Merlyn_LeRoy

So Ed, does this mean you don't understand why a black golfer might want to join a whites-only country club?

uz2bnowl, skeptic wanted to know why an atheist might want to join the Boy Scouts; I gave him/her a valid reason. The legal issues with the SafeRides program is in another thread, I was just giving an ordinary example of why an atheist might want to join a group, possibly not even being aware it's part of the BSA or that it excludes atheists. Why do apparently intelligent people ask such questions? Do people not understand why black golfers might want to join a whites-only country club? Seriously, is this too hard for some people to understand? I'll start using shorter words if that's true.

skeptic writes: So, if you do not believe in [a god], then why would you even entertain joining the BSA? Hmm, how about if your school has a SafeRides program, and you're, say, an atheist teetotaler with a brother who was paralyzed by a drunk driver, and you want to volunteer to help prevent drunk driving accidents -- and then you find out the SafeRides program is a Venture Crew, and atheists can't join. Why should an atheist student NOT join the SafeRides program?

Gunny, argument from incredulity is a variation on the argument from ignorance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_personal_incredulity

Well Brent, I haven't been quoting out-of-work politicians as any sort of authority on global warming; I've only been pointing out where you use unsigned editorials in economic newspapers or personal anecdotes about 3rd grade classes as representative of the current state of science. I prefer peer-reviewed science periodicals for real science news. And you have yet to do your own homework and cite the predictions that you say exist - you keep telling ME to go find support for YOUR claims. Sorry, you made the claim, you come up with the support. And that doesn't mean just a domain name, you can copy & paste URLs that specifically support your claims as well as I can.

Yeah, I get MY science news from unsigned editorials in economic newspapers all the time... I'm surprised the editorial doesn't also berate the ability to predict rain on the grounds that these predictions are often wrong and don't specify where each raindrop will fall.

Gonzo1, calling religious terrorists "godless" is saying they can't be believers, they must be atheists. That's an insult to atheists, even if "some of my best friends are atheists."

acco40, what do you think of this situation? http://www.dailyherald.com/story.asp?id=334259 [link may go stale soon] A fee Elgin Area School District U-46 recently imposed on Scout troops could price the groups out of the district, troop leaders say. U-46 recently sent out a letter to all Scout troops that rent district facilities, saying Scouts are now subject to the same facility fees that other nonprofit groups pay. At least 26 Cub Scout packs, seven Boy Scout and an unknown number of Brownie and Girl Scout troops could face thousands of dollars in new fees annually - or find another place to meet. "This is not right for everyone trying to do a good thing for the community," Cub Scout leader Randy Anderson of Bartlett told the school board Monday. The district was forced to reconsider its policy, U-46 attorney Patrick Broncato said, after receiving a letter from a church group objecting to the fee when Scout troops were exempt. ... Traditionally, the Scouts were treated as school-sponsored activities, like chess club or band, which use the facilities for free. The letter from the church group prompted district officials to reclassify the Scouts, Broncato said. They now are under the same umbrella as Pee Wee Football, Little League, Kiwanis Clubs, Easter Seals and church groups. Anderson said he would petition the district to treat the Scouts like a school group, since some troops are chartered with specific schools. ...

That's about your style, gonzo1; gratuitously insult atheists, then refuse to debate with one.

gonzo1 writes: I don't insinuate that people who don't believe in God, like atheists are somehow "bad" because they don't believe in God, i.e. godless. Well then, you shouldn't call murderous religious fanatics "godless." It makes as much sense as calling them "murderous Jewish bastards" or "murderous Mormon bastards." They were "murderous Muslim bastards." I can not believe that their God actually tells them to kill any non-believers in order to achieve their place in heaven or some other after life and have their 72 virgins. Why don't you believe that? Do you believe there are Christians in this country who seriously advocate executing gays because their god's law says so? Back to topic, I'm sure atheists who post here and elsewhere - I don't know that I personlly know any atheists - are nice people. That is, they are not "bad". Therefore, I am not some religous person spreading a common lie. Yes, you are. You're like someone describing the 9/11 terrorists as "murderous Jewish bastards" and then saying you aren't demonizing Jews. It's ridiculous on the face of it.

Gonzo is just trying to perpetuate the lie that godless=bad (and the converse, that bad=godless). It's a very common lie that some religious people try to spread.

No Hunt, it wasn't uncalled for; you lied by stating what I supposedly "will" do. Here's what you had written: "Merlyn and his friends will try to push the point further, to argue that government facilities can't offer access to groups that discriminate" You completely misrepresented my position as something it is not. You seem to have learned not to do that, as you now properly couch your comments with "I guess..." and such, which is an improvement. I've stated before that I consider government support of the BSA to be the most important issue, but it isn't the only issue. If you aren't interested in discussing scouting issues & politics, why are you in this forum?

Incredible - you don't even know what the IPCC reports are!! Why do you conclude that, just because I asked you to cite your sources? And you have the gall to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about?? Yes. You keep making elementary logic errors. For example, what ever possessed you to state that a film you saw in 3rd or 4th grade indicated that a patent fraud like "psychic surgery" was part of "science"? It never was. You don't seem to have any idea where the burden of proof lies. You argue from personal incredulity, which is not only a common fallacy, there are plenty of known phenomena that are very counterintuitive, so it's clearly not a valid objection. After you have completed your homework, let us know how the temperature predictions changed with each of the reports. Gee, that wouldn't have anything to do with new data or changes to the model, would it? By the way, "do your homework" is another shifting of the burden of proof. If you want to cite what you claimed ("These same models used in long-term doom & gloom predictions be used to predict climate changes in 5 to 10 years, instead of in intervals beyond my lifetime"), you should be able to provide a specific URL, instead of telling ME to do YOUR homework, right?(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

University of Minnesota If Mars is warming, what is causing it? Increased sun activity? If so, wouldn't that also cause the earth to warm? You say that as if all the climatologists will slap their heads in unison and say "we forgot about the sun!" We don't have to indirectly measure the sun's output anyway; we can (and do) observe the sun itself. Don't lecture me about the scientific method. Why not? You obviously don't understand it. You use faulty logic; you use elementary class films as representative of current scientific thought; you argue against humans having the capacity to alter the climate by merely using personal incredulity; you refuse to give a cite for a climate model that you claim is identical to an earlier model that made incorrect projections. I hope you aren't banking on organizations created expressly to dispute global warming, like the World Climate Report, which was created by the Western Fuels Association, an organization that clearly has a vested interest in downplaying the adverse effects of burning fossil fuels.

I went to Charles Lindberg elementary in Little Falls, MN. And you still know nothing about science or the scientific method. The martian climate does not show that climate change on earth is not influenced by humans. That isn't even valid logic, much less science. Species have gone extinct on the earth long before humans existed; does that mean humans can't cause species to go extinct? These same models used in long-term doom & gloom predictions be used to predict climate changes in 5 to 10 years, instead of in intervals beyond my lifetime. Prove to me you know what you are talking about. Prove to ME you know what you're talking about, by citing these models so we can see that they are the same models. Your last message is mostly argument from incredulity, which is another logical fallacy.

BrentAllen writes: I guess my school system wasn't too bad, since I attended and graduated from Georgia Tech. What was your 3rd and 4th grade school that showed obvious fraudulent "psychic surgery" as science? "The debate is over why (global warming, ordinary climate variation, differences in methodology in counting hurricanes, etc)." So, what is the "scientific consensus"? That is all that matters, right? It's certainly better than your approach; you use an example of 3rd and 4th grade school classes as if that represents mainstream science; you rhetorically ask "when did the earth's climate stop changing on its own?" as if someone has ever suggested it was; you try to suggest that, since the earth's climate has changed for millennia, that somehow shows that humans are NOT in any way affecting the earth's climate now, which isn't even proper logic, much less proper science.

Brent, "psychic surgery" has NEVER been accepted as anything near science, and your silly misrepresentation that it once was borders on pure kookery. I'm sorry you attended such a science-poor school, but that would explain a lot. I have all the evidence I need that humans aren't causing global warming. It is called documented past history of climate change. Ah, more kookery. Humans can't have gone to the moon in 1969, since they didn't for hundreds of years prior to that. Tell me - when did the earth's climate stop changing on its own? It hasn't. How does that show that humans aren't affecting the world's climate? It doesn't. You aren't arguing science at all. You also appear to have your hurricane question backwards; statistics on the number of Atlantic hurricanes have increased rather dramatically in recent years. The debate is over why (global warming, ordinary climate variation, differences in methodology in counting hurricanes, etc).(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Yes Brent, they claim they have scientific evidence (just like the ones who say there's no global warming due to human activity). The scientific community at large doesn't agree with either of these groups; they're both outside the scientific consensus. And Brent, what some incompetent schoolteachers teach in 3rd and 4th grade can't be confused with real science, since there's no limit on what they can teach; some even teach creationism, which isn't a science either. Psychic surgery has never been part of the scientific consensus, so again frauds are excluded.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Gunny2862, scientists would only have to argue theology if they want to convince someone on a point of theology. It would be fairly easy to demonstrate how scientific theories describe how the universe works fairly accurately (but there will be those who refuse to even look through the telescope). "power" isn't the issue; science works by the scientific method, so if you want to change what the current scientific consensus is on any issue, you need to convince scientists, particularly scientists in related fields. And there are no "proofs" outside mathematics; science isn't about proof, it's about observations, evidence, and theories. And peer review isn't just any group of ninnies. That would better describe this forum, especially when arguing scientific questions using bogus arguments from authority.

It always surprises me when believers try to disparage science by saying it's a religion; it's like they know religion is just a baseless argument from unseen authority, and (since they don't understand science) accuse scientists of having the same faulty reliance on authority. I have no problem with the scientific method & peer review being applied to climatology. If you want to argue against the current scientific consensus, you have to convince scientists.

Ed writes: Does anyone see the word mention or any reference to it in Merlyn's original post? Neither do I. I do. It's the title of this thread that you've clicked on over a dozen times. Pay attention.

Ed writes: You seem to think it's a big deal or you wouldn't of posted it! No Ed, that's why I called it a "mention" from the very start: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mention

Possibly, to someone who thinks the old testament is the word of god. If someone thought blacks were intended to be slaves by god under the curse of Ham, would that be bigoted?

Ed, that's an article on Kevin James, not a review of the movie. Must not be all that big of a deal! Who ever suggested it was? Can you even understand what a "Boy Scout mention" in a movie means? I wouldn't expect most reviews to even mention it.

The earliest use of the word "bigot" appears to have referred to (usually female) religious hypocrites; I don't think bigotry based on religion should get a pass compared to bigotry based on ignorance, upbringing, etc. It's another example of what some of the prominent atheist authors have pointed out -- something that is criticized is supposed to NOT be criticized if it's the result of religion. That's irrational.