151. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63550 by roach on August 14, 2007 at 7:05 pm

etny,

Thanks for the link. That was fantastic. We can all now talk about the first ep of "The Enemies of Reason" instead of continuing on this tangent (which has now amazingly become a circle) invloving complexity, nonsensical jammering from darwin2, and infinite regresses.

Cheers

152. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63479 by roach on August 14, 2007 at 1:03 pm

darwin2,

You have lost your mind. We all know that the physical law of reincarnation and Karma only applies to those born in the month of July for obvious reasons. Happily, when I attain my state of perfect energy and become a god along with God, I'll plead the case that the rest of you should be able to enter paradise along with me and my fellow July borns. I'm going to sniff some magic markers.

153. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #63452 by roach on August 14, 2007 at 12:05 pm

colaboy,

Have at it then. But I very much doubt you will be able to come up with any argument that will convince darwin2 to change his mind. He has already received dozens of posts countering his claims and beliefs but he hasn't budged an inch. This is not all too surprising. It is extremely rare to see someone say "You know what, you're right and I was wrong. You have demonstrated this with articulate arguments and clarifying examples." People often disagree on facts. Best of luck trying to change a person's beliefs. darwin2 has been given plenty of arguments effectively destroying his beliefs, it's up to him to take the next steps.

Now for the definintion of the word "troll". I was always under the impression that a troll is someone who doesn't add anything of value to the conversation. I would argue that darwin2 has reached this point since he is only repeating his already torn to shreds claims. If I am wrong about that definition I'll have to apologize for using it in this case.

As for the charge of coming close to "Atheist Fundamentalism". While there really can be no such thing as an "atheist fundamentalist" for obvious reasons (you pointed them out), I take this term to describe an atheist who ridicules and derides his opponent. Well so what? In some cases, people are asking for this type of treatment. Jefferson said, "ridicule is the only weapon against unintelligible propositions" and I think this case fits the bill. darwin2 has made his beliefs known and has had all of them countered numerous times by multiple posters, yet he casually ignores them and keeps repeating his claims as if he was never given a proper response. This is a despicable form of disrespect. I see no reason why so many people should waste their time and effort responding to someone who claims to want a free exchange of ideas but doesn't play by the rules when people agree to converse with him.

154. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #63324 by roach on August 13, 2007 at 10:39 pm

I agree with what Richard Morgan means. We all know that darwin2 is talking nonsense. He's merely trolling now as he has already made all these claims and had them destroyed by the members of this site. I don't see the point in replying intelligently to him anymore.

155. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #63266 by roach on August 13, 2007 at 6:03 pm

darwin2,

Your wishful thinking knows no bounds.

156. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63210 by roach on August 13, 2007 at 2:06 pm

It's obvious that the Earth is flat, the Sun orbits the Earth, the Sun and the Moon are essentially the same size, and god exists. Use your eyes and brains people!

157. Believe it or not: the sceptics beat God in bestseller battle

Comment #62851 by roach on August 11, 2007 at 9:41 pm

Go skeptics.

I agree with Russell's observation about dinner parties and am laughing as I type this because of Friend Giskard's post. hahaha awesome.

158. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62682 by roach on August 10, 2007 at 8:59 pm

I didn't read the posts so this may have been covered already but whatever.

The fine tuning argument would only work for deism. It gives zero credibility or plausability to any particular god i.e. Zeus, Osiris, the Judeo-Christian deity, etc.

159. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62467 by roach on August 9, 2007 at 8:43 pm

The second one sucks. But the other two are funny. Haha.

160. Dissing Deism

Comment #62441 by roach on August 9, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Of course it's not the funniest book of the year. But some sections were quite humorous.

One of the responses to Aquinas' Proofs (Comparison to an Ultimate) had me rolling on the floor. It went something like...

"That's an argument? You might as well say humans vary in smelliness but somewhere there must be a truly peerless stinker and we call that being God. Or substitute any other characteristic and come to an equally fatuous conclusion."

hahahahahaha

161. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62179 by roach on August 8, 2007 at 2:54 pm

The article implied that the only knowledge worth having is empirically derived? Strange but I didn't get that impression at all.

162. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61726 by roach on August 6, 2007 at 2:04 pm

those avatars all suck. They're giving me a headache.

163. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61579 by roach on August 5, 2007 at 9:10 pm

I think broadening the scope of criticism is great. While it is true that religion has the most clout in politics and social policy, I think it would be dishonest to not attack this new age mumbo-jumbo. And I think that when atheists/rationalists/skeptics/whoever put religion on par with astrology, homeopathy, crystal healing, etc. it can have a (uh oh I'm going to sound like a Dawkins fan boy) consciousness raising effect on those skeptics who blast New Age quackery but put on the kiddie gloves when it comes to discussing religion while having the same effect on atheists who humor "The Secret" and other nonsense.

164. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61558 by roach on August 5, 2007 at 6:04 pm

?,

I don't think anyone is coming down on science fiction, or fantasy, or any other genre of literary/visual fiction so long as people realize that it is indeed FICTION. Now this is not to say that science won't eventually turn some aspects of fiction into fact as it has done many times in the past.

165. Are antidepressants taking the edge off love?

Comment #61064 by roach on August 3, 2007 at 2:03 pm

I'll keep my crappy love thanks.

166. The Out Campaign

Comment #60808 by roach on August 2, 2007 at 10:59 pm

Henri,

You think too much

167. The Out Campaign

Comment #60684 by roach on August 2, 2007 at 5:13 pm

"Love your enemy" has got to be the dumbest precepts one could attempt to live up to. You're attempting to do the impossible and setting yourself up for failure and guilt.

168. The Out Campaign

Comment #60646 by roach on August 2, 2007 at 3:30 pm

BillySands,

You're right. If I don't want to read his gibberish I just won't read it. I shouldn't suggest that you all stop demolishing his points simply because I have seen it happen numerous times in the past. How terribly selfish it would be for me to deny the new visitors/members of the forum the chance to see David's arguments torn to shreds. Thanks.

169. The Out Campaign

Comment #60635 by roach on August 2, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Why do you guys even bother with Wee Flea anymore? The entire discussion has been had many times before and we're all just going in circles. If the discussion was taking place on a neutral forum with a judging audience I could see the merit. But things being as they are, it really seems unimportant and tedious.

170. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60416 by roach on August 1, 2007 at 9:34 pm

It's not a hate crime. Get over it.

171. The Out Campaign

Comment #60035 by roach on July 31, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Ugh. "Church of Dawkins", "ACOLYTES". Give me a break.

172. The Out Campaign

Comment #59998 by roach on July 31, 2007 at 11:57 am

Philip,

God works in mysterious ways. Duh!

173. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58708 by roach on July 25, 2007 at 11:22 pm

Chris Hedges is clearly insane. God is a verb? Just watch the Hedges vs. Harris debate on truthdig. Personally, I thought Sam Harris gave Hedges a proper ass kicking.

174. Red Mosque Fueled Islamic Fire in Young Women

Comment #58308 by roach on July 24, 2007 at 11:16 am

I wonder, would I be an adherent of Islam and support suicide bombing if I had been born in the Middle East to Muslim parents? I'd like to think not. But that's probably untrue.

175. Religion beat became a test of faith

Comment #57945 by roach on July 22, 2007 at 2:30 pm

Wow. I couldn't stop the tears. I took a class called "Religion and the Media" with Will Lobdell when I attended UCI. He was an outstanding lecturer and produced one of the most engaging classes I have ever taken. I gotta email him.

176. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57821 by roach on July 21, 2007 at 10:03 am

Science is mostly silent about the human condition? I've always found it to be quite revealing.

Well I'm off to Ozzfest so I gotta go. I won't be kissing the ground these musicians walk on but I will be cheering and enjoying the music.

Later haters

177. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57776 by roach on July 21, 2007 at 1:48 am

Perhaps some people do go a bit overboard with their enthusiasm.

But it's interesting you bring up rockstars (although I would use the term musician) because that is kinda how I feel about these scientists/authors. I liken them to athletes/musicians/anyone I respect and try to emulate.

Yes cults can be built around men just as they can be built around imaginary deities. So what? Who among the posters on this site would actually DO something absurdly irrational at Hitchens' request. He doesn't even make such requests but let's assume he did. I doubt anyone would carry out his orders.

178. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57772 by roach on July 21, 2007 at 1:18 am

Oh please. Admiration for a fellow human being with whom you happen to agree is nothing at all like God worship. I don't agree with all of what Hitchens (or anyone) says. And I imagine most people on this site feel the same way.

179. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57709 by roach on July 20, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Of course I find these "qi energy" demonstrations to be nonsense. But perhaps the buddhists do have something to teach us about meditation and it's potential effects on the brain. Did anyone catch that article Time ran a number of months back? Apparently they hooked buddhist monks up to fMRI machines and watched what their brains did when they practiced certain meditation techniques. The region of the brain responsible for feelings of compassion and contentment lit up much stronger than the control group who was first tested doing nothing and then later taught to perform the technique. Of course this doesn't prove much of anything. It could just be that the people who are likely to become buddhist monks are naturally more compassionate/content. So the researchers really need to start with people with no meditation training and test them for at least a year as they develop their technique to see if there is any significant change in their neurology.

If anything, this is where we may learn some insights into the human condition through buddhist meditation. But we'll eventually drop the "buddhist" part.

180. Darwin or Design

Comment #57518 by roach on July 19, 2007 at 3:29 pm

robert,

I am aware of the overlap between biology and engineering. Biomedical engineering, genetic engineering, even agriculture, etc are all examples of this overlap. And I am very much in favor of scientists (and laypeople like myself) expressing interest in all the amazing fields of knowledge and inquiry humans have developed over the ages. This in no way changes the main point of my argument. Which is that biologists are better trained to handle questions of the development of life on this planet while engineers are better equipped to demonstrate how to build roads, code software, develop automobiles, etc. I know the fields of biology and engineering are not mutually exclusive. It would suck if they were!

Let me just turn the argument on it's head really quick. Suppose the vast majority of computer engineers tell me some type of software is theoretically impossible to develop. But then along comes a biologist who says it isn't impossible. I'll be siding with the computer engineers on that one.

Jason, I and others have asked you to provide your evidence/arguments. Since you failed to do so I'm just goint to assume you don't have any.

And my statement in no way suggests that biologists are the only people capable of commenting on biological systems. It only suggests that biologists are the best trained to give knowledgable answers or make educated guesses about biological systems.

If you were to experience chest pains, shortness of breath, and shooting pains down your left arm, would you go see a cardiologist or would you make your way to an auto mechanic?

181. Darwin or Design

Comment #57500 by roach on July 19, 2007 at 2:53 pm

"Only if the biologists stay off the engineers turf."

Uhhhh...they do stay of engineers turf. I have never heard a biologist argue that computers or cars or skyscrapers evolved through natural selection.

I would imagine someone who is a computer scientist by trade would be smart enough to know when he/she is wilfully practicing self-deception. But you're obviously being sincere. This is just childish nonsense on your part. Now that your arguments have been effectively eviscerated you're saying things like "this forum is a pointless place to discuss things." Give me a break.

182. Darwin or Design

Comment #57493 by roach on July 19, 2007 at 2:31 pm

You're really going to bring up Behe? His arguments have all been thoroughly annihilated. The poor guy has been humiliated on multiple occasions. Read the "The Great Mutator" by Jerry Coyne or watch Ken Miller's vids. They're posted on this site. You should probably read/watch them with some tissues and a bottle of rum close by because you're going to be sad and depressed when you realize ID is a terrible nonargument.

Your knowledge of computer science in no way gives you reason to believe that life is designed by an intelligent designer. Stay off of the biologists turf.

We're all just going to have to realize that there is no ultimate purpose of life and reject that type of wishful thinking. It is up to us to make our own purpose.

Also, what is this evidence of which you speak?

183. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57341 by roach on July 19, 2007 at 1:36 am

I just skimmed the article so I may miss the mark with this post.

The arguments sound just and tolerant but I must disagree with much of what the author says. There is so much I disagree with but it's pretty late so I'm just going to attempt to make one point.

If everyone ordered their lives around "live and let live" and "mind your own damned business" we would never have developed government and/or technology. We'd probably still be small tribal units of hunter-gatherers. But hunter-gatherers did not live their lives by these precepts. Why not? Well, I'd argue it's because "live and let live" and "mind your own damned business" conflict with human nature (and each other btw). Humans, being the evolved creatures we are, are inherently self-interested and seek to maximize those interests. There is a real survival value in not adopting live and let live and mind your own damned business. Of course there is survival value in being cooperative. But it is a sad reality that I can enhance my well-being (my "business") by depriving others of theirs. So "mind your own damned business" and "live and let live" are mutually incompatible.

One other quick point. When i discuss religion with my believer friends and family members, I find it to be an enjoyable experience (and they tell me the same). I am a big fan of getting to know my friends and family. I don't see polite discourse as something to be avoided.

One more...the author should check out "Convert's Corner" if he thinks people cannot be reasoned out of their delusions.

184. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57333 by roach on July 19, 2007 at 1:04 am

Thor,

Well it was kinda meant as a compliment. How could it not be? The problem I have with being "too civil" is that it can, in some way, give legitimacy to unintelligible and insane positions. Now I realize you are seeking clarification on Henri's position but after reading his posts and seeing his tactics in this thread I simply cannot take him seriously. Best of luck getting a calm and reasoned response out of him.

185. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57323 by roach on July 18, 2007 at 11:54 pm

Some of you guys are too civil. Henri needs to find himself a room with padded walls.

186. Darwin or Design

Comment #57322 by roach on July 18, 2007 at 11:40 pm

"Actually that depends on what you mean by "explains"."

Ugh. More pathetic definitional bs. Actually it depends on what you mean by "mean". /sarcasm

Luckily, it doesn't depend on what I mean by "explains". You would have had a (weak) point if I had not included the word "ultimately". If (and it's a huge and probably impossible IF) ID is true it would indeed be an explanation but it would only be a PROXIMATE explanation because we would then be left with explaining how the designer came into existence. And the best answer to this hypothetical question would come from science.

You may as well say "what if invisible fairies are responsible for the growth of plants? Sure plants seem to naturally photosynthesize and this idea is superfluous and stupid, but how do you know invisible fairies aren't guiding the process. Btw, if you reject this ridiculous hypothesis you're obviously dogmatic."

187. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57291 by roach on July 18, 2007 at 7:26 pm

I have to agree with tieInterceptor.

The four horsemen of the anti-apocalypse sounds so badass.

188. Darwin or Design

Comment #57277 by roach on July 18, 2007 at 6:11 pm

ID explains nothing ultimately. It is incapable of doing so.

189. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57273 by roach on July 18, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Henri,

The type of insults you specialize in may be suitable and win you some insult humor points on a college messageboard in the "off-topic" section. But on this site, it is simply out of place. You really do sound like some of the annoying theists/creationists that post every so often.

190. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57208 by roach on July 18, 2007 at 2:43 pm

This is crazy. I always thought we would start with a "war of ideas" (which I think has barely started here in the US and hasn't even begun in the Muslim world). But a few people posting in this thread seem to think that we are already at the end stage where preemptive war is necessary and justfied. Unreal.

191. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57051 by roach on July 18, 2007 at 8:05 am

Henri,

You're crazy dude.

192. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56940 by roach on July 17, 2007 at 11:30 pm

PeterK,

Care to elaborate? How is she snooty? I think you're mistaking her proper and calculated replies for something they are not.

193. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56899 by roach on July 17, 2007 at 6:01 pm

Summer Seale,

Are you talking about the "multiculturalist left"? I find that type of PC criticism to be quite annoying.

On another note, Ayaan is a child of the enlightenment. We need more people like her.

Switching gears. I didn't get the impression that she is unable to criticize the West. I think the thrust of her argument is that representative democracies (with all of their flaws) are the best systems of government we have managed to develop thus far and they are far superior to religious dictatorships.

194. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56852 by roach on July 17, 2007 at 1:29 pm

But why is there no separation of church and state in Iran?

I'll guess that it's because the founders of the Iranian government were devout Muslims and saw every reason to base their government around their holy book.

195. Darwin or Design

Comment #56679 by roach on July 16, 2007 at 11:07 pm

No matter how many times you say "Atheists like PZ are the most dogmatic people I have ever encountered" it won't make it true. Tell us, what belief on insufficient evidence have atheists like PZ adopted to reject the claims of Creationists and Christians or any other religious sect?

I must apologize. I wrongly assumed you have a decent grasp of the English language. It really is amazing that you don't know what extraordinary means. Do you know what amazing means? Or am I just wasting my time here?

Extraordinary means remarkable or phenomenal. Why are religious claims remarkable? Because they fly in the face of everything we have good reason to believe about the nature of our circumstance.

196. Darwin or Design

Comment #56670 by roach on July 16, 2007 at 10:39 pm

Extraordinary claims require extraordianary evidence - Carl Sagan

Since the claims of the worlds religions are backed up by either no evidence or terrible evidence, they can safely be rejected without an appeal to any dogma. Hence, PZ and atheists in general are not a dogmatic bunch.

197. Darwin or Design

Comment #56668 by roach on July 16, 2007 at 10:22 pm

And the answer is: Darwin.

198. Muslim heads stuck firmly in the sand

Comment #56653 by roach on July 16, 2007 at 6:53 pm

I'm no Sam Harris expert either but I have read his books and listened to him speak. Never have I read or heard him argue that religion is THE single source of human conflict. I have heard him argue that it is A potent source of human conflict and that we shouldn't shrink from criticizing it or that we should make excuses for people who tell us they are motiviated to violence because of their religion.

I'm puzzled about your position. You seemed to be talking about education in your first post but now you are talking about "historical and cultural education". What is that?

How exactly can one separate religion from the historical and cultural education of a society? I think this is impossible. Religion has profound effects on personal and group psychology and as a result, is woven into the fabric that comprises the history and culture of a society. And it seems that religion is a big source of history and culture.

And yes there is hope without achieving "the end of faith". And it is part of Sam Harris' admitted paradox. He is quite harsh on religious moderates but at the same time argues that we need more of them, especially in the Muslim world. So people like Reza Aslan who are champions for an Islamic reformation are actually allies in this sense. It is a difficult position to argue from but if Harris is to remain honest, it is the only position he can take.

199. Muslim heads stuck firmly in the sand

Comment #56628 by roach on July 16, 2007 at 4:08 pm

I always thought that Sam Harris (and the rest of the "new atheists") argued that education was AN answer just not THE answer. Harris said in the debate with Hedges that Christianity and Judiasm have "suffered a harrowing collision with modernity. They have been mastered by science, secular politics, and common sense to a degree that has not happened in the Muslim world" Why? Because the Muslim world is surprisingly isolated and the Muslim world did not experience the Enlightenment. So I think the thesis does take into account the cummulative education of which you speak. The problem is that the human mind is very gifted at compartmentalization. Smart, educated people believe all types of nonsense. Omega Point anyone? One example from my own life would be the people I met in college who appear to actually give astrology some credence (mainly for relationship compatibility). Of course they laugh it off when questioned and say I'm being too serious and it's all in good fun.

200. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56263 by roach on July 14, 2007 at 4:38 pm

Perhaps someone did express that this was new material (I didn't see it) but go back and read the posts. You will find that almost everyone mentions that Sam is busy repeating himself. Of course, they rightly add that they have no problem with this and provide reasons why he has to be repetitive.

As for your points about the debate and The End of Faith. I really can't understand how you could be so wrong about Sam Harris. I have to go now but I'll just respond to one point you raised.

You say "To go from athiesm, to anti-religion (as if all religion is the same), I believe is self-defeating." This is something Harris would definitely agree with (based on his writings, lectures, and debates) he is very careful to point out that "our religions are different. they don't all teach the same things. And where they do teach the same things, they don't teach them equally well." He said this during the debate with Hedges! He's on record as saying that if he could wave a magic wand and make every fundamentalist a religious moderate, he would.

As for your comments, I'll leave those to the rest of the posters for now (they're smarter than I am so I expect your arguments to be torn to shreds).