Incorrect, for the most part. The vast majority of atheists are in the camp of "I see no evidence of a god."
That statement by itself is neither a conclusion nor a belief, plus it goes for a lot of religious people as well.
What matters is what conclusion they draw from this statement, and it can be either "but I chose to believe there is none, anyway" (which is "i know there isn't" in the same sense as religious people "know there is". (substitute 'believe' for 'know' if you feel like being pedantic, it doesn't really change anything)), or it could be "therefore there's no point asking the question in the first place".
Neither of the three groups is necessarily closed-minded when it comes to potential evidence surfacing later on, although getting evidence for 'there is no god' would be a bit tricky to obtain, rendering the religious people practically immune.
Not currently seeing evidence leaves open the possibility of that evidence coming to light, as unlikely as it is.That's the rational position to take.
And that's the agnostic position. It's basically in the word.
Thing is, "where does it call come from" is a pretty legitimate question, and it doesn't necessarily conflicts with science. For example one could believe in some sort of god that made the universe the way it is, laws of nature and all, and didn't really interact with the whole thing afterwards.
Pretty much like the idea that we might be in a simulation. The simulation could be completely consistent with the way we model the world scientifically, but that doesn't mean there's no basement-dwelling neckbeard actually running the simulator, which for our purposes would be 'god'.
Probably because it's kind of hard to ask them, after the fact, whether they OD'd because they wanted to kill themselves, or whether they were just looking for the best trip ever. Not ever OD is suicide.
Amazing that all of it, all of these systems and structures, quintillions of individual parts just happened to randomly come together into perfectly working, self-sufficient systems without any of it ever being designed.
Maybe far simpler systems came together by chance, and evolved given an enourmous amount of time? I know, I know. Unconvential thoughts and all.
Should also add that faster frequencies means faster switching, which means parasitic capacitances have to be charged faster which is generally achieved by higher voltage. Double the voltage, quadruple the power loss.
Pretty sure 3200MHz DDR4 runs at 400 MHz, not 1600. The "effective" clock speed of 3200 MHz comes from 4 bytes per access times two (since it acts on both the rising and the falling clock edge).
Slashdot Mirror
Incorrect, for the most part. The vast majority of atheists are in the camp of "I see no evidence of a god."
That statement by itself is neither a conclusion nor a belief, plus it goes for a lot of religious people as well.
What matters is what conclusion they draw from this statement, and it can be either "but I chose to believe there is none, anyway" (which is "i know there isn't" in the same sense as religious people "know there is". (substitute 'believe' for 'know' if you feel like being pedantic, it doesn't really change anything)), or it could be "therefore there's no point asking the question in the first place".
Neither of the three groups is necessarily closed-minded when it comes to potential evidence surfacing later on, although getting evidence for 'there is no god' would be a bit tricky to obtain, rendering the religious people practically immune.
Not currently seeing evidence leaves open the possibility of that evidence coming to light, as unlikely as it is.That's the rational position to take.
And that's the agnostic position. It's basically in the word.
By what logic would one make the jump from "I don't know" to the supernatural?
Atheism isn't "i don't know", it's "I know there isn't". You're thinking of agnosticism.
> There's a difference between an empty set and no set at all.
No. A set is defined by its elements, "the set itself" doesn't exist; it's not a bag or something material like that
Care to elaborate? I know what Occam's Razor is, but I don't see how to apply it in this case.
Thing is, "where does it call come from" is a pretty legitimate question, and it doesn't necessarily conflicts with science. For example one could believe in some sort of god that made the universe the way it is, laws of nature and all, and didn't really interact with the whole thing afterwards.
Pretty much like the idea that we might be in a simulation. The simulation could be completely consistent with the way we model the world scientifically, but that doesn't mean there's no basement-dwelling neckbeard actually running the simulator, which for our purposes would be 'god'.
Why would 'scientist' imply 'atheist'?
I don't think the size of the actual program would be all too big. Probably a MB or so.
It's not like it has to upload HD textures, 3D models, cat videos or anything.
This.
Why would you have to level a rain forest first? New, fast-growing trees could be planted elsewhere.
s/ever/every/
Probably because it's kind of hard to ask them, after the fact, whether they OD'd because they wanted to kill themselves, or whether they were just looking for the best trip ever. Not ever OD is suicide.
I's not impossible to clean up a system with a root kit without reinstalling; it's just impossible to actually know you're done with the cleanup.
On the contrary, reinstalling the OS is no guarantee that you got rid of your root kit, especially not if your firmware is compromised.
Single player games seem to have disappeared.
Not so fast.
I for one get a deep sensation of pride and accomplishment whenever I purchase more win ingame.
Amazing that all of it, all of these systems and structures, quintillions of individual parts just happened to randomly come together into perfectly working, self-sufficient systems without any of it ever being designed.
Maybe far simpler systems came together by chance, and evolved given an enourmous amount of time? I know, I know. Unconvential thoughts and all.
No, the problem is in front of your keyboard, or phone, or whatever.
FreeBSD doesn't have runlevels, which are a System V concept.
You're probably thinking of securelevels.
Yes, overclocking means operating out of spec.
News at 11.
You had a 5GHz P4 in 1998? Makes me wonder why as a teen I spent all my money on a P3 600 Mhz in 2000...
Should also add that faster frequencies means faster switching, which means parasitic capacitances have to be charged faster which is generally achieved by higher voltage. Double the voltage, quadruple the power loss.
8086K will allow overclocking, that's what the 'K' means.
Pretty sure 3200MHz DDR4 runs at 400 MHz, not 1600. The "effective" clock speed of 3200 MHz comes from 4 bytes per access times two (since it acts on both the rising and the falling clock edge).
This isn't reddit
Interesting, thanks
Seconded.