Here's something I haven't yet seen anyone comment on and that is: police radios are in use and citizens have had the ability and opportunity to listen in on those transmissions. Nobody really raised a fuss about that, but then when cell phones became prevalent, the cops now all use their cell phones to talk to each other and now have the ability to have private conversations. With lapel cameras/recorders, citizens once again will have the ability to listen in on police conversations.
In some ways, I like this idea, because it helps to expose the shitty way many cops think and talk about us helpless peons.
The problem I see is that when a silent alarm gets triggered, for example, the codes go out via the computers that are installed in police cars which means that the cameras might be able to pick up on this information, and if bad guys are watching these streams in realtime, there goes one legitimate use of privacy that the cops have.
The brain is bombarded by an overwhelming amount of sensory information, and its efficiency is built not only on how quickly our neural networks process these signals, but also on how good they are at suppressing less meaningful information....
Hrm.
I don't follow reddit or twitter, so that obviously means I'm quite a bit intelligent already, but on the other hand I do post to slashdot, so maybe my IQ isn't as high as I first thought.
Can you suggest an editor which is easy to use, has syntax highlighting for tex, and has built in tex support?
Notepad++ does a decent, if not actually good, job of that. I just opened one of my latex docs with it -- it specifically lists "tex" as a supported language and not latex, though I haven't the knowledge to know if syntactically, that would be a major difference.
Ironically, I don't use NP++ to edit my latex docs; I use Texworks.
As it was I really did not get over to Kickstarter until it was over and at that point my impression, which has been played out, it that there was no date for shipping.
Sure there was. It was just set to fuzzy time: "Ships sometime this century!"
What projects outside of class did you participate in. You'll find those types of experiences are much more important than a high GPA in stuff you've been spoon fed. The most impressive candidates are ones who do well in school, but are also motivated enough to do things outside of the curriculum.
Fat lot of good this does when the poor guy is already out of school.
Besides, how do you know that he didn't listen to a guy just like you? Why should he listen to you over them?
The cool thing about Slashdot is there are lots of ideas and opinions around. The really shitty part about Slashdot is that there are lots of ideas and opinions around. Who the hell knows, really, what's good and what isn't?
I know it's been brought up before, but one of the major failings of the US is that the law is written and stands until someone is harmed by it, and only THEN can the law be reviewed and MAYBE struck down.
Our forefathers were wise in very many things when it came to the creation of a new government, but really dropped the ball on this one.
What is now needed is that laws must first be reviewed by the US Supreme Court BEFORE being voted upon and then possibly passed. Once passed, the system that's already in place will STILL be in place; namely that if a person can show harm by this law, it goes back to the US Supreme Court -- automatically -- for a review.
Oh, but the Supremes are too busy to hear this new law that Senator Fuckedinthehead has proposed? No problemo. It'll be seen in order received. That may take a few years or so. But you're in a hurry? Nothing's that important that it cannot bear scrutiny for a year or so. Now, since I'm well into my wonderful dream, I'm going to add one other thing -- that each law presented to the USSC for potential passing, there also is included one older law that will be automatically struck down unless the USSC also feels that that law passes muster. These two laws will be reviewed concurrently and decided upon in a timely manner.
If a representative submits and/or signs off on too many laws that the USSC has rejected or a person has shown as being harmed, then that representative is automatically fired with no benefits and no recourse as they've now been shown to be completely incompetent at the basic fundamentals of the job. Every freaking representative should demonstrate that they know the principles established for this country and abide by them as per their sworn oath.
It must also be driven into every American's mind as they vote that every single government position is A POSITION OF SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE.
They should be grateful for the opportunity that we have given them!
Part of what I enjoy is debate and reading other people's thoughts and insights.
I don't particularly care one way or the other; my point is that there is nothing credible that points to some sort of existence that is meaningful. There is an almost limitless quantity of meaningless talk, thoughts, concepts with which one may enjoy oneself. I also don't particularly care if people think these fantasies have any basis in reality except when they make testable claims. I, among many, like to test those claims and they are always coming up short.
If these god-concepts have some kind of existence that humans cannot comprehend then why are they able to speak coherently about them? If these god-concepts are not part of the comprehensible universe, then for all intents and purposes, they do not exist and again, it's incoherent for believers to make truth-claims about them.
We also know that the source of these god-concepts stem from the emergent properties of the brain.
Anyway, even if later today there is found evidence beyond question that something like a god does exist, it's cool by me. I'll most likely treat it like I treat every other discovery like the Higgs boson. It's cool, it's evidenced, it's there, but I'm still not gonna worship it.
Well, okay, if you want to ignore the totality of what I said to slice out that chunk, please be my guest. However, that's where the evidence leads: god-concepts that people believe are real and have some existence are made up things.
Also -- a thousand years from now, ten thousand years from now -- there will not suddenly spring forth evidence that the Abrahimic god of the Christian bible is real and has some sort of empirical existence as claimed by believers. Science (the methodology as well as the body of knowledge) has already shown that god to be made up.
Please trot out any logical, coherent and meaningful definition of a god and we'll test it now; today. Not a thousand years from now.
No... under any objective burden of legal proof, even under the notion of "beyond a reasonable doubt", there is no assessment made about whether or not god exists one way or the other, any more than under a notion of legal proof, you could somehow come to any conclusion about whether or not the events of today either would or would not ever actually happen.
There simply is no data... either way.
Yes there is. There is a tremendous amount of data supporting the fact that gods (where properly defined so as to be a coherent concept) are made up by humans. There is especially more evidence when a god is spoken of in an incoherent manner that it is simply imagination. There is no evidence of the existence of these god-concepts -- either coherent or incoherent -- outside of imagination.
This isn't a 50-50 kinda deal and it's a mistake to think it is.
That's the last game from them I'll buy, they can release the next Dragon Age and say that everyone who pre-orders gets a free blowjob and I'll still tell them to shove it up their collective ass.
Because it's a post not a dissertation. He didn't mention the Chinese inventions either, etc. He gave you enough to get the idea, and hopefully expand it into those other cultures yourself if you want.
Even a brief mention would have sufficed. But then again, Americans aren't usually cultually-aware either; why break with tradition?
Prepare to suck on your wrongness, provided you're willing to do a little reading, which I highly doubt, oh skeptical one. By the way, nice rhetorical dodge on the Sol Invictus issue. Today we know that the sun is a star, but back in Roman times there were an awful lot of people who thought the Sun was an omnipotent god capable of responding to prayer and sacrifice. Because the god was falsifiable, eventually we were able to prove that it was not a god--but that in no way negates the history that for most of recorded history, many cultures thought it was, and could not prove otherwise.
It doesn't matter whether or not people thought the god Sol Invictus existed. That in no way shows that it did. It did not, as you state.
So, any evidence for your god?
Please read "Extraordinary Knowing" by Elizabeth Lloyd Mayer. Amazon link is:http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Knowing-Science-Skepticism-Inexplicable/dp/0553382233/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363131413&sr=1-1&keywords=Extraordinary+Knowing. Before she died, Elizabeth Mayer was a Doctor of Psychology at Berkeley whose unexpected encounter with the supernatural in locating her daughter's harp led her to do some very rigorous testing and studies on paranormal phenomena contained within human beings. But then again, I don't expect someone of your rigid insistence on being a pedantic ass to read it in the first place.
Or "Ghost Hunters" by Deborah Blum. Amazon link is: http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Hunters-William-Search-Scientific/dp/0143038958. She happens to be a Science Journalist, who wrote a book intending to debunk William James and the SPR, but came away convinced that there is something more. Oh, and there's a very large bibliography full of eyewitness accounts and experiments that meet scientific rigor.
Anecdotes with what controls again? If it's proven with evidence, there's no reason at all for me to not believe in it.
and why am I insulting you, you know-nothing? Because I'm tired of your rigorous clinging to logic and reason as a way to assert your moral superiority.
Huh? I assert my moral superiority? You have me confused with someone else. My memory sometimes fails me, so would you be so kind as to point out where I either said that or implied that I am morally superior to anyone? At least in this thread, I ask for coherent, logical, and meaningful definitions and the evidence which leads to that god.
Got any?
You, and those like you, don't know the first thing about having faith or embracing ambiguity, or what it really means.
If it makes you sleep better at night thinking this, then that's cool.
You've never once known what it's like to realize that everything you've ever believed in is a lie, find a new philosophical foundation, and then discover that too is a lie, and then realize that there are no ultimate truths, just another unfolding of the onion layer. You've never had to endure utter failure of the spirit, and you have no humility, or empathy for those who have.
It's a hackneyed phrase, but it is appropriate here: you don't know me or what I went through, so please stop stating things you have no knowledge of. But you could do the scientific method and... ask me. There's a concept! I don't think you care enough to ask, but I'm always willing to explain myself better.
What's worse is that if you have, you're not courageous enough to admit that kind of vulnerability--which makes you a coward in a way.
I see now that you don't read much. I had already said I have no problem admitting I'm wrong, even in public or on f
First, we DO know of at least one real god: The god of Sol Invictus, also known as our sun. That right there is a God, sir, with historically-documented dedicated worshippers, doctrine, dogma and all. If I want to get pedantic, that's how I'll first refute your statement, "The god of the bible has been trivially disproven as has all the others that have some coherent, rational definition" (and if I get REALLY pedantic, not only will I explain the particulars of the cult of Sol Invictus to you at length, I'll also go look up the current primitive tribes around the world who still worship the sun and name them off to you)
No, thanks, it's not necessary. The sun is more than adequately explained by science. There is no evidence that the sun does anything that the adherents of the god of the sun say it does, does it?
So, pedantically speaking, you're already wrong. There is historical evidence of an all-powerful god that is testable and falsifiable.
And that is...?
I'm going to assume that your athestic philosophy has become pseudo-religious dogma that you blindly adhere to, and that you use as a justification for your bigotry against people of a theistic bent, and thus you were willfully unaware of this.
I don't self-identify as an atheist. That aside, there is no atheistic philosophy as atheism is simply "without theism". What bigotry do I display and how would that make me willfully unaware of anything? Sounds like a non-sequitur to me.
that supposition only stands on the extent of our ability to identify--without bias--the nature of reality around us
I'll provisionally agree with this.
It also assumes that our evidence is 100% right--and ALWAYS WILL BE.
No, it doesn't. It's seems typical of theists that are feeling threatened to only argue strawmen and semantics.
But if you've done any research into the nature of error and how intrinsic error is to the scientific method (as you profess to in your post above, but then go on to completely refute your comments about doubt and ambiguity with your subsequent statements) then you will realize that any absolute assertions, by their own nature, will always be wrong. It is therefore entirely possible that deities do exist, but they either either exist outside of our current scope of awareness, are smart enough to avoid detection, or have been there all along but blind nitwits like yourself who adamantly deny the existence of anything you cannot personally put your hands on cover up the evidence because you must defend your worldview at all costs, lest you become that what you hate.
What is a deity and, presuming you can coherently answer that, which deity are you talking about?
I don't see you questioning your own unbending belief in the lack of any and all deities, because you've taken it as a personal truth that there are none, no doubt because you bear ill will towards anyone with a belief in theism for all the real and imagined slights they've personally done you and that which you hold important over your life time and the centuries. But, big hairy Scandinavian fella, that's your own personal problem.
Do you have anything of substance to say or is it all blah blah blah? Please keep in mind that you don't matter enough to me for me to become upset by what you say. I doubt you'll bother to reply, but if you do, keep it in mind. Perhaps we can actually have something to talk about!
I think you're of a stubborn mindset, you don't like to change your mind unless you're presented with extraordinary evidence to the contrary (and even then I suggest that you'd still refuse to believe it because you're probably a materialist at heart who feels far calmer knowing that there's nothing in the dark looking back
I noticed that lack too. These days, Arab countries and Muslim culture are seen as anti-science, but for a large part of Christianity's existence, they often had better medicine, mathematics (we use Arabic numerals - as opposed to the Christian nation's of Rome's numeral system - for a reason), and so on. Despite lacking any proper scientific method, they made many discoveries and tested many hypotheses, recording the results and building on past observations.
Thanks for this. Glad I wasn't the only one. Arab/Muslim culture now is very much anti-science, but eight hundred years' worth of scientific advancement and recordkeeping should never be forgotten.
I mean, I understand Where Dr. Bakker is coming from -- he's Christian and not Muslim -- but reporting it is the only honest thing to do.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a newer male birth control pill that I've heard is out on the market:
a man takes the pill and it changes his blood type.
Just sneeze within 20 feet of the panic button. Now if you could tell me how to disable that, then I'd be interested.
Sure. Just press on the tip of your nose for about five seconds or so.
That should disable the sneeze reflex quite handily.
Here's something I haven't yet seen anyone comment on and that is: police radios are in use and citizens have had the ability and opportunity to listen in on those transmissions. Nobody really raised a fuss about that, but then when cell phones became prevalent, the cops now all use their cell phones to talk to each other and now have the ability to have private conversations. With lapel cameras/recorders, citizens once again will have the ability to listen in on police conversations.
In some ways, I like this idea, because it helps to expose the shitty way many cops think and talk about us helpless peons.
The problem I see is that when a silent alarm gets triggered, for example, the codes go out via the computers that are installed in police cars which means that the cameras might be able to pick up on this information, and if bad guys are watching these streams in realtime, there goes one legitimate use of privacy that the cops have.
Just some thoughts.
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_bismark_e_voting_without_fraud.html
Here's a TED talk I've posted here before regarding a system that's verifiable, secure, and private.
And replaced with what? Folgers Crystals?
Well, yes, that would be a great start. Coffee doesn't keep me awake at night nearly as well as encroaching, overreaching government power.
The brain is bombarded by an overwhelming amount of sensory information, and its efficiency is built not only on how quickly our neural networks process these signals, but also on how good they are at suppressing less meaningful information. ...
Hrm.
I don't follow reddit or twitter, so that obviously means I'm quite a bit intelligent already, but on the other hand I do post to slashdot, so maybe my IQ isn't as high as I first thought.
Zese scientists are not correct! I shtill love ein bisschen of zis gluclose, especially mit a teensy drop of der schnaps after vork.
Ze real trut is zat my vife und I yust vant to lose a little veight.
or you could just strap a fern to your face
I don't particularly care what her name is, just get her over here!
So... the article mentions a "belief in god" and then conflates it with a "belief in a higher power". Well? Which is it?
See, this is why these kinds of studies are so full of epic fail: they are using terms that are so ill-defined and could really mean anything.
When a word could mean anything it ends up meaning nothing. That's exactly what we have here, unsurprisingly.
This is for core long haul transport, not your in-laws house.
My in-laws' house is for core long haul transport, you insensitive clod!
Can you suggest an editor which is easy to use, has syntax highlighting for tex, and has built in tex support?
Notepad++ does a decent, if not actually good, job of that. I just opened one of my latex docs with it -- it specifically lists "tex" as a supported language and not latex, though I haven't the knowledge to know if syntactically, that would be a major difference.
Ironically, I don't use NP++ to edit my latex docs; I use Texworks.
As it was I really did not get over to Kickstarter until it was over and at that point my impression, which has been played out, it that there was no date for shipping.
Sure there was. It was just set to fuzzy time: "Ships sometime this century!"
What projects outside of class did you participate in. You'll find those types of experiences are much more important than a high GPA in stuff you've been spoon fed. The most impressive candidates are ones who do well in school, but are also motivated enough to do things outside of the curriculum.
Fat lot of good this does when the poor guy is already out of school.
Besides, how do you know that he didn't listen to a guy just like you? Why should he listen to you over them?
The cool thing about Slashdot is there are lots of ideas and opinions around. The really shitty part about Slashdot is that there are lots of ideas and opinions around. Who the hell knows, really, what's good and what isn't?
I know it's been brought up before, but one of the major failings of the US is that the law is written and stands until someone is harmed by it, and only THEN can the law be reviewed and MAYBE struck down.
Our forefathers were wise in very many things when it came to the creation of a new government, but really dropped the ball on this one.
What is now needed is that laws must first be reviewed by the US Supreme Court BEFORE being voted upon and then possibly passed. Once passed, the system that's already in place will STILL be in place; namely that if a person can show harm by this law, it goes back to the US Supreme Court -- automatically -- for a review.
Oh, but the Supremes are too busy to hear this new law that Senator Fuckedinthehead has proposed? No problemo. It'll be seen in order received. That may take a few years or so. But you're in a hurry? Nothing's that important that it cannot bear scrutiny for a year or so. Now, since I'm well into my wonderful dream, I'm going to add one other thing -- that each law presented to the USSC for potential passing, there also is included one older law that will be automatically struck down unless the USSC also feels that that law passes muster. These two laws will be reviewed concurrently and decided upon in a timely manner.
If a representative submits and/or signs off on too many laws that the USSC has rejected or a person has shown as being harmed, then that representative is automatically fired with no benefits and no recourse as they've now been shown to be completely incompetent at the basic fundamentals of the job. Every freaking representative should demonstrate that they know the principles established for this country and abide by them as per their sworn oath.
It must also be driven into every American's mind as they vote that every single government position is A POSITION OF SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE.
They should be grateful for the opportunity that we have given them!
I sure wish that Slashdot was more conducive to deeper issues and discussions because I think we could at least have good conversation!
Part of what I enjoy is debate and reading other people's thoughts and insights.
I don't particularly care one way or the other; my point is that there is nothing credible that points to some sort of existence that is meaningful. There is an almost limitless quantity of meaningless talk, thoughts, concepts with which one may enjoy oneself. I also don't particularly care if people think these fantasies have any basis in reality except when they make testable claims. I, among many, like to test those claims and they are always coming up short.
If these god-concepts have some kind of existence that humans cannot comprehend then why are they able to speak coherently about them? If these god-concepts are not part of the comprehensible universe, then for all intents and purposes, they do not exist and again, it's incoherent for believers to make truth-claims about them.
We also know that the source of these god-concepts stem from the emergent properties of the brain.
Anyway, even if later today there is found evidence beyond question that something like a god does exist, it's cool by me. I'll most likely treat it like I treat every other discovery like the Higgs boson. It's cool, it's evidenced, it's there, but I'm still not gonna worship it.
Well, okay, if you want to ignore the totality of what I said to slice out that chunk, please be my guest. However, that's where the evidence leads: god-concepts that people believe are real and have some existence are made up things.
Also -- a thousand years from now, ten thousand years from now -- there will not suddenly spring forth evidence that the Abrahimic god of the Christian bible is real and has some sort of empirical existence as claimed by believers. Science (the methodology as well as the body of knowledge) has already shown that god to be made up.
Please trot out any logical, coherent and meaningful definition of a god and we'll test it now; today. Not a thousand years from now.
No... under any objective burden of legal proof, even under the notion of "beyond a reasonable doubt", there is no assessment made about whether or not god exists one way or the other, any more than under a notion of legal proof, you could somehow come to any conclusion about whether or not the events of today either would or would not ever actually happen.
There simply is no data... either way.
Yes there is. There is a tremendous amount of data supporting the fact that gods (where properly defined so as to be a coherent concept) are made up by humans. There is especially more evidence when a god is spoken of in an incoherent manner that it is simply imagination. There is no evidence of the existence of these god-concepts -- either coherent or incoherent -- outside of imagination.
This isn't a 50-50 kinda deal and it's a mistake to think it is.
This is all backwards and I still wonder why people don't seem to argue it much.
Once an item is sold, then the companies themselves must make a solid, factual reason they should have any say over it after that.
Once I buy it, it's mine. I don't need permission to unlock anything I own. THEY need permission to DENY my use.
It's just that simple.
Did you read his post? He's definitely culturally aware. You seem upset that he didn't mention your favorite culture more than anything.
My favorite culture? That's an odd way of putting it, but I'll withdraw the comments since I'm incorrect in my presumptions.
That's the last game from them I'll buy, they can release the next Dragon Age and say that everyone who pre-orders gets a free blowjob and I'll still tell them to shove it up their collective ass.
Hey, let's not be too hasty here.
Because it's a post not a dissertation. He didn't mention the Chinese inventions either, etc. He gave you enough to get the idea, and hopefully expand it into those other cultures yourself if you want.
Even a brief mention would have sufficed. But then again, Americans aren't usually cultually-aware either; why break with tradition?
Happily, douchebag supreme.
"Douchebag supreme"? Oookay...
Prepare to suck on your wrongness, provided you're willing to do a little reading, which I highly doubt, oh skeptical one. By the way, nice rhetorical dodge on the Sol Invictus issue. Today we know that the sun is a star, but back in Roman times there were an awful lot of people who thought the Sun was an omnipotent god capable of responding to prayer and sacrifice. Because the god was falsifiable, eventually we were able to prove that it was not a god--but that in no way negates the history that for most of recorded history, many cultures thought it was, and could not prove otherwise.
It doesn't matter whether or not people thought the god Sol Invictus existed. That in no way shows that it did. It did not, as you state.
So, any evidence for your god?
Please read "Extraordinary Knowing" by Elizabeth Lloyd Mayer. Amazon link is:http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Knowing-Science-Skepticism-Inexplicable/dp/0553382233/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363131413&sr=1-1&keywords=Extraordinary+Knowing. Before she died, Elizabeth Mayer was a Doctor of Psychology at Berkeley whose unexpected encounter with the supernatural in locating her daughter's harp led her to do some very rigorous testing and studies on paranormal phenomena contained within human beings. But then again, I don't expect someone of your rigid insistence on being a pedantic ass to read it in the first place.
Or "Ghost Hunters" by Deborah Blum. Amazon link is: http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Hunters-William-Search-Scientific/dp/0143038958. She happens to be a Science Journalist, who wrote a book intending to debunk William James and the SPR, but came away convinced that there is something more. Oh, and there's a very large bibliography full of eyewitness accounts and experiments that meet scientific rigor.
Anecdotes with what controls again? If it's proven with evidence, there's no reason at all for me to not believe in it.
and why am I insulting you, you know-nothing? Because I'm tired of your rigorous clinging to logic and reason as a way to assert your moral superiority.
Huh? I assert my moral superiority? You have me confused with someone else. My memory sometimes fails me, so would you be so kind as to point out where I either said that or implied that I am morally superior to anyone? At least in this thread, I ask for coherent, logical, and meaningful definitions and the evidence which leads to that god.
Got any?
You, and those like you, don't know the first thing about having faith or embracing ambiguity, or what it really means.
If it makes you sleep better at night thinking this, then that's cool.
You've never once known what it's like to realize that everything you've ever believed in is a lie, find a new philosophical foundation, and then discover that too is a lie, and then realize that there are no ultimate truths, just another unfolding of the onion layer. You've never had to endure utter failure of the spirit, and you have no humility, or empathy for those who have.
It's a hackneyed phrase, but it is appropriate here: you don't know me or what I went through, so please stop stating things you have no knowledge of. But you could do the scientific method and... ask me. There's a concept! I don't think you care enough to ask, but I'm always willing to explain myself better.
What's worse is that if you have, you're not courageous enough to admit that kind of vulnerability--which makes you a coward in a way.
I see now that you don't read much. I had already said I have no problem admitting I'm wrong, even in public or on f
First, we DO know of at least one real god: The god of Sol Invictus, also known as our sun. That right there is a God, sir, with historically-documented dedicated worshippers, doctrine, dogma and all. If I want to get pedantic, that's how I'll first refute your statement, "The god of the bible has been trivially disproven as has all the others that have some coherent, rational definition" (and if I get REALLY pedantic, not only will I explain the particulars of the cult of Sol Invictus to you at length, I'll also go look up the current primitive tribes around the world who still worship the sun and name them off to you)
No, thanks, it's not necessary. The sun is more than adequately explained by science. There is no evidence that the sun does anything that the adherents of the god of the sun say it does, does it?
So, pedantically speaking, you're already wrong. There is historical evidence of an all-powerful god that is testable and falsifiable.
And that is...?
I'm going to assume that your athestic philosophy has become pseudo-religious dogma that you blindly adhere to, and that you use as a justification for your bigotry against people of a theistic bent, and thus you were willfully unaware of this.
I don't self-identify as an atheist. That aside, there is no atheistic philosophy as atheism is simply "without theism". What bigotry do I display and how would that make me willfully unaware of anything? Sounds like a non-sequitur to me.
that supposition only stands on the extent of our ability to identify--without bias--the nature of reality around us
I'll provisionally agree with this.
It also assumes that our evidence is 100% right--and ALWAYS WILL BE.
No, it doesn't. It's seems typical of theists that are feeling threatened to only argue strawmen and semantics.
But if you've done any research into the nature of error and how intrinsic error is to the scientific method (as you profess to in your post above, but then go on to completely refute your comments about doubt and ambiguity with your subsequent statements) then you will realize that any absolute assertions, by their own nature, will always be wrong. It is therefore entirely possible that deities do exist, but they either either exist outside of our current scope of awareness, are smart enough to avoid detection, or have been there all along but blind nitwits like yourself who adamantly deny the existence of anything you cannot personally put your hands on cover up the evidence because you must defend your worldview at all costs, lest you become that what you hate.
What is a deity and, presuming you can coherently answer that, which deity are you talking about?
I don't see you questioning your own unbending belief in the lack of any and all deities, because you've taken it as a personal truth that there are none, no doubt because you bear ill will towards anyone with a belief in theism for all the real and imagined slights they've personally done you and that which you hold important over your life time and the centuries. But, big hairy Scandinavian fella, that's your own personal problem.
Do you have anything of substance to say or is it all blah blah blah? Please keep in mind that you don't matter enough to me for me to become upset by what you say. I doubt you'll bother to reply, but if you do, keep it in mind. Perhaps we can actually have something to talk about!
I think you're of a stubborn mindset, you don't like to change your mind unless you're presented with extraordinary evidence to the contrary (and even then I suggest that you'd still refuse to believe it because you're probably a materialist at heart who feels far calmer knowing that there's nothing in the dark looking back
I noticed that lack too. These days, Arab countries and Muslim culture are seen as anti-science, but for a large part of Christianity's existence, they often had better medicine, mathematics (we use Arabic numerals - as opposed to the Christian nation's of Rome's numeral system - for a reason), and so on. Despite lacking any proper scientific method, they made many discoveries and tested many hypotheses, recording the results and building on past observations.
Thanks for this. Glad I wasn't the only one. Arab/Muslim culture now is very much anti-science, but eight hundred years' worth of scientific advancement and recordkeeping should never be forgotten.
I mean, I understand Where Dr. Bakker is coming from -- he's Christian and not Muslim -- but reporting it is the only honest thing to do.