You might enjoy the other "Laws," too...
http://www.plusaf.com/falklaws.htm

:) Thanks, Fred... I think the 'at worst' comment might be one of the nicest compliments (?) I've recently received... :) I think.

To your question of 'chance'... um, no, I don't 'believe in chance' at all. With my engineering and math background, I can look at events that have happened and see that there might be statistical probabilities of their having happened that way or not, and the math may, again, predict the PROBABILITY (not 'chance, per se) of a recurrence, given similar 'initial conditions.'

Some of the examples of 'math in our world,' such as the common occurrence of Fibonacci Series numbers in architecture and plants... well, I don't have a problem thinking that there is or was some 'survival value' or benefit to plants that evolved to include those ratios... the more successful ones squoze out the less successful ones that happened (by chance or random mutation) to have been 'born' with sub-optimal arrangements. e.g., the sunflower and pine cone examples. When things 'pack better' or 'fit better' they might have a better chance of surviving and reproducing. I do not require a Guiding Hand or External Force to have set those wheels in motion.

The Golden Mean in architecture dates back to probably Greek and Roman times and turns out to be a common facet of 'what looks nice to humans.' Ratios of width and height for the Parthenon, for example.

I have trouble connecting the ratio with a claim or belief that Someone Made Humans Find That Aspect Ratio to be Beautiful.

One of the other Creationy examples I've heard is that EVERYTHING is what it is and where it is because a Supreme Being Put It There.

In the end, I prefer to examine the Predictive Value of laws, theories or beliefs. If you can't start with TODAY and make a prediction that can be tested some time in the future for its accuracy, I have trouble putting much value onto such predictions.

I have no trouble 'believing' that the bible was written as a kind of guidebook for social and cultural interactions between humans in order to try to maintain stability and predictability for human societies, tribes and cultures.

I consider that the whole "God Layer" laid on top of it isn't necessary or all that helpful, on average.

"Evolution could just be just the form that creationism took"?? Well, may I accuse that statement of being circular, or at least self-referential? :)

Sort of like something I said some years ago...

"I am God. I created the Universe and Everything In it.... I think it was last Thursday.
Yep, I created ALL of your memories and beliefs that you have. I put everything in place to make it look EXACTLY as if all historical events really occurred, though none of it happened before last Thursday.
And there's no real way you can prove that my assertion is wrong! ANYTHING you assert will be responded to by me with the simple answer, "Yep, I Created That, Too."
At which point, I have opened myself to a mass of anger and insults from myriad people who would either disagree with me or blame ME for all of the Evil and Bad Things they 'think' they've ever seen.

So, actually, I lied. I did NOT Create Everything. I am NOT God. He's actually a neighbor of mine who used to live up the road from me in New Jersey. And, dammit, I forget his name. So go find him and pick on Him. He did it. To Everyone.

And there is NO WAY anyone can prove my claim/assertion wrong.

Which makes it, imnsho, to me, exactly as 'useful' as attributing anything OR 'everything' to God (or a god.) No predictive value and purely circular 'proof' of anything in the past.

But I DO love the way more and more theories keep coming up about 'how it all got here' and I love it when the theories describe ways to measure the accuracy of their 'forecasts' of future tests and proofs, AND that theories get changed, proven or thrown out as the result of new measurements or discoveries down the road.

Some of Einstein's theories took decades to verify... OR to prove inaccurate, too!

And thank YOU, too, for the polite conversation. On subjects like these, I rarely experience them.

Just like politics, religion and economics... :)
plusaf@plusaf.com

Thanks, Fred. I sort of touched on that with my 27th "Law"... http://www.plusaf.com/falklaws.htm#27th :
"Faith = Any strongly held belief, especially in the absence of proof."

When a discussion ends up with "I know it's true [that God exists, or whatever...] BECAUSE I know that it's true that [repeat]," that's what I call circular, no matter what Wiktionary might say.

I think that for many atheists, the "I believe that the bible is God's word because the bible says it's God's word" or similar words to that effect, is what we're trying to say about religion and circular reasoning.

In a similar vein, arguing for God's role in Creation from a position of "everything is so complex [or perfect or whatever] that a Creator MUST have been involved" is, imnsho, circular, too.

I think of myself as, amongst other things, a scientist/engineer. We're taught and trained that observation of events is critical to 'truth and understanding.'

Since it's been (so far) impossible to 'observe' the "creation event" or the 'start of the universe,' any and every theory is just that: a theory.

From the engineering/scientific point of reference, if a theory has some predictive value (ie, accuracy,) that can be TESTED, then it may evolve into a Law that accurately describes what is expected to happen in the future if the specified conditions of the theory are in place.

While 'science' is still collecting information and observations of events closer and closer to 'the creation moment,' there's no testable theory or collection of observations anywhere that fully and clearly describe ALL of the observed phenomena we're able to 'detect' NOW. Let alone explain the stuff we don't have explanations for yet, either!

Now, on a point by point basis, few atheists campaign to prevent religious folks from 'practicing their faith,' UNLESS that 'practice' crosses the line of becoming intrusive into the lives or practices or beliefs of OTHERS who don't SHARE those beliefs.

I think Christmas trees are gorgeous. I make some turned ornaments for friends and neighbors and gift them in mid-December. I put lights around the front of our home when I can. I love the parties and festivities.

But when any religious group crosses 'my bright red line' of "this is the only way to do it" or "ours is the right way and yours isn't" I will argue and protest against their intrusion into OTHER people's lives and beliefs.

The proverbial "your space extends as far as my nose or my toes, whichever stick out the furthest." Many religious people of various groups cross that line regularly and intrusively and I oppose that. But I never tell anyone to 'not believe what they believe.'

Of course, if they're also open to being questioned about their beliefs, I still love that as an indoor or online sport.

Cheers!

Yes I know you did not bring it up. If you think about it, atheists can 't do the asserting.

c'mon, k... it was an opportunistic opening for a traditional punch line... chill! Some bait, when dangled, is irresistible!

ps... After The Rapture, can I have your car?

Thanks, Fred, but it's more fun in public... :)
While some atheists may 'proselytize' their 'belief' (wait.. is that an oxymoron?), there are certainly many religious folks of all kinds of flavors that do the same. That's where my 13th "Law" came from.

Sure, some atheists may be overbearing or claim that 'their belief is the only right one,' but that's certainly true of Believers and proselytizers of several of the world's 'major religions,' too!

I don't ever claim that any religion is 'wrong.' I don't know if their beliefs are correct or not, and for most of the litany, neither I nor anyone else might ever find out until we die, and ... bummer that it is, so far... we really haven't gotten any really good 'letters from beyond' to clearly prove or disprove any post-life 'realities' either!

Personally, I think THAT 'jury will be out' forever.

On the other hand, one of my favorite indoor sports is to ask Believers to try to offer REAL 'proof' that their beliefs are grounded in any kind of reality. Maybe it's my engineering training. Maybe it's genetics. I don't know.

But when Believers use circular 'reasoning' to 'prove' they're 'right' and seem to be unable to understand that their 'reasoning' IS circular, it just becomes an amusing pastime for me.

Some years back, some folks came to my door ... three adults and a young child, maybe of ten or so years.

They started a discussion with me about religion and I engaged them in a very pleasant conversation for something close to an hour! It was delightful!

And after about 45 minutes or less, they asked one of the adults to take the young child out of earshot of the conversation. <big grin>

And then they took their leave and went down the block to someone else's house.

Pisses me off that I don't sit down and write some kind of book about it, though I do have several themes in mind.

Cheers!

Hey, Fred... it's just a stereotype expectation, but keep in mind..
http://www.plusaf.com/falklaws.htm#13th

There's a great history and track record of that kind of nonsense appearing, so just live with it.
:)
and ps... i'm an atheist, and no, it's not a 'religion.' Unless, of course, you're a Believer AND your 'definition of religion' is designed to include atheism, large or small 'A.'
:))))

makes as much sense as anything the MSM has had to say about the disappearance so far! :)

It is all speculation, until they recover the "black boxes" (CVR, FDR).

Just like Air France 447, a few years back, you know?

Obviously, the writer is unaware of what it takes to sell NEWS! Facts be damned! We don't want no stinkin' facts!
Look at the CNN coverage if you really want to turn your stomach.
Finally, regardless of what is eventually uncovered...Hollywierd will still manage to screw the story up while making a movie out of it (for which, none of the grieving families will receive a dime).

An earlier writer spoke of pre-programmed flight plans which would take a pilot to an emergency closer landing field in the event he was having trouble. I meant to say that he could have several such pre-programmed flight plans for use, if needed, along his basic flight path to Beijing.

Jim W.

hey, fred.
atheism is not a religion. I don't know why rapture had to make its way into the conversation. I am very worried for all of those passengers and their families...

The plane made the U-turn 6-12 minutes BEFORE the "good night" call to air traffic control. One would think that if the pilot were choking on smoke, he would have said something other than good night.

One simple fact that disproves the fire theory And makes it almost certain that the disappearance was a deliberate act of foul play.

Hmm, the timeline does not fit, unless the Malaysians botched that two. Is this the convenient accident? ACARS goes out, transponder goes out, comms goes out. They communicated between ACARS and Transponder going out. Could it be the timeline is wrong? Maybe. If so, did they climb to 45,000 feet in order to activate the air masks? Can air masks be activated by a switch or does it take conditions..and...nor..or. Maybe this all happened and the pilots fought the good fight until the end. Is this why they went down to 5,000 feet? To get oxygen. Maybe someone opened the emergency door. Maybe the smoke was not only in the cabin but passenger section. This is becoming a cruel mystery. Could it be that the Malaysian ATC was in contact throughout until the pilots loss consciousness? Maybe the simple scenario is the answer.

I know that wishing is not a Galtish endeavor, but it would make me well pleased if those airline passengers had formed their own Galt's Gulch. After all, there were enough semiconductor engineers on board that maybe ...