Let me phrase it differently: science defines which laws exist by ruling out alternatives. So an experiment that yields a certain predicted outcome doesn't itself prove a law. I brought that up because while we can rule out our old theistic theories on how the world operates, we can't yet rule out other aspects of their beliefs. We just have our five senses, and with those senses we can create tools that have other senses, but there is always more that we can't detect. Prior to the microscope, we had no idea germs existed. Prior to the discovery of radio waves, we had no reason to think they existed either. Similarly, we can't rule out the possibilities of extra dimensions that intersect ours, or new forms of energy and matter. That is why science only works in negatives and probabilities. It means more than "nothing at all."

When it comes to my personal beliefs on existence (which aren't Christian), my own reasoning is that my consciousness existing just once is more improbable than my consciousness existing more than once, given that time is infinite or recursive. A once-off universe doesn't make sense to me. Also, the idea that the force of my awareness is the result of atomic matter alone is implausible. My awareness is as of yet undetectable and unmeasurable, and even finding the consciousness switch in our brains wouldn't make it any more measurable. It'd be like theorizing that your light switch generates the electricity in your light bulb. Regarding the idea of god, I don't see any reason to seperate out another being to be the cause of all existence. I much prefer the idea of the Tao, the singularity with infinite regressions, in which everything is relative rather than absolute.

I don't think atheists are bad people--I am one, after all--but I find that we don't have the same easy access to community-based support groups that our theistic neighbors do. Of course there are secular alternatives to everything religion does, they just don't come as easily or automatically.

Any kind of forceful movement creates an unhelpful backlash. The Taoist way is to let change happen naturally. Education and rising standards of living made more atheists than Dawkins and Bill Maher ever will.

In reply to this comment by demon_ix:
But you just contradicted yourself... You say in one sentence that if the LHC fails to detect the Higgs boson, it'll be proven not to exist, and then you say that "what we can't prove doesn't exist" is a false statement.

Einstein's quote is correct, but it's meaning doesn't relate to what we're talking about. The best way to counter a scientific theory is by a single example of where that theory is fallacious. If someone were to claim that all odd numbers are prime, all you would have to do in order to "prove" him false is demonstrate that his statement fails in one specific point, like the number 9.

There is a massive difference between "what we can't prove doesn't exist" and "what we can prove doesn't exist, doesn't exist". The first statement actually should be "what we can't yet prove, may exist, but may not", which in scientific terms means nothing at all.

My gripe with your comment, though, wasn't because of the science remarks, but rather over the atheist ones. I'm not sure if you noticed it yourself, but your comment is built on a premise that atheists never do any of the good things Christians do, like participating in the community and so on.

I'm not sure why Christians believe Atheists are the scum of the earth. I don't know why you believe that if I don't believe in the story of the Jewish zombie who was his own father and is coming to save you, but only if you pretend to eat his flesh, drink his blood and communicate your desires to him telepathically, that makes me a bad person. I'm really not.

And about the argument from ignorance, believing in God is an argument from ignorance. You assert a claim that something exists, even though you yourself acknowledge there is no way to prove it, and that it has to be taken on faith alone. That is the very definition of an untestable theory. Your comment was based on the claim that religion is somehow superior, when the core of religion is the deity, or God.

To conclude, I'm a little annoyed right now at work, so don't take this post as me being offensive, please. It's really not meant that way. Maybe I should have put some emoticons all over it to express that

In reply to this comment by Lodurr:
Science does in fact work through falsifiability. If the LHC doesn't end up finding a Higgs Boson, then the Higgs Boson theory in its present form will have been disproven. That is just how science and experimentation works. "What we can't prove doesn't exist" is an inherently false statement and incorrect world view because there are countless things we cannot test or prove that must exist. To quote Einstein, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

I wasn't arguing from ignorance because I wasn't asserting an untestable theory. All I said in my comment was that many religious practices have personal and societal benefits that atheists tend to undervalue because they are associated with religion. I've seen data that supports my theory.

Science does in fact work through falsifiability. If the LHC doesn't end up finding a Higgs Boson, then the Higgs Boson theory in its present form will have been disproven. That is just how science and experimentation works. "What we can't prove doesn't exist" is an inherently false statement and incorrect world view because there are countless things we cannot test or prove that must exist. To quote Einstein, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

I wasn't arguing from ignorance because I wasn't asserting an untestable theory. All I said in my comment was that many religious practices have personal and societal benefits that atheists tend to undervalue because they are associated with religion. I've seen data that supports my theory.
In reply to this comment by demon_ix:
>> ^Lodurr:
Science doesn't say "what we can't prove doesn't exist"; science says "what we can disprove doesn't exist." That's the distinction in which I find many atheists to be on the wrong side.

You are wrong, sir. It's "what we can prove exists". Science will never attempt to prove a negative. If a scientist told you he managed to disprove God, you would only change your own definition of God and say "A ha, science, you are the one who's wrong".

What you are doing is called Arguing from Ignorance, which basically means you maintain that something is true because no one proved it isn't.

If we were to actually debate the merits of religion, God and why your particular faith is the correct one, you would not be able to finish the argument without invoking either the "Because the Bible says so" or "God did it" arguments. In the place of the words "Bible" or "God" insert the names of your holy scripture and deity, as are relevant to your particular faith.

>> ^NetRunner:



McLaughlin and Eleanor Clift have the most balanced views and the most insight. Buchanan has said some remarkably progressive things on there considering who he is, and some remarkably backwards things.

The tone of the show isn't personally confrontational--they get worked up about ideas but they don't personally attack each other or their credibility.

McLaughlin Group (not a Sunday show) is pretty good stuff except for the one republican lady who lives in a different plane of reality from the rest of them, and adds no depth to the conversation besides letting us know what the official republican party response is.

Very reminiscent of the techno band Milky ("Just the Way You Are", "In My Mind").

I thought it was a good quote despite the website it came from. The quote should be judged on its content.

If you say that not all atheists get it, then that supports my point that atheism can be dogmatic, and that it's a valid question to ask of anyone that calls themselves an atheist because there are people out there that misinterpret what it means. If you consider t-shirt wearing atheists to be morons, then what about the billboard-posting variety?

You make a good point about the negative belief groupings, but then why continue using the word "atheist"? There are a lot of philosophies out there that define almost every possible point of view on existence. I think the only motivation to promote atheism is to oppose religions. It's like the ideological No Homers Club (obscure Simpsons reference). For someone not predisposed to hate religions, the anti-religion club doesn't have much to offer.

I checked. From here:

"Atheism has two practical meanings: one is the lack of belief concerning God, and the other is the certainty that God does not exist. As such, atheism can be divided into passive atheism and active atheism. Passive atheism is merely the lack of belief, and children are born passive atheists [...]. Active atheists are not people merely lacking a belief in God, but people dogmatically declaring God does not exist"

I never said Ingraham is correct in her statement, I said it was a valid question to be asked of atheists. It seemed like you didn't know what "dogma" actually meant, but if you still think atheism is immune to dogma, you'd have to explain how atheism isn't an -ism and how the Freedom from Religion Foundation isn't an organization.>> ^budzos:
So check yourself.

Read my comment before you respond:

"It was a correct use of the word, and a real question for an atheist, if they believe in a hard rule stating that god doesn't exist and if they have any dogmatic rules at all (answer to both would be "no")."

If you want to be an intolerant hothead, I think religion is for you, not atheism.

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Wrong. There is no atheist dogma. Just like there's no dogma for people who don't believe in Santa Claus.

In reply to this comment by Lodurr:
>> ^budzos:
Okay, so you mean dogmatic with a completely OPPOSITE definition of what dogma is. Deceptive, manipulative, word-twisting harpy.


I didn't enjoy the schoolyard antics from either of these kids, but I have to clarify that dogma "is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed." It was a correct use of the word, and a real question for an atheist, if they believe in a hard rule stating that god doesn't exist and if they have any dogmatic rules at all (answer to both would be "no").

This is what happens when you get emotional about an intellectual subject--facts slip away from you. If atheism brings the same emotional BS as religion, what the hell is the point? You're reducing an intellectual movement to angsty counter-culture.

Where atheism dips into dogma isn't at its core belief, but in how atheists prejudge and reject ideas that come from religions. Just because the Christian god is a myth doesn't mean that there's no value to silent personal reflection, participating in local community events, a personal relationship to an impersonal world, and belief in extra-physical connectedness between living things.

You don't have to practice or believe any of these things, but just don't deny them all and claim science on your side. Real science closes very few doors. Science doesn't say "what we can't prove doesn't exist"; science says "what we can disprove doesn't exist." That's the distinction in which I find many atheists to be on the wrong side.

>> ^budzos:
Okay, so you mean dogmatic with a completely OPPOSITE definition of what dogma is. Deceptive, manipulative, word-twisting harpy.


I didn't enjoy the schoolyard antics from either of these kids, but I have to clarify that dogma "is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed." It was a correct use of the word, and a real question for an atheist, if they believe in a hard rule stating that god doesn't exist and if they have any dogmatic rules at all (answer to both would be "no").

This is what happens when you get emotional about an intellectual subject--facts slip away from you. If atheism brings the same emotional BS as religion, what the hell is the point? You're reducing an intellectual movement to angsty counter-culture.

I was going to address this in my video comment but it would've gotten too long-winded.

"Clear thinking" is not always what we want. Sometimes the facts would hinder our ability to be motivated or to act in our best self-interest. Like ancient berserkers (visual aid to the right)--if they were thinking clearly they wouldn't be able to fight as well as they did. They would accept the inevitability of their death against unfavorable odds. Instead, with a little "magical thinking," they had access to all the ability their brain and body could muster.

I think religion, spirituality, and magical thinking make up the language that the conscious mind uses to address the subconscious (and maybe more, but that's a different debate).

In reply to this comment by Drax:
when you're in that state of puppy love you're not thinking as clearly.

I had a long-lasting crush on a girl, and it actually motivated and inspired me in many ways over the years. Feelings of attachment and righteousness aren't "in place of" clear thinking, they can co-exist.

Religion is a little deeper in us, remember Ted Kaczynski making up his own rabbit-god while he was solo in the Montana forest?

"While I was living in the woods I sort of invented some gods for myself. Not that I believed in these things intellectually, but they were ideas that sort of corresponded with some of the feelings I had. I think the first one I invented was Grandfather Rabbit. You know the snowshoe rabbits were my main source of meat during the winters. I had spent a lot of time learning what they do and following their tracks all around before I could get close enough to shoot them. Sometimes you would track a rabbit around and around and then the tracks disappear. You can't figure out where that rabbit went and lose the trail. I invented a myth for myself, that this was the Grandfather Rabbit, the grandfather who was responsible for the existence of all other rabbits. He was able to disappear, that is why you couldn't catch him and why you would never see him... Every time I shot a snowshoe rabbit, I would always say 'thank you Grandfather Rabbit.'"

It satisfies our need to humanize our environment (and our existence) and have a personal relationship with it. Though I think your metaphor was right on in some ways, I don't think religion can be reduced to that level of triviality.

>> ^Drax:
Obviously this fades over time as one wises up.. but remember getting a massive crush on someone in your youth, and falling in love with very little knowledge of the person? Remember how it felt?
I think this same emotion is felt for many with religion. No I don't mean they have an actual crush on Jesus or anything, it's just that same sort of base feel of love. I mean it's there in all of us, we just wise up to falling into it frivolously over time with physical people. When it's felt for something abstract, there's no rejection to make you realize you're in it's trance, or conversely no one to work with to develop it into a more true love.
I think -that's- a key reason religion is so strong for some people. It's certainly a good emotion, but it causes a feeling of attachment and righteousness (in a, 'I'm on the right path...' sort of way) in place of clear thinking.
Just my theory.

>> ^Trancecoach:
^You certainly mean Sarah Palin. Unless you really do have your head so far up Glenn Beck's arse that you're beginning to believe his bullshit.


Miss Informer of the Year would be a positive award.

I respect him saying that he lets people believe what they want to believe (don't know why he calls himself a "fundamentalist atheist" a minute before). How you come to terms with your own improbable existence should be up to you.

If someone has a new theory or idea about life, then I'll gladly hear it out, but I'm tired of only hearing negative ideas that focus on how you shouldn't be thinking about life. It's purely combative and not constructive.

>> ^spoco2:
My question to this has to be... what in the lead up to this bit excluded the use of condoms? Why does sex have to == baby?


In this ep she suddenly wants to have a second kid.