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

Comment #255675 by Cluebot on September 28, 2008 at 2:27 am

As has been pointed out before, even the finest minds in science have often ended up looking foolish when they invoke God to fill the gaps in their understanding. This happens when those who come after them find rational explanations.

Neil deGrasse Tyson did a great expose on this in his talk "The Perimeter of Ignorance" at Beyond Belief '06. It's at the start of session 2 here: http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/watch/

Perhaps quantum strangeness will be the exception, but history suggests invoking the God of the gaps is just a bad move every time - a declaration you've given up; an engine of ignorance.

52. Origin of the specious

Comment #244681 by Cluebot on September 9, 2008 at 10:06 am

I still find it amazing how theism (and its supporting ideas) can seduce otherwise intelligent, articulate people. Maybe it's a miracle! ;)

Little good can be said for the phenomenon, but at least we get to enjoy excellent rebuttals like this one. As usual, AC Grayling's frankness in exposing the non-sequiturs, false claims and doublethink is refreshing.

53. Closest Look Ever At Edge Of A Black Hole

Comment #244529 by Cluebot on September 9, 2008 at 5:25 am

Thanks, Friend Giskard. With all this talk of "brown holes" I was finally motivated to choose an avatar image.

54. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #227909 by Cluebot on August 11, 2008 at 3:38 am

This is somewhat off-topic, but my "security mindset" is asserting itself again:

When I watched that scene, the first thing I thought was that if I had something as valuable as a first edition Origin of Species in my home, I wouldn't want both its existence and exact location on my bookshelf broadcast on national TV.

55. Religions thrived to protect against disease

Comment #221643 by Cluebot on July 30, 2008 at 12:17 am

...religion helps to divide people...

56. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #219853 by Cluebot on July 27, 2008 at 4:06 pm

I find these results profoundly disturbing - though not at all surprising.

It's evident from this report that religiously motivated incitement has already taken a place in our universities. I'd rather hear about what measures are being taken to eject it than Baroness Warwick's vacuous statement.

57. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #214112 by Cluebot on July 19, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Heh, "Poor child." Did you miss the bit where he claims to be a teacher? Now that really would be child abuse.

58. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #213153 by Cluebot on July 18, 2008 at 8:15 am

Isthatclear, I do not say diversity "just happened." Biologists do not say this. Only the ignorant speak as you do. Cease putting words in others' mouths.

Natural selection is not the same as "just happened." If you don't understand this, you're not capable of even beginning this debate because you literally don't know the first thing about it.

59. Bush Bureaucrats at Dept. of Health and Human Services Redefine Contraception as Abortion

Comment #212996 by Cluebot on July 18, 2008 at 1:21 am

Re: Comment #212981 by epeeist

Permitting religion as an excuse to not do your job is a more general problem, and one of the more absurd cultural conventions around today. I'd really like to see it stamped out.

60. Researchers Discover Remnant of an Ancient 'RNA World'

Comment #212990 by Cluebot on July 18, 2008 at 1:02 am

Still seems a way off identifying a credible "first replicator," but perhaps another step closer to a detailed biogenesis theory?

61. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #212984 by Cluebot on July 18, 2008 at 12:35 am

That page concerns different approaches to reproducing genomes in the lab, using genetic engineering techniques. It's completely irrelevant to a discussion of evolution.

You still have no idea what you're talking about.

62. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #212736 by Cluebot on July 17, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Sorry, I just have this (probably naive) hope he might finally grasp the idea he's trying to argue against. That would be wonderful. Even better would be if he actually delivered a counterargument that gave me pause, though based on past experience that's probably impossible.

Yes, he's probably just here to enjoy causing trouble, but given that he chose to come here he may actually believe a lot of what he says.

Whatever the case, he seems to have gone for now. Maybe get back on topic? :) Or are we done with this news item?

63. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #212509 by Cluebot on July 17, 2008 at 9:22 am

Isthatclear, here are some relevant facts of biology, applicable to everything from microbes to humans:

* Genes encode information which controls the growth and life of organisms.
* Organisms pass on their genes when they reproduce.
* There is variation between individual organisms, both in the genes they carry and corresponding variation in their bodies.
* Some variations influence the reproductive success of individual organisms.

Your book analogy is false because books do not have any properties analogous to these: The building of books is not controlled by their letters; it's controlled by their authors. Books do not reproduce themselves; they are copied by an external machine (the printing press) with no variation in content until they are revised by their authors. Yours is a lousy analogy which only serves to show you do not know what natural selection is.

It is a simple logical exercise to show the presence of variations which are both heritable and influence survival implies that evolution by natural selection must occur.

Moving your comments to the troll section is not censorship. Your posts are objectionable because they do not belong here, and are disruptive. If you have a viable counterargument (which I've yet to see from you,) then please bring it to the forum linked above, where it belongs.

64. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #212406 by Cluebot on July 17, 2008 at 7:12 am

Yadsmood, Styrer, could you two please take this exchange to private messages?

65. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #212393 by Cluebot on July 17, 2008 at 6:52 am

Dear isthatclear,

If you wish to debate the validity of evolution by natural selection (which I assure you does make sense to those who - unlike yourself - have understood it,) please come to the forum dedicated to that topic and defend your case there:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=46

Your comments here are off-topic and disruptive.

66. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #212120 by Cluebot on July 16, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Here's a fixed version of that conversation with a painting:

Mona Lisa: Who made me?
Rod-F: Da Vinci.
Mona Lisa: Who is your maker?
Rod-F: My parents.
Mona Lisa: I am not asking how you are made. I am asking you who designed you? Your eyes, ears, face, body etc.
Rod-F: I have no designer. The genes that built my body are the result of natural selection.
Mona Lisa: What's natural selection?
Rod-F: An automatic process of gradual, naturally directed change which requires no intelligent agent.
Mona Lisa: How does that work then?
Rod-F: Well, it's best if you read a good book on the subject. I can recommend a few...

67. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #212100 by Cluebot on July 16, 2008 at 3:47 pm

MPhil, thanks for the clarification. I agree if your criticism is limited to Dawkins' dismissal of theology as not worth arguing with. That seems to me one of the weaker assertions made in The God Delusion.

Having said that, I do readily see reasons why he might not want to spend time arguing against the more abstruse ontological arguments. Perhaps most importantly, his book would have been longer and less accessible if all these falsehoods were properly deconstructed.

68. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #211970 by Cluebot on July 16, 2008 at 12:36 pm

... and yet another derailment. At least this one is mostly intelligible.

Kristopher, if you really want to try defending your ideas, I suggest you float them in the forums. The Faith and Religion section might be an appropriate venue: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=3

I don't rate your chances much; there's nothing new in your claims, and nothing that hasn't been thoroughly debunked already, but you are welcome to try.

As for your comments here, I'm going to try out the "troll" button and see what happens. My thanks to Professor Dawkins for his recent reminder on what it's for.

69. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #211650 by Cluebot on July 16, 2008 at 8:11 am

MPhil, when you say Dawkins has "very little philosophical depth," do you mean literally a lack of any comparable depth with the others you mention, or that he only exhibits philosophical depth in a limited area? (I would call that "lack of breadth.")

If you're making the latter point then I agree, though I would argue that is as much to do with due caution speaking in fields where one is little better than a layman, and could be argued is virtuous. If you're making the former point, I disagree: The ideas Dawkins is best known for (the selfish gene, the extended phenotype, the meme) are also philosophical proposals; dismissing his arguments for their merit as "shallow" seems unfair to me.

Could you illustrate your claim with some examples?

Also, if you're going to focus on the philosophy of atheism, where do you place e.g. Sam Harris in your "philosophical depth" scale?

70. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #211567 by Cluebot on July 16, 2008 at 7:08 am

Far from the "spewing [of] nothing but scientific facts," what I most closely associate with Dan Dennett is his ability to make vivid, illuminating analogies for the concepts he wishes to explain. In stark contrast to our dear friend clear-as-mud-mind, Dan's goal seems to be that he is understood - a goal he consistently achieves (from my perspective anyway.)

71. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #211301 by Cluebot on July 15, 2008 at 6:03 pm

There must be significant production costs involved in creating these videos, not to mention hosting costs for distributing the "free" edition. I think it's fair if there's some incentive for buying, though crippling the content is obviously not wise.

Also, I'll add my support for bittorrent distribution. A dedicated tracker linked to the user accounts here would encourage community members to help bear the costs of digital distribution.

Edit: The current torrent file seems to transfer with the wrong MIME type set. It was necessary to save as and edit the filename extension on my system (Vista x64.)

72. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211200 by Cluebot on July 15, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Whatever Dr. Myers is doing isn't satire, as some here have suggested. Successful satire has to mimic the object of ridicule in some way. All I see so far is provocation with no point. No real injury was done to the target, but they do have yet another phony reason to claim persecution.

I do hope he's thought this through. What's the plan here?

73. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211123 by Cluebot on July 15, 2008 at 2:08 pm

I also suspect further acts of "host desecration" will serve the message of the hatemongers, who could not wish for a better target to fix their followers' outrage upon. Given the present day cultural convention for blind acceptance of religion, even the sane may be persuaded by watered-down versions of the rhetoric.

The really important question is whether this will strengthen or weaken that cultural convention.

That may depend upon how abject the response is. There lies the problem: The power to tip the scales the way we want lies in the wrong hands, and they are not necessarily stupid enough to serve our needs.

Still, this whole sordid affair should give Pat Condell something to talk about. :)

74. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #211034 by Cluebot on July 15, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Professor Dawkins, thanks for the clarification on policy. I understand from your words that we are simply to set the "troll" flag when vapid, bewildering nonsense of this kind appears and say no word in reply. Is this correct?

I evidently had my threshold for the justification of censorship set far too high. Forgive me my naiveté.

75. Taking a Cue From Ants on Evolution of Humans

Comment #211016 by Cluebot on July 15, 2008 at 12:14 pm

I was under the impression that "tit for tat" strategies were already shown through mathematical models to be strongly favoured, evolutionarily stable solutions for social cooperation. How's the "Such traits are difficult to account for" line justified?

76. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #211007 by Cluebot on July 15, 2008 at 11:39 am

Thanks for the prompt reply, Josh. Is clearmind now off-season? :) I'd like to post my retake on the conversation with a painting at least...

77. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #211003 by Cluebot on July 15, 2008 at 11:28 am

Did clearmind delete all his posts, or were they moderated? I just finished a nice rebuttal too...

78. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210742 by Cluebot on July 15, 2008 at 3:25 am

"I think you're conflating Godwin's law with a reductio ad hitlerum."
- Mitchell Gilks

"A question for those who know more than me, is memetics valid science?"
- fides_et_ratio

79. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210652 by Cluebot on July 15, 2008 at 12:15 am

Mitchell Gilks, you are strictly correct about the Law being satisfied. However, note that I explicitly cited the cautionary element against analogy with Nazism. Godwin's law is satisfied, but not in the pejorative sense. The original question was whether Godwin's Law was "breached" - which I took to mean whether use of the analogy had discredited the argument.

Edit: Added last sentence for clarification.

80. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #210627 by Cluebot on July 14, 2008 at 11:02 pm

I'll try to be generous here and say that the Dalai Lama - and Buddhism in general - seems to be a great improvement on other major religions.

Obtaining a peaceful mind is a noble goal to seek, though I wish they would not obfuscate it with superstition like all the other mystics. The Dalai Lama has stated a commendable attitude to science, along the lines of "if there is a problem [with Buddism], we fix."

Religious apology for the religion of perpetual jihad and unyielding medieval stupidity is, however, inexcusable.

81. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210598 by Cluebot on July 14, 2008 at 9:52 pm

MPhil, have an "Excellent" rating for a most apt quote. :)

Shuggy, I'd say no regarding the cautionary element of Godwin's Law, since Mitchell Gilks' Reductio ad Hitlerum appeared to be mimicking clearmind's hyperbolic argument in order to ridicule it. Who knows, hearing his own arguments played back to him might actually penetrate clearmind's defences.

82. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210576 by Cluebot on July 14, 2008 at 8:35 pm

William1w1, making a "straw man" argument is to misrepresent a position, then attack the caricature you've erected instead of the real opposition. The likeness can be the result of wilful misunderstanding - with features amenable to ridicule not present in the original - hence it is a fallacious, intellectually dishonest tactic. It's essentially a refusal to engage the opposing idea directly.

Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

As for the capital letters, I imagine that's what God sounds like in the minds of those so afflicted. ;)

83. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210422 by Cluebot on July 14, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Fair enough ColdFusionLazarus, I say only that I could not "show" the points any better than Dan has already in the video; efforts to do so here would likely be wasted on clearmind. Also, accusation of straw man employment is not an "ace card" if it can be shown the analogy is not applicable. Let's move on.

Here are some other TED videos I recommend (in addition to Dan's "Dangerous Memes" talk):

Richard Dawkins advocates militant atheism (funny)

Dan Dennett on evolution, religion, education and a rebuttal of Rick Warren's book

Jeff Hawkins discusses scientific breakthroughs, intelligence and the neocortex

David Deutsch gives profound insights on the implications of cosmology and physics

Edit: Clarified wording: "accusation of straw man employment" vs. "straw man"

84. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210375 by Cluebot on July 14, 2008 at 12:02 pm

ColdFusionLazarus, I would argue that the "straw man" analogy is entirely justified here, since attacking a caricature (of the concepts of memetics) he assembled himself is precisely what clearmind has done. What exactly do you find unbelievable about this action here? It seems entirely warranted in this case, and I ask you to clarify or retract your objection.

I do not wish to re-explain the concepts of memetics here myself, since nobody does that with more clarity than Dan Dennett. Had clearmind argued against the ideas Dan actually presents, I would not have had cause to use the label you seem to have such an aversion to.

Edit: Added last clause to first paragraph; added parentheses for clarity.

85. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210305 by Cluebot on July 14, 2008 at 8:30 am

"Atheism became the source of massacres and all killings in the past" - clearmind

So, by your reasoning jihad is committed only by atheists. Need I point out the obvious contradiction here?

"People who have no real faith can do anything..." - clearmind

You confuse faith in God with commitment to moral values.

A person who will only act morally through coercion is not moral. Such people are called sociopaths; they are mentally ill, and thankfully a minority.

"You say the letters of the books wrote the book." - clearmind

No we don't. You're attacking a straw man. Try at least to understand the concept you're arguing against.

"But killings and massacres cannot attach to any religion." - clearmind

So, how do you account for the cult of martyrdom?

"The only solution is to have real faith in our hearts where there would be no hatred." - clearmind

If by "faith... there would be no hatred" you mean a commitment to the peaceful coexistence of humans as equals, regardless of religious labels, nationality, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation etc. then we at least agree on something. That happens to be one of the central tenets of humanism, and is explicitly contradicted by the "holy" books of major religions.

The bottom line is that once you recognise this, there's no need for the religious labels or the superstitions that go with them. You want to keep a label for reasons of "cultural identity," fine by me. Just remember it doesn't entitle you to feel superior or judgemental, nor does it grant you special insights on the world not available to those without it.

86. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210199 by Cluebot on July 14, 2008 at 4:32 am

"What is the difference between atheism and Stalin?"
- clearmind

Simple question, simple answer:

* Atheism is a philosophical position.
* Stalin was a man.

See the difference?

Okay, let me elaborate:

* Atheism is the rejection of theism (i.e. rejecting claims a personal, interventional God exists.)
* Stalin was an evil, dogmatic dictator who ruled by exploiting those who placed too much faith in him and killing those who opposed or might rival him.

Is this clear now, clearmind?

You see, claiming atheism leads to Stalin is about as rational as claiming atheism leads to traffic jams. Industrialisation and modernity brought growth of our capability for all things, good and evil. That your laser guided amnesia forgets all this and homes in on atheism shows just how sloppy the thinking in your "clear" mind really is.

Let me give an example: Isn't it reasonable to suggest the success of Hitler's "big lie" has far more to do with state controlled mass media than atheism?

Incidentally, note the similarity between the power structures of dictatorships and that of monotheism: Both have a Godhead to whom followers must be thankful for all that is good and must not offer any criticism. Both have scapegoats to whom all that is bad are held accountable. Both often have texts which are uncritically held in reverence similar to that of their Godhead.

Let me pose a similar question: "What's the difference between Yahweh and Stalin?"

I'd propose the main differences are Stalin was less inscrutable, more accountable and had fewer people speaking on his behalf claiming to somehow know his own mind.

Of course, I utterly condemn Stalin's brutality, just as I condemn the sick tribalism of the Old Testament stories. Given that human population was far lower at the time, a normalised body count of the Old Testament genocides might actually be higher; I'd be interested to hear if anyone's done the maths on that one.

87. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210133 by Cluebot on July 14, 2008 at 1:38 am

This is in my opinion one of Dan's best lectures, and he's a consistently excellent lecturer. I first saw this last year when it was posted on the TED site. As the text there used to say before it was replaced with the "literally alive" hyperbole, it's unmissable.

Here's a couple more excellent Dennett lectures I found on Google Video:

Darwin's Dangerous Idea

The Magic of Conciousness

88. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208634 by Cluebot on July 11, 2008 at 5:22 am

This is disturbing news to wake up to. How could I ignore such a request?

Here's the body of my letter, now sent by airmail:

Re: P Z Myers and the Webster Cook controversy

Dear President Bruininks,

Following his mischief in a religious ceremony, the epidemic of hatred towards Mr. Cook - which you will know include death threats, incitements to violence and calls for his expulsion from UCF - has become an internationally known scandal. That the ruination of a young man's life is being justified by the fate of a cracker is disturbing; the targeting of your employee Dr. PZ Myers for decrying this response even more so.

While far less extreme than (for example) the criminally psychotic rampage of rioting and murder committed by Muslims over cartoons or teddy bears, this lesser insanity proceeds in the same direction. The attacking of third parties decrying the witch hunt is especially worrying, given the proven chilling effects of this tactic.

If any good may come of this sordid affair, it is the opportunity to demonstrate that hyperbolic tantrum need not and should not dictate policy in public life. I urge you to answer the demands for Dr. Myers' dismissal with measured disfavor.

Yours sincerely,