Denita: While I can sympathize with your position, that everything is so beautiful and seemingly perfect that it seems impossible that it could happen by 'chance', your arguments are heavily fallacious. For one, evolution - the natural mechanism that produces the creatures such as hummingbirds that you find so beautiful - is by no means random. It could in fact be considered the opposite of chance - the best suited survive and create better suited offspring, over long periods of time (though I don't think you're disputing evolution; You seem more likely to subscribe to intelligent design [not that I agree with it], though forgive me if you don't). The same basic principles apply to all life, including DNA. The other examples you put forth, senses of beauty (the Aurora Borealis) and admiration (for the human spirit) are purely abstract human-made concepts, devoid of any scientific method of measuring them. In fact, the 'human spirit' - the will to pursue goals in the face of adversity - is perhaps an extension of the basest of emotions: the urge to survive. The problem with theism is that it is intellectual cowardice. It is saying: "If you don't understand [insert concept], don't try to! Don't let science try to pursue it! It was God!"
Denita: my email is r{dot}scoggin{at}gmail{dot}com if you'd like to continue our exchange there.
In response to your comment about atheists being "ugly" towards religious people, I say that we treat religion just as we treat any other attributes such as political alignment - and criticize as we see fit. It has been addressed before (and with far more grace than I can put forth), but essentially my position is that there is an undeserved respect (I believe I picked up this term from Dawkins' new book) that people hold in place for religion, that we don't hold for other viewpoints. Atheists are just applying the same critical style to religion as anything else.
As for "folks who sue an entire school district because one fellow student had the audacity to bring up God in casual conversation... folks who feel the need to eradicate any form of religious text or writing in a public library, just because they don’t agree with it," I have never heard of either of these happening, ever. I don't know of any atheists who want to totally eliminate all thought about religion. It has a pivotal place in world history -- and, of course, atheists promote free thought. That means including all the details available for accurate representation of the facts.
Denita: I challenge you to assert a single piece of solid scientific evidence supporting 'god'. This shouldn't be a challenge if "Theists have been showing proof of the existence of a higher being for millennia."
On another note, it irritates me to no end when people claim atheism is a "faith" or "religion". That's like saying not having a dollar is the same thing as having one. "And even if there were absence of proof, that’s not the same as proof of absence, anyway." -- sorry, but that's not how rationality works. The opus ALWAYS falls on those who make the claim of something existing/being true/etc.
As someone who has used Windows 90% of his life and utterly resents Mac fanboyism, I can say with deep conviction that the Zune is a a Piece of shit. It puts one new feature on the table (WiFi), and utterly cripples it (3-play DRM). Beyond that, it doesn't work with music purchased on iTunes, Napster, Rhapsody, or any other music business beyond the Microsoft-sanctioned Urge.
Plus, the fact that MS pays a tax to Universal for every player sold (a "sin tax" to make up for supposed losses due to piracy) royally pissed me off.
The invasion of Iraq was to ensure that the US has a stake in oil in case Iran cuts us off or OPEC ever decides to switch to the Euro. Despite saying, we are just creating democracy and then getting out, we are in the process of building 14 PERMANENT US military installations, mostly along the borders with Iran and Syria. The Republicans initially said it was to eliminate the threat of WMD's (in which case, why didn't we invade North Korea, a much more threatening opponent? Oh, because they actually HAD them), and when that was proven to be lies - remember when Rumsfeld said they knew the exact locations? - they turned around and said "Oh no, this entire thing was about the liberation of Iraqis." It was started, and is continually justified, by implicitly tying it to al-Qaeda and terrorism. There were no terrorists in Iraq before this war. Al-Qaeda had NO idealogical ties to Saddam, who was more or less secular. The United States tortures and kills more Iraqis, just like Saddam - "between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqis" killed under the entirety of Saddam's regime, and SIX HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND in the last 3 years under US occupation.
It's not about "cutting and running", it's about getting out of an unwinnable and illegal war before more Americans are killed.
the site this is on, http://www.n55.dk/MANUALS/Manuals.html , is so bizarre and amazing i just want to move to the netherlands and live in their commune or whatever.
city-commissioned street art can be very aesthetically pleasing and thought-provoking. since it's legitimate and done by people with real talent, the quality of the work is excellent
While I can sympathize with your position, that everything is so beautiful and seemingly perfect that it seems impossible that it could happen by 'chance', your arguments are heavily fallacious. For one, evolution - the natural mechanism that produces the creatures such as hummingbirds that you find so beautiful - is by no means random. It could in fact be considered the opposite of chance - the best suited survive and create better suited offspring, over long periods of time (though I don't think you're disputing evolution; You seem more likely to subscribe to intelligent design [not that I agree with it], though forgive me if you don't). The same basic principles apply to all life, including DNA.
The other examples you put forth, senses of beauty (the Aurora Borealis) and admiration (for the human spirit) are purely abstract human-made concepts, devoid of any scientific method of measuring them. In fact, the 'human spirit' - the will to pursue goals in the face of adversity - is perhaps an extension of the basest of emotions: the urge to survive.
The problem with theism is that it is intellectual cowardice. It is saying: "If you don't understand [insert concept], don't try to! Don't let science try to pursue it! It was God!"
In response to your comment about atheists being "ugly" towards religious people, I say that we treat religion just as we treat any other attributes such as political alignment - and criticize as we see fit. It has been addressed before (and with far more grace than I can put forth), but essentially my position is that there is an undeserved respect (I believe I picked up this term from Dawkins' new book) that people hold in place for religion, that we don't hold for other viewpoints. Atheists are just applying the same critical style to religion as anything else.
As for "folks who sue an entire school district because one fellow student had the audacity to bring up God in casual conversation... folks who feel the need to eradicate any form of religious text or writing in a public library, just because they don’t agree with it," I have never heard of either of these happening, ever. I don't know of any atheists who want to totally eliminate all thought about religion. It has a pivotal place in world history -- and, of course, atheists promote free thought. That means including all the details available for accurate representation of the facts.
I challenge you to assert a single piece of solid scientific evidence supporting 'god'. This shouldn't be a challenge if "Theists have been showing proof of the existence of a higher being for millennia."
On another note, it irritates me to no end when people claim atheism is a "faith" or "religion". That's like saying not having a dollar is the same thing as having one. "And even if there were absence of proof, that’s not the same as proof of absence, anyway." -- sorry, but that's not how rationality works. The opus ALWAYS falls on those who make the claim of something existing/being true/etc.
Plus, the fact that MS pays a tax to Universal for every player sold (a "sin tax" to make up for supposed losses due to piracy) royally pissed me off.
It's not about "cutting and running", it's about getting out of an unwinnable and illegal war before more Americans are killed.
e-voting is ridiculously insecure.
here is a STEP-BY-STEP guide to hacking an election.
http://www.lukelabern.com/free/Music/Aphex_Twin/%5bformula%5d.mp3
here we go: http://reidscones.com/up/macvspc-irl.png