Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad


251. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170104 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 11:35 am

I believe in God because I can feel God's presence in my life, because I can see the evidence of God's goodness in the world, because I believe in Love and because I believe that God is Love.
Ok fine that's just semantics. Why are you a methodist? You at no point describe the Christian view merely some bullshit.

The more I read the apologetics the more I think. No you don't believe what you are saying. You at best self-deceptive and more likely just someone who doesn't want the label atheist when that's exactly what you are.

252. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170101 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 11:29 am

Can somebody please tell me what Kenneth Miller is on about.
He basically describes a pantheist view but is a Christian. It baffles me I don't think he really believes what the title of Christian suggests at all. I think he's a coward actually.

253. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170085 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 10:55 am

Steve Zara

I'm not going to worship just anyone.
Brilliant line I loved that.

AmericanGodless
I must confess that I don't understand the "extra step" that Toad sees.

But now the question arises: In what sense would the god-like aliens not be gods? Answer: In a very important sense. To deserve the name of God, a being would have to have designed more than just a jumbo jet or even a starship. He would have to have designed the universe. And therein lies a fundamental contradiction. Entities capable of designing anything, whether they be human engineers or interstellar aliens, must be complex -- and therefore, statistically improbable.

Shermer shows how this contradiction is nonsense, as I would have thought it was easy to see.

254. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170058 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 10:16 am

This is why I hold the perhaps controversial view that the existence of gods is impossible to demonstrate. It could always be a really clever alien lying.

You assuming God is supernatural. What human religions have conceived of God don't have to be supernatural. An incredible alien could answer prayers create universes etc. Why would this not satisfy you as being a god or gods.

255. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170046 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 10:04 am

I would say that gods need that extra bit of magic to earn the title: No proven supernatural nature, you don't get to call yourself the big "G".

Supernatural? A power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. An alien could conceivably hear prayers and interfere in our universe. Doesn't have to be supernatural to do the things god is supposed to do.

256. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170039 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 9:51 am

If Jesus knew that his followers would be preaching so much hate
Jesus isn't as good as people think. You could play his quotes on a 24hr news loop and people would think he was crazy, racist, sexist, capricious and vindictive, and actually just downright nasty.

257. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170024 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 9:26 am

Dawkin's argument:

But now the question arises: In what sense would the god-like aliens not be gods? Answer: In a very important sense. To deserve the name of God, a being would have to have designed more than just a jumbo jet or even a starship. He would have to have designed the universe. And therein lies a fundamental contradiction. Entities capable of designing anything, whether they be human engineers or interstellar aliens, must be complex -- and therefore, statistically improbable.


There is no contradiction whatsoever. Complexity is ruled out as the ultimate first cause Yes, but he seems to not be able to take his own argument that one step further, as Shermer has done, and incidentally I did. It seems strange because it is so obvious. It almost makes a mockery of the whole argument.

258. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170017 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 9:15 am

This is where Shermer gets it right and Dawkins gets it wrong

On the matter of God's existence, the answer to the question slides toward a yes, depending on how far we extend the sphere of science into the space of theology. If we apply the methods of science to understanding all of nature, where would God be and how would we detect Him or His actions? That's the rub. God is described by most Western religions as omniscient and omnipotent, the creator of all things visible and invisible, an Intelligent Designer capable of constructing the universe, Earth, life, and us. If scientists go in search of such a being�"as Intelligent Design (ID) creationists claim to be doing�"how could we possibly distinguish an omnipotent and omniscient God from an extremely powerful and really smart Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (ETI)? I call this problem Shermer's Last Law (pace Arthur C. Clarke): any sufficiently advanced Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence would be indistinguishable from God.

Here is how the problem breaks down. Biological evolution is glacially slow compared to cultural evolution. Because of this, and the fact that the cosmos is very big and the space between the stars is vast, the probability of making contact with an ETI that is technologically equal to or only slightly more advanced than us is virtually nil. If we ever do encounter the representatives of an ETI, they will be so far ahead of us technologically that they will appear as gods to us. Consider something as relatively simple as DNA. We can already engineer genes after only 50 years of genetic science. An ETI that was, say, only 50,000 years ahead of us would surely be able to construct entire genomes, cells, multi-cellular life, and complex ecosystems. The design of life is, after all, just a technical problem in molecular manipulation. To our bronze-age ancestors who created the great monotheistic religions, the ability to create life was God-like. To our not-so-distant descendents, or to an ETI we might encounter, the ability to create life will be simply a matter of technological skill.

By pursuing a course of scientific inquiry to its natural extension of examining the nature of God, what we will find, if we find anything, is an alien being capable of engineering cells, complex organisms, planets, stars, galaxies, and perhaps even universes. If today we can engineer genes, clone mammals, and manipulate stem cells with science and technologies developed in only the last half century, think of what an ETI could do with 100,000 years of equivalent powers of progress in science and technology. For an ETI who is a million years more advanced than we are, engineering the creation of planets and stars may be entirely possible. And if universes are created out of collapsing black holes�"which some cosmologists think is probable�"it is not inconceivable that a sufficiently advanced ETI could even create a universe.

What would we call an intelligent being capable of engineering a universe, stars, planets, and life? If we knew the underlying science and technology used to do the engineering, we would call it Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence; if we did not know the underlying science and technology, we would call it God.


Dawkins Gods and Earthlings argument does not obviate God in a sense that would effect a religious person's belief in God in any way.

259. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169471 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 26, 2008 at 6:56 am

Bringing in the issue of arranged marriages seems a touch bizzare to me.

This is happening to 13 14 year old children. School age children.

260. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169470 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 26, 2008 at 6:55 am

Comment #169441 by Steve Zara

I am confused. You support free speech, but want everyone to effectively shut up.

I agree with the "no slogans", but that isn't pro-free-speech.


Surely the solution is to have, like in Britain, School Uniforms. The arguments for them are strong, it avoids stigmatisation of the poor and stops double standards censorship. You either allow all slogans, or none.

Children are a special case I think everyone agrees.

261. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169434 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 26, 2008 at 4:57 am

Peacebeuponme, like Steve said, society. It's the very core of the society role to protect vulnerable ones and to draw a line between speech that is aimed (and actually) hurt or kill and speech which only offend.


No absolutely not. You give that power away you give that power away to be abused. No I'm sorry the solution is no slogans, i.e a school uniform, or any slogan.

I refer you to a fantastic speech by the Hitch

262. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169433 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 26, 2008 at 4:54 am

I'm still unsure whether the slogan even makes sense. Be Gay not Gay yeah it makes sense to "What the fuck that is the most asinine thing I've ever heard".

263. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169431 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 26, 2008 at 4:49 am

The solution of course is to have school uniforms like we have here in Britain. It stops competition etc and does not stigmatise the poor. So it is either no slogans or any slogan.

264. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #168587 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 25, 2008 at 8:15 am

I really think public schools should be a "neutral zone" of sorts, where stupid things like this offensive shirt should be banned.


They would not be neutral if stupid things are banned they would be the opposite. Who shall be the censor that arbitrates what enters the "neutral zone". The only restriction on schools is the teaching of falsehoods and lies and propaganda.

If you censor things like this you deny my child's right to hear another view. That is far worse than someone espousing the view.

EDIT:Have a listen to the Hitch - The speech is from a debate at Hart House, University of Toronto. Hitchens speech is in opposition to a proposed amendment to criminalize hate speech.

265. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #168510 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 25, 2008 at 7:17 am

The school, while stressing its neutrality, barred Mr Neuxoll from wearing a t-shirt saying "Be Happy, Not Gay'' on the grounds that it was insulting.

But he said that was an affront to his freedom of expression and the federal appeals court agrees.


Well Done federal court. This is exactly what Freedom of Speech is for. Censorship of any kind should not be tolerated. Voltaire would turn in his grave if he was still in it.

266. Humans nearly wiped out 70,000 years ago, study says

Comment #168461 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 25, 2008 at 6:52 am

Slightly different emphasis down at the BBC

Human line 'nearly split in two'

Ancient humans started down the path of evolving into two separate species before merging back into a single population, a genetic study suggests.

The genetic split in Africa resulted in distinct populations that lived in isolation for as much as 100,000 years, the scientists say.


I wonder why the difference in emphasis?

From
"Tiny bands of early humans, forced apart by harsh environmental conditions, coming back from the brink to reunite and populate the world. Truly an epic drama, written in our DNA."
for CNN

To
"We don't know how long it takes for hominids to fission off into separate species, but clearly they were separated for a very long time," said Dr Spencer Wells, director of the Genographic Project.

"They came back together again during the Late Stone Age - driven by population expansion."
from the BBC.

267. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #166058 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 22, 2008 at 5:35 pm

If that retraction is true, I have to admit I have not come across a retraction from Pressac. The article you link does not prove anything its very selectively quoted and doesn't even suggest a 'capitualtion' he states obvious things such as "Approximation, exaggeration, omission and lying characterise the majority of the accounts of that period", well of course, I'd have to read the whole thing. If your primary sources are Faurisson and Irving however I'm very quickly losing respect for you.

Again can I ask you for your account of the Holocaust.

EDIT: So you do more than question the 6 million figure and the Gas Chambers. You question the very idea of any extermination attempt whatsoever. Now that is something that goes beyond what can be reasonably posited. You have to be ridiculously selective to attempt that.

268. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165998 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 22, 2008 at 4:46 pm

I have a rule
If something is indistinguishable from parody it can be safely ignored.


(Modern Art, Creationism, The Right-Wing, etc the list goes on and on)

269. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #165992 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 22, 2008 at 4:41 pm

If people feel excluded, the answer is to get educated and to ask questions. Someone untrained would not seriously try and tell a pilot how to fly, or a surgeon how to operate. They feel no injustice about being excluded from those areas, yet somehow everyone is entitled to push their opinions on cosmology and biology.

Nail. Head.

(Although with poor Joinery skills and no qualifications in said area I feel I must qualify my comment with this disclaimer).

270. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #165987 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 22, 2008 at 4:38 pm

ASMarques
I agree about the 6 million figure, people who stick to this don't know anything about the Holocaust. You are right, barely anyone touches the Holocaust with a barge pole, it's one of many untouchable subjects like the necessity for WW2 itself and Churchill's utter barbarism, beyond belief!
Can you give me your account of the Holocaust, because a quick scan shows you merely question the dogma.

271. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #165972 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 22, 2008 at 4:25 pm

ASMarques
I haven't had time yet to read all your posts after my last one but I've just noticed you've used Dr. Robert Faurisson as a source and I had to comment. I mean come on, Pressac destroyed his arguments.

272. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165663 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 22, 2008 at 2:24 am

Atheist : Church

Fish : Bicycle


Your Comment : Perspicacity

Nail : Head

273. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165649 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 22, 2008 at 1:29 am

So some atheists are taking seriously the idea that atheism needs to stand for things, like evolution and ethics, not just against things, like God. The most successful movements in history, after all�"Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.�"all have creeds, cathedrals, schools, hierarchies, rituals, money, clerics, and some version of a heavenly afterlife. Churches fill needs, goes the argument�"they inculcate ethics, give meaning, build communities. "Science and reason are important," says Greg Epstein, the humanist chaplain of Harvard University. "But science and reason won't visit you in the hospital."

Why is it that Atheism doesn't stand for anything again? Oh that's right, because it isn't anything. Every time I read stories like this I cringe. Stop with the Americanising, the summer camping, support-grouping of Atheism. Why not set up a church for ARacists etc.

274. Religion is 'the new social evil'

Comment #164705 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 2:58 pm

The responses may well have dismayed him.
That was annoying. It takes you aback in that it could be describing his reaction to his original survey. It's incredibly off-putting.

275. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164683 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 2:05 pm

MPhil
Are you familiar with Chris Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
He's famous for having the world's highest IQ (although Kim-Ung Yong has).

For example he says something very similar to you

Reality Principle - The real universe contains all and only that which is real. The reality concept is analytically self-contained; if there were something outside reality that were real enough to affect or influence reality, it would be inside reality, and this contradiction invalidates any supposition of an external reality (up to observational or theoretical relevance). .
http://www.teleologic.org/

276. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164662 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Yes I knew as soon as you replied I made that mistake. Sorry. I meant in terms of a meddler, an intervener.

277. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164652 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 1:43 pm

You could not imagine that a being in a universe could create conditions that we now find ourselves in. For example that we are part of some elaborate computer simulation, where variables can be manipulated etc. I'm not talking about a classic God , non-physical etc but an agent that could have intelligent control and manipulation of our universe. I hasten to add I don't think this is the case, but as a possibility I don't think it is precluded by what we know.

EDIT: Kardashovel stepped on my toes

278. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164645 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Frankus1122
Ah I see. Its the eugenicist argument I suppose, we keep alive, through civilisation and intelligence, those that would have died and there is a "regression to the mean" as Galton put it. Do you mean civilisation rather than specifically intelligence? Investigation into our own nature, knowledge of ourselves more than intelligence per se. (I hate the phrase per se)

279. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164630 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Kardashovel
I actually find that more and more I think I'd identify myself as a Spinozist or pantheist. I think the universe deserves the title God. Take Carl Sagan

On a side not I think Richards article about God-like aliens posted recently completely misses the point. Complexity is only ruled out as an ultimate first cause but this universe could very plausibly have a 'God' in the theistic sense. I childishly picture the Simpson's episode where Lisa creates life, I forget the exact circumstances. Or the fact that given the correct topology a universe could be 'designed' to be a ultimate Turing machine.

280. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164624 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Thanks Steve. Its a neurosis of mine however that anything connected with a sub-division of the human species immediately, I think it's the right description, scares me.
For example I think the idea that a person should be treated as an individual and not as the mean of his group is an evasion of the issue.

281. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164616 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Steve Zara

I think that point is answered by recent findings that we have been evolving over the past few millenia
Sorry the effects of a hangover are becoming evident. Are you talking about immune differences or something else?

282. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164615 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Can someone point me to a good resource concerning the effect of intelligence on evolution?
Can you adumbrate a little? Do you mean intelligence's effect on other organisms' evolution? So artificial selection for example?

283. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164609 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Should complexity be defined more precisely? In terms of biological organisms is it not a fungible currency?

284. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164602 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 12:50 pm

Diacanu

Make-believe is for momentary escape for entertainment, not a permanent vacation.

Even though I don't like you style you do have an enviable ability to produce gems like that.

285. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164591 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 12:33 pm

If I could make an observation I find most of these kind of arguments are about semantics.

286. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164586 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Sorry I didn't make myself clear Steve I agree with you about natural evolution.

287. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164581 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 12:28 pm

http://www.lib.calpoly.edu/infocomp/modules/05_evaluate/WIC2a.html

An example of guided evolution that has a purpose

"Thompson isn't buying this. Indeed, he doesn't even want to discuss it. He eats his fish and chips dutifully and seems to be wishing the conversation would meander elsewhere. His attitude is mildly ironic because, for the past few years, Thompson has been playing with computers in which the hardware evolves to solve problems, rather the way our own neurons evolved to solve problems and to contemplate ourselves. He is one of the founding members of a field of research known as "evolvable hardware" or "evolutionary electronics." Thompson uses a type of silicon processor that can change its wiring in a few billionths of a second, taking on a new configuration. He gives the processor a task to solve: for instance, distinguishing between a human voice saying stop or go. Each configuration of the wiring is graded on how well it did, and then those configurations that scored high are mated together to form new circuit configurations. Since all this manipulation is carried out electronically, the wiring of the processor can evolve for thousands of generations, eventually becoming a circuit that Thompson describes as "flabbergastingly efficient" at solving the task.

How this circuit does what it does, however, borders on the incomprehensible. It just works. Listening to Thompson describe it is like listening to someone describe the emergence of consciousness in a primitive brain. "

288. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164530 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 11:18 am

ASMarques
Operation Reinhard . I hate linking to wikipedia but ...

289. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164515 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 10:59 am

Quetzalcoatl
Vitriol is probably too strong an adjective.

290. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164508 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 10:51 am

From a quick scan ASMarques disputes the 6 million figure, that gas chambers were used. This should not generate this kind of vitriol surely? I withhold condemnation because I have only scanned.

This is not as loopy as it sounds Gas Chambers and the 6 million figure are pretty ropey.

Christopher Hitchens on Charlie Rose 08-May-96 (Part 1)

291. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164493 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 10:28 am

I find all the freting about what "other people are thinking" kind of petty.

If only that were the case. I sniff a dogmatic libertarian.

American culture has been a vibrant, active thing in modern time largely because of its crazy quilt of cultural mixtures. We like our diversity. Muslims are part of that too, so perhaps they'll be taking a lead in defusing Islamism (one can hope).

How oft is the american mind corrupted by an insane notion of freedom. (N.B Sorry for the sweeping slur)

292. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164492 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 10:25 am

moderationsmuse
You seem to be advocating the scientific method and then you don't apply it to yourself. You've read one book, poorly remembered it, not even being able to recall the title, and from this very shaky evidence base you come to the sweeping conclusion that Dawkins is not a science writer. Ironic no?

293. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164484 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 10:17 am

Diacanu
Now that's what I call taboo.

294. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164478 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 10:04 am

"It's true! I know it's true! I swear it's true!"?


Nothing is taboo. He is questioning the Holocaust. Yes that often coincides with anti-Semites but ASMarques is quite right in that no-one has actually provided any evidence against him apart from the knee jerk visceral reaction against taboo.

(Its the only simulacrum of what it would be like to be a believer and for someone to question their faith, no wonder the theists who post here are often vitriolic).

295. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163421 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 18, 2008 at 10:32 am

cordura5

The Case Against 'The Case for Christ'
A study in Christian apologetics
A review and analysis of The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, by Scott Bidstrup

296. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163415 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 18, 2008 at 10:18 am

But now the question arises: In what sense would the god-like aliens not be gods? Answer: In a very important sense. To deserve the name of God, a being would have to have designed more than just a jumbo jet or even a starship. He would have to have designed the universe. And therein lies a fundamental contradiction.

Well what if there were god-like alien creatures who did exactly that? Would they deserve the title of Gods? I don't see the contradiction. All that is ruled out is a complex entity as the Ultimate Cause.

297. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163399 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 18, 2008 at 9:48 am

We need a better explanation, such as evolution by natural selection or an equally workable account of the painstaking R&D that must underlie complex, statistically improbable things. Gods, if they are complex enough to be capable of designing anything, are, by virtue of their very complexity, not in a position to design themselves.

So why not a "god" who arose from "natural" causes that spawned our universe? It still makes the likelihood that a species of ape on a planet rotating around a star, one of thousands of millions in the galaxy, that is one of millions upon millions of other galaxies, are the reason for the "creation", and of course elementary logic means we first consider the evidence before we make these kinds of speculations but this argument wouldn't bother people who wish to believe there is a God, they merely want a daddy.

298. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163271 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 18, 2008 at 5:55 am

(Reuters) - Psychics foresee big trouble over new laws
Fortune-tellers, mediums and spiritual healers will march on Downing Street on Friday to protest against new laws they fear will lead to them being "persecuted and prosecuted".

Organisers say that replacing the Fraudulent Mediums Act of 1951 with new consumer protection rules will remove key legal protection for "genuine" mediums.

They think sceptics might bring malicious prosecutions to force spiritualists to prove in court that they can heal people, see into the future or talk to the dead.

299. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162653 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 17, 2008 at 7:06 am

Russell Blackford

but if it's played over the kind of images that I gather it is - in an attempt to create some kind of ironic or undercutting effect

Is anyone else Imagining Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia?

300. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162182 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 16, 2008 at 9:30 am

Kroto, whose father was Jewish and fled the Nazis in Germany, said the belief in God has never made sense to him.


Because that's the only reason someone could believe belief in God does not make sense? Loaded and unnecessary.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 | Next