Some people are never satisfied. Personally, I'm so tired of the extremists views on both sides (and believe me, Pat Robertson is often the source of pretty nasty extreme views) that this was actually refreshing. Some people are just so cynical, they can't appreciate anything less than Pat Robertson and Jesus himself coming forward as atheists.

Here's my view on it for those who may care:

Religion is pretty worthless. Sure it's been the cause of lots of horrible (and good) things through history, but it's also an attempt to combine what some deem as fact with something that's so beyond fact that we can't even comprehend it. It's man made. Full of errors and contradictions, blah, blah, blah. We all know that. Basically it all just falls apart whenever you try to throw science in there. It's like judging an apple by the standards of screwdriver.

So let's look at just the spiritual side of things. This is where I hang out. I see it as something beyond science (though uses science as it's tool) and factual understanding. It goes beyond nitpicking this fact and that falsehood. It's just a thing in the air that you can either be in touch with or not. If you are (and I am) then it fills a gap. Gives you hope. Comfort. Peace. Lots of things that are indescribable. But you feel better when you have it and you can't choose to believe in it or not. You just do. If you don't buy into it, then there is no gap to begin with. Doesn't make you smarter or better. You just have different needs.

Now maybe that means that in some dark recess of your psyche that if you're in touch with this spiritual side of things, then you die believing you'll be in an amazing place for eternity. And so you are. Or you don't believe, and so you aren't. Neither is better or worse compared to the other because they have no business being compared to the other. They don't coexist. They just both exist.

I think whatever it is that you believe in sets a standard for your life. Following those things, being true to those things, is what it's all about. This completes you. You can't force them on others or yourself for that matter. You can't punish others for not playing by your rules. You just have to play by your own (as long as you don't harm others).

And I'm tired of spiritualism HAVING to mean pure magic. Science is magic. Science is the most amazing magic. Does things you'd never believe. It's not an insult. It's just makes the whole damn system that much more incredible. If you choose to call that magic, go right ahead. It's just a word. Before long we'll realize that science can do things magic only dreamed of and that's pretty damn magical.

By the way, I'm not typing this trying to change anyone's mind or act like it's some kind of original thought. I'm just typing some thoughts. I like this kind of shit. Debates are great and healthy. I'm just sick of people hating on or insulting folks for believing in their heart something that's different.

I disagree with the end point though. I think there is always going to be some form of religion. It's just that religion will be forced to become more rational and compatible with science.

Freedom of religion is a good thing. Religion is not inherently bad. It's just how it's used.

Fundamentally the only real problem with religion is its encroachment into gov't. solve that problem and religion and science can and will coexist. There are plenty of people out there who believe in a creator but can still engage in logic and reason.

For the most part, I don't get worked up over (or involved in) this subject due to the below 2 paragraphs.

If an ethicist historian mediator came up with the most reasonable coexistence plan while gaining as much respectable balance between the opposing views, I doubt the fighting would stop. Another reason or another enemy would be identified immediately or shortly after by one or all parties.

Unfortunately there is a lack of coexistence, as turning to violence is accepted as the means to a solution too quickly for rational discourse to occur or even maintain stability for a long enough term to allow such reasonable positions focused towards permanent/fair resolutions to be taken.. and given that there are usually multiple factions on any side, it only takes one to kick it all off again.

@messenger Gorilla Warfare (in conversations) is a hard thing to prevent/combat when your opponent practices it so consistently. Good luck.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Very interesting, *quality video and discussion. I would say there is probably some under-reported aggression and violence in Japan- but in general a whole hell of a lot less than anywhere else I have lived. In 3.5 years there- never saw a fight, never saw any violence that I remember - there was one crazy guy who was running around yelling at people - but that's it. Violence by Yakuza does happen, but it seems aggrandised from films. I think Yakuza are mainly loan sharks, brothel owners and black marketeers.

For whatever reason, violence is baked into the US culture - tied in maybe with a rugged frontier individualist spirit. Americans love their guns. My family too. My dad always carried a nickel-plated '38 under his car seat, which he called his "merging assistance device".

>> ^legacy0100:

I would have to partly disagree on this one. I believe high density does attribute to more aggression. Dr. Frans de Waal points out that high density alone does not always lead to aggression, and that there are other factors that attribute to reconciliation and peaceful coexistence. This much I agree with. However, this should not be used to throw away the immense impact over population has on human aggression.
He gives several different examples, one including about the chimpanzees in tight confined space. I find his claims very hard to believe. Chimps get very frustrated and show abnormal, anti-social behavior when they are in a tight confined space for a long period of time. Their hairs fall out, they bite their own knuckles or even each other. They show aggression to inexperienced moms and to their babies. It could be that Dr. de Waal may be omitting some factors in here. The chimps he is referring to may be from a zoo where they are put in small confined space when it's time to goto sleep, but then are let out to a bigger enclosure where they can run and play. This may be a bad example, but we don't really know because he doesn't reveal the source of his data. Perhaps his research did confine the chimps to a tight space all throughout the experiment. If so, then the duration of dwelling in tight enclosure is a big factor, but he didn't cite anything about that either.
I also would like to point out that there's generally a lot less food intake and physical activity in urban Japanese society. Your typical Japanese sushi portions can testify for that, as well as various hikikomori symptoms people suffer in overly populated Japanese cities.
Dr. de Waal says there's less crime in Japan, but this simply isn't true. He is overly reliant on only the statistics reported by the government, and he isn't are of the deep rooted cultural practices that mask these aggressions to the outside world. Dr. De Waal never mentions about the various odd symptoms and personal sacrifice everyone must make in order to maintain the order there. Violence is everyday life in Japanese society, including the fairly well known presence of Yakuza. Japanese people often get bullied by the Yakuza, but they do not report these events because for one, they are afraid of retaliation, and two, Yakuza has deep rooted connections with the government. Yakuza usually do not engage anyone foreign simply because it would get the embassies involved, and they do cannot exert any influence in foreign lands. So they only stick to bullying Japanese people, and stay clear of foreigners. Even in high school physical violence is rampant. Students fight or bully each other all the time, but it is not seen as a crime, but merely 'part of growing up'. Nobody reports anything, so the crime data remains low.
Compare this with cities in Netherlands. It is highly populated, but enjoys abundance of resources thanks to laxed attitude toward drugs and sex, which are themselves ways to alleviate aggression. People in Netherlands are also very mobile because of their well developed transportation infrastructure including extensive bike lanes, roads and trains. They are also in close proximity to larger open areas in Germany or France where they regularly escape to thanks to their abundance in resource, while in Japan people are very much confined to their own living quarters and their workplace, who usually cannot afford to take frequent vacations due to high expectation from bosses as well as fierce competition towards promotion. Imagine regular US/UK office space antics times ten.
Overall I find Dr. de Waal's argument only partially credible and would like to look into his experiments and his citations before acknowledging this as fact.
I remember Dag and his wife saying they used to live in Japan. I would like to hear their opinion about this issue and Japanese society being used as proof to this theory.

I would have to partly disagree on this one. I believe high density does attribute to more aggression. Dr. Frans de Waal points out that high density alone does not always lead to aggression, and that there are other factors that attribute to reconciliation and peaceful coexistence. This much I agree with. However, this should not be used to throw away the immense impact over population has on human aggression.

He gives several different examples, one including about the chimpanzees in tight confined space. I find his claims very hard to believe. Chimps get very frustrated and show abnormal, anti-social behavior when they are in a tight confined space for a long period of time. Their hairs fall out, they bite their own knuckles or even each other. They show aggression to inexperienced moms and to their babies. It could be that Dr. de Waal may be omitting some factors in here. The chimps he is referring to may be from a zoo where they are put in small confined space when it's time to goto sleep, but then are let out to a bigger enclosure where they can run and play. This may be a bad example, but we don't really know because he doesn't reveal the source of his data. Perhaps his research did confine the chimps to a tight space all throughout the experiment. If so, then the duration of dwelling in tight enclosure is a big factor, but he didn't cite anything about that either.

I also would like to point out that there's generally a lot less food intake and physical activity in urban Japanese society. Your typical Japanese sushi portions can testify for that, as well as various hikikomori symptoms people suffer in overly populated Japanese cities.

Dr. de Waal says there's less crime in Japan, but this simply isn't true. He is overly reliant on only the statistics reported by the government, and he isn't are of the deep rooted cultural practices that mask these aggressions to the outside world. Dr. De Waal never mentions about the various odd symptoms and personal sacrifice everyone must make in order to maintain the order there. Violence is everyday life in Japanese society, including the fairly well known presence of Yakuza. Japanese people often get bullied by the Yakuza, but they do not report these events because for one, they are afraid of retaliation, and two, Yakuza has deep rooted connections with the government. Yakuza usually do not engage anyone foreign simply because it would get the embassies involved, and they do cannot exert any influence in foreign lands. So they only stick to bullying Japanese people, and stay clear of foreigners. Even in high school physical violence is rampant. Students fight or bully each other all the time, but it is not seen as a crime, but merely 'part of growing up'. Nobody reports anything, so the crime data remains low.

Compare this with cities in Netherlands. It is highly populated, but enjoys abundance of resources thanks to laxed attitude toward drugs and sex, which are themselves ways to alleviate aggression. People in Netherlands are also very mobile because of their well developed transportation infrastructure including extensive bike lanes, roads and trains. They are also in close proximity to larger open areas in Germany or France where they regularly escape to thanks to their abundance in resource, while in Japan people are very much confined to their own living quarters and their workplace, who usually cannot afford to take frequent vacations due to high expectation from bosses as well as fierce competition towards promotion. Imagine regular US/UK office space antics times ten.

Overall I find Dr. de Waal's argument only partially credible and would like to look into his experiments and his citations before acknowledging this as fact.

I remember Dag and his wife saying they used to live in Japan. I would like to hear their opinion about this issue and Japanese society being used as proof to this theory.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

Why is this? Surely the intent matters. Take Ann Coulter, for instance. She often couches the ridiculous stuff she says in humor. Now the humor isn't usually very good, but suppose it was. Would that somehow magically make the content of what she is saying OK?

You're missing the point. Of course the intent matters. The intent goes to whether it's funny. Nothing Ann Coulter says can be funny because she's a fucking idiot. On the other hand, Stephen Colbert could repeat an exact speech of hers verbatim and be hilarious.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

If she's using humor to promulgate an ignorant and bigoted worldview, we can still call her out on the ignorance and bigotry.

Yep and that's exactly what we do. I want to break this down a bit.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

If she's using humor....

I would replace "using humor" with "attempting to use humour".

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

... to promulgate an ignorant and bigoted worldview...

and that's the point. Coulter isn't funny because she actually believes the vile crap she's espousing. If someone makes a joke about rape and actually believes that rape is in anyway acceptable.... that's not funny. If someone is using a joke about a horrific situation to make you think or take you to such an uncomfortable place that your only escape is to laugh at it, that's comedy genius.


>> ^Sotto_Voce:

Patrice O'Neal is a more pertinent example, and I talked about this in the other thread. He was a genuinely funny guy, and in his act (and elsewhere) he said a lot of horrible things about women. The thing is, he actually meant a lot of that stuff. Even his close friends admit that he was an actual misogynist. Does the fact that he was also funny somehow make his misogyny inoffensive?

I don't really want to comment on this because I'm not really familiar with O'Neals work or life. But let's assume for the sake of argument that what you say is true. It's possible to be really funny and still say unfunny things. If he was genuinely promoting misogyny is some of his material, did you still find it funny?

Personally, if something feels that wrong to me, I find it hard to see humour in it.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

Also, I think there are two separate points to consider here that some people (not necessarily you) are getting mixed up: (1) Are rape jokes funny?, (2) Are rape jokes offensive? The answer to both questions is "Some of them are." And the thing is, sometimes the exact same joke can be both funny and offensive. These properties can coexist.

I don't really believe so. A funny joke can be shocking, uncomfortable or even borderline offensive, but if you're actually laughing at something, the joke itself was not sufficiently offensive to become unfunny.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

Even if Tosh's joke had been hilarious (which it obviously wasn't) it still would have been really dickish, and I still would have thought that he ought to make a genuine apology to the woman if he is a decent human being.


To me, it's about your own moral compass. Toshs joke wasn't funny precisely because there was only dickishness to a relatively innocent victim (I say relatively because she went to his show, it's not like he's an unknown).

>> ^ChaosEngine:

My take on the subject is simple: is it funny?
That's the end of it where comedy is concerned. Regardless of what was said, if the content, delivery and context all add up to humour, then by definition it's not offensive to me.


Why is this? Surely the intent matters. Take Ann Coulter, for instance. She often couches the ridiculous stuff she says in humor. Now the humor isn't usually very good, but suppose it was. Would that somehow magically make the content of what she is saying OK? I don't think so. If she's using humor to promulgate an ignorant and bigoted worldview, we can still call her out on the ignorance and bigotry.

Patrice O'Neal is a more pertinent example, and I talked about this in the other thread. He was a genuinely funny guy, and in his act (and elsewhere) he said a lot of horrible things about women. The thing is, he actually meant a lot of that stuff. Even his close friends admit that he was an actual misogynist. Does the fact that he was also funny somehow make his misogyny inoffensive?

Also, I think there are two separate points to consider here that some people (not necessarily you) are getting mixed up: (1) Are rape jokes funny?, (2) Are rape jokes offensive? The answer to both questions is "Some of them are." And the thing is, sometimes the exact same joke can be both funny and offensive. These properties can coexist. An actual racist can make a funny race joke, just like an actual misogynist can make a funny joke about women. The funniness does not erase the fact that these jokes, considering the intent behind them, should be condemned. Even if Tosh's joke had been hilarious (which it obviously wasn't) it still would have been really dickish, and I still would have thought that he ought to make a genuine apology to the woman if he is a decent human being.

>> ^rottenseed:

That wikipedia entry was way too simple in that it doesn't explain boo but the equations. I think it boils down to conservation of (angular) momentum when an object has angular momentum along (3) axes. So far I can't give but a rudimentary explanation. A more simple system that would convey the fundamentals would if you were to hold a spinning bike wheel while sitting in an office chair (that can spin). As you rotate your arms (holding the axis of bicycle tire spin) the angular momentum lost will be gained in the seat you're sitting on (making you spin). Here, watch this doofus and see for yourself...

I don't know if it's more complicated in theory, or just in added dimensions
>>


^dannym3141:
It's a shame that hyperphysics doesn't have anything on this cos they're usually a good balance of words and maths (i find the wikipedia entry disappointingly mathematical; i expect a bit of background and discussion) as this is something i discovered as a kid playing with the sky remote.
I used to hold the controller at the base with a thumb and a finger or two, then try to flip it end over end one full flip and catch it in the palm of my hand. I found it really hard, but i eventually worked out that it was because i was imparting some sort of force to it as my wrist twisted because if i added more twist it would do a complete spin on both axes and land nicely, and when i tried less twist it would only do half a turn on that axis.
So then i started to hold it across, with one thumb and a finger (bit like a barre grip for a guitarist) straight across it width ways and gently flip it, and bet people they couldn't do it every time but i could



You don't lose angular momentum by rotating the wheel. When you hold the bicycle wheel vertically, the angular momentum vector of the system in the axis of you and your seat is 0, as the angular momentum of the wheel is not in that same axis.

When you turn the wheel horizontal, the angular momentum vector is pointing either up or down depending on which way you turn it. So the chair spins in such a way that it sets up an opposing angular momentum vector (ie. by spinning opposite way to the wheel) to make the net ang' mom' 0 in that axis.

I think it is likely to have something to do with the moment of inertia of the object about the 3 different axes, and probably the axis around which it is unstable has the smallest value of angular momentum (don't wish to prove that for the object in the video lol). I would call on the example of my tv remote. I've just tried spinning it around two axes - end over end, and helicoptor wise. The third axis is width ways, and you don't even need maths to intuit that i require less force to spin it width ways; more of the mass is centred towards the axis, and angular momentum is dependant upon mass and the distance of the mass from the axis of rotation.

So if it's got less angular momentum, it will not only require less force to make it rotate (remember i have to use my trick to reduce force imparted on either side of the controller as i toss it), but it also has less resistance (any?) to being spun in that axis whilst already spinning in another.

My theory at least. I have a feeling it's close as that seems to tie in with the maths too. Could just be something that only makes sense mathematically. It's not like anyone's ever explained why fermions can't coexist in the same quantum state to me in anything but maths either.

They should have shown a movie of the Middle East peacefully coexisting, would have confused the fuck out of em...

"Hadara, where are we again, this can't be Israel?!?!?!"

oh yes i get your point as well and find it quite agreeable. just having some fun.

i've always appreciated the idea that true communism and totalitarianism could not coexist, and thus an unfair perception has been given to that word as well.

the root of communism we like quite well when we have a great community.

>> ^NetRunner:

I do not often feel the urge to state my admiration for a comment, but this time, I think, I must. Nice one.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Brothers and sisters.

As an atheist, and a fairly outspoken one at that, I don't feel like Hedges trying to mischaracterize myself or my atheism. I feel like he is trying to challenge me, to keep me from being hypocritical and to make sure that my anger is turned only towards those who do harm, regardless of faith.

I think his criticism of Harris and Hitch have more to do with American attitudes on the middle east than atheists attitudes. Most Americans, myself included, know very little about that region, and what little I/we do know is all negative - sexism, genital mutilation, death threats against cartoonists, jihad, terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, etc. I assume a more realistic picture of the middle east would more closely resemble people of any country. I assume they love their friends and family, that they wish for a better life and a better world for their kids, that they enjoy art and music, that they have skills and hobbies and struggle to make ends meet, that they laugh and joke and mock and criticize the extremists of their country the way we do in ours, that they are frustrated with politics and the power the privileged few lord over them... but portraying humanity of the people in the middle east is something that is simply not done in American media.

I believe that we atheists, who value tolerance, should be making these arguments ourselves, and not trying to brush it under the rug when one of our public figures gets called out. I'm sure if you go through my comments over the years, I've probably made countless fruitless, unproductive and spiteful things about religion. I'm going to make an effort to do and say things differently in the future.

I'm down for coexisting with good people of all walks of life. We all have a common enemy in the powerful individuals who have seized control of our country. I don't want to fight with well intentioned Christians anymore; I want to fight along side them. I want to embrace the social justice that has long been a tradition of both liberalism and Catholicism - among other religions. I want to embrace throwing the money changers out of our democratic temples. I want a society that can be judged on how it treats the least among us. I want to live in a tighter knit, more connected and stronger society; not a selfish, paranoid and weaker one.

I think Hedges sees the problems of our time with remarkable clarity. I'm not threatened by him.

Brothers and sisters.

As an atheist, and a fairly outspoken one at that, I don't feel like Hedges trying to mischaracterize myself or my atheism. I feel like he is trying to challenge me, to keep me from being hypocritical and to make sure that my anger is turned only towards those who do harm, regardless of faith.

I think his criticism of Harris and Hitch have more to do with American attitudes on the middle east than atheists attitudes. Most Americans, myself included, know very little about that region, and what little I/we do know is all negative - sexism, genital mutilation, death threats against cartoonists, jihad, terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, etc. I assume a more realistic picture of the middle east would more closely resemble people of any country. I assume they love their friends and family, that they wish for a better life and a better world for their kids, that they enjoy art and music, that they have skills and hobbies and struggle to make ends meet, that they laugh and joke and mock and criticize the extremists of their country the way we do in ours, that they are frustrated with politics and the power the privileged few lord over them... but portraying humanity of the people in the middle east is something that is simply not done in American media.

I believe that we atheists, who value tolerance, should be making these arguments ourselves, and not trying to brush it under the rug when one of our public figures gets called out. I'm sure if you go through my comments over the years, I've probably made countless fruitless, unproductive and spiteful things about religion. I'm going to make an effort to do and say things differently in the future.

I'm down for coexisting with good people of all walks of life. We all have a common enemy in the powerful individuals who have seized control of our country. I don't want to fight with well intentioned Christians anymore; I want to fight along side them. I want to embrace the social justice that has long been a tradition of both liberalism and Catholicism - among other religions. I want to embrace throwing the money changers out of our democratic temples. I want a society that can be judged on how it treats the least among us. I want to live in a tighter knit, more connected and stronger society; not a selfish, paranoid and weaker one.

I think Hedges sees the problems of our time with remarkable clarity. I'm not threatened by him.

When the church interferes with science, especially in the historical examples where they wielded a lot of power, I consider religion and science to be clashing, instead of coexisting happily. I see your point in making the distinction between church and religion - but when the church interferes in the name of religion I can't consider religion and science to be "coexisting peacefully." Just my 2c

ed: meant to make this a video reply, whoops! oh well.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^carneval:

I love NDT, but I don't agree with his statement that science and religion have been happily coexisting for centuries...
What about (for example) heliocentricity? The church was not too happy with that originally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science
That article indicates that there were, at some points, synergistic effects between the church and scientific establishment; I think happy coexistence is a major exaggeration, though.


Don't confuse, "the church" with the whole of all religious people. One church for one sect of one religion does not the majority of religious minded people make, which was the whole point

Many of the great thinkers, like Newton and Georg Cantor were not the only influential religious people either, the list is huge. I think there has been times where a person has been singled out, like Galileo, but even he was left to his own devices till he got a little more preachy with his ideas; he was a very blunt man

>> ^carneval:

I love NDT, but I don't agree with his statement that science and religion have been happily coexisting for centuries...
What about (for example) heliocentricity? The church was not too happy with that originally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science
That article indicates that there were, at some points, synergistic effects between the church and scientific establishment; I think happy coexistence is a major exaggeration, though.


Don't confuse, "the church" with the whole of all religious people. One church for one sect of one religion does not the majority of religious minded people make, which was the whole point

Many of the great thinkers, like Newton and Georg Cantor were not the only influential religious people either, the list is huge. I think there has been times where a person has been singled out, like Galileo, but even he was left to his own devices till he got a little more preachy with his ideas; he was a very blunt man

I love NDT, but I don't agree with his statement that science and religion have been happily coexisting for centuries...
What about (for example) heliocentricity? The church was not too happy with that originally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science

That article indicates that there were, at some points, synergistic effects between the church and scientific establishment; I think happy coexistence is a major exaggeration, though.