Today's example of how Atheists are so awesome!

[mhughes0021]

Red (and others interested in this) - in regards to Occam's Razor, do you also look at the universe initiation and development through such a perspective? I, for one, have found it difficult to buy into a concept where everything was created via randomness. There really are two options, either Intelligent Design or Complete Randomness, unless there is a third option of which I am unaware. With the Complete Randomness, the beginning universe being a plasma state of sub-atomic particles, I don't see how the structure of the universe could end up so consistent throughout. Maybe Galaxy A would be uniformly constructed in terms of its atomic structure, and perhaps it shares the exact same traits and structure as a million other galaxies, but out of the trillions of trillions of galaxies, wouldn't randomness have created galaxies with differing atomic structure if everything was left to pure randomness?

For example instead of a proton, neutron, electron combination, wouldn't there be a galaxy created purely of anti-matter particles at a minimum? I know the scientific belief is that the percentage of anti-matter was smaller than the percentage of matter; however, in a completely random distribution, there would be pockets where the anti-matter percent would be greater than the normal matter and galaxies of anti-matter would exist. Consequently when a normal matter galaxy collides with an anti-matter galaxy the consequences would be literally astronomical. Even if all anti-matter galaxies collided with normal matter galaxies billions of years ago, the residual effects of such an event would be visible using the Background Radiation research, no? It sure seems to me a galactic sized matter/anti-matter collision would have left a relatively very hot reading picked up by the Background Radiation observation.

Also in a truly randomly created universe, it seems there would be galaxies where quarks combined to create atomic particles that different even from matter/anti-matter. Wouldn't there be multiple types of galaxy atomic structures resulting from a purely random beginning? They would be neither normal matter nor anti-matter, what would happen to those different galaxies, especially upon colliding with a matter or anti-matter galaxy? Wouldn't there be evidence of these in the Spectral Analysis of the universe done to date, where a galaxy does not exhibit the traditional Periodic Table?

It just seems that all "random" universe models are not random at all, but fabricated based off of what we have observed and therefore the end result is not random, but predictable. Such predictability implies there were preset factors in place, which is also implied due to the Natural Forces and the Laws by which they operate. If something is preset, it cannot be random, IMO.

I'm not presenting this as proof of Intelligent Design, but more of a Occam's Razor type test between Intelligent Design and Complete Randomness. As stated previously, there is potential for a third type of universe initiation and development, but I am not aware of it at this time.

In regards to Razor wouldn't it deal with a theoretical possibility of it being proved or atleast "simpler" to prove? Saying there some supreme being that took the randomness out of the equation would be impossible to prove. It also deals a lot with probability...scientific research has proved to be more probable than a book that includes a story about a 600 year old guy that builds a boat big enough to fit 2 of everything on it (had to plug the movie) ...then went on to live another 350 years after that.

I for one lean towards a multiverse. Big bang was probably something colliding with a "wall" of our universe. Theres a possibility of there being a supreme force (being) that created all the of universes. But I don't think he comes to vacation here on our universe very much (can you blame him...have you seen star wars?...our universe is lame). Theres a chance it doesn't even know we exist because as you say....the chances of our survival even from the onset of the big bang was very small. In time (a lot of it) space will expand....stars will spread out...and it will be too cold for new stars to form....and all life will cease to exist. So while theres a chance an entity like this exists...I don't really see the need to go to a tax free house on sundays and give them money. Especially since that tax free house used to tell people you HAD to give them money in order for your soul to get out of purgatory. Cause "God" needs money....right?! Religion is dumb....And for whatever religion you believe in....the end game is the same.....whether the sun engulfs the earth or we make it off this planet and billions of years later the stars burn out....everyone will be dead. so ill stick with something blew up and the anti matter didn't annihilate all the matter....because I just don't see this "big plan" that religious types like to talk about.

 

[KAWDUP]

The problem wasn't his mention of God. The issue was that the student went off the pre-approved speech. The school warned everyone that any deviation would result in the cutting of the mic. Religious crazies turned that into 1st amendment violations.

I apologize if you'all already knew this, but in the story I linked, the boy submitted his speech, and the principal asked that the part about thanking God for changing his life be removed. After some upset, the boy decided to omit that part of his speech.

He was just vocal about the fact that he shouldn't have been asked to remove it.

This was not the story about cutting off the microphone of some valedictorian who deviated from the accepted speech. I have no problem with that, if that was rules, and they were well known by all, there was nothing unfair about that.

But I agree with Red (big surprise I know), that thanking the tooth fairy should be OK , and so should thanking Allah, or God.

BTW - there is no consistency whatsoever applied where public funds are used to support something religious. It really just comes down to who gets their panties in a bunch when it occurs, and how far they are willing to go to get separation of church and state enforced. This is unfortunate, but is the world in which we live.

. . . and before Champ gets all up in arms about what I am saying. I recognize that the scale is tipped dramatically in favor of Christian religions when it comes to spending public money to support it.

 

[mhughes0021]

I apologize if you'all already knew this, but in the story I linked, the boy submitted his speech, and the principal asked that the part about thanking God for changing his life be removed. After some upset, the boy decided to omit that part of his speech.

He was just vocal about the fact that he shouldn't have been asked to remove it.

This was not the story about cutting off the microphone of some valedictorian who deviated from the accepted speech. I have no problem with that, if that was rules, and they were well known by all, there was nothing unfair about that.

But I agree with Red (big surprise I know), that thanking the tooth fairy should be OK , and so should thanking Allah, or God.

BTW - there is no consistency whatsoever applied where public funds are used to support something religious. It really just comes down to who gets their panties in a bunch when it occurs, and how far they are willing to go to get separation of church and state enforced. This is unfortunate, but is the world in which we live.

. . . and before Champ gets all up in arms about what I am saying. I recognize that the scale is tipped dramatically in favor of Christian religions when it comes to spending public money to support it.

off subject but in California this week they suspended a girl for shaving her head in support of her best friend that was diagnosed with cancer. Schools are fucked up...educational system is fucked up. Sucks for the good teachers that are out there....but far too often I run into people in the educational system that were just simply too dumb to get a different job.

 

[Michchamp]

...

BTW - there is no consistency whatsoever applied where public funds are used to support something religious. It really just comes down to who gets their panties in a bunch when it occurs, and how far they are willing to go to get separation of church and state enforced. This is unfortunate, but is the world in which we live.

and judging from your tone, you are apparently okay with this because...?

. . . I recognize that the scale is tipped dramatically in favor of Christian religions when it comes to spending public money to support it.

Oh, right, that's why.

 

[Michchamp]

...

BTW - there is no consistency whatsoever applied where public funds are used to support something religious. It really just comes down to who gets their panties in a bunch when it occurs, and how far they are willing to go to get separation of church and state enforced. This is unfortunate, but is the world in which we live.

...

Also there is no consistency not because the laws are unclear, but because assholes disregard those laws in order to push their religion on other people. But it's not as systematic as you make it out to be, at least in much of the country. It's a good sign that in the state where I live, and others I would consider living, when some moron puts up the 10 commandments or a christian display on a public monument, at least it provokes an outcry, if its not taken down.

At least those of us who know and understand WHY they drafted the 1st amendment the way they did, and why (most) courts have interpreted it a certain way have that going for us...

 

[KAWDUP]

and judging from your tone, you are apparently okay with this because...?



Oh, right, that's why.

No, Kemosabe, it has nothing to do with the scale being tipped in favor of my religion. Only you would think that.

Assume the worst of people - it is what you do. I just would not spend any more public dollars trying to fight something that really has little affect on me.

Would I oppose any proposal to spend dollars supporting religion - absolutely. Would I go to the mat if some dollars get spent that way? No, you aren't getting your tax dollars back no matter how much your panties are in a bunch.

If it makes you feel better to persecute those people when it happens, I will probably come out against you. You are the one being a dick about it. I would be in favor of trying to work it so it doesn't happen again - and not by throwing violator's in jail either.

Compassion seems like a lost cause with you.

 

[KAWDUP]

Also there is no consistency not because the laws are unclear, but because assholes disregard those laws in order to push their religion on other people. But it's not as systematic as you make it out to be, at least in much of the country. It's a good sign that in the state where I live, and others I would consider living, when some moron puts up the 10 commandments or a christian display on a public monument, at least it provokes an outcry, if its not taken down.

At least those of us who know and understand WHY they drafted the 1st amendment the way they did, and why (most) courts have interpreted it a certain way have that going for us...

Right, it is always the "moron" who puts up a Christian display. It isn't possible the people who are "outcrying" are just as much of a moron, and perfectly willing to persecute those others.

Glad I don't live, and never have lived, in a community like yours.

. . . tell me o' Constitutional scholar - why did they draft the 1st amendment the way they did - your "absolute correct" interpretation aside?

 

[Michchamp]

No, Kemosabe, it has nothing to do with the scale being tipped in favor of my religion. Only you would think that.

Assume the worst of people - it is what you do. I just would not spend any more public dollars trying to fight something that really has little affect on me.

Would I oppose any proposal to spend dollars supporting religion - absolutely. Would I go to the mat if some dollars get spent that way? No, you aren't getting your tax dollars back no matter how much your panties are in a bunch.

If it makes you feel better to persecute those people when it happens, I will probably come out against you. You are the one being a dick about it. I would be in favor of trying to work it so it doesn't happen again - and not by throwing violator's in jail either.

Compassion seems like a lost cause with you.

If the ACLU/Atheists didn't spend their own money to sue schoolboards & state/local governments over the nonsense they pull, there would be no bar to them doing it! There's no guarantee the judge will award them attorneys fees when they win (IF they win).

The only reason it doesn't happen more often is the threat of lawsuits!

 

[KAWDUP]

If the ACLU/Atheists didn't spend their own money to sue schoolboards & state/local governments over the nonsense they pull, there would be no bar to them doing it! There's no guarantee the judge will award them attorneys fees when they win (IF they win).

The only reason it doesn't happen more often is the threat of lawsuits!

Well, even on my "moron" side, there are zealot's who would countersue, and that is a huge deterrent (so is that agreeing with you - I am not sure :*)).

That is why I would continue to work through local government to stop it from happening again. I realize that ACLU does this - I guess I just have a problem with the litigious nature that we jump to so quickly. Sure seems like we have lost the ability to compromise. If our society fails, I am positive this would play a big part in it.

 

[Michchamp]

Well, even on my "moron" side, there are zealot's who would countersue, and that is a huge deterrent (so is that agreeing with you - I am not sure :*)).

That is why I would continue to work through local government to stop it from happening again. I realize that ACLU does this - I guess I just have a problem with the litigious nature that we jump to so quickly. Sure seems like we have lost the ability to compromise. If our society fails, I am positive this would play a big part in it.

I don't think spending the money to sue to keep the 10 Commandments out of a courtroom (for example) is being overly litigious.

there are some cases where they are probably going too far. I think some atheist group sued over a cross that had been up on National Park land for close to a 100 years, and was funded as a memorial to WWI vets or something like that. In cases like that, I think discretion is the better part of valor.

Certainly any new stuff that happens, is worthy of a suit, and not frivolous, no? if not, the risk that a lack of opposition will embolden more egregious incidents.

the risk of a countersuit... it's tough to see that as really happening. they would have to have some basis for pushing it or it would get dismissed. usually when there's a lawsuit from the ACLU or atheists, christian groups (it's never Buddhist groups for some reason) will file amicus briefs on behalf of the state or school board, which are the legal equivalent to "having someone's back" in a fight, but not actually being at risk of getting punched. and the court may completely ignore amicus briefs if they choose.

 

[KAWDUP]

I don't think spending the money to sue to keep the 10 Commandments out of a courtroom (for example) is being overly litigious.

Certainly any new stuff that happens, is worthy of a suit, and not frivolous, no? if not, the risk that a lack of opposition will embolden more egregious incidents.

Frivolous is not the word I would use. I would like it to just be unnecessary. I gotta believe most of these things could be settled if people didn't get all butt hurt whenever something happens which they believe negatively affects them. Who is mediating these things anyway, and why aren't we supporting those entities better? The ridiculously expensive court system really needs to be a last resort.

E.g. If more egregious incidents occur, then the other side has definitely left the word compromise out of their vocabulary, and might need to be sued to make them realize this, but again I think it happens way too often with our entitlement minded society.

"I'm entitled to have my religious beliefs" and
"I'm entitled to not have your religious beliefs thrust in my face"

Both are true. No middle ground anywhere?

There should be.

 

[sggatecl]

 

[Gulo Blue]

I don't know if it qualifies as a third option, but order can arise naturally within disorder. Entropy holds for closed systems, but within a system, regions can become more ordered at the expense of greater entropy elsewhere. Could that mean that the observable universe is just a pocket of consistency within a larger set of possible conditions that can be found outside of it? I don't know.

Regarding the pockets of order within disorder idea...the word I was looking for was "inflation".

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/multiverse-controversy-inflation-gravitational-waves/

 

[Michchamp]

Here's a little good news for the religion board.

A local chapter of atheists in Rochester, NY is countering the brainwashing, proselytizing of the Christian after-school "Good News Club" with a club dedicated to furthering science-based critical thinking called the "Better News Club."

Link:

Kevin Davis, a Better News Club member, said the goal of Young Skeptics is not proselytizing for atheism. ?It isn?t atheism for kids; it doesn?t address debunking religion because they are little kids and we don?t want to use the same tactics as the Good News Club by telling them what to think,? he said in a telephone interview. ?Our focus is on science-based critical thinking.?
​

 

[tinselwolverine]

It's my understanding that conservative political analyst S.E. refers to herself as an
atheist.

She seems like she's a pretty good egg.

 

[Michchamp]

It's my understanding that conservative political analyst S.E. refers to herself as an
atheist.

She seems like she's a pretty good egg.

will you please stop bringing her up here? it's obvious she's a shameless panderer, simply trying to position herself as the serious "intellectual Republican female." (easy enough to do when when your competition is Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Bachmann, etc.)

FWIW, here's what she said about her lack of religious belief, according to a quote on her wiki page:

Cupp has described herself as an atheist, but has consistently stated that she is open to theism,[20][21][22] and "really aspires to be a person of faith some day."
​

What the hell does that mean? Once an opportunity presents itself, she'll happily adopt whatever faith needed?

oh, and it appears she posed for Maxim... real smart move lady.

 

[Gulo Blue]

will you please stop bringing her up here? it's obvious she's a shameless panderer, simply trying to position herself as the serious "intellectual Republican female." (easy enough to do when when your competition is Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Bachmann, etc.)

FWIW, here's what she said about her lack of religious belief, according to a quote on her wiki page:

Cupp has described herself as an atheist, but has consistently stated that she is open to theism,[20][21][22] and "really aspires to be a person of faith some day."
​

What the hell does that mean? Once an opportunity presents itself, she'll happily adopt whatever faith needed?

oh, and it appears she posed for Maxim... real smart move lady.

So what you're saying is she's no true atheist.

 

[tinselwolverine]

So what you're saying is she's no true atheist.

All right then I guess I'll take her off the 'awesome' list.

 

[byco42]

For M-champ:

 

[Michchamp]

someone apparently told her that glasses add 20 IQ points.