1. It came from outer space: Fireball streaks across Canadian Prairie, crashes

Comment #289740 by Kentrel on November 24, 2008 at 6:32 am

"IT'S A SIGN FROM GOD THAT WE ARE SINFULL!!!! "

Why is it that everytime someone posts a great article about a scientific discovery or a beautiful meteorite display someone just finds a way to bash religion with it, or make a criminally unfunny joke about it. You managed to make a Sarah Palin joke too. Unbelievable. I love religious and political jokes, but timing is everything, my friend. Work on it. I'm an atheist. We're pretty much all atheists here. Do you have to twist everything great and associate it with something irrelevant like religion. Do you just not enjoy talking about science, or do you just not know enough about it to discuss it?

And now for the science bit.

Here's something interesting I found on what the colours of the fireball say about the possible content of the meteor

"The color of a meteor is an indication of its composition and the excitation temperature: sodium atoms give an orange-yellow light, iron atoms a yellow light, magnesium a blue-green light, calcium atoms may add a violet hue, while silicon atoms and molecules of atmospheric nitrogen give a red light."

If the reports are to be believed then that would indicate mostly iron (as usual) but with A LOT of magnesium too.

2. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241798 by Kentrel on September 3, 2008 at 4:53 am

V'Ger

"Wow! When South Park spoofed that the choice in any election is always between a 'giant douche' and a 'turd sandwich' - they weren't wrong ;-)"


I've never understood why Americans love the rock star style of politics so much. It seems completely designed to appeal to people's emotions, rather than the fact that they are effectively Employers or "Shareholders" looking to vote in someone to take care of their country for them, while they get on with their lives. When you're a "fan" of any politician it can take up to 8 years or more before you realize they're an asshole.

I tell American friends all the time that in Europe we generally just assume you're an asshole simply for wanting to be a politician. From then on its an uphill struggle for them to convince us they're less of an asshole than we first thought. Most fail. The good politicians have the benefit of losing their asshole status once they leave office, should we decide to be nice to them.

And that's what makes a democracy great. Grant your politicians the same standards you would an employee in a sensitive position.

3. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241793 by Kentrel on September 3, 2008 at 4:41 am

It seemed kind of obvious to me, considering the links he posted, that quantum_flux was being satirical, but I guess his follow up posts make it unclear.

I call Poe's Law too.

4. Poll: Should the motto 'In God We Trust' be removed from U.S. currency?

Comment #230247 by Kentrel on August 14, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Apathy of religion is the best weapon atheists and agnostics have against it. Filing law suits, however worthy the intent, gets nothing accomplished other than supply more red meat for the Christianists to chew on.

I absolutely agree 100%. The amount of Creationist-baiting I see by atheists, and vice versa is just fueling the problem. It also holds us back from getting things done and having more interesting conversations. Prominent scientists should certainly educate about the dangers of religious superstition, but many of them do stoop themselves to debating with the stupidest of them. I love PZ Meyers, and this is just my opinion here, but I think people like him are only giving the crazy people legitimacy by arguing with them. What if Richard Dawkins held a debate with a stupid but charismatic and passionate flat-earther? Would that further the public understanding of science or hold it back? Personally, I think it would lower Dawkins, or any scientist who took a debate like that seriously.

Its sad that whenever a great science story comes out and is posted to a forum like this, people are so used to arguing about religion they just use the story to jump into some imaginary argument about religion, rather than just enjoying the story and discussing the science around it.

Of course we should not be apathetic when there are serious concerns, and discrimination, abuse and injustice to be dealt with. But even the trivial things like "In God We Trust" issue are things we could actually change if we spent the next generation encouraging an interest in science and rational thinking rather than baiting Creationists and attacking the obviously stupid parts of religion.

However, spend the next generation telling religious people they're stupid and they're going to dig their heels in further and protect what they care about.

5. The brain in love

Comment #215167 by Kentrel on July 21, 2008 at 12:41 pm

thewhitepearl

I agree with your views on marriage. I don't see the point of it in a society like ours that gives men and women equal rights. In patriarchal societies it gave insecure, or inferior men ownership over women and helped set up boundaries where neither partner (especially the woman) could choose a better mate, which is opposite to how men and women are biologically.

In modern societies its biased heavily towards the woman. Weddings reveal the ugliest, most materialistic sides of even the nicest women. It still gives each partnership a type of "ownership" over the other, something I find nauseating.


In my relationships women are free to leave and do whatever they wish if a better man comes along, or they want to pursue a different paths in life. I've been in a monogamous relationship where we did things the standard way by building a life together, and all it does is feel forced.

Nobody should give up a chance at happines because they feel obliged to stay with the woman\man they started a relationship with 5 years ago and grew up in the meantime.

6. The brain in love

Comment #215139 by Kentrel on July 21, 2008 at 11:31 am

"And I still disagree with we have a "physical need" for "romantic love" "

So does "romantic love" exist in a physical form?

7. The brain in love

Comment #214945 by Kentrel on July 21, 2008 at 5:19 am

thewhitepearl

You have no real physical need to listen to music, but I guarantee you there are one or two powerful songs that generate intense physical feelings in your body.

Why can't romantic love be the same?

You don't have to have a baby everytime you listen to music (it would certainly mess upthe dancefloor!), but listen to a Jack Johnson song (or whatever's to your taste) and suddenly you understand the term "Babymaking music".

Is it a coincidence that music and sexual relationships are closely related? Few people will die if you starve them of music or even love, but their personalities will change and their ability to find a suitable mate will be very much affected.

Music generates the feelings that make it more likely for two people to reproduce. That doesn't mean a middle aged post menopausal woman can't enjoy music too, but the body isn't that smart. It doesn't know to switch off these feelings just because reproduction is impossible.

Its not a romantic notion to imply that love is a purely physical need like all the other great things in life that make us more likely to survive reproduce, but it certainly doesn't make it wrong, scientifically.

Romantic love, music, the need for status all generate powerful feelings that push us into situations where we maximize our mating success.

It's not the stuff of great poetry, but either was Newton's view of the rainbow. I hope people don't make the mistake that John Keats did, and miss the point that in life there is the scientific view (the truth), and then there's the poetic romantic emotional way in which we experience the truth. They're both different sides to the same coin.

8. An Irishman's Diary

Comment #208872 by Kentrel on July 11, 2008 at 10:34 am

gd artcle. lngwich is always chnging. we shud respekt dat

9. McDonald's Makes Jesus Cry

Comment #206618 by Kentrel on July 8, 2008 at 2:53 pm

That's hilarious, though I'm pretty sure at least some of those comments are intentional parodies, especially the one about the gays being behind the holocaust.

10. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202616 by Kentrel on July 1, 2008 at 5:13 pm

This is a very good article, and its clear this gentleman is intelligent and understanding of both sides, even if he doesn't embrace the atheist point of view. Apparently from the comments above this is worthy of boos and hisses...wtf?

What's sad, is that here we have someone who can offer common ground between atheists and the religious, yet all people can do in the comments here is pick out the flaws in his reasoning and ridicule them? He's a human being, of course there are flaws in his argument. As there are in Richard Dawkins argument too.

Guys, this is about as reasonable as religious people get. Why not approach this in the spirit with which it is written, a semantic argument. I suspect he's read Plato and Socratic Method - I'm going to look out for this guy. Its rare to find religious people who can write about their subject this well.

This is not, as some deluded people seem to think a scientific paper. He's not presenting any evidence, in the same way that Dawkins presented no evidence in The God Delusion. They both present arguments, and from this article he seems to be very good at it, even though I disagree with him.

11. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #193963 by Kentrel on June 16, 2008 at 8:48 am

"This would be just funny if the religious would keep religion to the privacy of their own home and stay out of politics."

As you are the first person to mention religion in this thread I feel I should point out to you, that it would be also nice if in a science thread, some people wouldn't keep dragging religion into it...

12. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #192624 by Kentrel on June 13, 2008 at 4:52 pm

"Of course you Brit atheists should sign this petition - there is no doubt that many, many people have been traumatised by this nonsense. "

Show me the hard evidence from the psychology and psychotherapy community, and I'll happily sign that petition.

Until then, why embarrass myself by signing something when there's only little scraps of anecdotal evidence that even contradict my own religious upbringing. When PETA are throwing around the word "child abuse" about parents who feed their children meat, we need to be very careful of looking like the same sad deluded ideologists they look like.

13. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #191751 by Kentrel on June 11, 2008 at 3:34 pm

I would really like some hard evidence that this really is child abuse. I was raised Catholic before I became an atheist and I don't even see any kind of harmful psychological effects that can be sourced back to a "hellfire" religious upbringing. My experience is only anecdotal of course, but we really really need hard evidence from psychologists before we repeat this "child abuse" claim, ad infinitum.

Its hard for people who don't think religion is the "root of all evil" not to roll their eyes at that. Just think of your reaction when you see this ad from PETA

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00666/peta_666287n.jpg

Does it make you roll your eyes? Can you spot the obvious fallacies in the advertisement? Now, think for a moment how a similar ad about religion might look without hard evidence from the psychological research community.

What would your responses be when someone pointed out some research like this in response to that petition? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion#Religion_and_health

Ask yourself honestly, is there really evidence to back up that claim?

I'm no fan of religion, but I would like hard evidence to demonstrate it is indeed child abuse before I sign any petition.