That's change I can believe in.

Sneaky: Current credit bailout bill contains carbon tax provisions!
2

10

2008
If you look at page 180 of the 451-page monster bailout bill that easily passed the Senate yesterday (PDF here), you will see that it includes at Section 116 language about the tax treatment of "industrial source carbon dioxide." It also provides, at Section 117, for a "carbon audit of the tax code."

What could a provision about the tax treatment of "industrial source carbon dioxide" and another provision about doing a "carbon audit" of the tax code possibly have to do with restoring confidence in Wall Street's troubled credit and banking markets?

The answer: NOTHING.

This appears to be an attempt by global warming alarmists to lay the foundation for a carbon tax in the middle of another crisis, hoping nobody will notice.

That's change I can believe in.

I want to believe. I will remain skeptical until I have proof.

If Obama is true to a word, which remains to be seen, his esteem for science will carry this country into the future. The last 8 years of mixing religious superstition and republican political bullshittery has brought us closer to the dark ages. I hope he does not attempt to disguise his political agendas by hijacking science to legitimize them. Otherwise we will have a secular counterpart to conservatives, who mask their political agendas as religion. Science must exist beyond the meddling of politicians if it is to accomplish its goals.

Survival without the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights means NUTTING Buffoon_Boob. Take a 100 lashes of a car antenna and don't call me in the morning!

Ah gee that wasn't nice of me was it? Enjoying your single digit Global Warming in Ohio Boob?

Science is an amoral system. It could be nothing else. "Science" will save nothing. People might, if they have values that permit that.

Science has been a bad word in this administration.

Gobama!

Science is an amoral system. It could be nothing else. "Science" will save nothing. People might, if they have values that permit that.

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2008-12-21 05:24 PM | Reply | Flag: Has no clue about science, but it scares him because invisible sky being says so.

my dear mr johnson, during the campaign Obama was outdrawing McCain crowds by 10 to 1, so the McCain staff created an attack of "pop star" and "messiah" crap in an attempt to diminish the effect of Obama's audience advantage. worked well with the losing wingnuts, the campaign is over, so you can knock off the messiah crap, it only worked among the ignorant!

try to keep up will you!

Christians respond with glee, as scientists' and inventors' ranks are full of Christians.

Here are a few inventors/founders of branches of scientific research and innovation:
Joseph Lister. Antiseptic surgery
Louis Pasteur. Bacteriology
Isaac Newton. Calculus, Dynamics
Johannes Kepler. Celestial Mechanics (Astronomy)
Robert Boyle. Chemistry, Gas dynamics
Georges Cuvier. Comparative Anatomy
Charles Babbage. Computer science
Lord Rayleigh. Dimensional analysis, model analysis
John Ambrose Fleming. Electronics
James Clerk Maxwell. Electrodynamics
Michael Faraday. Electromagnetics, field theory
Lord Kelvin. Energetics
Henri Fabre. Entomology
George Stokes. Fluid Mechanics
Sir William Herschel. Galactic Astronomy
Gregor Mendel. Genetics
Louis Agassiz. Glacial geology, Icthyology
James Simpson. Gynecology
Matthew Maury. Hydrography, Oceanography
Blaise Pascal. Hydrostatistics
William Ramsey. Isotopic chemistry
John Ray. Natural history
Bernard Riemann. Non-Euclidian Geometry
David Brewster. Optical Mineralogy

Also, the inventor of the scientific method was Francis Bacon
"There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power."

We only protest when "science" starts sucking brains out of babies that are inconveniently conceived, or when there are forced sterilizations, or when our old are "offed" to save a few dollars.

Or when they develop weapons that can kill millions in an instant, or develop machines that poison our skies, or produce toxins that poion our water, or create food that causes cancer, or.....

"Has no clue about science...."

I have enough knowledge to know science has served nazis as well as it's served any person you might like.

It's just a system of decision-rules. Amoral and uncaring. Like anything that has no thought or feelings.

That was kind of an insight there, Kirk.

Science doesn't have anything to do with any of that. That those on the "right" think so makes their objection to Science understandable. Still wrong, but understandable. If you start with a faulty premise, I guess it's fair to expect a faulty conclusion.

Garbage in, garbage out.

None the less interesting into a different perspective, however.

Yeah he's learned a lot since reading Waldon's Pond and applying that science to all of the major flaws in the human genome; all flaws finding refuge in that weakest link of the human race- The liberal democrat.

Zed, stop confusing the application of Science to Science itself. It's stupid. We can certainly go down the road of how "God" and "Religion" have been used just as apprehensively.

There is no science apart from it's application. Like a car. Or an eggbeater.

"McCain staff created an attack of "pop star" and "messiah" crap in an attempt to diminish the effect of Obama's audience" #10 | Posted by VMA224

No. McCain only used what the press and Obama, himself, created. Once the press started worshiping Obama, he fell into the "You love me, you really love me" mantra. Without the Democrats in the press working as hard as they did (Yes they compared Obama to the Messiah) to prop him up, Obama would have never been elected. Look back at the articles and the photos the press used. Change.gov is not a legal government site. Someone (Pick a decision making Democrat) wrote a waiver so Obama could have his very own site. Obama created the very government sounding "Office of President Elect". McCain did not create Obama's personal seal modeled after the Presidential Seal of the United States, logo, etc. But go ahead and blame McCain if it makes you feel better.

more billions of dollars down the rat hole,anything politicians get involved in will turn to pork.

gunpowder, the waterwheel, sanitation, printing, antibiotics, etc.....

science has always held the key to our survival

There is no science apart from it's application. Like a car. Or an eggbeater.

#18 | Posted by Zed at 2008-12-21 06:16 PM | Reply

I know plenty of scientists engaged in basic research -- the discovery of new knowledge, from materials to genetics.

They speculate about applications, but ultimately admit they have no idea how their work will be used in the future.

Nuh uh! Bombin' muslims and water boadin's the key to the future.

W said so, and Cheney tole him, n God tole him.

Sincerely,

**Neocons

.........if we don't like his use of science in national policy..........

........we can always go back to basing policy on ignorant superstition.........

Believe in a higher power, use the power given by that power, to explore and progress and discover... Science: a gift of creation only a caveperson would fear. Good bye to the cave people.

"Bla, bla, Man proposes. God disposes.

#7 | Posted by Johnson at 2008-12-21

Said the Crazy Fundie Middle East guy before he blew himself (and everyone around him)!

Let's all wait for the spook in the sky to provide us with cars, tv's, and computers. I'm sure "God will provide".

#19 | Posted by KBM at 2008-12-21 06:

You get so upset about the Dumbest shit!

Let's all wait for the spook in the sky to provide us with cars, tv's...

Oh Lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz...
Oh Lord won't you buy me a color TV...

Science is an amoral system. It could be nothing else. "Science" will save nothing. People might, if they have values that permit that.

You know, you're absofuckinglutely right, Zed. Now I see the light. Science never gave us anything, did it? It never invalidated racism. It never cured disease. It never doubled our lifespans. It never broke down the barriers of physical and cultural distance. It never allowed free spread of information around the world. It never showed us our true place in the cosmos. Nope, none of the amoral, valueless fruits of science have helped humanity in the slightest.

You're right. People will save the world. People in robes with wine and crackers. Do you have children, Zed? If so, the next time one of them gets strep throat, I suggest you just pour them a glass of Kool-Aid and start praying. Antibiotics... just another product of an amoral system.

People will indeed save the world. You are not one of them.

#23 | Posted by leonland at 2008-12-21 07:02 PM

Nuh uh! Bombin' muslims and water boadin's the key to the future.

W said so, and Cheney tole him, n God tole him.

Sincerely,

**Neocons

As opposed to a posture that allows yourself to be bombed and beheaded without response, the strategy you attribute to Cheney and the neocons, seems eminently reasonable.

#26 | Posted by Redneckville at 2008-12-21 07:05 PM

Bla, bla, Man proposes. God disposes.

#7 | Posted by Johnson at 2008-12-21

Said the Crazy Fundie Middle East guy before he blew himself (and everyone around him)!

You must be confusing Islamics with others.

I have enough knowledge to know science has served nazis as well as it's served any person you might like.
-Zed

Ah, yes, the good ole reductio ad Hitlerum. You know, most people don't pull that one out until they're really, really desperate. Then again, I never met a self-deluded religious fanatic who wasn't.

Anyway, we await the forces of nature to be set aside by Obama as he sits on the seashore mimicking King Canute, and orders climate change to stop.

Even now the sunspots are down so that there is far less "energy" emitted by the sun. So, the miracle worker has begun his work.

Just a note. The world has been far more prosperous during global warming periods than during periods of global winter.

You folks are messing with God's creation.

"There is no science apart from it's application. "

Really, except sciece is all around us, observable by even the most ignorant of men. That's why your "belief" system had to be completely re-written because science shredded it and exposed it's lies years ago(flat earth, center of universe, no gravity...etc...). Now science is once again making your little book obsolete and it scares the shit out of you.

Thanks Obama, bring some sanity back to our policy making and some credibility back to our education systemby focusing on SCIENCE!!!

LM

"You folks are messing with God's creation."

Mess, mess, mess....
stem cell, abort, contraceptive, clone, genetic engineer,

mess, mess, mess guess if whatever god you believe didn't like it he/she/it would neer have allowed us crazy libs all his gleeful power...

mess, mess, mess...

LM

"Er, are you aware of Christians blowing themselves (and those around them) up based on a religious directive?"

Are you serious, there are many examples throughout history and currently going on now that are cristians killing another group of peoples based on the cristian belief.

simple search and you will get the answer you asked for...

LM

guess if whatever god you believe didn't like it he/she/it would neer have allowed us crazy libs all his gleeful power

For no other reason than to play the devil's advocate, I will say that "with great power comes great responsibility". I quote, of course, from the infallable and undeniable truth contained in the Book of Spiderman (4:20). Note how my claims have as much inherent worth and foundation in reason as Zed's. Personally, I find more wisdom in comic book superheroes than most preachers.

Go Rick Warren...lead us out of the dark ages...

"Science" is, of course, never "around" us, or "visible" to anyone.

Your assertions are interesting to me in that you objectify and abstraction and then behave, not only as if it is real, but has human attributes.

In other words, you're creating exactly what science has "shredded". Aa if science had hands to perform such an act.

A poster on another thread made the interesting point that logic isn't based on empiricism.

"Empiricism" is what you mistake (I think) for science. But, frankly you just aren't clear enough for me to decide.

But no matter. The point is that scientific knowledge does nothing for you if you can't reason with it and beyond it, and that science in itself does nothing to make you rational.

Long-winded way to tell you don't think very well. Sorry.

By the way, anyone here really doubt Nazis often made just dandy scientists?

hey KBM, so the press elected Obama, wow all of us voters didn't know that, thanks for telling us, this mind control shit really works, huh (either that or you are an asshole)

"For no other reason than to play the devil's advocate, I will say that "with great power comes great responsibility". I quote, of course, from the infallable and undeniable truth contained in the Book of Spiderman (4:20)"

Book of Eagle Eye pretty cool, too:>)

By the way, anyone here really doubt Nazis often made just dandy scientists?

Hey, one got America to the moon!

I knew his brother in Sedona

Every time Obama speaks I am astounded since I've heard nothing but bullshit from a meatheads mouth for eight long years.

Any society that focuses on science usually in the long run generates good scientist,see Japan, and India as exmples of those who have done just that while the US has done dick inthat dept.

"Your assertions are interesting to me in that you objectify and abstraction and then behave, not only as if it is real, but has human attributes"

Really, and how did I do that? I simply said Science is all around you and you choose to ignore it. When a leaf falls, there is science(gravity), when the seas become less saline(chemical reaction), when pollutants are emitted into atmosphere and it's composition changes, comets, sunsine, photosynthesis...all of these things are constantly going on round you and are scientific in nature.

LM

Any society that focuses on science usually in the long run generates good scientist,see Japan, and India as exmples of those who have done just that while the US has done dick inthat dept.

???

America has proportionately more technological inventions and discoveries than the rest of the world. We are 5% of the world's poplation, but have contributed far more than 5% of current technology and science.

"Science is all around you and you choose to ignore it...."

I think the problem is that you've been building towers with just those same three blocks for a while now.

That makes it very hard for you to examine your basic assumptions or even really consider what you're saying.

That makes discussing this subject with you a bit dull. So pardon me, I'm going to lead Science, who I just noticed attempting to take a leak in my living room, over to the pissoir.

I see the usual brain dead pants-pissers are on this thread like Johnson on a skin-head's penis.

The people who complain about science the most are the ones without the little gray cells necessary to have even the barest comprehension of the subject.

Their opinions are as worthless as their 'souls'. But thank god for their presence in this world. Who else would clean our septic tanks, collect our welfare money, and vote republican.

"America has proportionately more technological inventions and discoveries than the rest of the world. We are 5% of the world's poplation, but have contributed far more than 5% of current technology and science."

If your going tolook at it hisorically, teh majority of those big scientific brakthroughs wer by people whocame to US from oter countries or wee working here but ae foreigners. NO one would dispute that the land of capitalism and consumer goods is the lace to get a patent, but that doesn't mean the inventor was american. I will say early Americans who were focusing on sciences of their day were generating far more inventions than Americans of today. No I don't consider the ab roller and microwaveable bacon stelar inventions...

Cosider China is building 14 advanced batery technology plants to power hybrid vehicles....the us just made plans to build it's first.....

Japanese products are generally considered superior in quality these days to an american product......

and on and on as we were dragged into a mindless 8 year spiral that was bushco....

LM

"Science" is, of course, never "around" us, or "visible" to anyone.

#40 | Posted by Zed"

Wouldn't it be great if religions had to prove their hypotheses the same way science is forced to prove theirs? Huh Zed, wouldn't that be great, to have actual proof of God?

Interesting how comments criticizing Christian influence in science ignore the fact that the scientific method exists ONLY because of Christians.

The idea of an orderly universe comes directly from the Christian perspective of a rational and orderly creator. Which is why the seminal discoveries of science were made almost exclusively by Christians.

For instance, the persistence that led to the discoveries of Mar's elliptical orbit came about ONLY because of the astronomers belief that in an ordered universe, created by a rational God, the short time difference between Mar's calculated and actual orbit was meaningful. Only a scientist with that as a philosophical base would have bothered.

And history is replete with other examples..

and please don't anyone bother with the flat earth criticisms.. they don't hold water.. do the research..

What does concern me is not science, but the modern prejudice against truth in science.. evolution's problems can't be questioned without the scientist losing his job.

we're quickly elevating global warming to a level of religion that can't be questioned..

The pursuit of truth is never wrong.. even if its modern liberals that religiously oppose it.

"The pursuit of truth is never wrong.. even if its modern liberals that religiously oppose it."

Oops:

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." For those who didn't like it, another Bush adviser explained, "Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered two to one by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read the New York Times or Washington Post or the LA Times."

Hans

NMG_NO, you are a fucking joke!!! Talk about revisionist history. You should get a job rehabilitating the shrub's legacy.

The christian church has done more to inhibit science than any other entity in history.

Seriously, you really are a prevaricating pile of puke.

"Seriously, you really are a prevaricating pile of puke."

Poetic, Axe.

Kudos.

Hans

The pursuit of truth is never wrong.. even if its modern liberals that religiously oppose it.

#55 | Posted by nmg_no

go Rick Warren...lead us out of the Dark ages...

"That makes it very hard for you to examine your basic assumptions or even really consider what you're saying."

#51 | Posted by Zed

Classic self-retorting retort.

"And history is replete with other examples..

and please don't anyone bother with the flat earth criticisms.. they don't hold water.. do the research.."

This is hysterical, don't bother me with the facts that the original book I'm supposed to believe had to be re-written bcause of the shear number of lies exposed by science. I don't care what the belief system is of a person who is trying to further science, the fact that they are involved in science leads me to believe they ae generally reaching out for understanding. Whether it be to further their own beiefs or in question of them..he facts are facts.

Zero proof of intelligent design, colleges and musems are filling with proofs of evolution.

LM

What are all your problems on here? Is it that hard to simply recognize and admit that science is amoral meaning it does not have a good or bad lead to it in itself, and can accomplish nothing on its own?

Instead you have to attack a person and then make it about religion all of a sudden (incorrectly as well seeing as the scripture never says the earth is flat, never states that science is against the scriptures etc. You would rather focus your arguments on disproving something by using individuals taking actions that do not represent the original thought of what you are claiming is disproved by their actions. Anyone who claims that science and the Bible of God clashes is a completely stupid (the biblical sense of stupid).

If there is an originating God, then what we call science, which is actually then just the observing, experimenting with and discovering of the dynamics of His creation, would have been an instituted happening from that being. Also then the following of that God's desires and standards would be instituted by that being, both would be equally important and eminate from the same source.

People have some issues here. I know what they are, but most won't accept the explanation.

Give people a break. (also before you sit here and critique anything written for spelling, I don't claim to be perfect or hold any expertise in spelling, and do not care if something was accidentally spelled incorrectly in my post.)

"Classic self-retorting retort...."

Glad to have earned one at long last. All it took was pointing out that some posters, while denying there is a God, do everything in their power to mutate rather dull abstractions into some.

But their behavior likely illustrates a larger and actually useful point. That is, men cannot and will not live without the concept of God, to the point they warp whatever concepts or objects that are at hand to fulfill that role.

It is possible to be both very materialistic and very superstitious, as is proved on these pages nearly everyday.

For a "philosophy" that pretends to worship (I use that word deliberately) consistency, you guys are as disjointed and incomprehensible in the ideas you clap together as any primitive from New Guinea.

Pardon me---I think I just saw Science trying to peek through my neigbor's bedroom window. I'm going to call the cops on his sorry ass.

Why is GOD always male...Why an IT or female, shemale?

Science is an IT, why not GOD?

"Wouldn't it be great if religion had to prove their hypotheses....?"

Yah. And wouldn't it be great if musicians had to prove theirs?

You've got those three blocks you always play with. That gives you the concepts of wall, tower, and arch (if you're really creative). But you won't be writing "Moby Dick" any time soon.

"Yah. And wouldn't it be great if musicians had to prove theirs?"

Like GOD ~ IT ~ does with tininitus? The true word:>)

I think it is interesting that there has always been a concept of a supreme being or God in all civilazations throughout time, almost as a standard, and yet when someone challenges the common thought they say "prove it." Would it not be more reasonable if the one making the claim outside of the more regular common thought disprove the common held thought?

Not being sarcastic or cynical, but why is it that it is the responsibility of those believing in God, which seems to be the common thought from the earliest points of human history, to prove that God rather than the responsibility of the outside minority party to prove that said God does not exist?

EXPRS-
re: I think it is interesting that there has always been a concept of a supreme being or God in all civilazations throughout time...

That's simply not true. Monotheism is relatively recent as a dominant belief.

Why is GOD always male...

yah, and no females, is God GAY?

Ah,the perils of plurals in public presentation.

Mentally revise that statement when you read it to have monotheism in there, as in there seemed to be a common view of supreme being(s) or (a) being(s) in a role of authority on a more elevated level than ourselves.

I was not fighting for monotheism from the start, but rather the simple idea that there was a being or beings. Monotheism would simply be a revison of that original thought, or a clarification depending how you view the situation.

EXPSR-
Deism and nature worship such as what one might refer to as "paganism" are more the general rule throughout known human hisory and what has been pieced together about prehistoric cultures. That "there has always been a concept of a supreme being or God in all civilazations throughout time" is quite simply, without hesitation, wrong.

yah, and no females, is God GAY?

#69 | Posted by VMA224

who knows?

maybe gOD is 10% gAY like the random population?

Or is that a left handers statistic?

Is gOD 10% left handed?

How are you using the term paganism? I would say that deism does not go against my original statement, and if nature is in itself viewed as a being then that does not go against it either. If you are using

EXPSR-
re: How are you using the term paganism? I would say that deism does not go against my original statement, and if nature is in itself viewed as a being then that does not go against it either.

Well, then we are in agreement, and an argument against the beliefs of witches and the belief in tree spirits is just as effective, or certainly not less so, than an argument against the belief in God and his son, Jesus Christ.

I love the way Zed flees from rational thought....very religious of you.

"Yah. And wouldn't it be great if musicians had to prove theirs?"

WTF??

Many may think this true, but what about the idea either of those presents, the concept of a God, which may not be anything like what men currently or have previously thought to be. What does that do with the responsibility of proof or debunk? Who has responsibility, the originator of the antithetical claim or the common "idea?"

EXPRS-
Well, since the common idea, historically and for countless thousands of years before, is a belief in sundry spirits with no "supreme God", I guess the ball would be in the monotheists court to dispassionately disprove the others before they assert their own.

(Or they could just use military and political power, which is what they did)

EXPRS-
My point is that you seem to be going out of your way to establish that the TV show "Ghosthunters" is real, and it is the burden of others to disprove it.

"....Ghosthunters" is real...."

ff

My favorite here ~ got to get past P&G Tide commercial first:>)

Creepy gas station 1:20
Customers at an Ohio gas station are spooked by what some claim is a ghost on surveillance video. WOIO Lynna Lai reports
CNN.com

I think I understand what you are saying. So it does come down to the fact that it is the originator of the antithetical claim that holds the burden of proof. However in this case what they must prove is inconsequential or unimportant.

Unless you don't feel this way. My whole question originally is basically this:

Upon whom does the burden of proof fall, the holders of the common thought, concept, idea, or the originator of the antithetical claim?

(Now as a protection, since I am not trying to trap you into inadvertently saying that evolutionists or atheists or whoever may so desire to do so hold the burden of proof, the answer of this question does not address God supportive or non God supportive thought. It is a simple question as to who the burden of proof falls on, and will only be used in that context. I will not immediately, nor should anyone else, take the response that you give and proclaim "ah, Betel said that it is the evolutionists, athiests, or whoever so wishes to disput God who must deal with the burden of proof.)

This question is not to further the desire or attempt to convert you. I would like to know how people view this subject and who exactly holds the burden of proof in an argument in your mind.

This question is not to further the desire or attempt to convert you.

Convert me to what? (Gasp! I never suspected a thing!)

EXPSR,

It's called FAITH for a reason, dude. Pinhead thumpers who go around trying to 'prove' that God exists are doubly cursed: 1. They are proclaiming to the world that they are incredibly stupid, and 2. They are showing a complete lack of faith by trying to prove to themselves that their god exists.

If they had brains, they wouldn't try to prove the unprovable.

If the had faith, they wouldn't feel the need to try.

Don't argue with these sad sacks. Just let them babble on to themselves and their fellow thumpers.

Now if we could just figure a way to prevent them from breeding and voting......

Wow that came out wrong, Freudian slip I doubt. I was simply looking for an answer, but as my example fostered more and more clarification and substance towards the apect of God or no God I felt the need to make it clear that my intention is not to create some blanket statement to be utilized against you or anyone else in this argument.

It was not based off of a desire or attempt to covert you or any other. I meant "This questions is not to further A desire or attempt to covert you, as in there was no desire or attempt in this question to convert you to anything, not even an attemp to get you to agree with my position. I am curious as to where people view the burden of proof falling.

I myself believe that the originator of an antithetical position holds the burden of proof rather than those holding the common thought or idea.

Such as, now that it has been established (so far as we know) that the stars are light years away, the burden of proof would reside with the one holding that the stars are actually closer (antithetical to common idea or thought).

Now if we could just figure a way to prevent them from breeding and voting......

#85 | Posted by axe

stalin & hitler did...bush family into eugenics....hmmm

Axe thats all well and good, take the aspect of God and religion out of the equation.

I am asking, in scientific and argumentative terms, on which side would the burden of proof fall?

The ones holding the common idea or the originator of the antithetical suggestion? In any situation.

if one laughs, then what proof is needed?

None for the one who laughs, if one does not care then it does not seem to matter as the one holding the common idea will not be affected by the scoffer. However if there are two serious and mature individuals seeking to come to the most truthful and definite conclusions possible, who's job is it to prove what in the initial sense?

EXPSR,

Read my answer again. FAITH is not science and cannot and does not need to be proven. No real scientist would ever try to prove God's existence and there is no reason for a person of faith to do so either.

If a person has so little faith that he has to prove to himself that there is a god, he is beyond hope. These are the types of fundie nuts that bomb abortion clinics, crash airplanes into buildings and vote Republican.

As for trying to prove that God dosn't exist, only a fucking idiot would chase that fool's errand.

"None for the one who laughs, if one does not care then it does not seem to matter as the one holding the common idea will not be affected by the scoffer."

then perhaps one laughs because such answers seem so simple & have no scoffing intents whatsoever ~ maybe mirror on the wall has the muse therein the potential scoffer's neurosis?

"Circle of Iron" gave a flute heard inwardly ~ like the word as its truth of truths via a mirror for self-realization, too:>)

Axe, I understand that, it goes beyond that. I am not extablishing this for some religious based justification or refutation.

The example first developed come out of the discussion that was taking place about God and science and everyone was replying to ZED.

The purpose is to find out who holds the burden of proof in a scientific argument.
Since science is so important, how do we decide it? who do we make responsible for the burden of proof? common idea holders, antithesis originators or both?

Simplicity and intricacy do not merit proof, only suggestive progression of thought or direction in a positive or negative mannor. If an answer does happen to be simple, it does not prove it to laugh, if it is difficult it does not prove it to be perplexed.

Bani,

Stalin and Hitler were murderers of people of the 'wrong' faith. (In Stanin's case, it seemed that any faith was the wrong one.) I think the Bush family was just concerned that the stupid would inherit the earth.

Faith produces both great good and great evil. Too bad there are evil fuckers that take advantage of the brain-dead majority and subvert their faith.

EXPR,

If you are not referring to 'proving god exists/doesn't exist' type of nonsense, there has been a well documented procedure in place for many, many centuries.

Find a good library. Read up on the topic. Don't expect us to do your homework for you.

"I think the Bush family was just concerned that the stupid would inherit the earth."

Actually they help finance the Hitlers of the world...

THE RISE OF THE FOURTH REICH

THE BUSH FAMILY OLIGARCHY

Funding the Hitler Project

Axe, great suggestion. Im more interested in person opinions on the matter rather than a general concensus, thus why I am not at the library, and also the fact that it is close with it being 3:43 am.

Quick (and very sparce) summary:

1. Develop Theory.
2. ????
3. PROFIT!!!!

Memorable quotes for
Circle of Iron (1978)

Cord: How long have you been blind?
Blind Man: How long have you been blind?
Cord: I'm not blind.
Blind Man: Am I?
Cord: Do you answer every question with a question?
Blind Man: Do you question every answer?
Cord: Aww, talking to you is like talking to a wall.
Blind Man: Buddha once sat before a wall, and when he arose he was enlightened.
Cord: Do you compare yourself with Buddha?
Blind Man: (chuckles) No. Only to the wall.

------------------------------
------------------------------
--------------------
The Blind Man: It's hard to kill a horse with a flute.

------------------------------
------------------------------
--------------------
Chang-sha: Have you eaten? Where's your drink? Your hand is empty.
Cord: Peace.
Chang-sha: [laughs] Don't wish it on me. The whole world is in commotion and you wish me peace! I don't know what peace is, I don't want it. Don't you listen to the desert? Even when there's no wind the sand sings.
Cord: My name is Cord.
Chang-sha: Ha! You see? Cord!
[laughs]
Chang-sha: Play a Cord, strike a Cord? Even your name is a noise! What do you want, Cord? You want us to play on you? My wives can make your skin sing.

------------------------------
------------------------------
--------------------
Blind Man: Cord... each moment that passes changes you. You do not... cannot possess even yourself. How can you hope to possess anyone or anything else?

------------------------------
------------------------------
--------------------
Blind Man: A fish saved my life once.
Cord: How?
Blind Man: I ate him.

------------------------------
------------------------------
--------------------
Morthond: One year ago, I took a vow of silence!
Cord: And when did you break it?
Morthond: Now!

"Er, are you aware of Christians blowing themselves (and those around them) up based on a religious directive?"Are you serious, there are many examples throughout history and currently going on now that are cristians killing another group of peoples based on the cristian belief.simple search and you will get the answer you asked for...LM#37 | Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2008-12-21 07:52 PM | Reply

Well is should be easy for you to type a good, clearcut example, or provide a link to a Christian blowing themself and others based on a religious perspective.

None of this "America is Christian and therefore our wars count."

Put up or shut up.

Their opinions are as worthless as their 'souls'. But thank god for their presence in this world. Who else would clean our septic tanks, collect our welfare money, and vote republican.#52 | Posted by axe at 2008-12-21 09:28 PM | Reply

Today's "Why do the heathen rage"/I am better than you Memorial Award goes to....

Axe!

Congratulations!
We all prostrate ourselves before your arrogant bastardity!

Now if we could just figure a way to prevent them from breeding and voting......#85 | Posted by axe at 2008-12-22 03:00 AM | Reply

THERE's that blowing wind of liberal tyranny...blowing powerfully enough it could suck a skull right outta a skull.

Margaret Sanger would be so proud.

Whatever his plans are for science and global warming, I hope he holds off on them for a little while. It's -19 here and so far we've had one of the coldest, snowiest starts to winter in my lifetime. We could sure use some of that sweet sweet global warming about now. I think I'll leave my car running in the driveway all night and see if the increased CO2 helps thaw things out.

"We could sure use some of that sweet sweet global warming about now. I think I'll leave my car running in the driveway all night and see if the increased CO2 helps thaw things out."

Aww, shit...now you're gonna bring Zatoitchy in here posting all those numbers and names of scientists who've been dead for a century. You just HAD to do it, didn't you?

HAD to do it, didn't you?
----

What can I say? It warms my heart to see him get all bristly and tell us to enjoy our extinction and that we deserve it.

And my heart could use some warming about now seeing as how AGW isn't pulling it's weight.

Well is should be easy for you to type a good, clearcut example, or provide a link to a Christian blowing themself and others based on a religious perspective.

None of this "America is Christian and therefore our wars count."

Put up or shut up.

#101 | Posted by kirk at 2008-12-22 09:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

We could sure use some of that sweet sweet global warming about now. I think I'll leave my car running in the driveway all night and see if the increased CO2 helps thaw things out.

#104 | Posted by the_nether

Thank you for doing your part. It's fucking cold here.

No problem. I'm also thinking about burning a pile of old tires and used motor oil in the back yard just to cover my CO2 bases. Desperate times you know.

"Since science is so important, how do we decide it? who do we make responsible for the burden of proof? common idea holders, antithesis originators or both?"
Science puts the burden of proof on itself by allowing for research, thought, postulation support and consensus belief before gaining true acceptance. Yes it can exist as side topic, like current "M" theory, but once enough data, evidence and facts are in on a topic of science it becomes either a law, theory or standard accepted belief.

The difference with science and religion is one has physical testable postualtions, observable calculations, traceable evolution...these are for to witness.

With religion all one has is word, and when it was perceived to be the word of god, it was latter changed because too many words of god were wrong.

So I say the burden of proof falls on those things that can be proven. Revisionist religion always tries to change and adapt it's story so that it can cling to existence. Eventually the words will be so twisted from original that one will look nothing like the other.

LM

"Well is should be easy for you to type a good, clearcut example, or provide a link to a Christian blowing themself and others based on a religious perspective.

None of this "America is Christian and therefore our wars count."

Put up or shut up."

Certainly no one in Ireland has blown anyone up in the last 50 years based on religion, ay there catholic and protestant..........

LM

You shoulda done it the way I did, LM. It's funnier that way. Why do people ask others to find things that even a child knows exist?

I mean come on, say my firstborn pops right out of my wife and if the first thing he said, fresh out of the womb was, "Christians like to kill people almost as much as Muslims" I'd say "No shit, Sherlock."

I mean come on, say my firstborn pops right out of my wife and if the first thing he said, fresh out of the womb was, "Christians like to kill people almost as much as Muslims" I'd say "No shit, Sherlock."

#114 | Posted by soheifox

And I'd say you don't understand either of these 2 diverse religions. I don't all that many honor killings in the Christain community.

Do you have anything to support your claim?

You shoulda done it the way I did, LM. It's funnier that way. Why do people ask others to find things that even a child knows exist?

I'll profess my ignorance to re-titling the link....probabably something simple but I have never tried.

LM

"It was later changed because too many words of God were wrong...."

You've stated this several times but I have no idea what you mean. Explain?

"The difference between science and religion...."

Is, fundamentally, that science deals--and only wishes to deal---In the concrete. That's both it's advantage and it's limitation.

I rarely hear "scientists" discuss this, I'm fairly sure by now because so few of them understand what "concrete" means.

He is attempting to make the claim that because there are different versions or clarifications, then that means that the words were changed and detreact from the original, therefore they must not be the words of God afterall and thus the religion is worthless and a piece of crap.

I think he is under the impression that what we have now is completely and utterly different than the original autographs of the scriptural writings, thus it was changed as he says and cannot be true.

However it seems as though he refuses to allow the possibility of finding further information to better inform incorrect postulations upon first reading or explaining. If he holds to this kind of thought process then that would mean that science is not allowed to make revisions either and the final outcome, the newest information would be incorrect and false pieces of crap.

Atleast that is what it seems from the information given. There is no room for furthering understanding in his view.

And I'd say you don't understand either of these 2 diverse religions. I don't all that many honor killings in the Christain community.

Do you have anything to support your claim?

#115 | Posted by Eddie at 2008-12-22 05:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Perhaps you should read my statement over and over until you understand it. I think you're assuming it means something it doesn't. Or I'll just explain it to you.

Both have examples of violence, and neither is inherently better then the other. Christians kill in the name of God, on average, about as much as Muslims do. Honor killings and suicide bombers are, on average, about the same as Christian fanatics killing abortion doctors and gay people and other nonbelievers.

You just CARE MORE about the Muslims because they aren't what you're used to.

"Science" is, of course, never "around" us, or "visible" to anyone.
-Zed

Probably one of the most insightful comments I've ever read on DR. What about that computer you're typing this drivel on, Zed? Did God say "Let there be transistors" on the eighth day or something?

...and I just realized I ended up making it more UNclear with that statement, lol.

Short version, whenever ANY religion is allowed free reign, they slaughter as much as ANY other idealism.

It's apparent throughout history that religious fanaticism isn't healthy at all, and invariably results in dead people. Like everything else, religion should be taken in moderation.

It's patently obvious to me that Muslims are if anything only SLIGHTLY worse then Christians, and even that tends to revolve less around teachings then by the times. Give it a hundred years, Christians will be worse again.

You PERSONALLY only think the Muslims are all psychos because you don't care to look at your own religion's flawed followers.

Christians kill in the name of God, on average, about as much as Muslims do.

#120 | Posted by soheifox

Mr. Zombie---

My point just sailed over your head. Let's just leave it at that.

Nah, I'm not that mean. The point was atheists often treat science like it's a spirit, while denying the existence of spirits.

"Science" does nothing people don't do. It's in your head. Always and completely, because there's no other place it can be.

Oh, what does God do? He's the one telling you there's more than your head.

Is, fundamentally, that science deals--and only wishes to deal---In the concrete. That's both it's advantage and it's limitation.

I rarely hear "scientists" discuss this, I'm fairly sure by now because so few of them understand what "concrete" means.

This, I believe, is probably the first semblance of an intelligent comment I've ever heard Zed make. Science deals with fact- pure, indisputable, objective fact. Science relies on empiricism- arriving at fact through experience, observation, or experiment. Religion deals with faith- beliefs that by definition can never be supported or refuted by fact. Religions arrive at truth arbitrarily. A statement may valid because it appears in an old book, and that old book must be more correct than any number of other books, but it can provide no evidence to support this.

Science and Religion are inherently different approaches to knowledge. Science begins with a question and tries to provied answers. Religion begins with an answer that it tries to apply to questions. Scientific "knowledge" reigns in the natural world, this Universe that is governed by physical laws. Religious "knowledge" reigns in the supernatural world, the realm that can never be experienced, observed, or experimented on by humans. The two forms of knowledge are mutually exclusive- both scientific and religious knowledge cannot be applied in the same area.

Unfortunately, we live in the natural world. Physical laws can describe the behavior of matter accurately unless you approach the event horizon of a black hole or travel back in time to the first 10e-43 (ten to the negative forty-third power) seconds after the Big Bang. Any physicist will tell you, perhaps grudgingly, that black holes are mind-blowing voids in our understanding of the universe. This tiny fraction of a second after Creation is the most significant of any to follow. The Big Bang itself is an absolute mystery. If followers of religions sought to accurately understand science instead of denying it, the notion of a fundamental distinction between the knowledge of science and religion would be perfectly acceptable.

Link?

#123 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2008-12-22 07:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not even going to honor that with a "Let Me google that for you" link.

You REALLY need a link to the comparative death tolls of Muslims and Christians? You REALLY need that? I think you're just being facetious. Anyone who has been to school knows that the Crusades ALONE pretty much even up the death tolls between the two religions. Since then, both religions have matured, and all that remains is a silly suspicion on both sides that the other commits more evil then it actually does.

If someone even has to ASK something as silly as that, no amount of proof will convince them. Jesus himself could come down and say it, and they'd tell him he was stupid. And that he can't BE Jesus, because he said such a thing.

And if someone who seriously was asking for that wanted to pull the "No one ever killed for Christ in the name of Christ." bullshit, then it applies equally to the Muslims.

Obama got this tip from the Ministry of the Bloody Freakin' Obvious.

The point was atheists often treat science like it's a spirit, while denying the existence of spirits.

Science is nothing so ethereal. It is a systematic approach to uncovering the truth regarding the natural world. It is an approach to knowledge- "science" in this general sense refers to the knowledge that is gained by adhering to the scientific method. See comment 127, I think I expand on this. I understood your earlier point, I was just being flippant in dismissing it.

For the record, I am an agnostic. There is no evidence I can cite to disprove the existence of God, nor can I find any evidence suggesting the existence of any of the numerous Gods humanity has ever worshipped. I just think the issue is not that important in issues that concern the natural world since these issues can be completely resolved with the knowledge provided by applying the scientific method.

"Science is nothing ethereal...."

Of course. But I'm not the one you need to tell that to.

"It is an approach to knowledge...."

Exactly. "An" approach.

"These (natural world) issues can be completely resolved with the knowledge provided by applying the scientific method...."

Sure. Why not? But for the mass or men and what the mass of men need, big deal.

"Beliefs can by definition never be supported or refuted by fact...."

Which, my boy, just illustrates how little you understand. I'm sure I'm being insulting but you need to move beyond "A" (for agnostic) in the encyclopedia.

But reading your posts as a whole I find you a bright man, and a fine debator, and I don't think we are so very different in out basic views.

I'm not a science denier, by the way. I've just have an appreciation for science's place in the scheme of things you don't have.

One day we'll meet a race of scientific barbarians, and that'll reset your perceptions somewhat.

...science is an approach to knowledge...
-ZombieHunter

Exactly. "An" approach.
-Zed

My point is that religious knowledge and scientific knowledge are so fundamentally different that you can't even begin to compare them. Religion is an approach that allows you to understand something you can never observe or experiment on- the supernatural. Science is an approach to the things that can be analyzed empirically. I would never try to describe God with a mathematical formula. I think it is equally improper to apply a belief held on faith to an issue that can be investigated scientifically. The two approaches to knowledge exclude eachother- not in the sense that you cannot both be a scientist and a believer, but in the sense that an single issue cannot be investigated by both science and religion.

Which, my boy, just illustrates how little you understand.
-Zed

I am not insulted. I seek above all else to understand, so please tell me how faith becomes fact. And what letter do you suggest that I begin to explore? Allah (the God) begins with A, as does Atheist. Al-lat (the Goddess) does as well. B is for Buddha. C for Christ? D for the Dao? F for Fnord? K for Krishna? Y for YHVH? All of these word are printed with the same ink on the same paper and bound in the same book. If I can only open the book to one page, how do I know which one to read?

One day we'll meet a race of scientific barbarians, and that'll reset your perceptions somewhat.

I've watched my fair share of anime... I think I can imagine something along those lines...

Science and Religion, as approaches to knowledge, are amoral. Both have the potential to be saviors or destroyers, and it is up to us, the choices that we make as humans. You claimed something vaguely similar earlier. Science has given us antibiotics and atom bombs. Religion has given us selfless devotion and genocide, both in the name of a variety of deities. It will ultimately be humans who decide their own fate.

"The pursuit of truth is never wrong.. even if its modern liberals that religiously oppose it.

#55 | Posted by nmg_no"

The problem with Mars's orbit had nothing to do with a meaningful discrepancy noted only by a man of god, it had everything to do with the orbit not adhering to the Ptolemic, heliocentric, system.

That the people that noted these things may also have been Christian and may have phrased the impetus for their personal search in such a manner is fine, they were still trying to describe a perfect universe in the manner of the Greeks. Which has little if anything to do with one specific deity. Least of all yours.

"He is attempting to make the claim that because there are different versions or clarifications, then that means that the words were changed and detreact from the original, therefore they must not be the words of God afterall and thus the religion is worthless and a piece of crap"

He is attempting nothing, one book is written by people who quote un quote conversed with god and took down his words. One version is a revision by a king to take out the stuff that over time grew archaic and down right disgusting. The old testament is one of the most barbaric books ever written. I portays a spiteful evil god who kills a whole helluva lot. It promotes, rape, torture, slavery, it promoted the world as center of universe, a flat earth concept(which some wackos still believe today!!), immaculate conception, reincarnation, murder, human/animal sacrifice, great floods, arks, whales, people living through burning ovens, plagues, raining fire.....and on and on and on....

He is attempting to to get you to accept you mix words when you say the bible is the word of god and it is open for interpetation, finding of new information.....

How do you find new information on the word of god that was spoken 2,000 some odd years ago....did you have the apostles bugged? One would think if they were writing his words wrong he might have said something to them....since they were conversing and all.

I do agree with your last line though......

LM

You REALLY need a link to the comparative death tolls of Muslims and Christians? You REALLY need that? I think you're just being facetious. Anyone who has been to school knows that the Crusades ALONE pretty much even up the death tolls between the two religions. Since then, both religions have matured, and all that remains is a silly suspicion on both sides that the other commits more evil then it actually does.

If someone even has to ASK something as silly as that, no amount of proof will convince them. Jesus himself could come down and say it, and they'd tell him he was stupid. And that he can't BE Jesus, because he said such a thing.

And if someone who seriously was asking for that wanted to pull the "No one ever killed for Christ in the name of Christ." bullshit, then it applies equally to the Muslims.

#128 | Posted by soheifox

You said Christians kill on average as much as Muslims do. Not Christians have killed on average throughout the history of the religion(s) as much as Muslims do. Next time be more specific, or stfu.

"It (Bible) was later changed because too many of the words of God were wrong...."

If I'd held my breath waiting for reply I'd have suffocated by now.

You adduced a claim that could potentially be supported by scholarship. Well, that's what I want to look at.

The Encyclopedia of Belief
Table of Contents (With apologies to those neglected)

A- Atheist, Al-lah, Al-lat, Ahura, Ahriman, Athena
B- Buddha, Brahman
C- Cthulu
D- Devi, Demeter, Dionysis
E- Eris
F- Fnord, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Freya
G- Gaia, God
H- Hecate, Horus, Hermes, Hadit
I- Ixtli, Isis, Indra, Invisible Pink Unicorn
J- Jesus
K- Krishna, Kali
L- Loki
M- Ma'at
N- Nuit, Nekhbet
O- Osiris, Odin
P- Pan, Persephone, Posiedon
Q- Quilaztli, Quetzalcoatl
R- Rama
S- Shiva, Shakti, Set
T- Thoth, Thor
U- Uma
V- Vishnu
W- Wi
X- Xocotl
Y- Yama, YHVH
Z- Zoroaster, Zeus

The Bible is one book, blonging to one tradition, with no proof that it is any more valid than any other. I am baffled by the countless people in this world who know with such absolute certainty that their way is the only one, when they have no proof whatsoever to fall back on. Why do some religions demand this certainty without any logical reason? Why should anyone accept a closed mind as an ingredient of righteousness? Who benefits from denying that others' beliefs, held entirely on faith, are no more and no less valid than your own?

T- Thoth, Thor

Thor as the one true god?

"Why do some religions demand this certainty without any logical reason?"

Did you hear what Richard Dawkins, your psuedo-God, said about the origins of the earth? About how the earth and mankind "could" have been created?

And yet you take evolution to such god-like extremes? Whose faith is better? And who gets to decide?

Did you hear what Richard Dawkins, your psuedo-God, said about the origins of the earth? About how the earth and mankind "could" have been created?

First- are you a Young Earth Creationist? If so, nothing I say will mean much to you, since your God is in the business of creating elaborate illusions to deceive us. You should know that the Noodly appendage of my Flying Spaghetti Monster does much the same. I never claimed to worship Dawkins or even agree with him on all accounts. He just symbolizes what you hate and fear.

There is nothing controversial about the origins of Earth- experiments and observations have shown how a disk of rotating gas and dust in space can collapse under its own gravity to create solar systems. Lo and behold, we look through telescopes and there are other solar systems out there much like our own, some still in the process of creation. The evidence is plain to see, though you are free to deny it and join the ranks of the willfully ignorant.

Extrapolating evolution back to the origin of life or the expansion of the universe back to the big bang are also nothing magical. Why would all life use the same chemical language to store and express its hereditary information unless all life descended from a single common ancestor? The magic is that of Creation- nobody on this planet can claim to know with certainty how life or the Universe originated- at this time. I can produce no direct proof that life originated from self-replicating macromolecules, but there is ample indirect evidence to suggest this. It is a reasonable belief to hold since it is consistent with all the information currently available. Rarely, if ever, are religious beliefs consistent with empirical fact in this way. As technology improves, scientific claims can be tested, refined, and determined to be true or false. You, however, can produce no evidence whatsoever to back up your religious claims. Furthermore, your religion does not permit anyone to evaluate its veracity. I can say "there is a fnord beyond the edge of the visible universe" with as much authority and supporting evidence as you have when you claim that Jesus is divine or God made the earth and put life on it for shits and giggles.

Your "faith" is in no way comparable to my science. The claims of science can be tested and have nothing to do with faith. The claims of a religion deny the possibility that they can ever be tested.

"Furthermore, your religion offers no way to verify it's veracity...."

Except that historical religions such as Christianity by definition are falsifiable in the same way scientific hypotheses are.

The canyon of misunderstanding here is wide and deep.

"Can produce no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims...."

Is just not true on it's face. What you mean to say, I think, is we adduce no evidence you are prepared to accept.

When religionists produce evidence for religion you then reject, such as numerous archeological findings, you need to be sure you reject that evidence based on science and not on personal taste.

There's beem an awful lot of personal taste out there masquerading as objectivism. It's the prime reason atheists can be as certain as they often like to say they are.

Except that historical religions such as Christianity by definition are falsifiable in the same way scientific hypotheses are.

How is Christianity falsifiable? There are a lot of arguments that get used and re-used in these sorts of debates, but I've never heard even heard of this one. Sure, the historical claims can be evaluated- I think some archaeological sites have been found based on descriptions of their physical location in the Old Testament. These are falsifiable claims. The supernatural elements cannot be evaluated scientifically. How can anyone find evidence to support or refute the divinity of Jesus? I would not argue with you that there was a person named Jesus who lived in Nazareth 2000 years ago. It would be a safe bet- Jesus was a common name. Perhaps this person even pissed off the Roman and Jewish governments to the point that he got himself executed- new "prophets" were popping up all the time, and they all met with the same fate. The miracles performed during Jesus' life and the even greater miracle of his resurrection are the issues that I find unfalsifiable.