And you're quite right: not all agnostics are "strict" agnostics: claiming that knowledge of god is impossible. This position is the one I find most nonsensical of all, since it claims to know a characteristic (unknowability) of a being which it claims one cannot know the characteristics of!
That is my personal view (and definition): that the nature of God is unknowable. It's the only characteristic that we can know, similiar to the fact that "I AM" is the only definite knowledge. But it's relatively easy to prove that the nature of God is unknowable. If we did have "proof" of God (let's say the Judeo-Christian God), how do we know that it's the "real" God? How do we know that it's not a God fooling us? Maybe it's simply an alien. Maybe the whole world is just a computer simulation and we are AI's running in a lab experiment, and they decided to send God down to see what happens.
Since you can always add another "shell" around God, therefore the existence and nature is unknowable.
You're inflating the importance of "god" with respect to any other proposition.
Perhaps, but you're inflating the importance of the word "faith". It doesn't necessarily have to have religious overtones. It simply means a belief accepted without evidence.
Scientist: You take a definite position that there exists nothing but that which you can observe.
I don't know if you meant to put it that way, but that's definitely not true. In fact, Heisenberg says that we can't measure momentum and position at the same time, but that doesn't mean they don't exist at the same time. It's seems highly probable that there exists phenomenem outside of our measurable universe that we'll never know about it. Of course, that is unprovable by definition.:)
"Atheist" is no more a position of faith than saying "I don't believe in 1000 foot tall purple gorrilas" is a statement of faith.
Actually, that's not true. We have no evidence for purple gorrilas, but we do have (supposedly) eyewitness accounts of Jesus being resurrected. I don't believe that evidence is very strong, but it is evidence.
I know you're next argument: Santa Claus. Let's hit that one.:)
We can actively disprove Santa Claus, because we can trace the origins of the legend, and see that it is clearly made up. With the Judeo-Christian God, it's not easy to see, because he's pretty much been around since the dawn of writing (8000 years?).
So to actively say that there is absolutely no God presupposes evidence that you don't have, and in fact, ignores that there really is some (admittedly weak) evidence for the existence of God.
they would not start a war now.. and that would prevent WWIII.
Actually, we're fighting the war now to prevent WW/III in the future. A war will be fought: we can choose to fight it now when our enemies are relatively weak, or we can fight in the future, when our enemies have taken the entire middle east.
Are you trying to say that speaking "move this thing over here" or waving your arms around is more efficient than a small twitch of my wrist on the mouse? Not to mention that speech input is annoying to everyone around you.
That's true, I forgot about the Iridium phones. But they broadcast to a very low altitude satellites. Does this video phone broadcast the LEO satellites or regular satellites?
Actually, you said: "They are next to useless in catching anyone, no one robs a bank without a mask or a disguise,..." ("useless" = "no use"). Clearly that's wrong, since they are regularly used to catch criminals. Who actually pushes to have cameras installed is irrelevent; the point is that cameras do catch criminals.
99.999% of Americans were NOT in the twin towers. 99.999% of Americans were not attacked.
Bullshit. Every single American was attacked on that day, because it was a random attack.
The Peacemakers are denounced for lack of patriotism.
Everybody in this debate is a peacemaker, because everyone has peace as the ultimate goal. It's only the pacifists that are generally attacked, because they are too busy wringing their hands to see the bigger picture. Most of us who think freedom and liberty is worth fighting for. Pacifists think that freedom and liberty are worth whining about.
Can you say, with 100% certainty, who the barbarians are? No, you can't.
No, but I can say without a reasonable doubt, and so it would appear can a lot of other countries -- including middle eastern countries.
So, if you destroy someone, it may very well be that you are killing innocent people, which makes you barbarian too, IMNSHO.
Just out of curiosity, how many jumbo jets have to fly into skyscrapers before you think it's time to act? How many people have to do? Do we need a jet flying into a football stadium killing 70,000 people? How about nuke in the city of Los Angeles? Given what has already occurred, do you think there is any limit to how many people they will kill to fulfill their goals?
You buy that crap? We're blowing up sites in Kabul. INNOCENTS WILL DIE.
There is a difference between target military sites and attempting to avoid killing innocents, and guaranteeing no innocents will die. There is absolutely no question that innocents will die.
As Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots". I'm sorry that a few innocents are going to be killed in this, but preserving the civilization of the world -- not just the US -- is more important right now. Way more innocent lives will die if we don't act now.
Sucks to be an innocent civilian living under a tyrranical dictatorship getting bombed by a country that doesn't give a shit about who is innocent and who is guilty.
This is what astounds me. The US government has said over and over and over that our fight is with the Taliban and not the Afghan people. We could easily bomb indiscriminately, but we haven't. We could easily not send food supplies in at the same time, but we do. Yet people like you don't want to have the facts interfere with their cynicism, so they comfortably ignore the facts.
They just want revenge. No better than the terrorists.
No, we want peace and freedom, which was assaulted when jumbo jets flew into skyscrapers.
Make no mistake -- the average Afghan citizen is hoping and praying that we liberate their country from the Taliban.
The US is killing people that had nothing to do with the attacks on us.
No, the US is killing the Taliban, which had everything to do with the attacks. We are specifically avoiding the Afghan people.
Seems a lot like the War on Drugs to me.
The difference is that there are a LOT of people who don't want the war on drugs to be won, both from the demand side and from the supply side. With terrorism, there are very few countries in the world that support terrorists. It's a much different nut to crack. People seem to think there are millions of terrorists out there, but there really aren't that many.
Yeah, maybe if we just hadn't given Hitler a reason to attack Europe, he would have just stayed home.
Guess what? Hitler really happened. It's not just a fictional story. There really are bad people in the world who want to conquer it. They really don't need a reason except hatred and the goal of remaking the world into radical Islam.
The US asked them to turn over a war hero without any evidence. Of course they refused!
Oh please, you are not this naive. The Taliban knows full well what activities bin Laden takes part in. They fully support his terrorist activities. You seem to think this is some legitimate government like Canada or something.
I don't think it's in the world's best interest to let a criminal be tried by a judge and jury of criminals.
So, are you an unapoligetic hypocrite, or is a hundred million dollars (in explosives) all it really takes to change your real beliefs?
I don't think you read very closely. It was a cautionary statement with a few different messages. One was that we shouldn't blame the Afghan people, and we don't. The second, and more important message, is bin Laden's ultimate goals. He cautions us against falling into a trap of turning it into the West versus Islam, and Bush has indeed been extremely cautious about getting the support of the Middle East. His more powerful statement, that I agree with, is this man has the same goals as Hitler. Namely, to remake the world in a radical image.
We waited until it was too late with Hitler. I pray we don't make the same mistake with bin Laden.
I'm convinced he is guilty. But kill him, and 3 new ones will step into his shoes.
That is racism. Every Islamic Arab is NOT a potential terrorist. That's like saying in 1939 (or whenever): "Why kill Nazis? For every one you kill, you just create 3 more of them." It wasn't true then, and it's not true now.
In any case, I don't care how many terrorists are out there. If we have to kill every last one of them, then that's what is required.
You might be willing to tolerate a certain number of jumbo jets flying into skyscrapers, but I'm not. You seem to think that this was an isolated incident that's not going to happen again. It will happen again, over and over, until we solve the problem once and for all.
According to this, that is exactly why he did it. I made this link my new signature. In the last 50 years, Hitler has gotten thrown around as justification for a lot of things, but in this case I really think we do have another Hitler that wants to conquer the world and remake it in a radical religious image.
If we could pop them one at a time, we probably would. But you seem to think they just walk around with a sign that says, "here I am -- kill me". All signs are that we are NOT using a hammer, we are trying to be a surgical as possible. But it's childish to think that we can just beam them out star-trek style without any casualties.
Should we have just let the Nazis conquer the world to avoid killing innocent Germans?
and you think airstrikes are going to only kill those supposedly responseable? dream on....
There is no question that innocent civilians will be killed.
oh but my bad, we're justified in doing it. i forgot about that.
Yes we are absolutely 100% justified. When a country is giving safe harbor to people who fly jumbo jets into skyscrapers killing 6000+ people, we are justified in defending ourselves against future attacks.
The Taliban could have renounced terrorism and avoided all this. As it stands, we have the absolute perfect, moral right -- and obligation -- to solve the problem permanently.
Slashdot Mirror
And you're quite right: not all agnostics are "strict" agnostics: claiming that knowledge of god is impossible. This position is the one I find most nonsensical of all, since it claims to know a characteristic (unknowability) of a being which it claims one cannot know the characteristics of!
That is my personal view (and definition): that the nature of God is unknowable. It's the only characteristic that we can know, similiar to the fact that "I AM" is the only definite knowledge. But it's relatively easy to prove that the nature of God is unknowable. If we did have "proof" of God (let's say the Judeo-Christian God), how do we know that it's the "real" God? How do we know that it's not a God fooling us? Maybe it's simply an alien. Maybe the whole world is just a computer simulation and we are AI's running in a lab experiment, and they decided to send God down to see what happens.
Since you can always add another "shell" around God, therefore the existence and nature is unknowable.
You're inflating the importance of "god" with respect to any other proposition.
Perhaps, but you're inflating the importance of the word "faith". It doesn't necessarily have to have religious overtones. It simply means a belief accepted without evidence.
Scientist: You take a definite position that there exists nothing but that which you can observe.
I don't know if you meant to put it that way, but that's definitely not true. In fact, Heisenberg says that we can't measure momentum and position at the same time, but that doesn't mean they don't exist at the same time. It's seems highly probable that there exists phenomenem outside of our measurable universe that we'll never know about it. Of course, that is unprovable by definition. :)
"Atheist" is no more a position of faith than saying "I don't believe in 1000 foot tall purple gorrilas" is a statement of faith.
Actually, that's not true. We have no evidence for purple gorrilas, but we do have (supposedly) eyewitness accounts of Jesus being resurrected. I don't believe that evidence is very strong, but it is evidence.
I know you're next argument: Santa Claus. Let's hit that one. :)
We can actively disprove Santa Claus, because we can trace the origins of the legend, and see that it is clearly made up. With the Judeo-Christian God, it's not easy to see, because he's pretty much been around since the dawn of writing (8000 years?).
So to actively say that there is absolutely no God presupposes evidence that you don't have, and in fact, ignores that there really is some (admittedly weak) evidence for the existence of God.
they would not start a war now.. and that would prevent WWIII.
Actually, we're fighting the war now to prevent WW/III in the future. A war will be fought: we can choose to fight it now when our enemies are relatively weak, or we can fight in the future, when our enemies have taken the entire middle east.
That's pretty much what I meant, but you're way of saying it is probably more accurate. :)
Atheist: You take a definite position that there is no God (which ironically is actually a position of faith, but that's another debate).
Agnostic: You take the position that the existence of God is not knowable. This IMO is the most intellectually honest position.
None: I guess this means that you take absolutely no position at all on the subject.
Are you trying to say that speaking "move this thing over here" or waving your arms around is more efficient than a small twitch of my wrist on the mouse? Not to mention that speech input is annoying to everyone around you.
That's true, I forgot about the Iridium phones. But they broadcast to a very low altitude satellites. Does this video phone broadcast the LEO satellites or regular satellites?
It must require way more power to blast the signal every which way rather than use a dish. I wonder how much battery life they get out of the thing.
It seem like there ought to be someway to have a motorized dish antenna that could automatically align itself.
Wouldn't you need to align a dish for this to work? How do get it aligned?
I seem to recall them using similar technology during the Gulf War, but it wasn't this portable.
I did not say the cameras had no use, ...
Actually, you said: "They are next to useless in catching anyone, no one robs a bank without a mask or a disguise,..." ("useless" = "no use"). Clearly that's wrong, since they are regularly used to catch criminals. Who actually pushes to have cameras installed is irrelevent; the point is that cameras do catch criminals.
99.999% of Americans were NOT in the twin towers. 99.999% of Americans were not attacked.
Bullshit. Every single American was attacked on that day, because it was a random attack.
The Peacemakers are denounced for lack of patriotism.
Everybody in this debate is a peacemaker, because everyone has peace as the ultimate goal. It's only the pacifists that are generally attacked, because they are too busy wringing their hands to see the bigger picture. Most of us who think freedom and liberty is worth fighting for. Pacifists think that freedom and liberty are worth whining about.
But anyway, congratulations for killing the thread.
I should point out that I don't recognize Godwin's Law, which is totally stupid. If Nazis fit the debate, then Nazis fit the friggin' debate.
Can you say, with 100% certainty, who the barbarians are? No, you can't.
No, but I can say without a reasonable doubt, and so it would appear can a lot of other countries -- including middle eastern countries.
So, if you destroy someone, it may very well be that you are killing innocent people, which makes you barbarian too, IMNSHO.
Just out of curiosity, how many jumbo jets have to fly into skyscrapers before you think it's time to act? How many people have to do? Do we need a jet flying into a football stadium killing 70,000 people? How about nuke in the city of Los Angeles? Given what has already occurred, do you think there is any limit to how many people they will kill to fulfill their goals?
You buy that crap? We're blowing up sites in Kabul. INNOCENTS WILL DIE.
There is a difference between target military sites and attempting to avoid killing innocents, and guaranteeing no innocents will die. There is absolutely no question that innocents will die.
As Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots". I'm sorry that a few innocents are going to be killed in this, but preserving the civilization of the world -- not just the US -- is more important right now. Way more innocent lives will die if we don't act now.
Sucks to be an innocent civilian living under a tyrranical dictatorship getting bombed by a country that doesn't give a shit about who is innocent and who is guilty.
This is what astounds me. The US government has said over and over and over that our fight is with the Taliban and not the Afghan people. We could easily bomb indiscriminately, but we haven't. We could easily not send food supplies in at the same time, but we do. Yet people like you don't want to have the facts interfere with their cynicism, so they comfortably ignore the facts.
They just want revenge. No better than the terrorists.
No, we want peace and freedom, which was assaulted when jumbo jets flew into skyscrapers.
Make no mistake -- the average Afghan citizen is hoping and praying that we liberate their country from the Taliban.
The US is killing people that had nothing to do with the attacks on us.
No, the US is killing the Taliban, which had everything to do with the attacks. We are specifically avoiding the Afghan people.
Seems a lot like the War on Drugs to me.
The difference is that there are a LOT of people who don't want the war on drugs to be won, both from the demand side and from the supply side. With terrorism, there are very few countries in the world that support terrorists. It's a much different nut to crack. People seem to think there are millions of terrorists out there, but there really aren't that many.
Yeah, maybe if we just hadn't given Hitler a reason to attack Europe, he would have just stayed home.
Guess what? Hitler really happened. It's not just a fictional story. There really are bad people in the world who want to conquer it. They really don't need a reason except hatred and the goal of remaking the world into radical Islam.
The US asked them to turn over a war hero without any evidence. Of course they refused!
Oh please, you are not this naive. The Taliban knows full well what activities bin Laden takes part in. They fully support his terrorist activities. You seem to think this is some legitimate government like Canada or something.
I don't think it's in the world's best interest to let a criminal be tried by a judge and jury of criminals.
So, are you an unapoligetic hypocrite, or is a hundred million dollars (in explosives) all it really takes to change your real beliefs?
I don't think you read very closely. It was a cautionary statement with a few different messages. One was that we shouldn't blame the Afghan people, and we don't. The second, and more important message, is bin Laden's ultimate goals. He cautions us against falling into a trap of turning it into the West versus Islam, and Bush has indeed been extremely cautious about getting the support of the Middle East. His more powerful statement, that I agree with, is this man has the same goals as Hitler. Namely, to remake the world in a radical image.
We waited until it was too late with Hitler. I pray we don't make the same mistake with bin Laden.
I'm convinced he is guilty. But kill him, and 3 new ones will step into his shoes.
That is racism. Every Islamic Arab is NOT a potential terrorist. That's like saying in 1939 (or whenever): "Why kill Nazis? For every one you kill, you just create 3 more of them." It wasn't true then, and it's not true now.
In any case, I don't care how many terrorists are out there. If we have to kill every last one of them, then that's what is required.
You might be willing to tolerate a certain number of jumbo jets flying into skyscrapers, but I'm not. You seem to think that this was an isolated incident that's not going to happen again. It will happen again, over and over, until we solve the problem once and for all.
According to this, that is exactly why he did it. I made this link my new signature. In the last 50 years, Hitler has gotten thrown around as justification for a lot of things, but in this case I really think we do have another Hitler that wants to conquer the world and remake it in a radical religious image.
If we could pop them one at a time, we probably would. But you seem to think they just walk around with a sign that says, "here I am -- kill me". All signs are that we are NOT using a hammer, we are trying to be a surgical as possible. But it's childish to think that we can just beam them out star-trek style without any casualties.
Should we have just let the Nazis conquer the world to avoid killing innocent Germans?
If the only thing you can see is "They hurt us and we will hurt then more" you are an idiot.
No, what I see is "they hurt us, and it's our responsibility to make sure they can't ever hurt us again".
You want the "why"? Here is the "why". Can you handle the truth that these are power-hungry people who want to destabilize the world?
and you think airstrikes are going to only kill those supposedly responseable? dream on....
There is no question that innocent civilians will be killed.
oh but my bad, we're justified in doing it. i forgot about that.
Yes we are absolutely 100% justified. When a country is giving safe harbor to people who fly jumbo jets into skyscrapers killing 6000+ people, we are justified in defending ourselves against future attacks.
The Taliban could have renounced terrorism and avoided all this. As it stands, we have the absolute perfect, moral right -- and obligation -- to solve the problem permanently.