tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post4311792568233231745..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: A Chat on Social ActivismAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-20856887823944421222007-05-17T10:33:00.000-06:002007-05-17T10:33:00.000-06:00Just to complete the record, look at James Randi's...Just to complete the record, look at James Randi's involvement in sTARBABY. If anyone thinks he is anything but a huckster after reading it, maybe he'd be interested in selling you some swampland. The guy's a bigger fraud than most of the ones he debunks.olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-27251599889977169152007-05-16T20:08:00.000-06:002007-05-16T20:08:00.000-06:00Golf clap. You got me. In attempting to understand...Golf clap. You got me. <BR/><BR/>In attempting to understand why you are so vociferously convinced that Kurtz is a figure comparable to Pat Robertson I guessed that you might be some kind of neoastrologist. After reading through several links about the "starbaby" incident I saw that probably wasn't the case. So the fact of the matter is, I did go through the effort of checking to see if I was correct about that assumption.<BR/><BR/>If you think Kurt'z "media empire" is comparable to Robertson's, and that Kurtz is "enforcing" his views through said "empire" then I'd invite you to at some point write something making that case.Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-42192895768644049702007-05-16T20:02:00.000-06:002007-05-16T20:02:00.000-06:00I forgot Carl Sagan. I liked him, I thought he wa...I forgot Carl Sagan. I liked him, I thought he was prone to speaking out of prejudice and ignorance in "defense of science and rationality". He was prone to making some rather stupid remarks about the kinds of things CSICOP doesn't like. Personally, I think "Exobiology" is a para-science at best, pure horsefeathers, more typically. Having looked at a lot of its speculations I hope that other life forms are less like the creations of sci-fi writers of the post-war era. <BR/><BR/>I always thought his assumption that the discovery of life on other planets would be the end of religion. He didn't seem to think it was possible that they would have religion too. Like the rest of his exobiological stuff, how the hell would he know?olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-40425934756437261742007-05-16T19:41:00.000-06:002007-05-16T19:41:00.000-06:00I was, however, under the mistaken impression that...I was, however, under the mistaken impression that you were a neoastrologist. Now I see you're just someone who has picked up some erroneous beliefs about Kurtz and his "media empire" (which is largely non profit).<BR/><BR/>I am obliged, before I posted the comment about sTARBABY, I wrote down two predictions, first I predicted that I'd be accused of being a believer in astrology. That would be rather odd since most of what I've posted here are diatribes against biological determinism. Refusing that form of pseudo-science it would be rather amusing for someone to believe I had for planetary determinism. Hume, I assume would have found out if he was correct before jumping to this kind of conclusion, the type which a number of "skeptics" go to first. <BR/><BR/>You mean that Kurtz didn't derive an income from any of his businesses? I'd like some evidence of that before I take your word for it. You do know that many non-profits pay their top people, don't you? I have a pretty good reason to be looking further into the Kurtz holdings though I won't go into that.<BR/><BR/>I am not as inclined to let CSICOP off the hook for this incident as some of its major players were either directly or indirectly involved. My reluctance is that their stock and trade has been to promote the assumption of dishonesty, fraud and incompetence in even the most careful of professional researchers, some of whom have never had any evidence of any fraud or incompetence sustained against them. To have CSICOP's leaders, Kurtz foremost among them, make an incompetent challenge, botch their own test design and then to try a roaringly dishonest cover up of the affair is something that should sink their credibility to the bottom of the pond. I used to be an admirer of a lot of these people UNTIL I looked into their activites and history. They are hypocrits who look on press relations as the ultimate tool to cover for them. There are times I think they're changing but then something happens to raise all my old doubts. I think that the wholsale willingness to hold CISCOP, James Randi, Paul Kurtz, and any number of other professional "Skeptics" to a far lesser standard of skeptical investegation is the greatest flaw in pop-"Skepticism" and more so in the professional side. <BR/><BR/>It's interested to note that Ray Hyman actually acted quite decently in the sTARBABY matter. I wonder if that was because he saw Rawlins as being on the same team. Hyman hasn't always acted with such disinterest, at least it seems to a number of people. That's to be regretted because he is a very good analyst of experimental design. <BR/><BR/>The second prediction was that someone would snark that the article was published in Fate. I'd have pointed out that Fate also published articles by a number of CSICOP's more eminent members, other than those who were forced out by the Kurtz clique.olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-67691578907051623022007-05-16T18:44:00.000-06:002007-05-16T18:44:00.000-06:00The FAQ I provided clearly states that Rawlins is ...The FAQ I provided clearly states that Rawlins is not a paranormalist.<BR/><BR/>I was, however, under the mistaken impression that you were a neoastrologist. Now I see you're just someone who has picked up some erroneous beliefs about Kurtz and his "media empire" (which is largely non profit).Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-63051482915938961652007-05-16T18:38:00.000-06:002007-05-16T18:38:00.000-06:00Humes Ghost, Dennis Rawlins is in no way an advoca...Humes Ghost, Dennis Rawlins is in no way an advocate for the paranormal, as someone unfamiliar with him or the rather too successfully covered up affair might gather from your response. <BR/><BR/>As for "fundamentalist", yes Paul Kurtz has all the necessary closed-minded, fanatical obcession, dishonesty and zeal that defines a fundamentalist. I maintain that anyone who was familiar with him would conclude that word to be quite accurate, if they weren't also a fundamentalist. You know, there are fundamentalist "christians" who deny they are fundamentalists too. <BR/><BR/>I suggest anyone who wants to find out who is correct read Rawlins very detailed and annotated account and, if they suspect he's a "secret theist" they read some of his other writings, sort of like Dawkins with charm and better research skills.olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-37109622192204364492007-05-16T18:10:00.000-06:002007-05-16T18:10:00.000-06:00Here's a faq on the "starbaby" incident.Here's the...Here's <A HREF="http://www.lists.opn.org/pipermail/org.opn.lists.skeptix/Week-of-Mon-20060227/002493.html" REL="nofollow">a faq</A> on the "starbaby" incident.<BR/><BR/>Here's the comment Lippard added at the end<BR/><BR/><B>I'm not afraid to criticize CSICOP where it is merited. And they did do some criticizable stuff regarding the Mars effect and its handling of Dennis Rawlins. But in general, they have not gotten a fair shake in descriptions of this controversy by advocates of the paranormal.</B>Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1645124162755718802007-05-16T17:11:00.000-06:002007-05-16T17:11:00.000-06:00"Paul Kurtz is a fundamentalist..." Ok, you're pla..."Paul Kurtz is a fundamentalist..." <BR/><BR/>Ok, you're playing a joke? This is parody right? "Neoastrology?"<BR/><BR/>You're right about the guys that founded CSICop... especially Carl Sagan ... "dodgy" is the word that comes to mind when one thinks of him.<BR/><BR/>Maybe Alonzo will feel like rebutting your nonsense about Kurtz and his "media empire" ... I've got other stuff to do.Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-25840510632781307482007-05-16T15:46:00.000-06:002007-05-16T15:46:00.000-06:00Hume's Ghost, Paul Kurtz is a fundamentalist who h...Hume's Ghost, Paul Kurtz is a fundamentalist who has built a large and varied profit making empire to enforce his chosen beliefs. He has a history of, let us say, less than honest promotion of those beliefs. Ever read the story of sTARBABY? There is an account by Dennis Rawlins on line, it's kind of complicated but it is interesting reading, especially if you can handle the math. I'm doing some research in CSICOP, a pretty dodgey bunch of pseudo-skeptics. You might be interested, especially in Kurtz' early history as the czar of that group, full of intrigue and some quite low humor, in a manner rather depressing for those who are interested in actual scientific standards instead of promotion of phony "research". Oh, yes, as I recall that fiasco around "sTARBABY' was the first and last bit of "investgation that the Committe for the "Scientifc" INVESTEGATION of Claims of the Paranormal did. Read it and get a load of what Kurtz and his equally dishonest allies did with the only science that group has produced on its own. <BR/><BR/>And that's only CSICOP, his empire is far more extensive and interesting than that.<BR/><BR/>I assume you didn't know about any of this before you "investegated" my little comparison. I thought you guys were all about reality and evidence.olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-31327948689363125812007-05-16T07:13:00.000-06:002007-05-16T07:13:00.000-06:00"Paul Kurtz, now he reminds me a lot of Robertson"..."Paul Kurtz, now he reminds me a lot of Robertson"<BR/><BR/>Congratulations, this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard uttered on the internet. Unless you meant that he reminds you of Robertsn in that he's old.Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-50056893243733530772007-05-15T14:47:00.000-06:002007-05-15T14:47:00.000-06:00I have a somewhat different take on Robertson, I d...I have a somewhat different take on Robertson, I don't think he believes what he claims to. There are some people who think Pope Alexander VI (if I remember correctly) was actually an atheist, though I certainly wouldn't want anyone to think I'm blaming you guys for him, people are responsible for only those wrongs they actually commit (sorry Dawkins, that's only fair). Looking at his activities instead of his words, I think he saw the start ups in fundamentalist religion and he figured it was his ticket to the easy life. You certainly couldn't look at him and intuit the moral teachings of Jesus, especially if you take out what is probably folk lore. As regards cherry picking, when it comes to these folks I think manure spreading is the more apt agricultural analogy.<BR/><BR/>Richard Dawkins motives are more speculative, though I've recently come to believe that E. O. Wilson's career might be his model. I suspect that if Dawkins had spent more time with ants instead of "memes" he might be spending his time on something more likely to produce some good in the world. As it is, ... well, you've heard me on the futility of that romance before.<BR/><BR/>Paul Kurtz, now he reminds me a lot of Robertson.olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-68645063870074721272007-05-14T12:29:00.000-06:002007-05-14T12:29:00.000-06:00but to address the subject of the post, I agree th...but to address the subject of the post, I agree that organizing atheists is not the best idea.<BR/><BR/>Organizing humanists and secularists committed to the Enlightenment values is a far better goal ... and it allows for the creation of a coalition that cuts across religious/ethnic/national boundaries.<BR/><BR/>Planetary Humanism is what I believe Paul Kurtz calls it.<BR/><BR/>One benefit of this approach it will help to demolish the imaginary outgrouping that are being manufactured between "traditional" Americans and "secularists".<BR/><BR/>At some point in the next point I plan on making this point when I review Jimmy Carter's Our Endangered Values. I'm a positive atheist and Carter is a born again evangelical Christian, yet I agree with virtually everything in his book.Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-17541220987231449632007-05-14T12:18:00.000-06:002007-05-14T12:18:00.000-06:00I can't helpt but point out that Regent has anothe...I can't helpt but point out that Regent has another main objective ... and that is to produce lawyers who will be fiercely partisan for the Republican party (actually, for the elements of the GOP that have been captured by the authoritarian conservative movement.)<BR/><BR/>For example, Monica Goodling is a graduate of Regent and she is one of the individuals involved in the Just Dept. purges. One of the first things she did upon getting her job was to deny a job promotion to someone on the basis that the person was a Democrat and that she didn't trust her (seriously, that was the reasoning given.)<BR/><BR/>John Ashcroft is now teaching at Regent.<BR/><BR/>I think its important to point out this aspect of Regent's symbiosis with the transformation of the GOP into a religous party (Kevin Phillips conclusion in American Theocracy.)Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-14036424282830192362007-05-14T08:53:00.000-06:002007-05-14T08:53:00.000-06:00Very good, very well reasoned insights, as usual. ...Very good, very well reasoned insights, as usual. Just wanted to let you know how very much I enjoy and learn from your blog.The maidenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01158682036840381823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-43864622786450237002007-05-14T08:52:00.000-06:002007-05-14T08:52:00.000-06:00Alonzo,Your position that many theists’ moral idea...Alonzo,<BR/>Your position that many theists’ moral ideas are what they feel in their hearts, and then they use these feelings to decide what to follow in scripture, leads me to something I have been wondering about for some time in reading this blog.<BR/>Do you think desire utilitarianism leads you to your moral positions, or do you think your moral positions come from your “heart” and you developed desire utilitarianism to match them? Have you had instances where you felt something is wrong, but desire utilitarianism convinced you it was morally OK?<BR/>Do you think desire utilitarianism is precise enough to actually use as a prescriptive tool, that everyone attempting to apply it would come to the same moral conclusions, or that it could be interpreted in different ways, so that “what a person with good desires would do” or “the desires that fulfill other desires” are sufficiently general that a great variety of moral conclusions is possible?<BR/>One measure of a moral theory is, as you have asserted, its ability to answer many philosophical questions (including hypothetical ones). Another measure is does it provide something that is actually useful in making real time decisions in real life, i.e., does it provide a better guide than simpler concepts such as “be fair, be honest, and treat others as you want to be treated?”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com