zapatos

I presume you feel those involved in all of the following projects have made a grave error. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_city

Huh. So if I got them and you into a room and asked you both to lay out your methodology for risk management, you believe your methodology would be shown to be better. I'm impressed. Using your standard for which is the better methodology, I have determined that driving fast is safer than driving slowly. My mother was in an accident on a nearby road while driving 30 mph. I did not get in an accident driving on that same road at 60 mph.

No sarcasm. A nuclear plant on the coast of Japan can withstand a stronger earthquake than a nuclear plant in the middle of the US. A nuclear plant on the coast of Japan builds in more ability to survive a tsunami than a nuclear plant in the middle of the US. You evaluate your risks and mitigate them by reducing the impact or likelihood or occurrence, thereby bringing that risk to an acceptable level. The mitigation regarding an erupting volcano is probably to choose another location, thereby reducing that risk to near zero. I imagine you do the same thing every day. Is this street safe to walk down? If it is dangerous, I can drive a car instead, or maybe carry a gun. Maybe I just choose another street to traverse. The big difference between you and the nuclear industry is they probably do a much better of evaluating and mitigating risk than you do.

The probability of a catastrophic failure is roughly the same no matter where you build the plant. You determine the likelihood and impact of of an earthquake (or whatever risk you are addressing), and then mitigate that risk to an acceptable level. Let's call that level X. If you are in earthquake prone areas you build in a high level of mitigation to get to X. If you are not in earthquake prone areas you build in a lower level of mitigation to get to X. Doesn't matter if the plant is in Japan or the middle of the US, exceeding your risk mitigation by the same amount will lead to the same level of failure.

What conventional bombs have more firepower than nuclear weapons?

If one goes off though, it doesn't really matter whose fault it is. Knowing who is responsible won't help the cleanup much. It may be a people problem, but when designing the solution what is easier to do? Fix all the people who may be a problem, or remove the tool from reach?

No, my fault. I was arguing from an inferior position and did not realize it. Usually I recognize when I am in over my head and keep quiet. After JillSwift got to the core of what I misunderstood, I went back to read your previous post and realized I was wrong to interpret it as I did. I appreciate your, JillSwift's, and Edtharan's explanations.

Excellent! Nice explanation and very likely covers many of those I felt were being unreasonable.

mooeypoo -- I believe the comment was made in jest. Er, um. Look! Behind you!! Sorry, couldn't help but jump back in. I assume you could also say: The only way to take the "indirect evidence" as evidence against god is to make as a priori the decision that there is no god. That's to make a conclusion then find evidence to support it. This necessarily means to exclude evidence that isn't supportive. It's not logical in the least. But I don't think either side is taking the 'indirect evidence' as evidence. They are just trying to figure out what is going on with the information they have. Both the theist and atheist are in the same boat. Huh. I didn't know you could be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time. And do you mean to say that "The actual answer to "Does god exist?" is "I don't actually know..." if you are agnostic? Because I think if you are an atheist the answer is 'no'. Also, I'm speaking in general terms. When I say 'atheist' or 'theist', etc. I do not mean to imply all or under all circumstances. Don't leave out the rest of the possibilities: -- c. X can affect our world in some way but chooses not to -- d. X can affect our world but only did so once (creation) -- e. X can affect our world and does so but we do not recognize it as an act of X -- f. ... So long as it's claimed that god is not testable, then even if god does not exist it is irrelevant. But again, I'm not arguing whether or not God exists. My position is simply that no matter where you stand, you have no empirical evidence to support your belief. And if you have no empirical evidence to support your position, I feel it is a bit arrogant to criticize someone else's position just because they arrived there with no empirical evidence.

Your response is an excellent example of what I am talking about. In my previous post I stated that "I don't understand how theists can ignore the cold hard facts of science over an ancient text that has many glaring errors." I then brought up the question of "Does God exist" and suggested it was outside the purview of science and could neither be proven nor disproven empirically, and if you did come up with an answer is was simply based on personal experience, education, etc. I then concluded that I didn't understand how believers on one side of the debate (with no empirical evidence) could not accept that believers on the other side of the debate could reach a different conclusion (with the exact same lack of empirical evidence). You then proceed to deride my post with ridiculous examples of Donald Duck, the implication that my post suggests the world could suddenly become an illusion, collapsing floors, human activity collapsing into paralysis, a moon made of green cheese, everyone but me a robot, and somehow finding in my post that I suggest you abandon scientific perspective and adopt mystical ways. Nowhere did I ask you to adopt the beliefs of the theists. I simply suggested trying to understand another's perspective before responding. It seems to me you did not even read what I said. You just jumped into your boilerplate ridicule of theists. By all means, describe to me the independent empirical test to determine whether or not God exists.

Someone on this site has the tagline "When you are a hammer, all your problems begin to look like nails". Most of the religion discussions on this site are coming from scientists, who use their science hammer to view the world from a scientist's eyes. And since there is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of God, there is no reason to believe. Which makes perfect sense, especially if you are a scientist. That is how they've learned to think, it works, and they've bought into the concept. And in areas that are covered by science I don't understand how theists can ignore the cold hard facts of science over an ancient text that has many glaring errors. But not all areas are covered by science. For example, 'Does God exist?'. Science has no business addressing that question since there is no way to test it. It is supernatural and outside the purview of science. However, based on a scientist's background and science's track record, many scientists come to the logical conclusion that God does not exist and are very comfortable in that position. But of course they don't know God doesn't exist. How could they? But they take (what they believe to be) the indirect evidence around them, along with their experiences, background, and all the rest, and come to that conclusion. Very logical. And of course there are theists who don't know God exists. How could they? But they take (what they believe to be) the indirect evidence around them, along with their experiences, background, and all the rest, and come to the conclusion that God exists. Very logical. What I see happen so often on this site is that the scientists tell the theists that their conclusion is flawed. The science hammer comes out and they try to apply it where it cannot be conclusively used. I'm not surprised the hammer comes out. You use what you have. But that does not mean it will necessarily work. To me it looks as if the scientist is unable or unwilling to look at things from the perspective of the theist. Not to buy into it, but to listen and try to understand before coming up with their next argument. If they were making that effort I think I'd see a lot more of "I don't agree with you but I do understand your perspective". Instead I just see a lot of "You are wrong". I don't understand why scientists have such a tough time accepting the fact that someone can come to the conclusion that God exists, when the scientist has no more evidence of non-existence than the theist has of existence. I don't understand why it is so hard to accept that someone can honestly and logically come to a different conclusion. (Note: I don't mean all scientists, or all theists, or in all cases, etc. And I'm sure on a religious site the slant would be the exact opposite. I'm talking about what I see here.)

I completely missed the insult. All I heard was a knowledegable person make a judgement call on which of two subjects was the more complex. I think perhaps you are finding insult where none was intended.

Yeah, good point. I guess the answer you get often depends on who you ask. And when you ask.

They are not stupid. I'm quite sure that when a census is done they address these questions, and many others, and set the parameters for who to count and how to classify them.

It seems clear to me that you have concluded that your frame of reference is the correct one and that the way theists think and reason is in some ways flawed. Apologies if I misstated your position. I tend to feel that scientific thought and theistic thought are really two very different things, and one is really in no way qualified to suggest to the other how to reason. Kind of like baseball players not really being qualified to pass judgement on how soccer players approach their sport. Since the dialogue seems to me to be breaking down and neither of us is budging, I'll go ahead and call it quits. Thanks for the debate!

No, my intent was to say that I have yet to meet someone who claims to know the best way of doing something, and then tells me that they don't use that method. Reminds me of a line from "Meet Me in St. Louis"; "Wasn't I lucky to be born in my favorite city?" --Tootie. If you had been born to very religious people in the mountains of Pakistan you would in all likelihood be making very different arguments than if you had been born to scientists in Paris. And you would be just as confident in both cases. As you demonstrated previously.

I do realize you can spin a statement to make it sound as if it favors your position. I could have said you have 'confidence or trust in a person trying to make money by selling another overpriced text book', where a theist has belief in a person 'who took a vow of poverty and is dedicating his life to study and the betterment of mankind'. But that wouldn't have been fair. When you get right down to it you decide who and what you want to believe and why. As does the theist. But you have also decided that you are just and he is a fool. Despite your implication, there is no 'contrary evidence' to the existence of God. Given the lack of evidence either way it seems unreasonable to deny the theist his beliefs.

(For illustrative purposes only -- Don't really know you so I'm just picking a topic. Could be any subject you believe but do not have first hand experience with.) Do you believe in DNA, that it exists, that it is responsible for traits and how people develop? (Hoping the answer is yes.) Have you ever worked with DNA, helped map a genome, done cloning, worked in a microbiology lab? (Hoping the answer is no.) What is your evidence of its existence? Because someone else said so? Do you have faith in those strangers who write papers or talk online regarding the subject? So even though you lack the evidence, you have faith that it is true. Does that feel like pure fiction to you? Do you feel like you are fabricating a belief? Is it that much of a stretch for you to be allowed your faith in what strangers are telling you is true, but not to understand how someone can have faith in God?

I must have missed it. What is Zarnaxus' final test of the "Australia hypothesis"? Seeing it from space and actually being threre were not enough for him to be 100% certain. It sounds to me like he believes he can never be 100% certain. Someone who believes in God can make up for the lack of evidence with faith. Zarnaxus has enough evidence for Australia's existence, yet uses faith in the slim possibility of "The entire world is a conspiracy against you, making you believe that Australia exists!!" to maintain his bit of doubt. While their respective faiths may cover different amounts of evidence territory, I don't see much difference between the two. One doubts with evidence; one believes without evidence.

It seems to me that you should have directed these comments toward Zarnaxus. He is the one who doesn't seem to have complete faith that Australia truly exists. I do have complete faith it exists. I am questioning his logic in doubting the existence of something so clearly defined, and at the same time not understanding how someone else's logic can lead them to believe in God. Seems to me to be opposite sides of the same coin. One is unsure of some existence despite the evidence, the other is sure of some existence despite the lack of evidence.

I was responding to your question, "you seem to know alot, who is this "someone"?".

Do you believe Australia exists? I mean, maybe not 100%, but enough so that you believe it is probably so? Confident enough that you would buy a plane ticket, board the plane, and put your life at risk, since if it is not there you are going to have to land in the middle of the ocean? Will you act out your life as if it exists, talking about Sydney without a smirk on your face, believing people when they tell you they've seen koalas and kangaroos on their vacation to Australia? Would you be willing to bet all your worldly possessions that it exists? I'll take a chance that the answer to these questions is yes. So how can you have so much faith in the existence in a hunk of rock you've never seen, yet find it so incomprehensible that someone else can have the same faith that God exists?

Wait, did you say you did this in outer space?

Try looking in the link you provided.

The dead person and their dead relatives don't care. The further in time you move from when the person died, the less the opinion of their decendants (or others with a vested interest) matters. The less effort the relatives (or others with a vested interest) put into caring for the remains, in other words if they effectively abandoned the remains, the less their opinion matters. Any display of remains should be respectful. From my perspective the decision on whether or not (and how) to display remains should in large part be based on the above.