/* coComment.com Box */
/* SETTINGS FROM DATABASE... */
document.write( "" );
/* ...SETTINGS FROM DATABASE */
/* DEFAULT STYLE... (Override these by adding your CSS LATER ON in the html page) */
document.write( "" );
/* ...DEFAULT STYLE (Override these by adding your CSS LATER ON in the html page) */
/* BOX... */
document.write( "" );
/* ...BOX */
I\'m not sure that all the assertions in this paragraph are proven.
Most of the developmental literature clearly shows that babies are, initially, almost completely unaware that other entities even exist outside of their perception. To go from that position to one of empathy and understanding of anothers’ wants and needs requires socialisation and several major developmental steps.
A baby not only “doesn’t care” that his/her crying at 4am (after doing so on the hour, every hour, from midnight) will stress out the mother but is actually completely incapable of even comprehending it as a concept.
From this supreme egotism, slowly they begin to realise that other entities have an objective existence and, later again, potentially a different mindset.
Later still, and only after instruction, some empathy is developed; but that empathy is very limited and, usually, will not over-ride other imperatives. “I know I shouldn’t kick my brother but he was REALLY annoying me so I’m justified !”.
Given the relatively low level of empathy shown by most children, it is very doubtful that any real understanding of the pain inflicted occurs. The child pulling the wings from the fly is, usually, not considering the pain inflicted and certainly not enjoying it for its own sake … he is curious as to what will occur.
And, whilst this is not fully worked, I think this provides a highly credible theory as to the perceived existence of an internal struggle between good and evil; it is simply the inherent conflict between “I want” and the socialised understanding and training that says ‘must not’.
Long before Blake wrote ‘Lord of the Flies’ it had been observed that socialisation was key and that children did indeed become feral bereft of socialisation." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
The participants in the NFL do so OF THEIR OWN VOLITION. The NFL Administration, therefore, has the right to change the rules ... but not the might to compel the players or teams to participate. The teams, for example, could all agree to leave the NFL and setup their own league as the majority of Formula 1 teams threatened to do when they disagreed with the FIA.
Now, forgive me if I misrepresent theology, but I believe that it is axiomatic that God\'s rules are ubiquitously applied. There is no volition involved on the part of the participants. As such, this is a mighty imposition." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
Let me take an ineligant yet practical pitch at that ... "good is what we are brought up to believe is good".
The human mind is highly malleable and all infants display almost complete selfishness. We learn to be "good" as we learn to empathise and recognise that others have wants and needs which impinge on ours.
I appreciate some might find this excessively pragmatic yet I contend that this is what we usually encounter.
Thus, there is no absolute ethic only a localised ethos." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
The most egregious over-extension, in my opinion, is the granting of patents on genes. Apparently 20% of the human genome has already been patented.
This is patently (sic) ridiculous." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
But, in any real situation where you would have to slow up, take a bend, and then accelerate again I would bet you large sums of money that the F1 would leave the Veyron miles behind. The Veyron is super powerful but it\'s way way too heavy." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
The point is a simple one; it is that the factors that one thinks are pertinent, how one thinks those factors impact the likelihood (or otherwise) and, last but not least, the weight that one gives each of those factors can give you a simple answer.
BUT, since both the likelihood (some people say some factors give a one for existence) and the weightings are SUBJECTIVE we will never reach an agreed outcome.
To summarise the summary; you can\'t prove or disprove God because the rubric of the environment in which you have to effect that proof is different for each individual." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
There is a 0% likelihood of a "lack of any directly observed interaction"?
No, that fact suggests that there is no God (0% likelihood of God) ... that\'s how it works." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
Hope you will permit me to post a live-link to my blog (a very sparsely populated affair) simply because I couldn\'t post it to yours. If you would like to recreate here for comment and interaction then please feel free ... I can send you the excel sheet or the blog post code.
Likelihood of God
As I have said for some while, as an agnostic, I don\'t think it is possible to prove the existence or otherwise of God. However, if one looks at the various evidential elements (and I\'ve only endeavoured to capture some of them here as an example) then each would tend to be proving existence (100%) or non-existence (0%) or tending one way or the other.
If one then adds in the weighting that one ascribes to each evidential element; and the weighting is personal - I weight objective, testable evidence much higher than anecdotal or historical for example; then one arrives at a likelihood figure for existence or otherwise. My score came out at 18% hence why I am agnostic but tending towards atheist.
For a believer, belief, anecdotal and historical evidence and moral absolutism would have much higher weightings and, as such, would tend to give a high likelihood of existence.
I don\'t want to hijack the thread ... but I think the logical, point by point, approach fails in a fundamental way because, ultimately, neither viewpoint is logically provable and the reductionist nature of such argumentation leads conversation away from the fundamental nearly every time." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
Blackblade... you\'re a fascist!
What !!!! ???? What did I do ?" ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
I can\'t help but notice that not a single member of the evolutionary faithful has volunteered to abandon the faith should Ida turn out to not be the long-awaited confirmation of Darwinian evolution.
Given that evolution is, strictly speaking, defined as:
"any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next"
this is proven and can be re-proven by anyone with six months time to spare.
Some, many here I suspect, reject this proof because they claim that this is only micro-evolution since it is within a species. Of course, given the timescales involved, maco-evolution cannot be practically demonstrated.
Personally, based on my reading, I think the macro/micro focus is pointless. It is inherently clear that if you separate two groups of the same species for a sufficiently long period, knowing that genetic drift will occur, at some point they are technically separate species. But that point is not a sudden, instant, moment ... it\'s a gradual separation.
As such, this is another, useful, piece of evidence (if verified) that supports the theory but evolution doesn\'t succeed or fail based on it." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
Two points:
Firstly, it\'s not very hard at all to find oneself convinced that the likelihood of god\'s existence is very low. I can personally attest to that.
Secondly, life is not meaningless without god." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
But what I find ridiculous is the idea that believing in a young earth (well, vastly more commonly, not believing in evolution) is tremendously dangerous, or somehow the biggest (or even one of the biggest) problem facing science education. Why is it that Jerry Coyne and so many others treat \'whether or not people believe in evolution\' as the single yardstick for estimating science knowledge? Why isn\'t talking about quantum mechanics the big concern? Or the nature of time, or any other number of vastly more fundamental, curious areas of science?
I think that, prior to participating in the the discussions here, I would certainly have had a similar concern about YEC believers. I must confess that for me it stretches the bounds of credibility way too far (eg. light BEFORE the sun in creation).
I don\'t speak for anyone else so I can only give you my perspective and it\'s this; I fear anyone who cannot be reasoned from a position. Now, I\'m not naive enough to believe that anyone WANTS to give up their cherished beliefs but, at the same time, there has to be a certain level of evidence at which point someone says, albeit reluctantly, "Hmmm, I guess the evidence no longer supports my position and I\'ll have to change my mind".
Now, as Vox points out in the original post, scientists are frequently, unfortunately, as wedded to cherished beliefs as many others. But, I have seen people categorically state ... "Whatever the evidence presented, I\'m still going to believe the Bible as inerrant and literal".
That 100%, no possibility of error, certainty is, to me at least, worrying." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
if any atheist reading this feels he\'s got a particularly effective argument even if it doesn\'t happen to be one of the common ones - just let me know
Well, since you did ask ...
I am of the view that you cannot PROVE the existence, or otherwise, of god and that, hence, any individual \'proof\' can usually be tackled effectively by either side.
However, the reason for my atheism is that the overall weight of evidence, based on my personal weighting of course, seems to suggest against.
- Evidence of descent
- Evidence that the universe is uniform and mankind one very tiny and ephemeral part
- Evidence that the Bible, like most holy books, was anthropomorphic
- Knowledge of the history of the adoption of religion
- Lack of reproducible, objective evidence to suggest existence of a God
- Lack of personal contact with said God, despite earnest attempts in the past
- Highly unlikely that rules of the universe suspended sufficiently to allow literalist creation and flood
etc
etc
etc
Thus, whilst I would never say "there is no God" because I don\'t think that it can be proven I would definitely say "I think it highly unlikely that there is a God based on the evidence."
I\'d thus be interested in a reasoned argument that, instead of probing to the point of saying "well, this doesn\'t disprove God" for each individual thrust, endeavoured to show how the overall weight of evidence was in favour." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
Now one could respond here and say well most atheists today are socialists and you would be correct.
As a capitalist a-theist I would ask you to backup this assertion." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
Trulli should not have been docked 25seconds and, now, Hamilton should not be disqualified.
The correct result, clearly, is Hamilton 3rd and Trulli 4th because Trulli went off ... anything else is a travesty and means the sport aspect suffers." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
How does one go about developing software when one does not have the technical skillz to actually write the software?
Get yourself a good team including a designer. If you can sketch it up on a whiteboard that is sufficient to get going.
I can refer you to contract development resources in Eastern Europe if you want.
Cheers,
Matt (aka Blackblade)" ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
I thought Bush already established that the President can execute anyone he wants to :-)" ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
.....I supposedly have the highest rated one....... but This probably is US only... :-/ if not... to who do I send my adress....?
The winners are as stated above in the post ..." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
Apparently the general public were against the bailout. I wonder how much of that will translate into a boycott. (for those who have money left to buy a car, that is)
Sorry, I wasn\'t logged in ... the Guest post was mine.
I don\'t think the issue was really a boycott ... it was more down to the fact that, of course, the government was never inclined to permit the massive investments needed to produce really great new product. As such, the portfolio withered and slowly died ... the vehicles simply weren\'t competitive" ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
Oh Vox, on the radio today, Atheists whinging about censorship in Tasmania, they want to advertise on buses and Tassie is stopping them, so what is being written to advertise \'atheist beliefs\' (that was the radio\'s take) from being displayed in public?
Their advertisement?
"Atheism: Celebrate reason. Sleep in on Sunday mornings."
What about remembering ...
1. Free speech
2. A sense of humour" ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
Sowell concludes his article by saying ...
"They want our soul-- and if they are willing to die and we are not, they will get it."
But, earlier on, he says ...
"Will the horrors unleashed by Islamic terrorists in Mumbai cause any second thoughts by those who are so anxious to start weakening the American security systems currently in place, including government interceptions of international phone calls and the holding of terrorists at Guantanamo?"
If the \'soul\' of the USA is based on certain inalienable rights as stated in the constitution such as freedom of the individual and the rule of law then he\'s advocating just giving up on them anyway ... the terrorists don\'t have to do anything more, they\'ve already won.
Or, as Franklin put it ... "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."" ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
Surely they were more likely than a class at Bob Jones University or a Catholic Friary though :-)
On second thoughts, forget the comment about the friary !" ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
Science is neither good nor bad ... people are. The actions of these Nazi scientists were not bad science ... they were immoral and evil.
One can apply science for good or evil ... and only people can distinguish." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
One day, a very pleasant older gentleman, and I use the term advisedly, came into the office and said "You\'ve cut me off". "Let me have a look ..." I responded and checked the system ... which showed that the man was a Class 7 payer (pays on the nail, every time) and was not disconnected.
However, I queried a little more and discovered that a team had arrived from the electricity board, gone into the block supply room, and subsequently all the power went off in his apartment.
Thinking a little more I pulled up the payment records of the other apartments and, sure enough, there was one scheduled for disconnection. Case solved ... probably ... the ***** have disconnected the wrong supply.
Now comes the sisyphean task of trying to get a bureaucracy to recognise that "A MISTAKE HAS BEEN MADE AND THE COMPUTER SYSTEM NO LONGER REPRESENTS REALITY".
First up, the easy bit ... I call Revenue Protection (and, no, I\'m not making the name up) and explain that they have, probably, not disconnected the right apartment. They are more than happy to go out and disconnect the right apartment ... but are not authorised to connect ANYONE so can\'t rectify their own mistake. This despite the fact that the actual teams are, of course, fully trained in all the necessary aspects to do so. Anyway, they go out, despite the fact that the system says that the delinquent customer is already disconnected ... and, sure enough, call me back later to confirm that the supply was on and is now not.
Now, to get the gentleman reconnected. I call supply management to reconnect him. I tell them what has happened ... they check system and are happy to go out to fix the \'supply problem\' because system says he is connected so if he hasn\'t got power then he should have and they\'ll be right on it. They sound sceptical that anyone would be accidentally disconnected and suggest that it\'s just a coincidence that the two events seem to coincide.
I go off for lunch and the gentleman returns to his apartment.
As I\'m eating lunch I get a call ...
sm - We need to talk to you ... there\'s no problem with his supply, he\'s been disconnected. We\'re not authorised to reconnect.
me - Yes, I told you he\'d been disconnected in error ... check the system status ... he\'s fully paid up and should have supply
sm - We can\'t reconnect ... we\'re only allowed to fix supply issues.
me - Well, he has a supply issue ... WE disconnected him in error and now he has no supply ... sounds like an issue to me.
sm - No, you don\'t understand ... we can\'t reconnect a disconnection ... only Connections are authorised to do that and they\'ll only do so once all oustanding amounts are settled.
me - There are NO oustanding amounts ... he was disconnected in error ... oh, what the heck, I\'ll call connections
I call connections ...
me - Hi there, I\'ve got a customer needing supply
c - Sure, address please
me - ...
c - No, we can\'t connect there ... there\'s already a customer there and he\'s already connected
me -
c - But I can\'t issue a work order to connect someone who\'s already connected ... look, you can see it in the system, he\'s connected
me - He\'s NOT connected ... WE disconnected him in error
c - Well, the system says he\'s connected ... it\'s probably a supply issue ... you should call Supply Management ...
I call Supply Management and Connections three more times each, going up the hierarchy to a level where my colleagues in the office are implying that "making waves" could be very bad for my career. Fortunately, I point out that this is a temporary job and I have precisely zero ambition to spend my life doing this.
However, despite getting \'sympathy\' and \'concern\' no-one seems able to resolve the problem. Revenue Protection can\'t reconnect - full stop. Supply Management fix connection problems but their teams are not authorised to reconnect disconnected customers. Connections can\'t issue a connection work order for an already connected customer.
In the end, I personally call the Managing Director for the whole of London Electricity ... and, finally, a "Special Operations" team is despatched (probably exactly the same guys as Connections would have sent) and the gentleman is, finally, reconnected.
And, it would be nice to think that this was the end of the story ...
but .... three weeks later ... the same gentleman reappears in the office with .... a bill for the work done !" ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
The standard that God set down for his word is perfection. If you can prove even one error of the Bible, then the whole Bible is to be rejected. And if there was one proveable error, it would be in the news all around the world. The world would declare its freedom from the Bible because of an error. Where is this proof? Atheists keep making this claim. Where is it? You can\'t find it because it doesn\'t exist. Many athiests have honestly made the attempt. They had an open mind and set out to prove the Bible false. Only to come to the conclusion that the Bible is in fact the Word of God. And became Christians.
Since there are many documented inconsistencies and factual errors in the English versions, the only way you can sustain this argument is by claiming that the original manuscripts were inerrant. However, as the original manuscripts no longer exist the claim can\'t be tested.
And, no, I didn\'t initially come to the bible antagonistically ... I found some of the contradictions for myself at the age of 17 whilst still a christian. The ridiculous attempts at sophistry to try and sustain the inerrancy argument (my church elders also believed the translations inerrant) were a major factor in my, ultimately, deciding that whilst there may or may not be a god he/she was not as described in any of the christian, judaic, sikh or islamic holy books." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
As was stated above culture != race or ethnicity
Diversity is great (different food, interesting festivals etc etc) BUT there have to be core values shared for a society to function. A society is made stronger by immigrants who accept and embrace the core values of that society. It is undermined by those who wish to reap the benefits but reject the core values and responsibilities that created them.
The core tenets of western culture (tolerance, rule of law, respect for the rights of the individual, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of thought and religion, democracy, value of hard work and enterprise) ARE worth defending. But, they can be and are defended by people of many different races. I don\'t care where you come from, I don\'t care about the colour of your skin, I don\'t care who you have sex with, I don\'t care what, if any, god you worship .... I care about your views on society and on our mutual obligations to each other in that society.
Multiculturalism is fine provided that there are core values that all ascribe to and support. As such, it has a limit ... all cultures are not equal and to be successful a culture has to defend its core values." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
God only provided man with enough blood to power either his brain or his d**k ... but not both at the same time !" ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "