patrick.net

Well that was a quick response for someone who claims to have flagged me with ignore.

Still, I agree. Let them decide which one of us is being more rational.

marcus says

But my bottom line would be why judge? Especially why judge what we don't understand?

Dan,
Do you even realize that us silly followers of God don't worry about God's existance nearly as much as you do? I mean, really, we just look at God as a fact, like gravity. You, and other atheist types (for lack of a better term), seem to look at God as a challenge or a threat in some way. Do you see that at all?

marcus says

When it comes to matters as subtle and complex as individual human spiritual beliefs, you will never hear me preaching that my point of view is the correct one, except in the broadest of terms, such as, I don't know, or my view is just the believer side of agnostic.

To be sure, stating scientific facts is not preaching. If "subtle and complex" is subjective, then even the statement that "Earth is only 6000 years old" is as equally subtle and complex as say, the human brain. So clearly that's ridiculous. So we need to draw a line somewhere.

This is where I think we should draw: When we have overwhelming scientific evidence that completely contradicts what we believe, then we need accept it as a fact and deal with it.

While I think Dan has clearly rubbed you the wrong way, I don't think he has stated any factually wrong statements here. Note the word "factually".

marcus says

Dan did not prove anything, unless you consider claiming, that the most literal interpretation of the bible can not be true because it is too far fetched, a proof.

I haven't seen any arguments from the religious ones here that cannot be countered with facts. I think it is fair to say that the arguments made from science stand on their own. And I would call it sufficient proof if the arguments made by believers can be completely countered with scientific facts.

marcus says

Many adults have belief in God without the dogma that comes from strict interpretation of all scripture.

True. I don't think anybody here can deny that.

marcus says

Many have an adult view that is not well defined for obvious reasons. IF there is "a God" it is something indescribable and beyond comprehension by definition. This didn't prevent ancients behind the traditions from trying to define it/him/her.

"Cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries with the questions that were once treated only as religion and myth" - Carl Sagan.

Science has advanced so much that we can talk about these deep mysteries with ample evidence more clearly than how the ancients did.

Nobody can doubt that the Big Bang happened. Nobody can doubt that Evolution happened. The religious ones may think that this "offends" their beliefs, but on the contrary - this is actually very liberating. Because truth is truth, no matter who tries to understand it. These scientific facts never change. We stand on the shoulders of giant minds.

marcus says

This is getting into what is behind belief. I say it's up to the individual to form their beliefs, and it's not my place to judge them for it (that would be very egotistical)

May be we should clarify and agree as what's egotistical. A belief clashing with another belief is definitely egotistical.

But arguing for a fact backed by a mountain of scientific evidence which completely contradicts the belief, is perfectly acceptable and not egotistical at all. For instance, there are people who still doubt evolution. Dan and I have vehemently argued for it and backed it up with facts. Sure as you say -- it is hard to discern the emotions when you read what a person has typed, which is why an argument can be taken as having an egotistical tone.

Nevertheless it is important to make this distinction.

marcus says

But if you mean that you want to judge people who wonder about why we are here, or other mysteries that transcend science, and people who are open to questions being unanswered one way or the other, or even who find it spiritually useful, to leave such questions unanswered, then I can't relate to that.

Why we are here is a good question. But I'm not sure how you think that transcends science. Natural selection in evolution explains a great deal about nonrandom survival of randomly varying genes. There's a mountain of evidence backing this claim. People are still reluctant to accept.

I suppose wanting to be reluctant is not something we can do anything about. :)

In the times of Galileo, the Church thought that Galileo's claim that Earth is not the center of the universe is heresy and it transcends the domain of science. We clearly know now that is not true. History doesn't repeat, but it sure rhymes.

marcus says

But my bottom line would be why judge? Especially why judge what we don't understand?

I think on the statements where Dan or I have made a judgment, we've made it backed with facts. Therefore we're highly confident of it. That confidence can come across as arrogance, but it's really just confidence of knowledge.

I think normalcy bias is a big reason as to why people don't want to look at evidence. All their normal life, they've believed in something. And when that is totally contradicted, the left brain doesn't allow this to be accepted. Neuroscience can explain this too ;) but hey -- I think we both have made our points.

uomo_senza_nome says

fact backed by a mountain of scientific evidence which completely contradicts the belief, is perfectly acceptable and not egotistical at all.

uomo_senza_nome says

Therefore we're highly confident of it. That confidence can come across as arrogance, but it's really just confidence of knowledge.

I don't have time for this now, and I'll try to get back, but let me try to drill down a bit.

First off much of what Dan says doesn't even disagree with me (regarding literal interpretation of bible etc).

But that's not relevant to my point.

YOU SIMPLY CAN NOT PROVE THAT THE HARM DONE BY RELIGION IS GREATER THAN THE GOOD.

(excuse the caps, but if you address something I would love for it to be that or...)

SIMILARLY

even assertions that mankinds future is better without the most dogmatic fundamentalists religions, can not be proven, although I would agree with this assertion.

So let's assume for a moment that removing the most ignorant and dogmatic fundamentalist religions would improve our future (please - it's just an assumption)....

If we assume that to be true, I don't see how one can then make the leap that all spiritual views of any kind (mostly ones that are not comprehended in the slightest by those making the claim) are detrimental and that proof has been supplied that morality and ethics are best served by zero belief in "God."

Such claims are very dogmatic and are filled with emotion (at least in my view). Yes, I see myself as somewhat close to neutral on these issues, and I am a little intense about asserting that to those who have no clue how dogmatic they are.

Truth is you guys are quite religious and dogmatic about your atheism, or at least Dan clearly is.

As for why Dan rubs me the wrong way, it's partly because of his tone and his insecurities. I know that his being a jerk is partly traceable to my calling him arrogant since he first made these assertions many months ago. IF he was as smart as he claims to be, he would be able to sit back and see how arrogant they are (or seem) and why. Instead he just gets offended, and acts like even more of a jerk.

He want to be offensive. This is what I call shrekian behavior.

Bap33 says

Do you even realize that us silly followers of God don't worry about God's existance nearly as much as you do?

I don't worry about god's existence. I worry that some of the "silly followers" will hear voices in their heads and interpret those voices as god telling them to invade Iraq resulting in the deaths of countless men, women, and children.

uomo_senza_nome says

I don't think he has stated any factually wrong statements here. Note the word "factually".

I support the following modes of operations: factually correct, logically correct, mathematically correct, and empirically correct. I do not support politically correct, nor do I have plans to add this feature to my personality.

marcus says

Such claims are very dogmatic and are filled with emotion (at least in my view).

Just because the irrational side of an argument is filled with emotion, doesn't mean the other side is.

Furthermore, the mere presence of strong emotion does not justify a position as I have illustrated in another thread. I'm sure the "honor killings" of women in Saudi Arabia are being done by very, very emotional men. Their feelings are no justification for their actions. Nor should we refrain from condemning honor killings out of fear of offending someone's religious beliefs.

marcus says

YOU SIMPLY CAN NOT PROVE THAT THE HARM DONE BY RELIGION IS GREATER THAN THE GOOD.

Why not? Is someone stated "You simply cannot prove that the harm done by Nazism is greater than the good", I would argue otherwise. Sure, the Nazis built the autoban, reduced unemployment, and advanced rocket science which enabled man to walk on the moon in 1969. But I think we'd all agree that the Holocaust and the deaths in WWII outweighed these benefits.

So, why can't I look at the whole of history and decide that the harm done by religion is greater than the good? I've certainly named many specific and terrible harms committed by Christianity alone. In fact, the list of those harms covered every single century up to and including the present one.

On the other hand, we don't have any concrete evidence that religion does any good that would not be done otherwise. In the absence of religion, societies do not turn into Mad Max dystopias. Mothers don't stop loving their children. Charities don't cease to exist. Compassion doesn't go away. It's arguable that religion does nothing positive since "good people will do good without religion, bad people will do bad without religion, but for good people to do bad, that takes religion".

In any case, what makes religion so freaking special that we cannot question its merits when we can and should question the merits of everything else? Sounds arrogant to me.

marcus says

even assertions that mankinds future is better without the most dogmatic fundamentalists religions, can not be proven

Well, we've tried religion for 12 thousand years, let's try rational thought for just one tenth that time and see if we can come up with some proof. If it's not shitloads better, I'll concede that religion is the best thing since sliced bread.

marcus says

Truth is you guys are quite religious and dogmatic about your atheism, or at least Dan clearly is.

That's like saying I'm dogmatic about the square root of two being an irrational number or that I'm religious about the Earth being round. Or for that matter, that the IRS is religious about your tax return accurately reflecting your income. Facts are facts. Just because I refuse to accept a falsehood does not make me religious.

marcus says

As for why Dan rubs me the wrong way, it's partly because of his tone and his insecurities. I know that his being a jerk is partly traceable to my calling him arrogant since he first made these assertions many months ago. IF he was as smart as he claims to be, he would be able to sit back and see how arrogant they are (or seem) and why. Instead he just gets offended, and acts like even more of a jerk.

Is it just me or does Marcus seem like a very angry person? You know, the type of person that you'd think could go postal. He reminds me of Zen Miller.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/AuBnlNjZq24

I imagine Marcus as being one of those people trapped in a loveless marriage who takes out his frustration and despair on other people never realizing that it's his own fault that nobody likes him because quite frankly he's so damn mean.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/jYa1eI1hpDE&ob=av3e

Dan8267 says

I support the following modes of operations: factually correct, logically correct, mathematically correct, and empirically correct.

You can repeat this until the cows come home, but it won't negate the fact that you're one of the most intellectually dishonest people on this forum. When you aren't asserting how you're all about truth and empirical analysis, what I mostly hear is hyperbole, bluster and assertions that aren't even slightly backed up.

Dan8267 says

In any case, what makes religion so freaking special that we cannot question its merits when we can and should question the merits of everything else? Sounds arrogant to me.

Of course we can and should question it. That's a FAR cry from asserting that any and all belief in God is harmful to the human race.

By questioning it, religion will hopefully evolve. It's not going away, and I don't see how you can't know that. If you were sane, you would argue for better religion rather than no religion.

I happen to be in a little different place when folks start talking "religion". I do not not not think God intended for us to be "religious". I am pretty sure that MAN took what God had said,instructed,suggested and F'ed it up by including MAN ideas (we call these religion). I am pretty sure that God made it clear, he did not want all of this religion, all God wanted(s) was for MAN to "have a personal relationship with me and try to do what I say is good to do." Tho opposite of that message would be, "do not have a personal relationship with me and do whatever you feel is right." Now, I'm not the smartest dude on here, but one of those sure sounds alot like an athiests view.

Dan8267 says

I don't worry about god's existence. I worry that some of the "silly followers" will hear voices in their heads and interpret those voices as god telling them to invade Iraq resulting in the deaths of countless men, women, and children.

Dan,

All life forms compete for limited resources. Darwin called it "the struggle for life." Nature is "red in tooth and claw." Strong animals overpower, kill, and eat weak animals. It's been that way for billions of years. Science has proven that.

For humans, competition for limited resources is called warfare. Natural resources are a zero-sum game: there's only so much farmland, fresh water, oil, and metals to go around. Countless men, women, and children have been dying in wars for thousands (if not, millions) of years for this very reason.

Here in America, our entire economy is built on the assumption of cheap oil: the automobile, the single-family house in the suburbs, freeways, shopping malls, plastics, medicine, industrial agriculture, etc etc. Our oil production peaked in the 1970s and has been declining ever since. No more cheap oil. That's a big problem.

We went to war with Iraq to steal their oil. Everybody knows this, but nobody wants to say it.

Like any good politician, Dubya had to pander to his various supporters to stay in power. Obviously, the "Left" wasn't going to support an invasion of Iraq in a desperate grab for critical resources. "No blood for oil" was the slogan. Fair enough. But the problem is, liberals like to drive cars too. Liberals don't like $5/gallon either.

So what was Mr. Bush to do? Since his political base was made up of mostly Pentecostal fucktards, the best thing to do (as a politician) was say that "God" personally told him to invade Iraq to punish those evil Moslems that attacked God's Holy Christian Nation of Amurrica on 9/11 (even though they didn't).

Now, maybe Bush really did believe that God told him to invade Iraq. I guess we'll never really know. Either way, we had to go to war in Iraq to keep the cheap oil flowing. We would have gone to War in Iraq with or without Bush's voices in his head.

But as we all know, the war was an "epic fail", Iraqi oil never made it to market, oil went to $140/bbl in 2008, and the economy crashed anyway.

Life is a cruel carnival of death and destruction. Predation and oppression have been going on for billions of years. Humans are of no more value than any other animal. Science has proven that.

Get over it.

marcus says

you're one of the most intellectually dishonest people on this forum

Examples please.

marcus says

That's a FAR cry from asserting that any and all belief in God is harmful to the human race.

As I've said before, I don't assert, I conclude. Pick up a history book dude.

marcus says

religion will hopefully evolve. It's not going away

That remains to be seen. Religion is decreasing in the technologically and scientifically advanced parts of the world. It remains strong in tribal societies where life is cheap.

And change goes against the very nature of religion. Religion is about power over people and change threatens that.

wthrfrk80 says

Natural resources are a zero-sum game: there's only so much farmland, fresh water, oil, and metals to go around.

Actually, no. Resource usage does not have to be a zero-sum game. There are more than enough atoms in the universe. We just need to use them efficiently and that's certainly not a zero sum game.

We can increase farm productivity with technology. We can build multi-story hydroponic farms that are free from insects and pesticides and are temperature controlled to allow the growing of any crops anywhere.

We recycle raw resources like metals and construct new composite materials so that theft through war is no longer necessary.

We could solve the problem of 1/3rd of the world not having access to clean drinking water using only existing technology. The theme is that technology, science, and compassion are the ways to solve problems, not religion. Praying for more water ain't going to help.

Dan8267 says

Actually, no. Resource usage does not have to be a zero-sum game. There are more than enough atoms in the universe. We just need to use them efficiently and that's certainly not a zero sum game.

Dan, I can't take this seriously. It's rediculously expensive to get into space. Then you have to try to support life in space...not an easy thing to do. I think you've been reading too much science fiction.

Dan8267 says

We can increase farm productivity with technology. We can build multi-story hydroponic farms that are free from insects and pesticides and are temperature controlled to allow the growing of any crops anywhere.
We recycle raw resources like metals and construct new composite materials so that theft through war is no longer necessary.
We could solve the problem of 1/3rd of the world not having access to clean drinking water using only existing technology. The theme is that technology, science, and compassion are the ways to solve problems, not religion. Praying for more water ain't going to help.

If it was economical to do any of that stuff, "we" would already be doing it. Corporations and individuals would already be getting rich. Warren Buffet would be pouring his money into it.

I'm not suggesting religion is the way to do necessary secular things like food production, sewage treatment, road building, etc. You knocked over a straw-man.

Anyway, my point was: the Iraq war was an economic war (like most wars), not a religious war. Sure, Bush had to use religious bullshit language to get the support of his wacko Pentecostal base, but it was not a religious war. A religious war against Islam would be suicide. There are over a billion of them...many of them more than willing to die for the cause, unlike we pampered Americans. Bush might be stupid, but he's not THAT stupid.

From the "Ron Paul polling at 6%..." topic in the Politics forum:

Dan8267 says

I don't think Bush invaded Iraq in response to 9/11. Bush didn't think there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11. He just lied about that. Bush invaded Iraq because of economic interests. Obama hasn't distinguished himself from Bush in this regard or many others.

I think you and I are in agreement then.

I'm not suggesting that zero-sum games aren't profitable to individuals. Obviously the are or the parasites wouldn't play them. What I'm suggesting is that zero-sum games aren't necessary for running an economy. Yes, engaging in zero-sum games may be the cheapest or most profitable way to exploit a resource, but in the long run there is greater prosperity for society if we avoid zero-sum games, and we can do this. We'll have to change the rules of the game and the way we reward people, but it would be worth it.

What's really cooky is that people want to attack Christians on behalf of Luciferianism.

Dan8267 says

This is from Project Censored. There were a whole bunch of articles and estimates by human rights groups a few years ago. I don't remember where they are though.
The main problem with estimating deaths is that politicians like to count dead bodies precisely because this grossly underestimates the number of casualties. After all, if you blow up a body, you can't count it because all the pieces are too small.

Thanks for this info. I'm just catching up with this thread after taking off for, ironically, Christmas holiday. I've been very upset about how much of my tax money went to the invasion of countries with land over huge oil fields.

wthrfrk80 says

My question is: why are some things acceptable, and other things not? Is there some scientific way to "prove" rape is wrong? I agree with you fully that rape is wrong. But I can't prove it scientifically. Or at least, I don't know how to prove it scientifically. I'm not aware of anyone else who's been able to prove it scientifically. Maybe you are smarter than the rest of us and can prove it scientifically.

I've taken to the idea that by showing the effects of some acts on society, that we will agree that we don't want those effects so we don't want the acts. The effects can be shown scientifically, but we've got a long way to go to get to a common understanding on, for example, the longterm social or psychological effects of acts like murder. Still, there is some agreement that we don't want the crying mother who just found out their child died in war.

Dan8267 says

No argument I have given is based on emotion. And quoting Wikipedia, as I have said many times, is a sign of intellectual laziness.

I don't agree. I look at the references used in a Wikipedia entry before using the entry as a source and will often just use the references that meet peer review and historical review, source standards with which I've found consistency and connection to my understanding instead of using the wikipedia entry.

Dan8267 says

Because of this seven became a holy, magic number. This is how people in ancient Middle East and southern Europe thought about the universe. They thought numbers were magical. This isn't something we modern people take seriously, but the ancients certainly did.

I wish modern people didn't take it seriously, but many still do! Agreement happens so slowly!(especially, when jerks like me go back and comment on three month old threads...)

FunTime says

I look at the references used in a Wikipedia entry

If the article is subverted, the list of references is biased.

Dan8267 says

Physics leaves no room for the supernatural.

But leaves plenty of room for things people don't understand and might call "supernatural." Holy shit, there's some weird stuff going on!

Dan8267 says

If the article is subverted, the list of references is biased.

Ah, I think I can see how that would happen. I usually look for favorite references and go look at them, but I can see how bias would occur, even given the supposed collaborative genius of wikis. I still don't know enough about how they manage wikipedia to take it very seriously. I just keep thinking I'm going to read it at a point when some innaccurate info snuck in. What you're suggesting is even worse.

wthrfrk80 says

But as we all know, the war was an "epic fail", Iraqi oil never made it to market, oil went to $140/bbl in 2008, and the economy crashed anyway.

Maybe it was a fail, but as I watched the news these kinds of headlines seemed to suggest U.S. companies were benefiting from the war.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/earnings/2008-10-30-exxonmobil_N.htm