1. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109697 by The_Stone on January 9, 2008 at 2:05 pm

he he he,
Yep, he even looks like a mathematician.

2. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109696 by The_Stone on January 9, 2008 at 2:03 pm

I agree. I personally much prefer a professional's perspective on the subject.

I would bet books about atheism and skepticism would find more credibility amongst the religious crowd if they were penned by admitted schmo's. Authors who would be considered "average people" who reached a personal epiphany about the non-existence of god(s), could fill an open niche for the atheist message.

Perhaps I'll try it, who knows, it might just pay for my college loans!

3. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109688 by The_Stone on January 9, 2008 at 1:45 pm

No Equations? Such a pity.

Could it be that we are more afraid of math than gods?

4. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105771 by The_Stone on January 1, 2008 at 7:47 pm

As part of nature, all that we do is also part of nature, including genetic engineering. Its simply the next advancement, like placental birth, like self-chemical regulation, like the development of the animal brain.

Any tool if it exists, will likely be used by someone somewhere to an advantage. Our cultural notions of morality are hardly relevant in preventing this, this will come down to how we have developed in evolution and our reaction to that process.

Preventing the deaths of the diseased was once considered against god, and against nature. This idea has been destroyed, we now expect science to usurp nature and death as a matter of fact. Why not use this next great tool to prevent suffering, enhance existence, and revolutionize life?

5. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105627 by The_Stone on January 1, 2008 at 9:43 am

I changed my mind about Super Strings about 5 years ago, i know consider myself to be agnostic to this endeavor. It seems rather silly and religion-like to derive law of physics under the assumption of extra dimensions/extra universes. It does make the math easier to deal with, it does in its principles suggest a means of explaining gravitation, but they are unappealing presumptions since nobody has required them as yet. I would bet, when a GUT is formulated, it will be out of chaotic processes of the very small, and not derived from field theories. Instead those field theories will be derived from the application of quantum mechanical statistics to those chaotic processes.

Only time (or space) will tell
;-)

6. For the glory of God

Comment #88422 by The_Stone on November 16, 2007 at 2:36 pm

If America cannot reverse this unreason, it will end up being the the janitors and house servants of the former third-world. What a waste.

7. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71730 by The_Stone on September 19, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Why do people need to be GIVEN a "purpose"? Makes more sense, and its much more fulfilling to find one's purpose as a matter of personal introspection.

Religion seems to be the lazy man's philosophy, wherein its prepackaged hierarchy and doctrine are ready to stupefy any willing beleiver.

8. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71709 by The_Stone on September 19, 2007 at 2:10 pm

If god is outside nature, hence outside our universe, then what good is the existence of a god?

God's existence is only useful if it interacts with nature and our universe, and when it does, science can measure it. So far science measures nil for god.

Considering each and every religion has mutually conflicting views of god and its role in the universe, id say even a "universal" god (no pun intended) is also out of the question.

How a guy can study DNA and understand how it has developed over the eons, can manage to also believe in a god is truly strange. Shows how some people compartmentalize their knowledge, and apparently refuse or are unable to see beyond their limited world view.

9. Good News: Both our Foundations are now Officially Recognized as Charities

Comment #70285 by The_Stone on September 14, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Now I you can say "Take That!", and you wont have to pay taxes.

10. Good News: Both our Foundations are now Officially Recognized as Charities

Comment #70257 by The_Stone on September 14, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Excellent!

11. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68254 by The_Stone on September 6, 2007 at 2:14 pm

I also find it typical, in my experience in talking to and debating believers, that instead of refuting an argument, believers will reword and willfully misinterpret the arguments. Often the reworking seems to be constrained by their own personal knowledge boundaries. Its quite dishonest, but one must be reminded that a believer isnt to be trusted, but cornered and when possible "out-sloganed".

12. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66317 by The_Stone on August 29, 2007 at 5:16 pm

I agree with Sam, of course. As a former Christian, I can recall the double-think going on in one's mind. At once, I could believe God to be merciful, because I never attributed the ill-goings on of the world to God but instead to Satan. Sort of like an elephant(god) might stamp out ants(satan and demons) due to either innumeracy or clever motility. (As if ants or elephants could ever comprehend the human notion of good and evil).

Now, after receiving a thorough education of the nature of mathematical infinity and it's logical rigor, it is impossible to reasonably admit an infinite god as capable of admitting evil, without being party to the act of applying suffering even undeservededly and spitefully.

What I'm saying is that Christians, out of a lack of understanding of reason itself, and selective memorization, do not have a grasp of the nature of the infinite that is the foundation of their faith.

13. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56149 by The_Stone on July 14, 2007 at 4:02 am

Sam I am, I love green eggs and ham. Would you with a clam? I surely hope not. Thanks Mr. Harris!

14. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55537 by The_Stone on July 11, 2007 at 1:14 pm

So we're talking about whether or not a lie is "good" for the world, and that we should just accept it because some people are insistent and have believed it for long (in human terms) time.

If one enjoys the status quo, one blinds oneself to the truth of other possibilities. Apparently, some of those who have profited from others' blindness wish to convince the rest of us to follow suit.

I don't know about the rest of humanity, but I continually seek out self-deception in my life as a means to improving its quality. It would seem to me, if others are to get at the root of their personal problems or those of their various societies, they must be capable of introspective-honesty as well as worldly-honesty.

To date, I don't see any evidence of this type of widespread honesty in religion. Religions' defenders wish to distort the facts, mixing them up with further lies, in order to confound those doubting their faiths. The sooner this profit-driven, or even ignorance-driven system comes to an end the better.

Its my vow that no defender of religion should go un-countered.

15. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53350 by The_Stone on June 30, 2007 at 11:08 pm

in our wide, vast universe. Why is it so less than absolutely clear to every living thing that the exact same god is in way connected to any creation to even the smallest crystallization of matter. Why is this such a hidden matter in the face of supposed human free will.?

16. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53349 by The_Stone on June 30, 2007 at 11:00 pm

Behe is a living monument to the integrity of science. Modern Science allows all questions, but certainly not all answers in the rigor of time and relentless collection of data.

Mr. Behe, how do you feel about the murder and concealment of facts in the face of truth?

Persons such as you present not just misguided knowledge but a truly fascist angle into which the rest of civilization will descend if your corrupt thinking is not put at an end.

With your knowledge of the facts, you willfully misrepresent the facts, and misguide the masses who put their trust in the professional scientists to explore the facts and not impose their personal feelings. You've done everyone in our society a great disservice. What grotesque need forces such a person to overlook reality?

17. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52663 by The_Stone on June 27, 2007 at 4:44 pm

I would say that "PaulEmecz" is not a troller.

As part of any intelligent forum, one ought to expect and enjoy counter arguments.

Signing on to a forum to merely reinforce my own views would seem "intellectually masturbatory". Heck, if someone says they never did, you know they're a liar. ;-)

With respect to Post #17:
I was speaking from experience. The religious and those whom choose not to investigate the unknown rely on their own or others' non-empirically derived "assumptions". In essence, these persons treat their own hypothesis as their conclusion, apparently out of confusion.

This has been a particular problem in matters of discussion of the big bang and of course evolution. In my location, there are many who are simply reared in a manner that discourages the questioning of dogma of any type. Surely this would aggravate even you PaulE. They couldn't tell me why they think what they think other than to respond with, "thats not in the bible". My flippant label "goon" was intended for those who willfully ignore discrepancies in the answers relating to the questions posed and observations collected.

My personal favorite question to a fervent Xian is to ask "Why did God create the Devil?"

We assume God is omniscient (contains a memory of all events in the universe), as a subset of being omnipotent (which is at least to claim god is not bounded by physics). If God is omnipotent, then creation of the Devil was done so with full knowledge of the implications. Since the Devil's actions my own and billions of others are known, why am I to be punish for this?

Hows that PaulE, I always question what i see. I don't take things at face value, unlike my friendly neighborhood believer. I seek answers to questions, not just the questions themselves.

[J.R.R. Tolkien has a nice way of introducing "evil" into a mythology in a manner that enhances the universe in "The Silmarillion"]

18. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52294 by The_Stone on June 26, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Rationalists (Empiricists) are at an extreme disadvantage when called to counter the beliefs of the faithful. Us rationalists know how to conjure a hypothesis, gather data from an impartial experiment, perform analysis, and compose a conclusion. We know how to use the scientific method. This endeavor of science is far too complicated for the believer. They either do not understand its parts and purposes or they are too lazy to find the truth. Until we improve our educational system, and teach these goons how to think, we'll be carrying their water and fixing their problems.

Religion is such a damn hassle.
Isnt it just easier to NOT believe, but know?

19. Protesting the Creation Museum

Comment #49157 by The_Stone on June 10, 2007 at 5:44 pm

Dr. Krauss Rocks!

20. Pale Blue Dot

Comment #47526 by The_Stone on June 4, 2007 at 9:25 pm

That it has an end it what makes human life so precious. Sagan was one of us, the fortunates, who are truly awake, who experience this existence fully and honestly, and who are aware of its utter fragility. I miss him like a father, a dear teacher, who pointed up and showed me how to really wonder at the universe.

As a former Christian, such notions from Sagan move me far more powerfully than any mere biblical quotation.