You know that feeling you have toward the May 21st people?

[_harmony]

The way to choose the best among them is to determine which ones are based on evidence and fact, provide predictive power, and can be otherwise successfully tested and relied upon.

And you were elected arbitrator of all thing "best" when and by whom?

[_Simon Belmont]

What relevance other than to DrW and his mother is it whether DrW loves his mother?

It has relevance to him and his mother and probably his family. I am not sure what that question has to do with anything. Evidence is based on how many people it affects?

Would you have the FDA abandon its testing and basing drug approvals on credible evidence and fact, and instead have it change to just being how the FDA director "feels" about a drug?

The FDA "feels" good about a drug after they're satisfied with the test results. It all comes down to feelings -- they're all we have.

Please, Simon. What kind of a silly god do you think you are scoring points with by trying to equate the Mormon "feelings" with the predictive power of scientific developed information?

It all comes down to "feelings" sock puppet. To discount the power of feelings is to discount the ability for humanity to make sense of our world.

[_Simon Belmont]

And that's the greatest part about Science! We're trying to figure the world out. We're wrong sometimes. In fact we like knowing how the world works so much that if you can prove that a large portion of the scientific community is totally and completely wrong on a large topic we'll give you the Nobel Prize and US$1.4 million (2009).

Science adjusts its beliefs based on whats observed. Your faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.

Do you see how dogmatic science can be? What you're basically saying is the standard "Isn't it marvelous? Isn't it wonderful?"

And, by the way, I am not anti-science, I am pro science as long as we understand its constraints.

[_DrW]

The way to choose the best among them is to determine which ones are based on evidence and fact, provide predictive power, and can be otherwise successfully tested and relied upon.

And you were elected arbitrator of all thing "best" when and by whom?

Harmony,

I never claimed to be an arbiter of the relative value of various worldviews. I simply claimed, and rightly so, that some are better than others and that this difference could be readily determined by testing the worldviews and evaluating the outcomes.

Here is a short example:

In the Mormon worldview women do not have the same rights as men, and non-Mormons are not afforded the same privileges in the hereafter as Mormons, practicing gays are completely unworthy, making them second class citizens in this world and the world to come.

The outcomes of this worldview is that gay children are often disowned by their LDS families and more than a few have been driven to suicide, Mormon family members who finally see the Church for what it is and leave out of conscience are ostracized and families are broken apart, the inability to deal with issues of sexuality force LDS men to porn sites in record breaking numbers.

In the rationalist worldview, all humans have equal rights. There is no angry god to punish those who do not pay tithing or choose to be with a life partner they love, or ingest caffeine at a temperature deemed inappropriate by the Church.

The outcomes of this worldview are that others in the world are seen as equals, and wrong and right is not judged by an arbitrary set of 19 century rules set down by a conman who didn't care to abide by them himself.

As Sam Harris describes in his new book, "The Moral Landscape", reasonable criteria for judging worldviews can surely be agreed to by most individuals. The basis for such criteria could be some version of the golden rule, which, by the way, substantially predates Christianity.

Taking a lead from Dr. Harris, I would claim that the worldview which is of most benefit and causes the least pain and suffering to all it affects is clearly better than the one that imposes arbitrary and unfounded classification on others and demands that they profess belief in clearly ridiculous truth claims and doctrine in order to be a member of society.

[_sock puppet]

What relevance other than to DrW and his mother is it whether DrW loves his mother?

It has relevance to him and his mother and probably his family. I am not sure what that question has to do with anything. Evidence is based on how many people it affects??

Simon, I'm sure that if you subjectively and unquantifiably feel pain in your head, it is sufficient trigger for you to take a couple of aspirin and lie down. I'm sure DrW's subjective feelings of love for his mother are sufficient to cause him to care for her when she is in need.

In neither case is the person who is experiencing the subjective feeling asking others to take significant action or exhibit other significant reliance on those subjective feelings.

Now, when the FDA approves a drug for treatment of a certain ailment, the FDA approval is relied upon by prescribing physicians and their patients, not only for some effect on the treatment but also that the side effects are minimal or manageable per the instructions that accompany the drug.

Now, when it comes to religion, such as the LDS missionaries going into the world and asking people to significantly change their lives because the 19 or 20 year old says after plowing through and reading 500+ turgid pages that add nothing to the New Testament teachings, having invested that time and effort, you might get a feeling of euphoria or a burning bosom. Telling them that is god confirming the "truth" of the Book of Mormon is right up there, on the scales of honesty and integrity, with selling snake oil. I know. I did it for two years--and I hope those I baptized quickly found there way out of LDS Church without wasting too much of their lives.

Would you have the FDA abandon its testing and basing drug approvals on credible evidence and fact, and instead have it change to just being how the FDA director "feels" about a drug?

The FDA "feels" good about a drug after they're satisfied with the test results. It all comes down to feelings -- they're all we have.?

Where do you come up with this crap, Simon? The director of the FDA doesn't just look at test results and if he or she has a good feeling approves the new drug. There are numerical standards that the testing of a new drug must achieve, both in efficacy towards treating the targeted symptoms and illness and in minimizing the side effects, before it gets FDA approval. The FDA director and department heads don't sit around a table and bear their testimonies about the new drug, and from that they decide the drug is approved or denied.

Please, Simon. What kind of a silly god do you think you are scoring points with by trying to equate the Mormon "feelings" with the predictive power of scientific developed information?

It all comes down to "feelings" sock puppet. To discount the power of feelings is to discount the ability for humanity to make sense of our world.

I do not discount feelings as part of the human experience. However, when we are speaking of what objectively is and is not, feelings must be kept in check (i.e., recognizing one's biases so that they can be put in proper perspective), so that reason based on facts and evidence can prevail.

[_Inconceivable]

Here's God being real responsible.

[_68Cadillac]

Check out this weather forecast for Omaha on the 21st.

[_floatingboy]

It all comes down to "feelings" sock puppet. To discount the power of feelings is to discount the ability for humanity to make sense of our world.

Tom Evans, 51, who has worked for Family Radio for 25 years and has a wife and two children ages 3 and 7 months, said it was difficult to explain the assurance he felt within, knowing that Jesus Christ will return Saturday to retrieve saved souls.

"You can understand it intellectually, but to really know it is going to happen, you have to understand it spiritually," Evans said. "You have to feel it."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1JFUB4.DTL

[_Buffalo]

You know the ones. End of the world on May 21st, 2011 at 6pm. Earthquakes. Fires. Rapture.

You know they're talking irrational nonsense; you know they're blatantly wrong; you know they're brainwashed. You've talked about them to your family and friends and collectively laughed at their silly beliefs.

That's you. That's how we Atheists feel about you. You're irrational, wrong, and brainwashed.

From our perspective the May 21st-ers are no different from true believing Mormons. NO DIFFERENT. You both believe similar things will happen, the same idiotic end times crap will come to pass. The May 21st people just put a date on it, that's it. That's the only distinction. They put a date on it while Mormon Christians claim they can't know.

Sad but true.

[_68Cadillac]