Comments by Wosret

1201. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #273223 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 10:36 am

55. Comment #272169 by Mark Barratt

All nonsense, I'm afraid, and although I haven't read through all of the comments, I am surprised no one has pointed it out. I'll explain why.

The "supernatural" is something that violates natural laws, or cannot occur through natural means. This makes claiming that anything is supernatural fundamentally unjustified, and always. Unless you possess a complete understanding of nature.

This is a clear and common lapse in reasoning that I see.

How many levitating and teleporting people would I need to see before I was convinced that the supernatural is real? There isn't a number high enough.

If they could do it under controlled circumstances then I would be convinced that levitation and teleportation were real, but accepting this in no way implies that they are supernatural.

If I couldn't identify the causes, then I could only say that I don't know how they are doing it. I am never justified to say that it can't be explained naturally. Otherwise any events that I don't have a natural explanation for it becomes reasonable to conclude magic is the answer.

You are looking at Star Wars and Harry Potter the wrong way. You are importing the rules of the real world, into their fictional worlds. This is a mistake. In the fictional world, that is how their world operates. It would perhaps be supernatural to our world, because our world doesn't operate in that fashion, but supposing it did, that does not make the supernatural real. It could all still have natural causes and explanations.

A fiction or fantasy writer can assert that this is magic only because they are the gods of their invented universes, and what is natural and supernatural is thus up to them. In a real world it is not.

Whether amputees limps are growing back, clairvoyants are finding lost children, or telepaths are reading minds. All because we can't explain how this is occurring does not automatically mean that it cannot be occurring naturally. That assertion requires a complete, and absolute knowledge of nature.

The skeptics may be irrational in denying the events themselves, in the fiction, but they are perfectly justified in denying that they have supernatural origins. That is the only justified position to hold.

1202. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #273206 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 10:03 am

You're...you're not helping.

1203. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #273201 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 9:45 am

218. Comment #273196 by Bonzai

I prefer "adorably eccentric".

1204. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #273195 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 9:29 am

213. Comment #273185 by Bonzai

but I also think that eventually they would outgrow it, for most anyway.

Yeah, well fuck you too. Now, if you don't mind, I have to go in search of Kame Sennin Ryu master.

1205. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #273187 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 9:21 am

212. Comment #273182 by Steve Zara

Yes, I did say that I didn't think so. Based on my experience, that is what is implied. All the evidence that I possess leans to it not being the case. The evidence is merely poor, so I wouldn't suggest that it actually isn't the case, I would only say that I don't think that it is.

Of course it would take real investigation, and real evidence to find out what the case is, but until then I only have my personal experience to work with.

I don't know what the case is.

1206. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #273179 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 9:13 am

206. Comment #273174 by Steve Zara

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think psychological opinions can really be based on such "me and my friends" reports.

Which is precisely why I said "This is of course not evidence either one. I can only speak from my experience.", "I think that we should never take anything as a given, and I would like to see psychological and anthropological investigations into this question.", and "I'd like to see a poll taken of WoW players, to see where their allegiances lie, as it were."

I didn't suggest inferring anything unreasonable from my experience. Or at least I really don't think that I did.

1207. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #273172 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 8:58 am

202. Comment #273165 by Steve Zara

Yes, but that is the thing. I consider myself part of a group of nerdy, fantasy freaks. In this group, that I spend a lot of time conversing with, the majority are irreligious. Given most of them just don't give a shit about religion at all, and would rather just not worry about it, but many also, are like me, and don't mind bashing religion once in awhile whenever it comes up.

There also appears to be a number (though not a huge number, but I've met enough to say there are a few) that tend to call themselves pagans, and believe tons of nonsense.

Just as an experiment. I'd like to see a poll taken of WoW players, to see where their allegiances lie, as it were. From my experience of spending almost two years of every waking moment interacting with thousands and thousand of them. Few were religious.

I personally think that religion's biggest advertising point is a community, with people to talk to and hang around. When you have that already -- in the way of a gaming community -- it is just a time consumption they would rather not pay.

I'm not going to say that they are mostly atheists, or know anything about it, but I think that the majority are not religious.

1208. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #273162 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 8:43 am

199. Comment #273156 by Steve Zara

I don't think so Steve. Fantasy is where I've spent most of my time, and everyone I've known, or am related to are far, far more credulous than I am.

I didn't have any skeptical roll models. My little brother is also the only one in my family that is just about as obsessed as I am, and he is about as skeptical as I am.

This is of course not evidence either one. I can only speak from my experience. Based on this, I am tempted to think that it benefits critical thinking, opposed to damaging it.

Though, I am one hundred percent on RD's side. I think that we should never take anything as a given, and I would like to see psychological and anthropological investigations into this question.

1209. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #273122 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 7:16 am

Well, I can't say that I've never tried to shoot a beam, or move something with my mind, when I was a kid. Carl Sagan described trying to do similar things when he was a kid in "The Demon-Haunted World". So I was in good company.

1210. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #273103 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 6:34 am

261. Comment #273054 by Steve Zara

Dude, aren't you in the UK? China ain't under you.

1211. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #273099 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 6:22 am

232. Comment #272979 by justinbrierley

He, like any atheist, has to admit that there is no absolute moral values that exist on this or any other issue. Our morality is simply as random and purposeless as the evolutionary process itself. Had we evolved into a species where rape was not immoral, then that would just be that. End of story.

Afraid we're in the same boat friend. Only your captain is under-qualified, intoxicated, and half retarded.

If moral "absolutes" exist, then they necessarily exist independent of a god. Something being the product of an arbiter, is by definition arbitrary. Is something moral because a god says so, or does the good merely illuminate what is moral? If the former, then morality is arbitrary, and god could have made rape moral, just as she could have created people with six fingers instead of five. If the latter, then a god is superfluous, and the moral truths would exist whether it was present to illuminate them or not.

You just clearly haven't thought this through.

The problem is that that just doesn't sit well with our innate (and in my opinion God-given) sense of what is right and wrong.

This was at the heart of every single question you asked "but I don't like the sound of X, thus it must not be true".

Grow up.

1212. Countdown: Palin Wants To Help Special Needs Kids By Doing Away With Science

Comment #272802 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 8:34 pm

197. Comment #272797 by Bonzai

Just what do they "conserve"?

Idiocy, and like it's going out of style. Too bad it isn't.

1213. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272800 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 8:30 pm

191. Comment #272795 by quantum_flux

your hot lesbian avatar has opened up my heart to voting yes for gay marriage.

Then my work here is done.

...
...
...
Now it's time for play.

(and can I call you misses?)

Only if I can call you Boris Ogelman.

1214. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272771 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 7:34 pm

167. Comment #272763 by Bonzai

I happen to think that voids are damn sexy.

1215. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272769 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 7:32 pm

170. Comment #272767 by Bonzai

I agree. That's where I'm at. I haven't the foggiest. I in fact tend to think that perhaps the universe may be queerer than we can suppose.

1216. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272766 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 7:23 pm

162. Comment #272758 by Steve Zara

I never suggested that we should reject, or not test any models. I only suggested that we should not accept them until they have empirical evidence. That is quite different.

I've also already defined "universe" as "all things known and supposed to exist" so I don't know what you are talking about with the "uniqueness". If there is a multiverse, then they were be part of the universe. It would be like facets in a diamond. So the multiverse is no the difference between uniqueness and commonness, it is merely a difference in how much of the universe is apparent.

You were suppose to have gone to bed so I could declare victory in your absence. Damn it.

1217. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272757 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 7:13 pm

160. Comment #272756 by MPhil

You're just an angry ranter! That's why!

159. Comment #272755 by Bonzai

I'll take that as agreeing with me, and thus declare victory!

1218. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272751 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 7:08 pm

152. Comment #272746 by Brian English

Symmetry is largely what beauty is based on. For humans, and other animals. We all tend to love symmetry.

I'm not implying anything, or attempting to string this to the topic. I just thought I'd mention it.

1219. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272738 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 6:57 pm

134. Comment #272727 by Steve Zara

Far from. I trust science to the extent that it is empirically implied with healthy amounts of evidence. I trust logic in that sense when dealing with concepts, abstractions, and logic itself, but not when dealing with the objective world. Empirical evidence must be offered to imply A before I begin to care if A would imply B. Clearly absurd conclusions can be drawn otherwise. I can prove anything if I don't have to demonstrate A, you must just assume it.

1220. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272728 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 6:50 pm

I think that Steve is right about parsimony, and occam's razor, Brian.

They may not always work, but they are tried and true principles of investigation that historically have worked better than their antitheses.

They are the best principles for investigation that we have. Of course including rigor.

1221. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272724 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 6:45 pm

126. Comment #272719 by Steve Zara

Then that is yet another assumption.

I don't consider "If A is the case, then B follows" to be very compelling.

1222. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272720 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 6:38 pm

118. Comment #272710 by MPhil

I don't understand why that is directed at me.

1223. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272717 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 6:33 pm

112. Comment #272704 by Steve Zara

I understand parsimony. Though I don't see why it is more parsimonious. I in fact find it incredibly strange to say that 10X500 of something is more parsimonious than one.

Now, I've seen good arguments from string theory, and I think that it is quite possible that it is true. The anthropic principle, I don't think is.

Though, I just stress that regardless of whether there is a multiverse, or not, there is only "one" universe, as defined as "all things known and supposed to exist". So what we're really taking about is if there is vastly more, inconceivably more to the universe than what is apparent.

1224. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272702 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 5:55 pm

106. Comment #272696 by Steve Zara

You act as if negatives are assumptions that are equal and opposite to positives. They are not.

I don't know how to put this without looking like I'm throwing a jab at you, despite having just complained about you doing that...C'est la vie.

Is this not the same type of reasoning that asserts that the rejection of god is itself an equal assumption, and thus it is equally reasonable to accept that there is a god as there is that there isn't?

Adding that extra constraint that there are no gods?

We see only one universe. This is our starting point. Positing more is the only assumption, not buying that there are more is not an equal and opposite assumption.

We see that the universe is a certain way. Positing that it can be 10X500 other ways (or whatever the number was you offered) is the assumption. Not positing this is not.

The default is what we can see and observe. Positing more adds to it, not positing more does not.

1225. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272693 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 5:37 pm

97. Comment #272686 by Steve Zara

On what basis do they assert that those values are indeed possible? Is that not just an assumption?

This is what I was referring to. We have a range of mathematically allowed for parameters, or logically possible models, and then we notice that most of these do not allow for planets and stars to conform and such, so we try to explain how it was that we got so lucky.

This is all fine. They can if they want, but it's brain candy. Until they have tested them, and demonstrated them possible, they are merely possible in abstractions.

Also, the jabs you have been ending your posts with are unnecessary. They do not help the conversation along, nor do they do service to its mood.

1226. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272685 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 5:29 pm

94. Comment #272683 by Brian English

Nah, I'm just not being very clear today for some reason.

1227. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272682 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 5:21 pm

92. Comment #272680 by Brian English

I'm not talking about explaining the universe. It exists, and is thus a problem that we should try to explain. In my opinion.

1228. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272679 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 5:17 pm

86. Comment #272672 by Steve Zara

As I said earlier. I see no reason to search for demon repellent until we discover if there are any demons to repel.

An attempt to explain why the universe turned out in a way that allows for life, needs to be first followed with evidence that it could have turned out significantly different enough to not allow for life.

We have only experience with our kind of life, and very little of the universe, and have no other models to contrast our universe with.

1229. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272670 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 5:12 pm

81. Comment #272665 by Steve Zara

When the problem is an assumption.

1230. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272658 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 5:03 pm

62. Comment #272644 by MPhil

I don't think that causality working, and the idea that it is something pattern seeking minds do -- are mutually exclusive.

How can one accept a conclusion as necessarily true in all situations and circumstances tentatively?

Now those I do think are mutually exclusive.

1231. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272640 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 4:52 pm

55. Comment #272633 by Steve Zara

*cough* unless all sides are five and six sided *cough*.

1232. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272623 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 4:39 pm

41. Comment #272616 by JAMCAM87

I just find statistical explanations much more satisfying.

The statistics are based on mere assumptions, and the reason for developing the statistical model is based on yet another assumption that there exists a problem to solve.

I don't know what the case is. I just see no reason to try to solve problems that we don't even know exist.

To reduce it to the absurd, I find it would be silly to attempt to get demon repellent before I first know if there are any demons to repel.

1233. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272617 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 4:33 pm

36. Comment #272608 by Frankus1122

38. Comment #272610 by Brian English

Seems like nit picking over wording.

If I play the lottery at the same time as someone who has played 999 million times in the past, then she would have no better chance than I of winning in this lottery. However the odds of winning the lottery if you play a billion times is greater than if you play only once.

I think that it is appropriate to interpret what JAM has said in this way.

1234. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272611 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 4:28 pm

32. Comment #272604 by ukvillafan

Don't you have families, jobs, cooking, sport in your lives?

Cooking? Yes.

1235. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272609 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 4:25 pm

33. Comment #272605 by JAMCAM87

Not if every ticket is a winner. I see no substantial reason to suppose that this isn't the case.

1236. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272598 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 4:14 pm

I think that the anthropic principle is perhaps misleading.

Clearly life evolved to suit the environment, not the environment to suit life.

When talking about it in a sense that says that if certain values were different, then stars would not form and so forth, they assumes that they could be different. We don't know that they could.

As Einstein once asked, "did god have a choice is creating the universe?" I'm not sure that "he" did, and without good evidence, I see no reason to just suppose that the universe could have turned out any ol'way.

I think that the anthropic principle explains away a problem that I'm not confident actually exists.

1237. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272594 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 4:04 pm

21. Comment #272591 by Steve Zara

Not if god is there to stop that from happening. (^_-)

1238. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272590 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Also, for the record. I didn't see RD concede that at all. I saw him allotting charity in a hypothetical scenario. One is perfectly capable of following someone down a line of reasoning without buying the line of reasoning at all.

Christians always seem to have difficulty understanding charity.

1239. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272579 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 3:55 pm

10. Comment #272575 by Ex~

Firstly, no we don't (I'm guessing you must have misconstrued the big bang as stating this. It does not), and secondly -- supposing we did know that -- why does that imply that it was caused?

1240. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272568 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 3:40 pm

3. Comment #272561 by MPhil

Yes, I agree. I also think that causality is an invention of pattern seeking animals, and is not necessarily necessitated. We assign causes to events, and depending on the observer, the cause one assigns to an event may vary.

1241. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #272547 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 2:50 pm

65. Comment #272545 by OverUsedChewToy

Also, remember, video games are basically just large problems that the players have to solve. I think that just playing any video games -- because it requires problem solving skills, and creativity -- increases critical thinking.

Or at least I think that it is intuitive that it would.

1242. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #272546 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 2:46 pm

63. Comment #272543 by SniderD

That's right! Yet another upside!

1243. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #272537 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 2:36 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDbtwnH6oBU

1244. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #272527 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Haha! Just to again say how I see no substantial difference between Si-Fi and fantasy. Does anyone want to attempt to separate Japanese magic-giant-robots into either category?

Most Japanese fiction is a mixture of the two. Which is the breed I am most keen on.

Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha's magic comes right from the scientists. Her staff has an AI and takes cartridges, like a shotgun or something.

1245. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #272518 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 2:20 pm

48. Comment #272514 by Steve Zara

Well, there definitely can be anti-religious games. I recently played "Assassin's Greed". About a Muslim Assassin during the crusades.

*spoiler*

Turned out in the end that all the world religion's miracles were the result of some weird alien piece of technology, that could fool a person's perception, and make them believe whatever they wanted. Pretend Christians, and pretend Muslims that new the stories were bullshit were attempting to acquire the piece of technology for their own aims.

Kind of a lame premise in my opinion. Nonsense science fiction based on the absurd idea that your ancestors specific memories are stored within your DNA. Yet this is supposedly better than fantasy...

*Spoiler*

Spore is a game like you describe, in the way. Isn't it?

1246. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #272511 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 2:07 pm

35. Comment #272498 by Steve Zara

I learned to read playing Final Fantasy, and I am still addicted. I love magic, and mysticism. They're beautiful and enthralling. The first books I ever read were the book series "Everworld".

I still spend a large chunk of my time immersed in fantasy.

As I said before, I think that it is quite possible that this has done a lot to equip me with the ability to recognize fantasy when I see it. Not convince me that fantasy is real.

1247. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #272501 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 1:59 pm

28. Comment #272482 by Richard Dawkins

There is not such a clear line between the two.

Could the infinite improbability drive not achieve a frog to prince conversion?

If scenario A is almost certainly impossible in principle, and scenario B is almost certainly impossible in principle, then what is the difference if A is presented as natural, and B as supernatural?

If anything, isn't scenario A the most likely to confuse?

1248. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #272488 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 1:49 pm

22. Comment #272471 by a non e-moose

I'm a massive fantasy geek. As long as I'm clear that this is speculation, I will offer some. I think that it is quite possible that the more one knows about fantasy, and fiction, the easier it is to see common themes, and archetypes as the individuals, and stories that appear in religion.

A knowledge of them reveal the claims of "uniqueness" and so forth, obvious nonsense. It perhaps allows one to better judge the line between reality and fiction. Based on common indicators.

I've often contemplated how it was that I could be raised in such a fundamentalist family, and only have religious friends, and to have never believed it, or never found it inspiring. I think that it is quite possible, that I just had better fiction, and more inspiring characters than Christianity could offer at my disposal.

Could also be that the bible offers no significant female characters. Something that is a must for me.

23. Comment #272472 by Titania

You're right, I wasn't clear. That could have been easily misconstrued.

1249. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #272464 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 1:28 pm

19. Comment #272454 by Titania

The way the interview was done. Painting RD as anti-fiction. This, I think is absurd. He was good friends with my favorite Si-Fi writer, Dougles Adams, and even met his wife through him, if I am not mistaken.

I wasn't exactly clear what RD was getting at, because it was such a short interview, but it definitely was nothing like they attempted to paint it.

1250. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #272452 by Wosret on October 27, 2008 at 1:10 pm

This is the most ridiculous I've ever seen anyone make RD look.