gdp's Comments

Verbal Razors : Tumblr Photo

Wed, 13 May 2009 01:32:13 +0000

Wow. I knew the Bible endorsed slavery, but they actually put price tags on different types of people? What. The. Fuck.

nullifidian : Bollocks for ammunition

Tue, 12 May 2009 05:11:38 +0000

I sent this to my ex. She hated it. So i'm happy.

ATHEIST HAVEN : Kosher Bullshit: Jews Offended by Usage of "Swine Flu"

Tue, 12 May 2009 04:45:02 +0000

I recall another commentator asking if these folk were also against the usage of pig iron?

Godless Girl : CAPS LOCK will CONVINCE ME

Mon, 11 May 2009 02:05:37 +0000

I truly believe that piece of writing will lose something in its poetry if it weren't written in capslock.

The Geeky Atheist : Society is a source of morality - The Geeky Atheist

Thu, 7 May 2009 22:45:30 +0000

links don't seem to go where I tell them to go on IntenseDebate: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/science/18mora.... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psyc...

The Geeky Atheist : Society is a source of morality - The Geeky Atheist

Thu, 7 May 2009 22:42:32 +0000

Actually what you say is correct. There is little evidence to suggest that genes actually instruct you on specific ethical behavior. They seem to be rules of thumb, as with most adaptations arising from selective pressures. However we do have an innate sense that makes it emotionally desirable to do the right thing once you've learned (from society) what the specifics are. I think that's what cognitive scientists mean when they say our moral behaviour is driven more by emotion and instinct rather than reason.

Exsisto Sane : Moral Relativism

Thu, 7 May 2009 13:15:00 +0000

I just read the chapter on morality in The God Deilusion and it is just a brilliantly cohesive argument for morality from an evolutionary standpoint. It was recommended to me by the guy who maintains The New Atheist blog, and I'm glad he did so.

The Geeky Atheist : Society is a source of morality - The Geeky Atheist

Thu, 7 May 2009 13:05:27 +0000

Would you say that societal constraints are only part of the picture? It seems most experts agree that we are also 'innately inspired' by moral codes. A lot of cognitive research is coming in saying that we instinctively know right form wrong, and much of our so called reasoning is merely the rationalizations of our moral decisions. Following the recommendation of Randy from TNA I just read the chapter on morality in The God Delusion. It goes into the evolutionary reasons for altruistic behaviour, both in humans and animals and how morality is coded in our genes. It's a great chapter, very useful when you come across the predictable argument D'Souza is making.

i get pissed : Bill Maher skewers the Texan Creationists

Tue, 5 May 2009 20:11:52 +0000

I find this encouraging. After all that irrational talk they still resort to science in their time of need. Hypocritical? yes. Frustratingly obtuse? Yes. But still encouraging.

Atheist Revolution : Defending the Atheist Movement

Mon, 4 May 2009 11:14:16 +0000

Your point about recognizing the emergence of factions is very important. The more diverse and bigger the Atheist umbrella the healthier the 'movement' will be. We should not start resembling religious dogma with it's associated synchronized goosestepping to the call of the 'prophets'. A wide variety of political and moral views and disagreements among atheists should be encouraged and different schools of thought fostered.

The Geeky Atheist : Debate Report: Was Darwin Wrong? - The Geeky Atheist

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:37:24 +0000

There is a prevalent incredulity on the side of rationalist debaters as the fact that they are even having this debate at this time and age. The condescension arising from such incredulity might be justified, but it probably does not do the cause of Science any favours.

AnAtheist.Net : Dad, I really am an atheist. I promise.

Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:33:33 +0000

Hi. I know what you are going through. My father is very similar to yours. Not religious (in fact he was constantly mocking my mum's religiousness) but has the same penchant for intimidating and demeaning behavior. Especially if you aren't following the exact path he's mapped out. And he has a hard time showing that he is proud of his children, possibly due to his own insecurities and unrealised expectations. My sister went through severe psychotic breakdowns and he wasn't able to deal with it either. His presence and the pressure that he put on the family prolonged her condition. After some long years of hard work, actively seeking treatment and medication, and distancing herself emotionally from her father, my sister has now recovered completely and is doing great. Though her relationship with her father is not going to ever be close, or even amicable, she's just happier and better off for it. She no longer has the desire to seek his approval. It seems like you have an understanding mum so make sure you rely on her support. Good on you for making those speeches, helping others and not being afraid to get yourself the support you need. Keep it up. You obviously already know how important that is.

Rene Benthien : Some cool Minority Report gadgetry

Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:57:42 +0000

testing

Atheist Revolution : Idiot of the Week: Carrie Prejean

Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:29:22 +0000

vjack. did you do this post just as an excuse to post that picture? If so I can so totally respect that. If not, then like Beast said, it's not really something anyone should take too seriously.

Atheist Revolution : Why is the Atheist Movement so White?

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:53:05 +0000

From overwhelming anecdotal experience, I think your analysis is true. I'm Tamil, and though I identify myself as an Atheist and a whole bunch of other things before I think of myself as a Tamil, I would be an exception in my family and friends circle. I think the cultural ties are especially strong in minorities who share a common history of persecution and disadvantages. You even start to see it tipping into nationalism where all other considerations are ignored for the sake preserving your own tribe.

Rene Benthien : When is faith not necessary?

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:26:58 +0000

That's true, I acknowledge the major differences between faith in friends and faith in dogma. But my point isn't to equate the two. My point is to say that faith in religion can be seen as regular everyday faith taken to extreme and possibly counterproductive extents. And if there is such a spectrum, to ask where should one delineate between good faith and bad faith. After all isn't there always a level of trust given to friends that goes beyond what is justified by tested evidence? How many of us have had the opportunity to see if a friend would act against his/her best interests for your sake? But don't we still trust that they will do so when the need arises?

Rene Benthien : When is faith not necessary?

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:08:39 +0000

lol. this injustice must be rectified... i shall follow you again!

AnAtheist.Net : Atheism & Agnosticism

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:02:07 +0000

But isn't that the definition of faith? belief divorced from knowledge. So this leads us back to the problem that every belief that we hold (excepting arguments from definitions as I mentioned earlier), we cannot ever be a 100% certain of them. I feel that this is part of the fundamental nature of our interaction with reality that is recognised by The Scientific Process to great effect. Specifically in it's insistence on falsifiability and tentative conclusions. As opposed to other pseudoscience and religion.

AnAtheist.Net : Atheism & Agnosticism

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 04:40:30 +0000

But belief is also supported by empirical evidence, and there is a growing level of confidence as we accumulate successful tests. If 'gnosis' is not complete knowledge then what is the difference between 'gnosis' and 'belief'?

AnAtheist.Net : Atheism & Agnosticism

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 03:40:27 +0000

I call myself an agnostic atheist but now I'm not sure if that qualifier is redundant. Apart from things like 1 + 1 = 2 and other internally defined mathematically representable logic, and statements that are true by definition, every other aspect of the universe can only be "believed to be true". We make up hypothesis and we test our predictions against observations, trust our senses, and increase our confidence in our models. Any scientific belief derived from such a process can only be tentative. We can never have Gnosis over the reality of things. So isn't everybody an agnostic with everything?