So what you're actually saying is that a statement to the effect of "Santa does not exist" is just as much an act of faith as saying "Santa DOES exist"?
This happy news will no doubt make a lot of children happy!
It is of course rather odd that while we can easily accept that a chair exists, a house exists or even some person posting online exists, it is impossible to verify the existence of the supposedly most present and active entity in the universe. In fact, the only real thing that we "know" about its existence is that it goes out of its way to not be seen to the uninitiated.
Intellectual debate is to be carried out by people with qualifications in peer-reviewed fora.
That's a completely correct statement... in theory. In practice, this method doesn't quite reach the general public. Meanwhile, the "other side" is highly skilled in reaching and influencing the general public. This translates into an unfair political advantage in the debate. Not surprisingly, a large part of the effort to get ID taught in schools wasn't by publishing in peer-reviewed journals, but by gaining support from the general public. Hey, if XX percent of the general public thinks it's true, we must teach it as fact, right?
It is commendable that Dawkins provides some much-needed counter-balance in the public debate. Why should they only hear one side of the story? Understandably, this is making some people very nervous as they're used to avoiding actual debates.
If he were to follow your advice, that would be equivalent to shutting up. Why not just present killer arguments that'll embarrass him? Until now, you've only made assertions that he's wrong and attacked his qualifications -- both are fallacies and won't get you a victory in the logic department.
The general public doesn't know logic.
Then we must double our efforts to teach them logic.
Attacking Dawkin's credentials instead of his logic is a sign of intellectual weakness and unwillingness to engage in the realm of logic, which is of course logical if one's position conflicts with logic.
But hey, maybe you're right. Next time he's having a public debate somewhere, walk up to the microphone and use your excellent logic to get him to shut up for good: "hey Mr. Dawkins, you know, that atheist stuff you've been saying... it's untrue, because you're simply a biologist who took it upon yourself to spout nonsense!"
I'm sure he'll instantly recognize your authority on the subject and the soundness of your logic and realize that he's been spouting nonsense all along.
God's role has always been understood as sustaining the existence of Creation.
Understood by whom? By theologists or regular believers? Which timeframe covers "always"?
That God ultimately controls health, weather, and so forth followed from that and still does, and there's no moving target here.
There's a large spectrum of interpretations between "God ultimately controls X" and "God directly and personally controls X". If someone becomes ill or recovers, should they take it personally or not? A lot of people do and a lot of people don't. They most likely didn't read your books, but that doesn't change that they hold those interpretations.
The irony is that you're underlining what the OP is saying: the role of God is pushed back further and further, until it only covers the areas that are theoretically impossible to answer by science. It is commendable that you're already at the target endpoint, but a lot of people aren't there yet.
Maybe it's not necessarily RAM related. I had a weird situation recently where the computer wouldn't get past POST, but just keeping beeping (one long, two short) with a black display.
The beep sequence indicates a video card problem, so I put in a newer card, but still got the same symptoms. Since I didn't want to replace the motherboard, I figured I could try replacing the RAM. Now the computer booted fine, so it was obviously a RAM issue.
So, trying to figure out which stick was bad, I tested each of them individually: they both passed the test. When put back in their original configuration, the computer still wouldn't boot. Hhmmm, weird.
Finally, I tried switching their positions... this solution is still working fine.
On the contrary: a faulty RAM stick can usually be diagnosed within a few minutes with free tools like memtest86. I've done this before and was able to find out which stick was faulty on a computer that kept freezing up.
Tools to test common failure paths should be a standard part of your toolkit if you're serious about this work.
It just so happens that murder and stealing are also 2 of the 10 Commandments.
Have you ever heard of Hammurabi's Code? Probably not.
It's amusing when people try to link the U.S. legal system and the 10 Commandments when that exact same legal system allows flagrant violations of at least 6 of the same Commandments.
Are you really so desperate to make the link? Wouldn't it make more sense to point out the numerous references to God in the Constitution?
"So if we look at who paid a higher price for Europe's freedom, I'd say that we need to be a lot more grateful to Russia."
And yet, you weren't Do you think that's an accident? Also, you conveniently overlook who footed the bill for rebuilding.
It's no accident, it's because Europe and the U.S. have very strong historical ties, economically, culturally and otherwise. Heck, we footed the bill for discovering the U.S. in the first place! A little "thank you" is in place there, dude. Let's also not conveniently overlook all the science and technology we gave you. That took some time and money to get going, you know. Let's not get started about the alphabet, Latin-derived languages, democratic concepts and so on.
Seriously though, the sentiment I was responding to was that the relationship between the U.S. and Europe wasn't mutually beneficial. I think it is. Regardless of what you think of my response, I maintain that it's a poor argument to try to stifle criticism by using the argument "we helped you in WWII, so shut it!".
You may be an isolationist, but the U.S. does not (or cannot) thrive in isolation. My point is that a thriving Europe is good for the U.S. (and vice versa), both economically and culturally. It's a mutually beneficial friendship and not one in which one party is some form of beggar; that idea is something that's echoed too often and IMO it's offensive.
My grandfather would probably get along with yours (if mine weren't dead). He had lots of stories to tell as well. Apparently, he was in the resistance although we always kind of took the magnitude of his involvement with a minor grain of salt:-)
Nope, you're wrong. But that's forgivable, because you've probably been raised in an environment with strong nationalistic sentiments. You're merely using as a reference what you've been thought. Now to remain ignorant... that would just be obtuse, so I hope you take the opportunity to learn more about the actual history of WWII.
As any historical archive will indicate, the U.S. not only joined the war relatively late in the game, but also suffered the relatively few military casualties: 2% of all allied deaths were Americans, 64% were Russians. So if we look at who paid a higher price for Europe's freedom, I'd say that we need to be a lot more grateful to Russia. The reward, on the other hand, has been mostly for the U.S., who didn't only get very attractive strategical partners, but also a much bigger market (it's about economics after all).
Now that's not to say that I'm not grateful to the allies who fought against the Nazis, because I am. However, I see no reason whatsoever to be grateful to you, as you have most likely had no involvement whatsoever in WWII.
What we need to realize of course, is that the fuel of Nazi ideology can occur anywhere. Nationalism isn't a German monopoly. That's the danger that we should collectively fight against, whether it's German nationalism, Russian nationalism or American nationalism.
Interesting. I appreciate that you're honest and reasonable about it. The problem is that too many people don't realize or care to realize that they're cherry-picking. Debating with such a person is rather frustrating for me, because they solidify their biases into an absolute truth.
I think the whole fuss about homosexuality is a good example of this: the idea of "homosexuality is ewww!!" is a common (and natural?) bias that's isn't necessarily religious in origin. Then again: since such a bias has been around for thousands of years, it would be no surprise if/that they became part of religious texts since the authors themselves were human too.
The former is using the Bible for its intended purpose, the latter is dragging it into a usage it's not meant for.
Isn't this another example of picking the interpretation that suits what you feel is right? The bible puts forward the idea of a deity whose intentions or ideas cannot be grasped by us humans, so opinions on the bible's intentions and interpretations practically form different religions in and of themselves.
That being said: I do agree that there are good portions in the bible, but it cannot be used as a sole source of morals without an external reference to judge which parts should be picked or dismissed. Then again, you could of course just say that your gut feeling of right vs. wrong is directly controlled by God, etc:-)
Based on what you're saying, it sounds like you're cherry-picking the parts of the bible you like and ignoring the parts you don't. People just read into it whatever they already believe. In that sense, it cannot act as a sole basis for morality without external reference, which is odd as people are advocating it as the sole reference.
I figured out years ago that if you talk shit about your old girlfriend to your new one, then your new one will wonder what you will say about her.
My GF doesn't seem the least bit bothered about me occasionally talking shit about my old girlfriend. After all, she must have been a psycho bitch to let a wonderful guy like me walk away, right?;-)
As I understood from some of the news reports, Cho was already "on the radar" as a disturbed person as early as 2005. In fact, I believe the report said he was considered mentally (*) ill according to one of his psychologists.
What I've been wondering is: how come that someone who has "blipped" on the radar at least several times as a very disturbed person can still legally buy a gun? Now I know that a persistent person will be able to get a gun no matter what, but can we *please* make it a bit harder than going into a store and paying with your CC?
Dude, you can make a huge post by copy-pasting some of the popular creationist propaganda and from 10 feet distance from my screen, it'll actually look like a response if I'm not wearing my glasses, but upon closer inspection, it's simply not in any meaningful way a response to what *I* wrote.
How are we ever to have a real discussion on this subject when all the creationists do is keep spouting already-refuted propaganda? The creationists fall into two groups: the ones who are simply ignorant and the ones who aren't ignorant, but do whatever they can to keep the first group ignorant.
Whichever way you look at it, trying to attack a theory in favour of one that states that everything was just put there the way it is now has nothing whatsoever to do with science or reality.
Neither the person you replied to, nor you have a clue when it comes the criteria for a valid scientific theory or why science models reality only with theories and never with "facts".
Btw, please do not make statements about what has or has not been done in a lab. You look as clumsy as Behe when he was confronted in court with a whole pile of publications and books which he claimed did not exist.
And I repeat: you show no clue about concepts of theory, falsifiability, testability of reproducibility. All concepts of course which alternatives of evolution theory eagerly dismiss.
Yes, and according to similar polls, 34% believe in ghosts, 34% believe in UFOs, 29% believes in astrology, 25% believe in reincarnation and 24% believes in witches. With other words: a sizeable portion of the population will just believe whatever they come across without much, if any, criticism.
I think you made a mistake with posting, because I don't see how what you wrote is connected to what I replied to. This sort of disconnection is actually something I addressed.
Instead of becoming enraged, you should have read the next line in that post: "That alone should be enough to negate the kiddie porn charges for the pictures of themselves." -- I think this should make it very clear where the OP stands on this issue.
Once you stop foaming at the mouth, perhaps you can issue an apology.
Advice: stop judging people or call them names. Whatever point you're trying to make, you're not supporting it by being immature about negative responses to a flamebait-ish post.
Exactly *how* are you enticing them to do something good? Calling them idiots if they don't comply? Did you grow up with your parents using that strategy?
Take a course in economics: even with tangible products, a large part of the whole deal is going to be virtual. Your gripe is with consumerism.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're actually saying is that a statement to the effect of "Santa does not exist" is just as much an act of faith as saying "Santa DOES exist"?
This happy news will no doubt make a lot of children happy!
It is of course rather odd that while we can easily accept that a chair exists, a house exists or even some person posting online exists, it is impossible to verify the existence of the supposedly most present and active entity in the universe. In fact, the only real thing that we "know" about its existence is that it goes out of its way to not be seen to the uninitiated.
Intellectual debate is to be carried out by people with qualifications in peer-reviewed fora.
That's a completely correct statement... in theory. In practice, this method doesn't quite reach the general public. Meanwhile, the "other side" is highly skilled in reaching and influencing the general public. This translates into an unfair political advantage in the debate. Not surprisingly, a large part of the effort to get ID taught in schools wasn't by publishing in peer-reviewed journals, but by gaining support from the general public. Hey, if XX percent of the general public thinks it's true, we must teach it as fact, right?
It is commendable that Dawkins provides some much-needed counter-balance in the public debate. Why should they only hear one side of the story? Understandably, this is making some people very nervous as they're used to avoiding actual debates.
If he were to follow your advice, that would be equivalent to shutting up. Why not just present killer arguments that'll embarrass him? Until now, you've only made assertions that he's wrong and attacked his qualifications -- both are fallacies and won't get you a victory in the logic department.
The general public doesn't know logic.
Then we must double our efforts to teach them logic.
Attacking Dawkin's credentials instead of his logic is a sign of intellectual weakness and unwillingness to engage in the realm of logic, which is of course logical if one's position conflicts with logic.
But hey, maybe you're right. Next time he's having a public debate somewhere, walk up to the microphone and use your excellent logic to get him to shut up for good: "hey Mr. Dawkins, you know, that atheist stuff you've been saying... it's untrue, because you're simply a biologist who took it upon yourself to spout nonsense!"
I'm sure he'll instantly recognize your authority on the subject and the soundness of your logic and realize that he's been spouting nonsense all along.
God's role has always been understood as sustaining the existence of Creation.
Understood by whom? By theologists or regular believers? Which timeframe covers "always"?
That God ultimately controls health, weather, and so forth followed from that and still does, and there's no moving target here.
There's a large spectrum of interpretations between "God ultimately controls X" and "God directly and personally controls X". If someone becomes ill or recovers, should they take it personally or not? A lot of people do and a lot of people don't. They most likely didn't read your books, but that doesn't change that they hold those interpretations.
The irony is that you're underlining what the OP is saying: the role of God is pushed back further and further, until it only covers the areas that are theoretically impossible to answer by science. It is commendable that you're already at the target endpoint, but a lot of people aren't there yet.
Maybe it's not necessarily RAM related. I had a weird situation recently where the computer wouldn't get past POST, but just keeping beeping (one long, two short) with a black display.
The beep sequence indicates a video card problem, so I put in a newer card, but still got the same symptoms. Since I didn't want to replace the motherboard, I figured I could try replacing the RAM. Now the computer booted fine, so it was obviously a RAM issue.
So, trying to figure out which stick was bad, I tested each of them individually: they both passed the test. When put back in their original configuration, the computer still wouldn't boot. Hhmmm, weird.
Finally, I tried switching their positions... this solution is still working fine.
On the contrary: a faulty RAM stick can usually be diagnosed within a few minutes with free tools like memtest86. I've done this before and was able to find out which stick was faulty on a computer that kept freezing up.
Tools to test common failure paths should be a standard part of your toolkit if you're serious about this work.
It just so happens that murder and stealing are also 2 of the 10 Commandments.
Have you ever heard of Hammurabi's Code? Probably not.
It's amusing when people try to link the U.S. legal system and the 10 Commandments when that exact same legal system allows flagrant violations of at least 6 of the same Commandments.
Are you really so desperate to make the link? Wouldn't it make more sense to point out the numerous references to God in the Constitution?
Why is it only the US seems to "get" freedom of speech?
It doesn't.
"So if we look at who paid a higher price for Europe's freedom, I'd say that we need to be a lot more grateful to Russia."
And yet, you weren't Do you think that's an accident? Also, you conveniently overlook who footed the bill for rebuilding.
It's no accident, it's because Europe and the U.S. have very strong historical ties, economically, culturally and otherwise. Heck, we footed the bill for discovering the U.S. in the first place! A little "thank you" is in place there, dude. Let's also not conveniently overlook all the science and technology we gave you. That took some time and money to get going, you know. Let's not get started about the alphabet, Latin-derived languages, democratic concepts and so on.
Seriously though, the sentiment I was responding to was that the relationship between the U.S. and Europe wasn't mutually beneficial. I think it is. Regardless of what you think of my response, I maintain that it's a poor argument to try to stifle criticism by using the argument "we helped you in WWII, so shut it!".
You may be an isolationist, but the U.S. does not (or cannot) thrive in isolation. My point is that a thriving Europe is good for the U.S. (and vice versa), both economically and culturally. It's a mutually beneficial friendship and not one in which one party is some form of beggar; that idea is something that's echoed too often and IMO it's offensive.
:-)
My grandfather would probably get along with yours (if mine weren't dead). He had lots of stories to tell as well. Apparently, he was in the resistance although we always kind of took the magnitude of his involvement with a minor grain of salt
As for the French... ah well, the French...
What happens to children with irresponsible or abusive parents? Does the government have the responsibility to step in and protect the child?
Those children have much bigger problems than hearing "fuck" or "shit" on TV.
I'm right.
Nope, you're wrong. But that's forgivable, because you've probably been raised in an environment with strong nationalistic sentiments. You're merely using as a reference what you've been thought. Now to remain ignorant... that would just be obtuse, so I hope you take the opportunity to learn more about the actual history of WWII.
As any historical archive will indicate, the U.S. not only joined the war relatively late in the game, but also suffered the relatively few military casualties: 2% of all allied deaths were Americans, 64% were Russians. So if we look at who paid a higher price for Europe's freedom, I'd say that we need to be a lot more grateful to Russia. The reward, on the other hand, has been mostly for the U.S., who didn't only get very attractive strategical partners, but also a much bigger market (it's about economics after all).
Now that's not to say that I'm not grateful to the allies who fought against the Nazis, because I am. However, I see no reason whatsoever to be grateful to you, as you have most likely had no involvement whatsoever in WWII.
What we need to realize of course, is that the fuel of Nazi ideology can occur anywhere. Nationalism isn't a German monopoly. That's the danger that we should collectively fight against, whether it's German nationalism, Russian nationalism or American nationalism.
A little fast-forwarding over such uncomfortable passages solves a lot, I guess :-)
Interesting. I appreciate that you're honest and reasonable about it. The problem is that too many people don't realize or care to realize that they're cherry-picking. Debating with such a person is rather frustrating for me, because they solidify their biases into an absolute truth.
:-)
I think the whole fuss about homosexuality is a good example of this: the idea of "homosexuality is ewww!!" is a common (and natural?) bias that's isn't necessarily religious in origin. Then again: since such a bias has been around for thousands of years, it would be no surprise if/that they became part of religious texts since the authors themselves were human too.
The former is using the Bible for its intended purpose, the latter is dragging it into a usage it's not meant for.
Isn't this another example of picking the interpretation that suits what you feel is right? The bible puts forward the idea of a deity whose intentions or ideas cannot be grasped by us humans, so opinions on the bible's intentions and interpretations practically form different religions in and of themselves.
That being said: I do agree that there are good portions in the bible, but it cannot be used as a sole source of morals without an external reference to judge which parts should be picked or dismissed. Then again, you could of course just say that your gut feeling of right vs. wrong is directly controlled by God, etc
Based on what you're saying, it sounds like you're cherry-picking the parts of the bible you like and ignoring the parts you don't. People just read into it whatever they already believe. In that sense, it cannot act as a sole basis for morality without external reference, which is odd as people are advocating it as the sole reference.
I figured out years ago that if you talk shit about your old girlfriend to your new one, then your new one will wonder what you will say about her.
;-)
My GF doesn't seem the least bit bothered about me occasionally talking shit about my old girlfriend. After all, she must have been a psycho bitch to let a wonderful guy like me walk away, right?
As I understood from some of the news reports, Cho was already "on the radar" as a disturbed person as early as 2005. In fact, I believe the report said he was considered mentally (*) ill according to one of his psychologists.
What I've been wondering is: how come that someone who has "blipped" on the radar at least several times as a very disturbed person can still legally buy a gun? Now I know that a persistent person will be able to get a gun no matter what, but can we *please* make it a bit harder than going into a store and paying with your CC?
Dude, you can make a huge post by copy-pasting some of the popular creationist propaganda and from 10 feet distance from my screen, it'll actually look like a response if I'm not wearing my glasses, but upon closer inspection, it's simply not in any meaningful way a response to what *I* wrote.
How are we ever to have a real discussion on this subject when all the creationists do is keep spouting already-refuted propaganda? The creationists fall into two groups: the ones who are simply ignorant and the ones who aren't ignorant, but do whatever they can to keep the first group ignorant.
Whichever way you look at it, trying to attack a theory in favour of one that states that everything was just put there the way it is now has nothing whatsoever to do with science or reality.
Neither the person you replied to, nor you have a clue when it comes the criteria for a valid scientific theory or why science models reality only with theories and never with "facts".
Btw, please do not make statements about what has or has not been done in a lab. You look as clumsy as Behe when he was confronted in court with a whole pile of publications and books which he claimed did not exist.
And I repeat: you show no clue about concepts of theory, falsifiability, testability of reproducibility. All concepts of course which alternatives of evolution theory eagerly dismiss.
Australia isn't doing that badly either... and they got the criminals :-)
Yes, and according to similar polls, 34% believe in ghosts, 34% believe in UFOs, 29% believes in astrology, 25% believe in reincarnation and 24% believes in witches. With other words: a sizeable portion of the population will just believe whatever they come across without much, if any, criticism.
I think you made a mistake with posting, because I don't see how what you wrote is connected to what I replied to. This sort of disconnection is actually something I addressed.
Instead of becoming enraged, you should have read the next line in that post: "That alone should be enough to negate the kiddie porn charges for the pictures of themselves." -- I think this should make it very clear where the OP stands on this issue.
Once you stop foaming at the mouth, perhaps you can issue an apology.
Advice: stop judging people or call them names. Whatever point you're trying to make, you're not supporting it by being immature about negative responses to a flamebait-ish post.
Exactly *how* are you enticing them to do something good? Calling them idiots if they don't comply? Did you grow up with your parents using that strategy?
Take a course in economics: even with tangible products, a large part of the whole deal is going to be virtual. Your gripe is with consumerism.