Comments by octopus

I think that maths and logic should be obligatory during early education. In other words, teach the children how to think (for themselves).
I also think too many people on this planet resort to memorising only, without ever learning how to use logical machine properly.

This link is not for wooters, but for people who are pestered by wooters. It is clear, concise and has references as well as history about the nature of the argument. Will it help? Probably no, but it is a jolly good read. :D

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm

53. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101389 by octopus on December 20, 2007 at 9:46 am

Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

How generous!

54. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #99973 by octopus on December 18, 2007 at 2:24 am

...Christmas could have conveniently hijacked earlier pagan rituals...

I guess we are used to see religion hijacking (attempting rather) something else. Religion started morals, religion started science, religion started democracy...blah, blah...

Off topic/
I am toying with this idea how religion evolved in society. It seems that homo tend to have a leader in the group. It is also no secret that war plays significant part of our history. Leader would normally last for a few years, but every change of leadership seems to induce a crisis in the group. That is when the group (all other things being equal) is at its weakest. Perhaps imaginary permanent leader (long term common objective?) would make group slightly more stable at these dire times? Just an idea and it needs extensive scrutiny and translation into language of evolutionary advantage for individual, but I could not find closely related topic.

55. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #99951 by octopus on December 18, 2007 at 12:06 am

But the really fabulous news I mentioned is that Richard Dawkins, Prophet of Atheism, has said in a BBC interview that he is not against "cultural" Christianity and "Yes, I like singing carols along with everyone else".

Errr...is this really the news? I thought RD had mentioned it in one of his books, but perhaps my mind is playing tricks with me.

56. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99610 by octopus on December 17, 2007 at 7:24 am

Today all they do is binge drink. We will be able to offer them an alternative.

Not Cliff Richard?

57. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #99552 by octopus on December 17, 2007 at 3:33 am

No complex computer software yet built has been perfect. Therefore, if we are living in a computer simulation we would expect to see the effect of bugs on a regular basis and be able to use this to deduce the existence of the simulation.

On the other hand George Bush becoming president does seem like a cruel experiment perpetrated by vindictive teenagers.

I think I could simulate his world rather well in my TI-85.

58. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99316 by octopus on December 16, 2007 at 9:50 am

Do you reckon it'll take more than a week to build...? Including a rest, obviously.

Well, anything shorter than 4.5 bil. years would be too optimistic for British builders.

59. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99304 by octopus on December 16, 2007 at 9:38 am

As we come up to Christmas, I would just like to wish you and all the others a very happy Christmas (not Mithras-mas, or Consumer-mas Carol-mas) – but rather the kind of Christmas the shepherds had after they had seen the God-incarnate lying, rather untidily perhaps, in that draughty, very uninviting looking stable.

Of all religious nonsense, Christmas is something I can put up with. Two weeks off work during the most miserable part of the year (well, in UK that is). You can relax at home or go somewhere sunny.

Romans, thank you very much!

60. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99301 by octopus on December 16, 2007 at 9:29 am

The church in this country is in crisis and many church leaders living in Australia, America and Canada have openly proclaimed that God has left the church in England

Can't blame her. I guess the best of our weather got her eventually.

61. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #99123 by octopus on December 15, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Sorry, I have to repeat what many already posted.

Atheists do believe in our ability to question, to find out, to rationalise, to resolve the problems we are facing and to make moral judgements. Hence atheists are ready to give it a bloody good try. In my book of ethics this is positive, proactive and courageous.

Theists do not have faith in people. They believe in god and they believe that without (belief in) god humans cannot do anything of the above. I would call that negative, passive, cowardly and rather humiliating. Such environment is encouraging brain atrophy.

62. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #98947 by octopus on December 15, 2007 at 1:17 am

I asked myself then WHERE did that life go to...

As Rowan would say, I know what you mean. Every time my mobile phone goes flat I wonder exactly the same thing.

63. World History

Comment #98765 by octopus on December 14, 2007 at 8:31 am

It is not difficult to see why religious majority should (in theory) have less HIV cases. But saying that…

I thought the evidence suggests that AIDS is lower in countries with higher percentages of Catholics than those with lower Catholic populations.

…is, to put it mildly, inaccurate. I can understand desire to show the pope in a good light, but let's not get carried away.

1. Correlation does not necessarily mean causality. Unfortunately even some young scientists have not yet realised this and you can find many papers that imply causality from correlation without deeper research. This has been undermining credibility of science with undereducated.
Example of correlation is that countries in WW2 where major persecution against Jews happened were the ones with higher percentage of Catholics (Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, Croatia, Poland). Many of those who conducted persecutions escaped to South America. Would anyone dare drawing causality from this example?

2. However, there is even no clear correlation between percentage of Catholics and HIV cases. It looks like Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sweden and China are doing better than South America, Uganda, Italy and Spain (perhaps the pope should be playing for Saudis…after all, they pay well…just an idea).
http://gamapserver.who.int/mapLibrary/Files/Maps/HIVPrevalenceGlobal2006.png
If focus is on comparison between specific approaches of Uganda and South Africa – then why not say it clearly first time, rather than trying to make major generalisation and then, in the same breath, invite other participants to conduct "…an honest appraisal of the evidence." That is usually referred to as "moving goalposts" and is recipe for credibility loss. What will be next – we are not talking Catholics, but theists? (reminds me of "yes, but that is not my religion you are talking about").

It is most unfortunate for religious people that they come to use Stalin to justify their irrational thoughts. Stalin was hiding behind just another ideology that claimed the right to absolute truth. He can be put in the history box right next to the popes of inquisition and WW2.

Off topic - there is study about correlation between atheism and wealth. USA and Vietnam (irony of life I guess) are completely out of general trend, in the opposite extremes.
http://bp1.blogger.com/_DZH2cmCoois/RyeBgnU6wvI/AAAAAAAADjg/lFwsx56inU4/s1600-h/tmp.jpg
http://evolutionspace.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/167-2.gif

64. World History

Comment #98421 by octopus on December 13, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Actually giving away the wealth of the Vatican to help the poor?

Now, that would be real miracle!

65. World History

Comment #98186 by octopus on December 13, 2007 at 8:18 am

I thought the evidence suggests that AIDS is lower in countries with higher percentages of Catholics than those with lower Catholic populations.

Feel free to comment:
http://gamapserver.who.int/mapLibrary/Files/Maps/HIVPrevalenceGlobal2006.png

66. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97403 by octopus on December 12, 2007 at 3:07 am

Dinesh makes a very good point

I am not sure - it looks to me like the most used argument by religious people over and over again.
In essence it goes like this:
We do not have explanation for a certain phenomena, therefore god exists.
Procedure is to find gap in knowledge and then conclude from it whatever you like. It sounds rather like bad distortion of "I think, therefore I exist" into "I do not know, therefore god exists".

This made me realise that "god" is just a synonym for "not knowing" or "ignorance". Try reading religious texts with replacing the two. They probably make more sense that way.

67. 'Teddy' teacher jailed in Sudan

Comment #91880 by octopus on November 29, 2007 at 1:51 pm

I do not think anyone else in the world complained about poor bear being named after renowned paedophile, so I do not understand why Sudanese are so uptight about it.

68. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91320 by octopus on November 28, 2007 at 3:23 am

It is school text example of irony to see Niccolò Machiavelli on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Religious officials have been doing advanced course on Machiavelli since the dawn of time.
But, on the other hand, Machiavelli being on the list is perfect example of Machiavelli's own advice. :D

Edit:
Just found this. I'll leave it without the comment. :D

Lolita, Vladimir Nabokov Novel, Banned in Iran and Saudi Arabia for its content of pedophilia.

69. Monotheism was a con from the beginning

Comment #91012 by octopus on November 27, 2007 at 1:09 am

He "discovered" that psychiatrists existed at the start of the universe, and they actually invented evil.

Errr....not lawyers then?

70. The Scientists Speak

Comment #89647 by octopus on November 21, 2007 at 11:03 am

It is very unfortunate that this scientific issue always ends up as republicans against democrats.
It is also unfortunate that scientists do not seem to have much credibility on this issue for some people - very often the same people who use science to fight religious superstition.

71. Georgia gets rain, but it may not help

Comment #88458 by octopus on November 16, 2007 at 7:09 pm

The roof of a Baptist church in Tennessee's Marion County was heavily damaged

Hmmm...perhaps Baptists are in the wrong team?

72. Exorcism death shocks archdeacon

Comment #87453 by octopus on November 12, 2007 at 7:07 am

...but you usually don't hear anything about them publicly because they have achieved what they were meant to

Well...I am no Aristotle...but I think I can follow the logic of the statement...

73. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #87437 by octopus on November 12, 2007 at 5:57 am

So who is funding the movie?

The big boss himself? :D

74. The Psychology Behind Cults/Religion

Comment #87314 by octopus on November 11, 2007 at 7:31 pm

How many followers a cult needs to be called a religion? Sorry, I could never figure out the difference between the two. :(

75. Believing Scripture but Playing by Science's Rules

Comment #87311 by octopus on November 11, 2007 at 7:19 pm

There are certain criteria in academia for awarding PhD. His beliefs are not part of those criteria in the science business. If he can defend his thesis and his papers on scientific grounds and show in-depth knowledge on his subject - his beliefs are irrelevant. As long as he keeps his "paradigms" separate, he can get away with it (by the way, never heard of word paradigm being used for hypocrisy).
Obviously, I cannot comment on his thesis or his scientific knowledge, but I do not think he would be able to contradict his thesis with his 10000yrs old Earth beliefs during his viva and still get his PhD (not in any half-decent uni at least).
If you start rejecting scientific work on the basis of beliefs of the author - then you are in ideology business.

Like many of you, I also cannot understand how one can switch from one mind-set to another and still be able to make original contribution to the body of science. It would be interesting to know how his viva went. I wonder what religious moralists think about being double-faced just to achieve one's goal.

76. I Am, Therefore I Rationalize

Comment #87289 by octopus on November 11, 2007 at 4:59 pm

In academia, there's far too many "intellectuals" interpreting too little new data. Hence, the signal to noise ratio is poor.

In addition to that, curve fitted to poor set of data points is poor predictor.

77. Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions

Comment #86966 by octopus on November 10, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Perhaps the religious should ask a tiger why we are here in order to try and get a non-biased opinion.

It is not bad idea at all. At least we would get some answers about overpopulation and declining number of tigers. :D

78. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here

Comment #86660 by octopus on November 9, 2007 at 10:09 pm

Nobody would dare to base a monumental decision on anything other than evidence in their daily lives, yet they are expected to do so with regards to this one matter—one that, according to D'Souza's religion, would be the most important decision anybody could ever make.

Yup.
Ask someone to lend you £500 for a week and they'll dismiss you in a blink.
Yet promise them afterlife in exchange for this one and they'll buy it.
Go figure.

79. Fox News Discussion on 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #86000 by octopus on November 7, 2007 at 6:55 pm

Thanks for the list D'Arcy. I have never seen it before. Some great names there.
Although I am unsure why Pascal is there. Has the church perhaps just realised that it had been mislead by his wager all this time? :D

80. Science and Religion BOTH make faith claims

Comment #83356 by octopus on October 29, 2007 at 7:19 pm

Could you give me an example of a faith claim made by science?

I think they refer to what sidfaiwu mentioned earlier (that is if I take "faith" to mean "initial assumption", although there are some good posts here clarifying syntax and meaning):
Inductive reasoning is valid. That is, the past is a good predictor of the future. (deduction is tied to induction, as it is validated in real world)

I could also add assumption that one is of sound mind and does not live in virtual reality (it is something more discussed in philosophy).

What is really funny is that religion also relies on all initial assumptions made by science - in most cases. Then it adds its own set, inconsistent and excessive number of assumptions. What follows is very much case of "pick-and-choose (your own)" assumptions as you please, depending on what you are trying to achieve (a bit like politics). The price to pay is lack of consistency, but this have never been major worry of religion. I am afraid religion has never got rid of "end justifies the means".

81. Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions

Comment #83052 by octopus on October 28, 2007 at 5:56 pm

If you know answer to "how", you can narrow down "why" and eliminate nonsense.
Religion does not answer anything, it only makes wild assumptions and forces everyone into those assumptions. You can happily dream without religion.

82. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80416 by octopus on October 21, 2007 at 6:23 pm

Why?

He has never been famous football player, he has never been James Bond and he has never sung in a girl band (not in public as far as I know).

83. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #80243 by octopus on October 21, 2007 at 1:25 am

For some religious people, when you die, you go to afterlife.
Does it happen with mental capacity that you had at moment of death?
For example, if 5 year old boy dies, his mind goes to afterlife as mind of a 5 year old?
If my 98 year old granny dies, would her mind go to afterlife at that particular state?

I would really like to hear what religious people believe of this.
Anyone came across such texts, explanations? Rowan, my man?
Thank you.

84. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #80239 by octopus on October 21, 2007 at 12:45 am

Issac Asimov was much more than just a great science fiction writer.

I'll take liberty to add this one...

http://www.amazon.com/Asimovs-Guide-Bible-Historical-Testaments/dp/051734582X

85. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78615 by octopus on October 13, 2007 at 9:44 pm

As religious people, it's not that God is the explanation for this bit or that bit of the universe, even the very beginning of the universe. We're saying that the nature of our relationship with the universe, the process of thinking and explaining, that very structure requires some comprehensive energy at another level, which sustains it as it is.

So, to summarise: no creation, no interference, even no supreme being as such, us in the centre and a bit of mumbo-jumbo about some unknown form of energy.

Are we abandoning personal god now?

Sounds to me more like archbishop of feng-shui.

However, it is illusory to think a religous person will change their mind overnight (or at all). Conditioning of neural nets in limbic brain(or if you will, firmware upload) is done early in childhood and is difficult to change during the life (especially if you do not have formed basic subroutine that does "if new idea makes more logical sense than old idea -> replace/upgrade"). That is why I strongly agree with Richard's position about child abuse with all this religous nonsense.
Historical expulsion of god from mountains to clouds, to orbit, to outer space and now even beyond (whatever beyond is) is certainly encouraging, but it will take time.

One more point - about journalist. Calling Richard militant is really outrageous. One could write something like that only if:
a) he never read anything from Richard (incompetence)
b) he intentionally does it for propaganda reasons (malicious)

More Pages: Previous | 1 2