Comments by steve99

151. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #96847 by steve99 on December 11, 2007 at 2:22 am

Really, when your best friend is raped and that you could do nothing about it I think you may be in a better position think about just how offended I am by your suggestion that I am not "saved" or "born of God".

Having been in that position, I felt too angry to post anything, for fear of what I would have posted.

I am not usually one to say bad things about people, I always see if I can look for the best in them, but you I will make an exception for, there is nothing good in you at all

Still, his posts are a useful reference showing how religion corrupts, or is used by those already corrupted.

152. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96617 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 6:57 pm

They've done tests and stuff. Seriously. Prayer doesn't work.

I don't mean to worry you, but I am afraid they have only checked that prayer does not work in a good way. No scientific tests that I know of has shown that it is ineffective as a force for evil.

153. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96614 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 6:51 pm

Religious people have killed less people than non-religious people.

My response to this is.. aren't we lucky that weapons of mass destruction weren't invented when religious leaders ruled the world.

154. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96609 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 6:45 pm

Aww, go on! *Blush*

There are those of us who attempt subtlety, but I enjoy reading your responses... you seem to me to be something of an atheist "Caltrap". If you have not heard of this, the phrase "weapon made of sharp nails" is pretty descriptive.

(I am a Pratchett fan... this is from "Pyramids")

155. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96593 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 6:31 pm

Father Jon.

You want to promote Christianity because you believe it is less fanatic, and kills fewer people than a 'belief' in atheism. However, at no point do you promote Christianity on the basis of its truth, as that would be somewhat problematic.

Allow me to propose to you worship of the great prophet Zarquon. Guaranteed 50% less fanatic than Christianity, and 45% less murderous. Even better, the prophet wont turn up until the end of the universe, so no challenges to what the priests say!

Based on all your criteria, a far better bet for humanity! What do you say? Are you a convert?

156. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96533 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 5:18 pm

I've read many of your posts, and I feel my own posts are perfect retorts to your own.

I have no such hubris. I don't believe my posts are so finely tuned. I believe my posts either are far more than is necessary to demolish yours, or are too feeble to achieve that, and need the support of such eloquent writers as Diacanu, with a slight flavouring of Benway to achieve the desired effect.

157. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #96526 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 5:12 pm

They conclude this after one weekend in the USA?

Many films like this have gone on to make profits over the longer term, and also based on overseas sales.

158. The Pagan Christ

Comment #96521 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Certainly if you remove the supernatural from the picture, a dead body coming back to life isn't even on the list of possibilities. If you don't, then given the information at hand, I consider it to provide the best answer.

But why?

'natural' means 'we can use known ideas and methods to understand what is going on'.

'supernatural' means 'we can't use known ideas and methods to understand what is going on'.

Since when has 'I don't understand' provided any answers to anything?

I really wish that, just for once, someone would explain to me why adding the term 'super' to 'natural' assists in actually explaining anything at all.

159. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96511 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 4:43 pm

And for the same reason that the Jewish display does not have a message explicitly aimed at the Christians saying: "don't believe that crap" and vice-versa for the Christians against the Jews (it's implicit, not explicit)

Do you have a habit of posting without reading what is already on the site?

Please read comment #168.

160. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #96507 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Tch, chickens only have enough brainpower to keep their bodies fresh until you eat 'em.
*Evil grin*

You are certainly evil. But in a good way.

161. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96504 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 4:32 pm

however, it is inappropriate for ANY participant to be taking pot-shots at any of the other participants.

A Christian symbol says "Jesus was the messiah"

A Jewish symbol says "no he wasn't"

However, the pot-shots they take at each other is nowhere near as troubling as an atheist poster that says: "All religion is wrong; it may sometimes be dangerous"

162. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96472 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 3:20 pm

1) In the same way that it's not reasonable to link the brutal attempts to eradicate religion during the 20th century with all attempts to promote a world without religion, it's not reasonable to link the brutal mass murders of 9/11 with all religion.

Please read post #128 on this thread. It deals with this issue.

163. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96469 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 3:17 pm

That religion alone is responsible for 9/11 is too simplistic an explanation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/11/wbin11.xml

"In a previously undisclosed video which has been In the footage, shot in the Afghan mountains at the end of October, a smiling bin Laden goes on to say that the World Trade Centre's twin towers were a "legitimate target" and the pilots who hijacked the planes were "blessed by Allah".

To claim that religion alone was responsible is indeed too simplistic. But religion oils the wheels. It allows people to be manipulated. Blessed are you who fly your planes into buildings. You are martyrs, and you will gain your place in paradise.

164. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96445 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Nooo, now you're being thick. Theists are as a group being associated with mass murder -- that's an attack.

No, theists as a group are not being associated with mass murder. The problem with religious symbols in public is that they promote theism as a general unqualified good. The twin towers poster contradicts that naive generalization. It does not claim that all religion is bad, just that if there was no religion, then religion could not have been used to manipulate people to destroy the twin towers and kill thousands.

The message of the poster, in my view, is not 'religion must go', but 'religion had better shape up, or ship out'.

165. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96433 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 2:21 pm

But in this case the people who are complaining of being attacked have good reason to say: "hey, that's in bad taste. We're being attacked".

Sorry, but I am fully with Diacanu and others in this. In a country that has been changed so much by the literal impact of faith, on 9/11, anyone wanting to promote faith in public is not in a position to complain about any public response.

166. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96420 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 1:59 pm

At a multicultural display which is intended to provide a community forum for people of diverse beliefs and cultures to set aside their differences and enjoy one another's traditions and culture, yes. You should give it a rest.

It is not about setting aside differences:

The town issued permits to the Atheist group to put the sign in the park. They also issued permits to a group of churches that plans to put a nativity scene and to a local synagogue to put up a menorah.

Where are the permits for the Muslims? For the Buddhists?

It sounds to me like nothing more than a poster area for those local groups with enough influence to promote their beliefs. And it is good that enough atheists came forward.

167. The Pagan Christ

Comment #96415 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 1:50 pm

I know the Mithras story.

Perhaps, but who could resist the way Stephen Fry tells it?

168. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96404 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 1:34 pm

It is reasonable for someone who considers themselves to be religious to feel personally attacked by the connection being made between religion and 9/11.

Yes, it is. That is because it is reasonable for them to consider that their faith is being attacked for being a to route irrational behaviour. And it is reasonable because it is. Not the only route, but certainly one of them.

And perhaps this feeling of being personally attacked will do good. Perhaps the next time they rant at a gay couple for their lifestyle, they will remember the image of faith taken to extremes, and they will worry about the implications of their faith.

169. The Pagan Christ

Comment #96383 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Best wishes, and happy Christmas.

Enjoy your Christmas!

Although you may want to watch this before claiming December 25th for Jesus:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1964,Merry-Mithras-2007,QI-Stephen-Fry

Have a good holiday. Try not to be put off by some of the ruder posters here...

170. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96363 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 12:52 pm

The Stalinist ideology formally called-for the eradication of religion.

Until, at a certain stage in the second world war, he decided religion was useful.

171. The Pagan Christ

Comment #96360 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 12:47 pm

I'M John Frum!!!!

No, I'M Spartacus (sorry) John Frum!

172. ...and another FLEA...

Comment #96358 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 12:42 pm

Still no Hitchens fleas!

Knowing Hitchens' writing style and wit, they are probably too scared. I know I would be.

Dawkins may be Darwins' Rottweiler, but Hitchens is Atheism's alligator.

173. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96351 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 12:35 pm

you might like to reflect that the towers symbolise NOTHING.

And that is the power of the poster. The towers did not represent any belief, other than the wonder of architecture. They had become a much loved building in a city of all cultures; the city that welcomed those from all cultures to a land of freedom. They were not a bank, representing money. They were not a government building, representing politics. They were not a cathedral, representing religion. They were simply a place where thousands of people of all religions and races went about their businesses.

174. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96338 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 12:04 pm

What do the twins towers symbolize?

Alongside the Buddhas of Bamyan, and the dome of the Golden Mosque, they symbolise the destructive power of faith.

Accept belief without evidence as a guiding principle of your life, and you can find a path to horrific destruction; and "God" help the infidels or heretics who stand in your way.

175. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96333 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 11:45 am

If humans can be observed, and God cannot, how does the "unlikelyness" of humans existing, help the theist?

Because to the theist who does not understand the origins of complexity, the existence of all these humans apparently illustrates that very complex and organised things have supposed come from supposedly nowhere. Not only that, all these stars, these galaxies, all apparently precisely arranged, have supposedly come from nowhere. It is all so very unlikely, they argue, so surely it is not just a big deal to add just a bit more unlikeliness and allow for God, and that God explains the galaxies, the stars, and especially, the people. It all fits together nicely.

They are combining two sets of arguments:

1) I feel that God exists from personal introspection and revelation and
2) My understanding of the Universe and probability means that God could exist.

The way to deal with this is to show that personal introspection and revelation is no reason to believe anything (almost any lecture by Dan Dennett or V.S. Ramachandran will show that), and to tell such people about Natural Selection and that our current understanding of physics shows that complexity can come out of almost nothing.

176. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96301 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 10:18 am

Why is it that people insist on talking about something very technical when they clearly have no understanding of it?

That, to me, is one of the greatest mysteries in our world.

Edit:

Huh? That was strange comment!

Sorry to disagree, Brian, but I think it is a useful comment, as it is wrong in an interesting way. It is just the kind of comment a theist who did not take in the message of Evolution - that in our universe, apparent current complexity can have simple origins, would make. And if it took a mind as fine as that of Douglas Adams several readings through books by Dawkins to understand the issue of complexity, then it is likely to be a common point of view.

177. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96299 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 10:16 am

I think it would be a wise idea to drop the argument that the probability of god existing is very low because an opponent could counter with the observation that the probability of humans existing is also very low, and yet we do, indeed, exist.

On the contrary, I think it is a profound argument that more of the religious need to understand. I think Dawkins was very wise to discuss it.

I understand your point, but we are talking about origins, not outcomes.

We have (mostly) no difficulty explaining how humans arose from simple origins. Given certain multiverse ideas, the possibility even of humans arising is pretty much 100%, but that is no argument for anything, as even multiverses have simple origins according to current theories. The god of the theists is not a simple origin, even though some theologists attempt to label him so.

178. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96272 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 9:07 am

try telling that to someone who suffers from the aforementioned list of afflictions (and i'll add cervical cancer to the list).

What a silly comparison. Every operation has risks, no matter how trivial. There have been recent reports of people dying from even apparently minor cosmetic surgery. Putting people who can't consent at risk even of minor infection when there is no medical need is outrageous.

179. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96191 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 6:21 am

About the fine-tuning of the universe: I never forget that example of Douglas Adams of a 'thinking' pool: "Oh, look how nice I fit in this bowl I'm lying in. There has to be Somebody Who created it just for me!"

Not that again... :)

It does, of course, assume the existence of bowls in the first place :)

But I shall stop there.....

180. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96182 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 6:01 am

what kind of evidence would we need to confirm his existence

Someone actually wrote an article about these recently. I forget where. But they came up with a good idea. It is pretty hard to think of evidence for a supernatural God of the theist kind, as almost any alternative explanation would be more probable, however, an unquestionable sign of a creator of the universe (who might be an intelligent natural being in another universe) would be something like a message written in to the cosmic microwave background radiation.

181. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96177 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 5:54 am

Brian yes... I suffered from a 'dangling it'.

182. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96173 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 5:40 am

..but that's why I don't understand why Dawkins even bothers to talk about God in terms of probabilities....

If I may add something...

It is because some theists reason like this (simplifying hugely):

"Wow! Look at this universe. Assuming the physical constants could vary withing a certain range, and any value was possible, then it looks incredibly contrived to say that a universe suitable for complexity and life "just exists" - someone must have arranged for this to have come into being".

However, such a "someone" as theists define the term - a thinking being of infinite extent and power, who can personally interact with all of the universe, and listen to and answer prayer, is phenomenally complex, and you can't hand-wave that complexity away by just saying "he is supernatural".

So, if an uncaused finely-tuned universe seems very contrived, that is nothing compared to asking people to accept the uncaused existence of a God - God is far less probable to have popped into existence spontaneously.

183. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96158 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 5:00 am

So are you saying that there were lots of goes at getting worlds started and because of the huge number of attempts, one of them (at least) succeeded?

Until we have a larger survey of the universe, we don't know. Also, using the phrase 'goes at getting worlds started' suggests this was some kind of deliberate action.

The point I am trying to make is that even if the origin of life, and the evolution of intelligent beings, seems like something that is highly improbable on any given planet, the sheer unimaginable number of planets means that it could well be highly probable overall.

184. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #96153 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 4:39 am

Be as it may, but it does demonstrate how moronic and vacuous the claims of 'mainstream Christianity' are. Get them outside of their faith bubble and most of them can operate like the rest of us. When 'in the zone' they make as much sense as underpants on a kipper.

Oh, I know that. It is just that "hey dude, you are a moron" is perhaps not the best way to convince people of your case....

185. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #96152 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 4:38 am

I wouldn't dismiss the random quantum fluctuation hypothesis so easily Steve.

I'm not. I was just in disagreement that there is any kind of real consensus.

186. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96135 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 3:35 am

But that is my point!

Dawkins tells us the the probability of the existence of God is very small.

...but at the same time, the probability that we exist is small too.....but we do!

Actually, no. I explained it wrong. The probability of any individual occurrence of evolution may be very small, but accumulate that over the universe, and the probability may approach 100%

187. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96126 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 3:20 am

Indeed, after all, what was the probability that we should have evolved as we have?

Does anyone have a scientific answer?

That is not the right question.

Every time you shuffle a pack of cards, you get an unlikely arrangement. Does that mean that need anything special to explain that arrangement?

I think the right question is "what are the chances of evolution leading to complex life and intelligence".

Considering the sheer size of the universe, that could be incredibly small and still occur frequently. We normally aren't used to dealing with probabilities of billions or trillions to 1, but even those would mean that complex intelligent life occurred many, many times in the universe.

188. The Pagan Christ

Comment #96115 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 2:55 am

Where would they ever come up with the notion that the Messiah was supposed to die as part of the plan? It certainly wasn't coming from what they had been taught culturally.

It almost certainly was. There was a long history of resurrected saviours. Dionysus, Mithra and so on. Let's put it this way - the tellers of the story of Jesus would not have been put off by the fact that he was reported as dying. They knew how they could spin it.

I find your alternative extremely unlikely.

As unlikely as a God coming to Earth, dying and being resurrected? Come on - almost anything is more likely than that. Seriously.

189. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #96111 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 2:42 am

Actually Brian, physicists are reasonably sure that the universe emergered as a result of a spontaneous quantum fluctuation

Not really. There are new ideas that should be testable in the new future, such as the ekpyrotic origin.

And, as for ADH, I don't think insults are appropriate. Like it or not, his views are mainstream Christianity, and we aren't going to get anywhere by calling him 'moronic' or 'vaccuous'.

190. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95939 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Just as the World War 2 illustrates the dangers of steel!

Well, if you consider people to be simply a material to be manipulated for whatever ends those in authority wish.

Faith makes people malleable, it allows people to be shaped and molded by the wicked.

191. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #95923 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 1:30 pm

But positting a materialistic oriin for the universe and for life is clearly a metaphysical position.

I don't think that is what is being argued. The problem is when people claim, without evidence, to know what the origin of the universe of of life is. We just don't know. And it is a little bit premature to claim it was God, isn't it?

In that sense it is a "faith": "matter-cum-energy" of the gaps.

Gosh no. We assume nothing. We are simply trying to use the tools that have worked in the past to probe further.

The problem with your approach is that theist explanations have been thrown out and replaced by naturalistic ones at an increasing pace over the centuries. It does make me wonder at what point the theists will see where the trend leads.

192. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95917 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 1:16 pm

He used Christianity.

Which helps illustrate the dangers of faith.

193. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95893 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 12:27 pm

They are just using religion (or being used by their equally greed-driven manipulators) to gild the walls of the prison-cells of their own egos - just as many others use atheism for the same purpos.

The issue is not really between theism and atheism. It is between faith and rationality. Atheism is simply a frequent consequence of not believing claims without corroborated evidence.

194. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #95876 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 11:45 am

it is turning out to be rather different from what Darwin envisaged.

Not really. The principle Darwin suggested as the mechanism of evolution - Natural Selection - has not been questioned.

But even if it turn out different, that is irrelevant. Darwin had a major impact because he discovered that complexity could arise without a creator.

195. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #95854 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 10:58 am

What about theistic evolutionists or ID proponents with credentials equivalent to those of Michael Behe?

ID has been clearly identified as evidence-denying creationism.

It sort of confirms the impression that faith and science are at war with each other.

Aren't they?

196. The art of the soluble

Comment #95826 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 9:39 am

See, #2, #4, #17 and don't forget #221

Yes, this is an excellent idea. There was discussion about this previously, and it may have lead to the 'debating points' topic a while back. However, that did not result in what you should suggest.. something like a numbered list of links to explanations.

To say that he has laid these arguments to rest strikes me as something o an exaggeration :-)

Seems I have to go through this again.

What Stenger attempts to show is that there is nothing to be explained in terms of fine tuning. However, that issue seems not to have been 'laid to rest', as Stenger's views are controversial.

What people have patiently been trying to explain to you is... "something to explain that we don't know about" does not mean you get to put God into the gap. That is just silly. It is philosophical nonsense. You don't explain something that looks just a bit complex and tuned by invoking the existence of something as vast and infinitely complex like an all-knowing supernatural mind. It is not just a wrong explanation, it is not even the kind of thing that makes sense as an explanation.

Do you understand now?

197. The art of the soluble

Comment #95818 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 9:27 am

There is an entire section in Victor Stengor's excellent book that deals specifically with this question and does so in a way that is, in my personal opinion, the best I've yet seen.

The problem is that many highly respected physicists consider Stenger wrong about this. I believe the way we deal with this issue is not to (even with the best intentions) cherry-pick the physicist who has the most convenient view, but to point out the logical fallacy of assuming that even if the universe is a highly improbable bit of fine tuning, this is in no way any kind of argument for a supernatural 'first cause' God.

198. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95811 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 9:00 am

Or is he saying that, by some curious twist of fate, we have been genetically endowed with the ability to transcend our genetic endowment? Is this logically coherent?

I am not sure what 'genetic endowment' is supposed to mean in this context. Once a species have brains above a certain size, they gain independence from instinct. Not every thought or action is determined by DNA.

199. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95808 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 8:52 am

Personally, I would hardly consider being declared 'god' by the senate is any proof that one is a god. Now if he had said he was god and then disappeared or flew or could do something not physically possible, then that would cause me to at least think twice, but the senate...

Presumably people at the time did believe that Julius Caesar could perform miracles, as he was prayed to and worshipped.

200. The art of the soluble

Comment #95800 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 8:28 am