JohnB

padren, I think that anybody that does not always keep the possibility that they are wrong in mind is always amoral. Whether about morality, religion or politics, unshakable "faith" in the "rightness" of your opinion is a very bad thing. Since it is taken as axiomatic that; 1. Nobody is perfect 2. Nobody is always right, then to not at least reasonably consider the possibility that you are mistaken is intellectual dishonesty of the higest order.

I missed this before. I have to agree it's the better word. (And more in line with my thinking) Which "natural Laws"? The ones we know, or the ones we don't know about yet? Your definition presupposes a complete knowledge of physical laws. I suggest that the word "known" be added. Granted, the definition will therefore be constantly changing over the long run, but I think it's more accurate. Just because we don't know or understand the laws that effect something, does not mean that it does not follow natural laws that determine it's behaviour. To a great degree, I agree with iNows thoughts, simply because most people don't think very deeply about many topics. (look at the Left/Right kneejerk reactions often displayed in our "Politics" forum.) So for many it is simply a catch all phrase that allows people to pidgeon hole a concept and then not think about it any more. Those that actually think about it and wonder what laws might determine it's behaviour, understand the term slightly differently. Just for a bit of fun. (Suppose) I have an open topped cardboard box of nominal mass 200 grams. There is a substance inside the box that brings the mass up to 10 kilograms. The substance inside cannot be seen, touched, smelt or show up on any chemical or spectroscopic analysis. What is the substance? Is it paranormal or supernatural? Does it exist?

Why not ask why not?

Remembering the men, and the honour with which they served in no way approves of the cause for which they fought. It remembers them as soldiers who paid the highest price for their nation. On the 31st May 1942, three Japanese midget submarines attacked Sydney harbour. They were detected and 2 were attacked and scuttled by their crews who then committed suicide. The third sank a converted ferry with the loss of 21 Allied sailors. They were the enemy fighting for a brutal regime. But they were also men who fought with honour and bravery. Every year on the 31st of May, the Royal Australian Navy drops a wreath to remember them. We honour them for their courage and sacrifice, not for the cause in whos name they died. So should it be with the Confederates. (IMO)

I'm not so sure. Most people I know would use the word to describe something that is not understood by science. Only a few would add the connotation that it is impossible for science to understand it. Certainly in the case of many uses of the word, the "Supernatural" event is viewed as simply a part of the processes of the natural world that are not properly understood. Take "ghosts" for example. I personally surmise (and so do some Ghost Hunters I know) that they are simply a recording being replayed. We don't know the energies involved or the media they are recorded on or what triggers the playback, so in that sense they are "Supernatural". However they still very definitely part of the "natural" world and should we find the answers to the unknowns they will slot quite happily in with other "natural" phenomena.

Not to derail but this couldn't pass without comment. Much like the current US with regard to Capital Punishment? Or Universal Health Care?

Why not?

I think it's meaning varies with the individual. I have no problem with the idea of "Supernatural", but my definition of the word is that it means "outside the realm of known, natural phenomena". This is not to say that "Supernatural" may not eventually become "natural" when and if it is understood better. A simple example is that 300 years ago a box that heats food without a fire would class as "Supernatural" due to lack of knowledge of microwaves as "natural". We do have that knowledge now and so the "Supernatural" has become "natural". Concerning the "Universe", I think that there is a confusion of terms. Many use the term to mean "absolutely everything", but what they really mean is "absolutely everything we can see with telescopes and radio telescopes". These are two very different concepts. The Statement "C is the maximum velocity in this Universe" appears certainly true for the bit we can see. However, if there is a Hyper or Sub-Space, then it may not be true there. Hence the meaning is false for the "Entire Universe", but true for the "Universe we can see". Which "Universe" do you mean when you use the word?

If man is the only intelligence, why make the rest of the Universe so big and with so many planets? If man is not the only intelligence, then why believe that man is "special" in any way?

Why not?

Because.

I have to agree with Dak and Mr. Sceptic. He came across as a case of; 1. "My ethics are superior to most other peoples." 2. "People with lesser morals should be ignored." 3. "Questions from those of lesser morals are "profoundly stupid" and require neither acknowledgement or answer." "Therefore I am right." The reasoning is quite circular. 1. I am right because I have superior moral outlook. 2. My moral outlook is superior because it gives greater "wellbeing". 3. It gives greater "wellbeing" because they are objectively right. 4. It is objectively right because it can't be adequately objectively objected to. 5. It can't be objectively objected to because objections can only come from suitably qualified persons. 6. Those who disagree with me are "profoundly stupid" and are therefore not suitably qualified to object. 7. Because my moral outlook can't be objected to it must be right. 8. Because it is right, it must be a superior moral outlook. 9. Because I agree with it and it must be right, I must be right. Go to Step 1. While I happen to believe that in general Western values do tend towards giving greater "wellbeing" for the populace I don't believe that we should force our values on other cultures. Cultural Imperialism isn't just a buzz word. It is better for a people to want to adopt our values than for us to try and ram them down their throats. I also thought the use of logical fallacies undermined his intent in the original talk.

Argue the morality all you want, I'll be happy to aid the Prosecution. From the Third Geneva Convention (Link) While it may or may not be considered "torture" it is a War Crime and any who try it should be prosecuted. Those who consider it might be "okay" should ponder on why the Conventions were written. They are not rules that can be bent to suit a particular "ethical" or "moral" stance.

Well?

Icefire, thank you for that informative and well thought out post. Some people take many paragraphs to spout absolute drivel, but you managed it clearly and concisely. If you had bothered to read what was written before you would know that the methods of contracting AIDS are totally independent of the genitalia. It may interest you to know that Africa has a higher proportion of AIDS in the heterosexual community than the homosexual one. Please ensure that brain is engaged before putting mouth (or fingers) in gear.

A thought occurred to me over the weekend. Since OkCupid is a dating site, then the people involved are probably single. So we could conclude from the data that Liberals are at their most annoying between the ages of 18 and 34 and when over 55. While Conservatives are most irritating between the ages of 35 and 55, hence the lack of partners.

Sounds fair and reasonable to me. It's your life and your choice.

SpaceShark, such an incredibly stupid "theory" could only be put forward by someone whos knowledge of history is slightly inferior to that of my cat. We have evidence of submerged cities from India, the Mediterranean and possibly Cuba. If the sea level was constantly dropping, why are they under water? If his "theory" was in any way correct, there would not be sunken cities, would there? If you wish to make a case for this "theory", then by all means start a thread in "Speculations" and go for it, but please do not pollute serious threads with this rubbish.

Short answer: No, probably not. Longer answer: Sea level rises and falls and it is important to keep things in perspective. Sea level during the last Glacial Maximum, circa 20,000 years ago was around 400 feet lower than it is today. The plates didn't break under the increased strain of an extra 400 ft of water, so it's unlikely that an extra foot or so will make any difference. That is not to say that the change from Glacial to Interglacial didn't cause earthquakes. The Parvie fault area in Scandinavia was caused by glacial "rebound" and is a beaut. There were many earthquakes in this region due to the land rising after the ice was gone. Scandinavia was lowered by circa 800 metres by the weight of the ice. I haven't seen figures for the US region but I would expect something similar there. The bottom line is that if the land rising by hundreds of metres and the sea rising by hundreds of feet didn't cause mass destruction of the plates, why would you expect a couple of feet of water to do anything? If we look at the last 20,000 years; The Earth constantly changes and Sea Levels rise and fall by greater amounts than most people think. The Swedish town of Gammelstad "Old Town" was originally on the coast. During the 17th Century the people moved to Nystan "New Town" on the new coast. Gammelstad is now some 10 km from the coast. So no, there is no reason to believe that the plates will break due to a foot or two of sea level rise. Cheers. PS. To get an idea of previous movements read a bit about "Isostatic Rebound" and you'll get an idea of just how much the plates have moved and flexed in the last 20,000 years.

Mr. Sceptic, to a degree I agree with you. You can make a long list for both sides, but that was my point. You can't make a judgement as to whether the Universe is a good or bad design (if it was designed) without first knowing what it was designed for. The bottom line is that any guess we make as to the purpose of the design is just that, a guess. It seems reasonable to me that if the Universe was designed, then we (at this moment) may not know enough to even imagine what the purpose is. I suppose the main point of this thread was that if somebody wants to call the design bad, then they should also be saying what the intent of the design was. One might also consider the possibility of a non-omnipotent "God" who has to work through the laws of nature. Certain flaws in some areas of the "design" might be unavoidable if the main purpose of the design is to be fulfilled. Perhaps a tradeoff has to be made in some areas?

What does Atheism offer? The same as any other mode of thought or philosophy, a philosophy on life, The Universe and Everything. For some, it is through contemplation and meditation that they try to understand themselves and how they fit into the larger picture. While a Theist, I'm neither required nor compelled to worship any "God". If I could be said to follow a "God" then it would be Themis, for without Justice, there is nothing. (Morally speaking) In that repsect, I'm no different from the Atheist who always strives to improve the Legal system in the name of Justice. Hid "God" is the concept of Justice, as is mine, we just go about it in different ways. Nor is any form of detachment from reality required, or opposition to science for that matter. If someone accepts the concept of a creative force that is behind the Universe, then they also have to accept that we pissant little mortals inhabiting a puny little planet in the backwaters of the Universe cannot understand that force. We simply can't, any more than an ant can understand the Human Civilisation. However, this is not to say that we never will. Evolution has given us cognitive powers and by using those through scientific methods, we may one day be in a position to understand. Given that we've only really been working at understanding the Universe for a few hundred years, it is highly unlikely that we know enough yet to know the right questions to ask, let alone understand the answers. Some might have noted the corollary to this idea, namely that anybody who claims to have all the answers is automatically wrong. It might take a million years for science to understand the meaning of "God" and to find the answers that philosophers have been groping blindly for for millenia. So what? Who says we have to be in a hurry?

To a degree I have to agree with iNows position. A supported position is better than an unsupported position. However, viewing things rationally, the difference is (sort of) slight. If there were in fact definitive sources that could be used as convincing proof in a political argument or debate, then logically after 300 years or so of such debate we would all be mostly on the same side by now. We aren't. This is due to the truth that there are facts and there is the interpretation of the facts. Nation A went to war with Nation B in 1612 might be the fact. That the leaders of Nation A said it was a "Holy War" might be a fact. That Nation A had just had 3 bad crop years and the people were extremely hungry might also be a fact. In the interpretation though, was it a "Holy War", or a war for more cropland? Both arguments could be quite well supported and seem equally valid. Politics, unlike the hard sciences is always based on the interpretation of facts rather than the facts themselves. That's just how people are, wishing them to be different is futile. There are people out there who think that Soviet style Communism was great. No amount of "facts" will change their minds because they will always have some excuse or other. I happen to think that they are idiots, but I also accept that that is their opinion and they are entitled to it. Once a debate descends from debate to argument, then it is probably a lost cause. I read years ago and firmly believe this to be true "You can never win an argument, you can only convince yourself that you are more right." In this respect it is the duty of each member here to attempt to prevent that descent. I think we also need to be mindful of what is classified as "support" in a non hard science setting. Going back to ice cream; Member A : My opinion is that chocolate is better than vanilla because I like it more. Member B : Firstly, since that is you personal preference, that is only anecdotal evidence and is therefore irrelevent. Secondly. These papers [link], [link], [link] are all peer reviewed and show that more people think vanilla is better. Therefore you are wrong to have that opinion, as I've just shown. A passing reader or new member would be very cautious about treading into such waters and we would lose the insights of those people. Politics isn't about logic, it's about life experiences. People hold the opinions they do because of what they have seen and experienced in their lives. To expect too much as "support" in this area is to essentially tell someone that their life experiences are not valued. They may not have "support", just experience. We must make plain to all passing readers and new members that we do indeed value their experience as much as their knowledge. As a simple example. It is my firm opinion that most if not all of the over educated, University trained morons that design cars would gain immense benefit from spending 6 months in a service bay working on cars. I can't produce any supporting evidence for this except my experiences with absolutely p*ss poor engine bay design. Today I had to unship the battery just to change a headlight bulb. What should be a quick job becomes an operation. I've seen cars where you have to remove the entire air conditioning system to change the spark plugs. While I could probably provide documented proof of poor deign to supplement my "anecdotal" evidence, that is actually irrelevent. (They are just the facts) My opinion that they would benefit from getting their hands dirty is based on my experience, which tells me that if they actually worked with the problems first hand, they would be more likely to attempt to avoid them. But unless and until someone not only tries it (I think Mazda does) but also gets a paper written about it, then I have no "supporting" evidence. Put bluntly, who do you believe? A "study" that says Vehicle A is cheap to run and maintain, or your local mechanic who says it's unreliable, a cow to work on and is expensive to repair. I know which way I would go. It's a value judgement as to whether a "unsupported" opinion is worth less than a "supported" one.

Without having read the book (just the Wiki), I do see what he might be getting at. Just as a religion has moderates, who quite happily accept that another doesn't share their beliefs and radicals who just can't stand the idea that others don't share their beliefs, so does Atheism. There are moderate atheists who are quite happy with the beliefs of others, so long as they don't impinge on their rights. (Religious laws and that sort of thing) There are also what I call "Evangelical" Atheists. Like an evangelical preacher, they just can't accept that others don't believe the same as they do and will take every opportunity to try to either "convert" or ridicule and demonise those who disagree. It's like they have a Non God given mission to convert others to a non belief. The mere existence of those who believe differently is an affront to their ideas and beliefs. It might not be a religion, but some members of the atheist community sure act like it is one. There are things you must believe or be cast out. Often there are perhaps "Saints" who's word is ultimate truth. (Or at least close to it) There is a "mission" to defeat the opposition and convert the uneducated heathen. So, by the general definition of "Religion", atheism is not one. But by the practical test of "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...." then sometimes, for some people, then yes, it is a religion.

Interesting idea. I must admit to being in favour of corporal punishment. I remember a few years ago a young American was sentenced in Singapore (?) to 11 strokes of the rattan for vandalism and many were up in arms. I have no doubt that while he might have reoffended in the US and recieved his "counselling", he would not reoffend in Singapore. I'm quite Heinleinian on this. Pain is natures way of telling us that something threatens our existence. It is a survival mechanism built up over millions of years of evolution. To not use this mechanism in a sensible way strikes me as quite silly.

My 2 cents. Moontanman, I thought the page was a bit "simplistic" in presentation of his ideas. But the ideas certainly seemed basically plausible. Inigo (and no, I don't have 6 fingers on my right hand) while Chernobyl was brought up as risk management, I think he was getting at a deeper point. For many people "nuclear" is a very scary word. There is a tremendous lack of education in the area. People will go an anti-nuclear rally because they are scared of "radiation" and then go home and cook dinner in the microwave. To make such a vehicle politically acceptable, the public needs to understand the difference between the engine gas which is radioactive and the exhaust, which is not. We face a similar thing in australia. The green groups want our only reactor at Lucas Heights shut down because nuclear = bad. Lucas Heights produces the short lived isotopes used in medicine and that is all it does. Through poor education and faulty logic, there are people that want the advantages of modern society, but are against the things that produce that society. They want solar power, but don't want sand mining. They want clean Hydro power but are against building dams. They want wind power but are against wind farms. These views and fears are irrational and can only be combatted by education. I think the page author was trying (not too well) to put a few things in perspective and give a bit of education. Whether or not he is correct in his assertions about such a propulsion system is another matter. However, if it could be built and made safe, then it would certainly bear consideration and further research. One of the problems in this area is that both governments and business want relatively quick returns. Neither think in terms of 20-30 years, politicians don't think past the next election. The idea of spending large amounts of money to send AI factories to the asteroids so that in 15 years refined metals will start coming to NEO is unsound to politicians. There would be a lot of lobbyists demanding that the money be spent now on other things. "We can explore when we've fixed the problems here" type of thing. Of course, that sort of thinking a couple of hundred years ago would have precluded the colonisation of both the US and Australia. Psychology plays an important part in politics, and the exploration of space is a political, not scientific funding fight. One good argument for sending men "out there" is that it is hard to cut the funding later. Robots? Who cares, they'll stop eventually and nobody will cry. But even a small manned base has the psychological impetus of "They're heroes. We can't just leave them to die!" Just my 2c.