51. Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right

Comment #26776 by eggplantbren on March 21, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Classical physics did not collapse. It is still very much true in most circumstances.

52. The History of Creationist Thought

Comment #26366 by eggplantbren on March 19, 2007 at 12:06 am

Hehehe. I liked it.

53. Foreword for the UK edition of 'Letter to a Christian Nation'

Comment #22304 by eggplantbren on February 14, 2007 at 2:10 am

Does anyone here know whether there'll be an Australian release? I have a *cough* backup copy on my computer but would rather have the real thing to put on my shelf and lend to people.

54. Debate between Sam Harris and Reza Aslan

Comment #22148 by eggplantbren on February 13, 2007 at 3:57 am

Geez, moderate waffling religion seems to be the biggest waste of time and energy ever invented.

55. The God Delusion

Comment #21741 by eggplantbren on February 10, 2007 at 9:18 pm

Needless to say, I thought the God Delusion was very good, but not because of its arguments against the existence of God. I appreciated the humour and science based chapters the best.

The arguments against the existence of God are quite simply not needed because if there was a God his existence would be quite obvious, for example prayers would be answered at a rate greater than chance, and God wouldn´t need charlatans in order to prove his case.

Of course this leaves the possibility of a hidden God, but what is the difference between the hypothesis that there exists a hidden God, and the hypothesis that there is no God at all? None, perhaps, unless the hidden God turns out to be of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim variety. And these religions claim to have a personal interventionist God anyway.


Unfortunately most moderates are more content to waffle incessantly and not define clearly what they actually believe.

56. World's oldest rocks show how Earth may have dodged frozen fate of Mars

Comment #20841 by eggplantbren on February 6, 2007 at 6:23 pm

>>How do you know it's pink anyway, if it's invisible ?? Ha ! Explain me that, you utter fool ! <<

You are applying mere mortal standards of logic to the IPU, who transcends logic. You must have faith in the mystery of the invisible/pink conundrum.

57. No stoning, Canada migrants told

Comment #20429 by eggplantbren on February 2, 2007 at 11:02 am

I find it scary that people can label Islam a "race". As if it needed any more protection from frank criticism.

58. Root of All Evil? Discussion

Comment #20417 by eggplantbren on February 2, 2007 at 9:45 am

Geez so called "moderates" frustrate me. What exactly do they believe? God is love? No, love is love, that's why we have two different words.

Seems to be some sort of woolly minded language that isn't really a belief at all. More like poetry than religion...although it is pretty terrible poetry if you ask me.

59. A Middle Ground for Stem Cells

Comment #18259 by eggplantbren on January 19, 2007 at 7:02 am

Speaking of protecting life, when's the ban on flyspray going to come into effect?

60. What are you optimistic about? Why?

Comment #15674 by eggplantbren on January 2, 2007 at 12:17 am

As a physicist (sort of) I think that there is way too much emphasis from non-physicists about the Theory of Everything. Most physicists aren't working on anything remotely related to it, and their work wouldn't change if it was discovered. Plus I think RD is way over-optimistic about such a discovery killing religion - the discovery that the sun is a star should already have done that centuries ago.

61. Do galaxies follow Darwinian evolution?

Comment #15648 by eggplantbren on January 1, 2007 at 8:48 pm

What's that got to do with Darwinism? Evolution just means change. I can see nothing like natural selection operating there.

62. Ghosts in the Machine

Comment #15356 by eggplantbren on December 30, 2006 at 4:59 pm

Well, it is true that one result like this doesn't "prove" that the supernatural doesn't exist. But it is one more bit of evidence that is a fair bit more consistent with that hypothesis than the alternative...and it all adds up.

The dependence of consciousness on the physical brain pretty much clinches the case. And there's the fact that people the world over will experience "supernatural" things with very similar symptoms and their spiritual interpretations of them are the contradictory, suggests the same conclusion.

63. The problem with secularism

Comment #14347 by eggplantbren on December 22, 2006 at 5:54 am

Intellectual bollocks is the worst kind. Even the young earthers have a better mind than this. I think it begins in school when obfuscation is encouraged. If you can make something simple sound profound by using flowery language, you're likely to be rewarded. In some classes anyway.

I'm still outraged that English is compulsory in high school here in Australia, given that it's mostly a lesson in how to make shit up and state it as fact.

64. The problem with secularism

Comment #14338 by eggplantbren on December 22, 2006 at 5:30 am

ROFL

That's philosophy for you.

65. Now we know how to make the IDists dance in their petticoats: blaspheme.

Comment #14093 by eggplantbren on December 21, 2006 at 4:55 am

>>Quite sadly because that could be quite dangerous.<<

I fear that is the real reason. :(

66. I love the commercialisation of Christmas

Comment #14092 by eggplantbren on December 21, 2006 at 4:53 am

Good article - but the two different meanings of materialism are unrelated and shouldn't really be used interchangeably like that.

67. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #14057 by eggplantbren on December 21, 2006 at 2:27 am

>>Ah yes, so you all believe that everything came from nothing....by accident! Now that's faith I admire.<<

Well, no, we don't. I believe that I came from my parents, that my computer came from a shop, and was previously in a factory. The origins of other things are different again.


>>By the way, exactly what is the evolutionary mechanism that brought the cell, or the eye, or the brain to it's present state?<<

I'm not sure of the details, and don't know the references, because I'm not a biologist. Perhaps one will be able to supply the papers you ask for.

>>I ask because from the way you guys are speaking you would think that neo-Darwinist evolution was a law instead of a theory.<<

A law is just another word for a formula. Natural selection isn't an equation and it will never turn into one.

68. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13678 by eggplantbren on December 19, 2006 at 4:45 am

I gave up when he said "sacred texts" and it showed Origin of Species. As a working scientist, this is plainly ridiculous. Anyone who has ever actually read a scientific journal knows that it is about as far removed from dogmatic pronouncements as you could possibly get. Skepticism is always there. Every assumption or approximation you've made in your calculations, or possible sources of error in your data are discussed. And if they're not picked up on by the author of the piece, some other scientist will think of it eventually - and usually the first one will be grateful! Indeed this happened to me recently.

People giving this impression of science as being like a religion just makes my blood boil.

69. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12557 by eggplantbren on December 12, 2006 at 3:12 pm

Yet another "philosophical" review. The problem with these is that they consider God to be some sort of undefinable concept, a vague nothing. Which is nothing like the concept of a sky-God that most people worship. THe kind worth praying to, and that forgives sins and punishes people and that sort of thing.

The former is so vague as to not warrant any waste of effort thinking about, and the latter is a delusion, the topic of Richard's book.