1. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132948 by jbblack on February 25, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Well, from the brief excerpt of the book, it sounds almost as if the author is begging the question--does the fact that atheists are becoming more vocal really lead to the loss of civil liberties?

I actually intend on reading this one, should it come to my library. The reason is that the concepts of both "civil liberties" and "rights" are complex ones, and as an American citizen, I cherish the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'd like to see how he defines these concepts, and then see if he makes a clear case demonstrating that these things are prevented by someone deciding his/her beliefs are not true, or by exercising their rights to not espouse those beliefs.

I admit my prejudice here; I don't think such a case can be honestly made without redefining the concepts of "civil liberties" and "rights". At first glance, the author almost seems to presuppose that one is entitled to whatever he thinks will make him happy, rather than entitled to pursue his happiness. There is a big difference between the two; the right to pursue happiness does not guarantee its achievement.

2. State Approves Evolution As 'Scientific Theory'

Comment #129664 by jbblack on February 19, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Know what you mean, Joe. If this gets to welding in shop class or baking in Home Economics, it'll all be over then.

3. State Approves Evolution As 'Scientific Theory'

Comment #129661 by jbblack on February 19, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Actually, no, she was an uber-conservative atheist author. One of her novels, Atlas Shrugged had the exact same storyline, where all the intelligent people went on strike and hid out until the entire infrastructure collapsed under the rule of the dooftards.

While I don't agree with a lot of her philosophical works, I really did enjoy the book.

On an aside note, liberalartist, I really apologize. I was shuffling windows a while ago and accidentally tagged your post as spam. There's really not an "oops, I didn't mean that" option.

4. State Approves Evolution As 'Scientific Theory'

Comment #129652 by jbblack on February 19, 2008 at 12:28 pm

*LOL* This is soooo Ayn Rand...

5. Pleas for condemned Saudi 'witch'

Comment #126855 by jbblack on February 14, 2008 at 11:04 am

No doubt, Epinephrine.

(This next bit is somewhat off-topic)

What really irritates me is that in the early part of the 20th century, we in the US started using our schools as a means of fighting this kind of baseless superstition. And now we have pompous JA's like Ben Stein whining in movies because we're not teaching enough of it.

6. Pleas for condemned Saudi 'witch'

Comment #126850 by jbblack on February 14, 2008 at 10:55 am

Not surprised at the least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k30MOebDSww

Saudi Arabia, our partners in peace...

7. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125274 by jbblack on February 11, 2008 at 7:04 am

Dear Prof. Dawkins (or as you prefer, Richard):

I'd like to congratulate you on your upcoming retirement. You have done very well in your position--the amount of people on this site alone should be a testament to the passion for science that you have stoked within our eager minds.

I am glad to hear that you have another book forthcoming, and I am eager for it already. But know that even if you were not to publish another word, your works have broadened my horizons and enriched my life immensely, and I am grateful to you for having written them.

May your retirement be filled with doing those things that you enjoy most, and spending more time on the beach with the lovely Mrs. Ward.

As an aside note, all of the scientists mentioned up to this point have been great choices. PZ Myers stands out among these in my opinion.


Jason B. Black
Arkansas

8. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117324 by jbblack on January 28, 2008 at 2:53 pm

What an incredible, well-written article! It expresses my sentiments in a way that is non-threatening and in a way that fosters dialog.

Notsobad mentioned that religion is dogma's child. I'm not so certain that I agree; it seems that dogma would be born out of religion as a means of enforcing "orthodoxy" to the views of the religion. But then again, it could be a paradox where one feeds and sustains the other.

9. Banned From Church

Comment #115810 by jbblack on January 24, 2008 at 8:35 pm

I don't feel sorry for the woman in the article. What I feel is more of a sense of pride in her for being a real pain in the butt to those that would bully others by claiming to speak for their god.
She and I may disagree on theology, but we both understand the importance of stubbornness.

As for what the churches are doing, this is going to sound mean, but I say good. I'd rather them get so exclusive and picky about members that people will lose interest. Nobody likes busybodies, nor do they like being scrutinized, humiliated, or excluded--yet these pastors feel that it is not only their right but their duty to do so.

This new crop of neo-Pharisees will only succeed in putting the last nail in the coffin of religion. I only hope we have time and influence to help others find rational, livable alternatives to dangerous beliefs.

10. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114936 by jbblack on January 23, 2008 at 8:01 am

I've been trying to read "Darwin on Trial" because a creationist friend of mine insists I read something that supports his side. I have been trying to work out how the fact that natural selection is a tautology makes it meaningless and that evolution is somehow wrong because it is an "unfalsifiable" hypothesis.

My problem with this is that it is not unfalsifiable. Evolution depends on these things: reproduction, mutations, natural selection, speciation, and time.

Reproduction is falsifiable. Mutation is falsifiable. Natural Selection is falsifiable (and evidence of it is clearly visible in our time by the emergence of drug-resistant bacteria). Merely separate two groups (speciation) and effectively prevent cross-breeding, then as environmental factors change between the two groups over time natural selection kicks in. After many generations of mutations that are weeded out due to unfitness to their habitats, the end result are two different species.

None of this is unfalsifiable, once it's broken down into its individual components. It is also not a tautology because the argument for it does not automatically imply truth--disprove any of these components (good luck) and you've disproved the theory of evolution. Of course, you know this already; I'm guilty of preaching to the choir.

But you can always (rightly) make the claim that the creationist literature your friend insists you read makes use of a LOT of unfalsifiable assertions.

11. Honour Killings

Comment #114312 by jbblack on January 21, 2008 at 10:47 pm

I don't see the need for the vouchers. If they want to shelter their children from the alleged "evils" of the world (and in the process ensure they are COMPLETELY unprepared for them,) why can't they just do what the wackos here in the states do? Withdraw them from public schooling and indoctrinate them from the privacy of their own homes?

Otherwise, if you're wanting a public education, then you should expect to get views that suit the interests of the entire public, not just your own group.

12. Violence fear over Islam film

Comment #114178 by jbblack on January 21, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Roland_F, I agree that rational and mature dialog is the preferred method to creating change. As much as part of me is screaming, "I'll burn the damn book myself, if the response gets the rest of the world to wake up and realize that respect must go both ways," the rest of me says that provoking an already unstable group would result in far too much needless damage and just cause the extremists to withdraw even further from communication.

13. Stop House Resolution 888

Comment #107838 by jbblack on January 5, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Its chance of surviving is inversely proportional to how many of us get off our butts and write anyway.

I've just sent my letter in, although my representative is most likely going to vote against it anyway. He's got a pretty good track for nipping B.S. in the bud.

14. Russia prohibits denial of Santa

Comment #104007 by jbblack on December 27, 2007 at 2:23 pm

In Soviet Russia, the halls deck YOU!!!

15. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #103449 by jbblack on December 25, 2007 at 5:15 pm

What I don't understand is their incessant need to drag Prof. Dawkins' name through the muck on their title, if NOT to try to ride his coattails. I think he should sue for libel and copyright infringement to say the least.

16. Bill O'Reilly Interviews Lori Lipman Brown

Comment #95701 by jbblack on December 9, 2007 at 2:17 am

Geoff said,

I'm not from the US, but I understand a new president has to swear to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States" (or words to that effect).

Sounds to me as if he couldn't honestly do that.

OK, I realise that honesty and politics don't mix all that well, but still...

Well, you have to understand that politics is the world's second oldest profession. And it's very closely related to the first.

17. The art of the soluble

Comment #95698 by jbblack on December 9, 2007 at 2:09 am

The existence of a god who has any role in our physical universe is a scientific question. A god who by definition has no basis in our universe can be said to not exist. Either way the review is tired and boring for all the same old reasons. It's as if none of these people READ.

Maybe that's the problem. Perhaps we should start presenting our arguments in a form they'll readily understand. Maybe a book with LOTS of pictures and very few big words.

Or perhaps a movie. With lots of car chases and exploding things.

18. Bill O'Reilly Interviews Lori Lipman Brown

Comment #95475 by jbblack on December 8, 2007 at 12:23 pm

One thing I noticed was that she politely refused to allow him to steamroll her into a corner, just kept plodding merrily along with her point and wouldn't let him sidetrack her.

I also noticed that O'Reilly, when it was clear that she wasn't going to back down to him, started referring to the Atheists demands for inclusion as "Whining." That's the best he can do? As if it were wrong to demand that one's government protect the rights of all citizens rather than only those of the majority.

He says he wouldn't whine if the tables were reversed and Christians were a minority in a primarily secular ntaion, but from his incessant whining about the self-made "war on Christmas", we all know THAT is a bunch of BS.

Lori, should you be reading this, you handled Bill quite well, and with style. Great job!

19. Monotheism was a con from the beginning

Comment #90963 by jbblack on November 26, 2007 at 8:22 pm

Hey Crazy!

Went through the e-mail ring myself at my old job. Got multiple e-mails per day and finally started launching my own campaign. Not "against religion" per se, but really interesting scientific articles.

They asked about why I did that (most enjoyed the articles) and I said since I didn't believe in God, I thought I'd share what I found inspiring.

Result? Little bit of shock at first but overall no big deal.

20. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #90634 by jbblack on November 25, 2007 at 11:48 pm

Proving that I love someone and proving the existence of God are about as similar as apples and snozzberries:

Proving that I love someone is only proving something that is inside my mind, an emotional response that sums up how much I value another.

Are you trying to say that if God exists, then like my love of someone, it is all in someone's head? There is a ton of difference between a subjective experience, like an emotion, and an objective reality.

No, there is no way of proving my love for someone else. Just as there is no evidence for your god. But the difference is that I admit my love of another is a product of my mind and my brain, whereas you refuse to admit that your god is the product of yours.

21. Stem cell breakthrough

Comment #90633 by jbblack on November 25, 2007 at 11:40 pm

Despite the reason for developing it was silly to begin with, I still think this method is yet another breakthrough. Perhaps this will get the Religious Reich to stand down a bit so that our brilliant biologists can get some work done.

Of course, I wouldn't doubt if the RR decides that all cells have souls or some other rubbish.

22. Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock

Comment #90632 by jbblack on November 25, 2007 at 11:35 pm

PHDs, at least in the context of this story, must mean: "PHony Doctors"

23. Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock

Comment #90631 by jbblack on November 25, 2007 at 11:35 pm

"We don't subscribe to this idea of the 'God of gaps,' meaning if you can't explain something, then blame God," Whitmore told me before describing a method that hardly seemed more scientific. "Instead, we think: 'Here's what the Bible says. Now let's go to the rocks and see if we find the evidence for it.' "

That last line sums up exactly why I am so hostile to Creation Science/Intelligent Design.

What would it be like if my doctor was like this? I go into the emergency room, and before so much as being interviewed as to why I am there, he writes a prescription for eye drops as he is convinced that I have pinkeye. Never mind that I have multiple compound fractures, cannot feel my legs, and have received several units of blood; the doctor is convinced that I have pinkeye and will not even bother looking at the evidence otherwise.

It's a recipe for malpractice, to say the least. But that is exactly what Creation Science is; like the doctor in my example, they are using reverse induction--starting with their desired conclusion and working their way back from it, picking up whatever evidence can be twisted into supporting it. This also means that they are making pains to reject any evidence that does not support their "conclusion".

That's not science because it does not take the evidence into account impartially. It does not build a forensically sound case culminating in a working model or theory, and the results can seldom be tested for veracity and therefore are resistant to being falsified--although if they are, the countering arguments are simply ignored. Yet these (sometimes brilliant, but very misguided) people have the audacity to place this on a par with real science.

It's a shame, really...

24. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #83065 by jbblack on October 28, 2007 at 7:34 pm

It doesn't take fear to have a strong moral code, it takes strength of character and the desire to do good by your actions.

What scares me is that there are so many that say there is no morality without fear of God's punishment. I would rather someone perform an act of charity for the sake of helping another, than to prevent God from hurting them for failing to comply.

25. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #83064 by jbblack on October 28, 2007 at 7:26 pm

Atheism is not a complete belief system, so we are not a religion. It only describes one single opinion that we hold in common, that we do not believe a deity is likely or external. Otherwise, you will find that we run a full gamut of ideas and opinions, from the far left to the far right. As such, it is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby, to paraphrase Scott Adams.

To be Fundamentalist, one must have a core system of beliefs that one can be Fundamentalist about. We do not share a core group of beliefs or traditions, and have no desire to create and enforce one. Granted, we can be incredibly headstrong at times. But that isn't Fundamentalism; that's not believing everything you hear.

26. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #80368 by jbblack on October 21, 2007 at 1:27 pm

I'm not surprised. The churches in this area of the US have gone on an anti-atheist kick too, spouting off about some kind of atheist evangelism.

I'm about this far *hand gesture* from taking up the idea. Even if it does mean getting up early on Saturday mornings to knock on doors. They've already knocked on mine for three Saturdays trying to push their twisted views down my throat.

27. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76731 by jbblack on October 7, 2007 at 12:13 am

Robert Maynord

But.. in what sense? The information that a particular compound of atoms is 'sweet' requires a perceptual paradigm. Suppose a Martian, which had evolved in a manner that didn't require an equivalent of carbohydrates, came down and ate a candy bar. He would probably taste something, but his taste senses have evolved to ring bells upon encountering some other chemical - he wouldn't regard it as (an equivalent description of) sweet, right? Likewise he might eat some of our soil and savour the nutrients. Or he might be photosynthetic, and has evolved to reward that exposure. Couldn't sunlight have a 'taste' for someone like that, if so wired?

You've brought in some great food for thought (if you'll excuse the pun) with this one.

What we perceive as the sweetness of sugar begins with a chemical reaction between the sugar and the taste buds, then travels as a nerve impulse to the brain where it is processed into a pleasurable experience that we refer to as sweetness, reinforcing the desire to take in important nutrients.

The hypothetical Martian in your example would experience some kind of pleasurable response to its nutrient (sunlight, dirt, etc). So you're likely right in your assertion, the experience lies in the biological wiring of the one experiencing it as a means of reinforcing survival.

The same could be said that morality and taboos are at their most basic level biological in origin, and that the genes are prolific as a result of these behaviors contributing to the survival of the genes and memes that bring them about.

Now I'm thinking on how other topics could tie into this--specifically how many of these hard-wired impulses that were originally beneficial can become dangerous in a context so far removed from the context our ancestors lived in.

28. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76638 by jbblack on October 6, 2007 at 2:22 pm

The sweetness of sugar is a chemical property, so it wasn't the best example to use. But I think the point that the one that used it here was trying to make is that the ability to perceive the "sweetness" of sugar (and I add, to associate pleasure with this sweetness), is biological, not learned.

Since carbohydrates are important for us to live, providing energy to herbivores and omnivores, there's a definite survival advantage in having brains that process sweet tastes as pleasurable; those genes that find sweet tastes abhorrent are less likely to eat enough carbohydrates, and therefore less likely to have the energy they need to reproduce, protect their young, and escape predators. They would die out.

Likewise, the same seems to hold true with basic ethics; a group of primitive hunters that can work together can bring down bigger prey so that all may benefit. Working individually, there is a greater chance of individual failure. Individuals having the "cooperative" alleles of whatever genes stand a higher chance of survival than the ones with the "non-cooperative" ones.

I am guilty of oversimplifying it, but looking at the actions of chimpanzees and other primates, it may not be far from the origins of our own sense of ethics and morality. And it explains the origin of ethics much better than the god-did-it concept does.

29. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76626 by jbblack on October 6, 2007 at 1:11 pm

And yes there are better sources than science or history for some information. Like neither really answers the question about the existence of God. Man needs another method of gaining information for that type of question.

No, we do not: Science makes an attempt to understand the nature of things we can perceive (even going to levels that we do not). It gives us an understanding of the food we eat, of the world we live in, of the chemical and biological processes that make up our very being. In short, science offers us a means of gaining information on the tangible, real, universe.

Science did not first postulate the quark and then bend over backward to prove its existence by sneaking it into subatomic physics. It did not postulate the concept of "dark matter" before the concept was necessary to describe high-density regions of space. We did not come up first with the theory of mitochondria and then credit them with the Krebs cycle or the production of ATP in the cell so the theory would have a place in reality. We don't make up theories to add to reality. We discover theories that explain observable phenomena and then test the hell out of them.

Yet you are trying to reverse this order. You are coming up with a conclusion--that of a deity which has never been seen and cannot be collaboratively proven--and trying to push him/her/it into the laws of physics, even though they work just fine without such a concept. And since the scientific method doesn't work this way, you are throwing that out too, replacing it with fantasy and emotion.

So, I can't apologize for disagreeing with you. I see no merit in putting lies in the same container as verified evidence.

30. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76618 by jbblack on October 6, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Like neither really answers the question about the existence of God. Man needs another method of gaining information for that type of question.

Ok, so let's think of what this method may be:

Another method of gaining the information; one that does not require something so crude as the senses, something that cannot be measured, cannot be confirmed nor falsified, and cannot be argued against.

So this other means of gaining information is revelation or by emotional responses. Neither of these are infallible; at best there is a thin line (I would daresay no line) between revelation and hallucination. Likewise, emotion is fickle and cannot be trusted to base one's life off of.

Either way, the Scientific method is clearly superior to these because its results are not subjective. Emotions and revelations happen only to those "specially chosen" few. This is not so with empirical evidence--it is laid out for all to see, to examine, and to draw conclusions about.

So you can insult the scientific method all you want. It doesn't care; it's a method. But it gives a much better chance of gaining knowledge--real, useful, relevant knowledge--than hallucinations or "feelings" ever could, and for this reason I say that these "other means of gaining knowledge" are clearly inferior.

Now if you want to place your life in a fantasy world, by all means. Just don't act shocked when the world you really live in doesn't agree with it.