rehmwa

because people are hyper emotional How do you explain the ridiculous support and opposition to the current presidential candidates? Pretty much basic marketing to base emotions. hard core lefties suffer from it, right wingers suffer from it, even highly intelligent people fall to it more often than not (sometimes worse than anybody else - since they tend to think they are the smartest person in the room, they consider their "Gut feel" is better than anyone else's") or, the anthropological drive to invent a socially stabilizing force is still so very strong in the species that humans aren't ready to give up the ones we have (even if I personally find them flawed, I'm forced to look at them and see, flawed or not, if they remain effective in general) - would you posit that we DON'T need 'something' in society to keep people from going all mob mental? I wonder about the impact of any type of concerted effort to remove these social stabilizing factors from large portions of society....and whether we are seeing those effects increase over time The major argument is the damage that religion has caused, but, I find more and more, that when people (actively, not just as a result of slow and steady evolution) muck about with social constructs, that they tend to almost always worsen the very things they intend to fix - for those with good intentions (for the rest, usually it just mean spirited types trying to cause chaos - but that's another story) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I appreciate WolfriverJoe's posts best here. Clearly we have an anthropological basis for the construct of religion, especially in earlier cultures as a social cooperation and survival mechanism. you see examples in all the faiths - I like the 'kosher' concept as a prime example (it drives sanitation in food use and preparation - a very beneficial result). The thread has taken a crappy downturn - I'm seeing the 'faithful' types here (generally) acknowledging simply that they 'believe' what they believe and also not offering it as 'proof' of any kind. yet still people keeping sharpening sticks and poking them what's the point now other than obtuse antagonism? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

no reason - just because ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

oh absolutely, it's should be right on top of the resume ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Yep, the same place that produced the leaders of the Manhattan Project. which has killed more people than Chipotle (I believe Chipotle was an old west posse leader.....) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

So you discount any kind of research? How do you propose we advance knowledge? duh - emotionally driven rhetoric. for the children ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

That's a rational response. So sure, those in power would be able to do just that - so, you got about 300 swings votes there, in a country of 300M....... But voters aren't rational, and Quade says true - he's a con man, and con men are experts at manipulating the irrational. of course, it's also not rational to vote for a liar, someone that threatens rape victims, someone that lets her own people get killed, etc...... we're still screwed either way, so the original Gowlerk comment still wins - it's not about the individual in the office - it'll be about advancing one or the other party's power base...... For the rest of us........ we're pawns ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

An ad hominem attack is the best you got? (pretty much....I didn't even open the link) Geez, compliment a nationally known educational facility and it's considered an attack? (although, to be honest, it doesn't matter which university, it seems that articles from any university that try to describe demographics just tend to just be a lazy descent/wallow into a realm of childish stereotypes published under pretension. merely a regurgitation of nonsense from the mainstream and grossly left wing or right wing to the extent that it's worthless drivel except as an example of what writing should never be) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

it's good, because Berkeley is a bastion of even and unbiased thought ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Bullshit. What's really bad for them is someone else being in power. It is as simple as that. It would not matter who the D nominee was, they would still be the terrible enemy that must be avoided at all cost. It is the same every election, only the names change. Power is real, it is meaningful and it is the only goal that matters. Power is money, power is love, power is worth any price. so, in others words (just the opposite of 'bullshit')....Hillary is really that bad to them. For the same reason Donald is really that bad for Dems. (both for your exact reasons) I think the wild card in the power struggle is pretty much that Donald is also bad for the Republicans. So they lose no matter what and can only try to mitigate the damage. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Done and done though I'm fond of the actual term "agnostic apathetic" (i.e., don't know, don't care). Apparently it's an organized movement - (yes the irony is rich) I might differentiate atheists and agnostics by the amount of 'caring' they tend to put into how other people perceive the definitions of each..... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

or, Hillary really is just that bad from their perspective it's still looking like an election of "Never Hillary" vs "Never Trump" and a small percentage of ignorant assholes on each side that are voting for those two ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Let them play through? hit their balls into the woods ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I like it. You forgot Joe though. Joe, who doesn't care, notes that Al uses dice to play Yahtzee, and Bob uses dice to play craps - and he can't figure out why they are arguing since they both use dice for totally unrelated reasons. Joe think Yahtzee is boring and outdated, and Joe really hates gambling. But he doesn't care either way if the other two play Yahtzee or craps, it's their choice. So, even though they invited Joe to sit around and roll the pair of dice one hundred times in a stifling house with no A/C on a hot day, Joe declines and spends the day at the beach drinking beer and playing cards and watching bikini models on a photo shoot. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

don't be confused, simply just attack the believers back as hard as you can - neither of you will know why you are, but you'll both feel better as you talk past each other to your original question - I don't think it was written down (isn't it a bit silly for an omniscient being to have to write down anything? I have to question your state of mind, perhaps you are a bit pasta deprived), but I'll get to work documenting it, and then I'll rev it a few times before release - then I'll send it to BillVon for the back of the T-Shirt - that should cover it ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

clearly that's just the kind of question and ath-nogstic would ask: 1 - you can't have evidence for, that's the realm of faith, not proof - thou shalt not challenge this 2 - you can't have evidence for the non-existence of anything (don't ask, thou shalt not challenge this even more) therefore, Donald Trump doesn't exist. but if he did, he could use any bathroom he likes I think we've made a lot of progress today people. nice work. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

nope - the faithful are atheists, I believe this without qualification - you've convinced me. I shall go forth and proclaim it to all the nations yet he calls himself an agnostic and probably knows himself better than you know him the real question, then, is which bathroom can he use then? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

my omniscient being already knew you'd say that ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

faith is not "evidence" - it's a totally different thing - and if they call it evidence, then they are hypocrits to the entire foundation of their belief system. So the fact that it "convinces" them doesn't count when people are harassing each other to 'prove it'. (it's much like trying to convince an economist of anything, or a social engineer,,.........) seriously, faith has no alpha/beta errors at all (true measures of one's "level of acceptable evidence") So even if you didn't intend it to be broad........ You do realize I'm just playing Devil's advocate and having a bit of fun. Your writeup was really pretty good, as was mr2k(etc)'s good for friendly discussion and mockery blues ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

This is truly dizzying: 1 - Since a true believer must believe - with a total absence evidence (definition of faith) 2 - and you consider atheism to be defined as anyone that doesn't have evidence to believe (the faithful have to be 'convinced' but it doesn't count since there is no evidence. The non-faithful are excluded from the 'evidence' trap due to the definition of 'non-existence') I would consider, based on this, that your definition puts everyone as an atheist. Anyone claiming otherwise is just fooling themselves - they are really atheists and just don't know it. Much akin to "God loves you anyway even if you don't believe in him/her/it/etc" I don't think any bible or koran or toran could write it better - we just as well make bland statements about the 'majesty of a rainbow' or 'looking into a baby's eyes' as proof/nonproof of the existence of whether or not mr2mk1g's mom may or may not come to dinner. this is what happens when people get to define the terms in their favor - the next position based on human nature would be to legislate a collection of 10% of every atheist's income - which, by definition, is now every person on the planet. Very convenient. (though intended as wry humor, I eagerly await whatever irritable bashing comes next - actually, I rather enjoyed your note and understand what you meant, but it's less fun to just acknowledge that and more fun to randomly hit typewriter keys for 5 minutes) edit: strangely enough, the word "aknowledge" did not get highlighted as a spelling error.......I'm sure someone will consider that proof of a deity - znoodley or otherwise ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

All of them. except Michael - he has an inner ear infection,,,,and he's clumsy ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

what he said also, agnosticism isn't lazy or avoidance, it's more of an acknowledgment (at best) or apathy (even Better IMO) evangelical persistence that one takes one side or the other is really a bit of annoyance at best - fanatical intrusiveness at worst, thus reinforcing the whole 'religious fervor' impression that keeps one from appreciating their heartfelt self definition I'll acknowledge that believers have to take an active role in their choice. atheism is more passive or natural. It's easy enough to respect that this is an important point to sincere atheists on board here (not to be confused with angry or disenfranchised atheists who have an entirely different mindset than most our good friends here). No problem - I'll try going forward the key to that is who will return the favor and acknowledge the definition of agnosticism as viewed by agnostics as legitimate also - they'll get the same respect in return. those that don't will continue to treated like evangelical religious nuts - for pure entertainment edit: Faith is "belief in the pure absence of proof" So I disagree, there is nothing to prove. Just a choice to believe, or (various forms of 'otherwise' that I wouldn't dare to try and define). I actually think that anyone that says there is 'proof' must have very weak faith indeed because they are trying to rationalize what is supposed to be irrational (not in a bad way, but by definition). "I believe because I believe" is the ONLY legitimate response of someone genuinely faithful. Someone telling me they can 'prove' it actually lowers my sympathy with their cause since their faith is so weak that they are looking/rationalizing proof for something that must be unproveable. (that this is very convenient for organized religions is a side topic) Conversely - 'asking' someone of faith for 'proof' is ridiculous for the same reasons and just, frankly, antagonistic and intolerant. (of course, the thread is titled "arguments", not "proof" so that's legitimate) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

thank you - will check this guy out. funny thing about idealogues. If I have to pick from ideal/philosophical purists, it helps to read their platforms and not just how people 'think' they are certainly the strawmen of how a liberal views a conservative and vice versa is not how we should look at people or how dems and reps try to describe a libertarian ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Withdrawing my "YMMV" comment as wasted understanding and tolerance Adding "YMMV" to an incorrect statement does not make that statement less incorrect. You were wrong. Get over it. I think it's so great how you just refuse to take yourself too seriously. Your laid back attitude is refreshing and clean. Like a mountain stream. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Winsor was being wry, or funny. You might be preaching to the choir......so to speak I suggest reading some Douglas Adams to get your 'wry meter' recalibrated Edit: apparently the word I was looking for was satirical.....how about that? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants