How is tracking information which is in the public domain an abrogation of civil rights?
Next thing you'll be telling me is that it's wrong for cops to pay a visit to those retards who post pictures of themselves on facebook, posing beside a pound bag of weed. If you're stupid enough to implicate yourself, there's absolutely nothing that says the authorities can't take advantage of it.
I was talking about lists that were published "at the time" which is relevant, because you are telling us that lists without Arab names supported your immediate belief that it was Bin Laden.
Ah yes, you publishing the wrong lists proves conclusively that we couldn't possibly have known who did it! Thank you for that extremely rational and intelligent presentation. I'll bet you've got a PhD in BS or some such.
I am aware that the BBC has since backtracked.
Funny, your comment sure seemed to be conveying the complete opposite.
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them irrational.
Absolutely right! On the other hand, insisting that the hijackers weren't on the flight manifests and that some of them are still alive - THAT makes you irrational.
It's the man who resorts to insults who has run out of ideas.
It's the man who resorts to insults who has run out of patience after repeating himself for the billionth fucking time because loony assholes insist on repeating the same fucking lies over and over without respite. With that said, STFU and go play with your truther buddies. I've had enough of your bullshit.
I see that you're a "truther". I'm sorry to hear that. I was rather hoping for a rational exchange.
CNN didn't publish the manifests, it published a victims list, which is a fact that 9/11 "researchers" continue to get wrong, even after being corrected hundreds of times. Are you so dense that you can't understand that a "victims list" would not include the murderers who carried out the attacks? Or did you just not bother to read (and think about) the material which you're quoting?
The guy who turned up alive and well certainly SHOULD have been alive and well, since he was a completely different person than the Waleed Al Shehri who was on board the aircraft. Apparently, 9/11 "truthers" don't understand that there are many people in the world who share the same name.
The fact that people like you keep repeating these lies for YEARS after they've been conclusively disproven is just... well, it's pathetic. It's like you've been living in a cave for the last 7 years. I really don't understand how you can brainwash yourself in this manner, and then have the gall to accuse me of not being rational.
Ok, fine, it was lazy of me not to post a link, but come on! Just because something's not sourced doesn't mean it's not true. If you had the time to post a sarcastic comment, you certainly had the time to plug a few words into google.
My apologies - "fairly sure" would be a more accurate description of my mindset at the time. As to what basis, check here. I admit that my knowledge about the middle east and terrorism at the time was rather limited, so my assessment was based mainly on what I had heard from other, better informed individuals.
It's safe to say that nobody was "certain" until a couple days later when the flight manifests had been checked and the background of the perpetrators had been made public, but it's also fair to say that not many in the military and intelligence agencies were surprised by the confirmation.
Funny, I was positive it was Bush within the same time frame.
Yes, well, if you had taken your meds like the nice lady said, you wouldn't have had that problem...
Or maybe you're just being a little hard parent poster. He has a valid point. There was NO evidence at the time to suggest who the perpetrators were, but by sunrise on 9/12 everybody seemed to KNOW it was Bin Laden.
When I was still a fairly young soldier back in 2000, my RSM at the time said something like:
"Pay close attention to your training gentlemen, because - mark my words - within the next few years we're going to see a terrorist attack on the US carried out by Bin Laden, and then we'll be going to war alongside them"
At the time I thought he was a bit of a weirdo, but then again I was young, a bit naive, and quite unaware of middle-east history and politics.
He was, of course, basing his prediction on Bin Laden's previous proclamations, and his attacks on various US facilities that had occurred up to that point - especially the attack on the USS Cole which had occurred only a few weeks prior.
So yeah, when the planes hit a year later, my first thought was "Holy fuck, the bastard was right". My second thought was "Shit. We're going to war". There might have been no immediate evidence to suggest who was responsible, but anyone who had been paying attention to the middle-east knew immediately who the most likely culprits were. When someone keeps saying "I'm going to burn your house down", and repeatedly starts small fires on your lawn, it's pretty easy to figure out who's responsible when you come home one day to find it engulfed in flames.
I think that's a little fishy, or at the very least indicative of the gullibility of the American people and the power of the suggestive media.
That's nice. I hear the same complaint from the weirdos who insist that the US never landed on the moon. I don't particularly care what you find fishy - if you really cared about the truth, you'd do a bit of research instead of simply repeating a bunch of ludicrous accusations.
No if you ever been to Turkey or met its people, you would know that the country is FAR to western and enjoying what that bring to ever go in support of extremists muslims.
In a recent survey, Turks were split about evenly (40%) on whether it was Al Qaeda that attacked the US, or whether the US attacked itself. A further 5% blamed Israel.
They may be far more western than other middle-east nations, but that apparently doesn't mean much in this case.
"+5 Interesting"? Well, yes, I suppose that derangement and conspiracy theories are "interesting" to an extent, but come on...
First, this is nothing new. Bin Laden has always denied involvement.
No, Bin Laden has admitted multiple times to being responsible for the attacks, including in 2004 - right before the presidential election - while attempting to ridicule Bush and sway the US public to vote against him. He again admitted to it in 2006 in an audio broadcast on Al Jazeera, as verified by the Times of India.
Try to keep up with the news, will ya?
The only time he acknowledged being responsible, was in some supposed sham video that was "found" in Afghanistan, and claimed by the CIA as some sort of smoking gun proving he did it.
Actually he didn't admit anything in the tape - the tape was a recording of a conversation he had with Khaled al-Harbi, in which his statements seem to indicate foreknowledge of the attacks. He didn't actually make a public admission until 2004.
As for the video being a sham... lemme guess, you're put off by the fact that he looks fat and wears a gold ring, huh? Do you get ALL your opinions from "truther" websites?
He is after all a crazy bastard who thinks it's perfectly ok to murder people because of the country they were born in.
There's nothing crazy about him - he's a perfectly sane individual who just happens to think he's on a crusade from God. Human history is full of people like him.
So another arrogant American who has never lived in India and is completely snug in his own perfection looks down on India as a bunch or backwards animals.
How you haven't gotten modded "flamebait" yet is beyond me. In your world I guess it's ok to be bigoted towards Americans, but not ok to point out the human rights abuses which regularly occur in other nations. You're a real special kinda guy, aintcha?
Maybe you're happy turning a blind eye on honour killings, oppression of women, and class discrimination, but the rest of us generally frown on it. If you want to be in an environment where people only pick on the US while justifying any atrocities which occur elsewhere, I think the "democratic underground" forums might be more your cup of tea.
The thing I find strangest is that news reports that were covering the attacks started suggesting Osama bin Laden as a possible perpetrator of the attacks within hours of the event.
Buddy, I was positive it was Osama within seconds of the second plane hitting. Just because you were ignorant of world politics at the time doesn't mean the rest of us were.
The question is why has evolution selected for people that believe in a mystical being? It must have survival advantages that most people at slashdot are unaware of.
Not really - evolution only selects against harmful mutations and for positive one. It is entirely possible for a mutation to propagate through a population, which is not harmful but also not beneficial. It happens all the time.
More importantly, we have no reason to believe that evolution acts on thought processes and beliefs the same way it does on genes.
Personally I think that religious belief DOES have certain positive effects for the propagation of genetic material, especially in extremist religions. For instance, Islam encourages cousin-marriage, which is guaranteed to pass on genetic code which will be more similar to both parents than, say, when a white male marries a black female. Also, ALL religions encourage excessive procreation, so more offspring are going to survive to pass on the genetic code. However, belief in any particular religion is NOT genetic, so there's no reason why propagation of a particular set of genes should result in the propagation of a particular religion. Rather, it's the fanaticism and indoctrination of children which primarily determine how quickly a religion can spread, although other factors certainly play a role.
If you meant to say that religious belief of ANY kind is beneficial to human survival, that's certainly a possibility. But that doesn't explain why so many people look to organized religion as a guide. And it's organized religion which is the real problem. People who are Deists - who believe in a God but not in organized religion - generally have no problem accepting evolutionary theory as a fact. It's the fundamentalists who insist on the biblical (or Quaranic) interpretation of the universe, and discard all contrary evidence.
I've been reading the literature on this and they think it is an artifact of being able to realize that one is going to die i.e. cognitive sophistication. Thereby the mind builds a buffer against despair, depression and hopelessness.
Yes, that's one popular theory, and one in which I see a lot of merit. People need SOMETHING to believe in, and in the absence of fact they invent their own goals, explanations, and justifications. We also like to anthropomorphise - to ascribe human motives to inanimate objects and natural events. That's probably the misfiring of a beneficial evolutionary trait - the ability to guess what other people are thinking or feeling.
Lastly, your entire argument assumes naturalism the philosophy which was conceived by men is correct for the how and why the universe exists, and that we even know what the universe is.
No, it's based on the idea that observation and rational thought are the best instruments we have for analyzing the world around us. That, if we are EVER going to figure out what the universe is and how it came to be, we are going to do so by using objective analysis, and not by listening to the subjective feelings of some Italian guy in a funny hat.
Let me put it this way:
Let's assume that science is wrong about evolution. Even if we accept that as a given, there is still ZERO reason to believe that religion is right. If the rational, evidence based conclusions of hundreds of thousands of highly educated people all turn out to have been wrong, how would it be logical to conclude that the religious preaching of some stone-age simpletons must then be right?
If we ever disprove evolution, it's going to be through the gathering of more data and the analysis of that data in a logical manner. The best approach we have to finding truths is the scientific method because it relies on physical observation, falsifiable hypothesis, and the predictive ability of those hypothesis. Meanwhile religion relies solely on feelings, guesses, and the institutional unquestion
Reiss says that he wants kids to be taught about creationism, not that he wants them to be taught creationism. But then, this is/., so nobody reads the RA
Actually I did read the FA, and I even made a comment earlier to the effect that I think the reaction was massively overblown, and that he doesn't deserve to be fired. You may have noticed that my comment was in response to another individual, and not to Rev. Reiss himself.
But then, this is/., so nobody reads the RA and everybody assumes that anybody with "Revd." in front of their name is automatically wrong about everything -- and then have the chutzpah to complain about a lack of critical thinking!
You were sounding pretty good until you decided to descend into stupid generalizations and shrill whining.
Anyone with a "Revd" in front of his name is automatically disqualified as a rational person. Now, on an individual basis, they may turn out to be quite personable, very intelligent, and highly knowledgeable about all sorts of things. But they're still not rational, and, if they truly are intelligent, they'll admit as much to you if you ask them about it.
And my conclusion is just that there is no way to know beyond the shadow of a doubt. The only thing I know for a fact is that the earth exists, and I'm just going to go forward from there.
There is no way to know anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. How do you know the earth exists? How do you know you're not just floating in limbo, dreaming up your own reality?
Your statement is essentially a caricature of the Socratic argument - "all I know is that I know nothing". That's simply not a tenable position. Yes, it's good to keep an open mind and to judge every argument on it's merits rather than on how it compares to your preconceived notions, but at some point you need to form an opinion.
The best method we have for analyzing the world around us is the scientific method. Why? Primarily because the scientific method acknowledges that we all have inherent human weaknesses, and it provides a framework which minimizes the impact of those weaknesses. Science isn't dogmatic, and it isn't authoritarian - two problems which have traditionally been a massive crutch for religious "knowledge" and other methods of inquiry. It allows for free inquiry, and encourages not only new discovery but also the easy overturning of old ideas.
One good way to point out the practical differences of the approaches is this:
Disagreeing with religion is considered heresy, and is often punishable by death.
Disagreeing with scientific hypothesis is considered an everyday event, and disproving them is the greatest accomplishment which a scientist can make.
We didn't honour Einstein because he went along with what everyone else was saying - we honoured him because he showed that Newtonian physics aren't an accurate model of how the universe works, and he gave us a better way to explain it. Meanwhile the Church wanted to burn Galileo at the stake for daring to suggest that the earth might spin around the sun, instead of the other way around.
Can you truly say that you do not see the difference?
We also don't have absolute proof that "god" even exists, let alone the idea that she created the universe and all life in it. Moreover, there's no chance that we'll ever gather evidence to support that idea, since the proposition is untestable. Saying "god did it" doesn't answer anything. It doesn't let us make new predictions, it doesn't give us a better understanding of the interconnectedness of the earths species, and it doesn't allow for further research. Saying "a miracle occurs" is the END of the discussion for religion, while it's the begging of the discussion for science. THAT is why creationism has no place in science.
they forget that both sides have supposed scientific evidence to support their idea
Except they don't. There is not one iota of scientific evidence which would suggest that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that life arose and evolved through supernatural means. None. Period, end of sentence.
This is exactly why I don't pick a side.
You seem to think that indecisiveness is a virtue. I suggest you get that notion out of your head. There's nothing noble about declining to commit - especially when the supporting data on the subject is easily accessible by everyone.
Punishing people for their suggestions, opinions or comments seems a little draconian.
It's not a question of punishment. The problem here is that this individual occupies an extremely important position in a major scientific organization. It'd be akin to the head of PETA saying "You know, I see nothing wrong with torturing puppies and then eating them for breakfast". Sure, he's entitled to speak freely, but we're also entitled to question his qualification to hold that position.
With that said, it seems his actual statement may have been misrepresented. Based on his correction, I certainly wouldn't be in favor of firing him. It seems that the whole uproar might have been a wee bit of an overreaction.
I think the thing gp was describing was that alchemy wasn't taught as chemistry in chemistry class. It was taught as "here's what people though, and here's why we know it's wrong".
I would love to have this same level of discourse in biology classes with respect to creationism, but for one thing. Saying creationism is not scientific and not factually based will be construed by too many as an attack on their religion and you end up in a real mess.
Exactly - the reason we can teach about alchemy in chemistry class is because nobody takes alchemy seriously any more. Similarly, you can teach about pre-Galilean follies because nobody will take offense to it or try to argue that the sun spins around the earth.
Unfortunately, way too many people still cling to the idea that our world and all the species on it were created by some mystical being. So how exactly do teach the follies of creationism, when half your class still believes in it? It's not so much a question of education, as de-programming.
What ever happened to letting the facts prove themselves?
Sure, why not. While we're at it, let's teach Holocaust denial in History class, and Ebonics in English lit. Also, we'll make sure to cover Alchemy in chemistry class, and our Geography teachers MUST give equal time to the idea that the world is flat!
I mean seriously, how DARE you people use logic and critical thinking when deciding what should be taught in school? Clearly we should teach every fantasy that's ever popped into anyones head - only that way can we ensure that nobodies feelings are hurt, and that all ideas get a fair hearing!
I agree. Agnosticism [merriam-webster.com] fits this perfectly.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Just read the dictionary definition which you yourself provided:
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
By that definition, any reasonable person would have to be agnostic about the question since there is no definite answer either way. However, saying you're agnostic doesn't answer the question of whether or not you believe that there is a god.
If I ask you whether you believe that unicorns exist, you could likewise answer that you're agnostic. There is no evidence for their existence, but there is also no way to prove 100% conclusively that they do not exist. However, nobody would ever claim to be agnostic about unicorns - such a statement would be met with derision. You can keep an open mind and be willing to examine new data, but you still need to pick a position based on the data currently available. Otherwise, what you're really saying is that you're too lazy to put any thought into the matter, and would rather change the topic.
Claiming to be agnostic about god is likewise laughable. Sure, you can say you're agnostic in the sense that you're not sure, but you still need to answer the question of what your opinion is. Therefore you can be an agnostic theist, an agnostic deist, or an agnostic atheist, but you can not be purely agnostic. It's simply not a tenable position.
That happens when you replace religion with an oppressive pseudo-religious personality cult, like in North Korea. Then you end up with everyone trying to stop the government from raping them, by screwing everyone else.
... yeah, you're right, maybe that's stretching the analogy a bit thin:)
No one ever believes with complete certainty that something is true.
Apparently you've never talked to any religious fanatics. Or conspiracy theorists. Or communists:)
If you want to say that makes everyone agnostic, go ahead. It doesn't mean anything if it applies to everyone.
It makes rational people agnostic, but you're right, it doesn't really mean anything. It certainly doesn't define a system of belief, or even an opinion on a particular topic. When people identify themselves as being "agnostic", they're not really telling you anything about their belief in god, they're just saying "I'd rather not answer that question".
Slashdot Mirror
I could post my own opinion here, but I think The Panda's Thumb does a much better job of covering this fiasco.
How is tracking information which is in the public domain an abrogation of civil rights?
Next thing you'll be telling me is that it's wrong for cops to pay a visit to those retards who post pictures of themselves on facebook, posing beside a pound bag of weed. If you're stupid enough to implicate yourself, there's absolutely nothing that says the authorities can't take advantage of it.
Ah yes, you publishing the wrong lists proves conclusively that we couldn't possibly have known who did it! Thank you for that extremely rational and intelligent presentation. I'll bet you've got a PhD in BS or some such.
Funny, your comment sure seemed to be conveying the complete opposite.
Absolutely right! On the other hand, insisting that the hijackers weren't on the flight manifests and that some of them are still alive - THAT makes you irrational.
It's the man who resorts to insults who has run out of patience after repeating himself for the billionth fucking time because loony assholes insist on repeating the same fucking lies over and over without respite. With that said, STFU and go play with your truther buddies. I've had enough of your bullshit.
*sigh*
I see that you're a "truther". I'm sorry to hear that. I was rather hoping for a rational exchange.
CNN didn't publish the manifests, it published a victims list, which is a fact that 9/11 "researchers" continue to get wrong, even after being corrected hundreds of times. Are you so dense that you can't understand that a "victims list" would not include the murderers who carried out the attacks? Or did you just not bother to read (and think about) the material which you're quoting?
The guy who turned up alive and well certainly SHOULD have been alive and well, since he was a completely different person than the Waleed Al Shehri who was on board the aircraft. Apparently, 9/11 "truthers" don't understand that there are many people in the world who share the same name.
The fact that people like you keep repeating these lies for YEARS after they've been conclusively disproven is just ... well, it's pathetic. It's like you've been living in a cave for the last 7 years. I really don't understand how you can brainwash yourself in this manner, and then have the gall to accuse me of not being rational.
Surveys also show that Google is your friend.
Lazy bastard :)
Ok, fine, it was lazy of me not to post a link, but come on! Just because something's not sourced doesn't mean it's not true. If you had the time to post a sarcastic comment, you certainly had the time to plug a few words into google.
My apologies - "fairly sure" would be a more accurate description of my mindset at the time. As to what basis, check here. I admit that my knowledge about the middle east and terrorism at the time was rather limited, so my assessment was based mainly on what I had heard from other, better informed individuals.
It's safe to say that nobody was "certain" until a couple days later when the flight manifests had been checked and the background of the perpetrators had been made public, but it's also fair to say that not many in the military and intelligence agencies were surprised by the confirmation.
Yes, well, if you had taken your meds like the nice lady said, you wouldn't have had that problem ...
When I was still a fairly young soldier back in 2000, my RSM at the time said something like:
"Pay close attention to your training gentlemen, because - mark my words - within the next few years we're going to see a terrorist attack on the US carried out by Bin Laden, and then we'll be going to war alongside them"
At the time I thought he was a bit of a weirdo, but then again I was young, a bit naive, and quite unaware of middle-east history and politics.
He was, of course, basing his prediction on Bin Laden's previous proclamations, and his attacks on various US facilities that had occurred up to that point - especially the attack on the USS Cole which had occurred only a few weeks prior.
So yeah, when the planes hit a year later, my first thought was "Holy fuck, the bastard was right". My second thought was "Shit. We're going to war". There might have been no immediate evidence to suggest who was responsible, but anyone who had been paying attention to the middle-east knew immediately who the most likely culprits were. When someone keeps saying "I'm going to burn your house down", and repeatedly starts small fires on your lawn, it's pretty easy to figure out who's responsible when you come home one day to find it engulfed in flames.
That's nice. I hear the same complaint from the weirdos who insist that the US never landed on the moon. I don't particularly care what you find fishy - if you really cared about the truth, you'd do a bit of research instead of simply repeating a bunch of ludicrous accusations.
In a recent survey, Turks were split about evenly (40%) on whether it was Al Qaeda that attacked the US, or whether the US attacked itself. A further 5% blamed Israel.
They may be far more western than other middle-east nations, but that apparently doesn't mean much in this case.
Don't be so surprised. There's plenty of idiots who believe exactly that.
"+5 Interesting"? Well, yes, I suppose that derangement and conspiracy theories are "interesting" to an extent, but come on ...
No, Bin Laden has admitted multiple times to being responsible for the attacks, including in 2004 - right before the presidential election - while attempting to ridicule Bush and sway the US public to vote against him. He again admitted to it in 2006 in an audio broadcast on Al Jazeera, as verified by the Times of India.
Try to keep up with the news, will ya?
Actually he didn't admit anything in the tape - the tape was a recording of a conversation he had with Khaled al-Harbi, in which his statements seem to indicate foreknowledge of the attacks. He didn't actually make a public admission until 2004.
As for the video being a sham ... lemme guess, you're put off by the fact that he looks fat and wears a gold ring, huh? Do you get ALL your opinions from "truther" websites?
There's nothing crazy about him - he's a perfectly sane individual who just happens to think he's on a crusade from God. Human history is full of people like him.
How you haven't gotten modded "flamebait" yet is beyond me. In your world I guess it's ok to be bigoted towards Americans, but not ok to point out the human rights abuses which regularly occur in other nations. You're a real special kinda guy, aintcha?
Maybe you're happy turning a blind eye on honour killings, oppression of women, and class discrimination, but the rest of us generally frown on it. If you want to be in an environment where people only pick on the US while justifying any atrocities which occur elsewhere, I think the "democratic underground" forums might be more your cup of tea.
Buddy, I was positive it was Osama within seconds of the second plane hitting. Just because you were ignorant of world politics at the time doesn't mean the rest of us were.
Not really - evolution only selects against harmful mutations and for positive one. It is entirely possible for a mutation to propagate through a population, which is not harmful but also not beneficial. It happens all the time.
More importantly, we have no reason to believe that evolution acts on thought processes and beliefs the same way it does on genes.
Personally I think that religious belief DOES have certain positive effects for the propagation of genetic material, especially in extremist religions. For instance, Islam encourages cousin-marriage, which is guaranteed to pass on genetic code which will be more similar to both parents than, say, when a white male marries a black female. Also, ALL religions encourage excessive procreation, so more offspring are going to survive to pass on the genetic code. However, belief in any particular religion is NOT genetic, so there's no reason why propagation of a particular set of genes should result in the propagation of a particular religion. Rather, it's the fanaticism and indoctrination of children which primarily determine how quickly a religion can spread, although other factors certainly play a role.
If you meant to say that religious belief of ANY kind is beneficial to human survival, that's certainly a possibility. But that doesn't explain why so many people look to organized religion as a guide. And it's organized religion which is the real problem. People who are Deists - who believe in a God but not in organized religion - generally have no problem accepting evolutionary theory as a fact. It's the fundamentalists who insist on the biblical (or Quaranic) interpretation of the universe, and discard all contrary evidence.
Yes, that's one popular theory, and one in which I see a lot of merit. People need SOMETHING to believe in, and in the absence of fact they invent their own goals, explanations, and justifications. We also like to anthropomorphise - to ascribe human motives to inanimate objects and natural events. That's probably the misfiring of a beneficial evolutionary trait - the ability to guess what other people are thinking or feeling.
No, it's based on the idea that observation and rational thought are the best instruments we have for analyzing the world around us. That, if we are EVER going to figure out what the universe is and how it came to be, we are going to do so by using objective analysis, and not by listening to the subjective feelings of some Italian guy in a funny hat.
Let me put it this way:
Let's assume that science is wrong about evolution. Even if we accept that as a given, there is still ZERO reason to believe that religion is right. If the rational, evidence based conclusions of hundreds of thousands of highly educated people all turn out to have been wrong, how would it be logical to conclude that the religious preaching of some stone-age simpletons must then be right?
If we ever disprove evolution, it's going to be through the gathering of more data and the analysis of that data in a logical manner. The best approach we have to finding truths is the scientific method because it relies on physical observation, falsifiable hypothesis, and the predictive ability of those hypothesis. Meanwhile religion relies solely on feelings, guesses, and the institutional unquestion
Actually I did read the FA, and I even made a comment earlier to the effect that I think the reaction was massively overblown, and that he doesn't deserve to be fired. You may have noticed that my comment was in response to another individual, and not to Rev. Reiss himself.
You were sounding pretty good until you decided to descend into stupid generalizations and shrill whining.
Anyone with a "Revd" in front of his name is automatically disqualified as a rational person. Now, on an individual basis, they may turn out to be quite personable, very intelligent, and highly knowledgeable about all sorts of things. But they're still not rational, and, if they truly are intelligent, they'll admit as much to you if you ask them about it.
There is no way to know anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. How do you know the earth exists? How do you know you're not just floating in limbo, dreaming up your own reality?
Your statement is essentially a caricature of the Socratic argument - "all I know is that I know nothing". That's simply not a tenable position. Yes, it's good to keep an open mind and to judge every argument on it's merits rather than on how it compares to your preconceived notions, but at some point you need to form an opinion.
The best method we have for analyzing the world around us is the scientific method. Why? Primarily because the scientific method acknowledges that we all have inherent human weaknesses, and it provides a framework which minimizes the impact of those weaknesses. Science isn't dogmatic, and it isn't authoritarian - two problems which have traditionally been a massive crutch for religious "knowledge" and other methods of inquiry. It allows for free inquiry, and encourages not only new discovery but also the easy overturning of old ideas.
One good way to point out the practical differences of the approaches is this:
Disagreeing with religion is considered heresy, and is often punishable by death.
Disagreeing with scientific hypothesis is considered an everyday event, and disproving them is the greatest accomplishment which a scientist can make.
We didn't honour Einstein because he went along with what everyone else was saying - we honoured him because he showed that Newtonian physics aren't an accurate model of how the universe works, and he gave us a better way to explain it. Meanwhile the Church wanted to burn Galileo at the stake for daring to suggest that the earth might spin around the sun, instead of the other way around.
Can you truly say that you do not see the difference?
We also don't have absolute proof that "god" even exists, let alone the idea that she created the universe and all life in it. Moreover, there's no chance that we'll ever gather evidence to support that idea, since the proposition is untestable. Saying "god did it" doesn't answer anything. It doesn't let us make new predictions, it doesn't give us a better understanding of the interconnectedness of the earths species, and it doesn't allow for further research. Saying "a miracle occurs" is the END of the discussion for religion, while it's the begging of the discussion for science. THAT is why creationism has no place in science.
Except they don't. There is not one iota of scientific evidence which would suggest that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that life arose and evolved through supernatural means. None. Period, end of sentence.
You seem to think that indecisiveness is a virtue. I suggest you get that notion out of your head. There's nothing noble about declining to commit - especially when the supporting data on the subject is easily accessible by everyone.
It's not a question of punishment. The problem here is that this individual occupies an extremely important position in a major scientific organization. It'd be akin to the head of PETA saying "You know, I see nothing wrong with torturing puppies and then eating them for breakfast". Sure, he's entitled to speak freely, but we're also entitled to question his qualification to hold that position.
With that said, it seems his actual statement may have been misrepresented. Based on his correction, I certainly wouldn't be in favor of firing him. It seems that the whole uproar might have been a wee bit of an overreaction.
Exactly - the reason we can teach about alchemy in chemistry class is because nobody takes alchemy seriously any more. Similarly, you can teach about pre-Galilean follies because nobody will take offense to it or try to argue that the sun spins around the earth.
Unfortunately, way too many people still cling to the idea that our world and all the species on it were created by some mystical being. So how exactly do teach the follies of creationism, when half your class still believes in it? It's not so much a question of education, as de-programming.
lol
Apparently you haven't read much about the UK school system.
Wow. Nice list of credible websites! How could ANYONE not be convinced by that!
</sarcasm>
Sure, why not. While we're at it, let's teach Holocaust denial in History class, and Ebonics in English lit. Also, we'll make sure to cover Alchemy in chemistry class, and our Geography teachers MUST give equal time to the idea that the world is flat!
I mean seriously, how DARE you people use logic and critical thinking when deciding what should be taught in school? Clearly we should teach every fantasy that's ever popped into anyones head - only that way can we ensure that nobodies feelings are hurt, and that all ideas get a fair hearing!
Sorry, but you're wrong. Just read the dictionary definition which you yourself provided:
By that definition, any reasonable person would have to be agnostic about the question since there is no definite answer either way. However, saying you're agnostic doesn't answer the question of whether or not you believe that there is a god.
If I ask you whether you believe that unicorns exist, you could likewise answer that you're agnostic. There is no evidence for their existence, but there is also no way to prove 100% conclusively that they do not exist. However, nobody would ever claim to be agnostic about unicorns - such a statement would be met with derision. You can keep an open mind and be willing to examine new data, but you still need to pick a position based on the data currently available. Otherwise, what you're really saying is that you're too lazy to put any thought into the matter, and would rather change the topic.
Claiming to be agnostic about god is likewise laughable. Sure, you can say you're agnostic in the sense that you're not sure, but you still need to answer the question of what your opinion is. Therefore you can be an agnostic theist, an agnostic deist, or an agnostic atheist, but you can not be purely agnostic. It's simply not a tenable position.
That happens when you replace religion with an oppressive pseudo-religious personality cult, like in North Korea. Then you end up with everyone trying to stop the government from raping them, by screwing everyone else.
Apparently you've never talked to any religious fanatics. Or conspiracy theorists. Or communists :)
It makes rational people agnostic, but you're right, it doesn't really mean anything. It certainly doesn't define a system of belief, or even an opinion on a particular topic. When people identify themselves as being "agnostic", they're not really telling you anything about their belief in god, they're just saying "I'd rather not answer that question".