ladyfractal's Comments (849)

“There are also people who believe that in tad over 3 years, a giant solar flare is going to hit the Earth and turn it upside down.

Cheers
LF”

“Actually, the LHC is the holding pen of a mutant star goat that will come eat the Earth.

Cheers
LF”

“I think I see the point you're making. IF there is a god, which I think both of us would agree is a statement neither of us has incontribertible evidence for or against, then this entity would by necessity be so completely beyond our comprehension that any attempts to understand or make sense of it would be folly. If that's your statement then I agree.

Now, that said, I'm an atheist. I'd even go so far as to say that I'm one of those evil 'New Atheists' that don't necessarily believe in being quiet or apologetic about the matter. I would say that I see no good reason to believe in a god, that there's very little for that god to do if it did exist, that as a means for explaining *how* the Universe works it only clutters up the matter and that one can have a life rich in awe and meaning without all the extraneous worry about said god. Given all of that, the god hypothesis seems to me to be inelegant. I don't *know* that there's a god, I just don't see any reason to believe that there is.

I think that we can safely proceed 'as if' there were no god because any real ones would be too expansive for us to understand and likely wouldn't notice our existence. We can then get on with the difficult business of creating scratching out meaning from a Universe that doesn't owe us one.

Cheers
LF”

“Well, when you're stuck you can always bash gays. The law has a problem with it, but Jehovah is quite bullish on it (see Leviticus)

Cheers
LF”

“Nope. Has nothing to do with Muslims. Has *everything* to do with these kids trying to be 'hard' and 'hood' while rapping about, sweet Jesus this is silly, 'christian side hugs'.

Cheers
LF”

“I just showed this to my wife. The person who damaged my calm when she told me about the Furries. She's going to see if she can concoct some kind of psychic bleach. We thought, perhaps, we could drink it away and stood long in front of the liquor stock---then we realized that that way madness and alcohol poisoning lie. So now we have to figure out some way to permanently and forever wipe the very idea of 'Christian Side Hug' from our minds.

Cheers
LF
(Who now needs to add a MiB memory-erasing gadget to the 7 TeV supercollider on my "all I want for Christmas" wish-list)”

“Eye bleach please! I want to un-see it!!!!

Oh sweet and sour Jesus that was, perhaps, the cheesiest thing I've seen since I watched Plan 9 From Outer Space 25 years ago. One can only wonder if these "rappers" realize how completely and utterly pathetic they look.

Cheers
LF”

“Yes, thank goodness for small favors re: no reference to the LHC creating a black hole. And yes, I get what you are saying regarding the oversimplification.

(I have to admit that all I want for X-mas is a new 27" iMac and a 7TeV supercollider for my own)

Cheers
LF”

“I didn't call you ignorant. I said that there is a great deal of anti-science ignorance here at HuffPo. Again, I refer you to *either* of the recent discussions on the LCROSS mission and various comments re: "bombing the moon will throw women's menstrual cycles off" or "bombing the moon will upset the balance of the Universe".

Cheers
LF”

“What you don't appear to recognize is that in your post, you articulate--as well as I could--the very strength of science. IF evolutionary biology is wrong (and it almost certainly is NOT wrong) then it will eventually be discarded. However, evolution has passed every single test thrown at it for the last century and a half. Every. Single. One. A scientific theory is not a guess, by the way--in fact, it is about as far away from a guess as it is possible for human knowledge to be!

Evolution has been demonstrated time and time again. Let me suggest that you spend a year or two, read every book on evolutionary biology you can lay your hands on and then come back and have this conversation.

Cheers
LF”

“YOu don't get it, GOD made the car, GOD put oil in it, GOD moves electrons around, GOD cures your bacterial infection, GOD regulates the temperature in your home, GOD connects your cell phone to other cell phones, GOD regulates your insulin, etc.

(I don't believe this, I'm just taking these folks beliefs to their logical, non-stretched conclusion)

Cheers
LF”

“Zen:

Let me ask you a couple of pointed questions. Why should I let slide, for instance, the person who says that God hates gays and lesbians and, as a Christian nation, we should make laws that actively discourage homosexuality or, at best, not treat homosexuals equally under the law? If someone tells me that their religion, which I do not share, says that my relationship with my wife is inherently sinful and while they wish me no harm, they also want an America where I can lose my job because I'm a lesbian, why am I obliged to let that go as "one person's opinion"? Why are THEY accorded a right to believe as they do and to attempt to pass laws that directly harm me but *I* am supposed to suffer that indignity and injustice in silence?

Why am I, as a biologist, supposed to take it in stride when people want to have religion taught in biology class?

Cheers
LF”

“Eric:

While I agree with you that we have fallen away from the delicious Noodly Wisdom given to us by the FSM (peace and sauce be upon Her, Ramen) I must take issue with your characterization of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a He. It is obvious to all who have discernment that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (PASBUH) is a SHE. Is it not the case that mothers take their babies to their breast and nourish them. In so doing, are not all mothers only reflecting how the FSM gives us pasta in all its wonderful forms--from tortellini to angel hair--for the nourishment of our bodies and minds? Is not alfredo like mother's milk?

You need to get right with the Flying Spaghetti Monster that you may enjoy much grog, booty and wenches in that Great Pirate Cove.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (PASBUH) is reaching out to you with *HER* Noodly Appendage.

Cheers
LF
(Rev Lady Fractal, HIgh Pasta Priestess, First Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Reformed) )”

“Penguin:

Now, I'm curious:

Do you see anything in science like the three points I put forward in my prior post?

1) Does science seek to appropriate any gods or supernatural entities? No.

2) Does science have a defined and non-optional moral code? No. There are rules of professional conduct but that is true for airplane pilots, doctors, lawyers and soldiers and I strongly doubt that you would say that the ethical rules for, say, doctors or lawyers make the practice of medicine or law a religion.

3) Does science make non-evidence based claims about nature? No.

So how is it that if science does not have the hallmarks of a religion, it is just another religion?

Cheers
LF”

“I also want to clarify what is meant by religion:

Religion: N.
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods

Now, I would add to that definition the following:

1) Religions have non-optional (or close to non-optional) prior commitments to a particular metaphysical stance. So, for instance, in order to be a Christian you must believe that there is a god, that this god had a son named Jesus, that this Jesus character took human form and came to Earth where he was crucified and rose from the dead. Whatever *else* you might believe as a Christian, to meaningfully call yourself that you MUST believe that.

2) Religions also have mandatory moral prior commitments to them.

3) Religions make non-evidentiary based claims about the nature of reality.

(cont)”

“Penguin:

The problem isn't offense, the problem is accuracy. Let me ask you this (and I'm only being slightly tongue-in-cheek) since you are a Linux user: is the vi vs. emacs battle religion or a matter of choice? Is Gnome vs. KDE religious or a matter of choice? The way you are using religion--saying that science is just another religion--would be like saying that your choice to use vi or Gnome is a *religious* decision, indeed using your definition I could say that you have made a theological statement in your choice of XWindows interface and text editor.

Now, all joking within the UNIX and/or FOSS community about the theological wars between XWindows systems or text editors not-with-standing, the choice to use emacs over vi is NOT theological in any meaningful sense of the word. Yet, if we use your definition of religion then the belief that emacs is a better text editor is a *religious* belief of the same character as the belief that God, in the person of Jesus, sent himself to die so that he would be appeased from his own anger. Are these, in fact, the same kinds of statements? Is the statement "KDE is a better overall XWindows interface than either Gnome or Enlightenment" on a par with "there is no God but God and Mohammed is his messenger"?

Cheers
LF”

“If only I could be certain you were joking. Given the anti-science ignorance here (see bombing the moon will 'throw off the balance of the universe) at HuffPo, I fear you aren't.

Cheers
LF”

“What you are proposing is not a theory unless it can be falsified. By *definition* anything invoking god cannot be falsified and therefore is not a theory as that term is used in science.

Cheers
LF”

“Only if you stretch the word 'religion' to mean "any proposition that someone accepts as true". If THAT is how you are using the word 'religion' then you are correct because you've defined the word in such a way that you cannot help BUT be correct. However, science has NONE of the hallmarks of a religion.

Cheers
LF”

“One cannot help but note that, all the hype that was going on here a year ago on the day of the Great On-Turning (sorry couldn't help the Douglas Adams reference) not-with-standing about the LHC creating a mini-black hole and destroying the Earth, the planet is still here.

Cheers
LF”

“Particles is, in fact, the appropriate term to use.

Cheers
LF”

“Because for most laypeople (I'm not saying you) evolutionary biology and Darwinian theory are the same thing. There's a lot of vibrant discussion within the literature about how to weight the types of considerations I mentioned in my prior post but Kirk Cameron or other evolution deniers are *not* talking about these legitimate disputes and debates---in fact, they are largely unaware of them! Rather, what they are attacking is evolutionary biology in general.

Also, part of why you don't see this in other areas of science is that, on the whole, the general public leaves most other areas of science alone, thank you very much. With the exception of quantum mechanics (which is roped in to justify all manner of New Age nonsense) the general public is stunningly uninformed on most scientific matters. The reason you don't see a full-throated defense of, say, thermodynamics is that most laypeople wouldn't know the First or Second laws of thermodynamics if they came up and introduced themselves and wouldn't care if they were explained to them.

For some strange reason the public is obsessed with evolutionary biology even though they know no more about it than they do, by and large, classical mechanics. It is entirely appropriate for scientists and our defenders (I'm a student in bioinformatics) to try to explain evolutionary biology when people make completely non-sensical statements about it.

Cheers
LF”

“What, precisely, do you want to know?

Cheers
LF”

“PLEASE tell me you forgot to use sarcasm tags. PLEASE, I need to believe that no one would actually think this in all seriousness.

Cheers
LF”

“While I understand the offense (and am offended by it) I think that the Democrats are making yet another tactical error. It's a well-worn one for Democrats and it is this: they are showing that language like this bothers them. While the Dems are *correct* that the comments are out-of-line and offensive, they make the twinned mistakes of a) believing that the conservatives will *care* (they won't) and b) that this makes the conservatives look bad.

What it does is make Democrats look *weak* and one thing we should all have learned on the playground is that you never, ever, show weakness to the bully. Never. Should Vitter apologize? Of course he should! Will he? Of course he won't! And every request for apology will simply make Limbaugh, Beck, et. al. gleeful at the perceived distress which will only spur them on.

Cheers
LF”