@A1kmm"Atheism is a religious belief that there is no God, *without any proof*. Most other religions at least claim to have proof, whereas atheists (and agnostics) merely point to what they perceive as an absence of proof to the contrary.But absence of proof is not proof of absence (and many are convinced that there is proof)."You are so brainwashed. Not only do you not understand Atheism, your embarassing application of a scientific principle works just as well with pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, celestial teapots, thor, zeus, et cetera.If you REALLY bind to that logic, then you should spend the rest of your natural life trying to understand why you have selected to believe in one undisprovable god, versus any of the other undisprovable gods, all the while remembering that if you get the answer wrong - you will surely not be getting your prize at the end.Your's is a sad existance, because for you, faith is a huge crap shoot, and the odds are overwhemingly against you. But thanks for playing!Don't try to distort scientific principles (which are sceptical by definition), in order to reduce Atheism to the same level of irrationality as theism. It's embarassing, and it frustrating to those of us who would like to see science remain free from the tentacles of religion-induced ignorance, so that humanity may progress.
"but his article is full of untruths.""Name one."I pointed out two unsubstantiated claims in my comment above.That's not a response to my challenge. I challenged *untruths*, not the lack of substantiation."How much information ..... I was pointing out.Still, there is a limit to how much can be put in one page"The "pressure" is more appropriately attributed to the prosecutors. Try googling "Duke rape case". "1. Note that you are changing what the author meant in order to better defend it.Yes, in this area I agree that the author was too sloppy in his writing.2. I agree with you that prosecutors sometimes use pressure to attempt to prosecute. After all, their job is to attempt to reach a guilty verdict. But the verdict does not rest in their hands alone, it also depends on the argument of the defender and on the decision of the judge or jury. And the rape charges of the duke case have now been thrown out by the judge.That's under the assumption that it *gets* to a judge or jury. This can be a pretty big if. Actually, Nifong dropped the rape charge because was there no DNA. Not only that he suppressed it. Nifong has now had charges of unethical conduct filed against him. And *still* the other felonies are still active.
Man, I half expected to be bombarded with 9/11 Truther conspiracies, democrats "speaking truth to power" when I opened up this article. This was far better...I got a really great laugh out of this. Anyone else catch this gem of hypocrisy at the end of the article?"When the Clinton administration allowed the media concentration in the 1990s, the independence of the American media was destroyed.""The challenges that we face are the police state that Bush has created...."ROFL! No bias here folks, move along...
@joybran-You're right--not all corporations act this way, so you're getting my personal take on the matter, and how I've seen corporations affect some friends. However, per their strategy, corporations can be controlling in how they permit open discourse, and handle "truth" that might upset their plans. On the public level, corporations so often "bend the truth" in how they discuss earnings, projections, the merits of their products, and possible downsides. Then there's the whole marketing/advertising/PR angle of their "brands", which often borders on outright distortion just to place their product in the proper segment. Not to lump all corporations together, but much of the public cynicism towards corporations is due to their accounting irregularities, stock debacles, and overt manipulation of the free market system. Oh, and perhaps all that crappy, vaguely deceptive advertising plays a part.I've worked in advertising and marketing for the corporate world, and let's just say I'm a little jaded from all the BS I've seen--and their resistance to open dialogue and new ideas. (I did say I worked for a bad example) I do agree that private entrepreneurship is far more fulfilling than playing by another's rules, and I'm doing just that now.
@A1kmmYou said: -------"I think that now you have finally got down to where we disagree. Atheism is as irrational as theism, until such a time as someone brings proof"-------It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. This is where the use of the flying spaghetti monster comes in handy. It's just as irrational to believe in fsm as it is to believe in God, there is no proof for the existence of either, and as stated it is impossible to disprove the existence of either. It's also impossible to disprove that existence of banana shaped meatballs floating in an alternate universe made up of mexican taco stands, but that doesn't mean we all now have reason to believe it, or that merely by it being mentioned by somebody it must enter the realm of reasonable consideration and that we should all be inclined to entertain the notion that maybe, just maybe banana shaped meatballs are in orbit around a burrito shaped planet. There are literally an infinite number of examples of baseless claims that cannot be disproven. That does not give them credence.You said:-------"Science is sceptical by definition, but the consequence of this is not that we accept anything which we cannot disprove, but rather, that we do not accept anything which we cannot prove. Therefore, to accept theism into science, we need to prove that there is at least one God against the sceptical null hypothesis that there is no God. To accept atheism into science, we need to prove that there is no God against the sceptical null hypothesis that there is at least one God. Until such a time, the whole question remains in the uncertain middle-ground of conjecture, and neither belief belongs as a basis for scientific work."-------Your first sentence is absolutely correct, we agree 100%. There is no reason to believe in a super natural being for which there is no evidence.There is no proof for the existence of God, so there is no reason to believe that a God exists. Science doesn't say "There is no such thing as God!", it merely processes the evidence and says "No proof, therefore no reason to believe, therefore belief in God is unscientific and irrational." Simple. Belief that God exists is based on no evidence whatsoever, and therefore belief in his existence DESPITE THE LACK OF EVIDENCE, is irrational.Atheism is not a stance that says "There is no such thing as God!", Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in God. That's it. So if you discovered actual valid scientific proof tomorrow that God existed, then Scientists would run that through the science machine: "Proof, therefore reason to believe, therefore belief in God is scientific and rational." Simple. Belief that God exists is now based on evidence, and therefore belief in his existence DUE TO THAT EVIDENCE, is rational.It's fallacious to say that Atheism is a hypothesis that can be tested. It's not. There is no way to disprove the existence of something. (I'm going to bang this one in.) It's not how science works. You can't ever say "My hypothesis is that X does not exist anywhere in the universe.", because there is no way to test that hypothesis. You *can* say "My hypothesis is that X does exist", and then provide evidence of that. That is how it's done!To illustrate, let's consider Big Foot. Scientists do not waste their time trying to prove that Big Foot does not exist (again, because it's impossible). Instead, scientists review the integrity of the evidence that would support the existence of Big Foot's existence, and if anything turns up which would be considered proof, then and only then would it be rational to believe that Big Foot existed.No evidence has been accepted that proves Big Foot exists. So currently, it is irrational to believe that Big Foot exists. You don't have to call your self an "Abigfootist", and then go about having to defend your position as rational to all the people that say "but you haven't proven he doesn't exist!" It's just a rational position to hold, because you have no reason to believe Big Foot exists. In this way, the great majority of people are Abigfootists, and it's a perfectly rational thing to be.If I turn on the TV tomorrow, and there is news on every channel saying they have captured a Big Foot and he's on display at the zoo, I'll gladly accept the evidence and then next time someone asks me if I "believe in Big Foot", I'll cheerfully respond "yes", and it will be completely rational. But until that proof exists, it is irrational to say "yes I believe in Big Foot", and conversely it is completely rational to say "No, I have no reason to believe in Big Foot".If you are arguing that Atheism is irrational because it is the assertion that there is no such thing as God, then I would ask you to reassign your definition of Atheism as the lack of a belief in God. Otherwise you are guilty of setting up straw men.Understanding that Atheism is the lack of a belief in a God, and that Theism is the belief in a God, will be key to our discussion of rationality.Let P = WE HAVE PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS. Our formulas would look like this:if(P) then Theism is rational, and Atheism is irrational.If NOT P then Theism is irrational, and Atheism is rational.Since we have no evidence that God does exists, then it's perfectly rational to not believe that God exists, and it's irrational to believe he does exist.You sound like a perfectly intelligent person, but your reasoning is flawed. Atheism is not something one declares that one believes. A rational person that has no evidence that God exists, simply does not believe that God exists, and the word for that is Atheism. It's not a belief, it's the lack of belief.
>We must believe that we can stem the tide of madness, if we would just>organize, at a massive level. Is it naive to think that a massive>organization of such a kind would never turn into the same selfish,>tyrannical, hegemonic empire that currently threatens our global>survival?there was a time when i hoped you are right. i'm not sure i ever really believed it. the catch is that one person... one country can ruin it for everyone. certainly my country the U.S. didn't sign on to kyoto. we spew. there is a great finacial advantage to spewing. 3rd world countries will need to spew to raise the standard of living. nope. we will never get there. it won't be too many years until no matter what we do it won't help. we will have done the damage and it will run its course and we may or may not survive it. of late the capability to get off the earth and survive as a species has become real. we need to go. outside looking down we may save earth. we may keep it from being hit by a planet killer asteroid or comet. we can certainly take its plants and animals to new habitats... no matter how long we put it off it will die and our only chance to matter to the universe is to leave. long before we die we will loose the ability to leave by shear lack of resources. thats what i think anyway.
obkenobiDec 30, 2006
Saddam's execution is the cherry on top. America is f**ked.
coderifousDec 30, 2006
@A1kmm"Atheism is a religious belief that there is no God, *without any proof*. Most other religions at least claim to have proof, whereas atheists (and agnostics) merely point to what they perceive as an absence of proof to the contrary.But absence of proof is not proof of absence (and many are convinced that there is proof)."You are so brainwashed. Not only do you not understand Atheism, your embarassing application of a scientific principle works just as well with pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, celestial teapots, thor, zeus, et cetera.If you REALLY bind to that logic, then you should spend the rest of your natural life trying to understand why you have selected to believe in one undisprovable god, versus any of the other undisprovable gods, all the while remembering that if you get the answer wrong - you will surely not be getting your prize at the end.Your's is a sad existance, because for you, faith is a huge crap shoot, and the odds are overwhemingly against you. But thanks for playing!Don't try to distort scientific principles (which are sceptical by definition), in order to reduce Atheism to the same level of irrationality as theism. It's embarassing, and it frustrating to those of us who would like to see science remain free from the tentacles of religion-induced ignorance, so that humanity may progress.
jeffiekDec 30, 2006
"but his article is full of untruths.""Name one."I pointed out two unsubstantiated claims in my comment above.That's not a response to my challenge. I challenged *untruths*, not the lack of substantiation."How much information ..... I was pointing out.Still, there is a limit to how much can be put in one page"The "pressure" is more appropriately attributed to the prosecutors. Try googling "Duke rape case". "1. Note that you are changing what the author meant in order to better defend it.Yes, in this area I agree that the author was too sloppy in his writing.2. I agree with you that prosecutors sometimes use pressure to attempt to prosecute. After all, their job is to attempt to reach a guilty verdict. But the verdict does not rest in their hands alone, it also depends on the argument of the defender and on the decision of the judge or jury. And the rape charges of the duke case have now been thrown out by the judge.That's under the assumption that it *gets* to a judge or jury. This can be a pretty big if. Actually, Nifong dropped the rape charge because was there no DNA. Not only that he suppressed it. Nifong has now had charges of unethical conduct filed against him. And *still* the other felonies are still active.
cassholioDec 30, 2006
Man, I half expected to be bombarded with 9/11 Truther conspiracies, democrats "speaking truth to power" when I opened up this article. This was far better...I got a really great laugh out of this. Anyone else catch this gem of hypocrisy at the end of the article?"When the Clinton administration allowed the media concentration in the 1990s, the independence of the American media was destroyed.""The challenges that we face are the police state that Bush has created...."ROFL! No bias here folks, move along...
marinistDec 30, 2006
@joybran-You're right--not all corporations act this way, so you're getting my personal take on the matter, and how I've seen corporations affect some friends. However, per their strategy, corporations can be controlling in how they permit open discourse, and handle "truth" that might upset their plans. On the public level, corporations so often "bend the truth" in how they discuss earnings, projections, the merits of their products, and possible downsides. Then there's the whole marketing/advertising/PR angle of their "brands", which often borders on outright distortion just to place their product in the proper segment. Not to lump all corporations together, but much of the public cynicism towards corporations is due to their accounting irregularities, stock debacles, and overt manipulation of the free market system. Oh, and perhaps all that crappy, vaguely deceptive advertising plays a part.I've worked in advertising and marketing for the corporate world, and let's just say I'm a little jaded from all the BS I've seen--and their resistance to open dialogue and new ideas. (I did say I worked for a bad example) I do agree that private entrepreneurship is far more fulfilling than playing by another's rules, and I'm doing just that now.
coderifousDec 31, 2006
@A1kmmYou said: -------"I think that now you have finally got down to where we disagree. Atheism is as irrational as theism, until such a time as someone brings proof"-------It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. This is where the use of the flying spaghetti monster comes in handy. It's just as irrational to believe in fsm as it is to believe in God, there is no proof for the existence of either, and as stated it is impossible to disprove the existence of either. It's also impossible to disprove that existence of banana shaped meatballs floating in an alternate universe made up of mexican taco stands, but that doesn't mean we all now have reason to believe it, or that merely by it being mentioned by somebody it must enter the realm of reasonable consideration and that we should all be inclined to entertain the notion that maybe, just maybe banana shaped meatballs are in orbit around a burrito shaped planet. There are literally an infinite number of examples of baseless claims that cannot be disproven. That does not give them credence.You said:-------"Science is sceptical by definition, but the consequence of this is not that we accept anything which we cannot disprove, but rather, that we do not accept anything which we cannot prove. Therefore, to accept theism into science, we need to prove that there is at least one God against the sceptical null hypothesis that there is no God. To accept atheism into science, we need to prove that there is no God against the sceptical null hypothesis that there is at least one God. Until such a time, the whole question remains in the uncertain middle-ground of conjecture, and neither belief belongs as a basis for scientific work."-------Your first sentence is absolutely correct, we agree 100%. There is no reason to believe in a super natural being for which there is no evidence.There is no proof for the existence of God, so there is no reason to believe that a God exists. Science doesn't say "There is no such thing as God!", it merely processes the evidence and says "No proof, therefore no reason to believe, therefore belief in God is unscientific and irrational." Simple. Belief that God exists is based on no evidence whatsoever, and therefore belief in his existence DESPITE THE LACK OF EVIDENCE, is irrational.Atheism is not a stance that says "There is no such thing as God!", Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in God. That's it. So if you discovered actual valid scientific proof tomorrow that God existed, then Scientists would run that through the science machine: "Proof, therefore reason to believe, therefore belief in God is scientific and rational." Simple. Belief that God exists is now based on evidence, and therefore belief in his existence DUE TO THAT EVIDENCE, is rational.It's fallacious to say that Atheism is a hypothesis that can be tested. It's not. There is no way to disprove the existence of something. (I'm going to bang this one in.) It's not how science works. You can't ever say "My hypothesis is that X does not exist anywhere in the universe.", because there is no way to test that hypothesis. You *can* say "My hypothesis is that X does exist", and then provide evidence of that. That is how it's done!To illustrate, let's consider Big Foot. Scientists do not waste their time trying to prove that Big Foot does not exist (again, because it's impossible). Instead, scientists review the integrity of the evidence that would support the existence of Big Foot's existence, and if anything turns up which would be considered proof, then and only then would it be rational to believe that Big Foot existed.No evidence has been accepted that proves Big Foot exists. So currently, it is irrational to believe that Big Foot exists. You don't have to call your self an "Abigfootist", and then go about having to defend your position as rational to all the people that say "but you haven't proven he doesn't exist!" It's just a rational position to hold, because you have no reason to believe Big Foot exists. In this way, the great majority of people are Abigfootists, and it's a perfectly rational thing to be.If I turn on the TV tomorrow, and there is news on every channel saying they have captured a Big Foot and he's on display at the zoo, I'll gladly accept the evidence and then next time someone asks me if I "believe in Big Foot", I'll cheerfully respond "yes", and it will be completely rational. But until that proof exists, it is irrational to say "yes I believe in Big Foot", and conversely it is completely rational to say "No, I have no reason to believe in Big Foot".If you are arguing that Atheism is irrational because it is the assertion that there is no such thing as God, then I would ask you to reassign your definition of Atheism as the lack of a belief in God. Otherwise you are guilty of setting up straw men.Understanding that Atheism is the lack of a belief in a God, and that Theism is the belief in a God, will be key to our discussion of rationality.Let P = WE HAVE PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS. Our formulas would look like this:if(P) then Theism is rational, and Atheism is irrational.If NOT P then Theism is irrational, and Atheism is rational.Since we have no evidence that God does exists, then it's perfectly rational to not believe that God exists, and it's irrational to believe he does exist.You sound like a perfectly intelligent person, but your reasoning is flawed. Atheism is not something one declares that one believes. A rational person that has no evidence that God exists, simply does not believe that God exists, and the word for that is Atheism. It's not a belief, it's the lack of belief.
starmanjonesDec 31, 2006
>We must believe that we can stem the tide of madness, if we would just>organize, at a massive level. Is it naive to think that a massive>organization of such a kind would never turn into the same selfish,>tyrannical, hegemonic empire that currently threatens our global>survival?there was a time when i hoped you are right. i'm not sure i ever really believed it. the catch is that one person... one country can ruin it for everyone. certainly my country the U.S. didn't sign on to kyoto. we spew. there is a great finacial advantage to spewing. 3rd world countries will need to spew to raise the standard of living. nope. we will never get there. it won't be too many years until no matter what we do it won't help. we will have done the damage and it will run its course and we may or may not survive it. of late the capability to get off the earth and survive as a species has become real. we need to go. outside looking down we may save earth. we may keep it from being hit by a planet killer asteroid or comet. we can certainly take its plants and animals to new habitats... no matter how long we put it off it will die and our only chance to matter to the universe is to leave. long before we die we will loose the ability to leave by shear lack of resources. thats what i think anyway.
aukxsonaDec 31, 2006
Thank you for making that pint. I was scratching my head on that too...