1. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200838 by shad0w on June 28, 2008 at 10:06 am

theIdiot:

You really need to change your style here buddy.
I must admit i did find some of your points had merit but the way you convey them just turned me against you regardless of whether or not i find some of your points valid and worthy of discussion.

I have gone through most of the posts and the only one who could be described as "an idiot" judging from the posts is you. You had some very good points to make and you completely buried them under your rather ugly and impolite style.

I think that you will find that in general people respond better to politeness than insults. That holds especially true for people on this forum.

2. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200375 by shad0w on June 27, 2008 at 12:25 pm

"You are confusing justification with cause. This distinction can be seen clearly in what you just said about the crusades, as liberating the holy land as justification, while the motives were earthy ones, of profit and power. What Atran addresses is that justification is not motives."

I believe that argument can be applied in the case of the crusades as you (and i ) pointed out.

However i am not convinced it can be applied in the other cases i mentioned. How can a sane human being fly a plane into a building , then TELL US in his OWN WORDS that the reason he did it is "this and this" and then we summarily ignore that evidence as some sort of "ohhh yeah he may have said that this is the cause but the real cause is this". How can that be ?

edit: sane as in not schizophrenic or otherwise clinically mentally unstable. The mare fact that anyone would do this does not exhibit anything close to 'sane' but that is another discusion.Just wanted to clarify

It seems to me that not taking these people seriously could someday result in some very very lousy consequences.

As to your other points i agree with you in a very general level on the that fact that we do not know _YET_ where morality comes from in the brain with any certainty. Although there is some very interesting research going on we are not quite there yet. Look at Ramachandran's papers on the so-called "Monkey-see, Monkey-do" neurons. We are making progress and eventually we will figure it out. Saying that a creator did it and leave it at that is giving up.

Attributing morality on one holy book or another seems to be a bit ludicrous. Since religion is a relative newcomer in the history of the human race i find it rather ridiculous that anyone would attribute morality on one holy book or another and expect to be taken seriously.

3. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200355 by shad0w on June 27, 2008 at 11:42 am

"What we have here, is YOU rejecting Atran because he doesn't conform to your preconceived conclusion. You claim he rejects other valid data, yet I don't recall a single individual from Beyond Belief (let's not forget Dawkins, and Harris were in attendance as well), who presented Atran with data to reject. He rejected there dimwitted intuition, but not their data, particularly after he was bold enough to claim they had none."

Actually Sam harris did present some evidence. Namely the mountain of letters and videos of the people flying planes into buildings , or who strap bombs on themselves explicitly stating that they are doing it based on a religious doctrine. If that is not evidence enough for you i don't know what is.

ANd then there is written historical evidence on the basis of the crusades and 'liberating the holy land' (although the church and the crusaders at the time had other more earthly motives.. Profit profit profit!), written evidence from those nutjobs that went and killed doctors , and bombed clinics over abortions, historical and written evidence over the burning of whitches, etc etc.
The list is really too big to mention here. All that evidence is _explicitily_ stating religious doctrine as justification of said actions. Why is it that that data is summarily dismessed i wonder?

I find Atran's work very exciting and interesting to be perfectly honest. However i find his conclusions a bit hard to swallow since he ignores the evidence mentioned above.

4. Creationist critics get their comeuppance

Comment #200254 by shad0w on June 27, 2008 at 7:17 am

Hehehe...

"But perhaps because you did not bother even to read our paper, or perhaps because you aren't very bright.."

What a lovely SMACK DOWN by Dr. Lenski.

5. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198833 by shad0w on June 24, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Tara:
"Anyone who does not totally follow your narrow minded way of thinking is a douchbag/idiot/fucktard/moron "

From my experience those titles are usually reserved only people whose ummmm 'body of work' exhibit signs of idiocy,moronism,and douchebag-ism(is that really a word)

And i am definately NOT making a judgement on this particular case(i am not aware of the specifics). Just offering a general observation.

6. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198787 by shad0w on June 24, 2008 at 1:30 pm

I must thank ketch22 for making me truly understand the sheer stupidity and irrationality of -true- religious belief and indoctrination.

I never really met anyone that i truly thought he/she believed all the stuff about religion. My Wife is a practicing Christian and even she concedes the various points that people have made here when we debate the subject.However she does continue to go to church and honor the traditions out of respect for her parents/family(and so do i in some respects). Untill today I used to find it _impossible_ to accept that people _actually_ truly believed that crap.


His arguments thus far have been laughable and his unwillingness to accept contradicting evidence and reason is a prime example to me, of why discussions with such sheer dumbfounding stupidity is a waste of time and energy.
THERE IS NO HOPE of convincing someone of anything really if that someone is willing to give up reason and logic. How could that be possible ? EVER?

Neuroscientists should sit their collective asses down and really understand the basis of such brain malfunction and come up with a vaccine or something. Otherwise i fear that we are going to find ourselves back to the stone age if such dumbfounding stupidity is allowed to continue.

7. Richard Dawkins Public Lecture - Liverpool 08

Comment #198066 by shad0w on June 23, 2008 at 6:31 am

Steve Zara:
That's why every physicist is awaiting for LHC to go online. It could provide the first evidence of string theory.

There are predictions of string theory that can be tested by LHC(like small dimensions, that particles dissapear to for example).

This is a very exciting time to be alive indeed! The LHC could provide an insight into the Universe that we have not had since General Relativity came about.

8. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #196534 by shad0w on June 20, 2008 at 6:00 am

My question is how come the Discovery channel hasn't sued the pants off the "Discovery Inst." yet for trademark violations ? Are the two related somehow ?

When i fist started hearing about this "Discovery" inst. that was pushing I.D i almost went and cancelled my DISC-HD subscription cause i thought the two were somehow related when i realized "naaaah no way"

As far as the bill goes, i couldn't care less whether the governor signs it or not. The U.S has been on the forefront of technology and science for the past 50 years. If the U.S lawmakers are dumb enough to undercut their own future by crippling their youth then they deserve whatever they get. It is after all their own damn country.

Maybe it's time for other nations to have a shot at being world-superpowers. But hopefully i will not live long enough to see that. The thought of the chinese goverment being in the position the U.S is in today in say 50 years is rather frightening for me to conteplate

9. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177690 by shad0w on May 9, 2008 at 1:37 pm

I must agree with the posters that feel the "H" word was a bit of a strategic blunder.

Maybe he does as a matter of fact shriek like him but calling a somewhat known Rabbi by the H word was a rare strategic error from Prof. Dawkins.

Not because i think the Rabbi's feelings were hurt or anything but because of the possible P.R implications this may have. "Atheist compares Rabbi blah blah to H!".

10. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162220 by shad0w on April 16, 2008 at 11:36 am

It's astonishing the extend to which some U.S lawmakers will go to completely destroy their country's own future.

Don't they realize that if their kids don't have a good education the U.S will become a 3rd world country eventually ?

How can they hope to compete in 2-3 generations from now if the younger generations are completely uneducated in science and math? SCIENCE and the application of SCIENCE is what made America the powerhouse it is today. If they loose that they loose everything!!! It really is amazing that people cannot see that. Sad state of affairs we're in.

11. Did pre-big bang universe leave its mark on the sky?

Comment #159026 by shad0w on April 11, 2008 at 11:00 am

REPLY TO : 5. Comment #158599 by troyreynolds86
--------------------------------------

Mathematics on a blackboard pretty much explains everything we see around us.

I would be very very careful confusing mathematical modeling (even speculative modeling) with religious thought which is simply quasi-philosophical garbage.

Equating the two is simply misunderstanding math and science.

12. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #156993 by shad0w on April 8, 2008 at 1:17 pm

WOW !!!
This was an _ASTONISHING_ display of ignorance.

My goodness.... I am at a total lack of words to describe what i just saw.....

The holocaust was the work of the devil????
The woman actually _performed_ exorcisms and "drove the devil out" ????
Someone remind me again what century we're living in please!!!!

13. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120665 by shad0w on February 2, 2008 at 8:58 am

This simmons person is a disgrace to all MD's out there. Considering this charlatan actually graduated as an MD i am somewhat perplexed whether i should ever trust my MD again from now. Don't they teach critical thinking and examination of evidence in medical school ? AT ALL ???

I know that 90% of their work is pretty much database-driven in terms of intimate knowledge of human physiology,symptoms and drugs that treat them but my goodness.... I always through critical thinking and constant knowledge gathering was an integral part of an MD's life. Someone correct me if i am wrong.

14. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #120487 by shad0w on February 1, 2008 at 7:41 pm

It boggles my mind that anyone is giving credence to the words uttered by the head of the biggest army of child rapists known in history past ancient Greece. It is incomprehensible to me.... It truly is.

15. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120460 by shad0w on February 1, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Teratornis:

I think you are confusing the act of education with the act of debate. I dare say they are 2 different things. While debate does happen in the scientific community it usually has more to do with debating about evidence, or observations , or in my case as a computer scientist debating the accuracy of an algorithm or the correctness of the logic behind an algorithm etc etc.

There is NO debate today whether the gravity is real. None whatsoever. If someone wants to publicly debate in an open forum whether gravity is real or not then that someeone should first try and educate himself about said theory. You simply cannot have an honest debate with someone that simply doesn't understand the underlying principles of the issue at hand or with someone who deliberately twists said principles to suit their needs.

16. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120325 by shad0w on February 1, 2008 at 1:13 pm

No PZ should not have taken part in this.

Otherwise we should have 'debates' whether gravity is real or not, whether the earth is flat or not,whether the earth revolves around the sun or not , etc etc. I hope you get my point.

These charlatans should be locked up and chained not on airwaves spreading mis-information to young children that can easily be coerced by 'fear of god'.

Especially they should mot be given credence by scientists like PZ trying to debate these folks. There must be 2 sides of a story to have a debate. There is NOT 2 sides on this issue. Label them as the crackpots that they are and untill they can provide _evidence_ for their arguments ignore them.


I am however pretty happy that he ridiculed that charlatan in the way that he did.

17. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #117627 by shad0w on January 29, 2008 at 9:04 am

This is by far the most interesting thread i have seen here in a long long time.

Dr. Steve thanks for all the beautiful answers.Truly informative.

There are times that i truly regret not pursuing physics more at university and going into Computer Science instead. I greatly miss it. I tend to spend most of my time doing logic and math and i must say it sometimes gets very boring when you have to solve the same problem again and again and again. Math is useful indeed but tends to be way too abstract at times which makes math boring in a way.

Thank goodness for MIT and their open courseware site. If anyone is interested in physics i suggest you take a look.

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm

18. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #101484 by shad0w on December 20, 2007 at 12:30 pm

I must say that i was a very disappointed from this year's conference. Last years meeting was an absolute JOY. This years was largely boring to tears other than a few presentations.

I surely missed Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Weinberg, Paul Davies, Krauss, and especially Richard Dawkins. This year's conferrence seemed more like a political science mumbo jumbo conference than a collection of great thinkers.

Wilson, Dennett , Kroto , Atkins Ramachandran(i just LOVE his talks!) and as usual Harris and Atran ( i always enjoy his talks as much as I disagree with him on the conclusions he draws) were the only people who had anything even _remotely_ interesting to say.

I thought the whole idea is to present new provocative ideas and modes of thinking not some 15th century garbage arguments that quite frankly bordered on mysticism than scientific thinking.

19. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #98276 by shad0w on December 13, 2007 at 12:13 pm

I have lost whatever respect i had for Shermer.

His attack on Kroto on a point he did _not_ try to make was not justified. He pretty much went off the deep end like a cry baby.I was very surprised by his reaction to be honest. I wonder why? Is Templeton funding him somehow ? Kroto's point is correct. They _are_ trying to blur the line between religion and science.I don't think that is under any sort of dispute is it ?

20. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #93659 by shad0w on December 3, 2007 at 9:01 pm

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!

21. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92834 by shad0w on December 1, 2007 at 2:43 pm

I think Dennett did much better than Hitchens
In fact in my books Dennett pretty much rediculed Dinesh cause he called him on every BS argument he tried to present.

He pretty much took Dinesh's arguments and correctly called him on them in effect telling him "sorry but you don't even understand what you're criticizing"

Hitchens was trying to 'convince' Dinesh. Dennett had no interest in that. He correctly pointed out that his arguments were false,full of self-contradictions and in effect told him "you need to understand the arguments you're trying to make before making them". Especially his rebuttals on the whole consciousness thing were pretty ummm _harsh_ towards Dinesh.

For me at least it worked.
I think Dennett won this one hands down and he didn't even have to do too much work to achieve it either. His rebuttals were quick and to the point i thought, while Dinesh was essentially 'preaching' as usual with a whole series for non-sequitors , half-truths and arguments that frankly were not at all sophisticated or well thought out for someone his caliber..I thought Dinesh did much much better against Hitchens.

22. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92536 by shad0w on November 30, 2007 at 6:03 pm

I think Dennett completely and totally demolished D'Souza on this one.

I am watching the debate right now and as usual D'Souza gave his usual non-sequitors in his typical loud style which Dennet completely picked apart with his unmatched wit and very very pointed rebuttals. To the point that i kinda felt sorry for D'Souza... He was clearly way out of his league taking on Dennett.

To make matters even worse for D'Souza the STUDENTS demolished D'Souza in a much funnier , logical , methodical manner than Dennett did with some extremely well-thought out questions.

I must give Kudos to D'Souza though for even appearing there in Dennett's home turf..And some of his arguments did 'seem' to make sense but only 'seemed' to make sense till Dennett rebutted them and completely took them apart.

I must say, i never saw Dennett in a debate format before and i was completely surprised by him. BRAVO!