Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[Brian Peacock]

Don't be silly Hermy, Mr Dodo embodies the normative standards of all rational thinking.

Yes because you lefties are so logical and rational how can anyone disagree with your politics, all those re-education camps and gulags and millions of dead people are all just a bureaucratic oversight.

Defining a prototypical group, then ascribing people to that group, and then lambasting them on the basis of their membership of that group, is indistinguishable from trolling: "The problem with all you Xs is that you're just so fucking wrong all the time!"

How are those ad homs working out for you, eh?

Inside every lefty is a genocidal maniac who is authoritarian through and through, they are right because reasons and if anybody dares to disagree with them, then that person is worse than Hitler. Their absolutist's stance is frightening to behold and every day they eat away at our liberty and freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. My tolerance of their intolerance is paper thin right now and I'm beginning to hate them all. Seriously, fuck all lefty totalitarian cunts, fuck them, fuck them for ever.

See how this is going? Now those whose views you disagree with are now advocates for totalitarian cuntery, which in turn acts as a further justification for more ad homs: "If you weren't a cunt then I wouldn't call you a cunt; I only call you a cunt because you are one." I would be interested to know which one of your supposed 'lefty totalitarian cunt' interlocutors here you think is an advocate of the eating away, or suppression, of liberty and freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, or freedom of conscience?

In response I would suggest that disagreeing with you does not signify a totalitarian instinct or automatically qualify one as have fascistic political views - that's just a story you tell yourself for comfort, or just to get a rise out of others maybe.

I merely want people to understand that rejecting God as a rational and entirely scientific proposition is an irrational act not based in either reason, logic or science.

Why do you want people to understand this?

Is it similarly irrational to reject all claimed-for creator deities such as Shiva, Ipmil, Atum, Viracocha, Ranginui, Bhandu, Vishvakarman, and Izanagi for example, and if not why not? If it is the same, then what are the logical and scientific reasons for not rejecting these mythological entities as "a rational and entirely scientific proposition"?

In other words, If you want people to accept God (and/or any of the above) as a rational proposition then the ball is entirely in your court.

[Brian Peacock]

It's still nonsensical. "Environmental influences" covers the stuff you said. You can't talk about probabilities when the 'full set' is based in wibble.

Whether you want to view your 'experience' as distinct from the molecules which comprise you is a matter of taste or philosophy, but would you go as far as to deny that humans have experiences, memories, emotions, thoughts etc?

Sure, but where is the need to bring in a horde of non-existent possible humans?

Well, I don't read the snippet of Dawkins as bringing in a horde of non-existent humans, but merely bringing to the fore the notion of the sheer depth or range of possibility, conveying the idea that there's nothing ordained or necessary about your existence or of you being the 'you' you actually are. He's just saying that you're very very very lucky to exist, to have a life, and to be in the position of knowing how very very unlikely it ever was that you could or would exist.

For example, a healthy human female is born with about 1 million eggs, about half of which are reabsorbed, of the remainder around 500 develop to the viable stage - so there's a 1:500 against chance of winning the lottery of life there. The average issue of a healthy male contains around 200 million sperm cells of which roughly half are viable, so all in all that's around a 1:500,000,000 against chance of winning the lottery of life. Once fertilisation has occurred there is a 75% chance that the egg will not implant at all, and of those which do implant there is a 30-50% chance of a spontaneous miscarriage before the female even knows she's pregnant. Of those that get beyond that hurdle there is a 20-20% change that the pregnancy will not proceed past the first trimester, and of those which do get this far there is still a 25% chance that the pregnancy will not continue to term.

So Dawkins' talk of being 'one of the lucky ones' is talk about the range or depth of possibility, talk about potentialities and likehoods - specifically the unlikeliness of our own existence. And yet each of us are one of those 'lucky' ones, those for whom the dice rolled in our favour, the ones who overcame those staggering odds against and who now have an existence. I don't think there's anything in that passage that actually invokes the existence of the non-existent potential humans who might have been born in your place, only that this is something to think about in the face of our own highly unlikely life.

[JimC]

Brian Peacock wrote:

He's just saying that you're very very very lucky to exist, to have a life, and to be in the position of knowing how very very unlikely it ever was that you could or would exist.

And that is precisely where I disagree. I think it is using a very irrational meaning for "lucky"; that I came into existence is a fact, all those other possible versions of me that did not are non-existent, and therefore have no use in a rational argument about the meaning of life. In the second phrase, the term "unlikely" is employing a version of probability considered extremely dodgy by mathematicians.

[mistermack]

He's making an unwarranted assumption, that not being conceived is somehow worse than being conceived.

We might feel that it's better, but that's because of our preconceived instincts for survival. Now that we exist, we don't want to not exist. But is that right, just because we instinctively think it?

If you never get conceived, you never die. You never get dumped. You never have to do work that you don't like. And you never grow old and feeble.
There are plenty of people who decide that not existing is better. Even though their brains are pre-loaded with the instinct to survive.

Would Dawkins look at an anthill, and say that those ants are the lucky ones, compared to the ones that never got born? They are born, live a bit, then die. And afterwards, it's just as if they never existed.

Just like us.

[Brian Peacock]

I take you points gentlemen, but I don't there's a problem in outlining the improbability of any individual's existence or in offering this as part of a counter to those who believe that we exist for a reason, that the existence of the "I" which is each of us was somehow chosen for us or gifted to us, or that we exist with a defined purpose celestially imbued by the wilful act of the nominated creator deity who ordained our existence.

In focusing too tightly on what he says I think you might be losing sight of what Dawkins means and/or is trying to put into words.

[Strontium Dog]

I hate to drag us back to the topic, but has anyone discovered why I was banned yet? I'd be surprised if it had passed without comment over there, but the email I sent 17 days ago remains unanswered. I presume there must be a reason, so one wonders what obstacle prevents me from knowing it.

[Seth]

But, as usual, your rant ascribes all the sins of a few to a very large group of people who are simply working for policies that attempt to balance the power of corporations and the state, and give the masses of working people a better deal.

Well, that's because it's not the "sins of a few" it is in fact the sins of a very large group of people who, perhaps (and most charitably) unwittingly in their dullard proletarian existence, attempt to balance the vacuous and imaginary "power" of corporations by creating instead, to their ultimate demise, a totalitarian state whose policies are not based on equality, fairness or individual liberty at all, but are in fact based on enslaving the dullard proletarians to their own avarice and greed by manipulating them into giving up essential liberties in order to (entirely theoretically) gain some temporary safety and "fairness" for the "masses of working people" who are under the mistaken impression that their totalitarian state gives a single flying fuck about giving them a "better deal," which it most certainly and universally does not.

What nonsense. Centre left groups are not heading in the direction of a totalitarian state.

Of course they are, they just don't know it yet.

They recognise that free enterprise is a vital component within the standard mixed economy of developed countries, but simply want government policies that protect ordinary working people from exploitation and corporate plundering, via policies on social spending and taxation.

Ah, would that that were the case, but it's not. First of all the notion that "ordinary working people" are being "exploited" and "plundered" is pure Marxist dialectic rhetoric without basis in fact. Second, "policies on social spending and taxation" do not even intend to solve the putative "exploitation" and "plundering," they are nothing more than rape and pillage of the productive class for the benefit not of the working class, who are the direct beneficiaries of corporations and capitalism, but rather for the direct benefit of the dependent class who are most certainly NOT "working people." Moreover, taxing the productive class (which includes the working class) does not "protect" anyone but the dependent class because doing so is merely outright and unapologetic theft from the "corporations" who are in point of economic fact the geese that lay the golden eggs that the entire economy depends upon for it's very existence.

We are talking about democratically elected governments here,

"Democracy" is o the list of Very Bad Things that are to be carefully avoided by rational people interested in liberty. What you mean by "democratically elected" is actually nothing more or less than pure, undiluted tyranny of the majority in which those who excel and succeed are falsely labeled as "exploiters" and "plunderers" in pure Marxist class-warfare rhetoric so as to justify taking from them what they have created in order to give it to those who create nothing and consume as much as their totalitarian democracy can be persuaded to steal for them.

not revolutionaries overthrowing the system. If a centre left party fails to deliver, or damages an economy badly, it will (rightly) suffer the consequences in the next election.

The problem is that what it "fails to deliver" is largess from the public treasury stolen from those who actually produce wealth that is given to those who produce nothing and only consume, on the premise that there is a "money fairy" in the democratically-elected government that waves a magic wand and creates the wealth that the treasury holds, which the dependent class wants for no better reason than that they think they are entitled to it. If they don't get it, they just "democratically" elect someone who will use more force to get it for them, and that always ends up with State Socialism of the most despotic sort, and eventual total economic failure as the golden-egg laying geese are systematically slaughtered and doled out to the dependent class in order to mollify their anger at not being given what they want.

And that's exactly how "democratic socialism" and "centre left" societies ultimately fail when the OPM runs out and the productive class has been driven into extinction.

[Seth]

I would be interested to know which one of your supposed 'lefty totalitarian cunt' interlocutors here you think is an advocate of the eating away, or suppression, of liberty and freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, or freedom of conscience?

Every single one of them who advocates for socialism and the redistribution of private property to achieve socialist "fairness." Which means pretty much every one of you.

This is the case because no matter how much one talks the talk, if one don't walk the walk one is just a mendacious sack of socialist shit who will lie through one's teeth to get what one wants and impose one's version of fairness, liberty and freedom on everyone else,which doesn't happen to include extending any of those benefits to anyone who resists the socialist agenda of taking what doesn't belong to it from those who own it in order to give it to others who haven't earned the right to possess it.

I merely want people to understand that rejecting God as a rational and entirely scientific proposition is an irrational act not based in either reason, logic or science.

Why do you want people to understand this?

Why don't you?

Is it similarly irrational to reject all claimed-for creator deities such as Shiva, Ipmil, Atum, Viracocha, Ranginui, Bhandu, Vishvakarman, and Izanagi for example, and if not why not?

Indeed, because one has no critically robust scientific evidence upon which to base such a rejection.

If it is the same, then what are the logical and scientific reasons for not rejecting these mythological entities as "a rational and entirely scientific proposition"?

In other words, If you want people to accept God (and/or any of the above) as a rational proposition then the ball is entirely in your court.

Tautology. Once again, I do not, and have never "want[ed] people to accept God." On the other hand, any truly rational person will not reject the scientific possibility that God (or gods) exist without critically robust scientific evidence of the non-existence of God or gods.

Just saying, "I don't believe it" constitutes neither rational consideration nor a valid scientific conclusion based on evidence.

[Seth]

It's still nonsensical. "Environmental influences" covers the stuff you said. You can't talk about probabilities when the 'full set' is based in wibble.

Whether you want to view your 'experience' as distinct from the molecules which comprise you is a matter of taste or philosophy, but would you go as far as to deny that humans have experiences, memories, emotions, thoughts etc?

Sure, but where is the need to bring in a horde of non-existent possible humans?

Well, I don't read the snippet of Dawkins as bringing in a horde of non-existent humans, but merely bringing to the fore the notion of the sheer depth or range of possibility, conveying the idea that there's nothing ordained or necessary about your existence or of you being the 'you' you actually are. He's just saying that you're very very very lucky to exist, to have a life, and to be in the position of knowing how very very unlikely it ever was that you could or would exist.

For example, a healthy human female is born with about 1 million eggs, about half of which are reabsorbed, of the remainder around 500 develop to the viable stage - so there's a 1:500 against chance of winning the lottery of life there. The average issue of a healthy male contains around 200 million sperm cells of which roughly half are viable, so all in all that's around a 1:500,000,000 against chance of winning the lottery of life. Once fertilisation has occurred there is a 75% chance that the egg will not implant at all, and of those which do implant there is a 30-50% chance of a spontaneous miscarriage before the female even knows she's pregnant. Of those that get beyond that hurdle there is a 20-20% change that the pregnancy will not proceed past the first trimester, and of those which do get this far there is still a 25% chance that the pregnancy will not continue to term.

So Dawkins' talk of being 'one of the lucky ones' is talk about the range or depth of possibility, talk about potentialities and likehoods - specifically the unlikeliness of our own existence. And yet each of us are one of those 'lucky' ones, those for whom the dice rolled in our favour, the ones who overcame those staggering odds against and who now have an existence. I don't think there's anything in that passage that actually invokes the existence of the non-existent potential humans who might have been born in your place, only that this is something to think about in the face of our own highly unlikely life.

But what is the purpose of his analogies? That's the real issue. The purpose of his horseshit analogies is not to wax philosophical in an abstract manner, he has a very, very specific intent and agenda, which is to derogate theistic religious belief by trying to substitute his notions of the "wonder" of the universe, and in this specific instance, as a pseudo-rebuttal to the objection to the murder of in-utero living human beings through abortion, which objections he views as completely irrational manifestations of religious fuckwittery that should be ignored for no other reason than he believes the underlying religious beliefs to be nothing more than a "delusion."

His intent in "Unwinding the Rainbow" is, as I said, to substitute his supposedly intellectually and morally superior nihilistic naturalism for theistic religious belief because he sees no value in religious belief or worship and thinks it a delusion that must be cured. The problem is that Dawkins doesn't give an actual fuck about the actual people involved and how they are trying to wend their way through life and turn to religion to give them hope and solace in the face of the many trials and tribulations they face.

He thinks, without a shred of psychological evidence to support it, that his sort of nihilistic pseudo-scientific "reason" is inherently and indisputably morally, ethically and socially superior to theism and anything less cannot and should not be tolerated, particularly when expressed in public. He means to destroy religion as a means of destroying religious belief as a means of, in his fucking twisted and evil mind, drive people into the cold, bony grasp of "scientific reason" by force, even if they don't want to go there. His reasons appear to be, based on his own admissions of being molested as a child by a priest or religious school teacher of some sort, an unreasoning and frankly pathological hatred of all things theistic and an intent to get his revenge on his past religious oppressors by fucking up the lives of everyone else on the planet with his narcissistic, self-centered and pathological desire to impose his worldview on everyone else.

It's a despicable display of callous unconcern with the mental and emotional health of billions of people who, however irrationally in his mind, rely on their religious beliefs to help them to be better people and to help them cope with the stresses and tragedies of their lives.

I don't care if God exists or not, or if the promise of eternal joy (or even worldly satisfaction) is actually true. If people believe that the helpful and hopeful promises of religion are true, and if it helps them to be better, happier, healthier and more loving people, which is true in the vast majority of cases, then why the HELL would anyone of honest intent who contains an ounce of human compassion choose to deliberately try to disabuse people of their "delusion?" If belief in God is a delusion, which is entirely possible, so long as the delusion leads to peaceable behavior, greater self-satisfaction, and increased charity and altruism, then it's a worthy and helpful delusion that ought to be fostered not attacked much less attacked or destroyed by nihilistic, narcissistic fuckwits who insist that they are right and six billion people who believe in one god or another are wrong.

Contrary to Dawkins' silly notions, there's nothing fundamentally superior about the sort of cold logic and unbending scientific reasoning he advocates for anyone other than a socially-inept and isolated genetic scientist with delusions of grandure and ideological superiority, if even him.

Human beings do not choose, and have not ever chosen throughout recorded history, to be nothing more than soulless, emotionless, impenetrable automatons and bastions of pure-quill scientific reason and logic devoid of emotion or need. We're not Spock, nor should we be. And even Spock succumbed to his more primitive instincts every seven years in undergoing Pon Farr.

Religion is an inherent and natural part of human behavior and has been since the very beginning of the human species, according to every historical record ever found. It exists and persists generation after generation for very good reasons, one of which is that it is an evolutionary adaptation that improves the chances of the human species continued survival. To attack religion therefore is a deeply anti-social and anti-evolutionary aberration that will, in my view, eventually be extirpated from the human genome because the proposed Dawkinsian replacement has no actual social, political or evolutionary advantage at all.

[Scott1328]

I hate to drag us back to the topic, but has anyone discovered why I was banned yet? I'd be surprised if it had passed without comment over there, but the email I sent 17 days ago remains unanswered. I presume there must be a reason, so one wonders what obstacle prevents me from knowing it.

According to the Mod Note that announced your banning:

GENERAL MODNOTE
As some of you make have noted Strontium Dog has been banned.
This member enjoyed more opportunities to redress issues with his posting behaviour than many may think is reasonable. Like some before him he may not be most accurately labelled as a classic troll, but his continued and frequent disruptive influence on discussions has led us to end his membership.

As this situation highlights, disruptive members are difficult to nail down, and therefore often have considerable longevity. And to those who feel this is too harsh an action, this thread will remain open for comment. But let us make this quite clear - while banning this member may prove unpopular, the staff has not taken this step lightly. This action has been the result of discussions over an extraordinary length of time and has been taken for the good of the forum as a whole. I would also like to note that this was the unanimous decision of all staff.

[pErvinalia]

It's still nonsensical. "Environmental influences" covers the stuff you said. You can't talk about probabilities when the 'full set' is based in wibble.

Whether you want to view your 'experience' as distinct from the molecules which comprise you is a matter of taste or philosophy, but would you go as far as to deny that humans have experiences, memories, emotions, thoughts etc?

Of course not. Not sure what that has to do with his quote. And you didn't address my final sentence.

[pErvinalia]

Don't be silly Hermy, Mr Dodo embodies the normative standards of all rational thinking.

Yes because you lefties are so logical and rational how can anyone disagree with your politics, all those re-education camps and gulags and millions of dead people are all just a bureaucratic oversight.

Defining a prototypical group, then ascribing people to that group, and then lambasting them on the basis of their membership of that group, is indistinguishable from trolling: "The problem with all you Xs is that you're just so fucking wrong all the time!"

How are those ad homs working out for you, eh?

Inside every lefty is a genocidal maniac who is authoritarian through and through, they are right because reasons and if anybody dares to disagree with them, then that person is worse than Hitler. Their absolutist's stance is frightening to behold and every day they eat away at our liberty and freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. My tolerance of their intolerance is paper thin right now and I'm beginning to hate them all. Seriously, fuck all lefty totalitarian cunts, fuck them, fuck them for ever.

See how this is going? Now those whose views you disagree with are now advocates for totalitarian cuntery, which in turn acts as a further justification for more ad homs: "If you weren't a cunt then I wouldn't call you a cunt; I only call you a cunt because you are one." I would be interested to know which one of your supposed 'lefty totalitarian cunt' interlocutors here you think is an advocate of the eating away, or suppression, of liberty and freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, or freedom of conscience?

In response I would suggest that disagreeing with you does not signify a totalitarian instinct or automatically qualify one as have fascistic political views - that's just a story you tell yourself for comfort, or just to get a rise out of others maybe.

Exactly. What's ironic is that Dave doesn't realise that conservatism is the home of authoritarianism, as conservative psychology fears the free individual and cherishes top down control of individuals lest they let their inherent evil natures bring down society.

[pErvinalia]

It's still nonsensical. "Environmental influences" covers the stuff you said. You can't talk about probabilities when the 'full set' is based in wibble.

Whether you want to view your 'experience' as distinct from the molecules which comprise you is a matter of taste or philosophy, but would you go as far as to deny that humans have experiences, memories, emotions, thoughts etc?

Sure, but where is the need to bring in a horde of non-existent possible humans?

Well, I don't read the snippet of Dawkins as bringing in a horde of non-existent humans, but merely bringing to the fore the notion of the sheer depth or range of possibility, conveying the idea that there's nothing ordained or necessary about your existence or of you being the 'you' you actually are. He's just saying that you're very very very lucky to exist, to have a life, and to be in the position of knowing how very very unlikely it ever was that you could or would exist.

Your use of probability is again nonsensical. "You" couldn't be any but "you". In reality, the probability of "you" existing is 100%. "You" aren't some ineffible soul. "You" are a product of your parents' genes and the environment you were brought up in.

[pErvinalia]

It's still nonsensical. "Environmental influences" covers the stuff you said. You can't talk about probabilities when the 'full set' is based in wibble.

Whether you want to view your 'experience' as distinct from the molecules which comprise you is a matter of taste or philosophy, but would you go as far as to deny that humans have experiences, memories, emotions, thoughts etc?

Sure, but where is the need to bring in a horde of non-existent possible humans?

Well, I don't read the snippet of Dawkins as bringing in a horde of non-existent humans, but merely bringing to the fore the notion of the sheer depth or range of possibility, conveying the idea that there's nothing ordained or necessary about your existence or of you being the 'you' you actually are. He's just saying that you're very very very lucky to exist, to have a life, and to be in the position of knowing how very very unlikely it ever was that you could or would exist.

For example, a healthy human female is born with about 1 million eggs, about half of which are reabsorbed, of the remainder around 500 develop to the viable stage - so there's a 1:500 against chance of winning the lottery of life there. The average issue of a healthy male contains around 200 million sperm cells of which roughly half are viable, so all in all that's around a 1:500,000,000 against chance of winning the lottery of life. Once fertilisation has occurred there is a 75% chance that the egg will not implant at all, and of those which do implant there is a 30-50% chance of a spontaneous miscarriage before the female even knows she's pregnant. Of those that get beyond that hurdle there is a 20-20% change that the pregnancy will not proceed past the first trimester, and of those which do get this far there is still a 25% chance that the pregnancy will not continue to term.

So Dawkins' talk of being 'one of the lucky ones' is talk about the range or depth of possibility, talk about potentialities and likehoods - specifically the unlikeliness of our own existence. And yet each of us are one of those 'lucky' ones, those for whom the dice rolled in our favour, the ones who overcame those staggering odds against and who now have an existence.

That just nonsensical. If another egg and/or another sperm was successful, you would have slightly different traits (i.e. "you" would be another "you"), but the you'd still be "you". It's freakin wibble, man.

[Strontium Dog]

I hate to drag us back to the topic, but has anyone discovered why I was banned yet? I'd be surprised if it had passed without comment over there, but the email I sent 17 days ago remains unanswered. I presume there must be a reason, so one wonders what obstacle prevents me from knowing it.

According to the Mod Note that announced your banning:

GENERAL MODNOTE
As some of you make have noted Strontium Dog has been banned.
This member enjoyed more opportunities to redress issues with his posting behaviour than many may think is reasonable. Like some before him he may not be most accurately labelled as a classic troll, but his continued and frequent disruptive influence on discussions has led us to end his membership.

As this situation highlights, disruptive members are difficult to nail down, and therefore often have considerable longevity. And to those who feel this is too harsh an action, this thread will remain open for comment. But let us make this quite clear - while banning this member may prove unpopular, the staff has not taken this step lightly. This action has been the result of discussions over an extraordinary length of time and has been taken for the good of the forum as a whole. I would also like to note that this was the unanimous decision of all staff.

Continued and frequent disruptive influence!

One would have thought someone who was continually disruptive would have accrued more than two warnings in two years, but I can see evidence clearly played little part in their decision.

I have never had any interest in "disrupting" anything in my life. Life is too short for that. How can such apparently intelligent people misjudge a situation so tragically? Have any recent examples of so-called "disruption" been given?

I would agree that I have, in the past, reacted too robustly to provocation, and this is something I addressed a long time ago. Hence why I have had just two warnings in the past 27 months. If this isn't "redressing issues with posting behaviour", then I don't know what is.

No, I'm afraid I don't believe this modnote has any credibility at all. I would have far more respect for them if they'd come out and admitted the truth, that it's easier to ban an individual who holds opinions that are sometimes in the minority than it is to address issues with the wider membership reacting like out of control lunatics whenever they see something they disagree with.

Thank you for posting it Scott, since they didn't even have the courtesy to inform me. I know we haven't always seen eye to eye in the past - you seem to dislike me, for reasons I've never quite been able to pin down - but I do appreciate you posting that for me to see.