1. Atheist group sues Bush over national prayer day

Comment #260220 by atp on October 4, 2008 at 11:46 pm

>The day of prayer, held each year on the first Thursday of May, creates a "hostile environment for nonbelievers, who are made to feel as if they are political outsiders," the lawsuit said.

This argument can by used about National day of anything. Because whatever the day is about, there will always be someone who don't support it.

So I think this is a really bad argument.

2. Have-a-go deaths are never a waste

Comment #258397 by atp on October 2, 2008 at 1:34 am

The fallacy here is telling a large group of people (us) what we should do.

You can change the behaviour of a person, but you can't change the behvaiour of a large group of people this way. A large group of people will behave statistically based on what we humans are and the conditions.

If you want to change the behaviour of a large group of people you need to change the conditions under which the have to act to accomodate for the desired behaviour.

Through articles like the above, you can maybe make a very few people be inspired to behave differently if they in the near future encounter a similar situation. But in the longer run it will have absolutely no impact, because we human will act based on who we are and the conditions we live in.

Theoretically you could convince enough people to behave differently, so that the conditions actually change and that there will be safety in numbers. But that is unfortunately very unlikely to happen.

So the real question is, what can we change about the conditions we live under to make people feel it's less dangerous to actually interfere?

Can we teach "interfering" in school, so that we are trained to interfer in a way that disarms the situation? And thus making people confident about what to do, and more confident that others will join in and help? I don't know, it's just an idea to illustrate how we must think about things like this. Just appealing to us like this article does, will do absolutely nothing in the long run.

3. Artist Builds Temple of Science

Comment #257053 by atp on September 30, 2008 at 1:37 am

"Science has two cultures within it. One is interested in questions, and the other in answers. I'm much more attracted to science for its questioning quality, ..."

What does that mean?

Does it actually have meaning, or is it just something said in order to sound profound and to appear like he sees a broader picture?

To me it sounds like he should be more interested in philosophy than in science. Because science is a method to gain increased understanding of the world and its interactions. It can draw on philosophy in order to find good questions, but without the pursuit of answers/increased understanding, I don't think you have science any more.

4. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251017 by atp on September 21, 2008 at 2:17 am

Laurie Fraser:
"this is a "clear-thinking oasis""

I don't think the article shows much clear thinking. That is one of the problems. It's an article trying to make a person look bad. It hardly touches on anything that has to do with actual politics at all.

This is just about sympathies and antipathies. People cheering because the attack is directed towards the one they dislike.

And since this is a "clear-thinking oasis", I'm free to critize articles and their place here. Like you of course are free to critize me for critizing the article and so forth...

BrandySpears:
>One of America's most prominent atheists speaks out against a fundamentalist rapture-ready nutter having access to our nuclear weapons and you have a problem with that?

It's not speaking out I dislike, it is:
- Political propaganda on THIS site
- It's twisting facts around
- It is making politics to be only about persons, and sympathies/antipathies, and not about politics

And when did "most prominent atheists" start being relevant? It's not like he's a priest of the church og atheism or something. It is what Sam Harris writes that is of importance, not that Sam Harris wrote it.

To me it's just worse when someone I respect and like write something I think is crap, that when someone I don't respect do the same. That's why I dislike reading things like that on this website.

Diacanu:
"Y'know, when I hear you whining and mewling..."

:)

5. When Atheists Attack

Comment #250997 by atp on September 21, 2008 at 1:44 am

I hate coming to richarddawkins.net and reading political propraganda crap like this.

This is not about religion, it is not about politicas, it is not about facts, it is only about attacking a person and using rhetorics and twisting and bending every fact, half fact and lie to make a person look as bad as possible.

And it's speaking to the masses, who goes "amen" at every negative word and every strike.

Yes, she's religious, and yes that sucks. But for me that doesn't warrant every kind of political propaganda. And I think it has nothing to do on a site like this.

6. Hadron Collider halted for months

Comment #250987 by atp on September 21, 2008 at 1:27 am

Awww... I was really looking forward to hearing news about the Higgs boson soon. :(

Two months... that means I have to wait to at least until end of november.

7. The real difference between liberals and conservatives

Comment #250106 by atp on September 19, 2008 at 1:25 am

I see some people took the opportunity to take the blue pill, and instead of "stepping out of the moral matrix" use this to strengthen their feeling of "we are better than them".

>Am I the only European who is fed up with the way Americans seem to have hijacked the term "liberal" as a code for left wing?

Absolutely not. I'm from Norway, and in many ways I think of the right wing as more liberal in the sense that it is the political left wing who wants to have laws and regulations everywhere, and it's the right wing who prioritize individual rights and freedom.

Also it's the left wing who seems to demand conformity in moral and ways of thinking, are claiming moral authority and are the quickest to condemn those who have other ideas and ways of thinkng than themselves.

Take a trip to Norway and say you support Bush, and you'll see how liberal left wing norwegians are when it comes to people who think differently than themselves. Actually, when I think about it, from reading som american forums liberals in the united states are not very liberal in this context either.

I am not saying that conservatives are better! Only that those who claim to be liberal is often not. They're liberal when it comes to their chosen subjects, and not very accepting of those who not hold the same values.

I see this post started drifting. To sum up, liberal and conservative is not a very good divition between left wing and right wing outside america.

And from my very superficial knowledge of america and what I've seen of liberals discussing conservatives, it doesn't seem to be very fitting in america either.

I think if you really are liberal at mind, you shouldn't need to take the red pill. You should already be understanding and accepting when it comes to people who have different political views and moral than yourself.

8. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248027 by atp on September 15, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Personally I find it totally irrelevant that Reiss is a clergyman. It is what he's saying in the position that he is that is the problem.

I strongly believe in freedom of thought, and not attacking a person for what he are. if Reiss could put away his religious bagage and do his job proper, that would be fully acceptable.

Obviously he couldn't, and that is why he should consider leaving his position.

9. Teachers should tackle creationism, says science education expert

Comment #245881 by atp on September 11, 2008 at 1:37 pm

The only place ID and creationism has in a science class are as case studies of what science is not.

You can't otherwise begin to miseducate people because you're afraid to turn them away from science.

However, it is important to recognize that science in no way disproves God or any other fantasy beings. Science just makes sense of the world we live in, and together with logic shows why no gods are necessary.

So leave gods and other fantasy beings out of science all together, they have no place there.

10. Autism and Vaccines: Why Bad Logic Trumps Science

Comment #243884 by atp on September 7, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Apathy's point is valid and not subject to a logical fallacy.

Science works like this:
1. You propose a theory (vaccine causes autism)
2. You make predictions (there should be a correlation between vaccine and autism)
3. You check the data (is there a correlation?)
4. The theory is either strengthened or weakened by the found

Now finding correlations is evidence for the theory, but it does not prove the theory.
Finding no correlation is evidence that the theory is wrong, but it does not disprove the theory (1).

Saying that looking for correlation, or lack thereof, is a logical fallacy is the same as saying the scinetific method is based on a logical fallacy.

(1) Some may be surprised by this. Causation should lead to correlation, right? Yes, but there are at least two problems.

One is that there may be factors hiding the correlation. Let's say A causes B, but C effectively stops B. And C is always present when you gather data.

Another is that the data gathered was not good enough or there was some methodical error the scientists were not aware of.

In science we gather evidence. Evidence strengthen or weaken a theory. But rarely prove or disprove theories.

11. It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud

Comment #238274 by atp on August 27, 2008 at 10:12 pm

What he does is presenting a parody of atheists, strawmen atheists, which he then knocks down.

He is writing this for an audience who do not know what the real arguments and questions are. And his target group will buy this, it confirms their belief and prejudices.

This is no different than what we see and hear daily in politics. The opponents are misrepresented, their arguments twisted and their motivations questioned.

We all want our beliefs and prejudices confirmed. That's human. That's how we organize the world in our minds.

Edit: What I do wonder is how much he believes in his own arguments. Is this what he really believe, or is he deliberately misrepresenting us atheists?

12. No credit for creationism

Comment #232918 by atp on August 18, 2008 at 11:04 pm

Stop bashing the blonde girl. Very few people her age understands science well enough to see through the well crafted lies that ID has anything to do with science.

Most of us, if not all of us, would at her point in life, going to the same school, probably feel that what we were thought made sense. I know I was never thought was science actually is until far later in my education.

If people are not thought critical thinking in school, then they have to discover this for them self when they grow up. It is the school that is to blaim, not the poor girl being misled by it.

I feel bad when I read this site, which supposedly should be frequented by well reflected people, and I see this kind of "We are better than you"-behaviour and lack of empathy and understanding.

13. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232354 by atp on August 18, 2008 at 2:04 am

I see that a couple of times it's argued that the idea that "free" particles can cause free will is to incredible to be true.

I'd like to point out that this is the exact same argument that many religious people use when they claim that the universe could not just appear on itself, the eye is too complex to have evolved naturally and so forth. It's an argument that appeals to ones own lack of knowledge and imagination.

Personally I don't believe in free atoms. The reason for this is that there are no evidence for it. All we have is unpredictable behavior. But we don't need magic to explain that. All we need to acknowledge is that there is causes we don't have enough information about.

We do have a phenomena we call will, and it does appear to behave as if it is at least semi free. That it's not totally free is easy to prove. Just go get drunk and experience for yourself that your will is not free from the chemical contents of your brain.

Anyway, this will and our consciousness and ability to feel and have experiences is a mystery to us still. I believe it some day can be explained through advanced processes in the brain. But this is also an explanation that stretches the imagination. Many people will find that just as incredible as some of you find that interaction of molecules/particles with freedom can be the cause. But saying it is not possible is yet again an appeal to ones own lack of knowledge and imagination.

My reason for not believing in free atoms is that we do not know enough about the phenomena to say that it is an requirement. We have no observations really supporting the theory. And adding freedom to atoms is just making the world even more complex, without knowing that it is necessary, and without really getting more answers. It goes against Occams razor.

It's nice as a philosophical idea. But without observation supporting it, there is no reason to start believing in it.

14. Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Comment #229003 by atp on August 13, 2008 at 2:29 am

PZ Myers reckons that saying evolution is separate from abiogenesis is a cop out. He argued (too lazy to link) that the formation of life is part of the same process that includes evolution.....

15. Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Comment #228996 by atp on August 13, 2008 at 2:02 am

Wow! The whole article reads just like it was some fancy new age stuff that wanted to look like science.

But it makes enough sense to me to look like a viable way of looking at evolution in the context of energy.

I am not a physics expert, and have always had a problem with one aspect of entropy. It is said that in a _closed_ (was missing in the article) system entropy tends to increase continuously. So that there is no problem with subsystems where entropy decreases, i.e. self organization in an open subsystem does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

But what I've never really grasped is how energy input into (or flow through) an open system, when that results in locally decreased entropy, is causing overall increased entropy?

Anyway, an interesting article I will be sure to reread a couple of time.

16. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #210665 by atp on July 15, 2008 at 12:39 am

How do you define a "peaceful religion"?

Is it a religion that preaches peace?
Or is it a religion that leads to peace?

Because the first doesn't seem to necessary lead to the second.

I say it's something in the nature of religion itself that is the problem.

17. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110769 by atp on January 12, 2008 at 11:01 am

An absolute objective moral is to me like religion, I have never seen any evidence for such a thing.

Mostly, and this is not meant as a strawman, I see people subscribe to the idea because they are not comfortable with a world where it is up to each and every single individual to make up his or her mind about whether it is okay to kill or not.

So, as far as I am concerned, all ethics and morals are subjective and it is actually up to each individual to make up his or her own mind about what is right or wrong. But of course not in a vacuum, but influenced by parents and society.

But subjective moral is not the same as moral relativism.

If my ethics says it is wrong to kill people. It is wrong to kill all people. If I make exceptions in my ethics for people of some cultures, saying it is OK for people of that culture to kill, then this would be moral relativism.

It would also mean I would have a double moral standard. One standard for one group of people, another standard for another group of people. This double moral, or lack of moral, is moral relativism. But is not the same as subjective moral.

It is very possible to have a subjective moral without falling into the trap of moral relativsm.

18. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106577 by atp on January 3, 2008 at 7:09 am

>No, you are mixing immediate humanity, which you take a direct part, and global humanity, which you have less or no impact on, and jumping in and out of them as it suits you.

It is very possible to have different roles in different situations.

This discussion is going nowhere, so I'm out.

19. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106552 by atp on January 3, 2008 at 6:10 am

>You're not part of "we", and "our"?

I am part of 'we humans', but that doesn't mean I have to take an active part in deciding anything for us.

Are you deliberatley trying to misundestand in order to avoid relating to the real content of my posting?

>You don't want a say?
What I personally want is not relevant.


>See it does matter, because if what you assume has no relevance to the matter, then neither does your say in it, and there goes the immediate "we".


What I personally assume or want does not affect the point of my post. Whether or not I get to affect any decission has nothing to with the fact that the only ones having a say in the matter is us humans, and nobody and nothing else.

You are mixing different things together.

>And if you're not talking about the immediate "we", but the global "we", then why bother quote Einstein?

Again you seem to mix together my part in this discussion from the point of my post.

>Let's get back on the Jesus train then.

I say that "good", "bad" etc. is subjectively defined by humans, and comes from nothing and nowhere else. Then you start talking about appealing to superstition, which is the opposite of what I'm saying.

I have to repat my question, are you deliberaltely trying to misunderstand?

20. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106535 by atp on January 3, 2008 at 5:22 am

>You say "our", as if you'll get to be one of the ones deciding.

No, I don't. Can you explain how you came to that assumption?

Also, can you explain how it is relevant to what I wrote?

>You assume the choosing committee will consider Einstein, and not say, Nietzsche.

I make no such assumption. Also it would have no relevance if I did, since my comments do not rely uppon anything I assume or not.

21. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106438 by atp on January 3, 2008 at 12:22 am

Diacanu wrote: «Oh, and if it ain't broke...»

Broke by what standard?

Diacanu wrote: «But we're ages away from being wise enough to play with well...ourselves.»

Wise enough by what standard?

There is no "right", "wrong", "broke", "good" or "bad" by any other definition than our own subjective definition.

As the article says, mother nature is indifferent. Also about these things.

So what we humans have to do is define our own standards and goals based on our own ethics and goals.

And about ethics, let me quote Einstein:

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

22. What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #98621 by atp on December 14, 2007 at 12:15 am

Atheism doesn't say anything about The meaning of life. The idea that The meaning exists is a religious idea.

It is then up to every person to find meaning in his or her own life, and in the life of other people.

But the endless search for The meaning, that is a wild goose hunt religion has instilled on humanity.

23. Double-checking Dawkins

Comment #93020 by atp on December 2, 2007 at 1:57 am

To those who say "get a life", I'd like to comment that being curious, finding things out, even though they are not important things, is actually a great part of being alive.

On the other hand. Telling people who are curious to "get a life" I find much less constructive or interesting.

24. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #82256 by atp on October 26, 2007 at 12:09 am

I believe it's a stupid argument.

Apart from that, atheisme is not defined by what people believe in. It's only defined by a lack of belief in the existence of gods.

Of course, any rational atheist would believe in science. And believing in science does not mean believing that everything science ever produces is true, but believing in the scientific method and that it over time will uncover more and more knowledge about the world and how everything works.

25. If you don't accept the supernatural, you obviously think life is depressing, meaningless and cold

Comment #81647 by atp on October 25, 2007 at 1:54 am

One scary thing about religion is that it seems to take away some peoples ability to enjoy and find meaning in life as it is.

Maybe the reason is that religion teaches people to believe that there has to be something more, and thus makes it difficult to settle for what is.

26. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #81594 by atp on October 25, 2007 at 12:19 am

Atheism doesn't assert anything. It is a lack of belief in something.

I simply have to admit I don't know these things, and that my lack of knowledge is no reason to believe in any random story about supernatural beings or similar that logically cannot be proved to have no more or less truth in it than other random stories.

The propostion that "God did it" does not give me any more knwoledge outside the proposition itself. As not as it is not based in reality or logic and cannot be proved or disproved, the proposition about God holds no value.

It gives no knowledge and no real answers, it only provides us with more questions. How did God come about?

And using Occams razor I can say. If God could exists in order to create the univers. Couldn't the laws of existence that permitted God to exist just as well permit the existence of our universe without any interaction of a God?

So as an atheist I don't have to assert anything. I just have to acknowledge that the story about God holds no value, gives no knowledge and is utterly superfluous.

27. Norway flourishes as secular nation

Comment #76157 by atp on October 4, 2007 at 11:49 pm

I don't think you should attribute peace to secularism. There is a correlation, yes. But what causes what is too complex for jumping to conclusions like that.

But here is something else to consider: There are few ill effects of secularism in Norway. Rejection of religion is not a problem. A secular society works very well, and religion is not necessary for having a good and peaceful society.

28. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74592 by atp on September 29, 2007 at 4:19 pm

The world isn't black and white. Of course something good comes from religion too. Denying that would be stupid.

But still we should look at the sum of how religion affect our world, and that is in my oppinion predominately negative.

And even if it the sum of effects were positive, it still wouldn't make it right to delude people into believing in lies.

29. How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science

Comment #70315 by atp on September 14, 2007 at 11:15 pm

I thought the conclusion to this text was a bit strange.

First it is shown that people reject knowledge if the knowledge contradicts their religion. Then "These data once again show that, in the minds of most people in the United States, there is no real clash between science and religion"

If science is rejected because the knowledge contradicts a persons religion, I would say there's a serious clash here. Is it only me?

30. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69185 by atp on September 9, 2007 at 11:13 pm

Ramsey: «The parody only works if the analogy between religion and fascism is close enough.»

No Ramsey. This piece does not rely on comparing religion and facism. What it does is taking the arguments against the attack on facism is the same as the arguments against the attack on religion. And since the arguments works and we still know fascism is bad, we have an absurd situation. And this shows that arguments themselves are flawed.

So this writing does NOT rely on comparing fascism with religion.

31. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67280 by atp on September 3, 2007 at 2:27 am

This article was mostly a homage to the God of gaps. There are still som unanswered questions out there, so lets fill them up with God.

«Having faith makes me humble and self-questioning, unlike the unbelievers who know they are always right.»

Who knows they are always right? The religious people who claims there is a god? Or the atheist people do not believe in any given explanaition for what thy don't know?

I don't know where our universe came from. I don't understand where the quality of our senses are coming from. Concluding with God would be a jump to a conclusion that does not have support in any knowledge or evidence. So I don't conclude with anything. That makes me an atheist.

32. In God we doubt

Comment #67276 by atp on September 3, 2007 at 2:18 am

There's way to much here to comment on. So I choose just one thing I think maybe not everyone has thought about.

If I say a religious person is naive or stupid, or that it is naive and stupid to believe in religion, I mean naive/stupid about this question. I don't mean the person is stupid in general.

All intelligent people are stupid now and then. So it is very possible for a highly intelligent person to act unintelligently when it comes to a question such as religion.

33. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66887 by atp on September 1, 2007 at 12:04 am

If only Professor Dawkins and Co would remember that Socrates was deemed the wisest of men because he "knew that he didn't know".