you.  If 
not, then he's gone other than the memory of his friends and family who 
loved him.

Now whether his faith meant more to him than his family is anybody's 
guess.  I know it meant a lot to him and that nothing would shake it.  
And I'm certain that it gave him comfort just before he died.

>>> Watched some clips today of various comics, and the strongly religious
>>> one was precisely like that. His absolute 100% position was, "I
>>> believe, I know I am right, so therefor 'everything' I say about
>>> non-believers or sinner **has to be funny**.
>> 
>> Consider:  Perhaps he was being satirical.
> 
> Ok.. I rewatched it and.. He isn't as blindingly boring as Ben Stein,
> and he "is" trying to be, vaguely, satirical. 

It seems that your interpretation and his may differ on this point.  I 
don't know the comedian, but I know that people who are in comedy are 
there first and foremost to be funny.  Some people are better at it than 
others, and apparently to your tastes, this guy wasn't very good.

> Mostly.. He starts off
> with "atheists believe in nothing, and need a lot of faith for that",

Now that *is* funny. ;-)

> I mean... I don't even know where to start counting the flat out "wrong"
> things. 

You don't, it's comedy, for entertainment purposes.  You can't take every 
damned thing people say seriously.  Or rather, if you do, you're going to 
be in for a pretty miserable time on this planet.

> If this guy was on a forum, instead of a stage, no one would be
> laughing. 

Then it's a damned good thing he was on a stage.  My point is, you can 
take many things that people say in jest and not change one word but 
change the venue and as such change the entire meaning.  Context is 
important.

>> One of the things that alternate ideas do is force us to reexamine what
>> we believe in.  The debate about Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, for
>> example - what that has done is galvanized a large part of the
>> scientific community that deals with evolutionary science, and it seems
>> that we are discovering more things that demonstrate evolution in
>> practical terms. If we didn't have Creationists challenging the very
>> idea of Evolution, it's likely we wouldn't have had the advances.
> 
> Bullocks. We where making progress even without them. 

Well, I disagree, and it's quite easy to prove that if you put a bunch of 
people in a room together who disagree about nothing, they don't make 
progress.  I've seen it many times at work in meetings, because I've been 
the one who has not agreed.  When someone who has a different perspective 
introduces a new idea, sometimes that gets a "gee, I never thought about 
that".  That idea might come in later, sure, but the point is that it 
comes in later, and that's a slowness in progress.

It's bullocks to think that a bunch of people who think the same way are 
going to push themselves as hard as a bunch of people who are having 
their ideas challenged, even if the challenges are coming from idiots.

>> The lack of a challenge
>> often leads to complacency and lazy thinking.  But having to structure
>> a debate, even against something that you and I think is patently
>> ridiculous, helps science.
>> 
> No, it just wastes time and money. The only thing that ID has done is
> emphasize, at least to scientists, that science education in the US
> isn't "bad", so much as, "terrifyingly bad", 

And it's a bad thing to highlight this reality?

Posit:  The ID crowd says nothing or doesn't exist.  Science education 
continues as it's going.  Where's the improvement again?  If it's bad and 
something doesn't come along to change the course, then it stays the same 
(kinda an application of Newtonian physics to the idea of following an 
educational path, I guess:  A bad system in motion will tend to stay in 
motion until some force changes it.)

> fracking

Side note:  As a BSG fan myself, it's "frakking".  No "c", double 'k'. ;-)

>> So what's the alternative?  And to add a constraint, an alternative
>> that doesn't limit the rights of those who push a particular point of
>> view?
>> 
> All you can do is point out why the conspiracy theorists are wrong, 

Yep.  So do that.

> and
> sometimes that "means" saying things that some of their supporters, like
> it or not, are going to see as "attacks". 

It helps if you don't start your counterargument with "well, they're all 
a bunch of frakkin' idiots".  First, as I've said a few times, it puts 
them on the defensive and allows them to paint themselves as victims, 
which doesn't help you.  Second, it doesn't exactly inspire some self-
reflection on their part.

>>> or.. if you are lucky, someone wondering, "Could I be wrong." Another
>>> "trend" in recent years seems to be the insane, and often
>>> ***specifically worded*** this way, idea that, "One should have a
>>> right to not be offended." Bullshit!
>> 
>> I agree with this.  However that also means that you and I don't have a
>> right to be offended by religion.  That's a two-way street.
>> 
> Uh.. No, thought I was clear. We have no right to "not be offended", and
> by extension, we can be offended by anything we want too. 

D'oh, I'm not sure what I was thinking there - but reading that over 
again, no, it doesn't make sense.  But you bring up another point, which 
is that it's your choice to be offended.  It's not necessary to be.

> Its like free
> speech. Just because I have to let someone talk doesn't mean I have to
> "like" them talking, or do nothing at all to try to stop people
> listening too it. 

There's a fine line between convincing people to stop listening and 
suppressing the speech you don't like, though.

> If I did, then I wouldn't be exercising "my" rights.
> Sure its a "two way street". 

Agree.

> That is why respect has to be earned, not
> handed to every half wit that shows up with some sort of opinion. 

Respect is a different matter.  Just because we don't respect someone 
doesn't mean they don't have the right to express an opinion, no matter 
how stupid it is.  The Klan has a constitutionally protected right to 
spew their offensive hate speech as much as they want.  It's not a 
problem until they (or someone else) acts on it in a way that violates 
the law.

> They
> can hold it all they want. They want me to respect it... well, accepting
> that they hold it isn't the "same" as respecting it. 

Agreed.  They can't make you believe something you don't.

> Yet, truth be told,
> most of the people we have been talking about a) assume respect must
> come automatically to "their" ideas, especially if religious, and this
> is practically written in the same law that ironically is "supposed" to
> limit its influence of the people that are not *supposed* to be giving
> it undue respect, and b) no one else's deserves the same treatment.

Well, then they're wrong.  But just because they have bad or false 
expectations about how people should react to their ideas doesn't mean 
their ideas should be suppressed, again, no matter how idiotic they are.

Put another way:  Respect for ideas is not something that's 
constitutionally protected.  If some people think it is, then they are 
wrong.

>> It's about presentation, Patrick.  If your goal is to persuade someone
>> that they're being what you consider an "irrational fool", using
>> inflammatory language to get the point across will cause them to raise
>> their shields (that's human nature) and to fight back.
> 
> Yeah, yeah. Framing. As in, framing the argument to the point where you
> find yourself painted in to a corner, because you where unwilling to be
> a bit less than "nice. 

It's not just a question of being unwilling to be a little bit less than 
nice, but also about wanting to be taken seriously.  I find myself 
repeating myself, but those who want to be taken seriously have to act in 
a way that inspires people to take them seriously.  Those who don't tend 
to be marginalized, and that doesn't help your cause.

> But, seriously, its beside the point. I am not so
> stupid I don't know to adjust my approach when I am dealing with someone
> that "is" able to change opinion, and not addressing the "audience"
> through ridicule of the object my comments are directed at. The argument
> amount to, "Well, someone might be listening, who would change their
> mind if you where nicer." 

Maybe not nicer, but having a better word choice.  Instead of "they're 
all a bunch of idiots" (a personal attack), "the idea is ridiculous 
because..." (ie, refuting the idea rather than the person/people).  Do 
you see the difference?

> Look, I guess my point is that the same tactic that works on one person
> doesn't work on another, 

Yes - we're all individuals.  But that doesn't mean that you can't take a 
stance that generally focuses more on the ideas and in refuting the ideas 
rather than attacking the people (see above).

>> Those watching are likely to see someone "on the attack", and that
>> gives the "recipient" of the ridicule the ability to draw sympathy from
>> those on the sidelines.  If you want to affect those watching from the
>> sidelines, you have to not make the target of your discussion into a
>> victim.  What's more, if the "attack" is seen to be unprovoked, you're
>> more than likely going to drive those on the sidelines (and on the
>> fence) to *help* the "victim".
>> 
> They claim "victim" regardless of how nice you are. 

Some will, yes.  But the probability is higher if you make the attack 
personal (ie, "they're all idiots") rather than arguing the ideas.  Then 
when they say "you're attacking me", you can say "no, I'm not, I'm 
debating the idea.  You don't agree with me, and that's fine - your 
agreement isn't required for me to make my point, which is that <idea> is 
wrong for these reasons....".

> Are we even talking about the same thing? I am not talking
> about just showing up an calling someone names. 

I think we're talking about the presentation of ideas in a way so as to 
persuade, either the person the debate is with or those who are watching 
from the sidelines.

> I am talking about
> showing why they "deserve" some of the names. 

Then you're not debating the ideas, you ARE attacking them - which 
doesn't help in the debate about the ideas.

> If you can't even be mild and "nice" and avoid being called a monster...

Just because someone calls you names doesn't mean you have to reply in 
kind.  Take the high ground and draw the debate back to being about ideas 
rather than people.

If anything, when they decide to call you a monster, you get to play the 
victim card for a change.... ;-)  (Yes, I know you're unlikely to, but 
those on the sidelines might be persuaded by the fact that those you are 
debating have turned you into a victim by starting to call names).

>> At some point, it's not a question of "unwillingness", but a question
>> of "is it even worth my time?".  If you or I spent all of our time
>> trying to convince people all the things we think are ridiculous are
>> ridiculous, we'd have scarce time to ourselves.
>> 
> Sigh.. Again, we tried that for "decades". 

Let me ask you a question.....What do you want out of your life?

> You can't ignore or lose every "public" battle, other than the ones in
> court, and expect to win the fracking war on the idea. 

No, but you can't fight every battle, either.  You have to pick your 
battles, and pick ones that you can win.  Then you have to apply a 
strategy that allows you to win.  Sometimes that might mean taking a "win 
at all costs" stance, and sometimes it doesn't.

>> suppose) owned by the church.  What do you suppose the tax advantages
>> are for having an insurance company that's owned by a religious
>> organization?
>> 
> No kidding..

So that's something that needs to be addressed in the tax code.  Now 
there are two ways to go about this.  The first is to go down to the Salt 
Lake City Temple with 100 of your closest friends and picket, disrupt 
people's weddings, and other such things.

The other is to get those 100 friends together and start lobbying the 
people who actually make the laws to change them.  We have groups like 
the NRA who do that and get their way.  The problem is that those of us 
who think that these kinds of tax breaks are bullshit aren't as organized 
as the people who got the exceptions into the tax code.  Jumping up and 
down and being disruptive won't fix it, because the core problem with the 
people who want it to change is they're not organized enough to effect a 
change like that.

That's why Prop 8 in CA went the way it did.  Those who were against it 
weren't organized enough, and the LDS Church (amongst others, but they 
were one of the largest organizations that put money into the advertising 
coffers) was organized enough to mobilize its membership to donate to the 
"Vote Yes on 8" groups.

>>> Right.. Because no one can come along and just declare, by fiat that
>>> Stem cells are useless, or, like in India, we should be using Vedic
>>> math and science, including alchemy, instead of "western" ideas...
>> 
>> There are short periods of idiocy in policy, again, that's one of the
>> things that happens in a free society.
>> 
> Would be a nice argument if not for the "minor" flaw that "some" such
> idiocies lead to increasingly "less" free societies.

And those things can be corrected by using the idea of strength in 
numbers.  We saw the start of the reversal of several Bush Jr. policies 
when Obama was elected.  Not as many as I'd have liked, but it's a start.

Personally, I agree with Bill Maher on this:  Obama needs a little of 
Bush's swagger and certainty.  At least he's got *good* ideas.  Bush had 
certainty and bad ideas.  That's a bad combination.

> If we where talking about anything to extreme, you would have a point.
> We are talking about people claiming a threat to a way of life that
> ***isn't even*** the one they claim they based it on in the first place,

That's not really my point.  My point is to show that the "slippery 
slope" logic is used on both sides of a debate.  I think that's my point, 
anyways.  These messages are getting to be a bit too long to manage. ;-)

> I am sure that, should enough creationists ever get into power and start
> banning things in science they don't like, it won't be the end of the
> world, 

It's fortunate that should that happen we have the bill of rights to back 
up our right to dissent, and we have laws in place that prevent us from 
having a dictator for too long.  What's needed is organization of those 
who agree that these are bad ideas - I've said it before in this message, 
but that's the way to effect change - by recognizing the strength in 
numbers.

> but.. what country is going to accept the millions of refugees
> that leave in disgust over it, or in the years that follow, as they
> institute more and more religious laws, take away more freedoms, and
> make the country more an more like.. well, Afghanistan or Iran? lol

Leaving is kinda the easy way out.  Better to stay and work to improve 
things.  (This is being said by someone who actually does plan to leave 
the US at some point and resettle in Europe - but not for political 
reasons, just because that's where the larger group of my friends are)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:16:18 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:39:47 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Sometimes it's not a question of supporting (directly or indirectly)
>>>> the bad part, but supporting the good part.
>>> See, I don't think that is at all relevant.
>> 
>> I could see why you think that, but I disagree.  Even bad people can do
>> good things, and given a choice between supporting a program that feeds
>> starving people that is sponsored by someone who is bad and having
>> those people starve to death, I'd rather they got fed.  But before
>> supporting a program run by "the bad guys", I'd first look for
>> alternatives that didn't have that baggage.
>> 
> All I can say to this is.. If it was the **only** group doing it, I
> might provisionally agree with you. Yet, it usually isn't, and if
> anything, its the ones with an alternate agenda that promote themselves
> so much its not always "obvious" that an alternative even exists. 

Sure, that happens.  So education is the solution - I wasn't aware of the 
example you provided, but now you've given me something to look into.

> Its like the old days with the church, in Europe. Take in the equivalent
> of millions, if not billions, build a lot of temples, but.. when
> feeding, clothing or "helping" the poor or hungry, buy the cheapest
> cloth, the poorest food, etc. Feed them what the clergy wouldn't touch,
> and the not "quite" so poor wouldn't feed their pigs.

Well, Europe grew out of it.  I suspect we will, too.  It may not happen 
in our lifetimes, but change like that sometimes takes generations to 
happen.  Changing the thinking of extremely large groups of people isn't 
a trivial task.

> We can thank "secular" systems for making it so that the modern
> equivalent to this is almost a feast by those days standards, but it
> doesn't change the actual "intent", or "thinking" of those in charge,
> one bit. Just makes it harder to call them on it.

Well, nobody said it would be easy.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Now whether his faith meant more to him than his family is anybody's 
> guess.  I know it meant a lot to him and that nothing would shake it.  
> And I'm certain that it gave him comfort just before he died.
> 
For the person it comforts, this seems valuable. But... There is really 
no way to respond to this, other than that, in general, there are 
**lots** of things we no longer consider of value, because, well... they 
don't really add any value to anything else. I certainly wouldn't try to 
convince the guy he was wrong on his death bed, (though.. the same 
compunction never seems to enter the minds of the other side, for some 
reason), but I am not going to excuse it when mentioning it to someone 
else either. Honor people for what they did that is "worth" honoring, 
not the stuff that didn't help them, or anyone else.

Mind, a believer would likely imagine they where honoring them by 
mentioning it, but then.. some of them are more than happy to make a 
person's funeral about just about "anything" other than the dead person 
too. They want to value it fine... The problem isn't that they value it, 
many *think* that to value these things properly means to try to make 
others value it, and even the ones that don't think that, will gripe 
about people who point out that its "isn't" appropriate, even if they 
wouldn't do it themselves.

>> Mostly.. He starts off
>> with "atheists believe in nothing, and need a lot of faith for that",
> 
> Now that *is* funny. ;-)
> 
Not the way he "intended" it though. lol

>> I mean... I don't even know where to start counting the flat out "wrong"
>> things. 
> 
> You don't, it's comedy, for entertainment purposes.  You can't take every 
> damned thing people say seriously.  Or rather, if you do, you're going to 
> be in for a pretty miserable time on this planet.
> 
But, that is the point. Beyond the initial bit, the entire thing became 
diatribe. Sorry, but, given the audience, the circumstances, and the 
"way" he presented it, unless he admitted "Poeing" the whole thing, I 
have to consider it "highly" probable that he took all of it 100% 
seriously, and his use of the contents was *entirely* directed at an 
audience he knew would either agree with him, or not call him on any of it.

>> If this guy was on a forum, instead of a stage, no one would be
>> laughing. 
> 
> Then it's a damned good thing he was on a stage.  My point is, you can 
> take many things that people say in jest and not change one word but 
> change the venue and as such change the entire meaning.  Context is 
> important.
> 
Did you watch it? Jest my ass. Like I said, the "initial" part was jest, 
everything after was nothing but a rambling litany of things he thought 
where true, using arguments that.. OK, fine. If I was ignorant, 
clueless, right wing, had **never** heard any of it before, or more to 
the point, why it was all bullshit, I **might** find it funny. But then, 
some people probably thought the Bundy's from Married With Children 
where not funny, because it was too "similar" to their own family...

> Well, I disagree, and it's quite easy to prove that if you put a bunch of 
> people in a room together who disagree about nothing, they don't make 
> progress.  I've seen it many times at work in meetings, because I've been 
> the one who has not agreed.  When someone who has a different perspective 
> introduces a new idea, sometimes that gets a "gee, I never thought about 
> that".  That idea might come in later, sure, but the point is that it 
> comes in later, and that's a slowness in progress.
>
> It's bullocks to think that a bunch of people who think the same way are 
> going to push themselves as hard as a bunch of people who are having 
> their ideas challenged, even if the challenges are coming from idiots.
>
See, the problem is, they don't, "all think the same way", and never 
did. That is the problem. The only people claiming they all "agree" 100% 
of the time of the creationists. They are professional about it, but you 
can see disagreement on details "all over the place". And I can see 
that, even without being one of them. The only "complacency" was about 
the very thing we are arguing about here, "What is the proper response 
to people that lie about everything, including the supposed 100% 
uniform, unchanging, and completely agreed upon 'conspiracy' to make 
things up, claims it science and call it evolution." What scientists see 
as reasonable conflict, over "details", creationists insist is either a) 
a sign of fatal flaws, or b) making the theory stronger, but filling in 
gaps. That the two directly refute each other... lol

But, unless you can site something to suggest that "anything" about 
evolution underwent "huge" shifts in perspective, purely as a result of 
this challenge, other than its advocacy and the aggressiveness of those 
apposed to groups that seek to undermine it, I would love to see it.

>>> The lack of a challenge
>>> often leads to complacency and lazy thinking.  But having to structure
>>> a debate, even against something that you and I think is patently
>>> ridiculous, helps science.
>>>
>> No, it just wastes time and money. The only thing that ID has done is
>> emphasize, at least to scientists, that science education in the US
>> isn't "bad", so much as, "terrifyingly bad", 
> 
> And it's a bad thing to highlight this reality?
> 
Not at all. But, the central premise you suggested was that it helped 
the ToE, not that it helped them see a danger to it more clearly. Your 
suggestion was that something in how it was "looked at" internally 
changed, or new ideas where derived from it. I see no evidence of this, 
other than a lot of time spent trying to make "simple" explanations to 
derail the most common fallacies. Even projects like Avida, which deals 
with artificial life, existed, and showed the validity, of the rules of 
the ToE, *years* prior to the *necessity* of even simpler programs, made 
to disprove irreducibility and design.

The suggestion you made was... the equivalent of implying that someone 
"needed" to build a hand held TV, since it was "simpler" for everyone to 
see, before people could "reasonably" be expected to believe that a 
1960's Panovision worked at all. The conclusion is consistent only with 
the perspective of people that have seen "neither" and think its a new 
kind of magic, soul stealing, box, like a camera. This is obviously a 
falsified by all the TVs sold "in between". Just as all the various 
conflicts, theories, ideas, tests, and adjustments going on over the ToE 
show no "need" for some outside group to, "shake things up", with 
respect to the idea itself.

Had you argued that the "shake up" was solely in the number of idiots 
that still imagine that taking their picture steals their life force... 
you would have had a valid point. lol

> Side note:  As a BSG fan myself, it's "frakking".  No "c", double 'k'. ;-)
> 
Bah.. I am spelling it the Tauron way, not like you damn Capricans! 
(Heh, any excuse in a storm. ;) lol)

>> and
>> sometimes that "means" saying things that some of their supporters, like
>> it or not, are going to see as "attacks". 
> 
> It helps if you don't start your counterargument with "well, they're all 
> a bunch of frakkin' idiots".  First, as I've said a few times, it puts 
> them on the defensive and allows them to paint themselves as victims, 
> which doesn't help you.  Second, it doesn't exactly inspire some self-
> reflection on their part.
> 
Don't know.. Works for House. ;) And, seriously, again, I don't see them 
"starting" with that a lot. Well, not unless its the same twit showing 
up for the 580th time to repeat the same nonsense.

>> Its like free
>> speech. Just because I have to let someone talk doesn't mean I have to
>> "like" them talking, or do nothing at all to try to stop people
>> listening too it. 
> 
> There's a fine line between convincing people to stop listening and 
> suppressing the speech you don't like, though.
> 
The line often being, "Shouting fire in a crowded theater". Some of the 
BS comes damn close, or even "crosses" that line, if it was "anything" 
other than a church saying it. They get by with **way** too much.

> Maybe not nicer, but having a better word choice.  Instead of "they're 
> all a bunch of idiots" (a personal attack), "the idea is ridiculous 
> because..." (ie, refuting the idea rather than the person/people).  Do 
> you see the difference?
> 
Yep. I do. Most other people do to. The only times I see most people 
failing at it, is, as I said before, when its someone showing up with 
the same arguments for the 580th time. At some point, you have to call a 
  spade a spade, and damn whether or not someone makes you dig a hole 
with it.

>> Are we even talking about the same thing? I am not talking
>> about just showing up an calling someone names. 
> 
> I think we're talking about the presentation of ideas in a way so as to 
> persuade, either the person the debate is with or those who are watching 
> from the sidelines.
> 
>> I am talking about
>> showing why they "deserve" some of the names. 
> 
> Then you're not debating the ideas, you ARE attacking them - which 
> doesn't help in the debate about the ideas.
> 
Sigh.. What ideas? These people don't have ideas, just a flow chart of 
every failed argument to regurgitate ever invented.

OK, I admit, probably the "best" response would be to take a copy of the 
"list" and all the responses, and every time they start wandering into 
stupid land, just staple the list to the wall, tell them, "I'll be back 
when you finish repeating things off this list, as though they are new, 
or never refuted, assuming you 'ever' do." But, see, ironically, its the 
"proper" response, but it still says, "You are an idiot." All you do by 
trying to refute each damn thing on the list, one at a time, is run out 
of your own time, and take longer calling them an idiot.

Its a bit like the group of fools that have "special classes" on how to 
curse up a blue streak, using silly sounding words, with no meaning, 
because it makes the world a "better" place, if you say shazbot, instead 
of shit. Long winded is what they want. Time is on **their** side, not 
yours in such "debates", because "you" have to actually present facts, 
all they have to do is keep asserting things until you run away.

> If anything, when they decide to call you a monster, you get to play the 
> victim card for a change.... ;-)  (Yes, I know you're unlikely to, but 
> those on the sidelines might be persuaded by the fact that those you are 
> debating have turned you into a victim by starting to call names).
> 
Doesn't work. They will spin it to make it sound like you where 
"rightly" victimized, the press won't, usually, bother with your version 
of events, and even if they do, there are 500 other agencies that are 
more than willing to print the creationists version of events, to every 
one who is willing to listen to yours, some of them, paid by the very 
people you supposedly "debated".

>> Sigh.. Again, we tried that for "decades". 
> 
> Let me ask you a question.....What do you want out of your life?
> 
Making things better for people in the future might be one. But, anyone 
in that position needs to look at things in terms of what the enemies 
resources are, not just what, in the short term, they look like.

>> You can't ignore or lose every "public" battle, other than the ones in
>> court, and expect to win the fracking war on the idea. 
> 
> No, but you can't fight every battle, either.  You have to pick your 
> battles, and pick ones that you can win.  Then you have to apply a 
> strategy that allows you to win.  Sometimes that might mean taking a "win 
> at all costs" stance, and sometimes it doesn't.
> 
We don't get to "pick" the battles, they do. That is, at this moment, 
the biggest problem. You can't ignore 50 battles you don't "want" to 
fight, or which might, in the short term, make you look bad, hoping for 
one "major" one, where everything will go right.

> The other is to get those 100 friends together and start lobbying the 
> people who actually make the laws to change them.  We have groups like 
> the NRA who do that and get their way.  The problem is that those of us 
> who think that these kinds of tax breaks are bullshit aren't as organized 
> as the people who got the exceptions into the tax code.  Jumping up and 
> down and being disruptive won't fix it, because the core problem with the 
> people who want it to change is they're not organized enough to effect a 
> change like that.
> 
This is true. And, its kind of one of the critical issues. Fact is, most 
of us either think, or "do", have better things to do, than wander 
around waving silly signs, and we "certainly" don't have either 
employers that would let us get by with it, or groups willing to "fund" 
it, if they did. I know I can't even get days off I want, most times, at 
my job, for "normal" stuff. If I said I wanted to join some protest 
against creationist.. I would probably "misteriously" end up being on an 
8 hour shift that day, because they "needed me", and.. its probably not 
all that refutable.

Worse, the reason "they" can find 100 people to do this is because all 
they have to do is go to their local church. Me.. I am lucky if I "know" 
100 people closely enough to do that, never mind that all of them 
"agree" enough with me to do such a thing.

> That's why Prop 8 in CA went the way it did.  Those who were against it 
> weren't organized enough, and the LDS Church (amongst others, but they 
> were one of the largest organizations that put money into the advertising 
> coffers) was organized enough to mobilize its membership to donate to the 
> "Vote Yes on 8" groups.
> 
Part of it was also "recognizing" that there was a clear, untapped 
group, who held "religion" much higher than the general populous, and, 
despite not being "radicals" in the same sense as the LDS, are "never 
the less" more likely to side with religious "standards" than secular 
ones, if someone pushes the issue hard enough.

> And those things can be corrected by using the idea of strength in 
> numbers.  We saw the start of the reversal of several Bush Jr. policies 
> when Obama was elected.  Not as many as I'd have liked, but it's a start.
> 
> Personally, I agree with Bill Maher on this:  Obama needs a little of 
> Bush's swagger and certainty.  At least he's got *good* ideas.  Bush had 
> certainty and bad ideas.  That's a bad combination.
> 
No, he needs to stop trying to be "both" a good guy for the religious 
and a good guy for everyone else, at the same time. Half the stuff he 
has done since in office pander to some of the stupidest ideas Bush Jr. 
ever had, like "faith based initiatives", the other half.. fall short of 
doing what they should, or barely qualify as progress, Ex: bailing out 
companies so more people don't get fired, while "failing" to make it 
clear that they "had" to stop being total idiots if they wanted to get 
the money. I absolutely don't agree with all the moron protesters that 
had their "tea-bag" party, since all the "problems" they had where short 
sighted BS about who got money, if they should have, etc. ***No one*** 
was talking about how to avoid the problem again, in the first place, 
and some where.. like your friend, convinced of just about everything 
short of Obama being a Sleesack, and conspiring with space aliens to 
replace the government with Illuminati. In fact, in most cases, more 
than half the people there "insisted" that the very things that caused 
the problem would "solve" it. Yeah.. like more credit cards, loans and 
people unable to pay for the crap they want to buy, was going to "fix" 
the issue...

> It's fortunate that should that happen we have the bill of rights to back 
> up our right to dissent, and we have laws in place that prevent us from 
> having a dictator for too long.  What's needed is organization of those 
> who agree that these are bad ideas - I've said it before in this message, 
> but that's the way to effect change - by recognizing the strength in 
> numbers.
> 
Its unfortunate that their "interpretation" of that document is about as 
consistent as their understanding that Lemarckian, and other "early" 
theories, as the same as Darwinian evolution, and constantly misquoting 
the former ones, as part of the later. They would, and have, happily, 
quoted lines from everything from letters by "some" founders, which 
vaguely relate to the values of religion, or the declaration's 
statements about divine rights, with what is "actually" in the constitution.

As they say, history is written by those who win, and these people have 
been "revising" history among their own so much that many are 
"convinced" that half the founders where evangelical literalists, and 
the documents "proving" this, and their "real" intent in writing the 
Bill of Rights, was something other than what it is, are either hidden 
some place, to be revealed then they have power, destroyed soon after 
found by communist, secular, atheists, or "hidden away some place, in a 
vault, so the truth will never be known."

What we have is the "original" Iraq "does", or "did", or "would have 
had", WMD. The Bill of Rights, doesn't mean much, if the people who get 
the power can present "proof", or the "suggestion of proof" that its 
misunderstood, doesn't apply to X groups, or parts of it where, "not 
what the founders intended". Its only paper, and an idea, and you can 
destroy both, with enough power.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> Hmm. Depends, what is the "evidence" that it was designed? 
>>>
>>> Oh, and as an aside, if you want a fun fiction book involving the 
>>> search for scientific proof of the existence of a Creator, the book 
>>> "Calculating God" by Sawyer is a fun read.
>>>
>> That was the one that can be summed up like..
>>
>> O = L * 1/G + C
> 
> HuH?  WTF are you babbling about?
> 
>> I.e., Odds = chance of leprechauns existing * 1/odds of finding pots 
>> of gold coins + number of 4 leaf clovers in your lawn. lol
> 
> I take it you didn't actually read the book, right?
> 
> Incidentally, he also did one called "Terminal Experiment" which 
> examines what happens if you find scientific evidence for the soul, 
> reincarnation, life after death, etc.  Also a fun read, altho not (for 
> me) as thought provoking or discussion-worthy.
> 
Hmm. Must be a different one then. There "was" an author that wrote one 
with some silly equation, where you "plugged in" numbers, based on how 
likely you imagined certain things, and it "gave you" the odds of god 
existing. But, no, did read this one.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Hmm. Must be a different one then. 

Fiction, dude. Fiction!

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:52:28 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Now whether his faith meant more to him than his family is anybody's
>> guess.  I know it meant a lot to him and that nothing would shake it.
>> And I'm certain that it gave him comfort just before he died.
>> 
> For the person it comforts, this seems valuable. But... There is really
> no way to respond to this, other than that, in general, there are
> **lots** of things we no longer consider of value, because, well... they
> don't really add any value to anything else. I certainly wouldn't try to
> convince the guy he was wrong on his death bed, (though.. the same
> compunction never seems to enter the minds of the other side, for some
> reason), but I am not going to excuse it when mentioning it to someone
> else either. Honor people for what they did that is "worth" honoring,
> not the stuff that didn't help them, or anyone else.

Generally, I agree.  And yeah, *some* people on the other side do not 
show the same kind of respect.  I'm glad we both agree that at least in 
this case, that's not an excuse to engage in the same dispicable behavour.

>>> Mostly.. He starts off
>>> with "atheists believe in nothing, and need a lot of faith for that",
>> 
>> Now that *is* funny. ;-)
>> 
> Not the way he "intended" it though. lol

Did he communicate what his intention was?

>>> I mean... I don't even know where to start counting the flat out
>>> "wrong" things.
>> 
>> You don't, it's comedy, for entertainment purposes.  You can't take
>> every damned thing people say seriously.  Or rather, if you do, you're
>> going to be in for a pretty miserable time on this planet.
>> 
> But, that is the point. Beyond the initial bit, the entire thing became
> diatribe. Sorry, but, given the audience, the circumstances, and the
> "way" he presented it, unless he admitted "Poeing" the whole thing, I
> have to consider it "highly" probable that he took all of it 100%
> seriously, and his use of the contents was *entirely* directed at an
> audience he knew would either agree with him, or not call him on any of
> it.

That's a matter of opinion, though.  Again I cite Colbert's early 
episodes, where it was really hard to read his intentions properly.


>> Then it's a damned good thing he was on a stage.  My point is, you can
>> take many things that people say in jest and not change one word but
>> change the venue and as such change the entire meaning.  Context is
>> important.
>> 
> Did you watch it? 

No, I haven't had time.

> Jest my ass. Like I said, the "initial" part was jest,
> everything after was nothing but a rambling litany of things he thought
> where true, using arguments that.. OK, fine. If I was ignorant,
> clueless, right wing, had **never** heard any of it before, or more to
> the point, why it was all bullshit, I **might** find it funny. But then,
> some people probably thought the Bundy's from Married With Children
> where not funny, because it was too "similar" to their own family...

Actually, that's a good analogy.  Just because humour doesn't suit your 
tastes doesn't mean that the intention was to not be humourous - what's 
funny and what's not is a matter of opinion.

>> It's bullocks to think that a bunch of people who think the same way
>> are going to push themselves as hard as a bunch of people who are
>> having their ideas challenged, even if the challenges are coming from
>> idiots.
>>
> See, the problem is, they don't, "all think the same way", and never
> did. 

Part of the reason for that at this juncture is because there is a 
galvanizing force.  Have you sat in meetings with people who essentially 
think the same way?  You don't get a lot of calls for drastic advancement 
when everyone's response is essentially "what he said".  Even if there 
are disagreements on minor details (which almost always is the case), 
nothing tends to drive people more than a direct challenge to their 
authority or idea.

> But, unless you can site something to suggest that "anything" about
> evolution underwent "huge" shifts in perspective, purely as a result of
> this challenge, other than its advocacy and the aggressiveness of those
> apposed to groups that seek to undermine it, I would love to see it.

It would be difficult to cite something that came about purely because of 
the nonsense about ID, because it's impossible to know what work would 
have been done without it or on what schedule the work that was done 
would otherwise have been done on.  That doesn't mean my point is invalid.

>>> No, it just wastes time and money. The only thing that ID has done is
>>> emphasize, at least to scientists, that science education in the US
>>> isn't "bad", so much as, "terrifyingly bad",
>> 
>> And it's a bad thing to highlight this reality?
>> 
> Not at all. But, the central premise you suggested was that it helped
> the ToE, not that it helped them see a danger to it more clearly. 

Sometimes premises evolve. :-)  And sometimes more than one thing can 
result from an action, too - highlighting that our science/math education 
in the US is bad doesn't preclude the notion that the ID "discussion" 
also may well have helped in terms of making those who study the ToE 
shore up their presentation of the ideas or to do further research (which 
they may or may not have otherwise done) to - for example - find "the 
missing link".

> Had you argued that the "shake up" was solely in the number of idiots
> that still imagine that taking their picture steals their life force...
> you would have had a valid point. lol

I think the point stands regardless of whether we're talking about soul-
stealing cameras or ID vs. Evolution.  The principles are still the same.

>> Side note:  As a BSG fan myself, it's "frakking".  No "c", double 'k'.
>> ;-)
>> 
> Bah.. I am spelling it the Tauron way, not like you damn Capricans!
> (Heh, any excuse in a storm. ;) lol)

LOL - but William Adama was a Tauron.  ;-)

>> It helps if you don't start your counterargument with "well, they're
>> all a bunch of frakkin' idiots".  First, as I've said a few times, it
>> puts them on the defensive and allows them to paint themselves as
>> victims, which doesn't help you.  Second, it doesn't exactly inspire
>> some self- reflection on their part.
>> 
> Don't know.. Works for House. ;) 

<singing> Fiction! </singing> ;)

> And, seriously, again, I don't see them
> "starting" with that a lot. Well, not unless its the same twit showing
> up for the 580th time to repeat the same nonsense.

Whether they start or end with it, though, or it falls somewhere in the 
middle, the idea still remains the same:  Making them a victim doesn't 
help you make your case.  Personally, I think they count on being able to 
play the victim card to advance their cause.

>>> Its like free
>>> speech. Just because I have to let someone talk doesn't mean I have to
>>> "like" them talking, or do nothing at all to try to stop people
>>> listening too it.
>> 
>> There's a fine line between convincing people to stop listening and
>> suppressing the speech you don't like, though.
>> 
> The line often being, "Shouting fire in a crowded theater". Some of the
> BS comes damn close, or even "crosses" that line, if it was "anything"
> other than a church saying it. They get by with **way** too much.

No, that doesn't really apply here - shouting fire in a crowded theater 
when there isn't a fire is incitement - and there are laws about that.  
Saying "the world was created as the Bible says it was" isn't incitement, 
no matter how much you spin it.

>> Maybe not nicer, but having a better word choice.  Instead of "they're
>> all a bunch of idiots" (a personal attack), "the idea is ridiculous
>> because..." (ie, refuting the idea rather than the person/people).  Do
>> you see the difference?
>> 
> Yep. I do. Most other people do to. The only times I see most people
> failing at it, is, as I said before, when its someone showing up with
> the same arguments for the 580th time. At some point, you have to call a
>   spade a spade, and damn whether or not someone makes you dig a hole
> with it.

Again, that's what I think they count on my representing the same tired 
old arguments - being able to claim "victim" status.

>> Then you're not debating the ideas, you ARE attacking them - which
>> doesn't help in the debate about the ideas.
>> 
> Sigh.. What ideas? These people don't have ideas, just a flow chart of
> every failed argument to regurgitate ever invented.

But they do have ideas.  They may be wrong ideas by your or my standards, 
but they are ideas that they're trying to support with bad logic and 
arguments.

> OK, I admit, probably the "best" response would be to take a copy of the
> "list" and all the responses, and every time they start wandering into
> stupid land, just staple the list to the wall, tell them, "I'll be back
> when you finish repeating things off this list, as though they are new,
> or never refuted, assuming you 'ever' do." But, see, ironically, its the
> "proper" response, but it still says, "You are an idiot." All you do by
> trying to refute each damn thing on the list, one at a time, is run out
> of your own time, and take longer calling them an idiot.

That would work better, sure, because it shows them that you've already 
debated the common points.  Then you can refer them to that reference 
when they bring something already discussed up again.

> Its a bit like the group of fools that have "special classes" on how to
> curse up a blue streak, using silly sounding words, with no meaning,
> because it makes the world a "better" place, if you say shazbot, instead
> of shit. 

Or like "frakking"? ;-)  Personally, I prefer "belgium" or "joojooflop".  
Occasionally "swutting". ;-)

> Long winded is what they want. Time is on **their** side, not
> yours in such "debates", because "you" have to actually present facts,
> all they have to do is keep asserting things until you run away.

So the list idea solves that by shortcutting the long-winded portion.

>> If anything, when they decide to call you a monster, you get to play
>> the victim card for a change.... ;-)  (Yes, I know you're unlikely to,
>> but those on the sidelines might be persuaded by the fact that those
>> you are debating have turned you into a victim by starting to call
>> names).
>> 
> Doesn't work. They will spin it to make it sound like you where
> "rightly" victimized, the press won't, usually, bother with your version
> of events, and even if they do, there are 500 other agencies that are
> more than willing to print the creationists version of events, to every
> one who is willing to listen to yours, some of them, paid by the very
> people you supposedly "debated".

Depends on the press you court.  Fox News probably ain't gonna cut it.  
You need someone more objective. :-)

>>> Sigh.. Again, we tried that for "decades".
>> 
>> Let me ask you a question.....What do you want out of your life?
>> 
> Making things better for people in the future might be one. But, anyone
> in that position needs to look at things in terms of what the enemies
> resources are, not just what, in the short term, they look like.

Perhaps, but at the same time there's more than just arguing about the 
past that is important to achieving that goal.  And in a way, that's what 
ID vs. Evolution is - an argument about the past.

>>> You can't ignore or lose every "public" battle, other than the ones in
>>> court, and expect to win the fracking war on the idea.
>> 
>> No, but you can't fight every battle, either.  You have to pick your
>> battles, and pick ones that you can win.  Then you have to apply a
>> strategy that allows you to win.  Sometimes that might mean taking a
>> "win at all costs" stance, and sometimes it doesn't.
>> 
> We don't get to "pick" the battles, they do. That is, at this moment,
> the biggest problem. You can't ignore 50 battles you don't "want" to
> fight, or which might, in the short term, make you look bad, hoping for
> one "major" one, where everything will go right.

The only reason they get to pick the battles is because you let them.  
I'm reminded of Eddie Izzard's skit about the Germans.  "I've got a 
better idea, I've got a better idea, Ooooh!  It's the same idea, it's the 
same idea".  That after deciding that Russia was "a bit cold" and 
invasion was probably not a smart idea.

Fighting a war on too many fronts is a losing proposition.  History has 
taught us that.

> This is true. And, its kind of one of the critical issues. Fact is, most
> of us either think, or "do", have better things to do, than wander
> around waving silly signs, and we "certainly" don't have either
> employers that would let us get by with it, or groups willing to "fund"
> it, if they did. I know I can't even get days off I want, most times, at
> my job, for "normal" stuff. If I said I wanted to join some protest
> against creationist.. I would probably "misteriously" end up being on an
> 8 hour shift that day, because they "needed me", and.. its probably not
> all that refutable.

Perhaps not, but those on the other side do make that choice - so here 
you do show a sense of prioritization that puts working at a higher 
priority over fighting this idiocy.

> Worse, the reason "they" can find 100 people to do this is because all
> they have to do is go to their local church. Me.. I am lucky if I "know"
> 100 people closely enough to do that, never mind that all of them
> "agree" enough with me to do such a thing.

Bingo.  And that's the thing that needs to happen to be more successful 
in the battle - organization.  Think of them (if you like) as 
professional soldiers.  You can't go in with an unorganized or 
uncoordinated strategy.  That won't work.

>> That's why Prop 8 in CA went the way it did.  Those who were against it
>> weren't organized enough, and the LDS Church (amongst others, but they
>> were one of the largest organizations that put money into the
>> advertising coffers) was organized enough to mobilize its membership to
>> donate to the "Vote Yes on 8" groups.
>> 
> Part of it was also "recognizing" that there was a clear, untapped
> group, who held "religion" much higher than the general populous, and,
> despite not being "radicals" in the same sense as the LDS, are "never
> the less" more likely to side with religious "standards" than secular
> ones, if someone pushes the issue hard enough.

Oh yes, absolutely.  It helped a lot as well that those in favor of Prop 
8 were able to use "moral and religious outrage" over the "redefinition" 
of "marriage" to mobilize their "troops".

>> Personally, I agree with Bill Maher on this:  Obama needs a little of
>> Bush's swagger and certainty.  At least he's got *good* ideas.  Bush
>> had certainty and bad ideas.  That's a bad combination.
>> 
> No, he needs to stop trying to be "both" a good guy for the religious
> and a good guy for everyone else, at the same time. 

Obama, yes, I agree.  At the same time, if he did (as Maher suggested) 
got up one morning and stepped out on the front lawn of the White House 
and said "Jesus told me to fix health care!", hey, as long as it gets the 
job done.  Heck, if he did that that might even motivate the Right to 
*help* him. ;-)

>> It's fortunate that should that happen we have the bill of rights to
>> back up our right to dissent, and we have laws in place that prevent us
>> from having a dictator for too long.  What's needed is organization of
>> those who agree that these are bad ideas - I've said it before in this
>> message, but that's the way to effect change - by recognizing the
>> strength in numbers.
>> 
> Its unfortunate that their "interpretation" of that document is about as
> consistent as their understanding that Lemarckian, and other "early"
> theories, as the same as Darwinian evolution, and constantly misquoting
> the former ones, as part of the later. They would, and have, happily,
> quoted lines from everything from letters by "some" founders, which
> vaguely relate to the values of religion, or the declaration's
> statements about divine rights, with what is "actually" in the
> constitution.

Their interpretation isn't particularly important, as long as a challenge 
continues to be mounted.  "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" and 
all that.

> As they say, history is written by those who win, 

History is written by the winners, but as long as the fight continues on, 
there isn't a winner.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:54:44 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Hmm. Must be a different one then.
> 
> Fiction, dude. Fiction!

I'm reminded of Douglas Adams' concept about proving the non-existence of 
God....

God:  Proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing
Man:  Ah, but the babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it?  Nothing so 
mind-bogglingly useful could possibly have evolved purely by chance.  It 
proves you exist, and so therefore you don't.  Q.E.D.
God:  Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that.
(God vanishes in a puff of logic)

Jim

Post a reply to this message