1. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #274225 by Count von Count on October 29, 2008 at 6:57 pm

Spinoza-

Thanks for the article.

Everyone-

This gives me an idea. It's a bit of a challenge to all of you. We have all heard a plethora of bad arguments in favor of religion, but can anyone recommend some really good arguments for religion (preferably in article or video form)? Of course, I highly doubt any completely solid argument is possible (which is why I'm an atheist), but I am asking for an argument that, though it may have been found wrong in the end, was very subtle and not easy to refute without some deep thinking.

Richard mentioned in "The Four Horsemen" that for him, the argument about the so-called "finely tuned" cosmological constants had given him pause. As for myself, I wrestled for some time with a few of the statements by Alexander McGrath about the compassionate side of Christianity.

What about you? What arguments have you found difficult? After all, we get stronger by going up against the strongest, not the weakest.

2. Review: Religulous

Comment #266213 by Count von Count on October 18, 2008 at 11:02 am

upsidedawn - It sounds like there is a story there. Do tell! I'm sure others would like to hear what it's like to go through a 30 year transition to atheism.

I wonder if it is more likely for religious/atheist couples to eventually become atheist/atheist or religious/religious (if there is any change). If atheist/atheist is the more likely outcome, maybe we should encourage atheists to hook up with religious people! =)

3. Review: Religulous

Comment #265958 by Count von Count on October 17, 2008 at 4:36 pm

eh-theist - Thanks for the comments.

amalthea - Good idea, but I don't think she has been to church in a year or so. She thinks the people are too pushy. She has been talking about maybe going to a Unitarian Universalist church (not really a 'church,' in fact, some congregations are entirely atheist/humanist/agnostic).

AfraidToDie - Good call. Maybe I'll tell her I'm going, show her some previews, and she can decide.

robotaholic - I guess the reason is that religion/anti-religion is not that important to us. (Although the fact I have become increasingly anti-religious over the last few years has caused some tension.) It's a bit like a vegetarian hooking up with someone who eats meat, but isn't too crazy about it (or maybe a Linux geek hooking up with an XP fan?). Her mom was Christian, but her dad was an atheist, so to her it's normal. As for us, we get along really well and really like doing things together. It's great. I would be pretty short-sighted if I gave up on someone I love just because they thought differently than me.

4. Review: Religulous

Comment #265805 by Count von Count on October 17, 2008 at 10:16 am

I haven't seen the movie yet. Does anybody who has seen the movie have an opinion on whether I should take my girlfriend? While she sort of identifies as a Christian, and thinks God is a pretty swell guy, she also accepts evolutionary theory, does not attend church regularly, and thinks pushy religious people are nuts. She has even started reading 'God Is Not Great' (albeit in small doses). However, she is a very sensitive person and sometimes gets upset when I go off on atheist rants (this isn't helped by the fact that she has never, in 5 years, even suggested that I should become religious). She sort of knows her beliefs are irrational, but isn't ready to let go.

I'll see the movie either way. We don't go to movies often, so if I go, I would like to go with her, but I don't want to be an asshole. She respects my (lack of) beliefs, but if I drag her to a movie where she is repeatedly told she stupid for her beliefs, well, it's not going to make her (or me) feel good.

I know it will be easy for some of you to say, "Just take her, she should realize why her beliefs are wrong," but it's a more complicated issue than that. Not only would I like to keep peace around the house, but if I shove my ideas down her throat, it will be bad for both of us. Losing religion for some people can be like losing a father, or at least good friend. You can't just tell somebody, "Ditch that person, they're no good for you," because then you fail to understand their feelings.

I guess I got a little personnel here. What I really want to know is, will she get a few laughs and leave the theater thinking religion is pretty silly (and perhaps a bit harmful), or will she leave the theater feeling bad about herself?

5. Big Bang or Big Bounce?: New Theory on the Universe's Birth

Comment #261811 by Count von Count on October 7, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Steve-

Great comments. I think there are many people who don't understand science, but want to hear about it. You can't blame them, but the result is wide spread misconceptions (such as with singularities) and "trashy science," that is, science which is much closer to science fiction than science.

I think the poster in Mulder's office in the X-Files was a prime example of this. It said, "I want to believe." When people hear about science, they want to hear about worm-holes, monsters, teleportation, etc. They miss out on the even more bizarre (and actually true) ideas, such as the double-slit experiment. Science does not need any decoration. It is already more fantastic than we can imagine.

6. Why There Almost Certainly Is a God, By Keith Ward

Comment #255803 by Count von Count on September 28, 2008 at 8:59 am

"If you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory."
-Richard Feynman

With how little we understand about quantum theory, it is unwise to make any philosophical jumps from it. I think it would be wise for Keith Ward to listen to Richard Feynman. After all, Feynman was one of the greatest physicists of our time and a pioneer of quantum theory. Ward is a professor of divinity.

7. Look Who's Irrational Now

Comment #250524 by Count von Count on September 19, 2008 at 8:43 pm

...traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology.

What if they looked at this in reverse? Does faith in palm reading decrease belief in Christianity? All this study seems to show is that most people only have so much crazy to spread around. If you increase your crazy, irrational, and wrong belief in Christianity, it decreases your faith in other crazy, irrational, and wrong beliefs. So what?

8. Genes might not be so selfish after all

Comment #249332 by Count von Count on September 18, 2008 at 1:56 am

Nice catch B.L.Z. Bub!

When I read this article, I thought Linklater was some idiotic upstart kid. Now, after google-image searching him, I have decided he's just a confused old man who felt like writing some science in his golden years (hence his bewildered towel-wrapping. I find that non science-types are often over-exaggerate the 'craziness' of science. ) He was born 11 year before Watson and Crick's discovery, so it is actually quite likely that he didn't learn any of this in school, and was just brushing up on it after his retirement. Not that that excuses him for writing a silly article.

9. Turkey bans biologist Richard Dawkins' website

Comment #249326 by Count von Count on September 18, 2008 at 1:42 am

Who wants to make a mirror site!? Anyone out there with more website experience than me (I have none) want to make another site with the same content as this site for those lonely Turkish atheists out there?

10. Genes might not be so selfish after all

Comment #249219 by Count von Count on September 17, 2008 at 6:16 pm

info_dump:

I second that. Good point. That part of the article bothered me too.

I don't see how this article contradicts anything, other that the notation that people who write articles about science should know what they are writing about. It seems there may have been some interesting research here, but the point, if any, seems entirely lost on the author of the article.

If the research was saying that mutations are becoming more frequent, and are influenced by the environment, does that mean that my wildest dreams are finally going to come true? (Are you thinking what I'm thinking?)

Check
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoSePbPSdoI&feature=related
around 2:30.

11. Michael Palin for President

Comment #244586 by Count von Count on September 9, 2008 at 7:45 am

Isn't he a Roman though? And what have the Romans ever done for us?

12. Large Hadron Collider readies for world's biggest experiment

Comment #243331 by Count von Count on September 5, 2008 at 1:04 pm

OK, this article is wrong on at least two accounts:

- The LHC is NOT the most expensive science experiment (actually collection of expreiments) in history. The International Space Station was vastly more expensive.

- I don't think anybody would be very excited about accelerating particles to 0.999999991 percent the speed of light. How about 99.9999991 percent the speed of light? Unfortunately, idiots are still allow to write scientific articles. The old bumpersticker, "4 out of 3 people have trouble with fractions" rings too true.

By the way, if you think I am being overly semantic these are trivial differences, I'll trade you 0.99991 thousand dollars for 99.991 thousand dollars any day.

13. Scientists Develop New Computational Method To Investigate Origin Of Life

Comment #242473 by Count von Count on September 3, 2008 at 8:42 pm

neander-

That's what I mean--that it's more than just another piece of data. It's also something of a "proof of principle." That is, when we say "we are working on it," we are not just giving lip service; we really are working on it.

The next time somebody says, "Scientists can't understand how life originated," I think a strong rebuttal might be to point out this project, and say in a soft voice, "In fact, we will have figured out a major part of the answer in a matter of months."

14. Scientists Develop New Computational Method To Investigate Origin Of Life

Comment #242331 by Count von Count on September 3, 2008 at 2:48 pm

What I found interesting about this article (besides its obviously fascinating scientific implications) is that it gives credence to many scientists (Richard Dawkins included) who, when faced with the question, "Where did life originate?" have responded with something like, "We are not sure, but we are working on it, and may one day find out."

We can answer these seemingly unanswerable questions, given the time, freedom, and resources. It is projects like these that give me hope for the future of scientific discovery.

15. God Only SEEMS Nonexistent!

Comment #240846 by Count von Count on September 1, 2008 at 7:03 am

Ex~

The psalm you mentioned reminded me of this short video, where the same quote is brilliantly turned on its head.

(By the way, of the link doesn't work, type 'atheist' into YouTube, and click on the video with a thumbnail of Carl Sagan.)

16. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #239917 by Count von Count on August 30, 2008 at 2:51 pm

"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be"

Then she should be ready to reject the claims of creationism. Luckily, nobody has to pretend anymore. That's the whole point of promoting evolutionary science. Indeed, it is one of the major gifts of science itself.

17. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239027 by Count von Count on August 28, 2008 at 10:26 pm

Did anyone see Gore's speech tonight? He was the only major speaker at the DNC this week who did NOT say "God Bless America," or god bless anything for that matter.

He did invoke a proverb at one point, but I don't have a problem with that. I have no problem with quoting Jesus, or a poem either so long as it's not taken as some holy authority.

Way to go Gore!
Here is the link.

18. Unintelligent Design

Comment #231892 by Count von Count on August 17, 2008 at 9:27 am

Nice article. I hadn't heard the points about human memory raised against intelligent design before (which serves a fairly direct counter to the work 'intelligent').

Richard Dawkins illustrates the point about a local maximum rather well in episode 3 of Growing Up In the Universe (which is well worth the watch and can be found for free here).

19. Evolutionarily Preserved Signature Found In The Primate Brain

Comment #198591 by Count von Count on June 24, 2008 at 9:25 am

Comment #198562 by MikedubB -
Of course it is a problem when radicals try to impose crazy ideas on others, but it sounds like you are claiming that therefore geneticists should not study differences in brains as expressed by DNA. Scare-mongering about science is exactly the kind of thing that radical religious people do (and are quite good at). A rational approach is much more preferable.

Maybe I am misinterpreting your statement, but what you said makes it sound like you have been reading a bit too much science fiction (which is pretty good at scare-mongering itself, e.g. Brave New World).

20. White Patches Found in Mars Trench Are Ice, Scientists Say

Comment #198430 by Count von Count on June 23, 2008 at 10:45 pm

mordacious1 -
ah, now if I ever make it to Mars, I can take a bottle of scotch.

Surely, if you were on Mars, it would be occasion to take it neat. =)

21. Richard Dawkins Public Lecture - Liverpool 08

Comment #198291 by Count von Count on June 23, 2008 at 1:57 pm

HourglassMemory and sanjiv -

Me too! I'll check out Dan Barker. You should search for Bill Hicks too. Check out this for starters.

TeraBrat -
String theory works just fine as a mathematical theory. When people talk about, say, group theory or graph theory, they don't ask, "Where's the evidence," because that question is irrelevant. String theory is a correct body of mathematical knowledge, and hence we may call it a theory. The hypothesis is that string theory reflects any physical phenomena.

Don't get me wrong though, I am not defending string theory. It needs to be put on the shelf for the time being, preferably at the back of a very large warehouse. It has already wasted the time of so many minds.

22. New discovery proves 'selfish gene' exists

Comment #197936 by Count von Count on June 23, 2008 at 1:01 am

thewhitepearl-
Ahhh the book that changed it all for me...

Indeed! A friend of mine, when asked to borrow his copy of "The God Delusion," often instead convinces the borrower to read "The Selfish Gene" instead. Any thoughts on which might do a better job 'converting' someone?

I have read "The Selfish Gene," but not "The God Delusion," so I think I am exempt from guessing.

23. Award-winning comedian George Carlin dies

Comment #197926 by Count von Count on June 23, 2008 at 12:15 am

So it goes. R.I.P., great one.

A tribute:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
(Religion is bullshit)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niqVVENiY2c&feature=related
(Touched by an atheist)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyWEBbFwU1o&feature=related
(The 10 Commandments)

http://www.shoutfile.com/v/73itq29e/George_Carlin_The_Sanctity_Of_Life
(The Sanctity Of Life)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8696002020375249116&q=george carlin&ei=RlJfSI3zFoLqrQPd84CLDg
(God)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac
(Stuff)

The only immortality he has is us continuing to listen to him.

24. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #197830 by Count von Count on June 22, 2008 at 6:09 pm

mmurray-

Thanks for the link! I did like the diagram, in fact, I've often sketched similar diagrams, but this one is the best I've seen!

I should find a way to make a big glossy picture of this!

25. New discovery proves 'selfish gene' exists

Comment #197327 by Count von Count on June 21, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Excellent news! I wonder if we will hear from Richard on this discovery.

For those above who have some trouble with the word 'selfish' as applied to genes, or the significance of this particular discovery, your questions will most liked be entirely cleared up (and your outlook on life entirely altered) after you have read 'The Selfish Gene.' The example of sterile worker insects takes a prominent place in the book, and I think you will be quite satisfied.

'The Selfish Gene' will probably be ranked among the most important books you have ever read once you finish it. It certainly is for me.

26. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #196142 by Count von Count on June 19, 2008 at 10:55 am

sent2null-

The Pythagorean example sort of fails since there is significance to that negative value

I wondered if some clever person might pick up on this, it turned out to be you! =) I didn't want to bring it up as that post was already quite long, but here's how I think of it: Of course we can specify one coordinates/units system or another, one with negative lengths, one with positive lengths. But the point is that once we fix a system (we are essentially choosing a "branch" of the multivalued function z^(1/2), a technique from complex analysis), we are stuck. If we start with negative lengths, we must end with negative lengths. The point I was making was this: often the world one is working in (positive, negative, etc.) is forgotten when dealing directly with an equation, and this is often where non-uniqueness arises. Think of boundary conditions/initial values for differential equations; these must be imposed to have a unique solutions.

Many people here have probably taken calculus (if you haven't you should, I don't care how old you are). You remember the "plus C" that had to be added on every time you integrated. This meant that your solution was not unique, and any positive constant added to your solution would also be an anti-derivative. You also remember that when you imposed further conditions, usually from reality (f(0)=0, the initial position is 0 at time 0, for example), then you could "solve for the C" and get a unique solution. Although I am oversimplifying a bit, my guess is that something like this (involving other constraints, not necessarily boundary conditions) mistakenly leads to a multi-universe theory.

i is imaginary and i^2 is 1

Oops! I think you meant i^2 is -1. =)

Apathy personified-

I guess it's because physicists like hilbert spaces - we do use them as the 'backdrop' for pretty much all QM.

I know; that's my point! Why should 'level III parallel universes' have an inner product, or even a norm? (A more interesting question might be, 'why should they be complete?') Banach spaces are more interesting that Hilbert spaces (quick proof: every Hilbert space is a Banach space), and locally convex spaces or general topological spaces are more interesting still. These do show up in physics, and are not just mathematical abstractions.

Hilbert spaces are just the easiest spaces to work in, and my guess was he was just cramming his theory into what he already knew.

27. It Doesn't Take an Einstein

Comment #196114 by Count von Count on June 19, 2008 at 10:11 am

I thought everyone knew that the chosen one was actually a computer programmer named Thomas A. Anderson.

It's impossible to imagine him volunteering even to moderate a Hitchens-Dawkins-Dennett colloquium on secularism.

And yet, he seems to be doing just that, posthumously.

28. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #195560 by Count von Count on June 18, 2008 at 1:15 pm

zreroangel-
I agree, but remember that this is Discover magazine (the Maxim of science magazines), who waters down every article so that it is impossible for any ideas not to sound crack pot. (Imagine them doing an article on Einstein in 1905. They would spend the first half of the article taking about his funny hair and mustache, the next bit talking about how maybe time and space are 'woven together' in some funny way that involves the speed of light, and wrap up by saying how he is at odds with the scientific community. Everyone who read that article would miss the good stuff and think they were just reading about some quirky scientist.)

Janus-
Thanks for the links. I'll check them out. These might help answer some of my questions in my previous post. Still, I don't really see how we are supposed to observe something "outside" our universe. (I understand measure theory quite well, so if you respond, feel free to get technical.)

29. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #195550 by Count von Count on June 18, 2008 at 12:56 pm

parallel universes of level III exist in an abstract mathematical structure called Hilbert space

Why not a Banach space or a locally convex space, or even a general topological space? Are these parallel universes subspaces of these Hilbert spaces? If so, then they must interest at the origin. What is the significance of that? Of course, they can't go into that here... it's only Discover.

I like these parallel universes theories, but I always come away wondering what they base their ideas on. My guess is that they are looking at some of the partial differential equations of mathematical physics and noticing (or guessing in many cases) that the solutions are not unique. However, it's a long leap from saying an equation has a non-unique solution to saying parallel universes might exist. (Perhaps I am missing part of their reasoning.) Certain equations in fluid mechanics have non-unique solutions (see the Taylor-Couette problem), but it would be a little far-fetched to then say, "Well the fluid actually flows in both ways, each one in its own universe." This will not do very well. It's a fluid moving around, and our description of it is just a little under-determined. Often one only has to use a simple so called "entropy condition" (it's not exactly what you are thinking) to get the solution that exists in nature.

For those of you without much mathematical background, an analogous situation happens in the following. Suppose I am given the dimensions of a door frame as 3ft by 9ft (or say, 1m by 3 m). I want to calculate the length of the diagonal to see if I can fit my large 9.5ft tall (or say 3.2m tall) FSM painting in the doorway. I use the Pythagorean theorem (a^2 b^2=c^2) to solve for c=the length of the diagonal. To do this I have to take a square root. Don't for get that I get two solutions (the plus and the minus)! I get c=9.49ft (or say 3.16m) AND c= -9.49ft (or say -3.16m). Of course, I throw away the negative solution because we think of length as positive.

Here is the point: I DO NOT then posit something like "My equation also gives a negative length, therefore there probably is another universe, where my door frame has a diagonal of negative length." This not only adds nothing useful, but it is intellectually profligate. Instead I simply need to understand that I have decided to describe my doorframe in two ways, using positive lengths, and then (in a slight abstraction) as a rectangle. Accounting for both of these ideas together gives me an answer that makes sense and doesn't need to posit additional universes.

Perhaps I am being a bit too simplistic, but I think to the contrary that physicists look at impressive equations like Einstien's field equations and the Shrodinger equation and forget that the same ideas present in much simpler equations shouldn't be forgotten when things become more complicated.

Finally, since Monty Python has already been invoked, I can't resist:

Ian Bamlett-
Really, to the average man on the street...

And now, we ask the man on the street:
First person: "I'm not a man."
Second person: "I'm not in the street."

30. Physicists in Congress Calculate Their Influence

Comment #193769 by Count von Count on June 16, 2008 at 3:03 am

Cartomancer-
I agree. Also, it would be better if there were some accountability in politics. Lawyers have to pass the bar exam, teachers have to pass a basic skills exam, hell even mail carriers have to pass an exam. Of course, we would have to take the democratic process into account; so a pass/fail type exam would be unacceptable. Maybe instead candidates could just be rigorously vetted by a panel of scientists, who give them the thumbs up or thumbs down. The voters are free to disagree with the panel, but it would be very embarrassing for a candidate not to have the approval of the panel. I understand something like this happens in Brittan (but not with a panel of scientists).

King of NH-
Why waste your time hoping? Action is what gives results. You just might gain some hope after all when you see the results of your hard work!

31. Breaking the Silence

Comment #193555 by Count von Count on June 15, 2008 at 8:09 pm

rod-the-farmer et al.

Here are some other links for Wafa Sultan:

On Islam (very powerful speech):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_o7QnKAmUs&feature=rec-fresh

On the cartoon crisis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Negt6IzxPTo&feature=related

Also, if you can stomach it, here she is on the Glenn Beck show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZXj2shOzkY

shaunfletcher-
I concur with Gordy, but in any case Wafa Sultan has stated that she does not believe in the "supernatural" and this we only have this life to live. She seems atheist enough for me. She has also (at least claimed) to be very much against holding her tongue in regards to religion.

32. George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism

Comment #193538 by Count von Count on June 15, 2008 at 7:43 pm

Ah,... I can see it now...

Priest: "Do you believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth?"
George 'Corleone' Bush: "I do."
Priest: "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord?"
Bush: "I do."
Priest: "Do you believe in the Holy Ghost and the Holy Catholic Church?"
Bush: "I do."
Priest: "Do you renounce Satan?"
Bush: "I do renounce him."
Priest: "And all his works?"
George: "I do renounce them."
Priest: "And all his pomps?"
Bush: "I do renounce."
Priest: "George 'Corleone' Bush, will you be baptized?"
Michael: "I will."
Priest: "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit go in peace, and may the Lord be with you."

(Scenes of Iraqi war, Katrina, and Guantanamo playing in the background of course.)

33. Physicists in Congress Calculate Their Influence

Comment #193531 by Count von Count on June 15, 2008 at 7:35 pm

Many mathematicians go into law (both require intense reasoning abilities and strong training in argumentation). Law is fairly close to politics, and math is fairly close to physics, maybe this is a good fit (epsilon/2 argument anyone?). It would be nice to see some biologists and earth systems science people in politics too.

The part about the misunderstanding concerning anthrax sounds familiar. The other day I was at a social event (consisting of mostly non-science people) and the TV was broken. One person looked at me and said, "You're in math, you should be able to fix this." Yeah...my class on TV repair came just after my class on infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces. Oh, and by the way, the prerequisite was apparently on how to fix your damn computer.

34. Breaking the Silence

Comment #193429 by Count von Count on June 15, 2008 at 3:20 pm

What this great woman needs (and deserves) is more stage for her wonderful voice. Her up coming book is a good start. She should have a website too, and more exposure on both American and Middle Eastern television. Hopefully she goes on a book signing/debate tour after her book is published.

It would be wonderful if she could become a well-recognized cultural icon. Black men and women in the Civil rights movement had Martin Luther King as a symbol. She seems to have similar potential to become a symbol for women struggling under Islam. (Bumpersticks and buttons anyone? Can anyone think of a good slogan? All I've got so far is "Wafa doesn't waffle," which pretty bad.)

Let's show this woman our support. Go Wafa!

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

Comment #192847 by Count von Count on June 14, 2008 at 3:45 am

sent2null-

Thanks for the link and the encouragement! I'll definitely check out the Level Set method.

Rodel-
Actually that "proof" was countered in 1859 by Darwin. You've essentially just asked the question that Darwin became famous for answering. Everyone agrees that life could not have been created in one highly improbable accident, like ink spilling to form an encyclopedia. Darwin was able to show how extraordinary complexity is able to arise out of simplicity by very simple and gradual processes. What he showed is actually not to difficult to understand, and it is extremely beautiful and awe-inspiring, but it is slightly too long to illustrate here. I recommend:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6413987104216231786&q=blind watchmaker&ei=O5tTSIamHojkqgPb2KTgDg

and

"The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. Here, you will find no dogma, no arguments for or against god or theism, but only marvelous facts and beautiful ideas.

Everyone (yes, you)-

While I was sicked a bit by Mr. Postelnik's ignorance and poor arguments, and certainly amused by your response to him, I have to admit I don't think as much progress was being made as could have been made. When we argue against such misinformed ideas and silly conceptions, we lower ourselves a level and bring our opponent up a level. Our job as non-believers and rationalists should be to educate. Mr. Postelnik had the same kind of questions that anyone not well versed in science might have. When we call him stupid, it probably makes him feel a bit more like defending his position rather than rethinking it. He asked the same questions again and again, without any answers given (other than to shoot down his logic or understanding). Think of the result if, when he asked

Would human beings survive if one organ or cavity was missing or displaced [?]

instead of saying, 'of course you idiot!,' we instead explained to him why this was not quite the right question to ask; that the way to look at evolution is as a process that builds on previous generations and often casts off what it doesn't need. Like the scaffolding used to build a building, the origins of an organ may be only faint traces. We could also let him know (nicely) that this question has already been asked and already been answer, and then point him to some resources so that he can see for himself. Cite a page number if you can. Of course, the best way to be good at this is to educate oneself on evolution as much as possible.

If you are skeptical, give this a try next time you encounter someone who is a bit misguided in the ways of science. Don't shoot them down, don't even argue with them, simply try to educate them. (I tried this recently on a guy when thought the moon landing was a hoax. The argument, more of a discussion actually, didn't get heated, and I convinced him in about 15 minutes.) I believe this is roughly Richard Dawkins' approach (he doesn't debate creations), and it is certainly the approach of Carl Sagan. Check out they gentle way he pulls astrologers away from the zodiac and toward science:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iunr4B4wfDA

We could all stand to learn from Carl, and from Ben too:

"Never contradict anybody." --Benjamin Franklin

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

Comment #191411 by Count von Count on June 10, 2008 at 10:08 pm

sent2null-

That's great that you are in EE! There seems to be something interesting in the news about work in your subject going on almost every day now. I had a tough time with "bra and ket" notation as well. However, we shouldn't feel too bad about this--as it turns out, Dirac never had a fully rigorous definition of bras and kets. In recent years, people working in functional analysis have come up with some rigorous ad-hoc justifications, but it is not clear that the new definitions are the best fit for what physicists "mean" when they use bras and kets. The situation is analogous to another of Dirac's little gems, namely the Dirac delta 'function,' which is not really a function but a distribution, although the theory of distributions came about 20 or 30 years after the delta function.

I work on the Navier-Stokes equations which govern the way air and fluids flow. Something you mentioned in an earlier post led me to think about a phenomenon in turbulence called an "energy cascade." The idea is that large eddies feed their energy into smaller eddies which in turn feed into even smaller eddies an so on. (You can see this easily by pouring a bit of milk into your coffee, try it, and watch!) The structures start simple and get very complex. It reminded me of the position often stated by Ricard Dawkins that complexity is the end result of simple processes.

What are you working on?

(By the way, for other readers, if you didn't understand something above, don't think it's beyond you! I didn't understand it once either. You are certainly smart enough to understand it; it just takes a bit of learning the vocabulary and concepts, surely within your power. Let's get rid of the idea that science is only accessible to the ultra-smart!)

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

Comment #191308 by Count von Count on June 10, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Thank you, sent2null, for an excellent and exciting post! I took some quantum physics as an undergrad (I'm currently a PhD student in math), but I never realized the connection between virtual particles and the old "something from nothing" argument.

I had a similar feeling to the one you describe when you realized the connection between reality and the equations of quantum mechanics. It was a few years ago when I read an article about how the universe could be something like a vacuum fluctuation. Suddenly the puzzle seemed to just...fit together.

sent2null-

Since you are a scientist (a physicist, I'm guessing?) and already an atheist, I would suggest putting down "The God Delusion" for awhile and picking up "The Selfish Gene." You might get another "most incredible feeling," as I did, around chapter 3 or 4. It truly is a mind expanding book.

Diacanu-

Clearly sent2null has a very keen acumen about these things, but you deserve some credit too. ;) These things are certainly within your grasp, and mine, to understand. Awe should be an invitation to understand, not an end of a road. =)

jenlaferriere-

Welcome!

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

Comment #191284 by Count von Count on June 10, 2008 at 1:51 pm

I built up the stomach to reconsider this article a bit, and found that it reminded me of the following piece of advice from the legendary Jack Handey:

"If you want to be the most popular person in your class, whenever the professor pauses in his lecture, just let out a big snort and say 'How do you figger that!' real loud. Then lean back and sort of smirk."

- Jack Handey

I'm beginning to think that perhaps Yomin Postelnik (the author) heard this quote, and took it seriously!

39. Trailer for Religulous

Comment #190920 by Count von Count on June 9, 2008 at 10:34 pm

This looks great, but let's just hope it doesn't do for atheism what Expelled did for religion.

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

Comment #190917 by Count von Count on June 9, 2008 at 10:21 pm

As the Count, it is important that I mention when things can be counted. Aa aa aa! I scanned some posts, but I'm not sure if this point has been made yet.

The Bible states in Genesis and in Jeremiah that the stars of the heaven cannot be counted. Scientists believed that the number of stars were only 1,100, those which could readily be seen. The Bible was way ahead of the time it was given and showed knowledge of that which could not have been known or seen by man.

In fact, this is probably another false statement in the bible. As I last heard, astronomers estimate that there are about 10^(10^72) atoms in the universe. This is a very large number, but it is still finite, and therefore countable. Since stars are made of many atoms (the sun has about 10^57), there are far fewer than 10^(10^72) stars. Another strike against the old not-so-good book!

(In fact, by modern definitions, there could even still be an infinite number of stars, so long as they were countably infinite and not a "continuum," but we should at least be able to assume "countable" means finite. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_infinity for a fun discussion on the different sizes of infinity.)

P.S. Does anyone know which verses of the bible mention that the number of stars cannot be counted?

41. Lizards make adaptive change

Comment #187241 by Count von Count on June 1, 2008 at 3:32 pm

We chartered a boat out to the island, and it was amazing. It was swarming with lizards.

This is a very interesting discovery. Now if only religious people could charter a boat to reality. They might find it swarming with evidence!

42. Karma comedians

Comment #186784 by Count von Count on May 31, 2008 at 10:05 am

So all I want to know is...did she show her beaver again?

43. Teacher tortures, kills boy

Comment #186783 by Count von Count on May 31, 2008 at 10:04 am

Tetsujin-

My guess on this matter was that the teacher had certainly "learned the Koran." Would you say this is true? I haven't (yet) read the Koran.

The teachers actions are more or less consistent with the teachings of Leviticus:

"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." Leviticus 20:9 (supposedly spoken by God to Moses)

44. Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, 10 Commandments

Comment #186406 by Count von Count on May 30, 2008 at 8:53 am

"It will also be a great tool for history, civic and government teachers to use in their classroom."

It's hard to imagine how a school wasting a bunch of money on a big plaque with anything written on it would be an effective use of already minuscule funds. Spend the money on badly needed textbooks, not on emblazoning your favorite documents on the wall. It is also hard to imagine how this bill is an effective use of anyone's time.

"It's not religious. It's historical."

Really? How so? I can't see for example how the first 4 commandments have anything to do with the United States. (Honor the sabbath? Really.) Furthermore, we have no laws against coveting or adultery, so there goes another three commandments. Not committing murder and not stealing are universal in all cultures, and so have nothing to do with the United States in particular. Therefore, I guess we're left with "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness." This one little message isn't worth the bronze it would be made of.

(For more fun, check Wikipedia and ask Christians which version of the 10 commandments they would like to use, and what will be their criterion for choosing.)

gr8hands and esuther-

Bravo!

45. Huge hidden biomass lives deep beneath the oceans

Comment #184944 by Count von Count on May 26, 2008 at 1:30 pm

GregPhillips-

Good call!

46. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #184891 by Count von Count on May 26, 2008 at 10:53 am

Claiming that the exclusion of Islam is racist is like claiming the removal of a tumor is murder. Doesn't oppressive, democracy-killing, woman-hating, science-destroying, mind-controlling Islam have the right to live in whatever town it wants? Don't cancer cells have the right to take over whatever body they wish?

If more towns stood up to this bully called Islam (no matter what the race of those who practice it is), this world would be a better place for all of us (including muslims).

"Never underestimate the power of the dark side."-Master Yoda

47. Huge hidden biomass lives deep beneath the oceans

Comment #184328 by Count von Count on May 24, 2008 at 4:05 pm

...the combined undersea biomass could be equivalent to that of all the plants on Earth. ...some of the cells are as old as the sediment.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
-H.P. Lovecraft

Could it be the old one? Cthulhu fhtagn.

48. Huge hidden biomass lives deep beneath the oceans

Comment #184326 by Count von Count on May 24, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Interesting article, but a bit unscientific.

Prokaryotes are organisms that often have just one cell.

While this is true, there are other types of organisms that have just one cell. All known life is either prokaryotic or eukaryotic. All prokaryotes and many eukaryotes have only one cell. What is special about prokaryotes is that they do not have any organelles or "cell sub-organs" (although it has recently been discovered that there are certain eukaryote-like structures in prokaryotic cells). In particular, they do not have a nucleus (as the article correctly mentions).

49. Missing matter found in deep space

Comment #183275 by Count von Count on May 21, 2008 at 5:55 pm

The picture I have in my head about this is the following one which is a massively large simulation of the universe. Many thousands (or millions) of galaxies are represented in each pixel. This picture seems to show some of the "gaps" and "foam like structure" of the universe.

The related article is here.


Here is another very beautiful "close" up. It's a little too large to post here though.

50. Missing matter found in deep space

Comment #182816 by Count von Count on May 21, 2008 at 2:26 am

So God is a giant spider now?

Careful there LeeC. You are starting to sound like the very confused LaRouchian petitioner who tried to explain string theory to me by saying (mustering his best brainwashing), "physics is broken and they are trying to tie it together with strings."

Let's not get carried away with our analogies.