1. You're still using your subjective experience to prove Premise Two.

It's all subjective experience; again, if you want to claim that subjective determinations cannot lead to objective truths, then you can throw out any claim of an objective world and we can drown in relativism. Care to take another stab at it?

2. In the other threads you quoted one Wikipedia page at me without even reading the other one (Check the second paragraph of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical to see the difference). You ignore the fact that empiricism as a philosophy is an unscientific world view on its face due to its unverifiable claims of where information can and cannot come from.

What? What do you think empiricism is based on?

Definition of EMPIRICAL
1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4: of or relating to empiricism

It's clear now you have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, empiricism is a philosophy, and yes, it was one of my major points that you cannot verify empiricism without engaging in tautologies. You're just proving my point here. Yet, you show complete ignorance here as empiricism is a major foundation for the scientific method. The fact that I would have to prove this to you says it all..

http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/elang273/notes/empirical.htm

"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation."

I also guess you missed this:

"The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. However, since the 1960s, Thomas Kuhn [2] has promoted the concept that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data."

Meaning, the interpretation of data is philosophical.

3. You quoted people who haven't even graduated university at me???

The OP said he had not yet graduated, it doesn't mean all the participants have not. Did you even read it?

4. You equate spectators at a football game who are there to support their team with scientists collecting data (Scientists at that match would have been making a record of each foul), and on and on with analogies that all demonstrate a sad lack of understanding of how science works, or, in one case, modelling it somewhat accurately, but presenting it as if bias was something scientists didn't openly acknowledge, and didn't have processes to mitigate impact. If religion ever acknowledged its bias, it would cease to exist instantly, because its bias is the entire religion. At the very least, this makes science more mature and credible in the objective world.

Nothing you said here refutes any of the data provided, but is rather just you stating your opinion that it is wrong without backing it up. You also pass off the (now admitted) bias as being mitigated without explaining how. And then you create a false dichotomy by constrasting science and religion, and then attacking religion as "biased" and saying science is superior. If anything it just shows your religious devotion to science and your faith in the secular humanist worldview. Religion and science aren't in a competition, and science has no data on the existence of God. You may believe certain "discoveries" disprove things in the bible, but that is a different conversation. On the essential question, does God exist, science is deaf dumb and blind.

5. You go on with your, "There is plenty of evidence which suggests that God created the universe" spiel which is always countered with "Religion just catalogues things we cannot explain nor ever prove and ascribe them to a deity, knowing (hoping, hoping, please!!!) it will never be possible to disprove them, and all the while ignoring former claims for God that have been shown not to be God, but a newly understood and measurable force.

There are many lines of evidence which show it is reasonable to conclude that the Universe has an intelligent causation. There is evidence from logic, from morality, from design, from biology and cosmology, personal experience, culture, etc. It is not just appealing to some gaps, because special creation, as in the example of DNA, is a superior explanation to random chance. You're also going on about mechanisms which doesn't rule out Agency. You seem very overconfident and this is unwarrented, because there isn't much positive evidence on your side.

6. You are still conflating your "God" (I'm going to start calling him "Yahweh" to prevent this in the future) with any old god. The Big Bang Theory, which you alternately endorse and claim is bunk, could point to a creator, but by no means a god with any of the properties of Yahweh, except the singular property of the ability to create the universe as we know it.

Since time, space, matter and energy began at the big bang, the cause of the Universe would be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unimaginably powerful and transcendent. You can also make a case for a personal God from these conclusions. Before you go on about how no one says the Universe was created from nothing:

In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.

HBJ General Science 1983 Page 362

the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything.

discover April 2002

7. You quote scientists' opinions on religious issues like I think they're infallible prophets or something. Science doesn't work that way. Only religion does.

You seem to believe everything they say when their statements agree with your preconceived notions of reality. How about these statements?

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geologoy assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

Well we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ..ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwins time.

By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information.

David M. Raup Chicago Field Museum of Natural History
F.M.O.N.H.B v.50 p.35

8. There's nothing we are "interpreting differently". You are interpreting everything as "Yahweh did it", and I'm not interpreting anything: There observably is CMBR, and it points to a Big Bang billions of years ago. That is all. You leap from this "suggestion" to "therefore it was Yahweh a few thousand years ago".

You're interpreting the evidence as pointing to random chance, I am interpreting it as being the result of intelligent causation.

And actually, without the hypothetical inflation, the smoothness of the CMBR contradicts the predictions of the theory. The CMBR should also all be moving away from the big bang but it is actually going in different directions.

9. I would never scoff at infallibility in anything that can be tested. I scoff only at claims of infallibility where by definition there is no possibility of failure only because there lacks any measure of success, just like every piece of dogma in the Bible, except for the ones that have been proven false, like the shape of the Earth, the orbit of the planets, and so on. Every scientific hypothesis has a measure of success or failure, and when one is disproven, that hypothesis is discarded, except to keep a record of how it was proven false.

Yet billions of people have tested the claims of Jesus and found them to be true. You believe because you fooled yourself with an elaborate delusion that any claim that disagrees with your naturalistic worldview is also an elaborate delusion that people have fallen into. I'm sorry but this does not follow. You're also wrong about your interpretation of the bible; it never claimed the Earth is flat or anything else you are suggesting.

10. I like your story of the scientist who climbs to find a bunch of theologians who have been sitting on a mountain of ignorance for centuries. Apt image. And I don't get the intent anyway. It suggests both that science could one day arrive at total knowledge (doubtful), and that religion has ever produced a shred of useful knowledge (it hasn't).

This is the problem with atheists, is that they are incapable of seeing the other side of the issue. Are you honestly this close-minded that you can't see the implications that Gods existence has for our knowledge? Or are you so pathological in your beliefs that you can't even allow for it hypothetically?

If God has revealed Himself, then obviously this is the most important piece of knowledge there is, and it is only through that revelation that we could understand anything about the world. It is only through that lens that any piece of information could be interpreted, or the truth of it sussed out. So, anyone having that knowledge, would instantly be at the top of the mountain of knowledge. The scientist only reached the top when he became aware of Gods existence by observing the obvious design in the Universe.

In short, I'm through talking about anything logical with you, or attempting to prove anything. You really, really do not understand the essential (or useless) elements of a logical discussion of proof. If you knew them, I would enjoy this debate. If you acknowledged this weakness and were keen to learn them, I would enjoy showing you how they work -- you seem keen. But neither seems the case. [edit -- This may be due to the fact that you're connected to both the objective world and the God world, and you're having trouble only using input from the one stream and not the other, like using input you received from your right eye, but not your left, as our memories are not stored that way. Either way, it is a weakness.]

Your arrogance knows no bounds. You've made it clear from your confusion about empiricism that you really don't know what you're talking about, and you tried to use that as a platform to condescend to me the entire reply. This isn't a logical discussion, this is an exposition of your obvious prejudice. You have no basis for judging my intelligence or capabilities..it's clear that your trite analysis is founded upon a bloated ego and nothing else.

When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom. Proverbs 11:2

>> ^messenger

@shinyblurry

Aside
I'm not trying to win the argument, and it isn't important for me to do so. I am only interested in what you believe and having a fruitful dialogue.

In my reply, I gave a refutation to your objection as well as noting that I would like to advance to the actual argument. I don't have a problem with logical argumentation, I just was somewhat disheartened to see you were trying to kill off the argument without engaging it.

Now I get what you're saying. Check my next message. It's going to be full of that stuff. This message thread is only about the validity of Craig's proof. And when you reply, I'd prefer it if you kept your replies to the two messages separate, as logical discourse must be kept separate from and exchange of personally held opinions, especially where the lines between subjective and objective are being defined. Thanks!

The issue
Yes, I agree that even if every human decided that torturing babies was good, it would still be objectively evil.

Great. Then you'll agree we now have to determine logically that objective moral values, as defined by Craig, exist, or fail to do so. You must also agree that if we fail to prove that they exist by our definition, then we cannot say that Craig has proved his conclusion. I state again in advance that Craig's failure to make his case will not constitute disproof of any god, nor of the existence of objective moral values.

That there are universal moral values in humanity is clearly evidence for and not against the existence of objective moral values. To turn around and say that just because they exist doesn't automatically mean they are objective isn't an argument. You need to flesh this out. Are you saying there aren't any objective moral values? That it isn't absolutely wrong to torture babies for fun?

Let's clearly separate the two meanings of "evidence", which are: "indication/support/things that point to/suggest/etc." (what courts call circumstantial evidence); and "proof".

That there are universal moral values in humanity stands well enough proven. I agree this doesn't in any way contradict the possibility of objective moral values. It could be taken as evidence supporting OMVs if it weren't the only evidence for proposing OMVs to begin with (besides the evidence of God, of course, which is what is in contention here, so can't be taken as evidence). Weaker even than a tautological proof, this is a kind of tautological suggestion. And it sure doesn't prove the case. Lack of disproof is not equal to proof, nor even an indication of truth, on its own.

"Universal" means everybody has them (like large brains, or opinions). "Objective" means they exist outside of and independent of humans.

Let's say, Statement O = "Objective moral values exist", and Statement U = "Universal moral values exist".

We have already proven that U is true.
I think we also agree: "If O, then U." (Or, only as long as humans exist, for those who want to quibble)

This does not entail, "If U then O," as the two terms OMV and UMV are not functionally equivalent, even though the existence of one of them entails the existence of the other. So you cannot determine from the existence of UMVs that OMVs must exist. The two terms are not interchangeable.

Semantically this doesn't contradict the possibility of OMVs, but doesn't logically prove anything either. So Premise 2 remains unproven. As long as it's unproven, Craig cannot claim his conclusion proven, even if you both know in your minds that it's true. Even if you're right in your knowledge that god is real, you have to admit that this particular formulation of the argument fails to prove it.

Back to the aside
I would say though that if you accuse some of having beliefs which lack evidence, and you yourself have beliefs that lack evidence, then there is indeed a parity, no matter how internally consistent you believe you're being.

You've misread my statements. I first said that disproven beliefs/theories are not on par with unproven beliefs/theories. Demonstrating that my theories aren't proven (or even provable) doesn't make them equal with beliefs that cannot be rationally held. Then I said that many believers annoyingly think it's a victory to point out that my beliefs aren't provable in response to my doing the same to theirs, when I had never made any claim that mine were absolutely true, but they had.

And by "evidence", I'm going to infer from the context that you mean "proof". Scientific theories are not proven, and most are unprovable, but there's mountains of objective evidence that "suggests" scientific theories are true, but none whatsoever to suggest any single religious belief is true. Sometimes the theories change too as their early incarnations are proven incorrect or incomplete, as Einstein did to Newton, and as the folks at CERN may be doing to Einstein right now. That's the way of science, and it's the strength of science, not the weakenss. What I'm not comfortable with is religious beliefs/theories that are internally unchallengeable due to a part of the theory itself -- it's own infallibility. Imagine if science was based on the premise that by definition none of it's theories are false. Laughable, right? That's what I think of religion.

Your beliefs lack proof. But you claim yours have proof. I claim yours don't. This is the main issue raised by this video, and the only one I'm interested in laying to rest. Everything else in the other several comment threads you and I have going is just conjecture, an exchange of ideas. It's not logically sound of me to say that your beliefs are unproven simply because I have different ones. Mine might be total crap and not stand up to any scrutiny, so I don't present them here.

>> ^marbles:

And price changes from an increased "supply" of currency is called inflation.

Before I get into the rest of what you said, I want to just highlight this part because it's an example of the root problem with your entire reply.

You seem to have this habit of making tautological arguments that hinge on asserting that the premise you wish to prove is baked into the very definition of some word, and therefore you don't need to actually make an argument for said premise.

I've been here with you before, about a word whose definition is much fuzzier than inflation (liberty), but now you're doing it with a word whose definition is very specific, and clearly does not contain the premise you want it to contain.

This is also my answer to your disagreement about the meaning of fractional reserve banking.

This is also my answer to your disagreement about what modern-day Keynesian monetary theories say. I'll also add that your quote isn't a Keynes original, it's Keynes quoting Vladimir Lenin.

As to your very last bit, you have a funny idea of what "earned honestly" means. Supposedly you resent banks gambling with our savings. Did they honestly "earn" our savings?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^dannym3141:
@GeeSussFreeK i don't like it either, but it's one of those things you have to accept is true - just like quantum mechanics Your mind's desire to slot it into a jigsaw puzzle will have to go unsatiated.

You can't really talk about something unless you have an idea of it, just like you can't talk about circular squares or some other such construct that doesn't point to a real idea. I am still considering what @Ornthoron was saying and wondering if we are talking about the same thing or not. Get back to this later, have to ponder, I think this is a problem of ontology vs abstraction. @Mikus_Aurelius I am very familiar with the idea of a limit, taken many years of calculus and dif. EQ back in the day. My argument isn't that you can "use" things, but if those things represent actual things in and of themselves. I do think that there is an inherit realness to numbers outside of complete abstraction. The idea of a single object relating to itself is always true, regardless of a formal number system to represent it. The relation of 2 objects against 1 object is also still a real distinction that exists outside of a formal numbering system. The realness of elements of counting are, seemingly (and I need to think more on this) tautological true; an analytically true statement in other words.
I need to ponder on this more though, perhaps I am mistaken. Or perhaps I was talking about a different aspect of it than everyone else. Time to grease down the mind with beer!


But you DO have an "idea" of it. You know how it behaves. You may not understand why it does that but you can prove to yourself that it does. You might find that it crops up more often in nature than you like - as i said, quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive which unfortunately only goes to tell us that our intuition is wrong.

My lecturer's example was always to take electric charge - we have a name for it, we have a set of characteristic rules for electric charge and interaction between charges but when it gets right down to it 'electric charge' is just a name. We have simply defined and described a set of rules for a phenomenon that we have observed. And the same goes for quarks - we have up, down, top, bottom, strange and charmed. Those are just words too, we're just more familiar with electric charge as a term so we think we understand it.

I don't necessarily think you do need an idea of something to talk about it; anything more in-depth than "it exists, and here is how it behaves" comes after you analyse it, and presumably talk about it if only to yourself conceptually.

Some ideas are intuitive to me and others are not. I don't think that makes my declarations of what's "real" or not any more than personal opinion. The idea that we see 3 cats and 3 goats and associate the same number 3 to each is an abstract construction. If I have one piece of chalk and another piece of chalk, does that mean I have two pieces? What if I break one in half? Or could I place them so close together that they are one piece of chalk again? We can't talk about one of a thing being inherently different than two of a thing, since no two identical things exist in the universe.

You are comfortable with the idea that we can count things and that the numbers we assign to quantities of different objects are comparable. In some remote places of the world you'll find people, adults, who see this idea as unnatural. The idea that you would quantify any group bigger than 5 is alien to them.

1+1=2 because we have defined a number system in which it is so. Conveniently, we can understand real objects in terms of this system. We arrived at this system through a combination of intuition and abstract manipulation. No one has ever sat down with 1350 oranges in one pile and 6723 in another and counted the sum to see that they got 8073.

Similarly, the sum 9x10^(-k) = 1 because we have defined infinite decimals to work this way. Conveniently again, this allows us to understand physical phenomena. We also arrived at this system through a combination of intuition and abstract manipulation. The fact that it doesn't feel intuitive to you doesn't give you any real argument against it.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^dannym3141:
@GeeSussFreeK i don't like it either, but it's one of those things you have to accept is true - just like quantum mechanics Your mind's desire to slot it into a jigsaw puzzle will have to go unsatiated.

You can't really talk about something unless you have an idea of it, just like you can't talk about circular squares or some other such construct that doesn't point to a real idea. I am still considering what @Ornthoron was saying and wondering if we are talking about the same thing or not. Get back to this later, have to ponder, I think this is a problem of ontology vs abstraction. @Mikus_Aurelius I am very familiar with the idea of a limit, taken many years of calculus and dif. EQ back in the day. My argument isn't that you can "use" things, but if those things represent actual things in and of themselves. I do think that there is an inherit realness to numbers outside of complete abstraction. The idea of a single object relating to itself is always true, regardless of a formal number system to represent it. The relation of 2 objects against 1 object is also still a real distinction that exists outside of a formal numbering system. The realness of elements of counting are, seemingly (and I need to think more on this) tautological true; an analytically true statement in other words.
I need to ponder on this more though, perhaps I am mistaken. Or perhaps I was talking about a different aspect of it than everyone else. Time to grease down the mind with beer!

>> ^dannym3141:

@GeeSussFreeK i don't like it either, but it's one of those things you have to accept is true - just like quantum mechanics Your mind's desire to slot it into a jigsaw puzzle will have to go unsatiated.


You can't really talk about something unless you have an idea of it, just like you can't talk about circular squares or some other such construct that doesn't point to a real idea. I am still considering what @Ornthoron was saying and wondering if we are talking about the same thing or not. Get back to this later, have to ponder, I think this is a problem of ontology vs abstraction. @Mikus_Aurelius I am very familiar with the idea of a limit, taken many years of calculus and dif. EQ back in the day. My argument isn't that you can "use" things, but if those things represent actual things in and of themselves. I do think that there is an inherit realness to numbers outside of complete abstraction. The idea of a single object relating to itself is always true, regardless of a formal number system to represent it. The relation of 2 objects against 1 object is also still a real distinction that exists outside of a formal numbering system. The realness of elements of counting are, seemingly (and I need to think more on this) tautological true; an analytically true statement in other words.

I need to ponder on this more though, perhaps I am mistaken. Or perhaps I was talking about a different aspect of it than everyone else. Time to grease down the mind with beer!

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
1 + 1 = 2 isn't abstract, or an estimation, though. That is my point, as far as maths are abstract, they aren't certain, as far as they are certain, they aren't abstract. Infinities aren't tautologically certain. I don't think you can do math with infinite numbers without estimating. I am not denying the infinities of numbers, I am denying the use of logic based on an infinite outcomes, does that make sense? I am denying that you can count to the largest number, and in that, I am denying that you can make predictions on the outcome of a value of a number that is infinitely precise.


I agree that it can be difficult to wrap your head around, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. As far as mathematical logic is concerned, 1 + 1 = 2 is just as abstract as what I've just lined out. Using the most basic axioms of mathematics, the same that are used to prove 1 + 1 = 2, it is possible to prove (through a series of other increasingly complicated theorems) that the infinite sums do in fact give exact answers.

>> ^Ornthoron:

@GeeSussFreeK
So you are denying the existence of infinites in mathematics? Good luck with that, there just might be a Field's medal in it for you if you are right.
It's obvious that the equality doesn't hold if we truncate. That's why we don't do that. If you in the sum
9 (1/10) + 9 (1/10)^2 + 9 (1/10)^3 + ...
stop summing after a finite number of steps you will, as you say, get only an estimation. But calculating infinite sums is something mathematicians and other users of mathematics do all the time. For instance is
2 = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...
Just because you cannot physically write the sums out on paper doesn't mean they are less correct. Mathematics is abstract. That's what makes it so powerful.


1 + 1 = 2 isn't abstract, or an estimation, though. That is my point, as far as maths are abstract, they aren't certain, as far as they are certain, they aren't abstract. Infinities aren't tautologically certain. I don't think you can do math with infinite numbers without estimating. I am not denying the infinities of numbers, I am denying the use of logic based on an infinite outcomes, does that make sense? I am denying that you can count to the largest number, and in that, I am denying that you can make predictions on the outcome of a value of a number that is infinitely precise.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^NetRunner:
But the more I think about it, maybe he was on to something. In a sense, he's right -- money isn't real.
Oddly, I was thinking about this just a few weeks ago.
It's not that money isn't real, though, it's that it's an abstraction. Prior to money people traded labor: You give me 10 fish (the product of your labor) and I'll give you an axe (the product of my labor).
All money does is give us a convenient way to carry "labor" around. I sell an axe for $5 and the money represents that labor contribution. Now I can buy $5 worth of fish from you whether or not you need a new axe.
I think it's one of those things that most of us know, but we never really consciously think about.
The only other way "money isn't real" that I can think of is that whole it's-only-valuable-because-we-all-agree-it's-valuable thing.


Honestly, that's textbook economics. It's part of why I'm so hard on people who talk about "fiat currency" as if that's not redundant. It's all fiat. Using gold as currency is still done by fiat. Money in any form is an abstraction, just like property.

In addition to my overall point (he gave up the game!), I was also trying to hint that if you're an atheist who rejects religious faith as a basis for moral doctrine, then you should also approach the doctrine of money & property with the same level of skepticism.

Maybe you can come up with some independent moral justification for property, but you shouldn't just start with property as an axiom from which all morality flows, anymore than the religious people shouldn't start with the word of God as the axiom from which all morality flows. Both are tautological faith-based arguments, and should be discarded.

@hpqp who said:

Randi calls charlatans all kinds of names, why is no one up in arms against that? Why should religious nuts/beliefs get special treatment?

There are two problems to that line of reasoning. First, Randi is not saying that people who believe in charlatans are idiots (which would be the more accurate analogy than the one you proposed)--he is making the factual (and tautological) claim that people who deceive people are charlatans (ie deceive people). In discussing people who fall for charlatans he often uses the word "credulous" (which basically means too trusting) not "idiocy."

Second, Randi can demonstrably show people how the charlatans are pulling off their tricks. In other words, he has factual evidence to prove they are charlatans. For most religions (I'm excluding Scientology since L. Ron Hubbard basically admitted to making it up to make money) it is impossible to provide such factual evidence (showing that they are false). The Crucifixion and (supposed) Resurrection, as just one example, simply doesn't lend itself to testing through the scientific method. Of course, we can look at other evidence (archaeological for instance) but like I said, for most religions there's no smoking gun either way (in support of or against).

So it comes back to the question of credulity. What do you believe? People look at the evidence and have widely different thresholds for how much evidence they need before they believe something. For some people, the fact that people they admire and respect believe in the religion is enough to convince them to believe as well. At the end of the day, I think for the vast majority of religious people, whether their religion is factually "true" or not doesn't matter. A lot of people believe because they feel their faith improves their life--provides them with social and psychological comfort, gives them a sense of mission and hope, etc.

The long-winded point I'm trying to make is that you, personally, choose not to believe until there is hard (empirical) evidence. That's your choice. I respect that, not the least of all because it is the same choice I make. Where I think you and I differ is that I do not demand everyone make the same choice as I do. When "New Atheists" call someone an "idiot" because that person chooses to believe in a religion, the New Atheists themselves are the ones demanding special treatment. They are essentially saying that everyone must think the same way that they do, and those who don't are somehow inferior.

New Atheists are of course free to point out the logical flaws, inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, and so forth that every religion contains. You don't have to respect ideas, but if you want to improve society you better damn well make sure you respect people. Showing respect for a person in no way, shape, or form implies that you agree with them. Showing disrespect, as other posters have already noted, is probably best way to ensure that your message never reaches the people who most need to hear it.

The "half of schools in district are below average" probably makes sense. Most likely the average in question is a national or state average. If you expect that your district's schools are above (a state or national) average, finding out that half of them aren't would be news, and while the headline could have been clearer that's a journalistic (rather than a math) failing.

Even if that isn't the case, and the average was for the district, it's not a tautology when considering how schools are likely to be measured (ie. test scores, rather than by ranking or something). Suppose you have 5 schools, and their "average tests scores" are (40%,40%,40%,90%,90%). In this case, the "average school" would have a score of 60% and 3 of the 5 schools are, thus, below average. This is not terribly useful information, but it's not nonsense - and the percent of schools that were below average could reasonably expected to vary. It even tells you something about the underlying data that may be interesting. If only 20% of schools are below average, you know that they're likely far below average (and thus likely legitimately require attention).

In order to have a silly tautology, you'd have to say something like "5 of 10 schools scored below the median" (or something similar) - and I'd be very surprised to find that kind of headline.

If that's the case, then there's no point continuing this conversation

okie dokie
>> ^messenger:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry
If that's the case, then there's no point continuing this conversation. As a bible literalist, you decided before the conversation began what your belief was going to be at the end, so this is not really a meeting of intellects --both open to new ideas-- but a clash of one such intellect versus a skilled defender of tautological dogma, which, sadly, is unresolvable because such dogma, by its own definition, cannot be challenged from within. The fact that you say you derive your faith in the word of God from the word of God itself is exactly what I mean.
You say that if someone truly tries to reach God, he will. That's true in that person's mind. It's also true that if you really try to reach faith in the Jewish version of God, or try to find "true connection with the universe," or go on a spirit walk with peyote to find your spirit guide animal, or meditate on a fire until you begin to see the God within it, and do so with a sincere heart, you will be able to succeed in any of those things. The only question is, do you feel more kinship with Christians or Jews or hippies or Native Indians or stoned camper? That will determine which way you feel most comfortable accessing the same experience of connection with a higher power.
So while you're seeking the truth, consider that the way you found your good spiritual feeling isn't unique to the Church -- that's just where you happened to find yours first.
And finally, you really don't understand science if you don't think evolution is a scientific theory. Any theory that is arrived at through following science is a scientific theory. That's a definition. The only reason atheists (I'm using the term broadly here) seem to care about that particular theory is that we noticed Christians were attacking it. The only reasons Christians were attacking it and not any other scientific theories is simply because it exposes a flaw with your faith's creation myth, which has dire implications for the rest of the stories in that book.
Peace.

@shinyblurry
If that's the case, then there's no point continuing this conversation. As a bible literalist, you decided before the conversation began what your belief was going to be at the end, so this is not really a meeting of intellects --both open to new ideas-- but a clash of one such intellect versus a skilled defender of tautological dogma, which, sadly, is unresolvable because such dogma, by its own definition, cannot be challenged from within. The fact that you say you derive your faith in the word of God from the word of God itself is exactly what I mean.

You say that if someone truly tries to reach God, he will. That's true in that person's mind. It's also true that if you really try to reach faith in the Jewish version of God, or try to find "true connection with the universe," or go on a spirit walk with peyote to find your spirit guide animal, or meditate on a fire until you begin to see the God within it, and do so with a sincere heart, you will be able to succeed in any of those things. The only question is, do you feel more kinship with Christians or Jews or hippies or Native Indians or stoned camper? That will determine which way you feel most comfortable accessing the same experience of connection with a higher power.

So while you're seeking the truth, consider that the way you found your good spiritual feeling isn't unique to the Church -- that's just where you happened to find yours first.

And finally, you really don't understand science if you don't think evolution is a scientific theory. Any theory that is arrived at through following science is a scientific theory. That's a definition. The only reason atheists (I'm using the term broadly here) seem to care about that particular theory is that we noticed Christians were attacking it. The only reasons Christians were attacking it and not any other scientific theories is simply because it exposes a flaw with your faith's creation myth, which has dire implications for the rest of the stories in that book.

Peace.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I am saying that your logical tautology of expecting God to obey an authority He isnt under doesn't undermine His omnipotence in any way. It's like saying God can't make a red blue.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
So what you're really saying is that God isn't "all powerful" just omnipotent?



God can't make purple? My kid can make purple and he's only five months old.

I am saying that your logical tautology of expecting God to obey an authority He isnt under doesn't undermine His omnipotence in any way. It's like saying God can't make a red blue.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
So what you're really saying is that God isn't "all powerful" just omnipotent?