tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post5364817142264424311..comments2024-03-05T00:59:35.390+08:00Comments on Angry Doctor: Why there are no ghostsangry dochttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-88964544546979676572010-02-16T14:32:32.759+08:002010-02-16T14:32:32.759+08:00Angry Doc, love your blog. But you have no contac...Angry Doc, love your blog. But you have no contact information.<br /><br />I'd like to add your blog to the Paliban Daily's "Paliban World" aggregator . . . but I don't add feeds without the owner's permission.<br /><br />You should be able to see my email address (I think), so please contact me. If not, go to the site I won't give a link lest I be caught by a spam-catcher, but you'll find it via Google easily enough) and use the contact form.<br /><br />Thanks, and keep up the good skepticism!JennyDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03180092324026480015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-73365190461877462022010-02-02T15:10:46.341+08:002010-02-02T15:10:46.341+08:00Either ghosts exist or they don't.
It's ...Either ghosts exist or they don't. <br /><br />It's not a matter of opinion. It's just one or the other. Ghosts don't exist for one person "just because" and then exist for someone else, again, "just because". If they did, it would make them meaningless.<br /><br />It's not about various levels evidence required. They do or they don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-48123634054707524562007-08-19T21:09:00.000+08:002007-08-19T21:09:00.000+08:00"...an example of a ghostly brush that turned out ...<I>"...an example of a ghostly brush that turned out to have a positive conclusion?"</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe a night call or two in the old Changi Hospital might have changed your mind.blacktaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17287716938388381720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-23467030378879266912007-08-17T23:22:00.000+08:002007-08-17T23:22:00.000+08:00Anonymous August 17, 2007 4:08 PM said...In the sa...Anonymous August 17, 2007 4:08 PM said...<BR/><BR/><B>In the same vein, let's not forget the possibility of mad scientists. Also, without planes, there is no 9/11.</B><BR/><BR/>I have a question anon 4:08. If your head gets bashed with a baseball bat(by a mugger)is it the manufacturer's fault or the forest from which it came?<BR/><BR/>Can you please elucidate? <BR/><BR/>PZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-32750001337778672532007-08-17T19:35:00.000+08:002007-08-17T19:35:00.000+08:00"Also, without planes, there is no 9/11."Wow.You w..."Also, without planes, there is no 9/11."<BR/><BR/>Wow.<BR/><BR/>You win. I can't argue against that type of logic.<BR/><BR/>"What about encounters that science cannot explain? The Singapore Paranormal Investigators website has some mind-boggling stuff."<BR/><BR/>Of course.<BR/><BR/>Everything science can't yet explain *must* be due to ghosts.<BR/><BR/>Or aliens.angry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-19642025157402210892007-08-17T18:30:00.000+08:002007-08-17T18:30:00.000+08:00Anonymous August 17, 2007 4:08 PM said..."Whether ...Anonymous August 17, 2007 4:08 PM said...<BR/><BR/><B>"Whether we put religion (or science) in bad light depends on the way we use and abuse it isn't it?"</B><BR/><BR/>Please name me one scientist who has killed in the name of science.<BR/><BR/>"Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. For good people to do evil things, it takes religion." - Steven Weinberg <BR/><BR/><B>"Just because we have some idiots going around killing people and purporting to uphold their religious values does not mean every religion adherent "throw(s) their reasoning abilities down the drain".</B><BR/><BR/>Faith based believers are by definition those who abandon fact and reason. This is the default position of a monotheistic, religious person. So one shouldn't be at all surprised if they do indeed commit acts of stupidity. <BR/><BR/>What's even more insidious is the spin, indoctrination and brainwashing that would have you believe that the blinder the faith, the better your reward in heaven. <BR/><BR/> Just have <I>faith</I> and accept that Thor, Zeus, Poseidon, Allah God or the Juju man of the forest exists - unquestioningly.<BR/>Abandoning critical thinking is a good thing.<BR/><BR/>Besides, suicide bombers or Christian murderers of abortion doctors are not <I>"idiots"</I>. However misguided we may think them, they are motivated by what they perceive to be righteousness, faithfully pursuing what their religion tells them. They are not <I>idiots;</I> but religious idealists who, by their own lights, are rational. <BR/> <BR/><B>We have Good Samaritans too."</B><BR/><BR/>The problem about faith-based altruism is that it is contaminated with religious ideas that have nothing to do with the relief of human suffering. <BR/><BR/>You have say a Christian minister who's doing really good work, helping those who are hungry and healing the sick. However, as part of his job description, he feels he needs to preach the divinity of Jesus in communities where literally millions of people have been killed because of inter-religious conflict between Christians and Muslims. That added piece causes unnecessary suffering. <BR/><BR/>It would be better if he simply wanted to feed the hungry and heal the sick.<BR/><BR/>PZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-26972347680953201682007-08-17T16:08:00.000+08:002007-08-17T16:08:00.000+08:00Ok my reply's a bit late but I haven't had the tim...Ok my reply's a bit late but I haven't had the time to follow up.<BR/><BR/><I>Dawkins chooses religion as the target of his campaign because he sees it as the most dangerous of such institutions in our time. If it were Communists who flew a plane into the World Trade Centre he would probably have written "The Kapital Delusion" instead.</I><BR/><BR/><B>In the same vein, let's not forget the possibility of mad scientists out there who are so obsessed with advancing science that they disregard ethics? Think eugenics, think cloning. Also, without planes, there is no 9/11.</B> <BR/><BR/><I>"Very clever of Dawkins to give examples of ghostly brushes which all turned out to have negative conclusions."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps then you will furnish us with an example of a ghostly brush that turned out to have a positive conclusion?</I><BR/><BR/><B>What about encounters that science cannot explain? The Singapore Paranormal Investigators website has some mind-boggling stuff.</B> <BR/><BR/><I>Religious isn't as benign as you think it is.</I> <BR/><BR/><B>Science too, isn't it? We have atomic bombs and all sorts of nuclear (and non-nuclear) weaponry.</B> <BR/><BR/><I>It is the way blind faith makes people throw their reasoning abilites down the drain that makes it dangerous</I><BR/><BR/><B>Whether we put religion (or science) in bad light depends on the way we use and abuse it isn't it? Just because we have some idiots going around killing people and purporting to uphold their religious values does not mean every religion adherent "throw(s) their reasoning abilities down the drain". We have Good Samaritans too.</B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-2338447239995816242007-08-12T22:25:00.000+08:002007-08-12T22:25:00.000+08:00"At the end of the day, it’s about making a choice..."At the end of the day, it’s about making a choice. (justified or unjustified)"<BR/><BR/>It's not just a choice if religious beliefs can directly cause incidents such as 9/11 or sucide bombings. Just the way most of you would not agree that a murderer can just choose to kill someone else.<BR/><BR/>Religious isn't as benign as you think it is. Sure most people of faith are moderates. But it's like a benign cancer, waiting for a chance to turn malignant. It is the way blind faith makes people throw their reasoning abilites down the drain that makes it dangerous.I must be stupidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02345990874768296584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-63346341350613696922007-08-12T17:29:00.000+08:002007-08-12T17:29:00.000+08:00Anonymous August 12, 2007 3:12 PM said..."I under...Anonymous August 12, 2007 3:12 PM said...<BR/><BR/><B>"I understand if people are agnostic but if atheistic, narrow-mindedness comes to my mind."</B><BR/><BR/>I believe Dawkins' logical position is an agnostic one since one cannot disprove the existence of God. He is <I>atheistic</I> in the same way as one is in disbelieving the existence of green goblins and elves even though these mythical creatures cannot be disproven to exist. <BR/><BR/><B>"So far, I admit I have yet to find an argument that can defend my non-scientific beliefs (religious beliefs for example) from attacks that they are in the same league as myths, legends, superstitions and other figments of human imagination."</B><BR/><BR/>The simple answer and truth is that religious beliefs and superstitions are the same. How does one defend the indefensible?<BR/><BR/>Belief in religion and superstition both require the abandonment of logic and reason. It's called <I>faith.</I><BR/><BR/>The believers have been programmed to believe the propaganda that <I>faith</I> is good and a virtue. The blinder the <I>faith</I> the greater the reward in Heaven.<BR/><BR/>Abandoning the most important thing you can possess - your critical faculty - is sheer stupidity and highly dangerous. Religions like Islam and Christianity require that you do this. It leads to Islamist suicide bombers and Christian murderers of abortion doctors.<BR/><BR/>Believing in Allah or a Judaeo Christian God is no different from believing in Thor, Wotan, Apollo, Zeus or green globins and elves.<BR/><BR/>PZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-15774386903557767652007-08-12T16:30:00.000+08:002007-08-12T16:30:00.000+08:00"Very clever of Dawkins to give examples of ghostl..."Very clever of Dawkins to give examples of ghostly brushes which all turned out to have negative conclusions."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps then you will furnish us with an example of a ghostly brush that turned out to have a positive conclusion?<BR/><BR/><BR/>"... I’d say other modes of inquiry like religion employ a different criteria from science rather than a less stringent one"<BR/><BR/>"We do require a leap of faith (literally) to proclaim with conviction that God exists, or that there are ghosts in the world, or any other non-scientific claim. At the end of the day, it’s about making a choice. (justified or unjustified)"<BR/><BR/>There are a few problems with that position.<BR/><BR/>First of all, we need to ask ourselves: why can't a subject be investigated by the normal scientific method?<BR/><BR/>Second of all, if it cannot be investigated by the normal scientific method, which other method of inquiry should we use, and how do we know that that method of inquiry is the correct and valid one?<BR/><BR/>If we allow a certain system to claim exemption from the normal rules of evidence and substitute it with another, then essentially any system that cannot stand up to scrutiny can and will use that exemption. Invariably, you will find, they choose a system of inquiry that proves whatever it is that they claim.<BR/><BR/>If it all comes down to faith, what makes your faith more valid than that of a worshipper of Mithras or the Great Juju under the sea? Who then can say who is right or wrong? We can't all be right, can we?<BR/><BR/>You are right that ultimately it is a personal choice, but there is a difference between believing that Captain Kirk is a better captain than Captain Picard, believing in which meat one ought not to eat and on which day of the week one ought to rest, and believing that God wants you to kill unbelievers.<BR/><BR/>The fact is Captain Janeway is a better captain than Kirk or Picard, chicken never seems to get spared, and that people have killed unbelievers because they believed God wanted them to.<BR/><BR/>Religion is not the only institution to claim exemption from the normal rules of evidence - you can add racism, ballet, Communism, and certain alternative medicine therapies to that list. Dawkins chooses religion as the target of his campaign because he sees it as the most dangerous of such institutions in our time. If it were Communists who flew a plane into the World Trade Centre he would probably have written "The Kapital Delusion" instead.angry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-5478984066979154892007-08-12T15:12:00.000+08:002007-08-12T15:12:00.000+08:00Very clever of Dawkins to give examples of ghostly...Very clever of Dawkins to give examples of ghostly brushes which all turned out to have negative conclusions. (Manx shearwater and wind through a keyhole instead of some out-of-the-world phenomenon)<BR/><BR/><B>We all require evidence of one sort or another to believe; we just happen to have less stringent criteria for accepting someone's claims as valid evidence when we want or wish for them to be true, and vice versa.</B><BR/><BR/>I agree this whole issue is really about the criteria for the justification of claims. (though I’d say other modes of inquiry like religion employ a <I>different</I> criteria from science rather than a less stringent one) So far, I admit I have yet to find an argument that can defend my non-scientific beliefs (religious beliefs for example) from attacks that they are in the same league as myths, legends, superstitions and other figments of human imagination. We do require a leap of faith (literally) to proclaim with conviction that God exists, or that there are ghosts in the world, or any other non-scientific claim. At the end of the day, it’s about making a choice. (justified or unjustified) I just do not understand Dawkins’ particular hostility towards religion. He doesn’t even entertain the slightest possibility that there might be truth in religion. His arguments merely serve to reduce the credibility of theology, and do not disprove it entirely. <BR/><BR/>I understand if people are agnostic but if atheistic, narrow-mindedness comes to my mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-63787415497731005142007-08-12T12:54:00.000+08:002007-08-12T12:54:00.000+08:00Dawkins is flawless in all his arguments and expla...Dawkins is flawless in all his arguments and explanations.<BR/><BR/>I am so in love with his mind.<BR/><BR/>Oh he is cute too but isn't my type.:-)<BR/><BR/>PZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com