No one thinks it might be a good idea to unplug that cable from the back of your heads for a few minutes and let reason take over for a bit, and to see what comes from that?
Please; You have no room to talk. If you had actually dared to face reality rationally you would not be so worked up about such meaningless things.
You are participating in inherently irrational behavior and crying foul because others are a teensy bit more irrational than you.
Absolutely, Just because someone asks for the "least inaccurate oversimplification" does not make it incumbent upon the person asked to join the asker in abandoning accuracy for convenience.
Words are slippery... Atheism could only require faith if it was being used to mean "I believe it's utterly impossible for anything outside the observable to exist" While back here in reality atheism is used for convenience to express the knowledge that one, or a group of religions are clearly impossible.
If you ever wish to progress past simply hurling words at one another you must first define terms.
The US is so strongly monotheistic that here, when someone says "I am an atheist" it's very clear that what they mean is "I am an atheist in regards to the god described in that book you keep trying to enshrine in law." The religious then tend to point out that it's just as impossible to disprove the existence of "any god" as it is to prove the existence of "any god." With their own words admitting that it's impossible to do either, conveniently ignoring the fact that it's a higher bar to prove "this specific god" over "any god."
What the initial statement indicated was not the denial of the possible existence of any sort of entity outside the universe, It was just the easiest way to say "The internally inconsistent and self contradictory religion you keep spouting is so self-evidently impossible that anyone advocating the idea... is not capable of understanding a rational and complete explanation. Since they will (find someone who can) create a straw man out of my words regardless, they just get.. 'I'm an atheist' "
While it's clearly impossible to make make valid claims about the unobservable by definition. It is trivial to prove such claims invalid once you get the squirmy little buggers to actually define what they believe.
If you think that anyone would profit from even the average predicted scenario, you must be living comfortably on another planet. Droughts, floods, food shortages, heat waves, extreme weather patterns, economies destroyed? Where's "profit" in that, for any economy?
The people who stand to gain the most from it are in large part the one's profiting from us causing it to begin with. It will take more and more energy just to cope with the effects of our energy production.
More bad precedents can only be a bad thing in general, but I am vindictive enough to overlook that for the chance of seeing the flunkies enabling this farce to be exposed and shamed....
Funny thing though, my government is exposed and shamed regularly for doing things that most people simply refuse to believe are actually happening.
Doesn't seem to be having any impact... Hope they have better...well not luck, perhaps citizens.
It would take a certain degree of rationality to actualy achieve a level of technology that would enable a universe spanning empire. It seems to me that once you become rational enough to achieve the goal, you would realize there isn't any point to it.....
You assume that the government gets to keep more privacy than you.
True freedom from privacy would include every one knowing (actually just Being Able to Know) that some nut-job in the CIA was over stepping his bounds and bing a jerk in general.
It would enable Nipping bad government in the bud when it was just 2 would-be-dictators just as much as it would enable stoping "Freedom Fighters"
Slashdot Mirror
I know, right? hell define intelligence... Perhaps he means that until engineered intelligence becomes adept at self delusion it's not 'real'
No one thinks it might be a good idea to unplug that cable from the back of your heads for a few minutes and let reason take over for a bit, and to see what comes from that?
Please; You have no room to talk. If you had actually dared to face reality rationally you would not be so worked up about such meaningless things. You are participating in inherently irrational behavior and crying foul because others are a teensy bit more irrational than you.
Absolutely, Just because someone asks for the "least inaccurate oversimplification" does not make it incumbent upon the person asked to join the asker in abandoning accuracy for convenience.
This is the eternal cry of the politician and economist. They should all be sent back to kindergarten. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Wow kudos for the effort. You are the most prolific whiny bitch I have seen all week.
Words are slippery... Atheism could only require faith if it was being used to mean "I believe it's utterly impossible for anything outside the observable to exist" While back here in reality atheism is used for convenience to express the knowledge that one, or a group of religions are clearly impossible.
.. 'I'm an atheist' "
If you ever wish to progress past simply hurling words at one another you must first define terms.
The US is so strongly monotheistic that here, when someone says "I am an atheist" it's very clear that what they mean is "I am an atheist in regards to the god described in that book you keep trying to enshrine in law."
The religious then tend to point out that it's just as impossible to disprove the existence of "any god" as it is to prove the existence of "any god." With their own words admitting that it's impossible to do either, conveniently ignoring the fact that it's a higher bar to prove "this specific god" over "any god."
What the initial statement indicated was not the denial of the possible existence of any sort of entity outside the universe, It was just the easiest way to say "The internally inconsistent and self contradictory religion you keep spouting is so self-evidently impossible that anyone advocating the idea... is not capable of understanding a rational and complete explanation. Since they will (find someone who can) create a straw man out of my words regardless, they just get
While it's clearly impossible to make make valid claims about the unobservable by definition.
It is trivial to prove such claims invalid once you get the squirmy little buggers to actually define what they believe.
Precisely Ignore all the yammering and simply observer the flow of events. It's not encouraging... Not that the words are either I suppose.
because clearly, life is difficult for you... I will esplain.... the Secret Service is a name, while the secret service is descriptive.
But he loves you!
people who stand to profit from climate change
If you think that anyone would profit from even the average predicted scenario, you must be living comfortably on another planet. Droughts, floods, food shortages, heat waves, extreme weather patterns, economies destroyed? Where's "profit" in that, for any economy?
The people who stand to gain the most from it are in large part the one's profiting from us causing it to begin with. It will take more and more energy just to cope with the effects of our energy production.
I am for it just to give y'all shitfits
so take note everyone, autonomous robots can only use nooses
Of everything wrong with that statement perhaps the only correction you would understand is galaxies != universe.
nah, mostly because people like funky smells
... to call it new. There have been numerous posts covering articles about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_tower_(downdraft)
wooooosh... If he truly doesn't know that, it only makes it better.
it means there aren't enough fingers/toes even when I line up ALL my grad students to count that high!
Almost as bad as if they had revealed the number of Americans they spied on.
More bad precedents can only be a bad thing in general, but I am vindictive enough to overlook that for the chance of seeing the flunkies enabling this farce to be exposed and shamed....
Funny thing though, my government is exposed and shamed regularly for doing things that most people simply refuse to believe are actually happening.
Doesn't seem to be having any impact... Hope they have better...well not luck, perhaps citizens.
It had begun... Pastafarians, once, could laugh with you... Now they already have their followers out down-modding me Troll
The future is here
I wonder what the cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster will look like in fifty years.... Dun dun dun....
Long Pig http://discovermagazine.com/1998/feb/americancannibal1407/
Ignore facts? you assume they care about solving crimes, If they are for some other use, then obviously these numbers mean nothing.
It would take a certain degree of rationality to actualy achieve a level of technology that would enable a universe spanning empire.
It seems to me that once you become rational enough to achieve the goal, you would realize there isn't any point to it.....
You assume that the government gets to keep more privacy than you.
True freedom from privacy would include every one knowing (actually just Being Able to Know) that some nut-job in the CIA was over stepping his bounds and bing a jerk in general.
It would enable Nipping bad government in the bud when it was just 2 would-be-dictators just as much as it would enable stoping "Freedom Fighters"