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

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.

“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.

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.

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).

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:

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 the same reason we do not believe in any god.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.