1. What is science for?

Comment #182853 by uncle tungsten on May 21, 2008 at 3:45 am

Styrer,

I don't know anything about you, but since you're on this forum I'd guess you're an intelligent and clear-thinking person. If we met I'd probably like you. So no, I don't have a problem with you. Calling people names is a bit juvenile though, you must admit.

The Nazis were BAD PEOPLE. They persecuted the Jews (amongst others) and did sickening, indefensibly evil things to huge numbers of them. The commonly accepted figure for the number of extermination victims is 6 million.

Where does this figure come from?

I'n not a Nazi, I'm not a Jew, I'm not a denier, I have no axe to grind. I'm interested in examining the origin of this given number, which even the most cursory examination (and that's all I've made) shows to be hard to prove. It could be an UNDERestimate for all I know. I'm just curious aabout the actual evidence base for this piece of highly emotive modern folk-lore. Perhaps you could suggest some reliable sources.

2. What is science for?

Comment #182815 by uncle tungsten on May 21, 2008 at 2:25 am

I have not encountered ASMarques before, and my automatic response would be to take against his stance. But underneath all the juvenile name-calling - chiefly from the clearly angry but rather undignified Styrer - it is ASMarques who has the more interesting point to make. I followed his link to the IHR and found it very interesting; one does not have to be a 'Holocaust denier' to appreciate the impossibility of getting accurate figures for the number of Jews in Europe before and after the war, let alone determining how many died and by what cause. No sane person doubts the Nazi persecution of the Jews. However, readers of, and contributors to, this forum owe it to themselves as open-minded free-thinkers to at least consider the matter. ASMarques is right on this one I'm afraid; do some reading for yourselves and don't be afraid to question the orthodoxy. That is what RDF is all about. Isn't it?

3. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #79046 by uncle tungsten on October 16, 2007 at 1:29 am

It would set an interesting legal precedent though, wouldn't it? If the Indian government could demonstrate in court that one god doesn't exist, that could have enormous repercussions for the others. Shame it's not going to happen. Incidentally, does anyone know what happened with the guy in the States who was suing God? Did the defendant show up in court?

4. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63401 by uncle tungsten on August 14, 2007 at 4:42 am

We shouldn't be surprised that someone who believes in a god cannot - or will not allow himself to - follow the logical argument that leads to the opposite conclusion. You claim, darwin2, that you are "willing to listen openly to any arguments and...to engage in a mutually respectful dialogue with anyone who would like to discuss in depth their arguments against the existence of God" but that is precisely what you are NOT willing to do. If you want to have that discussion you've come to the right place. However, simply repeating "God did it" doesn't cut the mustard. You say your argument is simply that the universe is so complex that it must have been designed; ours is that this complexity has arisen naturally. Our argument is backed by the entire weight of scientific experiment and obsevation; yours is backed by...well, you tell us. But before you do, let me repeat that just saying "God did it" is not sufficient.

5. Flea Circus!

Comment #33137 by uncle tungsten on April 19, 2007 at 12:54 pm

weefree, you write: "I...believe that it is more rational to accept the existence of God and Jesus Christ than not to."

Then you don't understand the word 'rational'.

6. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #28201 by uncle tungsten on March 28, 2007 at 10:10 am

Okay, so...how come God didn't make cows easy to peel? Or come to that, coconuts, watermelon, brazil nuts etc - were they early attempts, before he hit on The Banana?