iNow

I assume you've responded without actually viewing the video the OP was created to discuss. If you do decide to watch it, you will realize that it's about much more than just who spends money and who is watching their own bottom line. Much more interesting to me was how closely this ties back to political ideology, and with people's concerns about size of government. Again, I only ask that respondents view the video before attacking or dismissing it's contents. Thanks. BTW, Swansont - Thanks for the link. That was a good read (but I actually saw it on your blog before here IINM).

Right then, but that wasn't the context of the thread. We were asked why we are not theist, and I responded in order to concur with John C's point. In the course of so doing, I mentioned that I struggle to understand why people still believe in this nonsense, and I was promptly reminded of the rules, and admonished for being so callous as to use the term "nonsense." I do love how I've now been called childish and how it's been implied that I'm acting like a kindergartner, and how this has been done by the very people talking about how important it is not to be mean and not to be rude to posters. It's sort of a pot meet kettle moment, but whatever. Regardless, since you asked Dak, I'll elucidate (despite the fact that this was not the topic to which I was originally responding, I'll gladly offer more since it's been directly requested of me to do so). Religious belief is worthy of rejection because it is all based on faith, and often that belief is held in direct opposition to evidence due to the fact that faith is prioritized over evidence. Ultimately, in these discussions with theists, the argument of existence comes down to faith, and faith alone. Theists invoke special pleading by asking that their faith be granted merit, and they request that we apply different standards to their claims (whether implicitly or explicitly) than we would apply to all other claims in all other arenas. I use the shorthand of calling it nonsense instead of repeatedly asking why we are supposed to accept peoples faith as a valid form of evidence when it applies to their personal belief set... when we would not do the same thing for someone who believed in unicorns because of their faith, or when we would not accept someones faith in Thor as valid evidence of existence, or when we would not accept someones faith in the tooth fairy as valid evidence of existence. If faith is so critical, and so important, why then do they reject faith when it is presented as argument from others with differing beliefs? Why is it good enough to support their personal beliefs, but not good enough to support the validity of beliefs held by others which differ from them? Theists have literally nothing other than their personal faith in support of their claims, and they are essentially invoking special pleading and using double standards of evidence since they would not accept faith alone as evidence of Zeus being a god or evidence that there is an invisible dragon in my garage. What I'm here trying to point out is that we should unashamedly refuse to accept this double standard, and to remind readers of the importance of being consistent with our standards of evidence. We must continually ask... why faith is somehow good enough for beliefs with which these theists agree, but seemingly faith is not good enough for beliefs with which they disagree (let's say belief in Allah or belief in Zeus or belief in easter bunnies). Either ALL claims of faith are equally valid, or none are. Theists everywhere have only thus far managed to offer personal faith as their argumentative foundation; faith alone as the reason for their beliefs. Since they have nothing more than faith alone their assertions and beliefs can be safely dismissed as vacuous and without utility. Again, all we need to do is ask ourselves why someone's "faith" in unicorns or leprechauns or tooth fairies is not good enough to avoid derision and dismissal by all of us... by society at large... but somehow their faith in Yahweh or Jesus are somehow supposed to be exempt from the aforementioned derision and dismissal? Either theists have something more than just their personal faith in support of their claims, or they have nothing whatsoever. Thus far in the centuries during which these discussions have taken place all we've been presented in support of the god existence question is faith, and that's just not good enough. You'll have to forgive me for being a bit lazy sometimes and summarizing all of the above by simply calling it nonsense.

Ok, so long as we say astrology itself is bullshit, we're good. On that note, religious belief in deities is bullshit. I'm not talking to any religious believers, though, so I'm fine since I'm not flaming.

I still fail to understand why so many people buy into this nonsense, but hey... whatever.

Okay. I might also wind up walking dangerously close to a ravine where the weight of the suitcase would be enough to throw me off balance and make me fall in. Or, I might get caught in a rainstorm where flooding occurs and the suitcase weighs me down enough to drown me. Or, maybe I have an allergy to the material out of which the suitcase is made and I wind up in the hospital due to asphyxiation... There are a lot of "mights" that I find to be at a low enough order of probability to not even entertain in this situation. But, hey... That's just me. YMMV.

People carry suitcases. Conspicuous or not, the likelihood that someone would stop you doing the same is incredibly small. If I happened upon this open suitcase I would close it, complete with all its contents, and take it home with me. The whole lot of it. I would try to find a quieter path to get home so as to avoid interaction with people (police or otherwise), but AFAIC it's all mine now and I'd have no problem taking it all. Then, I'd pay off some bills, buy a few nice things for the people I love, test the gun at a range to ensure functionality and add it to my safe when done, and later return to work like I would any other day.

Let's not lose the context of this discussion, people. Here's what I said that prompted the ridiculousness contained in this thread which has been split off: This is pretty much my take. I don't believe in god for the same reason I don't believe in the tooth fairy. Seriously... how do people still buy into this nonsense? Whoa... I should be ashamed of myself, shouldn't I? How dare I go to such a dark and offensive place.

You are sorely mistaken, and let me explain why. These discussions inevitably boil down to the issue of existence. When all of these lofty and heady discussions get distilled, that is the central issue to which we ALWAYS return... claims of the existence of whatever god these people believe in. The claim of existence is NOT an opinion, it is an assertion. It is a statement presented as fact without any acknowledgment of uncertainty, and those claims are subject to the same scrutiny, criticism, and evisceration as are ALL OTHER CLAIMS and assertions made on this board and also in our everyday lives. Those claims of existence are being presented not as opinions, but as facts... as truths representative of this reality in which we exist, and are therefore legitimate targets for criticism. Unfortunately, any and all criticism is deemed "offensive" and those presenting them castigated for lacking "tact," but nobody has a right not to be offended, nor do they have a right to put forth assertions without backing them up with evidence and expect to be taken seriously. Again, all of these discussions distill down to that central premise... that central question of existence. In all of these discussions, those putting forth the existence claim in an affirmative manner have NOTHING other than personal faith in support, and therefore their assertion is rightly dismissed as nonsense. If they are offended by their faith being called nonsense, then that's really too bad. Their offense or sensitivity to criticism makes the label no less valid or true. I say this because we would EQUALLY reject as nonsense someone arguing for the existence of Thor or Zeus based on faith alone. I say this because we would EQUALLY reject as nonsense someone arguing for the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, alien abduction, or magical butt fairies based on their personal faith alone. I say this because we would EQUALLY reject as nonsense someone arguing for perpetual motion machines, that relativity is wrong, or that evolution fails to explain the world around us based on their personal faith alone. In short... In all of these other arenas where claims and assertions are being made we would dismiss their claims and assertions in the absence of objective evidence as nonsense, and rightly so. For you to suggest that religion and theist belief be treated differently... to be held to alternative standard than the one to which we hold EVERYTHING ELSE IN OUR WORLD stinks of special pleading, shows that you wish to apply a double standard, and evidences the fact that you are truly not comfortable having open and visceral dialog on these issues here at your site. That's fine, but make up your mind... You can't have it both ways. You either have a P&R forum where people shred nonsense for what it is, or you realize that you're not comfortable with that happening at your site and you close it down altogether like you did previously. Your attempts to reside in this middle area are only going to fail, and they are going to fail hard (mostly because this site is populated with a membership who are reasonable, rational, and who require evidence in support of claims... people with an interest and often a background in science, where objective, verifiable, repeatable evidence is king). That's my take, anyway. It's not about calling people idiots. The subject of the nonsense label is the belief itself, not the person holding it. Despite that, there is no level of tact which will allow you to avoid the bad feelings which accompany discussions of this nature, as all of these discussions will ultimately become offensive to someone somewhere since all they have is their faith and that faith is being challenged.

But, that's nonsense. We are a mixed society, a hybrid economy with both capitalist AND socialist components... as the above examples CLEARLY illustrate.

In much the same way, nobody would take issue if we were arguing with a birther about Obama being born in the US/Hawaii and if we called their arguments that he was not, in fact, born in the US "nonsense," or if somebody claimed that failure to bail out the banking industry last year would not have resulted in complete economic collapse and we called that "nonsense," but suddenly when religious belief is involved that word is off-limits? We tell people in the forums all the time that their ideas are nonsense. Just look at people who think they have perpetual motion machines or that plate tectonics is a failed theory. Now, here in the P&R forum, the argument is being made that we need to invoke special pleading and double standards? Come on, really?

The issue of assisted suicide was explored in a very mature, compassionate way this week on the Frontline program. I appreciate everyone's interest in the thread thus far. If your interest persists, you might appreciate the ~50 minute special available below. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/suicidetourist/ Five months after being diagnosed with ALS, Craig Ewert arrived in Switzerland for his scheduled suicide. A story about struggling to live ... and deciding when to die. Watch Online --> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/suicidetourist/view/ "I am dying. … There is no sense in trying to deny that fact," 59-year-old Craig Ewert says of his rapid deterioration just months after being diagnosed with ALS, a motor neuron disorder often referred to as Lou Gehrig's disease. "I'm not tired of living," explains Ewert, a retired computer science professor. "I'm tired of the disease, but I'm not tired of living. And I still enjoy it enough that I'd like to continue. But the thing is that I really can't." <...> "At this point, I've got two choices," Ewert reasons. "If I go through with it, I die, as I must at some point. If I don't go through with it, my choice is essentially to suffer and to inflict suffering on my family and then die -- possibly in a way that is considerably more stressful and painful than this way. So I've got death, and I've got suffering and death. You know, this makes a whole lot of sense to me."

Some of you have seen this link with the history of climate science: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm It is an epic story: the struggle of thousands of men and women over the course of a century for very high stakes. For some, the work required actual physical courage, a risk to life and limb in icy wastes or on the high seas. The rest needed more subtle forms of courage. They gambled decades of arduous effort on the chance of a useful discovery, and staked their reputations on what they claimed to have found. Even as they stretched their minds to the limit on intellectual problems that often proved insoluble, their attention was diverted into grueling administrative struggles to win minimal support for the great work. A few took the battle into the public arena, often getting more blame than praise; most labored to the end of their lives in obscurity. In the end they did win their goal, which was simply knowledge. Or this link here, with the timeline of global warming: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm Here are gathered in chronological sequence the most important events in the history of climate change science. And, of course wiki also has a well referenced page supporting all of the above. However, this thread is intended to share with you a talk by a historian well versed in the science of climate change, and that talk is available below. Enjoy, and discuss. XXyTpY0NCp0 A presentation based off of her recent book, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscure the Truth about Climate Change. Naomi Oreskes, author and professor of history and science studies, University of California, San Diego. From the University of Rhode Island's Spring 2010 Vetlesen Lecture Series, People and Planet Global Environmental Change. March 2, 2010.

So basically you want us to all lie to each other... to be insincere, inauthentic, and to mask our true thoughts because we can't handle the fact that some truths hurt peoples feelings? Yeah... Good luck with that. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/02/universal-morality/ We should not feel constrained to assert what we think is an objective truth — that such behavior is wrong — for fear that it will be taken as subjective meddling or demagoguery, Harris argued. There is a moral imperative not to hold one’s tongue but rather to speak out. “Who are we not to say [that it’s wrong]?” he asked. “Who are we to pretend that we know so little about human well being that we have to be nonjudgmental about a practice like this?” We can no longer respect and tolerate vast differences of opinion of what constitutes basic humanity any more than we can take seriously different opinions about how disease spreads or what it takes to make buildings and airplanes safe.

This is pretty much my take. I don't believe in god for the same reason I don't believe in the tooth fairy. Seriously... how do people still buy into this nonsense? Why that lack of belief requires a special word also baffles me a bit. I don't have a label for not believing in Vishnu, nor do I have a label for finding astrology to be bullshit, so why should I need a label for not believing in this particular brand of woo? (basically, just as tomgwyther was saying above).

The PAYGO law passed does not apply to entitlement or emergency spending, which this was. Sorry, Jackson, but your above claim of hypocrisy shows only your own lack of understanding. http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2010/02/25/pay-go-budget-rules-do-little-to-control-spending-or-reduce-deficit.html pay-go does not actually require Congress to cut a dollar for every dollar it spends. Its rules apply only to a fraction of new spending proposals. For instance, programs in appropriations bills (which make up 40 percent of the budget) are exempt. And it has no application to existing entitlement programs, like Social Security and Medicare, which account for another third of the federal budget. In a best-case scenario, it would allow the baseline collision course to continue. Even when pay-go would apply to a new spending bill, Congress has plenty of ways to get around it. "Emergency" spending--like last year's $787 billion stimulus bill--can be determined on an ad hoc basis and is exempt from these rules. The extension of unemployment benefits to over 400,000 US citizens who need them is EASILY classed as emergency spending.

This one seems to offer some perspective:

It's really too bad that facts don't tend to change people's preferred narrative. Either way, speaking of facts, the below is somewhat telling as pertains to the thread title...

The irony in this comment tickled me a bit.

It's impossible to teach your society that killing is wrong by killing people. Further, you cannot kill others without being a hypocrite; guilty of the very act you pretend you're trying to stop. Your argument essentially becomes that killing is wrong unless you're the one doing it, and that is the only logical fallacy being displayed here, friend.

I appreciate the kind words, but YOU are the one who took the initiative to go learn what something meant when you didn't know. THAT is where the credit should go, so don't sell yourself short. You encountered something you did not understand. You were bright enough to know it was important. You asked questions, and took steps to learn more. Nice work. Good luck with everything.

Little more than crap from the denialist echo chamber. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_scandal_gets_bigger.php Not to mention that the locations which he claims were poorly sited actually... when analyzed... result in a cooling bias... not a warming bias as Christy contends. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf (pdf) http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html

You made a claim. It was ridiculous. I very successfully supported my classification of it as such. What was a recent thread title here at SFN? "Science is mean to people whose ideas suck." Go figure... So is reality.

Let's be clear, here. The thread is not an attempt to suggest that CNN and MSNBC are news while Fox is not. Comments about CNN and MSNBC are little more than red herrings, and are wholly irrelevant. The question pertains to Fox News, and Fox News alone. Also Moonman - The closest you'll get these days is News Hour with Jim Lehrer on PBS. I don't watch CNN or MSNBC or any of the other infotainment 24 hour networks either... Stick to Google News which aggregates from numerous sources and News Hour if you want to watch it each evening on the tellie.

Try not to confuse statements of fact with personal attacks. You may not like the content or tone of a post, but personal indignation from you or others does not suddenly negate the validity or accuracy of the comments contained within said post. FWIW - Post #181 bore out my prediction to a tee.

Wow. Fascinating. So you're honestly suggesting that the Obama administration knew that Ted Kennedy would die and they'd lose the Massachusetts seat to Brown two months later... that they'd be facing challenges in the November 2010 elections, and knew what the polls would say when they were speaking out in favor of re-instituting PAYGO back in June 2009 (such as described in the article below): http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/09/obama.paygo/index.html President Obama on Tuesday proposed making "pay-as-you-go" rules for federal spending into law. And ALSO knew about all of those things and only supported PAYGO due to recent electoral concerns when he debated with John McCain in October 2008: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/debate-transcri.html SCHIEFFER: But you're going to have to cut some of these programs, certainly. OBAMA: Absolutely. So let me get to that. What I want to emphasize, though, is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches. <...> But what is absolutely true is that, once we get through this economic crisis and some of the specific proposals to get us out of this slump, that we're not going to be able to go back to our profligate ways. And we're going to have to embrace a culture and an ethic of responsibility, all of us, corporations, the federal government, and individuals out there who may be living beyond their means. And that he only was supporting PAYGO way back during his 2008 presidential campaign due to the upcoming elections in November of 2010: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/fiscal/ObamaPolicy_Fiscal.pdf Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue. Wow... They're amazing. I wish I could look into their crystal ball, because that's simply impressive beyond all measure. I swear, if only I'd known they were only arguing in favor of PAYGO simply because they knew in advance that Kennedy would die and they'd lose the seat to Brown, because they knew in advance that obstructionism in Congress would play out so robustly and cause enough frustration in the US populace to change voting behaviors in 2010... And they knew all of this way back in 2007. These are not men... They're gods! Now, you tell me... What's more likely... The ridiculous assumption above that they've been arguing in favor of PAYGO consistently for 3 years due to a knowledge of what politics would be like in 2010, or the fact that they are simply living up to their promises and principles and you are here doing little more than repeating ill-informed political spin which you've heard from elsewhere on the internet by those disconnected with reality and more interested in narratives than facts?