201. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #150904 by robotaholic on March 27, 2008 at 2:43 pm

It sounds almost like "If you don't believe in my imaginary friend, I'm gonna vanquish you"- reminds me of a child-

Really these people are just not educated- OR they're just liars. Either way -just make it a rule of thumb not to visit any middle eastern countries for vacation next year...

202. Fossil find could be Europe's first humans

Comment #150896 by robotaholic on March 27, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Padster, this demonstrates that the religious hang themselves with their own drivel! Just let them talk for a while and it's a messy saliva froth of nonsense. lol

203. Expelled from Expelled: PZ story goes global

Comment #150889 by robotaholic on March 27, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Some people on this website are just negative people. They claim they're just being realistic. I share Deacanu's attitude.

Also - mabye the # of people that a blog can reach is small - however, the number of people posting the blog is large in this case and therefore it had a large impact.

204. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #150081 by robotaholic on March 26, 2008 at 12:47 pm

I'm sorry Prankster - You're right- I shouldn't have compared the two- :)

205. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #150075 by robotaholic on March 26, 2008 at 12:41 pm

a meeting of the worlds most deluded...hmm - a treki convention would be more productive...lol

Spinoza, I don't don't think worshiping anything is good. I don't worship the earth or the solar system or even the universe. Therefore I would have to say I don't believe in even the god of Spinoza.

Why not ditch the god concept altogether?

206. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150003 by robotaholic on March 26, 2008 at 11:48 am

Awesome! Happy Birthday Professor Dawkins! Thank you for your books, your work, and this website.

-John

207. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #149817 by robotaholic on March 26, 2008 at 8:57 am

The remaining children are so abused they might as well live with Michael Jackson

208. Two More Fleas

Comment #149465 by robotaholic on March 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm

I think its sooo interesting to just focus on the likelyhood (or not) of god's existence.

The fact(as Dawkins eloquently explains) is that positing an intelligence is not helpful when what we're trying to exlain is intelligence in the first place.

I really like reading Bonzai's posts because he takes the 'devil's advocate' position quite well. lol He instantly makes me want to erupt and comabat! lol (figuratively of course)

209. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149439 by robotaholic on March 25, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Richard Dawkins I just want to say that I enjoy listening to you very much.

210. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149423 by robotaholic on March 25, 2008 at 3:33 pm

I don't think there are such things as fundamentalist scientists. Science is in itself only about objective truth. There is no 'fundamental' version of truth. Truth is truth. Facts are as they are.

211. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149417 by robotaholic on March 25, 2008 at 3:26 pm

EvidenceOnly I thought his first response was pretty good. He was thorough and touched on most of the topics she did. The fact that his explanations are vaccuous when explored is not the issue. lol I would like someone to deflate the whole 'Hitler, Stalin' card with the following:

What does it prove that there are crazy people on both sides of the issue?

It seems simple and I think it's true. Not at all do I think Hitler and Stalin were on one side or the other though - I just mean that in a 'let's put those ideas to rest right now' kind of way-


EDIT This falls into the same idea as the Einstein was a believer- was not a believer field too!-

What does the fact that people in the past were like they were have to do with objective truth in any argument? I mean if you're trying to learn from the past the only lesson I can get is pursue truth still.

212. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149408 by robotaholic on March 25, 2008 at 3:08 pm

definitely- don't get me wrong - on the scale of respect - WARF from Star Trek gets more respect than fundamentalists... lol

Also like what I was saying to Bonzai what field does science not have anything to say?

I can't think of any field at all. Yes I'm a reductionist. That doesn't make me wrong though!

213. Austin Dacey - The Secular Conscience

Comment #149407 by robotaholic on March 25, 2008 at 3:06 pm

eno I totally love pointofinquiry.org too! - I totally blackberry it all the time-

214. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149401 by robotaholic on March 25, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Steve did you read my comment #149373? I was thinking that is why you at least have a small measure of more respect for fundamentalists than moderates. (to which i agree) no?

215. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149394 by robotaholic on March 25, 2008 at 2:47 pm

I would like to add also that your claim that I'm a 'vulgar reductionist' is accurate. I think you can make the case that the entire goal of science is to explain phenomena in terms that are more basic than that which is being explained. To take the opposite viewpoint is not tenable.

I still want to read your response as to why science can't speak to such things as literature and poetry.

216. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149392 by robotaholic on March 25, 2008 at 2:42 pm

your question was "What does science have to SAY about Poetry and Literature" - I just told you

If you want more - such as why do people have emotions you should have asked as much. I'm am quite confident that science can and does attempt to explain that also.

I don't think it was a stupid response. It was the answer for which you asked.

217. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149389 by robotaholic on March 25, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Bonzai I want to ask you what science CAN'T say about poetry and literature.

uh.. please :)

218. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149387 by robotaholic on March 25, 2008 at 2:33 pm

I take it as kind of stupid to ask a question like

What does science have to say about literature and poetry?

It sounds somehow absolutely NOMA-esque I see science as absolutely basic. Your entire hierarchical structure of reality is science based.

I'll tell you what science has to say about poetry right now:

Poetry is composed of complex patterns of literary structure designed so as to evoke emotional responses. The fact that individuals have emotional responses and that the poet shares the same emotional propositions is also scientifically verifiable. Patricia Churchland and Zoltán Kövecses both have great papers that pretty much make the case that emotions are biologically derived and thus explainable in scientific terms.

Regarding literature- how is that something that science cannot explain? To me literature is published writings in a particular style on a particular subject.

219. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149373 by robotaholic on March 25, 2008 at 2:17 pm

The question I would ask Mcgrath is why he named his book "The Dawkins Delusion". Was he trying to be rude or what? - The reason I ask that is because he seems to be so 'kind' and in such utter agreement with his melty gibberish... I wonder if he's spoken about his title...anyone know?

Bonzai, earlier in a post you said that no christians claim their book is perfect in every way or something like that - I just wanted to turn your attention to a scripture:

2 Timothy 3:16- All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...

220. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149007 by robotaholic on March 24, 2008 at 11:09 pm

Wow, Susan Blackmore is amazing. I never heard her speak before. I really like her perspective.

221. Philip Kitcher - Living with Darwin

Comment #149001 by robotaholic on March 24, 2008 at 10:20 pm

I wish I could have read the first post before Kitcher deleted it

222. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148914 by robotaholic on March 24, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Who cares what Hitler was- I don't- I don't know why ppl keep bringing it up- I don't see how Hitler has anything to do with anything...

223. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148786 by robotaholic on March 23, 2008 at 11:23 pm

William Wallace, your August of 2007 link says 404 not found, the Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom link didn't tell me anything except that the Smithsonian didn't want their reputation tarnished by a nonscientific hypothesis, and the PZ Myers link doesn't show he was going to "crash" anything -

-and you really should call him Professor

224. The death-of-god debate

Comment #148785 by robotaholic on March 23, 2008 at 11:09 pm

I would prefer we had a holiday fostering awareness of endangered animals or like world-wide lasagna day...or mabye endangered animal/lasagna day- or solar panel day- or mabye just a chocolate day would be nice-

225. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148781 by robotaholic on March 23, 2008 at 10:51 pm

Spinoza stupid people are everywhere. Cope.

226. Two More Fleas

Comment #148027 by robotaholic on March 21, 2008 at 8:55 pm

The only feature I wish this website had is an "ignore" feature - I would ignore a few people..

227. No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film

Comment #148022 by robotaholic on March 21, 2008 at 8:33 pm

They srsly wasted ther time by going if you asks me- but I gess expelled at expelled wouldn't have happened in dat case

228. EXPELLED!

Comment #147887 by robotaholic on March 21, 2008 at 2:03 pm

OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGod!!! You were going to go to a movie with Richard Dawkins - OMGGGGGGGGG- THAT would have been awesome! - I'm sorry you weren't allowed in but it's the ultimate in irony. I havn 't had a chance to read the other comments so I may be redundant - but I must say that is truely hilarious.

229. Fleabytes

Comment #147519 by robotaholic on March 20, 2008 at 8:37 pm

wow Paul Creber that was exactly what I was thinking...but you said it way better!

230. Sci-fi guru Clarke to have secular funeral

Comment #147383 by robotaholic on March 20, 2008 at 8:54 am

I have not a single wish with regard to my remains either brian faux.. - other than that I'm not burried alive lol

231. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147368 by robotaholic on March 20, 2008 at 8:26 am

There are very many english words who's current definitions are not necessarily related to their etymology. Also there are many english words that have come to have multiple definitions; some very unrelated to each other.

I take exception with being called a theologian and I don't believe in theology- even though there may be a definition by which I possibly could be described.

I also could be described as a defecation machine but I prefer to be called a human. lol

232. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146781 by robotaholic on March 19, 2008 at 12:00 pm

lol that's true righton but it can also mean:

To separate or extract the essential elements of...

233. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146725 by robotaholic on March 19, 2008 at 10:12 am

Well as retarded as that church is and as stupid as their beliefs are...at least they don't have the watered down, distilled nonsense of McGrath. They at least believe something and stand for it...too bad they're beliefs are bigoted of course.

Honestly though, I've never heard of a church banning hugs!!!- In fact if they prohibit same-sex hugs then they probably have to ban heterosexual hugs and in that case, "NO HUGGING!" FOR ANYONE...I honestly don't get that at all! That just doesn't sound like the 'loving christian message of love' at all.

I'm glad I'm out of the Jehovah's Witness cult. Excommunication or disfellowshipping or whatever you call it is the best thing that can happen to a person in that situation!

234. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #146233 by robotaholic on March 18, 2008 at 7:52 pm

my favorite thing Dawkins said was "how does it help to postulate an intelligent being when we're trying to EXPLAIN things like intelligent beings..." - that's a great way to phrase it!

235. Fleabytes

Comment #145650 by robotaholic on March 17, 2008 at 10:18 pm

lol Diacanu - you have a way with words...

236. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145429 by robotaholic on March 17, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Is there anyone more dispisable than D'Souza??? I mean seriously - I can't think of anyone more annoying, more blatantly disgusting, so full of pure tripe, and absolutely abominable. He really is a walking caricature. I'm sure there were plenty of songs made about him when he was growing up like: "he spits when he walks and he
dribbles when he talks..."-

here's his wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D'Souza

Prior to his marriage in 1992, D'Souza had relationships with two well-known female conservatives, Laura Ingraham, a nationally-syndicated radio commentator to whom he was engaged but never married, and best-selling conservative author and commentator Ann Coulter.

The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11 ... the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the non-profit sector and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world.

237. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145284 by robotaholic on March 17, 2008 at 1:02 pm

I like how people like this keep saying how moral the bible is yet they don't bother to quote much of it do they:

Christianity, in contrast, offers the divine "I Am"â€"God, speaking through Scripture, saying what he means and meaning what he says. In the person of Jesus Christ, he taught. He ministered. He saved. He chased away the moneychangers and wept at the news of Lazarus's death. He lived so boldly that he had to be killedâ€"yet did not stay in the tomb.

238. 'Anonymous' takes anti-Scientology to the streets

Comment #144855 by robotaholic on March 16, 2008 at 9:24 pm

someday you're gonna get rick rolled and you're gonna regret it...lol

239. The atheist delusion

Comment #144852 by robotaholic on March 16, 2008 at 9:12 pm

wow Richard Morgan has the most wickedest of music... :p

- this paper pulls out every predictible argument...from the "your argument is so 19th century" to "nazi, stalin, etc" to "fundamentalist atheism" ---it's not even worth replying to...nonoverlapping magesteriums...oooh the phrase "atheist regimes" - now that's just wonderful - the only thing that unites two people is the fact they dont' believe in ghosts or dragons and somehow they're a regime......

John Gray should just spend his time on the "answers in genesis" website lol

240. 'Anonymous' takes anti-Scientology to the streets

Comment #144677 by robotaholic on March 16, 2008 at 3:09 pm

I am thrilled by the direction this is going...I hope it doesn't stop - slow complete and utter dismantling of cults one by one - piece by piece...I think they should next start in with Jehovah's witnesses lol


EDIT- "we"

241. Two More Fleas

Comment #144626 by robotaholic on March 16, 2008 at 12:59 pm

um, tree rings prove the young earth theory wrong- it's THAT rediculous

242. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144388 by robotaholic on March 15, 2008 at 10:41 pm

I love Chris Mooney!!! He's a great speaker. If you havn't seen anything he's done, look him up on youtube. It's worth it.

And I can see what they're saying. I must say I get irritated when you turn it to the science channel and the narrator is speaking to you as if you're in 9th grade. I wish there was *MORE* substance to many science programs-but I'm a scienceholic!

Geoff - what adds are actively opposed by JW's? - I'm just wondering...

243. The business of natural selection

Comment #144387 by robotaholic on March 15, 2008 at 10:35 pm

I don't know how effective this algorithm is but it seems reasonable that if given enough information about a macroscopic system and it's environment the future could be predicted with some measure of accuracy. The more information the better: the company, it's competitors, and the whole economy...all the information contained within our past and future light cones lol..

244. Two More Fleas

Comment #144383 by robotaholic on March 15, 2008 at 10:21 pm

You can quote what you like, but it does not change the fact that many, many respectable scientists consider fine tuning something worthy of discussion

You seem to have an issue with discussing "fine tuning" because creationists use it

To be consistent, you should also have an issue with discussing the existence of complex organisms because creationists also like to mention that.

Like it or not, fine tuning IS something to be discussed

Science should not be censored because of religious views

Just because creationists and theists use fine tuning as a justification for God does not me we should shut up about it. Quite the contrary, we should research it further.

Are we really going to let religious agendas dictate what we can and can't research, or think about?

245. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144336 by robotaholic on March 15, 2008 at 4:23 pm

I love hyphenating- especially when it's inappropriate. It seems more conversational when read and better represents what I'm saying when I reread it. Cheers to more hyphenation! I'm glad the book has heavy hyphenation. Yes, very happy indeed!

246. Two More Fleas

Comment #144332 by robotaholic on March 15, 2008 at 4:06 pm

argue with wikipedia Steve Zara that is where that paragraph came from and it has several sited websites demonstrating the religious intentions behind many supporters of the fine tuning argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

As with theistic evolution, some individual scientists, theologians, and philosophers as well as certain religious groups have seized on the idea that providence or creation are responsible for fine-tuning. Intelligent design theories are not necessarily falsifiable, and thus some are reluctant to call intelligent design theories a "scientific" idea. Variants on this approach include:


[edit] Intelligent design
Proponents of Intelligent Design argue that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. The fine-tuned universe argument is a central premise or presented as a given in many of the published works of prominent Intelligent Design proponents, such as William A. Dembski and Michael Behe.


[edit] Other religious creation views
Most religions have some kind of account of the creation of the universe, although they generally differ in detail from the ones listed above. Some of these may be fully compatible with known scientific facts (notwithstanding their use of metaphysical ideas which are beyond the domain of science). For example scientist-theologians such as John Polkinghorne emphasise the implications of Anthropic Fine-Tuning within an orthodox Christian framework whilst fully accepting the scientific findings about Evolution and the age of the Universe. This is also the position of the Roman Catholic Church and of most Anglican theologians, of whom Alister McGrath is probably the most prolific in this area.[12] The Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder argues that the apparent discrepancy between the "days" in Genesis and the billions of years in a scientific understanding are due to the differences in frames of reference. Many other religious creation views are either incompatible with, or indifferent to, scientific understandings. Other scientists with similar views are physicist Freeman Dyson and astronomer Owen Gingerich.

We can't cower in ignorance, afraid to say anything because of the creationists

247. Two More Fleas

Comment #144157 by robotaholic on March 15, 2008 at 8:17 am

The assertion that the universe was fine-tuned is largely promoted by advocates of intelligent design and other forms of creationism. The apparent fine-tuning of the universe is cited as evidence for the existence of God or some form of intelligence capable of manipulating (or designing) the basic physics that governs the universe- so when that phrase is used it seems religious to me!

248. Two More Fleas

Comment #144064 by robotaholic on March 15, 2008 at 2:14 am

Regarding the "anthropomorphic principle" - I prefer to refer to it as the anthropic princple - if you consider the possiblity that there are multiple buble universes then we just happen to be in one in which life is possible- one in perhaps an infinite number...

It all goes back to your "fine tuning" argument.(for which I don't think there is one)

I know that for the big bang to have happend (without our current knowledge of quantum physics) the universe had to be initially perfect so that the constants are like they are...(sort of like a pencil so difficult to balance and that the most slight influence would have inbalanced)but we know that inflation happend due to the existence of dark energy and entropy. (and the entropy agrument is quite convincing!)

Anymore there is no fine tuning argument and the best physicists agree. (including Steven Pollock, Brian Greene, and Amir Aczel)

I don't even PRETEND to be a know it all (I have so much to learn!)- but I just have heard so many arguments against the fine tuning argument that I am convinced...(there is NO argument)

249. Two More Fleas

Comment #144061 by robotaholic on March 15, 2008 at 2:01 am

Steve on another note I want to talk about your whole "fine tuning argument" that you mention frequently..

First of all after hearing lecture after lecture by Brian Greene and also several other physicists- for there to be a fine tuning their first had to be a fine tuner - I don't agree- instead I accept inflation- it seems to be the best explanation of the facts in so far as we know them at this point - In fact - there is no fine tuning argument - only and unless you think there was a tuner- which I'm sure you will agree is not a scientific thing to think - It is more parsimonious to say that you don't know the information WAY before you say there was any type of argument for "fine tuning"

Also I want to say that inflation pretty much explains the arrow of time and entropy. If in the beginning of time there was a microfluctuation that was 1x10^-80 centimeters in the obvious quantum vaccuum that would be all that was necessary to start inflation ( there being a field that fluctuates back and forth wildly which is common even in the smallest of spaces). There being the opposite of gravity during inflation (sort of anti-gravity but not in the most popular idea)which spread all particles out into an almost perfect homogenity (yet still leaving random imperfections)- then gravity took over and coelesced the remaining particles into stars and galaxies... I'm sure you've heard the argument before -

I am really tired of hearing the idea that there is some sort of weight behind the "fine tuning" argument - it is not scientific - even referring to it as if it is an argument gives it weight - Instead it would be more logical to say that if inflation didn't occur and the constants are the way they are that there must be an explanation for why they didn't wildly change way before our current epoc.

Inflation explains all of this all the way back to quantum fluctuations (which is what you see when you see the way matter has clumped into it's current state over billions of years)

250. Two More Fleas

Comment #144051 by robotaholic on March 15, 2008 at 1:38 am

Steve - the fact that you already live in the house or else you wouldn't ask the question is kind of potent