Merlyn_LeRoy

AlFansome writes: For those who believe that evolution is how we got here, what exactly is a "conscience" in the biological sense? I'd say it's largely empathy. Sociopaths don't experience empathy or remorse, and they don't act like they have consciences. Does there need to be an outside force to provide our "conscience" with direction? Not "need," but there are lots of forces doing that anyway -- laws, religions, societal approval/disapproval, etc.

Stosh writes: To emphasize that Atheism is not a religion and then say that some religions are Atheistic ("Raelism"?) doesn't do much to further the discussion. Sure it does. Consider: Trinitarianism is not a religion, it's a creed of most Christian religions. Trinitarianism itself isn't a religion, and it would be a mistake to call it a religion. Atheism is not a religion, it's a creed of a very few religions. Atheism itself isn't a religion, and it would be a mistake to call it a religion. You aren't differing between religions vs. creeds that some religions hold or don't hold. Theism isn't a religion, even though nearly all religions have some sort of theism as a creed. And you still haven't come up with a dictionary that describes atheism as a religion (as bad as some dictionary definitions of atheism are, I've never seen one that bad). So why do you say it's a religion, while simultaneously decrying sloppy terminology?

Stosh writes: Thus a person of Jewish ethnic background, be it race, language, cultural etc. they can be an Atheist as long as they are not of the belief that there is a god. As can someone who is Jewish because his mother is Jewish. Using the above accepted definition, as long as one leaves religion (i.e. any believe there is a god) out of the equasion one can have an Atheistic Jew. "religion (i.e. any believe there is a god)"? What? Religion is not "any belief there is a god". There are even a few religions that are explicitly atheistic, like Raelism. I tend to use the definitions of "Jew" that most Jews use, which would make the son of a Jewish mother a Jew, even if he's also an atheist. The confusion comes when one doesn't understand the full implications of the meanings of words. As you do with "atheism," which you have incorrectly termed a religion in this thread and a thread from last year. I'm still waiting for you to produce a dictionary that describes atheism as a religion.

Stosh writes: It is kind of a sham argument to mix the religion and the racial into one package which is an empty argument. About all I've said is that a Jew can also be an atheist, which is true. Jewish atheists are accepted as Jews by other Jews. As far as other arguments go, one must realize that once one makes up their mind by whatever definitions they are using, whether commonly accepted or created in their own minds, the arguments used are weak at best and more often than not invalid. What's that got to do with atheism not being a religion? I still can't find a dictionary that says atheism is a religion, like they state for Hinduism.

NJCubScouter, I know it's not likely that an atheist Jew would go for a religious award, I don't see anything in, say, the Ner Tamid requirements that would explicitly rule out an atheist Jew on the basis of their non-belief. If it's difficult, it also would look difficult for, say, a Reform Jew who doesn't keep kosher and has never had a Bar Mitzvah.

Stosh writes: One has to remember to use commonly accepted definitions and not definitions that one makes up to support their biases. Exactly. Atheism is not a religion. It simply indicates a person who is not a theist. A person's religion is that system in which they believe. And all the term "atheist" tells you is that a person doesn't believe in god(s). That is not a system of belief. Does an atheist believe in life after death? I'd wager most don't, but some do. There are some life-after-death beliefs that don't involve gods. All these accepted definitions can and do fit into the belief systems of Athists. What "belief system?" They believe in the non-existance of god. So is belief in the non-existence of Zeus a religion too? Ra? Horus? Quetzalcoatl? Lots of "religions" out there if not believing in a god is sufficient. If one says a person is an Atheist, one has a fairly good idea of what they do or don't believe in. Name something apart from "that person doesn't believe gods exist." I guess if I would write my own dictionary, I can make words mean whatever I want them to mean, but until then, I'll just go along with what are the accepted common definitions. OK, what dictionary do you use that describes atheism as a religion? If I look up, say, "Hinduism," I can find lots of dictionaries that describe Hinduism as a religion. I don't see these same sources describing atheism as a religion.

Atheism isn't a religion, it's someone who does not subscribe to the creed "god(s) exist." I've already pointed out that atheists can belong to various religions. An agnostic is someone who doesn't think knowledge of gods is possible; agnostics can also be atheists or theists.

Some Wiccans don't consider their gods to literally exist, but consider them symbolic.

John-inKC writes: Merlyn... I will buy non-theist, but the faiths you mentioned have a touchstone beyond themselves. In your opinion, but that isn't what counts. That's your made-up criterion, which is not an official BSA requirement. The BSA insists in belief in a god, correct? What about a Buddhist atheist? In connotation, a-theism has come to be the refusal of existence of a supreme being. That is the definition I'm using for the arguement in this thread. Buddhists, Jews, Wiccans, UUs, etc can all refuse to believe in the existence of a supreme being, while still being members of those religions. Plus, given the BSA's own apparent approval of a tree, rock, or stream as a god, "supreme being" doesn't seem to be part of the requirement, either. The BSA used to have "supreme being" way back when they first disagreed with UUs over wording, but they don't seem to require "supreme beings" now. I don't see anything offhand in the Sangha Religious Award Requirements for Buddhist scouts that requires theism. (fixed typo)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

John-in-KC asks: OK, the question was asked. How can an atheist Scout earn a religious emblem? Depends on the emblem. There are religions where belief in a god isn't a requirement. Buddhists, Jews, and Wiccans can also be atheists. I'll counter: How can the parents of an atheist place a young man in a program where God/gods are a primary point? Primary? If it's "primary," how could atheists get along in the program for so long? Now, as I've said more than once, what you believe in (Christianity, Judaism, Wiccan, Shinto, Buddhism, Hindu, tribal custom in native American...) matters not to me. THAT THE YOUNG MAN HAS A TOUCHSTONE BEYOND HIMSELF does. Why? And why does that touchstone have to be a god? What if the scout considers his religion to qualify, but you don't, because it doesn't involve what you consider gods? What do you do regarding religions that don't have gods? Addendum: The BSA itself has stated in a 1991 Q&A on "duty to god" that: Q. Some people maintain that God is a tree, a rock or a stream. Would a person believing such be eligible to be a member of Scouting? A. The BSA does not seek to interpret God or religion. The Scout Oath states a requirement for a Scout to observe a duty to God, and the Scout Law requires a Scout to be reverent. Again, interpretation is the responsibility of the Scout, his parents and religious leaders. Now, from that, it looks like you are adding requirements that you, personally, approve of the god(s) of his religion (at least to meet your "touchstone beyond himself" criterion), but the answer above explicitly leaves that up to the scout, his parents, and religious leaders -- NOT you. Even if you disapprove, it doesn't look like you would have the authority to make any kind of judgement as far as whether a scout's religious views meet the requirements.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

As soon as Behe or any other ID advocate comes up with a theory that makes testable predictions, you'll have a theory. However, given Behe's statements under oath in the Dover case where (quoted from the opinion) "Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God," I don't think Behe will be much help in convincing people ID isn't just a religious myth. Gunny, ID is just rewritten creationism; in the case of the ID book "Of Pandas and People," literally so. They took a creationist book and just went through and changed "creationism" to "intelligent design" and so on. This lead to the accidental inclusion of "Cdesign proponentsists" (google for it), in a botched change of "creationists" to "design proponents". No science was ever involved. Merlyn, It is still interesting to me that when peer review only is authoritative when it's made up of those who are in the mainstream of Science are listened to. It would seem that peer review would have to be able to show that the truth of an argument should stand regardless of the philosophical ideology of the reviewer. That's what science does now. Scientists don't waste much time with ID or creationism for the same reason they don't waste much time on dowsing, astrology, or bigfoot sightings. Why should ID be taken more seriously than astrology? A lot of people believe in astrology, and it's a very old field, but it still isn't science, either.

"Evolution" refers to both the theory of evolution, and observations of evolution (such as the change in allele frequencies over time), just as people can talk about the theory of gravity and observations of gravity (release a rock and it falls). So it isn't surprising that people refer to both the theory of evolution and observed facts of evolution. Science doesn't have to "disprove ID"; anyone who wants to advance ID as a theory has the burden of coming up with a scientific theory and arguing that it has better explanatory power than any other theory. That certainly hasn't happened yet, and scientists generally have better things to do with their time than debunk religious myths.

That's part of why ID isn't a theory; what testable predictions does it make? I don't know of any. Real scientific theories form models that make predictions, which can be tested to further correct and refine the model.

To say that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory only shows that the speaker does not know what a scientific theory is; intelligent design is not a scientific theory. PS: Americans shouldn't have a problem with pantomime on the radio, we used to have a popular radio show starring a ventriloquist.

Godwin's law is not PC (and, by the way, I've argued with Mike Godwin). Here's Godwin's Law: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." And if I wanted to create "Merlyn's Law", mine would be "Any article that ends with 'think about it' is not worth thinking about."

Eagledad, you're totally mischaracterizing packsaddle's argument with TheScout. TheScout has made statements with no support other than variations on "everyone knows/agrees with that," which is just an attempt to handwave an argument. Packsaddle isn't resorting to "name calling and condescension," he properly pointed out what TheScout was doing. You apparently can't discern the difference between properly dismissing invalid arguments vs. trying to win an argument by namecalling. Sorry, you're the one failing debate class.

I had to think that being VPOTUS will be infinitely more demanding than governor of Alaska I wouldn't think so; the VP doesn't have much to do, really. Old joke: An old woman had two grown sons. One ran off to join the crew of a tramp steamer; the other one became vice-president of the United States. Neither was ever heard from again.

Bob, do you have any evidence that the booing of the scouts was deliberately planned? Of course you don't. Just for the record. PS: I won't have my hopes up, since you state it happened at the "last" DNC convention (which would be 2004), while the booing incident happened at the 2000 convention. You can't even get the year right.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

If you look into it, very few people are really uncovered for serious things. That's part of the problem; a lot of people aren't covered for preventive medicine or minor ailments, so they often go without treatment until the problem is much worse and much more expensive to treat when they finally get wheeled into the emergency room. That's a big reason why the US spends a lot more per person for medical care while having less medical coverage compared to other western countries.

Eagledad writes: Since 9/11, there have been 40% fewer world wide terrorist attacks and zero attacks on U.S. property. The anthrax attacks a week later don't count as a terrorist attack?

I find it particularly easy to blame leaders who are ignorant, incompetent, and lie.

TheScout writes: Males have been considered the head of the household for thousands of years. What does that have to do with deciding who to vote for? I guess thats still true unless modern day liberals want to destroy that part of our traditional culture as well. What does that have to do with deciding who to vote for? I would like to think that a loving, caring husband in the time before women's suffrage would consult his wife and vote in the best interests of the family. Possibly. I would think a loving, caring wife would also. If I was married I would not think of voting against the best interests of my wife if she had the right to vote or not. None of what you say explains why a wife should vote how her husband says based on his being traditionally "head of household".

TheScout writes: Shouldn't it part of a wife's liberty to seek her husbands advice on who to vote for is she desires. Sure. Same for the husband to seek his wife's advice, right? So what does your "head of household" remark mean, except as a double-standard?

You know, actual human beings who make their own decisions instead of doing whatever the "head of the household" tells them to think.

I wouldn't expect you to notice, of course.