Nope. Sorry. The burden of proof is with the party that claims that there is god, gods or spirits. Simply by the laws of logic. The argument "you have to disprove it and until you can it stands" is also very popular with conspiracy theorists and yeti search parties, but likewise, put up or shut up.
In this case (as in the general case) the burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion- the assertion being "all religions are a delusion", and the person who made the assertion being you.
One of the key reasons is that the claim is a bit out of the ordinary. If you claim that you had breakfast at McD today and it was good, I will probably believe you without wanting to see a receipt or even demand that you regurgitate it so I can test the contents myself. At the very least I can believe you that you can eat breakfast at McD, I have seen people eat at McD, I actually did have breakfast myself at some point at McD. So I can verify at the very least that your claim is possible and unless there is a compelling reason for me to doubt your statement that you did have breakfast there, too, it's ok to just "believe" you. It is possible, it is even plausible due to the nature of their business.
This argument comes from the saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" but this is not an empirical test.
1. Mostly becuase the idea of something being "extraordinary" is entirely subjective. For example, you think the idea of non-materialistic realities is extraordinary - but the majority of people accept some sort non-material or unobservable reality, so the idea is not generically extraordinary at all. So for them, the central tenet of materialism is extraordinary (thus requiring "extraordinary evidence").
2. Secondly, all ideas which are significant enough become extraordinary. The assertion "there are no gods or spirits or non-material things" is hugely significant and therefore indissolubly extraordinary. Having breakfast is not significant, it happens all the time.
And yes, I don't have much familiarity with some of the more exotic religions on the planet. Likewise, I don't know every conspiracy theory or cryptozoological monster. That doesn't mean I have to accept the claim that any of them exist as true until I can disprove it. By that logic, you'd have to accept rainbow shitting unicorns as true because, hey, can you disprove their existence?
The problem is you are making a binary argument on a non-binary. There ARE some conspiracy theories that are, in fact true. So the logically correct statement about conspiracy theories is that you don't know whether the conspiracy theories you have never heard are true or not, To assert that they are not true because you haven't heard them is irrational. Likewise with zoology. The generalisation of unicorns is unobserved species of animals - you are claiming that no unobserved animals exist. That is a claim that is unlikely to be true.
I need not disprove a believe system. It's enough to just disbelieve it. And that's trivially easy by simply not believing it.
Incorrect.
In order to justify a claim that every religion (excluding yours, for the moment) is a delusion you either need to have empirically disproved them, otherwise you are making a statement of belief. Not that there is anything wrong with that - everybody believes something.
It sounds to me like you are claiming that all religions (excluding yours) are delusions, without actually being familiar with what a large proportion of those religions teach or practice. That is logically inseparable from what every other religion claims.
Yeah: it debunks the whole idea of global warming being some massive conspiracy doesn't it - or do the time travelling zombies behind the global warming myth forget to send these guys a memo?
The point seems more that the current president Donald J Trump only came to power with the assistance of foreign powers that have no regard for the actual wishes of the people of America, and indeed, seek to harm the nation. That's the takeaway - that his recent actions in attempting to stifle the probe into the relationship between members of his campaign team and the Russians is symptomatic that they, or he personally, put ambition ahead of the nation, and there is a strong potential that he (or they) should be impeached, indicted, and then spend time in federal prison.
Hmm, no I don't think so, at least not on the strength of what you've posted. They are of course private citizens and so the part where not prosecuting endangers the security of the nation doesn't apply - unlike the far more serious and far better supported allegations against Trump.
No impeachment necessary, and they already collected _plenty_ of evidence, but dismissed the charges against themselves.
It seems that the charges were dismissed exactly in the way that charges are normally dismissed. Trump chose to dismiss any charges against his subordinates by perverting the course of justice. And then boasted about it to America's enemies.
Trump investigations will, no doubt, be carried out with the same objectivity and fairness as the investigations of Hillary under Obama
That will be good. Given Hillary was denied the presidency becuase of these 'charges' seems fair to expect the actual, serious crimes comitted by Trump (allegedly) to deny him the presidency as well.
.you guys should plan on waiting 7.5 years.
"you guys"? You mean Australians?
And there is no need, because he can be impeached, and the trial can begin without delay. Then everybody wins!
They are investigating. It might lead somewhere, it might not.
Seems like it has already gotten somewhere.
Have been paying any attention to what happened today? It's now confirmed that Bill and Lynch conspired to interfere with Hillary's email investigation.
Who and Who? Are either of those names nicknames for the sitting President of the United States?
There is a difference between supporting looking into issues and having already decided he's guilty (and Hillary is innocent).
Exactly. Which is why I'm interested to know whether you will support a prosecution of Donald Trump, should the investigation determine his guilt (which seems increasingly likely).
You seem to be saying lying is bad, though it is difficult to tell. I think lying is bad. However, I was not referring to lying. I was referring to withholding information. A different subject completely. Context is important. It appears you saw the word "truth" and couldn't wait to talk about lying and drop a link. That's fine, but it is, at best, tangential to the issue I raised.
You don't think withholding information by lying is just as bad as withholding information by being silent? Why (functionally) is it better to actively deceive (as Trump did, and continues to do)?
Odd that you seem to be saying that lying is bad, that truth is preferable, but that I should not be concerned about truth with regard to Comey because of something someone else did. That is confusing and disingenuous if you indeed are a supporter of the truth. I feel you are suffering from a larger problem than the inability to derive meaning from context. I think you are becoming so emotionally engaged with the subject of politics that your reason and logic have become impaired.
Perhaps you've lost your sense of scale. Not every issue is equally important. If the President of the US is insane, this is a more urgent issue than if, say, a guy you meet on the street is insane. The latter is a problem, sure. We should help the guy. But the president is followed around by a guy with a suitcase, and he can use that suitcase to kill millions, and start a nuclear conflagration. A sense of scale is important.
You said: If Comey had just told the truth to the American people earlier he would still have his job If Comey deserved to lose his job because he withheld information (arguable, since he actually lost his job because he did it) then shouldn't Trump, whose wrongdoing is more egregious, and whose position is far more a position of trust and responsibility, lose his job as well? If not, Why not?
The president is engaged in a number of things, some of them probably illegal, a number of them definitely dangerous, and endangering lives and discrediting the nation for no good reason.
But rather than talking about that, we have this discussion about whether Comey dotted his i's correctly. What's next in the order of priority? Whether Comey part's his hair in the right way?
How far down this list of discussion points do we need to go before we start discussing the actions and behaviour of the sitting president - the most powerful, and accountable, person in the nation?
Then he should know that what he says to the press have grave consequences and that it is stupid to do so unless it is necessary. Your are conflating importance with self-important.
Investigations are good. They vent out the gasses that otherwise inflate conspiracy theories. When everything is known, and complicity has been disproven, a whole lot of people can shut the fuck up.
Is that what happened when Hillary Clinton was investigated?
Trump has to actually commit a 'high crime or misdemeanor' first. Not an imagined one...
I note that in the space of a few hours you've changed your tune on this crucial point - previously, you supported an investigation, but now you claim to know, with certainty, the content of what was discussed between Trump and Comey. Do you have tapes we are unaware of?
Again: presumably you a now going to urge your congressman/woman to support an investigation of Trump?
You could impeach Trump. This would ensure that he could not continue to use his executive power to block attempts to restore law and order. If he is guilty, then waiting for the end of his (admittedly short) presidency is absolutely the wrong thing to do: given his failing health, he could well be dead by then, or at least, mentally unfit to stand trial.
With respect to Hillary Clinton, if you think she needs yet further investigation there is no reason that that could not occur in parallel. Since she is not in public office and holds no executive power, I suspect most people will think that a lesser priority.
So: presumably you a now going to urge your congressman/woman to support an investigation of Trump?
I well recall during the campaign (when Clinton's alleged behaviour and alleged ties were still relevant) the multitudes of cries to "lock her up!" Presumably then, those outraged republicans (and yourself) now demand the same for Trump?
Describe these contradictions in detail, citing sources from peer reviewed material to that effect, and name the models which are contradictory. Per my earlier, also enumerate how these alleged contradictions impact the effectiveness of other models in prediction, as well as the whole field of cliamte science.
In 2001 the IPCC published multiple climate models making predictions based on different levels of expected CO2 release. By design, each model contained mutually contradictory assumptions within their parameters and as a result provided contradictory predictions.
That doesn't sound contradictory, and indeed, a search of the IPCC papers from AR2/AR3 don't show any mention of the word contradictory in terms of model outcomes. Please refer back to my question and cite the material in question.
Different climate models use various assumptions about the level of carbon forcing, about how various processes such as cloud formation interact, about how other natural processes will change to compensate for increased levels of CO2.
Again, this doesn't sound (on the face of it) contradictory. Can you explain how variances in assumptions might be classified as 'contradictory'?
Some of the models are more plausible than others
So back to my original remarks: are any of them less plausible than the equivalent models used by denialists?
I don't care which specific model you pick, but you can't believe they're _all_ going to happen, because they don't all agree with each other.
You are asking us to trust YOUR model that says that nothing or very little will happen and the observations we've made so far are a result of something other than climate change. Where is this model? Where has it been published?
then feel free to suggest that none of the climate models contain a predictive value sufficient to justify wrecking economies and we'll be done.
Again, refer to my question above - if you think that mitigating against climate change will be more expensive than doing nothing, then show us the economic model that demonstrates that. "Hurt feelings" is not sufficient.
It doesn't appear that's your conclusion, but so far you haven't actually said anything specific about global warming, so I have no evidence you're even familiar with the field.
I'm suspicious that you don't even realize that your 2 arguments are contradictory. If model outcomes are uncertain, that uncertainty means that the actual outcomes could be worse than the models predict - and therefore the appropriate course of action would be for us to move faster to transform our industry and energy generation because of it. Yet you seem to think we should at once embrace your doomsday scenario, but do nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
And how accurate have the denialist's predictions been?
So - climate change could be WORSE than what the models predict?
Extrapolations 80 years into the future have a long history of looking laughably silly in hindsight.
So the result could be worse than the models predict?
Nope. Sorry. The burden of proof is with the party that claims that there is god, gods or spirits. Simply by the laws of logic. The argument "you have to disprove it and until you can it stands" is also very popular with conspiracy theorists and yeti search parties, but likewise, put up or shut up.
In this case (as in the general case) the burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion- the assertion being "all religions are a delusion", and the person who made the assertion being you.
One of the key reasons is that the claim is a bit out of the ordinary. If you claim that you had breakfast at McD today and it was good, I will probably believe you without wanting to see a receipt or even demand that you regurgitate it so I can test the contents myself. At the very least I can believe you that you can eat breakfast at McD, I have seen people eat at McD, I actually did have breakfast myself at some point at McD. So I can verify at the very least that your claim is possible and unless there is a compelling reason for me to doubt your statement that you did have breakfast there, too, it's ok to just "believe" you. It is possible, it is even plausible due to the nature of their business.
This argument comes from the saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" but this is not an empirical test.
1. Mostly becuase the idea of something being "extraordinary" is entirely subjective. For example, you think the idea of non-materialistic realities is extraordinary - but the majority of people accept some sort non-material or unobservable reality, so the idea is not generically extraordinary at all. So for them, the central tenet of materialism is extraordinary (thus requiring "extraordinary evidence").
2. Secondly, all ideas which are significant enough become extraordinary. The assertion "there are no gods or spirits or non-material things" is hugely significant and therefore indissolubly extraordinary. Having breakfast is not significant, it happens all the time.
And yes, I don't have much familiarity with some of the more exotic religions on the planet. Likewise, I don't know every conspiracy theory or cryptozoological monster. That doesn't mean I have to accept the claim that any of them exist as true until I can disprove it. By that logic, you'd have to accept rainbow shitting unicorns as true because, hey, can you disprove their existence?
The problem is you are making a binary argument on a non-binary. There ARE some conspiracy theories that are, in fact true. So the logically correct statement about conspiracy theories is that you don't know whether the conspiracy theories you have never heard are true or not, To assert that they are not true because you haven't heard them is irrational. Likewise with zoology. The generalisation of unicorns is unobserved species of animals - you are claiming that no unobserved animals exist. That is a claim that is unlikely to be true.
I need not disprove a believe system. It's enough to just disbelieve it. And that's trivially easy by simply not believing it.
Incorrect.
In order to justify a claim that every religion (excluding yours, for the moment) is a delusion you either need to have empirically disproved them, otherwise you are making a statement of belief. Not that there is anything wrong with that - everybody believes something.
It sounds to me like you are claiming that all religions (excluding yours) are delusions, without actually being familiar with what a large proportion of those religions teach or practice. That is logically inseparable from what every other religion claims.
Mine? I do without a delusion, thank you very much.
There are thousands upon thousands of distinct belief systems. Have you empirically debunked each one?
Also it seems you think that things you haven't personally observed do not exist.
Again, I do not believe.
You've already expressed belief.
I examine and ponder a reason for what I see.
Unless it conflicts with your beliefs. Then you'll carefully construct an irrational frame to avoid looking too closely.
Yeah: it debunks the whole idea of global warming being some massive conspiracy doesn't it - or do the time travelling zombies behind the global warming myth forget to send these guys a memo?
Mine? I do without a delusion, thank you very much.
I'm sure you are aware that people who ascribe to a different belief system consider your belief system to be a delusion as well.
Never heard that one before.
But in all seriousness, is this even for real or just clickbait? Why would we want just one programming language?
The point seems more that the current president Donald J Trump only came to power with the assistance of foreign powers that have no regard for the actual wishes of the people of America, and indeed, seek to harm the nation. That's the takeaway - that his recent actions in attempting to stifle the probe into the relationship between members of his campaign team and the Russians is symptomatic that they, or he personally, put ambition ahead of the nation, and there is a strong potential that he (or they) should be impeached, indicted, and then spend time in federal prison.
'You guys' meaning people wanting Trump indicted/impeached.
Which (if you above remarks are to be believed), must include you - unless you are a hypocrite?
You thought it was fine when Obama did it.
Did what? I don't recall Obama being either impeached or indicted?
..it's fine when Trump does it too.
It will be fine to see Trump indicted. Don't you think?
Hillary, Bill and Loretta go first.
Hmm, no I don't think so, at least not on the strength of what you've posted. They are of course private citizens and so the part where not prosecuting endangers the security of the nation doesn't apply - unlike the far more serious and far better supported allegations against Trump.
No impeachment necessary, and they already collected _plenty_ of evidence, but dismissed the charges against themselves.
It seems that the charges were dismissed exactly in the way that charges are normally dismissed. Trump chose to dismiss any charges against his subordinates by perverting the course of justice. And then boasted about it to America's enemies.
Trump investigations will, no doubt, be carried out with the same objectivity and fairness as the investigations of Hillary under Obama
That will be good. Given Hillary was denied the presidency becuase of these 'charges' seems fair to expect the actual, serious crimes comitted by Trump (allegedly) to deny him the presidency as well.
.you guys should plan on waiting 7.5 years.
"you guys"? You mean Australians?
And there is no need, because he can be impeached, and the trial can begin without delay. Then everybody wins!
Except Trump of course.
They are investigating. It might lead somewhere, it might not.
Seems like it has already gotten somewhere.
Have been paying any attention to what happened today? It's now confirmed that Bill and Lynch conspired to interfere with Hillary's email investigation.
Who and Who? Are either of those names nicknames for the sitting President of the United States?
There is a difference between supporting looking into issues and having already decided he's guilty (and Hillary is innocent).
Exactly. Which is why I'm interested to know whether you will support a prosecution of Donald Trump, should the investigation determine his guilt (which seems increasingly likely).
Cite
You seem to be saying lying is bad, though it is difficult to tell. I think lying is bad. However, I was not referring to lying. I was referring to withholding information. A different subject completely. Context is important. It appears you saw the word "truth" and couldn't wait to talk about lying and drop a link. That's fine, but it is, at best, tangential to the issue I raised.
You don't think withholding information by lying is just as bad as withholding information by being silent? Why (functionally) is it better to actively deceive (as Trump did, and continues to do)?
Odd that you seem to be saying that lying is bad, that truth is preferable, but that I should not be concerned about truth with regard to Comey because of something someone else did. That is confusing and disingenuous if you indeed are a supporter of the truth. I feel you are suffering from a larger problem than the inability to derive meaning from context. I think you are becoming so emotionally engaged with the subject of politics that your reason and logic have become impaired.
Perhaps you've lost your sense of scale. Not every issue is equally important. If the President of the US is insane, this is a more urgent issue than if, say, a guy you meet on the street is insane. The latter is a problem, sure. We should help the guy. But the president is followed around by a guy with a suitcase, and he can use that suitcase to kill millions, and start a nuclear conflagration. A sense of scale is important.
You said: If Comey had just told the truth to the American people earlier he would still have his job If Comey deserved to lose his job because he withheld information (arguable, since he actually lost his job because he did it) then shouldn't Trump, whose wrongdoing is more egregious, and whose position is far more a position of trust and responsibility, lose his job as well? If not, Why not?
The president is engaged in a number of things, some of them probably illegal, a number of them definitely dangerous, and endangering lives and discrediting the nation for no good reason.
But rather than talking about that, we have this discussion about whether Comey dotted his i's correctly. What's next in the order of priority? Whether Comey part's his hair in the right way?
How far down this list of discussion points do we need to go before we start discussing the actions and behaviour of the sitting president - the most powerful, and accountable, person in the nation?
If Comey had just told the truth to the American people earlier he would still have his job
President Trump was essentially the instigator of the "Birther" movement but later claimed it was Hillary Clinton. And you are concerned about Comey telling the truth?
Then he should know that what he says to the press have grave consequences and that it is stupid to do so unless it is necessary. Your are conflating importance with self-important.
This is a country where the President himself revealed the presence of an inetlligence source with Assads inner circle to Assads closest ally and patron And you are concerned by what Comey releases to the public?
Investigations are good. They vent out the gasses that otherwise inflate conspiracy theories. When everything is known, and complicity has been disproven, a whole lot of people can shut the fuck up.
Is that what happened when Hillary Clinton was investigated?
Trump has to actually commit a 'high crime or misdemeanor' first. Not an imagined one...
I note that in the space of a few hours you've changed your tune on this crucial point - previously, you supported an investigation, but now you claim to know, with certainty, the content of what was discussed between Trump and Comey. Do you have tapes we are unaware of?
Again: presumably you a now going to urge your congressman/woman to support an investigation of Trump?
With respect to Hillary Clinton, if you think she needs yet further investigation there is no reason that that could not occur in parallel. Since she is not in public office and holds no executive power, I suspect most people will think that a lesser priority.
So: presumably you a now going to urge your congressman/woman to support an investigation of Trump?
I well recall during the campaign (when Clinton's alleged behaviour and alleged ties were still relevant) the multitudes of cries to "lock her up!" Presumably then, those outraged republicans (and yourself) now demand the same for Trump?
To do otherwise would be hypocrisy - wouldn't it?
Describe these contradictions in detail, citing sources from peer reviewed material to that effect, and name the models which are contradictory. Per my earlier, also enumerate how these alleged contradictions impact the effectiveness of other models in prediction, as well as the whole field of cliamte science.
In 2001 the IPCC published multiple climate models making predictions based on different levels of expected CO2 release. By design, each model contained mutually contradictory assumptions within their parameters and as a result provided contradictory predictions.
That doesn't sound contradictory, and indeed, a search of the IPCC papers from AR2/AR3 don't show any mention of the word contradictory in terms of model outcomes. Please refer back to my question and cite the material in question.
Different climate models use various assumptions about the level of carbon forcing, about how various processes such as cloud formation interact, about how other natural processes will change to compensate for increased levels of CO2.
Again, this doesn't sound (on the face of it) contradictory. Can you explain how variances in assumptions might be classified as 'contradictory'?
Some of the models are more plausible than others
So back to my original remarks: are any of them less plausible than the equivalent models used by denialists?
I don't care which specific model you pick, but you can't believe they're _all_ going to happen, because they don't all agree with each other.
You are asking us to trust YOUR model that says that nothing or very little will happen and the observations we've made so far are a result of something other than climate change. Where is this model? Where has it been published?
then feel free to suggest that none of the climate models contain a predictive value sufficient to justify wrecking economies and we'll be done.
Again, refer to my question above - if you think that mitigating against climate change will be more expensive than doing nothing, then show us the economic model that demonstrates that. "Hurt feelings" is not sufficient.
It doesn't appear that's your conclusion, but so far you haven't actually said anything specific about global warming, so I have no evidence you're even familiar with the field.
I'm suspicious that you don't even realize that your 2 arguments are contradictory. If model outcomes are uncertain, that uncertainty means that the actual outcomes could be worse than the models predict - and therefore the appropriate course of action would be for us to move faster to transform our industry and energy generation because of it. Yet you seem to think we should at once embrace your doomsday scenario, but do nothing.