patrick.net

marcus says

I only hope for Dan's sake, that the sniveling and dishonest little prick that Dan portrays himself as in this forum isn't who he is in real life.

I have no motivation to lie on this site as there is nothing to be gained by lying. Furthermore, the philosophies and political positions I advocate are entirely dependent upon complete transparency, which is utterly incompatible with deception. Perhaps this is why Marcus cannot give a single example of me lying on this site even though he accuses me of doing so.

However, there are times when lying is the moral thing to do. For example, when you are hiding Ann Frank in the attic. It's also acceptable to lie in negotiations that are ridiculously one sided. If an employer demands a salary history, but isn't willing to reveal the salaries of its employees, then it is perfectly acceptable to lie about your salary history to negotiate a better salary. No employer will pay you more than you make for the company, but most will pay you as little as they think they can get away with even if it's less than a tenth of what you bring to the company. So deception is perfectly moral way to offset the injustice of the power imbalance when dealing with an opposing party who holds most of the cards and most of the data.

Lying is exactly what undercover cops do to bust criminals including human traffickers and child molesters. I have no moral qualms with such lies either.

By the same token, I would have approved of Japanese Americans lying about their ancestry during WWII to avoid being taken to concentration camps and being deprived of their property.

However, lies in power structures including both religions and government are not acceptable. Lies told by the powerful to suppress the weak are evil. Lies told by the weak to prevent them from being harmed by the powerful (or by the powerful to protect the weak from criminals as in the case with the undercover cops lying to criminals) are moral.

What makes Marcus's accusations so laughable, is that I'm honest enough to talk about the merits of lying, which is something few other people are willing to do. I'd even go as far as to say that because in some situations lying is necessary, it should be taught at schools. It certainly is taught to politicians, so why shouldn't the common man be able to protect himself from being harmed by malevolent people by using lies?

Marcus demonstrates his utter hypocrisy once more by falsely accusing me of being a pathological liar. Is this guy really a teacher? No wonder our educational system is the worst in the industrialized world.

It's also noteworthy that Marcus accuses the one and only person, save Patrick, on this forum who uses an actual picture of himself as his portrait, of being someone who fakes a persona on this site. Now that's some crazy batshit.

marcus says

Nice touch with the "exquisite detail." That's classic Dan right there.

Wow, this is the first time an alleged teacher has complained that my English is too well spoken. Do you need me to use simpler sentences and smaller words?

marcus says

That's a convenient way out. I guess that would mean that all monks and mystics and people like the Dali Lama aren't qualified to talk about spiritual matters.

How can one be qualified to talk about bullshit? Spirituality does not exist. The supernatural and souls do not exist. The whole game is a scam and all the monks and mystics are no different from the astrologers and faith healers and money-grabbing evangelicals.

Oh, and by the way, I'm the one who called on the pope to justify the position that gay sex is immoral in my classic thread, Why the hell is gay sex immoral? I'd have no problem debating the Dali Lama or any other religious icon. Hell, I'd debate Jesus if his ass weren't dead. And given that Jesus was an Iron Age Middle Easterner, that would be a pretty easy debate over morality. He comes from a culture that enslaved people, treated women as property, and was highly xenophobic. I don't think it would be too hard for a modern person to take the moral high ground over him.

But hey, maybe Jesus did rise from the dead. How about it Jesus? Up for a friendly debate? I guess he doesn't read Patrick.net. But wait, isn't he suppose to be omniscient?

marcus says

Maybe they shouldn't even be entitled to their own beliefs and experiences if they can not explain them is a simple ways that Dan can relate to.

Oh, they have a right to their beliefs. Whether or not most of the religious leaders actually believe in that crap or are simply defrauding the people is another story.

More importantly, I have the right to disprove their false believes. After WWII American soldiers made the Emperor of Japan confess at gunpoint to his entire country that he was not a god. If American soldiers have the right to do that, then I have the right to use fact and reasoning to convince people to reject the lies of religion.

A person has the right to believe their Napoleon or even the president of the United States. However, the person does not necessarily have the right to act on that belief. Try entering the White House while claming to be the president. If you're not shot to death, you will be arrested.

Religious people have no right to force bad legislation upon anyone else. The bill to ban same-sex marriage in Arizona was entirely written by the religious for religious purposes. I have every right to rally against such stupidity.

Marcus, will you ever learn that I will always call you out on any Straw Man argument you make. The fact that you make such arguments and pretend they are mine shows how weak a position you have. In contrast, I always challenge the very core of any bad idea you present. And that is why I will always win. It's a lot more effective to shoot at your enemy's heart than to shoot at a straw man of your enemy you set up.

marcus says

Ironically, the only kind of person that would try to define god explicitly is the kind of person who sees everything in black and white, that is the kind of person that needs to have all of the answers.

Wow, two Straw Men in a single sentence!

First, I don't see things in black and white, but it is utterly disingenuous to say that all statements are at least partially true. For example, the statement George Washington rode a dinosaur across the Nile River to defeat the Japanese in the October Revolution is simply a false statement. It is not being fair, impartial, or open-minded to even entertain the possibility of this statement containing some truth.

A second example is the often used statement, The Holocaust never happened, which is quite popular among Middle Eastern Islamic dictators. These dictators don't want Israel to exist, but that country was created by European powers out of guilt for the Holocaust. By denying the Holocaust ever happened, the dictators hope to remove any possible sympathy their people or others might have for the Israelis.

Second, I have never claimed to have the answer to everything. However, I can claim knowledge of specific things including that the Standard Monotheist God does not exist. I can claim such knowledge from a priori reasoning.

I also study history, and in doing so am well aware of the standard operating behavior of religions. The fact that religions have caused so much death and destruction through history and up to and including today is an indisputable fact. Being someone who is interested in solving problems, I have studied the problems of religion and secular corruption in detail and have reached evidence-based conclusions. The fact that you do not like my conclusions or my ability to defend them does not make those conclusions any less valid.

Nor does it mean I claim to be an expert at everything. This is simply another of your lies to cover your utter incompetence at making an effective counter-argument. You practice the logical fallacy of the personal attack to an extreme. In contrast, I first show that your arguments are fundamentally flawed, and then I demonstrate why you are an idiot irrespective of your position. The fact is that you and I probably agree on most issues, but you're still a fucking moron and a childish prick.

marcus says

embarrassingly weak arguments

Whereas Marcus simply asserts that my arguments are weak, I demonstrate the flaws in his with counterexamples and counterevidence.

marcus says

Although, introspection and evaluation of his own thinking is not one of Dan's strengths.

Possibly the most ridiculous statement one could make about an INTJ.

marcus says

Dan knows, that he hasn't proven anything, and that he doesn't really know.

I stand corrected. This is the most ridiculous statement one could make about an INTJ.

I hold those who worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster with high regard.

"Cosmos" irritates the God-botherers

I take it you have examples of such even during the original Segan Era or todays version.... nada... not much to go on !

Peter P says

Dan8267 says

Atheists show respect to other cultures by holding our culture and theirs to the same standard of truth.

Just like communists respect human dignity by showing that everyone is equally worthless.

It shows a person far more respect to challenge his false beliefs than to patronize him. Honesty is a form of respect.

By the way, Jesus was the mother of all communists.

Peter P says

I hold those who worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster with high regard.

You do realize its sarcasm, right?

Dan8267 says

It shows a person far more respect to challenge his false beliefs than to patronize him. Honesty is a form of respect.

There is no such thing as a false belief, especially for something unknowable/undecidable. But then I am a subjectivist.

Dan8267 says

You do realize its sarcasm, right?

Most of my friends are agnostic atheists anyway. (Currently, I consider myself an agnostic monotheist/pantheist.) I love parodies.

I have a beef with orthodox Pastafarians though, because I am not a fan of meatballs. Also, I prefer ninjas over pirates.

Peter P says

Dan8267 says

It shows a person far more respect to challenge his false beliefs than to patronize him. Honesty is a form of respect.

There is no such thing as a false belief, especially for something unknowable/undecidable. But then I am a subjectivist.

As a sign of respect, I will explain why you are wrong.

Let's meet Bob. Bob was born in 1970. He lives in New Jersey. He works at an insurance company. One day Bob wakes up believing he's Napoleon. Yes, that Napoleon.

Bob proceeds to dress as the French dictator and command people about. The police arrest him and send him to a psych ward. Bob insists that he is Napoleon. And yes, Bob honestly and wholly believes this.

Question: Did Bob really lead the French in the Battle of Waterloo?

Hint: The answer is HELL NO!

Truth, whatever it is, exists outside your existence. The universe was not created when you had your first thought, nor will it be destroyed when you die.

As for things being unknowable expect what occurs in your mind, a priori logic disproves all Standard Monotheist Gods, and that does not require anything outside of your own mind.

Furthermore, you may like subjectivism, but you sure as hell don't live by it. Every single day you do routine activities like drive a car in traffic which requires you to assume completely and entirely that
1. There are other people in the world.
2. Your senses are giving you accurate information in real time.
3. Those other drivers have minds similar enough to yours that you can predict their actions, yet different enough that you cannot read their minds.
4. There are no invisible cars. So when that guy almost side-swipes you, you change into the empty (according to your eyes) lane to avoid being hit.

Subjectivism simply is utterly impractical for real life.

But if that's not enough, consider the last guy who tried to live by that philosophy...
http://www.youtube.com/embed/qjGRySVyTDk

http://www.youtube.com/embed/g_47mmt5SZY

Subjectivists have more epistemic humility. They do not impose their beliefs on others in the form of absolute pseudo-knowledge.

Besides, a subjectivist can honestly live like an objectivist. The reverse cannot be said.

The fact that I have a choice in beliefs does not mean that my choices are necessarily different from those made by other agents.

A real subjectivist would not pay his taxes. After all, one has no more reason to believe the IRS is real than unicorns are real. In fact, there may just as easily be an anti-IRS government agency that kills anyone who pays taxes. A subjectivist could not give more credence to the IRS being real than to the anti-IRS being real without violating the principle that the only thing certain is what is in your mind.

In contrast, an objectivist realizes that what is in a person's mind is not necessarily real. And if that's true for other people, then it is also true for him. This is especially important for people who have degenerative mental conditions.

For example, the great John Forbes Nash, discoverer of the Nash Equilibrium, suffers from schizophrenia, and would often have conversations with non-existent people he thought were real. Naturally this greatly interfered with real life. However, with both treatment and the understanding that what goes on in his mind isn't necessarily the truth, Nash was able to deal with his disease and live a productive life. He won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work in game theory.

People with dementia including Alzheimer's Disease also benefit from questioning what goes on their mind and relying on the objectivity of others.

Subjectivism may be an interesting philosophy, but it is not a practical one.

Dan, are you intentionally being funny?

Insisting that there is a "real" subjectivism shows you do not understand subjectivism at all.

For example, subjectivists can follow rules because that is the best course of action. Besides, subjectivists are not necessarily solipsists.

Peter P says

For example, subjectivists can follow rules because that is the best course of action.

But one would only believe that following the rules is the best course of action if one believes there is a reality outside the mind that is independent of the mind and that the reality is largely known.

Dan8267 says

Peter P says

For example, subjectivists can follow rules because that is the best course of action.

But one would only believe that following the rules is the best course of action if one believes there is a reality outside the mind that is independent of the mind and that the reality is largely known.

Not necessarily. One only needs to believe there might be a reality INSIDE the mind that is somewhat predictable.

Oh, so the subjectivist thinks that his imaginary IRS cops will throw his mind in imaginary prison if he doesn't pay his imaginary taxes. Yes, that makes a lot more sense.

Now I know why Feynman refused to discuss metaphysics.

In any case, I hope you don't apply that philosophy while serving on a jury.

But we're getting way off topic at this point. This thread is about Cosmos and the religious backlash against science.

Speaking of Feynman, gotta love this video.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/o1dgrvlWML4

I gave up on metaphysics a long time ago.

Bravo Dan, you definately did some major ass kicking. I found your arguments to be much more cogent and coherent for me. You are very smart and I am impressed. Thanks for your thoughts.

Au Contraire.
This little gem...

Dan8267 says

But we're getting way off topic at this point. This thread is about Cosmos and the religious backlash against science.

is your stock 'retreat and raise the white flag' response when the holes in your position are too numerous to plug.

Rodman says

Bravo Dan, you definately did some major ass kicking. I found your arguments to be much more cogent and coherent for me. You are very smart and I am impressed. Thanks for your thoughts.

The clincher:

Peter P says

Dan8267 says

Peter P says

For example, subjectivists can follow rules because that is the best course of action.

But one would only believe that following the rules is the best course of action if one believes there is a reality outside the mind that is independent of the mind and that the reality is largely known.

Not necessarily. One only needs to believe there might be a reality INSIDE the mind that is somewhat predictable.

Arguments are made for the benefit of the arguer, just like prayers are made to improve the person who prays. It is harder to convince a skeptic with an argument than to influence God with a prayer.

In the end, everyone is an epistemological subjectivist, but some pretend to be objective.

prodigy says

is your stock 'retreat and raise the white flag' response when the holes in your position are too numerous to plug.

OK, I'll call your hand because I think you're full of shit. Please enumerate all of the "numerous holes" in my arguments and I will go point by point on why you are wrong.

prodigy says

The clincher:

Not necessarily. One only needs to believe there might be a reality INSIDE the mind that is somewhat predictable.

According to this, the right decision is to not get off the tracks when the train is coming if one believes the train is no threat. Thankfully, you don't have your hands on the nuclear codes.

Give me a practical difference between those who believe their own minds are the only important thing and those who believe reality extends past their minds and we can debate this issue thoroughly, preferably in its own thread. Right now, people are just throwing around labels as if they had meaning. And I don't give a shit about nomenclature arguments.

If Dan were half as intelligent as he constantly claims he is, he would be more concise.

Instead what I see is his distracting himself and everyone else with kinds of nonsensical adolescent ramblings.

Not once has he addressed the concise and simple point I have made several times that addresses the core flaw of his argument.

He claims religion is evil. That it has done more harm than good for humanity. He claims that spiritual beliefs, belief in GOd hold us back in our moral development.

This claim is obviously faulty, or certainly nothing more than an assertion (he confuses his assertions with proofs constantly).

B-b-but if I write 2 thousand words, with pictures and videos, certainly I've proven it !!"

Right Dan.

The only real argument I've made in this thread (concisely - a few times) addresses the core flaw.

marcus says

What's lacking is that you presuppose that religion is holding morality back. My point was that the kind of religion we have (and the type of politics and govt we have) are a reflection of how evolved (unevolved) we are.

Not the other way around.

It's easy to find historical examples of humans doing evil, even on a mass scale at times. And yes, religion has at times been used to rationalize evil.

Dan claims that this is proof that religion is inherently evil, that is that all religion at all times is evil. And further more, even though we all know that religion is primarily a human construct, Dan takes it a step further, and claims that therefore any type of belief in god, is evil, or at least detrimental to humanity.

I've noted many times before (and he's never responded to this) - arguing that evil done by religion is proof that all religion and all belief in God is inherently bad, is no different than arguing that humanity is inherently evil and should be ended, simply because humans do evil so often.

Two points I'll make, and I'm done.

1) Dan's core argument that religion and belief in God are inherently evil or that it holds back our evolution, is a hand waving argument. Dan, you've never come close to proving what claim you have here.

(when I make assertions - I don't claim they are proofs)

MY response, has been to assert the opposite is true, that in fact our religious institutions and governments only reflect where we are at in our evolution. I expect that even when we are far more evolved, we can and surely will still have spirituality.

2) Dan's need to proselytize his atheism is fascinating. It has its parallel with the worst type of fundamentalist religious types. The ones who are so sure that they are right (insecurely know they might not be) and who constantly and desperately try to "save souls" by converting others to their beliefs.

What incredible arrogance to think and promote that everyone needs to be like him. He can envision a better world where everyone has come to the awesome realizations he has. You need to come up with a name for those who don't get it (heathen and infidel are already taken). Maybe you can get an atheism jihad going.

Gosh Dan. You're like a prophet of atheism.

Final note: as I have shared in the past, I respect atheists, who simply don't believe. They are grounded enough to know, "my beliefs are my beliefs." Live and let live etc.

I'm not sure whether Dan's incredible off the charts arrogance is a part of a bigger pattern (possibly narcissistic personality disorder) or some other condition that leads to his bellicose proselytizing for atheism.

Live and let live Dan. Get over yourself. You aren't any better than those Catholics or those Presbyterians or those Buddhists or those Jews. We are all just people. We have different beliefs.

Dan's usual response to my saying that he should have more of a "live and let live" attitude about religion, is something like,...

"Marcus says that when I see women being beaten for not covering their
faces, or being murdered for being raped, I should "live and let live " "

And then he wonders (out loud) why I don't even respond to such arguments.

The implication being that he thinks it's a sound argument. That the most offensive example he can come up with of fundamentalist craziness, that's offensive to us all, is an indictment of all religions, and further all spiritual belief. Yes, Dan is at times that intellectually dishonest (or is it stupid ? Not sure).

As I said earlier in this thread.

"I said that since religion will always be around, or certainly for the critical next few hundred years, why not focus on having better religions rather than no religion. A battle that can be won, or at least where inroads could be made.

So why don't you and the other genius adolescent children go on r/atheists and talk more Catholics and moderate protestants into becoming atheists. That's really going to improve the world. "

Those who worship evolution should not adopt a "live and let live" philosophy. Darwinism is about "live and let die."

marcus says

If Dan were half as intelligent as he constantly claims he is

You mean half as intelligent as you keep bringing up. By the way, I have nothing to prove to you. So keep jerking off at that bottom level of the pyramid. You keep proving my point.

marcus says

he would be more concise.

I am concise. The word concise is not synonymous with short. Concise means giving a lot of information with few words. A ten-page paper can be more concise than a one-page paper if the former contains more than ten times as much useful information. Again, as an alleged teacher, you should know this.

And what teacher in the world tells his students to write in less detail and to Cliff Notes everything? Every teacher I've ever had in any subject wanted more depth from his or her students, not less.

Also, Marcus's complaint is essentially that when I attack his arguments, I make my counter-arguments specific to what he said, addressing each point individually, and providing multiple pieces of evidence to contradict each one. Being concise and thorough are not mutually exclusive. Nor is either bad.

marcus says

Not once has he addressed the concise and simple point I have made several times that addresses the core flaw of his argument.

He claims religion is evil. That it has done more harm than good for humanity. He claims that spiritual beliefs, belief in GOd hold us back in our moral development.

This claim is obviously faulty, or certainly nothing more than an assertion (he confuses his assertions with proofs constantly).

Honey, you do realize that all these things are written down. Sorry, not to be brief, but I must be thorough in calling you on all your bullshit.

First, let's start with your "concise and simple point", which from the above quote seems to be The claims that (a) religion is evil and (b) spiritual beliefs hold back our moral development are (c) obviously faulty and (d) nothing more than an assertion.

I will now go over every problem with your thesis.

1. My claim is "religion is inherently evil", not religion is evil. It is a far more precise, and quite frankly stronger, claim than what you thought was my claim. Please get my statements right if you are going to debate them.

2. If either of my claims were obviously faulty, then it would be trivial for you to show why. You have not. Claiming that something is obviously wrong is neither evidence nor proof; it is assertion -- you know that thing you keep bitching about.

3. An assertion is a statement given without evidence or reason. Throughout many threads, including this one, I have supported both of the above claims with a priori logic, scientific evidence, historic examples, and modern examples.

Whenever I present a priori logic, you ignore it and claim everything I say is wrong but never show a single reason why or even point out a specific invalid step.

Whenever I present scientific evidence, you run to your god of the gaps and claim that science can't talk about things like god, the afterlife, or morality.

Whenever I present historic evidence, you complain that historical evidence does not apply to the modern world and we should ignore everything done by various religions, including Christian ones, from 10,000 BCE to 1950 CE.

When I present modern examples, you make a No True Scotsman argument that requires discarding the vast majority of religious people in history, hundreds of millions of modern Muslims, and one third of today's America as "religious extremists who don't represent real religious people".

Finally, when I bring up specific examples, you say they don't generalize, but when I show the logic that explains how and why they generalize, you bitch about that being generalization.

You are exactly like Fox News when they call Obama both a dictator who has shredded the Constitution and a mom-jean wearing pussy who's too afraid too take any actions. Either claim may be true and both may false, but it is logically impossible for both to be true.

Now, if you want me to repeat the plethora of evidence that religion has done more harm than good, I'm more than willing to do that. It will be about ten pages long with amble links to studies and both historic and modern examples such as the poor girl who killed herself because she bought into the lie about the afterlife.

marcus says

B-b-but if I write 2 thousand words, with pictures and videos, certainly I've proven it !!"

Right Dan.

Honey, the thing that you're bitching about is called evidence. Try using some once.

For example, the videos I posted regarding the scientific studies that showed chimps, monkeys, and elephants cooperating were damn convincing. For a monkey to throw back a food reward in protest shows a sense of justice. For another monkey to refuse a grape until his partner also got a grape shows compassion and empathy. This chart is amazing.

Just think about the part I circled. It shows that the moneys are saving the pro-social tokens when there is no partner in case they have a partner in the future who will need those pro-social tokens! That's fucking amazing! And you call this no proof, no evidence of my claim that morality arises from evolution and is a legitimate scientific study? This video in no way conveys to you that science can lead to great insights into morality? Well, that's your lose, not mine.

By the way, if repeatable scientific experimentation does not count as evidence, what the fuck does in your opinion?

marcus says

Dan claims that this is proof that religion is inherently evil, that is that all religion at all times is evil.

Marcus, you ignorant slut. The claim that X is inherently Y does not mean that X is at all times Y. Once again, your disdain for basic vocabulary has caused you to state falsehoods.

The word inherently means "existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element". I also use the term intrinsically evil to describe religion. Intrinsically means "belonging to a thing by its very nature". In both cases I'm saying that at a religion's core there is evil no matter what good it does.

In fact, I've stated that religion does more good than evil and that the good it does can also be done without religion. Both of these statements, which I've made numerous times, directly contradict your lie that I said "religion is evil at all times".

Of course a force for evil can do occasional good. In fact, the worst evils absolutely do some good in order to gain support. Nazism is inherently and intrinsically evil -- do you want to argue otherwise -- yet, Nazism did some good in Germany. It lowered the crime rate. It ended poverty. It build economic infrastructure including highways. But at its core, Nazism is still bad and ultimately resorts to its nature. Religion also can do some good -- no good that can't come from other means, but yes some good. However, religion will always revert to its evil nature when it acquires power. One only has to look towards the anti-gay movement in America to see this happening right now.

Once again Marcus lies about his opponent's position and twists their arguments into Straw Men because he cannot address his opponent's real arguments. The intrinsic flaw of religion that guarantees corruption is that all religions are based on lies. You do not get good philosophy or policy from a foundation of lies.

marcus says

all belief in God is inherently bad

Belief in a lie about important matters is bad. False premises result in bad decision making. See 12-year-old girl kills herself because of the lie of an afterlife. That alone definitively demonstrates my point.

marcus says

arguing that evil done by religion is proof that all religion and all belief in God is inherently bad

I have never argued that. Another Straw Man by Marcus.

I have used history as proof that religion has done more evil than good. Yes, that's empirical accounting. However, my argument that religion is inherently and intrinsically evil was done by reasoning you simply have chosen to ignore. I have just repeated that reasoning above: Belief in a lie about important matters is bad. False premises result in bad decision making.

marcus says

Two points I'll make, and I'm done.

We can only hope.

marcus says

1) Dan's core argument that religion and belief in God are inherently evil or that it holds back our evolution, is a hand waving argument. Dan, you've never come close to proving what claim you have here.

Those are two different and independent arguments. They cannot both be the core argument. Nonetheless, I'll address both.

In regards to religion and belief in God are inherently evil, I've justified that already. Religion is a power structure based on lies, and so it will always serve its own interest and lies and subjugate any truth that threatens its power especially by exposing the lies on which it stands. I've gone into a lot more detail in prior posts. See them.

As for the belief in a fictitious god, Belief in a lie about important matters is bad. False premises result in bad decision making. See 12-year-old girl kills herself because of the lie of an afterlife. That alone definitively demonstrates my point.

Geeze, it sounds like I'm repeating myself, but that's impossible because Marcus claims I've never supported any of my claims.

As for the second argument, religion and belief in God holds back our evolution, I have never made any claim even remotely like this. This is just another thing Marcus has pulled out of his ass.

I have made the claim that morality is a product of evolution, and I've made the claim that science is the way to study morality. Perhaps Marcus, with his infantile vocabulary and dismal reading skills, got confused. In any case, I've supported both of the claims with an abundance of scientific evidence including written studies and video commentary by scientists explaining the experiments which confirm these claims. But Marcus doesn't like to read books or watch documentaries. He's intellectually lazy, which is why he has a problem with intellectuals and keeps bringing up my intelligence as if it were a negative. I pity our youth if Marcus is actually a teacher.

marcus says

Dan's need to proselytize his atheism is fascinating.

Finally, Marcus admits he finds me fascinating.

As for my need to "proselytize"... Whenever some asshole says something stupid and dangerous like
- Gays are an abomination.
- The Jews are in league with the devil
- Evolution is not real.
- God approves of slavery
- God told me to invade Iraq.
- It is against god's will for girls to go to school.
then yes, I do take a stand against that stupidity because the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing and there comes a time when silence is betrayal. Marcus clearly disagrees with these two principles, but I think they are right on the money.

But I'll gladly stop talking about religion and god when
1. Religion does not influence government policy
2. Religion does not affect our education.
3. Religion does not infringe upon anybody's rights or attempts to reduce people's rights, including gays.
4. Religion does not interfere with the execution of science or the distribution of scientific knowledge among the peoples of the world.
5. Religion is not used to suppress any person or group including but not limited to women, gays, and people from foreign cultures.
6. Religion does not result in bad social policies such as preventing the use of condoms in AIDS torn Africa.
7. No politician ever mentions god in a political speech or as justification for any policy or action.
8. No court administrates punishment based on whether or not the defendant is "a good Christian boy who goes to church every week".
9. There are no laws based on religion including blue laws, laws against nudity or prostitution, or laws regarding lewd speech.
10. Religion stops causing people to make really bad decisions like killing oneself to get to heaven and see dad or flying planes into buildings.

Until then, I've got plenty to proselytize about.

Of course, one must ask why Marcus so verily wishes that I remain silent. I am reminded of the American South in the 1960s

Within the south, the general philosophy that had developed since the civil war, was that if African Americans were kept ill-educated they would remain ‘in their place’ in society. An educated "boy" could become a danger.

Oh, so Marcus is saying that atheists are uppity niggers and they should just accept being lorded over by the religious. Now it all makes sense. I'm suppose to shut up and sit in the back of the bus so that the religious don't feel uncomfortable. Well, fuck that shit.

marcus says

What incredible arrogance to think and promote that everyone needs to be like him.

What incredible arrogance to think and promote that your opponent is saying something he never even came close to saying.

I think a person who believes he is Napoleon is wrong and probably needs help. According to Marcus, this means I believe that person has to be just like me. No, I just don't want the guy running around delusional and trying to take over Waterloo. He might get shot in the process.

This seems to be Marcus's favorite Straw Man. If you ever try to correct an injustice, you must be an arrogant ass trying to make everyone just like you. I guess he must feel the exact same way about Martin Luther King, JR. Marcus is an ass.

marcus says

Gosh Dan. You're like a prophet of atheism.

Self-contradicting term. Atheism no more has profits than science does. Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson are not profits. They are teachers, real teachers, unlike you. And like me, they are both atheists, not by choice, but because the evidence points to the fact that every god ever worshipped by man was created by another man.

It's very appropriate that you make such absurd arguments on a thread entitled "Cosmos" irritates the God-botherers. You demonstrate perfectly why science and religion are utterly incompatible and ultimately one must win and the other must die. A society cannot be based on both rationality (science) and utter irrationality (religion).

Luckily, we rationalists are finally wining this war that has waged for the better part of three millennia. Hopefully, we will win this war before your camp manages to destroy our species. In the original Cosmos, Carl Sagan did not give humanity good odds on survival.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/hLkC7ralR30

So there you have it. Sagan, Tyson, and I on one side: rationality and wisdom. Marcus and his ilk on the other side: superstition and lies. Which is a better basis for the continued survival of our species?

marcus says

possibly narcissistic personality disorder

Oh Marcus, you aren't even a good teacher. You certainly aren't qualified to issue medical diagnosis. However, I did enter your information into Web MD and it came out with this diagnosis.

marcus says

You aren't any better than those Catholics or those Presbyterians or those Buddhists or those Jews. We are all just people. We have different beliefs.

I have never claimed to be better than any other person. That's another Marcus lie.

The only claims I make are about objective and provable truths that have nothing to do with me. It is not an opinion whether or not a particular god exists. It is a matter of fact. There is a right answer and a wrong answer, and which is correct has nothing to do with you or me.

marcus says

Dan's usual response to my saying that he should have more of a "live and let live" attitude about religion, is something like,...

"Marcus says that when I see women being beaten for not covering their

faces, or being murdered for being raped, I should "live and let live " "

And then he wonders (out loud) why I don't even respond to such arguments.

The implication being that he thinks it's a sound argument. That the most offensive example he can come up with of fundamentalist craziness, that's offensive to us all, is an indictment of all religions, and further all spiritual belief. Yes, Dan is at times that intellectually dishonest (or is it stupid ? Not sure).

Then you are contradicting the very statement you had made prior. Either we are morally obligated to respect other people's beliefs even when they are wrong, or we are not. In the first case, you must accept people al-Qaeda burning women's faces with acid for attending schools because these are deeply held religious beliefs. In the second case, you are agreeing with me that religious and personal beliefs are no basis for defense of a bad idea.

Of course, you have never addressed this contradiction because you cannot. So you dodge it by making the No True Scotsman argument. Hundreds of millions of Muslims believe in subjection of women. That's not a fringe element.

One third of Americans believe in suppressing the gay population and striping them of equal status including all the rights that come with marriage. That's not an extreme. It's a damn big percentage. A mere 40 years ago, the majority of Americans believed this religious shit that god defined marriage between one man and one woman. It's not a few crazy fundamentalist unless you define the majority as few and fundamentalist.

So, indeed it is you who are being disingenuous. And the result of your efforts to slow down the replacement of religion with science has a very real consequence.

This woman lost her face because the cultural changes that we rationalists have been pushing since the Age of Enlightenment have been held back by assholes like Marcus. This woman did not need to lose her face. That's on everyone who tries to reconcile religion and science and tries to preserve these Bronze and Iron Age belief systems.

Peter P says

Those who worship evolution should not adopt a "live and let live" philosophy. Darwinism is about "live and let die."

No person worships evolution. Science is not a religion. The fact that the pro-religion crowd would take the Theory of Evolution and turn it into a philosophy of death says all you need to know about the religious frame of mind.

Just because nature works through evolution does not mean we need to structure our governments around the principle of the survival of the fittest. Furthermore, such a vile philosophical interpretation of this scientific theory ignores all the cooperation and morality that evolution has also created and was demonstrated in those videos that Marcus refuses to accept as evidence.

The bottom line is that it is much better for our governments to be based upon rational, provable ideas than to be based on superstition. Just remember that the Republican health care plan is to pray for health. The Republican climate change policy is to pray for rain. The Republican anti-poverty policy is to pray to win the lotto. We need less prayer and more reform.

Peter P says

There is no such thing as a false belief, especially for something unknowable/undecidable. But then I am a subjectivist.

Subjectivist... If you have the conscious experience of God you shouldn't call it faith.

Either way you have to bow to the fact that any rational method of learning about the physical universe will tell you there are no God in this physical universe.

Behind this veil of thoughtfulness you entertain the most primitive superstitious beliefs.

Heraclitusstudent says

Subjectivist... If you have the conscious experience of God you shouldn't call it faith.

We just have the humility to admit that we do not know.

I was a rationalist when I was 19. Reason can only get you so far.

Religion didn't disfigure her, Science did.
It's a natural reaction when acid meets skin.

Far more people have been disfigured by Dow and their Scientist than all of the wacko religious nut job Zealot that would throw acid in someone's face. Which is a small fraction of all the religious people in the world by the way.

Dan8267 says

No person worships evolution. Science is not a religion. The fact that the pro-religion crowd would take the Theory of Evolution and turn it into a philosophy of death says all you need to know about the religious frame of mind.

Hey! You're the Assholes that stepped in that pile of Shit.

If you're going to debate Unicorns with someone who believes in them, then you have entered the realm of defending Your own mythical beast.

This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.

- Al, circa 1941

At least we KNOW that all mermaids are redheads.

CaptainShuddup says

Religion didn't disfigure her, Science did.

Technology is neither good nor evil except how we use it. Religion has the tendency to cause technology to be used for evil as this case clearly demonstrates.

Do you really want the highly religious Middle East to have access to advance technologies like nuclear weapons and biological labs? Of course not. The religious don't mind the end of the world because it's in their prophecies.

CaptainShuddup says

Which is a small fraction of all the religious people in the world by the way.

Hundreds of millions does not constitute small peanuts. And as for the rest of the religious, the only difference is in degree, not correctness. Multitudes of religious demand that gays be denied basic human rights like marriage. Religion fucks with one's mind and causes bad politics.

CaptainShuddup says

If you're going to debate Unicorns with someone who believes in them, then you have entered the realm of defending Your own mythical beast.

The point is not to convince the unicorn believer that unicorns aren't real. That would be impossible. The point is to convince everyone else that the unicorn believer is an idiot who deserves no respect. This decreases the number of unicorn believers and their power to negatively influence legislation.

Peter P says

We just have the humility to admit that we do not know.

BS. If you don't know that there are no god in the physical universe, you also have "the humility" to admit that you don't know that the sky will be blue tomorrow - since this is inductive logic and there is no way to know if the universe won't change overnight. You're basically claiming you don't know anything.

If this is the extent of your "epistemology", it's a joke.

Peter P says

I was a rationalist when I was 19. Reason can only get you so far.

Behind your "humility", you are looking for is a license to be irrational, in order to defend the coarsest, most primitive superstitious beliefs.

Cosmos upset the liberty appreciators:

Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.[57]

Al- Circa 1940s

Dan8267 says

Religion fucks with one's mind and causes bad politics.

Yeah Liberals are ones to talk. They've been totally useless in American politics for about 3 decades now, so the only way they can stay relevant. Is to get a black man elected then have him, peel the scab off an ancient Race wound.
Then claim racism is alive and well.

Dan8267 says

The point is to convince everyone else that the unicorn believer is an idiot who deserves no respect.

Then you've already lost every argument you put forth.

CaptainShuddup says

Dan8267 says

The point is to convince everyone else that the unicorn believer is an idiot who deserves no respect.

Then you've already lost every argument you put forth.

Respected scientists believed the gorilla to be a mythical creature until someone dropped a dead one on their dissecting table. The same all-knowing sages believed that the platypus was a clever fake, even when they had one to dissect.
Scientists of today commonly scoff at UFO sightings because they don't believe in intelligent alien life.
Until that day when an alien ship lands.

What will we know tomorrow that was impossible today? What cherished assumptions will be tossed aside like yesterday's trash? What shrill and condescending promoters of these trashed ideas who call all other voices "idiots" will be proven the useless blowhards that they are?

Quigley says

Respected scientists believed the gorilla to be a mythical creature until someone dropped a dead one on their dissecting table.

Jeez... let's forget the blatant lie that scientists scoff at the possibility of alien life....

You do realize that's the whole point of science, right?: not believing until you have in fact the facts dumped at your feet.

It doesn't mean that the people who believed without facts were not idiots.

Do you have any idea how many weird beliefs are being professed by idiots? Do you seriously think they are true by default without any facts? Ghosts? Big-foot? Zeus? Feathered snake? 9-11 conspiracies?

One must strive to live a truth-agnostic life.

One thing that we can definitely agree upon is that there is no "heaven for G." Thus, tupac lied.

Peter P says

One must strive to live a truth-agnostic life.

Right.
It's like: "I see my neighbor Joe is in his garden, but maybe it's not him: maybe he has a twin brother looking exactly like him and dressing like him. It can't be proven with 100% accuracy that it's in fact him. And better not buy a car since there is no proof that the engine will still work tomorrow. And better pray Zeus and the Feathered Snake just in case they in fact exist. And keep some of these silver bullets just in case you are attacked by a were-wolf."

Truth-agnostic life.... Do you even realize how stupid that sounds?

Why should we care if something is true? Life is like trading in the market. It is a stochastic game.