TLDNR : Science is not agnostic about specific claims in varoise religouse txts and thats why atheists use science and facts derived from scientific method to dispute religion.



Sceince cannot anser if there is a "god" or not in the brad sense of the word but it has certainly disproven Literal interpretations Christainty ,and many other main stream religions , science and the facts derived from science have also helped us understand that morality certainly does not come from a book claming to be the word of god.

The reasons atheists keep going over the same thing is because Manny people are rleigouse in a way that has a negative impact on other peoples lives , such as helping governments pass legislation to ban gay maradge , or banning stem cell research.

Christains and religoise people in general are very active at spreding what they belive ( chirches in big cities iconography and centries old culture left over from old times) active athiests and sceptics are doing a service to socity helping exsplain scienctific methadoligy and proven things about the world.

You may not convert a christain in a conversation but talking to people who are religouse will help you develop critical thinking skills identify falicies and evan help people listneing understand things better.



>> ^VoodooV:

I'm about half way through this video and I'm so fed up already because they're just trying to quibble over minutia as if that would convince anyone.
Again this is another tiresome example of people trying to use facts and logic against someone who rejects facts and logic.
This whole thing (so far) can be summed up by the same statement Dillihunty has used over and over again: "I can't think of any other better explanation, therefore, God did it"
What I hate about atheists is that they've fallen into a trap laid by theists. Science and the Scientific method is AGNOSTIC to god and religion. It doesn't care. Let's be real here, there COULD be a creator, this supposed god could just be so beyond us and beyond our comprehension that set life, the universe and everything up and we are just too ignorant to detect it yet.
But, again, that's not what science is. Science is just making observations and recording them. I did X and Y happened. I did R and S happened and so on and so on. Over time, you make enough observations and you eventually learn something about the world around you. You make more observations and eventually you learn enough to make things like cars and computers and rockets and telescopes. A long time ago, theists said they knew something like lightning was a creation of god and indicated whether or not god was angry with you. If you make enough observations, you know that lightning is independent of whether or not you've been a good person or not. Ever since that day. Theists have been afraid of science and have viewed science as the opposition.
Science is not the opposition of the idea of a god. Theists have set science up as the enemy and Atheists fall for it and unwittingly play that role. The public perception is Atheists and Theists are fighting for dominance, but that's not true...or at least it shouldn't be. Right or wrong, the public perception is that Atheism is anti-god and "debates" like this just cement that mentality. Theists make the argument all the time that all morality flows from god and if you're an atheist then that means you're anti-morality. No one is attacking that argument and they should be.
Science is just saying, "I don't know, but I've made the observation that if I do X, then Y happens, and so far, when I have my friend over there also do X, Y happens for him too. Science is AGNOSTIC to god.
It's like Dillihunty said, He supports freedom of religion. It's only an issue when people of religion use religion as the reason they want to dictate what happens to other people...people who probably don't share that faith. The obvious question then gets raised: "Why should that religious view take precedence over another religious view, or a view that comes from no religion."
I'm sorry, but quibbling over bacteria and evolution accomplishes nothing as a means to prove god exists or doesn't exist. Besides, god isn't the problem. It's the people that use god as an excuse that are the problem.

http://www.futurama-madhouse.net/asciiart/ylb/zoidbathing.txt

:'€

>> ^westy:

They should have stuff like this in every city and it should be free to acess for evryone with teachers by the exibits to exsplain to kids and people how things work and inspire them.
for manny children 1 day at a place like this is better than 2 years in a stuffy classroom with a bad teacher and a txt book.


I actually agree with that.

They should have stuff like this in every city and it should be free to acess for evryone with teachers by the exibits to exsplain to kids and people how things work and inspire them.

for manny children 1 day at a place like this is better than 2 years in a stuffy classroom with a bad teacher and a txt book.

well, i have to somewhat disagree with him here(even from personal experience). If i download a pdf or an ebook or even a .txt and put it into my device, it's as good as a bought copy. i can take the same text and print it out and read it like that. or going one step further, i can take that same book, buy a printer and start mass-printing it and reselling it. Neil will get no money from this.
So not every pirated download is a lost sale, but i'd say vast majority of it is.

@jimnms

I did some digging and I found this. Section 1245 notes that the U.S.C ammendment may be cited as the "'Ballistic Knife Prohibition Act of 1986'." So according to the U.S.C the bill that I referenced above actually became an ammendment to Title 15 Commerce and Trade.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C29.txt

SHORT TITLE OF 1986 AMENDMENT
Pub. L. 99-570, title X, Sec. 10001, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat.
3207-166, provided that: "This title [enacting section 1245 of this
title, amending section 1716 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal
Procedure, and enacting provisions set out as a note under section
1245 of this title] may be cited as the 'Ballistic Knife
Prohibition Act of 1986'."

Given your bullet reply I will do likewise. (even though I think that turns our conversation into more of an argument, and I hate arguments)

I) Both sides had only mathematical constructs with a central notion of understanding behind the numbers. What I mean is, there was no NASA or anything to go look...there was only math. The Heliocentric model was exactly that, a (very) complex mathematical model (of exceptions) to explain the motion of the planets based on observed phenomena. Geocentrism had data as well, but lacked the cultural bias for it to be accepted as a valid view point. Which adds to my point, not detracts from it; as my point what theories get mocked or accepted has more to do with culture than premise.

A) I bet you didn't read the link I posted, and I can't blame you (Quine on a weekday and all!). But what I wrote was a hasty, and perhaps, oversimplified version of Quines waxing and waning on the politics of science. You can see examples of this today where scientists and large hang on the breath of the great intellectuals of the day, like Stephen Hawking. Or, how quickly Einstein is falling out of favor now that quantum doesn't quite add up. More than likely, within our lifetime, you will stop hearing about space time curves and it will be supplanted by some other thing. The main difference between planet orbits and the general laws of the universe are that you can go outside and look at the orbit (with a rocket). You can't go just "see" the laws of nature and therefore have no reason to thing Enstein was any more right about space time curves than of fundamental forces. You can explain, using Newtonian language and adapting its math, relativity and motion. The reason we don't has more to do with culture and self advocacy than evidence. And to the point, that still doesn't address the primary problem, that of which, the PEERS that review are under the influence of culture, they are the rose colored glasses to which I was referring all along.

B) See, I understand a bit of that. But ultimately that seems like an undersell to how life works on this planet. No doubt, change will bring hardship on certain species, but wouldn't also create new opportunities for others? A lack of snow on the tundra is bad for snow foxes...but good for regular foxes. Change is one thing life on this planet handles well...as for individual members their fates are less certain.

C) I disagree on 2 counts. One is my first example. Simply put, even if you idea treads water, it can be framed in such a way as to be demeaned of any value, regardless of merit. You can see this in media smear campaign stuff, if you can frame someone as a nut job, it will discredit them. For example, "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences" is a great read and has many, good observations....but is written by the uni bomber so not high on anyone's reading list. It isn't culturally acceptable to go...hey, the uni bomber is right, this is a problem! Same goes for here, it doesn't matter if it's 600 or 6000 scientists that disagree with the climate change model, if your ideas aren't popular, no one is going to be there to listen.

And second, you can't prove a negative. The only way the could prove that climate change isn't human caused is to completely understand the whole system and then point out how humans are trivial factors. In other words, they would have to be able to do the thing that no climatologist can claim, to know the whole truth about the weather and all its complexities. The burden of proof is actually on those making the claim, not the ones countering that claim. So really, the only thing they have to proof is nothing and just make the assertion that the doomsays math doesn't add up (and why). They just have to poke the holes in the boat in other words...which is what I think they are getting ostracized for. Get on board or get out kind of thing. But that is just an outsiders opinion.

I doubt any of us here are climatologists, but we are people. As people, we can expect people doing science on climate to not be entirely dissimilar to us. While they my process possess information regarding a particular area, they are not immune to the culture they live and work in. Quine talked about this a lot. That science doesn't evolve like the romantic picture that is painted. Rather, like pop culture, science shifts its entire focus from one foundational theory to another. Einstein doesn't extend Newton, it replaces it. Why do we not, rather, adapt the math of Newtonian physics to incorporate the data of relativity and keep the same mindset of forces instead of space time warps? Quines answer is that, like pop culture, a mans theory only lasts as long as he is around to extend it. Eventually, no matter if your theoretical construct was correct, if you aren't around to sort out the sometimes minor technicalities...your out. The people after you will eventually supplant your theory with something else more trendy. That science is subject to the same rules of the schoolyard as anything else. Peer review is more of a contest of popularity and not overall truth value.

As such, the very act of peer review is subject to the cultural perspective of the day. The moral and political climate of the day speaks volumes to what peer evaluated papers support or don't. Peer review is the best we have in science to approximate how we experience the universe, but it is not without its short comings. Let us not fall into the fallacy of authority, and majority in stating x group of people are more correct than y group opposed. Instead, judge things on merit of the argument.

To that end, I find that I am undecided on the whole debate. Moreover, I hesitate to put government in control of saving the environment...such was already their responsibility in the gulf. I don't want to live in a world of wrappers and smog, and to that end, I am motivated for cleaner technologies. Being wasteful has always felt somewhat despicable. To me, I remain skeptical of mans prowess of weather prediction. Year after year there is tail of "the worst hurricane season in history" that fails to show itself. If you say it enough I guess eventually it will be right, but that takes some of the wind out of the sails(har har har).

Furthermore, where is the data to support that global warming would even be bad? The only fact to the end that I am even familiar with is more extreme weather, and that dried up lake in Africa. I have lived next to lots dried up lakes and rivers...so that seems like more of a social disaster than an environmental one.

In the end, I feel like there is some snake oil salesmanship over the whole ordeal. I think we want to believe that we are the next greatest disaster. We will entwine any evidence into the web of belief . And ostracize anyone that deviates. We have always been at war with Eurasia, after all.

edited: grammar and spelling

News with a photograph and videos:
FOX43: http://www.fox43.com/news/offbeat/kdvr-bear-in-car-txt,0,2180055.story ...
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/23/colorado.bear.car/

>> ^blankfist:

Do you mind citing?


I did some figurin' using ANWR's numbers, back when the Right was making a big stink about it, since it's the favorite one to get trotted out. At peak output (which it wouldn't reach for more than a decade if we opened it now), it would account for less than a million barrels a day -- ~0.5 to 1.0% of total global oil production (which is ~85 million barrels a day) and <5% of (current) US oil consumption (~20 million barrels a day).

If it were possible to exhume all of ANWR's estimated oil (7 billion barrels) in one go, it would last the United States one year.

So that's just ANWR--but what about all of the other off-limits places? Here's the EIA's report. In short: If the outer continental shelf were opened now, nothing much would change through 2030. There's an estimated (undiscovered) total of 50 billion barrels of oil that are currently off limits to drilling. Total US production would be 1.6% higher than the reference (no OCS drilling) projection for 2017-2030, and 3% in 2030. Finally,

Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices.

More numbers: In 2008 the entire world produced ~26 billion barrels of oil and the US produced about 1.8 billion--which will stay essentially flat through 2030 even if we opened ANWR and the OCS to drilling.

The US's total proven oil reserves are about 21 billion barrels--maybe a total of ~120 if you go with estimated undiscovered oil--compared to 1200 billion (proven) for the entire world.

Sorry for some inconsistent numbers: Figures are from 2007, 2008, and 2009, so there are some inconsistencies there. I think I properly kept barrels per day lumped together and barrels per year lumped together.

But anyway: The US has a total of less than two percent of the world's proven oil reserves. We currently produce around 5-6% of oil. Oil is a commodity and gets sold on the world market; more than a fifth of US oil is exported even while we're using 4x as much as we produce. Opening protected areas to drilling would have a marginal impact on total US oil production and an even more marginal impact on world oil production.

Oil reserves.
ANWR oil reserves. Sorry for Wikipedia links--you can follow their citations.

Edit: I used this page too.

Glad they put the flashing recording txt on the scree, or i wudent have known i was watching a video

I hadn't heard of this guy before, I came upon this interview done shortly before his death to brain cancer and it has some great quotes:

"Death is the black hole of biology. It's an event horizon, and once you go over that event horizon, no information can be passed back out of the hole."

"The real dilemma for human beings is how to build a compassionate human civilization. The means to do it come into our ken at the same rate as all these tools which betray it. And if we betray our humanness in the pursuit of civilization, then the dialogue has become mad."

well i don't think Antarctica is the last stop of the journey on earth , pretty stupid txt to put in a video with interesting footage.

whats funny is how bland and how little there is to film , im pretty sure thay could have done a better effort with some of the shots maby filmed the ice in more interesting ways when underwater.

fucks sake the Christian , fundmentaly where are you geting your belife in god from ? oh the bible or some writen down txt ? WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU ACPETING THAT AS EVIDENCE ARE YOU AN IDIOT ?

fucking picker and choosers in many ways more idoitc than fundamentalists.

Well, robots.txt doesn't mean Google won't crawl VS, ant, it just lets you define stuff for it not to scan, etc.

A better way to go at Googlebot is through the Webmaster Tools that let you define how often Googlebot will scan your site, and also submit sitemaps, etc.