ThinkFast: October 30, 2008
ThinkFast: October 30, 2008
New data from insurance companies and online brokers show that “women pay much more than men of the same age for individual insurance policies providing identical coverage.” At times, a woman’s insurance can “cost hundreds of dollars a year more than a man’s.”
$14.83 billion: Exxon Mobil’s third quarter profits, shattering “its own record for the biggest profit from operations by a U.S. corporation.”
0.3 percent: The amount by which the U.S. economy shrank in the third quarter. “The figure, the last major piece of economic data before the presidential election, follows a 2.8 percent growth rate the prior quarter.”
According to Democratic aides, there is “a good chance” that Sen. Joseph Lieberman will lose his only committee chairmanship next year” on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, perhaps replacing it with a subcommittee gavel.
Seventy-six Nobel Prize laureates in science endorsed Barack Obama yesterday — the largest number to ever express support for a presidential candidate — “citing his commitment to improving U.S. competitiveness by boosting science, technology, education and research.” The scientists also “criticized the Bush administration for damaging scientific development.”
Five days to go: Barack Obama will hold a rally in Sarasota, FL, and then travel to events in Virginia Beach, VA and Columbia, MO. Joe Biden will hold rallies in Arnold, MO, Williamsport, PA, and Allentown, PA. John McCain barnstorms across Ohio, and Sarah Palin will attend events in Missouri and Pennsylvania.
A new ethics complaint has been filed against Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, accusing her of “abusing her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her.” Last week, the AP reported “that Palin charged the state more than $21,000 for her three daughters’ commercial flights, including events where they weren’t invited, and later ordered their expense forms amended to specify official state business.”
The CIA is allowed to “hide statements from imprisoned suspected terrorists that the agency tortured them in its set of secret prisons,” a federal judge ruled yesterday. Judge Royce Lamberth issued his ruling without reviewing the CIA’s claims that revealing such accusations of torture would jeopardize national security.
The Iraqi government demanded changes yesterday to the long-delayed security pact with the U.S., requesting amendments that “would ban American troops from using Iraqi territory to carry out attacks on other countries, further limit when the troops would have immunity from Iraqi laws and allow inspections of American arms shipments.” Recently, the U.S. launched an attack from Iraq into Syria.
The Bush administration is “discussing a plan that could help up to three million homeowners struggling to pay their mortgages to stay in their homes,” sources told the New York Times. “Under the plan, the government would agree to shoulder half of the losses on home loans if mortgage companies agreed to lower borrowers’ monthly payments for at least five years.”
As studies warn of the sharply rising cost of college, John McCain says he “would take a bully pulpit approach to student aid” as President, trying to “jawbone and publicly try to coax colleges to slow their rate of tuition increases.” Though McCain touts Pell Grants, he “has not proposed any new money for the Pell program.”
And finally: Does Sarah Palin make you sit “a little straighter on the couch“? Do you find her smile “so sparkling it [is] almost mesmerizing”? Then we’ve found the calendar for you. Anchorage-based photographer Judy Patrick has created a 2009 Sarah Palin calendar, filled with “dozens of original portraits and candid shots of the Alaska governor on the job and with her family.” The calendar, which initially has a 30,000 print run, costs $15.95 and can be found at www.sarahcalendar.com.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
$14.83 billion: Exxon Mobil’s third quarter profits, shattering “its own record for the biggest profit from operations by a U.S. corporation.”
Pigs at the trough…
How sad to define your self-worth in terms of hard, cold cash that you stole from innocent working-class people who can’t afford a comfortable life anymore because of your selfish actions.
Makes me understand why people start Revolutions… November 4th, 2008 – be there.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:06 amSeventy-six Nobel Prize laureates in science endorsed Barack Obama yesterday
Yeah, yeah, that’s nice, TP. But you missed the most important story of the day: Stephen Colbert last night became the latest conservative pundit to endorse Barack Obama.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:07 amAccording to Democratic aides, there is “a good chance” that Sen. Joseph Lieberman will lose his only committee chairmanship next year” on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, perhaps replacing it with a subcommittee gavel.
Well, we’ve managed to get rid of the rotten Republicans. It’s been hard work educating the population, and getting them to vote the bums out. Seems our work is not finished and that we are going to have to start replacing the rotten Democrats next…
Lieberman should be banished. Period. No maybes or subcommitees. Done. Finished. Over.
If the Democratis can manage to understand this, then perhaps We The People should question their integrity and loyalty to us and our Democracy.
When peole fear the government, it’s a dictatorship. When the government fears the people, it’s a Democracy.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:09 am“women pay much more than men of the same age for individual insurance policies providing identical coverage.”
So? Women are, by nature, more high-maintenance.
I’ve been married for 8 years and the annual visit to the gyno ain’t no cheap affair, while I’ve had maybe 3 doctor visits in that same time.
A Ferrari costs more to insure than a Buick.
Besides, those with coverage tend to go to the doctor more often under said coverage, which will lead to higher premiums (ask anyone with small children who visit the pediatrician several times a year.)
October 30th, 2008 at 9:12 amOh, the inhumanity of it all. He’s finally here in Sarasota and I can’t go. I’m the only on in the office. Saaayyy, I wonder if that’s why my boss hasn’t shown up yet.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:13 amGDP was down a less than expected .3% so one would think that was good news. But the devil is in the details. The category called government spending was up a whopping 6%. During economic hard times one expects to see government spending increase as a cushion against the downturn. This was not expected because the first stimulus bill was mostly tax rebate checks sent out in the quarter prior to this reporting period. Was this a bookkeepping gimick to accelerate payments as window dressing just prior to the election? I just don’t trust these preliminary GDP numbers, especially that whopping increase in government spending.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:13 amThe scientists also “criticized the Bush administration for damaging scientific development.”
It’s hard to advance Science in a country where the President literally believes a third century collection of fairytales as the factual explanation for our existence.
If 97% of the Academy of Sciences members reject invisible sky wizards as an explanation for life, then nothing will advance in this country in regard to Science until we have a leader who recognizes tha while we persist in our Dark Ages mentality, the rest of the world has abandoned tehir invisible friends in favor of knowledge, education, and it seems, a new JFK-style space race.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:14 am$14.83 billion: Exxon Mobil’s third quarter profits, shattering “its own record for the biggest profit from operations by a U.S. corporation.”
If this were Alaska, we’d all get to share in that wealth.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:15 ama 2009 Sarah Palin calendar
Mmmm, a new covering for the dart board?
October 30th, 2008 at 9:16 amA new ethics complaint has been filed against Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, accusing her of “abusing her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her.”
The future of the Republican Party. LOL
We’re gonna have Democrats in power for quite some time, then…
October 30th, 2008 at 9:16 am0.3 percent: The amount by which the U.S. economy shrank in the third quarter. “The figure, the last major piece of economic data before the presidential election, follows a 2.8 percent growth rate the prior quarter.”
Growth rate brought to you courtesy of Bush’s “stimulus” package of supplying borrowed money to consumers so they can spend it and keep up the appearance that the economy was not in a recession.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:17 amThe Bush administration is “discussing a plan that could help up to three million homeowners struggling to pay their mortgages to stay in their homes,”
I see that he’s still struggling to find a positive legacy to his rotten Presidency. Sad it’s so difficult.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:17 amThe CIA is allowed to “hide statements from imprisoned suspected terrorists that the agency tortured them in its set of secret prisons,” a federal judge ruled yesterday. Judge Royce Lamberth issued his ruling without reviewing the CIA’s claims that revealing such accusations of torture would jeopardize national security.
What happens in THE MINISTRY OF LOVE stays in THE MINISTRY OF LOVE.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:23 amMcCain scaremongering ties Obama to yet another college professor. An ARAB professor, even! YIKES!
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/30/headlines
October 30th, 2008 at 9:24 amA new ethics complaint has been filed against Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, accusing her of “abusing her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her.”
Thereby further endearing herself to the Reichtwing.
I was listening to “conservative” talk radio yesterday (for comedic relief) when I heard the quivering sounds of an ignorant coward trying to conflate Obama’s remark about sharing our toys with communism. I kid you not, he was trying to make the argument that sharing was for losers, and therefore, unAmerican.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:24 amI see that he’s still struggling to find a positive legacy to his rotten Presidency. Sad it’s so impossible.
There. Fixed it for ya!
October 30th, 2008 at 9:25 amAs studies warn of the sharply rising cost of college, John McCain says he “would take a bully pulpit approach to student aid” as President, trying to “jawbone and publicly try to coax colleges to slow their rate of tuition increases.” Though McCain touts Pell Grants, he “has not proposed any new money for the Pell program.”
McCain: Please don’t price a college education out of reach for the poor.
Colleges: no.
McCain: Oh. Ok. There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with our college education system.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:25 amDieNowForPeace Says: “women pay much more than men of the same age for individual insurance policies providing identical coverage.” So? Women are, by nature, more high-maintenance.
That kind of mentality will keep our country in Medieval Times for certain. We can’t reduce our crime rate until we see women as equals.
Gender is not a determining factor for health, or need for health care. I go to the doctor once a year. My brother, once a month. Plus, he earns more than I do, making the bill even more unfair to me – just because I have a uterus I’m not using?
October 30th, 2008 at 9:28 amtom Says: I see that he’s still struggling to find a positive legacy to his rotten Presidency. Sad it’s so impossible. There. Fixed it for ya!
I don’t think it’s impossible. If it were, it would be understandable, and even forgivable that he is doomed to certain failure.
I think it was quite possible for him to have gotten at least one thing right. He’s just chosen not to – and that makes him far worse than someone who can’t help themselves.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:30 amJohn McCain says he “would take a bully pulpit approach to student aid” as President, trying to “jawbone and publicly try to coax colleges to slow their rate of tuition increases.”
McCainomics 1.01.
Q: How does the government control inflation?
A: BY SHOUTING AT PEOPLE WHO PUT UP THEIR PRICES.
Don’t give the chairman of the Fed the ability to set interest rates, just give the dude a megaphone. Yay, makroekonomix is eezee.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:31 amDumb_Hussein_Fox Says:
Q: How does the government control inflation?
A: BY SHOUTING AT PEOPLE WHO PUT UP THEIR PRICES.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:31 am
________
This is an interesting approach. To my knowledge, there have been no serious studies of the “you kids get off my lawn” approach to economic policy, or curmudgeonomics, as I’ve hereby termed it.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:34 amunbelievable Says:
Yes but, tell it to the insurance underwriters.
Insurance will never, ever, be a perfect system.
If my cousin never goes over 55 mph in his Ferrari, he still has to pay full bore insurance premiums.
This is simply how insurance works. Trying to change it will only make things worse, and believe me, it’s only going to get worse.
Universal Healthcare will NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER happen here in the good ol US of A.
It’s just not profitable, therefore, un-doable.
Until we change the fundamental way we view the quality and value of human life, nothing will ever change.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:35 amThe Iraqi government demanded changes yesterday to the long-delayed security pact with the U.S., requesting amendments that “would ban American troops from using Iraqi territory to carry out attacks on other countries,
I do believe that Iraq (the people and their government) are going to be as happy to see Bush gone as we will be.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:36 amDieNowForPeace Says:
Until we change the fundamental way we view the quality and value of human life, nothing will ever change.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:35 am
_______
Exactly. We need a paradigm shift from health care as a business venture to health care as a human right.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:36 amThe calendar, which initially has a 30,000 print run, costs $15.95 and can be found at http://www.sarahcalendar.com.
I’d think about buying a bunch and putting them on e-bay. There have to be a least 30,000 wingnuts willing to spend a lot more than 16 bucks of a Sarah souvenir.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:39 am“Under the plan, the government would agree to shoulder half of the losses on home loans if mortgage companies agreed to lower borrowers’ monthly payments for at least five years.”
First of all, why don’t they put a moratorium on foreclosures for at least 90 days. Every month they ignore the problem, that many more people lose their homes.
Second, if they keep the interest rate where the homeowner can afford to make payments, there will be no losses. Something I never understood was why, knowing if they double the interest rate a homeowner is paying will put them in a position where they can’t make their payments, the mortgage companies didn’t just put them at the going rate, which most homeowners could afford? Wouldn’t they rather make a little less off interest than having a foreclosed home on their hands in today’s market?
October 30th, 2008 at 9:40 amDieNowForPeace Says: This is simply how insurance works. Trying to change it will only make things worse, and believe me, it’s only going to get worse.
So, then, get rid of it if it isn’t working. I refuse to be passive and just accept what I get because the alternatives might be worse. It’s about progress.
Universal Healthcare will NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER happen here in the good ol US of A.
I’ve learned to never say never.
Obama’s plan doesn’t go far enough, but it’s the next step (Hillary Clinton took the first one during her husband’s Presidency). People have been known to complete journeys of thousands of miles one step at a time.
And we have to demand it. We can’t keep accepting the status quo just because.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:42 am______
unbelievable Says:
The scientists also “criticized the Bush administration for damaging scientific development.”
It’s hard to advance Science in a country where the President literally believes a third century collection of fairytales as the factual explanation for our existence.
If 97% of the Academy of Sciences members reject invisible sky wizards as an explanation for life, then nothing will advance in this country in regard to Science until we have a leader who recognizes tha while we persist in our Dark Ages mentality, the rest of the world has abandoned tehir invisible friends in favor of knowledge, education, and it seems, a new JFK-style space race.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:14 am
______
“It was because of these newfound understandings-that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved- that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United church of Christ one day and be baptized.”
“I am suggesting that if we progressives shed some of our own biases, we might recognize the values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country.”
“The Audacity of Hope”
October 30th, 2008 at 9:43 amBarack Obama
As studies warn of the sharply rising cost of college, John McCain says he “would take a bully pulpit approach to student aid” as President, trying to “jawbone and publicly try to coax colleges to slow their rate of tuition increases.”
So, John McCain thinks that colleges are raising their tuition fees to make a larger profit? That man IS a total idiot when it comes to economics. Colleges are not like Exxon Mobile, they are not doing what they do to make profits for stockholders. Colleges are raising their tuition because they have to. The answer is to stop cutting funding to colleges and raise funding to a rate where colleges don’t have to charge an arm and a leg for tuition.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:44 am$14.83 billion: Exxon Mobil’s third quarter profits, shattering “its own record for the biggest profit from operations by a U.S. corporation.”
Stolen from the backs of the working class and the airline industry.
What a proud American trait.
Priceless.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:45 amBilbo Hussein Baggins Says: Something I never understood was why, knowing if they double the interest rate a homeowner is paying will put them in a position where they can’t make their payments, the mortgage companies didn’t just put them at the going rate, which most homeowners could afford?
I’ve also been asking this question, and cannot get any kind of answer from anyone. All the talking heads ignore that we’ve been asking this question, as if they cannot hear it. It must mean that it’s a good thing for the middle class…
October 30th, 2008 at 9:47 amHeard a joke today about the White House Security finding a man trying to scale the White House Fence.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:48 amThey caught him, and told him he has two more months to go – he’d better get back inside.
upright left Says:
“I am suggesting that if we progressives shed some of our own biases, we might recognize the values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country.”
October 30th, 2008 at 9:43 am
_______
It’s a good point. Faith doesn’t have to negate science, and many scientists are able to reconcile their personal religious beliefs with their work. The problem is with the evangelical industry that is trying to use the Bible AS a science textbook.
As Galileo famously said, “The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.”
October 30th, 2008 at 9:49 amupright left Says: “The Audacity of Hope” Barack Obama
What else could he say? You can’t be President – or any other elected official in this country – unless you say that stuff. Even the Founding Fathers who privately bashed Christianity feigned a public persona of tolerating it so that they could do other things.
There’s more to what Obama said about religion:
October 30th, 2008 at 9:52 am
What a dispiriting comment on the state of our nation!
It’s almost unbelievable that one of our two major political parties works actively against science. How the hell did America, founded on Enlightenment principles, go so wrong?
This fact alone make the Republican Party America’s greatest domestic enemy. See Chris Mooney’s The Republican War on Science for the whole sad story.
The Mess We’re In:
October 30th, 2008 at 9:54 amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiBWkNFtrEg
found on the googlenews page:
Sarah Palin ‘Not Going to Let Women Down’
ABC News – 2 hours ago
By MARK MOONEY Sarah Palin says she doesn’t know why most women don’t support her candidacy or why others believe she is unqualified to be vice president, but says it makes her determined to keep fighting.
yay.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:57 amhussein toasterhead Says:
Exactly. We need a paradigm shift from health care as a business venture to health care as a human right.
That does not go far enough. We need a paradigm shift from selfish uncaring greed as being a good thing to have and an “american value” to an actual concern for the well being and happiness of all Americans, or even (gasp) all human beings. Wow, how Christian of this non-Christian to propose such a radical thing. Eschew self-serving greed and actually act upon concern for other human beings.
Well, not in THIS America, and certainly not from those “compassionate conservatives” (or ANY conservatives, for that matter).
October 30th, 2008 at 9:58 amSeventy-six Nobel Prize laureates in science endorsed Barack Obama yesterday — the largest number to ever express support for a presidential candidate — “citing his commitment to improving U.S. competitiveness by boosting science, technology, education and research.” The scientists also “criticized the Bush administration for damaging scientific development.”
Ack!! Science is scary! Help!
October 30th, 2008 at 9:59 am/sarc
hussein toasterhead Says: Faith doesn’t have to negate science, and many scientists are able to reconcile their personal religious beliefs with their work.
Only a very small portion of Scientists have any sort of ‘faith’, and even then it’s usually some sort of Deism or Pantheism. Rarely do they believe in the way the average Christian believes.
By definition, faith is accepting improbable things without evidence, while Science is all about evidence before accepting anything as fact. The two are incompatable in this regard, and as a result 97% of Academy Scientists are Atheists.
We are not educated an modern Science in this country, so it does not surprise me when people think it’s possible to really understand Science and believe in gods. If it were, the religious leaders in this country wouldn’t be so vehemently opposing Science education as they do.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:00 amA new ethics complaint has been filed against Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, accusing her of “abusing her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her.” Last week, the AP reported “that Palin charged the state more than $21,000 for her three daughters’ commercial flights, including events where they weren’t invited, and later ordered their expense forms amended to specify official state business.”
A bold new version of the Welfare Queen.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:01 amkaty Says:
found on the googlenews page:
Sarah Palin ‘Not Going to Let Women Down’
ABC News – 2 hours ago
By MARK MOONEY Sarah Palin says she doesn’t know why most women don’t support her candidacy or why others believe she is unqualified to be vice president, but says it makes her determined to keep fighting.
yay.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:57 am
What a relief, katy. :-D
October 30th, 2008 at 10:03 am$14.83 billion: Exxon Mobil’s third quarter profits, shattering “its own record for the biggest profit from operations by a U.S. corporation.”
Gas is down to $2.15 a gallon here (down $2), and yet they’re still raking in monster profits. Looks like the Exxon bigwigs will get to keep their double chins this year!
October 30th, 2008 at 10:05 amunbelievable Says:
By definition, faith is accepting improbable things without evidence, while Science is all about evidence before accepting anything as fact. The two are incompatable in this regard, and as a result 97% of Academy Scientists are Atheists.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:00 am
_______
Yes, but there’s a distinction. Science deals in the physical. Faith deals in the metaphysical. Faith cannot, by definition, be proven using physical evidence, because it operates in a completely different realm. They’re only incompatible when people misapply them.
And Atheism is still faith – it’s a belief that there is no God. An Atheist can no more prove, using physical, empirical evidence, the non-existence of God, than a Christian can prove, using physical, empirical evidence, the existence of God.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:06 amThis is hilarious:
October 30th, 2008 at 10:06 am
And Atheism is still faith – it’s a belief that there is no God. An Atheist can no more prove, using physical, empirical evidence, the non-existence of God, than a Christian can prove, using physical, empirical evidence, the existence of God.
Atheism is NOT faith. A-theism isn’t just another theism. That’s what the A is meant to represent.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:11 amDoes someone who claims to be a-sexual mean they are merely practicing another form of sex? Of course not.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:13 am______
unbelievable Says:
upright left Says: “The Audacity of Hope” Barack Obama
What else could he say? You can’t be President – or any other elected official in this country – unless you say that stuff. Even the Founding Fathers who privately bashed Christianity feigned a public persona of tolerating it so that they could do other things.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:52 am
______
So you essentially think he is lying about his faith? I question his promise that I will see a tax cut. I make slightly less than the 250k threshold, but I fully expect my taxes to increase. But I don’t attribute that to lying. I think he will find that he can’t do what he hopes to do. I hope he doesn’t prove to be a liar as you suggest.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:14 ambarfly Says:
Atheism is NOT faith. A-theism isn’t just another theism. That’s what the A is meant to represent.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:11 am
_______
Right. But it’s not empirically provable. It’s a belief, not a fact. Therefore, it’s faith.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:16 amOr, does someone who claims to be a-political really mean they are just political in a different way?
Of course not.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:16 amThe thing is, one does not have to prove that God doesn’t exist. That is the rational assumption: there is no God, no invisible something for which we have no evidence.
The burden is on those who think there is a God. They must prove their hypothesis with credible evidence that can be demonstrated in controlled conditions by multiple observers.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:16 amhussein toasterhead Says: Yes, but there’s a distinction. Science deals in the physical. Faith deals in the metaphysical.
You have to prove the metaphysical. By Scientific methods of testing, this notion fails, and therefore is not considered to exist. Science does not make this disctinction – religion does in an attempt to find harmony where it does not exist. Science is whole and complete on its own, and does not have a counter-half that is metaphysical.
Faith cannot, by definition, be proven using physical evidence, because it operates in a completely different realm. They’re only incompatible when people misapply them.
Which is why Science disregards it. They aren’t compatable, because Science is whole in and of itself. You want there to be faith, so you rationalize it. Science simply does not share your view.
And Atheism is still faith – it’s a belief that there is no God.
This is inaccuarte. A-theism is a lack of belief. That is not a faith. You don’ have faith that Santa Claus and the tooth fairy don’t exist. You reject believing in them because there is a lack of evidence for their existence. That is the opposite of faith.
An Atheist can no more prove, using physical, empirical evidence, the non-existence of God, than a Christian can prove, using physical, empirical evidence, the existence of Go
We don’t purport to. Although, Victor Stenger did a Scientific test of the Christian god and god failed the test. We simply do not beieve in things for which there is no evidence – like invisble unicorns, Zeus, the Easter Bunny, Big Foot, etc.
Gods in general violate the laws of Physics, and as Richard Dawkins pointed out, the only process by which a god could exist is Evolution – and there hasn’t been enough time yet.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:16 ambarfly Says:
Or, does someone who claims to be a-political really mean they are just political in a different way?
Of course not.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:16 am
______
But they are. They have made a conscious decision to neither follow nor participate in politics. Nonparticipation in politics is still a political decision.
Similarly, someone who is asexual is not genderless or genitalless – they still have a sexual identity. They just choose not to participate in the act itself.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:19 amRight. But it’s not empirically provable. It’s a belief, not a fact. Therefore, it’s faith.
It’s a refusal to engage in belief.
We can do this semantic dance all day, my friend…
October 30th, 2008 at 10:19 amBut they are. They have made a conscious decision to neither follow nor participate in politics. Nonparticipation in politics is still a political decision.
Similarly, someone who is asexual is not genderless or genitalless – they still have a sexual identity. They just choose not to participate in the act itself.
So an insect, that reproduces asexually, really reproduces in a different sexual manner?
Semantics.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:21 amunbelievable Says:
By definition, faith is accepting improbable things without evidence,
I must disagree. Faith is holding a belief without material evidence, but that belief need not be “improbable”. ANY religious belief requires faith, of course. But we take many things on faith (to include any and all “science” that we did not actually experiment on ourselves — we take the other persons word: we have faith that they did the experiments correctly and that the evidence does support the conclusion without excessive contradictory evidence).
while Science is all about evidence before accepting anything as fact.
And that IS how it would be ideally, but you know that a greater portion of our scientists these days are republican in their approach: they try to make the evidence support the conclusion that was pre-determined. Not all, but many (particularly if you divide the scientists into specific fields and into their workplaces, where they may be pressured to take this approach: “here is the conclusion. Now get some evidence to support it.”).
We are not educated an modern Science in this country, so it does not surprise me when people think it’s possible to really understand Science and believe in gods. If it were, the religious leaders in this country wouldn’t be so vehemently opposing Science education as they do.
Well, I myself must disagree somewhat. Our education in all fields is grossly inadequate in this country (and the arts are just as stymied as the sciences — the entire education system is getting dumber and dumber). It is possible to believe in science and to believe in a religion without conflict. Organized religion, however, has always feared education and particularly the sciences. That is because educated people are not inclined to simply line up behind the religious leaders and do what they say. But this is because of a freedom of thinking that does not accept the hierarchy of oragnized religion, which, in all cases, comes down to a handful of people who are in charge of the whole thing, telling everyone else what to think: and THAT is why religion fears thinking people: because people who want to think for themselves and who have some real knowledge to work with will reject that a few other people should be telling them what to believe and how to believe it. Organized religion thrives on the uneducated masses, and the unelightened minds. And, thus, why most scientists do not belong to organized religion, but this does not preclude religious beliefs.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:22 amupright left Says: So you essentially think he is lying about his faith?
No. I just think he has compartmentalized and rationalized it in a way that smart people do when their intelligence and their desires are incompatible.
Based on his background, I think he believes in something. I just doubt it’s the same tht the average Christian believes.
If 16-18% of Americans are not-religious, then the odds of all of our elected representatives being believers is pretty slim. Some of them are lying.
I question his promise that I will see a tax cut. I make slightly less than the 250k threshold, but I fully expect my taxes to increase. But I don’t attribute that to lying. I think he will find that he can’t do what he hopes to do. I hope he doesn’t prove to be a liar as you suggest.
This is why we are such a divided country. You Conservatives see things in selfish absolutes, while we liberals see everything as a shade of communal gray. That, and your conclusiions to issues are divisive, misleading or worng, and just flat out annoying.
If Obama closes offshore accounts and tax loopholes, by which the rich will begin to pay their fair share, and if he rolls back he tax cuts to the rich, we’ll get a tax cut.
I’d invite you to revisit it again, but you Cons never stick around after you’ve been proven wrong…
October 30th, 2008 at 10:22 amCageyCretin Says: I must disagree. Faith is holding a belief without material evidence, but that belief need not be “improbable”. ANY religious belief requires faith, of course.
Need not be, but usually is, otherwise there would be something to support it. It’s improbable because it has nothing to support it.
But we take many things on faith (to include any and all “science” that we did not actually experiment on ourselves — we take the other persons word: we have faith that they did the experiments correctly and that the evidence does support the conclusion without excessive contradictory evidence).
That’s not true. Scientists do peer reviewing to prevent exactly that. They don’t get approved in a vacuum. They have to go through extensive evaluation by other credible Scientists in tehir field. Faith has ZERO to do with it.
And that IS how it would be ideally, but you know that a greater portion of our scientists these days are republican in their approach: they try to make the evidence support the conclusion that was pre-determined. Not all, but many (particularly if you divide the scientists into specific fields and into their workplaces, where they may be pressured to take this approach: “here is the conclusion. Now get some evidence to support it.”).
We, I assumed but shouldn’t have, are talking about credible and actual Science. Not Republican pseudo-Science.
It is possible to believe in science and to believe in a religion without conflict.
Give me an example. Let’s move past the hypotheticals on thsi one.
Organized religion, however, has always feared education and particularly the sciences. Organized religion thrives on the uneducated masses, and the unelightened minds.
We agree.
And, thus, why most scientists do not belong to organized religion, but this does not preclude religious beliefs.
I previously clarified this. 3% of Academy Scientist believe. But rarely is it in the Christian god. Usually it is in something Pantheistic or Deistic, which is impossible to test (we can test the Christian god).
October 30th, 2008 at 10:32 amI disagree. We do not have to believe in the word of one scientist. Good science is peer reviewed, repeatable and repeated by other scientists, proven again and again by demonstration and application. Science then goes on to be useful in engineering and the technical arts. All of this means that we don’t have to ‘believe’ in science. Science is merely a useful explanation of reality. We don’t have to believe in reality. It’s very real.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:32 amunbelievable Says:
This is inaccuarte. A-theism is a lack of belief. That is not a faith. You don’ have faith that Santa Claus and the tooth fairy don’t exist. You reject believing in them because there is a lack of evidence for their existence. That is the opposite of faith.
___________
You can spin it any way you like, but the rejection of the existence of a diety by an Atheist is still a belief that the diety does not exist. Examples like Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and Dawkins’ orbiting teapot are really not ana|agous.
We know, empirically, that Santa Claus is a mashup of Norse mythology, a 4th-century Turkish bishop, and a bunch of Thomas Nast cartoons. We know that there’s no teapot orbiting Saturn because we have documented records of all interplanetary missions that have sent probes to the ringed planet, and know that no teapot has ever been launched with any of these missions. Similarly, one could reject the specific dieties of Zeus or Odin or Yahweh based on empirical evidence of the records of their depiction since they were created.
However, there is no way to prove that there is or isn’t a spiritual component to the universe that exists outside of the observable physical dimensions.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:37 am
October 30th, 2008 at 10:41 am______
unbelievable Says:
upright left Says: So you essentially think he is lying about his faith?
No. I just think he has compartmentalized and rationalized it in a way that smart people do when their intelligence and their desires are incompatible.
Based on his background, I think he believes in something. I just doubt it’s the same tht the average Christian believes.
If 16-18% of Americans are not-religious, then the odds of all of our elected representatives being believers is pretty slim. Some of them are lying.
I question his promise that I will see a tax cut. I make slightly less than the 250k threshold, but I fully expect my taxes to increase. But I don’t attribute that to lying. I think he will find that he can’t do what he hopes to do. I hope he doesn’t prove to be a liar as you suggest.
This is why we are such a divided country. You Conservatives see things in selfish absolutes, while we liberals see everything as a shade of communal gray. That, and your conclusiions to issues are divisive, misleading or worng, and just flat out annoying.
If Obama closes offshore accounts and tax loopholes, by which the rich will begin to pay their fair share, and if he rolls back he tax cuts to the rich, we’ll get a tax cut.
I’d invite you to revisit it again, but you Cons never stick around after you’ve been proven wrong…
October 30th, 2008 at 10:22 am
_______
I’m glad I checked comments before heading out. Otherwise I would have been thought not to be sticking around after I’ve “been proven wrong.”
I believe Obama is a very intelligent man and knows what he believes. You apparently have a need to reclassify the beliefs of someone you respect to reconcile what you believe with what you can accept from them. It’s very dismissive of you to decide that every intelligent person doesn’t really believe in God but has “compartmentalized and rationalized it.” It’s one thing to say he believes differently than you. It’s quite another to suggest that he can’t possibly believe what he says he believes. (That sounds oddly familiar.)
I’m not sure which part of my comment you consider “divisive, misleading or wrong, and just flat out annoying.” My comment about my taxes rising wasn’t a complaint. I would gladly accept an increase in order to get rid of our debt. The comment was meant to illustrate that I don’t believe he will keep that promise but that I don’t consider it a lie. I’m not sure that believing him to be a liar would even be worse than what you believe about him.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:42 amTired of “awaiting moderation” (stupid TP, can’t post the ANY word containing the letters “a*n*a*l”, but I can type “shit” all day long… sure, this makes sense.)
Can this man save Wall Street?
BlackRock’s Larry Fink helped popularize the same mortgage-backed securities that nearly poisoned the banking system. Now his firm is making millions cleaning up these toxic assets.
Currently BlackRock runs tens of millions of risk models a day. On each of those, computers continually run through an ever-changing number of potential risk scenarios, some 200 million of them per week – everything from what happens if the U.S. starts defaulting on its debt to what happens if China stops buying it. This type of a*n*a*lytical power is what has drawn the world’s most desperate companies to BlackRock.
LINK
October 30th, 2008 at 10:44 amAnd without any way to prove something, in the absence of any evidence, the assumption should be in the negative. Why should we ever assume the positive?
October 30th, 2008 at 10:46 amDid Bartlebee change his name to “unbelievable?”
October 30th, 2008 at 10:47 amPalin charged the state more than $21,000 for her three daughters’ commercial flights, including events where they weren’t invited, and later ordered their expense forms amended to specify official state business.”
Here’s hopin that when Ms ImPalin returns with her tail between her legs to Alaska after her electoral disaster five days hence, that the good folks of Alaska will have the common decency to impeach her.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:51 amZ ~ Nah, Un is just channeling herself a little Bartles…
Gotta love the existential arguments, though!!
Morning All!
October 30th, 2008 at 10:54 amunbelievable Says:
Need not be, but usually is, otherwise there would be something to support it. It’s improbable because it has nothing to support it.
Lack of supporting evidence does not make a thing improbable, it only makes a thing unproven — there is a difference. Science always starts with the unproven — the improbable — and then seeks to prove it.
Scientists do peer reviewing to prevent exactly that. They don’t get approved in a vacuum. They have to go through extensive evaluation by other credible Scientists in tehir field. Faith has ZERO to do with it
I did not refer to scientists and perr reviews as requiring faith. However, YOUR acceptance of a sceintists conclusions IS based upon faith, unless you yourself perform the experiments in a scientific way. We accept that the information offered from the scientists, and the evidence that they CLAIM, is sufficient and neccessary proof positive of the conclusion. This is faith. We have faith in the accuracy of their research. I am not disparging science, I am just saying that faith is a necessarry component to our existence (and NO, I do not mean a religious faith — I mean faith in general — believeing something that we ourselves did not verify with our own experimentation).
We, I assumed but shouldn’t have, are talking about credible and actual Science. Not Republican pseudo-Science.
i meant that as a slur, not as a reference to politically motivated scientists. As bad as it is, it DOES happen that scientists will seek to only find evidence to prove the conclusion they want proven. It happens. I suspect that peer reviews manage to suppress most of this chicanery, but not all.
Give me an example. Let’s move past the hypotheticals on thsi one.
I myself have theological views and believe firmly in the science of the universe around us. But one: let me offer (humbly) entanglement. Entanglement itself carries water for the metaphysical concept of “symapthetic manipulation”.
I previously clarified this. 3% of Academy Scientist believe. But rarely is it in the Christian god. Usually it is in something Pantheistic or Deistic, which is impossible to test (we can test the Christian god).
Ahhh … well, I thought that we were in discussion of “faith” as a general concept. Now, if we are specifically referencing “faith” as “Christian faith”, then this whole discussion changes. I agree with you here from what evidence I have seen. I’ll be more than happy to join in bashing the Christian “faith” if that is what you want. But faith as a natural mental action is something we all use every day (and I won’t get all “existential” on you here :)).
October 30th, 2008 at 10:55 amI respect your arguments, upright left. But, for me, it seems like this is very true–that religious people who are quite rational and scientifically educated MUST somehow compartmentalize their faith from their rational side. How else can it be? Even very religious people have their moments of doubt, probably many times throughout their lives. Then they compartmentalize that doubt and go on.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:55 amupright left Says: I’m not sure that believing him to be a liar would even be worse than what you believe about him.
I left out arrogant, evasive, illogical and patronizing…
Of course you must be going. You cons always are. LOL
October 30th, 2008 at 10:59 amI must disagree again. Lack of evidence has to make something LESS probable, almost by definition. And science does start with the unproven, but it does NOT start with the improbable. Scientific hypotheses are formed around observations of reality–around something that is not only quite probable but something that has been witnessed–and are an attempt to explain what has been seen. Then scientific research is done in an attempt to prove that hypothesis.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:02 amCZ-1 Says:
We don’t have to believe in reality. It’s very real.
Well, actaully we do not NEED science to inform us about reality: we live the very real reality. But the parts of reality that we do not experience, yet others inform us of, we do take in faith (vulgar sense, not theological sense).
And how much of astronomy creates conclusions that are based on unproven theories? Quite a lot, actually (for example: black holes have been used to support other theories, yet black holes are quite likely a fictitious belief of asronomers who are misinterpreting the data available — and that whole “data available” thing is also a huge factor in all science).
October 30th, 2008 at 11:02 am#63
October 30th, 2008 at 11:06 amThanks Zooey. That cracked me up!
CageyCretin Says:
I did not refer to scientists and perr reviews as requiring faith. However, YOUR acceptance of a sceintists conclusions IS based upon faith, unless you yourself perform the experiments in a scientific way. We accept that the information offered from the scientists, and the evidence that they CLAIM, is sufficient and neccessary proof positive of the conclusion. This is faith. We have faith in the accuracy of their research. I am not disparging science, I am just saying that faith is a necessarry component to our existence (and NO, I do not mean a religious faith — I mean faith in general — believeing something that we ourselves did not verify with our own experimentation).
October 30th, 2008 at 10:55 am
________
If you really want to stretch the definition of “faith,” sure, you can go there.
I mean, you have to have certain level of faith to believe that the chair you’re sitting on right now is indeed an actual item made of solid matter, and not a figment of a giant simulation fooling the visual and aural and tacticle portions of your brain (I’ll just assume that you’re not smelling or licking your chair).
However, applying this level of suspended disbelief to the entire scientific process gets far too cumbersome to remain in the realm of reality. To believe that the peer-reviewed study in the journal (that your eyes and hands are telling you you’re reading), is the manufactured product of a conspiracy of peer reviewers and falsified data is a deliberate misunderstanding of the nature of science. There is no “proof positive,” in science. No scientist ever has “proof positive” of anything. They have evidence that points to a hypothesis, or that supports or contradicts the results of previous research. But you will never see a good scientist say he or she has “proof positive” of anything.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:08 amCageyCretin Says: Lack of supporting evidence does not make a thing improbable, it only makes a thing unproven — there is a difference. Science always starts with the unproven — the improbable — and then seeks to prove it.
But things have probabilities based on their likelihood (Statstics), and after all these years of religion, the fact that faith is still required demonstrates an inprobability (not impossibility) that it’s true.
Unproven and improbable are not the same.
I did not refer to scientists and perr reviews as requiring faith. However, YOUR acceptance of a sceintists conclusions IS based upon faith, unless you yourself perform the experiments in a scientific way.
That’s not true. My acceptance is based upon ity’s ability to withstand peer review, upon its ability to be falsified, upon its logic, and upon my ability to research it myself.
We accept that the information offered from the scientists, and the evidence that they CLAIM, is sufficient and neccessary proof positive of the conclusion. This is faith. We have faith in the accuracy of their research. I am not disparging science, I am just saying that faith is a necessarry component to our existence (and NO, I do not mean a religious faith — I mean faith in general — believeing something that we ourselves did not verify with our own experimentation).
I disagree.
i meant that as a slur, not as a reference to politically motivated scientists. As bad as it is, it DOES happen that scientists will seek to only find evidence to prove the conclusion they want proven. It happens. I suspect that peer reviews manage to suppress most of this chicanery, but not all.
That’s why it’s not faith :)
I myself have theological views and believe firmly in the science of the universe around us. But one: let me offer (humbly) entanglement. Entanglement itself carries water for the metaphysical concept of “symapthetic manipulation”.
You’ll have to explain. I do not know what this is.
Ahhh … well, I thought that we were in discussion of “faith” as a general concept. Now, if we are specifically referencing “faith” as “Christian faith”, then this whole discussion changes. I agree with you here from what evidence I have seen. I’ll be more than happy to join in bashing the Christian “faith” if that is what you want. But faith as a natural mental action is something we all use every day (and I won’t get all “existential” on you here :)).
This is frustrating. I’m not bashing. I’m explaining.
Why is it that we attempt to test ‘faith’ (any faith) and are seen as being negative? We’re just having a discussion. If faith cannot be debated, then how free is our speech, or religion, really?
October 30th, 2008 at 11:13 amCZ-1 Says:
I must disagree again. Lack of evidence has to make something LESS probable, almost by definition. And science does start with the unproven, but it does NOT start with the improbable.
Very well, I must agree: unproven is not synonomous with improbable (in fact, I contradicted myself in those two sentences: sorry -I agree with my first sentence that the two are not synonomous. Thanks for not pointing that out :) ). However, Improbable is, in many regards, a subjective opinion (broadly speaking), and ’subjective anything’ is generally considered “unscientific”. Kind of funny, since everything that one experiences, to include “scientific evidence” is a subjective experience.
Scientific hypotheses are formed around observations of reality–around something that is not only quite probable but something that has been witnessed–and are an attempt to explain what has been seen. Then scientific research is done in an attempt to prove that hypothesis.
Ideally.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:14 amunbelievable Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
——————————————————————————–
hussein toasterhead Says: You can spin it any way you like, but the rejection of the existence of a diety by an Atheist is still a belief that the diety does not exist.
Now you’re just getting mad. This isn’t personal.
A-thiesm is the rejection of belief, faith, gods – therefore it cannot be a belief or a faith. I do not ‘believe’ that gods don’t exist, I just don’t have faith that they do.
Examples like Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and Dawkins’ orbiting teapot are really not ana|agous.
They are perfectly a n a l o g o u s. They are just silly things. It’s why we find gods to be silly, and that offends you. We’re not trying to belittle you, just make a point about why we don’t believe, and how e know that Science and religion are not compatable.
We know, empirically, that Santa Claus is a mashup of Norse mythology, a 4th-century Turkish bishop, and a bunch of Thomas Nast cartoons. Similarly, one could reject the specific dieties of Zeus or Odin or Yahweh based on empirical evidence of the records of their depiction since they were created.
Agreed. Hence, a lack of belief in them. You understand rejecting beliefs in those things or other gods, but cannot accept a lack of belief in gods. As Dawkins explains, we just go one god further.
Why do you not believe in Zeus? That’s teh same reason we do not believe in any god.
However, there is no way to prove that there is or isn’t a spiritual component
Actually, there is, and it has been done. You just aren’t willing to consider it, because you want to believe. I understand. I used to believe. I know how it works. You can reject it all you want – but don’t tell me I am wrong to reject it myself.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:14 amFrankly, I don’t give a damn whether Obama believes in the Christian God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That’s HIS business, not mine.
As long as he keeps his beliefs the hell out of our *secular* government, I’m ok with it.
I’m of the atheist persuasion myself (although I do find the cult of the FSM pretty seductive), and I don’t want someone else’s silly God mucking around with my life.
“Render unto Caesar…” and all that.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:19 amI’d like to recommend Richard Dawkins “The Blind Watchmaker”
It’s one of the best Science books on why Science does not require faith, ultimately rejects faith, and is complete in and of itself.
It also gives answers to the questions that most people turn to religion to find – who are we, what are we and why are we here. They aren’t human-centric, or comforting, but for anyone who is looking for better answers than “you’ll understand when you get to heaven”, this is a great starting place.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:21 amCageyCretin Says:
Well, actaully we do not NEED science to inform us about reality: we live the very real reality. But the parts of reality that we do not experience, yet others inform us of, we do take in faith (vulgar sense, not theological sense).
False. We absolutely do need science to inform us about reality. We need science to explain to us that a candle left burning in an airtight box will extinguish itself because it uses up all the oxygen in the box, and not because it filled the box with phlogiston or a demon snuffed it out. Science explains to us the natural systems that comprise our reality.
And how much of astronomy creates conclusions that are based on unproven theories? Quite a lot, actually (for example: black holes have been used to support other theories, yet black holes are quite likely a fictitious belief of asronomers who are misinterpreting the data available — and that whole “data available” thing is also a huge factor in all science).
October 30th, 2008 at 11:02 am
There’s nothing fictitious about black holes. Yes, the exact nature of them is still debated, but they are a well-accepted explanation for a number of observed astronomical phenomena, such as gravitational lensing, gamma ray bursts, and stars that appear to orbit nothing. They have been observed in globular clusters in our own galaxy, and there is emperical evidence that really big ones are at the center of all of our neighboring galaxies.
That’s not faith. It’s nothing to do with faith. We have photos from the Hubble Telescope.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:21 amunbelievable Says:
This is frustrating. I’m not bashing. I’m explaining
Sorry. I think that I was taking this conversation in an inappropriate direction. I did not intend to frustrate you, unb..
I believe that in essence I agree with everyone here, it is just that there are particulars that we may disagree on. I lean to science heavily (and have a love of quantum physics, NLP, and astronomy). I also have a love of philosophy, and find that the concept of faith, in the general sense, is everywhere. I do not feel that this application becomes cumbersome when applied to science, but I think that us agruing it is just going to go in circles, and is pointless anyway. For all the fun of existentialism, at some point you have to accept that the floor is really there and that you should get your a$$ out of bed. Same with science. At some point you accept what is offered (I do, and i do not examine peer reviews — I accept, on faith, that if the reviews were completed honestly and that the experiments were conducted as described, and I accept the conclusions unless I have a good reason (i.e. evidence) not to).
And the thought of testing faith is valid, but you haven’t brough thtat up until now. Faith is not the same as blind faith (semantics? Yes, but ALL we have to go with here is words, so smeantics and definitions DO matter :) ). Yes: every person should examine their faith, and should have good reason to believe what they do. However, I cannot accept that it is o.k. to dismiss someone’s faith (that does not interfere with or harm another), even if it is unexamined and entirely subjective. I won’t beleive a single person’s subjective faith as objective (is anyhting really objective?), but I also will not deny them the right to believe what they do 9not saying that any one here is claiming that, either – just affirming).
Sorry for being frustrating. Did not mean to be so. :)
Peace?
October 30th, 2008 at 11:30 amWith the help of McCain/Palin the oil companies will see much bigger quarterly profit in the future with both get in office.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:42 amunbelievable Says:
Now you’re just getting mad. This isn’t personal.
A-thiesm is the rejection of belief, faith, gods – therefore it cannot be a belief or a faith. I do not ‘believe’ that gods don’t exist, I just don’t have faith that they do.
I’m not getting mad, and I apologize if anything I’ve said came across that way. I’m just exploring the logic of your argument. You’re saying “I don’t have faith that gods exist.” I’m saying “you have faith that gods don’t exist.” Acording to the law of contraposition, these two statements are logically equivalent.
They are perfectly a n a l o g o u s. They are just silly things. It’s why we find gods to be silly, and that offends you. We’re not trying to belittle you, just make a point about why we don’t believe, and how e know that Science and religion are not compatable.
Agreed. Hence, a lack of belief in them. You understand rejecting beliefs in those things or other gods, but cannot accept a lack of belief in gods. As Dawkins explains, we just go one god further.
Why do you not believe in Zeus? That’s teh same reason we do not believe in any god.
I’m not offended, and I do absolutely accept a lack of belief in gods. I just see no reason why it must be distinguished from any other belief structure. All I’m saying is that logically, it’s still belief.
You don’t stop seeing when you shut your eyes – you just see the inside of your eyelids. Similarly, you don’t stop believing things when you reject the idea of a diety, you just believe in the lack of that diety. It may sound like mere semantics, and you may not like the idea, but the concepts are still equivalent.
I’m not telling you you’re wrong to be Atheist or anything of the sort. Far from it. I’m just saying that, fundamentally, belief and science have no conflict. It’s only when people try and misapply science to prove a belief, or misapply belief to explain scientific observation, that they conflict.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:43 amhussein toasterhead Says:
False. We absolutely do need science to inform us about reality. We need science to explain to us that a candle left burning in an airtight box will extinguish itself because it uses up all the oxygen in the box, and not because it filled the box with phlogiston or a demon snuffed it out.
Science would explian the cause, but observation would determine that the candle went out. Belief in phlogiston or demons REQUIRES that one already believed that such things existed. But without science, and without demons or phlogiston, one is still informed by the reality that the candle went out, and the individual, without “science” could determine the cause for ones self.
Science explains to us the natural systems that comprise our reality.
Certianly. And the explanation is not an identity with the natural system: nature exists regardless of it being explained. And the explanations of science sometimes change, or are inherently flawed (take flying bumblebees and chinooks — neither of which should fly by all the “laws” of physics that science has proven to be true. So why are these anomolies? Certianly they are not little miracles? Certainly there is a flaw in the physics that tries to describe their flight, and cannot — something is either wrong or missing).
There’s nothing fictitious about black holes. Yes, the exact nature of them is still debated,
But all of the theories and science based on black holes assumes that they have a certain nature. But the debating of that nature is why it is an iffy thing. The commonly accepted theory behind them seems to support many other things (the point I was trying to make), yet the theory about them is still very open for debate. Did you know that there were 3-d models of the earth and planets that PROVED that the planets and stars revolved around the earth? Wrong? Of course, but that a model COULD be created to show this (with only a few minor inaccuracies — akin to the bumblebee thing) was “proof” enough for many at the time.
That’s not faith. It’s nothing to do with faith. We have photos from the Hubble Telescope.
There are no photos of black holes. They are assumed in theory by the evidence and events that occur in areas, but there are no photos (not that I have ever encountered). Data of certain anomolous events leads to the speculation of their existence. That speculation is then used to build upon other (and more useful) science. It works, but does not in itself prove the existence or even the nature of the events we call balck holes. If, however, you can refer to a photo of one, I would be most appreciative (honestly, not sarcasm).
October 30th, 2008 at 11:47 amCageyCretin Says:
There are no photos of black holes. They are assumed in theory by the evidence and events that occur in areas, but there are no photos (not that I have ever encountered). Data of certain anomolous events leads to the speculation of their existence. That speculation is then used to build upon other (and more useful) science. It works, but does not in itself prove the existence or even the nature of the events we call balck holes. If, however, you can refer to a photo of one, I would be most appreciative (honestly, not sarcasm).
October 30th, 2008 at 11:47 am
_______
Well, of course not. They are impossible to photograph. By definition, a black hole is an object so dense that visual light cannot escape from it. You cannot capture using a visual medium something that neither emits nor reflects light.
However, there is still plenty of empirical evidence, including photographic evidence, that leads to the conclusion that black holes do indeed exist. This paper contains a very detailed ana|ysis of the evidence that Sagittarius A, a supermassive object near the center of the galaxy, is most likely a black hole.
October 30th, 2008 at 12:15 pmTo unbelievable,
I must tell you that on rare occasion I cut and paste statements from your posts and save them in my Outlook Notes. This one was a keeper:
October 30th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
hussein toasterhead Says:
We have photos from the Hubble Telescope.
hussein toasterhead Says:
Well, of course not. They are impossible to photograph.
Sorry. I know you either missed or let go my own “gotcha” moment, but I can’t pass on this. :)
I do not disagree that there are phenomena that have been ascribed to these entities called black holes. And I am not a “black hole denier”. But what I am saying is that the entire theory behind them is a supposition. There are certain events, and “science” has created an unidentifiable and unverifiable (as of yet) entity we call a black hole, but that is not to say that this theory is even remotely correct. The facts are the data that lead to the theory of black holes, but there is no empirical evidence of “black holes” — only evidence of certain anomalies (particularly of the space-time flavor), and these anomolies account for the other scientific works that use these events to prove other data. The theory of black holes, however, may be far from the TRUTH. The truth is in the events that are used to support the theory of black holes, not in the theory itself (it is just a theory to explain these anomolies, and is fair enouogh in itself, but this theory has NOT been “scientifically proven” — the theory is still debateable for lack of objective, empirical evidence).
October 30th, 2008 at 1:43 pmOn the other hand, I would say that proof positive of black holes exists if one looks at my bank account.
October 30th, 2008 at 1:49 pmZooey Says:
Gas is down to $2.15 a gallon here (down $2), and yet they’re still raking in monster profits. Looks like the Exxon bigwigs will get to keep their double chins this year!
What’s even worse is the article says their production went down — and yet profits are up.
October 30th, 2008 at 2:01 pmWhat’s even worse is the article says their production went down — and yet profits are up.
“Big Oil” has no interest in selling gasoline – too much liability.
Much more profit in refining and exporting the oil to the highest bidder.
That’s where the mega-profits come from. Hell, for the last 2 years Mobil has closed most of it’s stations here in Dallas.
October 30th, 2008 at 4:43 pm______
unbelievable Says:
upright left Says: I’m not sure that believing him to be a liar would even be worse than what you believe about him.
I left out arrogant, evasive, illogical and patronizing…
Of course you must be going. You cons always are. LOL
October 30th, 2008 at 10:59 am
______
You assert that Obama, an admittedly intelligent man, can’t possibly believe what he says he believes because it doesn’t make sense to you and yet I’m arrogant and patronizing? Such blatant hypocrisy is unusual here. This is really a switch; a moderate giving Obama more credit than a liberal does.
I sincerely apologize for leaving. It was totally selfish of me not to put my life on hold until the discussion ended.
October 30th, 2008 at 7:59 pm______
Leftside Annie Says:
Frankly, I don’t give a damn whether Obama believes in the Christian God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That’s HIS business, not mine.
As long as he keeps his beliefs the hell out of our *secular* government, I’m ok with it.
I’m of the atheist persuasion myself (although I do find the cult of the FSM pretty seductive), and I don’t want someone else’s silly God mucking around with my life.
“Render unto Caesar…” and all that.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:19 am
______
“Surely, secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square…”
“To say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public-policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition. What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion specific, values.”
Barack Obama
October 30th, 2008 at 8:20 pmWell personally I believe in God. I just dont think all the people who SAY they are working for him really are (DL Hugley) I also have zero desire to convince anyone else to believe in ANYTHING
November 1st, 2008 at 4:37 am