NUTSHELL!!

Since Religious Right can't put god into public schools they'll just send their kids to private schools and then get the Government to pay for it, which is pretty much vouchers in a nutshell.

Woah, hey now. It wasn't Richard Dawkins in the elevator; that was someone completely unrelated. Richard just posted a comment in his forum that essentially said she was being a baby about it and there were more important issues to make a fuss about.

@drattus: "But in a nutshell... many months back at a conference a woman in an elevator was made uncomfortable by a man, man turned out to be Richard Dawkins. People took sides and much drama ensued."

I'm no fan of atheism+ and that in spite of the fact that I do support most of their claimed causes. I just don't like the censorship and banning, the very conflation of religion with social causes that we've been fighting against for years, or the 'with us or against us' attitude I find when I look to see what all of the fuss is. noelplum99 (among others) has a sourced and detailed playlist of vids explaining his objections, long but it covers a lot of ground. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLl8YBXeamXSI4rnZraJTu3RDXnkImNwD7

Rather than a double post I'll reply to the statement by VoodooV above here as well. VoodooV says...

"This video is confusing, it doesn't really introduce itself or the problem very well."

I'm not subscribed to anyone directly involved in the fights so don't really have a horse in the race and haven't followed every detail. But in a nutshell... many months back at a conference a woman in an elevator was made uncomfortable by a man, man turned out to be Richard Dawkins. People took sides and much drama ensued.

Freethought blogs took on Thunderf00t as a writer and he expressed opinions which pissed off some of the others at the blog. More people took sides, more drama ensued and Thunderf00t was asked to leave.

And in the middle of this those who took the more (to them at least) 'feminist' view decided to start a new group, atheist+, even they seem to admit these days that the launch of the idea was ham handed and more confrontational than it needed to be and according to them it's all just a misunderstanding. According to their critics it's understood just fine, the critics just don't agree. Yet more people took sides and yet more drama ensued. And here we are.

My favorite comment on the whole mess was probably a post by TheMudbrooker at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLMy6zBft4s Can't say that I agree with every word of it but the end at least seems on point for my view. If they need a group to tell them what to do, a social structure, go back to church where they belong and leave the rest of us alone. It's hard enough as it is to get people to understand that atheist mean "not theist" and nothing more without these people confusing the issue. Regardless of any other opinions anyone might have about them for other reasons. I don't approve of mixing religion and politics and it's no more defensible to mix a lack of religion with politics. Separate debates even if they are both worthy on their own merits. It's not helpful.

I highly disagree with censoring the world my children hear.

I could rant - but that's it in a nutshell.

And if the Republican's plans hit all at once, people would still see everything go to shit. That's your whole problem in a nutshell. Nothing or no one is going to be a better way of governing. Everything is fucked, you're just clinging on for dear life (as are the UK). Tell you what though qm, I'd much rather think my taxes are going to help the people who need it, before the shit hit's the fan.

I'm a neuroscientist. I get it. I'm not saying it doesn't suck for this kid. Lots of things that happen suck for lots of people. I'm saying one cop tasering one kid doesn't constitute national news. People get tasered all the time. This one is particularly jarring because it's a kid. Thus, it's a heartstrings story, not one that will help you inform your decisions in any way whatsoever.

>> ^Murgy:

I'm not sure you understand what it is like to be shot with a taser, my friend.
To give you a very brief picture, I can pretty well guarantee that this child wouldn't have noticed the puncture wounds from the electrode prongs until long after the incident itself.
In a nutshell, an electroshock weapon seeks to exploit the way the nervous system works to make the brain think electrical impulses are being send from every muscle in the affected are to contract, even if a pair of said muscles are in direct opposition to each other. Obviously muscles pulling against each other is quite a painful thing. Hell, if an adrenaline release has occurred, these conflicting muscles can literally tear themselves off of the bone with a long enough shock.
At the time, though, much of the real pain comes from the simple interaction of sensory nerves and electricity. For the sake of simplicity, we'll call prong one A, prong two B, and motor nerve pathways C.
For the brief moment that said energy moves from point A to point C, all affected sensory nerves send the maximum amount of electrochemical signals as possible in response to what the nerves think is a harm causing force far greater than an electric shock actually is. This manifests itself as the greatest possible amount of pain from an extremely localized area, the amount of possible pain being proportional to the concentration of sensory nerves in the affected area. This then repeats itself during the transition from point C to point B.
>> ^bmacs27:
They aren't exactly knocking on doors or digging through leaked memos here. This story doesn't really address any of the real issues we're facing. It doesn't address unemployment, or our economic crisis. It doesn't address the global clusterfuck we're in the midst of. It isn't telling us anything we need to know about our elected officials, or how we're being governed (really, unless you consider some local cop to be governance). In the end it's just another piece about some asshole cop because that's what gets eyeballs from lefties. Same shit, different patriotic backdrop.

I'm not sure you understand what it is like to be shot with a taser, my friend.
To give you a very brief picture, I can pretty well guarantee that this child wouldn't have noticed the puncture wounds from the electrode prongs until long after the incident itself.
In a nutshell, an electroshock weapon seeks to exploit the way the nervous system works to make the brain think electrical impulses are being send from every muscle in the affected are to contract, even if a pair of said muscles are in direct opposition to each other. Obviously muscles pulling against each other is quite a painful thing. Hell, if an adrenaline release has occurred, these conflicting muscles can literally tear themselves off of the bone with a long enough shock.

At the time, though, much of the real pain comes from the simple interaction of sensory nerves and electricity. For the sake of simplicity, we'll call prong one A, prong two B, and motor nerve pathways C.
For the brief moment that said energy moves from point A to point C, all affected sensory nerves send the maximum amount of electrochemical signals as possible in response to what the nerves think is a harm causing force far greater than an electric shock actually is. This manifests itself as the greatest possible amount of pain from an extremely localized area, the amount of possible pain being proportional to the concentration of sensory nerves in the affected area. This then repeats itself during the transition from point C to point B.

>> ^bmacs27:

They aren't exactly knocking on doors or digging through leaked memos here. This story doesn't really address any of the real issues we're facing. It doesn't address unemployment, or our economic crisis. It doesn't address the global clusterfuck we're in the midst of. It isn't telling us anything we need to know about our elected officials, or how we're being governed (really, unless you consider some local cop to be governance). In the end it's just another piece about some asshole cop because that's what gets eyeballs from lefties. Same shit, different patriotic backdrop.

@def -- interesting that Orson Scott Card is the author of your understanding, since he is a deeply faithful Mormon who built many of his novels on Mormon myths. (Ender's Game, my brother tells me, is taken almost directly from Mormon stories.)

My brother converted to Mormonism in his early 20s. Wasn't raised in a church. Aerospace engineer, military pilot. You would think he would be immune.

I'll never forget him telling me -- once, never to be repeated -- that the church was telling him to believe things that were tough to accept, but he "chose to have faith."

That's it in a nutshell. You trade rationality for the other benefits, as others have noted here.

@shinyblurry

[me:] … invited … yadda yadda. [you:]I get your overall point.

That's all that matters. And I'll add that I too think you're a valuable member. I've even taken to defending you around the place, if you can believe that.

Now on to the other topics.

Apparently you haven't heard of Chiastic structure:

You're right, I hadn't heard of it. That's neat stuff. But it doesn't change the fact that Matthew's choice to use that structure created *an error in the text*.

No, they can't be scientifically measured. You would never know during your test whether God was simply feeding you a certain kind of result. Think about it. God knows the entire time that you're trying to test for His existence outside of what He ordained (faith in Jesus Christ). His choice is either to give you results that will prove His existence outside of Christ or results that will make it ambiguous. What do you think He is going to do?

As far as I can tell, either you don't understand science or my mind is incapable of understanding how all the things you're saying about God can be true at once. This is going nowhere. I'm dropping this prayer/science topic.

You're acting is if I have no evidence for my beliefs.

No. I'm acting as if you are not giving appropriate weight to the evidence on both sides. All evidence against your beliefs, you massage into being compatible with some very, very loose rules, to the point now where words in the Bible don't even count as words anymore. Yet any mote of evidence against my beliefs (even things that aren't evidence at all, such as lack of an answer --which is entirely consistent with a world without a God) you throw around like it's absolute proof not only that I'm wrong, but further that you're right. You even tell me that I'm suffering cognitive dissonance—not that you *think* I might be, but that I am. Basic statements of humility elude you, like, "Humans are far too complicated even for humans to understand, and therefore any argument from complexity/arrogance/hubris applies to belief in the existence of God just as much as it applies to belief that humans invented God." And even after you say something like that (I believe you did acknowledge in another thread that it's technically possible you're wrong), you continue to speak like you're right and I’m wrong. In a nutshell, I come to the table with my beliefs, I acknowledge they are my beliefs, and I act towards you as if they are only beliefs, not absolute fact. And that's the basic humility I'm asking for in return, and which frankly I require to have a real conversation about the existence of God.

My worldview is internally consistent, and it is also rational.

I disagree that it's rational, for the fact that you hold it to be absolutely true, bar nothing. From where I stand, it's irrational for a mere human to hold that they are absolutely correct about their interpretation of anything as complex, critical and subjective as the things you claim about God and the Bible.

you reject the evidence I have receive apriori.

As a rational actor, I must be sceptical of your subjective evidence. To accept it OR dismiss it would be irrational of me.

To you there must always be some other explanation … You've already come to the conclusion that … Rather than letting the evidence interpret the conclusion, you are interpreting the evidence through the conclusion.

Anybody willing to look can see that there are internally consistent plausible alternatives to your beliefs. I say again and again only that there are alternative possibilities. I have come to no "conclusions" about anything. As a scientific-minded person, I simply cannot think so rigidly, ever, especially not about something as important as the nature of the universe. I mostly see how the evidence could fit in your worldview. Sometimes I don't, and that's OK. I suggest that there are other possibilities with words like, "could", "maybe", "I think," "From where I stand," and so forth. And nearly every time you treat me like I'm claiming atheism is absolutely 100% correct, end of conversation. The only thing I believe I'm 100% correct about is *that I have proposed* internally consistent plausible alternatives to the existence of God. That's all I'm ever saying: other things could be possible. Read all my messages again; I'm pretty consistent. So I'll ask you again, please read my words literally, not with some defensive filter like every sentence of mine is a skewer.

It was only when I questioned that and investigated the evidence that I found [the Bible was right and science was wrong].

What evidence do you have that science is wrong? I'm not saying science is perfect (it's human), but you're no expert to claim that what you've read is scientifically valid. To be frank, you've got a reputation on the Sift for quotemining and have been caught at least once on the Steven Pinker quote. People with insignificant scientific backgrounds and/or clear non-scientific primary agendas don't count.

It's only a literal reading [of the Bible] that makes any sense.

A literal reading of the Bible gives two different accounts of the same genealogy. That doesn't make sense.

Even atheists know that:

You mean, "at least one atheist once thought that, maybe". A quick out of context copy-paste from christianforums.com of a vague quote from a 1978 periodical by a group that neither speaks for nor represents atheists. Why bother? You can do better.

Das ist DJ Flula. He loves to dance. Dance with his poodle, dance with his Oompa, dance with his Doner kebab, dance with some bread!

http://videosift.com/video/Germany-in-a-nutshell-Kebab-poodles-grandfathers-and-bread

You mean, he passed Obamacare in MA? No, I'm sure he's done stuff, but considering what a flip-flop he is, nothing he did in the past is useful to determine what he's like now except for what he's still doing now. He has done an about-face on so many things, the biggest being the healthcare mandate.>> ^bareboards2:

@messenger, well, he did pass Romneycare in MA. That helped a lot of people. He's not just one thing.
As to the rest of it, I had just finished reading this:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/09/11/mitt-romney
-in-a-nutshell
right before I read your post above.
Somehow, to me, that link supports what you are saying, in a mushy non-specific way.

@messenger, well, he did pass Romneycare in MA. That helped a lot of people. He's not just one thing.

As to the rest of it, I had just finished reading this:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/09/11/mitt-romney-in-a-nutshell

right before I read your post above.

Somehow, to me, that link supports what you are saying, in a mushy non-specific way.

"If I'm gonna be a conqueror and win my father's love"

That's "W" explained in a nutshell.

Somebody posted about this thread...a psychiatrist supposedly. Here's what he had to say about that thread

"Hi all. I'm a psychiatrist. My main area of clinical work is emergency psychiatry, and my main research interest is functional brain imaging. I'd like to start a discussion about the rapist thread, which I see as a serious danger. In a nutshell:
Rape is a crime which sometimes hinges directly on feelings of power over the victim.
That power often loses its meaning if the victim is unconscious. Many rapists typically need a victim who knows they are being victimized.
This victim is the rapist's audience. This is crucial.
The audience gives the rapist pleasure, euphoric delight from unfettered, witnessed suffering. That euphoria is intense and is possibly driven by the same neurobiology involved in a drug high.
Now, when Reddit invites rapists to retell their stories, they offer an audience of thousands. The possibility that individuals reading these stories will be horrified afresh is very appealing to some rapists. It’s neurobiologically very much like anticipating drug use.
Note: the audience doesn’t actually need to be horrified. In the mind of the rapist, the possibility of horrifying an audience is what is appealing.
Ever wonder what makes addicts keep using? A major factor is the craving that comes from recalling the feelings associated with the pleasurable activity or drug. Cocaine addicts, active or in recovery, who are asked to think about using cocaine have measurable brain changes precisely when they report cravings. We haven't actually measured this in rapists, but we suspect it's highly analogous.
Thus, the Reddit rape forum is very possibly triggering rape cravings in rapists.
It is also teaching rapists how to rape better via shared stories, the same way we teach new participants to improve in any field, by sharing our experiences.
I plan to be available to discuss this, so jump in."



http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/xf5c2/reddit_are_you_aware_how_dangerous_the_askarapist/