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

Comments by JoxerTheMighty

Go to: Should Depressed People Avoid Having Children?

JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 38 by JoxerTheMighty

Hm. As someone who has been sufferring from both OCD and depresson since the age of 20, I can see where she's coming from, even if I'm sure most of it is satire/humour. I too opt not to have any children in my lifetime, mainly because I don't want to risk having children with the same problems. Sure it's not certain they will inherit the defects, but the risk is higher. What's more, a parent with those problems would have more trouble raising kids, genetics or no genetics. That's a personal choice though. I don't know if mentally ill people should be actually discouraged from having children; it's a hard subject. But to be honest, I would at least expect from people with such problems to at least think twice before having a family.

Sat, 09 Jun 2012 18:48:39 UTC | #946602

Go to: Untrue Reason -- re Naturalism

JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by JoxerTheMighty

Comment 20 by foundationist :

Comment 19 by JoxerTheMighty :

If you don't mind explaining, isn't the Multiverse(which many accept as plausible) the hypothesis that there are indeed "knobs", and that each twist of each knob produces another universe/reality, according to our model? How come the multiverse then isn't considered a fallacy?

The multiverse hypothesis was not primarily considered as a solution to the fine tuning problem, the existence of many universes follows form certain theories about the nature and the beginning of our universe, its a consequence of certain aspects of quantum field theory. And the footing of this hypothesis is rather poor compared to the attention it gets. I think the best answer to the question why the fundamental constants are the way they are is "We don't know. Yet."

Yes, I know the Multiverse hypothesis wasn't developed as an asnwer for Fine-Tuning. But I'm under the impression that it does say that our model can predict other universes/realities which are also real, no? Which quine seems to say that it's a fallacy(the model driving the reality).

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:36:18 UTC | #929340

Go to: Untrue Reason -- re Naturalism

JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by JoxerTheMighty

The Fine-Tuning Problem

This is a false problem based on confusion of Physics as model and the physical world which can't be shown to have tuning "knobs" at all. (see my other discussion that goes into this, and this great video)

If you don't mind explaining, isn't the Multiverse(which many accept as plausible and is indeed offered as one of the refutations of Fine-Tuning) the hypothesis that there are indeed "knobs", and that each twist of each knob produces another universes/realities, which are described by permutations of our model? How come the multiverse then isn't considered a fallacy? It seems to me the only difference is that "Fine-Tuning" asserts that the other universes are just hypothetical realities that were never materialized but just exist as probabilities. Multiverse hypothesis, OTOH, asserts that all of those universes are real. Seems to me that, if Fine-Tuning faces the problem you describe, so does the Multiverse hypothesis, even more so.

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:07:02 UTC | #929335

Go to: What do you say to your faith-based neighbors?

JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 323 by JoxerTheMighty

Matt, you're suffering from a psychosis, a delusion, a mental defect - and as your neighbour I would explain this to you while we talked over the fence line. As a psychologist I would explain it to you in a calm, rational and professional manner. You have an emotional attachment to you faith, hence your offence being felt at those who criticise it.

Out of curiosity, are you a practicing psychologist, and do you treat any patients just for having religious convictions? When dealing with patients, is it part of the therapy to get rid of their faith, if they have one? If yes, how?(in general terms).

It sure was rather surpisingly easy for me to be 'cured' of this 'psychosis'...no need from professionals, just some nice long talks with myself on the issue and, by reaching a conclusion, the matter was settled...I guess now that I decided I don't believe or want to be part of any religion my brain somehow recovered from the defect?...well sure wish it was so with this damn OCD of mine...that one seems to not want to go away so easily...

Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:53:44 UTC | #928135

Go to: Rick Warren and the “Same” God Issue

JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 31 by JoxerTheMighty

like some evolutionary topic with the predictable "lets see the god botherers explain this one" remark.

Heh, you noticed that too? :P

If this site is about 'reason' and an 'oasis of clear thinking' then its main topic should be science, and not only 'hot topics' that raise eyebrows in reference to religion, such as 'universe from nothing' and evolution, but any number of the infinite topics out there, physics, biology, mathematics, logic, psychology, sociology, arts, computer science. Maybe even divided into appropriate sub-forurms, for convenience and easy browsing based on interest. Instead, 90% of the threads is about religion, with the posters just doing a show off of 'who's gonna call the theists more names', and the rest 10% of science threads mostly turn about how the idiot theists would never understand these topics.

I'm sorry, but if you can take an honest criticism, this site has a long way to go into being a home for people sincerely interested in science, and somewhere you can come and learn something. Pretty much all I've learned here is who William Lain Craig and Ann Coulter is, some idiots I had never heard about before I came into this site(and I surf the net pretty regularly). Right now it's mostly just a place where hardcore atheists meet and make fun of jeebus and faithheads. Which is cool and all, but should get pretty boring after a while.

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 21:02:51 UTC | #924719

Go to: Atheist group targets Muslims, Jews with ‘myth’ billboards in Arabic and Hebrew

JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 61 by JoxerTheMighty

Well I'm really pleased to see you are at least moving in the right direction. I remember when you first arrived here, you had a slightly different outlook back when you posted..... I'll grant it that you were a moderate, but a Christian all the same. Congratulations. Four months and a read of the Holy Bible...outstanding.

Well, it's not exactly like that...I had been an atheist since 15-16, from what I remember. Couple of years ago, due to some sad circumstances in my life, I thought I'd try to take solace in religion. Give it a try. So when I came and posted here, I might be 'posing' just a tad bit...testing how well I could defend my 'newfound' positions with the apparent passion of a neophyte. Primarily the reason I signed here in the first place.

Of course, in the end, I said 'bah, not worth it', and returned to my previous state. A bit weird, I know, but there you go. So yeah, I haven't been totally honest in this forum when I first joined. Sorry :P

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 16:10:32 UTC | #924086

Go to: Atheist group targets Muslims, Jews with ‘myth’ billboards in Arabic and Hebrew

JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 55 by JoxerTheMighty

Comment 54 by Alan4discussion :

Comment 53 by JoxerTheMighty

Join in what? What do you do, exactly?

I am talking about joining in political campaigning and decision making.

[Edited by moderator to bring in line with Terms of Use]

I've given up on religion(well, Christianity) altogether because, well, I read the whole Bible(wink wink) but I'm not really sold on the whole 'atheistic cause' to eradicate religion from the 'collective mind'. I don't see it as that important. Some people seem to believe that can actually be done, and then we'll live in a paradise of reason and logic. Ain't gonna happen. There are all sorts of evils in this world, religion is the tip of the iceberg. You can wipe out any superstition from everyone minds tomorrow, there would still be wars and poverty. If I'm going to concetrate my efforts on something, I think it would be eradicating poverty and militarism. Religion would be low on the list.

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:13:32 UTC | #924031

Go to: Atheist group targets Muslims, Jews with ‘myth’ billboards in Arabic and Hebrew

JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 53 by JoxerTheMighty

Some of us have plans for a rational future without religious domination in the real world! Perhaps you should join those who actually deal with it, rather than ducking the issue and preaching a "head-in-sand" approach!

Join in what? What do you do, exactly? And how does it have any effect whatsoever, besides the personal satisfaction of "I'm in the right side and my opponents are idiots"?

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:02:49 UTC | #924028

Go to: Free Will

JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 84 by JoxerTheMighty

Wouldn't a more "defined" question be whether or not we can accurately model the human brain(possibly to the molecular level) and make nearly 100% accurate predictions of all the decisions the subject would make? Basically, build an accurate predictive model of the brain. Like, say, predicting tomorrow's weather.

I'm not equipped to answer that, but there seem to be enough whizzes around here; is that problem theoretically unsolvable, or just very difficult? If it is unsolvable, then the only practical question is answered: The "real" brain is what it is and does what it does, and all the models are just approximations that give some answers, but never the whole picture. If, OTOH, is possible to build an accurate simulation, that would lead to some interesting questions...such as, for example, is it ethical to "scan" the brains of citizens in order to determine if they have strong criminal tendecies?

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 15:21:59 UTC | #923760

Go to: Free Will

JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 57 by JoxerTheMighty

It may very well be that my eventual decision is, in fact, an entirely predictable outcome (if only we had the scientific means) over which I had no real 'choice'. Well so bloody what! The process which I described remains a qualitatively different one (compared to, say, blinking my eyes in response to an incoming fist) which requires a linguistically defined distinction. So, again, I ask the question: If not 'free will' then what term do people propose we use in it's place?

Maybe just 'thinking' or 'pondering'?

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 02:31:33 UTC | #923672

Go to: Free Will

JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 55 by JoxerTheMighty

Comment 45 by Tyler Durden :

Comment 10 by JoxerTheMighty :

Comment 18 by JoxerTheMighty

Perhaps this might help with the basics...

Point taken. I don't know much at all about these areas, so on second thought maybe I should butt out of conversations like this one.

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 02:23:41 UTC | #923670

Go to: Free Will

JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 18 by JoxerTheMighty

Comment 15 by Steve Zara :

Comment 10 by JoxerTheMighty

I think whether or not our brains are merely pieces of ordinary matter like everything else

How can they not be? Isn't it quite astonishing that in the 21st century we are still having discussions about this?

No, I don't find it astonishing, considering the brain is most probably the most astonishing thing in the Universe. A piece of matter weighting about a couple of kg able to understand, to some extent, the universe, and even itself. How about that? Is there any other structure, anywhere, in the whole freaking universe, even resembling that? I mean, try to convince a mother that is looking at her new-born baby in the eyes and he/she is looking back at her, that what she calls "her baby" is just a bunch of elementary particles blindly bouncing of each other that sometimes give illusory results like "love", "laughter", "imagination" and so on. It might be so, but most humans won't internalize that. It's not "astonishing" that they don't. Not at all. If you say "but what matters is that this illusory feeling that you call love makes you feel good", then you're saying that you might as well feel good by getting high on some drug with the same effect, or make two "logically compatible" people fall in love by administering feromones to them, and it's the same thing. Why wait for a chemical reaction to happen when you can make it happen all the time? You're not violating anyone's "identity", there is no such thing, you're just improving a natural system using science. What could be better!

And there is always the possibility that the brain is, of course, a system of elementary particles same as every other particle out there, but a system of such tremendous complexity that new, non-deterministic or even non-mathematical laws emerge out of it. We don't have a "one to rule them all" model of the cosmos yet. And we're not even sure there is one. As Feynman said, it could just be layers upon layers on an onion. I'm sorry, but for that matter, I need to be convinced; ie build a machine that "scans" a humand and its surroundings, and build an accurate simulation of that, predicting its future decisions. Or build a fully sentient machine. Anything sort of that, won't convince me that what happens in my brain is just elementary particles playing a blind game of billiard.

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 21:26:03 UTC | #923568

Go to: Free Will

JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by JoxerTheMighty

I think whether or not our brains are merely pieces of ordinary matter like everything else and our decisions are merely the result of the movement of the particles inside that matter is irrelevant to morality...for example, people who murder should still be put in jail because we still have to protect ourselves. Or, we still should talk and act against injustice when we see it, because it still is a factor than can persuade other brains to do the same, resulting in more justice and less suffering. Of course, being able to, at least to some extent, explain the human decision-making in quantified terms would help in using scientific methods of reducing harmful thinking...on the other hand this could lead to some appaling notions(think "A Clockwork Orange" and Alex's "treatment").

I still prefer to think that, although of course my decisions have a lot to do with my DNA, my history and how the neurons in my brain behave, I still have some undetermined, independent and unique "core", a "self" which can't be reduced to simple laws of physics. It's probably metaphysical thinking, but hey, it gets me through the day :) It would really be difficult to me to internalize that I'm a bunch of protons,neutrons and electrons orbiting each other as usual following Newton's and Maxwell's laws and nothing more...doesn't quite make me feel right. Of course, it could be so, but, hey...

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 20:32:15 UTC | #923553

Go to: Why Richard Dawkins is still an atheist

JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 91 by JoxerTheMighty

That's right, because whatever the super-beings are, they are not gods, because we have no feckin' idea what a god is. Even a brain in a jar a la what is consciousness question.

Isn't 'God'(capital G) just the being which created our reality and has total control over it, and knows everything about it-past,present,and future? If so, those hypothetical super-beings could be thought, collectively, as "God" - they most probably have total control of the simulation that is our Universe. Some keystrokes on their super-computer and voila, parting waters. Proceed the simulation further to check what's going to happen - voila, you see the future. Hook into the simulation yourself and take the form of human - voila, God incarnated. That is "God", isn't it - Omniscient, omnipotent. The simulation wouldn't even be a "simulation" as we commonly use it - that is, a vastly simplified approximation of something natural; it would be a real, "respectable" physical world. One could say that still, this doesn't make them an authority on moral issues, although due to their apparent vast knowledge they should logically know better than us what is the best solution to any given problem, including moral decisions.

Although I'm sure most religious leaders wouldn't agree with this picture of the "Divine"...probably exactly because it is somewhat understandable and 'physical'.

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 15:30:25 UTC | #923471

Go to: Jessica "Evil Little Thing" Ahlquist on CNN

JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 74 by JoxerTheMighty

Comment 73 by Tyler Durden :

Comment 72 by JoxerTheMighty :

Oh geez, I just linked one of the definitions that very clearly says 'to campaign vigorously for an idea or a cause'. This has nothing to do with a 'cross', but it still stands, is used, and describes Jessica's actions pretty well.

It's a poor choice of words on your part, considering the subject at hand.

Fair enough. I didn't meant to imply that her attitude was 'religious' or 'fanatical', if that's what you mean. Just the first word that popped into my head. Indeed 'campaign' would have been better, as it's milder.

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:04:47 UTC | #922773

Go to: Jessica "Evil Little Thing" Ahlquist on CNN

JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 72 by JoxerTheMighty

The etymology of the word crusade does not even lend itself to the actions of Jessica Ahlquist.

Oh geez, I just linked one of the definitions that very clearly says 'to campaign vigorously for an idea or a cause'. This has nothing to do with a 'cross', but it still stands, is used, and describes Jessica's actions pretty well.

So just admit you're wrong, end of story...it's not even relevant to the topic in discussion.

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:39:11 UTC | #922763

Go to: Jessica "Evil Little Thing" Ahlquist on CNN

JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 70 by JoxerTheMighty

Comment 69 by Tyler Durden :

Comment 68 by JoxerTheMighty :

Although technically the girl was right, the whole thing strikes me as 'much ado about nothing'. So there was a banner with some tasteless prayer in some wall on the school. It was there for decades, long before she entered the school, and in her very first year there, she just starts a crusade to remove it...

She started a what?!?

It is, by definition, impossible for any atheist to start a crusade. A campaign, yes, a crusade, impossible.

I just love how you didn't even read your own link.

    1. any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc.: a >crusade against child abuse.
  • a vigorous and dedicated action or movement in favour of a cause

  • — vb to campaign vigorously for something

    You know, metaphors?

    :P

    Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:24:20 UTC | #922757

    Go to: Jessica "Evil Little Thing" Ahlquist on CNN

    JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 68 by JoxerTheMighty

    Comment 61 by Wake_Up :

    Where do we draw the line between standing up for something or coming off as whinny atheists?

    Just curious what you guys think... I for one don't get riled up about nativity scenes or anything, I usually ignore them and move on with my day... but that's just me.

    Any thoughts?

    Although technically the girl was right, the whole thing strikes me as 'much ado about nothing'. So there was a banner with some tasteless prayer in some wall on the school. It was there for decades, long before she entered the school, and in her very first year there, she just starts a crusade to remove it and alienates herself from the whole school. As I said, technically correct: It was a violation of the constitution apparently, but it's not like a forgotten silly banner nobody cared about was a real issue, was it? It just became a real issue after the publicity it got. It didn't even refer to any specific religion from what I saw, it just mentioned a 'Heavenly Father' and the rest was some corny generic cliches about being a 'good sport'. Big deal.

    Well, at least two good things came out of it...first, the cruelty and stupidity of many of the nuts there got exposed, which is always good, and second the girl got her publicity and probably support and funding for scolarships from the atheist organizations. Which is...well, good for her.

    Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:39:55 UTC | #922746

    Go to: Dawkins & Krauss Discussion from ASU 4 Feb

    JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 119 by JoxerTheMighty

    Hm, something important we should ask I think...Does this theory about the creation of the universe makes any mathematical predictions about anything we can test? Say, the geometry or total mass of the universe or the mass of any elemental particles? Things like that. Is it a consistent set of principles, are there equations that describe the whole thing, like the 10 field equations of GR for example? Surely there must be something you can do with the theory othen than merely say 'we don't need god(s) to start the whole thing". I think that's quite important.

    Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:55:11 UTC | #920333

    Go to: Dawkins & Krauss Discussion from ASU 4 Feb

    JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 58 by JoxerTheMighty

    A bit OT: Every time I read a book about popularized physics(I have started "Emperor's New Mind" this week), I feel a burning sensation that I would like to actually understand and evaluate the mathematical concepts behind the theories described, rather than just read what the writer tells me and take it as fact. I had been accepted to the Physics University of my country, but I opted for Computer Science instead and so my math aren't really that advanced(from what I remember, some calculus, linear algebra, discreet math and statistics). However, in highschool I was literally in love with physics, and sometimes I really regret than I won't ever be able to actually comprehend those things.

    Anyone else feels this way? I've thought for a time of educating myself on this, watching video lectures, buying textbooks and run over the material on my own, but i find it hard to establish a self-discipline here that would allow me to really progress in this matter. The material out there is chaotic anyway, if there's a place that has compiled a decent "program for self-learners" that allows you to properly go through modern physics assuming initial highschool knowledge, I haven't been able to find it.

    Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:07:00 UTC | #917289

    Go to: Calls to Behead Indonesian Atheist Alexander Aan

    JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 118 by JoxerTheMighty

    Not all religions preach violence, but all religions preach a respect for faith. Faith is belief without evidence. When you believe things without evidence there is no way to check the validity of what you believe, and if believing without evidence is respected then there is no way to condemn those who do morally repugnant things in the name of their faith. Faith provides no mechanism for moral decision-making, for self-examination, for discerning what is true. That is why it is dangerous.

    Seriously, what kind of generic BS is that? Believing in something, even without evidence, and hurting others that don't believe in it, are completely orthogonal matters. I could have a belief system that proclaims:

    a)We believe in the invisible teapot orbiting the earth. b)Regardless, we are to respect and not hurt in any manner those that don't share the same belief.

    It's as if you say that, if we believe in something based on evidence, oh then it's ok to act violently against those that don't endorse the same views, because it's the lack of evidence that's the problem, and we have those. Uh, no it's not. Evidence or not, we could all agree that one can have whatever beliefs/fantasies they desire, without hurting others that don't have the same beliefs/fantasies. I'm not very familiar with other religions, but this respect could even be based on the Christian religion itself, as one of the teachings of Jesus is 'pass no judgement', and one of the core beliefs is that God has a plan for everyone; hurting someone because he is faithless now could be very well interfering with what God has in store for this person, who could choose to come to the faith on his own at a later point. A violent act against this person would just ruin that path.

    Anyway, I read about this incident in the newspaper today and it's sickening. That's one of the reasons I finally decided to part ways with faith and religion. I wish we could live in a world where faith was a truly personal matter, that is silent praying in the solitude of my bedroom if one desires, but it is not. But in the imperfect world we live in, it's sad that we have to choose 'sides'. I still find many atheists extremely irritating, and in some cases dowright stupid(like the fellow here who called religious people 'dangerous beasts'), but at least they don't go around threatening people of different belief systems and blowing up buldings. At least not yet, anyway.

    Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:59:10 UTC | #915592

    Go to: Richard Dawkins celebrates a victory over creationists

    JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 86 by JoxerTheMighty

    Out of curiosity, since by living in Europe I don't know much(or anything at all) about ID, what is it about? I mean, suppose it is taught in schools, is there actual material and exercises the students must complete? Even pseudoscience can have some structure, I mean astrology has all this disciplines, even if they don't amount to anything tangible. Does ID have the same, or it's just "An intelligent designer made all species because these are the holes of evolution"?

    Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:51:46 UTC | #912658

    Go to: Nanoscale wires defy quantum predictions

    JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by JoxerTheMighty

    Indeed, the rising trend today is to try and distribute the work into multiple processes, which don't even need to be of the same type(it could be CPU,GPU,etc...). Assuming of course the problem can be parallelized sufficiently, which isn't always so. Graphics programming, which is my hobby, lends itself very easily to parallelizing. IMO, more robust and safer concurrent programming languages and systems would be of greater benefit than further advances in component size. In many places in the software world, concurrent programming is still a bit of hell, with what the stupid stuff you have to deal when sharing state(especially with threads). Mainstream languages don't really excel at this. We need a way to streamline this stuff better.

    Interesting relevant tweet from Carmack: (http://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack)

    "It is sort of depressing when it becomes clear that it is more effective to do crappy parallel work than good sequential work."

    Sun, 08 Jan 2012 18:22:19 UTC | #906513

    Go to: Afterword from Lawrence Krauss' New Book - A Universe From Nothing

    JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 50 by JoxerTheMighty

    Works of popularized science like this get me thinking...While on one hand I admire the knowledge that the authors have, on the other hand I, as a reader, have no real option other than 'sit and listen'. I guess some of us here have the ability to evaluate the theories themselves, but I don't, and I think most don't. So we just sit and listen, like children hearing a story from an elder whom they trust. I trust Krauss based on his credentials and reputation, that he is the type to, you know, check his calculations, so to speak, but honestly, if he told me instead that the universe was created some other way, or that its inflation will stop someday, I'd still take whatever he would say as true, and I wouldn't know the difference. Not one bit. After reading the book, or watching the video, can I honestly say I understand the material? Most probably, I can just, at best, repeat what he says.

    Science like this is so advanced, that books of this kind are only 'this is what the experts know at this point of time', because it's meant for a mainstream audience and the mainstream audience can't possibly work out the math and the semantics behind science this sophisticated. Without wanting to sound like a cynic, I wonder what would make me wiser: Getting this book, or getting a highschool physics book and work out some of the classical mechanical exercises in it(you know, with the springs and the pendulums and the rest). In fact, it would be an interesting question: How many of the people that will be talking about quantum mechanics, virtual particles, cosmic inflation, dark matter and such after reading the book, can actually solve highscool material if asked? Just a thought :P

    Sun, 08 Jan 2012 18:07:00 UTC | #906508

    Go to: Afterword from Lawrence Krauss' New Book - A Universe From Nothing

    JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 34 by JoxerTheMighty

    Since i can't edit my post no more, one more question: Do we know that these quantum fluctuations and virtual particle-antiparticle pair, which I guess most of the time "negate" each other in any measurable time, actually did amount into giving birth to the whole universe? Or it is hypothesized that it is possible that such thing can be done, given practically infinite time? I think there's difference between the two, proving that something actually happened and arguing that something very improbable could have happened if we wait long enough.

    I guess I'll have to buy the book when it comes out though :)

    Sun, 01 Jan 2012 09:43:49 UTC | #904180

    Go to: Afterword from Lawrence Krauss' New Book - A Universe From Nothing

    JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 33 by JoxerTheMighty

    I watched the video lecture and it was interesting, so I'll probably get the book if I found it.

    One thing I don't understand: The "nothing" Krauss talks about is the "quantum vacuum"? Because I'm under the impression that this vacuum, althout void of particles, has a rich structure, various properties and its energy fluctuations obey certain (statistical) laws. It's just the state of lowest possible energy. It is void of one specific element of nature(particles), but it contains other elements. Am I right in this, or I got something wrong?

    Sun, 01 Jan 2012 09:15:52 UTC | #904179

    Go to: Will 2012 Be the Year of the Atheist?

    JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 51 by JoxerTheMighty

    I cannot make it any simpler for you. You may be many things, things that the average non-believer here would admire and encourage, but the swathes of so called moderate theists, through their belief in batshitcrazyness tacitly support stronger forms of batshitcrazyness upto and including the most extreme forms of batshitcrazyness.

    And this is what you don't get. Just because I endorse the idea of a supernatural creator, does not mean I automatically support whoever decides to use that same idea as an excuse to support whatever actions. Does that make any sense? I can evaluate the individual actions themselves and decide if they're correct or not. This is what I actually do. For example, if I believe in God, do I silently support someone that believes we ought to kill the unbelievers in the name of God? Certainly not so. Just because I believe God exists, doesn't mean I believe he tells us to kill others! I may very well believe the exact opposite! Your assertions about the equivalence of us two(me and the fundamentalist) are abstract fluff that have nothing to do with the real world, but more with the business of polarizing "debates" and pointing fingers. I guess in your world, you only need to ask people one question: "Do you believe there is a god"? and from then on you know all that is important to know about them, and their interactions with society.

    Sat, 31 Dec 2011 20:44:31 UTC | #904112

    Go to: Will 2012 Be the Year of the Atheist?

    JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 45 by JoxerTheMighty

    You would do well to start understanding this. You would then understand that you and your kind tacitly support fundamentalists.

    Oh. So, if I'm vocally(as I am) supporting the seperation of Church and State, I am simultaneously "tacitly" supporting the fundamentalists of the opposing views. Yeah. Even when exercise my power(voting, debating, or other methods) to support one cause, I am actually enabling the opposing cause. It doesn't matter what I do, how I do it, all that matters than me and fundamentalists are sharing a common belief in one department. That means, whatever fundamentalists believe in all departments, I support(and not the other way around, apparently). Makes total sense.

    Out of curiosity, do you think like that in all cases? Are people that "moderately" support the idea of nations enabling extreme nationalists? Must be so, right?

    Sat, 31 Dec 2011 20:08:35 UTC | #904103

    Go to: Will 2012 Be the Year of the Atheist?

    JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 41 by JoxerTheMighty

    Please come back when you have some evidence that what you "believe" is actually real. Thx! Steve

    The question was not whether or not God exists, but whether all theists are to be blamed as 'enablers' of fundamentalists.

    The fact that I don't have evidence of God's existence doesn't mean I am as much to blame for 9/11 as the terrorists, to cite an example. Those two are as orthogonal as they could be. Did we switch topics somehow?

    Please try to focus your thoughts, if possible.

    Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:51:37 UTC | #904097

    Go to: Will 2012 Be the Year of the Atheist?

    JoxerTheMighty's Avatar Jump to comment 34 by JoxerTheMighty

    No, this is what a naturalist has a right to say.

    You forego this right when you maintain that Jesus could defy the laws of physics and biology.

    When you, a theist, use naturalism for a frame of reference and criticise those who draw on supernaturalism for their worldview whilst you yourself think that Jesus walked on water, multiplied bread, rose from the dead, then you are a hypocrite.

    This is a straw man.

    One can believe in God and that he, in very special circumstances, can "enter history" and intervene by overcoming natural laws(or enable natural laws that are unknown to man), and still maintain that, 99,9999999% of the time, physical laws work as expected and that the world was created and still operates through them.

    You can make up as many rules and blanket statements as you like, such as "if you're a theist you can't use logical arguments of physical evidence for your position", that doesn't make them true or valid. Fact is, most theists believe miracles are one-in-a-billion events and it doesn't stop them from becoming excellent doctors, mathematicians, computer scientists, engineers, physicists or what have you.

    Your thoughts are utterly simplistic and your conclusions naive. As I said: You put me in a spot in an arbitrary spectrum, and think from there on you know what my position ought to be in all subjects, and what I have "the right" to say or not. Sorry, but the world and human beings are more complex than this. What's really funny, is that you "reject" a possible ally in all sorts of very important real-world matters, because...I don't have "the right" to support the...correct position! As if all my knowledge comes from the Bible, or as if a theist is all I am. Seems to me you care more about the controversy and lumping people into convenient categories than the actual issues here.

    Sat, 31 Dec 2011 17:22:52 UTC | #904083