201. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186053 by qomak on May 29, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Al

I am nervous to even let this liberal tint to the conversation continue. This is because it seems to me there is a liberal agenda to silence speech of numerous variety... see this fiasco in Canada where the "Human Rights" council seeks to shut people up, claiming Islamophobia ... Why should hate be illegal?

That's a very idealistic view (in other words, what you say is right but impractical at the moment). While I agree with what you say, I can't resist detect some sort of detachment from reality in your ideology. There are very good reasons for society to be the way it is. For example, you might disagree with the German law regarding Holocaust denial but you cannot ignore the reason the law is there. Laws do not exist in a vacuum.

I agree that in theory there should be no law limiting free speech. If some idiot wants to claim Holocaust did not happen, he should be free to do so. But whether or not we agree on this policy has nothing to do with the question that can it be implemented or not. Some goals (no matter how good they are) might simply be unachievable at the moment.

202. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185759 by qomak on May 28, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Accusers" because the real complainant is Mohammed Elmasry...

Haaaaaaaaa! That's the guy from my university. He used to be in electrical engineering I believe then at a debate he defended the 'right' of Palestinians attacking Israeli civilians because as we all know all Israeli civilians are "soldiers"; later he was shocked to hear that people were outraged at what he said (not too bright as usual).

203. Car dealership advert tells atheists to 'shut up'

Comment #185401 by qomak on May 27, 2008 at 6:07 pm

What annoys me is that people assume this will be offensive to atheists as if we have a fragile belief system like christians or muslims.

Sorry buddy, you'll have to do much more than that to hurt my feelings.

204. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #184971 by qomak on May 26, 2008 at 3:20 pm

A couple of embassies ? Are you forgetting 9/11, the London bombings, the Bali bombings, the Madrid train station ?

And those destroyed or threatened our civilization exactly how? I'm not implying those were not tragic but they are at the limit of the Islamic terror power. I'm not trying to downplay these terror acts. I'm simply saying it is utter fear mongering to harp on these incidents to imply that Islam is the ultimate threat to civilization; it is not. Let's face it, muslim countries are third world countries with little resources to be of any serious threat. Islam is as much as a threat to the western civilization as Christianity or as Judaism.

205. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #184966 by qomak on May 26, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Except, mordacious no other religion posses the kind of threat to civlisation and decency that Islam does.

What a ridiculous statement. And the muslim superpower which holds the devastating arsenal and advanced armaments is ...?

To simplify the matter, muslims are the more nutty and less equipped religious group and the christians are the less nutty and more equipped religious group. For the former group, they probability that they'll do something idiotic and violent is pretty high but the damage they do is about a couple of embassies and for the latter so far the probability of them being able to do something idiotic is small but if they get the chance they might really wreck havoc in the globe.

So basically, all religious are equally dangerous. Sure, some might be a little more dangerous than the rest but it's a waste of time to argue which one.

206. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #184963 by qomak on May 26, 2008 at 2:48 pm

This is one of those situations that you hate to agree with the Assuies. The reason is of course clear: which one of the following do you think is more likely?

A) They are opposing the construction because they believe religious indoctrination is wrong.

or

B) They just dislike muslims because they are their out groups and prefer a Christian school with slogans Woo Hoo Jesus.

Yes, we all know the answer. They are doing the right thing but for completely wrong reasons.


By the way, they're explicitly lumping all muslims together and opposing them in general and I bet they also call atheists intolerant, ironic.

207. How Are Humans Unique?

Comment #184529 by qomak on May 25, 2008 at 3:12 pm

I've also observed that some people engaging in online debates/forums are somewhat on the edge. Apparently, here is no exception either.

208. Does Time Run Backward in Other Universes?

Comment #184415 by qomak on May 25, 2008 at 5:02 am

mmurray

Except they can check the source and see it is Scientific American which is reasonably reputable.

That's not the issue really. The issue is about the language used in this article. In other words, if you present science in the language of pseudoscience, then do be surprised when a significant percentage of the population confuse science with pseudoscience.

So what's the language of pseudoscience? It's basically very similar to the language used by scientists except that there is no mention of proof, hypothesis or testability.

Example:

A chakra is a center of activity that
receives, assimilates, and expresses life force energy. The word chakra literally translates as wheel or disk and refers to a spinning sphere of bioenergetic activity emanating from the major nerve ganglia branching forward from the spinal column. There are six of these wheels stacked in a column of energy that spans from the base of the spine to the middle of the forehead. And the seventh which is beyond the physical region. It is the six major chakras that correlate with basic states of consciousness...

Sounds impressive doesn't it? In fact, it's painfully difficult to explain to people who buy these things why this Chakra theory is nonsense while trying to defend the "nonsense" mentioned in this article. From experience, if you try your method (saying that SA is reputable) then you'll often get accused of circular logic (i.e., judging the content by the journal and the journal by the content) and having a bias against pseudoscience.

The point is scientists who are trying to combat pseudoscience then they should try to stand above it ALL THE TIME. For example, in this article a few humble sentences about testability and falsifiability could do the trick.

209. Does Time Run Backward in Other Universes?

Comment #184341 by qomak on May 24, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Just to throw my two cents, I generally agree with Mitchell here.

The problem with the article is that for the average person it is indistinguishable from a crackpot article putting forward hypotheses for a pseudoscience.

210. The Faith of Flanders

Comment #184339 by qomak on May 24, 2008 at 5:29 pm

Completely agree with RamziD.

Get a sense of humor and stop complaining and whining. The show sometimes has been sympathetic towards the average stupid religious types, so what?

On overall it's blasted religion.

Homer: "God is my favorite fictional character!"

211. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183931 by qomak on May 23, 2008 at 7:59 am

posted by epeeist:

I actually think science is one of the better examples of competitive/cooperative behaviour. The other one I would highlight would be the "Free Software Movement", which I suspect in the long run which actually bring Microsoft down.

I agree and I think it's important to have the effect of "culture" in mind. As far as I've experienced, scientists and people involved in the free software movement have different culture and mindset than the average guy. As an anecdote, I had a friend who wanted to win 2 million pounds just that he could stop worrying about money and do what .. research all the time in his area, i.e., work.

Basically, what I don't like is when people try to throw absolute statements around as a way proving their point of view, when reality is much more complicated to even be properly tested.

212. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183915 by qomak on May 23, 2008 at 7:28 am

@Al, epeeist, D'Arcy, et al

No offense everyone, but the debates about socialism/capitalism on internet almost always looks amateurish because everyone aims for absolutism.

For some reason, everyone defending capitalism does "proof by example fallacy" combined with some vague and absolute statements (e.g., "socialism will never work and will always lead to dictatorship, just look at Russia" - proof by example fallacy).

On the other hand, generally people defending socialism go through vague, untested theories and hype up the whole thing emotionally by mentioning equality and so forth.

As far as I know, the Kibbutz movement can be a very good case analysis. It shows some few interesting points and I wonder how many people agree with these:
1)It is possible to make socialism work under right cultural and social conditions.
2) Although, doing so turns out to be heck of a lot more work (i.e., you'll have to invest lots of energy and resources into it).
3) Surprisingly, socialism not necessarily leads to suppression of talent, or dictatorship or some of the theoretical outcomes of socialism.
4) There is no proof that even if socialism happens to be implemented right, it leads to more happiness or efficiency.

213. 'Reverse Evolution' Discovered in Seattle Fish

Comment #183884 by qomak on May 23, 2008 at 5:11 am

I don't like the term reverse evolution but as far as I have read, even Dawkins sometimes uses dubious and "creationist" vocabulary when discussing evolution. Our vocabulary and language is probably better suited to discuss design and intention rather than "it happens to be" so I guess it's hard to avoid these terms.

214. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183424 by qomak on May 22, 2008 at 5:17 am

You guys are wasting your time. Some people are naturally, honestly and sincerely dumb with a huge ego. And they'll never understand what's the difference between an argument and a false assertion.

215. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183006 by qomak on May 21, 2008 at 7:58 am

Phil

It's not that I deny Al, Epeeist and others are making valuable contributions. The problems are: first, you get off topic discussions, second, you don't get coherent discussions and third you get lots of noise with little informative posts scattered in between.

216. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182987 by qomak on May 21, 2008 at 7:28 am

Guys ...

Don't feed the troll.

Don't feed the troll.

Don't feed the troll.

Don't feed the troll.

Don't feed the troll.

Don't feed the troll.

217. Edgar Mitchell ushers in the Next Epoch in Evolution

Comment #182910 by qomak on May 21, 2008 at 5:47 am

Okay, I'm calling a Fashionable Nonsense on this one.
Quoting from Wikipedia:

Mitchell says that a teenage remote healer who lives in Vancouver and uses the pseudonym Adam Dreamhealer, helped heal him of kidney cancer at a distance. Mitchell said that while he never had a biopsy (the definitive test for cancer), ...

218. Edgar Mitchell ushers in the Next Epoch in Evolution

Comment #182902 by qomak on May 21, 2008 at 5:36 am

I'm not an expert but whenever I see buzzwords like consciousness, quantum theory, evolution, information and energy piled up together I get mighty suspicious. I started digging in google scholar and I was not really impressed. As far as I know no major neurologist is trying to connect quantum theory to consciousness so can someone with more solid background say something on this article please?

219. Surviving an unholy school war

Comment #181819 by qomak on May 18, 2008 at 10:03 am

Within days she was belting us with a cane, and being a left-hander I was singled out for special treatment; my hand beaten hard and often so I could no longer hold my pencil in "the hand of the devil".

Funny, coming from a muslim country, I had a teacher who told me almost the same thing. He suggested I practice eating with the right hand; at the time I was confused as what's the point of going through such a trouble while I could use the left hand just fine.

Thankfully, we were not tortured and abused the way it's been mentioned here but at least our teachers were when they were young. I remember my arabic teacher reciting a vivid experience of how his old teacher beat him up bloody for good for something which was entirely the old teacher's fault.

220. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181496 by qomak on May 17, 2008 at 9:57 am

I really hope Richard doesn't respond to this charlatan anymore. I bet right now he's enjoying every little ounce of publicity and credibility he's already achieved by provoking Richard to notice his little existence twice.

I'm sure he would never stop milking this issue for publicity to gain more audience by pretending that he's sticking to the great atheist.

It really pisses me off because there are genuine believers and preachers out there who would lose audience and shine because of this schmuck.

221. 'Framing Science' and The Dawkins Effect

Comment #180306 by qomak on May 14, 2008 at 2:32 pm

... as Dawkins is perhaps the most prominent authority on evolutionary biology in the world.

Since when? Since when someone can be a prominent authority on such a broad topic? I was immediately turned off by this.

222. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178631 by qomak on May 11, 2008 at 7:23 pm

Every culture will have people who are sick enough to kill their own daughter, but not many can lay claim to the friends, relatives, police, politicians, in-laws, neighbours and multitude or religious brothers and sisters of said sicko all agreeing that not only was it not a bad thing to do but that it was the right thing to do.

That enters my collection of favorite quotes.

She died a virgin, according to her closest friend Zeinab. Indeed, her 'relationship' with Paul, which began when she worked as a volunteer helping displaced families and he was distributing water, appears to have consisted of snatched conversations over less than four months. But the young, impressionable Rand fell in love with him, confiding her feelings and daydreams to Zeinab, 19.

It was her first youthful infatuation and it would be her last.

So sad, too tragic. From experience I know religious people like this "father" guy have the dirtiest, most disgusting view of relationships. And they cannot understand innocence.

223. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178627 by qomak on May 11, 2008 at 7:07 pm

Their defence of freedom of expression is in inverse proportion to the volume of business and trade that they have with those governments.

Sadly, there's truth in that. Reminds of this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/13/AR2006041301632.html

Excerpt:

The E.U. is isolating one dictator while proposing concessions for another. Guess which one sells gas.

224. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174680 by qomak on May 3, 2008 at 8:13 am

We need both Manji and Ayaan. To those who believe Islam is the ultimate problem I can just say that all religions are man made and therefore equally flexible. Soon Christianity will be made to tolerate and probably support homosexuality and the same thing will happen to Islam. When faced with the decision of "evolving" or "going extinct" all religions choose the former.

225. Investigating Atheism

Comment #167020 by qomak on April 23, 2008 at 2:44 pm

I can't understand why everybody is so negative about this site? I entered with a very negative perception but I actually liked it. To me, they have done a fairy good job; it might not be perfect but it's still pretty good.

I don't think some of the criticism in the comments is just. For example

* Belief in God and evolution are not compatible.""

I wouldn't categorize this statement (attributed to 'New Athiests') as strictly true.

It has nothing to do with truth; they are defining new atheists to be those who share these views.

"" * Atheism is not discredited by the 'atheist tyrannies' of Hitler and Stalin.""

There is misinformation rolled up in this little statement, that demonstrates a lack of understanding of Hitler and Stalin on the part of the Cambridge group.

Once again it's a matter of definition and furthermore, almost all these "new atheists" (by definition) spend considerable time discussing Hitler or Stalin.

226. Lynchings in Congo as penis theft panic hits capital

Comment #166977 by qomak on April 23, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Anyone care to hazard a guess?

Probably all psychology. A while back I saw this report about some research that showed while the "penis enlargement" techniques are ineffective, they have the psychological effect of making the guy feel more confident and also the feeling of penis being larger (combined with the fact that they were getting a better erection). So, if something like that can do a positive impression, the belief in nonsense witchcraft can probably do the opposite.

227. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165803 by qomak on April 22, 2008 at 11:28 am

Does anyone else have a term for atheists that does not feel so rigid or hard? What about terms that are not in general use? Can anyone come up with any?

Maybe I'm missing something but what's wrong with secular humanist? It conveys more information about non-belief than Atheism (i.e., non-belief about telepathy, magic, spells, ghosts and etc.) and it also has a positive philosophy.

228. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165791 by qomak on April 22, 2008 at 10:31 am

Gosh, I hate articles like this. How would people feel if I were to introduce myself like this, "Hi, my name is not John Doe, I'm not a gardener and I don't collect stamps."

We don't introduce ourselves based on what we are not or what we don't do; why should our belief systems be any different than that?

229. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164777 by qomak on April 20, 2008 at 5:14 pm

I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave.

The above might be trivial to prominent biologists and secular humanists but it's not really obvious at all to the ordinary people. This is a great quotation which can really help to correct various philosophical misunderstandings of theory of evolution (for example the is/ought problem).

I think Ken Miller was right when he said these people really have no factual disputes with evolution and that they are not really interested in facts. Maybe quotations like this can help some of these misguided people and make them more receptive.

230. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #160520 by qomak on April 14, 2008 at 7:16 am

I got a real laugh from the prophecy guy, since apparently according to Stephen Hawkins book not even God can know the exact location of every subatomic particle; in other words, the location of the particles are just a probability distribution. Nope, according to these theories, God cannot know the future.