Mighty AC

We agree that the god of the bible is equivalent to my Gummy Bear god then. However, I don't think you have your finger on the pulse of what 'most' Christians believe. According to the bible, the apparent word of the Abrahamic God and the basis for the many Christian religions, we know quite a lot about the dude. Your impressions of Christianity suggest that believers have a great deal of freedom to invent their own belief system on the fly. However, I don't think this is the case for the majority. Over time each sect has tweaked and invented its own tale, cherry picking and ignoring various biblical bits. However, most followers of that sect tend to accept the resulting story as more or less true.

No I think you're off the mark on this. Logic is a system of correct reasoning. The system of reasoning is not invalidated by a question that cannot be answered at a given time, the answer is just unknown. It is hard to prove a negative so your task of 'argue that there is no god' is an irrational one, which is why the burden of proof lies with those making a positive claim. For example it's not your job to prove that a Gummy Bear overlord does not exist, it would be mine to prove its existence. Anyway, nonsensical questions or tasks can still be attempted logically. Feats attributed to gods like responses to prayer and miracles can be tested. Scriptural accounts of events attributed to god's can be investigated. Consideration can be made for events that once were attributed to gods and now are understood to be natural. The number of knowns can be compared to the unknowns and a probability of the existence of gods can be estimated. Of course, claimed evidence for a god would have to be stated and tested. So what is the evidence for a god that you claim I dismiss?

True, but the logic is still constant, provided the variables are defined. Now trying to get people that deal in relativistic mysticism to nail down their variables is damn near impossible.

Right, that is called Occam's Palate argument I believe. "The tasty solution is always preferable to the less palatable". You said: "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". By your reasoning "some force" is more plausible than the Gummy Bear because you didn't name it. Yet, in this thread we've been talking about the Christian god. We know a lot about God. He's a dude, he's fond of killing people, he takes Sundays off, etc. So you believe the Christian god is less plausible than the Gummy Bear then?

I don't understand what you mean by this. The claim that human bodies have 10 times more bacterial cells than human cells is specific and true. The two claims are a Gummy Bear created the universe or God created the universe? Why is one more plausible than the other?

Ok great so what is this evidence that I am either ignorant of or willfully ignoring? Well you did write this today:

Explain the difference. What evidence or reasoning makes one idea superior to the other?

And that's the danger of anti-intellectualism and belief without evidence. If there are no standards for evidence then rational, testable ideas are considered equivalent to opinions. "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Asimov Explain how a belief in gods is not equivalent to the Spaghetti Monster or a Stephen Harper Enbridge conspiracy theory. What evidence makes your unproven claim more reasonable than the others?

Phil wanted more than Boston wanted to pay...but yep they did have cap constraints. Brian helped them out by dramatically overpaying for Phil, solving their cap issues and allowing Boston to retool instantly. That year Phil did manage to score 37 goals...but he was also a minus 6 on a very good team. Phil is still that kind of player. Last year the Leafs were a +12 in goals for vs against, but Phil managed to be a -3 while playing on the top line. Kadri, another not so defensive player, was a +15. Last night was a perfect example of Phil's game. He got a point but was also on the ice for 3 goals against. Phil reminds me of Brett Hull. He's scores but is fairly weak in all other aspects of the game. Both men would be poor players to build a team around.

That's it really. Christians aren't being singled out, unsupported beliefs are. A belief in gods is equivalent to all other unsupported beliefs in terms of validity. Of course they are far more dangerous when considering their impact on society. Anyway, even if a person happens to be rational in all other respects they can still be criticized for belief without evidence. If I state that Stephen Harper secretly works for Enbridge and didn't supply proof, I would be criticized. Even if I found others that shared my idea and we held weekly meetings, it would still be fine to criticize our unsupported Harper beliefs. Sure we may whine that you can't prove he doesn't secretly work for Enbridge and that believers see and feel evidence of his employment that non-believers cannot. We may also claim that we take comfort in knowing the truth about Harper, and that intolerance towards our belief is bigotry; but, we would be wrong. Truth matters. Evidence matters. Not all ideas are equal and no idea should be exempt from examination and criticism.

They both looked great prior to Toronto...but so would anyone while playing beside Niedermayer, Pronger or Markov.

I was referring to the defense core that Burkie had 5 years ago when he made the trade for Kessel. Brian had just added Komisarek, Beauchemin and goalie Jonas Gustavson. He thought his back end was rock solid.

Pencils are next!! Students perennially write notes to other students, doodle in class and draw graffiti on bathroom walls. No tech is absolutely necessary, but it is extremely beneficial. In fact, it would be a disservice not to use technology in the classroom. My problem with iPads isn't the potential misuse, it's the cost. They're just not a good value. Android tabs, Chromebooks and traditional laptops make far more sense. Misuse can be minimized with better teaching practices.

The Leafs would have had three picks not Tyler Seguin. Assuming they would have chosen the same players Boston did, I still think the trade was a mistake. Phil is a huge defensive liability, he doesn't hit and he doesn't make those around him better. He is a solid finisher, but he has to bag a lot of goals just to make up for his own defensive mistakes. Seguin on the other hand plays a 200 foot game. Plus he has put up more points per game than Kessel did in his first three years. Additionally, the Bruins drafted Dougie Hamilton, who is turning out to be outstanding on D. The kid is already racking up top D pair points despite playing 5th man minutes. Even if you think Seguin's partying is incurable, the Bruins still managed to land Loui Eriksson, a perennial top performer, for him. Burke's trade made sense for him at the time, based on the team he thought he had built. Burkie was pretty sure he had put together a rock solid defensive unit with solid goal tending. Turns out he was dead wrong...but if correct then adding a finisher would have been a good move.

I'm considering doing the same. I only watch a handful of shows and I can stream or download anything I want to see anyway.

I'm not a fan of the organization but I'm not sure why they want Kessel for 8 years. He's not a leader, a complete player or someone that makes his line mates better. Granted it's a risk letting him walk in hopes of using the cash to sign free agents. Maybe Nonis feels it is a contract he can trade.

Home, school, interactions with people, our culture, media, etc. First of all, promoting the acceptance of beliefs without evidence is harmful in itself. Secondly, by saying if the beliefs are problematic, then change them, you are echoing my point that humans are the source of ethics, not religion. Why bother with the word of god fairy tale, if humans can change it on the fly? Did you witness the freak show that was the most recent Republican nomination process? A party that represents almost half of US voters looked as if it was hoping to lead a nation whose citizens were hand picked by Pat Robertson and not the richest, most powerful nation on the planet. I'm not denying that religious groups can do positive work as well. However, we've already shown that the moral teachings you speak of have secular origins, not religious. Since it has been humans forcing Christianity to behave more humanely for hundreds of years and not a god, there is no value in keeping the myth alive.

This particular project is open source and will be crowd funded. That's pretty exciting in itself.

I disagree that the moral teachings are religious in the first place. Much of the bible is so immoral that I feel the term evil fits. The fact that many Christians don't even know some of the passages exist or at least ignore them is evidence of secular morality tempering religious practices. There certainly are benefits to kids learning universal, secular moral lessons on compassion, empathy and humanitarianism. However, teaching these concepts in a religious setting is fraught with downsides. As has been discussed at length in this thread, the idea that belief without evidence is a virtue is already ludicrous. The massive movements to deny equal rights to homosexuals and women, limit medical research, prevent euthanasia and limit access to birth control are all Christian based.

Great. I couldn't care less who believes in gods either. I don't care who believes in Zeus, Thor, ghosts, the tooth fairy, unicorns, feng shui or our cosmic gummy bear overlord either. However, I see all belief without evidence as equivalent and worthy of condemnation. You, on the other hand, seem to make special cases for specific unfounded beliefs and have varying standards for evidence.

Right. You are repeating a logical fallacy despite being shown the error. This isn't an opinion based point, just the misuse of a term. If you are unable to use the correct definition for atheist I am willing to substitute it when conversing with you. What term would you like to use for those that simply reject the unsupported assertion that gods exist?

Agreed. I made a second attempt to clarify just in case AW was honestly confused. However, it's now clear that she is willfully ignoring the facts in order to hold on to a preferred belief about atheism. You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think.

I don't think conclusions about morality can be made based strictly on a person's belief or lack of belief in gods. Corelation != Causation. Atheism is generally a result of more education, a larger world view and increased earnings not the cause.