Excellent article!

-------------

A friend of mine dated a religious woman for a short time, and I remember him telling me how shocked she was to hear that he, an atheist, had a moral code.  

-------------

America has elected a black president, and many decades ago we elected a Catholic to the highest office, we might end up electing either a woman, a Hispanic or a Mormon in 2016 (depending, of course, on who runs), but I suspect that it will be many generations before we will see an admitted atheist in that office, even if he isn't the least bit militant in his atheism or at all intolerant of religious beliefs and has no "atheist agenda" he or she wants to carry out.

My prediction is that the very last minority to be elected will be the atheist.

Huh...the translation I grew up with for John 3:16 (King James Version)was "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life..."

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 10/21, 8:41pm)

Steve:

My prediction is that the very last minority to be elected will be the atheist.

Or perhaps, the very last minority to be elected will be an atheist who honestly admits he's an atheist, as opposed to the sell-outs who will say whatever it takes to get elected.

That isn't a criticism of believers; that is a criticism of believers in nothing but getting elected.

Think the Tom Skerrit sleazy politico character -- David Drumlin -- in one of my favorite movies, "Contact", going on about God like a reptile when campaigning for a seat in the gizmo.

regards,

Fred

Fred,

Or perhaps, the very last minority to be elected will be an atheist who honestly admits he's an atheist....

Yes, that's what I meant.  As to those who make a practice of saying whatever is poll-tested - even if it isn't true...., well we've suffered more than our share of them.  That form of sleaze seems to be the standard these days.

I'm not a militant atheist, at least not in the political arena.  If a theist keeps his religious beliefs out of politics and they aren't a driving force in his or her life, then I'm not that concerned.  I find that fundamental beliefs that people have volition, that there are such things as universal moral values, and that people are responsible for their actions are more important - in elected officials - than something like their background belief in an afterlife.  On the other hand, if they take the Bible too literally, it isn't so much those beliefs that would be off-puting for me as my estimation of their intelligence.

Lee,

I found the observation that many religious people tend to view atheists as members of a hate group interesting.

It makes a kind of sense since they see the most visible atheists who are the more militant atheists - those who are confronting religion in a very public way.

---------------

For me, the issue of religious people has three important divides:

1. - Politically enforced religous views versus free to believe what you want
   
   Any group that advocates forcing others to accept their religious beliefs, or to live by them, by casting those beliefs into law, such as the Religious Right in the US, or the supporters of Sharia law around the globe, should be aggressively challenged. This is just saying that in the issue of choice versus force, religion isn't a justification for adopting force.
   
   
2. - Faith (or emotionalism) versus reason
   
   People can believe anything they want to. They can choose beliefs that are right or wrong in their content, and they can choose beliefs by means that are sound (e.g., logic) or adopt a belief in the absence of reason - faith. Or they can adopt the practice of choosing beliefs based upon emotions (and then adopting some psuedo-logic as a cover for what was really just emotionalism).
   
   
3. - Central to their lives versus not central to their lives
   
   I find that people who adopt religion in ways that make it a driving force in their life, and take their goals from it feel 'foreign' to me. I can never find much in the way of commonality with them. On the other hand, when someonemight hold some religious views that are common in a culture, but go about their life mostly from the basis of reason, don't work towards achieving goals on behalf of their religion or church as a key part of their life, then, for obvious reasons, there is more of chance that we might end up being able to communicate and find common ground.
   
   From my perspective this last point is kind of like the difference between a person who is an individual and a person that is just part of the Borg. I'll never feel like someone who has no strong sense of self apart from their religion, is like me in a fundamental sense.
   ----------------

I would certainly disagree with the statement that "Atheism should be viewed on equal footing with religion" since they are different things all together. Atheism and Theism are of the same category, whereas religion is about more than a belief in a a god.   And in some cases, like Budhism, may not include a god.  I also wouldn't put them on the same footing since religious views are faith based, despite any claims to have rational evidence for this or that bit of the religion whereas atheism is the absence of a particular belief and often in the presence of reasoned arguments (not faith) in opposition to theism.

I also disagreed with the following statement:

I would also note that from the religious perspective there is evidence supporting the existence of gods depending on the interpretation of the evidence.

It is a form of circular argument to start with the concept of a "religious perspective" type of evidence - and then end up with the conclusion that such a perspective can interpret 'evidence' that supports acceptance of a religious belief in a god. An honest form of religion just stands by their faith-based acceptance of what they interpret from their scriptures, and doesn't try to find psuedo-scientific, or psuedo-logical "reasons" that are stood up behind each of the beliefs - beliefs that an honest person would admit they had first, and would admit that their motivation was to find reasons to justify the beliefs.
-----------------

p.s., If you wanted to pursue this, this web site has a section (a forum) called "Dissent" where theists can present their perspectives in whatever way they wish and will usually find people responding in a rational, open discussion with them.  (Probably not me as I feel I've been there and done that too many times already)

True Believers, Agnostics, and Atheists

Person A believes in X which has no logical evidence for it, and much evidence against it.  This is a True believer who makes use of denial, rationalization and emotonalism to maintain the irrational in their minds even though it has no logical connection with reality.

Person B Believes in X which has no logical evidence for it, but no evidence against it.  This is a fearful soul who grants primacy of imagined fantasies over reality... unless someone can prove them wrong.  And doesn't want to commit to being a 'true believer' on one hand, or giving up the particular fantasy on the other hand... not yet.  This is a kind of having your cake and eating it kind of epistemology.  And they might imagine that they are safe from logical attack with this irrational position.  They aren't.  Reality is still reality and they are still not logically connected to it.  But the real cost is in adopting a psychoepsitemology that makes it more likely they will be comfortable with floating abstractions in any given area.  To some degree they have set their mind to find and support compromises between knowledge or reality and fantasies - not the kind of programming one should set up in their mind.

Person C does not believe in X which has no logical evidence for it, and some evidence against it.  This is just simple reasoning based upon the primacy of reality. If later, the evidence against it is shown to be false, or evidence for it comes into being in the future, then this person's mind opens itself to a reevaluation to best eliminate any contradictions.  But this person doesn't adopt a "maybe" position in advance by saying "maybe there will be new evidence in the FUTURE, so I'll leave my thinking open NOW."

Person D does not believe in X despite there being no evidence against it, because there is no evidence for it.  This is a recognition that people mistake an agnostics argument for reason, that it is mixing up the notion of a 'possibility' that is based upon nothing, with a 'possibility' based upon something - and sound reasoning doesn't grant ontological status to that for which no such evidence exists. This person might say, "There were once frogs in Newton county, and there is no evidence that would preclude them from coming back, so there might someday be frogs in Newton County."  That is a valid possibility based upon valid evidence from the past.  He would not say, "There are things we don't know, so one day we may well discover a real unicorn, or omnipotent god, so I'll remain neutral on these issues."
------------------------

Marotta said, "There may well be a God."
Really?  Why not say, "There may well be unicorns and leprechauns."

Marotta went to say, "Nothing anyone has said so far makes sense. No one has offered any proof. From that, it is easy to say that there is no God (as far as we know)."

[Notice that there is no way to logicfally reconcile this with either the "there may well be a god" statement just before it, or with the implications of his "(as far as we know)" that it ends with!]

Why not just say "there are no unicorns and leprechauns (as far as we know)"?  But how could one say, "There may well be unicorns and leprechauns, but there is no evidence, nothing but nonsense, so there are no unicorns or leprechauns..... well, there might be but we just don't know of them yet."

------

Marotta: "That said, I personally doubt that the chain of being stops with us as the crown of creation."
And we might say: "That said, I personally doubt that the creatures in existence stops with those we know of."

Marotta: So, it is easy to imagine that if you extend the chain of being up and out in space and time and whatever else, well, maybe there are many such beings far more extensive, powerful, and et cetera than we are or than we can imagine.

Why not say: "So, it is easy to imagine that if you extend the list of creatures up and out in space and time and whatever else, well, maybe there are many such beings far more interesting, almost magical, and et cetera than we are or than we can imagine - like leprechauns and unicorns." 
---------------------

Marotta states that there may be many god-like creatures that exist somewhere "out in space and time and whatever else" - he believes this despite any evidence - as either an act of faith, or emotionalism dressed up to look like reasoning, or logically flawed reasoning.  And he goes on to state that he doubts that they "care much about who rules at Jersusalem."

And then he ends this strange post by attacking those who are a kind of irrational fellow believers, but clearly inferior by his reckoinging when he says, "So, for me, people who do care about that because they think that God cares are really very wrongheaded."

Well, I guess imagining a non-existent god-like being that doesn't care, is one way, although a bit strange, to criticize those who believe in a non-existent god that does care. But I don't see much more than a fig-leaf of difference in wrongheadedness between the two.

Note how Marotta doesn't answer the argument, he side-steps it.

I used unicorns as an example of something that doesn't exist as a real animal and he does a slippery slide sideways to say that the mythical unicorn probably came into being following a sighting of a rhinoceros.  Well, clearly what we think of today when the word "unicorn" is used is not a rhinorceros, and when we think of a rhinoceros none of us are confused that it might be a unicorn.  And I doubt that anyone here, except maybe Marotta, holds the concept of "unicorn" in their mind as a thing that has real physical existence.

I happen to think that this is a perfect example of how Marotta often 'thinks' - it is almost like an "anything is possible" epistemology.  It clearly makes agnosticism more acceptable than the commitment required by atheisim or theism.  It opens the door to floating abstractions, letting them act as a kind of fuzzy bridge over what would otherwise be uncomfortably restricting connections to a hard reality.  It is a celebration of the ability to dance with such fluid and nuanced verbal creativity that what might be illogical or contradictory to others, isn't for Marotta.  

But it isn't a connection to the real world.

Manual half wave rectifier?! Lol

In your example, communication requires change('surprise') in the carrier; but a magnetic field exists whether AC or DC current in the wire, as long as there is current in the wire.

Also, when you think about it, DC is not really static as long as current is flowing; charge q is net moving through space.    In DC, net in one direction.   In AC, alternating in direction at some frequency.   At frequency '0', AC converges to DC.  

I like the peas in a straw analogy.   If you think of charge q as peas, in DC, the peas move through the straw; push on one pea at one end (do work on it via emf) and another pea moves out the other end(and can do work on something via emf).   In AC(ooops), the peas are shaken in place, alternately pushed and pulled at one end of the straw(via alternating emf) and are thus able to alternating push and pull on something else at the other end, but if we were to think of peas in the straw, they are just being jostled in two directions in phase.

But... as long as charge is moving, an emf  magnetic field is generated around the wire. 

If the charges are stationary, there is an electric field E, but no generated magnetic field B.    The existence of the magnetic field depends on moving charges, not the DC or AC nature of their moving.

regards,

Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 11/11, 7:34am)