1. Does Time Run Backward in Other Universes?

Comment #184236 by ferfuracious on May 24, 2008 at 4:39 am

~It would seem to be much more likely for the universe to fluctuate straight into a hot big bang, bypassing the inflationary stage altogether. Indeed, as far as entropy is concerned, it would be even more likely for the universe to fluctuate straight into the configuration we see today, bypassing the past 14 billion years of cosmic evolution.~

How do we differentiate between a universe that fluctuated into inflation and one that fluctuated into its current state? They would look the same, no?

2. The art of the soluble

Comment #95653 by ferfuracious on December 8, 2007 at 11:10 pm

This article is self-reviewing:

"arguments are a disgrace: assertive without substance; demanding evidence while offering none; staggeringly unscholarly."

I am unsure who is the greater moron, Lennox or Tudge:

"if all the physical constants, from the magnitude of gravity to the mass of the proton, had not been exactly right. Of course, we can explain such consistency without invoking intelligence and purpose, but as Lennox shows, the arguments needed to do this are extraordinarily contrived."

3. Face to faith

Comment #83160 by ferfuracious on October 29, 2007 at 5:42 am

"Nevertheless, is that the final word on the matter? Think of our primitive ancestors on the savannah, watching a thunderstorm approaching across the plain. As the dark sky splits with light, and the turbulent atmosphere howls with thunder, they feel fear."

I don't know about you, but the fact that simply observing light passing through a double slit changes its behaviour sends a shiver down my spine. We might not fear thunderstorms anymore, but surely science has uncovered lots of new phenomena to find creepy.

4. At Fermilab, the Race Is on for the 'God Particle'

Comment #58454 by ferfuracious on July 24, 2007 at 10:57 pm

"As the analyses proceed and the Tevatron hums its trillion-electron-volt tune,"

1 x 10^12 electronvolts = 1.602 x 10 ^-7 joules

I think Overbye lost something somewhere.

5. Hitler Was an Atheist Who Killed Millions in the Name of Atheism, Secularism?

Comment #56449 by ferfuracious on July 15, 2007 at 8:28 pm

~Even better testers of faith than Hitler are natural disasters, because Hitler can be explained by 'free will' and the 'Fall of Adam' and possession by Satan, etc. But natural disasters like volcanoes and tsunamis killing or maiming innocent children and devout people.~

Hitler is still good, probably better if they bring up free will. Then you get to both point out that free will doesn't explain natural disasters, and call them out on free will. For starters, is there free will in heaven? If not, that kind of sucks doesn't it? Surely if it was so critical to give humans free will on earth it would be just as important that they have free will in heaven?

And if there is free will in heaven, then what's to stop someone from being evil and messing everything up? If the theist has an ad hoc explanation for this, ie "people just don't behave immorally in heaven, they have God's supreme love", point out that if this is possible in heaven, surely it would be possible on earth too.

6. Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much

Comment #54396 by ferfuracious on July 6, 2007 at 7:59 pm

"American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small)."

I suppose it must be easy to believe in homeopathy if you don't even know what water is made of. It's probably even easier to believe water turns to wine if you don't understand the difference between them.

7. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #51805 by ferfuracious on June 25, 2007 at 4:47 am

Shuggy:

I should have quoted the entire paragraph, makes more sense that way:

"The omnipotent author of The Ten Commandments presumably doesn't worry about what people think, but the bestselling author of The God Delusion is a little more sensitive. "I'd like to think my book is full of jokes," says the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, a title that now more often requires him to challenge the misunderstandings preferred by the public in these unenlightened times."

By 'not worrying about what people think', Allemang means self-consciousness, or some kind of apprehension about how people will react something, The God Delusion in Dawkins' case.

If God really didn't worry about what people think, then why is he so concerned that everybody should believe in him and no other Gods?

8. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #51756 by ferfuracious on June 24, 2007 at 5:37 pm

"The omnipotent author of The Ten Commandments presumably doesn't worry about what people think,"

Allemang should have actually read the commandments, specifically:

""I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me..."

"Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."

"Do not swear falsely by the name of the LORD..."

"Remember [zachor] the Sabbath day and keep it holy"

9. Christopher Hitchens: Religion Poisons Everything

Comment #48734 by ferfuracious on June 8, 2007 at 9:27 pm

~Isn't that the exact same - "Stalin was bad, so atheism is bad" - argument that the apologists always use against atheism? I find it hard to believe that these men's atrocities were even supported by, much less driven by, their belief in Buddhist principles.~

Look at it this way, the buddhism of these men didn't stop them from committing atrocities, and Hitler's catholicism and Stalin's atheism didn't stop them either. This demonstrates that none of these worldviews guarantee morality.

Now look at the countries where religion predominates, such as the USA, and compare them to the countries where non-belief is prevalent, such as Japan. If you measure morality by violent crime rates or the equivalent, and find religious countries are less 'moral' than secular ones, then you have strong evidence against the notion that believers' morality is superior to that of unbelievers. If atheists really do behave immorally, then why would secular countries be more moral?

I've forgotten exactly which study did the comparison, but this looks similar:

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_are_religious_societies_healthier.html

10. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41423 by ferfuracious on May 16, 2007 at 5:28 am

"He opts for scientific materialism, the banality of which he tries to hide behind such -- dare we say it? -- "pious" invocations about the sense of wonder induced by photographs taken by the Hubble Telescope. It's like saying that the ultimate questions of life and death that religion grapples with can be set aside by watching the sunset."

Anyone who can conclude that science is banal must surely be scientifically illiterate. Would De Souza have found religion so appealing if he had had the opportunity to experience the sense of wonder Hitchens describes?

If many people's only contact with science is in high school, then creationists are absolutely spot on when they target schools. This also underlines the importance of Dawkins' ability to communicate that sense of awe in his writing.

11. In the beginning

Comment #33983 by ferfuracious on April 23, 2007 at 12:41 am

~For Father Coyne, belief in man's unique status is entirely consistent with an evolutionary view of life. "The fact we are at the end of this marvellous process is something that glorifies us," he says.~

What a moron. If we are at then 'end' of the marvellous process of evolution, then so is every contemporary virus, bacterium and yeast. Evolution wasn't pointed at the eventual goal of humanity, we are simply one of its current products, like every other species.

12. The Empty Wager

Comment #32971 by ferfuracious on April 18, 2007 at 10:19 pm

There is an infinity of possible deities, all, some, one or none might exist.

A deity that punishes believers and rewards unbelievers is just as likely as a deity who does the reverse.

So there is no reason why there shouldn't be a large proportion of possible deities that punish believers and reward unbelievers.

One can lack belief in every possible deity at once, but it is significantly more difficult to believe in all of them simultaneously. And even if you did believe in all of them, jealous deities such as God would punish you for this just as they would punish an unbeliever.

So if you actually did make a decision based on probabilities, the best bet is to be an atheist because you can satisfy the demands of more deities than the conventional theist can.

13. Then Call it God

Comment #31072 by ferfuracious on April 10, 2007 at 10:03 pm

I don't believe in myself. Therefore I am God!

14. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30341 by ferfuracious on April 7, 2007 at 4:52 pm

"Christianity is not about moral arrogance," Novak insists. "It is about moral realism, and moral humility."

So condemning people to eternal suffering and torment for the crime of not "having faith" in God is morally realistic and humble?

What sins would a person have to commit for eternal punishment to become justified?

15. Time in the Animal Mind

Comment #29491 by ferfuracious on April 3, 2007 at 5:06 am

Philip1978, there is a similar article in a recent new scientist that goes into more detail. It seemed to me that the idea was that the ability to imagine one's self in the past (recalling an image of yourself at work), is closely linked to the ability to imagine one's self in the future (generating an image of yourself on a planned holiday). So it goes beyond recalling or predicting locations of objects.

There was also a theory that memories are used to construct images of a predicted future. For example, it is easy to imagine yourself at the beach if you regularly take holidays at the coast as you have images of what it is like at the beach readily available. However it would be much harder to imagine yourself skiing if you had never even seen snow before.

I don't think memes are really involved here, they are about concepts and ideas that can reside in people's minds and spread, not recalling or imagining information or events. Since the subject is cognitive abilities, genes would probably be more appropriate.

16. Blasphemy Challenge on FOX

Comment #19642 by ferfuracious on January 29, 2007 at 4:17 am

If you were God (and eternal torture were actually a just punishment) which one of those men would think was more deserving of Hell?

17. Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Comment #18057 by ferfuracious on January 18, 2007 at 5:02 am

dx/dt = 1 Cor. 1:10

Haha, that's the best bit

18. Discussion of The God Delusion

Comment #18053 by ferfuracious on January 18, 2007 at 4:48 am

"I just wanted to add, as the more I consider this episode the more angry I get at the ABC. Surely it is incumbent on them to invite panelists who are actually capable of addressing the expansive issues that RD deals with in TGD. Not only is it an insult to RD, but an insult to the viewers - many of whom were exposed to these ideas for the first time, no doubt, and were left with not only naive, but FALSE information regarding its contents."

And they even had someone like germaine greer. Imagine how bad an ordinary book-club must be.

19. False piety when Christianity claims the high moral ground

Comment #17963 by ferfuracious on January 17, 2007 at 6:20 pm

Can you imagine someone getting away with wearing a t-shirt reading "Get your rosaries off my ovaries" in Congress?

Australia is much more secular.

20. Copy of The God Delusion Purchased for $20,000

Comment #17446 by ferfuracious on January 13, 2007 at 7:49 pm

Not sure about the Double Helix. The symbol for atheism used to be an atom with orbiting electrons, but that seems really dated now. A helix would face a similar danger.

21. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #16960 by ferfuracious on January 9, 2007 at 7:17 pm

"Who, on Darwinian premises, would have expected that... that bacteria gain pathogenicity (the ability to cause disease) by losing genes?"

I don't know, perhaps someone who knows that virulence is secondary to reproduction when it comes to the success of bacteria, for whom a living contagious host is more beneficial than a dead one?


MeIM:

I saw an even more effective dismissal of ID on another site. Instead of bothering with religion at all just demolish ID's claim to being scientific by pointing out that there is no possible control for design. For example, in an experiment where fruit flies or bread mold successfully adapted to some stressful condition, it would be impossible to rule out interference by a designer because no one knows what methods such an agent would use. How are you going to know if what you are seeing is ID in action if you can't set up a control group who won't be aided by a designer?

It is this kind of unfalsifiability in principle that makes ID unscientific beyond doubt.