151. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132492 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Juxta monkeys must be nocturnal. I rarely get to see your posts except a day later - and it's already past my bed time. :(

152. My Argument With God

Comment #132488 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 8:38 pm

Determinism? Really? I choose not to believe in that either.

Although, the US philosopher Leonard Skinner did wrestle with this issue of free will versus determinism in the 1970s. In the end, however, his research lead to the contradictory conclusions - that he was free as a bird now, and this bird you cannot change.

153. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132470 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Would like a link for that show Quine -- got one?

154. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132450 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 7:04 pm

According to Wikipedia Paul is on staff at the Rocky Mountain News (where this editorial presumably originates). Interestingly, he also wrote "The Obesity Myth" leasing me to question if he uses the same definition of the word myth and alternatively if Campos is a hippo.

~ Incidentally, I can't tell you the speed Troy, but they'll all be strikes as far as I'm concerned.

~ See how I tied that all together Cartomancer - Augustine of Hippo ;)

155. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132434 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Cartomancer the only Saint title that has any significance to me is that of Roger Moore. If that's the title that people know Aurelius Augustinus by then I have no problem using it.

156. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132426 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 6:29 pm

As so frequently happens lately -- the writer equates atheism with belief and dogma. Atheists do not have a different invisible imaginary friend they want you to believe in. They are not trying to get Theists to believe in anything -- just to stop believing in the invisible imaginary friend they already have.

That isn't so hard to grasp unless you really try not to...(see St. Augustine citation above). Would any evidence convince me to believe in their invisible imaginary friend? It is pretty unlikely , the writer is correct about that -- but so what?

There is no equivalence between unfounded faith and skepticism...even if they are both intransigent which I do not grant as a premise.

157. Fleabytes

Comment #132405 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Donald don't go away mad -- just go away.

No I'm only kidding. I will check your previous posts before the one I commented on to try to see where you are coming from. In the meantime, I felt that delusion applies because there is no reason not to be in possession of the evidence necessary to conclude that belief in God is unwarranted. We are not presently pre-Einstein or pre-Darwin at least in Western countries. In fact many believers become theological contortionists to maintain their viewpoint in the face of strong argument to the contrary. To persist as such is to delude oneself, and the organization of the church and community of faith is complicit in that delusion. Or so it seems to me. Again maybe I was jumping into a discussion that wasn't really taking place - wouldn't be the first time.

158. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #132391 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 5:29 pm

Ahh Romana(um, I mean Lalla) your voice is still so gentle on my ears. What a fortunate man you are Professor Dawkins -- and you write best selling books too!

(P.S. your voice is lovely too Professor in its own way -- no offense :)

159. Fleabytes

Comment #132372 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 4:40 pm

All of these Fleas have fallen victim to one of the classic blunders; The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go into richarddawkins.net without reason on your side.

(apologies to Rob Reiner)

160. Fleabytes

Comment #132367 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 4:28 pm

True Romans today or ancient Romans? Not that it matters much to me as I am neither -- although some dates in the past have mentioned that I have Roman hands.

161. Fleabytes

Comment #132353 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Cartomancer, if you do I might be willing to translate it into gibberish for the benefit of wooter et al.

162. Fleabytes

Comment #132343 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Fortran? You've kept yourself fit Steve what are you 160?

163. Fleabytes

Comment #132340 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Dangerously Latin:

Dominus vobiscum nabisco. Espiritu sanctum. De gustibus. Me gustibus. You gustibus. We missed the bus. They missed the bus. When's the next bus? Summa cum laude. Magna cum laude. The radio's too laude. Adeste fidelis. Centra fidelis. High fidelis. Post meridian. Ante meridian. Uncle meridian. All of the little meridians. Magna carta. Master charga.

164. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132325 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Good advice Geoff, since I've no Guinness available I'll make do with an India Pale Ale. Cheers,

165. Fleabytes

Comment #132317 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Donald,

Was the title The God lack crucial relevant knowledge already taken or just nixed by the publisher then?

166. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132315 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Ack... this article just caused me to visualize our universe as one bubble colliding with another in God's giant pint of Guinness. Somebody help!

167. Fleabytes

Comment #132306 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Jeesh Brian I'd at least expect you to speak English, it's practically your middle name. This is not Latin America ya know.

168. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132294 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 3:05 pm

OK leaving string theory aside because I clearly don't understand it. Steve Z and others have helped me with some of the astrophysics of big bang and inflationary universe theory.

Still, I am human and humans like to form patterns and to mentally categorize things. It seems to me much more likely that the universe does behave cyclically like many other systems in nature. Forever is along time to stay in a state of endless expansion or even stasis. I keep coming back to the phrase "and then what happened next".

I don't have any science to back this up with of course, right now the evidence appears to the contrary or you have to contort yourself with theories as outlandish (though not necessarily wrong)as the above. There is I suppose dark matter, dark energy, ...the dark side of the force. I just have a feeling that the universe is not a one shot deal (it would be too wasteful -- you know like we are all just recycled stardust man -- isn't that a trip man:) and I think someday we might figure out why it isn't.

I am open to persuasion on the ever expanding universe -- as it stands right now proponents of it seem to have the better of the argument. Still, a universe that goes on forever and just burns itself out doesn't seem naturally thrifty enough for me [insert Scot joke here].

169. Fleabytes

Comment #132267 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Brian it's no good quizzing someone who has access to online dictionaries, google and Wikipedia on a word or phrase definition.

Sorry Brian I meant Goldy it's no good...

170. Fleabytes

Comment #132144 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 10:09 am

The movie series could be The Godbother I, II, III.

171. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #132142 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 9:58 am

Richard M. don't let my dirty mind deter you...I think what you are doing is great.

It was just that the Prof. was describing eruptions and plaited and twisted ropes and folds of silk dresses frozen in their positions, tree rings doing it, daisy chaining, lots of things being laid down, talk of the sea's bottom, the hanging out of impotent stubby wings, etc.

I was just wondering if the Professor had written these words about the time of the Clinton scandal here in the USA. No it's probably just my imagination - you're doing a good job, keep it up!

172. The coming religious peace

Comment #132136 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 9:30 am

DBA, Phillies fan? Now I think I fully understand your avatar. Good luck this season, except for interleague play this year when you take on my Red Sox.

173. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132133 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 9:19 am

Thanks for the comments Frankus... dealing with wooter temporarily depresses I.Q. I have gone from earnest questioning to sarcastic counterpointing, to insulting, to gibberish, and finally when words completely fail -- to a visual representation of my thoughts on wooter. There may be nothing more I can add...my efforts certainly fall short of fully capturing the gut wrenching dullardry that is wooter. Only his own words can really demonstrate it properly.

174. The coming religious peace

Comment #132124 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 9:06 am

Thor nice clip...this guy is the Episcopal Bishop of Newark? My only qualm is that he is a Yankees fan (but what are you going to do he is from Jersey).

By the way no one has posted anything here for the better part of an hour...what has everybody gone off to church? ;)

175. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132010 by Radesq on February 23, 2008 at 10:18 pm

wooter rides again!

176. The coming religious peace

Comment #132007 by Radesq on February 23, 2008 at 9:55 pm

The New Atheism
Still God Free!
Now with half the carbs!*

*possible side effects include clear headedness, loss of guilt, lack of visions, and nausea when reading creation science literature.

177. The coming religious peace

Comment #131989 by Radesq on February 23, 2008 at 7:06 pm

Quill you sound like Princes Leia~

178. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131974 by Radesq on February 23, 2008 at 5:54 pm

Diacanu: Thanks, but what I meant was are there religious reasons or something like that. Not social reasons to "justify" what's in the bible; like maybe there are reasons to prepare food under kosher rules in the ancient middle east but what are the Goddy reasons? I'm no bible scholar but God seems to do a lot of do this, don't do that and doesn't say why other than 'cause I said so or I will smite thee or cast thee down. Maybe that's part of why I never liked religion (it's certainly why I never cleaned my room when I was a kid).

179. The coming religious peace

Comment #131962 by Radesq on February 23, 2008 at 5:20 pm

Funny stuff Catsyk...I figure the most common Star Wars/Religious character mix up has to be the confusing of an action figure of the Emperor with one of Pope Benedict. But Darth Maul...a fair second choice.

180. Fleabytes

Comment #131955 by Radesq on February 23, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Steve Z:

You have stated earlier "As one of the biggest Buffy fans on the planet..."

This is a perfect example of why you should use a different photo in your avatar. With that white background there is no way to tell you are not normal size. I'll take your word for it...if you can tell me what former Buffy actor/actress has made an appearance on Torchwood recently.

edit~ This is not a comment on who is more handsome between you or RickM

2nd edit~ maybe take a photo with you holding a double decker bus in the palms of your hands...now that's a BIG fan!

181. Fleabytes

Comment #131878 by Radesq on February 23, 2008 at 2:09 pm

PJG I was just thinking when I read your post...how long before Vox Day does a critique of Paula's critique of Robertson's critique of TGD? Perhaps infinite regression isn't as implausible as it seems.

182. My Argument With God

Comment #131859 by Radesq on February 23, 2008 at 1:23 pm

OK so is it mostly the baggage associated with the term free will or is it the question of whether that degree of freedom actually exists that makes you wish he hadn't used the term?

I am a big fan of freedom to make choices; you could say I'm pro-choice but the meaning of those words has already been predetermined.

183. My Argument With God

Comment #131855 by Radesq on February 23, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Paula, What is the difference between "being aware of having choices and being able to make them" and having free will?

184. Fleabytes

Comment #131849 by Radesq on February 23, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Paula: Zimbabwe you mean?

185. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #131835 by Radesq on February 23, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Richard M. I'm not sure what to say about it...

the music is pleasant enough...the first clip seems to me to be smoldering with sexual innuendo.

186. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131824 by Radesq on February 23, 2008 at 11:51 am

Why is sex without marriage a sin? Does the Bible give any explanation; or is it one of those -- because I said so issues?

187. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #131802 by Radesq on February 23, 2008 at 10:46 am

Llongyfarchion Richard Morgan.

188. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #131781 by Radesq on February 23, 2008 at 9:38 am

Paula writes:
"The only reason it was important in this context was that it challenged the Bunting to acknowledge that her touchy-feely..."

You mustn't reduce Prof. Dawkins' debate opponents to mere set decorations, I'm sure he can do that on his own. :)

189. Whale Evolution

Comment #131763 by Radesq on February 23, 2008 at 7:23 am

59. Comment #131706 by Steve Zara

Thanks for the response Dr. Steve. I certainly am in no position to quarrel with Prof. Dawkins on evolution. I just remember thinking that SJG's Wonderful Life book made a great deal of sense when talking about how once large groups of flora or fauna get established they don't change much because they don't need to. When the environment changes or when smaller groups move and get geographically isolated then natural selection kicks into high gear out of necessity. As I mentioned before, it was quite some time ago when I read it so probably either the weaknesses of the model didn't sink in at the time or I have just forgotten them. I guess I will have to read some Dawkins to help me figure it out. Also, I'll take a look at some of the gene centric threads around here. I'm going to need some convincing that genes evolving really accounts for change if their organisms are successfully reproducing.

190. Whale Evolution

Comment #131621 by Radesq on February 22, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Dr. Steve -- I read SJ Gould's book on the Burgess Shale maybe a dozen years ago. I don't remember him being against gradualism the way you describe. He is the big proponent of contingent evolution -- an idea which I (admittedly not being a scientist of course) thought made a lot of sense. I am going to go look for something to back this up with -- but I think you give him too much grief. It sounds from your comments that Prof. Dawkins was not a fan of Mr. Gould's either so I assume I have my work cut out if I am to defend him. Mind you I don't have any use for NOMA.

edit ~ so what did I find in my brief Wikipedia search? Well, there is comment on The Blind Watchmaker critique considering SJG to be not accepting enough of gradualism. So I apparently just didn't get it or don't remember it. I thought punctuated equilibrium sounded entirely rational as merely a periodic acceleration of gradual evolution that continues on after some environmental stress has gone away. Must be my social science background. Still, how much evidence do we have from the fossil record to distinguish slow change from equilibrium? If the quote from Wikipedia is to be believed, (and since many writers here have read the BW), even Prof. Dawkins has said of punctuated equilibrium

It is a "minor gloss," an "interesting but minor wrinkle on the surface of neo-Darwinian theory," and "lies firmly within the neo-Darwinian synthesis.

191. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #131619 by Radesq on February 22, 2008 at 5:56 pm

wooter I'm going to try to explain this in a way that you might understand.

The cherries are upside down when the boat goes along the tortoise of the mind of the sausage maker's camel. There absolutely no is fine of the one who says he does when he is and that is a lie. When you try to wrap your icebox around the music that comes from the depths of the lettuce saddle monkey half-time show you see that the imprint of the elevator talks in the speech of the divinity of the sand. This is too much for you to admit in the kleptch of your karnenflugle kooklebinker.

Are we agreed?

192. My Argument With God

Comment #131617 by Radesq on February 22, 2008 at 5:47 pm

I suspect that most good comedians are quite intelligent. It takes some ability to reflect on what is or isn't funny and why. This was a nice, short, appealing article. I would appreciate seeing more like it.

193. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #131039 by Radesq on February 21, 2008 at 7:04 pm

You want a conspiracy theory? In the 1960s the Canadians developed a car that ran exclusively on naturally occurring tree resins. Big maple syrup and their friends in Ottawa have been holding back this technology for decades. Blame Canada!

194. Whale Evolution

Comment #131038 by Radesq on February 21, 2008 at 6:57 pm

Evolution may not be directed toward a goal but the study of it can be. Looking in retrospect you can call something a transitional form. Just like flying ice cream is often a transitional form between my ice cream cone and the puddling ground ice cream.

195. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #131025 by Radesq on February 21, 2008 at 6:00 pm

You are probably right Bonzai. But I think times are going to be different in the 21st century for religion. My suspicion is that religion will look and act increasingly like politics in the upcoming years. It (religion)is under threat and I think that may cause volatility and rapid change in response to environmental stress. I would expect religious fundamentalism to increase, religious conflict to increase, but I also expect to see religious cooperation between groups that normally don't like each other in the name of self preservation. Maybe weird things will happen like the ABC promoting Sharia in the UK for instance.

Bald speculation perhaps...

196. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #131018 by Radesq on February 21, 2008 at 5:38 pm

Of course mainstream Islam is only that which the most Muslims believe in at a given time. It's not like religious doctrine is carved in stone...alright sometimes it is technically carved in stone.

Religious doctrine is whatever its adherents say it is...it has no immutable qualities -- perhaps with the exception of the almighty excuse provider for whatever terrible act you want to commit but can't muster up any legitimate reason for.

197. Whale Evolution

Comment #131006 by Radesq on February 21, 2008 at 5:10 pm

OK first a question: Did this thing chase Indohyus into the water? Second, wouldn't you know a guy named Frank E. Fish would choose to study marine mammals? Finally, an interesting page to read on the subject (although I couldn't tell you how accurate it is)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

198. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130539 by Radesq on February 20, 2008 at 7:46 pm

MPhil could you please rephrase your last post in words that a batboy of tender years might understand?

199. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #130534 by Radesq on February 20, 2008 at 7:32 pm

I laughed at the T-shirt...then I looked around the room to see if anybody saw me laugh. Strangely, the cannibalism angle never entered my mind however.

Stay in school kids!
and just say no to drugs!*

*required PC disclaimer for the IEO (incredibly easily offended)

200. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #129927 by Radesq on February 19, 2008 at 7:07 pm

Teratornis...I like the avatar is it new? Have you seen the postage stamp (Laotian I think). Regarding your post, two things come to mind...1)the most common explanation for suffering is that God has a greater purpose that we simply are incapable of understanding. Easy but unsatisfying...if God is trying to teach us something why not just come straight out with it rather than all this beating around the burning bush, which has to be interpreted and devised? 2)You did not find anyway to work bicycling or Wikipedia in there (are you not feeling well?)

~edit I just read your next post on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, nevermind. :)