Slashdot Mirror

"The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their validity." -Abraham Lincoln. Yes, pretty much. There are a lot of mischaracterization of Romney - a caricature developed by Kennedy, the MSM, Republican opponents and the Democrats that just isn't true. Obama believed the hype and got caught during his first face-to-face meeting.

As a believer I fully support the parent post.

The all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal, GOD that exists despite and beyond all human puny logic, puerile rationality, or drab stupidity doesn't give a shit about:
- non-belief and proselytizing (you'll know soon enough anyway)
- punishment (that's a human thing unworthy of GOD. GOD is not a sadist)
- sin (the concept of sin is an unneeded over-complication in addition to being mostly about politics. No one needs "sin" to differ right from wrong, those who can't make out the differences won't care either way)
- sexual preferences (all too human)
- muddled abstract concepts like love (marriage) or friendship (again this is just human distractions)
- whatever wrong and insane evil etc. is done to you or me (GOD is not a caricature of your mum)
- being adulated and praised (GOD is not some tacky superhero for us to cheer on)
- theology (making even less sense out of ideas embellished by human fancy beyond recognition)
- politics (again: GOD is not a sadist)

The human condition is likely fluff, with our lives also fluff, and if so then no matter how gruesome or nice your existence is it is only to set default states for what comes after: we do not matter yet. We are being randomized, and it ought to be fucking obvious.

GOD is both the source and more than everything we know of and most religious people don't get it in the slightest and don't grasp any of the consequences.

And fuck islam and all other manipulative non-voluntary political ideologies. Hell fuck most of humanity since we're all assholes anyway but then again a lot of us at least try to be civil or even kind about it (and that's fucking awesome, well done to you).

You seem to grasp at straws more so than the caricatures you try to fight against. How quixotic, since it is so easy to stick simple economic arguments against space exploration instead of latching on to any baseless statement you come across.

The most ironic thing is that atheism has become the new hate.

It's a fairly common character weakness to want to blame the world's ills on some "other" - on a group of faceless caricatures who differ from the "us" in some arbitrary way. The world's ills are the fault of the black, the jew, the brown immigrant, the arab, the gay, the muslim, the theist and/or THE ATHIEST

FTFY.

I guess Formula one is the same as a commuter car.

You sound like a caricature of a 1%er. "The elite can do it, why can't you? You are just lazy if you don't do X stupid, inefficient, undesirable thing."

Ayn Rand would be among the first to not only shut the telescope down, but strong arm the scrap metal contract for profit.

You're probably right, but my point was that nobody in this thread was Ayn Rand, despite all of the people jumping on the OP like he was.
  One good way to tell if someone's a kook is if they post knee-jerk responses to their vaguely understood notions of beliefs that they've imagined another poster must hold, based on some word or phrase that sets them off, rather than responding to things he actually said in a sensible manner.
  Few of the responses gave him any benefit of the doubt, but instead jumped straightaway to the conclusion that he was this anti-government Randroid caricature, based on.... almost nothing at all, actually.

It's a fairly common character weakness to want to blame the world's ills on some "other" - on a group of faceless caricatures who differ from the "us" in some arbitrary way. The world's ills are the fault of the black, the jew, the brown immigrant, the arab, the gay, the muslim, the theist.

I suppose if you amplify what I was trying to say to 100%, total, fanatical "screech" you might conclude that. I thought the point I was making, packed full of caveats as it was, was more qualified and moderate. But I take your point, you caught a whiff of something you didn't like and decided to talk to that caricature rather than me. *yawn*

Any caricature is bound to be inaccurate to actual individuals contained within it. Yes, I read Slashdot, yes, I run Linux - typing this on that right now, and yes, sitting right next to me is my other machine which is running Windows 7. Linux is for everything but games, and Windows 7 is for games. I also happen to have an aesthetic streak and like my systems to look good. Custom Xfce theme that looks good on Linux and Aero looks good on Windows 7. I don't fit into the "slashdotter" mold that you have roughly sketched out in your own mind.

You need to stop basing your views on sitcom caricatures.

You're just a cowardly insecure little bitch who didn't know life was going to be this way

Is his job a joke? Is his love-life DOA?

You need to stop basing your views on sitcom caricatures.

Yes, China really is just communist in name only.

You need to stop basing your views on sitcom caricatures.

Never, ever contributing anything. Always showing up out of nowhere to make some cowardly one-liner hit-and-run attack. Without ever, EVER putting forth your own "superior" view, of course, naturally. You have none.

You're just a cowardly insecure little bitch who didn't know life was going to be this way, a little nothing trying to feel like somebody, and you haven't the slightest decency or else you would let that just be your problem. But no, you have to try and get your jollies by taking cheap shots on the Internet so you can pat yourself on the back for how clever you are. What a pathetic little man you are.

I am so glad I am not you.

You need to stop basing your views on sitcom caricatures.

Fox News?

You need to stop basing your views on sitcom caricatures.

Why even bother to post that? iOS device users DO NOT read reviews of anything ever.

Well, since we're painting stupid caricatures of large groups of people: Android Fans don't actually like their phones, they just want not-Apple devices. And the high adoption rate is because of their legendary hatred born from seeing a guy with a better haircut than them saying he loves his phone, lol

Small minded? No, that would be you and the GP. His point is, if stereotyping and pigeonholing are so evil, why does someone on the Left engage in the very thing the democrats supposedly rail against? Caricaturization of human beings is the first desensitizing step away from reality, . Moot point though, the mods took care of it.

Telling your children that Zokooloo's categorically don't exist is lying to them...Riiiight.

More correctly, you would be lying, since in your mind, there is a non zero probability that Zokooloos exist.

And - Protip #1: if you want to dispute a point , it's a good idea to actually make an argument.

Your caricature of deities as zookoloos and teapots is amusing, but not any more convincing

Why? What is the difference? Would you care to share why a Zokooloo cannot be god? All I have is your assertion but no proof of the same.

We just went over that. Have you forgotten? Short term memory loss? Here it is again:

It's a strawman. The wikipedia page on reductio ad absurdum helpfully contains a section on strawmen - since the latter is often mistaken for the former - as you have done. To quote: An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition. For example: A:We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch B:Do you want our children to starve?

Protip #2: It is terribly bad form to ignore what your opponent says and then later pretend that nothing was said.

Keep in mind that despite your assertion to the contrary, god is a thought experiment. Some time in the past, someone just made up the idea to explain stuff that they couldn't otherwise explain. Like lighting, wind and fire. They made it up. Just like I postulated the Zokooloo.

Well, thanks for taking the time to repeat some of the key doctrines of atheism. Do they come in magazine form? I'd like to add them to the pile of literature I got from the Jehovahs Witnesses.

It's up to you show me why your god is more of a realistic concept than my Zokooloo.

And who is "my god"?

Show working.

Your caricature of deities as zookoloos and teapots is amusing, but not any more convincing

Why? What is the difference? Would you care to share why a Zokooloo cannot be god? All I have is your assertion but no proof of the same.

Keep in mind that despite your assertion to the contrary, god is a thought experiment. Some time in the past, someone just made up the idea to explain stuff that they couldn't otherwise explain. Like lighting, wind and fire. They made it up. Just like I postulated the Zokooloo.

It's up to you show me why your god is more of a realistic concept than my Zokooloo.

Basically you'd tell your kids to entertain the idea that there's a teapot between mars and jupiter. Or in fact there might be an entire GALAXY of teapots living somewhere. Hey, it's a strange universe right?

You are mistaken. I'll repeat what I said again: I would continue to give the answer I gave before - that whilst possible, non-empirical analysis indicates that it is unlikely, and hence I believe that the teapot does not exist. I would NOT state an assertion as proved empirically unless it actually was. You, apparently, would. Even though you freely admit that it is possible that the teapot exists (although you believe it does not) you would choose to tell your child in empirical terms that it does not, without identifying this as a belief. This is a process commonly called indoctrination.

You're mistaken that this is a proof by induction. It's a proof by reductio ad absurdum. Take your logic to the extreme and see the stupid consequences that ensue. Much like the technique commonly used in math to prove that root 2 is irrational.

It's a strawman. The wikipedia page on reductio ad absurdum helpfully contains a section on strawmen - since the latter is often mistaken for the former - as you have done. To quote:

An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition. For example:

A:We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch

B:Do you want our children to starve?

Your caricature of deities as zookoloos and teapots is amusing, but not any more convincing than the proposition that war era posters depicting germans as sub humans proves that germans are inferior. Or, more accurately, attempting to prove that Reindeers don't exist, based on the generally held view that Donner and Blitzen don't exist.

As noted, it is possible, however to use a thought experiment to test the validity of claiming to rationally hold a view on the existence (or non-existence) of any deities without providing a proof for that assertion:

y Does y=x?

What is you answer?

Whether or not I made up the Zokooloo as a thought experiment is irrelevant because it might coincidentally also exist! Who are you to rule out the existence of my Zokooloo without proof to the contrary?

So you worry that Zokooloo's might exist. Good for you. As for myself, I tend to believe that they don't.

Ergo, when your child asks you if Zokooloo's exist, you will have to tell her "Well, it's unlikely. But hey it's a strange universe! There might be a zokooloo in your bedroom right now that will be completely undetectable once you try and observe it.". Nice parenting.

Actually, I would choose honesty.

Whereas, apparently, you would lie by saying definitively that it doesn't exist even though you secretly think that it might. Why is that? Are you afraid your fellow atheists might treat this as a sin and shun you?

I think your view of the intelligence of children is terribly distorted. You also appear to have completely misunderstood the role of a parent. Here's what I think: It's not your role to berate your children for being whimisical. Nor, if they ask a question should you either lie out of fear or shut them down. Your job is to (a) encourage flights of fancy, these are important for cognitive development and a sign of intelligence not a lack thereof (b) be honest (c) Acknowledge their innate right to believe whatever they want to. You want your children to share you beliefs in atheism, you fear that they will reject it. Now is the time to recognise that they will choose whatever belief they want, or even non belief (agnosticism).

The moral of the story is, that if you think "liberals think this and conservatives think that"

I never talk about what they "think" .. that is the height of arrogance.

I talk about what they do and have done.