Or perhaps find common ground and understanding and work towards a helping the fundamentalists stop being like that? I would strongly disagree with you that you can't live in peace. Try.
Well, there is no evidence either way, so we could equally say "there is no purpose" is also a bad theory. Can you show me this 99% evidence that even suggests the universe has no purpose? I would be most interested. If not, it is honestly just as much faith to assert it has no purpose. I would suggest that if you plan on sticking to science and not going into philosophy, you stick to "I don't know" which, is at least honest.
Not in the traditional sense of the word. Sure, catholics believe God created the universe, but they pretty much believe that it probably happened in the way science describes. We're not talking about Young earthers, or even people who necessarily think they can prove ID.
I'm also a Christian. (And not worried about karma...:) ) I came here for the tech news and got sucked into the wars... (Vi rules! Windows Sucks!)
But I would disagree with you, while I am not a deist, I do believe that the workings of the universe can be completely explained by science, down to the spooky stuff in Quantum Physics. If God is God, he is God of that too, but I don't think we ever need to look for a gap for God to fill in science. That to me diminishes God to nothing more than a cop out.
And your point of view is philosophy. That is the point, from here on in, its philosophy. These are not things we can test for or prove. I am not saying you're wrong, I'm just pointing out that science does not say you're right.
Exactly how can an atheist be fundamentalist? It seems like there's really only one fundamental tenet of atheism: there is no god. In that sense every atheist is a either a fundamentalist or agnostic.
Ask the this guy , I'm just using his terminology. But I think he's refering to the practice of actively trying to ridicule and stamp out religion rather than the practice of reasoned debate and the ability to live in peace with people who hold different viewpoints.
Atheists have the opportunity not to sink to down to that level, and it is disappointing when they do. We expect it from the fundamentalist religious.
Lovely, a double-standard. You can expect some groups of people to be better than other groups of people, but most of the time you will be disappointed.
Not really, all I'm saying, is it is illogical for an atheist to be like that. Atheism is a point of view that prizes logic above all else, thus it is disappointing (though not unsurprising) when they fail... For the most part, I have found them reasonable, intelligent people, and I would say the "fundamentalist" groups are the minority. But that is of course anecdotal....
You seem unable to view the world from any point of view except your own limited one. Let me fix things again for you.
A Christian, Buddhist and naturalist looking at a tree would agree on the number of apples hanging from it, but when they look at the universe they come up with completely different answers, which suggests that they're not really describing reality.
I see no reason to assume any point of view describes reality. The fact that they may be internally self consistent is a claim all the modern ones make, thus I place them on the same level.
Actually, I'd disagree. I think Haught is open to reasonable polite debate. I see no reason why anyone should see the need to respond to an attack like Coyne's. A reasonable debate requires a response. An attack, not so much. In addition, in a debate, just because someone does not provide a citation, does not mean they can't.
Except religion doesn't contain an answer to that question, as it's not based on anything related to my view of reality.
Fixed that for you.
Ask about the purpose of the universe to a Christian, Buddhist and ancient Egyptian, and you'll get three different answers to that question. Heck, even within a single religion they can't agree.
This is true, what is your point? I never specified which religion was correct or if I knew which one was. I have an opinion, sure but I don't claim to be able to prove it.
And what of the rest of us who think both fundamentalist positions are just plain stupid? You're missing the point here. Atheists have the opportunity not to sink to down to that level, and it is disappointing when they do. We expect it from the fundamentalist religious. They are for the most part uneducated. But to be an atheist, you either have to be very lazy (in which case not a fundamentalist) or at least marginally intelligent (you think about these things a bit) in which case we could hope you would not fall into the trap of fundamentalism.
Everyone believes they are correct. When looking at the video and the comments, I am disinclined to accept Coyne's response. In essence he mad an ass of himself and is trying to defend what he did. Haught is not entirely clean in this matter as far as I can see either though. Not wanting the video released I think was more an emotional reaction to what Coyne said than a reasoned response, whatever Haught may say in the letter. I don't think we can legitimately call either side objective.
Not quite.. Does science answer the question, "what is the purpose of the universe?"
Many people mistakenly take science's silence on the subject as an answer of "there is none", but that is in error - confusing unprovable philosophy and science. Religion however specifically deals with this question. So do some philosophical viewpoints (atheism for example).
Fundamentalist atheists are just a reaction against them.
And that makes it better somehow? Just a reaction? If you can't control your emotional reactions you have no business in this sort of debate. Neither do the Christian fundies.
The letter is a very interesting read. I have not yet watched the video(hard to do at work...:) ) but if Coyne did behave has above, then he does have a very good point. Even if you disagree with his position, it in constructive debate, it is normally a good idea to avoid ad homiens and also to stick to the topic.
I have a suspicion neither party has acted in complete good faith here. Rather than attack the ideas these two gentlemen have, I think it is valuable to take the time to analyze and critique how they debated them and how academically honest they were. Then it may be worth looking at what they were driving at.
I am always disappointed when people are reduced to flaming each other. It is embarrassing to both sides.
Definitely. I am very interested in seeing this video, but with only one side of the story, it isn't very useful to comment on it. Lets hope it is released so we can be objective about it.
Indeed. My "government" loan was through a bank. It was government mandated, but the bank carried some of the risk. The government screwed up and printed money and everybody lost. The situation is not quite the same, but here's a hint from someone who has been there, when you see the government printing money(whether you are a student or not) and the economy is not growing it may be time to start investing in foreign currency.
Funny thing is, this is exactly how I got my degree. I hold a Zimbabwean degree(the standard of education when I went through was still extremely high). I took a government loan and that paid my fees for a while, until the economic crash got so bad it couldn't. Then I paid a top up and in my final year paid US$ for the degree. I never paid the that loan back because it no longer existed - 3 and a half years of my education plus interest came to less than US$0.01. I literally could not repay that.
Hyperinflation sure made life difficult, but I have had probably one of the cheapest quality educations in history. It is no longer the case there(the standards have fallen a little, and now you have to pay), but that is what happened to me.
So, its not America that came up with it, they're simply copying the actions of one Gideon Gono, a man under one Robert Mugabe. And I'm fairly sure these guys didn't think this up by themselves either.
Slashdot Mirror
Or perhaps find common ground and understanding and work towards a helping the fundamentalists stop being like that? I would strongly disagree with you that you can't live in peace. Try.
Well, there is no evidence either way, so we could equally say "there is no purpose" is also a bad theory. Can you show me this 99% evidence that even suggests the universe has no purpose? I would be most interested. If not, it is honestly just as much faith to assert it has no purpose. I would suggest that if you plan on sticking to science and not going into philosophy, you stick to "I don't know" which, is at least honest.
Not in the traditional sense of the word. Sure, catholics believe God created the universe, but they pretty much believe that it probably happened in the way science describes. We're not talking about Young earthers, or even people who necessarily think they can prove ID.
I'm also a Christian. (And not worried about karma... :) ) I came here for the tech news and got sucked into the wars... (Vi rules! Windows Sucks!)
But I would disagree with you, while I am not a deist, I do believe that the workings of the universe can be completely explained by science, down to the spooky stuff in Quantum Physics. If God is God, he is God of that too, but I don't think we ever need to look for a gap for God to fill in science. That to me diminishes God to nothing more than a cop out.
And your point of view is philosophy. That is the point, from here on in, its philosophy. These are not things we can test for or prove. I am not saying you're wrong, I'm just pointing out that science does not say you're right.
Exactly how can an atheist be fundamentalist? It seems like there's really only one fundamental tenet of atheism: there is no god. In that sense every atheist is a either a fundamentalist or agnostic.
Ask the this guy , I'm just using his terminology. But I think he's refering to the practice of actively trying to ridicule and stamp out religion rather than the practice of reasoned debate and the ability to live in peace with people who hold different viewpoints.
Atheists have the opportunity not to sink to down to that level, and it is disappointing when they do. We expect it from the fundamentalist religious.
Lovely, a double-standard. You can expect some groups of people to be better than other groups of people, but most of the time you will be disappointed.
Not really, all I'm saying, is it is illogical for an atheist to be like that. Atheism is a point of view that prizes logic above all else, thus it is disappointing (though not unsurprising) when they fail... For the most part, I have found them reasonable, intelligent people, and I would say the "fundamentalist" groups are the minority. But that is of course anecdotal....
Sorry, I forgot... I'm a bit out of date though, do we still hate Windows 7? Vi FTW!
You seem unable to view the world from any point of view except your own limited one. Let me fix things again for you.
A Christian, Buddhist and naturalist looking at a tree would agree on the number of apples hanging from it, but when they look at the universe they come up with completely different answers, which suggests that they're not really describing reality.
I see no reason to assume any point of view describes reality. The fact that they may be internally self consistent is a claim all the modern ones make, thus I place them on the same level.
its not as good as dd. Thats whats wrong with it!
Actually, I'd disagree. I think Haught is open to reasonable polite debate. I see no reason why anyone should see the need to respond to an attack like Coyne's. A reasonable debate requires a response. An attack, not so much. In addition, in a debate, just because someone does not provide a citation, does not mean they can't.
Except religion doesn't contain an answer to that question, as it's not based on anything related to my view of reality.
Fixed that for you.
Ask about the purpose of the universe to a Christian, Buddhist and ancient Egyptian, and you'll get three different answers to that question. Heck, even within a single religion they can't agree.
This is true, what is your point? I never specified which religion was correct or if I knew which one was. I have an opinion, sure but I don't claim to be able to prove it.
And what of the rest of us who think both fundamentalist positions are just plain stupid? You're missing the point here. Atheists have the opportunity not to sink to down to that level, and it is disappointing when they do. We expect it from the fundamentalist religious. They are for the most part uneducated. But to be an atheist, you either have to be very lazy (in which case not a fundamentalist) or at least marginally intelligent (you think about these things a bit) in which case we could hope you would not fall into the trap of fundamentalism.
Have you even read his letter? Being catholic Haught is certainly not a creationist.
Everyone believes they are correct. When looking at the video and the comments, I am disinclined to accept Coyne's response. In essence he mad an ass of himself and is trying to defend what he did. Haught is not entirely clean in this matter as far as I can see either though. Not wanting the video released I think was more an emotional reaction to what Coyne said than a reasoned response, whatever Haught may say in the letter. I don't think we can legitimately call either side objective.
Not quite.. Does science answer the question, "what is the purpose of the universe?"
Many people mistakenly take science's silence on the subject as an answer of "there is none", but that is in error - confusing unprovable philosophy and science. Religion however specifically deals with this question. So do some philosophical viewpoints (atheism for example).
Fundamentalist atheists are just a reaction against them.
And that makes it better somehow? Just a reaction? If you can't control your emotional reactions you have no business in this sort of debate. Neither do the Christian fundies.
The letter is a very interesting read. I have not yet watched the video(hard to do at work... :) ) but if Coyne did behave has above, then he does have a very good point. Even if you disagree with his position, it in constructive debate, it is normally a good idea to avoid ad homiens and also to stick to the topic.
I have a suspicion neither party has acted in complete good faith here. Rather than attack the ideas these two gentlemen have, I think it is valuable to take the time to analyze and critique how they debated them and how academically honest they were. Then it may be worth looking at what they were driving at.
I am always disappointed when people are reduced to flaming each other. It is embarrassing to both sides.
Definitely. I am very interested in seeing this video, but with only one side of the story, it isn't very useful to comment on it. Lets hope it is released so we can be objective about it.
This is unfortunately correct...
Why not roll your own? You just need an old PC with a parallel port, a NOT gate chip (7400 series works)(or a buffer) and appropriate software.
Or compress the gas (using lots of energy) into storage containers...
You're loading less junk and don't have a HP printer.
Indeed. My "government" loan was through a bank. It was government mandated, but the bank carried some of the risk. The government screwed up and printed money and everybody lost. The situation is not quite the same, but here's a hint from someone who has been there, when you see the government printing money(whether you are a student or not) and the economy is not growing it may be time to start investing in foreign currency.
GGGP claimed the government would bail them out.
Funny thing is, this is exactly how I got my degree. I hold a Zimbabwean degree(the standard of education when I went through was still extremely high). I took a government loan and that paid my fees for a while, until the economic crash got so bad it couldn't. Then I paid a top up and in my final year paid US$ for the degree. I never paid the that loan back because it no longer existed - 3 and a half years of my education plus interest came to less than US$0.01. I literally could not repay that.
Hyperinflation sure made life difficult, but I have had probably one of the cheapest quality educations in history. It is no longer the case there(the standards have fallen a little, and now you have to pay), but that is what happened to me.
So, its not America that came up with it, they're simply copying the actions of one Gideon Gono, a man under one Robert Mugabe. And I'm fairly sure these guys didn't think this up by themselves either.