151. Scientists Draw Link Between Morality And Brain's Wiring

Comment #43497 by Fedler on May 21, 2007 at 7:13 pm

mnlandon,

Send all articles for consideration to Josh at design@richarddawkins.net. Many people have the same problem.

152. Catholic Church Reconsiders Limbo

Comment #43452 by Fedler on May 21, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Richard H-

Send articles for consideration to Josh's attention at design@richarddawkins.net

153. Scientists Draw Link Between Morality And Brain's Wiring

Comment #43426 by Fedler on May 21, 2007 at 11:05 am

This is just a guess, but is research like this pointing towards the idea that evolutionary morality derives from empathy, whilst the actual moral rules we apply might be culturally determined? That would explain why most people have an ethical sense, but we're quite capable of ignoring it in certain situations.

Very good point, jonecc. I'm no neuroscientist (or neuro-moralist) but that seems plausible.

154. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43415 by Fedler on May 21, 2007 at 10:23 am

If a being that it seemed to make sense to call a god made himself known to me through some kind of personal revelation, i might become a theist. If i did though, it wouldn't be a question of faith. I would have been lead to the conclusion that a god exists by evidence (albeit evidence of questionable quality).

Therein lies the dilemma. From the theist perspective, who are atheists to call into their question their "evidence"? As far as the theist is concerned, no evidence is better than personal revelation.

From the atheist perspective, how can theists logically account for their "evidence"? They can't and much more 'hard' evidence is required.

Scott

155. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42732 by Fedler on May 19, 2007 at 9:05 am

But does that mean that other big bangs could/do happen in the universe we inhabit or would they only happen on the higher dimensional branes? That is, are the universes created by the collisions closed systems with their own time/energy/matter etc.?

roach, I'm reaching here (being an armchair physicist), but my understanding is Big Bangs could happen by two branes colliding together. Within each brane could be separate universes, so the bang would be like two universes colliding together (kind of like two slices of bread being smashed together).

Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

156. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42636 by Fedler on May 18, 2007 at 8:12 pm

You're right, roach. There could be bangs going on all over the place at any given time across the universe. The Big Bang could turn out to be a very ordinary and explicable occurrence.

157. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42626 by Fedler on May 18, 2007 at 6:40 pm

windweaver,

I remain unclear. How would this challenge atheists? Is the 'universal consciousness' (Gaia, as I've heard it called) the challenge?

158. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42590 by Fedler on May 18, 2007 at 1:52 pm

steve99,

I remember reading that little quirk of information about the surface area of the event horizon of black holes and finding it fascinating. Science is nothing if not unpredictable!

sane1,

I've read Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene (twice, actually) and loved it, also. That's the book that really got me interested in cosmology (that, and Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time).

159. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42576 by Fedler on May 18, 2007 at 12:52 pm

Wait, my last post was ridiculous, to say the least. The 2D representation is the same as the 3D due to the halographic theory. Got it.

Back to branes/boxes....OK, the 'box' relates to theAnti-De Sitter Conformal Field Theory correspondence, which is separate from the brane information, correct?

By George, I think I'm getting it!...

42!!! 42!!!

160. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42572 by Fedler on May 18, 2007 at 12:40 pm

steve99,

Thank you for tolerating my questions as I struggle with this :). Believe it or not, I do feel I'm getting closer to understanding. Am I understanding correctly that our visible universe then is thought to be 2D, but only appears 3D because of the lighting?

(If I'm totally missing the point and you have other things to do with your time, please let me know)

161. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42568 by Fedler on May 18, 2007 at 12:25 pm

I would like to think I do. She has embraced my nerdiness very well :).

162. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42563 by Fedler on May 18, 2007 at 12:16 pm

CDG,

Thanks for the recommendations!

163. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42549 by Fedler on May 18, 2007 at 11:31 am

steve99,

Thank you. So the box is imaginary and, if I'm understanding correctly, the representation of our universe as 2D space on the 'box' is an oversimplification to make things easier to visualize? Is that correct?

If so, could the theoretical six sides of the imaginary box (brane) be individual branes themselves?

savroD, I totally agree!

164. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42539 by Fedler on May 18, 2007 at 11:02 am

firemancarl,

Black holes 'birthing' new universes is a plausibility. My understanding is that a black hole can exist within a brane, so it may create another universe within the brane space, but the banging branes may still exist over and above the black holes. I admit next to no knowledge of that particular issue, also.

I have de Grasse Tyson's book "Death by Black Hole" and it's next on my reading list after "Warped Passages" by Lisa Randall, which I'm reading now.

(BTW, should I be scared that my casual reading material is on theoretical physics? My wife thinks me completely mad.)

165. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42535 by Fedler on May 18, 2007 at 10:55 am

steve99,

You may be right. I've scanned the article again and I came up across these two quotes:

"These membranes are sometimes called "end of the world branes." Basically because they're more like mirrors; they're reflectors. There is nothing outside them. They're literally the end of the world. If you traveled across the gap between the two membranes, you would hit one of them and bounce back from it. There's nothing beyond it."

and

"...it's a very beautiful geometrical idea, which says that if I've got a region of space and time, which might be very large, then in some situations I can imagine this universe surrounded by what we call a boundary — which is basically a box enclosing the region we are interested in. About ten years ago, it was shown that even though the interior of this container is described by gravity, with all of the difficulties that brings&mdashlike the formation of black holes and the various paradoxes they cause — all of that stuff going on inside the box can be described by a theory that lives on the walls of the box surrounding the interior."

So this may have been where I got my enclosed space idea from. I have to admit, I'm still not clear if the theoretical brane is enclosed or not.

166. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42514 by Fedler on May 18, 2007 at 10:18 am

Eamonn,

I had thought of that, too. The two branes can bang together, but that's not to say the stuff inside the brane (our universe) can't expand.

My parallel thought to yours was if we live in a brane and our universe within the brane is expanding, how long before the universe reaches the boundaries of the brane and begins to rebound back (crunch)? This would truly make the cosmos much larger than we could ever imagine considering the universe has been expanding for billions of years already.

167. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42499 by Fedler on May 18, 2007 at 9:51 am

. I think if you're really honest, you'll agree that 'atheists' follow a religion too - that's why Richard has to update his website constantly and why you all feel the need to protect him by posting on the website.

Sorry, I won't be honest in your eyes. Atheism is not a religion the same way bricks can levitate. And the only thing Prof. Dawkins has to do with this site is it's name. He has no control over content. He has posted here occasionally, but everyone can send in articles to be posted. Sorry to do away with your conspiracy theory.

. I used to be a zealous atheist until I sent Richard an email many months ago telling him that atheists should take on social medicine because most people interact with science through their doctors. He never responded but started posting info on medicine on this site, taking credit for my idea.

I'm sorry you abandoned atheism because you didn't get a reply message from an extremely busy college professor who speaks all over the world and gets perhaps thousands of e-mails per day. I also find it unlikely that he picked your one e-mail out of thousands and decided to claim it as his own.

Richard just wants to feel good about himself by putting down everyone else. I don't want to be a part of that.

I think you're wrong about Prof. Dawkins and I'm not putting down anyone else, just being objective. Someone please tell me if I'm mistaken.

You guys can post away here, but this is it for me. I think you're wasting your life.

Bye.

Oh, by the way, I feel I'm in the minority in being optimistic about string theory, branes, etc. Am I way off base?

168. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42492 by Fedler on May 18, 2007 at 9:37 am

Hi Brian,

I think you are being a little combative in your exchange on the other thread and I can see how it is putting people off. But apart from that, it's a very lively discussion which should be taken with a grain of salt on both sides. You're both right. Arguing about degrees of correctness is tedious.

Meanwhile, back at the farm...

169. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42474 by Fedler on May 18, 2007 at 9:14 am

Ryan,

My apologies for misreading you.

I just think the truths of Christianity are more fundamental to the universe I observe than evolution or string theory. You dismiss as insignificant the question of why there is something instead of nothing. I think that is the most fundamental question.

Agreed. It is a fundamental question, but I think we need to work our way there rather than jumping to a religious conclusion (a bit like sex without the foreplay). I would be interested to learn the truths of Christianity you speak of, without resorting to flowery language or word painting.

The universe is a profound mystery. Honest scientists admit that.

Agreed. Turok never claims any answers, either. Science relishes in the unknown.

I truly believe Christianity opens us to understanding it (ever wonder why modern science didn't develop in Egypt or China instead of Christian Europe?).

I would have to disagree with your statement that Christianity opens us up to understanding the universe, and many others here will contest that, also. By the way, I don't think "Christian Europe" led the way in modern science. My understanding is the Greeks were calculating the circumference of the earth and had developed a type of modern geometry/calculus long before Christianity or most other religions. The great library at Alexandria was a wealth of scientific knowledge before it was burned down by religious believers* thousands of years ago.

It's a great shame that well-intentioned scientists have angrily initiated a Crusade against a religion that poses no threat to science, and also that well-intentioned Christians have fearfully turned to Creationism to protect themselves. The world is a mess. This website only exacerbates this.

Again, I would have to disagree. Arguably, religion and science are two different ways of viewing the world. I'm also sorry to hear you say scientists angrily initiated a Crusade against religion. Of course, the irony of your wording cannot be overlooked. Science just states it like it is. It doesn't try to push it's discoveries onto anybody. I believe this is also where science and religion disagree. Why would Christians have to defend themselves from science, which only seeks to explain facts?

*I may be incorrect in this. I'd have to check my history

170. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42457 by Fedler on May 18, 2007 at 8:37 am

Ryan,

I mostly agree with you about the Planck satellite. A negative confirmation is not as ideal as a positive confirmation. However, indirect results would be better than nothing.

However, I think branes, multiverses, and the Conformal Field Theory correspondence, if confirmed experimentally, are quite novel and could greatly enhance future endeavors. Even if they're not confirmed and it all turns out to be a bust, no doubt this little tangent will have greatly expanded our knowledge either way.

I also agree that, if these theories are confirmed experimentally, religious believers will continue to back up their goalpoasts and ask "Who created the universe behind the cyclic Big Bangs?". As we all know, they love infinite regress.

171. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42452 by Fedler on May 18, 2007 at 8:19 am

GodlessHeathen,

I've heard this analogy before and it helped me...

If you can, imagine a shower curtain as a brane (universe). Then imagine the water droplets on the curtain as galaxies. We are one droplet of water out of many. Now if you can imagine the shower curtain as three dimensional, then that is the type of curtain (brane) we may live in (theoretically, of course).

172. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42444 by Fedler on May 18, 2007 at 7:58 am

Has anyone read "Warped Passages" by Lisa Randall? I'm reading it now and she is a professor at Princeton (I think) currently working on the brane problem. It's interesting that these branes could be multidimensional in themselves, but have almost no hope of being discovered, except by the flimsy weak thread of gravity which can permeate all branes. Something contained within a brane, has no hope of having contact with another brane because of the reflective quality of the 'end of the world' as Turok mentions. It's highly theoretical and, as Turok states, nothing has been proven, but there are tremendous possibilities opening up based on the equations in process.

The cyclic model is not new in that branes banging together repeatedly could have caused several Big Bangs. Whether the branes bang together flush (all points on the branes hitting at the same time), or whether they hit at an angle (causing a series of Bangs like firecrackers in a row) the brane model seems to be essential to any new theory.

I'm not sure I agree with Turok when he says that trying to uncover the hidden dimensions is the wrong place to focus the energy of physicists. There is much research that is done which doesn't lead to any discoveries, but this research may be revisited several years later to find an obscure part of the older research helps to confirm a newer theory. That's what happened with string theory. It really took off in the 80's only because someone revisited some older work from the 60's that had been abandoned. Science is full of instances of getting the right answer at the wrong time (usually to the wrong question).

What's fascinating to me is how several branches of research (cosmology, particle physics, string theory, etc.) seem to circling the same basic problem (the Big Bang), but from different perspectives. And they are confirming themselves with independent verification as they go, which helps to assure the scientists that they're coming up on something big. It's an exciting time in science! Of course, when is it not?

When the Large Hadron Collider comes on-line in Switzerland that should help to possibly discover these extra curled-up dimensions that, as of now, are only theoretical.

173. Navy vet: Chaplains tried converting me

Comment #41900 by Fedler on May 17, 2007 at 9:29 am

Being right in the center of the self-proclaimed "Bible Belt" of the United States this doesn't surprise me. I work in a hospital next to the VA in Iowa City and I can attest to how much religion - of any flavor - is just a given around here. We have three chaplains on staff at our hospital and it doesn't matter what religion you have or don't have, they WILL talk to you. They make their way around the intensive care units looking to pray over somebody.

We have a large University here in Iowa City so that keeps us a little more tolerant, but it's funny how religion permeates everything. It's such a part of the lexicon and community that I bet most people don't even realize they're advocating it. It's like your skin. What would you do if you woke up one day and it wasn't there, or realized it wasn't real? Most people don't even want to consider that possibility.

174. Ask Richard!

Comment #41838 by Fedler on May 17, 2007 at 7:00 am

Well done, Michael!

175. Ask Richard!

Comment #41835 by Fedler on May 17, 2007 at 6:52 am

Re: 14. Comment #41767 by CDG

My 6-year old daughter asked me the other day where people come from. After a very short explanation of how she came from my wife and I, I came from my parents, they came from their parents, etc. she extrapolated back on her own and asked "Who made God?" I couldn't have scripted it any better. I provided no prodding or leading explanations, but she intuitively picked up on the infinite regress issue when it comes to the God concept. She seemed to know that the 'God' explanation begged further questions.

I'm an atheist but my wife is still a believer, so I try not to preach atheism to my daughter, but if given the honest answers (free of religious overtones) I'm confident that my daughter will reach her own conclusions without feeling despair or feeling crushed. Kids are enormously smart and resilient. I would suspect yours are, too.

In terms of asking what happens when we die, I admit I just told her "I don't know" (It was right before bedtime and she gets scared pretty easily. Although I should add the disclaimer that my daughter is pretty thin-skinned when it comes to getting scared. She says Peter Pan is her favorite scary movie, so talking about corpses right before bed is generally not a good idea. However that's a conversation I hope to expand on this weekend with her).

176. Statement of Concern about Impact of AIG's Creation 'Museum'

Comment #41055 by Fedler on May 15, 2007 at 12:36 pm

It being not far from Cincinnati Ohio just gives truth to the statement: How does Cincinnati and yogurt differ? Yogurt has an active culture. Very clever, Cycik!

177. Cataloguing every species on earth

Comment #39649 by Fedler on May 11, 2007 at 12:45 pm

devolved-

Your "arguments" (a.k.a. just links to other sites) have been dispatched thoroughly both on this and other scientific sites. You're beating a dead horse, so to speak, and if the horse you're riding dies, get off.

BTW, this project looks WAY cool!

178. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39246 by Fedler on May 10, 2007 at 8:12 am

This looked like a cross between Mr. Rogers, Captain Kangaroo and Ted Haggard. I only watched the first few minutes.

Oh, and the claims/quotes are bogus, as we could have all guessed.

179. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37956 by Fedler on May 6, 2007 at 12:47 pm

I have a question, which I would welcome any comments on. Supposing this is more due to 'tribalism' than religion, what makes the two indistinguishable? Does one reinforce the other? Are the separate tribes distinguished first by their religious convictions, or is it a secondary by-product? I don't know Middle Eastern culture enough to know and would welcome learning more about it.

kaiserkiss (#92) made some good analogies, which helped me find a rough frame of reference, but it almost seems too 'simple' (as much as events like this can be simplified) as a basic grudge of some sort between cultures/societies.

180. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #37892 by Fedler on May 6, 2007 at 6:21 am

FYI Everyone,

Someone has marked David (weefree) as a troll again. He's now posting under the ID of 'knox'.

181. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37748 by Fedler on May 5, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Can we please stop marking David Robertson as a troll! His responses may be infuriating, but no more than our responses are to him.

Shall we ban Bonzai, too (#11) for merely suggesting another reason other than religion?

I firmly believe religion was at least a strong factor, but I'm also sure there are other mitigating factors we are not aware of. Let us please be accepting of other possibilities, also.

"I may disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

--Voltaire

The video made me want to vomit.

182. Sam's Flea!

Comment #37428 by Fedler on May 4, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Burly,

I wish you comfort during this difficult time.

183. Lou Dobbs Interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #37411 by Fedler on May 4, 2007 at 12:04 pm

phil rimmer-

I don't know much about Dobbs, but what little I have seen from him he appears to be a pretty common-sense, equal opportunity moderator. He doesn't discriminate one way or the other. If your ideas are stupid and/or brilliant - no matter who you are - he'll say so. At least that's the first impression I get from him.

184. Your favorite book in the last 25 years?

Comment #37385 by Fedler on May 4, 2007 at 10:51 am

The Fabric of the Cosmos, Brian Greene
The Varieties of Scientific Experience, Carl Sagan
The Salmon of Doubt, Douglas Adams
The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins

...to name a few notables off the top of my head. If I was at home looking at my bookshelves, I'm sure to find more.

185. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37168 by Fedler on May 3, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Comment #37136 by VanYoungman on May 3, 2007 at 12:57 pm

If your student was serious, I would think she could have written a report covering as far as she had gotten in TGD before it was allegedly thrown over a cliff. Just a thought.

186. Richard Dawkins in the Time 100

Comment #37076 by Fedler on May 3, 2007 at 10:42 am

Very well done, Professor! Anything to get the word out is great by me!

(I can't help but think that must have had to really chap the behind of Michael Behe to write that)

187. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #37026 by Fedler on May 3, 2007 at 7:18 am

As to your point about atheist evolutionists claiming that there may be a religious 'gene' in some people. Yes there has been some speculation to that affect, however, assuming there is one, it still needs to be 'triggered' and this is where indoctrination comes in. The difference between religious indoctrination and your claimed atheist indoctrination is that the former is active, i.e. the child is repeatedly told and is witness to religious dogma, while the latter is inactive or passive, i.e. is told nothing.

Good point, John. If I may I would like to share a personal experience. My wife and I disagree on religious beliefs. She is a believer, and I have recently become a nonbeliever. Naturally, this brings up the question of what to teach our 6-year old daughter. We send our daughter to what our called "Faith Formation Classes" on Thursday nights (i.e. catechism, 'Sunday School', etc.). Admittedly, from my perspective, I send her there more from a social perspective (as an only child she doesn't get as many opportunities for social interaction as other kids her age who have other siblings), and she enjoys seeing other friends from school there. My wife sends her there for the social AND to learn about religion/religious beliefs, Jesus, God, heaven, etc. If my daughter asks me a question about religion I always state "Some people believe….", and I make an effort to never to teach one way or the other. (I realize some may think I'm making this up just to prove a point, but I assure you I'm not). My wife will answer the same question from an obvious Roman Catholic perspective by saying "God does…" or something similar. It's a subtle difference, and one that is not really noticed if you're not looking for it, but I believe it does illustrate (at least in this case) your distinction between passive vs. active. By it's definition, indoctrination implies an active nature.

Incidentally, two nights ago my daughter was asking me about where people came from. I mentioned how I came from my parents, they came from their parents, who came from their parents, etc. Without any further prompting she asked "Who made God?" It was adorable in its innocence. I didn't launch into a 'homily' about atheism, rather I just said 'I don't know" and left it at that (this was also right before her bedtime so I didn't feel like getting into a lengthy discussion right at that moment). She got a puzzled look on her face, but then went to bed. I felt very proud of her. Not so much because she was questioning, but because it appeared that she seemed to realize, in a broad sense that the logic can't just end with 'we came from God'.

And that's one of the places, I think, where religion and atheism disagree. Religious believers may seem to think atheists stop short in accepting what they perceive as the world around them. Atheists in turn may think religious believers don't go far enough in giving the natural world credit for humanity and, indeed, the rest of the cosmos.

188. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36812 by Fedler on May 2, 2007 at 11:54 am

Brian,

You can check out the "Comment Posting Guidelines" just above the comment box (you have to be logged in) for the instructions for bold, italics, or blockquotes.

189. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36806 by Fedler on May 2, 2007 at 11:38 am

Smith,

I don't always get replies to that address either, but I know it reaches the site team.

Another to try is design@richarddawkins.net (this is the address listed for technical issues).

190. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36795 by Fedler on May 2, 2007 at 10:52 am

Smith,

I've sent articles/link to: contact@richarddawkins.net addressed to Josh and had articles posted. FYI.

191. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36784 by Fedler on May 2, 2007 at 9:52 am

"I must be missing something (a screw?). How am I preventing other people speaking? And if the criteria is that you must only post if people don't know how you feel then I would suggest that the whole MB would soon be closed down."

Like you always tell me, David, read it in context. Of course I was speaking about your cutting off devolved.

Misunderstanding. I was just warning devolved that she/he were about to get the usual insults and lack of intelligent responses to their reasonable and sane posts.

SARCASM ALERT: Thanks for insulting the intelligence of everyone on this site in one stroke, David. We appreciate it.

192. Sam's Flea!

Comment #36757 by Fedler on May 2, 2007 at 7:35 am

"It simply means that during the course of life, most people will walk on the broad road that leads to destruction. But as I said in my last posting, it is not Man that decides to turn to God, or Man that decides to be saved, it is God that draws Man to Himself. So it is perfectly possible to believe the verse about most people being on the road to destruction, yet to also believe that many of these will ultimately be saved, through the grace of God (you may even be one of them, I hope). Add all such people to the multitudes of unborn infants that have died and to children that die in their infancy, and I am confident that the numbers in heaven will outnumber the numbers in hell - because God's desire to show mercy is greater than His desire to show justice." (emphasis added)

Rob, there are two main points I wish to make. One is that your use of the word 'will' implies your belief in future events that are going to happen. However, from the atheist perspective, it's not belief, it's hope. I am confident (although it is a slight assumption) that you cannot demonstrate your ability to prognosticate the future, and your hope for what will happen, doesn't make it true.

Secondly, this brings up the demeaning nature of religious belief (at least Christian belief in this case). You indicate "it is not Man that decides to turn to God, or Man that decides to be saved, it is God that draws Man to Himself." I have heard this, in various forms, from others but this appears to be a variation on the idea that Man cannot save himself, is inherently evil and must seek God's forgiveness at all times. (Man cannot seek to do good himself for it is only through God that he can achieve these good deeds [something to that effect]). If so, this is a defeatist position and one I don't wish to be a part of for I cannot accept a religious belief that tells me I'm inherently evil. It doesn't take science to understand that this is not only bad for the individual, but bad for humanity. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting.

(Rob, while I admire your biblical knowledge, I don't have the ability to quote verses like you do. Besides, if we are to discuss it would be best if we try to do it without Bible references. This is not any disrespect to you, personally, only that I am skeptical about what the Bible says anyway (for various reasons which would make up another thread entirely), so quoting it to me to buoy your perspective is not very effective for me. That's just my perspective.)

193. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36629 by Fedler on May 1, 2007 at 7:32 pm

"'devolved' - I wouldn't bother if I were you. Brian's response (35) is a shining example of the wit, wisdom and tolerance you will get here.

Meanwhile back to the actual article...."

David, why did you cut off devolved? I was looking forward to and hoping for some fresh theistic views, and then you charge in, tell devolved to not bother, and then start dissecting the article yourself. I, and indeed most people now on this forum, know how you feel. Why not let other people speak?

194. The God Delusion

Comment #36460 by Fedler on May 1, 2007 at 7:43 am

I agree with most of the review in total. It's not surprising that many reviewers have seized on the morality issues. Dawkins does not address it too well in TGD, but my impression was the reasons it was not addressed thoroughly were because the evolution-based morals we all have are yet to be conclusively researched fully, not because Dawkins was purposely avoiding the issue. The foundation is not yet firm enough to build a scientific case so that's what most critics seize upon, if they seize anything. Marc Hauser and others have done some work on this issue and I'm interested in reading more. But that's just the impression I remember from reading TGD (but it has been a while since I read it).

195. Sam's Flea!

Comment #36230 by Fedler on April 30, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Rob, If using those terms, then no, I was never a 'Christian' as you define it. But who is? There are currently around 1.4 billion Christians in the world (as defined by today's terms) in about 86 different denominations, which equals a whole lot of wrong people, according to your definition.

Not only wrong, but dead people. Think of all the people stoned to death for working on Sundays, or people killed for thinking about worshiping another god, etc. By your own terms, it appears then the Crusades were only a good start that still needs to be completed. All other faiths would need to be wiped out if using your literal definition. Apart from the improved environmental effects from the drastic reduction in the population, is that really how you want to define Christianity?

196. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #36136 by Fedler on April 30, 2007 at 9:09 am

Once again you cannot answer the arguments so you resort to insult. Hardly the best advert for rational thought is it? If you look at Konquerez's post you will see that he describes his upbringing himself. Does that make me a great detective or does it just mean that you are blind?

Well, I am blind in my left eye, but that's of little consequence...:) But I find it hard to believe you could deduce someone's upbringing from just a couple paragraphs. I remain cynical.

Again, I see no 'arguments', only vague generalizations for which you have no evidence, at least that a rational person would generally accept. I was reading some of your other posts on older threads and one statement that stuck out was you said that you were "as certain of God's existence as anything". This doesn't leave room for differing opinions. So this is why I see there is not the slightest hope in the possibility of rethinking that from you (contrary to your claims of open mindedness). Of course you must surely realize that's very fundamentalist of you, don't you? Undoubtedly you will make the same conviction of atheists but, from the atheist perspective, the tools of rational inquiry and scientific evidence support the atheist perspective. Here again, sadly, we arrive at our differences in defining 'evidence'.

I am sorry, David, for my recent posts to you as I'm aware they have not been of high quality. My frustration gets the better of me at times.

197. Two idiots get a forum

Comment #35679 by Fedler on April 28, 2007 at 8:40 am

Re: the banana video

I'm reminded of the story by Douglas Adams about the puddle of water. A puddle of water looks around and thinks, "My, this hole I'm in fits me perfectly, it must have been designed just for me!"

These guys are definitely a few fries short of a Happy Meal (and apparently have the intelligence of a puddle of water).

198. Sam's Flea!

Comment #35678 by Fedler on April 28, 2007 at 8:35 am

Burly,

Different definitions of evil aside, I don't think it follows that one should follow from the other (god from evil, evil from god). To me, the question is similar to asking "if there is (no) sun, how do cars exist?"

199. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #35483 by Fedler on April 27, 2007 at 10:08 am

I can't help but remember the following quotes:

"The mists of incomprehension and failure of communincation are not just annoying impediments to rigorous refutation; they are themselves design features of religions worth looking at closely on their own." Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Daniel Dennett, page 217.

Coupled with this one:

"So we have the strange phenomenon...of a mind believing with all its strength in the real presence of a set of things of no one of which it can form any notion whatsoever." The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James.

I just found them complementary and relevant in this case.

200. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #35436 by Fedler on April 27, 2007 at 6:35 am

- In a postmodern world you can make anything mean what you want it to mean. Religion is not popular – most people in Britain would not claim any kind of meaningful religion. However when they start to think about it they realise that their atheist presuppositions are in fact myths and that the evidence for God is far greater than they were told.

If you say so, David. Apparently you have your hand on the TRUE heartbeat of how people think. Please, tell me what I'm supposed to think, too! Oh, wait...that would be like a religion. Nevermind....

Konquerez was describing his upbringing – one which I would regard as deeply unchristian in many of its aspects.

Wow, you were able to discern his upbringing in one post, did you? Your powers of psychology through message boards is astounding. Let me guess, god gave you these powers, did he?