Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

[andyandy]

Surely Hitchens is a cut above Richard Dawkins - surely his literary mind has more room for nuance? In most things, yes. In religion, no. The same applies to AC Grayling, who is presumably a competent professor of philosophy, but chooses to conceal the fact when in militant atheist mode.

All three are in the grip of an ideology that is pretentious and muddled. Atheism is pretentious in the sense of claiming to know more than it does. It claims to know what belief in God entails, and what religion, in all its infinite variety, essentially is. And atheism is muddled because it cannot decide on what grounds it ultimately objects to religion. Does it oppose it on the grounds of its alleged falsity? Or does it oppose it on the grounds of its alleged harmfulness? Both, the atheists will doubtless reply: religion is false and therefore it is harmful. But this is to make an assumption about the relationship between rationality and moral progress that does not stand up. Atheism is the belief that the demise of religion, and the rise of "rationality", will make the world a better place. Atheism therefore entails an account of history - a story of liberation from a harmful error called "religion". This narrative is jaw-droppingly naive.

Some will quibble with the above definition. Atheism is just the rejection of God, of any supernatural power, they will say, it entails no necessary belief in historical progress. This is disingenuous. The militant atheists have a moral mission: to improve the world by working towards the eradication of religion.

Let me take a step back, and ask a rather basic question. What is this thing that the atheists hate so much? What is religion? Believe it or not, I don't know the answer. Indeed it seems to me that anyone who does claim to know is underestimating the complexity of the topic considerably. If the atheist deigns to define religion at all, he is likely to do so briskly and conventionally, as belief in and worship of some species of supernatural power. It's a terribly inadequate definition. Dictionaries would do better to leave a blank, to admit ignorance.

I consider the atheist's desire to generalise about religion to be a case of intellectual cowardice. The intellectual coward is one who chooses simplicity over complexity and difficulty. The militant atheist chooses to uphold a worldview of Animal Farm crudity: atheist good, believer bad. He has to believe this; it is his claim to the moral high ground. Christopher Hitchens sounds like a man who is desperate for a big cause, for an agenda that will give him one last chance of some high significance, a last stab at prophet status. By seeking his grand purpose in atheism he exhibits the sort of intellectual timidity he claims to despise.http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/theo_hobson/2007/06/atheism_is_pretentious_and_cow.html

the guardian comment blog is on fire over this one :D

....he seems quite happy to generalize about "the atheist" - whilst deriding "the atheist" for generalizing about religion.... ;)

[KingMerv00]

Some will quibble with the above definition. Atheism is just the rejection of God, of any supernatural power, they will say, it entails no necessary belief in historical progress. This is disingenuous. The militant atheists have a moral mission: to improve the world by working towards the eradication of religion.

Something about this paragraph bothers me......Hmmm....

Fallacy of the excluded middle perhaps?

[Miss Anthrope]

The comments have tempered my ire somewhat. I found the most hilarious godwin incident yet.

Ooh, can we all play the "these people had the following view about religion, and they were REALLY, REALLY NASTY so that view must be incorrect"?
Because _that's_ how you decide on the validity of an argument, obviously. Hitler liked cute puppies, you know. Do YOU like cute puppies?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I thought Hitler was a cat person? ;)

[CFLarsen]

I thought Hitler was a cat person? ;)

Nope.

He had a dog, Blondie, for years.

;)

[Hokulele]

Let me take a step back, and ask a rather basic question. What is this thing that the atheists hate so much? What is religion? Believe it or not, I don't know the answer. Indeed it seems to me that anyone who does claim to know is underestimating the complexity of the topic considerably. If the atheist deigns to define religion at all, he is likely to do so briskly and conventionally, as belief in and worship of some species of supernatural power. It's a terribly inadequate definition. Dictionaries would do better to leave a blank, to admit ignorance.


Gee, it almost sounds like the author is starting to promote agnosticism . . .

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And atheism is muddled because it cannot decide on what grounds it ultimately objects to religion.
What? What does being an atheist have to do with objecting to religion? I'm not an atheist because I object to religion. I just don't happen to believe in god.

Objecting to religion is an entirely separate issue.

~~ Paul

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The guy who wrote that, I'd swear he was inbred! Look at him!

[largeprimenumber]

I just bought God is not Great. It's pretty good. I may not agree with Hitchens on a lot of things (like Clinton being a rapist, for example), but I like his take on religion.

The "review" of Hitchens above makes the all too common error of thinking of atheism as an ideology, which it is not, pretty much by definition. One cannot compare two atheists like one can compare two Christians.

The atheist's biggest problem is getting people to understand what atheism actually is.

I think it is quite telling that people who attack atheist writers always attack their atheism, rather than their ideas. It is far easier to attack atheism than defend religion.

[Dorian Gray]

If atheism is the rejection of a god or gods, then nearly everyone is an atheist, because nearly everyone rejects one or more gods.

[Ducky]

I thought Hitler was a cat person? ;)
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/xenu-pam.jpg

[Apathia]

Something about this paragraph bothers me......Hmmm....

Fallacy of the excluded middle perhaps?

Hobson's choice, maybe?

[PixyMisa]

I just bought God is Not Great myself. Still reading it. The first four chapters outline why religion is bad, and are heavy going, but the next two are both interesting and entertaining. Particularly the story about how Hitchens himself came (briefly) to be worshiped as a divine being. :D

[c4ts]

If atheism is the rejection of a god or gods, then nearly everyone is an atheist, because nearly everyone rejects one or more gods.

They just miss the final step of overcoming their own.

[Civilized Worm]

The "review" of Hitchens above makes the all too common error of thinking of atheism as an ideology, which it is not, pretty much by definition. One cannot compare two atheists like one can compare two Christians.


Exactly! An ideology is a combination of beliefs, while atheism is a rejection of a belief.

[lolurigeller]

Exactly! An ideology is a combination of beliefs, while atheism is a rejection of a belief.

couldn't you also believe in a disbelief? Like a christian doesn't believe that allah exists? It's just merely a matter of semantics.

Debates between materialistic atheism vs. theistic idealogy has been going since the dawn of time, there's nothing new here.

[arthwollipot]

And atheism is muddled because it cannot decide on what grounds it ultimately objects to religion. Does it oppose it on the grounds of its alleged falsity? Or does it oppose it on the grounds of its alleged harmfulness? Both, the atheists will doubtless reply: religion is false and therefore it is harmful.

No, post hoc ergo propter hoc. Religion is harmful AND it is false. Religion is not harmful BECAUSE it is false. There are many reasons other than its falsity that religion is harmful.

[Darth Rotor]

No, post hoc ergo propter hoc. Religion is harmful AND it is false. Religion is not harmful BECAUSE it is false. There are many reasons other than its falsity that religion is harmful.
Sorry, your statement is incomplete.

Religion is not solely harmful, it is also helpful, and indeed formed a core baseline of this thing we called Western Civilization. The operating feature was the common cultural assumptions imbedded, and in some cases mutated from, a particular religion, for better and worse.

Try laying off the groupthink for a bit, and accept the baby and the bathwater baby just peed in. The glass isn't half empty, it is half full of ale. I just want to know where the bastidge is who drank that half! :mad:

DR

[arthwollipot]

World War II and the Holocaust also played a big role in shaping modern civilisation. I don't think anyone would describe them as "helpful".

And for the record, my glass is twice as big as it needs to be. :D

[MelBrooksfan]

I just want to know where the bastidge is who drank that half! :mad:

DR

Many apologies. I thought it was my drink.

[CaptainManacles]

So he basically said "Atheists are bad because they all generalize". That's profoundly stupid.

[Soapy Sam]

Exactly! An ideology is a combination of beliefs, while atheism is a rejection of a belief.

I wouldn't even rate atheism as "rejection of belief" or rejection of anything.

I don't chew gum.
I don't reject the gum chewing philosophy. I don't hate gum factory workers or despise gum chewers.
I just don't chew gum.

I don't credit fairy stories. It truly is that simple.

[wollery]

And for the record, my glass is twice as big as it needs to be. :DEngineer!! :rolleyes:

[Beerina]

Atheism is pretentious in the sense of claiming to know more than it does. It claims to know what belief in God entails, and what religion, in all its infinite variety, essentially is.

Dude, you aren't helping your case any. :rolleyes: :dl:


Atheism is the belief that the demise of religion, and the rise of "rationality", will make the world a better place.

Well, indirectly. It is the belief that there is no justification for the (ancient) claims that any gods exist, and therefore it is proper to disregard them.

As a corrollary, most rational people believe that, the more accurate your mental model of reality is, the better. From that, we could, indeed, also make the claim claimed above.

a story of liberation from a harmful error called "religion"

You'd better believe it, pal. Some of us are also concerned about the modern pseudo-religion of socialized politics, for the exact same reasons religion is bad. They are just different facets on the same gigantic turd of a gem that is grabs for power. Virtually identical facets, at that.

The militant atheists have a moral mission: to improve the world by working towards the eradication of religion.

You'd better believe it, pal.

However, it should be done properly, via persuasion, rather than "militantly", via violence and coercion. Religion, properly and logically exposed, should die on the vine.

The intellectual coward is one who chooses simplicity over complexity and difficulty.

Last time I checked, there was nothing simple about calculus and quantum mechanics. Yet beliefs in gray-bearded sky daddies who throw tantrums about silly stuff like sticking your penis in someone's @$$ isn't a childishly simple view of the world?


The militant atheist chooses to uphold a worldview of Animal Farm crudity: atheist good, believer bad.

The militant and non-militant believer chooses to uphold a worldview of Animal Farm crudity: believer good, athiest bad.

Next brilliant observation?

[ETA] Speaking of which, the believer's worldview quite literally includes the belief that the athiest is not just stupid, but probably being actively misled by the Devil, if not outright secretly in league with him.

The athiest at least merely believes the religious person is being misled by plain old humans and human cultural history. No active professional deceivers involved. At least not any supernatural ones. Plain old power and wealth hungry humans, perhaps.

[Crossbow]

Considering how atrociously poor Hitchens has been on the Iraq issue, I have a similar lack of respect for what Hitchens has to say about atheism.

[PixyMisa]

:rolleyes:

Anwyay: Interesting debate on yesterday's (?) Hugh Hewitt show (http://townhall.com/talkradio/setuppodcast.aspx) between Christopher Hitchens and one Mark D. Roberts (http://www.markdroberts.com/). It ran for all three hours of the show, our about 1h40m if you download the podcasts, which are ad-free.

Hitchens clearly won on points, though he ran into rocky territory when discussing 20th century ideologies. I understand why he considers the regimes of Stalin and Mao as more akin to religion than to atheism, but he didn't get the point across, and was ridiculed for it.

(I doubt that many here would listen to Hewitt's show, but he does have excellent guests. Hitchens himself is on almost every week.)

[largeprimenumber]

Hitchens clearly won on points, though he ran into rocky territory when discussing 20th century ideologies. I understand why he considers the regimes of Stalin and Mao as more akin to religion than to atheism, but he didn't get the point across, and was ridiculed for it.
It's extremely difficult to argue this point, though do I believe it's correct. I've made the argument that tyrants, like Stalin and Mao, who abolish religion, are essentially just attempting to take god's place. The Abrahamic god made a point of banning all other gods with the first commandment, too.

[Foster Zygote]

I thought Hitler was a cat person? ;)

Why would you think that?

[epepke]

So, are any British going to tell me how wunnerfully Atheist Britain is?

[The Atheist]

....he seems quite happy to generalize about "the atheist" - whilst deriding "the atheist" for generalizing about religion.... ;)

Someone talking about me?

[Foster Zygote]

Someone talking about me?

Apparently you're a general.

[dglas]

Us or them.
Kill or be killed.
With us or against us.
Black or white.
Good or evil.
True or false.

This, I suspect, is why the true believer cannot fathom the idea that atheism is not a belief. The mere idea is an impossible alternative in their minds - alien, strange and incomprehensible.

Thank you, two-value logic. :rolleyes:

This is what atheists (and skeptics) are up against. The language is loaded against us.

As far as atheism being pretentious and cowardly:
People are dangerous; you never know how they'll respond. Sometimes they don't forgive. Attempting to make amends to a person is dangerous, they might not say what you want them to. However, the voice inside one's head almost invariably does. Those who choose to make amends to God instead of the people they have hurt have little room to proclaim atheists cowardly. Go confess your sins to a tree; it won't condemn you either.

[skeptic griggsy]

Rather than answering Dawkin's points, others prefer in calling him a fundamentalist atheist who ought to study theology before commenting on religion.How nonsensical as theology is the mere guessing of a mysterious being surrounded by other mysteries, all in an attempt to be a personal explanation.This is what we all have to counter.Many just feel that there has to be an intelligence or force beyond nature.Ockham's razor shows that unnecessary.Hitchings is justified in using the Ockham argument as it underlies the presumption of naturalism.It is irrelevant what he thinks about that damn war. It is his arguments that count so much!

[skeptic griggsy]

:jaw-dropp Rather than answering Dawkin's points, others prefer in calling him a fundamentalist atheist who ought to study theology before commenting on religion.How nonsensical as theology is the mere guessing of a mysterious being surrounded by other mysteries, all in an attempt to be a personal explanation.This is what we all have to counter.Many just feel that there has to be an intelligence or force beyond nature.Ockham's razor shows that unnecessary.Hitchings is justified in using the Ockham argument as it underlies the presumption of naturalism.It is irrelevant what he thinks about that damn war. It is his arguments that count so much!:eye-poppi Those two are hardly cowards!

[LostAngeles]

...
And for the record, my glass is twice as big as it needs to be. :D

*********** engineer...

[Hokulele]

*********** engineer...


Hmm, I know what a structural engineer designs, what a chemical engineer designs, and what an electrical engineer designs. What exactly does a *********** engineer work on?

[-Fran-]

Religion is not solely harmful, it is also helpful, and indeed formed a core baseline of this thing we called Western Civilization. The operating feature was the common cultural assumptions imbedded, and in some cases mutated from, a particular religion, for better and worse.


But, was it so helpful that a functioning civilization could not have formed without it?

[LostAngeles]

Hmm, I know what a structural engineer designs, what a chemical engineer designs, and what an electrical engineer designs. What exactly does a *********** engineer work on?

*waves her calipers* What do you think?

[Skeptic Guy]

Where does one go to earn a degree as a *********** engineer? Hmmm?

And keep away from me with those calipers. It's cold out here. That's all.

[RandFan]

Considering how atrociously poor Hitchens has been on the Iraq issue, I have a similar lack of respect for what Hitchens has to say about atheism.The world is ever so much easier to deal with when we form simple dichotomies. That way we don't have to analyze ideas based on their merits. We simply have to decide who exactly constitutes us and them. Of course, emotion is the simplest tool for triers of fact and the "us" err with forgiveness while the other side are forever condemned by their sins.

[Corsair 115]

World War II and the Holocaust also played a big role in shaping modern civilisation. I don't think anyone would describe them as "helpful".I think that depends on how you define helpful and how one measures the aftereffects of the war and for how long they are measured.

For example, within twenty-five years there were two devastating major wars on European soil. But after WWII, with the evolvement of the two superpowers and a bipolar world, there were none. That could be argued as being a helpful development. The technological advancements made during he war and the economic boom in North America afterwards, those could also be argued as being positive outcomes from WWII.

The question is whether such positive developments were worth the pain of the war years.

[CFLarsen]

I think that depends on how you define helpful and how one measures the aftereffects of the war and for how long they are measured.

For example, within twenty-five years there were two devastating major wars on European soil. But after WWII, with the evolvement of the two superpowers and a bipolar world, there were none. That could be argued as being a helpful development. The technological advancements made during he war and the economic boom in North America afterwards, those could also be argued as being positive outcomes from WWII.

The question is whether such positive developments were worth the pain of the war years.

Don't forget that the post-WWII years were defined by the Cold War - an insane escalation of the most destructive weapons ever invented.

That can never be called "helpful" by any standards.

[LostAngeles]

Where does one go to earn a degree as a *********** engineer? Hmmm?

And keep away from me with those calipers. It's cold out here. That's all.

While I'm certain that UCLA's program is superior, I would suggest you check with the University of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Francis) Southern California. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annabel_Chong)

[Lonewulf]

Don't forget that the post-WWII years were defined by the Cold War - an insane escalation of the most destructive weapons ever invented.

That can never be called "helpful" by any standards.

NASA came out of it, didn't it?

I'd call landing on the moon and exploring space to be pretty amazing achievements. I don't think that NASA would have had the push nor the funding had the cold war not occurred. Actually, NASA might not even be around in the first place.

[CFLarsen]

NASA came out of it, didn't it?

I'd call landing on the moon and exploring space to be pretty amazing achievements. I don't think that NASA would have had the push nor the funding had the cold war not occurred. Actually, NASA might not even be around in the first place.

Why do you think that?

Scientific progress can't happen without an insane arms race?

[Corsair 115]

Don't forget that the post-WWII years were defined by the Cold War - an insane escalation of the most destructive weapons ever invented.And yet there were never used in a conflict between the two superpowers, and no continent-wide war was fought on European soil as had happened in 1914-18 and 1939-45. That was certainly a positive development.

Why do you think that?At the practical level, the U.S. space program was heavily reliant on Wernher von Braun to develop its rockets. He got his rocket expertise building the V-2 for the Third Reich, and had it not been for Reich's desire for a vengeance weapon, von Braun wouldn't have gotten the chance to build rockets. So, no war, von Braun probably doesn't get to build rockets at anything like the scale he did during the war, and he doesn't go over to the U.S. side at war's end.

Scientific progress can't happen without an insane arms race?It can, but generally it's a lot slower. Military necessity and the funds which can be made available are two things which greatly spur technological development in wartime.

[Lonewulf]

Why do you think that?

Scientific progress can't happen without an insane arms race?

It can, but can you give me a single reason why NASA would have had the funding that it never had again?

After the cold war, NASA funding went down astronomically (har har). Coincidence?

Sometimes people need to feel threatened in order to really crank out their work. There's quite a difference in policy when, say, the world will end in 1000 years, and when the world will end in 10.

Policies tend to get more desperate, get more funding, and get more attention the more up close and personal they tend to become. It is no different with the cold war and NASA competition.

All I'm saying is, don't throw out the scented bubble bath water with the mutated devil baby.

[Hokulele]

While I'm certain that UCLA's program is superior, I would suggest you check with the University of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Francis) Southern California. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annabel_Chong)


I am just trying to picture the licensing exam . . .

[Kimpatsu]

the guardian comment blog is on fire over this one :D
Search the blog for my reply to the stupid bugger.

[CFLarsen]

And yet there were never used in a conflict between the two superpowers, and no continent-wide war was fought on European soil as had happened in 1914-18 and 1939-45. That was certainly a positive development.

For a very good reason: A war would mean immense destruction of whole civilizations.

A "positive" development? No, an insane risk.

At the practical level, the U.S. space program was heavily reliant on Wernher von Braun to develop its rockets. He got his rocket expertise building the V-2 for the Third Reich, and had it not been for Reich's desire for a vengeance weapon, von Braun wouldn't have gotten the chance to build rockets. So, no war, von Braun probably doesn't get to build rockets at anything like the scale he did during the war, and he doesn't go over to the U.S. side at war's end.

The Soviets were heavily into rocket development way before WWII, and generally kicked the United States' ass with their space program, until the Americans finally got their heads out of their asses. Braun started working on rockets way before WWII as well.

It can, but generally it's a lot slower. Military necessity and the funds which can be made available are two things which greatly spur technological development in wartime.

We are not in an arms race today, yet science is progressing at an astounding pace, never seen before. Perhaps it is when science is not hindered by military requirements (and limitations) that science progresses the best?

It can, but can you give me a single reason why NASA would have had the funding that it never had again?

While there is some commitment to military research, NASA is primarily the public space program.

After the cold war, NASA funding went down astronomically (har har). Coincidence?

Funding of NASA has waxed and waned ever since its initiation. The moon missions were cancelled after 1972, and the Soviets stopped their moon exploration in 1976.

Sometimes people need to feel threatened in order to really crank out their work. There's quite a difference in policy when, say, the world will end in 1000 years, and when the world will end in 10.

Policies tend to get more desperate, get more funding, and get more attention the more up close and personal they tend to become. It is no different with the cold war and NASA competition.

All I'm saying is, don't throw out the scented bubble bath water with the mutated devil baby.

As we have seen in recent years of scientific progress, there is no reason to create a mutated devil baby, in order to get the scented bubble bath.

[Lonewulf]

While there is some commitment to military research, NASA is primarily the public space program.

That's a weak argument.

Funding of NASA has waxed and waned ever since its initiation. The moon missions were cancelled after 1972, and the Soviets stopped their moon exploration in 1976.

...And?

Are you seriously saying that the push for going to the moon would have been just the same without the cold war?

Haha.

Go kill your invisible air marshals, Larsen.

[CFLarsen]

That's a weak argument.

Facts are never weak arguments.

...And?

Are you seriously saying that the push for going to the moon would have been just the same without the cold war?

Nobody will ever know that. The push for the moon was, however, very much a publicity issue: The US had been left behind by the Soviet space program, and there was a tremendous pressure to beat the Rooskies in space, too.

Are you going to ignore the vast progress science is making today, after the Cold War?

[Lonewulf]

Facts are never weak arguments.

Facts that are not correctly used, do not support weak arguments.

Nobody will ever know that.

Yet, any reasonable person could certainly make the guess.

Are you going to ignore the vast progress science is making today, after the Cold War?

Are you ignoring the sheer cost of the moon missions, and the relatively short space of time they were accomplished in?

That was a lot more funding and resources -- not to mention top Air Force personnel -- than your average science project.

[CFLarsen]

Facts that are not correctly used, do not support weak arguments.

How is using the fact that science is progressing immensely today, without a cold war, not "correct"?

Yet, any reasonable person could certainly make the guess.

A guess is all it would be. However, the fact that science is progressing immensely today speaks against scientific progress happening fast because of military-backing.

Are you ignoring the sheer cost of the moon missions, and the relatively short space of time they were accomplished in?

That was a lot more funding and resources -- not to mention top Air Force personnel -- than your average science project.

I am not ignoring anything.

Are you going to address the fact that science is progressing immensely today, without a cold war?

Or are you going to ignore it again?

[Lonewulf]

How is using the fact that science is progressing immensely today, without a cold war, not "correct"?

You still don't get it? Ah well, no worries, someday you'll grow up and understand. The rate of progression is the key here, not to mention the funding, speed of missions, and people involved (not to mention government funding).

By the way, don't bother PMing me again. Anything I have to say to you, I will say in public.

I reserve my PM box for hot skeptichicks. Or cool dudes. You don't fall into either category.

[CFLarsen]

You still don't get it? Ah well, no worries, someday you'll grow up and understand. The rate of progression is the key here, not to mention the funding, speed of missions, and people involved (not to mention government funding).

You are not going to address the fact that science is progressing immensely today, without a cold war, then.

I can see why: It totally destroys your argument.

[Lonewulf]

You are not going to address the fact that science is progressing immensely today, without a cold war, then.

I have addressed it. Progression is still key. The rate of progress involved in the moon missions during the cold war is greater than almost any route of scientific expidition. In sheer manpower, man hours, costs, future tech (using the first portable camera for instance), and highest trained personnel, no scientific endeavor has had a greater push.

Furthermore, the mission was different than almost any other scientific expedition. It was going to a place no man (well, besides the russian military) had gone before, and was an incredibly risky and dangerous mission -- we had to have a lot of our top scientists to just figure out if man could even be in space without having his head explode.

Then there was the sheer number of missions, as well as different rockets we used, not to mention the differing roster, picking amongst the top Air Force pilots.

You can't list a single modern scientific endeavor that involves all of this. Not a single one.

The moon missions were unique, and always will be.

I can see why: It totally destroys your argument.

No it doesn't.

Also, I warned you already, I'll warn you again, just in case you missed the PM:

Please stop PMing me. If you do not, I will report your PMs to a mod.

[CFLarsen]

I have addressed it. Progression is still key. The rate of progress involved in the moon missions during the cold war is greater than almost any route of scientific expidition. In sheer manpower, man hours, costs, future tech (using the first portable camera for instance), and highest trained personnel, no scientific endeavor has had a greater push.

Furthermore, the mission was different than almost any other scientific expedition. It was going to a place no man (well, besides the russian military) had gone before, and was an incredibly risky and dangerous mission -- we had to have a lot of our top scientists to just figure out if man could even be in space without having his head explode.

Then there was the sheer number of missions, as well as different rockets we used, not to mention the differing roster, picking amongst the top Air Force pilots.

And then, no more moon missions. In fact, the moon was virtually forgotten by NASA. Why, if the moon missions were so crucial to the military?

You can't list a single modern scientific endeavor that involves all of this. Not a single one.

The moon missions were unique, and always will be.

Look, are you arguing that the moon missions happened because of a scientific push or a military push?

What about the push for the moon today? No cold war. Mars?

No it doesn't.

Of course it does. We see scientific progress like never before, without military backing.

Also, I warned you already, I'll warn you again, just in case you missed the PM:

Please stop PMing me. If you do not, I will report your PMs to a mod.

Like I said in the PM, please do. PM'ing people is not against the rules. By not putting me on ignore (anymore), you have also allowed me to PM you.

You are always free to ignore my PMs or, of course, to put me on ignore altogether.

Don't forget that the reason I did PM you, was to prevent you from derailing the thread with your lie. That you make new accusations against me via PM, without bothering to justify them, is your problem. Not mine.

[Lonewulf]

And then, no more moon missions. In fact, the moon was virtually forgotten by NASA. Why, if the moon missions were so crucial to the military?

They were crucial towards beating the russians, and demonstrating superior technology.

Look, are you arguing that the moon missions happened because of a scientific push or a military push?

I don't have to argue for either. It was both.

NASA was developed under Dwight D. Eisenhower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA

It's an agency of the United States Government, developed in a time of cold war, during a time when we felt like we had to beat the Russians to the moon, and accomplish many mission objectives before they did so. Anyone that knows anything about NASA, and did the most preliminary research, would know this.

Please explore and study the subject before we continue. I have no interest to educate every elementary school student that decides to sign up.

What about the push for the moon today? No cold war. Mars?

The funding today is crap.

Research the subject, then we'll talk.

Of course it does. We see scientific progress like never before, without military backing.

:rolleyes:

You really don't get it, do you? Oh well, some people are terminally hopeless.

Like I said in the PM, please do.

Done.

[CFLarsen]

They were crucial towards beating the russians, and demonstrating superior technology.

Beating the Russians in getting to the moon, yes.

I don't have to argue for either. It was both.

NASA was developed under Dwight D. Eisenhower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA

It's an agency of the United States Government, developed in a time of cold war, during a time when we felt like we had to beat the Russians to the moon, and accomplish many mission objectives before they did so. Anyone that knows anything about NASA, and did the most preliminary research, would know this.

Please explore and study the subject before we continue. I have no interest to educate every elementary school student that decides to sign up.

That would be someone other than me.

I follow space exploration quite closely, and have since the first moon missions. Some of the earliest memories I have of television is of the moon missions. I specifically remember the first one: Everyone was watching it. I mean everyone. We were glued to the telly during the launch, and later the landing, where we watched in wonder at the images. We went out at gazed up at the moon, and marvelled at the fact that, right up there, right now, there were people walking on the moon.

If you have never experienced that, you missed out on one fantastic experience.

The funding today is crap.

Research the subject, then we'll talk.

Had you done that, you will find that NASA funding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget) peaked around 1966, took a dip after the moon missions, but started to rise again. Today, it is increasing again, due to Bush's plan to return to the moon, and later Mars (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/14/bush.space/).

But no cold war.

[Lonewulf]

Okay, so your contention is that, without the cold war, the funding would have been exactly the same, NASA would still have been formed, and we would have had our rockets?

Okay.

BTW, this chart seems intriguing to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NASA_budget_linegraph_BH.PNG

I notice a really huge spike during the Apollo missions. Funding never got back to that, it seems. Care to explain?

But yes, if the funding was exactly the same, then I offer for you to go to www.badastronomy.com to edumucate the people there. Common knowledge on that website is that funding never got back to the way it was during the cold war. According to you, that doesn't quite seem to be the case, or else you wouldn't actually think you had a point.

[CFLarsen]

Okay, so your contention is that, without the cold war, the funding would have been exactly the same, NASA would still have been formed, and we would have had our rockets?

Okay.

No, that's not what I am saying. Read my post #52: We can't know what the funding would have been like.

BTW, this chart seems intriguing to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NASA_budget_linegraph_BH.PNG

I notice a really huge spike during the Apollo missions. Funding never got back to that, it seems. Care to explain?

Delighted to:

As this chart shows, NASA's budget peaked in 1966, during the height of construction efforts leading up to the first moon landing under Project Apollo.
...
Using the Consumer Price Index, it would work out to about $136 billion in contemporary dollars -- but this would not be a very good measure since the CPI does not reflect the cost of rockets and launch pads.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget)

You will not have noticed that the link is the same as I posted in post #60, because you clearly don't bother to read the sources handed to you.

Building the organisation, the launch pads, the whole infrastructure, and so on, always costs a bundle. E.g., the Vehicle Assembly Building (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Assembly_Building) only had to built once, in 1966. Still among the biggest buildings in the world.

Try to read that link, at the very least.

But yes, if the funding was exactly the same, then I offer for you to go to www.badastronomy.com to edumucate the people there. Common knowledge on that website is that funding never got back to the way it was during the cold war. According to you, that doesn't quite seem to be the case, or else you wouldn't actually think you had a point.

Again, that's not what I am saying. You would know that, had you bothered to read the links I provided.

[Lonewulf]

No, that's not what I am saying. Read my post #52: We can't know what the funding would have been like.

I do believe my educated guess is accurate.

You will not have noticed that the link is the same as I posted in post #60, because you clearly don't bother to read the sources handed to you.

Building the organisation, the launch pads, the whole infrastructure, and so on, always costs a bundle. E.g., the Vehicle Assembly Building (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Assembly_Building) only had to built once, in 1966. Still among the biggest buildings in the world.

Try to read that link, at the very least.

And where did the funding for all of that infrastructure materialize in such a short amount of time? God?

Personally, I think of wars as bringing somewhat of an idiot savanteness to society. Society tends to suck at some areas of scientific/technological expertise (such as environmental or peacetime applications), but at the same time increases at a rapid rate of progression (relative to peacetime efforts) down certain areas that are either vital or connected to the war.

Oh, and by the way, I decided that I would finally go back to your point here:

You are not going to address the fact that science is progressing immensely today, without a cold war, then.

I will say this:

Science is progressing still. I have never denied that, and to do so, is to commit a strawman fallacy.

Science is progressing, but it has it's lows and it's ups. Just like the funding of NASA projects.

During warfare, that idiot savanteness I explained tends to kick in; NASA was given a huge jumpstart that it never would have gotten without any sort of cold war.

[CFLarsen]

I do believe my educated guess is accurate.

It is contradicted by the present rate of scientific progress.

And where did the funding for all of that infrastructure materialize in such a short amount of time? God?

The American tax payers, of course.

Do you acknowledge that it took a lot of funds to build the infrastructure of NASA, and that explains the huge funding in those years?

Personally, I think of wars as bringing somewhat of an idiot savanteness to society. Society tends to suck at some areas of scientific/technological expertise (such as environmental or peacetime applications), but at the same time increases at a rapid rate of progression (relative to peacetime efforts) down certain areas that are either vital or connected to the war.

Surely, you are not saying that we should have a war now and then, just to progress science?

Oh, and by the way, I decided that I would finally go back to your point here:

I will say this:

Science is progressing still. I have never denied that, and to do so, is to commit a strawman fallacy.

Where has anyone claimed you don't say that science is progressing still?

Science is progressing, but it has it's lows and it's ups. Just like the funding of NASA projects.

During warfare, that idiot savanteness I explained tends to kick in; NASA was given a huge jumpstart that it never would have gotten without any sort of cold war.

That is your claim, which is contradicted by the present rate of scientific progress. Just like the current funding of NASA projects.

[Lonewulf]

The American tax payers, of course.

The American tax payers... given to them... by...?

Who takes the taxes and distributes them? Want a tip? It starts with a g.

Do you acknowledge that it took a lot of funds to build the infrastructure of NASA, and that explains the huge funding in those years?

I acknowledge that the infrastructure may have had a high cost, yes. That does not change where the money came from, nor does it change the willingness of the government to pay that money. Do you recognize that the government was willing to pay out a huge amount of funding in a short amount of time during the time of the cold war, or do you refuse to acknowledge this?

Surely, you are not saying that we should have a war now and then, just to progress science?

No, I am not saying that. That is a patently ridiculous idea. Go figure that "kill the air marshals!" Larsen would have come to this conclusion.

I am stating that, during a time of war, technology progression along a certain line tends to be faster than outside of a time of war. That does not mean that a time of war is preferable. It also is costly, requiring much expenditure -- not just on the scientific and technological endeavors, but losses during combat. Not to mention the cost in human life.

Just because I recognize a fact (that there is a greater drive to accomplish certain objectives during conflict), does not mean that I say that we need to reenact such facts. A skeptic would be able to recognize that, and I know how you like to think that you're actually a skeptic.

[CFLarsen]

The American tax payers... given to them... by...?

Who takes the taxes and distributes them? Want a tip? It starts with a g.

The government. But you asked where the money materialized from, not who distributed them.

I acknowledge that the infrastructure may have had a high cost, yes.

"May"? Why don't you read the links I gave you, e.g., the one with the biiiiig building?

That does not change where the money came from, nor does it change the willingness of the government to pay that money. Do you recognize that the government was willing to pay out a huge amount of funding in a short amount of time during the time of the cold war, or do you refuse to acknowledge this?

Of course it was willing to do that. Who has been arguing otherwise?

No, I am not saying that. That is a patently ridiculous idea. Go figure that "kill the air marshals!" Larsen

Stop lying. I never said any such thing, and you know it.

would have come to this conclusion.

Try to understand the difference between a question and a conclusion. I asked if you were saying it. I didn't say that you were saying it.

I am stating that, during a time of war, technology progression along a certain line tends to be faster than outside of a time of war. That does not mean that a time of war is preferable. It also is costly, requiring much expenditure -- not just on the scientific and technological endeavors, but losses during combat. Not to mention the cost in human life.

Just because I recognize a fact (that there is a greater drive to accomplish certain objectives during conflict), does not mean that I say that we need to reenact such facts. A skeptic would be able to recognize that, and I know how you like to think that you're actually a skeptic.

A skeptic would be able to recognize that I never said you did think this.

Now, do you have something new to bring to the table?

[Lonewulf]

The government. But you asked where the money materialized from, not who distributed them.

Good! Gooood! You're getting there, Larsen!

Now... why were they willing to budget a large amount of money in a short amount of time?

Of course it was willing to do that. Who has been arguing otherwise?

Then what the hell is your point? Honestly?

Stop lying. I never said any such thing, and you know it.

I beg to differ.

Evidence: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=16055

Try to understand the difference between a question and a conclusion. I asked if you were saying it. I didn't say that you were saying it.

Your question was a stupid question.

A skeptic would be able to recognize that I never said you did think this.

Then your question was a stupid question.

But okay, I'll be nice.

No, I have never stated that a war should be started for technological or scientific progress. That has never been my point, nor any point of a poster within here. Further, there was no reason to assume that that point was being made. It will never be a point.

Now, do you have something new to bring to the table?

I don't need to bring anything new to the table. I've said nothing but facts during this conversation. You seemingly disagree with nothing.

You admit that there was a huge amount of funding during the cold war.

One of the factors, if not the main factor, for that funding was the cold war, to beat out the russians in timetables.

You haven't been arguing any particular point. You've been specifically arguing just to argue. I think you get off on it.

[CFLarsen]

I beg to differ.

Evidence: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=16055

Nowhere do I say that.

I don't need to bring anything new to the table.

No, you choose to lie and be rude. Have a nice day, then.

[Lonewulf]

Nowhere do I say that.

You said you would kill an air marshal. Let me quote you:

I'll kill the f***er. On the spot. No questions asked. He's dead.

Like I said, go kill your air marshals.

No, you choose to lie and be rude. Have a nice day, then.

Ciao.

Come back when you actually have a point...

[CFLarsen]

You said you would kill an air marshal. Let me quote you:

Like I said, go kill your air marshals.

I specifically said that there was no time to find out if he was an air marshal or not.

So, I did not say I would kill an air marshal.

[Lonewulf]

I specifically said that there was no time to find out if he was an air marshal or not.

So, I did not say I would kill an air marshal.

You said you would kill someone, that may or may not be an air marshal, and brought up air marshals specifically within your argument, saying that you would, indeed, kill them if you found out if they had a gun.

So yes. You said you would kill an air marshal.

[CFLarsen]

You said you would kill someone, that may or may not be an air marshal, and brought up air marshals specifically within your argument, saying that you would, indeed, kill them if you found out if they had a gun.

So yes. You said you would kill an air marshal.

Wrong.

Work on your logical skills.

[strathmeyer]

Claus, you do realize that we don't live in the magical world inside your head, and can actually go read what you wrote and make up our minds for ourself. Why aren't you able to stray away from posts that make you look stupid? I've learned to do it, you can, too.

[Lonewulf]

Wrong.

Work on your logical skills.

I'll kill the f***er. On the spot. No questions asked. He's dead.

:)

[CFLarsen]

Claus, you do realize that we don't live in the magical world inside your head, and can actually go read what you wrote and make up our minds for ourself. Why aren't you able to stray away from posts that make you look stupid? I've learned to do it, you can, too.

I am not conjuring a magical world that exists inside my head. I am describing a scenario.

People can call it imaginary, unrealistic, whatever. But what people can't do, is change the scenario and then claim I am wrong - or whatever adjective they want to use.

:)

I challenge you to find where I say it is known that he is an air marshal.

[Lonewulf]

I challenge you to find where I say it is known that he is an air marshal.

Killing someone is okay if you don't know who they are?

Okay, I'll go shoot some arab. He COULD be a terrorist, I don't know. Therefore, it's justified.

Same argument, honestly.

Seriously, you want to argue this, let's go back to the appropriate thread and revive it. Otherwise, either make your point or... well... continue to post pointlessly.

[CFLarsen]

Killing someone is okay if you don't know who they are?

Okay, I'll go shoot some arab. He COULD be a terrorist, I don't know. Therefore, it's justified.

Same argument, honestly.

Seriously, you want to argue this, let's go back to the appropriate thread and revive it. Otherwise, either make your point or... well... continue to post pointlessly.

I have made my case in the thread.

What, no evidence from you where I say it is known that he is an air marshal?

Why am I not surprised?

[Lonewulf]

I have made my case in the thread.

And what a fine job you did of that. I meant the original topic, involving war and the cold war, not your mindless derail.

What, no evidence from you where I say it is known that he is an air marshal?

I do not need to give evidence of something I never claimed.

You said you would kill someone in a particular situation, even if it was an air
marshal.

Here, I'll refresh your spotty memory:

Think "Sky Marshalls"? Think that guns on a plane is a good idea?

Sorry, I don't have time for that. I don't have time to even contemplate the possibility of him being a "good guy". It takes less than 5 minutes to fly from any NY airport to WTC, and I do not have time to check with authorities to see if the guy with the gun is a "good guy" or not.

I'll kill the f***er. On the spot. No questions asked. He's dead.

So yes. You would kill sky marshals. In a particular situation. There's your proof, there's your evidence.

Now, please go pathetically defend your point in the appropriate thread. I'm done with you.

Why am I not surprised?

I don't know, but I'm certainly not. You still have yet to have even the most cursory of debating skills.

Please go and let the grown-ups talk, m'kay?

Either that, or return to the cold war debate, which you so thoroughly lost.

[CFLarsen]

And what a fine job you did of that. I meant the original topic, involving war and the cold war, not your mindless derail.

You brought up the air marshal issue. If you don't want to talk about it, don't bring it up. Especially when it turns out you can't back up your claim with evidence.

I do not need to give evidence of something I never claimed.

(cough)

You said you would kill an air marshal.

That's as clear as it gets.

You said you would kill someone in a particular situation, even if it was an air
marshal.

Here, I'll refresh your spotty memory:


Now, please go pathetically defend your point in the appropriate thread. I'm done with you.

I specifically say that there is no time to find out whether he is an air marshal or not. Therefore, I don't know that he is an air marshal.

I don't know, but I'm certainly not. You still have yet to have even the most cursory of debating skills.

Please go and let the grown-ups talk, m'kay?

Still only lies and rudeness from you. And certainly no evidence.

Oh, well.

[Corsair 115]

First, please note that you incorrectly attributed the last two quotes in your reply as being mine. Those were not my statements, they were Lonewulf's.

For a very good reason: A war would mean immense destruction of whole civilizations. And WWII didn't devastate the societies and nations of Europe?

The Soviets were heavily into rocket development way before WWII, and generally kicked the United States' ass with their space program, until the Americans finally got their heads out of their asses. The U.S. very nearly was the first nation to put a man into space. Alan Shepard was originally slated to go on a sub-orbital flight in March of 1961, but concerns over the reliability of the booster postponed his mission in order to get in one more unmanned test flight. In the interim, Gagarin went up on his orbital flight in April, thus scoring for the Soviets the prize of being the first to put a man into space.

Even in the midst of the space race, Korolev was greatly hampered by a lack of resources from the Soviet government. It's a testament to his abilities that the Soviets were able to do as much in space flights as they did.

Braun started working on rockets way before WWII as well. "Working" on rockets privately is not quite the same thing as the government coming up to you and offering you billions of dollars to build rockets and make them work in a short timeframe.

[Lonewulf]

You brought up the air marshal issue. If you don't want to talk about it, don't bring it up. Especially when it turns out you can't back up your claim with evidence.

I already backed up my claim.

If you want to argue endlessly over a derail to a derail, I really don't care.

That's as clear as it gets.

Okay, so you would not randomly kill a man with a gun if he was an air marshal. Okay. That contradicts your claim, though.

I specifically say that there is no time to find out whether he is an air marshal or not. Therefore, I don't know that he is an air marshal.

But you kill him, do you not? Air marshal. Kill. Death.

Kill + Air Marshal = Dead

Trying to kill + Air Marshal = Dead

It doesn't matter if you know who he is or if you don't. Can't you get that through your head? He's still dead. He's croaked. He's gone. He's not of this world. He's shed his mortal coil. He is no more. HE IS A DEAD AIR MARSHAL!

Still only lies and rudeness from you. And certainly no evidence.

Oh, well.

Well, you certainly have the lies and the lack of evidence here. I've substantiated my claim well enough. That you do not accept it, doesn't make it not true.

[CFLarsen]

First, please note that you incorrectly attributed the last two quotes in your reply as being mine. Those were not my statements, they were Lonewulf's.

Oops! My bad.

And WWII didn't devastate the societies and nations of Europe?

You bet it did. But nowhere what a nuclear war would have meant. Imminent destruction of huge areas of land, with contamination for decades, probably centuries. Not to speak of the global environmental impact, of course.

The U.S. very nearly was the first nation to put a man into space. Alan Shepard was originally slated to go on a sub-orbital flight in March of 1961, but concerns over the reliability of the booster postponed his mission in order to get in one more unmanned test flight. In the interim, Gagarin went up on his orbital flight in April, thus scoring for the Soviets the prize of being the first to put a man into space.

There is a huge difference between going into sub-orbital space and orbital space. I'm not dissing the early attempts by the US of getting man into space, but there is no doubt about it: The US space program was way behind the Soviet one.

Even in the midst of the space race, Korolev was greatly hampered by a lack of resources from the Soviet government. It's a testament to his abilities that the Soviets were able to do as much in space flights as they did.

He had the work of Tsiolkovsky and others to work with.

"Working" on rockets privately is not quite the same thing as the government coming up to you and offering you billions of dollars to build rockets and make them work in a short timeframe.

Before you build the rockets, you still have to do the ground work first. Tsiolkovsky made ground-breaking work back in 1903 - without that, there wouldn't be a Werner von Braun, let alone NASA.

I already backed up my claim.

If you want to argue endlessly over a derail to a derail, I really don't care.



Okay, so you would not randomly kill a man with a gun if he was an air marshal. Okay. That contradicts your claim, though.



But you kill him, do you not? Air marshal. Kill. Death.

Kill + Air Marshal = Dead

Trying to kill + Air Marshal = Dead

It doesn't matter if you know who he is or if you don't. Can't you get that through your head? He's still dead. He's croaked. He's gone. He's not of this world. He's shed his mortal coil. He is no more. HE IS A DEAD AIR MARSHAL!



Well, you certainly have the lies and the lack of evidence here. I've substantiated my claim well enough. That you do not accept it, doesn't make it not true.

I am still waiting for evidence from you where I say it is known that he is an air marshal.

Because it doesn't exist.

[Lonewulf]

There is a huge difference between going into sub-orbital space and orbital space. I'm not dissing the early attempts by the US of getting man into space, but there is no doubt about it: The US space program was way behind the Soviet one.

But the U.S. got men into orbital space. They also got men to the moon.

If they were behind, they caught up.

I am still waiting for evidence from you where I say it is known that he is an air marshal.

Because it doesn't exist.

Neither does that claim, genius.

So now that you're done doing a Don Quixote on those nasty evil strawmen, do you have anything of value to say?

[Corsair 115]

You bet it did. But nowhere what a nuclear war would have meant. Imminent destruction of huge areas of land, with contamination for decades, probably centuries. Not to speak of the global environmental impact, of course. True. But it didn't happen. So how does or how should one measure the risk of a nuclear confrontation breaking out versus the stability that the Cold War produced in terms of preventing major wars between major powers? Those had been happening with some degree of regular frequency previously.

There is a huge difference between going into sub-orbital space and orbital space. I'm not dissing the early attempts by the US of getting man into space, but there is no doubt about it: The US space program was way behind the Soviet one. Behind? Yes. Way behind? That's debatable. How much might the nature of the space race been changed had Shepard been the first into space? As it was, Gagarin's orbital flight was very risky, and it could have easily ended in disaster. The Soviets took a big gamble, and got lucky.

Before you build the rockets, you still have to do the ground work first. Tsiolkovsky made ground-breaking work back in 1903 - without that, there wouldn't be a Werner von Braun, let alone NASA. What about Robert Goddard? Hermann Oberth? Robert Esnault-Pelterie? Their work was also instrumental in laying the groundwork for rockety and space exploration.

[CFLarsen]

But the U.S. got men into orbital space. They also got men to the moon.

If they were behind, they caught up.

Yes, they did.

Neither does that claim, genius.

So now that you're done doing a Don Quixote on those nasty evil strawmen, do you have anything of value to say?

Still no evidence.

True. But it didn't happen. So how does or how should one measure the risk of a nuclear confrontation breaking out versus the stability that the Cold War produced in terms of preventing major wars between major powers? Those had been happening with some degree of regular frequency previously.

The crux of the matter is the sheer magnitude of the destruction involved. In no time flat, you could have immense annihilation on an unprecedented scale. Not even the Russian "scorched earth" strategy, or the Nazi Holocaust would be as destructively efficient.

Behind? Yes. Way behind? That's debatable.

Perhaps. Still, going from sub-orbital to orbital is a huge step.

How much might the nature of the space race been changed had Shepard been the first into space? As it was, Gagarin's orbital flight was very risky, and it could have easily ended in disaster. The Soviets took a big gamble, and got lucky.

Yep. And the Americans took risks too: E.g., the Explorer program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorer_program), the Apollo 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_One), the Apollo 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13).

What about Robert Goddard? Hermann Oberth? Robert Esnault-Pelterie? Their work was also instrumental in laying the groundwork for rockety and space exploration.

I didn't say that it was all due to Tsiolkovsky. But his most important work was published in 1903, way before WWII.

[Lonewulf]

Still no evidence.

:rolleyes:

Okay. So I don't have evidence for a claim I didn't make. I admit it. How horrible.

The fact is, you stated that you would kill someone in a particular situation, and that person may or may not be an air marshal. You also stated that you would attempt to identify the individual before killing them, though left it up to our imaginations how you would do so (karate? Ninjitsu? Laser eye vision?)

So the fact is, you stated that you would kill an air marshal. That is what I claimed.

I never claimed anything that dealt with knowledge. But I not only claimed that you would kill an air marshal, but that you take a cavalier attitude about doing so. If you kill a man with a gun that is an air marshal, then the fact is, that individual is dead.

You cannot deny that this was your claim. That, if an air marshal had a gun on a plane, you would kill them. That was the entire crux of your argument, and if you deny it, then you pretty much admit your former argument was entirely wrong -- that you WOULD not attack and kill someone with a gun.

Anyways...

As it's obvious that you have nothing of worth to say, nor can you even start to argue any particular case with any amount of acuity, then I do believe that I will refuse to continue this argument from here on in.

I don't argue with retarded monkeys.

[Corsair 115]

The crux of the matter is the sheer magnitude of the destruction involved. In no time flat, you could have immense annihilation on an unprecedented scale. Not even the Russian "scorched earth" strategy, or the Nazi Holocaust would be as destructively efficient. Actually, it depends on when a nuclear exchange would have taken place. Earlier atomic weapons were not especially powerful and relied on strategic bombers to deliver them (an area where the U.S. had a significant advantage); later thermonuclear weapons were vastly more powerful and could be delivered by ICBMs in addition to aircraft, changing the potential damage of the outcome.

It would also depend on the relative strengths of the arsenals of each side. If one side was hugely outnumbering the other, the outcome would be different than if both sides had equal numbers.

Perhaps. Still, going from sub-orbital to orbital is a huge step. Which the U.S. achieved 9½ months later once the Atlas booster was ready. During that time, the Soviets only launched one other orbital flight and the U.S. one sub-orbital flight.

Yep. And the Americans took risks too: E.g., the Explorer program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorer_program), the Apollo 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_One), the Apollo 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13).I would not qualify Apollo 1 nor Apollo 13 as risks in the sense I meant. Apollo 8, now that was a risk since it was a large leap beyond the progression of mission milestones which had been established.

I didn't say that it was all due to Tsiolkovsky. But his most important work was published in 1903, way before WWII.And Goddard was actually building and testing rockets in the 1920s and 1930s, well before WWII. There's plenty of credit to go around.

[Hourglassmemory]

Atheists are the opposite of cowards. They open the closet whenever a christian says there's a monster inside it.

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's extremely difficult to argue this point, though do I believe it's correct. I've made the argument that tyrants, like Stalin and Mao, who abolish religion, are essentially just attempting to take god's place. The Abrahamic god made a point of banning all other gods with the first commandment, too.

Heard the argument as well, but I'm not so sure that it is correct. Instead, I think there might be something else at play -- the idea of utopia. Christians fight so sternly over people's minds and bodies because they believe fervently that they have the keys to the ultimate utopia. The same seems to be true for the types of Communism that surfaced in the 20th century, and for a key point look at Pol Pot's Cambodia -- it was all about utopia, built from the ground up, eliminating the intelligentsia. While there was a cult of personality involved in Stalin's U.S.S.R., Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia, I think the message that the people responded to, that drove them to commit those crimes and make those horrendously stupid agricultural mistakes, was a basic idea -- that all the suffering would be worth it in the end because they were working for the perfect society.

To commit Godwin's error, the same seems to be true for Hitler's Germany to some extent -- kill all those pesky Jews and life will be grand; and in Rwanda where Hutu thought that killing Tutsi would improve their lot.

Of course there are complex interactions in each of these cases considering resource issues, long-held hatreds, etc. But the biggest ideological thrust seems to have been a belief in utopia, which eases the descent into "us" vs. "them" thinking.

I could very well be wrong, but I think this is a bigger issue than the "Stalin as God" cult of personality idea. I think the cult of personality, like Jim Jones, helps people to believe the utopian ideal, but it is that idea of utopia that really drives us. We need to avoid it like the plague.

[Lonewulf]

I could very well be wrong, but I think this is a bigger issue than the "Stalin as God" cult of personality idea. I think the cult of personality, like Jim Jones, helps people to believe the utopian ideal, but it is that idea of utopia that really drives us. We need to avoid it like the plague.

But what about the times it has worked? What about the times that we have built a good society, a better society, a society closer to perfection?

If you're in America, or in Europe, you're living in such a society right now.

The whole point of society, and changing society for the better (which is the intention of voting and changing your society as it goes along) is right here, with you, every time elections come about, or a new vote for a new bill.

Quite frankly, the goal towards Utopia has always been the goal -- a society that's better, and better, and better. A society that's more economically powerful, a society that is able to provide benefits for it's people, a society that can serve it's people.

Quite frankly, to avoid Utopia, then you either keep things as they are without trying to change anything (no elections, no voting, no changes), or you move towards a dystopia, and try to make things *worse*.

Neither is what I would call ideal.

I guess I would defend this viewpoint as I'm a transhumanist, and I'm one of those that would fight for the ideal of a better self, a better society, but by personal choice, not by dictatorship.

I dunno. I just don't think that you can label off trying to obtain a "better" society as automatically bad, just by listing the obvious failures. Because then, you'd have to ignore the successes -- and any attempts to change government, as was done during the revolutionary war, is an attempt for a "better" society.

Maybe not a "perfect" society, but the goal is to get better and better, and that moves closer and closer towards ideals of "perfection".

[Ichneumonwasp]

But what about the times it has worked? What about the times that we have built a good society, a better society, a society closer to perfection?

If you're in America, or in Europe, you're living in such a society right now.

The whole point of society, and changing society for the better (which is the intention of voting and changing your society as it goes along) is right here, with you, every time elections come about, or a new vote for a new bill.

Quite frankly, the goal towards Utopia has always been the goal -- a society that's better, and better, and better. A society that's more economically powerful, a society that is able to provide benefits for it's people, a society that can serve it's people.

Quite frankly, to avoid Utopia, then you either keep things as they are without trying to change anything (no elections, no voting, no changes), or you move towards a dystopia, and try to make things *worse*.

Neither is what I would call ideal.

I guess I would defend this viewpoint as I'm a transhumanist, and I'm one of those that would fight for the ideal of a better self, a better society, but by personal choice, not by dictatorship.

I dunno. I just don't think that you can label off trying to obtain a "better" society as automatically bad, just by listing the obvious failures. Because then, you'd have to ignore the successes -- and any attempts to change government, as was done during the revolutionary war, is an attempt for a "better" society.

Maybe not a "perfect" society, but the goal is to get better and better, and that moves closer and closer towards ideals of "perfection".

Utopia is not "better society". It is "perfect society" or the distinction between Thomas More's use of the term as the ambiguous utopia (no place) vs eutopia (good place). You seem to be discussing an entirely different phenomenon -- technological improvement which results from certain economic arrangements and improved social constructs that seem to arise from technological improvements (we fight slavery now because we don't need it and bureaucracies don't care who fills positions so women can strive for equal rights).

The drive for improvement is the laudable goal for which we all strive. I am not arguing against improvement. I don't know how you could have arrived at that impression. Improvement, however, is not the same as the proposed perfect society in which all will be happy so it is permissable for us to sacrifice the few for the happiness of the many. What's a few pogroms if we can create perfection on earth?

Utopia is a drug.

The U.S. and Europe are so very clearly not utopias that I find it hard to understand why you would mention them in the same breath as a proposed ideal society. One of the primary reasons why Western societies have not produced utopias is because they privelege freedom. Economic freedom produces income disparities, a key indicator of a non-utopian society. Utopias are generally based on cooperation and equality which, in this world, seems to require some degree of top-down control (examples -- Plato's Republic, More's Utopia (which wouldn't have worked in the first place which was one of his points), B.F. Skinner's Walden II, Lenin's Soviet Socialist Republic, etc.).

There is a clear distinction between technological/social improvement and utopia.

[Lonewulf]

Utopia is not "better society". It is "perfect society" or the distinction between Thomas More's use of the term as the ambiguous utopia (no place) vs eutopia (good place). You seem to be discussing an entirely different phenomenon -- technological improvement which results from certain economic arrangements and improved social constructs that seem to arise from technological improvements (we fight slavery now because we don't need it and bureaucracies don't care who fills positions so women can strive for equal rights).

Utopia is a "perfect society", yes. But what is the goal of having a better society, if not attempting to come further and further towards that society's ideal of perfection?

Perfection is supposed to be at the end of "betterment", when you can get better no more. While it may not exist, what makes it different to lay your life down for, say, Democracy, but not Communism, if you believe that either is better than the society you had before? I don't really get the distinction.

The drive for improvement is the laudable goal for which we all strive. I am not arguing against improvement. I don't know how you could have arrived at that impression. Improvement, however, is not the same as the proposed perfect society in which all will be happy so it is permissable for us to sacrifice the few for the happiness of the many. What's a few pogroms if we can create perfection on earth?

Once again: What's the difference between someone that sacrifices for Communism, and sacrifices themselves for Democracy? (Besides the fact that communism didn't work, of course -- a case we must rely on hindsight to see).

Many people sacrificed themselves, or were sacrificed, in the name of Democracy. You could call them willing (except for those conscripted/drafted -- the Vietnam War comes to mind, but I suppose that's somewhat of a different issue). Furthermore, in certain laws, sacrifices are expected of the people; when slavery was outlawed, it was expected for certain individuals to make sacrifices for the better good, for instance, to become a better society.

Utopia is a drug.

Well, that is your theory, but I'm not so sure that I follow it. The problem with communism wasn't the idea of utopia, it was the idea of a strong dictator that was sociopathic to the extreme. Not to mention really bad economic policies. For starters, of course.

The problem you have isn't utopia, it's forced sacrifice. It isn't striving towards a perfect society, it's being FORCED into a perfect society. There is a key difference here.

The U.S. and Europe are so very clearly not utopias that I find it hard to understand why you would mention them in the same breath as a proposed ideal society.

The idea is to make the U.S. and Europe better and better -- and they are the best societies that exist within the world.

"Better and better" societies, to make them more and more like a utopia.

One of the primary reasons why Western societies have not produced utopias is because they privelege freedom.

Freedom being an ideal of a perfect society.

Economic freedom produces income disparities, a key indicator of a non-utopian society.

And measures are often put in place to attempt to mitigate that. Once more, moving more and more towards a utopia.

Utopias are generally based on cooperation and equality...

"Cooperation"? Such as forming parties and voting as a group?

"Equality"? There are many senses that equality is an ideal in America or Europe, as being closer to a "perfect" society.

...which, in this world, seems to require some degree of top-down control (examples -- Plato's Republic, More's Utopia (which wouldn't have worked in the first place which was one of his points), B.F. Skinner's Walden II, Lenin's Soviet Socialist Republic, etc.).

"Seems to", but I do believe that the democratic republic has proven that wrong, more or less.

There is a clear distinction between technological/social improvement and utopia.

I don't see it, I really don't.

If your goal is to make your society more towards perfection, then you are headed towards utopia.

To make your society "better", is to head more towards utopia.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Lonewulf,

I'm sorry, but your comments contradict the essence of American (for instance) political culture. Our government is based on the inherent imperfectibility of human beings, hence our tripartite system with checks and balances. Most extant republics share similar features for the same reason -- the realization that man is not perfectible, that society is not perfectible. Utopia is based on the underlying assumption that man is perfectible, hence the attempts to sacrifice others for the greater good of the society. Change 'those' folks and we can all live in peace and harmony. The sacrifice in supposed utopias is always forced, that was my point. The Killing Fileds were an attempt to restructure society along agrarian lines -- one view of a possible utopia.

Those who choose to sacrifice themselves are free to do so. When you are drafted you go to war. That is part of the social contract we enter as members of a particular group. We are free to protest via civil disobedience and accept the consequences, but being drafted into a war is not analogous to Pol Pot's Killing Fields or Stalin's purges. The problem in the 20th century was with those groups who chose to sacrifice others for the sake of a "greater ideal". It was a new religion, this "greater ideal", based on implicit belief in the perfectibility of man (a left over hold-out from the Enlightenment that seems to have beaten out of us now). For a new idea to function you must get people to believe in it fervently. While the cult of personality is a starting place, it can't go very far. What lies beneath it, from what I can tell of these 20th century "atheistic societies", was belief in utopia. I think that was the new religion rather than Stalin serving the role of god.

[CFLarsen]

:rolleyes:

Okay. So I don't have evidence for a claim I didn't make. I admit it. How horrible.

The fact is, you stated that you would kill someone in a particular situation, and that person may or may not be an air marshal. You also stated that you would attempt to identify the individual before killing them, though left it up to our imaginations how you would do so (karate? Ninjitsu? Laser eye vision?)

So the fact is, you stated that you would kill an air marshal. That is what I claimed.

I never claimed anything that dealt with knowledge. But I not only claimed that you would kill an air marshal, but that you take a cavalier attitude about doing so. If you kill a man with a gun that is an air marshal, then the fact is, that individual is dead.

You cannot deny that this was your claim. That, if an air marshal had a gun on a plane, you would kill them. That was the entire crux of your argument, and if you deny it, then you pretty much admit your former argument was entirely wrong -- that you WOULD not attack and kill someone with a gun.

Anyways...

As it's obvious that you have nothing of worth to say, nor can you even start to argue any particular case with any amount of acuity, then I do believe that I will refuse to continue this argument from here on in.

I don't argue with retarded monkeys.

O....K.

That is some of the most tortured logic I have ever seen. And I've seen plenty.

Actually, it depends on when a nuclear exchange would have taken place. Earlier atomic weapons were not especially powerful and relied on strategic bombers to deliver them (an area where the U.S. had a significant advantage); later thermonuclear weapons were vastly more powerful and could be delivered by ICBMs in addition to aircraft, changing the potential damage of the outcome.

The MAD doctrine, and the Massive Retaliation doctrine from 1954 in particular, ensured that, from the very beginning, enormous areas would be destroyed in case of war.

It would also depend on the relative strengths of the arsenals of each side. If one side was hugely outnumbering the other, the outcome would be different than if both sides had equal numbers.

But that's exactly what didn't happen. Instead, an insane arms race began.

Which the U.S. achieved 9½ months later once the Atlas booster was ready. During that time, the Soviets only launched one other orbital flight and the U.S. one sub-orbital flight.

Yeah. But that orbital flight was Titov's whole day in space. When John Glenn flew, 6 months later, he was only in space for almost 5 hours.

I would not qualify Apollo 1 nor Apollo 13 as risks in the sense I meant. Apollo 8, now that was a risk since it was a large leap beyond the progression of mission milestones which had been established.

Each Apollo mission was a huge leap. They went from Apollo 1 to Apollo 11 in two and a half years.

And Goddard was actually building and testing rockets in the 1920s and 1930s, well before WWII. There's plenty of credit to go around.

Thereby destroying the claim that the space program was due to the cold war.

[Lonewulf]

Lonewulf,

I'm sorry, but your comments contradict the essence of American (for instance) political culture. Our government is based on the inherent imperfectibility of human beings, hence our tripartite system with checks and balances. Most extant republics share similar features for the same reason -- the realization that man is not perfectible, that society is not perfectible. Utopia is based on the underlying assumption that man is perfectible, hence the attempts to sacrifice others for the greater good of the society. Change 'those' folks and we can all live in peace and harmony. The sacrifice in supposed utopias is always forced, that was my point. The Killing Fileds were an attempt to restructure society along agrarian lines -- one view of a possible utopia.

I was under the impression that many victims of communism were killed because they were a threat to the leaders, not necessarily to "enact a Utopia"...

Those who choose to sacrifice themselves are free to do so. When you are drafted you go to war.

"Free to do so" and "drafted" shouldn't be side by side...

That is part of the social contract we enter as members of a particular group. We are free to protest via civil disobedience and accept the consequences, but being drafted into a war is not analogous to Pol Pot's Killing Fields or Stalin's purges.

Which is, again, less an argument of "utopia", and more an argument against purges or mass murder.

Though I'm curious: Where does the treatment of native americans factor into this?

Though, I guess that does lend some credence... the idea that society was better off without native americans to "threaten" it... but that's also a case of ignorance and a lack of understanding of other cultures.

The problem in the 20th century was with those groups who chose to sacrifice others for the sake of a "greater ideal". It was a new religion, this "greater ideal", based on implicit belief in the perfectibility of man (a left over hold-out from the Enlightenment that seems to have beaten out of us now). For a new idea to function you must get people to believe in it fervently. While the cult of personality is a starting place, it can't go very far. What lies beneath it, from what I can tell of these 20th century "atheistic societies", was belief in utopia. I think that was the new religion rather than Stalin serving the role of god.

Honestly, the whole "Stalin being God", or the "idea of Utopia", just seems to be, in the end, an argument using a No True Scotsman to defend atheism. Oh, they were atheistic societies, but they weren't TRUE atheists as they worshipped Stalin or Utopia or somesuch, so they don't count.

Yes, the societies were set up to the atheistic. They were also run by brutal sociopathic dictators. You don't need to shove it under the rug under "Well, they worshipped Stalin..." to defend Atheism. It seems cowardly to me.

[Lonewulf]

O....K.

That is some of the most tortured logic I have ever seen. And I've seen plenty.

Ah, so you're ignoring the point and pretending victory? Yes, tortured logic indeed. Oh, sorry, I was looking at your posts.

Have fun killing air marshals, Larsen. Ciao.

BTW, I'm glad to see you stopped PMing me. Shows that you can be a good boy, Larsen.

[arthwollipot]

This thread started off being interesting.

[Corsair 115]

The MAD doctrine, and the Massive Retaliation doctrine from 1954 in particular, ensured that, from the very beginning, enormous areas would be destroyed in case of war. But if one side has 500 bombs and the other side only 50, that means one side is going to be able to do far more damage to the other than that other can in return. The U.S. had a long history of overestimating Soviet capabilities.

But that's exactly what didn't happen. Instead, an insane arms race began. There have always been arms races. Take a look at what happened after WWI, the great powers (Britain, U.S., Japan, France, and Italy) were engaged in an arms race involving the superweapon of the day: the battleship. Each nation was planning to build more and more such ships, with each new proposed class showing an increase in size, armour, and armament. It was only the realization that such an arms race would prove ruinous to their respective economies that they all agreed to sit down and negotiate a treaty limiting what each nation could build (the Washington Treaty).

Each Apollo mission was a huge leap. They went from Apollo 1 to Apollo 11 in two and a half years. There was originally a steady progression in how the missions were originally laid out. First, test the CM on Apollo 7. Apollo 8 and 9 would add the LM and test it in Earth orbit. Apollo 10 would go to the Moon and test the LM in lunar orbit. Apollo 11 would then be a landing attempt.

But problems deveoping the LM meant the original mission for Apollo 8 was going to be delayed from its planned Dec. 1968 launch to Feb. 1969, which would have then similarly delayed all the following missions.

It was against this backdrop that the decision was made to radically break with that incremental plan and send Apollo 8 to lunar orbit without an LM. That was a bold and risky decision since the LM was always regarded as a safety margin for the CM crew as it could function as a lifeboat of sorts (and which it ended up doing on Apollo 13).

Thereby destroying the claim that the space program was due to the cold war.There's a big difference between individuals engaged in rockety research and a large, well-financed government program wouldn't you say?

[CFLarsen]

But if one side has 500 bombs and the other side only 50, that means one side is going to be able to do far more damage to the other than that other can in return. The U.S. had a long history of overestimating Soviet capabilities.

Again, you can do an awful lot of damage with 50 nukes. Even if only 4-5 make it through the defense, you still end up with no London, Paris, Rome or Berlin.

There have always been arms races. Take a look at what happened after WWI, the great powers (Britain, U.S., Japan, France, and Italy) were engaged in an arms race involving the superweapon of the day: the battleship. Each nation was planning to build more and more such ships, with each new proposed class showing an increase in size, armour, and armament. It was only the realization that such an arms race would prove ruinous to their respective economies that they all agreed to sit down and negotiate a treaty limiting what each nation could build (the Washington Treaty).

Battleships are hardly comparable to the damage nukes can do.

There was originally a steady progression in how the missions were originally laid out. First, test the CM on Apollo 7. Apollo 8 and 9 would add the LM and test it in Earth orbit. Apollo 10 would go to the Moon and test the LM in lunar orbit. Apollo 11 would then be a landing attempt.

But problems deveoping the LM meant the original mission for Apollo 8 was going to be delayed from its planned Dec. 1968 launch to Feb. 1969, which would have then similarly delayed all the following missions.

It was against this backdrop that the decision was made to radically break with that incremental plan and send Apollo 8 to lunar orbit without an LM. That was a bold and risky decision since the LM was always regarded as a safety margin for the CM crew as it could function as a lifeboat of sorts (and which it ended up doing on Apollo 13).

Every step of the way, they took risks, as Apollo 1 so tragically reminds us of.

There's a big difference between individuals engaged in rockety research and a large, well-financed government program wouldn't you say?

Didn't Braun get his expertise from a large, well-financed Nazi government program?

[Lonewulf]

But if one side has 500 bombs and the other side only 50, that means one side is going to be able to do far more damage to the other than that other can in return. The U.S. had a long history of overestimating Soviet capabilities.

As long as you two are talking about nuclear holocaust and stuff, perhaps you should read this:

http://www.ki4u.com/free_book/s73p912.htm

It is very informative.

Overall, though, a nuclear war is not, and was never, a desirable thing. It would cripple anyone that fought it, even if it wasn't quite the doomsday device as everyone thought at the time.

That's not to mention aftereffects, including those that would refuse to travel (out of fear of radiation poisoning) to deliver necessities such as food. Without transportation, many more people would die.