151. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92925 by sent2null on December 1, 2007 at 7:08 pm

Dr. Benway wrote:

Perhaps those constants aren't independent. Perhaps if we understood more about the geometry of reality, we'd see how all the parts stand in relation to each other, and how each value couldn't be otherwise.

Or maybe God used a machine with dials and carefully rigged the game.

Either way, it's a long way from Big Bang to eat-my-body-drink-my-blood.

Well said, but the first statement brings an interesting idea. We know that the current known candidates (string theories mainly) for grand unified theories that do a job of integrating gravity in with the other forces of nature along with predicting the correct values for the fundamental constants all suffer from providing too many answers. Namely, they seem like over broad mathematical constructions that give us all the possible answers instead of just the one that fits our universe, employing unseen dimensions and entities beyond our universe to explain our universe. It may be the case that this is a requirement of explanation of our universe and the state of the various values. This could be true since lacking an ability to view the universe from the outside our logical constructions must necessarily be as generalized as possible, and from this generalization collapses the certainty that is our universe. It is unfortunate that we may be unable to determine "which universe is ours" while bound inside. I say "may be" since the work of an early 20th century mathematician, Kurt Godel essentially defined the limits of what questions can be asked using a logical /mathematical construction. In essence, it is possible for a system constructed to find answers to be unable to answer questions definable using its language. It may be the case that the mathematics foundation that we have created is unable to allow us to answer the question of why the constants seem "fine tuned" and of allowing us the ability to pose questions in the universe to determine the answer. The system itself may preclude our asking falsifiable questions about the universe that can tie one or another GUT to OUR universe and in the language of science that would make the conclusion only a hypothesis.

I am confident though that whatever is outside our universe communes with what is inside and has effects that we can test for and thus allow us to select from the embarrasment of theories that do explain the constants. All that said, there is absolutely no reason to jump from our current state of understanding back to saying "a magic man done it!" when scientific investigation has gotten us so splendidly to the very edge of the universe itself as D'Souza and other theists are always eager to do.

152. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92918 by sent2null on December 1, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Up to video 7 now, one thing I can say about D'Souza is he's a master at walking the fine line of an argument. Instead of attacking a point directly, he'll bring up some tangential and at first blush intriguing idea which ultimately is irrelevant to the discussion. He mentions Pascal's wager for example, which to the layman seems like a very compelling argument. To paraphrase, "If it cost me nothing to believe, then why shouldn't I?" However this means nothing as few believers use such a restricted description of faith, in fact those that do are known as deists at best rather than as theists. Once the trappings of dogma and ritual possessed by real world religions are added upon this kernel of zero loss belief, the recipe for destruction and conflict with other such systems is set. Further, when we analyze the contradictions these varying sets of dogma and ritual bring forth we see that if the God is there it is anything but a good or just one. So the best we can conclude, even giving D'Souza a bone by asserting that yes we agree there is a God, is that that God is either on vacation or crazy. Yes D'Souza is free to go with believing since it costs him nothing but that very choice damns him to also believe that his God is either dead (which is materially identical to non existent as atheists assert) or crazy. This latter option contradicts the thousands of lines of scripture and dogma created by religions to describe, supposedly through divine inspiration, what "God" wants for us. Well if "he" is giving every culture dichotomous commands every few hundred years then he is either malicious or crazy assuming he does exist, but he's definitely not good. I'd rather believe that God was dead than that he was a drunkard, and if he is dead , that is the same as the position that an atheist takes that he does not exist, so it does make more sense to NOT believe, as believing forces us to accept a contradiction of an at times sleeping, at times lightning throwing, at times capricious and malicious "God".

Again I commend D'Souza for bringing up the muddled issues that misdirect from the arguments at hand, ultimately he builds on a house of cards but his job is not to bring you the truth it is simply to *convince you* (ie. "win" the argument) and his style does work if the sales of his book are any indication.

153. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92871 by sent2null on December 1, 2007 at 4:03 pm

What is the purpose of having a course where children are taught the "history" of religion but where you leave out the FACT that they are all created by man and this is all easily verified by historical data? I can see the value of preserving some aspects of religion but those aspects are not unique to religion, they are precepts that make sense for people living in groups to adhere to, especially in a civil society. Children should be taught this, they should also however be taught that there is no correlation between moral actions on the part of people and any (sometimes contradictory regarding what is "moral")guide book as defined by religions. In my view Dennet is going a bit to light on the punching bag of religious belief. Ostensibly he does this in hopes of making inroads into existing entrenched religious modes of thought, though I commend this slow and steady technique it is a bit annoying especially when you know that the facts to offer a more complete refutation of divinely inspired religious belief can be employed in its stead.

154. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92141 by sent2null on November 30, 2007 at 12:04 am

Although I must say I squirmed in my chair a bit as I read the first few paragraphs wondering where Prof. Dawkins was going with this. I have to agree with the idea that vindictive jealousy serves no purpose. I have always been of the mind that if someone with whom I've developed a trust relationship, whether it be in love or any other area, violates that trust that they will not be given another opportunity to do it. Simple, though sadness and anger may be a part of my initial reaction it will never move to vindictive motives. I have reason to believe that a previous relationship of mine ended potentially due to my mates infidelity but I don't hate her for it. I was aware of her unhappiness in our relationship primarily due to my habit of professing the supremacy of my career goals over our relationship goals, but she knew this about me when we met and was hoping it would change in time, it did not. I Loved her in a very different way from how I loved my career but it didn't seem to matter to her. It was as if my work was a woman and I was cheating on her with it. It was a bizarre realization for me to have that she saw things this way but at least I know it is possible for the future. We should be thankful that we can get out of situations where our trust has been violated with our lives, amorous treachery often times is attended by the finality of death.

155. A New Flea in Town!

Comment #91983 by sent2null on November 29, 2007 at 4:43 pm

I find the choice of a hubble deep field image for this book's front cover to be particularly disgusting. Another example of the religious shamelessly stealing a great achievement of rationalism for their own parochial, insidious and rather selfish ends.

Yes that was annoying upon first glance at the book cover for me as well.

156. Sir David Attenborough on God

Comment #88296 by sent2null on November 15, 2007 at 9:34 pm

Indeed, the Carl Sagan of Ecology, I've been watching his shows since I was 10 along side other favorite shows of my youth. I think the reasons he gave for non belief are a bit weak though, I think it much more powerful to use an avalanche of data by presenting a massive tapestry of knowledge that integrates sociology, history, mathematics, biology, physics, geology, religious history and anthropology. I've found that the thing that creationists fear most is being told that they are ignorant of certain facts in science and having that proven to them through one long dissertation that touches on multiple disciplines of science facts that all support the truth that there is no sentient watcher of the Universe without actually really stating it outright. My goal is to make it simply be obvious given the amazing confluence of multi disciplinary data. I take great joy in doing this but not maliciously (which is the key) just as a person won't argue with their car mechanic if he tells them that their transmission is shot, I give creationists no choice but to accept that there is a great, huge chasm of knowledge that separates my understanding from theirs where they are the deficient ones in the equation. At worst it gets them to quit their attempts at trying to convince me, at best it ends with me suggesting reading material for them to build up their empirical knowledge base. It is an endeavor that requires patience and modesty but it can succeed and must if we are to ensure that reason champions over unreason as this planets human population continues to grow.

157. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88126 by sent2null on November 14, 2007 at 7:27 pm

actually brad ID is unfalsifiable so it doesn't even classify as a scientific theory. It is a failed hypothesis that many cling too simply because they reject the prescience of conclusions based on fact over conclusions based on faith. Until we break this silly little idea in peoples heads that there is some value or merit to "faith", all the semantic gymnastics in the world isn't going to do a thing to extinguish ignorance.

158. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #85437 by sent2null on November 5, 2007 at 9:44 pm

Jesus allegedly said it is harder for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle - and I suspect being really smart inflates the metaphorical camel up to battleship size.

It's 12:42 am on the East coast of the United States, and I just laughed out loud into the black night illuminated by my monitor screen.

Thank you Teratornis!

159. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #85429 by sent2null on November 5, 2007 at 9:03 pm

I am sorry guys, I could not for the life of me read the entire thing. It was a rambling , confused mess of mostly second or third hand anecdotes concerning what this gentleman believes/once believed. It is sad that the obviously religiously biased author (of the book not the article) would go to the extent of using this poor character as some sort of "proof". I frankly don't see the point, we all know that just because someone is on the lecture circuit, or was "widely renowned" in their field that doesn't make them right. Ann Coulter is widely renowned as a speaker and writer but what she writes is demonstratively biased right wing bullshit at best and outright distortions or misunderstandings of history and facts at worst. To this day there are many popular folks who couldn't give an accurate description of what special relativity is, or how natural selection works. I fail to see how anyone who sees on a daily basis the power of applied reason over blind faith would be moved by this story of an old man, with an old broken mind being used as a pawn after his intellectual twilight.

Just sad.

160. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #85094 by sent2null on November 5, 2007 at 12:49 am

What is the evolutionary advantage to committing suicide?

None. It all depends on the individual and the circumstances in their life that lead them to make that drastic choice. Ditto with the original question. It has nothing to do with evolution. The best answer is likely in the giver simply upholding a social practice that *they feel* is looked on kindly in their society and nothing more, some times these practices align with evolutionary advantage, other times they don't.

161. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85091 by sent2null on November 5, 2007 at 12:19 am

Then (as in the joke about numbered jokes) we could just observe that she tried her hand at say #3 and #18 and laugh.

Actually that is a great idea, and if we can get access to a wiki-site devoted to this we can use the wisdom of the reasoned masses to quickly compile the sound rebuttals. Maybe an enterprising web developer/blogger among our number will take on the challenge as a night time diversion. ;)

Regards,

162. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85088 by sent2null on November 5, 2007 at 12:01 am

Has anyone taken up the task of actually, just for one of these books, lambasting the usual tired counter arguments and misunderstandings of the author?? If I had the time I would do it myself, assuming I could stomach the incredible ill-logic that attends conclusions of people that adhere to the mistaken belief that there is value in faith over reason.

163. Huge Black Holes May Hold Keys to Galaxy Formation

Comment #84597 by sent2null on November 2, 2007 at 5:11 pm

I remember thinking that giant black holes were the seeds of galaxy formation way back in high school, hind sight or not it does seem like an obvious and logical supposition starting from a big bang model. Glad to see my school boy musings were on the mark. ;) Actually this isn't news at all to anyone that follows developments in astronomy, funny how late the popular media is in getting to "news" that is already well accepted in the field.

164. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #82701 by sent2null on October 27, 2007 at 9:11 am

I laughed from the opening line until the gut wrenching end period. This has to be the funniest detail of literal excoriation I have ever witnessed!

I haven't read the Devil's Chaplain yet, looks like I must get it as well!

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

Comment #82397 by sent2null on October 26, 2007 at 8:21 am

LOL, "sky spook"! I tend to use "cosmic puppet master" myself but I like the ring of your term as well!

Regards,

166. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81502 by sent2null on October 24, 2007 at 9:01 pm

Finally!

One of the popular rationalists takes some times to explain the "pre revelation" problem of believers of monotheistic religion.

I wrote a post about this problem a few days ago here:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1707,Debate-between-Richard-Dawkins-and-John-Lennox,Richard-Dawkins-John-Lennox,page5#77153

I think it is a powerful argument to dismiss the protestations of the deluded that see Christianity as any more special than any other religious system that Man has created in his 150,000 years on Earth.

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

Comment #81498 by sent2null on October 24, 2007 at 8:54 pm

Just by chance, my older brother (who is still wallowing in faith but I am working on him..he's smart enough to get the truth) made the mistake of presenting this argument to me. In an email exchange I provided the following answers:

[His opening letter]
A professor of mine in undergrad put it well. He had one Ph.D. in theology and another in physics. He said that science gives the how. Religion gives the why. The conflict only appears, when religion tries to explain how things happen and scientist try to explain why.

[My response]

Well since you opened the can...


All lines of scientific inquiry start with "why", the how is what evolves in the attempt to answer the original why question.

eg.

Why do objects fall to the earth when dropped?

Why is the sky blue?

Why do fish have gills?

All of these questions at one time didn't have an answer that could be definitively and empirically determined UNTIL someone investigated those things scientifically and determined the how. Once done , the previous "why" question became moot. Sure, new "why" questions may bubble up further down the line but it is important to note that those new questions have less and less relevance to the importance of the preceding answers to our world. For example, by answering "why do objects fall to the earth when dropped?" Gravity, the scientists that worked out the "how" of it's workings were then able to come up with detailed rules to allow us to control the behavior of objects under the control of any gravitational field , be it on the Earth or on the moon or else where. The veil of mystery was peeled back quite a bit, by showing how gravity attracts objects to earth (and generally any matter) still begs a deeper "why" of why does the Earth have gravity? Scientists (most notably Albert Einstein) have posited answers for this question as well but it's relevance to our daily living is essentially nill compared to the answers that came from answering the first "why" question. An astute observer though will notice a pattern, that as science conquers lesser "why" questions and replaces them with "how" answers, the newer "why" questions are less material or immediate to the workings of our daily lives. The answers for why objects fall has been used to great effect in our kinematics, ballistics and propulsion technologies that run our modern world, where as even if we knew "why" The Earth has gravity, there is little in which that knowledge can be useful to us at our current state of technological development. Similar examinations of the other questions reveal the same thing, science is instrumental in pushing back the veil of the "why" questions that can be asked from the realm of the physical and important to the realm of the metaphysical and irrelevant. I assert this by example of the previous questions but you can find it to be true by examining closely any series of "why" questions of a given topic that can be subsequently investigated to determine empirical veracity. Now, one can choose to argue with the claim that the more metaphysical questions are "irrelevant" but in the context of the only way in which we can judge (by empirical experience) that is the only conclusion that presents itself as illustrated above. I'll be willing to amend my statement if some new method of examining any concept under discussion can be found that does not presage forming an opinion on empirical experience. In fact this is a loaded challenge, the only other way to investigate the ideas is through empirically devoid supposition and adherence to faith which make any "conclusions" drawn as relevant to the truth of the matter as discussing the hypothetical strength of fictional super heroes. The argument can be won or lost but to no avail or import to the real world, as the super heroes still are fictional.
So it appears that empirical analysis serves as the only instrument that allows us to repeal the power of "why" questions by providing "how" answers that can materially impact our lives, this opens the stage for more metaphysical "why" questions , but these questions are less relevant to our lives and sometimes undeserving of our immediate consideration entirely ....that is until our desire to live in the ways we wish is encumbered by us NOT knowing the answer to the latest "why" question. *wink*

[His second response(note he switched my original why questions into how questions as if to indicate that the questions were really how questions not "why" ones...which was really lame)..]

Not exactly...

HOW do objects fall to the earth when dropped?

HOW is the sky color blue?

HOW do fish use their gills?

[my second response:]

The original claim was that "why" questions are supposedly "answered" in the domain of non scientific or metaphysics investigation (as embodied by Religions) where as "how" questions are answered by science. I showed clearly that "why" usually forms the first question asked of any scientific inquiry and then is quickly followed by how answers to those why questions. You are free to disagree with me and others on what question we ask first when investigating the world but I don't think that would be a good tactic for you to take in making your point. Are you doubting that before the "how" question is asked that the "why" question can be asked first? In my experience "why" is what I and many scientists want the answer to but we extract how answers from it by extracting the truth from the originating question using empirical analysis. This reduces the scope of the subsequent "why" questions relevance to the world and there for it's significance to our lives. The point of my over all argument is that as you provide the "how" answer to a "why" question you make the next "why" question increasingly irelevant to our reality. It may be fun to know that some questions can not currently be answered, but to a scientist if those questions have no material import asking them in the first place is a waste of time. (see super hero analogy)

168. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80367 by sent2null on October 21, 2007 at 1:26 pm

I don't think she is putting all blame on the Western view regarding multi-culturalism at all. She clearly stated the problem is two fold, first that the West believes that Islam is just like any other religion, her argument is it is not. Secondly, is the issue of the west coddling the intolerant position that appears to be unique to modern Islam when it concerns other religions or secular western practices. I think she is absolutely correct on both points, ultimately religious views that seek to equate the dogma of their faith with reality should not be tolerated at all, whether it be Islam or any other religion. Here in the US we have been hoodwinked into following what just may well be religiously motivated decisions on the part of our own president regarding the "war on terror" because of this misplaced respect for religious beliefs. In Israel the same underlying religious sanction has been the chief promoter of the Zionist occupation that has led to the continued pathological destruction of Palestinian peoples. A majority of Israeli's claim to be secular yet the actions of the government over the last 50 years as been that of anything but a secular one. Illustrating yet again that when religion gets its teeth in government policy bad things happen, I think it important that people of like mind to Hirsi Ali sound the alarm now before it is too late.

Regards,

169. The greatest debate

Comment #80357 by sent2null on October 21, 2007 at 12:27 pm

I agree hotshoe, the article was refreshingly well written. Presenting point and counter point of the opposing positions though toward the end it did lean a bit toward the religious views IMO.

That said, I recently read an article on the rise of population as correlated to IQ, the estimates are that average IQ will drop world wide as the rate of births will outstrip our ability to educate the individuals being born...this does not bode well for a continued rise in rationalism as there is a known correlation between lack of education and religious belief. I did realize one factor that may aid us in avoiding this reversal of global rationalism and that is *this* network of connected computers. The internet allows knowledge to be accessible in corners of the world that are otherwise remote, though much of it can be sequestered from view (as is being done in China for example) knowledge has an amazing tenaciousness, it just gets out there. If we are successful in curbing the global birth rates in the largest population centers by promoting education, along with access to education through the internet we may just be able to continue the upward trend of rationalism as population increases while at the same time slowing the rate of population increase which is also sorely needed if we are to preserve a livable environment.

Regards,

170. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #80162 by sent2null on October 20, 2007 at 9:58 am

"people who don't believe in god believe that science proves there is no god and people who believe in god believe science proves there is a god"

Actually, it should be:

"People who don't believe in God KNOW that science has no evidence to support belief in God, people who believe in God DO NOT KNOW what the evidence or methods of science are and in their lack of knowledge (I won't say ignorance because I am trying to be neutral here) *sometimes* assume it proves there is a God."

*wink*

171. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #80160 by sent2null on October 20, 2007 at 9:51 am

Faux News....ah the bane of all rational thinking peoples' existence rears it's wart infested head yet again to spew another super conservative "fair and balanced" report.



Religion correspondent??, they actually pay someone to cover the BS, ostensibly because it is so popular among their IQ atrophied constituency.



And science (nay math) provided the answer concerning the morality of putting strychnine in someones tea. It is relative, if the person is a child rapist who raped a child last night and will rape the child again tonight unless he is stopped then it could be seen as morally acceptable to kill him before he does. Morality is not unique to human beings, authoritative codes of conduct exist across the animal kingdom and they are all relative to the particular goals of the "group" of individuals. If Ms. religion correspondent read some of the game theory papers written by the hundreds in the ...oh 1930's and 40's on the matter she would have known this. John Von Neumann would be laughing at the stupidity of this report if we were so fortunate to still have him with us in the flesh but we'll have to settle for his brilliant work, well those of us that actually read research papers that is, which apparently doesn't include anyone at Faux News.



Okay, now that I've mentioned the channel several times I have to go brush my teeth.



Regards,

172. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #77153 by sent2null on October 8, 2007 at 3:42 pm

Indeed it was frustrating even listening to Dawkins attempts at trying to rebut the rather loquacious yet vacuous expositions of Lennox. The format was set up to have Lennox have the last word unless Dawkins objected which he did when he felt the need to respond.

I have a comment about one of Lennox's statements concerning the futility of finding a TOE as he indicated was put forward by Hawking in 2004. He is referring to an idea that comes from an understanding of the incompleteness theorems of Kurt Godel derived in the first half of the last century. Godel proved mathematically, that formal mathematical logical systems are not necessarily consistent, the contingency of consistency resting on the idea that questions can be posed within those systems which are un-answerable using the system itself. Hawking took this conception of the Godel theorems and attached it to the idea of a TOE which purports to describe all physical processes in our Universe. The simple idea being, that if mathematics, the ultimate basis upon which scientific physical theories are derived and proven has the potential to lack complete explanatory power about all possible "questions" that can be asked within the framework of the mathematics system employed, then it is pointless to believe in a TOE, since by necessity of Godel's proof..the "E" in TOE is impossible.

However, where Lennox and Hawking make an assumption, is in believing that the explanations or questions required to achieve TOE status necessarily explain *important things* beyond our experience, nor does it mean that the interesting "questions" that we ask in order to find a TOE are among the unanswerable ones. This is a huge assumption, the basis of which should not preclude an attempt to understand as much of the Universe that we see as our explanatory logical mathematical systems allow us to before encountering important questions that **maybe** unanswerable in the Godelian sense. Note, Godel didn't prove that the particular logical systems of explanation we build (such as the standard model or string theories) are inconsistent, only that all such systems contain unanswerable questions. There is no reason to conclude that the questions we find interesting will **ever** be among the unanswerable ones.

Another observation with regards to a statement made by Lennox revolves around the idea of what I call pre-revelation. Let us assume out right that anyone who seriously contends that the age of the Planet , or the approximate dates for the origins of Man are in dispute are based on pure ignorance of the vast amount of multi disciplinary research that supports the fact. That said, even if the Earth is only 25,000 years old (and note this is an assumption for which we have so much evidence it simply is not worth doubting further) we are confronted with the problem of Pre-revelation. We know from archaeological evidence, that modern Man had reached all the large land masses by this time. We also know from similar evidence that Man had been engaged in acts such as burial of the dead and cave painting long before this time. The problem though is, if a one supreme "God" exists and has existed, why did this God not reveal itself to Man prior to the 3-5,000 year span for which we have any archaeological, historical or cultural evidence for the idea of a Mono-theistic deity??? Why did the "eternal" God, supposedly in existence at the creation of the planet not reveal himself to Man as the "true" God until so late in the cultural history of humanity? I think this question poses a serious problem to those that believe that an "eternal" God exists, in attempting to answer it they must explain why "God" was apparently absent from the scene of human culture for the approximate 140,000 years prior to the 3-5k year period (lets stick with Homo-Sapiens alone and not even address the cultural ideas of Erectus which are known and evidence indicates goes back to a million years). What we do have data for though, is prior to this 5k year period evidence exists for cultures worshiping things (river, tree, land, sky) to the concepts of polytheim or many Gods, many of them consisting of pantheons of minor and major Gods not surprisingly associated with the previously worshiped "things". Culminating finally, in the concept of "one true God" which was brand new and arose in the Levantine region no sooner than 5,000 years ago and itself not unique at the time as Zoroastrianism shares a similar founding concept. Now, believers in such a God must answer the question of what happens to the pre-revealed "souls" of all the generations of Man that lived, died, hunted, cried, fought and killed up to the emergence of the idea of the "one God" only 5k years ago? What punishment can an absent God rightfully place on individuals who had no idea that they should have been recognizing his existence, since all historical data indicates they had no idea of his very concept as he had not revealed himself to them since all we have evidence for up to that time is multi God systems??

So, the conundrum is not so much as to ask the question was God on vacation but rather to show that the real conclusions that God concepts themselves *evolved* with the development of the culture of Man from necessary and expedient forms in materialism, animism and polytheism tied to the early hunter gatherer bands that comprised early human societies as amply evidenced by the scientific data, to more "simple" (from a categorical view) systems involving major and minor Gods, to the most recent view of a single "one God" concept which originated in the Levant, in a place and at a time when the confluence of cultures, religions and limited resources came together to inspire new ideas in the peoples that derived from the continuing flow of culture and ideas that passed through the region since the migrations of early Man from the African continent. The search for "simplicity" then, in explanation of the human concept of Gods explains why the "one God" appeared to be on vacation while at the same time providing a conundrum for the religious that do believe in the concept of a "one God" in the form of the pre-revelation problem. The simplest answer from the evidence is that the idea of "one God" is so new to the world simply because at the time it was "discovered" in the levant, it was the only God system that had not been tried(my apologies to the Zoroastrians who blazed the trail), so in a very real sense the idea that "God always was" itself evolved as religious thought evolved through human history within increased interaction of previous religious systems, "God" in a very real sense does have a simple beginning but it is not in the sky, it is here on Earth and is traced out in the paths of our ancestors as they created systems to explain away their success over the elements and their fellow brethren while competing for survival in environments of limited resource.

I find a happy satisfaction in the irony of the apparent fact, that Man created God(s) first, and then Man coupled with cultures tied to these God(s), created God as the many Gods mutual existence forced Man to seek newer previously untried "God" based belief system. Apparently "God" did evolve. ;)

Related Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godels_incompleteness_theorem (can be dense if you aren't mathematically inclined but does a good job providing summarizing examples)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism (ok, but reference the sources..does a good job introducing the idea of the evolution of monotheism from monist concepts like Zoroastrianisms to the fully monotheistic ideas of the Hebrew Bible which not surprisingly mirrored this evolution within the scriptures itself)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

[As usual with references to Wikipedia, reference the sources to ensure their contents or consistent with the writings in the main text.]

Regards,

sent2null

173. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74825 by sent2null on September 30, 2007 at 5:05 pm

Great write up Teratornis.

Regarding Saudi Arabia. Though it is true they have a highly educated populace, keep in mind that much of western literature available in the country is actively censored. It is difficult to form an accurate picture of reality from only parts of the data, what conflicts with the established dogma of the religious government is hidden leaving it quite easy for engineers to gain advanced degrees without ever questioning their faith. (though I personally have a hard time imagining this)

174. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #73380 by sent2null on September 24, 2007 at 10:38 pm

Re: Comment #73034 by dthuleen

Off topic:

That picture of the Sombrero Galaxy (M101) is probably one of my favorite Hubble Images. It almost brings me to tears. Imagine the life that that teams on countless worlds in that Galaxy. Upon close inspection you resolve the many dim points and shapes in the background as countless other Galaxies...I never can lose the sense of amazement I have in the grand beauty of our Universe. Now that is "God". ;)

175. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #73378 by sent2null on September 24, 2007 at 10:30 pm

I've been a fan of Mahar since he was kicked off of ABC. I am glad he's on HBO as he basically went from heavily censured on ABC to free as a bird. I do agree he doesn't interview as well as he debates on his show. I also enjoy the fact that so far as political issues, he tends to mix up his panel which always ensures lively debate.

176. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66389 by sent2null on August 29, 2007 at 11:01 pm

Shuggy, Spinoza,

Or for those cognizant of the variability of pronunciation based on its derivation "owned".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned

L33t ...during the early 90's when others were wasting their time on bbs's I was learning yet another programming language. ;)

177. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #66386 by sent2null on August 29, 2007 at 10:39 pm

re: comment 65131

scooter,

that web site is a great resource! When I have discussions with people and don't have the time to give them the first hand treatment I just refer to one of the many proof pages. Quite a service the writer has done by organizing it that way.

Regards,

David

178. Fossils in Kenya Challenge Linear Evolution

Comment #62668 by sent2null on August 10, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Bt murtagh comment 62478

I've read of no research that indicates that dogs did not evolve from a common wolf ancestor. What is your source for this claim I am genuinely curious.

179. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56193 by sent2null on July 14, 2007 at 11:36 am

Response to comment 54848 by CrazyMalc:

"In TGD, Richard Dawkins uses the example of whether I see Red that the same way you see Red. We'll just never know."

Actually that was a weak analogy on RD's part. We could determine how two individuals experience a color since we can create objective experiments to prove that their perceptions match or are very similar. For example, by shining successively similar shades of red to two different individuals using LED's tuned to produce precise frequencies of light. (as they do) It would be easy to ask them questions such as how many shades they distinguish in the set , then by narrowing the frequencies successively determine the sensitivity of each individual to the shades of red (or any other color that can be precisely tuned) displayed.

Of course most of us know what RD meant when he made the analogy, it just wasn't exactly the best choice he could have made. ;)

Regards,

180. Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off

Comment #39784 by sent2null on May 11, 2007 at 11:17 pm

wow , I just watched the clips put up on youtube by rational response they did a better job in the segments that were NOT shown on abcnews.com (at least I couldn't access them) very interesting. It does seem abcnews.com presented portions in such a way as to appear "balanced"..I wish journalists would realize that when you are making a choice between facts and fallacy that you should present the facts disproportionately because after all they are the facts!

181. Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off

Comment #39778 by sent2null on May 11, 2007 at 10:59 pm

The abcnews.com web site wouldn't let me watch the videos uninterrupted for some reason. Also they only had segments from the 90 minute debate instead of the whole thing ...assuming I accessed the same source as all you guys. That aside, the argument made by the rational response squad was not as encompassing as it should have been, at least not convincing enough I think to change the minds or induce doubt in the minds of the hardcore theists that were in the audience and across the stage.

182. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #39470 by sent2null on May 10, 2007 at 7:39 pm

I must agree that many athiests/agnostics need to apply a level of thought in posing the arguments of reason to the religious. We have to remember that the people we are discussing these topics with are in many ways at a lower level of knowledge than us, logical thinking is not an innate quality that humans possess from tabula rasa it is something that can and must be taught. To understand why hypothesis should only be based on empirical evidence, entirely obvious to a rationalist is utterly perplexing to a theist if we don't provide clear examples of why. I can make my point by example, we all remember the state of utter frustration we had prior to learning to do something that today we take for granted. Commmon examples, learning to read, learning simple arithmetic or learning to type without looking at the keys. At first we required large levels of mental energy to do these things but as we incorporated the patterns into our brains for performing these acts they became second nature, we simply "get it". Similarly it will take a training period for those used to religious faith based beliefs to "get" why empirically derived hypothesis are the most efficient ways to ensuring the fastest possible increase in knowledge for individuals and us all. Proof is written in the successes that this method of acquiring knowledge has brought to the world in the form of our technology and medicine. We will have to be patient and try our best to hide our arrogance as we enlighten those with the more basic faith based belief systems.

Regards,

183. Lou Dobbs w/ Hitchens on Al Sharpton's Bigoted Remark

Comment #39419 by sent2null on May 10, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Oh this is the height of irony. One delusional person calling another delusional person , delusional. As some one mentioned earlier the funniest of all is that the unabashed non believer (Hitchens) gets away Scott free and he is pointing out his belief that any God exists at all. As for Romney responding that Sharpton's comment was bigoted, that is plain silly. Bigotry has nothing to do with religion especially as matters of faith by definition are supposed to not be able to be proven in the first place. If your belief is non empirically based then how can you have the audacity to expect me to hold your delusion to equal weight as empirically determined facts? If pointing out that something that is wrong is wrong is considered being a bigot then I stand a bigot proud, of course that isn't the case. What is wrong is wrong, religion is wrong, all shades of it, so one saying the other is wrong can not be bigotry. These theists are loosing their minds on the public stage and I am glad, hopefully this is the beginning of the end for the foolishness of faith and religion in this world.

184. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest

Comment #37474 by sent2null on May 4, 2007 at 2:43 pm

I was astounded at 1) McKain's hesitation to answer. 2) His need to "soften" the original "yes" by adding that crap about the mountain. 3) That 3 on the podium raised their hands to say "no". A sad commentary on the state of knowledge of those that hope to rule the free world.

185. The Coulter Hoax: How Ann Coulter Exposed the Intelligent Design Movement

Comment #31229 by sent2null on April 11, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Hilarious, a satire of a piece of writing from a far far right wing demagogue who likes to think herself witty for her use of sophomoric puns and ad hominem attacks to make her points. I particularly like how you called her "brilliant", that was really funny! I am only annoyed that it took me 2 lines in to realize you were making fun of her!

Brilliant!