1. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226309 by Stu on August 8, 2008 at 12:23 am

Can you say 'Heisenberg Compensator'?

2. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #208031 by Stu on July 10, 2008 at 2:10 pm

I work in a library. What should my position be if I am asked to advise about homeopathy clinics? If someone suggests to me that they wish to exclusively attend a homeopathy clinic?

Anyway, this situation is ridiculous. She was already performing non-religious ceremonies for straight people - she should have been signing up for the church (is she the right religion to be allowed in?) so she could do nothing but 'proper' weddings. And surely there must now be a question over her ability to officiate other non-religious events effectively.

3. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107967 by Stu on January 5, 2008 at 5:33 pm

I haven't read all of the discussion going on here, I'm just commenting on the video.

First of all, this event clearly put to shame all the other debates we have seen recently, thanks entirely to the format. It would be fascinating to see Hitchens and D'Souza rematched in this way.

Secondly, kudos to Sam. I don't know whether he has worked on it, or if it just comes naturally, but he is the most eloquent speaker 'we' have. I think he was the last of the four horsemen I saw on fllm (even though Hitchens had been the last I read), and what a revelation. Such lucid reasoning, such incisive commentary.

I also liked the way he 'won' the handshake at the end...

4. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101472 by Stu on December 20, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Unlike those who allow their faith to prevent them from accepting life saving medical attention, in principle I would have to say that I could abandon my worldview (ie. lie) if it was important enough. Practically, I can't think of a situation - gun to the head perhaps, but nothing as everyday as the medical example.

Certainly not carols though. No hymns in fact - I don't sing at weddings or funerals. I don't object to reading the bible (though I haven't yet, and Prof. Dawkins comments aren't the ones to inspire it), and much of my other reading/viewing/gaming involves the supernatural (the same reaction to a natural world as the religious have, only manifested differently?). I know none of it is real - I'm not worshipping, I'm learning about myself, or about the human condition generally.

Christmas (despite the name) can be a non-religious event (trying to make it as irreligious as possible yet still be a valid event is a work in progress for me). Certain parts of it cannot, carols included, at least for me.

5. Stem cell breakthrough

Comment #90392 by Stu on November 25, 2007 at 1:56 am

Assuming it's worth its salt, it seems like great news - it may not be quite as effective as embryonic stem cells (which hopefully will still be worked on, but less visibly), but I would suggest that the more options for advancement that are available, the better.

But it could also knock the wind out of everyone's sails. Both sides were spoiling for a fight, and now we've got a great big 'agree to disagree' which leaves us standing around going 'Err, well, so, cells then...'. I wonder (and wouldn't be surprised) if either side will contrive to continue to find something to argue about.

6. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12424 by Stu on December 12, 2006 at 12:04 am

I don't think anyone has covered this point, apologies if I'm wrong.

The way 'Professor' McIntosh argues against the second law is interesting, and it gives away the fact that he is aware of what he is saying.

Here's how it goes:

McIntosh: Evolution violates the second law.
Dawkins: Energy is added through respiration.
McIntosh: Umm, okay. Well, machines then, you can't use that energy without machines. Aha!
Dawkins: The cells have evolved machinery for just that purpose.
McIntosh: Yeah, well, they needed a creator then didn't they!

The answer of course is no, though the 'debate' had run out of time. Regardless, why didn't McIntosh simply take that last position from the outset? Because it would have robbed him of two chances to catch people out, and left him nowhere to run. His moat and outer wall breached, he retreated to the keep. And there he is stranded.

Still, I suppose I may have used the same strategy, though I struggle to think of a humanist argument that could be so comprehensively undone as McIntosh's was.

7. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7505 by Stu on November 18, 2006 at 4:32 pm

Have a read of these two sister articles:

http://paralleldivergence.com/2006/11/04/which-is-stronger-manfluence-or-godfluence/

http://paralleldivergence.com/2006/11/11/how-hubble-killed-god/

Both are very interesting reads.

8. Penn Jillette Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #4447 by Stu on November 3, 2006 at 11:31 pm

Richard, please come to Australia, and have a read of my article: "Which is Stronger: Manfluence or Godfluence?"

http://stuhasic.wordpress.com/2006/11/04/which-is-stronger-manfluence-or-godfluence/