1. Jesus ad angers church groups

Comment #100842 by blasphememe on December 19, 2007 at 12:39 pm

The christians have learned from muslims the advantage of taking religious offence.

Nothing shows off the hidden poison better than fatwa envy. How might we encourage these moments of "offence"?

How about if "Muhammed the Teddy Bear" became the hottest gift item of the season! Or, to hit two birds with one stone - a nativity scene in which one of the wise men's gifts, is a teddy bear named ....

2. Jesus ad angers church groups

Comment #100729 by blasphememe on December 19, 2007 at 8:22 am

I swear I've already seen this premise (though not this commercial itself) used for another company in the past. Why is it suddenly pissing off certain Christian groups?

I
The christians have learned from muslims the advantage of taking religious offence.

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

Comment #99747 by blasphememe on December 17, 2007 at 1:25 pm

It has been 50 years since scientists first created DNA in a test tube, stitching ordinary chemical ingredients together to make life's most extraordinary molecule.

It seem's this is entirely false - wasn't DNA discovered, rather than created about 50 years ago?

4. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92957 by blasphememe on December 1, 2007 at 8:26 pm

sent2null

I don't see how the quoted portion of Atlas' text was flawed logically.

Umm, for making statements like this, and the reasons given.

I've always found the "universe is fine-tuned" argument to be quite silly.

It's not really a valid question. For example what if the universal laws were different? Humans and life in general can only exist because of the universal laws, but if the universal laws were different then there'd probably be phenomana equally as complex as life, just different. We're a product of the universe, it's no good to take the stance that the universe was tweaked to fit us in. It's like asking why the animal was designed around the working heart, he's approaching it from the wrong direction.

I'm not going to search TGD for quotes, and like I said before Dawkins isn't the last word on the matter, as I recollect Dawkins does say that the universe does "seem" to be tuned or fine tuned to make life possible, and considers that the question of why it is so to be valid. The anthropic principle may be a good explanation why we live in the universe we are in, but it is not an argument to suggest that questioning why things are the way they are is not valid.


Perhaps I should mention - I'm not posting in support of D'Souza. I consider Dennett to have mopped the floor with D'Souza.

5. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92928 by blasphememe on December 1, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Atlas

It's not really a valid question. For example what if the universal laws were different? Humans and life in general can only exist because of the universal laws, but if the universal laws were different then there'd probably be phenomana equally as complex as life, just different. We're a product of the universe, it's no good to take the stance that the universe was tweaked to fit us in. It's like asking why the animal was designed around the working heart, he's approaching it from the wrong direction.

Come now, surely inquiry into why things are the way they are is fundamentally what science is all about.

And that "fine tuned" rant is ridiculous, Richard challanged this in "The God Delusion", if the universe wasn't in a state where we could exist then we wouldn't exist to debate it or think about how the universe is fine tuned.

Rather flawed logic there. I think you had better go back and re-read TGD. Not that I consider TGD/Dawkins to be the last word on this matter,to my recollection he does not dismiss this idea. There are some theory's as to why the universe is the way it is and, as I recall he and other scientists consider it to be a valid question. What if atomic forces were such that gravity could not form stars? Then there could be no other elements but hydrogen and consequently no chemistry and biology.

6. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92911 by blasphememe on December 1, 2007 at 6:17 pm

Don_Quix

I've always found the "universe is fine-tuned" argument to be quite silly. It's easy to take the wind out of this one by pointing out that anywhere in about 99.99999999999% of the Universe, a human being would almost instantly die a very gruesome and painful death. Fine-tuned indeed.

I think you're mis-understanding the argument. The idea is that the atomic forces seem to be fine tuned to allow gravity to form stars and planets, and the elements to be made by fusion in stars from hydrogen, and building on that chemistry, then biology.
I think this is very much a valid question as to why this is so.

7. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92876 by blasphememe on December 1, 2007 at 4:27 pm

plastictowel

Maybe you haven't seen D'Souza in action before and are overly impressed by his blather. To me, after Dennett's opening statement, D'Souza had lost the debate before he even opened his mouth.

As to D'Souza's shouting - Methinks he doth protest to much. I think he doesn't even believe the crap he spouts - Like Mother Teresa redoubling her efforts long after she ceased to believe.

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

Comment #91809 by blasphememe on November 29, 2007 at 11:09 am

Also, when the argument comes up about "atheist regime" death tolls, a good counter to that might be to mention the Taiping Rebellion(Rebellion of Great Peace) in China during the 1850's and 60's. The leader of which, through exposure to protestant christian missionary's decided that he was the brother of jesus. This directly resulted in an estimated 20 - 30 million deaths.
Indirectly, In China during the same period, with a number of other rebellions, most of which were religion based, exacerbated by some natural disasters - caused a death toll estimated at over 100 million.