Indeed - atheism being the classic example of this
Most foolish of all is the belief that opting out of religion is a religion.
Since atheism does not equate to opting out of religion, this is somewhat of a non-sequitur. I'm not even sure that it is possible to 'opt out' of belief in the normal usage of the phrase anyway. Either you think an assertion is true or you do not.
"Reason and religion are not mutually exclusive" - they do not have to be, but when you read of the constant attacks on teaching Evolution in the USA and the creation of Creationist Museums that show people frolicking with dinosaurs then you have say that there is a growing religious attack on common sense.
Given the declining influence of the US and the relatively small number of people there, I would say that that is anecdotal at best. Also you imply that secular American thinking is common sense, which I disagree with.
our dominant religions (including atheism and agnosticism--which are, of course beliefs about God, if only by denial and uncertainty)
What are your "beliefs" about the tiny pink unicorn that lives under my fingernail? What about the anthropomorphic mushroom that lives at the bottom of Lake Titicaca and controls mankind's thoughts?
Oh wait, you don't have any beliefs about those?
As a matter of fact I do - I have very specific beliefs on the subject.
Kind of like me and God(s).
No, not really, only in the sense that they are both belief. My belief in the non-existence of a giant mushroom at the bottom of Lake Titticaca is based on two things:
- the premise that if such a mushroom existed then it ought to be observable.
- the fact that you don't believe in it either, in fact you are using it as an example of something that does not exist
Thus my belief is linked to a philosophical underpinnning that assumes a reasonably deterministic universe and thus affirms the validity of observation
Your belief is based on the assertion that something defined as unobservable does not exist because it hasn't been observed by you personally. Your belief is irrational. That does not mean it is not valid to hold that belief. You just need to stop claiming to have a rational basis for it.
As a kid, it never even *occurred* to me that a God(s) could/should exist. The entire idea is so far removed from reality that it never even entered my head.
When I was a child, it never occurred occurred to me that Afghanistan existed. The idea of a place like Afghanistan was so far removed from my reality that it never entered my head. But as it happens my ignorance or lack of knowledge on the subject did not, in any way, change the probability that Afghanistan existed.
It wasn't until I was in early grade school that I was like "You believe WHAT?" when talking to other kids. I thought they were from the Moon, and I still do. Insanity.
I think the same about many things that Atheists believe.
The world is rapidly going the other way. Back in the 60s and 70s people thought that The Age of Reason had won and we could move into the future with hope.
Yes, but the disillusionment with the "age of reason" (modernism) is what led to post modernism - The Age of Reason didn't actually lead to any more reason.
Now reason is under attack from the religions of the world. And it is getting worse by the day.
Nonsense. Reason and religion are not mutually exclusive, and have coexisted for a long time, and continue to do so.
At what point does the deliberate dissemination of lies for profit become a criminal act? If I know my car is not roadworthy, yet advertise it as safe and reliable, isn't the buyer entitled to redress? And doesn't the level of redress increase depending on how damaging my fraud was?
The truth of the matter is, these backers of the denialist movement simply don't want action to be taken. Were they to say what they really think: "Yes, it's true that our actions are causing harm, and that harm will in the future escalate to great harm for humans and other species, but you know what? Screw 'em. And Screw you too! We just want to make money"
Would we reconsider how lenient we've been toward them?
And what of their loyal disciples - referring, of course, to the cadre of radio hosts, opinionists, political operatives, and their loyal disciples, the foot soldiers of the denialist campaign (such as those who astroturf here)? Their point of view is much more visceral: "of course climate change is real and it is damaging, but I DON'T WANT TO KNOW so STOP TALKING ABOUT IT" - this is a gut feel view because the fact of climate change contradicts some fundamental worldview, and nobody wants to feel uncomfortable.
The point is not that people are mistaken, or inclined to be sceptical, but rather, that they choose to view what is objective as subjective. To avoid any measuring of the subjective view "I don't want to" against the objective fact: "climate change is real, and action must be taken to avoid serious harm in the future", rhetoric is employed. At some point, that rhetoric becomes deception. At that point, the person is liable. So a discussion on the point of and extent of liability and therefore who is liable is very relevant and not at all extreme.
But again, even under this broad definition then atheism is still not the equivalent of "not collecting stamps" since the broad definition makes atheism/theism orthagonal to religion - a person might be an atheist and follow/not follow a religion, and a person can be a theist and follow/not follow a religion. This discrepancy is likely explained by the fact that there is a narrower definition related to people who self -identify as atheists (rather than buddhists, animists etc.), and this narrower definition was the one that the OP had in view. As did I. Adherents to the "narrow view" atheism have quite distinct beliefs yet claim to have none - and to provide evidence for the "no belief" doctrine they try to frame an equivalence between the narrow definition and the broad definition, which is incorrect, they are not the same as any "broad definition" but not "narrow definition" atheist will tell you.
Hence, using either definition, atheism is not equivalent to "not collecting stamps".
The OP was probably referring directly to your type of knee-jerk, extremist action
I would say the view that the problem is not climate change, rather those who speak openly about it represent the extreme - given the bell curve of opinion on the subject, and the fact that not talking about problem makes no contribution to solving it.
Any passenger that needs to be kept alive is too impractical for a journey such as that. Being alive implies dying, which means that the ship would need to be intergenerational. This introduces huge problems ethically. The only feasible approach is to send mechanical beings - these can be switched off and thus consume no power until they are needed, thus saving huge resources.
And this is, in a nutshell, why I _loathe_ "Climate Change".
This?
Really?
Rather than, say, the mass displacement of whole populations, an unprecedented refugee crisis, extreme weather events, mass extinction and loss of biodiversity?
That's some twisted logic right there, that in the face of the enormity of the problem, your primary concern is some guys speculation.
I see your point, but calling Atheism a religion is the same as calling "not collecting stamps" a hobby.
Not really. All you have done is assume your doctrine/premise is true, then restate it a slightly cleverer way. This doesn't prove the premise at all - if we assume your "atheism == !(religion)" is unproven, then so is the "not collecting stamps" meme.
I reject the notion that we are, as a species, mortal. More accurately, I don't accept that the twilight of Mankind must occur.
That's fascinating. For myself, I reject the notion of having to pay for ice cream, and the notion that Santa Claus is not real. That my rejection of those notions changes actual reality is another subject entirely.
Though individuals must die, the human super-organism, as humanity can be likened to, absolutely can transcend death indefinitely if we are careful, plan ahead, and master ourselves.
There is no human super-organism - it's as real as Gaia, or Chakras - entirely a figment of the imagination.
Maybe we ought to set up a poll here. Would you rather be living in a city on Mars or suffering through several years of endless winter on Earth?
Of course. Because popularity trumps logic and fact every time. In any case, most people would choose cold over airlessness and being bathed in deadly radiation until you die an agonising, humiliating death shortly thereafter. Or alternatively, most people would choose cold over cowering like worms underground, never to lift our eyes to the heavens again. We are not so craven as a species that we do not recognise that there are fates that are worse than death.
There's always choice C, doing cool things on a planet where people have never lived before and creating the future of humanity,
Perhaps on Xenu - or some other fantasy world of your choosing. However, the rest of us are living in the real world. In the real world, we can easily see that living out a pathetic half life in an airtight, underground bunker isn't "cool". If it was, we would already be doing it.
Understanding the universe, stretching humanities legs, literally, out among the planets in our solar system and beyond represents a life and death pursuit for the human species. Earth is going to be in existential peril, and if all our eggs are still in this basket over issues as petty and meaningless as politics, economics, or national pride, then we are well and truly, cosmically, fucked.
Soon, you'll die. Sometime soon, I will die. Sometime later our entire race (regardless of how you define it) will cease to exist as well. Perhaps they will evolve beyond what we might recognise as human. Perhaps some disaster will wipe them out. Perhaps they will last, in some form, until the universe dies. In any case, we, as individuals and as a species are irrevocably mortal and I, for one, welcome that - I welcome our deathly overlord. One day we'll be gone and all that will be left is our achievements and successes - and our failures. I am perfectly content to leave a legacy of good deeds and live my life with integrity, even if no-one ever acknowledges that.
It's not possible to start this processes too early. We could detect a rogue asteroid or comet tomorrow that will end life on Earth. On a long enough time line this WILL happen. It's happened before, it'll happen again.
Notably, when it happened before, the Earth was left far more habitable than Mars is now. Were an asteroid to strike the Earth, you would be better off on the Earth than on Mars. For example, on Mars, the radiation is so bad, that to survive for any length of time, you need to live underground. The gravity is wrong, so much so, that within a generation, Martians would not survive on Earth, were they to travel there. So if we lost the Earth,with it's 7 billion inhabitants, we would be stuck on Mars. Forever. Living like termites underground, never able to go to the surface and look, with our unprotected eyes, on the stars. And when the Earth recovers, with it's benison of life once again covering it's surface, we will be gone - either staring back at earth, helpless with rage, or mercifully extinct.
Alternatively of course we could build those underground cities here on Earth, saving millions, if not billions, in the event of an asteroid strike, as opposed to the thousands that could - briefly - survive on Mars. If life on Earth is difficult afterward, then as a planet it is far easier to geo engineer than Mars, what with the handy features that have sustained life through multiple asteroid strikes before. To propose a plan which would save thousands, and rejecting a plan that saves millions (if not billions) amounts to proposing genocide on a scale never before comprehended.
When it does, your descendants will be thankful that we took a minute amount of money away from the budget for bombs, sugar water, and pornography, to put those first apes in tin cans and got them to Mars and back.
Not, they won't, and neither will your descendants. Because they won't be there. And neither will the descendants of the vast majority of the human race, with it's diverse cultures, ideals and dreams. Mars is just too small to capture a representative sample of us. Under your plan, your descendants will die, and so will mine.
See, that's the problem. Any scientist that questions it is immediately deemed unqualified or even unethical simply because they have bothered to question it.
Not true. Any scientist who genuinely questions the science, by presenting evidence (e.g. Spencer) will get a science based response. There isn't much debate because the alternate theories have - so far - been easily disproven.
The sun's the largest energy input into our climate system. Again, this is not a theory that I need to prove due to clear evidence.
Your 'No.' is quite certain, you're quite set in your ways. Some sort of... er proof for your alternate theories might be useful.
You've made such an effort to change the subject that I almost feel sorry for you. Almost.
Shouldn't I be skeptical when I hear "No, the sun's energy output not being predictable isn't a problem" when I know the sun is the largest input? Shouldn't you be skeptical too??
You made it quite clear that you know nothing about climate science. You said so yourself. So you aren't in a position to judge the veracity of that statement. In any case, am I supposed to care whether or not you are 'sceptical'? Because at the moment, I don't.
So why does your 'scepticism' matter?
Show working.
By your reaction, you would have thought I just stabbed grandma and called her names. How can either of us prove or disprove that supposition? We don't have any data from the 1600's on solar output. I KNOW THAT! Can't a guy ask a question or think aloud 'round here without getting their head cut painfully from their torso?
Well, I've got a better chance than you -since
a) You didn't read the article, or even adequately peruse the attached comments, which would have revealed the answer to you
b) You've made it clear that as far as climate science goes, you are ignorant. I'm not - being possessed of at least a rough knowledge on the subject.
c) In this case, I didn't make the assertion, you did, so I have nothing to prove, and you do.
Which neatly brings us back on topic: which is your assertion - perhaps it was coincidentally at a low during that period and that contributed to cooling
1. Was it, or was it not a factor?
2. What proportion of the cooling was due to fluctuations in solar output?
3. Where is the evidence for your theory of solar forcing?
4. What does this have to do with the current warming trend?
Slashdot Mirror
Well sending robots is the first step.
And hopefully the last. we need humans on the moon like we need ducks, tree kangaroos or submarines on the moon.
Indeed - atheism being the classic example of this
Most foolish of all is the belief that opting out of religion is a religion.
Since atheism does not equate to opting out of religion, this is somewhat of a non-sequitur. I'm not even sure that it is possible to 'opt out' of belief in the normal usage of the phrase anyway. Either you think an assertion is true or you do not.
"Reason and religion are not mutually exclusive" - they do not have to be, but when you read of the constant attacks on teaching Evolution in the USA and the creation of Creationist Museums that show people frolicking with dinosaurs then you have say that there is a growing religious attack on common sense.
Given the declining influence of the US and the relatively small number of people there, I would say that that is anecdotal at best. Also you imply that secular American thinking is common sense, which I disagree with.
our dominant religions (including atheism and agnosticism--which are, of course beliefs about God, if only by denial and uncertainty)
What are your "beliefs" about the tiny pink unicorn that lives under my fingernail? What about the anthropomorphic mushroom that lives at the bottom of Lake Titicaca and controls mankind's thoughts?
Oh wait, you don't have any beliefs about those?
As a matter of fact I do - I have very specific beliefs on the subject.
Kind of like me and God(s).
No, not really, only in the sense that they are both belief. My belief in the non-existence of a giant mushroom at the bottom of Lake Titticaca is based on two things:
- the premise that if such a mushroom existed then it ought to be observable.
- the fact that you don't believe in it either, in fact you are using it as an example of something that does not exist
Thus my belief is linked to a philosophical underpinnning that assumes a reasonably deterministic universe and thus affirms the validity of observation
Your belief is based on the assertion that something defined as unobservable does not exist because it hasn't been observed by you personally. Your belief is irrational. That does not mean it is not valid to hold that belief. You just need to stop claiming to have a rational basis for it.
As a kid, it never even *occurred* to me that a God(s) could/should exist. The entire idea is so far removed from reality that it never even entered my head.
When I was a child, it never occurred occurred to me that Afghanistan existed. The idea of a place like Afghanistan was so far removed from my reality that it never entered my head. But as it happens my ignorance or lack of knowledge on the subject did not, in any way, change the probability that Afghanistan existed.
It wasn't until I was in early grade school that I was like "You believe WHAT?" when talking to other kids. I thought they were from the Moon, and I still do. Insanity.
I think the same about many things that Atheists believe.
Indeed - atheism being the classic example of this
The world is rapidly going the other way. Back in the 60s and 70s people thought that The Age of Reason had won and we could move into the future with hope.
Yes, but the disillusionment with the "age of reason" (modernism) is what led to post modernism - The Age of Reason didn't actually lead to any more reason.
Now reason is under attack from the religions of the world. And it is getting worse by the day.
Nonsense. Reason and religion are not mutually exclusive, and have coexisted for a long time, and continue to do so.
In the main, they expect to die before it becomes an issue they have to answer for.
Which translates to, what 150 million people? Or 2.1% or the worlds population. Hardly worth considering really.
At what point does the deliberate dissemination of lies for profit become a criminal act? If I know my car is not roadworthy, yet advertise it as safe and reliable, isn't the buyer entitled to redress? And doesn't the level of redress increase depending on how damaging my fraud was?
The truth of the matter is, these backers of the denialist movement simply don't want action to be taken. Were they to say what they really think: "Yes, it's true that our actions are causing harm, and that harm will in the future escalate to great harm for humans and other species, but you know what? Screw 'em. And Screw you too! We just want to make money"
Would we reconsider how lenient we've been toward them?
And what of their loyal disciples - referring, of course, to the cadre of radio hosts, opinionists, political operatives, and their loyal disciples, the foot soldiers of the denialist campaign (such as those who astroturf here)? Their point of view is much more visceral: "of course climate change is real and it is damaging, but I DON'T WANT TO KNOW so STOP TALKING ABOUT IT" - this is a gut feel view because the fact of climate change contradicts some fundamental worldview, and nobody wants to feel uncomfortable.
The point is not that people are mistaken, or inclined to be sceptical, but rather, that they choose to view what is objective as subjective. To avoid any measuring of the subjective view "I don't want to" against the objective fact: "climate change is real, and action must be taken to avoid serious harm in the future", rhetoric is employed. At some point, that rhetoric becomes deception. At that point, the person is liable. So a discussion on the point of and extent of liability and therefore who is liable is very relevant and not at all extreme.
Palestinians?
Life support systems do not imply a genera
Hence, using either definition, atheism is not equivalent to "not collecting stamps".
The OP was probably referring directly to your type of knee-jerk, extremist action
I would say the view that the problem is not climate change, rather those who speak openly about it represent the extreme - given the bell curve of opinion on the subject, and the fact that not talking about problem makes no contribution to solving it.
even if the problem may be exaggerated.
Don't waffle about - Is the problem exaggerated?
Show worked examples.
Any passenger that needs to be kept alive is too impractical for a journey such as that. Being alive implies dying, which means that the ship would need to be intergenerational. This introduces huge problems ethically. The only feasible approach is to send mechanical beings - these can be switched off and thus consume no power until they are needed, thus saving huge resources.
Which, if true actually disproves the premise that atheism is not a religion.
And this is, in a nutshell, why I _loathe_ "Climate Change".
This?
Really?
Rather than, say, the mass displacement of whole populations, an unprecedented refugee crisis, extreme weather events, mass extinction and loss of biodiversity?
That's some twisted logic right there, that in the face of the enormity of the problem, your primary concern is some guys speculation.
+1 xkcd/slashdot meme mashup
I see your point, but calling Atheism a religion is the same as calling "not collecting stamps" a hobby.
Not really. All you have done is assume your doctrine/premise is true, then restate it a slightly cleverer way. This doesn't prove the premise at all - if we assume your "atheism == !(religion)" is unproven, then so is the "not collecting stamps" meme.
I reject the notion that we are, as a species, mortal. More accurately, I don't accept that the twilight of Mankind must occur.
That's fascinating. For myself, I reject the notion of having to pay for ice cream, and the notion that Santa Claus is not real. That my rejection of those notions changes actual reality is another subject entirely.
Though individuals must die, the human super-organism, as humanity can be likened to, absolutely can transcend death indefinitely if we are careful, plan ahead, and master ourselves.
There is no human super-organism - it's as real as Gaia, or Chakras - entirely a figment of the imagination.
Maybe we ought to set up a poll here. Would you rather be living in a city on Mars or suffering through several years of endless winter on Earth?
Of course. Because popularity trumps logic and fact every time. In any case, most people would choose cold over airlessness and being bathed in deadly radiation until you die an agonising, humiliating death shortly thereafter. Or alternatively, most people would choose cold over cowering like worms underground, never to lift our eyes to the heavens again. We are not so craven as a species that we do not recognise that there are fates that are worse than death.
There's always choice C, doing cool things on a planet where people have never lived before and creating the future of humanity,
Perhaps on Xenu - or some other fantasy world of your choosing. However, the rest of us are living in the real world. In the real world, we can easily see that living out a pathetic half life in an airtight, underground bunker isn't "cool". If it was, we would already be doing it.
Understanding the universe, stretching humanities legs, literally, out among the planets in our solar system and beyond represents a life and death pursuit for the human species. Earth is going to be in existential peril, and if all our eggs are still in this basket over issues as petty and meaningless as politics, economics, or national pride, then we are well and truly, cosmically, fucked.
Soon, you'll die. Sometime soon, I will die. Sometime later our entire race (regardless of how you define it) will cease to exist as well. Perhaps they will evolve beyond what we might recognise as human. Perhaps some disaster will wipe them out. Perhaps they will last, in some form, until the universe dies. In any case, we, as individuals and as a species are irrevocably mortal and I, for one, welcome that - I welcome our deathly overlord. One day we'll be gone and all that will be left is our achievements and successes - and our failures. I am perfectly content to leave a legacy of good deeds and live my life with integrity, even if no-one ever acknowledges that.
It's not possible to start this processes too early. We could detect a rogue asteroid or comet tomorrow that will end life on Earth. On a long enough time line this WILL happen. It's happened before, it'll happen again.
Notably, when it happened before, the Earth was left far more habitable than Mars is now. Were an asteroid to strike the Earth, you would be better off on the Earth than on Mars. For example, on Mars, the radiation is so bad, that to survive for any length of time, you need to live underground. The gravity is wrong, so much so, that within a generation, Martians would not survive on Earth, were they to travel there. So if we lost the Earth,with it's 7 billion inhabitants, we would be stuck on Mars. Forever. Living like termites underground, never able to go to the surface and look, with our unprotected eyes, on the stars. And when the Earth recovers, with it's benison of life once again covering it's surface, we will be gone - either staring back at earth, helpless with rage, or mercifully extinct.
Alternatively of course we could build those underground cities here on Earth, saving millions, if not billions, in the event of an asteroid strike, as opposed to the thousands that could - briefly - survive on Mars. If life on Earth is difficult afterward, then as a planet it is far easier to geo engineer than Mars, what with the handy features that have sustained life through multiple asteroid strikes before. To propose a plan which would save thousands, and rejecting a plan that saves millions (if not billions) amounts to proposing genocide on a scale never before comprehended.
When it does, your descendants will be thankful that we took a minute amount of money away from the budget for bombs, sugar water, and pornography, to put those first apes in tin cans and got them to Mars and back.
Not, they won't, and neither will your descendants. Because they won't be there. And neither will the descendants of the vast majority of the human race, with it's diverse cultures, ideals and dreams. Mars is just too small to capture a representative sample of us. Under your plan, your descendants will die, and so will mine.
See, that's the problem. Any scientist that questions it is immediately deemed unqualified or even unethical simply because they have bothered to question it.
Not true. Any scientist who genuinely questions the science, by presenting evidence (e.g. Spencer) will get a science based response. There isn't much debate because the alternate theories have - so far - been easily disproven.
The sun's the largest energy input into our climate system. Again, this is not a theory that I need to prove due to clear evidence. Your 'No.' is quite certain, you're quite set in your ways. Some sort of ... er proof for your alternate theories might be useful.
You've made such an effort to change the subject that I almost feel sorry for you. Almost.
Shouldn't I be skeptical when I hear "No, the sun's energy output not being predictable isn't a problem" when I know the sun is the largest input? Shouldn't you be skeptical too??
You made it quite clear that you know nothing about climate science. You said so yourself. So you aren't in a position to judge the veracity of that statement. In any case, am I supposed to care whether or not you are 'sceptical'? Because at the moment, I don't.
So why does your 'scepticism' matter?
Show working.
By your reaction, you would have thought I just stabbed grandma and called her names. How can either of us prove or disprove that supposition? We don't have any data from the 1600's on solar output. I KNOW THAT! Can't a guy ask a question or think aloud 'round here without getting their head cut painfully from their torso?
Well, I've got a better chance than you -since
a) You didn't read the article, or even adequately peruse the attached comments, which would have revealed the answer to you
b) You've made it clear that as far as climate science goes, you are ignorant. I'm not - being possessed of at least a rough knowledge on the subject.
c) In this case, I didn't make the assertion, you did, so I have nothing to prove, and you do.
Which neatly brings us back on topic: which is your assertion - perhaps it was coincidentally at a low during that period and that contributed to cooling
1. Was it, or was it not a factor?
2. What proportion of the cooling was due to fluctuations in solar output?
3. Where is the evidence for your theory of solar forcing?
4. What does this have to do with the current warming trend?
And show working.
If AGW is not a testable theory and it does not produce a falsifiable hypothesis, is it scientific at all?
AGW is easily falsifiable - simply repeat Tyndall's experiment to prove that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
It's therefore quite telling that no denialist has ever done that.
Is it a theory that the sun does not put out constant levels of energy?
Well, it is - but I'm referring to your theory as stated in the GP:
perhaps it was coincidentally at a low during that period and that contributed to cooling. 1. Was it, or was it not a factor?
2. What proportion of the cooling was due to fluctuations in solar output?
3. Where is the evidence for your theory of solar forcing?
4. What does this have to do with the current warming trend?
And show working.
"The sun isn't predictable" is actually a huge problem for climate research, no?
No.
I don't claim to be climate scientist.
Which is just as well, under the circumstances.