1. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177690 by shad0w on May 9, 2008 at 1:37 pm

I must agree with the posters that feel the "H" word was a bit of a strategic blunder.

Maybe he does as a matter of fact shriek like him but calling a somewhat known Rabbi by the H word was a rare strategic error from Prof. Dawkins.

Not because i think the Rabbi's feelings were hurt or anything but because of the possible P.R implications this may have. "Atheist compares Rabbi blah blah to H!".

2. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162220 by shad0w on April 16, 2008 at 11:36 am

It's astonishing the extend to which some U.S lawmakers will go to completely destroy their country's own future.

Don't they realize that if their kids don't have a good education the U.S will become a 3rd world country eventually ?

How can they hope to compete in 2-3 generations from now if the younger generations are completely uneducated in science and math? SCIENCE and the application of SCIENCE is what made America the powerhouse it is today. If they loose that they loose everything!!! It really is amazing that people cannot see that. Sad state of affairs we're in.

3. Did pre-big bang universe leave its mark on the sky?

Comment #159026 by shad0w on April 11, 2008 at 11:00 am

REPLY TO : 5. Comment #158599 by troyreynolds86
--------------------------------------

Mathematics on a blackboard pretty much explains everything we see around us.

I would be very very careful confusing mathematical modeling (even speculative modeling) with religious thought which is simply quasi-philosophical garbage.

Equating the two is simply misunderstanding math and science.

4. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #156993 by shad0w on April 8, 2008 at 1:17 pm

WOW !!!
This was an _ASTONISHING_ display of ignorance.

My goodness.... I am at a total lack of words to describe what i just saw.....

The holocaust was the work of the devil????
The woman actually _performed_ exorcisms and "drove the devil out" ????
Someone remind me again what century we're living in please!!!!

5. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120665 by shad0w on February 2, 2008 at 8:58 am

This simmons person is a disgrace to all MD's out there. Considering this charlatan actually graduated as an MD i am somewhat perplexed whether i should ever trust my MD again from now. Don't they teach critical thinking and examination of evidence in medical school ? AT ALL ???

I know that 90% of their work is pretty much database-driven in terms of intimate knowledge of human physiology,symptoms and drugs that treat them but my goodness.... I always through critical thinking and constant knowledge gathering was an integral part of an MD's life. Someone correct me if i am wrong.

6. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #120487 by shad0w on February 1, 2008 at 7:41 pm

It boggles my mind that anyone is giving credence to the words uttered by the head of the biggest army of child rapists known in history past ancient Greece. It is incomprehensible to me.... It truly is.

7. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120460 by shad0w on February 1, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Teratornis:

I think you are confusing the act of education with the act of debate. I dare say they are 2 different things. While debate does happen in the scientific community it usually has more to do with debating about evidence, or observations , or in my case as a computer scientist debating the accuracy of an algorithm or the correctness of the logic behind an algorithm etc etc.

There is NO debate today whether the gravity is real. None whatsoever. If someone wants to publicly debate in an open forum whether gravity is real or not then that someeone should first try and educate himself about said theory. You simply cannot have an honest debate with someone that simply doesn't understand the underlying principles of the issue at hand or with someone who deliberately twists said principles to suit their needs.

8. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120325 by shad0w on February 1, 2008 at 1:13 pm

No PZ should not have taken part in this.

Otherwise we should have 'debates' whether gravity is real or not, whether the earth is flat or not,whether the earth revolves around the sun or not , etc etc. I hope you get my point.

These charlatans should be locked up and chained not on airwaves spreading mis-information to young children that can easily be coerced by 'fear of god'.

Especially they should mot be given credence by scientists like PZ trying to debate these folks. There must be 2 sides of a story to have a debate. There is NOT 2 sides on this issue. Label them as the crackpots that they are and untill they can provide _evidence_ for their arguments ignore them.


I am however pretty happy that he ridiculed that charlatan in the way that he did.

9. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #117627 by shad0w on January 29, 2008 at 9:04 am

This is by far the most interesting thread i have seen here in a long long time.

Dr. Steve thanks for all the beautiful answers.Truly informative.

There are times that i truly regret not pursuing physics more at university and going into Computer Science instead. I greatly miss it. I tend to spend most of my time doing logic and math and i must say it sometimes gets very boring when you have to solve the same problem again and again and again. Math is useful indeed but tends to be way too abstract at times which makes math boring in a way.

Thank goodness for MIT and their open courseware site. If anyone is interested in physics i suggest you take a look.

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm

10. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #101484 by shad0w on December 20, 2007 at 12:30 pm

I must say that i was a very disappointed from this year's conference. Last years meeting was an absolute JOY. This years was largely boring to tears other than a few presentations.

I surely missed Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Weinberg, Paul Davies, Krauss, and especially Richard Dawkins. This year's conferrence seemed more like a political science mumbo jumbo conference than a collection of great thinkers.

Wilson, Dennett , Kroto , Atkins Ramachandran(i just LOVE his talks!) and as usual Harris and Atran ( i always enjoy his talks as much as I disagree with him on the conclusions he draws) were the only people who had anything even _remotely_ interesting to say.

I thought the whole idea is to present new provocative ideas and modes of thinking not some 15th century garbage arguments that quite frankly bordered on mysticism than scientific thinking.

11. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #98276 by shad0w on December 13, 2007 at 12:13 pm

I have lost whatever respect i had for Shermer.

His attack on Kroto on a point he did _not_ try to make was not justified. He pretty much went off the deep end like a cry baby.I was very surprised by his reaction to be honest. I wonder why? Is Templeton funding him somehow ? Kroto's point is correct. They _are_ trying to blur the line between religion and science.I don't think that is under any sort of dispute is it ?

12. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #93659 by shad0w on December 3, 2007 at 9:01 pm

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!

13. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92834 by shad0w on December 1, 2007 at 2:43 pm

I think Dennett did much better than Hitchens
In fact in my books Dennett pretty much rediculed Dinesh cause he called him on every BS argument he tried to present.

He pretty much took Dinesh's arguments and correctly called him on them in effect telling him "sorry but you don't even understand what you're criticizing"

Hitchens was trying to 'convince' Dinesh. Dennett had no interest in that. He correctly pointed out that his arguments were false,full of self-contradictions and in effect told him "you need to understand the arguments you're trying to make before making them". Especially his rebuttals on the whole consciousness thing were pretty ummm _harsh_ towards Dinesh.

For me at least it worked.
I think Dennett won this one hands down and he didn't even have to do too much work to achieve it either. His rebuttals were quick and to the point i thought, while Dinesh was essentially 'preaching' as usual with a whole series for non-sequitors , half-truths and arguments that frankly were not at all sophisticated or well thought out for someone his caliber..I thought Dinesh did much much better against Hitchens.

14. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92536 by shad0w on November 30, 2007 at 6:03 pm

I think Dennett completely and totally demolished D'Souza on this one.

I am watching the debate right now and as usual D'Souza gave his usual non-sequitors in his typical loud style which Dennet completely picked apart with his unmatched wit and very very pointed rebuttals. To the point that i kinda felt sorry for D'Souza... He was clearly way out of his league taking on Dennett.

To make matters even worse for D'Souza the STUDENTS demolished D'Souza in a much funnier , logical , methodical manner than Dennett did with some extremely well-thought out questions.

I must give Kudos to D'Souza though for even appearing there in Dennett's home turf..And some of his arguments did 'seem' to make sense but only 'seemed' to make sense till Dennett rebutted them and completely took them apart.

I must say, i never saw Dennett in a debate format before and i was completely surprised by him. BRAVO!