Comments by Don_Quix

201. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #110555 by Don_Quix on January 11, 2008 at 1:25 pm

A third argument against the 'fine-tuning' of physical laws by God, aka the anthropomorphic argument, is that no matter how unlikely you estimate these conditions to be, all you have to do is allow enough time (or enough space) for diverse universes to occur naturally, and it becomes inevitable that this particular combination will come up sooner or later.

And a fourth argument could be that, since no one really knows what the Universe actually is, who is to say that it is even physically possible for the seemingly "fine-tuned" constants to have values different from what they are. It could be that the Universe is the way it is because it is impossible for it to be any other way, for reasons that we are as yet unable to objectively discern.

202. New attempt to end blasphemy law

Comment #109789 by Don_Quix on January 9, 2008 at 5:56 pm

Good luck getting this silly law abolished. I'm actually kind of surprised that such a thing still exists in the UK. It almost seems like everyone just kind of forgot about it until recently.

I don't think any kind of "blasphemy" law like this could ever pass legal muster in the US for the same reason that British-style libel laws would never fly in the US...the first amendment.

Of course, with the amount of power that has been grabbed by the federal government in the past 60+ years, there's always a chance some crazy president *coughuckabeecough* could declare a "national emergency" and try to impose his vision of a theocratic utopia. But I also suspect that this may be exactly why the amendment regarding the right to bear arms was placed immediately after the one about the freedom of speech in our constitutional bill of rights ;)

203. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108898 by Don_Quix on January 7, 2008 at 11:13 pm

Obama's campaign is looking up, but I'm not sure if it's because of him or because everyone is just tired of the Clintons and the status-quo ;)

I'm not a Democrat, and I don't know much about Obama, but if it came down to a choice between him and Huckabee (which I doubt will happen) I know exactly who I'd vote for:

RICHARD DAWKINS!

Just kidding... (but only because he can't legally be our president) ;)

America is at somewhat of a crossroads right now because this is the first time since the early 20th century when an incumbent president or vice-president was not campaigning for the next presidency. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

204. Researchers use neuroimaging to study ESP

Comment #108897 by Don_Quix on January 7, 2008 at 10:41 pm

I find this article interesting, and I'm somewhat surprised by some of the reactions here. I don't really think it's a "waste of time" to conduct such experiments. At the very least it helps to contribute to the effort of discrediting pseudoscientific ideas like ESP for the unwashed masses. That seems like a worthy endeavor to me ;)

And there is always the extremely unlikely possibility that through such experiments they may stumble across and be able to scientifically explain some new and as-yet unknown natural phenomena that people perceive or describe as ESP (again very unlikely, but possible).

Also, it IS very, very simple to prove a negative:

2 + 2 IS NOT EQUAL TO 5.

There, I proved it. Eat that D'Souza!

205. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107645 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 10:25 pm

As I said, it was just an analogy (and I thought it was a mildly amusing one). I don't think it has to be taken beyond that. But debating people about why their particular sports team is not greater than all other sports teams does strike me as similar to the GOD vs Other God(s), and God(s) vs No God(s) discussion. I think a lot of the same emotions and prejudices are present in most of those conversations, depending on how much of a "believer" you are. That's all I'm saying.

EDIT: You were a cheerleader in HS? That is HOT! Pix plz. ;)

206. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107641 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 10:03 pm

I just think that taking a rationalist approach towards team sports under the guise of atheism is carrying it on a bit too far. =) I'm not a huge sports fan, but I could see why some people might think that this is just plain ridiculous. =)

You've obviously never been to an NCAA Championship, the World Cup, the World Series, the Super Bowl, or especially any Chicago Cubs or Manchester United game. This is not even to mention high school football in the rural USA ;)

207. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107635 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 9:49 pm

Maybe it's just me, but rooting for a team at a game or whatever...that's just fun. Trying to break it down into what makes sense or doesn't makes sense on a rational basis is just plain stupid, in my opinion

I dunno. I thought the analogy that Teratornis presented was pretty good. It made sense to me. And I'm not even a Red Sox fan ;)

208. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107633 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 9:43 pm

Read the book of the Dalai Lama 'The Art of Happiness' it's not about Buddhist doctrine but about really positive thinking

As I mentioned a little bit earlier, I think even the Dalai Lama would technically be considered an "atheist" by most of the adherents of the Abrahamic religions (especially the Westernized versions).

I'm not saying that the Dalai Lama doesn't believe in some kind of magical supernatural force that exists beyond him and affects his life and all other lives directly (Karma/Dharma, etc), but he certainly doesn't believe in a singular "God" in the Christian/Jewish/Islamic sense.

Buddhism, although it is in no sense harmless, is demonstrably less harmful than most of the mainstream versions of the Abrahamic religions, IMHO.

209. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107626 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 9:12 pm

Thanks Rtambree. I will do that. :) I just recently read The Varieties of Scientific Experience, which was based on Carl Sagan's 1985 Gifford Lectures (edited by Ann Druyan and published posthumously). Although somewhat dated, it still seemed to carry the same forward-looking themes and ideas for which Carl Sagan was best known. I wish there were video of that lecture, because while reading Sagan is still great, listening to him and watching him is even better.

210. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107622 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 8:51 pm

This guy is a moron.

Which guy?

211. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107614 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 8:28 pm

etny

I think you may:

A) Have not read anything Sam Harris has written either in book form or online.

Or

B) Have misunderstood what you have read by Sam Harris regarding his opinions on how it is scientifically valid to scientifically investigate the metaphysical claims that religious people make.

Or

C) Be a troll.

212. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107603 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 8:00 pm

etny: If Sam Harris were to proclaim that he is a Buddhist (which he isn't), would that make any of his points any less valid? Or are you just another troll?

213. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107602 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 7:58 pm

even when he says something like Mormonism is just Christianity plus - a bunch of really stupid ideas.

Agreed. The thing I like most about him is his delivery, I think. Even when he says something like that, it comes across as a valid point (when taken in context) and a charming joke (as it was clearly intended). It doesn't come across as him being the Evil-Militant-Atheist-Who-Hates-Mormons. ;)

214. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107599 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 7:54 pm

I bet he follows a Buddhist "teacher" or master. Probably a Tibetan one.

A lot of true "Tibetan Buddhist teachers" would probably meet the criteria for being atheists by Western standards. LOL.

That being said, Sam Harris is not a Buddhist any more than he is a Mormon or a Pastafarian.

215. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107587 by Don_Quix on January 4, 2008 at 7:38 pm

I'm only about 1/4 of the way through this video, but I find myself impressed (as I often am) by the calm, rational, and compassionate way in which Sam Harris conducts himself in every debate in which I have seen him.

Sam truly comes across as not only someone who cares about finding genuine answers to the deep truths of life, but also as someone who cares about helping other people to understand those truths.

Sam Harris is a great asset to the cause of reason, and I hope that he is with us for a long time.

216. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105547 by Don_Quix on December 31, 2007 at 11:52 pm

If I was ever in a position to need the help of anyone for any reason and I was unable to help myself then I would rather that help come from a "swearing, cursing, bloody heathen" who genuinely wanted to help me out of the kindness of their heart than from any theist who believed they were earning god-points in the afterlife by helping me.

Helping each other out in this life is all that matters now, regardless of what may or may not come afterwards. HAPPY 2008 HEATHENS!

217. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105505 by Don_Quix on December 31, 2007 at 6:47 pm

*waves magic wand*

218. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105500 by Don_Quix on December 31, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Oh so THIS is where the circular argument thread is tonight. I thought I was on the wrong site for a minute ;)

we can have eternity with God after this life, so therefore I am willing to give up this life for the next.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly why irrational beliefs such as religion are so extremely dangerous. *sigh*

being one of God's children, cannot physically make myself deny my faith, and can only pray for you

You aren't a "child" of anyone except your parents. You can and should deny your faith because it is false and dangerous. And, while you are busy praying for me, I will think for you.

219. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105013 by Don_Quix on December 30, 2007 at 10:30 am

Isn't the "moral code" of the Christian bible remarkably similar to the moral codes of almost every civilization throughout history? Starting with the Sumerians and Egyptians thousands of years before the bible was written, and probably extending thousands of years into pre-history before them in one form or another?

This is not even to mention the Chinese, who likewise existed as a cohesive society many thousands of years before the bible was written, and had a very sophisticated and moral culture.

Morality does not come from any so-called holy book. Morality evolved from and continues to evolve within humanity itself.

220. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #104800 by Don_Quix on December 29, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Why is it that some theists just simply can't understand that not only does posting ad nauseum from a book of fairy tales do absolutely nothing to support their arguments, but it makes them look completely daffy duck insane to most people? Non sequitur after non sequitur after non sequitur...

221. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #104584 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 11:00 pm

I would like to know of at least one situation where increased knowledge has lead to less freedom

Well, one example would be when honest scientists living in Soviet Russia realized that Lysenko was full of shit. Because of this they got executed or sent to the Gulag.

Sorry, I'm just being a smart ass ;) Sadly though, it's true.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and Galileo vs Catholicism didn't turn out so well for Galileo.

222. The Pagan Christ

Comment #104581 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 10:33 pm

Downunder

You seem to be fairly thoughtful, and you may be making some valid points. However, I can't be sure of this because I skip over most of your posts. The reason I do this is because I find your posting style to be very dense and difficult to read. This is not a criticism, just an observation (or perhaps a constructive criticism).

May I suggest that you begin to separate your posts into paragraphs (with spaces between them), and that when you quote people you use the "blockquote" feature recommended in the Comment Posting Guidelines, which you can find at the top of every comment posting box.

Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just genuinely find everything you post to be so hard to read that I often find myself not reading it, but I would like to :)

223. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104574 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 9:01 pm

Paine

I'm not entirely disagreeing with your last post, but I think you need to look at it more from a dispassionate historical perspective. I think we need to disassociate the ideas the men of the revolution put forth from the men themselves (which I think you would agree with). Just because the actual people involved do not stand up to all of our modern standards of progressive morality does not mean that they were bad people by definition. If that were the case, anyone born before about 1950 could be considered to be a sinister evil-doer.

When Americans get all uppity and teary-eyed about the revolution, they are generally having an emotional reaction towards the ideas that the founders represent, not the founders themselves. The founders just provide a convenient symbolic and literary altar to rest those ideas upon. I'm confident that no U.S. citizen literally worships the founders of our country like the citizens of North Korea involuntarily are forced to worship their "GREAT LEADER(s)".

If you take into account what the average person thought back at the end of the 1700s, the FF don't look so bad. You have to remember that this was almost a century before Darwin or even the Germ Theory of Disease, for Zeus' sake! They were only a few decades past burning witches! Seriously! WTF?

All things being equal, the founders were actually quite liberal and progressive in their social and political opinions for their time...in fact, they were REVOLUTIONARY! LOL.

That being said, every nation is allowed to have its myths and heroes. Granted, the FF were certainly flawed, and racist (by our modern definition), and some of them may have even been in it for their own gain to some degree...but that doesn't change the fact that their actions ultimately changed the world for the better (in my, and I hope most peoples', opinion).

If the American Revolution had not succeeded, we would be living in a much different world right now. It is possible it could be better or worse, but I like to believe that it is better than it would have been otherwise. This is due in no small part to the imperfect, selfish, slave-owning bigots known collectively as the Founding Fathers. Regardless of their personal flaws, I think we have to recognize that all of us (including people living outside the US) owe our existence and much of our current societies to them, at least to some degree.

EDIT: I have heard no hypothesis ever brought forth as to how the world may have been had the American Revolution never succeeded, although such a hypothesis would be quite interesting to consider. I'm actually a fan of alternative reality fiction, so I would be quite interested in hearing how this may have turned out ;)

224. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104562 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Well, yes Don, I think people would find other things to be greedy about. Coveting thy neighbor's wife or ass kind of thing.

Well, depending on what arrangement you have between thy and thy neighbor and thy neighbor's wife regarding thy neighbor's wife's ass, it may not be so bad. hahah. But I digress...

Eliminating poverty and allowing everyone's material needs to be met more or less equally (which is essentially what we are talking about) would go a long way towards improving the human condition. It would literally transform all human societies. There would still be jealousies and envy and all that jazz, but I don't think they would be quite as severe or damaging as they are now. The elimination of poverty would likely cause a cascading effect that would eliminate many other remaining problems, as well as likely causing a complete sea-change in human understanding and attitudes that would make the Renaissance look like the Dark Ages.

225. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104550 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 6:31 pm

This is too serious a question merely to speculate about...

Surely. But the answers to all questions begin with speculation, don't they? Plus, it's a fun thought experiment ;)

226. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104545 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 6:18 pm

If everybody had everything they wanted? I think that would be impossible due to mutual exclusivity.

Hypothetically, do you think that if everyone owned (or had access to) a machine that was able to create any physical item they desired (including food) out of basic raw materials at an atomic level (in other words, out of thin air), that they would find other non-material things to be selfish about?

I'm not arguing for or against selfishness, or any other behavior that is traditionally "frowned" upon by a lot of people. I just find it interesting to speculate about what the possibilities would be if a major root cause of the majority of strife in the world (the disparity of wealth and lack of access to basic material needs) were to suddenly not be an issue anymore.

227. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104535 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 5:55 pm

There has to be some room for moderately anti-social behaviors like selfishness -- isn't there?

By anti-social, I meant things that are generally considered to be more damaging to society such as theft, murder, etc. We may never rid ourselves of things such as selfishness, but selfishness is not necessarily damaging to individuals or societies at large in all cases...at least when it's only in mild amounts. In fact, for the person being selfish, it's a good thing in the short term.

But who knows, maybe in the future it'll be like Star Trek and our technology will have advanced so far that there is no rational reason to be selfish since everyone's basic material desires are all met at little or no cost ;)

228. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104534 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Countries with least religious belief tend to have better lifestyles and less crime. Correlation is not causation, I know, but this is suggestive that reason can be a more convicing source of morality than faith.

As you say, correlation is not causation, but these same countries also tend to have higher standards of living and better education across all economic and social groups. I can't prove it, but I speculate that it may be somewhat of a positive feedback loop in action. More Education = Less Religion = Higher Living Standard = More Education and so on...

...or something like that ;)

229. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104524 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 5:34 pm

I think though that it is going to take more than this to transform humankind. Teaching on how to behave in schools, for example, has not eradicated bullying, nor has it stopped people shop-lifting, for example.

Very true. Just telling someone that something is wrong and they shouldn't do it is not going to stop them if they really want to do it. Religion has been doing this for centuries and people (even religious people) still continue to lie, cheat, steal, etc. Clearly, despite common claims to the contrary, religion has had no better track record than anything else towards inducing people to be moral.

I think what Steve is saying is that without the interference of the religious, we would be able to more openly discuss and come to agreements upon what truly is and is not "moral" behavior, based solely on reasoning, logic, and compassion rather than ancient dogma. We would be able to base our morals on reality and those things that genuinely improve the human condition and alleviate suffering.

Ultimately, I think the continued advance of technology and our ever-increasing understanding of how and why the human brain works the way it does will help to transform the "conversation" and the methods we utilize to deal with undesirable and anti-social behaviors. Possibly within our lifetimes.

230. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104506 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 4:56 pm

Theist or atheist, we don't seem to be able to transcend these.

Yet.

231. What We Believe: Atheism

Comment #104482 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Now I'm sure you know that is a bit simplistic and strawman-ish. Among believers only monks would say human relationships are not supremely important.

Actually that isn't entirely true among a large number of theists, especially American Christians (and more especially American Evangelicals). I have heard them describe their "relationship" with God, and how it is the most important "relationship" in their life. I don't think some of them are simply using this statement rhetorically or metaphorically. I am convinced that many of them quite literally believe that without their imaginary friend to talk to and comfort them constantly, they would be unable to deal with even the most trivial of life's daily challenges.

232. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104379 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 11:55 am

The US power system was designed to support the cause of commerce and trade. In short, to make rich businessmen even richer.

There are countless contemporary and historical examples of "rich businessmen" in the United States whose lives and careers started out with them being quite the opposite of rich. So it would appear that both "rich businessmen" and "poor businessmen" have an opportunity to become "even richer". This system seems to have worked out pretty well for us, so far.

233. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104360 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 11:19 am

The wisdom of the founding fathers is real, the effects are real, their motives, however, were not the least bit altruistic.

So what exactly were their motives, then? Could you provide some sources?

I've done a fair bit of reading on both the American revolution and the principal individuals involved from a wide range of historical and biographical sources, not just in history class. Although they were all men of their times and were far from perfect, I don't recall the parts about them being greedy robber barons solely out to enrich themselves and enslave people.

If the revolutionary war had not been successful, every single one of them would have been summarily executed as traitors. After the war was won, all of them (especially Washington) deserved a nice cushy retirement. Although hardly any of them had such a retirement, since they were too busy creating and administrating a totally new system of government.

234. What We Believe: Atheism

Comment #104317 by Don_Quix on December 28, 2007 at 10:16 am

Fighting Falcon: You forgot to mention that he is also a firm supporter and admirer of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al. ;)

Seriously, great article. The way he leads his life is how most people I know who aren't trapped in the web of religion try to lead their lives. They do the best that they can for themselves and those around them, because they know this life is all they get.

235. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104065 by Don_Quix on December 27, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Why are people so hung up on Founding Fathers?
They are Just hypocrites who wanted freedom while having slaves themselves.So Called democratic country with only few rich men could vote at that time.
While they may make a good political discussion ,it is just garbage to while away time

This is just about the most ignorant statement I have ever read on this forum. And that's saying a lot.

236. The Pagan Christ

Comment #104027 by Don_Quix on December 27, 2007 at 3:24 pm

...but do you feel you have free will? You can choose.

It's possible to not have free will, but be convinced that you do. Personally I think our entire universe and reality is taking place inside a very, very highly-advanced game of The Sims, so in that case we probably only have partial free will ;)

237. The Pagan Christ

Comment #104013 by Don_Quix on December 27, 2007 at 2:42 pm

The idea that God sent himself down to earth and had himself killed for the purpose of causing himself to forgive the creatures that he created for the sins he created and caused his creations to commit has always seemed a little mind-bogglingly screwy to me.

It hurts my brain just thinking about the circular inanity of it all. Only first-century humans could come up with something so idiotic.

238. Russia prohibits denial of Santa

Comment #103975 by Don_Quix on December 27, 2007 at 12:10 pm

I think this calls for a new book:

Santa Is Not Great - How Fruitcakes Spoil Everything

239. The Pagan Christ

Comment #103809 by Don_Quix on December 26, 2007 at 11:38 pm

although I went to your link and saw the comments made under the video and now im just trying to calm myself down.

No big deal, you aren't the first one to fall for it ;)

So much for Christian "virtue", eh? Although I guess deliberate deception is OK as long as it helps to convert ignorant people to Christ, right?

What a fucked up and disgustingly evil world-view these people have. (I'm referring to the "moral" and "righteous" Christians who make this shit up and are trying to take over my country)

240. The Pagan Christ

Comment #103805 by Don_Quix on December 26, 2007 at 11:14 pm

righton

I keep coming across the interview where someone asks RD to give an example of a mutation that increases the information in the genome. RD pauses, then there is a wierd edit and he starts talking about something else.

If you are referring to the various versions of this on YouTube, the video you saw was cut with a completely unrelated one by a group of creationists to make it look like RD said something he didn't. It has since been re-cut and parodied by many other creationists. If you look at some of the related video links on the same Youtube page, you will see several videos showing the original interview and how the creationists edited it to make it look incriminating.

EDIT: After being reminded of this, I actually went and looked at several of the hoax videos again. It's quite funny that even though there is somewhat of a pause between the question and the answer in the hoax videos (which the lying, huckster creationists invented, make a big deal about, and believe makes RD look bad), after the pause RD goes on to basically destroy creationism with his eloquent answer of what evolution is even in their hoax versions.

Absolutely hilarious! We are truly dealing with people who don't understand what they are up against.

241. The Pagan Christ

Comment #103799 by Don_Quix on December 26, 2007 at 10:33 pm

If there were a god and if he revealed himself to his creation and then after 2000 years, only 1/3 of the people on his created world even partly believed in him, then I'd say he is definitely struggling as a communicator. Of course, if he exists, he would have to be inept for so many reasons.

This is, in my opinion, one of many logical deathblows to all monotheistic religions if you take for granted what they claim about their religions as truth.

If there were a "one true god", why would it not reveal itself to us in an unambiguous way? Why would everyone not be born knowing that there is such a being and not be able to communicate with that being at any time they wanted to at least on some demonstrable and physically measurable level? (internalized thought AKA prayer doesn't count)

By definition, it would clearly be able to interact with our physical universe and reality with no problem, since it presumably created our universe and constantly has an interest in tweaking it on the most minute level for our benefit. Then why, if the one true god is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, would all humans not be able to ask it to appear before them at any given time and have that appearance be physically measured by any means at their disposal and physically demonstrable to others? After all, the one true god would be able to hear our thoughts and be anywhere at any time, it loves us as a parent loves its child, it knows we want to be with it always, and it wants to be with us always.

Our all-loving creator would have nothing to hide from us...would it...would it?

If it did, it's not worthy of the title of creator.

If a one true god existed, there should be no doubt whatsoever in anyone's mind that it is the one true god.

If a one true god existed, there would not be thousands upon thousands of religions throughout human history.

The fact that there are (and have been throughout history) thousands upon thousands of religions absolutely disproves the idea that there is one true god. In fact it proves that there are no gods at all.

Faith is a profanity.

We are all free.

242. The Pagan Christ

Comment #103794 by Don_Quix on December 26, 2007 at 10:02 pm

I absolutely believe that we should minimize pollution wherever and whenever possible. This is common sense. Nobody wants to live inside a brown cloud. Trust me, I live in the center of a large metropolitan US city, and the air sucks most of the time.

I am strongly in favor of promoting and encouraging the development of all "green" energies such as solar (especially where I live), wind, bio, fusion, or whatever is possible that doesn't pollute...and at the very least increasing the efficiency of our current primary energy models as much as possible.

I am not, however, entirely convinced that the largest producer of energy within billions of miles of us (namely THE SUN) is not at least partially (if not primarily) responsible for the majority of our cyclical climate changes at any given time in history...including right now. Especially over time-spans of hundreds, or thousands of years.

243. The Pagan Christ

Comment #103784 by Don_Quix on December 26, 2007 at 9:10 pm

Read and follow sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming

I really don't mean to derail this thread, and I know that Global Warming is a politically and emotionally charged issue, but I would just like to point out that there is a strong difference of opinion on this issue among a lot of intelligent people, especially in the US. It's not just between crazy neo-con evangelical christians who are in the pocket of Big Oil, and crazy environmentalists who have seen the horrible future mankind will bring upon itself if we don't change our ways. It's between normal, average people ;)

There are a lot of rational, well-educated, fair-minded people in the US (believe it or not) who are not entirely convinced that the end of the world is nigh within our lifetimes due solely to the relatively recent increase in carbon dioxide being released in the atmosphere by mankind. This is not to say that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is or is not actually true, just that a large number of people that I am aware of are still skeptical of its truth due to what they perceive as a lack of solid empirical evidence. This attitude (the lack of belief without strong evidence for that belief), was considered a good thing the last time I checked. At least this has been my experience. Perhaps I am in some weird out-group.

Also, although wikipedia is not necessarily a bad source of information, and often it is even quite accurate on many subjects, it is not the definitive source of information for proving an argument on any particular point (especially points which are politically or emotionally sensitive).

I'm not trying to start a big debate about AGW here. I just wanted to mention that, at least in the US, there still doesn't seem to be a "consensus" on the issue, as has been widely claimed by major media outlets and various former American politicians. ;)

244. New journal to target education in evolution

Comment #103779 by Don_Quix on December 26, 2007 at 8:22 pm

I suppose it's somewhat similar to the difference between theologians and pastors - the former are steeped in the ins and outs of a religion, but as a result have mostly become dulled to the ancient assertions, while the latter are showmen who haven't had to wade too deep into what they preach.

This strikes me as a pretty good (and likely) analogy.

However, if you were extremely ill or injured, would you want the doctor who does everything in his/her power to save you because they genuinely think that once you are dead you are dead forever and there's no coming back so death is to be avoided at all (humane) costs ...OR... the doctor who rationalizes the loss of their patients by thinking there is a higher power in charge and a better place waiting for you once you die so death isn't all that bad?

This is not to say that both of them (if they were ethical doctors) wouldn't do everything in their power to save you. But for some reason the latter example would make me quite nervous if I was their patient. heheh.

245. Man and God

Comment #103778 by Don_Quix on December 26, 2007 at 8:06 pm

It should be Dawkins's

Really? I was taught that the correct way to punctuate possession for any word ending in "s" was to only have an apostrophe after the "s" (for example: Dawkins' book). I don't know if this is a US English convention or if I was just taught wrong. It wouldn't surprise me if it was the latter since I am a product of the US public school system ;)

246. New journal to target education in evolution

Comment #103776 by Don_Quix on December 26, 2007 at 7:38 pm

Too bad Hitchens wasn't born in the US. He'd be a good write-in for president.

247. New journal to target education in evolution

Comment #103764 by Don_Quix on December 26, 2007 at 6:16 pm

Evolution denial is actually relatively common among medical doctors, at least compared to scientists in general. Somewhere around 20% of them believe God created humans in their present form.

Truly terrifying. I wonder if my health care provider has a list of which doctors on my health plan are creationists/evolutionists? Somehow I think not ;D

248. New journal to target education in evolution

Comment #103758 by Don_Quix on December 26, 2007 at 5:44 pm

And the latest Republican presidential candidate to REJECT EVOLUTION is creationist RON PAUL.

I would be disappointed by this if I didn't know he has pretty much 0% chance of getting the republican nomination anyway. I can't remember if he was at the debate where the "Do you believe in evolution" question was asked. If so I wonder why he wasn't counted as one of the ones who claimed to not buy into it?

I also wonder how a man of science (he's been a doctor for 40 years) could not understand what the definition of a theory is, much less the concept of what evolution is. Last I heard, doctors were required to learn a fair amount of biology.

Sounds like he may have just been politically pandering to his audience, which is an even better reason to not vote for him than if he genuinely does not accept evolution.

249. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103148 by Don_Quix on December 24, 2007 at 11:13 am