patrick.net

@Persian, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

PersainCAT says

In what i quoted...see other posts....he claims that you are bat-shit crazy to spout the "persistent pursuit of failed....".
The thing is i dont agree those are failed issues. i really think if we actually followed some of those basic philosophies, economic models, and ideas without bastardizing them so liberals will vote for them than we would have success as a country. Thus he is DIRECTLY is calling be batshit crazy becasue i can look at the same evidence he does and not agree with his point that those policies failed.

You guys may not be looking at the same evidence, or even specifically talking about the same issues. Dan is specifically talking about the "conservative" issues presented by shrek and Bap. Those may not be the same conservative issues that you believe in. I have Bap on ignore, so I only see Bap's posts in responses, and he is on ignore for a reason. I have gone round-and-round with Bap and found Bap to be less palatable than shrek (who I also have gone round with). Both are prone to illogical rants, and even if I believe in part of what they write it is not their argument that I find convincing, but outside knowledge of the issue. If they are representative of your views you might want to seriously reevaluate them.

I am not talking about religion here, just their political stances. Religion is an entirely different thing. Political programs, policies, etc. can be logically evaluated for effectiveness. Religion is inherently illogical, it can not be proven through logic. One must have faith in order to believe in a religion. Yes, I have heard all the "logical" arguments for religion, and their primary problem is that any argument "proving" religion A can also be used to "prove" religion B.

PersainCAT says

relgion:"4. Yes, smart people do know that religion is crap."
do i even need to discuss this, it could take pages but his logic is flawed, see my previous post of a general critique...edit*hes directly calling me dumb for my beliefs*edit.

Yes, Dan does make a blanket statement as a point, but in context when looking at his supporting info you can see that not ALL "smart" people are atheist, just a higher percentage of them. YOU could be smart, but still have faith in your chosen religion.

PersainCAT says

Not even considering the point that liberals also come from a culture (USA) where lynchings occur it is implied that the politics of the tea party would DESIRE lynching while other groups would not.

The south is where lynchings were "popular", and the south is where the TeaParty is most successful.

PersainCAT says

edit*
if thats not enough to see baps point, how about baps point in post
http://patrick.net/?p=1046641#comment-768508
*edit

OK, ok, I un-ignored bap for a moment to read that reference. Yes, Dan clearly contradicts himself. It is not even worth trying to defend by saying that Dan did not specifically state that nuns beat him.

However, Dan's hyperbole does not invalidate his representation of the tea party. Like it or not the tea party has done some racist stuff, and has gained that reputation.

I don't dislike the tea party members, I am disappointed in them. Dan's point about racism aside, the tea party also draws its supporters from people who in our countries history have risen up to make life better for the working man. They have let themselves get manipulated and used by the elite top .5%. Nothing that the tea party has done or is going to do looks like it is going to make things better for the middle class. Americans need the teabaggers to help oppose the rich elite that are currently running the country into the ground, but the tea party seems dead set on giving the rich more handouts. I do dislike the figureheads and leaders of the tea party.

Good book, "What's the Matter With Kansas" discusses how people get manipulated into voting against their own best interests.

leoj707 says

Religion is inherently illogical, it can not be proven through logic. One must have faith in order to believe in a religion.

same thing is true of atheism. sorry for hitting you with logic in less than 5,000 words.

Thank you PersianCAT for using your powers and abilities for good. Seriously, thank you.

leoj707 says

Like it or not the tea party has done some racist stuff, and has gained that reputation

not with me.

isn't it only going to be certian people that agree with your view?

isn't it racist for the NAACP, and other race-based pro-negro organizations to not support Judge Thomas? -- they should use him as a poster child in my opinion I love Judge Thomas. All TeaParty members I personally know love Judge Thomas and really liked Condi Rice. Many TeaParty members say this Herman Cain fellow running for Prez today looks really really good too. All three are Negro people, and all very much conservative, and all are very much Christian, and all very much supported by TeaParty members.

A few lines of truth. That's how easy it was to end the reign of Wordsmith Dan - The Logical Athiest (dude needs a cape and boots).

The racisim that progressive/liberal/leftists see and seek is born in the hearts of those looking for victims and power. IF not, please explain those three people and their Tea Party support. Thank you. Have a great day!

Bap33 says

leoj707 says

Religion is inherently illogical, it can not be proven through logic. One must have faith in order to believe in a religion.

same thing is true of atheism. sorry for hitting you with logic in less than 5,000 words.

Religion is illogical, because there is no evidence that it is true. In fact with most religions the evidence indicates that it is untrue. It is illogical to believe something without evidence, and more so to believe in-spite of the evidence to the contrary. If one has faith in their religion then logic should not matter, their faith should be enough.

Atheism is logical because it is the belief that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and that without evidence backing the claims of religions it is logical to not-believe in the god(s) of said religions.

The belief by some religious people that atheism is a religion is both untrue and illogical.

Agnosticism is, philosophically, the "best" position to take because there is no way that anyone can know fore sure if there are gods or not. Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, one can not know for sure, but believe that there are no gods. With some religions one can have faith, but still be not totally sure.

Sorry for hitting your response with more than 6 words.

Bap33 says

isn't it only going to be certian people that agree with your view?

Yes, isn't that always the case? Not sure what your point is here.

Bap33 says

isn't it racist for the NAACP, and other race-based pro-negro organizations to not support Judge Thomas?

No, it would be racist to support him just because of his race.

Bap33 says

All three are Negro people...

I am sure that you are, as a non-racist tea party member, aware that calling people "Negro people" is generally considered racist and offensive, so why do it?

Bap33 says

...I love Judge Thomas. All TeaParty members I personally know love Judge Thomas and really liked Condi Rice. Many TeaParty members say this Herman Cain fellow running for Prez today looks really really good too. All three are Negro people, and all very much conservative, and all are very much Christian, and all very much supported by TeaParty members.

While you might be convinced that all the tea party memebers you know constitute a representative sample the entire tea party, I am not so convinced. It would be nice if you had some actual evidence to support your claim. Something like polling numbers where tea party members were show to have as much (or perhaps) more of a favorable opinion, than the "average" republican, towards the "Negros" you list.

Bap33 says

The racisim that progressive/liberal/leftists see and seek is born in the hearts of those looking for victims and power. IF not, please explain those three people and their Tea Party support.

I don't understand how your unsubstantiated claim would even support this view, if you did in fact substantiate it.

Bap33 says

Thank you.

Thank you.

Bap33 says

Have a great day!

I will.

Bap33 says

ellie, please comment on Dan's last few posts of hate.

Sorry, been gone. I'll go back & read it and will post some ever-delightful, yet stupid, comment.

okay, I read them. It's Dan's opinion, and I can't agree that they're messages of hate.

Bap, I haven't read too much positive stuff about the tea party. I've met some t-baggers (Yep, that's what I call them, as they've called themselves the same) and they were fairly angry, extreme right wingers. I don't even think that they're republicans, more like republicans to the second power.

Of course, the only t-baggers I've met are from small Utah towns - and the state is run by the very republican conservative mormon church that was able to block gays from being married in California.

elliemae says

Of course, the only t-baggers I've met are from small Utah towns - and the state is run by the very republican conservative mormon church that was able to block gays from being married in California.

Didn't they do that in Hawaii also? So much for States rights.

Bap33 says

My responses are limited becasue I am trying to make my removal from PatNet more challenging than Shrek or ToT. So far, so good. Have a great day Patrick!

Bap,
I sincerely hope that you don't leave, and that your goal isn't to be removed. However, if you would like to be removed it's a simple process.

All you must do is post some personal attacks against another poster. Shrek did it constantly, and TPB/ToT did it at the end too.

Patnet is all about the talk. It's okay to feel passionately about something, but it must be discussed in a socially acceptable manner. Attack the post, not the poster.

I did enjoy Dan's post, although I also disagree about the religious thing. I know many super-intelligent people who are deeply religious - but I also live in the state of Denial (I mean the state of Utah).

Also - I smoked pot much of my life, don't now because of my work's policies, but it hasn't had any effect either way on my life. I view it like drinking, except less calories and a lot less puking.

Bap33 says

leoj707 says

Religion is inherently illogical, it can not be proven through logic. One must have faith in order to believe in a religion.

same thing is true of atheism. sorry for hitting you with logic in less than 5,000 words.

Thank you PersianCAT for using your powers and abilities for good. Seriously, thank you.

Yes and no. Religion is inherently not logical. Religion (in fact, nearly all published, discovered, widely embraced religion) turns logic on its head via paradox.

Logic doesn't support laying down one's life a la Christ, nor any of his maxims (the last will be first, the first will be last).

The whole point of religion is that logic fails you, and that faith of some kind is to replace it.

That's why so many take it up to abuse others. They've found an "in" to exploit---the adherents' abandonment of logic.

(I can speak to the other great faiths, but chose Christian thought since it's widely understood on this forum, and in America)

Atheism can be viewed as a faith as well, since one cannot disprove God's existence. Therefore, the only truly logical answer is to say "I don't know", or agnosticism.

Bap33 says

Dan, you are a great writer and a bad liar.

Once again, Bap33, you demonstrate a complete inability to follow even the simplest logical sequence. The statement "I was raised Catholic and taught by viscous Catholic nuns who would beat you with a ruler if you misbehaved" does not imply that I was beaten with a ruler. I could have been one of the boys who did behave after seeing someone else misbehave. We "elitist" can learn from other people's mistakes.

Are you trying to parody the square root of two example conversation?

Bap33 says

You should take a job getting paid by the word ... like a lawyer. That fibbing ability and anti-God thing works well with lawyering too, don't it?

INTJs do make great lawyers. However, many of us including myself are repulsed by the field because of all the scumbags in it.

I see you're still sticking with the whole "anti-god" thing. Was my post too long for your attention span? Did you stop reading when I started to use "big words"? Btw, spouting religious crap is more likely to help a lawyer than hurt him in our country. There's an old tale... A criminal standing trial tries to persuade the court to be lenient by claiming "I found Jesus." The judge asks the defendant, "when did you find Jesus?" He replies, "Right after the police found me!" [No one claims to be an atheist to garner sympathy from an American court or jury.]

I will concede that being able to lie convincingly is a trait well exercised by lawyers. Unfortunately, I never did develop that particular talent. As a result, I probably wouldn't make it in a legal, sales, or marketing position, and I certainly will never become a CEO of a major company. The good thing about being an engineer is that I don't have to lie to do my job. I talk to computers all day.

Bap33 says

By the way, humilty is not your strong point is it?

False humility is not. As an INTJ, I know exactly what fields I'm an expert in and which ones I am not. You touchy-feely types tend to think you're an expert in everything and so you express incorrect ideas in every field. INTJs tend to ask questions in fields in which they are not experts and share knowledge in the fields in which they are. INTJs love sharing knowledge and understanding.

To outsiders, INTJs may appear to project an aura of "definiteness", of self-confidence. This self-confidence, sometimes mistaken for simple arrogance by the less decisive, is actually of a very specific rather than a general nature; its source lies in the specialized knowledge systems that most INTJs start building at an early age. When it comes to their own areas of expertise -- and INTJs can have several -- they will be able to tell you almost immediately whether or not they can help you, and if so, how. INTJs know what they know, and perhaps still more importantly, they know what they don't know.

Others may falsely perceive the INTJ as being rigid and set in their ways. Nothing could be further from the truth, because the INTJ is committed to always finding the objective best strategy to implement their ideas. The INTJ is usually quite open to hearing an alternative way of doing something.

By the way, spelling is not your strong point is it?

Well, I should be nice and thank you for the compliment "you are a great writer", assuming it was meant sincerely. It's the first correct thing you said. So as a peace offering, I'll give you a sincere and valuable piece of advice. The way to become a good writer is to become a good reader.

PersainCAT says

Though in the future u may want to avoid things like "they believe in things like torture. "

I really wish I could, but when the majority of Republicans believe in torture, I cannot. "A time comes when silence is betrayal." - MLK, Jr.

It's really sad that in the 21st century, we still use medieval justice.

PersainCAT says

when u say smart people know religion is crap u imply that the no intelligent person is religious

Ok, maybe I could phrase that better. Most intelligent people reach the conclusion that religion is crap. There is a strong correlation between atheism and intelligence and between atheism and education. Some highly intelligent are religious even today. I do not understand how. They must compartmentalize like crazy to hold two contradicting beliefs at once. Physics and biology leave no room for a god in nature.

Bellingham Bob says

Well, we INTPs know that precision is for self-delusion.

Luckily INTPs rarely become heart surgeons. Precision is what got us to moon. Precision is what allows us to run a world-wide banking system over the Internet that involves billions of dollars of transactions a second without losing a penny.

Lack of precision causes rovers to crash in to Mars, police to break into the wrong house using a search warrant with an incorrect address (which happens surprising often), the Pentagon to lose $2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America.

Meanwhile, online banking software handles far more money than that and keeps track of every penny. Precision is necessary for our modern society and economy to function. Aren't you glad that we programmers are precise?

Of course, none of this should be construed as a put down of INTPs. They make great scientists. Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin were INTPs.

thunderlips11 says

Damn Dan! That was an epic post.

Thanks. I'm no Charlie Sheen, but I like to think I have house-cat blood.

leoj707 says

Dan, I am not a fan of the super long posts, but yours was well worth the read.

Thanks for staying up late.

Also, thanks. It's nice to know that some people get what I'm saying. I usually only hear from the ultra-cons.

No, it's just the MySQL "text" type. Don't even know how much that can hold.

From Stackoverflow,

The VARCHAR(MAX) type is a replacement for TEXT. The basic difference is that a TEXT type will always store the data in a blob whereas the VARCHAR(MAX) type will attempt to store the data directly in the row unless it exceeds the 8k limitation and at that point it stores it in a blob.

Stackoverflow is great.

He's arguing from an emotional level of dislike, where facts are irrelevant... But pissing you off does make him feel better about himself, so one point for Bap33. He did what he intended to do.

True, but my goal is to demonstrate to everyone else that Bap33's position is wrong on many levels. I know that convincing him of the truth is a fool's errand, but the argument may convince others not to go down that path. I'd consider that a victory.

I'm going to the library now and I'm going to get "The Hidden Injuries of Class". I think that's where almost all the right-wing hate comes from.

What's a library? Some kind of brickware version of Google?

Bap33 says

elitists that have not had a tuff life think they are in that spot because they are super smart?

The correlation between education and atheism is because science provides answers to questions like where did human beings come from. Those who lack a scientific education often fill the void with mysticism. That's why most religions were started in antiquity. Gods were the only way to explain why things like earthquakes happen. Today we have Plate Tectonic Theory.

PersainCAT says

"However, my view of college is that it's nearly worthless."
He uses a personal example to back up the view

So I used a personal example to explain my personal view of college. Yeah, that makes no sense.

The point of my statement was that Bap33's assertions of my worldview were incorrect. I was not making the point that college is worthless to all people; that's why I said "my view of college" rather than "college is...". And I conclude with "I don't have a particularly high opinion of college", the keyword being "opinion". Once again, you are taking the things I say out of context.

I could go into more detail about who I think college is beneficial for and who it isn't, but there's no reason to discuss that here. The whole point of bringing up my views on college was to disprove Bap33's assertion of what those views were. If Bap33 claimed that I liked to kick puppies, I'd deny that too. I'm very anti-"kicking puppies".

PersainCAT says

ulta conservatives: after the talk about america sux... "Again, you like other ultra-cons here have consistently tried to force words down other people's throats. Since you cannot address the arguments we actually made, you try to trick people into thinking we made weaker and dumber arguments. "

here again he uses the logic that ALL conservatives who cant argue their point lie, manipulate and trick people to make the other person look bad. he implies that liberals would NEVER do that and are above such things.

1. No, I'm not arguing that all conservatives use that deceptive tactic. I'm implying that all you ultra-conservatives posting in this thread use that tactic, a case than seems well-supported by this thread. The half-dozen ultra-cons here hardly represent all of the 100 million or so conservatives in our country, although they may represent a lot of them. I'm not going to guess here how many conservatives are ultra-cons. I only hope that it's a minority.

2. Ironically, you have demonstrated the very use of this tactic in refuting the truthfulness of my accusation that you use this tactic. I'd like to make a real-world analogy that demonstrates how ridiculous this is, but I can't think of anything so ludicrous off the top of my head.

3. I have never implied that liberals never use this tactic, although I will go on record as stating it doesn't seem to be their go-to tool like it is for ultra-cons. Note "ultra-cons", not all conservatives.

4. When and if a liberal does use that tactic on someone (myself or anyone else) and I read it, I'll call that liberal out for it. Hell, I've called out people for flawed logic even when they are supporting my position. To me, it's not about being right, it's about being right for the right reasons. The thought process is more important than the actual conclusion.

5. Although left-wing politicians play many of the same political shenanigans as right-wing ones, the left-wing does not have an extremist subgroup that is anyway on par with the right-wing. MSNBC is not a liberal mirror image of Fox News as shown in the post Video demonstrates: Obama is Bush, But MSNBC is not Fox.

MSNBC certainly has a liberal bias, but it doesn't not make up falsehoods and spread them. Something like 50% of Republicans are Birthers! Here and here. This lie was made up on Fox News, and it has been a needless distraction from the real issues like the economy and all the wars we're fighting.

PersainCAT says

it ultimately comes down to Dan is able to write better and mask the insults why Bap just flat out states it.

Actually, the difference is that Bap33 tries to insult the messenger whereas I insult the message itself as being ridiculous. And then I show precisely why it is. I have no problem leaving the messenger go unscathed as long as he doesn't directly attack others.

leoj707 says

Both are direct insults on each other but to me calling one person a liar/copycat

I didn't take being called a copycat as an insult. Sure I joked about it, but that was clearly in jest.

As for being a liar... A liar is someone who deliberately states a falsehood as a truth when he knows it is not. I actually believe everything I'm saying. Sure, you could argue that I'm wrong -- and I may very well be -- although I have yet to read one rational argument to suggest that. However, if you did present a rational case for my conclusions being incorrect, as a cliché of an INTJ my anal retentive mind would force me to correct or abandon my conclusions no matter how emotionally attached to them I am, which is probably not at all.

For example, evolution... It is said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. When Darwin first presented the Theory of Evolution, it was indeed an extraordinary claim. What followed is a hundred and fifty years of extraordinary proof in the form of fossils, footprints, real-time observation of evolution in fast-reproducing microbes, and ultimately genetics. Given all of this, it is now an extraordinary claim that Evolution does NOT explain all of biology. Of course, you could in principle convince me that evolution is wrong, even fatally so. But in order to do so, you need to explain why the plethora of evidence supporting evolution is wrong, and that is not going to be an easy task.

Similarly, you could very well convince me that Einstein was off his rocker when he published the Theory of Relativity. However, you would have to explain why we have observed gravitational lensing and time dilation and why our GPS works far more precisely and accurately with Einstein's equations and not Newton's.

You could even convince me that your god exists. Just have him stop by my place for a cup of tea and a nice chit-chat. He seems to have chit-chatted with mortals a lot during the Bronze Age.

Btw, I can walk on water because I know how to turn it into a non-Newtonian fluid. Does that make me a god, too? I can also fly, but I don't like to because the TSA are a bunch of perverted assholes. Also, my voice can carry clear across the world, but sometimes I get charged for roaming. Now I can't raise people from the dead, but I really should learn to do this. I've just been too busy to take a class in CPR, although that's really not a good excuse.

PersainCAT says

Dan8267 says

And though most of the Tea Partiers have not lynched in their life, they come from the culture that did lynch, and it is that culture which drives their hate-filled politics.

flat out implies that MOST Tea Party members WOULD participate in a lunching if they could, as they are hate filled in their politics.

In absolutely no way does the statement "Tea Partiers come from a culture that lynched" imply the conclusion that "MOST Tea Party members WOULD participate in a lynching, nonetheless a lunching." That's just bad math, and I find bad math offensive. Also, I have no problems with the Tea Partiers lunching. I rather enjoy a picnic myself.

The correct conclusion is in my original statement. The culture that led to the lynching of African-Americans continues to drive its people to hateful and xenophobic politics. And this point is well-supported by the whole immigration debate. The Tea Party really doesn't like Mexicans.

Now I don't want to even open the whole can of worms that is immigration reform. That would just drive a further wedge between the left and right here. So let me nip this in the butt before Bapp33 or someone like him starts calling me "pro-illegal immigrant". I am NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT for high levels of immigration into the U.S. I want the population of the U.S. and the world to stop growing because I fear that the exponential explosion of the population that we are seeing will inevitably lead to a sudden decline, i.e., massive death on a level never before seen in human history, when we quickly run out of various resources. But that's a whole other issue we're not getting into here.

PersainCAT says

As Dan implies that, at best Dan isnt being truthful in his representation of the tea party, at worse he is a flat out liar who seeks to degrade the reputation of a whole group of people.

See, this is exactly why I hate English and other "natural" languages. You can get away with making statements that wouldn't even compile, nonetheless run without throwing an exception, in a real language like Java or C#. I've read more coherent statements in Perl, the only language that looks the same before and after RSA encryption.

I might have gotten a little too geeky on the last paragraph. My apologies.

leoj707 says

One must have faith in order to believe in a religion.

Faith is belief without proof. That's the problem I have with it. Belief without proof is not a good thing, especially when the thing being believed is something arbitrary that you just happened to be born into, and especially when that belief has been the basis for many wars and murders throughout history.

It is wrong to believe in anything that cannot in principle be proven because truth and provability are logically equivalent. I'm not even going to try to show why this is true because it is way over the level of logic that people would follow here. The logic that I've presented so far has been relatively easy stuff. The truth equals provability discussions get into Alan Turing and Kurt Gödel territory, and that is some really hard shit. I mean, these are people who make me look dumb. I'm smart enough to understand their work, but not smart enough to teach it.

PersainCAT says

alot of the subtly weaved into Dans writing that really are an attack on not only how i view things but me as a person for even viewing those things that way.

I may be good at writing, but I'm not that good. If I were, I'd make a lot of money writing Pulitzer Prize winning novels. I'm simply not talented enough in writing to pull that off.

Bap33 says

same thing is true of atheism. sorry for hitting you with logic in less than 5,000 words.

This is not logic. This is an assertion. Logic, whether correct or flawed, is a sequence of statements following a cause and effect pattern. A implies B, B implies C, therefore A implies C. There are actual rules of logic that are well known and can be easily looked up. But all logic is going to involve at least two statements. That's what logic does. It combines two statements known to be true by some rule known to be correct and results in a new statement known to be correct. Clearly an assertion, even if it were true, would not meet this description. I really don't understand why you are struggling with this concept. Did you hate your math classes growing up?

leoj707 says

Sorry for hitting your response with more than 6 words.

You should apologize to Bap33 for hitting his response with words that have more than 6 letters.

Ok, that was a direct insult. My bad, but I couldn't resist.

Dan8267 says

OMG! Shrek is dead!

This thread started out being about Shrek and ended up demonstrating the fundamental differences between the left and right wings. Now I didn't really want to bring out the big guns, because doing so is probably going to upset some people, but I see no way to resolve this thread other than to be painfully honest. [Yes, until now, I've been going easy on the ultra-cons.]

The fundamental difference between the left-wing and the far-right-wing (and no, I don't including all conservatives in that, just the extreme ones) is that the left-wing uses logic, facts, and empirical verification to determine whether or not something works, whereas the far-right-wing uses faith, emotions, and cultural beliefs. One side uses science, the other uses tradition. Science advances and constantly refines itself as it is a self-correcting mechanism. Tradition does not do either.

And although none of us wants to admit this, the fundamental difference is due to biological differences between the ultra-right-wing and the rest of humanity. You see, the ultra-right-wingers have a different brain than the rest of us. This has been scientifically proven.

MRI study suggests liberal brains understand complexity, conservative minds are associated with anxiety and fear:

Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex–a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety.

Study: Conservatives have larger ‘fear center’ in brain:

A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives' brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other "primitive" emotions. At the same time, conservatives' brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate -- the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.

If the study is confirmed, it could give us the first medical explanation for why conservatives tend to be more receptive to threats of terrorism, for example, than liberals. And it may help to explain why conservatives like to plan based on the worst-case scenario, while liberals tend towards rosier outlooks.

In summary, ultra-right-wingers are dumb cowards. There is no politically correct way to express this truth. We can explain why this is so, and we can try to help those people get over this defect, but only if those people want our help.

It makes sense that some people with have larger fear centers. It was an evolutionary advantage back in the Stone Age. It kept people from being eaten by lions and bitten by poisonous snakes. But we don't live in the Stone Age anymore. Those disproportional instinctive fears are now manifested as irrational fears about terrorism, Mexicans, gays, and other such conservative issues.

Having fear is a good thing. It's nature's way of making sure you don't do something stupid that gets you killed. However, in the modern world, a person must use frontal lobe thinking to distinguish rational fears from irrational ones. The fact is you are far more likely to be killed in an automobile accident than by a terrorist. You should fear Toyota more than Al Qaeda. But you don't because your Cro-Magnon 1.0 brain was evolved to deal with hunter-gather living and hostile neighboring tribes rather than the reality of modern living.

The good news is that you can override your base instincts with higher-level thinking. The bad news is that you have to want to.

CL says

Atheism can be viewed as a faith as well, since one cannot disprove God's existence. Therefore, the only truly logical answer is to say "I don't know", or agnosticism.

I am not sure if you are using faith as a synonym for religion here, but atheism is not a "faith" as religions are, in that regard it is a lack of faith. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair style.

I called agnosticism the "best" answer, but would hesitate to call it the "only logical answer".

Philosophically we can never "know" anything other than as an individual we are experiencing what appears to be a consciousness. Nothing can ever be "proven" in this frame work. What we do have is common experience. From this experience we can gather evidence on how the world around us appears to work. While philosophically we should remain agnostic we can use logic to examine this evidence and come to a conclusion.

In this pursuit we can never prove a negative. We can never prove with certainty that god(s), dragons, Russle's tea pot, etc. don't exist. There is always going to be the possibility that they are there, but this does not mean that they are likely to exist; or that they are even equally likely to to exist or not exist.

We can admit that gods might exist. Using logic we can examine the evidence and determine that the probability of gods existing is so very low that the logical position to take is atheism.

Humans are not always logical, we can be passionate emotional creatures, and probably should not base all their life choices on logic. Sometimes we need to take a leap of faith.

IMHO, people often need to believe that there's someone out there watching over us. That there's more than just "this life." Those beliefs can be comforting, and that's cool. Just because I don't believe the same way as someone else, doesn't make it right or wrong.

Organized religion is often about who is more reverent and believes the most. It's often about judging others who don't believe the same. I struggle with the organized religion thing. I also struggle with the belief that there is a God, and that anyone who doesn't believe in him is somehow bad.

I don't want to practice some religion all my life, believing that it's the "right" one, only to die and find out that God is a different religion and I blew it. I believe that if you're a good person all your life and try hard to be kind (knowing that you'll fail sometimes because you're human, after all), if there is a Heaven you'll get there. And if there isn't, oh well - you were a good person. You "win" either way.

I have to agree with CL that atheism for many is very much more or less a faith. Agnosticism is fairly neutral and I would agree again with CL that it's logical. Atheism takes the belief that God definitely does not exist on faith.

I have heard people on this cite literally strongly aguing with seriously flawed logic (that was copied from elsewhere), against agnosticism. That is arguing that since we can't prove God's existence, it is therefore false to say that God exists. This may be true if this were a boolean logic question, or if it were a binary operation were there are only two possibilities.

My point is, that anyone who feels the need to go further than saying "I don't know," and who needs to go the extra step of strongly believing that God does not exist, is a either a black and white thinker, who can not handle uncertainty or ambiguity, or it is someone who for other reasons has chosen to literally take it on faith that God does not exist.

One fascinating aspect of arguing with a hard core atheist, is that the argument is always against man made religion, proving why that can not be correct, when that wasn't the question at all. The question was does God (a relatively unknowable and not well defined concept) in any form exists.

If you wish to read some excellent logic on the subject, read Bertrand Russell.

Exactly, Marcus. Although I've taught them all, I have no horse in this race. Atheism is a belief, a belief that God does NOT exist, which cannot be known or proven, and is therefore an article of faith.

One can't "not believe" in something, really, can they?

leoj707 says

I was raised Catholic and taught by viscous Catholic nuns who would beat you with a ruler if you misbehaved" does not imply that I was beaten with a ruler

Vicious, not viscous. But English spelling is a whole other cause for bitterness. Chinese friend of mine once asked why we don't just use the pronunciation spellings as given in the dictionary right after the "proper" spelling. I don't have a good answer for that.

I was actually beaten with a yardstick. The nun (Sister Mary Evelyn, may she rot in purgatory for 1000 years) lost her watch, then demanded to know who stole it, then when no one confessed, she hit each of us on the knuckles with the yardstick, leaving a stripe of blue bruises across my hand. Then she found the watch, but did not apologize to us.

3rd grade. I'm still bitter. I never forgave the Catholic church.

Vicious, not viscous.

And here I was, ready to dislike liquid nuns.

CL says

Exactly, Marcus. Although I've taught them all, I have no horse in this race. Atheism is a belief, a belief that God does NOT exist, which cannot be known or proven, and is therefore an article of faith.

One can't "not believe" in something, really, can they?

Yes, but in that philosophical framework everything is a belief.

Can you "not believe" in Santa Clause, Thor, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, goblins, cigarettes are perfectly safe, etc.

I choose to "believe" that The Lord of the Rings is a work of fiction and not a historical document, but no one could ever prove that Tolkien was not writing a historically accurate facts. Some "beliefs" are more likely to be true, and others are less likely. In the end all facts are just beliefs.

marcus says

If you wish to read some excellent logic on the subject, read Bertrand Russell.

Yes, I have read Bertrand Russell on the subject of agnosticism and it is very enlightening. His belief in agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with any other belief.

marcus says

I have heard people on this cite literally strongly aguing with seriously flawed logic (that was copied from elsewhere), against agnosticism. That is arguing that since we can't prove God's existence, it is therefore false to say that God exists.

Yes, this is a very faulty argument. I have also head from Christians that god must exist because we can not prove that he doesn't. Equally ridiculous, we can never prove a negative, that does not mean that every negative probably exists.

marcus says

My point is, that anyone who feels the need to go further than saying "I don't know," and who needs to go the extra step of strongly believing that God does not exist, is a either a black and white thinker, who can not handle uncertainty or ambiguity, or it is someone who for other reasons has chosen to literally take it on faith that God does not exist.

Not caring if gods exists is all well and good until someone shows up at your door trying to get you to give them money, or in some cases in history worse. At some point with lots of beliefs, not just religious, one has to just say, "I don't believe what you are trying to sell me".

Then she found the watch, but did not apologize to us.

I hope you stole the watch after that, BTW that quote was not from me.

But I'm getting away from the main point, which I see as the fundamental lack of communication between left and right.

The left is trying to fix things, but the right takes the attempt to fix things as a personal insult. Discussion stops right there.

That is the best possible situation for the top 0.5%, which wants to continue redistributing wealth from the middle class to themselves.

You know, it reminds me of the situation described by "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus", where men hear a woman complain and try to fix the problem, but women don't want it fixed, they want sympathy. The men just don't understand that. (Not PC I know, but that is the theme of the book.)

Chinese friend of mine once asked why we don't just use the pronunciation spellings as given in the dictionary right after the "proper" spelling. I don't have a good answer for that.

the weird orthography makes it easier to read English words by shape.

if things were more regular words would be less unique.

And speaking as a Mandarin student, Chinese people should STFU about orthography.

MarsAttacks! says

The left is trying to fix things the right don't agree need fixing, by taking money from the right to pay for it

More federal tax money flows from blue states to red states than vice versa. But perhaps you are right, perhaps we should stop that flow.

leoj707 says

Religion is illogical, because there is no evidence that it is true

list the proof of atheism.

leoj707 says

Atheism is logical because it is the belief

hahaha ... amazing.

Dan, you're wrong.

Ellie. thanks. Please double check 'ol Dan's remarks toward me as your mean-o-meter may be on the glitch.

Everyone, have a great night.

leoj707 says

It would be nice if you had some actual evidence to support your claim.

apply this to Dan's claim or racisim, please. Like, a poll, is your example.

The United Negro College Fund .... NAACP .... National Black Caucous. Negro, Colored, Black. Are these groups racist? Supporting Judge Thomas based on race is racist? And "logic" is your strong suit?

Bap33 says

Ellie. thanks. Please double check 'ol Dan's remarks toward me as your mean-o-meter may be on the glitch.

First off, even tho I've repeatedly said that I'm the voice of reason, I doubt people believe it. My evidence to that would be the fact that I'm full of shit half the time, making such serious comments:

elliemae says

Vicious, not viscous.

And here I was, ready to dislike liquid nuns

I don't purport to be Mikey, who was damn punny. But I like to think that I bring a smile to some faces. Maybe that's what I get for doing my own thinking, I don't know.

But Bap, I didn't see his comments as mean or inappropriate. It doesn't matter how many times we beat this horse, it's not gonna get any deader.

Dan8267 says

Was my post too long for your attention span? Did you stop reading when I started to use "big words"?

Dan8267 says

In summary, ultra-right-wingers are dumb cowards. There is no politically correct way to express this truth.

Dan8267 says

Remember, I posted the list of the 10 reasons that Obama was a bad president. That alone should show I'm not a leftist or a Democrat fanboy.

How is that proven, because a liberal can't disagree with Obama? Interesting logic you use.

Dan8267 says

I firmly believe, no, make that know that no god, as defined by any of the monotheistic or polytheistic religions in human history exists.

prove it

Bap33 says

leoj707 says

It would be nice if you had some actual evidence to support your claim.

apply this to Dan's claim or racisim, please. Like, a poll, is your example.

The United Negro College Fund .... NAACP .... National Black Caucous. Negro, Colored, Black. Are these groups racist? Supporting Judge Thomas based on race is racist? And "logic" is your strong suit?

After reading this post I am not sure you know what the word "racist" means, let alone the history of racism in the US. So, I am not quite sure how to respond to it.

Bap33 says

leoj707 says

Religion is illogical, because there is no evidence that it is true

list the proof of atheism.

Ummm... OK...

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.
Dan8267 states that he does not believe in gods.
Dan8267 is an atheist, therefor atheism exists.

OK, now list the proof for your god.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

I firmly believe, no, make that know that no god, as defined by any of the monotheistic or polytheistic religions in human history exists.

prove it

Because I am God, I could easily prove this to you Bap, but first you must prove something for me.

Bap, prove that I am not God.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

I firmly believe, no, make that know that no god, as defined by any of the monotheistic or polytheistic religions in human history exists.

prove it

In Dan's paradigm there is no God. No eminent Being who is omniscient, omnipotent, etc that is watching over us. That's his paradigm - his belief system. You don't have to prove a belief system because you can't quantify beliefs.

There are people who believe that there is a God but they can't prove there is. They often present the Bible as their proof - a book that was written by man, transcribed by hand over & over and surely the subject of subtle (& not so subtle) changes with each transcription. Remember that there were no copiers until 1938, and not available for commercial use until 20 years later. So, each time someone copied the book by hand it was changed. Man isn't perfect.

People have created religions; as I said it's my belief that it makes them feel better to think that someone or something is out there to watch over them. I'm not belittling their beliefs, just asserting my own.

Rather than asking Dan to prove that there isn't a God, please Bap - prove that there is one. We want quantifiable, scientific proof. Has anyone photographed God? Have there been God sightings (like the Loch Ness monster & Bigfoot)? Which religion is the true one? Enquiring minds want to know.

Just curious - how do you KNOW that there's a God? Or, is it simply your belief system that tells you that there is one? And do you view Dan as less of a man because he doesn't share your belief system?

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/colbert-explains-roves-money-laundering-scheme/

Pretty impressive way to anonymously fund the purchase of politicians.

You forgot to add - IMAO (in my arrogant opinion). lolwut?

marcus says

lolwut

what's that?

Simultaneous "laugh out loud" with "what?"

elliemae says

"lol" should be redefined as "Lack of laughter."

I have a new one. TYSFME (to you straight from my ego).

I tend to not say, IMHO, but please assume that I am always saying that, even when I might be better off saying IMAO or even TYSFME.

Some posters on here are very bright and with strong opinions, and yet I don't hear ego as much from them as I do from some others. MY guess is that it's often a function of age. I would not be surprised to learn that certain individuals on here are under 30. (and I probably sound that way occasionally - although not even close).

I do say IMHO to distinguish between my opinion and my humble opinion.

hahaha

CL says

One can't "not believe" in something, really, can they?

Sure they can . Many choose not to believe in God, or to live their life based on the existence of and worship of God. But this is a far cry from asserting with certainty that God does not exist. That sounds like religious dogma to me. It's very much like some Christians who arrogantly feel that what they have found to be true for themselves is true for everyone, and that they need to spread the word so that others can have the same enlightened experience.

(although in that case it might not be as much pure ego as the atheists assertions, because they believe they are helping the other person to be saved. I guess the atheist feels that they are making the world a better place too so....yeah, it's very similar. )

Atheism, it's the anti-religion religion.