Reaper

How come admins and moderators don't have different colors any more?

I don't know, I have to agree with Rev Blair on this one, with Bush being an idiot:

Well, I think it is now clear that gas prices in the United States will only be going up from now on, not down. Up here in my native state of NH it is $3.90 at the pump currently, and $4 per gallon is not that far off. I've been reading reports that gas prices in California are beginning to reach $5 per gallon, and I'm sure that soon that will be the case here in the Northeast. Though it is not yet that high, these prices are already starting to really become quite painful for many people with our big fat gas guzzling cars. In my area, there is no light rail, no bus, etc. Gas prices are already high enough to make my father start taking his bike to work rather then his car for example (a rather good choice I say, because his work is only about 3-4 miles out of the way). My own car has about 30 mpg, but at $5 per gallon, I'm not sure just how much that is going to matter, and I am going to be needing it in the foreseeable future (which means that I'll have to pay for gas). It is however small, so maybe it will make a difference. But most of us around here aren't that fortunate. I'm beginning to start about thinking about buying one of those really small, "smart" cars that are scarce in the market here in the U.S. right now, that or an electric car and do away with petro all together (if not that, then a hybrid). Additionally, I'm starting to use less hot water and trying to redesign the house so that it will rely much less on that gas heater of mine. Unfortunately here in the States our options are so few, and there is not enough subsidies for renewable resources. The American auto companies aren't doing shit to solve any of the problems, the oil companies have the consumers by the throat, and we are being a bit slow to develop mass transit . What the hell are we to do about this ?

Recently I've been thinking about switching my house from being purely oil heated to relying on solar passive heating, or something similar. However, to install a full blown system costs a considerable amount of money, too high an investment for me right now. Are there any very cheap ways to do it? Even if it means relying a lot less on that gas heater of mine rather then eliminating it all together. Most of my house already faces the south side, and there is lots of wall space to put larger windows, so it's not so much of a problem to actually change it around a little....

Well, his last visit was on the 15th of May. I don't think Vishal be coming back to this thread to defend his claims

From hardest to easiest for me: Physics/Math/Engineering/Chem/Bio/Psychology/[insert social science here] The hardest part for me is knowing when and how to apply formulas; I can memorize a great deal of stuff really easily otherwise. Physics definetely has the steepest learning curve out of the bunch, though once I get it and understand it I find it really easy. And certainly, some topics in physics are easier to learn then others (for some reason I find modern physics and optics much easier to learn then classical ones).... In high school, however, all you are really doing is memorizing. Gets quite boring actually, as you don't really learn anything.

Hey! Congrats! I finished my exams 3 weeks ago. I passed all of them with really high grades. RE Bioengineering: Are you at least passing the class? Sorry to hear about your disaster on that exam....

I know. I'm here on this site for the same reason too. I'm ready to put a stop to this when you are. =================================== One.

That's a pretty good video, Richard Dawkins really does know how to argue his points. EDIT: just watched the whole thing. At the very end of the program, they put out the results of the poll, regarding the question of whether or not the world would be better off without religion. The verdict? 84% of the people surveyed think so. I wonder if you would get similar results overall if you took a poll like this again and again...

Oh good grief! I'm not going to bother responding to any more of these idiotic posts, especially ParanoiA's as he is clearly not interested in an honest debate. Here's the bottom line: the stupidity on most of this thread was entertaining a while back, and so was playing around with you guys for a little bit. But now it's starting to get real annoying. So, iNow, lucespa, and ParanoiA, unless you want this thread to meet the same fate as this one over here, you have until the count of five to get your act together, to get back on topic, to stop strawmanning, to stop the evasions, red herrings, desperate false analogies, etc. Understand? On the side note I really do feel that it's long past time that this thread should be locked....

Yes, I remember. I don't think you are getting it though. Which by the way is a nice strawman of my position. Otherwise, with this statement you have just admitted that it IS possible to falsify religious beliefs (of which there can be no possible justification for them anyways, logical or evidence based). Congrats! Of course, if you have been following along, a deity and all things supernatural are by definition unobservable or outside the realm of scientific analysis (as they say anyways), while a civilization is not. I don't know why you insist on holding onto this analogy. Since when have I ever stated my assertions as fact? You are the one strawmanning here. To which I still say, so what? First off, that's has been my argument, that the burden of proof is on the one making the claims. Also, the person who first makes the claims in any argument usually (but not always) bears a heavier burden of proof on them simply because they are introducing some idea, as in your civilization example (a part I didn't add earlier, but oh well). That's why the onus to provide evidence is on the one making the claim that this supposed civilization exists, and not so much the side who rejects that notion. You are basically trying to evade the issue here, and you are trying to change the definitions. All this, however, still doesn't remove the rather heavy burden of proof on the side of the theists. Accept it. No, I followed you quite well. You just seem intent on trying to distract all of us from the real issue here.

If this is what you really mean, then I'm not really sure as to what the hell you are trying to accomplish, because all I really have to say on this is "yeah, so what?" Because, it still doesn't eliminate the burden of proof from the opposition here. Besides which, if you are bringing up the topic of fairies in this context, then you are still the one making the claims (i.e. that fairies actually exist) Sure you can. The point is, is that the idea that a civilization resides in some corner of the universe is a testable idea. You can conduct experiments, you can look there, you can make assumptions about what you can find that are specific to a civilization, you can employ the scientific method, and it is verifiable. It doesn't matter if it takes 10 years or a 1000 years to falsify or confirm it. That's why it is a false analogy, because you can't say the same of deities. Read the above. Which was pretty much my point . The point is that you can use known facts to draw conclusions, such as whether or not a deity exists. I can assert, with confidence, that there is no such thing as God, given the complete lack of evidence of His existence at hand and even the logical impossibility of such an entity. That's what I wanted to get across. I said it was a strawman because I felt that you were misrepresenting my position. Sorry if that wasn't what you meant. But then, you aren't being consistent with what you mean, because none of this removes any of the burden of proof on the side of the theists. Well, no, I originally said that the burden of proof is primarily on the theists, not that it was always on them. So this is another strawman. Well, 1) so what if nobody ever thought of a god? It doesn't make the idea any more valid. In which case 2) you have to be more specific, because I would imagine in that strict scenario God would probably be shown to be imaginary (never mind the fact that there isn't a single instance in human history in which humans did not have some ideas about supernatural entities/events/things). In fact, I doubt the idea would ever occur to them to disprove the idea of God simply because no one ever made the claim that He existed in any shape, way, or form. This doesn't really help your position at all (in fact you really are evading the issue at this point unintentional or not), what ever that may be at this point. Well, yes it does work because I can poke holes into the idea of God. The burden of proof was never shifted, so I don't know where you got that from. In fact, if you read carefully rather than strawmanning my position, you would have taken note that the burden of proof really does rest on the theists. Because, they are the ones making all the claims about the supposed existence of God, that He is omnipotent, that He has revealed himself in some way, shape or form, that He has intervened in human affairs at some time in the past, that He had a son, that you can even verify his presence and find examples of Him all over the place "if only you keep an open mind", that scripture can be used as a credible source of spirituality, etc. The notion that there is no God, or any of the above, is pretty much the null hypothesis. The burden of proof is therefore primarily on the theists. Strong atheists do have a burden of proof too, but in this case their position is far less shaky, even if their arguments aren't always sound. ParanoiA, I really don't know what you are trying to do here. On the one hand, you seem to be confirming and agreeing with my position. And then, on the other hand, you seem to want to give the other side a fighting chance, even though there really isn't one. If you certainly agree with my position, then what is all the fuss about; there has been nothing wrong with my argument as you have admitted. Regardless, the theists and those who are religious do have a heavy burden of proof on them, which is one of the things that Dawkins brings up in his book, and is most certainly the issue that is being talked about in this thread. No, it does not. Indeed. Let's bring this thread back on topic now. There is no need to be strawmanning each other here.

Well, no, saying "Civilization X does not exist" would be a conclusion, based on lack of evidence, in this particular scenario. Granted, it is not the ONLY conclusion one can come up with (one can easily argue that no conclusions can be drawn for this case), but regardless this does in no way shift the burden of proof to the person who concludes this. The burden of proof rests entirely on the person making the claim that "Civilization X exists", it is therefore up to them to come up with a convincing argument. Actually, that's a weak analogy, because you can search the area of space that contains this civilization. In fact, the existence of this civilization can actually be verified, unlike God, no matter how vague you wish to make your description of it. Evidence for a civilization can be defined, unlike deities. Specific predictions can be made from it. We can even make falsifiable hypothesis from this idea (e.g. a civilization from this corner of the universe will be emitting x, y, and z). Omnipotence, on the other hand... And yes, anyone can make any claims they wish. However, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claims. There is no need for the other side to have to provide evidence to disprove such a claim; that's called shifting the burden of proof. Nope, wrong. Proving God exists certainly isn't my problem . What I have is a conclusion based on various things (such as lack of evidence), not a proof. But no one is arguing over that though. The main problem here is, is that we are not even sure if God really does exist. And if lucaspa and YT is to be believed, then there is no way to ever be sure. The point that I'm making is that, as I said before, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for any of their claims. Anecdotes don't count. The conclusion that God doesn't exist is a perfectly logical conclusion in this case, in fact it is the only conclusion that really makes any sense (hint: Occam's razor). That's a strawman.

Acknowledged. I was just assuming in general, not for a photon.

Tell me, YT, do you care to provide any examples of double standards here in this thread? All most of us here did was point out the problems of his reasoning and his objections.

Actually, that's not really how it works. The burden of proof, as always, rests with the person making the all the claims. It would be totally up to you to come up with the evidence (or at least an argument that would make the idea plausible). Actually, all we have to do is point out that there isn't a shred of evidence. The conclusion that something doesn't exist based on a lack of evidence is a completely logical one. Besides which, a civilization at the furthest reaches of the universe cannot really be compared to arguing for the existence of God, because a civilization is not omnipotent, it obeys the laws of physics, it does not make revelations, etc. No, it does not. And I agree with you on the fact that you just can't dismiss it as "purple unicorns", but that really isn't the point. There is no need to prove any claim. In fact, science can never really "prove" anything in the strictest sense, it can only disprove something. The burden of proof is on the person making the claims, and as much as the theists may want to whine about it, it is primarily on them. All an atheist really has to do is point out that there is not a shred of evidence for any of their claims (along with some other arguments, but that's outside the scope of this thread for the moment...)

I should also note that during my visit to those cities, I learned that it is the pedestrian that has to watch out; because none of the cars or mopeds will stop for you. In fact, there is no real penalty for hitting one from what I heard....

You are better of assuming it is a hypothesis or conjecture, just like anything else, and work from there. And I am aware of the issues revolving around the various interpretations. I recently posted something about this subject in my blog if you wish to look at it.

I don't think he meant that literally. Natural selection by definition is purposeless, nor does it have any sort of agenda. It is, in a strictest sense, a physical process, just like fusion in stars. Well, natural selection did not come up with humans though. In fact, if it wasn't for the K-T extinction event, I'm not sure if humans would have even come to existence to begin with! I'm not sure if our level of intelligence provides any sort of long term evolutionary advantage, especially since our same intelligence gives us the ability to wipe ourselves out.

Well, that's the problem actually, because you are already assuming that God is imaginary. You have to show that it is imaginary first, before you compare it to something else that is. Otherwise, you run the risk of the weak analogy problem. And, I think it's been pointed out already that belief in deities aren't necessarily a product of pure imagination or pure fiction. What I wrote wasn't subjective, you learn about this sort of thing in any philosophy 101 class. Thank you.

Acknowledged, but I just want to make sure that who ever supports the most valid stance, does so with valid arguments . On the side note, I'm actually going to make a blogpost about this topic soon...

And, so what? That is strawman. Well, it appears as if you already made up your mind about it. Just because you find it appalling does not give you, or the religious right, or the state, the right to deny them their right to a marriage or a civil union, or both. What they choose to do in private is none of anyone's concern, and certainly it does not concern you if some gay couple want to get married.

Most of us atheists don't necessarily use science, but I've certainly been to atheist bbs, and it's quite amusing to see some of them try (along with using logical fallacies to back themselves up, e.g. the argument from ignorance). You can, however, use scientific arguments against the existence of deities though, if you choose focus on certain aspects of deities or religious claims as Victor Stenger does in his book. EDIT: Oh, and iNow, sorry to single you out but I do have to let you know, your probably better off comparing the Bible to the Iliad, or God to the Lochness Monster if you want to have a much stronger argument. If you want to use analogies to help your argument that is, because your current one absolutely sucks.

I remember reading somewhere that in antiquity that homosexuality and bisexuality was actually quite respected. Indeed, you see references of such all over Greco-Roman mythology...... And now, 2000 years later, here they are trying to fight for what is most certainly an inalienable right. That's a strawman, because no one is arguing over incest, or indeed the kind of love between family members. Neither is same sex marriage incest either, so that is also a hasty generalization and an irrelevant appeal. And marriage isn't all about mates.

*raises wine glass* Three cheers to our senators and representatives, for investing in yet another stupid, idiotic plan that has no future and for adding yet another mistake that our children will have to pay for. They could have invested that money in just about anything else, *cough* solar/nuclear/geothermal/(list renewable resource here) *cough*, but, in their shortsighted wisdom they chose to grant subsidies to corn and switchgrass based biofuels. It won't be long before our lush forests and ecosystems, and all hope for feeding the world, is just a distant memory....