ParanoiA

But no one should receive rights based on intimate relationships. Special rights for certain groups isn't any more righteous that restricting rights for certain groups. The whole notion of the state assuming a set of rights applies to me because of a private relationship is perverse. Biological relationship maybe, but intimate relationships based on choice? No.

We're standing for the principle of liberty. We're saying that the state doesn't get to define morality. It should be left to free thinking society. What you think about homosexuality is irrelevant to legislation. You are free to persuade the masses to agree with you, but to force your morality onto the rest of us, with law, is wrong. I hold the princple of liberty in higher esteem than your principle of mating.

I don't think you're being consistent with the details here. You're generalizing the context of burden of proof. Yes, the ultimate burden of proof lies on the those who claim deity. But that's not what Mr Skeptic was talking about. He was talking about people "making claims". In the context of an argument, if you were to say "God doesn't exist", then you are now making a claim - the same way deists are claiming there is a god - and have to provide evidence to prove it. As long as you don't make the strong athiest claim that "god doesn't exist", then you are relieved from ANY burden of proof. That's not accepting the god theory, that's simply being consistent with burden of proof and claims. You're not endorsing belief in fairies just because you can't technically say fairies don't exist. Rather you're being consistent with the principle of burden of proof on those who make claims of any kind. Instead you should say, there is no evidence of fairies, nor of god, nor any logical sense in the existence of such things. There's no good reason to believe in them. But you STILL can't falsify their existence. Actually it's an appropriate analogy because no, you can't search the area of space my civilization exists in. Not today anyway. A few decades from now, maybe you can look there. But I said my civilization exists in the far reaches of the universe. You can't look there today, so you can't falsify it. However, since I've made the claim that it exists, the burden of proof is on me to provide some evidence. Regardless though, if you say it DOESN'T exist, then that is a claim as well, and you must provide evidence to support it. Even if I haven't provided a shred myself. Think about this. This was the point of my last post that you stated I was strawmanning. The scientific method won't let you make the claim my civilization doesn't exist without evidence either. You'd have to prove you searched the area, or were able to perform testing that is consistent with how I've defined this civilization. (IE...a world that exploits nuclear energy, therefore you can test for emissions or whatever...you get the idea.) Instead, as has been pointed out already, science can just say there's no good reason to believe in my theory. It's not necessary, for one. Science doesn't need to claim my world doesn't exist. Science will keep the burden of proof on me, and not make any claims of its own. A conclusion is an inference. Just like doubt. A claim is an implication. You're making a statement of fact. You can draw all the conclusions you want without making any claims. Incidentally, I agree with your conclusions. They match mine. But neither of us can declare those conclusions are facts - they are not. It's not a strawman, it's a point that strengthens my larger point. I'm not debating as much as I'm discussing, so strawmen don't make a lot of sense to me in this context. Instead, see if you understand my point before you go into "counter attack". Your tack, and most in here, has been that because someone says "god exists", the burden of proof is on them - even if you say "god doesn't exist". Your point has been that the burden of proof is always on those who purport god exists, regardless of your response. So, my point was..what if no one previously stated "god exists"? What if not one single human on this planet said "god exists"? Who then, would suffer the burden of proof if someone were then to say "god doesn't exist"? (never mind the fact that we're all going to look at him weird and say...uh..ok dude...what's a "god"?) He's still making a claim. There's no counter-claim out there. Your logic doesn't hold. If I've made any sense, you should realize that you don't get to shift the burden of proof of your claims that "something doesn't exist" automatically on those who claim "something exists". Instead, no matter the claim, the burden of proof is on those who make them. In other words, it is not necessary for there to be "two sides" to a claim, allowing you to push the burden of proof onto one side. Your tack doesn't work on a claim that something doesn't exist, when no one has proposed that it does. If your logic was sound, it wouldn't require the counter-claim.

We're saying the same thing Reaper. Whoever enacts the exercise of "claim" owns the burden of proof. That is keeping with the scientific method and you are agreeing with this here. You're just not recognizing that by saying "Civilization X does not exist" - THAT is a claim. No it's not since you cannot search the area of space that contains the civilization. This is how the god thing works too. God is defined in such a way that the entire possible area of existence cannot be searched for evidence, therefore cannot be disproved. You cannot make claims without supporting evidence. I don't see how this disagrees with a thing I said. You're repeating the same points - "the burden of proof is on the person making the claims" - yes that's right. Glad we agree. This includes ALL claims. Claims that things don't exist, as well as claims that things DO exist. It is not necessary for their to be an argument that something DOES exist in order to make a claim that it DOESN'T. Think about that first. I can't say "Fairies that eat brains do not exist in the next galaxy". NO ONE has ever purported that fairies exist in the next galaxy that eat brains. But I still can't claim they don't exist and pass of the burden of proof to...uh...no one. See, a claim is a claim. No matter if it's claiming a negative, a positive, an existence, a non-existence...

Science is all about pedantry. Fact is, if I "dream up" a civilization in the far reaches of the universe that is essentially unfalsifiable, then you still have to prove any claim that my civilization doesn't exit. I, equally, must prove any claim that it does exist. In the context of an argument, that claim will be the responsibility of who makes the claims. You can doubt all day long without a shred of evidence or even suspicion, but you can't make statements of fact without proving them. It's only obvious and it compliments the scientific method really. This is what makes the scientific method a method. You can't just say "Awe c'mon guys...geez....purple unicorns??? get outa' here" - it forces you to prove every claim. No matter how silly. That's what gives it strength and integrity and, in theory anyway, should prove to keep it unbiased and protected from dogma.

What does that have to do with it?

PhDP - you really think that subtley isn't worth the distinction? Just because we generally allow our language to "wander" from precision doesn't make the idea pedantic.

Well my initial impulse is to question the necessity to put legal framework around the marriage rather than just herself. She's not illegal if she immigrates here through the legal process, which is quite liberal. I mean, I would think she could fly right back with you, like any tourist, and then complete the citizenship process. I don't see how she'd be illegal, really. But I admit I'm no expert on the requirements for international travel and citizenship.

Yeah, maybe we can drop that number to 533 congress critters that ought to go home.

He didn't say "doubt", he said "claim" - huge difference. Making a claim is a demand for recognition of fact. Doubt is a hesitation of belief. Further, a claim is an implication, doubt is an inference.

Damn right doG. I'll do my part.

If this is an accurate statement, then it's about time.

I certainly understand the insistance of parity, but I'd rather spend my energies on getting rid of the law. You're right, we certainly are aligned, ultimately, but I'd rather deliver some huge doses of libertarian remedy.

State sponsored marriage conveys significant financial benefits and that's a travesty. We should have never let the government go down that road. The idea that taxation or benefits should have a single thing to do with intimate commitments between individuals is just...weird. Of course, if it were up to me, no citizen would pay any higher or lower percentage of federal tax than any other, so these "benefits" would be non-existant.

I agree, technically, that "marriage" has been defined lexicographically as between a man and a woman. Seems to me, the fight is with the lexicons of the english language, not our courts and government. I'd rather take the tack that government doesn't have the authority to grant legitimacy to marriage or civil unions, only has the obligation to protect any legal contract of such, which would be defined in the contract. So a "civil union" in one contract could be defined as any number or combination of men and women. Whereas "marriage" would always be a one man and one woman union because that's what the damn word means. When the word marriage is redefined by the lexicographers for the english language, then and only then will the term "gay marriage" not be an oxymoron.

The night I met my wife I told her "even a blind man could see your beauty". Now, I meant this to be as corny as it sounds, and she got it, so we laughed and I knew she had a good sense of humor, a necessity to me. Now I just use it when she's pissed at me...gets me out of the dog house ever now and then.

Would be funny to actually see Dr. Paul as Obama's running mate. Since so many black folks seem to say "they'll kill him <Obama>" - some paranoid white fear thing I guess - then that might be his best bet for the presidency. Hehe..you thought GWB stole the presidency...? Imagine taking office after having come to washington with 19 delegates.

Pioneer - Let's be clear on the definition of religion: Yeah, there is certainly a religion of atheism to be found, however most atheists aren't part of it. I don't believe in god, but I also don't generate ethics from that, or any other pre-formed set of rules. There may be consequences to being an atheist (as in looking for ethical reference outside of a deity that filters behavior), but there's no ritualistic belief system generated from atheism. Theism, also isn't a religion. When someone attempts to infer a moral code and ethics from a lack of belief in god, then you can call them religious. This has been done with theism ad nauseam. Myself anyway, I infer ethics and morality from a different source, it doesn't come from atheism itself.

Wait a minute...aren't you supposed to be banned? Better yet, aren't you supposed to be studying?

Yep. Just today Rush was talking about volcanoes and cooling - animal adaptation - and his comparison of ice cubes in a glass to melting glaciers. I realize he's not exactly religious, but he does attack science religiously...

That's an invalid conclusion YT. Ice cream is perfect, and could never be a target. Particularly Dove brand. With that chocolate layer on the top...oh boy...I could get real religious on that stuff.

Science at the very least has faith that what has happened in the past will continue to happen in the future - and there's no proof of that.

This seems quite the false premise though. I bolded the words that emphasize the fault. This could just as easily be turned around...what benefits do you accrue as a direct result of your lack of faith which could not be achieved by someone with faith? I realize you asked first, but it's a meaningless question. There may be many things that I can only do with faith in a god, whereas you may not need faith at all to do those same things. This is about personal, subjective strength and belief. I don't believe anyone has suggested that certain benefits require faith, no matter who's trying to access that benefit. (Well, other than benefiting from the belief itself anyway, obviously). Try as you might, iNow, but you're falling in all the same traps I fell into trying demonize "faith", when really organized religion is actually your culprit. Just my opinion, but you seem to insist on them being synonymous.

I don't see how you can be a scientist and NOT eat pizza. I thought you all lived on it cuz you're too busy doing science stuff. So, I'm not sure how arbitrary that is, but point taken nonetheless...