A hobbyist is not qualified to fix major security issues- they will probably only make it worse. A decent programmer is not qualified to fix major security issues. I wouldn't even want a good programmer working on my kernel. I want an expert. So you are still at the mercy of a few experts that know the code and are capable of fixing or finding a problem.
I'm afraid that's just not true. If we are talking about the FOSS movement then the outlook that is king would be "doing what I feel like until I get bored". That's just what hobbyists are like. Few open source projects have that much dedication to doing it right. Luckily the Linux kernel devs seem pretty dedicated to doing it right but they do not speak for the rest of "open source".
Again, it has nothing to do with security through obscurity
define: obscure. Definition number five. Staying out of notice is a type of security through obscurity.
Why would you make such a ridiculous statement, that directly contradicts what I wrote. I specifically said that far more security professionals look at Linux code than Windows code, because the Linux code is Open Source.
Exactly; that is almost definitely incorrect. Just because people can see the source does not imply more people will care to look at it. Windows is still target number one and attracts huge numbers of people looking for exploits. Whether they can see the code or not. I'm sure Microsoft employs lots of professionals to audit their code as well.
I suppose, as a completely uninformed person unable to understand what I wrote, or the complexities of software ecosystems in general, it would seem that way to you. Of course, I have extensive experience with both platforms while the same can clearly not be said by you.
I understood perfectly what you wrote and what you meant. I use both on a regular basis as well but i would never be presumptuous enough to assert that one is always better than the other. Nobody as experienced or informed as you claim to be would make such sweeping generalizations.
You keep going back to that fallacy so I'm going to assume you don't understand why it is a fallacy. no true Scotsman. You keep claiming that everyone that doesn't agree with you does so because they aren't experienced, educated or intelligent enough; if they were just smart/experienced/educated then they would know you are correct. That is extremely faulty reasoning.
It isn't even close to a security through obscurity claim.
That's to say it's not safer because it intrinsically better programmed, but because it's not popular enough to warrant as many people trying to find exploits in it.
So perhaps not what is usually defined as "security through obscurity" but is definitely what the parent post was talking about because that is exactly what they said. It is certainly a type of security through obscurity in the way that has been explained also. You have an obscure platform or implementation and therefore there are less people working on exploiting it.
What makes a targeted attack less likely to be successful is that Linux is written from the ground up by competent software engineers and programmers
What do you mean by "Linux" here? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant the kernel and not the entire userland. You will assert that the engineers and programmers working on the Windows kernel are incompetent? I'd wager a guess that every single one of them knows more about the topic at hand than you do. The Linux userland is rife with garbage programming. And even if all the Linux kernel devs are vastly more competent than the Windows ones (a very bold claim) that does not imply that the Linux kernel is magically free of programming flaws.
so that it gets reviewed by many, many highly competent security professionals.
There are no security professionals working on finding Windows exploits? Again, I would wager a guess that there are far more highly skilled and/or well paid security professionals searching for exploits in Windows than there are in Linux.
Your definition of "vender lock-in" seems to be: "has the software I want and does a better job than the competition". That is not vender lock-in. That is the definition of a product that might just be better than alternatives in many circumstances.
Ignoring some more no true Scotsman fallacies (you really like those don't you?). You sound like someone that is so ideologically stuck with Linux and anti-Windows that you are in a serious case of cognitive dissonance.
Yes. True and competent professionals share the hatred. Even those who begrudgingly use Microsoft software share it. Show me a guy running around saying "I like Windows; it's great!" and I will show you someone who is by definition incompetent.
Textbook no true Scotsman fallacy. Beautifully executed.
Furthermore, the homogeneous nature of Windows makes it less safe. Because Linux comes in many, many flavours and the kernel in use can and will be different even with the same version release (due to varying config options) it is literally impossible to create an attack that works on all, or even most, Linux systems.
That's basically the security by obscurity claim. Because making an attack will only affect such a vanishingly small number of users most people just don't do it. But that does not mean a targeted attack is any less possible.
Anybody that runs around and says Linux should be used every where and every instance in place of Windows is just as incompetent as someone claims Windows should always be used over Linux. No platform is perfect.
That has never been true for the entirety of human existence. I do not like resorting to name calling but that is one of the most idiotic statements I have ever read. It doesn't make it past even the most cursory of consideration.
Pirate is no better than stolen in this context. They are both loaded terms appropriated by those with financial incentive to make something seem worse than it is.
It seems to me that the best word here would be plagiarism.
Only if there are enough unprotected violent-sex HIV-positive customers willing to pay high enough fees to justify a very dangerous and fairly difficult crime ring. I may be naive but that sounds to me like a very very small niche. Which is exactly what the parent said. I would quite f confidently posit that the vast majority of people that would pay for a prostitute are looking for fairly vanilla sex. Probably looking for what is slightly below the level of the majority of pornography. Which, demonstrably, there is no problem finding people willing to do for money.
I don't know, I kind of like it. Using that level of "evidence" the entire United States government could be convicted of treason. Along with a whole lot of other people of course... But what the hell? Selective enforcement seems to work great for the powers that be.
Everything you said is true but we can't be complete masters of every base concept before moving on to more complex ones. Eventually we have to be able to take our tools for granted in order to make more advanced tools to take for granted. There will be plenty of things you do that someone else will call you lazy and sloppy for not learning base principles for.
Amen to that. It was always great to have a prof that felt the need to hide requisite information in their lectures that wasn't in the textbook. I understand they're trying to forcibly help the not so great students. But if they're punishing the students that don't do well with babysitting soon the only students they'll have left are the ones that need babysitting. Which is a pretty common complaint amongst profs from what I've heard.
I have a note8. I paid the extra for it exactly because it had the active digitiser. It is great for organizing thoughts and writing personal notes. If you are writing notes on a presentation or scrambling/scribbling a pen and paper is still vastly superior.
This is not a verifiable statement. It is a statement of belief.
Fair to say. Every verifiable solution/answer/theory ever made has been "natural correct; supernatural incorrect" would have been a more clear statement. All-in-all it's pointless to postulate on the supernatural in a scientific setting unless you're willing to put the effort into bringing the supernatural into the scientific. Otherwise you're really just wasting everyone's time.
*Of course, if I could do that reliably, I'd be awfully tempted to cash in on James Randi's million-dollar reward. I'd also feel compelled to investigate limits and effects on my own.
I would assume that you would be able to make far more money in Vegas at craps and roulette. Why tip your hand for a measly million when you could be set for life?
You really just don't get the concept of science do you... Not even in its most basic of level. Eugenics being deemed morally wrong has absolutely nothing to do with the theories being technically correct or incorrect. Nothing at all; totally different things. It's like saying apples are clouds because "frogs!" It simply does not make sense. That is why I say you ramble incoherently.
You are wrong about me in every aspect also. I am not 19 (do you think that's an insult too? Me being 19 would really be more insulting to you). I have a nice job. I've never played even a minute of world of warcraft. I do not have a beard of any kind. You tell me I have a "bong hanging off my face" which doesn't make any sense at all. You bring your face to the bong but I'm not doing that either. And I never chase down theists or ever broach the topic with them. It's fairly rude and usually ruins any social situation. I will happily discuss it with anyone that wishes however. If you don't want to have a big-people discussion then don't enter one. If you do- prepared to have your reasoning judged and picked apart. You really are not very good at it.
I took three semesters of predicate calculus taught by a professor with two PhDs. I've also been programming computers since Gerald Ford was president. I think I've got math and logic covered there
Why did you claim logic wasn't scientific and was irrational then? It's almost the definition of rational decision making. And who cares who you've taken a class from in the past? Not anyone that is listening to your so-called reasoning (your professor would tell you you're talking nonsense too). I've taken lots of classes in mathematics and computer science from all kinds of professors with PhDs too. There is no point in me telling you that anywhere here because it has nothing to do at all with what we're discussing. It doesn't matter who taught you what 30-40 years ago- your arguments are still rubbish.
You are a moron or a troll. All data points to both.
Then justice could be (in fact, scientifically speaking, should be) subtly different from person to person. Why then, is there such universal agreement on what is just and what is not? Human beings agree on little else. Why is their perception of justice so common?
It is... There is absolutely no universal agreement on justice- never has there been.
If you disagree that all human beings have a common understanding of justice, try giving a four year old a cookie and not giving their two year old sister one. See how that works out for you.
The four year old probably thinks that's perfectly just. Clearly they have different ideas of "justice".
You haven't put forth anything that remotely resembles rational thought. You show a clear conceptual misunderstanding and complete inability to distinguish between wildly different concepts like physical properties, human definitions and made up beliefs. You ramble incoherently and somehow think you are making logical statements.
Atheism has everything to do with science. Without science, atheism would have no source of fact upon which to base its identity.
Besides logic and rational thought of course.
Evolution can explain literally everything
It describes the process that led to the current biodiversity on this planet. That is all it explains. It also has nothing to do with Atheism.
The Bible is a fairy tale
Quite literally, yes. That kind of goes with the territory of not believing the whole god thing.
The rest of that rambling is so absurd that I actually think I am dumber having read it.
People that believe in the scientific method simply believe that anything real and physical is verifiable. Science cannot be proven wrong because when it is- it adapts. Please prove anything scientific wrong. It would be wildly interesting and increase the wealth of human knowledge.
The discussion moved on,. It happens. Please pick up a program in the lobby.
It really didn't. You're the only one in this thread that was talking about anything else. It was really only you and I in here and above that it was all remote viewing of out of body experiences.
Or their cognitive processes are working a lot better than we thought and they drew sound conclusions from hearing and touch. or any of a number of other perfectly rational things things.
And their brain interpreted that as a hallucination. If you claim to have seen something that was not there then you were hallucinating. As I already went over that is the definition of hallucinate. Hallucinating based on outside stimulus is very common but is still hallucinating.
FTFY
You didn't fix shit. I said exactly what I meant. You are the one trying to insert other meanings into things. Hallucinating is the only scientific method to describe out of body experiences. Therefore it is the default answer given to any question of out of body experiences.
The thread is about remote viewing. Remote viewing is supernatural in that there is no natural observations, methods or theories surrounding it. The response to such claims, especially wildly vague ones like in this thread, is not "no conclusion". That gives credence where there should be none.
I'm calling it out because it seems to be a common fallacy that mainstream science falls in to a lot these days
This is where you imply a supernatural hypothesis is alright. We're talking about a supernatural event and you call it a fallacy for it to be discounted based on lack of evidence, observation, repeatability and everything that is involved in science and logic.
You seem to only be arguing about some inane semantic difference between: "It is a hallucination" when what they really mean is "based on all reason and logic we can be pretty much certain it is a hallucination". Remember that the definition of "hallucination" is seeing something not present. So unless these people are magically seeing something that they are incapable of then they are by definition hallucinating.
But clearly they are all suffering from some kind of mental deficiency since, according to you, justice doesn't exist.
They are working to increase human perception of justice in a manner that humans define. Justice does not exist outside of human minds; we are free to define it and pursue it at our whim. There is really no connection to the scientific method there and has nothing to do with science or atheism. That you keep bringing it up without any apparent point is troubling.
Strife and suffering being things that, like justice, also don't exist because they are "emotional."
Emotional / chemical. If I chop your arm off there is some real, scientifically measurable / observable suffering there.
Then science must have boundaries, which implies there are conclusions that can be drawn outside of science. If that is true, then your demands for hard evidence might be nothing more than silly.
Science is our language to describe the universe. Anything you want to describe as a universal, physical truth must be describe scientifically for it to be taken credibly.
you assert that only you are intelligent and that only your conclusions are worthy of the "rigorous scientific absolutism" you demand.
False, I gave you very clear reasoning. Did you honestly think that citing poetry would discredit science?
I have an IQ of 147 and a university degree. But that doesn't stop you from waving aside everything I say
I did not wave aside anything you said. In fact I gave you descriptive reasons why you were wrong. Were I waving aside everything you said I would instead insist on calling you names like "fundamentalist" and asserting how super-duper high my IQ is and how I have a university degree so you should just listen to my ideas without me providing any reasoning for why.
Having a discussion with someone like you is utterly pointless, because you simply dismiss as "absurd nonsense" anything that does not fit squarely within the narrow, rigid boundaries of your worldview.
Whereas someone like you seems to think using the following basis: All ideas are equal except the ones that I deem nonsense using my feelings. If you do not use scientific and rational methods to define the world there is no difference between: god, souls, bigfoot and my pet unicorn scruffy beside what you "believe".
fundamentalist atheists
You incessantly repeat this term. I think you feel it's insulting in some way. Perhaps you feel the need because you consider yourself to be brilliant but lack the ability to put forth rational arguments of your beliefs leading you to lash out with veiled insults. The term is utter nonsense however. Atheism has nothing to do with science or rational reasoning other than that many people use science and reason to come to an atheist conclusion. It is also not fundamentalist. There is no dogma that atheist follow. Requiring evidence for conclusion is not dogmatic.
There are reports everywhere of any absurd thing you can think of. It is a question of credibility.
There are no observed or even theorized processes that would allow such remote viewing magic to occur. There are plenty of rational explanations observed (people passing out, dreaming etc etc). Natural circumstance has always proven to be correct; supernatural circumstance has always proven to be incorrect. It is not a fallacy to assert there is a natural explanation for it. It is, however, a fallacy to assert that because no one can prove it isn't a supernatural event that the supernatural is a valid hypothesis.
Please produce material evidence or testable predictions that justice exists.
It doesn't. Justice is an emotional concept and is thus not at all in the realm of hard science. Which is why you don't see any justologists and justicians fiddling with pipettes or working out mathematical just-quations.
Or more simply put, I can prove the statement "all men are created equal" is both true and false at the same time.
Another emotional concept directly related to your previous. But it is built on the observation that if you don't consider all people fundamentally equal you tend to create a great deal of strife and suffering.
You see, fundamentalist atheists believe that all conclusions that can be drawn must be within the boundaries of what they call "hard science."
No they don't. They believe all scientific conclusions must be drawn by scientific methods (that's why we call it science).
"Justice" and "All men are created equal" fall under the "wouldn't it be cool if" scenario. Because yeah, it would be great if both of those things were true. They are also observations on human behaviour so we have chosen to strive to make them as true as we can muster. Well, some of us at least. Nobody would label them as scientific assertions (perhaps extremely ignorant people).
Claiming that they had some universal truth or some defined existence (this is what theism falls under) would place them under the hard science umbrella. Where they would be immediately discounted because any testable prediction they make fails pretty much immediately.
A rational person views... "if it waddles and quacks, it's a duck."
No they do not. A rational person thinks and uses reason. You seem not to understand that and you do not paint yourself as overly rational with your absurd examples. You seem to have confused United States' constitutional law with scientific law. Although sharing a small word I assure you they are very different and are treated very different.
There *IS* an event. The event is the patient reporting an experience.
It was a specific event listed without a specific event to accompany it. My point is a rumor is not an event. Provide a credible report with real details and I'll actually be able to assess the situation. Until then you might as well be making stuff up and I'm perfectly justified giving you the simplest logical reasoning. An explanation is given.
I'll go further and say that without more and better evidence there cannot be a verifiable explaination. I'm calling out the people who claim that hallucination is that explanation that cannot be.
Exactly. And I interpreted your post entirely wrong then. Apologies.
Sure there are. We normally call them rumors, urban legends and myths. I don't have to come up with an explanation for the Loch Ness monster because you heard a rumor that it existed. I can merely say "it is a rumor, no credible proof, doesn't exist". If there were verifiable evidence of its existence then explanations above "I'm over 99% confident it simply does not exist" would be warranted.
This is why most rational, reasonable people view atheism as a fundamentalist belief no different from that of fundamentalist Christianity. It has the same rigid beliefs, the same intolerance for other viewpoints and the same hand-waving dismissal of anything that doesn't fit within its worldview.
I don't go preaching and putting up billboards. If you come to and want to have an adult discussion on the matter you're opinions and arguments are going to be scrutinized on a much higher level. Un-testable rumors, urban-legends and myths are fine in "what if" and "wouldn't it be cool if" discussions but they have no place in hard science. Until and unless you can come up with material evidence or testable predictions it's no better than any nonsense any raving lunatic might come up with.
No rational person would view atheism as a fundamentalist belief. That statement is just asinine. Atheism is built from ration, reason and logic. Real evidence for "God" would certainly change an atheists reasoning. The "atheism is a belief" meme is nothing more than an attack the messenger style fallacy to keep people from questioning their beliefs.
The atheist "belief" can mostly be summed up with: put up or shut up.
Slashdot Mirror
If popularity was an index of attack, you'd think that OS X would get 7% of the malware out there; they don't.
No I wouldn't think that because that's not how it works at all.
You mean like server core?
A hobbyist is not qualified to fix major security issues- they will probably only make it worse. A decent programmer is not qualified to fix major security issues. I wouldn't even want a good programmer working on my kernel. I want an expert. So you are still at the mercy of a few experts that know the code and are capable of fixing or finding a problem.
In open source, usually doing it *RIGHT* is king.
I'm afraid that's just not true. If we are talking about the FOSS movement then the outlook that is king would be "doing what I feel like until I get bored". That's just what hobbyists are like. Few open source projects have that much dedication to doing it right. Luckily the Linux kernel devs seem pretty dedicated to doing it right but they do not speak for the rest of "open source".
Again, it has nothing to do with security through obscurity
define: obscure. Definition number five. Staying out of notice is a type of security through obscurity.
Why would you make such a ridiculous statement, that directly contradicts what I wrote. I specifically said that far more security professionals look at Linux code than Windows code, because the Linux code is Open Source.
Exactly; that is almost definitely incorrect. Just because people can see the source does not imply more people will care to look at it. Windows is still target number one and attracts huge numbers of people looking for exploits. Whether they can see the code or not. I'm sure Microsoft employs lots of professionals to audit their code as well.
I suppose, as a completely uninformed person unable to understand what I wrote, or the complexities of software ecosystems in general, it would seem that way to you. Of course, I have extensive experience with both platforms while the same can clearly not be said by you.
I understood perfectly what you wrote and what you meant. I use both on a regular basis as well but i would never be presumptuous enough to assert that one is always better than the other. Nobody as experienced or informed as you claim to be would make such sweeping generalizations.
You keep going back to that fallacy so I'm going to assume you don't understand why it is a fallacy. no true Scotsman. You keep claiming that everyone that doesn't agree with you does so because they aren't experienced, educated or intelligent enough; if they were just smart/experienced/educated then they would know you are correct. That is extremely faulty reasoning.
It isn't even close to a security through obscurity claim.
That's to say it's not safer because it intrinsically better programmed, but because it's not popular enough to warrant as many people trying to find exploits in it.
So perhaps not what is usually defined as "security through obscurity" but is definitely what the parent post was talking about because that is exactly what they said. It is certainly a type of security through obscurity in the way that has been explained also. You have an obscure platform or implementation and therefore there are less people working on exploiting it.
What makes a targeted attack less likely to be successful is that Linux is written from the ground up by competent software engineers and programmers
What do you mean by "Linux" here? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant the kernel and not the entire userland. You will assert that the engineers and programmers working on the Windows kernel are incompetent? I'd wager a guess that every single one of them knows more about the topic at hand than you do. The Linux userland is rife with garbage programming. And even if all the Linux kernel devs are vastly more competent than the Windows ones (a very bold claim) that does not imply that the Linux kernel is magically free of programming flaws.
so that it gets reviewed by many, many highly competent security professionals.
There are no security professionals working on finding Windows exploits? Again, I would wager a guess that there are far more highly skilled and/or well paid security professionals searching for exploits in Windows than there are in Linux.
Your definition of "vender lock-in" seems to be: "has the software I want and does a better job than the competition". That is not vender lock-in. That is the definition of a product that might just be better than alternatives in many circumstances.
Ignoring some more no true Scotsman fallacies (you really like those don't you?). You sound like someone that is so ideologically stuck with Linux and anti-Windows that you are in a serious case of cognitive dissonance.
Yes. True and competent professionals share the hatred. Even those who begrudgingly use Microsoft software share it. Show me a guy running around saying "I like Windows; it's great!" and I will show you someone who is by definition incompetent.
Textbook no true Scotsman fallacy. Beautifully executed.
Furthermore, the homogeneous nature of Windows makes it less safe. Because Linux comes in many, many flavours and the kernel in use can and will be different even with the same version release (due to varying config options) it is literally impossible to create an attack that works on all, or even most, Linux systems.
That's basically the security by obscurity claim. Because making an attack will only affect such a vanishingly small number of users most people just don't do it. But that does not mean a targeted attack is any less possible.
Anybody that runs around and says Linux should be used every where and every instance in place of Windows is just as incompetent as someone claims Windows should always be used over Linux. No platform is perfect.
That has never been true for the entirety of human existence. I do not like resorting to name calling but that is one of the most idiotic statements I have ever read. It doesn't make it past even the most cursory of consideration.
Pirate is no better than stolen in this context. They are both loaded terms appropriated by those with financial incentive to make something seem worse than it is.
It seems to me that the best word here would be plagiarism.
Only if there are enough unprotected violent-sex HIV-positive customers willing to pay high enough fees to justify a very dangerous and fairly difficult crime ring. I may be naive but that sounds to me like a very very small niche. Which is exactly what the parent said. I would quite f confidently posit that the vast majority of people that would pay for a prostitute are looking for fairly vanilla sex. Probably looking for what is slightly below the level of the majority of pornography. Which, demonstrably, there is no problem finding people willing to do for money.
I don't know, I kind of like it. Using that level of "evidence" the entire United States government could be convicted of treason. Along with a whole lot of other people of course... But what the hell? Selective enforcement seems to work great for the powers that be.
But it will have a shock absorbing handle to avoid handler injury from vibrations caused by impact.
Everything you said is true but we can't be complete masters of every base concept before moving on to more complex ones. Eventually we have to be able to take our tools for granted in order to make more advanced tools to take for granted. There will be plenty of things you do that someone else will call you lazy and sloppy for not learning base principles for.
Amen to that. It was always great to have a prof that felt the need to hide requisite information in their lectures that wasn't in the textbook. I understand they're trying to forcibly help the not so great students. But if they're punishing the students that don't do well with babysitting soon the only students they'll have left are the ones that need babysitting. Which is a pretty common complaint amongst profs from what I've heard.
I have a note8. I paid the extra for it exactly because it had the active digitiser. It is great for organizing thoughts and writing personal notes. If you are writing notes on a presentation or scrambling/scribbling a pen and paper is still vastly superior.
This is not a verifiable statement. It is a statement of belief.
Fair to say. Every verifiable solution/answer/theory ever made has been "natural correct; supernatural incorrect" would have been a more clear statement. All-in-all it's pointless to postulate on the supernatural in a scientific setting unless you're willing to put the effort into bringing the supernatural into the scientific. Otherwise you're really just wasting everyone's time.
*Of course, if I could do that reliably, I'd be awfully tempted to cash in on James Randi's million-dollar reward. I'd also feel compelled to investigate limits and effects on my own.
I would assume that you would be able to make far more money in Vegas at craps and roulette. Why tip your hand for a measly million when you could be set for life?
You really just don't get the concept of science do you... Not even in its most basic of level. Eugenics being deemed morally wrong has absolutely nothing to do with the theories being technically correct or incorrect. Nothing at all; totally different things. It's like saying apples are clouds because "frogs!" It simply does not make sense. That is why I say you ramble incoherently.
You are wrong about me in every aspect also. I am not 19 (do you think that's an insult too? Me being 19 would really be more insulting to you). I have a nice job. I've never played even a minute of world of warcraft. I do not have a beard of any kind. You tell me I have a "bong hanging off my face" which doesn't make any sense at all. You bring your face to the bong but I'm not doing that either. And I never chase down theists or ever broach the topic with them. It's fairly rude and usually ruins any social situation. I will happily discuss it with anyone that wishes however. If you don't want to have a big-people discussion then don't enter one. If you do- prepared to have your reasoning judged and picked apart. You really are not very good at it.
I took three semesters of predicate calculus taught by a professor with two PhDs. I've also been programming computers since Gerald Ford was president. I think I've got math and logic covered there
Why did you claim logic wasn't scientific and was irrational then? It's almost the definition of rational decision making. And who cares who you've taken a class from in the past? Not anyone that is listening to your so-called reasoning (your professor would tell you you're talking nonsense too). I've taken lots of classes in mathematics and computer science from all kinds of professors with PhDs too. There is no point in me telling you that anywhere here because it has nothing to do at all with what we're discussing. It doesn't matter who taught you what 30-40 years ago- your arguments are still rubbish.
You are a moron or a troll. All data points to both.
Then justice could be (in fact, scientifically speaking, should be) subtly different from person to person. Why then, is there such universal agreement on what is just and what is not? Human beings agree on little else. Why is their perception of justice so common?
It is... There is absolutely no universal agreement on justice- never has there been.
If you disagree that all human beings have a common understanding of justice, try giving a four year old a cookie and not giving their two year old sister one. See how that works out for you.
The four year old probably thinks that's perfectly just. Clearly they have different ideas of "justice".
You haven't put forth anything that remotely resembles rational thought. You show a clear conceptual misunderstanding and complete inability to distinguish between wildly different concepts like physical properties, human definitions and made up beliefs. You ramble incoherently and somehow think you are making logical statements.
Atheism has everything to do with science. Without science, atheism would have no source of fact upon which to base its identity.
Besides logic and rational thought of course.
Evolution can explain literally everything
It describes the process that led to the current biodiversity on this planet. That is all it explains. It also has nothing to do with Atheism.
The Bible is a fairy tale
Quite literally, yes. That kind of goes with the territory of not believing the whole god thing.
The rest of that rambling is so absurd that I actually think I am dumber having read it.
People that believe in the scientific method simply believe that anything real and physical is verifiable. Science cannot be proven wrong because when it is- it adapts. Please prove anything scientific wrong. It would be wildly interesting and increase the wealth of human knowledge.
Logic is mathematics by the way.
The discussion moved on,. It happens. Please pick up a program in the lobby.
It really didn't. You're the only one in this thread that was talking about anything else. It was really only you and I in here and above that it was all remote viewing of out of body experiences.
Or their cognitive processes are working a lot better than we thought and they drew sound conclusions from hearing and touch. or any of a number of other perfectly rational things things.
And their brain interpreted that as a hallucination. If you claim to have seen something that was not there then you were hallucinating. As I already went over that is the definition of hallucinate. Hallucinating based on outside stimulus is very common but is still hallucinating.
FTFY
You didn't fix shit. I said exactly what I meant. You are the one trying to insert other meanings into things. Hallucinating is the only scientific method to describe out of body experiences. Therefore it is the default answer given to any question of out of body experiences.
The thread is about remote viewing. Remote viewing is supernatural in that there is no natural observations, methods or theories surrounding it. The response to such claims, especially wildly vague ones like in this thread, is not "no conclusion". That gives credence where there should be none.
I'm calling it out because it seems to be a common fallacy that mainstream science falls in to a lot these days
This is where you imply a supernatural hypothesis is alright. We're talking about a supernatural event and you call it a fallacy for it to be discounted based on lack of evidence, observation, repeatability and everything that is involved in science and logic.
You seem to only be arguing about some inane semantic difference between: "It is a hallucination" when what they really mean is "based on all reason and logic we can be pretty much certain it is a hallucination". Remember that the definition of "hallucination" is seeing something not present. So unless these people are magically seeing something that they are incapable of then they are by definition hallucinating.
But clearly they are all suffering from some kind of mental deficiency since, according to you, justice doesn't exist.
They are working to increase human perception of justice in a manner that humans define. Justice does not exist outside of human minds; we are free to define it and pursue it at our whim. There is really no connection to the scientific method there and has nothing to do with science or atheism. That you keep bringing it up without any apparent point is troubling.
Strife and suffering being things that, like justice, also don't exist because they are "emotional."
Emotional / chemical. If I chop your arm off there is some real, scientifically measurable / observable suffering there.
Then science must have boundaries, which implies there are conclusions that can be drawn outside of science. If that is true, then your demands for hard evidence might be nothing more than silly.
Science is our language to describe the universe. Anything you want to describe as a universal, physical truth must be describe scientifically for it to be taken credibly.
you assert that only you are intelligent and that only your conclusions are worthy of the "rigorous scientific absolutism" you demand.
False, I gave you very clear reasoning. Did you honestly think that citing poetry would discredit science?
I have an IQ of 147 and a university degree. But that doesn't stop you from waving aside everything I say
I did not wave aside anything you said. In fact I gave you descriptive reasons why you were wrong. Were I waving aside everything you said I would instead insist on calling you names like "fundamentalist" and asserting how super-duper high my IQ is and how I have a university degree so you should just listen to my ideas without me providing any reasoning for why.
Having a discussion with someone like you is utterly pointless, because you simply dismiss as "absurd nonsense" anything that does not fit squarely within the narrow, rigid boundaries of your worldview.
Whereas someone like you seems to think using the following basis: All ideas are equal except the ones that I deem nonsense using my feelings. If you do not use scientific and rational methods to define the world there is no difference between: god, souls, bigfoot and my pet unicorn scruffy beside what you "believe".
fundamentalist atheists
You incessantly repeat this term. I think you feel it's insulting in some way. Perhaps you feel the need because you consider yourself to be brilliant but lack the ability to put forth rational arguments of your beliefs leading you to lash out with veiled insults. The term is utter nonsense however. Atheism has nothing to do with science or rational reasoning other than that many people use science and reason to come to an atheist conclusion. It is also not fundamentalist. There is no dogma that atheist follow. Requiring evidence for conclusion is not dogmatic.
There are reports everywhere of any absurd thing you can think of. It is a question of credibility.
There are no observed or even theorized processes that would allow such remote viewing magic to occur. There are plenty of rational explanations observed (people passing out, dreaming etc etc). Natural circumstance has always proven to be correct; supernatural circumstance has always proven to be incorrect. It is not a fallacy to assert there is a natural explanation for it. It is, however, a fallacy to assert that because no one can prove it isn't a supernatural event that the supernatural is a valid hypothesis.
Please produce material evidence or testable predictions that justice exists.
It doesn't. Justice is an emotional concept and is thus not at all in the realm of hard science. Which is why you don't see any justologists and justicians fiddling with pipettes or working out mathematical just-quations.
Or more simply put, I can prove the statement "all men are created equal" is both true and false at the same time.
Another emotional concept directly related to your previous. But it is built on the observation that if you don't consider all people fundamentally equal you tend to create a great deal of strife and suffering.
You see, fundamentalist atheists believe that all conclusions that can be drawn must be within the boundaries of what they call "hard science."
No they don't. They believe all scientific conclusions must be drawn by scientific methods (that's why we call it science).
"Justice" and "All men are created equal" fall under the "wouldn't it be cool if" scenario. Because yeah, it would be great if both of those things were true. They are also observations on human behaviour so we have chosen to strive to make them as true as we can muster. Well, some of us at least. Nobody would label them as scientific assertions (perhaps extremely ignorant people).
Claiming that they had some universal truth or some defined existence (this is what theism falls under) would place them under the hard science umbrella. Where they would be immediately discounted because any testable prediction they make fails pretty much immediately.
A rational person views ... "if it waddles and quacks, it's a duck."
No they do not. A rational person thinks and uses reason. You seem not to understand that and you do not paint yourself as overly rational with your absurd examples. You seem to have confused United States' constitutional law with scientific law. Although sharing a small word I assure you they are very different and are treated very different.
There *IS* an event. The event is the patient reporting an experience.
It was a specific event listed without a specific event to accompany it. My point is a rumor is not an event. Provide a credible report with real details and I'll actually be able to assess the situation. Until then you might as well be making stuff up and I'm perfectly justified giving you the simplest logical reasoning. An explanation is given.
I'll go further and say that without more and better evidence there cannot be a verifiable explaination. I'm calling out the people who claim that hallucination is that explanation that cannot be.
Exactly. And I interpreted your post entirely wrong then. Apologies.
There is no such thing as a non-verifiable event
Sure there are. We normally call them rumors, urban legends and myths. I don't have to come up with an explanation for the Loch Ness monster because you heard a rumor that it existed. I can merely say "it is a rumor, no credible proof, doesn't exist". If there were verifiable evidence of its existence then explanations above "I'm over 99% confident it simply does not exist" would be warranted.
This is why most rational, reasonable people view atheism as a fundamentalist belief no different from that of fundamentalist Christianity. It has the same rigid beliefs, the same intolerance for other viewpoints and the same hand-waving dismissal of anything that doesn't fit within its worldview.
I don't go preaching and putting up billboards. If you come to and want to have an adult discussion on the matter you're opinions and arguments are going to be scrutinized on a much higher level. Un-testable rumors, urban-legends and myths are fine in "what if" and "wouldn't it be cool if" discussions but they have no place in hard science. Until and unless you can come up with material evidence or testable predictions it's no better than any nonsense any raving lunatic might come up with.
No rational person would view atheism as a fundamentalist belief. That statement is just asinine. Atheism is built from ration, reason and logic. Real evidence for "God" would certainly change an atheists reasoning. The "atheism is a belief" meme is nothing more than an attack the messenger style fallacy to keep people from questioning their beliefs.
The atheist "belief" can mostly be summed up with: put up or shut up.