This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Dark Matter's Profile

Dark Matter's Avatar Joined over 5 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Dark Matter

More Discussions by Dark Matter

Latest Comments by Dark Matter

Go to: U.S. State Science Standards Are ‘Mediocre to Awful’

Dark Matter's Avatar Jump to comment 11 by Dark Matter

The Chinese have no philosophical problems teaching Science and what Science has to say about the real world as it actually is whether it is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection or anything else.

The US, by contrast, has introduced eight anti-evolution bills in six state legislatures in the past year to reassure the cretinous, pig-ignorant luddites that their know-nothing stupidity is equal to the intelligence, qualifications and expertise of its scientists.

Little wonder that China has far more scientists in proportion to their population than the US and that China is all set to completely eclipse the US in scientific and technological progress.

It will seem that the US "leaders" pandering to the religious lobby has sown the seeds of its own terminal decline.

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:23:30 UTC | #913870

Go to: Abortion, an anti-Christian student union, and the closing of the British mind

Dark Matter's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by Dark Matter

"I agree with other commenters. Unless I've misunderstood something, this is a preposterous piece of student bossiness. You can't invite a speaker to support abortion unless you invite a dopey Catholic as well? Still, it's amusing that Cristina Odone seems to have overlooked that it cuts both ways: amusing that she leapt to the paranoid conclusion that this is an anti-Catholic measure, when actually it's an anti free speech measure, typical of bossy student politicians. (Again, unless I'm mistaken, this is the same student union that tried to ban a Jesus and Mo cartoon.)

Richard"

Unfortunately, they're not the only Student Politicians (for that is what they really are) who actively oppose freedom of speech and and are committed to reintroducing "Blasphemy" laws:

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2012/01/london-school-of-economics-brings-back-blasphemy

"The London School of Economics Students' Union (LSESU) has effectively made blasphemy an offence following protests from Muslim students about a Jesus and Mo cartoon posted on the LSE Atheist Secular Humanist (ASH) student group's Facebook page.

At an Emergency General Meeting the LSESU proposed 'That Islamophobia is a form of anti-Islamic racism'. The motion passed by 339 votes to 179. The winning voting bloc contained people from Far Left groups as well as Muslims. The Union resolved:"

The Student's Unions is no more than oppressive, freedom-loathing reactionaries who have an automatic knee-jerk hatred of any form of individual expression and it about time that absolutely eveyone everywhere knows this.

Spread the word.

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:20:03 UTC | #913427

Go to: Faraday and Templeton brainwash British kids

Dark Matter's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by Dark Matter

@Athiest Egbert

"Did you mean tea-logical?"

Ha, ha - love it.

We can call it the Tea-Logical Fallacy.

I just hope it catches on.

Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:59:57 UTC | #905310

Go to: Faraday and Templeton brainwash British kids

Dark Matter's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by Dark Matter

@Richard Dawkins

"I love Jerry's 'hot beverage fallacy'. Very witty, and spot on. It is truly pathetic that these 'sophisticated theologians' seriously think it is a good argument.

More and more I think we need to fight the accommodationists head on. They insidiously seek to undermine everything science stands for, and they have lots of money set aside for the purpose.

Richard"

It is amazing how often one hears the extremely fatuous Hot Tea Argument from people who really should know better - even on the BBC and Radio 4!

It is little more than an infantile attempt to erect "no go areas" for science. IE, Science may explain the mechanics of beverage making but couldn't possibly explain why anyone would want to make a cup of tea or coffee.

  1. It is a brainless fallacy - there are whole areas of science dedicated to studying what motivates human beings from Anthopology, Psychology, Behaviourism, etc, etc that can and do explain why human beings perform certain actions and disposed into particular habits on the basis of empirical evidence and stastical data.

  2. It is a false dichotomy - if scientists explain the how then they often explain the why. EG Why is the Sun hot? Because science tells us that the sun is giant nuclear fusion reactor releasing vast amounts of energy in the form of light and heat as its extreme gravity and conditions fuse Hydrogen into Helium.

  3. Imposes a Telelogical view point where one isn't needed or at all necessary - IE, Life and the Universe simply MUST have a purpose even if they apparently don't.

Why does a person want a cup of Tea? Because a pattern of neurons fired in the brain of an individual who became conscious of the net result of this firing a few milliseconds later making him aware of a physiological need to quench a thirst and the awareness of a psychological disposal to have a hot drink.

Explaining the How very often explains the Why and this needs to be systematcally pointed out to anyone who ever attempts to make "no go areas" for science on the basis of such a pitiful excuse for "reasoning".

Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:43:05 UTC | #905300

Go to: Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig

Dark Matter's Avatar Jump to comment 54 by Dark Matter

For once I am actually shocked to find myself disagreeing with Richard.

I do agree with Richard in that such a debate would look far better on WLC's CV than his but this is something that he can point out in such a debate, however, I do think it is a mistake not to expose William Lane Craig and his "debating" tactics for what they really are.

All Richard would need to do is patiently and eloquently explain to the audience what Gish Gallop is and how this is the technique of choice for his opponent, that his opponents only actual "argument" is simply Kalam's Cosmological argument, that anything that can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof, there is not even the vaguest scrap of evidence for any of William Lane Craig's beliefs and then its job done.

Richard should trust his audience to be able to see straight through WLC's shallow sophistry and then Richard can then rightly claim that he debated with WLC and WLC lost.

Yes, WLC has appalling views and beliefs but so have the vast majority of religious people that Richard has debated with.

Hopefully, Christopher Hitchens will be fit enough to take this charlatan to task.

Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:46:28 UTC | #882420

More Comments by Dark Matter