Slashdot Mirror

Ok. Honestly, the best source I have found on the subject was this book, (lousy title, I know) but I don't have it available.

Anyways, on the logistics of all the animals fitting on the ark and feeding them, I think I will point you towards this page:
The author puts more theism into it than I would (paragraphs 2-5 are the most level-headed and have most of the relevant information), but the basic concept is the same as presented in the book I mentioned.
There was also a mention of floating islands in the book as possible refuges for some animals (I don't know how seaworthy they are, though).

One thing he does not elaborate on very well is the hibernating (and the fact that the animals would need less food during that time, which I brought up in my previous post). The hibernating also takes care of most of the waste control problem (less food in means less waste out) and the predator/prey conflicts (you don't need to hunt if you are well-fed and sleeping alot).

As for disease control, I am not sure exactly how much weight to apply to that argument. I'm not a vet. I do know that I rarely get sick (and I am not the most sanitary of people), so maybe they were just lucky.

Atheism is a "faith" like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Gaah, I'm really quite sick of this mantra. For one thing.. it's a mantra. That does not make sense.

Actually it does. Faith is believe in something for which there is insufficient evidence, not believing in something for which there is insufficient evidence does not require faith.

For another, if you put as much effort into not collecting stamps as most of the atheists on slashdot put into not believing in god, people would be suggesting support groups for your aphilatelism problem.

I tried to believe in God when I was younger, I really did, but the evidence was so overwhelming that I finally accepted that there was no god.

Not believing in God is very easy for me. Theism, when I tried it, was extremely difficult for all the contradictions I had to ignore.

However, one place I do expend some effort is going out like this and explaining my views to theists. The reason I expend this effort is I've seen the damage that religion does and I'm quite honestly trying to make the world a better place.

The absence of theism is not an absence of faith. For that you want agnosticism. Atheists require faith to believe that there is no God, and nothing else outside their perceived world. In reality, this viewpoint requires more faith than any religion, because all religions offer "proof" that they are true. Not so for atheism.

Person A: "I believe that 499,999 of the 500,000 religions out there are false. I reject their evidence. I accept one of the 500,000 religions, mainly because {I accept their evidence, I had a religious experience, My parents raised me that way, It makes me feel good, etc.}."

Person B: "I agree with person A about the first 499,999 religions. I also think that because the evidence for the 500,000th one looks a whole lot like the other 499,999 {It makes claims that are hard to reconcile with observed fact, Provides no real hard evidence to distinguish it from other ridiculous sounding stories, etc.}, I don't believe in that one either."

Person B is, by your definition, exercising more faith than person A? As I see it, all of those religions offer insufficient "proof" that they are true in the face of the incredibility of their claims, so I reject them.

If I claim that God exists and created us three days ago with memories intact, and the evidence that I offer is what appears to be the face of Barry Bonds on a piece of toast, does it take more faith to reject that claim or to accept it? Or is the only rational option to reserve judgment?

The absence of theism is not an absence of faith. For that you want agnosticism.

That's really a semantic argument, and nothing more. Not everyone defines atheism so narrowly. But if you want to argue, go argue with a dictionary.

In reality, this viewpoint requires more faith than any religion, because all religions offer "proof" that they are true. Not so for atheism.

Huh? I don't believe in invisible unicorns on neptune either, simply for lack of evidence. Does that mean I have "faith" that the invisible unicorns don't exist? I think you're confusing faith and non-belief.

Atheists require faith to believe that there is no God, and nothing else outside their perceived world. In reality, this viewpoint requires more faith than any religion, because all religions offer "proof" that they are true.

Nonsense - you simply need analytical ability and a basic grasp of logic.

Using your "logic", you would likewise require proof in order to believe that there is no Santa Claus. In fact, NOT believing in Santa Claus would actually require more faith than believing in Him, since the TV shows Him to us all the time, and we even see Him at the mall during the Christmas season.

The absence of theism is not an absence of faith. For that you want agnosticism.

Also wrong. Agnosticism is the way you approach a problem, not an answer to a problem. If you're agnostic about a question, that means that you accept that it can never be 100% proven or disproved. It doesn't answer the question of whether you think there is a god, though. It just means that your willing to consider both possibilities, and weigh them in a fair manner.

Technically speaking, I'm agnostic about the existence of Santa Claus. I can never prove for certain that he DOESN'T exist. But that doesn't mean that the chances of him existing or not existing are 50/50. I can use logic, observation, and deductive reasoning to come to the most likely conclusion, and I can even assign it a rough probability.

In the end, everything does come down to belief, since no question can be answered with 100% certainty. But there is a WORLD of difference between belief based on scientific observations and critical thinking, and a belief based on blind faith.

The absence of theism is not an absence of faith. For that you want agnosticism. Atheists require faith to believe that there is no God, and nothing else outside their perceived world. In reality, this viewpoint requires more faith than any religion, because all religions offer "proof" that they are true. Not so for atheism.

Note that these are about the only major questions left in science. OK, and if there's life in other places. The rest is details.

When there were a lot of open questions, "God did it" did make some sense. What are you going to say when these remaining questions are answered in a couple of years or a few decades maybe?
"We don't know yet" makes far more sense than "God did it" given the track record of science vs theism.

I just glanced at your letter. Though I don't have time to give a detailed reply right now, you've rightly pointed out a rather serious error in what I said. I apologize for this. It was not Richard Dawkins, but Antony Flew that rejected athiesm, and I had heard that he had died, but this is also not true. I'm sorry for this error and it certainly was not deliberate. Also check out Lee Strobel and his conclusions on the matter of athiesm vs. theism.

I'll get back with you tomorrow as I am extremely tired after a rather exhausting day. They have been building a highway right behind my house which had me up at 5AM, and they're showing no sign of letting up, moreover my back is killing me too and has been a distraction all week, sometimes more and sometimes less painful.

Again, I didn't mean to give deliberately false info, and will get back with you tomorrow.

The facts of reality.

Try the reality of between 3.6 and 4.8 million people living under the poverty line in America.

it is an appeal to authority (or appeal to tradition) [...] I've done neither.

Yes you have:

There is no right to "basic services". There is only the right to your life and your property

You are connecting the function of government with the constitution and excluding anything else from defining social policy, despite significant humanitarian and social bases.

Putting it in writing doesn't make something valid. Who claimed that?

See above. You implied it.

They argue that their property is not their own, that their productivity is for their own benefit, but for the benefit of the state, for the benefit of others. There can be no right to property under such a system.

That's pretty absurd. Having socialist elements to government doesn't mean turning the country communist. Unless you completely disagree with taxation (in which case I would say that your argument is woefully untenable), you acknowledge the need for the state to generate revenue by taxing people. Thus it is quite a stretch for you to extend the idea of property to taxable assets, especially as you're ignoring the many examples, see Europe, in which these boundaries are clearly defined. I suspect your argument at this point was rather theoretical in order to make a point, but that doesn't change the fact that in practical terms, the vision of a communist free-for-all resulting from socialist policy is misguided.

By thinking. Anyone can accomplish this, not just Americans.

By this point I was ranting, but you quoted way out of context.

Are you talking about theism or socialism?

I wasn't talking about either. I was referring to what I see as the dangerous existence of constructs such as patriotism and national pride in the US electorate. Symbols like the flag, the national anthem, the military and even the constitution are such weighty components of patriotism that they provide an easy shield of immunity for government. It seems that if they wrap enough of their shit in patriotic symbolism, politicians are immune to its stink. Ron Paul explains it better than me.

That depends on your definition of a properly-functioning government. Many people believe that government has a socialist responsibility, in varying degrees, to its electorate. What makes you right and them wrong?

The facts of reality.

You allude to the constitution ("there is only the right to your life and your property"), and I've heard this a million times from Americans [snip]

Yes, indeed, and you will hear a lot of irrational Americans quoting the Bible. As you state, it is an appeal to authority (or appeal to tradition) to simply quote from an old document as your source of morality. I've done neither. What you're grasping at is a straw man.

a right not necessarily having to be enshrined in statute

Putting it in writing doesn't make something valid. Who claimed that?

For example, free universal healthcare (most of Europe).

Nothing can be gotten for free without stealing it. People who argue for free universal healthcare argue for the forced increase of taxes. They argue that their property is not their own, that their productivity is for their own benefit, but for the benefit of the state, for the benefit of others. There can be no right to property under such a system. Indeed "property" loses all meaning - since what's mine is actually everyone's, distributed as decided by a force-backed entity.

how can Americans be expected to show any kind of independent morality?

By thinking. Anyone can accomplish this, not just Americans.

...a broken machine that is driven by falsified ideals designed to inspire religious conviction...

Are you talking about theism or socialism? Both are based in mysticism - with the former, morality (what's "right") comes from God; with the latter, morality comes from subjective innate feelings, intuition, biology divorced from free will, or majority consensus (the last being a mixture of all of these).

If you don't provide specifics, like mechanisms, predictions, experiments, potential falsifications, etc. you don't have science. If you don't have science, you don't have a secular purpose and fail prong one of the Lemon test. If you teach that there is a "Creator" then you are advancing a specific sectarian view--monotheism--and fail prong two. Even if you taught that there is/are/were creator(s) who at some time(s), did some thing(s), you'd still be advancing theism, and would still fail prong two.

OK, no one is reading this, save you and I.

I was being tongue-in-cheek before, to point out your universal assumptions, which are inherently wrong. Therefore, my assertion that you are wrong is not strictly illogical; I was trying to make a point.

There is a major fallacy in your logic with this statement:

Asserting confidently that there is no God is no different than asserting confidently that there is.

Atheists don't, to my knowledge, assert as a matter of fact that there is no god, but rather, that there is no evidence for belief in any particular god, such that a belief in one is pointless. Google the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Teapot, etc.

As an atheist, and a scientist, I CAN assert that some level of evidence will always be considered in my belief system, and it is the lack of same that has led me to believe what I do vis-a-vis theism.

Furthermore, a cursory understanding of human psychology would provide ample evidence to an open minded observer for the origins of religion and mythic beliefs.

While there is no evidence for the existence of god or gods, there is plenty indicating that such deities were created by man.

Whether it be Zeus, the Sun, the Bear, Jesus, the Unicorn, they are all the same.

As an atheist, that's what I believe.

PS. I originally disagreed with your assertion that ANY atheist believes "the universe is a result of random chance." This is simply not true, and I suspect that it speaks to a lack of understanding of mathematics and/or statistics on your part.

So according to your reasoning, global warming advocates should opt for theism over agnosticism as well?

The problem is a different definition of the word. I'm going with this one:

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism.

Your description of agnosticism is somewhat narrow. One can be an agnostic and have a "belief" in God.

It has more to do with knowing the nature of that God and proving the existence of God or an afterlife.

I fall firmly in the "there is a God" but that the constructs presented to me are limited and flawed because God is unknowable. Also known as agnostic theism.

I use Christian-Judeo as my basis for understanding what I can about the nature of God but do not believe it is the sole valid construct. The values are broadly tenable: Golden Rule and Ten Commandments.

Well, sure, that's not bad. ...but I still question your analogy for 'atheist'. Perhaps it's just not a good analogy. It seems to ignore the active disbelieve or the belief in the non-existence of deity. I mean, a rose doesn't collect stamps either.

Different atheists might have different reasons and motives for being atheists. But "active disbelief" is a very strange term that can only come from somebody who is a theist. I not longer "actively disbelieve" the existence of God, than I "actively disbelieve" the existence of the tooth fairy, or the existence of santa Claus. I simply don't believe in God because I have found no evidence to suggest that God exists, apart from people claiming so, with no evidence themselves. If no-one had told me about God, I would still be an atheist, even if I wasn't "actively disbelieving" in him.

My point is: atheism is the default position. Only people who have been told about God, believe in it. Theism is an artifact of human society. But luckily, even if you are told about God, you don't have to suspend all disbelief at once. Even in our religious and superstitious society, some people prefer to use reason and sound judgement instead of superstition and group-think. Thus atheism still remains. And the rose certainly doesn't collect stamps, nor is it a theist

Doesn't seem that clear to cut me, however it seems it can be interpreted either way. I've always thought of atheism as being "there is no God" and agnosticism as being "I don't know".

$ dict atheism
3 definitions found

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:

Atheism \A"the*ism\, n. [Cf. F. ath['e]isme. See {Atheist}.]
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. [1913 Webster]
2. Godlessness. [1913 Webster]

From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:

atheism
n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism]
2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

(The third "definition" was Moby Thesaurus II, which isn't really relevant.)

Your present post contains exactly the same false assertions and circular logic as in several of your other posts, which have already been addressed.

Maybe you just didn't see:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=644671&cid=24609901

I'll recap these responses in the present context.

In the Bible, he makes accurate predictions of things that did take place in history, are taking place today before our very eyes, and will take place in the future yet to come.

You have made this claim many times, but you have not bothered to list these alleged "predictions", as if you know they are weak and subjective, and that someone else who is not already an indoctrinated and entrenched Christian would not ascribe any divinity at all to *any* example you could list. Try it. The Bible is incredibly vague in any "prediction" it can be construed not to botch, while botching claims about reality whenever it does dare to be specific enough to test. All its predictions are of the kind "some bad stuff will happen to some people, some good stuff will happen to some people". Those aren't predictions, they're truisms. If we squint, and want to believe the way an indoctrinated and entrenched person does (or if we are incurious, unscrupulously trusting, or just dim-witted), then perhaps we could convince ourselves of anything, from the Bhagavad Gita to the Bible to voodoo to tea leaves.

Just think about how specific a divinely-inspried work of prophecy could be. It could contain information about the treachery at Thermopylae, the battles of Tours and Hastings, the discovery of the "new world" by Europe, any mention at all of the contemporaneous oriental civilizations which were vastly more advanced than those in Europe, the rise of modern democracy, the dangers of chemical and nuclear weaponry in the world wars, global stock market crashes, solutions to the problems of poverty and human suffering all over the world, and mathematical insights, all in esquisite detail before they happened.

If such a book were conceived with true foreknowledge, it would be the most precise and useful guide to civilization ever, even after millenia of use. Instead, it is vague enough to fit most circumstances if the reader squints hard enough, makes statements that are clearly at odds with physical reality (and some of which were known by more advanced societies to be wrong even when they were written, such as the value of Pi), and could easily have been written by anyone who lived 2000 years ago. Your denial of these things is either ignorant or irrational.

[The Bible] has a very unified central authorship and message concerning the dealings of God with mankind.

But you claim that the Bible defines the message "concerning the dealings of God with mankind". You're shooting the barn and then painting a bull's eye around the place you hit. Your reasoning is circular; it is an unconvincing tautology to say that some sprawling and meandering work (by authors whose only link is their common theism) covers all the "right spots" when you used that very work to figure out what the "right spots" are!

When the art of printing was finally invented by Johannes Gutenberg, guess which human writing was first printed? Guess which human writing is distributed more widely than any other and translated into more languages and dialects than any other?

You're appealing to popularity when it suits you. (It's ironic and hypocritical that you drop this tactic when discussing your doubt of stellar fusion.) Christianity was spread at the point of a sword, by self-righteous Christians performing the Inquisition. When the printing press was invented, the Christian Church was the most powerful social entity in the world, spanning nation-states, languages, and cultures, after centuries of bloody conquest

[The Bible] has a very unified central authorship and message concerning the dealings of God with mankind.

But you claim that the Bible defines the message "concerning the dealings of God with mankind". You're shooting the barn and then painting a bull's eye around the place you hit. Your reasoning is circular.

Much of it depicts human history written down before it ever took place.

It is incredibly vague in general. All its predictions are of the kind "some bad stuff will happen to some people, some good stuff will happen to some people". Those aren't predictions, they're truisms.

If we squint, and want to believe, we can shoe-horn anything into a such a sloppily-made shoe as the Bible.

We can read the content of tomorrow's newspaper headlines in some of the passages of the Bible.

Again, only if we interpret quite liberally. Just think about how specific a true prophecy could be. It could contain information about the treachery at Thermopylae, the battles of Tours and Hastings, the discovery of the "new world" by Europe, any mention at all of the contemporaneous oriental civilizations which were vastly more advanced than those in Europe, the rise of modern democracy, the dangers of chemical and nuclear weaponry in the world wars, global stock market crashes, solutions to the problems of poverty and human suffering all over the world, and mathematical insights, all in esquisite detail. If such a book were conceived with true foreknowledge, it could be the most precise and useful guide to civilization ever, even after millenia of use. Instead, it is vague enough to fit most circumstances if the reader squints hard enough, makes statements that are clearly at odds with physical reality (and some of which were known by more advanced societies to be wrong even when they were written), and could easily have been written by anyone who lived 2000 years ago. Your denial of these things is either ignorant or irrational.

When the art of printing was finally invented by Johannes Gutenberg, guess which human writing was first printed? Guess which human writing is distributed more widely than any other and translated into more languages and dialects than any other?

You're appealing to popularity when it suits you. (You seem happy to drop this tactic when discussing your doubt of stellar fusion, one should note.) Christianity was spread at the point of a sword, by self-righteous Christians performing the Inquisition. When the printing press was invented, the Christian Church was the most powerful social entity in the world, spanning nation-states, languages, and cultures, after centuries of bloody conquest. It is unsurprising in the least that such a powerful tool as the printing press was abused by the most powerful human social construct.

There are many religious writings, but none of them come even remotely close to the content and distribution of this remarkable book.

And yet, "this remarkable book" (a pithy phrase you seem to like to inject whenever you get the chance) is a minority view among humans. There are more non-Christians than there are Christians, and as you should be well-aware, Christianity has been spread so widely only under threat of death and subjugation. Just because this stopped happening in the last 10-15% of the preceding two millenia does not relax the significance of this fact.

I am not trying to make religious propaganda

"This remarkable book"? Proselytizing Christianity or (theism at the very least) in myriad posts in nearly every Slashdot story that even hints at evolution, extraterrestrial life, or cosmology? Perhaps you should review your many previous posts in which you claim that Christianity is the most meritorious religion, and worldview at that. Pardon my profane response, but BULL SH

And, similarly, they tend to lump religion in with theism.