Comments by designsoda

1. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235252 by designsoda on August 22, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Of all the names you had to pick "PennAndTeller?"

Not only are the book and the special separate entities, there is also a distinction between addressing the general public in a book and addressing a group of children in a classroom setting (or in this case a "class trip").

2. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235222 by designsoda on August 22, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Diacanu, as you probably guessed I'm a libertarian.

Continuing my thoughts, I'll come right out and say what passes for Republicans in Washington are a joke to me.
Libertarians most closely represent what conservatives are supposed to be about.

I've got to say I'm in total agreement here. :)

Anyways, back to the distinction between teaching evolution and promoting atheism.

3. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #234990 by designsoda on August 22, 2008 at 10:33 am

Oh, and I heard some right-wing dildo proclaim William F. Buckley Jr. as "an intellectual giant".

Smart man for sure, but an intellectual giant is a bit much I agree.

Although I've gotta ask, would Diacanu consider any conservative/right-wing intellectual an "intellectual giant?" How about a libertarian intellectual?

4. The Return of Religion

Comment #211812 by designsoda on July 16, 2008 at 10:13 am

The violence of the diatribes uttered by these evangelical atheists is indeed remarkable

"Violence?"

"Evangelical?"

Projection.

5. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208777 by designsoda on July 11, 2008 at 8:40 am

Sent e-mail as well. We got your back PZ.

6. Award-winning comedian George Carlin dies

Comment #198037 by designsoda on June 23, 2008 at 4:59 am

RIP

What a sad day.

7. Trailer for Religulous

Comment #192012 by designsoda on June 12, 2008 at 10:04 am

I like that show too, but I would be careful to trust Penn and Teller too much.

Well sure. I agree. I trust P&T a whole lot, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything they say. I haven't seen the last two seasons so I haven't watched the obesity episode.

Still on the "list of people I trust" they are high up there. They've earned their spot in my eyes.

I'll try to catch that episode you mentioned and see if they went wrong and if they did go wrong then why.

8. Trailer for Religulous

Comment #191745 by designsoda on June 11, 2008 at 2:56 pm

So eating a "vegetarian last meal" (it was vegan actually) is a terrorist act?

Of course not.

I'd also like to see this quote you have where someone from PETA called Timothy McVeigh "a great American".

I was curious about this myself. After some searching I found the "great American" part is incorrect. Here's the actual infamous quote:

"McVeigh's decision to go vegetarian groups him with some of the world's greatest visionaries."
-Bruce Friedrich praising Oklahoma City bomber and mass-murderer Timothy McVeigh, for choosing a vegetarian last meal

Source: http://www.activistcash.com/biography_quotes.cfm/bid/1460

Make of that what you will.

Here's some more info on that: http://archive.salon.com/politics/red/2001/04/17/blue/index.html

Edited to add: Penn and Teller did a "Bullshit" episode on PETA: http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/prevepisodes.do?episodeid=s2/peta

They slammed PETA pretty good.

9. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190667 by designsoda on June 9, 2008 at 10:59 am

By contrast, to make an argument for what is in fact an illogical fallacy, one must use plenty of skill, sophistry and remain beholden to a dogmatic protection of what is really an illogical position.

Oh! The irony! It burns!!!

10. Trailer for Religulous

Comment #190528 by designsoda on June 9, 2008 at 8:28 am

I can see the reviews now:

"Maher focuses too much on religious fringe groups."

"Maher is mean because he pokes fun at people's deeply held beliefs."

"But, of course, reasonable people don't believe in a talking snake anymore!"

Etc. etc.

11. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #189933 by designsoda on June 7, 2008 at 6:26 pm

Looks like I'm the only one who thought this article was going to be about Buffy. :)

12. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189491 by designsoda on June 6, 2008 at 11:01 am

How is infinite regress dealt with here?

13. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186112 by designsoda on May 29, 2008 at 3:44 pm

This seems entirely made up by morons to me.

Morons or

"There are also some indications that these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself."

From:
World Health Organization: Electromagnetic fields and public health

14. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186110 by designsoda on May 29, 2008 at 3:34 pm

I say we test them in a double-blind experiment to see if they're as sensitive as they say they are. And if they're not, they foot the bill for the experiment, and the lawyers.

Looks like studies have been done.

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a systematic review of provocation studies

CONCLUSIONS: The symptoms described by "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" sufferers can be severe and are sometimes disabling. However, it has proved difficult to show under blind conditions that exposure to EMF can trigger these symptoms. This suggests that "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" is unrelated to the presence of EMF, although more research into this phenomenon is required.

Hmmmm. Doesn't look like electrosensitivity is real. Or rather, there is no evidence for it as of now.

15. The Mind-Altering Role of Incense in Religion

Comment #184886 by designsoda on May 26, 2008 at 10:45 am

Was he an alter boy before or after the priest grabbed him? Or, perhaps he was an altered altar boy already.

Surely he was "miLd-altered."

16. The Mind-Altering Role of Incense in Religion

Comment #184866 by designsoda on May 26, 2008 at 10:04 am

without the need for it being spelled out by the likes of you.

Or in this case misspelled.

Sorry couldn't resist. :)

On a more serious note, the fact that the foundations of several religions may have been laid out by epileptics and drugged-out shamans is not surprising to a heathen like myself. However, as a former Catholic I'm genuinely surprised about incense having psychotropic properties.

Now, the fact that many Catholics don't know about this is worrisome, no? I may be overreacting, but I don't think anyone should be exposed to psychotropic subtances without their consent. Perhaps the effects of incense are so mild as to make this a non-issue.

Edited post

17. The Mind-Altering Role of Incense in Religion

Comment #184857 by designsoda on May 26, 2008 at 9:53 am

By the way, is the title of the article misspelled on purpose? "Mild" vs. "Mind?" Was that supposed to be a pun?

18. The Mind-Altering Role of Incense in Religion

Comment #184844 by designsoda on May 26, 2008 at 9:37 am

The Catholic Church should go all out and replace the incense with marijuana. It works for the Rastafarians. It would bring the youth back into the fold for sure.

19. Richard Dawkins Interview on TVOntario

Comment #181475 by designsoda on May 17, 2008 at 9:22 am

fuck me you can preict all the dawkins' answers to every question in every interview these days.

He keeps getting asked the same questions, what do you expect?

20. Richard Dawkins Interview on TVOntario

Comment #181177 by designsoda on May 16, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Did Jordan Peterson just accuse Prof. Dawkins of intellectual dishonesty? Unbelievable. Prof. Dawkins would have nailed Peterson had he the opportunity.

21. 'Framing Science' and The Dawkins Effect

Comment #180340 by designsoda on May 14, 2008 at 4:05 pm

You accurately summarised a 17-page article in 11 words :D

My simple mind is yielding dividends at last! :)

If Richard and scientists like him lose their appetite for truth and 'telling it the way it is' and begin to employ political cunning as a means to an end, I for one would feel betrayed. I could never be certain that what was being said was factual, or just clever 'framing'.

I'm with you, jaytee. I pointed out this article and its conclusions to a liberal muslim friend of mine and he immediately asked me whether I thought Prof. Dawkins' militancy was genuine or merely tactical. I answered, "Genuine. He believes what he writes. Otherwise why would he write it?" This immediately made me think of the negative effects that political "positioning" and "framing" may have to one's reputation.

22. 'Framing Science' and The Dawkins Effect

Comment #180293 by designsoda on May 14, 2008 at 1:56 pm

So Dawkins as "bad cop" might be having a positive effect? Good deal!

23. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180207 by designsoda on May 14, 2008 at 11:24 am

Nice! Thanks, Quine.

24. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180171 by designsoda on May 14, 2008 at 10:26 am

But it is random chance that the POSSIBILTY of a long neck was one of the "choices" that the genes had to "choose" from. It is not random chance that the organisms that survived early hostile ever changing environments were the ones best at adapting to them. But it probably was random chance that the conditions existed to bring all of the elements necessary for life together in the first place.

But are the choices available truly "random." When I throw dice the outcome is random. But the choices available (1, 2, 3 etc.) aren't random, correct?

For example what possible attributes could a neck have? Long, short, thick, thin... Are these really random?

Same for environmental constraints faced by organisms. Presumably there is a non-random explanation for why the Earth's core is hot, why certain foods are available, why the weather is the way it is, etc. Or am I delving into dangerous philosophical waters here?

25. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180068 by designsoda on May 14, 2008 at 6:54 am

"God is the creator of the universe and that we are not the result of chance."

I'm having an argument with a liberal catholic friend and this line of reasoning came up as well.

When I pointed out evolution was non-random he agreed with me and asked whether the Big Bang was "random." Is that even a meaningful question?

It's very confusing because the colloquial use of the word "random" can mean "purpose-less." But as a trained Electrical Engineer to me "random" means something else altogether that has nothing to do with "purpose."

26. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #171212 by designsoda on April 28, 2008 at 11:20 am

Some might argue that if I were more explicit about what I mean by God and the other concepts in my statement, it would become falsifiable. But such an argument misses the point. It is an attempt to turn a religious statement into a scientific one.

This statement by Prof. Phillips gives me a headache. NOMA just won't go away.

There is no requirement that every statement be a scientific statement. Nor are non-scientific statements worthless or irrational simply because they are not scientific. "She sings beautifully." "He is a good man." "I love you." These are all non-scientific statements that can be of great value.

I'm amazed Prof. Phillips thinks "God exists" is a non-scientific statement that is as "valuable" as "I love you." or "He is a good man." It's funny seeing a brilliant mind in mid-contortion.

Science is not the only useful way of looking at life.

And so religion and the notion of a supernatural creator follows??? Whah?

27. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163572 by designsoda on April 18, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Thanks for the info, Teratornis.

28. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163558 by designsoda on April 18, 2008 at 1:59 pm

As Richard said we don't know how life started

Yet. ;)

It seems to me a whole lot of confusion arises from the fact that "how life started" is imagined by believers (and even non-believers) as an instant. Life's not here *POOF* life's here.

Biologists please correct me if I'm wrong but is the set of "things that are alive" not a fuzzy set? If it is fuzzy then don't you open up the possibility of life emerging so slowly that you wouldn't be able to pinpoint the instant it started?

Perhaps like building a mound of sand grain by grain. When do the grains of sand become something we would recognize as a mound?

29. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163026 by designsoda on April 17, 2008 at 9:02 pm

Some great scientists call themselves storkists. But if you really press the issue they'll admit they merely believe in Spinoza's stork.

30. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #156918 by designsoda on April 8, 2008 at 11:53 am

I guess the whole "in a vacuum" idea is a convoluted way of saying "it's not that simple" in order to dodge a straightforward point.

31. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #156905 by designsoda on April 8, 2008 at 11:36 am

I've never seen this line of argument of "We're discussing issues in a vacuum" to defend death threats against writers. Bizarre.