Forum Overview :: Laurence Fishburne's Dance Dance Revolution :: By the way, Ron Rosenbaum is an idiot.

[quote name="laudablepuss"]<a href=http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_spectator/2011/09/does_evil_exist_neuroscientists_say_no_.html">This piece</a> reminded me again of <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2010/06/an_agnostic_manifesto.html">this other stupid piece</a>. As soon as I read "for the record, I'm an agnostic", I realized, "oh right it's this guy." Let's all fail to understand stuff with Ron: From page 2 of the first link: [quote]But Libet’s study fails to explain how the initial unconscious decision is made by the electrified piece of meat—he just kicks the can into the preconscious, you might say—or why we have the illusion of consciousness at all.[/quote] Not part of the experiment. That flies take off and land is an observable fact, the notion that they consciously decide these things I'm <i>pretty sure</i> is not seriously argued by anyone. Except maybe Ron here? I remember reading that Dyson had hypothesized a mega structure (maybe it was the Dyson Sphere, but I don't recall) and suggested this would be a sure sign of intelligence in the universe as well as something we might have a chance of finding. When asked, "why would anyone build that?" he replied, "it's not my job to explain that" or something along those lines. Not part of the (thought) experiment, you can look for it or not, find value in it or not. (Another one is Easterbrook's muzzle flashes of gargantuan alien weapons, a hypothesis that <a href="http://www.cosmostv.org/2010/09/cosmic-raysby-product-of-distant-alien.html">has not been ruled out.</a>) From the second link [quote]Atheists have no evidence—and certainly no proof!—that science will ever solve the question of why there is something rather than nothing.[/quote] He can't seriously be arguing that because we don't know everything, we don't know anything? Is that how Socrates did it? Using something like Bilbo's accidental riddle, "what's in my pocket", then saying WROOOOOOOONG *antikythera airhorn*? (Or Marvin from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "Pick a number, any number. Wrong.") I mean, of course he CAN argue that, that's why I named this post as I did. This is also similar to his critique of the experiment above. As for evidence for the "will ever" part, virtually all of our understanding of the universe has come in the last 400 years or so, with the pace seeming to accelerate. If this isn't evidence for success and justification for optimism, I don't know what is. Later he calms down a little with this: [quote]I do not think the god of, say John Paul II exists. But I cannot speak to the God of Leibniz. No evidence decides that.[/quote] So he's at least making the distinction between a personal god -- a concept pretty thoroughly demolished that he meekly "thinks" might not be true -- and the impersonal "first cause" or "god of nature"-type god. But he's pretty badly mistaken if he thinks there's no evidence and no basis for making any claims in that direction. The rest of his argument is: some atheists I know are loud evangelizing jerks (not like anyone here of course). Therefore: atheism = religion.[/quote]