GENIUS FORUMS

Oh common, why deleting that fine post which was posted here just before this one? Please repost it!

Anyway, I just revisited the thread but Mookestink is not really helping there in my opinion. Quite the oposite, they're having a field day shooting down the countless contradictions and slurs in his posts. Ah well, it's the Genius forms, I never expected sanity from its members anyway, or even plain tact; just the chance on wild wisdom once in a while...

Diebert, you missed the point of what I was doing. I wasn't in there to prove any point in particular, or to be impressive, or truthful, or honest. I was trying to make an environment where Dan could speak and be listened to. He was complaining specifically about the arrogance, so I had to bring the arrogance forward and address it. I had to show these people what arrogance means, by a sort of sacrificial example. That long series of posts is profoundly ironic.

That you missed it is a bit surprising, since I explained early on what my intention was. If I really was in there for myself, and to express my own philosophy, I would have used my real name -- not my alias. I said as much, as a sort of early apology, in one of my first posts.

Mookestink has always represented my darker, childish half. I can say a lot of things under that nickname that I would never dream of saying normally. The name itself is meant to be ridiculous (it was something Kyle said in the first season of Southpark in reference to a singing lump of shit.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Oh common, why deleting that fine post which was posted here just before this one? Please repost it!

Anyway, I just revisited the thread but Mookestink is not really helping there in my opinion. Quite the oposite, they're having a field day shooting down the countless contradictions and slurs in his posts. Ah well, it's the Genius forms, I never expected sanity from its members anyway, or even plain tact; just the chance on wild wisdom once in a while...

I agree. Cory, that was an excellent post - please repost it. I have a copy if you don't.

Hello, I've rather cheekily come over from the forum in question and if you don't mind I'd like to explain a few things, especially to Dan.

Perhaps it is best I don't speak for my fellow posters, so the following is from my perspective alone, although I suspect it is widley shared

Fisrtly, I am not at all adverse to critsisms of Richard Dawkins works. It was the manner and volume in which they were presented that lead me to believe your motives were not so innocent. Everything from entitling the thread 'Dumb Dawkins quotes' (rather than a polite alternative like 'Critisisms of Dawkin's quotes') onwards seemed geared towards eliciting a particular response. Furthermore by the time I and several others had joined the thread you had admitted preconceived and strong opinions about the forum. This did not incline me to respond in any depth. I can understand your fear that a sort of celebrity worship has built up around Richard Dawkins, but I can assure you this is not the case. Several naive posters have, in the past, posted their religiousesque suggestions of worship and unthinking loyalty, perhaps in a shallow attempt to prove the same point or perhaps in true innocence, but they have instantly been shot down.

If you are at all genuinely interested in a discussion of the innaccurasies of Dawkins quotations, return to the forum, apologise for your previous conduct and suggest a calm mannered discussion and I'm sure you will be recieved well.

I'm sorry to have been so presumtuous as to come here, we get our fair share of arrogance and ignorance as I'm sure any other forum does. If you are suspect of the motives then come over and discuss it, I'm sure the majority will be happy to provide evidence to the contrary. They generally are very open to discussion as long as there is no hidden agenda or needless provocative language.

I've just read your post Trevor, was your intention to make Dan appear to be little ray of sunshine? I've explained how Dan might be better recieved, in the hope that he does return.

I've just read your post Trevor, was your intention to make Dan appear to be little ray of sunshine?

Yes, that's exactly how it works. If I'm as abhorrent as possible, the people who actually have important things to say look a lot better in comparison.

My tricks aren't really that hard to figure out, once you know for a fact that they are there and what they are designed to do... and sometimes even if you just suspect that they are there. There was enough people doubting that I was for real (eg "take off the mask") that I'm quite sure I'm not half as clever as I think I am. :)

I'm glad you'll give Dan another shot. I just saw a new post of his in the Dawkins forum, so it looks like he's taking you up on this offer.

Hyrax wrote:Hello, I've rather cheekily come over from the forum in question and if you don't mind I'd like to explain a few things, especially to Dan.

Hello there! Thanks for dropping by and giving your perspective. I'll deal with all your points later. For now I'll just say I didn't have any specific agenda in creating that thread; it was largely, at least initially, but not entirely as it went on, off the cuff. I do, in fact, regret the title I gave it, but well, I was just being honest.

Anyway, I'll get back to the rest of your post later today and explain myself more fully.

Cheers,

Dan

Hyrax wrote:Fisrtly, I am not at all adverse to critsisms of Richard Dawkins works.

That may well be true, it might well be true of most of the posters at the Dawkins site, but it doesn't seem true for a proportion of them.

It was the manner and volume in which they were presented that lead me to believe your motives were not so innocent.

What's an "innocent" motive, exactly? Anyway, I started the thread because I was browsing that particular forum and taking an occasional peek at those quotes - most of which are quite good. Then one of the "dumb" ones appeared and I though: "What? Hang on a moment!" Then there followed one or two more than I quite sincerely think are dumb. So I decided to speak out about them. Yes, it would have been more "tactful" of me to have named the thread something less provocative, but it would also have been less honest as that's the reaction I had to those quotes. There was only 4 or 5 in total that I had a problem with so I decided to offer them all in one go. I had already exhausted the quotes I wanted to take issue with when the thread went ballistic.

Everything from entitling the thread 'Dumb Dawkins quotes' (rather than a polite alternative like 'Critisisms of Dawkin's quotes') onwards seemed geared towards eliciting a particular response.

Not really; I was simply being candid. Around here we put candour above tact. I concede that I sometimes forget that not everyone sees things like that.

Furthermore by the time I and several others had joined the thread you had admitted preconceived and strong opinions about the forum.

No, I was asked about that - or accused of it, rather - and I denied it. I didn't really have any preconceptions about the place other than it seemed interesting enough. That changed after the first few responses I got. I then expressed concern that these responses were representative of the board, hoping that they weren't. It's not really possible to hold a serious view about a board that large. You guys have a massive membership and no doubt it's a very complex place; however, you'll forgive me if the responses I got set off "hero worship" alarm bells for me. In my view that dimension certainly exists over there. After a while I was interested in seeing how extensive that dimension is, but I never got much of an answer to that. Things got too meaninglessly combative to determine much of anything.

This did not incline me to respond in any depth. I can understand your fear that a sort of celebrity worship has built up around Richard Dawkins, but I can assure you this is not the case. Several naive posters have, in the past, posted their religiousesque suggestions of worship and unthinking loyalty, perhaps in a shallow attempt to prove the same point or perhaps in true innocence, but they have instantly been shot down.

That's fair enough. I'm happy to accept that this is not a feature of that place in any general sense, but nevertheless it exists and I was subject to it. Unfortunately the thread has now been locked (that's your fault, Trevor!!) so I won't have a chance to get to the responses that were serious and that I was hoping for all along.

If you are at all genuinely interested in a discussion of the innaccurasies of Dawkins quotations, return to the forum, apologise for your previous conduct and suggest a calm mannered discussion and I'm sure you will be recieved well.

I was always genuinely interested as should have been evidenced by my replies to people who bothered to offer something of substance. However I have no intention of apologising for anything as there's nothing for me to apologise about.

I'm sorry to have been so presumtuous as to come here,

How could there be anything presumptuous about it? Seems reasonable enough to me. You guys are way too apologetic!

we get our fair share of arrogance and ignorance as I'm sure any other forum does. If you are suspect of the motives then come over and discuss it, I'm sure the majority will be happy to provide evidence to the contrary. They generally are very open to discussion as long as there is no hidden agenda or needless provocative language.

The trouble with this is twofold: people will see hidden agendas if they want to see them and what constitutes needlessly provocative language is very subjective. I was accused of trolling over there in that thread, and yet as far as I'm concerned some members were really trolling their own board. But I got the official warning and no-one else got a thing said to them. Oh well, shit happens as they say.

Anyway, I'll keep posting where I see a reason to do so. One bad thread isn't that big a deal in my view. It's just one bad thread.

Dan Rowden

And while we're talking, if not banal, how exactly would you characterise this thread and its content:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtop ... &start=220

What? You don't feel privilaged that they allowed your picture to grace their "zOMG Richard Dawkins is soooooo hawt!!11!!!!!!!!1eleventy11!!" thread?

Hyrax wrote:Hello, I've rather cheekily come over from the forum in question and if you don't mind I'd like to explain a few things, especially to Dan.

HI Hyrax! Thank you for coming over. I'd like to get involved in the thread over there, but I'm rather busy with offline activities at the moment, and I don't have time to review Richard Dawkins enough right now to give an intelligent perspective, so I was going to just stay out of it - but since you came over here, perhaps you would be kind enough to represent the Dawkins side of this interaction and give some summaries of the Dawkins perspective to those of us who are unfamiliar with his works.

I do hope that you have it in your heart to be understanding of Dan despite his recent attitude. When all hell is breaking loose, Dan comes in to make everything a bit more peaceful; on the other hand, if everything is nice and peaceful, Dan comes along to muck up the waters to get some debate going. Despite the lousy first impression he gave over there, he really is a decent fellow.

DHodges wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:This is exactly the defense often raised by religious types and with sometimes good reason.

Dawkins is one of the "new atheists" who are more outspoken about atheism, and don't seem concerned about the possibility of science turning into a religion. They are dogmatic about rationality and advocate atheism with religious fervor.

Science can never turn into religion, idiot. Science and philosophy is the only thing we have that's closest to reality that inspects it on a real raw level.

Katy wrote:What? You don't feel privilaged that they allowed your picture to grace their "zOMG Richard Dawkins is soooooo hawt!!11!!!!!!!!1eleventy11!!" thread?

Not especially. I guess it's me!

Dan Rowden wrote: Not especially. I guess it's me!

Geeze... the man can't even recognize what an honor it is to have made such an impact on the board that they felt the need to (a) look up your picture and (b) post it in a separate thread!

Faust13 wrote:Science can never turn into religion

Well, it can, but it screws up the science (reference Scientology).

Faust13 wrote:Science can never turn into religion,

I imagine the New Atheists would agree with that. But the idea only makes sense if you have faith in science.

Science is a human activity, and like anything people do, can be corrupted. Science provides a world-view, and that world-view can be accepted very much like a mythology is accepted - the results are accepted because they come from an authority, rather than accepting science as a method.

An example might be the Big Bang theory. Some people have accepted it because they have looked at the evidence and think it best fits the facts. Other people accept it because Science Says So - they accept it as a truth handed down from an authority, which is no different from believing something because it is written in the Bible.

On the flip side, Some people may have rejected the Big Bang theory because they think it is an inadequate explanation , or doesn't fit the known facts well. Other people might reject it because it conflicts with some other mythology they have (e.g., creation by Jehovah).

The Big Bang idea is a creation story. Every culture, every mythology has a creation story. It's a part of how a people see themselves, how they understand how the universe works. Whether that story is true or not has little bearing on the role it plays socially and psychologically.

Since science does have an air of respectiblity to it, some religions have tried to wrap themselves in its robes - e.g, Scientology and Christian Scientists.

Hmmm, after writing the above, I found a Dawkins essay on the topic.

Unfortunately the thread has now been locked (that's your fault, Trevor!!) so I won't have a chance to get to the responses that were serious and that I was hoping for all along.

It's alright that it was locked. You will get a second opportunity to address this same issue. The moderator needed to establish an official interpretation of what I had done in the thread -- getting moderator involvement is a blessing when doing something like this. Like a terraforming process, my hope is that this will help you in the future.

My primary design to have you taken seriously in your later posts to that forum did not factor in any secondary need that you might have to immediately salvage that thread. That would have made my plan too complex for me to handle easily. You're a friend, but I'm not a magician.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Diebert, you missed the point of what I was doing. I wasn't in there to prove any point in particular, or to be impressive, or truthful, or honest. I was trying to make an environment where Dan could speak and be listened to.

The reason I missed the point is because you clearly failed when we look at the results. You harvested more hostility, outright ridicule, association of your behavior with the Genius Forum as a whole, affirmation of their worst suspicions against Dan and of course a lock down with probably most people having lost interest by now. Congratulations!

He was complaining specifically about the arrogance, so I had to bring the arrogance forward and address it. I had to show these people what arrogance means, by a sort of sacrificial example. That long series of posts is profoundly ironic.

Your sense of irony seems such an acquired taste that I'd advice it not to apply it anymore especially to 'help' your friends in discussions. Your irony brings utter confusion, there's no skill to it in my view, just playing a moron basically so that good people start believing, with good reason, that you are a moron. Good job!

That you missed it is a bit surprising, since I explained early on what my intention was. If I really was in there for myself, and to express my own philosophy, I would have used my real name -- not my alias. I said as much, as a sort of early apology, in one of my first posts.

You're playing with your own shadows. Why bringing such intricate complexity in a discussion which already struggles with becoming more transparent and fair? That's beyond me.

Mookestink has always represented my darker, childish half. I can say a lot of things under that nickname that I would never dream of saying normally. The name itself is meant to be ridiculous (it was something Kyle said in the first season of Southpark in reference to a singing lump of shit.

That can be so and I always valued Mookestink in the past but to really think that sending in your darker childish half into a thread at a Richard Dawkins forum "trying to make an environment where Dan could speak and be listened to" seems to indicate you're losing touch with common sense. This particular Mookestink was not even funny or dark - dirty grey perhaps, a drama prince whose behavior you try to rationally justify somehow but not very convincing. Are you alright? Are you losing your grip on your rational processes? Heavy thinkers do face this problem once in a while so I'm a bit concerned here. Friends have to question each others sanity too, you know, as a favor.

DHodges wrote: Science is a human activity, and like anything people do, can be corrupted. Science provides a world-view, and that world-view can be accepted very much like a mythology is accepted - the results are accepted because they come from an authority, rather than accepting science as a method.

Interesting to say it like that. I guess many prefer to see science as method and not conflate it with the worldview it creates. But how does religion compare? One could say it's also some kind of method (involving re-lating to the divine and/or existential experience) which creates worldviews, art, inspiration and so on.

When people talk about the bads of organized religion we have the same problem: accepting results because they come from a religious authority like a tradition or consensus view in your environment.

Since it seems obvious that theists are just as open to the scientific method as atheists, I don't think there's an inherent conflict between the methods. Ultimately both methods even originally agreed on the value of wisdom and reason, this is why so much science and philosophy was able to arise out of the Muslim and Christian traditions, not in spite of as popular myth tries to imply in an attempt to make the 'modern' civilization superior to older ones, also known as: the religion of Universal Progress, which I personally doubt strongly.

Hmmm, after writing the above, I found a Dawkins essay on the topic.

Some quotes ripped from that piece, hopefully without sacrificing too much context...

Sometimes there may be a little bit of justice in this accusation; but as zealous bigots, we scientists are mere amateurs at the game. We're content to argue with those who disagree with us. We don't kill them.

That might be a matter of temporary moral and personal value, not a result of scientific method. Science and rationality was a popular thing in Nazi Germany (yeah yeah playing the Hitler card) and the ruthless efficiency of problem solving had its price. Iran pushes and praises rational thought and science in their population more than any other country I know. Communism is still an intense intellectual worldview, a result of applied reason, but also created the systematic violent oppression of opposing thought, labeling it a psychological disease to be cured. Doctors and professors stood ready to fill in your evaluation and forced deportation for the 'good of the nation'. But these things are soooo half a century ago. We know better now. *cough* American 'think-tanks' *cough*.

Dawkins sounds here heavily idealistic and a bit too alienated from a more realistic world and historical realities therein. If just everybody was a dedicated bloodless scientist with no time to conquer and expand territories...

There's all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation.

Yes, because one is a belief about how things are constructed and their precise causes, the other belief is dealing with the why's, what to value and the issue of identity. Just straight out comparing them and taking notes is really showing more ignorance than insight in the issue at hand.

This particular Mookestink was not even funny or dark - dirty grey perhaps, a drama prince whose behavior you try to rationally justify somehow but not very convincing. Are you alright? Are you losing your grip on your rational processes? Heavy thinkers do face this problem once in a while so I'm a bit concerned here. Friends have to question each others sanity too, you know, as a favor.

You may have a point here. I do have a feeling that I might be trying to rationalize something, and I'm not fully convincing myself. For one thing: sure, a lot of these things passed through my mind before I went into the forum, but my memory is being very selective. Calling what I did "planned" might be a gross exaggeration.

Wouldn't the nature of insanity make it next to impossible for me to have insight into it, if I was losing my grip a little?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Wouldn't the nature of insanity make it next to impossible for me to have insight into it, if I was losing my grip a little?

It's true that insanity is often defined as a situation where someone has stopped questioning and doubting his thoughts and actions completely. He does nothing but rationalizing his own thoughts and behavior while blocking out everything that might destroy his particular delusion.

I'd say snapping out of this is very hard, not impossible and it may be more like a process or journey with stages where a period of doubt can open new doorways to sanity now and again. It depends also how far one has advanced in a particular insanity or delusion. What often happens is that the insane one projects his contradiction in a literal or metaphorical way on his surroundings. That's when he starts to do battle against it instead of observing and criticizing his own behavior. Of course one could do both as well: observing while doing. It's not like introspection alone saves one from insanity - there are many private hells too. Note that such extrovert battles might have some validity in itself; projecting is way easier if there's something already resonating with ones own problem.

Of course this is all not just about your particular supposed insanity. I consider most if not all people insane but there's a difference to the degree their brand of insanity is adjusted to the surroundings or not. Surroundings which might encourage a common form of insanity which is then called normal. And because of that adjustment isn't necessarily always a good thing for the development of truth and neither is the fear to err or stray from the norm. Dangerous journeys of the mind, who has appetite for them these days? And making errors is unavoidable when exploring new terrain.

DHodges wrote:

Faust13 wrote:Science can never turn into religion,

I imagine the New Atheists would agree with that. But the idea only makes sense if you have faith in science.

Science is a human activity, and like anything people do, can be corrupted. Science provides a world-view, and that world-view can be accepted very much like a mythology is accepted - the results are accepted because they come from an authority, rather than accepting science as a method.

An example might be the Big Bang theory. Some people have accepted it because they have looked at the evidence and think it best fits the facts. Other people accept it because Science Says So - they accept it as a truth handed down from an authority, which is no different from believing something because it is written in the Bible.

On the flip side, Some people may have rejected the Big Bang theory because they think it is an inadequate explanation , or doesn't fit the known facts well. Other people might reject it because it conflicts with some other mythology they have (e.g., creation by Jehovah).

The Big Bang idea is a creation story. Every culture, every mythology has a creation story. It's a part of how a people see themselves, how they understand how the universe works. Whether that story is true or not has little bearing on the role it plays socially and psychologically.

Since science does have an air of respectiblity to it, some religions have tried to wrap themselves in its robes - e.g, Scientology and Christian Scientists.

Hmmm, after writing the above, I found a Dawkins essay on the topic.

What I mean is that the scientific method itself and unbiased research cannot be a religion, since it is the only thing we have. The big bang, is mostly theory motivated by psychology, it's not really that scientific and there's not enough evidence for it, it also contradicts other scientific views, ie causation. So when I say science can't be a religion, I mean real unbaised science. Scientology and Christian Science isn't GENUINE SCIENCE, so you can't use those examples.

Diebert: why deleting that fine post which was posted here just before this one? Please repost it!

Eliz: I agree. Cory, that was an excellent post - please repost it. I have a copy if you don't.

I removed it because a) I was having a bit of doubt about some of my judgements and uncertainty about my understanding of how Dan sees things, b) I told my self that I wouldn't post on the forum for a few months (and I wanted to stick to that plan), and c) I resolved to keep my posts short and devoid of guess work - but hell with it, maybe it's for the best - here it is:

......................................

Dan,

I was a bit confused about how you were being a bit of a moralist in regards to the issue of 'not insulting people because they don't find science interesting' - but then proceeding to say some very insulting things yourself (e.g. 'are you retarded, duh, etc'). Plus, the 'fuck off if you don't like science' actually isnt that different from Diogones telling a man he should kill himself if he can't be bothered to do philosophy. Also, the guy who had quoted it on his signature, despite he was not very philosophical was 'in' with a group of people who knew what he was refering to. Kind of an inside joke. Maybe not at the level of ironic, comedic, Kierkegaardian consciousness possessed by someone like yourself, but hey, people are determined to be what they are, some great, some not, some open to improving, others not.

Dan Rowden wrote: The problem is I have no patience for them at all. I cannot stand their arrogance. I will not stand for their arrogance. They think they are so much better than religious people and yet they are essentially no different.

I think this stems from a bit of a religious-dogmatic mindset on your end as well. I think they (Dawkinese types) are quite a bit different and better than fundies. The big factor that differentiates them, in my view, is, aside from their significantly greater degree of moral and intellectual refinement, is that these Dawkinese types have let go of their desire for literal-personal immortality (or perhaps they are rare enough to not even have had such desires to begin with), which is the crux of all religious belief and a great deal of wickedness. For instance, have you ever met a feverent believer in an intelligently-designing God who didn't also have faith that his sense of existing was immortal? The two always go hand in hand - - and that is the sort of belief induced intoxication that I think makes people dangerous. So if you can go beyond the wish for immortality, for an eternal sense of existing - then that is quite a significant jump. These people are significantly different from fundamentalists in that regard. It's a very significant paridigm shift, a commendable improvement. However, that doesnt mean I think their values are better than the ones held by yourself, Quinn, Solway. I don't imagine they are into the whole buddhist self denial thing - - but perhaps that's because they have had things a bit easier in the world, genetically and environmentally, more flowie, fun-loving, able to attach and detach from lovers more callously, etc. It's humbling to remember that people aren't really choosing to experience and interpret the world they way they do - - for some people life is mostly an exhilerating enjoyable challenge. For others, it's a rather bitter, anxious and miserable sort of experience. Then there are a few who experience the former, yet they have a conscience that nags and torments, so they inquire, explore, realize, become entrammeled in a delusional simulation of a heroic struggle, fall down, get up, inquire, explore, realize, become entrammeled in a simulation of a heroic struggle, fall down, get up, (repeat). Next thing they know, their experience has come to resemble the latter, without any hope of going back to the former. And so they come to appreciate QRS, Buddha, Kierkegaard, Jesus, etc.

Dan wrote: The problem is I have no patience for them at all. I cannot stand their arrogance. I will not stand for their arrogance.

Like Chocem and Diebert were saying, you were not exactly very seductive in your approach, but instead you were intimidating and at least giving the appearance of arrogance. Like the Tao te Ching says, "those who make a show of themselves are not respected" (something along those lines).

I think that's why I feel it was Solway who has had the most positive impact on me on this forum. He just has a certain patience, dryness and simplicity about him that I find very effective. Whereas with you Dan, despite you are one of the more conscious people I've come accross, I find a man who is too attached to his emotional enjoyment of being wittily irreverent and belligerent. Quinn has a similar sizzle that I think turns as many people off as it does on. (Naturyl's refusal to do a show with him comes to mind)

You say you can't stand these people, but in contempt, there always seems to be lurking a hidden envy, an unconscious desire for something about the thing or person you despise. As long as you have this contempt, or, as long as you are taking emotional pleasure in the dangling of the sort that generally causes this contempt and envy in others, I would say you are also arrogant.

Irrespective of Dan's emotional issues or non-issues (as the case may be), it is a teacher's prerogative to use any method to reach his students (or potential students). In other words, there is nothing intrinsically unwise about Dan's approach on that thread.

Now, Dan will probably say "I'm not a teacher (read: guru)." Ah, but in that situation he took the role, like it or not.

Carl G wrote:it is a teacher's prerogative to use any method to reach his students (or potential students).

What? How so?

I think that phrase should be reworded a bit...

It's a teacher's prerogative to use the best method of teaching to reach his students and that, obviously, was not the best method. That is the kind of method you use on a religious forum, bashing a few heads to get attention and hopefully snagging a few stragglers in the process. Dawkin's forum is full of people who are one step closer to reason and will absolutely not respond positively to an approach like that. If you're talking to a group of people who hold no value for logical arguments then fine but this a forum which prides itself on logic.