1. It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud

Comment #238274 by atp on August 27, 2008 at 10:12 pm

What he does is presenting a parody of atheists, strawmen atheists, which he then knocks down.

He is writing this for an audience who do not know what the real arguments and questions are. And his target group will buy this, it confirms their belief and prejudices.

This is no different than what we see and hear daily in politics. The opponents are misrepresented, their arguments twisted and their motivations questioned.

We all want our beliefs and prejudices confirmed. That's human. That's how we organize the world in our minds.

Edit: What I do wonder is how much he believes in his own arguments. Is this what he really believe, or is he deliberately misrepresenting us atheists?

2. No credit for creationism

Comment #232918 by atp on August 18, 2008 at 11:04 pm

Stop bashing the blonde girl. Very few people her age understands science well enough to see through the well crafted lies that ID has anything to do with science.

Most of us, if not all of us, would at her point in life, going to the same school, probably feel that what we were thought made sense. I know I was never thought was science actually is until far later in my education.

If people are not thought critical thinking in school, then they have to discover this for them self when they grow up. It is the school that is to blaim, not the poor girl being misled by it.

I feel bad when I read this site, which supposedly should be frequented by well reflected people, and I see this kind of "We are better than you"-behaviour and lack of empathy and understanding.

3. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232354 by atp on August 18, 2008 at 2:04 am

I see that a couple of times it's argued that the idea that "free" particles can cause free will is to incredible to be true.

I'd like to point out that this is the exact same argument that many religious people use when they claim that the universe could not just appear on itself, the eye is too complex to have evolved naturally and so forth. It's an argument that appeals to ones own lack of knowledge and imagination.

Personally I don't believe in free atoms. The reason for this is that there are no evidence for it. All we have is unpredictable behavior. But we don't need magic to explain that. All we need to acknowledge is that there is causes we don't have enough information about.

We do have a phenomena we call will, and it does appear to behave as if it is at least semi free. That it's not totally free is easy to prove. Just go get drunk and experience for yourself that your will is not free from the chemical contents of your brain.

Anyway, this will and our consciousness and ability to feel and have experiences is a mystery to us still. I believe it some day can be explained through advanced processes in the brain. But this is also an explanation that stretches the imagination. Many people will find that just as incredible as some of you find that interaction of molecules/particles with freedom can be the cause. But saying it is not possible is yet again an appeal to ones own lack of knowledge and imagination.

My reason for not believing in free atoms is that we do not know enough about the phenomena to say that it is an requirement. We have no observations really supporting the theory. And adding freedom to atoms is just making the world even more complex, without knowing that it is necessary, and without really getting more answers. It goes against Occams razor.

It's nice as a philosophical idea. But without observation supporting it, there is no reason to start believing in it.

4. Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Comment #229003 by atp on August 13, 2008 at 2:29 am

PZ Myers reckons that saying evolution is separate from abiogenesis is a cop out. He argued (too lazy to link) that the formation of life is part of the same process that includes evolution.....

5. Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Comment #228996 by atp on August 13, 2008 at 2:02 am

Wow! The whole article reads just like it was some fancy new age stuff that wanted to look like science.

But it makes enough sense to me to look like a viable way of looking at evolution in the context of energy.

I am not a physics expert, and have always had a problem with one aspect of entropy. It is said that in a _closed_ (was missing in the article) system entropy tends to increase continuously. So that there is no problem with subsystems where entropy decreases, i.e. self organization in an open subsystem does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

But what I've never really grasped is how energy input into (or flow through) an open system, when that results in locally decreased entropy, is causing overall increased entropy?

Anyway, an interesting article I will be sure to reread a couple of time.

6. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #210665 by atp on July 15, 2008 at 12:39 am

How do you define a "peaceful religion"?

Is it a religion that preaches peace?
Or is it a religion that leads to peace?

Because the first doesn't seem to necessary lead to the second.

I say it's something in the nature of religion itself that is the problem.

7. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110769 by atp on January 12, 2008 at 11:01 am

An absolute objective moral is to me like religion, I have never seen any evidence for such a thing.

Mostly, and this is not meant as a strawman, I see people subscribe to the idea because they are not comfortable with a world where it is up to each and every single individual to make up his or her mind about whether it is okay to kill or not.

So, as far as I am concerned, all ethics and morals are subjective and it is actually up to each individual to make up his or her own mind about what is right or wrong. But of course not in a vacuum, but influenced by parents and society.

But subjective moral is not the same as moral relativism.

If my ethics says it is wrong to kill people. It is wrong to kill all people. If I make exceptions in my ethics for people of some cultures, saying it is OK for people of that culture to kill, then this would be moral relativism.

It would also mean I would have a double moral standard. One standard for one group of people, another standard for another group of people. This double moral, or lack of moral, is moral relativism. But is not the same as subjective moral.

It is very possible to have a subjective moral without falling into the trap of moral relativsm.

8. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106577 by atp on January 3, 2008 at 7:09 am

>No, you are mixing immediate humanity, which you take a direct part, and global humanity, which you have less or no impact on, and jumping in and out of them as it suits you.

It is very possible to have different roles in different situations.

This discussion is going nowhere, so I'm out.

9. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106552 by atp on January 3, 2008 at 6:10 am

>You're not part of "we", and "our"?

I am part of 'we humans', but that doesn't mean I have to take an active part in deciding anything for us.

Are you deliberatley trying to misundestand in order to avoid relating to the real content of my posting?

>You don't want a say?
What I personally want is not relevant.


>See it does matter, because if what you assume has no relevance to the matter, then neither does your say in it, and there goes the immediate "we".


What I personally assume or want does not affect the point of my post. Whether or not I get to affect any decission has nothing to with the fact that the only ones having a say in the matter is us humans, and nobody and nothing else.

You are mixing different things together.

>And if you're not talking about the immediate "we", but the global "we", then why bother quote Einstein?

Again you seem to mix together my part in this discussion from the point of my post.

>Let's get back on the Jesus train then.

I say that "good", "bad" etc. is subjectively defined by humans, and comes from nothing and nowhere else. Then you start talking about appealing to superstition, which is the opposite of what I'm saying.

I have to repat my question, are you deliberaltely trying to misunderstand?

10. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106535 by atp on January 3, 2008 at 5:22 am

>You say "our", as if you'll get to be one of the ones deciding.

No, I don't. Can you explain how you came to that assumption?

Also, can you explain how it is relevant to what I wrote?

>You assume the choosing committee will consider Einstein, and not say, Nietzsche.

I make no such assumption. Also it would have no relevance if I did, since my comments do not rely uppon anything I assume or not.

11. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106438 by atp on January 3, 2008 at 12:22 am

Diacanu wrote: «Oh, and if it ain't broke...»

Broke by what standard?

Diacanu wrote: «But we're ages away from being wise enough to play with well...ourselves.»

Wise enough by what standard?

There is no "right", "wrong", "broke", "good" or "bad" by any other definition than our own subjective definition.

As the article says, mother nature is indifferent. Also about these things.

So what we humans have to do is define our own standards and goals based on our own ethics and goals.

And about ethics, let me quote Einstein:

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

12. What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #98621 by atp on December 14, 2007 at 12:15 am

Atheism doesn't say anything about The meaning of life. The idea that The meaning exists is a religious idea.

It is then up to every person to find meaning in his or her own life, and in the life of other people.

But the endless search for The meaning, that is a wild goose hunt religion has instilled on humanity.

13. Double-checking Dawkins

Comment #93020 by atp on December 2, 2007 at 1:57 am

To those who say "get a life", I'd like to comment that being curious, finding things out, even though they are not important things, is actually a great part of being alive.

On the other hand. Telling people who are curious to "get a life" I find much less constructive or interesting.

14. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #82256 by atp on October 26, 2007 at 12:09 am

I believe it's a stupid argument.

Apart from that, atheisme is not defined by what people believe in. It's only defined by a lack of belief in the existence of gods.

Of course, any rational atheist would believe in science. And believing in science does not mean believing that everything science ever produces is true, but believing in the scientific method and that it over time will uncover more and more knowledge about the world and how everything works.

15. If you don't accept the supernatural, you obviously think life is depressing, meaningless and cold

Comment #81647 by atp on October 25, 2007 at 1:54 am

One scary thing about religion is that it seems to take away some peoples ability to enjoy and find meaning in life as it is.

Maybe the reason is that religion teaches people to believe that there has to be something more, and thus makes it difficult to settle for what is.

16. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #81594 by atp on October 25, 2007 at 12:19 am

Atheism doesn't assert anything. It is a lack of belief in something.

I simply have to admit I don't know these things, and that my lack of knowledge is no reason to believe in any random story about supernatural beings or similar that logically cannot be proved to have no more or less truth in it than other random stories.

The propostion that "God did it" does not give me any more knwoledge outside the proposition itself. As not as it is not based in reality or logic and cannot be proved or disproved, the proposition about God holds no value.

It gives no knowledge and no real answers, it only provides us with more questions. How did God come about?

And using Occams razor I can say. If God could exists in order to create the univers. Couldn't the laws of existence that permitted God to exist just as well permit the existence of our universe without any interaction of a God?

So as an atheist I don't have to assert anything. I just have to acknowledge that the story about God holds no value, gives no knowledge and is utterly superfluous.

17. Norway flourishes as secular nation

Comment #76157 by atp on October 4, 2007 at 11:49 pm

I don't think you should attribute peace to secularism. There is a correlation, yes. But what causes what is too complex for jumping to conclusions like that.

But here is something else to consider: There are few ill effects of secularism in Norway. Rejection of religion is not a problem. A secular society works very well, and religion is not necessary for having a good and peaceful society.

18. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74592 by atp on September 29, 2007 at 4:19 pm

The world isn't black and white. Of course something good comes from religion too. Denying that would be stupid.

But still we should look at the sum of how religion affect our world, and that is in my oppinion predominately negative.

And even if it the sum of effects were positive, it still wouldn't make it right to delude people into believing in lies.

19. How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science

Comment #70315 by atp on September 14, 2007 at 11:15 pm

I thought the conclusion to this text was a bit strange.

First it is shown that people reject knowledge if the knowledge contradicts their religion. Then "These data once again show that, in the minds of most people in the United States, there is no real clash between science and religion"

If science is rejected because the knowledge contradicts a persons religion, I would say there's a serious clash here. Is it only me?

20. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69185 by atp on September 9, 2007 at 11:13 pm

Ramsey: «The parody only works if the analogy between religion and fascism is close enough.»

No Ramsey. This piece does not rely on comparing religion and facism. What it does is taking the arguments against the attack on facism is the same as the arguments against the attack on religion. And since the arguments works and we still know fascism is bad, we have an absurd situation. And this shows that arguments themselves are flawed.

So this writing does NOT rely on comparing fascism with religion.

21. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67280 by atp on September 3, 2007 at 2:27 am

This article was mostly a homage to the God of gaps. There are still som unanswered questions out there, so lets fill them up with God.

«Having faith makes me humble and self-questioning, unlike the unbelievers who know they are always right.»

Who knows they are always right? The religious people who claims there is a god? Or the atheist people do not believe in any given explanaition for what thy don't know?

I don't know where our universe came from. I don't understand where the quality of our senses are coming from. Concluding with God would be a jump to a conclusion that does not have support in any knowledge or evidence. So I don't conclude with anything. That makes me an atheist.

22. In God we doubt

Comment #67276 by atp on September 3, 2007 at 2:18 am

There's way to much here to comment on. So I choose just one thing I think maybe not everyone has thought about.

If I say a religious person is naive or stupid, or that it is naive and stupid to believe in religion, I mean naive/stupid about this question. I don't mean the person is stupid in general.

All intelligent people are stupid now and then. So it is very possible for a highly intelligent person to act unintelligently when it comes to a question such as religion.

23. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66887 by atp on September 1, 2007 at 12:04 am

If only Professor Dawkins and Co would remember that Socrates was deemed the wisest of men because he "knew that he didn't know".