It's natural that atheists proselytize, because atheism is a religion:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6034949/Atheism-Is-Protected-As-a-Religion-says-Court-

It has its own creation story:

"Thus, a century ago, [it was] Darwinism against Christian orthodoxy. To-day the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervour, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith."

Grene, Marjorie [Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of California, Davis], "The Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, Vol. 74, November 1959, pp.48-56, p.49

with its own miracles:

"Time is, in fact, the hero of the plot... given so much time the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles."
George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Physics and Chemistry of Life, 1955, p. 12.

In which its adherants have total faith:

I have faith and belief myself... I believe that nothing beyond those natural laws is needed. I have no evidence for this. It is simply what I have faith in and what I believe.

Isaac Asimov
Counting the Eons P.10

I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible: spontaneous generation arising to evolution

George Wald - Harvard Professor
Nobel Laureate

They believe it even in the face of contradicting evidence

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.

Francis Crick Nobel Laureate
What Mad Pursuit p.138 1988

Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the Theory of Evolution from Biology, Biogeography, and Paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.

EJH Cornor, Cambridge
Contemporary Botanical Thought p.61

It provides a comprehensive belief system:

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideaology, a secular religion- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with its meaning and morality...

Michael Ruse Florida State University
National Post 5/13/00

Atheists know they are right no matter what:

No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.

Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182

Even if they have to suppress the truth to prove it:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University], "Billions and Billions of Demons", Review of "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997. (Emphasis in original)

"In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling."

Erasmus Darwin, in a letter to his brother Charles, after reading his new book, "The Origin of Species," in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life of Charles Darwin," [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p215.

They are true believers:

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.

francis collins human genome project

It won't be long before there are atheists churches and street preachers handing out tracks.

@dystopianfuturetoday

1a. Social stratification is increasing in every country around the world. It's due to globalization and automation, not to domestic policy. People who work smart and hard doing 21st century work are contributing more to society every year, and people who prefer work that can easily be automated are contributing less to society each year. Resistance to that is just the luddites burning down loom machines all over again.

1b. My lazy collectivist friends who grew up with more advantages than I did all contribute hardly anything to society, whereas large numbers of consumers enjoy the results of my labor. Economics is multi-sum by definition because unless both parties benefit, no trade can be completed. Trade creates value all around.

Some regulation is reasonable.

2. Problems in the US are generally due to (1) inevitable globalization (only 21st century labor is valuable now) and (2) to population replacement. (We're in the process of replacing a high education white/jewish/asian society with a low education non-Asian minority society. That's why California went from being one of the most well-off states in the country to being literally #50 out of #50 on some measures, despite having very liberal policies on education spending, teacher salaries, etc.)

3. Read the NYT article that was linked, and then wonder why virtually all liberal academics will lie about that article and about HBD (human bio-diversity) in general if you ask them about it. Reading Pinker's Blank Slate is a good start.

4. A free society means you don't have to cover the costs of your stupid neighbors who are exercising their right to be stupid and to reject your sound advice. Arguments counter to that are just an excuse for liberals to avoid pursuing their human potential and working smart and hard. My productivity already subsidizes my lazy friends that I grew up with... it's weird to try to increase subsidies for stupid ideas.


It appears to be the case that even if we assume voting liberal is best for society, holding liberal beliefs in your private life greatly reduces your ability to contribute to society, because liberalism makes its adherents think of smart hard work and careerism as slavery rather than contribution and personal development.

@dystopianfuturetoday

Yeah, I'm sure most libertarians aren't high-IQ types, but I can't think of a strong counter-argument against the statement about averages. I think the argument for it is:

1. Libertarianism is described by advocates as contributing to the world through successful individualism in an economic meritocracy, whereas liberalism and conservatism are described by advocates as contributing to the world through collectivist goals and social tastes.

2. Liberalism and conservatism both have strong below average IQ segments. Among conservatives, it's in the form of hillbillies and the religious, and among liberals, it's in the form of educational achievement gaps among non-Asian minorities (with Asian minorities and Jewish minorities scoring above European-descended groups). I can't think of any below average IQ segment within libertarianism.


Personally, I haven't read much Milton Friedman, but the people I've been exposed to who seem to me to be the smartest people alive - Peter Thiel, Paul Graham, and Steven Pinker - are all libertarian.

Strange that this video gets love, but the video I posted a couple a months ago got widely panned.

I don't take any stance or hold any belief about NDEs, but think the conversation about the controversy is, at the very least, interesting enough to have.

As @SDGundamX stated:
"Steven Pinker's (indirect) response to [indications of NDEs]:
http://videosift.com/video/Steven-Pinker-on-Mind-Brain-Unity"

Steven Pinker's (indirect) response to Chopra:

http://videosift.com/video/Steven-Pinker-on-Mind-Brain-Unity

>> ^Enzoblue:

Ok, so did he say that the reason democracy allows the freedom of assembly is so that the leaders can see all there enemies in one place?


No, he was saying democracies value freedom of assembly because democracies require freedom of assembly to form. Everyone needs to know that other people feel the same way they do because it gives you collective power. If a group of people want to form a different type of government, they must first collectively agree that the current government is crappy, and you can't do that without the freedom to group up and communicate.

Obviously, increasing connectedness through communications technology is having quite an effect on that whole "I know that they know that I know" thing. Not only does information spread quickly, but the knowledge that other people know the same things you know also spreads faster than it ever has in the past.

Your video, RSA: Steven Pinker - Language as a Window into Human Nature, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 6 Badge!

>> ^blankfist:

There's a power vacuum now. I worry who'll fill it. Another puppet? Another extremist? Or can they truly have a representational government?


The vacuum is being filled by the army with high acceptance by the people. The behaviour of the Egyptian army over the past few weeks has been truly amazing. They read the people and the tide extremely well and should be commended for how they handled themselves.

It's a shame that the same could not be said of the police; who wasted 300 people's lives.

The internet played a massive role in this revolution; kinda ties in nicely with the recent Steven Pinker sift which covers mutual knowledge; which facebook and twitter provided in this instance.

Hopefully it also serves as a warning to other regimes, that if they're not serving their people; there is still a breaking point.

Mubarek's address yesterday was a total facepalm. The first half he almost sounded half convincing that he had the people's interests at heart (apart from the patronising "from a father to his sons" opening). Then any small chance he had he blew out of the water when he started talking about himself, and how great he was.

Nobody knows who will lead Egypt yet, and there's going to be lots of difficulties because of the region they are in; but I really hope it works out for them. I think the people will have very little tolerance for being hoodwinked.

I like Pinker, he's always interesting. *science

Thanks bud!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
*promote

And Socialist Nazis

Every large movement has more than its share of fringe elements who try to maximize their own kookery by attaching themselves to a more legitimate movement. For example, the anti-war movement in the Bush administration was jam packed with kooks. The Code Pinkers, the Cindy-Sheehans, and on and on. However, simply because there was a bunch of kooks sucking like leeches on the anti-war movement does not mean that the movement itself was misguided or composed ONLY of lunatics.

Republicans tried to marginalized the anti-war movement by falsely attempting to paint the anti-war 'kooks' as the bulk of the movement. It didn't wash because the bulk of the movement WASN'T anti-war freak-niks. The bulk of the movement in that case was AMERICA who didn't like the war or (at least) how it was being run. Exact same thing as the Tea Party movement. Sure there are a few radicals. But by and large the vast bulk of this large movement is composed of normal, everyday Americans who are angry and displeased with lack of government fiscal responsibility.

Ignore it at your peril, Democrat party. You can pretend the Tea Party isn't 'legitimate' all you want. You can send flacks like MadCow and Doberman to try and falsely portray them as kooks by focusing on the fringes and ignoring the majority. But what group is truly the delusional one in that event?

Funny, she says "we didn't try to ban them from speaking" (so it's not freedom of speech issue), as if preventing him from speaking by storming the stage is somehow better.

This reminds me of university student mobs described on Pinker's "Blank Slate." One biology researcher (Herrnstein) was misquoted in pro-racist literature and then found that he could no longer speak about his research specialty, learning in pigeons, because wherever he went the lecture halls were filled with chanting mobs.

Even Ahmadinejad was able to give his speech uninterrupted at Columbia university, is this guy so much worse?

Successfully processed your "amazon" invocation - view all Amazonized posts here

Successfully processed your "amazon" invocation - view all Amazonized posts here

Thanks, grim.

In reply to this comment by thegrimsleeper:
*promote