tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post7932375688183587105..comments2024-03-17T05:03:46.056-07:00Comments on xkcd sucks: Comic 773: Not the Info You're Looking ForCarlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comBlogger293125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-82269165360877879202010-08-05T06:21:02.959-07:002010-08-05T06:21:02.959-07:00Hmm, thanks for that. Food for thought. And isn...Hmm, thanks for that. Food for thought. And isn't that why I come here, after all?<br /><br />Well, back to analysing comics, I suppose - for me at least.J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-43151935296505337642010-08-04T18:59:33.758-07:002010-08-04T18:59:33.758-07:00haha "@GodBotherer1 Do atheists go around pus...haha "@GodBotherer1 Do atheists go around pushing their beliefs? No? That's my point. Atheism is an understanding, when people understand it they throw god in the bin <i>where he belongs</i>."R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-87581459753254677982010-08-04T15:13:02.799-07:002010-08-04T15:13:02.799-07:00why do people always assume I care?why do people always assume I care?rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-53538351880876557972010-08-04T13:42:29.273-07:002010-08-04T13:42:29.273-07:00I don't know what's funnier, the fundie at...I don't know what's funnier, the fundie atheists who insist they are not fundie then rant how they are the only rational, logical and most probably true ones (99% true!) meaning anyone else is irrational, illogical and liars, or perhaps it's the christians who think they worship a different god to muslims and jews (HINT: there's an old testament too). No, I decided Rob is funniest for caring more about this than any fundie. A really top-notch fence sitting job you did there, I think you've earned the title of fundamentalist devils advocate.<br /><br />Oh, and for palochka, Robs position from what I gather is that he is not persuaded by the evidence, but other people could be and that both positions are equally valid/invalid. Or, at least, if other people aren't persuaded by the evidence, they should accept that other people can be persuaded and yes if they don't shut the fuck up about it they're just as much of an asshole as the next evangelical scum.<br /><br />Oh, and BTW <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U58wgn-9Y3c&feature=related" rel="nofollow">this</a> is how a proper fundie atheist operates.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-32702199758622243332010-08-04T04:38:47.812-07:002010-08-04T04:38:47.812-07:00rob you wouldnt understand you're not doing a ...rob you wouldnt understand you're not doing a real science dregree, like me.<br /><br />also- funny that i call ranDULL out on being a secret fundie christian and the new comic is on the topic of discrediting evolutionary psychology.<br /><br />COINCEDINCE? I THINK NOT.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-65686714436075014962010-08-04T04:29:34.401-07:002010-08-04T04:29:34.401-07:00I see lots of evidence for micro-erosion, but wher...I see lots of evidence for micro-erosion, but where is your evidence for macro-erosion?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-22873911847622250052010-08-04T02:18:54.929-07:002010-08-04T02:18:54.929-07:00man
the worst internet arguments are evolution one...man<br />the worst internet arguments are evolution onesrshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-34252851882685425412010-08-04T01:59:48.432-07:002010-08-04T01:59:48.432-07:00Raven, I don;t know if you;re trolling or just wil...Raven, I don;t know if you;re trolling or just willfully wrong headed.<br /><br />- the thing about harmful mutations is that they aren't passed on as readily as benifical ones- ergo, they are retained.<br />It's not like if I pop out a baby sheep or something with no arms and legs or balls they're going to toxify the genepool and cause all the other sheep to be born legless and sterile. <br />but if I give mirth to an unbelivably attractive smelling sheep then it'll pass on it's genes, even though sexy sheep are rarer than ugly sheep. The benificial mutations count more because they're not rooted out. <br /><br />Also- I donno where you picked up this "macro-micro" evolutionary distinction- but it seems to be feeding your confirmation bias.<br /><br />Macro evolution IS microevolution, the distinction is just the timescale- saying the two are different is extremely iffy.<br /><br />The two are inextricable- it's like trying to look at the motion of free flying dust without looking at the atomic collisions with the air.<br />Little changes adding up- you see.<br /><br />capcha: sphitimp- a sphincter impTrollbitchhttp://www.asdf.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-69436702748678505412010-08-04T01:30:53.971-07:002010-08-04T01:30:53.971-07:00"Still waiting on an answer, Rob - is it epis..."Still waiting on an answer, Rob - is it epistemologically irresponsible to say "given all the different religions around with their contradictory bodies of evidence, my chosen position is one of atheism by default, as the one thing all religions (not sects) have in common is their denial of others"? In that sense, each religion is refuted far more often than it is confirmed, so atheism by default seems plausible."<br /><br />sorry, either missed or forgot about your post earlier. (in the future you might want to try 'did you miss my post earlier?' because 'still waiting for your response' sounds kind of petulant.)<br /><br />you can be an atheist all you want, dude. my issue is with people who think that they are right and everyone else is dumb--or rather, who think it strongly enough that they decide to go out and proselytize, not out of any sense of altruism, but because they just can't stand other people being wrong.<br /><br />though as an aside, I don't think "atheism" is necessary any more plausible or reasonable a default assumption than "all these religions exist, so maybe there is a god and none of them are right" or deism or whatever.<br /><br />many Christian philosophers argue that all of the other religions point to Christianity, because they are all fairly similar. were I a theist I'd find it more compelling to say that all these religions point to (a) the fact that humans are stupid, petty, and vindictive and (b) the fact that there is probably a god out there and it's super unlikely that he actually inspired any of these alleged holy books.<br /><br />I'm not a theist, of course, but it's the theistic position I find most tenable. (sadly, universalism doesn't fit super well with the dogma of most religions.)<br /><br />"Of course confirmation bias exists. Of course a rationalising human mind cannot perceive an abstract "truth". Does that mean that attempts to be rational are inherently meaningless? I would not say so. They might be limited, or "bounded" if you prefer, but they are not meaningless."<br /><br />eh, make your own meaning. while everyone may always be wrong about everything, as one of my favorite writers once said, "we don't have to live that way." the important thing is to keep it in mind.<br /><br />which is to say, it's very likely I'm wrong about most things, but so far my mind is, if nothing else, a useful guide. as is my usual <br /><br />"Put it like this: were sufficient evidence offered for the existence of any god, I would gnash my teeth and eventually convert. I would hate doing so, but I would do it. I've done it before, when other pet beliefs were challenged. I know and understand that my basic bias would mean that "sufficient evidence" would need to be somewhat more overwhelming than, say, for a physics theory which I care little about, and I do my best to compensate for that."<br /><br />see? I like you. someone who is aware of his biases and takes guard against them, etc etc.<br /><br />"And I don't try and convert people unless they try and convert me - even though I consider my worldview superior (of COURSE I do, on some level, or there would be no reason to stick to it in the face of social rewards). "<br /><br />the important thing is not thinking that other beliefs are inferior. it's a subtle difference, really--but I'm sure (based on your characterization here) you have met Christians whose beliefs you have respected and possibly even admired.<br /><br />for the fundie, this is pretty much impossible. people who do not hold to their worldview are enemies who hold an inferior position. and for some reason they are apparently incapable of understanding, people think that they're being assholes when they attack these inferior monsters for being so inferior.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-47518505697591866142010-08-04T01:07:21.290-07:002010-08-04T01:07:21.290-07:00Still waiting on an answer, Rob - is it epistemolo...Still waiting on an answer, Rob - is it epistemologically irresponsible to say "given all the different religions around with their contradictory bodies of evidence, my chosen position is one of atheism by default, as the one thing all religions (not sects) have in common is their denial of others"? In that sense, each religion is refuted far more often than it is confirmed, so atheism by default seems plausible. <br /><br />The fact that I also have a worldview and beliefs that make atheism attractive aside, of course. I personally like the metamorphic model of social power, as well. Doesn't mean I believe it's true. <br /><br />Of course confirmation bias exists. Of course a rationalising human mind cannot perceive an abstract "truth". Does that mean that attempts to be rational are inherently meaningless? I would not say so. They might be limited, or "bounded" if you prefer, but they are not meaningless. But this is all a bit of a tangent to my original question. Put it like this: were sufficient evidence offered for the existence of any god, I would gnash my teeth and eventually convert. I would hate doing so, but I would do it. I've done it before, when other pet beliefs were challenged. I know and understand that my basic bias would mean that "sufficient evidence" would need to be somewhat more overwhelming than, say, for a physics theory which I care little about, and I do my best to compensate for that. <br /><br />And I don't try and convert people unless they try and convert me - even though I consider my worldview superior (of COURSE I do, on some level, or there would be no reason to stick to it in the face of social rewards).J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-83210930813174162952010-08-03T23:46:05.990-07:002010-08-03T23:46:05.990-07:00Gamer_2k4: see, there are two levels of bullshit d...Gamer_2k4: see, there are two levels of bullshit detection that filter out crazy stuff that people make up all the time. One is "is there any scientific evidence for this thing?". And another is "Does this thing follow the current science paradigm (i.e. does it follow the laws of physics as we know them).<br /><br />If there is evidence, but it doesn't fit the paradigm then I'll agree it is believable. Case in point: the behavior of electromagnetic fields couldn't be explained before Einstein invented relativity. Most of physics works this way: observe discrepancies from the current theory -> change the current theory to fit the evidence.<br /><br />If there is no evidence, but it does fit the paradigm, then I'll agree it is believable. Examples: Higgs Boson, black holes before they were actually observed and so on. If a scientific theory predicts that some things could exist, then it is conceivable that such things may actually exist.<br /><br />If there is no evidence, and it doesn't fit the paradigm then it is bullshit. Either find the evidence of find a way to explain it using existing laws of physics. God falls straight into this category. There is simply no reason to believe it is not a bullshit hypothesis.Timofeihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06478844501804517520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-81901376371646653822010-08-03T22:49:09.794-07:002010-08-03T22:49:09.794-07:00ehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehrshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-6969367677860822792010-08-03T21:22:24.225-07:002010-08-03T21:22:24.225-07:00For Christ's sake.
Rob,if you're not tr...For Christ's sake. <br /><br />Rob,if you're not trolling, if you seriously think that Buddhism/Jainism/atheist Hindu sects/secular humanism/raelianism/whatever are all sects of one religion called atheism then you're an idiot. I'm sorry to say that because I like this blog, but that is just too goddamn ignorant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-54512893301243934162010-08-03T21:18:21.910-07:002010-08-03T21:18:21.910-07:00"thank you for using the word "skeptic&q..."thank you for using the word "skeptic" to mean what it's supposed to mean. I always want to strangle Dawkins-ites who call themselves skeptics because they don't believe in homeopathy or whatever."<br /><br />I find it rather funny that quite a few of the people who claim to be skeptics seem to readily accept absolutes as fact. Kind of completely misses the point.Socrates's disciplenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-25535076774055801042010-08-03T21:12:25.509-07:002010-08-03T21:12:25.509-07:00don't apologise to me. apologise to GOD.
or m...don't apologise to me. apologise to GOD.<br /><br />or me, i guess that works tooAnn Apolishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08566528013026340201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-68395983530721801402010-08-03T19:48:54.886-07:002010-08-03T19:48:54.886-07:00man Ann, sorry I haven't done that yet. it'...man Ann, sorry I haven't done that yet. it's still sitting in my inbox. problem is people are commenting way more than they used to so i get lost in e-mails too much.Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-16601096010483459622010-08-03T19:47:59.398-07:002010-08-03T19:47:59.398-07:00God will continue to hate you until you post QCSuc...God will continue to hate you until you post QCSucksAnn Apolishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08566528013026340201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-45038622486229314412010-08-03T19:43:55.607-07:002010-08-03T19:43:55.607-07:00man i hate it when that happensman i <i>hate</i> it when that happensCarlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-28359531108604041502010-08-03T19:33:22.519-07:002010-08-03T19:33:22.519-07:00carl it is more likely that there is a God as you ...carl it is more likely that there is a God as you are a wholly terrible person how dare you<br /><br />this is just an infinitesimal fragment of your true punishment, awaiting your demise so your true life of pain and anguish can beginR.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-3219923073312260422010-08-03T19:20:29.963-07:002010-08-03T19:20:29.963-07:00I HATE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU SO MUCH I CANNOT ...I HATE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU SO MUCH I CANNOT BEAR IT<br /><br />this entire tedious argument is proof that god hates me, or that he doesn't exist.Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-87350881086420289242010-08-03T19:16:30.966-07:002010-08-03T19:16:30.966-07:00Annie: "PEOPLE. I think what Rob means by &qu...Annie: "PEOPLE. I think what Rob means by "atheism" is what you mean by "secular humanism", OK, so just do a mental find-and-replace and we can all be happy forever"<br /><br />no, secular humanists are generally decent people who actually like other humans and think that we ought to treat them like they are also decent people (cf. Kurt Vonnegut).<br /><br />patchouli: "Alright, by refusing to actually make an argument beyond "no u", Rob is officially just trolling."<br /><br />did you miss the rest of the words in my post? the ones where I explained, in detail, that your argument at no point comes into contact with reality?<br /><br />why do people who I'm accusing of confirmation bias insist on demonstrating that I'm correct in such an obnoxious, un-self-aware way?<br /><br />"What does "fundie atheist" even mean?"<br /><br />fundie atheist is a phrase that was built as an analogy to "fundamentalist Christian." it is a term which refers to atheists who behave more or less identically to fundamentalist Christians--militant evangelizing, hateful invective, a stubborn refusal to even consider the fact that they might be wrong, and a firm conviction that their position is the only morally and intellectually acceptable position on the planet. this is usually accompanied by an unironic ability to say that this is because it is true.<br /><br />"And if we were talking about ANYTHING ELSE apart from their right to take someone else's rights away, you'd be onto something there."<br /><br />so, if someone tries to take someone's rights away, it's okay to take their rights away?<br /><br />you didn't say "take their rights away with respect to other people's rights." I'm totally okay with a law which makes it illegal to try to strip rights from another group of humans. I'm not okay with saying "well, X group hates Y group, so we should just take away X group's rights." that's really being just as bad as the first group--especially since you're blaming all of religion for what a subset of them did.<br /><br />"That's what Prop 8 was. And that's what the divorce referendum was. How you don't find that sickening is beyond me. "<br /><br />who says I didn't find it sickening? I just don't find that "removing what is arguably the single most important right in a democratic society from a massive group of people" is an ideal solution.<br /><br />I am all in favor of regulating campaign contributions so that people from Utah can't buy California elections. I'm all for protecting underprivileged groups against the tyranny of the majority. but just like I don't think that the solution to racial discrimination is to make it so white people aren't allowed to vote, I don't think that the solution to religious discrimination is to make it so religious people aren't allowed to vote.<br /><br />oh, and I don't blame religion for religious people being evil. there are some cases of brainwashing/conditioning/bad upbringing, sure. but I think that people will be evil even if there's never been such a thing as religion. people would discriminate against homosexuality still. it's the other. they think it's weird, or icky. people don't like when something doesn't fit in their boxes.<br /><br />"See, I'm a skeptic. I'm an agnostic. And I don't need to bring the evidence. Because I don't know a goddamn thing. "<br /><br />thank you for using the word "skeptic" to mean what it's supposed to mean. I always want to strangle Dawkins-ites who call themselves skeptics because they don't believe in homeopathy or whatever.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-73126307759831966202010-08-03T19:13:11.228-07:002010-08-03T19:13:11.228-07:00Anon 6:27
You seriously think that only religious...Anon 6:27<br /><br />You seriously think that only religious fundies are homophobic? <br /><br />Yes, religion plays a big part in spreading memes, but those memes are already part of society, and religions reflect those on a larger scale. There are large sections of the Old Testament about how you should keep your slaves, the reason they're ignored today is that as a culture we've moved on. This is good evidence that if homosexuality was declared universally legal tomorrow then within 50 years or so the religious institutions would quietly back down on their homophobic posturing and start endorsing free will or some other tenet of religion to 'prove' that homosexuality is ok and that it always was, the same way they used to talk about white man's superiority over the lesser men and beasts and now they like to pretend that they never said any such thing.<br /><br />I'm not saying that religion can't do harmful shit, only that they do it because society as a whole agrees with them and lets them do it.Jennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-49331959973203281522010-08-03T19:12:24.783-07:002010-08-03T19:12:24.783-07:00"So for the last time, I am not trying to con..."So for the last time, I am not trying to convince you to be an atheist. I am trying to convince you that atheists do not need to make any leap of logic to arrive at their position, no matter how much noise they may make about it."<br /><br />you know how to solve this argument? You want to know how to show you don't make any leaps of logic? Prove that God doesn't exist. Prove with objective, factual, evidence that God does not and CANNOT exist. Prove the negative beyond a shadow of a doubt. <br /><br />Except it's impossible.<br /><br />Rationality isn't a foundation. Rationality is a process, a way of thinking (And before you pedants start on about "oh, but I think rationality means this" blah blah...stop nitpicking and pay attention.) You start with an assumption and work your way from there. Theists assume there is a God, and they'll see that god when they go looking for him. Atheists assume there isn't a god, and when they look, they find him lacking. So what truth is valid? <br /><br />Well it's like that old cat in a box. Mr. Schrodinger's experiment is quite handy in this discussion. See, Plato had a similar idea when it came to shadows on a cave wall. Something is causing those shadows, but all the information, all the EVIDENCE, you have on that object is indirect. What you see from its shadows. You don't KNOW what the object is. You can guess, you can infer, but you don't know.<br /><br />Same with the cat in the box. Put a cat in a box with a decaying atom, and close the box. At that moment, the cat is both alive and dead, but once you open the box, the cat is either alive OR dead. Well, right now God is in that box. God is causing those shadows on the wall. You assume God doesn't exist, and so your logic, your rationality leads you to the conclusion that God doesn't exist.<br /><br />Or for a bit of tautological fun..."God doesn't exist, therefore god doesn't exist." Notice the problem there? It's a logical fallacy, circular logic. You assume god doesn't exist, so you claim with certainty that he doesn't, because your reason has led you down that path. But where's the evidence that turns that truth to fact? Have you turned to see at the object in front of the fire? Have you opened the box? <br /><br />If you have, I will gladly listen to your evidence. But for some reason, I think you will simply ignore this again and say something about how logic is flawless and if god exists why don't I bring the evidence.<br /><br />See, I'm a skeptic. I'm an agnostic. And I don't need to bring the evidence. Because I don't know a goddamn thing.Socrates's disciplenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-71942379717311470792010-08-03T19:07:09.105-07:002010-08-03T19:07:09.105-07:00What's incomprehensible about quantum mechanic...What's incomprehensible about quantum mechanics?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-3929792907121344142010-08-03T18:43:54.879-07:002010-08-03T18:43:54.879-07:00@Timofei
"Is it, like, a living intelligent b...@Timofei<br />"Is it, like, a living intelligent being?"<br />If by "living" you mean "consists of actively dividing cells," then no, of course not. If by "intelligent" you mean "has rapid, responsive neural connections," then of course not once again. And if you don't mean those things, what do you mean?<br /><br />"Is God more, or less complex than the universe he created?"<br />More complex, of course. Has anything every knowingly created something more complex than itself?<br /><br />"What created God?"<br />If God had a creator, then that thing must be more powerful than it, and that thing must be the real God. Continue until you reach the end. What's the end, you ask? I suppose once you get to a being that's unbounded by time, and consequently doesn't have to follow the laws of cause and effect.<br /><br />"What does God consist of? If God is not a part of this universe, then where is he situated?"<br />I hate to say it in this way, but as long as you continue to think of God in worldly terms and concepts, you won't get anywhere. A God greater than this universe has to be more abstract (in our minds) than this universe. And before you say, "You're just falling back on 'no one can understand God,'" remember that there's legitimate science (quantum mechanics, for example) that contains things we can't comprehend either.Gamer_2k4noreply@blogger.com