1. Youngest galactic supernova (not aliens) found

Comment #180344 by BNCbright on May 14, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Quetzal-

Thankyou for that answer, but I'm still confused; I understand why the star becomes denser as a result of blowing off outer layers (now), but there is still no more mass; does gravity increase for a given mass as that mass gets denser? I.e. does a Neutron star have a stronger gravitational force than a 'normal', larger star of the same mass?

BNC

2. Youngest galactic supernova (not aliens) found

Comment #180307 by BNCbright on May 14, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Could someone please give me a very quick physics 101 on the following quotation:

"When a star like the Sun dies, it blows off a lot of its outer layers, leaving behind a dense hot object called a white dwarf. If the star is binary then the immense gravity of the white dwarf can draw material off its mate, and that matter will pile up on the surface of the dwarf."

I thought that the gravity of an object was proportional to its mass. If a star throws off it's outer layers, then surely it's mass decreases. How therefore does it's gravitational force increase (i.e. how is it now able to pull matter off it's mate when it wasn't previously, when it had less mass).

If someone could please give a quick explanation on where my (limited!) understanding is flawed I'd be very grateful.

Cheers,

BNC

3. A natural selection

Comment #179938 by BNCbright on May 14, 2008 at 2:41 am

Am I being dense, or does it seem that the belief that species alive today as a result of evolution through some version of Darwinian natural selection originating from some large organic compounds billions of year ago is DIRECTLY incompatible with a relgious belief of God as the creator of life and some 'special' status of humans as compared to other animals, or inanimate objects for that matter?!

We seem to have more respect for 'moderate' Christians (or others) who believe in evolution as well as their faith, but in so far as they're both wrong (for the God bit) and seemingly believing contradictory things (as above) - isn't the bible bashing nut job on safer ground (half-joking)? Moderates seem to want to have their cake and eat it. I don't like that a great deal. Another prime example is the prevalent, and equally odd, belief by many religious that any other religion is preferable to atheism (Islam probably not included in this example), or at least that there is little wrong in moving from one denomination to another or converting in order to marry. Isn't this just conceding that you might be wrong after all, and all the other religions have just as much 'chance' of getting it right?

BNC

4. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177034 by BNCbright on May 8, 2008 at 1:42 pm

I understand the words... just.

BNC

5. Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?

Comment #176250 by BNCbright on May 7, 2008 at 2:36 am

Cartomancer - there are a few of us, although many people aren't all that vocal about it - at least not as vocal as the Supers, who have quite a following at the chapel.

When were you last there?

6. Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?

Comment #175905 by BNCbright on May 6, 2008 at 8:23 am

j.mills - very nice. Althought there must be something we can do to tidy up the penultimate line...

"aware", perhpas, as the final word (obviously with a reworking of the rest of the line!)

"The child abuse scare
Now makes us aware
we were far too soft in our line!"

BNC

7. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175268 by BNCbright on May 5, 2008 at 4:05 am

Nice interview - fairly standard stuff. I do find it odd why RD brings up the idea of there being billions of other universes in order to invoke the anthropic principle. Surely all we need is POSSIBLE other universes, which don't have to be ACTUAL. From a philosophical and physics perspective it's interesting to posit/assume them - but for someone trying to advocate reason and science, for the mainstream, sticking to something a bit more 'certain' might be better.

BNC

8. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #157507 by BNCbright on April 9, 2008 at 7:59 am

Hahaha - Christopher is a real shit of a brother for throwing the 'do you believe in ID' at his brother! Set him up for a major fall there.

Christopher just oozes charisma. Love him.

BNC

9. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #157503 by BNCbright on April 9, 2008 at 7:49 am

Why is Hitchens repeatedly referred to as Dr/Professor in the Q&A session?

Is he winding the questioners up?

BNC

10. Fossil find could be Europe's first humans

Comment #150619 by BNCbright on March 27, 2008 at 7:25 am

How on earth can young-earth creationists even intelligibly respond to findings like this?

BNC

11. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146405 by BNCbright on March 19, 2008 at 3:47 am

Quetzal - the links aren't working for me.

BNC

12. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146402 by BNCbright on March 19, 2008 at 3:45 am

I'd be interested to see the nature of the questions that were asked for this research. My hunch is that atheists are a lot more likely to be very cynical about such surveys and far more uncooperative with pollsters/researchers. Religious types, on the other hand, probably spend a lot more time 'talking about their feelings' and blowing smoke up peoples arses, such that they are more cooperative.

My suspicion is, as others have hinted at, that when other variables such as reporting bias, socio-economic status, background etc etc are accounted for the effect on happiness that RELIGION CAUSES will be negligible.

BNC

13. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132662 by BNCbright on February 25, 2008 at 5:12 am

The problem with arguments like this is that they ignore one simple fact.

In ALL other areas of thinking, in their day-to-day living, for the sake of practicality and convenience etc all of these people are very happy to use the scientific technique and wouldn't for a moment claim it was false or flawed.

It's only when they come to dealing with sky-daddy that they feel it's OK to stop using it. The reply is very simple,

"Given that you use the scientific method in (nearly) all other aspects of your life, what it is it about this aspect, or this idea, that means that it is exempt from the scientific method and our usual standards of justification."

It really pisses me off when theists claim that what the atheists believe is wrong, in some sense. Most theists believe most of what atheists believe (positive beliefs here) but then believe SOME MORE STUFF which they don't need and don't have evidence or justification for.

BNC

14. Whale Evolution

Comment #131242 by BNCbright on February 22, 2008 at 5:24 am

The account of the swimming in mammals as opposed to fish is the most interesting part, imo - it's obvious to see once its pointed out, and an incredibly elegant theory - it just takes that bit of insight to 'get it'.

Great video.

15. The challenge of finding peace in Lourdes

Comment #124515 by BNCbright on February 9, 2008 at 4:42 pm

Faith is bad enough. Profiting from faith is worse.

Lourdes strikes me as a faith fair ground.

Absolutely sick.

BNC

16. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117564 by BNCbright on January 29, 2008 at 5:51 am

"...because atheism will never be a widespread phenomenon. Like socialism, it's a parasitic phenomenon that can't survive on its own."

Oh dear. Atheism is not a 'phenomenon,' it is simply a lack of belief in a Theistic God. Thus it is not 'parasitic' on anything other than the conceptions of 'belief' 'theistic gods' and so on. The 'phenomenon' he is referring to, I think, is outspoken atheism which is 'popular' at the moment. Calling it parasitic is, I suppose, accurate in the sense that if there weren't so many faith heads about then we'd talk about something else. He uses it as a negative term, however, which is clearly absurd. The anti-slavery movement was 'parasitic' on the existence of slavery, the suffragette movement was 'parasitic' of institutionalised sexism. Fine; outspoken atheism is a parasitic phenomenon - this does not count in any way against it.

17. Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion

Comment #114489 by BNCbright on January 22, 2008 at 9:58 am

"2. Free Will - Contradicting a Contradiction
God "gives" us "Free Will" so that we can choose which path to follow. He knows what we're going to do, but he's "giving" us the choice to, uhm, choose what he already knows we're going to do? To put it simply, if God can know 100% without a doubt you're going to do it, it's set in stone, you can't change it, you're just fulfilling destiny or a "plan" laid out by someone else. Either he gives us free will to do what we want (in which case there are many different paths and there is no way to KNOW which one we'll do), or it's all an illusion and you've got a puppet string coming out of your ass."


I'm not sure that the 'logic' here is particularly coherent.

If what you are going to do is 'predetermined' in some way, this doesn't necessarily mean that you are not free. Furthermore, we have no proof that we are free so this incompatibility would be no evidence against God either.

N.B. - there are many other good arguments against God - I'm not sticking up for the Theists here.

Think about it another way, without invoking God. A lot of people are determinists - they hold that on the macro-scale at least all events have causes, which in turn have causes and so on, back to some singularity (the Big Bang, say). To the extent that we are physical beings, our actions are also determined in the same way, governed by the natural laws. Does this mean that we don't have free will? I don't think so. I don't think we have free will if we are coerced to do something, or tricked into doing something in some way. Just because my actions are predictable, in the same way that all actions are predictable, this does not mean that I am not free in my actions.

After all, what is the alternative? If my actions are not predetermined, i.e. predictable if one was to have the requisite knowledge, then it seems that they must be random, doesn't it? To what extent are we any more free if our actions are randomly determined? So, arguing against determinism on the basis of truly random effects at the quantum level has two problems. One, you have to demonstrate that it actually effects the macro level, and secondly you have to show how randomly determined actions are free.

Another intuition; if a supremely intelligent alien race could accurately predict the future (through having accurately modeled the causation chains within our world)- would that effect our free will? Or, alternatively, imagine that there is a God, who knows exactly what we're going to do. He then 'dies,' 'forgets' or some-such, at this point does our 'freedom' change?

Final thought - if all physical processes are either determined, or random, and we think that this is incompatible with free will, and we think that free-will does exist, aren't we committed to positing the existence of some non-physical mental process (decision making) which then impacts on the physical world through action? Somethings got to give; either we accept no free will, or we accept that determinism and/or random events are compatible will free will, or we accept the existence of some non-physical process which affects the physical world.

Ask yourself which is the most plausible, or correct my logic, because I'm pretty sure that the 'logic' in the argument is not correct.

BNC

18. The God Delusion: Now Available in US Paperback

Comment #113149 by BNCbright on January 18, 2008 at 5:06 pm

Given that I bought me copy, in hardback in the UK, for about a tenner over a year ago, and that the paperback version has been on the shelves for the past few months at least, this is news is rather underwhelming.

Nonetheless; if it gives the 'prof' more publicity and a chance to discuss his ideas in the US, then 'good show, say I' (especially if the publicity is covered here!).

I'm also upset that the US edition is prettier. As was 'God is not Great'.

Meh

19. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112763 by BNCbright on January 18, 2008 at 4:05 am

Whose pocket is this offered bribe coming from?

20. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111457 by BNCbright on January 14, 2008 at 4:50 pm

Captain Scales,

As the vice-senior midshipman (Honorary RNR) of the Oxford University Royal Naval Unit, and as an admirer and supporter of the RDFRS I cannot communicate strongly enough my admiration of your career and your dedication to this foundation. I will make every effort at my next Drill Night (this Thursday) to communicate, over a quiet pint, your extraordinary career, current struggle and commitment to this cause to my fellow Honorary Midshipmen, who I am sure will be fascinated and inspired by your story.

On a personal note, Sir, may I offer you my best wishes for a speedy recovery? And, also, I would like to express my gratitude to the RDFRS for its support (and RD's personal support) of such a distinguished gentleman.

Yours,

Tom Roscoe

21. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110736 by BNCbright on January 12, 2008 at 8:26 am

Agreed, sent2null, in the sense that he sort of corrects himself. Nonetheless, if really what we are talking about is one group's opinions vs another's and a worry that a minority of people might do something that we don't like, disgusts us, offends us, harms us and so on, what is to be gained by describing this situation as a dispute about 'morals', given that this is such a troublesome term? I stand by the view that this is just lazy argument - 'I don't like what they're doing, so I'll call it immoral'. In fact, I think that many people who describe homosexuality, for example, as 'immoral' are actually using this term as a cover for their simple dislike of it.

22. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110732 by BNCbright on January 12, 2008 at 8:13 am

"unmask a sixth sense, the moral sense"


This sounds dangerously close to the slippery slope of moral objectivity. Whilst our other senses do not 'sense' tastes, or sounds, for example (these things being the construct of our consciousness), they are usually prompted, in predictable and repeatable ways by identifiable physical sources (chemicals, sound waves etc). By claiming a 'moral sixth sense' are we not committed to the existence of some cause that exists independently of our ability to sense it, i.e. objective moral truths?

Furthermore, perhaps this is a place for a discussion of what we mean by morality. Having studied ethics at university I have been forced to adopt a position of moral relativism, as the claim of objective moral truths has to, I think, rest on some very shaky metaphysical assumptions.

If this is the case, it's all very well us having our own opinion of what is 'morally right and wrong,' and these terms might have some weight in communicating if other people have similar intuitions/feelings/opinions/reactions, but in essence talk of morality is empty, and actually lazy. If I say 'I think murder is morally wrong,' and you disagree there is a stalemate - we are claiming to make contradictory statements but, unless there is objective morality, we are not. We are merely expressing a difference of opinions, but when people express their beliefs on 'morality' they often feel no need to further defend them. (Remind anyone of the typical 'I'm prepared to debate X,Y,Z, it's my faith?) We could make statements of fact about the negative effects on the happiness of people if murder occurs, but this has nothing to do with morality unless, on shaky grounds again, we assign moral value to people's happiness.

Hitchens (et al), get very offended when religious people ask them how they can be moral without religious belief - I'm not sure they should be so worried. I think it is, certainly, possible to act in ways which people on the whole, in civilized societies call 'moral,' but I think Hitchens' reaction suggests a belief in objective morality which I don't think can exist, credibly, without a belief in God, which is in turn incredible.

Can anyone persuade me differently? I'm fairly sure of this opinion, and still like to think that I behave in a way which most people would call 'morally right' - but when I voice such an opinion , of moral relativism, people REALLY don't like it on the whole. (Even more than when I tell religious types that they're suffering from a delusion! =)

Cheers,

BNC

23. New attempt to end blasphemy law

Comment #109932 by BNCbright on January 10, 2008 at 4:51 am

davorg: "has promised a "short and sharp" consultation with the Church of England"

Why bother?

24. Good God! A politician who doesn't believe...

Comment #101960 by BNCbright on December 21, 2007 at 9:20 am

Sharon,

Perhaps he is, but I still find his use of the word 'committed' somewhat odd.

My perception of Catholicism is slightly different from yours - I've never been a believer myself, but I have some close friends, family friends and so on who are either still practicing Catholics or still have some very strange hang-ups about sex, masturbation, sinning and so on, even since they have stopped practicing. I don't think, therefore, that it's the fastest route to unbelief going (although I'm pleased it worked for you). It's certainly not as quick as exposing children to a sceptical and atheistic way of thinking from an early age. Armed with these tools, they're far more likely to see through the veil of religious dogma far more quickly.

BNC

25. The Pagan Christ

Comment #101957 by BNCbright on December 21, 2007 at 9:08 am

Tom Harper might be my favourtie ever priest!

26. Good God! A politician who doesn't believe...

Comment #101938 by BNCbright on December 21, 2007 at 8:11 am

One other thing -

What does it mean to say that Clegg is 'committed to bringing up his children as Catholics'? I presume that he thinks that this will be something that most people will consider endearing or sensible. If you think about it, though, it seems downright bizzare. He's committed to his children growing up to hold certain beliefs which govern their behaviour in a certain way, even though he, himself thinks that the whole philosophy is false. How can you be COMMITTED to that? You, at worst, might be indifferent - but committed?

I cannot square this other than seeing him as being weak-willed, either with reference to his wife, or to the electorate.

Sorry Nick, but your simple statement of 'atheism' is not enough to gain my support.

27. Good God! A politician who doesn't believe...

Comment #101936 by BNCbright on December 21, 2007 at 8:05 am

"If, like me, you believe that prayer is an internalised form of contemplation rather than an appeal to a remote and powerful deity, you will believe that Tony Blair was merely grappling with his conscience. "

I would call 'an internalised form of contemplation' (as opposed to the externalised form?!) a rather long-winded way of saying 'thinking'. Praying is, by definition, the latter. If we let the religious, religious sympathisers and others discreetly warp and mould what we understand by language to suit their own ends then it becomes impossible to pin them down in an argument.

It is fine if political leaders 'think' or 'grapple with their conscience' - indeed, it should be encouraged (!). 'Praying' or 'talking' to your imaginary friend' is bonkers and we should hope that poltical leaders do not do this, at least when it comes to making important decisions. I can't even bring myself to say 'it's fine if they do it in their own time,' when it comes to politicians - because if they are so deranged that they consider this sort of behaviour helpful/acceptable then they are not fit to be political leaders.

28. The art of the soluble

Comment #95809 by BNCbright on December 9, 2007 at 8:56 am

"No one who understands what religion really is, beneath its sometimes ugly face, could suppose that it would be good to bury it."

This rather arrogant claim suggests that the vast majority of people on this board, myself included, are horribly mistaken - despite the time we take to read/question and analyse material from a number of sources.

Beyond the ugly face of religion, we have, for example, the idea that 'faith' resting on no (possible) evidence is virtuous. This, in itself, is a good reason to bury religion. We have people turning down medical treatment, contraception, education and so on because it conflicts with the contents of old books which their religion commands them to respect. Here's another reason to bury it. We have childrens' genitals being mutilated because of so-called 'religious traditions'. We have oppression of women, homosexuals and other minorities defended and encouraged by senior religious figures. Perhaps these might be good reasons to bury it too.

Many of the examples I have just given go way beyond the ugly 'face'. Even when we reach the core of religious teaching, dogma, practices, institutions, practitioners, texts, history and so on - we find that it's still ugly.

Any takers on defining religion (NOT deism) in a way which is reasonable and non-ugly (bearing in mind that this definition must include the major world religions of the day, and not include deistic and transcendal beliefs)? Thought not.

29. Boy dies of leukemia after refusing treatment for religious reasons

Comment #92382 by BNCbright on November 30, 2007 at 11:47 am

One of my philosophy tutors recently mentioned that he has not let his son have the Rubella vaccine because the safest available strain was developed through using aborted fetuses (which weren't aborted for the purpose).

I was quite taken aback that he would potentially risk his son's health (and other peoples') because of some bizzare religious hangup about the use of aborted fetuses which would have been of no use whatsoever otherwise.

30. Monotheism was a con from the beginning

Comment #91344 by BNCbright on November 28, 2007 at 5:19 am

I saw a video on YouTube recently, where the poster made the claim that Jesus doesn't claim to be the Son of God any where in the Bible, and is only referred to as such by others. Can anyone confirm whether this is true or false?

Secondly, regarding the comment about Hitch's seemingly lose-lose argument, I think it's worth noting that Hitch, and others (myself included) really think that many people are much closer to being atheists than they want to admit, and many 'religious' people have moments of doubt and enlightenment but out of fear or otherwise force themselves to maintain an illusion. So, although many religious leaders are probably frauds, I think that they WANT their lies to be true, and refuse to openly acknowledge the opposite even when directly challenged. This, in my book, is something very different from any respectable atheist/freethinker/bright/secularist/humanist etc.

31. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91255 by BNCbright on November 27, 2007 at 7:27 pm

Bonzai,

Of course Paganism is in a sense religious, my analogy only sought to show that there are good sociological reasons why we might enjoy a sort of traditional sort of festival during the winter. I think my point that Christianity has a stranglehold on this sort of festival, and that this has useful propaganda value for their cause, which should be resisted, still holds water.

BNC

32. 'Muhammad' teddy teacher arrested

Comment #91254 by BNCbright on November 27, 2007 at 7:21 pm

If there is any good to come out of this disgusting situation it is that it might make people sit up and realise that the word of Islam, if taken to its 'logical' conclusion, leads to such things.

This isn't a case of people misinterpreting Islam, this is a case of people interpreting Muslim texts literally and carefully. Wherever religious dogma takes hold I fear that this is the predictable outcome. Let's nip this insanity in the bud wherever it begins to crop up.

Good luck to Ms Gibbons.

33. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91251 by BNCbright on November 27, 2007 at 7:11 pm

Bonzai;

I'm making a concerted effort to talk of 'winter festivities' wherever possible. There is a definite need for a family get-together and quality food an drink in the depths of winter - the pagan celebration of the winter solstice holds testament to this.

What we don't need is the endorsement of a platform where faith-heads can put on their friendly face and pretend that they have any relevance in a modern society.

34. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #91249 by BNCbright on November 27, 2007 at 7:03 pm

As a relatively well read, educated and informed Brit, this article comes as something of a shock to me.

Since the run-up to the war on Terror, and the Iraq war in particular, I have tried to resist being swept along in the popular presumption that the war, and Britain's involvement with it, was completely unjustifiable and misguided. Arguments from people like Hitch have given me great food for though about whether involvement was justified, and, although I am still in two minds as to my decision on this matter, there are certainly sensible and rational arguments to be had. I would have hoped that our PM, finding himself in a similar conundrum, would have sought his way out of it through a similarly reasoned thought-process. There is no word other than 'nutter' to describe a man who makes these indescribably important decisions by appealing to his imaginary best friend or some philosophically irresponsible metaphysical beliefs.

With hindsight I should have been more judgmental of our PM at the time. His explicit support of faith schools, for example, was surely a sign of his intellectual failings as a leader to which greater attention should have been paid at the time. Brown - I have a close eye on you and your cronies.

35. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91247 by BNCbright on November 27, 2007 at 6:48 pm

This response from religious campaigners smacks of hypocrisy. Just think of the pro-Christian stories, songs, sermons, parables etc which are inflicted on children of many countries from a young age which very few people challenge, and are arguably more damaging.

I hope that this movie, even in its allegedly 'toned down' form gives young people the courage and inspiration to challenge the dogmatic status quo that, unfortunately, pervades many western education systems.