1. Science can't explain the big bang - there is still scope for a creator

Comment #314631 by Spinoza on January 7, 2009 at 11:29 am

Hold on a sec... let's look at this in the proper light.

He said there's still scope for a creator because science "can't" (wrong word, but we'll soon see that) explain the big bang.

All the more reason for scientists to get on that question, develop those models of pre-big-bang universes!

By his logic, if science can explain something, that removes scope for the creator. Ergo, if it is amenable to science, we don't need God. But, if something isn't amenable to science, it's beyond the scope of human understanding, by definition. (invoke Wittgenstein's article 7 from the Tractatus here).

What a stupid God that would be...

Seems to me, the only MEANINGFUL use of the word 'God' is its least acceptable usage, namely, to refer to the infinite NATURAL universe.

2. Ancient African Exodus Mostly Involved Men, Geneticists Find

Comment #312447 by Spinoza on January 4, 2009 at 10:35 pm

Imagine forgetting to turn off the oven?!

... but uh... how could it be "mostly men"... the article doesn't say... seems to me common sense dictates that we're descended from pairs of humans?... so like... the extra men... uh... either slept with the same women... or?...

I dunno, it's confusing me... someone help?

3. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #311627 by Spinoza on January 3, 2009 at 6:16 pm

@ 18. Comment #311620 by humanpowered

... Who is Dawkin?

4. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #311618 by Spinoza on January 3, 2009 at 6:00 pm

That bit around part 4... from the very religious SOUNDING man(note: let's not confuse [public] superstition with piety) about abortion and stem cell research was fucking absurd.

5. Storm

Comment #307896 by Spinoza on December 28, 2008 at 10:17 pm

Yeah it's fine and all... but it's nothing that hasn't been said before.... hundreds of years ago... no one who ought to listens... not even to Tim Minchin.

6. Scientific illiteracy all the rage among the glitterati

Comment #307300 by Spinoza on December 27, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Bahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

(that was the sound of my neurons getting rather confused about what to fire in response to this unspeakably stupid nonsense...)

7. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #306964 by Spinoza on December 26, 2008 at 10:10 pm

That was a pretty badly written article about a very interesting subject.

I could have written something far better (but unfortunately most would not understand it).

And it's 'hoist WITH his own petar(d)' not 'hoist by'. Though, in fairness to my own philosophy of language underpinnings, 'hoist by' is acceptable if the person actually knows what they're trying to mean.

In any case, terrible article, terrible exegesis of the historical arguments for the existence of God.

The damnable article (literally) wasn't even clear about its own terminology - something of paramount importance in philosophy (at least, in the analytic tradition...).

8. Florida Woman Says Former Church Plans to Make Her Sins Public

Comment #305163 by Spinoza on December 22, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Hester Prynne?

9. Most 'do not believe in nativity'

Comment #304408 by Spinoza on December 20, 2008 at 11:20 pm

Apparently "Metch" missed that episode of South Park. :|

10. Evan Solomon Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #303154 by Spinoza on December 18, 2008 at 8:52 am

It's a bit silly to blame McGill University for this ass-clown (that's what he is, after all).

The University of Toronto is ranked 41st in the world this year, and it has an enormous ration of these sorts of mental peons. I know, I've met them. They belong to every religious denomination, and to atheism.

That is to say, stupid people are EVERYWHERE. Including on this website. :)

11. Why we believe in gods

Comment #295447 by Spinoza on December 2, 2008 at 7:33 am

Why is this guy ripping off parts of Dan Dennett's talk(s)?

12. Forced to Marry

Comment #295403 by Spinoza on December 2, 2008 at 6:35 am

http://www.ultrareach.com/

If you've got a British proxy, problem solved.

13. President Obama: Bad News For the New Atheists and Other Fundamentalists

Comment #279541 by Spinoza on November 6, 2008 at 6:50 am

I don't really have a vested interest in American politics, so I'm pretty sure I'm not engaging in self-deception, but so far as I can tell, it looks like Obama's "religiosity" is a facade (like it is for a lot of people) and a socio-political framework... I seriously doubt he ACTUALLY believes anything close to "Theism".

I'm totally fine with his paying lip-service to B.S... We all do that all the time.

14. A slow but certain demise

Comment #274873 by Spinoza on October 30, 2008 at 1:24 pm

This describes not only everyone I've ever known who became born again, but myself. I was not raised religious at all and was a successful student, yet I fell into religion's clutches for a time. My brief experimentation with it lasted about a year or two and was entirely a function of realizing I was gay as a teenager, and desperately wishing it was not true. I was alone, depressed and absolutely fucking terrified, I was looking for easy answers and the comfort of denial, and had a friend who preached born again Christianity and the transformative power of Christ to me. Hook, line, sinker (also he was hot which didn't help anything).

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

Comment #274284 by Spinoza on October 29, 2008 at 9:26 pm

I like pre-raphaelite paintings...

I also like puppies and being nice and when people are nice to me.

What has God got to do with any of that?

QED.

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

Comment #274279 by Spinoza on October 29, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Just to clarify: When I said "He's not a philosopher." I was referring specifically to his being a debater on the theistic side of things.

What I actually meant was that there are philosophers who are theists who can argue for theism in a vastly more sophisticated manner, so that so far as we could measure it, he is intellectually equivalent to Kirk Cameron.

Nothing this man said was interesting, it was bad rehashings of arguments EVERY undergraduate philosophy student studies over and over and over... no educated theist would argue as badly as this man has.

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

Comment #274172 by Spinoza on October 29, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Please. Turek is not "more sophisticated". The man is not a philosopher. Not even close. He can't even argue the CLASSICAL philosophical arguments for theism properly... they are much "better" than he presents them.

For an example of a very slippery, fairly intelligent theistic philosopher debating a brilliant philosopher on this topic see: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/emcurley/craig-curley_debate

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

Comment #274140 by Spinoza on October 29, 2008 at 4:28 pm

I just think I know who banged it.

19. Richard Dawkins embarrassed after death and subsequent resurrection

Comment #273955 by Spinoza on October 29, 2008 at 12:47 pm

It is being suggested in some quarters that Richard Dawkins was being taught a lesson by God, who has now given him magical powers including the ability to walk on water and cast out demons. A bitter Pope Benedict said ‘Why is it the naughty ones get all the attention? I have been saying that I definitely, definitely believe in God for ages and I haven’t been given the ability to perform a single miracle. Unless you count progressing from the Hitler Youth to being God’s representative on Earth, I suppose.’

20. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #273251 by Spinoza on October 28, 2008 at 11:20 am

It's really painful watching laymen and scientists argue about something philosophers are still trying to settle amongst themselves.

While (as one myself) many (other) philosophers have an annoying lack of scientific knowledge or even a prideful ignorance thereof, it's still frustrating to see people arguing about something as fucking difficult as morality while assuming vastly disparate and foggy presuppositions.

I'll just hint that if there are no moral facts, then this issue of rape/murder being permissible if God does not exist is just a pseudo-problem... and it looks like that's what Prof. Dawkins is really getting at (though not spelling it out in the terms moral philosophers like AJ Ayer and JL Mackie or even Simon Blackburn already have...)

The argument needs to be hashed out, either:

A) Things are right or wrong because they have IN THEM facts which are the morality. That is, there is a fact about murder which exists, either naturally or non-naturally (supernaturally) which is PERCEIVABLE by moral agents, which is itself 'the wrong'.

Or:
B) Nothing is per se right or wrong (that is, no fact RESIDES in objects or events which is itself perceivable by agents who are set up to do so)... rightness and wrongness are human attitudes we take toward things in virtue of being the sorts of beings who have evolved to endeavour to "live the good life" (that is, to preserve our life and engender the things that benefit us the most).

Essentially what I'm hearing in that interview is one person who thinks A, and another who thinks B, and never the twain shall meet.

But that's just it... the fucking argument is being hashed out in philosophy (I fall on the B side, mind you). It needs to be argued for and developed and ultimately, or so I think anyway, turned into "science" (it would be a sub-genre of brain science, eventually... as should psychology and sociology).

21. Mapping a clan of mobile selfish genes

Comment #269349 by Spinoza on October 22, 2008 at 8:59 pm

I smell Ayn Rand... lol

22. Death for apostasy?

Comment #266491 by Spinoza on October 19, 2008 at 4:53 am

Well, it's pretty easy to see why she wrote this. It's the same situation no matter what moderate Muslim you talk to. They experience cognitive dissonance when you bring up solid cases of clearly Islamic inspired/motivated/directly called for violence, hatred, etc. And this causes them to simultaneously rebuke violent Islam while deflecting any responsibility on the part of Islam for that violence.

But that's just not sensible. Not only is it a mild form of "No True Scotsman", it's not going to change matters any. Essentially it attempts to somehow shift the blame for continued violence on the part of Muslims to the very people who are loudly decrying this violence. To blame AC Grayling, LONG an opponent of Christianity (just read the relevant entry in his "The Meaning of Things"!) for "further alienating" Muslims... is ridiculous.

Yes, there are political, economic, social, etc., motivations for Islamic violence TOO, but so what? That doesn't make the sentences in the Qu'ran and the Hadith(s) any more sane.

Just ask Aqsa Parvez.

23. Cross purposes

Comment #262889 by Spinoza on October 9, 2008 at 5:39 pm

Actually EMPIRICAL "Science" does have a metaphysical assumption underlying it. Namely, the Humean one.

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

Comment #261619 by Spinoza on October 7, 2008 at 6:36 am

Woo! Love infinities.

25. Bill Maher's Religulous Opens Today

Comment #259429 by Spinoza on October 3, 2008 at 10:54 am

I find Bill Maher annoying, and not all that bright.

Just saying.

26. Catholic priests cane YouTube over blasphemous vids

Comment #259353 by Spinoza on October 3, 2008 at 9:33 am

I think Eucharist "desecration" and public urination on a Holocaust memorial are roughly analogous.

The Eucharist and a memorial are, in one sense, just a cracker, and just a bunch of whatever material the memorial was made out of...

The differences appear when the motivations of the people involved are brought to light... and even then, unless there's some kind of direct threat involved (e.g. the person says "After I'm done pissing on this memorial / desecrating this unsalted Christ wafer, I'm gonna kill x/y." where x/y are specific Jews or Catholics.

THAT would be justifiably offensive, since it's a death threat (and in such a case, police should be involved).

As it stands though, all forms of causing offense towards people for desecrating inanimate objects/ideas should be fair game.

27. 'God as Science Fiction'. Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh Book Festival

Comment #256894 by Spinoza on September 29, 2008 at 5:03 pm

That last point is common sense... and it pisses me off to no end.

Starbucks requires a fairly strict dress code, black or khaki pants, black or white polo shirt, same colour undershirt as your polo, no exposed piercings except ears. Etc.

But they make a point of adding a caveat that says "Unless you've got a piercing or extra jewelery, etc for religious reasons." and they're very clear that the ONLY reason one could, say, have a nose ring, is if it were religiously inspired (I won't say mandated, because most of the time these things aren't strict "mandates", and MANY people who follow these self-same religions DO NOT follow these cultural traditions).

So,(and just to note here: I am male), if I wanted a nose ring (not saying I do but I'm almost tempted just to piss them off), I could get one, and wear it while working at Starbucks, if only it were declared to be "part of my religion".

Does anyone want to start the "Bull-rings in nose and half-shaved half dreadlocked and fully tattooed" religion with me?

28. The God Delusion's cameo in season premiere of 'Family Guy'

Comment #256680 by Spinoza on September 29, 2008 at 10:34 am

Important to note: Seth McFarlane has said that Brian basically represents himself (hence, Brian's voice is basically Seth's real voice).

Also interesting note about this episode. The girl turns out to be pretty skanky (hence the genital warts), with Brian as a somewhat honour-ridden foil... showing that atheists are just normal people :) LOL

29. Brunswick school board to consider creationism teaching

Comment #256550 by Spinoza on September 29, 2008 at 8:25 am

Every theist that believes in an all-powerful being is a creationist, albeit they may not be young earth ones.

30. Hail, ceaseless complexity: Review of 'Reinventing the Sacred'

Comment #256523 by Spinoza on September 29, 2008 at 7:50 am

Bonzai, it depends on what questions you're asking.

31. Hail, ceaseless complexity: Review of 'Reinventing the Sacred'

Comment #256189 by Spinoza on September 28, 2008 at 11:35 pm

I am having a profoundly frustrating argument over reductionism (I am in favour of its continued dominance as a powerful scientific methodology). This article, and the linked-to Dawkins tract, have made my evening.

Janus, the standard non-reductionist example is of a hurricane's behaviour. The claim is that the behaviour of a hurricane is so complex that it cannot be explained in terms of its parts. (I disagree, but there you go).

32. Mathematics and faith explain altruism

Comment #255439 by Spinoza on September 27, 2008 at 2:27 pm

"St. Augustine asked himself why is it given to some people to believe in God?" he said. "His conclusion was this by itself is the grace of God."

33. Jewish 'ultras' defend morals with menace

Comment #251626 by Spinoza on September 21, 2008 at 6:53 pm

Kicking the shit out of a woman for being immoral.

.... christ on a fucking bike that's the most absurd hypocritical oxymoronic thing I've ever read. What fucking PLANET am I on?!

34. Turkish edition of The Ancestor's Tale sells out within a day!

Comment #250557 by Spinoza on September 19, 2008 at 10:59 pm

This is my favourite Dawkins book. I think it's easily his best. I think it's comparable in brilliance to Darwin's Origin... no word of a lie!

35. Look Who's Irrational Now

Comment #250541 by Spinoza on September 19, 2008 at 9:56 pm

a decline in traditional religious belief would lead to a smarter, more scientifically literate and even more civilized populace.

36. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248108 by Spinoza on September 15, 2008 at 3:19 pm

To play devil's advocate... I think that if what Reiss *meant* (as opposed to 'what was said'), was that there is a significant population of students who will simply shut off their minds to science if certain topics are not breached, and that THIS is serious enough to lend itself to moderated discussion of "controversial" (to those students, anyway) topics, in order that we do not engender massive disinterest in the sciences (and thus, perpetuate ignorance).... Then there's nothing particularly horrible about that. It's still a bit vague, confusing, and probably somewhat wrong... since science classes are difficult and work-laden enough without adding superfluous pandering into the mix... But I think Reiss should in all fairness be given a chance to explain himself clearly... and if he is unable to do so in a satisfactory manner... by all means, sack away.

37. Devolution in Education

Comment #244350 by Spinoza on September 8, 2008 at 3:09 pm

"People who teach astronomy have already been verbally attacked in workshops discussing the Big Bang theory and the idea that the Earth is 14 million years old," she said. "It's an area I never would have thought would be controversial."

38. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #239929 by Spinoza on August 30, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Look, it's very simple, there just isn't enough time in a biology class to talk about anything but biology.

Period. It's already a shitload of information to digest as it is... adding "debate" to a science class is a waste of time.

Teach the "controversy" in a POLITICS or HISTORY [Scopes, Kitzmiller, etc], or RELIGION class, though!

39. MythBuster Adam Savage: 3 Ways to Fix U.S. Science Education

Comment #239823 by Spinoza on August 30, 2008 at 11:39 am

Not many people like to be told their wrong , even if it leads to a better understanding and more accurate results and conclusions

40. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #236582 by Spinoza on August 24, 2008 at 8:32 pm

The logic is just really painful.

Critical Thinking needs to be taught in kindergarten.

For christ's sake... Jupiter DOES NOT shield the Earth... I mean what the hell... and what on earth does THAT, if it were true, have to do with "there must be a designer"... That's just confirmation bias.

41. Scientists Create Blood From Stem Cells

Comment #234012 by Spinoza on August 20, 2008 at 6:12 pm

Religions do sell community as a product though... basically like a fraternity, except full of zealots. :)

42. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233505 by Spinoza on August 20, 2008 at 2:06 am

Ceci, your sentiment is certainly appreciated, but honestly, the answer to your question is obvious. It is that "The God Delusion" is not an antidote to idiocy or stupidity or gullibility. It isn't a magical book, it's a bit of pop-philosophy writing from a very, very good writer. You'll forgive people for reading it and confirming their biases or becoming besotted by the brilliance of the verbiage and tone. There is nothing analytic about the relation between "Has read 'The God Delusion' and agrees with it. (and probably wants to become Richard Dawkins' sex-slave, for no apparent reason)" and "Is an intelligent human being".

Sad but true.

43. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233477 by Spinoza on August 20, 2008 at 1:29 am

Apparently I was on point.

Absurd. Goddamned absurd fucking universe we live in.

44. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233426 by Spinoza on August 19, 2008 at 11:12 pm

HOW many readers have gone to dinner parties and listened to otherwise intelligent people assert that alternative medicine can be just as effective as mainstream, scientific medicine?

45. No credit for creationism

Comment #232689 by Spinoza on August 18, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Season 12 is gold. QED.

46. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231997 by Spinoza on August 17, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Just read the SEP article on Bohmian Mechanics:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/

47. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231966 by Spinoza on August 17, 2008 at 11:27 am

25. Comment #231960 by Ex~ on August 17, 2008 at 11:17 am
avatarQuantum Mechanics spits in the face of thousands of years of philosophical thinking. A is not A, says Quantum mechanics. The discovery of improbability is like a slap in the face, reminding us of what we've always known instinctually: that we DO have free will, has been true all along.

Absolutely fascinating.

48. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231952 by Spinoza on August 17, 2008 at 11:03 am

And to Bohmians and other like-minded physicists, the pair says: Give up determinism, or give up free will. Even the tiniest bit of free will.

49. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230325 by Spinoza on August 14, 2008 at 2:37 pm

The "retreat from reason" isn't easily evident to educated academic Western (mostly white) people.

But the numbers are weird. While church-going Christian numbers are decreasing, sanity-abhorring belief-junkies are traipsing over to Islam with open skulls... and all manner of junk is squashed in...

"Non-religious", too, is certainly no guarantor of "(wo)man of reason" in the Enlightenment sense of the word.

The retreat from THAT sense of the word "reason" is actually even more confusing among academics... at least, outside the research-oriented sciences.

Among atheists, too, there is an alarming amount of anti-intellectualism (read: "unenlightenment values")... has ALWAYS annoyed me...

50. The Afterlife for Scientologists

Comment #229324 by Spinoza on August 13, 2008 at 11:24 am

Sounds vaguely like L. Ron ripped off Hinduism.