Really hardcore strong Atheists are the worst kind of religious nutcase, for precisely the same reason as the really hardcore Believers are *nearly* the worst kind.
There. Fixed that for you. I'm buggered if I know why all atheists are lumped in together. There's a difference between proof of absence and absence of proof: weak atheists see and understand it and strong atheists do not.
'I think a true atheist wouldn't capitalize "Atheist." Makes it seem like a religion by a different name.'
It is. Atheism assumes without evidence. That is just as much a matter of faith as believing in creator(s). Both are picking ideas out of a hat and calling them truth without a shred of evidence. A truly scientific outlook is agnostic pending observation either way.
Atheism isn't that simple. There is the atheism that doesn't believe in the existence of any deity and there is the atheism that believes in the non-existence of any deity. The former, also known as "weak atheism", is not a religion. There is an absence of belief, and religion is defined by belief. The latter is also known as "strong atheism" and might be a religion, but since it doesn't describe me I couldn't care less.
Agnosticism is different: it's a statement about what is known. There is the agnosticism that says we can't know one way or the other, also known as "strict agnosticism", and there is the agnosticism that simply says that we don't know, also known as "empirical agnosticism".
A strong atheist can't be agnostic in any way. They already know.
Welcome to my little part of the world. Oceania. We are spread out roughfuly between GMT+8 and GMT+12 and cover such countries as Australia [wikipedia.org] and New Zealand [wikipedia.org]. Maybe you've heard of them before?
Tell me about it. When EQ2 was starting up I posted a query to their forum asking about an Oceania-based server, hoping that we could avoid the North American maintenance schedule. Some wanker replied with a comment about doing my laundry. It was just so fanboi that it didn't occur to the twit that there was a timezone problem.
As I understand it, RFID cards don't do anything until they're exposed to an electromagnetic field, which gives them just enough juice to fire off a message, usually an identity code. Unless I've been completely misinformed, you'd have to generate quite the field to even have a chance of reading one of these things at a distance. I know that my RFID card doesn't work until it's within a coupla inches of the appropriate reader.
The whole "it's broadcasting all of your personal information!!!!" hype is a bunch of FUD. The only way it could really be a security risk is if the card itself was stolen, and then it's really no different than having your S.S. card or driver's license stolen.
*ahem* Electronic tolls seem to work at a distance of 5m or more.
I am concerned only to the point that I care that I am correctly understood.
I didn't miss the point. I didn't address it. I understand and agree, nevertheless, and I think apathism is a pretty good way to go.
My point was that atheism is not necessarily a religion. You said it was; it's not necessarily so. If it's the atheism that professes a belief in the non-existence of a supreme being, then that is a religion. But that's not all of atheism, which is my point. There is also the weak atheist position that just simply doesn't believe there is (or isn't, for that matter) a supreme being. A weak atheist could quite easily be an apathist, you know.
I am an atheist who just doesn't believe one way or another. I don't particularly care about anyone else's beliefs or non-beliefs. I would take a real interest is I saw credible evidence one way or another, but until then, I don't much care. All I care about is this: when I say I'm an atheist, I don't want people to assume I have a religion. That's wrong.
Atheism and agnosticism both come in two flavours:
Strong Atheism professes a belief in the non-existence of a supreme being. Weak Atheism professes no belief in either the existence or non-existence of a supreme being.
Strict Agnosticism states that one cannot know whether a supreme being exists. Empirical Agnosticism states that one simply doesn't know whether a supreme being exists.
It's all entirely irrelevant. There are two things we should always be doing.
1) Trying to live responsibly on the Earth. This means, minimizing pollutions of all sorts, etc.
2) Figuring out how to adapt to changes in the Earth.
You missed:
3) Learn how to live independantly of the earth, which, as one R. A. Heinlein once said, is too fragile a basket in which to keep all of humanity's eggs.
No, you don't. The government has to be able to stop in and intervene when you "choose" to just teach them crap. Such as, oh, that having sex with their parents is OK. Or that there's nothing wrong at all with polygamy. Or that you can go ahead and eat human flesh. Or that it's OK to kill black people.
I suspect that quite a few people agree with three out of four of those. I don't believe that polygamy is necessarily or absolutely wrong. I don't believe it's always appropriate -- it probably rarely is, for all I know -- but if, say, two women think it's a great idea to share a relationship with one man, then, frankly, it's no-one else's business. It involves free choice between all three persons. The other three situations you mention don't particularly involve fully-informed consent between all participants.
That's the system we have in Australia, and I think it works really well. I think it's absolutely essential if we're to encourage multiple parties (even if they're minor parties).
The problem with preferential voting is that some jurisdictions require you to preference every candidate. You may well end up voting in the candidate you least wanted to support. At the federal level in Australia, you have to place a number (sequentially starting with 1, not repeating or skipping any) next to each candidate. If you have IND1, IND2, IND3, PARTY1 and PARTY2 on your ballot, and you do not want either of PARTY1 or PARTY2 to get in, you should be able to number them as 1,2,3,4,4.
You can't do that at a federal election (well, you can, but it's not a formal vote). So you vote 1,2,3,4,5 and if the vote goes to the fourth round without a clear majority then congratulations on voting in the Labor or Coalition candidate in spite of your best efforts not to.
Such a system simply forces the appearance of a majority preference where none actually exists. As a voter, you hould have the option of exhausting your preferences early so that you are not being forced to vote for a candidate that you do not want elected. If that means that there is still no 50% + 1 majority after all rounds of voting, then so be it. Let first-past-the-post win in that case, because we still have a clear expression that candidate X was preferred ahead of his or her competitors. And it also sends a message to the competitors that they were sufficiently on the nose that it didn't even take a 50% + 1 majority to beat them.
So I'd say that optional preferential is the best way to go. I believe it's wrong to make voters vote for a candidate they don't want to win, which, I believe, has been the case since the 1993 amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
1) Forbid viewers from switching channels during commercials.
2) Forbid viewers from turning off their TV's.
3) Get promoted to CEO of Network 23.
4) Rule the World!
Bwahhhahahahahaha!
Nevertheless, this is still a worthy topic of conversation. One hopes that this will lead to consumer and/or political activism, by which I mean educated purchasing decisions and letters to competing products that fail meet non-DRM tests, and letters to potential political candidates and/or letters to incumbent politicians.
...enforcement is the key. In NSW, Australia, it's against the law to use a mobile phone while driving, unless you're using some sort of hands-free solution. Problem is, it never seems to be enforced. There are so many drivers hooning about with a phone surgically attached to their heads, and it really screws up their driving. If people are getting booked, it's getting just about zero public attention, and that discourages no-one from using their moby while driving.
It's just like Transit Lanes (or HOV Lanes); they're almost never policed, and they are useless as a result. You can put these feel-good laws in place, but you have to enforce them if they're to work.
The Deep Core ice-sampling project showed variations of about 7C (14F) in less than a century, several times over the last 200,000 years or so. That's huge.
Sure is. Do you have a link to that? I'd like to see it and pass it on to a couple of people I know. Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
Nemesisters
Nah, that happened years ago.
There. Fixed that for you. I'm buggered if I know why all atheists are lumped in together. There's a difference between proof of absence and absence of proof: weak atheists see and understand it and strong atheists do not.
Not on first dates, no, but if it's any consolidation to you its dad owns a brewery.
Agnosticism is different: it's a statement about what is known. There is the agnosticism that says we can't know one way or the other, also known as "strict agnosticism", and there is the agnosticism that simply says that we don't know, also known as "empirical agnosticism".
A strong atheist can't be agnostic in any way. They already know.
Tell me about it. When EQ2 was starting up I posted a query to their forum asking about an Oceania-based server, hoping that we could avoid the North American maintenance schedule. Some wanker replied with a comment about doing my laundry. It was just so fanboi that it didn't occur to the twit that there was a timezone problem.
Yeah, and they'll never break that crypto.
*ahem* Electronic tolls seem to work at a distance of 5m or more.
Like Australia, you mean?
No, poor parenting is the culprit here.
I am concerned only to the point that I care that I am correctly understood. I didn't miss the point. I didn't address it. I understand and agree, nevertheless, and I think apathism is a pretty good way to go. My point was that atheism is not necessarily a religion. You said it was; it's not necessarily so. If it's the atheism that professes a belief in the non-existence of a supreme being, then that is a religion. But that's not all of atheism, which is my point. There is also the weak atheist position that just simply doesn't believe there is (or isn't, for that matter) a supreme being. A weak atheist could quite easily be an apathist, you know. I am an atheist who just doesn't believe one way or another. I don't particularly care about anyone else's beliefs or non-beliefs. I would take a real interest is I saw credible evidence one way or another, but until then, I don't much care. All I care about is this: when I say I'm an atheist, I don't want people to assume I have a religion. That's wrong.
Atheism and agnosticism both come in two flavours: Strong Atheism professes a belief in the non-existence of a supreme being. Weak Atheism professes no belief in either the existence or non-existence of a supreme being. Strict Agnosticism states that one cannot know whether a supreme being exists. Empirical Agnosticism states that one simply doesn't know whether a supreme being exists.
1) Trying to live responsibly on the Earth. This means, minimizing pollutions of all sorts, etc.
2) Figuring out how to adapt to changes in the Earth.
You missed: 3) Learn how to live independantly of the earth, which, as one R. A. Heinlein once said, is too fragile a basket in which to keep all of humanity's eggs.
I suspect that quite a few people agree with three out of four of those. I don't believe that polygamy is necessarily or absolutely wrong. I don't believe it's always appropriate -- it probably rarely is, for all I know -- but if, say, two women think it's a great idea to share a relationship with one man, then, frankly, it's no-one else's business. It involves free choice between all three persons. The other three situations you mention don't particularly involve fully-informed consent between all participants.
Ooh, I know that song! That's the one called "If You Have Nothing To Hide (Then What Do You Have To Fear)" isn't it?
"What do you call 1000 lawyers buried up to their necks in sand?"
"Not enough sand."
Not if you bury them that way, head first: that's called "efficient".
The problem with preferential voting is that some jurisdictions require you to preference every candidate. You may well end up voting in the candidate you least wanted to support. At the federal level in Australia, you have to place a number (sequentially starting with 1, not repeating or skipping any) next to each candidate. If you have IND1, IND2, IND3, PARTY1 and PARTY2 on your ballot, and you do not want either of PARTY1 or PARTY2 to get in, you should be able to number them as 1,2,3,4,4.
You can't do that at a federal election (well, you can, but it's not a formal vote). So you vote 1,2,3,4,5 and if the vote goes to the fourth round without a clear majority then congratulations on voting in the Labor or Coalition candidate in spite of your best efforts not to.
Such a system simply forces the appearance of a majority preference where none actually exists. As a voter, you hould have the option of exhausting your preferences early so that you are not being forced to vote for a candidate that you do not want elected. If that means that there is still no 50% + 1 majority after all rounds of voting, then so be it. Let first-past-the-post win in that case, because we still have a clear expression that candidate X was preferred ahead of his or her competitors. And it also sends a message to the competitors that they were sufficiently on the nose that it didn't even take a 50% + 1 majority to beat them.
So I'd say that optional preferential is the best way to go. I believe it's wrong to make voters vote for a candidate they don't want to win, which, I believe, has been the case since the 1993 amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
...that someone is looking after my morals for me! Good heavens, I couldn't possibly manage it myself.
The sheer lack of interest in the whole issue will utterly convince them they are on the right track.
2) Forbid viewers from turning off their TV's.
3) Get promoted to CEO of Network 23.
4) Rule the World!
Bwahhhahahahahaha!
*ahem*
5) Profit!
Nevertheless, this is still a worthy topic of conversation. One hopes that this will lead to consumer and/or political activism, by which I mean educated purchasing decisions and letters to competing products that fail meet non-DRM tests, and letters to potential political candidates and/or letters to incumbent politicians.
Thanks for the links and the citations. Gives me somewhere to spend a bit of time, now. :)
It's just like Transit Lanes (or HOV Lanes); they're almost never policed, and they are useless as a result. You can put these feel-good laws in place, but you have to enforce them if they're to work.
Sure is. Do you have a link to that? I'd like to see it and pass it on to a couple of people I know. Thanks.
Authenticating. That's not my hand you're shaking; Pull the other one.