1. A Holocaust Denier Hits Manhattan (And Hearts Hitchens)

Comment #220054 by Melomel on July 28, 2008 at 3:16 am

I consider this an insult to my and my countrymen's intellect, assuming we would automatically fall for Nazi propaganda

In fairness... you did the first time around. Which I'm not saying as a troll or a slam, but it is not like there isn't a real historic basis for fear of that particular brand of totalitarian ideology taking root in a controlling portion of German society.

2. Creationist critics get their comeuppance

Comment #206042 by Melomel on July 8, 2008 at 3:40 am

As much of a fool as Behe is, I find the people who claim to have a degree in "Theobiology" more ridiculous. WTF is that supposed to be?

Oooh, I want to work on that degree. I presume the lab periods involve the dissection of either deities or at least theologians.

3. Galaxy map hints at fractal universe

Comment #199334 by Melomel on June 25, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Hmmm. So instead of "turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down," it's "fractals, fractals, fractals, all the way up."

4. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #195697 by Melomel on June 18, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Hm. So, if I get the idea correctly, we exist simply because it is possible to construct a mathematical model of our universe - we are that model.

Here's where it gets interesting for Atheists: if it is possible to mathematically describe a model of a theistic universe, then one must exist.

Contrariwise, if a theistic universe can be shown to be mathematically impossible (which is to say, it is provable that no such model can be constructed), then there's no God anywhere, nohow.

The latter seem like it could a worthwhile pursuit - to attempt to mathematically describe systems with the properties required for theistic universes and perhaps even coming up with testable ideas concerning to properties of theistic universes (and I mean beyond Archibald MacLeish's "If God is Good He is not God, If God is God He is not Good").

Just having fun, mostly.

5. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194540 by Melomel on June 16, 2008 at 11:21 pm

The use of the phrases "Earth-like" and "Super-Earths" is really unfortunate here. They mean rocky planets of a mass of the same order of magnitude as the Earth, of course.

Unfortunately, the phrases (and not to mention the "artist's conception") imply something much closer to Earth than, say, Venus or Mars to the casual observer.

Sure, extremophiles are an entirely plausible (and exciting) possibility, but too many people will interpret (and have interpreted) the article as claiming entirely the wrong place in the Drake equation and are expecting birds, grass, and oxygen if not Little Green Men.

6. Regime change in heaven

Comment #191425 by Melomel on June 10, 2008 at 11:54 pm

Hm. Could have been marked "spoilers for His Dark Materials."

7. Blogger spreads the gospel of science

Comment #189294 by Melomel on June 6, 2008 at 1:15 am

I didn't found the city though.

I didn't know it was lost (bah dum).

8. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183725 by Melomel on May 22, 2008 at 4:11 pm

The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot, though. Yeah, there's nothing particularly special about our star, and even if there were, then of course it would be such that we could develop here. We did, after all, develop here.

There's a much more effective argument that's similar that has to do with the various constants in the universe allowing baryonic matter to exist in such a way that planets and stars can form in the first place.

The weak anthropic principle has a much more difficult time answering that one unless there are multiple "universes" with different constants - you need more than one monkey to make the case for shakespeare being no big deal.

Mind you, I doubt very much that a monotheist-style invisible friend is the correct answer to the question of, "why does the universe support us," but it is a much more difficult question than anything involving just our sun.

9. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124945 by Melomel on February 10, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Best line: "I would say that we should be ashamed of ourselves, but we already are - which is why this is happening."

10. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121452 by Melomel on February 3, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Just wait a goddamned minute here.

Are they seriously trying to tell us that under Islam, a strictly observant woman can study to become a doctor? If not, they've already demonstrated a flexibility about their faith - this is just one of those attempts to justify their own preferences with their religion.

11. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #120475 by Melomel on February 1, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Art:

And the Christian hypothesis, among all the theist hypotheses available, seems to me, at present, to be the most coherent of all (they can't all be right!).

Intellectually, can you step back and appreciate the fact that most people just happen to view the religion of the immediate society they've been born into (ie, not necessarily their immediate family but also those around them in their early life) the very same way?

To me, it seems like that should immediately suggest that this feeling is a result of nurture and not nature, and that one should seriously question its objectivity.

12. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #120405 by Melomel on February 1, 2008 at 3:24 pm

I agree with XKCDs take on Nihilism:

http://www.xkcd.com/167/

13. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #120401 by Melomel on February 1, 2008 at 3:16 pm

I'll refrain from getting dragged into an argument, but lion vs. prey is not the context where game theory enters - the context is in social interactions that will be repeated either directly, or through reputation, or through inheritance.

It is wholly mathematical, and will manifest itself in any system that meets the stated parameters that the game theory experiment explores.

Anyway, here's a link: Generous players: game theory explores the Golden Rule's place in biology

So it doesn't matter whether Mathematics and logic were created by an intentional agent or not - morality is a natural consequence of the mathematics of biology.

14. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #120152 by Melomel on February 1, 2008 at 9:48 am

Proof if any was needed that NOMA is bullshit.

Um, no. It still holds that when religion tries to say things about the real world, they're unequivocally full of shit - which is what NOMA says. Religion is welcome to have authority over colorless green ideas sleeping furiously.

15. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #119514 by Melomel on January 31, 2008 at 4:35 pm

Here's a quick answer: game theory. There are mathematically derivable systems of ethics that make everything better for everyone, and for individuals. To the first approximation, the Golden Rule exists independently of any religion: it is a mathematical fact.

16. Scientists discover way to reverse loss of memory

Comment #118178 by Melomel on January 30, 2008 at 12:50 pm

This is interesting to me for the longer term - the more we learn about how the brain, memory, and consciousness work, the further along the road we are to downloading.

"I want to achieve immortality through not dying." - Woody Allen

17. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117183 by Melomel on January 28, 2008 at 11:42 am

I cannot think of a religion that is not based on dogma or faith.

The Tao that can be described is not the true Tao.

There are a few systems of mysticism (e.g. Zen, Universal Sufism) that don't make any claims about the real world, and thus don't really require any faith about things that are falsifiable. The degree of faith that they require at all is arguable - the systems don't supply any dogma, but instead hint towards what they claim are truths that can not be conveyed directly with language.

Are they religions? Damned if I know, but they suggest that people can get many of the things that people get from religions from things that don't require belief about things that are false.

18. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115813 by Melomel on January 24, 2008 at 8:57 pm

There you go, with the reason again. There are some very basic unreasonable aspects of the way humans process information of a certain kind over time.

No, seriously. I wish I had the reference handy, a study about this was published in the last year - when somebody makes a public claim and others refute it, the original claim is remembered more strongly than the refutation. This is why, for example, people still think that Saddam Hussein had something to do with September 11th - the original claim is remember more than the refutation is.

Scary, isn't it? This helps to explain why our public debate is a matter of claim-counterclaim instead of claim-refutation. Reason is effective in dealing with the natural world, it's just not very effective in persuading most humans.

Douglas Adams got it right: people are a problem.

19. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115782 by Melomel on January 24, 2008 at 7:10 pm

You know, I see a whole lot of people laying out very good reasoning as to why this article is wrong.

That's great - it's good to be on clear ground and reason is a great way of getting things done. However, the problem is that it's not persuasive, at least not to the people who need to be persuaded. The religious have long ago decided that reason is not paramount - at best, it is a tool to be used in the service of their religion. Where reason and their religious prejudices differ, it's clear which gives way in their head.

Furthermore, as lamentable as it is, even the most casual observer should be able to quickly perceive that reason is not the way our populace makes its decisions. Reason can often play a role in the process, but other factors are always - always - primary.

More than any other group, we should be best suited to understand that we are barely domesticated apes and are, as much as might wish otherwise, subject to basic primate social dynamics. More often than not, people will follow the argument put forward by the ape they trust, npt the argument that sits upon the most solid logic underpinnings.

I really would like to see the current Atheist movement (or whatever you would like to call it) show a more pragmatic understanding of what factors in public discussion actually persuade people and start using tactics that acknowledge it. I'm not saying that we should be dishonest or put forward fallacious arguments, but I am saying that it's folly to completely ignore primate social dynamics.

The Clintons' people are experts at using primate social dynamics to achieve their goals, and anybody wishing to counter them really needs to answer with a similar awareness.

20. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115277 by Melomel on January 23, 2008 at 10:07 pm

Wow, this article reminds me of the Chewbacca defense. I think that somebody should be hauling out what was coming out of the theists' mouths and pens in 1871 - since they said nasty stuff, much worse than what Darwin did, obviously their God theory is dangerous. Heck, we can even let 'em have a handicap and limit ourselves to the stuff they're writing today.

I also think that somebody ought to have a seance, as cheesy as possible, to allow Darwin to answer these arguments, make his apologies to the press, and enter rehab. At that point, everybody will be allowed to go back to enjoying his work.