Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by steve99


801. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82331 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 4:34 am

A: "The Truth!"

Hope you like it. =) I do. Maybe cuz I'm blonde, but I think we can still popularize a few concepts and make them more catchy.


Can I suggest a slight change? How about "The search for the truth!". The problem with saying "The Truth" is so many religious people think that they have already found it!

This made me think.. if we want to be labelled as more than just 'atheists', perhaps we want a term that is more positive. 'Atheist' and 'Rationalist' and similar terms can sometimes seem so uninspiring. Atheist - 'without god(s)'. Rationalist - 'I only stick to sensible thinking'. 'Bright' does not work for me. It suggests a state you are in, rather than what you do. Perhaps a more action-based word would be better - something like 'Seeker' or 'Searcher' - indicates we are not content to sit back and accept dogma, and that we are continually looking for the truth behind ideas.

802. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #82327 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 4:22 am

Only the theist is able to claim coherence and true logic in his arguments because those arguments are founded on the notion of an all-knowing being.


The issue here is that theists are allowed to get away with claiming that God is somehow the foundation of all kinds of things - statements for which they have no evidence or logical basis.

They want there to be objective morality ... so, God is provides morality....
They want some explanation for why there is something rather than nothing" .... so, God is the "ground of all being"
They want meaning ... so God provides meaning

Unless they can explain why or how God provides these services, they are in no better position than atheists, and "because of God" is simply a meaningless phrase supplied as an answer to all hard questions.

803. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82325 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 4:12 am

Don't trust Diacanu's optimistic statement. I have seen you continue to be caught, dear man:-) trying so hard to be reasonable in the face of the religite unreason posted on this site.


I don't consider myself caught (am I deluding myself?)... I have no problems with talking to people in general on this thread. I just am struggling to avoid engaging Dianelos....

Actually, I think wonder if this (and similar) threads should inspire another topic or two for the 'debating points' section. Two that come to mind in terms of recent discussions are 'Words like 'truth' mean different things to the religious' (this 'relativist' argument seems quite common to me) and 'God could be invisible and undetectable by science' (when people disagree with Dawkings and say that a universe with God could look exactly the same as one without).

804. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #82302 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 2:57 am

But I also agree with Quine that we don't need to evoke some highly speculative physics in order to answer the theists.


Ah... I see what you are saying now. I agree. Personally, I like the approach Dawkins uses in TGD... other forms of 'order' have been explained using physics and biology, so why assume this one needs any special explanation? We should point out the trend of gaps that people have used God to fill having closed one by one over the millenia.

805. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82297 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 2:41 am

Thanks, and yeah, this time I'm done with him for sure.


I am impressed - you reached this state at least 100x faster than I did!

806. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #82117 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 5:36 pm

What I am trying to get to, here, is a response to the rhetoric from a believer on this issue. (That was the question in my last post.) There are several places to hit that bogus chain of 'reasoning' and I am trying to get you to see that it is not necessary that physics have an explanation for the nature of the constants we use in our models to do so.


That is what I have a problem with. I think it is necessary, as it is a question about physics.

If I am wrong about that, then the believers will always be able to point to the difference between what we do know and what we want to know as their justification.


The way to avoid such 'god of the gaps' arguments is to explain how other gaps have been filled in the past, and to explain that such arguments are poor in themselves. I don't think we are going to get anywhere by trying to convince ourselves that there are no gaps.

Sorry if I am misunderstanding you here; I get the impression that I may be.

807. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82090 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 4:54 pm

I assume you agree I answered the question in the negative. Atheism is not a precise term, as simply describes something absent from a person's set of beliefs. It says nothing about the remaining beliefs and their reasons. I am tending towards Harris' views.

808. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82084 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 4:47 pm

I still have to disagree with Harris. I think right now we must be very clear in our position and "atheism" says it very precisely.


Ah, but does it? Do you share the same view as a Buddhist who does not believe in a God, but does believe in ghosts and demons?

809. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #82073 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 4:18 pm

steve99 would you please step us through the argument that starts with the constants of Physics, and ends up with an afterlife based on our current free will choices of belief?


I think you may have confused me with a believer. I am not. I simply share with physicists of renown who know far more than me the belief that the values of the constants of physics needs explaining. That is all. I am confident that such an explanation will be scientific. What I don't much like is attempts to claim that no explanation is needed. I think that is poor science, and perhaps an attempt to hand-wave away something that theists raise that is a problem.

The point is to demonstrate the non sequitor of concluding a designer. It doesn't explain why the universe appears fine tuned, just that it is a non sequitor to assume it must have been/could only have been a designer.


I don't think so. I believe it is intended to mean that there is no point wondering why the universe is supposed to be such a good fit to us, when in reality we are a good fit to the universe, as we come from it. However, if anyone can point me at further commentary from Adams that explains this in more detail, I am prepared to accept that I could be wrong. However, I have come across several uses of that Adams quote which implies that that it relates to fine tuning, which is the sense I take from it.

810. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #82053 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 3:39 pm

It is not about the physics. It is about a fallback position from Paley's Watch. In the past (and still for ID), life was so complex people thought it had to be designed by an intelligent force. Now, thanks to the fossil record, we can see how life builds complexity without intervention. So, they have fallen back to where we do not have a fossil record, and never will: parameters of this Universe. Yes, we have the background IR as a fossil of the Big Bang, but from inside the Universe we cannot go farther except by inference. We cannot know the Universe of Universes.


Yes, we can. Or at least many physicists are trying to, with ideas like the String Theory Landscape and inflationary multiverses.

Saying it is not about the physics when talking about fine tuning is rather like saying it is not about the biology when talking about evolution.

Get over it.


The Paley's Watch argument is appropriate. Complex life did look just about impossible without a designer before Darwin and Huxley came along. Fine tuning is probably going to look the like a trivial issue when the appropriate mechanism has been found - perhaps some future version of String Theory, or some sort of 'evolving universe' idea like that of Lee Smolin.

But to deny there is a problem at all in terms of fine tuning is equivalent to some pre-Darwin biologist denying that some mechanism is needed to explain the complexity of life by declaring life 'not complex'.

I don't think we are going to impress the religious by denying something is a problem when internationally respected cosmologists and physicists think it is. We just have to deal with the issue when it arises in the same honest way that Dawkins did in TGD.

811. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #82035 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Good, so it is incorrect to talk about 'constants' to begin with if they do (?can) vary. Did I read you correctly?


Well, they (probably) don't vary within a universe. So it sort of makes some sense to call them 'constants'.

812. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82028 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 2:54 pm

I hereby declare Diacanu's term "rambling bullshittery" an ephiphany. ;)


I enjoyed it too... well done Diacanu!

813. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #82006 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Maybe I'm just ignorant on the cutting edge physics, but do we really know what substrate would form if any of these initial conditions (fine tunings of the strong force and such) were changed in any degree,or do we only know that they will not form the universe as we know it? If not atoms, then what?


The problem is far worse than talking about different types of substrate. If the cosmological constant was not very fine-tuned indeed, the early universe would undergo phenomenal accelerated expansion that would prevent any structure at all from forming.

814. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #81987 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 1:44 pm

This is like a puddle that has formed in a pothole thinking to itself: "This pothole is just the perfect size/shape for me, if this pothole were only slightly different, I would never exist. This pothole was clearly formed by an intelligent designer since its parameters are perfect for me."


I hate to have to say this, but Douglas Adams was wrong. The problem can't be solved in this way. The fine tuning has to be very fine even to get any kind of structure or stability at all in the universe - to use Adams' metaphor, the puddle is entitled to wonder why there are even atoms to form the pothole.

We are just going to have to face the fact that the 'fine tuning' problem is as yet something unsolved, rather like the question of how the first living organisms arose. It may be answered by science later.

No disrepect to the memory of a wonderful author, but I'll take the view of Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, over that of Adams in this area!

815. Most religious people are moderate, and don't hurt anybody

Comment #81973 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Even moderate people use religion to support their prejudices (such as homophobia). Supposedly mainstream and moderate religious leaders campaign on matters such as birth control, gay rights and so on, in ways that can definitely do harm.

816. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #81930 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Hmm... I am getting a bit concerned about people thinking it is easy to dismiss what many of the best physicists consider to be a real problem (fine tuning). If we don't accept that it IS a problem, then we could end up putting people off when they read articles and books by prominent physicists, like Sir Martin Rees, who think it is.

817. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #81926 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 12:05 pm

I honestly don't think multiverse is such a good rebuttal. It is speculative and there is not really a shred of proof to it. ,Steve said that it is "simple", but that is very subjective (I see no obvious justification to apply probability theory that we develop in this universe across an ensemble of "universes" which are not causally connected.)


No, I really don't think isn't subjective. As I understand the physics, multiverses really are simpler, as they require fewer parameters to describe them.

I think invoking "multiverse" as if it is an established fact is scientifically somewhat dishonest. Most people on this site know well enough to add a disclaimer when pressed, but I have seen "multiverse" being offered up as the answer to fine tuning without further comment in some shorter posts.


Fair point, but I don't think anyone is doing that. All it shows is how the 'fine tuning' argument could be explained without invoking a designer.

818. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #81923 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Unless it could be demonstrated that the universal constants can be varied in any way then the suggestion that they can is pure metaphysics.


No, that doesn't work, as it pre-supposes the answer to what is currently an open and hotly debated scientific question - why the constants have their current values. According to many models of physical reality, the constants DO vary.

819. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #81922 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 11:58 am

the same arguemtns were repeated ad nauseum.



That is the way it should be. The same arguments, should be put the same way until answers are received.

Theists have a tendency to put forward the same points again and again, such as that beauty or morality require God and so on. Having standard answers allows the triviality of such points to be quickly dismissed, so discussions can move on to whatever core beliefs the theist has.

820. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #81820 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 8:35 am

The First Cause argument is out of date. Physics has changed our understanding of the universe beyond anything we could have imagined. Time is flexible, and causality is not guaranteed. The idea of a 'start time' of the universe may make no more sense than an idea of going North at the North Pole.

821. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #81718 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 5:01 am

A possibly useful counter is to point out that many of those who helped counter evil dictatorships in the 20th century were hardly enthusiastically religious. Churchill almost certainly agnostic. Having doubts about religion does not seem to prevent people achieving great good.

822. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #81699 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 3:52 am

I find the "hard-wired into our genome" retort to be unsatisfying and incomplete.

The theist can then press the argument by pointing out the innumerable instances of barbarism and violence throughout human history into the present day (not to mention in the animal kingdom as well).

The theist can also point out differences (ignoring universals) in systems of ethics in various cultures.

While I know there are rather simple rebuttals to all these arguments, why bother? As an atheist why not go straight for a sound system of ethics instead of appealing to nature?


The problem is that we do appeal to nature in order to form a sound system of ethics. In the end it comes down to feelings and conscience, which largely come from evolution.

We should say that morality comes from both inheritance and negotiation.

823. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #81652 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 2:13 am

The fundamental constants seem to be very fine-tuned. For virtually all values of these constants the universe either explodes so fast that nothing can form or collapses instantly after formation into a black hole.

However, it is very likely that this is not the only universe, as multiverse models of reality are far simpler. So, if universes exist for all values of the fundamental constants, it is no surprise that one exists with the values that allows complex life.

824. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81130 by steve99 on October 24, 2007 at 7:57 am

6. Body counts is a separate issue to "is there a God".


But this is a classic theist trick. They divert the argument from 'religion is true' to 'religion is useful'. Then, when you aren't looking, then sneak it back to 'religion is true' again.

825. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #81127 by steve99 on October 24, 2007 at 7:55 am

I think the often simplistic views of Hitchens' critics go hand in hand with an arrogant sureness.


I have to agree. I think there is a desire for life to be simple. For choices to be easy. There is also great comfort in being part of a 'right-on' peer group, with common views, with common heroes (John Pilger, George Galloway, Noam Chomsky).

Anyone who tries to point out that things aren't simple, that war is not always the worst thing that can happen, that we should allow a diversity of views (such as Christopher Hitchens, David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen and others), is treated with contempt as being a 'neo-con supporter' or a 'traitor to the cause'.

826. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81062 by steve99 on October 24, 2007 at 1:53 am

Morality doesn't really exist. It's a religious concept and atheists shouldn't get dragooned into trying to "one up" religion at their own game.


There certainly is morality. We each have a sense of right and wrong, both in our thoughts and in our feelings.

What there is not is objective, absolute morality written somewhere in the Laws of Nature or by God.

827. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80882 by steve99 on October 23, 2007 at 10:24 am

Personally, I just can't conceive of this thread ever ending. And as I doubt that anyone can provide me with any evidence otherwise, I am going to declare it an objective fact of reality. And, as atheists can't prove that this thread will go on forever, when it obviously will, I declare this a failure of naturalism and proof that theism is the only sensible approach.

Actually, I am not intending to re-join the discussion. Call this a 'meta-discussion'. I am beginning to feel a bit uneasy at the way this site is being dominated by Dianelos posts. If they were getting anywhere, there might be a point. However, when someone goes round in endless circles, re-cycling the same straw men and misunderstandings of logic, science and philosophy again and again (assuming that 're-cycling' an appropriate term for 'straw'), simply declaring things to be true 'because I can't conceive otherwise', and, when an argument fails for one person, just moving on to someone else. This is no better behaviour than those who solicit religion door-to-door. Don't get the right answer? Just deny the fact of the conversation and move on, and on, and on. I am not saying there is anything bad about that - if people want to push their religion like that, fine. I am just not sure that a site like this is the right place for it.

I think this is an important site, and has a high profile. I feel it is being misused.

828. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80823 by steve99 on October 23, 2007 at 6:03 am

You say that natural science can adjudicate on the supernatural, so this means that you are at least open to the possibility that the supernatural could be real. You just want proof for it. Is that what you think?


Yes.

I think many natural scientists would disagree.


I'll bet they do.

They ascribe to a methodological naturalism in their scientific work. Science uses eyes that only focus on natural phenomena, and it is methodologically blind to even the possibility of God or the supernatural. Gould thought this, and so does McGrath.


Well, I disagree with both about this. To be honest, I am not even sure what 'supernatural' is supposed to really mean. If something exists, and can be shown to exist by repeated observation, then I would claim it is part of Nature (whatever that is).

The intelligent design people, Dembski and Behe, would agree with you. They say that they can filter out natural and intelligent causes in the complexity of nature. These so-called intelligent causes would be pointers to supernatural intelligence.


No, that is just not the case. They aren't showing any positive evidence for anything. They are simply saying 'we believe there is a gap in evidence. We declare that gap filled by supernatural intelligence'. That is no way to proceed. When you filter out what you know about what you are left with is a gap in knowledge. That is not evidence.

My point is that you can't have it both ways? Which one?


My way, which is that evidence has to be positive.

829. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80809 by steve99 on October 23, 2007 at 5:09 am

However, a choice between the Queen or a politician? I cannot stand politicians!


Philip, my dear fellow, isn't that just a bit strong? After all, Nelson Mandela has been a politician. Politics is a dirty job, and you can appear dirty doing it, but someone has to.

I much prefer having the Queen as a representative of my country, she at least has some modicum of intelligence and manners. She at least has a least a presence and demeanour that commands more respect than a smarmy politician, politicians are far more fake and annoying in my humble opinion. Gordon Brown vs the Queen? No Contest at all!


There is a good solution to this... have the speaker of the house of commons as representative. They have almost always been pretty decent people. Having someone like the recent speaker Betty Boothroyd as representative would be huge fun.

Having power and position because of inheritance is generally a bad idea.

830. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80806 by steve99 on October 23, 2007 at 5:03 am

The Monarchy is now purely a figurative institution


If only that were the case. In reality, the monarch has considerable power, such as to be able to refuse or accept the dissolution of parliament, and to be able to select prime ministers. That power has been used in recent history.

831. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80788 by steve99 on October 23, 2007 at 3:39 am

I know someone is going to chew me out for complaining... and claim that I have no right to complain... that I should do one of these debates myself, if I think it is so easy... and maybe they'll be right... but I'm sorry... I was just so annoyed after watching this. The fact is that some people have been given an opportunity to be in the public eye on these religious debates... and it's incumbent upon them to put forth the effort to make these debates successful... otherwise, don't even bother.


I agree. There do seem to be an increasing number of 'non-debate' debates around.

832. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80787 by steve99 on October 23, 2007 at 3:34 am

My view is that natural science, despite its tremendous success, is not the kind of tool that will help us adjudicate on the supernatural..


It can, I believe. All claims for the supernatural have to involve some interaction with the natural. Why do people claim to that there are fairies? Because they say they have seen them, and that they dance in actual fairy rings. We can go and attempt to observe the fairies. We can check out the fairy rings (and we find they are actually due to mushrooms). Why do people claim that there is a God? Because they have heard his voice, and seen his works, or have indirect evidence via books or verbal reports. We can check out the reports, find out if there are alternative explanations and so on. All this is verifiable. Even voices and visions are in principle, using observations of brain function.

Any claim that the supernatural interacts with the natural world exposes the supernatural to the tools of science.

Of course, some suggest that the supernatural can interact in ways that can't be detected, but that is philosophical nonsense, as an infinite number of magic things could do that, so there is no justification for claiming the existence of any particular one.

833. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80779 by steve99 on October 23, 2007 at 2:56 am

I see you have managed to avoid responding to DG in the Dawkins/Lennox thread.


Well, I am trying to "have a life". When it gets to the stage of saying to my partner "I'll be ready in just a minute" while I try and find the right way to phrase an argument, I knew things had to stop.

Is it me or does he seem to be rather more peevish than usual, with ad hominem attacks based on what he believes people are saying?


We do seem to have been seeing a different character in recent times. I have not been following other discussions that others may have had in detail. But I did sense that I touched a nerve with the Anglical/gay rights issue. I think a sequel to 'The Root of all Evil' could be made, titled 'The Support of an Awful Lot of Nastiness'.

834. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80766 by steve99 on October 23, 2007 at 2:22 am

Hmm.... regarding denoir. I may be wrong, but I sense a thread being hijacked to put forward personal agendas. I detect the slight flavour of a Dianelos approach - declaring what is and what isn't in terms of QM, the tendency to argue based on straw men constructed so as to seem it is almost what you have been saying, but not quite. I shall leave this discussion for others more capable and more patient.

835. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80656 by steve99 on October 22, 2007 at 2:05 pm

If I may just butt in. I think you mean to say that non-linear systems typically exhibit chaotic behaviour for a wide range of values of the relevant parameters that control the systems.


Yes, and the rest of your post makes things very clear.

836. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80643 by steve99 on October 22, 2007 at 1:28 pm

You mean that you don't know if it chaotic or not.


Not necessarily. Non-linear systems are inherently unpredictable, which was what I was talking about generally. Chaos is just a specific case of it.

Current research strongly indicates that you can simulate brain function quite well without going into the physics. The evidence for it is strong so an agnostic position isn't really warranted with the data we have today.



Again, this is way off what (I assumed) we were talking about. Scooternc was implying that the universe was deterministic in the context of a discussion of free will. I was simply trying to illustrate that the universe is far from deterministic, especially when one considers that quantum effects can without doubt propogate to the macroscopic level in some conditions - sensitivity to initial conditions can get down to the level of the uncertainty principle. All I was trying to say was that the universe is not deterministic.

837. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80632 by steve99 on October 22, 2007 at 11:59 am

I know you are trying to avoid the issue, but I'm saying now for the third time that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you claim that quantum effects affect molecular machinery then it has automatically implications for the brain. You can't declare that quantum effects inevitable trickle up and then claim not to have any opinion on the effects on the brain.


I am not saying quantum effects inevitably trickle up. I am saying that quantum effects can trickle up in non-linear systems. Personally, I don't know if the brain is a non-linear system.

The bond is quite binary - it's the essence of quantum mechanics - electrons at fixed energy levels. A level or a band is either occupied or not with no in-between. The force on a charged particle in an electric field is relevant (and incidentally order of magnitudes larger than any quantum uncertainety) before the ionic bond is in place. It's what attracts the atoms to snap together in the first place. However before the electron is in its place there is no bond. Na+ and Cl- are free floating ions before the electron of Cl- jumps to the energy level (atomic orbital) available in Na+. The electrical forces between them do not change the end product NaCl in any way. It's a discrete qualitative jump and no amount of noise can change it. An electron can't partially occupy an atomic orbital.



Bonding is, of course, more complex than you describe here.

This is all very interesting, but irrelevant. We know full well that quantum effects can influence macroscopic systems. I gave the (extreme) example of a cosmic ray and cancer. A single quantum event can change someone's life.

838. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80570 by steve99 on October 22, 2007 at 7:33 am

Signing would seem to me to be endorsing our undemocractic practice of having a hereditary head of state.


I am also a republican. But I think there would be a wonderful irony if the knightood happened - the head of the Church of England having to knight the world's best-known atheist.

839. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80567 by steve99 on October 22, 2007 at 7:30 am

Just in case any of you would like to think even less of D'Souza...

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/10/19/why-atheists-are-not-very-bright/


That was absolutely hilarious. To sum up:

1. Atheists claim that they can know everything.
2. They can't.
3. Therefore God.

840. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #80528 by steve99 on October 22, 2007 at 4:28 am

Wow! Some rather impressive cognitive dissonance on display there.


Why? All atheism means is that someone does not believe in the existence of God or Gods. It does not mean anything else. There are millions of Buddhists who don't believe in Gods (at least not in the way we understand them) but still believe in things spiritual.

841. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80503 by steve99 on October 22, 2007 at 2:22 am

As for trusting Hitchens on Iraq because he has insider knowledge of the customs and traditions of the country, he neither speaks Arabic nor lives in the Middle East. Robert Fisk, on the other hand, having both the above attributes,has intimate knowledge of Iraqi society and can provide strong rebuttal to Hitchens' arguments for going to war.


Fine, so let the experts debate it. That is the way things should be. But for us to throw all kinds of accusations at Hitchens when we aren't experts about this is wrong.

842. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80495 by steve99 on October 22, 2007 at 1:47 am

There is no in-between as you agree that a brain is a complex system where chaos theory applies (small changes can have massive effects). Take your pick.


I really don't know how often I need to say this, but I am not talking specifically about brains.

Should you now build a complex system after the A/D converter, you could build a a very complex non-linear system that did something with the ones and zeroes from stage B. Would such a system be sensitive to small changes in stage A? No, it would certainly not. A->B could never be a chaotic system as one of the basic criteria could never be met (mixing of the pdfs). It's a threshold and you should be very happy that it is that way. In a molecular machine we can take the example of an ionic bond. It's binary as well.


No, it isn't, actually.

You have a bond or you don't - there is no in-between.


Sure there is. Have you ever studied the force vs. distance potential curve of an ionic interaction? It is not binary.

No matter how much quantum fluctuations you have, you'll never have half a bond or 1.001 bond. That's a very good thing - if quantum effects always propagated upwards we would have a completely unpredictable universe.


Of course not, as we get a range of processes which constrain things at high levels. We get systems which are linear, and non-linear systems which are forced and which have attractors. Things aren't completely unpredictable; we get patterns and trends.

843. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80400 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Atheism is a system of non-belief regarding God or gods.

No, it isn't. I discussed this in detail in post 308.

My conclusions about the existence God are based on data, events, and concepts that I reason from.


Reason is about putting everything up for discussion and debate. That includes data, events and concepts.

844. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80391 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 3:44 pm

It's because we now know that the political temper back then was the result of an overestimation of Saddam's military threat and that the likes of Hitchens have nothing but short-sightedness to justify their arrogance.


I think there is some arrogance from those who, unlike Hitchens, don't have very detailed knowledge of the culture and the history of the area. It seems rather perverse to me that so many are prepared, on the basis of little knowledge, to disagree with Hitchens because they want to conform to a standard left-wing viewpoint. I have little knowledge of this, so as a rational thinker, I am prepared to admit I just don't know what is right or wrong here. However, I am prepared to accept that Hitch knows far more about this than I do. Perhaps if knew what he did, I would disagree with him - I don't know, and, I suspect, neither do you.

Furthermore a state of anarchy was induced by the almost instantaneous dissolution of the local law enforcement establishments. I don't know if that was supported by the UN.


Ah good. So because mistakes were made in the past (and they certainly where), that somehow means that the UN should not support attempting to hold things together now (as it does)?

845. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80384 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Finally, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If quantum effects can influence the firing of the neurons then the quantum level would be relevant to brain function.


I am sorry, but you seem to have a persistent and stubborn misunderstanding of what I am saying. I am not talking about interactions in the brain, or brain function. I don't have a clue whether or not we have free will. I don't know whether or not this is due to quantum mechanics.

My only objection to what has been posted earlier is that we have no free will because things are deterministic. My objection was with the declaration of determinism. That is all.

But I have said this before, but apparently to no effect. However, feel free to continue to argue about quantum mechanics and the brain. I present you with this straw man to debate with.

(Meanwhile, I think your understanding of non-linear systems and quantum mechanics needs to be updated, otherwise you would not use the phrase "too small to influence anything")

846. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80382 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 2:50 pm

I thought that it had been taken out of the hands of the government after the cash for honours affair?


Well now you have me truly confused.

847. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80375 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 1:58 pm

So I take it that Hirsi Ali is in favor of the war?


It is very complicated, and my impression is that so many people have simplistic ideas, that almost sound like just slogans.

There is no 'war' in Iraq right now. It is an occupation, and it is supported by UN resolutions. (I does make me wonder why so many people who wanted UN resolutions to support the invasion and now complaining about an occupation that is supported by just such resolutions).

848. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80328 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 10:58 am

Would Richard really be interested in kneeling in front of the head of a church? Does he support the monarchy at all?
Personally I would never accept such a dubious honour, bestowed, as it were, by a despicable social parasite whose dwarf intellect is constantly engaged in lending credibility to homeopaths and quacks of all kinds.


A bit harsh on the Queen, I think. Also, the honour really comes from the government, not the monarch.

I have signed, as why not?

849. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80323 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 10:50 am

His challenge is used as part of a theatre that makes it appear as though he is actually addressing a real theist position - he's not.


Just a quick question. Why are many people so keen to send their children to 'faith schools'?

850. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80301 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 8:21 am

To say that "atheism is not a belief system" or not a set of beliefs is the same as saying that atheism does not consist of ideas. Your cute little logical move puts you in the danger of not being able to criticize your criticisms of theism.


Atheism can be present for a number of reasons. It can come about because of religious rejection of an alternate theist position (Christians are atheist with respect to Zeus). It can come about because of rational rejection of any theism. Or it can come about through ignorance (people who have not heard of Yahweh or Zeus are atheist with respect to both).

Imagine someone who was brought up with no mention of Gods, but was taught current cosmology, physics, biology, geology, evolution and so on. I suggest that it would be very likely that if they were taught these things first, they would then find little need for any God or Gods, and would probably find it somewhat puzzling that anyone would need to come up with the idea.

This, I think, would be firm evidence for atheism being the most rational point of view.

More Pages: Previous | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 | Next