1. Exploding black holes could expose hidden dimensions

Comment #122745 by roach on February 5, 2008 at 11:31 pm

So what is the most promising theory since string theory appears to have failed?

2. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #112693 by roach on January 17, 2008 at 9:43 pm

Eric Blair,

You're out of your mind if you think there's anything particularly Judeo-Christian about values. The values you admire were around and discussed at length long before Judiasm or Christianity were invented.

3. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111175 by roach on January 13, 2008 at 9:56 pm

Damien White,

Well...you knew that. I suspect most people didn't and still don't know.

Also, Shermers stats don't report the answer to the question "would you rather earn 50K while EVERYONE ELSE makes 25k or make 100K while EVERYONE ELSE makes 250K?". If this was the question asked, then yes it would be prudent to select the first option. But that was not the question asked. The question was would you rather "earn $50,000 a year while OTHER people make $25,000, or would you rather earn $100,000 a year while other people get $250,000?"

Who are these other people? I dunno and maybe this ambiguity is a problem for reliable stats. But I wouldn't be surprised if most people identify the "other people" as co-workers, family, freinds, and acquaintences. Does this make a difference?

4. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108043 by roach on January 5, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Wolpe's teapot counter was pathetic. He basically said that because the teapot theory is falsifiable then it isn't valid. What the hell? Okay so switch the teapot for my undectable invisible penis...better? If we're to follow Wolpe's reasoning it is. You know that feeling you get when you see the sunset paint the clouds beautiful shades of orange and red? That's evidence for my phantom cock.

5. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108032 by roach on January 5, 2008 at 9:10 pm

Summer Seale,

Yeah but we gotta be honest about why the religions have evolved. And it's not because people read the books a couple more times with more attention.

6. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108022 by roach on January 5, 2008 at 8:41 pm

Wolpe is obviously intelligent but he's lying to himself. He must see that he has no intellectual footing when he argues that the usefulness of religion is evidence for it's truth.

Sam really has a talent for these debates. The Elvis analogy was awesome.

7. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105835 by roach on January 1, 2008 at 11:40 pm

So when a person becomes immortal does he/she stay the age at which he/she achieved immortality? If so, they better get on that shit with the quickness.

Who's read Kurtweil's "The Singularity is Near"? Any good?

Sam Harris believes in reincarnation? That's news to me.

8. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105824 by roach on January 1, 2008 at 10:07 pm

Veronique,

Thanks for the link. I found it very interesting.

9. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105697 by roach on January 1, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Paula,

Thank you for your responses. I'll put my hope in your contention that you "could have easily ignored it". Perhaps that is the crux of the issue.

10. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105663 by roach on January 1, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Paula said: "Wouldn't that seem to suggest that it is sometimes (at least) possible to make up our own minds?"

Maybe but I'm not so sure. Why? Because the moment of clarity you experienced when reciting the Creed wasn't your conscious bidding. That doubtful thought just manifested itself spontaneously in your brain. So this idea that we are the thinkers of our thoughts seems to be untrue. And again, it's causing me worry. It's not too big of an issue though. I remember I used to stress out (just like Alvie Singer) because I learned that the universe is expanding at an ever incresing rate. I'm sure I'll be at peace with this potentially distressing possible truth. I just need more convo and info.

So apologies Paula. I was wrong to suggest that it is only external pressure that causes people's minds to change. It seems that that which causes your mind to change is always beyond your control though.

11. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105659 by roach on January 1, 2008 at 12:58 pm

annabanana, we're talking about different things. I think this will become quite clear in future posts. :)


Steveroot has summarized the position well. I also like to think that the mind is changed by its owner. However, some articles and books I've read seem to suggest otherwise and I find it distressing. I'm hoping people like Paula and the good Doctor will put my fears to rest. Not necessarily by destroying the argument I've presented but just by showing me that it's really nothing to worry about. Have at it.

12. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105655 by roach on January 1, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Paula,

Yes that is what I am suggesting. Am I wrong?

13. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105650 by roach on January 1, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Cool article. But I've heard that no one gets to change his/her mind. It's more accurate to say that your mind is changed for you. Does anyone find this compelling?

14. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105185 by roach on December 30, 2007 at 8:41 pm

AthiestJon said: "Hitchens is the only one who repeatedly uses his hands when he communicates."

You must be kidding. Harris never stops using his hands when he talks. I half expect him to strike that pose fitting of a Roman Senator (I don't know what it's called) when he speaks.

15. Man and God

Comment #103404 by roach on December 25, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Terrible article.

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

Comment #102202 by roach on December 22, 2007 at 1:59 am

How can anyone logically argue that life can ultimately come from an intelligent designer? You are postulating a form of life (ancient but intelligent) to explain the formation of simple organic compounds and replicators. How can you not see the conceptual problem with this? This line of reasoning runs right into an infinite regress.

17. What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith

Comment #101128 by roach on December 20, 2007 at 12:23 am

The comments are confusing me.

18. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #100988 by roach on December 19, 2007 at 6:11 pm

This is too funny.

So guys and gals, who's faster: Superman or The Flash?

19. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #100577 by roach on December 18, 2007 at 11:52 pm

wooter,

Where did God come from?


But more importantly, why am I even talking to you?

20. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96077 by roach on December 10, 2007 at 12:00 am

I guess it is. I mean, the child doesn't choose to have this done to him and there really are no benefits. But this act is not even in the same ballpark s female genital mutilation. In order to be equally monstrous, they'd have to chop off the entire head of the penis.

I'm snipped. I really don't care.

21. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #94518 by roach on December 5, 2007 at 10:20 pm

Plenty of people believed the Earth to be round long before the Bible was written. And they had much better evidence for it than "this book says it is so". On a related note, how crappy is our education system?

It's also interesting to note that "round" isn't the best way to describe the shape of the Earth.

22. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #94472 by roach on December 5, 2007 at 5:50 pm

Bonzai,

Perhaps I did miss the point. In fact, I'm not sure you ever had one. I just don't buy that the fear of abandonment (perceived or otherwise) is a social construction or a learned behavior. I don't see how it lines up with "ringing the bell".

23. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #94163 by roach on December 4, 2007 at 11:50 pm

All what? All emotions? Or all "chains of triggered-responses"? I find it convincing that all our emotions are hardwired.

Why would your partner sleeping aroun or having another relationship not create a perception of abandmonment?

Let's just say that it's all a social construct. So what? The emotions we feel are still the same.

24. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #94152 by roach on December 4, 2007 at 11:21 pm

chain of triggered-response? What is that?

Nevermind I just saw your post. I don't find it compelling. We're talking about how most people most of the time feel and why. Introducing a minority (swingers in this case), doesn't change anything. Also, are swingers lifelong adherents to this behavior? Do they never feel pangs of jealousy? I doubt it.

25. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #94148 by roach on December 4, 2007 at 11:17 pm

Are all of our emotions socially conditioned? If not, what makes jealousy more socially conditioned than say anger, angst, fear, etc.?

26. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #93649 by roach on December 3, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Sweet. Dawkins didn't speak?

27. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93366 by roach on December 2, 2007 at 11:02 pm

I never got the impression that Dawkins thinks that sexual jealousy is going to go away. He only stated that we should aim to rise above it. I suppose this is a noble pursuit. One problem is that potential mates sometimes actually want us to be jealous. I've encountered this behavior. A couple women were turned on by my sexual anger/jealousy. How bout that curveball?

Also, monogamy is an old religious ideal? Never heard that before. I've found that, for me, serial monogamy works the best.

28. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #93363 by roach on December 2, 2007 at 10:55 pm

Louise,

You misread The God Delusion. The impression I got was yes people can be and are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. And yes, these terrible truth about the human condition are not born out of religion and can probably be ascribed to our biology. The problem is that religion has the nasty habit of sanctifying racism, sexism, homophobia and other ugly ideas. It takes patently bad ideas and renders them holy. That's the problem but I think you already knew that.

29. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92848 by roach on December 1, 2007 at 3:12 pm

I do enjoy these debates. But I think people are giving D'Souza way too much exposure. I wish Harris v. D'Souza would happen next though. Sam could just repeat his opening statement from his debate with Chris Hedges and that would be the end of it.

30. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92840 by roach on December 1, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Yeah I'd like to see Sam Harris destroy D'Souza. I think Harris' style would humilate Dinesh.

31. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92609 by roach on November 30, 2007 at 11:38 pm

Life evolved by chance? I wish the author would have corrected that horrilbe misunderstanding.

32. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92136 by roach on November 29, 2007 at 11:28 pm

Cartomancer said:

"Answer me that oh oracle of the mind, privy as you are to its innermost secrets."

Don't mock me. All I did was give honest albeit subjective answers to your posts. Here's some more honesty: Get over yourself and the piss poor situation you've created. You'll have to figure out how to do that. No one, and certainly not this fool, will be of much help.

Also, I doubt you've "paid the highest price each time". Yeeesh.

I didn't know you had three soulmates (i dont' believe in soulmates). At the risk of more mocking might I suggest that you let yourself develop feelings for other people? I don't know how to tell you to do that. It just kinda happens for me. Best of luck.

Edit: I didn't see your latest post. I'm not going to make any changes to mine.

33. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92123 by roach on November 29, 2007 at 10:48 pm

Cartomancer,

I'm not left "all warm and fuzzy inside". It hurts like hell to have your feelings crushed. The rewards are high but so are the risks.

Also, I doubt that you've received nothing but anguish, suffering, and misery. If this is truly the case, you're obviously chasing the wrong people. Try and be more rational about it.

34. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92118 by roach on November 29, 2007 at 10:31 pm

Alright I'll go with guide my actions. Makes more sense.

Now why let my emotions guide me when it comes to relationships? Because I want to. If I'm in a budding relationship with a girl, I'm going to give it my all. This actually makes me feel better than dividing my affection among two or more women. And if things don't work and we decide to break up, I can look back, smile, and say "Well at least I tried my very best." and then move on.

I do not view this as a "deeply flawed system". Quite the contrary actually.

So I happily let my emotions guide my decisions in this area of my life. And I wouldn't want it any other way.

Switching gears...

I doubt anyone on this board would object to any person's relationship/sexual decisions as long as the decisions are what they want and are making them happy. If the article was just saying "to each his/her own" when it comes to sex, all I can say is thanks but everyone already knew that.

35. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92100 by roach on November 29, 2007 at 9:48 pm

Beth,

Why do you put feelings in scare quotes?

Isn't it obvious that people can love more than one person at any given time? Do we really need scientific data (if it's even possible to gather it) on this?

I've silenced my feelings when it comes to religion. My personal relationships are the one place I will allow them to dictate my actions. Since they are personal, I see nothing wrong with this. If you think that's irrational...it is. Tough shit.

36. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92087 by roach on November 29, 2007 at 9:20 pm

"It's about having a romantic, responsible, erotic, trusting, and truthful relationship with more than one person, okay?"

Until this I see some evidence that this is possible, I'm going to remain skeptical. People can't even pull this off with one person and now were expecting them to succeed with two or more? Give me a break.

37. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92021 by roach on November 29, 2007 at 5:46 pm

It's strange. I try to rise above sexual jealousy. Yet, for some reason, I make more of an attempt to rise above sexual infidelity. Seems like both have strong darwinian roots. I'd even go as far as to say that rising above sexual infidelity is more of an accomplishment. Why? Don't know at the moment.

If some chick were to "cheat" on me (I don't know why given I'm the world's greatest sexual dynamo) I don't think I would hate her or wish her ill. But I wouldn't be happy that's for sure. Humans are emotional animals and it hurts to learn that the person you love (or lust or even just care about) is fooling around with another guy or guys. Now if she's fooling around with another hot chick that's just damn sexy.

Also, I've found sex with strangers to be shitty as hell. Best to find yourself someone who is just as freaky as you and stick with her.

38. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89845 by roach on November 21, 2007 at 11:58 pm

It's "Darwinians". Get it right troll.

Also, there is no divine plan. Get over yourself.

39. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89769 by roach on November 21, 2007 at 5:00 pm

In order to create what you call 'gravity' in a lab, you have to be able to totally and completely understand how 'gravity' works. Either that or you have to be able to have a lucky guess. However, to RECREATE it over and over again, in other words to completely PROVE it, you definitely have to know exactly how it works first, no lucky guesses this time.

40. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89759 by roach on November 21, 2007 at 4:28 pm

Humans have been recreating evolution for centuries both inside and outside the lab. I think I'll go play fetch with my "evolved wolf" now.

41. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86284 by roach on November 8, 2007 at 11:43 pm

ADH,

You're crazy dude.

42. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86017 by roach on November 7, 2007 at 8:50 pm

If they just believe in "some kind of force" they're not Christians. They're physicists.

43. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #85085 by roach on November 4, 2007 at 11:51 pm

Armhouse,

You terribly misunderstood Sam's speech. I heard nothing to indicate that he is open to "other spiritual realms" in the way you are implying. Yes, the man has an affinity for meditation and it's potenitally positive effects on the mental state of the practitioner. I see no problem with this. I think it would be interesting to learn if we can make ourselves happier or more compassionate simply through an individual mental effort. I think this would be desirable given how poorly we treat each other as a result of our darwinian past. But any effect will take place in the brain and though it could last a lifetime, it's still only temporary.

Also, "God" has become a loaded word. I would wager that most people think of the god of Abraham when someone says he believes in God. Belief in A god (deism) is very different from belief in a particular god (theism). Indeed, deism is essentially the same as atheism because a noninterveening god is indistinguishable from a nonexistent one. I have no problem with deism.

44. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82784 by roach on October 27, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Seems like the vids are being more warmly received than the text of the speech was. I suppose it demonstrates Sam Harris' impressive public speaking ability.

I was happy to see he didn't just repackage his and others comments into a "why religion is dangerous" speech. That would have been very self-serving and boring.

I think Sam made his points well. Although I must admit that I was initially taken aback at the idea that we shouldn't label ourselves "atheist", I can't really find anything wrong with his reasons. In fact, this seems entirely in line with what he has written and said over the past years. Sam enjoys (loathes?) a special vantage point when it comes to religion and it's influence on the minds of others. He's been publically debating the religious consistently for the past few years. He now knows the tactics they employ and which ones work on the audience. I think these experiences add weight to his arguments.

45. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81009 by roach on October 23, 2007 at 10:23 pm

macros_man,

To my mind, Sam Harris embodies your "someone speaking for atheists, who can cut right to the point on these topics - someone who is fast on their feet, concise, and who cuts right into the fallacies that are heavy in the minds of theists that watch these debates with abated breath". I'd put forth his debates with Reza Aslan, Chris Hedges, and his written correspondence with Andrew Sullivan as evidence.

Anyway, crappy article.

Also, it's nice to see MIND_REBEL back.

46. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80980 by roach on October 23, 2007 at 7:58 pm

that's a cool Vampire Hunter D avatar.

47. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80976 by roach on October 23, 2007 at 7:12 pm

No one really tries to talk to Danielos right?

48. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #80734 by roach on October 22, 2007 at 9:01 pm

Armhouse,

Your "doubting deist approach" may be effective but you can't expect a person advocating intellectual honesty to lie about his/her belief in a god.

49. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80724 by roach on October 22, 2007 at 7:41 pm

mandrellian,

Phi Beta Kappa is not a drunken frat. It's "the oldest undergraduate honors organization in the US."

In other news, I'd rather cover myself with honey and roll around on a mound of fire ants than listen to D'Souza speak.

50. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80723 by roach on October 22, 2007 at 7:35 pm

I'd agree that "love you enemies" is not an ethical statement. It's an exercise in futility and stupidity. The ideological equivalent of attempting to masturbate with ones ears.