/* 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 */
Terrorism is, as the name implies, the creation of terror in the civilian population for the purposes of achieving political or ideological ends.
Targeting a worker (scientist) creating military hardware is an act of war against the country in question.
I think that if we permit the definition of terrorism to stray so far from its intended meaning then, as ever, the argument becomes pointless as it degenerates into a semantic argument." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
So, the overall impact is going to depend on the endeavour.
For example, I did my fastest lap of Cadwell Park ever last year ... 20+ years after I stopped racing at a high level. Why ? Well, because the technology has improved massively and because it is more about skill and touch than it is about pure physical exertion. On my mountain bike, on the other hand, I don\'t even bother to try and stay with the whippets during races ... their endurance levels and VO2 capacities are so much higher than mine these days.
And, last but not least, every study ever done shows massive indiividual degrees of variation; people simply don\'t age at the same rate so what may be true for a group might not apply to any individual." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
Any reasonably bright individual should, I would contend, realise very quickly that proving a negative is doomed to failure.
From a purely logical perspective, one cannot prove the non-existence of God ... which is why I classify myself as an agnostic/atheist rather than simply atheist.
To \'win\' one would have to rebut every piece of evidence presented for the existence of God and, of course, that would not be possible in all cases with absolute conviction. One may be able to cast doubts on the value and veracity of the evidence but it cannot always be disproved.
Thus, any \'objective\' judge is highly likely to adjudge that the Christian has won but that\'s because the nature of the contest favours that outcome. Judged on probability I would contend that the other outcome would be more likely.
Just a thought ..." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
Back when I was traveling to England the company warned us to NEVER resist if we were attacked. We were told that if we disarmed an attacker and let him run away we would be tried and probably convicted of using excessive force in the situation.
If you can\'t run away in England, you have to submit. It is the law.
Can I suggest a healthier degree of scepticism towards trash media (eg. The Daily Mail) and ill-informed tour guides ?
Whilst it is true that there have been some cases, the English law courts, composed as they are of a jury of the people, have proved remarkably reticent to convict anyone genuinely defending themselves, their families or acting as good samaritans.
I keep a baseball bat under my bed and wouldn\'t hesitate to use it against an intruder in my house and I would most certainly intervene to protect an attacked woman provided I thought I stood a reasonable chance of doing some good (there\'s no point in wading into a situation you can\'t handle - better to call for support). There is some chance of being tried for such acts but vanishingly small chance of being convicted." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
And to think, we of the Dreaded Ilk knew you when you were but a fledgling econo-porn star.
OK, I REALLY don\'t want to but I have to bite ... what on earth is \'econo-porn\' ????" ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
Yeah, because there are no married men who have come out of the closet. That being said I don\'t think he\'s gay, just British.
Oi !" ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
I am no expert in either theology or evolutionary biology BUT my personal view is that it is, now, almost impossible to dispute that evolution has occurred. Allele frequency in populations has changed over time and lead to the rise of different sub-species and species.
There is a lot of talk about the fossil record because, of course, it was all biologists had for quite a long time. However, now, genetics is by far the more compelling evidence for common descent in my opinion.
I accept that evolution occurred because the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly pointing in that direction and, for me, there is no credible alternative theorem at present.
The mechanisms by which such descent occurred are, of course, rather less clear; and there are several valid questions and concerns about current models.
Hence, my dismissal of Dawkins\' appeal to nomenclature and my preference for a simple description of the evidence supporting the theorem." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
I doubt any of Brayton\'s readers even understood what I meant when I wrote that Dawkins just published a book devoted to claiming that an inference is a fact. And yet, that\'s exactly what he explicitly did.
That\'s pedantically true but semantically incorrect ... and I think you know that.
He used it as a much more philosphical sense after pointing out that the only absolutely provable things were mathematical and logical postulates. All else is, at least to some degree, inferred ... eg. we infer something exists because we \'see\' it (which means that light strikes the retina, is converted to nerve impulses, reaches the brain etc etc etc).
I think you can take issue with him on many points but that one is not really germane to the argument at all." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
Even where banks would have preferred to value their positions more conservatively they were forced to "Mark to Market" by regulatory authorities (and governments) keen to ensure maximum taxable profits.
Thus, we had banks forced to value known \'problematic\' positions at the market value even when they suspected that that value would disappear overnight and where they had no means to unwind the position before such an outcome.
Government were simply not willing to let them take a \'prudent\' view of such positions because that would have reduced profits and taxation.
It note the comments about IAS and GAAP ... and I personally use IFRS ... but I like one thing that exists in GAP very much. The auditors are required to state "These accounts give a true and fair view of the state of the business". Without such an over-arching principle, it is perfectly possible to follow the rules correctly yet still create a completely misleading set of accounts - and that is surely what we have had for most of the leading banks for some while now." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
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( "
To blame: Capitalism
To save: Fascism
We have not HAD capitalism ... we\'ve had people gaming the financial system." ); 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( "
My children\'s initials ... AC and DC. And they know the words to most of the songs too ... although they aren\'t allowed to say the bad words.
My son does an aerobics/dance class and thought that "The Jack" would be good for a routine though ... cue awkward moment as Dad tries to explain why this would "not be appropriate" without explaining what the song is about.
And I was at Monsters of Rock at Donnington in 1984 when AC/DC headlined ... with Van Halen, Ozzy Osbourne, Motley Crue and Gary Moore also in the lineup ! Best rock concert of my entire life.
Oh dear ... are we all middle aged ex headbangers ?" ); 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( "