Comments by Raiko

151. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #194558 by Raiko on June 17, 2008 at 12:43 am

Reminds me of the youtube cartoon "Is Homosexuality a Choice?" (not perfect, but really nicely done).

Though looking at myself and my girlfriend (and many other lesbian people we know), we're quite far from behaving 'male'. We don't look very male either - so I wonder in what way (asides from depression rates) these differences are taking effect on a daily basis.

152. Behe's Empty Box

Comment #193815 by Raiko on June 16, 2008 at 4:34 am

I always thought "Behe's Empty Box" was only a book-review-ish essay. And while we're on that essay, is there a German translation of it (or can I write one?). Behe's book is unfortunately also published in German and sadly enough, people tend to buy his nonsense. I'd love to point them to the essay, but it doesn't seem many of them speak English. And Kenenth Miller's "Finding Darwins God" is unfortunately not translated, as far as I know.

I think I meant the review by Orr when confusing the website with a review.

153. George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism

Comment #193813 by Raiko on June 16, 2008 at 4:30 am

Joining the Hitler Youth was a choice was it not? Not every kid in Germany was in the Hitler Youth.

Yes. About as much of a choice as leaving Scientology.

154. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192436 by Raiko on June 13, 2008 at 4:02 am

This reminds me of some book about "Why men don't listen and women can't park a car" or something like that (I only know the German title) - just take a bunch of things that somehow seem to validate the standpoint of what people would like to hear and put it into written word.

155. Court Claim: Chimps Are People, Too

Comment #191984 by Raiko on June 12, 2008 at 8:40 am

But is Matthew really like you and me?

What a strange approach - obviously, being a chimp, any chimp deserves different rights from a dog, or a cat or a mouse for example, and I'm sure they'd be closer to human rights than those of most other animals. Needing a guardian might be one of those necesssary rights and should be considered.

However, while anthropologists cannot properly define why a chimp isn't a human, we all can tell the two apart, obviously. We don't need to know why we can tell them apart to realize that we can. However, that doesn't justify why the chimp shouldn't get any human-like rights as the difference is not so great.

The approach seems awkward to me on both sides. As always, I am likely to reject any 'extreme' position. And calling chimps people like you and me seems as extreme to me as trying to justify why they're just animals like any other. Obviously, neither is true and neither makes a really good argument (though I see why people might see that as her only option to save Matthew at the moment).

What's it with that black-and-white thinking? You can't have certain rights without being human? Why?

156. Debating creationism in Louisiana schools

Comment #191661 by Raiko on June 11, 2008 at 12:16 pm

I wonder how telling it is that my work computer shuts down firefox whenever I try to view this. O_o

157. Prayer to feed the hungry

Comment #190638 by Raiko on June 9, 2008 at 10:09 am

Rather than sponsoring such a senseless meeting, the UN should have sent the money to the hungry instead. Would have helped them a whole lot more.

158. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190635 by Raiko on June 9, 2008 at 10:02 am

Was this written by Ray Comfort?

I am amazed how anyone can waste so many paragraphs on "I don't get it, I'm too stupid, so it must have been god." Wouldn't a decent friend with an "I'm with stupid" t-shirt do the trick? It's so much less effort.

159. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189487 by Raiko on June 6, 2008 at 10:59 am

I am just thinking what the parent universe concept would do to the anthropic principle. It would be even more likely that we would exist at some point - so many universes could have given it a try. :)

160. Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

Comment #188956 by Raiko on June 5, 2008 at 3:16 am

1) IF the ID movement still insists on teaching 'weaknesses' on evolution, teachers must be carefully monitored to be teaching actual weaknesses and not made up ones. That's the main problem biologically educated people have with the weakness idea. It's not about whether-or-not alleged weaknesses should be taught, it's whether what is being taught ARE actual weaknesses of evolution. Which leads to the next problem with the entire idea:

2) Teaching the 'weaknesses' of evolution is inappropriate for a classroom because the 'weaknesses' are so specific that they do not fit into the regular school schedule - not beyond the fact that like any scientific theory, evolution is being under constant debate, especially in details. A mere mentioning of the "punctuated equilibrium" is as far as it would get before the next subject needs to be taught. Speicific debates are not for classrooms, unless the students aren't supposed to learn anything else about science but become evolution-experts.

161. Put a Little Science in Your Life

Comment #187316 by Raiko on June 1, 2008 at 11:02 pm

♥ This makes me think of Carl Sagan and of why I love going to the lab every morning.

It makes me happy. :)

162. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187233 by Raiko on June 1, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Oh cool. In future, if I don't like a subject, I'm just going to say I don't want to sit through the exam.

Yeah, take that, analysis II!!!

... damn. I forgot I'm done with school.

163. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186267 by Raiko on May 30, 2008 at 3:14 am

I say we test them in a double-blind experiment to see if they're as sensitive as they say they are. And if they're not, they foot the bill for the experiment, and the lawyers.

I saw something like this done on TV (but only there, so nothing worth claiming evidence). It didn't work. At all.

About what Richard said, I keep telling my 'esoteric' mom about all the things she claims "why don't these people submit themselves to experiments? If they really can do and feel the things they say, this would be absolutely awesome and stunningly interesting!"

The usual reply I get is that whatever these people do, the 'real' ones do it for themselves, and for those who're 'ready' for it. They at least keep to that and don't demand special rights, though. Ultimately, this keeping it among 'just for our special kind of people' is the perfect strategy to avoid reality, but at least doesn't annoy anyone.

Unlike these people, who'd have good reason to prove their claims, if they want special treatment because of them.

164. Religion is a product of evolution, software suggests

Comment #185311 by Raiko on May 27, 2008 at 12:11 pm

So, under overly simplified circumstances, religion went extinct.

Then they made religious people favorable over others, and they had an evolutionary advantage.

Well. Who'd have guessed?

EDIT: I suggest a computer program on black and green antelopes in a grass-landscape.
Usually, the black ones go extinct.
However, if you add the feature "better at surviving" to the black ones, they amazingly survive.

165. Animal Science Without Evolution

Comment #185096 by Raiko on May 26, 2008 at 11:20 pm

I think what it means is, that it is written in such a deceptive, and emotionally appealing way that you will be content in not actually understanding a damn thing.

Nail --> head --> done!

It should be called "Zoology without Evidence", or false evidence (from what is implied in the article, it will probably contain some straw men attacks against evolution). I am amazed at how this works - shouldn't these kids when they get older and learn about actual evolution blink and say "Oh--- so what I read before was just a misunderstanding of evolution by the author! I see!"? Why DON'T they? I don't get it.

166. Mail-boat record 'proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist'

Comment #185092 by Raiko on May 26, 2008 at 10:51 pm

Why is it that Darwin keeps getting conflated with how "life began" as we don't know that information as of yet. Seems there have been hypothesis about it but nothing solid yet.

Can anyone lend information about this claim?

Seems a pure creationist construction to me, or a misunderstanding of evolution. Some people can't wrap their head around the fact that for evolution to be true and proved, we do not need to know how life began. Hence they think Darwin should or must have explained the origin of life.

167. The Mind-Altering Role of Incense in Religion

Comment #185086 by Raiko on May 26, 2008 at 10:25 pm

"I have never seen you here before. Have you been newly born recently?"

"No. I just want the free drugs and the wine."

168. Animal Science Without Evolution

Comment #184697 by Raiko on May 26, 2008 at 1:48 am

Of all the things that make me sick, implanting the false idea in children that certain other people are bad, liars, evil, etc. is one of the really bad ones...

How can anyone believe this crap?

I wonder that about adults, but the problem is - children WILL believe this crap. They trust their parents, teachers, family and friends not to tell them utter nonsense.

169. Mail-boat record 'proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist'

Comment #184694 by Raiko on May 26, 2008 at 1:43 am

I can't believe someone wasted a book on that. :D

Asides from the old Wallace-doesn't-get-enough-credit meme, as far as I know, we know Darwin wrote his idea before Wallace, but didn't publish it, and we know that Darwin's work was much more detailed than Wallace's.

Also, Darwinian and Darwinist sound better whan Wallacian and Wallacist. ;)

Also, we should all cry about giving Lamarck much more credit, then, too. He might not have gotten it entirely right, but he still contributed the major idea of linking inheritance and speciation together.

Would a group of TRUE scientists get really upity about who got there first?

You wouldn't believe it, but there are contributions to Nature about that. There was one just recently.

170. 16% of US science teachers are creationists

Comment #182746 by Raiko on May 20, 2008 at 11:32 pm

Wow. I just imagine my friend (a science teacher) would walk into her school and just do something illegal... And proudly tell people she does.

171. Proving ID is Creationism

Comment #182738 by Raiko on May 20, 2008 at 11:16 pm

Andrew Stich, in principle, ID could not be creationism, but all evidence points towards the fact that the term was invented and is usually used in creationist context - to the point where it would be absolutely misleading to use this term for anything, but a religious context. In any case, we should keep on mind that whether or not it is religious doesn't stop it from failing as a theory.

William Wallace, maybe this would be a novel concept to you, but generally people can collaborate if they agree on some aspect, even without having all their views matched by 100%. This website and the NCSE both have an interest in removing unscientific hogwash from schools and exposing ID for what it is. Unlike many religious people, rational ones are not likely to automatically refuse cooperation when agreeing to disagree.

172. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182736 by Raiko on May 20, 2008 at 11:11 pm

I might be mistaken, but aren't there countries where Scientology is officially labeled a cult? If a teenager may not call a cult what it is, what about entire countries?

173. Surviving an unholy school war

Comment #181956 by Raiko on May 18, 2008 at 10:33 pm

This same man gave me '6 of the best' for being struck by an orange thrown by another boy.

What an offense. I think it's those things that show you that the punishment has little to do with punishing anyone for anything, but with disgusting, personal pleasure.

174. Surviving an unholy school war

Comment #181766 by Raiko on May 18, 2008 at 7:36 am

I don't think that the details of this essay come as a surprise to many people

Sadly not. That's exactly what I imagine catholic school a while back to be like. And I'm just happy I know no one who had to go through that. I would certainly not know how to make them forget.

175. Bible Theme Park Faces Opposition in Tennessee

Comment #181341 by Raiko on May 17, 2008 at 1:09 am

I forgot this earlier, but - yet another place where I can openly 'snog' my girlfriend!

176. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #181338 by Raiko on May 17, 2008 at 1:00 am

Has no one noticed the distinct Nazi-ness of the black circle and stripes around the logo itself?

Not to mention that coffee is brown!

177. Pelosi, Reid shunning Ten Commandments?

Comment #181335 by Raiko on May 17, 2008 at 12:56 am

The prospect of passing anything that respects our social values and the Christian heritage of the nation is extremely difficult.

This sentence needs correction:

The prospect of passing anything that respects ours, but ignores everyone else's social values, and that also ignores the secular foundation of the nation, is extremely difficult.

Now it works.

178. Indian village proud after double 'honor killing'

Comment #181331 by Raiko on May 17, 2008 at 12:45 am

bucketchemist,

going against common consensus, moral or Zeitgeist is only noble when it leads to an advance. The opposite direction can hardly be called moral. Leaning up against society doesn't make your actions truly moral by default. Comparing brute murderers in our time with the Ghandi and Jesus of their times seems to me like an argument that fails the moment you give it some thought.

179. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181329 by Raiko on May 17, 2008 at 12:33 am

If they seriously used to get along, this is sad. My personal opinion is that it started to be this sad from the moment Shmuley Boteach delivered his rebuttal speech in Toronto.

I agree that it would have been wise not to mention Hitler, as the mere mentioning of the word seems to toss reason out of the window, especially by people who enjoy abusing the name for their own arguments. Nevertheless, refraining from making a certain argument does not make it untrue (And "NO I AM NOT SHRIEKING LIKE HITLER!!" doesn't actually help AFTER the fact has already been pointed out).

Maybe a good idea would have been to say that the rabbi's shrieking is reminiscent of "certain questionable politicians in history". ;)

In any case, Shmuley seems to react like most unreasonable people when their mistakes have been pointed out - instead of saying "You know... I think you have a point and I should really change that," they yell "not true, not true" instead. The second most useful thing to do after yelling "not true, not true" would be to take the criticism anyway (in this case: stop shrieking like Hitler), but that doesn't happen too often, either.

Some people just don't like to acknowledge they might be wrong, have flaws or made a mistake, I suppose.

PS: And thank you, Diacanu. I thought about closing that tag, too, when I read the first comments. (^_^)

180. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, ed. Richard Dawkins

Comment #181068 by Raiko on May 16, 2008 at 11:34 am

One day, I shall make scientific poetry worth reading!

181. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #180937 by Raiko on May 16, 2008 at 7:11 am

Pornography, I tell you!

182. Bible Theme Park Faces Opposition in Tennessee

Comment #180837 by Raiko on May 15, 2008 at 11:51 pm

My girlfriend just suggested another theme park ride: "How about... pin the nails on the Jesus?"

183. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #180827 by Raiko on May 15, 2008 at 10:58 pm

Sometimes I really wonder whether those moments of "Oh this is so perverted, it offends me!" are just an expression of the viewer's perverted mind.

I see a piece of art of a retro-style mermaid with two tails, traditionally with a naked upper body. If someone else sees a prostitute's spread legs, it makes me wonder about them...

184. Bible Theme Park Faces Opposition in Tennessee

Comment #180825 by Raiko on May 15, 2008 at 10:53 pm

While an FSM park would be much more fun, I'm for the "teach all and let the kids decide" version of the bible park - don't forget all the sweet stories in the bible about murder and sacrifices. ♥ We want the kids to see ALL of the story, don't we?

185. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180050 by Raiko on May 14, 2008 at 6:27 am

Just when you think someone of the catholic church is going to say something remotely reasonable, they throw this in:

But he said he continues to believe that "God is the creator of the universe and that we are not the result of chance."

(emphasis added)

Oh well, it's just another sad try to make Catholicism catch up with the Zeitgeist, which is quite a bit out of sight.

186. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #179969 by Raiko on May 14, 2008 at 3:38 am

I second what Tack said. I recently heard, if I remember correctly, that Dawkins thinks science can prove God does not exist. Haven't had a chance to research this, but for now, I tend to disagree.

RD basically says it's a scientific question because there would be ways in which god-questions could be empirically determined. For example (as in TGD), if paleontologists found the remains of Jesus, and DNA analysis proved that he had no father, you could answer the question as to whether the virgin-birth is true or at least possible with purely scientific methods (let's ignore here that the virgin-thing may be a translational error, anyway).

Likewise, God could very obviously intervene and show him/her/itself/themselves, and thus determine the ultimate question of his/her/its/their existence with purely scientific proof.

I tried to disagree with him here, wondering whether this just concerned 'particular' gods (which are the ones we all, including Dawkins, are mainly concerned with, anyway - we're taking atheism, after all), but it's so far impossible for me.

It would be tough enough to find any sort of 'god'-thing that falls outside the proveable category because if so, you basically can't say anything about it - and then, theists, deists and/or scientists might not agree to call it 'god', either. Such a thing might even have a natural cause we're not aware of yet, and thus would undeniably be a testable scientific hypothesis, therefore not supernatural, therefore not meant when RD talks about 'gods'.

The only thing I could yet find myself disagreeing with in TGD was the agreement with whoever complained that God would be an "underachiever" if he merely had set the process rolling at the very, very, very, very beginning (probably long before evolution begun). *laugh* If I, as a future scientist, was able to invent something utterly simple that takes course by itself up to the point of it developing something like this planet and whatever is on it - all by itself, that's exactly what I would do: Sit back and watch!!!

The mind-work would have been the great achievement, not the action (provided I had calculated ahead of time that something like this would happen and not just thrown stuff together to see what happens). Such a god is still unlikely and comes with lots of problems, but I'd still not call that underachieving. ;)

187. The History Channel might do something right

Comment #176449 by Raiko on May 7, 2008 at 11:15 am

*whine*

I live in the wrong country!

188. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175990 by Raiko on May 6, 2008 at 10:25 am

Carto: about those "blatantly obvious" questions; remember it's also aimed at theists. If they can believe the Genesis stories, surely they can believe that buildings in America are 4000 years old, or that Bill Gates uses a computer?

I am not entirely sure what they're trying to do, but if you'd want to compare the reaction of the brain to "religious truths" compared to "very certain truths" (Do eagles exist?) or "very certain untruths" or "uncertain truths", you need such obvious questions for comparison.

189. The detail in the Devil

Comment #175984 by Raiko on May 6, 2008 at 10:15 am

He returned Stateside after his studies as America's first strictly academic demonologist, always stressing that he has always done his best to keep his research as unbiased as possible.

Well, come on - at least he tried.

"Let me tell you that scholarly information would suggest that demon possession, very definitely, does happen."

That's the reversal of the "I can't imagine it happening, so it doesn't" - "I can imagine it happening, therefore it does".

190. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175399 by Raiko on May 5, 2008 at 10:45 am

I think we can assume that Sam will have thought of such things himself!

Yes, we should have thought of that - most likely. I'd be curious to know whether (if Sam Harris himself posted it) he'd get more or less Christians to take the survey than an 'unknown' person.

I guess that is just another manifestation of my curiousity as to how the various religious minds work. (^_~)

191. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175221 by Raiko on May 5, 2008 at 12:05 am

Long survey is looooong.

Interesting. For a moment I was bewildered by some questions, but then I called into mind what it is for. However, seeing this posted in RD.net I wonder whether there's going to be an atheist-overhang in that survey. I shall do my best to recruit some Christian friends & family.

192. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #175127 by Raiko on May 4, 2008 at 1:59 pm

There are only nine constitutionally secular countries in the world, the United States is one of them and in Europe only France is.

'nuff said?

Yes. And it greatly disturbs me. If the religious right goes rampant here, we have no good laws to stop them!

193. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174965 by Raiko on May 4, 2008 at 1:50 am

The amazing thing about this and everything else about religion is how something can be so absurdly funny and so gravely disturbing at the same time.

Nicely pinpointed.

To speak of the 'absurdely funny', I'm in a major phase of bafflement right now. I mean "he'll mention Darwin's observation that finches evolve different-shaped beaks to suit different ecosystems. Then he'll add that you don't see a finch changing into another species", is a thorough declaration of "I'm too stupid to understand evolution and here is why" - and they're fighting for bills to allow them to declare that to children who won't be able to see that?

"Absurdly funny" (and disturbing) is really the best description. How are you supposed to convey to your children that they can no longer trust their science teachers to actually teach science? This is abusive of an authority figure (the teacher) towards children who come to school, trusting that they'll be taught proper facts.

But what shocks me a lot, too, is that apparently there are science teachers who'd actually do that. Have they gone to university? Have they not understood the evidence? Have they been unable to see past their religious bigotry to understand it - or to at least understand that their religious bigotry doesn't equal science?

If someone is either so caught up in their religious dogma or this unable to properly evaluate evidence (or easily bamboozled), can you trust them with the education of children?

194. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #174952 by Raiko on May 3, 2008 at 11:49 pm

If this isn't a joke, and there are really people in the US who think like that... leave the fucking country. Please. You'll get free healthcare in the EU, and we have cookies.

What? We don't want the US' Christian bigots over here, thanks! :P

195. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174949 by Raiko on May 3, 2008 at 11:41 pm

There needs to be a bill that only allows legitimate criticism to be taught, then. It would be quite alright to hear about punctuated equilibrium (though I think that is already in textbooks, anyway), but you definitely need an addon to the bill that nonsense cannot be taught.

I can barely believe that there are literally people out there who want to pass a bill to allow them to teach their own misinformation and stupidity to school kids.

196. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174612 by Raiko on May 3, 2008 at 1:03 am

Does this mean you people don't believe in pixies either?! Not long now and I will be able to count the number of genuine pixies encounters I have had on the fingers of one hand.

... unless those fingers re-grow, too.

197. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174472 by Raiko on May 2, 2008 at 1:27 pm

I don't even really understand the big deal. Some animals have the ability to regrow a lot more than a fingertip, so there are possible mechanisms to achieve this. I suppose we usually don't have or employ these mechanisms, for whichever reasons, but who's to say that it can't ever happen?

198. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173592 by Raiko on April 30, 2008 at 10:50 pm