john5746

I expect that science will continue to bring a better understanding of our universe and a better standard of living for humanity. Religion is about hope and a better future? Well, maybe some, but some have hope in the end of this world, that humanity cannot bring anything but death and destruction. You can adore a puppy or a baby. You can also adore an imaginary friend. Is that the same thing? Religions have some basic tenants that are useful. Philosophy can update and improve on these. Our roots and history are varied and can be known much better in secular history and anthropology. And they can actually be the same for all of humanity, not just certain tribes or groups Stop adoring the pursuit of knowledge. OK

As far as the meme is concerned, I guess it could be measured by the amount of information contained? As in how much disk space it would take. It is a logical concept of something very real - information. Math is a logical concept as well. Religion is an illogical concept?

I watched the first show. Not very informative, of course. I did learn one interesting thing. The muslims, or at least the Iranian shia, beleive that the hidden imam will come back and that if other religions do not accept him, Jesus will come back and mediate! It is remarkable how similar these religions can be. The Jews, who created this God for themselves, believe the messiah will be a great leader, not a diety. The Christians of course think he is a diety and the shia apparently think he is as well, but only as a go-between. Maybe these three will eventually come to an agreement. But that agreement might be worse than the petty fighting we have now!

Dawkins is evangelizing athiesm and reason. He takes it a little farther than me, since I am agnostic toward the abstract creator God. We just don't know. But, people don't really argue for this God, only as a defense. This abstract God isn't the one that makes you feel important, hates homosexuality, created humans and takes you to heaven, etc. That is a specific God. That one, along with all the other fairy tales, I know does not exist. Wearing a shirt with A would be similar to wearing the cross or a swastika, etc. You are showing your group identity. What matters is what the group believes, how it conducts itself, etc. Watered down secular religon seems to be OK, but I have one issue. They do not update their books. They ignore vast amounts of it, but the texts remain for someone to bring up again and "return to the true roots" of the faith. A bit like science books having the sun circle the earth, with everyone ignoring it, but not changing it. We already have difficulty keeping up with technology. Keeping these old books around with very little useful information and with some very dangerous stuff in them - just to belong to a group, will make it almost impossible.

Well, I watched the show and found it rather tame for Dawkins. He can be a jerk, no doubt. That doesn't make him an enemy to reason. People are letting their prejudice get in the way of the material. Of course these quacky alternative medicines do nothing but delude the person into thinking they are getting some benefit.

Maybe we have to help them some, but I think the lendors and the homeowners should bear most of the burden. Just bailing them out will encourage more action like this in the future.

Yep, and if I say I am tired of Canadians being impotent, do nothings just like New Zealanders, then I am just being anti-do-nothings, not anti-your-countries. Yep, that's right.

If you were an American, what would you do to change things? Would you protest and vote - or use bombs?

I am not a scientist, but it seems to me that as our knowledge increases, the chance of someone just coming up with something completely out of the blue without any reverence to prior knowledge approaches zero. Thinking outside the box doesn't necessarily mean thinking without knowledge. Einstein didn't come up with relativity by disregarding Newton or Maxwell, he was trying to group theories together, because he thought them to be correct. Can someone do this with evolution? Possibly, but probably not by disregarding the theory completely, but by working within. The public would have believed anything Einstein said probably, but I am sure many scientists were eager to prove him wrong or beat him to the punch. I would argue that respect for authority has diminished in our society, not increased. Many non-scientist would love to catch Dawkins in a mistake concerning evolution. Math is a logical model of the physical world around us. When you use your hard drive, you write to the logical partition. It doesn't exist physically, but that is how you interact with it. So basically, has science lost its edge, has it become somewhat corporate basically? Do upcoming scientists strike out on there own anymore or simply listen for what the current "genius" has to say? In all reality how much advancement do you think is lost by keeping science so stale and sedated? Science is performed by humans, so it will have human pitfalls. Working in groups and sharing information may not be as creative or romantic as being the lone super-scientist who figures out the meaning of everything, but I think this has been and will increasingly be the approach that is successful as we go forward, IMO. You bring up a good point about going against conventional wisdom. I am sure scientists do it all the time. Maybe they are not doing it enough, I am not sure. I think people like me and the population in general just do not possess the knowledge necessary to follow science in detail enough to know what is conventional wisdom. Rather than having the huge Einstein light bulb going off, we may have mini-lights going off all around us, but not be aware of them. The profit motive could be a concern. If we only research things that can turn a buck within 5 years, then we may not advance very far.

My motion detection lights outside turn on with &^%$#!!@# moths and other flying insects, but not very reliable I am sure.

Maybe he is compensating for something....

I think Cheney is lying, but in his view, he probably is lying for the troops. Remember, their argument against any war complaints is that we must support the troops in time of war. This means supporting even a mistaken war.

We are at war with whomever is shooting/bombing the troops at the time. It changes week to week, month to month. Iraq is not holding together as a Nation - that is the problem. If the Japanese had broken into 4 factions and 2 refused to surrender, we would either still be fighting them or we would have nuked the whole island. Their solidarity to one ruler is what allowed a true victory for the US and a true recovery for them, IMO.

Yes and evidence of you thousands of years later would most likely not be found.

That is the sad thing about this next election. Both parties are spending like crazy and who knows which is worse.

Actually, could Iran turn out better than Iraq? The military victory would be harder, but the political victory might be easier? Maybe I am wrong, but Iran probably doesn't have as much ethnic strife? They are mostly Persian, shia muslim, I think. So, no reason to totally wipe out the government. They could be jump started back with a much smaller military - who is going to invade them?

I didn't think we should have invaded either - or at least so quickly, BUT: The situation changed - the first time was to get Saddam out of Kuwait and keep the region somewhat stable. The second invasion was to get rid of WMD. If he really thought that Saddam had WMD or was close to getting them, I am sure he regrets not taking him out in the first place. It is logical to have the differing opinions for the different situations, IMO

I think Romney will be the eventual Republican candidate. He will win Iowa and should fare well in New Hampshire as well. He is a true fiscal conservative and is trying to be seen as a true social conservative as well. He has to do better in the South though. If you can't beat Guiliani in South Carolina, forget it. Skipping the Iowa poll was a strategic move. They knew they could not win, so they cut Romney's victory short.

I we consider that both are incorrect ideas, then the comparison becomes: 1) Which does more harm? In general, the homophopic, since they are prejudice towards others. But, if a homophobic stays to themselves and never does anything against homosexuals(including voting), while a creationist convinces millions that science is wrong about evolution, climate change, etc - then I say the latter is worse. 2) How easy is it to change the behaviour? I am unsure about this. Homophobia is a type of prejudice, just as racism is a form of prejudice. This is learned, but I think humans come by this group thinking naturally, as a survival skill. No formal education should be required to stop thinking this way though. New religion? There may be a recent surge in evangelicalism in America, but this has been in response to the increased secularization of Christianity during the last century. This is how people start thinking we cannot have morals without religion. Whenever society becomes enlightened, it is adopted - usually with teeth gnashing and foot dragging into the religion. Then, it is claimed that we would not have these morals if we lose the religion. AAAAGGGGHHHH!!

Since the rest of us are not worthy of your intelligence, why don't you delete the bookmark and just email Lucaspa? Try to reduce irritation in the world.

When I speak of faith in the religious context, I generally mean irrational faith, ie faith in spite of evidence. Having faith that you will not win the lottery is not the same as being certain that you will win the lottery. In the same way, I can see all the Gods that have been sent to the trash heap, along with all the silly beliefs surrounding them. I can then conclude that any specific God belief is very unlikely to be true. This does nothing for an abstract God outside of the universe. For all I know, the universe is a fart in progress out of a donkey's butt. The donkey would be a creator in this case, but not necessarily an intelligent, complex God. If I concede that I have no knowledge as to a God/creator outside of the universe, that does not imply that I have no knowledge in terms of a God creating the Earth or all life on it. In the former case of an abstract God outside of the universe - don't care. It is not a hypothesis at this point, just a dream. In the latter case of a more specific God meddling with things - the odds are far in my favor, so I will take that bet that you will not win the lottery, even though someone will eventually win it. Many people use Atheism as a more confident expression. For some, Agnosticism implies ignorance - meaning they just need to learn. Atheism says "I know your beliefs and I know better - don't waste time with me." Atheism is appropriate IMO, because theism is rarely associated with a deist God outside of the universe.

Politicians need to make decisions based on information given, not just follow scientists. There are numerous "discoveries" and reports everyday. It must be filtered, not just thrown out knee-jerk like a boy crying wolf. You example with second-hand smoke: Common sense tells me that if brief exposure to second hand smoke can cause damage, maybe all air pollution can cause damage. What do we do, legislate that everyone wear an oxygen mask? Are there competing studies validating or countering this find? I too am frustrated at the mistrust of solid evidence by lawyers, but some prudence is needed.

Yeah, I'm sure if the British had stayed over with us to help, we would have ratified that thing far sooner. Paranoia is correct, we did not lose the war. We are losing the nation building, because it is not ours to build. Keeping the peace and building security forces are not goals of war.

My guess is... waiting time. If it takes 2 days waiting for someone to look at your cut, you will say forget it. Like Emergency rooms in America. Most people try to avoid them even if it is free, but some sit there for hours and hours for routine stuff. How about incentive to live healthy? Would universal healthcare bring more or less incentive to live a more healthy lifestyle? That is the biggest problem for America, IMO. We live very unhealthy lives. It is a strange problem: The poor in our country can afford to eat themselves sick, but cannot afford the doctors and medicine to deal with the problems that come afterwards.

Well, I don't know exactly what he said, but it is obvious we have a problem with Islamic radicals around the world. Some are part of sophisticated groups, some are just pissed off losers trying to get back at the 'system'. Just because that may be a reality does not mean the 'war on terror' slogan is not being used as a bumper sticker. It decided the last two elections and will decide the next. It is used to justify actions that have nothing to do with terrorism. Don't criticize the military because we have global terrorism, etc.