carepov

For every person distracted by their religion there is another one that, with the help of their religion, becomes more focussed on the things that matter (family, environment, etc..) Really? People/institution destroy the environment because of their religion - this is a ridiculous claim. In Canada religion is very private . IMO it become glaringly public when some anti-religious people campaign to stamp out all religion based on their belief that the world would be a better place without religion.

Again, I see and understand the diference, but in some cases (not all) the difference is meaningless. For example: "I beleive in ETs" "I think that there is a 99.999% chance that ETs exist because the Drake equation says so" Yes different, but both are unscientific leaps of faith.

It may be missing an unknown factor. The Drake equation is mathematically meaningless. It is a contemplative tool. It is also a tool used to ensure abundant funding for programs like the SETI. If a person believes in ETs it is a leap of faith - whether or not the Drake equation was used.

I see the difference in theory but I am having trouble seeing a difference in practice. It often comes down to what assumptions that you believe in. For example, assuming the individual functions in one thing, but what about the assumption that the Drake Equation has any validity whatsoever, what evidence is that based on? IMO, some people that "think something is 99.9 % certain" based on certain explicitly stated assumptions are "worse" than other people that "think probably God exists, what the heck I'll just beleive in God and my universe will seem more ordered".

Well not necessarily. Why is the low estimate less valid than the high estimate: R* = 7/year,[21]fp = 0.4,[22]ne*fl = 10−11, fi = 10−9,[23]fc = 0.1, and L = 304 years[24] result in N = 7 × 0.4 × 10-11 × 10-9 × 0.1 × 304 = 8 x 10-20 (suggesting that we are probably alone in this galaxy, and likely the observable universe) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation Really, what evidence can we gather to estimate: ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets fe = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations) fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[ I have a new equation: (assumption) x (estimate) x (educated guess) x (belief)n = a belief disguised as an evidence-based statement of probability where n => 1

Sure, but you did not answer my question. Was Khadr worth it? Is he such a big threat that he warants all the division in our society? All the resources wasted? All the media propaganda advantage given to the enemy? Like eyeball asked above: wtf??? Where do you get this from?

Yes I see your points and agree, thanks.

So the evidence of intelligent life outside of our planet is the vastness of the universe? What if someone said that the evidence of a God is the vastness of the universe? Some theology does take thinks much further but some believers claim that God is incomprehensible and unimaginable to humans. Analogous to some unknown life form that is almost certainly out there somewhere - for which we have no evidence for. hmmm....

You seem to care that some people believe that religious believers are intellectually inferior to non-religious believers, right?

Thanks, for the well-reasoned answer. I agree with your categories and your analogies. I do question the claim that by using the Drake Equation and then "concluding the probability of other intelligent life existing in the universe is very high" is different from a "beliif" or a "leap of faith". Some assumptions that go into the equation are beliefs in themselves (and so is the validity of the equation.). Depending on your beliefs, you can conclude that intelligent life on other planets is either certain, a practically-impossibility or anywhere in between.

Ok, but in spite of "good intentions", many of the things that the US has done have INCREASED the odds of future terrorist attacks.

Here's a question: there are people that strongly believe, some are even "sure", that we are not the only intelligent life form in the universe. Is this belief based on evidence or is it a leap of faith?

Long time no talk... Well he certainly didn't think he needed it. Neither did your leaders during 'Nam. At least someone learned something: Lesson 9: "We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community." And by the way - Bush Sr. wrote the book on multinational cooperation in Desert Storm.

Rue, as you surely already know and even know that I know you know, we are in agreement on most points. The USA is not a "rogue state" but it could do better. And by doing better we mean doing better at stopping terrorist attacks and winning the war on terror - a long-term war that is fought with military hardware and tactics but more so with intelligence and ideas. How much time should he do? Yes, media propaganda advantage is part of the ideological war. IMO, the GW Bush administration royally squandered its ideological advantage as it repeated all 11 of "McNamara's 11 lessons from Vietnam". Do you think that military/terrorist threat that is supposedly neutralized by keeping Khadr locked up was/would be worth all the damage caused by the "media propaganda advantage" that resulted from his detention?

Rue, what do you think of Guantanamo Bay and the whole rendition program?

Thank you I appreciate that. There have also been and are many religious movements that are doing great things for humanity. Religious people are as diverse as secular people. I'm quite sure that I do not represent the "typical religious person" but I do know for a fact that there are brilliant, tolerant and compassionate people in various faiths - they are the ones that inspire me to write these posts. There are too few humanists in the world to be further divided into religious and secular.

Forst of all, there is the right to not be tortured. Here is a summary: Among the provisions of the Third Geneva Convention regarding humane treatment of prisoners of war, which the U.S. is refusing to apply, are: - Article 13: Humane treatment required; No reprisals allowed - Article 14: Respect for persons and honour; No gender discrimination - Article 16: No discrimination based on race, nationality, religious belief or political opinions - Article 17: No physical or mental torture; No coercion to obtain information; Prisoners who decline to provide information may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment - Article 18: Clothing, articles of personal use, to remain with prisoners - Article 20: Evacuation or transfer to be under same conditions as afforded Detaining Power - Article 21: Internment in camp allowed; Close confinement prohibited - Article 22: Internment in penitentiaries prohibited; Every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness required - Article 25: Condition of quarters must be as favorable for POWs as for the forces of the Detaining Power; Accommodations for habits and customs of POWs required; Protection from dampness, adequate heat and lighting required - Article 26: Food must be in sufficient quantity, quality and variety to maintain good health and weight - Article 27: Adequate clothing, underwear and footwear required - Article 28: Canteens must be installed; Fairly priced food, soap, tobacco and ordinary items must be stocked - Articles 29 - 32: Proper hygiene and medical attention, including monthly health inspections, required - Articles 34 - 37: Prisoners must be afforded complete latitude in the exercise of religion, including attendance at services, on condition they comply with disciplinary routine - Article 38: Provisions for physical, intellectual and recreational activities - Article 70: Prisoners must be allowed to write to family, others http://baltimorechronicle.com/geneva_feb02.shtml

You made good points in your post, but the one I quoted above is the bottom line, IMO. So many of those who think the U.S. should agree to follow international law claim that just because something is a law doesn't mean it's good and/or should be followed. The U.S. is refusing to agree to abide by laws that it very well could question, and for good reason, as you state. I, too, see that as a good thing. Bonam and AW, what international law(s) do you think that the US is justified in not following? For example, is it OK to torture POWs and deny them rights enshrined in the Geneva Convention?

Your "cure" is worse than the disease - you are playing into the hands of the enemy. For every one we kill we loose one ally, gain two more enemies, and spiral further into debt to boot.

The whole point is that bypassing due process is not significantly eliminating our enemies and one of the "unintended consequences" is that it is helping the enemy to create more enemies!

Here are the 2011 source countries for our immigration (cut off at 1%). IYO, what are the "problem countries" and in what countries should we increase quotas? 2011 immigration statistics Number of immigrants granted permanent residence in Canada in 2011 by source country[17] Rank Country Number of immigrants admitted Proportion of total Notes 1 Philippines 34,991 14.1% 2 China 28,696 11.5% Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan included separately. 3 India 24,965 10% 4 United States 8,829 3.5% 5 Iran 6,840 2.7% 6 United Kingdom 6,550 2.6% 7 Haiti 6,208 2.5% 8 Pakistan 6,073 2.4% 9 France 5,867 2.4% 10 United Arab Emirates 5,223 2.1% 11 Iraq 4,698 1.9% 12 South Korea 4,573 1.8% 13 Colombia 4,317 1.7% 14 Morocco 4,155 1.7% 15 Algeria 3,800 1.5% 16 Mexico 3,642 1.5% 17 Egypt 3,403 1.4% 18 Sri Lanka 3,104 1.2% 19 Nigeria 2,768 1.1% 20 Ukraine 2,455 1% 21 Bangladesh 2,449 1% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada

I love it when folks respond to a post with an irrelevant deflection.

How many of these mistakes are we repeating in the War on Terror? Robert McNamara's 11 lessons from Vietnam From Robert McNamara's 1995 book "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam".[8] We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values. Our misjudgments of friend and foe, alike, reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders. We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces, and doctrine. We failed, as well, to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action. After the action got under way, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening, and why we were doing what we did. We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community. We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world. Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War How's that for shooting ourselves in the foot?

Do you have any comments on what I actually wrote? In order to defeat your enemies don't you think that it is important to understand them, their motivations, their strategies, etc...?

Wrong. Of course, our enemies are radical Islamic terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda -and those that support them. You are being narrow-minded in thinking that this war is a military battle. It is or course partially a military battle but is it also very much an ideological battle. A huge advantage that we in the West have (for the most part) is respect for human rights including due process. When we violate human rights we undermine our ideological advantage and therefore we are shooting ourselves in the foot. I am not neutral and I have no sympathy for the enemy. Empathy towards the enemy is key to defeating them, as per Lesson #1 of "The Fog of War"