What Do You Believe Even If You Can't Prove It?

An anonymous reader writes "That's what online magazine The Edge - the World Question Center asked over 120 scientists, futurists, and other interesting minds. Their answers are sometimes short and to the point (Bruce Sterling: 'We're in for climatic mayhem'), often long and involved; they cover everything from the existence of God to the nature of black holes. What do you believe, even though you can't prove it?"

Comments

Someday

[doublem]

That some day, somehow, I will get the elusive First Post.

Re:Someday

[nine-times]

ep... you have your proof... no longer counts.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that Slashdot or it's editors accept(s) payment from Roland Piquepaille in return for stories.

Heck, I believe they accept payment from lots of companies with new products.

Re:Someday

[Tackhead]

> > [doublem] That some day, somehow, I will get the elusive First Post.
>
> [nine-times] ep... you have your proof... no longer counts.

...for proof denies faith, and without faith, getting a first post is nothing.

"Oh dear", says doublem, "I hadn't thought of that", and promptly vanishes in a fog of (-1, Overrated) moderation.

"Oh, that was easy", says nine-times, and for an encore, goes on to prove that (+1, Funny) is indistinguishable from (-1, Troll), and gets himself confirmed dead at the next Netcraft parody post.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

That some day, somehow, I will get the elusive First Post.

It's an overrated experience (-1)

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

One of my favourite tag lines:

Do not believe everything you think.

Re:Someday

[goombah99]

I beleive that I am the only human posting to slashdot and the rest are all machine generated.

Re:Someday

[nycsubway]

You just did!

On to my beleif without proof: I beleive that the big bang never happened... that time and space have always been and will always be continuous. It hit me that the universe can't expand inside of nothing... if nothing existed when the universe was infinitesmally small, not even nothingness itself, how can the universe expand into that? it doesn't exist.

Most of my beleif that the universe didn't have a big bang comes from a deep seated feeling that I have that cannot be explained. I imagine most of the people they asked had the same reasoning for their beleifs.

I also feel pretty good each time scientists revise the 'age of the universe' each time they're able to look deeper into space.

Re:Someday

[daniil]

Someone on Slashdot once had a sig that read: "On the internet, everyone assumes you're a dog." I wholeheartedly agree: you're a dog.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

http://monsterhooligans.com/clips/tunak.rm

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah - if that were true the conversation would be more intelligent ;-)

Re:Someday

[MightyMartian]

> On to my beleif without proof: I beleive that the big bang never happened... that time and space have
> always been and will always be continuous. It hit me that the universe can't expand inside of
> nothing... if nothing existed when the universe was infinitesmally small, not even nothingness
> itself, how can the universe expand into that? it doesn't exist.

What a pity that you don't actually seem to know what Big Bang cosmology states, and that, through ignorance, you simply can toss away the large amount of evidence for it (red-shift of distant galaxies, nucleosynthesis and the cosmic microwave background radiation).

>
Most of my beleif that the universe didn't have a big bang comes from a deep seated feeling that I
> have that cannot be explained. I imagine most of the people they asked had the same reasoning for
> their beleifs.

The Big Bang theory isn't about beliefs as you seem to use the word. It's about the best explanation that fits the evidence.

> I also feel pretty good each time scientists revise the 'age of the universe' each time
> they're able to look deeper into space.

That's a pretty big distortion. It's stayed relatively fixed at about 13.5 billion years for quite some time now. Perhaps you could provide some citations here. I suspect that you get virtually all of your information on the Big Bang from science journalists, who, in general, are utter incompetents.

Here's a tip. Learn what Big Bang cosmology is. Learn what physicists mean when they talk about the Universe. In other words, read some books by scientists, and not crap from science journalists or daft strawmen by pseudo-scientific kooks who are themselves largely ignorant of the theories in question.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

dude you r so smart. i wonder why einstine and all those guys never thoguht about that, if theres nothing their to begin with what dose the univarse get created in!!! lol those guys r pretty dumb

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that beleive is spelled believe.

Re:Someday

[apt142]

Damn! He figured it out.

Re:Someday

[JohnFluxx]

> that time and space have always been and will always be continuous

Problem: gravity.

Einstein worked for many years (20 iirc) trying to introduce the cosmological constant to show the universe wouldn't just collapse, and later claimed it to be the biggest mistake of his life.

One other way to get round the problem of the universe just collapsing is to have an infinitely big universe that is uniform. But this has it's own problems such as that means for any given point in the night sky, if you trace it out it will land on the surface of a sun. That means the night sky should look like a blaze of white.

But *sigh* of course such logic will be totally lost on people with beliefs, and no doubt you are shaking your head saying 'well that's what i believe, and I don't care what you say'.

Re:Someday

[VagaStorm]

Big bang is quit accepted as a fact, but one should newer stop questioning things just because they're generally accepted. Anser me this:

If Hubble can se 95% of the "known" time http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/ releases/2004/28/text/
How did we get so far away anything in first 5% of time that the light had to use the remaining 95% of time to catch up?

I'm just asking... And if you somehow can explain this to me, please go ahead :)

Re:Someday

[magarity]

On to my beleif without proof: I beleive that the big bang never happened

Umm, as an opinion, disbelief is proven simply by stating "I don't believe!" It's only statements of fact that need to be proven or disproven. If your statement was instead simply "The Big Bang never happened" then you'd need to argue with someone who states that it did happen. Since you preface with "I beleive" then it's an opinion and those don't need proofs.

Re:Someday

[spacecowboy420]

And I thought people who believe in Jebus were morons. Have you ever read a single thing on the subject you just dismissed? The biggest problem with your thinking is the fact you are thinking in 4 dimensions - this is YOUR reality, not the universe's. You must learn to think beyond your personal scope.

Read this: http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/
The Ekpyrotic Universe kinda explains why not only is the "Big Bang" relevant, but how it is simply a small step in the cycle of the universe.

Re:Someday

[Ackmo]

How long have you been the only human posting to slashdot and the rest am all machine generated?

Re:Someday

[chainsaw1]

Only if:

a) Stars have an infinite amount of lifespan. This is known to not be true
b) One star is created for every one that is destroyed with equivelent amount of energy to give off. This we don't have enough information on this to make anything other than an educated guess.
c) There is no dark matter / nebulae / black hole that is absorbing the light
d) It is not possible that things beyond the fringe of the known universe are just so far away that the light hasn't had time to reach us yet
e) It is not possible that things so old as to be outside the fringe of the known universe emit so little light/radation that we cannot detect them yet.

Re:Someday

[mAineAc]

Jesus was a real man who actually lived. How can people who believe in him be morons. Now if your talking about believing him to be a deity I can sort of see your point.

Re:Someday

[halfelven]

It hit me that the universe can't expand inside of nothing... if nothing existed when the universe was infinitesmally small, not even nothingness itself, how can the universe expand into that? it doesn't exist.

Multiple fallacies.

By the same token, how can the Universe exist at all "inside of nothing"?
It gets even worse: why should it have any particular size and be limited to it, instead of being "free" to change it?

Your problem is that you believe that a finite Universe must exist inside of "something". It doesn't have to. It could be self-contained.
There are multiple geometries which are compatible with the "non-limited yet finite" Universe. E.g. the hyper-spheric geometry (although STOP NOW and don't imagine a sphere because that will get you back to your initial puzzle of "what contains that sphere?").

You're simply thinking of a particular geometry which has the property that, if you keep on walking straight indefinitely, you keep on seeing indefinitely many new places. Most of the Big Bang models simply state that, if you keep on walking straight long enough, you get back from where you departed.
That model does not require it to be contained in anything. It's just a play of attributes of the space.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

if some one believes something he cant prove, he's not a real scientst.

Re:Someday

[aldousd666]

Agreed. Jesus existed, most likely anyway, but he was not any god's son, just Somebody's son. He was smart though -- he rode into town on an ass, just like the proficy fortold. He had a nice blueprint to follow to convince people that he was god. Wish I'd have thought of it first.

Re:Someday

[quanticle]

c) There is no dark matter / nebulae / black hole that is absorbing the light

I don't know about black holes, but if there was dark matter/nebulae absorbing the light, wouldn't the dark matter then heat up until it was glowing as brightly as the original light source?

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that you should use a spell checker.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that due to having consistently good/excellent karma and metamoderating nearly every day for six months, I will get mod points despite having once criticised slashdot's 'editorial' policy.

Re:Someday

[Cyclone66]

Check out this book by Simon Singh:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai l/-/0007 162200/qid=1104955780/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-6117 419-3664763?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

It's a great read and explains everything about how the Big Bang theory came to be.

Re:Someday

[Helen Keller]

I wholeheartedly agree: you're a dog.

LJJLJJMEWQWQEWWERmy dHJKKHKHoLHJKKgLHKHJKH LJLKJKcoLJLJKLJmmitLKJLKJKLted OIUOOsuIYIIYicide, buKJHKJHJKt KHJKJHJKHth%^&&&*((en s12344o wKJHKJHJKHould+_+_+_yUOIUIou POIPOIifKHJHK yoLJLJLur LJJnaLLKJKLme wJLJJKas JHKJH"meoooKLJJLJKLourng"OUEUEUNG, yoLKJKLJKLJu iLJKLJKLJnsKJHJKHKJHensKJHJKHJKitiveGJHGJKHH clod.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

The Straight Dope to the Rescue!:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_174.html

This is one of those questions so bizarre that only serious drugs or an astronomer could be behind it. But it's not as nutty as it might seem. We can rule out one obvious answer right off the bat: the night sky isn't dark merely because the sun goes down. The stars alone ought to be enough to make the night sky intensely bright.

Think about it this way. If we assume the universe contains an infinity of stars scattered in endless space, we should see a star in any direction we look. It's like being in the middle of a forest--all you can see in any direction is tree trunks. The sky should be so completely filled with pinpoints of light that they should all merge into a uniform white glow.

Clearly it doesn't work that way, a puzzle astronomers call "Olbers's paradox." Why not? We can nix a few possibilities:

* The light emitted by the most distant stars is so faint it's below the threshold of vision. Forget it. You can't see an individual glowing atom, but you can see zillions of them massed together in a candle flame. The same ought to hold true of a horde of distant stars.

* The most distant stars are obscured by interstellar dust. Won't work either. The dust would absorb so much light it'd eventually start glowing itself.

So what does explain the paradox? After 400 years of debate on the question, there is now fairly wide agreement among astronomers: there just aren't enough stars in the observable universe to fill up the night sky.

Your reaction to this may be: It took scientists 400 years to come up with that? No wonder we haven't found a cure for the common cold. But I'm making the answer seem simpler than it is. We don't really know how many stars there are. What we do know is that however many there are, we can see only a finite number of them.

The oldest stars are about 10 billion years old, meaning that the greatest distance starlight can have traveled is 10 billion light-years. So the only stars we could possibly see are those within a 10 billion light-year radius of us--the light from stars farther away has yet to reach us. The few jillion stars in our corner of the cosmos (AKA the "observable universe") don't have the collective candlepower to illuminate the night sky. (True, as time goes on, light from more distant stars does reach us, but meanwhile some close-in stars are dying out.)

So that's why the night sky is dark. All right, it's a complicated way of telling you what you might have guessed anyway. But sometimes the obvious ain't.

Re:Someday

[xSauronx]

i believe, though i can't prove it...that your argument was a waste of time, and he won't give a damn about the evidence

Re:Someday

[b-baggins]

A better question to ask is how can we state Hubble can see 95% of the known universe? That statement implies we know with certainty what 100% of the universe is and can therefore deduce that Hubble is only seeing 95% of it.

Re:Someday

[Floody]

On to my beleif without proof: I beleive that the big bang never happened... that time and space have always been and will always be continuous. It hit me that the universe can't expand inside of nothing... if nothing existed when the universe was infinitesmally small, not even nothingness itself, how can the universe expand into that? it doesn't exist.

The issue here is that you are attempting to rationalize your belief with faulty logic and a poorly envisioned model of space-time, which I will get to in a minute. A true belief (ie "faith") needs neither logic nor rationalization.

The logic faults are due to the fact that you have constructed a model in your mind to help you visualize the big bang theory and einstein space-time. This model is faulty, however it's probably because you picked up the concept of the universe expanding like a "balloon" from mass media.

In this model, you are considering the universe to be analagous to the air that gets blown into a balloon causing it to expand over time. At the beginning (big bang), the balloon is uninflated. Later, it becomes larger as time passes and the universe expands (more air gets blown into the balloon). How can this be, if the balloon has nothing to expand in to?

This model is not about the contents of the balloon, but rather the surface, which represents space-time as curved two dimensions instead of the four we know exist. The important feature of this model is not the creation of all energy/matter at one point-source, but rather that the very fabric of space-time began to expand from one initial point. There is nothing for the balloon to expand in to because the surface of the balloon is the container itself. Essentially, under this theory, everything is now bigger than it used to be. ;)

I guess the key to best visualizing and using this model is understanding that it is not a visual model, but rather a loose mathematical one. You cannot visualize space-time expansion in any meaningful way because your ability to visualize is based on limited sensory experience of three dimensions and one linear time dimension.

Now, my particular belief is about gravity. I believe that we (science) have made some sort of fundamental mistake attempting to understand gravity. I can't disprove quantum theory, and I can't disprove general relativity, but something just doesn't "feel" right about the various gravitional theories and string theory seems to be a mathematical cop-out that can never be proven or disproven. ;)

Re:Someday

[VagaStorm]

Yes. But the light trying to catch up is literally moving at the speed of light witch we are not.

The real question is this: would a 5% head start enough when driving a Lada if pursuer is driving a Ferrari?

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

if that were true the conversation would be more intelligent

Sheesh, do you think it could get any worse?!?!?

Who is this nutter?

Re:Someday

[Bootsy Collins]

If Hubble can se 95% of the "known" time, How did we get so far away anything in first 5% of time that the light had to use the remaining 95% of time to catch up?

The short answer is: the expansion of the Universe. You're probably thinking these two things:

• that if the Universe has an age of t_o, the farthest away from us anything we can theoretically see can be (ignoring practical limitations such as the surface of last scattering or the redshifting of photon energies down below visible limits for the moment) is c*t_o, the speed of light times the age of the Universe;
• that if we're viewing something from a time when the Universe is 5% of its current age, it must therefore be 95% of that distance c*t_o away.

Neither of these things are true in a Universe in which the background space is expanding.

Re:Someday

[Chrax]

Perhaps he didn't do that, but it was the work of later authors to fit him into a prophecy? If Jesus were the kind of guy his teachings suggest he was, then he wouldn't have made any claims to deity. At least I don't think he would have. Interestingly, he didn't make claims to deity, it was Paul that did most of that for him.

Re:Someday

[VagaStorm]

This is not 95% of the area of the universe, but 95% of the time the universe has existed. We can assume that it dos if we are willing to accept the following facts:

1. We are able to calculate that age of the universe.
2. That we can at least to some extent tell the age of an object in space.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

We were talking about you.

Re:Someday

[shawb]

Nah... the statement just says that we know what 100% of the known universe is. So it can see 95% as far as our best technology? Or "known universe" may just mean things that are close enough that they were indead casting off light at the time required for light to get here. EG: if a star was formed 9 billion years ago, but it is 10 billion light years away, an optical telescope would not be able to view it (well, at least not for another billion years, and I'm not gonna hold my breath that long.)

I guess someone already explained it better than I could.

Re:Someday

[cbiltcliffe]

Naah. Machines have more intelligence than some of the people posting on here.... :)

Re:Someday

[AnonymousKev]

>Interestingly, he didn't make claims to deity, it was Paul that did most of that for him

Certainly you're entitled to your views on whether or not Jesus is the Christ, but you shouldn't misrepresent facts. Jesus made several claims to divinity -- both direct and oblique.

Matthew 11:27: Jesus claims an exclusive Father/Son relationship with God.

Matthew 26:63-64: High Priest asks Jesus if he is the Christ (aka the Messiah) and Jesus answers that he is.

John 8:58: Jesus states "Before Abraham was born, I am" The term "I am" is considered by Jews to be the name of God. (When God appeared to Moses as the burning bush, Moses asked His name. The response was "I am".)

John 14:6: "No one comes to the Father, except through me." -- while not a direct claim of deity, it's a very weighty statement of Jesus as Savior of the world. This is one of Jesus' statements that prevents most Christians from jumping on the "all religions are equal" bandwagon.

For more detail, check out Josh McDowell's Evidence which Demands a Verdict -- specificially, the chapter "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?".

Re:Someday

[ObjectiveGiant]

Big Bang Cosmology? Isn't that like when Homer made that makeup gun?

http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~elmer/simpsons/homer/m akeupgun.jpg

Re:Someday

[pcb]

Jesus was a real man who actually lived...

Actually this is not fact. I also used to believe that Jesus existed, at the very least as a historical figure. However, after reading The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur, I'm not so sure.

PCB

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

The big bang is only part of the story. A better description of the universe is the inflationary universe. What confounds people who are against the big bang is the concept of where all the matter in the universe came from. The inflationary universe theory (which is more and more being vidicated) states that it is possible for matter to be created from "nothing", that matter is created by distortions of the very fabric of space-time, the other aspect of this matter is gravity which is the negative quantity that shows the sum total of matter and energy with gravational forces is a net value of zero. Such distortions occur in the quantum universe all the time. Our universe is a special case where it has continued to expand, which occured shortly after the initial big bang, but all the matter that exist today was added on after that occurance before the current state of expansion became manifest.

- Ye Ole Dragonlord Warlock

Re:Someday

[jpflip]

I'm not quite clear on what you mean by "the other aspect of this matter is gravity which is the negative quantity..." etc. Inflation isn't all that useful for telling us why there is matter to begin with. Quantum field theory tells us that there should be matter and antimatter springing into existence all the time in the hot early universe of the big bang model - the problem is why the matter and antimatter don't appear in equal amounts and annihilate each other. There are theories which can explain this, but they aren't aspects of inflation per se.

What inflation is good for is telling us why the universe is the way we see it today - ridiculously homogenous on large scales (scales so large that light doesn't seem to have had time to cross the intervening distance) but not perfectly homogeneous (otherwise we wouldn't have any lumpy things like galaxies or planets). The quantum fluctuations you describe naturally give rise to the slight "lumps" in the universe, while the rapid early expansion of inflation smooths out any big inhomogeneities in the early universe. This all turns out to work out really well and solve a lot of problems.

Of course, no one knows exactly what caused this rapid expansion, but there are lots of good models that can do the job (which just don't have enough evidence to decide which particular one might be right). One model (eternal inflation) suggests that an eternal universe (the details of any initial Big Bang don't matter) would have occasional quantum fluctuations which expand outward in just the manner our universe seems to. The Big Bang could, in some sense, be just a local phenomena that happens every now and then in the bigger "universe".

Re:Someday

[jaoswald]

I beleive that the big bang never happened...

Or you simply don't understand that a space-time manifold could *exist* without having to be *embedded in* a higher dimensional space. It's not expanding *into* anything, it is just expanding.

Or, even if it is, the space-time manifold of our universe does not, by itself, tell us anything about the higher dimensional space.

Re:Someday

[AliasF97]

Your points are well-taken, but let's be fair. The Big Bang is a theory. I probably don't know nearly as much about it as you do, based on your post, but as we learn more about space, our take on what's out there beyond our atmosphere is changing...if not necessarily the view on the Big Bang. We can't even say if there is or was life on the planet right next door, but we are so bold as to say, "This is how the Universe started and I can prove it"? There are objects out there that we cannot even define, let alone discern the origin. This is about beliefs without proof (kind of like being a Philosophy major), so maybe we can be a little fast and loose with the hard facts. But, in relation to the Universe, it seems to me that we are looking at one very small part of a whole and making our best guess based on what we see. But our best guesses have been notoriously known for being questioned (with the questioners almost always being persecuted) and then corrected.

Re:Someday

[jaoswald]

uh, slight correction to your post.

The writers of the texts you quoted *claim* or *report* that Jesus said those things. This is not the same as *proof* that Jesus said those things, much less that he existed as a real person.

If you think that is a trivial point, consider how many people know what Santa Claus looks like, the mode of transportation that he uses, that he says "ho, ho, ho" and leaves coal in bad childrens' stockings, etc., and how many consistent stories you can read about Santa Claus even though NO PERSON ACTUALLY EXISTED who IS/WAS THE SANTA CLAUS WE BELIEVE IN.

Yes, there was probably a real St. Nicholas, and you can claim that Santa Claus exists to the extent that he is a cultural entity, but Santa doesn't exist in the same way that Benjamin Franklin or Julius Caesar existed or you and I exist.

So, no matter how much you quote from the Bible, you can't prove that Christ existed beyond the fact that a lot of people believe in him, and that people in the first century wrote as if he existed.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you hear about the agnostic insomniac with dyslexia? He lies awake every night wondering if there might actually be a dog.

Re:Someday

[bcattwoo]

Big Bang Cosmology? Isn't that like when Homer made that makeup gun?

No, that was Big Bang Cosmetology. Not to be confused with Big Bang Cometology, i.e. when Bart discovered the comet that threatened to destroy Springfield.

Re:Someday

[virg_mattes]

> ...wouldn't the dark matter then heat up until it was glowing as brightly as the original light source?

If it heated up at all, it'd be changing the visible light into invisible infrared light, which would still allow for a dark spot in the sky, since humans don't see into the infrared spectrum. So, in a word, no.

Virg

Re:Someday

[khellendros1984]

This brings to mind the non-existence of Doublem, the death of Nine-times, and Tackhead's trilogy exploring the ramifications: Slashdot, The Computers, and Everything, Where DoubleM Went Wrong, Some More of DoubleM's Greatest Mistakes, and Who Is This DoubleM Person Anyway?

Re:Someday

[AnonymousKev]

The original poster made an incorrect statement concerning the generally-accepted documentation of the words of Jesus of Nazareth known to Christians as Jesus Christ. The OP stated that Jesus never claimed divinity -- my post cited material which shows he did make that claim. My intention was to correct a factual mistake, not engage him in a debate on the actual divinity (or not) of Jesus.

If you want to start discussing whether the documentation is correct, then I'll point you to Bruce Metzger's Textual Criticism of the New Testament. It's an interesting analysis of how the New Testament texts have been passed down. It's a very readable book and was written without that "I'm an (atheist/Christian) pretending to be unbiased" slant that drives me nuts.

Your last paragraph is amusing. How do you really know that Benjamin Franklin actually existed? I mean, besides the fact that there were people in the 18th century who wrote about him as if he existed. It's well-established that a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed. The debate is whether or not he is divine.

I'll now stop wasting my time arguing with you, since I'm sure you're just a large brain in a jar and I'm only a figment of your imagination.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

lmao

Re:Someday

[johnnyb]

I haven't read the book, but you think that the Josephus references are just made up?

Remember that we actually have copies of the book of John dating back to 120AD, which is _really_ close to the time it was written. Likewise, the dates of the people who lived who quoted the New Testament also establishes an early date.

By reading the reviews of the books, it seems like the author is trying to disprove the basics of Christianity by arguing in agreement with one of its main tenets (that God is readying all people to know Christ). For more information about this, you should check out Eternity in their Hearts.

Re:Someday

[Wraithlyn]

"The Big Bang theory isn't about beliefs as you seem to use the word. It's about the best explanation that fits the evidence."

It is perhaps the best CURRENT explanation. But it is not as good a theory as it was even a few years ago. There are questions that the Big Bang theory has no explanation for.

For example, as recently as 1998 it was discovered that the universe is "flat". A tiny difference in the density of the universe, either up or down, would make it curved. This means the Big Bang was "tuned" to produce exactly this density. The odds of that happening by chance are estimated at 1 to 10^50.

The Big Bang does not explain the increasing evidence that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating .

The Big Bang theory does not adequately explain (IMHO) the "Horizon Problem", which is that the universe looks uniform in all directions, from galaxy evolution to background radiation. (Yes, I am aware of "Inflation Theory", which seeks to address the Horizon Problem, but it's pretty shaky. Here's a paper disputing the ability of the inflationary model to produce homogenous CMBR if you are interested.)

Dead-Tree References:
"The Field", Lynne McTaggart - Recommended for everyone, written for laymen.
"Science and the Akashic Field", Ervin Laszlo - This is a bit more technical.

Re:Someday

[digime]

I am 9 years old.

Re:Someday

[jaoswald]

No, your post cited material which *claims* he made that claim. Which is no more convincing than material which claims he is divine. It is evidence, but to my mind not convincing, because the source is irretrievably biased. Any text where Christ was quoted as saying "no, I'm an ordinary guy" would have been weeded out by the process of determining the Christian canon.

Most importantly, the people who wrote the Gospels wrote *to encourage others to believe in Christ.* They are not impartial historical accounts.

You also apparently can't tell the difference between Santa Claus and Jesus Christ, because you mix up which I was speaking about in my post.

There is *much* more evidence, both physical and textual, for the existence of Benjamin Franklin, than there is for the existence of Jesus Christ as a human being as opposed to a religious figure. Mostly because Franklin lived much more recently, and because printing presses and so forth existed in Franklin's time, but not in Christ's.

For instance, we can go to the National Archives and see papers with Franklin's signature on them. I'm confident we can go into the dusty archives of Philadelphia and see records of his property transactions. We can see the building in which the Declaration of Independence was written. However, there is not a single physical artifact that is known to be associated with Jesus himself.

You will probably retort that "these are just written documents like the Gospels", but they are not. Franklin's records and documents have a tremendous amount of extraneous stuff that connects them to a coherent reality: there are dozens of other signatures on the Declaration, and we can go do the same exercise on each one of the participants to develop evidence that *they* existed. Along with the records of Franklin's property transactions, we would find a huge number of other property transactions, almost all of which are credible and make sense.

For the Gospels, the independent evidence for most of their statements is scarce, and only tenuously connected to the crucial points of Jesus's life and works.

Re:Someday

[Handpaper]

I quite enjoyed Asimov's tentative conclusion to 'The Collapsing Universe' which was that the observable edge of the universe was actually the event horizon of an immense black hole. Yes, that's right, we are inside a black hole.
The theory goes, as the universe collapses into a singularity, the event horizon, within which space-time is curved/twisted/completely fubar when imagined (can't observe it) from outside, moves outward with ever-increasing speed, until everything is once again inside and slowly coalescing, whereupon the process repeats.
Whether or not I believe it, well, I like to thing of myself as too scientifically-minded and sceptical to go that far, but it does have an appealing elegance.

Re:Someday

[reneky]

I beleive that I am the only human posting to slashdot and the rest are all machine generated.

What makes you believe you're human?

Re:Someday

[austus]

That's citing the bible, which many don't hold as evidence and certainly don't consider "God's Word". I don't understand why non-believers think the way they do, but I'm guessing they suspect God has better grammar.

Re:Someday

[Angus Prune]

But you're programmed to say that...

Re:Someday

[AnonymousKev]

I'm not trying to convince you of the divinity of Jesus -- please stop doing the "angry athiest" thing. Take some deep breaths and settle down. I'm not Islamic, but I would be foolish to argue the existance of a man named Mohammed.

There are several documents written by non-believers which show that Jesus of Narazeth lived. (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian).

Finally, to use your reasoning, Ben Franklin could have been a made-up person designed by the founding fathers to take the heat. The proofs you claim are just made up forgeries by people who benefitted from this made-up personality.

Sarcasm aside -- at some point you must mark the difference between possible and probable.

And finally: I can't believe you used the word "retort". I try to never retort! But I will respond that you should read Metzger's book. You'll have a much more accurate view of how the Gospels were written and how they were transmitted through the ages. And I promise, the book is scholarly and will under no circumstances try to convert you.

Re:Someday

[74nova]

excellent, my plan to dumb down the AI to convince you has worked...

Re:Someday

[jaoswald]

Hey, I never said Christ didn't exist, or even that I don't believe he was divine. Just that these statements don't have much by way of proof; we have evidence, but pretty much only scriptural, not objective.

In a discussion based on "what we believe although we can't prove" it makes sense to be careful to distinguish evidence from proof. I think I'm being quite settled down---just nit-picky.

Re:Someday

[bwt]

So you admit you're the weird one.

Re:Someday

[AnonymousKev]

To recap: I was very careful to distinguish evidence from proof. The OP said Jesus never personally claimed divinity. OP implied that the apostle Paul made up the divinity of Jesus. My response was to cite specific evidence that Jesus did make that claim. I never offered that as proof of the claim itself, only that the claim was made.

In a discussion concerning the documented words of a person, it is not a problem to use the generally-accepted documentation of that person's words. The discussion of the accuracy of that documentation is an entirely different discussion.

Re:Someday

[jaoswald]

Also, the point with Franklin is that to make him up, one would have had to fabricate an absolutely enormous amount of trivial detail *unrelated* to Franklin. He's linked to documented events in France, in Great Britain, in Boston, in Philadelphia, ranging from the political to the literary to the scientific.

Whereas for Christ, we have the Gospels, which are probably something like two independent sources, we have the letters of Paul, we've got a certain amount of oral tradition, and we have brief mentions in other histories.

Re:Someday

[Micah]

> The odds of that happening by chance are estimated at 1 to 10^50.

And that isn't all. If one of any number of physical constants were different by one part in ten to the umpteenth power (where "umpteenth" can range from about 10 to about 100), life could not have existed in any form at any time nor place in the universe.

Stuff to think about. As for me, I think it's strong evidence that God was behind the Big Bang.

Re:Someday

[jaoswald]

I think the main disagreement here is that your standards for "generally accepted documentation" include scripture, and mine don't. The original poster did not say enough to tell what his standards were; his claim is certainly sloppy from the point of view of scripture.

I don't mean to insult anyone's religious beliefs, but I personally think there is a wide range of possibilities for the historical Christ, ranging from "never existed" to "flaky cult leader whose followers managed to convince themselves of the resurrection" to "wise thinker whose followers managed to convince themselves of the resurrection" to "divine son of God, Messiah, Savior, etc., etc." Neither extreme seems completely credible to me, particularly when you consider examples of other religious figures from the same viewpoint; however, there is not a lot of hard evidence to narrow it down.

Anyhow, picking different points within that range would have a great influence on how you interpret the passages you cite: e.g., how metaphorical was Christ about the use of the term "abba/Father"?

Re:Someday

[Xyrus]

I exist because God cannot prove that I don't. :)

~X~

Re:Someday

[ObjetDart]

As for me, I think it's strong evidence that God was behind the Big Bang.

As for me, I think it's strong evidence that something is happening that we don't understand.

Feel free to attribute anything we don't currently understand to "God", it's your right; humans have been doing it for thousands of years. Of course, thousands of years ago it was twinkling lights in the sky and occasional crop failures; today it's the big bang.

Personally, I'm perfectly comfortable accepting that that there are still many, many things about this universe that we cannot explain; furthermore, I'm confident that given enough time, we might even figure out the answers to some of those things. There will always be mysteries to keep us puzzled and searching for answers. In the meantime I don't need to imagine an all powerful mythical being to feel better about it.

Re:Someday

[soft_guy]

Jesus was a real man who actually lived.

Highly debatable. There are no historic references to his life save for the biblical accounts which were all written more than a century after the time of Jesus. (By "the time of Jesus", I mean the historic period in which the story of his life is set.) There is also a Roman source, which is centuries after his death which refers to problems with Christians and references that their follower was executed under Pilate. However, that reference probably comes from the way in which Christians of the time identified themselves.

So, the evidence for Jesus having actually lived is very weak to the point where it is equally well explained as being a story made up in the second century.

Re:Someday

[Colonel Blimp]

I believe that for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows... Elvis SAID SO! Do you Dare mock THE KING? :-)

Re:Someday

[harrkev]

Well, there are the writings of Cornelius Tacitus (55-120AD), a Roman historian who mentionsed that Jesus started a religious movement and was killed by Pilate.

Oh, and there is Lucian of Samosata, a writer of Greek satire (2nd century). He was definately NOT friendly to Christians, but even he confirms that Jesus lived and was crucified.

And how about Suetonius, another historian. He said that Christians were in Rome by 64AD.

There are others (Thallus, Phlegon, Pliny the Younger, etc.). But this is enough of a sample.

Should I mention the ancient Jewish texts, also? The Jews were VERY unfriendly to Christians, but even ancient Jewish texts admit the Jesus lived and dies on a cross.

Also, the earliest of the four "Gospels" appeared around 70AD -- still in the lifetime of witnesses (Jesus died around 30 or 32AD). So, if there were some incredible inaccuracies, the critics would have loved to parade around witnesses and say "Here is a person who was there, and it did not happen like that!" No record of such criticisms are recorded. A *LOT* of people did not like Jesus, but NOBODY at the time could even hope to claim that he did not live.

Please learn the difference between facts and rumor/slander.

Re:Someday

[Wraithlyn]

Yes, there are some three dozen physical constants that are perfectly tuned to allow life.

What about that makes you believe that the god described in the Bible is responsible, though?

Personally, my readings have lead me to believe that if there is some universal "god" that has guided the forming of the cosmos, it is a collective and pervasive consciousness that we are all conected to at the quantum level, which has a tendency to move towards greater coherence... not some schizophrenic authority figure in a 2000 year old book. I believe (but cannot prove ;) that the god of the Bible is actually an amalgamation of two (or more) advanced extraterrestrial figures, known in Sumerian legends as Enki and Enlil. Indeed, with a bit of research one finds that the Book of Genesis is a sort of 'executive summary' of the Sumerian Epic of Creation, word for word in some places. The Hebrews likely copied it during Nebuchadnezzar's Babylonian captivity.

Re:Someday

[nycsubway]

Thank you! This is what I was getting at in my original post. There are parts of the Big Bang theory that just dont make sense.

One is the red shift... everything is accelerating away from us. I've heard the 'raisins in bread' theory, that everything just gets farther from everything else. I can understand that... but that would mean uniform continued expansion, and it would also mean that the universe had a dead-center. Being outside that center, things should be accelerating at different rates relative to earth.

Another problem is the age of the universe as determined by looking deep into space and saying "ah, theres the edge! and if we look in the opposite direction at the same deep distance there it is again! the edge of the universe! the universe must be N billion years old." Uniformity as described in the parent post would put earth at the dead center if the universe were expanding and we really were looking at the edge of it.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get your panties all wadded up too tight, God-boy.

Re:Someday

[CaptainAvatar]

There's no doubt that the standard big bang model doesn't work as well as it used to. But it's now merely a starting point. The most important features of the model - that it explains the microwave background, the recession of galaxies, and elemental abundances - are still good reasons for thinking that reality will turn out to have something very like a big bang, even if it is rather weirder (branes and suchlike). The big bang is here to stay - it's the standard, simplistic big bang model which is in trouble.

PS There is no way I am going to read a book with "Akashic Field" in the title, leastways not without laughing.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

No, beleive IS spelled beleive, but believe is spelled believe (at least, that is what I believe).

Spelling is what it is, but what is intended is another thing.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's a fact that Harry Potter has a wand. It's a fact that the book says he does, but it's not a fact that he actually exists and carries a wand.

Why is it any different for Jesus?

Re:Someday

[wanerious]

Hi, maybe this will help. A long time ago, all points in the universe were much closer together. At this time, some object emitted light in our direction. Due to the expansion of space, the distance between the object's coordinate and our coordinate has increased --- it is *not* the case that the galaxies are rushing through space; rather, the galaxies are more like objects stuck on the surface of an expanding rubber sheet. If one were to chalk off a gridded coordinate system when the sheet is unstretched, then one notices that the distance between any two coordinates (intersections on the grid) gets larger as the sheet expands. As light travels from one grid point to another, it continually has a longer distance to travel, so it takes a long time to get there. Thus, when we see light from a (now) distant object, we infer that it was emitted a long time ago when our relative distances were closer.

Re:Someday

[flottman]

life could not have existed in any form at any time nor place in the universe

Actually, let's clarify that. "life as we currently recognize it could not have existed". While it's likely true that the life that we see today would not have been possible if any of the alluded to parameters had been different, you know what? We'd be talking about a completely different universe, so our current understanding of life would have no bearing on anything.

So really all we're looking at is that if things had been different, then the universe would have been really, um, different. And that's not even interesting, let alone proof of anything.

Re:Someday

[Micah]

I'm not going to get into a long debate here, not worth it. Will just try to briefly answer your question.

> What about that makes you believe that the god described in the Bible is responsible, though?

For starters, I think it's reasonable (but cannot prove) that for such longshot odds of the Big Bang producing a universe that can support intelligent life, Something intelligent must have been behind it. I apologize to atheists who will find this concept difficult to grasp, but undirected explosions (which the BB would be if they were right) do not tend to result in systems that are fine-tuned by hundreds of orders of magnitude more accurately than the best possible human engineering.

Given that such a Being was behind the Big Bang, we can start to speculate about His character. Obviously, He has wisdom beyond measure. He has infinite power beyond anything we could comprehend -- He can create time/space dimensions at will! Finally, we can see that He also designed humans. The heart, for example, is one of the most efficient possible pumps, and the brain is amazing.

Now, would Someone like this want to simply allow for humans' existence, then un-involve Himself, as deists suggest? I don't think so; why would He have bothered? I think (but cannot prove) that it's reasonable that this Person would want humans to know something about Himself.

So we can begin to look at ways God may have revealed Himself. Are they consistent? Are they reasonable? Do they truly satisfy?

1) Yes, I've seen long lists of "Bible contradictions." As someone who has reasonable knowledge of the Bible myself, though, I am amazed at how consistent its entire message is, given the fact that it was written by dozens of humans over thousands of years -- humans from all walks of life and in three continents. Most of these "contradictions" were conjured up by folks who, frankly, don't understand the message of the Bible and/or are deliberately trying to make it look bad. Yes, there are a few things that appear to be real contradictions; these may well be a result of ancient memorization practices and/or the fact that some of the Bible is based on eyewitness accounts (which God may have inspired them to write but could be off in minor details).

2) The Bible has some pretty outrageous claims by the modern world's standards. But are they reasonable? Just because it claims that Jesus did miracles and claimed to be the only way to God the Father does not in itself mean that it isn't true. "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel does a reasonable job of showing that the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus Christ are reasonable, even if not proven.

3) What is the fruit of a given belief? Does it satisfy your inmost being? I think it was Blaise Pascal who said there's a "God-shaped hole in everyone's heart." What fills it? Does going to church or doing good works fill it? No. I and many Christians could easily testify that only a personal relationship with Jesus Christ fits the bill. Beyond simply "filling the hole," we can testify that Jesus Christ lives in us and has been faithful through the ages. Can I prove this scientifically? No. But His presense in us is just as good. In fact, it has a way of making gigabytes of intellectual arguments against His existence look rather shallow. :)

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

No, your post cited material which *claims* he made that claim. Which is no more convincing than material which claims he is divine. It is evidence, but to my mind not convincing, because the source is irretrievably biased.
-----

There's no such thing as an impartial historical source with nothing to say or show. In the end, you have some guy's interpretation of the historical record. In this case, you seem to follow the Jesus Seminar, who made tons of silly new claims based on their own eccentric readings of later gnostic texts and whatnot. They read *every* passage in such a light as to only support their theory. I don't believe that anything shy of a corpse would convince them that there was a historical Jesus, given the distortions of language they put their sources through to read them the way they do.

It's strange that NO ONE managed to think up the crazy story until they discovered it? I can make up my own--that, oh, Plato was a mythic figure who never existed and who was invented by his students. But why the hell would anyone believe that? Oh. Right. And no, it really wouldn't be that hard to make up my own distorted version of Platonism and the language used therein to support my "theory" (if you can even call this absurd proposition I've pulled from thin air as one).

I'm sure someone will take this admission as a reason to discount the above example, and I certainly lack the time to wax poetic as they have on their subject, but if you bother to look at how they came up with the "hypothesis" of theirs, you will find that it was simply pulled out of their collective arses--a wild theory in search of any semblance of support from any sort of source whatsoever. It does seem to sell books, though.

-----
Franklin's records and documents have a tremendous amount of extraneous stuff that connects them to a coherent reality:
-----

As does Acts, and as do all the letters (epistles) in the NT. You might even read them someday.

Along with Tacitus, Josephus and a great many ancient works. But call me when you can at least read Koine Greek. You don't seem to realize just how revisionist their accounts of "history" are, and I doubt you will unless you bother to check their sources in detail (something I only wish *they* would do, as badly as they mistreat them, which is why, at most, I expect a reply to the tune of "sod off, or I'll start quoting them" :)

Re:Someday

[samdu]

The Lord, Liar, or Lunatic thing is a false trilemna. There are certainly mental disorders whereby one can be relatively sane "appearing" for much of the time, yet still have delusions and halucinations. Happens all the time. It is not the case that Jesus would have had to be one of those three things as defined by the argument.

Re:Someday

[MasterRa]

I'm listening to The Resturant at the End of the Universe on audiobook (read by Douglas) right now.. curious, how such meaningless coincidences take place..

Re:Someday

[AoT]

The night sky is dark to the human eye because of the red shift caused by the expansion of the universe. If you look at the sky in the lower wavelengths it is much, much brighter.

Re:Someday

[mindstrm]

You are making a common perceptual mistake. You are thinking of a 3d explosion, in which everything is moving away from some 3 dimensional point... you expect that towards the center things should be more dense, towards the edge more spread out, maybe slower, etc, and that there is an actual 3d point we could extrapolate as "where it happened".

The big bang postulates a 4d explosion that brought into existence spacetime. (space + time). Our 3d universe is the surface of an expanding 4d bubble, so everything is moving away from everything else, there IS no center in 3 dimensions.

Draw a bunch of points on a balloon, then add more air, notice every point moves away from every other, there is no center.

This is why we look in EVERY direction and eventually see the beginning of the universe.. because looking further away is, due to the speed of light being limited, looking further back in time. Eventually we look far enough back that there is nothing else to see.

You aren't looking at the edge of the universe, you are looking back in time. There is no edge as you are thinking of it.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

If anybody around today truly thought that they were the actual son of god today we'd put him in an asylum. I think JC was a con man.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe. Altho, if they raised the dead, gave the blind sight, and walked on water, I wouldn't want to be the one locking them up!

Re:Someday

[mindstrm]

Other thoughts:

The speed of light limits what we can see, right?

If you look in any direction, you can't see anything further away than the age of the universe * the speed of light.. because nothing existed for you to see. Everything you see, even the car across the road, you are seeing further back in time. The notion of "now" or "the present" exists solely for and at the observer.

Our observable universe, and hence, everything we can know, is limited by the speed of light. Outside that 14 billion light-year bubble, we can't say that anything exists.. so that is by definition our observable universe. (observe in the scientific sense, not the human one).

On human scales, we think newtonian... we don't think that looking at that mountain on the horizon is looking backwards in time, the delay is too small to matter to us.. but it's no less real. No effect propagates faster than the speed of light.

Glance at the sun. It could have exploded already, there is absolutely no way for you to know that. This isn't a limitation of our insturments or technology.. it's because it hasn't happened in your universe yet. The explosion won't affect the orbit of the earth for six minutes. It won't even exist for us for six minutes. Whether or not it exploded has no bearing on your universe for those six minutes.

Now take that out to a cosmic scale... there is most certainly more stuff out there than we can see.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, a con man. He really profited. All that hanging around with sick people, teaching forgiveness ... it was all a scam to try and get himself crucified. Duh.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, that's logical.

Prove Alexander the Great existed, or any one of a dozen ancient kings, queens, men of science ... you can't prove anything to anyone by that logic. As a matter of fact, I don't believe you exist. :)

Besides, it's a religion! Who said you have to prove anything. People don't believe in God, or Jesus because someone proved it to them. It's a personal faith. Anyone who tries to prove Jesus was/is the Son of God using logic is wasting their time.

p.s. What year is it? ok, years since what? ;)

Re:Someday

[hob42]

Where are mod points when I need them???

Now I'm gonna have to dig out Eliza for my Apple II when I get back home...

Re:Someday

[hel shwarts]

The universe is like a web....our bodies are computers, our interpretations - operating sistem, what we believe we see is interface, raw data interpreted by the compuer ... what ever is in front of our eyes is just an agreement between us & the operating sistem we use to interprete data. Picture is just a bunch of vectorial parameters. SINCE THE CHILDHOOD WE ARE TRAINED TO BELIVE IN THE POWER OF ONLY ONE INTERFACE, ONE SINTAX. Now as everybody agrees Microsoft sucks...sure it does & WHY? cause it wants to keep us prisoners of it's onw interpretation standards, denying our freedom to manipulate data SO WE KEEP BUYING IT'S PRODUCT... BSD is called FREE. How ever many of us started analizing the way computer works using Windows. Same way rationalistic science was digging it till one day quantum phisics started braking the TABUs of our logic. We just shouldn't try to explain everything.This is the way of looking at the world through the WINDOWS. U CANN'T BE USING WINDOWS & BE A FREE BSD PROFESSOR. How about free flight. Only fool can think that he can explain everything he can experience. Only idiot needs explanation. LOOK THROUGH THE POSTS ALL AROUND...JUST ME, ME, ME, I, I, I... Evolution happens by realizing the possibilities & INTENDING to change.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

> And that isn't all. If one of any number of physical constants were different by one part in ten to the umpteenth power (where "umpteenth" can range from about 10 to about 100), life could not have existed in any form at any time nor place in the universe.

That's a rather anthropic view, wouldn't you think? And who suggests that life cannot exist if any physical constant changes?

Of course, if no life happens, then nobody is around to believe that a god is responsible for it. For all we know, there could be several alternate universes with life, and several without life.

Along the same line, I don't think the Earth was created or chosen for life. To me, life on this planet suggests that the initial conditions and laws of physics were suitable for life to emerge. If it didn't happen here, it might have happened on a billion other planets, and probably already has.

"Life as we know it on Earth" seems to fit so perfectly with the laws of physics, this planet, the moon, sun, etc. because it wouldn't have happened any other way.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

The odds of that happening by chance are estimated at 1 to 10^50.

How can you draw a statistical conclusion from a sample size of 1?

Re:Someday

[Fuzion]

I don't think anyone's claimed to have proven that the Big Bang theory is absolutely true. It's simply the best explanation for the current observed facts.

In science, most things can simply not be proven true. You can drop a ball a thousand times, and even if it falls to the ground, the 1001st time, it could rise up to the ceiling. There's no way to prove that it will fall downwards. Similarly, I don't think the big bang can be proven, but based on everything we know, it's the best explanation, just like based on everything we know, we think the best prediction is for the ball to fall down.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

You can see that God designed humans, but I don't see it.

A few researchers have applied evolutionary algorithms to produce circuits in FPGAs with very little but some simple design rules. One such experiment was to produce a circuit configuration in an FPGA that would discriminate a 1kHz input signal from a 10kHz signal. It started with a random population, but only the fittest solutions from one generation made it to the next generation. Over several thousand generations a very good (and surprisingly unconventional) circuit solution slowly emerged that produced a clean output signal (high or low depending on the input frequency). The circuit, good though not necessarily optimal, was unique out of 2^1800 or so possible circuits.

This experiment only solidified my beliefs that life, human organs, etc are not created or designed. A novel solution for such a tone discriminator or animal heart can appear without requiring a design.

Re:Someday

[Bootsy Collins]

It is perhaps the best CURRENT explanation. But it is not as good a theory as it was even a few years ago. There are questions that the Big Bang theory has no explanation for.

Sigh.

Before going any further into your post, it's important to to remember that there is an enormous difference between the (Relativistic Hot) Big Bang model, and the standard cosmological model (of which the Big Bang model is a component). There is more to the standard cosmological model than just the Big Bang model, which really only describes the evolution of the spatial scale factor and the dynamics of the fluids contained in space. This is an important point: all three of the "issues" you reference (flatness, the acceleration of the expansion, and the so-called horizon problem) are not problems with the Big Bang. Well, the middle one (the accelerating expansion) isn't a problem at all, of any sort, and someone who suggests it is doesn't understand physical cosmology. The other two may indeed turn out to be problems for the standard cosmological model, but most emphatically are not problems with the Big Bang model, since they lay outside its domain.

It's a bit like suggesting that there must be something wrong with the round-Earth model because it doesn't explain why we get tornados. It's not part of the domain of applicability of the Big Bang model to answer the question of why the flatness and horizon problems exist. OTOH, our overall model of cosmology had better explain the flatness and horizon problems. If it doesn't, and is superseded by something else, that something else will almost certainly contain within it a description of the dynamics of the expansion that looks just like the Big Bang model.

As for your statement that the Big Bang model "does not explain the increasing evidence that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating" . . .this is a bizarre statement, since it seems to suggest that the Big Bang model somehow predicts or requires that the expansion of the Universe not be accelerating. This is not true. Under the Big Bang model, the dynamics of the expansion are determined by a set of properties of the Universe (e.g. the density of the Universe in normal matter, the density of the Universe in relativistic fluids such as photons, the vacuum energy density of the Universe, etc.). The Big Bang model does not make predictions about the values of these parameters; it merely provides a mathematical framework that allows you to deduce "if these are their values, then this is what will happen." Non-zero cosmological constant models with accelerating expansion are not only permissable under the Big Bang model, but have been actively considered by theorists in different contexts for a very long time, since long before Bob Kirshner and Saul Perlmutter's research groups started turning out their data on the high-z Hubble diagram using Type Ia supernmova data. In fact, if you were to ask Kirshner or Perlmutter or Adam Riess or Brian Schmidt or anyone else associated with these projects, they'd tell you that one of the neat things about their evidence of acceleration is that they place constraints (which are non-zero) on the vacuum energy density of the Universe; those constraints come from the Big Bang model.

Your statement about fine-tuning in the context of the flatness problem is a little off. What would have been more disturbing to cosmologists is if the Universe were not flat, but were near flat. A Universe which is flat at early times stays flat; a Universe which is even slightly positively or negatively curved is driven away from flatness very very quickly. This was the fine-tuning problem that worried cosmologists before the BoomerANG and MAP results -- data seemed to suggest that the Universe was only slightly negatively curved, which in turn implied at very early times a Universe infinitely close to flat but not flat. There are a variety of physical theories out there to explain why the Universe would be flat; to explain w

Re:Someday

[Bootsy Collins]

One is the red shift... everything is accelerating away from us. I've heard the 'raisins in bread' theory, that everything just gets farther from everything else. I can understand that... but that would mean uniform continued expansion, and it would also mean that the universe had a dead-center. Being outside that center, things should be accelerating at different rates relative to earth.

Another problem is the age of the universe as determined by looking deep into space and saying "ah, theres the edge! and if we look in the opposite direction at the same deep distance there it is again! the edge of the universe! the universe must be N billion years old." Uniformity as described in the parent post would put earth at the dead center if the universe were expanding and we really were looking at the edge of it.

Once again, as a previous poster suggested, you really need to take the time to learn about physical cosmology before exclaiming that "parts of the Big Bang theory . . .just don't make sense." You're right that the things you say in your paragraphs above don't make sense; where you're wrong is in your belief that these are in some way part of the Big Bang model. You don't understand what the model says. You are asserting what you think it says -- assertions that are wrong -- and then pointing out absurdities about those assertions. But what you're saying is irrelevant since the Big Bang model isn't like that.

Re:Someday

[VagaStorm]

That is exactly the thing I don't understand. Since those objects has only had like a few million years to get away from each other. How come it took all this time for the light to reach us?

Re:Someday

[Zen Punk]

Readers of Slashdot, beware....THIS is what happens to you when you read the Timecube guy's website a wee bit too long.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

This is stupid. I go write a book which says:

"Abu 11:27: Allah claims an exclusive Father/Son relationship with God."

Does that mean Allah really is an exclusive Father/Son relationship with God?

"Abu 26:63-64: High Priest asks Allah if he is the Christ (aka the Messiah) and Allah answers that he is."

Therefore Allah is Christ?

It's just a book written by someone! Quoting a statement from the Bible does not make the statement true.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

> John 8:58: Jesus states "Before Abraham was born,
> I am" The term "I am" is considered by Jews to be
> the name of God. (When God appeared to Moses as
> the burning bush, Moses asked His name. The
> response was "I am".)
God failed the Turing test

Re:Someday

[Bush Pig]

> However, there is not a single physical artifact that is known to be associated with Jesus himself.

How can you say that? After all, there's a whole forest-worth of bits of the True Cross, and a veritable thicket of thorns from the True Crown of Thorns, and the Shroud of Turin (to mention just a few mediaeval forgeries).

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

"In the meantime I don't need to imagine an all powerful mythical being to feel better about it."

You believe "God" is an all powerful mythical being. I believe "God" is an all powerful being. Can either of us prove it? I don't know. The difference is faith in God's existence.

Re:Someday

[Vintermann]

"Also, the earliest of the four "Gospels" appeared around 70AD"

Some of Paul's letters are recognized as being even older, not just by christians. 40-50 AD, as I recall.
Dating of these documents is controversial, because a researcher without some severe sort of bias is difficult to find. The occasional crackpot who claims that Jesus comes in category with "pagan" mystery deities probably has an axe to grind, or even more likely, a book to sell.

Re:Someday

[CrimsonAvenger]

It's well-established that a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed. The debate is whether or not he is divine.

Really? Alright, can you show me copies of the relevant Roman and Jewish records of his existance? I seem to be unable to find any.

Surely the Sermon on the Mount must have produced some official record, given the number of people present, in what was, we must remember, a Roman Province of questionable stability.

Or, for that matter, the Crucifixion. The Romans kept detailed records of that sort of thing as well, but I've never heard mention of anyone finding a record of one like that. Which, we must remember, was performed in a quite unusual fashion - nailing people to the cross in that way was not normal Roman practice. When a Roman crucifixion took place, nailing someone to the cross was optional (more often, they were just tied), but the nails were put in wrists, as opposed to the palms of the hands (too easy for someone's weight to just rip the hand asunder and drop the victim from the cross if the nails were in the hands.

One might also keep in mind that "messiah" and "divine" are not synonymous.

Re:Someday

[hel shwarts]

I never red Timecube guy's website, lol, gonna look it up now...lol++

Re:Someday

[goeldi]

Flavius Josephus mentioned Jesus several times.

There is a comprehensive article with faqs currently at watchtower

Content:

• The Gospels - History or Myth?
• Could the Gospels be a masterful invention?
• Could the Gospels be legends?
• If the Gospels were legends, could they have been compiled so quickly after the death of Jesus?
• Were the Gospels later edited to fit the needs of the early Christian community?
• What about seeming contradictions in the Gospels?
• Does modern-day Christianity represent the Jesus of the Gospels?

Re:Someday

[CrimsonAvenger]

The debate is whether or not he is divine

Again, not even entirely true. The Arian Heresy (stamped out by the Church quite a long time ago) was a once popular form of Christianity that assigned no divinity to Jesus. It was not considered necessary that he be divine, just that his message be divinely inspired.

I confess to a bit of Arian leanings in my own faith. I haven't seen where the divinity or lack of same of Jesus Christ (Christ, for those who don't know, is a title, not a name, and does not, in and of itself, imply divinity) is all that terribly important a question.

Re:Someday

[wizard992]

Funny.. this is a post about what you believe even without the ability to prove it. Therefore you tearing into his belief with "proofs" is rather unreasonable.

Can you absolutely and completely prove the big bang happened?

Re:Someday

[wanerious]

Originally, the two objects were relatively close together. Now, they are far apart --- not because they have raced through space, but because the space between them has expanded. It is a subtle, but crucial, point. The light takes so long to go from one object to another because, as space expands, it has a longer way to go. If objects are separated by a few *billion* years, the expansion of space contributes significantly to both the light travel time as well as the change in the frequency of light (redshift).

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine-tuning is not an argument in favor of supernaturalism. In fact, it is evidence against supernaturalism. Beyond that, it's also questionable whether there even is fine-tuning, let alone the meaning of it. See also this discussion.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

This means the Big Bang was "tuned" to produce exactly this density.

Yes, and this is explained by inflationary Big Bang cosmology. Next?

The Big Bang does not explain the increasing evidence that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating

Big Bang cosmologies in which the expansion accelerates have been known since about 1917. It's just that nobody believed them because, until recently, there was no evidence of this acceleration.

Yes, I am aware of "Inflation Theory", which seeks to address the Horizon Problem, but it's pretty shaky

Shaky?? WMAP has already seen the detailed structure of acoustic peaks in the CMBR power spectrum, which is predicted by inflation.

Here's a paper disputing the ability of the inflationary model to produce homogenous CMBR if you are interested

Maybe you ought to read the followup papers citing that one before using it as evidence. They dispute it.

Dead-Tree References:

Citing cranks and pseudoscience doesn't help your case.

Re:Someday

[CrimsonAvenger]

Flavius Josephus lived after Jesus. He was born a few years after the crucifixion. Where's the documentary evidence? Where's the Census records? At least one such was performed during Jesus' lifetime, after all. Mind you, I don't doubt his existence. His historicity is questionable, though, considering that there are so many places records of his existence should exist. And they pretty much don't exist in those places. No doubt a good part of the ambiguity about the historicity of Jesus is based on the fact that Christianity was always a focal point for extreme measures - early on, even admitting to Christianity could get you in a world of hurt, while later on the reverse was true....

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it because of your father that how long?

Re:Someday

[AK Marc]

The OP stated that Jesus never claimed divinity -- my post cited material which shows he did make that claim. My intention was to correct a factual mistake, not engage him in a debate on the actual divinity (or not) of Jesus.

Someone writing after Jesus' death about what they heard someone say he said does not equate to a claim by Jesus. Ben Franklin actually wrote things. I can see what he claimed and intended by finding original writings or printings. Jesus didn't write a single word in the Book that is used to claim what he did or did not mean. It is worse than hearsay. It is second hand accounts of hearsay. The stories of many real figures become greatly exagerated after their deaths. Achilles was as real as Jesus. There are mulitple accounts of his life from different independent sources. However, his life was "recorded" after his death, as was Jesus'. So, was Achilles really invulnerable (excepting his heel)? Or were accounts of his life changed after his death so that facts that can be verified (birth, death, etc.) match, but the events between were embellished?

This was done with many historical figures, so why should Jesus be any different?

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

> "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?".

Yeah yeah. Heard it all before. Somehow this argument never includes the fourth option

"... or Guy Whose Statements Were Misrepresented By Later Editors?"

Tell me, AnonymousKev, have you ever had the experience of being interviewed for a magazine article? In Linux Journal perhaps, or in the hometown newspaper?

If you had, you'd never believe anything you read ever again.

Re:Someday

[Chrax]

Well, I'd be careful with quoting John, as his account makes claims that the others do not (The Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became Flesh...), a lot of which he would have no factual basis for writing, unless God told him. To be fair, if somebody told you that God had them write about somebody that was with God from the beginning but never actually mentioned as such in Biblical accounts, don't you think you might call them a loony?

Now you might claim that this isn't a reason to throw out all of his claims, and I won't say it is. Those that can be corroborated should be considered. Those that can't should be tossed aside as the rubbish they most likely are.

Anyway, Messiah doesn't mean God. Also, like any scripture Matthew 11:27 can be interpreted however the hell you want, and there's also the fact that this was written after Jesus died, so you've got the problem of memory not serving all that well. I can remember quotes from shows amazingly well, and then watch the show, and find I'd only gotten some of the words right, and not even the meaning. So the quote doesn't mean a whole lot.

And the whole Liar, Lunatic, Lord argument is flawed because it assumes that the Bible is a) the literal word of God b) untouched by political motives, which we can all agree the Church certainly wasn't.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

Well for one the author acknowledges Harry as a work of fiction. Good first attempt at an argument though.

Re:Someday

[Chrax]

p.s. What year is it? ok, years since what? ;)

Since the dominant political power of the Middle Ages determined was the approximate date of birth of their God, which fantastically turned a monotheism into a triotheism.

Re:Someday

[radtea]

Remember that we actually have copies of the book of John dating back to 120AD, which is _really_ close to the time it was written.

Let's say John was written as early as 70 C.E., which is a stretch. That's at least 40 years after the events it describes. Most people I know aren't too clear on what happened yesterday, much less forty years ago, especially when the events concern something as emotionally charged as the death of a charismatic leader at the hands of imperial rulers in a divided society.

Seriously try writing down the history of something you experienced 20 years ago, in 1984. Just a paragraph or two. Then check any other sources available--either other people's recollections or better yet objective records at the time.

Then give what you've written to a couple of other people who have an interest in the event, and have them copy it, which is the process by which we get those early fragements of John from the 120's. I'm betting you'll find the odd mistake, and just possibly a little editorial interjection.

--Tom

Re:Someday

[johnnyb]

The person I was responding to is implying that Jesus never existed at all, and was made up later.

As for your examples, you are assuming that this was all simply recollection. Well, two things:

1) since writing was more difficult, people were better at both memorization (for events), and telling memorable stories (for teaching)

2) there were likely several early records of Jesus' teaching. Eusebius says that Matthew actually originated as a collection of Jesus' sayings in Aramaic, which later had the events added for context (perhaps this is the mysterious Q document, with events added based on Mark?).

Likewise, John had access to numerous eyewitnesses who were there at the same time.

But, anyway, my point was that the early date for a found copy of John is way too early for a lot of the revisionist histories to account for (like, that the gospels were written during the council of Nicea and passed off as histories from much longer ago).

Re:Someday

[jaoswald]

I'm not aware of any substantial corpus of civil records surviving from Roman times. It is unrealistic to suppose that there are huge archives of Roman documents to find evidence remaining of any commoner's life. Is there any remaining fragment whatsoever of *any* Roman census record?

It is not surprising, therefore, that we lack such archival evidence of Jesus' life.

Re:Someday

[famebait]

As for me, I think it's strong evidence that God was behind the Big Bang.

I think it's strong evidence Satan's behind it all. Or a disinterested experimenter who just wants to see what happens. Or maybe a large hive-collective of gigantic pink bunny-like creator-entities.

Re:Someday

[bokudesune]

Messiah, IIRC, is a term meaning King-to-be (of the Israel tribes), and in this case, the one that would lead them from being trampled on by the Greeks to being their own nation again.

Re:Someday

[CrimsonAvenger]

WHile I don't read latin, and haven't seen the bases, I refer you to:

Tenney Frank, "Roman Census Statistics from 508 to 225 B.C.," American Journal of Philology 51 (1930) 313-324.

for a start (assuming you read latin, and want to go over the original documents, assuming they are available to you), that might be a place to look.

Now, we must remember that the primary purpose of Roman Census (Censii?) were for purposes of registering taxpayers. And that they were more applicable to Roman Citizens (Paul of Tarsus was one, Jesus of Nazareth was not).

As to a "commoner's life"...Spartacus certainly counts. Big July mentioned many contemporary commoners by name in his own books. Surely SOME contemporary of Jesus Christ would have written it down somewhere.

On the other hand: Christianity was officially frowned upon for many years, both during and after Jesus' life. That sort of thing could lend one impetus to NOT mention him under conditions you might otherwise choose to do so. So it's not like absence of specific records of Jesus were Proof of Jesus' absence. It is merely one of the curiousities of that particular place and period of history.

Re:Someday

[stupid_is]

No idea if this is true or not (seeing as I read it in a work of fiction), but The Da Vinci Code had a side reference to some Vatican type council that actually voted on (a) whether or not to deify Jesus, and (b) which gospels to include in the Bible (some controversy about contents of some which might have made reference to Him in a light that wasn't approved of in those days). Can't remember the precise name, and I've since lent the book out - but it seemed to be an interesting historical reference, rather than summat made up to suit the purpose of the book.

nb: I could be wrong!

Re:Someday

[AnonymousKev]

One of problems with the DaVinci code is that Brown didn't make up summits to suit the book. He took real events and twisted them to fit his book.

The summit you're referring to is the First Council of Nicea (held in 325AD). The Council met to establish a standard for Christian beliefs (sort of an RFC-0001 for the Christian church). This was an attempt to prevent so many churches springing up with fringe practices, but still calling themselves Christian[1]. That is an oversimplification -- but I'm trying to cut back on my /. time.

The council did not arbitrarily "vote that Jesus was God". Jesus had been worshipped as God for many, many years before the Council met. The council examined the available evidence to decide if Jesus (God the Son) was equal-with or subordinate-to God the Father. The Council affirmed that Jesus held equal status. (The Nicean Creed summarizes their affirmation.)

Of course, someone who holds to the Arian heresy will have a different take on the Council :)

[1] Case in point: A group called the gnostics believed that all matter was inherently evil, all spirit inherently good -- so they lived a life of self-indulgence but labeled themselves as Christian.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how hard this is to understand. God is the big bang. God is everything. The big bang was the division of god so god could experience god through god. You are god, everyone is god, everything is god. Or strings. Same thing.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

except that is what any good guru will say. If you have achieved godhood then the way to god is through you. Remember, jesus said others would come after him that would do more amazing things. Stupid church seems to miss this detail all the time when they claim that jesus is almighty and everybody else is a piece of shit. then again, how could you control everybody if they're all gods?

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

Beleive me, people don't forget their experiences that happen in the presence of an enlightened one.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue of being able to prove God exists cannot be debated until you define what "proof" is. Throughout the ages, it was enough to say that such proof is all around you. As you look at the trees, the animals - the miracle of life basically - you experience the proof that "God is."

However, as times change, so do people's minds. During the age of The Enlightenment, people began to contemplate scientific explanations for things that only religion could explain, such as "how we got here." What is most interesting about this to me, however, is the fact that they never did come up with even so much as a slight clue that could be supported by science, which would explain how anything exists in the first place.

Forget the Big Bang event itself... what about the matter that made up the bang? And don't ask the question, "how did it get there." Rather, ask the question, "how does it exist in the first place." Why is it that modern scientists place a date on the Big Bang? Because if you can date it, then you can ask several crippling questions. They say it happened about 14 billion years ago right? So, what was there 14 billion years before it exploded? Or 14 ^ 99999 ^ 99999 ^ 99999 billion years before it exploded? Matter cannot be created nor destroyed right? So was it just sitting there? How could it just be sitting there for all of eternity and then suddenly start to change?

Basically, what I'm saying is that I believe that one scientific proof that God does exist - in some intelligent form - is that the existence of the universe cannot be explained by natural methods. How do you create a universe from nothing except by God? And if it was always just there, then how does such a thing as time (as in the fact that there exists a past, present, and future) exist? And how do you explain the existence of change? The Big Bang theory is one that scientists came up with having done the best they could do, but the fact remains that it is not a very good theory; as it has vital flaws. Its derivatives have the same vital flaws.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument has at least one fatal flaw that Darwin himself had identified. As he defined his theory of Evolution, he made several predictions. These predictions covered knowledge that human being had no scientific means to prove just yet. The prediction I want to bring to light is the fact that Darwin claimed that there is no basic unit of life which cannot be simplified. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that Darwin believed that life was fundamentally simple enough that human beings would eventually learn to create life. Also, he said that if this prediction turned out to be wrong - as has been proven in modern times - he would question this theory in its entirety. Evolution is based on the idea that simple organisms evolve into higher organisms, so if you do not have a basis to start on that is simple enough to say that life started from inanimate matter, the entire theory fails.

Re:Someday

[jaoswald]

What I meant by civil records is the idea that there is something like a municipal ledger recording specific information about individuals: registering deeds, births, deaths, marriages, court cases, etc. It seemed by your suggestion that Jesus *should* be found in census records that you were referring to a manuscript list of individual names with occupations or something similar.

There is no doubt that the Empire knew with some accuracy how many citizens and other people it had in each of its districts, and probably had aggregate data on things like agricultural output.
Just that these aggregate data don't have any connection to a particular individual you might hope to learn about.

You won't find my name even in modern U.S. census records, even though I have been counted. The fraction of Romans whose personal identifying information were preserved on any "permanent" document, much less a surviving one, is absolutely miniscule, as far as I can tell; and more likely to be correlated to closeness to Rome and influence in mainstream Roman arts, letters, or politics, not to rabblerousing in a distant province.

Re:Someday

[CrimsonAvenger]

Roman Census data was, at least, originally, similar to our original Census data - an enumeration of the populace for tax purposes. It did, in fact, like our own Census data, include the name of the head of household, and at least the number and type (adult, child, slave, free, etc) of the members of the household.

So, it is not unreasonable to suppose we might see such data. No doubt much was lost during various sackings of Rome.

You won't find my name even in modern U.S. census records, even though I have been counted

Oh? I have been part of five Census's now. For three of them, I was an adult, and enumerated in my own right (as oppsed to being a child as part of my father's household). I don't pay too much mind to what is asked on Census forms these days, but I seem to recall being required to list my children's names.

Now, I know that early US Census did not require that - name of head of household, number of household was sufficient. Are you young enough that you've nevr been enumerated as an adult? Or did you just decline to provide more than the minimum information required? Just curious.

It is certainly true that only a small fraction of Romans have any personal information about them known today. Nontheless, Jesus was big news even in his own lifetime. There is every reason to believe that records of his life would be at least as complete as Julius Caesar's, who lived a couple of generations earlier.

Re:Someday

[lampajoo]

"For example, as recently as 1998 it was discovered that the universe is "flat" [nasa.gov]. A tiny difference in the density of the universe, either up or down, would make it curved. This means the Big Bang was "tuned" to produce exactly this density. The odds of that happening by chance are estimated at 1 to 10^50." How could you calculate odds for that? We only have one universe to look at. If you could observe 10^50 universes and see that only 1 had "exactly this density" then you could say that. But not now.

Re:Someday

[Wraithlyn]

"No effect propagates faster than the speed of light."

Ah... but it DOES.

Quantum Entanglement. Einstein's "Spooky action at a distance", which was why he was always wary of quantum theory, but has been proven to exist in modern times.

Two particles that become entangled, will reflect each other's states across any distance. Are they exchanging information faster than the speed of light? Or are they somehow connected on a dimension we cannot perceive?

Anyway, I do understand what you're saying about the lightspeed limit, but that doesn't solve the Horizon Problem... what we CAN see is remarkably, inexplicably consistent.

Re:Someday

[Wraithlyn]

'There is no way I am going to read a book with "Akashic Field" in the title, leastways not without laughing.'

Then I'm afraid I must accuse you of judging a book by its cover. ;)

The fact is, there is no formal name yet for the so called "zero-point field", the sea of quantum energy fluctuations that exists even at near 0K. This particular author chose to call it Akashic (or the A-field, like the EM-field, the G-field, etc), based on an Indian philosophy about an information field that encodes all of existence. So what?

This book can be found in the "Science" section at your bookstore, not the "New Age" section, if that's what you're gettings at.

But I'd recommend Lynne McTaggart's "The Field" first anyway. It's essentially a catalog of recent experiments, whereas "Akashic" is far more speculative.

PS I liked the rest of your post. ;)

Re:Someday

[Guignol]

I think you don't understand because you assume that this expansion couldn't have been faster than light.
This isn't necessarily true, and indeed, it looks like it was quite faster than that.
It's possible because space expansion isn't actually matter moving, so it isn't restricted to lightspeed limitations at all.

Re:Someday

[Wraithlyn]

Thanks for the informative and well though-out post.

You're absolutely right that an accelerating universe doesn't disprove a Big Bang; I thought about that right after I posted. I'm not sure why I threw that in.. I was thinking about what initial conditions of the Big Bang we can try to deduce from observational data. An accelerating universe does however, make us step back, and consider that there must be "more to it" than a big explosion acted on merely by gravity.

"the middle one (the accelerating expansion) isn't a problem at all, of any sort, and someone who suggests it is doesn't understand physical cosmology."

HUH? Please explain it to me then. From everything I've read, scientists were shocked to find out the universe is accelerating. There is absolutely no explanation for it, which is why the concept of "Dark Energy" was created in the first place (which has never been experimentally observed).

You are also right that the "tuning" problem doesn't disprove that the Big Bang actually could've happened... but it is an issue that the Big Bang has no explanation for, for the Big Bang proposes randum fluctuations in the vacuum, IIRC. Perhaps there is a better theory that would be able to explain this, that's all. (I have some ideas about that but am not going to get into it now)

As for the Horizon Problem, it DOES present a problem for the Big Bang, BUT, as you say, inflationary theory would solve that, BUT inflationary theory is kinda questionable....

The bottom line is we're not going to solve any universal truths in this thread, but thanks for the discussion and pointers! :)

Re:Someday

[mindstrm]

I didn't forget about it.. it's just not relevant to the discussion at hand. Entanglement is indeed interesting.. but viewing it as an effect propagating is not necessarily accurate.. it's more of an artifact of the way we observe the universe.

They reflect each other's states... yes. However, we say that because until we check the state, we don't know, but once we know the state of one, we know the state of the other.. therefore we say that (unless I'm misundrstanding this) as soon as we observe one, we have caused the otherone to collapse from a superposition of states to a known state, thereby acting on it instantly regardless of distance. It's not that black and white, though..

I'm not sure I understand why it wouldn't be consistant.. if we are looking back in time, at some point it SHOULD be consistant, no? Everything all redshifted out, and that's about it.

Re:Someday

[Bootsy Collins]

I have no idea whether you're still reading, it being two days later. But I just noticed your reply, so I'll go ahead and respond. But the first thing I need to say is that again, your response is replete with comments that indicate that you don't really understand what the Big Bang model is and is not, and in particular the difference between the Big Bang model and the standard cosmological model as a whole (of which the Big Bang model is but a component). Quantum fluctuations of the vacuum, for instance, are an important component of the standard cosmological model, but have absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang model. It's sorta like the difference between "physics" and "thermodynamics." Ohm's Law is a part of physics; it is not a part of thermodynamics, even though thermodynamics are a component of physics. The scope of the Big Bang model -- what it describes, explains, and predicts -- is only a segment of the larger standard cosmological model. There are many uncertainties in the standard cosmological model, and some of its parts are doubtless wrong. However, that component of it that relates the large-scale evolution of space to the energy content of the Universe, that we refer to as "the Big Bang model," is on pretty sturdy ground.

You're absolutely right that an accelerating universe doesn't disprove a Big Bang; I thought about that right after I posted. I'm not sure why I threw that in.. I was thinking about what initial conditions of the Big Bang we can try to deduce from observational data. An accelerating universe does however, make us step back, and consider that there must be "more to it" than a big explosion acted on merely by gravity.

And already we're into trouble. I really don't mean anything personal by this, I promise. But your lack of understanding of what the Big Bang model is, explains, and predicts, is illustrated by the last sentence you've written here.

The Big Bang model does not involve "a big explosion" of any kind. Qualitatively, the Big Bang model posits that a long time ago, the contents of the Universe were everywhere very hot and very dense, and that since then, space has been expanding and those contents have been cooling because of that expansion. That's it. That's all. Note that I didn't say anything at all about a singularity, or the beginning of time, or stuff exploding out from a point, or anything like that; none of these are part of the Big Bang model. It is true that by blindly extrapolating the Big Bang equations of evolution (the Friedmann equations) backwards, one arrives at a spacetime singularity; but we have no idea whether it's valid to do that, since in doing so one necessarily speaks of times when the average energy of the stuff in the Universe is higher than reached in any experiment humans have ever done (up to infinitely high energies as one approaches the putative singularity). We don't know what the physics of the Universe was like at temperatures higher than about 1 TeV (about 10^16 degrees). We have theories, but we have no idea whether those theories are correct, because no one has been able to do experiments that can test or falsify them. All we can talk about is the domain over which we understand the physics. From that, we argue that the Universe was once very very dense and hot, and it's been expanding and cooling ever since.

If you believe that as you look at larger and larger scales, the mass/energy distribution in the Universe converges towards homogeneity and isotropy, and if you believe that general relativity is an accurate description of the behavior of gravity on large scales, you're stuck with the Big Bang model: those two assumptions require the Big Bang model. The first of those two facts tells you something important about the structure of space on large scales (i.e. that it can be described by the so-called Robertson-Walker metric); the second gives you a set of equations that related the structure of space, and its evolution, to the mass/energy content of the Universe.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

> > And I thought people who believe in Jebus were morons.

> Jesus was a real man who actually lived. How can people who believe in him be morons[?]

He was talking about Jebus! It's a referense to Simpsons, "The Joy of Sect," you fucking moron!

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Jesus existed

BBBBBBBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!! !! WROOOOONG!!!!!!!!

Thanks for playing but in fact the historicity of Jesus is DISPUTED at best. See: [1] [2] [3] [4] and stop forcing your superstitious mumbo jumbo upon our throats.

Re:Someday

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not trying to convince you of the divinity of Jesus -- please stop doing the "angry athiest" thing. Take some deep breaths and settle down. I'm not Islamic, but I would be foolish to argue the existance of a man named Mohammed. There are several documents written by non-believers which show that Jesus of Narazeth lived. (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian).

In fact the historicity of Jesus is DISPUTED at best. See: [1] [2] [3] [4]. If you know about ANY "documents written by non-believers which show that Jesus of Narazeth lived" than please post it HERE but until then please stop forcing your superstitious mumbo jumbo upon our throats. Thank you. (Oh, and by the way, it's "athEIst" you illeterate moron.)

Re:Someday

[Wraithlyn]

Well, thanks again for the time I'm sure you put into that. I tend to check my replies (I can only assume you do as well), the question is will anyone ELSE ever see this? ;)

Ya know, I deliberately chose to use the simplistic term 'explosion' to see if you'd jump on it, which you did with zeal.

"The Big Bang model does not involve "a big explosion" of any kind. Qualitatively, the Big Bang model posits that a long time ago, the contents of the Universe were everywhere very hot and very dense, and that since then, space has been expanding and those contents have been cooling because of that expansion. That's it. That's all. Note that I didn't say anything at all about a singularity, or the beginning of time, or stuff exploding out from a point, or anything like that"

First of all, you're describing an explosion. What is an explosion but an expansion and concordant cooling? Yes, in common usage, it usually refers to a violent and sudden event, but those are relative qualifiers anyway. Where in the definition of an explosion does it mention a single point, or singularity? Dictionary.com lists an explosion as (most generally) "A sudden, great increase"... but perhaps you object to the word "sudden"?

Well, let's see what a google for 'big bang' turns up...

1. Nasa.gov says "According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.".
2. Some guys at U Mich (GeoSci students?) say "About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe."
3. Cambridge Cosmology says "About ten billion years ago, the Universe began in a gigantic explosion"

That's the first three results. How about Dictionary.com? "big bang [n.] The cosmic explosion that marked the origin of the universe according to the big bang theory."

So if I'm wrong in referring to it, in general and metaphorical terms (like the name "big bang" itself), as an "explosion", at least I stand in good company. So now that I've spent all this time defending my use of a single word, I can actually get to the relevant parts of your post (I don't mean anything personal by that, I promise ;)

I already admitted the error of attempting to tie an accelerating universe to problems with the Big Bang, I don't know why you wrote so much more about it, but thanks anyway, interesting stuff. I do find the accelerating universe a fascinating tangential subject. (If your response contains something along the lines of "the fact you think acceleration and the big bang are tangential to each other shows your complete ignorance, etc etc" I will stop reading)

'The mathematics of the Big Bang model are easier to work with when the vacuum energy density is zero: the equations are simpler, and various things are easier to calculate . . .and physicists will always consider the simplest case first.'

Yes, and I believe that eliminating the "ZPE" components because they complicated the equations has done enormous harm to our understanding of physics. (Similar to what happened to Maxwell's original equations when Heaviside butchered them)

I can tell you are a strong adherent to good experimental data (as am I)... a book I cannot recommend strongly enough to you is "The Field" by Lynne McTaggart. (Think I mentioned this in an ancestor post) It is chock full of recent experimental results concerning quantum physics and consciousness, from good solid double-blind placebo controlled studies. I am not given to superlatives, but this book will blow your

That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

The female orgasm.

Re:That's easy

[DigitalRaptor]

Hey, speak for yourself! Just because you aren't man enough to produce it...

Re:That's easy

[keyne9]

It appears the AC believes in two things he cannot prove: female orgasms and geeks getting to that point with the opposite gender.

Re:That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the AC is a girl and hasn't tried out the Magic Wand yet.

Re:That's easy

[slartibart]

I think what he meant was, women can fake orgasms (ie, there usually isn't any material "proof" like there is with male orgasms). So he believes in the female orgasm, even though there's no proof.

Re:That's easy

[dameon]

Women can fake a lot of things, mate ... but if you do it right ... there is most definitely proof. /gets off of soap box and back into bed

Re:That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Males can fake orgasms too. With a condom on, in the dark, how would she know?

Then the question becomes "why would a man fake one"? Probably the same reason a woman will - because she wants it to be over with.

Re:That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't say that if you had seen me and my bros with your momma last night.

Re:That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

How about I HAVE A HEADACHE

My ex-wife used headaches, fatique, all kinds of illnesses to avoid sex.

During the divorce trial her medical records and examinations confirmed that her claims were contradictory (in legalese, she had been lying).

During our separation she had three affairs behind my back, even booking flights to them multiple times. That's a pretty active sex life for someone with lots of health problems.

So it was all one big lie. As you can imagine, I am extremely skeptical when a woman tells me she has a headache.

Re:That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Then the question becomes "why would a man fake one"? Probably the same reason a woman will - because she wants it to be over with.

Or you have another date later.

Re:That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never had a multi-orgasmic girlfriend, have you?

Re:That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never had a multi-orgasmic girlfriend, have you?


This is Slashdot. I assume your question is rhetorical.

Re:That's easy

[motionb]

you can always tell when a woman has an orgasm, your ash tray falls off her back ... shesh i thought everyone knew that

Re:That's easy

[dustinbarbour]

If ya do it right, there is material evidence.. Not the same as a guy, but there none the less..

Re:That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Headache." Line one, chapter one in the book.

Maybe you can be the kind of man that women DON'T use the headache excuse with. Or see different types of women.

Re:That's easy

[Bonker]

Uhm...

Orgasmic vaginal contractions are rather easy to feel. Even if you can't feel it when you're doing the deed with your wang, you should be able to feel it if you're using your fingers or your tongue.

(Wait. I'm on Slashdot. 99% of geeks here have never gotten that far.)

Many women become hyper-sensitive to clitoral stimulation immediately prior and after orgasm. Meaning that the intensity is not comfortable, or even painful.

If she's enjoying clitoral stimulation and then stops enjoying it very suddenly and urgently, you can be pretty sure she had an orgasm.

If you guys can't grasp this, then seriously, turn off the computer, put away the porn, and go find a girlfriend. Seriously.

Re:That's easy

[Medevo]

You were simply in monogamous "raiser" position. In semi-monogamous species like humans and birds, males attempt to win the youngest female they can, and often females will willingly enter into relationships in which they do not wish to produce young with that male, but believe that males ability to raise children is top notch. However the female then, in the form of affairs, will attempt to seek out a male that give her children the best genetic chance at success. Much of this process is hardwired, so don't entirely blame her nature, and at best, take this as a compliment that you would be a great father.

Medevo

Re:That's easy

[moorcito]

That's funny because I heard that the best remedy for a headache was to have sex, or at least that's what I tell my wife.

Re:That's easy

[JabberWokky]

As many people have pointed out, you are referring to something that is impossible for the observer to reproduce for observers that are male or unable to orgasm.

Fine. In the long tradition of "real science", I will assign the task of providing experimental data to the nearest grad student. As soon as she gets home. Repeatedly.

--
Evan "Although she's going for a PhD in Chemistry, I doubt she'll dislike this assignment"

Re:That's easy

[LaCosaNostradamus]

{laughs nearly uncontrollably} Bless you, Sir. {wipes tears} Bless you indeed for your efforts, albeit they are pearls thrown before swine.

Re:That's easy

[khellendros1984]

OK....sex discussions on Slashdot, especially when half of the guys here won't see a vagina after birth (not counting jpgs, sorry)....kinda pointless. Anyhow, figuring things out yourself is half the fun!

Re:That's easy

[cryptochrome]

I believe the word you're looking for is cuckholding.

Re:That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Clitoral stimulation is still a bit much post-orgasm, even with multi-orgasmic girls. Or at least that's true of my girlfriend... maybe she needs more training. ;)

Re:That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

If you guys can't grasp this,

Er....nah, too easy.

Re:That's easy

[gumpish]

...turn off the computer, put away the porn, and go find a girlfriend. Seriously.

Wow - and to think it's just that simple. So obvious! You will make millions by selling your wisdom to millions of men who lack female companionship! Just turn off the computer, put away the porn, and you will be mobbed by women! How could this simple and self-evident truth have eluded so many for so long?

Oh wait, you're just an egotistical prick, n/m.

Re:That's easy

[mustangsal66]

If she's enjoying clitoral stimulation and then stops enjoying it very suddenly and urgently, you can be pretty sure she had an orgasm.

Or her husband just walked in...

Re:That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

+5 insightful?!

There are more than a few girls out there who can squeeze those muscles voluntarily, you know...

Re:That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you- I agree and frequently compare humans to nature to help understand our behavior.

I, however, am probably completely foolish to hold out hope for a reasonably intelligent woman who can rise above basal animal behavior. (seriously!)

Or Jennifer Garner. :) (kiddingly)

Re:That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a squeezing, in my experience. :( Kind of the opposite. When it happens, you know it's real. And all the other signs occur too (hyper-sensitive clitoris...)

Re:That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

If she's enjoying clitoral stimulation and then stops enjoying it very suddenly and urgently, you can be pretty sure she had an orgasm.

Other possibility would be, that she's just bored of you by this point..

Re:That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you're a pathetic loser. I wonder which is true?

I believe

[networkBoy]

in intelligent design.
-nB

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Ironic

Re:I believe

[nadadogg]

Same here, I'm a firm believer that God and science can coexist, seeing as we don't know exactly how God works, and I'm not closed-minded on either end of the argument.
Yes, slashdot, it's possible to believe in God and science without being a damned fundie that makes my faith look bad.

Re:I believe

[dbrower]

in intellegent design

So do I, but there seems to be darned little of it in the software that I see.

-dB

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you think the IDer could have made a better effort?

Re:I believe

[MartinG]

Help me out.

Do intelligent design believers argue that God designed humans, animals etc directly or is it that God designed the physical laws of the universe such that everything could naturally evolve on its own?

Or am I way off and its neither of those? Or could it be either of those and the distinction is not important?

Re:I believe

[GoofyBoy]

If you mean Intellegent Design, as in purposeful Creation by God: Mod - Insightful

If you mean intelligent design, as in purposeful creation by programmers, analysts and end-users: Mod - Funny

Re:I believe

[the_mad_poster]

Please note: I.D. is billed as an "alternative" to evolution in which god exists.

The solidified and well-accepted portions of evolutionary models make no requirement, however, that you cease to believe in any gods.

Intelligent Design, therefore, while perhaps a good example of things to believe in without proof, has nothing to do with science and god. It has much more, however, to do with politically empowered people who don't understand science, and the people they seem to think are somehow disproving god.

Your ending statment, therefore, appears to have little to do with the rest of your post when it is put into the context of the post you replied to.

Re:I believe

[doublem]

Do intelligent design believers argue that God designed humans, animals etc directly or is it that God designed the physical laws of the universe such that everything could naturally evolve on its own?

Yes.

Both are valid schools of thought under the heading of "intelligent design"

Re:I believe

[Sergeant Beavis]

Yes, slashdot, it's possible to believe in God and science without being a damned fundie that makes my faith look bad.

You bet! Someday people will realize that the Bible is a book of THEOLOGY and not a book of SCIENCE.

Re:I believe

[ArsonSmith]

You can in a deist type of way only. The idea that god created the universe and only observes from there and never intervenes. otherwise you break the biggest assumption of science, that the universe is consistent. Unfortunately for the faithful this means no miracles. Just because science can't explain something doesn't mean it was 'God.'

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you give more details about "God"? If "God" is another name for the universe, then sure, he exists because the universe exists. If your "God" is male, watches us, responds to prayers, created the Earth a few thousands years ago, and the laws of physics/chemistry were still not completely settled 2000 years ago (some guy changed water into wine), then my friend you've got some coexistance problems.

Re:I believe

[krymsin01]

Both are Intelligent Design, but are different. Designing humans, animals, etc is direct intervention ala a strict interpretation of Genesis (or pick whatever creation myth you like). Setting up the rules and kicking back to see what happens is what the Deists believed, the clockmaker God.

Re:I believe

[nomadic]

Yes, slashdot, it's possible to believe in God and science without being a damned fundie that makes my faith look bad.

Yes, it is possible, but intelligent design isn't the way to do it. ID directly contradicts natural selection.

Re:I believe

[Elwood P Dowd]

The theory of intelligent design is considered, by its proponents, to be proof that God exists. Believing in God & science usually means that you don't buy ID.

Re:I believe

[sqlgeek]

How much lab equiptment do you need in order to say "I don't understand, therefor God?" Mmmm, lets all call that science, shall we? I'm stealing Bradford DeLong's words, but I'm counting on folk around here not reading economists too much.

Cheers,
Scott

Re:I believe

[0racle]

And just because you don't want it to be doesn't mean that there is no God. The assumpsion that the universe is consistent is incorect anyway. Scientists believe that the laws of physics break down at the speed of light. Its a 'fact' that matter can not travel faster then light, well that is unless its being ejected from a black hole. The universe is already known to not be consistent, everything we know about it is hinged on the current situation it was observed in, its all relative. Try giving a straight (correct) answer to the question, "Is Light a Partical or a Wave?"

Re:I believe

[Planesdragon]

Unfortunately for the faithful this means no miracles. Just because science can't explain something doesn't mean it was 'God.'

Wrong. Quantum Mechanics wrong.

Not, "as wrong as QM." But "wrong because of QM."

QM; God's backdoor into the universe.

Re:I believe

[Rheingold]

How would you know what a universe that wasn't designed looked like? Have you ever experienced a universe that was designed? "Design" is one of those things that we as humans recognize in relation to things not designed; we compare, say, a chair with a fallen tree. Both can be appropriated for the task of sitting, but one is designed and other other not (presuming, of course, we're talking about a knocked over). How would you recognize if the universe werre not designed?

BTW, if you're really interested in the question and not merely espousing it as a foundation for other less tenable beliefs, I recommend that you read Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian (And Other Essays)" and George Smith's ""Atheism: The Case Against God."

Re:I believe

[olyar]

The foundation of intelligent design is that there exists a God who is both personal and creative. So humans and animals were created by him, and the physical laws are the *tools* he used to create them. Science then becomes the study of how God does things... I can believe in intelligent design and still believe in the process of evolution. I don't think that God just created the process, set it in motion and then left. He is actively involved in it, watching it play out... just like if you were running a piece of software you'd written. The only difference is that God's code doesn't have any bugs, so it doesn't have to be revised. There's no "gravity 0.9 pre-release".

Re:I believe

[jridley]

There's no problem with God and science. It doesn't even require the hack of intelligent design to do it.
The only conflict lies between science and a dogmatic belief in the infallible literal truth of (pick your favorite religious text).

If you're willing to believe in the truth behind the religious text rather than the (translated x times) literal words themselves, most people have no trouble reconciling that with scientific discovery.

I know a jesuit brother who's a professional astronomer and meteorite collection curator. He works directly for the Vatican. HE has no problem between science and faith.

Re:I believe

[FuturePastNow]

The first concept, God as a direct designer, strikes me as little different from 'normal' religion. The second concept is more of a deist thing. As far as I know, ID covers both concepts.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you have to "believe" in god?

You say that you're not closed-minded, but there's a difference between open and gaping.

I believe that it's possible a sentient creator could exist. I also believe it is possible that one might not exist. But without evidence to either side, I don't just randomly throw my "belief" at one.

I don't "believe" in anything scientific, either. There isn't really a place in science for belief. There is a place in science for hunches and educated guesses, but not beliefs. Beliefs presuppose a thing without evidence for or against it.

Why not say "There is no proof that fairies do or do not exist, so I believe in them". Would it not be more open and make more sense to say "there is no proof that fairies do or do not exist, so I neither believe that they exist nor do I believe that htey do not exist".

In fact, just replace "believe" with "assume" in all cases.

You ASSUME that god exists.

Re:I believe

[nes11]

"Unfortunately for the faithful this means no miracles. Just because science can't explain something doesn't mean it was 'God.'"

You're working from a very limited definition of a miracle. Many "miracles" can be explained naturally, but the circumstances and chances of it happening are just short of impossible.

Take the battle of Jericho from the Bible for example. Thousands of people march around a city in a mountainous region for 7 days & then jump around & shout. Pretty soon the earth shakes & the walls fall. Sounds like an earthquake to me. But try to explain the timing. Alot of things would have had to be just right for that to work.

Re:I believe

[Zzesers92]

and... just because science can explain something does not preclude God, ever, period.

Here's how I like to think of God, personally. Whatever changed and resulted in the singularity expanding is God. It's not some santa clause human-looking white man with a big white beard throwing lightning bolts from the sky. It is what made this glorious universe possible, whatever that was, however explained. That is God. And I'm very happy it happened.

Re:I believe

[yahyamf]

If a religious scripture makes statements that are not disproved yet, or not proven yet, by science, then a person of intelligence may believe in it without giving anyone any grounds to label him irrational. However when a scripture makes a statement about something that is clearly shown to be false, and after that if someone insists on believing the scripture, that is stupid. And it alienates people from the religion. One may then examine the various scriptures with this criteria

Re:I believe

[Thunderstruck]

Unfortunately for the faithful this means no miracles. Just because science can't explain something doesn't mean it was 'God.'

Sure you can have miracles and consistency, in fact if your got is omiscient thats really the most reasonable system.

You need a miraculous event? Say an eclipse on a certain day, or maybe a parting of the Red Sea? Well since your omniscient God knew exactly when and where this stuff had to happen when he made the whole bloody thing, the necessary elements which produce the "miracle" should be traceable back as far as you'd like to go. Shouldn't they?

Re:I believe

[MightyMartian]

Intelligent Design is merely Creationism dressed up in new clothes in an attempt to subvert US Constitutional prohibitions against teachign religion in public schools. It isn't science.

Re:I believe

[PeterFranks]

i thought it was a book of HISTORY that people later assumed must be a book about THEOLOGY.

Re:I believe

[FuturePastNow]

That's a perfectly valid belief, especially in the context of things you'll never be able to prove. That said... I find it very difficult to take people who believe in ID seriously. They're usually just fundamentalists trying to circumvent the separation of church and state, one step at a time.

Re:I believe

[Bandman]

It probably depends a great deal on who you ask. It's pretty tough for me to nail down, really.

I believe in God, or a Supreme Being of whatever name you choose to call Him. I feel that He created the universe and the physical laws that govern it, and I believe (and hope) that He has some kind of interaction with it.

On a physical level, I can't prove God exists, but that doesn't stop me from believing spiritually.

Just so you know, I caunt myself as a Deist. I believe God exists, and the rest is just details.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that it's possible a sentient creator could exist. I also believe it is possible that one might not exist. But without evidence to either side, I don't just randomly throw my "belief" at one.

I think it's a good point, but I don't generally believe things based on a choice. I believe something when I am convinced of it. Evidence is certainly a good way to convince me that something is probably true, but it's not the only possibility. A "gut feeling" might also convince me, particularly in cases where evidence one way or the other is unatainable. A feeling is a much weaker convicer, but that doesn't make it invalid. The feeling could be wrong, but evidence can also point to an incorrect conclusion.

Re:I believe

[JohnFluxx]

Your post is not logical. Just because there are in different classifications, does not mean they cannot contradict each other.

In this particular case, this is because the bible talks about the physical (jesus, creationism, the flood) as well as the meta-physical (God). The physical is the realm of science, and thus the two overlap. And where there is overlap, there can be contradictions.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

in a mountainous region

Avalanche? Rockslide?

Its more than just the timing, its that the people knew about these events and used them to their advantage. What strategian would know that there would be an earthquake in 7 days? (or alternatively - if you don't want to accept prediction of the future, that if they arranged their forces around the city and made enough noise, it would disrupt the snowcaps on the nearby mountains enough to cause enough of it to fall down to cause the ground to shake enough to expose a weakpoint in the wall which could then be charged by the soldiers nearest to it?)

Similarly with parting the red sea: portions of it are shallow enough that a very strong wind can hold the water back enough to make it crossable, but how would people know to go to that place at the same time as the wind was blowing the right direction?

Re:I believe

[killjoe]

Yes but what do you do when your theology conflicts with science?

God is by definition omnicient and infallible. So if god tells you to kill homosexuals (he does!) or when he tells you that pi = 3 or when he tells you that the universe was created in 7 days around 3000 years ago what do you?

Re:I believe

[igny]

There's no "gravity 0.9 pre-release".

There is no such thing now, since likely all pre-releases got scraped.

Re:I believe

[killjoe]

Why not add other options too. I am curius as to why you guys stopped at these options.

Re:I believe

[ArsonSmith]

In my agnostic ways this would be the only acceptable deffinition of God I would serously consider. I have always put the label of Mother Nature to it though.

Re:I believe

[cayenne8]

"How much lab equiptment do you need in order to say "I don't understand, therefor God?" Mmmm, lets all call that science, shall we? I'm stealing Bradford DeLong's words, but I'm counting on folk around here not reading economists too much."

I prefer "I drink, therefore I AM" ---Monty Python

:-)

Re:I believe

[networkBoy]

Right, so let me clarify:
I've always taken I.D. to mean "guided evolution", in so far as life is possible without external guideance. Evolution is real.
BUT
Self awareness requires some additional "help" if you will.

That's my 2 cents and take what you will from it.
-nB

Re:I believe

[DarkSarin]

Some others have pointed out flaws in your reasoning, let me make a more concerted argument.

Many people, and apparently yourself included, suppose that if God does something, then it must be through some "magical" process that we mere mortals can never hope to understand. Many religions state this outright--"God is unknowable, etc".

I personally believe that this concept is false. Personally my belief in God incorporates a being that knows everything, and has enough knowledge that what looks like a miracle to us is merely the workings of a sound scientific principle--even if we haven't fully discovered said principle. Thus, the concept of a God who can work miracles (from our viewpoint) is once again realistic. So the corrally of "Just because science can't explain something doesn't mean it was God" is simply: "Just because science CAN explain something doesn't mean that it WASN'T God".

This is why the concept (if not the particulars) of ID appeals to me--it articulates the concept that a being with sufficient knowledge could have created not just this planet, but the entire universe as we understand it (thus existing outside of that work, and separate from it).

Look at our sci-fi for examples of this--in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, there is a whole civilization that makes a habit of building custom designed planets. In Star Trek, terraforming is occasionally addressed. Finally, in Titan A.E., a ship is built that creates a planet from ice, energy and asteroids with the goal of recreating the earth.

Think about this--in the Bible Christ turns water into Wine. It says nothing on how, but I think that we can all easily imagine that this might be possible in the not too distant future. The mechanism might vary, but the point is that a miracle is simply an event that we do not fully yet understand. Does it make it any less miraculous that Christ, without medical tools, restored sight to a blind man, just because we are going to be able to do that ourselves before too long, using certain surguries, and whatnot? I don't think so.

So, yes, I believe in God. Do I have proof? Well, not the kind that most slashdotters are going to accept, but I accept it, and that's what matters.

Re:I believe

[Forge]

For me it's the last of the options. I belive God designed phisics and wrote the laws of the universe so that life like us would develop.

That dosn't mean he didn't specificaly direct the evolution of man such that we would become as we are.

I like to mention the apparent coincidence in the creation story (from Genisis chapter 1 in the Bible) and the evidence from the fosile record. I.e. Creaping things before birds and all beasts before man.

How did primitive man before the sience of paleantology come up with the same order of creation?

Re:I believe

[skiman1979]

If I had mod points, I'd mod you up. There are different theories on the creation of the universe, whether you believe in the "big bang", creation, or anything else. However the universe came to be, it had to come from somewhere. Assuming the universe exploded from a grain of dust, that grain of dust had to come from somewhere. Seems reasonable to me to say that God put it there and caused it to explode into what we have today.

If you go with Creation, the Bible says God created the Heavens and Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th. To my knowledge, it doesn't define what a "day" is. Could these days be actually years or centuries or more?

It's not like the universe (or the dust cloud that created it) just existed through all eternity. If it did, call that God. After all, they do say God is everywhere, all knowing, etc.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

otherwise you break the biggest assumption of science, that the universe is consistent.

Absolute consistency is not a requirement of science. You often hear talk of natural laws "breaking down" in proximity to the Big Bang, for example. Science is about describing the universe in law-like terms, and the more law-like the universe is, the more complete science can be. But if an event happens in violation of the usual laws, then it won't be amenable to scientific enquiry.

To reiterate, consistency is a matter of degree, not a "yes/no" proposition, and science is a matter of recognising consistency. God can create the universe in six days, if he so chooses, and still leave the world in a fit state for scientists to discover the laws of physics and chemistry. Problems only arise when you assume more consistency than actually exists.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Your arrogant spelling of particle hurts me.

Re:I believe

[ifwm]

"Try giving a straight (correct) answer to the question, 'Is Light a Partical or a Wave?'"

Easy, wave. Mostly because there's no such thing as a partical.

Re:I believe

[JohnFluxx]

You are extremely confused.

"Try giving a straight (correct) answer to the question, "Is light a Partical(sic) or a Wave""

The answer is 'mu'. It doesn't mean the universe is inconsistent. We haven't yet found a single inconsistency of the universe. Only that our theories are wrong and need to be revised.

And, no, material isn't spewed out at the speed of light from a black hole (at least, no creditable scientist would say so).

Again, 'the laws of physics break down at the speed of light'. This isn't right or wrong, it's just a nonsense sentence. It's like saying 'can God create a rock that he cannot lift?'

Re:I believe

[ArsonSmith]

I don't think I stated anywhere that I, science, or anyone has all the answers. I just don't think it is healthy to use a religious dogma to push against the pursuit of finding those answers.

Also, just because something looks random doesn't mean it is. Laws of physics may break down but that doesn't mean that new laws will be found that are consistent and don't break down. Science is a collection of information that hasn't been proven wrong. Thereby, Laws, Proofs are never proven right. They only gather evidence of their correctness through experimentation and similar observation.

Re:I believe

[Scrameustache]

in intelligent design.
-nB
--
Hacking your Xbox?

Mentions of "intelligent design" and "xbox" in the same post? Now I'm depressed! : (

Re:I believe

[0racle]

Just because there is no such thing as a partical does not instantly make the other option correct.

Your right though, I made a mistake but you knew what I meant though so did you really have to be so anal?

Re:I believe

[Laser Lou]

I'm a Christian, and for some reason, "Intelligent Design" makes as much sense to me as "Inteligent Analysis," "Intelligent Creation," or "Intelligent Testing." Isn't that assigning a human metaphor to the divine?

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not add other options too.

Who is stopping you? Nobody said the intelligent design viewpoint is limited to those two.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Originally it was a euphemism for "Divine Creation". People wanted the Biblical account to be taught along side with Evolution in schools, so they invented Intelligent Design.

Re:I believe

[ifwm]

"Just because science CAN explain something doesn't mean that it WASN'T God".

That's what Occam's Razor is for. As in the simplest explanation that fits the evidence is usually best (paraphrase). God, being unprovable, will rarely (if ever) fit these criteria.

Re:I believe

[LurkerXXX]

It is consistant.

If you do a photoelectric effect experiment you will always see light acting as a particle.

If you do a slit experiment you will always see light acting as a wave.

Just because you (or I) can't wrap your brain about the physics that can wind up making it act so, doesn't mean it isn't consistant.

Re:I believe

[ChuckleBug]

And just because you want it to be doesn't mean there is a god. Lather, rinse, repeat. That's not a very fruitful line of argument.

I don't have the strength to get into a whole thing over this, but I must say three things:

1 - Relativity is not the same as inconsistency.
2 - Your assertions are a bunch of nonsequiturs, and it looks as if you really don't know much about physics.
3 - In light of that, who the hell are you to determine what's a "correct" answer to "Is Light a Partical (sic) or Wave?" (Bonus 3b: Why the weird capitalization?)

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Try giving a straight (correct) answer to the question, "Is Light a Partical or a Wave?"

It's neither.

Re:I believe

[ArsonSmith]

coincidence does not a miracle make.

Re:I believe

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

So, a neutrino pushes his new Chevy Proton into the garage and says to the quantum mechanic... "I need a miracle!".

Ba da dump!

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week...

Re:I believe

[doublem]

Oh, there are a LOT of other options, and many schools of thought on how to define "Intelligent Design".

Those two were just the ones mentioned in the current discussion.

Re:I believe

[ArsonSmith]

But doesn't that fit the deist idea that god created the universe but then doesn't interfere? Sure he might have set it in motion to end up a certain way, but that still says that the universe has to be consistent and he started everything to work out through it's consistent manor to end at a specific point.

Wouldn't that also mean that god pre-planned exactly who and what everyone was going to be and that there can be no evil. Your life was pre programmed when god made the universe so you have no choices in life.

Re:I believe

[ifwm]

"Isn't that assigning a human metaphor to the divine?"

You mean like the bible?

Re:I believe

[Dyolf Knip]

One of ID's other tenets is that speciation and significant morphological changes by evolution alone is impossible, and that instead magic underpants gnomes have been running around making modifications to the DNA of millions of species for 3 or 4 billion years.

Gee, I don't see any problems with that idea at all!

Re:I believe

[KillerDeathRobot]

Of course, Occam's Razor says "most likely" or "usually" as you put it. The significance is that the simplest explanation isn't ALWAYS the correct one.

PS. I know that Occam's Razor actually says something about increasing entities, but that's not the point.

Re:I believe

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Unfortunately, the "god" of the plausible "intelligent design" theorist might turn out to be a global colony of sentient bacteria, that can literally alter our DNA at whim. Read some Greg Bear.

However, just recently, biblethumping retards have hijacked the name, and are once again using it to reenact the Scopes monkey trial. Proof? When's the last time you heard one of them say "it may not have been God at all, but space aliens, or human time-travelers from the future" or for that matter, any explanation not involving their favorite deity?

In the words of Greg Bear, even evolution is evolving.

Re:I believe

[Innova]

There is a very good resource that covers alot of the topics being covered here. Here is a link to the God FAQ.

Re:I believe

[ifwm]

"Just because there is no such thing as a partical does not instantly make the other option correct"

Actually, when there are only two choices, and one is invalid, then the only possible choice by process of elimination is the other one.

"Your right though, I made a mistake but you knew what I meant though so did you really have to be so anal?"

Well, I figured I learned how to spell and compose coherently. YOU never bothered with these things, and your inability to accurately convey your meaning is immensely frustrating to those of us who paid attention in school.

So the real question is did you really have to be such a shitty writer.

Re:I believe

[ahodgson]

Sure, God wanted us to be intelligent, but took 3 billion years of fucking around to get to it.

Right ....

ID is an escape hatch for those who cannot deny the obviousness of evolution but don't want to give up their need to belief in God and, ergo, an afterlife.

Re:I believe

[EpsCylonB]

You know this is interesting, I have recently just finished reading Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. Anyone who is familliar with the book will understand why christians might get upset about some of the ideas expressed in it.

I do not doubt the existence of a God, or many Gods, but I do doubt the existence of the christian God (and the deities of every other religion I know as well). While we have made great leaps of understanding since we as a species have gained intelligence, there are and possibly always will be questions that we can not answer. What was there before the big bang ?, for example. A God is as rational an explanation as any other and while you can't prove a Gods existence you can not disprove it either.

But the Bible is not in my opinion anywhere near being reliable evidence. Too much of it conflicts with what we can today sceintifically prove. According to the Bible God made man, fully formed, in one day (probably 10,000 years ago according to most christians), according to evolution life began over 600 million years ago and slowly evolved into us.

To bring this back to The Da Vinci Code, one of the suppositions made is that Jesus Christ was never a divine being, he was not the son of God, he was a mortal man just like you and me. His Divinity was supposedly given to him later on during revisions of the Bible with the aim of making Jesus more inspirational and special than the messiahs of competing religions. Although this seems to have caused a fuss this was a conclusion that I had already come to before I read the book.

I have very little doubt that a man called Jesus existed, there is no smoke without fire so to say that he never existed would be going to far. But I have always believed him to be nothing more than a human who had lead a very productive life, he probably helped many people, he spread his own religion far and he influenced many people. Its because of this that we still talk about him today. But I see no actual evidence of him being special beyond anything natural. Until I see evidence, someone walking on water, magically making bread appear, etc. I can not believe in the christian God.

Re:I believe

[Darby]

You do know that the city of Jericho had been abandoned for over a hundred years before that "battle" don't you?

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

How did primitive man before the sience of paleantology come up with the same order of creation?

He didn't. Reread Genesis: apparently there were plants on Earth before the Sun even existed.

Re:I believe

[geoffrobinson]

Inteligent Design does not require that one cease believing in the evolutionary model. It is just saying the atheism is untenable when looking at the information found in nature. Obviously, the arguments are more involved than that, but your characterization (whether you agree or not) are wrong.

Re:I believe

[Spock the Baptist]

It's a wavical!

Re:I believe

[cbreeze34]

God does not tell us to kill homosexuals. He told the Israelites to kill the Nephilim, who happened to be practicing homosexuality. He also destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, where all of the inhabitants practiced homosexual gang rape. But Hebrew laws do not apply to us.

God does not tell us that pi=3. To understand why you have to know a couple things: 1. Hebrew letters are also used to represent numbers. 2. The original hebrew word for the circumfirence of the pool in the passage you're talking about was misspelled in the original text (the word was used to mean "circumference" as well as the actual measured circumference). 3. Translators "fixed" it, but the original spelling, when the letters are summed, give an approximation of pi much better than you could probably figure out by measuring with your hand.

3000 years ago? 7 days? Ever consider the relativistic effects of a God watching the universe from the outside? A day with the Lord is as a thousand years. A thousand or a billion, I think God's hinting at the fact that there's more to consider than the number of times the earth rotated during creation.

Re:I believe

[the_mad_poster]

Please note: your current belief system appears not to clash with the bulk of evolutionary theory in any way (in particular, you appear to only be against the idea of "random mutations" meaning your "belief you can't prove" here is that there is some system guiding mutations. However, since a system can only be accurately labeled as "random" by the person controlling it, your dissention on the point is not sufficient to suggest you do not accept evolution's major theories). You appear to be one of the countless evolutionists who (rightly) see no threat to their theological beliefs within the theory of evolution.

You have also not provided any indication that you believe in I.D.

I think you should read up on it. If you accept the majority of the current evolutionary model, you might be surprised at how ludicrous I.D. is by comparison.

Re:I believe

[ugmoe]

Intelligent Design, therefore, while perhaps a good example of things to believe in without proof, has nothing to do with science and god. It has much more, however, to do with politically empowered people who don't understand science, and the people they seem to think are somehow disproving god.

What does that have to do with genetically modified food?

Genetically modified organisms are definitely a product of intelligent design (human design) but say nothing about the existance of god or evolution.

Re:I believe

[Nopal]

How would you know what a universe that wasn't designed looked like?

That is the point of the whole story: Belief on what can not be proven. Your question is sort of pointless because you can't prove it either way. You didn't RTFA or even the title of the story, did you?

Have you ever experienced a universe that was designed?

Aparently that has already been answered by the partent with a resounding Yes!.

"Design" is one of those things that we as humans recognize in relation to things not designed

No, not really. Design is one of those things that indicates intelligent origin, that's all. You can call a DVD player "designed", but yet you can't point to a naturally-occurring DVD player growing wild on some jungle or being mined from the earth.

Re:I believe

[geomon]

It is just saying the atheism is untenable when looking at the information found in nature.

That statement is contradicted by the information we find in nature. There is *no* physical evidence that god exists or it would have been broadcast to the entire world in multiple venues. What you consider evidence is just how you apply your own filter to the data that exists. When you look at an eye, you apply your filter by saying "Nothing that complex could be created by random events". The facts , however, are far different from your filter.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

ID directly contradicts natural selection.

How did you reach that conclusion? ID may contradict a number of things, but "natural selection" isn't one of them. An Intelligent Design theorist sees Natural Selection as one mechanism whereby natural degradation through mutation can be avoided. Evolutionists like to emphasise progress through selection of improvements, but the much larger role that Natural Selection plays is to keep harmful mutations low in the population -- a role quite compatible with Intelligent Design.

Re:I believe

[downward dog]

You're right for the most part, but: ...and the people they seem to think are somehow disproving god.

It would be more accurate to say: ...and the people who seem to think that they are somehow disproving god.

There are plenty of people, many of whom are very famous, who think that evolution/science disproves the existence of God. ID is right in disagreeing with them. Where ID goes wrong, in my opinion, is to use the "God of the gaps" model to try to prove God. Throughout history, people have used God to explain the unexplainable (e.g. a solar eclipse, gravity, creation). But eventually, science comes along and explains these things, and God is no longer necessary. So this is dangerous territory for theists - if you base your belief in God on one of these gaps, what happens when the gap is filled?

If you're going to believe in God, there are plenty of other reasons to do so. There is no need to claim that the eye was too complex to have been formed by evolution (Michael Behe and ID).

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never believed in creationism that I know of; I have always believed in evolution; I have always believed in God. How does believing that God is responsible for evolution subvert the separation of Church and state?
It's not like teachers need to teach the root cause of evolution, just how it works.

Re:I believe

[ArsonSmith]

If god put it there where did god come from?

Oh yea he's eternal.

guess a grain of dust cant be eternal but a supernatural being with magical powers can be.

Re:I believe

[mapmaker]

From this post it appears you don't really know what evolution is, nor what I.D. professes either.

Evolution and guidance are mutually exclusive terms. Development based on guidance is not evolution, as evolutionary development is by definition a process that does not involve guidance.

It is possible to reconcile the existence of evolution with the existence of God, if you believe that God created the universe in such a way that evolutionary processes within it would lead to intelligent life.

But I.D. does not do this. I.D. simply professes that God (the "I" in I.D.) designed (the "D" in I.D.) all the life that we see around us. This is merely creationism by another name. It does not reconcile God with evolution.

Re:I believe

[Spy der Mann]

You bet! Someday people will realize that the Bible is a book of THEOLOGY and not a book of SCIENCE.

How funny. The Pope just stated that a few years ago. And in the catechism we learn that the Bible should not be interpreted literally (as do *cough* Jehovah's Witnesses *cough* 144,000 * cough cough* and others)

As a side note, Galileo wasn't banned for his astronomy findings, but because of misinterpretations by particular memebers of the clergy.

From the wikipedia:

In 1992, 359 years after the Galileo trial, Pope John Paul II issued an apology, lifting the edict of Inquisition against Galileo: "Galileo sensed in his scientific research the presence of the Creator who, stirring in the depths of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating and assisting his intuitions." After the release of this report, the Pope said further that "... Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard the relation of scientific and Biblical truths than the theologians who opposed him."

It's ironic... how protestants, who accused the Catholic Church of promoting ignorance, ended up being more ignorant and intolerant themselves.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I figured I learned how to spell and compose coherently. YOU never bothered with these things, and your inability to accurately convey your meaning is immensely frustrating to those of us who paid attention in school.

I figured out what he meant. Perhaps you're just too stupid to put a simple spelling error into context? Or, more likely, you're just an anal jerk.

Re:I believe

[0racle]

Slashdot is an informal medium. Mistakes happen, people post quickly and quite frankly, it doesnt really matter if someone makes a mistake. You knew I meant particle, even Google suggested I meant 'particle.' Are you incapable of doing what a simple script can? I hope I have get to see the next time you make a mistake and some jackass jumps all over you for it.

Lets assume someone, a man, goes to the doctor and since it is their first time there, they are required to fill in a form giving some needed personal information. One of the questions is 'Sex?' with the options of 'Female' or 'Hermaphrodite.' Ignoring the fact that this is a real stupid set of options, the choice 'Female' is obviously incorrect whereas he has half the parts to make him a hermaphrodite. Are you suggesting that simply because the choise female is obviously wrong he should choose hermaphrodite because that was his only other choice? Just because one option is obviously wrong does not make the other one instantly correct. The correct way to deal with it is not answer at all, too bad you couldn't do that.

Re:I believe

[Grax]

Any claims concerning the age of the universe are based on the flawed idea that we can extrapolate information on ages and distances from a relatively small sample.

Try estimating the population of the planet earth based on the population density of a small Nebraska town and you'll have some idea of what I am talking about.

Recorded history can be examined for clues concerning the passage of time. Unfortunately recorded history only amounts to about 6000 years so that really isn't much help.

The scientific age of the earth is only accurate if the underlying assumptions are accurate. We have no way of knowing whether or not they are.

Re:I believe

[|/|/|||]

What evidence implies that self awareness requires anything outside of the visible universe?

Think about it - throughout human history everything complicated has been explained as an "act of God" until we gained enough knowledge to understand it. The motions of the planets, how reproduction works, how species change over time, etc. Right now we don't understand how the physical brain causes the sensation of "consciousness," but do you really think that it can't be explained without invoking the supernatural?

Re:I believe

[the_mad_poster]

Erm... I don't think you understand intelligent design. Ironically, it doesn't say WHAT the controlling force is, only that some guiding system causes evolution to happen in a particular way (I don't think it's should be called "intelligent" design. Since whatever is supposedly guiding the mutations is doing so with a hypothetical goal, this being or power must be pretty damn stupid since it screws up almost every mutation and kills the host).

The problem with I.D. is that it makes HUGE assumptions that it can't support. For example, to believe in I.D., you MUST believe that the entire bilogical spectrum is one complete system with a set function.

Simple observations do not support this. For example, if a lifeform is unnaturally pushed into extinction, the entire ecosystem across the globe does not begin to collapse. Therefore, the system's parts must not make up a single-function whole as I.D. suggests (the illustration most commonly given is a mousetrap with a hammer, spring, base, and the trap itself. If any one of those pieces is removed, the entire system becomes useless because it is a single function system). That is, the system must be adaptable at some level. If the system is adaptable, then we know that any given part can potentially be removed (or never exist) without causing the entire system to fail. Since I.D. says that evolution can't happen because the system would collapse without all the parts to support it, but we know for a fact that we can remove parts without a complete failure, we don't have to jump very far to call the argument a load of crap.

THOSE are the sort of things that leave I.D. as nothing but silly ideological nonsense. I am consistently becoming more and more convinced that only idiots believe it, because it has nothing to do with either science OR religion, just stupidity.

Faithful people have creationism.
Critical thinkers (sort of..) have abiogenesis.
Idiots have I.D.

Re:I believe

[Spy der Mann]

Intelligent Design is merely Creationism dressed up in new clothes in an attempt to subvert US Constitutional prohibitions against teachign religion in public schools.

Sounds a lot like DeCSS regarding the DMCA.

As much as I dislike religious creationism, the religion ban on schools is anticonstitutional (1st ammendment anyone?) and unfair. Let people pray in schools, those who feel offended can leave the classroom with no penalties.

Re:I believe

[Zzesers92]

But I think that's what the parent poster was saying, and what I was trying to get at... call that grain of dust God.

Religion tries to spoonfeed images of God to the masses by watering it down into ideas that most people can wrap their minds around. God may not be a "being" in any sense of the word that we can understand. It's not the guy pumping your gas at the local BP. Whatever started this, and science does tend indicate from our understanding that there was a "start" to our universe because most scientist today believe there is an age to our universe, is God. Whatever changed, is God.

As for eternity, if it started in a singularity, it's generally accepted that all laws of physics (including time) break down at the singularity, so, in essense, there was no eternity before the singularity changed.

Anyway, I love thinking about this stuff. Hope you all do to.

Re:I believe

[zCyl]

Try giving a straight (correct) answer to the question, "Is Light a Partical or a Wave?"

Only after you give me a straight (correct) answer to the question, "Is Light a Chicken or an Egg?"

When I look at a chicken light looks like a chicken, and when I look at an egg light looks like an egg. So which is it?

Ask the wrong question, and you get the wrong answer.

Re:I believe

[ifwm]

"The correct way to deal with it is not answer at all, too bad you couldn't do that."

So, you're not smart enough to spell or write coherently, but you're wise enough to decide "the correct" way for people to act.

Riiiight.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger because you can't prove anyone loaded it. I prefer to believe in God, if I'm wrong I've lost nothing. If you're wrong ... well, that can't be good. :)

And don't use The Da Vinci Code as a reason for any faith - it's fiction, written to sell copies!

Re:I believe

[downward dog]

Erm... I don't think you understand intelligent design.

That is possible.

Ironically, it doesn't say WHAT the controlling force is, only that some guiding system causes evolution to happen in a particular way (I don't think it's should be called "intelligent" design.

Even if it doesn't say what the controlling force is, it is pretty obvious from the IDers I've read that it is God (and usually the Judeo-Christian God). The entire agenda behind the movement is to (at minimum) debunk the idea that science and an intelligent designer are incompatible, and (at most) to prove that an intelligent designer is required to explain the natural world.

Am I wrong?

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that our Heavenly Father invented man because he was disappointed in the monkey.
Everything starts as somebody's day dream.
'Tis an ill cook that cannot lick his own fingers.
No man understands a deep book until he has seen and lived at least part of its contents.
All of the significant battles are waged within the self.

No author ever drew a character consistent to human nature, but he was forced to ascribe to it many inconsistencies.
Excellence encourages one about life generally it shows the spiritual wealth of the world. The legs are the wheels of creativity.

The first duty of love is to listen.
It is invariable found that a content man is usually a weak one.

When it comes to finances, remember that there are no withholding taxes on the wages of sin.
It's too bad I'm not as wonderful a person as people say I am, because the world could use a few people like that.
I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

Bed is the poor man's opera.
Love is the only gold.

The best liar is he who makes the smallest amount of lying go the longest way.
A man likes his wife to be just clever enough to appreciate his cleverness, and just stupid enough to admire it.
When disposition wins us, the features please.

Re:I believe

[geoffrobinson]

You are reaching with that conclusion. *No* physical evidence. How about the Big Bang? Bias is on both sides. Atheists want nothing more than to live their lives without God so they can live a life without any ultimate consequences.

Re:I believe

[MightyMartian]

> As much as I dislike religious creationism, the religion ban on schools is anticonstitutional (1st
> ammendment anyone?) and unfair. Let people pray in schools, those who feel offended can leave the
> classroom with no penalties.

This isn't about praying in schools. If a student or group of students wish to do so, then their rights are protected. However, if school staff require that students take part in prayers, then they are violating the Constitution.

Teaching Creationism in a public school science class is clearly pushing a specific religious view, which isn't even shared by many religious people. The issue of students being allowed to pray is not the same as the issue of students being taught a religious belief (even if carefully cloaked in seemingly neutral language) by an employee of the state (namely, a public school teacher).

Re:I believe

[jfengel]

Well pointed out. I just wish to add that Intelligent Design doesn't necessarily preclude atheism, either.

You can well believe that the evidence presented in nature means that there must be an intelligent designer. (We can debate that ad nauseam, but let's just accept it as true at the moment.) However, that does not necessitate that "the designer of life on earth" == "the creator of the universe" == "the author of the Christian [or other] moral code".

This is the point on which the real controversy hangs. Opponents of ID are so vehement because they are concerned that ID's proponents wish to use it as a back door to force a moral code on nonbelievers. This does not follow logically: it may be that humans were designed by Klaatu the Alien rather than "God", and therefore even accepting ID we need not accept the various social constructions generally associated with ID's proponents (prayer in schools, opposition to homosexuality, government funding of religious schools and charities, etc.)

Mind you, I know nobody who actually believes this way. Well, that's not true: Star Trek (among others) posited that humans were placed here by aliens. But for the most part both ID's proponents and opponents believe that the ID argument equates the designer with the Christian God, and so ultimately this is a debate more about morality than science.

ID's proponents don't necessarily explicitly want to enforce their moral code, but rather to eliminate what they consider an erroneous argument for atheism. Neither ID nor evolution is a conclusive argument for or against theism, but ID does encourage (but not necessitate) the belief in God, and evolutionary theory does encourage (but not necessitate) the belief in the non-existence of God. It's unlikely that we'll ever have conclusive evidence one way or the other, so there will always be some element of "belief", which is what the top-level article is really about.

Re:I believe

[Doc Hopper]

And just because you don't want it to be doesn't mean that there is no God.

Any competent atheist will clarify, at this point, that she neither wants there to be "no God", nor is she attempting to disprove the existence of such a being. We do not yet know of any way to prove or disprove the existence of any kind of supernatural entity except through personal, non-double-blind, subjective experiences.

Scientists believe that the laws of physics break down at the speed of light.

No, scientists do not "believe" any such thing. Einstein's breakthrough in his famous "E equals M * C squared" formula was that of using light as a constant in his equations, rather than time (which had previously been presumed a constant). The ramifications of using light as a constant have been shown to be correct as far as we can currently test it: time appears to be a non-intersecting asymptote to the speed of light. I have little doubt, however, that we'll eventually discover that using the speed of light as a constant, much like a heliocentric view of the universe in celestial navigation, is not entirely correct, and we'll refine the model further.

A relevant quote from Kelvin Throop III: "Celestial navigation is based on the premise that the Earth is the center of the universe. The premise is wrong, but the navigation works. An incorrect model can be a useful tool."

String theorists and others are pushing the limits of Einstein's presumption of using light as a constant in mass/energy calculations, and it's possible the "rule" may change, just as celestial navigation has changed. The speed of light is a practical limitation on current mathematics, and the "facts" of science will continue to change.

Try giving a straight (correct) answer to the question, "Is Light a Partical or a Wave?"

The correct answer is "Yes". Light is a form of high-frequency radiation, which is a phenomenon that does not require an intervening medium to propagate. It is its own wave/particle duality, along with radiation in other spectra, which is being constantly explored and the definition refined. I lack the space, time, or interest to explain further, but much like trying to explain why water is wet and oil isn't, to fully understand it requires a good deal of shared background information.

Science rarely answers "why" things happen, only "how" they happen. It is in the realm of the "why" things happen (the metaphysical) that people find room for belief or faith. And that is an area of questioning that Science, while always closing the gap of understanding, will probably never fully answer.

Re:I believe

[Spy der Mann]

Teaching Creationism in a public school science class is clearly pushing a specific religious view, which isn't even shared by many religious people. The issue of students being allowed to pray is not the same as the issue of students being taught a religious belief (even if carefully cloaked in seemingly neutral language) by an employee of the state (namely, a public school teacher).

Okay. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I'm not american. In mexico we have religious schools. I remember that we had a religion class (catholic - needless to say that all kids were catholic in this school). Anyway I agree with you. This evolution/creation thing is just crazy. Let teachers teach evolution. It's science... religion is out of the scope when teaching science stuff.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

You can pray in schools as much as you want. It's the whole teachers leading/participating as a required excercise that became a problem. Imagine schools making kids say the Lord's Prayer along with the Pledge of Allegiance (although they really *don't* force anyone to say the Pledge. I never did, although I did stand as to not attract attention to myself.) I'd imagine that in some schools (the South comes to mind), you'd get punished for opting not to say it. I think this happened in some school in Alabama or Georgia a few years back. At the schools I went to, however, that wouldn't pass at all.

Re:I believe

[geomon]

You are reaching with that conclusion. *No* physical evidence. How about the Big Bang?

How about it? Is this just another appeal for "God in the Gaps"?

Bias is on both sides.

How so? You have irrefutable evidence of god's existence? Something testable and falsifiable?

I have an open mind. Fill it with something other than speculation and you will be able to convince me.

"Atheists want nothing more than to live their lives without God so they can live a life without any ultimate consequences."

Atheists (and I can only speak for the ones I know) want nothing more than to be left alone by religious people. They don't belive in god, so the threat of any "ultimate consequences" is moot.

We chose to be moral and good because it suits us, not because we fear for our fate after we die.

Re:I believe

[BillyBlaze]

I'm interested as to how you can define self-awareness in such a Boolean manner as you seem to. Do you draw a line, perhaps between humans and (other?) animals, where everything on one side isn't self-aware and everything on the other side has been given additional help, and thus is self-aware?

I personally don't see how one can draw such a line without a clear definition of self-awareness, and I can't think of (but am open to suggestions) any definition besides something like a Turing test. How else can you determine whether a given entity is self-aware?

My philosophy, when "self-awareness" is simplified to a scalar, leads to a spectrum, probably one which gets exponentially more sparse at the top, where I'd put healthy awake humans. Monkeys, dolphins, dogs, other "intelligent" animals might be around halfway down, the rest of the mamals say halfway down from them, and so on. I guess everything (except maybe a perfect crystal at 0 K) would have some nonzero self-awareness.

If you look at the multitude of things that exist very coarsely, you would see one class of things (objects) that have, for all intents and purposes, almost no self-awareness, and another class of things (humans) that are positively seething with it, and very few (animals) somewhere in between. But I like the spectrum idea, and with that idea, I can't think of a non-arbitrary place to draw the line as to which things evolved without guidance and which things were given the divine spark of self-awareness.

Feel free to disregard this as a straw-man argument, as you never explicitly said you drew a line between self-awareness haves and have-nots. But if you have, I really would be interested to know how you decided where to make the cut.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Both are valid schools of thought under the heading of "intelligent design"

If by "intelligent design" you mean allowing everything to evolve on it's own, I don't think many people will argue with you.

Intelligent design is exclusive of evolution. The term "design" in that context implies a plan or even an intent to create life, not a blind process that results in life. This is what seperates creationism from evolutionary theory.

Re:I believe

[MightyMartian]

> I have never believed in creationism that I know of; I have always believed in evolution; I have
> always believed in God. How does believing that God is responsible for evolution subvert the
> separation of Church and state?
> It's not like teachers need to teach the root cause of evolution, just how it works.

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "root cause", but it seems to me one of the big problems with science education in general is that it isn't properly explained that science isn't anti or pro-God, it's necessarily agnostic on that particular topic.

Evolution isn't an atheistic dogma, it serves an atheist no better than it serves a theist. It, like all scientific theories, has nothing to say on the existence or non-existence of God. Of course, certain religious beliefs are ultimately falsified or rendered useless by science. No one seriously thinks that Zeus sends down thunderbolts, or that Poseidon makes storms at sea. The same goes with Biblical Literalism, particularly in reference to Genesis.

Unfortunately for some branches of Christianity, a form of Bibliolatry has taken root. This seems to have created a litmus test in certain denominations, where either the person believes that everything in the Bible is literally true (except for the bits that are obviously metaphorical, heh heh heh) or they are not a true Christian.

In the older, pre-Reformation traditition (aka. Roman Catholicism) there is no requirement that the Bible must be read as a literal historical and scientific document. In fact, Biblical Literalism is a relatively young idea, not a deep-rooted one.

It's neither here nor there. A teacher in a public school should not be foisting a religious belief on his or her students. Even putting Constitutional issues aside, one would hope that teachers, and the educational system in general, would not teach blatantly incorrect things.

Re:I believe

[3Cats]

Teaching religion in public schools isn't against the U.S.constitution. The problem is that Fundie Christians only want Fundie Christianity's version of religion taught in public schools and too many of the people in positions of power are Fundie Christian. Under that condition the State is showing preference of one religion over another. That is against the constitution. If schools want to teach religion, all they have to do is be willing to teach ANY religion. Hindu, Muslim, Goddess Worship, Witchcraft, Santeria, Vodou, you get the picture. But Fundies come unglued at the thought of children being taught Vodou or Witchcraft and then the ACLU ( thankfully ) gets involved.

See, it's all or nothing. Can't have state sponsored religion. Same goes for public displays at the Winter Solstice ( Christmas for the rest of you ) The state cannot allow a creche on the front lawn of the courthouse unless they also allow a Menorah, a sign from the Atheists espousing that "There is no God", a yule tree and a nicely lit Pentacle.

As soon as the Atheists and Pagans want to join in, the fundies go apeshit and decry the evilness and hijacking of "their" Holiday and displays and declare that Christianity is "under attack" in this "Christian founded Nation"

3C.

Re:I believe

[skiman1979]

yes, that is what I was getting at. If the universe came from a grain of dust, we can call that grain God. So then the grain of dust (God) was always here, throughout eternity. But before the change occurred, to create the universe, one could say there was no time, and no eternity. Existing throughout eternity doesn't necessarily mean existing forever, maybe just existing as long as there is time (from our perspective).

Maybe what existed before the existence of the universe, and before God, was in fact God himself. Just as God's only begotten son, Jesus, said that he himself was God.

Re:I believe

[ChuckleBug]

I hope I have get to see the next time you make a mistake and some jackass jumps all over you for it.

It's true that you shouldn't be jumped on for the occasional typo, grammatical error, or whatever. But your original post was overflowing with errors. Look:

assumpsion

incorect

Its a 'fact'

can not

faster then light, well that is unless its being ejected from a black hole. (Should be "than" and "it's." Also a run-on sentence.)

The universe is already known to not be consistent, everything we know about it is hinged on the current situation it was observed in, its all relative. (Three sentences strung together with commas, and "its" should be "it's.")

"Is Light a Partical or a Wave?"

Informal communication doesn't require the highest standards, but your writings are loaded with errors. It may be unjust, but an inability to write coherently, grammatically, and with mostly correct spelling doesn't help one's credibility. I really don't mean this to be a flame - It's just that you're wrong feeling persecuted for some random slip. The errors are consistent.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose you can explain where the universe came from then?

Re:I believe

[La0tsu]

By your reasoning, if presented with the question, "Does 2+2 equal 1 or purple?" We know that purple isn't a valid answer, so the answer must be 1. Maybe you should clean up your on fallacies before you start being a dick about other people's.

Re:I believe

[Rheingold]

That is the point of the whole story: Belief on what can not be proven. Your question is sort of pointless because you can't prove it either way. You didn't RTFA or even the title of the story, did you?

It sounds like the title is about all you've read. The site and its articles aren't about things believed willy-nilly; the articles are experts describing their hunches based on their years of experience and synthesizing information outside their fields. It is not about experts having beliefs without cause--it's about experts having beliefs with cause but not rigorously proven (yet anyway). That is a critical distinction to make. To quote:

This is an alternative path. It may be that it's okay not to be certain, but to have a hunch, and to perceive on that basis. There is also evidence here that the scientists are thinking beyond their individual fields. Yes, they are engaged in the science of their own areas of research, but more importantly they are also thinking deeply about creating new understandings about the limits of science, of seeing science not just as a question of knowing things, but as a means of tuning into the deeper questions of who we are and how we know.

These questions are not about making vague statments and leaving them at belief; they are about stimulating thought and discussion--not about simply accepting a belief and rejecting discussion based on unprovability.

Aparently that has already been answered by the partent with a resounding Yes!.

That was a mistake on my part. The quesion was meant to be: Have you ever experienced a universe that was not designed?

No, not really. Design is one of those things that indicates intelligent origin, that's all. You can call a DVD player "designed", but yet you can't point to a naturally-occurring DVD player growing wild on some jungle or being mined from the earth.

You've just restated what I said: Design implies an abstraction (a function of intelligence) of a purpose from nature and then creation (by man) of something for that purpose.

Re:I believe

[Elracim]

I agree, God and science are two separate things. There are some things that science can never explain; the things that are beyond the scope of science are the domain of faith. Science will never tell us how reality came to be, or if has always been here, why? Things that are unknowable are either ignored, or taken as, you guessed it, matters of faith.

Slightly O.T. But as far as I.D. goes, I can't think of a more absurd thing to argue about... If there is a "God", and he insists on designing things, then he could have created the earth, everyone in it and their memories 10 minutes ago, being omnipotent and all. Doesn't seem really important...

Re:I believe

[Trogre]

Yes, slashdot, it's possible to believe in God and science

Of course it is, just don't make the mistake of calling the philosophical doctrine of evolution a science.

That's another unprovable belief for this discussion.

Re:I believe

[Dhalka226]

...can you count? That's not a particularly hard one to prove.

Re:I believe

[Rei]

Wrong. First off, here's 26 different ways scientists use to measure distances to stars:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm

Not all work in all circumstances, mind you, but all correspond. There's further more that can be used to measure ages of stars instead of the distance - the most famous being the plotting of stars from a cluster on a H-R diagram, but also from analyzing spectra of stars and other phenomina to determine how far through their fuel they've burned. It's not one piece of data that is looked at - it's billions of piece of data, virtually always corresponding in hundreds of different ways.

Secondly, stars aren't the only way to determine an age of the universe. For example, Earth is certainly no older than the universe. So, we can look at all isotopes on Earth that aren't part of a decay series or instead are otherwise continuously created. Here's a good summary:

http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/missing.html

Notice that *every* non-produced isotope on Earth with a half-life 700 million years and greater is found naturally, and *no* isotope with a half-life less than or equal to 16 million years is found in nature. Of the two in-between, Samarium 146 isn't found naturally, and plutonium 244 was found only by *extreme* effort (10^-14 grams in 85 kg of ore).

There are two options to explain this remarkably consistant phenomina. Either, for some bizarre reason, elements with half lives less than a few dozen million years don't get created naturally while all greater do, or the universe is old enough that the short half-life elements have all since decayed away. Well, apart from the sheer improbability of the first option, we *know* that it isn't true: we've witnessed in supernovae spectra, for example, the production of nickel-56 and cobalt-56. A really neat case was when we witnessed not only the predicted amount of production of cobalt-56 in a supernova, but its decay over time. Some stars additionally produce technetium-97 (3 mya half life). But it can't be found in "old" material, even in minute quantities.

Sure, you could claim that all half-lives were shorter in the past. But that's problematic; half-lives control the functionality of the sun, and heat the earth. The sun would die if half-lives were sped up, and the earth would fry. So, one could argue that things lost heat faster, etc, but eventually, you end up basically trying to argue that time ran faster in every respect in the past, which is essentially the same to an observer as time running as fast as it does now.

Re:I believe

[Doc Hopper]

This is why the concept (if not the particulars) of ID appeals to me--it articulates the concept that a being with sufficient knowledge could have created not just this planet, but the entire universe as we understand it (thus existing outside of that work, and separate from it).

The fundamental difficulty I have with the concept of intelligent design is that it must presume an "uncaused cause", or Prime Mover. If we were intelligently designed, then who designed the designers? It seems to add unnecessary complexity to evolution, when abiogenesis, while certainly not a complete explanation, offers a simpler explanation.

Kind of like the precocious question I asked my father as a kid. "Who's God's God?" "Well, son, God has no God." "Then where did he come from?" "He's always existed." "Why?"

To (badly) paraphrase a quote from a Firefly episode, "This is the kind of conversation that can only end in a gunshot."

I think the main problem many atheists run into is in figuring out their theological (or lack of theological) position with a particular Christian reference point. From a Christian perspective, Albert Einstein was certainly atheist (and defined himself using that term as compared to Christians). Yet some conjecture he was a Pantheist, and he also referred to himself as perhaps believing in "Spinoza's God", which is simply that "god" is Nature in all its awesome splendor. Many Western atheists choose to regard as highly unlikely an anthropomorphic and brutally vengeful god as recorded by primitive societies, but many also find great depth of spirituality in other forms.

To have a reverence for the beauty and order of nature, though, is not the same as assuming it was intelligently designed. I'm not saying there is no designer, but it sure seems to me that we're better off trying to figure out how we came about, using the resources at our disposal, than ascribing human creation to the supernatural and not investigating it further.

Who knows? Perhaps one day, in our exploration of evidence, we'll find proof of supernatural intervention. But I'm doubting it.

Re:I believe

[BillyBlaze]

Try giving a straight (correct) answer to the question, "Is Light a Partical or a Wave?"

Both.

If you don't think that's straight enough, tough cookies!, because it is, to the best of our knowledge, correct. Correctness is more important than the ability to express something as a sound byte, or to put some phenomenon into just one of two not-necessarily-disjoint sets.

The Theory of Realitivity is much more intricate than just saying "it's all relative" with a wave of the hand. The laws of physics "breaking down" at the speed of light doesn't mean they're inconsistent, it means our theories are. (If the laws were inconsistent, then we could theorize "The laws are inconsistent," and the laws would be consistent with that theory, right?) Similarly, quantum mechanics and string theory have some great explanations of light at the small scale, but they don't yet explain large things. Does that mean the universe is inconsistent? No, we just haven't found a theory that explains them. This is why we haven't stopped trying.

Science, as I'm sure you know, works by evaluating predictive and falsifiable theories based on how well they fit the current body of observations, while continually generating new theories and observations. This process generates a series of increasingly good approxmations of reality. But it hinges on the theories being predictive (otherwise, what's the point?) and testable (otherwise, how can you evaluate them?). So divine intervention, and by extension, the existence of God, is external to science, because it isn't very predictive and it certainly isn't falsifiable. This absolutely does not, however, preclude the existance of God - the theory that God doesn't exist is similarly outside science.

I'm agnostic, if you can't tell. But I'm right, dammit! :-)

Re:I believe

[Laser Lou]

I don't see the usage being the same. The Bible uses metaphors like "father", "hands" and "feet" to describes God's actions and his relationship to us. "Intelligent Design" implies that God just designs stuff.

Re:I believe

[Venner]

>>Of course, Occam's Razor says "most likely" or "usually" as you put it. The significance is that the simplest explanation isn't ALWAYS the correct one.
>>

Exactly. Weird things happen that are absolutely unexpected and most certainly not the 'easy answer'.

I have a book around here somewhere that has an article about a man who was stabbed and killed at a baseball game in the 30s. The simple explanation? Probably that someone didn't like him very much, right?

The unlikely truth of the matter was that the man sitting on his right was passing an open pocket knife to the man on his left and a foul ball struck the hand with the knife, driving the point into his throat. That's something about which - even if you were there - you'd be saying, "What the hell?! Can't be."

Even the fact that someone can spend a dollar on a lottery ticket and win millions of dollars is pretty crazy. Some people call it "a tax on people who can't do statistics", but I personally know someone who is $10,000 richer for a $1 ticket. It defies the odds.

Ocham's Razor.
Explain: He has millions of dollars.
dollars.
Simple explanations: He inherited it. He stole it. He earned it with his business.
Not simple: He managed to beat the 1 in 135,145,920 odds and won the Mega Millions jackpot. (Real odds)

Re:I believe

[cheesedog]

1+1=2 is false.

Math exists only in the mind. The symbols we use to do math may represent quantities in the real world, but we use symbolic manipulation to turn these symbols into more symbols, which we then project onto the world. But the world operates without these symbols. The stones or oranges or apples that you count to try to prove 1+1=2 are completely ignorant of the math involved, as is all substance that makes up those objects.

But I'm just rambling. It is true, however, that integer arithmetic is provably incomplete (which means that there are infinite "truths" in such a system which are not provable or derivable from any sort of rational process), or provably inconsistent (in which case the system is just broken, producing erroneous or conflicting results). Godel's Incompleteness proofs considered just arithmetic operations on the natural numbers and showed, irrevocably, that this was the case.

I once believed that math was intrinsically true, and that not even God could refute 1+1=2. Now I refute it.

Re:I believe

[snwcrash]

Actually, when there are only two choices, and one is invalid, then the only possible choice by process of elimination is the other one.

That really isn't true. If both options are incomplete or inaccurate than what? If the question had been it it a partical or "magic stuff", would magic stuff had been correct answer?

Re:I believe

[Rei]

How horribly incorrect.

1) God *does* say that the punishment for homosexuality is death. Read Leviticus 20:13 some time.

2) The only two mentions of the Nephilim in the bible are Gen. 6:4 ("In those days, and even afterward, giants [ Hebrew Nephilim.] lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with human women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes mentioned in legends of old.") and Num 13:33 ("We even saw giants [ Hebrew nephilim.] there, the descendants of Anak. We felt like grasshoppers next to them, and that's what we looked like to them!"). I don't know what you're smoking when you decided that they were homosexuals and that God commanded them to be killed...

3) Never does it say that all residents of Sodom and Gomorrah practiced homosexual gang rape - just that one group that encountered Lot did. In fact, it explicitly states that the reason God destroyed the cities was that they were arrogant and selfish - Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

4) The metal pool in Kings 7:26 is no translation error. It says the width is 10 ('eser - masc form of 'asar; S#=06235) cubits and a line of 30 (sh@loshiym - from shalowsh, meaning 3; S#=07970) cubits did compass about it.

I mean, it's just a rounding of pi, so I don't see why people make a big deal about it, but it isn't a translation error.

Re:I believe

[droptone]

However when a scripture makes a statement about something that is clearly shown to be false, and after that if someone insists on believing the scripture, that is stupid.

1 Kings 7:23 - "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." link

*chuckles* Pi is 3...

Re:I believe

[cuby]

i also liked Contact (the movie) but Occam's never studied ANTENA THEORY.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

>> in intellegent design > > So do I, but there seems to be darned little of it in the software that I see. And even less in the posts I see.

Re:I believe

[jafac]

God is only ONE possible explanation for the phenomenon that's called Intelligent Design. It could be aliens. It could be the Bavarian Illuminati. It could be anything.

The fact that it could be a Supreme Being doesn't even necessarily prove the existence of the Judeo-Christian God either.

Re:I believe

[Nopal]

It is not about experts having beliefs without cause--it's about experts having beliefs with cause but not rigorously proven (yet anyway). ...

These questions are not about making vague statments and leaving them at belief; they are about stimulating thought and discussion--not about simply accepting a belief and rejecting discussion based on unprovability.

But you are rejecting discussion based on umprovability. We experience a universe that either is or isn't designed. Proving that it wasn't designed or proving that it was designed is ultimately impossible but based on the complexity and consistency with which it operates one person may have the hunch that it is designed, while other may have the hunch that it is an amazing grouping of coincidences and nothing more.

Asking why you believe something is asking a valid question, but the point of your post wasn't to ask that. You can ask "Why do you believe the universe is designed?" and that's valid. Asking "Why do you believe the universe wasn't designed?" is equally valid. Asking "Why do you believe the universe was designed even though you may be currently experiencing a universe that isn't designed?" is like asking "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Loaded questions are about stopping, not starting discussions.

You've just restated what I said: Design implies an abstraction (a function of intelligence) of a purpose from nature and then creation (by man) of something for that purpose.

Design does imply an abstraction. However, the problem with your logic is that you keep thinking in terms of nature. Design does not imply a purpose from nature, rather, a purpose merely from a set of laws or principles (in this case, natural laws): You can design a system based on other kinds of principles, such as artifical laws. The alphabet for example, is a set of man-made laws which can be used to design sentences and convey meaning, so that even the mute and deaf can use them to communicate. Based on these written sentences, we can further design a social justice system that gives meaning to artifical constructs such as countries and nations. Similarly, the argument appears to be that natural laws themselves are even more basic "designs" from abstractions and principles not by man, but by a higher being.

In its very basic sense, design does not require the existance of nature. It merely requires the existance of a framework and of intelligence, both attributes of what the grandparent may call "God".

Re:I believe

[Hognoxious]

My philosophy, when "self-awareness" is simplified to a scalar, leads to a spectrum, probably one which gets exponentially more sparse at the top, where I'd put healthy awake humans. Monkeys, dolphins, dogs, other "intelligent" animals might be around halfway down

A good point, I was pondering something similar (I was rereading "Mote in God's Eye" at the time) and this question occured to me:

Why is it so sparse near the top?

The conclusion I reached - and this is purely theory based - was that you can only have one intelligent species (intelligent above a certain level) in an ecosystem, the threshold level being the intelligence necessary to recognise the other as a potential threat or competitor.

Re:I believe

[killjoe]

How is it a science then?

Re:I believe

[Hognoxious]

We chose to be moral and good because it suits us, not because we fear for our fate after we die.

Or we fear for our fate before we die.

Re:I believe

[LS]

Can you prove Occam's Razor, or do you just believe in it?

LS

Re:I believe

[mbrod]

Agreed, I believe that the longer one exists (stays alive) and the more experience they gain, especially if they try to learn about the world around them, the more they will tend toward seeing that the design is just too good to not have intelligence behind it. Not just intelligence but a supreme one greater than we can comprehend.

If you look at Einstein, Romonijin (sp?), Kaku, etc. all of them talk about God and the "why's" God created things the way He did. So for anyone who doesn't think there is an intelligence to the design of the Universe, create one yourself that is better and let me know :-).

Re:I believe

[Xenna]

The unlikely truth of the matter was that the man sitting on his right was passing an open pocket knife to the man on his left and a foul ball struck the hand with the knife, driving the point into his throat. That's something about which - even if you were there - you'd be saying, "What the hell?! Can't be."

That one would've been caught by Hanlon's razor: Do not attribute to malice anything that is sufficiently explained by stupidity.

(never pass an open knife in front of someone's throat, also, never use two razors at the same time)

Re:I believe

[nojomofo]

it may be that humans were designed by Klaatu the Alien rather than "God"

The problem with this (from a logical standpoint) is that somebody believing this (or in (a) god(s), but I'm going to try not to get into that) hasn't simplified anything. How did Klaatu the Alien (obviously a complex being himself if he's capable of intelligently designing life on Earth!) come into existence? Evolution? You're not going to find an I.D. believer who accept that. Another Intelligent Designer? Then you've got an infinitely recursive loop. God? Well, now we're back to what it's really about.

Re:I believe

[the_mad_poster]

I have no idea in what context your response was made, so I don't really know what you're talking about. Also, kindly pick your words more carefully. Firstly, I.D. is not a "phenomenon". There is nothing observable called intelligent design. It's merely a series of increasingly ludicrous assumptions with little or no proof to support them. That makes it a 'tenet' which is practically the opposite of a phenomenon. Secondly, you are misusing "fact" in your last sentence. The way you are using it first assumes ID is true, which is not true. It then also assumes that god exists in a provable form, which is not true. kthx.

Re:I believe

[MightyMartian]

I don't see any problem with teaching religion as part of a general humanities class. I think it's actually a swell idea to introduce kids to various religious beliefs and world views, and certainly history cannot be taught without at least broaching some of the major belief systems extant and extinct. I can't imagine too many people, other than certain religious groups (Christian and Islamic fundementalists, for instance) who would argue with that, as it certainly isn't an attempt to push any particular religion upon students.

However, teaching that the claims that God created the world in six literal days or that its turtles all the way down as legitimate scientific theories in a science class is absurd. Perhaps one might teach them as beliefs that various peoples once held, sort of like how I learned about phlogiston and the ether when I was in science class.

Re:I believe

[algae]

Ocham's Razor.
Explain: He has millions of dollars.
Simple explanations: He inherited it. He stole it. He earned it with his business.
Not simple: He managed to beat the 1 in 135,145,920 odds and won the Mega Millions jackpot. (Real odds)

OK, let's get real here. Occam's Razor is highly dependant on context and is perfectly good a providing explainations for low-probability events. How about stating it this way:

Context: 100,000,000 people bought lottery tickets.
Explain: A lottery-ticket purchaser has millions of dollars.
Simple Explaination: He won the lottery.
Not Simple: He inherited/stole/earned it.

That work for you?

Re:I believe

[stemcell]

That's not really what Occam's razor means. Look here for more guidance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

Stem
--
Anyone who believes in intelligent design obviously hasn't read this discussion.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Hooray, you've learnt something today!

Re:I believe

[Trogre]

What makes you assume it was perfectly circular? I don't think that "round all about" requires that.

Re:I believe

[Macrolord]

Why conquer an abondoned city? Did someone leave the keys on the inside of the locked door?

Re:I believe

[Trogre]

God is by definition omnicient and infallible. So if god tells you to kill homosexuals (he does!) or when he tells you that pi = 3 or when he tells you that the universe was created in 7 days around 3000 years ago what do you?

1. The Israelites were to kill homosexuals dwelling among them (and sorcerers, rapists, etc). Look up Hebrew civil law and see how it supplements (but does not define) moral law. Sin or not, thou shalt not kill.

2. Pi=3? I assume you refer to the bronze sea. It wasn't perfectly circular, you know. Do you have any idea of the tolerances used in construction in that age, even if it were to be circular? 5% isn't bad.

3. According to young-earth creationism, the universe was created in 6 days around 6000-10000 years ago.

Let's not beat that straw man too hard now.

Re:I believe

[droptone]

Not but it implies that. My disliking of that one verse is that it is unnecessary. It could be constructed as something empirically false and as such, should not be even remotely considered worthy of including into a religious text.

Re:I believe

[Kazoo the Clown]

Evolution and guidance are mutually exclusive terms. Development based on guidance is not evolution, as evolutionary development is by definition a process that does not involve guidance.

No, as a matter of fact, evolutionary natural selection is guidance. The core difference between ID and Evolution is that ID proposes that the guidance is self-aware though they don't usually single out that aspect of it, as that is not what any of the data they use in argument for ID shows, even where ID proponents interpretation of it is accurate.

The term intelligent does not have to include self-aware, as natural selection can itself be seen as an intelligent and a design process. American Heritage defines "intelligent" as "the ability to aquire and apply knowledge" among other definitions, which is an accurate description of a mechanistic DNA selected by natural selection. And virtually none of the ID arguments are inconsistent with a purely mechanistic definition of intelligence or design, NONE of their arguments, even if accurate interpretations of data (which many are not), actually require the intelligence to be self-aware. But they neglect to mention that particular detail as it undermines the religious case they are trying to make. In doing so, they reveal the religious, unscientific nature of their motivations.

Ultimately, this will force ID propoents into the corner of claiming that since the mechanical intelligence of "artificial intelligence" was constructed by self-aware programmers, that the mere existence of a mechanistic intelligent design process in nature would require some form of self-aware designer, and we're back to the same tired old unsupportable creationist "watchmaker" argument (which is indeed all the ID argument is, merely in an new form). By then though, it'll be even harder to ignore the fact that randomness filtered by various arbitrary selection processes can produce a reduction in randomness and thereby produce structure (all of which can be realtively trivially demonstrated by mathematical simulation). This fact alone lets the hot air out of the ID argument, as if self-awareness is not a requirement of the "intelligence" or "design" of the ID theory, most if its proponents will lose any interest in it.

Re:I believe

[furball]

Atheists (and I can only speak for the ones I know) want nothing more than to be left alone by religious people.

Atheists are religious. They believe in the religion of no God. While the "religious" have faith in God, the atheists have faith in no God. Neither can prove their belief.

Re:I believe

[ifwm]

No, that is what Occam's razor means

"When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is usually preferred"

Sounds exactly like what I said.

(My quote) "As in the simplest explanation that fits the evidence is usually best"

Read your own link next time.

Re:I believe

[ifwm]

While I can appreciate that you do not see them as the same, that doesn't change the fact that they are. Simply referring to god as "our father" proves it.

Unless you take the bible as a literal document, in which case you're an idiot and I'm done talking to you.

Re:I believe

[jfengel]

Hey, I'm just trying to sort out the "evidence".

Actually, I'm not. I don't particularly care for the evidence put forth by ID believers, since it seems extremely esoteric. I've never seen a piece of "irreducible complexity" that looks like it won't eventually yield to a hypothesis that would allow it to have evolved. If God designed things with irreducible complexity, He chose some very odd places to put it. Things sure _look_ like they evolved, and those things we don't already understand seem very likely to be explained one day. It's not like there are patent numbers printed on the inside of cells or components made out of aluminum or other irrefutably designed parts.

What I "believe without proof" is what you suggest, that we're trying to come up with the simplest theory of the world. It doesn't have to be true, but I hold it to be true that the simplest explanation that covers all the facts is mostly likely to be correct. Thus far, I haven't seen any evidence that necessitates an intelligent designer, a theory that raises far more questions than it answers.

So the recursive loops don't bother me. Whether Klaatu himself evolved or was created by the-one-and-only-true-Christian-God, it covers the evidence supposedly presented by ID believers. I don't even have to sputter about "well, we will fit it into evolution... someday!" when presented with eyes or flagellae or other such things. I simply point out that even if I didn't reject their hypothesis as untenable, I reject the moral consequences they draw from it anyway.

It's a form of ad hominem arguement I'm engaging in, demonstrating that I believe that my opponent is not arguing in good faith. I believe that they have goals independent of finding out Truth (as I define truth, that is, forming a theory which adequately covers the observable facts without introducing unnecessary restrictions.) Perhaps that's the wrong way to win an argument, but if I can convince the great-grandparent poster to reconsider his assumptions, I'll be happy.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

No dumbass, in your idiotic example, BOTH answers are wrong. Learn to reason better than a four year old before you open your dicksucker again.

Re:I believe

[Tonytheloony]

Do you actually listen to what you say? You're whole post is ridiculous.

Re:I believe

[ifwm]

No, because in that case BOTH answers are wrong.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Have to comment on your .sig

Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.

Uh, isn't that what the kiddy pool is?

Re:I believe

[ifwm]

Hey ass, I never said the other choice was correct, only that "when one is invalid, the only possible choice by process of elimination is the other one" Nowhere did I say it was a correct choice. Maybe you should learn how to read, and stop making shit up.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that sounds exactly right to me.

Re:I believe

[jimmyfergus]

Atheists want nothing more than to live their lives without God so they can live a life without any ultimate consequences

You can't choose to believe something because you like the implication. That would be like believing in God because it's a nice idea.

Oh wait, I forgot, that's exactly why a lot of people do believe.

And what is this life without ultimate consequences of which you speak? Our effect on the universe is our ultimate consequence. Many atheists care deeply about what will be around after our deaths and what our contribution was. I want to die feeling I contributed to the greater good.

I can get really pissed off with people who think atheism implies immorality. Psychopathic nutjobs may need their conscience laid down to them in rules in a book. Non sociopaths have a conscience and empathy built in.

Re:I believe

[Twanfox]

You can call a DVD player "designed", but yet you can't point to a naturally-occurring DVD player growing wild on some jungle or being mined from the earth.

Actually, I'd go more for the analogy of a previous article. Are planetary nebulae shaped as they are because of some underlying cause (reason/design) or due to sheer chance? We didn't know, it was a guess, and you believed what you wanted. Unlike religion, however, this particular question does have an answer, as they have apparently discovered.

Still, what if they had found that no magnetic fields actually shaped such nebulae? With only one universe to look at, how can we tell if it was designed or not without a frame of reference or known quantity to compare it to?

Re:I believe

[NoOneInParticular]

Well, a day is usually defined as the period between sun coming up and going down again. As God seemingly created the sun on the fourth day, it's bleeding obvious that the thing shouldn't be taken literally.

Re:I believe

[Laser Lou]

I don't think its the same. Let me illustrate: When we say "our father," we don't mean father in the sense of God being our immediate ancestor. However Intelligent Design implies that God is our designer in a literal sense. "Our father" is not a literal statement, but "Intelligent Design" is meant to be literal. They're not the same.

Re:I believe

[sploxx]

And this argument is circular, if it was meant as an argument for science.

Because Occam's Razor is a part, maybe even a premise of the philosophy of science. But theology couldn't care less about this.

No, I'm not religious. I consider myself agnostic for reasons like this.

Re:I believe

[MrHanky]

Oh, come on! And what about the platypus? Is that a deliberate mistake?

Re:I believe

[geomon]

Atheists are religious.

And dogs are cats; yes, I know.

They believe in the religion of no God.

I *was* a Christian before I returned to atheism and I feel pretty confident that a religion without a god isn't a religion. It may be a philosophy, but it isn't a belief in the supernatural.

While the "religious" have faith in God, the atheists have faith in no God.

I hope you aren't a religious person. Because if you are, you are comparing my "belief" with your "faith". I don't know many religious people who hold their faith so cheaply.



Well if that is the objective standard for the existence or non-existence of a being, then let me introduce you to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Only the faithful can see the IPU. The IPU will bring you sadness and joy, life after death, and will ward off all evil spirits.

Prove to me that the IPU doesn't exist.

IPU2U2

Re:I believe

[jaoswald]

You could try reading Russel & Whitehead's Principia Mathematica rather than doing it yourself. They take quite a while to get around to 1+1=2, though.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

...the Bible says God created the Heavens and Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th.

I've been wondering this for a while; The 7th day of the week would be Saturday, right? And God meant this to be a weekly thing, rest and spend time with God on the 7th day, right? So why does everyone go to Church on Sunday, the 1st day of the week?

Re:I believe

[johnnyb]

"One of ID's other tenets is that speciation and significant morphological changes by evolution alone is impossible"

That's incorrect. They believe that complexity-increasing speciation by evolution alone is impossible.

In addition, while most people falsely assume creationists believe in fixity of the species, they actually believe in a much faster speciation than evolutionists. They just don't believe that new organs arise via speciation.

There are many examples of speciation which don't even have anything to do with genetics. Some wasps have speciated based on the presence of certain bacteria in their gut. They are identical genetically, but something prevents them from mating.

Likewise, speciation can occur due to natural selection, which only involves existing genes, not the generation of new ones.

Speciation can also occur due to environmental factors. Some environmental factors can actually affect gene expression heritably, without affecting the genome itself. The study of this is called epigenetics.

Finally, there is degenerative mutations, which both ID's and creationists believe in. For example, the blind cave fish -- used to be a normal cave fish, but a mutation prevented eye lens develop, which prevented the rest of the eye from developing. This is downward, not upward.

Anyway, speciation happens in a number of ways, and ID's and creationists believe in all of them except the "random mutations resulting in complex structures" ones.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

p2p is piracy

Ever used DCC? voice/video chat? ping? You need to be more specific. Copying (not "stealing") copyrighted music is piracy, whether P2P or otherwise. P2P is just a way of communicating. That's like saying "speech is slander".

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

ID is an escape hatch for those who cannot deny the obviousness of evolution but don't want to give up their need to belief in God and, ergo, an afterlife.

Wow. You simple intelligence amazes me. Why have we been debating this issue for thousands of years? All we believers needed was someone to tell us it's just an escape hatch. Well, that's that.
</sarcasm>

Re:I believe

[Loundry]

They believe in the religion of no God.

You are confusing postive atheism with negative atheism, a very common mistake that theists make (and quite often a tactic that theists use).

Postitive atheism is this: "I believe there is no God."

Negative atheism is this: "I do not believe in God."

The difference is subtle, but crucial. Positive atheism posits belief while negative atheism posits skepticism. I am a negative atheist. I do NOT believe. Your statement which starts with "atheists believe..." applies to positive atheists, but not to me.

Re:I believe

[johnnyb]

"Someday people will realize that the Bible is a book of THEOLOGY and not a book of SCIENCE."

Actually, there is very little theology in the Bible. The Bible is mostly a work of history -- the history of God's actions among certain peoples. It also includes practical laws and rules and guidance in being righteous, but nothing approaching theology. Theology is determined inductively from scripture, not really deductively.

Re:I believe

[Raunch]

I'm sorry, I know this is about things that you believe that you cannot prove, and I enjoy that. But really, I don't want to hear about things that you believe in that are inherently un-provable.

You can't spell belief with out lie.

Re:I believe

[Raunch]

I cannot tell you how happy I would be it the 'fundies' would "realize that the Bible is a book of THEOLOGY and not a book of SCIENCE"

You can't spell belief without lie.

Re:I believe

[johnnyb]

"you break the biggest assumption of science, that the universe is consistent. Unfortunately for the faithful this means no miracles."

Actually, technically science is the inquiry into that which behaves consistently. It is not equivalent with the asssumption that everything must behave consistently.

If there is a rule, and one who is able to break the rules, science would simply ignore the breakage as something they couldn't repeat, and move on. Whether you believed "X" occurred or not depends on both evidence and faith (obviously if you've excluded miracles a priori then no amount of evidence would convince you -- it would simply be "an unknown phenomena" or a lie).

Re:I believe

[johnnyb]

"As in the simplest explanation that fits the evidence is usually best (paraphrase)."

That's not quite correct, even as a paraphrase. It's that the simplest explanations are the most useful for determining future probabilities.

If X is caused by angels acting in accordance with a specific command of God, but they always act consistently with mathematical equation Y, then for determining future probabilities I only need mathematical equation Y -- the angels may in fact be there but their existence is of no use when determining future probabilities.

Re:I believe

[iceborer]

All of this nonsense about atheism being its own religion and the inability to describe negative atheism to theists is why I've taken to describing myself as an "Apathetic" -- I don't care if there is or is not a God. It pisses people off while they're trying to convert me, but maybe that's an unanticipated benefit.

I happen to be married to a devoutly Christian woman. I respect her faith, encourage it, and think it serves her well. I'm just not interested. I don't believe that there is a God. If he sat down next to me and said hello, I'd say, "Dude! My bad," and be back about my business. I think its hard for theists to accept the fact that we atheists can live perfectly moral lives without the Carrot (Heaven) or the Stick (New Jersey).

Re:I believe

[Nopal]

Still, what if they had found that no magnetic fields actually shaped such nebulae? With only one universe to look at, how can we tell if it was designed or not without a frame of reference or known quantity to compare it to?

But even if they found the magnetic field (as they did), your second question still applies.

You are right on the money that we simply have no refence. Rheingold's argument about design seems to be based on a comparison to nature but the problem is that we are trying to define the origin of nature itself.

Still, we are missing that "frame of reference" and since by definition we can't have it, some attribute it or call it "God." If an atheist is not willing to attribute its origin to God, I can respect the position that the frame of reference is unattributable and unknown, and the universe has no design because there can't be proof due to lack of a frame of reference (I won't agree with that position, but I can accept it as a respectable argument that can't be proven or disproven). The position that the frame of reference is nature however, simply begs the question and is based on circular and illogical reasoning.

Re:I believe

[Rheingold]

But you are rejecting discussion based on umprovability. We experience a universe that either is or isn't designed. Proving that it wasn't designed or proving that it was designed is ultimately impossible but based on the complexity and consistency with which it operates one person may have the hunch that it is designed, while other may have the hunch that it is an amazing grouping of coincidences and nothing more.

Close, but not quite. The assertion that the universe is designed simply does not make sense--it is not a semantically meaningful statement. In order for something to be designed, we have to know what it means for something not to be designed--the notions of "intelligent" and "designed" are comparative notions and therefore require a basis for comparison. We have no basis for comparison.

It seems to be a meaningful assertion because of false analogy. We can compare, for example, two stacks of Legos--one a box just opened and poured out and the other bricked up like the Millenium Falcon--and we can say that one is designed and one is not. By analogy, we might look at the laws the universe appears to follow and see some appearance of design. But it isn't meaningful because we cannot imagine--much less have experience of--an undesigned universe. The Lego stacks we can compare because each is separate--we can be independent of each to make observations. But we cannot be independent of our universe to make observations. I will gladly revise my opinion in the future should we become able.

Furthermore, the term "law" is itself misleading, since the laws we know most intimately are proscriptive laws--they tell us to do something or to not do something. But the "laws" of science are descriptive laws--they describe patterns we have observed.

I do not say that the universe it not designed--all I can say is that I have not seen a good reason to think that it is designed, therefore I cannot reasonably hold that belief.

Re:I believe

[szo]

thank God he didn't mention linux!

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

They just don't believe that new organs arise via speciation.

Again with the whole 'micro-macro evolution' thing. To say that one step down divergent paths is possible but 2 or more are not? WTF? Just look at canines to see what geographic separation and selective breeding (human-managed sexual selection) managed to do in a just 10,000 years. For that matter, look at the diversity between humans since the last ice age; another 100,000 years of isolation would likely have brought about radical differences between the various populations.

there is degenerative mutations, which both ID's and creationists believe in

Of course they do. Christians are obsessed with the whole Fall From Grace thing. To them, perfection was in the garden and every day since then is just a rear-guard fight against further degredation. The idea of something genuinely _new_ under the sun? Heresy! "Not all ID-ers are Chirstian", yada, yada, yada, 99.9% of them are and can be relied upon to have a less than cursory knowledge of evolution. Even the ones who aren't obsessed with their deities never have anything better than the Appeal to Complexity and Argument from Incredulity fallacies.

And you also missed the part about how ID-ers speculate wildly about the Q Continuum mucking around with earth's DNA bank for fun and profit.

Re:I believe

[benna]

Physicists usually use the word God metaphorically. There are some exceptions, but not many. Your argument that the world is just too good to have come out of evolution shows your lack of understanding of the concept, not any evidence for the existence of a designer. See "The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features" in the journal Nature for some good experimental evidence to the contrary. But really, such research shouldn't be necessary, as it is quite obvious that evolution has no limit in the complexity it can produce given enough time. And there has been enough time. The universe has existed for at least 11 billion years.

Re:I believe

[temojen]

We chose to be moral and good because it suits us, not because we fear for our fate after we die.

Further to that, If someone "donates" to charity because someone else is holding a gun to their head, is the donation a good act? What if someone leads a blameless life out of fear of Temporal or Spiritual punishment, or desire for Temporal or Spiritual rewards?

If someone who has no belief in any reward or punishment after death leads a blameless life including service to the needy, are their acts not that much "better"?

Re:I believe

[Obliviously]

I agree with your post. We seem to forget that the universe is interpreted by our brain/nervous system. This negatively impacts our interpretation of the world/universe in two ways:
First biologically: we are confined to our senses and their "best guesses" on what we see, feel, smell and are capable of comprehending.
Secondly sociologically: based on our ethnicity, relgion, culture, sex, age, etc we have a predisposition to act/react/interpet things differently.

-A cab driver in nyc will have a very different outlook on reality/"design" than a pigmy in papua new guinea.

-A metal rod seems impossible to bend manually, yet a gorilla could bend it with ease.

end rant:
The mind is part of the universe. The universe is interpreted by the mind. The mind interprets the interpretation of the interpreted universe. The universe is unlimited but reality is contained within the limitation of the mind, which is limitless, within its limited capacity; of which we are uncertain.

Re:I believe

[Nopal]

I do not say that the universe it not designed--all I can say is that I have not seen a good reason to think that it is designed, therefore I cannot reasonably hold that belief.

That is a clear statement that I think we can "agree to disagree" on, and I thank you for the clarity.

We can compare, for example, two stacks of Legos--one a box just opened and poured out and the other bricked up like the Millenium Falcon--and we can say that one is designed and one is not. By analogy, we might look at the laws the universe appears to follow and see some appearance of design. But it isn't meaningful because we cannot imagine--much less have experience of--an undesigned universe.

Extending your analogy, the assertion that a DVD Player is designed isn't meaningful because we cannot imagine an undesigned DVD player. You see, the lego analogy assumes the existance of legos as building blocks, but the existance of the universe cannot be derived the same way (there isn't a universe-unit).

To avoid these problem, on my previous post I tried to introduced the synthesis of letters into words and into sentences, since these represent concepts and not material things, they are not subject to the same difficulties. We can design (i.e.- construct via intelligence) ever more complex concepts out of more basic concepts alone, and yet we don't need to compare it to an undesigned concept. The concept of design itself can exist independent of nature, time and space, even if it originally arises from nature. That's why it can be applied to things for which there is no comparison.

Re:I believe

[the_mad_poster]

You've been following the political action item of intelligent design for thousands of years?

Fascinating, considering some of the beliefs it expounds were only presented for consideration within the last decade. Even more fascinating is the fact that the current manifestation of the non-creation-based version of ID currently being discussed in this thread is less than 15 years old.

What believers like YOU need is a shot of critical thinking, a decent education, and a good hard belt to the head to try and knock the stupid out of you.

Re:I believe

[johnnyb]

"To say that one step down divergent paths is possible but 2 or more are not? WTF?"

No, it's saying that random copying errors don't produce complex interactions.

Running my kid's spelling of his name through the copying machine 1,000,000,000 times won't produce Shakespear.

"Just look at canines to see what geographic separation and selective breeding (human-managed sexual selection) managed to do in a just 10,000 years."

Right, this is exactly the kind of evolution that creationists believe in. Existing genes being selected.

Remember, the fossil evidence shows every phyla of animal arising during the Cambrian period (assuming geologic chronology is correct) fully-formed without intermediaries. We have only lost phyla since then. The actual evolutionary tree of life is inverted from what is hypothesized by evolutionists.

In addition, look at homologies vs. analogies. There's no difference between a homology vs an analogy except for where it is believed to have evolved from. But what the data really looks like is a set of design patterns which have been mixed and matched together to produce an interesting creation. Take the marsupial wolf, for instance. Isn't it a bit odd that you have the near re-creation of a wolf, even though evolution supposedly branched marsupials off hundreds of millions of years earlier? Random copying errors just happened to make a near-identical skull. It's very much design patterns.

On top of that, you have the fact that not only are random copying errors supposedly the great generator of all diversity, but that only those genes which are the result of copying errors that had consecutive stable forms are allowed. So, pretty much every gene we have had to be derivative of other genes in a stable fashion. There can't be a single unstable link in the chain.

A bit odd, don't you think?

Especially odd that the different methods of determining molecular phylogeny have very different results.

Re:I believe

[kisak]

Napoleon when getting a copy of Laplace's Celestical Mechanics complained that there was no reference to God in it. Laplace answered Napoleon that God was a hypothesis he did not need. When Lagrange heard of Laplace's reply said he did not agree; God is a hypothesis that can be used to prove many things.

Re:I believe

[AEton]

You keep using that word. I do not think you've RTFA'd what you think you've RTFA'd.

CHRIS W. ANDERSON
Editor-In-Chief, Wired

The Intelligent Design movement has opened my eyes. I realize that although I believe that evolution explains why the living world is the way it is, I can't actually prove it. At least not to the satisfaction of the ID folk, who seem to require that every example of extraordinary complexity and clever plumbing in nature be fully traced back (not just traceable back) along an evolutionary tree to prove that it wasn't directed by an invisible hand. If the scientific community won't do that, then the arguments goes that they must accept a large red "theory" stamp placed on the evolution textbooks and that alternative theories, such as "guided" evolution and creationism, be taught alongside.

So, by this standard, virtually everything I believe in must now fall under the shadow of unproveability. Most importantly, this includes the belief that democracy, capitalism and other market-driven systems (including evolution!) are better than their alternatives. Indeed, I suppose I should now refer to them as the "theory of democracy" and the "theory of capitalism", to join the theory of evolution, and accept the teaching of living Marxism and fascism as alternatives in high schools.

Re:I believe

[stemcell]

Yes, what you've typed does sound exactly what you typed earlier but if you were to read TFA you would note that it isn't occam's razor. If you're too stupid to understand what the article says then I can't be bothered to explain it to you.

Good Day.

Re:I believe

[Grax]

Certainly all those methods are great methods but the fact that remains is that we still have not been outside our solar system. I have no problem accepting scientific assertions as the current truth but I still fail to understand the egos that pretend that this "truth" is infallible.

In the vastness of the universe, our solar system is a very small sample size to start from for determining size and our 6000 years of recorded history is a very small sample size to determine that an isotope has a half-life of 700 million years.

I also have a problem with your assertion that the sun would die and the earth would fry if half-lives were sped up. (I assume not in that order because I have a hard time imagining a dead sun frying the earth.) That is a simplistic statement with no reasonable evidence to support it.

Time must be measured relative to something. In recorded history it is measured relative to the earth's spin and trips around the sun. Currently scientists like to measure it relative to atomic half-lives. The 2 methods may or may not correlate over a long period of measurement and that isn't even recognizing the possibility of a 3rd "true" time source.

My point is not to refute the numbers and scientific evidence. They certainly work and provide a consistent basis for scientific progress. That does not mean that they are correct.

For an example of working, but incorrect measurements, measure the speed of a ball thrown while inside a moving bus. Measurements relative to the bus for useful workable and repeatable measurements, but the actual speed of a ball relative to the road beneath could involve the addition or subtraction of the bus speed.

Re:I believe

[complete loony]

"You have irrefutable evidence ..."

Yes, I have found evidence enough to confirm everything said about god in the bible. To paraphrase slighly from the words of Jesus:
"When I am gone I will send you another councellor. He will convict you about the truth of sin and righteousness (sp?)."
So you have a choice, believe me to be a lunatic who hears voices (-1 Troll. feel free, I don't care), or maybe I'm right. All I can tell you is that the truth is out there and you will find it if you look.

"... want nothing more than to be left alone by religious people."

And God is quite happy to leave you alone too. You don't want god to interfere? fine he wont. He is quite happy to let you live out your life oblivious to his influence.

"... not because we fear for our fate after we die."

I do not do good out of fear that if I do something bad I will be sent to hell. Nothing I do in this place will have any impact on what happens to me. A God who I claim to be able to create this place does not need me to do anything in order to win his favour, what could I possibly offer that would be pleasing enough. No, he just wants me, warts and all.
By the same token, don't judge christianity based on the behaviour of christians. We are just like you, no better, no worse. Able to ignore our conscience and capable of the same atrocities.

Re:I believe

[the_mad_poster]

Indeed.

The "agenda" behind the movement is questionable, but based on what it's done lately, I'd wager a guess that the whole purpose is to slide creationist dogma into public institutions where it doesn't belong, such as schools.

As far as the rest of it goes, it may attempt to do those other things, but it fails miserably.

Re:I believe

[mbrod]

I didn't mention anything about evolution in my post nor did I say anything about the world being too good. The universe, what is seen and unseen as a whole, the design of that is too good. Which of course humans and everything else in it are part of the design. I was in the camp you are in now once too, that is why I say over time as one examines more of the Universe and all its components, including people, not just the basic parts studied in a vacuum, one tends toward seeing the brilliance of the design. Why? Because it is brilliant and better than anything any human has ever come up with or created.

If you simply do not believe in God then of course we have two very different models in our head of the Universe, who created it, our place in it (humans), etc. You never actually said if you believe God created the Universe or not in your post though.

Re:I believe

[Reteo Varala]

Odd... I thought the Bible was a blog...

Re:I believe

[koko775]

ID is an escape hatch for those who cannot deny the obviousness of evolution but don't want to give up their need to belief in God and, ergo, an afterlife.
On the other hand, I do believe in "God" (an omnipresent but not omnipotent) but I have no need to believe in an afterlife since I believe "heaven" is a metaphor for lack of consciousness. I also happen to believe that Science is "God"'s language, and that how the "world" was made in bible canon is interpretive of that language.

I also believe that for God to truly be perfect and for us to retain our free will and choice, life must be completely devoid of direct, continuing influence beyond the concept that God really exists. The atheists I've known tend to be intelligent people without the need for a message to tell them anything about how to live their lives, and I would be one of these people too if I did not believe that morality was somewhat inherent in sentient nature. I realize that morality is relative and live by my own morals, hoping that others believe in being moral as I do but not enforcing it.

Re:I believe

[Elwood P Dowd]

They believe in the religion of no God.

I hold no belief in the religion of no God.

I hold no faith in God, either.

Neither can prove their belief.

What belief? (You are full of shit.)

Re:I believe

[Elwood P Dowd]

So you have a choice, believe me to be a lunatic who hears voices, or maybe I'm right.

Wait. Your nick is "complete loony", but you would like me to choose between your insanity and your veracity? Ok, I'm lost.

Re:I believe

[AnxiousMoFo]

On top of that, you have the fact that not only are random copying errors supposedly the great generator of all diversity, but that only those genes which are the result of copying errors that had consecutive stable forms are allowed. So, pretty much every gene we have had to be derivative of other genes in a stable fashion. There can't be a single unstable link in the chain. A bit odd, don't you think?

That is a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Random copying errors don't produce eyes, or wings, or brains by themselves. Natural selection produces these things. The vast majority of mutations are not beneficial. Natural selection picks the beneficial ones and not the harmful ones. Over extremely long periods of time, this leads to organisms which are very well adapted to their environment. A truly random process would not produce the design innovations that natural selection produces.

And no, it doesn't seem odd to me that every link in the chain has to be stable - the opposite would be bizarre.

Re:I believe

[furball]

You're just agnostic.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

"They don't belive in god, so the threat of any "ultimate consequences" is moot."

At the risk of being accused as a grammer nazi, I feel obligated to point out that this sentance does not mean what you (along with most people) think it means, in reference to the use of the word "moot". In the aformentioned sentence, "moot" is being used to say that the point is not at all debateable. This is the complete opposite of its actual meaning, as can be seen in any dictionary. According to the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary, the definition is as follows:
'moot
Function: adjective
1 a : open to question : DEBATABLE b : subjected to discussion : DISPUTED
2 : deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic'.
As can be seen, the actual meaning is not that something is not debatable, but that it is so debatable that there is no reason to debate it.

-Anonymous Coward

Re:I believe

[geomon]

Yes, I have found evidence enough to confirm everything said about god in the bible.

Great! As Joseph Campbell said, "Follow your bliss".

So you have a choice, believe me to be a lunatic who hears voices (-1 Troll. feel free, I don't care), or maybe I'm right.

Despite what theists believe about atheists, many of us find the study of religion to be interesting. Consider the fact that, as far as we know, humans are the only biological organism on the planet that has a religious behavior and you have the foundation for a scientific study of religiosity.

I don't consider religious belief to be a mental disease.

All I can tell you is that the truth is out there and you will find it if you look.

This is perhaps one of the most frustrating aspects of the theist-atheist discussion. You and other theists consider our lack of religiousity as a sign of incomplete training. As I said before, I can only speak for atheists I know, but many of us are former theists. I was a Christian until I could no longer answer "yes" to the most fundamental question in religion: "Do I have faith?

"... want nothing more than to be left alone by religious people."

And God is quite happy to leave you alone too. You don't want god to interfere? fine he wont. He is quite happy to let you live out your life oblivious to his influence.

Fine by me. I am exercising my free will by asking for proof. Faith isn't compelling evidence for me.

"... not because we fear for our fate after we die."

I do not do good out of fear that if I do something bad I will be sent to hell.

No, but it is a theistic propensity to use the threat of an unpleasant afterlife as a tool of persuasion. Not particularly effective threat if the target doesn't believe in an afterlife, I can tell you.

Nothing I do in this place will have any impact on what happens to me. A God who I claim to be able to create this place does not need me to do anything in order to win his favour, what could I possibly offer that would be pleasing enough. No, he just wants me, warts and all.

Good enough. I'm glad you have decided to relax your grip on the material world, even just a little bit.

By the same token, don't judge christianity based on the behaviour of christians.

I try to avoid judging people based on their affiliation, but their behavior tends to complicate that task.

We are just like you, no better, no worse. Able to ignore our conscience and capable of the same atrocities.

That has been my experience as well.

Re:I believe

[johnnyb]

"That is a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Random copying errors don't produce eyes, or wings, or brains by themselves. Natural selection produces these things."

No, natural selection _selects_ those things. This makes the theory more difficult, not less, because it requires that ALL traits to have travelled through stable intermediates. It means there can be no trait that required genes that had even one unstable intermediate.

In addition, its operating on the assumption that the genes are the major part of what produces the final organism. In fact, embryology has shown us that the parent's reproductive system has more to do with the body plan of the sibling than does the sibling's genes (not that genes don't play a role, but the parent's reproductive system governs the major body plan, not the genes).

If you look at the high degree of specificity that large numbers of genes have to have to work correctly together, and the number of times these systems supposedly "convergently evolved" through history, it looks much more like a series of design patterns mixed together in interesting ways, and not a strict hierarchy.

Take for example, the Marsupial wolf. Especially note the similarities in skull structure with the grey wolf (in fact, the majority of differences come from the fact that it is a marsupial). Now, the marsupials supposedly branched from the placentals hundreds of millions of years ago, yet, on completely different continents (thus, completely different "selective pressures"), you have these two creatures nearly identical come about via random copying errors. In addition, the evolutionary rate made them both extant in the same time period. So, you have the same basic body structure, a very, very, very similar skull, and probably the exact same time frame, yet this supposedly came from independent lines of random copying errors.

Re:I believe

[johnnyb]

"And no, it doesn't seem odd to me that every link in the chain has to be stable - the opposite would be bizarre."

Imagine a computer program. Could you go from vi to Microsoft Word, even intentionally, making one line of change per version, where every intermediate version was stable (and I'll even throw in free declarations to make it compile)? THAT would be bizzare, even if not done randomly.

Re:I believe

[Suidae]

nope, agnostic is something else. An agnostic (from 'without knowledge') holds a belief that we do not or cannot have the knowledge of the existance of gods.

I can be both a negative, or 'weak', athiest, and at the same time be agnostic. That is, I can believe that we cannot know if gods exist, and not have a belief in gods (as it happens, this is my position).

A positive, or 'strong', athiest believes that god does not exist, and therefor cannot be agnostic. To claim both positions would be contradictory (of course, there isn't really any reason why one can't hold contradictory beliefs, consistancy is overrated anyway, and it really confounds those guys who keep asking me to come to some place they call 'Kingdom Hall').

Re:I believe

[DMUTPeregrine]

Just like the Jews. We don't have any heaven or hell. Why are we good? Because it's the right thing to do. Anyone who is good merely for fear of future punishment is not truly good.

Re:I believe

[benna]

Whether there is a god or not, I don't believe the argument that the universe is too complex for there not to be a god is a valid one. Personally, I don't believe in the talking god of the bible that created the universe in 7 days. I do know what you mean about complexity, and that wis why I prefer to think of the universe itself as devine. That beautiful complexity itself is god. No need to seperate god out and say that he did it. You are still left with the same problem that way, becuase then god is so amazing that GOD must have had a creator. So I prefer to eliminate that problem entirly by allowing the universe to be its own spontaniously devine self.

Re:I believe

[AnxiousMoFo]

No, natural selection _selects_ those things. This makes the theory more difficult, not less, because it requires that ALL traits to have travelled through stable intermediates. It means there can be no trait that required genes that had even one unstable intermediate.

It's not correct to describe the process as "random copying errors produce stuff." Random copying errors occur. Errors that are beneficial are more likely to be passed on; errors that are detrimental are less likely. Nothing interesting comes out of randomness (see your earlier comment about your son's name being copied 1,000,000,000 times) - it's natural selection that creates design.

I'm not sure how your comments about traits needing to go through stable intermediates is an objection. It's an interesting wrinkle - Richard Dawkins wrote an entire book on it, "Climbing Mount Improbable."

Regarding the marsupial wolf, you found an example of convergent evolution. Great. There are many examples of them - wings and eyes, for example, are complex adaptations that evolved independently multiple times. Natural selection can lead to similar adaptations in unrelated species because an adaptation which is useful in one environment may be useful in another. Or, to steal a phrase from Daniel Dennett, nature finds the Good Tricks again and again.

In addition, its operating on the assumption that the genes are the major part of what produces the final organism. In fact, embryology has shown us that the parent's reproductive system has more to do with the body plan of the sibling than does the sibling's genes (not that genes don't play a role, but the parent's reproductive system governs the major body plan, not the genes).

What does this mean, exactly? None of what you're saying changes the fact that traits are inherited.

Re:I believe

[atom_pheer]

Extending your analogy, the assertion that a DVD Player is designed isn't meaningful because we cannot imagine an undesigned DVD player.

think of a pile of electronic components not yet designed to be a dvd player

Re:I believe

[AnxiousMoFo]

Yes, over an extremely long period of time. Most random changes to vi's source code would cause it to fail to compile, or crash, or act wonky - but if there was selection pressure to be more Microsoft Word-ish and there was some mechanism of reproduction and inheritance, then over eons and eons, yes, natural selection could produce something Microsoft Word-ish starting from vi's source code. Of course, since software is a human artifact, it's easier to just hire several geeks if you want to produce a word processor.

Re:I believe

[Elwood P Dowd]

You're just agnostic.

Says you. Other people say that agnostic means you believe in a God but do claim to know anything about Him.

I say that I am without a belief in God, and thus a-theist. Most other atheists have the same lack of belief that I do. So when you say atheists believe in the religion of no God, you are full of shit.

Re:I believe

[cbreeze34]

i'm sorry. i am a fool and was acting out of emotion. please accept my apologies.

Re:I believe

[cbreeze34]

as i said to the other replier,

i am a fool. please accept my sincerest apologies, i obviously don't know what i'm talking about. (no, i'm not being sarcastic.)

i guess we'll find out what it's really all about when the last day comes.

Re:I believe

[crimson30]

Atheists want nothing more than to live their lives without God so they can live a life without any ultimate consequences.

I can't speak for any other atheists, but personally, I'd prefer a universe with a god and heaven over one without. I'm not too keen on dying and that being the end of me. I'd much rather end up in heaven. It would also be cool to have a creator at large. These are comforting thoughts, after all, which, no doubt help propogate certain religions.

Same thing with Santa Claus. Do kids want to believe in Santa? Yes. Do they stop believing because they don't want to be held responsible for their deeds throughout the year? Absolutely not. They eventually put one and one together and lose faith. It has little to do with being naughty or nice.

I think you are confusing bias with logic. And if you think all atheists are immoral miscreants who are warping their beliefs around their whims, you are sadly mistaken.

Re:I believe

[Gewis]

Yes, yes, everybody and their atheistic dogs like to jump on Occam's Razor and use that as their own little cop out. Unfortunately, the whole thing relies entirely on constructing complex arguments for the opposition and simple ones for yourself, which both sides can do. But I've seen no "simple" non-revelation-based explanation for why murals in ancient Catholic cathedrals depict ordinances not even the Catholics know about or use, but are had exactly in other places by people who never saw those cathedrals. Nor have I seen such things for why the path described by travelers in the first part of the Book of Mormon fits exactly with a trail extending out of Jerusalem and through sites in the Arabian Peninsula... sites only uncovered in archaeological digs after the printing of the Book of Mormon. The same Mormon theology describes the creation of the solar system almost perfectly, also from a time when scientific ideas about the creation of the solar system were rather sketchy compared to what we know now.

Every anti-God argument I've ever seen has operated off the basis that, "we can explain it, therefore God didn't do it." Were our historically religiously based explanations and understandings often mistaken? Yes. But often what the problem has been was that people farther down the line took things from symbolic cultures (Hebrews, for instance) and interpereted them literally. I often find it amazing when people in my faith take a scripture that basically says a day in heaven is a thousand years on earth, therefore the earth is 13,000 years old (7,000 years of creation, 6,000 years since then). For me, it doesn't make sense that God would alter the properties of the physical matter he organized, or add dinosaur and other fossils at varying levels beneath the earth. To deceive us? Of course not, nor would the devil have the power to place these things. He's not the creator. So what does it mean? It means that what things we have had revealed to us, such as the "time in heaven" relation to "time here," are symbolic.

In many schools of thought, we're having to revise what we understand to be true. Many things that used to be taught as true scientific things are now not-so-sure, and things we understood religiously, we very likely haven't understood correctly.

A lot of the gist of the article was about being comfortable with uncertainty. That's the whole point. Absolute certainty in religious thought is just as fool-hardy as absolute certainty in scientific thought. I've done a lot of research in various things (currently working for an energy storage company... electrolytic capacitors, but have previously done university research in low energy nuclear reactions, and I've spent a lot of my own time digging into ZPF theory), and what I've found is that Occam's Razor really has little utility in trying to describe the world around us. All that matters is whether or not theory fits with observation, and if multiple theories fit with observation, then the only reasonable course of action is to devise a crucial test that will find more observations to narrow the range of "theories we think fit."

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe it is you who is ignorant.

Other people say that agnostic means you believe in a God but do claim to know anything about Him.

Those who say this are also full of shit.

Belief in a deity makes you a theist. Belief in the non-existance of all deity makes you atheist. Non-belief in the existance and non-existance of any deity makes you agnostic.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

... I find it very difficult to take people who believe in ID seriously. They're usually just fundamentalists trying to circumvent the separation of church and state, one step at a time.

I, too, have seen this tendency in speakers on the subject of Intelligent Design, to somehow link it up in the end with Christian theology. I find this very detrimental to ID theory, as it immediately turns off those who prefer to understand the world without using religion (e.g., most scientists). At my university recently I sat in on an ID lecture given by a professor from another university. He stated the basic ID principles very logically and convincingly, infused with wonderful examples, and free of religious references, for most of the lecture. Then, toward the end, he starts talking about the beauty and wonder of the universe and makes a reference to a verse in the book of Psalms. WTF!? Another ID guy with a Christian agenda. I saw the same from other speakers when an annual ID conference visited my university.

My point? "True" ID theory needs to be free of religious references: don't mention "god", "creator", "Bible", "THE designer", and so on. Instead, focus only on the conclusion that life as we know it is the product of intelligent design (and perhaps evolutionary processes as suggested by evidence), but do not go further than that into actually identifying designer(s); that should be outside the realm of ID theory for it to work.

Now, if the theists, fundamentalists, and the like wish to use ID as a springboard into their religion, they are free to do it. However, ID needs to be kept strictly separate unto itself. Linkage to religion, if explored, must be done outside ID.

ID has potential for helping us understand the world around us. For example, taking a "engineered" rather than an "accidental" view on the nature of life and searching for biological mechanisms that "should exist" if life were designed, as one possible method for expanding our biological knowledge base.

But, with the way ID is moving now, mention of "Intelligent Design" immediately evokes images of fundamentalist Christians trying to inject their religion into the public schools. At this point, I believe true ID theory would need a new name and prominent proponents who are not trying to advance a religious agenda. Good luck.

I'm a non-religious ID believer. Not because of fear for an eternal existence, not because religion was forced on me, but because it is the theory that, for me at this time, best explains the *origin* of the nature and complexity of life.

Re:I believe

[ifwm]

We weren't talking about the article asshole. We were having a discussion about GOD (which is mentioned in the article) and mentioned Occam's razor in a related post. I wasn't in any way referencing the artcle.

But you didn't bother to read the thread, you just assumed I was referring to the article.

Now, if you're too stupid to read ALL of a thread, what the fuck are you doing on a web board?

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

"We chose to be moral and good because it suits us, not because we fear for our fate after we die."

Yeah, seriously. Anyone who acts morally because they "fear ultimate consequences" is a coward. I would be very afraid of such a person. These are people who actually *want* to do "immoral" things, and will do whatever it takes to justify it within their interpretation of their religion. Just look at all the child molesters, abortion clinic bombers, and intensely hateful TV avengelists (i'm looking at you Mr. Falwell).

Jesus himself has stated that morality is evolved. (paraphrased) "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Think about it from the perspective of societies, rather than individuals.

Which do you think will better succeed, a society of people who steal from and murder each other? Or a society where people treat each other fairly, and thusly hard work is rewarded?

We have had plenty of both societies on earth -- just take a look at which ones have expanded and are still around today.

Re:I believe

[skiman1979]

I've spoken with other people in my family about this recently, and they have said that a (Biblical) day is said to be a thousand years. However, 7 is often symbolic for completeness, so the 7 days of creation could be 7 thousand years, or just some length of time that was long enough to be complete. I'm still trying to make sense of it myself, but I just wanted to point that out.

Re:I believe

[skiman1979]

Uh, isn't that what the kiddy pool is?

No - A kiddy pool is not the peeing section of a public swimming pool. It is separate. Smoking sections of public restaurants are in the same room (usually). In order to make the comparison with the kiddy pool, you'd have to put the smoking section in a shed outside the restaurant.

Re:I believe

[goeldi]

Random copying errors don't produce eyes, or wings, or brains by themselves. Natural selection produces these things.

So you think this is proven, don't you?

Re:I believe

[Thunderstruck]

But doesn't that fit the deist idea that god created the universe but then doesn't interfere?

I guess that depends on what we considere interference. Does setting up the game pieces so that wildly improbable things will happen exactly when they should constitute interference?

Your life was pre programmed when god made the universe so you have no choices in life.

Again I think this is a question of perspective. Just because someone else already knew what choice I am going to make, does that mean I didn't make the choice?

If you really want to "bake your noodle" consider that if you have an omnipotent God, then time is really not an issue. Thus if something needs to be different in the world because of choices silly people make, God would be quite able to simply change the system so that it always worked that way, wouldn't he?

Re:I believe

[geoffrobinson]

This is not the best forum for marshalling and discussing evidence, but yes those arguments can be marshalled. Granted, if you under the misconception that you can set up a science experiment to prove Napolean existed or God exists, that is beyond the ability of science.

Atheism, and I will speak boldly here, is a psychological crutch for people who want to be left alone. Their bias is great.

The mere fact that you have an objective view of morality shows that deep-down inside you believe in God.

Re:I believe

[haruchai]

None of your suppositions are possible as the Earth was only created sometime within the last 10,000 years.

Your "scientific" theories such as the formation of the Grand Canyon are very annoying to We, the Faithful, as it has been clearly shown that the canyon was formed during the Great Flood, which purged the Earth of the Ungodly.

Re:I believe

[Nopal]

Yeah, but it's the same thing. A system (DVD player) is designed from simpler systems (electronic components). Such an argument can just as easily be used to support ID: Nature can be nothing more than a pre-designed set of systems. In this sense, we could only differentiate between man-made and God-made designs.

The argument of not knowning design vs. undesigned universes can only be applied to atheism or unintelligent design via a syntax trick: That concepts (such as "design") cannot be abstracted from the physical world. As you can see however, concepts can most certainly be abstracted and can exist by themselves (known as intellegibilia), so that's why I don't buy the argument that the universe can't be designed merely because we have no reference.

If you take away that "syntax trick" however, you do propose a very intriguing thought experiment, but one that can't be used as proof for atheist arguments.

Re:I believe

[Elwood P Dowd]

Are you an atheist or an agnostic when it comes to the belief in flying purple elephants?

Re:I believe

[stemcell]

I want you to think long and hard about your reply; and then maybe you'll realise why you're a fuckwit.

Re:I believe

[Rei]

> We have not been outside our solar system

Yes, but we are *in* our universe, so unless you believe Earth is older than the universe, any data we can gather about the age of Earth speaks a testament to a minimum age of the universe. Furthermore, while you may claim some unknown explanation for a single distance measurement to a star, you have to be able to reconcile the fact that *all* distance measurements using completely different methods give the same result. Without doing that, you're handwaving.

> a very small sample size to determine that an
> isotope has a half-life of 700 million years

Half lives are very easy to determine; we can observe the rate at which it decays through alpha, beta, and gamma decay, and *at least in recorded history's observations*, it is *perfectly consistant* the world over.

Furthermore, it matches *theoretical* predictions for the half life. There are a variety of factors which act on the nucleus of an atom. The fewer neutrons there are, the more the protons repel each other, and are more likely to break down; you need a certain amount of nuclear binding energy. When protons and neutrons form a nucleus, they lose some mass, which becomes this energy. Having too many neutrons lowers the nuclear binding energy, which makes it easier to decay as well. Odd/odd numbers of protons/neutrons makes it harder to have a stable internal structure, and lowers the nuclear binding energy. Etc. All of these factors let us plot the predicted stability of a nucleus.

Now, you could easily hand-wave and say that for no particular reason, half-lives were shorter in the past. Apart from the fact that you need to explain *how* this would occur (and any change would produce rammifications in other things which usually end up destroying the universe as we know it), there are some serious problems which will be discussed below.

> I also have a problem with your assertion that
> the sun would die and the earth would fry if
> half-lives were sped up

Glad to help you with this one. First, lets cover the sun.

Half-lives correspond to the nuclear binding of the isotope. The only way to change a half life (apart from physically bombarding the atoms) would be to have their nuclear binding energy change. Apart from the fact that nuclear binding energy (the "strong force") is actually just a form of two other forces (electromagnetic and weak), so you can't change one without changing the others as well (which cases all sorts of major nasty rammifications), nuclear fusion rates are relative to the binding energy as well.

The rate of fusion in a star are a balance of many factors; the heat of the star tends to inflate it outwards, which reduces the rate of fusion. It's a balance. If you increase the rate of fusion, you're going to make the star go nova.

Even though that alone would destroy the earth, the earth would fry itself in isolation if half-lives were faster. Radioactive decay is what heats the earth. Just the amount of radioisotopes in the crust alone, if you tried to accelerate decay enough to try and make 6,000 years look like 4.5 billion years, would turn the crust into molten slag. However, we see radioisotopes in magma that comes out of the mantle, too. And given everything we know about convection, the heaviest stuff (including most alpha emitters and their daughter products) will end up in the core.

In short, Earth would be a ball of boiling rock today.

> Measure the speed of the ball thrown while
> inside a moving bus.

All speeds are relative. There is no "true frame of reference". Your measurement would be 100% correct. Try to make a better analogy next time.

Re:I believe

[Rob Riggs]

Most people who say they believe in "intelligent design" really believe in "omnipotent design" (i.e. god made it all). The problem is that no one on this planet is smart enough to differentiate that level of design from something that could happen by pure chance. :-)

Re:I believe

[COMON$]

I know this post is late but I was trying to understand your sig and thought this discussion would shed light on it. You ideas have interested me, I have a strong background in mathematics and while your assumptions hold water I am noticing that your are in fact making a lot of assumptions which we must do in the case of studying the possibility of god/ID, such as assuming that you know what the function is.

Would you be thinking that F(g) = ID; ? in that case, how do we (if intelligent design exists) as finite beings understand the function? Evolution may be a part of ID, who knows. Evolution points to a nice logrithmic expansion but we dont know what type of function an Intelligent Designer would have used.

Maybe as part of the function you have Evolution on a macro scale, maybe you dont.

Maybe you have an ID who has a hands off approach, maybe you dont have an ID at all in which case we would be looking at an entirely different function.

Or maybe you have an ID that designed things the way they are so that it would have a specific output.

Or we could take the step a little further, what if the ID dabbles just enough to keep the variables from destroying the output and is interested in seeing the outcome of the equation.

Re:I believe

[AnxiousMoFo]

Natural selection is proven about as much as anything in science can be proven. It's possible that in 100 years or 10 years or six months someone will find something that will require the whole thing to be thrown out, but people have been trying really hard to do that for over 100 years, without success.

Re:I believe

[ahodgson]

Any claims concerning the age of the universe are based on the flawed idea that we can extrapolate information on ages and distances from a relatively small sample.

That's nice, but the only people who argue seriously against the Earth being billions of years old do so because of one book of fables written down over a period of centuries, with absolutely no scientific evidence to support their viewpoint. Science has hundreds of interlocking and supporting theories from many fields that together present a reasonably solid case that the Earth is billions of years old, and the Universe is much older still.

If you have scientific data to challenge the currently accepted scientific view of the universe, please present it. Arguing that the current models are incorrect without data to prove your theory is foolish.

Re:I believe

[Phroggy]

It means that what things we have had revealed to us, such as the "time in heaven" relation to "time here," are symbolic.

Most of the time, this is blatently obvious when you look at the actual text: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. I don't see how that could be reasonably interpreted as anything other than symbolic. It doesn't mean that one day is precisely equal to one thousand years, it means that God is timeless, God is above time, God exists outside of time, time is not relevant to God. Is this really that difficult a concept?

Re:I believe

[Phroggy]

That's what Occam's Razor is for. As in the simplest explanation that fits the evidence is usually best (paraphrase). God, being unprovable, will rarely (if ever) fit these criteria.

Why must you assume that evolution by random chance over billions of years is a simpler explanation for the evidence than intelligent design by a divine Creator? Why do you base all your conclusions on the initial basic assumption that God is very very unlikely to exist? Sure, if you start with the assumption that God doesn't exist and then try to find evidence to the contrary, you're going to have a hard time. Try starting with the assumption that God does exist, and try to find evidence to the contrary - you might be surprised to find that this is also difficult.

Of course neither the existence nor nonexistence of God can be proven scientifically, so you're right, it comes down to which explanation seems simpler. This is where I believe you've reached the wrong conclusion.

Re:I believe

[Grax]

Thank you for lumping me in with a bunch of other folks, many of whom blindly ignore scientific data in favor of their book.

I have not offered any data to support another theory concerning the origin of the universe because I do not believe that we can know the answers to that based on the sample size available to us.

You blindly accept modern science as a basis for your beliefs, others blindly accept the "book of fables" as you call it. Someone like me says "that's great. we have a working theory that we can advance scientific knowledge on but let's keep an open mind" and all those of your religion seem plenty happy to set me straight.

Re:I believe

[geomon]

Their bias is great.

Well, my professional publications are part of the public record. Contact me and I will send you the search parameters.

If you can detect any bias in the reports that I have authored, or have been a co-contrtibutor, be my guest. You can parade every misstep that I have made in any venue you wish.

Atheism, and I will speak boldly here, is a psychological crutch for people who want to be left alone.

Now that is funny. Consider the fact that most of the world's 5+ billion people express some adherence to a spiritual being, you are either exhibiting false modesty, or you don't think before you write.

Your pronouncment is hardly bold.

Re:I believe

[Rick BigNail]

Big Bang is saying that the universe has a beginning. So I think it is an evidence, but not a proof. Of course you could say the universe is uncaused, or there are infinite number of universes. Or we don't know.

I don't quite understand why you require testable and falsifiable evidences. That's not how we live our life everyday.

Is the bible good evidence? I think so. Of course it is not proof. Again you could say the authors of the bible are liars, superstitious, or the later Church were corrupt and they fabricated evidences.

How about believer testimony? Again you could argue they are mistaken. Or placebo effect.

I believe both theists and atheists are reasonable in their belief, unless you really require us to hold very high standard. But it is hard to have truely open mind.

Unfortunately we are asked to 'spread the gospel' So, I am sorry could not leave the atheists, or any one for that matter, alone. So what you want us to do, if we truely believe that there would be judgement in the future?

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Or when 'Open Mind' means 'Believe all I'm saying and don't worry about the facts'.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of bollocks. Thats like saying that there are two ways of enjoying carrots.

The positive way: Carrots are mighty tasty

The negative way: Carrots aint bad

And then claiming that there is a crucial difference, while in reality most people could not give A FUCK about carrots either way.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he is an atheisti, that is, he does not believe in the existance of flying pink elephants.

So he obviously belongs to the rather sordid little sect of those religious nuts who do not believe in pink elephants.

The next thing they will do is move to a fortified compound in Texas and get blown up by black UN helicopters.

Re:I believe

[retards]

Yes, I have found evidence enough to confirm everything said about god in the bible.

Oh, so you have confirmed that God's name is JHVH and that He was a lot better god than the Moabite god Chemosh, which is why the Israelites carried around JHVH in a golden box?

You believe that the Creator of the Universe was carried around in a box by Jews 3000 years ago?

Re:I believe

[Elwood P Dowd]

I've never had one of these jackasses actually respond to my flying elephants point. Dunno if that's 'cause they give up or if they can't be bothered.

Re:I believe

[geomon]

Big Bang is saying that the universe has a beginning. So I think it is an evidence, but not a proof. Of course you could say the universe is uncaused, or there are infinite number of universes. Or we don't know.

Facts do not always constitute "truth". The facts, as we understand them, provide an incomplete picture of the universe and what is on the boundary of it. But that in no way constitutes proof of a deity. That is why I asked whether this was another "God in the Gaps" exercise.

I don't quite understand why you require testable and falsifiable evidences.

Because that is how science works. The original thread was how Intelligent Design can be incorporated into natural philosophy. ID requires that you suspend disbelief and accept that an unknown entity created the physical universe. That discussion is fine for a late night dorm room discussions, or a venue where all possible philosophical avenues are open, but science has certain rules that have to be adhered to in order to be considered "scientific".

Testable and falsifiable evidence is one of those requirements.

That's not how we live our life everyday.

That may not be how you live your life everyday. I do not accept anything blindly.

Is the bible good evidence? I think so. Of course it is not proof.

Religion does not require proof.

Again you could say the authors of the bible are liars, superstitious, or the later Church were corrupt and they fabricated evidences.

I believe that religious people did the best they could with the information they had to describe and explain their world. The bible says squat about the mysteries that have been opened to us since the Renaissance. That is why some religious people attack the data that scientific inquiry has produced. If it isn't literally in the bible, goes the reasoning, then it is not "Godly". If it is not taught in Sunday School, it isn't real knowledge.

How about believer testimony? Again you could argue they are mistaken. Or placebo effect.

I would argue nothing of the sort. These people believe what their experience and training tells them is true. Before microscopes and the Germ Theory (yes, my little Creationists; the medical community relies on a *theory* [gasp!] to explain how people get sick), people believed that your illnesses were controlled by humors. The methods used to analyze those humors were good for their time, but medical practitioners only treated symptoms not causes. They operated on the information they had at the time.

I believe both theists and atheists are reasonable in their belief, unless you really require us to hold very high standard. But it is hard to have truely open mind.

I disagree. I have an open mind. But the standards of evidence required by the scientific method have lead to greater advances in human achievement and the alleviation of human suffering than the millions of people looking for answers in an ancient text.

That doesn't mean I believe that *every* problem humans face can be reduced to a scientific question. There is value in what the bible and other ancient texts teach us about our obligation to each other. The problem I see with the leadership of these great religions is that they fail to adapt their messages to modern times. The themes are timeless but the application of that knowledge, and the way the message is delivered, is outdated.

Unfortunately we are asked to 'spread the gospel' So, I am sorry could not leave the atheists, or any one for that matter, alone.

That is what I love about private property. I can use the power of the State to keep you off my land. You can stand on the street just off my property line and shout your pronouncements up to my house all you like. Hell, I will even take a bullet to defend your right to stand in the street (we don't get much traffic) and preach to my trees, bushes, and puppy dogs.

So what you want us to do, if we truely believe that there would be judgement in the future?

I would expect you to do what your conscience tells you to do.

Re:I believe

[geomon]

I liked their response. At least they didn't flip out and tell you that you are going to burn in hell or something equally irrelevant.

Re:I believe

[Elwood P Dowd]

Uh, I don't think that last AC was one of the jackasses. Yes, that response was fine.

Re:I believe

[Nasarius]

The answer is 'mu'.

Well, the clear answer would be: "Neither." It has properties of both.

Re:I believe

[Rick BigNail]

Thanks for replying. Just like to present how some christians think about their faith.

The only point I like to add is about ID movement. I don't think it is 'God of Gaps' types of arguement. It is about what could happen without personal influence. Kind of like to investigate whether a fire is caused by a arsonist.

Oh, I am sorry to hear that you abandoned christian faith. Hopefully it is not caused by the behaviors of some christians.

Re:I believe

[complete loony]

The name they use means "I Am", a name that is an attempt to defy caracterisation and stereo-types.
The gold box carried the stone tablets that Moses brought down from the mountain. And they believed that his presence resided there, and probably because of that belief, that is where they could find him. They used to set it up in a tent. Later Solomon built the temple and put the box in a special room that only a priest could enter. And then only once a year after a special clensing ceremony.
"You believe that the Creator of the Universe was carried around in a box by Jews 3000 years ago?"
In a way, yes. I also believe the creator of the universe came here as a man 2000 years ago. I believe in a god who exists everywhere, in all things. Though we don't *need* a box, tent, temple, or a cathedral to find the presense of god, it can be useful to approach a place where we know or believe he can be found.

Re:I believe

[JohnFluxx]

Go read a physics book sometime. I'm right, you are wrong.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe in intelligent design.

+1 Ironic

-1 Moronic

Re:I believe

[ifwm]

"and then maybe you'll realise why you're a fuckwit"

Because I'm wasting time responding to a moron? Ok, you're right, I'll stop doing that.

Re:I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never had one of these jackasses actually respond to my flying elephants point. Dunno if that's 'cause they give up or if they can't be bothered.

I think they are just religious nuts, crazy believers in the religion of no flying elephants, i.e. the religion of a-aoroelephantists, jut like you Sir are a believer of the religion of atheists. I, myself, I am a devoted nonbeliever in Zeus, and also my hobby is not playing poker. Oh God, how I love not playing poker! In fact, I believe I will not play poker right now! Gotta go.

The usual....

[Null537]

That eventually, somewhere down the line the US government will get better. (Howard Zinn says so)

Re:The usual....

[identity0]

Keep in mind, though, that Zinn is a pacifist communist academic, so his definition of "better" may be radically different than yours : )

I still like his book though, and thanks for giving the first Zinn reference I've seen on Slashdot...

Re:The usual....

[Null537]

I was more referring to his assertions that it's easy to be an optimist in a country where the crappy things that have happend eventually fixed themselves.

Jesus is an alien

[dresgarcia]

AND SO ARE ANGELS

Re:Jesus is an alien

[dresgarcia]

I honestly do believe that. I watched a show on it last week on discovery that only solidified my beliefs. Just because it was one line with a few caps its a troll? Weak.

Re:Jesus is an alien

[the_mad_poster]

Some group of individuals appears to be on a rampage in this story, moderating down all mentions of religion. No idea why. If they're modding because they're anti-religious, they're idiots, because the whole point of the story is believing in things you CAN'T PROVE.

If they're modding them down because they are religious, however, then they clearly don't understand the concept of "faith" and how to have it you must not be able to PROVE your beleif in the common sense.

Or, perhaps, a couple of 13 year olds got a snow day... it appears there are a lot of children on Slashdot these days...

Re:Jesus is an alien

[Dagny Taggert]

Yeah, self-hating children like yourself.

Re:Jesus is an alien

[krunchyfrog]

I also had that theory for the last couple years. I believe the nice story of God and Jesus and the nice fuzzy wuzzy angels is all some nice misbelief because someone somewhere a) figured out to make magic tricks, b) got really lucky or c) was an alien. Add to this LOTS of misinterpretation and mistranslations - and damn, next thing you know, it becomes some fairy tale.

In 2000 years, people will read stupid things like Peter Pan or Cinderella and think of them like saints. WAKE UP people, don't you see that you're just being trated like sheeps? That you've been brainwashed for a big portion of your (or maybe your whole) life? Sure, religion helps you see the good things if life - the glass is half full - or reasons why something happened that way - accidents, earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, volcano eruptions, alien abductions, Microsoft, RIAA, plane crashes, bad luck - so hey, now wonder people have faith in those (brain washing) books. They're always right!

Let me guess... You might have two eyes, a mouth, a nose, two ears, ten fingers. Am I right? Now write a book on believing in me.

WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that there are Weapons of mass Destruction in Iraq-

G.W. Bush

Re:WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

"We Surrender!"

The French

So what's your point? Who cares about the French. Bush still gave a bullshit reason for invading a country.

Re:WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

He's just a conservative invoking the Wookie Defense on behalf of his messiah. Don't blame Bush there weren't WMD in Iraq, blame the French!!

Re:WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's your point? Who cares about the French. Bush still gave a bullshit reason for invading a country.

The media and democrats took one sentence and ran with it. That was NOT the entire reason. As a matter of fact there was a unaminous vote by every country in the UN to do something about it. It is unfortunate that the rest of the world believes that killing a quarter of a million people with gas is acceptable. Think about it, twice as many Kurds were killed by gas as there were deaths in the recent tsunami. You think thats ok? Sick bastard.

Re:WMD

[killjoe]

WHen the gassing occured the UN wanted to sanction Iraq. The US blocked it. Why? Because we gave saddam the gas, we gave him intelligence, we gave him technology and we basically told him to gas people.

Think about that.

Re:WMD

[geomon]

It is unfortunate that the rest of the world believes that killing a quarter of a million people with gas is acceptable.

The US seemed okay with gassing the Kurds as well. We provided the satellite intelligence to Saddam's military so that they could evaluate the efficacy of their operation.

We didn't make too much noise as long as Saddam continued to pound the crap out of Iran.

Re:WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

So, because the US supported Saddam previously, that means it should negate all hostilities, no matter the reason?

Re:WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

Please validate with reputable sources...

Re:WMD

[eclectic4]

Correct. Saddam became a bad guy (in the eyes of the US) when he disobeyed orders by invading Kuwait. But remember, the only people that think the US uses its massive power to uphold higher moral ground are the same ignorami that voted for Bush, thinking the same thing...

Re:WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

What I really belive is that while we were talking about invading Iraq, and asking everyone's permission to protect our own soil,

Sadamn was shipping all his wmd to some other country.

G.W. Bush

Re:WMD

[geomon]

So, because the US supported Saddam previously, that means it should negate all hostilities, no matter the reason?

A rather poor attempt to change the subject, don't you think? You original assertion was that [paraphrasing]"nobody in the world but the US cared about the Kurds being gassed, and it took US intervention to save these poor people from Saddam".

My comment addressed only this aspect of your entire post. I do believe we should have brought down the regime, but I also believe that the reasons the Administration gave for initiating action were contrived and did not serve our foreign policy interests well.

I thought we should have intervened because there wouldn't have been anyone left alive in the country if the sanctions were dragged out indefinately. But those sanctions were imposed and maintained by a world body who did not want to accept responsibility for deposing an absolutely rutheless prick.

Re:WMD

[Jonny_eh]

Now we know what you believe in that doesn't have any proof.

Re:WMD

[eclectic4]

Correct. Saddam became a bad guy (in the eyes of the US) only after he disobeyed orders by invading Kuwait. The whole "gassing" thing wasn't an issue until Bushies saw that they could use it as an excuse for war. They aren't stupid, just evil.

But remember, the only people that think the US uses its massive power to uphold higher moral ground are the same ignorami that voted for Bush, thinking they were doing same thing...

Re:WMD

[eclectic4]

Sorry, my bad. Very twitchy mouse button hovering over "Submit".

Re:WMD

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

Sorry, you are flat wrong.

Saddam *asked* the US permission to invade Kuwait, citing territory issues over oil. We agreed not to intervene on what we ( at the time) considered to be a domestic (between Iraq and Kuwait) issue.

Saddamn, armed with assurances from the US, did exactly what he said he was going to do, and then we changed our minds.

No wonder half the world hates us...

Re:WMD

[Tablizer]

I believe that there are Weapons of mass Destruction in Iraq- G.W. Bush

There *are* WMD in Iraq. They are called "Pissed Sunnis", and they have proven quite effective against conventional forces.

Re:WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about it, twice as many Kurds were killed by gas as there were deaths in the recent tsunami.

And how many Iraqi's have we killed? We tore down Saddam's statue from Abu Ghirab just to have the US soldiers move in and torture and kill prisoners "just like in the old days". You think thats OK?

You say that WMDs were not the only reason we were there, yet we were locked in the hunt for WMDs for months. Apparently either Bush thought it was politically prudent to not set the record straight during that time, or that was as straight as the record got. Keep in mind that we didn't even have plans for installing a democracy when the first troops touched down, and we're still not sure we can pull it off on schedule. And we certainly didn't do it for Cheney's oil company, right?

(Just to keep it on topic: "I believe there are Republicans out there somewhere that can accept the truth and not simply mindblank on things that don't fit into their worldview.")

Before any other republicans comment about Turkish prisons or some other bullshit like that,

1: There is enough evidence of it happening to allege these crimes took place. It is not a "figment of the liberal media's imagination". The first of several courts-martial is beginning right now for the murder of an Iraqi, though these will likely play out in secrecy and noone ouside of a small handful of upper echelon military leaders will ever know the truth.

2: For a country that prides itself with being the best, comparing our treatment of prisoners to Turkish prisons is incredibly weak. I guess "being number 1" was aiming too high for the Republicans, because I see this lame attempt at an excuse on a regular basis every time our paper runs a story about prisoner conditions in Iraq or Guantanamo Bay.

Re:WMD

[jsebrech]

There's some disagreement on what went on between April Glaspie and Saddam in the 1990 meeting. But, it seems pretty clear the US knew in advance about the kuwait invasion plans, and did nothing to stop them.

Re:WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and one more thing. I believe god made me this retarded for a reason.

W

Re:WMD

[gstoddart]

The US seemed okay with gassing the Kurds as well. We provided the satellite intelligence to Saddam's military so that they could evaluate the efficacy of their operation.

We didn't make too much noise as long as Saddam continued to pound the crap out of Iran.

And therein lies the problem.

The US didn't make much noise as long as Bin Laden was fighting off Russians from Afghanistan. Or Pinochet. Or the Shah of Iran.

The US didn't make much noise about a bunch other little petty dictators and dirty little secrets as long as it was in their interests.

This has been going on forever.

Re:WMD

[beanlover]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Re:WMD

[EpsCylonB]

Saddam became a bad guy (in the eyes of the US) when he disobeyed orders by invading Kuwait.

According to Saddam, he asked the US government if they would mind if he invaded Kuwait and was told that America would not intervence. If true then it makes Husseins hatred of the US during the 90's make more sense.

Re:WMD

[auburnate]

You think we did this so we could have a case ( however weak ) to go to war against them?

Re:WMD

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

I know I cannot prove this to you (and as such, take anything said here and on /. with a grain of salt) but my closest friend also happens to be *very* high up in the Scheme Of Things (tm) at teh US state dept. and was privvy to what *exactly* occured during all those meetings.

Saddamn was given *explicit* approval for his invasion plans by the US, and likely we would have done nothing, except for the Kuwaiti royal family and their promise of very attractive oil prices if we helped. And so we did, and the rest is history.

Re:WMD

[geomon]

This has been going on forever.

How true, but this applies to everyone equally.

For every petty dictator we supported in the Cold War, there was a petty dictator supported by the Soviet Union as well. I noticed that East Germany was absent from your listing. There are many more in that listing as well, I assure you.

And what about colonies? Every major power in Europe was just itching to get into Africa in a big way. Do you think they brought the natives foreign aid?

How do you rate the French involvement in Algeria or the Ivory Coast?

To contantly jump on the US for having made poor decisions as a nation undermines the great sacrifice that American citizens have made in keeping major conflict from arriving at everyone's doors world-wide. You and I can criticize the decisions as ill-informed or malevolent, but please don't forget that the US doesn't make them without perceived threats from abroad.

There are still Americans who believe in John Adams proclaimation that "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."

Living up to that proclaimation has been difficult and has meant the sacrifice of a nations treasure.

Re:WMD

[csbruce]

According to Saddam, he asked the US government if they would mind if he invaded Kuwait and was told that America would not intervence.

Maybe Saddam should have gotten a clue that the US didn't approve when Bush, Sr. deployed hundreds of thousands of US troops on the borders of Iraq and Kuwait. Or in 2003. Some people are just slow learners.

If true then it makes Husseins hatred of the US during the 90's make more sense.

I'd say he was a little upset about getting his ass kicked and having his expansionist ambitions stifled.

Re:WMD

[csbruce]

We didn't make too much noise as long as Saddam continued to pound the crap out of Iran.

Yeah, the US administration seemed to have some strange bugaboo about Islamic extremists at that time. We may never know why.

(What's your bet for the year that Iran detonates its first nuclear bomb? My bet is 2008.)

Re:WMD

[EpsCylonB]

Maybe Saddam should have gotten a clue that the US didn't approve when Bush, Sr. deployed hundreds of thousands of US troops on the borders of Iraq and Kuwait. Or in 2003. Some people are just slow learners.

Your saying that Saddam should have been psychic ?.

I'd say he was a little upset about getting his ass kicked and having his expansionist ambitions stifled.

Why do we care so much about the people of Kuwait whilst we have historically done nothing to help the Kurds ?. The Kurds really should have their country but we knew that would piss off Turkey and mean a long and protracted war against Iraq.

Re:WMD

[geomon]

(What's your bet for the year that Iran detonates its first nuclear bomb? My bet is 2008.)

I'd say that is just about right.

They have the same equipment vendor as Pakistan.

Re:WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

We didn't make too much noise as long as Saddam continued to pound the crap out of Iran.


The way you said it could be offending to Iranians. Saddam used chemical weapons supplied by the West.I'm not sure what are implying by the word "pounding".

Re:WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

That was NOT the entire reason
No shit it wasn't. But if you have something we like to call a "memory", you will recall that prior to the war, WMD was cited by the Bush administration (and also John Kerry and many other prominent Democrats) as the reason that a preemptive invasion of Iraq was nessecary.

It is unfortunate that the rest of the world believes that killing a quarter of a million people with gas is acceptable.
No, the 'rest of the world' just recognizes that killing a bunch more Iraqis will not undo the damage done by Saddam.
BTW, where were all the angry condemnations of Saddam when he actually gased the Kurds in the 80s? You are using this as an after the fact justification.

You think thats ok? Sick bastard.
Funny, I think that cheerleading the bombing of civillian areas and occupation of another country is sick.

Re:WMD

[gstoddart]

Well, I was concurring with you when you said ...

We didn't make too much noise as long as Saddam continued to pound the crap out of Iran.

I concur that other nations have done this in the past, and will probably do so in the future.

The difference, as I see it, is the US gets held to a higher standard because:

• Their constitution is supposed to stop them from mostly being imperialists
• They like to tell the world they are the sole providers of truth and justice and the worlds policemen, and if we don't like it too bad
• They act is if the actions of the current administration are in a vacuum

Quite frankly, if you're the only remaining super-power left, don't play well with other children, and doing the role they try to do in the world, you're gonna be held to a higher standard.

Otherwise there is no justification to take the moral high-ground.

Re:WMD

[geomon]

The way you said it could be offending to Iranians.

I am an American. My very *existance* is offensive to many Iranians.

Saddam used chemical weapons supplied by the West.

And he used them. Your point?

I'm not sure what are implying by the word "pounding".

Let's see: Iraq invading from the west and engaging in a war of attrition that left both sides in a stalemate. Artillery shelling (thanks to Gerald V. Bull), wave after wave of blind attacks, aerial assults...

I call that "pounding". But they gave as well as they took.

Re:WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

They are called "Pissed Sunnis"

Actually there are a lot of pissed Shiites as well. You might recall a guy named Moqtada Al-Sadr. Funny how people get pissed off when you invade their country.

Re:WMD

[csbruce]

Your saying that Saddam should have been psychic ?.

No, he only had to notice that hundreds of thousands of troops were aligned against him and that Bush Sr. was on CNN issuing an ultimatum to Saddam to withdraw from Kuwait immeditely. For the mentally retarded: when a US president has hundreds of thousands of troops on your doorstep and issues an ultimatum, he's not bluffing.

Why do we care so much about the people of Kuwait whilst we have historically done nothing to help the Kurds ?

The US helped the kurds indirectly by enforcing the no-fly zones on Saddam over Kurdish territory and helped them directly to establish an autonomous democracy. I believe Bremmer himself was involved in that. What, you didn't think that democracy occurred spontaneously, did you?

I just find it strange that people like to bash the US so much when it is the sole source of freedom on the planet. Bashers could at least qualify their statements with something like, "Yeah, I know that the US is the ultimate source of my freedom to say this and that most other countries in the world, such as France, Germany, Russia, and China are much worse at the things I am about the accuse the US of, but...".

Re:WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, well then "your special friend" at the US state dept. must know my special friend at the US state dept. And my special friend says your special friend should stick to doing his job (emptying the garbage, mopping the floor).

He calls your point a very probable lie and assumes you have your own (contempt based?) agenda.

Re:WMD

[killjoe]

"Yeah, I know that the US is the ultimate source of my freedom to say this and that most other countries in the world, such as France, Germany, Russia, and China are much worse at the things I am about the accuse the US of, but..."."

Why? The freepers go around with that mantra 24X7 so why do we have to repeat it?

Re:WMD

[csbruce]

Why? The freepers go around with that mantra 24X7 so why do we have to repeat it?

Because it rightfully exposes most US bashers as hypocrites.

Re:WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about it, twice as many Kurds were killed by gas as there were deaths in the recent tsunami. You think thats ok? Sick bastard.

Then we should have invaded Iran, rather than Iraq.

From A War Crime or an Act of War?, by Stephen C. Pelletiere, in The New York Times, Jan. 31, 2003

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

Re:WMD

[killjoe]

SO are the freeper dancing around GW singing "holy holy holy". So what?

Besides it's not like it's all cut and dried anyway.

Re:WMD

[Abcd1234]

I just find it strange that people like to bash the US so much when it is the sole source of freedom on the planet.

Holy shit. I had *no idea* people in the US were so deluded by their own nationalism. I can only assume you're referring to the actions of the US in the two world wars, since I can think of no other example where the US acted as a "source of freedom". Well, you know what, we appreciate that the US of the early 20th century helped in WWI, even though it took forever for you to finally join in. And we appreciate the assistance of the US of the 40s in WWII, as well, though it was also a bit late in the game. But, guess what, that was 50 years ago. The US is a vastly different place today, and while it could have turned into a paragon of freedom and morality, it instead turned into a morass of selfishness and greed, where politicians are bought and sold by massive corporations, and foreign policy is dictated by the almighty dollar. Thus, I would hardly refer to modern America as a "source of freedom"...

Re:WMD

[Qzukk]

US Bashers are hypocrites?

I guess they are, after all, nobody really wants to know the real truth, they just want whatever truth they get fed through the media or through their religious leader or through their president (often then filtered through the media too!)

Reminds me of the Republican ads being shown before the election, talking about how the Republicans were the "value" party, and listing all sorts of values they claimed to hold (gee, I'm glad you're courageous!). I guess those "liberal" tv channels must have cut the ad short, since not once was "truth", "justice", or "honesty" listed.

So, if The Truth is bashing the US, then maybe its deserved. US spoonfed Saddam (who wouldn't have been able to hold Iraq together himself) to have a secular friend against Iran taking over the region. Once Saddam was armed, he started misbehaving and killing people but the US chose to "overlook" that small flaw in his character for the continued security against Iran, until finally he invaded another country. Then Bush Sr. beat him down just enough to teach him that if he wants to slaughter people, he can do it within his own country.

Later, we invade Iraq, kill a lot of people, discover halfway through that we had no plans for an exit, no plans for a democracy (are we even going to pull off the hastily arranged election this month?), no weapons of mass destruction (and members of the government knew this, but failed to communicate it to anyone who could do anything about it other than fire them from the CIA, even after weeks of hunting in Iraq) making this an elective war which means that we could have waited in order to properly equip troops, rather than "going to war with the army we have".

I also find it highly amusing that you believe we are the sole source of freedom on this planet. I can see how people could say "we saved Europe" in WW2, but I'd like to hear how crushing Japan or Germany saved South Africa or Mexico. Not to mention that our own freedom was largely conferred to us with French support.

I suppose though that what America giveth, it taketh away, as the Bush Administration did when it tried to imprison our own Citizens without charge or trial, until the Supreme Court schooled Bush on the bill of rights (Jose Padilla was "detained" in 2002, and finally has a trial scheduled for this month thanks to the SCOTUS decision, however he STILL has not been charged with a crime). Though maybe you're right about the source of freedom spiel, just last month Britain saw the light and their indefinite imprisonment law got busted too.

Re:WMD

[soft_guy]

You're silly if you think that the only political concerns that a dictator has is the US. He gave us an opportunity to object to the invasion of Kuwait way *before* he ever invaded. The US official in the region said in response to a direct question from the Iraqi goverment about the proposed invasion of Kuwait that the US didn't care about "inter-arab disputes". The whole thing was caused by an incompetent low level Bush administration official who made this statement. I don't remember her name off hand, but I do remember that it was a woman.
After Iraq is in Kuwait is too late. The US can't afford to go around giving out mixed messages like that.

Re:WMD

[danila]

Soviet Union has never placed dictators in other countries. How could it if the whole point was to support popular revolutions of the proletariat? Yes, often those revolutions ended up with a dictator in power. And often the USSR supported an existing dictator if he promised to move towards communism. But I don't recall the USSR doing anything like the US did with Saddam or Taliban. It never supported militant groups or rogue countries just to piss off the US.

Re:WMD

[Cervantes]

Amen, brother.

God forbid people actually try and remember stuff older than the news crawler on CNN.

Re:WMD

[geomon]

Soviet Union has never placed dictators in other countries.

The leaders of Eastern Europe and the asian buffer countries were all hand picked by Stalin. Their successors were all elevated to their positions by the Kremlin.

How could it if the whole point was to support popular revolutions of the proletariat?

Sure. Whatever.

Yes, often those revolutions ended up with a dictator in power.

But these were all revolutions of the proletariat! They couldn't possibly be ruled by dictators if they had their trusty "communism" ointment to protect them.

And often the USSR supported an existing dictator if he promised to move towards communism.

Yeah, I remember that East German dictator who rose independently to power after WWII.

What was his name again?

But I don't recall the USSR doing anything like the US did with Saddam...

Did you get the model number of Saddam's tanks?

They were Soviet-built T-72s.

...or Taliban.

Amazing coincidence. The Americans didn't support the Taliban either.

It never supported militant groups or rogue countries just to piss off the US.

You aren't a student Cuban or African history, are you?

Re:WMD

[grozzie2]

I just find it strange that people like to bash the US so much when it is the sole source of freedom on the planet.

Wow, I always thought americans had horrible tunnel vision, but I really didn't give them credit for total delusion.

Take a good look around the world, concentrate on the 'free countries' out there. You will find a lot of them that quietly practise the types of freedoms that america talks about, but quietly ignores internally.

Re:WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you ARE saying that Saddam should have been psychic...

Or are there any other logical ways of knowing from an *ultimatum to withdraw immidiately* that he should not *invade* Kuwait?

Generally speaking, being able to use the knowledge (not invade) before you have the knowledge (note that withdrawing from Kuwait requires it being invaded first) is known as being psychic.

Re:WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. A quarter of a million people? Where do you get that figure?

I'm assuming you're referring to the 1988 gas attack. The number of people killed was considerably less than you claim. Even if you consider "at least 5000" as a lower bound, it's unlikely that the actual figure was 50 times that many.

It was still very wrong, but the action was all but condoned by the US at the time; the US opposed sanctioning Iraq (something that was supported by much of "the rest of the world") for that action.

Please, learn a little bit about history before you start spouting nonsense.

Re:WMD

[ThaReetLad]

Just to clarify slightly, the UK's anti-terror detention law didn't exactly get busted, just declared incompatible with human rights law. The way that British law works is that it asserts that British law overrules all other law, so if parliment says "this is the law" then it is the law and it is almost impossible to get it reversed except by a further act of parliment. This is why the detainees in question are still being held pending a palimentary review of the law.

Re:WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States of America (God bless Her!) is truly the most Democratic, the most FREE country in the world!

And the people around the world should thank Christ for her existance, and the fact that the USA is going through the trouble of freeing the Afgan and Iraqi people from tyrrany and introducing them to the wonders of Democracy.

A divine light is shining upon the world and that light is being directed by our president George W. Bush (God bless Him!).

I believe I will have another martini, please.

[drewzhrodague]

I believe I will have another martini, please. Up, Sapphire, extra olives, and go easy on the vermouth.

Re:I believe I will have another martini, please.

[Anonymous Coward]

shaken, not stirred...

James, James Bond

Re:I believe I will have another martini, please.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Bond, James Bond

Re:I believe I will have another martini, please.

[jlapier]

Up, Sapphire, extra olives, and go easy on the vermouth.

You are supposed to show us you believe in something without proof.

Re:I believe I will have another martini, please.

[Some Bitch]

It's Bond, James Bond

It's also a Bradford if it's shaken, not a martini.

Re:I believe I will have another martini, please.

[TGK]

It's worth pointing out that the reason you stir a martini rather than shaking it is to prevent the ice from being chipped. Chipped ice melts faster and thus incrases the water content of the drink.

James is ordering a weak martini and being snooty about it.

Re:I believe I will have another martini, please.

[pthisis]

It's Bond, James Bond

It's also a Bradford if it's shaken, not a martini.

I would think the use of Lillet in place of vermouth and the addition of vodka would be more problematic to a purist. (In the first book, it's 3 measures of Gordon's, one of vodka, half a measure of Keena lillet.)

Later on it's a medium dry vodka martini, shaken not stirred, with a twist of lemon.

Shaking makes sense for vodka.

Re:I believe I will have another martini, please.

[dwhitman]

You are supposed to show us you believe in something without proof.

Ok. I believe I'll have a Shirley Temple, no little umbrella, extra fizzy water.

Re:I believe I will have another martini, please.

[Matey-O]

Um Nooooo. You stir a _gin_ martini so as not to release the volatile oils that give it its flavor.

Vodka does not HAVE those oils, so you might as well shake away to enhance the thermodynamic transfer.

Try ordering two gin martinis, one shake and one stirred if ya don't believe me.

Re:I believe I will have another martini, please.

[drinkypoo]

I am neither a physicist, nor a chemist, nor a mathematician who performs computational fluid dynamics analysis, but it seems to me that shaking would release more of these compunds unless by "stir" you mean "with a blender".

Re:I believe I will have another martini, please.

[Matey-O]

Shaking aereates the mix. You don't want to do that with gin as you lose all the nifty stuff that makes it gin to the atmosphere. You wanna keep it in the drink.

Of course, Martinis are such [wonderfully] hideous things that if you manage to develop a taste for it one way, you may not like it the other.

Re:I believe I will have another martini, please.

[Noksagt]

Very interesting point. Most people also consider 'martini' to refer to the style of drink and now even to the glass it is served in. So a variant like a "gibson" is still considered a "martini," even if it has the cocktail onion garnish instead of traditional olives or twists (anyone know if there is a different name denoting these two variants (Dickens is used for one with no garnish)?). I would assume the same was true for "Bradford."

Re:I believe I will have another martini, please.

[glenebob]

I believe that whoever discovered the wonderful combination of vodka and green olives should have one a Nobel prize. Vermouth? What's that?

Re:I believe I will have another martini, please.

[matrix0f8h]

That was damned clever.

Logic works?

[nine-times]

Being a bit of a student of philosophy, my old favorite is "logic works", or, in other words, "a proof means something".

I mean, go ahead and prove it, but you'll still be taking it for granted, or you wouldn't bother with a proof.

Re:Logic works?

[Anonymous Coward]

One way to measure theories is by how many axioms, or things they take for granted, they need to prove everything else in their theory. Euclid needed five, and he spent a long time getting that list as short as he could.

But without taking anything for granted, you can't prove anything, as you've said. And taking geometry as an example, it has worked, because it's allowed us to make great things like pyramids, space shuttles, buildings, etc.

Re:Logic works?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never seen a satifying and acceptable definition of what constitutes Proof. One man's certainty is another man's myth is another man's joke is another man's ???

Re:Logic works?

[RAMMS EIN]

In fact, the opposite has been proven. Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that a powerful enough system cannot prove its own consistency. This implies that you can make any number of proofs that are valid within your system, but you can never know if the system itself is valid. Or, as I like to say, the only thing you know for sure is that you never know anything for sure.

Of course, the incompleteness theorem itself is derived by a system of which the validity is unknown...

Re:Logic works?

[nine-times]

True, true. Every argument takes something for granted. But all arguments take for granted a certain same thing, along with whatever else they take for granted: that a properly structured argument gets you closer to Truth. (say it however you like)

Not only that, but there are different arguments about the proper use of argumentation and logic. So, not only does every argument presume that "logic works", but it presumes that a certain sort of "logic", namely the sort of logical attack you're using at the time, works. So Euclid isn't only taking his 5 postulates for granted, but also that his sort of geometric proof is appropriate, what constitutes a thing being proven, as well as a sort of spacial intuition without which geometry is impossible.

It's a very complex topic that, unfortunately, few people bother to examine properly. For the record, I'm not saying that, since we can't prove anything without assuming something, we shouldn't attempt to prove anything. I am saying that, since we are always taking things for granted, we should carefully examine and understand what it is that we assume. Once you understand how much you're assuming, even in order to complete the simplest of tasks, you'll understand that assumptions, in and of themselves, are not bad.

Re:Logic works?

[nine-times]

Yes, absolutely. We know without a doubt that logic and proofs do not work, because Gödel has constructed a logical proof to prove it...

Wait... what?

Joking aside, proving that logic can't prove itself is easy enough. Proving that logic doesn't work is another matter entirely.

Re:Logic works?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never seen a satifying and acceptable definition of what constitutes Proof.

You must live a sheltered life. Are you a GWB follower?

Re:Logic works?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm more inclined to believe in Occam's Razor...

Re:Logic works?

[RAMMS EIN]

Well, the whole point of logic is that if you follow the rules, and your premises are valid, you can only arrive at valid conclusions, right?

So now Gödel demonstrates that this is not necessarily so. In other words, starting from valid premises and following the rules, you could still reach invalid conclusions.

In other words, logic is just another way to organize your thoughts. Conclusions you reach with it are just like conclusions derived with other systems: maybe they're valid, maybe not.

Personally, I believe in logic. But it's a belief, and it will never be more than that. I also believe you can't dig deep enough to explain everything. I also believe in certain things which others would call supernatural. And many other things.

Re:Logic works?

[deesine]

What would Occam have to say on the origins of the universe?

Re:Logic works?

[dpreformer]

Godel doesn't show you can reach invalid conclusions. There are statements in arithmetic that are beyond the ability of formal logic to prove. A little deeper - any formal system that is consistent and with sufficient power to encompass arithmetic using natural numbers cannot be complete - that is there are theorems that cannot be proved or disproved within that formal system.

It is analogous to the halting problem.

Re:Logic works?

[learn fast]

According to Goedels' Incompleteness Theoreom, every logic must have at least some holes

Re:Logic works?

[nine-times]

Well, the whole point of logic is that if you follow the rules, and your premises are valid, you can only arrive at valid conclusions, right?

So now Gödel demonstrates that this is not necessarily so. In other words, starting from valid premises and following the rules, you could still reach invalid conclusions.

It's trickier than that. Let's assume logic works, and I present a logical argument that "proves" that logic doesn't work. If my argument is to be believed, my argument is a paradox that proves my argument meaningless.

If I have truly followed all the "rules" or logic, and we presume that logic still "works", then it necessarily follows that the premises are wrong. One premise that may be wrong is that "logic works", but surely I am assuming other things, including that I am applying the "rules" or logic properly. So we re-examine our premises.

As I said, one premise that may be wrong is that "logic works", but if we do not assume this, than we should not start off trying to construct any kind of logical system or creating logical proofs. I'm not saying you reach a complete dead-end, but any "theorem" or "proof" or "argument" or "demonstration" may be empty in the world you find yourself entering.

Therefore, if Gödel really were proving simply that "logic doesn't work" then it would be needlessly annoying to go through his argument. No, I'm afraid what he's proving (correct me if I'm wrong) is something more along the lines that even a self-coherent logical system cannot prove itself to be true. So he places a limit to logic under which it works.

Of course, the root (original) definition of "logic" (which is the definition I prefer) is something akin to "a way of talking" or maybe "in accordance with words". The "rules" of logic were not invented or discovered whole as inalienable truths, but are merely explicit statements of what sort of things "make sense" to us.

Re:Logic works?

[pthisis]

Well, the whole point of logic is that if you follow the rules, and your premises are valid, you can only arrive at valid conclusions, right?

So now Gödel demonstrates that this is not necessarily so. In other words, starting from valid premises and following the rules, you could still reach invalid conclusions.

No, you are conflating consistency and completeness. Godel's theorem is about completeness: he demonstrates that (in a sufficiently complex logical system) there are statements that cannot be proven true or false. (e.g. the Axiom of Choice is independent of ZF set )

He does not show that there are false statements which are provable or that there are true statements which are disprovable.

Also note that Godel's theorem only applies to logical systems that satisfy a number of prerequisites. Simple enough logical systems can be complete.

Re:Logic works?

[yet another coward]

You are very wrong about Gödel.

In a logical system, it is possible to write down statements. The internal angles of a triangle sum to pi. It is possible to write down such statements that cannot be proved or disproved even though the statement totally uses the terms and relationships of the logical system.

If you could create a proof, the statement is true. If you can create a counter, the statement is false. Gödel's work addresses statements that have neither proofs nor refutations.

I think (not sure) that the fifth posulate of Euclid is a good example. It involves the angles when a line crosses two parallel lines. For centuries, people tried to prove the fifth posulate in terms of the other four. It is possible to assume something completely contrary to the usual fifth postulate, though, and come up with a perfectly fine mathematical system. In the logical system with only the first four postulates, the fifth postulate constitutes a statement that cannot be proven or disproven even though the terms come from the first four.

Re:Logic works?

[RAMMS EIN]

``if Gödel really were proving simply that "logic doesn't work" then it would be needlessly annoying to go through his argument. No, I'm afraid what he's proving (correct me if I'm wrong) is something more along the lines that even a self-coherent logical system cannot prove itself to be true.''

In fact, the incompleteness theorem means that any sufficiently powerful system is either incomplete (i.e. it can express true statements that it cannot prove), or inconsistent (i.e. it can express and prove false statements).

The logic systems that we use are of the incomplete kind. Therefore, we have undecidable prepositions, such as the axiom of choice and the halting problem. Unfortunately, one of the undecidable prepositions in any sufficiently powerful system is that the system is correct. Indeed, this means not that the system is incorrect (sorry if I gave you that impression earlier), but simply that you cannot know.

I personally tend to assume that something works, until it has been demonstrated not to work. I believe, for example, that the 3n+1 program halts for any value of n, because I have verified this for many values. However, I am unaware of any proof that it halts for any n. It may be one of the undecidable prepositions...

Re:Logic works?

[halfelven]

I believe that fundamental limits in the way the mind works make us believe all kinds of silly things about the reality. I believe that no amount of intellect enhancing (in the Star Trek sense) could overcome this problem.
I believe it will be solved only by the emergence, over the course of evolution, of a radically new principle, as different from and as superior to the principle of mind, as mind is different from and superior to unintelligent life (or life is to unanimated matter). The next Big Step, if you wish.
That next step may or may not involve us, humans. :-/

One hint to the current state of affairs might be Godel's theorem.
Another hint might be the irepressible tendency of people to fall prey to A Thinking System, or A Dogma, any dogma, be it religion, science, whatever, while a priory rejecting all the other.

Re:Logic works?

[Anonymous Coward]

the axiom of choice relates to many things. including zeno's paradox and real analysis. I believe its basically the belief that you can assume the existence of a function that maps a function from some set to the set of all sub sets of that set, or without the axiom of choice, that there is not necessarily a function from a set to the set of all subsets of the set. try saying that three times fast. did he function have additional properties?

Re:Logic works?

[nine-times]

I believe it will be solved only by the emergence, over the course of evolution, of a radically new principle, as different from and as superior to the principle of mind, as mind is different from and superior to unintelligent life (or life is to unanimated matter). The next Big Step, if you wish.

And what makes you think that this ever will be, or should be, or could be, or is meant to be "solved"? A careful analysis may show that you see as a "problem" may, in fact, be a necessary prerequisite for anything resembling "intelligent thought".

Anything else is talking about something that is fundamentally unrecognizable and incomprehensible to us, which is to say, talking about nothing.

Re:Logic works?

[double_ooh]

I think (not sure) that the fifth posulate of Euclid is a good example. It involves the angles when a line crosses two parallel lines. For centuries, people tried to prove the fifth posulate in terms of the other four. It is possible to assume something completely contrary to the usual fifth postulate, though, and come up with a perfectly fine mathematical system. In the logical system with only the first four postulates, the fifth postulate constitutes a statement that cannot be proven or disproven even though the terms come from the first four.

Your explanation of what Godel's Theorem actually means is accurate, however your example is faulty. The postulates of Euclid are just those, postulates, not theorems. None of them are provable, they are assumed to be true or taken as 'obvious'. The parallel line postulate is not obvious, so people have thrown it out and worked just fine from there. If you assume it's true, you get Euclidean (planar) Geometry. If you don't, you get other interesting results (including spherical geometry).

I guess what I am trying to say is that the postulates were never meant to be proven, so they are not a good example of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

Just trying to clarify a little.

Re:Logic works?

[yet another coward]

I think my problem arose from not separating the statement encapsulated by the fifth postulate from the idea of a postulate. Maybe I should have written that many mathematicians suspected that the statement expressed in the fifth posulate was a theorem provable using the other four postulates. Let me call the statement X. There were many failed attempts at proving X using the first four postulates. Some of them are very convincing because their flaws are subtle and difficult to spot.

Some mathematicians took the reductio ad absurdum (RAA) approach to X. They made assumptions contrary to X and tried to reach ridiculous conclusions, proof that X must be a true theorem given only the first four postulates because going against it leads to absurd conclusions inconsistent with the first four postulates. They never came to conclusions contrary to the first four postulates. The results were some of the early non-Euclidean geometries.

It is not that people were trying to prove a postulate. I am sorry to imply that idea. They thought that the statement X was actually provable in terms of the first four postulates, a theorem, and not a postulate. Historically, the controversy and work surrounding the fifth postulate and whether it is really a postulate or actually a theorem gave rise to ideas about logical systems and consistency that led to Gödel Incompleteness Theorem.

Re:Logic works?

[alienmole]

Personally, I believe in logic. But it's a belief, and it will never be more than that.

It certainly won't ever be more than that, if you never educate yourself out of your woeful misunderstanding of Gödel's theorem.

Other posters have provided some good responses, but there's another angle which I don't think has been mentioned.

Gödel showed that certain kinds of formal systems have certain limits. However, those limits are clearly defined. You still know that if you are able to prove a conclusion within a consistent system, that the proof is correct within that system (and vice versa for disproof).

You seem to be confusing this result of Gödel's with the relationship between the system and the model of the systems, e.g. the real-world thing that the system or a proof is supposed to apply to. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem doesn't say anything about that. If you look at a proof as a set of formulae within a formal system - which is just a made-up language with a strict set of rules - you can say definitively that a proof's conclusion is true, at least to the extent that you check each step against the rules (which can sometimes be done by computer, improving the degree of certainty of the correctness check.)

But if you try to apply that proof to something in the real world, you have to perform a mapping between the formal system and the real world. There is room for mistakes here, and if you make a mistake, then a perfectly valid proof can result in an entirely wrong conclusion about the real world. However, this has nothing to do with Gödel. It's similar to the whole thing about lying with statistics: you can have perfectly correct statistics, but if you apply them incorrectly, the result is meaningless & therefore wrong.

However, this isn't a particularly serious problem, as it happens. It's possible to quite rigorously map a logical proof onto the real world. At some level, a certain amount of intuition is involved, but our entire philosophy of anything is based on such intuitional mappings. For example, we routinely map our abstract concept of number onto quantities of objects in the real world. If you add an apple to a group of two other apples, you get a group of three apples. Do you consider this conclusion "maybe valid, maybe not", as you put it? The applications of logic to the real world are just as reliable as our application of integers to the real world.

I also believe you can't dig deep enough to explain everything.

Ah, but some of the most interesting results, like the incompleteness theorem and the uncertainty theorem in quantum mechanics, show that we can determine the exact boundaries of what we can and cannot explain or know, in some cases. The halting problem and Chaitin's constant Omega (which is much more interesting than that link indicates) is another example of this.

Re:Logic works?

[halfelven]

A careful analysis may show that you see as a "problem" may, in fact, be a necessary prerequisite for anything resembling "intelligent thought".

I didn't say "mind is bad and it cannot produce anything useful". The "problem" i mentioned is not the mind per se, but the way the mind is, i believe (although, quite an unnecessary statement, i cannot prove), incomplete in some fundamental way(s).
Pretty much the same way Life is incomplete - but it's easy to see that from the perspective of the Mind. (i'm capitalising the initials to show i'm refering to the respective principles, from a philosophical perspective)

You are correct in saying that the Next Step (whatever that is) is incomprehensible to us, pretty much the way the mind is "incomprehensible" (forced language) to animals, or life is "incomprehensible" (again) to dead matter. But that does not imply it is a nothing.
Lack of comprehension does not refute existence.

Actually, it's sort of strange how most people who accept the fundamental assumptions of the theory of evolution, at the same time seem to assume that Homo Sapiens is the definitive pinnacle. Actually there are two ways to further qualify that:
- the weak one - the assumption that the human species will not improve within the current evolutionary frame (the principle of mind)
- the strong one - the assumption that the principle of mind is the last big step and there's no further evolutionary big change (um, revolutionary change?) down the road

Re:Logic works?

[nine-times]

Lack of comprehension does not refute existence.

I wasn't saying it was. I'm saying a man talking about something that is and must be utterly incomprehensible to him, by nature, is man talking about nothing. To use your analogy, it's roughly equivalent in meaning to the talk that goes on between the dirt and the rock insofar as they try to understand people.

Re:Logic works?

[DancesWithBlowTorch]

I'm sorry, but this is not completly correct. Gödel's theorem is only valid for formal systems which can be "Gödelised", i.e. where the written proofs can be translated into long Gödel-Numbers by assigning a cipher to every sign in the proof. Linear Algebra, for example, is complete _and_ consistent, as far as I know. In contrast to number theory, as you probably know.

Re:Logic works?

[Raunch]

Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that a powerful enough system cannot prove its own consistency. This implies that you can make any number of proofs that are valid within your system, but you can never know if the system itself is valid. Or, as I like to say, the only thing you know for sure is that you never know anything for sure.


Can you prove that?

Re:Logic works?

[Spunk]

Keith Devlin talks about this in his response to the question.

Great minds think alike. Which, logically, does not in itself indicate that you have a great mind ;-)

Re:Logic works?

[danila]

The only thing it proves is you can't realy on Slashdot moderation. Your comment is wrong, as an AC pointed out. DWBT didn't realise that you were completely wrong, but gave a clarification anyway.

The correct explanation of what the theorem was is that every sufficiently strong logical system (number theory is sufficiently strong, linear algebra isn't) either contains true proposition that can't be proved inside the theory or is inconsistant so you can prove both the statement and its negative.

Re:Logic works?

[Shamashmuddamiq]

But, in this context, "to know" is also defined within that system, and is therefore consistent by definition. This regression of the concept of knowledge that you present ("know for sure") has no meaning, because we are not connected to that context in any way; it's completely void.

It's like the "brains in a vat" argument. Asking "am I a brain in a vat?" is futile because there is no connection between ourselves and that "outer reality" which would allow us to meaningfully say "I am a brain in a vat." If you could meaningfully say it, then you wouldn't be a brain in a vat!

In our case, we can't question reason, because in order to do so, we would need to use reason. You can't use Godel's incompleteness theorem to state that we don't know anything because it becomes meaningless by the time you reach the end of the assertion. Hence the banal, "Do you know that for sure?" question that you've already received from a fellow slashdotter. You have a priori knowledge. Your daily thoughts and actions prove it. Saying, "but I don't REALLY know anything FOR SURE" is absolutely meaningless.

You should read some of Hilary Putnam's stuff.

Re:Logic works?

[Suidae]

good to know that there are people here who acutally understnd Godel.

If there are simple systems that are complete and complex systems that are not complete, and we can add to the complexity of a simple system by adding rules, where is the point at which systems become incomplete?

A test would be to see if we can express the system within itself, as I understand Godel did, but is that the only way to know? Is it possible that there are systems that are incomplete, but are not powerful enough to be tested using that method?

Re:Logic works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that

states nothing... By definition, its just a theorem. It has never been "proved" to be correct, only accepted as a truth for lack of any definitive logic. After all, the theorem states that no proof would be sufficient to make the theorem itself provably correct, so its unprovable, so why even try? Why this theorem is not even consistent with itself! So then, why do I agree with it?

Re:Logic works?

[Anonymous Coward]

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."
- a former world leader

Re:Logic works?

[pthisis]

If there are simple systems that are complete and complex systems that are not complete, and we can add to the complexity of a simple system by adding rules, where is the point at which systems become incomplete?

There isn't a progression--there are also simple systems that are incomplete. Euclidean geometry (modern formulations thereof) is complete, but delete any single axiom and it becomes incomplete.

Re:Logic works?

[Animats]

Actually, no. Incompleteness and the halting problem depend on the existence of infinities of one form or another. Finite systems are decidable.

The halting problem is decidable for deterministic computers with finite memory. Either it halts, or repeats a previous state.

There are programs for which the time/cost to make that decision are large, but that's a lower bounds problem, not a decidability problem.

Re:Logic works?

[swillden]

After all, the theorem states that no proof would be sufficient to make the theorem itself provably correct

No, it doesn't. What Gödel's first incompleteness theorem does is demonstrate how to construct a self-referential statement that says, effectively, "I cannot be proven". If it cannot be proven, it's true. If it can be proven, it's false. Thus, any system which can be Gödelized (i.e. any system in which it's possible to define a bijective mapping between the elements of the system and statements about elements of the system) contains statements which are either true but not provable, or provable but not true.

This does not imply that no statements are provable, nor does it imply that the first incompleteness theorem is not provable. If the incompleteness theorems were not proved they would have generated much less interest :-)

This may be stupid...

[Anonymous Coward]

But, I believe that Slashdot will someday be run by professionals.

Re:This may be stupid...

[wheany]

I wouldn't be so hopeful...

First Post.

[LWATCDR]

I believe in a kind and loving God. Keeping that belief is hard usualy because of the acts of man.
Let the flames begin.

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

The sincerity of your sentiment is diminished by the subject title. FYI.

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I could believe that eventually humans would get past having to believe in an unseen 'god'-creature and stop relying on an ancient book to tell them what is right and what is wrong. I really do.

(Btw, isn't that a sin of pride, having "first post" in your subject?)

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a religious fanatic, nor do I even attend church, but why would someone flame another simply for stating their belief in a God, without prejudice or trying to force their ideals?

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let the flames begin.

You know what? Good for you!

I'm an atheist myself, but I'm not going to try and convert you. Nor do I want you to convert me. I don't believe in UFO's, ghosts, fortune telling nor anything else supernatural.

BUT! I believe that if people were a little bit more tolerant, the world would be a much better place.

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

The same God that loves asian and iraqi children? I believe christian people are irrational.

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because this is /.

Re:First Post.

[Hyecee]

I've haven't seen so many AC replies to a single posting before. Methinks people are scared to be associated with such a "controversial" topic.

It's a shame the topic can't be approached more open-mindedly, as the parent was neither malicious or forceful. Whether you believe in a God or not, is the idea so black and white that people can't even maintain a healthy, respectful dialogue about it?

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe in a kind and loving God. Keeping that belief is hard usualy because of the acts of man.

Yes, because it was man that just killed hundreds of thousands of people, right? Get a clue. If (a) god(s) exist(s), (he|they) must be pretty damn cruel to drown so many people.

Re:First Post.

[sfh]

...or very big waves

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether you believe in a God or not, is the idea so black and white that people can't even maintain a healthy, respectful dialogue about it?

The idea that there is a benevolent fairy up in the sky looking after us is a pretty repellent thing to claim when hundreds of thousands of people have just been killed. Where was his "kind and loving god" for them?

Re:First Post.

[wcrowe]

I believe in a wrathful, vengeful, jealous God who sometimes squashes His most faithful servants merely because it pleases Him.

Re:First Post.

[m50d]

I don't believe in a kind and loving God, as I can't believe that such a God would have created a world such as this. If I believe in any kind of God, it's a slightly sadistic, childish one. I mean, surely any reasonably intelligent God would realise all the mess that comes from having many different religions, all with a little bit of support but not outright proof. So why would such a God create a world with this, unless He likes wars and things?

(no karma bonus since this is going to hell, but not a/c because I have no problem saying my sincere beliefs even if they offend people)

Re:First Post.

[the quick brown fox]

(he|they) must be pretty damn cruel

Not necessarily, depending on whether there is an afterlife and what determines your fate therein. That's even assuming that the earthquake wasn't actually a good outcome out of all the possible outcomes; for example, what if the earthquake released tectonic pressure that otherwise would've built up and killed millions instead of hundreds of thousands?

I for one think the "If an omnipotent, loving God exists, why does he let bad things happen?" line of argument is a red herring. It's impossible for us to understand the actions of a being with an infinite perspective, if one exists--or to look at it another way, you can always argue the other side, no matter how disastrous and cruel the world might seem to be.

Re:First Post.

[DarkSarin]

thank you for putting it so succinctly.

Re:First Post.

[killjoe]

That's because god is a terrible cruel being who clearly asks his followers to kill people we may care about.

What do christians do when they don't want to kill homosexuals even though god has told them to do it? They ignore that sentence of the bible and fixate on other sentences.

Everybody does that. The bible is a large document and contradicts itself constantly. There are good things in it and there are horrible repugnant things in it.

Most people completely ignore the bad stuff, an extremely tiny percentage of the people obey the good stuff, most people kind of acknowledge the good stuff but can't be bothered to actually change their lifestyle to actually practice any of it.

There are as many bibles as there are christians. Each christian has taken the stuff they want to obey and ignored the rest. For most christians the bible can fit on a postcard (ok maybe a brochure).

Think about it. Almost 70% of americans go to church regularly. If each one of those people practiced the kind of charity jesus preached there would be no hunger or poverty in the world.

Re:First Post.

[realdpk]

I'll have a respectful dialogue with a christian if I can find one that isn't busy looking down their nose at me for not believing. The idea appears to be very black and white, speaking as an athiest.

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

When did he mention a christian god? The christian god is not exactly kind and loving.

That's right, he didn't. I believe that you're just a fucking dumbass.

Re:First Post.

[CGP314]

I believe in a kind and loving God. Keeping that belief is hard usualy because of the acts of man. Let the flames begin.

Can someone explain to me why religious people seem to think they are some sort of repressed minority?


-Colin

Re:First Post.

[TrevorB]

Certainly. "My Ass" remark retracted.

As an agnostic, having a healthy, respectful dialogue about religion feels like sitting at the back of the class, raising my hand and asking: "Excuse me, but this concept you have of a benevolent, loving, omnipotent God that takes no action on a universe where things occur because it's part of God's plan looks a lot like this other idea that there isn't a God and a lot of random things happen with no plan and there might be a lot less killing or discriminating of people of other religions" and not being heard.

Let me ask a simple question: Why (if you are a theist) do you believe in God, when there's no evidence to back up your belief? Back at the hard atheists: Why do you beleive in the absence of a God, when there's no evidence to back up your belief?

Please no links to sites of "evidence of God" or copy pasting other's ideas, we'll all drown. I'd honestly like to hear people's own personal reasoning on the question.

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily, depending on whether there is an afterlife and what determines your fate therein.

How condescending. "All those people died horribly, but it doesn't really matter". I guess we might as well stop sending aid, it's only slowing down their journey to paradise, right?

That's even assuming that the earthquake wasn't actually a good outcome out of all the possible outcomes; for example, what if the earthquake released tectonic pressure that otherwise would've built up and killed millions instead of hundreds of thousands?

You mean god(s) can't control nature? I thought they were supposed to be omnipotent? Why didn't (he|they) just make the tectonic pressure just go away?

I for one think the "If an omnipotent, loving God exists, why does he let bad things happen?" line of argument is a red herring.

The formal name for this argument is the Problem of Evil, and nobody has addressed it successfully.

It's impossible for us to understand the actions of a being with an infinite perspective

In other words, "don't bother arguing, because I've introduced a concept I can't explain beyond the fact that you lose the argument". Again, not only condescending, but a perfect example of logical rudeness.

Re:First Post.

[JohnnyCannuk]

Sophistry!

We can't understand God so all his actions must be good, or at least the least cruel and evil because God by definition is loving. In this line of logic there is nothing said God can do that is not loving, even if it resllts in untold suffering, cruelty and death, because everything he does is loving because he is loving.

Talk about circular logic.

I can't talk for Kirshna or Ganeesh or Zoroaster, but the Judeao-Christian-Islamic God of the Bible\Koran is incredibly cruel and arbitrary, by (if you believe these holy books are the "breathed word or God") his own admission. Killing hundreds of innocent people, including children, giving virgins over for soldiers to have their way with etc all seems pretty cruel to me and not the actions of a "loving" god.

If you wish to hide behind your sohistry, feel free. But don't think it clever, you just fooling yourself and rationalizing evil.

Re:First Post.

[Dyolf Knip]

It's said that the easiest way to make an atheist is just to have a christian actually _read_ the bible, cover to cover.

Re:First Post.

[Dyolf Knip]

All hail Cthulhu, High Priest of R'lyeh, bringer of destruction and doom!

Re:First Post.

[Hyecee]

I understand where you're coming from. I'm not a church going individual either, and have often pondered the "If there is a God, then why do bad things happen to good people?" question. I'm neither arguing for or against the existence of a God.

The point I was trying to make was more along the lines of "Why can't we ponder the possibility in a friendly or respectful manner"; the ability to do which seems to evaporate into "Your God Sucks!/Nuh-un, He Rocks!" knock-down, drag-out, flamewars.

I can tell from some of the very well reasoned and thought out posts that a large part of the /. community is pretty intelligent. You would think that would lead to discussions and debates the like of which are common to college students who spend hours discussing the finer points of every aspect of life into the wee hours of the night just for the opportunity to contemplate such ideas with peers of comparable intelligence.

It is a shame that such discussions cannot take place here.

Re:First Post.

[elmegil]

Do you really think that repression is the only cause of flames? I don't believe Christians are a repressed minority, but it should be obvious that this guy was likely to get tons of flames in this forum because of all the dogmatic athiests here.

Can you explain to me why you assume his comment implies he believes he's repressed?

Re:First Post.

[randallpowell]

Because far right Christian nuts want a theocracy. Praise Buddha.

Re:First Post.

[Dyolf Knip]

I'm an atheist, but if you could please convey this line of reasoning to anyone who has ever used the phrase "God needs" in a sentence, it would be greatly appreciated. "God wants you to" has been used as justification for some of the most heinous acts ever committed. But as for me, even if I believed in god, I wouldn't waste a moment of my life trying to second-guess him, so I'd end of living exactly the same way I do now. Oh, and the problem with the 'lesser of two evils' earthquake hypothesis is that there's no reason why the tectonic stress couldn't also have been let out through hundreds of itty-bitty tremors over a period of years. That it was instead 'saved up' for centuries and released via one of the most powerful earthquakes in recorded history suggests either apathy, malevolence, or nonexistence.

Re:First Post.

[LWATCDR]

"I'm an atheist myself, but I'm not going to try and convert you. Nor do I want you to convert me. I don't believe in UFO's, ghosts, fortune telling nor anything else supernatural.

BUT! I believe that if people were a little bit more tolerant, the world would be a much better place."

It is a shame that you are an AC. Actually what many religious people and none religious people do not get is that you really should never try to convert. As a Christian you are under an obligation to share the gospile or the "good news" that good news is the Love of Christ. Shareing the Love of Christ to me does not mean that you hate people that are not Christian, or you tell them they are going to hell, or that you brow beat them into believing what you do. You are there friend, you care about them, you help them. It could be anything from mowing an elderly friends lawn for them to giving money to help in disaster relief. Those acts can do more to show Gods love than all the Bible verses you might try force feed people. On the flip side I do not understand those that think talk about how you feel about God should be off limits. Why are people offended if someone talks about how much someone enjoys church any more than you would be offended by someone talking about how much the like going camping.

Your right I too wish people would be a little more tolerant.

Re:First Post.

[jejones]

That's even assuming that the earthquake wasn't actually a good outcome out of all the possible outcomes; for example, what if the earthquake released tectonic pressure that otherwise would've built up and killed millions instead of hundreds of thousands?

That's why omnipotence is part of the hypothesis part of the problem of evil. An omnipotent god wouldn't have to settle for the least bad solution.

Re:First Post.

[revscat]

I believe in a kind and loving God. Keeping that belief is hard usualy because of the acts of man.

When I was 15, my 13 year old sister was raped and murdered, three months after she had been Baptized.

Yeah, you can say maintaining belief is a wee-bit difficult. What good is God if he stands by and watches while children get raped?

Re:First Post.

[wcrowe]

Actually, I should withdraw my post, because the question was "What do you believe, even if you can't prove it".

In my case, I think I CAN prove it.

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe in a kind and loving God.

Not the god of the bible, then?

(1 Samuel 15:1-3) Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one whom the Lord sent to anoint you king of his people Israel. Now listen to what the Lord Almighty says. He is going to punish the people of Amalek because their ancestors opposed the Israelites when they were coming from Egypt. Go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Don't leave a thing; kill all the men, women, children, and babies; the cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys."

Re:First Post.

[|/|/|||]

I'm in complete agreement. I keep asking the same questions, but have never heard a logical explanation for either theism or atheism.

Of course, I personally don't find this surprising, because I don't think such explanations are possible. What I do find surprising is that people still believe in such things (sometimes quite vocally) when they don't even have a cogent reason to.

Re:First Post.

[halfelven]

The problem of God's existence is one of the hardest that people can ever face, yet there are so many silly arguments (on both sides), it makes me laugh.

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's kinda sad, but the best answer I've found to the "why do bad things happen" question was best answered in a Simpsons Halloween special, when the mini-world Lisa creates de-bigulates her. You have to see it, but in summary, God doesn't micromanage, and has an annoying big brother.

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me explain the Bible to you. It is separated into two parts, the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament laws were applicable to God's people prior to the incarnation of Christ. So yes, this meant that His people were commanded to kill homosexuals to remove the sin from among them. Christ's death was a fulfillment of the laws of the Old Testament, and thus put an end to it. The New Testament has a new set of laws which were summarized by Christ when he said:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is like it: love your neighbour as yourself."

This is what the Christian's law is. So no, we aren't commanded to kill homosexuals. The phrase "Love the sinner, hate the sin" applies here. So again, no, we don't ignore the "bad" stuff. I believe abortion is wrong since it is killing another person. Yet, I do not advocate popping off abortionists one by one.

That said, I also don't believe in only a kind and loving God. He is a God of love and mery but also justice which He indicates when He says, "Vengence is mine, I will repay".

A subject is only understood after much study, so I suggest you study the Bible before making statements that it is contradictory. You'll find it actually backs itself up constantly. In return, I'll not make any bold and incorrect statements on evolution and intelligent design of which I'm not thoroughly familiar.

Sorry for the AC. I don't have an account here.

Re:First Post.

[killjoe]

The ten commandments are in the old testament. You are saying they are no longer valid then right?

Oh and there are plenty of vile, ugly and repugnant things in the new testament too.

Re:First Post.

[killjoe]

Many people (including me) just don't see the point in trying to have an intelligent conversation with christians about their god. I know I have tried many times but what's the use? You aren't going to change anybodies mind.

I have friends who are ministers and they know they can't really answer any of my questions, they know they can't resolve any of the contradictions or overcome many of the nasty bits.

In the end they rely on "god moves in mysterious ways" and "you have to have faith". I must say though that one friend I have who is born again (zealot) claims to have actually seen god and had a conversation with him.

Re:First Post.

[LWATCDR]

How about this. I know of good and kind atheists. I also believe that God loves you and that Christ died for you ever bit as much as he did for me. He did for everyone and it is a gift given to all. If you do not believe I do not think you are going to hell or are dammed.
Some people can not take the existence of God just on faith. I do not think that you are any worse of a person than I am or an idiot for not sharing my faith.

Welcome to tollerence.

Re:First Post.

[LWATCDR]

I believe it is so. That belief is called faith. It is not rational. I choose to believe because for me that belief makes me feel better and helps me be a better kinder person. Since I can not prove that it is not so or that it is I make a choice. That choice for me has had positive results.
Yes I know that for other a similar choice has produced very negative results. But the choice to not believe has also produced some truly evil results as well.
The question is this. Is someone that chooses to believe in a God that tells them that they are better than everyone else making the same choice as me? Or are they not truly choosing faith but looking for a justification to be evil. Then again am I just looking for a justification to be good :)

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I challenge you to break any one of the ten commandments and still obey the commands to love God and your neighbour.

And yes, I'll agree that there are nasty things in the New Testament that don't follow these commands, possibly even committed by Christians. No Christian I know ever claimed to be perfect. In fact, I can't think of one that wouldn't admit that he has done some nasty things in his life. That does not mean that these were condoned by God. If you can think of one in particular, I'd be glad to comment on it.

Al

Re:First Post.

[voisine]

Well, what did Jesus have to say about it?
"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." - John 10:10

The tsunami caused death an destruction, therefor it did not come from God. There, that wasn't so hard now was it?

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

If an omnipotent being also followed certain principles, then the omnipotent being's actions would have to settle within the principles. This is where "loving" comes in. An omnipotent, unprincipled being would have no limitations, however, once a principle was introduced--especially if the being is bound by those principles, as such a being may be described, then there comes many limitations beyond simple omnipotence.

Re:First Post.

[TrevorB]

I can understand the need to feel better. Questioning the existance of God raises some uncomfortable questions (partucularly about our mortaility) that are difficult to answer. A more cynical person might say that belief in God is misleading yourself and isn't helpful, I might argue that if it helps you get through your day without shivering in a corner for the rest of your life, then go right ahead. :)

I'm glad that you feel your religion makes you a better person. I would like to think that I'm a good person as well, and that good and evil can be defined outside the context of religion. I'd like to think the absence of roving bands of athiest and agnostics causing havoc in the street is an indication that I might be right.

Can you give me an example where lack of faith caused evil results? The best example I can think of is Russia, but I believe a lot of the badness of Stalin could be explained as a quest for power and domination; failure of morality and failure of religion aren't that tightly tied (i.e. The Spanish Inquisition). The actions of cults or other religions don't count as those who "do not believe", and I would argue (as others would) that some of the worst atrocities in human history were tied to religious movements. Many agnostics and atheists use this as an example that religion is bad. I'd rather say simply that people, particularly those in power, can go very very bad.

Thanks for the realization that some people to use religion as an "excuse". Again, a seperation of the concepts religion and morality.

Is religion a tool for some to influence the many to be good or evil? If morality isn't independent of religion, and two religions consider themselves good and the other evil, how is it possible to tell which one is right?

Thanks for sharing your ideas.

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one think the "If an omnipotent, loving God exists, why does he let bad things happen?" line of argument is a red herring.

The formal name for this argument is the Problem of Evil, and nobody has addressed it successfully.

1. God creates man.
2. Man says to God: "We don't need you, we can take care of ourselves better."
3. God replies: "So shall it be. Because I'm not a dictator, but a loving God, I'll give you a chance to prove it. Go ahead, administer yourself, without me interfering."
4. Time passes. It is apparent that humans have no ability to accomplish peace, happiness, equality, perfect health, etc. God is going to make things well, in accordance with his original purpose. When? Not long after the following signs (which are actually just a subset of all the signs told) start being visible concurrently all around the world:
   • war, famine, horrible diseases, natural catastrophes
   • hatred
   • false prophets
   • love will grow cold
   • the truth will be told to people by people who are "hated by all of the nations"
   • humans will be lovers of {self,money}, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, pretending to be godly but denying God with their actions

Re:First Post.

[mt v2.7]

"Not necessarily, depending on whether there is an afterlife and what determines your fate therein. That's even assuming that the earthquake wasn't actually a good outcome out of all the possible outcomes; for example, what if the earthquake released tectonic pressure that otherwise would've built up and killed millions instead of hundreds of thousands?"

If god is powerful enough to change the movements of the tectonic plates in that matter, why can he not change them to the outcome of his choice? if god is all-powerful, that is hardly a stretch of his abilities.

If god has some power, but not THAT much (Which I'd find an odd idea), and is all-knowing, why could he not have altered it earlier, when it would have required less pressure on the tectonic plates? For that matter, if god is all-knowing, why was this not planned against at the creation?

There are gaps in how far your argument will go.

Whether all-knowing or all-powerful, and as many say both, he could avoid such things. God clearly had power after the creation, following any religious text. He managed to flood the world, eh? Again if he was all-knowing, why would he not have forseen that and created man differently?

Sorry that I've gone off on a tangent.

Re:First Post.

[LWATCDR]

"Can you give me an example where lack of faith caused evil results?"
Ever read Niche? You also pointed out Stalin. How about Pol Pot(sp?), China, and North Korea?

You can say that there lack of faith is independent of there evil. But then if they believed in a kind ,loving God could they have acted in the way that they did?

"If morality isn't independent of religion, and two religions consider themselves good and the other evil, how is it possible to tell which one is right?"

How can morality be independent of religion? Unless there is a absolute good and evil woven into the very fabric of the universe you pretty much have to go for what the majority feel is right and what is wrong. If you go by that you then have to decide what group of humans shuld be counted.
Going by that if the majority of people in the world thought it was moral to make all people under 5' slaves then it would be moral.
You ask how you can tell? Based on my religion I believe that everyone has a basic understanding of right and wrong, good and evil. From observation it does seem to be so. However observation with out controls can trick you. I also do believe that there is an absolute moral constant that is part of the the Universe just as pi and Plank's constant are woven in the the fabric of the Universe.

I have had very personal and profound experiences that lead me to believe my faith is true and a good thing. That faith also teaches me to try and respect those that disagree with me and to oppose that which I feel is evil. Before I get jumped on for that last statement for some people wasn't marching for civil rights, sending money to Amnesty International, or not doing business with South Africa opposing that which they feel is evil? Then of course you have the teaching of hating the act but loving the person. For instance you can feel that a member of the Klan is acting in an evil way. You can not feel that the person themselves is evil. You oppose the action but not the person. I admit it is a difficult way to live, think and understand. I will also admit that I am not yet capable of doing it all the time. I do sometimes hate people because of their actions. I am working on it. Life is a journey and everyone is at a different point on it. Sometimes our paths cross. It is best to be polite as possible when they do.

Re:First Post.

[hacksoncode]

If it's impossible for us to understand the actions of a being with an infinite perspective, then how do you know what He wants you to do?

Just pointing out one of the 10 trillion logical inconsistencies in modern religious belief...

Re:First Post.

[grassy_knoll]

Whether you believe in a God or not, is the idea so black and white that people can't even maintain a healthy, respectful dialogue about it?

I find it very hard to speak with a capital C Christian; I rejected their beliefs and their faith years ago. I'm sure christianity has it's good points, but all I see is an organization which promotes guilt to further obedience to it's leaders.

Similarly, I'm uncomfortable with atheists as despite my rejection of christianity I do feel a spiritual connection ( note: feel, as in "can not prove" ). I've found a lot of my feelings in wittings on taoism, zen buddhism and in other places.

With both groups, confusion abounds.

If I tell a christian that I believe in a divine being, they assume I'm christian and are very confused when I say I'm not.

Similarly, athiests tend to be confused that I'm not chrsitian but beleive in the divine.

So yes, it's difficult to have a dialog about it. Many speakers assume that to beleive in god is to be christian, and to not be christian is to be an athiest when that just isn't so.

Re:First Post.

[NoOneInParticular]

Back at the hard atheists: Why do you [believe] in the absence of a God, when there's no evidence to back up your belief?

As an atheist, I don't think the burden of proof is on me, but let's try to clarify this. Firstly, apart from an actual manifestation from God to myself and (preferably) the rest of the world, there is no logical way to disprove God. Please tell me, how would someone go about finding the evidence to the absence of:

God

The terrible snowman

Santa Clause

the toothfairy?

In other words, although it is eminently possible to find evidence for the presence of things, (just show the thing) it is impossible to find evidence to the absence of things. Anything anyone conjures up that cannot be seen, or in other words, that is supernatural, cannot be disproven. Hence the burden of proof belongs to the theists. Despite millennia of attempts, this has failed miserably.

What I do believe in is sceptical inquiry and reasoned weighting of arguments. Under this regime, the God hypothesis fails on several counts. Given the parent's remark about the agnostic reply, I'm sure we agree about this. I do however not accept equal opportunity agnosticism: God may or may not exist, with equal odds, and if it exists, it may or not may be a Christian, Jew, Islamic or Hindu God. That's simply too easy. The matter is too improbable for that.

So I'll stick with my gospel: organized and quantified uncertainty. Call it doubt if you will. There is room for belief, but no room for faith. In this universe God is simply an exceedingly improbable possibility. Unlike agnostics, who implicitly assign equal odds to the existence or absence of a God, I'm an atheist: the likeliness of God existing I consider vanishingly small. For all practical purposes equal to zero.

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

Back at the hard atheists: Why do you beleive in the absence of a God, when there's no evidence to back up your belief?

I believe in the absence of a god for the same reason I believe in the absence of a dancing green moon donkey that created the world. There simply isn't any reason to believe such a thing exists.

Technically you might call me an agnostic, because I think the chances of either a god or a dancing green moon donkey creating the world are non-zero. However, the chances are so infintesimally small that I don't feel any problem dismissing the ideas altogether, so in all likelihood, I meet your definition of an atheist.

I don't get people looking down their nose at me for not believing that there are fairies living at the bottom of the garden, so why do I get people looking down their nose at me for not believing that there's a giant fairy in the sky?

Re:First Post.

[NoOneInParticular]

No, you're dead wrong in this. The need to convert people and create as many babies is inherent in any religion that is to survive. This is a simple Darwinistic argument: natural selection applied to religions. For a religion to survive, it needs a following. Without a following it is dead. If the following isn't large enough, it gets eating up by a more 'fit' religion. Hence all religions that have survived for a long time put lots of emphasis on conversion and procreation. You don't think that the pope's ban on condoms have anything strictly to do with abstract theology, do you? No, it's just that a religion needs more babies, to make sure that it will get enough adults to follow the religion.

The truly Christian religion that you sketch has been abandoned right at the beginning. Not by all sects, just by the ones that survived and which subsequently became the Catholic and Greek-Orthodox churches. Note that this has nothing to do with Christianity, the Muslim and Hindu faith work in similar ways. More converts, more babies and intolerance to other religions. Survival of the fittest. A religion that allows condoms and is tolerant towards differently minded religions will survive two generations, max.

Re:First Post.

[MightyMartian]

To my mind, religion is merely a means of enforcing moral codes, and that, in fact, moral codes evolve alongside societies.

One only has to look at how women are treated in the Western world to see the evolution of morality. Read the Apostle Paul, and then fast-forward two thousand years.

The key here is that to control a group it is sometimes necessary to invoke some higher power. It can both justify existing moral precepts, or shortcircuit normal social evolution by pushing a new moral precept. The Ten Commandments are an example of the former, while the forcing of Roman Catholicism upon Indians in Latin America is an example of the latter.

A quick survey of cultures extant and extinct reveals that morals are anything but absolute. In Roman times it wasn't uncommon for unwanted babies to simply be left to be exposed to the elements. Such an act would, in most modern countries, lead to a very swift judgement and a good deal of time in jail. Even the very idea of freedom of religion was out of vogue for some time in Europe, and being a heretic of any kind was a recipe for being burned alive.

The universe itself is neither good or bad, it simply is. A star going super-nova and destroying a neighboring civilization of intelligent might be construed as evil, but that's really quite ludicrous. A more down-to-Earth example is the tsunami in the Bay of Bengal. It has visited unimaginable misery on millions, and yet it is no more evil or goodthan a icicle forming. The universe isn't some intelligent entity, it is simply the sum of all the matter and energy, obeying various laws that relate in no way to morality. Nature isn't bound by moral precepts, those are human constructs.

Re:First Post.

[the quick brown fox]

We can't understand God so all his actions must be good, or at least the least cruel and evil because God by definition is loving. In this line of logic there is nothing said God can do that is not loving, even if it resllts in untold suffering, cruelty and death, because everything he does is loving because he is loving.

No, not must, but might. In no way do I think this line of reasoning can prove the existence of an all-powerful, all-loving God; I am merely arguing that you cannot disprove it this way.

Also, I didn't say "because everything he does is loving because he is loving". I said, or at least meant to say, that with sufficient imagination you can come up with hypothetical constraints or preconditions or possible postconditions to make any action be construed as plausible for a loving omnipotent god.

I can't talk for Kirshna or Ganeesh or Zoroaster, but the Judeao-Christian-Islamic God of the Bible\Koran is incredibly cruel and arbitrary, by (if you believe these holy books are the "breathed word or God") his own admission. Killing hundreds of innocent people, including children, giving virgins over for soldiers to have their way with etc all seems pretty cruel to me and not the actions of a "loving" god.

It's true that the Christian Bible (can't speak for the others) has some passages and practices, generally in the Old Testament, that are difficult for our modern mores and sensibilities to relate to. The Old Testament is all about sin's devestating influence on the world, and man's inability to overcome it alone. However, this is balanced by the New Testament's message of the incarnation, sacrifice, and resurrection of the Messiah, who overcomes sin for all (or some significant fraction of) mankind. Furthermore, there are instances even in the Old Testament where God shows incredible mercy and patience (Genesis 18:16-30, Jonah 4, and basically all of his dealings with the people of Israel).

Sorry to be vague, but I'm not familiar with specific instances in the Bible where God ordered the slaughter of innocents or raping of virgins. If you point them out, I'll attempt to analyze them... (if I remember to check Slashdot that is.)

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am merely arguing that you cannot disprove it this way.

Please disprove the existence of yellow flying rhinoceroses.

with sufficient imagination you can come up with hypothetical constraints or preconditions or possible postconditions to make any action be construed as plausible for a loving omnipotent god.

No, you can't. That's the whole Problem of Evil. Loving, by definition, means that a god will prevent bad things from happening if he can. Omnipotent, by definition, means that a god can prevent bad things from happening. When you observe bad things happening, any sane person can deduce that a loving, omnipotent god does not exist.

The only way out of this conundrum without conceding that a god doesn't exist is by conceding that he is either not loving or not omnipotent.

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

Man says to God: "We don't need you

Wrong. Which particular person said this, and what gave him the right to speak for the rest of humanity, including unborn generations?

Given the existence of Christians, you cannot claim that that particular person was speaking for all of humanity. Therefore you must conclude that your god is punishing Christians for something they were not responsible for. Bad things happen to those Christians. You have not addressed the Problem of Evil.

Re:First Post.

[LWATCDR]

"One only has to look at how women are treated in the Western world to see the evolution of morality. Read the Apostle Paul, and then fast-forward two thousand years."
Paul had issues.

You see here is a miss use of evolution. Most people think that evoultion means improvment bu it really does not. It is not a straight path to improvment. It just means change. Not always towards a more complex but only that which reproduce. In your view there is no good or evil at all. It is just as good to kill people as it is to save them. since there is no good or evil.
I can see the logic of it but I do not find it a useful system.
THat is just me.

Re:First Post.

[Micah]

Well said. As a Christian it's my job to be a witness for Christ, to anyone who cares. Conversion is the job of the Holy Spirit, not me. If someone doesn't want to talk about it, I'll leave them alone. I may pray for them, but I won't force anything, because that's not God's way. Jesus never forced anything on anyone when He walked the earth, so why should we?

Re:First Post.

[thesnarky1]

Hit me up, my AIM screen name is SuRootRmdirHD01

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is there is no I, the I is an illusion. There is only the one true God, and you are part of us, them, it, him, her.

It's just due to the subjective nature of perception the discovery of God still awaits you.

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your rationalization fails the pragmatic test.

Skeptic arguments like that should be left behind 2000 years ago with the ancient greeks. They are of no use.

Re:First Post.

[MightyMartian]

How could you possibly think that I think killing people is some sort of neutral act. Clearly it is not, and I am against it. Just because nature can be pretty rough to survive in doesn't mean I think human societies should follow that example.

I am also against people trying to justify their particular set of moral codes on the grounds of "It's what God would like." If you wish people to behave in a certain way, then come up with a rational explanation, don't just try to shortcircuit it by trying to claim your favorite deity wants us to behave that way.

Clearly societies need certain rules of conduct to assure that individual members can exist and be productive. But hopefully we've gone past the point where we need to have the fear of whatever god to make people behave, and that we can formulate a basic common set of morals that aren't overly intrusive while still allowing the individual a good deal of liberty.

Re:First Post.

[the quick brown fox]

I'm an atheist, but if you could please convey this line of reasoning to anyone who has ever used the phrase "God needs" in a sentence, it would be greatly appreciated. "God wants you to" has been used as justification for some of the most heinous acts ever committed.

I 100% agree. I've found that Christians as individuals in general tend to be far too confident in their efforts to interpret the Bible.

But as for me, even if I believed in god, I wouldn't waste a moment of my life trying to second-guess him, so I'd end of living exactly the same way I do now.

I can see that point of view. For me, as a Christian, I believe that while the Bible may not give us all the answers we're looking for--or if parts of it are not even true, if taken literally--it will get me where I want to go, both in this life and the next (if there is one). This is not to say that there are not other reasons to believe in the Bible other than a blind and unquestioning faith, but rather, just because it's impossible to understand fully doesn't mean it's not useful to understand in part. (Whoa, sorry about all the negatives in that sentence.)

Oh, and the problem with the 'lesser of two evils' earthquake hypothesis is that there's no reason why the tectonic stress couldn't also have been let out through hundreds of itty-bitty tremors over a period of years. That it was instead 'saved up' for centuries and released via one of the most powerful earthquakes in recorded history suggests either apathy, malevolence, or nonexistence.

What if a 9.0 magnitude earthquake was itty-bitty compared to the unprecedented 18.0 magnitude (the Richter scale is exponential, isn't it?) earthquake that would have struck central India in 2014 had this one not occurred? What if the next would-be Hitler was killed in that earthquake? What if at the pearly gates, anyone who was killed in a natural disaster automatically gets into heaven?

We could go on and on in circles forever. The problem is that with as little information and perspective as we have, I am free to concoct whatever hypothetical situations I want to--since you are the one trying to prove the existence/non-existence of God with this argument. Again, I am not saying "look at this earthquake, isn't God so darn loving!?!?" I'm just saying you won't get there from here, by that road.

I actually think a more interesting theory is that God is (self-)constrained not to interfere. He lets the laws of physics play out, he lets humans commit heinous crimes... but all the time, he's keeping score. He steps in the minimum amount necessary to set up the rules, but after that he mostly observes. (See Parable of the Weeds.) In fact, if you look at Biblical history, you see that most of the time there are no miracles being performed, despite the need of God's followers--they are bunched up in clusters around certain turning points (Moses, Elijah, Jesus, the Apostles). Anyway, I think it's interesting, who knows if there's any truth to it.

Re:First Post.

[LWATCDR]

"The truly Christian religion that you sketch has been abandoned right at the beginning. Not by all sects"
Naw since this what my church teaches and it has a few million members it has not been abandoned. I will say that even in my church it is sometimes not followed.

Re:First Post.

[LWATCDR]

I would say that you have to witness for Christ to everyone first by works then by word.

Re:First Post.

[the quick brown fox]

Please disprove the existence of yellow flying rhinoceroses.

I fully recognize that the burden of proof lies on the believers. I also recognize that there are people to whom you will never be able to "disprove" any of their spiritual beliefs, much less the very existence of God. However, I believe that the PoE argument is not a good argument, in the same way that "Yellow flying rhinoceroses do not exist because yellow is ugly" is not a productive line of reasoning for proving or disproving the existence of such creatures.

The only way out of this conundrum without conceding that a god doesn't exist is by conceding that he is either not loving or not omnipotent.

Or by saying that your "bad" becomes a "good" when looked at with the proper perspective. Does a child consider a spanking "good" or "bad"? How about the parent?

Now multiply that times infinity (or at least a substantial finite number).

I hate to speak this way when we are referring to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. I don't mean to devalue their existence or deny the enormity of the tragedy. However, I don't like any tragedy being used as an argument against the existence of God.

Re:First Post.

[incom]

My personal belief is that IF an all powerful god exists, it is merely a focal point of consciousness of the universe(or existance/ what have you) , and his motivation is some ultimate outcome, perhaps the completion of all possible outcomes occuring in infinetely diverging dimensions, and then the universe coming into a state of completedness, the opposite of it's original state of nothingness. In such a situation, god would have to allow suffering in every possible way, not to mention EVERYTHING in every possible way. That's certainly what I'd be doing if I were god ;)

Re:First Post.

[the quick brown fox]

I believe the purpose of the Bible is not to give us a full or even accurate understanding of God, but simply to help us understand what He wants us to do. I do not need to understand the actions of an infinite being in order to respond to the commands he gives me, just as a dog does not need to understand the actions of a person in order to be obedient.

The Bible is full of simple commands. Love your neighbor. Turn the other cheek. Act justly, love mercy, walk humbly with your God.

Before you say it, yes, it is amazing how many atrocities have been committed in Jesus' name, and how much hate and intolerance continues to pervade many (but by no means all!) parts of the Christian community today.

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or by saying that your "bad" becomes a "good" when looked at with the proper perspective.

In other words, when you say that your god is omnipotent, you mean something other than omnipotent, and when you say that your god loves you, you mean something other than love.

If a god is willing to let millions of Christians suffer and die, then he doesn't love them. If a god is unable to do anything about it he cannot be omnipotent. You can't get around these facts. It's part of the core meaning of the words "love" and "omnipotent". Whatever attributes your god has that you refer to as "love" and "omnipotence" - find new words, because it's not the love and omnipotence words found in the English language.

You can't win an argument by twisting the meaning of words around.

I hate to speak this way when we are referring to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

So do I, merely because there's always some fool that will demonise me for judging those people or not caring, which is utterly false. But it's times like these that are most suitable for asking questions. If hundreds of thousands of people dying needless deaths in the space of a couple of hours isn't the right time to question the belief in an all-loving, all-powerful god, when the hell is the right time?

However, I don't like any tragedy being used as an argument against the existence of God.

The fact that it is a tragedy is the whole point. If it wasn't a tragedy, it wouldn't be an argument against a loving, omnipotent god.

Re:First Post.

[LWATCDR]

You see I do not think that feel killing is neutral at all. That is my entire point. You somehow know that it is wrong. Think about it. Being purely rational there is no reason not to kill if you have no chance of getting punished for it and it will benefit you. Yet some how we know it is wrong.
Even people that try to claim that there is no universal right and wrong still seem to know that their really is. Just as you said , "Just because nature can be pretty rough to survive in doesn't mean I think human societies should follow that example." Why not if we are just a part of nature isn't it beyond us to not be just like the rest of nature? I really do not think you are amoral at all. It is very easy to be out raged at the evil done in the name of religon and want to seek a better way. For me a better way is too try and understand that universal right and wrong that I feel is real. For you it is a different way. As long as we both try to make the world better and respect each other it is all good.

Re:First Post.

[the quick brown fox]

(First, an aside: For my personal faith, I'm not sure God is or needs to be "omnipotent" in the way we have been discussing in this thread--I don't see evidence of it in the Bible. Here's what Nave's Topical Bible lists as the passages relating to God's omnipotence. But I'm more than happy to argue this side of it, since I do hold out the possibility that he is omnipotent, and because so many people seem to think that the alternative is that he doesn't exist.)

If a god is willing to let millions of Christians suffer and die, then he doesn't love them.

No Christian believes that their God is not willing to let his people suffer and die. After all, we are talking about a deity who sent his only begotten son to the cross, and most of his immediate disciples suffered extremely violent deaths because of their beliefs.

The Christian perspective is that the tragedies of this physical world, no matter how great or small, are as nothing compared to the stakes that are in play on the spiritual level. I am taking it a little out of context, but 2 Corinthians 4:17-18 says "For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal."

If the soul really is eternal, and the fate of a soul is binary (not sure if I believe that, but most do), then suffering and dying in this finite world is a small price to pay. I say this not to minimize the horror of human suffering and death, but to maximize the significance of the eternal part of the equation--the part that we cannot see and know close to nothing about, much less how events in this world directly correlate to a net gain or loss in the next. It may--no, should--be impossible for us to actually feel in our gut that the devastation of the past week is anything but a horrific mistake that any responsible deity would have stopped at nothing to avoid. But I wonder if, should the Christians turn out to be right, we will look back in twenty million years and see that all the joys and sorrows of human history, much less a single event, were as significant as a single atom in the universe.

(If that argument doesn't float your boat, I have some other alternative ways of looking at it.)

I think the real question you should be asking me is, "Why did God create evil, sin, and the potential for infinite suffering in the afterlife?" Now that is one that flies way over my head!

If hundreds of thousands of people dying needless deaths in the space of a couple of hours isn't the right time to question the belief in an all-loving, all-powerful god, when the hell is the right time?

I'm not telling you that you shouldn't be asking questions. I'm just acknowledging that making my side of this argument forces me to cast a relatively uncompassionate light on events which I would much rather treat with reverence and sympathy.

And when I said "However, I don't like any tragedy being used as an argument against the existence of God" I didn't mean to accuse you or anyone else of somehow cynically taking advantage of the situation--it definitely came out that way, and I apologize for misspeaking. What I should have said was, "Even though this was very tragic, I feel compelled to argue for the existence of God."

Re:First Post.

[MightyMartian]

> You see I do not think that feel killing is neutral at all. That is my entire point. You somehow
> know that it is wrong. Think about it. Being purely rational there is no reason not to kill if you have no chance of getting punished for it and it
> will benefit you. Yet some how we know it is wrong.

I do not "somehow" know it is wrong. It evolves from my personal moral code, which states very clearly that my freedom of action ends when it causes someone else harm. This is not even universal. There are and always have been many exceptions to laws against killing. A soldier is not considered to be committing a crime when he kills an enemy combatant, and neither, historically, has an executioner been considered a murderer when carrying out a sentence of death.

And that's what it boils down to. Each society defines its own rights and wrongs, and these can often cause a good many problems when two very different societies collide. This belief in a universal moral code can be quite dangerous, particularly when you decide that your particular moral code is the right one.

Re:First Post.

[LWATCDR]

Don't you believe that your personal moral code is right?
If every ones moral code is just as good then everyone elses is then how is yours better than a Nazi's? If you say that it is then you are claiming that your code is the right one.

You see that is the problem with the belief in moral realtivism It really just falls apart when you look closly at it.
It is an abuse of science. You take a concept like realativity in physics and miss apply it to society. Sort of like socal evolution was in the 20s. Or eugenics. It also just does not work. Look at all that you say and you will see how it really contradicts it's self.
"Each society defines its own rights and wrongs, and these can often cause a good many problems when two very different societies collide."
How can it cause problems. A problem is when something is not right. If one society destorys the other how is that a problem? What is the metric then of right and wrong good and bad when two societys collide? THe strongest, The one with the most people?
Even if you do not want to call it God I do believe that there are univeral truths. I also accept the danger of being too sure that you have them and trying to enforce them on others.

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.

How about clicking the grandparent's links and reading what the Bible actually says?

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the existence of Christians [...]

Please understand that what is usually called "Christianity" today fits (among many, many other religions) the description of "the Great Babylon" the Bible is talking about. What did the Christendom do when the crusades happened? Oh, they were the people behind the crusades. Well, what did the Christendom do in the Nazi Germany during Hitler's reign? They were supporting him! What does a "Christian" do when she's told to grab a weapon and kill people? There's a priest blessing the weapons and praying for victory - probably on the both sides.

Today's Christianity is a sad mockery of what the first decade's Christianity was. Please don't judge the Bible by the deeds of the so-called Christendom.

Re:First Post.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, well said! I've been thinking the same thing myself for quite some time now. Natural selection truly does apply to religions - heck, probably secular subcultures too. They need the critical mass of followers, need to discourage exploration of alternate ideas, and need to encourage growing their base.

One minor point I'd disagree with, though:

You don't think that the pope's ban on condoms have anything strictly to do with abstract theology, do you? No, it's just that a religion needs more babies, to make sure that it will get enough adults to follow the religion.

I think for the most part, the reason why they do this stuff is religious. I don't think they're sitting there saying "Hmm, we need our cult to survive, how can we encourage people to make babies and bring in more followers?" That would be almost implicit acknowledgement that their religion exists simply to propagate itself, and ultimately not for some higher purpose.

I think most of these people truly believe in their religion, and set their guidelines for religious reasons. It just happens to be that those particular guidelines were very good at ensuring the religion would survive. In a sense, they got lucky that their religious beliefs coincided with practices that helped propagate and grow their following. I don't think propagation and growth was really the primary goal.

It's kind of like in natural evolution. We have two eyes, but why? Well, it helps us see with depth perception. But whenever that mutation came along for multiple eyes, it was purely a freak accident. At no point did the genes mutate because depth perception was needed. No, that was just a fortunate benefit which helped many species to survive over the thousands of millennia since.

I believe this is mostly true for the popular religions. Sure, there may be an element of greed for power in the leadership in which they said "we need to increase our following to crush the other guys" but I think for the most part, the rules that truly helped them become so prevalent were not intially created for such reasons.

I can't prove it, but I believe it! :)

Re:First Post.

[Rick BigNail]

I am not saying I could answer your question, but how about adding UFO to your list?

I think that God and UFO is similar; we should not believe they do not exist, we should at most admit we could never know, aka agnostic.

Re:First Post.

[Rick BigNail]

To eliminate hunger and poverty is not easy. Even if all American christians are kind and generous, how about people living under Saddam, PRC, Saudi Arabia?

And giving money is not enough. Setting up the local economic system is the solution, but individuals might not be helpful.

We already have OECD. Even they could not solve the world problem.

Re:First Post.

[Rick BigNail]

"That's even assuming that the earthquake wasn't actually a good outcome out of all the possible outcomes; for example, what if the earthquake released tectonic pressure that otherwise would've built up and killed millions instead of hundreds of thousands?"

While as a christian I appreciate your effort, I think your example is bad.

Re:First Post.

[Rick BigNail]

Perhaps the problem is this?

Theists think atheists are immoral, and atheists think theists are irrational.

Re:First Post.

[lisaparratt]

In which case, He's negligent for not stopping whatever agent did cause it.

Re:First Post.

[voisine]

You might as well ask why there is any evil in the world at all. The answer is because of Adam's sin. The thief is the ruler of this world. Adam haded his authority over to him when he sinned, but God has a plan to bring the world back into his perfect will. It just hasn't all played out yet.

Re:First Post.

[lisaparratt]

Nonsense - if God created everything, then God created evil. If he hadn't even created the concept of good and evil in the first place, there would have been no way Adam could have sinned, and yet would still have had free will.

Re:First Post.

[voisine]

When God created free will He created the potential for evil. Not quite the same thing. He created us with the freedom to choose to follow His will or to not follow His will. Evil, by definition, is anything that goes against God's will. His told us what His will is in His word. Disease, infirmity, calamity, destrution, sin and death are not what He wants for us. They result from turning away from God's will. That is why there is evil in the world.

Re:First Post.

[randallpowell]

Finally, a Christian I can like. I hate when some Christians tell me that I'm going to hell if I don't convert. Buddhism has made me a better person and allows me to improve myself instead of just believing.

COuld you email me and explain what the hell is witnessing?

Re:First Post.

[randallpowell]

It's trendy for Christians to claim persecution. Just look at the mess of last Christmas on Fox News.

Even in KY, 95+% Christian, they claim persecution from atheists, Buddhists, Satanists, Mormons, dog next door, etc.

That CowboyNeal...

[parvenu74]

That deep down, in places CowboyNeal doesn't like talking about, he's really a luddite.

Re:That CowboyNeal...

[Martin Blank]

You're also, then, believing that CowboyNeal even exists. What proof do you have of this?

Re:fp.

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep on believin', buddy... You're gonna have a hard time proving this one. ;)

Me personally

[cr0y]

That at some level computers, cars, and other non "animate" objects have feelings, moods, and emotions, and react to how you treat them. cuz my pc certainly does and i know my car does....

Re:Me personally

[forceflow2]

I don't understand why this seems to be either (probably just because if one is nice and in a good mood, one is more likely not to let small things bother them a great deal and therefore you might ignore things that would nag you in a worse mood anyways) but I kind of believe this too. It's probably something for therapy, but sometimes when I need something done quickly, I try to talk to my computer and urge it to go faster and I think sometimes it actually does...although I could be imagining things...I'll be taking a philosophy class on this this semester, so we'll see what I can dig up about it.

Re:Me personally

[ArsonSmith]

Don't anthropomorphise computers and cars, They hate that.

Re:Me personally

[arose]

That level exists, but just in the brain of the user.

Re:Me personally

[deadlinegrunt]

For starters, you should not anthropomorphize computers. They do not like it.

Re:Me personally

[AvitarX]

Apple did studies on using the mouse vs using keyboard shortcuts.

They found that the keyboard was no quicker (I don't personally think the test was designed propperly, but it is part of the reason there were lame arrow keys and no number poads on Apples).

Anyway all of the people involved thought the keyboard was quicker and they decided it was because using the keyboard required a different level of thought and the mind forgot those slices of time it was using the keyboard.

Perhaps talking to your computer helps your mind lose slices of time and feel like things are faster.

Re:Me personally

[fred fleenblat]

Things don't have to be animate to be capable of reacting. If you pay attention to something, you'll probably understand it better and make better decisions about how to use/maintain it. If you just "use" a thing and ignore the sounds it makes, the fluids leaking, the maintenance schedule in the owner's manual, etc then your car/appliance/whatever will "hate" you in the sense of not giving the best service to you.

Also, a lot of items in your world are made by people and so have some embodiment of expecting to interact with humans designed into them.

Re:Me personally

[the real darkskye]

The lack of numeric keypads on apple keyboards is probably more down to ergonomics.
The keypad was one of the biggest causes of RSI/CTS back when computers and terminals were used for masses of number input.

source: My H&S adviser

I believe that children are our future...

[geekpuppySEA]

I don't, actually. I believe that they will eat me alive if I give them back their candy.

Re:I believe that children are our future...

[L. VeGas]

I believe in miracles.

Since you came along.

You sexy thing, you.

Re:I believe that children are our future...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't, actually. I believe that they will eat me alive if I give them back their candy.

And if you don't give it back, you're still the nearest thing to gnaw on; Catch-22.

China is not communism country

[cyfer2000]

I believe, but I can't...

What Bruce Sterling should have said:

[thenerdgod]

"I'm a good writer"

Here's my list

[B5_geek]

The sock monster who lives in the dryer.
Toliet paper thief: only leaves 1 square left on roll.
The female orgasm.
The clitoris is real, it's the orgasm that's a myth.

Re:Here's my list

[Anonymous Coward]

...you mispelled preceding in your sig...

time to resurrect it

[booyah]

that somehow someone, somewhere has a picture on the internet of Natalie Portman shivering naked and covered in grits...

sure mod me a troll, but you want to beleive in it too

Redundancy

[yahyamf]

"What Do You Believe Even If You Can't Prove It?"

The question should be simply "What do you believe?" Because if something can be proven, the issue of belief does not arise. And only idiots believe what what is proven as false.

Re:Redundancy

[savagedome]

Because if something can be proven, the issue of belief does not arise

But, but how do you believe it's proven? How?

Re:Redundancy

[Anonymous Coward]

And for thousands of years, it was "proven" that the world was flat...good thing we had all those idiots back then, or we might still think this today.

Re:Redundancy

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if something can be proven, the issue of belief does not arise.

Belief can be defined quite simply as "to think a thing is true without any reason for thinking that thing is true, or contrary to existing reasons to think it is untrue". So in that sense, you're right. If you have evidence that a thing is true or it's proven to be true, then belief doesn't really enter into it, because you know it's true. You don't have to believe in it. ...only idiots believe what what is proven as false.

That doesn't seem to stop most of the major world religions from doing it.

Re:Redundancy

[nebaz]

Even in Math, proof involves an agreed upon set of axioms, and an agreed upon set of operations to derive theorems. Without these common axioms, proofs are not proofs. In the real world, 'proof' is even harder to agree with consensus wise. Even sight and sound can be fooled by a clever magician, and hoaxes abound. I believe that science, done in a controlled and disinterested manner, will validate useful models of the universe, and reject others, but proof? What is proof? And the very idea of science, that is that controlled conditions yield predictable results is a base axiom, and if you disagree with that, what common discourse is there?

Re:Redundancy

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe Slashdot the mods have a sense of humour. Actually, this is proven by the fact that the parent post, with the subject of "Redundancy" is moderated -1: Redundant.

Re:Redundancy

[JaxWeb]

I believe the axioms of Set Theory are consistant, however Godel proved it impossible to prove.

The most important problem in Mathematics is unproveable. This is worrying. You just gotta believe it is true.

Re:Redundancy

[k98sven]

Because if something can be proven, the issue of belief does not arise.

You need to explain that one further. Just because something can be proven doesn't mean it has been proven (either true or false).

That would be what is called a "guess", "hypothesis" or "conjecture".

Re:Redundancy

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, you never watch the Fox News Channel or listen to G.W. Bush rant about the right wing talking point du jour. TRUTH and PROOF are two words that don't exist in their realm. They can't. Else what would become of their entire foundation of faith based lies and fear mongering?

Re:Redundancy

[Anonymous Coward]

D'oh! "I believe Slashdot the mods..." was supposed to read "I believe the Slashdot mods..." I swear, that is the first and only time I've ever posted without previewing first. Damn!

Re:Redundancy

[asr_man]

The question should be simply "What do you believe?" Because if something can be proven, the issue of belief does not arise. And only idiots believe what what is proven as false.

Then the question should be simply "Are you an idiot?"

And I believe Scott Adams already answered that one.

Re:Redundancy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yah just like all the "idiots" that used to believe that the world WASN'T the center of the universe even though the Church had "proven" that it was.
You should only truley believe what you can prove yourself, you can't alway trust what other people say has been proved true.

Re:Redundancy

[l0b0]

There's just one problem with that reasoning: Nothing about the physical world can be proven conclusively (ref. the Heisenberg uncertainty principle).

Re:Redundancy

[ch-chuck]

Even in Math, proof involves an agreed upon set of axioms

Amen. Even the learned writer of the US declaration of Independence fell back upon, "We hold these truths to be self-evident". Everybody has to start somewhere, and the pseudo-scientific religion bashing people who poo-poo faith are as grating as the bible-thumpers.

Re:Redundancy

[Anonymous Coward]

And only idiots believe what what is proven as false.

I don't believe you!

Erm, hold on..

Re:Redundancy

[IntelliTubbie]

The question should be simply "What do you believe?" Because if something can be proven, the issue of belief does not arise. And only idiots believe what what is proven as false.

You're confusing "belief" with "faith". Faith (believing in things which are not proved /provable) and reason (believing in things which are proved) are just two different systems of belief. The question is really asking: do you have faith in anything?

Cheers,
IT

Re:Redundancy

[J. J. Ramsey]

"What Do You Believe Even If You Can't Prove It?"

The question should be simply "What do you believe?" Because if something can be proven, the issue of belief does not arise.

Bull. If that were true, the phrase "justified, true belief" would be an oxymoron instead of a problematic definition of knowledge.

Re:Redundancy

[Lumpy]

The question should be simply "What do you believe?" Because if something can be proven, the issue of belief does not arise. And only idiots believe what what is proven as false.

So does this make me an idiot that I believe that the management of this company I work for are both honest and wise?

Oh man, I'm fricking doomed... I just knew taking this job with SCO was a bad idea.

Re:Redundancy

[Bingo Foo]

No, he proved that they can't be both consistent and complete. If you do prove them to be consistent, you have effectively proven them to be incomplete. Add another axiom to approach completeness, and then try again.

If you could prove the set of axioms to be complete, then you would have effectively proven them to be inconsistent, which would not be a happy situation for mathematicians.

Re:Redundancy

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if something can be proven, the issue of belief does not arise.
unless your a creationist

And only idiots believe what what is proven as false.
ah ha! ding-ding-ding!

Re:Redundancy

[JaxWeb]

"No, he proved that they can't be both consistent and complete"

No, that was his first theorem. I am speaking of his second. I even gave you a link to find that out for yourself :-\ His second theorem says you cannot use axioms to prove that the axioms do not cause contradictions (obviously you can use them to prove they do, though!)

Re:Redundancy

[Bingo Foo]

Mea Culpa. Gödel's work should find its way into Christian Apologetics one of these decades. He has helped greatly in enabling a more rigorous framing of "faith" as something non-ridiculous.

Re:Redundancy

[thames]

Fishburne: "Welcome to the real world!"

Re:Redundancy

[abb3w]

And only idiots believe what what is proven as false.

According to a November 22 CBS News poll, 55% of the American public believe that God made man (and woman) in much their present from some time in the last 10,000 years, and that evolution is so much hooey.

Given that there is evidence that the principles of evolution apply to social organisms like countries, as well as biological organisms like fruit flies, I fear for my country.

Re:Redundancy

[roror]

Agreeing on a axiom is not *believing* it. It's agreeing. These are 2 different words and mean different things. They serve the purpose of communicating 2 different things.

A geometrical point is, well a point. It takes infinitely small space in each dimension and it has some other property. Do you really "believe" that a point "exists" in space measuring nothing in each dimension? Nope. It's made up, to make possible countless nifty use of our analytical faculty. You agree on the axioms so that can you do some other useful stuff based on them. Mostly they become self evident - mind you they are not always self evident as I can recall many instances in my study of calculus in school - because, inorder for them to be useful, they needs to be grounded in reality and when you look at them hard enough, long enough, they become evident.

Re:Redundancy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, except for the fact that evolution doesn't account for cross species evolution.

I grant that evolution occurs within a single species, but show me proff that people evolved from Apes. Show me proof that fish evolved into reptiles.

For all the fossils, there sure are a lot of missing links.

Re:Redundancy

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because something cannot be proven to exist does not mean it does not exist. It can only be proven to not be proven to exist as perceived by those who don't believe.

Some believed the earth was flat. lacking proof that it was or was not, the earth was still roundish regardless of what belief was believed.

Belief does not prove it so and non-belief does not prove it is not so.

What you believe is merely an intersection of the factual universe. You decide how much is within that area.

Re:Redundancy

[Dyolf Knip]

Ok, there is a world of difference between mathematical axioms and any religion.

The axioms are accepted as true, not because they can't be tested, but because they can't be proven. Testing them is easy! Let's see, there's the identity axiom; namely that for any value of x, x = x. It's worked for every value ever tested, and while it cannot be rigorously proven, the evidence for it is astoundingly convincing.

Then there's axioms of self-awareness. We assume that, barring identifiable exceptions like hallucinations or mental illness, our mental perceptions more or less correspond to physical reality. We assume it because without it, every single piece of knowledge, no matter how insignificant or apparently true, becomes suspect and useless.

Or maybe legal assumptions. We assume that killing and stealing are bad and ought tno be punished, not because there's a proof for it, but for pragmatic reasons. Lots of history (real world case studies) have shown that the net benefit to a large group of people is higher with such restrictions than without.

Now, let's compare that to distinct religious assumptions, i.e., ones that cannot logically be derived from one another. God exists. God created the universe. God loves everyone. God wants you to worship him. God wants you to not work on weekends. If you obey all his rules, God rewards you, otherwise, he tortures you forever. God has always existed, God will always exist. God wrote the bible. God hates unbelievers. God cares who you have sex with. God doesn't like pictures. God has a plan. God gave us free will. And on, and on, and on. Half of them are contradictory, all are untestable.

Re:Redundancy

[debest]

Sorry, just had to respond with Jean Chretien's (Canada's illustrious ex-Prime Minister) quote about "proof":

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."

Kind of gives old Dubya a run for his money, doesn't it?

Re:Redundancy

[Llywelyn]

Let's pick a little less trivial than identity.

Euclid's Fifth postulate, for example:

"""
If two lines are drawn which intersect a third in such a way that the sum of the inner angles on one side is less than two right angles, then the two lines inevitably must intersect each other on that side if extended far enough. This postulate is equivalent to what is known as the parallel postulate.
"""

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EuclidsPostulates.h tm l

Re:Redundancy

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever read "Eureka" by Edgar Allan Poe? It has been rolled over and killed around here at least once before, but it does present a few "insights" if not different perspective to science.

Re:Redundancy

[Daagar]

What is proof? There seems to be '80' of it in this bottle of vodka next to me. A few more hits, and I sure as heck won't care what proof is.

Re:Redundancy

[ch-chuck]

What really impressed me, long ago, was the work of Kurt Gödel, in proving how sufficiently powerful formal deductive systems are provably incomplete. So far I haven't heard of any new mathematical innovations that have fixed it. That, in some interpretations, shows the problems a rational thinking being has in dealing with self referance, once's place in the universe, which, I suspect, gets psychologically projected outward as some supreme being - and, being human, all too often ends up as an ego domination game. I.e., proclaiming "God says such and such", is just a deflected way of saying, "I say such and such". Anyway, what character people attribute to God does have an effect on their behavior in the world, whether we treat each other with empathy or as enemies, etc. It's a very big subject with a long history, and way too many highly educated people today treat it with a cartoonish misinformed caracterization, which is probably patterened from popular media bashing as well.

Re:Redundancy

[Anonymous Coward]

I grant that evolution occurs within a single species

This begs the question: how do you define species ?

Re:Redundancy

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, but what if we use definitions to prove God exists? Remember the proofs that went back to the definition and said "by definition, such and such". Well anyway... If we can agree that the universe exists then by definition - God exists.

If the universe exists, then "something" must have created the universe. Or that "something" that created the universe must have been created by "something else". And so on, until the original creator is reached. Let's define that with the letters G O D. Not the all knowing, all caring God taught by religion. But just the creator of the universe. Therefore by definition the creator of the universe is God. But better yet, since we agreed the universe exists, we agreed God exists. Again - not the all knowing, all caring God taught by religion. But just the creator of the universe.

What's the flaw in that proof?

The main flaw is the use of the letters G, O and D and the preconceptions attached. People are more willing to accept it when the letters XYZ are used.

Re:Redundancy

[ThaReetLad]

Depends how you define proof. There is a wealth of evidence which seems to point to some form of evolution being the mechanism by which humans appeared, and little or no evidence which disproves an evolutionary theory (which in itself evolves to encompass new evidence). Further more, there is other scientific theory which is even close to describing how we came to be the way we are.

Apes to humans is easy, you just have to look at how similar we are genetically, even fish to humans is quite possible because the parathyroid gland, which controls calcium levels in the blood may well have evolved from fish gills.

I think missing links are to be expected given that fossilisation is hard, and doesn't happen very often and we've only searched a very small percentage of the earth for such fossils.

I should say, I am a christian AND I believe that Genesis is true, in a poetic sense, which is really what genesis is. To understand Genesis you have to think about what the original audience was supposed to hear. Specifically how Genesis differs from the contemporary creation myths where the world was often created as a relic of battles between competing gods, such as the moon gods and sun gods etc. I really don't think the ancient Israelites would have understood if Moses had said

"In the begininng was the singularitly of the Planck era. Around the time of ~10-43 s, the perfect symmetry of the Planck era was broken, giving birth to space, time and gravity. The energy density of the universe at this time dropped below the critical Planck energy ~1019 GeV (~1032 K), resulting in a restriction or limitation of possible transformations between forms. Interactions that mix the gravitational force with the other forces require a minimum energy of ~1019 GeV. As the average energy density of the universe dropped below this critical threshold, these interactions were no longer possible, and so gravity, space and time emerged as stable structures of manifestation. Just as ice comes into being by cooling water below a critical freezing temperature, when the universe cooled below this "freezing temperature" of ~1032 degrees, the threads of reality spontaneously self-organized into a coherent fabric of space and time."

I believe Genesis tells us and the ancient jews exactly what we need to know to understand God's love for us, but to me the fact that God waited 15 billion years from the Big Bang before really getting started, and that the Universe is such an amazing place just adds to His glory, not detracts.

Re:Redundancy

[TuringTest]

And then, interesting things be4gin to happen when you try to imagine a world where that postulate isnt true. The main difference I see between scientific and religious axioms is the willingness of its proposants to do mental games with the alternatives, and experiment with them to the last conlcusions.

Re:Redundancy

[PMuse]

if something can be proven, the issue of belief does not arise.

I disagree. Belief and disbelief can be irrational. A belief or disbelief that is contradicted by all currently available evidence may yet turn out to be right once more evidence is obtained. Consider the question:

What do you not believe in even though it can be proved?

What comes around, goes around

[jhines0042]

I believe that if you are nice to others, even in small ways, that the world gets better.

I believe that if you are mean to others, even in small ways, that the world gets worse.

I believe that I want the world to be a better place, and I live each day according to that.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[JohnnyCannuk]

MOD Points! Where are my mod points....

Nice to see another person that subscribes to the philosophy of Siddhartha Guatamo. We need a few more in this world.

Peace.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you receive this wisdom from the "Hang In There!" kitten calendar on your fat secretary's desk?

Re:What comes around, goes around

[jhines0042]

It just makes sense when you think about it.

If I cut someone off on the road, they get pissed and are going to be angry at other people... it cascades.

If, however, I let them merge in nicely, they might let other people merge.... that also cascades.

I haven't read up on Siddhartha Guatamo, but I might have to now, this is what I came up with on my own.

and as you said, Peace!

Re:What comes around, goes around

[k4_pacific]

I think I've seen this in at least three different chain letters. You forgot to ask people to forward it.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[GoofyBoy]

The only reason why you posted this to shamelessly collect is Karma points! :)

Re:What comes around, goes around

[matthewn]

Usually I'm pissed when someone says exactly what I wanted to say. In this case, it's pleasing as heck. I'm glad to know that others believe what I believe, and try to live by it.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[jhines0042]

Its not a very easy philosophy to live by. I find the hardest part is when someone is mean to me. It is very difficult sometimes to let "thoughtless" meanness go. To realize that someone isn't being mean to me specifically, just ignorant of the fact that they are not the center of the universe.

Usually I can just let that kind of stuff go and not have it ruin my mood. But sometimes its impossible.

So, hang in there.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[east coast]

I believe that if you are nice to others, even in small ways, that the world gets better...

While this may be true you have to realize that the wheels of karma are very large and complex. Even bad stuff happens to good people (and under a certain religious ideaology it happens for a good reason).

Re:What comes around, goes around

[Anonymous Coward]

This is silly. The idea here is clearly to compare "believing" in something scientific with "believing" in something religious, to promote the "religious".

A religious belief is usually unwavering and "definite, though without the slightest proof". A "scientific" belief, however, is more along the line of an educated guess or a hunch. There is a great difference between "almighty god is the creator of all and jesus was sacrificed to relieve us of our sins and there is a heaven that we will all go to if we don't use the lord's name in vain or have gay sex" and "I believe in gravity" or even "I tend to believe in the existance of blackholes".

Calling the scientifically related "beliefs" is really inaccurate, anyway. When given enough evidence to one truth or another about such things, people would tend to be swayed toward those facts. Nobody disputes the existance of a thing we call "gravity". The force of gravity can even be measured. And we have some evidence to suggest that blackholes may exist. There is nobody who would swear they exist in the same emphatic way that they'd insist god and jesus and bhudda are real.

As for your comments . . . those aren't "beliefs". Yours are "plattitudes". They make you feel good, just like believing in jesus and an afterlife or ghosts or palm reading makes other people feel good.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[Qzukk]

Even bad stuff happens to good people (and under a certain religious ideaology it happens for a good reason).

Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.

Yeah, that kind of stuff is expected when you worship an elder god. Perform all the rituals, make all the sacrifices, and when they finally appear, they consume your soul. How's that for gratitude?

Re:What comes around, goes around

[rizole]

I agree, but want to add something my dad often said to me:

You can't reason with an asshole

Re:What comes around, goes around

[Headw1nd]

Ah, much like your believing "I have superior insight into the workings of the world and am above the petty delusions of the masses" makes you feel better about yourself.

How's that working out for you?

Re:What comes around, goes around

[jhines0042]

Bad stuff happens to good people all the time. Take the Tsunami for example.... out of 150,000+ people they couldn't have all been bad. In fact I bet most of them were generally good people.

I don't expect to be protected from bad because I try to be good. That isn't the point at all. My goal is to make the world a better place, one person at a time.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI: Siddhartha Guatamo is also know as Buddha - might save some time looking him up

Re:What comes around, goes around

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know who Siddhartha Guatamo is? I believe the poster was trying to show off his intellectual prowess by using this persons birth name rather than his recognizable name... Buddha.

What you describe, is commonly referred to as karma.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[iceborer]

I believe that I'm going to be sick;P

Re:What comes around, goes around

[jhines0042]

How very true.

I try to avoid those kinds of a people as a general rule. After all, what makes them happy is being mean to other people. If you try to stop them from being mean then they just get angry. Angry people don't make the world a better place.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[JohnnyCannuk]

In case you are wondering Siddharth Guatamo==the Buddha.

I was trying to be cute cuz I thought you were already a follower...(since you nailed the essence of Buddhism bang on)

I'm like you. I stopped beleiving in God and Christianity at about 14 because it just didn't make sense. Over the years, through a lot of trial and error, I came up with the same ideas you did, also on my own...and they seem to work quite well.

Only after I started Kung Fu at 36 and did a little research did I discover Buddhism and discover that the philosophy of Buddhism (I would shy away from calling it a religion, since its still atheistic and more of a simple "practice" than anything) was exactly what I had come up with on my own.

And your right, it just makes sense. And as you posted to another thread earlier, it's hard to live by on a daily basis, but at least you know you can make up for any mistakes.

Glad to see others using their minds for the purpose to which they evolved.

I would recommend "What the Buddha Taught" by Rahula Wapola and "How to Practice" by HH the Dalai Lama as good starting points....

Peace buddy!

Re:What comes around, goes around

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd mod ya as funny if I could.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[orthogonal]

I believe that if you are nice to others, even in small ways, that the world gets better.

I agree!1!1!1!1!!

By the way, I'm a little short this month, what with buying Christmas gifts to keep Christ in Christmas and all that.

Would you be nice enough to me, in a small way involving small bills, and make the world a little better by sending me, say, fifty bucks in fives?

'Cause that'll definitely make my world a better place.

Please send your money to:
Orthogonal Ministries
One God's Way
Corpus Christi, Jesusland 32131

Re:What comes around, goes around

[east coast]

Perform all the rituals, make all the sacrifices, and when they finally appear, they consume your soul. How's that for gratitude?

Could we really ask for better? :)

Re:What comes around, goes around

[dedeman]

Hopefully, it's working quite well for him/her. That post said nothing about the "superior insight into the workings of the world", as you so aptly pointed out. It was simply stated as a simple point of view, and there is beauty in simplicity.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what I love about religious zealots that claim that if you don't "accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior" (or whatever), that you're doomed and can't get to heaven.

So how does an innocent child born into a country with a large non-Christian presence (let's take Iran/Islam as an example) have a chance? What they're saying is that their fine God forms children in the wombs of billions of Muslim/Jewish/Buddhist/etc. women with no chance of finding Christianity and are damned to hell. Why would God support "incorrect" religions? Doesn't sound like the compassionate God of the Bible to me. Why would he put people on this earth with no chance of reaching Heaven?

I'm not buying it. God loves all of his children.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[JohnFluxx]

Shouldn't this be said as "on average", as I'm sure you could find an individual case where it's wrong?

(Like you help someone cross the road, but then you both get run over)

Re:What comes around, goes around

[JohnnyCannuk]

Not intellectual prowess, just trying to be a smart ass...

I have learned in more than a few posts here that you don't assume to push your religious or philisophic views on someone. I figured he was already a Buddhist and thus would know who Siddharha Guatamo was...I was wrong.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[dvdungeon]

Nice to see a fellow buddhist out and about. I can also recommend 'Being Good - Buddhist Ethics for everyday life - By Master Hsing Yun' to the above books. And you right, it is hard to live by on a day to day basis, but the feeling of calmness at the end of the day, and the lack of stress in my life is so much better than before. Cheers Matt

Re:What comes around, goes around

[dedeman]

You first post was well stated, articulate, and to the point. I agree with your philosophy entirely. The difficlty in being good is that there will always be those ready to put you down, as can been seen in some of the replies.

Keep it up though, kindness is infectious, as is negativity.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[hollismb]

Nope, because when you think about it, the world gets better because the a-hole that ran you over goes to jail for manslaughter, and the world gets worse because two people died due to some a-hole driving too fast and not yeilding to pedestrians.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[jhines0042]

There are many cases where person A does something good for person B, person B (or C) screws them over and person A gets mad and the world gets worse.

Here's the trick...

If you give someone $10 and they buy a brick and throw it through your car window and you get MAD, then you have validated their action.

If you don't get MAD, but instead you let it go, are passive, and you never help them out again, then you totally invalidate their action. They get no joy out of seeing you pissed off (the only reason they could have had for breaking your window) and they will learn that they can't get you to be mad by stupid shenanigans.

Of course, you don't help them again.

Recently there was a church who gathered presents for some kids. The church was broken in to and all the presents stolen. Word got out that a great evil had happened, and presents rolled in from all over the place. Good Deed, ruined by a Bad Deed, and the promptly UNRUINED by an even greater set of individually small deeds.

To me that is Karma in action.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[jhines0042]

Just learn to ignore the negative people. If you ignore them, they tend to go away. Their goal is to get a rise out of you.

Don't feed the trolls.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[csbruce]

I believe that if you are nice to those who are mean to you, they will be mean to you in the future.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[Halthar]

I, personally, believe that the real question is "What is better, and for whom?". Better for me? Better for you? Better for random_person_314?

The problem, as I see it, is that we as people aren't privy to every effect our actions have. Every action we take is akin to dropping a pebble into a vast ocean at some seemingly random place. We don't know what the effects will be at a random spot on the beach somewhere in a far off land. We don't know how the wave will effect every grain of sand on that beach, or the ocean life near it. We can look down from our vantage point and see the local effect to some degree, but we can't (Well, maybe we can, but that is a discussion for another day) observe the universal effects.

It is my belief, that due to this little problem we really aren't in a position to determine what is "good" or "bad" on a universal scale. Living within the confines of this world requires that we make judgements about the "good" or "bad" of various things, but that doesn't mean we can apply those judgements on a larger scale, because we aren't aware of all of the variables or results(well, maybe we are or could be and don't know it, but again, that is another discussion for another day). As a result of this, I don't see how it can be generalized that doing something percieved as "good" on a local scale can be assured to be "good" on a universal scale. What if being nice to someone within the confines of our local reality, could contribute in a small way to someone being murdered somewhere else. What if, in the grand scheme of things, that person needed to be murdered for the greater good? People within that local reality may see the murder as a bad thing, while somewhere else maybe it will be seen as a turning point towards better times (Maybe it was Evil_Dictator_259).

I think this is the problem with judgement refered to in the Bible. I conceed that I could be interpreting it wrong, but I feel that the problem isn't so much with judgement on a local scale (subjective), but with deciding that those judgements apply on a universal scale (objective), because we aren't omnipotent (well, maybe we are and aren't aware of it). We are stuck with the trappings of a subjective reality, and we aren't in a position to pass judgement in any objective way, which is why sometimes "bad things happen to good people". Maybe those things aren't actually bad. Maybe it is the best thing that ever could have happened to them. We aren't in a position to know, and as a result aren't in a position to pass judgement in any objective way about the "good" or "bad" of those occurances. Even within the confines of our little local realities which we can observe, we can't be completely sure of the effects of our actions, because the observed result will be clouded by our subjective views of "good" or "bad". What we feel is best for someone else, may be the worst thing that could have occured for them.

Sorry for the rambling post. I think I should get some more coffee.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[HarveyBirdman]

I believe that if you are mean to others, even in small ways, that the world gets worse.

Cool. Me being a misanthrope, I want the world to get worse. What do you think of that, dumbass? Eh? Ya hear me, asshat? Mean enough for ya, megadouche? Ah, suck out my farts, the whole lot of ya. Die! Die! Die!

OK, now I'll watch the news this evening and see if the world got worse.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[halfelven]

Buddhism does not excludes fighting back, if the situation requires it.

Disclaimer: i'm not a dyed-in-the-wool buddhist, but i sympathise with some buddhist points of view (and i actually studied buddhism quite a lot)

Re:What comes around, goes around

[caswelmo]

I stopped beleiving in God and Christianity at about 14 because it just didn't make sense. Over the years, through a lot of trial and error, I came up with the same ideas you did, also on my own...and they seem to work quite well.

That's interesting, I had the same experience around 14 (15 actually). It must be part of the whole growing up thing to start to question your belief systems. For me though, those same thoughts about how to treat others and yourself eventually brought me back to Christianity. I think the "Golden Rule" ideas laid out in Christianity get rolled into and overshadowed by the Godly/religious aspects of the faith.

In reality, if what you're after is the idea of peace & love, rather than anger & hate, then you can probably find a connection to pretty much any religion. I'm betting it results from how we're wired up with a conscience & all. It's a pretty much universal human feeling that there is a difference between good & bad, and good is better. Where that feeling comes from is, of course, open to debate...

Re:What comes around, goes around

[sploxx]

Yes, but I would change the last sentence:

I believe that I want the world to be a better place, and I try to live each day according to that.

Because: 1. knowing what is good is hard. 2. I'm evil sometimes. 3. Accidents happen.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[Wraithlyn]

Absolutely, and probably more profoundly than you even suspect.

Read "The Field" by Lynne McTaggart. It chronicles a number of recent experiments with consciousness and quantum physics. They found, for example, that if 1 percent of the population of a city practiced transcendental meditation, crime dropped to 24%. This experiment has been rigorously studied, and reproduced dozens of times, including in Washington DC.

The inescapable conclusion is that our own consciousness affects others. Individual stress collectively leads to world stress. We are all connected through nonlocal quantum effects.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds exploitable through technology. Muahahahah! ;)

You might find the book Supernature by Lyall Watson interesting. I've picked through some parts of it and definitely know it could use a revision, but whatever, it's a fun read.

I used to listen to Art Bell several years ago and I remember a similar mass conciousness experiment involving summer fires in British Columbia. Or some such thing. I guess enough people weren't wishing us rain in summer 2003, though.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[gfreeman]

I think I've seen this in at least three different chain letters. You forgot to ask people to forward it.

Hey, that's what slashdot's for!

Re:What comes around, goes around

[Rick BigNail]

I wonder why people always question why bad things happen to good peopl, but not appreciate good things happen to bad people.

Re:What comes around, goes around

[randallpowell]

Dhammapada and The Heart of the Buddha's Teachings by Thich Nhat Hanh are great especially Dhammapada IMO.

Nice to see Buddhists on Slashdot. Maybe if Goatse could find Buddha....

Sexual Selection

[FriedTurkey]

I like the Judith Rich Harris entry:

I believe, though I cannot prove it, that three--not two--selection processes were involved in human evolution.
The first two are familiar: natural selection, which selects for fitness, and sexual selection, which selects for sexiness.

I guess slashdot nerds should extinct in 100 years.

Re:Sexual Selection

[nine-times]

I believe, though I cannot prove it, that three--not two--selection processes were involved in human evolution.
The first two are familiar: natural selection, which selects for fitness, and sexual selection, which selects for sexiness.

Are those really two? I mean, isn't it pretty well accepted that the attractiveness of other people is based on cues on who would be a better survivor (physical fitness, symmetry, health)? Isn't sexual proficiency and ability to reproduce one aspect of being "fit" to survive (i.e. your genes being fit to survive for more than one generation)?

(didn't RTFA)

Re:Sexual Selection

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. "Survival of the fittest" is almost a tautology, because "fitness" tends to be defined as "that which increases survival rate". Think of it not as "most physically fit" but as "best fit to the environment".

i don't know what i really beleive

[hsmith]

i don't beleive in the christian god, but i know there has to be something out there, things are just to "perfect" to randomly appear.

look at how the earth balances itself out, no matter what we do to mess it up, look at mathmatics, virtually perfect, our bodies are amazing pieces of machinery. but who knows, we will all be worm food one day

Re:i don't know what i really beleive

[Anonymous Coward]

things are just to "perfect" to randomly appear.

Over 120,000 deaths last week would beg to differ.

our bodies are amazing pieces of machinery.

Cancer, AIDS, athritis et al would suggest there's plenty of room for improvement.

Re:i don't know what i really beleive

[Anonymous Coward]

I would recommend reading atleast chapter 1 of this book on tawheed by Bilal Philips for a different perspective.

Re:i don't know what i really beleive

[Anonymous Coward]

yup............trinity is non-understandable "father son holy ghost" .....I believe But god exits
He is One
thts all

Re:i don't know what i really beleive

[JohnnyCannuk]

i don't beleive in the christian god, but i know there has to be something out there, things are just to "perfect" to randomly appear.

I think what you meant to say was:

"i don't beleive in the christian god, but i WANT there has to be something out there, things are just to "perfect" to randomly appear.

Are things "too perfect" because the earth and the universe was built around us and our design or are they "too perfect" because we eveloved to fit "perfectly" into this universe, that if the universe was different, we would be different also and wondering the same thoughts.

Just thought you might want to consider these things along with a healthy dose of Occam's Razor...

Re:i don't know what i really beleive

[Orne]

The anthrosophical answer is that, if it were any other way, then we wouldn't be here to observe it.

If the cosmological constants weren't just right, our universe wouldn't have coalesced out of matter as it did. If the planet didn't have just the right orbit and axis, things would have been too chaotic for life to appear. If we hadn't evolved the way we did, we wouldn't be sentient enough to look back and be amazed by how it all came about.

Now, we can all argue at the end of the day whether all that happened by accident (by randomness), or if there's something behind the scenes guiding it all (design), but it's still something neat to philosophize about.

Re:i don't know what i really beleive

[LordNimon]

Have you considered that there could have been billions of other universes that didn't work out prior to this one, and the only reason you think this one is perfect is because you're in it?

Re:i don't know what i really beleive

[Anonymous Coward]

i know there has to be something out there, things are just to "perfect" to randomly appear.

That is belief not knowledge.

Your argument is a very old one. I suggest you read Dawkins, in particular, the Blind Watchmaker for insight into some very solid (in my opinion) counterarguments. Beautiful, complex things can certainly arise through evolution, and the only reason the world seems so suited to us is because we evolved to suit the world - not the other way around.

Re:i don't know what i really beleive

[BRSQUIRRL]

Let me preface this by saying that I am a Christian. The anthropic principle says (roughly) that the universe that we see appears so "perfect" to us simply because if it wasn't...in other words, if it were different (e.g. Earth was a little closer to the sun)...we wouldn't be here to see it and that we are just the (very!) fortunate benefactors of probability. Something to think about.

Now as to WHY we are so lucky as to exist in a universe/galaxy/solar system/etc. that is seemingly tuned for our existence and of course how this universe came to be in the first place: I turn to my faith to answer those questions.

Re:i don't know what i really beleive

[metalhed77]

Right on.

Re:i don't know what i really beleive

[nattt]

Why turn to faith to answer questions? Why not just admit you don't know, and will never know? Why not?? It's much more honest to say I don't know when you don't know rather than invent some god being to answer the unanswerable.

If your god did exist as anything other than a figment of your imagination, what do you reckon he'd say about his own existance? Why am I here? What is the purpose of my existance? Who created me? The god concept does not answer questions but merely put them to one side.

Now you're a christian! Is this because you studied the religions of the world and came to an adult informed decision, or because that's the faith you were indoctrinated in from birth. What makes your christian religion the right one, and all the others the wrong one?

Re:i don't know what i really beleive

[Anonymous Coward]

Which Christian God would that be? The one that today so called 'Christians' believe on, or the one the original Christians believed in? There is quite a difference. Some of today's christians can are to fanatical to argue with, unfortunately. To me a fanatic is one that refuses to accept a logical valid argument only because it isn't what he wants to believe. Which is different from believeing something that you can't prove, by the way. However, the original Christians, as depicted in the Bible, were the complete oposite. They were arguing for something they had been _eye witnesses_ of. They argued using logical arguments that the man Jesus was the christ fortold by the prophets, and used the scriptures to prove it. They saw his miracles, and most importantly his resurrection by God. To see what else they believed you will have to read the Bible and make your own conclusions, but don't be afraid to ask others for help, unless you afraid to hear what you don't want to hear.

Re:i don't know what i really beleive

[Scrameustache]

things are just to "perfect" to randomly appear. [...] our bodies are amazing pieces of machinery

I have trouble believing in a kind and loving god. Maybe there is a greater power out there, but he's got a twisted sense of humour.

Re:i don't know what i really beleive

[Anonymous Coward]

If we were not as lucky as we are we wouldn't exist, just like all those infinite amounts of other things that dont exist. Thinking similar to yours might lead me to belive that because if there was one small change, even a very small one, to any part of history, I wouldn't exist. Therfore all history must have had the sole purpouse of creating me.

Re:i don't know what i really beleive

[randallpowell]

That proves FOSS is better than closed source.

Re:i don't know what i really beleive

[RatBastard]

but i know there has to be something out there, things are just to "perfect" to randomly appear.
Things are "perfect" because we evolved to survive in the environment we found ourselves in. We developed here, on earth, and here on earth things are close to perfect.

look at how the earth balances itself out, no matter what we do to mess it up
Like global warming? The extinction of thousands of species? Mercury poisening in the water supply ? Deforestation?

The earth is big enough that it took a very large population of humans, something that is a very recent condition, in order to have a noticeble effect. But we are now effecting the earth in ways that are causing serious problems.

look at mathmatics, virtually perfect
Guess what? Mathmatics is a human invention. Nature neither knows nor cares what 1+1 is, nor does it care that you can't divide by zero. Have you ever tried long division in Roman numerals? What about in cultures where their numbers are 1, 2, 3, "many"?

our bodies are amazing pieces of machinery
Sure. Our feet are hands that barely do their job. Don't beleive me? Ask Dr. Scholl. The octopus has better eyes than we do. We gain weight at the drop of a hat but it takes an amazing amount of work to lose it again. Childbirth puts the mother's life at risk, a feature pretty unique to human beings.

We are beauitiful and wonderous things (as are all other living things), but we are not intellegently designed by any stretch of the imagination.

Re:i don't know what i really beleive

[jeorgen]

The anthrosophical answer is that, if it were any other way, then we wouldn't be here to observe it.

If the cosmological constants weren't just right, our universe wouldn't have coalesced out of matter as it did. If the planet didn't have just the right orbit and axis, things would have been too chaotic for life to appear. If we hadn't evolved the way we did, we wouldn't be sentient enough to look back and be amazed by how it all came about.

Bah, we would just be somewhere else :-)

Re:i don't know what i really beleive

[mindstrm]

It's natural to see the universe, or the earth, as somehow "made for us". We are human, we look at us, and everything else as separate form us.

When we realize that we are part of that universe, and evolved along with it, it's no longer wierd that everything fits together, it's actually the only way it could all be.

Saying it's too perfect is like a puddle of water saying "Look how this depression in the ground I'm sitting in is JUST the right size to hold me!' Someone must have created it just for me.

Everthying isn't independently random, it's all connected, so it's natural for it to all work together. The earth seems just right for us because we evolved together.

Re:i don't know what i really beleive

[ThaReetLad]

But look at how people are reacting to the tsunami. People are being generous and realising that everything we strive for like money, posessions, stability and even life are tenuous and fragile, and it can all be taken away in the blink of an eye. Peoples reaction to this disasters has restored my faith in humanity to some extent, and I hope that it will now lead to people looking for deeper meaning in their lives. If that happens then it could even be argued that this disaster was a good thing. After all, God works in mysterious ways.

Re:i don't know what i really beleive

[ThaReetLad]

Personally I came to a adult informed decision after doing a physics degree. It is brilliantly self consistant and complete, and the way in which the Old Testament predicts what Jesus did hundreds or even thousands of years before he was even born is hard to ignore.

As to why turn to faith, well one reason is that life is just better that way. I don't worry about death, I don't worry too much about wealth or success, I'm happy because I know that the dude that created the universe and spent 15 billion years waiting for us loves me. I don't worry about revenge, I don't hate people, I don't hold grudges. Every time I see something good or beautiful I rejoice and praise God, I am not a prisoner of guilt because I know that every sin I commit out of weakness has been forgiven, I know that I don't have to work to gain God's love or acceptance (but I choose to out of love for my father, God) because his love is an unconditional gift. I praise God that because of Jesus' death on the cross, I have the right to call God "Abba" (roughly "Daddy"), and to expect my prayers answered (sometimes He answers no, in the same way as a responsible parent would deny their child an M16). I have the loving support of the brotherhood of Christ in his church, and that has been such a blessing to me in the year since I became a Christian. Lastly I believe I experience fellowship with God through the Holy Spirit who lives in me. I believe He guides me and makes my heart leap with joy when I see the work of His hand in nature and in people.

All-in-all, it's a good life, and that in itself is something I find to be quite astounding. It is easy to imagine a fake religion that puts all kinds of heavy burdens and obligations upon its followers, it is quite another matter to design a religion that works so well when lived properly, while remaining so self consistant.

Re:i don't know what i really beleive

[Rick BigNail]

I believe in God than in billions other universe.

That M$...

[codesurfer]

...will release Longhorn before 2018! Just kidding...I know they won't. I use Linux anyway.

I Believe I Can Fly.....

[Wandering Wombat]

I believe I can touch the sky.
I believe it every night and day.
I believe I can fly away...

But seriously, folks. I believe we, as a species, are screwed. I can't prove it, but I'm pretty sure you all will prove me right soon enough.

Re:I Believe I Can Fly.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look in the mirror of you want someone to blame for the extinction of the species, fuckwad. What is this "you all" shit?

On a long enough timeline everything is screwed. Sooner or later the universe will collapse. You don't need blind faith to know that.

Re:I Believe I Can Fly.....

[Wandering Wombat]

How did I wipe out humanity?

I believe...!

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago by God. 24 hours a day for a week he toiled. I also believe in angels, hell, Satan, the whole bit.

I also believe that Jesus ascended with the Amulet of Yendor (not a cheap plastic imitation) while having genocided no creatures. He did use a lot of wishes though.

Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

According to sound research published in the journal Nature, Only 7% of of acclaimed scientists believe in any form of God.

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm

Regretfully, the number 7% includes opinions of non-scientists that are allowed in the National Academy of Sciences, namely mathematicians.

If the numbers were reworked without mathematicians or certain physicist-mathematicians, I bet it would be under 1%.

In general scientific minds do not believe in any ghosts, goblins, ghosts, or gods.

Please read the link, and also consult the study.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

See, it's 7%. No 10, 9, or 5. But 7. And as you know, 7 is a holy number.
Anyway it's dumb to be atheist. If you can't prove or disprove something, the best answer is "I don't know", therefore most scientists who were hardcore would be agnostics, not atheists.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[JeffTL]

Disproving the existence of God is impossible.

I believe that proof of existence has been rendered at various times throughout human history, just that some people don't believe it.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

Why aren't mathematicians scientists?

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a qualified physicist and I lean towards the more mathemetical areas - esp. pure maths.

I have met very few scientists whose opinions I genenrally value who claim to be athiests. In fact the number of athiests I studied with roughly equalled the christians with the majority being generally agnostic.

You see scientists don't tend to claim something unless they have experiments to back up what they say or at least logic and mathematics to predict behaviour. If they did they wouldn't be very gould scientists since their assertions could not be tested nor their work peer reviewed.

That's why no scientists have published papers attempting to prove the existance of god nor any to prove his absence.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes because a study published by atheists.org about atheism in the scientific community is a reliable source....

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

Where?

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist...

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[efatapo]

While researchers views might be that depressing, the beliefs of medical doctors is quite encouraging. Take a look at this survey.

72% believe that religion provides a reliable and necessary guide to life.
58% attend church once a month.
58% believe the Bible was inspired by God.

So while your article implies intelligent and influential scientists don't believe in God, a number I personally hope to decrease, the study of medical doctors shows a strong number of people with faith. I would say that medical doctors have 'scientific minds', which would dispute your second to last line.

On a related note, I don't think that it's fair to use the National Academy of Science as the survey pool. People who have made it into the NAS have devoted at least 90% of their waking energy to the scientific fields are not consistent with most kinds of faith anyways. As a Christian, there are things more important to me than scientific success. I have had dinner with many biochemists in the academy and family/friends/life/etc comes a distant second to their career. So I would suggest that these results are completely consistent with their life style. I would like to see a survey of PhD scientists or professors at a variety of universities, those results would be much more of a mixed bag.

I also hope that you don't take this as confirmation that education and faith are not compatible. I know plenty of PhD students who are practicing Christians.

~Dan

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

NATURE is an accliamed journal that has been acclimed for nearly 100 years.

everything published in it is peer reviewed.

are you retarded or a jesus fucker who never heard of "Nature"???

maybe you are retarded AND a jesus loving nut?!

hail Satan!

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[lukesl]

I went to both med school and grad school (in neurophysiology), and I would say that you're wrong about one thing: medical doctors, in general, do NOT have "scientific minds." The recent embrace of so-called "evidence-based medicine" by the medical community is a perfect example of this. If not evidence, what were they using before? The answer: convention/dogma/judgment or whatever you want to call it.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[halivar]

Regretfully, the number 7% includes opinions of non-scientists that are allowed in the National Academy of Sciences, namely mathematicians.

Mathematics is the first science to get it right. When your precious "scientists" were making up goofy cosmological models to account for idiotic presuppositions, it was the mathematicians that set them straight. At the beginning of the modern era, all real scientists were first and foremost mathematicians. Tomorrow, we may find out your most precious "science" was fraudulantly doctored, but 1 plus 1 will always equal 2. Period.

The above quote, by the way, shows you know absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zilch about mathematics or science. Anyone who has taken high school chemistry ought to know better.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, Mother Mary's face in a grilled cheese sandwich, of course. And that Jesus oilstain on the driveway.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to second this observation. In biological sciences it's usually enough to know that a paper was authored by an MD to know that it's crap. Western medicine is not western science, and MDs are not as a matter of course trained in science.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[ifwm]

I would argue that Doctors support religion because it has observable positive PHYSICAL effects, completely unrelated to anything supernatural.

As far as the rest of your post, doctors aren't trained researchers, so their opinion of science carries the same weight as a dog catcher's.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[nattt]

So religious believers have strength in numbers the world over - what does that mean?? The number of people believing in something has no bearing on it's validity either way.

The main issue with religious believers is that their belief is not rational and in many cases borders on madness. Unlike other bad habits, they feel it necessary to perform their bad habit in public and group together with others.

You as an individual can believe whatever you want, and I'll defend your right to believe whatever you want, but as soon as you try to organise together to oppress.... I'm not happy at all. I don't know you, you're probably not one of those oppressive types - after all that type of religious person doesn't read /. for instance, and cannot use a computer, but by even allowing yourself to be associated with them by saying you're a christian, you're lending validity to their oppression. Now I'm certain you're not a christian - you have your own beliefs, and as no two christians can agree on exactly what to believe anyway, I'd be much happier if you described yourself as a theist and leave it at that.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Dan Ost]

According to every serious definition of science that I've ever seen,
mathematics does not qualify as a science. So, if you would,
please provide a definition of science such that mathematics qualifies.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[abigor]

God, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy - all fictional beings made to excite and comfort childlike minds.

Imagine how great the world would be if all of the Christians, Muslims, and Jews were suddenly ejected into deep space.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[efatapo]

Now I'm certain you're not a christian

I'd appreciate it if you let me define myself.

you're probably not one of those oppressive types - after all that type of religious person doesn't read /. for instance, and cannot use a computer, but by even allowing yourself to be associated with them by saying you're a christian, you're lending validity to their oppression.

I am 100% a Christian. I don't know what connotation you bring to the table when I say 'Christian' but a true Christian is not oppresive in the slightest. Sit yourself down and read the New Testament and you'll see that for the last 2000 years this has been the case. For example, Luke 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return. Christians are instructed to not only love their family and friends but also their enemies; and not just love them, but to do good onto them and lend, expecting no reciprocity. Now, I will I fear you are associating the actions of non-Christians who call themselves Christians onto Christianity. These people are like vegetarians who eat meat or democrats who voted for Bush, is that person really a vegetarian or a democrat? I would say no. The Bible says no as well, as the Bible says that you will know of a person's faith by the fruits of his labor. I'd love to introduce you to some real Christians. They are not perfect people, but you can tell them apart from these oppressive types. And just as a side note, I know plenty of Christians who can use a computer quite well, from programmers, to sys admins, to repair guys.

So religious believers have strength in numbers the world over - what does that mean?? The number of people believing in something has no bearing on it's validity either way.

And I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that numbers meant truth. I was mearly trying to argue that other scientifically intelligent individuals have faith. I don't know how you define rationality or madness, but you might mean living by faith in something unknown. Have you ever loved or trusted someone? Doesn't that make you do things that would be viewed as irrational to someone who didn't understand that love or trust? Take the simple case of the prisoners dilemna (just 'cause I'm reading a book on that subject right now), if you trusted that person completely you would never dissent...but to someone who didn't understand love/trust it would seem ridiculous.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[huge colin]

Having a PhD does not make a person scientific. It means they paid a lot of money and put up with school. That's all.

This next bit is extremely important: No truly scientific person can believe in a god or gods because such gods are generally defined to be undetectable. A completely undetectable supreme being is exactly equivalent to no supreme being at all, and insisting belief in that which cannot be demonstrated is completely and totally contrary to what we call Science.

I challenge anyone to refute what I've just said.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[efatapo]

I am a graduate student working in a biochemistry research lab (getting my PhD) attached to a medical school/hospital (University of Michigan). I know plenty of med students who have great scientific minds and a great grasp on scientific literature. I will give you that they are usually not the best researchers, though.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[lukesl]

I agree. I know a number of med students and doctors with what I would call scientific minds. I'm just saying it's not the majority.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[efatapo]

No truly scientific person can believe in a god or gods because such gods are generally defined to be undetectable.

This is inane. Just because a person is a scientist doesn't mean they can never have a non-scientific thought. Science is limited to materialism, "the empirical procedure of exploration and verification is the only known reliable method of discovering truth." (Smith, 1952) Ok, true...but when a scientist goes home from work he is certainly not limited to this artificial constraint. Even when I'm at work, biochemistry lab, I know that there is a Truth that exceeds what I'm currently studying. Will I be publishing it in a scientific journal? Nope ;) But just like love, trust, and beauty...some things are not limited by 'exploration and verification'.

A completely undetectable supreme being is exactly equivalent to no supreme being at all

This is contrary to what we call science. No proof of existence is NOT equivalent to proof of non-existence.

insisting belief in that which cannot be demonstrated is completely and totally contrary to what we call Science.

Correct, which just shows the limitations of science...nothing else.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Jeff Carr]

but 1 plus 1 will always equal 2. Period.

Unless you allow for extremely large values of 1.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[nattt]

Please do define yourself, but I'm certain that if you're a christian then all other christians are not. I'm certain, however, that at the very least you're a theist. I'm also certain that you believe in your interpretation of the bible and that in your mind that makes you a christian, but that your interpretation will differ from every other christian's to a greater or lesser extent.

If I define myself as agnostic, then at the very least you know that I do not know whether or wether there is not a god, but that is the absolute limit of what you know about me from that definition. Personally, I extend my personal definition to be that I'm agnostic to the concept of god in general, but I'm atheist to any specific god, ie the christian god.

What I'm getting at is that "christian" has baggage attached to it that "theist", "deist", "agnostic" do not, and "atheist" does not in my mind have baggage, but to uneducated masses it is take to mean child-eater or devil worshiper.

So if you're a catholic and you do not agree with everything in the catholic faith, I think you'd be be better by not calling yourself a catholic as by doing so you lend strength to things you do not believe in. I don't think christian ONLY means believer in the christ of the bible - I do think it means an aful lot more than that.

I have read the bible and found god to be a miserable and evil bastard. Slaves should be beaten until they have many stripes on their back. I'm happy that the she bears killed the 40 children, that Pharoah's will was hardened, and I'm happy indeed to taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. And I do bring a tree into the house and decorate it at winter solstice time.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[HofSLBISH]

Yes, a lovely place where far fewer people would think of anyone but themselves. A wonderful place where true joy would be scarce and hope would be rare.

Or, maybe we could encourage all the people who call themselves Christians/Muslims/Jews to actually live up to the good their religion requires of them.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[huge colin]

Just because a person is a scientist doesn't mean they can never have a non-scientific thought.

Of course, that's not a problem. I'm not saying a scientist can't love, trust, etc. Science doesn't touch that -- science doesn't tell anyone that they're not allowed to believe in love. In fact, science provides good reasons for why things like love and trust exist.

God(s), on the other hand, is a different story. The scientific method does not support maintaining belief in That Which Cannot Be Known. Note the distinction between "that which cannot be known" and "that which we currently do not know". In fact, there is an extremely small set of things that absolutely cannot be known. The existence of a god is one of these things, because of the very definition of god.

But just like love, trust, and beauty...some things are not limited by 'exploration and verification'.

What are you saying? That the chemical particles in your brain that create these abstract notions are not subject to the laws of physics? It may be extremely difficult to accurately describe exactly what love is, but it is possible, via one and only one tool (which is, of course, science.)

This is contrary to what we call science. No proof of existence is NOT equivalent to proof of non-existence.

Correct, but what's we're looking for (god) has been defined to be undetectable. Don't you see? Don't even bother looking, because the definition of what you're looking for totally precludes the possibility of success! From the standpoint of doing science via the scientific method, what I said in the grandparent post is correct.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

"Or, maybe we could encourage all the people who call themselves Christians/Muslims/Jews to actually live up to the good their religion requires of them."

Ah yes, a world in which people only do good because religion requires it. The ejection into space seems ideal.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Politburo]

I'd appreciate it if you let me define myself.

Now, I will I fear you are associating the actions of non-Christians who call themselves Christians onto Christianity

Wouldn't those "non-Christians" also appreciate it if you let them define themselves? Do unto others... I'm sure you know the rest.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[HofSLBISH]

Maybe in this case, belief is a prerequisite for being able to perform the detection. Scientist or not, you still need the proper tools. People thought bacteria didn't exist at one time. People who believe can clearly see god at work.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Viking Coder]

An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician were holidaying in Scotland. Glancing from a train window, they observed a black sheep in the middle of a field.

"How interesting," observed the astronomer, "all scottish sheep are black!"

To which the physicist responded, "No, no! Some Scottish sheep are black!"

The mathematician gazed heavenward in supplication, and then intoned, "In Scotland there exists at least one field, containing at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black."

---

The above quote shows that they're different. They think differently. If there was no truth to the observation that different disciplines think differently, there would be absolutely no humor in that joke.

Which came first, the sailboat or the mathematics of fluid dynamics? People who use the scientific method do quite well in an imperfect world, thank you. That's because science is based on physical evidence in the observable world. Do you have any idea how long people were doing chemistry before they knew what an atom or a molecule were? How did they do that? By forming "idiotic presuppositions" again and again and again, until they happened to find one that wasn't so idiotic.

Can't you see that the process of starting from physical evidence is different from starting from axioms? (Or being able to create axioms willy-nilly, and imagining the worlds that would result.) That a theory which is always disprovable is different from a proof which is, well, never disprovable as long as the axioms are true in the system (a tautology)?

Play nice with others and don't insult people just because they disagree with you.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[marcosdumay]

I don't want to denny mathemetics value, but it's up to discussion if mathematics is or is not science. If you remember your high scool classes you will se that despite math, every science is headed into undertanding something.
Math, otherwise, is headed into creating models (not necessary real) and validanting them, more like a language than a kind of science.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes your specific religion so god damn special?

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello Dan

You don't have to believe in god(s) to value friends/family/other things in life.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[wes33]

I think you have fallen into paradox. How can you demonstrate that nothing should be believed which cannot be demonstrated? Where's your demonstration or scientific proof of your own principle?

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a PhD does not make a person scientific. It means they paid a lot of money and put up with school. That's all.

Maybe in your country ;) It's free in this welfare state.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[anicholo]

So while your article implies intelligent and influential scientists don't believe in God, a number I personally hope to decrease, the study of medical doctors shows a strong number of people with faith. I would say that medical doctors have 'scientific minds', which would dispute your second to last line.

No, most doctors don't have a 'scientific mind' as you call it -- and obviously neither do you, if you think they do.

On a related note, I don't think that it's fair to use the National Academy of Science as the survey pool. People who have made it into the NAS have devoted at least 90% of their waking energy to the scientific fields are not consistent with most kinds of faith anyways. As a Christian, there are things more important to me than scientific success. I have had dinner with many biochemists in the academy and family/friends/life/etc comes a distant second to their career. So I would suggest that these results are completely consistent with their life style. I would like to see a survey of PhD scientists or professors at a variety of universities, those results would be much more of a mixed bag.

You're right on that one.

Many 'scientists' here at my university are mildly religious. But of course, you can't be truly scientific if you believe in a god or some other nonsense in those lines... But you see, it's like the difference between being a True Neutral and not.

Hail.

PD: Don't mind my .sig, *it's a joke*

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[huge colin]

A better question would be: Can you demonstrate that a concept should be believed in, despite a complete lack of evidence?

The answer, of course, is no -- and that's the point.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[jpflip]

Mathematics isn't really like a science in the usual sense. It's often classified with science because it involves the same kind of analytical thinking (and so tends to attract the same kinds of people) and the techniques developed in mathematics tend to prove useful in science (and scientific motivation often leads to new mathematical ideas, e.g. calculus).

Mathematics is, in a sense, the use of analytical thought to learn about the properties of a made-up world - the abstract world of mathematical axioms and theorems. In a sense, a mathematician defines what he/she means by concepts like "natural number", "prime number", "straight line", etc., makes a few axiomatic assumptions (e.g. "parallel lines coincide in at most one point"), and then uses a set of rules to produce other statements which are consistent with these definitions and axioms. One and one will always equal two, but in a deep sense that's because we DEFINED "one" and "two" in this manner!

In the sciences, we have only one world to play around in - the physical world we've been presented. Scientists use similar methods, but in some sense they are trying to figure out the axioms. Science can thus never be fully deductive - you have to make leaps of intuition to come up with new axioms. This limitation makes science, in a way, much harder and more frustrating. Scientists are always sort of feeling around in the dark, and that's just the way it has to be.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[efatapo]

You don't have to believe in god(s) to value friends/family/other things in life.

I hope I didn't imply this...I just meant that people in the National Academy of Science tend to be very job oriented. In general, exeptions definitely exist, people who strive to be the top of anything tend to neglect other parts of their life. It's more of a time/energy/priority thing than a belief/religion issue.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[huge colin]

Are you saying that the detection would take place outside the realm of science? What methods would the detection use? And how would we know they were working?

People who believe can clearly see god at work.

People who trip on acid see amazing new colors, too. But they're not really there.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[efatapo]

. But of course, you can't be truly scientific if you believe in a god

Just because you limit your mind to materialism doesn't mean that I have to as well. Have you ever thought or imagined in four-dimensions? Just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or isn't possible. The unobservable can tell us a lot about ourself and the world we live in even if the world that we live in can't tell us much about the unobservable.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Yaztromo]

Tomorrow, we may find out your most precious "science" was fraudulantly doctored, but 1 plus 1 will always equal 2. Period.

Not true (or, at least not true without qualification), as it depends upon the field under which these values are defined. Indeed, in the field of boolean algebra, the third postulate is 1 + 1 = 1 .

The above quote, by the way, shows you know absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zilch about mathematics

I wouldn't want to accuse you of anything so strongly worded, but I don't know how to finish this sentance.

Yaz.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what religions you are talking about but the Judeo-Christian God has most certainly been defined as detectable. Maybe you are talking about the atheists strawman God?

Read the bible, pretty much all of it is about the detectable effects of God.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

What if we have reason to believe that it happens to not be possible/doens't exist?...

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[wes33]

Where is your evidence for the claim that nothing should be believed without evidence?

Here's a fact you evidently believe in:

"nothing should be believed without evidence"

Now, where is the evidence for this supposed fact? What evidence can you provide? What scientific test will support this "fact"?

Perhaps it would be better to focus on the evidence *against* the existence of God, of which there is plenty.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

58% believe the Bible was inspired by God.

It is amusing how few people who claim to be Christian bother to do any research about their religion. I think that if everyone who wanted to be a Christian had to read the bible all the way through then a lot more of them would have serious doubts about the divine inspiration of the bible. More importantly if any of them did any real research on the origins of the bible, they would be a great deal more skeptical about it's inspiration by a judeo-christian god. A good portion of it was copied from Assyrian and Babylonian mythology. And the translations have varied widely. For all those people who claim that the bible is some sort of magical book that their god has controlled the content of, why has it changed so much over time? Why are their so many spelling and grammar errors in the early Greek versions? Why did people long ago get a different version?

I've read the bible, along with a great many other religious texts. It's way better than the Quaran but much less engaging than the gateless gate. The old testament is really boring in parts, but has some very good stories and parables in others. The new testament teachings of Jesus make for some pretty decent philosophy and the rest is good sci-fi. I wish some Christians would read both of them, then actually do some of what Jesus told them to. He had some very good ideas, particularly about not creating organized religious groups. Most of the Christians I know follow a sort of Christianity-lite that they learned from holiday specials on TV, or are Dogmatic and just try to follow along with whatever it is their priest tells them, without bothering to learn about the bible in a historical context, or about the other religious works of the time that are excluded from mainstream Christianity, despite having as much, or more relevance to the teachings of Jesus.

I can imagine this sort of attitude from technology awed natives who have just been converted by a missionary, but here in America with all the educational resources available and all history of questioning authority, it sickens me. I'm sure their are exceptions, but for the most part I find Christians to be annoying and sheeplike.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[hacksoncode]

Every scientific discovery that was ever shown to be true or false because of evidence is evidence that nothing should be believed without evidence.

There's a heck of a lot of that kind of evidence.

What evidence is there that it's ok to believe in something *without* evidence (in case you're looking for an *actual* paradox-inducing question)?

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

No they wouldn't.

Because you are espousing fence-sitting which does not work.

If you say you "don't know", then when I talk of the existence of pixies that live under your toenails, or the invisible pink unicorn that circles Uranus that may grant wishes, or the giant toadstool that lives in the desert and created the Earth 12 minutes ago from an old pizza-box (to look exactly as it does now) - well, you have to say that they are all equally likely and possible!

See how this works? You have opened the floodgate on a billion-and-one different interpretations of facts - if one God is possible, then all Gods and supernatural beliefs are equally possible. You have no view on reality anymore. You are lost in your own sense of agnosticism.

The true scientist is an athiest. And there is a reason for it that many non-scientists do not understand, because they do not understand logic.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[abigor]

Nietzsche made a whole lot of fuss about people who only perform virtuous acts because they feel they must. It's a false goodness.

Why not encourage people to perform virtuous acts, period? Why involve religion at all?

Yes, ejection into deep space for religious people seems better all the time.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there is actually dispute about that.

I'm assuming you're referring to studies puporting to show improved outcomes for people who are religious (or even just optimistic), or who pray (or have someone pray for them).

Unfortunately, larger follow-up studies are showing that these conclusions don't hold.

Your state-of-mind (optimism or "wanting to live") appears not to have a significant effect on preventing mortality among the aged. (It may still have effects on some disease-progression when we compare highly stressed, or depressed patients with a normal baseline. But it is hard to control for complicating factors, and cause-and-effect of the correlation in these cases).

Praying, by other people for the patient, has no significant effect on patient outcomes in any reputable double-blind studies conducted.

Religion may present as a form of placebo effect, but it is not anything more than that. And many of the latest studies are starting to question the significance of the placebo effect as a useful treatment of in influencing a beneficial outcome.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Archimonde]

Its a psychology thing.

risk -> religion/faith.
no risk -> no religion/faith.

Compare:

• Fishing in dangerous open sea and shallow, calm sea.

• Performing rare and very risky medical surgery and maintaining workstations.

There are numerous examples in real life for this theory.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, a lovely place where far fewer people would think of anyone but themselves. A wonderful place where true joy would be scarce and hope would be rare.

I don't know why you think that morals and ethics are based in religion, but let me assure you it is not true.

There is a wonderful thing called philosophy, and in it you will find many ways to maintain ethical and moral values that have no requirement of a religion.

Atheism does not mean selfishness. In fact, from viewing the conservative right in the States, I would say the most selfish people I have witnessed are those who are religious.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[grassy_knoll]

All your survey seems to show is a number of surveyed doctors believe in chrsitianity.

If you took a survey in 1400 in Europe, you might find a majority of people thought the world was flat and if you went too far in one direction you'd fall off.

Belief does not equal fact.

I'd also hope that christian doctors would keep their faith separate and distinct from their professional practice. I'd hate to think my doctor was consulting a gospel to figure out how to prescribe treatment.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[TheManFromMars]

Mathematics is merely the language of science. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[wes33]

"Every scientific discovery that was ever shown to be true or false because of evidence is evidence that nothing should be believed without evidence."

those are all cases where it's good to believe (or disbelieve) *with* evidence (or counter-evidence). How does that show that one should never believe *without* evidence? I'm not denying that evidence supports belief! Heaven forbid. I'm looking for the evidence that one should **never** believe without evidence. And I'm not seeing any. Obviously, if every belief requires evidence then you have an infinite regress. Belief A requires evidence B, belief B requires evidence C, and so on. It just won't work! (unless you think that A can be evidence for B and B can be evidence for A, which I sincerely hope not)

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say that medical doctors have 'scientific minds'

Nope. Unless they are research oriented, they are not scientists any more than a 2 year old with a microscope.

The degree that a medical doctor has is NOT the same as a Phd. A medical doctor does not do research. A medical doctor didn't do a thesis before he graduated.

Some medical doctors do get a Phd, but that is NOT the norm.

An engineer is probably much more scientific than a medical doctor.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[huge colin]

There can't be any evidence against the existence of god, because it's generally held that god is omnipotent. God could therefore manipulate any experiment you might do into yielding any result god desired. If god existed, it would be impossible to know anything for sure.

Because humans have been doing science for quite a while, and physics seems consistent, it seems reasonable to believe that we can know things for sure.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[stephanruby]

While researchers views might be that depressing, the beliefs of medical doctors is quite encouraging. Take a look at this survey [businesswire.com].

By the way, businesswire.com is not a news wire service, it's a web site on which you pay to get your "news" published. HCD is not a traditional polling company, it's a DOT com company that only does online polls. And the survey was not meant to be balanced, it was taken during the holiday season and it was sponsored by a religious organization.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay wiseguy, you're real funny. But you need to understand something. Scientists are not perfect beings and don't have access to the full set of data to apply logic to. Logic itself exists within the limited bounds of human intelligence, and it's possible our tiny brains aren't capable enough to understand the whole enchilada.
Add to that the fact that scientists are bound to emotion, like everyone else. They are not capable of pure logic. Only a being devoid of ego can fit that role, and I know of no such human.
When you add up those factors, and others such as politics, the result does not compute.
But don't take my word for it. Ask one of those scientists, which you think so highly of, exactly what came before the universe. I bet he says "I don't know". ;)

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[ifwm]

No, actually, I was referring to the many studies that show benefits related to mental health.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[chialea]

In GF_2 (aka Z_2, aka {0,1} under multiplication and addition as you usually think of them), 1+1=0. I assume that's what you meant.

Lea

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Phroggy]

No truly scientific person can believe in a god or gods because such gods are generally defined to be undetectable. A completely undetectable supreme being is exactly equivalent to no supreme being at all, and insisting belief in that which cannot be demonstrated is completely and totally contrary to what we call Science.

No truly scientific person can disbelieve in a god or gods because, since such gods are generally defined to be undetectable, their existence cannot be disproven. Insisting disbelief in that which cannot be demonstrated to not exist is completely and totally contrary to what we call Science.

How's that? A bit contrived, but did I make my point?

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the parent poster was simply using + to indicate logical OR, so 1 + 1 = 1. The GF(2) thing is another good example to shoot down such zealotry :-)

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

At the beginning of the modern era, all real scientists were first and foremost mathematicians.

What about geologists? Medical research scientists? Surely you aren't suggesting that most engineers were previously mathematicians! (cheap shot - IAAM ;-))

but 1 plus 1 will always equal 2. Period.

What do you mean by this? What do these symbols denote? Without this I cannot know what you are saying. Has this statement been true since before humans existed? Is it true in all possible universes? Where is this truth if it is not within us? To be honest, your statement comes off as being very naive.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Anonymous Coward]

Science certainly uses mathematics as a language, but to say that math is nothing more than that seems to indicate a lack of appreciation for the subject. Mathematics is not just a language but also an art form (see the many, many uses of the words "beautiful", "delicate", "subtle", and so on by people working outside of mathematics who describe it).

Mathematics is furthermore an exploration of concepts which may or may not ever have any practical value to the sciences, and at least in pure mathematics it is a happy coincidence that there are applications, but this is NOT why pure mathematicians do what they do. Even many applied mathematicians would tell you that the techniques they are developing have no specific scientific application in mind, but that they may contribute to the toolset that the sciences need in order to proceed with their work.

These observations combined show that mathematics is quite an independent subject from any of the sciences and I suspect it would exist even if very few practical applications were known (cf. philosophy ;-))

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[TheManFromMars]

Perhaps I should have been a more careful with my wording. Mathematics is indeed a beautiful, and interesting area of study Insofar as science is concerned, it is merely a language.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[lisaparratt]

Medical doctors (or should that be post-graduate medical students? After all, their doctorate doesn't involve adding anything to the pool of human knowledge) aren't scientists - they're flesh mechanics. The fact that 72.35% of washing machine mechanics believe in God is as equally irrelevant to the field of science as medical doctors.

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Vo0k]

Anyone who has taken high school chemistry ought to know better.

like, say, Alfred Nobel?
(why do you think there's no Nobel Prize in maths? Look up this story :)

Re:Nature journal proved 93% of scientists ATHEIST

[Vo0k]

Seesh.
Every kid of a hacker knows that 1+1=10

Jesus Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

God came to live as one of us and died to the penalty for the mistakes we've made, so that we can live with him forever.

Re:Jesus Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

for the mistakes we've made

I'm sorry but I wasn't born yet when Jesus lived, I have never made any "mistakes". God exist in the same way Santa Claus exist in the mind of children.

Re:Jesus Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen.

Soon enough we'll be going home and the disbelieving nations will see for themselves. They will get their proof... just a little late to do anything about it.

Re:Jesus Christ

[romcabrera]

AMEN
But... why being ashamed of saying it at full voice ;) ?

I believe...

[LoyalOpposition]

...that the number 1 exists, but I can't prove it.

-Loyal

Re:I believe...

[Anonymous Coward]

I also believe you are an idiot, though, I too cannot prove it.

Re:I believe...

[JaxWeb]

You can prove one exists since it is the size of the set { {} } which must exist.

Re:I believe...

[halfelven]

I believe you're actually thinking about the number 0.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

Truth...

[ites]

... is just a tool for navigating a complex world.

In some cultures, sacrificing a goat to the spirits is a truth that may help you survive the famine, if only by making your neighbours afraid enough of you so you can steal their food.

In other cultures, knowing why the ride to work drives you crazy is a truth that helps you stay sane.

Truth is any tool that works better. Scientific truth - that is, truth derived by the scientific method - works best of all, because it fits the physical world so well.

Different truths can be in direct conflict (quantum vs. classical mechanics) and yet both be suitable tools.

Even religion is a truth that helps navigate certain kinds of reality... it's a kind of fuse box for the mind, so to speak. When logic and science can't explain why the wave hit you, perhaps religion can.

Re:Truth...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Different truths can be in direct conflict (quantum vs. classical mechanics) and yet both be suitable tools."

That is nonsense! If you take such a mooshey view of reality everything falls apart. There is no reason for doing anything, just wait to die.

You also run in to a problem with telling people things like "Don't steal my stuff." Why should they listen if they can get away with it? The only reason would be real accountability, now for some things, after you die for the things you could have otherwise gotten away with here.

Re:Truth...

[DaveMac]

I'd just like to point out that when you write of what you call scientific truth and say, "... [it] works best of all, because it fits the physical world so well..." you are tactily using a stronger notion of truth: correspondence to the way things are. How else could you defend that it is a better fit?

Re:Truth...

[downward dog]

Agreed, for the most part. Truth is any tool that works better. Scientific truth - that is, truth derived by the scientific method - works best of all, because it fits the physical world so well. The problem comes when scientists (and others) use scientific tools in the wrong field. Modern science does a spectacular job of showing us the workings of the natural world, but it is utterly useless when it comes to answering questions like: "How should I live?" or "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Re:Truth...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that you know what the word "truth" means.

In some cultures, sacrificing a goat to the spirits is a truth that may help you survive the famine

That is a belief.

In other cultures, knowing why the ride to work drives you crazy is a truth that helps you stay sane.

Knowing something is a truth? That doesn't even parse.

Different truths can be in direct conflict (quantum vs. classical mechanics) and yet both be suitable tools.

If two theories contradict each other, one or both are not true. Classical mechanics has been shown to be flawed. It is not a truth.

Even religion is a truth

There you are confusing "truth" and "belief" again.

Re:Truth...

[Angry Toad]

"Different truths can be in direct conflict... and yet both be suitable tools."

That's not mushy, that's practical.

If the inquisition tells you to recant your belief in Copernicanism or they will burn you alive, your survival depends immediately upon which tool you choose.

Actual truth, that the sun is the center of the solar system, is an utterly inappropriate tool to use and will have very bad consequences. Application of the scientific method will do you no good whatsoever. Wrong tools for the job.

Agreeing with consensus truth at that moment is the correct move.

Being in accordance with physical reality is just one measure of the utility of something (truth, scientific method) but is by no means a measure of its total and absolute utility.

Re:Truth...

[k98sven]

In other cultures, knowing why the ride to work drives you crazy is a truth that helps you stay sane.

Truth is any tool that works better.

That's the pragmatist* definition.

And it's really a pretty crappy one, IMHO. Truth, as most people use the word, is a correspondence to reality. Not "Whatever makes you happy".

For instance, we'd all be happier if the Holocaust never had occured. By that definition, it certainly is something which 'Works better' for most people. But it is not the truth in the way I, or most people, use the word. Because the Holocaust did indeed occur.

It's bunk.

(* Philosophical pragmatism.. William James for instance.)

Re:Truth...

[Falrick]

Or, to summarize what you just said:

everything is subjective except for this argument, which is absolute.

You can't argue that truth is subjective because you've just argued against your own point. We have to conclude then, that there is absolute truth. Why is there absolute truth? I believe it is because God has created such a world. Man screwed it up at the beginning (as we have with seemingly everything since) and it is only because of the sacrifice of Christ Jesus that we have hope.

I believe in the absolute truth of hope.

Re:Truth...

[Phurd Phlegm]

In some cultures, sacrificing a goat to the spirits is a truth that may help you survive the famine, if only by making your neighbours afraid enough of you so you can steal their food.

It might help because eating the goat keeps you from starving to death, too, hmm?

Different truths can be in direct conflict (quantum vs. classical mechanics) and yet both be suitable tools.

I think you confuse the notion of truth with the notion of model. Classical mechanics is a simplification that works with large collections of particles moving relatively slowly. Quantum mechanics would work in classical situations too, but it would be hideously complex to apply it (or so my understanding goes).

Even religion is a truth that helps navigate certain kinds of reality... it's a kind of fuse box for the mind, so to speak. When logic and science can't explain why the wave hit you, perhaps religion can.

If everything that makes you feel better or helps you is "truth," then it follows that a lie is "truth" if it makes you feel better or helps you. That appears to diverge radically from my notion of "truth." Perhaps we should call it something else to avoid confusion?

Re:Truth...

[ites]

Truths based on science work because they are tools that help us crack the nuts of the physical world, and insofar as we count our success by the piles of nutshells around us, such tools are a better fit.

Of course, one can argue convincingly that science in the form of fire was what got us down from the trees in the first place, and that was a big mistake.

Speaking personally, I don't have any opinion: I'm just the imaginary collective consciousness of a bundle of genes on am endless mission of reproduction. That's a useful truth too, because it explains a lot more about life and death than, for instance, a kick in the gonads.

Re:Truth...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the inquisition tells you to recant your belief in Copernicanism or they will burn you alive, your survival depends immediately upon which tool you choose.

Don't be so utterly ridiculous. If you tell them what they want to hear, that isn't choosing one truth over another, the truth remains the same even if both you and the inquisition are utterly wrong. If nobody alive knows the truth, it's still the truth.

Re:Truth...

[eSims]

"I believe in the absolute truth of hope."

Just a couple random comments...

There is a difference between knowing and believing:

You can believe a lie, you cannot know a lie:
I believe oranges are square... I can believe it, not know it.

Absolutism is a characteristic of God.

If you know the truth of who God is then you have moved beyond just believing (since you can believe some thing that is not true) into knowing.

Like I said... just a couple random comments not intended to to bring out the trolls (no doubt it will, this is Slashdot).

Re:Truth...

[padukes]

This is so wrong it's rediculous. Accepting something does not make it true. I may accept it as true that my girlfriend is faithful to me. That does not make it true. There is such a thing as absolute Truth reguardless of how I (or you) feel about it.

The whole point of Science is that it is NOT TRUTH. It is a way to predict future events. Theories get refined, evolve and change as new information becomes available. Gravity, for example, is not a Truth it just accurately describes a way that things behave (until we figure out that it doesn't).

-P

Re:Truth...

[jayemdaet]

Truth is any tool that works better. Scientific truth - that is, truth derived by the scientific method - works best of all, because it fits the physical world so well.

I believe truth is a reality, but human beings - with all our capabilities - are still too primitive to know truth for all things. This maybe confusing. For example, as you say quantum and classical mechanics. The truth maybe something so far complex and intricate that we can only see some of the properties of the mechanics within the known universe around us.

When logic and science can't explain why the wave hit you, perhaps religion can.

I say, just like any object, you can explain the properties and methods of the object as well as the theory and truth behind it. It all explains the wave.

Re:Truth...

[Falrick]

There is a difference between knowing and believing:

True. I'm just following in the age old tradition of equivalating belief in God as a fact. i.e. the Nicene Creed: We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

Which really means that I believe and know to be true that there is one God, the Father Almighty.

Re:Truth...

[Anonymous Coward]

utterly useless when it comes to answering questions like: "How should I live?" or "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

That's because Science is about how things work, not how you should live. If you want that kind of information study Philosophy.

Re:Truth...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it? Please give a current example with proofs.

Re:Truth...

[Anonymous Coward]

it is utterly useless when it comes to answering questions like: "How should I live?"

Is it? When a scientific understanding of your actions helps you make intelligent decisions, is it useless in that sense?

An example: should I pollute or not? Unthinking response: why not, it's a very small effect. Scientific analysis: the small effects accumulate and eventually lead to a major disaster. So, should I pollute or not?

Re:Truth...

[Anonymous Coward]

Accepting something does not make it true.

Agreed. For some reason, when the topic of religion comes up, people start misusing the words "truth" and "fact".

The whole point of Science is that it is NOT TRUTH. It is a way to predict future events.

More accurately, science is the process by which we construct a model of the universe and induce the rules by which it operates. We can apply this model and rules usefully - predicting future events is an example.

Re:Truth...

[downward dog]

Yes, but where do you get your value that tells you that major disasters are bad?

(You're right, of course, that science gives us much of the information that we use when evaluating these kinds of questions. But _how_ we evaluate them is not a scientific question.)

Re:Truth...

[kokoloko]

How do you get from "works" to "whatever makes me happy"? I'd be happier if I didn't have a toothache, but ignoring pain certainly won't work. When you try to extend that to truths like the Holocaust, you'll notice that it gets a little tricker, but that's the point. Historical truths are much more mutable than those of the physical universe. It may be frustrating, but it's true. (If it wasn't, how/why could history be so contested?) "Correspondance to Reality" is one of those things that people believe in that they can't prove. ;)

Re:Truth...

[Angry Toad]

I think we're talking about different levels here. I certainly acknowledge that physical reality remains unaffected by our beliefs.

I'm talking about utility - it is also the truth that certain things will happen to you if you choose to vocalize the wrong way.

Re:Truth...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe I have to explain this. Use common sense please.

Stand alone in a room so that nobody can see you. Point a video camera at the floor and hit record. Close your eyes and roll a die.

Now, before you open your eyes, that die is in a certain state. That die is in that state no matter what you or anybody else believes. That is the truth.

Let's say that you rolled a one. You can believe that you rolled a one, you can believe that you rolled a two, you can believe you rolled a three. Those are beliefs. They aren't truths. The truth is what actually happened.

Open your eyes. Observe the state of the die. Rewind and watch the video. You have a physical record that the state of the die - the truth - existed prior to anybody knowing the truth.

Re:Truth...

[k98sven]

How do you get from "works" to "whatever makes me happy"?

Define what was meant by 'works' in a clearer and unambigous manner then.

Historical truths are much more mutable than those of the physical universe. It may be frustrating, but it's true.

Bull. History is part of the physical universe. At a specific place at a specific point in time, an event happened which some humans found noteworthy. That is history.

If it wasn't, how/why could history be so contested?

History cannot be contested. History is a real physical event. You are talking about accounts of history. And these accounts of history can correspond more or less well with what actually happened. That would be what we call the 'truthfullness' of an account.

"Correspondance to Reality" is one of those things that people believe in that they can't prove.

That's another bullshit argument. Nothing can be proved. Nothing you wrote can be proved either. You must assume.

The most fundamental assumption that exists is that there indeed exists an objective physical universe around us. If you deny that, then there is nothing left at all on which you can base any kind of philosophy of anything. You are also being dishonest, because that assumption underlies every single act of human behaviour.

Then there is a thing called language. Language has no meaning in itself. The entire meaning of language is in its correspondence to this objective, physical world.

Put those two together and you have the definition of truth as the correspondence to reality. No, it cannot be 'proven' in any sense, but it is as fundamental an assumption as can be made. Because you cannot even start to make an assumption without first assuming language has meaning and that reality exists.
(i.e. that you are saying something to someone)

I think what you are thinking about is that sometime the correspondence between reality and a statement (its 'truthfulness') cannot be ascertained.

To that I say 'So what?'. Human knowledge is never better than an approximation of the 'absolute truth', and I wouldn't claim it was. The ambiguities of language and limitations of the human mind make anything like that impossible anyway.

To continue on the Holocaust example: Destroy all records of it. Kill anyone with knowledge of it. It would still have happened, even if the entire human race stops thinking it did. Unfortunately that's a 'truth' which would then never be known.

But noone claimed absolute knowledge was attainable either.

On the other hand:
sacrificing a goat to the spirits is a truth that may help you survive the famine

Is not true. It does not correspond to physical reality - you would be better off eating the goat instead.

Re:Truth...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm talking about utility

Utility is a completely separate concept to truth. When you confuse the terms, you dilute your argument to the point where everybody is arguing about different things.

Re:Truth...

[voisine]

You're confusing theories and ideas with truths. Theories are tools for navigating a complex world. You ideas and thoughts don't make a whit of difference to what actually *is*. Truth is what is, regardless of what our conceptions are. Truth exists outside our conceptions. We simply try to discover it and aproximate it as best we can.

Re:Truth...

[eSims]

I knew where the reference came from, but let's face it... the Nicene Creed has little in common with the truth of the scriptures.

We can take the discussion offline if you care to... contact me at slashdot AT esims DOT org.

Re:Truth...

[Stoik]

>Different truths can be in direct conflict (quantum vs. classical mechanics) and yet both be suitable tools. Not true in this case. What changes is the scale (micro/macro). The principle is the same.

Re:Truth...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, the more that I thought about this, the more that I've come to the conclusion that you can know something, but still not believe it. For instance, when someone dies, you may know that they have passed on, but at some level you still don't believe it.

The intent behind a Christian statement of belief goes beyond a simple statement of knowledge and indicates a core value or truth which you are professing. I have always known that God is the creator and that Jesus is his son who died to pay the price for our sins, but it has only been recently that I have truly believed it. Even still, I sometimes stumble in my belief, though my knowledge remains.

Re:Truth...

[Vacindak]

Religion is more than a search for truth. There are plenty of people who consider themselves to be religious or spiritual who appreciate the truth of science. However, even the atheists do not worship science or any element of it. Religion goes beyond mere questions of existance and purpose. It is the search for love as well as the search for truth.

We're in for climatic mayhem

[tajmorton]

Well, we are. I can prove that. Did anybody see the article in National Geographic about global warming? After seeing those charts, I don't know how anyone, anyone, could deny that global warming is happening. Anyone care to tell how people can stand up there and deny up?

Re:We're in for climatic mayhem

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I've seen plenty of charts, graphs, and statisitics that say otherwise too.

The problem is that it is to easy to play tricks with numbers and data.

Re:We're in for climatic mayhem

[ScentCone]

Of course it's all bundled up for the telling of a good (well, screenplay ready) adventure yarn... but if you SKIP the novel, and go straight to the appendix of Michael Crichton's latest ("State Of Fear") you'll get a thorough taste of the other perspective. More importantly, lots of pointers to solid academic writings on why and how people come up with the gloom-and-doom perspective so predictably, and personally select for the stats that serve their agenda.

Re:We're in for climatic mayhem

[Kainaw]

You are mixing two uses of the catch-phrase "Global Warming".
One use of the phrase is to claim that the world is getting warmer. Well, it is. There is plenty of proof.
However, there is another more liberal use of the phrase to claim that humans are at fault for the world getting warmer. That is lacking in proof. Sure, fossil fuels warm the earth, but by how much? How is that compared to cow emissions? How much is just the normal cycle of the Earth from hot to cold to hot again?
In the face of this lack of proof, some claim that if humans aren't part of the solution, they are part of the problem. This is a classic non-sequitur argument for fools that can easily be twisted into: if you aren't part of the problem, you are part of the solution.
I know you said to just look at the pretty charts in the National Geographic article, but I accidentally read it too.

Re:We're in for climatic mayhem

[Momoru]

I absolutely agree that global warming exists...what i don't think we can prove yet is that the phenomenon is entirely (or even mostly) man-made. We are exiting an ice age, and have been for the past 10,000 years. Of course its getting warmer. But we only have real climate data from the last 100 years, so to look at a 100 year time span out of the hundred million earth has been around and be like "gee its getting warmer, so it must be global warming" is a little rediculous. Last year when Europe had its terrible heat wave, global warming was blamed. This year when Europe was freezing and there was snow in Germany in the Summer and snow in Dubai just the other month, you don't hear anything about global warming. Global warming in my opinion is a natural occurance and is a cycle that will occur until we enter the next ice age. Frankly global COOLING should be considerably more scary to everyone then warming. With global warming a few eskimos lose their arctic animals they hunt and miami ends up under water, boohoo. But we can grow crops consideribly farther north with global warming. If global cooling (the next ice age) were to occur we would have glaciers covering europe and reaching into the deep south of america. Thats alot more scary in my opinion.

Re:We're in for climatic mayhem

[boristdog]

"Oh you can use statistics to prove anything, Ken. 14% of all people know that."

--Homer

Re:We're in for climatic mayhem

[SEWilco]

Read the National Geographic articles again. They mention that the planet has been warmer, and was recently colder. Of course we're now warmer.

The issue is whether the less-than-one-percent of greenhouse effect due to burning of fossil fuels may have a significant effect upon the climate.

Re:We're in for climatic mayhem

[Olix]

Quote that artical "There's no question that the Earth is getting hotter--and fast" I always raise an ibrow now, when a person of any of the longer term sciences claim something is going to happen soon, or fast. For instance when my astronomy teacher claim that the earths magnetic field would flip soon, and it would happen fast. What he meant, on futher questioning, was that it would happen with in the next couple of thousand years, and that it woul take a thousand years to happen. Probably a similar thing for the global warming thing, perhaps.

Re:We're in for climatic mayhem

[utexaspunk]

In the face of this lack of proof, some claim that if humans aren't part of the solution, they are part of the problem. This is a classic non-sequitur argument for fools that can easily be twisted into: if you aren't part of the problem, you are part of the solution.

you're logic is not quite right there- statement A (if you are not part of the solution, you are problem) is not the same as B (if you are not part of the problem, you are part of the solution). A implies that if you are not helping, you are doing harm; B that if you are not harming, you are helping. Surely you can see the difference in that.

Aside from that, while I agree with your previous points -that we don't know the true cause of global warming, whether it is human or natural, etc- it still makes sense to err on the side of caution and strive to make as little impact on our environment as reasonably possible unless we are very sure it will be a positive one. We have much more reason to believe that the Earth will continue to support human life if we reduce our impact on the environment than if we continue to increase it.

Re:We're in for climatic mayhem

[utexaspunk]

i meant your, not you're! i know that, i swear! d'oh!

Re:We're in for climatic mayhem

[Viking Coder]

However, there is another more liberal use of the phrase to claim that humans are at fault for the world getting warmer. That is lacking in proof.

You do actually read Slashdot don't you?

The fine folks at Science Magazine have done an analysis of the last ten years' published scientific articles (articles from crank or non-peer-reviewed publications were not counted) on the subject of global climate change. The results themselves are interesting, but the most remarkable part was that, of the 928 papers they found, 75% accepted that global warming was caused by human activities, either explicitly or implicitly. 25% made no mention either way. AND NOT A SINGLE PAPER ASSERTED OTHERWISE.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570 2/1686

Re:We're in for climatic mayhem

[Kainaw]

I didn't realize that on /. the phrase "lacking in proof" is read as "backed by no proof whatsoever". I thought that it meant there was some proof, but not enough to treat the hypothesis as a fact.

Also, you shouldn't link to an article that makes a different point than your post. You state, "75% accepted that global warming was caused by human activities," but the article is about greenhouse gas emissions and makes little mention of human activities. That is specifically why, in my original post, I brought up the EPA study on greenhouse gas emissions from cows. Humans do not have a monopoly on greenhouse gas emissions.

Understanding that the article makes the point that 75% accept that a buildup of greenhouse gasses are the cuase of global warming, it is clear why none assert otherwise - it has been proven that there has been a buildup of greenhouse gasses. It would be stupid to argue otherwise. Again, we circle back to the question: What can I do to stop global warming? Is the Earth heating up because I eat too much Mexican food and fart too much?

Re:We're in for climatic mayhem

[Viking Coder]

We're disagreeing on the term "at fault."

You seem to think it means "solely to blame."

I think it means "are contributing."

There is proof that humans are contributing. I never claimed that humans are solely to blame. I appologize for continuing to use a word ("fault") which I should have realized was unclear.

Re:We're in for climatic mayhem

[sploxx]

[...] How is that compared to cow emissions? [...]
Sigh. At least this is literally BS. Look up the percentage of the worldwide cow population whose whole purpose is to produce milk and meat for us humans!
You'll be impressed.

Belief vs. Dogma

[sanityspeech]

It pleases me to know that there are those who have strongly held beliefs, but manage from falling into dogma. Consider the following quote by Steven Pinker from the article:

When I say I believe this but cannot prove it, I don't mean that it's a matter of raw faith or even an idiosyncratic hunch. In each case I can provide reasons for my belief, both empirical and theoretical.

Am I knocking dogma? Not necessarily. It's just that I have noticed that there are those who can't tell the difference and claim they are being attacked for their beliefs.

SP: But I certainly can't prove it, or even demonstrate it in the way that molecular biologists demonstrate their claims, namely in a form so persuasive that skeptics can't reasonably attack it, and a consensus is rapidly achieved. The idea of a richly endowed human nature is still unpersuasive to many reasonable people, who often point to certain aspects of neuroanatomy, genetics, and evolution that appear to speak against it. I believe, but cannot prove, that these objections will be met as the sciences progress.

Here, here! I couldn't agree more. Bottom line: I don't care what you believe. If you have trouble providing reasons for your beliefs that can hold water, your credibility evaporates. To be sure, there will always be skeptical detractors, but if the logic is riddled with holes, every one would look like a detractor.

paradox rules.

[torpor]

what a shitty fucking question. everyone knows there is no answer to any question, ever.

Re:paradox rules.

[10000000000000000000]

well, epistemologically I think there is one question and one answer (which cannot be refuted by the individual).

The question,
"Am I?"
And the answer,
"I am."

It is impossible for this question to be asked or answered unless there is something there to ask and answer it - and that something is I.

it can be extrapolated to "I exist"

the, "I think, therefore I am" is flawed; for something else could be inserting the thoughts into your head.
however the head into which these ideas are put is yours.

Now, as for what "I" am (is), or whether you or anything else exists - that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Re:paradox rules.

[arose]

the, "I think, therefore I am" is flawed; for something else could be inserting the thoughts into your head. however the head into which these ideas are put is yours.

It does not prove anything about your existance, just that you exist. The nature of that existance is not important to the truth. Basicly it's "I'm self aware, therefore I am". It's as close to an objective observation as a human can get, so it's the logical starting point for reasoning about the world.

Re:paradox rules.

[Icephreak1]

Basicly it's "I'm self aware, therefore I am". It's as close to an objective observation as a human can get, so it's the logical starting point for reasoning about the world.

A person could only be aware of what is not himself. You cannot be both observer and the observed (subjective viewer and objectively viewed) at the same time. Once you have figured that out, you will have solved the conundrum of "I". Think about that.

- IP

Re:paradox rules.

[arose]

Of course I can be both observed and observer, why couldn't I? It may not be the perfect method, but without telepathy self observation is the only way to observe the ego.

Re:paradox rules.

[Icephreak1]

Of course I can be both observed and observer, why couldn't I?

You cannot. The implication is that there's a subject-object split between the seer and seen, and that perceived split is fictional. You are not two people -- one person doing the looking and a separate person being looked at, thus, all that you observe which you claim is you is in fact not you.

If you firmly want to believe otherwise, then this might assist you. A subject-object split implies an infinite recursion of observers. Said another way, ask yourself who is aware of you observing you? And so on.

- IP

Re:paradox rules.

[Icephreak1]

And a quote for your collection.

Let me remind you that the perceived cannot perceive. -- Huang Po


- IP

Re:paradox rules.

[Anonymous Coward]

here's one for you:

life is a static.

Re:paradox rules.

[Icephreak1]

life is a static.


Precisely, and thanks.

- IP

Re:paradox rules.

[10000000000000000000]

something which does not exist cannot
state, "I exist".

Therefore, since I can state such, I am.

Furthermore, I am almost certain that I am something.

As for what I am? Well, I'm still working on that.

Re:paradox rules.

[Icephreak1]

Therefore, since I can state ["I exist"], I am.

Ego is, and that's the problem that needs to be solved, and you appear to be on the way.

- IP

Re:paradox rules.

[10000000000000000000]

If I am not the only thing which exists, then Ego must be the boundry between I and everything else.

well, I'm fairly covered in philosophical wax I do say ¦ )

Re:paradox rules.

[Icephreak1]

If I am not the only thing which exists, then Ego must be the boundry between I and everything else.

Bingo.

- IP

Re:paradox rules.

[|/|/|||]

I think you would be less confused if you looked at it from a more realistic viewpoint. You *can* observe yourself - what you're not taking into account is that "yourself" changes from instant to instant, as your brain state changes.

Thus, you never observe your current self, you observe yourself (the state of your brain) as you were an instant ago. There are not an infinite number of observers (because brains don't last forever), but you are a new observer every instant.

Basically your brain observing it's own state creates a feedback loop, which is what we call consciousness.

Most people believe in paying fed income tax

[scorp1us]

Even though they do not need to pay it.

See sig for more info.

Re:Most people believe in paying fed income tax

[realdpk]

For those of us without flash (no flash client for my platform), do I have to give you money to find out what you're talking about? Red flag there if so.

Re:Most people believe in paying fed income tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people also do not believe in scams, or going to jail. But not all it seems...

My Ex

[tacocat]

Is a bitch!

No wait... I can prove that!

Re:My Ex

[Anonymous Coward]

You proved a fallacy. On /. you couldn't have had an Ex.

Praying to God

[yahyamf]

"My naive guess was that believers might be feeling more inclined to curse their God than pray to him."

Dawkins is either very short sighted or just ignorant. Major religions (atleast Islam afaik) believe in the after life along with belief in God. Accepting the temporary nature of this life and believing in final justice and recompense in the hereafter is always a source of hope and prevents despair no matter what.

Learn basics of islam

Re:Praying to God

[Anonymous Coward]

Westerners, and that includes most slashdotters are extremely ignorant about islam. There are several books showing the harmony between islam and science.

http://www.islam-guide.com/contents-wide.htm

http://www.islam101.com/science/bucaille.html0

Re:Praying to God

[Anonymous Coward]

Islam is also the only religion to which other religions' preachers and knowledgeable people convert to. check out this Texas dude: http://www.islamtomorrow.com/

Everything

[Moredhel]

You can't prove anything, you can just prove that something isn't. So really, everything you believe, you believe without proof.

Duh.

Re:Everything

[SEWilco]

Prove it.

Re:Everything

[jellomizer]

Actually this is similar concept on how the human brain makes logical connections. As an infant our brain is wired so almost everything seems possible. Then as we grow older we learn that things are not possible thus we kill off brain cells to make a path of not choosing impossible ideas. Thus the things we learn are more direct paths to the idea. Where a child where could possibly randomly come up with the idea in their vast imagination, But when we learn it something we cut off the paths to impossible outcomes. That is why some people are very closed minded and cannot be convinced otherwise they have been taught this is the only way and all other ways are wrong or impossible. While other people who were taught to be open minded (where not as many brain cells were killed because the connection of this is still possible exists) will learn thing much older in life, because less branches are trimmed.

Lets use an example.

Let say a person grew up and taught the bible is completely true and any information that doesn't coincides with it is wrong. Their brain have been wired to the Bible holds absolute truth. And any evidence to support an other idea is the work of the Devil to deceive us.

Now there is another person who was taught the bible is metaphorically true. So they their minds are wired to realize that any fact that doesn't coincides with the bible can still be true, and are not in conflict. Because the bible talks about more intangible things, such as ways of living ones life.

Re:Everything

[jellomizer]

I think you got the inverse. Lets say I want to prove the existance of a horse. All I have to do is take a drive to Saratoga, NY and go to a farm and I see a horse. I can touch it smell it (If I wanted to), See it, Hear it, even Taist it (If I wanted, but It could be dangerious). So just as long as we can assume our sences are giving us reality. Then I proved something.

But if I needed to prove that Unicorns don't exits. That is a lot harder. Now I will need to catalog all the animals on earth and make sure I do not miss any. (Still today reshearchers are finind new animals even on land which are considred large Animals). But assuming I did that which is not impossible just improbable with todays technology. I will need to check the rest of the universe to see if there are no unicorns there.

Re:Everything

[Lemmy Caution]

Mathematical, logical and computational proofs are positive.

Hard AI

[Tackhead]

I believe that "hard AI" is possible.

That is, that Minsky was fundamentally right, and that the brain can be modeled as a computing device (although not necessarily a deterministic Turing machine) made of meat.

Meta-belief: Just as I believe that mind is an epiphenomenon of certain configurations of matter, I believe that free will is an epiphenomenon of random processes in the brain.

Side note: I do not believe we'll solve the Hard AI problem in the next 50 years. (I'd very much like to be proven wrong on that, however.)

Re:Hard AI

[rev063]

One of the participants, Daniel Gilbert, agrees with you:

In the not too distant future, we will be able to construct artificial systems that give every appearance of consciousness--systems that act like us in every way. These systems will talk, walk, wink, lie, and appear distressed by close elections. They will swear up and down that they are conscious and they will demand their civil rights. But we will have no way to know whether their behavior is more than a clever trick--more than the pecking of a pigeon that has been trained to type "I am, I am!"

and FWIW, I agree with him too. Consciousness, to coin a phrase in paradox, is just a trick of the mind if you ask me. Just as we can look at a crystal or a leaf and see intricate design and construction where there are really only chemical reactions, I think the same is true with personality, and that we interpret -- and are compelled to interpret, by evolution -- the complex yet essentially mechanical process of neurons firing as a thinking consciousness. And if you believe that you really have to accept that it can be emulated -- it's just a matter of getting to a high enough level of complexity. I don't think it will take very long. I'm betting less than 20 years.

Re:Hard AI

[lawpoop]

A few questions -- isn't the definition of 'computing device' a turing machine? As such, isn't it then true that we don't even have a theoretical model for a 'natural mind' device?

I too believe that hard AI is possible, and that the mind is an epiphenomenon of certain configurations of matter, but I'm not sure about the free will bit.

Re:Hard AI

[Wraithlyn]

"I believe that free will is an epiphenomenon of random processes in the brain."

Ah... but if it's RANDOM, we didn't really CHOOSE it, did we? So how can that be an expression of WILL?

And if it's NOT random, it's deterministic, which by definition ain't free will either.

Thought experiment: Bob makes a choice. Then, the universe is reset to the exact same state, right down to the subatomic level, and even levels we haven't discovered yet. Can Bob make a different choice? If not, the universe is purely deterministic. If he can make a different choice, isn't it due to some truly random process that Bob has no control over?

I believe...

[mOoZik]

That I'm an idiot. But I can't prove it, probably because of that very belief.

That there is no god.

[azav]

Simply put. As children, we grow up with "all knowing parental figures." With that as precident, when we grow up, we look for that figure. Therefore it is understandable and expected that humanity seek some type of all knowing figure to explain all they don not know and give them comfort when they are grown.

We as humans look for a god, even though based upon complex systems and greater scarcity of complex working systems as the systems become more complex, it is unlikely that one exists.

Re:That there is no god.

[autechre]

I don't really see how that stacks up. First of all, I'm not looking for God to explain anything, and while some people might be, I think that many see it in quite the opposite way. There are things that we don't understand yet, and also things that are impossible for us to understand as we are now. And that's OK.

If you're talking about philosophy, guides to life, etc., this can certainly be separated from theology. Look no further than Jefferson's Bible.

I also don't understand how you take a complex system as an argument against intelligent design; I would tend to see it the other way. Or, as someone else said it: "It's unbelievable that something so mind-bogglingly useful evolved all by itself." In other words, it would take something incredible to set such systems in motion.

Do I believe with absolute certainty in a quantifiable vision of the Almighty? No, and I think that's how it was meant to be. I don't think that any one religion is supposed to get it completely right, and I think we're supposed to be responsible for living our own lives (but I don't fully agree with the Deists either). Based on the things I've encountered in my life, adamant total disbelief seems...unbelievable.

Re:That there is no god.

[xenocide2]

I don't know about you, but my mom was a lying, controlling bitch. By your standards, wouldn't you expect me to be running naked in the night with the devil worshipers?

Re:That there is no god.

[raygundan]

Are you suggesting that there aren't enough lying, controlling bitches in mainstream religions already?

Re:That there is no god.

[jungd]

[...]
>"It's unbelievable that something so mind-bogglingly useful evolved all by itself."
Useful? - by what standard and to whom? Useful for reproduction perhaps?

>... No, and I think that's how it was meant to be...
Meant by whom? Meaning is the by-product of interpretation of the world by us - hence we each have our own meanings (many shared), but there is no meaning outside the relm of our minds. That is, meaning is not a characteristic of the physical world! Category error.

>... I think we're supposed to be responsible for living our own lives ...
Supposed by who?

>adamant total disbelief seems...unbelievable.
Each to their own I guess.

Re:That there is no god.

[Anonymous Coward]

Justin, is that you? I thought I'd lost you forever! Please come home soon, so I can tell you everything you're doing wrong.

--Love,
Mom

Re:That there is no god.

[azav]

I'm saying that due to the nature of the upbringing of the majority of humans, it becomes human nature to seek for an all knowing figure as we mature.

This email also allowed me to codify my basis through one criteria for the lack of a god. It was a primary stab. Please be patient. I look at us as very complex systems that evolved over time. Looking at the nature of functional, interoperating complexity in organisms such as us and in creatures less complex than us, indicates that as functional complexity increases, the numbers of individual species of that level of complexity decrease. Point being; look at the number of species of plankton and then look at the number of species of advanced mammals. As complexity goes up, you find less examples of complex organisms by species.

For something as complex as a god to exist, the odds approach zero by this reasoning. Of course, a god could exist outside our physical universe but then what good would it really do to even pay attention to it if it is that powerful and unreachable? A god of that type would have better things to do than pay attention to our sorry asses. It's got a universe or 10 to run. It would make more sense applying our efforts to improving our lives here.

So based upon my "complexity" postulation, the likelihood of a god within our physical realm is about 0 or less. If there is one that exists outside our detectable universe, then it's not worth paying attention to it because, 1) it's got better things to do, 2) it probably doesn't have the time to care about your and your gripes and 3) it is so far removed from us that it's just not relevant.

How's that?

Re:That there is no god.

[csbruce]

"It's unbelievable that something so mind-bogglingly useful evolved all by itself."

And only because we have such mind-bogglingly 'useful' minds are we able to contemplate just how mind-bloggling we really are.

(If it didn't evolve all by itself, no one would be capable of bemoaning the fact that it didn't.)

Re:That there is no god.

[azav]

If you missed it, I was making a general representation.

However, where and how you run is pretty much up to you and the local law enforcement.

Re:That there is no god.

[J. J. Ramsey]

"I look at us as very complex systems that evolved over time. Looking at the nature of functional, interoperating complexity in organisms such as us and in creatures less complex than us, indicates that as functional complexity increases, the numbers of individual species of that level of complexity decrease. Point being; look at the number of species of plankton and then look at the number of species of advanced mammals. As complexity goes up, you find less examples of complex organisms by species.

"For something as complex as a god to exist, the odds approach zero by this reasoning."

You are making several problematic assumptions:

1) A god is complex in the same way that organic lifeforms are complex, that is, a god would have more parts, more intricate connections, etc. Yet it is not clear at all that a god would even be an organism per se, let alone a complex one.

2) A god outside this physical universe would be unable to interact with anything inside the physical universe.

3) A god with a universe to pay attention to would have no interest in beings as relatively small as humans.

Your reasoning is hopeless flawed. Go back to the drawing board.

Re:That there is no god.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you spawn of Sigmund Freud for your totally unscientific postulation about what drives all humans to believe without the benefit of first bothering to find out what humans believe, or coming up with anything less trite than the "God as Parent" metaphor.

I'm not saying you're wrong. Freud was occasionally right and most of his theories were what scientists refer to as "wild-ass guesses". Maybe your wild-ass guess is right. But my own wild-ass guess is that "God as Parent" will end up in a pile in the corner with the theory of penis envy, if it's not there already.

Have you ever heard someone say the words "I don't know"? Have you ever heard someone utter those words without a sense of deep-seated pain--wishing--begging--that it just were not so?

Guess what? I can do it. I don't know. Ha-ha. I don't know. No big deal. I don't know. Even about important stuff. What caused the Big Bang? I don't know. Is the Big Bang theory even correct? I don't know. If you say it just right, "I don't know" sounds a lot like "I don't need a God to make this make sense"

Re:That there is no god.

[J. J. Ramsey]

"Simply put. As children, we grow up with "all knowing parental figures." With that as precident, when we grow up, we look for that figure. Therefore it is understandable and expected that humanity seek some type of all knowing figure to explain all they don not know and give them comfort when they are grown."

Non sequitur. God could exist regardless of whether above is true.

Re:That there is no god.

[mutterc]

A (somewhat famous) book called "The Naked Ape" had an alternate explanation - that apes' tendencies to organize themselves into hierarchies with alpha males gives humans a tendency to look for the Ultimate Alpha Male In The Sky.

Re:That there is no god.

[Scrameustache]

my mom was a lying, controlling bitch. By your standards, wouldn't you expect me to be running naked in the night with the devil worshipers?

I believe you do ;-)

Re:That there is no god.

[CaptainCarrot]

This is a rather silly Freudian idea you're spouting, for which you have no proof either. Neither did Freud. And not only for this, but for much else he wrote, which is why he's generally discredited these days. Why he's still referenced by people like the lit-crit crowd I have no idea.

You further argue against a strawman: theists generally do not claim God is complex.

Re:That there is no god.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

This is a rather silly Freudian idea you're spouting, for which you have no proof either.

Actually it is more of a Jungian idea. It is the same basic school of thought, but a lot more rational. Basically humanity has archetypal figures in it's collective unconscious, that are referenced on lower level of consciousness. It makes a lot of rational sense as a survival mechanism that predates reasoning in human development. If you want proofs, perhaps you should look to fields other than psychology or religion. For that matter maybe you should not be looking in an article about logical beliefs that cannot be proven. You seem to have missed the point.

Re:That there is no god.

[azav]

Agreed. But I am stating that it is human nature to search for a god based upon upbringing, not because there really is one and we must search for it.

The reasoning brings into question the existence of an entity if we are predisposed to search for it by our conditioning.

Re:That there is no god.

[azav]

Very similar to one part of my reasoning.

And regarding a related poster about Freud. I think Freud was pretty messed up and had the hots for his own mother. Freud's dream study is off in some parts. According to my personal observations dreams are your brain filing things you thought about during the day. The individual properties of each get intertwined which helps to explain the weird detachment from reality that many items in dreams have. If you care to discuss, I'll explain my rational and experiences to that in depth. But now, work calls.

Re:That there is no god.

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that the soul is an ordering, not a thing. Where do souls come from? Where do they go after death? Well, where does a building made of blocks come from? Where does the building go after it gets knocked down?

I tried explaining my views on this to a child recently, and they couldn't get it. They didn't like the idea of cremation after death because it would hurt, that sort of thing. From that, I suspect belief in a soul precedes belief in God.

Re:That there is no god.

[CaptainCarrot]

No, you've missed the point. The article isn't about "logical beliefs that can't be proven". There is no such thing. A logical belief is proven by definition, otherwise it's not logical. (If you can, please explain what you think you mean by an unproven logical belief.) Perhaps the word you're looking for is "reasonable". There are many who find the idea of God to be perfectly reasonable, even if others don't. Several of those who responded for the article do, for example.

Whatever makes you think Jung is any more rational than Freud? Honestly! Maybe his theories tickle you in a more satisfying way, but it's not even remotely scientific. Both of them were cast from the same witch-doctor mold. But you're wrong anyway. The whole parent-cast-as-God thing is classically Freudian.

Re:That there is no god.

[azav]

1) Correct. To rebut your point, how would you propose a god could not be an extraordinarily complex item if not organism?

2) This is addressed in a later post in this thread. Please check if you are interested.

3) Yep. With so many things to run in a universe, why do we think we so important as to justify that a creature powerful enough to create the universe would actually spend its time on any one of the 6+ billion of us? Seems pretty selfish and self important of us if we think we deserve its time and that it has the time and energy to answer our pithy needs.

So you mentioned my problematic assumptions are "hopeless flawed" yet upon closer investigation, it appears that there are more to these points than initially meet the eye.

Constructive thoughts/feedback?

Re:That there is no god.

[azav]

A complex design does not require an intelligent design.

As of yet, I have not distilled everything I base my viewpoint on down in writing yet this thread has been a helpful exercise in that process.

If you do not believe in evolution (I don't know if evolution is part of your vision of intelligent design) there nave been many papers released over the past few years showing evolution in action, occurring over several generations of organisms in the wild and in the lab. NewScientist and eurekalert.org have these. Without going too much in depth, and starting with molecules, when certain molecular complex structures are formed, some of them - prions are one - support their own existence and lead towards self preservation and to duplication. At certain stages of complexity and message transfer, these items have a tendency to promote their own existence. I propose that it is inevitable that structures like this will come into existence as well as those that will not have this trait. Once an item has this trait and can respond to stresses and vary the structural outcome of its makeup, we have the basis the evolution. At certain points, through mutation and chance meetings (that are inevitable over a long period of time) more complexity is built into the system and new phemonina become present. It has been proven the the eye has developed through evolution independently in many different organisms, many times through evolutionary history. 4 billion years is an extraordinarily long time for creatures and structures to develop and for complexity to emerge. So long in fact that we can not comprehend it. My research indicates that creatures of our level of complexity would be expected at some point in those billions of years without the guiding hand of a superbeing to put us here.

Hope that helps to illustrate what I'm getting at.

Re:That there is no god.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The article isn't about "logical beliefs that can't be proven". There is no such thing. A logical belief is proven by definition, otherwise it's not logical.

Actually a logical belief is any belief that follows a reasoned progression of ideas and observations.

logical

adj 1: capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and valid reasoning; "a logical mind" [ant: illogical]

2: in accordance with reason or logic; "a logical conclusion" [syn: legitimate]

3: marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts; "a logical argument"; "the orderly presentation" [syn: consistent, ordered, orderly]

4: based on known statements or events or conditions; "rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year"

Very few things can be proven in the scientific sense, and still fewer social concepts. If you RTFA (I know it's toast) you'd see that none of the ideas presented can be proven currently, they are just logical guesses, and yes that is valid terminology. For example if if I put 10 black rocks and one white one in a jar, then blindly draw one, it is logical for me to guess that it will be black. It cannot be proven, but it is a logical prediction.

As far as your statements about Freud and Jung, obviously they are related, Jung was Freud's student, but they are not illogical. Freud was making guesses based upon his analysis of his own psyche, and those of his patients. His work is colored by his own idiosyncrasies, but shows real insight into the human mind. He was one of the first psychologists to look logically at how the mind might work, based upon the way in which have evolved and based upon our formative environment. Jung took his work, and abstracted it to a useful, general case, rather than one based upon Freud himself. Jung also, applies the scientific method of theory and experiment which the definition of science. It is just science with more uncontrolled variables than most would think workable.

Re:That there is no god.

[Macdude]

I also don't understand how you take a complex system as an argument against intelligent design; I would tend to see it the other way. Or, as someone else said it: "It's unbelievable that something so mind-bogglingly useful evolved all by itself." In other words, it would take something incredible to set such systems in motion.

This is faulty reasoning. If the universe is too complex to be the result of a random event and it needed a being to create it, what create that being? In other words, if God created the universe, who created God?

Re:That there is no god.

[CaptainAvatar]

I don't really see how that stacks up. First of all, I'm not looking for God to explain anything, and while some people might be, I think that many see it in quite the opposite way. There are things that we don't understand yet, and also things that are impossible for us to understand as we are now. And that's OK.

Isn't that precisely what God explains for you? The stuff you don't understand - it's all down to God, he made it happen or it's part of his plan, and so it's OK if it doesn't make sense to us?

If God doesn't explain anything for you, then why believe in him? You have no need of that hypothesis.

Re:That there is no god.

[J. J. Ramsey]

"To rebut your point, how would you propose a god could not be an extraordinarily complex item if not organism?"

God as most theists and deists conceive of him is thought of as a spirit. Spirits don't have parts; they aren't complex in the same sense that organisms are complex. Your arguments about complexity and evolution only make sense when applied to material lifeforms or something akin to them.

"With so many things to run in a universe, why do we think we so important as to justify that a creature powerful enough to create the universe would actually spend its time on any one of the 6+ billion of us?"

This objection is flat out simplistic. Why assume that such a being would set its priorities based on size? Why assume even that it can't choose both to pay attention to running the universe and to have an interest in creatures vastly smaller than itself?

Re:That there is no god.

[azav]

If theists and deists conceive of a god as a spirit, that brings up many problems. You assume that a spirit is not complex and they do not have parts. How do you know? What is the classification for a spirit? Who discovered, studied and documented the composition of a spirit and its traits and parts? Is this something other than a theist's conjecture to try and explain that which he does not know? You speak about a spirit as if it is a fact, a known classified and quantifiable thing. I have seen no scientific classification of a spirit. If you know of such a description, please feel free to share. If a god IS a spirit as you mention, until the properties of a spirit are known, it is useless to discuss since we are refuting and discussing properties based upon assumptions of an unknown.

Regarding your pointing out my "6 billion of us" as being simplistic. I am not referring to size but to amount and difficulty thereof. The complexity and difficulty of dealing with monitoring or paying attention to and granting favors for 6 billion of anything is astounding, let alone all the other factors in the surrounding world that may affect. In addition to the astounding difficulty of paying attention to 6 billion of us, aren't there infinitely more items in this universe alone that would need monitoring and would be be pretty damn important?

It makes me feel that the thought that a god actually has the time, inclination and capability to pay attention to our 6 billion+ needs in addition to running the rest of the universe not only simplistic but selfish and small minded. No offense intended.

We pray as if God is listening. If he doesn't exist, doesn't care or is napping, there are an awful lot of people on this planet who are simply wasting their time. And that's just sad.

Re:That there is no god.

[UpnAtom]

Good post. I want to make one very important point though.

Just because self-replicating molecules and evolution are plausible explanations of "us", it doesn't mean they are the sole explanation.

For those wanting to invoke Occam's Razor, understand that it only advises you of the limits of such explanations rather than "proving" any of them are correct/incorrect.

Re:That there is no god.

[Rick BigNail]

I think many christians are not selfish and as a result are amazed and thankful that God cares about us.

Re:That there is no god.

[azav]

But Rick. How do you know that?

Seriously. I know many generous christians.

I was referring to the possibly strange thought that to assume that a god who has so much in his domain actually has the time to care about you as rather selfish and presumptious. It is a vastly different message than what we were taught in Sunday School but I put it out there.

Now, besides a feeling that he does, how do you know?

regards,

Re:That there is no god.

[swillden]

Who discovered, studied and documented the composition of a spirit and its traits and parts?

Who proved that all knowledge is obtainable by deconstruction, or that all systems must be the sum of their parts (or even have parts)?

And how do you know that everything that matters is amenable to logical analysis? And even if it is, how do you know that you're using the right set of axioms?

My point is this: You're placing your faith (unsupported belief) in the idea that your logical thought processes and understanding of the universe are adequate to deduce meaningful statements about the existence or non-existence of God. On the surface that seems sensible, since you have no other tools to work with. On the other hand, the fact that you lack wings doesn't mean you can use your arms to fly.

You're certainly welcome to disbelieve in God if you like, but please recognize that your disbelief is just as much an expression of faith as someone else's belief. The only purely rational position is that of the agnostic. And even the agnostic should give at least some consideration to the reasoning behind Pascal's Wager.

Re:That there is no god.

[azav]

Good point. I am not saying that it is the only method yet it is the only quantifiable method that is guaranteed to return the most accurate answers. If you can study a quantifiable result, then you may have something. If you do not have a quantifiable result, then you have no basis upon getting a reliable answer.

Scientific observation is the observation of quantifiable results. My the basis for my argument is based upon that methodology. It is not faith as you mention but direct observation of known results. All knowledge is not based upon that as you do mention (thanks for pointing that out) but if you wish to prove or disprove a theorem or even propose or postulate one, it is done based upon observaton of concrete results. Einstein did not feel that e = MC^2. He proved it with knowns. And that is my point. Right now, many people have feelings that make them think there is a god. But I have yet to see evidence that leads towards concretes on that matter.

If I do, than well, I'll have to change the title of this thread.

Just trying to further explain the basis to my approach.

Regards,

Re:That there is no god.

[Rick BigNail]

I understand, sometimes Sunday School was not taught rigorously.

Even the old testament mentions this issue (Psalm 8)

Again, this is beyond proof. Or rather it is beyond reason. So without revelation one could not know.

Now the question is the possibility and probablity of revelation, which is another cans of worm.

Re:That there is no god.

[swillden]

Scientific observation is the observation of quantifiable results. My the basis for my argument is based upon that methodology. It is not faith as you mention but direct observation of known results.

It most definitely *is* faith, it's faith in the idea that inferences drawn from repeatable, measurable observations will provide meaningful answers to every important question.

Christ

[bogaboga]

I believe in Christ Jesus and the "End of this Earth" as we know it today. I also believe that many of us will go to hell (the lake of fire) believe it or not.

Re:Christ

[k4_pacific]

"...believe it or not."

I go with the latter. Given the nearly infinite arbitrary possiblitilities for defining a religion or faith, the odds that any given one is true is practically nil. Therefore, a person who believes in nothing is likely to be closer to the truth than someone who randomly chooses an arbitrary faith.

Re:Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, many people believe in things that can be summed up as "boga boga". nothing personal, voltaire.

Re:Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite all our inability to prove or disprove the existence of this ghost in the sky, lakes of fire, life after death, and so forth, this sounds pretty reasonable. I'll take up your faith! Where do I sign up?

Re:Christ

[Qzukk]

Therefore, a person who believes in nothing is likely to be closer to the truth than someone who randomly chooses an arbitrary faith.

How did you arrive at that conclusion without first declaring that none of the "nearly infinite" possible faiths were actually valid?

Otherwise, in the absense of any other information, choosing no faith at all would have a similar infintesimal chance of being the "right" choice as any one religion, though it might lead to having more fun in life.

Re:Christ

[afstanton]

I thnk the best part of this post is that it got tagged as "Funny".

Re:Christ

[glass_window]

I beleive that some people, no matter how intelligent, must blindly beleive in a book, and cause the world to suffer because of their desire to prove that it is true.

I beleive that people have an inner desire to beleive there is something greater than them controlling the universe.

I beleive people should in fact enjoy this beleif, I just wish they would keep it to themselves and others that choose to beleive in them and stop flaunting the fact that they beleive everybody else is going to hell, because I beleive that if there really was a god he/she/it wouldn't be so cruel, after all, he/she/it is supposed to be better than we/us.

Re:Christ

[bshroyer]

The fact that this moderated "funny" is, I think, a confirmation of the poster's hypothesis.

Re:Christ

[GoofyBoy]

>Given the nearly infinite arbitrary possiblitilities for defining a religion or faith, the odds that any given one is true is practically nil. Therefore, a person who believes in nothing is likely to be closer to the truth than someone who randomly chooses an arbitrary faith.

I really hate when people warp math and logic like that.

Given the nearly infinite arbitrary possibilities for what will happen to me in the next week, I could justify any action I choose such as sitting at home and watch tv, become a monk or rob a bank.

Re:Christ

[Fletch]

I believe that 'i' comes before 'e' except after 'c'.

Re:Christ

[YardgnomeUT]

I understand why someone might not agree with that, but why is that funny?

Re:Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

The concept of "going to hell" is not biblically accurate... it is catholic mumbo-jumbo... err, dogma, I mean.

I believe, according to revelations, those who do not merit admittance to heaven will be burnt to a cinder and will then be dead. No eternal torture, no sadistic godhead. Mortality is the norm, and immortality in heaven is a gift selectively bestowed.

Better, no?

If you want to know about Christianity, read the bible instead of listening to Christians (most of whom don't understand the bible, and hence their own religion, properly either).

Re:Christ

[Dracolytch]

Your logic doesn't flow...

1) If you're talking about accuracy in absolutes (ie, perfect representation of the truth), your answer is just as likely as anyone elses.

2) If you're talking about proximity to truth, then you should realize that there are, then, an infinite number of possible religions which are infinately closer to the truth than your answer of 0. An answer of null (I don't know) would be, then, equally close and distant to all of them.

~D

Re:Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a witch! burn him!

Re:Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

There was no moderation named "Sad".

Re:Christ

[JudgeFurious]

And I believe that any "god" who would send the creations he loves so very much (limitless I believe is commonly used to describe it) to spend eternity in a "lake of fire" can, quite literally suck my balls.

Re:Christ

[parkrrrr]

Weird. How does your neighbor feel about that?

Re:Christ

[k4_pacific]

"How did you arrive at that conclusion without first declaring that none of the "nearly infinite" possible faiths were actually valid?"

Consider the following statements:
1. X is the true faith.
2. X is not the true faith, something else is.
3. There is no true faith.
4. There is not enough concrete information to make a decision.

For any given faith X, 1, 2, or 3 must be true, but I don't know which. However, 4 is also true, because there is no way of knowing which is the true faith. By "believes in nothing" I meant option 4, not option 3. Perhaps I should have pointed out the difference between "believes in nothing" and "believes there is no true faith".

Re:Christ

[flandar]

Yea, I think that is what makes the parent poster a Troll.

Re:Christ

[k4_pacific]

How's this for logical fleaux:

I believe in nothing. However the universe exists. Therefore my beliefs are false. Thus it is true that my beliefs are false. Which means I am closer to the truth, because no one else knows if their beliefs are true or not.

Re:Christ

[sunjin]

I belive that the "Lake of fire" is sybolic. In the end, to see God and how much he loves us and to know that it was our own choice to seperate us from Him for eterity will torment us like being in a "lake of fire". The import thing is that it is our choice.

Re:Christ

[psallitesapienter]

That just goes to show how little you know about Catholicism. Of course, if you're not catholic, please ignore this post. But if you are... well, in the end you'll be the one doing the sucking.

Re:Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ok, I've got a "Get Out Of Hell Free" card.

I don't believe in destiny, fate, or serendipity. I believe we make our own decisions. I haven't been married over 14 years because it was "meant to be", we've been married over 14 years because we both made the decision to work at our relationship every single day. We have both had opportunity to bring the relationship to an end every day, by simply deciding not to continue. Every day we choose to continue. We take credit for it because we're the ones that spent 15 years working on it. Not the priest that married us. Not our families. Not God.

I don't believe there is a god watching us, judging, waiting. It's only the religious zealots that are watching and judging. There may be a god, but he doesn't care that atrocoties are carried out on a daily basis by Men and their governements. And he certainly doesn't give a crap who wins the World Series - else it wouldn't have taken 86 years of unrequited faith in Boston while "unbelievers" in New York were seeing the Yankees win every few years.

I don't believe anyone made Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz great hitters except Manny and David. They work hard at practice, watch the video, practice more. God's not working out on that field, they are.

I don't believe there is a hell, unless you make it for yourself here and now.

I don't believe there is a heaven, unless you make it for yourself here and now.

I don't believe in the concept of a "supernatural soul" - I believe in a Natural soul, and that all living things bear one. Even Monsters like Hitler, Milosovitch, Bin laden, Saddam Hussein, and George W Bush.

I do believe we live on in the way we interact with the people we come into contact with.

I believe in Karma, simply because we build it one stone at a time by our everyday behavior, and thus build our own luck. By doing good, however small, we build an environment of good, in which we may benefit. By doing "evil" we build an environment of "evil" in which we may "burn".

No, I'm not a good Catholic/Christian anymore. In fact, I'm not. My reasons, like my choice are my own, and other than those beliefs above, I chose to believe only what I can see proven.

Ok, that's a little too much philosophy for now.

Re:Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

Score:5, Funny.. Pwned!

Re:Christ

[boredman]

The import thing is that it is our choice. I've heard this more than a few times and, believe me, I'm not trying to be confrontational. I just want an honest answer: what choice? How did you make your decision to become a Christian? Is there a set of circumstances or arguments that I can reproduce that will lead me to the same conclusion?

Re:Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt anyone would become a Christian if not influenced by some kind of indoctrination. Children are forced to be indoctrinated, and Born Again Christians choose to be.

Re:Christ

[Dracolytch]

On the other hand, by not believing in something which must be true (cogito ergo sum), you are completely wrong, so everyone with a differing view, is closer to the truth than you.

You see... While you may know your beliefs are false, I am also aware that your beliefs are false. This means that I have taken your truth, and expanded on it, bringing me closer to true enlightenment. You cannot do the inverse, however, because your beliefs deny it.

Besides, if you truly believed in nothing, then you could have no way to measure your beliefs or conjecture, as they do not exist, and could neither be true nor false (as true and false do not exist).

~D P.S. The McDonald's Index is awesome.

Re:Christ

[boredman]

That makes sense, of course, but I'm wondering why the Born Again would choose to be indoctrinated. Something had to make them choose.

Re:Christ

[sunjin]

I found this in the Catholic catechism:

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." ,The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance"

Clearly the punishment of hell is refered to as "eternal fire". But then it goes on to define that "eternal fire" as a seperation from God.

Re:Christ

[sunjin]

How did you make your decision to become a Christian?
For me it was when I read the New Testiment. That being said, I know that I believed in God before that because I can recall times when I prayed to Him before that.

Is there a set of circumstances or arguments that I can reproduce that will lead me to the same conclusion?
I would say to get a New Testiment and read it with a true desire to know who this Guy was and what He did. That is what worked for me.

As for arguments: One thing thet helped me overcome the idea that these stories have been exaggerated over time was knowing that the people who were there choose death rather then "admit" that the basic facts where lies.

Re:Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

Suck my cock.

Re:Christ

[NoOneInParticular]

5. Faith is wrong

Re:Christ

[dont_think_twice]

By far the funniest thing I have ever read on slashdot.

Re:Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

One of my favorite parts of the whole christianity thing is the 'born into sin' part. Does someone born in a remote village somewhere that never met a christian and was never baptised go to hell? How could it possibly be their fault for not being christian if they were never given the chance or even informed of the possibility?

French Military Victories

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that there are French Military victories

I believe...

[aeroelastic]

...that the princess will be in this castle. Or the next one. Or the one after that.

OJ Simpson

[The Hobo]

Is really innocent!

Just kidding.

The Goodness of Man

[pete-classic]

I believe in the goodness of man, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

-Peter

P != NP

[JohnGrahamCumming]

I wish I could prove it, but it seems to me that it is unlikely that P == NP.

There are various points of discontinuity in mathematics and I think this is one of them (for example, we know that the number of integers is less than the number of reals and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis) .

John.

Re:P != NP

[nkh]

This one's easy: P = NP only if N = 1. That's it, problem solved. But next time, try to do your own homework...

Re:P != NP

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't P = NP if P = 0 as well?

Re:P != NP

[JaxWeb]

I actually also think P != NP, but I've no good reason to think that, and I wouldn't say I "believe" in it.

I do not see how knowing that the cardinality of the integers is smaller than the cardinality of the continuum is a discontinuity in mathematics at all.

The continuum hypothesis is a bit different though, and it is equally valid for it to be true or false. Maybe it is equally valid for P = NP to be true or false, mathematically, but that would leave us in a difficult position for the applied side of it, since we'd have to start thinking about which applied to "our world". I've just decided that I 'believe' that cannot be the case, on the grounds it is far too messy!

An interesting and related problem is the Church-Turing thesis since it is too vague (as the Wikipedia article says) for it to be proved true using mathematics, but it could be proved false using a good enough counter example. I'm sure most computer scientists here strongly believe it to be true, though.

Re:P != NP

[lazy_arabica]

for example, we know that the number of integers is less than the number of reals

Well, actually, we know that no surjection exists from N (the set of positive integers) to R (real numbers), which means : card(R) > card(P). But saying that there are "more" real number is just a way to see it better.

Re:P != NP

[wes33]

if we take the set of real numbers (R) and the set of integers (N) we note that they cannot be put in 1 to 1 correspodence and N is a proper subset of R. I'd say that gives us pretty good grounds for saying there are more real numbers than integers, wouldn't you?

Re:P != NP

[KingEomer]

Yes:
P = NP => P - NP = 0
P(1-N) = 0
Therefore P = 0 or N = 1

Re:P != NP

[mesterha]

The continuum hypothesis is a bit different though, and it is equally valid for it to be true or false. Maybe it is equally valid for P = NP to be true or false, mathematically, but that would leave us in a difficult position for the applied side of it, since we'd have to start thinking about which applied to "our world". I've just decided that I 'believe' that cannot be the case, on the grounds it is far too messy!

There are many undecided statements dealing with computation. In the real world, these statements either fall apart because of problems with how the math models the universe (infinite universe, ...) or experiments can, in principal, be performed to determine the truth. (If experiments are not possible, it is not a very useful statement.) In either case, our mathematical model of reality has some problems.

An interesting and related problem is the Church-Turing thesis [wikipedia.org] since it is too vague (as the Wikipedia article says) for it to be proved true using mathematics, but it could be proved false using a good enough counter example. I'm sure most computer scientists here strongly believe it to be true, though.

The Church-Turing thesis is an empirical statement. It depends on the laws of physics. Look at this paper by Warren Smith on the issue. He proves Church-Turing is false in a certain Newtonian system and true in a simplified relativistic system.

Re:P != NP

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't rule out P=0 and N=0

Re:P != NP

[Anonymous Coward]

(This is the OP)

Yeah you're completely right. Thank you for the link, too. I'll check it out when I get home.

Re:P != NP

[Anonymous Coward]

In my opinion the original Church-Turing thesis is so vague as to be untestable. The paper you refer to comes up with physical models which we are supposed to believe represent "computations" not performable by a Turing machine, but the basic meaning of "computation" is still debatable I think. IF we assume that such physical models represent what we could call "computations", then the results apply, but I think a crucial point is whether or not these "computations" are useable by us humans in the sense that 1) we can configure the initial conditions, 2) we can force the physical activity to occur, and 3) we can extract the results. I would say that all 3 steps are necessary to count as useable computation, and this is perhaps the only kind of computation with which we should concern ourselves. It would be very nice if we could all agree on what "computation" means in Church-Turing, and once we do, then it will be empirically testable as a hypothesis.

All that said, work in this direction is fascinating and hopefully the physicists will eventually be able to give us an answer about what usable computation in the universe really is :-)

Re:P != NP

[KingEomer]

Hrm. I should have said P = 0 AND N = anything
OR N = 1 and P = anything

Socialism

[Cirruz]

I know persons that believe in Socialism and they say that they haven't seen a trully Socialist state yet. But if I read an history book or talk to somebody from Czech Republic, I can see a lot of it's consequences. It's like black holes and that gamma rays stuff.

Cirruz

Re:What I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

But no proof!

I BELIEVE!

[go$$amer]

That the world's religions will have their armageddon - and it will be entirely of their own making and have nothing to do with the divine.

Re:Sucker- you've fallen for it!

[xtermin8]

He has faith that it exists, even though it can't be proved. On the other hand, you apparently beleive enough masculinity will produce it. That's idiocy, not faith.

GHOTI

[tonsofpcs]

I believe that fish is spelt G-H-O-T-I.

Re:GHOTI

[Anonymous Coward]

For anyone who doesn't get this, iirc, it was proposed by Shaw to illustrate the peculiarities of the English language. Consider: "enouGH", "wOmen", "staTIon".

Re:GHOTI

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's G-O-A-T-S-E.

ZFC

[Inf0phreak]

ZFC, of course. What other reply is possible when you study math? :)

Re:ZFC

[xenocide2]

Actually, one of the math guys on there mentioned a different set of basic foundations that proved a theory wrong. And I don't think he was talking about geometry.

Of course, there certainly are things one believes in that you can't prove, even in mathematics. In fact, mathematicians have a name for them: conjectures. The most famous of which is the Pointcare projection, which if I recall correctly, has something to do with the complexity of 3d shapes and spheres. I'm sure as a mathematician you know this better than I.

I'm tempted to say that the difference between mathematicians and theologians is that mathematicians try their damnedest to prove their beliefs, while those caught up in religious ferver simply accept. But as it turns out, even the relgious folk love to hunt for finds that reinforce their beliefs. I think the book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintanence" brings forth a critical argument that science isn't simply about nature. Science is about reasoning about the world, designing empirical studies to support your position, and measuring the results. Scientific information and theory is what happens when you share your work with the world. The process relies not on individual observers being intellectually honest and impartial, but on the community as a whole to act skeptical and dubious. The pitfall here is that additional information which fits the current hypothesis rarely gets the kind of scrutiney that a contradictory one recieves.

I think a better question would be, "Which is more important in the progress of scientific knowledge: nature or human insight?"

Re:ZFC

[garethwi]

Why do you have to study math to mention Zimbabwe Fried Chicken?

Re:ZFC

[halfelven]

Yeah, but that whole business about ineffable/inaccessible cardinals honestly freaks me out.

P.S.: I'm cool with transfinite numbers though.

just kidding (sort of) :-)

Nothing....

[ArsonSmith]

If I can't prove it I don't believe it. Kind of limits me on the belief level because I don't really believe in anything. Pyrrho taught me to be skeptical of everything. Scientific Theory tells me that nothing is ever proven right, only proven wrong. Religion has taught me that belief can be powerful, but power corrupts.

I have had complaints that no one can get a definite answer from me. Computers have really been the thing that has put me to that the most. I almost never say it 'Will happen', it is always it 'Should happen'. Based of my past experiences when I do 'x', 'y' has always happened. This doesn't mean that it will, just that it should do it again.

I guess if it comes down to a belief I would have to say that I believe the universe is consistent, but even that is only that it seems to have been consistent so far, but if something comes up that isn't consistent I will not discount it solely on the belief that the universe is consistent.

Why bother

[DiracFeynman]

Not sure if this should be posted under 'science'.

Will Eisner Died Yesterday...

[Anonymous Coward]

Comic genius Will Eisner, creator of The Spirit and Graphic Novel format, died January 3rd, but I can't prove it by pointing out any articles on Slashdot.

If only he had done anime...

I believe in 2 things I can't prove

[AceCaseOR]

God and that Global Warming is not necessarily a bad thing.

Re:I believe in 2 things I can't prove

[Ironsides]

First prove that global warming exists. Read "State of Fear" By michael chriton for more details (not sure i spelled name right, same guy that wrote jurrasic park). Temps may have gone up in the last 50 years, but they were going down before that. Since temps started being recorded, temps have gone down or stayed the same in many areas. (Not saying some haven't gotten warmer) And for those that have gotten warmer, they are usually in cities where more heat is being produced. Places like antartica have gotten colder on average.

Before believing that Global Warming is not a bad thing (which if it is happening, I agree that it is not necessarily a bad thing) try to make sure that it is actually happening.

Re:I believe in 2 things I can't prove

[Anonymous Coward]

You believe in one thing.

Re:I believe in 2 things I can't prove

[Anonymous Coward]

> God and that Global Warming is
> not necessarily a bad thing.

Of which god do you speak? Slashdot is getting sooo Christian these days.

I think it's cute - the Xtains on here believe that they are getting persecuted. Yet, I would imagine that they're in the majority. The Jews, Pagans, Atheists, and Agnostics are most certainly in the majority. (I'm basing this on US Demographics. /. seems to be over represented by the US, so it seems like a likely conclusion. Perhaps a /. poll could shed some enlightenment.)

Who's really getting persecuted?

Re:I believe in 2 things I can't prove

[the_rev_matt]

You're citing Michael Crichton for your evidence against global warming? That's like citing Pauly Shore as an authority on Non-Euclidean Geometry. Newsflash: Crichton is not a scientist. He makes up the science to suit the story. He writes some good books, but he's hardly someone to be taken seriously on something outside his area of expertise (which is telling a good story).

Note that a vast majority of *real* scientists concur that global warming is happening, though there are myriad theories of WHY it is happening.

Re:I believe in 2 things I can't prove

[IthnkImParanoid]

Citing Michael Crichton's use of scientific evidence is like citing Jerry Falwell's use of biblical passages: the may have read the text, but their interpretations usually range from superficial and asinine to stupid and wrong.

Re:I believe in 2 things I can't prove

[Anonymous Coward]

Good books though.

Re:I believe in 2 things I can't prove

[zCyl]

Note that a vast majority of *real* scientists concur that global warming is happening, though there are myriad theories of WHY it is happening.

The important question is not whether the Earth got slightly hotter, the first question is whether humans caused the Earth to get hotter, because the really important question is whether human behavior will cause the Earth to get significantly hotter in the future. That's the important question, and as far as I've seen it has not yet been answered beyond conjecture.

So the "why" is everything.

Re:I believe in 2 things I can't prove

[frankie]

Depends on your definition of scientist. He's actually Michael Crichton, MD, graduate of Harvard Medical School (and a BA in Anthropology). At minimum, he used to know a decent amount of biochemistry.

Re:I believe in 2 things I can't prove

[msheppard]

I just finished Crrichton's latest book "State of Fear" as well, and while citing him might not be so great - his book has an extensive biblography, and he is very humble about the fact that he is not a scientist, and explaining his views and detailing that many of the scientists he does quote do not agree with him.

M@

Re:I believe in 2 things I can't prove

[BigEarzAllMHz]

I believe the moderation score and comment on this post must have been made by my toenail-chewing, four-foot bong hitting, hippie-cousin Snowflake.

Re:I believe in 2 things I can't prove

[Presidential]

For those who aren't yet certain of the possibility of global warming:

Wouldn't it be safest to assume, for now, that it IS happening and work to slow the progress of it?

I mean, what's the worst that can happen? Five, ten years later our data is firm enough to confirm or deny the existence of global warming. In that time, much can be done to reduce the possible contributors to the phenomenon.

To you who said it isn't neccesarily a bad thing to have global warming: dude, you have a truly apocalyptic view of life in general. Warming *will* melt ice caps. Oceanic salinity *will* drop, and massive numbers of aquatic life forms will die off while trying to cope with it. Even if the biblical floods don't inundate all coastal cities, our gross food chain will be disrupted from all these plants and creatures absence.

Gah.

Re:I believe in 2 things I can't prove

[BigEarzAllMHz]

Hang in there, man. Don't let the cool kids shake you. Consensus is never a replacement for proof.

Re:I believe in 2 things I can't prove

[Anonymous Coward]

Because anything we do can possibly hurt even more.

Look up how many kids under 5 yrs old died from Malaria in Africa in 1995. Massively preventable if African countries were allowed to use DDT. But since DDT is bad for us and the environment, we told them they can't use it, or lose their foreign aid.

While US may be able to afford to reduce CO2 emissions, any restrictions will impact people in 3rd world countries even more.

Re:I believe in 2 things I can't prove

[Anonymous Coward]

Global warming will distroy our weather. We used to have proper winters but now we're getting snow/water mixture and that kind of crap. We are "arctic" people, winter is part of our identity. It's just being destroyed as we speak.

-- Janne, Finland

Re:I believe in 2 things I can't prove

[condour75]

Michael Crichton's just great at predicting things. Remember how the Japanese took all our jobs in the late nineties? Or how our economy was crippled by sexual harassment lawsuits? Or how we cloned the dinosaurs?

Basic heuristic to follow: The opposite of what Michael Cricton says will turn out to be true.

Therefore: invest in snorkels.

Re:I believe in 2 things I can't prove

[Anonymous Coward]

As a biochemist who has read the odd book of his (in my younger days), may I respond with "no, he really doesn't appear to know much more than a layperson".

He's not the person I'd go to for an opinion on anything scientific. Maybe I'd ask his advice if I was searching for a bad plot for a movie, or I had an ingrown toenail. But that's about it.

Re:I believe in 2 things I can't prove

[andy314159pi]

I enjoyed your post. However, you are incorrect about there being a multitude of theories about why global warming is occurring. I mean, there might be multiple theories, but the actual mechanics of it are straight forward. I mean, straight forward after a couple years of quantum chemistry. Yeah, so there you go.

Re:I believe in 2 things I can't prove

[F34nor]

If you really care about this, one way or the other, do some research on the long carbon cycle. This is what controls CO2 on Earth. Volcanos, then errosion, then shelfish, thes subduction, then volcanos. Right? The carbon levels that are controlled by plants etc. are the short carbon cycle and only make a slight difference on global temp. The problem is that we speeding up the long carbon cycle by taking millions of tons of carbon out of the ground and adding it to the air. i.e. we are producing a huge amount of volcanos. Got it? So if we are acclerating a natural cycle is that bad? Who FUCKING CARES? The real question is "do I want to live in a warmer planet?" The answer is do you wan the US to be like Mexico. No? Great so stop driving you SUV, stop buying plastic packaging, and invest in Conagra Foods and Changing World Technologies TDP.

p.s. Look at some sattlite phots of the artic if you don't belive in Global Warming. Looks like the largest ice cleave on record happned this year.

Re:I believe in 2 things I can't prove

[clean_stoner]

I'm not saying that Michael Crichton is the best source for information of this kind, but in the grandparent's defense, in State Of Fear he does distinguish which facts he got from real sources (most of the statements in the book), and sites those sources so the reader can look into them if he or she chooses.

What I believe, but cannot prove

[lar3ry]

That one divided by zero equals eternal life or, in some obscure numeric base, forty-two.

Microsoft is behind all this...

[mstefanus]

I believe Bill owns OSDN & Slashdot... this is all big conspiracy...

P.S.: Don't tell anyone about this!

P != NP

[Yaztromo]

I seriously doubt I'll ever be able to prove it, but I feel fairly confident than P != NP.

I hope someone proves me wrong -- I really do.

Yaz.

Calculus

[tonsofpcs]

I believe alot of the 'laws' of calculus, I even believe Fermat's Last Theorem, even though I, personally, can not prove them.

Re:Calculus

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that "a lot" is two words, and that I'd like to ram a Tonka toy up the ass of people who can't master this simple, grade three fact.

Re:Calculus

[YetAnotherAnonymousC]

I believe alot of the 'laws' of calculus, I even believe Fermat's Last Theorem, even though I, personally, can not prove them.

You know, I have a really great proof for Fermat's last theorem, but it won't make it through the lameness filter...

Re:Calculus

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that atypo occured and that someone needs to pull said toy out of his/her own ass.

Re:Calculus

[JaxWeb]

All the proofs you ever need are here.

Seriously though, some Calculus results aren't that difficult (although others are, but we can ignore them, ey?). For example, the rule that says "If you have two functions of x added together, then you can differentiate them separately and add them together"
(That is if f(x) = g(x) + h(x) then f`(x) = g`(x) + h`(x) ):

Let u and v be functions of x, and y be their sum:
y = u + v

If you increase x by an amount, call it Dx (normally written "Delta-X", but I don't want to cause display problems, so I'm just using a capital D), then u and v and y will also increase by some amount (since they are all functions of x):
u = u + Du
v = v + Dv
y = y + Dy

So:

y + Dy = u + Du + v + Dv

and subtracting the original y=u+v from this, leaves:

Dy = Du + Dv

Dividing by Dx, leaves you:

Dy / Dx = Du / Dx + Dv / Dx

This is pretty much it (You can take it through to the end, too, using limits, but it all gets a bit difficult to type here on Slashdot. And it's not like anyone is going to read this post, anyway)

I apologise if you actually do have a background in mathematics and this is patronising you. I apologise if you actually do not have a background in mathematics, since in that case you probably don't care!

As for Fermat's Last Theorem, read this book. I can't tell you how good it is though, since it is outside of my price range, and my local library doesn't have it (and refuses to believe it exists, on the grounds that I must mean that stupid Simon Singh book.)

Re:Calculus

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't say the proofs didn't exist, I just said that I could not prove them (although I probably could with enough time). Also note that the proofs to Fermat's last theorem have not been fully checked yet.
-- tonsofpcs

Re:Calculus

[JaxWeb]

No, sorry, I wasn't implying you didn't think they existed, I just wanted to show you one so that now you don't have to take that on faith. (I find things like this interesting, so I have this habit of assuming other people might want to know too...!)

As for Fermat's Last Theorem, it has been checked fully now. Of course, there was a time when it hadn't been.

Re:Calculus

[tonsofpcs]

Oh, I know how to prove the simple stuff, I know how to prove most of the advanced stuff, I just don't bother, I have faith that they work as they have been proven by others.
Re: Fermat: It was? I missed that article. Link?

Re:tasteless, guy joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: How do you consistantly give your mate orgasms? A: Why the hell do you care?

definition of faith

[the_mpls_guy]

Isn't believeing something that you can't necessarilly prove the definition of faith?

God is a Joke

[E-Rock-23]

And Christians are the punchline.

I'd sooner believe in little green men from Mars than God.

God

[mrkitty]

That is all.

Other Worlds with Life and Civilization

[haplo21112]

I refuse to believe that our world contains the only life in the entire Universe. There have to be other planets with life on them out there some place.

As for the question of them visiting us, I am not so sure on that one.

Re:Other Worlds with Life and Civilization

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say the possibility of interstelar travel is next to nil.

What do you believen even if you can't prove it?

[benja]

P != NP.

Intellectual Property

[VaderPi]

I believe that one day intellect will no longer be property.

Re:Intellectual Property

[Anonymous Coward]

it never was

Moderation.

[Anonymous Coward]

"What Do You Believe Even If You Can't Prove It?"

That Slashdot Moderation works.

Science revealed

[Senior Frac]

This article made me think about my assumptions and what I believe. A lot of our belief system is based on what is known as the scientific process, in which peer review is an essential component. There are so many things that I just don't have the time or desire to learn about (e.g. quantum physics) yet I can believe, at least at some level, that a given statement is true if enough eyeballs have reviewed the research performed.

This is similar to the critique of Wikipedia recently posted. The cranks get equal "weight" as the true experts on Wikipedia. Thank goodness the research community doesn't work that way.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Carbon nanotubes are room temp. superconductors

[nutznboltz]

Well, that certain forms of carbon nanotubes will prove to be room temperature superconductors.

We need a technological breakthrough that will move all the problems around again.

Am I the only one...

[krypt0s]

When I saw a comment by LYNN MARGULIS, I half expected to read something about Andy Kaufman still being alive.

But it was just some crap about the evolution of human senses. And I thought it was going to be important.

Ever-expanding disparity of potential development

[TTK Ciar]

I believe that the number of worthwhile applications that can be developed at a given price point is increasing exponentially, and that the pool of talented man-hours with which to develop interesting applications is only increasing polynomially, worldwide. Thus there is an exponentially increasing set of worthwhile applications which will never be developed.

This conviction has led me to view development decisions as exercises in dooming some applications to never be developed, ever, in the entire future history of humankind, as I choose to develop other applications.

I'd like to scrape together a formal proof of this someday, but until then it is only a theory.

-- TTK

I believe...

[Anonymous Coward]

...That the stupid /. "humorous" meme that geek /. posters don't get laid will die already due to too many /. posters realizing that - yes - they actually have been gotten laid. Those posters can then begin writing truly insightful posts questioning the issue of geek sexuality, such as: why is Natalie Portman covered in hot grits, naked and petrified, so erection inducing to the average /. reader? Because clearly, she is! This interested /. regular wants to know. I say it's time for a serious essay on the topic.

That is all.

My God is the Universe

[HenryKoren]

The semantics of your faith vs. my faith degrade into condemning and those who are different. It is not so much what somebody believes in, but the effects those beliefs have upon their actions.

The problem with many modern belief systems is that those who sin, repent, and sin again. It's a vicious cycle that gives people an excuse for evil deeds. Repentance only serves the goal of a supposed salvation. It does not in any way correct an evil deed. These beliefs cause people to sin against each other confident that their slates can be wiped clean in the confessional.

I have different beliefs. Their foundation is karma, a form of spiritual energy that connects life, the universe, and everything. What we do in our lives causes repercussions that are instantaneous, and those that echo into eternity long after our flesh is decomposed.

I first began to believe all this nonsense after doing something that was very evil and destructive. Not more than 24 hours after my transgression, something horrible happened to me. Could this have been a complete coincidence? Indeed it could; but what I did, and what happened was destructive, traumatic, and totally unrelated as possible. This led me to believe that there must be some underlying power that isn't properly described by Christian theology. Since getting slapped by karma I've changed my life. I haven't been perfect, but I've done my best. Now I find myself incredibly fortunate and happy in my life. This could be a complete coincidence.

Most modern religions defy science... mine embraces it. Physics has conservation of energy... What about conservation of karma or conservation of souls? If earth was once a cloud of stealer particles brought together by gravity, where did all the souls come from? From the billions of other systems that support life in this universe.

As far as "reincarnation" verses "afterlife", the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. For a soul that might have come from a distant star, or found its way into a different species; their lives now fit all the classic definitions or "afterlife". So with my beliefs it's impossible to say that the core concepts of most organized religions are wrong. But it becomes easy to tell that arguing the semantics of these concepts is pointless.

A final component of my belief system is that it could all be complete bullshit... But if it lays down a good moral code sans religious fanaticism, is it really that bad?

Who is God? A man sitting on a cloud passing judgment? Or a vast entity far beyond our comprehension? Why do religions have to weave such intricate and detailed pictures of what this deity is? Why must people comfort their fears of death by fabricating an imaginary world that lies beyond the grave? Why can't we realize how totally insignificant we and all of our complex illusions really are?

Re:My God is the Universe

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is God?

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him would not perish, but have everlasting life.

Jesus said, " I am the way, the truth and the life. No man shall come to the Father except through me."

God really does love us, and commands us to love all of his children. May you find His peace which surpasses all understanding.

Re:My God is the Universe

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is God?

Ehm...depends on your religion? There are many different religions on this planet, each with their own god(s). You need to be more specific....

Re:My God is the Universe

[rjordan]

Original poster: This is the kind of ignorance you get whenever you try to get into a serious conversation about principles with people (particularly monotheists)

I think many of us have a set of core beliefs not far from yours... mine differs in the belief that the entire EVERYTHING (universe is a word that gets disputed so lets just say everything) and the god that people believe in are synonymous and that all the structure but around the common beliefs that all religions share is largely there for societal control purposes... i mean the core is be nice to people (love) and tend to those less fortunate than yourselves...

karma expresses itself in may ways...

I believe that there is one consciousness, we are all parts of it - the concept of reincarnation is that we all experience each "separate" consciousness even those those experiences are isolated at the time... thereby everything we do LITERALLY will come back at us - we will experience it...

and to get REALLY into the tie in with science:

Physics is tending towards the view that if we get the framework right a single quantum event can kick off the entire universe... a single quantum event is almost like a question - a bit - a yes no... i think that if you want to believe in god then look at the universe this way - what is the question? do i exist... given QM we know that this is not going to be a binary yes/no answer but a YES in these circumstances... and those circumstances are the entire EVERYTHING...

okay enough rambling for today...

Re:My God is the Universe

[rjordan]

Probably posted this in the wrong place to be relevant to this msg, so posting again:

I think many of us have a set of core beliefs not far from yours... mine differs in the belief that the entire EVERYTHING (universe is a word that gets disputed so lets just say everything) and the god that people believe in are synonymous and that all the structure built around the common beliefs which all religions share is largely there for societal control purposes... i mean the core is be nice to people (love) and tend to those less fortunate than yourselves (charity)...

karma expresses itself in may ways...

I believe that there is one consciousness, we are all parts of it (if somewhat silo'd) - the concept of reincarnation is that we all experience each "separate" consciousness even those those experiences are isolated at the time... thereby everything we do LITERALLY will come back at us - we will experience it...

and to get REALLY into the tie in with science:

Physics is tending towards the view that if we get the framework right a single quantum event can kick off the entire universe... a single quantum event is almost like a question - a bit - a yes no... i think that if you want to believe in god then look at the universe this way - what is the question? do i exist... given QM we know that this is not going to be a binary yes/no answer but a YES in these circumstances... and those circumstances are the entire EVERYTHING...

okay - bit rushed but enough rambling for today...

Re:My God is the Universe

[Planesdragon]

The problem with many modern belief systems is that those who sin, repent, and sin again.

There is nothing in Christianity that argues against karma. In fact, the seperation between Heaven and Earth seems to argue that you WILL suffer karmaklly while on Earth, and the popular interpretation of the crucifixion is that you get into heaven because someone with infinite positive karma aborgates your sin.

And most christian denominations hold that someone who sins again did not truly repent the first time, and so often take extra action for repeat offenders.

Re:My God is the Universe

[TheUz]

Coining the ideoplast, The Conservation of Karma, is brilliant. Relating this to The Conservation of Energy is beautiful. Thank you.

Re:My God is the Universe

[Anonymous Coward]

> Their foundation is karma, a form of spiritual
> energy

Karma is Sanskrit for work, or good work more precisely. Good work like virtue is its own reward.

> Since getting slapped by karma I've changed my
> life. I haven't been perfect, but I've done my
> best. Now I find myself incredibly fortunate
> and happy in my life. This could be a complete
> coincidence.

I have had the same experience and share the same view.

> But it becomes easy to tell that arguing the
> semantics of these concepts is pointless.

Yes.

> A final component of my belief system is that
> it could all be complete bullshit... But if it
> lays down a good moral code sans religious
> fanaticism, is it really that bad?

IMO it's good because "no harm can come to a good man" - Socrates. (Ethical behavior gives peace of mind)

> Why can't we realize how totally insignificant > we and all of our complex illusions really are?

Have you read the Bhagavad Gita? If not I think you would enjoy it (get a modern translation, it will even talk about evolution).

god plays dice

[mdmarkus]

That god plays dice with the universe. And they're loaded...

Re:god plays dice

[homebrewmike]

I don't believe that god plays dice. Can't prove it, but it seems like it's a quantum mechanical cop out. The Universe is orderly, we just don't understand that order.

Re:god plays dice

[arose]

And we may not be able to understand it, in that case it may as well be random.

A Higher Power

[danZenie]

just because

Isn't it fair to say...

[downward dog]

...that everything we believe contains an element of ignorance? The idea that there are pure, propositional "facts" that are perfectly true or false ignores three things:

1. The fact that these "facts" are presented in language, which is an inherently ambiguous and imperfect medium.

2. Data is interconnected -- I can never know everything there is to know on a given subject, however large or small; in fact, for everything I know about a given subject, there is likely FAR more that I don't know.

3. Data is interpreted. I never observe anything outside of my own perspective. Just how much this perspective affects the world that I observe is another matter, but there is no question that it does affect it.

This may sound horribly obscure and abstract, and ideas like this are used by PhDs across the world to justify relativism and poor scholarship. But they are useful in keeping one's self humble. Too often, I think, we assume that science is nearing "the end. "Once we find the GUT, we'll REALLY understand how the universe works." "Once we figure out the brain, we'll understand human behavior." It is far more likely that we are now -- and will always be -- barely scratching the surface of the complexity that the world has to offer.

Scientific Methodology & the existance of proo

[Hakubi_Washu]

I don't need "hope", a "meaning of life", anything "greater", "something is too perfect about this world to be random", or whatever you claim to need, so why waste time _believing_ in those? All I want is "reason"; in combination with that I cannot but _believe_ in scientific methodology (theories need to be falsifiable, etc.) and the plain possibility and existance of proofs. Those concepts cannot be proven themselves, because the attempt to proof them is crediting them with validity in the first place. That would be a self-fulfilling prophecy... (This is the reason I don't argue with religious people, they just base their thoughts upon a different set of fundamentals; any argumentation already _is_ the choice for reason and science, so why bother?)

I had similar thoughts about my ex wife...

[filerabe]

... but I turned out to be wrong.

I believe

[ciscoeng]

I believe Slashdot could warn the subjects about their impending server apocalypse.

I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

President George W. Bush is a big fat f-ing dufus. I have no proof, but it sure looks true. ok, take a deep breathe, it's just a joke.

I believe...

[wintermute740]

I believe I'll have another beer ;)

Nothing

[cheeseSource]

If you can't prove it within a reasonable margin of error then there's no point in believing. It's like "Faith". "Faith" is one of the most meaningless words out there. It means almost exactly "belief with out reason" (or proof). When people say: "Well, I have faith." It reminds me of snotty kids who whine: "Because I feel like it."

Re:Nothing

[dreamer-of-rules]

Since our actions stem from our beliefs, whether proven or not, I think it's silly to think that there is "no point to believing". I believe that it is immoral to kill someone. There is no proof in morality, but as a result of my belief, I am much nicer to be around. :)

If I got anything out of reading books on NLP (neuro-linguistic programming), it's that our beliefs have consequences, and sometimes it's better to belief something -- even if it's untrue -- because the results are good.

For example, I believe that a lie will always be found out.

Re:Nothing

[GeneralTao]

"prove it within a reasonable margin of error"

ROTFLMAO!

Re:Nothing

[cheeseSource]

I think you point out the problem of belief with your last comment. You might want to believe that a lie will always be found out but in fact you "know" that that is not true. (Or, at least, I am guessing that you know that.) I think that could also be the difference between belief and hope. I might hope that all lies are found out but I couldn't believe that they are. I would agree that our actions often stem from our beliefs and in that sense beliefs do have consequences. However, I think that is more a curse than a blessing. Beliefs often become non-negotiable (dogmatism is a common occurance)which leads to strife more often than not or the potential for strife. I prefer skepticism.

Re:Nothing

[cheeseSource]

I mean a sturdy margin of error. Laws of physics margin of error. I.e. believe it till something better comes along and don't get emotionally tied to it. But I can see where rotflmao could come up. Belief should only be entertained in a very weak sense...

Re:Nothing

[GeneralTao]

I didn't mean to be rude. :) I laugh because you are saying that you'll believe something so long as it makes sense to you based on a subjective/personal sense of "reasonable" and "sturdy". Or until something "better" comes along.

I can say the exact same thing about my religion! I will gladly change religions if/when I come upon a religion which does a better job at putting creation in context. I've studied many religions precisely for the purpose of checking whether a superior religion exists.

If you have to make yourself confortable with a degree of incertitude in order to satisfy yourself of a proof, then it's not proof at all! It's a belief "on good authority". ('good authority' also being unprovable)

Statistical significance is a long way from proof.

Re:Nothing

[dreamer-of-rules]

Nope, you misunderstand me. I choose to believe that "All lies (especially my own) will be found out". I certainly don't "hope" so. But, I think that I will be a better person for that belief.

Another belief: You can choose and change your beliefs. You are correct that beliefs are a source of many problems; war, stock market crashes, jealous rages, conflict, stupidity, and unhappyness (not exclusively). So I suggest choosing your beliefs with care.

I bet that you believe that serial murderers are bad, that your life on earth matters, and that you are awake right now. Even if you entertain the idea that we live in a Matrix, I bet you don't believe it.

Re:Nothing

[cheeseSource]

It seems that statistical significance is about as close to proof as you can get for most things especially in a world understood through perception. In the end it's the beholder that chooses what to believe in. For instance, I've not seen enough to think that religions* are vaild but I understand that many, if not most, people are religious. The only certaintly is that you can be uncertain about most things. But you still have to move through the world and as such decisions have to be made on what you can be certain enough about and too uncertain about. And those decisions always seem to come down to individual perception. *This has to be qualified since religions come in so many various forms. I have studied many and still have not found one that seems valid. Though it's clear that some are better or worse than others.

Re:Nothing

[cheeseSource]

Well, two out of four on the list. I do think serial murderers are bad and that I am awake. I do not believe that life on earth matters (mine or anyone's - not in a depressing way, in a "that's just the way it is" way (which is also a belief)) The Matrix (brain in a vat) is tricky. I can't actually rule out the possibility so I don't believe that it's not possible but it ends up being irrelevant (since you'll never know) so I ignore it (like religion).

In the end I try to take what is close as being proved vaild as being worthy of belief. But I mean in a weak sense. When most people talk about beleif they mean it in a veracious sort of way. Since there is always an underlying doubt I can only hold belief in a weak state. Sort of like probability. I know (as much as I know anything for certain, which is unlikely) that not all lies will be found out. I could not force myself to believe something with such a low probablity which is why I misunderstood you. The probability is higher that "some" lies will be found out and since you never know which ones it's still a pretty reasonable assumption that one is better off not lying.

I would agree though that a belief about changing beliefs is a good thing. But it might be that you can only do that if belief is used in the weak sense.

Re:Nothing

[dreamer-of-rules]

Thanks for the considerate response. I was vague about "life matters". I mean something like... trying not to hurt others, trying to stay alive.. but I can't really put it into words.

I suppose I think of a belief as something we regard as true that may influence our thoughts and behavior. I'll admit that lies aren't always found out, and that it won't make any difference to the unverse 100,000 years from now whether I existed. And it won't make any difference to me 100 years from now. But I choose to live my life as though I believed that life "mattered" and when lying would be convenient, I remember that lies will be found out without a doubt. Though I'll admit otherwise if pressed.

Maybe the right phrase for my kind of belief is "duct tape belief". :)

Re:Nothing

[GeneralTao]

Gotta agree with you this time. :) I think that the ultimate answer to the question posed in this article, "What do you believe in that you cannot prove." is "Almost everything".

Re:Nothing

[cheeseSource]

Sorry, :) I'm stuck on the other side. I don't think you can believe anything really you just have to muddle your way through. The major dilemma being that everyone muddles differently. Which could be, if pressed, a very weak version of belief - I guess it's all in the emphasis...

Re:Mod up above post insightful!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe she's a closet lesbian and hasn't tried- a suitable euphemism escapes me- oooh, lesbians, mmmm.

A Kind and Loving God.

[TrevorB]

I believe in a kind and loving God. Keeping that belief is hard usualy because of the acts of man.

Or, occasionally, because of acts of nature.

"It's all part of God's plan" my ass. This is all looking pretty random to me.

(dons flame retardant suit)

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[TrevorB]

I dunno.

When I observe some effects that don't look like random coincidences, I'll let you know.

Until then, I'm just going to go about life being as nice to other people as I possibly can. <-- (See? Happy Agnostics!) ;)

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[Shadowlion]

Why does God have to control anything at all?

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[arose]

Maybe he likes to play dice? :-)

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[Ranger96]

It's the concept of freewill along with an omnipotent God. God could control man and nature, but he chooses not to (usually).

The really fun theological discussion is the idea of freewill vs. predestination along with an all-knowing God. Most mainline Christians accept the idea of God generally not controlling the actions of nature or man, but freewill vs. predestination is one of the biggest theological differences between the different denominations.

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[TrevorB]

I always liked this quote:

God does not play dice with the universe: He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players [i.e. everybody], to being involved in an obscure and complex variant of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.

-- (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)

It's a Good Book, go read it... :)

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a poor argument against the existence of God. There's an assumption that in order for God (or a god) to exist he must take direct physical action to control events (all events - good or bad). Secondly assumptions are made that the action must be manifested in a method which is observable by using current science or by the casual observer. Lastly, arguments also seem to require that the end benefit be immediately obvious.

That suggests that God needs to manipulate every action, would want you to see it, and needs you to understand why he did it.

None of those assumptions need to be true in order for a god to exist (benevolent or otherwise). Order and Chaos exist as balances. My belief is that chaos is just another form of order (i.e. no birth without death, no creation without destruction).

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[Anonymous Coward]

what DOES God control

He's in control of nature, but mostly keeps his hands off unless asked to intervene. But when this universe comes to an end, there'll be a very hands-on event usually known as "judgement day" which will make the full extent of his control (and fairness) entirely evident.

Of course there's no way I can prove the above right now, so this is one of those "believe despite lack of evidence things", but time will tell.

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[Cutting_Crew]

i would say thats a good reply. i would like to add to that as is to say that most people on here are saying, if God was love then why let 150,000 people die from a Tsunami? if you read the Bible and read more than a few verses scattered about you could learn more about how God works, his Son Jesus, why he was sent and what is to come. God is love, loves Christians, Jews, sinners(we all are) but cannot stand sin. hate the sin, love the sinner. in the Bible many times, Soddam and Gomorrah for example God "cleaned house" because of the wicked ways of this place. fornication, worshipping of idols, and everything else you can think of. God casts down the city with fire and brimestone and it was totally demolished. my more important point is do you really think we are here by random chance? we are some people derived from the smallest cells from billions of years ago? we are just here to live, work our butts off to survive and for what.. just to die off at some point in the end. do you really want to believe that this is all to your life? if that is all that we are here for we might as well just get it over with right now so we can end all of our misery and when we draw our final breath we will be no more. I believe that God created the universe, sent His Son to die on the cross to save us from eternal damnation b/c of our nature to sin against God, and that one day Jesus will return so that we may be caught up in the air with Him, for those that love Him and have accepted Jesus as their Savior and asked Him into their hearts. so... where do you think you will be when you die? one final thought for those of disbelief...if i am wrong(which i know i am not) then i lose nothing. if you are wrong then you lose everything. the latter doesnt seem to be a very good choice IMO.

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[Dyolf Knip]

So, they make up an entity and then spend centuries trying to figure out why it never ever makes any sense when applied to the real world? Gee, that's productive.

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[LWATCDR]

I have to say that while I do believe in a God I know that somethings are just random. I have taken enough physics to understand that if you took the random part out of the universe it is very possible that there would be no life or even Stars.

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[EpsCylonB]

or Russian Roulette.

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[arose]

...with Nietzsche.

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[csbruce]

Maybe he likes to play dice? :-)

Maybe he's been in gambling rehab for the past few eons.

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[halfelven]

If you read the Old Testament, apparently God cannot control Himself sometimes. :-)

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[Anonymous Coward]

You analyzed potentials with life as a goal, it is simply an after effect-a type of result-nothing special with regard to subatomic or super string interaction except that once produced it tends to continue as the reaction includes characteristics for the perpetuation of the reactions producing the elements, in the philosophical sense, that compose it.

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[ilikecaffeine]

one final thought for those of disbelief...if i am wrong(which i know i am not) then i lose nothing. if you are wrong then you lose everything. the latter doesnt seem to be a very good choice IMO.

Unless we're both wrong. What happens if the "real god" (whatever that means) punishes those who believe in other gods, but forgives those who worshipped no god? Or perhaps there are multiple gods, some wishing to punish, others wishing to save.

Your "final though" assumes that there are only two possibilities: a kind, loving Christian god, or no god at all. While either one is possible, there are certainly other possibilities.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there's an assumption in your final thought, known as Pascal's Wager (I think).

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[Cutting_Crew]

no other "god" offers eternal salvation -- there is only one God who does.

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[burns210]

Free will.

They way I have been told, is that. With Eve, Adam, humanity and all, God gave us free will. We can choose to love him, or not. And Satan is free to tempt us away. God has chosen a hands-off approach. How can someone love him if they do not have the choice to hate him(Angels)? So, nature, satan, and the rest are the negative side to God's open ended offer. When we die/Judgement day, we will get a yay or a nay vote that lasts eternity.

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the concept of freewill along with an omnipotent God. God could control man and nature, but he chooses not to (usually).

So he chose not to save the tsunami victims then? Very kind and loving, isn't he?

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[Anonymous Coward]

in the Bible many times, Soddam and Gomorrah for example God "cleaned house" because of the wicked ways of this place.

"Cleaned house". That's a handy euphemism for genocide.

I still can't believe there are people who argue with a straight face that "god loves us" and "god murders those who do things he doesn't like" in the same breath.

my more important point is do you really think we are here by random chance?

It doesn't matter what anybody else believes. Everybody else in the world could be wrong, and that wouldn't make Christianity any more right.

If you are referring to evolution when you talk about "random chance", then I suggest you educate yourself. Evolution is much more than random chance.

we are just here to live, work our butts off to survive and for what.. just to die off at some point in the end. do you really want to believe that this is all to your life?

It's better than inventing a fairytale as a coping mechanism. I came to terms with my own mortality a long time ago. Don't you think that it's time for you to grow up and do the same?

if that is all that we are here for we might as well just get it over with right now so we can end all of our misery and when we draw our final breath we will be no more.

Speak for yourself, I value my life. In fact, if I were a devout Christian, I'd be pretty offended that you trivialised the great gift "god gave us".

one final thought for those of disbelief...if i am wrong(which i know i am not) then i lose nothing.

That's known as Pascal's Wager, and has been thoroughly refuted.

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[Wraithlyn]

"one final thought for those of disbelief...if i am wrong(which i know i am not) then i lose nothing. if you are wrong then you lose everything."

Another responder correctly identified this as Pascal's Wager.

It is a classic example of the False Dilemma logical fallacy (also known as "Black and White thinking"). It assumes there are only two possibilities:

1. the Christian God exists and punishes or rewards as stated in the Bible, or
2. no God exists.

The problem with this is that there are a lot of other possibilities. As one obvious example, maybe there's a DIFFERENT god, who will be mightily pissed about your beliefs, and reward skeptics. I'm afraid that blows your "safe bet" into a thousand pieces.

Re:A Kind and Loving God.

[sploo22]

One of my favorite Bible verses: "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD." --Proverbs 16:33.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Regarding God and Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Both capitalized intentionally.

Check out http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/ for a study on how leading evolutionary biologists manage to co-exist peacefully with religion - which is a bit of a surprise since science generally requires absolute proof and religion generally can't be proven either way. The results are quite interesting.

Re:Regarding God and Science

[MightyMartian]

> Check out http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/ for a study on how leading evolutionary biologists
> manage to co-exist peacefully with religion - which is a bit of a surprise since science generally
> requires absolute proof and religion generally can't be proven either way. The results are quite
> interesting.

When does science every require absolute proof? What precisely does proof have to do with science, as science is built upon the notion of falsification?

Science is about the best explanation for the evidence. If new evidence comes along that screws with the explanation, then either the explanation is modified or tossed out. Nothing is permanent in science, though obviously some theories are sufficiently strong that it would take some pretty impressive new evidence to overthrow them.

In fact, science isn't about absolutes at all, and certainly no scientist I've ever read thought that it was even possible to come up with an absolute proof. That sort of thinking is for mathematicians, not for scientists.

It's not "if" but "why".

[khasim]

There aren't many people who say that the climate is not changing.

The difference is whether they say that man-made pollution is the primary cause or whether this is part of a natural cycle.

If it is part of a natural cycle, then there is no "proof" that changing our pollution will do anything.

Re:It's not "if" but "why".

[tajmorton]

According the the graphs in NatGeo, you could see a huge increase starting in the 1960s. Look at these charts from Wikiedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GlobwarmNH.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2maunaloa2003 .png

Also, this: http://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.ht m#temperatures

See this too:

• during 1901 - 2000 sea level rose: 9 cm (4 inches)
• a predicted sea level rise for 2001 - 2100: 9 to 88 cm (4 to 40 inches). There is a considerable range of future estimates.
• if the Greenland ice sheet melted, add 6.75 metres (25 ft)
• if the West Antarctic ice sheet melted, add 4.3 metres (16 feet).
• The melting of these ice sheets would be enough to flood Florida and Bangladesh.

Re:It's not "if" but "why".

[geekoid]

Florida and Bangladesh.""

yeah, so were talking what, 2 feet?

Re:It's not "if" but "why".

[Dirtside]

If it is part of a natural cycle, then there is no "proof" that changing our pollution will do anything.

Specifically, that changing our pollution will do anything about the climate. Pollution has other effects on the human race, like increasing respiratory diseases, cancer, damaging our food supplies, tainting water, general ecological chaos, etc. I know this may seem obvious to some, but a lot of people will pretend that because global warming may not be caused by humans, therefore it's okay to have a smog-spewing, gas-guzzling SUV. For example.

Re:It's not "if" but "why".

[lightknight]

Citing Wikipedia really doesn't help your argument.

Requisite SCO bash

[mattstorer]

Darl says: "That Linux stole our code!"

... which moments later he followed up with: "That I'm really not the biggest lying scumsucking progress-thwarting joke-of-the-day toolbox in the software community!"

(sorry, had to throw that in there)

Re:Requisite SCO bash

[freezin fat guy]

Yeah! And I believe that Microsoft had nothing to do with an elaborate blackmail operation attempting to crush a non-profit OS from making a dent in its brute force monopoly. But then again I believe everything coming out of Steve Balmer's fork tongued mouth. ;)

I believe that James Bond

[Man in Spandex]

will suck when Orland Bloom will take place but I have no current way of proving it.

Unprovable Beliefs.

[jellomizer]

1. That there is a God
2. Humans are naturally good, Society makes them do evil thing
3. Reality (Heck I could be a brain in a bottle and all my sences are beeing trasmitted by a computer)

Re:Unprovable Beliefs.

[arose]

That would still be a reality, just different from the one you observe.

amongst the 120, Charles Simonyi

[zobi]

Coming from Charles Simonyi, the person behind the concept of Hungarian notation, and Microsoft chief architect for two decades:

I believe that we are writing software the wrong way.

As seen on page #3 of this article.

(petty criticism, just by malice, as this guy is quite someone ^^)

I believe.

[Raven42rac]

I believe that there is no coincidence in most major cultures having the same types of stories and buildings (ie pyramids). I can't prove what, nor can I fathom what may have been the central force behind it all.

Re:I believe.

[gobbo]

I believe that there is no coincidence in most major cultures having the same types of stories and buildings (ie pyramids). I can't prove what, nor can I fathom what may have been the central force behind it all.

I believe that historians, archaeologists, and the like, severely underestimate just how much travel there was in the truly ancient world. People can walk a thousand kilometers in a couple of years without too much hardship (relative to standards at the time). I believe that there is as yet uncovered evidence of seaside civilizations, and that they had marine technologies adequate for long distance voyages. I believe that the "collective unconscious" that shows up in parallel stories, symbolics, and architecture, is largely a product of homo sapiens sapiens evolving with a global cultural commerce, much like our skull shape is a product of our mastery of fire, i.e. eating cooked food.

I believe that our scalp-hair's bizarre unlimited growth is similarly a cultural product.

Re:I believe.

[Anonymous Coward]

American pyramids are quite different from, say, egyptian pyramids. I don't think it's a coincidence either, but for different reasons, I think...

I believe..

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

That the earth is really on the back of four elephants, who are in turn, on the back of a giant turtle.

Karma

[Infonaut]

Chaos theory may one day reveal that the concept of karma is based on scientifically valid underpinnings. Until then, I just believe it because I've experienced it. Cause and effect, baby.

Re:Karma

[JohnnyCannuk]

I'm with you on that one....

And if it turns out we're wrong, Buddhists will simply change their philosophy to match reality rather than the other way around.

Re:Karma

[Infonaut]

And if it turns out we're wrong, Buddhists will simply change their philosophy to match reality rather than the other way around.

That prompts me to wonder if Buddhism is a more intrinsically "science-friendly" belief system than Christianity.

Re:Karma

[JohnnyCannuk]

Yep.

In North American Buddhist circles it has always been suspected that Einstien was a Buddhist. Not a practicing Buddhist, but that his ideas matched those of Buddhist philosophy.

One of the cornerstones of Buddhism is not to accept dogma because it is handed down by "holy men" or "authorities" but to try it for yourself. If it does not work, disregard it. This is a lesson taught by the Buddha himself. Sounds an awfull lot like the scientific method to me.

Also, recently, the Dalai Lama stated publicly that if science ever proved any tenent of Buddhism incorrect, that Buddhists would accept that as the truth and move on. Can you imagine the Pope saying such a thing? Not likely (just ask Galilleo).

Re:Karma

[Infonaut]

The obvious correlary to this to wonder what will happen to American scientific prowess as we head toward a closer integration of church and state in the US.

As a someone who has read the Koran, the Bible, and the Bhagavad Ghita, I always find it fascinating how people "get started" with a belief system (when the choice is theirs to make, as opposed to simply growing up with and accepting the prevailing religion). If it's not too personal a topic, what was the text that introduced you to Buddhism?

Re:Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe in selective memory, especially wrt coincidence.

Re:Karma

[JohnnyCannuk]

Oddly enough, a book called "The Art of Shaolin Kung Fu" by Wong Kiew Kit. Part of the book deals with the philosophy of Shaolin, which is Cha'an or Zen Buddhism.

Now, I was a Christian born and raised - Altar Boy and Choir Memeber in the Anglican Church. When I was around 14 or 15, after having actually read a good deal of the Bible, I decided that Christianity in particular and Theism in general just did not make sense. I still had an sense of right and wrong, but to me, it was based on simple "common sense" - "Good things happen to people who do good things" and vice versa. Through some amount of personal trial and error over the intervening years I simply learned that if I spoke softly and calmly and thought about what I was going to say before saying it and tried to see things from other peoples point of view,I got along alot better. Now I didn't have to do that - I am (and was) a 6'2", 260 lbs farm-boy-linebacker bruiser and knocking heads would have been just a easy. But I found that life was more peaceful if I acted nicely and calmly, rather than throwing my wieght around (and I tried that for a few years too). And I never again bought into the idea of un-seen, un-proven (or provable) God(s). I was and still am an Atheist.

So when I got "The Art of Shaolin Kung Fu" 2 years ago at 35 and read about Buddhism, I discovered that it was the philosophy I had come to on my own. So, I read books such as What the Buddha Taught by Rahula Walpola and How to Practice by HH the Dalai Lama. And a few others.

I discovered a "religion" that is more of a philosophy or practice, that is simple and elegant. No need for "God". Accepting the inter-connectedness of all things and searching for peace under the control of the individual and anyone can do it..its not an exclusive club.

"No Hell below us, above us only sky" if I may quote... ;-)

Anyway, if you want to go through the books above or the Buddhist Holy Books, I would also reccomend finding the Dharmapada and the Lotus Sutra.

A great place to start is here.

Have a look and see if you like it (and if you don't, feel free to try something else...)

Re:Karma

[Infonaut]

Thanks for taking the time to give me all the info. Now it's time for me to do some reading. I'm in a position similar to the one you were in a couple of years ago, in that life has taught me lessons that are in many ways incompatible with organized religion built around the concept of a supreme being, original sin, and so on.

I like the last line of your post. If only more people felt that way about their beliefs.

Re:Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

"Cause and effect, baby."

Prove (i.e. using logic) cause and effect can be trusted to exist. Cause and effect is based upon observation, not logic.

You get bonus points if you know who first realized this :).

Re:Karma

[smoking2000]

I too am that position, and I just started to read A Buddhist Bible and Buddhism, a Way of Life and Thought which I found via the Zen FAQ. So here's some more possible reading material.

Re:Karma

[Rick BigNail]

I am a Christian, so i don't agree with you.

But, have you been paying attention to toaism? I think you have to understand and combine both to get to your truth.

Re:Karma

[Optic7]

Your second title, "Buddhism: A Way of Life and Thought" was the book that I read to get an introduction to Buddhism. I would recommend it as a good overview of the history of Buddhism and the different lines of thought within Buddhism.

One day my prince will come...

[jeblucas]

"I believe in perfect faith in the coming of Moshiach; and although he may tarry, I await his coming every day." --Rambam.

My most prominent belief...

[Transcendent]

...is that not everything can be proven.

From the article, Leo Chalupa:

..we will be successful in eventually discovering all that there is to discover about the physical world..

To me, that's impossible. There must come a logical loop in which one assumption relies on the other, and vice versa, thus making it impossible to logically prove any of it (see an above post about "logic works" while you're at it).

Just like any argument for existence. Sure you can come up with any scheme you want, sure some may be perfectly sound (which none that I have read are), but that does not rule out that another perfectly sound and logical explanation could not also be true.

For instance, you can either believe that there are tiny particles that make everything up, but can you prove it? They could be very very small worker monkeys that have different tasks (thus different particles), and we just lack and will always lack the instrumentation to detect this.

And the point above, which is my main point to why we can't undersand the universe, is that the study of one particle requires the use of others to study the interactions. But, this is the logical loop. There is no one particle that we fully understand, and thus we will never be able to understand anything because, of course, there are assumptions in which multiple explanations will fit.

Re:My most prominent belief...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh this has already been proven. Much work coming from Gödel.

Re:My most prominent belief...

[Transcendent]

I thought Gödel proved it in mathematics, not physics.

The Elf Conspiracy

[duffbeer703]

I believe that little elves are responsible for all of the world's ills. Kennedy was killed by an elf, for example.

Even now, the elves are working on igniting a great volcano under yellostone park!

Re:The Elf Conspiracy

[raduf]

I believe that little elves are responsible for all of the world's ills. Kennedy was killed by an elf, for example.

Even now, the elves are working on igniting a great volcano under yellostone park!

... and how the FBI it's going to be on your ass if it really blows!

Re:The Elf Conspiracy

[Keebler71]

Once again - I and my people take offense at your remark. If you do not stop your malicious, libelous claims, we will be forced to stuff large quantities of dry, nearly tasteless, processed cookies with no milk with which to wash it down...

Evolution?

[zzphile]

Can somebody explain to me why people believe that evolution is more than survival of the fittest and the mating that follows?

Re:Evolution?

[Norgus]

I'm certainly no expert, but Isn't evolution supposed to be survival of the fittest taking cell mutations and the like into account?

i.e. a mutation that causes less survival won't last long, but benificial ones will eventually stay and become commonplace.

and over millions of years the mutations become aparent in the evolved form.

Re:Evolution?

[MightyMartian]

Evolution, in a nutshell, is changes in hereditable traits in populations over time.

Lack of intellect

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that my network would run perfectly if I did not have these pesky users.

Thats a nice way of putting the question

[deft]

But the much more telling way of reading the question, which should garner the same answers is "What could you be led to believe with no proof" or worse... "how far could we go in twisting your reality to a story with no support because of the lack of basic critical thinking training in our society."

For more information on the topic, I reccomend "Demon Haunted World" by Sagan, or "Why People Believe Wierd Things" (cant recall the author right now, but a quick search of Amazon should pull it up).

Re:Thats a nice way of putting the question

[dreamer-of-rules]

I agree that would be an interesting question.

I have a little rule that if God starts talking to me, and tells me to kill someone (my children, the president), I'm going to tell him to shut up and grow up. Then I'm going to see a shrink.

One of my pivotal "belief-moments" came when I realized how unreliable our brains are. Add a chemical, and suddenly you believe you can fly. People witnessing crimes can be Totally Positive about the perpatrator, and yet be Totally Wrong. Put a tumor in a certain spot, and you can hear voices. Some people can't see faces at all. Our memories change over time, and sometimes we can be convinced of things that never happened.

How well do you trust your senses? your memory? your thinking?

Could anything convince you that it would be safe to jump off a house believing you could fly? How about hearing the voice of God? If you grew up in a different country or family, what would you believe today?

I believe...

[stryder22204]

In the pristine instant (note the lack of caps). That there is only one reality and it can only be truly, objectively grasped by turning off all linear thought.

Look.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost all the prophets are white men

I believe....

[Danathar]

My brain is floating in a vat of semi-gelatneous good on board a massive spacecraft where aliens "similuate" the real world by sticking metal probes in to my cerebral cortex

I believe in Zero Sum & Karmic Balance

[mekkab]

I believe it all Balances out; You do some good in the universe, its negated by some evil that someone does somewhere else.

Its all a wash.

as for the Karmic Balance, I believe the trolls will one day all have Karma: Excellent.

AIDS is man made

[mslinux]

I believe that AIDS is man made although I cannot prove it. IMO, South African scientists worked with American military scientists on developing and testing AIDS. In America it was tested on homosexuals, in Africa it was tested on black women.

We know for a fact that South Africa had nuclear weapons... the Americans probably helped them gain that technology too. We also know that AIDS affects blacks more than whites and that at one time SA was really trying to reduce the population of blacks for political reasons.

Too much circumstantial evidence for me.

Re:AIDS is man made

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets hope you're not a judge or lawyer, then...

Re:AIDS is man made

[c_king]

I believe you are a moron.

Re:AIDS is man made

[cephyn]

yeah, but the proof is right there. wrong topic. ;)

Re:AIDS is man made

[FuturePastNow]

I believe the mods who gave him a "+3, insightful" are even bigger morons than he is.

Re:AIDS is man made

[mslinux]

I stated my opinion and a few reasons behind it and you respond that I'm a moron? Do you see the irony. How about countering my opinion in some way besides calling me names? Perhaps you cannot?

What's moronic about believing that governments use chemical/biological weapons to kill people for political reasons? The new president of the Ukraine was poisoned with a biological agent (dioxin) just last year before the election. This stuff happens all the time w/o anyone knowing about it. It's not moronic... it's real and the stakes are big.

Re:AIDS is man made

[FuturePastNow]

I believe later moderators agreed with me.

Re:AIDS is man made

[lmsig]

One problem.... if you have circumstantial evidence you need some kind of motive. What motive would America have for killing homosexual and black people?

As far as more blacks than whites being affected... perhaps that's just another symptom of the mis appropriation of wealth in the world; not a genetic target.

Re:AIDS is man made

[Anonymous Coward]

That is just silly...

Everyone knows that AIDS was actually tested first in the United States, and was designed to be sold as a weight loss virus to replace phen-phen.

Re:AIDS is man made

[Anonymous Coward]

What motive would America have for killing homosexual and black people?

Damn, you're dense.

Re:AIDS is man made

[mOoZik]

I don't want to be called any names, but I will try to address your question. The vast majority of Americans, rightly or wrongly, dislike - or hate - blacks and homosexuals. Maybe this was true 20+ years ago when AIDS came to the scene, but outside of the large, liberal cities, this point of view is probably what the parent was referring to.

THE ABOVE POST DOES NOT REFLECT MY OWN BELIEFS. I LOVE ALL HUMANS EQUALLY.

Re:AIDS is man made

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this guy's beliefs worthy of derision anymore than those who believe in God?

What's more improbable, an all knowing entity capable of anything or a some bizarre conspiracy?

Believing in flaming, talking bushes is a-okay, yet believing in conspiracies is just cuckoo. What a weird world.

Re:AIDS is man made

[cephyn]

Absence of proof, true, is not proof of absence. however, you still have no proof but circumstantial correlation. correlation does not equal causation. many people have believed and investigated this theory that you so believe, but none have ever found anything concrete. So truly, this is something you believe but you cannot prove.

But because people have tried to prove it, and because evidence that should be findable has never turned up, most will be inclined to not believe in your theory.

Re:AIDS is man made

[Anonymous Coward]

If I might add, back in the day at universitys acrose the nation(a few years befor AIDS showed up) there was a study asking for homosexual volenteirs that involved some thing injected(I beleive it was suposed to be a vaccine of some sort). A few years later almost all of the men that had partisipated(in my town, can't speak for nation wide, thow I understand it to be similar) started being diognosed w/ AIDS. Strange isn't it...

Re:Sucker- you've fallen for it!

[Anonymous Coward]

if you havent given one or more to a woman, i pity you and more so her.

it may be nature's rubix cube, but come on excell at one thing atleast.

I believe I'm going to space one day

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what I'm working for all day and night.

I believe....

[Anonymous Coward]

the guys at http://www.edge.com are running around with fire extinguishers trying to figure out why there server is on fire. Though, I can't prove it.

Re:homosexuality

[vorpal22]

Of course, if it were genetics, according to Darwin, it would be a trait that should have been wiped out long ago since homosexuals cant reproduce.

Nonsense. Homosexuals, physically, are fully capable of reproducing - it's just that the sexual acts which are appealing to them don't result in reproduction. Regardless, I know no lack of people with gay biological parents who reproduced because they felt social pressure to enter into heterosexual relationships.

Additionally, recessive genes can carry for many generations, and if homosexuality is genetic, it's obviously controlled by a sequence of genes that are recessive.

Personally, I'm gay and I don't think homosexuality is genetic. I suspect that there are biological causes (e.g. hormone levels in the mother, etc.), but I'm capable of admitting that we don't know at this stage and it is possible that homosexuality is a choice. This is irrelevant to me, though, because even if it *is* a choice, it's my choice to make, and it's no one's business what the outcome of that decision is.

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't understand is that pedophilia is just as natural and yet there are no lobby groups creating a nice, warm fuzzy feeling and forcing pedophile mariages on society.

Reality

[Listen Up]

I believe in reality and only reality. Make believe is exactly that...make believe. The universe is not determined by mysticism outside of the human mind. The universe exists, is determined by unbreakable rules, and nothing in the universe is above those rules. End of the story. All of those rules can be determined and eventually will be.

As far as 'unprovable', the term is highly misleading. To be more specific, if there is a fabric which exactly explains the universe, mathematics, so be it. If the physical results of that fabric are repeatable, predictable, and disprovable then that is it.

Re:Reality

[Listen Up]

By fabric I meant language. A language which exactly defines the universe.

Re:Reality

[lawpoop]

Interesting... but maybe not so well thought out. What exactly do you mean by reality? What does it mean for seomthing to be real? Is 'make believe' real? Are thoughts real? Are make believe thoughts real? Are thoughts about reality real? What is the difference between real and make believe thoughts? Is mysticism inside the human mind part of reality? What is a rule?

Also, why do you choose the term 'fabric'?

Re:Reality

[lawpoop]

So, where Pythagoras said numbers are the ultimate reality, you would say some kind of language is the ultimate reality?

Re:Reality

[arlandbayes]

All of those rules can be determined and eventually will be.

I agree with all that you said except for this statement. I think that statement is a rather arrogant one.

What makes you think that there are a finite number of rules which govern our universe? It seems to me that the more we learn about our universe the more we discover how incredibly complex and subtle the laws that govern our universe are. To assume that there are a finite number of laws which govern our universe is something that indeed you cannot prove and may never be proved.

Take for example Newtonian Mechanics which all scientists once thought was the end of the story, then Einstein came along... What about Big Bang Theory and the seemingingly contradictory fact that the universe is expanding at and accelerating rate? The universe may be infinitely complex.

Re:Reality

[FuroTheRed]

I have a few problems with this. What rules are you talking about? What if one rule is that another of the rules is breakable under certain circumstances; i.e., the rules are more complex than we know?

What are you talking about when you say mysticism? If God exists or something like that, it might or might not be mysticism- but it would be reality.

then that is it.

What is what?

All of those rules can be determined and eventually will be.

I don't know how you can possibly know that. Sounds like mysticism to me! :)

When a tree falls in the forrest

[neckdeepinspecialsau]

It always makes a sound. Yes even if nobody is there to hear it. I think.

Re:When a tree falls in the forrest

[phauxfinnish]

I believe that the falling of the tree creates vibrations in the air which would be perceived as sound were someone present to interpret them with their aural organs. That said, the real question is:

If a tree falls and lands on a mime, does anyone care?

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course there is no proof of it...

If it's happening to you then you can use that as proof enough.

homosexuals can't reproduce

Wrong, and proven to me over and over that it's wrong to say that. You can get off to a personal fantasy while fucking something you can't get off on thinking about.

That Slashdot will deteriorate and ultimately fail

[Anonymous Coward]

The site ain't what it used to be.

Post Apocalyptic Future

[Ian Action]

I belive someday we'll have a kick-ass post apocalyptic future (well, present) ala Mad Max. I was kinda worried about a Terminator-esque one, but I doubt MS Skynet will be much of threat.

Mirrors

[WhiteLudaFan]

I believe that mirrors of a slashdotted site is a good thing... though sometimes this might be difficult to prove.

BTW... i'm looking for a mirror... please.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

science needs philosophy to guide it

[peter303]

Science is *one* way of knowing things about the world: making models for repeatable observations. Because it has been so powerful in explaining many things and developing technology to make our lives comfortable, uninformed people ascribe more capability to the scientific method that it really has. The role of philosophy is to define the boundaries of science as a method of knowing things; then add to it with other methods of knowing things, i.e. speculation, intuition, faith, albeit.

That...

[Dana P'Simer]

Some of these "so called" intellectuals aren't. A majority of these "I Believe" statements were great but some of them were just inane.

By REBECCA GOLDSTEIN
Philosopher and Novelist, Trinity College; Author, Incompleteness

I believe that scientific theories are a means of going--somewhat mysteriously--beyond what we are able to observe of the physical world, penetrating into the structure of nature. The "theoretical" parts of scientific theories--the parts that speak in seemingly non-observational terms--aren't, I believe, ultimately translatable into observations or aren't just algorithmic black boxes into which we feed our observations and churn out our predictions.

WTF does this mean? I cannot figure it out. If scientific theories were like this, then science would grind to a halt. Just plain silly. And that is only one example. There are several more.

Re:That...

[FuturePastNow]

What it means is that a lot of the philosophy and english faculty at colleges are secretly laughed at by the science dept.

Re:That...

[Anonymous Coward]

First, a philosopher talking aobut science is like a plumber talking about heart surgery...it's all pipes and pumps, isn't it?

Second, what she says, in the short form, is:

Theories where the theory's assumption made can't be directly observed are theories that can't be observed.

It's a nonsense statement, devoid of any acutal fact or usefullness.

That's it.

Re:What about quazi-intelligent design?

[malfunct]

Beings that humans seem to be thier own worst enemies, it would also seem that making them more powerful would make them stronger enemies for themselves and it might make them less likely to survive. Maybe moderately weak humanity is the key to its safe growth?

Re:Check out his sig

[Anonymous Coward]

Sig- Book Reviews on Success, Selling, Wealth, and more. [money-book-reviews.com] - Obviously this guy is operating in a world of delusions. And who says the original poster is a guy? Some females just never experience the O. Its good to be a guy!

Science

[superflippy]

I particularly like Seth Lloyd's response, quoted here in full:

I believe in science. Unlike mathematical theorems, scientific results can't be proved. They can only be tested again and again, until only a fool would not believe them.

I cannot prove that electrons exist, but I believe fervently in their existence. And if you don't believe in them, I have a high voltage cattle prod I'm willing to apply as an argument on their behalf. Electrons speak for themselves.

I believe... the site is slashdotted

[deft]

But I can only prove I got a 404.

OK, my turn to reply

[TrevorB]

I believe that the existentialists are wrong, and that the world and the universe do indeed exist even if I can't prove it.

After all, if the observable world didn't exist, what the hell, the concept of truth itself is questionable, you might as well believe whatever you want.

Everything else is suspect.

I kinda like theories that don't falter under repeated experiments. Scientific method and all that. It's a good thing.

Re:OK, my turn to reply

[happyfrogcow]

I believe that the existentialists are wrong, and that the world and the universe do indeed exist even if I can't prove it.

As far as I know, existentialists don't think the world doesn't exist. Or maybe you are making two independent claims of beliefs.

try wikipedia for existentialism or read something by Camus.

The Stranger is one of my favorite books still, after reading it in highschool english class (Who says highschool is boring!)

Re:OK, my turn to reply

[TrevorB]

Doh, you're right. I'd intended to add at the end that this was a primitive definition of existentialism, that more appropriately they speculate that the idea that the world doesn't exist is possible, but somehow that last paragraph got eaten before I clicked submit.

I blame my cold. Yuck.

Thanks for checking me on that.

Re:OK, my turn to reply

[jwdb]

I'm not sure how you would define existentialism, but as an existentialist myself I can assure you that I do not doubt the existence of the world - in fact, I simply do not consider the question.

The only absolute of existentialism is that you yourself exist. Around this is a code of values with this existence as its most valuable posesison - treasure life but don't cling to it, respect freedom, and be true to yourself.
As for the rest of the world, I cannot prove it exists but I do live in it, and be it real, imaginary, or virtual, I will continue to live in it and enjoy every moment.

I believe in my own existence, which is something I can only prove to myself.

Jw

Re:OK, my turn to reply

[droneboy]

Existentialism is this: first one exists, and then one approaches the world as one who exists. It doesn't mean that the world doesn't exist, or that we live in one of our own making. It just means that the meaning, nature and attributes of the world are a different category to the stuff of the world itself.

Re:OK, my turn to reply

[crazyeddie740]

So, to restate your post, you believe in, but can't prove, the existance of objective reality.

Re:OK, my turn to reply

[TrevorB]

Yes.

I could be really mean and say that objective reality "exists" because I experience. What happens to that reality after I cease to exist, I'm not entirely sure. Some basic concepts, particularly the flow of time, might be distinctly human concious related.

So long suckers, I'm taking the universe with me!

And I promise to read the Wikipedia article... Several people caught me on the error.

Re:OK, my turn to reply

[crazyeddie740]

Um, objective reality means a reality that exists independent of our observing it. Noumenon as opposed to phenomena (which is what we observe). In addition, there is consensus reality, which is the sum of our individual subjective realites. The existance of objective reality is an unproven axiom of science, which tries to use our consensus reality to deduce the properties of objective reality. Or at least that's what Philosophy 101 taught me. I think (I haven't read the article either, or at least not recently) that the main thesis of existentialism is "existance preceeds essence" - or that the universe and humanity just *are* - that we have to come up with our purpose ourselves.

Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[cryptochrome]

There are difficult-to-impossible-to-fake signs, if you know what to look/feel for. The sex flush is the best one. Pupil size generally increases when it happens too. The vaginal contractions at 0.8s intervals would be very difficult to fake also. Also there's the whole issue of their acting skills.

So... go run some experiments with this new data.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[aceat64]

No offense, but I feel sorry for any woman you date.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[cayenne8]

"There are difficult-to-impossible-to-fake signs, if you know what to look/feel for. The sex flush is the best one. Pupil size generally increases when it happens too. The vaginal contractions at 0.8s intervals would be very difficult to fake also. Also there's the whole issue of their acting skills."

Hmm...very hard to observe signs such as these with the lights down low, and your behind her doggy style her head is either buried in the pillow, or bouncing off the headboard.

At that point in time....I'm probably NOT going to roll her over and shine a flashlight in her face to check out her flush or pupils...

:-)

Besides...she might start talking, and I'd miss something on tv...

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[Anonymous Coward]

if you know what to look/feel for. The sex flush is the best one.

So then you advise I should to be taking the bag off her head?

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[GoofyBoy]

>The vaginal contractions at 0.8s intervals would be very difficult to fake also.

Spoken like a true nerd.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[Java Pimp]

Just the plastic ones...

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[kypper]

Also, when flashing the light into her eyes would shrink the pupil regardless, contaminating your 'study'.
This of course is not to mention the mood-wrecking result of shouting 'You're Faking It' on obtaining a false negative...

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[cryptochrome]

No offense, but I feel sorry for any woman you date.

Why, because I can tell if they're enjoying themselves and work for it? I don't think it would be fair to them if I were the one having all the fun. They certainly weren't complaining about it.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience the problem is the varying intensity and types of orgasms that females experience. There seems to be much more variety with females than with males. My evidence is highly anecdotal however.

There are probably at most 3 distinct types of male orgasm. My limited experience with females indicates at least 6 different types. There is no way a female can fake some of those types.

The problem lies with those orgasms she will sneak in on you. Once she tells you about one of those, she can always fake one like it in the future.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[tritone]

>The vaginal contractions at 0.8s intervals would be very difficult to fake also.

And if they're only at 0.9 s intervals, what then?

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[cryptochrome]

Granted they're defintely lights-on-and-facing kinds of signs. But you don't have to look for them every time (although I like seeing them), just enough to know she's not a faker.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[CrackedButter]

best post this year my good man.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[JoshRosenbaum]

Ahhh, thanks for the laugh! That post was awesome! :) I haven't laughed like that from a post for a while now.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[jcdick1]

Actually, the "sex flush" can often be seen across the back of the shoulders, and not just across the upper chest. So as long as the lights are on, getting some from that direction and still confirming she actually likes it - and isn't merely feeling humiliated or degraded as her head gets buried in the pillow - shouldn't be a problem.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[Anonymous Coward]

That only works if she's still alive, right?

Ah... AC posting

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[snuf23]

...or you might spill your beer?

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[ATMAvatar]

Gets down on his hands and knees with a stopwatch...

Honey! You're not faking this time!

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[Anonymous Coward]

what your all forgeting is who cares, as long as I get mine I'm happy

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[e.m.rainey]

Why, because I can tell if they're enjoying themselves and work for it?

No, because you're likely to put their eye out with your calipers measuring her pupils for dilation during intercourse.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[Spark00]

er, if you're that clear headed and observant when the lady is 'having/faking' her orgasm, then you, my friend, are watching a video and NOT participating in whatever it is (manipulation, coitus, uneven spin cycle) that is getting her to the orgasm.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[Shoten]

No offense, but I feel sorry for any woman you date.

While I entirely agree with the above statement, I also believe there aren't any women for whom we should feel sorry.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[Anonymous Coward]

>>The vaginal contractions at 0.8s intervals would be very difficult to fake also.
>
>And if they're only at 0.9 s intervals, what then?

She's overclocked?

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[Keebler71]

That reminds me of the old joke:

Q: How does a real man know when his woman has climazed?

A: A real man doesn't care!

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[cryptochrome]

>>>The vaginal contractions at 0.8s intervals would be very difficult to fake also.
>>
>>And if they're only at 0.9 s intervals, what then?
>
>She's overclocked?

LOL! Good one... but wouldn't that be underclocked? Either way, the real issue is whether you like your women fast or slow.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[covertbadger]

Not to mention the stopwatch for measuring those 0.8s intervals.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[wolf31o2]

And if they're only at 0.9 s intervals, what then?

Run!

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[Anonymous Coward]

One girl I was dating urinated all over her parent's couch when she had an orgasm. I certainly don't think she would have gone to such lengths to fake it. :)

I do feel sorry for her dog, which inevitably took the blame on that one!

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[Frogbert]

You should start paying attention to your spam.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[cryptochrome]

I do feel sorry for her dog, which inevitably took the blame on that one!

One more reason why dogs are the best family pet.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[cryptochrome]

Where's your sense of rhythm?

Good lovemaking requires no accessories. Except maybe a towel. (Hitchhiker's Guide was right!)

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[Anonymous Coward]

"If You Love Me (You'll Sleep on the Wet Spot)"

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[jakoz]

I'm sensing some security issues here... ;)

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides...she might start talking, and I'd miss something on tv...

Worse still, she might spring a leak.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[cryptochrome]

Not really, just if you know she's honest then you can go by the less subtle and easier to read signs, such as when she goes "YES, YES, OH GOD DON'T STOP, DON'T STOP, aah, Aah, AH-AAAAaaaAAAAAaaAAAAHH, AAH, Aah, aahhhhhh..." and collapses. That's detectable even when it's dark.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[CySurflex]

Congratulations! In the history of Slashdot - yours is the first comment referring to having (or having had) a girl and getting modded up to a +5.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[iainmcphersn]

Perhaps your inflatable doll needs a tune up... :)

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[Woy]

He c(l)ocked it.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[covertbadger]

Now that I agree with. Well, maybe a towel and a Spiderman costume.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[Anonymous Coward]

Vaginal contractions can definitely be faked, although it requires some practice of the conscious use of those muscles.

There's also plenty of individual variance in terms of what signs are the clearest indicators of an orgasm. With my ex-girlfriend, there was never any doubt; her vagina felt completely different before and after an orgasm. Of course with her, she would never fake an orgasm, anyhow - she was way too selfish for that, she always demanded that she be satisfied completely until she would let me stop.

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[Trillan]

I was looking for that response in this thread. I'm surprised it took so long. :)

Re:Women can't fake orgasms perfectly

[Dracil]

So is *that* what those nutrients were?

I Truly Believe...

[GeneralEmergency]

...That Aliens are making me type this.

Seriously.

Re:I Truly Believe...

[Boronx]

You can prove this. Try not typing it and see what the aliens can do about it.

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

there are no lobby groups creating a nice, warm fuzzy feeling and forcing pedophile mariages on society.

Sex with an unwitting minor is always rape.

I Believe...

[Spl0it]

...that religion is the cause of or a factor in all wars. I believe that religious followers may some day destroy our planet. I also believe religion is good at teaching morals, but that's about it.

Re:What about quazi-intelligent design?

[dgatwood]

If that were so, what would be the incentive to create, to build, to grow as a species? Most technology, even in cave man days, originated out of human weakness---the inability to do something without tools. It is our weakness that has forced us to be intelligent---to outwit our prey when we cannot outrun it---and is the only real thing that distinguishes us from other animals---that instead of adapting ourselves to our environment, we adapt our environment to ourselves.

So, no, there's no reason for God to create humans as "bas ass" as possible. If He had, we would not be human. We would be more like... dinosaurs. Look how well they turned out. Oh, that's right. They didn't. :-)

Treat them well.

[BabyJaysus]

I believe the children are our future.

Timothy Taylor's Appeal to Kuhn...

[icarusfall]

Is anyone else getting a bit tired of pundits talking about "paradigm shifts"? Tom Kuhn came up with the idea that scientific progress is made incrementally most of the time, and occasionally the whole apple cart is completely upset with a new way of looking at things. Sounds great, but doesn't really sound like how science progressed. Timothy Taylor's slightly bizarre axe-grinding about cannibalism and slavery manages to wangle it into his rant as a bolster to his belief that he's going to change anthropology so fundamentally that everyone's going to have to rethink the entire science. You almost have to admire the arrogance of the guy, though.

Re:Timothy Taylor's Appeal to Kuhn...

[MrHanky]

Sounds interesting, but I've got no idea of what you're talking about. Alright, I know about Kuhn, but who is this Taylor guy and where does he rant, and what about? Links, please!

(Yeah, I googled, and found a couple of books -- The Buried Soul and The Prehistory of Sex -- and it's obviously the same person. Looks to me like a new Freud.)

What Bruce Campbell would have said:

[cooley]

I believe that somebody has become host to a Candarian Demon!

I believe...

[Anonymous Coward]

The online magazine The Edge will be "/."ed

Human beings are important

[starseeker]

That's going to sound really strange, but it's true. So far as I know, the universe doesn't distinguish between us and any other random bit of matter floating around. We're the only ones that make that distinction. WE believe we matter, but that is unsupported outside of our own conviction that we are somehow special in the universe. I guess I believe we are important simply because coming to the opposite conclusion is about the most non-functional state a human being can ever be in. If you believe the human race has no purpose and is thus ultimately a waste of time, you are likely to do little to further its cause. So I make the assumption that there is something going on here that is "worthwhile" and hope the ultimate purpose isn't something I get nominated to figure out ;-).

Can sombody explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can somebody explain to me the "Nothing can ever be proven, only ever disproven." Theory to me. I have never understod this. Does it even make sense?

I'm going to heaven, you're going to hell

[whoda]

Have fun bitch.

Re:I'm going to heaven, you're going to hell

[leifb]

If you're talking to Slashdot as a whole, I'm afraid there *is* proof...

Re:I'm going to heaven, you're going to hell

[ckedge]

> I'm going to heaven, you're going to hell

No, you *think* you're going to heaven. In actual reality, you *already* know what's awaiting you after you die. You've been "not alive" before.

Remember what the world was like before you were born?

What's that? You have no memories of the passage of time before you were an infant? You have no concept of existence before then? You have no memory, impression, or anything of the ENTIRE beginning of the universe?

Guess what. That's what the rest of eternity in this universe is going to feel like after you die. You're simply going to cease to exist.

You aren't going *anywhere* bitch.
.

Re:What about quazi-intelligent design?

[El_Smack]

"So, if "we" were "designed", I would have to say the big ol' G to the O to the D could have done a better job."

Depends on what the design specs called for.
Most religions teach that God created man to teach him a thing or two and make him better. It's hard to learn any lessons while flying around shooting lasers out your eyes and being generally indestructible.

Re:What about quazi-intelligent design?

[Anonymous Coward]

We were designed in his own image....not from the image of some dude at the end of Mortal Combat.

I wondered what Shermer would say

[geomon]

As an avowed skeptic, I found Shermer's answer to be thoughtful and consistent:

"What separates science from all other human activities is its belief in the provisional nature of all conclusions."

That statement articulates a belief that is tied to a reality that is, in turn, based on the data our senses feed us. Everything else is illusory and the result of interpretations made in the absense of physical evidence.

As a scientist, I can't prove that last comment yet because I don't have enough data.

A simple powerful belief.

[juuri]

Reciprocity.

Many like to refer to this as karma and make it some nebulous, fantastical belief. However, reciprocity is very real given that you choose to surround yourself with the proper people. People in my close peer group give easily and freely of each other and as a result when any of us stumble or run into hardship we have a large, extended family who is willing to help. Here in America many of us don't have much of a family life (I fall into this camp) so we can easily forget how important it can be to have others that count on you and most importantly others willing to be counted on when you are in need.

Re:A simple powerful belief.

[randallpowell]

Too true. If Americans could look past differences and see people, we'd be better off. Especially in the South.

Re:That there is no God ...

[Anonymous Coward]

so who defined all the variables for the universe?

No proof?

[downward dog]

But there is, even if you can't see it with the naked eye (sorry!). Some very specific -- and observable -- things happen to the female body during orgasm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgasm#Female_ejacu la tion

Drugs

[Sp4c3 C4d3t]

I believe that natural drugs (mescaline, mushrooms, DMT) are the key to discovering God. Everyone calls me crazy.

Reality In General

[nurb432]

Cant prove you are all not just a figment of my imagination, so I go on the assumption that you are not, and believe that you are in fact real.

Re:Sucker- you've fallen for it!

[Dana P'Simer]

What Rubix Cube. I can give my wife one of those in 15 minutes. No problem. Try loving your woman, the rest is easy.

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

What if they're willing? The definition of minor is surely unnatural, isn't it? It's just an arbitrary number.

Not just acts of man

[xswl0931]

That belief is hard usually because of acts of nature.

I can't prove it...

[mjpaci]

Slashdot is not a waste of my time.

I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is stupid

george bush

[Anonymous Coward]

....... wait, strike that reverse it.

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

of course if it is your choice, then it should be ok to judge you based on the choices you make since it reflects your character.

call Ohio

[oliphaunt]

I believe that Blackwell stole the election for Bush, the same way it was proved that Harris and Scalia stole the election for Bush 4 years ago. How long will it take before we see the proof this time?

Oh, and I also believe that Dick Cheney is a cyborg.

Corporate CEO

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that corporations and their management will only do the bare minimum to securing customer data as required by the law. As a corollary, since there is no US law for securing employee data, I believe that employee data will soon be sold as a commodity.

I believe that the world is spherical.

[Jerk City Troll]

Afterall, how many of us have been to space to see earth from a sufficient distance such that its shape is evident? (Keeping in mind that pictures, of course, can be faked.) Makes you realize just how much of what you know you cannot prove.

Re:I believe that the world is spherical.

[TheAwfulTruth]

There are many ways of proving the earth is round without going into space. This was done hundreds of years ago.

You yourself can prove it by watching a large ship go over the horizon of an ocean if you want.

The curvature of the earth can be seen from a plane flying at high altitude.

Mount a vertical stick of known height in your back yard and the back yard of a friend in another state. During daylight, call your friend and both of you measure the shadow lengths cast by the sticks.

Go ahead, prove it, no need to "believe" any longer! :)

Re:I believe that the world is spherical.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not spherical; it's more like an ellipsoid.

Re:I believe that the world is spherical.

[GeneralTao]

"watching a large ship go over the horizon of an ocean if you want."

Well, just because it happens here doesn't mean it happens everywhere. I'd have to visit every coast off every ocean in the world to know for sure. I can't afford to do that so I'll just take your word for it.

"The curvature of the earth can be seen from a plane flying at high altitude."

Assuming the parent's poster has the opportunity to observe this for himself, that still only prooves the Earth is curved. Not spherical. For all we know, the Earth is shaped like a motorcycle fender.

"call your friend and both of you measure the shadow lengths cast by the sticks."

Assuming the friend doesn't lie, it still only shows that the sun's rays hit different points of the Earth at different angles. Maybe the Earth is shaped like the under-side of an egg-carton.

Strictly speaking, only the people who have themselves flown into space and seen with their own eyes the Earth, and completed an entire orbit around it, can know the Earth is spherical and not have to take someone else's word for it at SOME point.

Extraterrestrial Intelligence

[Rick Genter]

I believe that there exists at least one species of intelligent life elsewhere in this galaxy. Of course I have no way to prove it (today ;-), but it just feels true to me.

Descartes

[Anonymous Coward]

What is "proof"? This question always brings me back to Descartes's Meditations on First Philosophy (or The Matrix, take your pick). Everything you "know" enters your brain via your senses, and it's easy to show that senses can deceive you. How can anything be proved beyond all doubt? Descartes's conclusion, that one can only prove one's own existence (and only to one's self) rings true to me.

In a debate I don't ask for proof, but evidence.

omega point disaster

[grikdog]

I suspect that each individual one of us is a simple facet of a hyperdimensional individual who is either psychotic or criminal, and is at odds with other hyperdimensional individuals who wear H.I.P.D. badges. I suspect the universe would be utterly incomprehensible if it were not also recursive.

It's called religion.

[HockeyPuck]

Religion has been doing it for years...

Have faith...

Re:It's called religion.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's a great reason to NOT believe in anything that isn't proven then.

I think we are pretty bad-ass as a species

[wsanders]

I think we're doing a pretty damn good job of wiping out other species, and that's what evolution is all about. Who needs laser-beam eyes and robotic arms when you've got dioxin?

Pave the Earth!

Colors / light

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that even in the absence of light, colors exist. This is contrary to the accepted theory that without light, there is no color, which is false.

Brooklyn.

I don't know

[RAMMS EIN]

I am a dyslexic agnostic who suffers from insomnia. I lay awake at night wondering if there really is a dog.

TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Because TFA is 60,000 words long, intelligent discussion on /. will be effectively nonexistent.

That's what I believe...do I really need proof?

I believe that....

[jzarling]

Darwin was/is right
There is intelligent life out there, and the will contact us before we find them
When found they will considered infidels by some, heritics by others
Organized religion has held back scientific progress and should be kept out of the arena of public education.
Faith is more important than Religion
The original version of Blade Runner is superior to the Directors Cut and shold be released on DVD
Duke Nukem Forever is NEVER going to be released
Blatz is the finest beer ever produced
and finally,
Whether or we ever find life there, Jupiter should always be considered an enemy planet!

Re:Sucker- you've fallen for it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a man. I've never given someone a Rubix Cube.

Common unproven beliefs

[Luke-Jr]

Despite the Big Bang theory (along with other parts of evolutionism) have been *dis*proven many times, I find that countless people still blindly believe them.

Gravity is believed by virtually everyone these days, yet it is impossible to prove. I like to stress this by denying gravity and believing instead that the less matter things have, the more they *repel* other things-- should have the same end effect. Newton himself didn't believe in gravity..

Re:Common unproven beliefs

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont even know where to begin with whats wrong with all that. :D
Less matter = more repulsion? Then why don't your various components all fly off in different directions and leave the commenting to less, um, challenged folks. Because what? Your repulsive force doesn't overcome what? go on, say it. Gravity. See, that wasn't so hard.

Re:Common unproven beliefs

[Luke-Jr]

So I haven't thought much about possible flaws and such. I'm not a physics major. I probably couldn't determine if your arguments are valid or not. You insist on gravity. Prove it.

Re:What about quasi-intelligent design?

[defMan]

Think about it, if you were to designe an intelligent species, wouldn't you want them to be as bad ass as possible

So far so good i think. We are prety bad ass as it is. Inteligent design is still a very backwards idea ofcourse.

There is only one rational response

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you believe even if you can't prove it?

Nothing.

I believe, but cannot prove ...

[aborchers]

... that both atheists and theists will continue forever to present arguments for their positions that amount to nothing more than statements of belief. ... that such "ultimate" questions as the existence of God are unprovable conundra that exist to confound and motivate us. ... that the previous statement proves the existence of God.

Bonus Belief:

I believe I will receive many more replies from self-righteous atheists than from self-righteous theists.

Re:I believe, but cannot prove ...

[geomon]

You've been proved wrong.

Re:I believe, but cannot prove ...

[|/|/|||]

You've just explained why agnosticism is the only sensible philosophy. We can't prove or disprove the existence of God, so why even bother with the idea? It's pointless.

Re:I believe, but cannot prove ...

[aborchers]

Exactly. The only reason I can think of to "bother with" the idea is that it's frequently useful.

Re:I believe, but cannot prove ...

[jimmyfergus]

We can't disprove the existence of the Tooth Fairy either. Or a teapot in orbit around Mars. From Richard Dawkins: "A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative. But "agnostic" on its own might suggest that he thought God's existence or non-existence equally likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about god, he considers God's existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy's. Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence. The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have to bother saying so."

Re:I believe, but cannot prove ...

[|/|/|||]

Excellent. I think that most people who call themselves athiests would agree with this viewpoint, as would most who call themselves agnostics.

Re:I believe, but cannot prove ...

[benna]

Maybe so, but intelligent design claims to be a scientific theory, and this is simply not true whether one believes in God or not. An agnostic should certainly see the unscientific nature of any theory that is not falsifiable. Karl Popper is rolling over in his grave I'm sure at the assertion that is it is scientific. If they want to be religious thats one thing, but science is science.

Re:I believe, but cannot prove ...

[|/|/|||]

Right. The entire topic is outside the realm of science. If you're talking about something untestable (and nothing that could be seriously considered a god would submit to being testable) then you're not talking about science.

The funny thing is, if these religious pseudo-scientists really did come up with a scientific theory of god (not likely) then god would no longer be god - god would merely be a part of the universe. By definition, gods ghosts and tooth fairies are supernatural and therefore have nothing to do with science (which only deals with things that are "natural," ie "part of the physical universe," ie "real").

Re:Check the News-

[xtermin8]

I find belief in a kind and loving God difficult because of events like the tsumani and the resulting suffering around some of the poorest areas in Asia and Africa. The acts of man, especially if one also believes in free will, doesn't afffect faith one way or another. Perhaps God is indifferent? That seems more of a challenge to me than disbeleiving God altogether.

Slashdotted

[TFGeditor]

Here is a google cache (of the first page, anyway)

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:7hdYYlLlgEgJ: www.edge.org/+edge.org+%22WHAT+DO+YOU+BELIEVE+IS+T RUE+EVEN+THOUGH+YOU+CANNOT+PROVE+IT%3F%22&hl=en&cl ient=firefox-a

The Future?

[bozoman42]

I predict a mighty slashdotting of edge.org.

AIDS

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe God created AIDS to punish people for immoral sexual behavior.

God, even if he exists, may be unprovable

[mark-t]

Like utterly unprovable... and, ironically, I can prove it.

Consider that this very universe may be nothing more than a figment of a higher being's imagination... reality to everyone here, you, me, and so on.... but entirely imaginary to the being who is envisioning the universe (and all its details, right down to the superstring level). Because even our own thought processes are part of this imaginary environment, no amount of application of logic or reason can allow us to acquire any sort of cogniscent awareness of our imaginary nature, it must forever (insomuch as time has any meaning at all to us) be nothing more than hypothetical conjecture.

Note that I'm not saying that there _IS_ a god, I'm just pointing out that if such a god existed, it's to be expected that his existence would be logically unprovable. In fact, one could even argue that such a God would not even be "real" in the sense that nothing in the universe could ever begin to understand the notion of reality, but could, I suppose, be considered to be "superreal".

So really, even if a god such as what I've described exists, many of the assorted and logically correct proofs that there is no god could actually be true in that case... that is, the god they are disproving the existence of doesn't actually exist.

Re:God, even if he exists, may be unprovable

[Planesdragon]

God's existance is unprovable because, assuming He exists, He doesn't want to be proven.

It's hard to get the drop on an all-powerful, all-knowing being who exists outside of time and who can and does peer into the minds of all humanity.

Re:God, even if he exists, may be unprovable

[polished look 2]

The deal is that God created all things from absolute nothing; there is nothing that exists that He did not create. Ponder that for a moment and consider that such things as thoughts are His creation, numbers are His creation, time is His creation, etc. etc. Logic is either one of His creations or something mankind cobbled together using His creation.

Re:God, even if he exists, may be unprovable

[mark-t]

Assuming he exists, it's more likely that no resources in this reality exist to be able to prove his existence, and it's less likely a consequence that he doesn't wish to proven per se, at least not directly, as it is that this physical reality simply can't provide the foundations to grasp anything beyond itself.

Re:God, even if he exists, may be unprovable

[Planesdragon]

Meaningless claptrap.

Either God exists or He doesn't. And if He does exist, then obviously He is able to influence this world -- or else we'd be talking about some other cosmic entity entirely.

Re:God, even if he exists, may be unprovable

[mark-t]

Influence the world, sure... but I'm saying that the resources don't exist in reality in the first place to prove the existence of god, and that te reason those resources don't exist here has less to do with a god not wanting them to exist than it does with the premise that the totality of all creation across all time is still insignificant in scope to the nature of the god that may have created it all. All we can ever hope to do is hypothesize... the resources to prove his existence simply _can't_ exist here any more than you can prove the existence of numbers larger than the notion of an uncountable infinity. All you can do is imagine it.

Re:God, even if he exists, may be unprovable

[Planesdragon]

More meaningless claptrap.

God -- the focal point of a majoirty of the world's inhabitants' worship -- is a divine being that is not only able to but HAS revealed himself.

Should He wish to prove his existance, doing so would be as simple as your or I demonstrating our existance.

Re:God, even if he exists, may be unprovable

[mark-t]

To do so would require extricating you from the conditions imposed on you by existing within a merely created framework.

(Still more meaningless claptrap I'm sure..)

Re:God, even if he exists, may be unprovable

[Planesdragon]

No. Now you're using actual English.

If God wanted to prove His existance, He could alter the quantum states of all the pain molecules on my wall and say "Planesdragon, I exist." I'd do a bit of disbeliving checking, including looking for a screen and asking someone nearby if I see what I see. But if He really wanted to prove that He existed, He would be able to.

To use a different paradigm: it'd be like one of the Root computers in The Matrix deciding to tell the people that It exists. Easy enough: just rewrite part of the Matrix in such a way that only its existance could be.

A burning bush that carves tablets out of stone is a good start.

Re:God, even if he exists, may be unprovable

[mark-t]

The problem with this is that the message is still subject to our own interpretations, and while he _could_ theoretically adjust our own interpretations of his messages to correspond with the intent, it is also not entirely improbable that having created us to be, for all intents and purposes, free willed beings, he desires to respect that free will, and to augment our understanding would be to tamper with that, violating a directive he could have imposed on himself to allow us to be free willed creatures.

Re:God, even if he exists, may be unprovable

[Planesdragon]

The way to go around subjectively interpreted messages is not to alter humanity. Rather, it's to have an extended dialogue with humanity -- exactly what God did with Moses after that whole Ten Commandments thing.

You're trying to argue that a wet paper bag isn't wet. If God exists, He can make himself known -- so, if He isn't proven, the only answers are either that He doesn't exist or two variets of Him not having revealed himself. (in one, we could find Him without His help. In the other, we can't.)

Re:God, even if he exists, may be unprovable

[mark-t]

Well, if the whole ten commandments thing actually happened with god and moses and the whole stone tablets thing, it wasn't very effective, was it? Even according to the narration of the story the people that would have had complete _proof_ of who and what God was and instead to throw their attentions upon a cow cast in gold a mere matter of weeks after having revealed himself to the Hebrews and giving them the ten commandments. People believe what they want to believe, and God proving with irrefutable certainty (and for all time) that he exists wouldn't amount to a hill of beans without altering our free will.

Re:God, even if he exists, may be unprovable

[dreamer-of-rules]

That's utterly lame.

God (the almighty) can't prove himself to us without disrespecting our free will? Much the same way that teaching a child to read disrespects and destroys their free will? And nothing he can do in the physical universe could make his existence as clear as the existence of the sun, short of actual mind control?

If you had children, would you go out of your way to hide your own existence from them, like in a 2,000 year game of hide and seek? If they started killing each other over disagreements as to your existence, wouldn't you, as a caring father, end the game?

Re:God, even if he exists, may be unprovable

[dreamer-of-rules]

Santa Claus has the same problem. Despite bringing presents to all the good children in the world every year, and numerous sightings of him and his reindeer, despite all of the eaten cookies and milk drunk while everyone is in bed, the filled stockings, the movies, the songs, the culture.. despite all of the documented proof, many people still don't believe in Santa Claus. The only alternatives are mass hallucinations, or maybe a giant world wide conspiracy, which are just rediculous. There's no way that Santa Claus can prove his own existence -- he's off the grid!

Re:God, even if he exists, may be unprovable

[mark-t]

No.

But I'm not God.

Neither are you.

Get over it.

Re:God, even if he exists, may be unprovable

[mark-t]

"Santa Claus" isn't even alleged to be an omnipotent being that can, at a whim, alter the very fabric of reality (and what's more, altering reality, we wouldn't even necessarily notice any incongruity because we are actually a part of that same reality anyways). Are you trying to set up a Straw Man argument or something?

Re:God, even if he exists, may be unprovable

[Planesdragon]

God was and instead to throw their attentions upon a cow cast in gold a mere matter of weeks after having revealed himself to the Hebrews and giving them the ten commandments.

Wrong.

The golden cow was created as a font to focus their worship of God to. They didn't create a new god and say "let's forget about Him, and worship this one!"

And it was AFTER the cow that God chose to dwell with the Hebrews for, oh, some forty-odd years. And they never really forgot Him again.

Not to mention that you're talking about a body of people that never didn't believe in "a" god, and whose lowest point of belief was "God isn't coming back", not "God doesn't exist."

There are some insconsistencies in the bible and Chritisian theology, but the core is logically sound. (And whomever wrote Acts knew it--there are clear admonishments to keep the message simple.)

Able to proove?

[azatht]

had a philosophical discussion with some friends some days ago, about what is proof. I came then up with this hypothesis:

"Nothing can be proved except that something (which itself can't be proved) exist."

Re:homosexuality

[minus_273]

"Nonsense. Homosexuals, physically, are fully capable of reproducing - it's just that the sexual acts which are appealing to them don't result in reproduction"

why exactly do you think we evolved in such a way that sex is pleasurable? there is a reason for it you know. Imagine a few homosexual cavemen how do you think they would have reproduced? all they know is that they want to mate with others of the same sex. The wouldnt know that they need to mate with the opposite sex to reproduce. Not being programmed to mate properly is a severe weakness that really nullifies all other strenghts since you dont know how to pass your genes to another generation. I believe this is the reason why nothing like homosexaulity exists in other animals.

Mundane Items Taken on Faith

[Anonymous Coward]

• The Sun will rise tomorrow.
  
• Other people really do exist.
  
• I'm not asleep and dreaming right now.
  
• I have a past and didn't just come into existance this second with "false" memories.
  
• Someone will read this post.
  

it shouldnt be called believe

[scenestar]

i wouldnt see it as believing in something, but more as avery deeply rooted hope that something exists/will happen

I believe...

[RAMMS EIN]

I believe that, outside my basement, people are eagerly awaiting the release of my 1337 h4x0r w4r3zzz!!

Nothing

[314m678]

Nothing.

Conciousness is an emergent behavior

[Anonymous Coward]

Brought about by the complexity of the brain. This leads to fun things like death being absolute and for all eternity. But it also means it won't hurt... just like when you doze off in front of the TV, waking up 4 hours later without dreaming or anything, like time never happened (only without the waking up bit). It follows, then, that life is special and precious, and that we should be excellent to each other (to quote a famous philosopher) as this is it... this is all we have, and this is all others around us have. Some people find this atheist philosophy ultra-scary. People take comfort in religion, and I think that's fine... As one life is all you get, if believing in God makes you feel better, safe or looked after somehow, then I'm happy for you. I don't like it when religion is used as an excuse to hurt people. I think religions are all the same (in a good way) but there will always be psychos who promote killing as "God's" will. Quoting from another famous philosopher, I believe that children are our future. Teach them well. I don't want to get all political, but I think the US has an awful education system for the general public (the well off can afford good schools). I also believe the corporate culture of the US and its outsourcing policies will have a servere impact on the country in 20 years as more middle class jobs leave the country. I believe President Buss is a corporate-led moron. I can't even be bothered to fix that spelling mistake in his name as I don't think he deserves that respect. Quting from another famous philosopher, I believe that humans are a cancer on this planet. A virus. I don't think this planet can sustain our growth indefinately. I don't believe in human space travel. Bottom line is that it's all about gravity and acceleration. I don't think we'll master gravity and acceleration to enable us to travel interesting distances. So my previous point holds - we'll have to do something eventually to create equilibrium with our planet. I believe that our aid to 3rd world countries, keeping starving populations on the edge of death in environments that cannot naturally sustain them is, whilst good intentioned, futile. It seems we keep these people alive to make ourselves feel good. To quote another philosopher, "Let them die." Harsh, I know, but the ones that do survivie will survive on their own. We're maintaining generations of suffering. I believe I have written enough.

Axioms

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that 1 + 0 = 1

I believe. . .

[daikiki2.0]

I believe belief just wraps your brains in chains.

(With apologies to Bob Geldof)

I Believe ...

[the_mushroom_king]

... the article's server has been Slashdotted. -- TMK

Re:homosexuality

[Decaff]

Personally, I'm gay and I don't think homosexuality is genetic. I suspect that there are biological causes (e.g. hormone levels in the mother, etc.),

I'm also gay, and I strongly believe homosexuality IS genetic. Reproductive behaviour is likely to be profoundly influenced by genes.

There are plenty of reasons why homosexuality can be of benefit to reproduction. There are plenty of cases in nature where non-reproducing members of families assist in the upbringing and feeding of reproducing members, so helping their genes to reproduce (albeit indirectly).

What I believe

[milesbparty]

Salvation is a gift of God given by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Salvation is based upon the sovereign grace of God and was purchased by Christ on the cross, and is received through faith apart from any human merit, work, or ritual. Salvation is characterized by righteous living, good works and proper social action and concern.

Ok, now I'm ready for the flames to begin. I would expect about 95% of /. contributors to lash out at this...but I really don't care, and I probably won't respond...

Despite all evidence to the contrary...

[Anita Coney]

I believe Slashdot's moderation system is fair.

Re:Despite all evidence to the contrary...

[Anonymous Coward]

I almost modded that insightful just because funny doesn't help karma.

I believe...

[bonytony]

that I am a great lover.

Amiga

[50000BTU_barbecue]

I believe the Amiga was the coolest computer ever, and a really great game machine as well. Too bad the ineptness of Commodore and the greed of Gould and the other schmuck killed C=.

Slashdot-proofing

[WormholeFiend]

I believe one day that every site on the Internets will be Slashdot-proof.

Re:homosexuality

[digital bath]

nothing like homosexaulity exists in other animals.

Wrong.

Ancient civilization predating the...

[ninejaguar]

...ones currently known. It's just depressing to think that we've been around for over a hundred thousand years if not millions of years (other homo species) with a working brain, and only started civilization 6,000 years ago. Something must've been present between or prior to the successive ice ages since intelligent upright apes discovered tools. I'm not talking about advanced technology, but advanced tool-dependent agricultural social structures. Perhaps something on the level of the Olmecs, Egyptians, or Indus cultures that followed are too much to hope for. But, it doesn't make sense that in all that time nothing more significant that running around looking for nuts and mastadons developed. Somewhere, there was a village.

= 9J =

Everything?

[SirBeck]

Don't we all presuppose the validity of reason and thinking? No one can absolutely prove it's trustworthiness. Everything we believe assumes this starting point. We can guess by observation of patterns/tangible things but no one can observe the patterns of past creation and all of time to come. Therefore I can't really prove anything I believe. All is faith.

Cause and effect... Not!

[Astreja]

I believe that discoveries from chaos mathematics and quantum physics will eventually extinguish that old "free will vs. determinism" debate.

There's something very refreshing about living in a universe that honestly doesn't know what it's going to do next.

A few things...or maybe just one thing.

[oneiron]

reality - infinite...

possibility - also infinite...

Further:

All living things are an expression of a single universal consciousness which permeates every corner of infinity. Each individual expression creates its own independent "reality" which, in turn, is recycled back into the infinite pool of reality and possibility.

Duke Nukem Forever

[slyckshoes]

I believe, though I cannot prove it, that Duke Nukem will someday be released.

Lake of Fire

[daemonmonke]

The local swimming pool is always too damned cold anyway. Lake of Fire sounds delightful... where do I sign up???

Re:Lake of Fire

[CdBee]

By the parent posters logic, I think you just did..

(Just wait until the God Squad Mods come and our Karma's all going to hell)

Re:Lake of Fire

[Anonymous Coward]

(Just wait until the God Squad Mods come and our Karma's all going to hell)

As opposed to the slashdot groupthink atheists?

Old Testament's God

[MisanthropicProgram]

FTFT:"In a recent letter to a national newspaper, Prof Dawkins said believers might now be disillusioned with an omnipotent being who had just drowned tens of thousands of innocent people in Asia."

i believe...

[i 3 joo!]

that this post will never get read at all.

Appropriate quote

[cy_a253]

Quite simply:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

--Carl Sagan

Re:Appropriate quote

[Fantastic Lad]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

This, I think, is definitely a ranking contender for the Top 10 list of Dumb Sayings of the whole last century.

What's wrong with ordinary, 'proof'? Does Extraordinary Proof make something more 'True' than something which is simply 'True'? And who gets to define, 'Extraordinary'?

That a pop-culture 'scientist' came up with this illogical trope says a great deal, I think.

Read simply: "I don't want to look at things if they make me feel uncomfortable. La La La. I can't hear you!"

-FL

Re:Appropriate quote

[Anonymous Coward]

J. Random Apologist to the rescue!

Any evidence/proof necessary to prove something that appears extraordinary will automatically be extraordinary. If evidence isn't supportive of something, then it obviously wasn't extraordinary enough!

Also, "claims require proof" just wouldn't have sounded as cool.

"Tautology" - definition

[maynard]

Yeah. "Survival of the fittest" is almost a tautology, because "fitness" tends to be defined as "that which increases survival rate".

Tautology: (tô-tl-g)
n. pl. tautologies

1) A rope pulled taught between two poles such that a circus performer with careful balance may walk the rope without falling due to slack.

Antonym: See: dead circus performer. See also: slackers, fitness function, and extinct.

Source: The Evolutionary Biologist's Dictionary of Nonfactual Irrelevancies.

Déjà vu, precognition

[Scrameustache]

I believe that you can dream about things you haven't yet experienced, but will. That sometimes déjà vu is actually an event you have already seen, and not simply a synchronisation error between the two hemispheres of your brain (though not always).

I can't prove it, because you only half remember mundane events and you don't know when they will happen, or that it is a memory of events that are yet to happen, until it happens, and then it's too late to use it as a prediction.

And by half-remember, I mean that you can have the memory of the sensory input without having the memory of the mental analysis that automatically happens when you sense something (that ringing sound is the sound of a "telephone", or the sound of an "alarm clock", for example). Either that or the analysis is not remembered, but a live event only, or again, it is overriden by the analysis of the fact that it is remembered while simultaneously recalled.

Science tells us precognition is impossible, much the same way that science used to tell us that meteorites were impossible (with the math to prove it!), or that a human body couldn't survive a speed of more than 30kph, or that giant squids and giant waves were just the ravings of uneducated sailors.

P.S. here comes the "glitch in the Matrix" jokes... and the jokes about predicting the jokes.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Conciousness is an emergent behavior- Formatted

[Anonymous Coward]

Brought about by the complexity of the brain.

This leads to fun things like death being absolute and for all eternity. But it also means it won't hurt... just like when you doze off in front of the TV, waking up 4 hours later without dreaming or anything, like time never happened (only without the waking up bit).

It follows, then, that life is special and precious, and that we should "be excellent to each other" (to quote a famous philosopher) as this is it... this is all we have, and this is all others around us have.

Some people find this atheist philosophy ultra-scary. People take comfort in religion, and I think that's fine... As one life is all you get, if believing in God makes you feel better, safe or looked after somehow, then I'm happy for you.

I don't like it when religion is used as an excuse to hurt people. I think religions are all the same (in a good way) but there will always be psychos who promote killing as "God's" will.

Quoting from another famous philosopher, I believe that children are our future. Teach them well. I don't want to get all political, but I think the US has an awful education system for the general public (the well off can afford good schools).

I also believe the corporate culture of the US and its outsourcing policies will have a servere impact on the country in 20 years as more middle class jobs leave the country.

I believe President Buss is a corporate-led moron. I can't even be bothered to fix that spelling mistake in his name as I don't think he deserves that respect.

Quting from another famous philosopher, I believe that humans are a cancer on this planet. A virus. I don't think this planet can sustain our growth indefinately.

I don't believe in human space travel. Bottom line is that it's all about gravity and acceleration. I don't think we'll master gravity and acceleration to enable us to travel interesting distances. So my previous point holds - we'll have to do something eventually to create equilibrium with our planet.

I believe that our aid to 3rd world countries, keeping starving populations on the edge of death in environments that cannot naturally sustain them is, whilst good intentioned, futile. It seems we keep these people alive to make ourselves feel good. To quote another philosopher, "Let them die." Harsh, I know, but the ones that do survivie will survive on their own. We're maintaining generations of suffering.

I believe I have written enough.

Re:homosexuality

[Decaff]

Of course, if it were genetics, according to Darwin, it would be a trait that should have been wiped out long ago since homosexuals cant reproduce.

No. Natural Selection does NOT always result in every individual reproducing. There are many examples in nature of non-reproducing individuals in species. Those individuals help their brothers and sisters (or their parents) raise offspring in some way. Providing the individuals assist a significant part of their genome to be replicated, even by others, this is perfectly acceptable in terms of evolution.

I believe...

[CODiNE]

that this article is about to be a HUGE flamewar. I can't prove it yet however. Evidence is forthcoming.

I believe...

[KennyP]

I believe in God.
I believe in myself.
If my drink is empty,
I believe I'll have another one.

Other than that - if I can't see it, I don't believe in it.

Kenny P.
Visualize Whirled P.'s

Homosexuality and Natural Selection

[cquark]

Of course, if it were genetics, according to Darwin, it would be a trait that should have been wiped out long ago since homosexuals cant reproduce.

While homosexuals can reproduce, the largest problem with your argument is your complete misunderstanding of Darwin. Even if homosexuality had no reproductive value, it could still be propagated if possessing two such genes made your homosexual but having one such gene increased your chances of reproduction. Many recessive genetic traits follow this pattern, where having one gene is beneficial to survival, while having two such genes is harmful. However, reproducing isn't the only way to propagate your genes. Your siblings share 1/2 your genes on average, so if being homosexual increases the chances of your nieces, nephews, and cousins surviving to a reproductive age, the continued existence of homosexuality can also be selected for through kin selection

I believe..

[metsu]

that i've made many people waste a fraction of their lives by reading my content-less post. this of course. i cannot prove.

I also believe this question was mainly done to make controversial religious arguments. but that has already been proven by most previous posts.

That Bush Won the Election

[clickster]

This has been a reply by proxy on behalf of roughly (and I mean very roughly) 50% of voting Americans.

Re:That Bush Won the Election

[Anonymous Coward]

An excellent point, seeing as how we voted without a proper auditing facility we still can't prove his victory.

Survival is everything

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't prove this, and may be wrong, but I suspect virtually every behavioral and social trait which manifests itself in human society and interaction can be traced to a survival benefit as its root cause. Religious faith, love of spouce and children, enjoyment of group activities, fear of unknown situations, etc. etc. etc. etc all make sense if you look at the human species with the eye to preserve either a) the individual or b) the community. Sometimes these impulses conflict, as in individuals stealing food from children in times of hunger, but the individual adult is interested first in survival and may, indeed, survive to bear more children because of this behavior. The community, interested in the survival of the community, is usually of the opinion the child should be protected.

It would be interesting to see if anyone has ever interpreted all human behavior from such a standpoint, although I suspect it would set a new record for offensive books.

Re:Survival is everything

[Anonymous Coward]

I look at ourselves and our assortment of life here on earth as survival of the species.

And I see religions as survival of philosophies.

Religions, like a good computer virus, have hooks in them to insure their propagation within people. Religion will stress caring for each other, and some sort of promise of redemption for those who obey. The basic premise is that in order for a religion to survive, it must promise the parent anticipated rewards in some sort of afterlife in exchange for propagating the religion to their offspring.

Although I am a fervent believer in a supreme power ( mostly convinced by the complexity of life versus the calculated time the universe could have existed since the big bang ), I am not convinced our religions have it right.

FWIW, I was raised Southern Baptist, but the experiences of receiving teasing followed by "Christian Discipline" so the one administering the teasing would not have to answer painful questions, taught me not to trust anything Man says with a ten foot pole.

I am accused of lack of "faith", but my own experience is as if I went into a hardware store and had to choose between two ladders... one branded "Church", and one branded "Science". Upon stepping on the ladders, the one branded "Church" dropped rungs on me and laughed at me, then painfully disciplined me when I asked why. The one branded "Science" held its rated weight, and would explain how it arrived at its ratings when asked.

Will a fellow customer in the store making all sorts of steeple-gestures with his hands, bobbling his head, and exhorting "faith" have much influence over my personal experiences with the ladders? In my case, I just consider him as one who hasn't had the same experiences with the ladders as I have.

I can say I "believe" anything just to make the heads around me happy. But when it comes to something I have absolute faith in, it takes more than hands held steeple-fashion below bobbling heads to convince me. It takes proof. Faith, to me, just makes one vulnerable to teasing and being misled. No amount of "discipline" can change that, conversely, only thing "discipline" did was convince me the Church People would get extremely violent if confronted. How can a child seek counsel with those who will administer harsh physical pain for giving an "incorrect" answer? One is just strongly motivated to give the bobble-head the answer he wants, and keep the distrust of those kind of people.

I know I picked on my own religion of upbringing, but that only illustrates to me of how other religions try to bring up their offspring, with distrust and intent to destroy anything which is not that religion.

From that observation, I feel religions are much like computer viruses, each programmed to try to take over the machine and exclude the others - often much to the chagrin of those who actually designed the machine!

I believe we were created by some sort of Creator ( well, wasn't everything created by something? ), but I have no idea of what that Creator is. I consider Science to be the study of our creation, hence the ultimate study of our Creator.

I do not know how accurately our "holy books" reflect our Creator, as they were written by Man. I can consider them as a record of what happened a long time ago, and musings by quite intelligent philosophers.

Trying to tell me to have "faith of things unseen" is to me the same as asking me to be gullible to false prophets.

To have absolute belief, I need proof. God's proof. Not Man's. I see Laws of Physics as God's law. Man's words read like the trickery of marketing pamphlets.

Example: The Ten Commandments. We are told nothing is impossible for God, and he readily changes one element to another, or creates matter where none existed - like changing water into wine, or feeding multitudes with a couple of fish. So Moses ( reared in Egypt under Pharoah having the best teachers in stonecutting ) goes up into the mou

Er ... Aren't we forgetting the biggie?

[duck_prime]

I believe, without proof, that free/open-source software is superior to closed-source, and will eventually "take over".

Google Cache:

[shaneh0]

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:_mP4gzFI0u8J: www.edge.org/q2005/q05_2.html+&hl=en http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ftSUFD3pHfIJ: www.edge.org/q2005/q05_3.html+&hl=en http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:YJVHxs5VtxQJ: www.edge.org/q2005/q05_4.html+&hl=en http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:6l-VIcR0iMQJ: www.edge.org/q2005/q05_5.html+&hl=en http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:8KIDC55vCFMJ: www.edge.org/q2005/q05_6.html+&hl=en http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ICkFqS3PwFsJ: www.edge.org/q2005/q05_7.html+&hl=en http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:tf3yqAiAm1MJ: www.edge.org/q2005/q05_8.html+&hl=en http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ontDTq5hoMQJ: www.edge.org/q2005/q05_9.html+&hl=en http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:LjrgtRXHr7gJ: www.edge.org/q2005/q05_10.html+&hl=en

Re:homosexuality

[cephyn]

except that youre completely wrong -- homosexuality has been documented in many primates as well as many other animals.

I believe homosexuality is genetic. It's simply a random mutation, occurring about 10-20% of the time. And it's independent from heterosexuality -- hence, bisexuality. It hasn't been weeded out because its probably a mutation on a gene thats related to other, necessary functions in a complex, though not direct way -- in other words, its related to reproductive gene-work, but it doesnt interfere with those genes, its off to the side, so to speak. I'm simplifying the hell out of it, of course, but thats how it seems to work, as far as I can see. By your logic, people would never have genetic abnormalities like CF or Down's Syndrome because they'd have been weeded out by now. That's simply not true, becuase the genetic reasons for those diseases are complex and they occur on necessary parts of the genetic framework that cannot be weeded out.

Re:Check the News-

[Dr. Evil]

It's easy if you redefine kind and loving to apply only to a personal relationship with God and an afterlife. Then you're willing to live in suffering or lay down your life for your religious values.

Re:homosexuality

[m50d]

The real definition is prepubescent. Ages are just there to make it easier to prosecute. And I do argue for a reduction in ages of consent to something more realistic, although not publicly as I'm scared of others' opinions. But there are plenty of people who argue in favour of homosexuality on the internet but are afraid to do so in real life.

The scientists arrogance

[Wizard of OS]

What has striken me most the last few years, is the arrogance of some (mostly the 'popular') science people on TV or in the news, is that they make you believe that Science will Have All The Answers. Eventually we will comprehend everything, and with that, we will know the nature of God (loosely quoting Stephen Hawking).

What most people (in my opinion) fail to realise, is that we have tiny brains. We have a limited number of grey cells in that tiny skull up there, and we are therefore limited in what we can comprehend. Sure we have come to understand the world around us in a incredible detailed way; but we have no guarantees at all that we will be able to continue this trend.

You often hear people come with arguments like 'but God can't exist' or 'we don't need God to explain the universe'. Sure, if you think that man can eventually comprehend everything there is to know about the universe, then you can make those claims. But I believe that we will never know everything there is to know about the universe around us, because we are mentally incapable. Science has nothing to say about religion, because science is a way for our brains to try to explain the world around us. Religion/faith is all about the step after that.

Therefore, it is not a question of 'possibility' to determine if there is a God or not. He either is (and we can't begin to grasp what this God is, it goes beyond our deductive skills), or he is not. That's a question of faith, it's a choice you make. Do you believe it or not? I personally do, you might not, but please don't come with arguments that science will prove you right. I won't use science to prove you wrong either, promise.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't use science to prove you wrong either, promise.

I'd like to see you try!

Re:The scientists arrogance

[StrawberryFrog]

What has striken me most the last few years, is the arrogance ... that Science will Have All The Answers. Eventually we will comprehend everything

Here's the thing: no other method comes anywhere close to the scientific one for generating real knowledge about the observable universe. Science keeps on generating better understanding, so either the universe is infinitely complex, in which case we'll never stop generting better science; or we'll eventually run out of steam due to our admittedly tiny minds - I doubt this one since we already so most of our science using mind-tools like oh, books, computers, etc to help us understand it; or we will eventually know it all. In a loose sense of "know". Much of the world doesn't know the venerable physics of Einstein and Heisenberg very well; and even more sadly, many deny the even more venerable biology of Darwin.

You often hear people come with arguments like 'but God can't exist' or 'we don't need God to explain the universe'. Sure, if you think that man can eventually comprehend everything there is to know about the universe, then you can make those claims.

So either we can know all, or we need God to explain it? false dichotomy.

Religion/faith is all about the step after that.

A totally meaningless sentence.

I personally do ... have faith that there is a God (paraphrase).

What testable predictions about the observable universe result from this assumption? If there are none, you must entertain the posiblity that your statement has no meaning.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with this logic is then "god" becomes the excuse for all things unknown. This wouldn't be so bad if humanity didn't latch onto this concept and build doctrine around it. That makes it significantly more difficult to learn various new things as the answers we find fly in the face of the stories we invented and we end up having to invent more stories. Ancient anecdotes become absolute truth in a world where nothing is an absolute truth. This was true of heliocentricity, phlogiston and ether and continues today with evolution.

The problem isn't whether or not a being you refer to as god exists, but rather the relevance of said being. Being closed-minded about this being as well as any wordly events you attribute to this being is just as destructive, if not moreso. The question, "is there a divine entity behind all of this," is simply not answerable because of the infinite complexity of the universe, just like any other absolute.

Believe all you want if it gives you warm fuzzy feelings. Humans need that, too. But don't let it cloud your mind and judgement from the observations and continuously accumulating knowledge. What you call "God" I refer to more accurately as "the unknown." "I don't know," is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign of opportunity. Embrace it.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[Scrameustache]

But I believe that we will never know everything there is to know about the universe around us, because we are mentally incapable.

"That thing will NEVER fly!"

"A horseless carriage? Preposterous!"

"Don't sail past the horizon! You will fall off the edge of the world you fool!

We are not all mentally incapable.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[nattt]

Just because media science promulgates arrogance, does not mean that science is arrogant. Any scientist that says "this is the right answer, the total truth, forever" is arrogant - but they don't say that. Your media scientist is a straw man.

The true answer is always "I don't know" - but the person who has studied the available evidence will say - "the available evidence points to this or that conlusion". It does not mean that that conclusion is true, only that the available evidence points to it. When more evidence becomes available, the pointed at conclusion will change to more accurately reflect the available evidence.

So it's not a question of "possibility" but one of evidence. Faith is what you believe in when you don't have evidence. There's ample evidence out there to make a decision if you look at it without being brainwashed from birth.

What a rational person can do is look at the known facts about the christian god and decide from the available evidence if they make sense given your own personal experiences of the world. If you have a vision and god speaks to you, then there is no way for me to dissuade you from a belief in god. However, your evidence is personal evidence, and it's based upon personal experience, and is in no way valid for convincing me that there is such a god.

Even if you do have a personal revelation and believe in a god, how does that help you know the attributes of god. Unless god tells you he's omnipotent, do you know that he is. Perhaps your revealed god says "I'm the god of the christian bible, and everything in it is true", and there you are, you can now be a truely rational christian. Hopefully you'll ask your god to do a bit of proof for you, to give you some more tangible evidence. Why would god make you a rational being if the one thing he asks you not to be rational about is his own existence?

Most people on this planet who believe in a god do so for no other reason that that's what they were told when they were little. They're not just told that there is a god, but which particular brand they're to follow. That's not rational, that's just hearsay evidence and means nothing.

That's why the rational course of action is to be agnostic until proven otherwise. If you've been proven otherwise, then that's fine - I'll respect that, but don't go thinking that your evidence has any meaning for me because the only evidence that matters in this issue is very personal. Everyone has to discover their own answers to these questions and make them fit with how their own brains work. That why religion in it's current "one size fits all" mentality doesn't work, for even in a specific branch of a specific religion there are vast differences in the details of belief, and that's because the religion was not personally revealed to each and every member, but passed on from one person to another in such a way that does not account for the differences in each individual.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[Carlos Laviola]

Two words: Occam's Razor.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[lukesl]

we will know the nature of God (loosely quoting Stephen Hawking)

You're quoting an atheist who's using a metaphor to pretend science makes claims it doesn't. Science does not claim to have all the answers. You have been misinformed. For example, find me a scientist who would even pretend to be able to claim to experimentally test the existence of God. If you can't test it experimentally, it's not science. So certain things fall outside the realm of science, and that's fine with me (and most other scientists).

I have two other disagreements with what you're saying. First, you argue that we're not smart enough to understand everything. It's been true for a long time that no human could be smart enough to understand everything that humanity as a whole knows. And there never will be a person that smart because the brain, as you said, is limited. However, the collective brains of humanity as a group are not so limited. There must be some limit, but I don't think there's any reason to believe that we're anywhere near reaching it. In practice, our ability to understand things is limited not by our intelligence, but our ability to collect data about them.

science is a way for our brains to try to explain the world around us. Religion/faith is all about the step after that.

Religion/faith is a way for our brains to try to explain the world around us. Science is a better way. For example, in prehistoric times, people probably thought that thunder was the action of the gods, an extension of ancestor worship (God, the Heavenly Father, etc.) Now, we think thunder is a sound wave created by a discharge of static electricity. Both models serve the same purpose, but one is more accurate. A large number of scientists are atheists not because we think there's some reason to believe God doesn't exist, but because we believe that the fundamental reasons people believe in God are not rigorous. Over time, they actually became explicitly nonrigorous, with the emergence of "faith."

As a last thing, one of my big problems with religion is that I find it to be incredibly arrogant. Religious people might very well be less arrogant than scientists on a personal level, but religion itself is much more arrogant than science itself. Christianity believes that we're so special that the only way anything as profound and great and special as us could ever happen is if there were some omnipotent being who created us in his own image. Science believes that we're a swirling mass of atoms, a nonlinear dynamical system that evolved through millenia of natural selection. Christianity believed that the earth was the center of the solar system; science said it was the sun. Who's being arrogant?

I fully expect you to disagree with me, but I hope I've somewhat clarified the actual viewpoint a practicing atheist-scientist holds, which is different than what you think it is..

Re:The scientists arrogance

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that even if humans with our tiny brains will never be able to individualy understand everything, we will build something that can. Also I think that if you dont know the answer to a question, you could admit that you dont know instead of explaining it with religion.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[zCyl]

I personally do ... have faith that there is a God (paraphrase).

What testable predictions about the observable universe result from this assumption? If there are none, you must entertain the posiblity that your statement has no meaning.

Die and find out.

Testable != Publishable.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[Anonymous Coward]

What has striken me most the last few years, is the arrogance of some (mostly the 'popular') christians on TV or in the news, is that they make you believe that Religon will Have All The Answers. God comprehends everything, and with that, we will not need to know anything, other than god (loosely quoting wizard of OS).

Re: The scientists arrogance

[Black Parrot]

> You often hear people come with arguments like 'but God can't exist' or 'we don't need God to explain the universe'.

I don't see how anyone could support the former claim, but I actually agree with the latter.

Partly because arguing otherwise seems to rely on a logical fallacy:

don't know --> God must be the explanation

Also because invoking God doesn't actually explain anything: any universe is compatible with the inscrutable will of an arbitrary and omnipotent being. An "explanation" that can explain everything is no explanation at all. It's like saying:

The universe is the way it is because *.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations on being both narrowminded for not comprehending what grandparent said, and rude for ignoring his polite request.

It feels ironic to say, people like you are the reason religious types don't like us science-fanatics :P

Re:The scientists arrogance

[The Famous Brett Wat]

no other method comes anywhere close to the scientific one for generating real knowledge about the observable universe.

Science is, loosely speaking, the study of the observable universe, and the attempt to describe it in as law-like terms as possible. The idea that science (and whatever methods it happens to use in our day) is the best for producing knowledge about the physical world is about as startling as the idea that bakery is the best means for producing bread.

or we will eventually know it all. In a loose sense of "know".

Not to mention a loose sense of "all". No amount of science will tell us what our aims ought to be in life, or about social values, or morality. Science can tell us about the consequences of our actions, but not which of those consequences we should prefer.

Much of the world doesn't know the venerable physics of Einstein and Heisenberg very well; and even more sadly, many deny the even more venerable biology of Darwin.

Venerable? An interesting choice of words. It makes your position seem so much more symmetric in relation to those who lament the world's lack of knowledge of scripture and failure to venerate a god of some sort.

What testable predictions about the observable universe result from this assumption? If there are none, you must entertain the posiblity that your statement has no meaning.

That's a hasty conclusion, and a problematic one. Let's grant for the moment that hypotheses affording no testable predictions about the observable universe are unscientific. Let us then consider the possibility that unscientific hypotheses are meaningless. That's a hypothesis, isn't it? "Unscientific hypotheses are meaningless" is itself a hypothesis. Is it a scientific hypothesis, or an unscientific one? How do you perform a scientific test for meaningfulness? Statements and meanings are non-physical, ruling out scientific testing, and therefore the hypothesis itself is unscientific. So if we accept it as true, we must also accept it as meaningless, which is self defeating, since a statement must be meaningful to be true.

I conclude that your belief in the sufficiency of science exceeds its just grounds, and, on top of that, your logic skills could use some work.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[BigEarzAllMHz]

"...science people on TV or in the news... they make you believe that Science will Have All The Answers" How does one inspire people to look for answers without suggesting that there are answers to be found?

Re:The scientists arrogance

[frankie]

No amount of science will tell us what our aims ought to be in life, or about social values

You can't prove that. Some day there might be a Hari Seldon who solves the equation of what is best in life.

Sure, I don't believe in strong psychohistory. But I can't logically rule it out.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[huge colin]

A flawed experiment. That would only work if there was, in fact, an afterlife of some sort. If not, there would be no conciousness remaining to observe the outcome of the test.

What you're saying is: do the experiment, but only pay attention to the result if it turns out the way religious-types want it to.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[HarveyBirdman]

Here's the thing: no other method comes anywhere close to the scientific one for generating real knowledge about the observable universe.

Agreed. I just wish more people, including many scientists, would actually use it. Along with the metaphysical flim-flam in the media is a big, stinky pile of junk science. :-(

Re:The scientists arrogance

[The Famous Brett Wat]

Seldon's science of Psycho-history allowed him to know the future, the consequences of his actions, and how to bring about his desired circumstances. But in "Foundation and Earth" (as I recall), an argument is raised as to whether Seldon's plan for the future is, in fact, the best plan.

Think about it a little harder, dude. Science can tell you about consequences, but your judgement as to which consequence is the better is not, in itself, scientific. Scientifically informed, perhaps, or scientifically ignorant, but never itself scientific.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[frankie]

Statements and meanings are non-physical, ruling out scientific testing

No. There are plenty of non-physical sciences, logic being an easy example. You need to use precise semantics.

How do you perform a scientific test for meaningfulness?

First you'd need the formal definition of "meaningful". My spur-of-the-moment guess is "able to be stated (in scientific terms)". If something is statable, it is either testable (even if it is unprovable) or it is a definition. I believe that the preceding concept (when properly phrased) is provable, but the proof is probably too large to fit within a slashdot thread.

From there it's just a contrapositive away: if a non-definition is untestable, it cannot be stated scientifically, which fits our definition of "meaningless".

Yes, that all sounds pretty circular. Science by its nature must state things in scientific terms. If the nonscientist refuses to abide by those terms, then there really isn't any way for the two sides to debate.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[Culture]

I believe that science will eventually allow me to have a head the size of a 200 pound pumpkin, so that I will be able to grasp the reality of the cosmos. In all seriousness, what is so unlikely about some type of machine-mind interface (see Ventor Vinge for a sci-fi example) that will allow us to be 1000x smarter than we currently are? This seems very plausible to me, although it may take a 1000 years to develope. Even more plausible, humans could develope AIs that are 1000,000x smarter than us that can delve the meaning of the cosmos, and then explain in to us (see Ian Banks' Culture for a sci-fi example). I mean, after all, if this stuff wasn't possible, they would not be able to publish books about it, right?

Re:The scientists arrogance

[frankie]

Seldon's psychohistory is a weak form, in that it only predicts grand sweeps. Strong psychohistory (found in some of Asimov's non-Foundation stories) would apply down to the level of individual thinking organisms.

It is theoretically possible that someone could devise a plan such that, when implemented, every person alive at the start(*) and every future person ends up agreeing that this was the best possible outcome. By definition, that would be the best of all possible worlds.

(*) I specify this to avoid plans which involve killing everyone who disagrees.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[nathanh]

The true answer is always "I don't know" - but the person who has studied the available evidence will say - "the available evidence points to this or that conlusion". It does not mean that that conclusion is true, only that the available evidence points to it. When more evidence becomes available, the pointed at conclusion will change to more accurately reflect the available evidence.

I've often found the best way to describe a scientist is by comparing them to a detective. A vast number of people go "Ahhh, I get it" once you give them that analogy.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[jdray]

You decry the media scientist as a straw man, but use arbitrary terms to describe the state of affairs.

Brainwashed from birth? What about people who are "born again" or have thought long and hard about their faith and chosen to accept it as is?

The Christian god? What about the god of the Jews, or that of the Muslims, or Hindus? We're in a global community here. Expand your horizons.

...you can now be a truly rational Christian. How does God revealing himself to someone, validating everything in the Bible, give someone the wherewithal to go be a "rational Christian?" In such an event, it's more likely that God would say, "Yeah, that, that and that are all true. That over there, well, anyone that thinks about it can see that it's not true. Something was lost in translation there. Oh, yeah, and on that, too. And that over there..."

God...omnipotence...proof...? How would any omnipotent God prove his omnipotence beyond altering someone's beliefs directly? If he did, what good would that do?

Most people... believe in God [because they were told to]? Really? I haven't taken any polls recently, but I suspect most people who believe in God do so because the want to.

Religion in it's current "one size fits all" mentality? How many different religions, sects of religions, divisions of sects, etc. are there in the world? If it was truly "one for all," we wouldn't have the terms "holy war" or "Jihad."

I'm very open to discussions on this topic, but come back when you've done some serious thinking about it rather than just grabbed whatever half-baked idea came out of your anatomy.

Oh, sorry, this is Slashdot after all. For a minute, I forgot where I was.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[tumbaumba]

So it's not a question of "possibility" but one of evidence. Faith is what you believe in when you don't have evidence. There's ample evidence out there to make a decision if you look at it without being brainwashed from birth.

The problem you touch upon here is that there is a personal experience, which is different from an experience gained in a course of physical experiment, which relies on repeatability while personal experience is unique. If you have experience of seeing you future in a great detail there is nothing you can do to convince that such thing is possible, yet it would be self evident to you.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[Anonymous Coward]

D'oh! Of course it's true, no huge proof is needed. All science begins with axioms and definitions (and this in itself is the first axiom). Every statement that can be constructed grammatically from axioms and definitions is a hypothesis (i.e. testable), by definition.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[Xenna]

What most people (in my opinion) fail to realise, is that we have tiny brains. We have a limited number of grey cells in that tiny skull up there, and we are therefore limited in what we can comprehend. Sure we have come to understand the world around us in a incredible detailed way; but we have no guarantees at all that we will be able to continue this trend.

Scientists believe that Cro Magnon man, who lived 40.000 years ago and used crude stone tools had the same thinking power as modern man. That in such a short period we evolved to Homo Slashdottus shows IMHO the amazing strength of the human power to learn and stand upon the shoulders of those that came before us.

I can't prove it, but I'm optimistic!

Re:The scientists arrogance

[Anonymous Coward]

"What most people (in my opinion) fail to realise, is that we have tiny brains. We have a limited number of grey cells in that tiny skull up there, and we are therefore limited in what we can comprehend."

I think you missed a rather.... important word there. 'we have tiny brain cells' You focused on the 'tiny brain cells', when the most important part of that sentance is 'we' - a plural. While one person is incapable (even if not by lack of brain-space, simply by sheer lack of time to learn - because 80 years isn't enough) of understanding the whole universe, whereas multiple people are. There is no one person who understands the whole of Bio-chemistry. beyond a certian point, Biochemists get their own speciality, and thus understand a fraction of biochemistry each.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[StrawberryFrog]

Science is, loosely speaking, the study of the observable universe

..and the unobservable universe is not something that one can meaningfully talk about, since you can't ever measure anything about it, directly or indirectly, by definitionn

Not to mention a loose sense of "all". No amount of science will tell us what our aims ought to be in life, or about social values, or morality. Science can tell us about the consequences of our actions, but not which of those consequences we should prefer.

That's a sweeping statement, and one can find counterexamples to it: Sociobiology and Evolutionary psychology

Venerable? An interesting choice of words.

As a word choice, it seemed to me to sum up that they had been around a long time, had withstood many tests, and were highly regarded by serious students of the respective fields, or rather are cornerstones of those fields.

In relation to those who lament the world's lack of knowledge of scripture and failure to venerate a god of some sort.

As another poster on this thread mentioned, no amount of studying scripures of the one true way (take your pick) and veneration of the one true god/pantheon (again, take your pick of faiths), would have saved any of the 150 000 people who died from a tsunami. Yet a few million dollars worth of monitoring technology would have saved a significant fraction of them.

What testable predictions about the observable universe result from this assumption? If there are none, you must entertain the posiblity that your statement has no meaning.

That's a hasty conclusion, and a problematic one.


It's problematic that an untestable statement might be meaningless? That's what I said. So are you saying that all untestable statements are meaningful? Bosh.

your logic skills could use some work.

Ahem. Pot. Ahem. Kettle.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[Kaki Nix Sain]

The good thing is that even if all the individual scientists in the world don't use science to form their beliefs (they are after all, only human), they as a group can still use it to generate the ever closer approximation to reality, truth, etc..

Re:The scientists arrogance

[guidryp]

Born again is akin to a nervous breakdown IMO. Often they are trading the bottle for a bible.

What percentage of the religous are the same religion as their parents? Is this startling coincidence or learned/enforced behavior?

Talking to my friends growing up, most were forced to go to church. Sounds like brainwashing from a young age to me.

Frankly it is amazing that many escape this cycle. Told from the time you can talk there is an all powerfull vengefull god and weekly attending mass brainwashing sessions.

If we had a world without religion we also wouldn't have the term "Holy War" either, or inquistions, or crusades etc....

Re:The scientists arrogance

[Lord_MiL]

Much of the world doesn't know the venerable physics of Einstein and Heisenberg very well; and even more sadly, many deny the even more venerable biology of Darwin Both Einstein and Heisenberg are rolling over in their graves this very moment. First, because strictly according to Darwin's biology if I go out and run several miles every day and then have a child, my child will be born with the uncanny ability to run well. Now I'm going to assume that your reference to the "venerable biology of Darwin" simply meant the idea that things evolve over time into new things. Even still, I don't know of any PhD's who refuse to believe the Uncertainty Principle, whereas I know at least a few who feel that the body of evidence supporting Evolution is less than satisfying and that Evolution as a theory has much further to go. Sorry for the semi-OT post, I just constantly see these "inspirational" posters around where they list two or three of the "greatest thinkers" of all time. Sadly they always seem to list Darwin alongside Einstein. In my opinion Einsten & Heisenberg >> Darwin as "great thinkers."

Re:The scientists arrogance

[cryptochrome]

First, because strictly according to Darwin's biology if I go out and run several miles every day and then have a child, my child will be born with the uncanny ability to run well

That's a Lamarkian theory of evolution, not Darwinian.

Why am I even responding to this idiotic drivel?

Re:The scientists arrogance

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

I counter your Occam with a Voltaire: "A witty saying proves nothing". It matters nothing what Occam said unless you have a reason for thinking Occam's Razor is good. Why is it good?

Re:The scientists arrogance

[Lord_MiL]

Though you referred to me as idiotic, I will go ahead and kindly correct you. While the idea that adaptations of the parent are passed on to the offspring IS included in the Lamarckian theory of evolution, the idea itself is in fact called pangenesis and WAS proposed by Charles Darwin himself. Thank you for keeping the debate at a high level of respect and intelligence. Good day.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[nattt]

Exactly!!

Most people believe what their parent's believe, right down tot he particular brand of religion.

Most people in the USA are christian. If people actually thought about what to believe and tried to find a religious belief (assuming they're going to be religious) that fitted in with their own ideas, wouldn't there be a nice random distribution among populations and variations in families?

And Atheists don't become born again - lapsed christians do! Atheists have an honest breakdown and just hit the bottle.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[cryptochrome]

You are correct - pangenesis was proposed by Darwin as a possible means of heredity, and is semi-Lamarkian. Mendel filled in that crucial piece of the puzzle. I had forgotten that aspect, it's been a while since I learned it.

However, pangenesis is NOT part of the venerable biology of Darwin, it's a theory of his that was proven wrong, is of interest only to historians of science and would rarely get more than a sentence or two in your average biology textbook. One he himself regarded as provisional. Choosing that long-discredited provisional theory as representative sample of his work is disingeneous. You think Einstein and Heisenberg never vetted a wrong idea? The present incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity means at least one of them is oversimplified, incomplete, or flawed. Those two men didn't even agree with each other - Einstein flat-out rejected Heisenberg's interpretations of the quantum. Future generations of scientists may yet look back on Einstein and his cosmological constant in the exact fashion you are regarding Darwin now.

Einstein and Heisenberg, I might add, were developing theories that were neither accessible nor threatening to the sensibilities of the layman in the 20th century. Darwin, on the other hand, and all the later students of evolution have had to constantly defend against entrenched religious and political authorities that regard evolution as a mortal threat to their existence since the 19th century. And while you'll find plenty of inspirational posters of Einstein, ask a thousand random people and you'll find hardly anyone who has ANY idea what he actually worked on (good luck finding people who have even heard of Heisenberg). The basic theory of evolution is taught at the high school level everywhere, and and even the people that have forgotten/ignored the basic mechanisms know quite well what the implication is - diverse and complex creatures and systems can arise without any direct intervention. Darwin also did quite a bit of fieldwork to develop and back up his theory - and sailing around the Earth in those times definitely took some balls. Einstein mostly worked on paper. Heisenberg probably got his hands dirty - leading the German atomic bomb project during WWII.

So, who again is supposed to be the inspiration?

And as you have indirectly pointed out, the theory of evolution goes well beyond Charles Darwin even if the core insights and original evidence did originate with him and the voyage of the Beagle. I don't know what PhDs you hang out with but I've while I hear plenty of debate over the minutia of the process I've yet to meet a single biologist who had any objections to the central tenets. I've met quite a few - I am a biologist. Hell, I work upstairs from a guy that evolves novel enzymes from only random sequence and selective pressure on a regular basis. Pray tell, if the PhDs you know think evolution as a theory has a long way to go, just how much further do they think it needs to go and what alternative hypotheses are they proposing?

I see two distinct possibilities here: A) you're Yet Another Intelligent Design Guy parroting faulty arguments you pulled off of sites like this or B) you're a pure physics/math/engineering snob who regards the relatively messy field of biology with unwarranted disdain. Please enlighten me in this regard.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[Gewis]

I am quite certain that there are many things you believe in without proof, and it's still rational. The combination of people being convincing and having a system of these scientific models that are consistent with your own observation probably provides your belief structure. If you believe in the Big Bang, have you observed it or even the redshift for yourself? I haven't dug up any fossils, but I believe in evolution. I believe there's no oxygen in the glove-box I test electrolytic capacitors in, but I can't really prove it, even with the oxygen sensors I've got in there. There are very few things you believe without the testimony of others, in books you read, classes you take, even instruments you build based on principles discovered by others.

So, here's the entire foundation: We believe things because other people say they've seen the evidence. If the evidence is consistent with your own experience, then it's rational to trust it. I've never seen God, but there is enough evidence from honest people about concrete things to believe in God. I'm Mormon, and there were people in the early days of this church who swore by oath that they had, together, seen an angel who showed them the plates the Book of Mormon was translated from. A couple of them even left the church, but they never denied the truth of what they had seen. In fact, they vehemently defended it. They were honorable and well-respected people. I trust the testimony of those honest men just as I trust the testimony of honest scientists who've discovered all sorts of principles.

The foundations of religious belief are not so different or irrational as those of any other belief. The mentality that religiousness = stupidity is absolutely arrogant and condescending bullshit. The majority of people are more intelligent than most elitists here on slashdot would ever give them credit for, and to sit there constructing your own contorted intellectual edifices while patting yourselves on the back is blinding you as much as atheists have ever claimed religion blinds its followers.

I do also believe that most of the people spouting that kind of arrogant stuff are intelligent themselves. But I find it rather amusing that the foundations of logical thought that they use to say that religious people are irrational were developed by religious people. No, belief in God or a lack of belief in God are rational only by way of their foundations, foundations which all must rely on the testimony of others. We're all in the same boat together.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[armacc]

I believe that science and faith can coexist because they have differing aims.

Science seeks to explain how objects in the physical universe react to each other, while faiths (and here I am referring to deity based faiths) intend to describe (or even proscribe) how we should behave within the universe.

For example, if I fire a gun at someone science will very accurately predict the trajectory of the bullet, it's momentum, the action and reaction (hence why the gun "kicks"), the effect of the bullet on human skin, the strength of human bone and how far the bullet will penetrate etc.

A faith will tell us if that particular behaviour is appropriate or not. Hopefully not!

In my opinion the difficulties occur when faiths attempt to describe how the universe works, and science tells us how to behave.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[Duhavid]

First define "saved".

If you mean "stayed with us in 'life'", then you are correct.

If you mean something akin to the Christian notion of salvation, then you are not.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[Lord_MiL]

I see two distinct possibilities here: A) you're Yet Another Intelligent Design Guy parroting faulty arguments you pulled off of sites like this or B) you're a pure physics/math/engineering snob who regards the relatively messy field of biology with unwarranted disdain. Please enlighten me in this regard.

You seem to have it narrowed down to two pretty good choices and while I'm lightyears from the first I suppose my post made it seem that I am not so far from the second.

My point was not to attempt to downplay the importance of biology, evolution or Darwin's role in developing the field. Nor was I attempting to promote the scientific theory of ID. My only point (and I had not intended it to create such a stir) was that while Darwin played a key role in beginning the field, I just don't see Darwin's science as more venerable than Einstein or Heisenberg's.

You are right that both Einstein and Heisenberg might be dead wrong, and at least one of them has to be. However, we still use both of their equations to great success everyday. On the other hand, most of Darwin's ideas on evolution have been swept away to make way for those better supported by evidence. You are the biologist and I feel no need to seem pompous by trying to lecture you on the matter as I'm sure you are very well versed, and I can only fall back on what I have learned on my own (I never found the covering of evolution throughout my education to be satisfying). However, having read Origin of Species I would simply not have chosen to describe Darwin's science as more venerable than Einstein/Heisenberg's and would rather see those scientists who have made significant contributions to our understanding of evolution as it is today lifted up and put in high regard.

I apologize if my earlier posts were not stated clearly, I am quite busy preparing for the impending flooding that all this wonderful rain has brought us. Good day.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[Lord_MiL]

I seem to have managed to botch my HTML tags. My sarcasm disclaimer around the words "scientific theory" are not showing up properly.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[StrawberryFrog]

First define "saved". If you mean something akin to the Christian notion of salvation

We'll never live to see the day that I mean that.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[zCyl]

That does not make it flawed. Here's a hypothesis: Everyone who goes through a specific one-way door will be immediately eaten by a grue.

This hypothesis is easily falsifiable: Go through the door. If you are not immediately eaten by a grue, the hypothesis is false. If you are, the hypothesis might be true, even though you won't be around to remember that.

(This is identical to the hypothesis, "there is no afterlife".)

Re:The scientists arrogance

[UpnAtom]

Here's the thing: no other method comes anywhere close to the scientific one for generating real knowledge about the observable universe.

Depends what you mean by real knowledge. Before you even knew about science, you learnt to see, walk, eat and talk.

If we could eliminate everything you learnt outside of science, you'd be a gibbering, drooling vegetable.

Science does best at what science does best - ratifying any knowledge that we can 100% agree upon.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[CaptainAvatar]

Well, as Voltaire's is a witty saying, it also proves nothing :)

Occam's razor is merely common sense. If you have two explanations which explain the observed data equally well, choose the simplest. Why choose the more complex explanation? It doesn't explain anything that the simpler one cannot, and you are just making life unnecessarily harder.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[huge colin]

Experiments are performed to gain knowledge. When designing an experiment with two possible results, the possible results are analyzed to determine what constitutes success and what constitutes failure.

Your proposed experiment certainly has a possible 'success' outcome, but the 'failure' outcome cannot actually be detected. If there is an afterlife, the person who has died realizes this, and knowledge is gained. If there is no afterlife, there really is no outcome to the experiment at all because the existence of a human conciousness was the only reason that the experiment was performed in the first place. Without a conciousness present to observe the result, it isn't really an experiment anymore.

Which brings me to my next point: How is it that you know enough about the afterlife to know that human conciousness works in a similar enough way there so that the dead person is able to (a) remember that they are supposed to be performing a scientific test, and (b) recognize the positive result of the test? You're making so many presumptions that the only effect your proposed experiment could have -- at all -- would be to confirm your original baseless theory.

There is an infinite number of "possible" situations (and accompanying experiments) that have the exact same characteristics as what you've come up with here concerning the afterlife. Would you propose performing each of an infinite number of experiments, just to see if any yield a positive result? That's not how science is done.

This is all saying nothing of the fact that there is no scientific basis for afterlives existing.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[zCyl]

Your proposed experiment certainly has a possible 'success' outcome, but the 'failure' outcome cannot actually be detected.

This is no different from the search for the Higgs boson. The nonexistence of the Higgs can't be detected, only its existence can. All we can say is, "Hmm, didn't detect it there that time." Science often works like this.

Re:The scientists arrogance

[Vo0k]

What has striken me most the last few years, (...) is that they make you believe that Science will Have All The Answers.

What I believe Science will eventually have all answers to problems that can be answered, and it will be able to isolate all questions that can't be answered and prove that they can't be answered. Unless of course earlier somebody proves the set is infinite and simply the more questions you answer, the more arise (but I personally don't believe it)
If human brain is the limit, we will build better brains. So far serious obstacles that can limit our abilities is the lifetime of the universe, speed of light (uh, we're hitting this one more and more frequently), sum of matter and energy in the universe, uncertainity theory and limit on concentration of mass in one place (creating black holes). They may mean barriers to answering some otherwise answerable questions.

Many beleive in Free Will-

[xtermin8]

I find it strange how many people I meet accept the doctrine of free will. In fact they (is it only Americans?) seem to have a hard time accepting the very notion of the possibility of determinism- either as a theological or agnostic, philosophical type. Although maybe this is a good thing for a society?

Re:Many beleive in Free Will-

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'd say this goes at the top of the list. I believe in Free Will too, but I don't pretend that there is a proof for it. I just like to believe it; ie.. it makes me happy to believe in free will. Also, I don't see any harm in having this belief, and perhaps there are benefits.

Re:Many beleive in Free Will-

[don.g]

Well: if you do believe in free will, but it doesn't exist, then you don't have a choice about believing in free will...

Re:Many beleive in Free Will-

[Anonymous Coward]

very good

you win a prize. i'm not sure who issues it or what the name of the prize is, but rest assured there is some prize out there for you

Re:Many beleive in Free Will-

[polished look 2]

I'm often suprised at how many people actually believe they determine their own destinies (with "choices") and seem to look upon those that don't believe this as being fools. We are not God; we are all subject to Him.

On a similar note, I find the idea of proving the existence of God via logic utterly proposterous and somewhat funny: who do you think created mathematics and logic? How can a created tool (e.g. logic) prove the existence of the One that created it?

Re:Many beleive in Free Will-

[neverutterwhen]

Yeah I really hope that one day someone will prove to me that I have free will. In the meantime I have to say that I don't 'believe' in it because it does not fit into what we know about the world(Please don't post about quantum effects: they only make the system unpredictable, in the true sense, but that doesn't automaticxally allow free will. However I still continue to believe that I have free will on a day to day basis as to do anything less would be very depressing.

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

You are convienintly forgetting that AIDS is spread between women and men as well.

Thomas Aquinas settled this in 1270

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a very old question that has been addressed by thinkers a lot smarter than me.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.h tm l

Gravity is not due to the warping of space/time

[Anonymous Coward]

But, is a regular force such as Electromagnetism that is more than likely due to Electric Fields and once that is found out we'll be able to manipulate it for our benefit.

if AIDS was man made

[geekoid]

we would have found a cure by now.

Re:if AIDS was man made

[Just Some Guy]

Dioxins are also largely man-made, and they are widely believed to cause cancer. "If dioxins are man-made, we would have found a cure for the cancer they cause by now" is not a logical truth.

From a different angle, it's generally much easier to create entropy than order. I think that the poster is a nutcase, but I wouldn't necessarily use your idea as proof.

Re:if AIDS was man made

[djp928]

Dioxins are also largely man-made, and they are widely believed to cause cancer. "If dioxins are man-made, we would have found a cure for the cancer they cause by now" is not a logical truth.

It's also completely irrelevant to the argument. Dioxins may be completely man-made, but the disease of Cancer isn't. Man-made toxins can cause otherwise naturally occuring diseases. That says nothing about our ability to cure these otherwise naturally occuring diseases.

The argument that was being made was that if we had made the disease itself (or in this case, more specifically, the virus that causes the disease) we'd be able to cure it. I personally don't believe this is true--it seems to me that it'd be trivial to engineer a disease that you wouldn't immediately know how to cure. In fact, every reason I can think of for engineering a fatal disease like AIDS would necessarily cause me to also want to make it very hard to cure. That doesn't, however, make your example of Dioxins causing cancer any less bogus.

-- Dave

Insightful hardly; sincere absolutely

[Alci12]

The parent is not insightful but certainly deserves +sincerity modifier.

Subconscious?

[MisanthropicProgram]

I wonder how many "beliefs" are just subconscious conclusions about observations that scientists haven't developed a test for? Or in other words, their hypothesis.

OTOH, I wonder how often it's just a pipe dream - maybe like cold fusion?

God uses Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates is divinely inspired and God uses Windows. Kind of explains a lot, doesn't it.

Re:God uses Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. God has infinite wisdom so he would use Linux.

Read the article, most of them say: "YOU!"

[javaxman]

Seriously.

If you RTFA, the most common response seems to be "that you exist" or "that people other than myself exist", or "that people other than myself have conciousness", something along those lines.

Not surprisingly, most folks comming up with this are psychologists, but some of the physicists hit on that one as well, which I found interesting.

Re:That there is no God ...

[saider]

but i dont believe that a god exists, although i cant prove it

You don't have to. It's up to everyone else to prove God exists. The only way to prove something does not exist is to be able to observe all points in the universe.

That's the wonderful thing about being athiest and seeing to world for what it is. You live with the things you can prove, you try to model the things you don't. Not knowing something is simply a reason for more research.

Springfield

[thelenm]

Every place named Springfield is, in fact, a link to the same place. There is, in reality, only one place in the universe named Springfield, although many places connect to it.

Just as plausible as any religion

[gspr]

I believe in the existence of invisible, pink, green-speckled, murderous elephants, and dare not go out of my house in fear that they may kill me.

Yes, I am kidding. However childish or silly the above may sound, it is something I often make good use of when debating fanatics (by that I mean people who believe in something without evidence/proof, such as true Christians, Muslims, or whatevers). Many call me silly and ignorant because of this, and I'm sure many moderators here will too, but if you try to move away that blanket of religion for just a second, and try to compare in an objective manner my invisible, pink, green-speckled, murderous elephants to the teachings of say Christianity, you will find that they are about equally plausible (or rather, equally implausible).

You can of course moderate me down all you want (and I reckon that will be quite a bit, given the number of religious fanatics here). Still had to be said though.

To avoid being completely off-topic, I'll add the following: Personally, I don't need to be able to prove things myself to believe them, which the topic could be suggesting. Rather, if enough trained professionals seem to be able to prove it using trusted scientific methods, I accept it. Hell, I won't pretend computers don't work simply because I lack the understanding of their every component.
And yes, the paradigms of science change - what is "true" changes - the truth, that which I accept, is not set in stone.


Disclaimer: The references to Christianity are pretty random. I don't think that religion stands out compared to other religions, but since it is the dominant one here in Norway, it is the one I am most annoyed by and frustrated over.

Re:homosexuality

[TrevorB]

Of course, if it were genetics, according to Darwin, it would be a trait that should have been wiped out long ago since homosexuals cant reproduce.

Consider this possibility. I actually think what you say is right: that if homosexuality were detrimental to the species it would be "bred out". However, the human race is thriving, which suggests that homosexuality is either irrelevant or beneficial to the survival of the species.

Homosexuality isn't exclusively human. Many mammals and birds appear to have gay sex and form same-sex pair bonding as well.

I'm personally leaning towards the "homosexuality is beneficial to the survival of a species" hypothesis, but need more evidence to back up the idea before I'd accept it as a solid theory. However, the anti-hypothesis, that "homosexuality is detrimental to the survival of the species" seems pretty weak considering the evidence that species with homosexual members are thriving.

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a certain species of spider, whose female, after mating, *eats* the male.

Quit trying to use animal analogies.

Then you don't even believe in what you can prove

[brunes69]

.. because to prove something, you have to believe in something. At a very basic level, you need to believe that you exist in more than a simulation, or else all that you see and experience could be nothing more than lies, and the laws of the actual universe could be totally different.

On a less philosophical note, for example, you can't prove an axiom.

Re:homosexuality

[Decaff]

I believe this is the reason why nothing like homosexaulity exists in other animals.

Nonsense! It's extremely common in large numbers of species. In one of our closest relatives the Bonobo chimp, same-sex coupling is an important part of their social behaviour.

Re:homosexuality

[cephyn]

Many doubters cannot understand the complex nature of genetic interaction with behavior, and persistence of behavior independent of reproduction. Ignore them. Just because a gene cannot be directly passed down, is not directly passed down, doesn't mean it can't exist or have normal, non-harmful mutations.

Is homosexuality genetic? I believe so. Is it inheritable? I don't know.

Fate...

[m50d]

For the same reason as Neo, but in reverse. I don't like the idea that I'm in control of my life, since I'll mess it up. I find the idea of something else controlling my life very comforting. But I also recognise this as probably wishful thinking.

Re:homosexuality

[wcrowe]

You've never heard of NAMBLA?

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious question: Did you have an overbearing father figure or an absent one? Neither is an acceptable answer as well.

Re:What about quazi-intelligent design?

[geomon]

We were designed in his own image

Weak? Afraid? Prone to violent fits of rage?

I don't think of immortal beings having human qualities. You and millions of other people may have this image of god a whizzened old man sitting on a golden chair, but that is our attempt to anthropomorphize a creature who possesses qualities that are *not* human qualites.

If we are made in god's image, we are the cheap knockoff from a developing nation.

Perhaps we were just his practice pieces. Perhaps there is a race of super beings that god created after he worked out the bugs.

Who gets into heaven?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, the Mormons were the correct answer.

Re:Who gets into heaven?

[rjordan]

An alternative view - though also defined by who gets into hell:

"...Atheists! Atheists? Over here please. You must be feeling a right bunch of charlies.
Okay, and Christians! Christians? Ah yes, I'm sorry, I'm afraid the Jews were right..."

Have you noticed heaven is always defined by who is left out more than who is let in... allows for all sorts of abuses...

The Pyramids were probably built with ET help...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is evidence of it, but the dominant establishment of archaeologists won't accept it, not without something a la Stargate happening.

Oh, come off it.

[twitter]

... if something can be proven, the issue of belief does not arise.

Prove evolution. I believe it, but the origin of life is not something that has been demonstrated or proved yet.

What you really believe is that other people are honestly reporting things to you. So long as we have a free press, that will be true. But there is no way that you have time to demonstrate or prove everything you believe. To convince yourself, examine the periodic chart. Have you demonstrated to yourself that the elements are presented in the correct order, with the stated properties or that they all even exist? Can you imagine how much it would cost you do do that? All of us depend on honest reporting of facts, and that is a basic belief.

Re:Oh, come off it.

[Anonymous Coward]

A simple requirement, given that evolution is mutation allowing survival and reproduction amidst conditions causing otherwise certain death-given that you will do a simple experiment. Microbial evolution, which is definitively the basis of proving any method in natural science that is impractical to observe in more long lived organisms, can be observed by cultivating a dish of E. Coli and then placing a film of antibiotic over the dish to observe surviving E. Coli after even a weeks exposure. To avoid potentials of result due to error in methods, strictly follow proper laboratory procedures and run several dishes concurrently. Of course, this assumes you have access to E. Coli and are aware of the necessary conditions for its reproduction and use those as necessary.

Exception

[notcreative]

and it's no one's business what the outcome of that decision is.

Except for:

1. The President
2. The Vice President
3. Congress
4. Justices Scalia and Thomas
5. The South
6. Evangelists
7. Closet homosexuals who hate openly homosexuals
8. Critics of the Founding Fathers who feel that the Constitution is a poor first draft.

And any combination of the above.

Personally I believe we need a Privacy Amendment much more than something to "protect" us from gays trying to destroy families or hippies trying to desecrate our flags.

I believe...

[g0bshiTe]

That there is a mirror somewhere of that site, though I can't prove it.

Free Will

[Anonymous Coward]

most people seem to believe in free will, including myself. can't prove it though

Re:Free Will

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"God cannot both provide you with free will *AND* not allow you to fuck up."

Why not? If you claim that God has the ability to know the future (as most do), then the game is up already. God already knows what choices we are going to make.

If God doesn't know what choices we will make, he's not "all knowing". If he knows what we're going to do but can't create us so that we don't, he's not "all powerful". If he knows what we're going to do and can create us in a way that we won't do it, then he is not the kind, loving god that you claim.

You can't have it both ways. Either God doesn't have the *ability* to elimiate evil or he doesn't have the *will* to eliminate evil.

Re:Free Will

[raehl]

You can't have it both ways. Either God doesn't have the *ability* to elimiate evil or he doesn't have the *will* to eliminate evil.

Exactly - ability and will are different. Just because God has the ABILITY to eliminate evil doesn't mean he HAS to eliminate evil. And if God chooses not to eliminate all evil, that doesn't necessarily mean he's not kind and loving. Evil is a necessary consequence of free will, which God, as a kind and loving God, has decided is more important.

Your problem is your interpretation of "kind and loving". "Kind and loving" does not mean "protects you from all potential harm and hardship". If that were true, "kind and loving" parents would lock their kids up in the basement and never let them out.

A "kind and loving" God gives you the ability to experience life through your choices, even though that will expose you to some undesirable consequences.

Evil is temporary anyway, once you're dead you get to spend eternity in the wonderful afterlife. I think you can tough it out for a few decades.

Re:Maybe Cryptocon is a Female

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe "Cryptocon" is a heterosexual woman with an unusual hobby and a lot of time on her hands?

But...

[Vajsvarana]

... if you can prove something, then you know it, otherwise you can only believe it. So the only possible answer is: "all I don't know". If it's much, then you have a problem.

Re:What about quazi-intelligent design?

[aborchers]

If we are made in god's image, we are the cheap knockoff from a developing nation.

That may well be the funniest thing I've heard in months!

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

Some animal mothers eat their young, so we should too.

Peacock tails

[coyote-san]

Male peacock tails are definitely counter-survival. IIRC several other bird and fish species have similarly extreme adaptations.

Humans - at least as shown in American porn - also have counter-survival preferences. I personally prefer a lithe/athletic appearance, but it seems most guys prefer women with at least 10 pounds of silicon up front.

Re:Peacock tails

[nine-times]

Male peacock tails are definitely counter-survival. IIRC several other bird and fish species have similarly extreme adaptations.

And you're so sure why peacocks have bright tails? The way I see it, saying animals "evolve" to be attractive doesn't make sense. It's like when people claim that people have "evolved" to look cute as babies so that adults will want to take care of them. It's not that evolution makes babies look like things adults want to take care of, but that evolution makes adults want to take care of things that look like babies.

To address it the other way takes for granted that there is an absolute variable of "sexual attractiveness" which evolution breeds into the species population. For this to happen would assume far too many common mistakes about the nature of evolution and still wouldn't explain why I'm not sexually attracted to peacocks.

It's far more reasonable and in keeping with the theory of evolution to say that bright colors and good grooming is a sign of health and social dominance. The opposite sex is evolved to be attracted to animals bearing signs of health and social dominance, and there you have your explanation.

Even so, it's always tricky to examine *why* an animal has evolved a certain way. We keep finding out that there are plenty of good reasons for things that we just hadn't thought of in previous examinations of the topic. Therefore, I don't rule out that there may have been (and probably is) some other more practical benefit to the brightly-colored tail of the peacock.

Humans - at least as shown in American porn - also have counter-survival preferences.

Ah, but that gets extremely complicated. First, one might argue in some situations, cosmetic surgery is some sort of a sign of social dominance (has the money for surgery) or some such thing, and so it effects people on some psychological level beyond the simple physical appearance. Like people like jewelry because it's pretty, but also because it shows off social dominance to show off wealth. Also it does seem that a certain level of attraction to those physical assets is a health issue. We like athletic women, but also women who are well-fed and healthy enough to have the fat to spare.

However, I think in extreme cases it's merely a fetish issue. By that, I mean a degenerative (and counter-instinctual) impulse similar to a lot of obsessive, compulsive, and addictive behavior.

In short, I don't think your position holds water.

Re:Peacock tails

[MikeXpop]

Ever seen a peacock at the zoo? What you seem to be focusing on is the color and design of the tail, instead of the structure and form of it.

Here's a picture of a peacock with the tail down. Notice how long it is. This is extremely counter-survival because it adds a lot of weight to the end of the bird, which makes flying much, much more difficult (I tried to get a picture of a peacock flying, but nothing turned up on GIS). People who have studied peacocks all agree about this, including Darwin.

Darwin once said something to the effect of "The sight of a peocock makes me sick" because he could not explain why they evolved to have an apendage. He later discovered what the grandparent post was talking about. Peahens find big, exhuberant tails sexy, and are more inclined to mate with males who have them. It goes to show that it's more important to mate than to stay alive.

Re:Peacock tails

[nine-times]

Indeed, I spoke about the colors, since he sited other bird adaptations, and the fact that male birds have vibrant colors is often sited in the sort of argument he was making. However, you still haven't addressed the thrust of my post, which was the issue of why peahens find "big, exuberant tails sexy".

What's become a generally accepted theory is, the qualities that we find 'sexy' in the opposite sex are the same features that would make you, your mate, and your offspring more likely to survive and procreate. The fact that peahens find big tails 'sexy' could be taken as proof that the theory is wrong, *or* it could be taken as proof that big tails somehow indicate a greater likelihood of survival and healthy procreation.

According to the theory, if the tail was truly so negative towards the peafowl's survival, it would be a trait that, through evolution, peahens would finally find unattractive. Rather, it must be that we don't understand it which way the tail benefits the peafowl population/gene-pool. At worst, it must have been, at one point, practically beneficial, and presently benign.

If we discount the theory, and decide that large tails are extremely negative toward survival, then evolution cannot account for how it is that bloodlines of peahens who are attracted by large tails weren't driven out by the breeds who were attracted to smaller tails.

Happily, this discussion goes to the heart of what it means to believe something without proof.

Re:Peacock tails

[coyote-san]

Check your facts - this has been proven experimentally. A while back Scientific American (iirc) discussed an experiment involving some breed of bird (or fish?) that sexually selects on long tails (a common theme, it seems). The scientists took a bunch of short-tailed losers and glued on tail extensions. Suddenly they were getting all of the action and the former hot studs couldn't get any since they were now the "short tailed" dudes.

As for your bigger argument, "fitness" isn't a step function where you're either perfect or you're dead, it's a gradual slope. Evolution will definitely select for the guy who's only 80% on the "fitness" scale but 200% on the procreation scale. This gets worse as the 100% fitters drop out of the gene pool and there's more room for even less fit, but oh-so-sexy, breeders.

Why do peahens (and others) find long tails so attractive? Who knows. It's probably a legitimate indicator of fitness run amock - the same way a lot of human males think that if a C cup bust is nice, a DDDD cup must be much nicer. Other males are more attracted to general fitness and are thus more attracted to the athletic type than the busty type.

Re:Peacock tails

[coyote-san]

First, one might argue in some situations, cosmetic surgery is some sort of a sign of social dominance (has the money for surgery) or some such thing, and so it effects people on some psychological level beyond the simple physical appearance.

The problem with this argument is that we're seeing cheap plastic surgery in porn, not expensive (and essentially undetectable) plastic surgery.

Is it just a fetish? I first thought so, but the market itself is evolutionary (where 'fitness' is what sells for the best price) and porn has definitely gotten more extreme (imo) as it's gone mainstream. A few years ago you could make a strong argument that this reflected a difference between guys who view porn and those who don't, but not now that it's readily available on premium channels and many hotels.

Re:Peacock tails

[RatBastard]

Long tails indicate that the male is healthy and has been so for some time, thus the chicks sired by that peacock will also be healthy. In an environment with lots of predators that tail would get them killed, but there aren't enough predators to whipe them out, so the tail survives.

It's like the manes on male lions: the longer the hair the longer the male has gone without getting his ass whooped by another in a fight. The darker the mane the healthier the male is. Tests have shown that female lions will always select a male with a long, dark mane of a male with a long, blonde mane (sorry, Simba, but Disney got it all wrong).

Sexual selection is about demonstrating that you have the genes to father healthy children. It can bite you on the ass if the traits the females of your species find attractive leave you defenseless agains predation or stuck at work for 12-hours a day to buy a diamond ring.

Re:Peacock tails

[nine-times]

Is it just a fetish? I first thought so, but the market itself is evolutionary (where 'fitness' is what sells for the best price) and porn has definitely gotten more extreme (imo) as it's gone mainstream. A few years ago you could make a strong argument that this reflected a difference between guys who view porn and those who don't, but not now that it's readily available on premium channels and many hotels.

I wouldn't say fetishes stop being fetishes when they go mainstream. In case I'm not being clear, when I say "fetish", I don't mean "an unusual sexual practice". I mean a certain sort of unhealthy obsessive behavior.

Re:Peacock tails

[nine-times]

As for your bigger argument, "fitness" isn't a step function where you're either perfect or you're dead, it's a gradual slope.

'Fitness' is also not an objective and isolated quality, which seems to be the mistake you're making. Fastest, biggest, strongest, smartest is not always 'most fit'. In the right situation, slow, weak, and stupid might be an advantage. When dealing with evolution, you sometimes need to look at individual animals, sometimes the pack, sometimes the whole species, and sometimes just the gene, and ask, "What's going to make this most likely to continue existing?" Sometimes traits are only as 'good' as they need to be in order to survive, and sometimes 'better' would cause more problems than it's worth.

Evolution will definitely select for the guy who's only 80% on the "fitness" scale but 200% on the procreation scale.

Again, you're missing the point. The 'fitness' scale and the 'procreation' scale are actually one inseparable scale. In evolutionary terms, when you talk about "fitness to survive", you must understand it in terms of the fitness of the genes to survive and continue to exist in subsequent generations. Insofar as you're talking about another idea of 'fitness' or 'survival', you're talking about something irrelevant to evolution.

Why do peahens (and others) find long tails so attractive? Who knows.

Indeed. Who knows. The difference is, you're assuming it's for no good reason, and yet if you believe evolution is a good theory, then we must suppose that there is a reason why large tails are beneficial traits in mates and/or offspring.

Re:homosexuality

[minus_273]

yeah, show me exclusive homosexuality in other animals i mean like humans do, not like confused dogs humping a tree.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Google Cache

[jasonmantey]

Page 1 http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:0MMZI6RZ4OIJ: www.edge.org/q2005/q05_print.html+&hl=en&client=fi refox-a Page 2 http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:_mP4gzFI0u8J: www.edge.org/q2005/q05_2.html+&hl=en&client=firefo x-a Page 3 http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ftSUFD3pHfIJ: www.edge.org/q2005/q05_3.html+&hl=en&client=firefo x-a Page 4 http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ftSUFD3pHfIJ: www.edge.org/q2005/q05_4.html+&hl=en&client=firefo x-a Page 5 http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ftSUFD3pHfIJ: www.edge.org/q2005/q05_5.html+&hl=en&client=firefo x-a Page 6 http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ftSUFD3pHfIJ: www.edge.org/q2005/q05_6.html+&hl=en&client=firefo x-a Page 7 http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ftSUFD3pHfIJ: www.edge.org/q2005/q05_7.html+&hl=en&client=firefo x-a Page 8 http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ftSUFD3pHfIJ: www.edge.org/q2005/q05_8.html+&hl=en&client=firefo x-a Page 9 http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ftSUFD3pHfIJ: www.edge.org/q2005/q05_9.html+&hl=en&client=firefo x-a Page 10 http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ftSUFD3pHfIJ: www.edge.org/q2005/q05_10.html+&hl=en&client=firef ox-a

magic

[twitter]

By fabric I meant language. A language which exactly defines the universe.

Strong magic is this reality of yours. Please define me some disposable income.

That Slashdot Editors are competent

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wait, I *don't* believe that.

Re:That Slashdot Editors are competent

[EasyComputer]

http://www.kfor.com/Global/story.asp?S=2767106 Korea Preparing for War with the US.

Re:homosexuality

[minus_273]

so by your logic it is like a genetic disease and in the future parents should be able to screen for it or possibly cure it in the womb?

Re:Maybe Cryptochrome is a Female

[Anonymous Coward]

a female geek with a lot of extra time, and a lot of batteries.

The cause doesn't matter really...

[brunes69]

It doesn't matter in the slightest if humans are actually the cause of the problem or not. The **real** issue is that we are *not* being part of the solution.

Regardless of the root cause, it is indisputable that global warming will have a detrimental effect on the planet in the short term. Of course in the long term, it will recover, that doesn't matter. What *does* matter is the survival of my children and grandchildren, and possibly even the human species. On a global timescale, we have not been around very long. Even assuming this is part of a natural cycle, we could easily be wiped out by it.

Humans are the only species with the intelligence and resources to actually *combat* and even *reverse* their contributions to global warming. The fact that they do nothing (in a relative sense) is the real problem.

Re:The cause doesn't matter really...

[Kainaw]

So, humans are doing nothing. What should they be doing? I mentioned cow emissions in my post because of a study by the EPA that measured more greenhouse gasses from cows than automobiles in the rural areas of Wyoming (I am pretty sure it was Wyoming and not Montana). So, we should all eat more hamburgers to kill the cows off faster? Let me buy my McDonald's stock first.

Re:The cause doesn't matter really...

[Anonymous Coward]

To say that we should do something is quite a statement. Many of the hypothesis' indicate humans are causing the warming. However, Harvard released a study this year stating the earth had previously been in a coller period.

So, the question is, what can you do? If we can affect this, why not change the seasons? If we think we can change the temperature of the earth, I want it to be winter all year round in Utah and Summer all year round in Alaska.

Obsurd? Maybe. But so is trying to affect the rotation of the earth, or managing the temperatures of the earth on a macro scale.

Re:The cause doesn't matter really...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it matter if the issue is so large that no matter what humans do, we might be powerless to make any difference? Or that in our attempts to make it better we actually make it worse, because we jump off half-cocked without knowing all of the relevant facts?

I don't believe

[rizole]

I try not to believe anything, I prefer to know.

Having said that, there are huge amounts of things I believe with a small "b". I believe I am posting to slashdot, I believe my keyboard needs cleaning (ewwwwwww - what is that stuck between j and k?), I believe that tommorrow I have to go to work and attempt to be productive or at the very minimum, appear to do so and I believe millions of small things that seem to make my world go round and appears to make an awful lot of peoples worlds do the same.

I don't Believe in god, science, economics, art, the spirit, government, the law yadda, yadda yadda.

I don't see the point in "beliving IN something" because one's belief seldom seems to make a difference to anything in particular. I do believe in "believing THAT something is", generally because things very often are.

To (mis)quote Terry Pratchet: "seeing is not believing because once you've seen it, belief isn't nesscesary anymore."

Or at least, so I believe.

Where's the foetus going to gestate? In a box?

The Juice

[eomnimedia]

I believe O.J. is guilty.

Wal-World

[wcrowe]

I believe that one day, life for each of us will consist of getting up out of our Wal-Beds, having a breakfast of Wal-Coffee and Wal-Flakes, getting on the Wal-Bus and going to our Wal-Jobs at Wal-Mart. Babies will be born at the Wal-Natal Clinic, and the dead will be cremated at the Wal-Funeral Home. It will be a Wal-Mart world, womb to tomb.

Re:Wal-World

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt it'll be that bad. Afterall, in a few years, most of our jobs will be in India or China.

Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life

[khelek]

I believe in the death of Jesus on the Cross for our sins and I believe He was resurrected on the third day. I believe that a belief in that is the only way to Heaven, and more importantly, a real relationship with God.

I believe that while other religions focus on what man has to do to bring themselves to God, Christianity is the only Way, in that it shows what God did to bring us back to Him.

I believe that there is such a thing as absolute morals, and what God said 4000 years ago is still applicable today.

No, I can't prove it. That's why it's faith, and that's why Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Having said that, Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ makes very convincing arguments.

Re:Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life

[Boronx]

If Jesus was sacrificed for our sins, who sacrificed him, and who was he sacrificed to?

Re:Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life

[Anonymous Coward]

I belive there is a tiny gnome named Dolo who lives in my bellybutton. He comes out at night, dances a jig, and steals socks out of my sock drawer.

We both have as much proof for our believes.

Since Dolo has never mentioned putting me into a lake of fire, I think I'll stick with my belief.

Re:Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life

[Anonymous Coward]

Strobel's book is an interesting attempt, and some good points come out of it (particularly the gruesomeness of the crucifixion), but he fails to take on *any* of the experts appropriately.

In each interview he asks a "tough question", gets a moderately-tough answer, and then fails to follow up. Some questions I wish he had asked:

1. How can we know Jesus' miracles were genuine, when Paul himself later in the epistles admits that some charlatans can perform miracles? Whar *is* a miracle if both humans and demons can fake it?

2. How come miracles aren't happening today? I know several arguments for why God wouldn't perform a miracle on demand, but people continue to say miracles occur (crying pictures of the Virgin Mary, stigmata, etc.) but none that can stump the Amazing Randi. Why?

3. If the evidence was so compelling, how come most Jews of the time didn't convert? The Jews have the same God, same history, same creation and Messiah story, they should have been the most likely people to switch, but the Gentiles switched faster.

I could list about a dozen more, but you get the idea. Strobel comes up to each guy and talks about how intelligent, scholarly, internationally-recognized, and good-hearted they are up front, setting the reader up for a not-so-subtle "argument from authority." I expected a lot more than that and was disappointed. McCoy from "Law and Order" would have been able to demolish every single point made by the "experts" in about ten minutes.

Re:Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

When you understand why you have dismissed all other religions as wrong, then you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Re:Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life

[Anonymous Coward]

God; Satan.

Re:Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice this!

Re:Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life

[Anonymous Coward]

And when you understand why I dismiss people who believe that 1+1=3 as people who don't understand math, then you will understand why it is so. It is an impossibility for all religions to be correct. I suggest you read "But Don't All Religions Lead to God?" by Michael Green.

Re:Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life

[Micah]

I'm not Strobel, but what the heck, I'll bite. (I have read the book though ... thought it was pretty good but certainly not exhaustive.)

> 1. How can we know Jesus' miracles were genuine, when Paul himself later in the epistles admits that some charlatans can perform miracles? Whar *is* a miracle if both humans and demons can fake it?

We look at the fruits of those doing the miracles. Jesus said we could recognize prophets by their fruits; see Matthew 7:16. Anyone who performs miracles according to God's power will produce the fruit of the Spirit -- love, joy, peace, patience, etc (Galatians 5:22-23) Someone who does miracles that do not lead to these fruits are doing so by the power of Satan.

> 2. How come miracles aren't happening today? I know several arguments for why God wouldn't perform a miracle on demand

Click on my siggy, go down to the point "Jesus Christ: the anser for physical sickness"

> 3. If the evidence was so compelling, how come most Jews of the time didn't convert? The Jews have the same God, same history, same creation and Messiah story, they should have been the most likely people to switch, but the Gentiles switched faster.

They also rejected and tortured and killed their own prophets. The Jews did not exactly have a stellar record of believing what their God told them.

Re:Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life

[SmittyTheBold]

Since Dolo has never mentioned putting me into a lake of fire, I think I'll stick with my belief.

But, since you have no proof of this...

I believe he's secretly plotting your painful demise. Now who's better, God who tells you up-front about all this or Dolo who's working his bad deeds in secret?

Re:Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life

[SmittyTheBold]

Re: 3, improving upon the other answer:

The Jews were looking for a KING to rescue them from the hardships of outside rule. What they got was a person who could not be described as an earthly king, and was therefore not what they expected/demanded. The gentiles were not so steeped in the "our new king is coming!" culture, so the barrier to belief was not so high.

How many times are there verifiably flawed scientific (in particular, medical) studies where the data fit together perfectly but didn't match the presuppositions, so was considered garbage? People like to get their hopes up and do not like to be let down...

Re:homosexuality

[Alci12]

According to the Beeb. there is possible link to increased fertility. This (assuming it is correct) would be a very logical and perfectly Darwinian explanation.

Re:homosexuality

[clickster]

As opposed to those adulterous heterosexuals who fornicate all day long and have children out of wedlock only to beat and otherwise abuse them. See, I can corner a small part of a population and project their faults onto the population as a whole. Does being straight make us the way I've described? No. Does being gay mean you spread disease? No. Can everything mentioned in both your post and mine be done by gays AND straights? Yes. Am I beginning to talk in questions like Donald Rumsfeld? Well, you post on Slashdot with the comments you have, not necessarily the comments you want.

I was with you until the last line.

[Anonymous Coward]

I go with the latter. Given the nearly infinite arbitrary possiblitilities for defining a religion or faith, the odds that any given one is true is practically nil. Therefore, a person who believes in nothing is likely to be closer to the truth than someone who randomly chooses an arbitrary faith. [my emphasis]

Except that nihlism is arguably just another arbitrary possibility. Why is an atheist any more or less likely to be "closer to the truth"?

Re:I was with you until the last line.

[k4_pacific]

I never said atheist. I said believes in nothing. My beliefs are not wrong because I don't have any.

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm gay and I don't care whether or not homosexuality is a choice. So what if I chose to be gay, why would it matter to anyone except myself and my partner? The argument of "it does not result in the production of children" used against homosexuality is kind of odd, considering the world has more people on it than it ever has in history. As if a few homosexuals would somehow result in the doom of humanity!

I believe there could be an argument made that homosexuals are better able to care for their siblings (or at the least, place less burden on their extended family) because homosexuals generally have fewer children than their siblings do. That could provide a reproductive advantage to an extended family (if not to the homosexual individual), which would be biologically consistant with the "survival of the fittest" tautology.

I believe faster then light travel is possible.

[killjoe]

It has to be.

Re:I believe faster then light travel is possible.

[rincebrain]

Agreed.

Re:I believe faster then light travel is possible.

[Icephreak1]

Faster travel will be possible before light travel, will it?

Well, if that's the case, nice semantics then.

- IP

Re:I believe faster then light travel is possible.

[h4rdc0d3]

It has to be.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but why? Please explain why you believe "it has to be" true.

Re:I believe faster then light travel is possible.

[killjoe]

I can't prove it. I just feel it in my gut. The universe is too big and light is too slow.

Re:I believe faster then light travel is possible.

[jaoswald]

No, your life is too short. Get over it.

Re:I believe faster then light travel is possible.

[cryptochrome]

I have no reason to believe so and a fair amount of evidence to the contrary. I certainly wish it were true, though. Until we have a grand unified theory that says otherwise I'm going to hope anyway.

Re:homosexuality

[vorpal22]

My father was not particularly overbearing - no more so than the average father. He was definitely not absent, either: he spent quite a bit of time with my brother and I, frequently taking us out to play hockey, go cross-country skiing, or just to grab a burger and fries for lunch.

My brother, raised in the exact same environment as me, turned out completely heterosexual.

A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

I believe, though I can't prove, that the universe presented to me by my senses is not an artifact of my own existence but exists separately from me, is consistent and will remain consistent after I am dead. (i.e. the universe isn't a figment of my imagination).

I believe, though I can't prove, that other entities that resemble me in appearance and behavior (people) have the same kind of agency and observer status as myself and therefore have value similar in kind to myself. (i.e. contrary to the assertion of the psychopath, I believe other people really are people).

Once you accept those predicates as lemmas (and variations, like having empathy for the pain of animals, or using tools to enhance your senses), a great number of things become "very likely". However, we don't need to "prove" any of it, because there's very little value to "proven" once you have "really, really likely". All we need is enough consistency to make predictions reliable and you can live a full and happy life in this world. Most/all of the people I've observed actually demanding proof for things are those behaving defensively in a "faith-based knowledge vs. reason-based knowledge" discussion.

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Bingo Foo]

I believe, though I can't prove, that other entities that resemble me in appearance and behavior (people) have the same kind of agency and observer status as myself and therefore have value similar in kind to myself.

But they still are clearly not you, so why should you care?

Beware the slippery slope.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[TGK]

Because once you accecpt that those entities are similar to yourself you must realise that they, like yourself, have the capability to manipulate their environment.

Because you are part of their environment, they have some power over you and you some power over them. Since they seem to exhibit a sort of herd mentality, it would seem foolish to antagonize them as the herd itself is significantly stronger than the sum of its parts.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

But they still are clearly not you, so why should you care?

Good followup, but now you're asking a question of morality, as opposed to the reasoning behind a metaphysical predicate.

Short answer: because it's normal (genetically wired into my brain) to treat other people with respect.

Longer answer (and a better answer for people who don't believe in natural causes of behavior): Because there are substantial negative consequences to behaving in a way that ignores other people's value. I enjoy the company of friends (and find their help useful on occasion), and other people are good at detecting fake friends. I like my freedom, and running people down at stoplights causes uniformed people in cars with flashing lights to lock me up, limiting my freedom.

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[halfelven]

I believe, though I can't prove, that the universe presented to me by my senses is not an artifact of my own existence but exists separately from me, is consistent and will remain consistent after I am dead. (i.e. the universe isn't a figment of my imagination).
I believe, though I can't prove, that other entities that resemble me in appearance and behavior (people) have the same kind of agency and observer status as myself and therefore have value similar in kind to myself. (i.e. contrary to the assertion of the psychopath, I believe other people really are people).

Funny, i rely on the same lemmas. Yet i'm not an atheist (well, ok, most religious people will have a hard time labeling me as religious too).
I have no problems accepting those lemmas, while at the same time accepting the lemma of the consciousness that is essentially independent of its material support (mind you, i said "consciousness" not "mind"; mind you, i said "essentially" not "completely").

It's the typical religious "Big Daddy in the Sky" lemma that i'm having problems with - as, i suspect, you do.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[wrf3]

...because it's normal (genetically wired into my brain) to treat other people with respect.

But it's clear that this wiring, if it really exists, can be overridden. So why should you be a slave to your genetics?

Because there are substantial negative consequences to behaving in a way that ignores other people's value.

That's only because you (or your group) aren't the strongest so that you can impose your will with impunity.

Morality is nothing more than personal opinion (for both the Deist and the Atheist). For the Atheist, however, the one absolute that follows from first principles is "might makes right."

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

Morality is nothing more than personal opinion (for both the Deist and the Atheist). For the Atheist, however, the one absolute that follows from first principles is "might makes right."

Depends what you want in your life (i.e. your personal long-term goals).

If you want joy in your life, as I do, you're going to want to love and be loved by a partner, your children (if you choose to have some), and probably by a group of close friends. If you actually act in a "might makes right" manner, you have zero chance of experiening any of that. People may say they love you and fawn over you to manipulate you and your power, but they'll never love you.

Actions have consequences. Using force to get your way has substantial negative consequences. To some people, these consequences don't matter, however, I don't hear about too many of those people living long guilt-free lives into their old age.

As an aside, Bush Jr. just might be stupid enough to be a counter-example to my assertion (if he believes his own campaign rhetoric, that is)...

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Jameth]

"Yes, I am an athiest. No, I'm not hostile to Christianity or Christians: I just stopped accepting that there was a need for God and lost interest (except as a hobby of studying myth in literature and culture)."

Did you ever consider that saying you stopped accepting that the core of everything they believe in and the basis of everything they do had any value might be inherently hostile?

Ask yourself if this is at all hostile: "It's not that I'm hostile to you, I just don't think that the reasons behind anything you have to say matter in the slightest, except possibly as a hobby."

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Anonymous Coward]

Short answer: because it's normal (genetically wired into my brain) to treat other people with respect.

If that was the case,"its not" your comment alone makes what you say meaningless. Think about it....

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[wrf3]

Depends what you want in your life (i.e. your personal long-term goals).

Right -- your personal opinons. But there is no a priori reason, other than personal opinion, why your opinions should matter to anyone else.

Using force to get your way has substantial negative consequences

It depends on what force is used. Not all force is physical. Brainwashing, for example, would work just as well.

Too, those in your group who agree with your personal opinions would be free to love you, regardless of what the masses think, so you could still have the life you wanted.

In any case, the principle of "might makes right" is foundational to atheism. Fortunately, atheists either don't realize this, don't want to accept this (after all, it intuitively seems wrong), or act inconsistently with their beliefs.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Doctor Fishboy]

Did you ever consider that saying you stopped accepting that the core of everything they believe in and the basis of everything they do had any value might be inherently hostile?

How is it hostile? He's not saying that he hates you or wants to attack you for your belief. That's a damn sight more tolerant than many other religions I've encountered...

Dr Fish

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

Did you ever consider that saying you stopped accepting that the core of everything they believe in and the basis of everything they do had any value might be inherently hostile?

I didn't consider that, and now that you mention it, I don't think so. Christian believers (and nihilists and psychopaths for other parts of my post) are free to take offense at anything I may say, but no hostility was intended, nor would a thoughtful Christian take offence at my "uneducated position" on the matter.

A Christian believer labels the subject that we disagree upon as central to their view of existence and meaning. They continue to exert their own agency when they choose to become offended by disagreement with their own unproven (and unevidenced) assertions. Some will, most won't.

The wise person would look behind their own injured sensibilities before becoming truly upset. But not all people are wise.

(BTW, if you want to label me with a belief system, the Taoists and I agree on lots and lots of things).

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Bingo Foo]

Because there are substantial negative consequences to behaving in a way that ignores other people's value.

But if we do put morals (or more properly ethics) derived from the metaphysical equality you noted aside, there are also substantial positive consequences to valuing yourself above others. You don't have to look far to see that many people take advantage of that fact out of genuine rational self-interest. (even to the detriment of their metaphysical, if not moral, equals)

I like my freedom, and running people down at stoplights causes uniformed people in cars with flashing lights to lock me up, limiting my freedom.

You are presupposing that the extent of devaluing others for personal gain:

1. crosses into illegality, and
2. always results in getting caught.

Neither of these is strictly true and a rational risk assessment without considering others to be morally equal can still result in profoundly selfish and/or antisocial behavior. I still don't see how your initial line of reasoning can result in the ethical position you hold. And while you may personally be "genetically wired" to treat others with respect, surely you'll admit to having come across some people who aren't. What of them? Do they get to indulge their genetically wired preferences too?

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[BerntB]

Ask yourself if this is at all hostile: "It's not that I'm hostile to you, I just don't think that the reasons behind anything you have to say matter in the slightest, except possibly as a hobby."

Well, that position is the end result of reasoned thinking. Should he (and I) lie?

I know (even like) people with political opinions I find close to religion.

They make unfounded claims about how the world works. They support a simple position (e.g. "USA is evil") as if it was a football team.

Supporting data is believed directly while contradictory facts are ignored. They keep double standards -- what is ok for someone else to do is not acceptable for the "enemy" side. Etc.

In short, they let an emotional need of something being true control their intellect.

I'm sorry if it upsets you, but I can't really respect that kind of thinking (maybe for sports :-).

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[PhotoGuy]

Additionally, even if those assumptions aren't true, and other people aren't of similar perspective or nature, acting as if they were, and building consensus with them so that *they* share (are appear to) that belief, and act accordingly, can improve your life experience in your interactions with them, and others.

That is, even if other people were just entities provided for your entertainment, having them share respect and empathy and respect for others (i.e., including you) through consensus building, makes more sense than the alternatives. :-)

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Anonymous Coward]

No, morality cannot be personal opinion. We have a different word to pick out principles which aren't just someone's opinion. If there is only personal opinion, then there is no morality.

This is a little like saying 'God is that 7-11 attendant.' Whether or not God exists, the 7-11 attendant doesn't remotely fit any picture God is supposed to fit.

What first principles are you talking about? I'm afraid I don't see how Deists and Atheists end up in a different place. Is something moral just because an ueber-being gives inconceivable rewards and punishments? - Even if you believe in God, don't you need a further assumption to obtain this result - namely, that the uber-being's sanction is what makes moral things moral? But this doesn't seem necessary to being a Deist.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Anonymous Coward]

The principle of 'There is no God' is actually foundational to atheism. 'Might makes right' doesn't follow, logically (on premises everyone must accept if they believe there is no God) or naturally (by which I mean according to this and other things most people believe, like there are other people and the sky is blue).

Maybe you believe that if someone does not believe morality is dictated by the sanction of a superbeing, then they must accept 'might makes right.' This seems far from true to me. Suppose one doesn't believe anything makes right. Maybe one believes that anything that maximizes taco production is right. Or one might accept any number of moral frameworks (deontological, utilitarian, whatever.) Where is the logical inconsistency?

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[BerntB]

But they still are clearly not you, so why should you care?

You shouldn't apply your intellectual reasoning about morals to the real world. :-)

Read about game theory (e.g. Dawkins' "Selfish gene"). Being quite nice guys seems to be a win for humans (in the western world cultures).

We don't know how people works yet. We do know that we will learn more. So your built in (evolved biologically and culturally) morals is probably better than your intellect.

My moral position is mainly based no that how I act have implications on my view of myself as a person.

('rossifer' wrote most of this, but I thought I'd do it from a bit different perspective.)

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[WaterBreath]

more tolerant than many other religions I've encountered...

In my experience it is usually only a tiny portion of believers of a given religion that "hates you or wants to attack you for your belief". Please don't blame the religion. Those people are responsible for their own actions, which are generally at least not sanctioned and at most condemned by tthe religions they claim to subscribe to. Just because there are a lot of people who claim to subscribe to that religion doesn't mean they all want to attack other beliefs.

I'm comfortable enough with my faith that when someone tells me they don't believe the same way and aren't interested in hearing about it that I let it be. If they don't believe it, they don't believe it. It's not like I can prove them wrong. I don't feel the need to try to tear them down. Those who do are a tiny minority whom the rest of us are terribly ashamed to be undeservingly associated with.

Atheists/agnostics have the same type of fanatic devotees who are obsessed with tearing down people's beliefs. A number of them regularly post on /., but are rarely modded Trolls like their religious counterparts are.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Anonymous Coward]

No. EMBRACE the slippery slope.

"They are clearly not you, so why should you care?" is a valid question. Open your mind to the possibility that there is no reason that you should care. Do more than that - start with the default assumption that there is no reason to care until proven otherwise. Then, if you should find a reason to care, it will be a real valid reason to care based on real emperical reasons. And you won't waste time caring or on caring whether or not you care.

Ask yourself this: If you can't answer the question of why you care about a certain thing, then how do you know that you should care about it? Could it be that your 'caring' about other people is wrong? Are you even caring for the right people? Maybe you should buy you own kid a toy instead of donating to the save the crackheads fund. Isn't your own kid more important to you than a crackhead? If you're Sandra Bullock, don't you know anyone that could be made happier with 1 million dollars? How could the life or death of random 'asian people' possibly affect you? The happiness of an aquaintance is another story... And Ted Turner, what the hell? 1 BILLION to the UN? WTF?

Consider the good that BILLION DOLLARS could have done had it remained invested where it was. Could it be that using that Billion Dollars to shift resources into UN purposes did more harm than good? ( as if something like an abstract concept of absolute harm could be measured ). Might the 'generous donation' have been a futile or even 'evil' act?

Good and evil are not defined except from a point of view. Hamburgers are good - unless you are a steer. In a war, both sides are the 'good guys' from their own point of view.

How did that Billion Dollar donation affect Ted Turner? That's the only thing that matters from his point of view. A billion dollars. Pshaw he has more money than he knows what to do with.

Feeding wild animals causes them to grow dependent on handouts, and over populate. Most would consider it a bad thing to do. Why not apply the same logic to people? And why does a injured/disease-ridden dog get a more humane death than a injured/disease ridden person?

There is no God. There is no reason to think anything without emperical justification. Be a nihilist for a while and you learn what is important to you. You're still the good guy from your own point of view without the illusion that it has any cosmic importance. The words right and wrong change in flavor. You can say: "It's wrong to cross the street without looking both ways first.", or even "It's wrong to kill some random stranger." It's 'wrong', not because of any arbitrary morals, it's just wrong in the same way that saying a quarter is worth ten cents is wrong. Another non identical situation would have to be reconsidered: IF the random stranger were carrying a suitcase full of 1 Billion Dollars and the risk of being caught were low, maybe killing a random stranger could be right... But how many random suitcases of money have you seen being carried by an easy-to-off individual have you seen?

In every day life lack of morals makes you a nicer person. A much nicer person than an average self righteous insensitive clod who happens not to know his ass from a hole in the ground.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Anonymous Coward]

Please show how it follows from first principles?

"AFAIK, it is only Christianity that says, "Love your enemies".

[ I think we could all do with less "love" from the Christian Right. ]

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Wraithlyn]

"I believe, though I can't prove, that the universe presented to me by my senses is not an artifact of my own existence but exists separately from me, is consistent and will remain consistent after I am dead."

What do you think of quantum experiments which show that matter only exists as a probability waveform (the superposition of many possible states), until it is observed?

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[PenguiN42]

Did you ever consider that saying you stopped accepting that the core of everything they believe in and the basis of everything they do had any value might be inherently hostile?

Saying that he doesn't accept the core of what they believe in is not hostile.

Saying that it has no value may be hostile, but luckily the OP didn't say that.

Putting words in peoples' mouths to try to prove a point can also be considered hostile.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Per Wigren]

I don't think that's hostile. He respects their belief although he disagrees. You want to see hostile? Google for Westboro Baptist Church...

Personally I'm agnostic. I think there may or may not be "something more". I just don't think it matters to me. If God created the earth, good for him and thank you God. Thank you for giving me a brain, free will and lust!

I respect religios people. I let them submit to their books. I think it's their problem, not mine. If they don't see it as a problem, that's just better! Live as you please! Be happy! Just please let me live as I please also, I never hurt anyone! Me being bisexual and polyamorous is none of your busines. Preaching hate only turns me off even more..

Disclaimer: "you" above was directed to religios persons in general, not you:) and yes, I hear hate-preaching quite often because I run a big fetish club. Annoying, really. Not that I mind though, it's free advertising. :)

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

Right -- your personal opinons. But there is no a priori reason, other than personal opinion, why your opinions should matter to anyone else.

Hm. I believe that we are discussing at cross purposes here. If you happen to choose the same goals I do, then certain kinds of behaviors become moral to you and we can get into the details of that. If you don't choose the same goals I do, or if you choose goals that are antithetical to the goals I've chosen for myself, then we will have little to no common ground and almost nothing to talk about.

Too, those in your group who agree with your personal opinions would be free to love you, regardless of what the masses think

Trust/friendship amongst thieves, eh? That's an interesting assertion, but I find that assholes don't like assholes any more than nice people do. If you've got a reputation for manipulative behavior, even people who agree that manipulative behavior is ok won't trust you. You have to have a reputation for trustworthy behavior, which doesn't fit with being a manipulative person.

In any case, the principle of "might makes right" is foundational to atheism.

This assertion is highly astonishing and would need a lot more substantiation before it could be accepted. It seems to presuppose that atheists lack the ability to determine morality (which is an unsupportable assertion).

My first response is that your statement seems true for a sociopath (who is also likely an atheist), but I don't see why any other athiests would agree with you.

Fortunately, atheists either don't realize this, don't want to accept this (after all, it intuitively seems wrong), or act inconsistently with their beliefs.

If it intuitively seems wrong, you might want to check some of your "facts". I believe that your conclusion is insupportable because it depends on an unsupported presumption.

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

What do you think of quantum experiments which show that matter only exists as a probability waveform (the superposition of many possible states), until it is observed?

That we have more to learn about the universe. The universe acts consistently between observations, but who knows in how many more ways the universe is going to suprise us with really cool ways of being?

To answer a little differently: I'm not suprised that I have some effect back on the universe. I am, after all, a part of the universe (and so are my agency and nature as an observer).

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Doctor Fishboy]

Please don't blame the religion... Just because there are a lot of people who claim to subscribe to that religion doesn't mean they all want to attack other beliefs.

That's a very good point, and I stand corrected. I was trying to criticize the parent's post for what I percieved to be their aggression against the grandparent's atheist point of view. I apologise.

A number of [fanatic atheists] regularly post on /., but are rarely modded Trolls like their religious counterparts are.

Well, it makes a change from the flames on Yahoo newsgroups, at least :-)

Cheers,

Dr Fish

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[wrf3]

The proof is simple:

1) All morality is nothing more than personal opinion (since there is nothing outside of man (or God) which says 'ought' instead of 'is'.
2) Therefore, there is nothing other than personal opinion to judge between competing moralities. (All reasoning ends up doing is rationalizing a personal opinion -- put all personal opinions can be rationalized, so reasoning isn't useful).
3) In order to judge between competing moralities, something has to break the vicious cycle of personal opinion. The person or group who can impose their personal opinion on another becomes the adjudicator of moral issues.
4) The least common denominator of imposition of personal opinion is force. The strongest person/group wins.

Trust/friendship amongst thieves, eh?
Not necessarily. Instead of 'thieves', think of an elite group.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but is it real?

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[hacksoncode]

Umm, "might makes right" is even more foundational to many of the most common religions. What exactly about "God is all powerful and will torture you for eternity if you don't do what he says" isn't "might makes right"?

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

1) All morality is nothing more than personal opinion (since there is nothing outside of man (or God) which says 'ought' instead of 'is'.

Your problem is faulty in this statement. It does not agree with reality. Some goals are objectively better than other goals. Some behaviors are objectively better than other behaviors. Not to fall into the simplistic analysis of Ayn Rand and the objectivists, but morality follows from this reality of motivated action.

Correct the problematic statement and see if your proof still makes sense. I submit that it does not.

Trust/friendship amongst thieves, eh?

Not necessarily. Instead of 'thieves', think of an elite group.

I disproved your assertion that people with common morality can have the same beneficial outcome, no matter what the chosen morality. I used a counterexample taken from the real world. Thieves tend to discount the value of long-term goals, which makes them less likely to be trusted/liked/loved by people they are honest with, thus a thief's morality is inferior to a morality that allows/supports/develops long-term positive relationships.

Morality is not just a matter of opinion (just shown). You are correct that in a world where there was no significant advantage to a particular set of behaviors (morality), might would make right. Luckily for all of us, that world is not reality.

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[wrf3]

For the Deist, the correct formulation is "might enforces right". That God is the standard of morality (i.e. it is 'his' opinion which has the most weight) is orthogonal to his omnipotence. Only if God could be killed would might factor into the equation.

As for "God is all powerful...", you need to consider the case where you come to acknowledge that God is right (perhaps simply by the ultimate revelation of Himself) before the punishment takes place. In that case, He would be right because He is.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[hacksoncode]

Fair enough, but that's consistent with the Atheist position too.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[wrf3]

Some goals are objectively better than other goals.

Really? I challenge you to provide an example that stands up under scrutiny. Atheist ethicists have been trying for years and have never succeeded.

A "beneficial outcome" is simply your personal/group opinion of what beneficial happens to be. And utilitarianism as a rationale is also nothing more than personal preference.

The only reason a "thief's morality" appears to be inferior to yours is that the theives haven't yet gained superior force (or haven't found a way to escape being caught). Were I to be only a little cynical, I would argue that the forced redistribution of wealth via excessive taxation is a form of thievery which seems to be doing pretty well for the politicians.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[shawnseat]

A couple of points on your concluding paragraph:

Some people, myself included, grew up in wacko fundamentalist Christian families, who did "hate people... for [their] belie[fs]." Unfortunately, it's very difficult to completely deprogram yourself. Thus a lot of us tend to be aggressive against (usually fundie) religion out of a combination of anger at our own childhood experience and fear for others having to undergo what we endured.

Secondly, a lot of fundies try to codify their religion into the public sphere (e.g., installing creationism/IDiocy and coercive and semi-coercive prayer in public schools). Especially those of us who are "recovering fundies" find this to harmful, particularly when imposed on children at young ages (before they have the mental development to make up their own minds).

Folks who get bent out of shape with liberal Christianity (and other religions) deserve to be considered trolls. Those who fight the Falwellization of the US are of an entirely different class in my opinion.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

Some goals are objectively better than other goals.
Really? I challenge you to provide an example that stands up under scrutiny. Atheist ethicists have been trying for years and have never succeeded.

Far too easy. You need to provide more boundaries to your challenge. My example:

A goal of having joy and loving relationships with other people is objectively better than a goal of living out a short existence in a small box filled with your own excrement.

The all-important caveat: But only to rational human beings within a broad definition of "normal". The caveat is needed because this kind of exercise can only result in communication if we agree on our foundational lemmas. You don't agree with my choice of lemmas, no matter how often your conclusions disagree with reality, so I won't be able to "prove" myself within your worldview.

And at this point, I appeal back to my original post. We're outside of the realm of proof and into what's most useful in predicting outcomes. "Prove" means little when "really, really likely" is already achieved and I'm quite happy with my morality and it's utility to me and my family.

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[wrf3]

A goal of having joy and loving relationships with other people is objectively better than a goal of living out a short existence in a small box filled with your own excrement.

All your example shows is that you can find two or more people whose subjective personal preferences happen to agree. This doesn't prove objectivity.

Try this: which is better? "Survival of the fittest", "enlightened self-interest", or "love"?

I'm quite happy with my morality and it's utility to me and my family.

And if the Islamicists have their way? What, then, of your morality?

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[sosume]

Atheists/agnostics have the same type of fanatic devotees who are obsessed with tearing down people's beliefs. A number of them regularly post on /., but are rarely modded Trolls like their religious counterparts are.

Well, maybe because the atheists' claim for the Thruth is the only proof built on scientific proof... all theories without proof are, well, as you say, essentially trolls. And we all see on slashdot how well people respond to that kind of reasoning..

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[temojen]

Yes, I am an athiest. No, I'm not hostile to Christianity or Christians: I just stopped accepting that there was a need for God and lost interest (except as a hobby of studying myth in literature and culture).

Sounds more agnostic than athiest.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[thesnarky1]

I'm a believing and practicing Christian, and I don't find that comment offensive. I think that many Christians who really believe, not necessarily act like they believe, would not take offense at that. I realize there are other opinions in the world, and I find that taking offense at every other religion/belief/idea people tell me is a great way to have no one listen to me. I have had friends who don't know the Lord, but not because I shut them up, because I had the decency to listen. Some people will take offense at anything that opposes them, which does nobody any good because they'll never be able to talk about their ideas and enrich the world.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[BlackTyranny]

Ask yourself if this is at all hostile: "It's not that I'm hostile to you, I just don't think that the reasons behind anything you have to say matter in the slightest, except possibly as a hobby."

My reply is more directed to the multiple responses posted in response to the above. A fair amount stated that this is not considered hostile. I am admittedly a Christian, I agree with the OP that "I exist and am capable of concious thought [summarized]", but I'm not sure whether I take the above as hostile or not. My opinion of that is based on whether the person who says "... as a hobby" is hostile is hard to judge in an electronic forum. To state that he is not hostile, even though he says he is not, is based on a belief without evidence as well, and there is not even a 50/50 chance anyone who doesn't know the original poster knows if this is true or not (you might *believe* he is not hostile, depending on your outlook and whether or not this agrees with your own basis).

As an engineer / scientist / student, I'm fairly sure I and many others could take the very first post, and make a 'belief tree' from there. I seriously doubt there would only be one version of that tree that leads to 'hostile' or 'not hostile', even for those who come to the same final conclusion.

Psycho-analysis aside, I know that 'pushing' my religion is not anywhere close to just having faith in it's fundamentals. The FUD about Christianity, and many other religions, is that all the followers are 'hostile' to non-believers. That, however, is often stated as 'fact' in other responses. Again, it's a matter of what your fundamental 'beliefs' tell you, and is very seldom based on any statistical / proven science.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Doctor O]

You might want to read up on Buddhism. There is a nice short intro from Damien Keown, search your favourite online bookshelf.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we could test this by temporarily removing your consciousness. Take a stun gun to the back of your neck. A stun gun generates white noise that interrupts normal cognitive processes. Of course, you will have to accept the observations from a possible figment of your imagination that the universe continued while you had no consciousness, but I assure you that the experiment is worthwhile. Oh, and please make sure that you have a full bladder when you perform the test :).

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

I lack a belief in God, therefore I am a-theistic. If I was uncertain about my belief in God or otherwise unable to come to a conclusion about God, then I would be agnostic and would exit myself from conversations about God without assertion.

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Pfhorrest]

I myself hold to four axioms, corresponding to the four philosophically traditional sources of knowledge (senses, reason, emotion, and language), one of which addresses your concern:

That logic works such that valid reasoning from true premises always leads to true conclusions (reason) - basically, that there is objective "truth" of some sort.

That observations are of a consistent universe, regardless of it's metaphysical nature (senses).

That other beings similar in facilities to myself exist with whom I can interact (language, or more aptly described, social learning).

And that things other than my personal, immediate emotions matter - basically, that there is a universal "good" of some sort.

None of these can be proven, but none of them have yet been satisfactorily falsified in my experience, so they seem good theories to me.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Fred_A]

Spoken like a true christian...

Can't help hoping for a glimmer of possibility of faith in santa^H^H^H^Hgod in unbelievers huh ?

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

In the parable of the vinegar tasters I tend to agree with Lao-Tse and disagree with Bhudda and Confucious about the nature of our current existence.

As such, when people ask for a simple answer regardind what I believe about the world and my place in it, I say that I'm pretty darned close to a Taoist.

Please excuse me for the link, which refers to an excerpt from "The Tao of Pooh", but that's where I originally read about the parable of the vinegar tasters. There's also a certain humor to that framing of the story that I find appealing.

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

I prefer deep, restful sleep to "stunned into unconciousness by electric shock" but whatever floats your boat... :)

And if you're interested in the results of my experiments along those lines: the universe is still here and the stories about what happened while I was out are consistent enough thus far.

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

But if we do put morals (or more properly ethics) derived from the metaphysical equality you noted aside, there are also substantial positive consequences to valuing yourself above others.

I agree, and in almost all cases, I do value myself above others. The few reversed cases are in the closest "ring" of community: immediate family. I suspect that when I have children, I may value their well-being above my own, consistent with my goals.

In general, however, I value myself above members of my family, who I value above my close neighbors and co-workers, who I value above others in the same city, who I value above others in the same country, who I value above others on the planet. All of whom I value as people, but in a really abstract way for the people in Siberia (and most places).

Everything is not black and white. We have degrees of just about everything. Including value to each other.

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Coulson]

All morality is nothing more than personal opinion (since there is nothing outside of man (or God) which says 'ought' instead of 'is'.

I think you're giving natural selection (both genetic and memetic) short shrift here.

1. We are not perfectly rational creatures, we have built-in (genetic) biases and social (taught) biases towards certain types of behavior.
2. 'Selfless' behavior in a population strengthens and helps to propagate that population.
3. A stronger population will eventually push out a weaker one (your point 4 above).
4. Over time, a population/society which values selfless behavior will push out one which believes "might makes right".

Conclusion: might does make right, but if all of the individuals in a population start to believe that, they will be pushed out of the way by a population that believes in morality. Morality keeps coming up, and people keep believing in it, because on the whole it is beneficial (in the sense of natural selection) to do so.

Similarly, you have to wonder about religion. It expresses strongly in every human population, even when it's forced out via might (Communist athiesm). Does everyone believe in it because it's true, or because it's beneficial for people to believe it's true...?

So there's the rub. Even if morality is a figment of our imagination, people will keep believing it. The only thing that makes the moralist's stance more appealing to the Deist's is that a moralist doesn't claim anything about the external world (e.g. "It's right to be good, because God said so"), only about how they should treat one another (e.g. "It's right to be good").

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[wrf3]

I think you're giving natural selection (both genetic and memetic) short shrift here.

a) The individual desire to survive is still personal preference. Nature doesn't care if any species survive.
b) We aren't slaves to our genetics so we are free to accept or reject it as a basis for moral action, and
c) The desire that 'I" survive doesn't invariably mean 'I think you ought to survive'. Again, look to the (admittedly contrived) example in another post about the aliens in 'Independence Day'. Suppose they ran Linux and so weren't vulnerable to Goldblum's virus. Would they take into account our desire to survive? I don't think so. So if this is true intra-species, it's hard to see why it isn't true inter-species.

The only thing that makes the moralist's stance more appealing to the Deist's is that a moralist doesn't claim anything about the external world (e.g. "It's right to be good, because God said so"), only about how they should treat one another (e.g. "It's right to be good").

This begs the question of what is good, The correct formulation is that the moralist says "This is good because I/we say it is" while the Deist says, "This is good becasue God says it is." (with the attendant problems of "which God" and "how do you know you heard correctly?")

I am heartened that you agree with my conclusion ("might makes right"), but this is true only in the atheist worldview. For the Deist, might enforces right.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[cromano]

[Sorry to interject.]

Choice.

This is the principle that is missing from your description and definitions above - it's in there, it's just implicit.

The point of wrf3, I believe, is that the weak point in your philosophy is that of other people not sharing it, and choosing to blow you up.

I grant (and fundamentally share) all your points regarding reality, people, proof, god and "being good". But this is because I choose it to be.

When you say "normal", you mean people with shared choices amongst common questions. But a person can enjoy living in a tiny shit box, or choose to do it because of other (including moral/ethical) motivations. Trivial example: three meals a day is better than starving to death, but that didn't stop Gandhi.

Therefore, as long as Gandhi is "within a broad definition of normal", wrf3's first point is granted: there's nothing other than personal opinion to judge between competing moralities.

I also grant that the principal, and easiest way to impose your personal opinion is force. I do not grant that it is the only one or the necessary one.

Going back to the beginning, you (paraphrase) "believe that other people are people too and of similar value". I agree. I also recognize that the fundamental expression of sentience is free will, and thus I choose to respect their equivalent right to self-determination, in the belief that it is for the common good (see below).

This generally refrains me from "might makes right". I understand that there are others who may choose differently, but this is not my failing, it's theirs.

About the common good, and on the original topic:
I believe, though I can't prove, that we are one; that Humanity as a group is greater than the sum of its individuals, and that the common good is a higher goal than that of self-interest, or self-preservation at an individual level.

I'll go back to lurking now.

Cheers,
Wolfe.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[cromano]

This begs the question of what is good, The correct formulation is that the moralist says "This is good because I/we say it is" while the Deist says, "This is good becasue God says it is."[and Atheists like "might is right"]

I do not agree that atheism necessitates "might makes right", in the sense of using force to impose your point of view on others.

I'm an atheist, and I do agree that at the fundamental level it is all about choice. The problem is that it also seems to be about "good".

If you want to get at the plain truth,
Forget about right and wrong.
For the conflict between right and wrong,
Is the sickness of the human mind.
--Alan Watts.

But, discounting zen, at least as an atheist I believe more strongly in my right to not choose "might makes right" as a principle, than the contrary. Atheism does not necessitate agression. Note that self defense, on the other hand, is perfectly okay. (oops, another slippery slope?)

Cheers,
Wolfe.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Anonymous Coward]

I Must say I find the assertion that "might is right " rather frightening. Athough it does appear to be demonstrated by the current polictical situation I don't believe it truely represents the human condition.

Specifically I don't accept that we can completely free ourselves from our genetic background, this would imply a self beyond the physical, ie. the ghost in the machine. I see no evidence that there is anything more than the phyisical being and it is within this that the emotions that give rise to our morality are generated.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

Welcome! And though I'll disagree with you here and there, I'm very happy to discuss at length!

The point of wrf3, I believe, is that the weak point in your philosophy is that of other people not sharing it, and choosing to blow you up.

Well, I agree that it is almost always better not to be blown up, but I don't see that that decision is a matter of metaethics. Ethics, perhaps (should I jump on that grenade or not), but not metaethics, which is where wrf3 is claiming to have me cornered.

Trivial example: three meals a day is better than starving to death, but that didn't stop Gandhi.

Interesting example, but ultimately, it also confuses the boundary between ethical decisions and the ethical framework in which those decisions are made. One of Ghandi's goals was for his people to have political self-determination. In support of that goal, he put aside another goal of a comfortable life. His decision to voluntarily endure personal hardship makes sense to another rational person when his larger goals are brought into the picture.

Goal selection is the starting point of ethics. The discussion surrounding goal selection is a big one because there are common goals as well as very uncommon goals that are all rational and can result in great satisfaction to the individual person determining where their life is heading. But you won't understand a person's decisions (like Ghandi's fasts) until you understand a person's larger goals.

Your explanation of how you agree with my "value of people" lemma is interesting, and I find that it strengthens my observation that richness of belief is more valuable than consistency of belief. Even in ultimately agreeing with each other, we still have something to learn from each other.

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[amRadioHed]

Well, maybe because the atheists' claim for the Thruth is the only proof built on scientific proof... all theories without proof are, well, as you say, essentially trolls. And we all see on slashdot how well people respond to that kind of reasoning..

You mean agnosticism, don't you? Atheism is as unproveable as theism.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Lepruhkawn]

But they still are clearly not you, so why should you care?

Perhaps the question of "why should I care" tends to come to mind to those of us that have a history (particularly as children) of being coerced into behaving a certain way to avoid being humiliated or shamed by those people we need to love us.

I think some of the motivation for spending energy pondering philosophical questions surrounding ethical or moral behavior comes from a desire to resolve emotional injuries.

Since we do not have the opportunity to be conscious of those injuries, we waste our time on questions that would seem irrelevant if we understood more about how we feel about our behavior.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

I was trying to make the argument without really using evolution and "man in the nature of man", but you're absolutely correct about why people tend to be nice, no matter which religion they choose, no matter whether today or three thousand years ago...

People who are nicer (up to a point) tend to have more offspring in the next generation.

I just LOVE a good discussion :)

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[cromano]

I find that it strengthens my observation that richness of belief is more valuable than consistency of belief.

Amen, brother!

8-)
Wolfe.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Pfhorrest]

Strictly from the roots of the words that may be correct, but in modern English the term "atheist" refers to one who specifically believes in a lack of God, not one who lacks a belief in God. That is, one who would say "Goes does not exist. Period." rather than "I've seen no proof that God exists, so I will not accept the proposition that he does."

The former is an inherantly unprovable statement (you cannot prove a negative) and thus an article of faith; the latter is a rational and strictly scientific viewpoint that requires no faith whatsoever. You sound, from your earlier post, that you merely lack a belief in God; that it has not been proven to you that God exists, so you take the logical position (given the principle of bivalence the the subsequent impossibility of assuming positive propositions to be true by default) of assuming the proposition "God exists" to be false unless proven otherwise. If that is so, then you are what is called an agnostic, not an atheist.

DISCLAIMER: I consider myself an agnostic and do not subscribe to any religion. Furthermore I am making no value judgements in this post; this is merely a matter of semantics.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[2nd Post!]

But if those other people are like you, shouldn't you care exactly because you care about yourself?

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[temojen]

No, I'm agnostic. He said he lacks faith in god, not has faith in the non-existance of god. This is the definition of agnostic.

As your neice post points out, Athiesm is a statement of faith just as much as Thieism is a statement of faith. Agnosicism is a statement of non-faith.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[MyOtherSlashdotAccou]

With all due respect, I don't think you've really responded to his initial point. Which was that if you do not believe in a higher power than yourself, what compels you to treat other people fairly? Now, I'm going to make some leaps here so please correct me where I'm wrong.

Being an atheist, you must believe that the ultimate necessity of your existence is purely biological. You have no soul or spirit, and your total existence is nothing more than an elaborate mechanism for replicating DNA. When you die - that's it, you're gone.

Given that premise, what is it that stops you from taking advantage of other people at every opportunity? So far the reasons you've listed are the law and genetic wiring. Neither of those seem like very strong deterrents.

As Bingo Foo pointed out, taking advantage of others is not always (or even usually) illegal. Besides, breaking the law and not getting caught is not that hard. Millions of people do it every day.

And as for genetic wiring - that's certainly easy to overcome. Human beings suppress basic instincts on a daily basis. That's a fundamental tenet of any society (although usually the idea is to suppress bad instincts). As a logical person that believes there are no eternal repercussions for your actions, what keeps you from suppressing your conscience long enough to profit handsomely? When doing so would ultimately benefit the process of distributing your DNA.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Anonymous Coward]

To say you "lack a belief in God" is to say that you are certain that there is no such thing, so "belief" is not needed. Or it could be construed to mean that there is no doubt that God *does* exist, therefore "belief" is unnecessary.

In either case, a judgement has been made. To make such judgement, you must surely have evidence, no?

Since I don't think you are claiming to have such evidence, then you have made no such judgement. Without judgement (and evidence) you can only presume, or "believe" you know the correct answer. Therefore, even the atheist has a belief--the belief in the nonexistence of God. To some agnostics, atheists are just as silly as theists because of this reason--they both believe in things without evidence.

If you really mean to say "God does not exist" then you are atheist. "God may or may not exist" is agnostic. "God exists" is theist.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[archilocus]

A friend of mine coined a name for that... an "apathist".
Apathists don't actively proclaim there isn't a god, they just don't care.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

So far the reasons you've listed are the law and genetic wiring. Neither of those seem like very strong deterrents.

You need to read more of the thread...

I've never argued for use of the law as a moral guide (at best the law is an input to moral decision making) and I've avoided mentioning genetics/evolution as much as possible because it's not likely that someone arguing morality from a Christian perspective will agree with the predicates of an evolutionary (natural) argument.

To directly answer your question:

The thing that prevents me from taking advantage of people at every opportunity is the same thing that prevents you from doing so (and it isn't God): taking advantage of people doesn't obtain the desired result.

You're rarely if ever happier or better off in your relationships after taking advantage of someone else. You may momentarily feel a little happier because you shoplifted a book instead of paying $6 for it and got away with it this time, but was it really worth the risk?

What makes a particular action right or wrong? Where it gets us in the long run. I had my days as a little shit with a selfish, mercenary attitude, but I drove away most of my potential friends, and hurt many of the people who loved me. Thankfully, I learned from my failed, early interactions with others and had a chance to 1) figure out what I really wanted in life and 2) change my behavior so that I am more likely to get what I want from life.

All as a purely biological being, with no consideration for what might happen after death, no consideration of salvation. This is consequentialism. Not the worthless, highly theoretical Utilitarianism of the philosophy professor; this is a highly pragmatic consequentialism of real life. Why should I do X and not Y? Because X is more likely to sustain joy in me, to give my children a chance at joy, to help me have the best qualities I admire in others.

And that's all that's needed. All the rest of the bellyaching about "but you could...". Yeah, I could. But I wouldn't be as happy.

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

In either case, a judgement has been made. To make such judgement, you must surely have evidence, no?

All right, I'll put it all out there.

My judgement is that the statement, "God exists." is without meaning and therefore unsupportable. "Greebles frob." has exactly the same strength as an assertion. I don't say that "God may or may not exist." since I believe that to be an unnecessary equivocation. Nothing that has so far been described as "God" can possibly have anything to do with the word "existence" and remain a rational statement.

And yet, I won't make a positive statement that requires substantiaion, nor will I accept the reversal of the burden of proof that is so common to these discussions. I deny that "God exists." has ever been substantiated and that without credible belief in the tiniest fragment of need or possibility for any sort of God, I am an atheist.

Given that, do you still harbor a suspicion that I might be an agnostic?

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

Athiesm is a statement of faith just as much as Thieism is a statement of faith.

This is a false statement and a common argumentative fallacy called "Shifting the burden.". Simply because I have not accepted a statement does not mean that I am obligated to prove the opposite of the statement. Atheism is simply the lack of any belief in a diety.

Within the group of people called "atheists", there are negative atheists and positive atheists. Those who lack any belief are "negative" while those who feel that there is substantial evidence for the non-existence of a diety are "positive".

The agnostic is simply that person who refuses to reach a conclusion on the subject (like my father, who hopes there is a God but won't make an assertion one way or the other).

Your definitions are flawed as you exclude a group which actually contains most of the set. I am an atheist, and most of the atheists I know are similar in basic beliefs to me.

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

in modern English the term "atheist" refers to one who specifically believes in a lack of God

I disagree with your definitions.

From dictionary.com:

atheist n: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

I don't accept the assertion that "God exists." which is, in my opinion, similar enough to the above definition to put me into the atheist camp.

agnostic n: 1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

I would assert that I am much more conclusive in my disbelief than this defintion would allow and am therefore not an agnostic.

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

Apathists don't actively proclaim there isn't a god, they just don't care.

That's good, because there certainly is plenty of confusion around who is an agnostic and who is an atheist.

For me, the test is simple: answer the question, "Could God possibly exist?" if the answer is "yes", you're a theist or an agnostic. If you are unable to respond with "yes", you're an atheist.

My response is, "Which definition of God?" If the clarification is "Any Biblical definition you like." then my final response is, "Since 'God exists' has no meaning, the question has no meaning". (note for those in the cheap seats: this response excludes me from being a theist or an agnostic)

In this discussion it's important to be precise in order to avoid the most common argumentative trap: shifting the burden. Many of the people you would talk with want you to make testable assertions, "like everyone else". The wise atheist lets the theist shoot himself in the foot and avoids picking up the gun at all.

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[sosume]

ehm, I can prove something doesn't exist by its global absence. I cannot prove it exists by using the same reasoning.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[temojen]

disbelieve v : reject as false; refuse to accept

note: not "reject as unproven"

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[temojen]

This is a false statement and a common argumentative fallacy called "Shifting the burden.".

No, it is neither. On whether It is a false statement, I refer you to the definitions of Atheism and Agnostic. Athiesm is the statement "there is no god" (which is a statement of faith). Agnosticism is the statement "One cannot know if there are gods" (a statement of faith) or "I do not know if there is a god" (a statement of non-faith) or "I've seen no proof of god"(a statement of reason).

As for whether it is "shifting the burden, I refer you to this which says:

Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantiam, means putting the burden of proof on the anyone who denies or questions the assertion being made.

I have not asked you to prove anything. You said you have no faith in the existance of god, not "there is no god". This is the definition of agnostic.

Atheism is simply the lack of any belief in a diety.

On this point you are mistaken. Atheism is the belief in the non-existance of a deity. Agnosticism is the lack of belief in the existance or non-existance of a deity.

You have written:

Within the group of people called "atheists", there are negative atheists and positive atheists. Those who lack any belief are "negative" while those who feel that there is substantial evidence for the non-existence of a diety are "positive".

This is incorrect. "Those who lack any belief" are agnostics, and "those who feel that there is substantial evidence for the non-existence of a diety" are atheists. The only reason that both are sometimes called atheists is that many people do not understand what agnostic means.

Further, you write:

The agnostic is simply that person who refuses to reach a conclusion on the subject (like my father, who hopes there is a God but won't make an assertion one way or the other).

Agnostics also include others who either have no faith in the existence of any deity but do not believe that none exists, and those who believe that one cannot know if any deity exists.

Then you conclude erroneously:

Your definitions are flawed as you exclude a group which actually contains most of the set. I am an atheist, and most of the atheists I know are similar in basic beliefs to me.

Actually, many who call themselves atheists are agnostic but do not understand the word. You may be in either group; I cannot tell. You have not yet stated "I believe there is no god".

(I see from another post you have written that you believe that no deity exists, which would mean you are atheist)

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Twylite]

Kant's "categorical imperative". Ask yourself "what if everyone did this" before taking an action.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[csirac]

It's really quite fascinating how some Christians (haven't had a theological debate with a non-Christian faith) simply can't comprehend that a godless, souless person could possibly have similar values and morals as their own.

For some reason it seems to scare them. Or perhaps that godless people aren't entitled to them; that perhaps these are supposed to be exclusive to believers.

Does this attitude arise because it simply makes it harder to demonize and differentiate non-believers, or is it something more complex - and frightening - that perhaps, for example, these people fear that without god in their life they'd become some sort of monster?

I know several people that have lost their faith (as strictly defined by the good book anyway; thanks to weird "church" groups/cults), and vice versa.

In both sides of both directions in these transitions, these people were not monsters.

Some people are quite impressionable, and are easily swayed into adopting a particular set of values, beliefs and morals (good or bad).

Most people are capable of holding any set of beliefs and morals ("good" and "bad"), irrespective of faith.

Remarkable. I'll never understand humans.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[MyOtherSlashdotAccou]

Thank you for the well thought out response. Incidentally, after posting I did find the rest of the thread. And let me say - wow, that's the best Slashdot thread I've read in years.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[gfreeman]

In any case, the principle of "might makes right" is foundational to atheism.

It's also foundational to many religions, Christianity included. "God is almighty", and therefore "His word is the truth".

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm going to let you in on a secret: you are a spiritual being having a human experience; everything you experience is an illusion, but illusion does not imply falsehood: you exist and the universe exists, your perspective on the world is divine, and your divine perspective co-creates reality.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[wrf3]

I already dealt with this elsewhere. In Deism, might enforces right -- it doesn't make right. God is right, not because of His omnipotence, but because of His self-existence.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

note "refuse to accept" in your definition.

I can only see your refusal to accept my definitions for myself as an attempt to boost the population of your group (agnostics). However, the agnostic claims that, "There is a chance that God exists." I dispute the agnostic's assertion as the same sort of nonsense as "God exists".

I lack a belief in a diety or dieties. I do not hold a realistic possibility that I will ever maintain a belief in a deity or deities. I am therefore a non-theist aka an atheist.

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Bingo Foo]

It's not at all that we can't comprehend that you do have similar values and morals, it's that you are being intellectually dishonest if you think that your values and morals can be derived without assumptions that are moral in themselves.

There is a leap from the indicative "Other people are conscious and fundamentally the same as me" to the imperative "and therefore I should treat them as I wish to be treated." As long as you allow empirical evidence and rational analysis to be your only tools, you will never make the leap from the indicative to the imperative. It requires appending some sort of moral axiom to your worldview to allow the valuation of others, to accept as a "good" thing the propagation of humanity into the future beyond our deaths, etc. If you admit that you hold some such moral axiom as being "True Even If You Can't Prove It" (to get us back on topic), then I have no problem accepting that you can hold moral values which are prima facie commensurate with those produced by Christian orthodoxy.

There are common beliefs among, for example the Objectivists that the imperative can be derived from selfishness, and strict materialists like Dawkins that the fact that we observe anyone holding a moral imperative is merely indicative in itself. I don't think that an individual holding either of those views in itself poses a threat to society or civilization, because they still tend to live parasitically on the ethics of a society founded on the idea of non-deduced moral imperatives. The problem comes when society itself, or a great enough number of its members hold these views. It's true we do have the inertia of our heritage holding us on course for now, but without any external guidance we most certainly will drift into a debased state. Read The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis for a scenario of how dropping the moral imperative puts us on a fast track to "well meaning" totalitarianism.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

I refer you to an excellent discussion on the semantics of the term "atheist".

What I particularly dislike about the definition you would like to use is the implication that atheists can only exist near to and dependent upon a theistic group for their self-definition (I can't just say "The universe is sufficient unto itself." in your semantic, I have to say, "That person is wrong!"). Without a theist to disagree with, your version of an atheist can't exist. A situation that I find more than a little ridiculous.

Despite attempts by highly influential Christian thinkers to alter the meaning of words and marginalize the semantics of "atheist", the word ultimatly relies on it's construction. Just as immoral (against morals) is different from amoral (without morals), so atheism is different from the never-coined imtheism.

Actually, many who call themselves atheists are agnostic but do not understand the word. You may be in either group; I cannot tell. You have not yet stated "I believe there is no god".

You may choose to agree with the loss of meaning from the semantic hijacking that you're arguing for. I don't, and will continue to deny that that reduction of definition is the correct one. Further, I assert that atheist and agnostic are not exclusive categories as many agnostics currently lack a belief in God and are therefore also atheists (just inconclusive ones).

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[WaterBreath]

I can prove something doesn't exist by its global absence

But you can't prove the global absence of a god. Remember that the deity in question (and indeed most other deities) supposedly exists outside the laws of physics that we currently understand. You can prove that we can't detect its presence, but you can't prove its absence. Not until we understand 100% of all physics that governs the universe down to its truly elemental units.

You can disprove certain claims of some people who believe in a god, but that is not what you're talking about.

Since it is currently scientifically unknowable whether or not a god exists outside understood physics, the debate of whether a god exists should be considered a philosophical one, not a scientific one. A great number of both Christians and Atheists would do well to remember that. I do not consider my faith in God to be a theory. I know it can't be proven. It's a belief. A philosophy. All that matters is that it is not currently provably false.

all theories without proof are, well, as you say, essentially trolls

I think you have a misunderstanding of how theories work. A theory is something that can be rigorously tested, and potentially disproved. Very few, if any, theories are ever proven true. Most are just accepted when it is shown there is no known evidence to the contrary. If you hold the opinion that harboring a belief which is untestable is a waste of time and effort, then the only viable "religion" is agnosticism not atheism.

I don't hold that opinion. I think philosophy is worthwhile, if for no other reason than that it generally incourages useful introspection.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[WaterBreath]

all theories without proof are, well, as you say, essentially trolls

No, all theories without proof are unprovable. This does not mean proof will never exist, and more importantly, this does not make them disprovable. If a theory is neither provable nor disprovable, then it is not a thoery, by the scientific definition of the word. It then lies firmly in the realm of philosophy. And as such, science should not be used to defend it, because it can't. But also, science should not be used to attack it, also because it can't.

Science should get involved only when specific claims that a "believer" makes are provable or disprovable. Scientifically proving or disproving the general existence of some random deity is an exercise in futility.

Whether it is worthwhile to believe anything that is unprovable is a question each person must ask themselves.

All I will say is that many great minds believed things that there was no proof for. Newton believed that normal chemical processes could transform one element into another (i.e. alchemy, lead into gold, etc.) Einstein believed that quantum mechanics was wrong, even as he continued to investigate and break down all the evidence he thought would support his opinion. The fact that someone holds an unprovable belief doesn't make them any less intelligent, or any less of a scientist.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[WaterBreath]

a lot of fundies try to codify their religion into the public sphere

For the record, I do believe it is wrong to do that. I also believe that if we're going to prevent those efforts from coming to fruition, we need to take all references to the Christian God and the Bible as referring to authority or moral correctness out of our governmental traditions and documents. No more "one nation under God", no more swearing on the Bible in court or upon entering public office. In fact, I'd be all for taking equal marriage rights a step further, and either give marriage rights to any adults who want them, or get rid of the marriage as a legal institution altogether. I mean, other than insuring children are raised safely to adulthood, what interest does the government have in recognizing marital contracts? Marriage arose largely out of religious institutions all over the world, remember. Even among homosexuals, it is often a religious event.

a lot of us tend to be aggressive against (usually fundie) religion

I understand this disposition. I myself am not fond of "fundie" relgion. But here on Slashdot I've seen many all-out hateful comments against Christianity in general, not just "fundies", that have been marked insightful. I wasn't arguing the "fundies" shouldn't be labeled trolls. They definitely should. But I do think the people who rail against religion, making blanket statements that don't apply to at least 99% of the community they're attacking, should be labeled Trolls as well . I don't see them as being much different. The desire on both sides is to be as cruel and demeaning as possible to the other. To try and tear down what the other believes and stands on for no other reason than to make themselves feel like good people. That qualifies as Troll to me, regardless whether the offender is Christian, atheist, or whatever.

Those who fight the Falwellization of the US

My point was that "Dr." Jerry Falwell and his ilk do not represent all Christianity everywhere. I don't believe the US, or even just the South, is in any danger of being completely taken over by fundamentalists. They represent a tiny minority. A few thousands among a society of hundreds of millions. And I hope you're not referring to the group of people that apparently are not too excited about the prospect of equal marriage rights for homosexuals. Regardless of whether they are wrong or right to feel that way, that group is definitely not restricted to "fundies", or even Christians.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

Depending on how you define your terms (specifically "divine", "exist", and "perspective") I probably agree with you. I get the distinct impression that you're using atypical definitions for those words in order to build a sensible mental model of a perfectly valid thesis of existence.

Nothing wrong with redefining words on the fly per se, but many people will dismiss your statement as nonsense unless you can phrase it in a way that uses more typical semantics. Some will still be skeptics (possibly including me) but it's at least better to be understood and disagreed with than ignored.

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

I agree that my statement leaves unstated the assumption that in order to attach value to anything, we first need to determine what effect "valuing something" has upon behavior.

My moral axioms are similar to "I should act in such a way as to maximize the probability of achieving/maximizing the accomplishment of my long-term goals." and "I should choose long-term goals likely to maximize my satisfaction as a human being." The reference to humanity is intended to acknowledge that my mind has built-in desires which, while risky to blindly follow in the short-term, are likely to result in great satisfaction if allowed to guide long-term goal setting.

As for proving them, since I don't ask others to agree with them, I don't see the point. They are simply a meta-response to the repetetive internal question, "What should I do now?" Like the Objectivists, I derive my imperative from currently understood human nature (as they like to say, "man qua man"). Unlike the Objectivists, I have a much more complex model of my own human nature than their one-dimensional "selfish man". This leads to a much more consonant understanding of the behavior of others along with a richer set of options for my own self-determined "ought".

Hell of a good response, BTW... Hell of a good response... If you're ever in LA, dinner is on me.

Regards,
Ross

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[cromano]

Being an atheist, you must believe that the ultimate necessity of your existence is purely biological. You have no soul or spirit, and your total existence is nothing more than an elaborate mechanism for replicating DNA. When you die - that's it, you're gone.

Careful: being an atheist does not necessitate this. I do believe it, as do many atheists, but rejecting "god" is largely about how you define "god" (and "reject"), and some atheists allow some very wild possibilities. Not me, though, I'm Kosher.

Given that premise, what is it that stops you from taking advantage of other people at every opportunity?

Intelligence. Specifically, pattern-recognition. "Do not harm others" is not an order given by a deity, but a conclusion reached by logical thought or intuition, and then adopted through choice. I do not refrain from harming because I must, I merely choose not to, in the belief that that increases my chances not to be harmed in return, and that it generally improves the outcome of the game for everyone.

Within theist reasoning, you are given free will, and must choose for yourself whether to harm or not - it just so happens that if you don't, you get better treatment from above. Many theists still choose to harm, obviously, due to many reasons. My atheist point of view is fundamentally the same, except that I believe I get my cloud and harp (or boiling oil) in this world, not in the next.

It's not that far off, really. If you look behind the curtain, you'll notice there's no need for the big guy in the beard.

But of course, the devil is in the details. 8-)

Cheers,
Wolfe.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[arlandbayes]

Not necessarily.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[arlandbayes]

Atheism is as unproveable as theism.

Atheism is unprovable but theism is not since you could, in theory, show me a God.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[famebait]

Did you ever consider that saying you stopped accepting that the core of everything they believe in and the basis of everything they do had any value might be inherently hostile?

Well, christians do that to everyone else all the time, to the point of even having it as part of their faith that they are obliged to do this, so well gee shucks Mr. Respectful, I really don't lose a lot of sleep over that.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Anonymous Coward]

Short answer: because it's normal (genetically wired into my brain) to treat other people with respect.

wrong. Aggression is wired into our brains. Respect is just peer presure. If you no longer care what others think of you, you will become an asshole. That's why we survived we were the biggest assholes of them all (survival of the fittest, kill or be killed).

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[2nd Post!]

What, does induction and the rules of self similarity not apply to your universe?

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[booch]

The thing that prevents me from taking advantage of people at every opportunity is the same thing that prevents you from doing so (and it isn't God): taking advantage of people doesn't obtain the desired result.

This reminds me of something I heard on a local talk radio show a year or so ago. The host (he's pretty much just a regular guy -- not like your typical talk radio host) had a Catholic priest and a rabbi on. They were talking about Hell. The rabbi said that the Jewish faith teaches that everyone eventually goes to Heaven. (I don't recall if there was no Hell, or if it was just a temporary punishment.) So the host asked why people should be good. The rabbi said that we should be good because God wants us to.

I thought that that was one of the best answers I've ever heard to a religious question. If every religion taught more of that, the world would be a much better place.

Looking back at that last paragraph of mine, I find it ironic that you were being accused of "might makes right" being the foundation of atheism.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[jaelle]

As a life-long atheist who has never believed "might makes right", I stand as a counterexample.

I don't need a god to help me figure out how to interact with people in a mutually-beneficial manner. That's about the silliest assertion by the anti-realists I think I've encountered in a while.

Re:A Consistent Universe and Other People

[Jameth]

Did you ever consider that saying you stopped accepting that the core of everything they believe in and the basis of everything they do had any value might be inherently hostile?

I didn't consider that, and now that you mention it, I don't think so. Christian believers (and nihilists and psychopaths for other parts of my post) are free to take offense at anything I may say, but no hostility was intended, nor would a thoughtful Christian take offence at my "uneducated position" on the matter.

Sorry. I didn't intend to sound so rude or to set off so many flames. I can see how you might not think the comment is hostile, but I still think it comes across as being openly opposed to Christianity. I guess we'll just have to disagree on that one.

A Christian believer labels the subject that we disagree upon as central to their view of existence and meaning.

I didn't say I disagreed with those 'lemmas' you commented on. I don't disagree with them and they don't disagree with Christianity. All I said was that "I just stopped accepting that there was a need for God" is hostile to anyone who believes God is their reason for living. Don't put words in my mouth.

They continue to exert their own agency when they choose to become offended by disagreement with their own unproven (and unevidenced) assertions. Some will, most won't.

Considering that you basically outright admitted that there is no 'proof' for your own assertions, just that you think they are reasonable and should be accepted, this argument is completely unreasonable.

The wise person would look behind their own injured sensibilities before becoming truly upset. But not all people are wise.

The wise person would read what he was responding to and see if there were any claims of injured sensibilities before stating that there were. I informed you that I felt your comment was hostile despite your claims to not being hostile, as I thought you might want to know why many Christians might not enjoy arguing with you on points such as these. You seemed the sort of person who would want to know if he was being unintentionally offensive. I'm sorry that I was wrong on that count.

(BTW, if you want to label me with a belief system, the Taoists and I agree on lots and lots of things).

I don't want to label you with a belief system and I can't possibly imagine how such a comment as this even relates to what I said.

PS: Sorry for such a slow reply.

I believe... that the website is slashdotted

[Anonymous Codger]

And I can prove it!

Re:homosexuality

[cephyn]

Certainly not, as it is no more detrimental to the person than double jointedness or hazel eyes, curly hair or lack of facial hair. Just because a disease and a trait operate on similar mechanisms, does not mean they are all bad.

Nice attempt to trap though, but still weak. All things that operate from the genes are genetic traits. Diseases are a subset, and they are those traits that are detrimental or dangerous to the subject. (Down's, CF, etc)

What Donald Campbell would have said

[CdBee]

Yay! 500mph! Oh Shit !

Nitpick: as a boolean value, that was true

[Just Some Guy]

One thing: we did find at least one artillery shell with traces of Sarin gas, so there were, strictly speaking, WMDs found in Iraq.

Did we find many? No. Are we 100% certain that Iraq actually made the shell? Not that I know of (although I haven't tracked the story in months). Was it more than a miniscule amount? No. Does (found-wmds-p "Iraq") evaluate to t? Yes.

Re:Nitpick: as a boolean value, that was true

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back and track the story. The shells were over 20 years old and the chemicals mainly degraded. And guess who the supplier of them to Iraq was...

Re:Nitpick: as a boolean value, that was true

[Just Some Guy]

Go back and track the story. The shells were over 20 years old and the chemicals mainly degraded. And guess who the supplier of them to Iraq was...

Those may or may not be true, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether WMDs were found in Iraq.

Framed another way, the original poster basically said that no WMDs were found in Iraq. That statement is provably not true, to the best of my knowledge.

Re:Nitpick: as a boolean value, that was true

[Anonymous Coward]

Framed another way, the original poster basically said that no WMDs were found in Iraq. That statement is provably not true, to the best of my knowledge.

Please explain how a 20 year old non-functional sarin shell constitutes a "weapon of mass destruction".

Re:Nitpick: as a boolean value, that was true

[Anonymous Coward]

To expound on what seems to have been the point framed in the comment you are disputing the validity of, consider what is apparent about the US media, its use of "WMD." The meaning used in the initial poster's posing seems to be more that "no recent or definitively functional Iraqi government made or Iraqi government placed WMD have been located, that no definitive signs have been discovered of any action apart from the UN mandated disarmament of WMD, and that the materials found and played up for the US justification of war to the UN to avoid classification as an aggressor nation in order to avoid potentially becoming subject to an actually definitively justified invasion of its own current territories by the forces of the other UN members were medical supply trucks, and later poorly manufactured aluminium tubes that are and have always been inadequate for use in the requisite heavy metal enrichment programs for production of the components of radiological weapons.

Re:Nitpick: as a boolean value, that was true

[Anonymous Coward]

we did find at least one artillery shell with traces of Sarin gas, so there were, strictly speaking, WMDs found in Iraq.

Bullshit.

A hunk of metal and (possible) *traces* of a gas *IS NOT* a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

In order for it to be a weapon of mass destruction, it first of all has to be a *weapon*. A tin can is not a weapon, even if it might have been used as a weapon at one point in time (if you melt down a gun, is it still a weapon?)

Sorry, we did not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Re:Nitpick: as a boolean value, that was true

[gorgonite]

I believe (too lazy to prove) that it was old and rotten; a leftover from the days when Saddam had and used them with Don Rumsfeld's approval (prove: picture of happy Don R. shaking hands with Saddam)

I further belive that some similiar story holds for Ossama.

Re:Nitpick: as a boolean value, that was true

[Barlo_Mung_42]

This is why I think Bush is a war criminal. It is difficult to find places where he literally lied. He worded his statements to give the impression that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 without literally saying it. To me, this is evidence that he directly and personally mislead us into an illegal and unnecessary war.

Re:Nitpick: as a boolean value, that was true

[Raunch]

If you want to get all nitpickie, then I don't think that "traces" of anything would be in the running to be titled with "mass". Beyond that, degraded sarin that was no longer harmful would be perhaps not best classified as a "weapon".

If I put .000005 grams of cyanide in your potatoes, is it posion? Perhaps it's just garnish.

Re:Nitpick: as a boolean value, that was true

[legirons]

"we did find at least one artillery shell with traces of Sarin gas, so there were, strictly speaking, WMDs found in Iraq."

one shell? traces of chemical? mass destruction?

That's like saying a bottle of water is a weapon of mass destruction, because if you had a billion times as much water as you do, you could drown lots of people. (apologies to anyone who's recently been drowned)

At last count (1997), the USA had 30,000 tons of chemical weapons. That's what you call 'weapons of mass destruction'. Not an antique shell that nobody even knew existed until 300,000 people went looking for it. I know farmers' fields in the UK which probably have more unexploded ordnance than that in them.

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, if it were genetics, according to Darwin, it would be a trait that should have been wiped out long ago since homosexuals cant reproduce.

Nonsense.

Nice analysis, but you forgot to mention one thing. If it was genetic, and even if homosexuals couldn't reproduce, and even if it wasn't recessive you *still* could get a recurrent population of homosexuals.

There is a genetic disorder (Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria syndrome) which causes you to age prematurely, in most cases causing death before age 16. This is a dominant trait, so if you got it from your parents, they'd also have the trait. The genetic defect arises from spontaneous mutation in most cases and is not passed down from parent to child. Even despite the lack of heritibility, there is a recurrent instance of 1 affected individual in 6 million births.

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

Come to Glen Rose, Texas- home of the Creation Museum. I'd be happy to point out a pair of mated, exclusive, life-partnered MALE ducks. Irony of all ironies, they live primarily out of a pond in a church camp. It causes no end of frustration to the staff.

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

There are certain humans who eat flies. What the fuck is your point!? According to your logic there is no need for there to be any comparision in other animals (yes - humans are animals) for it to be normal for that species. Therefor negating what I assume is your point.

Re:homosexuality

[vorpal22]

Exclusive homosexuality has been observed in captive penguins on numerous occasions. Google "gay penguins" for links.

Re:homosexuality

[IthnkImParanoid]

Don't forget that there exist recessive genes that, when only one gene is present, represent a significant advantage to the individual, but when both are present the individual is disadvantaged.* A recessive gene (or multiple recessive genes) therefore can offer one hypothesis for how homosexuality can be present at in about the same percentage of the population even if homosexuals are less likely to reproduce.** Regardless, I'm surprised more people aren't people here saying they believe homosexuality is(n't) a choice, as it's such a prevalent social issue.

* The genes for sickle cell anemia, for example. Also (dis)advantages refer to a repoductive standpoint only, no judgement is intended. A wild, stab in the dark example hypothesis based on cultural stereotypes would be that having one "homosexual gene" generally gives one greater empathy with the opposite sex and increases the likelihood of reproduction. Or maybe people with one gene like kids a lot and therefore have more, or perhaps increased fertility, or perhaps something completely (seemingly) unrelated.
** A likely hypothesis, but ultimately a matter of empirical evidence, of which I have none.

Re:Sucker- you've fallen for it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny you haven't changed the subject line! Love is a wonderful thing, but its not the cure for anorgasmia. If I were you, I might worry how easily someone else can solve that particular "cube." -and yes, I'm bitter from a divorce by a woman I loved.

Re:Check the News-

[nattt]

Anything is possible if you play the redefinition game where common understandings go out of the window.

If kind and loving mean anything, they have to have meaning now, not in some perpetual afterlife.

The Fundamentals

[dcmeserve]

What Do You Believe Even If You Can't Prove It?

That

energy == information == mind

And therefore,

The Universe == God

That's if you define the universe as the sum of all matter/energy, and God as "the greatest mind".

I believe the question should be rephrased

[forsythe450]

to "What is the best topic for starting a flamewar on Slashdot?"

Re:homosexuality

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Whenever the topic of homosexuality is brought up, someone says it is unnatural, and someone else asserts that other animals can be homosexual as well. Anyone who does even a brief investigation, immediately discovers that this is the case. Inevitably, there are some close-minded idiots who refuse to believe this, or are for some reason completely incapable of finding out well documented facts. These people, like you, are people that can immediately be ignored from this point onward. After all, what is the point of having a rational discussion with someone who has made up their mind, and is not interested in or capable of finding basic scientific facts?

Few things of my own

[petrus4]

1. That God exists, but not as a singular being in an external subject-object relationship with humanity as such. More that He/It exists in a kind of networked form which is able to take in information from the whole of the rest of creation, and then use said information in order to decide what needs to be done. Beings said to be following "the will of God" would be those that are sensitive to knowing said will and acting upon it. Sort of like SW's Force, but not exactly...More intelligent and purposeful. The Biblical Holy Spirit would probably be closest to what I'm talking about here, perhaps.

2. That corporeal death does not represent the termination of human existence. That heaven and hell both exist, but that people go there as a result of being attracted to their belief systems/expectations, rather than the decision of an external God to send them there.

3. That extraterrestrial life/intelligence exists, but that it is primarily acorporeal in form.

4. That astral space exists, and that we (sometimes) go there when asleep, as well as at other times depending on our interests and level of abilities in such areas.

5. That the corporeally dead can be communicated with, but that such activity should be persued with caution as there exists a possibility of instead communicating with extremely negative non-human entities impersonating the deceased.

6. That Jesus Christ existed in corporeal form as recorded Biblically...that the miracles, ressurection, and ascension took place...and that Christ's life and ressurection significantly altered the geography and governing heuristics of astral space/the afterlife.

7. That the period of the next seven to eight years is going to be marked by massive geological and geopolitical changes in the planet, as well as genetic changes in human beings. These changes are actually to facilitate the changing of the planet into a state that we would now refer to as acorporeal. Also that the current period is the time period that was specifically referred to in the Book of Revelation, but that it is more about a period of alteration rather than annihilation as such.

8. That although George W Bush and his administration are profoundly negative/self-serving human beings, they are in power for the express purpose of allowing America as a country to be forcefully confronted by, and therefore given the opportunity to resolve/work through, the dark side of the national psyche.

9. That despite the massive upheavals and apparent complete suspension of reason and sanity that can appear at times to accompany the current period, that people should try to retain a positive and hopeful perspective. I believe that the civilisation that will exist when the dust settles at least has the opportunity of being extremely positive...despite what we will go through in order to get there, I think it is something to look forward to.

Re:Few things of my own

[nagora]

I have mod points today but there isn't an entry for "totally nuts"! There's not a single item on your list that I believe; you even managed to undermine alien life with the odd proviso that it will be "acorporeal".

Well, if it makes you happy, I guess.

TWW

Re:Few things of my own

[petrus4]

It's interesting...I had a feeling virtually the moment I pressed submit that someone would label me a raving New Age fruit loop. ;)

To clarify...I don't necessarily believe all ET are going to be acorporeal by definition...but I've been reading accounts of channeling recently...and I find it an interesting concept that they could perhaps communicate via acorporeal means...telepathy and such. Then again, channels could just be raving schizophrenics. Either way, it's highly entertaining. ;)

In terms of what you say about if it makes me happy...the belief systems I've developed with regards to the Earth Changes recently (all the earthquakes, freak weather and stuff we've been experiencing recently) have helped me maintain a more positive perspective about all of that. I've believed the "End Times" as it's referred to (I don't call it that myself any more) have been imminent though for probably at least the last ten years.

If you're interested, you might want to google the Mayan Long Count in particular, as well as checking out this site, this, and maybe this as they're focal points of my belief system right now. Given the context of the recent freak meteorological/geological activity, you might just find some of it makes sense. I hope my parent post gets modded back up though...I don't think it's very fair that I get modded down just for having unusual beliefs.

Re:Few things of my own

[crabpeople]

WOW

ok. heres a nice little rebuttal.

1) Your saying that god is some kind of unifying energy. Fine. But if you think it has any sort of consciousness your insane.

2) The only way heaven and hell work for me is that if your heavily indoctrinated (see yourself) with certain beliefs, at the moment of your death, you will be peaceful or upset. As i would purpose that the moment of death is an eternity - relative to you - it is kind of like you would be in heaven or hell. solution - no matter what, realize that there is nothing afterwords. This calms me every time i think about it. The last moment before I die will be eternity to me.

here is a good thing i read once that summarizes my feelings perfectly:

I often dream about falling. Such dreams are commonplace to the ambitious or those who climb mountains. Lately I dreamed I was clutching at the face of a rock, but it would not hold. Gravel gave way. I grasped got a shrub, but it pulled loose, and in cold terror I fell into the abyss. Suddenly I realized that my fall was relative; there was no bottom and no end. A feeling of pleasure overcame me. I realized that what I embody, the principle of life, cannot be destroyed. It is written into the cosmic code, the order of the universe. As I continued to fall in the dark void, embraced by the vault of the heavens, I sang to the beauty of the starts and made my peace with the darkness.
--Heinz Pagels, physicist and quantum mechanics researcher before his death in a 1988 climbing accident

3) extraterrestrial life probably does exist. I think it has a physical form though. "a corporeal" just means "energy".

4) I have no idea what you are talking about. When I sleep i stay in my head. I find it much more rewarding to think that I am able to create my dreams.

5) absolutely false. no way can you talk to the dead. anyone who tells you different is selling something.

6) If he did exist (and wasnt merely an alien) the truth of his existence would have been distorted so heavily that its impossible to take a 2000 year old book as anything but a story with certain agendas. Probably, jesus had something more like food poisoning or a serious bout of pneumonia. He resisted this and it was played up.

7) "That the period of the next seven to eight years is going to be marked by massive geological and geopolitical changes in the planet"
When has this statement not been true? I dont think it will evolve the species because of people who hang on to stupid ideas like my religion is better than your religion. People need to realize that I only believe in one less god than they do. Religion is the cause of most conflicts.

8) ah so thats why he won the election. hes a holly warrior. now it makes sense.

9) I hope so too. I worry however, that people such as yourself who believe in "energies" and acorporeal communication will win out and not except reality when it comes beating down your door. The people who currently have their fingers on the buttons - as it were - are the ones who will not accept changes. I will be the FIRST one to admit I was wrong if god/jesus comes down and speaks to humanity.

But of course that is so supremely silly, I dont know how anyone with more than a highschool education could believe that tripe.

Re:homosexuality

[Decaff]

yeah, show me exclusive homosexuality in other animals i mean like humans do, not like confused dogs humping a tree.

Many animals show homosexual activity which includes full mating rituals and sex, not just 'tree humping'. This is know to occur in dolphins and wales, apes, rodents, deer, goats, sheep, and birds. In all, it been observed in hundreds of species. As for cases of exclusive homosexuality, this has also been seen in many species. For example, in japanese Macaque monkeys around 9% of all adults exclusively mate and pair-bond with the same sex.

Re:That there is no God ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe in the gods, all of them. Woden, Zeus, Ball Zebub, Chin 1, Herohito, Allah, Jehovah, all of them. I just don't believe that the word 'god' means 'infinite space pixie'.

While some of the gods may be just fictional myths, the majority are most likely based on real people: warlords, charismatic leaders, the kings and emperors of their time. The Pharohs were 'god kings', Chin 1 certainly was considered a 'god', Herohito was a 'god' until 1945.

The Kim dynasty may as well be called 'god' by the North Koreans, the followers of Idi Amin probably still think of him as 'god'.

The Baals were territorial warlords that protected their areas and taxed the peoples. One of these was Baal Zebub, which was probably a title for a succession rather than an individual's name.

I have no doubt that there was an exodus of a group of people from Egypt and they eventually met with the local warlord named, or titled, Jehovah, who granted them a part of his territory in exchange for following a set of his rules, including that he must be their leader.

Prior books are mostly myths and exageration, but much of the old testament can be understood better if 'god' and 'lord' are substituted by 'warlord' then the mysticism is stripped off and it can be seen as a story about real people.

Could is not the same as Can't

[cniebla]

Reading the article, only one of the answers uses correctly Can't, the others must use Could. Let me explain it: you can make your life around something you believe in, and you could some day probe it (or expect someone else probe it). When you live your life by believing on something you can't probe, you're wasting it. Thus the diference between could and can't take 2 different worlds apart: those who believe and could someday probe it (or probe it wrong, for instance), and those who believe and are aware that they can't probe (or deny), but live confortably with that. There's a third kind of people: those who can't tell the difference between could and can't.

Re:Could is not the same as Can't

[Feanturi]

I agree, and it is certainly more pleasant to imagine all the hot chicks you could someday probe rather than figuring you can't probe them. Excellent point.

I believe in hypocrisy

[Scrameustache]

WHen the gassing occured the UN wanted to sanction Iraq. The US blocked it. Why? Because we gave saddam the gas, we gave him intelligence, we gave him technology and we basically told him to gas people.

March 1988 "chemical assault" on the town of Halabja, in which the number of dead, according to Human Rights Watch "exceeds 5000".

Think about that.

At least 3,000 people died when a gas leak occurred at the Union Carbide factory in Bhopal on December 3, 1984 and more than half a million people were seriously injured.
At least another 10,000 deaths have been linked to the disaster

Re:I believe in hypocrisy

[Bananenrepublik]

So your weighing different deaths against each other? Will you be claiming that any attack which kills less than 200,000 people is justified because that tsunami wave killed at least as many people?

Re:I believe in hypocrisy

[Scrameustache]

So your weighing different deaths against each other?

No, I'm comparing two crimes.

I believe the article exists...

[Anita Coney]

... even though it's been slashdotted!

A Consistent Universe and Other People

[rossifer]

To be a little more constructive than the parent:

I believe, though I can't prove, that the universe presented to me by my senses is not an artifact of my own existence but exists separately from me, is consistent and will remain consistent after I am dead. (i.e. the universe isn't a figment of my imagination).

I believe, though I can't prove, that other entities that resemble me in appearance and behavior (people) have the same kind of agency and observer status as myself and therefore have value similar in kind to myself. (i.e. contrary to the assertion of the psychopath, I believe other people really are people).

Once you accept those predicates as lemmas (and variations, like having empathy for the pain of animals, or using tools to enhance your senses), a great number of things become "very likely". However, we don't need to "prove" any of it, because there's very little value to "proven" once you have "really, really likely". All we need is enough consistency to make predictions reliable and you can live a full and happy life in this world. Most/all of the people I've observed actually demanding proof for things are those behaving defensively in a "faith-based knowledge vs. reason-based knowledge" discussion.

Yes, I am an athiest. No, I'm not hostile to Christianity or Christians: I just stopped accepting that there was a need for God and lost interest (except as a hobby of studying myth in literature and culture).

Regards,
Ross

What do you believe, even if you can't prove it?

[MadMax]

I believe that microsoft solutions have a lower TCO than linux based ones...... ;)

except

[Anonymous Coward]

except that later on they said they couldn't confirm it was sarin, etc. So no, no WMD.

I wonder...

[JLSigman]

...if any of them believe in the Slashdot affect. (bookmarks page for later reference)

Feynman's right...

[WindFish]

What Do You Care What Other People Think?

Same question, different thoughts

[tacokill]

I've always wanted to know whether God created Evil? God is all powerful. God created all things in the universe. So....doesn't that include evil?

I realize evil is an abstract word, but start inserting concrete terms and you still have the same question.

Re:Same question, different thoughts

[kulpinator]

Many people think of evil as the absence of God/goodness/virtue. Kind of like the negative image of God; the same way that cold doesn't really exist, but is a lack of heat (or temperature, which itself is a convenient wrapper concept for average kinetic energy), evil does not per se exist but as a lack of virtue.

That is not terribly satisfying to everybody, but it helps a bit. Even though cold does not "exist," too much of it can still kill you; even though evil does not "exist," it can still be have a very real effect on your life.

Re:Same question, different thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the Bible, Isaiah 45:7 (King James Ver.), God created evil. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." That's why I blame God for the flames I am about to endure.

Re:Same question, different thoughts

[LWATCDR]

The old line from Oh God is "I never figured out how to make something with just one side." Okay except for a mobius strip this seems to be true.
Without bad can there be good? Can you choose if not given a choice. Can you be free without a choice? Did God create evil? I would say that God never created anything that was in evil by it's very nature. Does he allow it? I would say yes. Without it could anyone be free to choose, too learn, or to grow. Think of a child. If you protect if from ever getting hurt would a child ever learn to walk or ride a bike?

Re:Same question, different thoughts

[burns210]

Excellemt quote.

I have always seen it as this(sunday school, B movies, my own understand, etc are included):

Warning: I do not personally agree or follow this, but it is what I have peiced together, been taught.

1. God created Angels, etc. they were perfect, but since they were not free to choose love/hate toward their creator, God could not truley be loved by the Angels. (Lucifer, at some point, rebels, etc).

2. God creates adam and, later, eve. He loves them, etc, but gives them free will, such that, Adam and Eve could FREELY choose to love him. This SUPERBLY backfires. Eve + Apple + snake == Fucked up humanity. Fall from grace, banished from Eden. world, in handbasket, 1-way trip to hell.

3. God lays down the law: "OK, you guys really fucked up that free ride I gave you. So here: Go populate the earth, etc, and I will be back. Those who love me when I return get heaven, those who don't get hell. Those who do not know me(remote tribes, etc) will be given a choice on the day of my return, and those who die before my return will be addressed by me on their moment of death.

4. Time passes. Humanity populates, civilizations rise and crumble and rise again.

5. At some point, God is going to come back. He will lay down the law. Do some 7 years of serious screwups(tribulatou, if you will), after taking his believers away to view from heaven. Then there will be some thousand year reign and Judgement day.

6. You are either eternally happy in heaven, or eternally screwed in hell. But you have your chance, you were given free will, your destiny is yours to make or break.

Interesting belief system, I must say. Talk about playing "for all the marbles".

Re:Same question, different thoughts

[LWATCDR]

"2. God creates Adam and, later, eve. He loves them, etc, but gives them free will, such that, Adam and Eve could FREELY choose to love him. This SUPERBLY backfires. Eve + Apple + snake == Fucked up humanity. Fall from grace, banished from Eden. world, in hand basket, 1-way trip to hell."

That is only one view of the fall. The other view is that Adam and Eve had a choice to make between free will and staying childlike forever. They choose freewill. While it pained the Lord because he know it would bring much pain it was also what God and Adam and Eve wanted.
I know people that believe in the literal Adam and Eve story. I know others that believe it is a medafore. That it has a truth that it not literal.
I still fall back on the child. You know that your child will fall when he or she learns to walk and it will hurt. But not letting them walk would be more harmful in the long run. Not having the knowledge of good and evil would make us less than human.

6. I do not buy that. I have to ask who would I damm for all eternity? Is anyone evil enough that I would do it? Would I damm someone just because they do no pray to me? No. I also know that I am not anywhere near as kind, loving, or understanding as God is. So if I would not why would I think God would?

I believe that site needs a redesign!

[ZipR]

Way too many pages to click through to read it all.

Girls make out with eachother...

[simetra]

when there aren't any men around. I'm sure of it.

Re:Girls make out with eachother...

[CaptainAvatar]

Hmmm, that one's worth pondering some more I think ...

OOP Dogma

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people believe OOP is better without one iota of practical evidence. Shape and animal examples don't scale to the real world. There is more evidence of alien saucers than OO being better.

Good guys finish last

[Scrameustache]

Perhaps God is indifferent?

God is cruel and vengefull.

I believe I'll slip and fall on my face later on for having said that.

Unconscious choice

[geekpuppySEA]

As with everything, it's probably not reducible to genes v. environment. There's probably a genetic basis for whether or not an environmental factor can stimulate one gender preference or another.

Just read the NYTimes Article

[mkoop73]

NYTimes: God (or not), Physics and, of Course, Love: Scientists Take A Leap

Re:homosexuality

[minus_273]

"Certainly not, as it is no more detrimental to the person "

you have to admit, that is you opinion and maybe the opinion of the cuture around you. Not everyone thinks so, mostly becasue of the damage it does to some societies. Asian cultures where family is prominent and lineage and ancestor worship is prominent, the introduction of homosexulity would be devestaing because parents count on male children to continue the family name. Ilamic and African culture is also incompatible with homosexuality. That alone accounts for over half the world's population.

that argument aside, what i said by "should be able to screen" is that parent should have the ability to screen much like the will be abe to screen other traits in children

I appreciate the accusation that i was trying to trap you though, it certainly elevates the level of converstaion. Considering that you can't even have a serious discussion of this without trying to insult me, I am going to end my contribution to this thread here.

Many Worlds Interpretation I believe in

[thomasa]

QUOTE
The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is an approach to quantum mechanics according to which, in addition to the world we are aware of directly, there are many other similar worlds which exist in parallel at the same space and time. The existence of the other worlds makes it possible to remove randomness and action at a distance from quantum theory and thus from all physics.
UNQUOTE

This gives new meaning to the concept of re-incarnation.

Re:Many Worlds Interpretation I believe in

[stinerman]

I have been very interested in MWI, but haven't had the time (or found good resources on) it.

It is my understanding that we define probability because we can only observe the universe we currently inhabit. For example, in a different universe I chose not to post this story, but in this one I did, which split the universe I "was" in into two different universes. So in a sense, the "probablitity" of any event happening over all universes is both 0 and 1 since in at least one universe it did happen and in at least one universe it did not happen.

Follow?

Re:Many Worlds Interpretation I believe in

[myowntrueself]

"This gives new meaning to the concept of re-incarnation"

It does indeed. It seems to me that it is the sum total of all of the instances of me, inhabiting those many worlds which makes up the real me; my true self, ageless and eternal.

Re:What about quazi-intelligent design?

[Forge]

"Necesity is the mother of invention".

Without fragile bodies we would not need to stretch our minds. In other words; men as you describe would just live in caves (for comfort, not security) and scrape by hunting with talons and eating raw meat.

Man as he exists now would destroy the race you designed because we have technology he would never have invented.

Re:homosexuality

[eclectic4]

"Of course, if it were genetics, according to Darwin, it would be a trait that should have been wiped out long ago since homosexuals cant reproduce."

Double nonsense. By that logic there wouldn't be any sort of abnormality at birth, which would fly in the face of Darwinism.

Wrong order..

[Capitalist1]

> Religion/faith is all about the step after that.

No. Religion and faith are the step *before* science, in that religion and faith are all people have as an attempt to explain the working of the world *before* they figure out things like causation and identity. The idea that religion and faith somehow give us a deeper insight into the way things *really* are, beyond what our "puny human minds" can comprehend, is absolute nonsense. True, we can't know everything the universe has to offer - there is no such thing as knowing everything. Omniscience doesn't exist, and it isn't a valid standard by which to judge human capabilities. So what? That fact in no way implies either that there must be some "higher" intelligence which *can* meet this absurd standard or that the areas of our ignorance are where all the answers to all the supposed mysteries people of 'faith' wave in our faces actually reside, inaccessible to our 'lower', 'worldly' scientific minds.

Faith means one thing - making things up in the absence of or in spite of observable facts. In cavemen it's excusable. In moderns it's a mental illness.

Re:Wrong order..

[jdray]

You think so linearly. Why does one have to come before the other? Furthermore, what about non-observable facts? If I tell you that my socks are blue, do you believe me? If you do, is it a sign of mental illness? How about when your girlfriend tells you she loves you? Okay, how about your mother?

Exactly!

[downward dog]

But some people forget this, and use the language of science to answer questions of religion or philosophy (or vice versa).

Re:homosexuality

[TYC]

so by your logic it is like a genetic disease and in the future parents should be able to screen for it or possibly cure it in the womb?

That's a really disgusting take on it. Like calling blue eyes, or left handedness a genetic disease.

It may be that parents will be able to screen for homosexuality in the womb, and perhaps even change it, but that doesn't make it a disease.

The world doesn't need people like you homogenizing every detail of our differences to have happy, productive lives. And just because you don't like one of those differences does not make it a disease.

Re:That moderation scores can be fudged

[xtermin8]

How the hell did you get moderated up as Informative on /.? Your post be nice to hear on a particularly bleak day, but informative?

Hillary in '08

[BrK]

I believe that John Kerry's political campaign was an experiment to see just how much Americans would tolerate in terms of an ill-prepped candidate as a dry run for Hillary's '08 presidential bid.

TANSTAAFL

[Anonymous Coward]

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Re:Conciousness is an emergent behavior- Formatted

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree up to "keeping starving populations..."

I figure these folks must have it a lot better than me. I don't have the resources to raise more than about a half dozen children and I make 6 figures. You'd think that in these awful situations where people are gunned down in the street for voting or starve to death in a ditch that individuals would think twice about having babies.

References?

[Just Some Guy]

Do you have a citation for that? I googled for "sarin artillery shell" and found no such answer in the first three pages of results. I'm not disputing your statement, but I haven't seen that for myself.

Re:References?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's kinda true (I don't have references either and I'm an AC, but still...). An old artillery shell was retooled as a roadside bomb (this is common). What was uncommon was that this shell contained chemicals that, when mixed during an explosion, produce sarin (i.e. it was a binary weapon).

What IS known is that this weapon was OLD, likely a holdover from the Iran-Iraq war--either by failing to explode during its first use, or, more likely, just salvaged from an old ammo dump.

What isn't known is WHERE this weapon was salvaged from. My guess is Iraq, but that's only a guess. It could have also been salvaged from Iran and smuggled. It could just as easily have been an Iranian warhead to begin with. So it very well may not have been in Iraq when GWB said there were weapons in Iraq. If this shell qualifies as WMD enough to justify an invasion, then we can definitely invade France next for its unexploded WWII chemical ordinance.

So: weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq--but that's not really saying anything--every DU round fired is a radiological weapon and we brought those in ourselves. But Iraq either didn't have them before the invasion OR they had them but only because they had lost & forgotten about them for decades and hadn't destroyed them during the UN weapons inspection process. The inspection process which, I might add, successfully got rid of ALL of the known WMDs in Iraq prior to the US invasion.

Mob psychology

[WinterSolstice]

Yup. I believe that in tense situations groups are only as smart as the dumbest person there, and that all people are fundamentally like sheep.

I can't prove that, but I do fervently believe that :)

-WS

Re:Mob psychology

[HarveyBirdman]

I'd push it further. I'd say that a mob has no intellect at all, and acts as a single celled creature. Watch riot video carefully when the news shows it, from anywhere in the world.

Re:Mob psychology

[WinterSolstice]

There is a certain truth to that. I recall watching the rioting in LA, and thinking how much it looked like a gelatinous cube (ala AD&D). Of course, close up, it looked more like the intro to 2001.

-WS

Re:Mob psychology

[Anonymous Coward]

Ob. Simpson quote:

Lisa: Dad, please, for the last time, I beg you: don't lower yourself to the level of the mob!
Homer: Lisa, maybe if I'm part of that mob, I can help steer it in wise directions. Now, where's my giant foam cowboy hat and airhorn?

Re:Mob psychology

[njh]

Actually, there was a New Scientist article recently that gave evidence that mobs are smarter than the average.

Re:Mob psychology

[Rie Beam]

I agree...er..

Re:Mob psychology

[mibus]

Yup. I believe that in tense situations groups are only as smart as the dumbest person there, and that all people are fundamentally like sheep.

OMG!

Me too!!

Re:Mob psychology

[Anonymous Coward]

I know ( or believe strongly ) that the intelligence of a group is the inverse of the number of people.

Slashdot is proof.

Derek

Re:Mob psychology

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree. Slashdot regularly demonstrates this.

Re:Mob psychology

[Anonymous Coward]

And a recent book: The Wisdom of Crowds, by James Surowiecki.

What Campbell's Soup would have said

[larsoncc]

There's a market for hot liquid meals in the summer!

Re:Sucker- you've fallen for it!

[Anonymous Coward]

lust is far easier and a whole lot more FUN.

if she still wants more right away. you failed.

if she calls for mercy cause she cant handle more pleasure, pat your self on your back. (now is also the time to request on your fetish things you didnt think she would ever go for , she will now)

It's true

[SunFan]

I'm not an opinionated person at all.

Re:Check the News-

[Dr. Evil]

"If kind and loving mean anything, they have to have meaning now, not in some perpetual afterlife."

IMHO, the same applies to the very existence of God, kind and loving or otherwise.

I see more reason to believe that God is a fabrication of man constructed to cope with lives with no clear purpose and our inevitable deaths. Toss in unscrupulous and/or irrational people and you have all the explanations for all the religious texts and experiences throughout the history of mankind.

A simple universe

[tgibbs]

That the universe is understandable by man, and furthermore that its fundamental principles, when properly formulated, are conceptually simple.

Re:Sucker- you've fallen for it!

[xilet]

Wow its remarkable, I can give one to your wife in 15 minutes too!. -Sorry cheap shot...

Re:homosexuality

[cephyn]

"introduction of homosexuality" -- huh? Newsflash, it's been around a long, long time, longer than Islam and African cultures. It's a human thing, and you can find it in every culture at every time, and it's always been there before the culture that denounces it arose. There is no introducing of homosexuality -- its already there. There is however, introducing of cultural negatives based on some other agenda - and they are often very damaging. The Culture is not always beneficial. Female circumcision -- not beneficial. Demeaning of women or those of a darker skin color -- not beneficial.

Sorry you can't handle elevated conversation. You tried to place me in a logical trap -- and it was a good effort. That's part of debate -- trapping the opponent. Good effort. I feel I successfully evaded it.

Will a parent ever be able to screen for homosexuality? If it's genetic, yes. So yes, I think so. Will it be soon? I don't know, depends on how complex the mutations are.

I believe in...

[bvankuik]

The Father, the Son and the Holy Torvalds!

Halleluja!

What Soupy Sales would have said

[Anonymous Coward]

Pie tossing is an art.

Re:Are you a woman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because women enjoy manipulating men as much, sometimes more, than having orgasms. Of course, you can consciously cater to this desire, too. and yeah, I know, I have my issues.

Aesthetics

[Twinbee]

It's notoriously tricky to prove, but I think that all music and art can theoretically be given an objective 'score' or 'value', even if no one knows for sure how 'good' it really is. The better someone's taste in music/art, the closer their opinion would be to this 'universal' score.

To break music down to one of its elements, there has to be a reason why the chord:
C, F, B, D, F#, A ... sounds much worse than:
C, F, Bb, D, F, A

simple

[Anonymous Coward]

a girlfriend who gives blowjobs on a semi-regular basis. oh, and over a time frame of more than 6 months.

Re:homosexuality

[Dracolytch]

I believe by reducing sexuality to a "choice vs. fate" argument, people reduce a personal preference to an impersonal level, where they're able to attack it.

As a heterosexual male, I liken it to the preference for crispy bacon. That is... I prefer crispy bacon, whereas (in this analogy) you would opt for the limp/soggy bacon. A bisexual, then, would be willing to enjoy bacon in any form.

It seems doubtful to me that my preference for crispy bacon would be genetic. At the same time, I didn't wake up one day and say "today will be the day that I will enjoy only crispy bacon!". So, while it is a preference, and I am aware of my preference, it's not like I made a choice (concious effort) to prefer crispy bacon. It would also stand that if you enjoy limp bacon, that it is unlikely that you would really be able to force yourself to truly enjoy crispy bacon, no matter how much the status quo would prefer that you did.

From what I can tell, these kinds of preferences are influenced our whole lives by personal experiences (had crispy bacon, and it was a horrible experience), social norms (those who are used to limp bacon more open to the concept of liking limp bacon), and other various confounding factors.

Of course, these are simply my musings. Since I'm also of the mindset where I think sexual preference is about as important as bacon preference, I haven't done any analysis outside of talking with friends.

~D

This comes as no surprise.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we know why the Linux mascot is a penguin.

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

You are arguing against homosexuality by comparing it with the act of eating one's young?

ACHTUNG SOCIALIST PIG!

[the_mad_poster]

I am sorry if I previously made you cry. Perhaps we could discuss it over dinner? Shall I meet you at the station at, say, six-ish Ms. Taggart?

Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[the-matt-mobile]

Why is this modded insightful? It's a complete misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause. There is no "prohibitions against teachign{sic} religion in public schools". The only thing the Establisment Clause prohibits is a state sponsored religion.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[MightyMartian]

> Why is this modded insightful? It's a complete misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause. There
> is no "prohibitions against teachign{sic} religion in public schools". The only thing the Establisment
> Clause prohibits is a state sponsored religion.

Teachign a religious belief, even a cleverly hidden one like ID, in a public school is state-sponsored religion. Parents are perfectly welcome to put their children in private schools if they wish them to be taught about the Intelligent Designer.

ID evolved because openly teaching Biblical Literalism to public school students was pretty much squashed a long time ago. It's the floorboards of the wedge strategy (along with the premise that somewhere somehow something is wrong with evolution). Watch an ID advocate. In mixed company they will refuse to say anything about the alleged Designer, while among like-minded inviduals, this Designer's secret identity is quite obviously the Judeao-Christian god.

In other words, ID is nothing more than a lawyer's version of Biblical Creationism, specially designed to get around that little ol' problem of pushing Biblical Literalism upon kiddies in public schools.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Perl-Pusher]

Teachign a religious belief, even a cleverly hidden one like ID, in a public school is state-sponsored religion

By your definition teaching the Roman & Greek gods is then a state sponsored religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What is said here is Congress shall make no laws "establishing a state religion", meaning that unlike the "Church of England", we would recognize all religous beliefs and allow their worship anywhere, anytime! What this amendment was morphed into is atheism established as the official religion of the US Educational System.

The definition I use for religion is: "An outward expression of a belief system in regards to man's role in the universe and or a divine god or gods."

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Nopal]

Teachign a religious belief, even a cleverly hidden one like ID, in a public school is state-sponsored religion.

True, but the constutitution clearly reads "congress shall make no law...". When the parent uses the word "State" he is referring about the country (specifically, the US congress). Individual states can sponsor religions without a problem (unless prohibited by state constitutions as well). In fact, nationally excluding religious schools from funding would require congress to pass specific laws regarding religion, so banning religious teaching in public schools nation-wide would require passing a law which may be in violation of the constitution in the first place!

In other words, ID is nothing more than a lawyer's version of Biblical Creationism, specially designed to get around that little ol' problem of pushing Biblical Literalism upon kiddies in public schools.

And yet, those pushing ID have no problem with having evolution thaught as well (most, anyway). On a personal note, I believe in both and I believe that they are complementary of each other, and I am fine with keeping the school system the way it is, and equally fine with changing it. However, I must note that those engaging in the most close-minded arguments seem to be largely from the anti-ID crowd.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[MightyMartian]

I think you best check your facts. SCOTUS isn't exactly a stranger to Creationism:

http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/index es /bldec_CreationismIndex.htm

> And yet, those pushing ID have no problem with having evolution thaught as well (most, anyway). On
> a personal note, I believe in both and I believe that they are complementary of each other, and I am
> fine with keeping the school system the way it is, and equally fine with changing it. However, I
> must note that those engaging in the most close-minded arguments seem to be largely from the
> anti-ID crowd.

Uh huh. Let's see. Perhaps you could explain where the science is in ID. What predictions does it make? Where is the evidence for it? Surely, if it is *science*, then it must have some scientific aspect.

Opponents of ID want it to start delivering. Thus far, it's little more than a polemic against evolution, as in somewhere, somehow something is wrong with evolution.

I guess it depends upon how you define ID. When I refer to Intelligent Design, I'm referring to the claims by folks like the Discovery Institute and William Dembski, claims that certain biological features have specified complexity, and cannot evolve without intervention.

The bacterial flagellum claim is a cute one, as it has been debunked, but that doesn't stop IDers from repeating the claim all the same (reminiscent of absurd claims about moon dust accumulation and other stupidities oft-repeated by a previous, less sophisticated generation of Creationists).

ID as it is promoted by Dembski, is nothing more, at the end of the day, then an argument from incredulity. It is, as I said, simply a claim, dressed up, that somewhere somehow something is wrong with evolution.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[jimmyfergus]

By your definition teaching the Roman & Greek gods is then a state sponsored religion

If they were taught as a theory about the nature of the universe, yes. But then they're not actually, are they? What's the ID crowd suggest is teaching it as a scientific theory on the same level as natural selection.

What is said here is Congress shall make no laws "establishing a state religion", meaning that unlike the "Church of England", we would recognize all religous beliefs and allow their worship anywhere, anytime! What this amendment was morphed into is atheism established as the official religion of the US Educational System. The definition I use for religion is: "An outward expression of a belief system in regards to man's role in the universe and or a divine god or gods."

Your definition of religion is so broad as to be nearly meaningless. The absense of a belief in god, is now a religion?

You limit the meaning of "establishing" a religion to mean sanctioning a named church, and then assert that atheism is established as the official religion...? Your arguments are just getting too silly to respond to further.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Nopal]

Yeah, you'll have your nuts in either side of the aisle. I don't have a problem if you criticize ideas that are clearly wrong.

So because ID is defined a certain way by a group, does that invalidate all of those that believe in ID in a sensible way? You seem to imply that it does.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Anonymous Coward]

fine, i want them to teach hindu, satanism and islam also.

Ohhhhh you mean its only okay to teach Christian beliefs, as soon as someone else wants to play by your rules, you will change them

religion doesnt belong in public schools. that is a personal thing, not to be taught by a teacher, but by the family. there is no reason people need to force beleifs on to others, why cant they just practice and be left alone, as well as leave others alone.

religious teaching belongs outside of govt.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Anonymous Coward]

so you would be all for teaching and praying etc for Islam right?

oh you only want christian religions. thats why no religion should exist.

you should force your religous beliefs on others. just like they should do that to you.

why cant we be like other countries, where religion is a PERSONAL, not public thing. there is no need for religion in schools. last time i checked they had big buildings dedicated to the teaching of religion, some call them churches, some call them mosques, some call them temples.

why does a public school need to teach it.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Bradmont]

I'd like to point out that scientific naturalism is as much a faith-based (one might even say religious) worldview as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or anything else.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Bradmont]

Uh huh. Let's see. Perhaps you could explain where the science is in ID. What predictions does it make? Where is the evidence for it? Surely, if it is *science*, then it must have some scientific aspect.

I don't believe in intelligent design, but would like to point out that neither is evolution a scientific theory. A scientific theory has to be testable. You cannot perform tests to determin what happened in the past. The farthest science can take you when it comes to evolution is to show that it can or does happen, not that it did happen , or that's how all the world's creatures came about (unless, of course, science invents a time machine... :p)

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Perl-Pusher]

The absense of a belief in god, is now a religion?

How about Scientology?

Or Wicca?

There is also Buddhism and Unitarianism

You limit the meaning of "establishing" a religion to mean sanctioning a named church, and then assert that atheism is established as the official religion...?

By not allowing open public statement of believe in a god, all the while allowing athiest to profess that there is no god, in effect establishes atheism as the "approved believe system".

I had a teacher lecture a class for an hour that religion was the cause of all man's sorrows, made statements such as "more people have died because of christianity than any other cause combined" a statement easily repudiated and was not chastised at all. While a child in that same school was warned against having a bible time during lunch hour. In fact the principle believed the statement was true until it was pointed out that property,jealousy,rage, disease, old age, wars in the name of Karl Marx (communism), Facism and Islam and automobile accidents easily outclassed the crusades.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[MightyMartian]

> So because ID is defined a certain way by a group, does that invalidate all of those that believe in ID
> in a sensible way? You seem to imply that it does.

Well, since when I hear Intelligent Design used in the context of education, it's inevitably involving Dembski's construct, should I assume any different? If you are using a more nebulous definition, then generally I would refer to you as a theistic evolutionist.

There are already sciences that deal with intelligent design. Archaeology and forensics both come to mind as sciences dedicated to determining whether events or objects are the product of intelligent design. These are proper sciences, of course.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Nopal]

..I would refer to you as a theistic evolutionist.

But theistic evolutionism is in fact intelligent design. Strict creationism is intellingent design as well. Yet a disctinction can be made within the two. I've considered myself a believer in intelligent design even before this whole debate with schools began.

I guess that the situation is similar to what slashdot experienced at the beginning of the dot-com era, when all of the newscasts were referring to malicious crackers as hackers, and the slashdot community had a collective cow. "Hackers is not a bad word," everyone said, and they accused newscasters of being overgeneralizing, sensationalists ignorami. Yet here we are, at it again.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[MightyMartian]

This is an absurd strawman of evolution in particular, and science in general, and is an example of what is wrong with science education.

Evolution does make predictions, and those predictions can be tested. The fossil record was the first milieu in which evolutionary theory cut its proverbial teeth, but it isn't the only way. Genetics has opened up new avenues to make and test predictions.

If you wish to invoke solipsism, then be my guest. At the end of the day you are simply rejecting the notion that we can know anything about the world around us. After all, evolutionary theory isn't the only scientific theory which attempts to explain past events. How do you feel about archaeology, geology, physics, cosmology and climatology? Do you feel these fields of inquiry are equally unscientific because they delve into events that occured in the past? If you do not hold any or all of these other fields of inquiry to be unsound, perhaps you can explain the reasoning behind the double standard.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[jimmyfergus]

I had a teacher lecture a class for an hour that religion was the cause of all man's sorrows, made statements such as "more people have died because of christianity than any other cause combined" a statement easily repudiated and was not chastised at all. While a child in that same school was warned against having a bible time during lunch hour. In fact the principle believed the statement was true until it was pointed out that property,jealousy,rage, disease, old age, wars in the name of Karl Marx (communism), Facism and Islam and automobile accidents easily outclassed the crusades.

In what way was he teaching a religion (or atheism)? In this description he's not teaching you his religious belief as fact. He's teaching you his (absurd, as stated) opinion about the effects of one religion on humanity. Hugely different things. Even if it were to be true, it says nothing about the truth or otherwise of Christianity.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Perl-Pusher]

I don't want them teaching any religion. Only recognition that other beliefs exist. Teaching religion is the job of churches. What I want to have stopped is the public persecution by teachers of those who do have those beliefs. A teacher can expound on and on about their belief in atheism without predjudice. But let a child wear a cross and watch the shit fly. If the teacher says today is a holiday for pagan's that's cool to me! But in this day and age a teacher can no longer say Merry Christmas! We have become very intolerant as a society all the while claiming we are tolerant. Allowing someone to profess a believe in a religion without being intimidated, beat up or being sued is tolerance.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[MightyMartian]

> By not allowing open public statement of believe in a god, all the while allowing athiest to profess
> that there is no god, in effect establishes atheism as the "approved believe system".

First of all, atheism isn't even really a belief system, unless you also think that football or sandcastle competitions are belief systems.

Second of all, the US government is not forcing atheism on anybody. Atheism is not the same thing as secularism. The US is a secular state, which is a good thing, unless of course you want your own religious beliefs to be at the top of the stack (or the only belies on the stack).

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[alienmole]

I'd like to point out that scientific naturalism is as much a faith-based (one might even say religious) worldview as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or anything else.

Not true. Applying the scientific method gives proven results in areas which religion does not. Religion is not a workable substitute for science in these areas.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Perl-Pusher]

I guess you had to be there, I was seventeen and yes he taught atheism as a fact, using evolution as his only proof. He ridiculed anyone who believed otherwise. It was a long time ago but it remained in my memory, I didn't argue with him, but I came to admire those who did. I am not a believer in any established religion, I do not attend church. I'm more of a person who hopes for Intelligent Design. I'm an optimist, I want to believe there is something beyond our existance. For if not, and darwinism is the only univeral truth driving life. The it seems to me the only thing that would matter is propogating my genes. Killing rivals, rape are perfectly alright if it propogates my genes and I don't get caught. Not contributing to tsunami victims might lessen the population whereby increasing my dominance. Is morality a myth or do we all eventually have to answer for our deeds? My only gripe is for those who are intolerant of anyone who believes in any religion. I'm just as upset with those who enforce their religion on others. More so with those who kill in the name of their god. We have become very intolerant of others views.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Perl-Pusher]

First of all, atheism isn't even really a belief system, unless you also think that football or sandcastle competitions are belief systems.

That was idiotic, so you think atheism is a sport or competition? Aethism is a believe in the supremacy of man and that there is no divine spark, creator or all powerful intelligence. That is a belief system, it takes a faith because how do you prove there is no god, a negative. It takes the the same kind of blind faith to believe in anything you can't measure or prove. And my comments aren't in any way to be interpreted as chrisitianity is right and everyone else is wrong. It's that we should be tolerant of others views aethists don't don't get expelled for expressing their views but others do. It a now become common to sue anyone who 'offends' you. The complete lack of tolerance displayed by those who like to think of themselves as enlightened and intelligent is amazing.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Wraithlyn]

That's a lovely bit of pigeonholing. I have recently become interested in the ID hypothesis, and it has nothing to do with the god of the Bible, thank you.

It has more to do with quantum physics, and the idea that consciousness itself creates coherence.

Read "The Field" by Lynne McTaggart if you're interested in this.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[MightyMartian]

> That was idiotic, so you think atheism is a sport or competition? Aethism is a believe in the
> supremacy of man and that there is no divine spark, creator or all powerful intelligence

I'm an atheist. I don't believe these things. Have you ever considered the possibility that you've created a strawman of atheism?

> That is a belief system, it takes a faith because how do you prove there is no god, a
> negative. It takes the the same kind of blind faith to believe in anything you can't measure or
>prove.

I simply don't accept the existence of Yahweh. Don't feel picked on. I feel the same about Odin and Zeus.

> And my comments aren't in any way to be interpreted as chrisitianity is right and everyone
> else is wrong. It's that we should be tolerant of others views aethists don't don't get expelled
> for expressing their views but others do. It a now become common to sue anyone who 'offends' you.
> The complete lack of tolerance displayed by those who like to think of themselves as
> enlightened and intelligent is amazing.

I have no problem with theists, providing they don't try to shove their religion down my throat. I suspect you've been haunting places like talk.atheism, where the entire object of the whole debate is for theists and atheists is to poke each other with sticks while agnostics sit on the fence and giggle.

And who is getting expelled from what? In a secular system, a public official who demands that the rejection of God be taught to students is as equally off-base as a public official who demands that students be forced to state that God exists.

And beyond that, perhaps you better give me your definition of "religion" and of "system". Is saying "Aphrodite doesn't exist" constitute a religious system? Please explain this, because I'll confess I'm pretty confused.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[MightyMartian]

Sigh. Language is all about context. I was discussing matters of science in reference to education. In that context, someone advocating Intelligent Design (capitals) is inevitably referring to Dembski's pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Let me ask you this. What would you teach students in a science class?

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[oni]

those pushing ID have no problem with having evolution thaught as well

I do find that notable. It really gets to the heart of the matter doesn't it. One camp (in this case, the people who are are factually wrong) are not afraid of open discussion. The other camp (as it happens, the ones who are factually correct) seems strangely afraid of the other viewpoint.

Why do they have such a low opinion of kids, that they think the kids will be horribly ruined by one class period discussing ID? I just don't get that.

Personally, I think ID is bunk. It's poetic bunk though. There is a lot of beauty in the universe and maybe it is fun to imagine that beauty is there just for our viewing enjoyment. Nonetheless, evolution adaquately describes the universe and that's good enough for me.

Getting back to the point. ID is really not that complicated. I'm thinking it takes maybe one class period to cover the whole thing. Maybe a 30 minute video and then a class discussion, with the teacher there to emphasis that the majority of scientists disagree with it. Imagine that a high school student spends an entire semester studying biology every single day. And spends exactly one class period learning about ID. Will that high school student explode? Will he be so confused and distraught that he'll be unable to hold down a job? Of course not. Come on. Kids are smart. They can figure this out for themselves.

On the positive side, when you get out into the real world, you are going to meet people with views different from your own. If you have some familiarity with those views, you're more likely to be tolerant.

I just don't see what the big problem with teaching many different views is. I mean, assuming it doesnt detract from the real info. I just don't see what the problem is, other than, like I said, fear that kids will know something you don't want them to know.

To make an analogy, I wouldn't have a problem with a class period being devoted to studying the Apollo Hoax claims either. Show a video, and then let it be debunked in discussion. I trust that kids are smart enough to come to the right conclusions. I'm not afraid of letting them see a viewpoint that is different from mine.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Perl-Pusher]

And who is getting expelled from what? In a secular system, a public official who demands that the rejection of God be taught to students is as equally off-base as a public official who demands that students be forced to state that God exists.

It's not direct, it's the fact that teachers do openly state that god does not exist and never are they called upon for offending anyone. Portland Ore. schools have banned religously offensive items or clothing. This brings out the athiests who are immediately offended by someone wearing a crucifix. Students have been expelled for wearing head scarves, Pentagrams, Crucifixes and the Star of David. Lincoln Park High

Canada

Banning Christmas Colors

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Nopal]

Intelligent Design is merely Creationism dressed up in new clothes in an attempt to subvert US Constitutional prohibitions against teachign religion in public schools. It isn't science. -- The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

This is the post you made introducing the public education issue, and defining ID as being exclusively about that. The parent to your post didn't mention education once. Quite on the contrary, he correctly pointed out that ID can be both strict creationism as well as what you'd call theist rationalism, or whatever else you'd like to call it.

Language is indeed all about context. Your post was in response to something that didn't include education in its context at all and you tried to changed that context to generalize all ID as irrational and dishonest (and you tried to do it in a rather caustic way, too boot). That, my friend, is exactly why the slashdot crowd was so pissed about the hacker issue: The deliberate and dishonest play on context, in that case to sell news; and in your case, to red-herring ID to death.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[MightyMartian]

> It's not direct, it's the fact that teachers do openly state that god does not exist and never are
> they called upon for offending anyone.

I never had a teacher tell me that. My kids have never had a teacher tell me that. If a teacher did say something like that, then most certainly they should be called to the mat. The fact is that I simply don't think it's that big a problem. I think kids being forced to take part in prayers or having Creationist pseudo-science being shoved down their throats is much more prevalent.

>Portland Ore. schools have banned religously offensive items or clothing.

And I don't agree with it. Providing students aren't trying to force Bibles into the hands of Sikhs or Muslims, I don't see why any school would have a problem. I guess if it was a flashpoint, then I can see why some school district might, but I think it's the wrong solution to the problem.

> This brings out the athiests who are immediately offended by someone wearing a crucifix.

I'm an atheist. I've never been offended by someone wearing a crucifix. Perhaps you could point me to some atheists who are offended by other people wearing crucifixes.

> Students
> have been expelled for wearing head scarves, Pentagrams, Crucifixes and the Star of David.
> Lincoln Park High [rickross.com]

I'm not going to wade through an entire website to check your claims. As it is, I have no doubt that some overzealous administrators have done idiotic things. I don't see any evidence at all that atheists are working to destroy religion. However, I can tell you that there are some religous folks out there who are trying to overthrow science education, and that they are a well-organized group with political connections. The Dover, PA Area School Board's buying into ID is a good example.

If you think atheists are such a powerful force in America, perhaps you can explain why an open atheist would find it all but impossible to successfully run for office virtually anywhere in the US.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Jardine]

Students have been expelled for wearing head scarves, Pentagrams, Crucifixes and the Star of David.

The story you give about a student being expelled for wearing a head scarf (hijab) is about a young women who was expelled from a private school. The same story also says that the Human Rights Commission (a government agency) has launched an investigation.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[ProfBooty]

"If you think atheists are such a powerful force in America, perhaps you can explain why an open atheist would find it all but impossible to successfully run for office virtually anywhere in the US."

Simple, lawyers can't force how people vote,but they can force changes in public policy.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[MightyMartian]

Oh sure, it must be the athestic legal cabal.

Where do you go in a debate when the other guy invokes a conspiracy theory?

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[MightyMartian]

Considering that in the circles I frequent, theistic evolutionists avoid the term "Intelligent Design" like the plague because of the implication that they are following Dembski's path, I'm sure you can forgive me. If you insist upon identifying yourself with ID, then I'm afraid you are going to get more and more of it. It's your ballgame, not mine.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Anonymous Coward]

oh yeah, the christians have NOOOO say in america anymore.....

hahahahahahaha

prove that bullshit about merry christmas. until you can, shut up and realize you have your beliefs and can practice them as an individual at will. no one will stop you from praying at school. no one will force others though or set aside time for you to do it either.

government should respect that beliefs exist, and then basically ignore any particulars about them. it doesnt need to concern itself if it just sits back and lets people believe, practice (slightly restricted, ie human sacrifice) and carry out their beleifs.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh sure, it must be the athestic legal cabal.

Oh, you mean the ACLU.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Anonymous Coward]

Teachign a religious belief, even a cleverly hidden one like ID, in a public school is state-sponsored religion.

Ok, for all you people who don't know what the Constitution says...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

Since this is /. allow me to state this in programming terms...

Congress != School

Congress passes laws. Schools do not.

Teaching the Bible in schools does NOT run against what the first ammendment says. You may choose to disagree, but you would be wrong. Read the ammendment... CONGRESS, not government entity, but CONGRESS which is a specifically-named entity within the US government.

In fact, if you knew your history... the Bible was taught in schools up until the early 1900s. Most of our founding fathers felt that the Bible should be taught in schools. Yeah I know.. you're going to jump all over me for references. Well, its late and I'm tired. Go look up quotes from Franklin, Jefferson and John Jays to start with.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Anonymous Coward]

Teachign a religious belief, even a cleverly hidden one like ID, in a public school is state-sponsored religion.

No. ID centers on identifying complex patterns in nature. It works a lot like SETI does. We assume that if we find complex patterns in radio transmissions, it is a sign of intelligent life... that someone "designed" those transmissions for us to receive and understand.

Yet if we look all around us in nature, we find the harder we look the more complexity we find. Only recently have we produced computers capable of analyzing and storing one DNA strand. All that information encoded in one gargantuan data structure, and we aren't allowed to call it a design? Analyze the RNA replication in a cell that creates complex proteins "just in time" and transports them to exactly where they are needed when they are needed. This compares to a modern manufacturing plant and distribution system... and you laugh at me when I can't imagine them springing up at random?

I code software everyday, applying design patterns and code optimizations, and I can't even comprehend the complexity of a single cell. And you laugh at me and say it "evolved" by chance? Have you ever seen computer software evolve over time? It doesn't get more efficient, it becomes more chaotic.

ID is simply an acknowledgement that the complexity in life is far more than can be explained away by evolution. ID is an alternate theory to evolution and should be taught alongside it. You can INFER that it is used to teach a religion.... what a crock! We are looking at patterns in life and identifying complex patterns that evolution can't explain.

So, as a competing theory that has valid scientific merit (since it looks at factual complex design patterns), why shouldn't it be taught alongside evolution? Why are so many people trying to censor open debate?

The answer: because you don't want to follow the science. You have come to your own conclusion, and a designer brings along other ramifications that you are too scared to confront. I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but its late and I'm tired of debating with closed-minded people.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of our founding fathers felt that the Bible should be taught in schools. Yeah I know.. you're going to jump all over me for references. Well, its late and I'm tired. Go look up quotes from Franklin, Jefferson and John Jays to start with.

That would confirm that you're an idiot. Franklin, specifically, was a deist, and rejected the divinity of Jesus Christ. So I doubt he'd have been for "teaching the Bible" in schools, at least, not in the way you might want it taught.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[ProfBooty]

what conspiracy theory?

lawsuits are known for changing laws

voting for representatives may change laws

since atheists are minority in this country, they can disproportinatly force their views on others through lawsuits rather than through representative democracy. thats all i am saying

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[jimmyfergus]

Sounds like this teacher was a bully.

I think you misunderstand the role of natural selection. Just because it's a theory that deconstructs some (or all) of Christianity and many other religions, doesn't mean it is a religion in itself, and does not mean it represents any sort of moral framework. A flaw in a story does not constitute an alternative story.

I typed in more than this, but then realised that Richard Dawkins says it much better than I could, in this short essay: Rebelling Against Our Selfish Genes "Humans must believe in evolution, but fight it. Through us, natural selection has blundered unwittingly into its own negation".

It's precisely "enforcing their religion on others" that leads secularists like me to want religion banished from schools. I'm very annoyed that I was indoctrinated with religion from the age of 4. I'm sure there are extremes and subversions of these secularizing efforts which we would agree have become absurd.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Bodysurf]

Amen!

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Anonymous Coward]

I code software everyday, applying design patterns and code optimizations, and I can't even comprehend the complexity of a single cell. And you laugh at me and say it "evolved" by chance? Have you ever seen computer software evolve over time?

Yes. They are called evolutionary algorithms and they do just that.

It doesn't get more efficient, it becomes more chaotic.

No. Please read the link above.

Re:Misinterpretation of the Establisment Clause

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen!

Bullshit. See my reply.

Silly.

[Fantastic Lad]

I mean, when it comes down to it, nobody can prove anything one way or the other. It's logically impossible to prove that you even exist unless one makes certain logical concessions.

"Yeah, okay. I can't prove that I am here right now, so let's just assume that we all are, otherwise we'll never get anywhere!"

But where does that leave us?

After that point, anybody who tells me that God's existence can't be proven is just being hypocritical.

There's nothing out there but energy. Atoms are just huge amounts of space with some tiny charges. The whole universe could fit into an infinitely small dot, and perhaps even did at one time. We're nothing but vaugue energy-forms which only seem solid because we all happen to be made out of the same stuff. (Or lack thereof).

Anybody who complains, "Yes, that's all fine and good, but you can't get anywhere if you let your mind sink into metaphysics!"

Such people who complain thusly. . , who cry, "There is no God!" are simply choosing to nestle themselves within the illusion that things are actually real. And that's fine. The whole reason we're here at all, experiencing any of this, is to learn lessons which can only be taught if we take the illusion seriously. Those who start seeking beyond the confines are those who are getting ready to grow beyond. And those who aren't ready, will continue to nail loud-mouth seers to trees.

--Of course, this doesn't mean that Christians aren't a bunch of suckers with a religion based on manipulated falsehoods. But that's also part of the lesson.

-FL

Re:Silly.

[dreamer-of-rules]

What is this "God" in your energy universe? Is there more than one? Where are they? Why do you think these Gods exist?

If they exist, can we communicate with them? Can we get usable infomation from them? Perhaps they can explain the mysteries of the universe, and tell us whether a Grand Unified Theory exists.

There's no way I'll keep myself nestled only within the illusion of things that are real. However, if I'm going to believe that the universe was created by an intelligent super-duper all-powerful being for the express purpose of being worshipped... then I'm going to believe that they did it last Tuesday, implanting fake memories in us, and stocking the libraries full of romance novels. After all, that'd be a piece of piss compared to actually engineering self-replicating DNA with an intelligent intermediate step.

Why girls go to the bathroom in pairs

[cryptochrome]

They have ping-pong tables in there. I can't prove it, but I jusk know it must be true.

Irrational Choices

[ewanrg]

Jonathon Delacour covers this a little better than I do, but probably one of the more interesting answers to this question was given by Roger Schank.

The key quote here is:
"I do not believe that people are capable of rational thought when it comes to making decisions in their own lives. People believe they are behaving rationally and have thought things out, of course, but when major decisions are made... people's minds simply cannot cope with the complexity. When they try to rationally analyze potential options, their unconscious, emotional thoughts take over and make the choice for them."

IOW, that most of us even when we think we are making rational choices based on the best information possible are actually making choices based on how we feel about what information is in front of us.

At least, that's what I believe :-)

---

More like this here ;-)

Excuse me, Sir?

[the_mad_poster]

You are not making any sense.

Re:What about quazi-intelligent design?

[Anonymous Coward]

And our eyes have a crap design, the skeleton is entirely sub-optimal, critical organs often lack redundancy (heart, brain etc.) and the failure rate of parts of the body rises alarmingly after just a few decades (doubles every 8 years after the age of ten).

All of this, however, is a useful design for genes to survive as a long term optimal gene carrier is not necessarily best (at least after you've reproduced) if you want to experiment and improve your line.

Re:Check the News-

[Zerbey]

I find belief in a kind and loving God difficult because of events like the tsumani and the resulting suffering around some of the poorest areas in Asia and Africa. The acts of man, especially if one also believes in free will, doesn't afffect faith one way or another. Perhaps God is indifferent? That seems more of a challenge to me than disbeleiving God altogether.

Humans need suffering, it brings out the best in us. 155,000 people being killed was a terrible tragedy and we're right to question God's motives.

Millions of people around the world putting aside their differences and coming together to help the survivors. That's a miracle.

Penis

[Manassas]

That there's actually a penis below my fat stomach.

Universal Panmixia is a Stupendously Bad Idea

[Baldrson]

In his commentary on Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel"published on Edge.org, Bill Gates indicates he is sold on Diamond's advocacy of large panmictic ecosystems being the wave of the future. W. D. Hamilton has another view:

The incursions of barbaric pastoralists seem to do civilizations less harm in the long run than one might expect. Indeed, two dark ages and renaissances in Europe suggest a recurring pattern in which a renaissance follows an incursion by about 800 years. It may even be suggested that certain genes or traditions of pastoralists revitalize the conquered people with an ingredient of progress which tends to die out in a large panmictic population for the reasons already discussed. I have in mind altruism itself, or the part of the altruism which is perhaps better described as self-sacrificial daring. By the time of the renaissance it may be that the mixing of genes and cultures (or of cultures alone if these are the only vehicles, which I doubt) has continued long enough to bring the old mercantile thoughtfulness and the infused daring into conjunction in a few individuals who then find courage for all kinds of inventive innovation against the resistance of established thought and practice. Often, however, the cost in fitness of such altruism and sublimated pugnacity to the individuals concerned is by no means metaphorical, and the benefits to fitness, such as they are, go to a mass of individuals whose genetic correlation with the innovator must be slight indeed. Thus civilization probably slowly reduces its altruism of all kinds, including the kinds needed for cultural creativity (see also Eshel 1972).

Basically, Hamilton is contradicting Diamond's thesis as promoted in "Guns, Germs and Steel" and more recently promoted in "Collapse". Guys like Gates are sold but I'm not.

Rather, I think Hamilton was an optimist:

The current forces driving panmixia, such as modernized global transport and climate control, are likely to produce not simply another collapse, but a dark age from which we may never recover because it will purge the entire world of its "barbarian pastoralists" refuges, leaving no source of rejuvenation for future generations.

This might not happen were it not for the fact that freedom of association, foundation of all other human rights, is systematically attacked by every globalist authority, denying even residents of reservations for indigenous peoples the right to determine their own associations without government interference.

The myth that people outside the reservations have anything approaching genuine freedom of association is falsified by every court decision regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964 and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1870 -- making business and residency a domain of enforced panmixia, violating even individual preferences for association. It's bad enough that this fits the definition of genocide under the Geneva Conventions but guys like Diamond have turned it into a State religion crammed down the throats of the entire world via self-absorbed dupes like Gates.

I don't want to worship their gods. I demand my freedom of association. They have declared war by military and police enforcement of their religion upon the peoples of the world who do not want to participate in the technologically amplified mixing of ecosystems and cultures -- who believe something different is best for themselves and wish to associate exclusively with others of like mind -- even though they can't "prove" they are right anymore than can Diamond or Gates about their religion.

Re:homosexuality

[orim]

Yeah, except that the choice of where you stick your penis has *no real moral value* attached, one way or another.

P.S. I'm straight, but I'm outraged at people who think that one's sexual orientation has anything to do with anything. Fucking bible thumpers. Go shove the "good book" up your ass.

Re:homosexuality

[cephyn]

That side of the argument goes like this:

Anti-Homosexualityite: Show me one other animal that has homosexuality as normal behavior!
Normal Person: OK, here. (shows evidence)
A-H Person: Oh! er, um, I mean, Just because animals do it, we should too?

Yeah....both sides of the fence there....poor argumentative strategy.

The Anthropic Principle

[TrevorB]

An analogy for those who find the anthropic principle a little hard to digest:

Consider the tsunami survivors. A lot of them are asking themselves: "Why did I live when others around me have died? I must have been chosen/It must have been God's will."

Now consider that some other person lived and this person died instead. The other person would be asking the exact same question.

A similar, personal analogy everyone should be able to relate to: Each of us had a one in a million chance to exist back when half of us were sperm. Were we chosen, or were we just lucky and our compatriot sperm not?

Re:homosexuality

[Scrameustache]

Personally, I'm gay and I don't think homosexuality is genetic.

Thank you, I was getting pretty close to believing that homosexuality made people dumb as dirt and sheeps for the party line. Glad to see that homosexuals aren't all homogenous.

I have nothing against people who like to have sex with others of the same sex (what consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business), but I have a great hatred for the mainline "gay culture"... saying stuff like this makes the sheep (straight or not) call me "homophobe" (it's like "antisemite", the doomsday weapon of conversations), because it can't be anything else than a "you're either with us, or against us" situation, can it?

Again, er, don't take my rancor for the groupthink as a hatred of individuals such as yourself, you sound cool : )

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, pedophiles are free to have sex with other pedophiles. They can also marry other pedophiles for all I care.

I believe that Science and Game Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

...trumps Religion and Morals.

Science, because not only does it explain, but it predicts and can be tested.

Game theory, because it gives reasons behind cooperative behavior without requiring an outside agent judging us.

I believe...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Rick James (incarnate), Bitch!

Re:homosexuality

[KontinMonet]

I know homosexual men who have reproduced. Homosexual men do not necessarily restrict themselves 100% to men. Hence, if homosexuality is genetic, it is a strategy that can work (from an evolutionary point o view).

Re:What about quazi-intelligent design?

[magarity]

he would have given us the ability to fly around and shoot lazers out of our eys, and stuff.

I can't even begin to imagine how hard core the super heros in such a world's comic books would be like...

I believe in Evolution...

[sprekken]

... but it hasn't been proven yet. Just a theory.

Re:I believe in Evolution...

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

Yeah, it's a theory. In EXACTLY the same way as the Theory of Gravity is a theory.

Re:I believe in Evolution...

[joethebastard]

Hasn't been proven "yet"?

Just so you know, you can only experimentally disprove a theory. You can find data to support a theory, but you can't possibly reproduce experimentally all possible ramifications of the theory, so you can never prove it. If you're looking for theories to be proven true, science isn't for you. ;-)

Re:I believe in Evolution...

[sprekken]

In EXACTLY the same way as the Theory of Gravity is a theory.

Don't you mean Newton's Law of Gravity? Not quite the same thing...

Theory != Law

Re:I believe in Evolution...

[sprekken]

Just so you know, you can only experimentally disprove a theory. You can find data to support a theory, but you can't possibly reproduce experimentally all possible ramifications of the theory, so you can never prove it. If you're looking for theories to be proven true, science isn't for you. ;-)

While that may be true, reading your post it suddenly struck me that if you're right the Theory of Evolution would really not be any different than the Theory of Intelligent Design... in theory. :)

It is a hot topic to be sure, I don't think that anyone really looks at the issue with calm common sense anymore. It's all about how one believes, but it is an interesting similarity, eh? You can't really disprove evolution, nor intelligent design. You can only find data to support either, and discredit the other side's "data" based on personal beliefs or individual viewpoints.

Well, this whole discussion has brought up some good things to think about.

Re:I believe in Evolution...

[joethebastard]

sprekken-

I apologize, I should've been more specific in what I meant. There are huge differences between Evolution and Intelligent Design- primarily, one is a scientific theory while the other is not. The problem with the creationism/evolution issue is primarily that it involves some subtlety in your understanding of the scientific method- something that most people don't have a reason to know!

Evolution provides an explanation for what we observe, has predictive power, and has room to be experimentally disproved (i.e. by showing that certain features couldn't appear by random mutation followed by natural and sexual selection). You can accept evolution as a good theory without adopting any new beliefs- it's a simple explanation that (despite much effort) hasn't been disproven. The fact that you can't prove it isn't an issue- you can't prove any theory, unless it has a finite number of possible ramifications.

Intelligent design provides an explanation for what we observe, but does not have disprovability nor predictive power. Thus it is not a scientific theory. Accepting ID does involve adopting extra beliefs (someone to do the designing), but isn't disprovable (can't argue with "God did it"). Science doesn't work when you introduce a deus ex machina to explain everything.

I'm a scientist, and I don't care if people are for evolution, Intelligent Design, UFO's, shamanism, or whatever. But if you're choosing a Christian belief system, call it a Christian belief, and don't try to pass it off as science.

There's a lot of smart people there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Missing Respondent: Paris Hilton.

Re:homosexuality

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Asian cultures where family is prominent and lineage and ancestor worship is prominent, the introduction of homosexulity would be devestaing because parents count on male children to continue the family name. Ilamic and African culture is also incompatible with homosexuality. That alone accounts for over half the world's population.

Ha ha ha. Whew. Funny. Using broad terms like Asian cultures or African cultures is so unspecific as to be meaningless in this context. The same things could be said of the United States 200 years ago. You are merely grasping at straws for rational arguments to support an irrational view. You claim that countries are opposed to homosexuality because of the damage it does to society. On the contrary, most opposition to homosexuality comes from religious or social conservatism.

The only societies I know who had rational objections to homosexuality were Roman and Greek societies, who passed laws to discourage it since it was contributing to under population (it was very common and accepted in both of these societies). Seeing as overpopulation is one of the largest threats to our planet today, homosexuality is probably a very rational and helpful social trend.

I can't even fathom a rational reason why someone living in the same world as I do would object to other people practicing homosexuality. Are you afraid that so many people will not reproduce that our species will start to die out? Are you afraid that it will anger some deity and he will punish you as well as the homosexuals? I just don't get it. What rational objection to homosexuality is there?

Homosexuality & genetics

[tgibbs]

Homosexuality is observed widely throughout the animal kingdom. At some level, it must be genetic. That does not necessarily mean that whether a particular individual is homosexual or heterosexual is determined by genetic differences. It means that mammalian sexuality has frequently evolved in such a way that homosexual behavior is possible. If homosexuality were strongly detrimental to fitness, then mammals would have doubtless have evolved stronger safeguards to restrict sexual interactions to the opposite sex.

The relatively high frequency (compared to mutation rates) of homosexuality in the human population implies that there is some benefit of homosexuality (or at least the capacity for homosexuality) to fitness. This could mean that homosexuals propagate their genes indirectly (e.g. by assisting siblings in child-rearing), or it could mean that a capacity for homosexuality is an unavoidable consequence of genes that in other contexts increase reproductive fitness. For example, a gene might increase the likelihood of homosexuality in males, but increase fertility or sexual attractiveness in females. Or an increased probability of homosexuality could be linked to intellectual traits that also confer important advantages that (when they do not result in homosexuality) improve reproductive success.

Re:Then you don't even believe in what you can pro

[ArsonSmith]

exactly I dont belive anything, I take a few things as being consistant because of experience, up to and includeing things read or learned from other places that seem to fit with what I have experienced. But I do not use any type of learned dogma to say something can't happen or that it can't be a certain way. Things only seem to be what they are. Nothing is abslute except vodka :)

All I know...

[Edax Rarem]

...is that I know nothing.
That is what I believe in. Nothing.

There's a subtle distinction

[fireboy1919]

They are not the same. In fact, it could be argued that they are actually independant things. When is a fact proven? This implies a specific level of sureness based upon belief in the truth of other facts. There isn't really any such thing as something conclusively proven beyond any contestation. How do you know the physical laws of the universe won't stop working as they have been? How do you know the universe itself isn't an illusion, for that matter? You must assign some level that indicates the sureness of something and call it proof. Unfortunately, there are some assumptions below this threshold to fill in the missing information, and upon those premises you must draw conclusions, and we draw different conclusions.

To modify your quote, only shallow thinkers believe that something can be conclusively proven true or false.

A more precise way of putting the question would be "What do you believe even though the threshold of sureness is below what you would normally consider proof?"

Morality

[The Famous Brett Wat]

I am a moral realist. I believe that some actions have a moral value, in the same way I believe that propositions have a truth-value. I believe that "murder is wrong" is both meaningful and trivially true, because "murder" is a kind of killing that is, by definition, a "wrong" killing.

But try to prove that Right and Wrong are real.

AI will become a reality

[Anonymous Coward]

...maybe not in the Descartes sense, but at least smarter than human beings, for all intents and purposes.

In the next 50 years, we're going to have a supercomputer which has the capacity to store virtually the sum of recorded human knowledge... add to that advances in processing speeds as well as self-correcting systems, and we'll have a machine which is capable of things humans can't even comprehend.

And no, I'm not volunteering to be its sysadmin.

Look ma, the machine speaks!

[halfelven]

(subject)

The Science/Faith Conflict part 2

[TheLittleJetson]

The problem arrises when folks take their religious beliefs, and put them out under the heading of "science". For example, there are proponents of "creation science" -- which is basically the Christian creation story, with it's lack of evidence, with "science" slapped after it in a really bad effort to make it a viable opponent to evolution. It's all too common...

Re:The Science/Faith Conflict part 2

[jridley]

Right, and that happens when they feel that science is disproving their faith, which I believe comes from people believing that their favorite religious text was dictated verbatim by God. If they instead realize that the text is at best an interpretation into the culture of the time it was written, and live by the ideas behind the text instead of the words (which in the case of the Bible are 2nd+ generation translations of texts written hundreds of years after the events) they wouldn't feel so threatened.

I'm reminded of a scene in Red Dwarf where Rimmer is explaining his parent's religion, based on a misprint in their copy of the Bible which said "faith, hop, and charity, and the greatest of these is hop" - so they spent all day sunday jumping around on one leg.

can we ever stop being vain and chasing wind?

[tallbill]

I believe that Ecclesiastes is an awesome book. But this is opinion so I don't need to prove it.

Re:That moderation scores can be fudged

[jhines0042]

The real trick to getting moderated up is to post early.

If you post something thoughtful, but after the point in time where nobody is reading anymore then it doesn't matter.

If you post early enough then everyone reads it. If you are not a troll then you can get modded up.

Simple economics really.

Religion vs. Money

[Anonymous Coward]

More harm has been done in the name of religion than in the name of money.

Religion is the root of all evil.

Re:What about quazi-intelligent design?

[Decaff]

And our eyes have a crap design, the skeleton is entirely sub-optimal, critical organs often lack redundancy (heart, brain etc.) and the failure rate of parts of the body rises alarmingly after just a few decades (doubles every 8 years after the age of ten).

All of this, however, is a useful design for genes to survive as a long term optimal gene carrier is not necessarily best (at least after you've reproduced) if you want to experiment and improve your line.

No, it's not a useful design for genes to survive. Things are like this because it's hard for evolution to undo past designs. Once a design of the vertebrate eye had been established hundreds of millions of years ago, that is what natural selection was 'stuck with' from then on for vertebrates.

Semantics. Who cares?

[TheLittleJetson]

The things I "believe" in are the things I can't say I "know" because I can't prove them. Whether these are called beliefs, assumptions, estimates.... Doesn't really make a difference?

I have faith in nothing.

WARNING: Obligatory SCO reference

[Anonymous Coward]

From the desk of Daryl McBride:

Things I believe but can't prove:

That there is Unix code in Linux. . . . .

Godel, Turing, Mandelbrot, Solid State Physics

[cheesedog]

I believe that, ultimately, reason is an invention of the mind used only to compress information into storable, manageable constructs. Outside of the mind, there is no reason, no rationality.

The universe is unreasonable, the world is irrational, and there is no "Theory of Everything" (Grand Unification Theory, etc) or simple explanation for how the whole thing really works.

And, I can prove it. Or, better stated, Godel already did. Others have also provided proofs (Turing, Chaitain) or at least alluded to the incompleteness of rational thought (Rusell, Epimedes, etc).

I believe

[dfj225]

1+1=2 even though no one has ever proven it to me and I have not made an effort to do so myself.

that other conscious beings exist

[RussP]

We all believe that conscious beings other than ourselves exist -- or at least I do. But it cannot be proven. Please don't strain yourself trying to think about how it could be proven. It can't.

That is why I laugh when I hear athiests chide believers for believing in God with no "proof." Unless they are solipsisists, they believe on sheer faith that conscious beings other than themselves exist.

UFO's

[Spy der Mann]

I believe in alien spaceships crashing in roswell, Area 51 containing alien bodies, the CIA persecuting those who fight for freedom regarding aliens, the earth being flat and the satellite images being actually a conspiracy, the Illuminati, and George Bush _IS_ an envoy from God.

I also believe that those who deny this (SPECIALLY those who make jokes about tinfoil hats) will NOT be taken in the Mothership when the apocalypse arrives!
Just for the record: I believe that I'm NOT writing this, i'm just channeling an extraterrestrial intelligence [/SARCASM]

Re:UFO's

[nostromo.operator]

didja know that the Mexican Air Force recently released videotape of UFO's? http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1106371.htm Although there was no official comment from any government or defense orgs, Maj Magdaleno Castanon was quoted as saying "I believe they could feel we were pursuing them." and although this is not a certain affirmation that the supposed craft were piloted by an ET, we can certainly chalk up this guy with the rest of the tinfoil hat crew that include other total FREAKING WHACK JOBS like... NASA astronauts Gordon Cooper and Edgar Mitchell Admiral Lord Hill-Norton: Five-Star Admiral, Former Head of the British Ministry of Defense FAA Division Chief John Callahan Dr. Robert Wood: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace Engineer Captain Robert Salas Professor Robert Jacobs: Lt. US Air Force Lt. Colonel Dwynne Arneson: US Air Force (ret.) Colonel Ross Dedrickson: US Air Force/AEC (ret.) Harry Allen Jordan: US Navy Mr. James Kopf: US Navy/ National Security Agency Lieutenant Colonel Joe Wojtecki, US Air Force Staff Sergeant Stoney Campbell: US Air Force Master Sgt. Dan Morris: US Air Force, NRO Operative and the list goes on and on... *ANYONE* who claims the existence of UFO's or (worse) ETI in contact with earth is crazy and should not be considered sane enough to work at a salad bar. They are a curse to REAL TRUE skeptics and scientists and reasonable people everywhere. all these people should have their prestigious credentials STRIPPED AWAY along with citezenships and drivers licenses. {/sarcasm}

still a big problem

[chocolatetrumpet]

This issue plagued, nay paralyzed me in my philosophy class. How do we really know that logic is... true?

My professor said that since logic has consistently proved itself in nature over the years, it's a decent branch of philosophy worth studying and trusting.

I suppose that will have to do, but I would have been happier spending the entire class on this one issue. If the foundation is not strong or trustable then the rest is not worthwhile!

Re:still a big problem

[nine-times]

My professor said that since logic has consistently proved itself in nature over the years, it's a decent branch of philosophy worth studying and trusting.

Personally, I don't think you should settle for such an answer. If you're truly interested, that is. It's a fundamentally un-philosophic answer, and there are better ones.

I suppose that will have to do, but I would have been happier spending the entire class on this one issue. If the foundation is not strong or trustable then the rest is not worthwhile!

It's not always true with philosophy that an unsure foundation means the rest of it isn't worthwhile, but I guess that assumes some of the answer to the question of "logic" we're talking about.

What I believe (sorry, David Hume)

[jejones]

I believe that there's something to induction (induction as opposed to deduction, not mathematical induction)...well, it's worked so far!

Re:Check the News-

[swiggidy]

Come on. The tsunami was caused by terrosists detonating nuclear weapons deap under the ocean. They just haven't stepped up to claim responsibility yet. So that was man, not God. What you got now?

Like the ringmaster said..

[Odonian]

"Everyone should believe in something; I believe I'll have another drink." W.C. Fields

how can you prove if you can't prove it?

[tallbill]

The idea of 'belief' is a great concept in some of its meanings. But just like the idea of 'truth' the meaning of the word, and all words for that matter, is based upon how they are used.

'proof' only exisits in the sense that we agree that it is correct in the use of the word in context in which we use it.

Hence we can have mathematical proofs but not proofs about God.

A proof implies being able to share a truth, a truth that is within a specific context.

And hence all of these arguements about proving God are just a waste of time for people who will not believe. The agnostic has already agreed to disagree about God, there is not any proof that you or I can give an agnostic or an atheist unless God inspires that person to believe.

Hence we have stupid wars over things that we can't prove to each other, like the whole predestination thing that resulted in many murderous years in Europe during the Reformation.

I believe that there are things that one may know for oneself and not be able to prove to others.
And as far as discussing God with people who don't want to believe in God, what is the point? They will use your every word as a noose and get a sick thrill if they think that they copfuse you.

Don't waste your time with people like that. The
Spirit will talk to them if the Spirit wants to.

I can't prove any of this. And if you want proof then this message is not for you.

Take God on Faith and then you will start to see the great light that is shown to those in darkness, like the shepards saw. God will then enter you life. I can not prove this to you. It is left to you to prove this to yourself.

Re:how can you prove if you can't prove it?

[dreamer-of-rules]

Been there, done that. Seen the great light, got blinded, healed, now I see normally.

There are too many conflicting religions out there. It's obvious to me that if millions of people can be so determined that the pope is divine, Muhammed was a prophet, karma happens, angels appear to us, people speak in tongues, Jesus was born unto a virgin... I have no special chance of telling which is the real religion. If I pick one, and believe it to be the truth, I can't be certain that I'm any better at picking "the truth" than George Bush or Osama bin Laden.

Most Christians believe in a jealous God, a wrathful God, who used to be more involved in day-to-day miracles. And for the last 1970 years, hasn't owned up to any miracles. What happened back then? What's the big deal about creating a son -- who is also yourself -- and killing him off after 34 years. Isn't Jesus eternal, and kickin' it in paradise right now? Where's the sacrifice? Why did God make such a big deal about it, instead of just changing the rules about getting into heaven? What kind of father would condemn his children to eternal damnation unless they worshipped him, and believed in him when he hasn't sent a letter or called in a hundred generations?

My point is this: even for "unprovable things", there are degrees of rationality. Like recognising that Buddists and Wiccans and Muslins can be just as certain of their religious beliefs as you are. So how do you know that your feeling of belief is any more accurate then theirs?

For the record, I'm not interested in worshipping our "creator". Especially not if they've created artificial hoops for us to jump through, and allowed us to fight and kill each other for centuries as we debates whose idea of the creator was better.

All it would take to prevent religious war is a giant booming voice, heard around the world every couple weeks, in the language of every person who heard, letting us know what the score was. I don't think that would be difficult for someone who created the world from scratch. No more blurry photographs, inner voices that can be silenced with the right medication, and only appearing in jars of peanut butter. I'll believe in the present-day existence of an all-powerful diety when he cares enough to show himself.

Re:homosexuality

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

"chum guzzlers"

I laughed so hard I almost peed myself. The Daily Show rocks.

Use induction

[Anonymous Coward]

Since logic has worked every time in the past, obviously it has to work every time in the future as well. It's the good old principle of induction at work, no need for a proof which would be circular logic.

Ether

[Scrameustache]

I believe in the luminiferous Ether.

I believe photons are free-floating particles that surf on light waves of Ether.

I think maybe photons are the aether, but I don't believe that. What I don't believe is that one experiment that failed to find a directional light-speed difference relative to the trajectory of the earth is proof that there is no ether, and I don't believe that math that works without needing an ether is proof that ether isn't there.

Re:Ether

[jaoswald]

So the fact that, using QED, physicists can calculate the results of experiments to an amazing number of significant figures, means nothing to you?

If not, you should realize that you have not bothered to learn what the word "photon" actually means, and your beliefs have nothing to do with scientific reality, but are just lazy navel contemplation.

Re:Ether

[Scrameustache]

So the fact that, using QED, physicists can calculate the results of experiments to an amazing number of significant figures, means nothing to you?

I see that in your rush to troll, you didn't bother to read that part:

I don't believe that math that works without needing an ether is proof that ether isn't there.

Re:Ether

[jaoswald]

So, instead of an incredibly well-proven theory with definite techniques of calculation, based on the principle that Lorentz-invariance is a basis of physical theory, you have an alternative

"free-floating particles that surf on light waves of Ether"

Which of your terms have any real meaning---what do

- free-floating
- particles
- surf
- light waves [as opposed to photons]
- Ether

mean in your theory? What formulas do I write down to calculate the Lamb shift, and the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron? How do I calculate Compton scattering? How do I describe laser action? Is your theory Lorentz-invariant? Does it reproduce the relativistic behavior of cosmic muons and particles in colliders?

Relativity is not just one experiment; it is hundreds of experimental results that indicate that there is no preferred rest frame for electromagnetic phenomena; that frame is what 19th century physicists meant by "the ether."

In favor of your theory there is exactly NOTHING.

Re:Ether

[Scrameustache]

What formulas do I write down

Title of the thread: "What Do You Believe Even If You Can't Prove It?"

I see that you demand proof. Wonderfull. How's being a troll working out for you? Enjoying life under that bridge/your mom's?

Re:Ether

[jaoswald]

No, the point is your belief appears to be meaningless gibberish. Also, the key point of your belief is apparently that you *disbelive* some portion of relativity or current theories of electrodynamics. I am asking you to explain what it is you disbelieve in well-tested areas of physics.

Beliefs in these areas are usually subject to experimental test. Good faith requires that you compare the consequences of your beliefs to the results of experiments, and if they contradict experiment, to abandon those beliefs.

Some people also believe they can trisect the angle with straightedge and compass; they can be proven *wrong*. That they continue to believe it proves they are incapable of understanding the meaning of proof.

TubGirl

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe tubgirl is collecting royalties....

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe by reducing sexuality to a "choice vs. fate" argument, people reduce a personal preference to an impersonal level, where they're able to attack it.

I think Christian fundamentalists bring up the argument of "nature vs nurture" so often is, in part, because they don't want to bring up the real question: does homosexuality harm society to the point it should be discouraged? The reason why they won't bring up that question is because they know they won't be able to convince many people.. the whole "gay = AIDs" argument falls flat in the face of cases of heterosexual people with AIDs, and the fact that lesbians have a lower incidence of AIDs than heterosexuals. The other arguments: no children = bad, etc are all pretty weak, too.

Arguing that "homosexuality is a choice" is easy as there is no proof of any genes that may result in homosexuality and probably won't be for a long time. Fundamentalists will find it easy to convince the non-believers that homosexuality is a choice. However, the religious will just have to cross their fingers and hope the non-believers won't question whether it's a choice that should be revoked.

God vs conditional probability

[frankie]

if it were any other way, then we wouldn't be here to observe it.

I rely on one piece of evidence that avoids the Anthropic Principle: glass.

It's easy to create, comes from abundant raw material (sand), easily shaped, strong enough for many uses, transparent to visible light but not most IR (iirc), and the most amazing part of all is that it's absurdly inert to chemicals. You can store almost anything except fluorine in common glass, and look at it while you do.

From a cosmic variables perspective, it didn't have to be that way. Glass is not necessary to the formation of vertebrate life. But it's VERY convenient for tool-using civilizations. Perhaps even TOO convenient for a random lucky break.

So that's my circumstantial evidence for the existence of God.

Re:God vs conditional probability

[shobadobs]

Of all the possible materials on the Earth, one of them is useful and you consider that evidence of God? There are zillions of useful chemicals out there, such as silicon, plastics and steel. From a cosmic variables perspective, it didn't have to be that way. But they're VERY convenient for tool-using civilizations. Perhaps even TOO convenient for a random lucky break.

Only 4000-5000 years old, glass is a recent invention, like steel, after all.

Re:God vs conditional probability

[frankie]

Plastic, steel, etc, are WAY more difficult to produce and/or manipulate than glass. They require a functioning mechanical culture already. Glass could be made by people barely out of the stone age.

BTW, are there any reasonable-cost plastics that can match the corrosion resistance of glass? Metals certainly can't.

Abundant, easy, malleable, nontoxic, and so damn useful it's still a standard today. (how much non-decorative bronze do you see around you?) Yeah, I'm willing to say it could well be an intentionally planted gift.

HA! Believable stories me arse...

[Anonymous Coward]

He writes some good books, but he's hardly someone to be taken seriously on something outside his area of expertise (which is telling a good story).

I would rather believe the Nigerian Scammer than Crichton - His stories may not be more believable but they are infinitely more entertaining. Especially if you string him along for awhile like this one chap did.

Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God

[polished look 2]

The earth is but a small part of Creation and man was made of the earth. However, there is a spiritual realm that encompasses the earth and it is in fact more real than the earth itself. Angels are natural creatures of the spiritual realm and because that realm is more real, are able to work both realms (they don't go from one to the other - both realms both exist simultaneously in the same space but most people don't recognize it).

Jesus Christ came into the world via a virgin woman and was composed of the flesh as you and I are. He is, however, God's only begotten Son and the very Word of God. Just as the Father may say, "Let there be light," and light therefore is, so may the Son say, "Pick up thy mat and walk," it is a commandment unto His own creation.

Jesus is not an alien being; He is a "normal" human being (composed of the flesh) but He is God's Only Begotten Son. He died for your sins and rose from the dead on the third day so that by believing in Him you may have eternal life.

Re:Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God

[The I Shing]

And if you don't believe it, you'd better convincingly pretend that you do, or His followers will soon be tossing your sorry heretical ass into prison.

We'll see you at church on Sunday. Or else.

Re:homosexuality

[jejones]

Of course, if [homosexuality] were genetics [sic], according to Darwin, it would be a trait that should have been wiped out long ago since homosexuals cant reproduce.

By that reasoning, sickle-cell anemia should've been wiped out long ago. Unfortunately for the homozygous recessives, the more prevalent heterozygotes gain some resistance to malaria, so that natural selection keeps the gene in the population.

I'm not asserting that homosexuality is genetic, but the above shows that traits can persist despite being disadvantageous to a minority of the population.

Context matters

[Theaetetus]

Just to take the first part, the "GH", usually selected from "rouGH" for the F sound, there's a simple rebuttal (read aloud):

A rough-coated, dough-faced, thoughtful ploughman strode through the streets of Scarborough; after falling into a slough, he coughed and hiccoughed.

-T

I believe that Proof is Secondary to Consensus...

[BigEarzAllMHz]

Global Warming: When was the last time you saw a scholarly reference in a global warming news story or press release? Not for a while, because, hey, everyone who's anyone believes in Global Warming! DDT: It kills the eagles and causes cancer! Everyone knows that! That's why we banned it in 1972! As to the 1.9-2.7 million people who die of Malaria each year, if that's what it takes for a healthy environment, so be it! Weapons of Mass Destruction: There were never any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! Everyone says so! (Except for the not less than six 1-run-never-to-be-repeated-or-archived newsstories about the chemical-agent roadside bombs they've discovered and the briefcase full of Sarin gas they found in Falujah, oh and how about the several thousand dead and not-so-dead Iranians and Kurds with atropine-injection scars on their thighs...) Darwinian Evolution: It must be the truth because obviously the only alternative is creationism and everyone knows how wacky creationism is. The state of our knowledge couldn't possibly be INCOMPLETE in this area, leaving open the possibility of a mystery, something requiring further reasearch and investigation... because then those wacky creationists storm in! So, Darwinian Evolution (Natural Selection and variance by random mutation) explains the origins, development, and future of life, as well as predicting Oscar nominees, baseball pennant winners, and traffic jams on I-95.

Re:What about quazi-intelligent design?

[CreatureComfort]

We were designed in his own image

Weak? Afraid? Prone to violent fits of rage?

You haven't read the Bible much have you? That's actually a pretty good description of God in his own words according the old testament.

But then, as my pastor used to say, I'm only human and so not fit to judge the morality of the supreme being, or the reasons for his actions.

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

It's beneficial in overpopulated situations.

Also, homosexuality is seen in the animal kingdom, but it is not in a monogamous, polygamous or polyamorous form (not talking plant biology here, either). It serves a different role in social interaction from that in humans.

Regardles, we shouldn't look to other species to say what is and isn't "natural".

The Joke

[swb]

Q: Why do women fake their orgasms?

A: Because they think men care.

Re:Check the News-

[AttilaB]

I find belief in a kind and loving God difficult because of events like the tsumani and the resulting suffering around some of the poorest areas in Asia and Africa

I'm not Christian myself, but I have several close friends that are. Christian's believe that in addition to there being a God, there is also Satan. While God is more powerful then Satan, Satan is capable of causing great harm. Any negative events that occur are attributed to Satan, not God.

Science can not

[geekoid]

prove God exists.
Science can not disprove God.
therefore, Science can only help explain what he created, and how it works.

Re:Science can not

[Scrameustache]

Science can not disprove God.

I believe it is philisophically impossible to believe in god. You can only believe in the person(s) that described god to you.
Science can prove that the guy that told you about your god was repeating something made up.

Re:Science can not

[NoOneInParticular]

grin

Didn't do much reading did you? It's a logical impossibility to disprove the existence of a particular thing, not a scientific one. It is however 'easy' to prove existence, just present the thing. A thing that exists but cannot be observed is a linguistic joke. Compare:

There is a god

There is a terrible snowman

There is a toothfairy

Elvis lives!

None of these things can be disproven by science, yet any of these things could in principle be found and presented as a fact. None of them have however. At best you can call it a category mistake to present an idea as a potential fact.

Re:Science can not

[SageLikeFool]

"Science can not prove God exists. Science can not disprove God. therefore, Science can only help explain what he created, and how it works."

I can't believe that comment was modded up. It takes less of a leap of faith for me to believe in the correlation between stealing underpants and profit. Why would god automagically exist due to Science not being able to prove his/her/whatevers existence?

I am an athiest, and I essentially believe in Shit Happens. Therefore:

Science cannot prove Shit Happens exists.
Science cannot disprove Shit Happens.
therefore, Science can only help explain why it happens, and how it works.

I see #FF0000

[http101]

I believe that people actually see colors differently.

Ever wondered why Aunt Helga likes red and purple dresses? Ever wish she'd substitute red for blue?

I think people's tastes on what colors go with other colors is actually based solely on the interpretation of the colors themselves. For example, I see "red" and call it "red", but you know this "red" as your "orange".

A spectrometer won't help explain this as it all lies in the interpretation of the brain. Hell, in my world, the sky is GREEN!

Re:I see #FF0000

[smellystudent]

I see different colours with different eyes. My right eye gives a slightly blue tint to what I believe to be white paper, whereas my left eye gives it a reddish tint.

Re:I see #FF0000

[shumacher]

I arrived at that theory in elementary school! I also used it to explain how it was possible for someone to dislike chocolate.

Re:I see #FF0000

[KnightStalker]

I have believed that for a long time, too. Of course it makes little difference. The sky is blue in your world, and in my world, but your mental model of "blue" may be radically different from mine. We both call the sky "blue" because that's what everyone else calls it. OTOH the set of things you recognize as being the same color as the sky may be different from me. It would be interesting to find out how much of that is physiological and how much is due to our independent learning.

I think perception (of anything: colors, sounds, tastes, etc.) may also be to some extent culturally determined - Asian languages often have one word for blue and green, for example, and they would refer to the Sprite bottle and the blue Nalgene sitting next to me with the same word. They look completely distinct to me, though.

The arrogance of religion

[Theaetetus]

Sorry, no, science does not say "science will have ALL the answers" nor "someday we will comprehend everything." Science merely says "this is what we know now, and here are our questions."

It's religion that says "we have ALL the answers." That's the arrogance - claiming to have all the answers without proof. Where did the Universe come from? Science says, "we have this theory that seems to lead to what we see now, but if something changes, we'll change our model." Religion says, "We know! God created it! No debate necessary, no evidence needed more than this here book!"

-T

Re:The arrogance of religion

[jdray]

I think you mean to say that religion says "we have all the answers we need." It's untrue, of course, but that's the basic doctrine of many religions.

Re:The arrogance of religion

[Theaetetus]

I think you mean to say that religion says "we have all the answers we need." It's untrue, of course, but that's the basic doctrine of many religions.

Yes and no... I get your point - Christianity answers everything with "God created it, God did it, etc." but when it comes to knowing what that means, "Oh, God is unknownable and ineffable". I think that's more of a cop-out, though, than simply saying "we have all the answers we need."

I think they're really saying "we know all the answers that can be known," while science is saying, "we have theories, open to debate, that seem to predict observed behavior". Very different.

Re:The arrogance of religion

[jdray]

My wife and I went to a seminar once with her father, a fundamentalist Christian. The speaker was supposed to be talking about the coexistence of Christianity and classical science, with discussion on the dinosaurs and the idea that God created the universe about a week before Adam and Eve, which, according to many bible scholars, was about 6500 years ago. This piqued my interest, so I went along.

The speaker started out talking about how there's this difference of opinion among scholars regarding how old the world is, and that "some people" say that, if you look at the biblical account of six days for the creation of the universe, the "days" are just metaphors for some periods of time that were significant to God, and not literal 24-hour periods that Man knows as "days." He continued to say that this line of thinking leads people to say that the dinosaurs could have lived for millions of years on a God-created Earth, and that they lived and died within the "day" described in the bible where God populated the Earth with animals.

I was just settling in, looking forward to an insightful discussion that had the opportunity to create some bridges with my (non Christian) beliefs on this subject. This would please my father-in-law, and we might have a better understanding of one another. But then, like a hammer, this guy brings out the statement, "But none of it's true!"

WTF?? I asked myself, since no one else would've listened.

The guy went into full rant mode, prattling on about how God created the dinosaur bones in the state we found them and buried them where we found them so we would have something to wonder about when we found them. The universe, he said, was created in exactly six days, meaning 24-hour periods, just like the bible says. Question not the word of God!!

Well, after sitting through the rest of this flood of rubbish, I asked my father-in-law what he thought of the whole thing. "Oh, I think he's right on." Now, I know he doesn't really think that way, but he was caught up in the reverie of the whole thing, mezmerized by a charlatan. The seminar probably warmed his heart for weeks. Many years later, I still won't discuss the topic with him. We have something of an armed truce where religious notions are concerned.

People seem to find it easy to use emphatically-delivered, easy to understand ideas to model their life on. I personally think that the universe is somewhat more complex than that, and like to apply my somewhat limited brain power to thinking about it. Sometimes, though, you run across gems of simplicity that are basic truths. The idea is to know how to identify them when you see them, I think.

Cheers.

JD

What the Soup Nazi would have said

[liquidsin]

No beliefs for you!

Dark Powers

[dazedagain]

I believe that all of my incredibly insightful posts have been modded down by Dark Powers beyond my control.

where's the duck and the giant scale?

[Scrameustache]

turn off the computer, put away the porn, and go find a girlfriend.

I believe you're a witch! A WITCH!

Science does not believe anything

[tallbill]

Science is a system of empericism based upon reproducable experimentation. It is possible to believe if both the merits of science/empericism and and God. A scientist with faith understands that there are limits to what one can share about faith. Catholic schools still teach emperical science. Not all scientists are atheists or agnostics. Another thing: if atheists are so non-believing then why do so many of them always try to prove that they are correct? For me the more logical thing would be, if I lacked faith, to be an agnostic. As far as self-righteousness and religion goes, I believe you are correct that there a lot of what I call spiritual materialists. To these people there belief is like a thing. And they fully expect you to bow and worship this thing, their belief. The more enlightened of faith go past that. Spiritual Materialism is a pit that a lot of religious fall right into. They seem to say: "I know that there is a God, I know what God is. What I want is what God wants. You have to want it too or you are evil and not of God." I understand how loathsome that point of view is. People like that often times can get past it. If not then they are like the Queda, who think that it is OK to kill in the name of God. They are very dangerous to society and to others.

Re:Science does not believe anything

[lukesl]

I think that people who call themselves "atheists" are usually anti-God zealots of some sort. Maybe I should describe myself as an agnostic, but on some level I object to the term. It somehow implies that belief in God is the default. I think that if you don't actively believe in God, then you are an atheist, or rather atheists and agnostics are the same thing. As opposed to someone who might be called an antitheist or something.

Re:Science does not believe anything

[jdray]

Just looking for a bit of clairification here: How can one "actively believe in God?" What's the action? I don't mean to troll, I just think that it's bitwise, either on or off. Enlighten me if you see it differently, please.

Re:Science does not believe anything

[lukesl]

What I meant was a person who, if asked if they believe in God, would say something like "yes, absolutely." I can see this whole thing devolving into semantics. If they said something like "I don't know," common definition says that person is "agnostic," which is somehow distinct from "atheist." And I don't really see the distinction.

What I believe that I cant prove...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that I'm worth hiring at $200k/yr!

Artifact of my own existence

[glrotate]

I think a more meaningful question is how much of it is an artifact? I'd say either extreme is unlikely, i.e. we aren't entirely in Plato's cave nor entirely out of it.

Re:Artifact of my own existence

[rossifer]

I hinted a bit at that with my observation that all of the information I have about the universe I have through my senses, with all of their distortions and missing information.

We still don't know the true nature of the universe, but most of us can live happy lives with some wisdom and luck...

Regards,
Ross

Crichton: State of Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

First prove that global warming exists. Read "State of Fear" By michael chriton for more details (not sure i spelled name right, same guy that wrote jurrasic park).

Crichton. Jurassic. Work with me here.

Temps may have gone up in the last 50 years, but they were going down before that. Since temps started being recorded, temps have gone down or stayed the same in many areas. (Not saying some haven't gotten warmer) And for those that have gotten warmer, they are usually in cities where more heat is being produced. Places like antartica have gotten colder on average.

Arrrgh! Argc! Argv! Okay, to start with, local fluctuations in temperature are not indicative of global processes. For example, areas downwind of significant sulfate emissions may experience cooling as the sulfates directly and indirectly reduce insolation by raising local albedo. Second, global warming is not uniform; it's a global tendency for increased heat retention that is affected by local conditions.

You can think of it as the difference, roughly, between phenotype and genotype, if that helps.

The "urban heat island" effect is controlled for in global warming studies. Recent analyses of temperature trend data have confirmed that there are no temperature artifacts from urban areas in currently-used data sets.

Antarctic climate changes (see point one on local temperature changes) are poorly understood, and are affected not only by greenhouse gases but heat uptake in surrounding water and by atmospheric dynamics.

Crichton is a MD, but not a scientist. His description of genetics in Jurassic Park is enough to give any geneticist fits. (Hey, see these two fragments? We're missing, uh, five -- yeah, that's it, five! -- base pairs between them, but we just punch this button, and ...!) His understanding of climate science is worse, and his depiction of it is, at best, tendentious. The worst part of it is that he spent a lot of time talking to climate scientists, then deliberately distorted what they showed and told him to fit his ideological agenda. The community ain't happy 'bout that, at least according to the cli-scis I've talked to.

There are issues with understanding global warming. For example, ground sensor data doesn't match up with satellite or balloon temperature readings (though a recent article disaggregated tropospheric and stratospheric temperature fluctuations in satellite readings and found that tropospheric warming is occurring as predicted by ground temp readings -- but those anomalous balloon readings are still out there). But the preponderance of the scientific evidence shows a sustained global rise in temperature. The models show that greenhouse gases, by increasing thermal retention, will increase temperature. (Most models also suggest that we should, absent human intervention, be in a cooling period right now.) A rise in global temperature plus constantly increasing greenhouse gases leads to the simple scientific conclusion that greenhouse warming is, at least in part, driving global warming.

Cheers,

-tWB

Re:Check the News-

[iamghetto]

I find belief in a kind and loving God difficult because...

I don't think that in talking about god, we should ever be so bold/naive as to give god attributes that are completely human. It's a ridiculous statement.

Say a dog cares about her pups. If the dog could truely "think", she might think that she cares about her puppies the same way a human mother cares about her kids. To most humans I'D HOPE that that is an offensive thought. To think that a mom cares about her kids on the level of a dog and a pup... that's disgusting.

Much in the same way, I think its meaningless to label a being that is infinitely greater than ourselves with our petty human emotions.

Does god love? Our minds can't begin to fathom.

We need to stop trying to describe god in human terms. Its a disservice to god. That god can even be disserviced. Again, another human concept. :)

Re:Check the News-

[FirstTimeCaller]

Perhaps God is indifferent?

Or perhaps He/She is just really really pissed! That would explain a lot.

Re:homosexuality (KinSelection)

[IBitOBear]

Actually there is a persuasive argument for Homosexuality, or at least the capacity for homosexuality, as a genetic trait.

The fundamental mechanism is called "Kin Selection". By raising the ratio of adults over children you increase the probability that the children will survive. Given a competitive group of consumers, such as two families or tribes hunting and gathering from the same range, as the pickings get thinner the family with the larger number of providers is more likely to be able to provide for a given number of children.

The same features go for safety issues (waging war, fleeing disaster).

Even more so, should I attract an adult same-sex partner to my family for the cost of raising one child to adult my family gets two adult providers/protectors.

In terms of the choice-or-not question, I'd say "not choice" but also "not deterministic". Most of the people who weigh in on the issue only consider their own perspective and then presume that everyone else is the same deep down inside. This is why gay people often give bisexuals a ration of crap because the gay person may have _claimed_ bisexuality as a social buffer so then they presume that all persons who claim bisexuality "are just fooling themselves with denial." This is turn is as much crap as the straight guy knowing that "gay stuff is gross and would be an awful lot of effort so gay people are doing it on purpose."

When you set the invective aside and take an honest real-world look, I'd say that there are three set-levels in the brain. Opposite-sex attraction, same-sex attraction, and overall libido. I think each person is born with a sort of probable maximum for each of these levels as a genetic feature. _Then_ life circumstance and learning let/make the person realize some actual level for each of those set-levels. People who exclusively have same-sex or only have opposite-sex are simply predestined, those who have non-trivial potential in both _could_ go either way or both.

It is obvious to straight-only people that there was virtually no way for them to have been raised gay.

It is equally obvious to gay-only people that there was virtually no way for them to have been raised straight.

Why neither group has been able to recognize this truth about the other group is beyond me.

On the third hand, the some-of-each group, when raised "too straight" or "to gay" (or not 8-) get all convinced that _everyone_ ought to be able to chose the way they did Because That's How It Works(tm), and you get either Ex-Gays, Fundy Homophobe Ministers, or aggressive "every straight boy is really gay too" jerk-offs.

If everybody involved would really come to understand that other people are really and actually different inside their heads, the whole question would be self-answering and moot.

Re:homosexuality

[thoromyr]

My experience has been that there are three major groups when it comes to "the cause" of homosexuality. There are the homosexuals, there are the homophobes and there are those who don't really care. The first two groups seem to need to believe that homosexuality is genetic -- at least, those homosexuals and homophobes I've known acted in a manner consistent with this.

For a homosexual, if its genetic then it is "no fault" it just is. For a homophobe there is the chance to identify in a concrete manner (genetic testing!) and they are of course immune. In both cases the belief in genetics seems to be a way to avoid introspection.

Personally, I believe that it is a choice. There might be some minor genetic or biological persuasions, but human sexuality is not digital. It isn't a simple case of hetero/homo/bi-sexual. And I don't think it is set for all time. Which is to say the answer to the question is not a simple yes or no, but when trying to avoid introspection these kinds of simple answers are necessary.

One final note: homosexuality is *exactly* the kind of gene that would be weeded out over milliena because it would give those who exhibited the behavior less opportunity for reproduction. Yes, recessive genes can carry for many generations but the homosexual component of the population is too numerous to fit the bill. And it is very unlikely to be a recent mutation given its widespread practice, probably predating humans (if it were genetic).

Add to this two things: 1) not all societies have frowned on homosexuality (thus removing the argument of social pressure forcing heterosexual relations) and 2) not all societies define homosexuality the same way. The modern American definition of a homosexual would be considered a pervert in many other places because it is between two adult males (ignoring female homosexuality for the moment) whereas our reviled pedophiles -- particularly adult men who prey on juvenile boys -- are trying to practice what has in some places been the only acceptable form of (male) homosexuality.

In sum: nonsense, homosexuality is very unlikely genetic. The genetic argument's main purpose is to avoid introspection (why am I homosexual? why am I heterosexual?). And homosexuality is not a single "thing" which makes it difficult for it to be genetic when in practice it is defined by society.

thoromyr

I belive we were SEEDED here.

[iamghetto]

There is a missing link in evolution. An unaccounted for step to bring us into our present form from an ape. And creationism is simply ridiculous.

If we were seeded, and perhaps cross populated or intelligently designed from an ape, that would account for both our seemingly sudden appearance, and it doesn't count the theory of evolution.

The oldest texts we have, even the bible, account for our creation through some sort of engineering.

Who knows? Not me, but I believe it. :)

Re:What about quazi-intelligent design?

[geomon]

You haven't read the Bible much have you?

Cover to cover, several times.

That's actually a pretty good description of God in his own words according the old testament.

True, but I think the parent poster is a supporter of ID. If that is the case, then I doubt seriously that they are Jewish. Christians view god as a nice old man with a white, fluffy beard. The god of the old testament is indeed very human in his characteristics.

Re:homosexuality

[vorpal22]

don't take my rancor for the groupthink as a hatred of individuals such as yourself, you sound cool : )

Thanks, and no worries... I'm not a big fan of mainstream "gay culture" either, where the focus of one's life becomes homosexuality, instead of merely an aspect of who they are. Frankly, the fact that I'm attracted to members of the same sex is simply a facet of who I am, as is my love of mathematics (which is more important to me by far), the fact that I'm a UNIX boy, etc.

Please don't paint us as a group by your impressions of mainstream gay culture... a huge number of us (probably the majority, I'd wager) choose to either not participate, or participate infrequently in the large "gay community", and you probably interact with us daily but simply aren't aware of the fact that we're gay, because we don't make an issue of it.

I'm certainly not closed about the fact that I'm gay, and when relationship topics come up amongst my coworkers, I'm happy to tell them that I'm married to another guy, but I don't go around announcing that fact or purposefully and excessively indulging in stereotypical gay activities because somehow I find validation in belonging to the "community".

You don't understand existentialism.

[amarodeeps]

Don't confuse it with nihilism or belief in a completely subjective universe or whatever it is that you are trying to make it into. What existentialism is really about is the idea that we exist, there is not necessarily any explanation for it that can impose its own meaning upon us, and therefore we can impose whatever meaning upon existence that we like. In the end, it is a hopeful and positive philosophy because it suggests that the ability to create a better world lies within our control. It is profoundly humanistic and based on the most sincere belief that we have control over our lives.

As far as talking about objectivity vs. subjectivity, which it seems is what you are trying to get at, I don't think anyone who's thought about it in some depth would argue that nothing can be known objectively or existence is completely a subjective experience--I'm talking practically here, not in terms of some sort of abstruse and reductionist philosophical theory. I mean, it seems clear that some things we interact with are clearly there, and some things we experience are clearly subjective, and that there is also a vague boundary state where these things aren't so easy to understand (quantum physics springs to mind). But, I can't really prove any of that. :)

EmotionallyPotentOverSimplification(WMD);

[Scrameustache]

Go back and track the story. The shells were over 20 years old and the chemicals mainly degraded. And guess who the supplier of them to Iraq was...

Those may or may not be true, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether WMDs were found in Iraq.
Framed another way, the original poster basically said that no WMDs were found in Iraq. That statement is provably not true, to the best of my knowledge.

As a boolean value, that was !true:

Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Unusable relics with degraded payloads are still technically chemical weapons, but they are not capable of Mass Destruction.

I believe...

[underworld]

... that a lot of the respondents are using this as a mechanism to advertise their work rather than to honestly answer the question. But I can't prove it ;-)

Strictly unscientific, but.

[Nintenfreak]

Everyone's going to moan and whine about God, so I'm passing him over for something I have seen, an angel. When I was six, my father left work for the first time for his new job at Cooper Tire. My mother was worried so she prayed for an angel to protect her and her children while my dad was away, I didn't know that until last year. I woke up at four that morning, and went into my Mom's room. She was getting ready for school in the restroom ajoining her room. Then I saw it. This... angel. I knew immediately what it was through intuition, and tried to play with it. Each time I touched it, thought, it moved immediately to another part of the room. That morning I told my mother and father that I saw an angel. They didn't tell me until last year that my mom had prayed for it, and that she had seen it too. She told it only, "Thank you," and went about her business. The angel itself is hard to describe. It had not physical form. I jsut saw the outline of a bearded man in a robe. From what I could tell he had nice curly hair, and a Jonathan Frake's beard.

ENMOD

[Muttonhead]

When I see three hurricanes intersecting in one season at the towns of Homeland and Ft. Meade I wonder if the government can control the weather. Do I believe it? Not really. But I suspect it.

Map of three 2004 hurricanes intersecting

Map of Homeland and Ft. Meade, Florida. Man, somebody sure has a sense of humor. Perhaps the NRO people wanted to make the NSA guys eyes bug out. I believe somebody snickered over this, even if I cannot prove it.

Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

ENMOD gives a state nuclear power without all the lingering radiation. Note all the media comparisons of hurricane and tsunami power to equivalent Hiroshimas. If there's going to be a new world order it must be policed by force. Right? Uncooperative nations get tsunamied. Cooperative nations get favorable weather for growing crops. Do I believe it? I suspect it. It doesn't make it true.

Sex before marriage

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was young, I was sure it existed, but couldn't prove it.

Taken a physics class lately?

[raehl]

What's simpler:

"The electron lies in a potential well"

Or:

"God did it."

Looks like God is winning this one.

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[c64cryptoboy]

Intelligent Design Guy: Do you think you know perhaps 5% of all there is to know?

Atheist Scientist: Sure.

Intelligent Design Guy: Any change God falls within the remaining 95%?

Atheist Scientist: No way!

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, that's not exactly what it says.

Here, you have an electron. It does something. You can guess a good reason for why it does something. You don't have to add much in your guess.

Over here, you invent a mythical being whose presence can not be detected yet is supposed to be able to know and modify everything in the universe (and therefore must not be part of the universe).

Which is simpler?

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[ifwm]

You (conveniently) left out the EVIDENCE part. God loses.

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[raehl]

You (conveniently) left out the EVIDENCE part. God loses.

Evidence has nothing to do with it - the question is, according to the Razor, which explanation is simpler?

Even if we were to consider evidence, you have any tangible evidence that sub-atomic particles reside in potential wells? Can we get water out of them?

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[raehl]

Here, you have an electron. It does something. You can guess a good reason for why it does something. You don't have to add much in your guess.

Over here, you invent a mythical being whose presence can not be detected yet is supposed to be able to know and modify everything in the universe (and therefore must not be part of the universe).

You can make anything complicated, and it's obvious you've added considerable unnecessary verbage to your God part in order to do so.

You could have just as easily said:

God controls everything.

God is no less mythical than a potential well, which is itself just a MODEL for attempting to explain the behavior of an electron.

Now, trying to make useful predictions by pretending electrons reside in potential wells will probably be more useful to you than trying to make useful predictions by pretending God controls the universe, but God controls the universe is the simpler explanation.

Anyway, I'm agnostic at best, the point isn't that God is valid, the point is that trying to apply the Razor in this argument is not appropriate, as "simple" is at best as subjective as the faith you're trying to prove/disprove.

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[Raunch]

> What's simpler:
> "The electron lies in a potential well"
> Or:
> "God did it."

The idea is simplest answer, not shortest answer.

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[Nonesuch]

reahl writes:

God is no less mythical than a potential well, which is itself just a MODEL for attempting to explain the behavior of an electron.

Now, trying to make useful predictions by pretending electrons reside in potential wells will probably be more useful to you than trying to make useful predictions by pretending God controls the universe, but God controls the universe is the simpler explanation.

True only if your definition of "God" is very very simple. For most people, the word "God" presupposes a very complicated (unknowably complicated) being.

A "potential well" has no thoughts or emotions or magical powers, and the concept of "potential well" can be communicated by a straightforward equation.

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[Anonymous Coward]

(corrected version)

Intelligent Design Guy: Any change God falls within the remaining 95%?

Atheist Scientist: Can't say for sure!

Intelligent Design Guy: That means God *must* exist!

Atheist Scientist: No way!

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[raehl]

A "potential well" has no thoughts or emotions or magical powers, and the concept of "potential well" can be communicated by a straightforward equation.

Straightforward to who?

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[CaptainAvatar]

Quibbling over the percentages aside, the problem is that the "unknown" keeps shrinking. And where the equivalent of your "intelligent design guy" would once have said "clouds, huh, can't explain them can you? Obviously God makes them", now we can explain them using non-supernatural science. God of the gaps. You don't want to be arguing this, trust me.

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[ckedge]

.

The first one is a description, the second one is an explanation.

The scientific method and the things that result from it are not explanations. They are a system of self consistent descriptions.

Personally I don't use Occam's Razor when dealing with these religious nuts. I use Maxwell's demons. Anything your imaginary God can do, Maxwell's Demons can do just as well.

.

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[prash_n_rao]

You are clearly confusing "simple" and "simplistic". Big, big mistake.

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[Scarblac]

Looks like God is winning this one.

No - but it leaves the questions of how He did it, what the evidence for this is, how exactly that explains the electron behaviour we see in the first place, etc. It creates more questions than it answers. That's not simple.

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[Anonymous Coward]

(even more corrected version) .. Any chance God falls ..

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[Anonymous Coward]

dude that's fucking retarded

it's actually, what's simpler:

"The electron lies in a potential well"

OR

"god made an electron and then god made it lie in a god-made potential well"

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[c64cryptoboy]

Science can only speak to what is testable, falsifiable, and reproducible. In other words the natural, and only the natural. Those limitations are kinda the whole point of this "What do you believe that you can't prove" discussion.

Those like you who open with "God of the gaps" strawmen arguments are merely stating their precommitment to the philosophy that everything can ultimately be accounted for by purely naturalistic processes, though they generally admit not to know where the rules for the processes come from, let alone the ~10^80 particles upon which the rules act. If they do claim to know these things, then it inevitably falls outside of what is testable, falsifiable, and reproducible, so it's no longer science, and they're playing their own "Science of the gaps" game, trusting that a falsifiable naturalistic explanation will come along in time.

Given your precommitment to naturalism, does the supernatural not exist, or is it merely not important? (You'll probably ignore this question)

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[jurv!s]

"God did it."

That's not an explanation, it's an excuse! Furthermore, it gives no insight into the phenomena being examined. We can deduce nothing further about our universe from such an explanation. I doubt I would have a cell phone or a computer to write this post if science was left in the hands of people theorizing that "God did it."

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[raehl]

You're confusing 'simple' with 'useful'.

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[CaptainAvatar]

If they do claim to know these things, then it inevitably falls outside of what is testable, falsifiable, and reproducible, so it's no longer science, and they're playing their own "Science of the gaps" game, trusting that a falsifiable naturalistic explanation will come along in time.

And you're trusting that it won't. Given that the trend has overwhelmingly been the other way, it's pretty clear where the smart money is.

Given your precommitment to naturalism, does the supernatural not exist, or is it merely not important? (You'll probably ignore this question)

As the great Dana Scully once said, "Nothing happens in contradiction to nature; only in contradiction to what we know of it." Anything labelled "supernatural" is either bogus or insufficiently well known. So no, I don't believe that the supernatural exists. Should I?

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[CaptainAvatar]

Oh, a couple of points I forgot:

1. I don't have a precommittment to naturalism - as though I were born into it somehow. I consciously committed to it, because it's the most successful way we have to understand the Universe.

2. Even if science is never able to account for "everything", why is that any reason to believe that God exists? That's the whole point of the "god of the gaps" thing (and it's NOT a strawman, by the way, it's precisely the argument you presented).

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[c64cryptoboy]

>> you're trusting that a falsifiable naturalistic explanation will come along in time.

> And you're trusting that it won't.

Actually, I believe in the scientific method. I consider myself privileged to work among the largest concentration of scientific PhDs in America. I have faith, as you do, that the scientific method will ultimately discover all that it can naturalistically. The disagreement is whether anything outside of nature exists. Because you believe that nature is "all there is", then it's understandable that the scientific process would appear to have no limits in its explanatory power.

But you must acknowledge that the "nature is all there is" belief is your own personal contribution to the "What Do You Believe Even If You Can't Prove It?" thread, as you'd be hard pressed to explain the origins of the universe using only the universe itself, while still conforming to a scientific (testable and falsifiable) framework. It turns to philosophy very quickly. I love philosophy, but I don't like when people call it science. And people do this all the time.

> As the great Dana Scully once said, "Nothing happens in contradiction to nature; only in contradiction to what we know of it."

Fundamental truth: Scully rocks (even slashdot trolls wouldn't dare disagree). The quote is good. Much of what some consider contradictions (many examples spring to mind, including quantum's nonlocality vs. relativity's locality limited by c) are probably simply due to placing concepts into erroneous contradictory categories -- categories chosen and limited by the current scientific models. These will fix themselves in time. (Unless the universe is somehow contradictory at its core. That would be interesting, but I don't think it's true. Again, faith at work.)

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[c64cryptoboy]

> I consciously committed to it, because it's the most successful way we have to understand the Universe.

It is indeed.

> Even if science is never able to account for "everything", why is that any reason to believe that God exists?

Science will probably (in time) account for everything within it's limitations (nature only). Limitations of science are not evidence for God, and successes of science are not evidence against God.

> That's the whole point of the "god of the gaps" thing (and it's NOT a strawman, by the way, it's precisely the argument you presented).

My original post (the Intelligent Design Guy) was in keeping with the smart-ass slashdot-conformant culture -- namely attempting to stir the bees nest. I was merely poking fun at the arrogance of the many atheists who attempt to use science to disprove things that are by definition outside of what science could disprove. However, there seems to be intelligence on the other end of the http stream, so I'm answering more thoughtfully now.

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[handslikesnakes]

"Nature is all there is" is perfectly justified until you can demonstrate something that isn't nature.

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[ArsonSmith]

except hasn't god been described as the most complicated being ever to exist?

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[ArsonSmith]

Except that an Atheist does regect the notion that there is no god. I no longer refer to myself as atheist because of this. Agnostic, leaning tords atheist is what I tell most people if they ask.

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[c64cryptoboy]

> "Nature is all there is" is perfectly justified until you can demonstrate something that isn't nature.

There are many "demonstrations", but I'm assuming the only demonstration of the supernatural you'd accept would be a scientific one.

Science allows complex phenomena to be explained in terms of some useful choice of naturalistic axioms. But in explaining nature in terms of nature, you can't address things outside of nature. If you could, they'd be within nature.

So your criteria of acceptance based upon a demonstration is impossible to satisfy on your terms, since naturalistic reasoning can't and doesn't try to comment on the extra-natural. This makes your "justification" a statement of belief, rather than a testable criteria to be used to reach that belief.

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's simpler:

"The electron lies in a potential well"

Or:

"It's magic."

Personally, I believe in Magic(TM). I'm a Disneyland annual passholder! 8:-)

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[handslikesnakes]

I'm not asking you to explain it, just to demonstrate it. If it's beyond demonstration, how can you possibly conclude that such a thing *does* exist?

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[c64cryptoboy]

I'm not asking you to explain it, just to demonstrate it. If it's beyond demonstration, how can you possibly conclude that such a thing *does* exist?

The most compelling demonstration is that *anything* (energy, the laws of physics, etc.) exists at all. This is why the majority of the world credits something outside of nature -- something extra-natural, even though it is impossible for us to explain.

Nothing about the scientific method (testable/falsifiable/reproducible) is forcing scientists to claim that mater created itself, or has always existed, except the motive to not allow such a divine foot in the door. Such nature-only musings on origins are purely philosophical, or perhaps religious, but certainly not science.

Re:Taken a physics class lately?

[handslikesnakes]

The most compelling demonstration is that *anything* (energy, the laws of physics, etc.) exists at all. This is why the majority of the world credits something outside of nature -- something extra-natural, even though it is impossible for us to explain.

Ahhh, the venerable argument from ignorance. We don't know why things exist, why not admit this instead of making up an explanation?

Nobody (except for a few blowhards that are inevitably a part of any group) is claiming that matter created itself or has always existed. It's merely the most likely possibility until somebody comes up with a better-supported idea.

Re:homosexuality gene

[3ryon]

Stop thinking of it as a homosexuality gene, think of it instead as a gene that really makes you want to have sex with men. Now, when that gene is in a woman she will produce a lot of offspring. Some of them will be gay men, some of them will be women who will have gay offspring. The gene could actually be selected for...although modern birth control might reduce it's fitness.

Re:Check the News-

[mrdaveb]

Wow. Talk about twisting the facts to support what you already believe!

Unbelievable. Quite literally.

ah yes

[rute20740]

I believe strongly in the power of mayonnaise.

What Francis of Sales would have said

[Anonymous Coward]

People will go to the trouble of looking me up in the wikipedia to counter an AC's brutal attempt to stop the momentum of a thread.

Free Will

[raehl]

God is kind enough to provide you with free will. God cannot both provide you with free will *AND* not allow you to fuck up.

Facts exist

[Striver]

I believe there is such a thing as hard, cold, irrefutable, unchanging, fact. Just to be clear, I am not necessarily saying that any of my beliefs qualify for this title. What I am saying is that mankind in general has been very confused about almost everything and we have translated that confusion to mean that there is no fact, that everything is subjective. Solid fact exists, and is totally independent of mankind's understanding of it or ability to "prove" it.

Oh thank god!

[Scrameustache]

Newsflash: Crichton is not a scientist. He makes up the science to suit the story.

You mean... evil robot cowboys won't come to kill me in my bed???

Now I can sleep at night!
: )

To you, sir, I say: harrumph

[Hortensia Patel]

That's even assuming that the earthquake wasn't actually a good outcome out of all the possible outcomes; for example, what if the earthquake released tectonic pressure that otherwise would've built up and killed millions instead of hundreds of thousands?

I've heard this line of argument (the so-called "hidden harmony" defence) described as pornography for priests, and tend to agree. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity can't do anything about geological events on one small planet? Even a half-arsed demiurge with no more foreknowledge than a blurry impression of next week's National Enquirer ought to be able to manage at least a booming voice from the heavens suggesting that people might want to head up to higher ground for the next couple of days.

I for one think the "If an omnipotent, loving God exists, why does he let bad things happen?" line of argument is a red herring. It's impossible for us to understand the actions of a being with an infinite perspective

And I for one think that's a cop-out of Homeric proportions. You (assuming you're a Christian) claim to understand the actions of just such a being every time you espouse the tenets of your faith. God sent Jesus to redeem us, did he? How is that statement not claiming to understand his actions?

The "Problem Of Evil" is a notable argument, as cogent as it is concise, and the fact that two thousand years of Christian thought (Catholic and Protestant, at least) have failed to produce a single plausible theodicy, to my mind, strongly suggests that those thinkers ought to revisit their assumptions.

Re:To you, sir, I say: harrumph

[the quick brown fox]

And I for one think that's a cop-out of Homeric proportions. You (assuming you're a Christian) claim to understand the actions of just such a being every time you espouse the tenets of your faith. God sent Jesus to redeem us, did he? How is that statement not claiming to understand his actions?

There are many, many aspects of Jesus, the doctrine of the Trinity, the mechanism by which one person can die for all mankind, which I cannot begin to fathom. However, the most famous verse in the Bible--John 3:16--is simple enough for a child to understand. I don't understand why Jesus had to die for us to be forgiven. However, that's not a prerequisite for me to have faith in the promises that result.

I don't claim to understand everything there is to understand about the Bible. I don't even claim that a full understanding of the Bible would give you a full, or even strictly accurate, understanding of God. I do, however, believe that applying even a limited understanding of the Bible is in the best interests of me, you, and the world, both for this life and to get to the next (presupposing its existence, of course).

In other words, I believe that in this life there are unsolvable questions. Though we may gain some enlightenment in the struggle to solve them, the ultimate goal for this life is not to have all the answers.

That said, my faith in the Bible is not based on nothing. If you ask me why I believe, I will tell you, and you can attack those arguments instead.

The "Problem Of Evil" is a notable argument, as cogent as it is concise, and the fact that two thousand years of Christian thought (Catholic and Protestant, at least) have failed to produce a single plausible theodicy, to my mind, strongly suggests that those thinkers ought to revisit their assumptions.

That may be. But there are also two thousand years of Christians who have grappled with this problem--many of whom I bet are people whose intellect you admire--and come to a satisfactory conclusion, armed with more or less the same observational data as you and I have.

Re:To you, sir, I say: harrumph

[Hortensia Patel]

[...] I don't understand why Jesus had to die for us to be forgiven. However, that's not a prerequisite for me to have faith in the promises that result.

I don't see what that has to do with the argument.

Your claim as I read it was that we can't comprehend God accurately enough to understand his motivations, and hence to be able to judge him fairly as a moral agent. My objection was that you do make claims about his motivation, and you do describe him (in favourable terms) as a moral agent. How come you get to do this and we don't? If you want to lean on the Bible as a source of privileged information, that's your prerogative, but you can't expect such a line to carry any weight with people who haven't drunk the Kool-Aid, and these are the people you're trying to convince.

John 3:16--is simple enough for a child to understand

The proposition that 1+1=3 is simple enough for a child to understand, as a proposition, but if they can't see how it could be true they'd be doing themselves a disservice by adopting it as a belief.

But there are also two thousand years of Christians who have grappled with this problem--many of whom I bet are people whose intellect you admire-

In some fields, perhaps. I don't consider intellect to be a generic attribute. Christians may be great writers, or artists, or programmers, or even scientists, but I've yet to find one I'd consider a great philosopher. I don't feel compelled to defer to somebody's views on religion just because they produced a kick-ass proof/painting/program/whatever.

-and come to a satisfactory conclusion

Satisfactory to whom? To themselves, perhaps; our standards of intellectual rigour always slip when it comes to our most cherished beliefs. If any of them came to a genuinely satisfactory conclusion, I find it odd that none of them chose to share it with the rest of the world.

Re:To you, sir, I say: harrumph

[the quick brown fox]

Your claim as I read it was that we can't comprehend God accurately enough to understand his motivations, and hence to be able to judge him fairly as a moral agent. My objection was that you do make claims about his motivation, and you do describe him (in favourable terms) as a moral agent. How come you get to do this and we don't? If you want to lean on the Bible as a source of privileged information, that's your prerogative, but you can't expect such a line to carry any weight with people who haven't drunk the Kool-Aid, and these are the people you're trying to convince.

Whoa, whoa. Once again, I don't think this line of investigation will lead anyone to believe in the authenticitiy and reliability of the Bible. It was the ancestor post that started this discussion by saying the tsunami disaster disproves the existence of an all-loving all-powerful god as described in the Judeo-Christian-Islam ethos. In other words, I am not attempting to convince you there is an all-powerful all-loving God, but rather, that human suffering does not preclude the existence of that God.

As a result, my job is only to introduce possible scenarios and constraints which can reconcile tsunamis and ALAP God, whereas your job is to show these scenarios impossible. Right?

I don't consider intellect to be a generic attribute.

Then I retract the comment. I certainly don't expect you to relate to Christians who are famous for their theology/philosophy.

Satisfactory to whom? To themselves, perhaps; our standards of intellectual rigour always slip when it comes to our most cherished beliefs.

I won't deny that I argue from my bias, or that Christian thinkers look hard for answers that correlate with scripture (though I don't believe most do so to the point of intellectual blindness or dishonesty). On the other hand, perhaps your own bias is what keeps you from accepting a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

Re:To you, sir, I say: harrumph

[Hortensia Patel]

Once again, I don't think this line of investigation will lead anyone to believe in the authenticitiy and reliability of the Bible.

And I wasn't suggesting that you were suggesting that. I was concerned that you might be relying on a presupposition of Biblical truth to justify an apparent double standard regarding the possibility of "apprehending" God.

my job is only to introduce possible scenarios and constraints which can reconcile tsunamis and ALAP God, whereas your job is to show these scenarios impossible. Right?

Right. I'd prefer "plausible" to "possible", since the latter would permit hypotheses both absurd and obscene. But yes, that's the challenge. So what's your scenario?

On the other hand, perhaps your own bias is what keeps you from accepting a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

That's certainly possible. One reason I get into these debates from time to time is as a regular check-up on my assumptions. But, ultimately, you can't accept something nonsensical to compensate for the possibility that you might be biased against it. I'm all for an open mind but, in the words of my old philosophy prof, not so open that my brain falls out.

Ecomonic Collapse

[mutterc]

I believe that the race to the bottom is going to bring on worldwide economic collapse, and (because the pace of history is ever-increasing) quickly enough that I will have to live through it. I also believe it's impossible to resist, as race-to-the-bottom-style capitalism seems pretty much inevitable (especially amongst the rich) given human nature (i.e. in any large-enough group, there will be enough people who will ruin it for everyone in their quest for personal gain).

It's a difficult belief, one I wish I could get rid of, but I've tried all sorts of research, arguments, even meditation and drugs and can't get rid of it. My life would be so much easier (I'd be able to do things like further my career, plan a budget, or even just enjoy a week without being convinced that this is as good as my life will ever get).

So watch out for those times when your beliefs turn on you!

Re:Ecomonic Collapse

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you've been reading too much Kafka or something. I think you believe there will be an economic collapse because you want one to happen. Take some time off. Take a vacation. Or something.

Re:Ecomonic Collapse

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the Republician dream. If they can collapse the world's economy, they can recreate fuedalism on a global level.

Thanks to those that voted for Bush.

Re:Sucker- you've fallen for it!

[nospmiS remoH]

So what? I gave one of those to my 8 year old neice for her birthday. Er, wait, what are we talking about again?

"Common use" vs. "How it should be used"

[doublem]

While logically, the phrase "Intelligent Design" should refer only to "Architect Created it this way" models of origins, the common usage of the phrase has come to include a wide variety of Models that include generous amounts of evolutionary behavior.

A strict interpretation of the "Intelligent Design" phrase can't even be taken seriously today, as it ignores the MicroEvolution that's been observed. Claiming that NO changes take place and there is no alteration over time, is counter to what has been observed in the human species alone, let alone what can be seen over time with other species, not to mention the fact that there's a lot of confusion, even in scientific circles, over the difference between directed breeding and MicroEvolution.

Mind you, it's been close to a decade since I was reading the "Creation Science Quarterly" (Yes, a real publication, and yes, I read it for years) but "Intelligent Design" is generally used to refer to any theory that includes even the smallest component of divine intervention. Mind you, not many people at the conservative end of the Creationist scale are happy with this state of affairs. The claim is made that using the phrase to refer to ideas like "God set up the rules and let it go" dilutes the phrase and muddies the waters.

In a sense, your statements reflect the views of many Creationists, but even they tend to ignore the apparent misuse of the phrase. It really is trivial to the overall debates over God's level of involvement in the form of the living organisms on planet Earth.

Damn it, I just responded to an AC. What a waste of time, no on will even read this.

Re:"Common use" vs. "How it should be used"

[6800]

What you call micro-evolution used to be called adaptation. This variation within it's kind is easily explained by available information in the gene pool for that kind. That is what breeding is all about.

Re:"Common use" vs. "How it should be used"

[doublem]

Good point. Another point often made is that everything Darwin observed and documented was Adaptation AKA Micro-Evolution. All of the "Creationists" ideas he was taught were of the extreme variety. For example, his religious training taught that the animals on Earth were created just as they were and set down in their current geographic placement. Naturally, this isn't even consistent with the Bible (See Noah) let alone observed phenomenon. Part of Darwin's Theory of Evolution was a reaction to the absurd level of conservative ideas being bandied about. I often wonder what Darwin would have concluded if his training had been grounded in the far more liberal ideas espoused today, or if he had even been presented with Creationist alternatives to Young Earth Creationists, which were the only kind of Creationists around at the time.

But this trick works better

[Ced_Ex]

If I gave someone $10 and they bought a brick to throw into my car that would suck.

Instead of getting MAD at this person, let's just say I kick the shit out of him. Not only have I invalidated his actions by not getting MAD, but I have likely prevented him from receiving another $10 from someone else with which he may throw into that person's car.

So overall he receives his karma, and I help someone else in the future from getting screwed over. That's double good deeds in my book.

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

Many animals show homosexual activity which includes full mating rituals and sex, not just 'tree humping'. This is know to occur in dolphins and wales, apes, rodents, deer, goats, sheep, and birds.

Huh? I thought it occurred with sheep and Wales.

:::flees:::

Creating Artificial Intelligence...

[chitownIrish]

...won't be possible until we understand real intelligence. Until then, it's a lot like alchemy - trying to change the nature of matter before you understand the nature of matter.

Intelligence is, at least in part, the ability to come up with the Eureka! moment. Computers can't do that, and we won't be able to get them to do it until we can explain why it's possible for us.

I also suspect that 'Street smarts' and the type of quantity-based intelligence shown by savants are two different skills that compete for the same resources. In other words, they are an engineering tradeoff in the human brain.

Re:Creating Artificial Intelligence...

[pclminion]

The universe somehow produced "real" intelligence without the benefit of understanding anything. We humans, on the other hand, strive to create "artificial" intelligence by leveraging our understanding, and we continually fail.

So what do we observe in the universe?

1. The unthinking, uncomprehending universe can produce intelligence.
2. Thinking, understanding humans cannot.

So why do you think that this vague concept of "understanding" intelligence is so necessary to creating it?

Re:Creating Artificial Intelligence...

[chitownIrish]

So why do you think that this vague concept of "understanding" intelligence is so necessary to creating it?

Are you serious? Well, how do you create anything without knowing how it is made? Your idea of the universe being able to create intelligent beings without understanding intelligence is interesting, but I think it's flawed.

The universe didn't set out to make us, we just happened as a result of a certain set of circumstances. Probably a very long, complicated set of circumstances. The earth doesn't have to understand gravitation to hold my laptop to the table, it just holds it there.

We, on the other hand, are trying to create artificial intelligence, or at least create the conditions that will cause it to arise. But we don't know any of those parameters. You might stumble on these combinations, but I consider this highly unlikely.

That's why I think the alchemy analogy is appropriate. It's possible that some medieval alchemist could have stumbled on the conditions that would have transmuted common metals into gold, but without knowledge of atoms and subatomic particles, it was almost certain not to happen.

I believe you are ...

[Anonymous Coward]

full of B.S.

Re:Check the News-

[PhraudulentOne]

I believe there is a God (which I will define as a one-ness, connecting all of us and our subconscious minds to one whole mind of which we all partake. We think we are using our mind, but we are using a localized field of THE mind. But anyway...), and that this being is filled (rather, just IS) Love.
The tsunami just IS. It is your reaction to it that makes the tsnuami SOMETHING. Is your opinion that it wiped out a bunch of the poorest people to end their suffering? Then this was a great thing that happened. Do you think it had more natural "reasons" like releasing pressure from tectonic plates that would have otherwise created far more death and destruction? Great. Did you think this was a horrible disaster that was made even worse by taking place in regions that are of the poorest in the world? Maybe the good side is that now you want to help these people. Perhaps you never would have appreciated their situation unless something like this happened.

Of course God is indifferent. God, the one-ness, the all-ness. IT is everything. It has no priorities or preferences. YOU DO. You are the all-ness that has being-ness (you are BEING human) in this world. You are the one that represents the One-ness for the other parts of the one-ness (other people) to see.

Once you decide that this particular tragedy means a particular thing to you, you tell others and soon you will find that others share your believe. You are One in the beliefs about this tragedy. The idea of what the tragedy means is in Mind. The only Mind that exists. See, the tsunami just IS. Then a plethora of thoughts, decisions, actions, manifestations will occur based on what is going on in your localized field of Mind.

Our thought manifests reality. This is Law. We may not know exactly how our thoughts will manifest, but they will. Perhaps this tsunami happened because of the tectonic plates. Perhaps the will to live in this world was strong enough that the earthquake occured to save us, but some had to die in the process, thereby bringing our population closer together - sharing the aid.

Of course these are all just examples. It is very to hard to explain my reasoning in a small thread on a forum for it would take a book to explain in every last detail why I think the way I do. This post is just meant to spark some ideas, or trolls ;)

Re:homosexuality

[frankie]

Sheesh, I can hardly believe that you didn't mention the GAY PENGUINS. They even raised an adopted daughter.

Re:Check the News-

[Dhalka226]

Say a dog cares about her pups. If the dog could truely "think", she might think that she cares about her puppies the same way a human mother cares about her kids.

That is really a poor analogy. The grandparent's "completely human" attribute was indifference. Specifically, indifference to the tsunami that just occurred. This is something that is or is not. I am indifferent or I am not; God is indifferent or he is not.

To bring "love" in creates a situation in which there are now degrees of being. I love many people in my life, but not all of them equally. I have friends I would lay down my life for, and friends I don't go much beyond seeing a movie with or talking to once in a while.

To most humans I'D HOPE that that is an offensive thought. To think that a mom cares about her kids on the level of a dog and a pup... that's disgusting.

I love when humans pretend we're some awesome super-species because we have certain faculties and features that others do not. Personally I say that a mom's love for her children and a dog's love for her puppies is extremely similar, if not identical. They each protect their offspring, they provide for them, they teach them how to survive. Many animals would die to protect their offspring the same as many parents would. In fact I repeat myself; humans are animals. I am completely irreligious, but even the Bible seems to agree that giving one's life is the greatest form of love: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. " (John 15:13).

So what exactly is the distinction? Do you think that because we teach our children by sending them off to school instead of yanking them out into the woods to observe that we are somehow superior? Do you think that because we can "truely 'think'" that our love must be more meaningful?

I won't debate the specific stuff about god, it's just not worth it anymore.

All these worlds...

[Hellburner]

I just can't imagine that the universe could evolve conscious life that was incapable of exploring the universe around it.

Its totally irrational but I will die believing there is some method to engineer FTL travel.

Re:All these worlds...

[Mage Inq.]

In your definition, does FTL travel require some propulsion system that's FTL? I'm not sure this is possible. However, some sort of "teleportation" effect like wormholes might be more likely. Perhaps I should read up more on general relativity (in which case these are all aspects of the same).

Counterexample

[lildogie]

I believe Godel's theorem.

(apologies for not figuring out how to post in the German alphabet)

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

Many animals show homosexual activity which includes full mating rituals and sex, not just 'tree humping'. This is know to occur in dolphins and wales...

Speaking as a Welshman, I can assure you that the concentration of homosexuals in my country is no greater than in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. I have heard that a certain proportion of whales have been known to partake in homosexual activities, but living in Wales I don't get to see very many of them ;).

- az_bont

MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Not belief

[Anonymous Coward]

I still have the receipts.

G.W. Bush

Dick Cheney *is* a Cyborg

[bill_mcgonigle]

Oh, and I also believe that Dick Cheney is a cyborg.

That much is provable. He has an implanted pacemaker, or an artificial SA node. Ergo, cyborg.

The other part of your post is bunk - Harris certified the election according to Florida state statue. That their election system is crap is true, but she adhered to the law as required by her oath of office.

Re:homosexuality

[greg_barton]

Of course, if it were genetics, according to Darwin, it would be a trait that should have been wiped out long ago since homosexuals cant reproduce.

As another poster has commented, this is a simple fallacy to rebuke. If homosexuality were genetic, then social pressures could easily cause it to be carried to the next generation. Oddly enough, then, the best way to wipe out homosexuality would be to accept it. Homosexuals would feel no social pressure to reproduce or "act heterosexual" and there would be less of them in the next generation. Even further, it would be best to encourage a hedonistic lifestyle where homosexuals did no create family groups.

So, here's the paradox: by opposing homosexuality and hedonism the fundamentalists are helping spread it further. Ain't that grand? :)

Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

We agreed not to intervene on what we ( at the time) considered to be a domestic (between Iraq and Kuwait) issue.

Actually, this is not exactly true. Saddam *did* ask US permission to invade Iraq, but the response from the US state department was "Our position is that we have no position."

Kuwait was an enemy of the US, and the US didn't tell them not to do it - it may have strongly encouraged him to invade, but it never (officially) said "we won't intervene."

Shub Sr. was basically looking for an excuse to go to war (as the US was in a recession, and war has traditionally been an economic stimulator), and he took it.

What Do You Believe Even If You Can't Prove

[sr1nath]

JESUS Saves !!

Re:homosexuality

[TheSync]

The data clearly shows that homosexuality, especially male homosexuality, is significantly influenced by genetics...

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual

11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, "A genetic study of male sexual orientation," Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.

Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among sisters

48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)

16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual

6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual

Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), "Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation," American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277.

Argh, shut up.

[jotaeleemeese]

I am fed up with you religious idiots. Sorry, venting here, normally I suffer you more politely.

At the moment the only thing I know is that all the praying of the world would have not saved 150000 people in South Asia. A few million dollars and human ingenuity may had.

The platitudes, ringmaroles and evasives of thereligious lot to explain their blodthirsty god just make me puke in disgust and shame for the human race.

We prayed and feared different gods for many millenia just to be striken by disease and live in ignorance. We used our ingenuity for a few hundred years and we became masters of this tiny plot of dust in the universe, understood how to fight disease and death and in a virtuous cycle this helped us to become wiser. We came to understand that in this Universe we are nothing, in a way no amount of religious indoctrination can convey.

In the short span of 600 years we went from believing that the Earth was the center of the Universe and flat, to knowing that the Universe can be measured in unimaginable (but accountable) distances only graspable when invoking the speed of light (the fucking speed of light for bunny's sakes!).

We went from condemning Galileo adn Darwin to hearing mutted apologies and terse "Evolution is more than a theory" by an ailing, fundamentalistic, do-no-use-condoms Pope.

Stephen Hawking has even hinted at the mathematic proof that no god needs to exist, and the Pope ran all scared to admonish him for his travails.

Salman Rushdie wrote. The mullahs wanted to kill.

If I have to choose between praying to a god (any god) that after millenia has probed itself pretty useless (look at last week, a mess worthy only of the worst terrorist) or our accumulated and growing body of knowledge, as sure as there is no hell I know what will serve us better.

And yes, knowledge may have got to our heads, but to be perfectly honest, I hear more humbleness from scientists nowadays because few of them would assert such nonsense as that we will know it all (Hawking reasons that this does not really matter once you are in the space-time singularity) than from the prophets of the clay gods that pretend they have the answer to our conundrums with their wasted religions, given to us by nomad sheperds, while their priests rape boys, discriminate against women or gays (when they are not hating them) or decree the latest holly war and gather their blessed bethren to go and kill and maim the unbeliever.

Re:Argh, shut up.

[jdray]

It may be true that, despite the presence of a benign and loving God, the tsunami killed thousands because, well, tsumanis happen. Perhaps God created the universe with a certain set of rules, such as those governing the interaction of subatomic particles and the idea that three plus two equal five, and those rules came together in a culmination wherein a wave of water of some size arbitrarily referred to as large by a people not used to seeing such things caused an environment change referred to by those same people (or at least the ones whose corporeal existences continued) as damage.

Mind you, this is all just speculation on my part...

Re:Argh, shut up.

[dreamer-of-rules]

I used to be a religious idiot. Then I grew up.

I call myself a atheist now, but really I'm open to the idea of other powerful energy beings. Proof-wise, I have to call myself an agnostic. However, I find plenty of evidence that if God exists, then he either has no power, or doesn't care, or is just mean. In any case, the Bible is fiction (not The Truth) and most Christians today are dead wrong.

How many wars could've been prevented by the all-powerful benevolent creator, burner of bushes and commander of angels, simply booming out to the world in a loud and Godly voice, "Yo, I exist, Jesus was special, but not my son, and you're all invited to a party at my house after I destroy the Earth in the apocalypse!"

In any case, I pass the test. I would not worship God, nor would I be subservient to him, any more than I would my own father. Hopefully, my own children will also have enough sense to think for themselves once they grow up.

bad wording and false

[Anonymous Coward]

Your link to wikipedia is helpfull. But it doesn't fit to what you imply.

That the US knew in advance is obvious. They knew about the troop buildup at the border.
That the US did nothing to stop them is plain wrong. Why do you think our diplomats were speaking with him?

Obviously our diplomats messed up. If they had been successful there wouldn't have been any aggression. The reason the US didn't explicitly threaten retaliation is probably because they didn't want to become Kuwaits explicit protector.

Re:Check the News-

[HarveyBirdman]

Well, the New Agers talk about the world being a school for souls, so the harsher the better. IOW, you don't learn many important lessons in a fluffy utopia. They also believe in reincarnation, so if you die at age 3 months in a tsunami, you get more chances. Also, they see "God" as a more amorphous presence, and not something that's sitting regulating the tides and the orbits. To them, the tsunami still falls under "shit happens".

I know this because I dated a New Age woman. It made her freaky in bed, so it was OK. She also believed in evolution and was pretty pro-science. Go figure.

Re:homosexuality

[jafac]

I suspect that there are biological causes (e.g. hormone levels in the mother, etc.),

What if the hormone levels in the mother are genetic?

Just sayin. . .

I believe the children are our future

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you should have fun humming Whitney Houston against your will for the rest of the day

Only three things you know for sure

[Blake1024]

There are only three things a person knows for sure and none are based on logic or science.

1. You know you exist

You don't know what you are. You just know that something had the thought "I exist". And that "something" is what you are identifying as yourself.

2. You experience things

Of course you may be the generator of those experience but never the less you are experiencing these things.

3. You like some of the things you experience and don't like other experiences.

Of these three things you can have no doubt. Beyond that nothing is known with absolutle certinity. Interesting that these three things have nothing to do with logic or the scientific method.

In case its not clear, reality can never be a sure source of truth because you could be imigianing it in a dream or in "The Matrix". You can't tell if the results of your experements are being manipulated to reflect something untrue.

Blake McBride

Re:homosexuality

[Scrameustache]

Please don't paint us as a group by your impressions of mainstream gay culture... a huge number of us (probably the majority, I'd wager) choose to either not participate, or participate infrequently in the large "gay community", and you probably interact with us daily but simply aren't aware of the fact that we're gay, because we don't make an issue of it.

Nah, I have a pretty good gaydar (when I'm told someone I sorta know has had a "coming out", I usually go "finally"... like I couldn't tell that the theatre loving, snappy dresser amongst the other engineers wasn't a tad different from the rest of the group, even if most of 'em had no girl). I can tell most gay men apart pretty easilly, it's not as reliable with lesbians.

I was exagerating when I said you were the only sane gay man I ever encountered, I've known a few cool fags and lesbos, and a few jerks and idiots and fools of any orientation. But I'm politically incorrect.

It's just that, there's this tendency for conformity in all of us, and the "gay community" conforms to something that I find horrible: A culture that worships superficiality and hedonism (not restricted to gay peole of course, just... generally exhalted in large groups of gay people), while I worship intelligence and technology.

But, seeing to guys kiss makes me want to hurl. No offense.

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Extraordinary claims:

• Kuwait was an enemy of the US
  ...it may have strongly encouraged him to invade...

need (extraordinary) proof. Proof which you need to provide, and I'm very sure you can't.
Ah, I get it, this is your private crackpot belief.

I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll have another beer.

Barkeep!!!

That is not a miracle.

[jotaeleemeese]

That is just self preservation.

In any tragedy, people close ranks and help each other when they all perceive the same danger. As soon as the danger is gone, then is back to each one for his own, as the reports of looters and kidnappers sadly prove.

The only difference this time is that the mass media has made of all people around the world us.

For other tragedies of even bigger human magnitude (typhoons in Bangladesh, earthquakes in China, genocide in Ruanda and Burundi) the wolrd barely blinked an eye. No miracles, just the mas media was not watching, unfortunately.

A god that to get the best out of us (why would an all powerful god need that? Ego trip?) needs to kill 150000 people (one third of them children) can go and fuck itself.

Could but don't (usually).

[jotaeleemeese]

You have no idea how stupid that sounds.

If that is the best an all powerful, perfect, all loving god can come up with, then we are truly fucked as his creations.

Re:Could but don't (usually).

[Rick BigNail]

Stupid. Maybe, but the even more stupid thing is to believe in Jesus.

Who knows, maybe we christians are really stupid.

One definition of "WMD"

[Just Some Guy]

Although I'm sure you can find plenty of definitions of "WMD" that include "capable of mass destruction", I can also find plenty that don't. For example, the California Penal Code defines a few relevant terms:

11417. (a) For the purposes of this article, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) "Weapon of mass destruction" includes chemical warfare agents, weaponized biological or biologic warfare agents, restricted biological agents, nuclear agents, radiological agents, or the intentional release of industrial agents as a weapon, or an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle, as described in Section 34500 of the Vehicle Code, which is used as a destructive weapon.
(2) "Chemical Warfare Agents" includes, but is not limited to, the following weaponized agents, or any analog of these agents:
(A) Nerve agents, including Tabun (GA), Sarin (GB), Soman (GD), GF, and VX.

Now, I won't pretend to refer to the California Penal Code as the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes a WMD, but it does seem to exemplify a somewhat widely used definition of the term.

Honestly, I really don't want to come across as a member of the lunatic fringe who expects the President to announce the finding of a large cache of nukes and biologicals any moment now!, so please don't take it that way. However, for someone to state that "no WMDs were found in Iraq" they have to have chosen their definitions of "no" and "WMDs". I mainly wanted to point out that by a strict interpretation of "no", and a common definition of "WMDs", that statement is false.

Side rant: I was particularly cheesed by that pre-election report that "proved" that Republicans are unintelligent because a large percentage of them believed that there were WMDs. Frankly, I think I could have made a fact-based defense of either position, but one of the answers would have placed me in the pollster's "uninformed mouth-breather" category while the other would not. It seemed like a flashback to those IQ tests that ask whether the next number in the series "3 5 7" is "9" or "11"; one is the next odd number and one is the next prime number, but only one of the answers gives you credit for rational analysis.

Re:One definition of "WMD"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to take sides (I really don't care), but the warhead in question was created as a binary chemical weapon--meaning it DIDN'T contain sarin. It contained chemicals that, when mixed, produced sarin. This is a pretty commonplace "safe storage" method of creating chemical warheads.

If the component chemicals were degraded such that they were no longer reactive, then the warhead could no longer PRODUCE sarin. If it never contained sarin and could no longer produce sarin, then I'd say it wasn't a WMD, even by your above definition--even if ten years ago, it was one.

Not to mention that the warhead may have been smuggled in from Iran (which is where a lot of these shells ended up landing when they were used, you may recall), meaning you can both be wrong.

Re:One definition of "WMD"

[Scrameustache]

Although I'm sure you can find plenty of definitions of "WMD" (Weapons of Mass Destruction) that include "capable of mass destruction", I can also find plenty that don't.

That means that there are plenty of people writing these definitions that are dimwits and/or dishonest.

For example, the California Penal Code defines a few relevant terms

Since you like quoted definitions:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
An appeal to authority is a type of argument in logic also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument from modesty) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself, said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge and is often a logical fallacy.

I do not care if the authoritative government of California has an ill conceived definition of "weapon of mass destruction" that does not entail that it is a weapon capable of mass destruction. Lawyer logic has the power to send armed men to get you and lock you up in a box; That does not make it the truth.

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't this be more in support of homosexuality being a choice? The last time I checked "adoptive sisters of homosexual women" don't have any genetic connection to each other. All of the cases listed do have the same environmental factors though(eg raised by the same parents, lived in the same towns, exposed to the same culture)

Yeah sure.

[jotaeleemeese]

And the god you are talking about is so useless that it could not create a fully deterministic Universe.

Better keep us guessing! Stellar work god...

Re:Yeah sure.

[Rick BigNail]

Who are we to say what is possible and not possible :P

Re:homosexuality

[bill_mcgonigle]

Regardless, I know no lack of people with gay biological parents who reproduced because they felt social pressure to enter into heterosexual relationships.

Interesting - perhaps with societal acceptance some Darwinistic patterns may start to emerge? It will be interesting to see over the next ten generations or so.

I suspect that there are biological causes (e.g. hormone levels in the mother, etc.)

Speaking of things we believe but don't have proof of, I think someone should really study on a large scale if the massive amounts of phytoestrogens fed to infant boys in the form of soy formula has any effect on sexual orientation.

Oh, and I believe that <lisp>"Being Gay is So Gosh Darn Cute"</lisp> is the most tiresome thing on TV.

writing quality

[Kris Magnusson]

jesus, what a bunch of pompous airbags. if you can't answer a simple question with a simple, one sentence answer, you have no business being an author, an authority, or a scientist.

btw, the best response was given by bruce sterling.

........ kris

Re:writing quality

[Anonymous Coward]

a simple, one sentence answer

I believe that is what Slashdot is for

-r

WRONG

[tjw]

I believe that in tense situations groups are only as smart as the dumbest person there

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group. --fortune

That would be fine....

[jotaeleemeese]

... but most modern religious nuts don't have the balls to at least admit the lack of perfection (moral an ethical) of their imagined god.

I believe

[Muttonhead]

85% of all Slashdot respondents are computer constructs generated on an NSA supercomputer.

Scary!

[jimmyfergus]

While some of us are quite scared that so many doctors have such irrational beliefs, and what has that got to do with scientists?

Some research doctors are scientists, most practicing ones are not. They are more technologists, sort of biological mechanics.

I don't think that it's fair to use the National Academy of Science as the survey pool. People who have made it into the NAS have devoted at least 90% of their waking energy to the scientific fields are not consistent with most kinds of faith anyways

Yeah, exactly - most scientists have learned enough that is inconsistent with religions faith.. . How is this anything but an damning indictment of faith? That scientific knowledge can destroy it without even trying. Science doesn't have to replace faith to break it.

The issue is not that education is inconsistent with faith, it's that science education is (for most).

My Reason

[canfirman]

I believe in God for a number of reasons:

1. Because *somebody* had to start the whole process of the Earth's creation. I do not believe we are here by accident. I believe we are here for a purpose. I choose to call that deity "God".

2. I have had some experiences in my life that cannot be explained (e.g. physical healing).

3. The concept of God gives me something to look forward to when I die. I cannot just accept the fact that life ends when we die and ...that's it? I believe there's more to it.

4. I believe the Bible was created from the Dead Sea Scrolls (and yes, I will admit I've never seen them). I also believe there has been proof outside of the Bible that shows Biblical events have occurred (scarring along the Dead Sea showing evidence of Moses, the external documentation of King David, the evidence of Jesus actually living on Earth).

5. I belive the teachings of Jesus are better way to live (Love God, and love your neighbour).

6. I belive there is a devil (Satan) which enjoyes taking God's creation and tries to destroy it (either subtlely or not).

Now, I know I've been asked many questions about God, including those already posed in this discussion (eg. If God is so loving, why did he let the tsunami happen?). I have to agree with one of the other posts that says, "We have no idea what goes on in the mind of God", and I really cannot answer that question. I do believe, though, that if God is loving, that he wouldn't enjoy seeing his creation destroyed. I'm still trying to wrestle with the question, "Why do bad things happen, then?".

7. I believe that man has tried to say, "We know God, and He's *this* kind of God...", or, "God says we are to baptise children", or any other "man-made" rule which is "Divinely given". I believe does God a disservice, as too many times, the Christian Church fights over these "man-made" rules. Which leads me to...

8. Finally, I also believe that God cannot be "pigeon-holed" so neatly as organized religion tries to put it. Catholics and Anglicans have their view, and Pentacostals have theirs. I'm not picking on those denominations, but they're the ones I've had the most expeirence with. I believe God is much more than that, but I could live my whole life learning more and more and never fully understand. Having said that, I also realize that Church is the only way that fellow believers can come together for worship (and I don't mean a church as a building but a Church as a collection of people), so my hope is the Church will also learn more about God and not keep a narrow viewpoint.

I like these discussions. They help me truly examine what I believe and why. I also feel that I learn more during these discussions. Thanks...and thanks for the invitation to respond.

Re:My Reason

[TrevorB]

Thanks for your reply. I'm glad people are posting with their own thoughts.

1) I'm not sure what I can do to reply to this question other than to ask: "Why do you think this?". The best that I can come up with is that many people feel highly unsettled with the idea of creation without purpose or meaning, as if this somehow transfers to themselves a lack of purpose or meaning.

2) If the physical healing was for you or for those close to you, I'm glad. All I can say to this is that the human body is an incredible machine and capable of amazing things. I've also taken enough statistics to realize amazing things and coincidences happen a lot more frequently than one might expect.

3) I talked about this in my last comment. People are quite unsettled about their own mortality and need something to cling to to keep from shivering in a dark corner for the rest of their lives. I see belief in God as a solution for people getting on with their lives. If belief is the only thing that helps them get through their day, then so be it.

4) I don't doubt the existence of Jesus. He was one hoopy frood (HHGTTG reference) who had some very cool ideas. I am concerned with the number of edits and revisions that appear to have happened in the Bible since its creation. (Reed Sea > Red Sea, etc). Actually there's nothing in #4 that we'd necessarily disagree with.

5) Sure. I also think the teachings of Bhudda are a better way to live. And the teachings of Ghandi. And John Lennon. And Nelson Mandela. I would argue that the very best of Jesus' ideas aren't his (or any other religions) exclusively. If he's publicised them and brought them to more people, more power to him...

6) Satan, a personification of evil. Personally I never could quite understand an omnipitent God creating someone he knew would turn on him and become an adversary. Either that or Satan is in fact an agent of God's plan, and God is both good and evil (giving all the bad publicity to this other guy). It's not ineffible, it's illogical.

And thank you, thank you so much for #7 and 8. Too many people see religion as a team sport with its own chants, flags, and rituals. I also feel that this religious rivalry and antagonism belittles the spirituality that religion brings to many. I have a much greater respect for those who view religion as a gateway to spirituality rather than an "excuse" to go on living, hating and doing the evil things they were doing anyways.

Thanks again for your reply, I enjoy the discussion as well.

Consider the Audience

[bill_mcgonigle]

What's wrong with ordinary, 'proof'? Does Extraordinary Proof make something more 'True' than something which is simply 'True'? And who gets to define, 'Extraordinary'?

In this case Extraordinary proof = proof. The layman may consider moderately strong correlation as proof. A scientist knows he has to have his shit together if he's going to make a revolutionary claim. Mathematicians find errors in other's "revolutionary" proofs on occasion.

Read simply: "I don't want to look at things if they make me feel uncomfortable. La La La. I can't hear you!"

When you hear scientists start saying it to other scientists, that's exactly right. Bob Park's name comes to mind.

Let an atheist correct you.

[jotaeleemeese]

My goodness, you seem to be interested in the nonsense that religion is but neverhteless get your fact completely and utterly wrong.

Repetance leads to salvation only if you are sincere about repenting (and this only in Catholicism, because I am sure Chistians from different protestant sects have their own baseless domga on this regard).

If you sin and intend to keep sining you can visit the confessional as much as you want, if there is no sincere repetance then your maker will judge as the piece of shit you are and condemn you to ethernal damnation.

But all the above is irrelevant since no god exists in any case.

It's all the same thing, really...

[EnglishSteve]

Genesis = The marketing literature Intelligent Design = The original project plan Evolution = Same project, just over-budget, overdue and with ridiculous amounts of scope creep ;-)

CowboyNeal Agnosticism

[srobert]

Personally I'm CowboyNeal agnostic. I can neither prove or disprove his existence.
"Blessed are those who believe in CowboyNeal without proof".
SRR

Try this.

[jotaeleemeese]

Build a pyramid starting from the point as its base.

Now, tell me, you are an intelligent chap living anywhere on this planet, lets say 3000 or 4000 years ago.

If you decided to build something tall and impresive, would you start with a wide base and aggregate on top of that or the other way around? ..... Yeah, I thought so.....

Re:Try this.

[Raven42rac]

The way this works is that I type something that can not be conclusively proven. We can type out much conjecture on the subject, but we can not be sure.

Re:homosexuality

[Tsiangkun]

work in drosphila has shown a number of genes interact to determine sexual orientation and mating preference of the insect. Link

No way in hell I'll prove this

[UncleScrooge]

That Microsoft actually makes quite decent software.

Re:No way in hell I'll prove this

[Mage Inq.]

You could disprove this handily, which is still a proof.

Re:What about quasi-intelligent design?

[Anonymous Coward]

So far so good i think. We are prety bad ass as it is. Inteligent design is still a very backwards idea ofcourse.

Your spelling is far from badass.

Re:homosexuality

[Xybot]

You are missing some crucial facts concerning the theory of natural selection.

It is not the individual as a whole that is important when determining heritability, but rather the collection of their genes.

Given that each sibling of the same parents carries a very similar set of genes, it has been shown that when parents produce a number of offspring it is more likely that the later offspring will be homosexual, this is advantageous, in certain circumstances, for the heritability of the parents genes if the homosexual offspring then help in someway towards the survival of their siblings offspring.

To summarise, if you have alot of brothers and sisters its useful if some of them are homosexual to help out with your offspring, who in effect carry the same proportion of genes, as the homosexual sibling themselves would pass to their own children.

No it isn't

[hetairoi]

It's not me, it must be you that doesn't exist. Also, see my sig.

Re:No it isn't

[javaxman]

To quote ( from TFA ) :

Janna Levin
Physicist, Columbia University; Author, How The Universe Got Its Spots

I believe there is an external reality and you are not all figments of my imagination...

I also like that a couple of other physicists responded "electrons".

Re:Check the News-

[Grishnakh]

I know this because I dated a New Age woman. It made her freaky in bed, so it was OK. She also believed in evolution and was pretty pro-science. Go figure.

What's the problem with that? It all makes perfect sense: science and evolution don't conflict in any way with the beliefs you set out (reincarnation, "God" not actively controlling the world, etc.). So, for things that can be explained by science, she looks to that; for everything else, there's some "New Age" beliefs that answer questions that science isn't equipped to.

What doesn't make sense is the beliefs of many Christians, where they either refuse to believe in science because it conflicts with their literal interpretations of scripture, or they believe contradictory things (such as that God answers our prayers, but somehow the 150,000 people in Asia didn't get theirs answered).

Re:What Francis of Assisi would have said

[Anonymous Coward]

All the little creatures of nature: they don't know they're ugly!

A Non Created Universe

[srobert]

If God created the universe, then doesn't it imply that God had existence in something more expansive than the created universe. What do you call the environment in which God existed prior to the creation of the universe? Who created that? CowboyNeal?
SRR

both previous post are wrong...

[xlurker]

the expression:

• 1+1=2

is neither true nor false, it is part of a definition, based on Piano's 5 Axioms. "2" is simply defined as "1+1".

If I define $a = "red apple". Then later asking if the expression '$a="red apple"' is true or false is silly. It is a definition just as the following: $b="pink pokka dot apple" is a valid definition.

But the second definition you may say doesn't make sense. Wrong! The definition is still valid. The content of the definition is what you may contest.

But what is to contest of the operation "1+1"?
This is a part of Pianos Axioms. What is "1+1"?
They don't say, they simply say: 'let's call it 2'.

Re:both previous post are wrong...

[dstone]

the expression: 1+1=2 is neither true nor false, it is part of a definition, based on Piano's 5 Axioms.

Isn't that just one very narrow way to see that expression? Tell me then, from your perspective, what was the nature of the expression 1+1=2 before Piano's 5 Axioms.

Article from New Scientist

[k3v0]

I remembered reading this story in New Scientist.
From TFA;

Camperio-Ciani stresses that whatever the genetic factors are, there is no single gene accounting for his observations. And the tendency of the trait to be passed through the female line backs previous research suggesting that some of the factors involved are on the male "X" chromosome, the only sex chromosome passed down by women. "It's a combination of something on the X chromosome with other genetic factors on the non-sex chromosomes," he says.

White holes

[demachina]

I believe in white holes. For every black hole there is a white hole elsewhere in space. The matter gets sucked in to the black hole and spews out elsewhere in space, with a worm hole, tear in space or whatever you want to call it connecting the two which are very far from each other in conventional space. Where are the white holes, presumably there is one at the center of most or all galaxies. I envision a continuing cycle of renewal where matter is being incinerated and compacted in one place and starting a new life elsewhere building new stars at the center of new galaxies.

Re:White holes

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice. And I believe dancing elves populate my cubicle at night.

Is there any observational evidence to support your belief? No? Then you are engaged in useless mental masturbation.

Re:White holes

[johnnyb]

As for your sig, I hope you know that he was making a joke at a conference where presidents normally go to make fun of themselves. He was using the fact that people accuse him of pandering to the rich as a joke line. Apparently, Michael Moore can't put anything into context. You should watch Farenhype 9/11. And it doesn't even deal with the misinformation regarding Iraq's role prior to invasion (for that you should read some of Laurie Mylroie's books).

Re:White holes

[demachina]

What was the title of this article....dumbass. So you want me to provide evidence to prove something in an article called "What do you Believe Even If you can't prove it". You are a real genius.

My contention is that white holes are obscured by the dust and high density of stars that would surround them so you can't observe them.

Re:White holes

[demachina]

Why don't you try posting about the subject of the thread and stay on topic instead of ranting about my sig. You are only about the 20th person to piss and moan about it. To them I say what I'll say to you "Much truth is said in jest".

"You should watch Farenhype 9/11."

Seen it, it is a right wing rant like Moore's is a left wing one. You know it when the Wicked Witch of the Right, Ann Coulter is front and center. The truth is somewhere in the middle though I'm inclined to agree with Moore that the Bush family are elitists whose concept of public service is to make themselves and their rich friends richer. Whether it was a joke or not its a pretty simple and obvious fact that his administration has pandered to his rich friends at every possible turn, and has enriched many of them at the expense of the rest of us, reference tax cuts for the rich and Medicare "Reform" which is a gigantic transfer of our payroll tax dollars in to the pockets of the drug and healthcare companies who don't need any more money (well the drug companies might need it since they are rushing from being one of America's most profitable sectors to deep trouble now that people realize their drugs are often not safe, they often know they aren't safe and intentionally hide it and keep selling them to make a beloved buck though they are killing people).

I hate to break it to you but my sig has nothing to do with Fahrenheit 9/11 other than Moore showed the video it came from, of little George in a White tie and tux shmoozing with his rich friends. It was just a well known example of little George's arrogance and contempt for everyone who isn't rich. Moore just gave it a wider audience. You can't impune the words coming out of Little George's own mouth by attacking Michael Moore. You can cut out all of Moore's editorializing, stunting and stretching the facts in Fahrenheit 9/11 and he still hangs Little George just showing unedited video of him being himself. There is enough tape of George embarrasing himself you could do a multiweek miniseries. Pretty much anytime he opens his mouth when he isn't reading from a teleprompter and the words aren't written by his staff, he is embarrasssing. All that alcohol in his youth must have pretty much pickled the speech center in his brain.

Re:White holes

[johnnyb]

"You can't impune the words coming out of Little George's own mouth by attacking Michael Moore. You can cut out all of Moore's editorializing, stunting and stretching the facts in Fahrenheit 9/11 and he still hangs Little George just showing unedited video of him being himself."

Obviously the idea of context eludes you.

Re:White holes

[demachina]

What about the context there changes what he said that isn't countered by "Much truth is said in jest".

So what if he was telling jokes before and after. What he said is in epic example of bad taste for the President of a representative democracy to say. It unfortunately is true of most politicians, especially Republicans, their base is the moneyed elite, but most of them have the common sense and good judgement to not say it in public, even if its packaged as a joke.

The golf cart video is just as bad and shows how much more he values his golf game and leisure pursuits over world affairs and looking like a sane head of state.

The video of him reading my pet goat once again shows that instead of jumping up, politely excusing himself and dealing with the seminal crisis of his career, he instead froze and Dick Cheney was pretty much running the crisis and deciding whether to order the Air Force to start shooting down airliners.

And then of course there was his other attempt at a joke at a press club dinner, where he is joking about finding the WMD's in Iraq by looking under the table in the oval office. Well there were no WMD's, 10,000 wounded Americans, 1300 some families of dead American's, and an unknown count of dead Iraqi's probably don't think it's a good joke at this point. Though I'm sure the robotic pen Rumsfeld was using to sign the letters to the families of the dead though it was funny. Just another example of his really bad judgement and arrogance when he opens his mouth.

Want some more?

"Bring 'em on" well they did and still are and everytime they do people die.

"If this were a dictatorship, it would
be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator" on the 2000 election debacle. Again trying to make a joke but saying something a soon to be President, in a time of great division and contested election, an election many think he stole, wouldn't say unless he can't control his mouth.

Want me to go on?

Re:White holes

[johnnyb]

Please do, I'm enjoying it!

Re:White holes

[Thing 1]

There is enough tape of George embarrasing himself you could do a multiweek miniseries.

Well, 8 weeks anyway...

Re:Check the News-

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans need suffering, it brings out the best in us.

Then if a god designed us, he screwed up.

Millions of people around the world putting aside their differences and coming together to help the survivors. That's a miracle.

Not in a religious context.

Re:First Post. - Hear, hear!

[RatBastard]

An omnipotent god wouldn't have to settle for the least bad solution.

Exactly! Even I, a mere mortal meat sack, can think of many ways to avert the disaster given enough power and foresight. If He can create the entire universe He can make a little tectonic pressure just go away.

On the other hand, He could have been angry at them for something and decided to hand out a bit of smiting. Which makes you wonder why tornadoes keep ripping through areas of the US that are highly conservative and heavily Christian. But I digress.

What I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the US is taking the same road to ruin as the Roman Empire, and that in less than 50 years time the US will be financially bankrupt (it's already morally so) as we attempt to prop up China as a trading partner, but there's proof of that out there.

I believe the human race is an artificial, genetically manufactured one, built to be slaves for an alien race, but there's proof of that as well, dating back thousands of years.

I believe George W Bush is going to use WMD as a pretext to invade Iran to depose their leader and destabilize the region even further so he can have more middle east oil, and so israel can have the water resources there. Syria will also be "harboring terrorists" and will likely be issued an ultimatum or invaded.

I believe the US will continue to be the lap dog of israel, doing whatever they think we need to do to protect them. Because of this, terrorist groups like Hamas and Al-Qaeda will have an endless supply of new recruits.

I believe there will be a major terrorist attack on US soil by the end of this year.

I also believe there is a strong chance that terrorist attack will be nuclear.

Peano not Piano

[xlurker]

oops, knew something didn't seem right there
here's a Wikipedia explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

Re:homosexuality

[Grishnakh]

Many animals show homosexual activity which includes full mating rituals and sex, not just 'tree humping'. This is know to occur in dolphins and wales, apes, rodents, deer, goats, sheep, and birds.

British guys always did seem to act a little gay, but you're saying that the Welsh are gay too?

Kai Krause's Comments on Zen

[toonerh]

I had the good fortune(?) to work with Kai in the late 1990's. He's the kind of guy who always tells a good story and enjoyed the fact a graphic artist portrayed him in a Superman-like suit. He lived near Santa Barbara, CA for years; but now he resides in his dream abode castle on the Rhine back in his native Germany.

Although he undoubtedly was an influential User Interface designer: the whole rounded, weird shaped, non-rectangular look for windows and slide-out expanded functions comes from Kai. He is also the best and most convincing bullshitter I ever met!

To quote his first paragraph from the article above:
"I always felt, but can't prove outright: Zen is wrong. Then is right. Everything is not about the now, as in the "here and how", "living for the moment" On the contrary: I believe everything is about the before then and the back then."

I think he wishes he was clever enough to answer the question "Do you do drugs?", like Dali: "I am a drug." Unfortunately, he has to settle for "Yes."

insightful?

[jimmyfergus]

modded insightful!?

Replace "God" with "The Tooth Fairy", and see how insightful it seems.

Mod it funny, yes. Insightful?

Uhh... wrong on Gödel

[Anonymous Coward]

Goëdel's incompleteness theorum states that every logical language contains true propositions that are inexpressible in the language itself. If I recall correctly the theorem was proved by Gödel as applied to Peano arithmetic.

Re:What Francis Bacon would have said

[Anonymous Coward]

Discretion in speech is more than eloquence.

- Sir Francis Bacon

Well...

[doublem]

I'll just skip over most the debates that rage over this topic, but the can of worms you're poking at is massive.

In the end, it's a matter of Philosophy and Theology intersecting with Science. One of the arguments is that atheism is as much of a religious decision as belief in a God, and that refusing to allow the existence of God to be a given is as major a failing as refusing to take into account the existence of Air or Calcium.

Even many Creationists avoid referring to it as a "Science." "Model of Origins" is a common phrase, the use of the word "Theory" being deliberately avoided for various reasons. One of the stated points, is that Creationism and Evolution, being models of how the past might have taken place, can't be tested in the laboratory. Even if you manage to observe animals evolving in the laboratory, you can't guarantee that's what happened in the past. Just the fact that you find what looks like evidence of evolution in the fossil record, you can't replicate it in the laboratory. At that point, it becomes a historical debate and investigation more than a scientific one.

In the end, most of the scientists doing research related to Creationism, don't call Evolution or Creationism "theories" but "Models of Origins", as an admission of the uncertainty in proving past events.

To tell the truth, the scientists and researchers are actively trying to find a more accurate vocabulary to describe the endless debates. The dogmatic statements about the "Science of Creation" are coming not from researchers trying to integrate their faith with observed phenomenon, but the dogmatic embarrassments who openly reject observed reality and substitute their own quasi-Biblical Version.

Besides, most the Christians I know point out that in terms of Faith on God and considering Jesus the Messiah, it doesn't matter if the first chapters of Genesis are literal or not. It doesn't matter if life on Earth was Created or Evolved. The idea is that God Created the world, Created humans, an the details of how that came to be are trivial. It doesn't matter how much Nitrogen was in the air Moses Breathed any more than how Adam came to be, or if he even existed at all.

Re:Well...

[killjoe]

It just sounds really intellectually sloppy no matter what you call it.

The idea that not believing in something is a religion for example is downright stupid. I also don't believe that the moon is made our of green cheese does that make me religious? Is that a religios decision?

If the points you laid out are the core workings of this "philosophy" I say it does not hold water. It's rife with sloppy logic.

Re:Well...

[doublem]

I never said it's what _I_ believe. I'm just repeating what I remember of what I was raised with.

The idea is that ANY belief regarding the nature of God is a religion, and that the actions of Atheists and the way they express themselves about their beliefs is consistent with the way practitioners of any religion conduct themselves.

In the end, it's something many who believe in God claim as a way of expressing their frustration with the fact that Atheists will often conduct themselves with the same arrogance and "I'm better than you" attitude that members of one Religion hold against another.

Re:Check the News-

[Anonymous Coward]

While God is more powerful then Satan, Satan is capable of causing great harm.

Come of it, they aren't Pokémon. The Christian god is supposed to be omnipotent. An omnipotent being would be able to stop the great harm.

Dick Cheney's brain in a silicone RealDoll body

[oliphaunt]

The other part of your post is bunk - Harris certified the election according to Florida state statue. That their election system is crap is true, but she adhered to the law as required by her oath of office.

ok, you caught me...If I could mod myself -1(flamebait) I probably would have. And I'm not going to get into the florida recount issue, or the gore-won-the-popular-vote issue, because everyone's tired of talking and nobody is going to change their beliefs at this point. BUT! I will happily argue that Blackwell & Co. conspired to suborn the election process in Ohio in a systematic and demonstrable way, and that all of the irregularities in Ohio documented so far favor Bush. Of course nobody has been indicted, and nothing's been PROVEN, except that it's highly unlikely that all of the "random" errors in a given sample will shift the outcome in the same direction. That's why I say "I believe," instead of "I know," which was the real point of the post.

He has an implanted pacemaker

Yeah, but I'm thinking Dick's brain is electronically connected to a metal support skeleton inside a molded silicone body, kind of like those RealDoll sex toys. Since nobody ever actually touches Dick, nobody would know that his skin is cold and clammy. Since nobody ever sees him naked, nobody would see the seams between his neck and torso... and since it's his real brain, as long as he could find an outlet to recharge his cybernetic batteries on a regular basis, the public would never know the truth!

I also belive that Ronald Reagan was the greatest President ever.

Bigger is Better

[stkpogo]

So sayth thy spammers...

"Score +5 Interesting"!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see how this can be interesting.
Maybe 'Funny' or even 'Troll', but not interesting.

Re:homosexuality

[Keebler71]

Interesting and true, yet we can not ask animals if they are emotionally attracted to or simply satisfying sexual urges with the same sex. With humans it is pretty clear that homosexuals do both - we can't ask an animal if they love the creature they are having sex with. Bottom line, I don't know if the fact that animals have same-gendered sex proves anything...

Re:homosexuality

[AaronBenage]

I think Christian fundamentalists bring up the argument of "nature vs nurture" so often is, in part, because they don't want to bring up the real question: does homosexuality harm society to the point it should be discouraged?

I think to Christian fundamentalists, there is no question, real or not. As far as they are concerned, if the Bible says it's wrong, then it's wrong. There is no debating the issue because it is "The Word of God"... I think that is the reason why they fail to raise the question you have posed.

Heterosexual
Athiest

Beer

[B747SP]

I believe that I'll have another beer.

St. Thomas Aquinas and the Universe's existence

[softcoder]

St. Thomas Aquinas, considered one of the greatest minds of the last 1000 years, (I forget the exact poll) had similar postulates. He needed as a starting point that you grant that : "There is an IS".
And of course DesCartes famous dictum: "I think therefore I am" is somewhat in the same vein.
So being an atheist (or not) doesn't have much to do with it.

Re:St. Thomas Aquinas and the Universe's existence

[rossifer]

But what neither Aquinas nor Descarte could extract was to prove whether or not the rest of existence was separate from the ego or whether it's all just part and parcel of "me".

The existentialists (individually) proclaim that you and I and all of existence are just figments of their highly consistent imaginations. None of Aquinas, Descarte, and I can disprove them, but I (along with most people, including both Christians and atheists) do disagree with them. Which is exactly the kind of statement requested by the topic.

Regards,
Ross

Technically, the second is Theistic Evolution

[kale77in]

Of the two options you mention, Special Creation usually connotes the first (intervening), whereas Theistic Evolution connotes the second (fine-tuning in creation). Intelligent Design, in the strict use of the term, does not necessarily make any claims about origins, but rather studies intelligent action as the best explanation for different kinds of order.

Generally, Christians working in the natural sciences are mostly commonly Theistic Evolutionists, then IDers (long ages), and only very occassionally into Young-Earth Creation (YEC), in which case they will belong to an organization like Answers in Genesis. The first two perform meaningful research IMHO, whereas AIG spends most of its time promoting YEC in churches as the only possible option for Christians.

Something like the Anthropic Principle is consistent with either ID or Theistic Evolution, as is Antony Flew's recent adoption of some kind of Aristotelian Deism (not Theism but no longer strictly Atheism, even by Flew's usual agnostic definition) which appears to have been motivated by ID concerns (requiring intelligence as an information source for DNA). See the following interview:

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/

Of particular interest is the bold claim at the end that Ayer and Russell would have agreed with him had they lived as long. As Richard Carrier summarizes at SecWeb:

...he is increasingly persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs, nor does it provide any postmortem salvation. He says he has in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a distant, impersonal "prime mover."

Source: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

Flew is not, of course, a scientist, a point Carrier makes several times, and his views should be understood rather as those of a (respected) philosopher.

Re:Technically, the second is Theistic Evolution

[doublem]

Thank you for the clarification. My knowledge of the debate is somewhat outdated and rusty, and I appreciate you taking the time to bring in some of the accurate terminology and additional links. It looks like some interesting reading.

The President is mentally ill

[tginmn]

I believe that Bush is missing some grey matter or is mentally ill. His family history is dysfunctional and he too had chemical abuse issues that I am sure didn't help mental capabilites. I think history will prove this out in the meantime I will pray that he doesn't screw the world anymore than he has.

Re:The President is mentally ill

[nagora]

I think history will prove this

You mean it hasn't?!

TWW

Re:The President is mentally ill

[Anonymous Coward]

You just noticed that?
Megalomania is his main thing and alcoholism. But he found Christ.

YAY to theocracy!

Pascal's wager is pathetic

[BerntB]

Morality is nothing more than personal opinion (for both the Deist and the Atheist). For the Atheist, however, the one absolute that follows from first principles is "might makes right."

Pascal's wager is funny.

It doesn't make a theory more likely if believing it to be true have side benefits. (E.g. "feels good", "smaller chance of Hell", "meet pretty girls in bible study", etc.)

It is hilarious to argue that religion makes people ethical, considering the churches' historical handling of prophylactics (not only the catholic church), etc, etc.

For a good answer, check out game theory in Dawkins' "Selfish Gene", or something. It's probably effective to be quite nice. So it is the logical, selfish, behaviour.

Besides, I doubt that religious people are more ethical.

In the US, you seem to have a violent criminal subculture among blacks in those terrible ghettos. Now, what statistics I've seen says that those black areas are very religious.

So people raised in a very religious background is very overrepresented in your terrible prisons.

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[wrf3]

For a good answer, check out game theory in Dawkins' "Selfish Gene", or something. It's probably effective to be quite nice. So it is the logical, selfish, behaviour.

The choice of 'utilitarianism' or 'genetics' is simply a rationalization of personal opinion, i.e. the choosing utilitarianism over something else is solely based on personal preference. And if you choose the 'genetics' route, the proper response is 'what makes your behavior a slave to your genetics?'

As for 'logical, selfish behavior', didn't your mother teach you not to be selfish?

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[BerntB]

You didn't get my point -- I wasn't talking about personal moral choices.

I argued that game theory seems to be the relevant description of animal(/human) behaviour.

To understand the argument, you could do worse than start with this article.

As an aside I pointed out that religious people are probably worse than the athists in your (?) country today, because of social factors. Which supports my position.

A reality check which your argument failed.

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[wrf3]

You didn't get my point -- I wasn't talking about personal moral choices.

All choices are personal moral choices -- "this is better than that" is a moral decision.

I argued that game theory seems to be the relevant description of animal(/human) behaviour.

And you confuse 'is' with 'ought'. That (some) people behave this way is not the same thing as whether or not people ought to behave that way. Furthermore, we have the ability to transcend our wiring.

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[untaken_name]

Religion doesn't make people moral. It imposes a moral code upon them, with consequences for violating that code. Atheists may also choose an external moral model, but it is not forced upon them as it is upon religious people. The fact that many people claim to be religious while violating the moral code that is imposed does not negate the fact that the moral code is there. Similarly, joining a club which has specific rules does not guarantee that the joiner will follow those rules. It merely imposes consequences for breaking them. As the consequences for breaking religious codes are not experienced until after death, violaters seem to act with impunity. Of course, I'm greatly simplifying here and am ignoring additional outside-imposed moral codes such as legal codes. (anyone who says you can't legislate morality is a twit, as laws are simply society-specific codified morals)

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[BerntB]

And you confuse 'is' with 'ought'. That (some) people behave this way is not the same thing as whether or not people ought to behave that way. Furthermore, we have the ability to transcend our wiring.

You really seem to argue that:
(a) the atheist world view is bad because it doesn't have imposed moral guidelines.
(b) the fact that those moral guide lines don't have any practical effect is irrelevant!?

That was funny!!

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[wrf3]

Interesting twist. I think I would rather say, were I to argue from within the atheist worldview, that that there is an inconsistency between the one thing atheist morality must include ("might makes right") and the way atheists actually live. Too, it sets up a bit of cognitive dissonance because something inside me says that "might makes right" really isn't right. I certainly don't want to live that way. One possibility is that perhaps my beginning assumption of atheism might be wrong. ;-)

As for (b), utilitiarianism is only one of many rationales for behavior. It's certainly irrelevant when deciding between good and bad. To use the example from another comment, it may be the case that neither you nor I prefer living in a small enclosed area filled with excrement; but that says nothing about whether you or I should take another's personal opinion into account (think "veal", for example of how we are not consistent, at least between species.)

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[BerntB]

Besides, I don't agree that "might makes right" must be my opinion -- just because I don't think there are some fixed reason for my existence.

Existence is what I make of it. I don't need the sweet lies of Bokononism and take pride in my integrity.

I really can't see how you can make claims about my morals if I e.g. don't do the winter blot and accept Oden and Tor as my role models, then go to the British Isles to murder and plunder.

when deciding between good and bad.

What does good mean again in your bible?

Ahh.. I remember! You should be killed if you mix two kinds of threads in cloth! Excuse me, I have to stop discussing and go visit the the local clothes shop... :-)

The point being that the eternal truths of religions have been rewritten from something your morals hardly would stand -- influenced by utilitarianism for centuries.

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[wrf3]

Besides, I don't agree that "might makes right" must be my opinion -- just because I don't think there are some fixed reason for my existence.

You do, unless you can point out a flaw in the argument I presented earlier or you decide that you don't value reason.

I really can't see how you can make claims about my morals if I e.g. don't do the winter blot and accept Oden and Tor as my role models

First, this is an attempt at determining the properties of systems given an atheistic or deistic starting point. I doubt we'll have the time (or room) to go into deistic issues.

Second, if man is all there is, then any claims about another persons moral's are simply the expression of one's opinion. And we know what that's worth. ;-)

Third, the issue of items in the Mosaic Law which some may find, shall we say, unpalatable, is a lengthy discussion in itself. Let me just say that I very much disagree with your conclusion. Suppose, just for a thought experiment, that the aliens in "Independence Day" weren't so easily defeated. There utilitarianism is not your utilitarianism. Who are you to say that they are wrong?

What does good mean again in your bible?
Well, we can decide properties of systems in general without going in to the specifics of the Bible. In any monotheistic system, good is defined by what God says is good. (The next problem, of couse, is can we know what God says? A Deist, for example, would say 'no', which is a big problem for Deism). It seems to me that a polytheistic system is open to the same issues as the atheistic system, but I haven't given that a lot of thought.

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[BerntB]

To quote yourself, regarding why I must think that "might is right": you confuse 'is' with 'ought'.

I don't accept the existence of an external moral. If you want to put it like that, do. (-: It's a bit sad that you have to stretch so far to get a point.. :-) As I noted, it's irrelevant in practice.

The world is a stark and unpleasant place without the sweet lies about a caring father. I won't sell my intellectual integrity because of that. I accept reality without your teddy bear.

If I did a counterargument, it would be that people with the integrity and the strength of character to accept that cold world are more probable to be good people. We aren't as well trained at self deception, anyway.

As I argued, the statistics from your country support that position.

Moral discussions of what is the correct thing to do is brutally complex. To try to use moral systems that are thousands of years out of date are a bad fit, to say the least.

Arguably those random teachings are worse than accepting that being a nice guy works well. (The start of my personal moral system.)

Do yourself a favor and read up on the game theory argument. It's quite fascinating. You won't treat moral arguments so simple, afterwards.

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[wrf3]

I accept reality without your teddy bear.

If you really mean that, then you would have to say that if the majority got together and decided to kill all the atheists, that they would be morally justified in doing so, And, since atheists are in the minority of the population, it wouldn't hurt the survival of the species (if you want to use that form of utilitarianism).

Do you really agree with this? If so, congraatulations on being a logically consistent atheist.

Do yourself a favor and read up on the game theory argument.

I have.

You won't treat moral arguments so simple, afterwards.

But I won't make them unnecessarily complex, either.

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[BerntB]

If you really mean that, then you would have to say that if the majority got together and decided to kill all the atheists, that they would be morally justified in doing so

Again, I don't base my moral position on might makes right. I choose my own way of living and what standards I follow.

My view of the universe is that there is no teddy bear that will torture people eternally for having the wrong opinions.

I think that no person, not even Hitler or Stalin, should be tortured forever. If such an a-hole do exist, I'd hate him.

You accept such a bastard as your god. Then you tell me I should think that might is right?!

Then we have e.g. that death sentence for mixing synthetic thread into cloth... Or a thousand other things.

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[rossifer]

If you really mean that, then you would have to say that if the majority got together and decided to kill all the atheists, that they would be morally justified in doing so,

If they passed a law making atheism punishable by death, they would be legally entitled to do so, but those who would kill someone for being an atheist, even in those circumstances, are no more moral for having the majority or the law on their side.

You've confused atheistic ethics with moral subjectivism. They're not the same, but the reasons why would take a substantial discussion, and there are numerous sources that Google can provide to explain the distinction. Just because a lot of people believe something is moral doesn't make it moral.

You've drawn a number of very suprising conclusions from the observation that atheists lack an external source to tell them absolutely what is moral and what is immoral. It follows then, that you see no need to be moral without someone nearby ready to punish you unless you do the right thing. That's a very sad reason to be a nice person (because the man in the sky will punish you if you don't).

My observation is that many moral statements in the Bible are reprehensible if taken at face value (the demand of the modern fundamentalist). Also, I observe that Christians tend to agree a great deal more with my personal morality than strict Biblical morality. But that shouldn't suprise anyone very much after reading this thread :)

Regards,
Ross

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[The_Wilschon]

It doesn't make a theory more likely if believing it to be true have side benefits. (E.g. "feels good", "smaller chance of Hell", "meet pretty girls in bible study", etc.)

Pascal's wager never claims that "smaller chance of Hell" means that any theory is more likely. A human wager has no bearing on the truth of the subject of the wager. What Pascal says is that it is a good idea to believe in God. His reasoning is a fairly simple cost/benefit analysis.
If God exists and I do believe in Him, I gain a heck of a lot. If He does not exist and I do believe in Him, then I (maybe; depending on your point of view, some people would say that adhering to a moral code is a good idea whether or not any deity commands it) lose a little. If He does exist and I do not believe in Him, then I lose a heck of a lot. If He does not exist and I do not believe in Him, then I gain a little (again, depends on your point of view and your decision to adhere to a moral code).
So to sum up, believing in God can either gain you a lot or lose you a little. Expectation value: positive. Not believing in God can either lose you a lot or gain you a little. Expectation value: negative.

Thus, Pascal says it is a safe bet to believe in God. He never claims that his reasoning ever touches on the truth of theism, and anyone who claims otherwise is simply wrong.

So what you have said (the bit that I quoted anyway) is strictly true. However, from the context, it would seem that you either believe or are trying to imply that Pascal's wager is somehow related to what you have said (that I quoted). If you believe this, then you are wrong. If you are trying to imply this, then you are not using good logic, you are trying to convince people by slipping fallacies past them unnoticed. Which I personally consider despicable.

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[BerntB]

Pascal's wager never claims that "smaller chance of Hell" means that any theory is more likely.

Yes, what I said. I've seen even intelligent religious people miss that distinction.

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[SlashdotMeNow]

Um just one question: Which God am I supposed to believe in?

Pascal assumes only one God. Well, there are multiple choices out there, and some of them are NOT compatible at all.

E.g. The Reformed Christian God teaches that ONLY THROUGH JESUS CHRIST can you be saved, while the Jewish God explicitely says that anyone worshipping JC is a pagan and will not go to heaven.

South Park quote:
(Everyone just died and is gathered at the gates of heaven)
Paul: 'Ok everyone, the correct religion was... MORMON!'
Large group of people: 'Awwwww!'

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

If you choose your ethics for usefulness, then you are guaranteed to have a useful set of ethics.

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[wrf3]

... are no more moral for having the majority or the law on their side.

You're arguing as if there were something external to man that says "this is how you ought to behave". You cannot say that from an atheistic viewpoint.

You've confused atheistic ethics with moral subjectivism. They're not the same.

Indeed they are. For the atheist, how a person ought to behave is how the person thinks he ought to behave based solely on personal preference. There is no other criteria.

It follows then, that you see no need to be moral without someone nearby ready to punish you unless you do the right thing.

Punishment isn't the only motivator for behavior. As a theist, the possibility of punishment doesn't guide my daily choices in the least.

My observation is that many moral statements in the Bible are reprehensible if taken at face value

Assume, for the sake of argument, that the moral statements in the Bible accurately reflect what God says is good and bad. On what basis, then, do you presume to judge God?

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[Democratus]

You are being intellectually dishonest in your replies during much of this debate.

You use your itallicized quotes as a platform for response. This has allowed you to repeatedly ignore arguments that, I must assume, you can not refute.

This has kept me from jumping into this argument for fear that you will slice up my text and ignore the points that show flaws in your tack.

The irreducable fact is that dieism is also completely based on personal choice and cultural preference in that one must arbitrarily choose one of the many gods presented. Only then is the moral compass of that particular god available.

And only after making a choice to ...
1) believe in a dieistic universe
2) choose a diety ...does one finally arrive in this claim of an external moral framework for the universe.

You can shout all you want that Atheism implies 'might makes right'. But the athiests here have told you that isn't the case. You then say that all their refutations are merely rationalizations - not explanations. All the while you ignore the fact that the dieistic view of morality is a rationalization in exactly the same way.

In trying to have it both ways, you have undermined your own intellectual credibility.

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[wrf3]

You are being intellectually dishonest in your replies during much of this debate.

You use your itallicized quotes as a platform for response. This has allowed you to repeatedly ignore arguments that, I must assume, you can not refute.

I haven't seen anything that I cannot refute. If you think otherwise, please bring it up and I will directly address it.

This has kept me from jumping into this argument for fear that you will slice up my text and ignore the points that show flaws in your tack.

I've gone ahead and included the entirety of your post.

The irreducable fact is that dieism is also completely based on personal choice and cultural preference in that one must arbitrarily choose one of the many gods presented. Only then is the moral compass of that particular god available.

You'll notice that I have brought up some of the problems with Deism on the side (e.g., "which God", "can God be heard", & etc...). But since my main interest at this time is an exploration of the impact of atheism on morality from first principles, I haven't gone into the other issues. I can, if you want. But there are interesting properties of both systems that are independent of how individual problems are dealt with.

And only after making a choice to ...
1) believe in a dieistic universe
2) choose a diety ...does one finally arrive in this claim of an external moral framework for the universe.

How can there be an external moral framework if there is no intelligence outside of man which can categorize things along the continuum of good and evil?

You can shout all you want that Atheism implies 'might makes right'. But the athiests here have told you that isn't the case.

They haven't proved their case. One of the more common attempts in trying to find an objective standard for morality is to observe various aspects of behavior and then say that such behavior was determined by evolutionary mechanisms. Therefore, such behavior is good. But this simply begs the question, becasue we have the ability to ignore our wiring.

Another poster tried by saying that neither he nor I would prefer a certain situation and that this shows an objective external standard for behavior. But the problem with this argument (which, I admit, I flubbed in my first response), is that how I may prefer to live does not imply how I think you ought to live. The poster was implicitly claiming that "do unto others" is an objective external standard. But nothing in atheism says that anyone has to prefer to follow this. With the rise of anti-semitism and Islamicism you see blantant exceptions to this rule.

You then say that all their refutations are merely rationalizations - not explanations. All the while you ignore the fact that the dieistic view of morality is a rationalization in exactly the same way.

No, it isn't, because at least in one case there was an external observable event that fits into a consistent framework of relevation from God.

In trying to have it both ways, you have undermined your own intellectual credibility.

Since I haven't even began to talk about Deism, its problems, and potential solutions, I haven't undermined anything. You've simply jumped the gun and assumed how I might respond.

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[rossifer]

You're arguing as if there were something external to man that says "this is how you ought to behave". You cannot say that from an atheistic viewpoint.

We haven't yet begun to explore why I think moral behavior is moral. So far, all I've done is provide some examples of what is and isn't moral in my model.

You've interpreted my statements as requiring an external arbiter to determine morality on your own. I don't agree that there is one morality for all people or that we need an external arbiter to come to agreement on common moral norms. As an aside, this norm building is why my ethical system is not moral subjectivism, though they are similar at first blush. The moral subjectivist says that he can only be judged in the context of his morality. I agree that we will be judged by each other on the common ground between our moral systems and that if you want to be judged on your own morals, it is essential that you participate in the consensus building (one expression of this is law).

Assume, for the sake of argument, that the moral statements in the Bible accurately reflect what God says is good and bad. On what basis, then, do you presume to judge God?

That the full set of statements presented to me as God's word and moral teaching represent a worldview and set of moral precepts that any human would find abhorrent and not at all likely to give me or anyone else any chance at joy or happiness.

That most Christians are happy folk is because they understand that 80% of God's moral teachings are irrelevant and don't apply to them. Which is a fine strategy, but doesn't agree with the public statement that they follow God's word slavishly. You and they are picking and choosing which rules you'll follow (don't steal) and which you'll ignore (working on sabbath punishable by death (Exodus 35:2), long hair (1 Corinthians 11:14), goatees (Leviticus 21:5), etc.).

Like any learned statement, the reader judges Biblical instruction to see if it conforms with their own worldview and depending on how they view the Bible, either openly disagree with much of it (me) or simply decide that that aspect should not apply to them (most/all modern day Christians).

You judge the statements in the Bible just as much as I do (especially when you wear t-shirts with a cotton/polyester blend), the only real difference is that I am perfectly willing to acknowlege the places where I think the Bible is foolish where you go through some mental gymnastics to simultaneously believe that you're following God's word while deciding that some parts of the word are better to follow than others.

Regards,
Ross

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[wrf3]

We haven't yet begun to explore why I think moral behavior is moral. So far, all I've done is provide some examples of what is and isn't moral in my model.

But you have no universal meta-method to show why your model should be my model, except force. Force may not be necessary, but it is sufficient.

You've interpreted my statements as requiring an external arbiter to determine morality on your own.

I know that you are the sole arbiter of your morality. That's not really interesting. What is interesting is the question of what is sufficient to decide between competing personal opinions.

The moral subjectivist says that he can only be judged in the context of his morality.

There are, at least, two responses to this:
1. Why should I bother judging you by your morality, when I have my own morality by which to judge?
2. Regardless, in the absence of agreement of whose moral system to use, force is sufficient. So your moral system must include, at a minimum, "might makes right".
2a. Note that 2 fails if the individual involved cannot be forced. In which case, all other opinions don't matter at all.

I agree that we will be judged by each other on the common ground between our moral systems and that if you want to be judged on your own morals, it is essential that you participate in the consensus building (one expression of this is law).

Why do I need consesus building if I can impose my morality on you by force? Do you think a team of diplomats would have stopped the aliens in Independence Day?

[... I'm going to skip the rest, not because I don't have an answer, but because it's far more detailed than the current discussion. Needless to say, it demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the God revealed in the Bible and the purpose and scope of the covenant made at Sinai ...]]

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[arlandbayes]

what makes your behavior a slave to your genetics?

Carl Jung claimed that we all have an inner subconscious shadow that was a manefestation of our genetic drives and interests. He used this idea in psychiatry when treating people with mental illnesses. Jung believed that people that failed to act in accordance with ones shadow's drives and desires were liable to neuroses and mental illness.

So while we a not exactly a slave to our genetics we can get quite sick if we fail to obey our genetics.

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[rossifer]

But you have no universal meta-method to show why your model should be my model,

But that's not my goal. I have no need for you to follow the same morals, or even use the same model for determining morals that I do. All I'm doing in this discussion is explaining to the world at large some details of how I determine morality. If you or others come to understand my system of metaethics and decide that you would be better off using it rather than what you're currently using, I'm all for it. But I'm not harmed or offended if you or they don't make that decision.

If you don't agree to abide by the better laws of the society we all live in, well then, I do have some problems and by calling the police on you, I'll ask the government to enforce the consensus morality that is agreed to by being in a particular society.

What is interesting is the question of what is sufficient to decide between competing personal opinions.

Consensus. Historically, the consensus of a few forced upon the many at the point of a gun or sword. In the modern world, we hope for consensus to emerge from ongoing participatory debate, articulated through social norms, laws, etc. If you're a socioopath living in the United States, your morality is distinctly outside of the cultural norm, so much so that many things you consider perfectly reasonable will result in sanction and punishment from the people around you. The rest of us vote for lawmakers we believe will represent our morality in legislation and then, within some boundaries, agree to abide by the outcome of the process. I'm not even going to get into immoral laws here, but there is obviously more to it than this minute-long explanation.

in the absence of agreement of whose moral system to use, force is sufficient. So your moral system must include, at a minimum, "might makes right".

This is a complete non-sequitur based on the presumption that we need to completely agree on one moral system before further decisions can happen. Check your assumptions because this condition isn't even remotely necessary. Laws don't begin to describe what's right and wrong, but they're still useful by describing those moral elements important enough for the rest of us to punish them for their actions. All we need to agree upon is that some actions are bad enough that they're worth punishing and everything else can be left up to the individual. How big or small that list of "bad actions" is will be fluid and subject to constant revision. Your belief that universal morality is necessary, let alone positive, is without any substantiation whatsoever.

Why do I need consesus building if I can impose my morality on you by force?

Are you claiming you would be able to do that? Really? I know that many church leaders are attempting to do exactly that by using the government (force) to impose restrictions on behavior they don't like (gay marriages), but except for the occasional abberration, it doesn't seem to work very well any more. There are too many people on the other side for these people to realistically claim consensus. The only way you're going to impose your morality upon me by force is if you point a gun at me, and I'm only going to agree with what you say while you've got the gun pointed at me. The moment you remove the threat of lethal force, you lose your influence and other risks of this strategy will then appear.

Do you think a team of diplomats would have stopped the aliens in Independence Day?

But availability of force to impose my will upon you doesn't change your judgement of the morality of my action (or mine, for that matter). Just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should be done. That distinction of separating good choices from bad choices is the dilemma answered by ethics. If someone brings force to bear, it temporarily changes behavior by altering the inputs to decisions, but it doesn't alter the system of decision making itself.

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[wrf3]

If you don't agree to abide by the better laws of the society we all live in, well then, I do have some problems and by calling the police on you, I'll ask the government to enforce the consensus morality that is agreed to by being in a particular society.

So might does make right. For all your talk of consensus, force is your court of last resort. It may not be necessary, and you may personally hope that it isn't necessary, but it stands as an integeral part of your worldview.

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[rossifer]

For all your talk of consensus, force is your court of last resort.

If you were to threaten me, I would respond in self-defense. If I was to use the threat of jail time imposed by society through the agency of the police and justice system, it's still self-defense. Self-defense does not impose my morals on you, but only prevents you from imposing something unwanted on me.

If you choose to think of either police enforcing just laws or a person successfully defending themselves against an attack as "might makes right" then you're simply not as smart as your other posts in this thread imply.

The smart way to follow-up my post would be to point out that if it were just the two of us, and we couldn't reconcile our differences over what was acceptable behavior, what would I do next? Would I then use force to resolve the situation?

My answer: none of my morals put any obligation upon your behavior. If the irreconcileable difference required force between us, it would have to be your aggression, not mine. I would defend myself against your aggression as needed to protect myself, but I would not use force except to prevent you from harming me.

Regards,
Ross

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[booch]

I don't think the long hair reference is a good example. The version I found says that "if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him". Verses 5-6 look like a better example, stating that it is shameful for women to pray without a veil, or to have short or shaved hair.

Also, I'm not following the reference to wearing cotton/polyester blend t-shirts? Can you provide some pointer to whatever it is that says it's wrong?

BTW, great thread. I'm glad you posted it to your journal.

Thanks,
Craig

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[rossifer]

The examples are what I picked up in a very quick google search (not being a serious biblical scholar myself). There were hundreds to choose from on the page I found, so I grabbed three that sounded particularly silly.

A garment made from different kinds of thread is verboten in Leviticus 19:19 (different versions make this out to be a sin of different severity, so yours may sound downright gentle on the subject. The New English Version seems the most succinct: "You shall not put on a garment woven with two kinds of yarn").

Regards,
Ross

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[wrf3]

Sorry for the delay...

Self-defense does not impose my morals on you,,,
Nonsense. The use of force, regarldess of how you pretty it up by calling it self-defense, prevents the other person from acting according to their morality.

My answer: none of my morals put any obligation upon your behavior.

Your morals aren't relevant. The system is the system, regardless how individuals may choose to behave. Your statement simply means:
a) you are ignorant of how the atheistic system works, or
b) you choose not to exercise an aspect of the atheistic system, or
c) you are so inculcated with "Judeo-Christian" morality ("do unto others") that you confuse your ideals with some kind of norm. If you had been raised in another part of the world you might, even now, be preparing to strap a bomb on yourself to blow-up other people. And, by those ligts. you would be acting morally.

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[rossifer]

A little out of order, but...

a) you are ignorant of how the atheistic system works

I would assert that I know exactly what atheism is (not believing in God) and that you have constructed a model of what atheism ought to imply based on what others have told you and some of your own assumptions. Check your assumptions: they don't appear to reflect reality.

b) you choose not to exercise an aspect of the atheistic system

Well, I certainly don't seem to fit the mold of an atheist that you've got ready for me. As it turns out, I don't think you've got any insight that would make me achieving my long-term goals any more likely, so your personal position on morals turns out to be completely irrelevant to me.

[Ross]Self-defense does not impose my morals on you,

[wrf3]Nonsense. The use of force, regarldess of how you pretty it up by calling it self-defense, prevents the other person from acting according to their morality.

Ah. Then you and I are not talking the same language and my last six or so attempts to reply to you have lacked any information (from your perspective). While you choose to frame ethics, morality and force the way you currently do, you will not be able to understand people who self-determine their personal morality.

As such, I don't see any point continuing the conversation.

Have a good one!
Ross

Re:Pascal's wager is pathetic

[wrf3]

...you will not be able to understand people who self-determine their personal morality

I understand them very well, since I used to be one. Your problem is that all you see is yourself. Certainly, you self-determine your own personal morality -- but you haven't fully worked out all of the implications about how such a system works out conflicts between other self-deterministic beings. There is only one absolute which is guaranteed to resolve such conflicts. And, as a logical consequence, that resolution must be good.

Prove It

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that God doesn't want us to know whether he exists or not, nor does he care whether we beleive or not.

I also believe that God doesn't needs us running around trying to convince everyone else to believe. Now that's something I wish someone could prove.

Re:homosexuality

[RedWizzard]

Interesting and true, yet we can not ask animals if they are emotionally attracted to or simply satisfying sexual urges with the same sex. With humans it is pretty clear that homosexuals do both - we can't ask an animal if they love the creature they are having sex with.

At least in some cases these homosexual pairings are exclusive. If it were merely "satisfying sexual urges" you would not expect that to be the case. Take a look at this recent article, for example.

Nonsense

[jimmyfergus]

Aethism is a believe in the supremacy of man and that there is no divine spark, creator or all powerful intelligence

Nonsense! Atheism says nothing about "supremacy of man". Personally, I don't believe in such a thing, I think it's absurd. Supreme over what? On what authority? Where did you get that idea?

Atheism is the absence of a belief in God, simply that. It is a position on religion, and only in the very loosest sense could it be said to be a religion itself.

What are these cases of atheists getting away with things theists do not anyway? You can't practice atheism, there are no rituals. What were they doing? Getting expelled for expressing views sounds outrageous, how about some details?

I believe.....

[grungefade]

That someday I might actually get a score on one of my posts.

Re:homosexuality

[RedWizzard]

yeah, show me exclusive homosexuality in other animals i mean like humans do, not like confused dogs humping a tree.

Here is a recent example.

That just supports the correlation

[alienmole]

Practicing medical doctors are significantly less intelligent and educated than research scientists, so your example simply proves the inverse correlation between intelligence/education and faith. In addition, MDs have to function within a different sort of communities - the people they interact with professionally are not, on average, their academic or intellectual peers. MDs are thus likely to feel pressure to conform in order to ensure their economic survival, which includes claiming to have faith, regardless of their true beliefs.

I also hope that you don't take this as confirmation that education and faith are not compatible.

Education is not compatible with the sort of faith that the average Christian has. Unfortunately, more sophisticated perspectives on faith aren't easily accessible (and besides, aren't often up to snuff). Under questioning, many otherwise intelligent and educated Christians demonstrate that they're simply ignorant when it comes to the philosophical foundations and limitations of their faith. In that sense, faith is a way to plug the gaps in one's understanding of various aspects of the world, in a way that makes one feel good about it. It's the god of the gaps applied at a slightly different level.

The Beginning of the Earth

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on your personal veiwpoint, my beliefs on the beginning of the earth can be considered valid or not... I basically have combined The Bible and scientific data to make one of the most practical, in my opinoin, theories out there.

I have a short paper [freewebs.com] online, if you want to get the details. (The theory is probably elsewhere, but this is just what I came up with.) - ki85squared

Easy...

[xasper8]

Weapons of Mass Distruction

GP is flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

Mathematics is a language not a science.

All science is physics unless its stamp collecting.

Re:GP is flamebait

[halivar]

All science is physics unless its stamp collecting.

Ah-hah! But all physics is math! Therefore, the removal of all mathematicians from the NAS would leave only stamp collectors!

QED!

Re:GP is flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Physics is the application of Experiment AND Maths to describe the universe (and its content).

This is quite different to studying maths for the sake of it.

One day Beyonce

[1nhuman]

.. wil fly over to my home town Delft in the Netherlands and will have passionate and naugthy sex with me for one long nigth. My wife will understand why I need this and support me in every way possible, perhaps even assist in the act. Then the next morning Beyonce, extremely gratefull for the inhuman but heavenly experiences will give me 5 million dollars and one of those new cool iPod Photo's.

Re:I believe PART DEUX

[geomon]

Atheists are religious.

And dogs are cats; yes, I know.

They believe in the religion of no God.

I *was* a Christian before I returned to atheism and I feel pretty confident that a religion without a god isn't a religion. It may be a philosophy, but it isn't a belief in the supernatural.

While the "religious" have faith in God, the atheists have faith in no God.

I hope you aren't a religious person. Because if you are, you are comparing my "belief" with your "faith". I don't know many religious people who hold their faith so cheaply.

Neither can prove their belief.

Well if that is the objective standard for the existence or non-existence of a being, then let me introduce you to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Only the faithful can see the IPU. The IPU will bring you sadness and joy, life after death, and will ward off all evil spirits.

Prove to me that the IPU doesn't exist.

IPU2U2

Delphi Pools and Shockwave Rider

[infonography]

In Shockwave Rider by John Brunner, there were Delphi Pools, were people would bet on events and collect money as a sort of Numbers game. While this is rather abstract for a few players. One can get away with wins on safe bets and inside info. Questions such as; Will Company A go bankrupt due to the recent scandal or Will Mr X get a prison sentance over the alleged killing.

As a way of predicting the future it's flawed, but as a indicator of public sentiment it works.

Under the theory that nobody knows everything but everybody (as a Mass) knows everything. Long term trends could be predicted based on watching the betting and what advances in Technology and Culture that society is ready for.

Q- Bet something like will State B let Gays marry.
Q- Will Texas put less people to death
Q- Will Space Aliens be welcomed if they land tommorrow.

etc etc

It would beat polling and be profitable.

Even if I can't prove it...

[Ezku]

I believe, that under all the uncertainty that seems to reign in the quantum realm, beyond what we are limited to seeing, there lies a deterministic universe. Not that it really matters, if we really can't see it.

Re:Even if I can't prove it...

[dreamer-of-rules]

Woah. Me too. :) Read Wolfram?

I believe that nothing is truely random. That everything is deterministic at it's heart. I also accept that the Uncertainty Principle limits our ability to ever see the clockwork gears. Deterministic stuff can still appear totally random, if we don't have perfect knowledge. Not that it really matters.

I believe that the universe is deterministic, and so are we, our thoughts, our actions. We are entirely the results of our environment and history, deserving of sympathy and mercy. I also believe in free will, or at least the illusion of free will. We are responsible for our actions, and can choose our beliefs, and deserve justice.

Nothing can be proven.

[EmbeddedJanitor]

All proofs rely on some assumptions (axioms). Therefore all proofs still require one to accept the axioms. Therefore in reality, nothing can be completely proven.

Those "idiots" you speak of don't necessarily dispute the proof, but they might dispute the set of axioms.

Consciousness is the primary element of all things

[stkpogo]

(or primary dimension)
No matter, no space, no energy, not even time exists beyond or without Consciousness.
If collection of matter can clump together and call itself You or I.
Then the mind and body and objects within one's grasp are mere tools of one's Consciousness.
'Life' (not always as we know it) exists wherever it is possible to exist, and is a product of Consciousness.

Some other online papers on consciousness:
http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online.html

The Secret of Power

[hacksoncode]

I believe the Secret of Power:

You know how dumb the average guy on the street is?

Statistically speaking, half of them are stupider than that.

Steve Martin

[pipingguy]

[ heavy music starts to play ]

"What I Believe."

I believe in rainbows and puppy dogs and fairy tales.

And I believe in the family - Mom and Dad and Grandma... and Uncle Tom, who waves his penis.

And I believe 8 of the 10 Commandments.

And I believe in going to church every Sunday, unless there's a game on.

And I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things... that money can buy.

And I believe it's derogatory to refer to a woman's breasts as "boobs", "jugs", "winnebagos" or "golden bozos"... and that you should only refer to them as "hooters".

And I believe you should put a woman on a pedestal... high enough so you can look up her dress.

And I believe in equality, equality for everyone... no matter how stupid they are, or how much better I am than they are.

And, people say I'm crazy for believing this, but I believe that robots are stealing my luggage.

And I believe I made a mistake when I bought a 30-story 1-bedroom apartment.

And I believe the Battle of the Network Stars should be fought with guns.

And I believe that Ronald Reagan can make this country what it once was - an arctic region covered with ice.

And, lastly, I believe that of all the evils on this earth, there is nothing worse than the music you're listening to right now. That's what I believe.

I cant prove it but...

[Anonymous Coward]

it had to have been the jack ass doing dynamite fishing over the reef that caused the tsunami.

The Universe is Cellular

[starglider29a]

Space itself is made of quanta.
Each quantum is the size such that it takes light one "chronon" to cross it. In areas where the energy flux is approximately the same (though a control volume), the cells merge in to a giant cell, not unlike soap bubbles. Light still passes through it in one chronon. Interesting side effect ensue as light pases between stars.

In addition, the quanta split not unlike biological cells, in essentially a 2^kt relationship. The cells, under the right (or wrong) conditional can actually be destroyed, and the energy density contain in them (we call it mass) is lost as plasma into a contusion.

In 1997, Kevin T. Bendall entered 3 chapters of an unfinished manuscript into a Warner-Aspect Sci-Fi contest which used this universe. I helped collaborate on the design of the universe, if you will. (It's on the web, you can find it. ;-) We thought we were insane playing amateur cosmologists, but had fun with it. It explained some of the paradoxes of the universe as we understand it. Including much of Einstein and Hawking. We know ***WHY*** the speed of light is invariant :-D

Then silly stuff like distant supernovae accelerating away from us, the quandry of dark matter/energy and other newly found phenomena showed up. Our universe could explain much of the new data. And we began to wonder...

The story began with an accident at SLAC which removed an 8 meter sphere from the universe. Hilarity ensued. It led to the ability to slip between the cells and thus space travel (by side stepping Einstein) got us interstellar. Chaos ensued.

Every new "cosmological datum" that comes along makes us look at each other and think 'We can explain that.'

Have you been there?

[AkkarAnadyr]

I stumbled through an unobservable bit of the world once.

It was an invisible 7-Eleven ...

Pinch him hard enough and he will come to know!

[6800]

I once, as a kid, had the notion come to me that the whole universe was in my imagination. You know, suffering can make you think like that but pain and suffering will convince you otherwise :-).

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

Well duh, seeing as the Welsh are British ...

Scientists and beliefs...

[Money for Nothin']

What?! Scientists believe in things they can't prove (like global warming)? You mean to say that scientists can sometimes be -- *gasp* -- irrational?

I'm shocked, *shocked* I tell you!

Re:Scientists and beliefs...

[Anonymous Coward]

So...you believe it's irrational to believe in something you can't prove.

Prove it.

Re:Scientists and beliefs...

[Money for Nothin']

OK. If I say the following:

* I believe the world will end tomorrow! -- will it?
* I believe that Jesus will save you from tomorrow's end! -- will he?

Take any prediction of the future. Until that event occurs, it is only a prediction; it is unproveable. We can make guesses -- even educated guesses -- about whether they will or will not occur, but because they have not yet occurred, they are still guesses.

Beliefs in future events, then, are guesses. Guesses as to whether event X does or does not occur. "I believe the DJIA level will rise by 300 points tomorrow" is just as much a belief/guess as "I believe the DJIA level will fall by 300 points tomorrow". Neither is true, YET, because they haven't occurred.

Hence, all one can do until the reality of events occurs, is believe -- or guess -- that those events will or will not occur.

So predictions of future events amount to nothing more than beliefs/guesses, based on whatever evidence and information one wants, and in whatever quantity they deem necessary, to use to back up those beliefs/guesses. What about things which could conceivably be proven in the present?

Take for instance these beliefs:

* I believe the sky is falling! -- is it really happening?
* I believe that there is a hole in the ozone! -- is there?
* I believe that the grass is greener in my neighbor's yard! -- is it?
* I believe my child's school performs more poorly than does the school in the next town over! -- does it?

These are beliefs which can, at least theoretically, be determined factually -- as long as you believe in the truthfulness of the instruments you use to determine these facts.

For example, take the last one: school performance. How does one measure this?

We could measure it by ACT/SAT scores. On those grounds, perhaps the next school over is doing better. But what if we measure by the types of learning which is occurring -- perhaps the "better" school emphasizes rote-memorization over thinking through general processes. Which one is better now? That's a subjective question, determined by what exactly you want out of the education. Suppose we try, thirdly, measuring by the number of high school students who go on to college. Is this an indicator of success? Typically, yes. But are there not highly-successful people who have never gone on to college, or graduated from it? Sure -- Bill Gates is the richest man alive, and he is a Harvard dropout.

How about greener grass in the neighbor's yard? Is it greener? That depends on one's eyes -- to a colorblind person, the very concept of the color "green" doesn't exist, b/c they don't know what "green" looks like. And even among normally-sighted people, the perceptions of colors differ. My family has a bag which my mother and I say is "black", but my father says is "dark blue". Who is right? That depends on your perception. So do you trust the sightedness of the person speaking to say they "believe" the grass is greener? Surely not. Now, we could perhaps use a spectrometer to measure the color of the light given off from samples of grass from each yard -- but do we trust that method? Are there not errors possible in those methods too?

Or let's take the sky-is-falling scenario. Now, virtually nobody believes this one anymore. Can we prove that the sky is not falling? Sure -- depending on how one defines the "sky". Do we define it as limited to the level at which clouds occur? Or do we limit it to the stars in far-out galaxies? By the former definition, the sky raises and falls all the time, depending on weather conditions; by the latter definition, the sky is always expanding, because the universe, so far as we know, is always expanding. But without knowing these things, we would not be able to prove that these facts are true.

To believe, then, that they *are* true would be as equally-irra

Re:Scientists and beliefs...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the context of TFA, most of the scientists believe in a fairly radical proposition that they know cannot be proven with current evidence. They expect the evidence to ultimately weigh in favor of that belief, but often recognize explicitly that they might be wrong.

I challenge you to find one who espouses an irrational belief of the kind you describe.

Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

The obligatory "Everyone on the Internet is a big nerd EXCEPT ME" post!

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

The obligatory "Everyone on the Internet is a big nerd EXCEPT ME" post!

You are my new hero.

Santa Claus

[Trent_Alkaline]

Who else could be eating the cookies I leave out near the fire place every Christmas Eve?

I believe

[OneSmartFellow]

.. I'll have another beer !

And just to be sure I'm off now to get one.

*chuckles* Pi is 3...

[6800]

Dia = 10 Pi = 3.14 Cir = 31.4 round to nearest ten # reasonable for the useage Cir = 30

I Believe in Google...

[bhadreshl]

1+1

Re:What about quazi-intelligent design?

[benna]

While you give some extreme examples, there is plenty of evidence to back up this assertion. See:

"Evidence from Biochemical Pathways in Favor of Unfinished Evolution rather than Intelligent Design"

How about this one.

[rock_climbing_guy]

Does anyone here believe in the Axiom of Choice?

This is really interesting stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

where did you read it?

Re:This is really interesting stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

where did you read it?
Probably it's a cut'n'paste from Wikipedia. ;)

Re:homosexuality

[Grishnakh]

Perhaps I should have said "English".

I don't think the Scottish would appreciate being lumped in with the English, and I've heard the Welsh aren't particularly fond of the English either.

Re:homosexuality

[cephyn]

hehe seeing two guys kiss just bores me. its not hurting me, and there's nothing of interest there for me.

Re:homosexuality

[cephyn]

Did you read the percentages? for the class youre questioning, the rate of homosexuality was far, far lower than the other, related-person categories.

So no, its further strengthening the genetic connection.

related? more likely.
not related? less likely.

That I am......

[ToeNipples]

1. The greatest tetris player on earth. 2. The "mercy" champion of the world, I am unbeatable. 3. The coolest guy on my block!

Why does God let bad things happen?

[mangee]

I find belief in a kind and loving God difficult because of events like the tsumani and the resulting suffering around some of the poorest areas in Asia and Africa.

Ya.. me too -- but google helps.

Read on...

Re:Check the News-

[argoff]

well, what if God's nature spared them the
sunami by making existence irrational. IMHO the irrational universe would be worse because the chaos wouldnt have meaning, predictability, or managability. Scientific method, math, logical thought, would not exist at all. The sunami was very unpleasing, but that unpleasingness comes thru the unpredictibility and unability to do anything to prevent the hurt that afflicted peoples lives. That's more a statement about us being finite than God failing to look out for our best interest.

I wish He would have said something, but then again. If I screamed out a sunami was comming, would anyone have listened to me?

Flood

[Micah]

Speaking of the Flood, what the Bible actually says is rather different than what 99% of people (even Christians) think it says.

Best writup on the topic I've seen

Re:Flood

[JohnFluxx]

Could you expand on this please.

Re:Flood

[Phroggy]

That's VERY interesting. I agree, it's a damn good writeup, and not something I'd ever heard before. Thanks.

Re:Flood

[Micah]

Did you click on the link in my message?

Re:Flood

[JohnFluxx]

Ah, for some reason I totally missed that link lol.
A good write up, although it skips a few points (e.g. does that mean that literally everyone except Noah (and remarkably his sons +sons wives) was evil and deserved to die, including women and babies?)

I guess talking about that would be kinda offtopic for that page, but something I'm curious to know anyway ;)

Re:Flood

[Micah]

> (e.g. does that mean that literally everyone except Noah (and remarkably his sons +sons wives) was evil and deserved to die, including women and babies?)

well, this conversation is old enough and this is deep enough that the moderators probably won't get to modding this down, so... :-)

I think that is what the Bible says, yes. Genesis 6:5: "Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Murder was almost certainly rampant in those days, which is why God specifically commanded capital punishment for murder as a post-flood ordinance. This gave God a chance to "reset" the world and start over. Yes, things have been bad since then, but not THAT bad.

I believe the Flood account in the Bible, and that it accomplished what God willed it to accomplish. The point is that since men only lived in the Messopotamia plain at that time, it did not need to be truly worldwide in order to accomplish that. :-)

Pythagorean Theorem, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the first thing that comes to mind when I think of things I believe but can't prove.

Re:homosexuality

[IBitOBear]

If homosexuality is a choice then hetrosexuality is a choice. Inform us please, as to the exact nature, date, and composition of your choice.

Also, as per your thesis statement, "There are the homosexuals, there are the homophobes and there are those who don't really care", your demonstrate interest enough to propose a position, and you aledge hetrosexuality, so which of your three classes are you left to occupy? [cheap shot but it had to be done... 8-)]

In point of fact homosexuality is not "exactly tht kind of gene that would be weeded out" (etc) because of "kin selection" [look it up]. The existence of a non-breeding sibling in social animals increases the probability of survival of the offspring of the breeding sibling(s) by correcting the ratio of providers-and-protectors over ofspring.

The trait becomes useless if it exceeds a small but persistent percentage of the population. So that 6-to-10 percent gay ratio works out about right.

Taking a simple model (numbers from the top of the head, not a "real" source). If each adult can bring two children to adulthood, then a couple can bring four to adult hood. A non-breeding sibling brings the number to six. but one out of 10 will be non-breeding so a hetrosexual-only population will outperform in the long run.

BUT...

Stress the population (war, dificult hunting, bad economy) so that each adult looses say ten percent of their child-rearing contribution. Their reduced net output is 3.6. Then a hetrosexual couple only raises three children to adult hood (the .6 for the last child isn't enough because you can't have eight-tenths of a surviving child). The couple with the additional gay sibling has an output of 5.4 adults. In two such generations, with a 10% non-breeding (gay) rate, the non-breeding gene nets one more breeding adult (you loose one of the ten to being gay, in particular you are presumed to luck-into that gay sibling in the first decendent generation, but you get the more-than two or more-than-three 8-).

The numbers work out more evenly for larger groups such as tribes and extended familes as the above rounds off inexcusaibly.

In times of hardship, and indeed in any time other than that of abundance, Kin Selection, in a stable breeding population ("enough" adults to start with, whatever enough means in the context) the occasional extra provider and care-giver will cause the wiht-the-gay-gene population to croud out the withouts.

In smaller (less-stable) populations where there are "not enough" adults everybody *must* breed to keep the population near stable. There is a good argument for this being the root requirement in Jewish (and hence Christian) tradition that all men must marry. The earily tribesmen/practitioners were woefully out numbered so they needed the short-term enforced breeding.

So, if you have the gene in their you get better population growth in lean years when there are plenty of adults, and when there arn't plenty of adults you add the social stigma/requirement so that you keep even.

So the combination of the gene and the prohibition are nearly unbeatable for maintaining the gene in the population.

Re:Check the News-

[WaR.KiN]

It wasn't God... it was the Devil.

Dumbest question ever?

[Anonymous Coward]

Q. What do I believe even if i can't prove it?
A. Everything I believe in, because nothing can be proven!

Come on this is elementary philosophy.

Physics for instance seeks to create models to explain the world. But these are only models, the map is not the terrain. Physical theories of the universe are just that, theories which are inherently unprovable.

However even pure mathematics suffers the same limitation. There's no way to make sure that a mathematical proof is correct, any proof checker (human or otherwise) may be flawed. You can never ever be sure.

So what do I believe? Anything that I expect will give me a pragmatic advantage. e.g. I believe God exists (the one true god) because in doing so I will fear God and act (more) ethically, which in the long run will (probably) be good for me.

Food for thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Godel just showed, in effect, that some forms of self-reference are meaningless - like recursion without a base case. It's a peculiar quirk of the way logical statements can be formed - I don't believe that limits our ability to reason about the data and events we are able to perceive. Yes, a reference that never resolves to anything is irrational and unreasonable and I would say, meaningless by definition (Douglas Hofstader reasoned that our sense of self may fall into this realm of incomplete statements - though I'm not entirely convinced).

As for what I believe but cannot prove - I believe that the self or soul exists - at the very minimum as a 'viewpoint'. I am certain that I exist, at the very least as a spectator watching the internal representations of the data that streams into "my" brain. I cannot prove this because this viewpoint need not be static or in any way tied to this one brain - it could continously move around all places in the universe or in all universes - yet I can't help but feel it has always been observing this brain - that's because I can call up all of this brain's memories. I realise that yesterday I could have been someone or something else - but it's irrelevant right now because my soul can only see the memories of this one body.

If you think of yourself as just a viewpoint (like a spectator following players in a first person shooter!) then life and self awareness make a lot of sense. You realise that your self cannot be destroyed - when your brain and memories die the very "next" (for want of a better word as your "viewpoint" or soul may exist outside of time) thing you will be aware of is the next time you are incarnated watching another sentient being.

The important question is whether this soul or viewpoint can retain ANY information from the minds it watches - and - if it can, whether it can then use that to influence the way in which the brain's neurons fire - i.e. the question of free will.

Free will and memories after death aside - I don't see how people can believe in eternal oblivion. The only thing you can be aware of is being alive in some form and it's a statistical certainty that if it's possible to be incarnated once, it WILL happen again at some time or place or in some reality (unless there's an overseeing God preventing it).

Re:Food for thought

[arlandbayes]

it WILL happen again at some time or place or in some reality

How do you know? What if in some time in the future time will stop or the universe will undergo some form of heat death thus preventing your hypothetical resurrection?

Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about the TRUTH. First you Euro-bastards deny the Holocaust, and now this!

Iran: Germany Supplied Chemical Weapons to Iraq

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

TEHRAN, Iran

Two Iranian war invalids unveiled a plaque outside the German Embassy in Tehran on Friday that accuses Germany of supplying chemical weapons to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88.

The plaque's erection was clearly in retaliation for the unveiling of a plaque in Berlin last month that marked the assassination of four Iranian Kurdish dissid ents in 1992. The Berlin plaque, erected by the local authority at the site of the former Mykonos restaurant, blamed the then Iranian government for the killings.

One of the two veterans who unveiled the plaque, Ahmad Paryab, who spoke with plastic pipes running into his nose to assist breathing, called for the prosecutio n of Germany's top officials during the Iran-Iraq war.

"We demand that the then leaders of Germany be tried in an international court for war crimes and that the German government pay compensation to us," Paryab tol d about 100 people who attended the ceremony. Paryab was wounded by chemical weapons in the war, as were other members of the crowd.

The metal plaque stands on a four-meter(yard)-high plinth, clad in gray marble, in the sidewalk opposite the embassy's consular entrance on Ferdowsi Street in c entral Tehran.

It bears texts in Farsi and English, but the English is a poor translation of the original. It reads: "Name of the German government for the Iranian nation is t he reminder of the great catastrophe of chemical massacre during the Iraqi Baathist regime's imposed war against Iran."

The Associated Press translated the Farsi inscription as: "The name 'German government' is a reminder to the Iranian nation of the catastrophe of chemical massa cres during the war provoked by Iraqi Baathist regime against Iran."

The Tehran local authorities erected the plaque and a tent next to it, which houses a temporary exhibition of photographs of victims of chemical attacks during the war. The pictures show wounded Iranian children as well as soldiers.

The head of the Tehran City Council, Mahdi Chamran, said the plaque was put up to "defend the rights of chemical victims."

"The world has not forgotten the crimes committed by Hitler during World War II. And it should not forget this crime as well," he told reporters.

During the ceremony, the crowd heard that war veteran Ghodratollah Darabi had died Thursday after a long battle against the effects of chemical attacks.

While Iranian officials do not say openly that their plaque is in retaliation for the one in Berlin, they condemn the Berlin plaque when they speak of the Tehra n memorial.

Chamran condemned the Berlin memorial, saying Friday: "It was an ugly move."

The day after the Berlin plaque's unveiling on April 20, the Iranian Foreign Ministry summoned the German ambassador and protested it. The plaque's inscription blames the assassination on "those in power in Iran at the time."

A German court found in 1997 that the Iranian authorities had ordered the killing of the four Iranian Kurds. Iran denied any involvement.

In Germany on Friday, government officials said the German ambassador to Tehran had sent a letter to the associations of Iranian victims of Iraqi chemical attac ks, expressing sorrow for their plight but rejecting any German government responsibility.

German officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the letter notes that a number of German business executives were tried and convicted of illegally supplying equipment to Iraq in the 1980s.

Slashdot

[TwP]

Slashdot contains actual useful information.

Welcome to my friends list.

[moultano]

Shine on you crazy diamond.

Wishful thinking at is worst

[Anonymous Coward]

So, 6 million jews were allowed by God to be slaughtered by the nazis because what? Would they exterminate the rest of humanity? This is a colossal nonsense. Shame on you.

I believe...

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that by force of will alone, I can render my second sentence completely invisible to most people.

Re:First Post. - Hear, hear!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is just because of your subjective experience that you believe the events that have transpired were not optimal.

From the perspective of God all events that transpire do so in an optimal fashion.

There can be no joy without suffering. Those who have died have not perished they have simply changed state. The soul is immortal.

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-smokers get lung cancer too, doesn't mean smokers aren't responsible for most cases of lung cancer. Sheesh.

Re:homosexuality

[mikrorechner]

Personally, I'm gay and I don't think homosexuality is genetic.

German online news magazine Spiegel Online had an article recently about homosexuality and genetics (google translation). The gist is: Homosexuality partly seems to have a genetic reasons, and the relevant genes are inherited from the mother. The same genetic factors that are related to homosexuality seem to cause a higher fertility in females.
So the same genetic factors that give gay men a evolutionary disadvantage (statistically fewer children) give their mothers and sisters an advantage (statistically more children).

Another way to look at it

[GunFodder]

The odds of the universe being very nearly flat are 1 in 1, since we wouldn't be around to calculate those odds if it didn't pan out that way. Similarly the odds of the universe supporting life are 1 in 1 for the same reason.

For all we know there is a natural system that churns out universes on a regular cycle. Usually nothing comes of it, but once in a while the universe pans out and lasts for a while. So far we don't have a way of observing these failed universes. But we can observe other systems that work in a similar fashion.

One could say that we are incredibly lucky to live on a planet with the correct chemical composition at the correct distance from a correctly hot Sun. If we use a sufficiently powerful telescope we can see that there are billions of other stars, and they are all different. Given the rather large number of chances it doesn't seem that odd that at least one of them provided the proper environment for life as we know it.

Re:Another way to look at it

[Wraithlyn]

"The odds of the universe being very nearly flat are 1 in 1, since we wouldn't be around to calculate those odds if it didn't pan out that way."

You are incorrect here, there is nothing about a curved universe that would prevent us from being here, in fact I believe Einstein predicted a curved universe. The fact that there is precisely the right amount of matter in the universe to make it flat (ie Cartesian), remains an unexplained statistical wonder.

You're right about the constants needed for the universe to support life, of course.

Re:Another way to look at it

[millennial]

The odds of the universe being very nearly flat are 1 in 1, since we wouldn't be around to calculate those odds if it didn't pan out that way. Similarly the odds of the universe supporting life are 1 in 1 for the same reason.

For all we know there is a natural system that churns out universes on a regular cycle.

You've just contradicted yourself. If there might be a natural system that makes failed universes, then obviously the chances of a universe being successful is not 1 in 1. This is like saying that just because nobody sees a cat in a box, it means that the chance that there is no cat in the box is 1 in 1.

Simply because a universe is completely inobservable does not eliminate it entirely. It just makes it scientifically uninteresting (albeit very interesting, philosophically), because we can't come to conclusions about it one way or another.

Re:Another way to look at it

[GunFodder]

Let us postulate that my theory of a universe-generating phenomena is correct. Given this postulation then the odds of OUR galaxy being almost flat are 1 in 1, thanks to the benefit of hindsight. The odds of any randomly generated universe being flat are probably different. However since a non-flat universe cannot support life as we know it this universe cannot reflect on itself and ask the question, "what are the odds?" So only nearly flat universes can spawn the question and therefore the odds of a universe that can support the question are equal to the answer: 1 in 1.

Re:Another way to look at it

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't require "precisely the right amount of matter" to make it flat. Inflation naturally drives the universe to a state indistinguishable from flatness with exponential rapidity, no matter its original curvature.

Re:Another way to look at it

[Anonymous Coward]

Your arguments are a misuse of statistics. You cannot correctly examine the odds of the existence of life or any other such extravagant improbability using such a small scale.

Re:Another way to look at it

[lampajoo]

that's a great point. Most people never realize that if things hadn't worked out perfectly that there would be no one around to marvel about how some variable was off by 1/1000000 and life didn't happen.

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

Hang on there, chief: *some* real sexual relationships "have children out of wedlock " bla bla bla, *EVERY* faggot act is filthy and dirty. Period.

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

My research shows that pedophilia is current in the animal kingdom as well. Homosexuals are revered, have their own parades and TV shows and a powerful lobby. Pedophiles are chemically castrated and sent to jail to rot and die.

Can you tell me why the difference in attitude exists? And why you think the "it happens in nature" argument is very relevant to homosexuals and yet not to pedophiles?

That the soul exists at the least as a "viewpoint"

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that the self or soul exists - at the very minimum as a "viewpoint". I am certain that I exist, at the very least as a spectator watching the internal representations of the data that streams into "my" brain. I cannot prove this because this viewpoint need not be static or in any way tied to this one brain - it could continously move around all places in the universe or in all universes - yet I can't help but feel it has always been observing this brain - that's only because I can call up all of this brain's memories. I realise that yesterday I could have been someone or something else - but it's irrelevant right now because my soul can only see the memories of this one body.

If you think of yourself as just a viewpoint (like a spectator following players in a first person shooter!) then life and self awareness make a lot of sense. You realise that your self as a spectator cannot be destroyed - when your brain and memories die the very "next" (for want of a better word as your "viewpoint" or soul may exist outside of time) thing you will be aware of is the next time you are incarnated watching another sentient being.

The important question is whether this soul or viewpoint can retain ANY information from the minds it watches - and - if it can, whether it can then use that to influence the way in which the brain's neurons fire - i.e. the question of free will.

Free will and memories after death aside - I don't see how people can believe in eternal oblivion. The only thing you can be aware of is being alive in some form and it's a statistical certainty that if it's possible to be incarnated once, it WILL happen again at some time or place in some universe or reality (unless there's an overseeing God preventing it).

Re:Check the News-

[Micah]

> Christian's believe that in addition to there being a God, there is also Satan.

Right.

> While God is more powerful then Satan, Satan is capable of causing great harm.

Absolutely.

> Any negative events that occur are attributed to Satan, not God.

That might be stretching it. Certainly many/most, but I'm not sure I'd say any/all.

As for the tsunami, I would say it's likely simply a result of how God created the earth (earthquake activity was and is fairly necessary for things to be "just right" on Earth's surface for our form of life) and the fact that the current fallen world will see trouble, as opposed to the future perfect one He has promised.

As others have noted, some good has come from it. In Sri Lanka (and probably other places), enemies are now working together for common good. God loves that sort of thing! I'm sure a lot of survivors in the region are now more aware of the frailty of life and are more open to God's message. Sure, a lot of bad happened, but I believe in a God who is capable of bringing good from bad.

Re:Check the News-

[tickleboy2]

Ever find that whenever things are going well, us humans take credit for it, but when something goes wrong, we quickly blame it on God? God does a lot more good than you are noticing. You need to change your context in order to see it however.

It's a funny thing how context can change views

[Anonymous Coward]

When talking about justification for the war, anti-war people now say that Saddam never gassed the Kurds because W lied about absolutely everything (this is based solely on Stephen C. Pelletiere grossly inaccurate and biased analysis--he was the chief supporter of Saddam in the Army intelligence division that fed info to Iraq).

When talking about how evil Amerika is, the US all but pulled the trigger. It's more complicated than that. The US supplied Iraq with conventional weapons (less than 1% of his total arsenal however), some money in the form of loans and loan guarantees, and intelligence. The chemical weapon stuff came from the Russians and the Germans.

As for the US blocking sanctions, I don't remember if that actually happened. But I do know however that the US stopped almost all aid to Iraq after Saddam gassed the Kurds.

Some problems I have with karma,

[incom]

and some christian beliefs. If you believe that someone will "get what's coming to them" , or will be "judged" or whatever, you yourself and society as a whole may be less likely to be pro-active in ensuring justice, and people who do lots of bad things will get ahead more frequently and easily than good people. It creates a cesspool of successful sociopaths and psychopaths.

Re:Some problems I have with karma,

[Infonaut]

The concept of karma as I understand it doesn't incorporate judgement. It stipulates that your actions have consequences because the energy you put into the world affects the world. Good begets good. Bad begets bad. There's no entity out there sitting on a cloud deciding who is naughty and who is nice.

Re:Some problems I have with karma,

[incom]

That "judged" term was in reference to christians, as a belief they sometimes hold that can cause the same societal impact as belief in karma. Maybe I can be more clear. If someone believes in karma, then they may take solice in the belief that people who do bad things to get ahead will have bad things happen to them or whatever, and be complacent, rather than trying to actively do something about the situation.

Because some dumb low level diplomat

[Anonymous Coward]

says the US doesn't have an opinion about Iraq's dispute with Kuwait regarding certain debts gets misinterpeted by Saddam as tacit approval for an invasion the US is somehow assumed to have known about the invasion in advance? The US has screwed-up plenty so there's no need to make stuff up.

I call BS since Tariq Aziz himself said that the US never gave explicit approval. He went on to say that Saddam thought the US would disapprove but that the US wouldn't do much beyond sending some light troops which would crush with his huge military. Saddam thought the US would then acquiesce to Iraqi control of Kuwait.

Translate this, and you'll have stronger evidence

[leonbrooks]

Stuart A. Kauffman - Biologist, Santa Fe Institute; Author, Investigations, says:

Consider this, the number of possible proteins 200 amino acids long is 20 raised to the 200th power or about 10 raised to the 260th power. Now, the number of particles in the known universe is about 10 to the 80th power. Suppose, on a microsecond time scale the universe were doing nothing other than producing proteins length 200. It turns out that it would take vastly many repeats of the history of the universe to create all possible proteins length 200. This means that, for entities of complexity above atoms, such as modestly complex organic molecules, proteins, let alone species, automobiles and operas, the universe is on a unique trajectory (ignoring quantum mechanics for the moment). That is, the universe at modest levels of complexity and above is vastly non- ergodic.

The short story: the levels of complexity we see in life around us are well beyond impossible. Stuart wants to invoke a mystery principle to explain this, but doesn't want it to be God.

I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

that if my aunt had balls my uncle would have mentioned it by now.

Sleepless in asgard

[Anonymous Coward]

That jesus is as big a myth as any other facetious hispanically named deity in our mongrel history...though he defintely seems to have carved out a namespace amongst the increasingly aggressive immigrants around here.

Consciousness

[Slur]

I believe that consciousness - in the sense of pure luminous awareness - is the primary substance (above emptiness) of reality.

I can't prove it to you, but I have had enough subjective experiences that reinforce it for myself.

Re:homosexuality

[cryptochrome]

Regardless, I know no lack of people with gay biological parents who reproduced because they felt social pressure to enter into heterosexual relationships.

Wouldn't that be a good argument for a steady increase in human homosexuality? After all, if we just followed our animal instincts any (male) gay allele would weed itself out of the gene pool. But if society/rational thought/etc. overrides that tendency, the function of that gene becomes less relevant or irrelevant, and there is less to no selective pressure for or against the various alleles, including the gay one. The distribution of alleles would then tend towards a new equilibrium.

So in this fashion, society's censure of overt homosexuality could be a key enabler of the spread of a biological cause.

I am an Primate.

[Anonymous Coward]

goombah99: are you a machine?
Anonymous Coward: I am an Primate.
goombah99: are you sure you are not a machine?
Anonymous Coward: I am an Primate.. Really.

Re:I am an Primate.

[hplasm]

Pr1me 8, the accounts mainframe?

Peak Oil

[Scareduck]

We're running out of oil. Nobody can prove it yet, but a bunch of smart guys have come pretty close.

Re:Peak Oil

[nostromo.operator]

Ian who posted: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=135001 &cid=11265443 should be in agreement and perhaps unlike you and i, pleased at the developments.

Sheeple

[Anonymous Coward]

I beleive this is the term you were looking for.

Misrepresenting facts

[lysium]

Jesus made several claims to divinity -- both direct and oblique.

Jesus can not be directly attributed to the quotes provided. Neither can the Apostles themselves. Second and third generation worshippers of Jesus wrote the Gospels, people that learned of his teachings and works through hearsay. They would have a vested interest in placing references to his divinity within the narrative -- they worshipped him as the diety, after all.

How can you honestly criticize someone for "misrepresenting facts" if you consider such information to be factual?

Re:Misrepresenting facts

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus can not be directly attributed to the quotes provided. Neither can the Apostles themselves. Second and third generation worshippers of Jesus wrote the Gospels, people that learned of his teachings and works through hearsay.

Also, the question WHICH of those texts were The Word Of God and which were heresy (sometimes the works of the same authors, but when they were not "inspired by the Holy Spirit"), was decided -- i.e. the Bible as we know it was composed -- during the First Council of Nicaea in the year 325, three centuries after the alleged death of Jesus. At this council the nature of Jesus was defined, deciding against the Arians in favor of Trinitarianism, i.e. declaring the divinity of Jesus and the concept of the "Holy Trinity". Also the Nicene Creed was written (We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, I believe in one God, Father, All-Sovereign, Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen...), the kneeling during the liturgy and self-castration (sic) was prohibited, among others. But a more interesting period in the history of Roman Catholic Church is the part of the 10th century known as Pornocracy (sic). Quoting Wikipedia: "During this period, the popes were under the influence of corrupt women (though not necessarily prostitutes), especially Theodora and her daughter, Marozia. This period is also called the Rule of the Harlots. It is popularly believed that Marozia was the concubine of Pope Sergius III and the mother of Pope John XI. She was also accused of having had Pope John X murdered (who had originally been nominated for office by Theodora) in order to secure the election of her current favourite, Pope Leo VI." See: Wikipedia.org/Pornocracy. My heros were John XXIII elected Pope to end the Great Schism, later admitted to incest, adultery, fornication, and other crimes ("two hundred maids, matrons and widows, including a few nuns, fell victims to his brutal lust"); and Pope Alexander VI who kept many mistresses and called prostitutes to dance naked before the assembly, after which prizes were offered to those men who, in the opinion of the spectators, managed to copulate with the greatest number of prostitutes. I am not making that up, I swear to God. Any comments? Questions?

Just like Astroids

[Neuroelectronic]

We hit the nail on the head years ago. Space is just like astroids. Just image screen-wrap-around in 3d (4d, 5d, xd, whatever) Thats the universe!

Re: Even better...

[sehnsucht0x90]

fermats last theorem: X^N+Y^N=Z^N doesnt exist for N>2

An interesting window

[tfiedler]

I believe the responses of these people only serve to prove that it is possible to be over educated, and that crack should be legal and mandatory for some people.

Re:Check the News-

[iamghetto]

Your missing the point. God isn't human. I'm pretty sure god doesn't have human "emotions" anymore than a bird has human emotions.

OH COME ON!!!!!

[rmdyer]

"This means the Big Bang was "tuned" to produce exactly this density. The odds of that happening by chance are estimated at 1 to 10^50."

This kind of thinking is freshman 101 philosphy talking. You obviously have little grasp of the very large numbers, even less grasp of the infinite. This kind of talk leads even more stupid people into believing in miracles, and gods, and all sorts of magical mystery tour fluff.

Experience thinkers go well beyond your primitive and immature logic. It is well known that in a universe of practically infinite time that all numbers less than infinity might as well be 1. So while I'm not a die hard believer in the big bang theory, whatever happened only had to happen once! And based on any kind of random chance, no tuning was neccessary. Better yet, in infinite time, not only does this theoretical universe come into existance, but it does so an infinte number of times. All that, and together with all the other random universe type probabilities.

The question, and this has been pondered many times by advanced theologians, philosophers, and scientists, is...is this universe the only logical possible universe that can exist? If this turns out to be true, then not only do gods get demoted to janitorial duty, but they don't even get paid. This is basically saying that any god would have no choice in the creation of a universe...there is only one possible one that could ever be created.

This kind of thinking makes perfect sense when you go into deep analysis on how we are able to think and know truths. In our everyday lives we know things by definition. We made up those definitions based on sensory perception. Definitions need to be logically organized, otherwise the world is utterly incomprehensable. For example, the color of the sky can never be both black and white at the same time. We've created an intermediate word for that defined as "grey". Also, you cannot pick up a thing that is both square and round, or lift a thing that is both heavy and light. You would never say to a person "Go pickup that heavy box, it doesn't weigh much." Our entire experience of the universe is based on the languages of definition and logic. We see a "color". We define that "color". If the color changes, the only way to know that it did was to compare it to the originally defined color.

If there is only one logically possible universe, then what is the requirement that it changes over time? Quite possibly so that it can work out all the permutations of what -is- possible. But that is not a "purpose". That is only "what it does". The next question that arises is...if the universe is working out all logically possible combinations over time (perhaps at the quantum level), then are the number of logically possible combinations infinite?

Any beginning computer programmer knows that a memory with a finite number states cannot logically produce every number in existance. So if the universe has an infinite number of states, in a sea of inifinite time, is there an algorithm that would produce a series of logically possible states that occur once and only once...that cannot repeat? Even calculating PI will eventually produce a series of repetitive numbers that occur at ever decreasing frequency.

Is there only one logically possible universe?

For insight into this kind of thinking google on the "Bekenstein Bound" of quantum mechanics.

Also read...

"The Physics of Immortality", Frank J. Tipler

and,

"The Anthropic Cosmological Principle", John D. Barrow & Frank J. Tipler

Note: I personally don't always agree with the nature of the material presented in the above books. Nevertheless I find the reading to be absolutely facinating.

Re:OH COME ON!!!!!

[mindstrm]

"Even calculating PI will eventually produce a series of repetitive numbers that occur at ever decreasing frequency."

Will it? Just because the distribution is random does not mean that it will repeat in any fashion whatsoever, ever. ie: that every number sequence is somewhee in pi.

Re:OH COME ON!!!!!

[Gewis]

Your parent poster obviously has a better grasp of numbers than you do. Any "philosophy" that ignores the basic principles of mathematics is rather illogical, don't you think?

Given an infinite number of universes, the probability that there is at least one universe out there with a flat curvature is 1. However, the probability that THIS one would have the exactly needed density to be flat is still 1 in 10^50.

Before you go launching a tirade about stupid people, take a look at yourself. And the idea that the universe being logical somehow disproves God is rather backwards.

Re:OH COME ON!!!!!

[Cappy Red]

Just poking about on one point...

"...is this universe the only logical possible universe that can exist? If this turns out to be true, then not only do gods get demoted to janitorial duty, but they don't even get paid. This is basically saying that any god would have no choice in the creation of a universe...there is only one possible one that could ever be created."

If one is "God," and has the powers and abilities generally stated to extend above and beyond those of the natural order, wouldn't one be able to change the rules? Wouldn't that mean that no matter how the rules say a Universe must behave within any particular Universe, that God would be able to supercede these by virtue of the fact that He is not bound to the rules?

One of the big problems in all this is the variance in the definition of what God can do. Another is the extremely small sample of polled Universes.

Re:OH COME ON!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

yes and no.
Depends on where you put the delimiter.
Eventually you will have to move it more and more towards the end of the sequence to avoid having a reoccurance. Putting it at the end equals none

Re:OH COME ON!!!!!

[ThaReetLad]

except that this is the one in which we live, so the chance that we live in a universe which has just the right conditions for us to evolve is also 1.

Re:OH COME ON!!!!!

[Llywelyn]

"Experience thinkers go well beyond your primitive and immature logic. It is well known that in a universe of practically infinite time that all numbers less than infinity might as well be 1."

No no no.

First of all, if an event happens an infinite number of times the probability might as well be one--somewhere in that set of infinite times.

Unfortunately, we don't have an infinite series of events. The only one we can demonstrate is... this one. There is not, to my knowledge, any evidence of alternate universes (thus the existence of other such events is a matter of faith), and even within this universe the life span on this universe is not infinite--it both started and has a terminus (heat death, for all intents and purposes).

The problem with "monkeys with typewriters" theories is that we often have no evidence that an infinite (or even a sufficiently large) number of monkeys exist and they almost never have an infinite amount of time to work.

Re:OH COME ON!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

except that when you talk about infinity, your talking about something based on numbers. And numbers don't exist in the real world. There isn't 2 of anything that exists in the real world. Everything is different.
People get too carried away with math, it's a closed system that can be used to predict things in reality but it is NOT an accurate representation of reality.

Re:OH COME ON!!!!!

[Wraithlyn]

First off, regardless of any insights you may have, you're an insulting and abrasive jerk. It is a weak mind that resorts to insults before a discussion of ideas. My "primitive and immature logic?" "Any beginning computer programmer?" I have nearly 20 years of programming experience, and a heavy math & logic background, plus some physics & philosophy. And just for the record, I'm agnostic.

No, I haven't taken advanced courses in quantum physics, nor read the specific books you mentioned (I've been trying to read newer stuff, those two are more than a decade old.. I will certainly add them to my list though) This is a relatively new area of study for me, I'm sorry if that means my thoughts are inadequate to the discussion, Mr. Look at my Grasp of the Infinite.

What you are rambling about in your above post (aside from the ill-placed diatribe on the nature of truth), is the multiverse or many-universes hypothesis. It's not as complicated, or firm a theory (ie, supported by all of zero experimental data), as you seem to think it is, but you apparently have convinced yourself that this is the one and only true way of thinking about things. Good for you, but there are other theories out there.

You know what I believe (but cannot prove)? That all consciousness is connected at the quantum level. I believe this because of credible research experiments I have read about, in the books I mentioned earlier. Maybe that unity is "god", which we are all a part of, and works to create coherence (or "tuning") in the universe. Or maybe this universe's physical properties were inherited from the one that preceded it. Who knows? Not I, and certainly not you.

Re:OH COME ON!!!!!

[Wraithlyn]

By the way, to answer you in a different way concerning the "many universes" or anthropic theory, allow me to quote one of the scientists from TFA:

PAUL STEINHARDT
Albert Einstein Professor of Physics, Princeton University.

'I believe that our universe is not accidental, but I cannot prove it.

Historically, most physicists have shared this point-of-view. For centuries, most of us have believed that the universe is governed by a simple set of physical laws that are the same everywhere and that these laws derive from a simple unified theory.

However, in the last few years, an increasing number of my most respected colleagues have become enamored with the anthropic principle--the idea that there is an enormous multiplicity of universes with widely different physical properties and the properties of our particular observable universe arise from pure accident. The only special feature of our universe is that its properties are compatible with the evolution of intelligent life. The change in attitude is motivated, in part, by the failure to date to find a unified theory that predicts our universe as the unique possibility. According to some recent calculations, the current best hope for a unified theory--superstring theory--allows an exponentially large number of different universes, most of which look nothing like our own. String theorists have turned to the anthropic principle for salvation.

Frankly, I view this as an act of desperation. I don't have much patience for the anthropic principle. I think the concept is, at heart, non-scientific. A proper scientific theory is based on testable assumptions and is judged by its predictive power. The anthropic principle makes an enormous number of assumptions--regarding the existence of multiple universes, a random creation process, probability distributions that determine the likelihood of different features, etc.--none of which are testable because they entail hypothetical regions of spacetime that are forever beyond the reach of observation. As for predictions, there are very few, if any. In the case of string theory, the principle is invoked only to explain known observations, not to predict new ones. (In other versions of the anthropic principle where predictions are made, the predictions have proven to be wrong. Some physicists cite the recent evidence for a cosmological constant as having anticipated by anthropic argument; however, the observed value does not agree with the anthropically predicted value.)

I find the desperation especially unwarranted since I see no evidence that our universe arose by a random process. Quite the contrary, recent observations and experiments suggest that our universe is extremely simple. The distribution of matter and energy is remarkably uniform. The hierarchy of complex structures ranging from galaxy clusters to subnuclear particles can all be described in terms of a few dozen elementary constituents and less than a handful of forces, all related by simple symmetries. A simple universe demands a simple explanation. Why do we need to postulate an infinite number of universes with all sorts of different properties just to explain our one?

Of course, my colleagues and I are anxious for further reductionism. But I view the current failure of string theory to find a unique universe simply as a sign that our understanding of string theory is still immature (or perhaps that string theory is wrong). Decades from now, I hope that physicists will be pursuing once again their dreams of a truly scientific "final theory" and will look back at the current anthropic craze as millennial madness.'

Re:OH COME ON!!!!!

[nonicenamesleft]

It is well known that in a universe of practically infinite time that all numbers less than infinity might as well be 1.

Numbers - yes. Probabilities - no. Parent was talking about chances of something happening to be 1 in 10^50. From someone quoting from quantum theory, cosmology and what not, this comment does sound sophomoric and makes me heavily doubt the rest. Yeah..you can mod me Flamebait. ;)

Re:OH COME ON!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

A great post which is only slightly undermined by your inability to spell 'existence.' I'm not usually a spelling nazi, but in a discussion about ontology its a fairly important word to know.

Re:OH COME ON!!!!!

[mycroft16]

The premise you base your argument on is "is this universe the only logical possible universe that can exist?" Right there is your flaw. This is not the only universe than can exist. There are many millions of possibilities. Alter the spin on electrons, the charge on a proton or the strength of the weak force by the slightest amount and you change the entire history and configuration of everything. Mankind would not exist as we know and understand it, but that does not mean that life would not exist. Supposing your infinite time is this universe the only logical possible universe that can exist? Using your infinite time supposition, in such another universe, the change of life springing up somewhere and achieving the same intelligence as us is essentially 1. Therefore, this is not the only universe that can logically exist. This is the only one that can exist with the physical properties that we know. Quite a different statement. This, you see, does not relegate the "gods" to unpayed janatorial work, but infact places all the decisions firmly back in their hands. "Do I make the electron + or - 1/2 spin?" And why do you state that time is infinite? Staunch believers in the Big Bang do not believe that time is infinite. They believe that time began with the big bang. This is gathered from Einsteins' melding of space and time. Not only would the big bang have spewed matter into the universe, but it also spewed the universe itself. Space-time, the actual fabric, the stage on which everything unfolds, did not exist until the big bang.

I believe in UFOs...

[Neuroelectronic]

and I'm going to try to convert you.

You misspelled wang

[kingkade]

...you heard me.

Re:homosexuality

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

why you think the "it happens in nature" argument is very relevant to homosexuals and yet not to pedophiles?

Well, for starters, I never did say that it was a relevant argument. I merely said anyone that is not capable of finding basic facts, or is so set in their opinion that they do not want to see the facts, is not worth my time to discuss the topic with. Since there is no point in reasoning with the unreasonable.

To address your question about my non-existent statement, I do not think homosexuals are revered. For the most part they are discriminated against and ostracized. Pedophiles do have a lobby, and pedophilia is accepted in some cultures both past and present. The age of consent in countries around the world varies from 10 to 21 years of age, with some countries having different ages for homosexual and heterosexual sex.

Obviously the morality of both issues is very subjective and specific to cultures. The issue with children in my mind, is not being too young for sex, but being to young to make informed choices. Sex can be an important decision for anyone, and can certainly have serious medical consequences including both pregnancy and STDs. Immature people are not ready to make such serious decisions, and naiveté and social status make them easy targets for abuse. Anyone can be sexually abused. Children are taken advantage of because they provide easy targets. All of this is symptomatic of social problems with sex in general. People are uninformed, misinformed, and the entire issue is surrounded by taboos, self-esteem issues, religious strictures, laws, and media hype.

As far as pedophilia in nature is concerned, it is the result of non-rational creatures behaving naturally. Without reason animals will have sex according to their instincts, and those instincts are sometimes not discriminatory enough to accomplish the main drives for procreation. I am unaware of many examples in nature of coupling between animals that have not reached sexual maturity, but it would not surprise me to hear that it happens.

Basically, I have no problem with homosexuality because it does not harm anyone. I have problems with any pedophilia that victimizes anyone, or causes suffering. I'm not sure that "it happens in nature" has anything to do with it, other than do demonstrate that homosexuality is not unnnatural.

Re:homosexuality

[gnovos]

why exactly do you think we evolved in such a way that sex is pleasurable? there is a reason for it you know. Imagine a few homosexual cavemen how do you think they would have reproduced? all they know is that they want to mate with others of the same sex. The wouldnt know that they need to mate with the opposite sex to reproduce. Not being programmed to mate properly is a severe weakness that really nullifies all other strenghts since you dont know how to pass your genes to another generation. I believe this is the reason why nothing like homosexaulity exists in other animals.

Actually, let me toss a little anthropology your way: Imagine you live on an island that can comfortable fit 100 people. So you start out with 50 men and 50 women.

Generation two comes around next year and now you have 100 adults and 50 kids... Oops, that island is feeling a little cramped.

Generation three comes around a little later, once the kids grow up. Now you potentially have 75 new people on top of generation 1 + 2. So 100 + 50 + 75... 225 people on an island that can only hold 100 comfortably.

Eventually people will begin to starve, resources will be used up in such a way they that *can't* come back (like Easter Island), and your population, as a whole, will die out in just a couple generations.

Now, let's say you have a recessive homo gene in your mix of people such that every other person is gay and can't reproduce. Now instead of having a population explosion that will nuke your population, you'll have a very stable population that never grows too big and never completely collapses.

As a group, you will survive, thus the homo gene actually makes you STRONGER, not in spite of but BECAUSE they can't reproduce.

Some points

[Anonymous Coward]

Among many things that I believe, the following I would like to submit here (to a geek forum):

1 - Java is an absolute waste of time. And useless. Perl was cross-platform enough. Besides, the .NET solution is much better than having to install TomCat, WebStrings, JMX, PG2, NP39, and MMJCOOL84 just to get anything past a "Hello World" applet working. (After TomCat all acronyms are made up just to point out that there's countless packages just to patch different things for the Java based solution)

2 - Any software that bears the name of IBM is useless. Anyone trying to make such software work is wasting their time.

3 - Self-proclaimed geeks love to bash windows for buffer overflow problems when the same problem on *nix is what caused many high-profile security breaches when it was used by a bigger corporate user-base. Now simply because is a bigger target, some people assume that *nix doesn't have _any_ issues.

4 - J2EE cannot be classified as a hoax only because there's some files stored on the machine and they take up huge amounts of processing time, memory, and resources thus givig the illusion that it's actually doing something.

5 - People will believe that dinosaur bones were dated to be over 65 million years because some scientists said that and will conveniently forget that we actually do not have any methods of dating anything farther than 60,000 years ago. Sure give or take another generous 50,000 due to all sorts of radiation. Also do not remember all nuking that must be throwing off the calculations.

6 - People will be persuaded in an argument if you point out that Shakespeare said something similar but will not be persuaded simply because you say so and are providing all evidence.

7 - Don't even get me started on Websphere.

8 - Most people love to read Slashdot and use big words (mostly out of context or somethimes absolutely incorrectly) because it makes them feel smarter.

9 - Street drag racing will be beneficial if the cops actually helped out by clearing traffic given that they know about it ahead of time. This makes others safe and lets you enjoy all the risks of a real road and not a course. This also allows for all sorts of unpredictable elements in the environment. Plus a huge outdoor gathering will be cool.

Manipulation

[gumpish]

Blah. This scares me.

Re:The Joke - variation

[SubtleNuance]

Q: What does it sound like when a women has an orgasm?
A: Who cares.

Re:homosexuality

[vorpal22]

But, seeing to guys kiss makes me want to hurl. No offense.

*shrugs*... It doesn't offend me. The thought that people might be offended doesn't stop me from being (appropriately) affectionate with my husband in public, but I expect that people will be polite enough to keep their offended nature to themselves and not make a big issue out of it, since I don't think my actions are infringing on their rights.

I liken it to how irritated it makes me when I have to sit on a bus next to someone yapping on a cell phone. I don't have a cell phone, and I find them profoundly annoying, but it's their right to yap to their heart's content, and while I may dislike it tremendously, I support their right to do as they please as my feelings of annoyance are in no way indicative of them attacking my rights.

Excellent post. It's sad how they've modded you

[Paladin144]

I just want to say that this is the best post I've seen so far.

I also want to say that the moderation on this post is shameful. People shouldn't waste time and mod points modding down what others have modded up. How can you spend your time/points trying to suppress others? It's just (for lack of a better word) evil.

I can't pass judgment on slashdot, like so many try to do, because slashdot is like the universe - it encompasses every type of person you could imagine. And until you know them (and you're only reading their words!) who are you to say that they are fools? I can't go around saying my beliefs are better than everyone elses, or somehow more true. Sure, I believe they are - they're mine, after all - but how do I know?

In short, mod others as you would have them mod you.

Re:Excellent post. It's sad how they've modded you

[HenryKoren]

Hey don't feel bad.... Nobody modded me down, the post just slipped by and only got 1 mod point. This topic had something like a thousand posts only a few hours in, so it slipped through the cracks. But thanks for your concern. I'm hardly significant in the slashdot universe, but I'm thankful for my 3 :-D

Re:Excellent post. It's sad how they've modded you

[rjordan]

i thought the same thing... one of the more intelligent lines of discussion in this whole thing... i actually went to the FAQ and looked up the moderation section for the first time in years yesterday when i saw this one being kept in the doldrums

I believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Earth was created by scientist mice, and that in some fjord in Norway we will find their imprint.

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does the average Slashdotter, in the course of a random conversation, feel the need to work in Christianity and attack it? Most of the time other religions are left alone. This is offensive to many slashdot readers. Just like somebody walking up to you and insulting and offending you, the opposite goes true as well.

If you can't win an argument or can't be bothered to provide facts to back up your argument, don't just take cheap shots at a Faith that you probably do not understand. If to study electronics, you must study electrical engineering course from their perspective, to understand a belief/faith, you must study it from the correct perspective. Simply not having the motivation to go thru the due process does not qualify you to become an instant attacker. (Just add water!).

Perhaps if you do not have any new information, it is better to just let another speak.

I bet that you haven't even bothered to try to find any real surveys by _any_ religious group that say their findings show a certain human behavior is detrimental to society. It could be any behavior. If you don't agree with the whole idea, it is easier to dismiss it by calling others idiots and parrotting the same old cliche jargon heard from other hoping it would undermine your opponents credibility.

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

Truly an excellent answer. Usually people get all wound up and can't explain shit about "their" position on homosexuality. I just want to show how arbitrary such beliefs are, and much more the result of lobbying and the ebb and flow of a society's beliefs than any sort of rational argument, however much people want to believe the compare-to-animals argument is rational.

I'm not saying I'm for pedophilia, just that the basis for people's beliefs are usually shaky.

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

Well *duh*, shit and sperm are how new politicians are hatched.

I believe

[Andypro]

That slashdot.org is the only site in the world in which the message topics can range from philosophy to female orgasms to religion to evolution to homosexuality (in that order). The content of the actual article seems to matter very little. :p

Re:homosexuality

[digital bath]

I was responding to the fallacious statement that the great-grandparent made.

Quit being a moron.

I Beleve....

[Anonymous Coward]

That I will have sex with a real live human female without the need for any external stimulus. (Chemical, Hipnotic, $$$$)

BZZT.

[Grendel Drago]

(1) Currently scientists like to measure [time] relative to atomic half-lives. Wrong. The second (and from it, all SI units of time) is defined as a multiple of the frequency of the light emitted from a particular isotope of cesium as it transitions between two particular states. Radioactive decay is not involved.

(2) For an example of working, but incorrect measurements, measure the speed of a ball thrown while inside a moving bus. I fail to see the relevance. If anything, this is a failure to properly define what's being measured.

(3) I also have a problem with your assertion that the sun would die and the earth would fry if half-lives were sped up. Who asserts this? The burn rate of the hydrogen fusion in the center of the sun is determined by the sun's mass, which determines the pressure and temperature there. Radioactive half-lives are not involved---so far as I know, most of the fusion that the sun runs on doesn't even involve tritium or deuterium.

--grendel drago

Re:BZZT.

[Grax]

1: "atomic half-lives. Wrong."
My mistake. But still they are presuming that what they see as consistency translates into accuracy. When the length of the year doesn't match up to what they think it should they don't adjust the rotation of the earth. They re-sync their clock to the earth's rotation. So which one is more accurate?

2: "I fail to see the relevance. If anything, this is a failure to properly define what's being measured."
The point I am trying to make is that we live on a little planet for a short period of time. Any ideas we have about the rest of the universe are simply guesses based on a relatively small amount of information. We cannot "properly define what's being measured" because we know so little.

3: 'sun dying, earth frying' "Who asserts this?"
The parent post.

Believer of what I hear

[emerald demon]

I believe, but have little ways of proving, that the Universe is part of a Multiverse that is a part of a Higher Dimension, containing at least 11 dimensions. Each Universe is a membrane; each membrane is about one millimeter apart, but we can't see the other membranes because our strings (String Theory) are tied down to our membrane and the other membranes exist in different dimensions. This is somewhat explained in "The Elegant Universe."

Re:Believer of what I hear

[Zareste]

Technically - and this isn't very important - 'universe' refers to everything in existence. So, dimensions would be part of the same universe.

Reminds me of a joke...

[DreamingReal]

... I once received on email -

The following is supposedly an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed)or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.

With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, " it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you, and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct...leaving only Heaven thereby proving the existance of a devine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A"

MOD PARENT FUNNY

[Anonymous Coward]

that's the greatest thing I've heard all day

Re:OPPORTUNITY ?

[hel shwarts]

Check this out , the dude got the 1st post !!! Opportunity knocks ... But we are not aware. We are just pretending to be immortal, hiding behind our importance & self pity. We live in the world where everything spins around the SELF & there's so many IMPORTANT things we worry about: bills, insurance, discounts, global warning, oil change, public opininon, discrimination, slim fast, profit, God's punishment ... & then a wave comes & f.. everything up. Everything exept of anymals, who senced the disaster & ran away. Cause they new they were not immortal & their time was limited & didn't have ridiculous concerns. But nobody even thinks about it, cause who are they, those anymals...they don't even have names!!! they are not as important as us..those green peice pets. & Of cause we didn't descend from a monkey, ape exuse me ! LOL LOL LOL ! WE STILL ARE APES ! Self important, "socialized", intellectual APES, who thinks of the universe they way it comforts them, they will never end or will go to heaven by a default... A rabbit-buddist is meditating : "I will not f.rt , I will not f.rt....upsss.... this was not me, this was not me"... A dude is sitting on a tree branch & cutting it off , an old man is passing by the trees, sees him & sais: don't u c that u are cutting off the same branch u are sitting on ??? u gonna fall down this way u fool !!!! but the dude keeps cutting it off, so the branch breaks, he falls down & says : it's all u'r f.. whitchcraft, d..n u !!!! ...BAD NEWS : THERE'S NO HEAVEN let's blame somebody.

Re:Post early! Now that's Informative

[xtermin8]

Maybe I'll stick to OSNews. Slashdot is just too depressing- (sigh) a brain the size of a planet, and ... know where I can score a pan-galactic gargleblaster?

Math is sheet music

[615]

If our universe is a symphony (a tired metaphor, I know) mathematics is the sheet music and God is the composer. That's what I believe.

Re:Aliens

[xtermin8]

No, the tsunami is part of an alien conspiracy, just like global warming.

You can prove NOTHING

[epistemology]

So anything you believe: there is a world that our senses are responding to, that we exist, etc, are unprovable beliefs. I am sure of NONE of it, believe NONE of it, can prove NONE of it, yet... I believe in beauty.

I might understand what you meant

[Anonymous Coward]

If I wasn't locked up in my parents' basement. Does everyone get to spend eternity in that afterlife?

If there were a just God...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure your comment would have been modded up as funny...

Re:What Kevin Bacon would have said

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to be a pop idol. Of course, my groupies are now between 40 and 50.

--Kevin Bacon

Dawkins- the Selfish Gene

[xtermin8]

Cheer up, maybe they're all in heaven now :-) Ever read Richard Dawkin's books? He explains how creatures, including humans, can exhibit altruism when natural selection would seem to favor selfishness.

Re:He made man in His own image

[Anonymous Coward]

So what can we say about God? He's an amorphous blob who knows when you're sleeping and when you're awake? He/She/It is a "higher power?" Really, think about it, I'm still trying to figure it out myself

BZZT.

[Grendel Drago]

Dioxin is a chemical. It is not a biological agent. A biological agent is a destructive organism, like anthrax, rhinovirus or HIV.

However, things like dioxin are not usually even considered chemical weapons, because they're not as effective against large groups, like phosgene, sarin or VX are.

--grendel drago

Schrodinger's cat...

[grosa]

is dead.

My birth mother abandoned me

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a dog loves her pups a more, and certainly more purely than my mother ever did. Its more common for humans to murder their children than for other mammals to harm their offspring. Oh, but I forgot, God is infinitely wise... And wasn't God supposed to make man in His own image. Wake up!

Hep B vaccine.

[Grendel Drago]

You're referring to the Hepatitis B vaccine that was offered to gay men, who tended to get the disease a lot. The risk factors for Hep B are substantively similar to those for HIV. Add to that the fact that many, many people who carried HIV did not know that they carried it, and were asymptomatic. If you've ever read And the Band Played On, you'll recall that one of the researchers trying to trace the spread of HIV wanted to reuse the data from the Hep B vaccination program, but was denied funding to do so.

In short: promiscuous gay men got the Hep B vaccination. Promiscuous gay men got HIV.

Slightly more evidence is required before jumping to the conclusion that The Government Poisoned the Gays With AIDS.

--grendel drago

Re:homosexuality

[myowntrueself]

"homosexuality has been documented in many primates as well as many other animals."

Strict homosexuality in animals? Not bisexuality?
(I doubt it somehow).

Re:homosexuality

[808140]

I too have noticed this trend. I think there are two major reasons, both related. One is the old adage, "familiarity breeds contempt." Truth be told, Christian beliefs are no more ridiculous, short sighted or bigotted than the beliefs of the rest of the world's religions, but the average Slashdotter is a westerner, and knows far less about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc, than he knows about Christianity.

I often hear people claim that religions like Buddhism are better or less biggotted or whatever than Christianity, but my guess is that most of the people that say that didn't grow up in a country where Buddhism is the dominant faith, they've just read some books about it and thought to themselves, "hey, this karma stuff is cool!"

Of course, exactly the same thing happens here in Asia, vis-a-vis Christianity. People read about it, and it's mostly about loving your neighbor and such, and so they think, man, this is way better than Buddhism/Taoism/Shintoism/whatever -- it's all love and acceptance!

The point is that when two dominant religions clash, there is usually war, because people are very passionate about their beliefs.

The second reason (perhaps more founded) is that due to the dominance of European culture, Christianity, one of Western culture's central features, has been able to spread and gain dominance in a way that other religions were less able to do.

Further, there's the issue of Christianity's particular history in Europe. The Catholic church was a force to be reckoned with, and the renaissance and the "enlightenment", which brought science and reason to Europe at least, were largely in spite of the Church. So within a forum that values science and reason, the Church has a rather bad rap.

Of course you'll note that very little of this has anything to do with the actual beliefs espoused by Christians, just with the way they've historically been practiced.

And it's further worth noting that since many Slashdotters are Americans, and America has an astoundingly large number of loud religious fundamentalists -- I'm using this term literally, not as a slur for anyone who believes in the Jesus/God/Holy Ghost thing -- who continue to do their best to make the lives of people who value freedom of expression and a world without censorship and imposed morality miserable.

Scientifically minded people also usually dislike creationists, who seem bent on willfully distorting words and data to make a not particularly inspired point.

So you see, lots of people assume that all Christians are like the loud, obnoxious fundies that seem to be representative (but aren't, which I well know).

Having said all that, though, I think dogging on Christians on Slashdot is as time honoured a tradition as bringing up Linux in non-Linux related discussions. Obnoxious, yes. Immature, yes. But that's Slashdot, and we love it.

I believe in only 3 concepts

[argoff]

I believe on faith in 3 concepts, I believe that they are impossible to prove, but their truth means that an infinite God exists of their "nature".

The concepts are:

1) Logical Truth - this is basically scientific method, logical thought, a belief that existence is rational.

2) Free Will - this is the belief that existence is non-deterministic, (and it appears to manifest itself in "free will"), (which BTW implies things like law in society.)

3) Genuine Love - this is the belief that we and God have a genuine need to look out for other peoples best interest, and that we are inherently good. (Which implies things like no revenge, but justice is OK, to the greatest extent possible)

That is all. These are what I believe. It is on faith. Of course we are finite so we aren't a perfect manifestation of these concepts like God but this is what I believe.

Re:Check the News-

[CaptainAvatar]

As others have noted, some good has come from it. In Sri Lanka (and probably other places), enemies are now working together for common good. God loves that sort of thing! I'm sure a lot of survivors in the region are now more aware of the frailty of life and are more open to God's message.

Gee thanks for the tsunami, God, what a swell guy you are! Can't wait for your next massacre of innocents to help spread the Good Word.

Sorry, but your God is nobody I'd invite into my house, let alone worship.

Medical doctors scientific? No way...

[renuk007]

People don't become doctors because they really want to practice the Scientific Method (observe, predict, experiment). And a large number of them (58%, right?) became doctors because it gave them control over other people. Of about 50 doctors I know, more than half act like absolute assholes; they jerk people around, use unnecessary sarcasm on patients, abuse their privileges, and lie when it suits them. I wish it wasn't so; but I know only five doctors who are really nice people who care about their patients. And presumably, if you are a God-fearing person, you care about people. On the other hand, if you had used as your example those people who are not physicians but medical researchers only, maybe you'd have a point.

Re:Translate this, and you'll have stronger eviden

[ckedge]

.
Sigh....

You fools, there are only 10 to the 260th power combinations if you presume that there are no mechanisms that *reduce* the problem space and make 10 to the 250 power possibilities disappear.

Look at it this way. See the ball I'm holding in my hand. It occupies X amount of physical space. There are 10 to the 1024th power other physical locations in the universe it could go to when I release it. But *mysteriously* it always ends up on the floor roughly below my hand.

Wierd, eh?

.

As for me?

[Zareste]

If I see or sense something, then that's that. Really, science mostly involves proving and using theories; questioning everything and finding possibilities. A lot of people want to call themselves scientists, while, of course, they couldn't care less about science and are just trying to take what they were told to believe and make it seem real.

So while the posers are out to push the possibilities behind creationism or evolutionism, doomsday scenarios and things like that (not to insult any of these), real scientists would rather delve into things the common public doesn't discuss, might dismiss for illogical reasons, and could all-out oppose sometimes. Reputation and assumptions really have no place in science.

I'd rather just find out how things work and what runs them. Simple enough. Beliefs and proof can be interesting but they're elements, not the real thing.

Re:homosexuality (KinSelection)

[Dwonis]

Lately, I've started to wonder if all those people who say "being gay/lesbian is a choice" (without any real science to back it up) say it because they're really bisexual, and thus see the possibility of choosing one's sexual preference.

Like you said, I am quite convinced that I couldn't choose to be gay (MAYBE I could pretend to be gay for a little while, but that still wouldn't make me BE gay), and, like you said, I suspect that there are a lot of gay people who couldn't choose to be straight.

I'm not sure why it's even an issue, really. One more gay man just means that I have fewer people competing against me for the women! ;-)

Universe is probably slightly curved

[bitingduck]

This means the Big Bang was "tuned" to produce exactly this density

Actually, if you go and look at the published, refereed technical paper (the first one at WMAP papers you'll see that the most probable value for Omega_total is 1.02+-.02. This is consistent with a flat universe (1.0), but is also consistent with a closed, large radius of curvature universe. Other experiments produce similar values (some referenced in the paper), also slightly greater than one but with error bars that include 1.0.

It always makes me cringe a little when people stand up and show data plots of the various cosmological parameters that are consistent with flat, but also consistently tend towards very large radius closed, and then declare the universe to be flat. And I've been at a lot of those talks. I'm fine with them saying "It's nearly flat" or "it's got such a large radius that we can treat it as flat for most purposes" or "it's flat enough to be consistent with inflation", but it's not convincingly dead-ass flat. The data always seem to be centered around "very-nearly-flat-but-closed"

I was talking to a cosmologist friend about this, and his comment was "Yeah, but it would be perverse if the universe were that close to flat, but not really flat". To which my reply is "The universe is a perverse place-- it doesn't have to be flat just to make the mathematical description pretty". Life as an experimenter is way more fun when the data give you those tiny deviations from the theory-- they're often real, and they're hinting at something missing from the theory.

I believe that

[Drantin]

"a lot" is two words...

Re:I believe that

[Anonymous Coward]

your post is redundant. /comments.pl?sid=135001&cid=11265381

The Universe is the inside of a black hole

[1ione1]

In an undergrad astronomy class many years ago, we did a calculation of the size of a black hole that is in the range of mass estimates for the universe. We found that based on what we know so far about the density of black holes and the universe, it is indeed possible that we are living inside a singularity the size of the universe.

When I read about cosmology, the most burning unanswered question to me is "What is the universe and where did it come from?". Is the universe we look out upon actually the inside of the biggest black hole of all? While it seems we have yet to find provable answers to those questions, the coincidence is attractive to believe in.

Looking around the Internet, this idea is often repeated but not yet resolved one way or the other. Some sources:

• Physics Post: In the Belly of an Angry Giant.
• On the Structure of our Universe
• The Elegant Universe

So for want of a "better" explanation, I believe the universe is the inside of a black hole. And no, I've never done drugs.

Counterexample

[Analog Penguin]

Not all religions around today require proselytization and conversions. Judaism, for example, actively discourages conversion, and potential converts must study for an extended period of time before they are allowed to become Jewish. "Push the proselyte away with the one hand, and welcome him in with the other" is the clearest expression of this. Yet Judaism is one of the oldest, if not the oldest surviving religious tradition.

Curved universes are problematic

[GunFodder]

Universes that are not nearly flat don't work like ours.

A closed universe ends up in a Big Crunch in thousands or millions of years; this has been proven insufficient to generate life as we know it. It took 3.5 billion years to progress from the first bacteria-like single celled organisms to thinking humans. And the Sun isn't even particularly old; it's a 3rd generation star. A closed universe would crunch too quickly to allow life to develop sufficiently.

An open universe expands quickly enough that galaxies and stars cannot form. These aggregations of energy are necessary to support life as we know it. Without sufficient energy entropy reigns supreme and life doesn't have the necessary resources to take advantage of self-organization.

Re:Curved universes are problematic

[Oligonicella]

As with many other things, our models are shallow and inaccurate. Change one thing without changing everything else to match? Sure. It that the way things work? Don't know.

Physicists have a bad habit of presuming their models describe reality. They gloss over the fact that their models fail regularly.

Re:Curved universes are problematic

[Wraithlyn]

Well, of course if the density was such that a Big Crunch would occur in "thousands or millions of years", life would not have a chance to develop.

But if the Big Crunch happened in trillions of years, life would have a chance to develop, and by definition it would still be a closed universe, would it not? Or is that what you mean by "nearly flat?"

Same for an open universe... of course there is a threshhold of expansion where we would not expect life to be able to form, but would that threshhold be crossed as soon as we go from perfectly flat to barely open?

In fact, the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating (which seems pretty darned open to me), in contradiction to both its measured flatness, and what we think we know about gravity. And yet we're here.

But of course, I'm no cosmologist... if you have any links/refs which shed more light on this I'd be happy to educate myself. Thanks for the insight.

Cheers.

Gates on Diamond

[Baldrson]

Here is the link to Bill Gate's worshipful words for Jared Diamond.

Ethics of ethists and deists

[AxelBoldt]

the moralist says "This is good because I/we say it is"

No, ethicists usually give much more elaborate reasons, such as "because it leads to the largest amount of happiness for the largest number of people" or "because it will ultimately maximize your personal happiness" or "because every group of free rational and equal agents would agree to these principles" etc.pp.

while the Deist says, "This is good because God says it is." (with the attendant problems of "which God" and "how do you know you heard correctly?")

Not to mention the much bigger problem: why should one assume that God's personal notion of "good" agrees with a reasonable human notion of "good"? After all, a God whom it pleases to snuff out 150,000 innocent people for fun may very well invite Hitler into heaven. God's ways are unknowable.

Re:Ethics of ethists and deists

[wrf3]

No, ethicists usually give much more elaborate reasons, such as "because it leads to the largest amount of happiness for the largest number of people" or "because it will ultimately maximize your personal happiness" or "because every group of free rational and equal agents would agree to these principles" etc.pp.

I said as much. The problem is that all of these elaborate reasons still reduce to personal preference, i.e. one ethicist says "act this way becuse it maximizes happiness", another one will say, "no, act this way because free and rational people agree to this". The choice of rationale is by personal preference. So the question becomes, how do groups with differing preferences decide which is right?

Not to mention the much bigger problem: why should one assume that God's personal notion of "good" agrees with a reasonable human notion of "good"?

The bigger problem is: who are you to judge God? And on what basis will you do so?

Re:Ethics of ethists and deists

[AxelBoldt]

The choice of rationale is by personal preference.

True, but fortunately the different rationales lead, in most real-world cases, to the same answers to basic moral questions. The notions of right and wrong, it turns out, are pretty robust against changes in the used rationale.

The bigger problem is: who are you to judge God?

Why should God's personal choices be beyond judgement? Because he is assumed to be very powerful? Should I be afraid? Or because He made everything? Should I be in awe? As you yourself pointed out, those features are orthogonal to moral value.

And on what basis will you do so?

I will take utiliarianism as my basis, and will declare that, on this basis, many of God's actions are evidently bad. You are of course free to use another basis. I challenge you to come up with a reasonable definition of "good" which will judge God's actions as good. Except of course the cop-out "it's good because God does it".

Re:Ethics of ethists and deists

[wrf3]

[wrf3] The choice of rationale is by personal preference.

True, but fortunately the different rationales lead, in most real-world cases, to the same answers to basic moral questions.

Convenient, but it avoids the question of how one decides when there is disagreement. That leads to an invariant truth about atheism.

The notions of right and wrong, it turns out, are pretty robust against changes in the used rationale.

I'm not sure I agree with this, but I need time to think about it.

[wrf3] The bigger problem is: who are you to judge God?

Why should God's personal choices be beyond judgement? Because he is assumed to be very powerful? Should I be afraid? Or because He made everything? Should I be in awe? As you yourself pointed out, those features are orthogonal to moral value.

I answered that question elsewhere. But now that you've judged God and found Him wanting, now what? You aren't going to change God, and you aren't going to be happy in His presence. What's left?

C. S. Lewis was quite right when he said that there are only two kinds of people: those who say 'Thy will be done' and those who say 'My will be done'. And they cannot coexist together.

[wrf3] And on what basis will you do so?

I will take utiliarianism as my basis, and will declare that, on this basis, many of God's actions are evidently bad. You are of course free to use another basis. I challenge you to come up with a reasonable definition of "good" which will judge God's actions as good. Except of course the cop-out "it's good because God does it".

Why is that a cop-out, since you just agreed that personal choice is the only basis you have for defining what is good? "It's good because it's follows the principle of utilitarianism" is equivalent to "it's good because it follows a principle I think is good", which is equivalent to "it's good because I say so".

Re:Ethics of ethists and deists

[AxelBoldt]

Convenient, but it avoids the question of how one decides when there is disagreement.

True, but even more so for all the religious-based ethics. God never explicitly talked about the ethics of using anencephalic babies for medical experiments, so what do you do if one priest argues in favor and another against? Follow your personal preference?

But now that you've judged God and found Him wanting, now what?

If I believed He existed, because of my dislike for His personal moral choices I would simply ignore Him, in the way fishes ignore their Aquarium Keeper. Of course, there's always the option of picking another God that better fits your personal preferences; after all there are enough religions to choose from, with none of them being significantly more convincing than the others.

Why is that a cop-out

If you define "good" as "whatever God says or does", then the statement "God's actions are good" becomes a mere tautology without any nutritional value. In the same way, I could redefine the word "good" so that all actions of my laptop become good.

It turns out, neither of us is completely free to define the word "good" in any way we want, since the word already has a widely accepted meaning, and any proposed definition would have to capture (most of) that meaning. I claim that the two definitions "good is whatever God says or does" and "good is whatever my laptop does" are equally wanting, since they both disagree with the commonly accepted meaning of the word "good", i.e.: don't harm others, be nice and honest, help others, etc.

Re:I believe that Proof is Secondary to Consensus.

[dreamer-of-rules]

You forgot to mention the Mysteries of Stonehenge, the advanced technology of the ancient Egyptions, the Miracle of Accupuncture, paranormal research in the army, and the aliens who walk among us.

The truth is not here.

Logic Nazi to the rescue

[DimGeo]

[disclaimer: I am a developer and a Logic Nazi. The term "Logic Nazi" implies that I may not know much, but I sure like to show off.]

It's a coding system, not a cypher.

Many will shrug at the difference, but it is quite essential. Coding (at least useful coding) is meant to translate things into numbers and then back to their original form -- so that you can apply logic science to various non-trivial concepts. Cyphering is meant to add some secret to your numbers in such a way that you need the same secret to get your numbers back.

In very simplified terms, Coding is making things numbers, and Cyphering is trying to protect those numbers from getting stolen by third parties.

Re:Logic Nazi to the rescue

[DancesWithBlowTorch]

Okay, so I really meant to say that the crucial point is to find a bijection between the elementary words of the formal system and the natural numbers. Better? :-)

Re:Logic Nazi to the rescue

[DimGeo]

Affirmative, shashdot citizen 809750. Slashdot citizen 694000 out.

Proof that logic doesn't work?

[Pfhorrest]

Someone help me here...

We cannot prove that we can prove anything, because it begs the question (assumes its conclusion is true as a premise) and is thus logically false. However, this proof against proof relies on a logical fallacy to make it's point, contradicting itself (by assuming logic does work) and is thus logically false itself.

However, my own preceeding proof against the proof against proof is reliant on logical fallacy to make it's point, which goes back to the initial premise that logic works, which cannot be proven, and we're in a loop.

It's late and I'm not sure what this means. I thought for a moment I had a proof that logic doesn't work... which sounds self-contradictory, but if logic doesn't work then self-contradiction holds nothing against an argument.

Let me think freely for a moment...

If you assume that logic doesn't work, then that assumption reinforces itself, because you cannot prove, given that assumption, _ANYTHING_, including that proofs mean anything. Though assuming that logic doesn't work, you could then be free to just assume anything else, including that logic DOES work.

But if you assume that logic does work, then you get into the above recursively self-contradictory loop, which seems (though my mind is not working it out rigorously right now) to prove that the assuption that logic works is, in itself, logically false, bringing you right back to "logic doesn't work".

Someone please help me clarify all this.

Re:Proof that logic doesn't work?

[nine-times]

You seem to be doing fine on your own. Perhaps consider this: If, as part of "logic not working", we mean to also throw out the theory of non-contradiction, then what?

In case you're not familiar, or the title "theory of non-contradiction" isn't sufficiently clear, I mean what if something can be A and not-A at the same time? If so, it should be perfectly fine for logic to both work and not-work.

In fact, denying the theory of non-contradiction has the funny affect of also allowing for the theory of non-contradiction. In essence, assuming the theory to be false does not prohibit it from also being true.

In this sense, if we assume logic works, then we must say that logic works. If we assume that logic does not "work", we are still free to say logic does work. We're contradicting ourselves, but that sort of contradiction is allowable within the framework we've set.

What do you think about that?

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

*EVERY* faggot act is filthy and dirty.

May I suggest you try using a tissue next time then. They are very handy for cleaning up afterwards. :cD

Might I invoke...

[el-spectre]

The Anthropic Principle?

Re:homosexuality

[welshwaterloo]

This is know to occur in dolphins and wales

*ahem*
That'll be whales, then..

Yours, from Cardiff
:)

sarcastic ass

[Anonymous Coward]

See title ^^^

I dont have the words to say this,

[baadfood]

I belive that I belive in things. That I am actually aware/concoious/whatever, not *just* the responses of a neural net computer. I also belive that to opposing things can both be true.

Read more carefully.

[Fantastic Lad]

Or at least skim more slowly before you open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Who said there was a god in 'my' energy universe?

-FL

Re:Translate this, and you'll have stronger eviden

[julesh]

The short story: the levels of complexity we see in life around us are well beyond impossible. Stuart wants to invoke a mystery principle to explain this, but doesn't want it to be God.

I don't know why he wants any "mystery principle" for this, because there's a well known one called the anthropic principle that explains it perfectly adequately, as long as you understand a little probability theory.

Written history is superior to archaeology

[nognsoutie]

I believe, although I cannot prove, that where archaeology disagrees with written history, the written record is generally correct, and the archaeology is as often as not scientifically worded fiction. Unlike most of the people who enlightened us with their unprovable beliefs, I believe that science does a poor job of discovering the facts history - but I cannot prove this.

Re:homosexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL

YOU GOT OWNED BUDDY

i bet you're a closet faggot

it's ok, we love you anyway

even if your hateful God doesn't

Re:homosexuality

[clickster]

Gotta love AC trolls.

Slashdot Zoo Public Notice:
1. Do not tap on the fish tanks.

2. All garbage should be placed in the proper trash bins

3. Please don't feed the trolls.

Re:OPPORTUNITY ?

[doublem]

A quick note:

People will take you more seriously if you use actual sentences and run a spell check on what you type.

The general idea you're proposing, that we're just evolved apes, full of superstition, is hardly a new one. The way you present it however, is fairly random and incoherent. Your thoughts are difficult to follow and it's clear form your writing that you don't care enough about the conversation to proof or even spell check what you've written.

Ultimately, you've done a disservice to what you're trying to express by phrasing it in such a random, childish manner.

Everyone else in the discussion, regardless of what they think, has made an attempt to express themselves coherently and respectfully. The result has been an actual exchange of ideas, with the hope of people carrying away a better understanding of what others believe.

Please try to participate in the discussion, instead of trying to run over it.

nature of the expression 1+1=2

[xlurker]

hmm, when you think about it, the axioms deal directly with that question. What is the mind exactly doing when it abstracts this picture:

• 'apple'

what makes this picture different?

• 'apple' 'apple'

or even more

• 'apple' 'apple' 'apple' 'apple'

Let's say you remember the 'apples' in a later picture visually well. Later you decide to reconstruct the picture by putting 'apples' one by one on the table.

You stop putting 'apples' on the table once you have reached the same picture or configuration. You will always stop once you have reached that configuration. So in that sense you can give the process of reaching that configuration a name. Since the process and result will always be the same.

Since this is valid for any configuration, you can actually give each configuration a name. Starting with the first configuration 'one' you can construct all other configurations. Based on this you now don't have to visually show

• 'apple' 'apple' 'apple'

when you mean to convey this to someone (or yourself). It is sufficient to know the name of the process: 'three' 'apples'!

Essentially Peano's Axioms do what the example above does in a more formal framework.

I believe ...

[gfreeman]

... I'll have another beer.

confirmed: ur-uhh-more-on

[Anonymous Coward]

phoenetically speaking, of course

twit

Occam's razor or Gillette's?

[Roadkills-R-Us]

I've long thought it odd that people will quote Occam's razor to "prove" there is no need for God, but then go deeper into the maze of twisty little passages of Big Bang Theory and Evolution. Frankly, I think those require a *lot* more faith.

And that's from someone who used to believe in them.

Re:Occam's razor or Gillette's?

[ArsonSmith]

Luckly Big Bang and Evolution don't require your beleif. They, or something very similar to them have already produced your ability to belive one way or the other.

Oh good grief

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you even read Kauffman's work?? His whole thesis is that the levels of complexity we see in life around us are not only not "well beyond impossible", but are in fact nearly inevitable! The irony of you citing Kauffman to support the unlikeliness of life is bizarre, in light of the fact that he's done some of the most famous work arguing the exact opposite. It's a perfect example of creationist quote-mining. I'd suggest you actually read his books, particularly his introductory At Home in the Universe and the more technical The Origins of Order.

As for your particular quote, yes, it's true that it would take vastly many repeats of the history of the universe to create all possible proteins of length 200. But so what? All that establishes is, as Kauffman says, the universe is non-ergodic (i.e., non-repeating). But that has nothing to do with how likely life is to arise in the universe, as the origins of life do not require the universe to produce all possible proteins of length 200.

Re:homosexuality

[Decaff]

*ahem*
That'll be whales, then..

Er... yes

Math is NOT a human invention

[sean.peters]

Guess what? Mathmatics is a human invention.

Mathematics is not a human invention. If it were, presumably we could invent any kind of mathematics we want, including one in which 2 + 2 = 5. In fact, numbers have inherent properties, which we are not at liberty to change.

Nature neither knows nor cares what 1+1 is, nor does it care that you can't divide by zero. Have you ever tried long division in Roman numerals?

The Romans used poor notation, therefore mathematics is a human invention? The logic there is lost on me.

What about in cultures where their numbers are 1, 2, 3, "many"?

Same problem as before. Some cultures didn't study math, therefore math is a human invention?

Mathematics is more properly characterized as a discovery. Nature neither knows nor cares whether we use Roman numerals, or if we know how to count beyond three, but it's a FACT that e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0.

Sean

Re:Math is NOT a human invention

[randallpowell]

If it's not a human invention, why can number systems be based on 10, 6, -4?

Re:OPPORTUNITY ?

[hel shwarts]

THANK U THANK U THANK U MISTER doublem (118724) SORRY FOR MAKING U FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE BY MENTIONING INTELLEGENT SELF IMPORTANT APES & SORRY FOR ANNOYING U WITH MY CHILDISH MANNER & MISSPELS. I HOPE THAT IT DIDN'T DO A LOTE OF DAMAGE TO UR COHERENT IMPORTANT IDEAS ABOUT WORLD . REPLIES LIKE YOUR'S ARE THE PROOF.

Re:OPPORTUNITY ?

[hel shwarts]

oppps I misspeled again, sorry sorry sorry important mister doublem (118724).

Re:OPPORTUNITY ?

[hel shwarts]

cutting off the same branch lol lol lol

Re:Translate this, and you'll have stronger eviden

[Anonymous Coward]

Incidentally, the "mystery principle" Kuaffman invokes is the laws of chemistry.

I believe I believe what the old man said

[Moderatbastard]

I believe that anybody who hardcodes the width of a text column in HTML using absolute units is a cretinous retard, particularly if they also do it in the print friendly version and thus the last word or so of each line is lost.

Actually, Firefox seems to print it OK so I now believe IE sucks cocks for tuppence.

Re:I believe I believe what the old man said

[Anonymous Coward]

I now believe IE sucks cocks for tuppence.

But I think that one IS provable.

Re:OPPORTUNITY ?

[doublem]

That would require me to take you seriously, or care what you have to say.

You fail to understand my point. Your philosophical arguments are falling of deaf ears. No one cares what you're saying, just laughing at you because you're incapable of expressing yourself.

Your writing style has done an excellent job of presenting you as a clown, and the end result will be that most people will not take you seriously.

The ideas you're presenting are irrelevant. The simple fact is no one takes you seriously, or even cares what you're saying.

The only reason I'm even replying to you, is because I think the ideas you expressed deserve to be discussed and taken seriously, but you articulated them in just a juvenile manner that no one can take you seriously, or discuss the atheistic view you're trying to express.

One little thing about probability...

[Inoshiro]

"The odds of that happening by chance are estimated at 1 to 10^50."

That doesn't mean there was some divine intelligence behind it, only that it happened. Improbable is not the same as impossible.

The fact is, unless conditions that generated life occured, there would be no life to consider how improbable it was! Again: the fact we exist means something improbable happened, but does not imply divine intelligence behind it.

You could say that Earth is a strange anamoly that implies there is a divine intelligence, while I can say that if you roll a dice long enough, you'll eventually hit snake eyes for 100 times in a row.

People always seem to think that longshots like that imply purpose and will. That's bunk.

Re:homosexuality

[cephyn]

well, keep poking through the thread and have your doubts put to rest, it happens. pair-bonded, for life, homosexual animal couples. Ducks. Penguins. Others too.

Proof that logic DOES work?

[Pfhorrest]

I've thought of perhaps a nice analogy to help me wrap my head around this.

Consider the old metaphysical concept of our reality being a subset of another, greater reality; a dream, a simulation, or something of that nature. Within our reality, things seem to follow certain physical rules, and we can attempt to learn things about them: our reality is knowable by observation. There may be SOMETHING beyond it, but even if we can conclude for there that there is something (say by somehow proving that our reality is finite), we cannot observe it; it is beyond that facility of ours, and in fact the notion of "observation" doesn't very well even apply to it, as it is not "real" in the sense of what we consider "reality"; so it's not very well worth our time thinking about what we might see "out there" if we could look, because the notion of "looking out there" is nonsense.

The same seems to work for knowledge through reason. We've pretty clearly demonstrated here that there is a mental "realm" (so to speak), that cannot be logically known; there are ideas that just do not follow logic. We can know that they exist, just as we might someday know that an "outer" metaphysical reality exists, but we can't actually *know* anything about them, because we understand ideas through logic, so the notion of knowing an illogical idea is again nonsense.

So we could perhaps say that, within the domain of ideas that are knowable, logic must work, by definition, because logic is neccesary for proof and proof is neccesary for knowledge. We have basically defined "knowledge" as "that domain of ideas to which logic applies", and thus tautologically logic must apply to all ideas that are knowable.

Re:Proof that logic DOES work?

[nine-times]

So we could perhaps say that, within the domain of ideas that are knowable, logic must work, by definition, because logic is neccesary for proof and proof is neccesary for knowledge. We have basically defined "knowledge" as "that domain of ideas to which logic applies", and thus tautologically logic must apply to all ideas that are knowable.

Pretty good thinking, if you ask me. I agree that talking about what is fundamentally incomprehensible is nonsense.

However, I'm left wondering if there might be other kinds of "knowledge" that aren't what we think of as "logical". I refer back to things like, "I love my mother". Might that be a sort of genuine knowledge that merely falls outside the realm of what's commonly referred to as "logic"? If we have an extra-logical universal set with the comprehensible as a subset of knowledge, and "logic" a subset of that, might there be room for something else, non-logical, but within comprehensible?

And if so, might statements such as "logic works" fall within that other set?

Re:Proof that logic DOES work?

[Pfhorrest]

Pretty good thinking, if you ask me.

Thank you.

However, I'm left wondering if there might be other kinds of "knowledge" that aren't what we think of as "logical". I refer back to things like, "I love my mother". Might that be a sort of genuine knowledge that merely falls outside the realm of what's commonly referred to as "logic"? If we have an extra-logical universal set with the comprehensible as a subset of knowledge, and "logic" a subset of that, might there be room for something else, non-logical, but within comprehensible?

Well, the four sources of knowledge that I work with in my philosophy (I'm actually writing a paper on this ATM) are sensory observation, logical reasoning, emotional feelings, and social language. The first two I consider "primary", in that the latter are founded upon them: emotion is effectively the internal observation of some nonlogical aspect of your mind, and language is in effect a sort of external logic being conveyed to you through your senses.

So a statement such as "I love my mother" would be known through, in essense, observation: you observe in yourself the sensation and/or behavior of love, in association with the object of your mother.

Re:Proof that logic DOES work?

[nine-times]

The first two I consider "primary", in that the latter are founded upon them: emotion is effectively the internal observation of some nonlogical aspect of your mind, and language is in effect a sort of external logic being conveyed to you through your senses.

I think I might say that expression and knowledge of emotion comes from internal observation of some non-logical aspect of the mind, but what of the non-logical aspect of the mind itself? Wouldn't that aspect be the emotion itself?

In such a case, you might confirm you "love" your mother through logical interpretation of emotional state with reference to observations of behavior associated with the cultural idea of "love". You might express this confirmation outwardly by stating, in words, "I love my mother". However, there is an immediate and pre-linguistic sensation of there being a non-logical attachment to the entity you know as "your mother". Could this sensation be a sort of knowledge on-par-with or even preceding your ideas of sensory and logical sensation?

It's immediate, non-logical, and pre-linguistic, but it is none the less there, and we all "know what you mean" when you say you "love your mother". There doesn't even seem to be any requirement for rules or external stimuli. How, precisely, do you account for that?

Re:Proof that logic DOES work?

[Pfhorrest]

think I might say that expression and knowledge of emotion comes from internal observation of some non-logical aspect of the mind, but what of the non-logical aspect of the mind itself? Wouldn't that aspect be the emotion itself?

This is why I include emotion as a separate source of knowledge and don't just group it in as a function of the senses; it is fundamentally similar to the senses, however, which is why I say it is "effectively" (but not exactly, literally) "internal observation". I know I feel the emotion "love" the same way I know I see the color "red". As you say:

It's immediate, non-logical, and pre-linguistic, but it is none the less there, and we all "know what you mean" when you say you "love your mother". There doesn't even seem to be any requirement for rules or external stimuli. How, precisely, do you account for that?

To know "I am seeing the color red" requires only that I sense a certain stimulation of my eyes, and associate the word "red" with it - that simple definition of the word as that sensation is all the logical connection needed to think "I know that is red". Likewise, the only logical connection needed to know "I feel love" is the emotional feeling (composed of internal body sensations and the sensation of neurochemical states - all of which are in some sense 'observed' by yourself, though not as distinctly as visual or auditory sensations), and the word "love" to label it.

This is not to say that I could not see red or feel love if I didn't have the words "red" and "love", or some other words, to label them; just that I would not KNOW that what I was seeing was red, or what I was feeling was love. Many people I'm sure can remember a time of not knowing whether these new emotions they were feeling for someone were love or not, because they had not yet formed the association of the sensation to any symbolic idea, or word. Similarly, a blind person who regains his sight may ask what a new color he's just seen is. Or more complexly, who the person in that picture is, even though the person in the picture might be a good friend of his, simply because he doesn't know that the sight of that face is associated with the idea of that friend of his.

Re:Proof that logic DOES work?

[nine-times]

This is why I include emotion as a separate source of knowledge and don't just group it in as a function of the senses; it is fundamentally similar to the senses, however, which is why I say it is "effectively" (but not exactly, literally) "internal observation". I know I feel the emotion "love" the same way I know I see the color "red"

oh, I wasn't arguing with your separation of emotion into its own "source of knowledge", but more arguing about which of your modes of knowledge was more primary. You put reason and senses as primary, and emotion and language second.

Well, I might question language as a true form of knowledge. It seems more to me that language is a mode of expression, not knowledge. Language might allow you to pass along a rational form of knowledge through argument, or an emotional form of knowledge through poetry. But a kind of knowledge on it's own? I'm not so sure. Maybe if you explained.

However, I also question the placement of emotion as being a form of knowledge that requires "internal observation". Strangely, you feel things even when you don't notice. Have you ever not-realized you were angry until you noticed you were grinding your teeth or clenching your fists? Have you ever not-realized how stressed-out you were until you found you couldn't sleep?

Logical argumentation, on the other hand, requires a sort of removal from the situation around you. It requires attention to internal understanding of "what makes sense" and "what doesn't make sense". It requires that you cultivate an emotional state of detachment, since being too angry or upset or happy can throw your understanding and even perception way off the mark.

Therefore, I think I might place emotional input as more primary than logic. I might even place it above sensory input, given the way that perception, and perhaps even the senses themselves, can be affected by emotional state, and the way emotion seems to not need external input (at least not immediate input). At the very least, sensation seems to come from outside, and emotion seems to come from inside, which might be considered when deciding which is more fundamental to one's being.

Re:Proof that logic DOES work?

[Pfhorrest]

oh, I wasn't arguing with your separation of emotion into its own "source of knowledge", but more arguing about which of your modes of knowledge was more primary. You put reason and senses as primary, and emotion and language second.

I guess when I say "primary" I don't mean so much chronologically which gives you ideas first, or which is more internal or external, but primary as in foundational, which ones form the stronger base for true knowledge. As you say below, you might BE angry, which is an emotional expression (an action, not an idea), but you don't KNOW you are angry until you observe that you are grinding your teeth, at which point you realize you FEEL angry (which is an idea). Chronologically the emotional expression came first, but the knowledge of your anger came from the "feeling", which is built upon observation of yourself.

Tangentally, the counterpart to my philosophy of ideas is a philosophy of deed (ethics, basically), in which I also take these four basic components of senses, reason, emotion, and society, and concern myself with behavior in society (and acceptability), expression of emotions (and enjoyability), expectation in reasoning (and desire), and stimulation of the senses (and pleasure). In that part, I consider the emotional expression and social behavior the "primary" forms of action, as what stimulation you seek and what expectations you strive for are just manifestations of those.

Well, I might question language as a true form of knowledge. It seems more to me that language is a mode of expression, not knowledge. Language might allow you to pass along a rational form of knowledge through argument, or an emotional form of knowledge through poetry. But a kind of knowledge on it's own? I'm not so sure. Maybe if you explained.

I'm not calling language a form of knowledge, but a source of ideas. I think I misused the phrase "source of knowledge" earlier, substitute "ideas" in it instead. Talking to you here has given me some ideas, mostly logical ones, but I recieved these ideas through my senses and they are not internal to me, so they are subject not only to logical evaluation but also so sensory; did I read you right? Basically, pure logic is internal and pure observation is external; but I can also get observational ideas ("I feel angry", "I feel love") internally to myself, in my emotions, and I can get logical ideas (such as ones you've presented) externally to myself, through language.

Logical argumentation, on the other hand, requires a sort of removal from the situation around you. It requires attention to internal understanding of "what makes sense" and "what doesn't make sense". It requires that you cultivate an emotional state of detachment, since being too angry or upset or happy can throw your understanding and even perception way off the mark.

Therefore, I think I might place emotional input as more primary than logic. I might even place it above sensory input, given the way that perception, and perhaps even the senses themselves, can be affected by emotional state, and the way emotion seems to not need external input (at least not immediate input). At the very least, sensation seems to come from outside, and emotion seems to come from inside, which might be considered when deciding which is more fundamental to one's being.

You have a good point about emotion's influence on other aspects of thought, and I'm not really sure how to address it at the moment. I have given some thought to the order in which the four aspects should be addressed, but unfortunately I never wrote it down and remember it somewhat poorly.

I will say though, that I agree with you about emotion being more "central" to one's being. I have a graph I use to visualize my whole philosophy, a concept map of sorts; I place emotion and reason inside the realm of one's "mental reality", and senses and society in the realm of "perceptual reality". (There's also "physical reality", the real world, and "metaphysical reality", the abstract laws of the real world, but those aren't really relevant here). To have more certainty in your ideas, and more control of your deeds as well, requires a buildup from the inside out, starting with emotions and reason.

Re:Proof that logic DOES work?

[nine-times]

...but primary as in foundational, which ones form the stronger base for true knowledge.

Are you really prepared to say that there is such a thing as "false knowledge"? That opens a whole new can of worms. How does one distinguish between 'true knowledge' and 'false knowledge'? How can an immediate emotional state be 'false'? What does it mean to be 'false' in the context of our earlier discussion about the possibility that we live in an extra-logical universe where something might very well be both true and false at the same time?

(BTW, I also wasn't talking about chronologically first)

I think I misused the phrase "source of knowledge" earlier, substitute "ideas" in it instead.

Still, that we gain knowledge or ideas from language is not entirely clear. As you say, the impression of language is elementally sensation, interpreted by intellect (perhaps you'd use other words). So it's not it's own source, it seems, but a composite effect of two of your other sources of ideas.

Further, would you truly claim that language "contains" knowledge, ideas, or concepts? A statement itself means nothing without those to understand. And argument in a language that no one has ever spoken and no one will ever speak, would that contain more ideas than a rock?

Rather, it seems to me to be more appropriate to speak of language as containing nothing, but indicating things which are utterly independent of language. No?

I can also get observational ideas ("I feel angry", "I feel love") internally to myself, in my emotions

But isn't the "I feel angry" just the observation of emotion? Just as "I don't see red" and "the argument doesn't work" are observations sense and logic, respectively. However, the observation isn't necessary for the emotion to take place or to exercise influence over thoughts and actions and other feelings. In other words, you don't need to recognize that you're angry in order for the fact of being angry to affect you.

Due to the tremendous influence of emotion, I'm saying I might say that emotional state is not a source of knowledge, but it's either a sort of knowledge itself, or a component of all other sources of ideas or knowledge. Whether your you're angry or calm or sad or happy or indifferent or detached, this influences all modes of thought.

To be honest, if i were constructing a venn diagram of "thought" or "knowledge", I'm not sure if I would put emotion in the center of it all, contained in everything, or as a super-set which encompasses everything, but it would probably hold one of those positions.

Re:Proof that logic DOES work?

[Pfhorrest]

Are you really prepared to say that there is such a thing as "false knowledge"? That opens a whole new can of worms. How does one distinguish between 'true knowledge' and 'false knowledge'? How can an immediate emotional state be 'false'? What does it mean to be 'false' in the context of our earlier discussion about the possibility that we live in an extra-logical universe where something might very well be both true and false at the same time?

I didn't mean "true knowledge" as oppose to "false knowledge". I meant "true" in the sense of I'm not misusing the word 'knowledge' where I should be using 'belief' or 'idea', but I mean actual, proven-true belief that I could really say I *know*.

Still, that we gain knowledge or ideas from language is not entirely clear. As you say, the impression of language is elementally sensation, interpreted by intellect (perhaps you'd use other words). So it's not it's own source, it seems, but a composite effect of two of your other sources of ideas.

Which is why I consider it a secondary source of ideas, because it is built upon logic (intellect) and observation (sensation).

Further, would you truly claim that language "contains" knowledge, ideas, or concepts? A statement itself means nothing without those to understand. And argument in a language that no one has ever spoken and no one will ever speak, would that contain more ideas than a rock?

Language no more "contains" knowledge of anything than photons "contain" the knowledge of the things I am seeing; as you say, it is the interpretation of these sources that leads to knowledge. But they do convey ideas, and as such, they are "sources" of ideas.

Likewise, pure logic doesn't really convey knowledge; it can give me the idea that "for all x, x=x", but that's a meaningless logicla construct without something to plug in for the x. Knowledge comes from the combination of ideas from both observation and logic, with emotion and language (both mixtures of the former two sources) being further sources of ideas to refine one's body of knowledge.

But isn't the "I feel angry" just the observation of emotion? Just as "I don't see red" and "the argument doesn't work" are observations sense and logic, respectively. However, the observation isn't necessary for the emotion to take place or to exercise influence over thoughts and actions and other feelings. In other words, you don't need to recognize that you're angry in order for the fact of being angry to affect you.

I'm not disputing that you might BE angry, and that it might be affecting you in various ways, including your ability to think logically; but the knowledge that you are angry comes through observation and reason. My eyes might be blue, but if I have never seen my reflection (or perhaps been told of my eye color), I don't know this. It doesn't change whether or not my eyes ARE blue, but only whether I KNOW they are blue.

Due to the tremendous influence of emotion, I'm saying I might say that emotional state is not a source of knowledge, but it's either a sort of knowledge itself, or a component of all other sources of ideas or knowledge. Whether your you're angry or calm or sad or happy or indifferent or detached, this influences all modes of thought.

To be honest, if i were constructing a venn diagram of "thought" or "knowledge", I'm not sure if I would put emotion in the center of it all, contained in everything, or as a super-set which encompasses everything, but it would probably hold one of those positions.

Ah, I see where we're having a difference here. I do have an all-encompassing concept of "happiness" separate from the emotions, what the Greeks called "eudamonia". It is a notion similar to knowledge - knowledge is the product of the process of ideas, and eudamonia is the product of the process of deeds. It's effectively the concept that "things are good", and reflects the overal behavior of a person as a system - I find it very hard to express in wo

Re:Proof that logic DOES work?

[nine-times]

I meant "true" in the sense of I'm not misusing the word 'knowledge' where I should be using 'belief' or 'idea', but I mean actual, proven-true belief that I could really say I *know*.

But, you see, that was one of my earlier questions (that I don't feel got fully addressed). Is it possible to know something without it being "logically proven"? If you define knowledge as "that which is logically proven", then, well, no. That's just the sort of corner you dig yourself into when you run too quickly into tautologies. But then, the logical system can't be logically proven, so according to that definition, there is no possible knowledge. This leads me to suspect that "knowledge" needs a new definition, one that doesn't necessitate that something contain a full mathematical proof to call something knowledge.

But if that's not clear, let me put it another way. If you want to *know* the sum of the angles of a triangle, then according to knowledge as "that which is proven", then you'll need to recollect all of Euclid up to the point of proving the sum of the angles of a triangle equals two right angles. However, this presupposes *knowledge* of logic, spacial intuition, and that you *know* all of Euclid's postulates and definitions and common notions. However, none of these things can be *proven*. Therefore, there can be no hope of attaining any knowledge of triangles.

So, the only way to suppose that we *might* be able to attain knowledge is if we suppose that there is *some* form of knowledge that does not require proof. Which goes to the heart of the question at hand. What do you believe even if you can't prove it? How about "What do you *know* even though you can't prove it?"

I do have an all-encompassing concept of "happiness" separate from the emotions, what the Greeks called "eudamonia".

Do you know what "eudaemonia" means? When someone claims to have "eudaemonia", classically, they're claiming to be possessed by good/beneficial demons. It's not "demons" in the sense of Christian mythology, but the best analog for the Christian world be to claim you were "filled with the holy spirit".

So, by the dog, Socrates, can you tell me once and for all, is it possible to both know something and to not-know something?

Re:Proof that logic DOES work?

[Pfhorrest]

But, you see, that was one of my earlier questions (that I don't feel got fully addressed). Is it possible to know something without it being "logically proven"? If you define knowledge as "that which is logically proven", then, well, no. That's just the sort of corner you dig yourself into when you run too quickly into tautologies. But then, the logical system can't be logically proven, so according to that definition, there is no possible knowledge. This leads me to suspect that "knowledge" needs a new definition, one that doesn't necessitate that something contain a full mathematical proof to call something knowledge.

Knowledge is typically defined as requiring justification, which I find synonymous with proof. Perhaps proof is too fine and specific a word to use, with it's precise meaning in formal deductive logic. But in the more general sense, I see no problem with saying that, for all things knowable, logic must work, because proof is neccesary for knowledge and logic is the foundation of proof... just, with some qualification on "logic", as per below.

But if that's not clear, let me put it another way. If you want to *know* the sum of the angles of a triangle, then according to knowledge as "that which is proven", then you'll need to recollect all of Euclid up to the point of proving the sum of the angles of a triangle equals two right angles. However, this presupposes *knowledge* of logic, spacial intuition, and that you *know* all of Euclid's postulates and definitions and common notions. However, none of these things can be *proven*. Therefore, there can be no hope of attaining any knowledge of triangles.

Your triangle example is very tricky, but I think I have a solution without compromising much of my earlier stances. (A few things I may have said can't technically be known, despite their good testing and high probability, would under this definiton be actually knowable).

Simply put: proof may be inductive as well as (or instead of) deductive.

In the deductive logic, mathematical sense, this is no longer really "proof", but rather, "extremely good testing". For every value of X I have ever in my life encountered, and every value of X I can presently concieve of, X = X. This is not a deductive proof, but it is VERY inductively sound, and I believe that in light of your triangle example, that it must count as proof in the more general sense of knowledge, if we are to keep the common definition of knowledge, and not limit it to a further special case.

It seems only fair, actually, that inductive proof should count as well as deductive, if I am taking logic and observation to be on equal footing as primary sources of ideas. Deductive conclusions can be known a priori, without observation; but inductive conclusions are the result of repeated observations. If I'm treating observation equally, then consistent repeated observations should count for something the same as pure deductive reasoning does.

If we accept inductive as well as deductive proof, then it becomes phenominally easy to prove that deductive logic works: because it always has. That's not a deductively valid argument, but it is inductively valid. Inductive logic doesn't need to be proven that it always works 100% of the time, because it deals not with absolute certainties but with likelihoods; and fortunately in this case, X out of every X times, deductive logic works, so there seems to be 100% likelihood, inductively, that deductive logic works.

Ditto your triangles: every triangle ever measured (on a Euclidian flat surface) has had the sum of its angles equal two right angles, so inductively there is 100% likelihood that that is always true.

As for having absolute certainty from deductive proof, why not call that something other than the general term "knowledge". Call it, say, "certainty" perhaps? Certainty is a subset of knowledge, then, and can be substituted for "knowledge" in many of my earlier arguments to keep them valid.

So, the only way to su

Re:Proof that logic DOES work?

[nine-times]

If we accept inductive as well as deductive proof, then it becomes phenominally easy to prove that deductive logic works: because it always has. That's not a deductively valid argument, but it is inductively valid. Inductive logic doesn't need to be proven that it always works 100% of the time, because it deals not with absolute certainties but with likelihoods; and fortunately in this case, X out of every X times, deductive logic works, so there seems to be 100% likelihood, inductively, that deductive logic works.

Really? You don't think you're fudging that a bit? How large must X be before we're satisfied? Have you done many experiments? How often do you get 100%? Is 98% sufficient to say, "it's pretty much 100%"? Are you seriously telling me that, in your entire life, you've never struck a deductive argument that didn't seem to work out, but you couldn't tell why?

I have a magic rock that keeps tigers away. I know it's magic because, the times that I've carried it, 100% of the time, I haven't seen tigers.

Ditto your triangles: every triangle ever measured (on a Euclidian flat surface) has had the sum of its angles equal two right angles, so inductively there is 100% likelihood that that is always true.

Then why is it, do you think, that Euclid went through a proof, instead of just *measuring*? How many triangles have you summed the angles of? What was your margin of error? Could it have been 179.99999999999999999 degrees? And what do you find more convincing, the measurement or the proof?

If it cannot be proven (inductively or deductively), it doesn't count as knowledge, for knowledge consists only of those ideas that can be proven. Thus I cannot know anything that I can't prove.

Now, do you know that, or do you believe that? If you *know* that knowledge is only those ideas which can be proven, then prove it.

Oh, and is it sufficient that it *could* be proven in order for it to be knowledge, or do you actually have to prove it? Is it sufficient to have gone through the proof yourself, or do you have to remember every step of the proof at the same time all the time in order to "know" it. Lastly, what if I know someone else proved it, but I've never seen the proof myself. But I was *certain* someone proved it?

I wasn't aware of that. I'm only familiar with the modern English definition:

Hell, you were the one talking about Greek. My Attick Greek's a little rusty (been some years), but i remember that "eu" in this context is roughly an adjective meaning good/benevolent and "daemonia" is the plural form of the word "daemon", which is where are word "demon" comes from.

In short, no, you cannot both know and not-know something.

What about when you remember something that you've proved before, but you can't remember the proof? If "knowing something" equals "proving it", do you know it? If you say no, then it seems to me your knowledge will always be very limited, being limited to only those things which you can hold the entire proof in your mind at all times. If you say yes, then I ask, what about those instances where your memory has failed you. Your sure you "know" it, because you remember proving it, but you haven't proved it.

What about when I say, "I know my mother." Does that mean I've proven her?

What about when you *knew* that the sum of the angles of a triangle equalled two right angles, and then encountered non-euclidean geometry? What was that knowledge?

You should read the Theatetus. I could go into the questions in there as well, but why rehash a whole book when you can read it yourself?

Re:Proof that logic DOES work?

[Pfhorrest]

Really? You don't think you're fudging that a bit? How large must X be before we're satisfied? Have you done many experiments? How often do you get 100%? Is 98% sufficient to say, "it's pretty much 100%"? Are you seriously telling me that, in your entire life, you've never struck a deductive argument that didn't seem to work out, but you couldn't tell why?

I can't off the top of my head recall any times that didn't turn out to be because I wasn't formulating the argument properly. Granted, that may sound like a cop-out, but consider: I also can't recall any time that I have flown off the Earth because gravity stopped working. It's still possible that I might have... but if you start calling that into question, then we've left the realm of rational discussion, because you could claim that I may have seen evidence of any impossible thing and I simply don't remember it.

I have a magic rock that keeps tigers away. I know it's magic because, the times that I've carried it, 100% of the time, I haven't seen tigers.

[ObSimpsonsRef]Nine-times, I would like to BUY your magic rock![/ObSimpsonsRef]

Then why is it, do you think, that Euclid went through a proof, instead of just *measuring*? How many triangles have you summed the angles of? What was your margin of error? Could it have been 179.99999999999999999 degrees? And what do you find more convincing, the measurement or the proof?

This is why I mentioned the word "certainty". Absolute certainty is better to have than just knowledge, which can have different degrees of certainty. Knowledge in the normal English meaning, not some specifically constructed deductive-logician's meaning, would include the type of knowledge that most people basically educated in math have about triangles and the sums of their angles. Most people aren't aware of Euclids deductive proof of it, but they still *know* it. They just aren't absolutely *certain*.

A child need only touch a hot frying pan once to KNOW that it burns. Now that knowledge may not be absolutely certain, if the child's conclusion is incompletely defined (for example, "frying pans burn" without the "hot" qualifier).

Perhaps I was wrong to include induction under the word "proof", since that does have such a specific meaning, and should instead throw aside the direct proof-to-justification correlation I made earlier. Justification for knowledge does not require absolute deductive proof; good inductive testing is enough to call it knowledge. But knowledge does not neccesitate absolute certainty, only some degree of it.

Now, do you know that, or do you believe that? If you *know* that knowledge is only those ideas which can be proven, then prove it.

This is a tautological matter of definition of the word, such as knowing that all bachelors are unmarried men - that's just what the word means. As stated above, I concede that my definitions of 'knowledge' and 'proof' were slightly out of synch with the common definitions: induction does not count as proof, but rather, good testing; yet, good testing is enough justification for knowledge, although not certainty, which requires proof.

Consider these definitions: an 'idea' is a proposition, the basic atom of knowledge. Ideas are either 'true' or not, independant of what any people think of them, but they don't come clearly and unquestionably labeled as such. To 'believe' an idea is to consider it to be true. To 'test' that belief and get all positive results is to 'know' the idea to be true. More testing lends greater 'certainty' to that knowledge, and a deductive 'proof' that any test would yeild positive results yeilds absolute certainty. Can you agree with that?

(As an aside: I wonder if there might be some mathematical way to express that certainty, such as perhaps the number of tests 'N' divided by 'N+1', so that no finite number of tests will yeild absolute certainty).

Oh, and is it sufficient that it *could* be proven in order for it to be knowledge, or d

Re:Proof that logic DOES work?

[nine-times]

How would you be certain that someone else had proven it without seeing the proof? You could be certain that someone has "written a proof" of something without reading the whole document, but you wouldn't be certain that what they wrote actually proves anything.

But how certain can you be even when you have a proof? Consider this discussion began from the recognition that "logically coherent" cannot be taken to mean "true", since we cannot prove any given logical system.

Further, consider how much you must limit your "certainty" if you rule out anything which you have not proven yourself. Have you, yourself, proven the existence of DNA, or molecules for that matter? Have you ever "proven" that aspirin is an effective medication for headaches? Have you proven conclusively that your parents are your parents? Consider how rarely you've "proven" the things your certain about.

This is a tautological matter of definition of the word, such as knowing that all bachelors are unmarried men - that's just what the word means.

Yes, but if I define "bachelors" as "married women", and then use that to argue, "All bachelor's have husbands," might you argue, "That's not what the word 'bachelor' means"? Sure, you can define anything as anything, but your redefinition doesn't necessarily change what we actually mean when we say it.

Further, consider that "knowledge" is a special case, in that claiming to "know" what "knowledge" is becomes very circular, *by the claim itself*. It assumes what knowledge is, assumes what the act of knowing is, and then claims that your knowing is such a thing as to contain "knowing" of knowledge.

In this sense, but those who know what knowledge is and those who don't know what knowledge is can both claim, with full certainty, to know what knowledge is. Why "full certainty"? Because if one were to not-know what knowledge was, they could then be no more certain of knowledge than of non-knowledge. Or don't you see what I mean?

I wasn't aware of it's roots, though I did know what "eu" meant and questioned how "daemonia" (the meaning of which I guessed, apparently accurately) could combine with it to mean "wellbeing".

But it's interesting, no? This eudaemonia, by definition, cannot be achieved on ones own. It's required that the good demons possess you. It's equivalent, I guess, to being inspired by the muses, which is above mortal control.

Again, there is some confusion possible here because of what definitions we each are using. As stated above, if you can't rememer the proof and go through it again if need be, I'd say that you are not absolutely certain of your knowledge, but you may still have that knowledge with lesser certainty.

It seems I'm not sure I can agree with your idea of "certainty". Certainty, to me, is a feeling. I can feel certain and be wrong, but I can't, in the full sense, "know" and be wrong at the same time. Mistakes come from thinking you know something which you don't know, or does that seem wrong to you?

This seems to be a colloquial usage and incomplete English. What do you know about your mother? You probably mean either "I can recognize my mother" or "I know many things about my mother".

Do you find this greatly different from when someone claims to know any object of topic? "I know about organic chemistry," or "I know about philosophy," or "I know the ball you're talking about," or "I know karate." It's all claiming a certain familiarity and to know things about the topic. When you "know" that the sum of the angles of a triangle are two right angles, what is that? Are these objects and topics that you "know" the way you know your mother, so you know these things about triangles the way you know what college your mother went to? Are you claiming to recognize triangles and right angles and know some things about them?

Or is it a tautology, like you definition of knowledge? Is your idea of triangle a shape with angles equalling two right angl

I believe in God the Multiverse

[haruchai]

I don't believe that God created the universe or that there is only one universe. I believe that there are infinitely many universes in infinitely many dimensions and the sum total of all these realities - that is God.

Makes one feel really small, doesn't it?

Re:OPPORTUNITY ?

[hel shwarts]

U will not take it seriously, U will not take it seriously.....opss ....it not U, it's not U, lol

i believe

[Anonymous Coward]

i believe that not everyone should have the same set of beliefs.

Re:OPPORTUNITY ?

[doublem]

You forgot to take your pills today, didn't you?

Or are you not being medicated for your condition? You clearly have issues relating to people, and some manic tendencies. Have you considered therapy? Your writing style is really more consistent with that of a third or fourth grader, if that. Writing at such a low grade level is going to come with significant challenges in the real world.

Are you capable of expressing yourself in a more articulate manner? If not, then you should seek tutoring, therapy or both.

Kin Selection Numbers (a quick clarification)

[IBitOBear]

I was in a hurry when I submitted the above...

The numbers in the arbitrarily created sample do work with a fixed number of adults. I didn't mean to imply the gay person is an "extra" adult.

So with the given numbers, and six adults:

In the pure hetrosexual population you get three sets of 3.6 children, which you round down and then sum, and thus a total of nine (9) adults in the second generation.

If one of the adults is gay you get _two_ non-breeders in that set of six, one for the homosexual and the left-over adult. If you keep both non-breeders as providers you get two sets of 5.4 children, so ten (10) adults for the next generation.

If the "extra" non breeder is simply lost to another tribe then you get 3.6 and 5.4 children, so the same nine (9) adults for the next generation just like the three breeding couples *AND* your genetic traits spread to another tribe through the "lost" breeder.

If you get spesific and select for gay-male, then you potentially get two groups male-female-female and male-female-(gay-male). The male-female-female group may produce the next generation (of 5.4 adults) faster due to parallel gestation and then might even have time for a bonus child, which is a positive reenforcement of the gene. (In general polygamy(sp?) is a losing proposition because you end up having to "shed" [lose] a large number of the "extra" males after a generation or two; but as a rareified event (c.f. native american traditions and Jewish widdow must marry brother of husband tradition etc) it prevents excessive loss to irregular populations.

As stated, the model is incredibly simple, _over_ simple in fact, but it is generally keeping in line with the observed effect (particularly as observed in wolves, absent the third-case polygamy).

But at a minimum, the gay gene _would_ provide for maintaining its own presence in the line and does _tend_ to give a slight advantage to its line over a line that doesn't possess the gene. So there is a positive selection pressure for a small but statistically stable percentage of homosexual ofspring.

Re:homosexuality

[myowntrueself]

Wow.

Well I suppose even animals get confused...

Slash dotted

[hel shwarts]

I am gonna publish ur comments in my book, u gonna be one of most unforgettable parts. Now reply, gimme one more. Ur word will be the last one, ur self importance will chill down & u will actually feel better.

Re:Slash dotted

[doublem]

I am gonna publish ur comments in my book

You're writing a book? Good for you. Be sure to find a decent editor.

Is it going to be a pop-up or paint-by-number-book?

u gonna be one of most unforgettable parts.

That's what your mother said.

Now reply, gimme one more. Ur word will be the last one, ur self importance will chill down & u will actually feel better.

To tell the truth, I feel pretty defeated. Everything I said encouraging you to be more articulate was clearly wasted. If you'd replied with decent grammar, I'd have been impressed and pleased. If you'd managed so much as two sentences without a childish spelling mistake, you would have won the "argument" such as it was.

Instead, all you've done is demonstrate the inability to write clearly. Instead of actual English, you've chosen to communicate in a broken, uneducated pidgin English. I feel sorry for you.

That the governement knows more

[jumpfroggy]

I guess it's the product of too many fictional movies. Or too many non-ficational admittances. But I believe the government knows (and does, and has) much more than we know about.

Maybe they do have solid proof of ESP. Maybe they did capture alien craft. Maybe there really is a football-sized computer cluster from the 70's monitoring all communications and red-flagging potential communists (in which case, we're all there).

Doesn't really matter. But I do believe some day I'll catch wind of something (even something small) they couldn't hide anymore. And it'll be neat. But it wont really be a surprise.

Re:Check the News-

[clean_stoner]

Amen. I'd share my theories on God, but they'd definitely get modded Flamebait if anyone ever bothered to read them.

Re:homosexuality

[TheSync]

The data does not rule out other non-choice causes (in-womb developmental hormones, chance, etc.) Of course, without evidence of these it is hard to say one way or the other.

I think that the Kinsey findings of different levels of homosexuality and bisexuality may indicate that it is more of a choice for some, and not a choice for others.

Re:homosexuality

[cephyn]

"confused" implies a conscious choice. Which is like saying having brown eyes or dark skin at birth is a conscious choice...

Re:homosexuality

[myowntrueself]

Well its an analogy, but it is a psychological thing, not a genetic thing, and in a sense a kind of confusion. Not necessarily conscious, more likely subconscious.

In fact, strict homosexuality would count as a rebellion against genetic programming. To reproduce is the 'prime directive' of the gene.

I had thought that we (humans) would be 'special' as sentient beings in being capable of such rebellion. If animals can do it too, I'm impressed.

The paradox of self-reference is irrelevant.

[cheesedog]

Godel just showed, in effect, that some forms of self-reference are meaningless

Actually, that isn't correct. Hofstadter makes a lot out of self reference, and certainly Zen makes a big deal out of it. But here's the kicker: there are an infinite number of incompleteness proofs, and many of them don't rely on self-reference. For instance, determining that a particular Diophantine equation doesn't have a solution for P(n)=0 is provably undecidable. Also, Chaitin's Number (which he calls Omega) also provides an interesting proof of Incompleteness using Algorithmic Information Theory instead of self-reference. Turing's Halting Problem is also a proof of incompleteness, though you could make a case that it uses some variant of self-reference (a computer program examining its own code).

The point is, mathmatical incompleteness is not a result of a paradoxical statement. In fact, the surprising result of all of this is that some mathematical facts are true by pure chance, and that the vast majority of facts in math (or in any rational system) occur randomly, and not because of derivation from some primary truth.

Re:homosexuality

[cephyn]

Or, maybe, it IS a genetic thing, and has nothing to do with rebellion. They are not unable to reproduce, that factor is unchanged. It's not always an either/or thing, it's a continuum. hetero, bi, homo, somewhere in between, its a grey thing, not black and white.

Given the evidence, it sure seems to me that its more likely a genetic thing than some sort of rebellious subconscious decision. Though the image of a James Dean Penguin is rather amusing.

Who created God?

[UpnAtom]

God's god?

Re:homosexuality

[myowntrueself]

"it's not always an either/or thing, it's a continuum. hetero, bi, homo, somewhere in between,"

which is why I was so specific in the first place.

"Given the evidence, it sure seems to me that its more likely a genetic thing than some sort of rebellious subconscious decision."

Given that strict homosexuality occurs in birds which mate for life and are faithful to their partners, it seems that a reasonably ethical animal experiment could be performed to test the theory.

Take a male duck that exhibits strict homosexuality, artificially inseminate a female duck with some sperm from that male and watch the offspring over a few generations.

If theres a statistically significant proportion of those offspring that are strict homosexuals then its more likely genetic.

Thing is, that my take on this goes something along the lines of...

Homosexuality is somewhat frowned upon (still) in many cultures. Therefore, it is preferable, for a homosexual in one of those cultures, to blame their 'condition' on factors outside of their control, eg genetics. This give the homosexual a handy way to argue 'its not *my* fault, its my *genes* so dont blame me for being gay'.

The other alternative is taking responsibility for ones own condition which leaves one vulnerable to the so-called moral arguments against homosexuality.

I get bad hayfever. I'd *like* to be able to blame this on my genes (or something else outside my control) but, through long and hard experience, I am fairly certain that its ultimate cause is psychological or subconscious.

"the image of a James Dean Penguin is rather amusing."

That would be Tux, wouldn't it?

;)

Did you think of this.

[Anonymous Coward]

If God created the universe, but nothing existed before the universe then the theory of god existing would be false.

Second...What if god did exist, but not in the way Christians believe. What if life was put on Earth by a more advanced culture of beings for a reason. Zecharia Sitchin. Very interesting writings on his archeological research.

Re:What about quazi-intelligent design?

[dgatwood]

But it only took one major adverse event and they were screwed. Humanity faces catastrophic events on a regular basis---wars, famines, plagues, mini-ice-ages, etc. Still here.

I believe...

[Nebu]

I believe, but I can't prove (to you) that I exist.

What I believe

[randallpowell]

With all the talk on the news about religion, I'll say my peace here.

I believe in the teachings of Buddha and try to live to that the best I can. However, religion is like science. There are theories (religions) and a variety of arguements (denominations or traditions). Both try to make sense of the world. However, science can study a lot of the physical world as well as ourselves. Religion is the only way to study spiritual truths. Not dogmatic but what connects us to each other and the universe and to god as well.

Religions tend to say they have the truth even though they disagree. However, looking at the basics this is what we find:

1) Living an honorable life and contributing to society and the world at large is desireable as long as it's positive.

2) There are consequences to our actions.

3) There are certain morals or way of life that is to be followed either for the afterlife or to maintain society for future generations.

If people can look past religious labels and see each other as humans, we'd be better off for it. Bespite the Evangical Christians' hatred of anything they don't like, I say to them and others, that I love humanity and I hope the best for them and I pray people can release their hate.

Don't forget to donate to the tsunami aid and to FOSS projects.

Re:homosexuality

[Quattro Vezina]

But, do we know if animals with heterosexual mates actually love each other? Or are the just satisfying sexual urges?

Your argument cuts both ways.

Re:What do you believen even if you can't prove it

[drissel]

At age 8, I began to believe the sq root of 2 was irrational - a teacher told me this and I tried for an hour to find a rational root. By age 16 I could prove it was irrational.

In high school, a teacher told me pi was transcendental so I began to believe it. I'm 71 and I still believe it even tho I can't prove it. (I've made a little progress. A coupla years ago I read a proof that pi is irrational.)

I think an awful lot of life including a buncha hi tech depends on things people "know" but can't prove or even document.

Ask yourself this

[DigiShaman]

Just imagine if you were God for a moment. Would the concept of "time" mean anything to you if it has no effect on your comming to being?

Be it 1 pico-second or 15 billions years, what's the difference when your life is infinate?

The Big Bang is alive and well...

[Ralph124c41]

If you follow through to some of the other pages at the link given by the "Horizon Problem" URL you gave, you will find that it says that the inflation theory adequately explains the Horizon Problem (See: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/123/lecture-9/hor izon.html).

The paper you reference that you indicate disputes the ability of the inflationary model to produce homogenous CMBR dates from 1988. I have not read it as I was not registered for that journal. The only thing I would say is that while it may or may not be relevant, a lot has happened since then.

All scientific theories are works in progress subject to refutation by new multiply verifiable experiments. The fact that there are things that a theory does not adequately explain is only an indication that additional experiments need to take place.

In fact, the flowering of the astrophysics field is due (IMHO) to the great amount of new, high quality, experimental data from Hubble, Chandra, and the many other space and ground based experiments that have come online in recent years.

Re:homosexuality

[DM9290]

you have to admit, that is you opinion

Of all the redundant and patronizing arguments someone can possibly make!

BTW: there is nothing in the BBC article your sig refers to that in any way suggests that amnesty international is directly or indirectly responsible for causing a single death in nepal.

You must admit that is only your opinion.

Re:Scientific Methodology & the existance of p

[Rick BigNail]

There are also historic facts.

Re:First Post. - Hear, hear!

[Elvon Livengood]

From the perspective of God all events that transpire do so in an optimal fashion.

Thank you, Dr. Pangloss! This is indeed the best of all possible worlds!

Re: Amused

[redFort]

He who is not afraid to make a clown of himself , can make a clown of every one. I think shwarts got you. Our common mistake is to take ourselves too seriously.

Re: Amused

[doublem]

Good point. I took a look at his account. It was only created a week or two ago, and all the posts have been random drivel.

You're right. It's far more likely that he's some kid trying to pull a digital "Jerky Boys" routine.

Who knows? He may really be writing a book, based on the responses he's gotten from acting like an idiot.

Or we could be giving him too much credit.

Re: Amused

[redFort]

Glad you agree with me. Actually I also created my account recently. It doesn't prove anything. I strongly believe you are exaggerating things here. More then that, I found his comment trully deep. As for language style, I am quite sure, he was just provoking you , because I saw a smart comment on linguistics he made not long ago, which was nicely rated besides. He claimed humans to be ignorant because of their self importance, & your comments proved that it was a true statement, at least in your case sir. Regards.

Re: Amused++

[hel shwarts]

Hey redFort, don't worry about the imporant mister, he is gonna take what ever u say & flip it the way so he feels good about himself & sorry for the others. So.. P.S. I am "she" not "he" ;)

Re: Amused++

[doublem]

Actually, I agree with redFort.

You're still an ass, regardless of gender, and I'm an ass as well, for falling for your bait.

Have a nice life.

Re: Amused

[doublem]

The thing I find amusing, is that I realized the commend she made was an insightful one. I was concerned that it would be ignored by a lot of people because of the way it was worded.

Little did I realize that I was falling into a trap, and that a subtle warning of that trap was in the very text to which I was replying.

Oh well. Live and learn. We all need to be taken down a few notches every once in a while.

Re: Amused++

[hel shwarts]

That's correct:) Actually I loved your comment about the first post. One of the deepest. Simplicity is often genius. & Trust me I am as self important as anybody, otherwise I wouldn't be getting involved at all :) U should've seen my face when I made you my foe. LOL & I still believe that it would be a very interesting piece for a book, which surely I would get an editor for cause English is not my native language, I speak two other languages as well & my head is a linguistic mess. See in the book I want try to track THIS something, which bothers all of us, through just casual conversations & situations. But I wouldn't call it any scientific research. The best we can do is smile, laugh it up. I think that this leades us to the freedom of understanding/knowing things & will make our hearts kinder. Of cause I am an ass, & a very pretty one ,ahahahha

Re: Amused++

[doublem]

Actually I loved your comment about the first post

Thank you.

LOL & I still believe that it would be a very interesting piece for a book

Title Ideas:
I was a Slashdot Troll
Tweaking the Pseudo Intellectual Elite
Harassing the Internet
Same Idea. A study of how sentence structure and word choice changes the reaction of others.

The best we can do is smile, laugh it up.

If you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at?

Of cause I am an ass, & a very pretty one ,ahahahha

And yet again, I'm made a fool of by a pretty woman. I'll refrain from the obvious jokes about pretty asses.

Re: Amused++

[doublem]

After I posted my last reply, a very apt quote was on the bottom of the Slashdot Page:

Here comes the orator, with his flood of words and his drop of reason.

Re:What Do You Believe Even If You Can't Prove It?

[cillasri]

That Linux is much better than Windows.

Re: last question

[hel shwarts]

the only thing which makes u feel annoyed with somebody is u'r self importance. For example u got pissed with hel shwarts & agreed with redFort. Tell me what is the difference bewtween us? Why redFort is better then me for example?! P.S. No offence redFort.

The problem of other minds ...

[pbhj]

Funnily, I was at the stage of doubting 'other minds' just before becoming a Christian. I'm still not /entirely/ convinced. But I know as sure as I know anything that God _is_ and is Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Good post though.

Not sure on the consistency point. Why do you believe that. Does it help? I suppose you're basically saying that the universe is scientifically understandable? Aren't singularities inconsistencies - or are they consistent inconsistentcies??! .

Re:The problem of other minds ...

[rossifer]

Funnily, I was at the stage of doubting 'other minds' just before becoming a Christian.

So was I, but I didn't really resolve the issue until I stopped being a Christian and was able to explore several different metaethical frameworks. The fact that I used to doubt and no longer doubt is probably responsible for the biggest improvements in my life so far.

Not sure on the consistency point. Why do you believe that. Does it help? I suppose you're basically saying that the universe is scientifically understandable?

Sort of. I just mean that I believe the universe behaves rationally, even if I don't always understand exactly why what I'm observing is rational. I'm not into the "scientistic" perspective, that the only truths worth knowing are scientific truths, but the assumption that the universe ultimately "makes sense" means that it's worth my time to make predictions and think about the future.

Aren't singularities inconsistencies - or are they consistent inconsistentcies??! .

The physics and metaphysics of singularity aren't clear, even in the cutting edge of physics research. First of all, we don't know if singularities can exist in our universe. Second, if they can exist, are they really a part of our universe or a boundary, beyond which is a different domain? In any case, we can identify portions of the universe which are clearly not influenced by a singularity and expect the universe to behave itself there, which is good enough to validate my belief and let me get on with my life.

Regards,
Ross

Re: Amused++

[redFort]

After i posted my last reply the rain started.

Re: last question

[doublem]

It doesn't have anything to do with one being "better" than the other.

The first factor is the way the ideas were expressed. redFort wrote in complete sentences without any of the abbreviations and fragments you used. It was easy to understand what he had written, while there was an element of decoding to reading many of your posts.

Another factor is the perceived attitude. Like it or not, the way we write tends to create an impression of emotion in the reader's mind. For example, I've had people in a work setting think I was angry with them, because of the short, clipped sentences I used in business correspondence. I wasn't angry, but that's what they came away with. When I read your posts, they gave me the impression that you were being disrespectful and mocking. The way I read your original reply, I came away with the impression that you were mocking anyone who thought differently than you. Having put up with a lot of smug Religious figures in my life, that's something that grates on me.

I'm not making any claims as to the accuracy of my impression, just telling you what the impression was.

The final reason comes from the fact that I was an English Major in college, and things like L33T speak and SMS shorthand just rub me the wrong way.

I Believe

[Anonymous Coward]

That I'll never find my other AC post admid all this crap now that the Search feature has gone away. Google isn't the best for EVERYTHING.

Re: Amused++

[doublem]

After i posted my last reply the rain started.

A rain of words, or a rain of reason?

Or both?

Re: Amused++

[hel shwarts]

A rain of words, or a rain of reason? Answer is :"Just a rain. Because RAIN has the same level of relation to the last comment as THE FACT that somebody wrote something about orator at the bottom of a page . I find it so cause it wasn't a RESPOND on u'r message. But something made u interpret that comment as something which discribed u'r unicness.

wonders of perception

[hel shwarts]

"The first factor is the way the ideas were expressed. redFort wrote in complete sentences without any of the abbreviations and fragments you used. It was easy to understand what he had written, while there was an element of decoding to reading many of your posts." It's not two people who expressed themselves differently & it's two different judjements u used to interpret what ever they said. In shwarts' comments there was something what triggered u'r interpretation to be offended, in redFort's case u liked his approach & showed desire to team up with him even though he called u a clown. EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE THE SAME PERSON, DUDE. & RETFORT WAS MOCKING YA, WHILE SHWARTS TALKED TO U FROM HER HEART. THEY ARE BOTH ME, U DUMB ASS, THANX FOR THE CONVERSATION

Re: wonders of perception

[doublem]

I'd begun to suspect as much. This isn't exactly a conversation that anyone besides the two of us would be interested in.

An you'll notice, that by changing the tenor and style of your writing, I reacted very differently. You had to post under a different account to prove my point, but you did prove it.

All along, it has been the style of your writing that I've reacted to as much as the content.

The way you express yourself is as important as what you are saying.

WONDERS OF PERCEPTION

[hel shwarts]

DUMB ASS,LOL ++

Re: Amused++

[redFort]

DUMB ASS,LOL

Bored

[doublem]

Clearly, a rain of words, as there's no reason here.

And no, I didn't think the web site was replying to our conversation. I just found it amusing that a quote came up that could be considered vaguely relevant.

Enjoy whatever pithy comments you can come up with to reply. While this little conversation has been amusing, I've gotten bored with it. You just don't have enough substance to keep my interest any longer.

Have a Wonderful Life, whoever you are.

trolling for jesus

[lampajoo]

What is it about christians that makes them so stupid?

Blunted Edges...

[Anonymous Coward]

Off topic...but I'm always a little annoyed by "The Edge"...it builds its self up in a rather pretentious manner as being a forum for the thinkers of tomorrow...but ever notice how many of the people it focuses on are well into their twilight years? ..and before anyone spots me for trolling, try and defend such self-aggrandizing romps as "The Third Culture"...

True, but add a little more probability theory...

[leonbrooks]

...and the wheels come off the anthropic principle in spectacular fashion.

Re:Translate this, and you'll have stronger eviden

[leonbrooks]

You fools, there are only 10 to the 260th power combinations if you presume that there are no mechanisms that reduce the problem space and make 10 to the 250 power possibilities disappear.

Er, hate to be the bearer of bad tidings and all, but the ridiculous numbers you see bandied about are generally highly conservative, often overlooking factors like (feel the stiffening irony of your ball-in-space example here) the distance between atoms and molecules and stars and such.

Each omitted factor make the situation mathematically harder on the case for materialism when it's eventually included, sometimes by hundreds or thousands of orders of magnitude.

It's kind of difficult to even guesstimate how bad including spatial effects makes the numbers, but it's got to be at least thousands of orders of magnitude, more likely hundreds of thousands or millions of orders.

That...

[Snaller]

...life generally sucks.

BULLSHIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

After 400 years of debate on the question, there is now fairly wide agreement among astronomers: there just aren't enough stars in the observable universe to fill up the night sky.

That's the most STUPID thing I have ever heard! The Olbers's paradox is resolvable in MANY ways. Please stop spreading this bullshit! Let me explain...

First of all, if the universe has existed for only a finite amount of time, as the prevalent Big Bang theory holds, then only the light of finitely many stars has had a chance to reach us yet, and the paradox breaks down. Alternatively, if the universe is expanding and distant stars are receding from us (also a claim of the Big Bang theory), then their light is redshifted which diminishes their brightness, again resolving the paradox. EITHER EFFECT ALONE would resolve the paradox, but according to the Big Bang theory, BOTH are working together; the finiteness of time is the more important effect. Some see the darkness of the night sky to be evidence in support of the Big Bang theory.

Second of all, even WITHOUT the Big Bang theory and its redshift evidence, we may establish the finite age of the universe (in its present form) by a mathematical evaluation of hydrogen. Assume that the amount of mass in stars divided by the total amount of mass in the universe is nonzero. After some length of time, any given star will convert too much hydrogen into helium (or heavier elements) to continue nuclear fusion. From this we conclude that in unit time, the amount of hydrogen converted into helium by a given star divided by the star's mass is nonzero. Combining this with the earlier statement, we conclude that the amount of hydrogen converted into helium by stars as a whole divided by the mass of the universe is nonzero. There is no known process that can return heavier elements to hydrogen in the necessary quantities, and any would probably violate the second law of thermodynamics. Therefore, the amount of time needed for stars to convert all of the hydrogen in the universe into helium is finite, and it will never change back. After this, only heavier-element-burning stars will exist (and these will die when they hit iron, an event known as the heat death of the universe). This hasn't happened yet, so either the universe is of finite age, it has undergone major changes in its history, or there exists some highly exotic process (for which NO DIRECT EVIDENCE exists) that produces hydrogen to keep it going.

And last, but not least, a different resolution, which DOES NOT rely on the Big Bang theory, was offered by Benoit Mandelbrot. It holds that the stars in the universe may not be uniformly distributed, but rather fractally like a Cantor dust, thus accounting for large dark areas. It is currently proved that THIS IS TRUE (stars are grouped into galaxies, galaxies are grouped into groups of galaxies, groups of galaxies are grouped into clusters, clusters of groups of galaxies are grouped into superclusters, etc. ad nauseam, each of which are separated by an empty space, much like a bubble gum). Therefore, the Big Bang is very unlikely to have ever happened, or at the very least is unnecessary from the Olbers's paradox standpoint (thus false, according to the Occam's Razor).

You forgot about The Holy Foreskin of Jesus Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

> > However, there is not a single physical artifact that is known to be associated with Jesus himself.

> How can you say that? After all, there's a whole forest-worth of bits of the True Cross, and a veritable thicket of thorns from the True Crown of Thorns, and the Shroud of Turin (to mention just a few mediaeval forgeries).

You forgot about The Holy Foreskin of Jesus. Jesus ascended bodily into Heaven forty days after his resurrection from the dead and the only part of His body left behind on Earth is His Holy Prepuce removed at his circumcision. (No, I am not making that up.) Other than that, the historicity of Jesus is disputed. [1] [2] [3] [4].

Re:You forgot about The Holy Foreskin of Jesus Chr

[Bush Pig]

Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.

Crikey - I followed that link and there seem to be about a dozen foreskins o' Jeebus - how many times did the poor little fucker get circumcised anyway?

Re:homosexuality

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Don't pretend you don't love to chug my cum. You do it all the time.

And now, I'm going to fuck you until you give up.

Don't think you won't. I've made very big men cry for their boyfriends.

Re:You forgot about The Holy Foreskin of Jesus Chr

[Anonymous Coward]

Crikey - I followed that link and there seem to be about a dozen foreskins o' Jeebus - how many times did the poor little fucker get circumcised anyway?

The most funny thing is that it is now known that penis circumcision is an unnecessary mutilation that leads to poor sexual power (as compared to real, entire penis with prepuce, giving more pleasure to women) that is done by stupid people to stupid people, only for the purpose of making erection and masturbation painful, so the real question is: did Jesus have a problem with a bad masturbation habit? Has he had multple circumcisions to finally remove the entire shaft skin and make intercourse impossible, which the many parts of his foreskin would imply, as you rightly noticed? This is a serious question with no simple answer. Unfortunately, some of the early texts describing this issue were destroyed as apocrypha after the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD so we may never know for sure. Some people say that the real live of Jesus was very similar to the life of such popes as Pope Sergius III, Pope John XII, Pope Leo VIII, Pope Benedict IX, Pope John XXIII, Pope Alexander VI -- to name just a few, look it up -- from the times when prostitutes were called to dance naked before the papal assemblies, after which prizes were offered to those men who, in the opinion of the spectators, managed to copulate with the greatest number of prostitutes (search for papal pornocracy to read more). This is a serious question, you were right to bring it up.

SOLLOG - SON OF LIGHT, LIGHT OF GOD

[Anonymous Coward]

If anybody around today truly thought that they were the actual son of god today ...

Search Google and Google Groups for SOLLOG. See: Wikipedia.org/Sollog and Wikipedia.org/Talk:Sollog - what do you think now?

WHAT A BULLSHIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

1 Kings 7:23 - "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." link

*chuckles* Pi is 3...

THE EARTH IS NOT FLAT YOU MORON!!! How many times do I have to repeat it? When you draw a circle ON A SPHERE (newsflash: Earth is spherical!) then the ratio of its circumference and diameter is ALWAYS LESS THAN PI!!!! Haven't you ever heard about non-Euclidean geometry? And YOU call yourself a scientist??? Puhlease!!

I got mine.

[Anonymous Coward]

It read "Second Post".

Re:What about quazi-intelligent design?

[randallpowell]

Astreoid that exploded with the energy of thousands of hydrogen warheads is NOT the same as wars, tsunami, and "mini-ice ages". The problems humans face are genrally caused by humans.