knapplc

So was that you I saw last Wednesday throwing frisbees on the field?

Harm has already been defined. It's up to you to show that the definition provided is untrue if you don't like it.

It depends on how you define harm. If I define it by saying it is the murder rate then the experiment can go on. How do you define harm? Point of clarification - are you asserting that the ONLY harm you're accusing religion of is murder?

If you can quantify the amount of harm being done then you could follow two groups of people over a long period of time with the difference between them being their religion or lack thereof. At the end of the experiment you would then find out which group caused the most harm. Since all of your other arguments are now boiling down to basically nothing, let's just focus on this one, because it seems to be a lynch-pin in your stance. The reason this is unquantifiable, and that your beliefs are simply based on different unquantifiable things than those of Theists, is that you continue to use the word "if" to describe the process. Quantifiable by its very definition (presuming you believe the Dictionary, which I do), means that you can measure the amount of a thing - in this case, "harm" - and you've chosen to do that by conducting this experiment. However, for your experiment to be quantifiable, you would have to be able to show how it could be done. You cannot simply say, "If it can be done," you have to show how. If you can't... it's unquantifiable. What I've asked you, is how you would do that. You respond with an "if" statement. I'm not interested in conjecture, I'm interested in the mechanics by which you would conduct this experiment. What we'll do is have you explain how this experiment would be conducted, and when your explanation goes beyond the possible, then we'll see how it's unquantifiable. That's the thrust of this line. So please, do be kind enough to explain, in detail, how you would go about conducting said experiment.

Completely agree, which is why I provided a link to an outside, dispassionate authority which provides a definition of this word. If you choose not to believe this authority, you must show how they are incorrect. And no, stating "I disagree with their definition" isn't an appropriate response. No, the "authority" has to provide evidence that shows his positive claim about the definition of a word is the only true definition. The burden of proof lies with those that make positive claims. No evidence? What evidence do you want? What's wrong with the link I provided? That link proves nothing. Atheism does not make any positive claims regarding, "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." You can't bunch together all atheists and say this is what they believe except to say that they don't believe in deities. So now the dictionary is not the authority in lexicography? How do you propose that we define words from now on? What should we use if dictionaries are not the authority?

It is unfalsifiable as I showed earlier. OK, so we agree - you believe in the unfalsifiable, just different unfalsifiable things than others. I'm glad we cleared that up. Reread my post. WHEN HE WAS ENGULFED IN IGNORANCE. In other words, when he was a caveman. So, to follow the logic you've put forth in this thread: Unprovable beliefs originate through lack of education, and now that we are no longer cavemen, we should not believe in the unprovable. And yet, you just agreed that you still believe in the unfalsifiable. It's a quandary! This is not impossible to accomplish. This would be the part where you would show us how. My ideas about religion are not unfalsifiable. Perhaps not, but your ideas about how to go about showing that religion causes more harm than good are, which is what I am getting at.

Completely agree, which is why I provided a link to an outside, dispassionate authority which provides a definition of this word. If you choose not to believe this authority, you must show how they are incorrect. And no, stating "I disagree with their definition" isn't an appropriate response. No evidence? What evidence do you want? What's wrong with the link I provided? Or are you making the assertion that the atheist off the street is more an authority on the definition of words than lexicographers?

Of course you do. You believe, despite any evidence to support this belief or any possibility that an experiment could be conducted that would show it is true, that through education we can reduce the amount of harm in the world. Not only is this unfalsifiable, it's no more nor no less unfalsifiable than the "ignorant" beliefs you deride in Theists. You have simply chosen which unfalsifiable belief to believe in, that's all. Believing in the unprovable makes you a caveman? I have bad news for you, then... Are we talking about belief systems or reality now? Because such an experiment is not based in reality. You have proven nothing more than that you believe in different things than different people. Your beliefs are founded in truth and the unfalsifiable, no more than and no less than the beliefs of those you call "ignorant."

No. A word does not have any objective meaning. People give words meaning. I define atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist. There I didn't selectively believe things. Your example defined atheism differently than me which means their definition and mine are two different things. That is not selective belief. There is no evidence that atheism SHOULD be defined in a certain way. Consider this: I doubt that we have the same definition for every single word in the English language. That does not mean that we selectively believe certain things to be true. Many people define the word, "libertarian" in different ways but that does not mean that people selectively believe certain things to be true. Yes. Words have finite meanings, not infinite. You choose to not accept a commonly held definition, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean that the meaning is untrue. I can call a truck a duck, and refuse to believe that your definition holds meaning, but that doesn't make me right.

Don't get so hung up on what you can prove or disprove. In your eyeblink of a life there will be myriad things you can neither prove nor disprove. You can base your life on the evidence provided to you at the time, but expecting to have proof of anything is illogical. You are welcome not to believe in god(s). There is ample evidence to show that god(s) do not exist. But there is also evidence to show god(s) do exist, and you do yourself and those you denigrate a disservice when you dismiss ideas you can neither prove nor disprove as "insane." In all things, moderation. The first sentence is a logical fallacy. I'll provide another one for entertainment value: the polio vaccine was created by man, the polio vaccine is inherently good, thus man is inherently good. See how that works? Or using an idea instead: man created the concept of quality control, quality control is good, thus man is good. You're misunderstanding the point jliehr is making. He's not saying that because man created religion that man = bad, he's saying that because man created religion, the harm that is in religion came from man. You can remove religion from the equation, but the harm that man put into religion originated from man, therefore the harm still exists. The very definition of an unfalsifiable statement. It's interesting that you dismiss the unfalsifiable claims of others as "insane ideas" yet hold on to your own. If unfalsifiable ideas are harmful, why do you indulge in them? I suppose by the crazy/loose definition of "religion" I used (Dictionary.com's #3 definition, had to scroll down a little to find it) we could define universe origins as a "religion." That would make it appropriate to discuss in this forum, and I would love to have that discussion. I'll make another thread because it's a tangent to the present conversation. So does defining yourself by political party, or by culture, or region, or any one of the myriad other ways you can define yourself. All have their benefits and drawbacks, all have the ability to be used for good and misused for evil.

Any word can be defined however we want it to be defined. But I define it as not being a religion. So you admit that you selectively believe certain things to be true, despite evidence to the contrary? That's a good first step.

Hmm..... Just because some atheists think that atheism is a religion does not make it so. Some people define common terms far differently than others. Atheism is a lack of belief in something, not a belief in something. Theists are making the positive claim, not atheists, by definition. It's a religion for some, then. It can be defined several ways, including as a religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices

Hmm.....

No, because this time you didn't swear in your post. You know why your other post got deleted. Why gripe about it publicly?

Where have we educated ourselves out of harming each other? Can you provide examples, because I can provide examples of some pretty egregious harms caused by pretty well-educated people. Ted Kaczynski comes to mind immediately. You also cannot safely assert that by removing religion that the person harmed by religion would not now be harmed. They may not have been harmed by religion, but they would still, possibly, be harmed. Equate the world to a minefield, and remove the mine of religion, you're still walking in a minefield. Whether it has 99 or 100 mines is statistically irrelevant, and you still haven't (and cannot) address the reason(s) the mines were put there in the first place. As yet not one of your arguments has removed harm from mankind - you've just removed one of innumerable harms.

Maybe I'm just reading this wrong, but it seems as if you're contending that Theists donate to charity simply to skew statistics in their favor. Since that seems to be what you're asking, I'll give you an honest answer - I think it's entirely unlikely that this is why Theists donate to charity. But the contention we're talking about isn't that Theists donate more to charity, what we're talking about is whether religion benefits anyone at all. That's the point we're debating, lest we forget. I'd say that with the stats I provided it's pretty easy to say that religion has benefits. Perhaps a better question would be, does religion's overall benefit to the world outweigh its negative impact? That's a worthy question, and more to the point of the overall discussion (I think). Religion, being a man-made tool, comprises both the good and bad that is inherent to man. My answer would be that religion, being entirely man-made, would be simply a mirror of man, and that with or without religion man would be doing the same thing he's been doing all along. As interesting as this discussion is, the very fact that religion exists, and has existed for so long, means that we'll be feeling the ramifications of religion, both good and bad, for millennia from this moment, even if all mankind were to stop today and say, "Wait a sec, this is all just bunk!" We would have to expunge religion from the history books and the oral histories of every culture for it to be truly ever taken away, and frankly the odds of that happening are nil. In my very humble opinion.

The 1990s agrees with you. We had some GREAT players, but we also had many players with many problems. It was a glorious and horrible time to be a Husker, all at once. I'm sure Bo has terrified this kid, and I believe in second chances too, but this won't be his second chance - it'll be his fourth or fifth. When the Washington fans come to HuskerBoard before the game they'll give us all the gritty details, but the fact is that Middleton failed more than one drug test. I would count each of those as "a chance," and he failed each of them.

Thanks for the chuckle about the blood donations. That was worth a laugh. We're not talking about one very specific kind of donation, we're talking about all donations, towards the point that religious organizations do benefit people. SOURCE Since this study wasn't conducted by Theists or, as far as I know, with the knowledge of Theists, I'd say the contention that religion "doesn't help anyone" is completely unfounded. However, your contention that "competition doesn't have to take the form of violence" is errant. Whether it has to or doesn't have to is irrelevant - it does take that form, therefore it must be taken into account. We can't stick our head in the sand and ignore things simply because they don't have to be. You can't say "Commerce doesn't have to occur due to sporting activities, therefore we can ignore the hundreds of billions of dollars sports generate toward the GDP." Doesn't work that way.

And if you eliminate the reasons that the mugger is harming others, then the amount of harm in the world decreases. Voila! The mugger mugs because mugging is a form of competing - competition to get more, take what's yours and make it mine. We see this behavior in every single creature, great and small, and man is no exception. From the tiniest amoeba to the blue whale, competition for mates, food, resources, safety - they all partake. Remove competition and viola! you've just eliminated one of the main reasons every creature on this planet evolved. That's hardly realistic. Theists in America give more money to charitable causes than the secular - they even give more money and volunteer more than the secular. Stating that religion is "not really helping anyone" may help you believe your point, but it's inaccurate.

I would agree with Vincenzo's, but you're probably not going to get a table without a reservation on Friday or Saturday. It's a chain restaurant, but they do a good job at Macaroni Grill down on 27th & Pine Lake. If you have the time and want great Italian, drive up to Lo Sole Mio in Omaha. Well worth the trip.

I've never been impressed with Qdoba, and frankly, they're going to have a hard time competing with OSO. OSO put D'Leons out of business, and they're a juggernaut.

One of my favorite lines from an announcer ever came from that play, "This is tackle football, isn't it?"

You are correct, sir! Same guy owns 'em both.

Bo is a football coach, not a journalist. He probably knows as much about journalism as journalists know about football. We expect a certain literacy in sports from our journalists, but we don't expect them to know Xs and Os like we expect our coaches to know - so why would we expect Bo to know the "correct" way to handle this according to journalists? I want my coach focusing on football. If that means he's not slick with the press, I'm willing to live with that.

Surely you're not expecting objective answers here.