dusqi

Posts on /. say that her account wasn't "hacked" - she was stupid enough to use her zip code as the password and someone guessed it (I can't find confirmation of this though).

Now the US government has bailed out AIG with an $85Bn loan...

It doesn't sound like it is trying to convert anyone, it is just telling people about a place where they can find out information about what Muslims believe. Five grand is obviously not going to challenge all the misconceptions in America, but people do have questions and some may ring up to see what Muslims say directly. If you have questions about Christianity, it probably wouldn't be too difficult to find a representative to ask them. If you have questions about Islam however, you might find it easier to call a number anonymously. I think that it is a nice idea.

Looks like Lehman Brothers investment bank is going into insolvency, since the US government says that they won't bail them out. Interesting times!

Oh ja.. and you just happened to have time to do a skydive... Sigh.. looks amazing. The beaches.. wow!

No, you kept saying things like "I don't think it's really the iPod we get excited about" and "we can appear to others to be smart". Anyway, good stuff, sorry for this confusion.

Thinking of it that way, you're right. We shouldn't be getting excited about a new iPod every year. But I don't think it's really the iPod we get excited about or even the new features. I think it's the idea that there's "new" technology and we could be the first of our social groups to obtain said technology. And on top of that, we can appear to others to be smart because we can probably list off all the new features of our latest toy and our peers will envy us and want to buy one as well. So for a few days, you could be on top. It's like vehicles, they release a "new" version of most models every year and we eat them up when sometimes all they did was throw a year on it and call it "new". So essentially we're not getting excited over the product, but the social aspect of having the latest and greatest things. The marketers would be proud of you all :) They spend a lot of time and money manipulating you, and not only have you been manipulated into getting excited about stuff that shouldn't be exciting, but you even understand and accept that that is what is happening! Check out CERN. That's some cool new technology! :thumbup: (not that I'm immune to marketing hype. I bought a pointlessly large TV, and it probably doesn't really improve my life...)

Heh, you newbs make me feel old (yes, I use the word 'newbs' to mean 'people significantly younger than I am'. You're life newbs :) ). In elementary school? Heh... I was 15. I find it very strange that there are people around now who didn't really understand what was happening when it did. Concerning whether we should forget it. I think part of the issue is that many of the people that posted here aren't from America. Someone mentioned the 2005 tsunami and how it isn't marked any more, I'm sure that the Asians in that part of the world still mark it. So yes, Americans can't expect the rest of the world to keep marking an American tragedy.

I don't get it with i-pods. It plays music, fine, that was done years ago. I see no reason to get excited about "new" versions every year, especially for hundreds of dollars.

^^ in response to everyone who likes someone but hasn't done anything about it.

The BBC spoke to one of the scientists at Cern, here's what he says about the chances of the end of the world: In other words, The Sun knows that the story is rubbish, but in the end they'll print anything if they think it will sell newspapers. So if you read The Sun, you're asking to be lied to.

I have never viewed it, although I did read an article in the NY Times about the founder.

True, that. My question to you though, and I am genuinely interested in the answer, is why you think that God is more plausible/likely than flying pink elephants? You have said that it is a matter of opinion, what do you base yours on? This statement is both wrong and funny. It is wrong, because Dawkins says that he and everyone else can and should be questioned. It is funny, because you think that it is an insult to say that atheism has an infallible pope, and yet the idea obviously comes from religion itself. So if it is a bad thing to follow someone (or something, i.e. Bible) who can't be wrong and teaches all, why are you religious? :) (I assume you are, I might be wrong).

I love life, and I make no apologies for it. Religions tell you that you are born evil, that the good things in the world are done by God, that only by doing what God tells you to do will you be saved, that you should be subservient to His will, that you need to pray to Him to give you His strength, that He has already decided what is good and bad and all you need to do is act it out. I have an altogether more optimistic view of human-kind. There are different degrees of theist. Some refuse to send their children to state schools, because they afraid of the influence that teaching reality might have. Some refuse to take blood, for example I vaguely remember a recent case where someone was dying but their religion said that they should not have transfused blood. Some theists do end up praying all day - monks give up their whole life to austerity in the name of God. Some people kill themselves in the name of religion. I remember a Dawkins program where he mentioned someone he knew that was a promising biologist, but gave it up because his religion said that evolution must be wrong. These are the extreme examples, but there less extreme examples in normal life. Lots of people do give up hours of their week to prayer. I suspect that more would be achieved in life if lots of people weren't only planning for the after-life.

Hahaha, you rock :thumbup:

Yeah, it boils down to opinion. I disagree with this - it is based on opinion, but people have reasons for their opinions. So I think that there are a few reasons that people think that God is more likely than flying pink elephants: 1) because to them, He answers the "great mysteries" (already talked about) 2) because they've been brought up with it, and it has a 2,000+ year history 3) because nature is sometimes beautiful, so they think that someone must have done it. 4) because to them the alternative (that there is no God) is scary. They are afraid of reality. They are afraid that there are things that they cannot change. They are afraid because things happen that seem random and unfair. I think that these are bad reasons. Specifically #4, although there are things that we cannot change, we have the freedom and ability to try. Things do happen that seem random and unfair, but we have the freedom and ability to try to understand them and try to make them fair. Reality is confusing, complicated and scary, but it is also exhilarating, like leaving home for the first time. And who knows where you could end up? Do not ask or expect God to do good things. Do not be subservient in prayer. Make the good things happen yourself. Accept control of your life and have belief in your self and in the people around you.

50/50 since it's the most "fair" if you ask me. Why would it be any other number, unless there are factors changing your opinion (keyword: opinion - meaning everyone's numbers will probably differ). So that means that you see it as a 50% chance that the flying spaghetti monster exists. You see it as a 50% chance that I have the magical power to fly but have just never used it. You see it as a 50% chance that the world is run by tiny fuzzy hamsters running in hamster wheels that are too minute to detect. There is no evidence for or against any of these. And now we come down to the reality, which is that God only "exists" through faith. In other words, He is only in our imaginations. Of course, the existence of mental institutions shows that just because you believe something with all your heart and soul, it doesn't make it true. And this why I dislike the concept of God. Because I think that faith is insidious. Faith isn't a good thing. It just shows that you'll believe something with no evidence. We come back to homeopathic medicine, psychics (who, as Venomai has pointed out, actually seem to have a little evidence on their side - at least, more than God does), astrology, and various other rubbish that permeates society. I don't want anyone who has power over anyone but themselves making decisions on the basis of "faith". It's not a reasonable rationale. Because if you survived with a 0.000001% chance, it means that another 100 million people died who had the same odds as you. "God" doesn't intervene. Studies have been done between patients who had prayers for them, and patients who did not. There was no difference. So, you happened to be the one to survive, it means that you were simply the lucky one. Why thank God for your good fortune? Thank your family for their support, the doctors for their help. Perhaps life is more important to you than you realised and so you clung on - so thank your inner strength. I was thinking about something similar while watching the Olympics. I bet that a large proportion of the athletes who won gold medals prayed to God before they won them. I bet that a large proportion of these athletes are now thanking God for His help. But of course, the other athletes who didn't win gold medals also prayed to God, it just didn't work out for them. So, there is no evidence that God actually intervened, but He still got the credit... So, I find that sad. To me, the excellence of gold medal winning athletes shows the amazingness of humans whereby even when they think that they have given every last ounce of their strength, there is still more to give. God didn't do their amazing feats, they did, and they should give themselves the credit. But the teapot just keeps getting smaller. If we can detect an atom's gravity, I just say that the teapot is smaller than an atom. This is what I think happens with God. God used to run the weather, but now meteorology does. God used to create man, but now evolution does. Like the teapot, God just gets smaller and smaller until He is irrelevant. I say: since we have no reason to think that science won't solve every great mystery, why not just accept that He is already irrelevant.

I am not agnostic. My question is, why does it apparently take so little to convince you? 1. There is no evidence for God 2. On the contrary, there is lots of evidence that Gods in the past and in the present have all been made up by humans 3. God doesn't solve any great mysteries that science cannot solve, and therefore has no effect on the world. Why do you think that the chances of this are 50/50? Again, I bring up the teapot orbiting the Earth. It's a small one, too small to detect, therefore there is no evidence for it (#1). There's a good chance that I just made it up (#2). It doesn't serve any useful purpose or have any effect on the world (#3). Please estimate for me the chance that it exists. 1. Because I think that God closes up peoples' eyes to the real world, and its real beauty and power. I would like to share this exhilarating feeling (much like theists like to spread the "good news"). My good news is that there is no God. There is no one watching you. You have free will over your life. The goodness in the world comes from people, not God. You have the opportunity to make the world even better. You are not born inherently evil. Curiosity is certainly not a sin, and is perhaps one of the best parts of being human. 2. Because I think that the concept of "faith" is destructive. It betrays a decision-making failure that is not limited to faith. As soon as someone thinks that it is OK to accept things based on faith, then poor decisions start getting made. For example, the two main leaders in the Iraq war, Bush and Blair, both talked about how faith affected their decision. Although the decision-making failure that is faith isn't just limited to politics. Astrology, psychics, "alternative medicine", are all faith-based decision-making failures, because there is no evidence but people believe them anyway. 3. Because religions have a fair amount of power, and I do not think that much of it is beneficial. Show me some evidence that there isn't. See the orbiting teapot example above. There is no evidence that it doesn't exist (because it is so small that it is undetectable). Do you believe it? No. Because to make a claim like that, you'd expect to see some evidence first. You don't just go ahead and believe me first and then only change your mind once you have evidence against it.

What are you saying? You deny the fact that our logic gets progressively better and allows new discoveries? Sorry, but I disagree. I see a world of difference between the average person's intelligence from the 1800's and someone of our time. We're always making new discoveries. What used to be "great mysteries" back in the day can now be considered common knowledge (how to fly, how to get into space, human anatomy, I could go on and on!). Where is your evidence (that thing atheists crave so much) that we can't become more advanced in concerns to our thought process? Where is your evidence that proving/disproving God in the future is impossible? I think that I have not explained myself. Here goes: 1. You say there are great mysteries 2. I say that they are, but that there is no reason to assume that science won't solve them one day 3. You say that "now is what matters since this discussion is taking place in the present". 4. I say, but since we have no reason to assume that science won't solve them in the future, they're not by definition beyond science. Therefore, there is no need for a God to do the solving. For example, the origin of the universe if a "great mystery". If we could logically never solve it, then we'd need a God to do it. But, since there is no reason to assume that science will not solve it one day, we have no need for a God. 5. Since God doesn't solve any great mysteries, why bother to think that there might be one? I could say that there is a tiny teapot circling the Earth. It doesn't serve any purpose, and it's too small for you to detect. Do you believe me? No? Because you have no evidence that there is one (like God), and because the teapot has no reason for being there (like God). Now that's just plain silly. Is there is a "need" for atheism? Your argument is one-sided. I just wanted to point that out to you. I can almost use your own words against you. You sound like the atheist version of Sly. God is the one that has to have a "need". Atheism just says that we have no evidence for God, so why even consider it? I can come up with a thousand other stupid ideas that have no evidence and fulfill no purpose. Are you agnostic about the flying spaghetti monster? What about the ancient weather Gods? There's no evidence for their existence, and since we learned how the weather works (or, at least, we have no reason to assume that one day we won't fully understand how the weather works), there's no need for them to exist either. Most atheists are technically agnostic, in that they would admit that you can never "disprove" God. However, since there is no evidence for a God, and there is no reason for there to be a God, the atheists just say that it is extremely unlikely (0.0000001% chance). If God turned up and performed some miracles, then the atheists wouldn't have been wrong. They'd just say that there was no evidence in the past, but now there is. So they'd have no problem accepting it once the evidence came.

That's my point. "Now" is what matters since this discussion is taking place in the present. I believe that we can still achieve a greater level of consciousness and greater logic - as cheesy as that sounds. Until there's a foolproof way of proving the existence/nonexistence of God, no one should be intolerant with the other party - and I have a feeling that lots of people take this thread too seriously. If you can't tell me how the universe started (might not be the best example but I'm sure you get the point), then how can you tell me whether God exists or not? We're all entitled to opinions on this thread, but I don't like when people speak as if their opinions are facts. It just sounds like the tiny teapot to me (I imagine you know the argument, but I will write it here for those who do not). There's a tiny teapot that is orbiting the Earth. As soon as we go looking for it, they just say that the teapot is smaller than we can detect. It goes on to infinity where as our detecting equipment gets better, the teapot just gets smaller and smaller. It's basically impossible to disprove that kind of negative. But, of course, that doesn't mean that it is at all likely that there is actually a teapot out there. So, how this ties in with the "great mysteries", is because if someone can find a good argument to say that actually science could never ever discover something like the origin of the universe, then that means that there's a decent-sized gap for a God to fit in. However, since I don't know of any argument that could say that science could never ever answer one of these great mysteries, there is no reason to just assume that there's space for a God. There's no evidence for a God, and there's no need for a God either.

Everyone seems to be so sure that reason/logic (applied in a "perfect" sense) are fallible. I do not agree. Sure, there are some "great mysteries", but to say that reason is fallible you'd have to find a way of showing that reason could never ever fathom them. My view is that they are mysteries now, but not forever. So, I see no reason to not think that logic is an infallible tool that can crack all the codes in the universe.

I agree! And yet, that is your God. Magic and fairy dust. A way to describe the unexplained. Don't even bother insulting any belief/religion. It comes off as nothing but rude. I am making a point. You said that the world would be a dull place if everything happened magically (without a reason discernible by science). That's what God is. God comes along and everything "magically" happens without any scientific reason. I find science and the world around us to be beautiful, startling and thrilling. So that makes you and your idea of God the rude ones. Faith and love are the two that come to my mind. Logic doesn't tell us to help the less fortunate and be kinder to others. If anything, logic tells us to leave those behind. So if there was no God, you'd go around killing people you didn't like? No? Because humans have evolved compassion. We have evolved reason, and it tells us that equality and freedom are good things that we should love, even if a God won't reward us for it in an afterlife. Faith contains no inherent conception of goodness, the Holy Texts are interpreted in thousands of different ways, many of them evil (e.g. the Taleban) - the only goodness comes from our evolved capacity for reason and compassion.

I agree! And yet, that is your God. Magic and fairy dust. A way to describe the unexplained.

I think that that is common with those kinds of offers, the ones where you sign up now and it's cheap or free, but they charge you if you choose to keep your subscription. Either they'll make a "mistake", or the internet form will be "broken", or you'll be kept on the phone for hours, or they'll say they didn't get your letter... etc. I have been kept on hold for about an hour before, when calling gas, electricity, and especially internet companies.

I am from the UK where the age limit is 18. I tend to agree with people that the age limit usually doesn't matter since if kids want to drink then they will. However, I can think of a situation where it does matter. At university in the UK, it seems that basically every social event (offical and unofficial) is centred around drinking. It either begins or ends in a pub or club. Indeed, the students union recently started going out of their way to hold the odd event that didn't involve drinking because there were literally none before that. At least in the US, it isn't assumed that the only way that college kids spend social time will involve alcohol, because it isn't technically legal yet.