51. The Big Question: Why are we here?

Comment #7962 by Martin on November 20, 2006 at 2:35 am

Actually... I think we are unique.

The thing to keep in mind is that religion says that makes us special.

I think we are unique, but I don't think we are special. We are unique in that there is only one species like us, and it's extremely unlikely that an identical species will evolve anywhere ever again. It might be similar in many respects, but it won't be the same.

Being unique doesn't confer specialness upon you.

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

Comment #7847 by Martin on November 19, 2006 at 4:21 pm

Oh... and just where is your evidence?

And you never did explain how you can be faithful to god if you rely on evidence, since evidence denies faith?

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

Comment #7846 by Martin on November 19, 2006 at 4:18 pm

I'd really like to see Mr Roberston's evidence for God. I'm open to be convinced.

1. Independent verification
2. Reproducability
3. The only possible explination by a very high order of mangitude of probability.

The problem here again is with your basic definition. Why does evidence have to be reproducible? And why does it have to be independently verified? Who is independent? Is the evidence that I love my wife something that can only be real and true if it is 'independently verified?'?

If your "evidence" can be any old thing and we don't hold to any standards then anything you say can be held as evidence, making the evidence not worth the air the words are carried on.

As to evidence for you loving your wife? well.. for one I didn't know you had a wife and for all I know you don't love her.

Independent verification? They way you act towards your wife around other people. Everytime you and your wife appear in public or do something. While circumstancial it does count towards evidence. Science can't always observe an object directly and therefore have to rely on seeing how it intera cts with others.

Reproducable? We'll loving your wife is a single event, we would have to reproduce the event. Therefore we would have to establish that you can love and that what you and your wife share is sufficiently similar to be the same thing.

Not explainable by different means? I suspect Ted Haggard's wife is contemplating this question right now. Until recently I'm sure she felt certain there was on other possible reason.

The reason evidence must be verifiable and reproducable is that if it isn't then it's not evidence, because that's how evidence is defined. By your reasoning for your evidence the japanese(?) ex-scientist now in jail for faking his cold-fusion experiments should be receiving a noble prize for his scientific discovery; his paper certainly meets your evidence standards. He is a con-artist, so what does that make you?


And therein lies the problem. You are not prepared to move beyond your own understanding and want to reduce the world to it.


Oh I am prepared to move beyond my understanding. That's called learning. At the moment I'm learning quite a bit about your point of view, nonsensical as it is.

What you are asking is that I stop understanding and just accept that i'll never understand. The argument from incredulity.

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

Comment #7824 by Martin on November 19, 2006 at 2:28 pm

The article is a load of nonsense.

Just because RD can't explain something doesn't mean there isn't an explination.

The whole article is an argument for the god-of-the-gaps.

I would like the author to explain god to me, without resporting to mystical mumbo-jumbo about how he transends blah blah.

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

Comment #7144 by Martin on November 17, 2006 at 10:33 am

Very well said Chris.

One of the biggest tenets of christianity is that faith is a virtue, it is something to aspire to.

You have just very coherently pointed out that either Mr Robertson does not have faith, and is hence a failure as a christian, or in dire need of remedial study, or there actually isn't any evidence.

From the webster online dictionary we see that faith is:

[...]
1: [Loyalty]
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
[...]


Evidence therefore denies faith, so by providing evidence of his faith, Mr Robertson would be disproving his own faith. You could aruge that his simple statement above already indicates his lack of faith, as he favours god based on: "I believe in God because it is the best rational position proportionate to the evidence offered."

I'd really like to see Mr Roberston's evidence for God. I'm open to be convinced.

Just so that we don't get confused... here is what I consider evidence.

1. Independent verification
2. Reproducability
3. The only possible explination by a very high order of mangitude of probability.

In effect the scientific definition, as I understand it.

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

Comment #7129 by Martin on November 17, 2006 at 9:13 am

apologies.. .the italics went a bit wrong on my last post.

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

Comment #7128 by Martin on November 17, 2006 at 9:12 am

Martin (429) – Your post is also helpful.

"The only way any type of progress can be made in the discuss about religion is to accept the bible is in dispute and cannot be used as evidence of anything. I doubt theists would settle for that, as they don't appear to have any other arguments."

Not true. I am quite happy to discuss many other things.


Certainly, how can you know that you are worshipping and obeying the will of the correct god or gods?


"Theists are not all stupid, most are probably quite intelligent, the place where they are suffering is a combination of nurture, peer pressure."

This is a patronizing superior comment which, whilst it is undoubtedly true of some theists (and incidentally some a-theists) is not true of all. It assumes (aka TGD) that atheists are generally more intelligent and have 'escaped' to a higher level of consciousness.


Patronising was not my intent, but you are quick to assume insult. I was born in germany, I have German grand parents. I know what it was like in Germany during Hitler's time, I've spoken to my family about it. Hitler was in almost religious terms. His word was truth. He and his Nazi apparatus managed to brainwash large portions of the country in believing what he said was true. Everyone believed him, so when the horror stories of death camp rumours surfaced no one believed them, after all, everyone knew they couldn't be true. Most Germans at that time were good people, and hitler shamelessly and callously used that good nature against them.

I don't consider those Germans (my grand parents) lesser people for not realising what was happening. They were manipulated by a master.

Religion is much the same in my view, only it's been working on humanity for millennia and instead of offering superiority and an empire, the respect that Germany felt it had lost after Versailles, it offers redemption and the prospect of eternal life or rewards. Religion uses exactly the same techniques Hitler used, one could even argue that he learned much from the Catholic church of which he was a devout follower, at least until WWI.


"We all live in comfort zones, and turning your back on something that will put you at odds with everyone you know, even your closest friends and relatives, is most defiantly not in our comfort zone."

Works both ways. Like the son of a well known scientist who came to my church and was threatened with being disinherited if he continued to come!

"People like Robertson are those that have been conditioned the most. The psychology worked wonderfully and they believe so deeply, so profoundly, that they feel it their duty to make others "see the light". They can still break the conditioning, but for them it is hardest of all, and nothing people like myself could say would be enough. No matter how convincing the evidence, as soon as it in any way questions their belief it is discounted or wrong."

What a comforting pseudo psychoanalysis for you. It allows you to dismiss anyone who is against you because obviously if they are stupid enough not to agree with you, and yet appear to be intelligent, they must be brainwashed. I must admit that I did not expect this kind of circular reasoning from intelligent atheists. It really looks as though you will not allow anyone to question your faith. You have no idea who I am, or what I have been through, or the doubts, fears, joys etc that are part of my life and journey. How wonderful for you to be able to live in such a black and white world. Oh to be a fundie….


I am not a fundamentalist, as you have chosen rubber stamp me; showing that if you actually believe what you say about me you are a hypocrite for acting in the same way.

As for my "comforting" psychoanalysis. It's not comforting at all. I find it extremely alarming. These brainwashing techniques what lead to the crusades, the inquisition, the recent terrorists outrages and also things like hitler's regime. The aims and motivations in each case may have been different, but the techniques were the same.

In the end religion (like all psychological tools) is a tool wielded by those in authority, for good or ill. The world would be a much better place without it.

We'd still have the Hitlers that rise to power through their own charisma and power of manipulation, but at least we will have removed a ready made framework for them to use.

While I certainly have no proof of the following assertion, it wouldn't surprise me that is a secular and atheist germany, not brainwashed by the church for generations to believe in authority figures Hitler might well have had a much harder time achieving his ends.

As to me being a fundie...

I don't dogmatically believe in something, anything, unlike yourself. Your unreasoning belief in your deity makes you "faithful" and your refusal to accept that god might not exist makes you dogmatic.

I can't disprove God, any more than I can disprove unicorns or pixies, but I am open to be convinced that he exists. Currently science does a much better job of explaining the universe than religion does.

If this personal god of yours exists, convince me. I'd like you to perform a miracle. I'd like you to pray to God for me (since I don't actually believe there'd not be much point in me doing it would there?) so that tomorrow not a single person dies anywhere in the world. Certainly a selfless request.

God doesn't work that way though does he? The ultimate religious cop-out. When science manages to explain what has always before been "god's work" you just move the goal-post.

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

Comment #7081 by Martin on November 17, 2006 at 4:37 am

Chris,

yes the insults really are flying on this thread. The problem is the half the things one side says, no matter how "neutral" intended are taken as insults by the other side.

It comes down to the fact that us atheists think the bible is a work of fiction, and the theists like Mr Robertson think the bible is the word of god.

The only way any type of progress can be made in the discuss about religion is to accept the bible is in dispute and cannot be used as evidence of anything. I doubt theists would settle for that, as they don't appear to have any other arguments.

Uneducated theists would argue that science is in dispute, and to a point they are correct, it's the nature of science and progress that people disagree with the status quo. What they fail to realise is that the general science, like radiological dating, or evolution or quantum theory are not in dispute, it is the little details that are in dispute.

Theists are not all stupid, most are probably quite intelligent, the place where they are suffering is a combination of nurture, peer pressure.

They have been conditioned from birth, like pavlov's dogs, to see religion as a good thing, to see god as real, the bible as real. This has been reinforced everyday of their life by family, friends, community and of course the church, through services, schooling and television. It is a continuous cycle, everytime someone conditioned like that says "god helped me" or "through god I did blah" they are reinforcing the belief in those around them. It's a trained response, nothing more. If everyone around you still believed Father Christmas was real, people talked about him on TV, and kept reinforcing the view that he really existed, wouldn't you still believe as you did as a child that he was real?

Some people are considerably more risk takers than others, and in truth, leaving religion, even questioning religion is a risk, and in some places in the world a terminal risk. If you doubt god you are told that "this is natural" or "god is testing your faith" and are encouraged to delve even more deeply into religion, all the while the peer pressure and the expectations of those around you are to "find your way back to god". No one wants to be a failure... and not finding your way back to god would be admitting failure to those around you that believe, it's amazing what humans do to avoid looking like a failure.

We all live in comfort zones, and turning your back on something that will put you at odds with everyone you know, even your closest friends and relatives, is most defiantly not in our comfort zone.

I have nothing but profound admiration for those that have turned away from religion despite all the psychological warfare employed against them.

People like Robertson are those that have been conditioned the most. The psychology worked wonderfully and they believe so deeply, so profoundly, that they feel it their duty to make others "see the light". They can still break the conditioning, but for them it is hardest of all, and nothing people like myself could say would be enough. No matter how convincing the evidence, as soon as it in any way questions their belief it is discounted or wrong.

Like pavlov's dogs, if the bell rings there must be food, even if the bowl is empty.

If you question god, you must be wrong, even if the proof is overwhelming.

59. E-Petition: Abolish Faith Schools

Comment #6920 by Martin on November 16, 2006 at 7:31 am

Barry

Schools, like all things vary from one to the other. Just because you weren't indoctrinated doesn't mean that others weren't.

Additionally religious discrimination shouldn't be allowed full stop.

If we had a school that said you couldn't join because you were black, then we'd have riots. But saying you can't join because you don't belong to some religious cult is ok it seems.

60. E-Petition: Abolish Faith Schools

Comment #6913 by Martin on November 16, 2006 at 7:03 am

Signed it.. passed it onto my friends.

I wonder if I'll get flamed by one of them. He's not religious but his wife is and his young daughter is going to a Christian school (she's 5!)... oh well.

61. Richard Dawkins and the "new atheists" come to America

Comment #6584 by Martin on November 15, 2006 at 2:41 am

"
- Absolute fealty to the doctrines and customs of the church and its leaders.
- 10% of their income
"

A couple of centuries ago there was a scheme.. i've gone and forgotten what it was called.. but you could pay the church to get an exemption for a sin.

I'm probably remembering this totally wrong. The impression I got was, if you knew you were going to commit a sin or had to commit a sin in "to further god" you could get dispensation from the church for a certain sum of money. Never knew "god" was materialistic.

62. Why there is no God

Comment #6389 by Martin on November 14, 2006 at 2:44 am

Much as it might pain me to agree with anything Asana B says, I've just read Luke 19 and it is indeed a parable. Jesus is quoting the antagonist of the parable, so that sentence cannot honestly be attributed to Jesus.

63. Controversial Religious Summer Camp Closed

Comment #5353 by Martin on November 9, 2006 at 3:53 am

Ironically.. I think america should hold onto bush a while longer. Bush has done more to advance secularism than most previous presidents.

I can live with idiot fundamentalists. They help us see just how stupid their entire belief system is. It's the shrewd and canny fundamentalists that you need to watch out for.. the ones that sneak into your mind and burrow there.

64. Why there is no God

Comment #5215 by Martin on November 8, 2006 at 4:49 am

I've not been to the link. What I remember about the initial abolishion of slavery, enforced by the British at the time, before the American civil war.

Being british, my view is a bit british centric, but from what I recall the abolishion of slavery (as championed by the british at the time) had less to do with altruism and equality, but with economics and politics.

I'd have to read up on it though to be sure of my facts.

65. Humphrys In Search of God

Comment #4849 by Martin on November 6, 2006 at 2:18 pm

Rich B

What I asked was:

"Where in our past might there have been an evolutionary, survival, benefit to having an instinctual knowledge of God? All our other instincts, for good or worse, have or had some survival benefit, where is the benefit of God?"

It was a question for the religious to answer. Partially ironic. If we have some "instinct" about gods that manifests itself when we are children.. (the alternative to the Santa clause delusion proposed by Williams) what is the gain? Where is the evolutionary benefit.

66. The Language of Ignorance

Comment #4804 by Martin on November 6, 2006 at 7:41 am

A quick search on the net.... and the result is.. no god of ice.. :(

Mind you.. you can have a god that was licked out of the ice:

Buri: The first god. The cow Audhumla, after emerging from the primordial frost, fed herself by licking great blocks of ice. Day by day, as she licked, the god emerged from the ice. He was the father of Bor.

(http://www.viking-folklore.com/vikingstory-page/the-norse-god.html)


Now.. what on earth is the "cow Audhumla"?

67. Humphrys In Search of God

Comment #4800 by Martin on November 6, 2006 at 6:32 am

Thank you Rowan Williams:

"Rowan Williams: Putting myself in the opposition. It's a very difficult question actually. I think I might say maybe you should ask somebody who does believe in God, and see what it sounds like. Not I think entirely irrelevant but belief in God appears to come more naturally to children than to adults. And you can take that in one of two ways can't you, you can take it as saying belief in God is one of those things like belief in Santa Claus that every sensible person... "

Ok.. he goes on to argue the 2nd option, that actually it might be an "instinctive" knowledge of God and his presence.

For me the telling point is: "[...] belief in God appears to come more naturally to children than to adults." I want to know why that is.

Why are children more easily convinced in God?

I can see that children might be more gullible, after all, they don't know any better and have to rely on adults for their truth, hence Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy etc. Personally I think God falls into that same category.

Where in our past might there have been an evolutionary, survival, benefit to having an instinctual knowledge of God? All our other instincts, for good or worse, have or had some survival benefit, where is the benefit of God?

68. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4078 by Martin on November 2, 2006 at 9:04 am

I never realised Iran chose to become a theocracy.

I always thought it was imposed, or had always been that way.

Damn.. you know what you just did?!

I now have to add Iranian history to my reading list. Although if what you say in your post is right, that moderate religion in effect caused the Iranian theocracy, Iran would be the perfect example for atheists to hold up as the dangers of unchecked moderate religion.

69. Why there is no God

Comment #4053 by Martin on November 2, 2006 at 7:12 am

Billy,

it was, and I#d be interested in reading it.

I think there's nothing better to nail religion into its coffin than an ordained priest and monk talking about why it's a load of crap.

Of course, I've probably misremembered your history.. or associated it with someone else.

Never mind.. by the end of the month you'll have been at least a bishop. :P

70. Why there is no God

Comment #4046 by Martin on November 2, 2006 at 6:14 am

What's the URL?

I was thinking of blogging my way through the bible.

Still thinking of a good title; "Tales from the Looney Bin" sounds a bit too closed minded. :P

71. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4044 by Martin on November 2, 2006 at 6:12 am

ROFL

"Bush II"

They always say the sequel is worse than the original, and just made to cash in on the previous success.

Although I'm not sure Bush I was that good to start with.

That reminds me of a great comment I once read. Allegedly the film "The Madness of King George" was originally titled "George II". Unfortunately in audience trials in the US, too many people asked when the first film had been out.. and what had happened in it.

I bet it's those people that the religious brain washers are targeting.

72. Tired of all the religious garbage? It's time to become an Enlightenist

Comment #4020 by Martin on November 2, 2006 at 4:21 am

"Seeing a gaggle of nuns or a holy man got up in his collar and robes I'm always reminded of children playing at role playing games, with quests, medieval costumes and make believe deities. Seems the most succinct title for those of us who choose not to play, if we need one, is 'Adults'"

I object... I have friends who do "live role-play". The difference between adults that dress up to pretend to be knights and what have you is that they know they are pretending and hence retain a firm grip on reality.

73. Why there is no God

Comment #4017 by Martin on November 2, 2006 at 4:17 am

I would like to thank Asana Bodhitharta on every atheists behalf the world over.

Her/His views are the clearest message to all sensible people the world over of the dangers of religion and the idiocy it.

The only thing that concerns me though is causality.

Did Asana Bodhitharta arrive at her views because she is brain dead... or was brain death brought about by exposure to those views?

Alas I fear we may never know. One day, when Asana Bodhitharta has been shot dead by another equally brain dead fanatic who believes God years a yellow toga instead of a blue one, maybe science will be able to study what little remains of his/her brain and determine an answer.

74. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4014 by Martin on November 2, 2006 at 4:08 am

Well... of course God can be fooled. Whoever he got to write the Bible, the Koran and all other works fooled god really well into believing that they could do him justice. Instead nothing but contradictory nonsense came out. So either god is a gullible fool or he doesn't exist.

Nice to see you're still around Phil... let's hope the longer you stay here the more open your mind gets. Of course.. that's almost as forlorn a hope as expecting god to show up and say "see.. I exist".

75. Nearly half of Americans uncertain God exists: poll

Comment #3982 by Martin on November 2, 2006 at 12:05 am

A recent survey of the united kingdom population shows that 100% of people believe there is no god, and that all religion should be abolished.

( 5 pages later, hidden in a micro dot )

"Sample Size: 1"

76. Why there is no God

Comment #3832 by Martin on November 1, 2006 at 12:11 am

@Joe

Hi Joe,

I'd just like to say that you must be first rational theist on these boards. Views like yours are ones I can respect, even if I don't agree with them.

I have a couple of questions though, which I wonder if you could answer.

1) Do you actually believe in a "personal" god, or is your god more like that ascribed to Einstein, a sort of wonder at the universe and awe at nature etc. Or do you believe that God is out there and will listen to your prayers? From what you've posted I'd say it seems more like "Einsteins" God. You could argue then that your are spiritual, but not religious.

2) Do you believe faith should be given the reverent and unchallenged status it does in our society; providing shelter for the extremists and fundamentalists who, unlike the reasonable believers, interpret the scriptures literally and passionatly blow themselves up for a short-cut to heaven?

77. The God Conundrum

Comment #3749 by Martin on October 31, 2006 at 12:16 pm

Well.. whoever posted that comment... he's obvisouly not read RD's book, since most of the critiques me makes are covered in the book, and his assertians about what richards states are not correct either.

78. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #3747 by Martin on October 31, 2006 at 12:11 pm

I have no idea why Jack thinks I'm taking this personally or being attacked. Maybe it's my style of writing?

@Jack

I'm not sure what your comment in 468 actually means. Does that mean you agree with me, that evolution exists and that natural selection makes sense?

"The predator doesn't choose its camaflage but selection does. " seems to imply that you accept natural selection takes place and can lead to such complex developements like camoflage.

I'd argue that natural selection does have a long term goal: survival. It doesn't have a plan and why should it? Unless you believe in something like Gaia then nature has no consciousness. It doesn't need it. The simple aim of producing the most survivable entity, or survival machine as RD likes to call them, is all it needs.

Theists like to apply complexity where none is needed. Nature is beautifully simple, so why pollute it with the complexity of a deity?

I can't tell you about moths, I know nothing about them, although I do believe they are attracted to light.

79. Why there is no God

Comment #3745 by Martin on October 31, 2006 at 12:00 pm

Not to offend David S. and other americans here (or should that be USians?) a common stereotype of americans are people that know nothing about any part of the world outside of their own state/country.

While I've been fortunate to have met quite a lot of cosmpolitan and educated americans a lot of what I see in the news/radio/internet sort of implies that the stereotype isn't that unrealist for the bible belt areas. Not having been there I have no way to really confirm the stereotype one way or another.

I have to wonder though.. if the stereotype is true, could the reason for the ludicrous fundamentalist bliefs be simply that the world view down there is as restricted as that of the robot in my previous post? People just don't know better, so the junk they are fed is that much more believable.

80. Why there is no God

Comment #3744 by Martin on October 31, 2006 at 11:54 am

"I Robot - in that film, Jesus was mentioned as was Miracles. Neither Jesus nor miracles have any evidence in reality."

Hmm... I don't remeber that bit in I Robot. I suppose I'll have to go watch it again.

The real I Robot is a collection of short stories by Issac Asimov, who I believe was an atheist (could be wrong though). While I Robot the film was a complete mishmash of short stories, I noticed elements from about 3 or 4 stories, I'd like to think that Isaac Asmiov would not have been too upset with it, it captured the gist of his stories, if not the content.

I suspect any overt references to religion might have upset Asimov.

One short story in teh collection, I forget its name, has a robot coming to believe in god. He (it?) refuses to accept that the humans created him, how could they, they are inferior. Earth is just a myth (the story is set on a small space station) to keep the inferior humans happy and productive... and "leaving for earth" is just another term for dying. It really is quite a funny story. I think it highlights very nicely how a limited world view (i.e. just a small space station) can greatly influnence what you believe.

81. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #3705 by Martin on October 31, 2006 at 8:10 am

@Jack

I'm not taking it personally... that statement really was a load of nonsense. Aside from that I love the word sophistry, it sums up religion so nicely. :P

Let's run with Locke's arguement then.

"[...]mind must be created by a mind[...]"

If we accept that you and I have a mind, although obviously not the same one :P, you're saying our mind must have been created by another mind. Ok.. that would be my father and mother then.

Facaetiousness asside... The implication you are trying to assert is that our minds could only be created by another mind, you believe this must have been god.

Ok.. since a "[...]mind must be created by a mind[...]" god must have a mind. Oooops. Well... that means God must have been created by another mind and we are once more off to infinity.

82. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #3702 by Martin on October 31, 2006 at 8:03 am

While I am sure William is perfectly capable of speaking for himself; you might consider that what he's talking about are examples of why there cannot be a perfect creator. If he were perfect, "his word" ie. the bible would be perfect.

If he were perfect he'd not have created created us with an appendix or spleen that have no apparent usefulness. Was that some sick joke on his part?

I'm not sure I subscribe to the arguement that a perfect being cannot conceive of something imperfect, perfection when looked at at that level makes my head spin.

One thing is certain though, if a creator existed he must either have been a total idiot, working by trial and error (oh wait.. that's evolution) or a really nasty character who deliberatly seeded the world with cruelty and other evils. (and if the creationists are right, he even lies to us all the time to deceive us into believing the world is millions of years old). Either way, not someone I'd care much for.

83. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #3695 by Martin on October 31, 2006 at 7:49 am

"
"LSD has profound effects on the mind".
Yes, but the mind exists inorder for the LSD to affect it. The question raised by Locke was whether purely material processes are sufficient to explain the mind in the first place. Dennetts argument otherwise was insufficient to say the least."

We're back to sophistry.

"The mind exists inorder for the LSD to affect it"

What type of nonsense is that? Since you obviously consider this to be a perfectly acceptable arguement, let me use the same structure to destroy your belief; God exists in order for us to believe in him. It therefore has to follow that we create god by our very existance and therefore god could not have created us or we'd have a paradox.

If you accept your statement as true, you must ipso facto accept my statement as true, hence your entire belief system is unfounded.

Obviously both arguements are examples of false logic and hence are totally invalid for prooving anything.

84. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #3694 by Martin on October 31, 2006 at 7:40 am

@Jack Sparrow

"Your correct that the dice analogy is far from perfect. For a start an intelligence is deciding which dice to keep in order to reach a known long-term goal. That one fact alone invalidates the analogy totally. I know your say that it is only an analogy but surely one can't use an example of intelligent selection for a known goal as an example of naturalistic evolution."

I was actually refering to it being a bad analogy because of the simplistic approach it takes.

The selection of what survives _is_ determined by an "intelligence". The goal is also known, and if you understand evolution, blindingly obvious: survival.

Let's deal with intelligence. In the case of my example, the "intelligence" is the person rolling the dice. In nature, the "intelligence" is a hungry predator. The prey that is camoflaged will not be spotted by the predator (my "invisible die" analogy) and he will go eat the non camoflaged prey. Eventually only camoflaged prey will exist and the predator will either adapt (i.e. better eyesight, or colour recognition, or whatever) or die out. In turn the prey will start coming up with better disguises ad infinitum. That is what natural selection is all about, that is how it works.

The predator/prey pair can be anything at all from insects and birds, to lions and antelopes to different types of bacteria and virii.

I've quoted intelligence throughout because we can argue over just what that consitutes. In the prey predator example it is mostly instinct. It is a series of heuristics that creatures have evolved over the millenia that allow them to survive. E.g. yellow stripes bad, no stripes tasty.

Intelligence in the way we refer to it in humans is what makes us humans one of the most sucessful survival machines on the planet, we can use our intelligence to supplement our instincts and even overcome them.

I'm rather disappointed that you've used your intelligence to try and pick holes in an acknowledged poor analogy instead of opening your mind to lesson the analogy was intended to teach. I'd have been much more impressed if you'd actually raised objections to the point of the analogy instead of its mechanics.

85. KPFA Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #3690 by Martin on October 31, 2006 at 7:20 am

We are looking at the same thing.

As far as I am concerened "religion" or any other dogma is the unreasonable and/or irrational belief that something is unequivocably true. Be that God, Allah, Marxism, The Arian Race's superiority et. al.

Rationalists differ from this in that they are certain they are right, but not mindlessly so. If a rationalist is given a rational proof or probability that their views are wrong, then they will accept them or at least give them as much weighting as their existing views, instead of sticking brainlessly to dogma.

Alas while I suspect all rationalists are atheists, not all atheists are rationalists. Anyone want to try drawing a venn diagram :P

86. Pat Morrison interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #3674 by Martin on October 31, 2006 at 5:26 am

For those with the mp3.. the interview starts at about 17min in.

87. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #3669 by Martin on October 31, 2006 at 4:37 am

Apologies for calling you a coward. I didn't see your 2nd post until after.

88. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #3668 by Martin on October 31, 2006 at 4:36 am

@ Post #449

Aside from being a coward and not putting a name to your post you have dismally failed to understand natural selection.

Yes, an individual mutation is chance. Whether that mutation survives is not chance, it's natural selection.

1000 Mutations might occur, but only 1 survives, that 1 mutation is "selected" based on it's benefits to the continued survival of the genes.

Therefore natural selection, chooses not at random which mutation will survive.

The final complex entity is a culmination of all those selections.

Here's an analogy (albeit not a perfect one). You have 6 dice, but instead of numbers they have 6 colours on them. You roll all the dice onto a yellow piece of paper. Those dice that are "invisible" i.e. you roll a "yellow" have teh highest survial chance and you keep them, since you cannot "find them" to roll them again. You keep rolling all the other dice until you are unable to "find" any more dice.

The chance of rolling all 6 dice and getting 6 yellow is pretty damn small (You could argue it could only come about by design). But if you select for "survivability" you'll have 6 yellow dice fairly quickly, even if each roll is random.

This is an extremely simple analogy for how camouflage might evolve, but nature works with millions of permutations, not just 6 dice.

That's what makes evolution and natural selection so special. While every change is random, the reason the change survives is not.

If you cannot see that evolution is non-random, then you don't understand evolution. It is not until you understand evolution that you can try to argue that it is wrong, because all your arguments start from the wrong premise.

89. Why there is no God

Comment #3652 by Martin on October 31, 2006 at 3:20 am

@Daniel

That example is sophestry.

I can use it make my point just as easily.

"Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist."

Therefore we have always existed, therefore eveyone has a copy of the book.

The two statements while each valide are not related. It's like saying: Apples are Red, Traffic Lights are Red, therefore Traffic lights are Apples.

90. Why there is no God

Comment #3651 by Martin on October 31, 2006 at 3:16 am

@Simmons

The point I was making was that people like simple answers, which is in effect what Occam's Razor is all about (ok so that's a simplistic view of Occam's razor, I rest my case :P )

Your re-writing of my 2 statments puts them into the correct equivalence. My point was thought that for most people "god did it" is a very simple answer. They don't need to worry about the rest of it then.

91. Why there is no God

Comment #3650 by Martin on October 31, 2006 at 3:13 am

Stephen Coan:

The scientific answer is that we don't know yet. Lots of people, mostly cosmologists and physists are working on it.

Who said there was a fuse to light? We can speculate as much as we like, since we don't know yet.

While "God" is one answer to the question, it is a very improbable answer, since "god" if he/she/it/they were to exist it would be a very complex entity, and a complex entity is extremely difficult to explain unless you use something like evolution. That then implies that there must be some kind of precursor universe in which life developed and culminated in a being "god" able to create another universe. Of course, leaving aside the question of how that precursor universe was created, your are still left with a very complex scenario versus a simple one.

If there was a precursor universe, why not a simple natural event that results in another universe (a special type of black hole or something we've not discovered yet), maybe a duplicate universe, maybe universes evolve and reproduce! Certainly such an answer to "where did the universe come from?" is much easier to accept to a rational mind than having a complex entity like a god create it.

As good old friar Occam says.. the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

92. Why there is no God

Comment #3642 by Martin on October 31, 2006 at 2:11 am

You might wonder if religion is a misapplication of Occam's Razor.

1) The Universe exists because of this huge amount of statisctical reasoning, rational thought and logical dedudction.

2) "God did it"

Well, the simple answer certainly appears to be 2; until you realise that "god" is anything but simple.

93. Why there is no God

Comment #3635 by Martin on October 31, 2006 at 12:29 am

I disagree.. each question raises another question.

If the answer is "God" then the next question is "who created God?" and "who created the creator of god?" and "who created the creator of the creator of god?". Infinite regress without termination (well.. duh.. or it wouldn't be infinite would it :P).

My favourite creationist arguement (which is beautifully self defeating) is that nothing can come from nothing. Therefore the world came from god. BUT if nothing can come from nothing, where did god come from?

94. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #3545 by Martin on October 30, 2006 at 4:06 am

Laura,

What is your source for

"BTW, the majority 'religious' belief in the WORLD is atheism. Followed by Islam, followed by Catholiscism (which spend all their time trying to distract adherents from the actual WORDS and TEACHINGS of Jesus)."

The latest figures I have seen, and I'll need to dig them out, has Christianity at the top, with Atheists/Agnostics/Secular at 2nd place. From memory: Christians are 1.9 (billion), Atheists/Agnostic/Secular, 1.4 and Islam 1.1.

Are you're figures more recent?

95. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #3489 by Martin on October 29, 2006 at 9:35 am

Phil, you are an ignoramous. If you don't even understand the scientific process, you can hardly comment on it, let alone on anything else to do with science.

The reason people can be so sure that their science is correct, or at least not wrong, is the elaborate and highly structured process everything goes through.

It is written, reviewed, peer-reviewd, published, critised and then the whole process starts again.


Miracles don't exist until I have a verifiable method of re-creating them.

Every single scientific experiement has to be repeatable, or it is conisdered invalid. Remember that fuss about cold-fusion a few years back? That managed to get published (no idea how) but people started to try and reproduce it and couldn't. That guy is now facing jail for deliberatly falsifying his experiments. I wish we could jail religious nuts like you for being too gullible for your own, and everyone else's safety.

If you tried to sell your "theories" to a scientific journal, even one on theology, it'd go straight into the bin, because your arguement is unreasoned, inconsistent, and without substance.

The bible wouldn't manage to get published either.. it;s a load of crap, and not even all that good a story. The few publisher i know that would get a story like that in their slush piles would just throw it straight out.

96. Sermons and straw men

Comment #3269 by Martin on October 27, 2006 at 4:38 am

maryhelena,

The issue here as I see it is that what you consider to be "small stuff" differs from what Richard thinks the "small stuff" is.

He thinks ID, creationism, veils and all that other stuff is the "small stuff". He thinks that is a battle in a larger war, the war to eliminate the idiocy that is religion. He acts on that presumption and accepts that it will cause friction and is not politically expedient, as he has often said himself.

Also as both Richard and Sam have said it is the moderates (indirectly) that allow the fanatics to hide and prevail in our society. By respecting "Islam" we have to respect not just those that are nice and friendly but also those that think the way to paradise is to kill as many of us as possible, because, if you come down to it, their views of the Koran or the Bible or whatever are just as legitimate as anyone elses.

The difference is that Richad and the fundamentalists are honest, the religious moderates are not. The fundamentalists have read their holy book, and take it the literal truth. Richard and other atheists like him have read the book and applied logic and reason to it and found to to be utter nonsense. The religious moderates on the other hand tend not to know their scriptures as well as the fundamentalists nor those atheists that oppose them. Either that or they just ignore those bits that don't fit our society anymore.

The religious moderates are the true agnostics. They apply modernal rationality to their views and their outlook on life, but still cling to some iron age book of wisdom that as the years pass becomes less and less relevant.

If religious moderates really want to do something to further religion, they need to update their scripture to bring it into the modern world. If scientists were still working from Iron age documents then I wouldn't be able to sit at this computer in this office, in this city, debating with you.

97. Sermons and straw men

Comment #3148 by Martin on October 26, 2006 at 12:39 am

I have to agree with Krauss on a lot of points.

Not least that people prefer to stand for something than against something.

I also think that Richard *is* preaching. That doesn't mean that what Richard is saying is wrong. If we get down to it, anyone that believes passionatly about their point of view and feels others should too will preach. This includes politicans, environmentalists and faith-heads.

I believe that the reason why Krauss ended on the positive aspects of the book, instead of his (self confessed) usual style is that for the most part Krauss actually agrees with TGD. I suspect he just disagrees with Richard's style and or methods, and as Richard himself admits, many of his colleagues and peers feel the same.

I consider Krauss review to be overall a positive one, despite what I'd consider constructive critism of the book.

If we nitpick the good reviews we are hurting ourselves. In fact, if we nitpick at all we look petty. Leave the nitpicking to the faith-heads, they do it too well for us to be able to compete with them anyway.

98. Lawrence, Kansas : Speech

Comment #2966 by Martin on October 25, 2006 at 2:33 am

Yes, I use Real Alternative as well.

For those that need more info, visit www.free-codecs.com

99. Review of The God Delusion

Comment #2901 by Martin on October 24, 2006 at 2:34 pm

Nicola the one quote that answers your arguement almost fully, and which Richard quoted in the book is the quote of Steven Weinberg:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. There will always be good people doing good things, adn evil people doing evil things. It takes religion for good people to do evil things."

(Apologies if it's not word perfect, but I was quoting from memory)

Stalin, Hitler, Kim Il Sung and whatever other evil men you mention that happen to be atheists ( I and others will be able to point out at least as many evil men that were religious) are/were actually highly irrational (I'm sure others will be able to point out sufficient proof to convince an open minded person of this, I know the evidence is all over this site, since it's one of the religous bigots standard arguements).

So while they didn't believe in the "modern god", neither were they rationalists. It is therefore totally acceptable to say that they "betrayed" their "faith" to commit those evil acts. Making them no different to all those Priest/Bishops etc that "betrayed" their "faith" to commit horrendous acts.

The problem with the term atheism (as Richard has pointed out) is that it shouldn't really exists. It just means the absence of something. We don't have words for the absence of a belief in faries, or the absence of a belief in ghosts*.

When someone calls themselves atheist, it says nothing about them other than the fact that they don't believe in god. They could be mad as a hatter, they could believe the earth is flat and rides on the back of turtles, but no matter how strange and wierd they might be they would still be atheists.

It might be best for us "mainline" atheists to start calling ourselves rationalists, because in truth, that is what we really are. Our rational approach lead us to atheism. It is not atheism that defines us though, it is our rational approach.

[*] One could argue that all those people are in fact "normal". The absence of a belief is therefore "normal" and by extension people that believe in god are abnormal. Alas, this conclusion does not logically follow from those statements; that does not stop religious apologists from using such constructs for their own ends though.

100. Lawrence, Kansas : Speech

Comment #2896 by Martin on October 24, 2006 at 2:02 pm

Finally got to see it. It was excellent.

Richard seemed to get a bit tongue tied during the questions. Since I know that he knows those lines and stuff by heart, i suspect he was suffering from a bit of stage fright, possibly because he knows just how important his message is in America, and especially in the bigot-belt.

I have to say... that watching the film was worth it just for the final few words from Richard: "Six years of Bush....", watch it and learn the context :P although I suspect many could guess.