I've wondered for a long time why some words are supposedly bad while other words that mean exactly the same thing are OK. On the other hand, I suspect that a lot of people would be really mad if their ability to say words they're not supposed to say suddenly ceased to exist.
I believe the idea is to catch the stray emissions when they're tagging other people so you know ahead of time. But, yeah, if it's 2am and there's not another car within a two miles you're pretty much screwed.
Does anybody else have a problem with these two statements being together?
Scientists have designed a new "heart-reinforcing corset" to help combat congestive heart failure. While there isn't a large degree of understanding of the condition...
Isn't that pretty much how medieval medicine worked? "We don't know why this person's sick, but we'll just try this thing to fix it."
...Dude, have you forgotten what the original point was? Whether or not there is a god. I say there is no proof. You, apparently, argue otherwise. My point is this: I, as an Atheist, do not need to prove a thing. I, as an Atheist (asserting that god is a myth), argue from the default position that there is no supernatural being call God. I draw your attention to the following:...
Dude, you need to pay more attention: 1) The original point was that you claim theists carry the burden of proof; unless you're referring to the title of your post, which is just a simple assertion of fact. 2) We both seemed to agree at the beginning that there is no proof for either position. I don't see that either of us is obliged to prove anything. I haven't argued otherwise. 3) Anthropological evidence indicates that statements of theism predate statements of atheism. That would seem to place theism as the default position. Theists also far outnumber atheists therefore adding more weight to the claim for default. Your only basis for default is that you claim it's so. 4) You've repeatedly claimed that any assertion of fact requires proof, but claim that your assertions don't require proof. It's must be really convenient to have something like Atheism to free you from any burden of proof.
Your religion (A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion [1]) seems to be much more narrow and dogmatic than mine.
Just for S&G try this: Definition: God = that which causes the universe to exist. (If you get to make up the rules then I get to make up the definitions.) Therefore, if the universe exists then God exists. Unfortunately, at this point I find myself unable to prove that the universe exists so I guess you win.
...If I said that life was created by the "BigSpaghettiMonster", then either of two things are correct: 1. It is up to ME to prove my assertion IS true. 2. It is up to OTHERS to prove my assertion IS NOT true...
Where do you get this stuff? Where does this requirement come from that anybody has to prove anything? Based on your requirements; you now owe us proof that a negative can't be proven as well as proof that exactly one of any opposing pair of assertions must be proven. You're digging a deep hole here.
...Okay. If I claimed that the moon was made of green cheese, you would say: "Okay, you're asserting a fact--so you need to prove that the moon is made of green cheese." The same goes with someone who is asserting that there is a being called "God" who exists and who made the world. I, as an atheist, am NOT asserting any facts. It is you--the believer--who is asserting that god exists and so you are the one who needs to prove something. Also, it's a well-known fact that it's impossible to prove a negative: I can't prove that something does not exist...
I also fail to see why you would need to prove that the moon is made of green cheese. I don't think that it is, but if it is, it is, and my life won't be changed by that fact. You seem to have developed your own religion wherein the assertion of fact dictates the presentation of proof. Your claim is flawed anyway. You are asserting as fact that there is no god. Saying that you're not asserting a fact doesn't make it so. BTW, according to your claims you are now compelled to prove that it's impossible to prove a negative. I'll be waiting.
You seem pretty secure in that belief. Looking around right now I don't see any donuts. I don't smell any donuts. As far as I can tell, donuts don't exist. I have memories of something I identified as donuts (more precisely, doughnuts in my experience), but I have no way of knowing whether those memories are real or imagined.
...I, as an atheist, do not need to prove anything. It is the believers in a god that need to do the proving...
Why is that? I've been hearing this claim more frequently of late, but I don't see the logic. You believe one thing. I believe another. We've each made a choice and neither is compelled to prove anything; which is good since neither case is provable. We'll each live our life as we see fit, and hopefully won't negatively affect the lives of others as a result.
A) If you don't see the illusion then you're probably colorblind, just like 1/8th of the rest of us males. The central squares don't look different to me either. B) You completely missed what they're talking about. The robots were programmed to process visual information similar to the way humans do. The illusions actually seem like a good test of their programming.
Actually, most people's lives don't suck. It's just that you mostly hear from the ones whose lives do suck. The rest are quietly going along enjoying their non-sucky lives; and not posting on/..
No, the problem is that too many companies have realized who pays for their products. A lot of companies have completely abandoned the repeat customer market. They've discovered that they can do quite well just selling to the thousands of new, and oblivious, consumers that become available every day. Customer loyalty is just too hard and expensive to maintain.
Well if you had RTFA you 'may' have noticed that the germs were carried into space, returned to Earth, then administered to Earth-bound mice. The ironic thing is that they apparently didn't do the inverse experiment so we don't know how either strain of salmonella affects mice in space.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. I can't imagine the level of frustration you must feel.
I've wondered for a long time why some words are supposedly bad while other words that mean exactly the same thing are OK.
On the other hand, I suspect that a lot of people would be really mad if their ability to say words they're not supposed to say suddenly ceased to exist.
I believe the idea is to catch the stray emissions when they're tagging other people so you know ahead of time.
But, yeah, if it's 2am and there's not another car within a two miles you're pretty much screwed.
Nothing new here. Ever heard of The Crusades?
I wouldn't want to play Jesus or Lazarus. They take like 3 days to respawn.
Does one of the Marys attack with a bottle of oil?
It's Slashdot. This isn't the place where people come to find good analogies, or, really anything approaching coherency.
I'm glad I wasn't the only one to read it that way. I was really confused for a moment.
Dude, you need to pay more attention:
1) The original point was that you claim theists carry the burden of proof; unless you're referring to the title of your post, which is just a simple assertion of fact.
2) We both seemed to agree at the beginning that there is no proof for either position. I don't see that either of us is obliged to prove anything. I haven't argued otherwise.
3) Anthropological evidence indicates that statements of theism predate statements of atheism. That would seem to place theism as the default position. Theists also far outnumber atheists therefore adding more weight to the claim for default. Your only basis for default is that you claim it's so.
4) You've repeatedly claimed that any assertion of fact requires proof, but claim that your assertions don't require proof. It's must be really convenient to have something like Atheism to free you from any burden of proof.
Your religion (A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion [1]) seems to be much more narrow and dogmatic than mine.
Just for S&G try this:
Definition: God = that which causes the universe to exist. (If you get to make up the rules then I get to make up the definitions.)
Therefore, if the universe exists then God exists.
Unfortunately, at this point I find myself unable to prove that the universe exists so I guess you win.
[1]The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Definition #4.
Where do you get this stuff? Where does this requirement come from that anybody has to prove anything?
Based on your requirements; you now owe us proof that a negative can't be proven as well as proof that exactly one of any opposing pair of assertions must be proven. You're digging a deep hole here.
I also fail to see why you would need to prove that the moon is made of green cheese. I don't think that it is, but if it is, it is, and my life won't be changed by that fact. You seem to have developed your own religion wherein the assertion of fact dictates the presentation of proof.
Your claim is flawed anyway. You are asserting as fact that there is no god. Saying that you're not asserting a fact doesn't make it so.
BTW, according to your claims you are now compelled to prove that it's impossible to prove a negative. I'll be waiting.
You seem pretty secure in that belief.
Looking around right now I don't see any donuts. I don't smell any donuts. As far as I can tell, donuts don't exist. I have memories of something I identified as donuts (more precisely, doughnuts in my experience), but I have no way of knowing whether those memories are real or imagined.
Why is that? I've been hearing this claim more frequently of late, but I don't see the logic.
You believe one thing. I believe another. We've each made a choice and neither is compelled to prove anything; which is good since neither case is provable.
We'll each live our life as we see fit, and hopefully won't negatively affect the lives of others as a result.
How do you calculate a tenfold decrease in body size?
I especially like the fact that the ocean appears lighter than North Korea in that picture. I think I'll move there.
That looks like one of the best self-contradicting sentences I've never seen.
Will there be a PT Cruiser involved?
A) If you don't see the illusion then you're probably colorblind, just like 1/8th of the rest of us males. The central squares don't look different to me either.
B) You completely missed what they're talking about. The robots were programmed to process visual information similar to the way humans do. The illusions actually seem like a good test of their programming.
Actually, most people's lives don't suck. It's just that you mostly hear from the ones whose lives do suck. The rest are quietly going along enjoying their non-sucky lives; and not posting on /..
No, the problem is that too many companies have realized who pays for their products. A lot of companies have completely abandoned the repeat customer market. They've discovered that they can do quite well just selling to the thousands of new, and oblivious, consumers that become available every day. Customer loyalty is just too hard and expensive to maintain.
Well if you had RTFA you 'may' have noticed that the germs were carried into space, returned to Earth, then administered to Earth-bound mice. The ironic thing is that they apparently didn't do the inverse experiment so we don't know how either strain of salmonella affects mice in space.
Umm, no. This is public information. Secrets are the part we don't know.
I totally want a meteor crater in my back yard. I never get cool stuff like that.
You apparently don't realize that Australia is a very large island south of Asia. Islands don't have feet. They have roots.
Umm, are we still talking about fencing, or is this a different subject?