Sunday Sacrilege: Magic words

Words are the great ju-ju — some apparently believe we have the power to call up Satan and summon the lightning with the choice use of language. One of the common quirks of many Christian and Jewish sites on the internet is the insistence on writing G_D, as if including an “o” turns the word into a Rune of Power, is an expression of disrespect, or perhaps instills some strange fear in the writer. It’s God as Voldemort, and all I can say is F_CK THAT.

[Read more…]

Hardcore and Hard

The Australian had a few things to say about the convention.

It sold out.

That’s probably enough. This convention could have been much, much bigger, with a little more support. Next time — and I did hear the organizers talk about the possibility of doing it again in two years, hint, hint — it can be an even bigger event. After all, you are all planning to go, right?

The venues on the first two days were smaller, the result of caution. The organisers chanced a bigger hall yesterday when Richard Dawkins was invited to speak, but could have sold more tickets on Saturday, when philosophers Grayling and Tomas Pataki and the hilarious American biology lecturer and science blogger P.Z. Myers gave talks.

The crowd was hardcore. Few gasped when comedians – lesbian former Mormon Sue-Ann Post, ex-Catholic columnist Catherine Deveny and the New York writer, radio host and stand-up comic Jamie Kilstein – blasphemed without restraint. (Dawkins succeeded in provoking gasps when he referred to the pope as a Nazi.)

Grayling was received like a rock star; the crowd shouted with laughter when Myers spoke. Pataki’s denser argument – an atheist himself, he cautioned against the prevailing wish to see religion fade away – was received more quietly, with bemusement. He spoke of people’s emotional need to be heard and loved by a non-existent personal deity, if no real person could fill the role.

Wait, wait…I’m hilarious? I was deadly serious the whole time! I’m going to have to work on my presentation style some more, I guess.

There were a lot of real comedians working the joint, and I thought it was great. Jamie Kilstein actually succeeded in converting me. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster never really appealed to me, but the Church of the Smiling Vagina…those are my people. He gave us the Ten Commandments of his faith, and I think I could follow them.

We were hardcore. There may have been a few accommodationists around, but they were quiet. Probably cowed. Or trying to accommodate to the ferocity of their surroundings. The ones who spoke were found unconvincing by most of the audience. I was rather pleased when one young woman described me in a term I found much better than “New Atheist”. I am, apparently, a Hard Atheist. I told her that I do try to rise to the occasion and that we are all much more satisfying than those Soft Atheists.

I get email

There was a bit of unwarranted controversy in Richard Dawkins’ talk here at the Global Atheist Convention. In the Q&A at the end, one woman got the microphone, declared that she was a believer, announced that she was grateful to a god, and asked the question, “What is DNA? Where did DNA come from?” (and she did not ask in the tone of someone who sincerely wanted an answer to a basic question in biology.) She was loudly but briefly jeered, before Dawkins and the organizers quieted the audience, and then Richard went on to answer the question politely and at length.

Some people felt badly about the audience reaction, and at least one person apologized to her. I don’t and wouldn’t. I think the response was perfect.

The woman seemed to want to trap Dawkins in what she presumably thought was a very clever question, but was actually naive and a waste of the audience’s time. It is good that the audience was not passive, but expressed their opinion of the stupidity of her attempt to sidetrack the conversation, and it is good that the speaker gave her a fair hearing and an honest answer (although, apparently, she did not accept the answer, anyway, not that she would have accepted anything but that “God did it”.) There were a few other instances — I’m thinking particularly of the fellow who pontificated at ridiculous and incoherent length in AC Grayling’s Q&A—where people inappropriately tried to turn their moment in the spotlight into a chance to speechify.

A little incivility is a good thing. That woman was an idiot, and I’m pleased that that was briefly expressed to her by the audience before an honest attempt was made to address her point.

A similar sort of intrusion occurs just about every day in my email, and here’s a recent example. Apparently, this buffoon just stumbled across an article I wrote in 2006 which describes a remarkable human chromosome rearrangement that was still viable, and didn’t understand it…except that he could tell that it was supposed to correct a common creationist misconception which he’d rather not see falsified. So he writes a letter in the standard creationist style, beginning with a dismissal, following with a question that he doesn’t care to see answered anyway, and then rambling off into a completely different point that he copy&pasted from somewhere. Seriously, this is pretty much the typical noise I get from these loons; I don’t bother to reply, because, like the woman at the conference, they won’t listen anyway.

I think it needs more jeering from the audience, though.

Oh, and the weird font size changes and inconsistent paragraph breaks (at least this one used paragraphs!)? Yeah, that’s what he sent me. Please, please, please, creationists, when you write to me, if you must, go into your mail software and make sure it’s sent as plain text, rather than formatted text, which will strip out all your quirky games with fonts. Typographical incompetence seems to be one of the most common symptoms of the brain damage associated with the creationist mind.

Hello just thought with all your confident
propaganda you could demonstrate (not cite) an example of
species change from Chromosome rearrangements
which of cause would be necessary for any theory explaining us being here
by chance.

“Creationists sometimes try to argue that what we consider straightforward,
well-demonstrated cytological and genetic events don’t and can’t occur: that you
can’t
get chromosome rearrangements, or that variations in chromosome number and
organization are obstacles to evolution, making discussions
of synteny, or the rearrangement of chromosomal material in evolution, an
impossibility. These are absurd conclusions, of course—we see evidence of
chromosomal variation in people all the time.”

“variation in people” what ! they are becoming another life
form?

Question – if the human brain has far more capacity than
is necessary for a lifetime and yet evolutionists say a life form develops
according to need “adaptation” or “Natural selection” should we not be at point
of having a brain with just the capacity we need ?

Robert Birge (Syracuse University) who studies the storage of
data in proteins estimated in 1996 that the memory capacity of the brain was
between one and ten terabytes, with a most likely value of 3 terabytes. Such
estimates are generally based on counting neurons and assuming each neuron holds
1 bit. Bear in mind that the brain has far better algorithms for compressing
certain types of information than computers do. Source
The human brain
contains about 50 billion to 200 billion neurons (nobody knows how many for
sure), each of which interfaces with 1,000 to 100,000 other neurons through 100
trillion (10 14) to 10 quadrillion (10 16) synaptic junctions. Each synapse
possesses a variable firing threshold which is reduced as the neuron is
repeatedly activated. If we assume that the firing threshold at each synapse can
assume 256 distinguishable levels, and if we suppose that there are 20,000
shared synapses per neuron (10,000 per neuron), then the total information
storage capacity of the synapses in the cortex would be of the order of 500 to
1,000 terabytes. (Of course, if the brain’s storage of information takes place
at a molecular level, then I would be afraid to hazard a guess regarding how
many bytes can be stored in the brain. One estimate has placed it at about 3.6 X
10 19 bytes.) Source
The brain has about 100 billion nerve cells, so at least
that many bits (about 10 gigabytes) could be stored, assuming the brain uses
binary logic. But it probably doesn’t do so. Instead, information is believed to
be stored in the many connections that form between the cells. This is a much
larger number: Current estimates of brain capacity range from 1 to 1000
terabytes! It would take 1,000 to 10,000 typical disk drives to store that much
information.

The above about covers current info regarding brain’s capacity
as compared to comp equivalent. Nevertheless, this only scratches the surface of
the brain issue, which seems to be as huge as a nano universe.

I’m not a “creationist” I believe in a creator not “absurd conclusions”

David Staples ( my10 quadrillion (10 16)
synaptic junctions can be my qualifications for having the Gall to reply to a
‘lettered intellectual’)

I will attempt to answer these questions as well as I can, given their inanity.

First, David Staples, you are an ass.

Second, I am in a hotel in Australia, and you are communicating with me via the internet. Yet you will not be satisfied with a citation of some evidence, but want a demonstration of speciation right here? What do you expect me to do, scoop up a couple of populations of marsupial mice, set them to mating, and squeeze the fucking mice through the intertubes to pop out in front of you? Well, all you are going to get from me is a link: here’s a list of observed instances of speciation that includes some examples of variations in chromosome organization that were part of the mechanism of reproductive isolation.

Third, evolution includes a significant and necessary chance component to produce the variation that we see in the world around us. You are here by chance; the oocyte that erupted in your mother’s ovary at the time your father’s sperm was present for conception contained a random half of her genome, while the particular sperm that managed to penetrate that egg was one of billions in the neighborhood, and also contained a random half of your father’s genome. You are a child of chance. And, unfortunately, it looks like you crapped out.

I will also add that evolution is not merely about chance, but also includes a non-random component, selection, which can cull out failures and impose a progressive element of better adaptedness to the environment on the process. Selection is not infallible, however, as we can see by the fact that you are still around, tapping in your semi-illiterate fashion at a computer.

Fourth, you apparently were incapable of comprehending the article that I wrote, which does make me wonder why you are bothering to pester me further. I thought it would be obvious that there is “variation in people” — after all, I am clearly a normal human being, while you are a cretin — and even a cretin ought to be able to notice that Angelina Jolie looks slightly different from Wesley Snipes. The point of my article was that there are also hidden chromosomal variations in people that do not make them members of a different species. So no, they are not turning into another life form.

Fifth, what does your question about the brain have to do with the article you are citing? Are you even capable of sustaining a single coherent thought in your head in the time it takes you to compose a short email message?

Sixth, the human brain does not have far more capacity than is necessary for a lifetime. Case in point: you. You seem to be a bit deficient. I also know that I happen to use my brain as much as I can, and if anything, wish I had a lot more capacity.

Seventh, evolution does not produce individuals with some kind of optimized ideal capacity for a specific condition and situation; it produces viable individuals who are good enough, and chance variation means that some will be less capable in particular situations and others will be more capable. We are also dealing with competing solutions: you, for instance, are a bit of a twit with very little brain, but you might be quite capable of stumbling into an opportunity to reproduce (alas), and that is all that matters to evolution.

Eighth, the brain is big and complicated. Very big and very complicated. So? It evolved. We can find a whole range of brain sizes in the animal kingdom, so we can see the steps that led up to the large organ we have; there is no reason to suppose that we need supernatural explanations to account for its origin, any more than the fact that our brains develop from a single cell to their massive size during development without the assistance of magic or angels.

Ninth, the article you quoted is garbage. It makes the fundamental error of comparing a brain to a lump of binary computer memory; the comparison does not work. Brains are analog, not digital; they compute more than they store; assigning a bit value to whole neurons is nonsensical.

Tenth, I don’t know what you are, but a creator is an absurd conclusion.

Eleventh, you have approximately the same number of synapses as anyone else. The quantity of meat in your head entitles you to no special privileges; we care more about what you can do with it. And all indications are that your three pounds of cranial stuffing have been sadly abused and neglected.

Episode XXXIX: Play ‘Spot the Moron!’

OK, gang, my travels are greatly disrupting my ability to keep up with the thread everlasting, and you’re taking advantage of my frequent absences to run up the comment count. Well, here’s something to reassure the American audience that we aren’t alone in dealing with idiots in power — I’ve been hearing a lot about Richard Dawkins’ appearance in an Australian show called Q&A. Dawkins is fabulous, despite being “outspoken” and “strident”, but check out the rest of the panelists.

(Parts 2 3 4 5 6)

The rest of the panel wobbles between fuzzy sophists and apologists and creationist nutbags, and Dawkins seems to be the sole voice of reason. The audience, too, asks a lot of stupid questions. Although, I have to note that even Steven Fielding, who is clearly the biggest idiot there, protests that religion ought to be kept out of government.

Carry on.

The wild bunch

Convention is over! Gotta sleep! Just in case you were wondering who I’ve been hanging about with, here are some faces with familiar names.

i-5b959c17a7735fed3f3cfa7397d180b2-theGang.jpeg

That’s Rorschach, Wowbagger, some yob who barged into the picture, Bride of Shrek, and Kel.

Wild times with the laughing godless

One of the fun surprises of the Global Atheist Convention is that, after a long day of shrill talks from rabidly militant atheists (…and a few accommodationists, shock horror), the evening sessions are all about the humor. So last night we got The Chasers, and I also got to meet Nonstampcollector, who showed this video to the group.

In case you’re wondering what he looks like, it’s kind of amazing: Nonstampcollector has a face that is a perfect circle, two tiny eyes, and only two expressions. So don’t knock the crude animation style, that’s simply an accurate rendition of his people.

Oh, and after the official events, I stayed up way too late with Bride of Shrek, Rorschach, Kel, Wowbagger, Chris Nedin, and a rotating cast of other convention attendees. I’m getting way too old for this.

Pictures of these mysterious rascals will follow. Some of the photographers in the group looked like they’d had far too much Australian ambrosia last night, and although they promised to send me pictures, they haven’t come through just yet.

Oh, also: we’re sharing the convention space with a meeting of body-builders. It is a little surreal to stroll by all the protein supplements and people with giant necks and bulky bodies to join my fellow nerds. I’m tempted to taunt them with math problems, but I’d rather not get wedgied and swirlied.

Uh-oh…we aren’t being nice and respectful of the faithful

I’m afraid I won’t be doing much posting live from the Global Atheist Convention; I’m busy, I’m having fun, my dancecard is full, and whenever things slow down a little bit some new person comes up to say hello. But have no fear, I’ll put up some comments afterwards, and also, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has dispatched a crack team of ace believers to cover the convention and scowl primly at us all. You can get the fun-house mirror version of the conference from those weirdos…and much amusement. I find it very funny that, for instance, that they can complain about how the GAC is unfair in not representing religious believers, and comparing us unfavorably to the Parliament of World’s Religions meeting, all without noting that the PWR got buckets of money from the government here, while the GAC got doodly-squat. It’s silly to demand that we respectfully engage the clownish buffoons of religion, and at the same time insist that we must use our limited resources to give a pulpit to said buffoons.

They are also a bit snooty about the fact that the opening night was a festival of comedy. How dare atheists think that the appropriate way to cope with the follies of faith is by developing a sense of humor! But then, I find this guy hilarious: catch this juxtaposition.

The night finished with Catherine Deveney and “God is Bullshit. That’s the good news.” In your face, yes. And no surprise to those who read her columns in The Age. Her milder lines included, “The only person who takes the Pope seriously is Tony Abbott.” And: “If there is anybody out there who is not an atheist, don’t worry: it’s an intelligence test and you will be eventually.” I met Catherine at the bar before the program started and after chatting she agreed to ‘an interview’ on Sunday.

My thoughts so far? As a Christian I am appalled and ashamed of the crimes, victimisation and discrimination committed in the name of Christ or by those who bear his name. To make light of them through humour is risky. And to stereotype religion in such a way is akin to taking Stalin or Pol Pot as your stereotype atheist.

I’m a little worried about Australian religion and politics now. Chris Mulherin apparently believes that making fun of the Pope and Tony Abbot is like making them the equivalent of Stalin and Pol Pot.

Nobody is making light of the horrors perpetrated in the name of religion — I do appreciate the fact that the first defensive reaction to criticism of religion is a sense of shame, at least — but the goofiness of religion is a wonderful target for humor. To whine that making a joke about one of their poorly regarded pious politicians is stereotyping them as evil tyrants suggests that their guilt and embarrassment is even deeper than I suspected.

Don’t expect much favorable coverage from this lot (and by the way, it’s also hypocritical to complain about the lack of religious apologists on the stage when the ABC blog doesn’t include even a token atheist). They’ve got an agenda that is going to be disappointed, and I predict they will continue to complain in their oblivious fashion. They’re out there in the audience, watching, hoping, and maybe even praying that someone will say something nice about their superstitions; their definition of a good convention is one that reassures them that we don’t think their bliss-ninny belief system is an unsalvageable stew of raw sewage spiced with smug ignorance.

That despite all the terrible things we know about religion – the oppression of women, the paedophilia, the social control, the violence and cruelty perpetuated in the name of one faith or another – there’s a niggling truth that millions of good, decent, hard-working people around the world are sustained, guided, and comforted by their beliefs. Instead of merely bagging religion, maybe we should be trying to understand why this is? In other words, can you have a new awakening without fully knowing what you’re waking from?

Oh, yeah, there’s that guilt again. Aside from the violence and oppression and child-rape and cruelty, how can we possibly consider taking away the baby’s dummy? That’s a fairly common argument for religion, you know — it’s the old “opiate of the masses” defense. It’s not much of a defense. When you’re amidst a group of people who have seen how swaddling minds in ignorance leads to nightmares of stupidity, it’s no defense at all.

We know that millions of good people cherish their delusions. We don’t care; that a lie makes people feel good doesn’t make it a truth. We also understand religion far better than a group of people immersed in it, making a living from propping it up, and desperate to deny that they’re wasting their lives worshipping a phantasm.

I imagine the ABC team sitting out there in the sea of the happy godless, busily taking notes, hoping for some little morsel of acknowledgment that maybe they aren’t idiots and fools for believing in a magic man in the sky who will reward their intellectual blindness with fluffy comfy chairs in a celestial paradise, or at least won’t set their immortal souls on fire for eternity. They aren’t going to get that validation. Which means we already know everything they’re going to say about the conference.

Episode XXXVIII: Distracted in Oz

I am remiss in my duties. The last episode of the endless thread has expanded to excessive size while I was off frolicking in the antipodes. In my defense, I have been distracted by the remarkable habits of Australians: every time my hands were empty, they would put a beer in it. I once made the mistake of having both hands briefly unoccupied, and received two beers for my trouble.

The Pharyngufest with Chloe here in Melbourne has been captured on video, right here. Unfortunately, I don’t remember my performance at all—infinite beers, remember.