1. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #213416 by Scep on July 18, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Uplifting! Inspiring! Mysterious! Wonderful! Awe!
Thank you Steven and Richard for letting us in on your inspiring exchange of ideas, facts and thoughts.

In "Unweaving the Rainbow" Richard tells us how lucky we all are. He says:
"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born."

"The lottery starts before we are conceived. Our parents had to meet, and the conception of each was as improbable as our own".

"We live on a planet that is all but perfect for our kind of life: not too warm and not too cold, basking in kindly sunshine, softly watered; a gently spinning, green and gold harvest-festival of a planet".

Add to these "biological" thoughts those of a physicist and the short stay on our "Pale Blue Dot" becomes a miracle that no God could have dreamed up.

The biologist's "complexity arose from simplicity" is factual, but the physicist's big picture may simply say "things always were".

Why is it so hard for so many of us to just simply savour reality?

Thanks guys, you made my day …and beyond!

2. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #208311 by Scep on July 10, 2008 at 8:29 pm

In a free society one should be able to say what many don't want to hear.

There is this commander in chief who went to war in Iraq because God told him so. At least when atheists kill they don't do it in the name of God! And when they eat a cracker, that's all they do, eat a cracker!

What a cracker of a goddamned cracker!

3. Hints of structure beyond the visible universe

Comment #191413 by Scep on June 10, 2008 at 10:52 pm

"Read up on the Special Theory of Relativity, specifically the clock paradox. It will blow your mind."

Stephen Hawking's "A Briefer History of Time" is a fascinating read.

4. Hints of structure beyond the visible universe

Comment #191209 by Scep on June 10, 2008 at 11:40 am

Ref 16. Comment #191205 by Drool

'If the structure and physical laws vary across the unseen global universe, might we be fortunate enough to be placed in a spot that is "just right"?'

This must be the case. Even in a "Multiverse Universe" we are in the one that permits complexity to arise from simplicity.

The anthropic principle: cosmological version.

Richard Dawkins says that we can now apply these principles to the existence of the universe. He says that physicists have calculated that if the laws of nature that govern this universe were just slightly different, then the evolution of life would not have been possible.

5. Hints of structure beyond the visible universe

Comment #191199 by Scep on June 10, 2008 at 11:13 am

It is good to see comments like this on other blogs. This one is from the Huffington Post, written by a man who knows all about (un)reality:

Dr Chopra writes, "The second reason for today's bad news is an addiction to unreality".

There is another addiction to unreality, it is bad news too. It is when seemingly normal people are threatened and intimidated by logic, reason and critical thinking. On your own blog, intentblog.com, comments promoting these traits are often removed.

The latest removal is a report that a team of physicists has claimed that our view of the early Universe may contain the signature of a time before the Big Bang.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7440217.stm

So on one hand you, or whoever looks after IB, remove scientific opinions but go on telling us that you "know" that there is "Life after Death". Or you cite that bizarre University of Virginia study that to date has found over 2,000 children who vividly remember their past lives . . . Even more astonishing, over 200 of these children exhibit birthmarks that resemble the way they remember dying in their most recent lifetime. http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/02/28/the-great-afterlife-debate-michael-shermer-v-deepak-chopra/

In "Peace is the Way" you even tell us that mental spoon bending is a fact our culture is trying to deny us. You tell us how you and your wife have been part of many spoon-bending get-togethers.

Thank goodness for Arianna's blog, here everyone is welcome no matter how addicted one is to unreality or reason.

Note: Dr Chopra once called Richard Dawkins a bigot because of a disagreement about consciousness.

6. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #171069 by Scep on April 28, 2008 at 9:40 am

If we accept the overwhelming evidence that complexity evolved from simplicity, anything godlike that may exist in our "Multiverse" must have evolved through the same "mechanism".

In another "Multiverse" the basic laws of nature may be different, permitting a different "mechanism"?

Not much room left for a supernatural God! Except s/he may have given us the laws of nature. So we are back to Spinoza's, Einstein's and Sagan's God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Let's jump off that merry-go-round and enjoy and awe what really exists and read Richard's "Unweaving the Rainbow".

By the way Richard, that tape recorder you want with you when you finally throw in the towel may not be enough to prove that you did not have a deathbed conversion. Hopefully you will be about 500 years old when you "go" and your brilliant mind may not be so brilliant anymore and could be manipulated.

My children know that if I happen to die mumbling something about seeing the doors to paradise, they will have to chalk it up to an old, malfunctioning brain.

7. The books that inspire me

Comment #158483 by Scep on April 10, 2008 at 3:24 pm

# 52. by Sleep of Reason

It just so happens that I am a Vancouverite. Yes we do have our fair share of "spoon benders", but at the same time we probably have more "reasonable" people than any other North American city.

One of those reasonable ones is Ronald Wright. And since we talk about good books, his "A short History of Progress" is a compelling and sobering 'short history' of civilization. Wright has managed to deliver a collection of lectures/chapters that form an argument for change - immediate, fundamental and expansive - unlike any I have read before.

About Chopra, I have been trying to convince his audience to give reason a chance to find the truth for a long time but have been banned from his website as "Skeptisch". Please everyone, post reason here:

http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/10/my_last_message.html

The Chopras have become a little gun shy lately and your first posting should be a mild one in order to make it past "inspection". It will appear only after 24 hours. Subsequent comments will go through almost as they do here.

8. The books that inspire me

Comment #158369 by Scep on April 10, 2008 at 11:56 am

I bought "The Demon Haunted World" for my wife for Easter. Hopefully we will have more to talk about in the future. She likes angels and candles. Maybe she can read that wonderful book under candlelight and end up agreeing with Sam Harris and me:

"We simply do not call people 'non-astrologers. All we need are words like 'reason' and 'evidence' and 'common sense' and 'bullshit' to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion."

That includes the religion of New Age and its spoon bending Guru Deepak Chopra. The man who called Richard Dawkins a bigot, because of a disagreement about the origin of consciousness.

9. The books that inspire me

Comment #158364 by Scep on April 10, 2008 at 11:52 am

#24
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe". Carl Sagan

10. 'Darwin chip' brings evolution into the classroom

Comment #158340 by Scep on April 10, 2008 at 11:09 am

I hope I am wrong, but it seems to me faith heads will always be faith heads.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe".
Carl Sagan

11. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156459 by Scep on April 7, 2008 at 3:28 pm

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
George Orwell

If we could only convince the faith heads to watch something like this, at least once in a while!
http://dingo.care2.com/cards/flash/5409/galaxy.swf

12. Ayaan Hirsi Ali to get EU protection

Comment #136121 by Scep on February 29, 2008 at 1:17 pm

How prophetic was this, said by the early "Musketeer of Reason", Carl Sagan.

"We kill each other, or threaten to kill each other...because we are afraid we might not ourselves know the truth, that someone else with a different doctrine might have a closer approximation to the truth. Our history is in part a battle to the death of inadequate myths. If I can't convince you, I must kill you."

13. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #133219 by Scep on February 25, 2008 at 10:28 pm

And the winner is: Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World".

I also think a 14 year old should be ready for this wonderful journey into reason, common sense and bullshit.

14. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120859 by Scep on February 2, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Why do evolutionary biologists know so little about evolution while medical doctors like Geoffrey Simmons and that other know-it-all, Deepak Chopra, know so much? Do these guys have access to a special body of knowledge that people who study biology, don’t have. Have these pretenders, or creationists or whatever you want to call them, ever wondered who gave them the knowledge to know so much by studying so little.

We all seem to agree here on Richard’s net, but why not bother them on there own blog. That Chopra guy is such a deceiving smoothie. Most of us saw and heard him in “the enemies of reason� and how he answered Richard. There are signs that many people who leave organized religion end up with spoon bending gurus and other charlatans. Can you imagine, in this day and age telling your readers that mental spoon bending is a reality that our society is trying to deny them? He says, “Let's not waste any more time on spoon bending. For millions of people it’s now a trivial example of mind and matter as inseparably one�. http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/10/my_last_message.html

These pretenders are doing their stuff often without the slightest challenge! Please have your say at www.intentblog.com. Your first comment should be a mild one in order to be approved and displayed in up to 24 hours. Subsequent posts will appear quickly. We must try to tell these gullible folks to give reason a chance to find the truth before accepting some charlatan’s word and advice not to be skeptical and to have faith in his teachings.
Thanks guys.

15. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120505 by Scep on February 1, 2008 at 8:46 pm

This Dr Geoffrey Simmons reminds me of that other Doctor. He called Richard Dawkins a bigot over a disagreement over the origin of consciousness.

Dr Deepak Chopra is into RCB (remote cutlery bending) and all sorts of other supernatural stuff. I bothered him for over two years on his blog and he finally cracked and made a total fool of himself.

But the faith brains still believe in him!

Have a look:
http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/10/my_last_message.html

http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/10/a_letter_to_all.html

16. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94013 by Scep on December 4, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Reply to # 403
Venice, it appears I screwed up royally.

Dennett is my hero and in my opinion a deeper thinker that Sam, Richard and Chris. What I meant to say was that the Dinesh was the debater and Daniel the thinker.

Dinesh is also a loudmouth who does not really care about evidence and truth.

Sorry!

17. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93912 by Scep on December 4, 2007 at 12:51 pm

This was a debater and a thinker exchanging convictions. The thinker's delivery was at times irritating and the other guy was preaching with little reference to truth and evidence.

A perfect reason why Richard does not debate with the moonstruck religious!

18. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75318 by Scep on October 2, 2007 at 10:12 am

Maybe we can all agree on:
No atheist has ever killed anyone in the name of God!

19. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65074 by Scep on August 22, 2007 at 8:45 pm

About God's Warriors.

What a disgraceful exhibition of Jewish "solidarity" "God's Warriors" showed last night. No doubt the Muslims will do the same tonight, followed by the Christens on Thursday.

I am so grateful to be born with a reason-based mind, able to accept agnosticism at an early age so I never had to look for excuses and explanations for all these religious nutcases all over the world. But there is a good chance I would be an atheist by now anyway, as long I was born with any brain at all!

The intellectual violence one must do to themselves in order to have faith in unreason, is gross.

20. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65062 by Scep on August 22, 2007 at 7:37 pm

How strong is your faith?

I have no faith or religion at all, just a desire to treat others the way I like to be treated.

21. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #58443 by Scep on July 24, 2007 at 8:50 pm

BN, thanks for your comments. Your "digging" goes much deeper than what my needs are. Maybe that's because to a simple bright the natural world is all there is.

If one accepts that complexity arose from simplicity, then whatever else there may be must have arisen from simplicity also.

Maybe our simple minds are looking for something that does not exist. Maybe the Universe, or more likely the Multiverse, always existed in one form or another, which agrees with what gr8hands posted.

And it always will.

22. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #58252 by Scep on July 24, 2007 at 6:36 am

Anybody before Darwin had an excuse to believe in God, anybody after doesn't.

23. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #58102 by Scep on July 23, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Comment #58089 by BN

Your definition of supernatural:
"Supernatural" pretty much, by definition, means "beyond our ability to directly know."

Our definition:
"Supernatural, to many of us, means not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws".

So we are already riding the usual merry-go-around one takes when talking with believers.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe".
Carl Sagan

24. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #58081 by Scep on July 23, 2007 at 10:27 am

71. Comment #58075 by BN on July 23, 2007 at 9:58 am

Do you believe in a supernatural God?

25. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #58073 by Scep on July 23, 2007 at 9:34 am

How often do we hear the faith heads say, "Spinoza, Einstein, Sagan as well as many other intellectuals, believed in God".

And in a way they are right.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." Albert Einstein

"But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity".
Carl Sagan

Many faith heads don't or don't want to see the difference. To them God is God. So next time we run into someone who believes in God it might be a good idea to ask, which one?

26. Orr vs. Dennett/Dawkins

Comment #27014 by Scep on March 22, 2007 at 8:54 pm

"Read some of Richards other books. Watch Cosmos by Carl sagan. You will find that a naturalistic and realistic view of reality can be an even more wonderful realisation than a superstitious fictional view ever could."

Well said Zaphod!

27. Orr vs. Dennett/Dawkins

Comment #27013 by Scep on March 22, 2007 at 8:50 pm

About defining the different Gods, wouldn't the word "supernatural" do the trick?

28. Religion in Conflict: Are 'Evangelical Atheists' Too Outspoken?

Comment #23327 by Scep on February 27, 2007 at 9:18 pm

Why don't we all believe in Carl Sagan's God:

"…..but if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."

29. Creationism Song

Comment #17786 by Scep on January 16, 2007 at 11:37 am

These two guys say it much better than I can:

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous." Carl Sagan

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence".
Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown)