Watch
People who argue that their beliefs are true have the burden of proof. This is a very important concept in making arguments, known as Russell's teapot.
Russell's teapot states that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others.
People who argue that Evolution is not science, but dogma -- then should also accept that we should teach Flying Spaghetti Monsterism in schools.
From the founder of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster )
I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (Pastafarianism), and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
Follow
Befriend (5)
166 threads
5,053 comments
curious2 says
I watched the video. At the end when he visits the fundamentalist school he attended as a young child, and goes to the chapel to deny the holy spirit, I couldn't help but be reminded of the Einstein quote I have shared a couple times before.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,228 comments
Premium
Thanks for the Einstein quote, but different people have different motivations. Prop H8 really turned a lot of people's heads around concerning Romney's cult, for example. Watch "8: The Mormon Proposition" if you get a chance:
It's easier to listen to spheres when religious fanatics aren't actually pursuing you with the chains, so near you can hear them rattling, sacrificing their own children for the cult, and spending their life savings to discriminate against people who had never done them any harm.
Follow
Befriend (5)
44 threads
4,602 comments
Los Altos, CA
Premium
@marcus
I was originally responding to Bap33, who believes in a very fundamentalist, classical interpretation of god from the king james bible. That interpreation of god is one that necessitates infinity. Though I suspect the response will be that, even if the universe is finite, god lies outside the universe. However, I think we may then preclude the possibility of an extra-universal god interacting with our physical universe in any observable way.
And on another note: you guys make it hard to be a skeptic, with your bedside manner and all. I mean you can't even co-exist as math geeks without pouncing on each other.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
curious2 says
Proving a negative, i.e., there is not a teapot...
curious2 says
Proving a positive, i.e., OJ did commit the crime...
curious2 says
Yes, and "proving" a positive is subject to a much lower "theoretical uncertainty".
curious2 says
Agreed, that is why I am not saying that it is impossible to prove a negative, but the relative "ease" in proving a positive will assure that the word does not disappear.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
marcus says
I am not sure about Einstein's time, but today when someone refers to religion as the "opium of the people" they are branded as a "fanatical" atheist.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,228 comments
Premium
leoj707 says
Actual opium is no longer allowed, thanks be to the holy "War on Drugs" (tm). People dislike being called criminals, so they react negatively.
Follow
Befriend (5)
166 threads
5,053 comments
Randy H says
You don't know the history. Dan and I have argued over religion several times in the past. I was blunt with him about sounding arrogant, which is true, but it got really ugly after that. He's often a reasonable guy, but not with me. And it is very much my fault because I find his position childish and stupid and have said as much.
Spirituality and religion isn't going away any more than human suffering is. Anyone with an IQ over 30 knows that.
What makes more sense ? Arguing for better more sophisticated religions, and advocating for the many that already are ?
OR arguing that all religion is evil and that we all need to be atheists.
Dan might as well be an agent for the fundamentalists.
He has been just as much a jerk with me in discussions of other topics. And has said repeatedly (in discussions about logic) that I couldn't possibly be a Math teacher or have a masters degree in Math. Usually I don't even bite with his weak arguments, because they are either semiirrelevant or they are designed to change the subject in small ways. I guess that's what I get for pointing out his arrogance.
(which he can't deny by the way - it's either a huge part of his personality, or a huge part of the character he plays on Patnet)
The guy can be a world class jerk. Other times he sounds like a fairly smart guy. His emotional challenges seem to make him his own worst enemy (although again maybe that's only in this anonymous world). I don't think Patrick shows the number of people ignoring a person any more, but Dan was rapidly approaching 15.
I put him on ignore the other day, again after this:
Dan8267 says
Click it and it will take you to the thread if you have nothing better to do. He has accused me of trolling him, but notice he brings me into a conversation I was no part of with a silly sarcastic generalization of something I once said in an argument.
As I said, There's a history.
Follow
Befriend (5)
44 threads
4,602 comments
Los Altos, CA
Premium
@marcus
Thanks for the response. I meant no disrespect to either of you from my part in this thread. You're both obviously intelligent. But I can see some history obviously exists and I will admit I had Dan on ignore for a while myself given his rather abrupt and unwarrented retort to some earlier discussions.
I also usually don't chime in on religious discussions because I count myself as one of the few remaining true Objectivists. But I also really like Bap33 and have seen his tolerance leak out during his weaker moments, so I got suckered into this one.
I appreciated your retorts to infinity. Very informative and a lesson that a sideways 8 isn't the antibody ignorance, no matter how you look at it.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,094 comments
nobody on here is all that bad. Even me. lol
I miss Surfer X. Sufer X used the F word like Picaso uses paint.
Follow
Befriend (5)
44 threads
4,602 comments
Los Altos, CA
Premium
Fuck yea. I miss X.
Follow
Befriend (13)
49 threads
2,625 comments
Premium
Battle of the Einstein Quotes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion
Einstein was an atheist pretty early on. His use of God in phrases like "God does not play dice" is a euphemism for the universe, which he did have a kind of "Awe" for.
The great Electron, respect for the awesomeness of the universe. That's not a religion. That's like "Holy Shit, the Sun is a huge fusion reactor. Whoa!" or "Damn, the light we see from every star in the sky is like, whoa, millions of years old."
Follow
Befriend (13)
49 threads
2,625 comments
Premium
Einstein worshiped what Carlin called the "Great Electron" - the mystery and seeming order of the universe. That was his "religion". He did not believe even in an impersonal God or Divine Architect.
Follow
Befriend (13)
49 threads
2,625 comments
Premium
There are far better reasons to be good to each other without justifying it based on a 2000 year old Jewish Hippie Carpenter Zombie's divinity.
To wit:
* Equitable societies have better outcomes for everybody in health, education, happiness, longevity, rate of criminal behavior, and material wealth.
* Equitable societies are more stable and resilient in the face of adversity.
* Equitable societies are more dynamic and able to compromise and solve problems; inequitable societies are static, rely upon force and obedience, and prone to lie and propagandize in the face of adversity, as the winners in an inequitable society are terrified of losing wealth and status and resist any change or compromise that may cause them to fall down the ladder.
* Equitable Societies tend to atheism (Sweden, Norway).
* Inequitable Societies tend to religious belief (Africa, Middle East, much of South and Central America, Nepal, Burma, much of India, etc.).
* Religious belief innoculates those who are at the bottom rungs of an inequitable society, protecting the winners at the top rungs from change ("Opium of the People").
It's not a coincidence that Jesuits, Jews, Shi'a Mystics, and other, more freethinking/intellectual orders and religious groupings are accused of "Atheism" in Inequitable Societies. Whereas orders that defend the status quo historically - like the Dominicans ("The Hounds of God")- are celebrated in inequitable societies.
Read up on the history of the Jesuits - they were banned because they had (have) genuine concern for the poor and sought to change society along more equitable lines. IE the movie "The Mission".
Reducing belief in religion takes away a major tool and crutch of inequitable societies.
Follow
Befriend (5)
166 threads
5,053 comments
Interesting (but pathetic ) job by editors of this.
thunderlips11 says
The title says "Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear."
But then later they say.
In other words people like Dan and Thunderlips pissed him off.
Follow
Befriend (13)
49 threads
2,625 comments
Premium
Brooke's interpretation of his beliefs. Einstein's direct quotes lead me to believe he had an underlying respect for the mysteries of the universe, some regard for the occasional better angels of religious tradition, AND NO MORE.
There are plenty of atheists who are either not interested in pushing their views or too wimpy to assert them, hiding behind a vague protestation of respect for religulous institutions.
Our numbers are legion, Marcus. It's time for the US to join the rest of the Western World and advance beyond superstition.
Follow
Befriend (5)
166 threads
5,053 comments
thunderlips11 says
okay...ewe can say that...
I would agree, but one form that might take would be having spiritual beliefs that aren't basically just superstition. Apparently this is what Einstein did.
Follow
Befriend (13)
49 threads
2,625 comments
Premium
If experiencing awe in the face of the universe is a spiritual belief, then I too am spiritual. I mean that without sarcasm.
Follow
Befriend (3)
16 threads
1,367 comments
Victorville, CA
Premium
I belief those who believe in equities and chuck their earnings into they 401K are a prime example of religious thinking,
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,228 comments
Premium
I am learning from Patrick.net and forming a possible hypothesis about religious logic. I think a recurring syllogism goes something like this:
1) An omnipotent god somehow needs my help (this is an obvious impossibility, logically, but hold that thought);
2) The omnipotent deity will reward me if I help (virgins, goats, whatever);
3) The omnipotent deity is omniscient, too, and watching ME all the time, paying attention to ME;
4) I am a sinner, and the omnipotent deity knows this, so I must atone somehow, make feverish penance to avoid being punished for my sins;
5) I (or my parents, or my fellow cult members) know what the omnipotent deity most wants, which is to eradicate/persecute/otherwise discriminate against those other people who do not believe in Him/Her/It, or at least disagree about what he/she/it wants, and therefore are a threat to us, so we must protect our omnipotent god by persecuting them;
6) Therefore I will work at this endlessly, in my bubble of fact-proof armor, because every time I ignore facts and repeat nonsense and strike a blow against against those other people who must surely be worse than I am, the omnipotent deity sees me and pays attention to me and is pleased with me, and will store up more points in my favor to outweigh my sins.
Follow
Befriend (16)
760 threads
7,667 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
marcus says
If I'm obnoxious to you it's because you warrant it.
marcus says
You're welcome to your opinion, but that doesn't make it a fact. Nor does it mean that anyone agrees with you. Plenty of people like my posts -- see the user stats -- so I sure as hell don't need affirmation from you.
marcus says
No shit Sherlock. I mistyped, but it was obvious I meant "irrational" as they are the same order of infinity as the real numbers. You should have been able to figure out what I meant, but that would mean not jumping up an down with joy as you discovered a mistake. Granted, the mistake was in typing, not thought, but don't let that ruin your joy.
A trivial proof that the rational numbers are countably finite is to arrange them in a two-dimensional array with denominators for the rows and numerators for the columns. Then count them off diagonally from the top-left corner of the grid. You see, I do remember my abstract algebra.
marcus says
And your analysis would actually apply had I said the rational numbers aren't an ordinal set. But as you quoted, I said "applies only to countably infinite", which is exactly what you stated.
Sets of the second order of infinity may be scalar, but not ordinal.
Yep, I remember a lot of abstract algebra. You want to have a mathletes contest?
Anyway, I hope I didn't terribly ruin your fun of pointing out a typo. I know how much it means for you to find any flaw in me no matter how minor. So to make up for it, I'll let you know one of my personal flaws. I have little tolerance for stupidity.
OK, that flaw was obvious by the way I respond to all your postings, so let me give you another flaw. How about a physical one? My dick is too large for many women. There, run with it. Run with the idea, that is, not my dick. You probably wouldn't be able to run while carrying it.
Follow
Befriend (16)
760 threads
7,667 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
marcus says
I'd actually point you to some good reading material if I thought you were even capable of sincerity and actually wanted to know more about physics. It's an area I've always been interested in and have read a lot about. However, you are probably just being your usual snarky ass, so fuck it.
If anyone else wants some reading recommendations, I'd be happy to offer them.
Follow
Befriend (16)
760 threads
7,667 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
marcus says
Over the past two thousand years, countless people have been murdered, raped, tortured, burned alive, and imprisoned because of religious beliefs. Anyone who says that challenging religious beliefs and using reason as an alternative to superstition is just plain retarded.
G.W. Bush said "God told me to invade Iraq" and after a million deaths we're not allowed to question the logic of religious beliefs?
Marcus,
Follow
Befriend (16)
760 threads
7,667 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
marcus says
What fools like Marcus can't realize is that the term Fundamentalist is meaningless. It's just a marketing term.
There is no line between so-called fundamentalist beliefs and non-fundamentalist beliefs. It's a continuous spectrum of behavior from causal and infrequent crazy to constant and severe crazy.
Talking to fictional beings and having delusions of immortality is a mental disorder no matter how you label it.
Follow
Befriend (16)
760 threads
7,667 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Randy H says
Thankfully, another rationalist in this conversation to offset the b.s. spouted by Marcus.
Randy H says
Does that include the mistranslations like
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/ISaiah-34-7/
I'm pretty sure the unicorn was a Medieval myth, not a Bronze Age one.
Randy H says
Yeah, a long while back Marcus started making childish personal attacks on me on several threads. I ignored the first dozen, but then responded. Having a sharper wit than Marcus, I showed the community what an idiot he was and why.
Of course, that just made him even more belligerent to me. I did give him quite a few opportunities to save face by just agreeing to start talking like a rational adult, but he just kept flinging mud. After that went on for a while, Marcus pretended to offer an olive branch so he could back-stab me, but he doesn't quite have the intellect to be subtle. So I countered by responding in such a way that if he didn't make good on his peace-offering, he would look like a dumb ass. And of course he immediately went back to his childish ravings.
The thing is I'd be willing to bury the hatchet with Marcus, but he lacks the emotional maturity to do so. Still, I will admit to having a bit of fun making him look the fool. As I've admitted above, one of my personality flaws is that I have little tolerance for idiots and stupidity always brings out the asshole in me.
Follow
Befriend (16)
760 threads
7,667 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
thunderlips11 says
I would argue that is an emotional experience. And yes, we atheists have such moments of awe frequently when looking at the universe or thinking about how it works. However, emotional experience do not imply the existence of anything supernatural. The mind itself is a wondrous work of nature. Well, maybe not Marcus's mind, but you get the idea.
Follow
Befriend (5)
166 threads
5,053 comments
thunderlips11 says
When you have the kind of intellect that allows you to boil down and summarize all of Einstein's thinking on religion and his actual spirituality to such a simplicity it must be hard to maintain your humility.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/
OF course those aren't all of his quotes on spirituality.
One thing for sure, Einstein was bothered by being pigeonholed as an atheist and he was tolerant of religious belief in others. He probably was the kind of person who had had many engaging conversations with rabbis and priests and understood that by and large, even many of them don't buy in to the superstition, or personal god nonsense, or literal interpretation of scripture that so many atheists love to ascribe to the typically religious adult.
Follow
Befriend (16)
760 threads
7,667 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Whether or not Einstein was an atheist is irrelevant. The whole discussion rests on the logical fallacy Appeal to Authority.
We don't accept The Theory of Relativity as correct because it came from Einstein. We consider it correct because the predictions it made such as gravitational lensing and time dilation have been confirmed.
Isaac Newton is admired for his successes in laws of motion, the laws of gravity, Calculus, and the application of mathematics to model the cosmos. Newton also believed in astrology and other hocus pocus. He is not admired for that.
Appealing to authority is bullshit, and it's one of the many fundamental problems with both religion and faith. Appealing to a god as a moral authority is the ultimate fallacy.
The messenger is irrelevant. All that matters is the message itself and the evidence to support that message.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,094 comments
Dan8267 says
ummm. no. YOU do not admire him for that. SOME others, that are not you, may admire him as much for this as for how he dressed. Right?
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,094 comments
Dan8267 says
... and human caused global warmingests
Follow
Befriend (16)
760 threads
7,667 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Bap33 says
Yes, and the evidence backs that up. Only people who profit from destroying the future and fools who listen to them believe otherwise. How much money will you make by turning America's farmland into desert? Will it be enough to buy food when 2/3rds of America's population will have to starve to death? How much money does it cost to get a person to sacrifice his life for yours by giving you what little food he has?
Do the cost benefit analysis. Even if you don't give a shit about the immorality of destroying the environment for future generations, at least realize that it is highly unprofitable in the long run.
The costs of terraform the Earth so that it is once more suitable to sustain billions of humans far exceeds the slight increase in profits reaped by companies in the short term for dumping massive amounts of pollution into the air, land, and ocean.
Or think of it this way, every carbon-dioxide molecule released by burning fossil fuels is like a Mexican illegally sneaking into America's atmosphere driving up costs of everything for you.
Follow
Befriend (16)
760 threads
7,667 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Bap33 says
Yes, there are masses of people who re-create Newton's astrological charts and biorhythms. This is one of the first things any university teaches you.
Follow
Befriend (3)
16 threads
1,367 comments
Victorville, CA
Premium
Dan8267 says
It was probably always baked in, though, Dan. Self-destruction is a fundamental part of our human ecology. Not to say that it is a blank check for trashing the place up, but jsut to say that it was inevitable that us homosaps would wrack up our habitat and ourselves, thus, paving the way and providing some fossil fuel for the next bunch of bi-pedal wack-a-nuts to have a go at whatever it is we're supposed to be having a go at...happiness? propagation? I have no idea. I am just looking for my next rental property!
Follow
Befriend (5)
166 threads
5,053 comments
Dan8267 says
Re: "But as you quoted, I said "applies only to countably infinite", which is exactly what you stated."
It doesn't apply to countably infinite. It's okay Dan. I don't care if you and I are the only ones who know the degree to which you know what you're talking about here. You still may sound impressive to the few people reading this. I don't care.
You make my arguments for me. THanks for adding the part about your dick, just in case anyone intelligent readers had any doubts.
And oh, I almost forgot.
You're welcome.
Yes, back to ignore.
Follow
Befriend (3)
16 threads
1,367 comments
Victorville, CA
Premium
marcus says
if we was sitting at a table together and you started in like this, I'd smack the hell out of you both. Having dorky Carl Sagan-ish arguments is cool til you get your panties all wadded up. My oldest is a serious nerd and he get's all pissy like this with his uncle who was in R&D at Ampex back in teh day. Makes me crazy. Nobody drags pecker talk into the mix tho.
Follow
Befriend (16)
760 threads
7,667 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
marcus says
You obviously do care given you obsession to make a mountain out of a typo. Maybe someday you'll gain the emotional maturity to have an adult conversation about real issues instead of
marcus says
Let's see how long Marcus can pretend to keep me on ignore. Bets anyone?
Follow
Befriend (16)
760 threads
7,667 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
JodyChunder says
A conversation with Marcus is hardly a Lincoln-Douglas debate.
It would be nice if it were like that, but it's not. It all comes down to having the emotional maturity to discuss the issues rather than attacking your opponent. On the other hand, some people are just asking for a smack down.
Follow
Befriend (13)
49 threads
2,625 comments
Premium
marcus says
They sure aren't. They're the only a selected few, and some of those are taken out of context.
However, it's fair to say that Einstein exhibited the signs of "Scared/Wimpy Atheist posing as an Agnostic" as discussed in other threads here.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,094 comments
Dan8267 says
more damns, and the irrigation and power they provide, are blocked by a particular side of the political isle. Ask them.
Follow
Befriend (16)
760 threads
7,667 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Bap33 says
Once again, I have no clue what point, if any, you are trying to make. Please be clearer.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,094 comments
Bap33 says
this was me making the point that Green Science needs money and gets it by keeping their lips on Feinstein, Boxer, and Pelosi's collective asses. The Green Science piles of shit are suggesting the Earth's climate is changing due to you not driving a Prius. It's bullshit, and you know it.
continuing:
Dan8267 says
SOme internal emails about that "evidence" showed it was trumped up bullshit by the guys wanting to stay funded by the AlGores of the world. I don't blame them for wanting to get paid, but they must stay off of their moral highchair once they start worshiping at the progressive movements pork barrel. And, those pointing at paid-off fact-finders need to realize that their twisted liberal thought process is not replicated by us all.
continued:Bap33 says
my point here was this: The answer to the issues you point out are also blocked by progressive liberal green freak activists. More water retention is a very good idea. More power production is a very good idea. Both are blocked by progressive liberal green freaks.
This was to answer:
Dan8267 says
My entry just above was to answer this question. Your original post was to suggest that global warming is man-made and me not agreeing ment we would have deserts where farms are. I live in the central valley. If not for irrigation, this entire area was desert that flooded twice per year. No good production farming came before irrigation in the valley between Stockton and Bakerfield. And irrigation came from dams.
LosAngles and SanFrancisco both rely 100% on water transported in from huge water projects. Those low valley areas that the water was diverted from to keep Frisco alive have been desert for 100 years now.
Today, we need more retention, plus we need more power production. You agree, I know you do. Dams do both. I was pointing out who it is that blocks the building of dams. The Greenies do. They are liberal. They are leftists. They are D's. They are also selfish, ignorant, "I got mine" - NIMBY, rotten turd, dope smoking, hippy pukes.