"Atheist" is no more a requirement to march in lock step than "Christian" is.
Put another way - not all Christians have identical belief structures. Similarly, not all atheists have identical belief structures. Thus, while many atheists likely posit their beliefs in the manner you've proscribed, still others insist on shoving their philosophy down throats, just like the fundamentalists those same individuals continually lambast. Hence, my use of the clarifying term, "militant atheists."
There is a difference, which I'm certain you understand and recognize.
Allegedly, if you take the government at their word.
Yes I do. But even if I didn't the UN also compiles statistics. I could trust similar studies from other governments in other countries. And other independent health agencies.
Always good to know a person's level of naivete.
False equivalence - saying "I don't think the government has a right to regulate what I put in my body" is not even similar to "drugs are harmless," by any stretch of the imagination.
That wasn't the argument of GP. The argument of GP was that they weren't harmless. Arguing that government has no right to regulate is a different point entirely.
Really; because I just re-read GP's post, and not once is the word 'harmless' used.
Non-native English speaker? Or just lacking basic reading comprehension skills? FYI, the former is completely forgivable, gotta learn somehow.
The problem with your statement is that militant theists don't recognize the existence of any other type of non-believer than atheists. That view is an epic fail.
Hell, most militant theists don't recognize the existence of other types of theists! For example, I submit Jihadist Muslims and the WBC - according to both groups, if you're not among their ranks, you're a filthy non-believer.
I do not believe in God. I am not an atheist though,
If the first part of that statement is true, then yes, you are an atheist by definition. However, the rest of that paragraph makes me think what you meant to say is something to the effect of, "I do not necessarily believe in a God, but I will not acknowledge nor deny the existence of such," which would technically make you an "agnostic atheist." At least, according to Wikipedia; personally, I hate labels.
Right now though it's a waste of time. God, existence or not, is not a useful concept.
Fuckin' A, man. We, as a species, have more important shit to do than waste our lives arguing about an unknowable.
On my own behalf, referring to a similar situation I used to encounter when visiting a friend who lived in a "haunted" house:
1) Automotive Technology and Network Security (odd combo, I know)
2) Well, unless the entire world, minus a small porcelain figurine, suddenly shifted down about a foot, then moved in a way that would cause the now static figurine to fly from one side to the other, smashing against the opposite wall... yea, pretty sure that thing moved without visible assistance.
Of course, that's not to say that I think "it was a ghostesses!" or anything like that; were I to posit a hypothesis, I would likely assume the event was a result of some sort of electromagnetic anomaly, but couldn't determine the cause for sure without further investigation and experimentation. Like what a real scientist would do.
I have seen apparitions* as well, both transparent and opaque, but by no means attribute them to any sort of supernatural event. Everything is explainable, given sufficient experimentation and analysis.
What saddens me is when people instantly discount a phenomenon just because their chosen faith doesn't allow questioning the unknown. What really saddens me is when the people who do this refer to themselves as "scientists."
*Mostly in theaters (real theaters, not movie houses)... always found that to be a curious aspect of the phenomenon...
Read: I don't believe you saw what you saw, and even though I wasn't there and have no reasonable, alternate explanation, I'm going to call you stupid for believing you saw something that I don't believe you saw, based entirely on my own blind faith.
And what use does that function have other than killing animals at a distance?
Target practice, shooting competitions, stump removal (no, seriously), entertainment... like I said, whatever the operator decides to shoot with it.
If it were just for recreational destruction at a distance, it would be overpowered, disruptive, costly, unsafe and inefficient compared to the alternatives.
So are SUV's, but I don't hear anyone other than environmental terrorists calling for their prohibition.
That's what I find endlessly hilarious about militant atheists - they'll prattle on and on about how religious types are "idiots" for basing their entire belief structure on pure faith, completely ignoring the fact that, since it's impossible to prove a negative, atheism is also a faith-based belief structure.
Myself, I adhere to more of a "couldn't give less of a rat's ass" approach.
My wife used to work for one of those extremely paranoid rich guys... dude was the type that, if he even assumed you had taken something of his, would corner you in his office and flash his pistol as he interrogated you. And his gains were, at least in the eyes of the government, not considered ill-gotten. He was just a lunatic.
And I feel very unsafe working with stupid _______ that _______ at lunch and are now opperating heavy equiptment and dangererous tools and potentially endangering my life.
Hey, look, a universal truth! Too bad you had to use it to single out a particular social group you have a grudge against.
BTW... it's 'operating,' 'equipment,' and 'dangerous.' IMO, Once is a typo, thrice is evidence of ignorance.
"The reason drugs can get banned is because they are so incredibly devastating to individuals to families and to communities when their use becomes common. "
You clearly have no idea why Marijuana was outlawed. I suggest you investigate the matter, and you will quickly realize that your simplistic world view is exactly that. I'll give you a two word starter hint to google (just add marijuana): "textile industry"
Don't forget "Legalized racism."
The first marijuana, nay, drug law in the US was the El Paso Ordinance of 1914. It criminalized the "devil weed" that was very popular with Mexican immigrants, in an early attempt in making "being Mexican" a crime.
The people I know that do drugs have jobs and money
What? You mean, they're productive members of society? But, but... that can't be! I grew up being brainwa- er, "taught" by government agents, that "drug user" is a term for lazy welfare cheats and homeless people!
Slashdot Mirror
"Atheist" is no more a requirement to march in lock step than "Christian" is.
Put another way - not all Christians have identical belief structures. Similarly, not all atheists have identical belief structures. Thus, while many atheists likely posit their beliefs in the manner you've proscribed, still others insist on shoving their philosophy down throats, just like the fundamentalists those same individuals continually lambast. Hence, my use of the clarifying term, "militant atheists."
There is a difference, which I'm certain you understand and recognize.
Ever heard the term 'non sequitur?'
Because that's what you've posited here.
Labelling someone as "militant" or "fanatical" is one of the standard tactics used by those in power to smear those who aren't.
It's also a standard tactic of normal people who aren't in power, to label groups who are, for lack of a better term, batshit crazy.
Haven't been a regular viewer since the 90's, no.
(Yet, somehow, every rerun I catch happens to be an episode I've already seen...)
Well, I was going to comment that the ADA does not consider being tall or a big fat-ass to be protected classes...
Then I did some research, and found out that actually yes, "Big Fat-Ass" is an ADA protected class.
Let me say that again, because it bears repeating - If you make yourself morbidly, disgustingly obese, you are protected under the ADA.
What. The. Fuck.
You tall assholes are SOL, though - not considered a protected class (even though, unlike the obese, you actually can't control your own height).
Why should I, a 5' 10" man have to pay more for weighing 180# than a woman that's 5' tall and weighing only 100#?
Physics, that's why.
that involves a computer and a network, where the computers may or may not have played an instrumental part in the commission of a crime.
Quick! to the USPTO! That'll fix 'em!
Two words: video games!
Allegedly, if you take the government at their word.
Yes I do. But even if I didn't the UN also compiles statistics. I could trust similar studies from other governments in other countries. And other independent health agencies.
Always good to know a person's level of naivete.
False equivalence - saying "I don't think the government has a right to regulate what I put in my body" is not even similar to "drugs are harmless," by any stretch of the imagination.
That wasn't the argument of GP. The argument of GP was that they weren't harmless. Arguing that government has no right to regulate is a different point entirely.
Really; because I just re-read GP's post, and not once is the word 'harmless' used.
Non-native English speaker? Or just lacking basic reading comprehension skills? FYI, the former is completely forgivable, gotta learn somehow.
The problem with your statement is that militant theists don't recognize the existence of any other type of non-believer than atheists. That view is an epic fail.
Hell, most militant theists don't recognize the existence of other types of theists! For example, I submit Jihadist Muslims and the WBC - according to both groups, if you're not among their ranks, you're a filthy non-believer.
I do not believe in God. I am not an atheist though,
If the first part of that statement is true, then yes, you are an atheist by definition. However, the rest of that paragraph makes me think what you meant to say is something to the effect of, "I do not necessarily believe in a God, but I will not acknowledge nor deny the existence of such," which would technically make you an "agnostic atheist." At least, according to Wikipedia; personally, I hate labels.
Right now though it's a waste of time. God, existence or not, is not a useful concept.
Fuckin' A, man. We, as a species, have more important shit to do than waste our lives arguing about an unknowable.
I take it you don't spend much time around geriatrics?
They tend to be a bit... forgetful.
On my own behalf, referring to a similar situation I used to encounter when visiting a friend who lived in a "haunted" house:
1) Automotive Technology and Network Security (odd combo, I know)
2) Well, unless the entire world, minus a small porcelain figurine, suddenly shifted down about a foot, then moved in a way that would cause the now static figurine to fly from one side to the other, smashing against the opposite wall... yea, pretty sure that thing moved without visible assistance.
Of course, that's not to say that I think "it was a ghostesses!" or anything like that; were I to posit a hypothesis, I would likely assume the event was a result of some sort of electromagnetic anomaly, but couldn't determine the cause for sure without further investigation and experimentation. Like what a real scientist would do.
I have seen apparitions* as well, both transparent and opaque, but by no means attribute them to any sort of supernatural event. Everything is explainable, given sufficient experimentation and analysis.
What saddens me is when people instantly discount a phenomenon just because their chosen faith doesn't allow questioning the unknown. What really saddens me is when the people who do this refer to themselves as "scientists."
*Mostly in theaters (real theaters, not movie houses)... always found that to be a curious aspect of the phenomenon...
You were had.
Read: I don't believe you saw what you saw, and even though I wasn't there and have no reasonable, alternate explanation, I'm going to call you stupid for believing you saw something that I don't believe you saw, based entirely on my own blind faith.
How... unscientific of you.
And what use does that function have other than killing animals at a distance?
Target practice, shooting competitions, stump removal (no, seriously), entertainment... like I said, whatever the operator decides to shoot with it.
If it were just for recreational destruction at a distance, it would be overpowered, disruptive, costly, unsafe and inefficient compared to the alternatives.
So are SUV's, but I don't hear anyone other than environmental terrorists calling for their prohibition.
That's what I find endlessly hilarious about militant atheists - they'll prattle on and on about how religious types are "idiots" for basing their entire belief structure on pure faith, completely ignoring the fact that, since it's impossible to prove a negative, atheism is also a faith-based belief structure.
Myself, I adhere to more of a "couldn't give less of a rat's ass" approach.
Denial != violation.
and have knowledge of the metric system?
This.
My wife used to work for one of those extremely paranoid rich guys... dude was the type that, if he even assumed you had taken something of his, would corner you in his office and flash his pistol as he interrogated you. And his gains were, at least in the eyes of the government, not considered ill-gotten. He was just a lunatic.
".. is to legalize absolutely all the drugs"
no. Some drugs will destroy your life immediately.
Which is my decision to make for myself, not yours to make for me.
And I feel very unsafe working with stupid _______ that _______ at lunch and are now opperating heavy equiptment and dangererous tools and potentially endangering my life.
Hey, look, a universal truth! Too bad you had to use it to single out a particular social group you have a grudge against.
BTW... it's 'operating,' 'equipment,' and 'dangerous.' IMO, Once is a typo, thrice is evidence of ignorance.
You clearly have no idea why Marijuana was outlawed. I suggest you investigate the matter, and you will quickly realize that your simplistic world view is exactly that. I'll give you a two word starter hint to google (just add marijuana): "textile industry"
Don't forget "Legalized racism."
The first marijuana, nay, drug law in the US was the El Paso Ordinance of 1914. It criminalized the "devil weed" that was very popular with Mexican immigrants, in an early attempt in making "being Mexican" a crime.
The More You Know.
That's the problem. Nosy douche-bags can't understand personal responsibility and consequences.
FTFY.
FYI, putting your personal biases against Christians in a thread that has nothing to do with religion? Classic douche-bag move.
I am curious about where it has been "fairly successful". Certainly not here.
Only applies to completely fiction values of "fairly successful," obviously.
Prohibition has been fairly successful most times it has been used in drastically reducing usage.
... and the empirical data you used to come to this conclusion is available where?
The people I know that do drugs have jobs and money
What? You mean, they're productive members of society? But, but... that can't be! I grew up being brainwa- er, "taught" by government agents, that "drug user" is a term for lazy welfare cheats and homeless people!
Shit, what's next, you're going to tell me that not all drug users are cannibals and murderers?