501. AAI 07

Comment #82866 by scooternyc on October 28, 2007 at 4:34 am

yes, yes, Bonzai, your feelings were hurt; you were offended, I've heard the mantra all before by those that cannot handle the heat. I've reworded the statement, not because I disown the statements to you, but because the site has a standard that I will respect, not you, the site.

502. AAI 07

Comment #82865 by scooternyc on October 28, 2007 at 4:32 am

" have to come to the conclusion that if i was in need of help i would much rather see a christian coming towards me than yourself.

Okay, so if you need help, is that because of a series of poor decisions you've made or because a plane slammed into a building killing thousands? There is a difference. Let's explore this if you have the guts.

"Some people are born straight in to destitute poverty and disability.

THAT'S the point - they are BORN into it. Who then is responsible for having children in poverty who cannot afford or take care of those children properly?

Do you not hold these people accountable for their poor decision making right from the get-go? They should just be allowed to have children at the cost to the rest of us? At the cost of education? Of health? Of proper contribution to society?

Chances are these poor people are very ignorant, are these not the types who will turn to the notion of god almost immediately to "save them"?

Are these not some of the types we're battling to end such mythological thinking? To take more personal responsiblity?

Have you really explored ALL the dynamics of this topic?

503. AAI 07

Comment #82861 by scooternyc on October 28, 2007 at 4:22 am

crafty - How do you think these people GOT to be poor?

Everyone always wants to not hold responsible those who have made decisions that did not hold up personal accountability to self.

If charity was the key to eradicating the poor it would have done so by now. It's an insult to people to give them charity, as though they are incapable of providing for themselves.

Am I talking about 3rd world countries who need support from our areas of sciences & invention to give them the opportunities to compete in a global world? No.

Am I talking about people who continue to make bad decisions knowing that their "government" will or should take care of them? Yes.

If anyone really wanted to have a serious intellectual discussion about this issue you would come to understand that poor people are poor because they want to be poor. You've not explored this topic enough if you think otherwise.

No one ever answers my questions regarding how much someone doesn't want to be poor and what he/she is willing to do to get out of that lineage.

If some of you weren't so emotional about this issue you'd be able to understand these points better.

To the post that called me "libertarian", you say it like it's a bad thing. If anything, it's more enlightened than either liberal or conservative because it encourages individual freedom for the self - to decide, to pursue, to live with freedom - to live and let live, not enforce your personal narrow view of life onto someone - which is EXACTLY what religion does. You cannot even see that for yourself.

Besides, I cater to no party, it's just another label invoked to stereotype someone with a different point of view so you don't have to take the time to really understand what's being said, focus on the issue not the person.

It's just easier to throw out some pejorative and think you know.

504. Brief Regarding the California Same-Sex Marriage Case

Comment #82804 by scooternyc on October 27, 2007 at 5:22 pm

Erik, I spoke with Tabash at the AAI convention and he mentioned this issue you speak of.

What he said was that the original brief filed didn't establish "why" (meaning the Establishment Clause) this was unconstitutional, which is the basis of the case to begin with, followed by your great observation of the non-secular reasons for banning gay marriage.

If the original case had already laid this foundation, I think he would've gone the direction you speak of, more quickly. He's hoping for a positive ruling, if not, then at least laying the ground work for the next chapter in it all.

If you check out his website and write to him, he'll give you the 411 on it all; he was a very nice guy and really knows his stuff - we need more like him.

Cheers!

505. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

Comment #82757 by scooternyc on October 27, 2007 at 1:26 pm

"There are a few around here who I can only describe as sanctimonious snobs and think that an aversion to fairy tales, superstition, and dogma etc, can be expressed only in an 'intellectual' manner.

No, the idea is that irrational emotional responses are not giving credential to arguments.

"If you have a good case, you pound the facts; if you have a weak case you pound the table"

You don't have to be a "Piled High and Deeper" type to argue logically and reasonably.

But you do need to have control of your emotions and not spewing that crap at people, much like your rant.

506. AAI 07

Comment #82756 by scooternyc on October 27, 2007 at 1:22 pm

"It is immoral that people should endure sickness, disability and pain simply because they don't have a fat enough wallet.

No, it is immoral that you think that someone's irresponsible decisions should be paid for by another.

With that logic I guess you agree with the religious that jesus should pay for their sins through his death/resurrection.

507. AAI 07

Comment #82751 by scooternyc on October 27, 2007 at 1:18 pm

"it's a fact of life some people are born poor....do they not deserve the chance to enjoy life in the same way as people who, by accident of birth, are in richer social classes?

No, it's a fact of life that poor people have children. I can't be responsible for poor people having children who cannot afford it.

Why should it be that society should have to take on that irresponsible decision and choice?

And if poor, then education is your ticket to a better life. It doesn't guarantee you a "rich" life of money and wealth, it offers you opportunity for the pursuit of happiness.

How dedicated are you to your own future?

How much do you want to better your life?

How bad do you want to live comfortably?

All your decisions reflect those choices.

508. AAI 07

Comment #82748 by scooternyc on October 27, 2007 at 1:10 pm

The greatest uninsured component for people is long-term disability insurance. For the price of your iPod you can have that peace of mind.

If you assess your risk and choose not to, then who made that choice? You!

All choices are risk assessments. If you make choices then accept the risk for those choices. Stop trying to make others accountable.

509. AAI 07

Comment #82745 by scooternyc on October 27, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Pallinn - yes, you may have such things happen. I suggest you take care of yourself then and attempt no stupid decisions until you have a good job and insurance.

Should you not make that, do you not have family that would help you out? Are they of such immoral behavior they would not help their fellow family member in need?

Certainly there are numerous charities, not invoking god or religion, who give generously to support others in need - why does it need to be my tax dollars! It doesn't.

510. AAI 07

Comment #82743 by scooternyc on October 27, 2007 at 12:58 pm

"If Bush were born in a poor family he probably would have dropped out of school long time ago and if he were in addition black he would probably be in jail by now for drug possession.

Interesting sweeping statements.

So, you've assumed that ALL poor people will drop out of high school.

ALL black people will eventually go to jail for drug possession.

These statements are both bigoted and racist.

511. AAI 07

Comment #82742 by scooternyc on October 27, 2007 at 12:54 pm

First - I'm not a fan of Rush - get over it. I don't like EITHER political party - there you go again stereotyping - just like the religious idiots who call you "atheist" and presume so much about you.

And just remember the "capitalist pigs" you hate are the ones that you work for or who help to finance the world in which you live so freely and imbibe in the inventions of such. Hypocrites.

Second - If you don't get an education and work for your keep, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

"boo hoo - I'm sick, I can't work".

Hopefully you're smart enough to not live outside your means; learned to save money and stop over-indulging in crap you don't need in life.

Is your health insurance more important than that $300 iPod you bought?

How about that x-box - was that more important than getting your ass to the dentist?

Is grabbing that $5 latte everyday more useful than your yearly physical?

Don't whine to me about choices when we all make them - we all prioritize those choices.

Just because you choose to be irresponsible and buy cigarettes when you can't afford insurance, doesn't make others responsible for taking care of you.

Grow up - you're no better than the religious trogs you write about who want to delegate and relegate their "moral responsibility" to god.

Own it.

It's yours - no one else can absolve you of what your personal responsibility is toward yourself and your family.

Don't confuse a difficult choice with no choice at all.

512. AAI 07

Comment #82690 by scooternyc on October 27, 2007 at 8:47 am

"First, having decent government support for people is not communism"

You're right, it's more like socialism.

Any time you think you're entitled to something other than life, liberty and a PURSUIT of happiness - you're headed down a road of wanting others to pay for your bad decisions in life.

Be responsible. Be accountable. Stop thinking everyone owes you something just for being born; for being alive.

If you have freedom to pursue happiness - whatever that is for you, then do it.

BUT NOT AT A COST TO ANYONE ELSE.

Pay your own damned way.

If you can't afford it - you can't have it.

513. AAI 07

Comment #82688 by scooternyc on October 27, 2007 at 8:43 am

"The left have made some ridiculous faith claims, but McCain, Giuliani and Romney have sold out almost completely to the religious right"

Two wrongs don't make a right. Throwing someone else's bad behavior as rebuttal to a statement of valid claim regarding a particular situation, doesn't enrich the conversation, it attempts to distract & deflect responsibility.

We already know more people than not on the "far far right" are typically more religious, not all certainly, but a decent majority.

But that has nothing to do with Liberals pandering to a religious sect just to get elected - which is the point being made.

If McCain jumped off a bridge would you do that, too? That's how silly that statement sounds.

514. AAI 07

Comment #82660 by scooternyc on October 27, 2007 at 6:43 am

Notsobad -

right on target!

515. AAI 07

Comment #82659 by scooternyc on October 27, 2007 at 6:42 am

rebby - bravo!

516. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82651 by scooternyc on October 27, 2007 at 5:02 am

Religious people want the "easy out" to box those who are faithless, into.

I won't give them that out.

I won't let them off the hook.

I will not absolve them of the responsibility to think and not just create a stereo-type instantly by invoking such a label.

Religious people will have to debate reason and logic for their position as any other topic within society, not some emotional or superstitious belief system rooted in nothing.

I'm not an "atheist" I'm a person who is faithless because of reason, logic, education and intelligence.

517. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

Comment #82646 by scooternyc on October 27, 2007 at 4:32 am

Again, if you're a victim in most other areas of your life you imbibe in being a victim in this area, too. You rather like feeling put upon.

As such, you get enraged and angry at the very moment of opposition to your position. You react emotionally with instability which lends no credential to your stance.

Yes, appeal to a broad audience, but through irrational response and over-emotional tirades, this won't happen.

518. AAI 07

Comment #82643 by scooternyc on October 27, 2007 at 4:26 am

JollyBlogger - great points and Hitchens said it when he took the podium and mentioned how Matt's "socialist" views took him back to his younger days.

Apparently socialism is the way of the warrior for those against god/religion. Who knew?

Count me out of that group - I'm for people being independent, accountable and responsible - not government intravenous social welfare programs for those decidedly not being contributing members of society.

519. AAI 07

Comment #82641 by scooternyc on October 27, 2007 at 4:22 am

mejdrich - agreed.

If you're atheist, you must be liberal - you couldn't possibly be independent or republican, was the mantra all weekend long - not always explicit, but certainly implicit.

There were tables, replete with selling anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-whatever, crap the whole time.

It totally disenfranchises a HUGE constituency of people who would otherwise lend their support, both intellectually and financially, to this important issue of church/state separation and the dismantling of religion and it's dogma.

Instead the atmosphere was kindred to the codepink rallies that were happening at the Capitol that weekend. If I'd wanted to look like the great unwashed and scream stupidity, I could've just crossed the river, instead.

I was hoping for more camaraderie on this important issue, for which some of us paid a great deal of money to attend this conference, but instead were thrust upon by the likes of political inanity.

Republicans are anything but a "moral majority" and Liberals are anything but "liberal", neither party has the market cornered on responsible and accountable behavior - they both have proven that enough times over.

520. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

Comment #82326 by scooternyc on October 26, 2007 at 4:15 am

Most interesting is the separation of political parties regarding this issue.

We are part of the same movement but that didn't stop people from trying to make this a partisan issue all weekend long. Those people, like politicians, will turn off a large group of supporters who would otherwise endorse their position on church/state separation, etc.

For reasons too numerous to detail, a good deal of the people at this conference didn't seem to care that their "politics" were getting in the way of their message.

Frankly speaking, people who enjoy being a victim enjoy engaging in being victimized by religious types so perhaps this is the connection. If you're already a victim you probably will make yourself a victim on this issue, as well.

521. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81078 by scooternyc on October 24, 2007 at 2:52 am

I don't care about all the comparisons of the various religions with these nut cases any longer. Or how many people were killed by dictators who weren't sane to begin with.

The question always asked and NEVER answered:

Are you a good person inherently who would do good or are you not?

If so, religion is meaningless.

If not, you're a sociopath and society would do well to avoid you, arrest you or put you to sleep to minimize the damage you make wreak on society's future.

522. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81076 by scooternyc on October 24, 2007 at 2:46 am

"'According to Hitchens, morality is nothing but a chemical reaction in the brain,' explained Mr. Sorba. 'If right and wrong is determined by instinct, than it means we're nothing more than genetic meat puppets dangling from the strings of our DNA!'"

Truth hurts, apparently.

523. Does fundamentalist religion cause the rejection of evolution? or is it the other way around?

Comment #80270 by scooternyc on October 21, 2007 at 3:59 am

"might consider a different tack if they wish to convince more people to reconsider their fundamentalist, anti-scientific beliefs"

While the author has some great ideas, he misses the point or doesn't know it - religion is about subjugation to a parental figure to "save" you, not about dismissing science - although I wish that were the case, it would be easier to combat.

If a paradigm of the individual is one that believes someone/something ought to be "taking care of me" then attempting any factual information will rarely, if ever, shift that paradigm.

This "save me" hard wire is rooted in an emotional/feeling construct which is difficult to change, not that we shouldn't try through reason and logic.

But science isn't necessarily the language of reason/logic people gravitate towards when mired in emotion, it may have to be more about holding people accountable and insisting on an individual human rights, to support the shift.

People of the "subjugation allele" are not dismissing science, they understand its value in medicine, biology, etc. they just won't apply it to an "emotional" compartmentalized aspect of their lives. You can't force "emotional change" - it has to come from within.

Insist on individual rights of all and personal accountability/responsibility, then entice on the other side of the room with the beauty of science to those whose natural curiosity will eventually draw them near - then educate, educate, educate upon their joining the discussion.

524. A question of belief

Comment #80110 by scooternyc on October 20, 2007 at 3:19 am

"I can't blame the politicians for their professed "faith"--it's a necessary condition to get elected. It's what they actually do after winning that counts."

That's like saying the guy you dated is suddenly very different now that you're married - we all know how much fun that can be.

Three things come to mind:

1)If a politician is willing to feign religion and LIE to get elected, what else are they willing to feign and LIE about. Any way you decide to euphemistically refer to it - it's a lie.

The ends do not justify the means; the means reveal more about the propensity to lie.

2)If a politician simply keeps making the statement that a person's faith is between he/she and their creator, how would that offend an otherwise fundamentalist christian jihad.

3)Being faithless should not be a partisan issue. This is an issue that engulfs people on all sides. Too bad that can't be said enough.

525. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80062 by scooternyc on October 19, 2007 at 7:30 pm

The "subjective nature" of qualia, such that it would be, is irrelevant in observation. It is what it is - the experience is the experience. To which an intellectual should say, "so what?".

The observation of action done without "thought" is merely the stepping stone to understanding that the action "with thought" is an awareness to create the action from within a hardwired trigger which would seek the action even without the "thought". In other words - you would do it anyway.

Example: if you keep eating improperly and gain weight, your "choice" to finally stop is the very "natural choice" you would have made given your propensity of certain genetic behaviors inherited from your lineage.

Your desire to stop eating poorly only to fall back time and again, is your natural "choice" at failure rooted in your lineage genetics. And so on.

You act on it because you would act on it anyway.

You don't act on it because you wouldn't anyway.

You act on it and fail because you would fail anyway.

The shift in the firing comes when you "teach/train" the brain to "act" differently through repetition. Thus the new "action" performed is the updated circuitry which now seeks the new action without thought.

Consider how many times you already do this in your life.

Notice those who say, "why do I keep choosing the same _______ all the time" - because they are hard wired rooted in their lineage, to do so. They have to force the effort of the restructure/firing of the natural choice, in order to create a more well-adjusted choice.

526. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80056 by scooternyc on October 19, 2007 at 7:03 pm

"Christian theology REQUIRES that the free-will..."

There is no such thing as free will. The very idea that you think you have free will is merely more denial that who you are inherently is what motivates your natural drives. You may think you are "choosing" but you are merely behaving as you would rooted in the natural wiring from within.

This is the best explanation:

Humans are composed of physical matter. This physical matter follows all the laws of physics. There are no components of human consciousness or decision-making abilities in addition to physical matter. The terms mind and soul are spiritual wishful thinking and mystical explanations for the unknown.

Looking at a general overview of physical laws gives a better understanding of human free will. Our brain is composed of chemical and electronic circuitry. This circuitry is a system of cause and effect. An internal or environmental stimulus results in a predictable effect. If one were to know every stimulus a newborn would experience and the exact physical arrangement of the newborn's anatomy, then one would be able to predict every choice the newborn would make until death.

We can see the existence of cause and effect throughout life on planet Earth. We do not question that a plant does what it was destined to do. If the sun is to the East, then the plant will bend due to a phototropic response to the East. At no point do we contemplate that the plant has a choice to bend to the West.

If a charge is introduced to one end of a neuron, then the charge will propagate to the other end of the neuron. The animal that possesses the neuron has no choice in whether the neuron transmits or not. Everything the human animal thinks or decides is output generated by the physical brain supported by all its other physical organ systems.

With this in mind, one can only conclude that free will as defined by many religions is a fallacy. How can we hold a person accountable if there is no choice? How can there be a heaven and hell if there is no soul? Both of these questions are rooted in a religious morality.

The succinct answer is that nature does not have judgment. Nature does produce outcomes, effects and consequences. We humans want to feel superior to all other living organisms. We want to be validated by the love and acceptance of a creator. We have fabricated a soul, a mind and gods in order to substantiate the existence of free will.

So, why have laws? We humans have evolved into a very complex organism. In order to maximize our ability to survive and reproduce, we have developed societies, civilizations, cultures, ethics and mores. We are wired to desire order. We are wired to desire a peaceful existence. Ultimately, this can only be accomplished through law creation and enforcement. Any omniscient being would have seen this development long before the beginning of time.

527. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79091 by scooternyc on October 16, 2007 at 4:53 am

The point is WE STILL DON'T know, even Gore admitted this to Stephanopoulos on his show.

With such uncertainty, I would like to proceed, but with caution, and certainly not just throwing money at something when we really do have other global issues that are so important.

I also don't want to just start endorsing every politician or person who "believes" in global warming, I want to give it the same concern I do other aspects of science.

528. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79089 by scooternyc on October 16, 2007 at 4:45 am

You're all behaving as though YOU ARE the experts; there are experts on both sides still working this out; you're disregarding these ideas and you're engaging in a belief system which seeks to negate other scientific viewpoints.

This is just exactly what religion does, they only listen to those facts which endorse their position.

It would be like saying that Richard Dawkins has the ONLY viewpoint of the non-existence of god or reasons to NOT believe.

When, in fact, Harris, Hitchens and others have just as valid positions to present.

529. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79081 by scooternyc on October 16, 2007 at 4:25 am

BTW - I'm not a Malkin fan and making some ad hominem attack just gives rise to the idea that you have no valid argument since you would resort to that tactic rather than addressing serious questions requiring serious answers.

530. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79080 by scooternyc on October 16, 2007 at 4:24 am

Brian - you miss my point - I DON'T claim to know all the answers?

I'm open minded and continue to read, research, look further into it, find more reading to do, listen, watch, evaluate motive.

Meanwhile, I do all the things I've listed:

I don't drive a car

I recycle

My electricity is managed through a "green" program here in NY

I conserve resources

I use biodegradable products when possible

I NEVER claimed to have all the answers - that's your projection based on your disagreement with me.

I continue to ask myself these questions all the time and still have no valid answers - since no specific criteria has been made a foundation.

So, we continue to research, test, conclude - research, test, conclude.

Come on, this is what science is all about.

Where then was all the railing in society back in the 70's, when I was a kid in school, about global cooling and the upcoming ice age? We never heard of the issue then as today. Do we not ask ourselves why?

531. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79077 by scooternyc on October 16, 2007 at 4:19 am

I find it amusing that so many are making the VERY POINT I'M HIGHLIGHTING.

Who is to decide?

The sky is falling language only endorses a religious viewpoint of the subject.

If there are so many who are researching and finding other data that DOESN'T support man-made global warming - are we to not listen to them because we've made up our minds?

Why not test their data? Is that NOT what the M&M project did? Why are we just ignoring those scientists? Are we? I don't know.

But your statements are invoking a "faith" type of argument for the scientists with whom we agree.

That's not science.

Once again, yes - we should find alternatives

Yes, we should recycle.

Yes, we should conserve resources.

Yes, we should care about the environment and our impact.

But what of the other global issues that surround us - poverty, starvation, clean drinking water, maleria, etc.

These are not unreasonable questions to propose.

Do we need to be christians then to disavow god? If I can only be a scientist then to make an educated decision?

Who decides how the data is interpreted?

Why are not the "climate models" made public?

Again, none of my questions are unreasonable, but if only for those who want to turn their "faith" in this subject over to just "these scientists who agree with us".

532. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79074 by scooternyc on October 16, 2007 at 4:11 am

"but he can still be simply wrong"

Great. By what standards? Whose standards?

How are we to decide who is discredited and who is not?

By what criteria?

I'm fine if you wish to say he is simply wrong, I just would like someone, anyone, to please lay out the foundations for why we are discrediting someone.

Simply saying "he's wrong" is the argument religious people have with atheists.

Simply saying "he's not qualified" is to negate his background.

Are we comparing all scientists to the same criteria?

Should they all have the exact same credentials by which to make hypothesis and come to conclusions?

If so, then who are those scientists we're listening to and who are we to ignore?

Who decided which ones?

By what foundations have we made that decision?

And what of the M&M project? One of many projects of opposing position on this issue.

533. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79061 by scooternyc on October 16, 2007 at 2:35 am

Bonzai,

You make THE POINT - which one are we discrediting? The one YOU disagree with? I'm not wanting to be rude, just wanting to bring attention to the conflict we all face regarding this issue.

Isn't this the guy whose work was discredited by the M&M project I posted? Did M&M not follow scientific protocols or did Mann not follow them?

You get my point and you've made it even stronger - who's to decide? By what demarcation.

534. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79054 by scooternyc on October 16, 2007 at 2:01 am

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

Are we discrediting this scientist? If so, by what criteria?

535. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79051 by scooternyc on October 16, 2007 at 1:53 am

#102 - Brian, I ask in all sincerity then, to you:

Which scientists are we discrediting?

By what criteria are we discrediting them?

Which data are we discrediting?

By what criteria are we discrediting the data?


If I've presented, just in this post alone, what looks to be a valid argument, for which there are many, then what say those who want to discredit it and by what standard?

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

If one reads this thoroughly, can we honestly say that McIntyre and McKitrick didn't follow scientific protocols by replicating data that was already housed by Mann? And what of that data? And what of the process and protocols of archiving, etc.?

Certainly the same skepticism that is warranted about religion is warranted about gorebal warming if science be the only discipline by which we are evaluating both - which I happen to think is precisely what is useful in making such assertions about both topics - let the evidence be revealed.

536. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79005 by scooternyc on October 15, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Nick Good, you and I agree on the issue of gorebal warming. Additionally, I endorse the reasonable thinking from someone like Bjorn Lomborg and his book, Cool It.

The question I'm always turning on those that are strong atheists, regarding this issue of gorebal warming:

Which scientists are we discrediting?

By what criteria are we discrediting them?

Which data are we discrediting?

By what criteria are we discrediting the data?

The very same questions posed by atheists to the religious when the religious say that ID is a science...blah, blah, blah.

After having researched/read this along with numerous other documentation that leads me to the conclusion that we are not at a conclusion as of yet.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html


As such, I agree with Lomborg, we have more pressing issues that would venture us to alleviate other environmental problems should we work to resolve those instead.

Yes, we should recycle.

Yes, we should find alternatives.

Yes, we should conserve our resources.

Not at the cost the Kyoto proposes.

537. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78689 by scooternyc on October 14, 2007 at 10:16 am

"they misunderstand religious beliefs " = euphemism for "you're wrong, I'm right"

538. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78417 by scooternyc on October 12, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Interesting story from a station who employs misogynistic, homophobic types who get sued by former employees for salacious comments.

But then most fundamentalist christians are uptight about sex and live vicariously through the stories they report, which they say are the cause of debauchery of society - while they secretly enjoy the footage.

Heal thy self.

539. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77467 by scooternyc on October 9, 2007 at 11:37 am

I find it amusing that I just came from a shoot where another gentleman and I spoke for about an hour on this issue. He saw me reading, Piety and Politics, which provoked the conversation.

My response when he asked my belief: "I don't believe in anything, I accept reason and logic based on evidence which draws a natural conclusion. The supernatural isn't anything I'm interested in."

When he tried to re-word the question regarding belief, I simply stated that "everyone is an atheist then if we are to be defined by your explanation of the word". With that he directed the conversation elsewhere related to the topic of politics and religion.

What does it say?

It says that disallowing others to label us helps support the "reason and logic" precepts needed to draw rational conclusions.

By simply responding as I did it merely moved the conversation away from the "you gotta prove god doesn't exist" argument (as though I never heard that before).

I'm glad I heard Sam's speech that night; I'm glad he's taking this to the next level; it's too bad that some others want to criticize their own inability to understand this next level; a very important one at that.

The label atheist is a religious label utilized to describe me regarding something I'm not a part of - religion.

I wouldn't think of empowering the religious with their own terminology to fit me into their narrow view of their world - which is what calling someone an atheist is all about - "this is how I fit you into my narrow view of the world in which I live - by labeling you and then assuming everything about you because of that label - how you think, how you act, what you eat, how you sleep, what kind of children you have, et. al."

No.

Better that I define myself outside of that rhetoric which encourages the conversation further to seek clarification. This propagates opportunity to speak reason and logic on the topic rather than now try to advance past a preconceived idea rooted in their heads.

It gets even better when I start adding politics to the conversation because I'm not for any one party, so then they can't do anything except listen and learn - which more often than not, happens.

540. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76752 by scooternyc on October 7, 2007 at 3:45 am

Here's my question regarding this point, which seems to come up quite frequently:

"Stalin, Hitler, do we really think these guys were of sound mind?"

Correlation is not causation.

We don't think killing in the NAME of religion is rational, why would we think killing because one is opposed to religion, is any more rational

If the killing wasn't for protection, safety or self-defense, don't we typically find killing distasteful in civil society?

The debater uses it as a "this for that", which shows a weakness in argument, an attempt to place the opposition on the defense rather than addressing the accountability factor of those who kill in the NAME of religion.

What does one have to do with the other?

Religion is irrational.

Killing in the name of religion is EVEN MORE irrational - is the point being made by atheists.

Comparison argument is always about trying to rationalize one point to the other and thereby justifying its oppositional act as being just as valid.

With this case, neither is valid, religion or killing in the name of religion, as you can see from the argument itself.

541. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76512 by scooternyc on October 6, 2007 at 3:22 am

Nick, once again I like your points.

I'm reminded of the questioner during Hitchens' talk that attempted to "ask a question" about Iraq by saying we "should have gone into Iran".

When Hitch confronted the man about using military force in Iran, the man ran from the idea of ANY military force, which unmasked his true feelings and Hitch, not only called him on this, but also then gave the guy the smack down he deserved - "talkin out his ass cause your mouth knows better". NO ONE commands the facts about this conflict better than he.

It's too easy to call the whole effort "failed" and recite anit-rhetoric. Public Law 105-338 and 107-234 clearly outline the U.S. responsibility way before the Presidency of Bush was a glean in his eye - 105-338 was signed by Clinton. And as a matter of record, Bush and Cheney both spoke about having to deal with Iraq and Saddam during their 2000 campaign.

But I care not about those details, we could debate them all day.

I care about our humanity as a people supporting those, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a brilliant individual and a more emotional welcoming she could not have had at the conference) being given EVERY opportunity at freedom/democracy that we can give.

Others sacrificed for our accomplishment in that endeavor and it does become a responsibility to support others, at the very least as an act of reciprocity - which is inherently part of our evolution of morality, as stated by Dawkins and others.

I know a lot of you don't agree with this, hopefully, you still allow dissonance, as Ms. Ayaan would say, on this subject without it declaring jihad on me. LOL! : )

I'm a big boy though, I can take it. I'm solid in my resolve on this issue.

Cheers,
Scooter

542. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76207 by scooternyc on October 5, 2007 at 4:26 am

Nick, yours is a great observation and one that my buddy and I made during the event when we attended last Friday.

The question I wish I had asked to Dennett later was, "What is it that you think we should do with these terrorists? Let them go; release them to their own countries where they may either kill more innocent people or soldiers; or better still they may be executed by their own nations?"

The Looming Tower is an excellent book that outlines the genealogy of this jihad network as far back as the 1950's - it's amazing.

The other aspect I took exception with was when 2 women spoke to the nature of the female violence inherent in those women who would seek it. The speaker attempted to credential his own work and disregard the women's points, which was a mistake.

Women can be just as prone to violence, the fact that the speaker hasn't researched it doesn't mean it isn't worth exploring and doesn't negate the potential or the reality.

"Have you ever seen a million dollars?"

"no"

"just because YOU haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist"

Great observation Mr. Good.

543. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76056 by scooternyc on October 4, 2007 at 2:38 pm

RD.Net, you guys are so good at getting us this information all the time, much appreciated.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Scooternyc

544. AAI 2007 Photos

Comment #76055 by scooternyc on October 4, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Homo economicus, are you the guy I met right after Eddie Tabash's speech - having asked the question after me about disenfranchising folks?

545. Researchers devise way to calculate rates of evolution

Comment #75949 by scooternyc on October 4, 2007 at 6:15 am

Damien, I would love to hear your 30 second explanation, I am often perplexed on how best to bring this point across to creationists. Can you help?

Cheers,
Scooter

546. A New Debate

Comment #75676 by scooternyc on October 3, 2007 at 9:43 am

I was under the impression that ALL voices were heard:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

547. A New Debate

Comment #75664 by scooternyc on October 3, 2007 at 8:41 am

I like this idea. I don't expect any politician to know tons of science, but to understand what the difference is between "theory" and "hypothesis"; to understand falsifiability; to understand the objective nature of science; to understand how something is falsified - these are worth exploring.

A person who is unable to think clearly on a subject and argue the merits objectively and with only a secular position in politics, is someone we should be very wary of, indeed. To do otherwise is to disenfranchise an enormous portion of the population.

548. Talking Action Figure Jesus

Comment #73412 by scooternyc on September 25, 2007 at 1:28 am

It's 4am here in the U.S. and I'm already laughing so hard at these websites everyone is posting - I LOVE IT!

How about creating little priest dolls that are chasing little boy dolls while the boy dolls are screaming "no moleste, no moleste".

"...So when will they be releasing the Muhammad doll?"

I thought the dark skinned jesus doll just "doubled" as mo?

549. Poll: Are Dawkins and Hitchens good for humanism?

Comment #72864 by scooternyc on September 23, 2007 at 9:15 am

"My disagreement with people like Hitchens over the Iraq invasion is a case in point: it doesn't mean I don't respect him. It is perfectly possible to disagree with someone and still respect them."

It's difficult to respect people who don't have within their inherent humanity that which would endorse freedom/democracy for all human life.

I can disagree about strategy; I cannot compromise humanity.

550. Poll: Are Dawkins and Hitchens good for humanism?

Comment #72859 by scooternyc on September 23, 2007 at 9:10 am

"What is disrespectful is to treat any individual differently from the next - to employ different standards of interaction with different individuals"

I disagree with this statement.

It's not disrespectful to "treat" any individual differently, but it is disrespectful to treat any individual as though he/she was not deserving of respect as a human being.

I treat all human life with respect; I treat certain people differently as their actions may warrant such; some I speak with, others I would not.

I'm respectful, not stupid.