Obama might be religious, but I'm not aware of him weakening the separation of church and state. In my more optimistic moments, I think he might be just acting the part. And I see religion slowly losing its hold on the U.S., so I think there is an escape from this lunacy.
The ones against Evolution are either fundamentalists (young earthers, garden of eden literalists, etc) or are pandering to them. If their religious beliefs are malleable, they just fit god to whatever science shows (oh, so evolution happens, guess god's making that happen).
If you want to teach creationism, you should bring up several creation stories. And since they're not science, do it in a comparative religion class. Or if you've got an entirely privately funded school, feel free to mislead the kids any way you want. But if you do you'll burn in hell. Just kidding. There's no such thing as hell.
But which non-scientific views deserve equal air time in a science class?
If I was teaching a biology class, I might give a mention to "Intelligent" Design. Something like "but some people think their god just put all this evidence here to mess with us."
So have you studied and thought this through far enough to know what you want? You did mention eventually removing taxation (presumably altogether, since this is after merely reducing taxation). That sounds like anarchy, but earlier you suggested you didn't want to get rid of government altogether, so I'm not really following your argument. You don't get to keep your private property or get your contracts enforced without some government structure (unless you happen to come out on top in the survival of the fittest).
I get the evolution stuff and think we really should be looking at history and at current examples of government and learning the lessons of what works and what doesn't. Are there places that you think are on a better track than the U.S.? Getting better outcomes? Incidentally, what are your criteria for good outcomes?
1. don't think all government should be thrown out (what remains? military, police, courts, legislature, etc?) 2. would of course oppose enforcing taxes
Man dies of a heart attack and wakes as a young man in his dorm room and begins to live his life over again, with full memory of his past life. It has a lot of very ardent fans that pass it on to others, but it's still not well known. See the Amazon reviews for a sampling of what it means to its fans.
To anyone who likes Randi, I suggest you check out some Derren Brown on youtube. Great, fun stuff. Though his emphasis is on entertainment, he's clear about not being supernatural and does spend considerable time revealing deception and gullibility.
Many religions are like that, probably all the real ones.
What's a real religion? Most people would probably reply that their own is real and the rest are false. I don't think you're in that camp, but I think any definition is pretty arbitrary.
Everyone seems to define their terms differently, but in my experience, most atheists reserve some sliver of possibility that god exists. We think it's very unlikely, so we say we don't believe it.
First you use Pascal's Wager (belief has no down side and huge up side). All the time and energy of dedicating your life to a mistaken idea is somehow not seen as a down side. And then for the up side, don't you have to have chosen correctly among the many many religions to get the benefits?
Then you use the emptiest of arguments (look at nature, that must be god's doing). Through the scientific method, we have learned an awful lot about how things have evolved to the point we're at now. And if you want to resolve the pesky questions of origins of life and the universe by postulating a god, you're merely replacing those questions with the even bigger question of god's origin.
Please refrain from using democracy as a scientific metric.
I did no such thing. I was merely pointing out that if you're not going to do the science yourself, you should trust the results from the people that do.
The "vast majority" of scientists were wrong throughout History many many times. A majority is no measure of scientific quality, otherwise we'd still study geocentric universe models.
The heliocentric solar system model was the result of science and was suppressed by a powerful outside / non-scientific group. I wonder if we could find a similarity with today's climate scientists and some group that would like to suppress the science.
Maybe you're suggesting that the scientific method just doesn't work. If so, I'll leave you to your "intelligent" design, crystals and faith healing.
I should have been clearer about #1. I meant to do climate science yourself, not read others' writings on the subject. You could take one of your alternate hypotheses and see if it holds water.
Slashdot commentary might have something in common with the rest of the public debate on climate, but it's quite a stretch to suggest that climate scientists are acting that way instead of weighing evidence. Do you really have a problem with some climate scientist's tactics or is it the tactics of non-scientists pointing to the scientific consensus? If it really is the former, let's hear it. Note also that one or a small group of scientists acting poorly does not invalidate the entire field (see e.g. Piltdown Man).
I don't think that's fair without pointing out how much worse it is on one side. For instance, one might be tempted to point to the distrust of Fox (and the WSJ) among the left. But it's appropriate to ask for unbiased confirmation of things you see on Fox due to their history of distorting the truth. That's not equivalent to the denial of scientific consensus.
I think we all know that you meant agnostic is the sense of not taking either side (though you seem to lean one way). So the "no knowledge" comment went too far. But unless you're a climate scientist, there is some level of ignorance at play. No one can specialize in everything, so we all have some level of ignorance of most things.
The vast majority of climate scientists disagree with the 16 non-climate scientists cited by the WSJ. So you can either: 1) study it yourself 2) trust the scientific method and the results or 3) be a global warming denier. You seem to want it both ways - be seen as a supporter of science ("relying on science to make your argument") while denying the results of the scientific studies. Presumably you think scientific consensus in other areas is ok, but if I trust climate science, I'm "regurgitating the groupthink". Why is that?
Yes, and I didn't deny the similarity. But the very important difference I mentioned makes Pascal's wager a poor comparison.
Reducing the environmental impacts only delays the problem, it doesn't solve it.
But reducing the birth rate isn't going to get us back to a sustainable population for a long time unless the damage the average person causes is reduced.
If we halve the impact of each human being
We can do a lot better than that in the west. Not sure about less developed societies, but certainly deforestation could be addressed in some areas.
Plague, famine, drought or war
The attempt to reduce the average impact is meant to minimize these disasters.
I'm far from blind to the shortcomings of the democratic party, so you're off base on that attack. I refuted your specific point about Solyndra, and you ignored it. And you ignored the point about that not affecting the science. You can of course distrust science and still enjoy all the things it's given us, including the Internet, if you wish.
You claim Obama's "dirty for": "big media" - Yes, this has been a problem for democrats (e.g. Chris Dodd). Obama has at least come out against key parts of SOPA & PIPA. "unions" - You're not much of a socialist if you think Obama should join in the republican union busting. "green" tech - If you reject the science, I suppose you'll see this as a waste of money, but for those of us with some confidence in the scientific method, it's not.
You're right that I'd vote for Obama over Romney if it's close, but that doesn't mean I'm happy that third parties are not viable options at this point. I'm for public financing of elections and some sort of vote ranking system.
If you were president, how would you change the price of gasoline? And if you're really concerned about the poor, which party is better for them? Cap & trade used to be the republican free market counter to simple regulations. When democrats signed on to that, republicans then turned against it. I'm for regulation, not cap & trade, by the way. We can see how well each worked when applied to acid rain in the U.S. versus europe.
Right. "Think" tanks and marketing are the other ways I was referring to. But I don't think there's much actual paying of stupid people to post comments, as I think lots of people will do it for free once the propaganda hooks them.
Any evolution deniers that want to save some shred of dignity should retreat to just claiming that evolution is the expression of god's will. Not that I think that stance is dignified, but at least it's not disprovable.
Slashdot Mirror
Obama might be religious, but I'm not aware of him weakening the separation of church and state. In my more optimistic moments, I think he might be just acting the part. And I see religion slowly losing its hold on the U.S., so I think there is an escape from this lunacy.
Good comment. Except:
Federal government has even less authority.
I think here we have an example where the federal government should step in if states start teaching religion.
Well, what a privilege. Let me be the first to introduce myself to you! I'm an atheist who wouldn't force you to give up your religious beliefs.
The ones against Evolution are either fundamentalists (young earthers, garden of eden literalists, etc) or are pandering to them. If their religious beliefs are malleable, they just fit god to whatever science shows (oh, so evolution happens, guess god's making that happen).
If you want to teach creationism, you should bring up several creation stories. And since they're not science, do it in a comparative religion class. Or if you've got an entirely privately funded school, feel free to mislead the kids any way you want. But if you do you'll burn in hell. Just kidding. There's no such thing as hell.
But which non-scientific views deserve equal air time in a science class?
If I was teaching a biology class, I might give a mention to "Intelligent" Design. Something like "but some people think their god just put all this evidence here to mess with us."
The topic of Intelligent Design would also fit in an Abnormal Psychology class.
Those are awesome. I have no connection to them but I wish them many sales.
Ok. No wonder it was so hard to figure out what your stance was. You were concealing it or hadn't thought it through far enough to know yourself.
So have you studied and thought this through far enough to know what you want? You did mention eventually removing taxation (presumably altogether, since this is after merely reducing taxation). That sounds like anarchy, but earlier you suggested you didn't want to get rid of government altogether, so I'm not really following your argument. You don't get to keep your private property or get your contracts enforced without some government structure (unless you happen to come out on top in the survival of the fittest).
I get the evolution stuff and think we really should be looking at history and at current examples of government and learning the lessons of what works and what doesn't. Are there places that you think are on a better track than the U.S.? Getting better outcomes? Incidentally, what are your criteria for good outcomes?
So you:
1. don't think all government should be thrown out (what remains? military, police, courts, legislature, etc?)
2. would of course oppose enforcing taxes
Do you want to fund government via donations?
I imply that the power structure should be decentralized and localized as much as possible.
So you're for "forcing...under the threat of violence", but just on a more localized scale?
Man dies of a heart attack and wakes as a young man in his dorm room and begins to live his life over again, with full memory of his past life. It has a lot of very ardent fans that pass it on to others, but it's still not well known. See the Amazon reviews for a sampling of what it means to its fans.
To anyone who likes Randi, I suggest you check out some Derren Brown on youtube. Great, fun stuff. Though his emphasis is on entertainment, he's clear about not being supernatural and does spend considerable time revealing deception and gullibility.
Many religions are like that, probably all the real ones.
What's a real religion? Most people would probably reply that their own is real and the rest are false. I don't think you're in that camp, but I think any definition is pretty arbitrary.
If questioning the existence and location of Nazareth is the best Randi's got, I'm not at all impressed.
I suspect you shy away from the best arguments against your religion and instead focus on the weakest.
Everyone seems to define their terms differently, but in my experience, most atheists reserve some sliver of possibility that god exists. We think it's very unlikely, so we say we don't believe it.
First you use Pascal's Wager (belief has no down side and huge up side). All the time and energy of dedicating your life to a mistaken idea is somehow not seen as a down side. And then for the up side, don't you have to have chosen correctly among the many many religions to get the benefits?
Then you use the emptiest of arguments (look at nature, that must be god's doing). Through the scientific method, we have learned an awful lot about how things have evolved to the point we're at now. And if you want to resolve the pesky questions of origins of life and the universe by postulating a god, you're merely replacing those questions with the even bigger question of god's origin.
Please refrain from using democracy as a scientific metric.
I did no such thing. I was merely pointing out that if you're not going to do the science yourself, you should trust the results from the people that do.
The "vast majority" of scientists were wrong throughout History many many times. A majority is no measure of scientific quality, otherwise we'd still study geocentric universe models.
The heliocentric solar system model was the result of science and was suppressed by a powerful outside / non-scientific group. I wonder if we could find a similarity with today's climate scientists and some group that would like to suppress the science.
Maybe you're suggesting that the scientific method just doesn't work. If so, I'll leave you to your "intelligent" design, crystals and faith healing.
I should have been clearer about #1. I meant to do climate science yourself, not read others' writings on the subject. You could take one of your alternate hypotheses and see if it holds water.
Slashdot commentary might have something in common with the rest of the public debate on climate, but it's quite a stretch to suggest that climate scientists are acting that way instead of weighing evidence. Do you really have a problem with some climate scientist's tactics or is it the tactics of non-scientists pointing to the scientific consensus? If it really is the former, let's hear it. Note also that one or a small group of scientists acting poorly does not invalidate the entire field (see e.g. Piltdown Man).
I don't think that's fair without pointing out how much worse it is on one side. For instance, one might be tempted to point to the distrust of Fox (and the WSJ) among the left. But it's appropriate to ask for unbiased confirmation of things you see on Fox due to their history of distorting the truth. That's not equivalent to the denial of scientific consensus.
I think we all know that you meant agnostic is the sense of not taking either side (though you seem to lean one way). So the "no knowledge" comment went too far. But unless you're a climate scientist, there is some level of ignorance at play. No one can specialize in everything, so we all have some level of ignorance of most things.
The vast majority of climate scientists disagree with the 16 non-climate scientists cited by the WSJ. So you can either:
1) study it yourself
2) trust the scientific method and the results or
3) be a global warming denier.
You seem to want it both ways - be seen as a supporter of science ("relying on science to make your argument") while denying the results of the scientific studies. Presumably you think scientific consensus in other areas is ok, but if I trust climate science, I'm "regurgitating the groupthink". Why is that?
There are strong similarities *shrug*
Yes, and I didn't deny the similarity. But the very important difference I mentioned makes Pascal's wager a poor comparison.
Reducing the environmental impacts only delays the problem, it doesn't solve it.
But reducing the birth rate isn't going to get us back to a sustainable population for a long time unless the damage the average person causes is reduced.
If we halve the impact of each human being
We can do a lot better than that in the west. Not sure about less developed societies, but certainly deforestation could be addressed in some areas.
Plague, famine, drought or war
The attempt to reduce the average impact is meant to minimize these disasters.
I'm far from blind to the shortcomings of the democratic party, so you're off base on that attack. I refuted your specific point about Solyndra, and you ignored it. And you ignored the point about that not affecting the science. You can of course distrust science and still enjoy all the things it's given us, including the Internet, if you wish.
You claim Obama's "dirty for":
"big media" - Yes, this has been a problem for democrats (e.g. Chris Dodd). Obama has at least come out against key parts of SOPA & PIPA.
"unions" - You're not much of a socialist if you think Obama should join in the republican union busting.
"green" tech - If you reject the science, I suppose you'll see this as a waste of money, but for those of us with some confidence in the scientific method, it's not.
You're right that I'd vote for Obama over Romney if it's close, but that doesn't mean I'm happy that third parties are not viable options at this point. I'm for public financing of elections and some sort of vote ranking system.
If you were president, how would you change the price of gasoline? And if you're really concerned about the poor, which party is better for them? Cap & trade used to be the republican free market counter to simple regulations. When democrats signed on to that, republicans then turned against it. I'm for regulation, not cap & trade, by the way. We can see how well each worked when applied to acid rain in the U.S. versus europe.
Right. "Think" tanks and marketing are the other ways I was referring to. But I don't think there's much actual paying of stupid people to post comments, as I think lots of people will do it for free once the propaganda hooks them.
You forgot to include the "very valid point" that you just had to agree with, which suggests it wasn't really that convincing.
Oh, and here's a Slashdot article from yesterday about the evolution from single cell to multicellular life in the span of 60 days in a lab:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/01/18/0118213/multicellular-life-evolves-in-months-in-a-lab
Any evolution deniers that want to save some shred of dignity should retreat to just claiming that evolution is the expression of god's will. Not that I think that stance is dignified, but at least it's not disprovable.