1. Russian woman put on trial in Dubai for drinking juice in public

Comment #254329 by Jaz on September 25, 2008 at 2:47 pm

total nonsense Greybishop.

Your analogy of "smoking certain leaves" as ANOTHER example of ambigiuous individual morality is totally misplaced because this moral decision is linked in to on secular ideals, such as effects on health and society influence

This, however, is an example of absolute 100% irrationality which ONLY exists because of loyalty to absurd religious traditions.

No-one doesn't feel it isn't the responsibility for tourists to adhere to foreign laws, but to actually stand up for the law itself and compare it to other secular laws is laughable. It has nothing to do with eastern vs western morality, why are you bringing that into it

2. The Holy Laughter Anointing

Comment #248462 by Jaz on September 16, 2008 at 9:20 am

Brilliant that. I can't think of a more worthwhile use of Gods all-powerful intervening hand on this planet right now than to make a bunch of halfwit morons laugh their sizable behinds off once a week.

3. No credit for creationism

Comment #232710 by Jaz on August 18, 2008 at 2:13 pm

19, kkelly, I assume you're talking about "The Joy Of Sect" where the Simpsons join the movementarians

It's true that post around season 9 the characters become less sympathetic (Homer esp), and the plots are less family-central and don't contain the well rounded emotional resonance of the early shows, but the humour doesn't dip, and it's a total myth that the shows aren't as funny or clever as they once were. (movie aside!)

Sorry, off topic

4. No credit for creationism

Comment #232629 by Jaz on August 18, 2008 at 12:11 pm

13, kkelly, erm no. Sorry

5. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230332 by Jaz on August 14, 2008 at 2:45 pm

You put up a well articulated account there for the devil's advocate Spinoza.
But that "today, society appears to be treating from reason" stuck out like a sore thumb in its wrongness

It's the sort of tripe my Christian friends say..."oh we're going down the pan, losing our core values etc etc"

The truth is, the society I assume the comment is refering to, in the scheme of things has never been more enlightened, Atheists may enjoy the fight, but the tide has well and truly turned.

6. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #209854 by Jaz on July 13, 2008 at 12:30 pm

That's a good point village.

p.s. Like the avatar by the way. The Simpsons writers use Homer brilliantly to "dis-arm" religion. It's like, if Homer can see through it, then what does that say about the rest!!

7. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #209842 by Jaz on July 13, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Negasta,
How obsurd. You imply that everyone who hasn't commited a violent crime or has a known psychological condition isn't capable of gun mis-use??
I'm sorry but there is absolutely no defence whatsoever for gun legalisation.

8. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #209811 by Jaz on July 13, 2008 at 11:49 am

Negasta,
Yeh, I fully support the right for people to own guns too. I wouldn't stop there, people should have the "right" to own bombs, grenades, etc or any lethal weapon

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

Comment #203663 by Jaz on July 3, 2008 at 10:33 am

This isn't a new idea/joke really. I guess this guy had just finished watching the Simpsons episode "Bart Sells His Soul"

10. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #180969 by Jaz on May 16, 2008 at 8:09 am

I kind of agree with you Communist. When you read the exact wording of the puzzle in the link sent by gnomead, it says the host knows where the car is, but doesn't say explicitely that he has to pick a goat, in which case switching doesn't change things. I think this is where the confusion lie, and not serious academics knowing the problem unambiguously, yet not being able to work it out because it is counter-intuitive

11. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #179618 by Jaz on May 13, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Yeh, I'm not really sure why or where there is any confusion......

Any given sequence has the probability of 0.5^n, where n is the number of trials.(assuming non casino roulette). So, it is irrelevant whether the outcomes in that sequence are red or black. However, if you want the probabilite of getting a specific number of one colour, regardless of places in the sequence, e.g. 1 red and 6 blacks Vs 7 blacks, then the probability will be highest where the number of red and black outcomes are closest to each other.

Thanks gnomead for that Monty Hall link. I'm not bright at all, but can grasp the Monty Hall understanding in a moment, so I am absolutely amazed that teachers and professors etc had to actually perform EXPERIMENTS before they were convinced!! The ONLY explanation I can think is that the crutial aspect, the fact that the host KNOWS where the car is, and will NEVER pick it, that wasn't made clear..........

12. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #179095 by Jaz on May 12, 2008 at 2:24 pm

gnomead, well I'm torn. I believe you that there are some archieved letters. I guess my comment was slightly tongue in cheek. I just find it staggering, nay unbelievable, that mathemeticians, would non understand a simple probability problem, having sat down and thought about it for enough time to then write a letter!i.e. were they genuine mathemeticians, were the letter embelished etc etc. God....I'm producing conspiracy theories on this... LOL!!

And, yeh, AtheistJon, yes even lauded academics can be idiots, just read a McGrath effort. However, that is can be around phylosophical/common-sense opinion, or an area where religious emotion overtakes, rather than over something explicitely academic, and in this case, straight forward

13. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #179084 by Jaz on May 12, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Firstly, it's not even worth the discusion of whether previous events on a roulette wheel influence the future events! Obviously it doesn't

In that vein, I have to agree with Athiestjon and fear that Samir is a touch confused. Why would it be better to bet on red after seeing 6 blacks in a row?? The roulette pays out according to the set probabilites of the roulette, and so will never change. So, no previous event makes any odds better or worse in relation to the underlying odds?

If the roulette wheel issued odds according to money placed, and having seen a lot of blacks, people bet on black, then yep, it would be better to bet on red.

p.s. Is it me or does that whole "many mathemeticians querried the monty hall solution" seem ridiculous. I mean, why would actual serious mathemeticians ( I'm not one!)be thrown by a simple conditional probability problem??? Surely this is just a rumour that never actually happened....