Book Burning

[Thorne]

And what I see with atheists is the same thing coin and all.

That's probably because you cannot seem to comprehend the idea that people CAN live without faith of any kind! You refuse to accept the idea that atheism is NOT a belief system, but simply a LACK of belief in gods. You try to take basic principles of religious faith and translate them onto atheists because you feel they must have some kind of faith. As this exchange shows:

I do not BELIEVE there are no gods.
So then you believe there are gods or a god? lol Tell me which god or gods do you believe in then?
I simply DON'T believe there are.
lol ok which is it, you believe or you dont?

Let me try to clarify. You seem to be implying that atheists are saying, "I believe that there are no gods." What we are actually saying is, "I do not believe that gods exist." Can you not see the difference in those two statements? If not then any discussion is useless, as you are arguing from a false premise.

And replacing them with your own.

This too is a false premise. I do not want to replace them with anything but the truth, as demonstrated by science and history. Christians in Texas, among other places, are still trying to get Creationism (sometimes masked as Intelligent Design) placed into biology classes, claiming it has equal validity with evolution. Yet evolution has massive amounts of evidence, has been tested and tested and retested, and continues to be tested. Creationism? All they have is "God did it!" How is that equal to evolution? Even the Catholic Church, for all its faults, has accepted evolution as true. Creationism is a religious doctrine which has no place in a science class. Evolution is science. So which group is trying to force their beliefs on someone?

So you wish to take a page from Stalin's book and take away the people of faith's right to freee speach and assembly? That way you will never have to see another church service or god forbid someone cross themselves or pray?[/B]

Why is it you always want to bring up Stalin, or Hitler? Why not Torquemada, or Cromwell? Stalin wasn't trying to replace religion with atheism, but with worship of Stalin! A state religion, which he could control.

And no, I do NOT want to take people's faith away from them. I simply want that faith maintained where it belongs: in their churches, in their homes, in their hearts. Not in the government and not in the science class.

I don't have a problem with people praying in public, as long as they don't interfere with those who don't wish to pray. But it is illegal for government officials to begin an official meeting with a public prayer. It is illegal for the law to ban non-Christians from holding public office. Yet the state of North Carolina, and possibly others, still have laws banning atheists from taking public office.

[thir]

That's my entire point! They SHOULD keep it to themselves, NOT try to push it into everyone else's lives. Too many don't!

And mine too, most definitly.

Not at all! Science doesn't define reality. It catalogs it, measures it, tries to understand it. And since much of Western science has it's origins in the Church, one of the things they have tried to prove is the existence of gods, heaven, hell, spirits, afterlife, etc., etc., etc. And to date there is nothing there!

Well, seems to me many scientists try to monopolise reality. If they do not have it in their books, it isn't there.

Far from it! Science doesn't know everything. But it's my belief (and you can call this a faith if you want) that science CAN know everything, eventually. Given enough time and enough resources mankind just might learn how everything works.

I do not think so, there will always be more! Even if we manage to survive the next hundreds or thousands of years.

NOT a proven fact. It's called a placebo effect. You THINK it helps you, which can have some positive effects, but when tested under controlled conditions we find that it does nothing at all.

Wrong. There is enough research that proves that placebo works, even when you know it is placebo. You can learn to use that.

This is the importance of science. It shows us what works and what doesn't. It helps to keep us from deceiving ourselves. Without science we'd still be wallowing around in the mud, dying of mysterious diseases, grubbing out a dangerous existence plagued by fear of imaginary beings. Science has brought us medicine that works, an understanding of our place in the world, near instantaneous communications with the rest of the world, the ability to travel to any place we want to go.

And weapens, pollution, overpopulation...science helps us eat up the world.

Sure, it's also brought us nuclear weapons, and more efficient ways to kill ourselves. Nobody claimed it was perfect. Science is, and should be, dispassionate, uncaring. It's people who can take the lessons of science and use them for either good or evil.

Science isn't something mysterious that comes from above or out of nowhere! Scientists are people, and they are responsible for their results, and should be using their heads!

I do not buy the idea that if it is called scientific, then anything goes.

[Thorne]

Well, seems to me many scientists try to monopolise reality. If they do not have it in their books, it isn't there.

That's not quite it. If it cannot be measured, cannot be touched, cannot be seen, and does not appear to have any measurable effects on the universe around us, then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. Even if it does exist, if it has no effects upon us, then it might as well not exist. That doesn't mean that sometime down the road we won't develop a means to detect it, if it's there. And if we should do so we would certainly have to revise our hypotheses about the existence of gods. As would the religious.

I do not think so, there will always be more! Even if we manage to survive the next hundreds or thousands of years.

I tend to agree. But infinity is a funny thing. If humanity manages to survive long enough, who knows what is possible?

Wrong. There is enough research that proves that placebo works, even when you know it is placebo. You can learn to use that.

To some extent, perhaps. Though most of what I've read indicates that if the patient KNOWS it is a placebo it's unlikely to work. Most of the benefits from the placebo effect (as I understand it) seem to allow the body to relax, relieving stress, and letting the natural systems work to their full potential. Very similar to the effects of prayer, I believe.

And weapens, pollution, overpopulation...science helps us eat up the world.

And science will help us repair the damage we've done, if we allow it. Of course that would require sacrifice from everyone, something which is not likely to happen voluntarily.

Science isn't something mysterious that comes from above or out of nowhere! Scientists are people, and they are responsible for their results, and should be using their heads!

Very true. Science is a process. The scientific method is the best tool we have to make sure that science is done properly and that results mirror reality. Yes, scientists are people, and can be just as corrupt and dogmatic as any other people. But the method tends to expose such, eventually, and helps to insure that progress marches on. Sometimes there are steps backwards, and mostly the forward steps are baby steps, but the general movement is towards a better understanding of reality.

I do not buy the idea that if it is called scientific, then anything goes.

Neither do I.

[denuseri]

Let me try to clarify. You seem to be implying that atheists are saying, "I believe that there are no gods." What we are actually saying is, "I do not believe that gods exist." Can you not see the difference in those two statements?

Lets see...."I believe that there are no gods" = A belief in there being no gods, yes?

and "I do not believe that gods exist" = A belief that gods do not exist, yes?

Both statments belay a "belief" in there not being any gods in existance do they not?

Both statements are conserning one's belief in something else. No premise missed there.

The only premise thats missed is you refusing to acknowledge that your belief system of aethism has no more validity to it than anyone elses belief system involving some other religion from each other's perspective.

How much faith you have in it and why you have faith in it... is another thing.





Why is it you always want to bring up Stalin, or Hitler? Why not Torquemada, or Cromwell? Stalin wasn't trying to replace religion with atheism, but with worship of Stalin! A state religion, which he could control.

Then why did he and the other communisits before him call it aethism sugar? Last time I checked he didnt have anyone praying to him in any church. The Communist's were pretty clear about their belief system being one of Aethism.

And no, I do NOT want to take people's faith away from them.

Then maby you might want to be more clear in your statments conserning such things, cuase all I hear is a lot of the same rehtoric used by Stalin and the other aethists of his day in his country where they did that very thing.

I simply want that faith maintained where it belongs: in their churches, in their homes, in their hearts. Not in the government and not in the science class.

Hummm, I seem to remeber a little freedom of speach cluase there in our constitution. Whats wrong with presenting all beliefs and letting the students decide for themselves huh?

I don't have a problem with people praying in public, as long as they don't interfere with those who don't wish to pray. But it is illegal for government officials to begin an official meeting with a public prayer. It is illegal for the law to ban non-Christians from holding public office. Yet the state of North Carolina, and possibly others, still have laws banning atheists from taking public office.

Why is it a aethiest would be threatened if a few people start a meeting of any kind with a prayer if they choose?

Next you will be on about anyone but a professed aethiest holding office. There are no federal laws banning an aethist from office are there? You cannot expect to run for an office anyways without the support of the voting constituents. If there are enough aethists in the state in question to support you I am sure you can get it changed.

But being intolerant of all beliefs other than your own and using sophistry to attempt to demean your opponents faith in their own belief systems is surely not holding to the high principles of science you profess to follow is it?

Is that what you want for America?

[Thorne]

Lets see...."I believe that there are no gods" = A belief in there being no gods, yes?

Exactly.

and "I do not believe that gods exist" = A belief that gods do not exist, yes?

Wrong! "I do not believe that gods exist" = A LACK of belief in gods! NOT a belief in the lack of gods.

The only premise thats missed is you refusing to acknowledge that your belief system of aethism has no more validity to it than anyone elses belief system involving some other religion from each other's perspective.

How much faith you have in it and why you have faith in it... is another thing.

So you're claiming that atheism is a belief in the lack of belief of gods? That makes no sense. Is the lack of belief in Santa Claus a belief system? What about the lack of belief in unicorns? Is that a belief system, too? No, all of these are LACKS of belief. Or to be more precise, an understanding of the lack of credible evidence for the existence of those things.

And how can I have faith in atheism, since there is nothing there to have faith in?

Hummm, I seem to remeber a little freedom of speach cluase there in our constitution. Whats wrong with presenting all beliefs and letting the students decide for themselves huh?

Certainly! But in a comparative religion class, not a science class. Would you want Evolution taught during religion courses? Perhaps we can teach History during Phys Ed! How about Sex Ed during Driver's Ed? Each topic has it's place. There is no place for religion in science classes, unless you can provide scientific evidence for your religion.

[B]Why is it a aethiest would be threatened if a few people start a meeting of any kind with a prayer if they choose?

Depends on the meeting. A private club? No problem. A religious group? Be my guest. A county board of education? That's a problem. If you only permit one type of prayer you are promoting a specific religion. But how many fundamentalist Baptists, for example, would allow a Muslim prayer to open their school board meeting? Or a Pagan prayer (or whatever they use)? Why haven't we seen any voodoo priestesses giving the convocation for Congress? But if you cannot accommodate ALL faiths (or lack thereof), it is illegal to accommodate ANY!

[B]Next you will be on about anyone but a professed aethiest holding office. There are no federal laws banning an aethist from office are there? You cannot expect to run for an office anyways without the support of the voting constituents. If there are enough aethists in the state in question to support you I am sure you can get it changed.

Recently there was an election in Delaware, I believe (I can't find a link to the story, sorry) in which an atheist WAS elected. Local Christian groups dragged up an old state law which prohibited atheists from holding public office. Yes, the law was overturned by Federal courts, but there should never have been a question to begin with. And of course, the taxpayers had to pay for the costs of getting things straightened out. But since the churches do not pay taxes, they didn't have to worry about that!

But being intolerant of all beliefs other than your own and using sophistry to attempt to demean your opponents faith in their own belief systems is surely not holding to the high principles of science you profess to follow is it?

Why not? I can ridicule those who believe in leprechauns, can't I? How about those who believe in faeries? I can even ridicule those who believe in homeopathy? Why can't I ridicule those who's superstitions include gods?

Is that what you want for America?

What I want is an American population that understands the difference between evidence and wishful thinking. I don't claim that we cannot have any religions (though the loss of them wouldn't upset me in the least.) Just keep your religion where it belongs, and stop trying to force it on everyone else.

[denuseri]

Exactly.


Wrong! "I do not believe that gods exist" = A LACK of belief in gods! NOT a belief in the lack of gods.

If you do not believe that gods exist then you must believe that they do, or you believe yourself to be unsure on the matter...which is it?

So you're claiming that atheism is a belief in the lack of belief of gods?

No, I am saying that aethesim is a belief that gods do not exist.

That makes no sense. Is the lack of belief in Santa Claus a belief system?

Just use some basic logic and I am sure you will figure it out hon.



What about the lack of belief in unicorns? Is that a belief system, too?

Yep it's perfectly acceptable to blieve that unicorns and or santa do not exist if you want too, though recently we have found evidence of how goats were made to look like them.

No, all of these are LACKS of belief. Or to be more precise, an understanding of the lack of credible evidence for the existence of those things.

In other words believeing that they do not exist. lol

And how can I have faith in atheism, since there is nothing there to have faith in?

You have faith that the things the aetheist scientists and sections of the media are telling you about it dont you? I am pretty sure you dont run out to the local mad aetheist scientiest lab and grab up a bunch of stuff to prove every scientific experiemnt ever made for yourself ...now do you? No of course not, that would be silly...instead...you have faith that what they are postulating is in fact what they are telling you. You believe them to be right.

Certainly! But in a comparative religion class, not a science class. Would you want Evolution taught during religion courses? Perhaps we can teach History during Phys Ed! How about Sex Ed during Driver's Ed? Each topic has it's place. There is no place for religion in science classes, unless you can provide scientific evidence for your religion.

No where would it be more appropriate to discuss such concepts in a classroom imho, especially since the one rose forth directly from the other via the philosophers, they should get it in history, science, math, social studies, etc etc. And not tuaght what to think, so much as how to think for themselves.

Depends on the meeting. A private club? No problem. A religious group? Be my guest. A county board of education? That's a problem. If you only permit one type of prayer you are promoting a specific religion. But how many fundamentalist Baptists, for example, would allow a Muslim prayer to open their school board meeting? Or a Pagan prayer (or whatever they use)? Why haven't we seen any voodoo priestesses giving the convocation for Congress? But if you cannot accommodate ALL faiths (or lack thereof), it is illegal to accommodate ANY!

Actually...it kinda says we must accomadate ALL!

And if the people want to have a betty davis apothieosis high priestess say her prayer instead of the one the Chatholic Priest was gomnna give, or make some sort of an arrangment for a voodoo priestess to get in on it too, thats fine...and should especially be fine for the aetheist becuase the aethiest believes that no such things as a god exist to begin with...so whats wrong with someone praying regardless of where or when?

Recently there was an election in Delaware, I believe (I can't find a link to the story, sorry) in which an atheist WAS elected. Local Christian groups dragged up an old state law which prohibited atheists from holding public office. Yes, the law was overturned by Federal courts, but there should never have been a question to begin with. And of course, the taxpayers had to pay for the costs of getting things straightened out. But since the churches do not pay taxes, they didn't have to worry about that!

See democracy and tolerance can work together!

Why not? I can ridicule those who believe in leprechauns, can't I? How about those who believe in faeries? I can even ridicule those who believe in homeopathy? Why can't I ridicule those who's superstitions include gods?

You do ridicule people all the time sugar...thats not in dispute here.

I was just saying that resorting to such sophistry when you also claim to have science and its Socratic principles on your side isnt helping your argument.

If anything it makes you look just like the people your making a claim against, even worse when they dont resort to mud slinging of the same kind to make their own points.

What I want is an American population that understands the difference between evidence and wishful thinking. I don't claim that we cannot have any religions (though the loss of them wouldn't upset me in the least.) Just keep your religion where it belongs, and stop trying to force it on everyone else.

So you wish to get rid of freedom of speach then?

Or just restrict it further than the founding fathers intended?

Will aetheist beliefs also be rendered equally proscripted and made illegal to be exoused in all of the same places?

[MMI]

It was always my view of science that, if it could not prove something, then it had no comment to make, not that it rejected and denied that thing absolutely. Science is perfectly happy to allow things to be posited without proof; it just won't accept them as fact.

If I am right, then science does not deny the existence of god - it simply has nothing to say about it one way or the other, and that is the end of the matter.


If someone denies the existence of god, that is his belief. If he denies it on scientific grounds, he must prove his assertion scientifically. If he can do that, then it will be a scientific fact that there is no god.

If it is objected that one can't prove a negative (there is no god), then prove that the existence of god is a scientific impossibility (there can be no god).


As for the book burning issue - remember that? - we do see Moslem fanatics desecrating Christian and Jewish places of worship, and I expect they would happily burn the Bible. Those Moslems are behaving in exactly the same way as Pastor Jones and his crew: fanatically, in a way each side would characterise of the other as evil and satanic. Such behaviour is deliberately provocative, and a violent reaction is the least they are hoping for. It is neither Christian nor Moslem. That is why I say the book-burners are equally responsible for the deaths caused in the subsequent protest riots as the rioters, because those deaths were within their contemplation (or should have been) as they set light to the sacred documents they despise.

Is book-burning an expression of free speech? To my way of thinking, that is a perverse argument - it is the very opposite, the suppression of ideas, knowledge and free thought, and the great irony is that the perpetrators of these oppressive acts espouse freedom and equality as if they are the sole guardians of such precious liberties.

[thir]

That's not quite it. If it cannot be measured, cannot be touched, cannot be seen, and does not appear to have any measurable effects on the universe around us, then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist.

Like for instance gravity used to be, x-rays used to be, many bacteria and virus used to be, black stuff, and so on. Many many things.

Our whole history of science is one of keeping discovering things, species articles, vira and what not we did not know existed. But they were there all the time, even if we did not know it.

I think it is a narrow and - speciescentric? - way of seeing things: If we cannot measure it, it isn't there.

Even if it does exist, if it has no effects upon us, then it might as well not exist.

Isn't that a quite narrow and uncurious way of seeing things?

That doesn't mean that sometime down the road we won't develop a means to detect it, if it's there. And if we should do so we would certainly have to revise our hypotheses about the existence of gods. As would the religious.
<snip>
If humanity manages to survive long enough, who knows what is possible?

What is very likely is that as long as we funtion the way we do now, we'll keep finding new things about our world we did not know.

most of what I've read indicates that if the patient KNOWS it is a placebo it's unlikely to work.

Surprisingly, this is not so: "However, placebos can also have a surprisingly positive effect on a patient who knows that the given treatment is without any active drug, as compared with a control group who knowingly did not get a placebo.[4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

Most of the benefits from the placebo effect (as I understand it) seem to allow the body to relax, relieving stress, and letting the natural systems work to their full potential. Very similar to the effects of prayer, I believe.

Actually, noone knows how placebo works. and it has puzzled reserachers for awhile. Theories abound, but noone can prove how it works

And science will help us repair the damage we've done, if we allow it. Of course that would require sacrifice from everyone, something which is not likely to happen voluntarily.

I read your words almost as if 'science' is some independent force that can be of assistence. But science is inseperateble from the society in which it works, and nowadays sciene has one purpose, and one purpose only: to make money.

General reserach which is the kind that really finds out new things is almot non-existent, because it does not immidiately mean profit.

Add to that the idea that 'search for knowledge' justifies any means to that end, and you have a very bad situation. That is a holy cow that needs slaughtering, and sommon sense - as of neccesity seperated from profit - kicking in instead.

What is it with this idea that 'progress' is enevitable, that all new stuff must neccesarily be better than the previous, that we are 'gong forward'?

I think it has to do with Darwin, and the idea that 'evolution' equal 'preogress' or getting better, when what is acutaly means is arbitary change which sometimes turns out to be benificial, sometimes not, and something else takes over.

I think it is time to start thinking about what we actually need, and what we should not have or do, to control what happens with us and the globe instead of running along with all possible speed - blindfolded, because noone is interestes in anything but immediate profit.

Very true. Science is a process. The scientific method is the best tool we have to make sure that science is done properly and that results mirror reality.
Yes, scientists are people, and can be just as corrupt and dogmatic as any other people. But the method tends to expose such, eventually,

Yes, after a number of people have died, and with great difficulty.
How many scandals are still out there, which will never be revealed?

and helps to insure that progress marches on.

Will you define for me excatly what you mean by 'progress', and why it is enevitable?

Sometimes there are steps backwards, and mostly the forward steps are baby steps, but the general movement is towards a better understanding of reality.

I so wish science was all about a better understanding of reality. But it is only about one thing: MONEY.

[thir]

[B][COLOR="pink"]Why is it a aethiest would be threatened if a few people start a meeting of any kind with a prayer if they choose?

I'd like to step in here, but this is something that I feel strongly about.
I would not feel threathened, but I would be very angry to be forced to participate in a prayer I do not want to participate. I felt like that before, and I feel it even more now, because I would be forced into a prayer in a faith I do not belong to. Let these people do their prayers before the meeting, and leaves others alone.

But being intolerant of all beliefs other than your own and using sophistry to attempt to demean your opponents faith in their own belief systems is surely not holding to the high principles of science you profess to follow is it?

I cannot see how not wanting to be forced into the prayers of others is being intolerant it it the faith forcing itself on others.

To me the tolerance is where you leave others be, with what they do or do not believe in, in the puclic space, and in their jobs.

[Thorne]

If you do not believe that gods exist then you must believe that they do, or you believe yourself to be unsure on the matter...which is it?

This makes absolutely no sense. I do not believe in Santa Claus, therefore I must believe in him?

I think the basic problem here, as with most theists, is that they cannot comprehend the possibility that people CAN exist without a belief system. Just as I, an atheist, can't understand why people would WANT to believe in invisible, intangible beings, they cannot understand why I DON'T believe in them. 'Nuff said about that.

You have faith that the things the aetheist scientists and sections of the media are telling you about it dont you? ...you have faith that what they are postulating is in fact what they are telling you. You believe them to be right.

You call it belief. I call it trust. That is, I trust SOME scientists, those who have shown themselves to be worthy of such trust. I do not automatically trust ALL scientists, since scientists are people too, and people make mistakes, and people can be fooled, even by themselves.

The best example I can come up with is the Climate Change controversy. When this hypothesis was first put forward I was skeptical. Mainly because I did NOT trust those most vocal about it (Al Gore, primarily). But over the years I've seen enough evidence presented, seen enough opinions by scientists whose opinions I DO trust, to convince me that climate change is occurring, and the Earth is getting warmer. It's not a belief system, but an understanding of the evidence. And an understanding of the scientific method which has validated that evidence.

No where would it be more appropriate to discuss such concepts in a classroom imho, especially since the one rose forth directly from the other via the philosophers, they should get it in history, science, math, social studies, etc etc. And not tuaght what to think, so much as how to think for themselves.

Ah yes, let's let them think for themselves. A popular myth of theists, who generally do NOT want anyone to think for themselves, unless that thinking falls in with dogma. See this video to see how Creationists promote critical thinking! Then tell me that this kind of nonsense should be taught in biology class, or geology class, or history class.

Certainly religious organizations have contributed to the advancement of science in the past, and those contributions should be recognized. Every science course should include at least some study of the history of that science. Including the effects, both positive and negative, of religion upon that science. But claiming, for example, that Creationism is just as valid a scientific theory as Evolution, and should be taught as such in classes, is just silly!

So you wish to get rid of freedom of speach then?

Where have I said that? If anything, I am a proponent of free speech. For ALL, not just for theists.

Or just restrict it further than the founding fathers intended?

No, more like bring us back closer to the kind of secular government which the founding fathers DID intend. Freedom OF religion also implies freedom FROM religion.

[Thorne]

It was always my view of science that, if it could not prove something, then it had no comment to make, not that it rejected and denied that thing absolutely. Science is perfectly happy to allow things to be posited without proof; it just won't accept them as fact.

And I have not denied anything absolutely. I have stated repeatedly that evidence for gods does NOT exist, and that there is no need to assume that they do just because some people want to believe in them.

If I am right, then science does not deny the existence of god - it simply has nothing to say about it one way or the other, and that is the end of the matter.

Exactly my point! Except to say that many of the things which were once presumed to be actions of gods have been explained as natural processes, ones which do not require the assumption of a god to occur. Lightning, volcanoes, earthquakes were all once thought to be manifestations of the gods. We now understand the natural forces which cause these phenomena much better, and nowhere do we require the actions of a god for them.

If it is objected that one can't prove a negative (there is no god), then prove that the existence of god is a scientific impossibility (there can be no god).

I read a book, called "God: The Failed Hypothesis" which, while it does not prove that gods cannot exist, makes a pretty good argument that the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God, Yahweh or Jehovah, cannot exist as defined by those beliefs. But you are right, there is no proof that gods do not exist, just as there is no proof that they do. There is also no proof that comets are not messengers of the gods, sent to warn us of impending doom. There's just no reason to believe that they are.

That is why I say the book-burners are equally responsible for the deaths caused in the subsequent protest riots as the rioters, because those deaths were within their contemplation (or should have been) as they set light to the sacred documents they despise.

I don't know about how equal the responsibility should be, but I do agree that they are at least somewhat responsible. Here in the US, the law says that anyone participating in a felony is equally responsible for anything which happens during the commission of that felony. Fortunately, book burning is NOT a felony, but knowingly inciting someone to murder is.

The more important issue here, though, is that too many people around the world are kowtowing to the Muslim fanatics out of fear of reprisals. The reaction to this book burning is far in excess of the act itself. Killing innocent people because their religion was insulted? That is just insane! And such insanity needs to be stopped.

Is book-burning an expression of free speech? To my way of thinking, that is a perverse argument - it is the very opposite, the suppression of ideas, knowledge and free thought, and the great irony is that the perpetrators of these oppressive acts espouse freedom and equality as if they are the sole guardians of such precious liberties.

Like many other actions, a lot depends upon the context. Were these burners attempting to destroy all existing copies of the Koran? No, that's absurd. Were they trying to prevent people from reading the book? Nope. Were they making a statement about the followers of that book? Yes, they were. That, therefore, is free speech. We may not like what they are saying, but they do have the right to say it. At least in the US they do. Personally, I think they need to go one step further. They should buy several copies of the Koran and burn them in the central square of Mecca. Then let the chips fall where they may.

[Thorne]

Like for instance gravity used to be, x-rays used to be, many bacteria and virus used to be, black stuff, and so on. Many many things.

There is a difference, though. The EFFECTS of gravity, viruses (virii?) etc. could be seen, or touched, or measured. How do we measure the effects of God?

Our whole history of science is one of keeping discovering things, species articles, vira and what not we did not know existed. But they were there all the time, even if we did not know it.

Yes, which is why we cannot absolutely say that something does not exist, only that we do not YET have evidence for its existence.

I think it is a narrow and - speciescentric? - way of seeing things: If we cannot measure it, it isn't there.

True. But if we not only cannot measure it, but cannot see any effects of it?

Isn't that a quite narrow and uncurious way of seeing things?

In this case, we have been searching for those effects, and that evidence for thousands of years. People, including reputable scientists, are STILL searching for evidence of gods. That does not imply a lack of curiosity, does it?

What is very likely is that as long as we funtion the way we do now, we'll keep finding new things about our world we did not know.

I agree.

Actually, noone knows how placebo works. and it has puzzled reserachers for awhile. Theories abound, but noone can prove how it works

Kinda sounds like prayer. Which is fitting, since religion in general, and prayer in particular, do seem to act very similarly to a placebo.

I read your words almost as if 'science' is some independent force that can be of assistence. But science is inseperateble from the society in which it works, and nowadays sciene has one purpose, and one purpose only: to make money.

I know a lot of scientists who would love to see some of that money!

General reserach which is the kind that really finds out new things is almot non-existent, because it does not immidiately mean profit.

Partly true. More accurate is that such research has become prohibitively expensive, as the cost of equipment soars. But I would ask you, where is the profit in sending rovers to Mars? Where is the profit in the Galileo probe at Jupiter, or any of the vast number of other missions probing our universe? In fact, it's the very LACK of profit that has the anti-science types protesting about the money invested in space research.

Add to that the idea that 'search for knowledge' justifies any means to that end, and you have a very bad situation.

Very bad indeed. And just where do you see that happening?

What is it with this idea that 'progress' is enevitable, that all new stuff must neccesarily be better than the previous, that we are 'gong forward'?

Since we cannot (as yet) go backward in time, we are always moving forward. Whether or not such movement is better or worse is generally a matter for the historians to solve. Change is usually chaotic, and an be downright painful, even when it is for the benefit of all.

I think it has to do with Darwin, and the idea that 'evolution' equal 'preogress' or getting better, when what is acutaly means is arbitary change which sometimes turns out to be benificial, sometimes not, and something else takes over.

Darwin never implied that evolution was always moving forward. Evolution is a slow, natural process with many side branches and reversions. Sometimes species decline and go extinct, sometimes they evolve into other species. Tracing back the evolution of humanity we tend to assume that we are at a pinnacle, but that is just hubris. There is still more evolution to come, even for humans, and only future species will be able to determine whether we were a successful evolutionary branch or just another failed twig.

Yes, after a number of people have died, and with great difficulty.
How many scandals are still out there, which will never be revealed?

Once again, scientists are people, just like politicians and priests. All we can say is that scientists, in general, are trying to find the truth, objective truth. Sometimes they fail, sometimes they succeed. Politicians and priests, however...

Will you define for me excatly what you mean by 'progress', and why it is enevitable?

In this context I mean the search for reality. Progress means learning more about the way the world, the universe, actually works. And it is NOT inevitable. As long as we continue to study and to learn, we can hope to make progress. Everyone may not be happy with this progress, but to my mind it is better to understand the truth (reality) of how things work than not. And this is my biggest problem with dogmatic religions. They would have us stop the search, put away our telescopes and test tubes, and just accept that "God Did It".

I so wish science was all about a better understanding of reality. But it is only about one thing: MONEY.

Again, I know many scientists who would like to see some of that money.

And if you can accomplish ANYTHING in this life WITHOUT money, I'd like to know what it is. In my experience, without money you don't eat, you don't wear clothes, you don't travel. You die.

[TantricSoul]

Do you sometimes find yourself wishing the stories over at The Onion were true?

http://www.theonion.com/articles/us-...ntalist,19947/

[MMI]

Do I? LOL, yes, I do.

[Thorne]

Do you sometimes find yourself wishing the stories over at The Onion were true?

GASP! You mean they're NOT?

[MMI]

And I have not denied anything absolutely. I have stated repeatedly that evidence for gods does NOT exist, and that there is no need to assume that they do just because some people want to believe in them.

I'm not really attacking you on this one, Thorne. I'm on your side, but less vehement in my denial and less contemptuous (seemingly) of those who do believe. We are, after all, talking about nothing.

I read a book, called "God: The Failed Hypothesis" which, while it does not prove that gods cannot exist, makes a pretty good argument that the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God, Yahweh or Jehovah, cannot exist as defined by those beliefs. But you are right, there is no proof that gods do not exist, just as there is no proof that they do. There is also no proof that comets are not messengers of the gods, sent to warn us of impending doom. There's just no reason to believe that they are.

That's a start then. It might be necessary to debunk (scientifically, of course) each god individually, but there's nothing wrong with that.

(Pity the poor scientist who has to prove the 330 million hindu gods deities cannot exist ... maybe he'll just confine himself to proving the Supreme One cannot exist.)

I don't know about how equal the responsibility should be, but I do agree that they are at least somewhat responsible. Here in the US, the law says that anyone participating in a felony is equally responsible for anything which happens during the commission of that felony. Fortunately, book burning is NOT a felony, but knowingly inciting someone to murder is.

I imagine US law also makes people responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions and penalises the negligent or reckless disregard of those consequences

The more important issue here, though, is that too many people around the world are kowtowing to the Muslim fanatics out of fear of reprisals. The reaction to this book burning is far in excess of the act itself. Killing innocent people because their religion was insulted? That is just insane! And such insanity needs to be stopped.


Like many other actions, a lot depends upon the context. Were these burners attempting to destroy all existing copies of the Koran? No, that's absurd. Were they trying to prevent people from reading the book? Nope. Were they making a statement about the followers of that book? Yes, they were. That, therefore, is free speech. We may not like what they are saying, but they do have the right to say it. At least in the US they do. Personally, I think they need to go one step further. They should buy several copies of the Koran and burn them in the central square of Mecca. Then let the chips fall where they may.

I can't think of any instance where anyone has kowtowed to Moslem fanatics - enlighten me, please. Certainly it is wise to take steps to protect oneself against future terrorist acts by such fanatics, but that's not submission. It is also true that we make arrangements that involve arming and financing them, but that's only done to further our own interests, so I don't count that as being subservient to them in any way, either.

The real point is that Pastor Jones knew or should have known (and I believe he calculated) what the reaction to the burning of a single copy of the Koran in circumstances designed to upset any member of the Moslem faith, not just its hard-liners, and surrounded by world-wide publicity, would be; and the mock-trial that took place was a further display of contempt, just to sugar the pill. Now you and I know that it's absurd to react that way just because one's religion is insulted, but it's nonetheless a fact that otherwise sensible and moderate people see red mist in front of their eyes when matters of religion are mishandled. I know Americans value free speech rather more highly than Europeans do (although, as an aside, it is interesting to note how many Americans use European law to stifle the expression of viewpoints they find distasteful), but I'm sure it does not continue to uphold people's liberty to say what they like when such speech is likely to cause civil unrest, personal injury or death.

[Thorne]

We are, after all, talking about nothing.

It's truly a tempest in a teapot!*

That's a start then. It might be necessary to debunk (scientifically, of course) each god individually, but there's nothing wrong with that.

(Pity the poor scientist who has to prove the 330 million hindu gods deities cannot exist ... maybe he'll just confine himself to proving the Supreme One cannot exist.)

It shouldn't be at all necessary. One of the maxims of the scientific method is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone wants to make the extraordinary claim that an immortal, omniscient, omnipotent being created the universe in six days (though we're not sure why it took him so long), created men and women (though why women were needed at that point, since they weren't having sex, we don't know), placed them into a garden and told them they could have anything in that garden except that tree (Oh, now I understand why the woman was there!), then tossed them out when they ate from that tree (even though he knew they would do so even before he made the universe), then he'd better have some damned extraordinary evidence to prove his assertions. Otherwise it's not more factual than the story of Hansel and Gretel.

I imagine US law also makes people responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions and penalises the negligent or reckless disregard of those consequences

Yes it does, but while the consequences of this book burning were definitely foreseeable, they were anything but reasonable.


* (See Russell's teapot)

[thir]

We are at cross purposes in much of this. I meant to discuss science on its own terms, not compare it to religion in any way.

Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
Like for instance gravity used to be, x-rays used to be, many bacteria and virus used to be, black stuff, and so on. Many many things.
There is a difference, though. The EFFECTS of gravity, viruses (virii?) etc. could be seen, or touched, or measured. How do we measure the effects of God?

In former times nobody noticed gravity, and sickness was certainly not connected to small small beings in people's bodies. My whole point was that there was (and undoubtedly is) lots of stuff we are not researching because we haven't noticed it or thought of it yet.

Our whole history of science is one of keeping discovering things, species articles, vira and what not we did not know existed. But they were there all the time, even if we did not know it.
Yes, which is why we cannot absolutely say that something does not exist, only that we do not YET have evidence for its existence.

Actually, noone knows how placebo works. and it has puzzled reserachers for awhile. Theories abound, but noone can prove how it works
Kinda sounds like prayer. Which is fitting, since religion in general, and prayer in particular, do seem to act very similarly to a placebo.

I would not know about that. I only know there is more about mind-body connection than is researched at this point. And I think it comes from religion as culture, when body and mind was really seen as two different things.

I read your words almost as if 'science' is some independent force that can be of assistence. But science is inseperateble from the society in which it works, and nowadays sciene has one purpose, and one purpose only: to make money.
I know a lot of scientists who would love to see some of that money!

You know what I mean. That the object of research is to make money, not to increase knowledge.

Add to that the idea that 'search for knowledge' justifies any means to that end, and you have a very bad situation.
Very bad indeed. And just where do you see that happening?

Animal use in reseach. Biological warfare. Weapens.

What is it with this idea that 'progress' is enevitable, that all new stuff must neccesarily be better than the previous, that we are 'gong forward'?
Since we cannot (as yet) go backward in time, we are always moving forward. Whether or not such movement is better or worse is generally a matter for the historians to solve. Change is usually chaotic, and an be downright painful, even when it is for the benefit of all.

You used the word 'progress'. Did you mean anything by it?

Darwin never implied that evolution was always moving forward. Evolution is a slow, natural process with many side branches and reversions. Sometimes species decline and go extinct, sometimes they evolve into other species. Tracing back the evolution of humanity we tend to assume that we are at a pinnacle, but that is just hubris. There is still more evolution to come, even for humans, and only future species will be able to determine whether we were a successful evolutionary branch or just another failed twig.

Exactly so. So what is it with this 'progress'?

Yes, after a number of people have died, and with great difficulty.
How many scandals are still out there, which will never be revealed?
Once again, scientists are people, just like politicians and priests. All we can say is that scientists, in general, are trying to find the truth, objective truth. Sometimes they fail, sometimes they succeed. Politicians and priests, however...

We? You are not talking for me here. Pure science, as was done in universities mostly, is cut off, and what is left is now sponsored by industries, and guess what they want? Science is not a quest for knowledge, but for products which can make money.

You talk as is scientists are mostly paladins, pure of heart as opposed to others, mysteriously totally objective regardless of their culture and their own situation - a trick which nobody else can manage. And what about what use their science is meant for? Do they have nothing to do with that?

Will you define for me excatly what you mean by 'progress', and why it is enevitable?

In this context I mean the search for reality. Progress means learning more about the way the world, the universe, actually works. And it is NOT inevitable. As long as we continue to study and to learn, we can hope to make progress. Everyone may not be happy with this progress, but to my mind it is better to understand the truth (reality) of how things work than not.

So do you think we need to know more about biological warfare, for instance?
Or do you claim that all science is really useful?
In my opinion science is misused so much we really have to stop and use common sense instead of claiming that quest for knowledge is a holy cow noone may touch or even discuss.

And this is my biggest problem with dogmatic religions. They would have us stop the search, put away our telescopes and test tubes, and just accept that "God Did It".

True.
The biggest problem with dogmatic religions is that they cannot and will not keep it to themselves and let others be!

And if you can accomplish ANYTHING in this life WITHOUT money, I'd like to know what it is. In my experience, without money you don't eat, you don't wear clothes, you don't travel. You die

Money is power, not just survival. And there are power mongers out there who wants to control everything.

[thir]

Freedom OF religion also implies freedom FROM religion.

Absolutely!

How about freedom of speech? Does it also contain freedom from speech, meaning you cannot create situations that force people to listen?

[leo9]

Why is it a aethiest would be threatened if a few people start a meeting of any kind with a prayer if they choose?

Look at it this way: would you object to people starting a meeting with the traditional Jewish prayer "I thank God for not having made me a woman"?

Or with a collective assertion of belief in Marxism and the eventual triumph of the Communist Party? Or with a declaration that Scientology is the only true way and this meeting will be conducted in accordance with the principles of Dianetics?

The point is, a prayer is an assertion of a belief system. If you happen to disagree with that belief system - and, moreover, you live in a country where it is constitutionally mandated that government should not be bound by any one belief system - are you not entitled to object to someone implicitly dedicating the proceedings to their chosen belief system?

[leo9]

The real point is that Pastor Jones knew or should have known (and I believe he calculated) what the reaction to the burning of a single copy of the Koran in circumstances designed to upset any member of the Moslem faith, not just its hard-liners, and surrounded by world-wide publicity, would be; and the mock-trial that took place was a further display of contempt, just to sugar the pill. Now you and I know that it's absurd to react that way just because one's religion is insulted, but it's nonetheless a fact that otherwise sensible and moderate people see red mist in front of their eyes when matters of religion are mishandled.

As I've noted before, if I were to ceremoniously and with great publicity burn a Bible in Pastor Jones' parish, I doubt if all his followers would politely agree to respect my right of free speech.

This is also a fine example of the way enemies co-operate to stir up a war. Despite his best efforts, Jones would probably have failed to cause an incident if Hamid Karzai hadn't helped him along by shouting outrage over Afghan radio. (This is why it took so long for the riots to happen.) Which incidentally shows that whatever other kind of rogue and fool he is, Karzai is no Western puppet: his US minders would certainly have stopped him if they could.

I know Americans value free speech rather more highly than Europeans do (although, as an aside, it is interesting to note how many Americans use European law to stifle the expression of viewpoints they find distasteful), but I'm sure it does not continue to uphold people's liberty to say what they like when such speech is likely to cause civil unrest, personal injury or death.

It's a judgement call, figuratively and literally, and one that gets regularly tested in the courts both here and in the US. An episode of "Law and Order" broadcast on our networks recently dealt with the dilemma where a US Nazi had been making speeches telling his followers to kill gays, and one of them did: could the leader be indited for murder, given that he hadn't named the actual victim, and should they try, given the implications for free speech?

[leo9]

If I am right, then science does not deny the existence of god - it simply has nothing to say about it one way or the other, and that is the end of the matter.

Science has nothing to say about any assertion that can't be tested. That's why scientists have no quarrel with mainstream religions, which long ago gave up making claims about material things, but are head to head with those, like creationists, who assert that their religion requires that certain material things which science denies must be true, such as that the world and everything on it were created a few thousand years ago.

If someone denies the existence of god, that is his belief. If he denies it on scientific grounds, he must prove his assertion scientifically. If he can do that, then it will be a scientific fact that there is no god.

If it is objected that one can't prove a negative (there is no god), then prove that the existence of god is a scientific impossibility (there can be no god).

That is still proving a negative, and still impossible by definition. The only thing one can prove is that certain things that are claimed as evidence for god - miraculous cures, evidence of creation etc. - can be adequately explained within the existing framework of science.

[Snark]

Belief in "science" only can result in the same blind devotion to a particular adherent's views as any religion. The Anthropomorphic Global Warming crowd has blindly fallen in behind a group of "researchers" using primarily computer models to "prove" agw. Why? Follow the money. Money and power are the things behind most of the distress caused by religions. Blind followers of these religious leaders fall for the dogmatic rationale espoused to garner support. The Inquisition comes to mind, as does the rise of Mohammad. I was raised Lutheran as well (LCA) and left the church for many years after studying Christian history and theology and then comparing it to the actions of the synod. I still have some serious disagreements, but I am back within the faith now...with reservations. There is little in the Bible that support the odious actions that many of the religious leaders (great and minor) have instigated. The Quran, on the other hand does specifically and explicitly require adherents to perform atrocities against all non-believers. In both cases it is the ACTIONS of the INDIVIDUALS that should be held to account.

[Thorne]

In former times nobody noticed gravity, and sickness was certainly not connected to small small beings in people's bodies. My whole point was that there was (and undoubtedly is) lots of stuff we are not researching because we haven't noticed it or thought of it yet.

How do you NOT notice gravity? What goes up, comes back down. You may not know why, may not even know how to measure it, but you know it happens. Yes, people take it for granted, but the effects are still seen. Same with sickness. Whether they knew what caused it or not, the effects of sickness were known, seen, showing its presence to everyone.

Still, it can be true that there are things we haven't noticed yet, because they have no effect on us. They don't interact with the world as we know it. This does not, however, mean they are gods, or that there are gods at all. Just things we don't know. Yet.

I only know there is more about mind-body connection than is researched at this point. And I think it comes from religion as culture, when body and mind was really seen as two different things.

Such as? I mean, if you know there is more you must have some idea of what they're missing. As far as I have been able to determine, if there's something real happening, they're researching it somewhere. Out of body experiences? They have, and are, researching. Near death experiences? They have, and still are, researching. But even if we could accept some of these mind-body connections you mention, how are they evidence for gods? Just because we don't understand something does not mean gods are responsible. All it means is that we don't know!

the object of research is to make money, not to increase knowledge.

That's a rather simplistic view. Yes, the HOPE of some who fund research is to learn new ways to make money. But not all, not by a long shot. And it's not a guarantee, either. Sometimes the results of research are negative, which is still good for science and knowledge, but not so much for making money.

Animal use in reseach. Biological warfare. Weapens.

I have personally benefited from the results of animal use in research. Chances are almost anyone who has taken medicine of any kind has benefited from such research. If it ultimately saves human lives I don't care how many lab rats and rhesus monkeys have to die. And having worked for a company which used lab rats in its research, I can tell you that some of those who work with them struggle with what has to be done every day.

As for biological weapons, or any weapons, yes, the ultimate aim is to find more efficient ways of killing people. Blame your elected officials, not the scientists they hire to make the weapons.

You used the word 'progress'. Did you mean anything by it?

Yes, I meant it in the context of moving forward, advancing our understanding. It's not necessarily good or bad, just a general movement towards more understanding.

We? You are not talking for me here. Pure science, as was done in universities mostly, is cut off, and what is left is now sponsored by industries, and guess what they want? Science is not a quest for knowledge, but for products which can make money.

Again I disagree. And again I point to the science going on right now in space. We are gaining vast amounts of information and understanding of our universe, with no prospects of financial gain at all. What of those studying earthquakes and volcanoes. Where's the profit there? Or weather. Or anthropology. Or any number of other sciences. And universities are still doing pure research. It's just that so much of it involves things which have very little connection to our daily lives that we seldom hear about it.

True, industries use scientific research to find new ways to make money. So what? That's what they're in business for. Why is it wrong for them to make money?

You talk as is scientists are mostly paladins, pure of heart as opposed to others, mysteriously totally objective regardless of their culture and their own situation - a trick which nobody else can manage. And what about what use their science is meant for? Do they have nothing to do with that?

LOL! No, scientists are no more noble than anyone else. They're not necessarily smarter than everyone else. Except possibly in their field of study. And the uses their science is meant for is not necessarily the uses to which they are put. Einstein did not develop his theory of relativity so that other scientists could make atomic weapons. Alfred Nobel did not develop dynamite so that it could be used to kill soldiers. Others took that knowledge and perverted it, if you will. Some of those others were scientists. Some were soldiers. Some were politicians. It takes ALL kinds.

In my opinion science is misused so much we really have to stop and use common sense instead of claiming that quest for knowledge is a holy cow noone may touch or even discuss.

And whose common sense shall we use? Shall we accept the "common sense" of some religious people who claim that women should be persecuted for the sin of Eve? Shall we use the "common sense" of those who feel that Africans are inherently inferior and not good for anything but slave labor? There is nothing so uncommon as common sense.

Ideally, science is the search for truth. Objective truth. Yes, it can be perverted. Yes, it can be dangerous. Like any other human activity, science is far from infallible. But it is a far better method of determining how things really work than any other endeavor to date.

Money is power, not just survival. And there are power mongers out there who wants to control everything.

Yes, there are, and they will use any means possible, including science and religion and the media, to get and maintain that control. In fact, religion has long been the best means of controlling a population. And getting money from them. Why aren't you complaining about that?

How about freedom of speech? Does it also contain freedom from speech, meaning you cannot create situations that force people to listen?

I would have to say yes!

[Thorne]

Belief in "science" only can result in the same blind devotion to a particular adherent's views as any religion.

One of the problems with the English language is that there are different ways to interpret belief. You can "believe" something is true, even without evidence. Or you can "believe" something is true BECAUSE of the evidence. In religions belief tends to be absolute ("there is a god, and he is good") despite the lack of evidence. (However, check into the status of Limbo and Purgatory: they've changed what they believe about them, haven't they?) In science belief tends to be more tentative (this theory explains how gravity works, and all the evidence to date agrees with it, so we believe this theory is accurate). The difference is that, should evidence come along which contradicts that theory it will have to be modified or discarded to account for that new evidence. In religion, where we have no evidence to begin with, any evidence which contradicts the belief system is automatically wrong.

So when I say I believe in evolution, I'm really saying that, as far as I can understand it, the evidence FOR evolution is strong, and scientists I have come to trust can explain the processes of evolution far better than I can. However, if someone should come up with clear evidence that humanity was created by a supernatural being 6000 years ago, and have clear evidence to explain away all the evidence FOR evolution, AND that evidence can be seen, measured and tested by other scientists, who come up with the same results, then I would have to change my position. Saying "God did it because the Bible says he did it, and the Bible is the inerrant word of God because God tells us it is, in the Bible" is NOT evidence.

The Anthropomorphic Global Warming crowd has blindly fallen in behind a group of "researchers" using primarily computer models to "prove" agw. Why? Follow the money.

And I counter that by saying, follow the money to those who are denying AGW, or even denying global warming itself. You'll find they have far more to gain from denying AGW than those "researchers" who are studying it.

And those computer models don't necessarily prove AGW. They take the available data and show us what is happening, and they use available information to predict where the current trends are going. Those researchers themselves will tell you it is not an exact science, by any means. But many different programs, using many different sets of data, are all pointing in the same direction. And it is not just a single group of researchers, but many different groups, studying many different areas of climate science, all coming up with similar results. And it has become very clear that there is a very strong correlation between rising global temperatures and rising levels of greenhouse pollutants from human activity. It is the study of how those greenhouse gases work, and the amounts of them we are dumping into the atmosphere, which suggests very strongly that the correlation is indicative of causation. It's like doing an autopsy on a man who has been shot in the head and finding out that he had a massive heart attack at about the time of death, and that he was also in the end stages of lung cancer. What really killed him?

[MMI]

That is still proving a negative, and still impossible by definition. The only thing one can prove is that certain things that are claimed as evidence for god - miraculous cures, evidence of creation etc. - can be adequately explained within the existing framework of science.

Possibly so, but that's because of my inability to express my ideas coherently. What I had in mind was that people who deny god on scientific grounds, if they cannot prove he does not exist, should set out the scientific requirements for the existence of god. They can then say it is only possible for gods to exist where those conditions prevail, and it can be safely assumed that there is no god anywhere else, because science would preclude that. If it can be demonstrated that the required conditions do not exist anywhere, then it can be inferred there can be no god.

As for teapots, if it is established convention that there is a tiny teapot orbiting the sun, and this is truly believed by the majority, then it is for doubters to prove their case.

[Snark]

This is not to hijack a thread. BUT! The dollars and power (especially the power and that will equal money) at risk for those promoting AGW is far greater than the reward of not going for it, i.e. none. After all, the numerous ice ages in the past billion years and their recovery were obviously caused my men. Had to be. Otherwise, what caused them? Certainly the atmosphere has a greater impact on the oceans than vice-versa. Right? Oh, the data is suddenly unavailable. Whoops, sorry! My point, however is that ANY blind devotion to dogma, whether called science, religion, or basketball, can result in it's being manipulated by those with a desire for money/power; they will use the devoted to accomplish their ends. There is nothing that I have found in the Christian bible that requires retribution for burning it, likewise the Quaran. According to the translations I have researched, ONLY a Quaran written in Arabic is in fact genuine. Even if the book burned in Florida was genuine, it wasn't against the law in Afghanistan to do it there, either. So the crowds were stirred up for...what? To demonstrate how gullible such people are? To demonstrate the personal power some Imans have? To sacrifice innocents simply to draw attention to an event that had been ignored? How many people were aware that the event had happened before the posting on YouTube stirred up the Afghan mullahs? This is another attempt (so far somewhat successful) of muslim leaders to influence our country by shedding innocent blood. But their "religion" supports the shedding of blood, infidel or believer, if it can result in a gaining of power by the faithful.

[Thorne]

people who deny god on scientific grounds, if they cannot prove he does not exist, should set out the scientific requirements for the existence of god.

Why? Those parameters are already in existence, put forth by the theists. It's up to them to prove their case, not up to scientists to prove them wrong.

They can then say it is only possible for gods to exist where those conditions prevail, and it can be safely assumed that there is no god anywhere else, because science would preclude that.

And how can they do that without knowing the conditions in which gods could exist? And you cannot know that unless you know that there are gods in the first place. It would be like trying to establish an environment that's conducive to raising unicorns, without knowing anything about unicorns in the first place. It cannot be done. It's up to the Unicornists to show proof that these creatures exist.

If it can be demonstrated that the required conditions do not exist anywhere, then it can be inferred there can be no god.

Anywhere? Even places which we cannot see? Or measure? Like maybe between the universes? Or in the infinite time before the creation of the universe? Again, there's no way to absolutely say these hypothetical conditions do not, or can not, exist anywhere, any more than we can prove that gods, or unicorns, do not exist.

As for teapots, if it is established convention that there is a tiny teapot orbiting the sun, and this is truly believed by the majority, then it is for doubters to prove their case.

But first the majority would have to prove their case, not just base everything on an unprovable assertion. That's the point of atheism, after all. Theists are in the majority and asserting the existence of their multiple gods, without any evidence, and expecting non-believers to prove something which is ultimately unprovable. Show me the evidence for gods and then we can study that evidence and try to determine if it is truly evidence for supernatural beings or perhaps evidence of a much more advanced, but natural, race of beings. Just remember Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

[denuseri]

Look at it this way: would you object to people starting a meeting with the traditional Jewish prayer "I thank God for not having made me a woman"?

No, I have no issues with other jews praying, though I am very unfamiliar with the paticular prayer your talking about.

Or with a collective assertion of belief in Marxism and the eventual triumph of the Communist Party?

An actual pledge or assertion of belief and having a silent time for prayer before an event or meeting where each can pray in their own way to thier own gods are two very different things.

Or with a declaration that Scientology is the only true way and this meeting will be conducted in accordance with the principles of Dianetics?

Again what your proposing is very different from what happens when people are accepting of others faith's in addition to their own. A time for non-denominational prayer before a meeting or event is not a declaration of any one faith or belief system over another.

The point is, a prayer is an assertion of a belief system.

No the point of prayer is to communicate to one's god or gods. An Oath or a confession of one's faith via utterance of the "Apostle's Creed" for example are assertions of belief.

If you happen to disagree with that belief system - and, moreover, you live in a country where it is constitutionally mandated that government should not be bound by any one belief system - are you not entitled to object to someone implicitly dedicating the proceedings to their chosen belief system?

Freedom of speech means one can object until they are blue in the face, but it doesnt mean one can disrupt the proceedings of a local assembly of people or infringe on their rights to the same. If the individuals present at any meeting wish to pray they will anyways.

Again having a moment of prayer where each individual can pray to their god is not a "dedication" or an assertion of faith or any kind of branding whatsoever.

[Thorne]

Again having a moment of prayer where each individual can pray to their god is not a "dedication" or an assertion of faith or any kind of branding whatsoever.

But what we are talking about here is NOT just a "moment of silence" but the actual recitation of a prayer at the start of an official meeting. These are very seldom 'non-denominational", but even if they were they are illegal since they still single out non-believers. If you honestly believe, as you have repeatedly stated, that atheism is a religion then you would have to agree that saying ANY prayers to ANY gods is a slap in the face to atheists.

And we're not talking about private groups here, but official government agencies. Private groups can do whatever they please. Anyone who doesn't like it can leave the group and start one of their own. But people can't just up and start their own board of education, for example.