You're right, I am making an argument about you. This has always been about you. I don't care about the whole god argument, I care about why you believe what you believe and that is what I'm talking about. I could care less about what you believe, the 'why' is far more significant.

So in other words, you have such a faith in your position that you aren't even interested in talking about it. You've just admitted that you are completely closed minded to the existence of God, and you're talking to me about confirmation bias? You are a poster child for confirmation bias.

It took you an hour to throw all of those quotes together to make a case. Based on that, do you really expect me to believe that you're not just quote mining from some general creationist website somewhere? Do you really expect me to believe that you've actually studied the subjects that you're presenting as evidence for your claims? You are by definition, cherry picking. You are not taking into account the whole of scientific findings, you are ignoring the information which dis-confirms your existing views, and you are unknowingly misrepresenting the facts. If you were well read on any of the subjects of physics or evolutionary biology then you'd completely understand where I'm coming from.

Actually, what I was doing was disputing your claim that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to open systems. The whole of scientific findings say that the 2nd law applies everywhere at all times, and this is very widely agreed upon. Your claim of cherry picking is bogus; the facts in them are plainly stated and from witnesses hostile to my overall position, which gives them even more weight. If those facts do not match reality, feel free to point out how so. Again, you are coming from a complete lack of substance, saying I am doing this or that, without actually having any real evidence to back up your assertions. If you're not interested in talking about things that require you to demonstrate an actual knowledge of the subject matter, please stop making baseless claims about what I am doing or back them up.

That's you, you said that. Why do you believe those things? Are you willing to attempt to prove yourself wrong? Are you willing to work to subdue cognitive biases in order to be as certain as you can be that you aren't mistaken? How can you say that your god is the correct one and all of the rest are incorrect? How can you justify a jump from the idea that we don't understand entirely how a system works to, there must be agency behind it? That is exactly what you are asking everyone to do. That is a huge leap and it does not directly follow. Extraordinary claims such as a personal god, require extraordinary evidence. You can't simply suggest that because we don't understand something that there must be agency there, that is not how logic works nor science. You can say nothing about the true nature of something if it requires faith in order to have evidence.

My argument is not a God of the gaps argument. I am not suggesting because we don't understand something, God did it. I am saying that God is a better explanation for the evidence. I am saying that even if you were to explain every mechanism in the Universe, you still haven't gone any farther to say that the uniformity in nature which upholds the physical laws that causes those mechanisms to operate isn't better explained by Agency. Unless you can demonstrate a purely naturalistic origin of the Universe, you have no case against Agency. This isn't to mention things like the fine tuning of physical laws, the information in DNA, and the appearance of design in biological systems. They are all better explained by a Creator.

Further, when you talk about faith, there are many examples in science. No one has ever seen macro evolution happening, yet scientists have great faith that it occured. There is absolutely no hard evidence for it, only a just-so story based on very questionable inference from the fossil record. The major predictions of evolutionary theory have all actually been falsified by the fossil record, which would be enough to torpedo any theory, but they are committed to it regardless of what the facts say:

we take the side of evolutionary science because we have a prior commitment to materialism. it is not that the methods..of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation..on the contrary..we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.

richard lewontin

harvard professor of zoology and biology

The thing is, I am in doubt about you. I am in doubt about your sincerity for meaningful investigations into reality. I am in doubt that you have actually read any scientific material in their entirety. I am in doubt that you value critical thinking. I am in doubt that you understand what a logical fallacy is or how they work. I am in doubt that you are doing anything more than attempting to justify a belief that you already hold by attempting to give legitimacy in the face of dissonance.

That's wonderful, but until you demonstrate a knowledge of the subject matter which is not inferior to my own (ala, believing the 2nd law doesnt apply to biological systems), everything that you have said here is irrelevent. Even if everything you said here is true and I understood nothing about this, you have shown you understand even less than that. However, I am going to give you more credit than that, and I would hope, but not expect, for you to do the same, however thus far you have only worked to try to discredit me. That is a logical fallacy called an ad hominem attack. It is a sad testament to atheists that there are only a very few out there willing to engage in rational discourse and not lower themselves to mockery and ridicule. I know rational discourse is possible because I have seen it in debates, and have found it on the internet from time to time. Overall though, it is a very bad advertisement for your point of view.

This was always about you. Your belief is based on quotes taken out of context and stitched together to weave a picture that conforms to what you already believe in while ignoring all of the information that doesn't agree with you. This is called a confirmation bias. You wont know how unconvincing your statements and claims are until you get past that kind of bias and seek to prove what you believe wrong to see if it actually holds water.

Again, this is the pot calling the kettle black. Your confirmation bias meter reads at 100 percent. My claims stand on their own and so do the quotations which flatly refute your claim. Feel free to show me scientific literature which supports your case at any time.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr

You're right, I am making an argument about you. This has always been about you. I don't care about the whole god argument, I care about why you believe what you believe and that is what I'm talking about. I could care less about what you believe, the 'why' is far more significant.

It took you an hour to throw all of those quotes together to make a case. Based on that, do you really expect me to believe that you're not just quote mining from some general creationist website somewhere? Do you really expect me to believe that you've actually studied the subjects that you're presenting as evidence for your claims? You are by definition, cherry picking. You are not taking into account the whole of scientific findings, you are ignoring the information which dis-confirms your existing views, and you are unknowingly misrepresenting the facts. If you were well read on any of the subjects of physics or evolutionary biology then you'd completely understand where I'm coming from.

You are trying to make a case for the existence of a god but the only thing that you can say about this god that you believe in is that it basically follows the christian mythos.

"The God I believe in is a personal God who created us for a purpose. His desire is for us to know Him personally and attain to eternal life through His Son Jesus Christ. I believe He is the true God because He transformed my life and being, made me whole by His love, and because I received the direct witness of the Holy Spirit. Everyone who believes in Jesus Christ will receive the witness of the Holy Spirit and then Gods existence will become undeniably true. God Himself provides the evidence if you approach Him in faith."

That's you, you said that. Why do you believe those things? Are you willing to attempt to prove yourself wrong? Are you willing to work to subdue cognitive biases in order to be as certain as you can be that you aren't mistaken? How can you say that your god is the correct one and all of the rest are incorrect? How can you justify a jump from the idea that we don't understand entirely how a system works to, there must be agency behind it? That is exactly what you are asking everyone to do. That is a huge leap and it does not directly follow. Extraordinary claims such as a personal god, require extraordinary evidence. You can't simply suggest that because we don't understand something that there must be agency there, that is not how logic works nor science. You can say nothing about the true nature of something if it requires faith in order to have evidence.

The thing is, I am in doubt about you. I am in doubt about your sincerity for meaningful investigations into reality. I am in doubt that you have actually read any scientific material in their entirety. I am in doubt that you value critical thinking. I am in doubt that you understand what a logical fallacy is or how they work. I am in doubt that you are doing anything more than attempting to justify a belief that you already hold by attempting to give legitimacy in the face of dissonance.

This was always about you. Your belief is based on quotes taken out of context and stitched together to weave a picture that conforms to what you already believe in while ignoring all of the information that doesn't agree with you. This is called a confirmation bias. You wont know how unconvincing your statements and claims are until you get past that kind of bias and seek to prove what you believe wrong to see if it actually holds water.

Seek to prove your beliefs wrong before convince yourself that you are correct.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I said that God doesn’t exist? Oh yeah? Where exactly did I say that? The last time I checked, saying that I reject an idea isn’t the same as saying that the idea isn’t true. Get your facts straight.
You obviously don't think it is true if you reject it. I don't reject ideas I think are correct. What exactly is your position?
Saying “god did it” doesn’t answer anything. It doesn’t answer any question about mechanism and until someone can come up with a testable model of how god interacts with the universe which we can then make accurate predictions with, it’s a useless and meaningless statement. It doesn’t help us expand the frontiers of our understanding of reality.
The fact of the matter is that it is you who is fundamentally uneducated in everything that you mentioned and that is made obvious by your inability to form your own arguments; you’re just cherry picking quotes that support you’re cognitive bias.
You realize that your entire reply could be summed up thusly "nu uh". Just stating that you're right and I am wrong doesn't advance your argument. You don't even have an argument. Everything you've said here is logically fallacious. If you think what I've said is wrong, or cherry picked, address it directly and demonstrate why. I don't think you really understand the subject matter which is why you're trying to make the argument about me instead.
I love it when people like you pull out the second law of thermodynamics card because I know that you can’t name or explain the rest of the laws of thermodynamics without copy and pasting them from Google search. Life isn’t a closed system and the second law of thermodynamics only deals with closed systems. The 2nd law has nothing to do with anything biology or the existence of complex organisms, get your facts straight. If you had any respect for truth, you wouldn’t be making so many entirely misinformed and uneducated statements.
And this is why I don't think you understand the subject matter, because your statement that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to biological systems shows a total lack of research.
John Ross, Harvard University, Chemical And Engineering News, p.40 July 7, 1980, "Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems."
Arnold Sommerfel, "...the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not." Thermodynamics And Statistical Mechanics, p.155
There is no such thing as negative entropy. Everything is always trending towards disorder.
The 2nd law equally applies to living systems:
Harold Blum, Prinston Univ., "No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles, but we do encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non-living world." Time's Arrow and Evolution, p.14
Everything is technically an open system in nature.
Richard Morris, "An isolated system is one that does not interact with its surroundings. Naturally there are no completely isolated systems in nature. Everything interacts with its environment to some extent. Nevertheless, the concept, like many other abstractions that are used in physics, is extremely useful. If we are able to understand the behavior in ideal cases, we can gain a great deal of understanding about processes that take place in the real world In fact treating a real system as an isolated one is often an excellent approximation.", Time's Arrows, p.113
The argument is that the energy of the sun is what is overcoming the entropy, but that doesn't explain information. Just putting power into something does not magically create organization:
George Gaylord Simpson & W.S. Beck, "But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.", An Introduction To Biology, p. 466
But there is no mechanism for information to spontaneously arise by itself, overcoming entropy in the system, and we know information comes from minds.
Charles J. Smith, "Biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." Biosystems, Vol.1, p259.
This is why a Creator agrees with the evidence more so than evolution. Was this quote cherry picked?:
G.J. Van Wylen, Richard Sonntag, "...we see the second law of thermodynamics as a description of the prior and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to our future destiny and that of the universe." Fundamentals Of Classical Thermodynamics, 1985, p.232.
Because I know that none of this is actually going to matter to you, go ahead and enlighten us with more of your church-pamphlet science.
I'm looking forward to your point by point refutation of my argument, with sources. Thanks.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Gingrich: "... they will be in a secular, atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical islamists."
Sense make no.


Cognitive dissonance never did pay much attention to reality.

The unfortunate reality is that while there may be more of us in the "sane rational" category than most think, in the end every religious person can and will gang up against "us" even if they might hate each other. Thus will we remain the minority for the foreseeable future until enough children are born that can withstand the religious indoctrination process and they can go discover genuine truth instead of the "truth" pushed on them created ages ago by people who would have thought a wheelbarrow was an amazing technological wonder.

You and I have been inculcated by decades of advertising propaganda. This little girl has been exposed to far less propaganda. She has a much less biased opinion on this matter than we do. Do you think it's possible that a young person like this who hasn't yet been beaten down by the system might have something to teach us?

>>> Adorable she may be, but she has far more to learn than to teach.

I'd like to know why the issue of gender roles is so important to you. Why you are bothered by a little girl questioning your status quo?

>>> I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm "bothered" by this at all. I'm annoyed that Pops has no good answers for her. And the confusion that awaits in government indoc. Maybe Pops doesn't know that there are real biological differences between male and female brains and that even if there were no obvious physical differences between the brains, they are each "pickled" in different biochemical baths in male or female bodies.

I don't get why you dismiss her natural feelings of gender unity in a culture that strongly enforces gender roles, and then claim she will later be indoctrinated by the government to believe "we are all the same", which is what she already believes in the first place - honestly the cognitive dissonance of this comment makes my head hurt a little.

>>> I dislike moral relativism, the sacrificing truth for convenience. There will be days when the indoc center will assure her that "people are all the same" in areas of life where it's simply untrue. There will be other days when she'll be segregated and her differences highlighted, in order to wrongly gain from others (political correctness) or preyed upon by others (political correctness).

Why do you have a strong partisan political opinion on something probably better left to psychology to research and explain?

>>> Why wait? Everything is political. Eveything. You really think the shrinks aren't "influenced" by who is paying for their research grants? Science--honest science--recognizes there are differences between boys and girls, men and women. Gender roles may be part societal, but AFAIC, it's 95% biological.

You and I have been inculcated by decades of advertising propaganda. This little girl has been exposed to far less propaganda. She has a much less biased opinion on this matter than we do. Do you think it's possible that a young person like this who hasn't yet been beaten down by the system might have something to teach us?

I'd like to know why the issue of gender roles is so important to you. Why you are bothered by a little girl questioning your status quo? I don't get why you dismiss her natural feelings of gender unity in a culture that strongly enforces gender roles, and then claim she will later be indoctrinated by the government to believe "we are all the same", which is what she already believes in the first place - honestly the cognitive dissonance of this comment makes my head hurt a little. Why do you have a strong partisan political opinion on something probably better left to psychology to research and explain? I'm fascinated with how the conservative mind works and I feel like the answer to this question could be a key to a deeper understanding. >> ^quantumushroom:

Plump-cheeked urchin, boys' and girls' brains are wired differently. You'll be hearing enough "we all the same" when you're placed in your first government indoctrination center school.

Obama hesitates to mention God as any it irritates his base, which are the humanists. Also, since he was raised a muslim he probably would prefer saying 'Allah'.

Must create a cognitive dissonance problem with him, on top of all of his other problems.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Whether or not the Fat Cats wanted the Gollum of Gotham gone, the fact is he and his weenie jeopardized his position on their own. A victimless crime it may have been, but this ninnyhammer was perfectly content putting men and women in jail for the same act.
Liberals suffer the same cognitive dissonance with Filth Clinton. Filth C. globetrots collecting millions for speeches on behalf of "human dignity" when he himself (literally) stripped women working for him in government jobs of theirs. This belief that the left somehow defends the weak against the strong is pure palaver.


Noo doubt clinton and spitzer are not saints. But irretrievebly damaging your nation by removing key people during the crisis because of where they put their 'weenies' is beyond retarded for most countries.
if you think telling off these boys is worth throwing away your economy you're lucky to be in the only country that wouldn't consider you insane.
China appreciates it though so at least someone's doing well..

Whether or not the Fat Cats wanted the Gollum of Gotham gone, the fact is he and his weenie jeopardized his position on their own. A victimless crime it may have been, but this ninnyhammer was perfectly content putting men and women in jail for the same act.

Liberals suffer the same cognitive dissonance with Filth Clinton. Filth C. globetrots collecting millions for speeches on behalf of "human dignity" when he himself (literally) stripped women working for him in government jobs of theirs. This belief that the left somehow defends the weak against the strong is pure palaver.

>> ^bmacs27:

>> ^Fletch:
She acted like someone using a Mac was some ironic "gotcha" moment? What are they supposed to use to communicate? Smoke signals? And I bet they wear clothes that originated from some large textile company. Or ate some food from a huge Agricorp for lunch. Or grabbed a cab burning evil Exxon gas. Are those Nikes on your feet?!

Right. That's sort of the point. Want to stick it to corporations? Don't do those things.
If instead you'd rather just benefit from all the fruits of corporations, but don't want the corporations, well, what does that say?

Who said anything about not wanting corporations? I think the desire is for them to quit sending jobs oversees, be less evil, that kind of thing. Change their ways, pay their fair share in taxes, etc. Anyway, corporations are people now. So says 5 of our esteemed SCJs, so it must be true. Sticking it to corporations would be the same as sticking it to people. And I'm a people person, so that's no good.

I'm all for boycotts and applying economic pressure to corps for bad behavior, but this was a single person in the middle of a very uncoordinated demonstration being challenged by some nitwit reporter who thought she had some juicy angle on the whole thing, all because said person was using a Mac to check her email. Give me a fucking (oops!) break.

So, you tell ME "what does that say?" You pulled your premise ("If instead you'd rather just benefit from all the fruits of corporations, but don't want the corporations") out of your own ass and applied it to me, as if you have any clue what I'm about. I bet it sounded logical, and maybe even clever in your head when it... formed... in there somehow. But, now, as I read it over and over and over, I'm having difficulty understanding what sort of mental miasma, ideological dissonance, or logical labefactation could actually allow you to think of the question, type the question, and then send the question into the ether, all without realizing what a STOOPID FUCKING QUESTION it is!

So... YOU tell ME what the fuck it says!

TTFN!

>> ^JiggaJonson:

There are 34 different pharmaceutical companies in the United States currently. There are 34Not one of them pulls down less than 1.6 billion dollars a year. The average revenue of the bottom ten pharmaceutical companies is 2.4 billion. The top ten make at least 10 billion a year in revenue with Johnson and Johnson pulling down a whopping 70 billion in revenue.


My point exactly. They're making a killing because there's such little competition in the marketplace. 34 doesn't seem like a small number to you? There are more mechanics in your hometown most likely.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Assuming your figure is correct, even the smallest of the pharmaceutical companies in the US would have access to producing something like the polio vaccine if the current cost to bring drug to market is in fact $802 million.


You're missing the point. Let's remember what this blog was about: what I'm assuming is more than 34 companies or schools have researched the AIDS protein for over three decade and they weren't able to do what the unlimited gamers online did in three weeks. That's opening the market. I know accepting that causes some unsettling cognitive dissonance, but there it is all pink and naked.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

I still don't understand why you think a smaller pharmaceutical company would shy away from production/distribution of a drug if it was all already paid for through a nonprofit like the March of Dimes.


Because instead of spending $800 million for one drug, they could spend $800 million for who knows how many drugs. Ten. Fifty. Maybe hundreds. Thousands? $800 million is a lot of money.

Especially when it's "cost of doing business" the large pharmaceutical companies probably wrote into the law when their lobbyists got the legislators to pass it. I'd much rather pay $800 million as a rich corporation so only the rich investors can compete with me. That ensures less competition. And the less competition, the higher the profits for an inferior product. As one of the 34 I'd prefer that to compete with hundreds of companies.

And private charities won't cover it all. You need investors. And if you're an investor with minimal capital who can't afford the risk of the $800 million price tag, you'll probably not invest. What do you have against competition? Don't you agree that more competition would be better? Isn't that what we've seen with the gamers?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

It is more akin to the idea of WHICH good thing you wish to practice, or the thing being done that is said to be good not being good in your own moral judgement. One might say feeding the poor isn't done properly unless accompanied by a health dose of soul food. I am no one to tell them they are wrong. The hard part of doing good with other peoples money is we don't have the same idea of what good is, so any attempt is muddled in personal bias and dogma. Which is why I support more community based charity than national.

Again, I'm not a theologian, but does Jesus say something akin to "don't help people at all if you're uncertain whether you'll succeed?"

Do you really dispute that providing medical treatment to people who're sick is a good thing?

I'm not religious, and I don't think we should base our morals on what we read in the Bible, but what little I do know of the Bible is that Jesus doesn't sound much like Ayn Rand, or any other right-wing ideologue on this topic.

Is there any passage of the bible that supports the libertarian case against state-sponsored distributive justice? Does Jesus say property is the sole enforceable moral obligation we have to one another, and everything else must be considered a matter of personal choice? Does he say tax-funded welfare programs are morally worse than letting the poor starve or succumb to treatable illness through individual negligence?

If he did, it'd resolve what I see as the biggest cognitive dissonance present in American culture, but I don't think the Bible says anything of the sort.

Innocent people have been murdered by the state, in the form of capital punishment. How deep does your cognitive dissonance go?>> ^lantern53:

I don't understand why you people want to protect pure evil, in the form of mass murderers, but not the lives of the unborn.
You want choice for the mother, but I can't choose which toilet or lightbulb I want.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Neat, but you can't polish a turd.


Stop writing witty things I agree with QM. It only furthers the cognitive dissonance I have about you.

Hmm, I'm really torn on this one. Cognitive dissonance...strong...

>> ^Ti_Moth:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Lefty, don't think you're off the hook because now you disavow Odumbo for not ending the wars, closing Gitmo and raising taxes.
YOU ELECTED HIS EARNESS. OWN UP TO IT.
His so far 3 years of FAIL have been far more destructive than anything Bachmann says.
Who I talk to? The failicorn in all you communists.

You still aren't being particularly clear about who you are talking to, some sort of gay communist unicorn from the sounds of it, as there is no-one fitting that description around here could you please leave this video and spout your nonsense elsewhere.


I say give QM a break...he's obviously finding himself unable to justify supporting the bat-shit crazy lady. The cognitive dissonance of the attempt has clearly melted his brain, leaving no connection whatsoever with reality as the rest of the world knows it.