OGTEleven

I am personally aware of a few companies hiriing "bloggers" to write "opinions" and to "report" on products (especially new ones) from their competition. They will write things like "We hear that XYZ company can't get product ABC to connect to their network", or "bechmarks indicate severe performance degradation with a workload over x level." The rep for the hiring company will then go into an account and say "I saw in a blog that my competition's product is failing; you might want to check out this link". The connection between the company and the blogger is typically difficult to trace or prove. The "facts" in the blog are completely and totally made up. These companies are taking advantage of the perceived neutrality of blogs. In truth, they are writing the false blogs themselves. This is being done by at least one comapny whose sales force has a reputation as less than credible. Pointing to a random blogger actually tends to bolster thier credibility (how sad is that?). Part of me says this should be a buyer beware scenario, but the practice of hiring "bloggers" like this is certainly unethical to say the least. I don't know if it is illegal, but I think it probably should be.

Here he protests that other people misrepresent how atheists feel about life. His main argument is to misrepresent how religious people feel about life and its meaning. I'm sure there are people both atheist and religious that feel life is meaningless. I have not personally met either. I can't remember ever reading or hearing a religious person say that atheists believe life is meaningless. Maybe I missed all the prejudice on this one. Again I'm not sure I have ever heard anyone say that atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history. But again he turns the argument 180 degrees. He seems to be trying to say is that horrible acts that were committed by atheists were committed because those atheists got too religious. How would future atheists avoids this fate? He says that there is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable. He fails to give an example of any human society that was ever reasonable. He doesn't even try to show that human nature will allow it. I contend, but cannot prove, that if all religion were forgotten tomorrow that other reasons would quickly pop up to justify cruel acts. This is not meant to pin it on atheism at all, but no one should pretend that atheism could solve these woes. The bolded part is a misrepresentation and he has to know it. If he used the word "some" he could get away with it. If he is so adept with logic, why would he need to resort to wild generalizations like that? Is he really saying all atheists have given complete thought to their position? All atheists have read the Koran and the Bible? Really? As for Roberts, his observation dismisses the many similarities in the world's great religions (by great I mean large, not terrific). If some scientists believe Mars has water and some believe it does not, I would not conclude that scientists are actually skeptical regarding the existence of Mars. To agree on a topic do we have to agree on every single component? I don't have any argument with him here but I'm not sure the point he wants to prove. Did he really end a sentence with "is"? I have never heard anyone make the claim that atheism is incompatible with science. I would have to ask what he means by connection to decide whether or not I agree. The bolded part is absolutely absurd. I believe in God. I am fully and completely aware that I do not know that he exists. 100%. Personally, I am glad that I do not know and hope to never know (until I die). Some people claim to know but not all religious people make that claim. If his arguments are so strong, why must he make false claims about others? As for humility and arrogance, I think all people claiming to be humble are arrogant. That goes for atheists and religious people. I have heard people claim that atheists are arrogant and have probably made that claim myself. For me it is derived from the definition of atheism which has a connotation of certainty. With certainty (on any topic) comes arrogance. I don't think atheists are closed to things like love, awe, etc; but I wonder what they think about it. I think the concept of free will is incompatible with atheism. If atheism is correct then everything can be explained by science, even if we don't understand all the aspects of science at present. We may perceive free will, love, joy and other emotions but they cannot be real. This goes especially for free will. These things would merely be the results of chemical and molecular reactions that are predicatable and unstoppable. I believe that atheists can experience love, but I'm not sure how an atheist can believe this. I watched a few of the videos in the other thread and although Harris did not address free will in the ones I watched, he did appear to start at one point. He said something along the lines of "if you believe in free will" and sort of smirked. I don't know his opinion here. I don't think he really understands religion. He certainly does not understand all religious people. Of course there is immense beauty in the universe as a whole. There is also immense beauty in every individual being or thing in the universe. Is the beauty of the immense universe more or less than the beauty of a person thinking or a microbe clinging to life in adverse conditions or a rock? How can you quantify such things? I don't believe this market is cornered by the religious or the atheist. How are atheists going to convince people to help the poor? If we all become atheists will we all be magically wonderful? Religion has had a role in shaping society as has atheism (smaller). Human nature as a whole has a far greater role than either IMO. To refute the claim that atheism provides no basis for morality he attempts to demonstrate that religion does not provide a basis for morality. That can be argued, but even if you say religion provides no basis whatsoever for morality and has not at any time in history, he has still done nothing to say that atheism does. He does not even appear to be trying to refute the original claim (which he made up to begin with ). I'm supposed to respect this guy's use of logic? Really?

I sure don't know about that. As you may have guessed, I'm not a big fan but my comment comes not from a disagreement with his beliefs rather from his misuse of logic. Based on the original post in this thread, I would rather be on the other side of a debate than be on Harris' team, regardless of topic. It is too long to get into now but I'll post a reply to the list when I'm able.

Agreed Not agreed. At least not completely. Of course each individual religion is made up by man. Most would even admit it to some extent. Religions have also been used widely as excuses for violence and other inexcusable acts by both individuals and groups. But religion has also been used to curb acts of violence and inexcusable acts. It has definitely helped to instill a sense of morality in many people over several centuries. Weighing the good and bad is an impossible task. Personally I think the good outweighs the bad but can understand why others disagree. The only way to know for sure would be to have alternate realities with and without religion. Religions often speak of ones personal relationship with God. IMO, people can have this whether they "belong" to a formal religion or not, but the individual's perception of God in a direct manner is most important. The formality of the religion can be used in a positive or negative way for large groups. To me, critics of religion focus on the bad that has come while zealots focus on the good and demonize the critics. Both miss the point that the group is far less important than the individual. To me ID is a defense (a bad one and in most cases misplaced but a defense nonetheless). I do not think it belongs in a classroom but also don't think that over-interpretaion of Darwinism belongs. I have been in long arguments about that topic here and in the end always had to agree to disagree. I am of the opinion that some who adhere to the theory of evolution see it as proof that God is a myth (not all). It is most definitely used as a mechanism to mock religion and Christianity in particular. Much like Christians using the Bible to justify violence I think some Darwinists have misunderstood their own theory. I don't know why any religion should be expected to be perfect more than any scientific theory should. I can understand being frustrated with people that interpret it as perfect or even a sects claims of its perfection but if you're waiting for the perfect religion or perfect unified scientific theory, you're going to be waiting a while. I think organized religion has a place to help be a set of guideposts. There can be many routes to the same destination. To me, the utility in organized religion is similar to the utility of scientific publications. You would not expect an idividual to come up with theories on evolution, quantum mechanics, etc. etc. on their own. What others have learned can help give a scientists a head start and guideposts. Religious teachings can be used in a similar way. Both science and religion can be used in dangerous ways either accidentally or purposefully. I don't think people can make themselves believe in something nor should they try. They also shouldn't close off avenues which may result in belief. I agree that it is interesting but strongly believe (not know, believe) that I have free will. It is one of the coponents for me believing in God because I believe without God there simply cannot be free will. Maybe it's only a perception. Who knows? Almost completely off topic the one paranormal anamoly I find most strange is people nearly dying and seeing the lighted tunnel. To me it does not jive with God or with atheism. If there is a God why would he not be able to erase the dying person's memory of the event? Would God not know the person was going to live through the episode? If there is no God why would the brain need to play tricks on itself? Wouldn't it have better things to do while trying to avoid death?

I'll make no judgments about your atheism or how it impacts you but I do have a few questions and disagreements. My disagreements mainly lie in religion being the cause of so many problems. While I'll agree that religion is often (not always) used as the justification, it is not used as the cause (at least not in my view). If someone has a goal and it involves killing someone to achieve it, the would be killer will always look for justification because killing is seen as wrong by most every person. I will grant you that religion is often a convenient justification, but that does not mean another can't be found. History has demonstrated this. A lot of conservatives call environmentalism a "religion". I can partially agree with that. Environmentalism has also been used as an excuse for violence. This does not make environmentalism itself pointless or wrong. If religion, environmentalism, and all the modern excuses for violence were wiped from Earth tomorrow and erased from everyone's memory banks, my bet is that new excuses would pop up very quickly. I also disagree (partially) with your opinion on the intelligent design crowd. I do see it as a very weak argument but also see it as having been spawned by a relentless attack on religion. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive yet many "religious people" and "evolutionists" see them as so. The word and description of God has been under scrutiny for several decades when used in schools and public places. Personally, I see an agenda being driven by the left toward that goal and a defense by the right. There is a wide area for disagreement here and I understand that. It's just the way I see it. I understand what you wrote above and am not trying to analyze you (you told me not to) but am curious about something. You explain how you became agnostic. I undestand that. You stated that the intelligent design crowd pushed you to be "more than just agnostic". That could mean that you're agnostic and really annoyed with religions and/or that you not only have doubts about God but are certain there is no God. Which is it? My question only applies if you're truly an atheist (you're sure God does not exist). If so, are you equally sure that free will is merely an illusion. The radio piece implied this on a small scale saying that decisions were impacted. It did not go so far as to say decisions were an illusion. It did reference a book that appeared to make that case. I wonder if that book's author thinks he chose to write it in the first place. By extension, if free will is an illusion what is real? Emotion? Consciousness? Or is it only matter and energy? I certainly agree that religion is supernatural. I'm pretty sure the Pope would agree too. Different people define irrational in different ways so I'm not sure what to say about that.

I'm not sure why, but I always seem to get drawn into this type of discussion. For the sake of disclosure I believe in God and even in a particular God. Although I disagree, I can understand how atheists come to some of their conclusions. I fully understand that my belief in God is a belief, and not knowledge. I watched the first Dawkins video which is interesting but does not seem to me to address God at all (despite its title). My major question for atheists is why so many of them seem to believe in and assert the concept of free will. To me, if there is no God, free will along with many other concepts becomes a mere perception, not a reality. We'd all have to be a collection of atoms which are behaving in predictable manner the way atoms do. It may not be predictable by us, but it has to be predictable. If it is, our fates are all pre-determined and free will is an illusion. I see and hear many atheists espousing all sorts of concepts but pre-determination is not one of them and certainly not the primary notion. Dawkins in his video talks about how we can or should approach viewing the world; what we may be able to do better train ourselves as a species to evolve outside Middle World, and several other seemingly noble tasks, but he never throws up his arms and says we can't help ourselves. How can free will truly exist in his world? I would guess a vast majority of believers and non-believers in God believe in free will. To me this belief is more compatible with God than with no God. If an atheist argues pre-determination, his argument holds more water. There are billions of people who believe in God and probably not two who believe in exactly the same thing. One of the strongest facets of my belief is that if God were good at his job, he would make himself unprovable (Thanks God). If he walked down the street saving everyone from oncoming buses, what would be the point? The thought that religion is the major cause for global strife and violence is odd to me. It has certainly played a role in history, but if we all magically became atheists tomorrow I see very little chance of violence disappearing. There are plenty of examples of violence (mass and individual) that have nothing to do with religion. If you're looking for a core reason for war, persecution, holocaust, and other ugliness I'd suggest blaming human nature, not religion. Religion has certainly served as an excuse, but excuses are a dime a dozen and easily replaced.

Posted back up at the top.

2. WRONG!!!!!! 3. WRONG!!!!! and double WRONG!!!!!! 4. Jauron has an ass? WRONG!!!!! 5. Why is EVERYONE all over Schobel? WRONG!!!!!!!

Dear Beerball, Here are your answers As for Meryl......yuck.

The thread is dying. Last chance before I post the CORRECT answers.

2. WRONG!!!!! 3. I have offered no opinion of fantasy baseball's value and expect no opinions in the replies. I expect answers. WRONG!!!!!! 4. Fantasy baseball is wasting time but betting on football is productive? WRONG!!!!!! 5. WRONG!!!!!!

Hints for the rest: 2. We all know Martina McBride is still the hottest female but there are many ways to be hot. 3. The best answer so far was given by NDIrish1978 4. It does not involve sex or beeging your wife in any way. 5. No hints required.

1. Just when I start feeling bad that DC Tom calls you an idiot all day in that new feature, you go an answer an already answered question. AND QUOTE IT ANSWER and all. WRONG!!!!!! 2. The question about hideous tattoos is in a future McLaughlin poll so WRONG!!!!!! 3. Yankees Yankees Yankees. WRONG!!!!!! 4. a 36 point loss is lucky? WRONG!!!!!!! 5. WRONG!!!!!!

1. Done 2. Strangely, your answer souonds close to half of the correct answer. WRONG!!!!! 3. WRONG!!!!!!! 4. He did? That would be "Get Unlucky" WRONG!!!!! 5. WRONG!!!!!!

Your answer could have been worse. You could have said Tila Tequila. WRONG!!!!!!!! That is a better answer than any other given yet. It is WRONG!!!!! Perhaps you don't understand this game. In this game, the moderator insults the participants. It is not the other way around. WRONG!!!!!!! Aaron Maybin's sack total will not be James Hardy so WRONG!!!!!

You are indeed smarter than you look. I looked it up on Goggle expecting to see Bea Arthur. Although slightly better, WRONG!!!!! He is way down the list. WRONG!!!!!! WRONG!!!!! At least you invoked nature where so many others have invoked begging and crying. 30 seconds later and still smarter than you look. Impressive. Not even a Penn State guy can be that bad. WRONG!!!!!

1. Already answered WRONG!!!! 2. Yes 2nd place. Behind the obvious first place. WRONG!!!!!!! 3. WRONG!!!!!! And I don't care where your hands are when you're thinking of Albert Pujols. (I hate to steal from one of my own old jokes but couldn't resist. I think the first time it was about Faith Hill at least.) 4. Oooh. Good try. WRONG!!!!!!!! 5. This is not a trick question. WRONG!!!!!

1. Already answered. WRONG!!!!!! 2. It's a board full of kiss-ups. WRONG!!!!!!! 3. I never knew Madonna's initials were "KRC" WRONG!!!!!!!!! 4. Is that an opinion, a statement of fact or an attempt at an answer? WRONG!!!!!! 5. WRONG!!!!!!!

1. CORRECT. I will modify the original. 2. Have you EVER watched this show??????? WRONG!!!!!! 3. Well at least you didn't say Pujols. WRONG!!!!! 4. Everyone? On this site? Have you seen us? WRONG!!!!! 5. I like that number. I really do. WRONG!!!!!

1. "A" for imagination "W" for WRONG!!!!!!! 2. I swear we've been through this. WRONG!!!!!!! 3. It seems unanimous. Unanimously WRONG!!!!!! 4. 14 seconds is my limit for trying to think of a witty response for a ridiculous answer so WRONG!!!!!!!! 5. I know he is smallish for a DE but even he has to eat more than 6 grocery trips worth in a season. WRONG!!!!!

Beerball, Please answer in a format which allows me to reply to you without being a programmer. This is the last time I will say please. To summarize: WRONG!!!!!!! especially about #4.

Good guess but I think they cut that guy. WRONG!!!!!!! Be specific. WRONG!!!!!!!! There are two of them. Which one did you mean? Oh, never mind. I'll answer individually. WRONG!!!!!!! and WRONG!!!!!!! Maybe he will be, maybe he won't be. WRONG!!!!!!! I already did. WRONG!!!! Right about Fridays WRONG!!!!!!! about the rest.

1. The first answer to the first question of the poll is down on the Bills????? WRONG!!!!!! There will be good plays (well, at least one). 2. Please apologize to her as I say WRONG!!!!!!!!! Once she knows the right answer even she will understand. 3. He still plays. WRONG!!!!!!! 4. 5. WRONG!!!!!

I haven't been around too much but the season is about to kick off and I figured it was time for a McLaughlin. In case you don't know or forgot the rules, I will ask 5 questions. Reply with your answer to each. I will let you know whether you are right or WRONG!!!! in the style of the old McLaighlin group parody from SNL. I will try to be extra insulting. To keep it up to date this time, once someone gets an answer correct I will edit the orginal entry and include the answer. You can then just skip it. Here are the 5 questions: 1. Which Bill will make the biggest play (good play) on Monday night? EDIT: Answer McKelvin. Credit: Silvermike 2. Outside of McLaughlin's obvious choice from old polls and still reigning champ, who is currently the hottest female on the planet? The racehorse Rachel Alexandra. She defines awesome. 3. If you participate in fantasy baseball and you prepare properly, the same player should have topped your draft list for the past 5 years or so. Who is that player? David Aardsma (That should have been so easy) 4. September 14th and into the 15th will be "Get Lucky" day. Why? Mark Knopfler's new CD "Get Lucky" will be released (sort of tough I know but there are hints all over old McLaughlins, my sigs and avatar) Former 5. The last question was going to be "If this Bill makes the Pro Bowl in 2009 it will be the best possible news for our prospects as a team." Trent Edwards was not going to be an eligible answer since he was too obvious as a QB. The answer was going to be D. Bell. That answer became too easy yesterday (Thanks Brandon for screwing up my poll). Official question 5. How many sacks will Aaron Maybin record in 2009? 6.5

Knopfler may have dropped off the radar but he is still on the map. Dire Straits is no more, but MK has put out several outstanding solo efforts along with an album of duets with Emmylou Harris. I'd say that they are the best of his career and that is coming from a huge Dire Straits fan. It is impossible to say which guitarist is the best because so much of it is personal preference. IMO, it is almost as hard to say whether someone is underrated or overrated as a guitarist once they get to a high level of recognition. Personally I think Knopfler is very underappreciated. I think people recognize how well he can play a guitar. What is not always seen is how well he fits his guitar within the framework of a song. It is incredible. The way he uses his skill there is what I like most. You know at any time he can have his guitar take over a song, but on most he holds it back and leaves you waiting; especially as his career progresses. Early on songs like Sultans of Swing, Lady Writer and especially Telegraph Road have long and impresive solos. More recent stuff has fantastic guitar that threatens to break out into a solo, and sometimes does, but never totally overtakes a song. We can argue whether any guitarist at that level of fame is overrated or underrated, but one area of Knopfler's skill that is very, very underrated is his songwriting. He is incredibly well read and has songs that reflect this on a multitude of topics. He writes about wars, third world dictators, regular people, and interesting figures like Ray Kroc and Sonny Liston. He writes from the third person and the first person. "Boom, Like That" is written from Kroc's perspective and is a very unique and song. Everything fits in his songs, especially on his last few recordings. There are not really hard rock albums, although most have a song or two that remind you of DS. His latest album (about 18 months old) is "Kill To Get Crimson". My guess is if Bruce Springsteen had released this album that it would have won about 34 Grammys. Most people still think Knopfler is off the map. That's why I still say he is underrated as a guitarist but profoundly underrated as an overall musician.