Interesting. There is also a long history of the "battle of the sexes" in tennis (e.g. the Bobby Riggs vs. Billy Jean King match) that may still pervade the culture of that sport. — geospiza

The sport was so much less competitive and developed when they had that match that the genetic disadvantage wasn't so hard to overcome. (there wasn't this massive pool of stand-out male specimens training for life and competing for millions).

I tried to find out if bobby smoked, all I could find was this ad:



(Bobby Riggs, top left)

Could you imagine a modern top tennis player smoking cigarettes?

Remember, I'm not saying women cannot be better at sports than men (i've tried to be very clear). Serena is better at tennis than 99.9999% of all males (or something like it), but statistically the athleticism required to be Serena-level-good will show up in outlying males more often than outlying females.

What you're missing is the fact that different people have varied, disparate, and sometimes mutually exclusive notions of what constitutes "morality".

Imagine a person who believes that god created humans with free will and then rewards and punishes them based on the standards of their behavior. A determinist would deem this to be unfair because they are destined to behave in a certain way, and hold that the free will given to them by god is not the kind that actually enables them to choose to be a moral person...

The main implication of this issue is the destruction of "intrinsic moral guilt/blame" (such as an evil soul deserving of punishment). So what are we left with?

Something I call "pragmatic moral guilt/blame"...

Whether or not a person has true free will, we still need to behave as if they do (in some ways) because we're unable to perfectly predict their future actions. If someone commits the crime of rape, then we still need to take precautions to protect ourselves and prevent them from doing future harm (regardless of whether determinism is true or not). We might therefore incarcerate them, and while it's not a nice thing to do to people, since it's the less unfortunate of two unfortunate realities it makes pragmatic sense for us to do it. Torturing them while incarcerated per determinism is usually described as immoral because we don't hold them intrinsically responsible for their actions, and torture isn't in any way necessary for our protection or rehabilitative (which is a secondary moral strategy for dealing with a criminal population under a determinist moral framework).

Morality then becomes strategies and standards of behavior designed to maximize our socially shared values. People hate this description because it goes against their own versions of what "moral truth" is and where it comes from.

The problem is that so many people are concerned with the "truth" components of moral positions, and so they argue on endlessly, while the minimalist assertions of determinists that morality is just a cooperative strategy proves uninteresting to the lay-determinist ;) , (albeit uncontroversial given that this form of moral reasoning is slowly taking over our legal systems).

Essentially what I've described underlies a part of the reasoning behind the "compatibilist" definition of free will...

Yes, there are exceptions and in-betweens. Bigger female birds of prey likely helps the mother to defend the nest and to spend the calories on egg production...

But this is exactly my point: genetics (which evolved to suit environmental factors, such as mate selection and the necessities of child-rearing) very reliably expresses itself in the average characteristics of many animal species...

With humans, we're so in-between that we're better understood as having a genetic capacity for both extremes of reproductive strategies (pair-bonding vs tournament) and have a spectrum of individuals in-between.

So when we then look at how traits and chracteristics are spread out across the sexes, we can start by looking at the "pair-bonding" or shared-trait individuals (males and females who appear very similar in weight/height/strength etc...) and then we can look at the other segments of population which diverge toward sexually dimorphic extremes.

While it's possible for an individual female to exhibit very masculine traits (or a male to exhibut very feminine traits), the numbers statistically favor men for masculine traits and women for feminine traits.

This statistical spread is why on average at any given moment the strongest athlete will be male, and why it will be a very reliable expectation that the group of top athletes will be composed mostly or completely of men.

I can tell you his statements were made in earnest. Tennis has very very competitive cultures which surround it, and while this is a part of where the "controversy" originates (the human desire to competitively compare and contrast, and the resulting dilemma when the top men are compared to the top women), it's also why there is such a clear divide in the first place (concerning tennis specifically at least).

Professional athletes in this sport pretty much get maxed out in terms of physical conditioning and the relevant skill set/mentality required to compete and win. Serena Williams certainly seems maxed out in these categories, but what limits her compared to some males is her upper limit on arm-strength.

The thing that makes Serena so dominant among women (her absolutely incredible body/strength) is the same thing that leaves her disadvantaged in a pool of the best men (many of them have stronger arms/serves/returns).

EDIT: Essentially what John said is entirely factual. Serena might do a bit better than the top 600, but likely not much.

They only pass you out of spite because your outfits are likely better color coordinated than theirs. It's like you're slapping them in the face XD.

In the animal kingdom, different species can have different degrees of what is called "sexual dimorphism"...

Sexual dimorphism is the degree to which the males and females of a given species exhibit different biological characteristics (I.E: color, size, strength, horns, etc...)...

For example, deer species tend to display high degrees of sexual dimorphism with the males generally being bigger (almost universally true for deer) and also the possession of antlers. (the male and female deer do lead somewhat different kinds of lives, with the male fighting against other males, and the females rearing the children).

A pair of crows however exhibit almost no sexual dimorphism whatsoever, which suits them well because they both lead the exact same kind of lives. (they "pair bond" and then both share the duties of child-rearing equally, which has caused both the males and females of the species to converge toward the same ideal parental form).

Pair-bonding species tend to have low sexual dimorphism and "tournament species" tend to have high degrees of sexual dimorphism...

Humans are both a pair-bonding AND tournament species. In some individuals there can be seen a high degree of sexual dimorphism, and in some individuals almost no sexual dimorphism is visible.

As such, there are many men who have less physical strength than many women, but when we look at the extreme ends of the spectrum of dimorphism, we see women being geared toward child rearing on one end, and males being geared toward competition on the other end.

Men and women with low degrees of sexual dimorphism will generally have an equal distribution of traits and characteristics (like a pair-bonding species which shares the responsibility of child rearing), but the outlying women will somehow be more geared toward child-rearing, while the outlying men will be geared toward competition with other men.

These outliers fill the top echelons of sporting prowess (and in beauty magazines) and explains why many men have physically bigger and stronger bodies than many women... It's all genetic!

John McEnroe has recently stated that while he believes Serena Williams is the greatest women's tennis player ever, she wouldn't be able to compete on the men's circuit. He has further stated, "if she played the men's circuit she'd be like 700 in the world."

McEnroe qualified his comments by suggesting Williams could beat some men's players because of her mental fortitude, but that he doesn't think she's athletic enough to beat the majority of men on the professional circuit. He also offered this remark: "Maybe at some point a women's tennis player can be better than anybody. I just haven't seen it in any other sport, and I haven't seen it in tennis. I suppose anything's possible at some stage."

On previous occasions, McEnroe has called Serena "arguably the greatest athlete of the last 100 years" and "the greatest player to ever play the game."

Is there any truth to John McEnroe's statements? Is there anything wrong with what he said apart from whether or not the statements are true? What were his motivations and are those motivations relevant to judgments about the propriety of making such statements? — geospiza

Is there any truth to John's statements?: Yes.

Is there anything wrong with what he said apart from whether or not the statements are true?: No.

What were his motivations and are those motivations relevant to judgments about the propriety of making such statements?: What?

Are you suggesting that he has some hidden motivation for pointing out the difference between male and female tennis athletes?

Are you suggesting that his statements are somehow improper because of his motivations?

It's uncontroversially true that male athletes have a rather large advantage in just about any sport which requires physical strength to play at a high level.

Do you feel a servile obligation towards the socks on your feet?

Is remarking that life is good not enough?

What's the purpose behind making a gesture of gratitude toward a thing which cannot perceive it?

It seems nonsensical...


EDIT: If you refuse to kiss the blarney stone then you're limiting your own belief in the future???

What kind of luck do you have in mind?

There's probability: is it statistically anomalous that we exist? (the answer is not from our perspective)

And then there's favorability: "is our existence favorable/good to/for us?" (the answer is yes, us atheists generally categorize existence as a good thing)

If you want a more direct answer than this you've got to define "luck".

You do realize that my answer takes us right back through the entire universal history of causation to the big bang right?

You're asking if I like existing... Yes I like existing... No I don't feel lucky to exist, because if I didn't exist I wouldn't be around to feel unlucky, so why should I be surprised to find out that I exist?

Can you define "thankful" though? (if someone has a feeling of thankfullness, do you think that means there must be a sentient and responsible third party toward which your thanks is aimed?)

And regarding your thankfulness for the distance between the earth and sun, is there anything to which you personally thank for that reality?

As an atheist – do you feel lucky to have life – consciousness – love – are you thankful? If you are thankful – to what – the universe – luckiness? What? — Thinker

I'm an atheist and we're obviously all the same, so I'll answer!

We're thankful to our mother for giving us life and consciousness (i.e, not aborting us), and are thankful to our family for giving us love... If you're thankful to an invisible friend more so than to your family, then I'd say you have questionable priorities...

But here you will surely say "Yea but who gave your mother life? Really you ought to be thankful to them!". And the answer is yes, sure, and we can go back through the countless generations of our ancestors, through the variations of hominids, through to smaller and smaller mammals, then through amphibians, then fish, then through less complex multi-cellular life, through single cellular photosynthesis/hydrothermal supported single cells, all the way to the first proto-cell which began the interesting and repeating spiral we call life.

Here you will surely say "Aha! The chance of the formation of the first proto-cell! Surely you must thank this!?"

Well, if you are asking if we atheists would prefer it if life existed, then yes, generally we prefer that. But we have no object or entity to thank for this. You could suggest that chance is a thankable entity, but an arbitrary set of physical circumstances which give rise to a proto-cell would have come from previous states of matter. We can then begin rewinding causation in the universe to a time where from our perspective it seems like everything in the universe was infinitely hot and infinitely dense. Beyond this "singularity" we have no way of knowing or describing what came before (let alone even conceive of a "before").

So are you asking whether or not we atheists thank the infinitely hot and infinitely dense singularity? No because it's not a conscious thing. Would we prefer it if the big bang happened? Generally yes, we would prefer that, and if there is something that can actually be meaningfully thanked for this, we're ignorant of it.

I have a few questions of my own though (quid pro quo and all):

Do you thank the socks on your feet? Do you thank the air that you breathe or the water that you drink?

Do you thank the gravity of the earth and the earth's distance from the sun?

If not why not?

The fact that they buried their dead, the religious paintings, the fact that they had rituals, shamans, and all the other stuff we can now identify as being associated with a religious impulse. — Agustino

We should not just assume that ALL of them had shamans and rituals just because we've found that SOME of them did.

Also, which cave-paintings are distinctly spiritual or religious? Is a half-man half antelope really a sign of religious impulse?

Burying the dead is very practical if you don't want disease and vermin to run rampant or to be given a constant and hideous reminder of your own mortality. That said, different cultures used different rituals; the only thing they all have in common is that they disposed of the dead. Some of them did it by just leaving a corpse up on a mountainside for the birds to consume, some did it by burning the body, and some did it by burial. Burial of the dead is interesting because it is so very common, but it can be done without meaning behind the ritual and should not be taken as necessarily an innate expression of human religious thinking because it's also the most obvious way of dealing with a rotting corpse; it's common sense. The building of tombs might be as much an expression by wanting permanence in the material world and in the memory of the living as much as it is a statement about a next life.

Yes, you thought that because your reading comprehension skills are very poor. I was very clear that I'm talking about the divine/transcendent. As for what the divine/transcendent refers to, it refers to anything spiritual, anything which shows evidence of pushing beyond the merely material realm. Burying one's dead for example is a sign of respect for them. If they had no spiritual impulse, they wouldn't give a shit about burying the dead and showing respect to them, because why would they? They are dead, they're no more, what's the point of respecting someone who doesn't exist anymore? — Agustino

You've been anything but clear. Remember when you said "So babies aren't born atheists, they're born with a desire for God from the very beginning", right after saying "The desire for the transcendent (including God) is a natural human desire, which existed from the very beginning of mankind."? Then when I brought up Jainism and Buddhism you decided that desire for god was never included in your original position, and instead "anything spiritual" is what you meant. You accuse my reading and comprehension skills of being poor only as a means to cover the sloppy ordering of your own ideas.

Even now you recede further into vagueness: "divine/transcendent refers to anything spiritual, anything which shows evidence of pushing beyond the merely material realm.". Anything beyond the material realm? In this case I'm not sure how burying dead corpses or remembering the person as they lived is in anyway necessarily beyond the physical. Strictly speaking we celebrate the lives of those who die for our own reasons as much for spiritual ones (I.E: mourning as opposed to ensuring they pass safely to the next world)

No, these religions were successful because they gained, rather quickly, a critical level of followers. Even if there were no Crusades, Christianity would still be a huge religion. As would, by the way, Islam. Sharing the religion, not necessarily through conquest, is part of ALL religions, pretty much. A follower of a religion has something good, he is likely to want to share it. — Agustino

If Christianity and Islam didn't at some point gain through attempts at conversion and conquest, maybe some other religion might have become dominant. Zoroastrianism? Perhaps the Egyptian gods?

If Constantine didn't make Christianity the official religion of Rome, it might have been lost to time like so many other religions. Would Christianity still have spread if it didn't benefit from the ability to travel on the roads built by roman conquest?

Exactly, and religions still existed and flourished without it :) My point isn't about the idea of One God, but of the transcendent. — Agustino

My point in this case was that the popular religions were the one's with conquest behind them. For instance, when a Roman general would strut back into town with a fortune in loot, he would most likely build a shrine or donate a large portion of it to his favorite cult, or else would invest in games or public works (like a bath house) in order to gain the praise and support of the masses. The bigger shrines generally have more successful generals to thank.

Hedonic pleasure is never good, not that it won't be sufficient. Hedonic pleasure is any pleasure which is made into the highest good, and isn't aligned in its proper place. — Agustino

I don't quite understand what you mean, and if I do I think it irrational; I don't equate specific pleasures with the highest good, but I do incorporate pleasure itself (as a whole) into what for me is the highest good (happiness).

It seems like you're saying that if I value pleasure above god or some other spiritual nonsense then I'm engaging in hedonism. Really all your saying is that deriving happiness from anything other than the transcendent is hedonism.

That depends what you mean by "pleasure". — Agustino

Well what do you mean by pleasure?

I mean comfort and the avoidance of pain. For instance, if you were to lose your right hand in an accident, the pain would affect your happiness, as would the ease with which you carry on in life thanks to the disability.

Right, it seems they made a distinction between the natural laws (including what is known in philosophy as natural morality) and God, who is above those laws. — Agustino

They made a distinction that they have the right to self governance. They said: "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them" meaning that the laws of nature and the god of that nature entitle them to self governance. They did not however establish any kind of specific religious authority or what the laws of god actually are beyond permitting self-governance. And in the constitution, they not only did not mention god, but they established the separation of church and state.

All I said was that the founding of America was based on the rights and will of the people, not some arbitrary religious values. This is really uncontroversial stuff. The monarchs of old who claimed divine connection could be said to be religiously founded states, but not America.

Because people of other religions were free to make their home in the US? Because religion is different from government? :s This position by the way is a very Christian one - render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God. — Agustino

It's also a christian position that the king is unto his subjects as god is unto all of man kind. (you're a King James reader right?)

But it seems you're now agreeing with me. America and it's government is different than religion; it wasn't founded on religion. America was distinctly founded on ideals of freedom, including the freedom to be irreligious.

First of all, "joking" about that when millions of young girls are watching and looking at you as their model is completely unacceptable. Second of all, Madonna has been married in the past, and more importantly she has 6 children, so yes, I think her joking about that is just as terrible as your wife joking about that would be. — Agustino

The only people who stand to suffer emotional harm from this are her children, and if her children really cannot tolerate her making a joke, then that's between Madonna and her children.

She is not the model for millions of young girls, she's 58 (no offense Madonna, you look sexy as ever but the kids have their new trends and all). Even if she was, then it's up to parents to censure and censor what media their child consumes.

But with the entire Western world of promiscuity laid before you, you choose to use Madonna joking about blowjobs as a point of contention??? You could have at least chosen someone like Miley Cyrus or something. Maybe some degree of sexualization is harmful for society, but you would be hard pressed to come up with good, specific, and useful answers in that regard.

--Blowjobs outside of the marriage bed are not to be feared--

No, that's not what I've suggested. I've suggested that demeaning sexual jokes of a vulgar kind have no place in the public arena. — Agustino

It depends on the sensibility/sensitivity of the public. If that kind of humor really has no place in the public then the public will naturally sanction her. The argument you have against vulgar humor is your own sensitivity and appealing to traditional cultural and religious values.

Tradition, reason, natural moral laws. — Agustino

Natural moral laws are a bit controversial, although there's some merit in some of it's postulates. Reason is a great source of morality.

But tradition? How can something be moral or immoral (sin or not sin) just because it happens to be a traditional position?

Some traditional positions are distinctly immoral, need I list some?

If you want a reason based morality, then do away with your wanton and fallacious appeals to tradition.

Women should absolutely be able to have successful professional careers if that's what they want. Women should choose ALONG WITH THEIR HUSBANDS when to have children, and they should be "free" to live with other women, but not marry them, as marriage is a religious institution and is hence bound by religious laws which define it as being the union between a man and a woman. — Agustino

Thinking you have the right to legally forbid something that doesn't harm you on the grounds that it belongs to your religion is blatantly immoral per the standards of modern Western society. Marriage confers economic privileges which should not be denied to gays. You should not even have the right to forbid them from calling it "marriage", because all you're basing that on are your god's morals and your hurt feelings...

I don't understand why gay marriage upsets the religious so much. If they aren't hurting you, what's your problem? Does it make baby Jesus weep or something?

And just to clarify, if a women decides they want to have no kids, should the man married to her (who wants kids) have the right to decide for her? Wouldn't divorce be more appropriate?

Promiscuity whether it comes from men or women, is indeed a serious moral problem of the modern world. — Agustino

A serious problem? Why? Because it leads to divorce? Why is that a serious problem? Because it hurts the kids????

What hurts more, being trapped in a dysfunctional household or living with a single parent?

Religion has already beaten you in sales, by FAR! You better pick it up faster if you ever want to catch up. — Agustino

If we look at the number of religious folk (in the west) who actually attend religious functions and behave in a religious manner, they're pretty much all behaving like secular atheists. Now-a-days people are much more concerned with real carrots than they are metaphysical ones.

Number one, the Bible did not actually describe homosexuality as abominable, but rather homosexual sex. That's an entirely different thing. Number two, there is a difference between religion and government, which is biblically supported. — Agustino

Whether the act or the person was described as abominable makes very little difference. It still says gays should be put to death.

Well only a madman would call rising divorce rates well into 50%+, and rising promiscuity and sexual immorality as progress. You are aware that poor men and women, the most vulnerable in society, and their children, suffer the most out of these developments right? Many women in today's world, especially if they come from a poorer background, cannot find a man who respects and values them. — Agustino

The poor suffer more when social welfare programs are de-funded than they do from divorce. But again, here you somehow equate freedom to divorce with the un-freedom to stay married. When marriages fail we might be causing more harm by forcing them to live together. The host of factors which contribute to divorce (and the negative effects some divorces might have on children) extends well beyond promiscuity and irreligion as causative drivers.

Sure, but only with reference to the Mosaic Covenant. Christians don't have a Mosaic Covenant with God. — Agustino

So your god has a double standard then? The chosen people are given the long form god-morality but the Christians, being less, are given the Morality-for-Dummies version?

It absolutely does, because first of all those additional laws were meant to be advice for the Jewish people at that particular time in history, not forever. The essential, unchanging laws are represented by the 10 Commandments, the Noahide laws and natural morality. — Agustino

So, it's not sinful to disobey the laws of the Mosiac covenant if you're not Jewish or lived outside a certain time period? (or sin depends on who and when you are?).

Forgive me but it seems odd that god should give very very specific set of "moral advice" to a group of "his chosen" and then somehow later on some people decide "oh well those moral laws don't apply to us". What changed regarding the morality of homosexuals being put to death for instance? (also, the idea that it was "advice" is kind of off. It was an agreement between god and the jews; a kind of contract)

Let's look at the Noahide laws though...

Do not deny God.
Do not blaspheme God.
Do not murder.
Do not engage in illicit sexual relations.
Do not steal.
Do not eat from a live animal.
Establish courts/legal system to ensure obedience to said laws. — God?

So you believe in theocracy?

No I don't believe homosexuality is a sin. I believe homosexual sex is a sin. The two are different. One is being sexually attracted to members of the same sex, while the other is engaging in sex with members of the same gender. The act itself is punishment enough (I'm a virtue ethicist). In addition, it's not up to us to punish people for sin, so long as that sin doesn't cause any other social sins which impact others. God will render justice unto the end - as promised, the punishment for sin will be death, regardless of what that sin is. But the vengeance will belong to God, not to human beings. "The vengeance is mine, saith the Lord". — Agustino

So essentially you would put it to homosexuals like this: "Listen, I know you're attracted to the same sex, but if you can just resist the drive to carry out your biological urges then you will be granted entrance into this ultimate and dope eternal afterlife which will dwarf whatever carnal pleasure you are in search of. Furthermore if you don't heed my warning then god is going to send you to hell to suffer forever and ever and ever."

Does that sound about right?

Yeah, the fact that there's millions of charity organisations doesn't mean we haven't abandoned charity. The existence of such organisations has little to do with the virtue of charity. — Agustino

But your point was that we have abandoned charity and therefore the west will collapse. It really doesn't seem like we've actually abandoned charity. Can you explain why we have in light of the millions of charity organizations which exist?

Who told you women are subservient? I just told you that the Bible says that women are helpers to men. Helpers are not servants or slaves. Helpers have an equal position to the one helped, or higher. — Agustino

Are men helpers to women? We are all just a bunch o' happy helpy helpers?

What do you actually mean by "helpers to men"?

:s if by that you mean that Christians don't believe that women are slaves to men, of course! We absolutely don't believe that. Women are highly valued in Christianity. — Agustino

Are they valued more than men even?

Why do we have to ascribe value based on sex? That's sexism...

Very often. Promiscuity prior to marriage is also very important, because old habits die hard. If you don't prepare to respect and save yourself for your spouse (or at least do your best to), then clearly you're not going to be able to keep your marriage intact either.

Economic factors do have a role to play, but it's not fundamental. If people were virtuous, they would not be promiscuous, regardless of external circumstances. It's an excuse that many like to use to justify their sin. — Agustino

Not everyone wants to be perfectly virtuous and not everyone shares your opinion about what is virtuous.

I wonder if you think it equally compromising for a woman to engage in per-marital sex as for a man to do so. Just curious...

Not only a function of spiritual well-being, but that's also very relevant. — Agustino

Well what else is there? According to you actual bread and actual carrots are valueless...

Bread and circus is just a means of controlling and enslaving a peoples. Not a way of maximising their well-being. And don't forget that the Romans were religious, by the way. — Agustino

Some Romans would argue that religion is just another way of controlling and enslaving a people, and has very little to do with maximizing good other than providing a source for social organization (even if irrational in it's basis)

Personally I would argue that religion is not essential to human life, while things like bread and carrots are. Yes yes, man does not live on bread alone, but that's just a platitude you keep restating which has no more rational strength than me stating the opposite.

It seems you do have a tendency to ask bullshit questions. I'm sure you could research this yourself if you actually cared. — Agustino

I'm sure you would make your own arguments if you actually cared. And then I might actually respond to them. As it stands though, I'm not at all interested in being sent around the internet at the speed of your google searches; read your own source material and compose an actual argument... Please...

— VagabondSpectre

The connection was a religious one, unlike the connection other animals had with the land and the creatures they hunted. — Agustino

So you say it's a religious connection. That's your conclusion. What are your premises and evidence?

Nope, that's absolutely not what I said. I said humans had a connection with the transcendent and a desire for the divine. I'm sure Buddhists and Jainists have that too, no concept of a supreme God needed. — Agustino

Alright well now you're going to need to rigorously define "divine" and "transcendent". I thought you were talking about god but I guess you were talking about something even more vague...

You have any proof for this nonsense? Religions have not generally aimed at conquering and converting, especially in the very ancient times. — Agustino

Actually religions, at least the successful one's, did tend to aim for conquest and conversion. The Religions that were successful at this tend to be the most popular religions of today. I'm sure you know that Islam was "spread by the sword" during a certain period of time, but how do you feel about the Christian crusades or evangelical missionary works? In very ancient times there was no conquering monotheistic god to speak of, that shit came after the end of paganism in Rome.

Study human history. Compare it to animal history. You can clearly see that whatever other differences, one clear difference is that humans have a NATURAL drive towards the divine, while animals don't. — Agustino

Strictly speaking, non-human animals aren't capable of thought sophisticated enough to entertain the idea of a creator god. Maybe if they were smart enough some of them would become god-obsessed, and maybe some wouldn't. But just because some humans do claim to have a drive towards the divine doesn't mean that it's innate, hard wired, or common to all humans. Some humans have a drive to smear feces on the walls, but it's not a natural human drive.

If you want to describe a natural human drive, try something that is actually common to all humans or demonstrably inherent in human psychology.

First of all that comparison is inadequate, because each country/region has a different culture/tradition and some of the poorest countries are badly affected by diseases and wars. So their GDP/capita isn't the only factor playing a role in their happiness. Moreso, if you look at Latin America, they are generally poorer, but happier. What accounts for that happiness is largely their traditional orientation, including religion, because yes, Latin Americans are on the whole quite religious, especially when compared to the West. — Agustino

What's that? There are these magical things called "other factors"!? HOLY CAUSATION BATMAN!

You start by saying correlation based on a single factor doesn't amount to causation, but then you go right ahead and state that the single factor of religiosity is the causative force behind the raised cluster of Hispanic countries.

Who would have thought that there was more than a single factor in the world? POMO and sex will end civilization. Irreligion leads to unhappiness, and the singular and universal human need for "the divine" is the reason why; other factors be damned.

I don't see any reason why your haphazard interpretation of the graph should be any more worthy of consideration than my haphazard interpretation (except that mine boasts a tighter correlation). But this was my whole point. Throwing a graph in someone's face amounts to a rhetorical game unless you're able and willing to make a strong conclusion from it through actual analysis, explanation, and argumentation. I call it "rhetorical" because without dissection it amounts to a persuasive tool that appeals only to authority of the publisher and not the strength of the evidence.

The three links you posted about cave paintings for instance: The wiki article talks mostly about burial ceremonies, shamans, and animism (are these things transcendent or divine?) and describes how these tendencies began to emerge maybe around 300,000 years ago. It doesn't say that everyone was religious, it says that this is when the first behaviors even describable as religious started to emerge. We might have worried about fertility and hunting, but it doesn't say we were all concerned with a next life or a string-pulling god or an experience of "the transcendent".

The wiki description of paleo-religious setting is exactly what I described though; there were groups of people who A), bury the dead, and B), may have had a shaman (who most likely gets them high) and would have been the arbiter of whatever the fuck it is they might have believed. Not all tribes would have believed the same or even necessarily similar things though. Some of them might have had no sophisticated metaphysical beliefs pertaining to "the transcendent and the divine" of any kind. This is why I refuse to investigate a source you yourself won't take the time to quote (to provide your argument in a concise manner). In this case it backs up what I've previously said while not at all backing up what you have said (that "desire for the transcendent or divine is natural to all humans").

-- Just because we dig up one ancient cave-shaman doesn't mean we should then go ahead and conclude "the desire for the divine was inherent at the beginning". What's equally likely is that something about being incredibly superstitious confers some kind of survival/reproduction advantage, and so superstition wielding groups tended to spread (just like how a vigorous policy of conversion (I.E: christian missionary work) is beneficial for the spread of the religion), and so that's why superstitiousness is a common (but not universal) human trait.--

The second link from "historytoday.com" is behind some kind of subscription wall...

The third link shows the existence of an animistic python worshiping cult and shaman from 70k years ago. What did it mean to them though? Was the snake divine? Was the snake their transcendent link to something? Maybe they hoped the python would devour their enemies or help to ensure a good crop harvest. Who knows? It's just another shaman preaching random beliefs, and we don't even know what they were. Not every group had a shaman and not ever shaman would have preached metaphysical truth (some of them would have been primarily medicine men who share wisdom and provide leadership, which might be important in some harsh environments).

If you want to hold it in your head that religious belief is somehow an important aspect of human cognition, I won't actually hold it against you. Not all humans have the same desires or think in similar ways. Religious belief might actually be intrinsic to your mind and if that's what makes you happy then go for it. But I must disagree on the strongest possible grounds that "desire for the transcendent or divine" is common to all humans, or that "it was there from the beginning".

In my eyes, that's not an increase in freedom. That's an increase in freedom to not be committed and devoted, an increase in freedom to be a selfish snitch. I don't want that kind of freedom, you can keep it for yourself. Your kids will pay the price by their broken family. — Agustino

What do you mean "snitch"? Is that like, where the woman or the man complains to the judge that their spouse cheated on them?

LOL! Who needs personal rights and freedoms if they can't even enjoy them? If you can't even have a family because divorce rates are so high, who needs this freedom? What will we do with it? Wipe our buttoms? You're talking as if freedom was a good in itself. — Agustino

You're talking about marriage as if it's good in itself. Sometimes marriage is not good and in the old world where divorce rates were low, spousal abuse was prevalent.

If two people get married and then get divorced, it's not the fault of some societal divorce rate that demanded they be separated. You're griping about the behavior of free humans as it's some terrible force that is going to destroy you. I really don't get it: the freedom to divorce is actually the un-freedom to stay married???????

There's no law that says a certain number of people must be divorced, that's just a behavioral trend....

Well leave me out of discussion, I'm a smart guy. Let's talk about your average man, who isn't that well-educated, isn't aware of all the social trends, doesn't know what kind of women to look for, etc. He's the one who will pay the price, not people like me. And if you tell him that he's absolutely free to get married and stay married, that's like telling a black slave 100 years ago he's absolutely free to run away and live on his own! It's fucking bullshit, and we both know it's bullshit. The social environment isn't conducive, on the whole, towards life-long marriage. Most people cannot escape their social environment, nor should it be expected of them to do so. — Agustino

O.K, so, the whole "that's like telling a slave" argument is beyond ridiculous. If you're legally a slave and are physically restrained from doing something, this is different then being free to try something and to fail.

If we apply this brand of logic to, for example, your economic views, then we can see that statistically most people are not wealthy or well off. Telling someone that they're free to get rich in the free market is like telling a slave that they're free to escape, because statistically they will fail..... Right?

Yes, if he dies while trying to escape, the slave can thank his inability to run faster or his inability to live up to whatever standards he set for himself. Great one mate >:O — Agustino

Each to his need, each to his ability? Is that what you're trying to say?

Define abusive. If, for example, your wife doesn't want to have as much sex as you do, that doesn't count as abusive. Please remember that. — Agustino

Abusive would be forcing your spouse to have sex when they don't want to. Uh... Please remember that?

No, I mean introducing the local religion to children in school, and discussing the concepts involved, whether they be moral, about the afterlife, or otherwise. It seems that the only kind of religious education you can think of is one where people are told "This is what you have to believe. Now believe it". Your imagination is quite poor. — Agustino

What if the class decides that the local religion is irrational and immoral?

And does it seem to you we have achieved that much? Man does not live on bread alone. — Agustino

Yes we have achieved that much. See: modernity.

Also, arguments do not live on vague metaphors alone. The bread bit does nothing for me.

Nope, that's not what I said. Again, get your facts straight mate. Seems like you can't even understand what I'm telling you. — Agustino

Forgive me for not being able to keep your meaningless terms straight. You have yet to define the transcendent or the divine. I thought we were talking about desire for god.

This is false. — Agustino

It's just as plausible as your assertion that all humans have "an innate desire for the divine" (did I get that right?).

That's according to whom? According to you? Because as far as I know, most people who believe in spiritual enlightenment (take Wayfarer on this forum) would disagree with you. — Agustino

Yes that's according to me. (Sorry Wayfarer!). It's by your own words that I reason this though; you speak of a coming desire for the divine or the transcendent where hedonic pleasure won't be sufficient. You even referred to it as a natural human drive; something psychological. So even by your own admission and description, you are just following the natural drives that your mind is geared toward, and following what it is geared toward makes you happy.

Happiness and pleasure are not the same. — Agustino

Happiness is different for different people, but we can all agree that pain and pleasure have at least some relationship with it.

:s Riiiiiight, a bunch of (mostly) Christians mentioned that freedom is given to man by a God of NATURE! I don't know where you're making this stuff up from, but you may like to provide some sources. — Agustino

The declaration of independence states "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.". But the constitution of America (the thing that founds and grounds the legal framework of the entire state) does not mention god and establishes freedom from religion in the 1st amendment. My sources are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of America.

Why did they explicitly make it so that no religion could ever become a state religion (or gain favored legal status over another religion) if America was to be founded on Christianity?

Right, so I suppose if someone at a party jokes about how he'd like to fuck your wife, that's alright no? He was just joking! Or even better, your wife jokes about giving them a blowjob. That's very "decent". Or your mother jokes about giving a blowjob to a random guy. That's certainly what people should be doing, so long as they're just joking right? — Agustino

Do you know what a false moral equivalence is? It's when you try to compare two things and say that one is just as bad as the other when in reality the two things are entirely different. Joking about fucking someone's wife is different than joking about offering blowjobs, which is also different than your wife joking about offering blowjobs. You make it sound like any joke which is vaguely offensive to anyone's sensibilities is a bad joke. You sure you haven't been drinking that political correctness cool-aid?

Society should discourage vice and sin, even if only for the bad social effects it has (including by the way rising divorce rates). — Agustino

What exactly do you mean by "discourage"? Are you really just saying that society should adopt and promote your own moral standards?

In short, who determines what "sin" is?

I don't know who taught you this bullshit, but no. We like our women strong, decent, moral, and upstanding, not running around promising blowjobs. — Agustino

So you like your women with successful professional careers, the ability to choose if and when they have children, and the freedom to marry another woman if they so choose?

No you're right... How dare that woman offer blowjobs... The end is nigh.

Yes, I wouldn't deceive people with a carrot like you seem to like doing. A carrot that never satisfies them and just makes them hungrier. — Agustino

That's because I sell actual carrots. You just allude to this magical invisible carrot that will satisfy you forever. You peddle the promise of ultimate gratification, ultimate fulfillment, while I offer a basic but genuine staple of human life: enjoyment.

If you want to beat me in sales, it's not too late to change products...

No, I don't have to satisfy your laziness and inability to read a source provided to you because you think it's not good without even reading it. :-} — Agustino

It's very amusing how you're able to turn "please selectively quote or reference your own sources to compose an argument" into "you're too lazy to read any and all sources i provide and construct my argument for me? Pshaw I say! PSHAW!"

No, it was a British position, not a Christian one. The law was written by the British government, not the Church. — Agustino

The law was written by the British government but it was informed by prevailing religious views amongst it's people. The bible describes homosexuality as abominable and would have definitely contributed to why Christians have had such lasting negative positions towards homosexuals (we can look at the lynching of gays in America as an anecdotal starting point).

One value of democracy is not that it absolutely prevents arbitrary (and wrongful) religious moral standards from holding sway in society, it's more so that it permits us to escape those religious moral standards, as a society, as the people change and progress more quickly than their religious doctrines.

Actually, again you are bullshitting. The part in Leviticus that you're quoting is part of God's Mosaic Covenant with the Jews at one particular time in history. What does this have to do with Christianity today? The Mosaic Covenant wasn't just a religion, but a state as well. Jewish religious leaders would prescribe the laws as well. Us Christians read that as instructive history (for example you can understand from that that homosexual sex is sinful, and the punishment for sin is death). — Agustino

I mean, this is a nice try disturbing mental back-flip and all, but Jesus himself stated that the ancient laws were still good. And it's not as if it makes much sense that god went into extraordinary detail about the moral standards expected of the Jews but then later on changed his mind about what is moral. You might not be sent to hell for it thanks to Jesus, but sin is sin right?

What I don't get is what you mean by "instructive history". I know you believe homosexuality is sinful, but do you also believe that they should be put to death for it?

What does that have to do with the virtue of Charity again? — Agustino

You suggested we've abandoned charity. We clearly have not.

To live virtuously in a way that honours God. — Agustino

If only there was a God to be found that we could waste time honoring...

One second you say courage hasn't gone anywhere, the other you talk about the millions of teens who can't do anything better but stay glued to social media. Makes much sense. — Agustino

You're going to have to be a bit more specific. Teens glued to social media has nothing to do with courage. Perhaps you think yourself courageous for not being glued to social media, or for living the good Christian life-style, and maybe in some ways you are, but teens glued to social media vs being religious is not what comes to mind when I think of the kind of courage it takes to perpetuate human society...

Well serve is the wrong word. Women are there to help men, among other things. — Agustino

HA! Why can't women just be there without some necessary role of subservience to men? You do realize that most modern Christians side with me on this right?

Seriously? By destroying families? By making children suffer? By increasing conflicts? By increasing harmful emotions like jealousy, anger, hatred? — Agustino

Sometimes divorce is easier on the children than the destructive relationship of the parents were it to be maintained.

Regarding promiscuity, how often is it the cause of divorce? I wonder if something like a rise in the cost of living (which subsequently now on average has both parents working full-time jobs to make ends meet) might have an effect on their relationship or if the subsequent time spent apart might even be a factor contributing to promiscuity itself.... I wonder...

It seems to me you don't understand what charity is. — Agustino

It seems you no longer understand your own point here: you tried to say that we've abandoned these values (selflessness and charity among others) and that's why the west will collapse. Me pointing out that we still have these things contradicts your premise that we've abandoned them.

P.S, if you are truly selfless then give away all of your posessions. W.W.J.D?

Right, you want to remain stuck in your narrow self-chosen prison. I see. — Agustino

Actually I refuse to enter the fun-house maze of corridors and distorted mirrors you've tried to beckon me into. All you need to do is quote the bit in the source material that you think makes your point. It's so easy, you don't even need to paraphrase it.

If you're going to be lazy, there's no point in having a conversation. — Agustino

That's how I feel when you hurl a link at me and say "read it" as your only argument or rebuttal to a specific point.

No, we aren't. Again, man does not live on bread alone. More bread doesn't mean more prosperous. — Agustino

Yes because according to you prosperity is a function of religiosity.

Man actually needs something other than bread to live on. I agree: they need a circus; games.

Bread and circuses kept the roman masses appeased for centuries, long after they'd lost their precious republic.

"Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses".

It wasn't religion that they'd lost, it was a sound grasp of the fundamental principles of democracy and why it's important to participate in it, and their ability to do so. Circuses and games then became the highlights of roman life.

When the bread train slowed, and the now poor masses then felt the extreme squeeze of poverty and societal neglect, Christianity was born.

Had there been more bread and better circuses, nobody would have noticed the crucifixion of one carpenter.

That's pretty interesting actually... I wonder what ethnic trends will dominate in the west in the future (I.E: will mullato's eventually be the majority?). I think ethnic clustering (so to speak) can probably help explain quite a number of differences between demographics; it's a matter of group-culture.

I have a theory about the decline in bhuddism: Islam and Christianity are conquering religions which prior to modernity had secured a sufficiently large and spread out global nucleus of adherents. The corrosive effects of modernity on religion might be impacting Buddhism more severely simply because Buddhists have a much smaller community over which to diffuse certain pressures (I.E, the size of your local religious community might incentivize you to stay in it if it is a very big community).

It's sort of an immune system analogy; Christianity and Islam might simply better situated to cope with the pressures facing them as a function of diversity and mass. Obviously this won't explain everything, but it might be one contributing factor.

Worship is one of the first and most ancient actions of mankind. From the very beginning, man was religious. Man had a connection with the transcendent, which was obvious and evident - very different from all the rest of the animals. Cave paintings indicate this, early worship rituals indicate this. Man was on his knees worshipping divinity from the very earliest moments of recorded history. No civilisation exists without the concept of divinity. It is absolutely essential that what being human is. — Agustino

Which cave paintings indicate that early man had a connection with the transcendent?

Seems to me like most cave paintings indicate they had a connection with the land and animals they hunted...

What about Buddhist and Jainist societies? Didn't some of them operate without the concept of a supreme god? Furthermore, it might be worth noting that the religions of old share the singular attribute of motivating their aderents to go out and conquer/convert other people to their religion.. If atheist communities did sprout up in the old world, it would have only been a matter of time before some ideologue rolls into town and lays down the bullshit. Old world atheists would have had no scientific basis or the critical thinking skills to refute religious claims, and so really what you might be referring to is a learned or innate desire for awareness.

People want to be aware; they want to know things. Perhaps the existence of science and reason in the world of today explains why fewer and fewer people are exhibiting "desire for god"... They found much more salient answers in science...

I never spoke of spiritual health. I spoke of an innate desire for the divine. — Agustino

O.K, what evidence do you have that innate desire for the divine is a natural human drive? (hint: alluding to cave paintings isn't satisfactory).

And? What's your point? Babies are born with certain desires, including the desire for food, the desire for water and momma's breast, etc. They're even born with desires that don't manifest right away, like the desire for intimacy. — Agustino

Strictly speaking, babies exhibit fixed action responses which are hard-wired into them. It's not that the baby wants to be fed or want's a breast (they don't know what breasts are pre-tit), it's that the pain of hunger makes it cry. When a baby suckles a tit for the first time, it does so automatically and without knowing what's going on, why it's doing it, or why it feels good. Like a baby chicken who instinctively pecks at the ground, these fixed action responses do not equate to actual conscious desires. Pelvic thrusting is another fixed action response: some humans and animals might try to hump something but have absolutely no clue why they're doing it, only that it feels good and natural at the time. This isn't an instinctive desire for intimacy, it's actually hard-wired impulses which work directly on pain and pleasure centers while hijacking motor controls. An actual desire for intimacy (especially for something specific) is something you need to learn.

Desires we learn are different than instinctive fixed action responses. To say that we are born with a desire for a relationship with god would be like saying a baby is born with a desire to play Magic: The Gathering"; it has no clue what you're talking about.

Actually, statistically speaking, parents are quite successful at that. Christianity for example is losing a net 1.5 million adherents a year based on conversion data, but overall it is growing because of birth rate. Of course there are exceptions. And it's not indoctrination, it's simply introducing the child to things he would not otherwise be introduced to. Most of religious growth happens not because of conversions, but rather because of giving birth to new children, just so you know. — Agustino

I'm aware of this, but I'm suggesting that the success with which parents can indoctrinate their children will decline due to developing factrors (namely freedom of thought and access to more view-points through social media). I'm suggesting that looking only at conversion and birth trends isn't enough to carry your predictions very far into the future (indeed, birth and conversion rates tend to fluctuate from decade to decade).

It's also worth noting that while Christianity might be growing, if it's losing the proportion of it's share of the population then we might as well describe it as becoming less globally significant.

Yes it is absolutely a conflict for who will dictate the direction of society. If you haven't realised this until now, I don't know what to say. It's a battle for the soul of man. — Agustino

I don't believe in souls, I believe in the freedom from religion. That means a religion cannot possibly, under the standards of all western constitutions, win the right to "dictate the direction of society". You would need to overthrow the foundations of the west to achieve this. Planning any coup d'etats by chance?

Yes, I am quite sure of that in fact. Man does not live on bread alone. — Agustino

Actually man can live on bread alone presuming the bread (*and water) has sufficient nutritional values.

How does what you're doing here not amount to scare-mongering over irreligion and promiscuity?

Right, I guess broken marriages are an increase in the standard of living. Never knew. :-} — Agustino

My father grew up in a good unbroken Christian home and had absolutely nothing, while I grew up in a broken Christian home, and while I was still very poor, had a much higher standard of living. The shoes that went on my feet tended to fit, I had an endless supply of second-hand clothes to wear, and from time to time my family could afford to send me on a school trip or take me to the movies. At 14 my father became a shoe-shine so he could buy clothes, and he hasn't stopped working since. He's turning 60 in a few days.

In general human happiness tends to even out, but when you're very poor there's more sources of pain and suffering, the avoidance of which can be just as meaningful as happiness itself. (For instance, your child's life is saved thanks to a new and affordable vaccine (thanks modernity!).

Prove it. Stats actually show the opposite. People are more depressed and upset than ever, so I don't know what kind of pot you're smoking.

For example http://college.usatoday.com/2016/10/22/depression-is-at-an-all-time-high-for-college-students/ .

It seems that this is a mere repetition of your axiom that the better technology and comfort available, the better lives people will live. Despite the evidence, you just have to believe that, because that's what your atheism hinges on. Give people bread, pussy and "freedom" - and they'll be happy. Where's the evidence to back it up? Once again, my axiom which is better supported by evidence is that man does not live on bread alone, contrary to your own vile materialism. — Agustino

College students are upset about stuff? COLOR ME SURPRISED!

I can play rhetorical games too! This one is called "spot the trend"!:



Seems like a pretty solid correlation with GDP and satisfaction in life. Not necessarily because money makes people happy, but rather because poverty and the oppression that tends to come with it (including religious oppression) tends to make them distinctly unhappy

No, you're actually not. You're less free than ever to choose. You are only given the illusion of freedom of choice. That's like telling a slave you're perfectly free to run away, you'll just get shot when you do. For example, how are you free to get married and have a life-long marriage when divorce rate is 50%+?

There is no pure freedom. There is freedom to do something. You're less free to be moral today than before. You're less free to be happy today than before. — Agustino

Curiouser and curioser...

I wonder if the rise in divorce rates has something to do with an increase in freedom (namely the freedom to change your mind about marriage). I also wonder if this has something to do with the gains that women have made in terms of personal rights within the last century... *Shrug* Who knows!

But I should tell you that you're absolutely free to get married and stay married, so long as you continue to love your partner and she you. If you fail at marriage you can thank your inability to properly select a life-long mate or your own inability to live up to whatever standards are expected of you from the mates you do choose.

Being forced to stay in a marriage with an abusive partner is one modern notion of hell on earth. Just a few weeks ago some guy robbed a bank to escape his wife through arrest. They took pity on him for that reason though and let him go... The poor sod...

But you are probably right though. Unhappy college students is such an unnatural omen that it must mean the end is nigh...

HA!

Religion should also be taught in schools again. I studied religion in school, and looking back it was probably one of the most interesting classes I had to take at that young age. — Agustino

What do you mean taught in schools? You mean like, we teach the kids all the doctrines and parables of Christianity and tell them that's what's moral?

Or do you mean something along the lines of "comparative religion" where we look at the differences between religions without trying to make one of them seem like the best? Whose version of religious history do we teach? Surely not the young earth creationist version...

Much more interesting than math, — Agustino

This scares me a bit. Religion might be more interesting than math, but without math our civilization would be nothing. We would never have had the industrial revolution, and we would likely be living countrified lives under this or that monarch (who god clearly has blessed more than ourselves). If we were even semi-blessed, then from time to time our local land-lord would come around and demand we fight with him, so at least we might get to enjoy the glory of death in battle or the brief enjoyable praise we may receive if we win and don't die.

You're not exactly suggesting that we don't also teach math, but to our current society math is indispensable while religion is not.

history, and other bullshit. — Agustino

Religion vs History. Who do you think will win?

Seriously though, you really think that kids ought to spend more of the time we set aside to learn real world stuff like math and history and other bullshit to instead learn about their favorite religion?

In addition to learning religion I learned a lot of math and history and other bullshit myself. So when you for instance make the claim like "desire for god has been there since the beginning", I can actually try to reconcile that claim with known historical facts. For instance:

The monotheism of the Abrahamic religions extends back until some point when the Jews became monotheists (CIRCA 8th century BCE). The greater world at this time was pagan and filled with shrines to lesser gods. As we go back farther religions become more primitive and their deities more animistic, until we are in an ancient tribal setting where whatever they believe is down to the schizophrenic shaman who has the village spirit-market cornered (with the help of his trusty hallucinogenic powder!). In fact, of all the customs common to all human cultures, there are only two I know of which are universal: 1) burial of the dead (or some alternative ceremony), and 2) The use of intoxicants for recreation and enlightenment. No matter which tribe you pull up you can find an example of them getting high by any means (whether they need to ferment the saliva of elders into alcohol, get toad-based poison into their blood stream, or process a plant in a certain way and shoot the powder up their nostrils, they will find a way to inebriate).

I know you won't like to hear this at all, but spiritual enlightenment is essentially just another kind of mental stimulation that humans fancy, in the end, because it makes them feel good. It's really not very different from other modes of though which offer different rewards but all of them geared towards the same inexorable goal: happiness. You suggesting (part in parcel) that this life is not for enjoyment is in fact the method by which you've wound up trying to enjoy this life.

America is a nation founded first and foremost on God. That is why, even on your dollar bills, it is written "In God We Trust". It doesn't say "In The People We Trust"... And quite the contrary, America would count as a constitutional republic, by the way, not a democracy. — Agustino

When America declared it's independence, it mentioned the freedom of man given to them by a god of nature, but beyond that everything in America's founding pertains to the will of the people. They purposefully left god out of the constitution and enshrined freedom of and from religion to ensure that one religion would not be able to hold the reigns of the government or government favor.

When people say America isn't a democracy it's just the cutest thing ever. A constitutional republic is a form of democracy. It is known...

P.S, here is the mission statement of the website from the shitty article you linked: "The mission of The Heritage Foundation is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." I don't want to risk wasting time on this. If you want to read it and communicate the evidence it might contain for your claims, I welcome you to do so.

I don't think I am at all. I think I'm right on time. — Agustino

"A wizard is never late, nor is he early. He arrives precisely when he means to. “

Once we renounce political correctness, atheism/hedonism will have no means of defence anymore.

...

What defence will someone like this have from being shouted off and kicked out of civilised society? She should be ashamed of herself (certainly not proud), and the rest of us should shun any dealings with her. Society needs to govern itself by showing individuals that they are not above the necessities of decent behaviour, and if they are, then they will be kicked out, or at least labelled and treated adequately. If she wants to be a prostitute, she should be absolutely free to be one. — Agustino

Ye gods man!, she was clearly joking!

She cannot possibly believe she could make good on a promise to enthusiastically fellate the millions of men who voted for Hillary Clinton... Did she at least add in the caveat that she would not have to deliver if she didn't win? (that's for the lawyers to debate I suppose).

You're totally right though. society should hold the position that women have the right to be prostitutes but then consequently should immediately shun them for being ungodly and unclean because we think they're vile sinners (even as we make use of their services). We like our women pregnant, bound with a ring, barefoot, and in the kitchen, don't we? ;)

But in regards to your sudden and surprising valuation of "decency", just how decent do you think it is to accuse the rest of the world of sin and degeneracy for merely enjoying themselves and not worshiping your god? You're all vinegar and no honey; mostly stick and only a few carrot shavings. I recommend adapting this strategy if you aim for more success in religio-poltical spheres (unless you want to just play oldies to a crowd of regulars).

Sorry, but since when is castrating gays a Christian position? Where in the Bible does it say that if you find a homosexual you are to chop his balls off? Where in the Catechism, or the ecumenic councils, or any other official church position (either Orthodox or Catholic) do you find such nonsense?

You Sir, don't even know what you're talking about. — Agustino

Castrating gays has been a christian position since they decided that putting them to death was a bit too harsh.

Alan Turing, the man who basically invented the programmable computer (and subsequently may have won WW2 for us by using it to decrypt the Enigma machia), was imprisoned and chemically castrated on suspicion of homosexuality. This was in 1952. Not long after his "treatment" he committed suicide...

Leviticus 20:13:If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

This says gays should be put to death and it's their own guilty fault. This is part of the christian doctrine...

Belief in a transcendent order.
• Charity (real love, not the bullshit leftist version of it).
• Belief in the purpose and meaning of life.
• Duty (life is not here to enjoy it).
• Courage.
• Respect for tradition, culture and continuity.
• The sanctity of marriage.
• Chastity.
• Devotion and selflessness. — Agustino

(responded to in order)

There are more charitable organizations and socially helpful efforts than ever before

Belief in the value of life hasn't gone anywhere, it's only the highfalutin arbitrary claims of the ultimate which are beginning to subside in the west.

What is our duty? To worship god in pursuit of the next life?

Courage hasn't gone anywhere

We're better off with some traditions dying out, like the idea that women are there to serve men for instance (a Christian value).

The rise in divorce rates will bring down society? How?

How does the loss of chastity trigger the collapse of society?

Devotion is just another word for duty really, and selflessness another word for charity, of which there seems to be more than ever before.

You can read more on a similar topic here. — Agustino

I cannot possibly submit to any reading you suggest (in this case on principle as I refuse to treat what is in all likelihood conservative and partisan literature that gets randomly hurled at me as something warranting rebuke). It's not that I won't read articles upon request, it's just that the blatantly partisan slant of what you've been suggesting makes this far too tedious as a means of carrying on this debate.

If you want to pick out the relevant bits that demonstrate your point (including at least a brief explanation/example evidence) then I would happily respond to anything and everything you have to say.

No, I actually said we're going to be more prosperous than ever once religion takes over, not now. — Agustino

But we're already more prosperous than ever... Aren't we?

I'm confused. I thought that you suggested millennials (hipsters) will get tired of their hedonic delights and turn to religion for hardcore metaphysical fulfillment, but now you're clarifying and saying that their hedonic delights will simply come to and end and then they will realize that spiritual enlightenment is more reliable or better?

Which is it, are we going to drown in a world of hedonism and material wealth/delight until we reach for god to find meaning, or are we going to live in a world of suffering where we realize our hedonic delights are what got us there? Pick one.

Yes, that's true. So, how do you explain atheism? Are they wrong in denying the existence of God? With respect to the design argument, are their refutations and counterarguments equally, if not more, ridiculous? — TheMadFool

Only 5% of atheists believe no god(s) exist. I'm not one of them, so I agree with you that they're silly.

Agnosticism is the most rational position to assume given the lack of evidence. I wonder why it should result in an atheistic lifestyle? Anyway, that's beyond the scope of this discussion. Perhaps we're getting misled by what '''God'' means here. My god is only a creator - nothing more. — TheMadFool

Strictly speaking, "agnosticism" is an epistemological belief about the knowability of god. It's different than actually taking a position for or against (although most agnosts don't because that would seem silly, yet many do (i.e: blind faith)).

I know what you mean by it though, you mean "someone who does not believe god exists, but also does not believe god does not exist"; it's someone who doesn't take a position either way...

Well, that's 95% of atheism. See: soft atheism. That's me: the agnostic soft-atheist (cuddly even!).

I know why you use the labels "atheist" and "agnostic" differently, and why you might choose not to adopt it (and I wouldn't blame you), but like it or not you're one of us.... One of us.... ONE OF US!

No, no. All I want to demonstrate is the logical error an atheist commits by refuting the argument from design. Speaking for my self, I'm not completely satisfied with the design argument. It still seems incomplete. — TheMadFool

Refuting an argument isn't the same as proving the negative (which requires an entirely separate argument).

If you say you can run faster than 100 miles per hour and you show me a still iage of you running as proof, I can discount your argument as 1) not having a conclusion that is made necessary by your evidence/premises, and 2) discount your evidence/premises as giving little or no indication whatsoever of your stated conclusion.

Maybe you can run faster than 100 miles per hour, but the still photo argument for it can be refuted.

Only about 5% of atheists (yes i've polled several times) will actually take up the position that "no design occurred". Sometimes we call them "hard-atheists" or "positive-atheists" or "strong-atheists".

Most of the rest of us atheists are agnostic soft-atheists who do not accept the positive claims and arguments for and against god's existence. Of course this means we do not actively possess any belief in god, and so pragmatically we wind up behaving as if there is no god (generally) but the distinction is wide-spread and very important.

People not understanding the difference between rejecting a positive claim and asserting one of their own (the non-existence of god) are different is the main reason why the label "atheism" gets such a bad rap.

That's your opinion, but I'd argue that you are absolutely wrong. The desire for the transcendent (including God) is a natural human desire, which existed from the very beginning of mankind. So babies aren't born atheists, they're born with a desire for God from the very beginning. — Agustino

That's just like, your opinion, man...

In all seriousness, I have no clue why you think "the desire for god" was there "at the very beginning of mankind" (which is a controversial subject).

I would argue that early human desires had a lot to do with physical comforts and safety given that much of our hard-wiring is oriented toward keeping us physically healthy. What evidence or actual argument do you have to indicate that spiritual health might have been an early human drive, and if so why did it necessarily include "god"?

Babies themselves don't exactly have ordered thoughts because they haven't yet constructed an ordered mind through experience. A baby cannot tell the difference between it's mother leaving the room and going into non-existence. Are you telling me that babies wax philosophical about god or that all humans grow up to desire god?

Parents don't need to be indoctrinated at all. My parents most certainly didn't "indoctrinate" me in my religious views. I learned myself, through self-education. — Agustino

That's well and good, you're an outlier, but your entire "birth rate" argument is predicated on the idea that parents will indoctrinate their children successfully.

God BLESS the unending hordes of self-absorbed hipsters and social media addicts - without them, religion could most definitely not win. But their weakness, sloth, laziness and complete lack of virtue is a gift. These people will change with the winds, they pose no resistance at all. So let's see - on the one side, we have the fervently religious, who are determined to save their societies, and on the other you have punk-ass kids who like to have lots of sex and play video games and don't give a fuck about their world. Whose going to win, you tell me? — Agustino

What do you mean "who is going to win"? Is it a competition? A battle? A war? I don't get how you can see apathy towards your religion as a boon for your religion unless you think some kind of grandiose event is coming.

I really don't buy into that kind of rhetoric, but since that's your argument: religious apathy is seemingly a trend among the youth, they don't need to "win", they just need to wait a generation or two...

It's not going to go away, it's going to reduce. People will understand where nihilism and atheism lead to, namely complete social disintegration, which is, by the way, exactly what we're witnessing in the West right now. The rise of rampant hedonism, an ideology that takes life as something to be enjoyed, rising divorce rates (50%+), broken families, the dissolution of hope (and I'm not talking about some puny ass "better technology" or "better economic conditions" hope that liberals always trump about - that's fake hope as far as I'm concerned), the promotion of vices by the media and Hollywood, etc. — Agustino

So you think that the west is going to croak in a pool of it's own un-Christian moral degeneracy because anything not god oriented clearly leads to no-good?

Hmmmmmm... While divorce rates are up, so too is the average standard of living (thanks secular hedonism!) People are living longer and happier lives in the west than they ever have before and it's all thanks to better economic conditions and better technology. We're more free to choose how to live despite the hypocritical condemnations of those who choose to worship this or that specific idea. Crime, especially violent crime, is way down, and many nations are making great leaps and bounds when it comes to reducing the suffering of their people due to poverty and the oppression of them due to superstitious old world beliefs and plainly bad moral policy. Hysteria is up though. Some people are saying that it's all coming to and end, but they don't explain how; they just state that hedonism and godlessness will be to blame.

You are trying to convince me that I'm going to be less happy because of my irreligion and therefore should be religious, while simultaneously arguing that doing what leads to happiness is self-serving and evil.

Religion will bring the missing order into society. — Agustino

This is... Laughable... Going to break out the bible and claim it has all the best moral solutions to our problems? Or is it the divine power of god that will cause Christianity to sweep once more across the unwashed masses? You might be a bit late to the game on that one...

The rise of religious movements combined with a complete renunciation of PC and neo-liberal dogma that permits such unnatural trends to exist in the first place. The election of Donald Trump, and BREXIT, are just the beginnings. — Agustino

So once we renounce political correctness, (which does not have a majority stake currently, and has already suffered wide-spread rebuke for decades) we're going to default back to religion? I'm asking why religion will rise: "the rise of religious movements" is not an answer.

Right, I don't see how development is antithetical to religious values. Religious values, on the contrary, have given birth to all that development we've witnessed in the West. It's only in recent history, once those values were abandoned, that the West started to collapse, which is where we stand today in history. — Agustino

You have a very peculiar view of history...

America was founded on democracy, not on god. It enshrined the idea that the people rule, not god or king who represents him. It enshrined freedom from religion, and that the laws of the land should be the law of the people, not of one particular religious sect.

The separation of the church and state was an undeniably successful turning point in the history of the west, and the relevant gains of the west which have occurred in post theocratic society have dwarfed any achievement of any civilization to come before us. No longer does religion have legal footing in the realm of politics, and no longer can it force itself into the ideas of the unwilling. It wasn't religion or even religious values that made the west great in the 18th and 19th centuries, it was freedom from it.

In the 1940's Britain was still castrating gays thanks to Christian values, thankfully though they realized the immorality of many of their dogmatic positions.

Which Christian value or values did the west abandon which triggered the beginning of it's collapse?

No, actually I don't. We'll be more prosperous than ever, and it will be a true golden age, when religion and morality finally return in full force in Western society - it will be a new Renaissance. — Agustino

Wait what?

You just got finished saying how atheism leads to social disintegration, rampant hedonism, "broken families" and the loss of hope.

So we're going to be more prosperous than ever (thanks hedonism?) when suddenly, for no apparent reason, religion will come rushing in and claim responsibility for finally cleaning up the moral shit hole that the Earth has been for many millennia?

I have a hard time seeing how if we're more prosperous than ever why we will suddenly pine for religion. If we spoil ourselves on earthly delights then sometimes in our want for more we reach for the metaphysical sacramental wine (a la Tolstoy), but I doubt that we're ever going to reach such a utopia, and if we did I don't think Christianity would necessarily be a popular answer to such existential dilemmas. Buddhism seems more exotic, I think that would make me happier!

From atop my jaggedly evil atheist spire I have precisely 0 skin in the game (or any left unscarred at this point), so it's more of a fun contrary position to take than a serious belief, but if I did have to bet then I would bet on secularization, heart and mind. Not just because I think it's generally a more desirable state of affairs but because I hold out hope most developing nations will be able to see that.

In the end it all does come down to factors that are not adequately predictable. Augustino alludes to some future point where our wealth and prosperity go away (almost as if he holds out hope for it :p), and it troubles me that he might be completely correct. For the loser now might be later at a win, for the times, they are a changin'.

>:O My IQ is quite high, believe me on that, there's no problem with it. And I totally see a need for religion. But forget myself, many of the brightest minds in history have been theists - Leibniz, Newton, etc. — Agustino

I'm not suggesting that smart people cannot be theists or even that dumb people tend to be theists; I don't doubt your IQ. What I was more so referring to is the basic degree of sophistication that exists in a society not just in terms of the average intellect, but also in the social institutions which enshrine and enact the social services which religion has historically been a primary provider of. Secularization seems to occur as a developing society realizes that it needs improved standards (such as reason and fact based justice) to confront the novel challenges that growth and success produce.

Some argue that individually there is a psychological need for some religious values, and while I consider myself an exception I might assent to that reality for many. But socially, in terms of how we organize and how we can best improve, I don't see any strictly religious values that could be of assistance, so I think they'll decline.

Have you not read what I said? Atheists aren't reproducing. They will be gone as fast as they have appeared. Religion is currently in that watered down form, but that's not going to be forever. As I've said, if you look at the young population, you'll see many religious "revolutionaries", myself included. — Agustino

Atheists don't need to reproduce! All babies are atheists ;) And the ability of parents to adequately indoctrinate them seems to be on a down slope. If we actually look at the young population, we see many religious "revolutionaries", but we also see unending hordes of self-absorbed hipsters and social media addicts. How successful has religion been at branding itself through social media so far? If you want to win the children, you've got to do it in an arena that cannot be formalized or controlled.

What makes you think that watered down religion is going to go away? Why shouldn't it just get more watered down (especially as more countries begin to figure out that secularism is blatantly a better bet than theocracy)? What's going to change that will reverse these trends in the west and possibly globally as we slowly but surely globalize?

The main reason why I'm not very swayed by birth and conversion rates is that historical trends aren't going to be representative of the novel and sweeping change that is happening across the globe. The real history of religious growth and decline is a messy line of ups and downs which correlate with the local contributory factors of the time, and so drawing conclusions about the immediate future from long term trends can be quite risky. For instance, Islam might be on the rise especially in borderline third world countries (countries with large and impoverished populations) but as the wealth of these nations grows, maybe that trend will be reversed as it has been for Christianity by a surge of irreligion. I prefer an analysis of the causation over statistical projections, but if we focus on recent trends only and set aside the prediction that we will soon return to a world of fire and brimstone, then atheism and irreligion is set to rise...

Change (more than ever before) is what typifies the contemporary world, and so I would have predictions of the future take this into account, but that usually makes it far too difficult.

What do you think? What's the future of religions looking to be on the Earth? Which religions will be popular 100 years from now and why? — Agustino

I think that the future of religion on Earth is irreligion. Christianity and Islam will go the way of Judiasm, and like cultural Jews might identify somehow with the values espoused by traditionalists but won't take them very seriously. Christianity already has a great number of these in the form of families who attend church ceremonies less than once a year and whose main connections to the ideology come in the form of Christmas, Easter, and contemplating existence and belief in the afterlife when confronted with death.

While I don't think religion will ever go away, in regions where technology and wealth continue to offer more and more diversity in choice and quality of education, indoctrination (especially of one's children) into religious schools of thought will become more and more difficult. Islam will likely outlast/overtake Christianity because the regions where it's popular are currently more orthodox on average and lag behind the west in terms of technology, but I suspect that the trend of atheism will continue grow. We will take religious beliefs less and less seriously as our societal intellect matures and the need for it is lessened.

You've got to join the debates if you want to move them along (and can see how to do so).

I know what you're saying though. I consume a lot of social media almost as a matter of study and I very often see social figures butchering their own positions by mustering primarily frail and fallacious arguments to support them

In the anti-SJW crowd for instance, there is a real issue with sloppy moral reasoning; they primarily use intuitive moral positions (and rejections of moral positions) as end-points and then they haphazardly create moral arguments on the spot in order to justify them. Even while I agree with many of their intuitive assessments, they tend to do such a poor job explaining why that they end up running in circles...

Politicians on the other hand... Their debates have additional rules they must take into account: they try their best to not say anything at all vaguely controversial for fear of negative public reactions. The bigger the politicians, the more they will speak in vagaries and beat around the bushes we want explored. Cannot really blame them though; their success (or failure) is as much a reflection on us as it is them.

As far as the statement "impossible to know" can be trotted out and applied to anything, sure, we have no ultimate certitude.

But, say I set out to solve a basic math problem, and before hand I demonstrate sufficient knowledge of mathematical theorems which completely contain and describe the given problem in question. It's entirely reasonable to say that I have sufficient knowledge to accomplish the goal of solving the math problem.

The more complex the goal, the more unknowns, the harder it is to be reasonably sure of success, so of course your supposition does fairly apply to many cases, just not all of them.

When reality becomes stranger than fiction...

I would-a figured Rodman for an anti-trumpeter, but I guess he considers himself Trump's friend.

Curioser and curioser...

It depends on the standards of the society...

If society expected me to willingly allow part of my genitals to be removed, then rebellion is in order.

If society expected me to live as the property of another, then rebellion is in order.

If society expected me to take the life of an innocent person, rebellion.

There are all kinds of lines which I wouldn't cross for duty or really anything else...

UPDATE:

On the same day that Mr Rodman arrived in North Korea, they decided to release one of their four American prisoners... IN A COMA!!!!!!!!!!

"Otto Warmbier" was serving a 15 year sentence for stealing a propaganda banner from his hotel in Pyongyang while there for tourism (HOW EXOTIC!). In all likelihood the treatment that Warmbier received while incarcerated one of NK's notorious labor camps is what lead to his comatose state. Being forced to do manual labor through a language barrier probably lead to dissatisfaction and abuse on the part of his captors. I might be wrong but it certainly stands to reason...

Mr. Rodman claimed that he does actually hope some sort of political boons could come out of what he referred to as "hoops diplomacy". In the past Rodman has made controversial statements about someone previously imprisoned by North Korea (which he apologized for) which are credited with raising awareness and spurring his release...

Does anyone know what an un-ordered universe might be like?

Yes, this is the alternative everyone talks about. I think I won't be too off the mark if I say that you think the universe arose out of chance. In short, it's nothing more than winning a lottery. However, as I logically should, I only take this as an unverified alternative to a God-creator. — TheMadFool

I don't know how the universe arose, but that's a slightly different question. You asked why is there order, not why is there existence. So my point about chance is to explain where the apparent order might have came from, not to describe why things exist...

So, we now have two alternatives: God and Chance. You showed me that God is not necessarily the source of order and I, hopefully, did the same for Chance, or if you prefer, chaos

So, logically we should be agnostic - there's no evidence to tip the balance in favor of either option. — TheMadFool

I am agnostic. I'm an agnostic soft-atheist. Atheists lack belief in god and since there's no evidence to suggest that a god is more likely than no god, I consequently lack belief in god.

I also don't posses the belief that no god(s) exist because I'm lacking evidence.

Then why do atheists exist? Why do the claim the higher rational ground? — TheMadFool

Well, we don't. But we do claim to not occupy lower rational ground (we abstain).

I claim to not know if god, chaos, or something else created the universe and bestowed it with order, whereas you seem to have assumed that god did it.

What's the alternative to designed order? Un-designed order... I did suggest that you look into complexity science, but essentially the answer is that sometimes "order" emerges from "chaos".

For example, life evolved on earth through un-designed processes. You can say that the laws of nature themselves are designed because they lead to the existence of ordered physical structures (like life), but it's entirely possible that if the laws of nature were different then different structures would emerge, just ordered differently.

Take the constant force of gravity as an example: If we lived in a universe where gravity was weaker or stronger then everything would be different but there would still be order. What is so special about our fundamental laws of nature that makes you think they're designed?

At least not shit like ebola.

Where does ebola fit in to god's perfection? ;)

It's your thread and you can derail it if you want to ;)

But we are brushing up against something very related to bias.

Especially in philosophy, sometimes undue credit is given to basic suppositions which are used to guide and create schools of thought (which generally pertain to particular fields of inquiry like existentialism or morality). From within these schools of thought, sometimes "truth" merely becomes a reflection of the basic assumptions inherent in the very structure of their arguments.

For example: I subscribe to agnosticism (the belief that knowledge pertaining to god(s) is unattainable). The degree to which I subscribe to this rather fundamental assumption affects renders me more and more skeptical when I encounter someone claiming to have actual knowledge of god (especially as it colors my perception of their claims at the outset). This is a bias I employ frequently, and to overcome it requires a bit of focus on my part...

It takes constant work to overcome these biases, and it's often worthwhile!

Absolute truth may very well exist out there (since I believe there is a hard external world, the truth of it's particulars is what I might believe it to be) but I will never be able to be absolutely certain that I've got my hands on it.

I can use experience to become more and more certain of things (induction), and the likelihood that my conclusions are accurate increases (along with their precision and predictive power), and that's generally the utility of reason. It's primarily a mistake to label your own truth as ultimate because when you then to go update it one-day you look really silly ;) . We might have very strong and valid assessments of the external world, but we cannot be sure they're perfect.

Yes, luck indeed.

But the life which might emerge were things different would also feel very lucky that they're not living in a universe like ours, and we wouldn't be around to confirm our intuitive assumptions that we should have lost a dice roll by now...

But it's not all luck from down here in the human condition... Humans die all the time because life and our environment aren't perfect (in fact they're still works in progress)...

Absolute truth is a mythical bird you'll never catch.

The value of debates though:

If we're just exposing our past experiences through debates, it's possible that one of us could benefit from exposure to said experiences IF said experiences somehow demonstrate or reflect reality more effectively.

Say we debate a historical narrative, and you share experiences containing evidence which proves your point to be true beyond reasonable doubt, I would go away with a more accurate view of history (which might be useful?).

Also, you're issue with the design argument is colored with anthropomorphism. You reject the design argument by citing examples, which are true, of the generally unfavorable conditions for life and humans. I agree but (correct me if I'm wrong) scientists say that had the mathematical relations of the universe been even minutely different life would be impossible. What I'm saying is, the universe is designed for life. — TheMadFool

If the laws of physics were different, maybe life as we know it would be impossible, and maybe life as we don't know it would instead be possible.

The way the universe and life unfolds is affected by the laws of physics, so of course if they were changed things would be different. We evolved to survive in this universe (on this earth, at this distance from a star of a given size and composition), not some other hypothetical universe. This is why we need things like water and gravity for life (things we have lots of) and not uranium (something we have little of). If life evolved on a uranium rich world they might wonder whether it was designed for them, but it could just have been a random hand dealt by a mechanical dealer which life then learned to exploit by whatever means available through evolutionary processes.

Even if we're in a lucky "fine-tuned" universe we should not be surprised because if the universe wasn't finely tuned we wouldn't be around to complain about our bad luck. If I cooked up a million random batches of Universe Suprisé and only one of them turned out to be finely tuned for life, the intelligent life which might evolve inside of it could think the recipe was precisely designed when in reality it was entirely un-directed chaos and chance.

Even if the above was false I have no issue with your objections because I'm only concerned about a creator (who I've called God). I don't know if this God is all-good, etc. Leave aside us and concerns of our welfare or that of life and observe the mathematical relationships in the interplay of matter and energy. Don't you see order? Doesn't that imply something? — TheMadFool

I see order on the surface of a vast ocean; repeating patterns of growing complexity clashing and creating surface ripples and repeating waves. But I know that these waves are far from a synchronized orchestra, that underneath the surface there are innumerable disturbances and asymmetries of all kinds which create random turbulence.

It's out of this random turbulence (temperature differences, saline content differences, ocean floor geography, and the things that move around according to their own mind) that the ordered currents and biological structures of the ocean are formed. It's order from chaos; balance from imbalance.

We could create beautiful fractal patterns by rolling a thousand dice to determine initial conditions, and to the uninitiated it would have every appearance of being designed. This is what makes your argument the most questionable: some things that are ordered are intelligently designed to be so, but very often things which are ordered are not so due to design, but rather thanks to a host of basic contributory factors out of which eventual balances and imbalances have emerged.

You're right. The argument has an inductive version viz. the one you presented.

I wouldn't be wrong in saying atheists attribute greater credibility to science than religion. However, science too is based entirely on induction. Again, the double standards stands out like a sore thumb. — TheMadFool

Let me give you an example of weak induction and strong induction:

Weak: I saw a whale once, therefore I will see a whale today.
Strong: I saw a human every day of my life, therefore I will see a human today.

The fact that I've seen a whale before inductively might make it slightly more likely that I will see a whale today, but it's easy to see that statistically I'm probably not going to see a whale today, which is why this amounts to an incredibly weak inductive argument.

Seeing a human every day of my life is a premise which gives very very strong statistical indication that I'm going to see another human today. It's this kind of statistical/repeatable strength that makes some inductive arguments strong.

In the case of science, we run repeatable experiments to steadily increase the strength of our inductive conclusions which state things like: gravity exists, or, the force of acceleration due to gravity acts on all objects equally.

Every time a scientist successfully runs an experiment to make sure their predictions aren't inaccurate, the strength of their inductive position grows (and they have necessary demands on precision in measurement to be considered scientific when precision is a factor).

Some inductive arguments are horrible (like the whale sighting prediction), and others are undeniable (like the theory of gravity).

One may say the inductive version of the design argument is weaker than scientific induction. However, note that science, through induction, is discovering order everywhere. So, in fact, scientific body of knowledge strongly supports a God - a creator. — TheMadFool

This is only assuming that order tends to come from design, which is far from clear (see:"complexity science").

P1: some order is the result of design
P2: the universe has some order
C1: Therefore, the universe is designed.

This is clearly inductive logic and as such does not guarantee the truth of it's conclusion (presuming we agree on premises). That's not the issue though, the issue is that it is simply a weak argument.

Some order is the result of design, a Lamborghini for instance, but some order is not the result of design, such as the shape of a crystal or the synchronicity of the moon's orbit around the earth with it's rotation (causing the same side of the moon to always face the earth, caused by tidal gravitational effects). Arguably there is more explicitly un-designed order in the world than there is designed order. Were we to agree on this we could then inductively conclude that the universe probably has no designer.

Not everything in the universe is ordered though. The earth is a relative pebble orbiting around a giant pool of fire and plasma. If you wanted to create a temperature controlled environment the size of the earth, would you do it by building a furnace so large that you need to put the earth 150 million kilometers away from it?

You might point out something like "but the earth rotates so that the surface gets more or less heated evenly", and that's true. But if the Earth did not rotate, we would never have evolved or be alive now to sit around remarking about how lucky we are that we live on a rotating earth in a goldy-locks zone (and also haven't been struck by an asteroid recently). Speaking of asteroids, they are a very peculiar design choice in that they float around and randomly bring chaos death and destruction to some of the most interesting order we know of (life). Asteroids definitely don't appear to be ordered or designed...

How many things in the universe are by our standards cold, chaotic or hostile? If the universe was in fact designed, it almost certainly wasn't designed for us humans...

I think, quite to the contrary, considering America is the champion of the free world and all that, it should encourage such visits to reassure the NK people that America doesn't have any bad intentions and their first resort would always be diplomacy. — TheMadFool

From what I've read and heard through documentaries Kim Jong Un loves basketball, and Rodman's visits are specifically loved by him. Maybe he gets paid and that's why he's going, but I have to wonder whether or not he could have any real diplomatic effect on relations (specifically by interacting with Kim)...

I guess in truth It's a lot to hope for from such a minor visit, but given the timing (the need) and the unpredictability of dictators, impacting deescalation might be a sinkable shot.