401. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227247 by Sargeist on August 9, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Hmmm, but if you say "there are microscopic scraps of food on the plate", and then end up unable to demonstrate this (for whatever reason), you might just say "well, you can't prove a positive." Which doesn't get us very far! As a get out clause, you could say that I am asking you to to prove that there is not an empty plate, which could be viewed as another "proving the negative" case.

402. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227227 by Sargeist on August 9, 2008 at 2:23 pm

I am not convinced when anyone says "you cannot prove a negative." At this moment, I can prove that my plate does not have food on it; that the dining table does not have monsters under it; etc etc.

I think I know what people "mean" though, and I think it is that when there is no current way of verifying or refuting something, then we should not assume that that "something" is true.

403. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226363 by Sargeist on August 8, 2008 at 2:34 am

Oystein,

I loved learning about Feynman path integrals. :)
I also loved reading his book "QED", which made me realise that there is no actual difference between "reflection" and "interference".

When I was teaching physics I used to tell my students that electrons, photons etc "behaved" as if they were waves sometimes and like particles at other times, but if you were to ask "is an electron a wave or a particle?" then the answer, as far as I saw it, would be: "it is an electron."

404. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #225896 by Sargeist on August 7, 2008 at 1:28 pm

It is inexcusable for any news story about a scientific development not to include a citation or link to the actual paper.

Because of this, and because it took me a little bit of effort Googling to find the references, here are some useful papers:

Original 2006 Korotkov and Jordan paper:

http://www.ee.ucr.edu/~korotkov/papers/PRL-97-166805-2006.pdf

New Katz paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3547

Both free access.

Mark.

405. Congresswoman Slams Religious Right's Assault on Science's 'Edgier' Side

Comment #225744 by Sargeist on August 7, 2008 at 10:37 am

Comment #225730 by Eshto on August 7, 2008 at 9:57 am

Anyway a fellow student had a sister who taught in a school that had adopted abstinence-only. She wasn't allowed to say sex occurred outside marriage. If directly asked if she had ever had sex for any other reason..

406. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225700 by Sargeist on August 7, 2008 at 8:53 am

TWP: I know how you feel. I am somewhat cynical of their environmental credentials, myself.

407. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225692 by Sargeist on August 7, 2008 at 8:09 am

In the beginning were the puddings.
And the spirit of G-d moved upon the puddings and separated the black pudding from the white. And formed them into a small pile.
Lo!
And G-d looked upon the face of the puddings, and saw that they were icky. And demanded that all the weirdos who eat them be SHUNNED!

408. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225685 by Sargeist on August 7, 2008 at 7:53 am

phasma,

I still think that people can just be interested in minority lifestyles, like bisexuality, veganism, bell ringing and black pudding eating.

I have used a black pudding analogy with people who think homosexuality is "icky" (and, hence, banned, I presume). I can't imagine ever wanting to eat black pudding. The very thought of it makes me shudder. But I can see that other people like it. And seem to enjoy eating it. So I don't think it is fair to ban it just because I find it icky.

409. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225674 by Sargeist on August 7, 2008 at 7:34 am

Roy_H,

From some of the reviews of Richard's Darwin programme, it looks like we should teach about Kylie's body double.

Bonzai,

It'll usually be in response to me saying something like, "Hmm, Christian Bale was looking rather yummy in American Psycho", which will lead on to intrigued questions, from those people who didn't know I quite liked Christian Bale, I suppose.

I just view it in the same vein as, "So, you're a vegan, then?" (I am not, but you see my gist)

Steve,

I would indeed, too, love to know what they would teach. Maybe if your news people actually asked the sorts of questions that people like us (RD.netters) would ask, then media would be a lot more interesting. But, naturally, there would be fewer stories covered, but in depth.

Perhaps they could leave out the Kylie bits to make room.

410. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225668 by Sargeist on August 7, 2008 at 7:25 am

The question I get is usually: so which one do you like more?

I kid myself that it is because they are hoping I'll say "your type". Or maybe they are hoping the opposite... :'(

411. Dawkin 'bout a revolution

Comment #225596 by Sargeist on August 7, 2008 at 4:21 am

One good thing about Muslims, then: they make many more people realise how ludicrous religion is.

412. Dawkin 'bout a revolution

Comment #225541 by Sargeist on August 7, 2008 at 1:31 am

Well, if I win the million (or maybe the £500,000) on the Premium Bonds next month, I'll just pay for it myself.

413. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225538 by Sargeist on August 7, 2008 at 1:15 am

I thought the official response to us bisexuals was that straight people think we're playing at being gay, and gay people think we're playing at being straight.

That was the global "us" and "we", naturally.

EDIT: Sorry, when I wrote that, we were not yet several pages from the original comment!

414. Dawkin 'bout a revolution

Comment #225530 by Sargeist on August 7, 2008 at 12:52 am

Aren't there any really rich, British freethinkers out there who could just pay for the whole lot with a day's interest on their savings?

415. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225213 by Sargeist on August 6, 2008 at 10:46 am

Ha, ha ha, hahahahahahahahahaha... oh! oh! aha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-haha!

*breath*

Oh dear, *wipes eyes*

Ahahahahahaha, hur hur, *wheeze*

416. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #225065 by Sargeist on August 6, 2008 at 6:47 am

phasmagigas:

The only clip I have seen of the programme so far is the one in the classroom, but your telling of the "what use is it?" story is paralleled rather well with the "why should we learn about evolution?" question in the clip.

I suppose I should just be thankful there wasn't an "innit" at the end of the question.

417. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #224941 by Sargeist on August 6, 2008 at 3:42 am

I knew when I was typing it that someone would pick me up on my "we tell people that certain things are true" comment. I should have said that teachers explain what the bases of these "facts" are, but that still, to me, comes under the heading of: these certain things are true.

But I stand by my comment about the difference between natural selection and the other (physics) examples I gave. I like to think of natural selection as sort of an axiomatic thing: If animals reproduce with varying success; and if the success depends on genes and environment; and if the genes can be passed on to their offspring with small changes; Then: natural selection and changes in allele frequency.

But, I acknowledge that I simply cannot see how it cannot work. Which maybe does make me a bit like a religious nutcase. But it's more like logic.

Oh, I don't know. Trying to formulate a coherent comment on here is making my head hurt!

418. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #224913 by Sargeist on August 6, 2008 at 2:35 am

I still haven't seen the programme, so I am at a disadvantage, but my response to beeline's criticisms would be, at this point, simply: what we do in schools is tell people that certain things are true. We don't agonise about whether we sound like preachers when we tell people Newton's laws of motion; or Kepler's laws; or the Schrodinger equation; or any number of other things.

Natural selection is only different from these examples I used in that it, frankly, *must* work. It cannot "not work" because it is inevitable. It works itself. This is what is so fabulous about it. Just because it implies that there was no first pair of humans, and this makes religion feel uncomfortable is neither here nor there.

(But, I will wait an see the programme now, before making any comments about the actual content.)

edit: typo

419. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #224906 by Sargeist on August 6, 2008 at 1:56 am

To try hard to be on topic, I went off to read some of the comments on the Telegraph review, because Richard posted the link.

Aside from disliking the way that I have to start at the bottom and work up (no, not Kylie again) I found the following comment by Murray G to be particularly dismaying:

"evolution offers a far richer and more spectacular view of life than any religious story".
Nobody can deny that the visual display of power offered by Dawkins in this programme, depicting wild animals and their battle of "survival of the fittest" was indeed spectacular. Yet how depressing!
The winners are those who are the quickest, strongest and the cleverest. So if you are none of these you are simply worthless and here to be exploited by those who are.
Morality is for fools and you are only here to live then die and do what you can to survive whilst awaiting your fate.
Gods creation and his eternal plan for us is far more beautiful and richer than any theory purported by man. Look around the world and tell me that we are not becoming more like these wild animals resulting in pain and suffering for millions. Accept that as the truth and my ultimate reality? No chance!
Jesus offers us love, forgiveness and eternal life. What a different world we would live in if we followed our dear Lords teachings. This forgiveness is offered even to our current most famous and deluded exponent of religious hatred, Professor Richard Dawkins himself.
The Bible is far richer and believable than any fairytale purported by the mind of man.
God Bless.

Look around the world and tell me that we are not becoming more like these wild animals resulting in pain and suffering for millions.

420. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #224899 by Sargeist on August 6, 2008 at 1:41 am

I have no idea if Kylie Minogue is a twit, or not. But she does have a nice bottom.

Her sister Dannii seems to be more of a twit, but unless I met her and spent lots of time with her, I would have only a media-based opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly, of course, with your dismay at the worship of the vacuous. My personal bugbear at the moment concerns teenage males who wear their jeans too low, while showing their underwear. I see no point, purpose or sense to it.

The female version of this seems lately to involve having one tracksuit leg rolled up higher than the other one.

Anyone who disputes that memes exist need only look at these examples of bizarre and otiose behaviour to be shown otherwise.

Does anyone know what the rolled-up leg thing is all about? Feel free to PM me (I don't get enough - waaah!)

421. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #224891 by Sargeist on August 6, 2008 at 1:20 am

I'm sorry to say that I have not read that post yet. I am very poor at keeping up with most things.

I feel the need to wash my hands now, too.

422. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224889 by Sargeist on August 6, 2008 at 1:19 am

But, Brian, is the cracker not itself free?

Though I accept that it is not substantial enough for a lunch. Perhaps one does not get the whole body, and rather than dinner it is just "a pair o' teeth"?

423. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #224880 by Sargeist on August 6, 2008 at 12:58 am

As a heterosexual male, I don't mind a bit of a chat about breasts. Just cos most women don't like them as much as we do...

I quite enjoy Tera's peak oil obsession. I have my own obsessions, and so do other people. We can all be a bit broken record from time to time (well, those of us who post quite regularly).

ps. And I've *still* not managed to watch the programme yet. Damn damn damn. I do have till next Monday for part 2, though, right? Right?

424. A cast-iron case for a secular society

Comment #224624 by Sargeist on August 5, 2008 at 8:47 am

Haven't there been people who have been queueing up to get declared "officially" part-Native American (or something else) in order to get a share of some related goodies?

Back to the point, then. I think that my opinion is probably best summed up by the commenter earlier who said that a person's race does not really have a bearing on whether they can do a job or not, so to discriminate against a white/black/etc person would not make sense.

I was getting involved towards the end of a discussion I wasn't in at the start, so I may have just been waffling.

EDIT: I realise my comment about Native Americans was stupid, since there is an objective criterion for deciding whether someone "counts" as part of a racial group or not. And there's no way of changing that fact once you have found it out. Which of course was the previous point people made to me. Ah well.

Maybe it's that being a certain colour is not "making a statement" about anything, but being of a particular religion is?

425. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224593 by Sargeist on August 5, 2008 at 7:50 am

Friend:

Just gone to have a quick shufty ("look" that is, I realised just now that this could be misinterpreted) and I'm afraid that my only comment (if I have got the right person) is: at least she's not looking as sullen as most teenagers these days.

Anyhow: this is a science class? There can't have been more than about 15 pupils in it! And everything so clean and bright. Is this one of those "posh schools"?

426. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224590 by Sargeist on August 5, 2008 at 7:41 am

Hi, Richard. It is, of course, all done with magic fairy dust (and mirrors, no doubt).

I hope that, by tomorrow morning, I will be able to make comments about the programme that are actually based upon evidence (i.e. my having watched your programme.)

Mark.

ps. Do you happen to know if there is still space at the Oct 23rd lecture?

427. A cast-iron case for a secular society

Comment #224583 by Sargeist on August 5, 2008 at 7:07 am

My feeling is that people *say* that religion is not like race because if religion *were* to be viewed like race, we wouldn't be allowed to say nasty things about it.

Anyway, I agree with people who say that one does not choose one's religion. I didn't "choose" not to believe; I simply don't. I don't think I can force myself to believe - I can't even imagine what it would be like to be the sort of person who *does* believe!

I'm not really sure why we treat religion and race differently. Black people did not choose to be black. Muslims don't choose to be Muslims.

EDIT: I should add that I do feel like there is a difference between having a go at someone's religion and having a go at their racial origins, but even though I agree that one is ok and the other is not, I can't quite yet put my finger on why

428. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224549 by Sargeist on August 5, 2008 at 5:07 am

Hmmn, but this *does* appear to be the programme from last night....

EDIT: This is the last straw! I must now watch the *real* programme in order to find out what is going on.

429. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224544 by Sargeist on August 5, 2008 at 4:56 am

Again, I am chagrined to admit I have not yet watched the programme...

Were there children of various religions in the class? Wouldn't it have been fun to get the ones who were so convinced of the truth of "their holy book" to argue it out with each other.

Ah, multicultural harmony. I can see it now.

On the idea of the breakdown of children's religious beliefs and household income, I am sure that there was a time not too long ago when someone could have simply asked teachers to hand out questionnaires. Now you'd have to get an ethics committee involved. Bloody ethics.

430. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224542 by Sargeist on August 5, 2008 at 4:53 am

Gah! These reviews are making my bowels prolapse.

The Mirror:

"The first being the danger of believing you have all the answers about anything."

"Secondly for not realising that creation and evolution aren't mutually exclusive."

431. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224532 by Sargeist on August 5, 2008 at 4:40 am

From the Telegraph review:

"When he showed us some of Darwin's own pigeon specimens from the 1850s, he duly handled them like holy relics."

432. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224530 by Sargeist on August 5, 2008 at 4:37 am

Is it just some kind of humorous coincidence that there are two reviews of Kylie's Body Double?

"The Dawkins Doppleganger Review" - read one review, get all the others free!

433. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224519 by Sargeist on August 5, 2008 at 4:24 am

That review is truly bad.

"Ping went the high note, an unexpected sound for a dinosaur."

What? Sorry, but: what??

And then she goes on to review "I Am Kylie's Body Double" and "Coronation Street".

Hold me, I think I'm losing the will to live...

EDIT: And this from the Guardian? Home of Charlie Brooker and Ben Goldacre.

Let's hope the Times gets Matthew Parris to review it.

434. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224516 by Sargeist on August 5, 2008 at 4:14 am

I admit that I have not (still) watched the programme, so this is kind of a guess based on what other people have said (I know, bad of me).

Is it likely, do you think, that those children professing unchanged beliefs were concerned that they would be splashed all over the telly, in something their parents will watch in order to see their beloved son/daughter, and so, given their backgrounds, they were being prudent in not going: "oh shi-, I've been wrong all this time!"?

435. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224508 by Sargeist on August 5, 2008 at 3:52 am

MPhil #224498,

Would that be the same "sin" that we recently have been informed is not central to Christian belief? Surely some mistake!

436. A cast-iron case for a secular society

Comment #224442 by Sargeist on August 5, 2008 at 1:41 am

J Mac:

Of course that never occurred to me! :)

Although I don't *feel* that it stands up well as a completely justifiable statement, my opinion is that we should be all or nothing a little more in a lot of things.

So: no jewellery, or they can all wear jewellery. Everyone must wear a helmet, or everyone gets to choose. Everyone can get married (and have it called marriage) or we abolish the whole thing.

And so on.

437. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224381 by Sargeist on August 4, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Thinking back to GCSE integrated science (ack!) I can remember only a few things:

1) Transition metal ions form coloured solutions

2) Things don't fall through other things because of electrostatic repulsion (well, ok, Pauli Exclusion, but this *was* GCSE)

3) The difference between conductors and insulators is just a matter of degree.

It seems I do not have a brain for biology.

438. Embracing goodness, without God

Comment #224379 by Sargeist on August 4, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Hmmm, "seeing-eye cat", "rescue cat", nah! "Does what the fuck it wants cat", yeah!

Just so people are clear: I am a dog person. Dog's are atheists, though they treat men as gods. Cats are theists, and treat themselves as gods.

439. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224373 by Sargeist on August 4, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Corylus,

I find it hard to remember much of what went on at school. I was clearly far too busy being beaten up for being a swot swot...

Ahem. In my classes I remember virtually no one who was religious. In fact, back then, *I* was the one going to church. How times change.

I have not watched the programme yet (good old Sky-plus) but I presume that the school in one of the clips I watched was in London. Maybe the Muslim population of London has just gone up a lot over the years? (I don't know, I shall have to Google).

To be fair, though, I don't remember being taught about evolution at school, so my memory may well be failing already.

EDIT: plus signs do not show up!

440. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224369 by Sargeist on August 4, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Cos we suck up to teacher.

And, damn, is she worth it.

441. A cast-iron case for a secular society

Comment #224368 by Sargeist on August 4, 2008 at 2:15 pm

I have found, with some genuine surprise, that not only are Sikhs (men only, I presume) allowed to not wear crash helmets while riding motorcycles, but they are also exempted from wearing hard hats on construction sites. Although HSE regulations (and law, I suppose) *do* at least say that when there is a serious risk of head injury "other than through falling", then people should be prohibited from working in those areas unless they wear the head protection.

Now, personally, I see no problem at all with saying "You have to wear a crash helmet to be permitted to ride a motorcycle" and "No hat, no boots, no work" to everyone including Sikhs. Seems just so silly to me that one group of people can choose not to do something sensible to protect their heads, while the rest of us cannot.

Why not just say: "Well, you have the freedom to wear the turban, just not the freedom to ride a motorbike while doing so"? I also don't see why the turban is so damned important. It only applies to men, it seems (?) But are women also not supposed to cut their hair? There are lots of women and men, non-Sikh, who have long hair, but they have to wear helmets. Silly silly silly.

442. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224366 by Sargeist on August 4, 2008 at 2:11 pm

You mean one of these:

:)

Sorry, I think I picked up the last one.

443. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224361 by Sargeist on August 4, 2008 at 2:00 pm

I am ashamed to say that I got A's in both Maths and Eng Lang at A-level, and I am worried right now whether that apostrophe in "A's" is right or not, but I still can't manage to be 100% error-free in posts to this website!

Wait! I can but blame the keyboard! Verily, 'tis a plan!

444. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224351 by Sargeist on August 4, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Dammit!

445. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224344 by Sargeist on August 4, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Making fun of something does not make it incorrect.

Would that it did.

EDIT: Grrr, fixing bloody stupid typo. That'll teach me!

446. Charlie Brooker's screen burn

Comment #224312 by Sargeist on August 4, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Charlie Brooker:

"Worshipping God is like fellating someone who intermittently stubs fags out on your head for no good reason. And we all know how unsatisfying that can be."

447. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224086 by Sargeist on August 4, 2008 at 5:17 am

"I am not a biblical scholar or theologian" - right that's that out of the way, but just take all of this comment as my possibly entirely incorrect opinion.

Original sin: Not a central tenet of Christianity.

Ok, so what *is* the central tenet of Christianity? I would hazard that it is "forgiveness of sins, and the sacrifice of Jesus who died that we might have eternal life." Ok, so why did he have to die? Because he was a sacrificial lamb (oh yes, "Lamb of God", that crops up from time to time) who took the place of his flock (us, that is) as a blood offering to god so that god would forgive us all for our sins. And what exactly are these sins? Well... we are all sinners it seems. Except Mary. Why is she not a sinner? Because she was immaculately conceived, meaning that the stain of Adam's sin did not infect her.

All of these things are standard Catholic theology. And Catholicism marks itself out as the "true" version of Christianity, remember. Jesus dies to save us from the sin of Adam. This may not be what 27b-6 believes, but it is the official doctrine of the supposed proper church. Just because Augustine had a lot to do with it 400 years after Jesus lived does not mean that it is not a central part of what has become Christianity. If you follow the religion that Jesus himself preached, why you might end up just being Jewish.

448. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224085 by Sargeist on August 4, 2008 at 5:06 am

And I'm afraid that none of this makes it any more likely that a god, your god, or anyone else's god actually exists.

You cannot simply keep saying: "ooh, look at all this stuff he said that I don't like" and have done with it. You have to provide alternative hypotheses and indicate how one would go about testing them. Well, you do if you want people to be convinced; if you want to get at the truth; if you want people to understand why it is true.

You have to show why your god exists and then show why your version of it is the right one and not the one that so many other have. Otherwise it is all just the same as talking about unicorns and saying how they are really nice and how they are kind to pixies, and this makes people feel all warm inside.

449. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224040 by Sargeist on August 4, 2008 at 2:54 am

Quetz,

I want to know why god seems to be so concerned with what people put on their heads, what they eat and where they put their genitals.

Although, if he does love us, he'd probably not want us to put them in, say, combine harvesters.

450. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224039 by Sargeist on August 4, 2008 at 2:53 am

Theists may notice that we (atheists) are somewhat cagey when it comes to saying "well, yes, ok, we are kind of making the assumption that science works", or "yes, you are right, we cannot prove definitively that god does not exist". This is not because, as some of them think, we are secret believers (sneaking down to the fridge at night to get a quick prayer in) and not because we know god exist but we just don't like him very much.

No, it is because saying "yes, god *could* exist" seems to lead straight to: "right, you finally admitted that ChristAllahYahweh is your saviour, so let's ban abortion, lock women up, stone people for normal biologically driven behaviour, oh, and by the way, god gave us all that land you happen to be on, so cough up or get blown up."