OT: Superman and Stemcells

[Arryn]

Huzurdaddi said:
Why do you have such hatred in your heart for flatworms? Open your heart to the love.

Open yours. Be my guest. As for me, I'll pass on being (soft in the head) conservatively compassionate with regards to life-sucking parasites, be they worms or wormlike elected (or nonelected) officials. The former must all die, and the latter must all be kicked out of office for the good of the nation and the world.

[Huzurdaddi]

The former must all die, and the latter must all be kicked out of office for the good of the nation and the world.

Sadly the latter will probably not be kicked out of office due to the segment of the population that passionately requires that the former must live. Actually passionately is far too weak of a word. Fervently is a far better word.

While the side who wants to kick out the current officials think that they are passionate about the subject they simply do not understand what "passion" is ... it's ... uhm ... different. If you want what you want due to logical reasons then you simply do not have anywhere near the same level of pasion.

Not like I really understand it, I happen to like logic thank you very much. However I have observed this way of "thinking" and it is very powerful to those that practice it.

OTOH I have to believe ( eek ) that the number of people who Subscribe to logic outnumber that people that don't. And perhaps they will show up at the polls this time around. But if history is any guide they will not.

[Arryn]

Sadly, "the number of people who Subscribe to logic" is a miniscule percentage of the population of any country, especially ours. As proof I present you with "reality TV", our national debt courtesy those whom the populace in their boundless logic continue to reelect, and that same populace's belief in myth & superstition, drug use (including tobacco), drunk driving, and child/spousal abuse. (BTW, by myth and superstition I'm not referring to voodoo, astrology, numerology, John Edwards, et cetera, though they certainly are obvious examples of bunk. I'm referring to most religions such as Judeo-Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.)

[johan osterman]

Arryn I am not sure what you mean by Subscribe to logic. But I imagine that one would not have any great difficulty digging up any number counter examples amongst logicians or mathematicians guilty of one or more of the 'sins' you list. I think you attribute a broader normative use to logic than what is warranted. And to be blunt, I think you confuse your own attitudes with logic.

[Arryn]

Johan, the tobacco industry (and the pharmaceutical industry, and the auto industry, and the oil industry, etc.) has had doctors and scientists "proving" whatever they felt like proving, and truth be damned. Just because someone has a Ph.D. doesn't mean they are less susceptible to being fooled (or capable of fooling others). Belief (and willful ignorance) has always trumped logic. Humans have a boundless, and perhaps instinctive, capacity for self-delusion.

I'll make things simple for you, Johan. Give me an affirmative proof of the veracity of the Biblical account of Genesis. Or an account of the Resurrection that couldn't be torn to shreds by any competent attorney using the standards of evidence of any western court of law.

The burden of proof falls upon those making the claims. And the more fantastical the claims, the more rigid the proof must be. Religion fails miserably when subjected to such tests. Believers have always resorted to shifting the burden of proof to those that disagree with them, which isn't a legitimate defense, but works most of the time because people are too lazy to avoid falling for it. (The same can be said for supporters of supply-side [Reagan/Bush] economics.)

Yes, Johan, you can believe whatever makes you sleep better. And I'm sure you can find comfort in whatever "proofs" you can dig up. Just as there are people who believe that the Apollo moon landings were faked and have "proof" of it. Religion has, and always will be, nothing more than an opiate for the masses, and it's just as addictive and dangerous.

[johan osterman]

Arryn said:
Johan, the tobacco industry (and the pharmaceutical industry, and the auto industry, and the oil industry, etc.) has had doctors and scientists "proving" whatever they felt like proving, and truth be damned. Just because someone has a Ph.D. doesn't mean they are less susceptible to being fooled (or capable of fooling others). Belief (and willful ignorance) has always trumped logic. Humans have a boundless, and perhaps instinctive, capacity for self-delusion.

I'll make things simple for you, Johan. Give me an affirmative proof of the veracity of the Biblical account of Genesis. Or an account of the Resurrection that couldn't be torn to shreds by any competent attorney using the standards of evidence of any western court of law.

The burden of proof falls upon those making the claims. And the more fantastical the claims, the more rigid the proof must be. Religion fails miserably when subjected to such tests. Believers have always resorted to shifting the burden of proof to those that disagree with them, which isn't a legitimate defense, but works most of the time because people are too lazy to avoid falling for it. (The same can be said for supporters of supply-side [Reagan/Bush] economics.)

Yes, Johan, you can believe whatever makes you sleep better. And I'm sure you can find comfort in whatever "proofs" you can dig up. Just as there are people who believe that the Apollo moon landings were faked and have "proof" of it. Religion has, and always will be, nothing more than an opiate for the masses, and it's just as addictive and dangerous.

First of all I am an atheist. So I feel no particular need to try so supply you with a creationist argument. The point I attempted to make was that rational and highly logical people do any of a number of the things you seemed to consider contrary to logic. Take one of your examples, spousal abuse, while morally unsound, I fail to see how it can be either logically sound or unsound, valid or invalid without a great deal of very contrived reasoning. I think you misapply the term logic, and use it in a Star Trekkish Mr Spock fashion that gives it a wider application than what is warranted.

I also notice that while you demand proofs of those that you believe holds views different than yours, you yourself offer very little to back up your assertions. This I find somewhat amusing in light of your claim that "Believers have always resorted to shifting the burden of proof to those that disagree with them". Considering that it is a simple task to produce examples of seemingly highly logical people that have engaged in those activites you find logically unsound, it seems to me that the burden of proofs that these apparently logical people are in fact not so rests squarely on your shoulders.

I'm normally not a religous person. But if you are out there, save me superman.

[Arryn]

Johan, for someone who's otherwise fairly intelligent, I'm surprised (shocked, actually) that you cannot see for yourself why spousal abuse is an illogical (or if you prefer, irrational) behavior. Do you really need me to explain it to you?

With regards to proofs, you are doing precisely what I said that believers do: shifting the burden of proof. In this case, by attacking the attacker. You are also using circular reasoning in your attacks. Which is a logical fallacy, BTW.

You cannot use as a logical argument: "I don't have to prove what I say is true because you must prove me wrong." To use an analogy, let's pretend that religion is the prosecution side in a court of law. It's the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The only obligation the defense has (we can call it 'science' if you wish) is to point out to the jury (aka the public) whether the prosecution has made its case or not, and to demonstrate where the prosecution has made mistakes in its allegations (ie: where religion has made unverifiable claims). The defense does not need to prove anything. Proof is the burden of the side making the accusations (claims).

If I claimed to be the Messiah, it's not your job to prove me wrong. It's my responsibility to prove that I am what I claim. Religion fails such tests. It cannot prove its claims. Quite the opposite.

Finally, the more we learn about the universe we live in, the less the need for (or ability of) religion to explain that universe. Religion was invented to give comfort to primitive people who fear what they don't understand. It still serves that role today. With a few exceptions, most modern religions remain fundamentally fear-based.

[Tuna]

johan osterman said:
I also notice that while you demand proofs of those that you believe holds views different than yours, you yourself offer very little to back up your assertions. This I find somewhat amusing in light of your claim that "Believers have always resorted to shifting the burden of proof to those that disagree with them".

She doesn't have to produce any proof whatsoever, as following the scientific method, she is not making a claim. Believers make a claim: "God does exist". She doesn't have to do absolutely anything until the said believers provide her with falsifable proof. Only after that she must provide the believers with a counterproof. Same works with soul: "There is no proof whatsoever for the existence of soul, thus soul does not exist. ¤"

The age old argument "You prove that god doesn't exist!" Just doesn't work. Generally, when someone uses it on me, I use that as a sign to start ignoring the person. You provide me with falsifable proof that god does exist, and I will either falsify it or start believing that god exists.

Oh, and to clear a bit: "Falsifable", in laymans terms, doesn't mean that something is wrong, quite the contrary. It means that if it is wrong, it is capable to be proven wrong. Generally, in modern science, if something is not falsifable, it is considered to be false by default.

For example the theory "All cars are blue." can be falsified simply by observing a single non-blue car. Then again, theory "there is a god" is not falsifiable, thus is, by default, false. Only when it becomes falsifiable, by someone providing me with methods to somehow test if there is a god or not, will the theory be worth even the slightest of considerations.

[Gandalf Parker]

Arryn said:
The burden of proof falls upon those making the claims. And the more fantastical the claims, the more rigid the proof must be. Religion fails miserably when subjected to such tests. Believers have always resorted to shifting the burden of proof to those that disagree with them, which isn't a legitimate defense, but works most of the time because people are too lazy to avoid falling for it. (The same can be said for supporters of supply-side [Reagan/Bush] economics.)

Yes, Johan, you can believe whatever makes you sleep better. And I'm sure you can find comfort in whatever "proofs" you can dig up. Just as there are people who believe that the Apollo moon landings were faked and have "proof" of it. Religion has, and always will be, nothing more than an opiate for the masses, and it's just as addictive and dangerous.

Interesting. Just because Im wondering, are you a book-thumping fanatic for the other side? You talk about religion and beliefs and use the word "proof". Do you also use the word in quotes when you speak of the other side, or are the words technology and science as automatically comforting and unquestionable to you as their beliefs are to them?

People use to use the word "magic" to satisfactorily explain things they didnt understand but give them the peace of mind that things would continue working because others understood it. Now the word is "technology" and is used by the same level of public for the same reasons.