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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[gweihir]

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

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.

[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?

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?

[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?

[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".

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]

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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[Cro Magnon]

I might have been 5'10" in 1972!

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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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

[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.

Purple monkey dishwasher

[wonkey_monkey]

That is all.

Deepak Chopra's Twitter Stream

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

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:what is homocidal?

[Opportunist]

People who enjoy killing gays, maybe?

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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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 ?

[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.

Re: Another college jock

[mwvdlee]

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

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

[gargleblast]

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

Seriously deep bullshit.

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.

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!

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.

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!

BS Generator

[DigiShaman]

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

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?

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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: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."

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?

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.

Free press

[MrKaos]

Timely and accurate reporting.

Fair and balanced.

The people have a right to know.

An educated and informed populous.

Unbiased reporting.

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.

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.

Girlfriends

[Sperbels]

This may explain every girlfriend I've ever had.

Breaking News

[RecursiveLoop]

Dumb people are....Dumb

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.

Total nonsense

[macraig]

Amen, brothers!

For your amusement

[ilsaloving]

A New Age Bullshit Generator

http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/

Concise article summary...

[Dzimas]

Stupid and/or gullible people are more likely to believe nonsense. Next.

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.

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.

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.

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?

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.