It doesn't matter. Back when Morpheus had access to it, it was still the "fasttrack" network. And it hasn't changed. I believe mldonkey has access to fasttrack as well. What do we call it, KaZaA network or fasttrack network? We call it by what the network is named, not by the client, unless they are named the same thing.
The same applies to KaZaA. KaZaA uses the fasttrack network. KaZaA is merely the name of the clients. Of course, the average reader would have no idea what Gnutella and FastTrack are.
Mr. Ruslan is probably saying things that he hopes will give him "insightful" karma, his karma seems rather low judging by his record. It's utter bullshit, though, I doubt he even saw the pictures.
Yes, there is a big conspiracy with a toy dino. Yes, they are busy making many photoshops of the location of the shadow and lightening in different places in each hourly shot to fool us all!
Oh, the humanity! Oh, my life is one big lie! *puts on tinfoil hat*
Oh, oh GOD no! They won't get me! Not me, not MY Dinos! I'm not fooled.... I KNOW these things....
Wait! ALIENS DID IT, IT ALL MAKES SENSE! Yeah, that's why they are lying, it's one big coverup!
You seem quite dogmatic in your idea of what atheism is-- not to mention you still imploy that old strawman of what I believe, by claiming atheism is something other than what it is.
1. Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma.
2. Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles. See Synonyms at dictatorial.
# A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church. # An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine. # A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln).
1. Having or arising from authority; official: an authoritative decree; authoritative sources.
2. Of acknowledged accuracy or excellence; highly reliable: an authoritative account of the revolution.
3. Wielding authority; commanding: the captain's authoritative manner.
I don't think you're even reading my post. Many atheists, such as I, recognize that a god could exist.
I simply thought that when Linus first started on linux, he used the minix source code, then moved away from that, which was perfectly useful and good for what Minix was created for. By the time it was put onto FTP, however, it was free of all Minix source code. Is this possible?
I tend to agree with you as well. However, there is one quote (it's really not easy to verify quotes by people dead for a long time, especially with a man like einstein) where he apparently claims he is an atheist. I don't know if it's true, you can find it with some digging around. It's also possible that Einstein changed his beliefs on this matter, which makes it even harder to verify. I really just ignore this issue altogether.
It's also possible that most people would call him an atheist, and he just described the universe in a pantheistic sense because it aesthetically pleased him.
To me, the existence of the universe is evidence enough. That doesn't tell me what God is or how things came to be, I just see the intricacy of physics and the physical universe and take it as evidence. You don't have to do so, therefore to me there is evidence, while to you there is none. That's fine, your opinion is just as valid as mine in that regard. However, I'll not agree that there is no evidence, just as you'll not agree that there is.
Just because you think otherwise doesn't make it true. In fact, the mere existence of something doesn't supply any evidence to how it came about. That's completely ridiculous and fallacious.
I know people that claim it has. You claim it hasn't. I haven't experienced it, but I also haven't tried it. I have no proof that it works, no proof that it doesn't. I choose to let people pray if they want, but I'd never force anyone to. I just don't understand why YOU care if someone else prays. You still haven't managed to explain that one.
I never said people can't pray if they want. Sure, they can. But they are wrong if they claim it works. The chances of prayer having any effect is no more than chance itself. This is easily demonstratable through any properly-conducted scientific test.
I see. I disagree with you, therefore I must be an ignorant simpleton. Wow. I bet you're a hit at parties. If you get invited to any. If you ever leave the musty basement of your parents' house.
No, your use of fallacias and inability for basic reasoning makes you an ignorant simpleton.
Who said it did? I never said anyone's belief was justified. I just said that they're free to have whatever belief they want, regardless of any belief of mine, and that negative evidence isn't evidence. I have no evidence that you live in your parents' musty basement, but I choose to believe it anyhow. I know it's unscientific, but I also don't need to justify my every thought by using science. If you do, good for you. Hope that works out for you.
Of course people are free to believe in anything they want. What people like you are unable to realize is that that doesn't provide epistemological justification for their belief. The fact that you believe in things without evidence makes you, sadly, irrational, although that is no suprise. Without evidence, you should recognize it as a possibility but also look at how likely it is and the nature of the claim. It's completely unlikely that I live in my "parents' musty basement", yet you choose to believe in it anyway... because you are irrational and stupid. If you have an "opinion" about anything making an objective statement about reality, it better have some proper epistemological backing-- or else, that means you're an idiot. And you are.
Some people believe that aliens have landed on earth, and if they want to, that's fine with me. To me, the simplest explanation for the universe existing is one that doesn't involve hundreds of millions of random chances happening one right after the other, but instead that there was some sort of design involved. I don't posit what kind, by who, or how, because I don't have any evidence of it.
Again, you completely make-up and exaggerate things about how the universe came about to justify your dogmatic (yes, dogmatic) believe in creation. You are a deist, if I understand your belief correctly-- deism pretty much implies agnosticim by definition)
We don't know if there were random events that had to happen one after another. However, to postulate an ethereal intelligence that somehow works about physics we currently know about is absurd and a "violation" of Occam's razor.
So? Unlike you, I give people the freedom to believe whatever they want. Did I ever say that science and atheism were mutually exclusive? Of course not. So why did you feel the need to quote this statistic? To show that you're aligned with other people? Who cares?
I never said he wasn't an extremely important person. He was, however, not a model scientist because he rejected theory outright despite the evidence. He made a big mistake, and that tarnished his record a little bit, although clearly his other observations are extremely important.
We must remember, however, that Einstein didn't do this all himself. He stood on the shoulders of giants, who stood on the shoulders of other giants. Yes, he is one of the largest "giants" himself, however.
Also, Einstein's spiritual beliefs are not necessarily echoed in "God does not play dice with the universe" statement. That is obviously a metaphorical one. Whether Einstein was an atheist or deist isn't really clear, and I don't really care.
Oh, and Einstein's discoveries were criticized because they challenged common notions and perceptions. That is common and in fact very acceptable-- science involves critique and repeated experimentation, and so far Einstein has won out.
Also, you say "proven" but that is not anywhere near true. "Supported by experimentation" would be a better thing to say. Isn't as strong, of course, but it's far more accurate. Einstein won out in the end because, apparently, he was mostly right.
Still, in my opinion, he shouldn't be a poster boy for all scientists, or even science itself, as he did do something scientists shouldn't do, which is cling to gut feeling despite the evidence. Imagine those who dogmatically disagreed with Galileo-- common perception of gravity and various other things were challenged by him-- others made the same mistake as Einstein and disagreed with him for reasons other than the evidence.
You know, not everyone comes to slashdot for just OS and linux news. It's "news for nerds", yes, but some people are more interested in parts other than the creation of linux.
My definition was just as good as your definition of atheism. *shrug*. There are other definitions of agnostic, but that's the one I subscribe to. The belief that God is unknown and possibly unknowable. That's right from the dictionary, whereas your definition of atheism as 'maybe so, maybe no' fits the second definition of agnosticism.
When discussing various things, you must agree to a definition so you are talking about the same thing. Agnosticism, as I said before, could be applied to atheists and theists. Or you could follow one definition, which is "no opinion either way".
I could be called an "agnostic atheist", that is, even though you can't "know" god with the numerous excuses theists throw out, I think it probably doesn't exist. That is, it is more likely than not that no deity exists. But surely I could be wrong. This is the scientific position-- if evidence of a deity's existence pops up, then we'll talk. But there is none.
You have no proof that you were lied to, you have only your belief. Nonexistence of evidence is not evidence of nonexistence. You also have had free will your entire life, and blaming others because of the choices you made is whiny and weak. Stay 'incensed', most people just get over it.
The fact that prayer has no outcome on reality seems adequate to call it a lie. I'm not claming absolute knowledge, but ignorant simpletons like you don't think in scientific terms. While absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absense, it does not justify a belief in something. Just because there is no evidence that aliens landed on earth doesn't make it a likely scenario, hence Occam's razor (and not by the way you mistakingly intepret it...
Yes, that's one difference between science and atheism. Scientists will occasionally admit the possibility that they don't know everything and could possibly be wrong.
Many scientists, if not most, are atheists, according to a study by Nature magazine. I don't know why you're constantly attributing strawman arguments to atheism-- I never said I can't be wrong, in fact, I've stated the opposite. You ignore this in order to defend your dogmatic belief in creation. Science never claims absolute knowledge, but only how likely things are to be true. Evolution and heliocentric theory are damn likely. The existence of a deity isn't-- it is unfounded, and there isn't even a reason to postulate it.
Yep. I am aware of it. I take it as simpler and thus more likely that some type of design was involved in our universe than matter created itself and resolved itself into a giant conglomeration of perfectly aligned rules. That's just my opinion, and again I'm not saying I'm sure I'm right. It does seem simpler, though, and that's what Occam's Razor is all about.
You don't even know what Occam's razor is. Do a little research, geez, I'm sick of dealing with undereductated, unintelligent pseudophilosophers like you. Occam's razor is "simplicity" meaning "least unaccounted-for variables", to put it plainly. Would you care to explain to us how god works? You say you can't, and that's perfectly fine, then god is unknowable and belief in one is instantly unwarrented. Not to mention you again make a strawman about the beginning of the universe, and play the "take any explanation" game when a better answer is "we don't yet know".
I don't need to prove man evolved from anything. It's not neccessary for my worldview. I don't need to disprove it, either. It just doesn't matter that much to me where we came from; we're here now. How we got here isn't that important to me. That's why I don't subscribe to any religion, and why I don't care about the evolution debate.
You can't prove man evolved or not. You cannot prove anything. You can only show things to be more or less likely to be true, via induction. Observation has shown us man has evolved from a common ancestor with other primates. It is, however, not anywhere near proved, to spe
Opinion implies the statement in question has no true or false dichotomy. The statement does indeed have a "true or false" answer. It's a belief. Not really an opnion.
Then why do so many atheists feel compelled to tell religious people they're wrong all the time? Really, atheism is specifically a disbelief. Agnosticism is the belief that something is out there, but no one knows what. It can also include people who feel there is a higher power but don't choose to quantify it, or don't think they're capable of doing so.
You don't need absolute proof to declare something present or not present.
I don't have absolute proof that there isn't a "dragon in my garage", and that doesn't stop me from not believing in one. It's simply unrealistic for
Agnosticism is not the belief that "something is out there". Perhaps you should look up your terms before spouting nonsense. That is closest to deism, not agnosticim.
It doesn't waste *your* time. I seriously doubt there is anything the OP could actively do to help the article poster. Praying is no worse in this situation than simply reading about it on/. and then forgetting about it. Of course, if there *is* a God, then praying could help. Your statement that it does absolutely nothing contradicts your previous statement that atheists don't claim to know for sure. "[Prayer] does absolutely nothing but waste time" isn't an ambiguous statement.
It doesn't waste my time? No, not now, but it once did, and I'm still incensed at being lied to.
Also, again, one does not need absolute knowledge to declare something is true or false. Science never advertises absolute knowledge, yet it has showed us many things which we accept to be facts simply because they are demonstratable. The world secretly being run by aliens, for example, is a spurious claim, and people will deny it because it's ridiculous. I'm sure you know of the Occam's razor principle?
It's possible that prayer works, but with the knowledge I have it's highly unlikely. I'm simply making a statement involving perceived probabilities, like the rest of science.
You can't disprove man didn't really evolve from clams, but that won't stop people from saying it's not true. There are better explanations out there.
If your doctor says 'I'm praying for you instead of administering medicine," that's totally different. However, if that's the kind of doctor you want to go to, it's your life and your health. You have the option of accepting that or going to a different doctor. That's the beauty of choice.
But that doctor shouldn't be allowed to claim success unless scientifically shown to be true.
Really? God has helped you? You have any sort of demonstratable evidence, some indication that is beyond chance and unexpected events, besides your "gut feeling" and "dogmatic passion"? No?
Argument from common belief, anyone? These type of people are certainly reliant on fallacies.
Prayer isn't really a form of medicine, it's asking a deity to do something for you.
Trying telling most people that prayer is merely a synonym for meditation and you'd be laughed at. Don't redefine terms to fit your biases and needs, and expect me to follow them.
(Many) Atheists don't claim to know the answer for sure. Semantic quibbling aside, most atheists don't believe in/disbelieve in god the same way you don't believe in/disbelieve in bigfoot. Sure, it could exist, but there's either no definite way to know and it's rather unlikely given the nature of the claim. Agnosticism isn't necessarily a middle ground between atheism and theism-- one could be agnostic and be the other.
And why does praying hurt? It wastes time. It does absolutely nothing but waste time. If you want to feel good about doing something for an ill person, work for them, not being lazy and pretending you're doing something when you're really not.
Good thing not everyone turned to prayer. Scientists have actually researched schizophrenia and have come up with many medications to help people live with this horrible mental disorder.
Progress comes with hands working, not hands praying.
Slashdot Mirror
Mmmm... finding the d-spot... g-spot... Gotta find that damn g-spot... er, I mean d-spot. Oh, fuck it, I'm a pervert.
It doesn't matter. Back when Morpheus had access to it, it was still the "fasttrack" network. And it hasn't changed. I believe mldonkey has access to fasttrack as well. What do we call it, KaZaA network or fasttrack network? We call it by what the network is named, not by the client, unless they are named the same thing.
The same applies to KaZaA. KaZaA uses the fasttrack network. KaZaA is merely the name of the clients. Of course, the average reader would have no idea what Gnutella and FastTrack are.
YOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How much does that cost per month!? That's phenomenal! Is that a business account or something?!
Mr. Ruslan is probably saying things that he hopes will give him "insightful" karma, his karma seems rather low judging by his record. It's utter bullshit, though, I doubt he even saw the pictures.
Yes, there is a big conspiracy with a toy dino. Yes, they are busy making many photoshops of the location of the shadow and lightening in different places in each hourly shot to fool us all!
Oh, the humanity! Oh, my life is one big lie! *puts on tinfoil hat*
Oh, oh GOD no! They won't get me! Not me, not MY Dinos! I'm not fooled.... I KNOW these things....
Wait! ALIENS DID IT, IT ALL MAKES SENSE! Yeah, that's why they are lying, it's one big coverup!
You seem quite dogmatic in your idea of what atheism is-- not to mention you still imploy that old strawman of what I believe, by claiming atheism is something other than what it is.
1. Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma.
2. Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles. See Synonyms at dictatorial.
# A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
# An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
# A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln).
1. Having or arising from authority; official: an authoritative decree; authoritative sources.
2. Of acknowledged accuracy or excellence; highly reliable: an authoritative account of the revolution.
3. Wielding authority; commanding: the captain's authoritative manner.
I don't think you're even reading my post. Many atheists, such as I, recognize that a god could exist.
http://www.skepdic.com/agnosticism.html
You make an excellent point.
Are you saying their "fair and balanced" mantra isn't pretending they aren't biased?
You've gotta be joking.
I simply thought that when Linus first started on linux, he used the minix source code, then moved away from that, which was perfectly useful and good for what Minix was created for. By the time it was put onto FTP, however, it was free of all Minix source code. Is this possible?
I tend to agree with you as well. However, there is one quote (it's really not easy to verify quotes by people dead for a long time, especially with a man like einstein) where he apparently claims he is an atheist. I don't know if it's true, you can find it with some digging around. It's also possible that Einstein changed his beliefs on this matter, which makes it even harder to verify. I really just ignore this issue altogether.
It's also possible that most people would call him an atheist, and he just described the universe in a pantheistic sense because it aesthetically pleased him.
To me, the existence of the universe is evidence enough. That doesn't tell me what God is or how things came to be, I just see the intricacy of physics and the physical universe and take it as evidence. You don't have to do so, therefore to me there is evidence, while to you there is none. That's fine, your opinion is just as valid as mine in that regard. However, I'll not agree that there is no evidence, just as you'll not agree that there is.
Just because you think otherwise doesn't make it true. In fact, the mere existence of something doesn't supply any evidence to how it came about. That's completely ridiculous and fallacious.
I know people that claim it has. You claim it hasn't. I haven't experienced it, but I also haven't tried it. I have no proof that it works, no proof that it doesn't. I choose to let people pray if they want, but I'd never force anyone to. I just don't understand why YOU care if someone else prays. You still haven't managed to explain that one.
I never said people can't pray if they want. Sure, they can. But they are wrong if they claim it works. The chances of prayer having any effect is no more than chance itself. This is easily demonstratable through any properly-conducted scientific test.
I see. I disagree with you, therefore I must be an ignorant simpleton. Wow. I bet you're a hit at parties. If you get invited to any. If you ever leave the musty basement of your parents' house.
No, your use of fallacias and inability for basic reasoning makes you an ignorant simpleton.
Who said it did? I never said anyone's belief was justified. I just said that they're free to have whatever belief they want, regardless of any belief of mine, and that negative evidence isn't evidence. I have no evidence that you live in your parents' musty basement, but I choose to believe it anyhow. I know it's unscientific, but I also don't need to justify my every thought by using science. If you do, good for you. Hope that works out for you.
Of course people are free to believe in anything they want. What people like you are unable to realize is that that doesn't provide epistemological justification for their belief. The fact that you believe in things without evidence makes you, sadly, irrational, although that is no suprise. Without evidence, you should recognize it as a possibility but also look at how likely it is and the nature of the claim. It's completely unlikely that I live in my "parents' musty basement", yet you choose to believe in it anyway... because you are irrational and stupid. If you have an "opinion" about anything making an objective statement about reality, it better have some proper epistemological backing-- or else, that means you're an idiot. And you are.
Some people believe that aliens have landed on earth, and if they want to, that's fine with me.
To me, the simplest explanation for the universe existing is one that doesn't involve hundreds of millions of random chances happening one right after the other, but instead that there was some sort of design involved. I don't posit what kind, by who, or how, because I don't have any evidence of it.
Again, you completely make-up and exaggerate things about how the universe came about to justify your dogmatic (yes, dogmatic) believe in creation. You are a deist, if I understand your belief correctly-- deism pretty much implies agnosticim by definition)
We don't know if there were random events that had to happen one after another. However, to postulate an ethereal intelligence that somehow works about physics we currently know about is absurd and a "violation" of Occam's razor.
So? Unlike you, I give people the freedom to believe whatever they want. Did I ever say that science and atheism were mutually exclusive? Of course not. So why did you feel the need to quote this statistic? To show that you're aligned with other people? Who cares?
I never said people can't belie
I never said he wasn't an extremely important person. He was, however, not a model scientist because he rejected theory outright despite the evidence. He made a big mistake, and that tarnished his record a little bit, although clearly his other observations are extremely important.
We must remember, however, that Einstein didn't do this all himself. He stood on the shoulders of giants, who stood on the shoulders of other giants. Yes, he is one of the largest "giants" himself, however.
Also, Einstein's spiritual beliefs are not necessarily echoed in "God does not play dice with the universe" statement. That is obviously a metaphorical one. Whether Einstein was an atheist or deist isn't really clear, and I don't really care.
Oh, and Einstein's discoveries were criticized because they challenged common notions and perceptions. That is common and in fact very acceptable-- science involves critique and repeated experimentation, and so far Einstein has won out.
Also, you say "proven" but that is not anywhere near true. "Supported by experimentation" would be a better thing to say. Isn't as strong, of course, but it's far more accurate. Einstein won out in the end because, apparently, he was mostly right.
Still, in my opinion, he shouldn't be a poster boy for all scientists, or even science itself, as he did do something scientists shouldn't do, which is cling to gut feeling despite the evidence. Imagine those who dogmatically disagreed with Galileo-- common perception of gravity and various other things were challenged by him-- others made the same mistake as Einstein and disagreed with him for reasons other than the evidence.
He's simply referring to IBM's past behaviors. In fact, he even eluded that IBM could be good now.
You know, not everyone comes to slashdot for just OS and linux news. It's "news for nerds", yes, but some people are more interested in parts other than the creation of linux.
Actually, I believe in the very, very early version of linux, before it was even distributed, Linus did use some Minix code.
My definition was just as good as your definition of atheism. *shrug*. There are other definitions of agnostic, but that's the one I subscribe to. The belief that God is unknown and possibly unknowable. That's right from the dictionary, whereas your definition of atheism as 'maybe so, maybe no' fits the second definition of agnosticism.
When discussing various things, you must agree to a definition so you are talking about the same thing. Agnosticism, as I said before, could be applied to atheists and theists. Or you could follow one definition, which is "no opinion either way".
I could be called an "agnostic atheist", that is, even though you can't "know" god with the numerous excuses theists throw out, I think it probably doesn't exist. That is, it is more likely than not that no deity exists. But surely I could be wrong. This is the scientific position-- if evidence of a deity's existence pops up, then we'll talk. But there is none.
You have no proof that you were lied to, you have only your belief. Nonexistence of evidence is not evidence of nonexistence. You also have had free will your entire life, and blaming others because of the choices you made is whiny and weak. Stay 'incensed', most people just get over it.
The fact that prayer has no outcome on reality seems adequate to call it a lie. I'm not claming absolute knowledge, but ignorant simpletons like you don't think in scientific terms. While absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absense, it does not justify a belief in something. Just because there is no evidence that aliens landed on earth doesn't make it a likely scenario, hence Occam's razor (and not by the way you mistakingly intepret it...
Yes, that's one difference between science and atheism. Scientists will occasionally admit the possibility that they don't know everything and could possibly be wrong.
Many scientists, if not most, are atheists, according to a study by Nature magazine. I don't know why you're constantly attributing strawman arguments to atheism-- I never said I can't be wrong, in fact, I've stated the opposite. You ignore this in order to defend your dogmatic belief in creation. Science never claims absolute knowledge, but only how likely things are to be true. Evolution and heliocentric theory are damn likely. The existence of a deity isn't-- it is unfounded, and there isn't even a reason to postulate it.
Yep. I am aware of it. I take it as simpler and thus more likely that some type of design was involved in our universe than matter created itself and resolved itself into a giant conglomeration of perfectly aligned rules. That's just my opinion, and again I'm not saying I'm sure I'm right. It does seem simpler, though, and that's what Occam's Razor is all about.
You don't even know what Occam's razor is. Do a little research, geez, I'm sick of dealing with undereductated, unintelligent pseudophilosophers like you. Occam's razor is "simplicity" meaning "least unaccounted-for variables", to put it plainly. Would you care to explain to us how god works? You say you can't, and that's perfectly fine, then god is unknowable and belief in one is instantly unwarrented. Not to mention you again make a strawman about the beginning of the universe, and play the "take any explanation" game when a better answer is "we don't yet know".
I don't need to prove man evolved from anything. It's not neccessary for my worldview. I don't need to disprove it, either. It just doesn't matter that much to me where we came from; we're here now. How we got here isn't that important to me. That's why I don't subscribe to any religion, and why I don't care about the evolution debate.
You can't prove man evolved or not. You cannot prove anything. You can only show things to be more or less likely to be true, via induction. Observation has shown us man has evolved from a common ancestor with other primates. It is, however, not anywhere near proved, to spe
Opinion implies the statement in question has no true or false dichotomy. The statement does indeed have a "true or false" answer. It's a belief. Not really an opnion.
Then why do so many atheists feel compelled to tell religious people they're wrong all the time? Really, atheism is specifically a disbelief. Agnosticism is the belief that something is out there, but no one knows what. It can also include people who feel there is a higher power but don't choose to quantify it, or don't think they're capable of doing so.
/. and then forgetting about it. Of course, if there *is* a God, then praying could help. Your statement that it does absolutely nothing contradicts your previous statement that atheists don't claim to know for sure. "[Prayer] does absolutely nothing but waste time" isn't an ambiguous statement.
You don't need absolute proof to declare something present or not present. I don't have absolute proof that there isn't a "dragon in my garage", and that doesn't stop me from not believing in one. It's simply unrealistic for
Agnosticism is not the belief that "something is out there". Perhaps you should look up your terms before spouting nonsense. That is closest to deism, not agnosticim.
It doesn't waste *your* time. I seriously doubt there is anything the OP could actively do to help the article poster. Praying is no worse in this situation than simply reading about it on
It doesn't waste my time? No, not now, but it once did, and I'm still incensed at being lied to. Also, again, one does not need absolute knowledge to declare something is true or false. Science never advertises absolute knowledge, yet it has showed us many things which we accept to be facts simply because they are demonstratable. The world secretly being run by aliens, for example, is a spurious claim, and people will deny it because it's ridiculous. I'm sure you know of the Occam's razor principle? It's possible that prayer works, but with the knowledge I have it's highly unlikely. I'm simply making a statement involving perceived probabilities, like the rest of science.
You can't disprove man didn't really evolve from clams, but that won't stop people from saying it's not true. There are better explanations out there.
If your doctor says 'I'm praying for you instead of administering medicine," that's totally different. However, if that's the kind of doctor you want to go to, it's your life and your health. You have the option of accepting that or going to a different doctor. That's the beauty of choice.
But that doctor shouldn't be allowed to claim success unless scientifically shown to be true.
Nice way to purposefully be dense, but he's clearly referring to when medicine (and the science behind it) and religion mix.
Really? God has helped you? You have any sort of demonstratable evidence, some indication that is beyond chance and unexpected events, besides your "gut feeling" and "dogmatic passion"? No?
Argument from common belief, anyone? These type of people are certainly reliant on fallacies.
Oops.
Prayer isn't really a form of medicine, it's asking a deity to do something for you.
Trying telling most people that prayer is merely a synonym for meditation and you'd be laughed at. Don't redefine terms to fit your biases and needs, and expect me to follow them.
(Many) Atheists don't claim to know the answer for sure. Semantic quibbling aside, most atheists don't believe in/disbelieve in god the same way you don't believe in/disbelieve in bigfoot. Sure, it could exist, but there's either no definite way to know and it's rather unlikely given the nature of the claim. Agnosticism isn't necessarily a middle ground between atheism and theism-- one could be agnostic and be the other.
And why does praying hurt? It wastes time. It does absolutely nothing but waste time. If you want to feel good about doing something for an ill person, work for them, not being lazy and pretending you're doing something when you're really not.
Good thing not everyone turned to prayer. Scientists have actually researched schizophrenia and have come up with many medications to help people live with this horrible mental disorder.
Progress comes with hands working, not hands praying.