51. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15099 by Kingasaurus on December 28, 2006 at 11:02 pm

-----As a species that has evolved in social groups, our genes are telling us that respecting the norms of social behaviour, in which competition is restricted by cooperative bounds, is essential to maximizing, on average, each individual's chances of survival. Actions that offend the sense of fairness do so because they violate that principle of reciprocity...---

Yes. It's also worth mentioning that if you are going to deny genetic/evolutionary influence in these areas, you're going to have to explain the behavior of large numbers of non-human social species, which have their own rules of behavior in which altruism is quite common - not to mention the ostracizing or punishing the non-conformist who engages in destructive behavior that makes life for the rest of the group more difficult.

If there is an evolutionary reason why the grouper doesn't devour the small cleaner fish once it finishes cleaning inside the grouper's mouth, it really isn't a big stretch to look for biological reasons why hypothetical societies which would allow anarchical murder and wanton, purposeless destruction just because its members "feel like doing it" just aren't going to be very successful.

52. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15047 by Kingasaurus on December 28, 2006 at 1:37 pm

I don't see what the big deal is. Humans on the whole have similar brains with a similar evolutionary toolkit. A social species has individuals in it who derive benefits from the exertions and labors of others in the group, and vice versa.

Humans agree to live by societal rules, which run the gamut from almost universal to locally specific. All societies are trial-and-error attempts by people to live socially with other people.

Asking about whether murder or theft is REALLY "wrong" or we just arbitrarily call it "wrong" misses the point. As Richard has said, words are our servants and not our masters.

If you can't think of a good secular reason why it might not be a good idea to burn down your neighbor's house (and by extension to live in a society which would find it acceptable and not punish it), I'm not sure what I can tell you.

If you CAN think of a good secular reason, then any reason with some cosmic imperative is superfluous.

53. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #14972 by Kingasaurus on December 27, 2006 at 4:23 pm

---I think that there are many reasons why stealing could be considered advantageous.----

Would you like to live in a society where your neighbor could jump the fence and steal from you anytime he likes? Almost nobody else does, either. That's the point.

----The point I was making is that if you state the universe has no justice, fairness etc then at best you are only going to argue for a human construct which is temporary and changeable.----

You mean like god-believers finally deciding slavery was wrong after millennia of thinking it was fine and dandy?

----Interesting about monkeys and hard wiring. One assumes then that if morality is hard wired we have no choice in it and therefore we cannot be held responsible for what we cannot help? ----

Hard-wiring refers to "rules of thumb" (as Dawkins puts it) in the brain with an evolutionary history. It doesn't mean you're a robot or that nobody ever misbehaves. It does mean you will share many things with most other people. Most people prefer freedom to slavery, comfort to discomfort, safety to danger, life to death. People derive benefits from living in groups, and all societies are trial-and-error attempts to do this in the best way possible.

Latching on to ancient writings doesn't give you a "foundation" for anything - especially if you latch on for faith-based reasons. Your decision to follow Book A rather than Book B is an arbitrary decision made within yourself. What's foundational and transcendent about that? Claiming a transcendent foundation for morality is just that - a claim.

54. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #14955 by Kingasaurus on December 27, 2006 at 8:31 am

---- As Dawkins so brilliant put is in The Blind Watchmaker - "In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe had precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference". That is the atheist position – no good, no evil, just blind pitiless indifference. -----

David, this is truly pathetic. Just because the universe IS pitilessly indifferent to our well being (a fact which even cursory observation proves), doesn't mean there are no qualitative differences in the ways we decide to order our societies.

If you can't think of one good secular reason why a society which prohibits murder and theft is a better place to live than a society which allows these things, then your mind simply isn't functioning properly. I don't need a god to tell me that one of those societies is a preferable place in which to live.

Chimpanzees and other primates have complex social structures where there are sophisticated rules of behavior, inculding altruism and punishing the detrimental behavior of certain individuals. There is also the famous test where a monkey will starve itself when it realizes that taking food that is offered results in one of its fellow monkeys receiving an electric shock.

Now, are these non-human primates completely morally clueless, and then require a chimp Lawgiver to come down from the mountain with stone tablets before they can figure out how they are supposed to behave? Of course not. There's a lot of hard-wiring of our behaviors, and to pretend otherwise just isn't facing reality.

And if you don't think the universe is pitilessly indifferent, I'll throw a few tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and planet-killing asteroids your way. I'm sure there's some hidden "plan" going on there and you'll make out just fine.

55. Atheists' bleak alternative

Comment #12901 by Kingasaurus on December 14, 2006 at 9:32 am

---- It is religious moral systems that are 'ultimately matters of opinion' as evidenced by the fact that the various systems differ so much.-----

Of course. Not to mention the fact that religious moral codes are 'ultimately matters of opinion' for another reason: the fact that you as a human being need to choose between them. If you have two different moral codes both claiming to be transcendent and rock-solid, you still need some criteria to choose one over the other. Where does that particular piece of discernment come from, if it isn't simply the culture in which you were born that makes the decision for you?

Conservative Jews like Jacoby, Michael Medved and Dennis Prager extol the virtues of Christianity because they often share similar values and modes of thought with the Judaism they themselves follow. But they completely ignore the fact that they are theologically at odds and they both can't be right. Acting as if the theological differences don't matter at all (which is the usual pattern with these guys), they instead extol the virtues of the utility and good consequences of Judeo-Christian "morality".

This makes little sense to me, as a deeply religious person's ultimate concern should be worshipping a god that is really there instead of a god that is a fantasy. But Jews and Christians can't both be right, and therefore at least one and probably both of them are committing a grave theological error. How are we supposed to get a rock-solid, trancendent foundation for morality from such things? And how are we to distinguish it from the practice of simply pretending that our moral codes are divine when they really aren't?

56. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12864 by Kingasaurus on December 14, 2006 at 5:43 am

---Briefly in answer to your question (380). None of God's angels have ever sinned, God evidently made them incapable of it (as I hope to become, at a future day).----

So Satan isn't a fallen angel?

What is he then? An uncomfortable anomaly? God's uncreated evil twin?

What are demons then, if not rebellious angels - as mainstream Christian theology tells us?

Satan isn't God, he's not human, and he's not a plant or an animal. What's the only alternative that's left?

You'd be better off quitting this forum and arguing with other Christians about this stuff until you can get your story straight. It's quite maddening trying to argue Christian theology when nearly every one of you has different answers to supposedly straightforward questions.

Shouldn't GOD make himself plain so that disagreements like this are rare instead of common?

57. Atheists' bleak alternative

Comment #12776 by Kingasaurus on December 13, 2006 at 7:05 pm

Anyone think Jacoby is swift enough to handle the subtleties of the Euthyphro Dilemma?

I have my doubts, obviously.

58. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12542 by Kingasaurus on December 12, 2006 at 1:21 pm

>>...Craig says "God can't show himself, or else there wouldn't be faith"...<<

I always find this amusing. Nobody seems to have a good answer as to why God thinks faith is such a great thing. Why would he use it as the best conceivable method for people to know him and what he wants and doesn't want?

Why would God prefer faith to evidence? Does he want people to worship him or not? What's the best way to get the highest percentage of people on your side? Faith or incontrovertible proof?

A cynical person would say that the only religions that need faith are the false ones, since the evidence for a non-existent god is, well, non-existent.

59. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12539 by Kingasaurus on December 12, 2006 at 12:41 pm

You don't buy the usual story that Satan and his followers rebelled against god and were cast out of heaven?

If you don't think one-third of the angels allied themselves with Satan, and were cast out with him, give me the story you think better describes the situation. Feel free to argue with other Christians to your heart's content about actual numbers.

I think many interpret that it comes from here:

Revelation 12:4
"And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born."

The actual proportions don't change my argument, however.

60. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12536 by Kingasaurus on December 12, 2006 at 12:30 pm

----The main difference will be that our nature will be changed so that the *ability* to not sin will be inherent in us----

Why didn't God create the earth like this in the first place? Sadism?

Angels have the "inherent ability to sin" but simply have enormous willpower to avoid doing so. Two-thirds of the angels that God created have the potential to sin but have never done so. That's pretty impressive.

Why were people instead created by God to be so morally weak by comparison?

Sorry, but none of this makes any sense. You're only buying it because you think the book is special, therefore you need to believe what's in it. That dog just isn't hunting.

61. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12521 by Kingasaurus on December 12, 2006 at 11:06 am

I'm not just arguing with Christadelphians. I'm arguing with the theology put forth that most Christians adhere to.

If you want to play the "they're all wrong about that" card, you're free to do so. You wouldn't be the first minority sect to flog that dead horse into powder.

It doesn't change the point with regards to the different levels of "willpower" between humans and angels.

Subsitute "the new Earth when Jesus comes back" for "heaven" in my previous post and the point still stands. Will the inhabitants of the "new Earth" retain their free will or not?

62. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12514 by Kingasaurus on December 12, 2006 at 10:32 am

All this talk reminds me of the nagging question, "Is there Free Will in Heaven?"

We are told that without Free Will, we're just robots that will do whatever God wants, and that will never do since we wouldn't be independent from him with our own minds.

So because we have free will, there is evil and sin in the world because we have the option of disobedience.

But we are also told that believers will be with God after death, in a place where there is no sin or disobedience. Will we have free will there? If so, why? If not, why not? Are we robots in heaven without any independence from God?

If heaven is a place where we retain our independence but have no desire to sin because of the presence of God, then why didn't he just bypass all this earth stuff and simply create us all in heaven in the first place?

We are also told that war once broke out in heaven (then why would I want to go?) and one third of the angels were cast out as punishment for rebellion. Angels must therefore have free will, or Satan could never have chosen to disobey God.

So, according to this very convoluted and somewhat ridiculous brand of theology, we are told that God created two specific classes of beings:

First, he creates angels, who must have some sort of free will or else Satan and his followers could never have rebelled. But angels who have rebelled apparently never change their minds and decide they've made a mistake by doing so. Conversely, the angels who remained faithful to God (and who also must have free will) can apparently exist quite happily for untold centuries without sinning. Not even once. Because these angels exist in the presence of God and heaven is a perfect place with no disobedience, right?

Then (apparently as a joke), God creates human beings, who in their constiutution and willpower are so flawed and weak that left to their own devices would commit sin every five seconds, and are accordingly punished for it.

Would it have been too much to ask for God to create people with free will, but also with a willpower and constitution a little more on the angelic side? Is it too much to suggest that people can retain their free will without being made so poorly that they want to sin almost immediately and constantly?

Most of the angels don't sin at all, and don't disobey God even once for enormously long lengths of time, we are told. So why aren't people made like that?

My last question is: Am I the only person who immediately notices that all this stuff sounds horribly imaginary and contrived?

63. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12270 by Kingasaurus on December 11, 2006 at 1:33 pm

<<"…there shall come in the last days scoffers …>>

Whatever.

Since believers always think they are in "the last days" (whenever they happen to be alive), and since there are always "scoffers" against a belief system that only convinces two out of every seven people on Earth, such a "prophecy" could never be wrong, could it?

Or are you REALLY SURE we're in the last days this time?

Even though the faithful have been fooled every time they've raised the alarm for the last two millenia, I'm sure they've finally got it right this time.

Right? Right?

Sorry, I hear crickets.

64. A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God

Comment #11793 by Kingasaurus on December 7, 2006 at 11:42 am

---''Well.' He has a think. 'I suppose a large-scale miracle which could not have been engineered by a conjuror. But I, um, find it hard to imagine exactly what that might be,' he concludes.

The question, I suspect, has never even occurred to him. It is one of those possibilities to which he is not — being human and fallible, and thus wedded to a certain train of thought and resistant to being diverged from it — wholly open.----

Couldn't disagree with this more. I am open to a large-scale miracle where god would supposedly reveal himself, that can't be faked or have some other mundane explanation. But the fact that these events don't occur in the real world is what helps send some people towards atheism.

The fact that scientific thinkers need to imagine possibilities where god would reveal himself unambiguously does not indicate the lack of openness in the minds of religious skeptics. It indicates a lack of verifiable evidence for god in the real world that can't be massaged by wishful thinking alone.

Why isn't the author more upset that god likes to remain hidden in these supposedly maddening ways, rather than blaming Dawkins for not playing along with the game?

65. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #11774 by Kingasaurus on December 7, 2006 at 8:34 am

Part of what I find amusing in this specific argument about Old testament prophecy regarding Jesus, is that Christians like Robertson are perfectly willing to tell atheists that they don't know Biblical scholarship and Hebrew well enough to make these kinds of criticisms with any authority.

Other than making such a charge with limited information about the other person in question (which can be unwarranted), it ignores the elephant in the room:

Namely religious Jews, many of whom know the history of their own Bible and the Hebrew language at least as well as any Christian of any stripe. They reject the Christian claim that some OT prophecies refer to Jesus, and they often do so for many of th same reasons as atheists. But Christians aren't really interested in debating religious Jews all that much on matters of theology. Such debates happen, but it's tough because they normally can't throw out the "you guys are scripturally ignorant" card and get away with it.

They'd rather just tell atheists they aren't qualified to tell the difference between "almah" and "bethulah".

Well, many religious Jews are very qualified. Maybe you can ask them why they think the Isaiah prophecy has nothing to do with Jesus? Or would you rather just tell them they're ignorant of Hebrew and what it means?

66. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11683 by Kingasaurus on December 6, 2006 at 2:14 pm

---As to the reliability of my beliefs: If I believed that my beliefs were reliable that would lock me into the same sort of dogmatism which both fundamentalists and atheists share. ---

Good, then you could be completely wrong about this "god" and what this "god' wants?

Yes?

Considering the possibility that your "intuitive sense" isn't reliable, and all that.

Fair?

67. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11671 by Kingasaurus on December 6, 2006 at 12:45 pm

----I'm inclined to hear anything that you have to say. I'll agree with everything that I can agree with, and I will object to everything that I disagree with.

Is that too much to ask?-----

Dave, I'm inclined to hear what YOU have to say, and not the reverse. Specifically....

What I want is precisely what your beliefs about "god" are, the reasons you hold them, and why you think those reasons have some reliability.

Until then, you're just wasting everyone's time. If you were a traditional, mainstream Christian, we could at least argue on those grounds. You aren't, and until you specify your beliefs with some degree of precision, it's wheel-spinning time again.

68. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11664 by Kingasaurus on December 6, 2006 at 12:08 pm

If FSW is "disappointed" in the way Mathews is treated, perhaps he is unaware of the mind-numbing litany of trollish posts over several threads which do no good in advancing any notion of civilized debate. You can't debate with someone who refuses to answer basic questions and obfuscates when you try to pin down the reasons why a certain person holds position "x".

If someone isn't going to be honest about the specific nature of what their beliefs actually are, the reasons they hold them, and the potential reliability of those reasons, then dialogue with that person about these subjects in this context just isn't going to be possible.

You can't have an honest game without the cards being on the table.

69. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11638 by Kingasaurus on December 6, 2006 at 7:10 am

I swore I wouldn't do this:

Dave astounds me because his views are a mishmash of various religious-oriented concepts. He says he's a "Christian" and believes that "God" exists, but also rejects an afterlife and that nature will continue with it's machinations long after humans are gone - views that are often consistent with atheists. He then pretends to have knowledge of this amorphous god's attitudes, motives, plans, and feelings, despite the fact that his "theology" doesn't resemble anything seen in anyone's Scripture, or any of the traditional cultural ideas of what "God" is supposed to be.

Basically, Dave has invented "Dave's Theology", which is an animal completely cooked up in his own mind, and then has the audacity to complain that atheists won't fight him on his own ground. The fact that you can't fight on constantly shifting quicksand where the vague rules and opinions change everytime a new comment is made is something that apparently eludes him.

It's pointless to argue with someone who thinks that he's aware of the mind of god, and thinks everyone else in the world with their various contradictory god-concepts are simply seeing his god in their own particular way but have screwed up the details. How are you supposed to have a conversation with someone whose beliefs are so ill-defined and lacking in concrete details that they can't be pinned down - and if you do pin him down with a concrete theological statement, he just knows that it's true because, well...just because he knows. He uses the fact that our knowledge is incomplete to give himself carte blanche to believe anything he wants, no matter how outlandish and unsupportable, just because he says so. He's not even falling back on religious traditions and the beliefs they foster, which most theists do. At least they have that going for them.

It's like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

70. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11305 by Kingasaurus on December 4, 2006 at 5:29 am

David,

Considering your woeful, trollish, rather confused and intellectually oblique history of posting on this site, you're hardly the guy to help us out with that.

71. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #10492 by Kingasaurus on November 28, 2006 at 8:24 am

Roy,

I wouldn't bother crediting David Mathews for anything in this thread to bolster your particular case, because he apparently invented his own god that looks nothing like, behaves differently, and has different attitudes than yours.

At least one of you is wrong, so why don't you both go off by yourselves and hash it out before pointing fingers and giggling at atheists?

72. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9871 by Kingasaurus on November 26, 2006 at 9:05 am

Dave, I've intimated twice that you should throw away your computer and any other "science and technology" which makes your life easier.

Please do so without delay. Othwise I can only assume rank hypocrisy on your part.

If we don't hear from you again on this thread, I'll assume you've taken my advice. If otherwise...

73. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9860 by Kingasaurus on November 26, 2006 at 8:32 am

Sigh.

The modern computer was first invented in the late 1940's in order to accurately calculate the effectiveness of artillery projectiles.

Since the computer was invented by scientists for a military purpose ("killing people"), I insist that Dave turn his off immediately and throw it away. We'd all be better off.

74. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9855 by Kingasaurus on November 26, 2006 at 8:24 am

The Greeks believed in the Greek Pantheon generally, though those who purveyed the scientific method in ancient Greece were willing to question or ignore the god hypothesis, which is why they are the intellectual precursors of today's non-believers.

And I missed the part where I said Nature or the Universe cares about us. But WE care about us, which is why we're going to try like hell to keep ourselves from going extinct. Or shouldn't we bother? If you think nature is better off without humans, perhaps you should kill yourself immediately. Just give the rest of us the common courtesy to attempt some alternative options.

Your basic premises in this thread boil down to the ridiculous theological canard which state that if our existence has no "cosmic meaning", then why should we even care what happens to ourselves in the long run? One of the oldest and hoariest straw men around, I suppose.

75. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9849 by Kingasaurus on November 26, 2006 at 8:06 am

"Suffice it to that Judeo-Christian values alone gave humanity the notion of... the scientific method...."

Wow. Talk about ignorant. Anyone with any historical knowledge knows the Greeks came up with the scientific method as an actual codified discipline. The Greek mystics eventually squelched it and the Christians never reversed the trend.

When these systematic methods were reapplied during the Renaissance, the Church came along only kicking and screaming. They were no help during the Enlightenment either.

Prager wants to have his cake and eat it too. Western culture is a synthesis of the Judeo-Christian and the Greco-Roman. Because say, Galileo and Newton were Christians (for example), Prager wants Judeo-Christian influence given credit for anything ever discovered or codified by any member of Western civilization. This kind of intellectual glomming-on is the worst kind of unseemly arrogance.

76. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9831 by Kingasaurus on November 26, 2006 at 7:14 am

Mark, don't bother.

I'm sure David Mathews just turned off his evil, scientifically generated computer, and went back to his cave to hunt and gather food with his bare hands.

77. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9824 by Kingasaurus on November 26, 2006 at 6:34 am

"On the other side, we believers look at the evidence and believe that there is a God. In that sense, the atheist has considerably less intellectual honesty than the sophisticated believer. The atheist says he knows, despite the fact that what he "knows" is unprovable. The believer believes because he knows that what he believes is ultimately unprovable."


Ugh.

Is Prager confident enough to "know" that there are no leprechauns, or does he just "believe" there aren't any?

The inability of Prager to understand his adversaries' position is quite maddening. Do you know how many believers have told me through the years that "I don't need proof, I just know it's true by faith?" Claims to "knowledge" are legion among religious believers about there particular dogmas.

Why is it so hard for some people to wrap their minds around the fact that if you think the evidence for god(s) is extremely weak scientifically, and then consider the evidence that these beliefs are culturally constructed and contingent - then it makes perfect sense to simply put "god' in the same category with a whole host of other things which even theists would mostly agree are imaginary.

The atheist sees no good reason to put "god' and "leprechauns" in different evidentiary boxes. The fact that most theists can't see this train of reasoning leads to continually ridiculous rejoinders like "you atheists have faith (pretend to know) that there's no god."

If I hear that nonsense one more time, my head might explode.

78. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9759 by Kingasaurus on November 25, 2006 at 10:08 pm

"Can you name one thing that does not exist but is essential to human survival?"

Damn, that's horrible.

Dennis, I'll type slow for your benefit. If the BELIEF is essential, that's all it means. The belief exists. That's not disputed. It doesn't mean that the thing believed in is really there.

Prager commits the horrible fallacy of presuming religious belief is necessary, then doubles the error by presuming his particular religious beliefs reflect factual reality.

If humans REALLY needs supernatural beliefs to make a living in the world, Prager needs to explain why the majority of people who live now and have ever lived in the past are worshipping the WRONG god(s).

Five out of every seven people on Planet Earth are neither Jews nor Christians. Are we really supposed to believe that Prager (an observant Jew) thinks the utility and universal nature of supernatural beliefs reflect some reality about his particular god, yet over two-thirds of the world's population have screwed it up and are worshipping gods that don't exist by mistake?


Pull my other leg, Dennis.

79. The Big Question: Why are we here?

Comment #8137 by Kingasaurus on November 20, 2006 at 1:44 pm

I'm disputing Wikipedia.

I know, it happens. Willing and able are two different variables.

Anyway, I remember Sagan always discussing these issues. Even if you are incredibly optimistic and there are several million technical civilizations in the galaxy right now, the closest one will still be about 200 light years away, on average. There would then be hundreds of thousands of stars between us. Even if this potential contact species were curious, spacefaring and technologically ahead of us, from their perspective there will be nothing special about our particular star, and no reason to come here. As far as they are concerned, there are countless stars in a 200 light year radius, all equally interesting for potential exploration. They would have to stumble upon us, or at least be close enough that they would have a realistic shot of listening in to our long history of radio broadcasts. A tall order.

If you are slightly less optimistic, the distance to the nearest potential contact species increases quickly, and the difficulty in finding them increases also.

80. The Big Question: Why are we here?

Comment #8128 by Kingasaurus on November 20, 2006 at 1:28 pm

The Drake Equation doesn't have a variable for "willing to communicate". It only tries to guess how many species have attained advanced technology and would be capable of doing so, should they be so inclined.

There's no "right" answer to the Drake Equation. It's just a tool, a systematic way of thinking about the problem and the issues involved. Different people get widely differing answers, because it's just speculative.

The other problem is that even if such civilizations are very numerous. if the closest one to us is very far away, it could be an extremely long time before we are made aware of it, and for all practical purposes it would be no different than being completely alone in the universe. Talk about flying blind!

81. The Big Question: Why are we here?

Comment #8118 by Kingasaurus on November 20, 2006 at 12:57 pm

I was presuming our own civilization would count in any calculation. Then the Drake Equation can't be any lower than 1, because there is at least one technical civilization in the galaxy, and it's us.

I can't say I'm not optimistic that there are other planets with life out there. The evidence we have is suggestive that life may arise relatively easily on planets where the conditions are right. I hope so.

Other species we can talk to?

Again, we don't know. There may be some difficulty in evolving intelligent species that we don't yet know about, in which case an advanced civilization elsewhere may be so unlikely we COULD be the only one in the galaxy. I wouldn't bet money that way, but it can't be ruled out.

We're all just speculating, and the lack of actual data from "ET" means the guesses are all over the place depending on who you ask.

Even if there are a hundred billion advanced civilizations in the known universe, that still means only one per galaxy on average. That means we are effectively alone because the distances are simply too great to manage.

We can't be real confident about our guesses in this area of inquiry. Too many variables.

82. The Big Question: Why are we here?

Comment #8079 by Kingasaurus on November 20, 2006 at 11:05 am

"I think all Dawkins meant here is that it's entirely possible that we're the only intelligent species in the universe. So not only *might* we be unique, as far as we know, we *are* unique and will remain so until evidence to the contrary is clear."

This was my take on his meaning, also.

Despite the wishes of people (including me) who hope that life and even intelligent life is somewhat commonplace in the galaxy, we don't know and can't be certain. We aren't at a stage where we can't really put a good educated guess on the relative difficulty of life arising in a certain place and an intelligent species emerging thereafter.

It's possible that the answer to the Drake Equation is "1".

I would certainly be very disappointed if that were the case, but it is a possibility that must be considered.

83. Top court refuses to hear whether religion can be a murder defence

Comment #8050 by Kingasaurus on November 20, 2006 at 9:35 am

In many places, a "crime of passion" involving murder will receive a lesser sentence than premeditated killing. That's not that unusual.

"My culture/religion tells me I have a right and duty to kill my wife under these conditions" is another matter. Honor killing is essentially a premeditated practice sanctioned by religion or culture. It doesn't really fit the profile of a "crime of passion" as it is normally understood. It's pretty clear that Islamic societies are more likely to produce such behaviors these days.

84. Top court refuses to hear whether religion can be a murder defence

Comment #8004 by Kingasaurus on November 20, 2006 at 6:13 am

"I'm sure that it has nothing to do with Islam - do Atheists, Christians, Jews, Hindus or Sikhs feel any less strongly if their partner has an affair?"

This is what Sam Harris talks about when he discusses the general unwillingness to recognize the differences between faiths, cultures and the synthesis of the two.

If you are asking me whether an Islamic society is more likely to produce people who will engage in this type of "honor killing", I think the answer is unquestionably yes - and it isn't even seriously debatable.

The fact that non-Muslims will sometimes get angry enough at infidelity to commit murder doesn't change the general point.

85. Dawkins's version of the deity does not exist

Comment #7598 by Kingasaurus on November 18, 2006 at 9:42 pm

Keep in mind:

God and his nature are inscrutable, and his essence is far beyond human understanding. He is beyond space and time, and we cannot hope to understand him no matter how hard we try...

...but remember, he doesn't want you to masturbate.

86. My God Problem

Comment #7172 by Kingasaurus on November 17, 2006 at 1:07 pm

Peri = "around"

Around a century is the maximum human lifespan. Therefore you have a pericentury of consciousness alloted to you.

Was that really confusing, or am I missing the irony?

87. Reading of The God Delusion in Lynchburg, VA

Comment #6607 by Kingasaurus on November 15, 2006 at 4:39 am

You forgot the fourth option, genius. "Legend."

When you want to play in the intellectual sandbox, it helps to bring some weapons. Thanks for playing.

Long live Poe's law!

88. Reading of The God Delusion in Lynchburg, VA

Comment #6443 by Kingasaurus on November 14, 2006 at 9:28 am

Oh fer cryin' out loud...

89. Reading of The God Delusion in Lynchburg, VA

Comment #6154 by Kingasaurus on November 12, 2006 at 10:40 pm

Nothing like a Dawkins speech broadcast on C-Span to bring the creationist wingnuts out to this website in droves.

90. Beyond Belief

Comment #3090 by Kingasaurus on October 25, 2006 at 12:51 pm

I think RD can only appeal to the logical inconsistency of the improbability argument. Simply defining god in such a way that he can exist causeless, while at the same time asserting that everything else except god must have a cause of some kind is what rankles people who value consistency in their arguments.

The religious apologists only appear to "solve" this complexity problem verbally, and RD is simply calling them on it. I see no problem attacking the issue by claiming that we have no good reason to believe in top-down complexity of any kind. The fact that many of the religious won't buy this argument is somewhat obvious - but there are a lot of things Rd might say that they won't buy. All you can do is attack their reasons and methodology for asserting such things.

91. Beyond Belief

Comment #3051 by Kingasaurus on October 25, 2006 at 9:19 am

Many of these reviewers seem to be missing an obvious point. They rail about how crass and smarmy Dawkins sounds, and about how he doesn't "get" this or that about why people turn to religion and how complicated the question actually is. What they don't address is the fundamental point (Harris stresses it also) about faith being an inherently unreliable method for distinguishing fact from falsehood.

The idea being we shouldn't use the faith concept or emotion-based intuition to try to determine the answers to cosmic questions of this sort. If we can't trust faith to answer these questions accurately (as the myriad of mutually contradictory faith-based religions show), then why should we appeal to it at all in these matters? Don't you care about being right?

Part of the consciousness-raising efforts of Dawkins and his ilk over the years has been to let people know it's perfectly acceptable to live with "I don't know yet" as an answer to a fundamental question instead of making up an answer that your Bronze-Age precursors thought was reasonable - just to be able to avoid the uncomfortable "I don't know yet."

Science is the worldview which makes people in it comfortable with "I don't know" as a default position until the evidence is stronger. RD is just trying to make more people more comfortable with that as a general way of living.

Reviewer after reviewer yaps about how utilitarian religion is. I think they're missing the point while at the same time claiming that Dawkins misses it, too.

92. Battle of the New Atheism

Comment #2772 by Kingasaurus on October 23, 2006 at 10:48 am

"Didn't they try a cult of reason once, in France, at the close of the 18th century, and didn't it turn out to be too ugly even for Robespierre?"

Instead of invoking the French Revolution, he could have mentioned much of Western Europe today and Scandinavia in particular. Sam Harris invokes Sweden constantly as a country which is overwhelmingly atheistic, yet seems to be functioning just fine, thank you. Since Mr. Wolf interviewed Harris, it's a good chance it was mentioned. Not in the article, though. Hmm.

93. Battle of the New Atheism

Comment #2770 by Kingasaurus on October 23, 2006 at 10:33 am

The vibe I seem to get from this article is: "There's a good chance you guys are right, but not so loud. And please be nicer when discussing it."

94. Battle of the New Atheism

Comment #2738 by Kingasaurus on October 23, 2006 at 6:50 am

Interesting article, but we continue to see the unfortunate misunderstanding about atheists being dogmatically sure that there's no god. Why is it so difficult for these people to understand that while not being 100% sure of anything, when there's simply no evidentiary reason to believe something, we should just put that something into an 'imaginary' category? It seems to be hair-splitting to people who don't share Dawkins' viewpoint, but it is a ridiculously important distinction to understand. The absence of faith is not just another version of dogmatic faith. It's something else entirely.