I guess trying to associate those who don't accept the concept (or claimed extent) of man made global warming with the holocaust with the term 'deniers' wasn't working.
Well yes, but even that is only a minor issue. The bigger issues with this line of argument are:
1. Any alternative hypothesis has to not only explain the warming that is happening now, but also the 1 degree of warming that has already occurred.
2. Models (in the past) have certainly been inaccurate. But historically, they have underestimated the warming as often as they have overestimated it. It is beyond absurd to claim that model inaccuracies imply less warming. It is ridiculous.
3. As noted, we've already experienced a 1 degree warming. That takes us to half way to the maximum safe warming. How can this warming not constitute a significant observation? No modelling is needed to project that we can easily reach 2 degrees by doing nothing. No (currently unobserved) secondary mechanism needs to be included in prediction in bolster the numbers. .
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
Correct.
You don't seem to get that.
Citation?
Your faith is strong, but faith is not science.
My personal views are irrelevant.
No one is arguing about whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That has never been a debate, but you can keep thrashing that strawman if you need the exercise.
Incorrect. I've just come from a discussion with a guy making that exact claim. Your assertion that the (alleged) lack of model correlation somehow supports the "no AGW" assertion is a slightly less plausible version of the same thing. Your assertion is less plausible because it assumes a mechanism that somehow reverses the anthropogenic climate change that has already been observed. What is this mechanism? At least the one with the conspiracy theory is a bit entertaining.
The debate is about whether CO2 man emits significantly affects the climate. That's non-trivial science.
Which is why explanations which contradict observations need somewhat more proof than wishing on a star and posting assertions in an internet forum and praying to Santa Claus that no-one bothers to contradict you.
That's why there are models
Incorrect.
Climate Models are used to make predictions. They aren't presented as proof. The scientific basis of the significance of AGW forcing on climate is based on observations, not prediction.
The models aren't so good thus far. In fact, they aren't any better than the "no AGW" model.
Which GCM model predicts an outcome whereby the average global temperature declines by one degree (C) ? CIte the Model and outcomes.
They need to be, before any predictions can be trusted.
In that case, so does anybodies prediction. So if you are looking for some acceptance for your assertion that a lack of correlation in model outcomes v's observations means that the actual trend will be less than the predicted trend, then inevitably, what you need to do is describe a predictive mechanism that is better than modelling to prove your assertion.
This being the case, your assertions are contradictory. Perhaps review your material and get back to us.
Well, given the acknowledged possibility that climate models might be severely underestimating the warming yet to occur, we should pull out all stops to tackle this hard problem
Given the acknowledged problem of tiger attacks, no cost is too high for my Tiger Rock (tm), good for keeping tigers at bay.
So have previously mounted an argument which results in the conclusion that climate models might be severely underestimating the warming yet to occur, you've now chosen to imply that this is not a real possibility.
Which of these contradictory positions are you going to actually argue for?
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
And this context, you've claimed that models are not required to predict the interactions of secondary climate feedback mechanisms. Carry on with your working then.
There are claims that AGW is a significant contributor to climate change. Great - that's definitely a falsifiable, scientific hypothesis. One that we can model and make concrete predictions about. It's certainly science at work.
Get on with it then. Once you've published your paper, you can then come back and argue that Svante Arrhenius was wrong, and that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Don't bother posting your assertions here though, unless you have evidence for the same.
except at some point you'd expect the null hypothesis to fail - you'd expect warming beyond the error bars
We're talking about climate models. Climate models aren't used to test hypotheses. Science: you're doing it wrong.
Right now the error bars on the models are quite large - large enough that "no warming" doesn't disprove the models
Error bars go both ways. If the implication of wide error bars is as you describe, then a massive spike in temperature is as likely in the future as a cessation or reversal of the current warming trend.
That doesn't mean the science is bad, but it does mean the science is young and the problem is hard.
Well, given the acknowledged possibility that climate models might be severely underestimating the warming yet to occur, we should pull out all stops to tackle this hard problem, and simultaneously look to mitigate that possibility by a widespread scaling back of our practice of dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
Or perhaps you misunderstand the debate? You do realize that none of the climate change models have been better at predicting the climate this century than the null hypothesis, right?
So, in fact, the impact of increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to 400 ppm could be much larger than the impact predicted by the climate models?
In the previous thread on climate change there were guys saying the temperature record provided by the scientists had been faked (via massive conspiracy) and another group saying that the climate is always changing and therefore, by some magic step, explanations as to why the climate has changed must be wrong (? I don't get it either).
Those 2 concurrent explanations courtesy of the denier community are inherently contradictory.
So which is it? Which of these 2 contradictory theories is the one we should accept in place of the orthodox view of climate science?
There is a gigantic unstated assumption in what you wrote and that unstated assumption is WRONG. That unstated assumption is that the temperature is relatively constant.
Previously I've had denialists tell me that the temperature is constant and that the temperature record has been faked to make it look like the temperature has risen. There's at least example of that assertion on this very thread. So which version of your hypothesis is correct - has the temperature risen, or hasn't it?
If the other guy is wrong, and the science is indeed correct (that the temperature fluctuates due a number of forcing factors) why do you accept the part of the science that says the temperature fluctuates but not the part that says why the temperature fluctuates?
If the other guy's assertion is incorrect, what have you adjusted in your methodology to ensure that your previous mistakes are not just carried forward into your current assertions - in other words, you were wrong before and didn't explain why, so why should we trust you now?
Since there are things out there that we don't understand at all, the climate models use fudge factors. For example, the climate models suck at clouds, clouds are too small to model well but we *know* they have an impact on climate.
So, therefore, the climate models could be underestimating the feedback mechanisms: which would lead to the warming effect being more dramatic than predicted?
Good measures of reliability are (a) the presence of evidence, rather than assertions (b) Whether this evidence can be readily and repeatedly observed (c) In the event of errors or observations that contradict the hypothesis, how have the parties responded to explain the contradiction, and if necessary adjust or reject the hypothesis in favor of a better one. (d) Whether the hypothesis relies on a rhetorical device.
So let's compare:
Climate Science:
(a) The current theory of 'Greenhouse Gases' relies on the observation of the temperature at the earths surface, which fluctuates less than we would expect and is also (on average) higher than we would expect in comparison to a control body (say, the Moon). A similar observation may be made at various heights within the atmosphere. This phenomena can't be explained by observing the properties of the most common atmospheric components (Nitrogen and Oxygen) but less common components demonstrate behaviors (in terms of how they absorb and radiate radiation in the visible and infra red spectra) which account for the differential in both base temperature and variability. These are termed 'The Greenhouse Gases'.
(b) These observations are recorded and can be remeasured by anyone who feels the urge to do so. Repeated observations have yielded the same result, without exception, for 150 years.
(c) Various mechanisms were misunderstood in the earlier hypothesis (by Fourier and Tyndall) but these were acknowledged, corrected, and the modified hypothesis did not contradict the earlier observations.
(d) No fallacy, or rhetoric is necessary to prove the hypothesis, it is entirely demonstrated via independent, objective observation.
The Denier Hypothesis
(a) There is no apparent hypothesis. NO hypothesis has been proposed to explain the atmospheric temperature differential from a baseline control, or the measured differential at different zones within the atmosphere.
(b) There is no way to independently verify any observations because no observations have been published.
(c) Numerous assertions from Denialism have been disproven, without any forthcoming acknowledgement, nor adjustment to the underlying theory to match with new observations. The assertions include: saying that no temperature rise has occurred (disproven by observation), saying that the temperature was due to solar variance (disproven by observation), saying that the increased concentrations of CO2 were due to volcanoes (disproven by observation). et cetera. These theories are inherently contradictory but are often present in the same conversation (2 of these can be noted in this very thread)
(d) The Denier hypothesis makes frequent use of rhetoric: it is rarely presented without some rhetorical device (appeals to emotion e.g. "I'm concerned/confused" false equivalence e.g. "I'm not sure who to believe anymore" burden of proof fallacy e.g. "Why doesn't someone explain x to me?" ).
When considered using these criteria the choice seems pretty clear.
Is this something you just 'believe' or something you can demonstrate as actually happening?
If cutting corners actually resulted in lower quality and more failures, I should think that this would eventually be traced back to the factory responsible. Then this factory would no longer enjoy the reputation it had before, and goods would be sourced from a different factory - again, it's not as if there are only 2 factories in the world that make spanners. If they get away with it because nobody notices their goods are shoddy this suggest their product actually performs satisfactorily, and higher end goods are over-engineered.
There are many things made in China that are poor quality - I've bought a few myself. This does not mean that everything made there is inferior.
This is bit of a false dilemma fallacy. Firstly, Chinese manufacturers will make tools to spec - if you pay them less, get a lower quality product. Secondly, I don't see why I would go to Bunnings or Gasweld and only have the choice of two brands - there's many brands out there, Sidchrome, Stanley, Kincrome are all very good (and all AFAIK made in Taiwan these days) - just buy the tool at whatever price level makes sense.Not a lot of point shelling out big bucks for a tool you only pick up once a year.
Nothing against US made stuff but you pay extra because of the cost of shipping it half way around the world, and generally the exchange rate makes importing those goods expensive because the of the high US dollar.
So, armed people don't break into houses in England?
In civilised countries armed robbery carries a much higher penalty than simple robbery. So the vast majority of robberies occur unarmed, because as it turns out, it makes more sense (if confronted) to run away rather than shoot the homeowner and then carry on robbing the house. If you run away, you have a much better chance of avoiding gaol time. It's annoying if someone steals my TV, but hardly life threatening and the idea that I might kill someone for stealing my TV is frankly abhorrent. It's just a TV. The robber is a human being.
Because, odds are the soldiers would decide to shoot the politicians that asked them to illegally attack the population, rather than shoot their own friends and family.
Depends who is shooting at them. If you shoot at them and wound or kill any of their buddies they will have no compunction in putting a bullet through your head.
I'd certainly agree that in the event of an uprising, encouraging the sympathy of the US military is vital to success. With this in mind, one of the first things you should do is identify the people with a tendency to wave their guns around and talk about how they are going to use them in the revolution (i.e. take potshots at the US military). Once you've identified these people, relieve them of their weapons before the revolution starts. If you don't do this, you have no chance of success.
I'd say too many people willing to place the blame on other people and call them leftist/rightist over minor disagreements in policy rather than do what's needed, which is to stand together and resist the common enemy.
But what is more important is not actually using the weapons, but that the threat of their use suffice to keep one safe -- the same reason most gun owners, or nuclear weapons owners, give for having them in the first place.
in the US it's illegal to use these weapons against agents of the government. It's just as illegal there as it is in the rest of the world. Therefore the threat posed by these weapons toward the rule of the government is completely empty, and the government, and everybody else, knows this. There remains a small portion of the populace, who, with childlike imagination, like to pretend otherwise.
And people wonder why I want an armed population...
Yes, and this is why.
If having an armed population is meant to prevent abuses (like this one), and abuses like this one keep happening, you have to conclude that the strategy is not working. But gun-o-philes don't seem to be able to see what's directly in front of them.
The gun-o-philes are complicit in tyranny. Their guns are ineffective against tyranny. But they can't accept that. So they minimise the tyranny constantly and resist/downplay/criticise the efforts of the rest of the populace to halt the slide toward tyranny by other means. By clinging to an idea that doesn't work, they contribute to the outcome they claim so fervently to be against.
Tricking out non-god religions is a nice parlour trick,
There is no reason for me to think of Buddhism or Hinduism as less meaningful or insightful than Atheism - so if they are a parlour trick, then so is atheism. There isn't really anything that sets atheism apart from other religions.
But let's assume that we exclude people who simply follow a tradition without giving it much credit, like in fact many modern "religious" people do when they go to church once a year for christmas and once in life for marriage.
Let's not. Their beliefs are not somehow less important than yours.
There are at least 3000 defined belief systems in the world, and probably millions which are undefined. Have you checked each one and objectively assessed them against agreed, objective criteria?
I don't have to. A class of statements can be refuted as a class if you can refute any of their shared assumptions.
This is just a restatement of your earlier belief statement. What objective criteria have you used to to evaluate the peronsal beliefs of the worlds 7 billion people? Handwaving over them and calling them all false is merely the same mechanic as every other dogmatist uses.
If your assertion does not arise from objective, repeatable observation than it is a statement of belief,
I will not consider the 3rd definition, because it is included to explain such examples as "Hockey is a religion in Canada." - in other words, a metaphorical use of the word.
So you provide a definition and then reject that definition because it conflicts with your doctrines. It's not a metaphor at all - if Hockey is the thing that gives your life meaning and Hockey is the lens through which you see the world, then Hockey is your religion. If Atheism is the lens through which you see the world, then atheism is your religion. That is why that definition is there - to cover the vast numbers of people following religions that don't include deities. Including atheism.
If atheism were not a religion there would be something that distinguishes it from religion. What is this thing?
The shared assumption is "god or gods". You can argue Buddhism and probably a dozen other religions, but they are rare exceptions, by your number less than 1%.
What? There are more Buddhists than Atheists. How did you arrive at 1%?
Animism and other "nature spirit" religions fall under a wide definition of "god" (being almighty and all that shit is a fairly recent invention, many old gods are little more than big nature spirits).
Venerating your ancestors is not worshipping a deity. A spirit is not a deity, believing that animals have souls is not the same as making them a deity. Believing in evil spirits is not the same as worshipping them.
I have shown that there is at least one person that considers religion bullshit, so it does not rule out everybody. Everybody minus one is not everybody anymore.
What you've done is restated your doctrines, made some naive assumptions, ignored evidence to the contrary, and declared yourself right. You sound more religious by the hour.
But that doesn't seem logically possible. Are there people on earth who don't follow a religious belief of some sort?
Yes, they are called Agnostics or Atheists or different other not yet so common terms.
Agnosticism is concerned with whether or not a deity exists. It doesn't preclude being religious (since many if not most religions and forms of belief don't include a deity). Animists are agnostic (for example). Post modernists can be considered agnostic.
Atheism (in the narrow sense) involves conformance to a set of specific doctrines and is certainly a belief. The broader form of atheism includes buddhists, and many other forms of religion.
I consider religion bullshit, so at the very least it's not everybody.
There are at least 3000 defined belief systems in the world, and probably millions which are undefined. Have you checked each one and objectively assessed them against agreed, objective criteria?
If not, then your statement religion is bullshit is merely a statement of belief, and self contradictory.
But the delineation of rationality was not the point.
It kind of is.
The point was if religion would spontaneously appear in a group of people that don't bring it with them already.
But that doesn't seem logically possible. Are there people on earth who don't follow a religious belief of some sort? If there are none on earth where would you source these people "without religion" to send to Mars?
For that you don't need to be 100% rational, you just need to be rational enough to consider religion bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess trying to associate those who don't accept the concept (or claimed extent) of man made global warming with the holocaust with the term 'deniers' wasn't working.
Care to make a wager on that?
1. Any alternative hypothesis has to not only explain the warming that is happening now, but also the 1 degree of warming that has already occurred.
2. Models (in the past) have certainly been inaccurate. But historically, they have underestimated the warming as often as they have overestimated it. It is beyond absurd to claim that model inaccuracies imply less warming. It is ridiculous.
3. As noted, we've already experienced a 1 degree warming. That takes us to half way to the maximum safe warming. How can this warming not constitute a significant observation? No modelling is needed to project that we can easily reach 2 degrees by doing nothing. No (currently unobserved) secondary mechanism needs to be included in prediction in bolster the numbers. .
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
Correct.
You don't seem to get that.
Citation?
Your faith is strong, but faith is not science.
My personal views are irrelevant.
No one is arguing about whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That has never been a debate, but you can keep thrashing that strawman if you need the exercise.
Incorrect. I've just come from a discussion with a guy making that exact claim. Your assertion that the (alleged) lack of model correlation somehow supports the "no AGW" assertion is a slightly less plausible version of the same thing. Your assertion is less plausible because it assumes a mechanism that somehow reverses the anthropogenic climate change that has already been observed. What is this mechanism? At least the one with the conspiracy theory is a bit entertaining.
The debate is about whether CO2 man emits significantly affects the climate. That's non-trivial science.
Which is why explanations which contradict observations need somewhat more proof than wishing on a star and posting assertions in an internet forum and praying to Santa Claus that no-one bothers to contradict you.
That's why there are models
Incorrect.
Climate Models are used to make predictions. They aren't presented as proof. The scientific basis of the significance of AGW forcing on climate is based on observations, not prediction.
The models aren't so good thus far. In fact, they aren't any better than the "no AGW" model.
Which GCM model predicts an outcome whereby the average global temperature declines by one degree (C) ? CIte the Model and outcomes.
They need to be, before any predictions can be trusted.
In that case, so does anybodies prediction. So if you are looking for some acceptance for your assertion that a lack of correlation in model outcomes v's observations means that the actual trend will be less than the predicted trend, then inevitably, what you need to do is describe a predictive mechanism that is better than modelling to prove your assertion.
Climate models aren't used to test hypotheses.
A climate model is a hypothesis
This being the case, your assertions are contradictory. Perhaps review your material and get back to us.
Well, given the acknowledged possibility that climate models might be severely underestimating the warming yet to occur, we should pull out all stops to tackle this hard problem
Given the acknowledged problem of tiger attacks, no cost is too high for my Tiger Rock (tm), good for keeping tigers at bay.
So have previously mounted an argument which results in the conclusion that climate models might be severely underestimating the warming yet to occur, you've now chosen to imply that this is not a real possibility.
Which of these contradictory positions are you going to actually argue for?
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
And this context, you've claimed that models are not required to predict the interactions of secondary climate feedback mechanisms. Carry on with your working then.
There are claims that AGW is a significant contributor to climate change. Great - that's definitely a falsifiable, scientific hypothesis. One that we can model and make concrete predictions about. It's certainly science at work.
Get on with it then. Once you've published your paper, you can then come back and argue that Svante Arrhenius was wrong, and that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Don't bother posting your assertions here though, unless you have evidence for the same.
Or am I thinking of some other sect
It's not for me to speculate on the functioning of your mind.
Sure
Exactly.
except at some point you'd expect the null hypothesis to fail - you'd expect warming beyond the error bars
We're talking about climate models. Climate models aren't used to test hypotheses. Science: you're doing it wrong.
Right now the error bars on the models are quite large - large enough that "no warming" doesn't disprove the models
Error bars go both ways. If the implication of wide error bars is as you describe, then a massive spike in temperature is as likely in the future as a cessation or reversal of the current warming trend.
That doesn't mean the science is bad, but it does mean the science is young and the problem is hard.
Well, given the acknowledged possibility that climate models might be severely underestimating the warming yet to occur, we should pull out all stops to tackle this hard problem, and simultaneously look to mitigate that possibility by a widespread scaling back of our practice of dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
Or perhaps you misunderstand the debate? You do realize that none of the climate change models have been better at predicting the climate this century than the null hypothesis, right?
So, in fact, the impact of increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to 400 ppm could be much larger than the impact predicted by the climate models?
Those 2 concurrent explanations courtesy of the denier community are inherently contradictory.
So which is it? Which of these 2 contradictory theories is the one we should accept in place of the orthodox view of climate science?
There is a gigantic unstated assumption in what you wrote and that unstated assumption is WRONG. That unstated assumption is that the temperature is relatively constant.
Previously I've had denialists tell me that the temperature is constant and that the temperature record has been faked to make it look like the temperature has risen. There's at least example of that assertion on this very thread. So which version of your hypothesis is correct - has the temperature risen, or hasn't it?
If the other guy is wrong, and the science is indeed correct (that the temperature fluctuates due a number of forcing factors) why do you accept the part of the science that says the temperature fluctuates but not the part that says why the temperature fluctuates?
If the other guy's assertion is incorrect, what have you adjusted in your methodology to ensure that your previous mistakes are not just carried forward into your current assertions - in other words, you were wrong before and didn't explain why, so why should we trust you now?
Since there are things out there that we don't understand at all, the climate models use fudge factors. For example, the climate models suck at clouds, clouds are too small to model well but we *know* they have an impact on climate.
So, therefore, the climate models could be underestimating the feedback mechanisms: which would lead to the warming effect being more dramatic than predicted?
Climate Science:
(a) The current theory of 'Greenhouse Gases' relies on the observation of the temperature at the earths surface, which fluctuates less than we would expect and is also (on average) higher than we would expect in comparison to a control body (say, the Moon). A similar observation may be made at various heights within the atmosphere. This phenomena can't be explained by observing the properties of the most common atmospheric components (Nitrogen and Oxygen) but less common components demonstrate behaviors (in terms of how they absorb and radiate radiation in the visible and infra red spectra) which account for the differential in both base temperature and variability. These are termed 'The Greenhouse Gases'.
(b) These observations are recorded and can be remeasured by anyone who feels the urge to do so. Repeated observations have yielded the same result, without exception, for 150 years.
(c) Various mechanisms were misunderstood in the earlier hypothesis (by Fourier and Tyndall) but these were acknowledged, corrected, and the modified hypothesis did not contradict the earlier observations.
(d) No fallacy, or rhetoric is necessary to prove the hypothesis, it is entirely demonstrated via independent, objective observation.
The Denier Hypothesis
(a) There is no apparent hypothesis. NO hypothesis has been proposed to explain the atmospheric temperature differential from a baseline control, or the measured differential at different zones within the atmosphere.
(b) There is no way to independently verify any observations because no observations have been published.
(c) Numerous assertions from Denialism have been disproven, without any forthcoming acknowledgement, nor adjustment to the underlying theory to match with new observations. The assertions include: saying that no temperature rise has occurred (disproven by observation), saying that the temperature was due to solar variance (disproven by observation), saying that the increased concentrations of CO2 were due to volcanoes (disproven by observation). et cetera. These theories are inherently contradictory but are often present in the same conversation (2 of these can be noted in this very thread)
(d) The Denier hypothesis makes frequent use of rhetoric: it is rarely presented without some rhetorical device (appeals to emotion e.g. "I'm concerned/confused" false equivalence e.g. "I'm not sure who to believe anymore" burden of proof fallacy e.g. "Why doesn't someone explain x to me?" ).
When considered using these criteria the choice seems pretty clear.
If cutting corners actually resulted in lower quality and more failures, I should think that this would eventually be traced back to the factory responsible. Then this factory would no longer enjoy the reputation it had before, and goods would be sourced from a different factory - again, it's not as if there are only 2 factories in the world that make spanners. If they get away with it because nobody notices their goods are shoddy this suggest their product actually performs satisfactorily, and higher end goods are over-engineered. There are many things made in China that are poor quality - I've bought a few myself. This does not mean that everything made there is inferior.
Why assume I live in either?
Nothing against US made stuff but you pay extra because of the cost of shipping it half way around the world, and generally the exchange rate makes importing those goods expensive because the of the high US dollar.
So, armed people don't break into houses in England?
In civilised countries armed robbery carries a much higher penalty than simple robbery. So the vast majority of robberies occur unarmed, because as it turns out, it makes more sense (if confronted) to run away rather than shoot the homeowner and then carry on robbing the house. If you run away, you have a much better chance of avoiding gaol time. It's annoying if someone steals my TV, but hardly life threatening and the idea that I might kill someone for stealing my TV is frankly abhorrent. It's just a TV. The robber is a human being.
I asked my car, it said it was not interested in 3D printing.
Unable and Unwilling are different things. We could send a collection probe easily enough if there were sufficient interest in more rocks.
Because, odds are the soldiers would decide to shoot the politicians that asked them to illegally attack the population, rather than shoot their own friends and family.
Depends who is shooting at them. If you shoot at them and wound or kill any of their buddies they will have no compunction in putting a bullet through your head.
I'd certainly agree that in the event of an uprising, encouraging the sympathy of the US military is vital to success. With this in mind, one of the first things you should do is identify the people with a tendency to wave their guns around and talk about how they are going to use them in the revolution (i.e. take potshots at the US military). Once you've identified these people, relieve them of their weapons before the revolution starts. If you don't do this, you have no chance of success.
I'd say too many people willing to place the blame on other people and call them leftist/rightist over minor disagreements in policy rather than do what's needed, which is to stand together and resist the common enemy.
But what is more important is not actually using the weapons, but that the threat of their use suffice to keep one safe -- the same reason most gun owners, or nuclear weapons owners, give for having them in the first place.
in the US it's illegal to use these weapons against agents of the government. It's just as illegal there as it is in the rest of the world. Therefore the threat posed by these weapons toward the rule of the government is completely empty, and the government, and everybody else, knows this. There remains a small portion of the populace, who, with childlike imagination, like to pretend otherwise.
And people wonder why I want an armed population...
Yes, and this is why.
If having an armed population is meant to prevent abuses (like this one), and abuses like this one keep happening, you have to conclude that the strategy is not working. But gun-o-philes don't seem to be able to see what's directly in front of them.
The gun-o-philes are complicit in tyranny. Their guns are ineffective against tyranny. But they can't accept that. So they minimise the tyranny constantly and resist/downplay/criticise the efforts of the rest of the populace to halt the slide toward tyranny by other means. By clinging to an idea that doesn't work, they contribute to the outcome they claim so fervently to be against.
That sympathy will evaporate quickly if you shoot at them.
Tricking out non-god religions is a nice parlour trick,
There is no reason for me to think of Buddhism or Hinduism as less meaningful or insightful than Atheism - so if they are a parlour trick, then so is atheism. There isn't really anything that sets atheism apart from other religions.
But let's assume that we exclude people who simply follow a tradition without giving it much credit, like in fact many modern "religious" people do when they go to church once a year for christmas and once in life for marriage.
Let's not. Their beliefs are not somehow less important than yours.
There are at least 3000 defined belief systems in the world, and probably millions which are undefined. Have you checked each one and objectively assessed them against agreed, objective criteria?
I don't have to. A class of statements can be refuted as a class if you can refute any of their shared assumptions.
This is just a restatement of your earlier belief statement. What objective criteria have you used to to evaluate the peronsal beliefs of the worlds 7 billion people? Handwaving over them and calling them all false is merely the same mechanic as every other dogmatist uses. If your assertion does not arise from objective, repeatable observation than it is a statement of belief,
I will not consider the 3rd definition, because it is included to explain such examples as "Hockey is a religion in Canada." - in other words, a metaphorical use of the word.
So you provide a definition and then reject that definition because it conflicts with your doctrines. It's not a metaphor at all - if Hockey is the thing that gives your life meaning and Hockey is the lens through which you see the world, then Hockey is your religion. If Atheism is the lens through which you see the world, then atheism is your religion. That is why that definition is there - to cover the vast numbers of people following religions that don't include deities. Including atheism.
If atheism were not a religion there would be something that distinguishes it from religion. What is this thing?
The shared assumption is "god or gods". You can argue Buddhism and probably a dozen other religions, but they are rare exceptions, by your number less than 1%.
What? There are more Buddhists than Atheists. How did you arrive at 1%?
Animism and other "nature spirit" religions fall under a wide definition of "god" (being almighty and all that shit is a fairly recent invention, many old gods are little more than big nature spirits).
Venerating your ancestors is not worshipping a deity. A spirit is not a deity, believing that animals have souls is not the same as making them a deity. Believing in evil spirits is not the same as worshipping them.
I have shown that there is at least one person that considers religion bullshit, so it does not rule out everybody. Everybody minus one is not everybody anymore.
What you've done is restated your doctrines, made some naive assumptions, ignored evidence to the contrary, and declared yourself right. You sound more religious by the hour.
But that doesn't seem logically possible. Are there people on earth who don't follow a religious belief of some sort?
Yes, they are called Agnostics or Atheists or different other not yet so common terms.
Agnosticism is concerned with whether or not a deity exists. It doesn't preclude being religious (since many if not most religions and forms of belief don't include a deity). Animists are agnostic (for example). Post modernists can be considered agnostic.
Atheism (in the narrow sense) involves conformance to a set of specific doctrines and is certainly a belief. The broader form of atheism includes buddhists, and many other forms of religion.
I consider religion bullshit, so at the very least it's not everybody.
There are at least 3000 defined belief systems in the world, and probably millions which are undefined. Have you checked each one and objectively assessed them against agreed, objective criteria?
If not, then your statement religion is bullshit is merely a statement of belief, and self contradictory.
But the delineation of rationality was not the point.
It kind of is.
The point was if religion would spontaneously appear in a group of people that don't bring it with them already.
But that doesn't seem logically possible. Are there people on earth who don't follow a religious belief of some sort? If there are none on earth where would you source these people "without religion" to send to Mars?
For that you don't need to be 100% rational, you just need to be rational enough to consider religion bullshit.
Which rules out everybody.
No indeed.