carepov

No. Probably not, but probably more than you. IMO, most Christians do not read the bible and know not much more than a few stories. Most Christians do not take these stories literally. Most Christians understand that the bible was written by humans and therefore flawed. No. If we "know" so much then there would be no need for books like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_God. There would ne no need for Departments of Theology. First, there is no "resulting story" - there are a bunch of stories. Second, there is more to religion than stories. Some people "practice" a religion and don't believe any of the stories. Some believe them all. Most are somewhere in between.

Oops, I did not realize that navy costs were being compared to air force costs. Thanks for pointing that out. However, Boeng says operating costs of the Hornets will be about 25% less than legacy planes, while Lockheed says costs will be about the same. Not that I trust the salesmen. But who can you trust?! Not our government, alas. Do you have a link to support your claim about the Super Hornet being obsolete faster than the F35?

A dude-god that is fond of killing people and takes Sundays off, etc, is about as unplausible as a Gummy Bear god. The Christian (Abrahamic) God is not so easily defined. I already suggested "The History of God" by Karen Armstrong. AFAIK, most beleivers think that this God is mysterious and unknowable.

When there are two claims where neither is supported by scientific evidence and neither is refuted by evidence, the less specific the claim, the more plausible the beleif.

Mighty AC, I looked up Asimov, and I think that you should pay attention to some of the things he says: "I believe there's enough evidence for us to think that a big bang took place. But there is no evidence whatsoever to suppose that a superhuman being said, "Let it be." However, neither is there any evidence against it; so, if a person feels comfortable believing that, I am willing to have him believe it... as an article of faith. I have articles of faith, too. I have an article of faith that says the universe makes sense. Now there's no way you can prove that the universe makes sense, but there's just no fun in living in the universe if it doesn't make sense... my belief is that no matter how far we go we will always find that the universe makes sense. We will never get to the point where it suddenly stops making sense. But that is just an assumption on my part... I don't feel that people who believe in God will automatically be noble, but neither do I think they will automatically be wicked. I don't think those who don't believe in God will be automatically noble or automatically wicked either. I think this is a choice for every human being..." "Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." http://www.adherents.com/people/pa/Isaac_Asimov.html

Explain the difference. What evidence or reasoning makes one idea superior to the other? More specific claims/beleifs are less plausible.

I must agree with you there. Stil I admire his effort and they guy seems to have a lot of knowledge. How about this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew He seems logical, no?

I call BS on you. Even Lockheed Martin says that the F35 operating costs will be about the same as "Legacy" fighters: According to the GAO, the Super Hornet actually costs the U.S. Navy $15,346 an hour to fly. It sounds like a lot — until you see that the U.S. Air Force's official "target" for operating the F-35 is $31,900 an hour. The GAO says it's a little more — closer to $32,500. CBC also asked Lockheed Martin to say if it had any quarrel with these numbers — and it did not. In a written response, a Lockheed spokesman declined to offer any different figures, but insisted the F-35's operating costs would be "comparable to or lower than" the "legacy platforms" — meaning, older jets — that it will replace. Those do not include the Super Hornets, which Boeing says are 25 per cent cheaper to run than Canada's "legacy" CF-18s. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-touts-fighter-jet-to-rival-f-35-at-half-the-price-1.1320636

There are however differences in "unsupported beliefs". First of all, there are beliefs that are benign and those that are harmful. Then there are degrees of plausibility. Saying that "I believe that some force beyond humanity's ability to comprehend created the universe" is not equivalent to the "tooth fairy" or "the great gummy bear". And worse than unsupported beliefs are refuted beliefs, some whoppers include: -Today's GM foods are worse for you than non-GM food -Vaccines cause autism -Growing corn to produce fuel is good for the environment -Free trade causes poverty and harms the environment -Republicans/Conservatives have better records in controlling deficits -Mandatory minimums and harsher sentences = "safer communities" -Teaching religious beliefs to children is a form of child abuse You seem to be making a big deal out of unsupported yet plausible and benign beliefs.

Well this guy tries - and he tries very hard: http://www.godandscience.org/ Are his arguments logical? Note: by posting this site I am not endorsing it

Do you think that they got what they deserved? They were totured and have been imprissoned in brutal conditions. They are human - none of the details you give above should matter. They should be charged and given due process or released. This is not selectivity, this is in fact the opposite - the universality of human rights.

Well first we would need the following policies: -do not buy stuff that we do not need -do not buy overpriced stuff -when shopping for expensive stuff, get some competitive quotes -do not buy broken stuff -do not buy "made in Canada" when we can get the same thing for less than half the cost from elsewhere You are right - it all starts with figuring out what our defence needs are, for Canada and as part of NATO. From what I've read and posted the F35 would cost double the Super Hornet both in purchase AND long-term operating costs. Perhaps the money saved can be better spent on taking care of injured troops. Also, additional spending would depend on what Canada'a and NATOs needs are.

They are human beings and they were tortured and have been living in brutal conditions. Are you not concerned? Do you think that they got what they deserved?

Oh OK, I'm glad I asked, I though you were saying something like "they deserved what they got".

BS. Why would the US or Australia buying new Hornets if they are going to be obsolete? IMO we should spend roughly what we spend now ($20 Billion, 1.15 % of GDP, 9% of budget). This should be gradually reduced to about 0.9-1.0 % of GDP - savings can be achieved through better procurement and less waste, fewer overlapping capabilities with NATO allies. These savings will also allow for investments in more useful things to our national defence and for expanding our capabilities that would be most useful to our NATO allies.

First: two people have been tortured and are living in brutal conditions. It does not matter what their beliefs are. It does not matter what their sexual orientation is. It does not matter what their travel plans were. It does not matter that they would have been treated better in Israel or worse under Hamas. Actually it should not even matter whether or not they committed a crime. We should be outraged that any humans are treated this way. Canadian diplomats should do everything in their power to have them treated humanely. Second: it sure looks like they are being held unjustly and did not break any laws. They should be charged and given due process or released immediately. http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1770&ea.campaign.id=22879 *** What do you mean by: "But they should bare the responsibility for getting themselves in that situation."

OK, even if you were right (and I do not think you are) do you think 65 F35s can "protect our sovereignty" and not 65 Hornets or other cheaper options? Do you think over-paying $100's of millions for 2-3 ships is acceptable? In your opinion how much should Canada spend on defense (in $$, % of budget or % of GDP)? Shopuld we "invest" in nuclear weapons - that would deter the "bad guys"? How about aircraft carriers, do we "need" some of those?

Why? Which beliefs? Harmful in what way? Humans are the source of ethics and religion. Why bother with religion? It is in our nature as humans to be religious. At no point in human history, from the first humans to the present can we separate religion from society. Even if we could, why would we want to do this. Many people seek out and draw great benefits from religion including worthy inspiration. Yes. In the end the dumb-ass republican leadership was soundly defeated and most of their dumb-ass misogynistic, discriminatory, creationist and homophobic ideas were properly exposed and ridiculed, whether or not they claimed to be religious-based or not. The Republicans of 2000-2013 are not a Christian-based movement, they are an ignorance-based movement. Thankfully their influence is declining! There is some truth to your claim that secular influence on organized religion has been beneficial. But I argue that overwhelmingly the positive influence has been from religious teachings to society. Many humanist ideas have been and continue to be inspired by religion and spread though religious groups. How are you defining "value"? Believing in god(s) and practicing a religion is clearly valuable to many people. Why do you insist on insulting all believers, including those that give up so many of their own comforts in order to help others?

I disagree but I don't know much about the Bible so won't engage on this point. Where are kids learning this now? No, I thought the consensous was that most religious beliefs (by definition, without scientific evidence) are benign. Harmful beliefs should be challenged and changed You are overstating both the size and influence of so-called "massive movements". You are also not mentioning the faith-based movements and countless smaller actions that promote social justice/humanitarianism.

You mis-read my post: my opinion is that practicing religious people are underrepresented in prisons. I did not at all mean to suggest that religion/morals be taught in school. I 100 % agree with you. However, earlier in this thread some people equated religious education (eg: Sunday school) to child abuse. A common theme with some posters is that religious teachings weakens the mind, especially critical thinking skills. Do you see these or other downsides associated with taking kids to religious services and some religious education (outside public schools)?

Thanks, very interesting. I wonder what percentage of prisoners know what "atheist" means? Sorry if I gave the impression of "moving goalposts" I did not mean to establish any goalposts. As I described in my previous post - I think that there needs to be a distinction between self-identified religious affiliations and those people that actually are active practitioners of a religion. Yes it is fair to say the self-identified non-religious and atheists are underrepresented in US federal prisons. So far I know nothing about whether or not practicing religious people (those people that were practicing their religion lets say 12 months before they committed their crimes) are over/under represented. My money is on under. Many people receive religious/moral/values teachings that goes in one ear and out the other. Is this any different than learning Canadian history or trigonometry? Would the fact that Canadians are largely ignorant of trigonometry and their own history dispute anyone's claim that public education is the best way of teaching these subjects? I think that there are so many upsides to a moderate amount of religious/moral teaching/practice for children (1-2 hours per week) and no downside.

Don't you think that there's a chance that the Aussies will sober up and cancel their plans for the F35 and stick with the Hornets that they are so fond of?

The article that segnosaur brought up seems to contract almost everything you say above. "... the Australian government revealed it is thinking about buying 24 more Boeing Super Hornets fighters, to add to the 24 it bought recently. The first two dozen were seen as a bridge between the Royal Australian Air Force’s existing fighters and the delayed arrival of the F-35s. But the RAAF is so happy with the Super Hornet, defence minister Stephen Smith says the plane is no longer a transitional aircraft. Australia intended to buy 100 F-35s and sell back the Super Hornets to the U.S. government. Now Mr. Smith says the plane, with its Growler electronics system that jams land-based radar, will play a central role in Australia’s air defences for the forseeable future. “We are now not just looking at Super Hornets as transition, but looking at the longer-term potential of Super Hornets and Growler and Joint Strike Fighters [F-35s] as a mixed fleet,” said Mr. Smith." http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/13/john-ivison-there-are-no-cheap-alternatives-to-the-f-35s-for-canada/

My understanding is that the Australians originally planned on buying 24 Hornets as a stop-gap before getting their F35s. They are very impressed with the Hornets so are considering buying 24 more. I presume that they would reduce the number of F35s that they purchase. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/13/john-ivison-there-are-no-cheap-alternatives-to-the-f-35s-for-canada/

The US does not need to enforce or sovereignty. Our sovereignty has been and will continue to be protected thanks to our special relationship with the US - this has been and will continue to be the case whether or not we spend 1% or 5% of our GDP on defence.