Slashdot Mirror

If I want to teach my kids at home, how dare you force me to pay some sort of tax to a school I'm not using.

I certainly agree with this, as well as the idea of non-parents not paying school taxes.

Just because someone wants to run government by principles driven home by religious belief does not make them promoters of theocracy. The belief that we are answerable to something higher than human government is one of the strongest reasons for having a limited government in the first place.

The strongest reason for having a limited government in the first place is that people have a right to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm anyone else. Religion has nothing to do with it.

What check does a non-religious person have from abusing power he is entrusted with?

Well, I'm an atheist and I don't abuse what power I've been entrusted with. You appear to be saying you would if you weren't afraid of hell. I guess that's just a moral difference between us.

The behavior of christian political leaders in the past and present as well as that of televangelists and certain catholic priests conclusively proves that religion is not a protection against abuse of power.

Believe me, atheists are much safer in a nation run by Christians than Christians in a nation run by atheists. Christians have a higher calling to do good by everyone; with an atheist you have no such guarantee.

History disproves this. You won't see atheists launching crusades and burning witches. Even recently you have christian morons like George Bush Sr. saying that atheists "shouldn't be considered citizens". No, christians are no more or less trustworthy than anyone else.

There was a time when Europe was ruled by christianity. We call this period the Dark Ages.

Even though Christians are fallible, I'd rather take my chances with them than the likes of Stalin or Mao.

Christians like Hitler or Torquemada? No thanks. There may be atheists who have committed evil, but none of them committed evil in the name of atheism.

You had a nice point going; not sure why you decided to digress into pointless, erroneous atheism bashing.

You seem to have a stereotypical christian misconception about the source of morality, particularly as it applies to atheists. Here's a link to help you get educated on the subject.

(mod parent up, someone - he made some good points)

Well, that's at least a cogent counterargument. But let me make myself clear. I am not saying I agree or disagree that we need 8 glasses of water a day. I'm saying that I'm a skeptic. I agree with Valtin's argument that proof we need such a large amount of drinking water for everyday activity is suspiciously lacking. It seems to be ubiquitously 'common knowledge' and 'doctor recommended' but for something which is so strongly preached by "the entire medical world," as you state with some accuracy, shouldn't there be volumes of studies? Where are they? At the very least, I'd expect to see something demonstrating that healthy octogenarians drank more water during their lives then their sick and deceased cohorts. As it is, the best pro-water study I could come up with turned out to be sponsored by Brita. That's not very reassuring.

It could very well be that Valtin's a crackpot. But is he wrong?

(BTW, I do drink plenty of water myself. Pascal's Wager, and all that.)

I'm trying to be fair. My contention is that a company which just develops and sells open source software is doomed to fail.

Yes, I realise that now. Although... well, you're sort-of-kind-of trying to redefine the point of the argument in your terms, to the point that it doesn't really become much of an argument anymore. You're doing a bit of the No True Scotsman argument, tangled up with a few other things.

What I think you're saying (putting it in my terms instead, which is always fun :-) is that a company whose only source of income is from the "sale" (see below) of open-source software (by the OSI definition) will not make enough money to cover their costs of development, let alone make a profit. Well... yeah, that's probably correct. But you don't even need to use the term "open-source" software there, you can be much more generic. How about:

"anyone who tries to survive

only by selling stuff that they also make available for free, and that anyone else can (a) duplicate and redistribute freely, (b) enhance (or not) freely, and (c) sell or redistribute at any price (including zero).... will fail."

True? Yeah, probably. Only you're not casting nasturtiums-by-association at open-source software businesses anymore when you put it like that :-).

On a related line - remember of course that referring to the "sale" of software is a very loaded and misleading term. Microsoft sure as hell don't "sell" you software (or so they'd like you to think), they license you to use their software - under fairly limited terms - in exchange for a fee (or so they'd like you to think ;-).

And of course that doesn't just apply to Microsoft, it applies to just about any software company. I'm not sure what the legal status of software is in the USA at this moment, but I've heard enough stories about eBay disallowing resale of software products to make me think that consumer's rights with regard to software products are not very well established.

Back to quoting fmaxwell again:

I was not attempting to troll (you can probably tell that from my karma bonus and comment moderations).

Yep, I realised that after reading a few more of your comments. Just to make it clear, I don't think you're a troll anymore (I wasn't completely sure before). And you do argue your points lucidly and consistently and politely - for which you deserve praise, even if you are wrong. ;-)

I don't consider it open source to demand a fee from a user based on the intended use. That said, I'm not going to add it as a condition at this point.

I must admit it was sneaky of me to stick that in :), but I thought that that would probably fall under the category of special conditions you forgot to add to your list. :-)

I'm really trying to emphasise the point here of what you seem to be doing - you're narrowing the target so much that there's not really any point in using the term open-source software unless you're trying to do the guilt-by-association trick.

I mean, think again about what you're saying - you want examples of companies for which:

• their only source of income is through "sales" of their open-source software products (see above about the meaninglessness of the term "sale" wrt software, not to mention that any non-trivial company almost has to have more than one source of income),
• they provide free downloadable copies of said software products (ie. unlike the Kompany,

If you, and I'm guessing that you're from the USA, published a security exploit before notifying the vendor, would it follow that your motive must have been America's intention to harm the vendor? Of course it wouldn't. Your logic is fallacious.

On another note, although China, like many countries is embracing open source software, it doesn't mean that they are anti-Microsoft. Adopting open source software is a reasonable thing to do, independent of other considerations.

As such, there is a distinct difference between the absence of any belief and the belief that there is no God, who is "one who denies the existance of a God", they're totally different, with the former describing me and the latter describing an atheist.

Actually, they are distinctly different positions as you say but both of them are atheistic. See here for details.

None of these are harmful to government, simply because any truly dangerous idea would very unlikely make it through the democratic system--and, quite frankly, the risk of a dangerous idea being democratically instituted is less dangerous that the certain dangers of limiting free discourse in government or relying on a non-democratic form of government.

All of the major religions in this country have commandments or rules that violate the constitution and the basic principles of this country. I would disagree with you that promoting them is not harmful to the country. As for the idea of any truly dangerous idea not getting through the democratic system, well I guess there's something to be said for pie-in-the-sky optimism. But the fact of the matter is that dangerous ideas such as the Patriot Act (which has no religious basis and is just intended as an example of danger) do routinely make it through the democratic process. Religion is far from the only cause of such dangerous ideas but every cause that can be eliminated, should.

Note that I'm not suggesting that theists should not have influence in government; that would be ridiculous. The United States (incidentally I've been assuming you live in the U.S.; it's where I live so it's the country I'm concerned with) is for everyone and all voices should be heard. But I stand by my belief that no religious reason can validate a position, no matter how otherwise reasonable that position might be. For example, murder isn't wrong because the Christian God says it is. It's wrong because it ends the life of an innocent person.

Please present evidence of atheism "working against religion". I have never seen such a thing.

(Snip examples given)

If you consider any attempt to prevent the government from unconstitutionally respecting an establishment of religion to be "working against religion" then yes, people who understand the First Amendment (atheists and theists) will continue to "work against religion". Note that none of these examples is actually someone trying to harm or destroy religion.

You persist in using the word "agnostic" where you should be using "atheistic"

No, I don't. The goverment should not believe in any god, and neither should it have belief nor actual absence of belief in any deity or religion. Goverment, and all other public bodies, should be agnostic--unless religion is important to them, as it undoubtedly is to some, they should simply be of the opinion that they, as public bodies, cannot answer any religious question at all.

You just did it again. The position you describe, with government not believing in any god, is atheistic. You keep talking about government having neither a belief nor an absence of belief as though there were some third option. There isn't.

That is not a contradiction in terms. An atheist does indeed have religious beliefs--be they Strong Atheists or Weak Atheists, strict agnostics, empirical agnostics, or Free Thinkiers, atheists and all those who can be grouped under the unbrella of Atheism do have religious beliefs--and these beliefs should be protected and treated as religious beliefs, the same as any other.

You keep asserting this as though your mere assertion made it so. A lack of belief is not a belief. If you think atheists have religious beliefs, list them.

Which, again, gets me back to the original point. I'll even expand it, so you don't get hung up on definitions that even atheists themselves get hung up on.

I'm glad linked to this page since it argues quite effectively against considering atheism is a religion, in the response to the questions "OK, you may think there's a philosophical justification for atheism, but isn't it still a religious belief?" and "OK, maybe it's not a religion in the strict sense of the word. But surely belief in atheism (or science) i

This is incorrect.

The positive belief that there is no god is one type of atheism, called "strong atheism". The other type is the simple lack of belief in any gods (called "weak atheism").

Agnostiscm is the belief that it is not possible to know or understand the nature of a god or gods. Thus, you can have agnostic atheists (it is impossible to understand the nature of a god and I lack a belief in any such entity) as well as agnostic theists (I believe that the universe was created by a god but its nature is unknowable).

See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-definition s.html for more information.

"Begging the question" aka "circular reasoning", in argument, means [...]

"Begging the question" is not a synonym for "circular reasoning". "Begging the question" simply means that your argument is based on questionable premises. "Circular reasoning" means specifically that you're using your conclusion as your premise. Circular reasoning may be begging the question, but begging the question is not necessarily circular reasoning.

In this case, I think you may be right, it's both circular reasoning and begging the question, but they're not synonyms, although they are, obviously, related.

(If more people on slashdot were to familarize themselves with common logical fallacies, I think this might be a better place.)

"Begging the question" aka "circular reasoning", in argument, means [...]

"Begging the question" is not a synonym for "circular reasoning". "Begging the question" simply means that your argument is based on questionable premises. "Circular reasoning" means specifically that you're using your conclusion as your premise. Circular reasoning may be begging the question, but begging the question is not necessarily circular reasoning.

In this case, I think you may be right, it's both circular reasoning and begging the question, but they're not synonyms, although they are, obviously, related.

(If more people on slashdot were to familarize themselves with common logical fallacies, I think this might be a better place.)

"Begging the question" aka "circular reasoning", in argument, means [...]

"Begging the question" is not a synonym for "circular reasoning". "Begging the question" simply means that your argument is based on questionable premises. "Circular reasoning" means specifically that you're using your conclusion as your premise. Circular reasoning may be begging the question, but begging the question is not necessarily circular reasoning.

In this case, I think you may be right, it's both circular reasoning and begging the question, but they're not synonyms, although they are, obviously, related.

(If more people on slashdot were to familarize themselves with common logical fallacies, I think this might be a better place.)

Damn, I knew I should have includeed citations. The first two are from John Adams' letters to Jefferson. As a poster pointed out the first Adams quote is fragmented and misleading. The full quote is supportive, if critical, of religion,

Twenty times, in the course of my late Reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible Worlds, if there were no Religion in it." ! ! ! But in this exclamati[on] I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell. So far from believing in the total and universal depravity of human Nature; I believe there is no Individual totally depraved. The mos abandoned Scoundrel that ever existed, never Yet Wholly extinguished his Conscience, and while Conscience remains there is some Religion. Popes, Jesuits and Sorbonists and Inquisitors have some Conscience and some Religion. So had Marius and Sylla, Caesar Cataline and Anthony, an Augustus had not much more, let Virgil and Horace say what they will.

You can find both of those in The Adams Jefferson Letters, The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, Edited by Lester J. Cappon, University of North Carolina Press (1959, 1987)

Adams, although not a Christian (in the trinitarian sense of believing Jesus is God) was pretty religious. He vacillated between Deism and Unitarianism. He was adamant about seperation of church and state however, and was angry when the Massachusetts constitutional Convention modified his draft to include Christianity. Seven years later he was vidicated when the citizens of the Commonwealth voted (under referendum) to repeal the Christian clause by a 10-1 margin.

He later wrote, " "As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" (The Great Quotations, ed. by George Seldes, (Citadel Press) quoting letter by J.A. to F.A. Van der Kamp Dec. 27, 1816 )

The Jefferson quote on the Gospel of St. John is from a letter to Alexander Smyth. (Thomas Jefferson, An Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 quoting letter by T.J. to Alexander Smyth Jan. 17, 1825)

The Jeferson quote on the corruption of Christian doctrine is from the Adams correspondence. (Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., p. 246, quoting letter by T.J. to John Adams July 5, 1814 )

The first Madison quote is from a letter, (The Madisons by Virginia Moore, p. 43 quoting letter by J.M. to William Bradford April 1, 1774) the other two are from his Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785.

You can find the Allen quotes in his treatise Reason, the Only Oracle of Man of 1784

The Franklin line comes from a 1790 letter to Ezra Stiles in which he frankly identifies himself as a Deist.

The Paine Quote is from his The Age of Reason

Priestly's quip on Franklin is on page 60 of his autobiography.

In 1831 prominent Episcopal minister Bird Wilson complained that "The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected not a one had professed a belief in Christianity.... "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." (sermon preached in October, 1831, first sentence quoted in John E. Remsberg, "Six Historic Americans," second sentence quoted in Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 14-15)

Ever read The Age of Reason?

"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods."

"Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not."

"The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble."

"...the answer to the question 'Isn't atheism a religious belief?' depends crucially upon what is meant by 'religious'. 'Religion' is generally characterized by belief in a superhuman controlling power -- especially in some sort of God -- and by faith and worship. (It's worth pointing out in passing that some varieties of Buddhism are not 'religion' according to such a definition.) Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor is it categorized by worship in any meaningful sense. Widening the definition of 'religious' to encompass atheism tends to result in many other aspects of human behavior suddenly becoming classed as 'religious' as well -- such as science, politics, and watching TV."

So, according to the atheists themselves (and they back it up elsewhere on the site with OED quotations), atheism is "absence of belief", while agnosticism is "belief that we'll never know one way or the other".

Furthermore, even if you assume that the word 'atheism' refers only to so-called "strong atheism" (i.e. the assertion that there is no god), and further assume that holding any kind of belief about a god (even a negative one) qualifies as a religion, that still does not lead to the conclusion that separation of church and state is equivalent to the state pushing 'atheism' as a 'religion'. Separation of church and state means that the government takes no official position one way or the other, which is equivalent to "weak atheism" (absence of belief), or what we might call "non-theism" (since the meaning of the word "atheism" is in so much dispute). In terms of freedom and rights: not mentioning god is not the same thing as saying that god does not exist.

This should be enough to make anyone sick.

"...I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." -- George Bush. article

Mr. Schomburg insisted that because smaller pieces of foam had broken off and struck shuttles on previous flights without dire consequences, the latest strike would require nothing more than a refurbishment after the Columbia landed.

A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not overwell built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and and refitted, even though this should put him at great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales.

What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it.

Well, I disregarded the bit about 30 years old, because the sentence made no sense.

Granted. But I think he's basically using a variation of the "No True Scottsman" logical fallacy. It's true that old people don't play video games if you ignore the old people who do. :)

"[...]the exception that proves the rule[...]"

For anyone who's ever wondered about the apparent oxymoronicity of this phrase, it actually dates back to an older meaning of "proof": a test or a trial. So, the exception tests the rule, and may well end up showing it to be false.

As for the study about the average age, [...] He's saying [...] that those studies are wrong or lying.

But the only evidence he offers is that his mother doesn't play video games. (And why isn't she the exception that proves the rule?) Even if the claim is completely false (and I indeed suspect that the average age is a bit lower than mid-thirties), he hasn't done squat to debunk the claim. All he's done is offer bald-faced assertions with no evidence to back him up. The article wasn't worth the minute or two I took to skim it. Even if he's right, he's still full of crap, and his rightness is just a case of dumb luck.

The Founding Fathers were openly religious. The practice of praying to God, and not just any God, the Christian God embraced by the Christian religions, in government has continued even today

• Thomas Jefferson : Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
• Ben Franklin: "I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."
• Thomas Paine : The fable of Christ and his twelve apostles, which is a parody on the sun and the twelve signs of the zodiac, copied from the ancient religions of the eastern world, is the least hurtful part."
• James Madison: "Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
• John Adams: As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?

• http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/founding-fathers-xtia nity.html
• http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/foundin g-fathers.html
• http://www.barefootsworld.net/founding.html

Quoth McBride (or so I'm lead to believe, since SCO has already removed the incriminating page):

I am also disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than good faith discussions with SCO about the problems inherent in Linux.

How interesting. I'm disappointed that you has chosen libel litigation rather than good faith discussions with me about your puppy kicking habit.

While we're on the topic, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Apparently McBride is unfamiliar with the fallacy of presupposition. (Or perhaps more accurately, begging the question) Worse, he might be perfectly familiar with it. Either way, he can kiss my ass. I wish great poverty on him, he is stunning example of how the weaknesses in how capitalism can be abused by the unethical.

Quoth McBride (or so I'm lead to believe, since SCO has already removed the incriminating page):

I am also disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than good faith discussions with SCO about the problems inherent in Linux.

How interesting. I'm disappointed that you has chosen libel litigation rather than good faith discussions with me about your puppy kicking habit.

While we're on the topic, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Apparently McBride is unfamiliar with the fallacy of presupposition. (Or perhaps more accurately, begging the question) Worse, he might be perfectly familiar with it. Either way, he can kiss my ass. I wish great poverty on him, he is stunning example of how the weaknesses in how capitalism can be abused by the unethical.

Saying Einstein was deeply religious is disingenuous, like saying that Thomas Jefferson was deeply religious. It is true in the sense that he believed in a Creator, but he didn't believe in the kind of activist answer-the-prayers snowy white beard in the clouds Creator that sends gays and women who have abortions to Hell. Evangelist Xtians make the link between these respected thinkers and themselves in order to seem rational. It is a false link; they have just as much in common with these belief systems as they have with fundamentalist Hinduism.

"God doesn't play dice with the Universe" is oft quoted and deeply misunderstood. Check out other quotes by Einstein in order to understand his position in a non-jingoistic manner.

Copernicus' ideas attacked the religious establishment, not God himself, but the statement is irrelevent to the discussion. I think this thread is about intelligent design, and since Copernicus was never exposed to the ideas of evolution, its a little ridiculous to bring him into it. I doubt he believed in washing his hands after he went to the bathroom. He died in 1543 and modern sanitation was invented in the 20th century.

Christianity obviously didn't lead to the formulation of the scientific method; it existed in ancient Greece. It's debatable whether religion had any role in the development of the scientific method; I would contend that it didn't.

I'll refer you to this argument:

The universe is so complex it must have been designed

"The presence of design in the universe proves there is a God. Surely you don't think all this appeared here just by chance?"

This is known as the Argument From Design.

It is a matter of dispute whether there is any element of design in the universe. Those who believe that the complexity and diversity of living creatures on the earth is evidence of a creator are best advised to read the newsgroup talk.origins for a while, or consult the archive at <URL:http://www.talkorigins.org/>.

There is insufficient space to summarize both sides of that debate here. However, the conclusion is that there is no scientific evidence in favor of so-called Scientific Creationism. Furthermore, there is much evidence, observation and theory that can explain many of the complexities of the universe and life on earth.

The origin of the Argument by Design is a feeling that the existence of something as incredibly intricate as, say, a human is so improbable that surely it can't have come about by chance; that surely there must be some external intelligence directing things so that humans come from the chaos deliberately.

But if human intelligence is so improbable, surely the existence of a mind capable of fashioning an entire universe complete with conscious beings must be immeasurably more unlikely? The approach used to argue in favor of the existence of a creator can be turned around and applied to the Creationist position.

This leads us to the familiar theme of "If a creator created the universe, what created the creator?", but with the addition of spiralling improbability. The only way out is to declare that the creator was not created and just "is" (or "was").

From here we might as well ask what is wrong with saying that the universe just "is" without introducing a creator? Indeed Stephen Hawking, in his book "A Brief History of Time", explains his theory that the universe is closed and finite in extent, with no beginning or end.

The Argument From Design is often stated by analogy, in the so-called Watchmaker Argument. One is asked to imagine that one has found a watch on the beach. Does one assume that it was created by a watchmaker, or that it evolved naturally? Of course one assumes a watchmaker. Yet like the watch, the universe is intricate and complex; so, the argument goes, the universe too must have a creator.

The Watchmaker analogy suffers from three particular flaws, over and above those common to all Arguments By Design. Firstly, a watchmaker creates watches from pre-existing materials, whereas God is claimed to have created the universe from nothing. These two sorts of creation are clearly fundamentally different, and the analogy is therefore rather weak.

Secondly, a watchmaker makes watches, but there are many other things in the world. If we walked further along the beach and found a nuclear reactor, we wouldn't assume it was created by the watchmaker. The argument would therefore suggest a multitude of creators, each responsible for a different part of creation (or a different universe, if you allow the possibility that there might be more than one).

Finally, in the first part of the watchmaker argument we conclude that the watch is not part of nature because it is ordered, and therefore stands out from the randomness of nature. Yet in the second part of the argument, we start from the position that the universe is obviously not random, but shows elements of order. The Watchmaker argument is thus internally inconsistent.

Apart from logical inconsistencies in the watchmaker argument, it's worth pointing out that biological systems and mechanical systems behave very differently. What's unlikely for a pile of gears is not necessarily unlikely for a mixture of biological molecules.

Even on the off chance that the About network doesn't have all the information you need, they have a large number of links to sites with relevant information across the Web, so there's a very good chance that you will be able to use them to find what you are looking for.
Also...although these are not strictly an answer to your question, I would still heartily encourage you to follow the links to these (listed in a suggested order of reading...my probably misguided opinion only) text files, web pages, and books, as I think they could be of enormous benefit to both your children and yourself...indeed, anyone who wishes to read them. Although I understand that several of these could possibly only be understood at tertiary level, they also as far as I know are not normally included in *general* curriculums, and IMHO they should be.

• The Allegory of the Cave by Plato
• Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason, and Seeking Truth in the Sciences, by Rene Descartes
• Guide to Ethics & Morality
• The Logic FAQ
• The Art of War, by Sun Tzu
• The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith
• The Sovereign Individual, by James Davidson
• The 48 Laws of Power, by Robert Greene
• The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli

It used to be in the past that the education systems of most nations didn't want us to know the why (philosophy, religion, history, political theory) of life, but were content enough to let us know the how. (Science without analysis, numeracy and literacy skills, etc) Now however we are seeing that primarily in America, but also in other places, government education departments no longer even want to allow people to know the how.

Mathematics is part of the how - a means to an end, a way of solving problems - but it is not a destination in itself. The material I've given you links to in my second section is concerned with finding out *why* - "Why am I here? Who am I? How do I know what reality is? What do I want to do with my life? What moral values do I believe in?"
The answers to these questions are far more important than becoming merely literate or mathematically capable for their own sake. Figure out what your purpose is first, and the rest, although still requiring work, will be relatively easy. That is what the links in the second list will help you do, and it's not something you'll be taught to do in any contemporary public school, either...Governments consider people with purpose to be highly dangerous.

1. We know that mutations occur, and have observed them repeatedly and in detail;
   
2. We know that some mutations will result in a new species, this too has been observed;
   
3. To corroborate the above, we have recreated certain mutations in the laboratory, verified that they results in a new species, and confirmed that the results matched (and in fact bred with) the corresponding mutations in the wild.

Bad: Not grading them on their sources "Bob's Website of SuperFun Stats says that..."

That's one of the most exciting things about the web. When I was in K-12, it always bothered me to see my classmates accept everything they found in standard reference works as the purest gospel. Nobody recognized that dictionaries and encyclopedias are written by fallible humans, subject to peer and political pressure, cultural bias, and a permanent tendency to oversimplify. When I see kids educating themselves via the discordant voices of the web, I envy them a lot

A post in parts, Part 2 Evolution Theory

Tyreth asks:

You tell me, what proof is there of evolution? Even better! What is the scientific theory of evolution by which we can test the theory? What is the scientific theory of evolution which creationists disagree with - that all life evolved from simple single celled life. Show me something we can test.

You ask as if it's hard to find. The core of Evolution Theory is found in The Origin Of Species, by Charles Darwin. It can be found onlne at http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles _darwin/origin_of_species/index.shtml.

Darwin's hypothesis was borne from very detailed observations Darwin did, that could be easily repeated. Among his observations were, the techniques and effects of animal and plant husbandry, the variations of finches in the Galapagos islands, the fossilized findings of the relatively new field of paleontology. His theory has been widely tested, and has directly enhanced the industry of husbandry. Other fields of study started independantly of Evolution (eg Genetics) were found to dovetail so neatly that Evolution is considered to have very strong observational backing. It is a strong theory that has been so useful and accurate it has become one of the cornerstones of modern biological science.

As time went on and more things got observed, the theory was tweaked in places, and expanded upon in places, but at it's core, modern evolution theory is very close to what Darwin expounded in his books. It pretty much boils down to:
1) Within a species of organism, there is a certain amount of variation.
2) A population of an organism is under a set of environmental pressures (eg. scarce food, predators, etc)
3) These pressures will be more effectively met by some variations within the population than others, the better adapted variations will thrive in relation to the more poorly adapted variations. This process is called natural selection
4) Since different populations can be under widely different sets of pressures, natural selection can encourage variations to increase between populations, sometimes to the point where they are no longer the same species as each other.

As far as evidence goes, as well as falsification tests for pieces of modern theory, I can't possibly do better than the people at talk.origins. You can find their examination of the subject at http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I'm condemning a large group of people based on the actions of a large group of people throughout history, and much hasn't changed. I'm telling it like it is. Call it bigotry if you want.

Actually, most fundamentalists believe that not only is the earth 6,000 years old, but the universe is as well. Give or take a few days (whatever a day is in the bible).

The bible doesn't have any faults in it? Do you know what the word "elohim" means? In the original version of the OT, it means "gods", but it was translated to as "God". Yes, the ancient hebrews believe in many gods, not just one.

And tell me what truely righteous being becomes so enraged that their creations are sinning, and feels the need to wipe all but two of every kind out, and a small family, even though they're supposedly all knowing? Doesn't make sense does it? And he already knew that Noah was going to sin horribly, yet he acts surprised when he does. This "God" seems nothing more than a mere human. Yet when people attempt to understand his actions, people always say "you can't comprehend Gods actions, he's God". Funny how a "god" has some very human like traits. Funny how such a loving god is angry and destructive in the OT.

Oh, and that whole flooding incident, there's no record of it. What most likely happened was that the euphrates flooded (I can't remember which river to be honest, but I think it's the euphrates).

And just the mere notion of creationism is just insulting. I'm sorry, but I see no evidence that somoene was made from clay. Show me proof that man was made from clay. Can you do that? No. No one will ever be able to either. While people who believe in God poo poo on evolution, it's certainly more logical than creationism.

Here's another kicker for ya. God knew long before he created Adam, long before he created Eve, that they wouldn't last in the garden. For a being who is so perfect, he can't creat perfect things now can he? He creates man, allowing them to be fooled so easily. Then for some really odd reason, he leaves a tree in the garden that gives them the knowledge of good and evil. Now if you didn't want someone having some knowledge, wouldn't you try to keep them away from it?

Hell, I'll just give you the link for the inconsistencies in the bible as well.

I'm sorry, but the bible is insulting to everyone's intelligence. To believe everything it states is fact is sheer lunacy. It has problems, lots of problems.

If you're really interested in learning more fallacies in the bible, I suggest you go to http://www.infidelguy.com and sign up to the forums and ask out your hearts desire.

I'm not angry about anything, just annoyed.

Actually, the Boy Scouts accept a lot of public funding. More details here.

Well, it seems pretty obvious that their definition would be self-serving to include as many people as possible into their group.

Likewise, if you don't approve of atheists, it would be in your own best interest to distort the definition to include as few people as possible, so you don't accidentally end up disapproving of people you like.

However, I still stand behind the Webster definition that requires you to deny there can be a god, which is the proper "a" to the "theist".

Two other dictionaries I have here (one a Webster's too) both say, "deny the existence of God," not "deny that there can be a God." And looking up deny, I find "refuse to accept or believe." And I refuse to accept gods, leprechauns, astrology, purple unicorns, and the healing power of crystals because I don't believe in gods, leprechauns, etc. QED, I'm an atheist, by at least three dictionaries.

But don't you see that [making a judgement call] is exactly the same thing the traditionally religious people are doing as well?

Of course. I never claimed to be any different or any better than anyone else.

> ...my decision to ignore these debates is the result of a minimax strategy analysis...

Point well taken. Still, in taking that approach you have placed the burden of and are relying on the efforts by other people to find your own personal enlightenment.

You're assuming that I care whether or not there are gods; that this "personal enlightenment" you speak of is a goal of mine. I don't, and it isn't. I'm more interested in the question of whether or not there's a Higg's Boson. And I'm only mildly interested in that. And guess what? I'm letting other people do the work there too. :)

More to the point, I don't feel that my belief (or lack thereof) has any bearing on anything. I could believe that the moon is made of green cheese, and that wouldn't change the fact that it's actually made out of balsa wood, hand-painted canvas and thumbtacks (or whatever). If there is a God, my lack of belief won't make him poof out of existence, and if there is no God, my belief wouldn't make one appear out of nowhere. And please don't bring up Pascal's wager - that one is covered here.

And not everyone thinks God is a magical man in the sky, which is junk if taken literally.

We're treading dangerously close to an actual religious discussion here, which is where I will bow out. But yes, if you insist, I will admit that there are notions of gods that I would consider "entertaining whimsy", not just junk. But I'm afraid that "entertaining whimsy" is probably the best you'll get out of me.

Or are you saying you're unable formulate a way to put the universe in perspective yourself?

I'm happy with the perspective I have of the universe as a strange, amazing, awe-inspiring place. I don't need to make up fairy tales (or entertaining whimsies) to humanize the universe or reduce its awesome majesty, and make it feel like something I could comfortably fit in my back pocket. I'm perfectly satisfied to take the universe on the terms it presents itself to me. Big, odd, and quirky (not to mention quarky). :)

If you have tried to take a path you think is the best way to live life, isn't that an appeal to something greater; an ideal you could call God?

Nope, sorry. First, I don't believe that there is one "best" way to live life. And second, I think the fact that I'm a social animal provides a perfectly adequate explanation for why I enjoy being a good person (insofar as I do, of course).

Anyway, I'm starting to sense that you really want to turn this into a religious debate, and I really, really, really don't want to, so maybe it would be best to end this now. Not that I haven't enjoyed the discussion so far, but a couple more questions like that last one, and I'm going to end up hopping around and barking at the moon in exasperation.

cheers

Then you are not an atheist.

If I'm not an atheist, them I'm a non-atheist who subscribes to atheism (see my dictionary def'n of atheism earlier). Also, I'm definitely an atheist according to the alt.atheism FAQ. Although I meet only their definition of "weak atheist", while what you're talking about fits their definition of "strong atheist".

Note that the strict historical definition of "agnostic" is one who believes that it's not possible to know whether gods exist or not. So, if we're going to get technical, I'm clearly not an agnostic.

However the language evolves. Most people would say that if you had a poll: "Do you believe in God? A) yes, B) no, C) maybe, D) don't know," anyone who chose A is a theist, anyone who chose B is an atheist, and anyone who chose C or D is an agnostic. Since I'd choose B, I think most people (including myself) would consider me an atheist.

You're failing to disassociate yourself from the example.

As a relativist, I feel that doing anything else would be a mistake. :)

You show no reasoning process that is any better than those who believe in some form of deity because it is consistent with their world view and their witnesses. That is, your belief in the iPod is as sound as most people's belief in God.

I didn't show my reasoning at all! I simply said that I have reasoned from the evidence available to me, and formed certain conclusions. If by "sound", you mean, "based on incontrovertible evidence", then yes, I agree with you. The evidence for the iPod is not incontrovertible. However, as an intelligent human being, able to form personal opinions, I have weighed the evidence available to me and formed certain conclusions. That's one thing humans are good at - reasoning from incomplete evidence. Sometimes (frequently) we make mistakes, but on the whole it has proved to be a highly useful trait. And my personal judgement, made with my very human brain, is that the evidence for the iPod, incomplete though it may be, is vastly superior to the evidence for gods.

> Most atheists, in my experience, don't care about the whole subject matter, and will simply ignore discussions about the existence of gods.

This, of course, completely contradicts your earlier statement of reasoning "based on the information available to me". By ignoring new information, you further damage your ability to reach sound conclusions.

You really are into this weasel-worded, pure-aristotelian logic junk, aren't you? :)

No, it doesn't completely contradict my earlier statement, because in the actual, messy, complicated, REAL world, things aren't pure black and white. 99.999999% of the discussions I've seen on this topic involved people with closed minds (yes, usually on both sides) rehashing tired old topics over and over. I haven't got the time to winnow through all that chaff for the possible (but improbable) kernel of wisdom. However, I rest comfortably, knowing that if anyone ever does come up with new information on the topic, it will attract enough attention and media publicity that I'll end up hearing about it, probably whether I want to or not. In other words, my decision to ignore these debates is the result of a minimax strategy analysis, not some sort of absolute and unwavering rule.

Maybe being agnostic is a form of cop-out, but it is the limit of a reasonable response.

Yes, it is. I rib agnostics, but I still respect them. Heck, I used to be one, or at least that's what I told myself. But as I've gotten older, I've come to grips with the fact that I really never did believe in gods. At most, I paid lip service to uncertainty, but in my heart, I've never believed any of this junk even for a second. (Well, ignoring that time at a Pink Floyd concert back in the early seventies, but I wasn

Here
is a list of quotes from the bible regarding the shape of the earth. Admittedly,
it's from infidels.org, but surely the host doesn't matter, since they're
quoting infallible scripture...

For one thing it was rumored to have been said by George H Bush(41st), not George W(43rd).

The closest thing to an explanation is here: TheAtheismWeb.

Supposedly this reporter with the American Atheist Press had a 1-on-1 interview with Bush(41) when he made that statement. No major US paper thought it was credible enough to run, so I am inclined to believe that it is untrue.

They are still standards. But hey, I could easily say similar things about MathML - it is a very specialized standard. The same with SVG - it is hardly in use at all on "mainstream" sites. And so on. So Mozilla implements standards for specialized use, just like Opera does.

No. You are confusing "being made for a specialised use" with "being made for a specialised platform". WAP pages aren't meant to be read on desktop PCs, so Mozilla (which is fundamentally a desktop browser) doesn't support it or the related technologies. MathML is meant to be read on normal PCs, even if not everyone uses it everyday, so Mozilla supports it. A clearer comparison: nether Opera nor Mozilla support Microsoft CHM (made for a special platform) but both support Chinese Big5 text encoding (made for a specialised use).

In any case, SVG is most definitely not special-purpose in any way. If you know anything about it, you'll know that it's a very general standard for vector graphics and animation, similar in some ways to Macromedia Flash. It has potential applications on almost any Web site with graphics; just because it isn't in widespread use doesn't mean that it isn't general in design.

The other standard I was using as an example -- XSL/XSLT -- is also very much non-specialist. It is, for instance, of immense potential use on any site larger than a hundred pages, if only because it allows for infinitely better content management (among many other things).

Actually, Opera 7 also has "experimental" support for CSS3.

I didn't know this, my apologies. This is, indeed, a sign of very good CSS support, because it shows that the makers are willing to go beyond what they need to do to just claim ordinary standards-compliance (i.e. support existing recommendations), and are taking the extra effort to position themselves ready for big new standards. In overall standards support, though (particularly with the XML-based standards), Opera is still not at the forefront.

I would argue that Opera 3 is actually better than even MSIE 6 in some situations since it has a more correct implementation. MSIE can't even get its box model right.

Then you seem intent on backing an unwinnable position, unless you intend to go to such a fine level of detail as to be irrelevant. Yes, IE's implementation of CSS is more than a little bit dodgy, but it is of decent completeness with respect to both CSS1 and CSS2 (maybe 80% - 90%, but I'm guessing). Yes, there are points where IE gets stuff wrong but old Opera or Mozilla versions get it right, but as you pointed out earlier there are plenty of examples where Opera 7 gets it wrong and IE 4 or Mozilla 0.8 get it right.

I think Opera 3 had just about complete support for CSS1.

No, this is wrong again. Maybe you missed what I wrote: if you consult the link I gave you, or try using Opera 3 for yourself, you'll see that its support for CSS1 is much less than complete, with positioning and inline element properties (like borders) being the glaring examples. Selectors like :hover are also noticeably absent.

True, but there was no release considered to be of even alpha quality until some time in 2000. That was M13.

You are redefining your terms after a claim; this is called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You had claimed that Opera was supporting CSS years before Mozilla was, which is patently false. It doesn't matter that nobody knew about Mozilla or that the browser had bugs aplenty -- the point is, the support was there.

Also note that Mozilla was rewritten over four years, while Opera 7 was a complete rewrite of the browser core and GUI, and was done in about a year and a half.

Yes, I know, but

This page contains a bunch of links explaining the Argument from Evil.

This page contains a bunch of links explaining the Argument from Evil.

If you are interested in athiesm, here's a better definition.

Read Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason. I think you would be very surprised how the Founding Fathers criticized christianity, and all religions. Their reasons are very contemporary.

One could EASILY argue that the American Revolution lead to Emerson's transcendantal ideas, which inspired Nietzsche to create the modern criticism of religion as a tool of enslavement.

Most rape victims consume ice cream. Therefore, if you do not eat ice cream you will be less likely to get raped.

Most copyright violations occur after circumventing protections. Therefore, if you criminalize circumvention you will get less copyright violations.

(Boolean) Logical Fallacies:
Denial of the antecedent
This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B is false". The truth table for implication makes it clear why this is a fallacy.

> Really that easy?
> Why do I get the sneaking suspicion you won't be convinced that easily.

I'm not convinced because I asked for (see emphasis):...

Here's an easy way to blow my point out of the water completely !! -- just find a tree with more than 5500 tree-rings in its trunk. Not radio-carbon dating mind you, nor some fancy extrapolation scheme across different trunks -- just a tree with 5500+ rings in one trunk... Like this one: a still-living 4700 ring bristlecone pine [sonic.net], or this one: a 4844-ring pine [sonic.net] cut down (!) just a few decades ago.

But you gave me this: (see emphasis)

Dr. Charles Ferguson of the University of Arizona has, by matching up overlapping tree rings of living and dead bristlecone pines, carefully built a tree ring sequence ...

I asked you for 5,500+ rings in the same trunk since there are many problems with ring-matching across different trees. From this article:

Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. ...

The extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute, in spite of the popular hype. To illustrate this we only have to consider the publication and subsequent withdrawal of two European tree-ring chronologies. According to David Rohl,3 the Sweet Track chronology from Southwest England was 're-measured' when it did not agree with the published dendrochronology from Northern Ireland (Belfast). Also, the construction of a detailed sequence from southern Germany was abandoned ...

The author of this article should know... he's a tree physiologist. I think multiple rings in a year for some trees and not others, would throw a spanner into ring matching, no?

So, due to the fact multiple rings *can* occur in one year (but it's rare) I asked for 5,500+ rings rather than 5,000. But hey... 5,500+ rings, even with multiple rings, in a single trunk shouldn't be a probem, eh? I mean there really isn't a "reason" for a 5,000 year limit is there? For one thing, the last ice-age supposedly ended 10,000 years ago. For another, we're already upto at 4,700 rings ... no 4,800! ... almost there... just 700 rings left to go.


> > ...consider visiting the Answers in Genesis site.
> Do you really think those crackpots have any idea what they're talking about?

Actually, they do. For the article quoted above, you could always take this up with the people who awarded the author his Ph.D.

Here's an easy way to blow my point out of the water completely !! -- just find a tree with more than 5500 tree-rings in its trunk.

Really that easy? Why do I get the sneaking suspicion you won't be convinced that easily. I suppose you'll claim that dendrochronology is wrong and that the only way you'll be convinced is if I can produce a single trunk with 5500+ rings. That's what the creationists normally say. It's amusing the first time.

Of course, if the botanists ever do find a tree with 5500+ rings in a single trunk then the creationists will just claim that multiple rings can occur in a single season! Never mind that the botanists can spot these freak occurences by looking at multiple trees. The creationists discount geology when it suits them. Why not discount botany too!

For other problems with Carbon dating and current evolutionary theory, consider visiting the Answers in Genesis site [answersingenesis.org].

Oh please, why not just quote the Bible at me. Do you really think those crackpots have any idea what they're talking about?

Much as I agree with you, I'd just like to point out that in a logical argument, people who live in glass houses are allowed to propel hard objects through the air. Denying them this is a form of argumentum ad hominem.

Excellent reference! (That page is really cool.)

Of course the original saying is something to the effect of one who lives in a glass house shouldn't (not mustn't) walk around naked (or whatever). Besides, even if I did have the desire to deny SlashDotters (or anyone) the ability to demonstrate hypocrisy, it is (fortunately) beyond my abilities.

Much as I agree with you, I'd just like to point out that in a logical argument, people who live in glass houses are allowed to propel hard objects through the air. Denying them this is a form of argumentum ad hominem.

Atheism : Faith that there are no gods (or equivalent supernatural beings). Agnostic : no religion, on account of no faith.

I told you it would become about definitions.

The traditional definition of agnostic (see here) as coined by Thomas Henry Huxley is that anything that has no facts in support or against is classified as "unknown", and those which can never have such facts are assignes as unknowable. "That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty."

When applied to religion specifically, an agnostic is one who believes that the existence and nature of god is unknown, and likely unknowable.

However, it says nothing of what an agnostic believes - you can be agnostic, yet believe or disbelieve in various gods.

And it is not true that an atheist is someone who actively disbelieves in gods. (see the Introduction to Atheism) You may feel that's what the word SHOULD mean, but the fact is that there are many people out there who consider themselves atheist who do not actively believe gods. Such as myself. Which means you have to deal with the term in that manner - just as there are plenty of people who consider themselves Christian who I'm sure you feel are not Christian.

Atheism : Faith that there are no gods (or equivalent supernatural beings). Agnostic : no religion, on account of no faith.

I told you it would become about definitions.

The traditional definition of agnostic (see here) as coined by Thomas Henry Huxley is that anything that has no facts in support or against is classified as "unknown", and those which can never have such facts are assignes as unknowable. "That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty."

When applied to religion specifically, an agnostic is one who believes that the existence and nature of god is unknown, and likely unknowable.

However, it says nothing of what an agnostic believes - you can be agnostic, yet believe or disbelieve in various gods.

And it is not true that an atheist is someone who actively disbelieves in gods. (see the Introduction to Atheism) You may feel that's what the word SHOULD mean, but the fact is that there are many people out there who consider themselves atheist who do not actively believe gods. Such as myself. Which means you have to deal with the term in that manner - just as there are plenty of people who consider themselves Christian who I'm sure you feel are not Christian.

Blame the funding model. For scientists to get money, they have to justify their existance--and that means saying "we know" when all they should be saying is "we think."

What, you don't think the people granting funding have a basic conception of the principles of science? Get a clue!

The nature of science, the philosophy of the thing is at the heart of the matter.

Science is performed by induction from observations.
This means that you make observations and try to draw a general conclusion.

The fallacy of this method is obvious; Yet it has proved very useful (=science!)
And the problem of induction has largly been dealt with by the philosophers of science.
(The logical positivists and Vienna circle coming the closest to an adequate theory, IMHO)

Anyway, what is to be considered "known" has an arbitrary limit. You "know" that when you drop an object, it will fall to the ground.
You know this due to experience, i.e. you have induced it from observations. Most knowledge is aquired in this fashion,
yet when it reaches a certain level of certainty we use the term "we know" in lieu of "we think".
Scientific knowledge is no exception.

However, you are right in critisicing the press for exaggerating the certainty of some scientific discovery. They do.
However, good scientists rarely do so.

As for atheism, it is not a religion and it is.
(Read the FAQ.)
Atheism as "the categorical denial of any and all gods", or "strong" atheism can be considered a religious doctrine.
However, "weak" atheism is disbelief in the existance of god, meaning that you do not belive in the existance of god, for one or another reason. This is not the same as denying the existance of god.

Many scientists belong to the latter category, as it follows the sceptical approach of science in general.

What do you mean by saying that atheism should not be
given greater "scientific or political respect" than any other "religion"?

In a secular society with seperation of church and state, religious matters should not be political.
Nor should scientific matters be religious, and they are not.
However all this depends on your definition of "religious matters".

If I start a religion which claims that objects do not fall to the ground when I drop them, and scientists claim the opposite,
does this mean that science is giving more respect to atheism than to my religion?

Science pays respect to observable facts, and observable facts only. If these contradict some religion, it is the problem of the religion, not a scientific one.
For example, Galileo and Copernicus were religious men, and atheism had nothing to do with their motives. However, the church considered them heretic.

And as for quantum physics: if you limit objects to 'non-quantum levels of mass',
then you are by definition outside of the realm where quantum effects have a significant inpact, so the question is really redundant. (the "force"-part I don't even understand..)

A better question is why you would want to save classical mechanics?
Quantum mechanics is based on 6 postulates, all laws of QM follow from these, and all laws of ordinary mechanics can be deduced from QM.
Classical mechanics OTOH, was much more of an ad hoc hodgepodge of laws until QM explained why they take the form that they do.

Of course, the 6 postulates are rather ad hoc laws themselves, but they are fewer, and explain more.

Conclusion: Therefore, any atheist who becomes a believer becuase of reading it is a stupid person.

Wow, someone's copping an atheist attitude without the usual logical rigor of a good little practicing atheist! Let's see which logical fallacies have been committed:

• Circulus in demonstrando - assuming as a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach
• Straw man - misrepresenting someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then concluding that the original position has been demolished
• Petitio principii - the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached
• Non causa pro causa - something is identified as the cause of an event, but it has not actually been shown to be the cause
• Hasty generalization - forming a general rule by examining only a few specific cases which aren't representative of all possible cases
• Bifurcation - presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist
• Argumentum ad nauseam - saying the same thing over and over again until you're sick of hearing it

If you'd like a little more success to go with that attitude, I'd suggest reading up on Logic and Fallacies at The Athiesm Web.

See this link on a prominent atheism website under the question 'Isn't the whole of life completely pointless to an atheist?'. (sorry, no direct link, you'll have to do a little keyword searching)

Here are some quotes:

'It is a natural human tendency to look for 'meaning or 'purpose' in random events.

'[Some atheists] ...believe that life has no purpose or meaning, it just is.'

Ok, I could be wrong but these statements appear to be very similar to the one's I made above. These are atheist's statements on an atheist's website. The only inconsistency is probably that I should've have said that only some atheists believe that evil simply is and is a result of the randomness of life.

Um, no. Let me demonstrate:

• Conservatives think sex is bad, condoms or no.
• They also think guns are good. Their justification is that people exercise good personal judgment when using guns.
• You claim that conservatives believe that people should always exercise good personal judgment.
• You then conclude, validly, that conservatives should expect people to exercise good judgment whilst having sex.
• Your (unstated) opinion is that it's good to use condoms whilst having sex.
• Your other unstated opinion is that you and conservatives should have the same value system.
• You conclude that conservatives should expect people to use condoms during sex, in contradiction to their stated platform.
• The entire purpose of this 'argument' seems to be to make an attack on their hypocrisy. To what end eludes me.

In case you're wondering, my counter argument would be that conservatives believe that people tend not to exhibit sound judgment where the issue of sex is concerned. While I don't necessarily agree with this stance, I don't find it utterly implausible either. This counter completely invalidates your train of reasoning.

Um, no. Let me demonstrate:

• Conservatives think sex is bad, condoms or no.
• They also think guns are good. Their justification is that people exercise good personal judgment when using guns.
• You claim that conservatives believe that people should always exercise good personal judgment.
• You then conclude, validly, that conservatives should expect people to exercise good judgment whilst having sex.
• Your (unstated) opinion is that it's good to use condoms whilst having sex.
• Your other unstated opinion is that you and conservatives should have the same value system.
• You conclude that conservatives should expect people to use condoms during sex, in contradiction to their stated platform.
• The entire purpose of this 'argument' seems to be to make an attack on their hypocrisy. To what end eludes me.

In case you're wondering, my counter argument would be that conservatives believe that people tend not to exhibit sound judgment where the issue of sex is concerned. While I don't necessarily agree with this stance, I don't find it utterly implausible either. This counter completely invalidates your train of reasoning.

Um, no. Let me demonstrate:

• Conservatives think sex is bad, condoms or no.
• They also think guns are good. Their justification is that people exercise good personal judgment when using guns.
• You claim that conservatives believe that people should always exercise good personal judgment.
• You then conclude, validly, that conservatives should expect people to exercise good judgment whilst having sex.
• Your (unstated) opinion is that it's good to use condoms whilst having sex.
• Your other unstated opinion is that you and conservatives should have the same value system.
• You conclude that conservatives should expect people to use condoms during sex, in contradiction to their stated platform.
• The entire purpose of this 'argument' seems to be to make an attack on their hypocrisy. To what end eludes me.

In case you're wondering, my counter argument would be that conservatives believe that people tend not to exhibit sound judgment where the issue of sex is concerned. While I don't necessarily agree with this stance, I don't find it utterly implausible either. This counter completely invalidates your train of reasoning.

That, to me, is one piece of fairly compelling evidence, and it's supported by historical writing outside the Christian Bible.

It's evidence of their belief, yes. But it's hardly unprecidented or all that extra-ordinary to find people willing to die for their chosen deity or religious leader - indeed, right now you've got Falung Gong members being persecuted in China, and only a few years ago we had the Heaven's Gate folks who first castrated, then killed, themselves.

I can say this with certainty: I have nothing to lose by believing, or at least trying my best to do so.

Yes, you do. First, according to some religions, if you choose the wrong set of beliefs, you're hosed. Choose to follow Zoroaster but it turns out Yaweh was the right pick? Lake of Fire for you, my friend. You might have gotten off lighter if you've picked None of the Above than chosen a false god.

Second, choosing to behave irrationally is not a good habit to develop for the rest of your life.

Third, the faith that you pick may very well require or suggest a lifestyle based on delaying gratification or happiness until after death...which given the lack of evidence for an afterlife, makes Pascal's Wager a sucker's bet.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all in favor of the mystical experience. Just don't confuse it with objective fact.