Comments for OJB's Blog

Comment on Question of Suffering by ojb42

ojb42 — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:38:15 +0000

That’s a very negative way to look at it. I’m not saying you’re not right because many scientists and philosophers have commented that its unrealistic to expect to be able to fully understand the universe.

But even if we accept that we will never fully understand everything about the universe (or god if you prefer) that’s no reason to stop trying. And if there is something we don’t understand we should say so instead of resorting to the “appeal to ignorance” and substituting gaps in our knowledge with superstition.

Comment on Inspirational Leaders by ojb42

ojb42 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:00:05 +0000

Some of my more conservative friends have sent me some really unpleasant material against Obama. I think its really a sad indictment on the conservative elements of American society that it can be just so nasty about someone who seems to genuinely want to make things better.

Comment on Inspirational Leaders by seneca

seneca — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:38:50 +0000

Here in Chicago, Obama’s home, we love the guy. Perhaps 20% of America rabidly hates him, probably for race reasons and probably because he believes government can be a force for the good. His opponents want as little government as possible.

His detractors are generally in the South, the States that rebelled in our horrid Civil War. America lost more men by far in that war than in any other.

It seems that it takes gifted men and women to lead countries. They seem to appear infrequently.

Mike

Comment on Question of Suffering by seneca

seneca — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:22:21 +0000

We are my dog. He sees the Sun come up and sees the Sun set. He is incapable of understanding the evidence right in front of him, that the Earth circles the Sun. Like my dog, we see, but we do not see.

We are not wired smart enough to understand God, if there is one, or to understand the nature of the universe.

Unfortunately, we will die not knowing what it is all about.

Mike

Comment on Debating Crazies by ojb42

ojb42 — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 20:48:19 +0000

Yes, I have listened to that debate (several times – just couldn’t believe it at first!) and I love listening to Massimo debate the crazies! I know Hovind wasn’t convinced but I could imagine that a believer who still might have had a small amount of chance of seeing sense might have heard that and began thinking about it. Also I picked up a few facts and techniques from Massimo I hadn’t heard before so I think the debate was worthwhile.

Comment on Debating Crazies by Shamelessly Atheist

Shamelessly Atheist — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:56:07 +0000

I’m one of those that thinks it futile to debate with religiots. To do so gives them underseved credibility. For instance, on The Infidel Guy Show, Massimo Pagliucci debated Kent Hovind and Hovind made the amazingly idiotic, stupid and dumbass statement that T. rex was a herbivore! How else could they have coexisted with all those other tasty animals on the ark?

Just how does one debate when one side is utterly vacuous?

Comment on Atheism is a Religion by ojb42

ojb42 — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:39:55 +0000

The statement that there aren’t enough atoms to record every thought seems to have some sort of specific technical content. And its wrong. “The numbers prove the point…” seems to have a technical aspect to it yet I have never heard of any numbers of this sort. In the final verse: claiming the brain isn’t the source of memory and thought sounds sort of technical, yet its debatable at best.

I didn’t claim these studies “prove conclusively all thoughts…”. I said “studies indicate all cognitive processes…” Indicate is not the same as prove. The trend of new studies using FMRI and other techniques is to show a biological basis for even very complex phenomena.

I didn’t say belief in the supernatural is worthless I said it doesn’t contribute to knowledge which was perhaps a bit harsh. I guess anything can make some small contribution although the negative contribution of religions (persecuting those they disagree with: Galileo, etc) more than makes up for any small positive effect in my opinion.

I more see you as a believer in new-age irrational nonsense than religion. Not sure which is worse! :) (please note the humour)

Comment on Science Communication by ojb42

ojb42 — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:44:57 +0000

What exactly is the problem with the hockey stick graph? Have you ever read the original report which introduced it where they point out that there is need for more data and that the inaccuracies should be noted? Its only because of the superficial analysis by deniers that this has become an issue.

And the IPCC has always been the IPCC (and not the IPGW) so I guess you can’t accuse them of changing the name. But really those are just popular labels for the phenomenon and little to do with the science anyway.

Not sure what your objections are to the rest of those points but none of them really relate to the science, more the politics. Especially Al Gore. He has made people aware of the problem but that’s really nothing to do with science.

So really you have started off with a bias against science then looked for trivial reasons to distrust the facts of GW/CC which means my original question remains: why start off with a distrust of science?

Comment on Science Communication by Klem

Klem — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:37:45 +0000

“It seems that people are less trusting of science than they used to be”

They are? Why would that be? How about the Hockey Stick graph. How about changing the name from Global Warming to Climate Change. How about the UN IPCC saying that their last report was written by 600 scientist when it was really only 60. How about the EPA having CO2 declared a dangerous substance. How about Obama being instrumental in creating the Chicago Climate Exchange. How about “the debate is over, the science is settled” quashing af scientific debate. How about Al Gore trading carbon offsets with a company he owns. The list goes on. The public does not trust climate scientists or the Green movement anymore and I believe this has done damage to the scientific community in general.

Comment on Atheism is a Religion by archiesview

archiesview — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:35:43 +0000

Thank you for the artistic mention.
You say I am not technically correct on two points. To not be technically correct you must have read some “technical” statement into my prose. I would be interested to learn what “technical” points you thought I claimed.
Then you raise a couple of points. I assume these have nothing to do with the “technical” incorrectness you say I made but these are just something else that I have said with which you do not agree so I will make comment on those.
On point 1 I would be pleased to see the “recent studies” report that proves conclusively all thoughts originate in the brain.
On point 2 you express your opinion that belief in anything supernatural has no value. Of course you are perfectly entitled to that opinion. But you cannot use that opinion as evidence any more than the religionist can use his opinion that there is God/s or supernatural forces.
I hope you did not make the mistake or read into my prose that I am a religionist or a believer in some kind of God and and are using that idea to defend your beliefs against that idea, whatever those beliefs may be.