751. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #87805 by robotaholic on November 13, 2007 at 7:43 am

this thread need not exist - there are no serious reasonable arguments against evolution - the evidence is absolutely incontravertible - and there are literally millions and millions and millions of pieces of evidence around the world - not to mention the microbiological evidence- in fact its hard to take seriously anyone who says they don't believe in evolution - usually they either don't understand it or deliberately try not to-

when a religious person claims evolution is bs, you should find out if they mean first cause or natural selection because they are two very different things-

I just love the video at the top though - Richard Dawkins is just a master at explaining things- he's a wonderful teacher- He had the influence to reach me in Oklahoma, and the teaching skills to help me look at evolution seriously- I appreciate that!

752. Pat Robertson Says Giuliani Presidency Appears in Book of Revelation

Comment #86463 by robotaholic on November 9, 2007 at 10:19 am

I don't want Giuliani to be president - I don't want President RUDOLF! That just doesn't roll off the tongue... lol

Besides...I can't imagine anyone better than Hillary at dealing with Middle Eastern female persecution. >:)

I doubt she would take any shXX - or so it would appear...

753. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #85013 by robotaholic on November 4, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Why does everyone always quote Chalmers? - I don't think I agree with a thing he's said. Why does anyone bother with TAG either? Why should the origon of rationality require a rational being? - There are many examples of complexity arrising out of the noncomplex - like all lifeforms on planet earth - the big bang - like RD says the only explanation for complexity is that it started out noncomplex - For one to say the complex came from the complex doesn't explain anything. (And then once complex - we developed language and a sense of self/I/ & finally rationality)
Also the argument says "all knowing" being - I think its like impossible to know Everything in the universe - isn't there like a theorum in math that like proves it? - if not - still it seems like a childish argument

754. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #83965 by robotaholic on October 31, 2007 at 11:25 pm

"""""Why can't atheists see sacred texts as sacred to believers and behave respectfully when not provoked? """"


-i am tired of religion and supposed holy texts getting a free pass- they have for hundreds of years - in the face of glaring contradictions, it's time they were evaluated publically for what they are- bullshit

Sacred - dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity b: devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose)
2 a: worthy of religious veneration : holy b: entitled to reverence and respect
3: of or relating to religion : not secular or profane

I don't recognize any text as sacred.

755. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82799 by robotaholic on October 27, 2007 at 4:29 pm

It is rediculous that we have to struggle to find a word to desribe someone who doesn't believe in invisible people with superpowers. I am amazed at the fact that the English language is so technologically friendly - yet finding a word to accurately describe nonbelief in invisibles seems difficult :-/!

756. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81214 by robotaholic on October 24, 2007 at 12:27 pm

ok im getting irritated - if you saw the other debate with mr despoeirj203jfa then you were just waiting for Hitch to tear him apart - i am sad that he didn't do that-

757. Cheney and Obama: It's Not Genetic

Comment #80607 by robotaholic on October 22, 2007 at 10:14 am

amen to balls!

758. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80604 by robotaholic on October 22, 2007 at 10:03 am

I'm sorry I misunderstand - Benway - you thought Dea;osifj30sa looked like BRAD PITT? huh? :)) lmfao

759. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80600 by robotaholic on October 22, 2007 at 9:56 am

this infuriated me - Shermer let him get away with so much! like saying those "quote unquote secular values mabye have christian roots" - like Dawkins and Hitch(lol) says: if a christian can pick and choose which values they wanna keep instead of taking them all (like stoning disobedient kids, killing adulterers) then the morals they have do NOT depend on the bible and instead ppl just choose which ones they wanna keep based on their ALREADY EXISTING moral code

That's only one of the many cases where Shermer should have stopped this guy in his tracks.

760. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80351 by robotaholic on October 21, 2007 at 12:05 pm

I like how the corollary of The Hitchens Challenge demonstrates perfectly what he's saying.

761. Ayaan Hirsi Ali at AAI 07

Comment #80348 by robotaholic on October 21, 2007 at 11:58 am

It is wonderful and inspirational to see someone who has overcome massive oppression. I also have had that conflict within me between secularism and religious death cult tribalism. I'm so glad she got away and extremely happy that she is crushing so many stereotypes. Though, her struggle was more difficult than mine, it's wonderful to see her smile.

762. Interview at Al Franken Show

Comment #80336 by robotaholic on October 21, 2007 at 11:17 am

I love how he says that the request by religious people of a fossile in every state of development (in order to prove evolution) is equivelant to asking a creationist for a cinematic movie(recording) of god's every stage of creation.

763. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79866 by robotaholic on October 18, 2007 at 8:28 pm

thank you and congradulations Professor Richard Dawkins

about the Al Gore thing - well he is allowed to have his opinion about things, even if you don't agree with him -

I don't see The Honorable Professor Richard Dawkins picking at you for your opinions!

764. Dan Dennett award and speech at AAI 07

Comment #79388 by robotaholic on October 17, 2007 at 6:33 am

I love Daniel Dennett

765. Dan Dennett award and speech at AAI 07

Comment #79387 by robotaholic on October 17, 2007 at 6:33 am

I love Daniel Dennett

766. CBC Atheism and Humanism Documentary

Comment #77181 by robotaholic on October 8, 2007 at 5:17 pm

ONLYSKY, i totally agree with you 100 percent. I don't like even the connotation- humorous or not- that atheism is some sort of religion...

767. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77070 by robotaholic on October 8, 2007 at 11:12 am

I adore Dennett also. He is inspirational in the field of consciousness.

768. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74772 by robotaholic on September 30, 2007 at 11:09 am

how come believing in mythical invisible people gives anyone moral authority?

769. Genes Tied to Bad Reactions to Antidepressant Drug

Comment #74380 by robotaholic on September 28, 2007 at 10:55 am

this was on NPR today and I found it interesting - hopefully this type of research will aid in other fields...

770. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74379 by robotaholic on September 28, 2007 at 10:54 am

xoxo Richard Dawkins - I love what you do and how you do it!

771. Talking Action Figure Jesus

Comment #73645 by robotaholic on September 25, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Frankus1122 you're link was the best by far! THX! soccer jesus is the best and im sure you've seen the jesus dressup page

http://www.jesusdressup.com/

772. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73139 by robotaholic on September 24, 2007 at 8:49 am

I adore hearing Richard Dawkins speak. Thank you so much for posting this. Any new (unseen)clips of RD are always appreciated.
-John

773. Fossils Reveal Clues on Human Ancestor

Comment #72355 by robotaholic on September 20, 2007 at 7:55 pm

...like Professor Dawkins says "the evidence keeps piling on..."

774. Larry King Interviews Kathy Griffin

Comment #71821 by robotaholic on September 19, 2007 at 6:06 pm

An actor/actress thanking jesus for award instead of helping people in Darfor - well my parents do the same thing all the time. We will sit down for dinner and they thank god for the food when it was THEY who earned the money, grew the vegetables, paid for the other things and fed themselves. They should thank themselves!!!-not some invisible nothing that didn't do anything////It just struck me that credit should be given where it is due...

775. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71401 by robotaholic on September 18, 2007 at 5:23 pm

How about this?

I HATE theology and I don't think the bible is good literature. Anyone else agree?

776. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70643 by robotaholic on September 16, 2007 at 12:29 pm

I think it is irrational to do the blasphamy challenge. It might be fun- IDK.

Her attitude, voice, and face were irritating.

I agree with okmichigan- definitely tired of youtube wars.

I hope having these videos on here doesn't degrade the reputation of this website. I'm glad Professor Richard Dawkins didn't take the blasphemy challenge.

777. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70635 by robotaholic on September 16, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Look, it's really simple. I don't think psychiatry is science. That's all. There are alot of people who agree with me. (some top scientists and alot of lay people- at least 15 million people in the usa alone) I know alot of people disagree with that. I know what I know from first hand experience. You seem to claim the same. So let's agree to disagree.

778. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70521 by robotaholic on September 15, 2007 at 10:05 pm

I am tired of this thread. However to say that a verbal report becomes objective is just not true.

In Daniel Dennett's heterophenomenology, the verbal or written reports of subjects are treated as akin to a theorist's fiction–the subject's report is not questioned, but it is not assumed to be an incorrigible report about that subject's inner state. Basicaly, heterophenomenology is a term coined by Daniel Dennett to describe an explicitly third-person, scientific approach to the study of consciousness. Personal report is accepted but treated alot like fiction.

I respect what Daniel Dennett says alot and so I agree to disagree concordantly.

peace

779. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70511 by robotaholic on September 15, 2007 at 8:23 pm

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I'll reiterate:

You can't see or detect mental states so how are you going to treat them? You can't detect them with any technology that exists currently, or even any hypothesized technology in the future.

It seems like that reduces the psychiatrist to a counselor. I certainly don't think it ethical to allow a counselor to prescribe medicine.

A neurologist on the other hand can detect and treat brain pathologies and at least his medicine is objectively scientific.

Mabye there is a synergy of psychiatrist and neurologist to be had in medicine. I don't know what part the psychiatrist would play however as their practice doesn't involve objective treatment. How could it, the only information they can have is the subjective personal report of the patient.

But you know what? The best demonstration of what I'm saying is this: Have you ever been to a mental institution? They are filled with people who are craZy. Those people are given drugs that don't correct their problems. Basically it's a place to house people. If there were a science that made ANY progress in helping those individuals I'd like to see it.

You may say "but what about millions of people who have been prescribed antidepressants and their depression was resolved?" Well I would say that was correcting the BRAIN not the MIND.

A good paper on what I'm saying is here:

http://www.huddersfield1.co.uk/depression/uncertain_science/index.htm

-John

780. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70435 by robotaholic on September 15, 2007 at 1:05 pm

actually if by fundamentalism a person means:

strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology

I would suppose it is meant that Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist regarding science. In that case, I would be a proud scientific fundamentalist who has strict adherance to science.

The aim of the The Simonyi Professorship is to communicate science to the public without, in doing so, losing those elements of scholarship which constitute the essence of true understanding.

Good Job Professor Dawkins

781. Open letter to YouTube video

Comment #70425 by robotaholic on September 15, 2007 at 12:10 pm

OH and the absolutely most hilarious creationist video is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

this is supposedly the atheists nightmare - the banana and if you havn't seen it, you should -

782. Open letter to YouTube video

Comment #70422 by robotaholic on September 15, 2007 at 12:05 pm

LOL I'm allergic to rap too but that song was cool - it had a message other than rape, drugs, and violence!

783. How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science

Comment #70420 by robotaholic on September 15, 2007 at 11:54 am

I am hearing so many statistics that I am becoming a member of the information society. I had to review http://www.statistics.com/ to learn how to read the data...lol

784. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #70414 by robotaholic on September 15, 2007 at 11:44 am

Hitchen's position on Iraq really disappointed me. Then I realized there is no good position.

785. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70410 by robotaholic on September 15, 2007 at 11:25 am

It seems to me that nontrivial revision and even replacement of existing high level descriptions by neurobiologically harmonious high level categories is probably the answer to the psychiatry vs. neurobiology debate. However, in a profound way we do not understand exactly what, at its higher levels, the brain really does. Accordingly, it is practical to earmark even the fondest intuitions about mind/brain function as revisable hypotheses(!) rather than as transcendental absolutes or introspectively given certainties and therefore I would have reservations about considering psychiatry a science since any medical science must make conclusions in order to medicate or proscribe.

Oh and no, I didn't attend UCSD... lol

There is a marvelous website that has over 2500 papers on conscousness and it was compiled by David Chalmers... I have found it so interesting...you might check it out:

http://consc.net/online.html

786. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70324 by robotaholic on September 15, 2007 at 12:09 am

np-i just love science alot and most fields of science intrigue me -

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
--Carl Sagan

For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.
--Carl Sagan

and my favorite:

Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
--Carl Sagan

787. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70278 by robotaholic on September 14, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Oxycontin, you're backpedeling. First you say they (psychiatry/psychology) are "fledgling sciences" - meaning that they have some sort of future. Then you say eventually they will lose out to molecular biology.

How contradictory.

Then you say I declared something by "fiat". I think my original post began: "I personally don't believe..." -That could hardly be considered fiat...an arbitrary decree or pronouncement.

You're all over the place.

stfu

788. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70206 by robotaholic on September 14, 2007 at 10:35 am

Also a word on eliminative materialism -

Psychiatry: The medical specialty concerned with the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of mental illness flies in the face of Paul and Patricia Churchland's recharacterization of eliminative materialism -Eliminative materialism is a philosophical theory that argues that neuroscience has restricted, and will eventually eliminate, any need for psychology.

"The sufficient cause for all material events is other material events".
The only way I have found to maintain complete materialism without any form of cartesian theater or dualism is to be eliminative materialist.

789. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70203 by robotaholic on September 14, 2007 at 10:19 am

I would consider myself in line with Daniel Dennett actually and not at all am I abhorrant of any fledgling sciences. Psychiatry has yet to give evidence of any scientific content. I'll quote Dennett in his famous paper "What RoboMary Knows":
Contemporary materialism–at least in my version of it–cheerfully endorses the assertion that we are robots of a sort–made of robots made of robots. Thinking in terms of robots is a useful exercise, since it removes the excuse that we don't yet know enough about brains to say just what is going on that might be relevant, permitting a sort of woolly romanticism about the mysterious powers of brains to cloud our judgment. If materialism is true, it should be possible ("in principle!") to build a material thing–call it a robot brain–that does what a brain does, and hence instantiates the same theory of experience that we do. Those who rule out my scenario as irrelevant from the outset are not arguing for the falsity of materialism; they are assuming it, and just illustrating that assumption in their version of the Mary story. That might be interesting as social anthropology, but is unlikely to shed any light on the science of consciousness.

I conclude that Psychiatry is the medical specialty concerned with the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of mental illness.

If we are robots made of robots made of robots, treatment and cure would necessarily be neurology.

consider your argument "slapped down" and please don't be so emotional- my argument isn't "dangerous"

790. Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science

Comment #70055 by robotaholic on September 13, 2007 at 11:57 pm

I think Duff is right. I think science can be counterintuitive or it can be obvious. When RD explains it - it becomes obvious to me...He explains things so well...But some things like particle entanglement or the double slit experiment are counterintuitive.

Faith is belief in something without evidence. If possible, I try to avoid it. Who wouldn't prefer evidence?

791. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70053 by robotaholic on September 13, 2007 at 11:40 pm

Oh and jiten, there is no distinction, the hardware is all there is.

792. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70052 by robotaholic on September 13, 2007 at 11:38 pm

I personally don't believe that psychiatry is science. I don't think the brain should be treated any differently than your other organs. Pathology should be recognized and treated. Most if not all mental problems are due to either malformed areas of the brain or chemical imbalance and should be invasively treated with either surgery or medicine. I consider psychiatry to be glorified alternative medicine homeopathy. lol

793. Censoring Sir David

Comment #69759 by robotaholic on September 12, 2007 at 3:25 pm

I learn more with the tv off.

794. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69687 by robotaholic on September 12, 2007 at 7:57 am

Jesus makes fun times and really stimulated my imagination.

http://www.jesusdressup.com/

I like him in headphones.

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

Comment #69505 by robotaholic on September 11, 2007 at 2:02 pm

When is Enemies of Reason part 3 coming out? - I'm ready for it

796. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69456 by robotaholic on September 11, 2007 at 10:10 am

Muslim religious news is so boring, it's all the same. Either do this or you will be killed by muslims bla bla bla - intolerance -yawn

797. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69281 by robotaholic on September 10, 2007 at 9:47 am

oh and Atheism is Arrogant? On the contrary - what is that quote - GRAND claims require GRAND explanations--

798. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69277 by robotaholic on September 10, 2007 at 9:37 am

He characterizes Christopher Hitchens as a scientist and yet he definitely is not a scientist.

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

Comment #69064 by robotaholic on September 9, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Comment #69032 pewkatchoo actually it could be considered irony and I am American:

In classical Greek comedy, there was sometimes a character called the eiron. He was a dissembler: someone who deliberately pretended to be less intelligent than he really was, and often spoke using understatement. (Incidentally, the eiron often came out on top.) The word irony is nowadays used in several slightly different ways, but they nearly all retain the idea of dissimulation, of a discrepancy between what is said and what is really the case or between what is expected and what really happens.

800. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68704 by robotaholic on September 8, 2007 at 7:58 am

Why would someone peruse those books? The arguments are identical and have already been overcome.

I'm glad the atheist doesn't flea-out.