1. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175496 by chauvinj on May 5, 2008 at 1:59 pm

That's the first time I've ever seen anyone whip out a retractable back scratcher to scratch themselves mid-interview...

2. EXPELLED!

Comment #147532 by chauvinj on March 20, 2008 at 9:20 pm

Sorry, I love PZ Myers as much as the next guy. But in what world is he more noticeable than Richard Dawkins???

Nonehtless, I had a good laugh at this.

3. Out of the Blue

Comment #141220 by chauvinj on March 10, 2008 at 7:14 am

In the 1950s when people started doing AI research, there were those who were happy to say, "in about 10 years, we'll have a computer that thinks." Turing was one of the more cautious researchers and suggested that by the turning of the century we'd have something that will pass the Turing test. They were all wrong. Scientists in the 1950s also said that methods for treating nuclear waste were just around the corner; that never happened either. (We have now resorted to digging big holes in the ground, burrying the stuff, and hoping for the best, becuase we have come to see the truth: science has no clue how that kind of waste can be neurtralized.) Scientists said that the biochem revolution in agriculture would eliminate hunger; that never happened either (since hunger is more of a socio-politcal-econmonic problem than a scientific one).

One of the things you realize when you look at the history of ideas (especially the history of science) is that there is no shortage of people who are full of themselves (or at least full of their own ideas). I would be willing to bet a lot of money (say, about $10,000) that we will not have a computer that can talk to us like a real human in the next 10 years (as the fellow in the story claims). I think we will get there eventually, but there is still too much that is unknown. To start, the blue brain project simply assumes that current neuroscientific, computational, and philosophical insights are adequate. It also assumes that if you throw enough computational power at a problem, you will solve it. I doubt both of these assumptions very much. We only discovered the variation in synaptic reliability in the 1990s, and there are more new things being discovered about neurons and how they work on a regular basis. Whatever these folks are modelling with blue brain is almost sure to be an outdated view of neuronal function by the time the modelling is "complete." We don't know enough about the brain to be claiming that we can model everything about it. Moreover, I don't care how much computational power you throw at your modeling exercises, if your knowledge of what you are trying to model is incomplete, then your model will fail since all that computational power will be implementing false assumptions. I'm not saying the project is totally useless: it will likely fail with flying colours, and that failure may highlight how much we still have to learn. In that way, something will be learned (but not much).

It bothers me when scientists make such outlandish claims. It reflects poorly on all academics, making us look cocky and incabable of doing on honest assessment of the prospects of our research. This bothers me since people are less likely to take our research seriuosly (and less likely to fund it) if we are thought to just be making wildly irresponsible claims. Well, that's enough ranting for a Monday morning...

4. Berlin gallery in Islam art row

Comment #137168 by chauvinj on March 2, 2008 at 1:13 pm

I can't help but equate this to childish school-yard behaviour.

"Mrs. [insert name here] Billy punched me because I didn't want to play the game the way he wanted me to play it!"

Except when this behaviour happens in the school yard, Billy goes to the Principle's office. When muslims get offended and throw a hissy because society doesn't want to conform to their rules, there is unfortunately no Principle or teacher to put them in detention or make them write lines...Pathetic really.

If anything, I just wish they would grow up. Everytime someone dares to stand up to these people they risk having their life threatened. How is it that we have come to tolerate this behaviour? This is completely unaccepable, juvenile behaviour. We all know what happens to the spoiled child when the parents give them all they want because they throw a fit if they don't get it. They become worse and worse...I fear for what may happen if this behaviour continues to go unchecked...

5. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #130964 by chauvinj on February 21, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Somewhat trivial, but I wish to draw attention to it: Richard's shorts.

6. Dawkins is third most prolific internet Briton

Comment #117773 by chauvinj on January 29, 2008 at 3:14 pm

ps- Steve-O is British?? News to me..

7. Dawkins is third most prolific internet Briton

Comment #117772 by chauvinj on January 29, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Seriously? Imogen Heap is #1??? lol....Really???

8. US scientists close to creating artificial life: study

Comment #116100 by chauvinj on January 25, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Personally, I think the "creating life" description is a bit over the top. Sure, if they pull it off, it is a new life form, but it looks like jumped up genetic engineering to me since they are putting new DNA into an existing cell. Impressive, but note that the cell is existing already. When I think of creating life, I think of generating the conditions where self-reprelicating protein molecules and the other requirements for cells emerge in the controlled environment. I.e. create the conditions where an entire cell can emerge. That would be really impressive...

9. Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Comment #99623 by chauvinj on December 17, 2007 at 8:02 am

New title for the artile: When a Scientist Becomes God

10. Jail for creationist row killer

Comment #98571 by chauvinj on December 13, 2007 at 9:54 pm

"an argument broke out between Mr Boa and York about creationism and evolution."

If we are to assume that the arguments are in the respective order, than it appears as though Mr Boa was the creationist. However, it could just be poor journalism and it is the other way around.
Then again, given the title of the article "Jail for creationist row killer," then you are probably right and it is in fact the creationist who stabbed the evolutionist.

11. Jumbo shrimp, creationist astronomy

Comment #98564 by chauvinj on December 13, 2007 at 9:45 pm

Oh god...not another one of those "if such a thoery doesn't hold therefore goddidit" videos...

12. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #97956 by chauvinj on December 12, 2007 at 9:59 pm

Why doesn't the US recognize the importance of clear thought, skepticism, self-reflection and criticism, the freedom to question cherished beliefs and rationalism?? But no....they recognize the importance of Christianity? We can only guffaw at all the humbug!

13. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #97953 by chauvinj on December 12, 2007 at 9:49 pm

So the US recognizes the importance of the Christian faith and Christmas in America and the world. Now what does this mean...? What are the implications? I'm so confused...It doesn't seem to be a big deal if they're just recognizing it, the problem lies in where they go from here.

14. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80181 by chauvinj on October 20, 2007 at 1:12 pm

This is the problem with theist lines of thought. You MUST take an argument in context always. The minute you take it out of its context you muddle up its meaning or intention. This is exactly what you are doing Riley. His intention was to prove that many immoral deeds can be committed by the religious that atheists just wouldn't dream of doing. Largely, Hitchens argument grows off of Weinberg's quote: "With or without religion, you will have good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things. For good people to do bad things you need religion."

This is the same line of argument people use when saying Hitler was an atheist or Einstein was an atheist. You've been overly fastitidious. The challenge was submitted to prove the toxicity of religion. If you can't see that, then I encourage you to read Hitchen's book "god is not Great" and then come back and argue perhaps better informed.

If on the off chance you have read it, then you've misunderstood it and should read it again.

Best of luck ~

15. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80176 by chauvinj on October 20, 2007 at 12:08 pm

Okay, I'm confused Riley....

You said in your response to Breadbin, "I take Hitchens at his word, much the same that I take the Bible at its word." And then you responded to Russian Freethinker saying "I have not ever claimed to speak *for* Christians, nor even claimed to be a Christian." SO, you're not a Christian but you take the Bible on its word??

Perhaps some clarification is in order?

Either way, you're argument is frivolous. Hitchens' querry is done with the intention of showing others that theists are no more moral than atheists (and perhaps theists are even less moral). This line of argument is always surrounded with the context of theists making the claim that atheists have done many immoral deeds (ex. Stalin, Hitler, etc.). Hitchens' argument only serves to emphasize that religion is POISON. That's the purpose of his book to back up that claim after all...The second part of that question is, to paraphrase "Then give me an immoral deed that can be performed by a theist and not by an atheist. To which you can think of many."

You've missed Hitchens' point entirely and I'm very surprised no one has yet called you on it.

16. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77612 by chauvinj on October 9, 2007 at 9:05 pm

Is it just me, or does it seem more and more like it is not the majority who are intolerant of Islam, but Islamists who are intolerant of the majority?? They are completely intolerant of our ways of doing things, and this article exhibits that completely. They've nicely blinded us to this though, they've turned it against us and said it is us who are intolerent of them! Hogwash! It is time that we as a people stop caving in to these primeval demands.

17. CBC Atheism and Humanism Documentary

Comment #77089 by chauvinj on October 8, 2007 at 12:18 pm

I'll agree, I could've went without the interviewer/voice over but overall it was a well done documentary.

18. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76804 by chauvinj on October 7, 2007 at 10:22 am

That was the most bullshit debate ever....I found myself getting frusterated just listening to it. How on earth could RD put up with it?

19. I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer

Comment #76440 by chauvinj on October 5, 2007 at 10:37 pm

Wow....

20. Harper's Index

Comment #74844 by chauvinj on September 30, 2007 at 9:51 pm

What the....how has it been 2 months and you still don't have TGD??? Talk about delayed shipping....

21. Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin

Comment #74204 by chauvinj on September 27, 2007 at 4:45 pm

"He said he also believed the theory of evolution leads to racism and ultimately genocide, an idea common among creationist thinkers."

Um...this is obviously a statement from ignorance. Anyone who understands the implications of Darwinism, also understands that it makes racism impossible.

22. Keeping the faith at school

Comment #73332 by chauvinj on September 24, 2007 at 6:54 pm

I too went to a school like this. As a matter of fact I was looking through some old boxes the other day and came across some of my old gradeschool report cards and this is what it said next to religion:

"RELIGION -- Joshua is learning to accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior more and more every day."

This was Grade 1. I was five going on six....

Disgusting.

23. Intelligent Design and Creationism/Evolution Controversy

Comment #53628 by chauvinj on July 2, 2007 at 10:13 am

I can't find a youtube link for this but I stumbled across this...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=H5sfHz3xyNc&mode=related&search=

It's disgusting to say the least. No wonder there are so many ID nutjobs. It's because of video's like this that brainwash the ignorant.

24. UK Gov boots intelligent design back into 'religious' margins

Comment #52160 by chauvinj on June 26, 2007 at 11:39 am

Sounds like a step in the right direction.

25. Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off

Comment #39766 by chauvinj on May 11, 2007 at 10:11 pm

Those are quite possibly two of the most deluded people I have ever seen. Where exactly did they get their theory of evolution from?

26. Londonistan Calling

Comment #39006 by chauvinj on May 9, 2007 at 6:02 pm

This is deplorable..

I'm sorry, but anyone who preaches 'death' in any name (not only in the name of religion) should be punished. There should be laws against such rantings. Instead it seems as the UK is passively letting this slide and as consequence, they are going to lose their country. It's really rather sad...

27. Hitchens, Sharpton and Faith

Comment #38808 by chauvinj on May 9, 2007 at 8:16 am

I just think Sharpton was too hung up on arguing about God. Very early in the debate Hitchen's disposed of it, said that until evidence presented itself in God's favour, that he would not believe. It should have been up to Sharpton to present argument's in God's favour (the burden of proof is on the believer after all) but he neglected to do that, instead he tried to make Hitchens argue about something he clearly dismissed many times over. Perhap's if Sharpton actually read the entire book he wouldn't have been hung up on the title so much.

28. Richard Dawkins on Canada AM

Comment #38306 by chauvinj on May 7, 2007 at 1:09 pm

I give up on trying to make it work. I hope someone puts it up on youtube or something.

29. Richard Dawkins on Canada AM

Comment #38291 by chauvinj on May 7, 2007 at 12:39 pm

It doesn't work for me either..

30. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37685 by chauvinj on May 5, 2007 at 1:10 pm

What on earth is wrong with these people?? I just watched the entire video and I still can't believe what I saw.

If anyone is interested, here's the link to the murder: http://youtube.com/watch?v=OE4PuTs4jUs

The video is not for those with weak stomach's...

Cui bono???

31. Fighting Words: A wartime lexicon

Comment #34933 by chauvinj on April 25, 2007 at 3:47 pm

I may not agree with his supporting of the war, but that is an entirely seperate argument. With this one however, he is spot on --not to mention utterly cogent.

Can't wait to get my hands on this book. Anyone know how long it is?

32. Dinesh D'Souza says I don't exist: an atheist at Virginia Tech

Comment #33347 by chauvinj on April 19, 2007 at 11:28 pm

Update

Mr D'Souza has more to say:

And boy the atheists are up in arms! They're mad as hell about my post "Where is Atheism When Bad Things Happen." Many responders informed me that tragedies are normally considered a problem for religion, not atheism. Where is God when bad things happen? Yes, people, I know this. My point was that if evil and suffering are a problem for religion--and they are--they are an even bigger problem for atheism.
The reason is suggested from the quotation given above. When there is a tragedy like the one at Virginia Tech, the ones who are suffering cannot help asking questions, "Why did this have to happen?" "Why is there so much evil in the world?" "How can I possibly go on after losing my child?" And so on.
In my post I noted that Richard Dawkins had not been invited to address the mourners at Virginia Tech. Several atheists--who haven't yet lost their fundamentalist habit of reading--took this sarcastic statement literally. "So what? The Pope hasn't been invited either!" My point was that atheism has nothing to offer in the face of tragedy except C'est la vie. Deal with it. Get over it. This is why the ceremonies were suffused with religious rhetoric. Only the language of religion seems appropriate to the magnitude of tragedy. Only God seems to have the power to heal hearts in such circumstances. If someone started to read from Dawkins on why there is no good and no evil in the universe, people would start vomiting or leaving.
One clever writer informs me that atheists don't deny meaning, they simply insist that meaning is not inherent in the universe, it is created by us. Okay, pal, here's the Virginia Tech situation. Go create some meaning and share it with the rest of us Give us that atheist sermon with you in the pulpit of the campus chapel. I'm not being facetious here. I really want to hear what the atheist would tell the grieving mothers.

33. Flea Circus!

Comment #32972 by chauvinj on April 18, 2007 at 10:22 pm

I would hate to be Dawkins or Harris and actually have to read this malarkey. My empathy is with you both.

34. Time in the Animal Mind

Comment #29498 by chauvinj on April 3, 2007 at 6:33 am

I agree with 'ferfuracious'. This article talks about animals, and to some degree what may very well be instinctual drives. This is hardly a case of memes. Memes are translated from mind to mind normally through cultures. Of course none of this has to do with whether or not a Jay prefers a 4 day old larvae or a peanut.

35. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28084 by chauvinj on March 27, 2007 at 9:55 pm

It seems like McGrath, as usual, rather than tackling the questions head on, sort of dances around them. It's like a continuous 'buffing of his chest' with all the quotes he spits off, as if they somehow add credance to his arguments and add to his intellectual superiority. Listening to him is rather akin to listening to a child (minus the quotes of course)in that the reasons he gives for believing in something are really not reasons at all -at least not good ones.

To paraphrase, he seems to say he believes in christianity because he thinks its true. Never once does he really expand on his argument. I get it...He's a christian, but please for the love of GOD, address the arguments and leave words like 'think' or 'feel' out of the equation.

36. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26300 by chauvinj on March 18, 2007 at 2:31 pm

That was exhausting to read to say the least. Why should we ever suppose anything supernatural exists if there is no evidence for it? Perhaps the people who criticize Dawkins et al. for lack of displaying decent religious arguments or for not seriously considering religiosity should give them an argument worthwhile to consider. As far as I'm concerned Theology is a lost art and anything said in religions favour, contends with meaningless verbiage masquerading as an explanation.

These critics are begining to be redundant...

37. Understanding Genetics - Daniel Dennett Interview

Comment #25248 by chauvinj on March 11, 2007 at 9:29 am

The 'sifters' term was taken out of context. Dennett clearly is not endorsing this term as a substitute for 'atheism'. He refers to natural selection as a sifting process.

38. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #24991 by chauvinj on March 9, 2007 at 3:35 pm

The is quite possibly the worst attempt of a cogent argument I have ever heard.

I wonder what he would make of the monkey I saw skating the other day...

39. Conservapedia v Wikipedia

Comment #24612 by chauvinj on March 7, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Look at how biased Wikipedia is!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

I stopped reading after #1...

40. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24062 by chauvinj on March 4, 2007 at 2:42 pm

I find this hilarious. They don't waste any time do they?

Well done RD! It seems you have created quite the stir of dismay.

41. Darwin's God

Comment #24058 by chauvinj on March 4, 2007 at 2:36 pm

What if religion grew off of our ignorant interpretations of the world? And has nothing to do with our psychology at all? Perhaps it served as an explanation of the world when we were very much still unenlightened. It may be plausible that from that naive interpretation, outgrew myths and lore that served to further justify it. I don't deny that there is something in us that seeks out meaning, but to make it seem as though all other possibilities are exhausted seems rather hasty. Maybe it is just an attractive meme.

But why is it attractive? That is a greater question indeed. Not hard-wired to believe in god, but instead hard wired to seek meaning? Maybe...any thoughts?

42. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23329 by chauvinj on February 27, 2007 at 10:29 pm

Labelling propels belief in some cases. For instance, a child being told he or she is fat over and over again, may later develop the belief that it must be true. From this belief, the child may grow to foster psychological disorders (e.g., Anorexia Nervosa). Although I admit this is a very crude example, it does serve a purpose. While it may be harsh to say that calling a child "Catholic" or "Muslim" is child abuse, there is certainly cases where labelling does profound psychological damage.