1. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #225764 by morgantj on August 7, 2008 at 11:03 am

I find quantum physics quite intriguing.

2. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #201003 by morgantj on June 28, 2008 at 6:19 pm

58. Comment #200613 - Barry Pearson asked, "how is it determined whether it is the person claiming god exists, or the person claiming that god doesn't exist, who is making the extraordinary claim?"

Barry, If nobody claimed a god existed in the first place, then there would be no idea of a god for others to claim doesn't exist. So I think the burden of proof is on those who are making the positive claim.

3. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200581 by morgantj on June 28, 2008 at 12:02 am

That's the thing, it is not falsifiable. they depend on that and the go with the, "since you cannot prove a god doesn't exist, therefore god exist."

However, in either the infinite regression scenario or the something came from nothing scenario, a "god" doesn't make sense in either circumstance. "God" is just an extra unneeded variable.

Also, when they claim that "god has always been, always will be, has no beginning and no end" That raises other issues too. Like, how could they possibly know that? If god has no beginning, no end, is within everything, is infinite, and has no boundaries, then god must be without edges, without contrast, and without edges to outline it, without contrast to distinguish it, god must be formless, and if god is formless then how can it be recognized, characterized, personified, and "known" at any extent at all? It cannot. This characteristic of infiniteness that creationists apply to god actually cancels out gods existence. It would be more logical to reason that everything is as it is without being possessed by this supernatural deity.

4. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200578 by morgantj on June 27, 2008 at 11:39 pm

I just typed a really long response addressing all his own fallacies, but it logged me off or something and didn't take. Argh!

I'll try to sum up what I wrote.

1. In his long drawn out, "ridicule is not an argument" argument, he doesn't once teach the audience the name of this type of argument, the "ad hominem abusive' argument. Talk about dumbing it down for the sheep. Not to mention that the ad hominem argument is a tactic that believers themselves know and depend on all so well when their "lack of supporting evidence" is dangerously evident and their argument is in jeopardy.

2. This "lack of supporting evidence" that he claims that atheists do not have to support their 'claim.' Come again? Please don't tell me he doesn't realize that the burden of proof is on those whom are making the positive claim, the claim that god exist. He is committing fallacies in his claims of the oppositions fallacies thus discrediting his own argument. Not to mention, they do not have supporting evidence to support their claim.

3. He goes on to say, that Hitchens is being unscientific because, "he is assuming that resurrections can't happen." You're kidding me right? Who needs to assume? Hitchens no more 'assumes' that resurrections can't happen then Greg Koukl assumes that there are not invisible miniature unicorns that makes sure his shoelaces don't come untied.

4. He never answers the question, "who designed the designer?" becuase he knows the only explanation they got for that is the, "god has always been, always will be, has no beginning and no end" answer which is unfounded and leads their argument downhill from there.

His own fallacies in his attempt to point out his oppositions fallacies discredits his argument all together. Poor chap, he made it too easy for us.

5. God seekers go public

Comment #179674 by morgantj on May 13, 2008 at 1:50 pm

So the needles lack of movement proves god exist! *sarcasm*

6. God seekers go public

Comment #179546 by morgantj on May 13, 2008 at 11:35 am

They admit to it in their "About" section as well. "Biologic Institute is a non-profit research organization founded in 2005 for the purpose of developing and testing the scientific case for intelligent design in biology and exploring its scientific implications. Its founding was made possible by Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, which continues to support its ongoing work"

They hid most if not all of their whois domain registration info though. Which is kinda weird for a legit lab.

7. God seekers go public

Comment #179534 by morgantj on May 13, 2008 at 11:23 am

Looks like it is just the Discovery Institute again: http://biologicinstitute.org/contact

Press inquiries should be directed to:

Robert L. Crowther, II
Director of Communications
Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute

206.292.0401 x107
rob@discovery.org

8. I Am Evolution

Comment #178865 by morgantj on May 12, 2008 at 7:03 am

Lovely, even poetic.

9. Computer game's high score could earn the Nobel Prize in medicine

Comment #178861 by morgantj on May 12, 2008 at 6:57 am

I think it is a good way to get science into popular culture. It's fun, relatively challenging, and has the potential to allow ordinary citizens to contribute to science. It makes science more familiar and personal to your everyday person.

10. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172010 by morgantj on April 29, 2008 at 6:06 am

This is tragic. Reminds me of Romeo and Juliet a bit.

11. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160445 by morgantj on April 14, 2008 at 5:37 am

Mark appears to be promoting belief in belief. How I see it is, if one MUST hold a belief, believe in the things that have the most supporting evidence, that have the most probabilty of being true. Truth should be the motivator, not self comfort.

12. Report: 32% Of Prayers Deflected Off Passing Satellites

Comment #146895 by morgantj on March 19, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Absolutely beautiful.

13. It's Make Believe!

Comment #137333 by morgantj on March 2, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Awesome!

14. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129721 by morgantj on February 19, 2008 at 1:58 pm

I recently wrote a few articles relaying my thoughts on "god" - Check it out if you are interested - The Evasive God and Memetic Debris - Enjambement

15. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128146 by morgantj on February 16, 2008 at 10:48 am

Ok, which one you clowns put the bacterial flagellum in my coffee?

16. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #126770 by morgantj on February 14, 2008 at 7:55 am

To Comment #126768

How does it certainly and intuitively point to design? The conditions were not always right to sustain life, and the current conditions are certain to change again.

17. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #126117 by morgantj on February 12, 2008 at 1:21 pm

To Comment #126081 by info_dump.

Though I have never been religious, I completely understand your point and I agree with it. I think it makes perfect sense. As innocent as it is, I think the celebration of Darwin Day has potential to be a bit misleading. It is not a day of worship, or idolizing, it's just acknowledging Darwins accomplishments which have lead us to so many advancements.

18. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125054 by morgantj on February 10, 2008 at 8:48 pm

I thought it was funny and enlightening how Hitchens was so calm when he spoke, even after Boteach would be so excited, preachy, and attacking. I also thought that Boteach seemed to debate Hitchen's book more then he debated Hitchens himself in the debate. Boteach did not provide any compelling evidence to support his belief in the existence of god, nor could he even clearly define the god he believed in.

19. Darwin Day (Feb 12th) E-Cards

Comment #117846 by morgantj on January 29, 2008 at 7:43 pm

Darwin Day Card Design - http://www.travisjmorgan.com/blog/2008/01/29/darwin-day-design/

20. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116440 by morgantj on January 26, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Richard did an excellent job in such a short amount of time.

21. Darwin Day (Feb 12th) E-Cards

Comment #114531 by morgantj on January 22, 2008 at 11:25 am

I have submitted 5 entries to darwincards@richarddawkins.net. I'm not sure if it is right to post links to them here yet, or just wait for the judges to decide?

I like many of the ideas here as well, like Epinephrine's idea of a artistic flagellum and Paula Kirby's "evolutionary order" idea, etc...

If I can make time, I will try my hand at these designs, and submit them. I wonder what the deadline is, or when the favorites will be posted.

22. The God Delusion: Now Available in US Paperback

Comment #113160 by morgantj on January 18, 2008 at 5:52 pm

I'm in the states and I got mine from Amazon on Jan 03rd.

http://www.travisjmorgan.com/blog/2008/01/03/the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins

23. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #109823 by morgantj on January 9, 2008 at 8:40 pm

Richard got a huge smile when that doll came out. It was good.

24. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109468 by morgantj on January 9, 2008 at 5:31 am

I ordered "The God Delusion" in paperback the beginning of the year. I received it in two days from Amazon.com. I live in Illinois.

25. The battle of the butterflies and the ants

Comment #108395 by morgantj on January 6, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Just a question out my own ignorance. How is it that the ants can choose and have the ability to evolve their chemical makeup on the fly like this? I mean, I can't just choose to evolve my own chemical makeup to look like a panda can I?

26. Changing my Mind

Comment #106226 by morgantj on January 2, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Paula Kirby writes:

"And yet I don't agree with Sam Harris's objection to the use of the word "atheist" to describe ourselves. It's the underlying negative association you have to work to change, not the word - otherwise the negative association just attaches itself to whatever new word you find instead."

I agree.

27. Changing my Mind

Comment #106224 by morgantj on January 2, 2008 at 2:05 pm

82abhilash, in regards to using their own techniques on them, this reminds me of something I have been seeing more and more of lately, and that is religious folks trying to make their views, beliefs, and arguments sound scientific. I see this as an act of them trying to use our technique in which we often use science to prove our points or point out alternative scientific explanations. Of course, they are unable to accurately use science in defending their positions, but I see them trying allot more then they used too. They are simply trying to make their views sound more legit by saying they have scientific proof. However, this is usually inaccurate as they often do not use proper methods of coming to the results they are claiming are scientific.

28. Changing my Mind

Comment #106200 by morgantj on January 2, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Unless I am asked, I see no reason to volunteer that I am not a football fan, or that I do not play golf, or that I don't believe in Santa. There are not even labels for these positions like there is for atheism. I think that the fact that the term "atheism" exists shows the dominance of the creationist belief. Not a dominance that the belief is right, just that the creationist view is so widely held as to have a term or label those that do not share their belief.

What I don't like is that creationist cry and complain that the modern atheist are voicing their views and opinions to the public. You have to be kidding me. They make great attempts to spread their beliefs as though they were factual, and expect us to keep quiet about it? We must voice our opinions because they are spreading their beliefs as though they are facts. Somebody must respect and defend the pursuit of truth.

Also, they claim that the atheist view is a negative one. That is simply not true. Atheist/Agnostics hold the default value. "0" if you will. Their view is the positive one. +1. The burden of proof lies on them. It's interesting how often they expect us to defend our view. However, there isn't much to defend in our view, the most we can do is show them the small probability rate of their own view and point out the fallacies to their logic.

29. Changing my Mind

Comment #106172 by morgantj on January 2, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Very Good Patrick. There is nothing left to say, and because that is the case, it reflects your response is well written and thorough.

30. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105929 by morgantj on January 2, 2008 at 7:13 am

Of course Mother Nature isn't looking out for humans specifically. There is more to the universe then just us.

31. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #101340 by morgantj on December 20, 2007 at 8:58 am

I enjoyed "THE FOUR HORSEMEN," and look forward to the next episodes.