randomc

Not a book, but anyway Orwell on How To Spot A Bullshitter, basically. http://www.george-orwell.org/Politics_and_the_English_Language/0.html

You're proposing spamming the electoral process of an entire country and you're worried about coming across as a spammer on this forum?! Righty-ho.

Thanks Cap'n and ydoaPs and whoever else put this together. The way i see it, there isn't really any perspective on the origin of the universe that is well enough supported that it may be safely assumed. Human origins are a different matter; the weight of evidence for some mechanism of evolution is sufficient to place it beyond reasonable doubt, i think. Not that it really matters - Rev Comfort seems to believe that the atheist position is dependent on a particular set of beliefs and assumptions, and i suppose that while this might be true of some atheists, these are no more representative of atheism than evangelicals or creationists are of christianity. Atheism does not require science in order to be an intellectually coherent stance, it requires merely an awareness of standards of proof and argument. TBH, my feeling is that those atheists who cling limpet-like to science do so to its detriment - they are parasites who should simply learn to live without faith or at least stop polluting science with it. Sorry if i'm ranting. Anyway, the obvious false dilemma in Rev Comforts answer here seems to be a reflection of the narrowness of the scope of the public debate. He might consider that there are plenty of atheists and scientists who see Dawkins as an arrogant attention seeking prat; and Darwin as a much honoured figure in the annals of the history of science, but ultimately, getting down to the actual business and practise of science, just some guy. He was a scientist not a prophet, and it doesn't matter one iota how right or wrong he himself personally got things. I don't know; i get the impression this guy has a very limited understanding of how atheists in general think and how people arrive at atheism. The assumption he seems to make is that people believe in God by default and that atheism is a departure from this 'natural' state. All i can say is that it certainly wasn't like that for me - I'm a second generation atheist and i grew up in a culture that is largely indifferent to religion. Maybe i've had it the easy way. RE q.10 I suspect his thinking here is that his faith doesn't belong to the dogmatic assertion of religion, but rather to the proven authority of absolute truth. He's implied that view elsewhere anway.

Do you feel that science has become a social movement rather than the honest quest for knowledge it is claimed to be, and is this why you take up what might reasonably be called an anti-scientific stance? Does your agenda not confuse atheism with science? Do you feel that scientific education in general is a threat to your faith, or just those particular areas in which obvious conflict arises? America's role in the world is changing. New powers emerge, and America's influence atrophies. The hard-line religious stance you and many others in your country take could easily be seen as a serious obstacle to America's international relationships; it is an incompatibility with much of the rest of the developed world. Can you conceive of a time in the future when your agenda might be detrimental to America's interests? Would you modify your approach in these circumstances, or will you remain blind to the ship you are so enthusiastically scuttling? I feel there should be at least one infuriatingly loaded question.

Norway is about 1000 miles north of switzerland, so its pretty unlikely.

Forgive me if i'm being obtuse, but how is it reasonable to conclude that morality is an 'old' trait from the fact that the amygdala is an 'old' part of the brain? The conclusion seems to rely on the assumption that the amygdala has not been subject to evolutionary pressures for the given period of time. This is just a question BTW, as per the OP; i'm not trying to incite an argument.

If you want readable popular science books rather tan textbooks; Leonard Krauss, fear of physics - deals with approach of physicists rather than findings. John Gribbin, stardust - just awesome, how elements are formed in stars. Richard Dawkins, the anscestors tale - is basically a readable textbook about evolution. Its probably the only one of his books that is not essentially a protracted argument; i.e it assumes the reader has no particular prior stance on the subject matter. can't think of any more at the mo....

its strange that for me its always spinning clockwise initially. I suppose that would be because pattern recognition is located in one side of the brain? Or maybe its just my astigmatism:D

EDIT image deleted; copyright. spins one way, then if you look to the side and squint a bit she spins the other! Apparently its got something to do with right/left hemisphere stuff, but can anyone explain? (image not working so link http://visualfunhouse.com/animations/spinning-silhouette-optical-illusion.htmlhttp://visualfunhouse.com/animations/spinning-silhouette-optical-illusion.html

According to this page http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/amorph.html about amorphous ice and glassy water you would need to extend your method to include higher pressure, in order to form high density glassy water from hyper quenched glassy water. This would presumably sink. I'm not sure it would be stable though because as far as i can make out its not in thermodynamic equilibrium, rather the change is just very slow. This is actually bugging the hell out of me because i don't understand how high density glassy water can be the most abundant form of ice in the universe and yet not in equilibrium. If its changing even minutely i would have thought the majority of ice would be in a more stable form, given the time span available. Anyway this graphic (from the above site) shows the neccesary conditions and processes to form various types of ice;

well its interesting, but as this is the physics section i should probably stop speculating and leave it to somebody else to answer.

I'm sorry i really don't get it. I thought that in the absence of some external force the only way water can become ice is by converting its latent heat into hydrogen bonds? So if there is no external force and its not making hydrogen bonds how can it become a solid in the first place?

in that case there wouldn't BE a phase change as far as i understand it. Which isn't well at all hence the question.

But if its not forming extra hydrogen bonds during the phase change where is the excess energy going? wouldn't it just form lots of very small bits of ice rather than a single block?

Why, thank you for the neg rep. i spose it was earned.....

you dumbass

My understanding is that morality and religion are concepts that arise out of 'moral' emotions such as disgust/awe/ shame - many social species have 'moral' emotion but it requires the ability to conceptualise to arrive at something as complex as morality and religion. I mean to say, morality and religion are different concepts, they need not be inherently tied. Your post seemed to suggest that they inevitably are, which doesn't seem right to me. do you mean normal in the sense of 'conforming to the norm' or in the sense of 'right and proper'? For example when a community is attacked by the black plaque you may feel it's not right and proper but it conforms to the norm from what is known about viruses.

what happened to it? It was the ultimate resolution to threads such as the current 'Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?'. Bring it back!

is the op still at large? i really hope so.

i don't care how small the place is, when it comes to digs, privacy is the thing. i would rather live in a sound-proof single room than a multi-room luxury flat in which you can here the neighbours cough. There are limits though - rolling up carpets and putting running a bath in your living area? i would end up electrocuting myself.

looks like turtle shell road kill to me.

'the ultimate sceptic can and need not be answered'. - from john skorupski's summary of bertrand russell's attitude in the preface to 'problems of philosophy' 'i fart in your general direction' - from john cleese's summary of coberst's position, in monty python.

couldn't agree more. Don't see why atheism is a good filter tho... Just trying to introduce a wider context.... science only has value to society through technology. Without technology science is an interesting but irrelevant way of looking at the universe, atheism is just another hokey cult. Political pragmatism (aka democracy) is the social experiment of the times, in which there is no room for institutionalised ideology/dogma especialy in science. Logical positivism is little more than a guideline. Its not much more than a tautological affirmation of atheism. (How do you varify the principle of varifiability BTW? Its a circular argument). That isn't to say it isn't useful, it just aint central to the philosophy of science, and shoe-horning it into such a position is totally dishonest.

This is an argument from personal incredulity, and as an assumption about the promotion of science is exactly what i am trying to find out about. How do you recruit scientists?