Why Some People Think Total Nonsense Is Really Deep (washingtonpost.com)

Earthquake Retrofit writes: The Washington Post has a story about Gordon Pennycook, a doctorate student at the University of Waterloo who studies why some people are more easily duped than others. "Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena" was one of many randomly generated sentences Pennycook, along with a team of researchers at the University of Waterloo, used in a new, four-part study (PDF) put together to gauge how receptive people are to nonsense.

Those more receptive to bull**** are less reflective, lower in cognitive ability (i.e., verbal and fluid intelligence, numeracy), are more prone to ontological confusions [beliefs in things for which there is no empirical evidence (i.e. that prayers have the ability to heal)] and conspiratorial ideation, are more likely to hold religious and paranormal beliefs, and are more likely to endorse complementary and alternative medicine.

Comments

I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that someone who doesn't understand the difference between i.e. and e.g. has no business criticising others.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

a) He is not explicitly critisizing anyone, merely quoting a study. b) Isn't totally negating someone's ability to judge based on a semantic mistake somewhat overkill?

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think they don't? I've read the "i.e." as "that is" and it makes perfect sense.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that someone who doesn't understand the difference between i.e. and e.g. has no business criticising others.

Someone who doesn't comprehend basic English, and doesn't understand that phrases may have nuance and multiple interpretations, should neither criticise nor post their ignorance.

ftfy,

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[tburkhol]

Why do you think they don't? I've read the "i.e." as "that is" and it makes perfect sense.

The Post author uses "i.e." (id est, Latin for "that is") twice. The first time,

cognitive ability (i.e., verbal and fluid intelligence, numeracy

, the parenthetical phrase elaborate the entire set of things that the study authors meant (and measured) when they said "cognitive ability." The second time,

things for which there is no empirical evidence (i.e. that prayers have the ability to heal)

the clarification gives only one example of a thing with no empirical evidence. The second phrase does not clarify or elaborate on what, specifically, is meant by "things for which there is no empirical evidence," it only gives one of an infinite list of potential examples - astrology, bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, alien abduction, telekinesis... He's giving an example, and e.g. (exempli gratia, Latin for "an example, for kindness") is appropriate.

The first is like saying "A computer monitor mixes certain colors (that is, red, green, and blue)" while the second is like saying, "to represent arbitrary colors (that is, purple)."

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

i.e. = 'id est' = 'that is' = a clarification or further expansion on meaning.

e.g. = 'exempli gratia' = 'for example' = an example or illustration of what is being discussed.

they are *not* interchangeable, they mean different things, and are being used incorrectly in the summary, regardless of whether it is a direct quote or not.

if you still can't figure it out, re-read the summary out loud twice, first replacing uses of 'i.e.' with 'that is' and then 'for example'.

if you still can't figure it out, it's aliens.

Re: I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

I.e. Is used as "that is" here, which seems grammatically fine, as the following clauses elucidate what they're saying. Does anyone else think this was OK?

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

so we will not be hearing from you again? yay!

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[asylumx]

Why some people think total nonsense is really deep

e.g. this thread.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[Sique]

Actually, they are used correctly. The cognitive abilities the study used were verbal and fluid intelligence and numeracy. Thus, i.e. rightly denotes the complete list.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops, right, I missed the second occurrence.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[gweihir]

I think you are a superficial moron that is unable to differentiate between important and unimportant things.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[SomeoneFromBelgium]

Make that: "i.e. this thread" (this thead says it all, no?)

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your distinction is not correct at all

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[SomeoneFromBelgium]

Mod parent up!
A poster that backtracks on his own post: +1
A poster that backtracks his own post and find fault in it (instead of ignoring anything going agains his/her original argument): +1 again
A poster that actually posts again saying 'my mistake': priceless??

Re: I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically it's yellow, magenta, and cyan :P

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[AthanasiusKircher]

Actually, they are used correctly. The cognitive abilities the study used were verbal and fluid intelligence and numeracy. Thus, i.e. rightly denotes the complete list.

Actually, there's a further nuance to all this. The summary quotes the Washington Post:

Those more receptive to bull**** are less reflective, lower in cognitive ability (i.e., verbal and fluid intelligence, numeracy), are more prone to ontological confusions [beliefs in things for which there is no empirical evidence (i.e. that prayers have the ability to heal)] and conspiratorial ideation, are more likely to hold religious and paranormal beliefs, and are more likely to endorse complementary and alternative medicine.

The first "i.e." is actually in the original study, and as you point out, it is used correctly to reference the complete list of things they were studying.

The second "i.e." is, you will note, in brackets, because this is an explanation inserted by the Washington Post writer. The original sentence from the study reads:

Those more receptive to bull**** are less reflective, lower in cognitive ability (i.e., verbal and fluid intelligence, numeracy), are more prone to ontological confusions and conspiratorial ideation, are more likely to hold religious and paranormal beliefs, and are more likely to endorse complementary and alternative medicine.

Hence, it's the WASHINGTON POST which doesn't know how to use "i.e." correctly. If you read the original study, it's clear that it has a LOT of "e.g" and "i.e." In fact, it probably has a little too much of them, but they appear to be used correctly.

Re: I.e. versus e.g.

[hackwrench]

I've been interacting with the poster of https://youtu.be/Gux4Ldy8cN8 who doesn't get it either.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[coinreturn]

This is the complaint area: [beliefs in things for which there is no empirical evidence (i.e. that prayers have the ability to heal)]

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

yes... i.e you're a pedantic twat.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[prunus.avium]

...probably has a little too much...

...probably has a little too many...

Since we're already picking on grammar. :-)

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[sumdumass]

Important and unimportant things vary wildly between people. I'm not going to tell you what I think of you because it is just unimportant to me.

Re: I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that's a printer, not a monitor, you idiot.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[AthanasiusKircher]

Yes, of course you're right.

However, I will also say: I was writing quickly and informally referencing the idea of "too much." "Too much of them" is common in colloquial idiomatic English when referencing a mass of something (i.e., "too much of that sort of thing" even if multiple types of things fall into that category), rather than emphasizing the individual components.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[T.E.D.]

In fact, it probably has a little too much of them, but they appear to be used correctly.

More than one (you could even argue one) "i.e." is too many. Good writing should have no need for a shorthand construction for "that is to say". If you want to say something, then just say it, damn it.

Re: I.e. versus e.g.

[malditaenvidia]

Those are subtractive colors. For light, the additive colors (Red, Green and Blue) are used.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, correct use of language is still a fairly strong indicator of social class. Therefore, instead of correcting others, I silently pass judgment on them.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[jfengel]

Man, when your journalists are worse at grammar even than scientists, it may be time to turn out the lights. It's not just that they picked the wrong Latin abbreviation. They should never have been trying to insert editorial marks into a quote that was already grammatically complicated.

The original sentence is a bit over-long, but not out of place in a scientific journal. It is much too long for a newspaper article, and adding multiple levels of parentheses to it makes it worse.

I've come to think of science journalists as generally worthless at the science, but I thought they were at least getting grammar lessons in j-school. Apparently the author's degree is in "applied mathematics and economics", according to his bio, but he doesn't seem to have worked as an academic. But his editor should have fixed that and given him some writing homework.

Re: I.e. versus e.g.

[Coren22]

He also misspells a lot as alot, what kind of educated person makes that mistake? :)

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, it probably has a little too much of them, but they appear to be used correctly.

More than one (you could even argue one) "i.e." is too many. Good writing should have no need for a shorthand construction for "that is to say". If you want to say something, then just say it, damn it.

I'm pretty sure I've seen a style guide that advises exactly this. Time to deprecate the Latin abbreviations in favor of just writing out "that is" or "for example".

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[MakersDirector]

lol. Thank you! Took the words right outta my mouth!

For me, the saying "Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena" actually resonates. With infinite possibility available in the multiverse, nothing seems to be more important to me than finding a firm sense of self.

I shut down after that, whatever the people are writing isn't even worth listening to if it's going to start antagonistically like this.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

i.e. = 'id est' = 'that is' = a clarification or further expansion on meaning.

e.g. = 'exempli gratia' = 'for example' = an example or illustration of what is being discussed.

they are *not* interchangeable, they mean different things, and are being used incorrectly in the summary, regardless of whether it is a direct quote or not.

if you still can't figure it out, re-read the summary out loud twice, first replacing uses of 'i.e.' with 'that is' and then 'for example'.

if you still can't figure it out, it's aliens.

I tend to remember "i.e." as "in other words" and "e.g." as "example given"... at the very least the clear acronym association for "e.g." helps me keep the two sorted and used properly.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[xevioso]

This is pedantry and geekiness of the highest order. If there was an Academy Award for pedantry, this thread would win hands down.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[xevioso]

Also, the level of pedantry in this thread is truly breathtaking.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

i.e. fuck off

Re: I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

Alot of them do.

Re: I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

Einstein.

http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com/2012/01/24/15-famous-thinkers-who-couldnt-spell/

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[Darinbob]

But they can be used interchangeably at times, at least in one direction. At least in English you can use "that is" before an example. But going the other way causes much more confusion if you say "for example" and then don't include examples.

The second example in the post works in English if you substitue either "that is" or "for example" although the meaning changes subtly.

The whole idea of "correctness" in English came about from upper class people wishing to demonstrate their superiority over the lower classes who had less education. Using proper English was an outward signifier that one was rich enough to afford a pedantic education. The problem is that this also assumed that language rules could freeze without further changes for all time, whereas natural languages are always evolving. So the struggle between people who want things to never change and the people who follow along with the changes.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[brantondaveperson]

Time to deprecate the Latin abbreviations

I'll update the documentation. Should be phased out within the week.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[mwehle]

Also, the level of pedantry in this thread is truly breathtaking.

Can we go so far as to say it is literally breathtaking?

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[mwehle]

...probably has a little too much...

...probably has a little too many...

Since we're already picking on grammar. :-)

Wouldn't that be a few too many?

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that someone who doesn't understand the difference between i.e. and e.g. has no business criticising others.

It's even better than that. Of the jillions of examples of religious beliefs with no empirical evidence, the author chose one that professional observations and studies continually support.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon, the nesting goes to 11!

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[gweihir]

Except to fully qualified morons, this is not a subjective issue.

Re: I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that person is you.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[Kiaser Zohsay]

Mod parent up!
A poster that backtracks on his own post: +1
A poster that backtracks his own post and find fault in it (instead of ignoring anything going agains his/her original argument): +1 again
A poster that actually posts again saying 'my mistake': priceless??

3. ???
4. PROFIT!

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[tehcyder]

Why some people think total nonsense is really deep

e.g. this thread.

Millennium Hand and Shrimp!

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[tehcyder]

Also, the level of pedantry in this thread is truly breathtaking.

Can we go so far as to say it is literally breathtaking?

Depending on how sensitive to pedantry you are it could indeed literally take your breath away.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that someone who doesn't understand the difference between i.e. and e.g. has no business criticising others.

I think someone who can't spell 'criticize' has no business criticizing the word usage in another post.

Re:I.e. versus e.g.

[sumdumass]

So you are convinced it is subjective then. Interesting. Do you own a dictionary? And if so, do you use it for anything other than filling space on a shelve or to level out a crooked table?

Proving the obvious must be tedious

[evanh]

nuff said.

So, today's college students?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever look at a curriculum for a non-STEM degree?

"Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena" sounds like it belongs there.

But hey, we make them feel "safe".

Make them think? No so much.

Re:So, today's college students?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fallacious reasoning there.

Just because it was generated randomly doesn't mean that it isn't in fact profound (and in fact may be).

For example 1 = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ... and can replace it.
That whole quiets an infinite sum.

Re:So, today's college students?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it was generated randomly doesn't mean that it isn't in fact profound

Whoa, that's really deep, man!

Re:So, today's college students?

[interval1066]

Just because it was generated randomly doesn't mean that it isn't in fact profound (and in fact may be).

An appeal to the "even a broken clock is right twice a day" maxim, huh? Finding profundity in nonsense is what our brains do; graphic art is a good example. Not everyone finds the art of Michael Cheval particularly profound. Equality with mathematical logic? That's a good one, a qualitative slight of hand. Nice. But nonsense.

Re:So, today's college students?

[Anonymous Coward]

Profound isn't the same as logical. But it is also not the same as meaningless.

CAPTCHA: discord

Re:So, today's college students?

[TechyImmigrant]

Fallacious reasoning there.

Just because it was generated randomly doesn't mean that it isn't in fact profound (and in fact may be).

For example 1 = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ... and can replace it.
That whole quiets an infinite sum.

s/quiets/equals/

There, fixed that for you.

Re:So, today's college students?

[interval1066]

But it is also not the same as meaningless.

Confined to the current context, yes, it is. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. Same thing here.

Re:So, today's college students?

[tehcyder]

Ever look at a curriculum for a non-STEM degree?

"Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena" sounds like it belongs there.

But hey, we make them feel "safe".

Make them think? No so much.

Translation: I am an eighteen year old in the first year of a Computer Science degree and think that I am godlike.

Mind you, that applies to at least half the posts on slashdot.

Re:So, today's college students?

[tehcyder]

Just because it was generated randomly doesn't mean that it isn't in fact profound (and in fact may be).

An appeal to the "even a broken clock is right twice a day" maxim, huh?

Not really. Using real words in a grammatical form means that most of the randomness has been removed, and it's not surprising if some of the generated phrases do in fact make sense.

Re:So, today's college students?

[RespekMyAthorati]

No, it implies "nothing is Godlike".

Another college jock

[ickleberry]

Having a sly dig at people who aren't Atheists. Nothing to see here move along

Re: Another college jock

[Anonymous Coward]

Jocks tend to pray before playing with balls.

Re: Another college jock

[mwvdlee]

Haha, you fell for ickleberry's obvious bullshit test!

Re:Another college jock

[nightcats]

Is this really a dig at religion? I've seen far more idiotic expressions in powerpoints from the boys over in marketing. Now spiritual practitioners who really know the field of their own game (such as Alan Watts, for instance) -- they celebrate nonsense. Scientists who have any grain of self-awareness get this too: is there any sillier proposition than, "everything originated in a Bang?" Or this one: "space was made and is perpetuated by quantum entanglement." Once you get this, you realize what a vast difference there is between nonsense and bullshit.

Re:Another college jock

[GLMDesigns]

Also a dig at people who believe that "X" is so because ....? I feel it's so.

College campuses are full of these "because I feel it's so."

Re:Another college jock

[Ol Olsoc]

Scientists who have any grain of self-awareness get this too: is there any sillier proposition than, "everything originated in a Bang?"

While the "Big Bang" theory is what it it, I've never heard an actual scientist refer to it as everything started in a Bang". Indeed many of them are busy working on what came before the event, so no beginning yet even found.

Or this one: "space was made and is perpetuated by quantum entanglement." Once you get this, you realize what a vast difference there is between nonsense and bullshit.

I've been searching all over for your quotes - I mean they must be referenced somewhere..

But while everyone is subject to some amount of belief in bullshit, there is a difference.

While we can accumulate evidence that our universe came about through an event long ago, we can't prove that a huge flood happened that covered the entire earth and one family and all the animals on earth hopped in a ship of a specific size and rode it out. We can do the calculations to show that that event was as improbable as an event could be. My calculations were that given the amount of rain necessary to raise sea level to cover the highest mountains in 960 hours would make a submarine a better choice than an ark, because it would be a solid wall of falling water.

But there are a lot of people who believe that it happened, and it happened just like it was written down.

And then there is quantum theory. Proven effects and their weirdness, would seem to fit in with your concept of scientists believing statements on the same caliber as the flood story.

String theory on the other hand, while interesting, is largely unprovable, more a thought experiment than science.

Re: Another college jock

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit can be nonsense with an agenda.

I don't think...

[EmeraldBot]

Well, remember, what exactly is considered profound is up to each person. For some people, they may not consider the statement itself to hold any wisdom, but the vagueness might prompt themselves into a philosophical state, and so they associate that with the phrase itself. And honestly, at the end of the day, this whole article is really talking about imagination, is it not? Look at children, for those of you who have any: they can go on adventures with nothing but a few sticks and a rock. Likewise, I am sure that for some people, their minds can evolve meaning even out of nonsensical words. I don't think having an active imagination is really all that much of a vice, as they tend to be people who can come up with some very creative solutions and answers that most would dismiss as impossible.

That being said, going with the article's thesis, I agree. I could totally see them being more likely to believe in a religion for precisely the reason stated above, to see a pattern out of unrelated events, and once you believe there's an all powerful god, it becomes much easier to believe in the others listed. Ultimately though, we all have our vices, and I don't think naivety is all that bad of one to have in the grand scheme.

Re:I don't think...

[John Allsup]

The biggest problem in religious belief is unconditional acceptance of dogma and a tendency not to question what one is told. Modern atheists often have their own dogmas, and all the same problems.

Re:I don't think...

[Sique]

I guess, that

Modern atheists often have their own dogmas, and all the same problems.

falls either in the bullshit or in the dogma category.

First, most atheists I know are quite undogmatic. They just don't have a religion, and they don't miss it. They've grown up without every being challenged about their (non-)religiousness. Being without religion is just some kind of natural state for them, the same as for instance being 5'10" or born in 1972. There is just nothing to be questioned about it, it is to them as it is. (Full disclosure: I am neither 5'10" nor born in 1972).

Second, it might be different in an environment where the majority of the population is religious and thus the minority constantly has to explain that they aren't, and that to them it's fine, and there are valid reasons for not being religious. If you don't stop questioning people about why exactly they (don't) believe what they (don't) believe, sooner or later everyone will sound dogmatic to you, but all they really are is being angry at you for continuously bothering them and not knowing when to stop.

Re: I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Like what? Or, am I just supposed to takes your word for it?

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, just like not going for a walk is an exercise regime...

Tell me, do you know you're saying that your religion is dumb, right? But that atheists have religion, so it's all fair??? If even you religionists think religion is dumb, but atheists don't agree that atheism is a religion, then all we have agreement on is you are dumb because you have a religion.

And what agenda? That you don't have to believe, and that there's nothing whatsoever in not believing, and that if people harass you for not having THEIR religion, that THEY are wrong, just as if you were being assaulted by an ISIS faithful for your heretical and evil religion (as is written by their god in their holy bible)? You DO realise that if we're wrong saying you should not be harassed for not having faith, then you're saying you should be targeted by Muslim Extremists for all the hate and vitriolic attacks they wish to impose on you for not believing in Islam (as they determine it to be), right?

"I think that most people who are classed as Atheist are in fact something else."

Atheism is the lack of belief. It says nothing about any other facet of their being. Even less than "Christian" or "Muslim", which each have ten thousand official sects that read the same books but follow a different religion based on it, since atheism is no belief in ANY of the sects, rather than no belief in all but one of them.

So Atheists are ALL something else.

Just like a christian is something else. Even if that something else is "selfish asshole" or "aid worker". Or, in your case, a moron.

Re:I don't think...

[Imrik]

I like the term nontheist.

Re:I don't think...

[LaurenCates]

"Apatheist" is a real term.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess, that

Modern atheists often have their own dogmas, and all the same problems.

falls either in the bullshit or in the dogma category.

You are confusing dogmatic thinking with religious thinking. As a born and bred atheist I see that sort of error all the time among atheists. If I may be so bold, I think that error is so common that it itself verges on dogma for many atheists who have only a weak understanding of religion.

Here's the OED definition of dogma, you'll note that religion is not a requirement:

noun
A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true: 'the dogmas of faith'
[mass noun]: 'the rejection of political dogma'

More example sentences:

        'He believes that when living in a certain society you should become a real part of it by sticking to its rules, dogmas and principles.'
        'These are ideologies and dogmas that came for political reasons afterwards.'
        'Erasmus searched for reconciliation between Faith and Reason, refusing not only the dogmas of Faith, but the dogmas of Reason as well.'

https://www.oxforddictionaries...

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Atheism seems to have it's own type of religion. A cult with an agenda.

I wouldn't call it a cult - those are the guys who get religious requirements in society rolled back. Sometimes they get vociferous but when the opposing force is so powerful and energetic you have to be really motivated to keep up the fight. You can't expect them to perfectly toe the line, especially when everybody has a different definition of how much is too much.

Re:I don't think...

[c]

(Full disclosure: I am neither 5'10" nor born in 1972).

The atheist reader who is 5'10" and was born in 1972 is probably looking over his shoulder thinking "how did he know... ?"

(Full disclosure: can't be me; I'm just over 5'11").

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Second, it might be different in an environment where the majority of the population is religious and thus the minority constantly has to explain that they aren't, and that to them it's fine, and there are valid reasons for not being religious. If you don't stop questioning people about why exactly they (don't) believe what they (don't) believe, sooner or later everyone will sound dogmatic to you, but all they really are is being angry at you for continuously bothering them and not knowing when to stop.
 
It has been my experience that people would need a reason to question you about something. So if you're wearing your atheism on your sleeve you should expect people to question it. Otherwise keep it to yourself and likely no one will ever know or care.
 
For example, I belong to a group of people who are just as criticized (if not more so) and much smaller than the atheist crowd. I'm a vegetarian. I've worked for the same company in the same building for 19 years. I never get questioned about it, not even when I stop by the company cafeteria. You know why? Because I don't make it a point to show off my vegetarianism. I don't wear shirts that have "I'M A VEGETARIAN!!!" screen printed on them, I don't go up to the meat eaters and claim they're savages and I don't make a stink over everything that is sold there that isn't vegetarian. That's pretty much how it works. Vegetarians and meat eaters can so-exist without controversy or question. Imagine that! There are many people I've worked with all of these years who don't know that I'm a vegetarian and that's not an issue for me. In fact, there's probably only a handful of people here who do know that I am.
 
So if you're an atheist in modern society and you're being quized on why you're an atheist then you probably did something to bring it on yourself. So don't boo hoo about it because, frankly, it's gotten old. Atheism is easier to "hide" from society than vegetarianism is and I've had no problems leading a fulfilling life while not shoving my dietary preference in anyone's face.
 
Disclaimer: I'm neither atheist nor theist. I believe that anyone who's honest with themselves admits that they don't know the truth of the matter. Is that so hard to do?

Re:I don't think...

[sociocapitalist]

Well, remember, what exactly is considered profound is up to each person. For some people, they may not consider the statement itself to hold any wisdom, but the vagueness might prompt themselves into a philosophical state, and so they associate that with the phrase itself. And honestly, at the end of the day, this whole article is really talking about imagination, is it not? Look at children, for those of you who have any: they can go on adventures with nothing but a few sticks and a rock. Likewise, I am sure that for some people, their minds can evolve meaning even out of nonsensical words. I don't think having an active imagination is really all that much of a vice, as they tend to be people who can come up with some very creative solutions and answers that most would dismiss as impossible.

That being said, going with the article's thesis, I agree. I could totally see them being more likely to believe in a religion for precisely the reason stated above, to see a pattern out of unrelated events, and once you believe there's an all powerful god, it becomes much easier to believe in the others listed. Ultimately though, we all have our vices, and I don't think naivety is all that bad of one to have in the grand scheme.

That is so deep.

I believe you completely.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not a lack of belief. It is a belief that there is no god. It's as much a dogma as those who do believe in a god. It is certainly a belief system.

Re:I don't think...

[jodido]

I hope that's true because that's what I am. If asked if I am a believer or an atheist I say no. I'm not interested enough in the question of whether God exists to have an answer. I leave that to people who think it's important. I don't.

Re:I don't think...

[nintendoeats]

I see what you're getting at but I don't think it holds up. My preferred definition of intelligence is the ability to make correct decisions more often than average. making a decision, even about whether or not a statement has meaning, requires you to pare down a near infinite set of options to the one which you believe is in your best interests. While imagination, the ability to catalog options that others would not notice, can be a component of intelligence it is of no use without rational decision making ability which would allow one to identify and dismiss nonsensical claims.

For example, the sentence "wholeness quiets infinite phenomena" from the article. I pretty quickly identified a possible meaning for the sentence, and doing so requires some imagination. However, if that was all I could do I would miss the obvious markers that suggest that the author had either no intended meaning or should not be trusted. To cite just one, it lacks any specificity as to what it means by either "wholeness" or "infinite phenomena", both of which could be so qidely interpreted that any author worth listening to would have selected different language.

I think in a situation like this the intelligent thing to do is to contemplate the usefulness of whatever meaning you can find but to dismiss the original sentence itself as gibberish. To do only the latter is shortsighted, but to do only the former is foolish.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Atheism seems to have it's own type of religion. A cult with an agenda.

Cults actually have organization. Where is this "church" of Atheism that you speak of?

I think that most people who are classed as Atheist are in fact something else. Let's call it Notgiveashitist, no, wait... Meh-ist.

The term that you're looking for is Apatheist.

Re: I don't think...

[BarbaraHudson]

I don't think anyone is born 5'10".

Re:I don't think...

[budgenator]

First, most atheists I know are quite undogmatic. They just don't have a religion, and they don't miss it. They've grown up without every being challenged about their (non-)religiousness.

Here let's test that;

RSS data has shown that there has been no statistically significant Global Warming for 18 years, 9 months.

now watch the dogma fly!

Re:I don't think...

[ranton]

It is not a lack of belief. It is a belief that there is no god. It's as much a dogma as those who do believe in a god. It is certainly a belief system.

Incorrect. It is the lack of belief. Saying atheism is a belief system is no less ridiculous than saying not collecting stamps is your favorite hobby.

Atheists certainly do hold belief systems. Some believe religion is harmful. Some believe killing animals is wrong. Some believe bacon is the best food ever. But being atheist is not a belief system by any sensible definition of the term.

Re:I don't think...

[serviscope_minor]

I like the term nontheist.

non- is a prefix meaning not/without/and similar thing.
a- is a prefix meaning not/without/and similar things.

Basically atheist and nontheist mean exactly the same thing.

Re:I don't think...

[Ol Olsoc]

The biggest problem in religious belief is unconditional acceptance of dogma and a tendency not to question what one is told. Modern atheists often have their own dogmas, and all the same problems.

Is this a clever rephrasing of the old "Atheism is a religion" chestnut?

Re:I don't think...

[slimshady76]

It is not a lack of belief. It is a belief that there is no god. It's as much a dogma as those who do believe in a god. It is certainly a belief system.

Ultimately it all comes down (to me at least) to a matter of need. Does this universe need a deity to rule it and create it? Our current evidence says it doesn't. That's not a dogma per se. It's based on the current status of the observation of this we call reality. Maybe in the future the existence of said deity could be proved somehow. And then I'll just eat my words. But it's no dogma at all. It's called method. The scientific method, where everything is questionable.

Re:I don't think...

[tsqr]

Saying atheism is a belief system is no less ridiculous than saying not collecting stamps is your favorite hobby.

atheism

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

So says dictionary.com.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apatheist" is a real term.

Like I'm supposed to care?

Re:I don't think...

[slimshady76]

Ahh, but you were 5'10" in the past, so by definition it represents a previous estate of yourself...

Re:I don't think...

[nightfire-unique]

Modern atheists often have their own dogmas, and all the same problems.

There is no such thing as a "modern atheist" any more than there is such a thing as a "modern person who doesn't collect stamps."

Atheism isn't a religious choice.

Re:I don't think...

[serviscope_minor]

Disclaimer: I'm neither atheist nor theist. I believe that anyone who's honest with themselves admits that they don't know the truth of the matter.

That makes you an agnostic.

Is that so hard to do?

Tell me, are you prepared to admit that it's only "being honest with yourself" when you prevaricate over the existence of unicorns? Or do you happily state without equivocation that unicorns don't exist?

Unicorns are magical creatures, and don't usually live in this realm, so even a thorough search of this planet would likely not yield anything. Only the most powerful can travel here and thereby reveal themselves to us (any one of them powerful enough to traverse realms can obviously make themselves invisible), but honestly they live in a much nicer place so they don't usually bother as far as I can tell.

Let the games begin!

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm convinced that the intelligent atheists that I used to have meaningful conversations with as an undergrad were reasonably successful in convincing unthinking religious people that there was no god. Unfortunately, rather than producing their desired enlightened atheists, they produced unthinking atheists. I keep running in to atheists who have the same argumentation styles of religious folks: Appealing to experts rather than trying to internalize understanding of the underlying philosophical concepts of atheism, beratement and shaming when they are challenged beyond their understanding, and emotional appeals rather than philosophical or data based appeals.

Re:I don't think...

[Ol Olsoc]

Atheism seems to have it's own type of religion.

And abstinence is a sexual position.

A cult with an agenda.

You've cracked the conspiracy! In the atheist world domination conspiracy, atheists:

get together in a building every week in (nowhere) on the atheist sabbath day (none) as prescribed in the book of (nothing) to pray to (no one) in order to (not) save their (non) eternal souls.

What you are doing is confusing the anger of some atheists as they are slowly being released from under the heels of the religious. And in getting confused, the religious - say for example the woman in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to gays - consider that an attack on them, rather than extension of basic rights to others.

Re:I don't think...

[Ol Olsoc]

It is not a lack of belief. It is a belief that there is no god. It's as much a dogma as those who do believe in a god. It is certainly a belief system.

So a person who has never heard of god, thinks about not having heard of god? They believe that something they never think about doesn't exist?

This whole atheism is a religion business is lust an inability to comprehend. The only time I ever think about "godness" - I suppose you would call it, is when I'm having fun discussing it with people.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Re:I don't think...

[Ol Olsoc]

So if you're an atheist in modern society and you're being quized on why you're an atheist then you probably did something to bring it on yourself. So don't boo hoo about it because, frankly, it's gotten old. Atheism is easier to "hide" from society than vegetarianism is and I've had no problems leading a fulfilling life while not shoving my dietary preference in anyone's face.

So, are any folks saying that vegetarians can't be elected to political office because they are immoral? There are quite a few states that require a religious test to run for office.

http://americanhumanist.org/hn...

Just keep our mouths shut and know our place, eh?

A fairly typical statement by former president George Bush Sr:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

So your solution is for atheists to lie when asked? Or just shut up, perjure themselves and be allowed to partake in civic matters? Or better yet, leave the governance to the proper folks.

So spare me your equivalence between vegetarians and atheists. Anyone question your patriotism based on what you eat? Anyone want to strip you of your citizenship because of what you eat?

Re:I don't think...

[Jamu]

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

What a terrible definition. God isn't a well defined concept. How do you know which one it's referring to? Without bigotry to mandate what "God" is, the "definition" doesn't definite anything. It can only makes sense to someone who's a theist. For example: "the doctrine or belief that there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn". It's absolute nonsense to anyone else.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say the exact same thing goes for most religious people as well. Sure, they're Christian and say they believe in God. But they haven't been to church since they were 10, they have tattoos, they drink, smoke, have premarital sex, don't alter their behavior in any way due to religion.

It just goes to show, religion is more something you're raised with and it sticks with you rather than a conscious decision for most people. Hence, it's ridiculous to judge people based on what religion they are, or if they have it or not. If you're going to categorize people, categorize them into people who think hard about what they believe and those who don't.

Re:I don't think...

[neoritter]

http://www.examiner.com/articl...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

Re:I don't think...

[neoritter]

Took like three seconds. Search for "atheist congregations."

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are, indeed, atheistic cults. The Church of Satan is an example.

Re:I don't think...

[tempmpi]

There is some truth to both sides of this debate:

1 .The atheism of a person who has never heard of god is clearly not a belief system or even a religion.

2. But the atheism of someone who has heard of God and writes angry books on why believing in god is evil and why all kinds of theism should be destroyed, that can be a belief system and awfully close to a dogmatic religion.

Some people people say atheism is not a religion, just like not collecting stamps is not a hobby. However, there is no club of the american non-stamp collectors, there are no people that write books about the dangers of stamp collecting, etc.

Especially in the US most people that do not believe in god, do not call themself atheists. This is because most of the time, when someone calls himself an atheist, he is the "religious" kind of atheist, not just the kind that does not care about god or thinks that god is not necessary.

Re:I don't think...

[ultranova]

Basically atheist and nontheist mean exactly the same thing.

In the pages of dictionary, perhaps. In life, there are nontheists and atheists, just like there are men and Real Men. One means you have a particular characteristic, the other that you have a burning need to have others acknowledge it.

On the Internet, "atheism" is just another banner crusaders gather under.

Re:I don't think...

[Enigma2175]

(Full disclosure: I am neither 5'10" nor born in 1972).

The atheist reader who is 5'10" and was born in 1972 is probably looking over his shoulder thinking "how did he know... ?"

(Full disclosure: can't be me; I'm just over 5'11").

No, because atheists are good at separating coincidence from purpose. Someone who is religious or spiritual might think it is "spooky" and believe that the OP has ESP but the atheist will know that it is just happenstance. It isn't atheists that are being featured in news stories about being bilked out of thousands of dollars by psychics.

Re:I don't think...

[paulpach]

Atheism seems to have it's own type of religion. A cult with an agenda.

What the actual fuck?

From the dictionary:

Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

As an atheist myself, I do not believe in the existence of any superhuman controlling power, God or gods. Atheism is by definition not a religion.

From the dictionary:

Cult: a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object

Once again, no religious veneration here at all. No rituals, no candles, no penitence, no cards, no inferring anything based on star positions at the time of birth .

I don't meet with a bunch of atheist to worship our supreme leader that will guide the world towards a god free society. I do not give a shit what other people believe, I simply do not believe in any type of supernatural higher power. There is no agenda, I have no interest of convincing anybody to be atheist, I don't want to overthrow anything, being atheist means one thing only: we do not believe in god, anything else is beyond being atheist.

If there are atheists that want to change something, i.e. they have an agenda, that is _them_. Saying that atheist have an agenda because a few atheist do, makes as much sense as saying that Christians are pedophiles because of a few priests. You can't even say "most atheist are xxx" because there is no actual number to back that up. All you can possibly say about a person that identifies himself as an atheist is that he does not believe in any god.

So please realize generalization is the mother of all bigotry, and try not to prejudge people on the simple fact that they don't believe the same thing you do.

Re:I don't think...

[scamper_22]

I think there is a certain nature of movements.

Originally the pioneers are normally more 'consistent and true'.
However, as a movement becomes more general, it is going to get people belonging to it just as another other group.

For example, I left my faith of Islam. It's a huge deal. I was highly religious in my youth. It's not to my benefit in that sense. Loss of community support. Ostracized... But my brain is such that, once it sees it, it can't go back. It's been a real mental struggle fought with philosophy, identity, social belonging, truth, rationality...

Now, eventually, the agnostic/athiest movement will become the norm among Muslims, the same as it has in the West with Christianity (Bible Belt aside). And you will have people attaching itself to that agnostic/athiest label just because it is their team. They 'new athiests' will likely not be any less prone to irrationality/total nonsense than anyone else.

Let me give a little software example.
The originators of Agile were really well versed in Agile. They saw all the problems of Waterfall. Came up with a new ideology and set of practices. They probably used it to create some really good software.

But as it became a movement, a lot more people just joined into it. They don't get the intellectual aspects of Agile. They just attach onto it as a movement. It gets all the bad aspects that come with any movement. Scrum becomes the most important part. Just as say not eating pork becomes the main part of Islam. It becomes a sense of identity and belonging no different than anything else.

So while I think there are varying stages to movements and at certain times, a particular movement might be 'more true or consistent', I have a general belief that overtime, every movement becomes prone to non-sense as it becomes generally accepted.

Re:I don't think...

[interval1066]

Atheists don't need to defend or refute what some idiot wrote in a book, same as theists. I'm just amazed that theists feel the need to show that atheism is some kind of philosophy. What exactly does that prove? Does that make theists feel better some how? Put atheists on an even playing field them or something? Atheism is no more a belief system than the belief that I may gain some benefit from walking to the store over driving there. This insistence on it being a kind of religion is mystifying. Atheists don't go to meetings and have bake sales or go to temple (or the club house, or whatever.) I think it must be an attempt to make it sound like AA; atheists meet to feel bad with other atheists that they don't believe in God or something. That's some crazy nonsense.

Re: I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Giraffes are, but we don't know what proportion of them are atheists.

Re:I don't think...

[gstoddart]

It's a singular belief, but it's not a "belief system".

However, accompanying that is likely to be the idea that believing in anything for which there is no evidence is magical thinking, and a corresponding rejection of things coming out of those magical beliefs.

Which means if someone came to me and said "the great sky weasel Arthur shat out the universe 5,000 years ago", and there is no evidence for any of this, and this belief requires pretending that we don't have evidence for things actually being millions and millions of years old ... well, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to tell you that I think your notion of Arthur the sky weasel is bullshit, because it's not only lacking evidence, it runs contrary to evidence we actually have.

The problems really start when someone starts to claim that their unsubstantiated belief that Arthur the sky weasel shat out the universe is something I should treat as anything but unsubstantiated bullshit which has nothing to do with reality.

Atheism isn't a belief system, because it's really only one thing. But the rest of your belief system might be built around the notion that only reality is real, and the shit you just made up isn't counted the same as actual reality.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect. It is the lack of belief. Saying atheism is a belief system is no less ridiculous than saying not collecting stamps is your favorite hobby.

Well, suppose people started reading and writing books solely about not collecting stamps, in addition to going to non-stamp collector conventions and posting on non-stamp collector forums to tirelessly debate the irrationality of stamp collecting?

Re:I don't think...

[Ol Olsoc]

There is some truth to both sides of this debate:

1 .The atheism of a person who has never heard of god is clearly not a belief system or even a religion.

2. But the atheism of someone who has heard of God and writes angry books on why believing in god is evil and why all kinds of theism should be destroyed, that can be a belief system and awfully close to a dogmatic religion.

So an opinion becomes a religion. Was the unabomber manifesto a religion?

Some people people say atheism is not a religion, just like not collecting stamps is not a hobby. However, there is no club of the american non-stamp collectors, there are no people that write books about the dangers of stamp collecting, etc.

So the International Order of Oddfellows is now a religion? Any group of people that is organized has suddenly become a religion.

Especially in the US most people that do not believe in god, do not call themself atheists. This is because most of the time, when someone calls himself an atheist, he is the "religious" kind of atheist, not just the kind that does not care about god or thinks that god is not necessary.

People who are atheists who do not declare are just dealing with the George Bush Sr type Presidents of the USA who have stated that atheists are neither patriotic, nor can be citizens. Some times, just like we used to do with other groups, it is much safer to know your place, don't make waves, and submit.

And of course, many have had to perjure themselves in order to hold public office due to religious tests.

For your entertainment: Arkansas - No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.” (Constitution, Article 19, Section 1)

Maryland: “[N]o religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God.” (Bill of Rights, Article 37). *Still on the books, but overturned.

Mississippi: “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.” (Article 14, Section 265)

North Carolina: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office. First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.” (Constitution, Article 6, Section 8)

Pennsylvania: “No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.” (Declaration of Rights, Article 1, Section 4)

South Carolina: “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution. (Constitution, Article 17, Section 4). *Still on the books, but overturned.

Tennessee: “No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.” (Bill of Rights, Article 9, Section 2)

Texas: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.” (Bill of Rights, Article 1, Section 4)

Looking forward to your list of states that only allow atheists to hold public office.

or should I shut the fuck up and know my place?

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

> desperately trying to Take It Back
Sorry broheim, it's long gone. If you're still feeling zealous, maybe you could try to rescue Literally? The prospects aren't better, but a lot more people would be thankful.

Re:I don't think...

[dfm3]

In my experience there are two types of people who would consider themselves atheists.

A majority of the atheists I know would state that there is no evidence of any god or deity having any effect on our universe or in our lives, so there is no need for religion or spiritual belief. Religion, for better or worse, is a human institution that can have an impact on culture, morals, philosophy; in fact I know quite a few atheists who are interested in theology purely as an academic exercise. According to this first group it's cool if you decide to hold to a religious belief, just please don't let your beliefs have a negative impact on my life.

Then there's a small group of very vocal atheists who might be better described as "anti-theist" - the ones who define themselves based on their opposition to a straw-man version of organized religion, respond to any slight display of religious belief with snide and judgmental comments, send their kids to "evolution camp" where they spend the week tearing apart religious texts because, well, this passage is unclear about whether Moses went to Sinai or Horeb, so obviously the whole thing is nothing but lies - even the parts that could give insight into human nature or ethics, and who make it clear that they view anyone who holds to any form of religion as delusional or even downright ignorant.

In my experience members of the second group can be quite dogmatic, even more so than most religious people I know. The statement "There is no evidence that any god exists or has any impact on our universe" is VERY different from the statement "God does not exist."

Re:I don't think...

[sumdumass]

What? It's all of them not just one or any specific one. If you admit to another god but not a specific god, you fail the definition that there is_no_god.

Wikipedia explains it better

The claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable is agnosticism. The positive assertion of knowledge, either of the existence of gods or the absence of gods, can also be attributed to some theists and some atheists. Put simply, theism and atheism deal with belief, and agnosticism deals with rational claims to asserting knowledge.

Re:I don't think...

[tnk1]

I think the point is that atheists can be dogmatic about what they do believe, not that what they believe is confined to religious views.

Of course, there are a few atheists who you wonder how they would pass their time if there wasn't religion to bash.

There are others who just don't care about religion because it isn't a factor to them, but at the same time, hold beliefs that could challenge some religions for the level of blind acceptance expected.

For instance, your ardent Marxists who actually believed in the endgame of the worker's paradise really had no reason to believe that such a thing could ever actually happen, and yet would kill millions to try and make that happen because some guy wrote a big book suggesting that it would happen that way. Sound familiar?

Re:I don't think...

[Wraithlyn]

Why do YOU feel the need to attack people merely stating a definition? And why are you assuming they are theists? (Hint: I'm not)

If you believe there is no god, you're an atheist. By definition. And yes, that IS a belief.

If you don't believe in anything (or more precisely, believe that such knowledge is impossible) you're an agnostic.

Re:I don't think...

[tnk1]

Actually, it's a spot-on definition. Pull the word apart:

"a-" meaning "without"
"theism" meaning a belief in a deity

Granted saying God as opposed to "gods" does tend to limit the definition more than the word would suggest, but that's barely relevant.

Negating a position is not by itself a neutral assertion. Atheism is a positive assertion that there happens to be no god(s) because you believe that not only that there might be no gods, but you assert that they do not exist.

Not knowing, not having a position, and not caring would be agnosticism.

Re:I don't think...

[tnk1]

If someone has never heard of a god, and doesn't care, that isn't being an atheist. That's being agnostic.

Atheism is a specific position that there is no god. A person who has never considered the possibility of a deity is not an atheist.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest problem in religious belief is unconditional acceptance of dogma and a tendency not to question what one is told. Modern atheists often have their own dogmas, and all the same problems.

Depends on the religion then:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_et_Ratio
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Theologica

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

True, "not collecting stamps" isn't a hobby by itself. But ...

* if you buy highly touted books from luminaries in the "not collecting stamps" field
* if you hang out on online forums where people discuss not collecting stamps
* if you deliberately get into conversations with others about the (non-)merits of collecting stamps
* if you attend conventions where you meet up with other non-stamp collectors and hear speeches about not collecting stamps
* if you write letters to the editor decrying the USPS for coming up with new commemorative stamps and how that unfairly benefits stamp collectors

then you might, indeed, have a "not collecting stamps" hobby .

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not entirely convinced atheists are qualified for public service.

I find many cannot tell the difference between good and evil, or don't believe such things exist, and are merely concerned instead with what's true or false. This is why the atheist media and the democratic party in the US can't bear to call Islam itself an evil ideology, akin to Nazism. Regardless of what individual practitioners of the religions may have done using an interpretation of the religion which may or may not be twisted, the core of the ideologies are night and day different ("love your enemy and do unto others" vs. "slay infidels"). But since most atheists consider any religion false, they stop there, and can't judge Christianity as "good false" and Islam as "evil false." So we have Obama and Hillary and Sanders refusing to use the words "Islamic terrorism" and droning on about climate change. The very idea of muslim paradise is 72 rape victims. That's not good. But few atheists will say it because they will not acknowledge good or evil. So, no, I don't think a leader who's ideologically dumb deaf and blind to evil is qualified to lead. You can't defeat evil when you won't acknowledge it exists.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is not a lack of belief. It is a belief that there is no god. It's as much a dogma as those who do believe in a god. It is certainly a belief system."

Atheism is a shallow position that incorrectly conflates Deism and Theism. An Atheist makes the (illogical) assumption that the only definition of God is the definition provided by the Deist: That is, that God must be a personal, anthropomorphic figure transcendent from this world. They then reject Deism and (illogically) conclude that a rejection of Deism is a rejection of Theism.

What happens if Deism and Theism are not the same thing? What if there are other forms of Theism which are not Deism? Here the Atheist argument quickly falls apart.

A Pantheist (for example) is a Theist that is not a Deist. A Pantheist defines God as All Things. A Pantheist may claim that God includes a Deity, reject that God includes a Deity, or claim not to know whether God includes a Deity. But, unlike the Atheist, a Pantheist would not consider rejecting a Deity to be a rejection of God itself. In fact, to a Pantheist the rejection of God is absurd. If God is all things then the rejection of God is a rejection of existence itself. To the Pantheist, the existence of God is axiomatic: Cogito Ergo Dues Est (I think therefore God is).

Re:I don't think...

[josquin9]

The term "atheist" was applied to Christians in the Roman Empire, not because they didn't believe in any God, but because they objected to others' belief in gods that didn't coincide with their conception of divinity. They were opposed to one or more gods. In the modern era, where monotheism has become dominant in many parts of the world, the meaning has evolved, but the bit in "History of the World" where Mel Brooks made fun of the Jews only being able to afford one god was kind of accurate. For the most part, Romans were okay with whatever tribal or local gods people prayed too, as long as they also publicly supported the standard pantheon, by which they proved their respect for the culture and their participation in the Empire. Those who refused (Christians and Jews, primarily) were seen as subversive for not falling in line with the dominant tradition, similar to the way some people are currently painting Muslims in many parts of the world.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

There might not be a "modern atheist" in general, but there definitely is "a modern person who trumpets really loudly that he absolutely does not believe in a god". Consider the stamp-collecting analogy. Nobody holds conferences going "Listen to me: I definitely don't collect stamps, I never will, and anybody who does is a fool". Nobody writes "The Stamp Delusion" or "Stamps Are Not Great", because nobody organizes groups of not-stamp-collectors. But there are people who organize into groups of not-believing-a-god. In that respect there are modern atheists.

Or in other words, atheism may not be a religious choice, similar to how "believing all politics is a sham" is not a partisan political position (since it denies the whole system). Yet people who do believe all politics is a sham may group together and argue very loudly that, say, democracy can't possibly work, and in so doing hold beliefs that some would consider dogma. (Not that I believe in any gods myself. I am by no means saying that some god is as real as the political process is.)

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

(Full disclosure: I am neither 5'10" nor born in 1972).

I'm an atheist born in 1972, standing 5'10". Ain't it funny? Must be a sign.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes you an agnostic.
 
Actually, I'm far more an apatheist. Yes, there is a difference.
 
  Tell me, are you prepared to admit that it's only "being honest with yourself" when you prevaricate over the existence of unicorns? Or do you happily state without equivocation that unicorns don't exist?
 
Since I don't deny or believe in aliens either I guess it's another matter where I don't bother to concern myself. Or are you denying that aliens exist because we haven't detected any with our limited senses? I deal with what's at hand. If evidence arises I'd likely take interest in it. Now go find the unicorns if you're so concerned.
 
  Let the games begin!
 
Game. Set. Match. At least as far as I'm concerned. Have a nice day.

Re:I don't think...

[serviscope_minor]

Since I don't deny or believe in aliens either I guess it's another matter where I don't bother to concern myself. Or are you denying that aliens exist because we haven't detected any with our limited senses?

We know that life has got started at least once in the universe. It's not wildly implausible that it might have happened twice or more. The universe is very large, after all.

Do I deny aliens exist? Well, no, that would be silly, I'd need a basis for doing so. Do I believe in them? What do you mean believe? I think it's reasonably likely that they exist. Put it this way, I wouldn't bet against the oracle on this one.

So, if asked, I'd prevaricate.

I deal with what's at hand. If evidence arises I'd likely take interest in it. Now go find the unicorns if you're so concerned.

Well weaselled, and duly noted that you did so. You were claiming it was intellectually dishonest (assuming you're the OP) to claim "god" doesn't exist. Yet you refused to prevaricate about unicorns in the same way.

so let me ask you again:

Do you claim it's intellectually dishonest to state that the unicorns don't exist?

You see, despite claiming to be apathetic, you have in your mind elevated "god" or the notion thereof to a special position, one that you don't put a whole slew of other things for which there is no evidence. That means you are actually holding a position, but have deceived yourself into believing you haven't.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like I don't go to restaurants where I would have to cater my order to my dietary preference maybe you could just not reside in one of these states? That seems simple enough to me.
 
And don't get me wrong, I'd support you in the repealing of these laws (not that I live in any of these states) and it's certainly unfair. But unless you are one of the handful of people who actually are facing such a problem how about just being a little bit less of a drama queen about it. I know I wouldn't be eligible in these states either but I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Re: I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless ' and " are the new symbols for pounds and ounces. Sounds about what my twin sons each weighed (or was that 5'1"?)

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Atheism seems to have it's own type of religion. A cult with an agenda.

I'm an atheist and I see you don't even start to grasp what is like being one.Let me tell you: being an atheist is not giving a fuck about what god is or does, since *it* does not show up in our experiments. Simple as that. No agenda, no cult.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

A single belief does not a system make.

Christianity can be called a "belief system" because it is an imbroglio of interrelated (and often self-contradictory) beliefs. Atheism, in contrast, is just one belief "no supreme being." That's it. Atheism is not automatically philosophical physicalism, nor is it automatically "modern science", nor is it automatically "secular humanism." An atheist can believe any or none of these things.

So, it's not a system. It is just one belief. And even then it is more of a non-belief.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the term Evangelical Agnostic.

I don't know, and you don't either.

Re:I don't think...

[swell]

actually I do think, and I liked this comment:
"Being without religion is just some kind of natural state for them..."

Which reminds me of a similar statement- 'a man without religion is like a fish who has lost his bicycle'. Is this a serious dilemma?

I, for one, am often the subject of well meaning concern from (mostly christian) religious people. They pray for my soul, of course, and gently try to convert me by quoting from their holy books. I would happily quote Nietzsche in return but that would create an interminable discussion which leads to no good end.

A blind person can be dependent upon his cane, a cripple on his crutches, and an emotionally confused individual on his god. But the first two don't try to encourage others to have the same dependence.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

I like idiotheist, which could be really construed, meaning "worshiper of the unknown".

Re:I don't think...

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

If a large, vocal and well-funded segment of society loudly declared that not collecting stamps was EVIL and IMMORAL, and wanted to trample the rights of anyone who didn't parade their stamp collection publicly, then you better believe you'd see non-stamp collectors reacting in protest.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

The term theist or atheist deals with what you claim to believe. Theists claim belief in at least one god, atheists do not make such a claim. Gnostic or agnostic deals with what you claim to know (and is not a term exclusive to discussing the existence of deities). Gnostics claim to know for certain, agnostics claim to not know, or that such knowledge is unknowable. Those calling themselves agnostics really mean agnostic atheist, they most likely don't like the term 'atheist' because it has bad connotations in their culture.

Re:I don't think...

[Cro Magnon]

I might have been 5'10" in 1972!

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

God
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

god
(lowercase) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.

These definitions are from dictionary.com.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Arkansas - No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.” (Constitution, Article 19, Section 1)

I'd love to see a lawyer try to get a hostile witness declared incompetent because s/he once denied the being of a God. Could make for an interesting trial.

And, does "civil departments" exclude the state militia? Or do they really believe the adage "there are no atheists in foxholes"?

Re:I don't think...

[LaurenCates]

+1 Funny, ya cheeky bastard.

Re:I don't think...

[sumdumass]

What you (or dictionary.com) missed is that one is a proper noun and the other is just a noun. So God with a capital G is a specific god and god with a lowercase g is reference to the idea of a god and or the defined attributes in and of itself (assuming it isn't the start of a sentence)

It's like naming your dog "Dog". It would be proper to say "That dog over there is named Dog" or "Dog is just a dog". One use is a specific reference or proper noun and the other is a noun in general.

If you allow any, upper or lower case god, you defeat the definition of atheist given. In other words, if there is a distinction that matter, you are not Atheist as lowercase god would encompasses all gods including God. To be fair, the dictionary.com definition also includes "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings" which would cover lower case gods.

Re:I don't think...

[xevioso]

Well, as a devout evangelical atheist, you are quite incorrect.

Technically, the term atheist means, of course, a lack of a belief in a theistic power, or a god.

But this is commonly called "weak atheism."

Not only do I not believe in god, but I also believe, as an affirmative statement, that god does not exist. Now, I could be wrong, but that's what I believe. I'm not something other than an atheist...I'm not some sort of super-atheist...I'm just an atheist. If you want to call me a "strong atheist" to distinguish me from a weak atheist, by all means do so. But I'm still an atheist.

Re:I don't think...

[Ol Olsoc]

If someone has never heard of a god, and doesn't care, that isn't being an atheist. That's being agnostic.

Atheism is a specific position that there is no god. A person who has never considered the possibility of a deity is not an atheist.

So a person is an atheist regarding the thousands of other gods?

And agnostic about every God they haven't heard of even if they are an athiest about one or more particular god?

We are getting very close to turtles all the way down.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is you don't think it's important because you know diety XYZ doesn't exist. If you actually thought they might you would be more concerned. Anyone in their right mind would be. If we encountered a person with god-like powers the entire world would be incredibly focused on them and EVERYONE would think it was important. After all, they could destroy the world or create life on a whim.

Re:I don't think...

[SillyHamster]

Saying atheism is a belief system is no less ridiculous than saying not collecting stamps is your favorite hobby.

Hobbies are optional. Belief systems are not.

Ask these atheists who "lack belief": "Is there a god?"

Anything other than "No" makes them an ex-atheist.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, fuck dictionary.com, you prick. I won't take abuse from idiots with mommy issues.

Re:I don't think...

[ranton]

Hobbies are optional. Belief systems are not.

Ask these atheists who "lack belief": "Is there a god?"

Anything other than "No" makes them an ex-atheist.

Saying "I doubt it" does not make someone an ex-atheist. You can be agnostic and atheist at the same time; they are not mutually exclusive. In fact it is exceedingly rare to find an atheist that is not also agnostic. Your question is not good enough to determine whether someone is an atheist, only whether they are Gnostic or Agnostic about the existence of god(s).

A better question to determine if they are an atheist would be: "Which deities do you believe in?"

If they answer anything but "None" then they are an ex-atheist.

Re:I don't think...

[Cederic]

I'm not entirely convinced atheists are qualified for public service.

Based on your incredibly bigoted and illogical rant I'm very fucking convinced that you're not.

Re:I don't think...

[Cederic]

You could interpret it as meaning that religious belief and dogma are orthogonal.

Of course, religious people have their religious dogma and the same set of dogmas that atheists have, so I'm not sure what his actual point is.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

You've cracked the conspiracy! In the atheist world domination conspiracy, atheists:

get together in a building every week in (nowhere) on the atheist sabbath day (none) as prescribed in the book of (nothing) to pray to (no one) in order to (not) save their (non) eternal souls.

You need to get out more.

Re:I don't think...

[SillyHamster]

Saying "I doubt it" does not make someone an ex-atheist.

That's a weak "no". But if he was agnostic and honest, he would answer "I don't know, there might be one".

only whether they are Gnostic or Agnostic about the existence of god(s).

Where are you getting your word definitions? Capital G Gnosticism has a specific meaning referring to a particular Christian heresy.

Ask these atheists who "lack belief": "Is there a god?"

A better question to determine if they are an atheist would be: "Which deities do you believe in?"

Your question is not functionally different than mine. "I believe in no deities" == (I believe) "there is no god"

"I believe in X deity" == (I believe) "god X exists"

Re:I don't think...

[PopeRatzo]

No, because atheists are good at separating coincidence from purpose.

Clearly, you don't know who Richard Dawkins is.

Re:I don't think...

[ranton]

Saying atheism is a belief system is no less ridiculous than saying not collecting stamps is your favorite hobby.

atheism

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

So says dictionary.com.

Not sure if you meant that to refute my statement, but it doesn't. Having a belief is not the same as having a belief system. Atheists do believe that there is no god, although rarely with 100% conviction (more likely only 99.999999999%). But they almost always fall short of building a belief system around this belief.

It is also likely that most if not all non-stamp collectors have the belief that the hobby is not worth their time to pursue. But this belief does not build a belief system. They may even go as far as to research why stamp collectors pick such a horrible hobby. That researcher, and others who read their research, may start to form a belief system around why people become stamp collectors. But that still doesn't elevate their belief that stamp collecting is not worth their time into a belief system. That would require them to build a set of doctrines they feel they must follow because of their distaste of stamp collecting.

Most atheists could be lumped into a belief system of rationalism, or something similar. It is this belief system that most likely made them atheist in the first place. Militant atheists like Richard Dawkins have a belief system that I think could be called being a rationalist that plays a large part in their life and sometimes even careers. There mere fact they choose attacking theism as a significant way of expressing their rationalism still does not elevate being an atheist to a belief system.

Re:I don't think...

[PopeRatzo]

In the pages of dictionary, perhaps. In life, there are nontheists and atheists, just like there are men and Real Men. One means you have a particular characteristic, the other that you have a burning need to have others acknowledge it.

On the Internet, "atheism" is just another banner crusaders gather under.

There are atheists and then there are Real Atheists.

Re:I don't think...

[ranton]

Not knowing, not having a position, and not caring would be agnosticism.

Almost all atheists are also agnostics. They are not mutually exclusive terms. One term describes how many deities you worship, and the other gauges your confidence in those beliefs.

Re:I don't think...

[ranton]

then you might, indeed, have a "not collecting stamps" hobby .

You may have a hobby, but not a "not collecting stamps" hobby. Your hobby might be reading about the psychology of people with rare hobbies. You may focus on a particular hobby (stamp collecting), which would be likely if the vast majority of people in your community have that hobby. If a large number of people in your community thought only stamp collectors could be moral people, or lived in a country where only stamp collectors have a chance of being elected to the highest positions of political power, then it would make a lot of sense to research the topic.

I would venture to guess if less than 10% of Americans believed in a god, there would almost no public displays of atheism. It would be as common as public displays of the irrationality of being a schizophrenic is now.

Re:I don't think...

[ranton]

Your question is not functionally different than mine. "I believe in no deities" == (I believe) "there is no god"

I agree with the equality statement you just made, but that wasn't your original one. My equality statement is:

"Is there a god?" Does Not Equal "Do you believe there is a god?"

An atheist will always answer NO to the latter question, but you asked the former. The former will be different depending on if an atheist is also an agnostic or not. Most atheist are also agnostic, so most atheists who think the question through well enough will answer something like "I'm not 100% sure, but I really doubt it strongly".

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well of course it's nonsense, because invisible animals can't be any color by their definition.

And additionally, the definition makes sense to plenty of atheists.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Atheists don't go to meetings and have bake sales or go to temple (or the club house, or whatever.)

Actually. yes, they do. Or at least some do.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Be that as it may (and I agree with you that it means this), if you prod people on their beliefs a good lot of the people who unreflectively self-identify as atheist turn out to be agnostics; they don't know there is a god, and in the absence of any evidence of one, think it rather incongruent to behave as if there is one. So the are behaviorally indistinguishable from atheists, but easily indistinguishable philosophically.

The claim that "I know there is no god" is a ridiculous statement. Proof-positive that there is no god is a more extravagant claim even that there is one. But the claim that one is warranted to live *as if* there is none in absence of evidence is a lot more solid than living as if there *is* one in absence of evidence.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, suppose there were books about not collecting stamps. In addition to message boards dedicated to the topic, along with essays, blogs, conventions, bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer: I'm neither atheist nor theist. I believe that anyone who's honest with themselves admits that they don't know the truth of the matter.

That makes you an agnostic.

Is that so hard to do?

Tell me, are you prepared to admit that it's only "being honest with yourself" when you prevaricate over the existence of unicorns? Or do you happily state without equivocation that unicorns don't exist?

Unicorns are magical creatures, and don't usually live in this realm, so even a thorough search of this planet would likely not yield anything. Only the most powerful can travel here and thereby reveal themselves to us (any one of them powerful enough to traverse realms can obviously make themselves invisible), but honestly they live in a much nicer place so they don't usually bother as far as I can tell.

Let the games begin!

Let's just agree that unicorns, invisible flying pink elephants, the earth being on the back of a turtle, on the back of another turtle... and the big organized religion gods are all equally probable. Also, I saw a unicorn in the Ringling Bros circus. Granted it was a goat who had its horn surgically fused as a kid, but still. So unicorns are more real than god. At least that much is known.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who refused (Christians and Jews, primarily) were seen as subversive for not falling in line with the dominant tradition, similar to the way some people are currently painting Muslims in many parts of the world.

If I'm not mistaken, what is painting many Muslims of the world is into a corner is the violence perpetrated in the name of their religion. It also doesn't help when they tend to be rather thin-skinned when it comes to others not adoring their Prophet as much as they do. By contrast, Christians and Jews of the first century were considered suspect because they often refused to participate in the state-sanctioned Emperor worship. If I recall correctly, Christians also made themselves even more suspect because they typically refused to serve in the military. (I can't remember where but I read that new converts to Christianity were expected to leave military service behind.)

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's no dogma at all. It's called method. The scientific method, where everything is questionable.

Personally, I question your belief that a Universe can just come into being, by it's own volition, without any need for a Creator.

Re:I don't think...

[TechyImmigrant]

First, most atheists I know are quite undogmatic. They just don't have a religion, and they don't miss it. They've grown up without every being challenged about their (non-)religiousness.

Here let's test that;

RSS data has shown that there has been no statistically significant Global Warming for 18 years, 9 months.

now watch the dogma fly!

I'm an atheist and yes, all the temperature data we have gathered in recent decades has not produced a statistically significant result predicting global warming on longer time scale. This is simple statistics. Understand statistics and you will understand the difference between contrary data and insufficient data.

Re:I don't think...

[SillyHamster]

The former will be different depending on if an atheist is also an agnostic or not.

That distinction is nonsensical. Agnostic is "I don't know if there's a god", where atheist is "there is no god".

If an atheist is confused enough to think he is both simultaneously, his thoughts are not useful to the overall debate.

"I'm not 100% sure, but I really doubt it strongly".

That's "No", or "I don't think so" for a humbler atheist. It's an important question, pick a meaningful answer and don't be wishy-washy about it.

Re:I don't think...

[TechyImmigrant]

>Then there's a small group of very vocal atheists who might be better described as "anti-theist" -

I'm anti-theist, but I'm not very vocal about it. There's not much to gain by being annoying to misguided theists by challenging their core beliefs that they don't want challenged.

Theism is a problem. It's dangerous. It leads people to do stupid things. It promotes gullibility. It's also not my problem.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

A religious person often engages in social works, such as feeding the homeless, donating money to hospitals and disease research, and other behaviors which are, when viewed logically, as not to their immediate advantage, because they believe 'it is the right thing to do'.

An atheist often does not engage in social works, because when viewed logically they are not to the immediate advantage of the atheist.

Society as a whole benefits from one of these behavior sets and not the other.

Re:I don't think...

[narcc]

It's a singular belief, but it's not a "belief system".

That's simply delusional. You know as well as everyone else that people demand far more from atheism than it can possibly deliver. Systems of belief, as we've seen, naturally grow around it.

A person's atheism, then, is used to support and/or inform a range of other beliefs and ideologies. The 'therefore' that follows the 'there are no gods', if you will.

Like-minded people tend to congregate together, which is why there are countless atheist groups. Each with different concordant beliefs, of course, about what atheism necessarily entails, demanding from their adherents conformity to a range of beliefs regarding everything from politics to ethics.

To say that atheism is "a singular belief", but not a "belief system" is more rhetorical than rational. It's a superficial defense, to differentiate your beliefs from the beliefs of the religious when, in reality, there is no significant difference. Atheists can still hold incredibly ridiculous beliefs, and justify them by their atheism or concordant beliefs, just as easily as a theist. They can even hold many of the same wild beliefs, regardless of their theological leanings.

Perhaps you don't consider those people to be true atheists?

Re:I don't think...

[ranton]

That distinction is nonsensical. Agnostic is "I don't know if there's a god", where atheist is "there is no god".

No, atheist is "I don't believe in a god". That is not the same thing as "there is no god".

If I said "I don't believe my wife is at Walmart right now", that is not the same thing as "my wife is not at Walmart". I can have a belief in a statement based on all available knowledge (she should be at work, her car is at a mechanic and I will be picking her up at work, she doesn't even shop at Walmart), but can still be honest that I cannot know for sure.

It is my belief that all non-agnostic atheists are irrational, because it is impossible to know for certain that no gods exist. They do exist, but of the dozens of atheists I know I have never met one.

Re:I don't think...

[interval1066]

If you believe there is no god, you're an atheist. By definition.

Ok,

And yes, that IS a belief.

No, its an observation. There's a difference. If you want to posit there is a god, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me.

Re:I don't think...

[interval1066]

Its not a prerequisite for being an atheist. Atheism requires no more burden on the person who prescribes to it other an understanding of logic.

Re:I don't think...

[interval1066]

Why do YOU feel the need to attack people merely stating a definition?

Ah, ad hominem does not become us. You do theists feel the need to attack anyone who notices the king isn't wearing any clothes?

Re:I don't think...

[interval1066]

It is a belief that there is no god.

Wrong, its an observation. If there were such an entity then proof beyond the throngs of idiots who believe is necessary. Until that proof is manifest, its simply an observation. I observe the sun rises and sets. I observe the lack of this "deity". Its that simple.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

A religious person often engages in social works, such as feeding the homeless, donating money to hospitals and disease research, and other behaviors which are, when viewed logically, as not to their immediate advantage, because they believe 'it is the right thing to do'.

It's the "right thing to do" because the religious person gets a reward or punishment in the putative afterlife for doing so. In other words, their deity is, at best, paying them off and, at worst, committing extortion against them. Pretty scummy on both their parts, if you ask me.

The non-theists do whatever good acts they do with no expectation of reward and no fear of punishment, making them morally superior to the theist by any objective measure.

Re:I don't think...

[Layzej]

The problem is that some people think total nonsense is really deep. They are easily duped when they hear Brits with hereditary titles interspersing Latin with statistics. I wonder if they would be able to square the fact that the data does not support the notion that warming has slowed over the last 18 years, 9 months? - https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...

Re:I don't think...

[interval1066]

Exactly. I believe killing babies is wrong. Does that make it a "belief system"? It may indicate a larger moral philosophy, sure. I believe fire results from the chemical reaction of heat with oxygen. Is that a belief system? No. Its an observation, reproduced after thousands of experiments. Belief in some kind of super moral (or otherwise) obermensch is as simple. Either it exists, or it doesn't. This does not require a belief system, only a simple understanding of logic.

Re:I don't think...

[TechyImmigrant]

The problem is that some people think total nonsense is really deep. They are easily duped when they hear Brits with hereditary titles interspersing Latin with statistics. I wonder if they would be able to square the fact that the data does not support the notion that warming has slowed over the last 18 years, 9 months? - https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...

You twist words. "does not support" --> "Neither supports nor refutes".
"Warming has slowed" Relative to what?

Re:I don't think...

[nbritton]

It is not a lack of belief. It is a belief that there is no god. It's as much a dogma as those who do believe in a god. It is certainly a belief system.

Incorrect. It is the lack of belief. Saying atheism is a belief system is no less ridiculous than saying not collecting stamps is your favorite hobby.

Wrong. Atheism is the belief that you don't believe in a god or religion. Taking such a stance using the limited information that we have is just as much a faith based decision as believing in god. According to the philosopher William L. Rowe: "In the popular sense of the term, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, while a theist believes that God exists, an atheist disbelieves in God."

Re:I don't think...

[SillyHamster]

No, atheist is "I don't believe in a god". That is not the same thing as "there is no god".

You are demanding that I consider an irrelevant context. No one can tell me "there is no god" in the way you are talking about. By definition, any person who says that to me is claiming it as a fact and implicitly declaring his belief in it.

I am not confusing "there is no god" (said an atheist) with "there is no god" (objectively).

Since I asked a person that question, every answer is going to be personal belief, and everyone who replies "there is no god" is an atheist declaring "I believe there is no god".

You are adding confusion, not correcting error. Is that rational behavior?

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

A blind person can be dependent upon his cane, a cripple on his crutches, and an emotionally confused individual on his god. But the first two don't try to encourage others to have the same dependence.

And yet, if you were blind and the other person thought they had a better cane then you they'd ask you to convert. Same with a cripple on crutches. Basic crutches can be painful. Try these padded ones with a cup holder.

God helps the emotionally confused individual and they want you to get the same help they got. It's just harder to see who needs that type of help or not. Why wouldn't you want inner peace and tranquility?

Re:I don't think...

[Layzej]

Relative to the rate of warming prior to the last 18 years 9 months. RSS shows warming of -0.024+/-0.179 C/decade since the super el-nino of 1998. The rate prior to 1998 was 0.082+/-0.156 C/decade. The uncertainty is greater than the trend in both cases (since the RSS data is so noisy) and there is overlap between the two. Possibly warming has stopped since 1998, but it is also possible that the underlying trend has increased since 1998.

The trend over the whole 35 year record is 0.122+/-0.063 C/decade. That is probably a more reliable metric - to the extent that the RSS data can be considered reliable. It is the minority report. All other data sets show considerably more warming.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

The atheist church is more of a regular social group than a conspiracy for global domination. These people see utility in coming together regularly to sing nice songs and socialize with one another. Sermons and discussions about contemporary issues are normally what happens here.

Re:I don't think...

[ChrisMaple]

The proper response to "Is there a god?" is "What are you talking about?" Anyone well versed in logic who has considered the subject for a while, will be able to push the theist into a corner. God inevitably is self-contradictory (and thus does not exist) or is trivial ("This rock is God." "So what.").

But wait, it gets better. Consider the fun you can have by saying "Okay, let's assume a god exists and it's powerful enough for me to pay attention to." Then point to the many obvious evils in the world, and show that if a god allows them it must have such bad character that it's unworthy of respect.

Re:I don't think...

[ranton]

I am not confusing "there is no god" (said an atheist) with "there is no god" (objectively).

You did confuse them when you said (emphasis mine):

Ask these atheists who "lack belief": "Is there a god?"
Anything other than "No" makes them an ex-atheist.

When you said the emphasized text, you were claiming any other answer to "is there a god" would automatically make someone not an atheist. My contention is if you asked an atheist who is giving a perfectly accurate response, it would almost never be NO. Saying NO would be a very common but also slightly inaccurate answer. (inaccurate in the sense that it isn't really what most atheists believe)

While it is only a slightly inaccurate answer, that small discrepancy is actually very important when comparing theism to non-theism. One side makes an absolute statement: There is a god. The other does not make an absolute statement, like any answer based on available evidence instead of faith should almost never do. It is one of the big differences between an unsubstantiated belief that anchors a full misguided belief system, and a well educated belief.

Re:I don't think...

[ChrisMaple]

In the strict sense, an agnostic is someone who claims that knowledge of the existence (or nonexistence) of a god is impossible. Such a person neither believes nor disbelieves, because having given the subject adequate study, he has seen that he cannot know.

Alas, there are those who understand that demonstration of the existence of a god isn't possible, but who insist upon believing anyway. They say "Faith is necessary to know god." and other such nonsense.

Generally, atheism is lack of belief in a god. If you want to refer to someone who claims no god exists, use the term positive atheist.

Re:I don't think...

[ranton]

Atheism is the belief that you don't believe in a god or religion. Taking such a stance using the limited information that we have is just as much a faith based decision as believing in god.

That is a horribly misguided statement. The mere fact there have been thousands of deities in human history, the vast majority of which are no longer worshiped, makes it far more reasonable to at least believe no current religion is correct. And the fact that using deities to explain any natural phenomena never answers anything fully (as in, what created the deities?) is another strong reason why the chance a single religion is correct is far less than the chance their are no gods. Having a lower chance of being true doesn't make something false, but it is incredibly dishonest to claim the odds are not in the atheists' favor.

According to the philosopher William L. Rowe: "In the popular sense of the term, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, while a theist believes that God exists, an atheist disbelieves in God."

I agree these represent the popular sense of these terms. While these terms are often used this way, when they are they lose almost all ability to actually describe what real people truly believe.

Re:I don't think...

[ChrisMaple]

I would prefer quoting from a book that wasn't generated by anybody's flights of fancy, neither Moses & Peter nor Nietzsche: The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. The problem is, there isn't any drama or bossiness there.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

An atheist often does not engage in social works, because when viewed logically they are not to the immediate advantage of the atheist.

Society as a whole benefits from one of these behavior sets and not the other.

Do you have any valid statistics to back that up, or is it just pure biased conjecture? From my point of view, religious types, especially in the US often shun actual charity, or limit it only to members of their religious congregations or focus their "charity" purely on religious endeavors (paying for missionaries, building churches, paying for their megachurch leaders mistresses condos, etc). Whereas plenty of atheists are quite charitable. You seem to be confusing "atheist" with "sociopath".

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I question your belief that a Universe can just come into being, by it's own volition, without any need for a Creator.

"By it's own volition"? You clearly have a deep need to anthropomorphize things.

Re:I don't think...

[SillyHamster]

You did confuse them when you said (emphasis mine):

It is impossible for any person to answer the question without implicitly invoking "I believe". You are wrong about my state of confusion and the available choices.

My contention is if you asked an atheist who is giving a perfectly accurate response, it would almost never be NO.

"Is there a god?" is a yes/no question. A confused atheist's ability to give a rambling non-answer is irrelevant.

If you think there is a god, you're a theist. If you're not sure, you're an agnostic. If you think there's no god, you're an atheist.

You can invent however many permutations of answers that are not exactly "No", but I don't care. Either there is or there is not a god. Pick an answer to the question, or don't.

One side makes an absolute statement: There is a god. The other does not make an absolute statement, like any answer based on available evidence instead of faith should almost never do. It is one of the big differences between an unsubstantiated belief that anchors a full misguided belief system, and a well educated belief.

You're rambling.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, to a Pantheist the rejection of God is absurd. If God is all things then the rejection of God is a rejection of existence itself.

And if the atheist isn't a pantheist, then they don't believe that "God is all things". Rather they maintain that "all things" are just "all things", so your ridiculous argument falls apart. What about rockists, who believe that God is this muddy rock they pried out of the river while high on acid who come around to an atheists house and declare "hey man, this rock is God man!!!". By your argument if the atheist believes in the existence of the rock, but not that the rock is God, then the atheists position is logically inconsistent because the strung out lunatic thinks that the rock is God? I think you might be on acid yourself if you believe that. Or maybe you're just suffering from such strong biases that you can't understand any argument where God isn't axiomatic.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love to hear your thoughts on slavery, Jim Crow laws, women's right to vote... For that matter, how would you feel if the definition of "consent" changed to include "no means yes" in some states? If laws establishing caste systems and allowing higher castes to murder lower ones at will popped up? As long as they don't affect you, do you just say "meh, move to another state", shrug your shoulders and not lose any sleep?

Re:I don't think...

[ranton]

"Is there a god?" is a yes/no question. A confused atheist's ability to give a rambling non-answer is irrelevant.

If you think there is a god, you're a theist. If you're not sure, you're an agnostic. If you think there's no god, you're an atheist.

You can keep stating your false trilemma all you want, but it doesn't make it correct. There are a wide range of gray areas between the definitions you just gave above, and pigeon holing complex beliefs in this manner is intellectually lazy. You can claim someone is rambling when they are being too precise for your liking, but that form of ad hominem attack is also lazy and unproductive.

There are a wide range of atheists whose beliefs have very little in common. Not recognizing those differences is not better than not recognizing the differences between Catholics and Westboro Baptists.

Re:I don't think...

[budgenator]

Bingo, see there's the perfect example of dogmatic thinking.

1. I've thrown out a fact that a specific data set has shown a indeterminate trend for a period of time, this lack of a trend tends tends to weaken support for an unmentioned hypothesis.
2. Because your a probably victim of dogmatic thinking in regards to this unmentioned hypothesis, You assumed I was attacking your unmentioned hypothesis, and you responded by:
3. 1. Using a strawman arguement, What NASA's GISTEMP and NOAA's Temperature Data Product for ground stations has to do with RSS analysis of Satellite data of lower troposphere temperatures is unclear to me.
   2. Using a strawman arguement and ad hominem, Your the only one who indirectly mentioned Monckton of Brenchley, and whether he is a bug eyed, privileged twit or not has no bearing on wheter something he said is correct or not

And in the end RSS data has shown that there has been no statistically significant Global Warming for 18 years, 9 months.

Re:I don't think...

[tehcyder]

The biggest problem in religious belief is unconditional acceptance of dogma and a tendency not to question what one is told. Modern atheists often have their own dogmas, and all the same problems.

You really didn't bother turning up to any critical thinking classes at school did you?

Re:I don't think...

[tehcyder]

Disclaimer: I'm neither atheist nor theist. I believe that anyone who's honest with themselves admits that they don't know the truth of the matter. Is that so hard to do?

This is what is known in technical philosophy as "a cop out".

Do you seriously not have an opinion on whether there is a teapot orbiting the Earth? Do you not think it's absurdly, fantastically unlikely?

Re:I don't think...

[tehcyder]

Always good to hear the Voice of Reason.

In the meantime, we have to put up with people like you.

Re:I don't think...

[tehcyder]

Saying atheism is a belief system is no less ridiculous than saying not collecting stamps is your favorite hobby.

atheism

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

So says dictionary.com.

Well then dictionary.com is a piece of shit website.

Re:I don't think...

[tehcyder]

Agnostics say that no knowledge of God/gods is possible, atheists say that if this is the case then there is no reason to believe in or worship them.

The latter position seems more logical to me.

Re:I don't think...

[Reziac]

Ditto modern SJWs.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying atheism is a belief system is no less ridiculous than saying not collecting stamps is your favorite hobby.

atheism

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

So says dictionary.com.

"believe in god" is the oposite of atheism, atheist doesn't believe in any god, believe is a verb not a noun, a verb must has a subject. So atheism is not a believe.

Re:I don't think...

[SillyHamster]

The proper response to "Is there a god?" is "What are you talking about?"

Anyone with that response to the concept of god doesn't have the intellectual horsepower or integrity to be worth debate.

It's the most important question of human existence, because mankind needs to know if there is a higher authority we are accountable to. Everything else we do in life flows from the answer to that question.

Re:I don't think...

[Layzej]

Yup. It doesn't mean what you think it means... or were you just knowingly spouting meaningless information?

Re:I don't think...

[SillyHamster]

pigeon holing complex beliefs in this manner is intellectually lazy.

Lazy but effective. I don't care how complex you think your belief is, it can be summarized simply.

Truth is simple, and a pursuit of complexity for the sake of complexity is to flee true understanding.

You can claim someone is rambling when they are being too precise for your liking

Rambling off topic is not precise.

There are a wide range of atheists whose beliefs have very little in common.

But they all have one thing in common: They believe God does not exist, or they wouldn't be atheists by definition.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

The definition is valid:

atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn
agnosticism - someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorn(s)

I suspect a majority of people who associate with atheism are actually agnostic; one can't disprove the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns any more than they can the existence of God(s).

Re:I don't think...

[Layzej]

Whether or not you were trying to illustrate the kind of specious arguments typically advanced by the credulous, you certainly succeeded. I'm glad to hear that you do not believe that kind of nonsense is really deep (though if you click those links it becomes less clear that this is the case). There are a host of science deniers who do fall for that kind of BS.

Re:I don't think...

[ravenscar]

"It's the most important question of human existence, because mankind needs to know if there is a higher authority we are accountable to. Everything else we do in life flows from the answer to that question."

This is one of those statements that's so typical in debates with theists. Things like "it's self evident that such and such is the most important thing."

Prove that it's the most important thing. It's just as easy to say "where am I going to get my next meal?" or "where will I safely sleep tonight?" are every bit as important (and probably quite a bit more so).

Of course, conversations like these never progress because the person making the categorical statement is just so appalled at the "lack of intellectual horsepower" displayed by the person challenging the assertion that they decide they aren't "worth debate."

Re:I don't think...

[SillyHamster]

Prove that it's the most important thing.

You don't think you should be murdered in your sleep.

Of course, conversations like these never progress because the person making the categorical statement is just so appalled at the "lack of intellectual horsepower" displayed by the person challenging the assertion that they decide they aren't "worth debate."

It can't progress because you're ignorant of what god is and how that has driven human philosophy for all of recorded history. That, or you're dishonest enough to pretend ignorance.

Either way, there is no debate to have because all you have on your end is mockery.

It might be an entertaining exchange of barbs, but it won't be a debate.

Re:I don't think...

[kheldan]

Is this the real life?

So, basically, there is no 'separation of Church and State' at all?
Also, I'm not surprised if everyone lies through their teeth about that, just to be able to run for/hold public office. I'd quickly run out of fingers and toes to count the people I've known over the course of my life, who were complete, total, abject hypocrites when it came to their so-called 'religion', why should {strike}professional liars{/strike} politicians be any different?

Re:I don't think...

[Ol Olsoc]

Is this the real life? So, basically, there is no 'separation of Church and State' at all?

It's changing slowly - and the fundies are pissed.

From the time I was in school, in a small town in Pennsylvania, where anything that smacked of evolution was scrubbed. Hard to imagine but I got the whole way through primary and secondary education without hearing "dinosaur" once. Mandatory sex ed classes were almost the old joke of "If you have sex outside of a Church wedding - you will get VD and die". Sounds apocryphal, but I'd swear on a stack of cordwood.

We are moving towards a time of protection from religion

Fortunately, while many of those Religion Test laws are still on the books, they have been rendered null and void.

I'm actually pretty optomistic that while the holdouts are now mostly fundamentalist kooks who won't go down without a fight, we'll get to a place where a non religious person can come out of the closet.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

I just say "I'm not religious".
Identifying yourself as any kind of "ist", or with any kind of "ism", is just an example of herd mentality.

Re:I don't think...

[RespekMyAthorati]

I do.
What does that have to do with the distinction between coincidence and purpose?

Re:I don't think...

[RespekMyAthorati]

Or do you happily state without equivocation that unicorns don't exist?

No, I say that I am deeply skeptical that unicorns exist. And I will stay that way until someone shows me evidence that they do.

Re:I don't think...

[terjeber]

Actually, statistically, all people in the world (maybe bar one or two) are atheists. There are thousands of potential (and equally probable) gods out there. Let's, for fun, just say it is 1000. So, a Christian person is 99.9 percent atheists. I believe in zero gods, and I am therefore 100% atheist. The difference is insignificant and irrelevant. Everybody is an atheist.

Re:I don't think...

[terjeber]

The dictionary is wrong. Seriously. It is.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Conconformist.

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shoot, that was supposed to be 'nonconformist.' :-P

Re:I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, no; atheist means "not theistic," and theism includes belief in any or all possible gods. You don't get to "100% atheism" by process of elimination.

But in the spirit of "which gods do you believe in," I got a kick out of this:
ATHEIST!!!!!!!

That explains the movie Inception

[Anonymous Coward]

I could never figure out how the movie Inception has such high ratings on IMDB when I thought it was really a bunch of more than stupid nonsense layered and slammed together. This explains it perfectly!

Re: That explains the movie Inception

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been wondering the same

Re:That explains the movie Inception

[msauve]

Do you often have issues distinguishing between reality and fiction?

looking up spiritual bankruptcy on alphabet.com

[Anonymous Coward]

means our insides are overlooked? wmd on credit zionic nazi psychopath religious abuse training leaves participants both suicidal & homocidal at once...? truth + mercy = justice unchallenged universal spiritual axioms,,, in the moms we trust... ask ed snowden your questions here on /. continues........ give until it stops hurting... see you there....

What's the metric equivalent of a short plank?

[Hognoxious]

Thick people are less intelligent, claims report. Film at 11.

Re:What's the metric equivalent of a short plank?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. This report is little more than a more linguistically correct, academically defensible way of saying what most of us already know, believe and say:

"Stupid is as stupid does."

Purple monkey dishwasher

[wonkey_monkey]

That is all.

Deepak Chopra's Twitter Stream

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Yeah, right.

[Anonymous Coward]

These bullshit conclusions are really part of the research, right? Tell us what we want to hear, and you've got us hook, line and sinker.

Re:Yeah, right.

[mentil]

Reminds me of the software that automatically churns out randomly-generated research papers and gets them published in sketchy scientific journals.

Re:Yeah, right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here we go:

http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/

Not a science. Nothing to see here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Call us back when your pseudoscience has reproducible results.

Re:Not a science. Nothing to see here.

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, call me back when your "space spinoffs" are reproducible.

what is homocidal?

[Anonymous Coward]

not even a word until now? unpredictable aversion to alternatives? everybody's got one?

Re:what is homocidal?

[Opportunist]

People who enjoy killing gays, maybe?

Get yourself a Turbo Encabulator

[Anonymous Coward]

If nonsense wasn't so enchanting, we wouldn't have been blessed with the Turbo Encabulator.

what's the equivalent addons?

[Anonymous Coward]

start with twice around once? back to the finish?.... minimal sense at best...

Profound has a meaning...

[Viol8]

Its supposed to be something that gives you a deep insight into some area of knowledge that you didn't possess before. Its NOT supposed to be anything that you don't really understand but is grammatically correct and uses a lot of impressive multisyllable new age/religious buzzwords and phrases.

Re:Profound has a meaning...

[AthanasiusKircher]

Its supposed to be something that gives you a deep insight into some area of knowledge that you didn't possess before.

Actually, I think this misses some nuance in the use of the English word "profound" and the source of "profundity."

What makes something "profound" is often the same kind of thing that makes a mathematical proof "elegant": a certain kind of generalization combined with terseness or compactness. Often the problem with "elegant" proofs and with "profound" statements is that they don't explain their complexity explicitly. An elegant proof can therefore be rather non-intuitive, or even if it makes sense, it's not clear why it should work at the start. The terseness and efficiency is sometimes valued over detailed discussion.

It's the same thing with many "profound" statements. Their "profundity" depends on context and with a listener realizing that a "deeper" meaning lies in a brief comment which at first may seem confusing and complex, or over-generalized, or even an obvious platitude.

The willingness to see something as profound thus depends on the audience and the kind of knowledge they are expected to apply to generate the complexity out of the short statement.

For example, if you said "Life is like a box of chocolates" to different people, the profundity level will probably vary significantly:

- To a normal person: "Yeah, stupid Forrest Gump reference. Stupid platitude."
- To someone stoned: "Wow, yeah man, Life *IS* like a box of chocolates -- freakin' deep!"
- To a chocolate maker over the age of 30 by a customer: "Really stupid Forrest Gump reference."
- To a young chocolate maker (who likely has never seen the movie) by an old master chef: "Wow... there must be deep meaning in this, and there is! The arrangement of chocolates is a metaphor for X, and the box shows the way our life is delineated into a certain period, with the assortment showing...." etc.

The same statement can be a source of different levels of meaning. TFA seems to assume that most people who find profundity are like the stoned person -- they have impaired cognitive abilities which lead them to think things are deep when they aren't.

But I'd also argue that some people tend to be like the young chocolate maker listening to the master chef -- if they read something spoken or written by a source which seems like it ought to be profound, they go searching for meaning and make up connections even if they weren't intended. (Maybe the master chocolate maker was just making a dumb Forrest Gump reference too, but didn't realize his young apprentice wouldn't get it.)

I haven't read the original study in detail yet, so perhaps this is addressed -- but it seems to me if you put out a bunch of statements and ask people whether they are "profound," you're priming them to look for deep meanings, even when they aren't there.

It's well-known that people have fundamental cognitive biases that lead them to search for order even in randomness. When you do a study and hint that something might be "profound," people will start trying to find more complex hidden meanings.

The problem is that stupider people are more used to believing that authority figures must be saying something significant, even if they don't understand it. So what the study might REALLY be measuring is the tendency to believe that things which are associated with "profundity" are more likely to be "profound," e.g., if your professor or mentor or whomever says something and then says, "It's that profound?", you are primed to try to find some meaning in it, even if it's nonsense. Stupid people are more likely to fall for this, because they are simply more used to professors saying stuff they don't understand anyway -- not necessarily because they actually find profound meaning in it.

TL;DR: The study may simply be measuring how stupid people don't tend to underst

Re:Profound has a meaning...

[neoritter]

The problem is that stupider people are more used to believing that authority figures must be saying something significant, even if they don't understand it. So what the study might REALLY be measuring is the tendency to believe that things which are associated with "profundity" are more likely to be "profound," e.g., if your professor or mentor or whomever says something and then says, "It's that profound?", you are primed to try to find some meaning in it, even if it's nonsense. Stupid people are more likely to fall for this, because they are simply more used to professors saying stuff they don't understand anyway -- not necessarily because they actually find profound meaning in it.

Is it that they're more stupid? Or could it be that they're more humble or trusting? Humility in that they believe or feel they are not the smartest person in the room or trusting in that the people telling them things are speaking in good faith. I mean take a silly example, you're good friend who you've known for years and trust comes up to you and says noodles grow on bushes. You through some level of ignorance have never learned how noodles are made. So, even while noticing the absurdity of the notion, trust that the person telling you this is correct.

That seems more likely as to why there's a connection between this test and people who believe in conspiracy theories, religion, etc.

Emperor's shiny new clothes

[codeButcher]

From The not-very-proFound Article:

The precise reasons that people see profundity in vague buzzwords or syntactic but completely random sentences are unknown.

I think a large reason for the phenomenon (accepting the premise of around a quarter uncritical test subjects uncritically for the sake of the argument) is for the same reason that a whole city, save one child, all said how nice the emperor's new clothes are (despite all seeing his imperial nakedness): not wanting to look foolish/out-of-fashion/contrary to society in the eyes of their peers.

In other words: I read a random phrase that is touted as being (at least mildly, score 1) profound. It contains some multi-syllable words. I don't really understand it, but I guess it must be somewhat profound - philosophy have for ages given new meanings to existing words and fixed combinations thereof (heck, the media does so every day these days), so maybe this is another example where those words mean something that I haven't encountered yet in my academically undistinguished career - so just to be safe and not the laughing stock of all those ivory tower dwellers, I give it a score of 3 or 4.

And voilà!

Re:Emperor's shiny new clothes

[Anonymous Coward]

I.e., the Guru Effect applied just to phrases. (Note that I did not use e.g. here.)

Re:Emperor's shiny new clothes

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much this.

I read the thing, saw it was nonsense, but I can see that people that are not confident in their ability to tell nonsense from sense, would not want to call it out, for fear of being thought foolish.

Re:Emperor's shiny new clothes

[Anonymous Coward]

To an extent this is the function of all language - we make our own meaning, and when it coincides with the one the speaker intended (or does not conflict obviously) we assume communication has taken place. It's all nonsense if the other person doesn't understand you, and it's all meaningful if they do even if you were just stringing symbols together randomly. The latter case may NOT be meaningful to the SPEAKER until they glean the obtained meaning from the receiver, but here the perspective is all-important.

Re:Emperor's shiny new clothes

[Anonymous Coward]

You quote that line without a reference to our headline implying an answer?

Slashdot is slipping

Re:Emperor's shiny new clothes

[SillyHamster]

The precise reasons that people see profundity in vague buzzwords or syntactic but completely random sentences are unknown.

I think a large reason for the phenomenon (accepting the premise of around a quarter uncritical test subjects uncritically for the sake of the argument) is for the same reason that a whole city, save one child, all said how nice the emperor's new clothes are (despite all seeing his imperial nakedness): not wanting to look foolish/out-of-fashion/contrary to society in the eyes of their peers.

But in the absence of peer pressure, there should be no such effect.

I think a better explanation is that people assume meaning. People can find patterns in random noise.

As people try to process a random word salad, the brain works hard to develop any tenuous connection between unrelated concepts; the brain notices this exertion and concludes that this must be a difficult and meaningful concept.

A better trained brain will instead bypass that effort and conclude it's nonsense.

undefined words? must be nonsense?

[Anonymous Coward]

could wmd on credit starvation by neglect be considered infantocide, as almost all of the victims are innocent children? all the moms think so?

Re:undefined words? must be nonsense?

[Anonymous Coward]

could wmd on credit starvation by neglect be considered infantocide, as almost all of the victims are innocent children? all the moms think so?

Yeah! Let's put a stop to infantocide[sic]! Will no one think of the children?!?!1!?!11!??!eleven!!??

Duds will be duped, film at 11

[Opportunist]

Open YouTube. Search for "Flat Earth". Wonder how some people can breathe without aid.

The world is a vastly complex place. Too complex to grasp for even the most learned and intelligent people on our planet, how much more overwhelming does it have to be for someone with, let's put it kindly, limited mental resources? It's dwarfing and people don't like that. So what they are looking for is easy answers for complex problems. And of course they will get them. Usually such answers involve some scapegoat, some big and nebulous enemy and a huge conspiracy around it all.

Fuck, I'm in the wrong business. I should start writing books for those idiots and get rich off them, too.

Re:Duds will be duped, film at 11

[requerdanos]

> Open YouTube. Search for "Flat Earth". Wonder how some people can breathe without aid.

I suspect that I could have gone the rest of my life without learning that these people-a LOT of them-exist. *shudder*

Re:Duds will be duped, film at 11

[Zontar The Mindless]

In that case, I strongly advise you not to do any searches on "chemtrails".

Re:Duds will be duped, film at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck, I'm in the wrong business. I should start writing books for those idiots and get rich off them, too.

If you do, I would suggest using the pseudonym "El Ron" at first; it sounds both authoritative and exotic at the same time.

Re:Duds will be duped, film at 11

[Opportunist]

I don't want to get into a copyright case with a group of people who are not only known to be sue-happy but also have more funds than dear god allmighty.

Re:Duds will be duped, film at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean all the whistle-blower results and patents I've found indicating chemtrails are a completely real phenomena?

Re:Duds will be duped, film at 11

[Zontar The Mindless]

It's a big nest of two-bit websites, each of which says, "The proof is HERE"--with "HERE" being a link to some other two-bit website that says,...

IOW, it's a circle-jerk of folks who failed high-school physics.

Re:Duds will be duped, film at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

Write yourself your own holy book, and you'll make BILLIONS !

Re:Duds will be duped, film at 11

[mike4ty4]

Well if it's genetics, then there's no hope at all we can ever change it for the better, is there? Remember, it's not blameworthy how much "mental resources" a given person has.

Ontological Confusions

[mentil]

It makes sense that people who don't require empirical evidence would be more likely to believe in dogmas/supernatural/paranormal/gods, and alternative medicine. However I object to the term 'ontological confusions', some people's philosophies aren't founded on logic; if logic is cast aside, then internal/external consistency aren't necessarily valid ways to judge a philosophy's validity. As a metaphor, someone might say "I do not recognize the validity of this court."

If confronted with facts contradictory to your beliefs, you might believe that the facts were fabricated as part of a conspiracy to suppress The Truth. If given supporting facts, then the conspiracy must be even larger. This proves your beliefs must be true, and is the source of True Believer Syndrome.

Understanding of the psychological root of religiosity is worth pursuing, particularly to priests. If it turns out to be dimwittedness and cognitive disorders, they can just say that their flock has been "blessed by god to see the truth." Most people suffer from several minor cognitive distortions; I wonder what would happen if all the sub-clinical cases were cured...

Re:Ontological Confusions

[aaaaaaargh!]

if logic is cast aside, then internal/external consistency aren't necessarily valid ways to judge a philosophy's validity.

As a philosopher and logician, I fail to see why someone's "philosophy" shouldn't be judged on the basis of consistency like everything else, just because that person refuses validity, consistency, etc for him- or herself. Surely you must try to understand someone else's position first, but that cannot mean that you can only evaluate that position by adopting it - that would make no sense. Besides, it is my experience after 20 years of doing philosophy that people who refuse logic and mathematical method in general really just do so out of laziness, fear, and sometimes even hatred against things they believe they can't understand. Their criticisms are practically always insubstantial and uninteresting, and have been discussed within the discipline extensively before.

Anti-logical attitudes are particularly amusing and depressing at the same time, because for most purported criticisms of logic there is already a logic as a remedy. (A valid criticism may be that there are too many logics, but you rarely hear that one from non-logicians.)

Re:Ontological Confusions

[Anonymous Coward]

The high ranking of your comment is a nice demonstration of the paper's findings.

Re:Ontological Confusions

[retroworks]

Giving them credit for attempting to also test blind cynicism by adding actual commonly accepted profound statements, I think the conclusion identifies the quarter who accepted BS but doesn't similarly characterise the percentage of cynical idiots who fail to recognize the profound.

Would you rather be with someone who accidentally positively scored 50% more statements as profound, or someone who marked 50% of the actual profound statements as non-profound? And how interesting would you expect the "reverse barometer" group (those who identified all profound statements as bullshit and all random bullshit statements as profound?). I'd suspect someone is being a playful contrarian.

Randomly generated "bullshit" positively identified as "profound" could identify groups of gullible people, sure. But people who "don't fall for bullshit" but also fail to recognize actual profound statements are - what? Conclusion doesn't focus on the double or false negative (no to everything) the way it focuses on the double or positive (yes to everything). A dumb atheist cynic might for example miss the importance of statements by Voltaire, Plato, Aristotle, Lao Tsu, etc. It also bothers me that randomly generated is assumed to be bullshit... someone willing to honestly assume that a phrase is delivered with positive intent to convey meaning might find meaning in it. I could imagine an intelligent defense of the wholeness quiets infinite phenomena phrase... and the person able to find meaning in it would score lower than the cynic who finds fewer statements profound. I'd rather be with someone who is open minded than someone who misses brilliance.

A quarter of respondents might agree that everything is profound (nonsense as well as wise phrases) and a quarter might fail to find anything to be profound. Those who identify the profound and reject the "random BS" might be more intelligent. But so might the people who take the test and purposefully identify all BS positively as profound and identify all actual profound statements as "nonsense". That reverse-barometer group needs a Q sort.

Re:Ontological Confusions

[catmistake]

However I object to the term 'ontological confusions', some people's philosophies aren't founded on logic

I object to your obvious confusion about the terms you're using. Why would anyone believe ontology has anything whatsoever to do with logic??! FYI, the things religious people believe has everything to do with metaphysics. Otherwise, nice massive Strawman fallacy of a post there!! And then more ridiculous people mod parent insightful? I know you think you're deep, alright, but you should stay in the shallow end.

Re:Ontological Confusions

[Gravis Zero]

INFIDEL!... you make some good points.

Re:Ontological Confusions

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no worldview which includes any form of value judgement which can be said to have objective "consistency".

That includes yours, and all proposed by secular or atheistic sources.

While it may be a neat temporary ego boost, per the summary, to poseur handwring about "irrational religion", Logical Positivism put this one to rest a long time ago. No, one isn't more "consistent" or "logical" by avoiding religion. There is contention about the evidentiary basis for religion. As you should well know as a logician, whether that premise is true or not, follow-on conclusions from those premises cannot be dismissed within the context of logic.

(Yes, this isn't really a criticism of your rather measured post, but more against the summary and the bandwagon "yeah, religion dumb!" philosophical incompetents that persistently infest Slashdot.)

Re:Ontological Confusions

[Pseudonymous Powers]

I could imagine an intelligent defense of the wholeness quiets infinite phenomena phrase... and the person able to find meaning in it would score lower than the cynic who finds fewer statements profound.

Right. Wholeness does quiet infinite phenomena, namely, the phenomena associated with incompleteness. An audience as technical as Slashdot users surely has plenty of experience with those phenomena. There's a lot of them.

Like the man says, colorless green dreams sleep furiously.

Re:Ontological Confusions

[Anonymous Coward]

As a philosopher and logician, I fail to see why someone's "philosophy" shouldn't be judged on the basis of consistency like everything else, just because that person refuses validity, consistency, etc for him- or herself.

As the same I can offer you two solutions.

Firstly, when a judgement must be made from that particular person's point of view. When evaluating for others or evaluating if they would be receptive, their rules apply even if those rules are inconsistent and invalid.

Secondly, when judgement is not a value being sought. If pure understanding is the goal, as an example, then no judgement of any kind is a valid response.

Re:Ontological Confusions

[alvinrod]

However I object to the term 'ontological confusions', some people's philosophies aren't founded on logic; if logic is cast aside, then internal/external consistency aren't necessarily valid ways to judge a philosophy's validity. As a metaphor, someone might say "I do not recognize the validity of this court."

Hogwash.

A person who's philosophy does not recognize the validity of gravity is still subject to it. Whether a person believes a thing to be true or not does not change objective fact.

Re:Ontological Confusions

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course not:

value judgement = bigotry

Re:Ontological Confusions

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure you know what consistency means, which is probably why you write it in scare quotes. With the rest of your post, I mostly agree.

My personal views on religion are summarized by Bertrand Russell's essays "Why I am not a Christian" and "Is There a God?". In my opinion they are worth reading even if you are, for whatever reason, a theist. I'm also very interested in theist answers to the theodizee problem and to the question "Can God create a stone that he cannot lift?", but have been disappointed by most of the answers to these questions I've heard in personal discussions. To be honest, I have indeed gotten the impression from personal discussions that religion is mostly irrational and has, upon close scrutiny, not much speaking in favour of it, and didn't get any ego boost from this. It just seems obvious to me, based on my experiences, that most Christians are mostly religious because they were raised by their parents that way.

Re:Ontological Confusions

[Anonymous Coward]

There could be no stone that God could not lift, so "a stone he could not lift" has no referent.

Like "could God make a square circle", this isn't a metaphysical insight, it's an invalid use of language.

Re:Ontological Confusions

[Anonymous Coward]

"a stone he could not lift" is not a referential expression, you can do this solely by using quantifiers. Or at least, that's sort of a 'standard' textbook view about the indeterminate article, and if you have some more elaborate formalization you'd have to lay it out. (There are many, and I'm not claiming that the standard textbook view is right in general.) Anyway, a traditional answer that seems way more acceptable to me under the assumption that "God" has a unique referent is that he can create such a stone, but still has unlimited power until he creates it. So he doesn't. :-)

By the way if your paraphrase is translated to "It is not possible that there is an x such that x is a stone and God cannot lift x", which seems fair and adequate to me, then in normal modal logic it is equivalent to "Necessarily for all x: If x is a stone, then God can lift x.", so it seems he cannot create such a stone, which is possibly not what you wanted to say.

Re:Ontological Confusions

[Anonymous Coward]

Inasmuch as any component of a philosophical system makes statements about physical reality, it should be judged primarily on accuracy, with internal consistency as a secondary concern (consider that the total body of scientific knowledge includes Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, which are not consistent with one another, but which are both accepted and used due to accuracy).

Inasmuch as a philosophical system makes statements about abstract concepts (law, morality, etc.), it should be judged primarily on compatibility with our intuitions (a test of reasonableness), and again only secondarily on consistency. Consider a simple example of an axiomatic moral system in which killing is prohibited; there will somewhere in it be praise for the moral loftiness of one who kills to protect, or kills himself as a sacrifice to save others.

Internal inconsistency can be problematic when it is too widespread, as it makes the philosophical system unusable (and probably incomprehensible). So, a high level of internal consistency has good practical value, but (as the above examples demonstrate) will likely never be fully realized and hence should not serve as the primary evaluation criteria for such systems.

Re:Ontological Confusions

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to be a butt....

There is a subset of objective facts that are directly changed by personal belief.

Specifically, the position and state of each neuron in my skull is a collection of objective facts. They also happen to be the physical medium in which my personal beliefs are expressed. So a change in my personal beliefs will change the position, connection, and/or state of one or more of my neurons, and hence change objective facts. Q.E.D.

Re:Ontological Confusions

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose you are a computer programmer coding a virtual world for entertainment purposes. In this virtual world, you can create virtual rocks of any weight. I will then ask "can you program a virtual rock so heavy that you cannot lift it?"

The answer is the same for God creating big rocks.

Re:Ontological Confusions

[Anonymous Coward]

Put it this way: The only stone that could be said to be a "challenge" for God to lift would be an infinitely large stone. Could an infinitely large stone actually exist, that is, be a logically-valid referent? No.

Your modal logic statement does not work because you are using the term "stone" erroneously. An "infinitely large stone", being nonexistent and logically impossible, is not in the set of "stones".

One may as well ask if God can make a stone that is also a hamburger. Again, formalize that all you want, it is linguistically and logically meaningless.

Re:Ontological Confusions

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG it's so simple. Consider these two sentences:

God can create stones of any weight.
God can lift stones of any weight.

Both consistently describe God as being limitless, which really is the point.

Your question invites the answer "God can't create a stone so heavy that God can't lift it." The goal is to say "look, you just said God can't do something, which implies a limitation, caught you!"

The sentence obviously contains a double-negative. The word "can't" is in their twice. If you only read half of the sentence it looks like a limitation, but if you understand the meaning of the entire sentence, it is clearly stating that God is limitless.

The fuss over this is caused either by stupidity or semantic trolling.

And about the problem of evil....The most common answer is that God abides the existence of evil because he thinks free will is more important, and evil is a logical consequence of free will.

My own answer is that our concept of evil is really just humans hurting other humans. All such pain is temporary, whereas our true existence is eternal, so really evil just isn't the big deal we make it out to be. We imagine God as a champion of justice because we would like there to be an all-powerful and victorious champion of justice. Really, the rollout of justice is on us, as part of our ongoing evolution (physical and spiritual), and God nourishes this process by maintaining the environment in which we can do this. God doesn't interfere precisely so that we will achieve justice on our own....so in the interim there will be quite a lot of evil.

But that's just me.

Re:Ontological Confusions

[jwhitener]

if logic is cast aside, then internal/external consistency aren't necessarily valid ways to judge a philosophy's validity.

Besides, it is my experience after 20 years of doing philosophy that people who refuse logic and mathematical method in general really just do so out of laziness, fear, and sometimes even hatred against things they believe they can't understand.

It has been my experience that people who cast logic aside do so because they lack sufficient intelligence and schooling to think logically. They cannot determine the validity of sources of information, so they tend to surround themselves with bad information that reinforces their ideology. If you ask one of these people why they believe X,Y, or Z, they will attempt to explain things in a way that is logically and internally consistent. They value logic just as much as the next person, and truly believe they are being logical. They just do not have the ability to see the error in their ways.

But you are right that, if challenged deeply, most of these illogical folks will react with either anger (I think out of embarrassment sometimes), fear, or laziness (in the form of "I don't have to prove it, I just know it!!! You prove it instead!)

A highly trained priest (like doctorate in religion X) can present a very logically consistent world view that is very hard for an average smart person to point out the logically inconsistencies. You almost need someone with a doctorate in philosophy to find and point out fundamental issues with that world view. Things like Pascal's Wager are still hard for the average person to argue against. At first glance, lots of things 'seem right'.

That is how intelligent design persists in some circles. A scientist, with a logical mind, who happens to also believe strongly in God, can fabricate a fairly logically consistent framework supporting intelligent design. It usually takes someone with a solid understanding in science to find and point out that the "internally consistent house" that the ID person created, is resting on shaking foundations.

Re:Ontological Confusions

[Anonymous Coward]

My own answer is that our concept of evil is really just humans hurting other humans. All such pain is temporary, whereas our true existence is eternal, so really evil just isn't the big deal we make it out to be. We imagine God as a champion of justice because we would like there to be an all-powerful and victorious champion of justice. Really, the rollout of justice is on us, as part of our ongoing evolution (physical and spiritual), and God nourishes this process by maintaining the environment in which we can do this. God doesn't interfere precisely so that we will achieve justice on our own....so in the interim there will be quite a lot of evil.

As a Bible-believing Christian, I can almost agree with this except for one big flaw: natural disasters. Is there nothing "evil" about those? Look, I agree that God frequently takes it on the chin for the misbehaviour of humans who are given the freewill to act like little shits to all the rest of us. We can't have it both ways. If I have freewill to behave whatever way I want to, then so must everyone else have that same freewill. And we have to accept that some are going to misuse that freewill. But natural disasters fall into a completely different category. Who, except God, can we point the finger at when an earthquake occurs? Why did it have to happen? And, please note, just dismissing natural disasters as not truly evil is to live in denial. I guess the closest plausible explanation I can come up with is that our personal comfort in this world is not his true objective. But even that leaves me with a gnawing doubt: is evil necessary so that good might be born from it?

Re:Ontological Confusions

[ChrisMaple]

There are 4 possible conditions

• 1 logical-consistent, and religious
• 2 logical-consistent, and not religious
• 3 not logical-consistent, and religious
• 4 not logical-consistent, and not religious

Number 1 is by necessity an empty set. The other three contain people.

Re:Ontological Confusions

[Anonymous Coward]

But it of course follows from this that power cannot be infinite and, therefore, God can't actually be infinitely powerful.

Re:Ontological Confusions

[Anonymous Coward]

And about the problem of evil....The most common answer is that God abides the existence of evil because he thinks free will is more important, and evil is a logical consequence of free will.

The problem with this argument is that our "free will" is quite obviously restrained by the physical laws and the disposition of the matter and energy of the universe", which are supposedly set up by God. It's quite conceivable that things could be arranged in such a way that humans would still have an infinite selection of choices, thus having free will, even if the circumstances were contrived so that no evil outcomes were possible. You could argue that such a setup restrains free will but, as stated, free will is already constrained by circumstance.

The problem with your own argument is that it has very little scriptural basis. Scripture has quite a lot to say about sin and evil and what a big deal they are.

Really ?

[Crashmarik]

Fake it till you make it
Synergize the opportunities
Agile paradigm shift
Synthesize community norms and mores
Postmodern science

Wow this is really quite a good bit of fun, It gives me a whole new way to laugh at people who are busy looking down their noses at others.

Re:Really ?

[mwvdlee]

Laugh up but cry down.

Re:Really ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fake it till you make it

basically just described your entire post history.

Re:Really ?

[LaurenCates]

May be relevant to your interests.

(I think Weird Al is relevant to many people's interests, but I may be biased.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Really ?

[Crashmarik]

Fake it till you make it

basically just described your entire post history.

Can't imagine why you would post that anonymously / sarcasm.

I tried to read the paper....

[LordHighExecutioner]

...but I soon came to the conclusion that the paper too is nonsense. Nice try, mr. Pennycook!

Re:I tried to read the paper....

[gargleblast]

It's not nonsense, it's deep. Seriously deep.

Seriously deep bullshit.

It's much more than that.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the deification of the idea that the LESS supported your claim is, the BETTER your belief is, and that the belief itself is holy and uncontaminated.

If you really believe god told the priest that abortions were wrong and evil, why would you stop at believing them when they tell you to blow up the unbelievers?

Re:It's much more than that.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really believe god told the priest that abortions were wrong and evil, why would you stop at believing them when they tell you to blow up the unbelievers?

Oh, I dunno...Maybe it's that whole love your neighbor as yourself thing? Could that have anything to do with it?

Re:It's much more than that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Hate gays, divorcees, atheists. All neighbours, all to be hated.

And none of them need to be told they're going to hell if they don't agree with you. How the hell does that become an expression of love???

pretty obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

so idiots are idiots?

who knew!

Doctorate?

[Big Hairy Ian]

If this is what his doctorate is on his PHD thesis should be about the stupid things people get qualified in!

Re:Doctorate?

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is what his doctorate is on his PHD thesis should be about the stupid things people get qualified in!

Oh,...Dear God! He's actually going to get a Ph.D. for this?!? Suddenly, all doctorates now seem cheapened by this.

Re:Doctorate?

[Anonymous Coward]

"What you've just presented is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard."

"At no point in your rambling, incoherent thesis were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought."

"Everyone on this review board is now dumber for having listened to it."

"I award you no degree, and may God have mercy on your soul!"

It didn't pretend you were a clueless moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike most of the movies (see the second Mission Impossible and compare it to the first), it doesn't assume it has to PANDER to you and assume the lowest common denominator because you're too dumb or lazy to understand anything that isn't kindergarden level explained.

Even those whose capacity or instinct is insufficient to make them a target demographic of "high brow" entertainment can manage to stretch their goals and the stretch, like any exercise, is both healthy and enjoyable, and like actual exercise it is a strain, tiring and damaging if you do too much too far and too often.

There's a difference between being so unfit you are winded walking to the shops and being chauffeured to the corner shop 200 yards away by a "well meaning" individual who thinks that if you don't WANT to exercise, you should NEVER be able to exercise.

Matrix, the first one, the others were clearly the result of some people who had a surprise success and didn't know what the fuck they were going to do and so fucked it up and listened to "marketing" on what appeals to the broad public, something that without the success and broad appeal for the first one to be of interest to the marketing hawks, they were not barraged with messages to follow, did not have a deep or meaningful story, but it didn't think anyone watching needed to be told every little detail nor did they need to have Cartesian duality and the philosophy therefrom removed from the movie because it was "too highbrow" for the knuckledraggers marketing know the public to be.

MI 2 told you who the baddy was BEFORE THE OPENING CREDITS, because you are all obviously too dumb to go two thirds of a movie before finding out who the bad guy was (and even worse, be misled into thinking they were dead. Sorry for the spoilers), because a movie that does that can't be successful, therefore after the success of the first movie, making it simpler and more explicit and holding your hand every second MUST make it TEN TIMES MORE SUCCESSFUL!

It can't be that people, even the "Omega" class moviegoer, can handle some mystery or intrigue or complexity in story. Because if they were THAT smart, they'd be in marketing, manipulating the choices of those mouthbreathers who aren't in marketing!

And that is why Inception did very very well. Even Omega class humans were hungry for something with more meat in it, something tougher to exercise themselves over, and the complete and utter lack of anything like that on TV or the movie screen meant that the pent up demand being serviced by the very very few times that this sort of need is supplied means you get a very high and surprising positive turnout.

Which is then fucked up because it's assumed that those who can't comfortably handle complexity CANNOT handle any complexity and if you dumb down, you get those "more numerous" (a presumption entirely) viewers. The fact that they were already going, because the presumption made is WRONG, is NEVER thought of, and the complexity left in to service the same need.

Mind you, if they did, because some are OK with a mental workout every few years, the turnout would be lower, because *a very small proportion* of the viewers have been at least temporarily satiated and won't go, or wait until it's out on DVD. A very small number, but marketing and sales this time, would see ANY drop as "proof" that it should have been dumbed down. Of course, by the third one, those who liked the first but were put off by the dumbing down of the second will not go. Mind you, THAT will be construed by marketing as why they needed to dumb it down even further to recapture the numbers of the surprise success of the first.

People are smarter than even they believe. The difference is how much special effort they need to put in to it, not the capacity to think that high. Granted, some things require a high level of thought for a large proportion of time, for which reason, some people would never manage to be professional engineers, scientists, teachers, whatever. But that doesn't mean that that level of thought cannot be attained, just that it's an effort, and in a life busy with a struggle to live, there's not much energy left to put effort in to REACH that level of thought.

Re:It didn't pretend you were a clueless moron

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to re-watch that movie and look at the geometry of the real world scenes, especially where the chick jumps out the window.

Another disinfo piece

[Anonymous Coward]

Dice is a turd and cmdrtaco is rolling in his grave

Re:Another disinfo piece

[Anonymous Coward]

He's dead?

Horse ebooks versus I.e. versus e.g.

[TheRealHocusLocus]

I think that someone who doesn't understand the difference between i.e. and e.g. has no business criticising others.

Good catch! ;-)

I call bullshit on Pennycook's characterization of randomly generated nonsense as B.S, which he uses as a pivot of his 'study'. Here we have a generalization and judgement, an i.e. if you will, of something that can only be evaluated on an e.g. basis.

Identifying a scrap of apparent nonsense as profound is NOT a final judgement. It is a declaration that something is worthy to remember and consider, a state of unresolved investigation. We strive to find pattern and meaning and when we glimpse something --- a wordless sense on the level of intuition gives us a tug, saying in effect, file that one for later. Now whether we do in fact remember it and get around to pondering it later... depends on the amount of mental discipline and organization.

Sadly, we know how to write and are surrounded by paper but few of us actually write interesting things down anywhere and ponder on them. The hippies who followed Maharishi around in the 60s hanging on his every word mostly didn't keep journals, they had became addicted to the rush of hearing the words being spoken to them, and were sure that somehow somewhen something would click and it would all magically drop into place. Some pretended it did merely so they could leave and get on with their lives.

If you're clever enough and work at it you can eventually find a context where any nonsense makes sense. We see this as a challenge, a game.

In this paragraph imagine that I said something profound about our dreams are a journey along the dividing line between sense and nonsense, and how it is essential for us to do this 'perimeter walk' on a regular basis to shore up the specific neuron pathways along this 'border' and drop breadcrumbs that we use to know when we are crossing the line. Having these marked perimeters being essential to maintaining sanity, something like that. But yet, peoples' reactions to encountering these crumbs in the waking state varies: some may simply turn back, some may feel encouraged to cross over, some may even feel threatened.

Not all Goo Goo Goo Joob is either scripture or blather. That one's purpose was to deliberately confound those who were deeply analyzing Beatles lyrics for hidden meaning. Even Horse ebooks is not 'nonsense'. Though it was mechanically produced it is not the result of monkeys and typewriters. Its coder gathered volumes of text in which people were expressing ideas and sentiment, so the result makes new connections. Like round blue tailights on a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

What this has to do with gullibility I have not a clue.

Re:Horse ebooks versus I.e. versus e.g.

[Bongo]

There's something called the Pre/Trans Fallacy. It says that because neither nonsense nor supersense are common sense, the two get easily confused.

So a brilliant intuition can be taken for rubbish, and rubbish can be taken for a brilliant intuition. But there is a real difference: the brilliant intuition can be looked at rationally and carefully, whereas the nonsense, on closer examination, remains rubbish.

So I don't know whether their study was looking at whether people can recognise supersense when they see it, or whether the study was only looking at whether people merely recognise common sense.

The real intelligence is for those who can figure out the difference between supersense and nonsense. As in, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Re:Horse ebooks versus I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

For example....

"infinite phenomena" is a good description of our everyday experience, which is characterized by a near-perpetual onslaught of ever-changing sense data, and a technologically-empowered life that only grows in complexity.

"wholeness" is a good description of the state of mind that can be attained through meditative practice.

Such a practice greatly helps one to reduce the agitating impact of the "infinite phenomena" data stream. That is to say, to reduce its volume, or make it quiet.

So, it is quite true that "wholeness quiets infinite phenomena."

The statement may have been randomly generated, but it isn't nonsense. Also, I am not an idiot who believes in conspiracy theories, homeopathic remedies, religions, or promises made by politicians.

The study is nonsense.

Re:Horse ebooks versus I.e. versus e.g.

[Qzukk]

Such a practice greatly helps one to reduce the agitating impact of the "infinite phenomena" data stream. That is to say, to reduce its volume, or make it quiet.

I find your nonsense deep and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Horse ebooks versus I.e. versus e.g.

[xevioso]

Nonsense!

Re:Horse ebooks versus I.e. versus e.g.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are the exact type of person this study is talking about

BS Generator

[DigiShaman]

For an endless cycle of vapid platitudinal phrases we call bullshit ! Mmmm mm mmMMMmmm, yes, more please!

I call bullshit

[MikeRT]

Many of most credulous people I've ever met are "open-minded," intelligent people. New Age stuff is very prominent in such people, and "New Age" ideas make low church Pentecostalism look like high Greek philosophy. I've had such people tell me about the healing power of crystals, magnets and all sorts of nonsense. I mean crystals? Really? If they weren't tool old for it, I'd swear they spent too much time doing drugs and playing Final Fantasy.

If you take a step back and look at things objectively, you find that there is a startling lack of correlation between intelligence and wisdom. In fact, it often takes a certain degree of intelligence to believe some of those idiotic things out there. Sure, people with lower degrees of intelligence may endorse alternative medicine and things like that, but the amount of simply bad (obviously bad in many cases) ideas and philosophies held by a lot of intelligent people in the West is even more disturbing. It's a lot scarier that a lot of intelligent and successful people think that Socialism and the Labor Theory of Value are viable than some Walmart worker believes in medical quackery or outlandish paranormal ideas.

Re:I call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

MikeRT, You keep using that word - "intelligent". I don't think it means what you think it means.

If someone starts babbling about crystal power and magnets, and they don't have peer-reviewed research (or even a well-formulated hypothesis) then I would not consider them intelligent in the first place. Ironic that you associate this with "the West", because that's not where I see most of it coming from. Not that idiocy knows any national boundaries. Similarly, dismissing a hypothesis without testing it (as many do the world over) is also foolish in the extreme - even when there is no concrete evidence one way or another.

Re:I call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like MikeRT is on about the same level as the crystal jockies.

MikeRT, You keep using that word - "intelligent". I don't think it means what you think it means.

If someone starts babbling about crystal power and magnets, and they don't have peer-reviewed research (or even a well-formulated hypothesis) then I would not consider them intelligent in the first place. Ironic that you associate this with "the West", because that's not where I see most of it coming from. Not that idiocy knows any national boundaries. Similarly, dismissing a hypothesis without testing it (as many do the world over) is also foolish in the extreme - even when there is no concrete evidence one way or another.

Actually many hypothesis can be dismissed without testing, look at the nonsense spewed by Deepak Chopra. One should dismiss everything he says entirely, and anything that is actually relevant or factual can readily be obtained from less dubious sources.

supposed credentials of the authors

[Anonymous Coward]

People are also taken in by the listed credentials of the authors of the statements. 999 of 1000 scientists believe that the oceans will rise.

Like, conspiracy theories

[Anonymous Coward]

If you believe in man-made climate change, this article is about you.

Million monkeys on a million typewriters?

[RobinH]

Wouldn't a million monkeys on a million typewriters eventually write something "really deep"? It's nice to use randomly generated strings of words but first of all you'd have to run them through a filter to make sure you didn't accidentally create one that really did have meaning, right?

Re:Million monkeys on a million typewriters?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Wouldn't a million monkeys on a million typewriters eventually write something "really deep"?

Yes, read the Washington Post and it will be clear that they have between 300,000 to 500,000 monkeys working on each issue. Words? Yes. Meaningful? No. Deep? Never.

Re:Million monkeys on a million typewriters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely. (And those "deep" monkeys would be perhaps one day called "humans", and as you pointed out the rest of them become "journalists"). Check this out:

Entropy and Art, by Rudolf Arnheim (http://mysite.pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/Arnheim.html)

Also, anyone who doesn't think prayer doesn't work probably doesn't think placebos work either.

Re:Million monkeys on a million typewriters?

[sudon't]

Wouldn't a million monkeys on a million typewriters eventually write something "really deep"? It's nice to use randomly generated strings of words but first of all you'd have to run them through a filter to make sure you didn't accidentally create one that really did have meaning, right?

It's still cheaper to use computers. Think of the mess alone! But seriously, I'm skeptical of some of the ways they illustrate mathematical concepts, such as the million monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare, or the exact copy of you in an infinite universe. Potentialities may be infinite, but I don't think you can make hard predictions like this. Indeed, I think they're unlikely.

Sorry, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but "wholeness quiets infinite phenomena" is a true and meaningful statement (if only loosely).

Just because it was assembled "at random" doesn't take away its meaning.

Ever heard of Jean Arp?

Or, for that matter, most poetry?

Your insurance bill will be lower than your cable

[Anonymous Coward]

Or if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.

One do not need to hold a phd, merely one needs to be reasonably good at math, to understand nonsensical reasoning.

Entire elections cycle sometimes reminds large empirical experiment, where outcome is oh so well predictable

Niels said it

[dargaud]

"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." -- Niels Bohr

Quite. It smells like bullshit.

[denzacar]

There is a long list of cognitive biases to which ALL humans with biological brains and nervous systems are susceptible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Many of them come down to nonsense and noise appearing to make sense.
Because that is the primary function of our brains - making sense and information out of completely random stimuli generated by the world around us.

It's not a game.
It's a necessity for a crushable biological entity to quickly make sense of those vibrations it's sensors are picking up.
Is it thunder, wind or is something heavy coming down on it from above?
Quick! Milliseconds mean life or... too late.
We get pareidolia cause those who didn't recognize that bear-shaped object in the distance didn't make it through the evolutionary process.
Not cause we adapted to think that teddy bears are cute or so that we could interpret smileys and emoji.

And when we can't make sense of some stimuli - we start getting anxious and afraid. And that makes us stupid. And then we get hurt and then we die.
Which is why we'll jump on any quick and easy explanation like "ghosts" or "aliens" or conspiracy theories.
Cause they can provide easy and simple solutions to ANY unsolvable problem. And they provide it quickly.

Why am I poor? Because secret world government keeps me that way.
Why am I ugly? Because aliens made me so.
Why did I get an incurable disease when I'm really a nice person? Because chemtrails.
Why will I and everyone else I love eventually have to die? So we can live forever in a much better place.
Why did my tire blow out? Bad luck. Or gremlins.

Re: Quite. It smells like bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Very interesting, but fear is an emotion, used to save the body. Just as pain. It's usable by the body, to heighten awareness, to run, or to stay and fight. Logic can control fear. Logic, and rhetoric can be used to control emotions. Therefore a path of action can be constructed to utilize fear for gain.
My argument with guy, is, class basis. Did he investigate further? In other then read some biased communications psycology papers, to determine, if his question could have been attributed to educational standards? Sources standards, or conformational bias?

Re:Quite. It smells like bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Another way to put it is that we're "Relevance junkies" - There's a reward stimulus for putting information together. It's an evolutionary adaptation.

Unfortunately you can tickle this mechanism with bad, but properly formatted information. Call this Junk Information. Social media, gossip, talk shows, sensationalist infotainment news, conspiracy theories. (And many would say big chunks of religion too)

Like Junk Food it will fill you up. It's tasty and immediately satisfying.. but if you live on it you'll end up sick and you won't live a healthy life. Sitting on your ass and watching TV to become informed is like eating Mc Donnalds for dinner every day.

Also like with Junk Food you become accustomed to it and all other information seems bland and unpalatable.. Or even suspect. Ever wonder why conspiracy theorists seem to withdraw from society and become insular?

Re:Quite. It smells like bullshit.

[claytongulick]

I may disagree with the whole premise of this. I also don't discount the possibility that I'm easily duped or have poor cognitive abilities and am a sucker.

It's common practice for artists to generate random words in different configurations in order to draw new insights, inspiration and ideas.

Also, just because something is randomly generated, doesn't mean it's not insightful. How it is possible to objectively judge?

FTFA: "Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena". Even though I was told that this phrase was nonsense and randomly generated, I decided to think about it a bit to see if there was an insight I can draw.

Here's one:
In our lives, we're constantly flooded with external stimuli. Text messages, advertisements, flashing lights, warnings, political messages, friends in crisis, problems at work, deadlines, all stridently competing for our attention (infinite phenomena). Personality flaws and weaknesses allow some of these to catch us and drive us in unhealthy directions. If we can work to fix our flaws (wholeness) we can have more effective defenses against the infinite flood of events pushing us and driving us to action (buy this, sell that, believe this, become outraged, donate, think this way, etc...). Becoming a healthy, mature, thoughtful person helps reduce or eliminate the effect that these external driving forces have on us (quiets). Ergo, Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena.

I don't know. BS? Maybe. Possibly. But also thought provoking. I think I like the random phrases.

Re:Quite. It smells like bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it thunder, wind or is something heavy coming down on it from above?
Quick! Milliseconds mean life or... too late.

Because a human's ability to survive significantly depends on the ability to detect heavy weights falling down on them from above...

Sorry to say, but that's a REALLY stupid example. Try a car analogy next time.

Re:Quite. It smells like bullshit.

[ras]

There is a long list of cognitive biases to which ALL humans with biological brains and nervous systems are susceptible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Good lord. What a list. I didn't realise scammers, conmen, marketers, politicians and religious leaders had so much raw material to work with.

Re:Quite. It smells like bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

As society developed communities with a distribution of labor, the evolutionary effect of death before reproducing was attenuated. Stupid people survived with the unwitting help of the village. And also, religion was born.

Re:Quite. It smells like bullshit.

[RockDoctor]

ALL humans with biological brains and nervous systems are susceptible.

You have an example of a human who doesn't have a biological brain and nervous system?

I@m seeking an example ... Stephen Hawking doesn't fit for example, because he has a biological brain (in fine working order, to best I can tell from his conversation) and a biological nervous system. The non-brain parts of his nervous system are pretty fucked-up, and requiring significant mechanical and electronic assistance to communicate with the rest of the world. But they're still biological. Even Kevin Warwick is basically biological, with small electronic peripherals. A person with a cochlear implant in place of an ear sensor has a slightly non-biological system - but not even a couple of percent.

Re:Quite. It smells like bullshit.

[RespekMyAthorati]

Exactly.
OP just expects us to trust him to judge what is "sense" and what is "nonsense". The fact that a phrase was generated mechanically tells nothing about which it is.

Re: Quite. It smells like bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is there are a huge number of other possible interpretations. By using vague words like "wholeness" and "quiets" and "phenomenon", together with powerful words like "infinite" to make the sentence seem like it has some authority, you have essentially turned a sentence that is almost infinitely flexible into something that many people would mistake for a grand truth. Your mistake was in select one interpretation and claiming that gives the sentence some meaning. It does not. See, you were so distracted by your own mental analysis of the sentence itself that you got lost in your own assumptions and, as a result, started to treat the assumptions as truths.

Hence, the scientific claim of the article is perfectly accurate.

Re: Quite. It smells like bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservatism is a bias? Well, that explains pretty much everything in politics. (I am only half joking.)

Re:Quite. It smells like bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
  - attributed to William James

Re:Now I understand the Tea Party and the GOP.

[Anonymous Coward]

Partisan politics has all the trappings of studio wrestling. You're likely being taken for a ride and you're too stupid to notice it.

This article = Global Warming explained

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes perfect sense now why so many sheeple buy into the total nonsense about climate change.

Re:This article = Global Warming explained

[Anonymous Coward]

What, that they should post annoying trolls around the internet to enflame people's rage and thus raise the average temperature further?

There are different classes of people who think 'd

[hackwrench]

I don't usually think in terms of shallow or deep. Data only becomes information in an intellectual processing environment.
However I think that there are two classes of person who thinks something is deep: people who think that almost everything they don't understand is deep and those who decide to imbue something they don't understand with meaning. I sometimes think, "why would I use a given set of words together" and that is an intellectual exercise. I have heard of people talk negatively about people doing "intellectual gymnastics" to be able to believe two contradictory positions. However, when you are doing something similar without holding both contradictory must be true it can be a healthy undertaking I think.

There is no psychological root of religiosity.

[denzacar]

There IS a biological root for FAITH.
Or as call it when not talking about magical creatures and forces - instinct.
When we "feel" something is a certain way but can't quite put our finger onto why we think it is so.
When we have faith that something is a certain way.

Some stimuli has triggered something somewhere in our evolutionary and personal memories and our brain is telling us that... just not in precise terms.
Will the rope hold? It feels like it might. Will it rain? It feels like it might. Will this hurt? It feels like it should.
There is another word we use much more often for that describes that feeling of certainty about unknown. Maybe.

That's what "faith" is. Taking an "I don't know" and making it into a "Maybe."

Religion is taking those feelings that come with built-in uncertainties and putting them into rigid frames of dogma in order to "explain" and control them.
It's telling, and often forcing, people to not only think - but to feel a certain way. Or else...
And that's abuse.

Most people don't have a psychological or any other kind of propensity towards being abused.
Those who do... we consider them mentally ill.

Re:There is no psychological root of religiosity.

[vovin]

Religion/Faith is a human specific mental condition specifically manifest to deal with the unpleasantness of the reality in which the subject finds itself.
Basically it's functional insanity.

Re:There is no psychological root of religiosity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion/Faith is a human specific mental condition specifically manifest to deal with the unpleasantness of the reality in which the subject finds itself.
Basically it's functional insanity.

That's OK. You just go right on believing that, if it makes you feel better.

Re:There is no psychological root of religiosity.

[denzacar]

Religion/Faith is a human specific mental condition specifically manifest to deal with the unpleasantness of the reality in which the subject finds itself.

No... Not Religion/Faith. You're describing ONLY faith.

And it's not quite what we usually consider insanity. No more than love or fear or happiness. It IS illogical... but very, very normal.
There is no such thing as a perfectly sane human - cause being a functional human requires feelings and emotions.
A perfectly rational human is a psychopath.

That title though

[Anonymous Coward]

I really wish I could have been there when the authors were trying to convince the editors not to censor the title.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans have free will and anyone can think whatever the f*ck they want it's as simple as that - the why of it is immaterial.

ob. Blazing Saddles

[AntronArgaiv]

Those more receptive to bull**** are less reflective, lower in cognitive ability (i.e., verbal and fluid intelligence, numeracy), are more prone to ontological confusions [beliefs in things for which there is no empirical evidence (i.e. that prayers have the ability to heal)] and conspiratorial ideation, are more likely to hold religious and paranormal beliefs, and are more likely to endorse complementary and alternative medicine.

aka, the common clay of the new West...you know...morons.

Re:ob. Blazing Saddles

[Anonymous Coward]

Give it a rest with that antiquated commie BS.

Being Receptive != Agreeing

[Anonymous Coward]

I am receptive to a lot of things. Not because I immediately agree with that thing without any thought, but because I am smart enough to realize that I do not know everything, and am always willing to accept that I might be wrong about something.

Too cheap to meter

[MrKaos]

As likely as lightning striking in the same place twice

Walk away safe.

Capacity Factor.

Clean, cheap, efficient.

Yes, I can see how certain people fall for this bullshit.

Nonsense?

[mhocker]

Aren't they called string theorists?

In Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumb people believe dumb shit.

Tantum Ergo Sacramentum, Veneremur Cernui.

[Anonymous Coward]

> ontological confusions beliefs in things for which there is no empirical evidence (i.e. that prayers have the ability to heal)

In the roman catholic church there are only two ways to become a calendar saint: "simply" suffer martyrdom for faith or lead a holy life with post-mortem miraculous intercessions. In the latter case, there must be two independent cases where ill people prayed that the deceased sainthood candidate petition on their behalf for a hearing of their grivenaces in Heaven and thus prayer was heard by God and the ill miraculously healed. All this is very meticulously researched by the devil's advocate and only a few very strong cases are allowed to proceed towards canonization, so I would not dare to claim "infallibly" that prayers can't heal.

Re:Tantum Ergo Sacramentum, Veneremur Cernui.

[Jesrad]

That's an improper way of inferring correlation, let alone proper causation. For one, you're not controlling for the presence of comparable miraculous healings of non-christians or in the absence of prayers.

Free Society

[MrKaos]

Democracy for all.

Freedom of speech.

Freedom of association.

Right to protest.

The free world.

Left and Right wing politics

Elected Representative.

Your vote matters.

Not the only reasons for people not calling BS

[DriveDog]

We're certainly familiar with the Emporer's New Clothes. Not all of those who don't call BS don't recognize it as such.

Spam Haikus

[T.E.D.]

Actually, yes sometimes there is wisdom in "total nonsense". That's why we loved Yogi Berra. Wisdom, like art, is what you take out of something, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what the person put into it.

Case in point are Spam Haikus. Once a lot of people started using Baysean filters on their incoming email, spammers started trying to fool them by just inserting random text that had nothing to do with the ad. Some of these were passages lifted straight from books, but a large amount seem to have been randomly generated phrases using words from nice high-level conversational English. Most of it is dross of course, but there are some really interesting concoctions in there. I took to saving the more interesting ones in a "Spam Haikus" folder.

They typically aren't proper haikus of course, but a lot of them are damn close. I take it the Spam phrase generator was tuned to make its paragraphs fairly close to 17 syllables.

Obvious

[eyepeepackets]

Stupid people are made obvious by their stupidities, as has been known since forever. The real problem is that there are so fucking many of them.

Religion that everyone hates

[Anonymous Coward]

The religion that everyone hates and won't stop discussing here is not the religion I know. That's because the squeaky wheels get all the attention.

The religion I know quietly serves the community. Takes care of those who are down on their luck with a food pantry and a deacon's fund, and those who are really down on their luck with a homeless shelter.

The religion I know has neuroscientists (we are in a college town) sitting next to gardeners. The religion I know encourages continual study and thought about extremely well-reasoned works, such as Systematic Theology, an enormous volume that deals with hundreds of details of exactly why we believe what we believe.

The religion I know is pretty strict about not allowing mystic nonsense.

I've found it at two churches so far. They were both Baptist. Jesus is Lord in my life, and I'm a very successful software developer, despite a serious disability.

Look at the quiet religions that serve everyone for your examples, because they're actually all over. Don't look at the loud annoying ones that tend to just foster hate and ignore all the good.

Re:Religion that everyone hates

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

Ever think you should maybe be a little LESS quiet to your fellow religionists who constantly parade their hate around until they whip each other up into murderous frenzies?

Re:Religion that everyone hates

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever think you should maybe be a little LESS quiet to your fellow religionists who constantly parade their hate around until they whip each other up into murderous frenzies?

Sure, but what would you expect Christians should do? Reconvene the Inquisition to ferret out heretics? (Bet you weren't expecting that!) After all, it worked so well the last time it was tried. What could go wrong? As I see it, about the best that can be done is to say "those guys aren't a part of any church I want to be a part of and here is where I think they have erred as Christians in their ways". Other than that, those guys have just as much right to freedom of religion and freedom of assembly as anyone else.

Re:Religion that everyone hates

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

Nice Inquisition strawman there. No sarcasm; it was cute - hey, I like Monty Python references as much as the next geek - but no thanks.

It's simple, really it is. Just do exactly what I said. Be LESS quiet.

Why are all Christian political campaigners, all Christian platforms of PUBLIC communication (radio, TV etc) such loud and constant megaphones for bigotry?

Why are the moderates you see in your congregation so utterly different from the hate-filled public, politically active face of your religion?

What exactly is stopping those like your congregation from making themselves heard in the public arena with the same effectiveness as the nutjobs?

The facts are clear: the folks you talk about are either not as committed as the bigots, or not as common as they are, or both.

Free press

[MrKaos]

Timely and accurate reporting.

Fair and balanced.

The people have a right to know.

An educated and informed populous.

Unbiased reporting.

Irristible

[Anonymous Coward]

Clear this article is about Trump supporters.

Chopra generator

[Beerdood]

I came across this gem recently : http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

It's the Turbo Encabulator

[RogueWarrior65]

When you work in a corporate environment, you see evidence of this at the highest levels. Examples are people who insist on using flowery words to describe something to make themselves sound more intelligent when simple words are sufficient. Also, people who insist on creating acronyms for every project.

Doesn't fit the narrative!

[Anonymous Coward]

Reporters work with words, so they cannot be wrong, it MUST still be those atheist god killing scientists! Bunch of nerds.

Girlfriends

[Sperbels]

This may explain every girlfriend I've ever had.

Re:Girlfriends

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you not a more obvious common denominator?

Re:Now I understand the Tea Party and the GOP.

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet it's predominantly the left that are authors and champions of the volumes of pedantic and pretentious sludge that's printed and pushed on a naive young audience desperate for a target for their anger, self-conflict, and self-doubt. In a very real way every argument you might make for the foolish followers of religion can also be made for ultra-feminism, zealous environmentalism, occupy wallstreet, black lives matter, or dozens of other movements we've seen over the last decade or so. It's less about how deep their knowledge is of the cause du jour, and much more about how vehemently they will attack any who speak ill of it.

Where is the systemd thread?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is clickbait - I expanded this story expecting rants about systemd!

Proved by itself

[Anonymous Coward]

The last part of the study is to see if the paper gets published.

GitS Movie and EVA fans

[Anonymous Coward]

This completely explains the Ghost in the Shell Movie, (the first piece shit directed my Mamouro Oshii with the scenery porn and crap characters), and Evangellion fandom, (If daddy really didn't love him why did he bother setting him up to hang with a hot chick in a mini-skirt and a habit of not wearing a bra as opposed to just shoving him in an apartment like he did with the lobotomized chick.).

Both are examples of crap that fools idiots into thinking they're deep stories.

This paper perfectly describes Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically this forum is a bunch of computer nerds and code monkeys who think that because they are good with a computer they are now experts in all areas of knowledge. They spout their bullshit ad hoc theories of either libertarian, or european socialist bent depending on the topic of the thread. Whatever appeals to the majority gets modded +5 Insightful and the original poster creams their pants at being temporarily appointed the best of the current crop of neckbeards fighting for upvotes. It stokes their ego which leads to them becoming karma whores, pontificating upon even more topics they actually don't have a clue about to get even more +5s.

Pedant Fight!

[Anonymous Coward]

Get'm Get'm!

Breaking News

[RecursiveLoop]

Dumb people are....Dumb

Mensa idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of most credulous people I've ever met are "open-minded," intelligent people. New Age stuff is very prominent in such people, and "New Age" ideas make low church Pentecostalism look like high Greek philosophy. I've had such people tell me about the healing power of crystals, magnets and all sorts of nonsense. I mean crystals? Really? If they weren't tool old for it, I'd swear they spent too much time doing drugs and playing Final Fantasy.

I'd say they aren't as intelligent as you seem to think that are. First off they don't understand the difference between "open-minded" and "empty-minded". Being open-minded doesn't mean you have to listen to quantum-metaphysical bullshit that assholes like Depak spew; if your actually smart you should be able to tell that it's absolute nonsense in less than a minute, (And that's with out the help of Sky-daddy who worries about what consenting adults do with their private parts or Jr. who worries about trees blooming out of season or cursing cities because they didn't kowtow to him ). We may not completely understand what quantum mechanics is, but we sure as hell understand what it isn't.

If you take a step back and look at things objectively, you find that there is a startling lack of correlation between intelligence and wisdom. In fact, it often takes a certain degree of intelligence to believe some of those idiotic things out there. Sure, people with lower degrees of intelligence may endorse alternative medicine and things like that, but the amount of simply bad (obviously bad in many cases) ideas and philosophies held by a lot of intelligent people in the West is even more disturbing. It's a lot scarier that a lot of intelligent and successful people think that Socialism and the Labor Theory of Value are viable than some Walmart worker believes in medical quackery or outlandish paranormal ideas.

The answer is no, that aren't really that smart, and neither are you for thinking they are. There's a fundamental flaw in the way most people look at intelligence. As you so clearly demonstrate, crap like the Mensa test, IQ tests, and standardized tests don't measure critical thinking. Without critical thinking you can join Mensa, regurgitate Wikipedia, solve Rubik's cube with one hand, and be fluent in both Klingon and Sindarin while still being a fucking idiot.

Total nonsense

[macraig]

Amen, brothers!

For your amusement

[ilsaloving]

A New Age Bullshit Generator

http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/

Dumb people are gullible...check

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank God we finally figured that out.

Concise article summary...

[Dzimas]

Stupid and/or gullible people are more likely to believe nonsense. Next.

Study lacking insight and expanded perspectives

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Just because you are using a random generator to generate "random" phrases, does not mean someone else cannot derive meaning from the results. To hold as a prerequisite that the generated texts are "meaningless" is itself both unsubstantiated and prejudiced. The logic only hold water superficially: "Because the text was randomly generated, it must be random and meaningless" is not practically logical for actual produced texts and possibility-space of interpretations thereof. In wisdom, this is made clear: Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. This also applies to wisdom. Ie. no matter the source, good or bad, the wise can apply whatever was said wisely (in itself a circular argument, but this is OK since wisdom itself is paradoxial and impossible to prove).

2. If everyone followed the author's recipe, nothing new would be discovered, invented or created. Discovery, invention and creation are all based on faith, without evidence or ROI as basis. It can even be said to often be based on love! Therefore, anyone should be wary of such reductionist approach, since it will lead to their own limitations, thus being out-competed by individuals that are free of such limitations (often people who skipped school, are dyslexic or otherwise seen as mentally "handicapped" but not retarded). You often find exceptional people to be open-minded and creating their own businesses and sciences out of what is seemingly thin air, but in reality, is just the blindside that most scholared people have been conditioned to accept.

3. This could go on and be made a book out of. But if you don't get this, there's really no point.

Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberal demoncraps fell for the whole "yes we can" and "change" bullshit because they are illiterate fools who will believe anything as long as it means more gubmint gibs muh dats.

Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

e.g. they are more likely to become Republicans.

Re:There are different classes of people who think

[omnichad]

I think you describe two categories of false depth. "Depth" can also be used to describe anything that concisely gives order to data. Or creates a framework that facilitates understanding of a complex idea or process.

Suckers just aren't very smart.

[Rudisaurus]

QED

Can I have my doctorate now, please?

"Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena"

[ChristopherShay]

Truthfully, "Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena" isn't really nonsense is it? More of a looping, self-referential Koan. And a pretty good one, at that, at least in terms of observing the phrase itself... Somebody get me one million monkeys typing on one million typewriters, stat!

Re:"Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena"

[ChristopherShay]

Is it possible that different cultures might interpret so-called nonsense differently? Or, for that matter, that simply having a different (broader) perspective within the same culture--such as above, by maliciously choosing to interpret a randomly-generated sentence as a Koan about the nature of the universe--might be a possible confound for this study? Um, also, randomly-generated sentences or not, didn't someone then have to go so as to done went 'n' then bechose specific sentences after they was randomated to make use of? And couldn't those choices imply a certain particular nonsense-0-centric point of view which respondents might not share with the person making those choices? :-)

Re:"Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena"

[Earthquake Retrofit]

Right and wrong is different from place to place and changes over time. Can you think of some that stay the same? Honesty? Politeness? When I hear someone say something that sounds like BS I'm likely to say "I don't understand, could you explain that please." It may cause them to rethink what they said or may result in an ad hominem attack. Or they might prove it isn't BS.

Re:"Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena"

[ChrisMaple]

The apparent inconstancy of right and wrong is due to those terms being poorly defined. Part of the difficulty is failing to mention context: right or wrong in order to achieve what goal?

Quoting Agent Kay:

[kheldan]

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet.

Cynical, but undeniably true. In my opinion, the day that the vast majority of human beings alive on Earth look at things like religion and superstitions and say "That doesn't make any sense!", will be the day that the Human race will start truly becoming what I consider to be 'sentient' and 'civilized'.

Executive Summary

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

People who believe stupid shit are stupid people.

Life is paradoxical, inscrutable, ineffable.

[micahraleigh]

I have no interest in judging by appearances, slinging pointed logic, editorializing over the news, or glorifying the perverse echo chamber here.

The fact that people can use this echo chamber to insulate themselves from their inner misgivings and celebrate their superficiality makes me feel very sad for them.

Bullshit study

[Anonymous Coward]

The phrase "ontological confusion" itself indicates a bias that distorts anything this study might claim.

Inspiration can come from noise

[Theovon]

I don’t know about some people, but I’ve gotten a lot of good ideas from bullshit. Yeah, I know what I’m reading is poppycock, but for bullshit to be believable by ANYONE, it has to have some plausibility. So if you run with some of the plausible parts, you can come up with a wholly different idea that isn’t bullshit. Some people feel that their creativity is enhanced when they listen to white noise or the sounds of the ocean or rain. With bullshit, there is not just meaningless noise but some actual information content, even if it’s mostly wrong.

When I was in grad school, I was not smarter than my classmates. But having industry experience, I could code rings around them. My secret to success was not that I could come up with better ideas. In fact, they were mostly worse. However, I could implement and fully rule out the bad ideas a lot faster, and what was left over were ideas that were not only good but already provably good with some of the experimentation already done. So in this case, I was my own bullshit generator, and I used empirical analysis as the bullshit filter, and I had tiger blood and won.

Thanks for Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

My superior cognitive ability has allowed me to conclude that this study is nonsense.

TL;DR

[sudon't]

TL;DR: Stupid, uneducated people are more gullible, especially when you use big words that they don't know.

Now that science has finally solved that mystery, perhaps they could solve the question of why children are easy to fool?

Re:TL;DR

[TeknoHog]

TL;DR: Stupid, uneducated people are more gullible, especially when you use big words that they don't know.

That's quite a big word, I couldn't even find it in a dictionary.

Tech Industry (i.e. Silicon Valley)

[Anonymous Coward]

Has just be called out for buzzword abuse.

(see I incorporated the discussion banter AND TFA)

"Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena"

[Elixon]

Infinite phenomena does not have beginning nor end. Thus it cannot be complete, it cannot be whole as it is ever growing, ever expanding, ... So what is more infinite or wholeness? Does something that is whole beats/overshadows/quiets/... something that is infinite?

You can answer this or that but merely the fact that you are considering any answer earns the question some credibility, doesn't it? Is it really "bullshit" then? :-D

The arrogance is amazing

[Nomad_Tech]

Does the author seriously think, that religious people are stupid ?
I know there is an atheist circle jerk going on, but think of all the notable scientist a good portion were very religious, go ahead and pat yourself on the back you are the only enlightened ones.

And why would I want to do that?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as you've "explained", I should, but nothing indicates what this would result in me finding, nor why my time should be spent on that. Doubly so since you don't make any more concrete terms than "the girl jumped out of a window" and "geometry". Are you telling me that the camera isn't level, and that somehow this means that the producer thought people were too dumb to notice?

Amazing...

[TaleSpinner]

It reads like every Democratic global social-justice anti-cop warming speech all neatly tied together. It's eerie how much it sounds like a liberal Professor at any Ivy-League school.

It scares the living crap out of me. The author could have made a mint writing books with this thing.

Praying Can Heal

[Anonymous Coward]

Praying has been shown through brain scans to put your brain into a similar state as meditation. When meditating your body becomes more relaxed, stress is reduced, etc... These aid in the healing process as the body then spends more energy on healing and less on trying to survive whatever issue is causing the stress.

Don't think the body manages 'energy' like that? Just look into running. When you run, your digestion and immune systems shutdown. Your body knows it's more important to out run that lion chasing you than worry about getting a cold right now. Also adrenaline rushes. Your body prepares for a fight by constricting blood vesicles to reduce blood loss when injured. Meditating/praying will help reduce that leading to more blood flow throughout your body and to the areas needing it for healing.

So yes, praying for yourself works. Praying for others can work too if they know you're praying for them. The sense of friendship, acceptance, and support for those praying for you will also reduce stress. The more you believe it, the greater the reduction in stress as you'll believe you're in excellent hands and can let go of your worries.

I'm not religious and I don't pray for people, but you need to assume things work and figure out how rather than the other way around. There are too many negatives to prove so you have to look at how it could work not why it couldn't.

well in the case of americans

[Anonymous Coward]

it is just they are fuck witted americans! This claim obviously cannot apply to the rest of the world.

A biased summary

[Anonymous Coward]

A sniping part of the article summary is incorrect:

| beliefs in things for which there is no empirical evidence (i.e. that prayers have the ability to heal)]

Sorry... but this is logically wrong in several ways:

1. According to a definition of empirical evidence: "Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence."

How can the author say that the people who believe that prayers have the ability heal have *no empirical evidence*? The requirement is that *one* has a true belief based on empirical evidence. Just because the author of that statement doesn't appear to have any empirical evidence, how can they impugn or assume that the others who hold this belief do not? It is inconsistent to believe that just because one party has no empirical evidence that another one does not-- that's why we have witnesses at a trial, because they (are assumed) to know something the jury/judge in a courtroom does not.

2. Perhaps the author was assuming that there is no evidence out there in the world (and that absence of evidence is "proof" that something does not exist?)
Of course, assuming the lack of evidence proves something is also a logical fallacy.

3. However, there actually are reported on studies in the public domain -- as anyone who does a quick google search can find out-- several studies being done that support the idea that prayer (and other things like meditation) can improve healing as supported by scientific studies done in the community... (regardless of how they explain it-- science/religion/mystery... )

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/can-prayer-heal

http://www.newsmax.com/Health/Headline/prayer-health-faith-medicine/2015/03/31/id/635623/

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=132674&page=1

While I assume there may be studies to the counterpoint, it is at least a debated matter and the issue is not settled... Each side has their "evidence".

I dislike slanted reporting, but especially those that pretend to use science to sell a false viewpoint...

Alternatively - they are too creative ...

[FreedomFirstThenPeac]

Alternatively - they are too creative for their own good, and parse BS through their creative filters to turn crap into poetry. As in.

Wholeness -- ooh, ooh. that triggers my whole holistic reaction set (the whole meme)

quiets -- ahhh. Quieting my mental monkees (Buddhism)

infinite -- wowser! There go my favorite metaphysical thoughts, quantum consciousness anyone?

phenomena -- FUBAR! My favorite orgasm trigger other than my SO's lips on mine.

you never know where information will lead you

[Anonymous Coward]

or they are people who look for irony and humor in things.

this article has the problem of basically telling you what is the most optimal way to run your life. It is in my opinion in dangerous territory.

you never know where something will lead you. Some people have great imaginations.. suppressing them is dangerous

The most absurd belief of all: materialism

[Anonymous Coward]

Physics explains everything, which we know because anything physics cannot explain does not exist, which we know because whatever exists must be explicable by physics, which we know because physics explains everything. There is something here of the mystical.

One of the deep prejudices that the age of mechanism instilled in our culture, and that infects our religious and materialist fundamentalisms alike, is a version of the so-called genetic fallacy: to wit, the mistake of thinking that to have described a thing’s material history or physical origins is to have explained that thing exhaustively. We tend to presume that if one can discover the temporally prior physical causes of some object—the world, an organism, a behavior, a religion, a mental event, an experience, or anything else—one has thereby eliminated all other possible causal explanations of that object. But this is a principle that is true only if materialism is true, and materialism is true only if this principle is true, and logical circles should not set the rules for our thinking.

Don't look now...

[denzacar]

But you've answered your own question.

Now... You might still be missing the point that I was trying to make - that the CNS itself is what is susceptible to errors and biases.
There. We've settled that then.