tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39965596764411052992012-01-28T10:02:51.047+11:00Scepticism, science, and the trivialities of life. What more could you want?Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comBlogger6811100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-57631862652365038922012-01-28T10:01:00.000+11:002012-01-28T10:02:51.055+11:00

Sunday (22/01): Opeth - Blackwater ParkMonday (23/01): sleepmakeswaves - ...and so we destroyed everythingTuesday (24/01): Cathedral - Forest Of EquilibriumWednesday (25/01): Porcupine Tree - Fear Of A Blank PlanetThursday (26/01): Argus - Boldly Stride The DoomedFriday (27/01): Black Tusk - Set The DialSaturday (28/01): Tool - Ænima

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-23583092869507819152012-01-26T13:00:00.001+11:002012-01-26T13:08:23.293+11:00

If Australian culture was really the best possible culture, then there would be no need to try to protect Australian culture - it would just be protecting good culture. Likewise, if Australian values were really good values to hold, then there would be no need to protect Australian values - it would just be protecting good values.There's a certain irony in jingoistic behaviour, that it enshrines

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-57129547505638882562012-01-25T07:36:00.003+11:002012-01-25T07:47:31.835+11:00

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-25/rushdie-speech-cancelled-amid-death-threats/3791434India's Jaipur Literature Festival has cancelled a televised speech by Salman Rushdie minutes before it was scheduled to begin on Tuesday, amid death threats to its organiser and fears of violent protests at the event by Muslim groups.The issue of British-Indian author Rushdie, who cancelled his visit to the

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-69799442332927534762012-01-21T14:42:00.001+11:002012-01-21T14:42:19.055+11:00

Sunday (15/01): Cog - The New NormalMonday (16/01): DOPETHRONE - Dark FoilTuesday (17/01): Cynic - Traced In AirWednesday (18/01): Paradise Lost - Draconian TimesThursday (19/01): Tweaker - The Attraction To All Things UncertainFriday (20/01): Tangerine Dream - StratosfearSaturday (21/01): Nevermore - Dead Heart In A Dead World

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-13657406349074143132012-01-20T22:46:00.000+11:002012-01-20T22:47:10.022+11:00

The fight behind climate change is very political in nature, with liberal-leaning and progressives being the main advocates of trying to fight global warming. The battle over evolution has a very religious component to it, with evolution often being advocated by atheists and creation by theists. Anti-smoking campaigns and rhetoric are nearly exclusively political now. The biggest pushers of

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-88949684287468329222012-01-18T19:30:00.003+11:002012-01-18T19:37:25.248+11:00

I'm lucky enough that despite being an atheist and generally opposed to any religious attempt to control morality, my sexual preference and relationship status is one that the religious can get behind. For people like Adam Ch'ng, I can fit neatly into how he sees marriage without problem - not because I think that's the way marriage ought to be or that it's anything sacred but it just so happens

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-66135529810389319292012-01-14T09:30:00.000+11:002012-01-14T09:31:27.076+11:00

Sunday (08/01): Discipline. - To Shatter All AccordMonday (09/01): Kylesa - Static TensionsTuesday (10/01): Alcest - Écailles de LuneWednesday (11/01): Bad Religion - The Empire Strikes FirstThursday (12/01): At The Drive-In - In/Casino/OutFriday (13/01): Regurgitator - UnitSaturday (14/01): Orchid - Capricorn

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-72661224982764348512012-01-11T22:00:00.000+11:002012-01-11T22:02:24.740+11:00

Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean being opposed to religion. Even if someone doesn't believe in God, they could have nothing but glowing praise for what people do with that God belief. Likewise, being antitheist doesn't necessarily involve being an atheist, and there are things done in the name of God that could (and really should) draw ire from even the most fervent of believers.I bring

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-71998754732503286912012-01-07T10:18:00.004+11:002012-01-07T10:21:38.462+11:00

Sunday (01/01): Amebix - Sonic MassMonday (02/01): Chaos Divine - The Human ConnectionTuesday (03/01): Scale The Summit - The CollectiveWednesday (04/01): Sorgeldom - ...From Outer IntelligencesThursday (05/01): Death - HumanFriday (06/01): Josh Freese - Since 1972Saturday (07/01): Steven Wilson - Grace For Drowning

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-13854130038302527212012-01-07T10:16:00.002+11:002012-01-07T10:21:26.988+11:00

A week ago, my facebook feed had someone explaining they tried to listen to a different album every day in 2011. While they didn't manage to get 365 different albums, they did listen to over 200!I listen to music daily, though I tend to obsess over some music and will listen to the same few albums over and over until I can't remember what it was that I liked about them in the first place. So I

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-36835729374786899212012-01-07T09:07:00.002+11:002012-01-07T09:18:53.218+11:00

A coin that explains the offside rule in football produced to commemorate the London Olympic Games has sparked criticism for getting the offside rule wrong. Except it doesn't. Reading the referee criticism, they've made an elaborate technical point about a rule change made in 1995 and that the coin would be misleading. The only problem is that the coin doesn't say that at all. Take a look for

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-51799011511406306142012-01-06T20:32:00.000+11:002012-01-06T20:32:30.782+11:00

"You don't learn much from someone who already agrees with you." - John Shook

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-8467372888810668312012-01-02T12:32:00.000+11:002012-01-02T12:33:18.284+11:00

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-02/girl-sacrificed-to-ensure-better-harvest/3754456 Police in the Indian state of Chhattisgarh say they have arrested two people who are suspected of sacrificing a child.A seven-year-old girl was kidnapped and found murdered in a lawless tribal district two months ago.An initial investigation suggested she was offered as a sacrifice in order to produce a better

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-52927975879242256202011-12-30T18:10:00.003+11:002011-12-30T18:35:46.099+11:00

My top 101. Aenaon - Cendres Et Sang2. The Atlas Moth - An Ache For The Distance3. Fen - Epoch4. Looking Glass - III5. 40 Watt Sun - The Inside Room6. Dream Theater - A Dramatic Turn Of Events 7. Amebix - Sonic Mass8. Mastodon - The Hunter9. Floating Me - Floating Me10. The Gates Of Slumber - The WretchThe best of the restWolverine - Communication LostTextures - DualismAzarth - Blasphemer's

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-63577334546895994532011-12-23T17:48:00.001+11:002011-12-23T17:51:56.597+11:00

I recently came across a tweet by Harun Yahya, proclaiming "Until the morality of Islam dominates the world we will not sleep a wink." The question I had was why anyone would actually wish for that. Harun responded with the good virtues of Islamic values and kindly asked me to learn more about Islam. To which I highlighted some of the problems I saw in the application of Islamic values, and asked

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-20448285977488499032011-12-22T23:40:00.001+11:002011-12-22T23:41:42.190+11:00

There's a lot one could say about The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, and a lot of it good. Bottom line about the game, if you enjoyed its predecessor Oblivion, and Fallout 3 then this game should similarly peak your interest. Given I easily racked up 200 hours on both games, and the 72 hours I've so far dedicated to exploring the land of Skyrim, I can safely say that the game has more been worth the

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-18600465904609221102011-12-16T18:57:00.002+11:002011-12-16T18:58:00.068+11:00

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-46276403614649401112011-12-01T17:30:00.000+11:002011-12-01T17:38:42.755+11:00

It's Australian summer, once again, meaning a new season of cricket. And a new season of cricket means once again it's time for us to analyse, praise, and criticise, the players and events of our beloved sport. When we talk of a bowler bowling too many bad balls, or a batsmen playing a good shot, just what does that mean? It seems a fairly odd question to ask. A bad ball is one that allows the

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-25238875409659410782011-11-18T18:01:00.000+11:002011-11-18T18:01:00.483+11:00

"[T]wentieth-century computer technology should at least make us cautious about laying down a priori what material structures could not do" - J. L. Mackie

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-63940198761078604392011-11-18T12:00:00.002+11:002011-11-18T12:00:03.015+11:00

A note on methodologyThe five talking points above wouldn't, at least to my mind, represent the greatest case for God being a myth. For example, the moral question and the historicity of the resurrection have interesting points to be made but require extrapolation of things that are off-topic. Without spending time arguing for some form of moral standard, criticising objective moral value as myth

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-33030841865829541912011-11-17T12:00:00.001+11:002011-11-17T12:00:00.048+11:00

5. Myth can be immediately known and experienced. In the last 50 years, calls to authorities about UFOs spiked at points in time when there was science fiction about aliens in the popular culture. Particular spikes happened around Close Encounters Of The Third Kind and The X-Files. Yet there's no hard evidence of any such craft, and the people who spend the most time looking into the sky (amateur

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-76607109742865123382011-11-16T12:00:00.002+11:002011-11-16T12:00:04.344+11:00

4. Myth provides the best explanation for the historical facts concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. First, a qualification. I'm not advocating the Jesus myth hypothesis; I don't particularly care about what historical truth lies at the core of the biblical account. Myth, in this context, should be taken to mean a fiction as we would the claim that Uri Geller bends spoons with

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-11399305294354966132011-11-15T12:00:00.003+11:002011-11-15T12:00:01.100+11:00

3. Myth provides the best explanation for objective moral values. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Many theists and atheists alike concur on this point. For example, the late J.L. Mackie of Oxford University, one of the most influential atheists of our time, admitted, "If [...] there are [...] objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-26653464093579665032011-11-14T12:00:00.002+11:002011-11-14T12:00:00.348+11:00

2. Myth provides the best explanation for invoking God to explain order in the universe. During the last four hundred years, scientists have discovered that what was once thought the domain of the deity has been explained without a mind as the organising force.Isaac Newton, perhaps the greatest scientific mind ever to have lived, argued for a divine hand in the ordering of the solar system: "For

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-62788939859189380722011-11-13T12:00:00.001+11:002011-11-13T12:00:00.747+11:00

In this discussion I'm going to defend two basic contentions: I. There are no good reasons to think that theism is true, and II. There are good reasons to think that God is a myth.Let's look at the first major contention, that there are no good reasons to think that theism is true. Theist philosophers have tried for centuries to prove the existence of God. But no one has been able to come

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-1030948899944172932011-11-12T12:00:00.007+11:002011-11-18T12:13:19.073+11:00

It all started with this comment from theist, and occasional Pharyngula commenter, Eric: You may dismiss his methodology (but be prepared to pay the consequenses — think about it), or you may reject one of his premises, but let’s not fall into the trap of pretending that Craig isn’t doing some serious philosophy here. A response to a comment of mine of the absurdity of finding personal causation

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-46826933814426295742011-11-06T06:44:00.001+11:002011-11-06T06:44:50.734+11:00

"If religion really were a private matter, I doubt that many of us would spend so much time going after it." - Jerry Coyne

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-33059079594687969492011-09-13T18:47:00.000+10:002011-09-13T18:48:55.795+10:00

"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." - David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-60325605566427323002011-08-28T11:52:00.001+10:002011-08-28T11:52:58.420+10:00

Many creationists try to make a big deal out of the link between evolution and atheism. Those who stand up for teaching evolution are often branded as atheists, including many devout theists. It seems there are two central claims behind such links. The first claim is that evolution is incompatible with a belief in God - that it either leaves God redundant or diminishes our species to a mere

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-57834481188848955062011-08-27T07:20:00.000+10:002011-08-27T07:21:57.738+10:00

I got into a bit of an argument with a creationist recently, which is nothing unusual for me. In the ensuring discussion I asked them what evidence there was against evolution. They brought up intelligent design, together with a sarcastic quip that I reject it without having reasons why. The phrase vacuous nonsense comes to mind, though it's easy to demonstrate how intelligent design is vacuous

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-29290968392662033072011-08-24T19:50:00.000+10:002011-08-24T19:54:58.825+10:00

In many of the ethical quandaries of our time, most case involve having to give up something. In the case of animal welfare, for example, those arguing for animal freedom are asking others to give up eating meat and using animal products. In the case of climate change, we are being asked to cut back, or even give up, on certain greenhouse-emitting products and activities. The case of gay

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-74592255428223089922011-08-09T23:12:00.003+10:002011-08-09T23:20:25.925+10:00

Normally I try to stay away* from biblical interpretation, but sometimes it can be downright hilarious. Creationist accounts of the history of the universe to fit into Genesis is comically absurd, for example. It's sad in a way, too, as the absurdities are consequences of untenable premises. One of the charges against such biblical interpretations has been the monstrous accounts of God in the

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-3051140495546074752011-08-05T18:00:00.001+10:002011-08-05T18:00:11.833+10:00

"The concept of God has gradually retreated from the concept of an anthropomorphic creator figure, judge and overseer to a mystery-shrouded Wonderful Something-or-Other utterly beyond human ken. It is impossible for me to believe in any of the anthropomorphic gods, because they are simply ridiculous, and so obviously the fantasy-projections of scientifically ignorant minds trying to understand

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-27124795044801053572011-08-05T15:55:00.000+10:002011-08-05T15:55:43.616+10:00

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-05/27nazi-philosophy27-behind-ethics-classes3a-nile/2826280The New South Wales Upper House has begun debating the future of school ethics classes, with Christian Democrats MP Fred Nile comparing them to Nazi philosophy.Reverend Nile introduced a private member's bill in May to repeal the legislation that allows ethics classes to be offered as an alternative to

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-19322736973010717502011-07-31T01:15:00.001+10:002011-07-31T01:31:34.529+10:00

There are plenty of reasons to believe in some sort of physicalist account of mind and reject the notion of dualism. Yet when I talk to dualists about it, they feel the same way about dualism. Of course this should be no surprise, as Catholics tend to feel that there are good reasons to be Catholic, and those who believe in psychic powers don't do so despite thinking there's a weak case for

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-72160699625344295072011-07-29T23:48:00.002+10:002011-07-29T23:51:53.605+10:00

Nineteen Eighty-Four was one of those books I read as a teenager that helped shape my views on personal liberty. I'm not sure how much I still hold to those near-anarchic ideals, but individual liberty is still very much a concern of mine.Of many of the themes explored in Orwell's classic, Newspeak stands out for me as the most striking. For those unfamiliar, Newspeak involved impoverishing the

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-52310144518860900182011-07-29T16:05:00.002+10:002011-07-29T16:08:56.589+10:00

"It is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-72977679749086077382011-07-24T21:42:00.000+10:002011-07-24T21:43:22.246+10:00

How it is people come to believe what they do and why is a very different story to the arguments and reasons used to defend such beliefs. As Michael Shermer argues in The Believing Brain, beliefs come first then come justifications. The danger for all us who wish to hold beliefs for rational reasons is that often those reasons are mere rationalisations.I've been reading a recent back and forth

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-81933701914895827322011-07-22T23:11:00.002+10:002011-07-22T23:16:29.142+10:00

"We can treat others badly who do not share our values because it feels right." - Bruce Hood

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-12304803377298109012011-07-10T20:50:00.004+10:002011-07-10T21:00:43.339+10:00

The regional price fixing on Steam is frustrating; my general way of dealing with it is to not buy a game until it's reduced to nearly nothing and make a complaint on the Steam Facebook feed.In any case, it's funny when there's a loophole in the price fixing, where the game is available cheap by getting it through a package that isn't marked up for the privilege of living in Australia. On the

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-69530097853671413902011-06-12T07:00:00.000+10:002011-06-12T07:00:00.107+10:00

As I've explained on the blog before, a deepity (coined by philosopher Dan Dennett) is a statement that is true in the trivial sense, but profoundly wrong in its implication. The classic example being "love is a four letter word" which of course is true but profoundly wrong about the nature of love.My wife recently reminded me of a deepity I had said many years ago, not quite so obvious as the

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-60679545214712576302011-06-11T07:00:00.000+10:002011-06-11T08:14:34.929+10:00

It's common to see believers claim that holy books contained truths that only modern science has discovered - presumably as a way to claim divine intervention because the knowledge would be blind to the ancient authors.It's a bad argument for a number of reasons - mainly that it doesn't actually show divine authorship (see Shermer's last law). But one general criticism would be that people are

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-10047210468151398582011-06-10T07:00:00.000+10:002011-06-10T07:00:01.861+10:00

Expelled as a documentary was a failure in so many ways. It failed in terms of being an informative documentary - seen through by almost every critic who viewed it as bad propaganda; it failed in terms of being an entertaining documentary - it was quite frankly boring; and at the end of it there wasn't even a coherent message to the picture. Some people got Expelled or something, and big bad

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-25424881659247287582011-05-31T07:00:00.000+10:002011-05-31T07:00:00.181+10:00

In the documentary The Nature Of Existence, one of the things that stood out to me was just how poor some of the answers people gave were. For example, a Christian wrestler gave the purpose of existence to be recognising Jesus as our Lord an savior - which I guess for him is luck he was born into a society (and probably a family) that just happened to hold that as true.Now I don't take that

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-3981808906939462832011-05-30T07:00:00.000+10:002011-05-30T07:00:02.106+10:00

Over at Pharyngula, PZ Myers received an email from a conservative atheist about whether one can be an atheist without being a progressive. From the email:Can one be a conservative and atheist at the same time? It seems to me that atheism goes hand in hand with progressivism, which is not my thing...And PZ's response: It is entirely true that one can be an atheist, in the very narrowest sense of

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-3599743959736812472011-05-29T07:00:00.000+10:002011-05-29T07:00:00.807+10:00

Some arguments are just worth winning, the intellectual ground sacrificed is just too great. Ken Miller's argument for an interventionist deity that worked in the uncertainty of quantum mechanics would be one of those instances because it treats an interventionist deity as indistinguishable from no deity at all.These arguments are Pyrrhic victories, and it baffles me as to why people would want

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-19135501083976522732011-05-28T07:00:00.000+10:002011-05-28T07:48:08.498+10:00

When it comes to the notion of minds, it's something that we are all intimately familiar with. "Cogito, ergo sum" is something we all can recognise instantly and understand the implications.I think this, however, gives the false impression that we can understand the nature of minds a priori - or at the very least grounds for individuals to argue as such. The success of explaining phenomena in the

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-33415407741951154272011-05-27T18:04:00.000+10:002011-05-27T18:04:00.508+10:00

"Where two principles really do meet which cannot be reconciled with one another, then each man declares the other a fool and heretic." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-37751790143209025032011-05-27T07:00:00.000+10:002011-05-27T07:00:02.350+10:00

So much unnecessary argument could be avoided if people took general heuristics to be a guide rather than an absolute. That they don't work in every scenario doesn't mean they have no utility whatsoever, or that they have worked in the past makes them an absolute. People really do a disservice to arguments by arguing for extremes.

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-18709686540995451182011-05-26T07:00:00.000+10:002011-05-26T07:00:01.403+10:00

Look at the image above, on the packaging it looks like a lasagna bursting with meat. And they proudly boast "100% Australian Quality Beef". Yep, all 12 grams of it, for reading the ingredients (shown below) beef makes up a total 2% of all that's gone into it.Of course, with the way its advertised you wouldn't expect that to be the case. After all, who needs to look at ingredients on something

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-43108621761027910552011-05-13T07:00:00.000+10:002011-05-14T08:53:45.936+10:00

As the argument goes, if everything in the universe is determined, then we are determined too. It seems something everyone can accept, but for some this destroys any possibility of having free will. Thus, the argument goes, any form of retributive punishment is left over from a prescientific understanding of action.I'm personally a compatibilist, but for the sake of argument, let's assume there

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-22179383350104018632011-05-12T07:00:00.000+10:002011-05-12T07:00:01.028+10:00

At any point if a belief or set of beliefs gets to the point where human sympathy is cast aside and there's a failure of empathy, then those beliefs warrant a serious reexamination. Surely any belief worth holding has human interest at heart. So if it has human interest apart, yet the application has the net effect of dehumanisation, then perhaps the message has been taken the wrong way.

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-1878515377530427722011-05-11T07:00:00.001+10:002011-05-11T07:00:00.404+10:00

There's only so much time and effort one can put into engaging with people who aren't willing to listen. Doctors need to spend time being doctors, not dealing with conspiracy claims about Big Pharma. Governments have countries to run, not to bow down to every crackpot conspiracy theorist who has some claims that need debunking. Climate researchers need to do science, not answer FOI request after

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-42066498326469834902011-05-10T07:00:00.000+10:002011-05-10T07:00:01.055+10:00

I'm sure when it comes to the issue of global starvation, there wouldn't be a single person who would deny that it's a problem. But then what? Are we all going to rally together to make sure to feed the world? Perhaps agreement isn't all there is, paying lip service to an ideal is a nice way to size up someone morally, but it really doesn't accomplish anything.

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-7249876931140698952011-05-09T07:00:00.000+10:002011-05-09T07:00:00.824+10:00

As important as arguments are, it's just as important (or even more-so) to see where the arguments are coming from. If someone was brought up to believe a particular holy book as being true, it's relevant to point that out. After all, other people are brought up to believe a different holy book. Of course that doesn't reflect on the truth of the claims, it might be that one holy book really is

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-41983752098211023742011-05-08T07:00:00.000+10:002011-05-08T07:00:03.435+10:00

On the internet, we have relative anonymity. While perhaps we're giving away much more personal information than we would care to, at the same time in any given interaction there's not much known about personal details on one's life. This also has the added advantage of being able to hide those things that normally form part of our social interactions. For a large extent, unless one divulges

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-47787036589674458592011-05-07T07:00:00.000+10:002011-05-07T07:00:02.931+10:00

When I hear about something like homoeopathy, once I learn of what it is I can't see any way in which it could work. There's just no scientific plausibility to such a notion at all. Yet intuitively there's always the question of "what if?" And no matter how much I can read on homoeopathy and see it academically as nonsense, I have the intuitive notion not to dismiss it. If homoeopathy could work

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-86553488926097732392011-05-06T18:01:00.000+10:002011-05-06T18:01:01.055+10:00

"I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it." - George Carlin

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-4805520255905011632011-05-06T07:00:00.000+10:002011-05-06T07:00:04.330+10:00

Bringing up solipsism when it comes to a discussion of knowledge is the argumentative equivalent of setting off a nuclear explosion to settle a fight.

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-7755276383400562242011-05-05T07:00:00.001+10:002011-05-05T07:00:05.437+10:00

If anyone wants to put a date on when the world is going to end, can I have their things? If someone is going to go to the trouble of naming an exact time or date the world is going to end, then with it should come the accepted responsibility for being wrong. If they want to preach that there will be no tomorrow, then they should back that up with action.

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-18350603007256053382011-05-04T07:00:00.000+10:002011-05-04T07:00:05.084+10:00

The scientific debate over climate change is just that: scientific. It's a part of the debate that the overwhelming majority of us do not have a say in. Yet the debate over climate change doesn't end there, what we ought to do about it socially and politically are conversations where climate scientists and laypeople have just as much interest and say in how to go about it.Should we work to limit

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-35370474949861757582011-05-03T07:00:00.001+10:002011-05-03T07:00:02.732+10:00

Most of the arguments I encounter for climate denial end up boiling down to a conspiracy. The scientists themselves have manufactured the controversy so they have job security and/or get grants, or the scientists are all left-wing ideologues wishing to push their socialist agenda on the world, or that the scientists are merely puppets for government who want to use climate change to push for a

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-19244770615532913842011-05-02T07:00:00.001+10:002011-05-02T07:00:00.273+10:00

I recently came across one of the dumbest arguments for a conspiracy against climate change. The argument goes like this:Governments have it in their own interests to push what will give them more power. Climate change would give governments more power.Governments control the funding of climate science.Therefore, the government is controlling scientific consensus.Let's for the sake of argument

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-26790116700996625882011-05-01T07:00:00.000+10:002011-05-01T07:00:02.089+10:00

One criticism levelled at intelligent design is that often the arguments amount to god-of-the-gaps where the designer is placed in a gap of our knowledge. An example would be that since we don't know how the bacterial flagellum developed, to invoke a designer would just be taking a gap in our knowledge and saying "God did it".The response I often hear to this is that calling it a god-of-the-gaps

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-12322151553414078832011-04-30T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-30T07:00:01.208+10:00

Near-death experiences prove dualism in the same way as a child from a penniless family receiving money for her tooth proves a tooth fairy. An argument from ignorance is still an argument from ignorance even if the solution is not apparent.

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-14281223448145861152011-04-29T18:02:00.002+10:002011-04-29T18:02:00.187+10:00

"Best explanations are not only coherent, they are testable; they have predictive power; and they fit not just the facts of the case but other known facts as well." - Julian Baggini

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-30908793537599562312011-04-29T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-29T07:00:05.788+10:00

Today, the second in line to be King of Australia is getting married. My care-factor is the same as the care-factor for the Swedish royal wedding or a celebrity wedding (i.e. none at all), yet this is meant to be my king. It's a really odd thought, but that's the absurdity that is the anachronism of European colonialism in the 21st century. Someone halfway around the world has an official title

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-73687547736157859922011-04-28T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-28T07:00:00.496+10:00

The 1023 campaign has tried to highlight to the general public that homoeopathy didn't work, the idea was to demonstrate that there was nothing in it. If you ask non-homoeopaths about homoeopathy, many people will say it's a form of herbal medicine. It would be fair to say that many are unaware of what homoeopathy is, let alone how it is meant to work.Yet professional homoeopaths are aware that

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-87671990368081477932011-04-27T07:00:00.001+10:002011-04-27T07:00:04.902+10:00

When people say there are too many abortions in society, do they have a figure in mind of what's acceptable? 100% abortions would be unacceptable, obviously, as would a number that kept the birthrate too low for a sustainable population. But what then? Would any abortion that was done as a means of birth control be one too many? Would any abortion be too many? The problem of course is that we can

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-19632084664337486992011-04-26T07:00:00.001+10:002011-04-26T07:00:04.036+10:00

Right way to analyse a phenomenon: Here's some data, how shall we interpret it?Wrong way to analyse a phenomenon: Here's my interpretation, why do you deny the data?Too often I see people taking the data and interpretation as if one implied the other. Take near death experiences, for example. If someone thinks that near-death experiences mean that the mind and body are literally separated, then

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-49022581668510781362011-04-25T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-25T07:00:01.451+10:00

Back in the final days of my computer science degree, I was introduced to the game Narbacular Drop; a student-made game made. As a concept it was really novel, and as a computer science student it was amazing to see what a group of students were able to come up with.I really enjoyed the original Portal, it's very clever in its execution and kept a dark sense of humour throughout the game to keep

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-4901688697515138352011-04-24T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-24T07:00:03.922+10:00

The utility of any moral system is surely measured in its ability to help make moral decisions from first principles. If it can't do that, then what's the point? This is one major problem I have with forms of divine command theory, its predicated on what that which is divinely-commanded, yet how can we establish what is divinely-commanded and what isn't from first-principles? It's a non-starter,

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-9265247868810908622011-04-23T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-23T07:00:01.548+10:00

I really do like the idea of fair trade, though when looking at fair trade products, often they have the word organic in near proximity. I can understand why that is, that many people who would be willing to buy fair trade are the kind of people who would also buy organic food. But as one person who values the role of modern technology in our food production, to me organic represents a backwards

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-37356891801216055812011-04-22T18:03:00.000+10:002011-04-22T18:03:00.591+10:00

"Be a philosopher; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man." - David Hume

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-70617544794423051202011-04-22T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-22T07:00:01.089+10:00

The concept of memes was interesting when I first heard it, became metaphorical the more I learnt about it, and now I consider it as not having any explanatory power. Yet there is still some superficial plausibility to it the idea, and that was highlighted on a recent episode of The Big Bang Theory.In the episode, two of the characters decided to spread two rumours to see whether or not there was

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-88666934787867256572011-04-21T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-21T07:00:03.162+10:00

While slavery is gone, we still face the problem of exploitation in our modern society when it comes to products. We can fight for fair working conditions and compensation in our own quarters, but in a global economy, it can be much cheaper to use less affluent societies to produce what are consumed elsewhere. If we're not willing to subject people to those working conditions in our own society,

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-75169009621728124532011-04-20T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-20T07:00:01.393+10:00

Insurance, in order to remain a viable business, needs to be profitable for insurers in the long run. Someone is paying for any insurance bonus one gets, just like with poker machines that have a set margin of return. If someone wins big, it means that multiple people have lost - and that excludes the margin the poker machine companies take out.In terms of a disaster fund for Australia, I can't

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-68065676144127401042011-04-19T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-19T07:00:02.982+10:00

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" In some ways, it's the most puzzling question of all. Because even if we can explain everything about the universe, (e.g. why there are humans is because of evolution; why there is matter is because of energy) what we cannot explain is why there is anything at all.There are many problems with such a question, the main one is that we assume that

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-14358037192498131932011-04-18T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-18T07:00:01.351+10:00

When it comes to scotch, it seems a heresy to use it in a cocktail. Cocktails are for lesser drinks, not for drinks that are to be enjoyed for what they are. Likewise Drambuie as a scotch liqueur is incredibly good on its own, richly complex with herbal and honey characteristics to complement the underlying scotch. Yet I immensely enjoy a good rusty nail. My ideal recipe is:3 parts Glenlivet

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-48411443374756406442011-04-17T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-17T07:00:02.209+10:00

Recently I've been seeing advertisements warning against using drugs by highlighting the chemicals that might be used in the product. The chemicals are no doubt toxic ones, but the question is whether such chemicals can actually have negative health effects in the quantities taken with the drug itself. If not, for all the best intentions, the campaign is relying on the same fallacious foundation

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-14414235751603958872011-04-16T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-16T07:00:01.404+10:00

Let's say, hypothetically, that a form of divine command theory is true. That the only ontology in which objective morality makes any sense is one grounded by God. Now comes the question of epistemology - how do we know what's good? No matter what premises one puts as the grounding of the ontology, there's simply no way of deriving what is right or wrong. Rather we're left making the subjective

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-13399730486257870942011-04-15T18:01:00.000+10:002011-04-15T18:01:00.516+10:00

"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." - Isaac Asimov

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-39914054307622904682011-04-15T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-15T07:00:02.380+10:00

As an atheist, I'm really not into the position to judge whether something is good theology or not. I can point out implications, inconsistencies, and absurdities, but I don't have any basis for what makes something good theology. As such, if someone makes an argument on the basis of their interpretation of scripture, can I really say that they're interpretation is correct?Ken Miller, for example

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-71279889626876913822011-04-14T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-14T07:00:00.595+10:00

Normally I don't engage in internet surveys, but last time I was moving house I did one relating to phone companies. I had some pretty bad things to say about my phone carrier in the survey, and a few hours later my phone was cut off. Coincidence? Yes. My phone was meant to be cut off anyway, though they did it a few days early. But of course that one action followed the other made me see a

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-80729831126534660172011-04-13T07:00:00.002+10:002011-04-13T11:33:06.822+10:00

It's often said that if atheism were true, there would be no ultimate justice for our actions. The wicked would go unpunished and the good would go unrewarded. While there's no universal requirement for justice to exist, isn't the lack of justice in an afterlife an imperative to working towards justice in this life? Surely if we know that this life is it, and we abhor injustice and wicked deeds,

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-45930094646632008832011-04-12T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-12T07:00:00.163+10:00

One objection to the notion of moral responsibility is one of determinism. That is, if we can't help do what we do, then we are not responsible for it. Discussions about materialism often hinge around the assumption that if it's all physically determined there's no sense to have moral responsibility. But physical determinism isn't the only kind of determinism out there that people use to take

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-29335887439390451412011-04-11T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-11T07:00:05.506+10:00

The Shroud of Turin is often held up as relic of Christ, even though there's no evidence that it actually was the burial shroud of Christ, and there's very good evidence to suggest that it was a middle-ages work of art. There's a modern day story spread that Darwin recanted on his deathbed, something that is completely made up. The person in question who Darwin was supposed to have recanted to

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-76738337133156218282011-04-10T07:00:00.001+10:002011-04-10T07:00:04.893+10:00

When it comes to trying wine, studies have shown that there's a huge psychological component to the experience. For example, if you give people the same wine and change say to some that it's a $90 bottle while to others its a $10 bottle, the wine will be rated more highly if it's given a higher cost. The same white wine dyed to look red will taste sweeter for those who drank the white. Most

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-33975946404585473982011-04-09T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-09T07:00:03.404+10:00

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-50071994788382366632011-04-08T18:04:00.000+10:002011-04-08T18:04:00.269+10:00

"Isn't it interesting how physics concludes that life is possible given the constants of nature as they are? God could have created the universe in such a way to make life impossible under pure naturalism (a 6000 year old earth, etc), yet apparently we are to believe that he did so in a way which still makes sense under naturalism. Wouldn't it be miraculous if the universe couldn't have possibly

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-39777951068009491752011-04-08T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-08T07:00:00.177+10:00

I probably swear more at my work computer than I do anywhere else. Being a professional programmer means I'm in a job where there's certain moments of satisfaction and certain moments of frustration that accompany the skill. When things go right, the job is very rewarding. Puzzle solving is its own reward, so to get paid to do it professionally is about as good as it can get. But of course those

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-65241766174213669172011-04-07T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-07T07:00:02.292+10:00

It's always interesting to hear a public debate because it has the virtue of exposing people to a way of thinking they're not normally willing to listen to. Perhaps if nothing else, there's value in that. As a platform for getting to truth, however, it makes as much sense to put credence into a debate performance as it does a news soundbyte.What I find much more enlightening, however, is a more

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-57591825590971170922011-04-06T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-06T07:00:01.480+10:00

[a short dialogue exploring a naturalist's "dogmatic" denial of the supernatural]I'm a detective working a major murder case. As far as cases go, this case is as open-and-shut as it could get. The physical evidence is overwhelming, the scene of the crime is littered with forensic evidence that all points to one suspect. The victim's blood is on his clothes and in his car, the murder weapon was

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-27634830659009089812011-04-05T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-05T07:00:00.436+10:00

When it comes to medicine, for the most part I really don't care whether or not people want to treat their illness with whatever they think will work. I obviously don't want people to die because they thought that homoeopathy could cure cancer, but for the most part I'm not concerned so much with every quack treatment someone thinks will work.However I am concerned when those medical choices

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-11205755422922870582011-04-04T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-04T07:00:00.235+10:00

The main kind of design we are familiar with is a top-down design, a goal-driven design process where results can be achieved through conscious planning and processes. This can be summed up as "if we see a watch, we infer a watchmaker". But there are bottom-up design processes too, where structure and function are emergent properties of the process - not of a conscious design. Cats know how to

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-2698537576436456122011-04-03T07:00:00.000+10:002011-04-03T07:00:00.717+10:00

Why does a turtle have a hard shell? Why do tigers have large teeth and claws? Why do some plants develop spikes? Why does a cuckoo chick push other eggs out of its parasite nest? Why are toxic animals often brightly coloured? Why are there non-toxic butterflies that have a similar appearance to toxic species? Why are mammals in the Arctic often white? Why do some insects resemble plant material?

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-62917544484839327022011-04-02T07:00:00.000+11:002011-04-02T07:00:03.236+11:00

Deductive arguments are useful, but limited in application. When it comes to the truth of a matter that relies on observation, evidence, and conceptual clarity, then negative arguments become logical traps. Worse still is if the entire case is based on a negative argument, then all the argument becomes is an argument for ignorance. It might all logically follow, but it would tell us nothing

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-37118654114838176432011-04-01T18:02:00.001+11:002011-04-01T18:02:00.120+11:00

"Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and the superstitious who say they are being oppressed by science. So 1984." - Marc Crislip

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-19324311463016409152011-04-01T07:00:00.000+11:002011-04-01T07:00:01.965+11:00

If the eye is held up by creationists as indicative of God because of it's intricate complexity and function, yet that is perfectly explainable by evolution, then surely that attests to the power of evolution. So then why would the brain be any more of a problem for evolution than the eye? Of course creationists don't accept that the eye did evolve, but the empirical evidence for it is

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3996559676441105299.post-61988921264260311632011-03-31T07:00:00.000+11:002011-03-31T07:00:00.717+11:00

When I see notions of the afterlife in film and television, I get the impression that our conception of what the afterlife is meant to be is just this life we have right now, but unhinged from the material. The dead are still portrayed as being very much alive. Without brain processes how do they think? Without material bodies, how do they experience? What could it possibly mean to be outside of

Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.com0