I don't think that is actually news to anyone - the only question would be why it matters? It's not as if being against Nazism means being FOR Marxism - quite the opposite.
Sounds like your kids decided for themselves that they did not think there was a god or gods - exactly the mechanism used by kids who decided the opposite. Your kids think other kids are weird for having different beliefs - those kids think YOUR kids are weird.
I think it's good that you teach you kids to tolerate other beliefs. That's good, because the diversity of belief is not going to change and the long standing atheistic doctrine that somehow, we'd abandon other faiths and become atheists turned out to be a false doctrine. So, contrary to the OP, you have no choice but to accept that not everybody believes as you do, and no amount of oppression and stripping people of their rights will change that. You might consider publicly rebuking the extremist atheists who make such remarks.
It seems pointless and unhelpful to everyone to use the same term (atheist) to describe 2 positions which do not overlap or relate to one another. For that reason the people who have no knowledge of the existence of a deity (either positive or negative) are commonly called agnostics (agnostic: (no) knowledge) and the people like the OP above who obviously have a view on whether or not a deity exists and for the time being, feel free to express that view, we call atheists. Since I was replying to that person it seems reasonable to frame my response according to his or her stated or implied beliefs.
The GP made this thread into an atheism vs. theism bent. Christianity (more specifically Catholicism) in particular thinks masturbation is a sin.
So he (or she) was off topic. Gotcha. Because I wasn't talking about atheism vs theism, but rather that banning religions would necessitate banning atheism. This comes down to our universal rights enjoyed by theists and atheists alike: losing those rights means we all lose.
Christianity (more specifically Catholicism) in particular thinks masturbation is a sin. Porn is generally well a means to "get off" for a lot of people. Therefore the GP, on their religious high horse, declared porn sites to be associated with Atheism exclusively which is absurd. In Christianity, we have things like if a woman is raped she can be stoned to death and all sorts of other nonsense about regulating people's sexual behavior.
Pretty sure that's not right, I know a lot of Christians and they tend to be outraged by rape, and I've never heard of anybody being stoned. Also, by generalizing the behavior of some catholic priests to all religions, the OP is effectively assigning that behaviour to atheists as well - the argument he/she makes is nonsensical.
1. A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today. - hasn't happened.
Soo, now you are telling us with absolute confidence that this won't happen? Why? Show working.
2. Prince Charles famously warned in July 2009 that humanity had only 96 months to save the world from âoeirretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.â
Is the climate change we are experiencing retrievable? How long will this retrieval take, and what will we have to do to achieve it? Show working.
3. Liberal writer and climate scientist Eric Holthaus claimed manmade global warming would set off the âoeice apocalypseâ at a pace âoetoo quickly for humanity to adapt.â - Still waiting.
And you are confident that this will not happen? Based on what observation? Show working.
4. World leaders meeting at the Vatican issued a statement saying that 2015 was the âoelast effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees [Celsius].â
And if they were wrong, what year will be (or was) our last opportunity to achieve that target (given we are at what? 1.1 degrees now). Show working.
Aaand on it goes. My suggestion: if you want to convince us that these statements will not come true, perhaps you need to show how you know that.
The other poster said that the models don't match reality [drroyspencer.com] and thus we need to focus on getting the models right first, before trying to act on any conclusions one makes from the models. If you know your model is wrong - provably so - then why would you trust the conclusions from the model? Talk about a moron, you dumbshit...
Aaaaaand at the conclusion of that particular conversation (which is not the one I mentioned above) we discovered that Dr Roy's model was provably wrong - scientifically proven.
Pretty sure I did address that - atheism, like all other worldviews, religions and faiths, is learned. Consequently, we would expect atheists to react badly to the idea of having their websites banned and being told that they cannot teach atheism to their children.
Well, since no one suggested fetuses are contemplating the existence of God, you're kicking a strawman based on your intentional misapprehension of the word "atheist" in this context.
A misapprehension I just happen to share with the vast body of philosophy, it's ontological system and with the vast majority of people (i.e. everybody is not an atheist) . Perhaps your explanation ("it just is") might lack explanatory power?
I'm skeptical of the idea that foetuses are thinking "there is no god or gods", given there is no evidence of abstract thought in children until they are mid-development. But if your faith requires you to believe it, then by all means.
What you don't get to do is force people to give up a fundamental human right, which is freedom of religion. We allow you to believe things that to unbelievers seem absurd. You are free to hold those beliefs, but you cannot force others to believe them.
I've just spent 3 days arguing with a guy who apparently thought the climate models were being used to prove climate change (and thus, if he could throw dirt on them, somehow climate change would be disproved). What a moron.
So maybe go easy on the claim that "the other side" somehow understands climate models.
No, just a friendly warning in case you are. You are definitely an apologist, unless you like playing devil's advocate for positions you don't hold.
All that matters for the sake of this conversation is that I'm a non-atheist. The worse kind: an ex-atheist. This makes me skeptical of the claims of atheism.
There is no evidence for atheism. The burden of proof is on the claimant, but you know this.
True: the burden of proof is on the atheist.
>> I'm not aware of these people, who are they?
> (a) Atheists.
Which atheists, specifically, claim extrasolar planets are impossible? Burden of proof is on you.
In the above metaphor we now have evidence of extra solar planets exist whereas previously we didn't. But the lack of evidence had no bearing on whether they existed in reality. Previously, we merely lacked the means to detect them. They did not spring into existence when we observed them.
So in the metaphor the person claiming that no extra solar planets exist is the equivalent of an atheist. In that they (atheists) claim that no deity could possibly exist, on the basis that there are no observations of said deities, and carefully avoid acknowledging that it's irrational to expect evidence for something that is by definition unobservable.
You claim that they make this claim, and you haven't heard them say why?
Correct: I've never heard a philosophically sound, rational explanation for atheism. That's why non-atheists consider it to be belief.
They are not born thinking "there is a god", so their is no god in their thoughts. A bit like being an atheist.
Nothing like being an atheist at all. Unless atheists are merely ignorant?
If anything babies are like agnostics - if we asked a 4 year old if there was a God or gods, and they had no teaching or revelation either way, and they replied honestly, they would say "I don't know". That's the thing with babies too: they don't know either way. Atheists, however, do, since prior knowledge (objective or not) is required to assert that there is no God or gods.
They are also taught there is a Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and Easter Bunny.
And they are also taught that there are Black holes, and Democracy and a Pluto.
Then later they are told the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and Easter Bunny don't really exist...but there really IS a God.
Fairly recently (within my lifetime in fact) we've discovered that other stars have planets orbiting around them. It turns out that the people who believed that it was not possible for extra solar planets to exist were, in fact wrong:- despite the fact they hadn't been observed, they did in fact exist prior to us observing them.
Errm, I'm pretty sure babies aren't in utero thinking "there is no God or Gods!", that is actually a rather absurd concept. So no, you aren't born an atheist (rather, you are born ignorant) and then come to faith in atheism later in life.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that is actually news to anyone - the only question would be why it matters? It's not as if being against Nazism means being FOR Marxism - quite the opposite.
they refused to release before and after pics, so this isn't very convincing evidence.
Convincing? What makes you think they are trying to convince people? And of what?
That the arctic is melting? We know it's melting.
What looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, but definitely not a duck. Gotcha.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Absolutely - claims which contradict 150 years of climate science, and the laws of thermodynamics, require extraordinary proof.
Where is this proof?
I think it's good that you teach you kids to tolerate other beliefs. That's good, because the diversity of belief is not going to change and the long standing atheistic doctrine that somehow, we'd abandon other faiths and become atheists turned out to be a false doctrine. So, contrary to the OP, you have no choice but to accept that not everybody believes as you do, and no amount of oppression and stripping people of their rights will change that. You might consider publicly rebuking the extremist atheists who make such remarks.
It seems pointless and unhelpful to everyone to use the same term (atheist) to describe 2 positions which do not overlap or relate to one another. For that reason the people who have no knowledge of the existence of a deity (either positive or negative) are commonly called agnostics (agnostic: (no) knowledge) and the people like the OP above who obviously have a view on whether or not a deity exists and for the time being, feel free to express that view, we call atheists. Since I was replying to that person it seems reasonable to frame my response according to his or her stated or implied beliefs.
The GP made this thread into an atheism vs. theism bent. Christianity (more specifically Catholicism) in particular thinks masturbation is a sin.
So he (or she) was off topic. Gotcha. Because I wasn't talking about atheism vs theism, but rather that banning religions would necessitate banning atheism. This comes down to our universal rights enjoyed by theists and atheists alike: losing those rights means we all lose.
Christianity (more specifically Catholicism) in particular thinks masturbation is a sin. Porn is generally well a means to "get off" for a lot of people. Therefore the GP, on their religious high horse, declared porn sites to be associated with Atheism exclusively which is absurd. In Christianity, we have things like if a woman is raped she can be stoned to death and all sorts of other nonsense about regulating people's sexual behavior.
Pretty sure that's not right, I know a lot of Christians and they tend to be outraged by rape, and I've never heard of anybody being stoned. Also, by generalizing the behavior of some catholic priests to all religions, the OP is effectively assigning that behaviour to atheists as well - the argument he/she makes is nonsensical.
1. A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today. - hasn't happened.
Soo, now you are telling us with absolute confidence that this won't happen? Why? Show working.
2. Prince Charles famously warned in July 2009 that humanity had only 96 months to save the world from âoeirretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.â
Is the climate change we are experiencing retrievable? How long will this retrieval take, and what will we have to do to achieve it? Show working.
3. Liberal writer and climate scientist Eric Holthaus claimed manmade global warming would set off the âoeice apocalypseâ at a pace âoetoo quickly for humanity to adapt.â - Still waiting.
And you are confident that this will not happen? Based on what observation? Show working.
4. World leaders meeting at the Vatican issued a statement saying that 2015 was the âoelast effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees [Celsius].â
And if they were wrong, what year will be (or was) our last opportunity to achieve that target (given we are at what? 1.1 degrees now). Show working.
Aaand on it goes. My suggestion: if you want to convince us that these statements will not come true, perhaps you need to show how you know that.
I saw that thread. You're lying.
That's a big call for an AC.
The other poster said that the models don't match reality [drroyspencer.com] and thus we need to focus on getting the models right first, before trying to act on any conclusions one makes from the models. If you know your model is wrong - provably so - then why would you trust the conclusions from the model? Talk about a moron, you dumbshit...
Aaaaaand at the conclusion of that particular conversation (which is not the one I mentioned above) we discovered that Dr Roy's model was provably wrong - scientifically proven.
And here you are spruiking it.
Pretty sure I did address that - atheism, like all other worldviews, religions and faiths, is learned. Consequently, we would expect atheists to react badly to the idea of having their websites banned and being told that they cannot teach atheism to their children.
Well, since no one suggested fetuses are contemplating the existence of God, you're kicking a strawman based on your intentional misapprehension of the word "atheist" in this context.
A misapprehension I just happen to share with the vast body of philosophy, it's ontological system and with the vast majority of people (i.e. everybody is not an atheist) . Perhaps your explanation ("it just is") might lack explanatory power?
What you don't get to do is force people to give up a fundamental human right, which is freedom of religion. We allow you to believe things that to unbelievers seem absurd. You are free to hold those beliefs, but you cannot force others to believe them.
The parable of the boy that cried wolf seems very apt for this story.
Yes indeed.
Firstly, the boy cried "It's not warming" - it was.
Then the boy cried "It's the sun!" - it wasn't.
Then the boy cried "It's volcanoes!" - it wasn't.
Then the boy cried "It's a conspiracy!" it wasn't.
By this point, few villagers, if any, were listening to what the boy had to say at all.
The the boy cried "It's stopped warming!" and a lot of people wondered if the boy understood anything at all.
So yes, we are pretty skeptical of what that particular boy (or group of boys) has to say.
So maybe go easy on the claim that "the other side" somehow understands climate models.
So, are babies in the uterus thinking "there is no god or gods"?
No, just a friendly warning in case you are. You are definitely an apologist, unless you like playing devil's advocate for positions you don't hold.
All that matters for the sake of this conversation is that I'm a non-atheist. The worse kind: an ex-atheist. This makes me skeptical of the claims of atheism.
There is no evidence for atheism. The burden of proof is on the claimant, but you know this.
True: the burden of proof is on the atheist.
>> I'm not aware of these people, who are they? > (a) Atheists. Which atheists, specifically, claim extrasolar planets are impossible? Burden of proof is on you.
In the above metaphor we now have evidence of extra solar planets exist whereas previously we didn't. But the lack of evidence had no bearing on whether they existed in reality. Previously, we merely lacked the means to detect them. They did not spring into existence when we observed them.
So in the metaphor the person claiming that no extra solar planets exist is the equivalent of an atheist. In that they (atheists) claim that no deity could possibly exist, on the basis that there are no observations of said deities, and carefully avoid acknowledging that it's irrational to expect evidence for something that is by definition unobservable.
You claim that they make this claim, and you haven't heard them say why?
Correct: I've never heard a philosophically sound, rational explanation for atheism. That's why non-atheists consider it to be belief.
Good enough
Do you really want to go down the evidence road? Probably not wise for a theist.
Interesting firstly, because you assume I'm a theist, and secondly, because it sounds like a tacit admission that there is no evidence for atheism.
I'm not aware of these people, who are they? And on what basis would they claim such impossibility?
(a) Atheists. (b) No idea.
theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
atheism: belief that there is no god or gods, specifically no creator who intervenes in the universe.
Or perhaps you do?
They are not born thinking "there is a god", so their is no god in their thoughts. A bit like being an atheist.
Nothing like being an atheist at all. Unless atheists are merely ignorant?
If anything babies are like agnostics - if we asked a 4 year old if there was a God or gods, and they had no teaching or revelation either way, and they replied honestly, they would say "I don't know". That's the thing with babies too: they don't know either way. Atheists, however, do, since prior knowledge (objective or not) is required to assert that there is no God or gods.
Your comment makes no sense to me.
Kids have to be taught there is a God.
And they have to be taught that there is no God.
They are also taught there is a Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and Easter Bunny.
And they are also taught that there are Black holes, and Democracy and a Pluto.
Then later they are told the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and Easter Bunny don't really exist...but there really IS a God.
Fairly recently (within my lifetime in fact) we've discovered that other stars have planets orbiting around them. It turns out that the people who believed that it was not possible for extra solar planets to exist were, in fact wrong :- despite the fact they hadn't been observed, they did in fact exist prior to us observing them.
Errm, I'm pretty sure babies aren't in utero thinking "there is no God or Gods!", that is actually a rather absurd concept. So no, you aren't born an atheist (rather, you are born ignorant) and then come to faith in atheism later in life.
I can just imagine how the atheists will react to having their websites banned and being told that they cannot teach atheism to their children.