ParanoiA

Continued argument with no logical supporting information. It seems you want this to be true, so you can level the playing field with science, but you haven't presented any case that it is true. I know you really us to worship science like a god, but I see no evidence of it at all whatsoever. Unless you're trying to make the case that "belief with evidence" is a religion. That ought to be interesting... Huge strawman here. Who said any of that? Hint: Nobody. Many religions have wonderful things to say, great philosophical lessons, positive messages and decent guides to the fundamentals of morality. And America was founded by people with deep faith, and contrary to what some would like to believe religion found itself in our government and has been there in some limited capacity ever since. I'm proud of "In God We Trust" on our dollar bills and I always say "Under God" when I pledge allegiance because it has historical value in my mind and the tradition is worth it. However, I'm a comfortable atheist and will not believe until I see evidence and I do believe it is dangerous to continue to promote unsubstantiated belief - not in tradition or history, but current belief. Remember, we have bookstores with prolific fictional works that contain the same elements, yet we don't literally believe these stories are true events. They have value, but are not to be worshiped. Tell me how we're "adoring this secular god". I really want to understand this because so far it's faired to be little more than an emotionally defensive dig.

I'm not sure you could really tell without half a million variables to be worked out. One party may be in power during a time the previous party's policies are still in effect. Also, consider that neither party can really fully implement their ideology, which could feedback negative results due to incomplete dynamics. For instance, how can conservativism really be measured for success when entitlement programs are still in place? How can liberalism really be measured when large portions of the market remain unregulated?

Awesome.

But isn't that just a correllation, not a fact of causation? I agree with your point on Japanese pride, but are you really suggesting that they are increasing their hunting window or adding more hunters to the mix - just to oppose Greenpeace? That would be some crazy ass pride for sure.

I think it will be interesting to see how close we still are to the rotten behavior we scoff at when reading our history books. I think many folks believe we're past that, judging our ancestor's behavior by modern day after-the-fact standards. In a sick way, I'm kind of hoping several countries lose their clout of innocence and thereby remind the inhabitants of earth that we're not exactly removed from the atrocious colonialism of our past. Maybe then we wouldn't judge our forefathers with such pretension.

Yeah, you just nailed it. An obstacle to free thinking... I have a friend who seems incredibly intelligent, certainly has a great mind to work with, yet is immersed in different forms of spirituality. When I would debate with him on some of these, I'd ask why they can't be proven and tested and so forth and he would always respond with this overly pretentious teenage tone "look dude...this is beyond your numbers and your closed minded absolutes..." and would just go downhill from there. I've known others as well. It's always disturbed me how open mindedness is abused to fool people into believing things.

Agreed, but I don't have too much of an issue with it. It's a good something for everyone to chew on. How much of our beliefs are truly rational, or at least supported with some kind of verifiable evidence? And how much does this kind of belief hurt? On the surface it may not seem like much at all. But I think when you consider the snowball effect and the ways these beliefs effect our judgement in every day life and within the context of war and rule of law - I'm not so sure it's really as harmless as it seems. Though I admit I think he's a little more harsh and confrontational than I had orginally thought. Maybe that's just his dispostion on Part 2, but I felt like he was more argumentative in that one. Although, he certainly seems to admit a placebo effect concerning homeopathy and similar things - and he even admitted value in that.

Seems interesting, but per the links at the bottom, I'm not sure how much history is going to be covered. Seems to me you'd need a comprehensive history to do this subject justice. Hopefully those are "extras" links and not an indication of the content. I'll be watching tonight...

Which is definitely a better check than anything the government can come up with. Am I the only one who finds this incredibly disturbing? You all probably have a better handle on this kind of thing, but I've been trying to read more economics related material to get over my business weakness and this kind of thing just blows me away. Why isn't this a major political issue?

Exactly. Your post nails the idea of habitual irrational, or at least unsubstantiated beliefs. This theme carries over in politics (warring over god or supposed morals derived from god), economics, philosophy, law..etc. This "faith only" theme is contagious and causes a lot of problems. Look at how apathetic americans are toward their government and its policies. They have no interest. "They'll take care of it". I believe this whole intellectual laziness is a huge problem for my country as our people are being duped by opportunists that use this "disconnect" and total lack of knowledge to gain power. I don't think that would be the case if we were taught to think for ourselves.

I think people are turning to Atheism because it just seems logical. It compliments the lack of belief concerning anything that isn't verifiable by some reasonable form of evidence. It's consistent with most people's attitude and view of things outside of their personal faith-only based beliefs. The same people who believe in Feng Shui will commit their family member who claims to ride unicorns when everyone is asleep. That's selective application of evidence based belief. There is no sin in atheism. There's no forgiveness. There's none of the typical religious "maintenance" with atheism. So, I don't see the logic to any claim that it's a religion. All the religions I've ever heard of require some kind of faith due to lack of evidence or even reason. There is no faith in atheism, it is simply god = we don't know, so therefore belief = no. I think the negative reactions to this series more or less confirms for me how much of a problem it is. Even in a science forum people are turned off by relying on evidence and substance to support their beliefs. It's as if we're so conditioned to unsubstantiated beliefs that we our proud to rebel against Dawkins' ideas of evidence based belief. The hypocrisy in the statement just blows me away. "Really bizarre psychics"? How are they really bizarre while christianity isn't? Neither has a shred of evidence to prove their belief, yet you have decided that some psychics are really bizarre. And if you're not making a value judgement on "really bizarre psychics", then why did you use them as an example to contrast with men and women in white suits? You are guilty just as Dawkins. One could have also made the case that the men and women in white suits are usually cast negatively in movies and TV while Psychics are almost always cast positively. That would seem to contradict Dawkins' supposed subconscious psycho trick attempt to stack the deck in favor of "good".

I think the mortgage crisis is much worse than I originally thought. Bascule has been sounding the alarm consistently. Bailing them out is not an interest of mine, the quality of the economy is, so any action we take should be in the interest of saving our dollar, and subsequently our economy. The value of our dollar, printing more money, and the control China has over it, is a more dire issue than people realize. And this mortage catastrophe is feeding it. So, if putting money into fannie mae will correct this, I'm all for it. If there are smarter areas to put money in, I'm all for that too. But only in the interests of the overall economy, not to keep stupid people from making bad decisions.

I understand where you're coming from, but why do you think encroached rights and oppression would follow from a Dawkins view? Isn't that possible under really any view? Any government and law set up to execute a particular person's point of view is going to be unjust to somebody. I never liked the question. How about a Dawkins policy on War and Intelligence?

You may be right. It seems more likely, to me anyway, that he's saying it's the combined effect of all of the various unsubstantiated beliefs in the supernatural and the declining interest in actual science that is the root of all evil. And then consider how spirituality in one area promotes spirituality in another. It's not so hard to accept feng shui when you have astrology, wicca and etc.. This stuff is terribly prolific and I have to wonder too, about the sanity and health of humanity when more people seem to trust this stuff than real science. I guess I just think it's a good conversation for everyone to be having. I know it has annoyed me my whole life...

It is, but the surface isn't breached. Probably because he wants to be more careful with it. Just a hunch, mind you, because I watched a half hour Q&A with him just after a reading from his God Delusion book, and he fields several questions on this, obviously. I thought he came across far more thoughtful and careful when criticizing religion. Although he tries to make a case for child abuse concerning the concept of hell. Not sure I'm on board for that, but he has a point at least. You should watch that one, unless you're already well versed in Dawkins. I'm not, so I find much of this fascinating. I'm looking forward to reading God Delusion too.

Probably. I just can't agree with cherry picking regulation that empowers one company and hinders another - in the same damn market. Yes, maybe AT&T is a monopoly and needs to be regulated, but to basically hold them down while CLECs get to kick them to "catch up" is ridiculous. AT&T is a business that spent alot of money and manpower to get thousands of miles of copper in the ground - perhaps they deserve to make more money than the newbies? But make no mistake, AT&T is evil...

thanks... Actually, I'd like to delete this thread. Until I get a better handle on what I'm really asking. Some quick reading has already sparked a different line of thought...

There are plenty of stories that use the power of telekinesis to some extent or another and I've always wondered just how exactly that's "supposed" to work, if that was possible. Particularly energy. Would it be a manipulation of matter to cause a release of energy? Or would energy somehow be controlled directly? IOW, if I'm a "Fire Starter", like in King's old novel, what exactly is "supposed" to be happening that enables me to start a fire? Am I really controlling matter, causing molecules to vibrate or heat up and spark a fire, or could I really control fire itself? Sounds like I'm asking about the intent of the author, but I'm not actually. I guess I need to understand energy better.

When these same representatives stop winning elections. When our countrymen stop voting for them. When we wake up to a mushroom cloud. Or, when the dollar becomes as worthless as the german Mark after WWII. We're going to have to pay for ignoring the corruption of our government, of our constitution, for our apathy and our preoccupation with pop culture bullshit.

No offense taken, I respect your opinion. I can understand this responsibility when he's operating in the capacity of "scientist". But when he's doing his little opinion flicks, an anecdotal spin-off, I don't see how he's bound by his scientist position. Unless there's something I'm not understanding about his duty to Oxford University... I akin this to my employer who states in the code of business conduct that I'm not allowed to engage in any activity outside of work that would be a conflict of interest, or the appearance of a conflict of interest. Yeah, they can write that down in any pamplet they want but I could give a crap less how something appears to them. In the same way, I could give a crap less about Dawkins' supposed "responsibility" imposed on him in the capacity of opinion based journalism. Just my opinion...

Maybe it would also help to keep fringe candidates from being dismissed so easily. If New Hampshire basically ignores Ron Paul, he's not going to be seriously considered in subsequent primaries, even if he would have done better in them. But if they're basically simultaneous, New Hampshire wouldn't have that kind of deterministic clout. Not that I'm all that well versed in part of the process....

No kidding. Customer service is taking a nose dive and all of the telecomm companies seem to know this and appear to cooperatively keep it that way. As long as none of them make the leap to great customer care, they can all just equally suck at it and focus their attention on prices and availability. The call tree is the first and worst offender of horrible customer service. Second, only by mere inches, is the outsourcing to India that SBC, now at&t has invested in. Even the intra-company support groups and desktop services are based in India and they are horrible to work with - no special support for the AT&T workforce. I'm convinced this type of outsourced and IVR customer service is just to satisfy a "minimum requirement" and is designed NOT to be used. I believe they like it being a hassle so you won't want to call and use it. It works too. I've got problems with my DSL line but I'd rather drill screws through my toes than call them. And thus the irony...they then brag about the network reliability due to the lack of customer service volume. Brilliant huh? Don't forget that CLEC's steer clear of much of this regulation. This has been the insult SBC/AT&T has had to deal with over the decades. AT&T is heavily regulated at the local exchange level, but CLEC's are free from the shackles of government extortion. For many years the Bell's were forced to lease facilities, that AT&T built over the course of decades, at a lower cost than mere maintenance, let alone re-selling it to their own customers under a different company name. Regulation has done little more than gaurantee the existence of AT&T/SBC with the same level of crappy service you'd expect with a practical monopoly. Of course, with the advent of satellite service, VoIP and etc, we're getting some sputtering of competition. But the cable companies are in the best position, they aren't burdened by the level of regulation AT&T has to deal with yet have impressive infrastructure and facilities already in place.

Ok, I'll ask again a little differently... How does one refer to "verifiable evidence" without sounding as if one is promoting private feelings as if they were scientific fact? I don't think they can. I really don't get this. Either take issue with something in particular or give some examples because I keep seeing post after post of basically ad hominem defense rather than any thoughtful or intelligent rebuttal. He doesn't have responsibility to squat. That's your expectation being thrust upon him. They do that here in the states too. Some basketball player gets really good, becomes a household name and suddenly he's supposed to be a role model...huh? No, I think he's tending to his self appointed responsibility of pursuing what he believes to be the truth. Good for him. Are you kidding? The whole freaking series is opinion, not just a statement or two. You think a handful of dowsers in a tent with bottled water and sand is a scientific testing method? The testing pool alone is contestable, not to mention the interference of plastics being a possible issue and probably a hundred other things I haven't thought about. This is society's problem, not Dawkins'. He's basically doing anecdotal testing on TV. If he presented that silly testing as "scientific" or rigorous, then I'd take issue. But again, I haven't seen that. I've just seen him get people to put their money where their mouth is...and they're failing.

If the UK would receive a government, which is totally in line with the point of view of ANYBODY, would the UK be a good place to live? Hell no. If you truly believe such points of view are harmful to the advancement of humanity, then you would fight these points of view...honestly, respectfully, logically...do I need to go on? Plagues aren't fought like that, and this isn't being fought like the plague.

I hope most agree with this, I certainly do. What is extreme about it? And what makes you think people are blindly following him? In fact, what makes you think people are following him? I'm seeing the same offenses related to Dawkins that I do Rush Limbaugh. People are augmenting and changing his intents and conclusions to seemingly fit their emotionally offended position. It's really quite fascinating. Dawkins doesn't call anyone names, laugh and make fun of them, yell at them or anything, rather quite respectfully, patiently and logcially refutes these superstitions. I wonder why some can't disagree with Dawkins just as respectfully, patiently and logically...