Slashdot Mirror

Despite our president's delusions that the voices in his head are Jesus Christ telling him what to do...

Argumentum ad hominem.

The people running things, both Rep and Dem, are very wealthy and in many instances, particularly in the White House, are ex-CEOs. They are making national decisions based on profit margin, not for us, but for themselves.

A nicely demonstrative example of Argumentum ad Lazarum there.

I'll leave the rest to the viewers at home.

Despite our president's delusions that the voices in his head are Jesus Christ telling him what to do...

Argumentum ad hominem.

The people running things, both Rep and Dem, are very wealthy and in many instances, particularly in the White House, are ex-CEOs. They are making national decisions based on profit margin, not for us, but for themselves.

A nicely demonstrative example of Argumentum ad Lazarum there.

I'll leave the rest to the viewers at home.

putting one more nail in the coffin of Intelligent Design

To any rational person, ID's coffin is more nail than wood. Of course the creationists will huff and puff as they grasp to whatever straws they have left.

For those who are interested in how Creationists sleazed ID into school and government I heartily recommend Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Fascinating and scary book. A 'primer' from the authors can be found here.

Yes, I was referring to the speed of light in a vacuum, as this is generally understood when dealing with this particular subject matter. I further concur with and heartily recommend scepticism, but the original post was making incomplete claims of Relativity, so I just had to correct them. The metaphysics of the true nature of reality is probably best left to forums like infidels. :-)

Actually, as this article describes it nicely, there are two different kinds of atheism: the "weak atheism" (which is, as I stated above, a lack of belief), and the "strong atheism", which can be equaled to what you think atheism is. [...] I somehow have a feeling, though, as if you'll still stick to whichever definition fits best what you heared last sunday in the church. Say, isn't it a SIN to argue with a godless immoral (according to dictionary.com) being like me in public?

• That page was written by someone that I don't know, and he states in his opening paragraph that it represents "only one viewpoint" -- his own.
  I prefer more authoritative sources, such as the ones at dictionary.com
• The last time that I was in a church was sometime in the 1990s, and that was only to attend a wedding.
  In the 1980s, I went maybe 3 or 4 times, to weddings and funeral services.
  I've never been to a "Sunday service" in my entire life, that I can recall.
• I'm agnostic (definition 1b) (or a "weak" atheist, to use your definition of atheist).
  Actually, to be more accurate, I'm an "agnostic apatheist", which is a term that I made up.
  An agnostic apatheist is a person who is skeptical (UK: sceptical) about the existence of a god or gods, and furthermore doesn't care whether or not a god or gods exist.
• It's spelled "heard", not "heared", and "Sunday" should be capitalized.

I also note that your first source (dictionary.com) second definition is "Godlessness; immorality", which shows its' bias (the "immorality" part). This "definition" is actually rather offending.

You might also want to check the wikipedia definition, there you'll find your preferred definition only on the second position.

Actually, as this article describes it nicely, there are two different kinds of atheism: the "weak atheism" (which is, as I stated above, a lack of belief), and the "strong atheism", which can be equaled to what you think atheism is. The most atheists that I know started out as strong ones (including myself), to later take the "weak atheism" position, which is more consistent with the scientific way of thinking. PLEASE NOTE, however, that "weak" doesn't mean "more inclined toward thinking there is or there might be a deity of some kind"! It just means "less aggressive and more grown-up".

I somehow have a feeling, though, as if you'll still stick to whichever definition fits best what you heared last sunday in the church. Say, isn't it a SIN to argue with a godless immoral (according to dictionary.com) being like me in public?

"Weak ones dying off" and "becoming complex" are only different concepts when Weak != less complex.

Evolution suggests that complexity results because it is *adaptive*. That is, complex creatures can inhabit ecological niches that simpler ones cannot. For instance, being a predator.

Also, there is no particular reason that things become more complex. Some things become *simpler* through evolution, because they have found a particular niche where they do not need the complexity. For instance, becoming a parasite.

For the Nth time, the basis of evolution is not gleaned from a general English dictionary. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles _darwin/origin_of_species/ is one place where you can find it, or that John Maynard Smith text that I cited before.

YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION FROM READING THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION, YOU NUMBSKULL, any more than you will be ready to prove the Pythagorean theorem after reading the dictionary definition. You need to make an effort to learn BEYOND dictionary.com.

If so, why do some insist on using religion to re-explain what science already has?

Because science is slowly chipping away at their mythologies. They can't stop it so they've decided to insert their crap into science as a trojan horse so their fables seem to hold true. This document entitled The Wedge at Work isn't short but it's an excellent read.

Actually, atheism is not necessarily a worldview. It is generally recognized ( http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#at heisms/ ) as being divided into two camps: those of the strong atheists, who choose to believe that deities do not exist, which is in inded a worldview, and those fo the weak atheists, who simply choose not to believe in any deity, which is really a choice to not have a religious worldview.

During the revolutionary times, many of the countries leader were not Christians, but Theists, who were profoundly affected by thinking such as that expressed by Thomas Paine in his book, "The Age of Reason" http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_ paine/age_of_reason/index.html

Theists believe in God, but do not accept they bible due to the many logical contradictions it contains. The Theist movement was at it's height in the late 1700's and early 1800's. Today they are known as Unitarians.

The Puritans of Massachusetts banned any observance of Christmas, and anyone caught observing the holiday had to pay a fine. Before the Civil War, the North and South were divided on the issue of Christmas, as well as on the question of slavery. Many Northerners saw sin in the celebration of Christmas; to these people the celebration of Thanksgiving was more appropriate. But in the South, Christmas was an important part of the social season. Not surprisingly, the first three states to make Christmas a legal holiday were in the South: Alabama in 1836, Louisiana and Arkansas in 1838.http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/AmChristm as/

In 1870, Congress finally passed a bill legalizing four national holidays. The wording carefully omits any mention of religion, but specifies the dates and uses the "common name" of the holiday: the 1st day of January "commonly known as New Years Day", the 25th day of December "commonly known as Christmas", the 4th day of July and any day appointed or recommended by the President as a day of public fast or thanksgiving Day holidays (Now Thanksgiving Day). View the actial bill here: H.R.2224, 41st Congress:http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?coll Id=llhb&fileName=041/llhb041.db&recNum=7905

As with the Puritans, not all Christian sects believe Christ was born on December 25th. For example, the "Church of God" states: "Any encyclopedia, or any other authority, will tell you that Christ was not born on December 25. The Catholic Encyclopedia frankly states this fact. The exact date of Jesus' birth is entirely unknown, as all authorities acknowledge -- though if I had space in this booklet I could show you scriptures which at least strongly indicate it was in the early fall -- probably September approximately six months after Passover." Their page debunking the many myths of Christmas is very interesting: http://www.cog-ff.com/html/special_topics_-_christ mas.html

My point is, the country was not founded by "Christians" as we think of them today, but by a mixture of different (sometimes shunned) Protestant sects (such as Puritans, who did not celebrate Christmas) and theists. As a non-christian, I am not offended when someone wishes me "Merry Christmas", because I celebrate the secular holiday, Why should you be offended if I wish you "Happy Holidays"?

"If Fascism ever comes to America, it will come wrapped in an American flag"

- Huey Long, assassinated in 1935.

For more examples of how badly Christians are treated, look at this list: Life in Our Anti-Christian America. I'll repeat some of the more obvious examples.

• Both major political parties are dominated by anti-Christians. The Republican party, for example, gave us such hardcore atheists as Pat Buchanan, Dan Quayle, Phyllis Schlafly and Ronald Reagan. And the Democrats have given us such personalities as the Rev. Martin Luther King and the Rev. Jesse Jackson both noted for their vicious attacks on all forms of Christianity.
• Anti-Christian shows such as the American Atheist Forum are broadcast by major national networks. Meanwhile, Billy Graham is only able to get on the air through public access TV, which is watched by few people.
• Nearly all of our elected public officials are atheists; they even have to swear on a copy of Darwin's "Origin of Species" in order to take office.
• And of course, people are free to wear pentagram jewelry, but those trying to wear cross-shaped earrings or pendants to work will be politely told to remove the jewelry or lose their job.
• Speaking of the workplace, Christians often find it nearly impossible to get time off work for religious holidays such as Christmas.
• In school, our children are made to recite the pledge, "One nation, anti-God, indivisible...."
• Many Christians are afraid to admit their Christianity to their parents and friends, for fear their kin will consider them immoral Christian scum and want nothing to do with them.
• There are large networks of atheistic private schools in America, while it's nearly impossible to find a private Catholic school.
• Atheists regularly go door-to-door on Sunday mornings asking people not to go to church with them.
• Even atheist businesses hate the Winter Solstice season because people are encouraged to be rational and reasonable, thus encouraging our population to avoid senseless spending and debt and needless possession of material goods.
• Until recently, atheists had passed laws (known as Green Laws) that require all businesses to stay open on Sundays, preventing Christians who wished to practice their religious beliefs to work, just like everyone else.
• NBC has shows that promote reason and skepticism in the face of Biblical prophecy or lone pseudoscientists while shows that promote irrational beliefs are on PBS and never reach as many people.
• Famous atheist Madalyn Murray-O'Hair was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, America's highest civilian award, for her decades-long devotion to Atheism and the separation of church and state. The Speaker of the House, the Senate majority leader, and the Vice President were on hand at the ceremony, which occurred on the National Day of Nonprayer. The Congressional resolution noted Murray-O'Hair's "outstanding and lasting contributions to morality, racial equality, family, philanthropy, and Atheism." In her acceptance speech, Murray-O'Hair called on all Americans to cleanse themselves of irrational religion and commit their lives to Atheism. The Christian evangelist Billy Graham, of course, has never won this award and never will.

Of course, keep in mind that this list is pretty old. Between super-liberal Bill O'Reilly and noted anti-Christian Ann Coulter, I'm sure you could find plenty of insulting and inaccurate quotes aimed at Christians.

I know this is offtopic and everything, but Genesis 2 is a detailed recap of the summary that is Genesis 1. It's the more detailed story of how God created man and woman.

I believe the Bible is truth, whether it's allegorical or literal. Just because something's an allegory doesn't mean it's untrue.

By the way, I'm sure the next of your contradictions was going to be that insects don't have four feet, and snails do not melt. Infidels.org, anyone? Remember, classifications are something modern man has created. Moses and his folks didn't know or care that bats are classified as mammals in a taxonomy created by Carl Linnaeus, who was born at least 5,000 years after Moses died. Also, the hare you refer to is not the same as a rabbit. In Hebrew, the language that verse was written in originally, it's called the arnevet, or arnebet. I have no idea what the heck that was, but I'll bet it chewed the cud like a cow. We have the writers of the King James Version of the Bible for passing that one down. Who made the mistake? The writers of the KJV. Is the Bible wrong? No. Does it matter if the arnevet chews the cud? I could believe in God without knowing the answer to that question.

There is no seperation of church and state.

The first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

FALSE "Separation of Church and State" was a coin termed by Thomas Jefferson to describe the effects of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. (Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 369)

That was later reaffirmed by supreme court decision

In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." (Justice Hugo Black, U. S. Supreme Court, Everson v. Board of Education, 1947. Quoted by John M. Swomley, Jr., Religion, The State, & The Schools, New York: Pegasus, 1968, pp. 21-22.)

The authors of the constitution, the mentors of the authors of the constitution, the supreme court, and the text of The Cosntitution Of the United States of America tell me you're full of it.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/ quotations.html

Children aren't allowed to organize and hold voluntary prayer groups on school property.

False - they can do so and did so my entire time in school

Many schools have prohibited children from wearing crosses.

False, that is an unconstitutional restriction on their freedom of expression

A judge has been prohibited from putting the ten commandments in his courtroom.

True, because a court room is a government facility and therefore placing religious reference to any religion in that court room is unconstitutional. So is asking someone to swear on a religious text.

If I had to swear in court I would demand a copy of the constitution to swear upon.

Nowhere do I see congress making any laws.

Then you are BLIND AS A BAT - how about The Department of Faith Based Initiatives, how about the state-level bans of gay marriage in opposition of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Ammendment to the US Cosntitution
How about the attempts to ban stemp cell research and abortion for religious reasons

ALL ARE ATTEMPTS TO LEGISLATE RELIGION BECAUSE THE ONLY MOTIVIATION FOR THE LAW IS RELIGIOUS
ALL ARE ATTEMPTS TO FORCE PEOPLE TO BELIEVE IN THE RELIGION(S) THAT SPONSOR THE POSITION

I do, however, see the court system, via lawsuits from athiests, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Then you are hallucinating and listening to propagandists liars like Pat Robertson and James Dobson.

The Courts uphold The Constitution of the United States of America

The Constitution states that the GOVERNMENT MAY NOT SPONSOR OR INHIBIT RELIGOUS EXPRESSION - that means government employees, while at work, may not do anything to support or inhibit religion as they are acting as agents for the government.

You attempt to cite examples above of the Free Exercise clause being restricted - and yet they're all dishonesties that were debunked over a decade ago.

When the public school system says my child can't pray because of some fscking lawsuit, they're prohibiting the free exercise of her religion.

AND NO SCHOOL SYSTEM DOES - The law [constitution] states that the school cannot lead them in prayer - if the student wishes to spontaneously engage in prayer on their own they are allowed to do so as long as they are not doing it in a manner disruptive to class (such as being loud)

Bible Contradictions

So now you can speak for Jesus? Jesus was anti-religious and anti-political. He aledgedly taught against the Church. Of course, people turn around and make his teachings and collections of stories into a "religion." *shakes head* Paul obviously had problems with his mother, since he put down women so much. He also felt the need to "one-up" those who he correspondence with. I suspect this is the reason we get a "supernatural" response from his writtings. The Disciples were just drinkin' buddies for the most part, but they also helped conspire against the Church of the time. Moses was wise, but I'm going to guess not the most sane person either.

Many of the writtings int the Torah and Bible were written well after the events supposedly took place; as much as 500 year or more. Many of the stories are rip-offs from prior religions, redressed to fit the Church's agenda.

These are but a few reasons I quit the Christian system of behaviour. The lies, blood, and idiocracy the representatives of Christianity have brought about makes me sick. Many people can ignore these atrocities, I will not.

Then you're a bit silly. But as long as you're a harmless silly, I don't give a shit.

I guess what it comes down to is that I prefer the people around me to have decent critical thinking skills. Even if they're not doing any harm to me at the moment, gullible god-says-so types are a lot easier to subvert than people who actually think about what they're being told to believe.
Especially when you think about that psychological gaps the religion is being used to fill. Religion isn't necessarily a static set of beliefs, it can also be a collection of conflicting arguments providing convenient justification for nearly any action. Which brings us to...

I'm not a big fan of Christianity, but I'm not sure that's true.

Between the 9+ crusades, and the slaughter of native Africans and Americans I think it's pretty safe to say I'm right. As of 1897, M. D. Aletheia put the total at about 56 million.
So that number doesn't include any complicity in the holocaust, nor a host of other atrocities in Rwanda, Ireland,Vietnam (I assume you've seen this Pulitzer prize winning picture of Thich Quang Duc.)

I just don't believe in the enormous extrapolation from the irrefutable principle of simple mutation to macroevolution

from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.htm l:

Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.

[macroevolution's] framework has so many holes

name one.

and is so unsupported by our observations.

mutations and selection events are observed, so you're wrong there.

Darwin's treatise hardly has more credibility than a comic book

well, with a few modifications in light of modern genetics knowledge and further observations, it is comprises the core of our entire understanding of biology. the general idea that he proposed, about life's coming about through successive mutations (regardless of whether he understood the genetic basis for these) and selection events, is a clear and obvious fact. how does that eqaute to comic book credibility exacty?

Just so happens that our observations of this world line up very well with the Bible's account of history. Incidentally, archeology has never refuted a single fact in the Bible either.

Welcome to Wonderland, Alice! How about this nifty tid-bit:

Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy report that the Hebrews, numbering as many as 2.5 to 3 million, left Egypt, wandered in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years, and finally invaded and conquered the promised land. Most biblical scholars and archaeologists doubt the historical accuracy of this biblical story. Speaking at an archaeological conference at the Royal Ontario Museum, Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren reported that "his efforts at more than 80 sites in the Sinai from 1972 to 1982 had not turned up any support for the historical accuracy of when the exodus was supposed to have occurred" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988). Oren went on to tell of the discovery of papyrus notes that reported the sightings of two fugitive slaves. "They were spotted, and the biblical account of 2.5 million people with 600,000 of military age weren't?" Oren asked.

Oh, and then there's the whole flood thing..*chuckle*.

I feel a lot more confident trusting that sort of book than the whims of evolutionary "science", which must be adjusted every few weeks.

the basis of evolutionary science hasn't changed significantly in decades. it's still darwinian synthesis. descent with modification. continual findings in genetics support that more and more every day. sure, recent fossil finds always cause us to re-evaluate specific processes, like how birds branched off from dinosaurs, or which of our homonid cousins mated with which others and lived where. that hardly qualifies as a substantial change, considering the hierarchical "tree" of biology is mostly stable and not undergoing substantial revision. humans had a common ancestor with chimpanzees about 5 million years ago. that fact isn't changing, much as creationists might like it to just go away. and the one thing that we can glean from this "wavering" in science, when it happens, is that science really is all about constantly evaluating the evidence and adjusting theories to fit, rather

The reason you may get negative comments, may be because of your own ignorance, and not the ignorance of the Slashdot audience.

For plenty of information on evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
For examples of transitional forms in the fossil record:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtran sitional.shtml
The truth of the matter is that evolution has evidence from nearly every discipline of science: anthropology, biology, physics, psychology, and chemistry. The theories themselves are now finding uses in electrical engineering and computer science.

How does life begin from a a few elements?
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiolo gy/miller.html While the atmospheric conditions that precipitated this result is now in question, this is just an example of how science continually re-evaluates itself. The theory of gravity is far more in a state of flux than evolution, but I'm pretty sure that I'd be in pain if I jumped from my balcony.
Once you have amino acids, it isn't that big of stretch to have autocatalytic RNA. (Self-replicating single stranded DNA)

Law of Entropy? I assume you mean the second law of thermodynamics, which pertains only to closed systems. My body will also tend toward a state of disorder when I die, but I fail to see your point. Energy has been transferred from our sun to the earth in the form of light and heat. This very energy enables me to type my message. This same energy is what makes life possible on our planet. Contrary to what most people think, there is no law of entropy that states order must always decrease. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_car rier/entropy.html

Law of conservation of mass negates the big bang? Perhaps you're familiar with Einstein's equation (E=MC^2)? Energy is proportionate to mass; thus mass can become energy or energy can become mass. Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy has displaced the law of conservation of mass. If this weren't true, I'd expect an interesting explanation for the atom bomb. Perhaps the creator just wills electric to come from nuclear power plants.

While you mention 'scientific laws of today', you quote old scientific thoughts from hundreds of years ago and laymen notions of modern laws. What laws of today to you speak?

The truth is CREATIONISM is a theory of last resort for those clinging to antiquated ways of thinking. And while I try respect spirituality, leave it in your church. At one time, I believed that I should respect everyone's choice of religion; as politics once again becomes interwoven with religion I realize I have to become more active in debate. Take some time to study molecular biology, physics, and logic; and come up with an interesting argument. I'm curious as to how you would explain the 'evolution' of HIV and antibiotic resistance.

No, it is when you attack the person as a way to distroy his arguments. It is perfectly reasonable to look at a series of articles that a person has written and point out bias in those articles to prove that more than likely any article this person writes in the future can be discarded as more of the same. This is not an "attack on the man."

--

From the web site http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#ho minem:

Argumentum ad hominem

Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:

        "You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."

This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:

        "Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."

A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular circumstances. For example:

        "Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes."

This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example:

        "Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."

This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well."

It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.

--

So therefore, it would be wrong to say that he is gay, therefore ignore his argument, or that he is a windows user, so therefore ignore his argument. But saying that he has a long history of bias against anything open source, presenting his series of articles that are all biased, and he works long hours to find bizzare test cases that show excel as being better than OO, therefore what he says in the future will more than likely also be biased is a perfectly reasonable argument and is NOT an attack against the man. Of course he may be right in this one case, but who wants to waste the time to even check, given his track record. Certainly I have better things to do.

Why in the world would you want to create stupid ass console apps when you can create apps with buttons and textboxes and menus?

I can think of many, many programs where a 'stupid ass console' is far superior to the cruft of a GUI. And no, you don't HAVE to be a *nix head to appreciate - even in the world of Windows console programs can be far more useful than a GUI one.

Buttons, textboxes and menus are, or should be if you're using good design, irrelevent to your actual program. I rarely start any project as a GUI - I design the program first then I design the GUI as a convenient way to interact with it. The best designed programs are apathetic with regards to how they are interacted with.

After all, that is what GUI stands for: Graphical User Interface. And hence an interface it should be - not the main thrust of the exercise of programming. If VS is telling you this is a stupid and oldhat way of doing things that's http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#no vitatem.argumentem ad novitatem and is certainly something that is wrong in that case.

The works of the Marquis de Sade? Historical accounts of wars? Works of terror by Stephen King?

Maybe because you can prove a negative? The same argument is used by theists, and it gets old to say the least. So please stop deluding yourself by the thought that your ineloquant and childish quips should ever garner any kind of respect from anyone, even in the exceedingly high improbability that anything you've said might have some shade of truth.

If you consider ... leap-seconds (the slowing down of the Earth) ... If the earth were indeed billions (or even a million) years old, it would be spinning so fast that nothing would be able to survive on it ...

• deposition
• cementation and sometime metamorphosis
• uplift and tilting
• erosion
• deposition (again)
• cementation (of new layer)

No wonder you posted AC. You've no idea wtf you are talking about. The "large number" of atheists and deists umong our founding fathers? There were what? Like 3? Jefferson, Franklin and Wilson, off the top of my head. The rest were all Episcopalian, Quaker, Presbyterian, Methodist, Catholic, etc. Christian.

I'm not posting ac and I'll say there were more than 3 Founding Fathers that were Deists. The Christian Nation Myth also lists George Washington, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe. John Adams opposed the doctrine of the Trinity and spoke of the deity of Christ as "this awful blasphemy". Another Deist was Thomas Paine.

Second, name them, please. To the best of my knowledge only Jefferson did that, although most of the founders would be very out of place in most christian churches today.

I don't know as I can name all but I can name another besides Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine:
Of the Religion of Deism Compared with the Christian Religion

Ah, here's more:

Many of the leaders of the French and American revolutions followed Deism, including John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and George Washington, many others.

Here's another page that lists more:
The Christian Nation Myth. That's nine listed here but I do believe if I spend more tyme I could get more names.

My point is that, on the value of religion at least, Tom Paine clearly ran counter to the Founding Fathers.

Not to all of them. Thomas Jefferson, who was a deist and Freethinker not Christian, said religion is a private matter. Notice that Jefferson also used "nature's creator" when writing the DOI, Declaration of Independence. As far as the "God" of the Old Testament, he writes "a being of terrific character -- cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust".

I hate to be pedantic, but I figure if I don't point this out, someone else will. This does not beg the question. It may raise the question, but it doesn't beg the question.

Apologies in advance for using such strong words, but you have a sick view of atheism, based on grossly inaccurate facts.
Hitler most decidedly was -not- an atheist. Many of the authors of the U.S. constitution, on the other hand, were atheist
or deist.

As to the "add up their bodycounts" argument, need I refer you to The Crusades, or to the Al-Qaeda jihad on the
U.S.? Or the Catholics crusading in AIDs-stricken Africa to discourage the use of condoms? More people have
been killed in the name of one god or another in human history than for any other reason.

Now, for some quotes:

"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfil God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence, and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will. Therefore, let every man be active, each in his own denomination if you please, and let every man take it as his first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by word or deed steps outside the confines of his religious community and tries to butt into the other."

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

-- Adolf Hitler, in Mein Kampf

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

-- James Madison

        "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

-- John Adams

        "History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."

-- Thomas Jefferson

These and more quotes from here.

Intelligent Design requires that intelligence can *only* arise by design.

Not quite. ID refers to the intelligence of the designer, not of the designed object. The saying was "The existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker". ID doesn't require that the designed object be intelligent; any physical system too complex to appear as a result of the action of natural forces will do.

ID proponents have offered, over the years, a number of examples of things they say are too complex to occur naturally. Many of them (see Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" for example) simply don't understand exactly how evolution works. Others live in the gaps: there *are* things that aren't known yet by science; ID folks postulate that the things science can't explain yet can only be explained through the intervention of an external intelligent force.

Basically, ID is the old argument from design in sheep's clothing: there is no mention of a "god" or of the Bible, which differentiates proponents of ID from old style creationists. But the inference is clear and left as an exercise for the reader.

From http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#lo gicam
"Argumentum ad logicam
This is the "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that a proposition is false because it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument."

I assumed that you would notice that I knew the meaning when I said:
"His lecture no more proves the existence of God than the Ontological Argument proves the non-existence of God."

Why did you introduce the phrase, if it wasn't for Mr. Russell's use of the technique? I certainly hadn't asserted (or even suggested) anyting at all about any conclusion, true or false. I merely discussed a couple of fallacies.

I know it is offtopic, but this has been a fun discussion.
Thank you.

- QMO

And if you look at the history of changes for the Encyclopedia Brittanica, you'll find that a lot of the articles that were percieved as anti-Catholic were changed after the 1911 edition. But of course, there, it's not as simple to see as looking at a webpage.

(Source: [url]http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/jo seph_mccabe/lies_of_britannica.html%5B/url%5D)

The texts of Paul, which are the earliest of the NT, don't contain any references to what Jesus supposedly did. Paul saw Christ only in a vision, as he claimed himself. And this was after the time-frame Jesus supposedly died. Theologians say that he wasn't interested in his earthly life.

The numbers on the site you were refering to are way optimistic for some kind of christianity. There is evidence that one of todays gospels existed 110AD, but that's it. Even the catholic church would disagree with the figures you gave. In fact, the catholic church is much more open to historically acurate research about the NT, since they don't depend on it to be the direct and historical word of god anyway. The NT was put together by the catholic church, so it's basically their book. Since they basically claim to be god's one and only branch office on earth, the book is automatically godly, since the church produced it and everything done by the church is guided by the holy ghost.

There used to be numerous alternative gospels which disagreed in major points. They were destroyed but some were rediscovered, or at least quoted or outlined in secondary literature.

Alternative Gospels can be found here

An article about the formation of the NT, based on current scholarship, by Richard Carrier (an eval atheist)

No it isn't. It's just a contradiction.

Look, I came here for a good argument.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-python.htm l

>Faith is living a lifestyle that demonstrates what you believe to be true about this Universe, how it was formed, and what its governing principles have in regards to how it affects your life.

from dictionary.com, the second defn. of Faith
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
and the first defn. of Religion
Religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
Going by the defn, then atheism would be simply a rational response to the idea of god, Occam's Razor and all (do not multiply entities beyond what is necessary), while religion *requires* faith, as something supernatural by definition cannot be observed.

So being atheist is the complete absense of faith, at least in a god.

As for >ethics and morals ... must be grounded in something more basic like saving the world or helping humanity in general.

That's just your opinion, and an opinion that's not based on any facts. Is it really that hard to believe that some people live by a moral code because they think that's the right thing to do? If you look at history, I believe only jainism has the same number of religious wars as atheism, namely, zero.

To end, I'll mangle a quote from Sylvie and Bruno: "I feel sure, now, that the most absolute Christian may be leading, though walking blindfold, a pure and noble life.", and give a link Founding Fathers quotes against religion

*cough* This is ridiculus. Even IF the bible were self consistent that still wouldn't mean anything. I can think up of plenty arguments for why things happen that are both self consistent and utterly riddiculus. Science and philosophy are two seperate subjects for a reason. Religious topics should be discussed in philosophy classes, not science classes.

Nevertheless, it doesn't affect what I was trying to get across in the first place. My point was that we estimate the distance to stars based upon the assumption that we know how light behaves. As soon as you claim that we don't know how fast light may have been going, you have only succeded in making our little bubble of reliably-observable space smaller than before.

Oh, and that article you linked to... sorry, but that didn't look like real science to me. Digging through old measurment data is not how an experiment is done. Set up an apparatus specifically for that purpose, then take measurements of the speed of light over an extended period of time. Whichever direction you orient the device, whenever you take the measurements, you'd be guaranteed a place in scientific history if you could manage to demonstrate any change in the measured speed of light in correlation with time.

Einstein once wrote:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Hawking has argued against the existence of a creator as well.

Really read up on evolution. There are huge missing factors. Darwin knew this.

And, believe it or not, the theory of evolution has moved on since Darwin's time. Imagine that! Progress in science?

Are you aware Darwin used to be a Christian, and changed his mind when he actually investigated the issue? He wasn't too keen on Christianity towards the end of his life.

As for George Bush, he only claims to be a Christian to get votes. Actions speak louder than words, I would respect him a hell of a lot more if he actually acted according to Christ's teachings.

Jesus, even planned parenthood, national organization for women, marxists.org, infidels.org and the UN are still up. Bushitler is really dropping the ball for the reich-publi-fascists...

"The only people who consider mormons Christians are mormons."

Definitely not true. I'm neither a Mormon nor a Christian, and I definitely consider Mormons to be Christians. I also consider Rastafarians to be Christians. I also consider Satanists to be Christians. (And yes, that means that most Heavy Metal is actually Christian Rock.) :)

As for your History of Christianity Prof., first of all, we don't know what all Christians throughout history thought. In particular, our records of the early Christians are extremely spotty. This is arguably some of the most important information in defining what a "true Christian" is, and our hard data is notably lacking. Most of what we know about Christianity dates from the post-Constantine era. And there is strong evidence that earlier Christianity was quite different.

Second of all, your Prof's argument is an example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. If you predefine Christianity to only include Catholicism, for example, you'll find that no Protestants meet the definition of Christianity. Interestingly enough, it bothers many Protestants when someone challenges their attempt to redefine the term Christian. Protestants. Go figure.

The point is, different flavors of Christianity have different beliefs. They have many beliefs in common, but each of them has their own unique features too. The Mormons may have more unique features than most variants of Christianity, but they still share a basic core. So who, precisely, defines exactly where the cut-off between Christian and non-Christian is? You're trying to put forth the claim that there is some sort of absolute line of demarcation, when, in fact, the distinction is completely subjective. The Mormons may not meet your definition of Christians, but they do meet mine, and neither one of us has a claim to be "more right" than the other.

Well, actually, I think Philip K. Dick was the only true Christian left in the twentieth century, since he was the only one still living in the first century AD. (Note how I neatly bring the topic back to SF.) :)

(Boy, if only Phil Dick had written an episode of Star Trek. That might have saved the whole series, at least for me!) :)

1'st John 4:8: "God is love".

Your God, according to your Bible, is a study in contradiction if nothing else. A short snippet from a longer list:

GE 4:15, DT 32:19-27, IS 34:8 God is a vengeful god.
EX 15:3, IS 42:13, HE 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire.
EX 20:5, 34:14, DT 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god.
LE 26:7-8, NU 31:17-18, DT 20:16-17, JS 10:40, JG 14:19, EZ 9:5-7 The Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing.
NU 25:3-4, DT 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, PS 7:11, 78:49, JE 4:8, 17:4, 32:30-31, ZP 2:2 God is angry. His anger is sometimes fierce.
2SA 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ... The earth trembled and quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it."
EZ 6:12,

"Thermal entropy is a measure of the amount of thermal energy in a closed system that is not available to do work. Entropy can be measured in an open system, too, but this introduces additional variables and physical laws."

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_car rier/entropy.html

From a possible crazy person, but his explainations are in support of evolution...

It seems you have not removed entropy from the discussion. Feel free to elaborate or prove the above comment as innacurate, but if you are to spend the effort please provide proof, as I am interested in learning, not merely believing.

I independently decided long ago, according to my own personal faith, that we are currently IN the "sixth day" of creation. As it turns out, others have had the same interpretation. "One day for God is like a thousand years." Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder's explanation. Perhaps the "seventh day of rest" corresponds to the thousand-year calm described in Revelations.

Here's a link you might find useful.

The Jury Is In. The Ruling on McDowell's "Evidence"

You may be treated like that in the south, but we're treated like that everywhere else!

Really? Interesting. I didn't realize that me and the other fifteen atheists in the United States were making it so hard on you hundred million or so religious folks. We'll try harder not to use our massive majority to oppress you.

I have no issue watching documentaries about other religions, or lack thereof (though, of course, it raises an interesting view..if you lack a religion..doesn't that become your religion? If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?)

Wow, nice. You managed to come up with a really original argument that no atheist has ever rebutted. Please feel free to read more about atheism before you start redefining it on your own terms.

You complain about people acting that way, while you yourself seem to feel free to bash the other side in the manner you just mentioned offended you!

Erm... I thought we were complaining about religious wackos who think that evolution is evil and wrong influencing stupid businesses to avoid showing films that might offend their fairytale worldview, but I guess you're right, we're just 'bashing' religion with no justification. I mean, the destruction of science is no reason to complain, right?

No. I'm specifically talking about what we knew then. If you want an example try "In Shifting Sands", a film made by Scott Ritter, a former UN Chief Inspector In Iraq , which I saw before the war, so I'm reasonably sure Blair could have done. In it, he states that by 1995, both he and another former Chief Weapons inspector, Rolk Ekeus, believe Iraq was "Fundamentally Disarmed". There's plenty of other information available at the time that certainly gave strong cause for doubt at an absolute minimum, and there were plenty of people that had those doubts. However, Blair ignored all of this (or certainly made no reference to any of it) when making his dire warnings about the threat.

Well I hope you don't end up as a lawyer!

I'll be a voter instead.

There is a huge moral difference between being mistaken, and deliberately lying.

Have you ever read The Ethics of Belief by William K. Clifford? If you are mistaken because you refuse to read/take notice of/mention any evidence that might contradict your views, then in my view there isn't a great deal of difference. In one you are making a statement which you know to be false, and in the other you are making a statement that you should know (and have a responsibility to know) is false. To quote from the above article "he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him".

He is (or at least should be) in a position of trust, and when he makes statements like "What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons,", when quite clearly the evidence had not established this beyond doubt (and there was no mention anywhere in the dossier, or in any other statement that I've seen Blair make that this contradictory evidence even existed), then I struggle to see where the great moral difference is.

Personally, I don't consider it acceptable that a Prime Minister can take my country to war on the basis that he was too ignorant to understand the plentiful evidence available to him at the time that the WMD almost certainly did not exist in Iraq, and that Saddam offered no immediate threat to this country. If you do, then I guess we'll have to differ.

for example, the church has had rather an undue influence on E.B. content.

Wozniack is a billionaire .. and you .. hmm?

Wozniack is a billionaire .. and you .. hmm?

The religion in question is Atheism.

Atheism is not a religion. It is a either a lack of belief that God exists or a positive belief that God does NOT exist. This is just as much a religion as beliefing that I don't have 3 arms is a religion. I dont seem to have 3 arms, so I believe I dont have 3 arms.

Your claims that any evidence to the contrary is discarded or reinterpretted is simply not true. In fact if evolution didn't work, we would not be able to breed specific breeds of dogs, cats, flowers, etc etc.

Do creationists believe that the Dodo bird is still alive in the wild? Either God never created a Dodo bird, or perhaps the Dodo bird was unfit.

evolution works. That is almost indesputible. The fact that creationists think that evolution is a theory of creation however suggests that they don't know what evolution even is. the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of life or the universe.

One could extrapolate backwards and attempt to use evolution to explain the origins of life, however even if God created life in some predetermined form. The evidence is overwelming that evolution has been working since then.

Evolution does not rule out the possibility of a Creator.

Quite right - I assume that anyone who had ever approached Christianity with a critical, inquiring attitude - even if they ultimately concluded it was right - would have some tolerance for others who doubt it, rather than spout religious zealotry at them.

It's only good if I'm right. And if I'm right, then it would be good for everyone else to trust in that authority.

Fine, but how about demonstrating that authority rather than simply asserting it. If you are a physicist, then you ought to know the value of evidence.

I believe in the authority because of the self-consistency, the relevancy, the the self-evident truthfulness and the historical reliability of the Bible.

You've got to be joking. There are about a zillion places where the Bible contradicts itself. Whole chunks of the Bible are completely irrelevant to modern life (try Leviticus 15:19-30 on menstruation, for example, or all the advice on what to do about errant oxen at the end of Exodus 21). And if you think the Bible has been proven to be historically accurate - well, lucky you're not an historian then. Two of every species being preserved from a worldwide flood in Noah's ark? 600,000 Israelites wandering around the Sinai for 40 years? All the accounts of the kings and so forth are riddled with political and religous bias, just as one might expect from a historical document. It's just another historical source, no more authoritative than any other. In fact, less so.

Oh yes, nearly forgot: self-evident truthfulness! ROTFL. No, it's not self-evident. Really.

Given that Jesus is God, he condones that.

This is precisely what I was on about in my original post. If you want to convince a non-Christian of the truth of your argument that Jesus wasn't a pacifist, then you cannot assume "Jesus is God" as an initial premise - because I don't accept that as a premise. You'll need to argue it a different way. Is this really so difficult to understand?