I made a difference

I often wonder if the things I argue about on the (STOMP) forum would ever make at least some impact to somebody's life. I don't mean literally life altering but at the very least provoke them into thinking about the issues being discussed.

And then, I was pleasantly surprised when I saw the following:

Posted by Lucifer78
In fact, I like this type of exchanges in the forum. We can learn a lot on each other stand and strength our own "faith" in our individual stand. I learn more on the bibles from Veekee75 and more on science from Atheozoa (sorta of "converted" into atheist by him =p). It's quite healthy exchanges here as long as we dun flame each other ^^.

Before this particular post, I've already noted his apparent change in the style and content of his recent responses in this thread. But never did I realize that it was partially due to my influence.

I helped. And that matters.

Why immaterial?

I have been thinking. It seems that there is something fundamentally odd (perhaps, just plain wrong) with postulating an immaterial (and supernatural) entity as the creator of the universe.

I'm not exactly sure but the reason for adding such a property goes something like this: The universe (in its current state) is an effect whose cause is traced back to the Big Bang. No matter how science may attempt to explain using natural/material causes, it will eventually run into the problem that the cause must itself have been an effect. Thus it would only just add one more step to the regress.

The solution (in their opinion) is to postulate an immaterial (and/or supernatural, I don't think the distinction matters too much) agent (ie, god) to end the regress. Thus, it is also called the uncaused cause. Other properties that comes along include eternal and intelligent.

But I think it is just odd.

How does postulating an immaterial entity supposed to solve anything?

In fact, couldn't an immaterial cause be itself an immaterial effect and thus be no solution at all?

If the solution lies in the property of being eternal, why can't the cause be material?

Perhaps I'm just missing something and this post is just brain diarrhea.

Logic alone

It has always struck me as a little odd that theists use logical arguments for the existence of their god at all. Although it is notable that those arguments have always been found to be based on faulty logic, that I shan't pursue here. Even if it were granted that those arguments were logically sound, I'd still argue that it is insufficient grounds for belief in the existence of anything at all, let alone god.

Reasoning alone is insufficient - Evidence is another critical criteria that should be fulfilled before belief is reasonably warranted.

A logical argument, if correct, only shows that the entity in question may exist. Emphasis on "may" - It has merely demonstrates that the entity should theoretically be in existence. But it does not demonstrate that existence of the entity itself.

If the logical argument alone, without any evidence in favour of it being presented, is sufficient to warrant belief in the existence of the entity being argued for, how is any different from arguing something into existence (ie, irrational).

Furthermore, in case for the existence of a deity, it does not even inform what sort of properties such an entity has (other than the ones within the argument itself). So this makes even odder when theists jump straight for the conclusion that that god is their god.

Take the cosmological argument for the existence of god for example:
1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

If you accept the argument to be true (which I don't), it has demonstrates nothing about the existence of any gods.

So, there is a First Cause. So what?
The identity of that First Cause is unknown.
The current state of existence of it is also unknown.
The properties of that agent is also unknown if it is still in existence.
Any attempts to link the First Cause to any specific deity known to humanity is tenuous at best.

The same goes for all the alleged logical arguments for the existence of god.

No evidence.

Stars died for you

We are all literally made of stardust. Isn't that a beautiful thought (fact, rather)? This is because all higher elements are synthesized in stars. When stars explode later in their life, they release all those elements - carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, iron etc. And it is those higher elements that we're eventually made of.

That's Professor Lawrence Krauss in the video by the way.

Stars, the Furnaces of Life. Forget Jesus, the stars died for us.

Science, learning about the true wonders of the universe. Forget petty religions, think science and reason.

Is Atheism the New Fundamentalism?

I hasten to answer: Obviously NO.

But then I realize that most people haven't got a clue what atheism actually is. No need to even mention if they know what the "New Atheism" is actually about. As such, I would be misunderstood as being "fundamentalist".

Here's the playlist of videos for the Intelligence² Debate on the topic: Is Atheism the New Fundamentalism?

I love how Richard Dawkins addresses the charges made against atheism and the recent wave of "New Atheism". Clear as usual with doses of wit and humor. This is the first time I hear Prof. Grayling in a debate like this. I'm pleasantly amused by his style

As expected, the usual misunderstandings of atheism appeared in the debate (sadly, on the proposition's side as well... though I think it is a debate tactic to misrepresent your opponent).

I will address the few common misunderstandings here (yes, they've been addressed by Prof Dawkins and Grayling as well - I'm just bored, bleh).

I will be using the term "new atheist" to refer to the recent wave of atheists. But there's nothing new about new atheism other than the fact that we're more outspoken. Richard Dawkins has dealt with the perjorative connotations it comes with in the media.

So, moving on to the first misunderstanding...

[Part 5] 6:41 - 6:46
Is it not a fundamentalist position to say "There is no god"?

*Later in the video, Charles Moore actually claims that the new atheists were muddled between "probably no god" and "definitely no god".*

Yes, it is a fundamentalist position if you claim that to an absolute certainty dogmatically.

But the thing is, no rational atheist actually hold such a position. One common characteristic amongst the new atheists is that we are usually rationalists as well. Rationally, one cannot hold the belief that "there is no god" because we cannot be absolutely certain of a negative.

So we don't believe that "there is no god". Rather we don't believe that is a god or gods because of the lack of evidence for that proposition.

[Part 7] 6:08 - 6:21
Atheism fundamentalism is not a new phenomenon. If Professor Dawkins had learnt history of Russia and China, he would know that atheism conducted programs of violence against people of faith

Bullshit. Like Prof. Dawkins retort, it's a monstrous suggestion.

Stalin and Mao did not commit their atrocities in the name of atheism (indeed they couldn't have for there is no such logical pathway). In fact, both were simply operating within their political philosophies which are actually not very different from how religions manipulate the masses.

Prof. Dawkins begins his reply to the monstrous suggestion at 8:33. Prof. Grayling adds his insightful comments in Part 8 of the video following after Prof. Dawkins.

[Part 8] 4:20 - 4:35
It (the atheist bus campaign) said "God probably does not exist." Now, I'm a bit sad, I've got a dictionary along with me. Which suggest that someone of that point of view is an agnostic. Doesn't that mean that that's an agnostic bus campaign and you're agnostic.

Yes, actually. We're agnostic atheists (specifically a weak agnostic weak atheist).

'Agnostic' is used as an adjective. The same way we're agnostic about fairies because we cannot disprove them. Similarly, we're also a-fairyists - we don't believe in fairies as well.

Get it?

Retarded Creationists

This entry will be a follow-up rebuttal to the points the creationist (Wendy Wright) in this video have made. This is going to be long - and educational. And I will recommend videos along way - they explain more with illustrations.

Richard Dawkins tries really hard to explain that there is multitudes of evidence for evolution. Given the location of the interview, he cannot, of course, show the evidence themselves - that which Wendy wants to see now although she remains unconvinced despite having previously seen them (or so she claims).

Let's start. Here's the first video in question.

1:12 - 1:31
There has been an effort within the scientific community to censor out information... against evolution that proves that evolution may not be as many scientists believe. There has been many times in which evidence that was brought forward to bolster the idea of evolution turned out to be fraudulent.

Actually, no. There is no such thing. (Shocking, eh?)

The alleged frauds and hoaxes said to cast doubt or even disprove evolution were exposed by the scientific community itself. There is no need to "censor" such information simply because they known to be false. Not to forgetting to mention that they are not evidence that the case for evolution is built on.

Here's a video by AronRa that deals with a few of the hoaxes (Haeckel's drawings, Nebraska Man, Archeoraptor, etc) that creationists frequently claim to show that evolution is a fraud:

Moving on...

1:31 - 1:52
So what we argue for is to teach the controversy. Don't censor out the facts that goes against evolution... such as the famous pig's tooth, the tooth that was claimed to be an example of a prehistoric man and turned out to be just the tooth of a pig.

The "famous pig's tooth" example (Nebraska Man) has been dealt with in the video mentioned above.

What about teaching the "controversy" then? No, we shouldn't.

We should teach only science in a science class - thus only valid scientific theories should be taught. As much as creationists would like to believe the contrary, the Theory of Evolution is demonstrably true and is accepted by the scientific community. Non-scientific or even unscientific ideas have no place in the science curriculum.

We don't teach the "controversy" between Evolution and Creationism the same way we don't teach the controversy between Heliocentrism and Geocentrism. The same way we don't teach the controversy between Reproduction by Sex and by Storks. You get the idea (I hope).

2:36 - 2:45
There is no evidence of evolution from one species to another. There's microevolution within a species but not going from one species to another.

False. This is patently false.

There are plenty of transitional forms (ie, evidence of one species evolving to another) in the fossil record. In fact, EVERY fossil found is a transitional form.

I'd recommend these two videos, by AronRa and by standup4REALscience

3:11 - 3:58
Scientists are now claiming that they are the only ones that can speak on this issue. And yet when people who look at the evidence, go to the Smithsonian Museum on Natural History and when we look for where is the evidence to show evolution from one species to another all we find are drawings, illustrations, there aren't the actual material evidence showing it. So, while there are attempts to say that only scientists can speak on this. What we have are scientists that are then creating an isolated community and saying that we're the ones... almost like... it's almost like it's a religion in which only scientists can speak or teach on it and to teach everyone else and everyone else must believe what the scientists, what particular scientists, say...

This is what I call implicit arrogance. Look at the language used here. She paints a picture in a way that it seems that it is scientists who are being unfair. She goes so far as to claim that the scientists are operating as though they were a religion.

Now here's the wake up call.

YOU are not qualified to make valid comments with regards to the theory of evolution or any other scientific theory for the matter. If you're not trained in the field, you have as much to contribute to the discussion as a car mechanic has on performing a heart surgery.

Only scientists (biologists specifically for evolution) can speak on such issues because they are the only ones who are qualified.

So why did I say that she was being implicitly arrogant? Because she thinks her complete lack of qualifications (may I add critical thinking as well) trumps the scientific consensus by people who are trained and have worked in the field. Now, that's some fat-ass arrogance there.

6:07 - 6:34
The ad hominen attacks that people who have faith in evolution use against people who don't buy into that... I think shows the lack of confidence in the evidence. If evolution had so much evidence behind it then those people in favour wouldn't to be reduced to ad hominen attacks against those who say show us the evidence show us what's lacking

Ad hominen attacks? I'm guessing that that is referring to things like:

"You retard, can't you see the freaking evidence?"
"Faith-heads cannot be convinced even if you place the evidence right in front of them."
"Oh god, you moron. I can't be bothered to explain any further."

It's not the lack of confidence that result in such comments. It is the sheer exasperation when creationists refuse to be convinced even when presented with the multitudes of evidence for evolution.

It's NOT "you moron, you better believe what I believe."
It's more like "you moron, the bloody evidence is so freaking obvious."

7:28 - 7:39
What they claim to be the evolution of a foetus in the womb based on hand drawings which has been proven to be false and yet they continue to publish it in scientific textbooks.

That's about Haeckel's drawings. It was also discussed in the first video I recommended (watch it if you haven't).

The thing with Haeckel's drawings is that even though Haeckel admitted that a few of his drawings are not based on actual observation, he's still sort of correct.

Embryos do in fact look extremely similar during the early stages of development. Some of those features displayed during development are indicative of their evolutionary history (ie, evidence for evolution).

Here's a blog entry by biologist PZ Myers on the topic of Haeckel's embryos. (Extremely long article - you've been warned)

8:18 - 10:13 [End of video]
*Babbles on about morality and science then more on the alleged lack of evidence*

How we operate society is completely separate issue from the validity of a scientific theory. It is a naturalistic fallacy to claim that because evolution says so and so therefore we should/would do so and so.

That is a very simple concept to understand. We don't have to operate our society's on Darwinian principles. If the principles are true in nature, that's that. It is a retarded claim to say that those principles are false simply because we don't like them.

Facts are facts whether you like them or not.


** Wow, the sheer amount of crap in one video... I don't think I will start on the second one...

Our Universe

Everytime when I watch a video that explores the sheer magnitude of the universe and the celestial objects within it, I get shivers down my spine. The awe. The wonder. The pride in humanity for we have gone so far in trying to understand the universe.

Here's another one with a different presentation style.

And this one was the first one that really blew me away.