You did confuse them when you said (emphasis mine):
It is impossible for any person to answer the question without implicitly invoking "I believe". You are wrong about my state of confusion and the available choices.
My contention is if you asked an atheist who is giving a perfectly accurate response, it would almost never be NO.
"Is there a god?" is a yes/no question. A confused atheist's ability to give a rambling non-answer is irrelevant.
If you think there is a god, you're a theist. If you're not sure, you're an agnostic. If you think there's no god, you're an atheist.
You can invent however many permutations of answers that are not exactly "No", but I don't care. Either there is or there is not a god. Pick an answer to the question, or don't.
One side makes an absolute statement: There is a god. The other does not make an absolute statement, like any answer based on available evidence instead of faith should almost never do. It is one of the big differences between an unsubstantiated belief that anchors a full misguided belief system, and a well educated belief.
Actually, a University of Pennsylvania study (DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099) examined over 600 incidents in the Philly area, and found that carrying a gun actually increases ones chances of getting shot and killed:
You're delusional. From the article you referenced:
Naturally, such examples will be rare.
Are you too stupid to read in context, or are you dishonestly snipping it out?
Naturally, such examples [of civilians stopping shootings] will be rare. Even in states which allow concealed carry, there often aren't people near a shooting who have a gun on them at the time. Many mass shootings happen in supposedly "gun-free" zones (such as schools, universities or private property posted with a no-guns sign), in which gun carrying isnâ(TM)t allowed. And there is no central database of such examples, many of which don't hit the national media, especially if a gunman is stopped before he shoots many victims.
Relevant points highlighted.
However, it's quite reasonable to imagine a scenario where unarmed victims get caught in crossfire.
Your imagination is not a credible source on the harm caused by defensive firearm use. The article listed 10 examples where an armed citizen stopped a shooter, without racking up an innocent death toll by friendly fire. You don't even have a single counter-example.
When "highly trained" police officers shoot nine innocent civilians [cnn.com] when trying to shoot a suspect, what are the chances that Joe Blow (who hasn't been to the range since he got his concealed carry permit) will avoid collateral damage?
Low.
It takes dedication to get a CCW, and Joe Blow will get sued for millions and become the Public Enemy of America if he screws up.
Joe Blow has skin in the game. The police don't have a legal duty to protect you.
So you're using the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
Sometimes it is. There are no shortage of defensive firearm shootings in the US.
The people with a vested interest in pointing out the cons have not done so. Is it because they're too stupid to calculate the numbers? Or is it because they don't think it will help their preferred position?
I guess it could minimize fatalities, but I'm thinking of a bunch of armed people firing at each other in a relative small place and wondering if as many people would end up struck by "friendly" bullets as by the mass shooters.
Given how media favors gun control, every single incident where a citizen killed bystanders with "friendly fire" would be widely reported on as evidence for guns causing more harm than good.
Instead, there is silence on that topic because citizens using guns in self defense save lives.
No, atheist is "I don't believe in a god". That is not the same thing as "there is no god".
You are demanding that I consider an irrelevant context. No one can tell me "there is no god" in the way you are talking about. By definition, any person who says that to me is claiming it as a fact and implicitly declaring his belief in it.
I am not confusing "there is no god" (said an atheist) with "there is no god" (objectively).
Since I asked a person that question, every answer is going to be personal belief, and everyone who replies "there is no god" is an atheist declaring "I believe there is no god".
You are adding confusion, not correcting error. Is that rational behavior?
The precise reasons that people see profundity in vague buzzwords or syntactic but completely random sentences are unknown.
I think a large reason for the phenomenon (accepting the premise of around a quarter uncritical test subjects uncritically for the sake of the argument) is for the same reason that a whole city, save one child, all said how nice the emperor's new clothes are (despite all seeing his imperial nakedness): not wanting to look foolish/out-of-fashion/contrary to society in the eyes of their peers.
But in the absence of peer pressure, there should be no such effect.
I think a better explanation is that people assume meaning. People can find patterns in random noise.
As people try to process a random word salad, the brain works hard to develop any tenuous connection between unrelated concepts; the brain notices this exertion and concludes that this must be a difficult and meaningful concept.
A better trained brain will instead bypass that effort and conclude it's nonsense.
âoeNobody has had a way of quantifying this before,â which indicates that previous claims were invalid
No it does not indicate that.
Previously, "In the mid-19th century, researchers claimed they could tell the sex of an individual just by looking at their disembodied brain."
To show that that claim is invalid, you have to demonstrate that those researchers had a high failure rate using a disembodied brain to determine an individual's sex.
The existence of a new measurement tool is insufficient to invalidate that claim - what if you check their prediction rate and find that it's 100% correct? That would validate and justify their claim.
Speak you lie clearly: Are you claiming to have randomly inserted a comment about greenhouses into a discussion about the greenhouse gas effect Yes or No?
What lie? I said something, you misunderstood it. Your inability to understand is not a problem on my part.
Do you not know what a greenhouse is? How do greenhouses trap heat?
Which of the following did I get wrong?
You get everything wrong. It's hilarious, actually - someone who has trouble comprehending English appointing himself as the Great Defender of the Faith in Global Warming.
You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming effect into his position and treated that as an internal contradiction.
There is no reading of that sentence that has you saying anything other than attributing the theory of a greenhouse effect to me:
Like I said, you're an illiterate moron. I could step you through the thought if you ask nicely. It involves reading the entire paragraph, though, and doing a single sentence has already proven taxing on your intellect.
You didn't claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?
If you weren't illiterate, you'd have noticed that I did not claim either of those positions.
2. [you] Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".
[...] you must be a drooling moron if you didn't think I would be able to contradict your lies by quoting your own words.
Just for giggles: How do greenhouses trap heat?
Why are you again trying to change the subject [...]
Exchange repeated for amusement value. Do you not know what a greenhouse is?
Did I get an interpretation wrong?
Yes. Very. Get help, and then take some remedial English lessons.
1. [you] You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming
A person with integrity would quote the entire sentence. You, however, are a liar, and too intellectually challenged to have a discussion with.
2. [you] Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".
Just for giggles: How do greenhouses trap heat?
I've quoted your own words back to you several times whilst you ducked and scrabbled for cover [...]
What part of "you lack credibility" do you not understand? You attach nonsensical interpretations to other people's words and yet are desperate to be taken seriously.
Start by holding yourself accountable for the words you say.
For example, I called you a "compulsory liar" instead of a "compulsive liar". My bad.
Your feelings about the matter don't enter into my thinking at all.
You don't think at all, rather. That's how your interpretation of my words ended up so far from anything I was actually saying.
Slashdot Mirror
So two citizens just killed 14 people with "friendly fire". Which way does the harm meter swing on that one?
That's not friendly fire, you illiterate moron.
Except for the, you know, 360 odd occasions (every year) where the citizens are using guns to take lives instead.
Ignoring the difference between criminals and law abiding citizens? Dishonest political hack.
But will that stop them?
List how many Joe Blows have killed innocent bystanders when attempting to take down a mass shooter.
You can't. This whole fear of well-meaning gun owners accidentally gunning down bystanders is unfounded.
You did confuse them when you said (emphasis mine):
It is impossible for any person to answer the question without implicitly invoking "I believe". You are wrong about my state of confusion and the available choices.
My contention is if you asked an atheist who is giving a perfectly accurate response, it would almost never be NO.
"Is there a god?" is a yes/no question. A confused atheist's ability to give a rambling non-answer is irrelevant.
If you think there is a god, you're a theist. If you're not sure, you're an agnostic. If you think there's no god, you're an atheist.
You can invent however many permutations of answers that are not exactly "No", but I don't care. Either there is or there is not a god. Pick an answer to the question, or don't.
One side makes an absolute statement: There is a god. The other does not make an absolute statement, like any answer based on available evidence instead of faith should almost never do. It is one of the big differences between an unsubstantiated belief that anchors a full misguided belief system, and a well educated belief.
You're rambling.
Now how good a shot is Joe Blow? Grandma?
Good enough. When's the last time you heard the Media reporting that a Joe Blow or Grandma caused the wrongful death of an innocent bystander?
If it's such a problem, why is the Media not reporting on it when it happens? Is it because gun manufacturers have silenced the Media?
Or is the Media not saying anything because it does not happen, because it's not actually a problem?
Actually, a University of Pennsylvania study (DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099) examined over 600 incidents in the Philly area, and found that carrying a gun actually increases ones chances of getting shot and killed:
False conclusion. The data can't reveal the claimed relationship.
You're delusional. From the article you referenced:
Naturally, such examples will be rare.
Are you too stupid to read in context, or are you dishonestly snipping it out?
Naturally, such examples [of civilians stopping shootings] will be rare. Even in states which allow concealed carry, there often aren't people near a shooting who have a gun on them at the time. Many mass shootings happen in supposedly "gun-free" zones (such as schools, universities or private property posted with a no-guns sign), in which gun carrying isnâ(TM)t allowed. And there is no central database of such examples, many of which don't hit the national media, especially if a gunman is stopped before he shoots many victims.
Relevant points highlighted.
However, it's quite reasonable to imagine a scenario where unarmed victims get caught in crossfire.
Your imagination is not a credible source on the harm caused by defensive firearm use. The article listed 10 examples where an armed citizen stopped a shooter, without racking up an innocent death toll by friendly fire. You don't even have a single counter-example.
When "highly trained" police officers shoot nine innocent civilians [cnn.com] when trying to shoot a suspect, what are the chances that Joe Blow (who hasn't been to the range since he got his concealed carry permit) will avoid collateral damage?
Low.
It takes dedication to get a CCW, and Joe Blow will get sued for millions and become the Public Enemy of America if he screws up.
Joe Blow has skin in the game. The police don't have a legal duty to protect you.
So you're using the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
Sometimes it is. There are no shortage of defensive firearm shootings in the US.
The people with a vested interest in pointing out the cons have not done so. Is it because they're too stupid to calculate the numbers? Or is it because they don't think it will help their preferred position?
I guess it could minimize fatalities, but I'm thinking of a bunch of armed people firing at each other in a relative small place and wondering if as many people would end up struck by "friendly" bullets as by the mass shooters.
Your imagination doesn't match reality.
Given how media favors gun control, every single incident where a citizen killed bystanders with "friendly fire" would be widely reported on as evidence for guns causing more harm than good.
Instead, there is silence on that topic because citizens using guns in self defense save lives.
No, atheist is "I don't believe in a god". That is not the same thing as "there is no god".
You are demanding that I consider an irrelevant context. No one can tell me "there is no god" in the way you are talking about. By definition, any person who says that to me is claiming it as a fact and implicitly declaring his belief in it.
I am not confusing "there is no god" (said an atheist) with "there is no god" (objectively).
Since I asked a person that question, every answer is going to be personal belief, and everyone who replies "there is no god" is an atheist declaring "I believe there is no god".
You are adding confusion, not correcting error. Is that rational behavior?
The former will be different depending on if an atheist is also an agnostic or not.
That distinction is nonsensical. Agnostic is "I don't know if there's a god", where atheist is "there is no god".
If an atheist is confused enough to think he is both simultaneously, his thoughts are not useful to the overall debate.
"I'm not 100% sure, but I really doubt it strongly".
That's "No", or "I don't think so" for a humbler atheist. It's an important question, pick a meaningful answer and don't be wishy-washy about it.
Saying "I doubt it" does not make someone an ex-atheist.
That's a weak "no". But if he was agnostic and honest, he would answer "I don't know, there might be one".
only whether they are Gnostic or Agnostic about the existence of god(s).
Where are you getting your word definitions? Capital G Gnosticism has a specific meaning referring to a particular Christian heresy.
Ask these atheists who "lack belief": "Is there a god?"
A better question to determine if they are an atheist would be: "Which deities do you believe in?"
Your question is not functionally different than mine. "I believe in no deities" == (I believe) "there is no god"
"I believe in X deity" == (I believe) "god X exists"
The precise reasons that people see profundity in vague buzzwords or syntactic but completely random sentences are unknown.
I think a large reason for the phenomenon (accepting the premise of around a quarter uncritical test subjects uncritically for the sake of the argument) is for the same reason that a whole city, save one child, all said how nice the emperor's new clothes are (despite all seeing his imperial nakedness): not wanting to look foolish/out-of-fashion/contrary to society in the eyes of their peers.
But in the absence of peer pressure, there should be no such effect.
I think a better explanation is that people assume meaning. People can find patterns in random noise.
As people try to process a random word salad, the brain works hard to develop any tenuous connection between unrelated concepts; the brain notices this exertion and concludes that this must be a difficult and meaningful concept.
A better trained brain will instead bypass that effort and conclude it's nonsense.
Saying atheism is a belief system is no less ridiculous than saying not collecting stamps is your favorite hobby.
Hobbies are optional. Belief systems are not.
Ask these atheists who "lack belief": "Is there a god?"
Anything other than "No" makes them an ex-atheist.
âoeNobody has had a way of quantifying this before,â which indicates that previous claims were invalid
No it does not indicate that.
Previously, "In the mid-19th century, researchers claimed they could tell the sex of an individual just by looking at their disembodied brain."
To show that that claim is invalid, you have to demonstrate that those researchers had a high failure rate using a disembodied brain to determine an individual's sex.
The existence of a new measurement tool is insufficient to invalidate that claim - what if you check their prediction rate and find that it's 100% correct? That would validate and justify their claim.
Not a problem for people who can hold two opposing ideas in their mind without going nuts.
You claim to believe in X and not-X simultaneously, and that that is not crazy.
Holding two opposing ideas and believing in two opposing ideas are not the same thing.
I know you were concerned, but the train is fine.
The train is still fine.
The train is fine.
That moment of hilarity when a dimwit finally realizes he was barking up the wrong tree.
You're not going to get any answers until you hold yourself accountable for every lie and false accusation you made.
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?
What's a greenhouse? How does a greenhouse trap heat?
What does a greenhouse have to do with Arrhenius?
Haha.
Observe how this dishonest cretin continues to manufacture lies so as to build a Narrative.
The Grand Inquisitor of the Science Inquisition shall protect the Dogma of Global Warming against all heretics.
For great justice!
We agree then: you lied.
Illiterate moron doubles down.
Speak you lie clearly: Are you claiming to have randomly inserted a comment about greenhouses into a discussion about the greenhouse gas effect Yes or No?
What lie? I said something, you misunderstood it. Your inability to understand is not a problem on my part.
Do you not know what a greenhouse is? How do greenhouses trap heat?
Which of the following did I get wrong?
You get everything wrong. It's hilarious, actually - someone who has trouble comprehending English appointing himself as the Great Defender of the Faith in Global Warming.
You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming effect into his position and treated that as an internal contradiction.
There is no reading of that sentence that has you saying anything other than attributing the theory of a greenhouse effect to me:
Like I said, you're an illiterate moron. I could step you through the thought if you ask nicely. It involves reading the entire paragraph, though, and doing a single sentence has already proven taxing on your intellect.
You didn't claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?
If you weren't illiterate, you'd have noticed that I did not claim either of those positions.
2. [you] Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".
[...] you must be a drooling moron if you didn't think I would be able to contradict your lies by quoting your own words.
Just for giggles: How do greenhouses trap heat?
Why are you again trying to change the subject [...]
Exchange repeated for amusement value. Do you not know what a greenhouse is?
Did I get an interpretation wrong?
Yes. Very. Get help, and then take some remedial English lessons.
1. [you] You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming
A person with integrity would quote the entire sentence. You, however, are a liar, and too intellectually challenged to have a discussion with.
2. [you] Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".
Just for giggles: How do greenhouses trap heat?
I've quoted your own words back to you several times whilst you ducked and scrabbled for cover [...]
What part of "you lack credibility" do you not understand? You attach nonsensical interpretations to other people's words and yet are desperate to be taken seriously.
Start by holding yourself accountable for the words you say.
For example, I called you a "compulsory liar" instead of a "compulsive liar". My bad.
Your feelings about the matter don't enter into my thinking at all.
You don't think at all, rather. That's how your interpretation of my words ended up so far from anything I was actually saying.