What? No, it's simply basic scientific fact (or if you prefer, empirical fact) that evolution will eliminate you.
0% of physical organisms survive.
No reference to an afterlife required at all. Should you wish to avoid this fact, your option is to acknowledge a wider metaphysical context in which your survival in some form is possible.
Should not be a great leap for the rational, as the failure of Logical Positivism has thoroughly demonstrated that science cannot meaningfully encapsulate the scope of what is "reality", as basically understood by everyone. Particularly and quite clearly, the entire domain of aesthetics. Is Beethoven a better composer than Mozart, or vice-versa? Demonstrate the answer scientifically.
It doesn't matter if it's a "nonstarter" for atheists, you opinion doesn't matter at all for the facts at hand. You will be eliminated. Per basic scientific fact, per basics scientific fact per yourselves. If scientific materialism is what you restrict your domain of reality to, that's what you get. Per your demand. Pointless verbal meandering or psychic claims as to my feelings make not the slightest impact on this.
But lie on about science, and get what you deserve, and continually ask for. I'll try to move from a rhetorically forceful argument to actually relishing your outcome.
But Eugene Kaspersky was never able to overcome lingering suspicions among U.S. intelligence officials that he and his company were, or could become, pawns of Russia's spy agencies.
By current political standards, if Kaspersky Antivirus detects NSA malware, that's the direct meddling hand of Putin.
Meanwhile, from your own link, 15% of "white mainline Protestants" believe "humans existed in present form since the beginning" view, while 78% believe "humans have evolved over time"...
...more accepting evolution than the "religiously unaffiliated", at 76%.
I'd return the question of goalpost shifting, but at this point I'm not even sure what your goalpost is.
Ah well, we have a process for that. 78% of my demographic know your issue will resolve itself.
Ah. But "everything else" does not mean "anything conflicting".
I'd put this down as sloppy terminology by the poster leading to this discussion, but given the surrounding textual context and stance, much more likely in my mind is that it was typical deliberate equivocation and disingenuousness.
Well, I can't say all theists are particularly given to analytical synthesis, such that, say, they'd realize that Quantum Mechanics would be an ideal back-door to all of reality to allow unlimited changes (e.g. miracles) at will, untraceably, as from a physics perspective it would simply be an outlier of the probabalistic nature of QM...
Still, in any case, I've yet to encounter anyone saying -everything- not mentioned in the bible is false.
I'll stick with the origin of all the denominations you've mentioned, Lutheran churches, and original documents for my enlightenment, thanks.
"When you see your likeness, you are pleased. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!"
Perhaps you can ask your evangelical friends whether that was Darwin as of the 19'th century, or Jesus as of the first century. Enlightenment may take more, but the discussion should be informative.
at least admit you believe in it because it's in your Holy Book
No, it isn't.
and it is right and so everything else is wrong
No theist says this.
Incidentally, enjoy getting inevitably eliminated and made irrelevant in every possible way by evolution, as demanded.
Evolution being true doesn't mean the theists lose, it means you do. Inescapably.
Similarly, on the Protestant side, Sola Fide and, particularly, John 3:16 within Sola Scriptura makes one's stance on creationism versus evolution not a criterion for salvation.
Sounds rather like the opposite of ASMR, which produces non-intuitive positive sensations and emotions in response to similar sounds, in susceptible individuals.
No, but if they publish in the "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists" that cheeseburgers are better than salads, then they do, indeed, need a disclaimer.
And if they're the materially-reductionistic variety of scientists (i.e. Philosophical rather than Methodological Naturalists), the cheeseburger is mammal-on-mammal genocide, so that should be explained as well.
I am equating the two precisely because they are equally psudoscience, regardless of the source. The Appeal to Authority Fallacy doesn't apply any better because the authority is "atomic scientists" when the claim has nothing to do with any valid methodology of science.
And I'm not at all claiming it's unimportant. It's very important. It's just that from your worldview, Climate Change being true or not, nuclear annihilation being true or not, you personally will be nonexistent within 120 years, guaranteed, going by your worldview or mine. And going by mine, I will still be existent regardless of the outcome of those "threats". You have no possible useful resolution to your global issues, I do. That doesn't mean the issue isn't important.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably Linus is just following established industry standards.
No, you have demonstrated in no way that any theist says "anything else" not in the bible is untrue. That is the claim at hand.
But yes, we're done here. Let's see what happens when we both just wait.
No, they're not.
I'm right, they're wrong, I know it. It happens.
But intentionally base your existence on a vacuously fuzzy "people disagree" and thus eject from any possible value to your existence.
As noted repeatedly, you're automatically taken care of.
What? No, it's simply basic scientific fact (or if you prefer, empirical fact) that evolution will eliminate you.
0% of physical organisms survive.
No reference to an afterlife required at all. Should you wish to avoid this fact, your option is to acknowledge a wider metaphysical context in which your survival in some form is possible.
Should not be a great leap for the rational, as the failure of Logical Positivism has thoroughly demonstrated that science cannot meaningfully encapsulate the scope of what is "reality", as basically understood by everyone. Particularly and quite clearly, the entire domain of aesthetics. Is Beethoven a better composer than Mozart, or vice-versa? Demonstrate the answer scientifically.
It doesn't matter if it's a "nonstarter" for atheists, you opinion doesn't matter at all for the facts at hand. You will be eliminated. Per basic scientific fact, per basics scientific fact per yourselves. If scientific materialism is what you restrict your domain of reality to, that's what you get. Per your demand. Pointless verbal meandering or psychic claims as to my feelings make not the slightest impact on this.
But lie on about science, and get what you deserve, and continually ask for. I'll try to move from a rhetorically forceful argument to actually relishing your outcome.
Later.
But Eugene Kaspersky was never able to overcome lingering suspicions among U.S. intelligence officials that he and his company were, or could become, pawns of Russia's spy agencies.
By current political standards, if Kaspersky Antivirus detects NSA malware, that's the direct meddling hand of Putin.
Good luck.
Meanwhile, from your own link, 15% of "white mainline Protestants" believe "humans existed in present form since the beginning" view, while 78% believe "humans have evolved over time"...
...more accepting evolution than the "religiously unaffiliated", at 76%.
I'd return the question of goalpost shifting, but at this point I'm not even sure what your goalpost is.
Ah well, we have a process for that. 78% of my demographic know your issue will resolve itself.
Eh, no, I'm just going to wait and let evolution eliminate you.
Is that why virtually every branch of science was founded by theists?
Ah. But "everything else" does not mean "anything conflicting".
I'd put this down as sloppy terminology by the poster leading to this discussion, but given the surrounding textual context and stance, much more likely in my mind is that it was typical deliberate equivocation and disingenuousness.
Well, I can't say all theists are particularly given to analytical synthesis, such that, say, they'd realize that Quantum Mechanics would be an ideal back-door to all of reality to allow unlimited changes (e.g. miracles) at will, untraceably, as from a physics perspective it would simply be an outlier of the probabalistic nature of QM...
Still, in any case, I've yet to encounter anyone saying -everything- not mentioned in the bible is false.
I'll stick with the origin of all the denominations you've mentioned, Lutheran churches, and original documents for my enlightenment, thanks.
"When you see your likeness, you are pleased. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!"
Perhaps you can ask your evangelical friends whether that was Darwin as of the 19'th century, or Jesus as of the first century. Enlightenment may take more, but the discussion should be informative.
People in the Midwest say that if Quantum Mechanics or anything else isn't mentioned in the bible, it is wrong?
Since I live there as well, tell me where go to see this curious specimen.
On second thought, no need. It'll be easier later.
at least admit you believe in it because it's in your Holy Book
No, it isn't.
and it is right and so everything else is wrong
No theist says this.
Incidentally, enjoy getting inevitably eliminated and made irrelevant in every possible way by evolution, as demanded. Evolution being true doesn't mean the theists lose, it means you do. Inescapably.
Only the best will survive. Only those who can adapt.
0% of actual organisms survive. Set abstractions (e.g. "species") aren't organisms.
Long term, not even their DNA molecules survive.
Only the information survives. Information is not, incidentally, materially reducible.
Just injecting some scientific fact into your mystical (if extremely common) feel-good version of evolution.
Personally, I prefer the older ones.
provable science
You fail science.
Similarly, on the Protestant side, Sola Fide and, particularly, John 3:16 within Sola Scriptura makes one's stance on creationism versus evolution not a criterion for salvation.
Sounds rather like the opposite of ASMR, which produces non-intuitive positive sensations and emotions in response to similar sounds, in susceptible individuals.
What does this even mean in a non-teleological universe?
Wait, what does this even mean even in a teleological universe?
The actual position of the clock is not intended to be an accurate measurement of any kind.
Okay. I'll be exactly that much concerned about it.
No, but if they publish in the "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists" that cheeseburgers are better than salads, then they do, indeed, need a disclaimer.
And if they're the materially-reductionistic variety of scientists (i.e. Philosophical rather than Methodological Naturalists), the cheeseburger is mammal-on-mammal genocide, so that should be explained as well.
I am equating the two precisely because they are equally psudoscience, regardless of the source. The Appeal to Authority Fallacy doesn't apply any better because the authority is "atomic scientists" when the claim has nothing to do with any valid methodology of science.
And I'm not at all claiming it's unimportant. It's very important. It's just that from your worldview, Climate Change being true or not, nuclear annihilation being true or not, you personally will be nonexistent within 120 years, guaranteed, going by your worldview or mine. And going by mine, I will still be existent regardless of the outcome of those "threats". You have no possible useful resolution to your global issues, I do. That doesn't mean the issue isn't important.
how is this wrong?
Is it more accurately said that we are a "half-hour from Doomsday", five minutes, or 10 seconds?
Please provide specific scientific rationales differentiating these possibilities and the respective evidence for each as being most accurate.
To use the common parlance, this claim is "not even wrong".
If it is being presented by the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists", and they aren't claiming it's science, it needs a disclaimer.
Which won't be happening.
Make some arbitrary metric from an infinite series of divisible time units, politicize it, and call it "science".
And no, "advancing" the "clock" is hardly an unprecedented event.
And people call eschatology a dubious methodology.
Surely Marvin Minsky should be present on this list.