Comments by roach

Comment #56256 by roach on July 14, 2007 at 4:23 pm

ricey,

Could you provide a link to Harris' "woo woo" ideas on spirituality? I couldn't find it on Randi's site. Thanks

Comment #56222 by roach on July 14, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Yes. Let us reason together. I'll go first.

Any belief in a personal god is nonsense. And using God as a metaphor is misleading and stupid.

Glad we got that out of the way.

203. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56208 by roach on July 14, 2007 at 1:23 pm

darwin2,

Please change your handle. It's embarrassing.

I think I saw you claim to be a deist. If so, you are being disingenuous. If not, then that was a mistake on my part. I simply cannot believe that you have read all the arguments against your position and still hold onto your theistic beliefs.

What are these souls made of? are they energy or matter?

You also have the infinite regress and a whole bunch of other conceptual problems to deal with. You practice self-deception and wishful thinking better than anyone I have encountered. That's not a compliment.

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

Comment #56204 by roach on July 14, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Yes everyone knows that this speech is almost identical to his opening statement from when he debated Hedges. So what? Is this really surprising? I mean, if you follow the career of any public intellectual, he/she repeats his/her points all the time when talking about the same topic. Robert Maynard already gave the example of "roadies dilemma". Another illustration would be to compare public intellectuals to stand up comics. Stand up comics repeat their act reuse their best jokes all the time.

You thought Hedges won their debate? Unreal.

205. Tinkering with Humans

Comment #55890 by roach on July 12, 2007 at 7:01 pm

Gordon,

Although I don't agree with some of what you say i.e. capitalism is our religion now, I do agree with much. But you are only giving me more reasons to be against genetic "tinkering". Perhaps if we could make people more egalitarian and compassionate I would take a different view. But I would still have to think about it and discuss it with many people.

I'm of the opinion that we must outgrow our darwinian past before we start designing humans.

206. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55888 by roach on July 12, 2007 at 6:52 pm

darwin2,

At the very least, stop using the loaded word "God" and replace it with "The Creator(s)" or something like that. Then read some popular evolutionary biology and some cosmology/physics articles and watch this creator vanish in a puff of smoke. We now know how that the simple can rise to the complex.

Also, deism and atheism are essentially indistinguishable when it comes to criticizing the social implications of religion.

207. Tinkering with Humans

Comment #55345 by roach on July 10, 2007 at 5:31 pm

Many thanks to Bonzai. You wrote almost exactly what I was thinking while reading Gordon's post. I say almost because your words are much clearer than the thoughts that popped into my head.

208. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55298 by roach on July 10, 2007 at 1:28 pm

darwin2,

You're crazy dude.

209. Tinkering with Humans

Comment #55280 by roach on July 10, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Gordon,

I'm just going to assume you were talking about Sandel.

Anyway, of course we have engineering. And I'm quite happy about it. I reap the benefits of science and engineering every second of my life. And yes I would be in favor of eliminating disease on the genome level. If that is what the article was about I would have made a much different post. But we are discussing the very real possibility of designing people. That is, making them taller, smarter, longer lived, etc. through genetic alterations. One big problem to me is that humans, being the evolved creatures they are, are inherently self-interested. And I think our ethics have not caught up to our amazing technological abilities. As such, it seems to me that a small percentage of the human population would gain the most benefit from these advances in genetics. I think there is a very real chance that these advances could actually widen the divisions we see in the world.

I would agree that there are no lines in the sand waiting for us. It is up to us to draw the lines.

Should we draw a line? I don't know.

210. Tinkering with Humans

Comment #55069 by roach on July 10, 2007 at 12:21 am

Gordon: Are you talking about the article with your post? Or are you talking about Sandel? Saletan appears to be very open to the idea of human genetic engineering.

Anyway, just engineer everyone to be more intelligent and compassionate. That should save us some trouble. But even that pleasant scenario makes me cringe. It really does feel like that would be cheating.

211. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53869 by roach on July 3, 2007 at 5:56 pm

PaulEmecz said: "If the world was created, why could we not find out about the creator by looking at the world?"

That's a huge if. I'll try to go more in depth later.

Are you a deist?

212. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #53830 by roach on July 3, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Great article.

pewkatchoo: The article doesn't say that the explosives and nails would "shred people to bits". But why argue over this? The point is that the intent was to injure and kill innocent people. Perhaps it is true that the actual threat was less than the perceived threat. So what? Is it not better to err on the side of caution? I hope no one thinks this places me on a slippery slope and that the logical conclusion of this attitude is the annihilation of religious people and state sponsored destruction of religion in general.

213. Nato accuses Taliban of using children in suicide missions

Comment #53470 by roach on July 1, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Disgusting. I wonder if we'll see a multiculturalist defense of this.

214. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #53194 by roach on June 30, 2007 at 3:34 am

^^I'll continue...ahahahahahahahaha. Here's a weak argument for you: The god advertised in the bible doesn't seem very concerned with condemning the atrocity that is rape. The biblical god actually endorses it! But more importantly, we have to admit that morals are just like every other sphere of human understanding. They are neither objective nor subjective. They are progressive. The goal is to get better as we go along. The bible and the koran hinder such progress.

215. Lecture on Sex Ratio Theory and Sexual Selection

Comment #53193 by roach on June 30, 2007 at 3:27 am

Yeah I knew about the risk of Down's after 40. Thanks for the replies and the link.

216. Lecture on Sex Ratio Theory and Sexual Selection

Comment #53163 by roach on June 29, 2007 at 9:33 pm

I'd like to learn the (or an) answer to Dr Benway's question. But female humans become infertile in their 30's? I thought menopause occured a couple decades later than that on average?

217. Darwin Still Rules, but Some Biologists Dream of a Paradigm Shift

Comment #52998 by roach on June 29, 2007 at 12:59 am

The problem with the term "paradigm shift" is that it sounds extremely radical and revolutionary to a layperson like myself. The title of the article suggests that someone is developing a plausable alternative to natural selection and that natural selection could be replaced. After reading the article (and others on this site), it doesn't sound like this is the case at all. It actually sounds like these evo-devo discoveries could provide answers to questions that have troubled neo-darwinians for some time. Is "paradigm shift" just another way of saying "deeper understanding"? If so, it's a terribly ill chosen phrase.

Perhaps those who write of these paradigm shifts should define what the term means in the scientific context. Just like they are sometimes smart enough to do when they write about of a scientific theory.

218. Lecture on Sex Ratio Theory and Sexual Selection

Comment #52971 by roach on June 28, 2007 at 8:21 pm

I'm really liking these past three vids. It's great to see Richard et al talking about criticizing religion and championing reason but these videos are a fascinating (especially for a layperson like myself). Thanks for posting them.

219. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #52662 by roach on June 27, 2007 at 4:43 pm

Cool shirt.

220. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #52636 by roach on June 27, 2007 at 3:11 pm

This article saddened and frustrated me. But not because it highlights that there is no good reason to think we humans have souls.

221. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50587 by roach on June 19, 2007 at 12:11 am

Sam's the man. He is so calm under pressure and I've seen a number of debates (like this one) turn essentially into 2-on-1. His composure under such unfair circumstances is truly impressive. He probably is the most calm and collected public intellectual I have ever witnessed.

I was pretty disappointed with Hedges. He kept talking about politics and social concerns as if people's religious beliefs have little or no effect on their political/social lives. I was also irritated with his "I lived in Cairo, etc" argument. So what? So you lived in the Middle East and found it to be a pleasurable experience. This is kinda like me moving to the drug and crime infested slums of DC and concluding that "the US is a hotbed for criminals and drug pushers". Why am I not surprised that an affluent (compared to the bulk of the middle east population) and well regarded journalist/writer was able to find and live in peaceful areas in the region?

Something that I really liked out of Sam this time was his humor. He always slips in a couple funny lines but this time he kinda let himself get carried away. Some people may find this to be a weakness and maybe it is. But I don't care. I found myself laughing often.

"This is just cracker eating behavior. And we know this because crackers are eaten in other contexts...there's a general love for crackers" hahahahah

222. The New Atheists

Comment #49440 by roach on June 12, 2007 at 1:29 am

I like the term "The New Atheists". I think it sounds cool.

223. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47555 by roach on June 5, 2007 at 12:26 am

james,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. My frustration is not so much with religous people who (believe) they have much to lose but rather with secularists and agnostics who think that tolerating all manner of absurdity is the right and respectful thing to do.

I have acutally encountered people who state that opinions/beliefs are not open to debate and many agree with this ridiculous position. Would they have us debate facts instead? It really is a failure of our discourse.

I realize that my reply didn't address the issues you raised. Whereas you believe you would lose much if you were to embrace a naturalistic (nonsupernatural) world view, I would argue that you don't lose anything and have much more to gain. I will respond in more depth tomorrow if someone doesn't beat me to it.

Cheers.

224. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47544 by roach on June 4, 2007 at 11:35 pm

I can't debate sophisticated theists effectively. I assumed I could just let them talk and people would see right through their specious reasoning but nope. Even when I provide examples (essentially none of them are mine) demonstrating the absurdity of religious moderation I seem to come off as intolerant and closed-minded. It sucks. I don't know how Dawkins et al. deal with it.

225. TB and the Question of Evolution

Comment #46982 by roach on June 2, 2007 at 2:16 pm

I saw a funny line about micro/macroevolution once. It went something like this:

"Go ahead and tell me why microevoloution can't become macroevolution right after you tell me why I can't walk 1,000 miles one step at a time"

Does anyone with a firm understanding of evolution think this is a fair analogy?

226. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46829 by roach on June 1, 2007 at 9:45 pm

Good article. I'm pretty happy I no longer call myself an agnostic though. That fence really started to hurt my ass.

227. TB and the Question of Evolution

Comment #46800 by roach on June 1, 2007 at 5:10 pm

I agree with bornabaptist.

Everyone should be taught evolutionary biology. It is THE answer that explains why we are here. I was a political science major and I wish I would have been taught evolution properly. I continue to be fascinated by what it reveals about the human condition. It's a shame that the beauty of evolution isn't praised and pressed.

228. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43524 by roach on May 21, 2007 at 10:51 pm

I agree with Dave. That last comment by Hitches was hilarious.

229. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42770 by roach on May 19, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Okay so in binary 10 = 2 in decimal.

I'm already confused haha. But I'll try to understand a little more.

Apparently 10100101 = 165. Now I have to figure out how 165 is significant in QM. Hmmmm....

230. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42767 by roach on May 19, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Yorker: Your avatar is cool looking enough on the surface but I always assumed it was more than meets the eye.

Cheers

231. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42760 by roach on May 19, 2007 at 11:54 am

Yorker said: "This comments on this article have taught me something - there aren't any quantum physicists here, or at least none who also understand binary. :)" Are you a quantum physicist who also understands binary? That's awesome. You know what's sad? I don't think binary code was even mentioned throughout my education. I might as well have thought my computers and electronics functioned by magic. But I still don't understand it at all. Kinda sucks.

Oh well, I bet I could beat everyone who posts on this board at golf. That's gotta count for something right? No? Crap.

232. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42646 by roach on May 18, 2007 at 10:15 pm

Warning: This will be a rambling response

Hmm I read a little about the Holographic princple on wiki. It sounds quite similar to the Anti-De Sitter Conformal Field Theory correspondence mentioned in the above article.

Holographic principle: a speculative conjecture about quantum gravity theories, proposed by Gerard 't Hooft and improved and promoted by Leonard Susskind, claiming that all of the information contained in a volume of space can be represented by a theory which lives in the boundary of that region. In other words, if you have a room, you can model all of the events within that room by creating a theory which only takes into account what happens in the walls of the room.

from the article: all of that stuff going on inside the box can be described by a theory that lives on the walls of the box surrounding the interior. That's the correspondence.

Sounds like Turok is actually a fan of the Holographic principle (he better be!). But I doubt that he or Susskind think it should be applied to the mind.

So what's going on here? Leonard Susskind is a string theorist and is apparently regarded as "the father of string theory". If I was a betting man, I'd wager that there was a communication breakdown somewhere which led someone to postulate the "holographic principle of mind" and think he was onto something. Since these ideas are written in a mathematical language that only <%1 of the population can come close to understanding (after dedicating their lives to math/physics mind you) and they are trying to explain these concepts in simple english, it is not surprising that something was lost in translation. To me, it appears that someone took the holographic principle and foolishly attempted to apply it to arenas where it simply has no place. This seems to happen with many scientific postulations and theories. Why do we do this? We don't take ideas about how to win basketball games (i.e. the pick and roll) and attempt to apply them to tennis. I think it's simply a misunderstanding and it only further demonstrates that we must be extra careful with these ideas. Keep asking questions and don't jump to wild conclusions. Even if you're not a scientist (I'm not) you have to play by science's rules when discussing it.

Those damn misunderstandings. They're the pits. Heh, I actually think Turok misunderstands the anthropic principle. Was it his fault or did someone give him a crappy rendition of the anthropic principle? Who knows. But I have only thought of the anthropic principle as a logical counter to the "God did it" attempt at explaining the universe. I never thought of it as an explanation in and of itself.

233. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42643 by roach on May 18, 2007 at 9:41 pm

Heh. A lot of the article actually reads like a criticism/parody of religion.

234. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42639 by roach on May 18, 2007 at 8:48 pm

Okay so big bangs are caused and universes are produced by these theoretical brane collisions. But does that mean that other big bangs could/do happen in the universe we inhabit or would they only happen on the higher dimensional branes? That is, are the universes created by the collisions closed systems with their own time/energy/matter etc.?

I'm just trying to grasp the implications of the "theory". I used the quotes to emphasize that I know we're not talking about a scientific theory.

235. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42629 by roach on May 18, 2007 at 7:07 pm

That was great. Of course I don't understand a great deal of what I just read but wow. I hope we eventually have good reason to think that the cyclic universe is a reality. If time is infinite doesn't that mean that big bangs are, in a sense, happening all the time?

236. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42628 by roach on May 18, 2007 at 7:03 pm

I don't understand why people are so dismisive of philosophy. It is essential if we are to progress as a society. Isn't it? I mean, people seem to agree that science doesn't tell us what to do with the discoveries scientists make. Don't we have to employ philosophy when it comes to discussions on morals and ethics. Or am I missing something?

237. One side can be wrong

Comment #40770 by roach on May 14, 2007 at 11:43 pm

I'm very much hope we learn how life started on this planet. I've read that there are a number of hypotheses. But we can't postulate that God was responsible for the creation of life. It explains nothing and goes straight to an infinite regress. If you say "god did it" you are postulating eternal and infinitely complex life to explain the origin of life on Earth. What kind of sense does that make? NONE. Because you now have to explain how God came to be. It is not an ultimate explanation.

238. Kirk Cameron Proves That God Exists

Comment #40037 by roach on May 12, 2007 at 7:08 pm

I agree with catchy_nick. Hot damn!

239. Brazil Greets Pope but Questions His Perspective

Comment #39044 by roach on May 9, 2007 at 8:56 pm

Yeah I've heard that too. Doesn't sound like such a cool place.

240. Brazil Greets Pope but Questions His Perspective

Comment #39040 by roach on May 9, 2007 at 8:26 pm

Off topic: I heard that Brazilians have the second most sex on the planet. Something like 85% of them have sex at least once a week. Sounds like a cool place.

241. Interview with Pierre Rehov

Comment #37743 by roach on May 5, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Very interesting. But I don't think Islam is a beautiful religion. I've only read 15 or so pages from the Qur'an but it wasn't pleasant. I'm sure there are lots of beautiful people who happen to be Muslim though.

242. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest

Comment #37537 by roach on May 4, 2007 at 7:31 pm

Regarding Perran and retiredbiker's comments:

I trust your comments are largely facetious. Politicians and lawyers are heavily criticized simply because of their professions. It's just sad.

243. How multiculturalism is betraying women

Comment #37257 by roach on May 3, 2007 at 10:00 pm

Good points Bonzai.

But I think religious moderates sould rethink their position on their own religion and how they read the words of the "new atheists". I have never understood anyone to paint moderates and fundamentalists with the same brush.

244. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37130 by roach on May 3, 2007 at 12:49 pm

All the RRS has to do is let Cameron and Comfort talk. They'll quickly demonstrate they have nothing intelligent to say.

245. Richard Dawkins in the Time 100

Comment #37128 by roach on May 3, 2007 at 12:44 pm

ft77 and Steven Mading:

I think you know what I mean. I also don't think it's a gesture of good will. I only meant to suggest that the people at TIME think it is. And if anyone criticized the selection of Behe for this piece they could easily hide behind the mask of civility. I already said why I think having Behe write the bio is disingenuous and misinformative. Sorry I didn't make that more clear. But thanks for pointing out the shortcomings of my words.

246. Richard Dawkins in the Time 100

Comment #37109 by roach on May 3, 2007 at 12:00 pm

I can understand the reasons why they chose Behe to write the bio. It's a gesture of good will, civility, respect, etc. But the problem is that doing so implies that ID/creationism is on equal ground with evolution. Or at the very least suggests that ID is a worthy critique of evolution. The ID theory is superfluous or wrong. Neither option is respectable.

247. Richard Dawkins in the Time 100

Comment #37089 by roach on May 3, 2007 at 11:08 am

Heh. Behe reveals that ID is nothing more than creationism dressed up in technical language when he says: "The central idea—popular among readers and deeply unsettling among proponents of intelligent design like myself—is that religion is a so-called virus of the mind, a simple artifact of cultural evolution, no more or less meaningful than eye color or height." And then he mentions the Bible in his last paragraph!

So much for all of that "well we don't know who the designer is" bs.

248. Religion & Culture Panel

Comment #36289 by roach on April 30, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Cheers for Christopher Hitchens. If I had that voice I'd like to hear myself talk as well.

I simply cannot stand it when people (in this case Zachary Karabell and Jonathan Kirsch) agree that while relgion is often the source of nonsensical thinking and violent actions for many people, we shouldn't criticize it because irrationality and violence would exist anyway.

They also seem to be unable to make a distinction between criticizing beliefs and demonizing those who hold those beliefs. It is a most tiresome strawman. But they're not event doing it on purpose! It's as if they can't hear the words spoken or written by Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al. They all need to get themselves to a neurologist quick because something is obviously wrong with their visual and auditory wiring.

"To some degree!?" hahaha that was great.

There are other issues I have but I'll wait for more comments.

249. 'god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything' by Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36215 by roach on April 30, 2007 at 2:02 pm

I'm always shocked when I hear professional journalists, people who write for a living, questioning and criticizing books for "preaching to the choir". It's almost as if they are insulting their own profession. I mean, what's the point of writing anything?

I agree with Janus' assessment. Before I read The God Delusion I was a nonbeliever and secularist who wouldn't identify as an atheist. As if "atheist" is a dirty word! And I was careful not to criticize the beliefs of others. But these books really changed my perspective. I no longer stay muted and silent. If a conversation about religion comes up I gladly proclaim my disbelief and now I am now armed with solid reason and evidence.

The article says: "But if the effects of that prehistory are as "ineradicable" as he says they are, what hope have we?"

I wish this was a joke. What hope have we? I think we have much hope. Religion may not ever be completely stamped out. People will believe all types of nonsense. But why not try to improve ourselves through rational inquiry and conversation? I'm confident that violence, racial and sexual injustice, xenophobia, disease, etc. will never be completely eradicated either. But you don't see people drawing the same hopeless and helpless conclusion because these aspects of life are ineradicable. Quite the opposite actually. We want to fight and overcome these ugly facts of the world.

250. Two idiots get a forum

Comment #35712 by roach on April 28, 2007 at 1:29 pm

My thanks go to Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Their nonsense made me think of one of my favorite Simspons scenes...

Homer: Well no bears. The bear patrol must be working like a charm.

Lisa: That's specious reasoning dad.

Homer: Thank you honey.

Lisa: By your logic I could claim this rock keeps tigers away.

Homer: Oh yeah how does it work?

Lisa: It doesn't work.

Homer: Uh huh.

Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.

Homer: Uh huh.

Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around here. Do you?

Homer: *looks around* Lisa I'd like to buy your rock.

hahaha good times