Wayward Son

Most people realize that it is possible to not have a belief about a something. The reality is that is the case for most things. When a jury is selected they are looking for people who lack a belief about whether the accused is innocent or guilty...you know people who are waiting for the evidence before forming a belief. Crazy concept.

Psychological studies have shown that it is extremely unlikely that you will change the mind of someone, and in fact such studies have shown that some people, when shown the view they hold is wrong, will hold that view more strongly (backfire effect), therefore I do not worry about if it helps the person I am countering, as I think such a concern is a waste of time. When I counter claims someone has made either in real life or on the internet, I am not attempting to change their mind, but attempting to give bystanders another perspective (I am aiming, therefore, at the people who are uninformed, instead of those who are misinformed. If someone who is misinformed happens to be open-minded that is just an unexpected bonus). As to hard, zealous, atheists - I think it is difficult to classify people. On a personal level, I lack a belief in a god or gods. At the same time I do hold positive beliefs that certain god and religious claims are false. If claims are self-contradictory, or if claims are inconsistent with established scientific knowledge I feel that a positive belief that the claim is wrong or false is justified. So I would not say that I lack a belief in a young-earth creationist claim that the universe is 6000 - 10,000 years old - I believe the claim is false. And if a god, or a version of a god, requires such a claim to true then I deny the existence of that god, or version of that god.

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. The OED definition you quote does not match the definition you are trying to impose on atheists. There is a difference in between a disbelief or lack of belief, both of which are negative, and a positive belief which is what you are attempting to impose on atheists. I assume you can tell the difference between: A belief that no God or gods exist. and Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

When people make the argument that atheism is a religion they just show that they are thoroughly ignorant about both religion and atheism. As you are so fond of dictionary meanings here is the definition of religion according to Oxford: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. I personally believe* that many people only try to claim that atheism is a religion as they are a little embarrassed of their own irrational thinking and therefore try to bring others down to their own level. *believing that does not mean I hold a religion that people who claim atheism is a religion because of their own embarrassment at their irrational thinking. That because such a positive belief is simply not a religion. And that is for positive beliefs, not lack of beliefs. For most atheists, their views are a lack of belief and simply does not qualify as a religion in any way.

To establish that would require more then an individual academic claiming on the internet that Pinker is being misleading. It doesn't help when the individual academic is 1) not a relevant expert 2) Has a well known axe to grind with people like Pinker, who challenge Ryan's worldview 3) has written a book which firmly places himself and his worldview on the fringe and far outside the academic mainstream 4) has had his claims attacked by people who are relevant experts in the field Ryan writes about. Experts who claim that Ryan selects his sources in a biased way and misinterprets sources. If Ryan wants to claim that Keeley and Pinker are misleading the public there is a proper way to do that (something that Ryan certainly knows) and that is to challenge the evidence in the peer review. But for some reason he hasn't done that. If Ryan was a climate change denier claiming that someone on the other side was misleading the public you would understand what Ryan is actually doing here. That is why it is important to actually be familiar with the work you are criticizing. Your main objection is to a claim that Pinker doesn't actually make. In no way does Pinker say that future will be better and brighter. He says that it could be better, worse or the same. And that it is dependent on the choices that people and societies make. He feels that making the correct decisions is easier when those decisions are based on accurate information, instead of ideology. How would you know? You haven't read it. The reality is that you have a worldview that tells you everything is going to crap, and therefore when Pinker hits you with the reality that some things have actually been getting better you lash out at him by calling him a libertarian etc. You don't counter his evidence because you can't, and don't actually know what his evidence is in the first place. You attack a series of straw men. That is fine. You are free to live in what ever kind of bubble you wish to live in, but some people are actually interested in exposure to evidence that opposes, as well as evidence that supports their notions about the world. Some people feel that accepting the best evidence even if it challenges what they want to be true is more important then building walls up around their worldview.

As this thread is about mass killings like Columbine perhaps you could compare recent mass killings carried out with guns with mass killing carried out without guns. The Australian gun control measures did not deprive people of their means of protection. Beats me. It is irrelevant to the conversation as the Australian gun control measures did not eliminate all guns. It banned semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump action shotguns. Something you would know if you read the links that you provided. Earlier you complained that this thread was about mass shootings and not regular killing. Now you do the bait-and-switch and claim the opposite. The gun control measures in Australia were designed with the aim of stopping mass shootings in Australia. There were 11 such shootings resulting in 103 deaths in the 10 years prior to the legislation. There have been none in the 16 years or so since. Arguing that the policy has not accomplished goals it was not designed to accomplish is pretty disingenuous.

No, it is not. An extraordinary claim is a claim that defies physical laws, or a significant amount of established scientific evidence and knowledge such as miracles and homeopathy. A claim that violence has been increasing or declining is an ordinary claim. If one or the other claim became significantly established then a claim opposed to established knowledge base could possibly considered extraordinary. However, there is no possibility of that, as opponents have yet to muster any evidence against Pinker's claims, let alone an established body of knowledge. That doesn't mean that Pinker's claims are therefore correct, but they certainly are not extraordinary. Evidence is required. Proof is something that really only belongs in mathematics. Anthropogenic climate change is not proven, but it has significant evidence. The theory of evolution does not have overwhelming proof, but it does have overwhelming evidence. So essentially you have a bare bones understanding of his thesis, matched with an ideology that leaves you pretty closed to what the thesis entails. I am not asking them to prove a negative at all. If someone like Ryan says that other hunter-gatherer cultures have significantly lower rates of violence then making that claim must be based on some sort of evidence. He doesn't provide it. First of all, Ryan is not an anthropologist. He is a psychologist, who with his wife (a psychiatrist), wrote a book "Sex at Dawn" that is very controversial in its own right and does not have a massive amount of support from relevant experts (to say the least). I say that as someone who likes the book a lot. However, I don't take Ryan to be the authority of what anthropologists think on this or any issue. Well first of all that is a completely stupid statement. Pinker can't be guilty of fraud for accurately using a chart from someone else when the source of the chart is clearly shown. And of course I know that it was not Ryan who said that. It was you who implies that Ryan said something that inanely stupid, breathtakingly stupid, when he did not. The chart that Ryan is complaining about is from Keeley who is, unlike Ryan, not only a relevant expert, but a major figure in the field. It comes from a book that was published by a major academic publisher, unlike Ryan's book (and Pinker's for that matter) which is a popular science book published by a non academic publisher. Pinker is doing exactly what he should be doing when writing a book about a massive topic: go to the relevant experts. That is what he has done. Those who disagree with the findings that Keeley puts forward are free to put forward counter evidence. If they haven't then it is hardly Pinker's fault for not referencing it. As I said, all that Pinker can do while writing such a book is use the best available evidence. If he was selective in the evidence and research that he sourced then it should be easy to counter by providing that missing evidence. I have yet to see any provided. Incidentally, the same thing goes for Ryan's book which obviously must be composed to selecting evidence and research done by others. There are many pretty serious claims that have been made stating that his book is extremely biased and misleading in the evidence and research it included or excluded. In fact there is an entire book written to debunk his book, which I have not read, nor do I know the author, but the book has significant support from some pretty heavy hitters in the field. That is not the point at all. If people like Ryan state that Pinker and Keeley and others are using examples of hunter-gatherer societies that are more violent than most other similar societies, then he is basing that conclusion on something. Put that evidence out there to be evaluated. I think you will find that the reality is Ryan has less support then you imagine on this issue. The myth is entirely by Gray who holds views of the enlightenment that are not held by any relevant expert that I know of (and Gray is certainly no expert on the enlightenment). When someone attacks a book, which is not about the enlightenment, for not talking about "enlightenment figures" that Israel didn't even bother to mention in four volumes ABOUT THE ENLIGHTENMENT then that is beyond grasping at straw dogs (pun intended).

I have read one book on school shooters, "Columbine" by Cullen. The book astounded me. If Cullen's book is accurate (I am no expert) then almost everything that people think they know about the Columbine killers is wrong. The media, eager to jump on the story reported everything they heard and as certain claims matched common assumptions it created a narrative about the killers that was flat out false. As the reality started to slowly trickle out the truth couldn't budge the chosen narrative. Moore's film, Manson's comments, and the comments of most (perhaps all) of the talking heads presented a narrative that is, according to Cullen, and the local police upon finishing their investigation, simply not true. Manson said: "I wouldn't say a single word to them. I would listen to what they have to say and that's what no one did." Which sounds like a rational response to kids who were bullied, outcasts, and who are frustrated with the world because they "reject our society as artificial, commercial, designed to enslave people." I don't know how much of a breakthrough Manson would have been as he sat there just listening to his two star-struck fans....because....well the two shooters were not fans of his music, had not been bullied (they were in fact bullies), had not been outcasts, or goths, or part of the trench coat mafia, but instead were reasonably popular, but very angry kids. And not angry at one specific thing (such as an artificial, commercial, enslaving society) or specific group of people, but angry at everything and everyone. Nor were their parents naive dolts who "missed the signs." Both sets of parents had real concerns about their sons. The parents of one of them (I believe Harris, but i read the book when it came out in '09 so I may be mistaken now) had repeatedly tried to get their son help to no avail. They took him a shrink, who thought he was a wonderful, normal kid with over-reacting parents. Then Harris would go and laugh in his journal about how easy his psychiatrist was to manipulate. To me the failure of looking for answers in things like musical tastes, or violent movies, or violent video games, or lack of religion, when it comes to killers like Harris, is that it starts with the presupposition that dangerous psychopaths like him think and react to things the same way you do. People like Manson and Moore and so many others tried to see parts of themselves in Harris and Klebold and looked for answers that way, along with solutions that they feel would worked for themselves if they were similarly angry young men. The answers they found and solutions they proposed were completely wrong because Harris (and to a lesser extent Klebold) were nothing like (and had no desire to be anything like) Moore or Manson or you or I.

First of all Pinker's claims are not extraordinary, and to state that is a complete misunderstanding of what Laplace and Sagan were referring to when they made the claim. Second, Pinker did provide the evidence. It is in the 800+ book that you haven't bothered to read. You can't ignore the evidence while claiming it has not been provided. Third, the opposing side has said that Pinker is wrong, but has not provided evidence to support their position. When people like Ryan claim that Pinker has used the most violent hunter/gatherer societies, that doesn't refute Pinker's claim that members of hunter/gatherer societies were more likely to die by violent means than people in western societies are today. What would refute Pinker's claim is showing evidence of hunter/gatherer societies where members were not more likely to die to die by violent means than people in western societies are today. Ryan hasn't provided any evidence to support the inference he is making. Gray's point is thoroughly meaningless. Demanding that Pinker include every person Gray feels was influential in terms of the enlightenment has nothing to do with Pinker's book, and is a level of inanity so stupid only Gray could think it up. Incidentally, despite Gray chastising Pinker for not talking about Marx, Bakunin and Lenin as enlightenment figures (as he considers them all to be undeniably part of enlightenment philosophy), Israel in his 4 volumes and 4000 pages about the enlightenment fails to mention 2 of them at all, and the 3rd only a couple times. Despite widely being considered the preeminent modern scholar on the enlightenment he sees no reason to include them. Gray, as usual, simply has no idea what he is talking about, and does the only thing he is good at: poisoning the well through baffle-gab. Pinker is a supporter of evolutionary psychology. That has nothing to do with the facts that Pinker provided supporting a decline in violence. To dismiss Pinker's arguments about the decline of violence because he holds other views that you disagree with is a pure logical fallacy. As is your further poisoning the well by doing the same thing because you claim that Pinker is a libertarian. The latter is made worse by the reality that Pinker is not a libertarian, and associating his economic views with Shermer (who is a libertarian) signifies a lack of exposure to his work, and instead a reliance of reviews by Herman and Snyder, both of who are biased by their own political ideologies.

And if gun control would change something? Is it possible for your mind to even contemplate that you might be wrong about something? Australia strengthened gun control laws 16 years ago. In terms of mass killings there 11 in the 10 years before, and zero in the 16 after. That doesn't give me a certainty that changes to gun control laws would result in the same thing in the US. I will accept where the evidence leads. But do you at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that it is possible that gun controls may change something?

Typical critical response to Pinker's book. Zero evidence or statistics to refute his claims that violence has been dramatically falling for a couple hundred years. First we hear from Gray, one of the strongest anti-enlightenment philosophers on the planet complaining that Pinker is an advocate of enlightenment thinking, but some enlightenment thinkers used political violence. Anything to counter Pinker's actual facts...you know about violence levels? No, too busy poisoning the well. Next we hear that Pinker is a libertarian and an evolutionary psychologist. Well that must prove his statistics and evidence is wrong right? No logical fallacy there. Next is the association, lumping Pinker in with other people who believe (supposedly) that we are marching towards moral perfection. A view that Pinker explicitly rejects in his book...but why should that matter. Next we hear that Pinker's work is largely based on Diamond's work. The book barely mentions Diamond's work, concentrating almost exclusively on western countries in the last couple years. Pinker does talk about the evidence for violence levels in ancient civilization, and to a lesser extent the evidence for violence in hunter gatherer societies making clear that the evidence is scarce and therefore highly tentative. I would say he spends significantly more time on the evidence for violence found in skeletal remains then he does with Diamond works, however, those who criticize Diamond's work spend far more time complaining that Diamond concentrates on more violent hunter-gatherer societies then they do providing actual evidence for the violence levels of the hunter-gatherer societies they claim are more peaceful. Perhaps they could mention the studies and evidence that Pinker missed...but they don't. I wonder why? Next we hear from Ryan, whose book "Sex at Dawn" is both one of favorites and critical of Pinker in one of its chapters. Who is his review complains that Pinker is overly focused on the west, even though Pinker states from the first page that his book would concentrate on the west for the reasons that the best data over the past several hundred years is found there, and there is a relatively common cultural evolution among western countries. Violence levels in Africa or the Rape of Nanking have nothing to do with supporting or opposing his thesis. It is as stupid as claiming that violence levels in the United States refute claims about violence levels in Canada. And the post continues on with the views of Shermer. But not a single speck of evidence to counter the central claim of Pinker's work. Not one. You might think that such evidence would play at least some part in the criticism, instead of just nonstop well poisoning. But it never does.

I am prepared to accept that a multifaceted solution based on the best evidence to a complex problem may or may not involve changes to gun control legislation, and that the solution devised may include aspects that challenge beliefs I hold. Pinker's book, by the way, both challenges many long held Conservative and Liberal views about violence, crime and punishment. It also upholds many long held Conservative and Liberal views about violence, crime and punishment. He trampled several views I held, and under the weight of the evidence I gladly accepted the death of sacred cows. You seem unprepared to accept that a multifaceted solution based on the best evidence to a complex problem might involve changes to gun control legislation, or for that matter, that the solution may involve anything that challenged your worldview.

My argument does not support Scott's point in the slightest. He accepts or rejects, or manipulates evidence to support and confirm his ideology-based conclusion. That conclusion is unalterable. I develop inferences based on available evidence. Those inferences change when new evidence becomes available. You can claim that different people have different reactions to watching violent movies, which is of course true, but that says nothing as to why young people in one western country are far more violent then young people in every other western country, when they all watch the same movies. I am not interested in absolute and simplistic answers that come with political ideology or religious worldviews. They seem incredibly childish to me.

Giffords was in 2011. Scott in 1999. Huge difference between how many people get their news in that time. Huge difference between the way people remember events from 2 years ago compared to events from 14 years ago. Especially when ideology and worldview comes into play. Scott's speech was covered nationally. It was carried by the AP and Scripps Howard wire services. And separate stories by the Boston Globe, Washington Times, Chicago Sun Times and so on. Right. Don't control others unless they have a uterus. Right?

The fact that violence and killing dropped significantly (and continues to fall) at the same time that abortion went from being illegal to legal seems to throw the most massive monkey wrench imaginable into your worldview. Good example Hitler grew up and lived in a country where abortion on demand was illegal, and while in power he made abortion (of any Aryan fetus) a capital offense. Oh monkey wrench.....

Neither I, nor the wikipedia category, claimed that religious motivation was required to be included in the category religious/political.racial.

Based on what evidence? Infowars and the like steers you towards complete nonsense once again.

While Pinker does talk about the available evidence of violence levels thousands of years ago he is mostly talking about the last 300 - 400 years. Neither Pinker, nor I, have claimed that violence requires guns. Pinker's book is not about Hitler, Ghaddafi or Pol Pot. He is talking about violence committed by citizens against citizens. Which is exactly what I have been talking about.

Violence was much higher in the past. Most of those mayhem killers were also young people. 1) Young people in all western countries watch the same movies and play the same video games. 2) Young people in all other western countries kill others at a much smaller rate then young people in the United States. Any evidence that the media in other western countries is different from the United States? Brilliant argument. Have you looked at the difference between gun control laws in other western countries where young people are killing others at a much lower rate and gun control laws in the United States where young people are killing others at a much higher rate? Not that I am suggesting that stricter gun control laws are the solution to the reason why violence has fallen at a significantly slower rate in the US compared to the rest of the western world. Any real solution would be multifaceted and move forward using much trial and error. However, opponents of gun control like to frame the argument as there either is gun control or there is not. But it is not an either/or scenario. The reality is that even in the United States there has always been, and will always be gun control. Once you recognize this the question becomes what gun policies policies are most effective and inline with the values of the public.

Statistics can be fudged to push an agenda. There are telling signs when this is the case. For starters they can a specific start point and end point instead of using all of the available statistics over a long period of time to show the overall trend. Pinker uses the latter correct method. You used the former incorrect method. Climate deniers do the same thing when they always use the same abnormal year to start their trendlines. 1) I already said that Pinker makes clear that United States is the only western country that has not followed the rest of the western world in experiencing a dramatic decrease in violence in the last 100 years. In the United States the level of violence has either stayed steady or dropped by a smaller amount depending on the category. 2) You are still wrong. The population of the US increased by more then 25% during that time frame. Even using the poor method of picking out data points, which your source provided, still shows that the absolute number only increased by just over 1% and therefore the rate of such killings decreased, and dramatically so. As long as the definition, in this case clusters of 4 or more, is applied consistently I don't care why they chose that specific number. Any evidence that in the past monsters did not act senselessly? How would one even measure rates of senseless acts now compared to the past? It is completely subjective.

Mr Scott's speech was devoid of facts, period. You claim that the media has a responsibility to provide unbiased information. Great, there was none in Mr. Scott's speech and therefore the media had no responsibility to report it. The only way that media can actually achieve their responsibility to provide unbiased information is to stick as much as possible to facts and reality, and steer clear as much as possible from biased opinions. This is difficult to do as the media strives to be profitable and their audience for the most part wants to read and watch news that confirms their beliefs and worldviews, however, as you said it is the media's RESPONSIBILITY to provide unbiased information. Finally as I seem to need to repeat many times for you. The media failed in this responsibility when it comes to Mr. Scott's speech: The media widely reported Mr. Scott's speech, far more than would be expected for a speech made at a house subcommittee meeting. Please stop lying for Jesus. The media widely reported Mr. Scott's speech, far more than would be expected for a speech made at a house subcommittee meeting. Please stop lying for Jesus. So what? This has nothing to do with whether the media should report the nonsense he spewed. And again, the media widely reported Mr. Scott's speech, far more than would be expected for a speech made at a house subcommittee meeting. Please stop lying for Jesus. And again, the media widely reported Mr. Scott's speech, far more than would be expected for a speech made at a house subcommittee meeting. Please stop lying for Jesus. And again, the media widely reported Mr. Scott's speech, far more than would be expected for a speech made at a house subcommittee meeting. Please stop lying for Jesus. The only blackout here is your own self-imposed blackout of reality.

I am not denying this. However, I don't see this as a change from the past. There were plenty of sick people who had violent tendencies and actions in the past, wrote manifestos, gained admirers and followings - sometimes in significant numbers, caused mayhem, assassinated leaders, terrorized the population.

Yes, I am well aware that data can be interpreted in many ways. However, in saying that you are basically saying that we can never be certain of anything and you might as well just believe what ever you want to believe. I don't operate that way. I side with the best data. If better data comes along that gives a different answer then I alter my position. I already mentioned that this data comes from Pinker's book: The Better Angels of our Nature. To me it is by far the best compilation of the data - and the book is massive: 800+ pages covering a very broad field. Am I sure that the data is correct? Of course not. However, there are always critics of any book, especially academic books, and I have found the critics of this book to have done a very poor job arguing that Pinker is wrong. For instance, both John Gray and Edward Herman hate the book, but their complaints appear to be entirely ideological and not evidence-based in the slightest. The few critical reviews on amazon seem to follow that same pattern (ie: Pinker says that world is becoming far less violence...but what about the increased violence by humans against the ecosystem etc). So, no, I am never certain. But on the one hand, I have Pinker providing a massive amount of statistics supporting his thesis, backed and supported by what seems to be the vast majority of relevant experts; while on the other hand the minority of critics argue that Pinker must be wrong because.....well him being right would cause extreme cognitive dissonance. Any evidence that many mass killers of the past were not aware of the consequences of their actions? Any evidence that this is a change from the past? I suggest you read the evidence in Pinker's book that shows that many monsters of the past were widely admired: in fact their actions lifted them into positions of power. Also the evidence that many people and groups wanted to outdo each other in the amount of blood shed and pain inflicted. I reject your position that mass murders are increasing, therefore I see no reason to try to come up for explanations for an increase that I do not feel exists. If it was on the rise I would expect to see the worst "rampage killers" to have been in the past 15 - 20 years. So I went to wikipedia, and while I can't say that every entry is completely accurate, here is what I found: Worst rampage killer event in Africa: Tanganyika 1957. Not one of 10 worst examples happened in the last 15 years. In the Americas: Columbia 1986. None of the top 5 events occurred in the last 5 years. In Asia: South Korea 1982. Top 6 events occurred more then 15 years ago. In Europe: Soviet Union 1925. Of the top 10 #4 and 9 occurred in the past 15 years. Oceania: Australia 1996. This event led to strict gun control policies. All of the top 15 events occurred more then 15 years ago. Workplace killings: Indonesia 1996. 4 of the top 15 events occurred in the past 15 years. School massacres: US 1927. This is the only category where the majority of the top 15 events occurred in the past 15 years. Relgious/political/racial motivated rampage killers: Norway 2011. Domestic violence rampage killers: US 1987. vehicular manslaughter rampage killers: Kenya 1993. Grenade amoke rampage kilers: Thailand 1979. We live in a world where unspeakable acts of violence still occur and they always will. But it is less violent today compared to 25 years ago, and less violent back then compared to 100 years ago, and less violent back then compared to 250 years ago.

While I agree that the article appears a little sketchy, and I agree that vaccines in almost all cases reduce the chances of a superbug being developed the possibility of a decrease in spread of A leading to an increase in B has been seen before. One example is the related oral and genital herpes viruses. Concerted efforts in the 40s and 50s led to a dramatic decrease in transmission of the oral herpes virus to children. This was related to an increase 20 years later in genital herpes. Although there were several contributing factors, one reason was that people who had been previously infected with the more harmless oral herpes virus easily tackled the subsequent related genital herpes virus. Those who had no exposure to more harmless virus were less protected when they came in contact with the more severe virus. However, that doesn't mean that the solution was to have everyone infected with oral herpes.

TV news is selling a product. The reality of murder statistics are the reality of murder statistics. Evidence over anecdotes. As I said, why don't you read Pinker's book. If you truly believe that heinous crimes are on the rise then why not challenge yourself by reading the evidence of 1) what heinous acts were commonplace in the past and would be unthinkable now and 2) what the actual statistics are that show that the acts we consider heinous are far less frequent now: which is part of the reason we find them so jarring. In many cases they used to routine.