Slashdot Mirror

"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."
[from Albert Einstein - The Human Side,Selected and Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, 1979]

This certainly doesn't make Einstein a devout Jew - the Jewish religion is very much about a personal god. His god is the same as Spinoza's, and Spinoza was excommunicated by his fellow Jews.

For more about Einstein and religion, see this.

The significance of the Biblical story is not that it's never been proven impossible, but that it's never been proven incorrect.

A self-contradictory story is, by definition, incorrect.

Remember, this is the same country whose leader believes that HIV does not cause AIDS. Their leaders (and by default, government) are quite obviously insane.

This, of course, in stark contrast to our country, whose leader believes that Africans should, under no circumstances, be educated about how AIDS is spread.

This is the same man that believes, down to the letter, in a book that says women and unborn children are property, among other ridiculous assertions

Oh, and despite your insulting attitude, I was not making any assumptions as to your religious convictions. But if you *are* atheist you might want to look at this debate, atheist vs atheist, on the subject of abortion.

Abortion Debate


I have yet to see a strong non-theistic defense of human life and human rights being applied from day 1 (or even day 60). Heck. in my opinion, although the line needs to be drawn at birth due to human hardwiring, even at birth I'd say a conscious life has yet to awaken. I'd place the harm and evil at that stage as equivelant to that of hurting a small animal - save for that practical problem with humans keying on form.

But anyway.
Most of the points you raised, including the continuum, were examined and I thought rather solidly rebutted. But don't take my word for it, read it for yourself. Is quite good.

This post isn't intended to be offensive, but given the thread that has developed about Biblical creation stories, it seemed somewhat appropriate, if also a bit offtopic. Let's go!

I'm curious how one would come to the conclusion that the creation story of the Old Testament was inspired by the Judeo-Christian God. I am interested in having these strong claims backed up, if possible. The writer of the first post in this thread remarks that:

However, I am not aware of any reason for holding such a belief vs. not holding such a belief. Perhaps there are two options, let's call them (A) and (B).

First, (A) someone might come up with a rational proof for the existance of the Judeo Christian God and the fact that He influenced the text of the Bible. Unfortunately, no such proof has ever been successful. The "Proof By Design", "Ontological Argument", "Cosmological Argument" and such have all been shown to be flawed. (For example, there seems to be an exhaustive list available. I know the source may be seen as biased, but the same information can be gleamed from any decent introductory book on this history of philosophy.)

The real problem behind the problem is the nature of God Himself. If you make the conception of God specific and complex, for example by claiming that He is benevolent or tripartite, rational undisputable proof becomes extremely difficult (impossible?). I'd wager that to justify the idea of a complex God, one would have to use (B) the justification by faith. None of the traditional proofs of God, such as those outlined by Aquinas get us closer to specific attributes; they only argue for raw existance. This other extreme, the claim that God is simple, takes such forms as: God is everything, God is love, etc. This won't do either, because then God just becomes synomonous with "Universe" (in the first case) and won't be able to be used to defend any particular creation story or moral teaching, at least as far as I am aware of.

Second, (B) someone might hold that God wrote the Bible on the basis of a justification by faith. The idea behind the justification by faith seems to be that somehow this knowledge is 'extra-rational', so one just has to have faith in the fact that it is true. If justification by faith is itself justified, what should we have faith in? There are three possible answers.

Take it as an assumption that justification by faith is correct.

1) Have faith in everything. This will lead us to have faith in the Christian conception of God, the Judaic conception of God, the Islamic conception of God and Greek Pantheon, etc. We will have to believe that the Quran is absolutely true, the Bible absolutely true, and Greek mythology is absolutely true. I don't think many people will want this. In the ethical sphere of religious teachings, it would necessarily lead to complete ethical relativism: i.e. anything anyone justified by faith would be justified (human sacrifice, murder, etc.). Furthermore-- and more importantly-- since we are admitting the general correctness of the justification by faith methodology, we will be unable to criticize others as having incorrect morality. For example if a murderer has faith that murder is what God wants, we are forced to accept his justification by faith (just as our own must be accepted) and cannot say that the murder is then wrong.

2) Have faith in nothing. This would lead to extreme skepticism, so we don't have to deal with it.

3) Have faith in some things but not others. This looks like it would have to be the method if we want to support belief in God without leading to complete ethical subjectivism like (1) did. Unfortunately, (3) is not a solution to the problem at all. If we are to have faith in some things and not others, what critera should we use to decide what to have faith in? If the answer is reason, then we have to deal with (A) again-- trying to determine rational proofs for the existance of the Judeo-Christian God and of His having influenced the writing of the Bible. But there are no good rational proofs. If the answer is faith itself, then we must go back to (B) and start over, which is clearly nonsensical.

Therefore, as (2) and (3) will not allow us to coherently achieve a justification by faith, (1) is the only option left. So when we start out assuming that a justification by faith is valid, we find that it necessarily requires us to be complete moral subjectivists. Since that kind of subjectivism undermines the project of the ethical teachings of the major monotheistic world religions (including Christianity), the justification by faith cannot be used to justifiy Christianity.

Imagine a person who'd been raised without the idea of religion at all, who has been presented with all the world's religions (past and present) and asked to choose. What choice should he make? Let's assume that all of them claim to be the true religion, and that we cannot hold all of them because many of them have conflicting teachings. Justification by faith appears inable to provide a method for correct choice in this situation. Unfortunately, reason seems also unable to help us without a valid argument.

After you're done evaluating "The Case for Christ," try this link for a secular evaluation of the "evidence."

Jesus never existed.

Approval voting is widely used in the U.S. for electing corporate boards of directors -- not known as bastions of democracy by any means.

Sorry, your logic doesn't hold. You can't show something to be bad by association. That sentence is related to three logical fallacies: Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and Converse accident / Hasty generalization. Probably falls under the first.

Let me provide another example:

The men in Nazi armies ate bread every now and then. Nazi's were not known as bastions for freedom by any means. Therefore, the people of a democracy should eat as much non-bread food as possible.

So, would you therefore agree that corn is better than bread?

People like to pick a first choice as "their" candidate. Approval makes you say yes to some set, and no to the rest.

No more than one-person-one-vote makes a voter say "yes" to one candidate and "no" to the rest. You know the details of approval voting, right? You can cast as many equal votes as you want. If you only want to vote for one candidate (for fear of your second choice winning), then only vote for "your" candidate. Personally, I don't like the concept of having to rank any candidate I hate over any other candidate I hate.

I agree it has some mathematical elegances,

Mathematical elegances? How about actual results? It allows for far better representation than either One-Person-One-Vote or IRV.

but I prefer IRV and so do the majority of reform activists judging by the initiative measures which have actually made it onto the ballots.

Logical fallacy: Argumentum Ad Populum

Another example of Argumentum Ad Populum: I am a fan of sports team A. Sports team A has the largest following of any team. Therefore, Sports Team A is the best team.

Do all the people who support IRV know about the other systems out there? Have they educated themselves on the pass-or-fail criteria for judging fair voting? Are they just on board because it is the biggest group working towards electoral reform? And would having everybody in the world agree on IRV make it the best system?

Do some research on the many alternative voting systems out there. Find a chart of what passes and what fails certain tests. You'll see that IRV doesn't hold a candle to Approval or Condorcet. Like I said, IRV is a step in the right direction, but think how much simpler Approval voting would be to implement than either IRV or Condorcet and how much more effective it can be than either IRV or one-person-one-vote.

Approval voting is widely used in the U.S. for electing corporate boards of directors -- not known as bastions of democracy by any means.

Sorry, your logic doesn't hold. You can't show something to be bad by association. That sentence is related to three logical fallacies: Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and Converse accident / Hasty generalization. Probably falls under the first.

Let me provide another example:

The men in Nazi armies ate bread every now and then. Nazi's were not known as bastions for freedom by any means. Therefore, the people of a democracy should eat as much non-bread food as possible.

So, would you therefore agree that corn is better than bread?

People like to pick a first choice as "their" candidate. Approval makes you say yes to some set, and no to the rest.

No more than one-person-one-vote makes a voter say "yes" to one candidate and "no" to the rest. You know the details of approval voting, right? You can cast as many equal votes as you want. If you only want to vote for one candidate (for fear of your second choice winning), then only vote for "your" candidate. Personally, I don't like the concept of having to rank any candidate I hate over any other candidate I hate.

I agree it has some mathematical elegances,

Mathematical elegances? How about actual results? It allows for far better representation than either One-Person-One-Vote or IRV.

but I prefer IRV and so do the majority of reform activists judging by the initiative measures which have actually made it onto the ballots.

Logical fallacy: Argumentum Ad Populum

Another example of Argumentum Ad Populum: I am a fan of sports team A. Sports team A has the largest following of any team. Therefore, Sports Team A is the best team.

Do all the people who support IRV know about the other systems out there? Have they educated themselves on the pass-or-fail criteria for judging fair voting? Are they just on board because it is the biggest group working towards electoral reform? And would having everybody in the world agree on IRV make it the best system?

Do some research on the many alternative voting systems out there. Find a chart of what passes and what fails certain tests. You'll see that IRV doesn't hold a candle to Approval or Condorcet. Like I said, IRV is a step in the right direction, but think how much simpler Approval voting would be to implement than either IRV or Condorcet and how much more effective it can be than either IRV or one-person-one-vote.

Approval voting is widely used in the U.S. for electing corporate boards of directors -- not known as bastions of democracy by any means.

Sorry, your logic doesn't hold. You can't show something to be bad by association. That sentence is related to three logical fallacies: Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and Converse accident / Hasty generalization. Probably falls under the first.

Let me provide another example:

The men in Nazi armies ate bread every now and then. Nazi's were not known as bastions for freedom by any means. Therefore, the people of a democracy should eat as much non-bread food as possible.

So, would you therefore agree that corn is better than bread?

People like to pick a first choice as "their" candidate. Approval makes you say yes to some set, and no to the rest.

No more than one-person-one-vote makes a voter say "yes" to one candidate and "no" to the rest. You know the details of approval voting, right? You can cast as many equal votes as you want. If you only want to vote for one candidate (for fear of your second choice winning), then only vote for "your" candidate. Personally, I don't like the concept of having to rank any candidate I hate over any other candidate I hate.

I agree it has some mathematical elegances,

Mathematical elegances? How about actual results? It allows for far better representation than either One-Person-One-Vote or IRV.

but I prefer IRV and so do the majority of reform activists judging by the initiative measures which have actually made it onto the ballots.

Logical fallacy: Argumentum Ad Populum

Another example of Argumentum Ad Populum: I am a fan of sports team A. Sports team A has the largest following of any team. Therefore, Sports Team A is the best team.

Do all the people who support IRV know about the other systems out there? Have they educated themselves on the pass-or-fail criteria for judging fair voting? Are they just on board because it is the biggest group working towards electoral reform? And would having everybody in the world agree on IRV make it the best system?

Do some research on the many alternative voting systems out there. Find a chart of what passes and what fails certain tests. You'll see that IRV doesn't hold a candle to Approval or Condorcet. Like I said, IRV is a step in the right direction, but think how much simpler Approval voting would be to implement than either IRV or Condorcet and how much more effective it can be than either IRV or one-person-one-vote.

Approval voting is widely used in the U.S. for electing corporate boards of directors -- not known as bastions of democracy by any means.

Sorry, your logic doesn't hold. You can't show something to be bad by association. That sentence is related to three logical fallacies: Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and Converse accident / Hasty generalization. Probably falls under the first.

Let me provide another example:

The men in Nazi armies ate bread every now and then. Nazi's were not known as bastions for freedom by any means. Therefore, the people of a democracy should eat as much non-bread food as possible.

So, would you therefore agree that corn is better than bread?

People like to pick a first choice as "their" candidate. Approval makes you say yes to some set, and no to the rest.

No more than one-person-one-vote makes a voter say "yes" to one candidate and "no" to the rest. You know the details of approval voting, right? You can cast as many equal votes as you want. If you only want to vote for one candidate (for fear of your second choice winning), then only vote for "your" candidate. Personally, I don't like the concept of having to rank any candidate I hate over any other candidate I hate.

I agree it has some mathematical elegances,

Mathematical elegances? How about actual results? It allows for far better representation than either One-Person-One-Vote or IRV.

but I prefer IRV and so do the majority of reform activists judging by the initiative measures which have actually made it onto the ballots.

Logical fallacy: Argumentum Ad Populum

Another example of Argumentum Ad Populum: I am a fan of sports team A. Sports team A has the largest following of any team. Therefore, Sports Team A is the best team.

Do all the people who support IRV know about the other systems out there? Have they educated themselves on the pass-or-fail criteria for judging fair voting? Are they just on board because it is the biggest group working towards electoral reform? And would having everybody in the world agree on IRV make it the best system?

Do some research on the many alternative voting systems out there. Find a chart of what passes and what fails certain tests. You'll see that IRV doesn't hold a candle to Approval or Condorcet. Like I said, IRV is a step in the right direction, but think how much simpler Approval voting would be to implement than either IRV or Condorcet and how much more effective it can be than either IRV or one-person-one-vote.

I think you'll find this
this interesting.

Everyone should do themselves a favor and read Logic & Fallacies. If only everyone knew this, there would be less bullshit arguments gaining acceptance.

Assuming America has a "monopoly" on abusive potical, technical, or jurisprudence wrt to the net isn't a logical fallacy, it is a factual fallacy. The logic is sound, the assumption made upon which the argument is based is what is inaccurate.

You're correct the article was poorly phrased. It should have been stated, "Of course, there's a fallacy in this. The case is made against the US, but never for Europe."

In terms of the logical fallacies, I guess this would be Argumentum ad novitatem, but it's a hard call. But it's also a bit of a red herring in that you're claiming "not a" and then holding that that implies "b". "not a", or in this case, "the US is corrupt" has nothign to do with "b", or in the case, "europe isn't".

Assuming America has a "monopoly" on abusive potical, technical, or jurisprudence wrt to the net isn't a logical fallacy, it is a factual fallacy. The logic is sound, the assumption made upon which the argument is based is what is inaccurate.

You're correct the article was poorly phrased. It should have been stated, "Of course, there's a fallacy in this. The case is made against the US, but never for Europe."

In terms of the logical fallacies, I guess this would be Argumentum ad novitatem, but it's a hard call. But it's also a bit of a red herring in that you're claiming "not a" and then holding that that implies "b". "not a", or in this case, "the US is corrupt" has nothign to do with "b", or in the case, "europe isn't".

Are you sure?

no

What seems to "bother" you is that Stallman has advanced persuasive arguments in favor of an idea that conflicts with your existing world view.

No, I told you exactly what bothers me: Stallman depends more on an appeal to emotion than he does on appeal to intellect. When other people do this, they're often trying to convince their audience to believe or to do something that they might not otherwise believe or do. That give me the creeps.

As I've written elsewhere, my disagreement with Stallman exists on a plane separate from my objections to his rhetoric. In other words, in my eyes he is not only Wrong, but also Bad.

In your post and in your essay, you spend a great deal of time attacking Stallman and his ideas as "propaganda," without rebutting those ideas. This is called an argumentum ad hominem attack ("against the man") and is considered a very poor argument--I'll resist the urge to call it "propaganda."

Propaganda is a very specific term for a set of rhetorical techniques. The word does have negative connotations, but I honestly can't think of a better one to describe what RMS does. The connotations aren't always negative, anyway. In the 20's, the word "agitprop" appeared, which is a combination of the Russian word agitatsiya (or "agitating") and propaganda. The word was used by Russian Communists to describe their own efforts. So your assertion that calling it propaganda is an ad hominem attack is pretty off base. If I wanted to make an ad hom attack against RMS, I'd call him a left-wing radical Communist who dresses funny. That's an ad hom attack.

For more information on propaganda techniques in persuasive writing, look here, or here, or here. These resources are good both for creating your own propaganda, and also for recognizing the propaganda of others. I'd suggest that you read about these techniques and familiarize yourself with them, then revisit RMS's writings. See how many instances of the propaganda techniques you can find. It's fun; it's like a little game.

I suggest you read Stallman's ideas again and give them some thought.

I read Stallman's ideas incessantly. But I read them critically and dispassionately, keeping a copy of those propaganda guides open beside me as I go. It's a terribly educational experience.

CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) has several informative reports debunking crop circles including Joe Nickell's Investigative Brief into Levengood's Crop Circle Plant Research.

If you're interested in more informed discussion, check out the CSICOP Mailing List, where this topic (Disney's Crop Circle promotion) is also current.

I struggle to find the link, I think it was at http://www.infidels.org, but Atheists are significantly under-represented in prisons as compared to their ratio to the general population. This would seem to indicate that, at least by legal definitions of right and wrong, atheists are more moral than theists. Disclaimer: I do not think the law accurately represents all definitions of what is moral, my own included.

No , there aren't.

This is a blatantly dishonest use of ellipsis. The US forefathers were deists at most, not Christian. A lot of Americans at that time were fleeing persecution by Christians in England. Go reread the first amendment. While you're at it, read Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln and Paine for their uniformly less-than-complimentary opinions of Christianity.

"The Bible states: The [empty-headed] fool says in his heart, "There is no God.""

What a very cute little [addition] of yours to that quote. But didn't the last verses of Revelations have some very nasty things to say about people who added things to your holy book? (Ooops. Better pack that SPF 30 Billion sunscreen.) ...And gee, I wonder who it was who said "but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Watch that first step. I hear it's a lulu.)

"For 700 pages of extraordinary proof, I suggest that you read The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell [josh.org]."

Proof? Only of how easy it is to preach to the choirboys. *laughter* Dearie me, superyooser. There you go yet again with the broken-record touting of that greedy shyster McDowell and his website. Every time you keep hailing "the emperor", I'll keep pointing out that not only does he have no clothes on, but he's really not a pretty sight.

I guess there always has to be opposition in all things. It's important to remember standing AGAINST something is not the same as standing FOR something.

teleport.com/~packham/
exmormon.org
Infidels
LDS4U: Beat the missionaries at their own game.
Utah Lighthouse Ministry

"Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet...When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go." (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408, 409)

American programming is of higher quality because it is ad-supported.

First of all, you're begging the question. Is American programming of higher quality? From my observations, I'd say the answer is no, but I admit that this is highly subjective. Then, to make matters worse, you assume a causal chain for what may be merely coincidence. (A "non causa pro causa" argument.) Perhaps American programming is better simply because America is a wealthy country.

Let me propose a counter-argument to your counter-argument. "American programming is of lower quality because it's ad-supported." I can't prove that any more than you can prove your assertion. But it's every bit as plausible. It begs a different question, and, like your statement, offers no evidence to back up what may be a coincidence. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be far more in line with the facts. :)

In any case, a refresher course in logic and logical fallacies would seem to be in order here. I highly recommend this list of logical fallacies. IMO, it should be required reading for all slashdot posters.

p.s. I note that the American Film industry, which is not ad-supported, generally produces much higher-quality fare than the American TV industry (again, IMO). I'm not sure this actually proves anything, but it certainly throws more doubt on extra88's original premise.

People do write articles about how ridiculous that is, it's just that the public "can't handle the truth", and moreoever don't want to.

Look at the most egregious example of this - the healing power of prayer. Any two-bit dodgy study that comes down in favor of intercessionary prayer is reported on and sells papers. When John Hopkins do a proper double-blind study that shows no effect, you'd be hard pressed to see that reported in the news!

http://www.infidels.org/. Go there, you'll find scientific arguments against everything you just stated.

Large portions of the book are devoted to showing that historically "good" periods of growth and discovery took place while it was thought that the Universe was infinite. Well, so what? Believing doesn't make it so. This entire part of the book is irrelevent.

The evidence in favor of his theory seems mainly that electromagnetic clouds look very similar to galaxies. This is interesting, but hardly conclusive. He also doesn't give any alternative explanation for Hubble shift or a good answer to the question "Why is the sky dark?" A good overview of the debate is here.

I've been to Catholic mass probably 2000 times (nearly all in Illinois; perhaps practices are different elsewhere). One could contribute anonymously, but all regular parisioners had personalized contribution envelopes, with the expected contribution explicitly based on income. I found this strange, and remember asking my parents what business the priest had knowing their contribution or income. I didn't get a satisfactory answer to this or any other religious question. Per-adherent the contemporary Catholic church is less evil than Scientology, though I'd probably feel differently had I been raped by a priestly pedophile.

And by the way, in re Marty's rant about cheerleaders: maybe we will never know if there is a higher power, but it certainly IS relevant, or does he disagree with Pascal's logic in the matter?

Pascal's Wager is a bad argument for belief. There are a ton of resources out there debunking it, but my favorite is that, considering the possible consequences of belief in the wrong God, atheism may actually be a better bet than theism.

The Secular Web has an index that provides a pretty thorough analysis.

-brennan

Nope. You've described agnosticism. Look it up.

Atheism is disbelief. Not lack of belief. Disbelief.

Agnosticism is the belief that God's existence is not known.

People who are agnostic but call themselves atheist ('cause agnostic sounds too wishy washy) have been trying to redefine the term by introduction notions of "weak" atheism (really agnosticism) and "strong" atheism (real atheism).

Just because some people want to redefine a word doesn't mean I have to buy into their "claptrap".

repeating those things to each other, with an extremely high degree of accuracy.

Isn't it curious that those who study ancient writings outside of Biblical scholars never attribute any super ability to the people of those times wrt their retention of facts? Only Biblical scholars do it, and they do it because if they didn't, they'd lose the grounds of many of the Bible's claims. The fact is that there's no reason to suspect that the people of ages past retained knowledge any better than we do today.

From what we've been able to dig up archaeologically, the biblical authors were pretty much dead-on.

Not really. There is an astounding number of archaelogical/historical inaccuracies in the Bible. If you think you can support the claim that the Bible is "dead-on" about anything, you should get your unique insights over to The Internet Infidels and join the Biblical Errancy list. There are experts there who will make sure you are well acquainted with the many errors in the Bible until your eyes bleed.

Since, however, the Bible is such an extraordinarily accurate document that you could believe accounts of a God-like man rising from the dead: Could you clear up some problems that I've had with it?

Could you construct for me the exact events leading to the discovery of Christ's empty tomb? Who went, what time did they leave, what time did they get there, who saw what and said what to whom? I mean, I wouldn't believe a bunch of people telling me about my missing car, if they all had different and conflicting stories. How am I supposed to believe that those people actually witnessed a man/god risen from the dead?

While you're at it, could you give me the exact lineage of Christ? There are multiple conflicting accounts in the New Testament, and I'd like to have that resolved before I'd even begin to believe that the Bible is the word of God.

Of course, 5 seconds with Google turns up what looks like some pretty effective refutation of the Polonium Halo theory.

Darwin's Black Box Review

The book basis its premace on six fallacies:

Fallacy one: There is a boundary between the molecular world and other levels of biological organization.

Fallacy two: The current utility of a given feature (molecular or otherwise) explains "why" the feature originally evolved.

Fallacy three: Unless we can identify advantages for each imaginary gradual step leading to a contemporary bit of biochemistry, we cannot invoke a Darwinian explanation.

Fallacy four: Molecular evolution: "a lot of sequences, some math, and no answers."

Fallacy five: There is a conspiracy of silence among scientists concerning the failure of Darwinian explanation.

Fallacy six: The evolution of complexity is unaddressed and unexplained.

More: Darwin's Black Box Review

Behe's empty box
"Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required."

"The point is there's no guarantee that improvements will remain mere improvements. Indeed because later changes build on previous ones, there's every reason to think that earlier refinements might become necessary. The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches-like dry land-that were unavailable to their lung-less peers. But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries-they are essential. The punch-line is, I think, obvious: although this process is thoroughly Darwinian, we are often left with a system that is irreducibly complex. I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system 'have to be there from the beginning' is dead wrong."

[b]The Fallacy of Conclusion by Analogy[/b]

When it comes to explaining science to the public, analogies and metaphors are essential tools of the trade. We all can better understand something new and unusual, when it is compared to something we already know: a cell is like a factory, the eye is like a camera, an atom is like a billiard ball, a biochemical system is like a mouse trap. An A is like a B, means A shares some conceptual properties with B. It does not mean A has all the properties of B. It does not follow that what is true for B is therefore true for A. Analogies can be used to explain science, but analogies cannot be used to draw conclusions or falsify scientific theories. Yet Behe commits this fallacy throughout his book.

For example:

[ol][li]A mousetrap is "irreducibly complex" - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
[li]A mousetrap is a product of design.
[li]The bacterial flagellum is "irreducibly complex" - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
[li]Therefore the flagellum is like a mouse trap.
[li]Therefore the flagellum is a product of design.

More: Features: Behe's empty box

Publish or Perish

On page 179 of Darwin's Black Box Michael Behe claims:

"There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems."
He closes the chapter with this ludicrous statement:

"In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has not published, and so it should perish"

(Did someone say publish or perish?: The Elusive Scientific Basis of Intelligent Design Theory)

To be honest, I suspect that the extent of detail Behe is demanding would require a combination cutting-edge biochemistry lab and a time machine. How else can science fully recover, for example, every single step in the evolution of the bacterial flagellum that took place billions of years ago?

More: Publish or Perish

Review of Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box (1998)
For those who have not already encountered this book or one of its numerous reviews, let me simply say that the author sets out to argue that the organic world is so complex, particularly at the level of molecular biology and biochemistry, that Darwinian evolution cannot possibly have led to it. As evolution cannot produce irreducibly complex systems (the blood-clotting process, for instance, the biochemist's analogue of the eye), they must be the outcome of the activities of an Intelligent Designer. In other words, the book is a tiresome reworking at the molecular level of the timeworn "design" argument.

So much has already been written by reviewers of this book that it seems unnecessary to add anything more (go to ahref=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish .htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish. html>). Specialists far more competent than me have analyzed the numerous and gross deficiencies in Dr. Behe's flatulent arguments in considerable technical detail (see especially ahref=http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/Behe.htmlhttp://w ww.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/Behe.html>), so there would be an emptiness in my remarks if I were to try to emulate them. If I am to add anything to the discussion, I am forced to choose to look at the book from a different perspective. The perspective I shall adopt is that of misrepresentation, for that quality pervades this book at every level.

More: Review of Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box (1998)

Seeing as your argument is simply "your definitions are wrong, here are my definitions" I'll simply attack your definitions. I only really need to attack this one

"Agnostic" is not a word derived purely from the roots "a" and "gnostic"... agnostic certainly doesn't imply disbelief in or the anthesis of gnosticism

And I counter with.

"So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history" [Huxley, creator of the word 'agnostic']

Information taken from this site

True, was about to naming Lem myself. Unfortunately some of his novels are little too close in the future or were, when he wrote them. In particular, I think of "The Astronauts" which he wrote in 1951. In German, the book's title is "Planet des Todes" and I'm not sure if it has ever been translated into English. At least it is not listed here. Well, the bottom line is, that the book, which deals with the topic of alien civilisations, space travel etc, was written 8 years before the Sputnik was launched, 10 years before Gagarin made his first flight! Well, the "mistake" was, that the book lists some "historical events", among others intercontinental delivery via rockets (Lem calls them "rocket trains") - supposedly happend in the 60's. When I read this book first somewhere in the 80's, I really scratched my head and had a looong look into my history books... :-) Otherwise, the novel is great, though. A typical Lem. Seems to me like this was one of the first books he wrote (if not the first one).

Taliban haven't murdered anyone

only if fellow afhganis don't count as "anyone". read the newspaper for more info!

to realnowhwereman:

look at this. (this discussion needs the taliban like dick cheney needs another grilled cheese sandwich)

Why not have a look at
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#an alogy
for a guide on how to argue a bit better.

The only way to end this war will be to educate everyone on the planet away from the irrationality of belief and the tyranny of unreasoning faith.

Unfortunately, as a northern european atheist, from my perspective, we have a christian fundamentalists on one side, and a muslim fundamentalists on the other. Neither side is going to quit until they abandon their own irrational and crazy beliefs. While the heads of both sides are really interested in economics, religion is the tool they use to keep the ignorant masses slavering for a fight.

If you're having a bit of doubt avbout how God could allow this tragedy, then good, you're on the path towards enlightenment.

Think about it, the very fact there are so many religions should suggest to you that they're mostly bunk.

FAITH IS NOT A VIRTUE.

No, it's quite simple. Reject religion, and unreasoning faith. Christianity, Islam and Hiduism still have footholds in America, Middle East and Inda, respectively. Northern europe, Russia, Australia and the far east/China are mainly atheist or "mystical atheist" (i.e. buddhist).

get with the program and go ahteist www.infidels.org

Sorry, but you just pulled a logical fallacy.
The fact that you feel that you have become emotionally detached from a movie doesn't mean that this is part of the reason that kids are bringing guns to school.

... and a Satanic club, and a wiccan club, and an atheist club too, right? You weren't going to exclude any of them, were you?

Where does it end though? If you can steal IP to save AIDS patients then surely I can steal all your stuff to pay for my heart transplant, right?

You might possibly benefit from learning a little bit about logical arguments.

If you can lift a can of beer, then surely you can single-handedly raise the Titanic. Doesn't this sound idiotic? It's the same construction you used...

It ends somewhere in the middle, as nearly always. Note that e.g. they are not taking anything from Roche but a small part of the possible future earnings. Note also that on the other hand we have the continued life and productivity of a couple of hundred thousand people.

By the way, I am giving away most of my intellectual property anyways. You can get it from the E theorem prover page. Hope it helps you in getting a transplant.

See, Martin Luther is just one of many many examples of people who stood for what was right in spite of the religious authorities. Luther was a free thinker!

No True Scotsman
I must confess that this is the first time I've heard of this 'fallacy'. Searching for a definition, I found it with reference to "Free Thinkers" on the ffrf site. No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah.
This doesn't sound like free thought to me!

Because my definition of Christianity is consistent - internally, and with that of Christ himself, I assert that your accusation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is invalid.

"Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
Mt 7:21

Jesus didn't believe that all people who claimed Christianity were true Christians. I'll stand with Him.

Man, you're full of them today!
BTW - Your assertion that I was making an ad hominem attack was unfounded. Additionally, because I didn't shift my definition of Christianity, your scotsman assertion is invalid. Therefore this assertion that I'm full of them is not valid, either.

Nice try.

I'll give you kudos for creativity, but please punch holes in my argument rather than raise non-fallacies as red herrings.

the whole "killing people is wrong" thing goes out the window,
You shall not murder. Murder differs from killing.

Looks like you're the one who is full of them..... :)


What standard determines right?
Now you're learning!
You didn't answer my question.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are not based on texts written and maintained over thousands of years, with more existing manuscripts than the Iliad.

But there is the same amount of evidence for them as there is for your 'god'. Just because lots of people believe something, does not make it true. You might want to check out The Logic FAQ.


Evil Overlord X
Coming to a third world country near you

Are you telling me that there is not the slightest chance that creationism is the truth? Faith tells us that God is all knowing and all powerful.

You know, instead of repeating that "absence of proof" phrase again, I'll do the slightly rares version of the same idea. Here's a simple pseudo-perl code to see if your argument (usually one defending religion) is fallacious in one specific type:

1. $_="your_argument";
2. s/$entity_being_proved/$something_absurd/g; # for example, s/creationism/sporalogy/g
3. print;

Set appropriate values to variables and run the above code. Does the argument it outputs make sense?

Since the religious type is known to occasionally act in slightly irrational way, here's a simple example:

$_=<<EOT

Does it make you happy to crap on other people's faith? I love science and all the evidence in the world points to evolution, but I still believe in creationism. Are you telling me that there is not the slightest chance that creationism is the truth? Faith tells us that God is all knowing and all powerful. He could have made the universe 5 minutes ago and created you in it with all the memories you have. You think you can out think the Lord. How naive.
EOT

# [appropriate substitutions]
print;

Does it make you happy to crap on other people's faith? I love science and all the evidence in the world points to astrology, but I still believe in sporalogy. Are you telling me that there is not the slightest chance that sporalogy is the truth? Faith tells us that trains are all knowing and all powerful. Trains determiny our destiny.. You think you can out think the Trains. How naive.

That's how you probably sound to non-believers. See also Invisible Pink Unicorn.

I thought exactly the same thing. The best ref I found: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.htm l#bush .
(Watch out for the slashcode URL munging!)

The excerpt:

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:

UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were still angry over the remarks.

While I would like to agree with you, I have to point out the above fallacy, which is known as bifurcation.

So it is true that some people who say otherwise may well be liars or wusses, there also other alternatives. I had my girlfriend using Mandrake for some months, Star Office as a word processor. While she has no problem using KDE (at least until some dodgy app fucks permissions and she has to call me to tell her which chmod command to run, an all-too-frequent occurance), Star Office has barely cut the mustard. She wants Windows now, sad to say.
--

• The Secular Web set themselves up as a non-profit charity and collect on-line donations with PayPal, and they have banner ads and Amazon associations.
• The Skeptic's Dictionary uses those Amazon deals too.
• The Skeptic's Annotated Bible sells TShirts, CDROMS, books, etc as a way of funding their website.

Those are about all the non-corporate websites or non-corporate-sponsored websites I visit.

Maybe you should visit these and other sites and just ask... "Hey... how do you afford all this?" Never hurts to ask.

Ryan T. Sammartino

Refuting the moon argument

Refuting the comet argument

My work here is done.

Refuting the moon argument

Refuting the comet argument

My work here is done.