1. Cross purposes

Comment #263807 by cyberguy on October 12, 2008 at 6:01 pm

Why does Rowan Williams think that works of fiction somehow provide evidential support to myths and superstitions? And where conclusions reached from this fiction are contradicted by evidence-based science, then the science is somehow falling short?

How can anyone think like that, letting their reasoning abilities become so disabled? >:-(

2. 'Intelligent' computers put to the test

Comment #262540 by cyberguy on October 8, 2008 at 9:44 pm

What about a chatbot passing the Turing AU (artificial unintelligence) test?

See the Sarah Palin interview generator at http://interviewpalin.com/

A WIN!!!!

3. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229708 by cyberguy on August 14, 2008 at 12:57 am

Best article I have read in weeks!

4. Researchers Discover Remnant of an Ancient 'RNA World'

Comment #213825 by cyberguy on July 19, 2008 at 2:05 am

As I see it, this discovery is just one pole marking the route, to let us know we are on the right track.

5. Researchers Discover Remnant of an Ancient 'RNA World'

Comment #212986 by cyberguy on July 18, 2008 at 12:41 am

"We predicted that there would be an ancient 'RNA city' out there in the jungle, and we went out and found it,'' Breaker said.

...a molecule that mimics cyclic di-GMP could be used to disable or disarm bacterial infections such as cholera, he said.

6. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #208212 by cyberguy on July 10, 2008 at 5:52 pm

@ Bonzai
"A guy with a Ph.D.in mathematics doesn't need any lecture on logic."

You are right.

You would think that a Ph.D. in Mathematics would lead a person to rationality and logic, but obviously not in this case. I think the reason is that mathematics is mostly an abstract subject area, and in maths you don't have to depend on external real-world evidence to confirm your thinking. The theory is all rigourously conceptual - that's why you can have valid mathematical proofs, whereas it is impossible to prove something to be true in other sciences - a very fundamental difference.

The scientific method has been designed specifically to prevent such self-delusion regarding the real-world as exhibitted by Lennox. He is probably too old to change his thinking style now, but focusing of the scientific method would certainly highlight his logical weaknesses.

When debating with people who think like Lennox, I "move one level up". I don't focus so much on the subject that they are talking about (I even ignore deliberately inflammatory talk and patently absurd assertions). I focus much more on the methods that they are using to arriving at their "truth", as well as their debating techniques. I can then poke holes in that.

I am familiar with people who will throw a provocative statement into an argument to bait their opponent off-topic when the debate starts to go badly for them.

By not rising above this sort of trick you run the risk of arguing in circles, as this discussionn demonstrated.

7. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208160 by cyberguy on July 10, 2008 at 4:44 pm

Email done.

Sir

I am writing in support of yourself and Professor P.Z. Myers against the hysterical over-reaction regarding a piece of communion wafer by certain Catholic pressure groups, in particular the Catholic League.

As well as being a excellent scientist and educator, Professor Meyers is a highly regarded social commentator, and his web log is one of the most-read on the internet. His critical focus on religion is extremely necessary, due to the anti-intellectual stance of many religious groups who seek to undermine the foundations of rationality itself. This particular incident is a case in point.

It would be a disaster if threats coming from a completely irrational mind-set was allowed to suppress a clear voice of reason. Arguments based on automatically demanded respect for a given belief-system, or on the degree of offence taken, should be given absolutely no weight.

I strongly urge your university to fully support Professor Myers in his important work, and to protect him from continuing attacks by those with a pre-enlightenment agenda.

Yours Sincerely,
(real name)

8. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #208113 by cyberguy on July 10, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Lennox's discussion jumped from one subject area to another like a flea on a carpet.

He never held one idea in his head for more than a few sentences before he was pulling unsupported assertions from a different subject area to try and back himself up and - more to the point - to deliberately avoid close examinination of his original assertion!

Hence the conversation freewheeled around as Lennox avoided substantive analysis of any one of his assertions.

What I disliked was his repeated comment that "I am really interested in this topic, and I really want to understand it", but then he didn't make the least attempt to understand what RD was saying, but instead objected, circumvented, talked over and sidetracked him.

Lennox has a very confused mind. He needs a serious course in logic, and to understand the reasons behind the scientific method. Then he might be able to apply some rigour to his own thinking.

9. New Zealand man sells his soul to 'Hell'

Comment #203739 by cyberguy on July 3, 2008 at 1:15 pm

A soul futures market?

10. New Zealand man sells his soul to 'Hell'

Comment #203705 by cyberguy on July 3, 2008 at 11:59 am

I had the same idea about a year ago, but I thought it had been done already - at a similar time to when people started selling their virginity, etc, on eBay.

Your_Noodly_Master wrote "Shouldn't some Christian organization start offering to buy any loose souls that end up on the market in order to "save" them? We should start suggesting this to evangelicals we run across. Then there wouldn't be a supply vs. demand problem."

Maybe RD.net should become the leading online soul-broker in order to raise money for the RD Foundation? The main difficulties to maintaining the value of souls would be to stop individuals selling their soul repeatedly, and also verifying that a given "Deed of Soul" was genuine. Then you have a market.

The key to it though is putting the wind up the christians so they get in on the act. And if word got out that a satanist cult was buying up all the available souls you would have real competition in the marketplace.

The LDS might be interested as well...

11. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #172547 by cyberguy on April 29, 2008 at 5:46 pm

Did you hear that Ben Stein once had an arsehole transplant?

The arsehole rejected him!

12. My quest to get de-baptised

Comment #152743 by cyberguy on March 31, 2008 at 12:45 pm

What if you asked to see the actual baptism record?

Then you could physically destroy it and take the consequences as an act of political disobedience. The punishment (if any) might not be that bad. Or refuse to be punished as the data was collected without your consent and they refused to amend or destroy it on your instruction. It would possibly get media attention.

Just a thought.

13. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #151645 by cyberguy on March 29, 2008 at 6:05 am

Proposed new debating point.

Theists sometimes argue that an atheist's assertion that god does not exist is merely an assumption, which is why we can't use the claim that god does not exist in an argument. First prove that god does not exist, they say.

The other proof-related debating points don't exactly cover this.

I have what I consider a good reply to this point which I will submit if this is considered a true new debating point topic.

14. Expelled from Expelled: PZ story goes global

Comment #150537 by cyberguy on March 27, 2008 at 4:43 am

What's the alternative?
A better tactic?
Or, silence?


Excellent question. What about non-violent direct action? Note that this film is an excellent opportunity for atheists to get their voices heard in their local communities! In fact the film is a "godsend" for atheists if you figure out how to use this chance.

For example:

1. Poster over the top of any outdoor advertising for the film with a pithy rebuttal in
large letters. Refer to the Expelled Exposed website - http://www.expelledexposed.com/ (Thanks bitbutter. BTW, how do you get the link like you do it?)

2. Write letters to you local community newspaper pointing out the obvious flaws in the movie.

3. Phone local talkback radio stations to get the atheist voice heard. Get your atheist friends to do it too. Be polite and informed. Be direct and to the point. Remember - soundbites, people!

4. If you feel like some fun, picket your main local cinema that is showing the movie. Of course go with as many atheist friends as you can, and tell the media first. Look tidy and be prepared to answer the question "Have you actually seen the movie?" The answer is you have read numerous reviews by people who have, you have seen all the movie trailers and the publicity material, but you are not going pay to see a movie made by a bunch of creationists.

5. Erect a countering banner at a prominant location. Maybe it just needs to list the URL for the Expelled Exposed website.

6. Email, write and call any advertisers associated with the movie to tell them you will be boycotting their products or services, and you will be telling all your friends to do the same, due to their support of this dishonest film.

7. Note any local politicians, mayors, city councillors who go to the opening night. Email, write, and call them to express your disapproval. Say that you will not be voting for them, based on their support for his movie.

8. Get inventive - insert your own ideas here...


Just doing one or two of these easy things is a practical way for atheists to be heard in the "real world" - and hence raise our profile as responsible but concerned members of our local communities.

15. Expelled from Expelled: PZ story goes global

Comment #150494 by cyberguy on March 27, 2008 at 2:14 am

I'm with you on this one Diacanu.

Too many atheists are placid and passive - not really prepared to stand up for what they know is right.

I want to physically be there to protest the lies!

16. Expelled from Expelled: PZ story goes global

Comment #150489 by cyberguy on March 27, 2008 at 2:02 am

One thing I have learnt about political publicity campaigns (having been part of one in NZ) is that you can win your cause by just winning over the key decision-makers - you don't have to win 50 % of everyone in the country.

Once you become a group that can be seen to represent a "voting bloc" you start to win over other influential groups who are like-minded enough not to want to alienate you. You do this by targetted persuasion, the way that people like RD, PZM and CH are doing now.

However, the problem with us atheists is the "herding cats" syndrome. No-one tells us what to think or do - not even other atheists! So the idea of an atheist voting bloc is a difficult one.

All the same, by constantly hammering the truth and by knocking down the theist arguments (over and over again) we will slowly gain the upper hand in this meme-war, and gather influential supporters along the way. Actually I think we do already have the upper hand, and our opponents know it!

After the Dover Trial, the religious types had to retire to lick their wounds and to try another tack. This dishonest film is their next best shot. Let's make sure it misses the target!

17. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105863 by cyberguy on January 2, 2008 at 1:52 am

Sam Harris has written the best article I've read about genetic modification yet.

When the subject is raised, too many people think of the worst of all possible scenarios - Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" (a fiction) and Nazism's eugenics (a failure). But they overlook what real good can, and is, being done using genetic techniques. Like genetic testing for inherited diseases. And developing stronger and more bountiful crops.

Having gone though serious fertility treatment to get my two sons, I have seen doctors "playing god" on a daily basis. And they have shown great care, humanity and wisdom - in fact the exact opposite of the Frankenstein portrayal by the technology's detractors. If cloning was an option I would have considered it positively - it is only artificial twinning after all.

As genetic testing and treatments become available it will be the parents who will have to decide. And because these technologies will never be cheap, we can trust that parents will consider their options carefully, as they do now if a genteic test comes out with a bad result.

The thousands of parents making such decisions will, on average, make sensible decisions in ways that benefit their offspring, and hence the human gene pool. Some won't, but that's life.

There are two key things. One is not to let any government or other organisation dictate genetic selection (for their own ends).

The other thing is not to let religious dogma prevent individuals from choosing for themselves. For example, medical ethics committees often contain people who represent the religious viewpoint, which can stifle new treatments. Just look at stem cell research as an example.

At the end of the day, you have to trust individuals to make the best choice for themselves.

18. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79366 by cyberguy on October 17, 2007 at 4:39 am

Comment 92 by Elentar was a good point.

McGrath's postmodernist approach to answering questions was evident throughout. He often answered by starting with a comment that he agreed with or understood Hitchens point (the "bait") and then proceeded to quote some long-dead non-scientist, compare it with some biblical text (the "switch"), and say that this raised important questions that he would like to address. But he never actually did address them.

It was like most post-modernist thought, a lexical hall of mirrors - phrases that quote and reflect upon each other, but say absolutely nothing about the real world outside.

19. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65050 by cyberguy on August 22, 2007 at 6:20 pm

My submission was:

I am not just an atheist - I am an anti-theist. I believe that religion SHOULD be under attack in today's world.

That is because faith is no good at distinguishing fantasy from reality. Any conclusions based on faith are at best unsound, and at worst endanger human civilisation itself.

In these dangerous times hope lies in the abandonment of faith, and the advancement of evidence-based reasoning.

20. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #42189 by cyberguy on May 17, 2007 at 9:00 pm

@Roll (Comment #42010)

You wrote "At some point, the secularist, scientific, atheistic hammer-headed argument runs out of steam. I mean you can only repeat the obvious so many times."

Tell the televangelists a similar message. Tell the preachers, the door-knockers ("Have you seen this magazine..."), the Gideons people, and the millions of other deluded dupes who constantly, constantly peddle their ideas at us. Tell them to stop their message because we've heard it already.

You know that prospect is laughable. And why is that?

What we are talking about is a full-on meme war. Repeating the same message ad-infinitum is a vitally important part of this. It takes a while for ideas to sink in. Not everyone hears it or gets it first time. And it takes persistence to change a mind-set.

The same christians keep arguing the same points over and over, even when they have been shown to be incorrect in earlier debates. They don't care about "truth", just about "getting the message out". Repetition is at the core of it.

So your plea to change the nature of the debate is way too early.

In my opinion we need even more wide-spread and radical atheistic (verbal) attacks on religion - in order for people like Richard Dawkins, and friends, to be clearly seen as the reasonable moderates that they are, instead of being incorrectly (and repetitiously!) painted as extreme by our religious opponents.