1. Debate: Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?

Comment #256935 by jamesstephenbrown on September 29, 2008 at 6:58 pm

"Religion don't kill people, people kill people."

So sorry, what is your solution. "Don't oppose religion... oppose people..."

what a silly view point, you can make the same argument for white supremacy, nazism, war... etc.

Religion encourages, facilitates and excuses stupidity, this is why it should be opposed. We are what we are, changing systems enables us not to fall into patterns of violence and stupidity, the opposition to religion is in part an attempt to achieve this - it is also, not inconsequentially, an opposition based on a respect for truth.

2. Ministers to Defy I.R.S. by Endorsing Candidates

Comment #255877 by jamesstephenbrown on September 28, 2008 at 1:28 pm

As long as these ministers are telling other religious people to vote for Mccain, Im okay with it. If they tell people to vote for Obama, we should shut them down and take away there tax exemption status. Talk about being biased, huh? I dont care, I dont want Obama to win. I will join forces with the religious nut cases to make sure Mccain wins.

Is this a joke?

Yeah, to hell with the law, to hell with the constitution, to hell with our principles let's empower ourselves by destroying the democratic process.

I'm not surprised you support McCain.

3. Mathematics and faith explain altruism

Comment #255870 by jamesstephenbrown on September 28, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Well thank you Mr Nowak for adding absolutely nothing to the pool of human knowledge, propounding the meaningless truism that God can never be disproven (along with anything else) and by showing no understanding of Dawkins' work or his history of interest in game theory, and specifically the prisoner's dilemma.

And, just by the way, everything in evolution can be described as an evolutionary "oops". It takes nothing away from something that evolved to call it a mistake. So thanks for also showing no understanding of evolutionary theory in general. Usually scientists who are Christian have the strange ability to be lucid when talking about science and history but all over the place when faced with questions relating to faith - at least Nowak shows consistency across the board...

4. Look Who's Irrational Now

Comment #254279 by jamesstephenbrown on September 25, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Thanks Decius,

Yes, I can understand how my comment could have been interpreted that way. I wasn't meaning that a non-belief in western medicine were based on good evidence, and certainly not on scientific evidence (though perhaps on anecdotal evidence around the trustworthiness of corporations).

Another interesting point I thought was that perhaps it isn't that people who are athiest that believe other strange things but that people who believe other strange things do so in opposition to traditional religious beliefs, so tend to want to think of themselves as freethinkers or atheists.

That was a sideline point.

5. Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space

Comment #254246 by jamesstephenbrown on September 25, 2008 at 1:32 pm

I've had a theory about this for a while, and in my understanding of the Universe this dark flow would not have only have been allowed but been expected.

If we take gravity as simply the result of the random distribution of attractive/repulsiveness in matter/energy then it makes sense that a certain amount of the most attractive matter/energy will form into planets, stars and galaxies. But what would be left? There would be matter/energy that is inert and matter/energy which is repulsive. Inert material would form a nice buffer between gravitational bodies like ours and the repulsive force of the left over particles, also giving us the illusion that all space is inert. So we would expect to see space expanding, the repulsive forces pushing the Universe outward at an accelerating rate never being able to escape because it is repulsive to all matter outside of it. Where gaps are left these repulsive forces would escape at tremendous speeds, like a hose with a leak.

I think this is a much more sensible idea than the idea that there is something outside of the universe pulling some stuff that we can't see, I think Occham's Razor could come in handy here.

But I'm not an astrophysicist so if someone can enlighten me to why my theory could not work I would really appreciate it, as I am starting to feel like a religious nut when I keep reading about things that "baffle" physicists but make perfect sense to me, as I think this paradigm is the wrong way around.

6. Look Who's Irrational Now

Comment #252173 by jamesstephenbrown on September 22, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Thanks for your comment decius -

"That is unless you are an epistemological sceptic (aka a fucking post-modernist), in which case you are entitled to your wrong statement, but you find yourself in the wrong site. :) "

I was making the point that Maher may be some sort of epistemological skeptic (aka a fucking post-modernist) and simply that this is a consistent (although flawed) worldview, and not a contradiction.

You obviously assume that, for me to point to a consistency in someone's worldview, I must therefore share that worldview. This says a lot about your own perspective... and suggests that you may be on the wrong site.

I am a scientific materialist, and share your loathing of postmodernist relativism and absolute skepticism. But skepticism is skepticism, one cannot make the point that someone being overly skeptical is the equivalent of their being credulous, this is a non-sequitur.

In addition, I assume Bill Maher, being a relatively intelligent person is more skeptical of the commercial side of western medicine, with regards to the over-prescribing of particular pharmaceuticals etc, but he is after all a television entertainer and has to get these ideas across in easily digestible sound bytes.

7. Does faith have a place in medicine?

Comment #251552 by jamesstephenbrown on September 21, 2008 at 3:55 pm

An atheist set of rules? Nonsense.

The point is the PATIENT not the doctor is free to exercise their religious convictions with regards to their own health. At present a Doctors role is and should be neutral.

If Dr McCann is proposing otherwise then this would lead to all sorts of abuses of trust with the Doctors ethical decisions trumping the patients regarding the patient's own body. Imagine the opposite, where a Doctor recommends an abortion against the will of the parent! What an outrage that would cause and rightly so, but this is what Dr McCann is proposing essentially, a religious form of Eugenics orchestrated at the whim of individual doctors.

8. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251548 by jamesstephenbrown on September 21, 2008 at 3:41 pm

robotaholic, I think someone might have hacked your profile, as this comment seems very out of character. If not, I second the comment to please indicate what smears / propaganda etc

9. Look Who's Irrational Now

Comment #251527 by jamesstephenbrown on September 21, 2008 at 2:53 pm

The person who wrote this article needs to try and understand what a belief and a non-belief are. Bill Maher, NOT- believing in western medicine is a NON-belief, it is a sign that he is skeptical about western medicine, and is completely in line with being skeptical about other things like God.

Sure, losing a worldview-prescriptive belief like that of Christianity will give people the freedom to form other beliefs, at least these beliefs will be based on some sort of evidence, experience or heaven forbid testable psuedoscience that is subject to being diproven rather than read from an immutable text, and adopted wholesale.

What's more this ability to form new beliefs allows Atheists to accept evidence for things such as evolution, global warming, super-string theory, the existence of life elsewhere in the Universe... all useful and progressive things, not possible with a belief in the literal truth of the Bible.

But chiefly, the glaring flaw in this article is the comparison that 31% of atheists are superstitious and only 8% of religious are. When actually 100% of religious people are superstitious! As religion is a form (in fact is many forms all in one) of superstition.

10. The Holy Laughter Anointing

Comment #248717 by jamesstephenbrown on September 16, 2008 at 5:18 pm

I'm with Neuro,

This is not only a childish and boring video, but its claim to connect Palin with this nonsense is over reaching, as Neuro said, we didn't put rev wright videos up here. We all know the nonsense that goes on in churches around america, lets not get down in the dirt with them. This is a forum for reason, let's celebrate that rather than making weak political arguments and mud-slinging.

11. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247658 by jamesstephenbrown on September 14, 2008 at 6:12 pm

When will people learn that it is not racist to say "your cultural practices have no place in this country, if they contradict this country's laws!" People can choose what culture practices they perform, and they can largely choose where they live (especially if they are migrating to Britain). What is wrong with people who think that they should come to a country because of the lifestyle it affords them, but bring their stone age culture with them - the reason the lifestyle is so attractive is a result of the culture of the country, if you want Sharia Law go to Saudi Arabia and see how you like the lifestyle that has resulted there.

12. Why we evolved to be superstitious

Comment #245908 by jamesstephenbrown on September 11, 2008 at 2:12 pm

"But how does attributing supernatural characteristics to the sound in the bush make one safer?"

As danger almost always comes in the form of agency, it is evolutionarily better for us to assume agency. Now a bush with agency is supernatural is it not? Same with thunder with agency, earthquakes with agency, the list goes on.

13. Why we evolved to be superstitious

Comment #245904 by jamesstephenbrown on September 11, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Has it occurred to anyone else that this...

"believe that alternative medicines work" because in doing so, one will benefit from the few that are effective and suffer little cost from using those that do not work."

... sounds a lot like Pascal's Wager.

14. Michael Palin for President

Comment #244849 by jamesstephenbrown on September 9, 2008 at 3:04 pm

I agree, would be more funny if it weren't so true, though, if you're going with someone of the standing of Michael Palin you could have run this campaign 8 years ago...

Perhaps a similar skit should be done with someone who wouldn't actually make for a good president, like Pamela Anderson, "Cousin It" from the Adams Family, or Miss North Carolina... i think that would be more appropriate

15. VOICES OF SCIENCE: PZ Myers - Buy it now on DVD

Comment #221377 by jamesstephenbrown on July 29, 2008 at 2:56 pm

I get Dawkins' hesitance about using "group selection". But it seems completely wrong to me.

Surely in a situation where a group is exposed to low individual selection pressures and strong group selection pressures for instance in two waring tribes, a trait that has passed through one group by chance and diversity, and because of the genetic similarity of that group, if that trait is beneficial to winning the war, but simply neutral, or even malignant within the group (bearing in mind that the individual selection is low) then that trait - when put into conflict with the other group will be "group selected".

Can anyone help me with this?

16. Richard Dawkins on Al Jazeera English

Comment #215948 by jamesstephenbrown on July 22, 2008 at 2:24 pm

How do these guys get it so wrong?

Natural Selection or the crude survival of the fittest is posited as how things work naturally. What Hitler did was artificially elevate one race over another, regardless of their fitness, and had to fight hard against the natural progression of things (by building huge murder squads) to maintain it, and then eventually lost!!!

If anything this is an example of someone going against natural selection and failing dismally, and in doing so affirming the theory of natural selection. No, Hitler was breeding - not employing natural selection, and breeding had been around for millennia.

17. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #215159 by jamesstephenbrown on July 21, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Lennox seems to have overlooked the fact that most people who perform hoaxes like stigmata, bleeding statues, resurrections etc are the strongest of believers. They simply realize that miracles are the best way of getting other unbelievers to believe what they think they "know" to be truth.

So the idea that one might perform a hoax and then suffer persecution and death for their faith is quite a common sense one. And the lawyer that Lennox consulted on this matter was clearly special pleading for the sake of his friend.

18. The Science of Religion and the Religion of Science

Comment #202031 by jamesstephenbrown on June 30, 2008 at 4:28 pm

""When a Sunni Muslim suicide bomber kills 100 Shiite Muslims in a mosque, what exactly is being selected against?"

On the whole probably nothing if the other side kills just as many."

Well actually, if the other side kills just as many then what is being selected against is Islam... in general.

This just shows that selection pressures change over time. Throughout the last few thousand years the tendency to wage religious war has been a fantastic tool for colonisation - and hence the propagating of your culture and genes.

With the state of the world now, colonisation is a zero-sum game, and as a good evolutionist will know zero-sum games are no good for the evolution of your species. Religion it turns out has out-lived it's usefulness in a world that requires harmony rather than conquest. Hopefully religion will burn itself out without taking the rest of us with it.

19. The Science of Religion and the Religion of Science

Comment #202029 by jamesstephenbrown on June 30, 2008 at 4:15 pm

I found the questioner's point in the final section interesting regarding memetic selection of scientific ideas, and whether they survive simply due to effective survival mechanisms. And it got me thinking from an "meme" point of view...

If you were a false idea, what environment would you choose to inhabit?

The religious environment where you can be spread due to your "miraculous" nature, your "spiritual" significance, your "immaterial" field of magisteria and your execising / testing of "faith", what's more get written into books and taught to children without justification in fact with the accompaniment of various incentives such as eternal life, heaven, virgins etc.

OR

The scientific environment where the most well studied and intelligent people in the world try to prove you wrong and are held up as heroes if they do.

I know which field I'd choose if I were a false idea.

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

Comment #128570 by jamesstephenbrown on February 17, 2008 at 12:10 pm

I love this whale example, as if an animal that lives solely in water but yet can't absorb it's oxygen from the water could ever be evidence for an "intelligent" designer. It's like a bird with gills, a sign of an intelligent designer's ironic sense of humour.

21. Russia prohibits denial of Santa

Comment #110264 by jamesstephenbrown on January 10, 2008 at 7:27 pm

Personally I think the facade held up collectively by parents and commercial enterprises surrounding Santa Claus is an important one. And one worth upholding, even with counter intuitive government policy.

Why???

The strong belief I once had in Santa Claus was an important one and has, I'm sure (consciously and unconsciously), had lasting effects on my critical reasoning ability.

The belief and more importantly the loss of the belief in Santa Claus teaches us firstly to be humble and critical about those things for which we have no evidence. Secondly that our parents can and will lie to us individually and conspiratorially in order to appease our imaginations and control our behaviour, thirdly that such conspiracies always have a financial underpinning, that some large body is making enough money to make the lie worth perpetuating - in this case the retail economy in general, and finally that regardless of how wonderful a lie it is and how much you want it to be true (I certainly had more interest in Santa Claus - and his positive rewards system - existing than say, Jesus, for instance) it makes no difference as to whether it is actually true or not.

Important lessons, not lessons that are at the forefront of the Russian Federal Anti-Monopoly Service's motivations for this action but none the less, important lessons.

22. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #109754 by jamesstephenbrown on January 9, 2008 at 4:02 pm

I love this 3 foot net idea to search the sea, that science is investigating only the surface and denying that anything else exists. First of all if this were the case every time we found a new species, or a new element, or a new, planet / galaxy etc we would have a scientific revolution. We don't.

The way Collins puts it the correct method to use is to take the 3 foot net, and instead of looking at the evidence we bring up we should speculate about highly specific possible beings that live beneath the 3 foot depth which bare no resemblance to the fish within our nets, have no supporting evidence or philosophical necessity, and then live our lives by arbitrary rules that we imagine the potential beings might set.

THEN, when the evidence we bring up suggests something other than the "truth" about which we have speculated simply point out the beings below 3 feet are of such a different substance to those within the nets that no inference can be made with regards to them.

Francis Collins is a wonderful living example of neural plasticity.

23. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #109157 by jamesstephenbrown on January 8, 2008 at 1:02 pm

I also agree, that was really frustrating to see Dennett unable to rebut such flawed arguments. I do love however that if you leave a religious person to get carried away enough they will eventually defeat themselves.

"Think of the universe as a novel" (so basically start by begging the question) "plot, narrative, characters and so on" (more question begging) "this novel doesn't explain itself, the novel had an author" (and again). "This guy Rascolmikov did this, why did he do that... now I want to suggest that Dostoyevsky is the creator of the novel at a different level... so the causation within the novel doesn't apply to him... you can't say, well this guy Dostoyevsky, what explains him?"

No you can't, end of debate.

24. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #71856 by jamesstephenbrown on September 19, 2007 at 7:22 pm

"We've been down this road before, and what you're saying doesn't pass the smell test"

Have we? I haven't, perhaps you have. But well done arguing by diversion. The point still stands that the author is pointing out that an argument that can be used to defend anything, in effect defends nothing.

You seem to have misunderstood the analogy and mistaken the author's meaning to be relating religion to fascism, which it is not. He is pointing out that the defence offered by the reviewer of the subject in question religion, also works to defend fascism, which most of us agree is not "in question" any more.

Please don't refer to vague concepts like the "smell test" this gets us nowhere

25. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #71460 by jamesstephenbrown on September 18, 2007 at 8:18 pm

"Not at all. The parody only works if the analogy between religion and fascism is close enough."

Oh JJ, really this is getting ridiculous. I think you'll find that the analogy does not have to be consistent at all. The point of the parody is that the arguments used by the reviewer can be used to defend any system regardless of how terrible it is. The author of the parody is not relating fascism to religion (although this might be a fair comparison to make), he is pointing out that the same arguments that the reviewer uses to defend religion can be used to defend fascism. Making the point that an argument that works for anything, in effect works for nothing.

26. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69137 by jamesstephenbrown on September 9, 2007 at 7:06 pm

And why does Collins point to exceptional people, such as Oscar Schindler and Mother Theresa to make his point about morality? The fact that this kind of behaviour is revered as heroic and exceptional serves only to reflect that ordinary human aren't like that. Of course it's no surprise that everyone loves them for it, what selfish person wouldn't be happy to see others being selfless? You can almost hear the switch when Collins turns off his brain.

27. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69135 by jamesstephenbrown on September 9, 2007 at 6:58 pm

A wonderful example of neural plasticity, of the ability to segregate superstition and reason within one's own mind.

I liked that the interviewer pointed out that Collin's description of his own complacent/default atheism (no doubt stated to undermine the intellectual integrity of all atheists) made Collins "ripe for the picking". Nice.

At least he's got the right kind of magico-science lingo to curb opposition, by less educated Christians, to promising research, like the human genome project.

28. Richard Dawkins and the New Age fakers

Comment #65037 by jamesstephenbrown on August 22, 2007 at 5:21 pm

""succour to the sucker"
how deliciously succinct :D"

How succulently succinct even!

29. Bill Maher Making New Documentary Movie, 'Religulous'

Comment #64366 by jamesstephenbrown on August 19, 2007 at 7:47 pm

Giskard, I seriously think you should suggest "Religiotarded", though this might be seen as an insult to genuinely intellectually handicapped people... Pity, it has a nice ring to it.

30. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54137 by jamesstephenbrown on July 5, 2007 at 2:44 pm

[quote]Spinoza:
...showing that the so-called "God" of believers is not great at all."
Exactly. Until God visits us in person and speaks for Himself, what we've got are a lot of people presuming to speak for God.

Not so great.[/quote]

[quote]"Sir, you have equivocated the meaning of the term as I used it with the way you wish to use it, and that is devious and fallacious. As I intended the title, it was to be a clear statement about the god people profess to believe in (hence the uncapitalization). So if you think the book was about disproving the existence of "God" independently of its believers, you're wrong... it is simply about showing that the so-called "God" of believers is not great at all."[/quote]

Thanks, fantastic, so it's not just me imagining things.

31. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53316 by jamesstephenbrown on June 30, 2007 at 6:50 pm

Can someone answer for me why Sharpton keeps accusing Hitchens of criticising Religion instead of God, and why Hitchens doesn't ever catch him out on it? Does Sharpton not realise that Hitchens doesn't believe in God? Hitchen's only line to "God" is through religion, so for Hitchens any criticism of religion IS a criticism of "God". Perhaps Hitchens is letting Sharpton dig his own grave by demonstrating his own ignorance and lack of appreciation for irony, but I'm pretty sure this is lost on anyone from the opposition...

32. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #51637 by jamesstephenbrown on June 23, 2007 at 10:45 pm

What a brilliant and lucid speaker. How can people not see where the intellect is in this debate? I suppose intellect is losing traction as a valued asset, I hope truth is as strong a meme as it should be.

33. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50542 by jamesstephenbrown on June 18, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Chris Hedges seems to have taken the approach, regarding this debate, that if he bombards Sam with so many flawed arguments Sam will not know what to address first.

I'm glad Sam pulled Chris up on the fact that one man's personal testimony is statistically irrelevant. It was however frustrating Chris' complete misunderstanding of Sam's cherry picking comment in defense of secular morality - replying with something to the effect that we are not all literalists, which is what Sam was saying - that we don't need to be literalists infact we don't need to be adherents at all to have morality.

I was happy though that Chris was consistent in logically implying that Nazi Germany was not inherently a flawed system, it was simply bad because it was instigated during a depression. In essence, Nazism might be a worthwhile system to try out on our more affluent societies... Who's first? Any takers?

I was also happy to hear Chris point out that the less educated, and scientifically minded a society the more tribal it will be. Which logically implies that religion, a system opposed to the scientific method, is a force that increases tribalism by stifling the education of the society in question.

I really think people in support of religion who are only in support of social ritual, humble appreciation greater than oneself and consolation, who believe that the bible is allegorical and that miracles are not possible and that the beginnings of the universe are simply mysterious, should start to be honest with themselves and admit that they are therefore not religious! At least not of the religion that Sam Harris persecutes. They are defending a "religion" that is not under attack

34. The Benny Hinn Report

Comment #50379 by jamesstephenbrown on June 17, 2007 at 1:30 pm

"thank you for sharing your weekend with Mr. Hinn with us."

No worries, I appreciate the feedback.

35. The Benny Hinn Report

Comment #50212 by jamesstephenbrown on June 15, 2007 at 6:09 pm

"Look, an average human should know things by now."

Point taken. In my defense, I didn't write the article as a expose on Benny Hinn, more about my own personal experience of the event, I did try to steer clear of going into his background or the ministry itself. I also thought describing the crowd as "the credulous 12,000" and the patients as "circus performers" I was fairly scathing of the "lemmings" themselves.

I was actually genuinely surprised that this sort of thing could happen in such a secular country as New Zealand. It was also regrettable to see so many members of our ethnic minorities attending, who are in the lowest socio-economic situations. These people have, in the past, been assimilated into a religion that now barely exists in our country, and are still paying the price. I simply thought this was a step backwards in undoing the wrongs done to these people in the past.

I appreciate the comment though. I don't want to contribute to a worldview of apathy towards such things, and I think there is a danger of that in picking the easy targets (such as Benny Hinn).

36. The Benny Hinn Report

Comment #49409 by jamesstephenbrown on June 11, 2007 at 8:58 pm

Thanks for your comments guys,
To Bouwe, if you hurry you might catch him, on Sunday he left New Zealand enroute to Sydney... This man would have sold vacuum cleaners to the homeless, if it made him a profit (npi).

37. Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens

Comment #40198 by jamesstephenbrown on May 13, 2007 at 7:03 pm

I think Al put in the best argument for atheism when he said

"If you're arguing that something doesn't exist you're at an unfair advantage"

Too right, now why would that be I wonder...?

I also agree that Hitchens failed to capitalise, and most importantly didn't clarify for the obtuse Sharpton that he (Hitchens) does not believe in God - therefore his title in refering to "God's" greatness is rhetorical, and refers only to our one means of contact with "God" scripture and interpretation. This would have forced the topic further, but instead it wallowed in a state of "talking past each other".

38. Penn Jillette Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #38038 by jamesstephenbrown on May 6, 2007 at 7:30 pm

I found the comment about eugenics very interesting, and it is one I've heard before but on which I had not heard Dawkin's view.

In addition to the negative social implications I thought I might add that evolutionarily it would have some negative effects also. If you take the canine example for instance, pure bred dogs (especially those that have been bred in a singular direction, for a singular purpose) have the shortest life spans and suffer from heart problems, cancer and arthritis at a dramatically higher rate than mutts and mongrel breeds.

I thought this might serve as an a-ethical perspective on the question.

39. The Human Body as an Evolutionary Patchwork

Comment #32258 by jamesstephenbrown on April 16, 2007 at 1:08 pm

"I interpreted Walker to mean that the co-hunters, the other hunting members of the same tribe, needed to be able to see where the spear was being thrown, so they, themselves, would not become the target accidentally"

Though I think this might be a fairly charitable reading of Walker, I agree, this would make sense - as long as it is for cooperation. He was however, talking about conflict with other hominoids without eye-whites, so I'm still suspect about his logic.

40. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31274 by jamesstephenbrown on April 11, 2007 at 8:41 pm

Everytime someone says to me, but you can't disprove that God created the universe I reply:

"As you cannot disprove anything else created the universe. So when it comes to gambling on what created the universe I'm betting on ANYTHING ELSE"

"This makes my odds to yours about infinity to one."

To be clear this is an atheist stance, and I don't think these odds make my view an arrogant one, just a sensible one.

41. The Human Body as an Evolutionary Patchwork

Comment #31238 by jamesstephenbrown on April 11, 2007 at 4:57 pm

Did it occur to anyone else that if, as Professor Walker says, having visible whites made the target of our attacks more aware of our intentions; that this would be an evolutionary disadvantage?

This seemed like an out of place lapse in the brilliant professor's logic. Surely the evolution of eye-whites would be more to do with better aiding co-operative and communicative endeavours rather than warning enemies of our intentions.

42. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #29778 by jamesstephenbrown on April 4, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Who would have thought you could achieve the moral highground simply by sitting atop a fence.

I can't stand this "you can't prove anything 100%" logic, it necessarily reduces any argument to absolute relativism. The fact that we don't know what was before the big bang does not make positions all equal. It makes any assertion almost certainly incorrect and makes any negation almost certainly correct!

43. Interview: Jerry Coyne

Comment #28967 by jamesstephenbrown on April 1, 2007 at 12:42 am

It sounded to me like Paikin was asking the strawman questions that enabled to Coyne to lay the table in favour of evolution. If he was doing this, he did it very well.

44. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28513 by jamesstephenbrown on March 29, 2007 at 2:10 pm

I don't know how I would perform in front of a crowded auditorium, but it did strike me that McGrath missed a few simple points...

Why is Atheism simpler?

Because it doesn't posit a God (the most complex thing in the universe, apparently).

If something is outside the field of science, then it is not unscientific to deny it, it is unscientific to assert it.

And finally, there is a very good reason that the concept of God exists despite God's actual non-existence. It's called organised religion. If God's existence was so self-evident, why would we need churches?

45. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28512 by jamesstephenbrown on March 29, 2007 at 2:08 pm

I don't know how I would perform in front of a crowded auditorium, but it did strike me that McGrath missed a few simple points...

Why is Atheism simpler?

Because it doesn't posit a God (the most complex thing in the universe, apparently).

If something is outside the field of science, then it is not unscientific to deny it, it is unscientific to assert it.

And finally, there is a very good reason that the concept of God exists despite God's actual non-existence. It's called organised religion. If God's existence was so self-evident, why would we need churches?

46. Did You Know? Shift Happens - Globalization, Information Age

Comment #26487 by jamesstephenbrown on March 19, 2007 at 5:08 pm

I understand that many future predictions have been extraordinarily far out, but this has largely to do with what has been commercially viable. It says more about our inability to determine in what directions technology will go, not about how much our technology will grow. To say things like this...

"You have Google Maps today. How can you improve on that?"

"Even today's existing computers are already wildly overpowered for everyday applications."

... is laughably naive. Quotes that, if they were more public, might go down in history with others like...

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, 1981

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
IBM Chairman Thomas Watson, 1943

and

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.

47. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #26219 by jamesstephenbrown on March 17, 2007 at 7:09 pm

If you take a compiled result from all the studies, the sham studies will provide positive results the double blind studies don't produce the opposing negative results, they only produce even results. Obviously the result will be positive.

48. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25380 by jamesstephenbrown on March 12, 2007 at 6:49 pm

"Shouldn't it be the "hired publicity machine" that ought to apologize?"

I think Prof Dawkins implies this in his letter, whilst maintaining the moral highground. I think this is very well worded.

49. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #25365 by jamesstephenbrown on March 12, 2007 at 3:46 pm

I though it was hilarious when Dawkins mentioned the contention that the miraculous ordering process of fossils were from the biblical flood. What occured to me was that all prehistoric fish would have escaped, because of course fish can't drown! They wouldn't have even been in upper levels let alone the lower levels beneath all mammals and land dwelling reptiles. Its honestly laughable.

50. Daggers Drawn

Comment #24666 by jamesstephenbrown on March 8, 2007 at 12:55 am

To make policy based on belief is political trial and error.