Hey, only he made any accusation here of anyone being "evil", that is, everyone who doesn't agree with applying his methodology to... everything. You maybe were worried about dogmatism?
But no, a "my bad" or "mea culpa" would do just fine. But we both know the likelihood of that happening on the internet.
In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.
--Karl Popper
Probably one we'd -both- be comfortable citing in support of our respective positions, but this requires careful parsing and scoping. The issue here is that reality is rife with propositions that are true, or are false, but are not falsifiable. Such as, "Mozart was a great composer", "Joy is available to everyone", "The world was actually at great risk during the Cuban Missile Crisis", etc.
The most-straightforward conclusion one might draw from this is the scope of "science" and the scope of "reality" are not the same set--even if the scope of "science" and "scientific reality" are. To draw a distinction, living for a day while noting the number of untestable assumptions you act upon in a given day should be sufficient to make the distinction clear.
For a longer, and enjoyable, presentation of questions relating to scoping of science (with historical background going back to Aristotle), I'd suggest Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. To distill it down to a sentence, the question "What's the specific methodology by which we initially generate the hypotheses for scientific method?" remains pertinent.
Then... we have Kant, say the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy. "5 + 3 = 8" is either true, or not true, and along with many axiomatic statements across various fields, and Bayesian analysis (and scientific method per se) has nothing to say on it. It's a different domain entirely, and my whole point so far has been to note there are other domains.
Your very question/claim that Bayesian reasoning cannot be applied to a simple case such as an accusation of adultery merely demonstrates that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Updating one's prior beliefs in a way that is consistent with them and new evidence is precisely what Bayes theorem--and nothing else--allows us to do.
And this is precisely why I selected it--that in fact we have no ongoing "new evidence" available. We have only inferential techniques based on a fixed set of knowns and assumptions. Much like broad swaths of anything having to do with historical events, of which previous infidelity would be one. Please be clear that I'm only addressing the technique's suitability for the -factual question- of whether it occurred or not--there isn't even the merest broad outline of how this gets connected to any resolution of "evil" or moral/normative evaluations by the OP.
It's become apparently in-vogue lately to, when faced with the reality that the arguments of certain worldviews work best within the context of Scientific Method and certain related techniques, to simplify the overall stance by just going ahead and blankly asserting that nothing exists anywhere in reality but questions resolvable by that methodology. We need only to step over to politics or any number of the "softer" sciences to correct this notion--and invalidation of the majority of entire scientific fields and people's entire careers because he says we should use this approach for all issues of knowledge, whether possible or not, is not a useful stance.
If you're going to restate Bayesian techniques as simple probabilistic inference of any kind, as you have, then we have a much different argument. However, this is not what "Bayesian" means to me as a software developer, and is not in-line with the much more quantifiable and systematic presentation of its scope given, say, here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference
I think, in reality, this was just a switch from one form of unworkable epistemology, "scientific method resolves anything" (and there is no such thing as a "pre-scientific epistemology", there are domains which science can address and those it cannot--irrespective of any "religion"--this has historically been the case, and will permanently remain the case), to a hopefully less-familiar technique, and address by an Argument By Intimidation what can't be supported on the merits of the position.
Spoken like someone who can't stand well-vetted core branches of philosophy to be polluted with nonsense, rather.
We aren't even getting started on the question of "evil", at this point, and I've stated no assertion here to defend. Yes, I'm assuming at this point that the functional definition of "evil" being offered is also indefensible subjective nonsense, but we're getting off-track.
The poster has asserted that applying -any other- technique than Bayesian techniques is "evil", hence presumably it can be applied to any given domain, to avoid the "evil"--something for which it is definitely not recognized as having the applicability for.
We have a simple test-case provided. I suggest testing the premise. If nothing else, the example can be applied via Bayesian techniques to the basic premise, as a statistical data point demonstrating the overall notion utterly fails.
Did you seriously just elevate a technique useful for spam filtering to be the One True Epistemology and One True Morality?
Your premise in your second sentence is, at least, utter nonsense factually on its face, leaving aside the wild hyperbole of "the most fundamental act of evil possible". Your friend claims his wife is cheating on him. She denies it. Show me how "Bayesian reasoning" resolves this, and describe the degree of "profound evil" involved of someone forming an opinion as to reality on this issue by alternate means. That's one of, oh, about a trillion alternate questions of problems in the same or similar epistemological (hopefully you've heard the term?) domains.
Many "additions" are fatal during early development...
Then this cannot be an "addition" in a sequence by which you explain the end result. You either mean a series of sequential changes by "addition", or you don't. If you mean a series of changes, each one must be survivable in itself to the point of reproduction.
The causes of "random mutation" are well-known...
Consider carefully what you are saying here. If you know the exhaustive set of causal factors, and their relative influence, the event is not random. If it is not random, why call it random? If it is random, you by definition cannot stipulate all the causal factors, per what "random" means. This may seem to be a semantic point, but it actually isn't. You either need, fundamentally, to admit the -metaphysical inescapability- of acknowledging permanently the kind of causal "gap" Naturalism asserts it will close, or use accurate terms for the theory--because going by actual, precise meaning, you are not proposing it is random at all, and ascribing "random" (and using that non-deterministic word in the context of supposedly-scientific chemistry, period) as a causal explanation is pseudoscience (easily as much so as proposing the term "design" as a causal factor).
The fundamental difference is, to use your words, things need to "add up", and by definition has to remain continually viable with each "addition".
We can argue about the degree of difference, but the standard response there is "no difference" here is essentially the same as saying "There's no difference between winning a coin flip and winning the lottery, they're both just randomness".
Bonus points: Enumerate the set of predictable scientific causal factors that produce the specific values of random in "random mutation". Yes, I do know what I'm asking for there--do you?
That way, I'll know that "random" isn't, as an absolutely core premise of the theory, an "uncaused cause" pseudoscience, and that it isn't just a placeholder word for "we don't know the full causes".
...about how the only man who survived from Sodom and Gomorrah (saved personally by God) offered up his two virgin daughters to a violent crowd bent on rape to "do to them whatever you like" is okay...
That'd be an interesting point, but again, that offer is a described event, it is not being advocated, in fact it is the exact opposite of being advocated. The authoritative representatives of God in the story, the angels, put a stop to the idea immediately.
Back to the previous analogy, the WW2 history book says the Nazis invaded Russia, and the Russian book author describes positively the actions of his fellow Russians in responding against it immediately, and you end up by some twist of logic telling us that the historian sides with the Nazis.
I'm usually quite specific in my qualifications of what somebody else said. You said that the bible provided "glorification" of the "morals" you semi-accurately asserted were there, without quoting the actual text and allowing the reader to form their own conclusion as to your characterization. "Glorification" seems quite sufficient to conclude that you were asserting that all of the presented "morals" were advocated. I think we can fairly dispense with the notion that you "didn't ever say you didn't like the bible" by asking any given person if your original snarky post expressed approval or disapproval. That is, though, the common problem with presenting sarcasm as if it had serious argument value--since it doesn't, and it's open to... interpretation... and can be semantically backed-off pretty easily, as you are doing.
If you feel like you got hit in a head with a stone, my apologies. Usually TCP/IP doesn't support solid object transfer. As Jesus did in that precise scenario, though, I'm quite free to still express disagreement with a position or behavior.
You're distorting the comparison again. Do I think a -visual depiction- would be appropriate for children, or a statement in text that it occurred, as in a history book? These are not comparable forms of presentation.
As for the subset of your claims for which there actually can be said to be a directive, I'm guessing you're used to "apologists" who respond something like "Well, yes, but that was as of a particular historical and social context, during wartime...".
I don't do that. I double-down. "I know exactly what it actually says... atheist."
Since you don't like the bible, perhaps an extracanonical would be more to your liking, so I'll cite Thomas Saying 41.
So, basically complete evasion of the question, then.
Saying "We not only don't have any consensus, we don't have any specific beliefs at all!" hardly addresses the issue.
-As a person-, you must have a coherent philosophical stance that, by definition, includes -ethics- as one of the core branches of philosophy. If you can't provide it, claiming or disclaiming "atheism" at the moment as convenient, you fail at life.
As for Christianity, there is differentiation on specific points, but the broad, core positions correlate very highly across denominations. We have every single day here atheists asserting what "Christians say", as evidence of that very fact.
Sure, I can see how its fun to claim that because something is mentioned in a book, the author fully advocates it and is "glorifying" it, even if he directly says the opposite viewpoint about the event, but the only problem there is its completely invalid. Unless you have some insight to share on how every historian writing about World War 2 is thereby of course saying we should all be Nazis, because they are mentioned in the book, that is. Why the double-standard with the knowledge of your own brain, and how you react to every other book in existence, every single day?
Okay, I'm listening. What points of consensus on morality has the atheist community reached? Just a "Top 5" moral axioms that you'd say we could ask another atheist at random on and see that there's agreement with you on validity and priority.
A review of the history of Western Philosophy will show clearly that no secular consensus on the most basic points (see e.g. Hedonism, Utilitarianism, Altruism, Egoism, Stoicism, Pragmatism, etc., etc., etc.) has been achieved in 4000 years, and it isn't going to start now. In reality, unless you can specify your justification for your moral axioms in terms of them being objectively valid and have the means to demonstrate that validity, chances are you have a generalized set of views you can't actually defend, and have assimilated them indirectly from theism as the cultural background norms. On that level, though, it's just subjective opinion you can ignore at will, and not a system of "morality" at all, rather just using the word "moral" in lieu of having any specific content to it. Getting credit merely for using the word "morality" while feeling free to ignore any and all specific expectations of any moral system, whenever and however you wish, though, seems to generally be the actual goal in the first place.
If you prefer not to refer to her summarization, though, the entirety of Western Philosophy will note that simply dismissing an argument as "psychosis" or, going back to the first parrot in the chain, a "delusion" is merely a thinly-veiled Ad Hominem. Likewise, the field of history will agree that to argue that, via one religion or the other, virtually the entirety of humanity for thousands of years B.C. to, say, around the year 1800, was in a state of "psychosis" is meaningless. As, indeed, actual psychiatry would agree. If the majority of humanity has a certain pattern of cognitive processing or belief, it is -by definition- not "psychosis" by any accurate use of the term.
"Religion" is a bigger scope than my post. Naturally, you'd want some evidence of its veracity. Well, actually you absolutely do not want to actually receive evidence at the same time you're stating you want evidence, and likely per standard practice whatever evidence you're given you'll simply assert it isn't enough, and conflate "evidence" to mean "proof", such that before you'll make a decision on the topic, you demand a degree of proof so overwhelming it would force your assent, and you'd have no chosen decision in the first place, but...
Here's a peer-reviewed study quantifying eye-witness reports corresponding to theistic prediction, as published in the medical journal The Lancet:
No, your position is false and in fact, clearly indicative of psychosis.
Your position is not merely unproven, it's presented as a sheer Bare Assertion Fallacy. Your position is true because you say it's true, period.
Since it's your stance insofar as presented that is -formally- irrational, and thus demonstrably indicative of mental illness, perhaps some reconsideration of the notion of "winning the argument automatically by means of psychological labeling" would be worth consideration.
Since I'm confident you'll assume I'm theist and therefore dismiss me out-of-hand, here's a link from a fellow strident atheist who is also a rather systematic individual well-versed in the nature and scope of valid argument, on this very question. I hope you'll find it useful.
Yes, I've never understood the conflation by the "Religious Right" of "marriage" in a secular sense versus "marriage" in a religious sense. Their stance equating the two seems to imply either a) God can be "forced" to recognize gay marriage in a -religious- sense by a vote of politicians, or b) the validity of marriage in a religious sense (and God per se, to some extent) is contingent upon public agreement.
Neither of which seems to be a stance a theist would actually want to take. Seems much more reasonable to leave the secular and religious scope of "marriage" to the sphere at hand, and not doing so seems much more indicative of political gamesmanship than dedication to one's religion.
As an aside, it's actually quite debatable whether the primary reason for censure of "gay sex" (not "homosexuality", as gay -orientation- in itself has not a single censure anywhere in the bible), is because it is homosexual, or whether it is because by definition as of the historical context, it would be unmarried, promiscuous sex, which is equally condemned for heterosexuals. But that, again, would be a debate for the religious sense of "marriage", and distinct from secular issues...
Factually erroneous on every point, but out of curiosity, what do you mean by "evil" per -your- definition and objective justification, rather than parasiting off of Christianity's as you attack it?
Are you saying that any of this behavior reduces the likelihood of the DNA of the theism advocates propagating maximally, as a Naturalism criticism that would validly remain open to you? Because at this point, you haven't suggested anything that gives any weight, validity, or significance to your characterizations.
Yawn. It is "the same" as would be any religious claim about anything whatsoever, right?
If you're going to link it, you should at least address your own link's statements, otherwise it is a citation refuting, not supporting, your claim/snark.
De Marchi claims that the prediction of an unspecified "miracle", the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied religious backgrounds of the observers, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any known scientific causative factor make a mass hallucination unlikely.[25] That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometres (11 mi) away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria.
In any case, these are not analogous. The presence or absence of a poison can be tested by quite-direct means, and in its absence, hysteria becomes a likely explanation.
I'm not thinking of whitelists at all, rather the nature of a "sandbox" environment like the JVM. Through Java, for example, you are limited to a subset of the computer's functionality--that which the sandbox design allows for. Your API and local storage examples are the type of thing at issue for me. In effect, what the sandbox "allows for" can ultimately be whatever the company controlling the platform says it will be.
Basically, I don't want a Windows that is "a device marketed for accessing web sites"--I want a computer that is fully accessible to whatever code I want to run on the platform, and equally-so for any an all developers out there, including open-source ones. While there can be an argument that a controlled channel and sandboxed runtime environment can increase the security of the system relative to malware and such, and so actually be of tangible benefit to the user, I suspect that the primary rationale would be to get a "cut" of the sales of every application written, as in the Apple App Store and Xbox Marketplace. Microsoft certainly would have reason to look at Apple and Android and see a profitable model there, I just hope that at least with some subset of their platforms, MS remains an exception to the trend.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, only he made any accusation here of anyone being "evil", that is, everyone who doesn't agree with applying his methodology to... everything. You maybe were worried about dogmatism?
But no, a "my bad" or "mea culpa" would do just fine. But we both know the likelihood of that happening on the internet.
Hmm... what's most straightforward here...
In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.
--Karl Popper
Probably one we'd -both- be comfortable citing in support of our respective positions, but this requires careful parsing and scoping. The issue here is that reality is rife with propositions that are true, or are false, but are not falsifiable. Such as, "Mozart was a great composer", "Joy is available to everyone", "The world was actually at great risk during the Cuban Missile Crisis", etc.
The most-straightforward conclusion one might draw from this is the scope of "science" and the scope of "reality" are not the same set--even if the scope of "science" and "scientific reality" are. To draw a distinction, living for a day while noting the number of untestable assumptions you act upon in a given day should be sufficient to make the distinction clear.
For a longer, and enjoyable, presentation of questions relating to scoping of science (with historical background going back to Aristotle), I'd suggest Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. To distill it down to a sentence, the question "What's the specific methodology by which we initially generate the hypotheses for scientific method?" remains pertinent.
Then... we have Kant, say the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy. "5 + 3 = 8" is either true, or not true, and along with many axiomatic statements across various fields, and Bayesian analysis (and scientific method per se) has nothing to say on it. It's a different domain entirely, and my whole point so far has been to note there are other domains.
Your very question/claim that Bayesian reasoning cannot be applied to a simple case such as an accusation of adultery merely demonstrates that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Updating one's prior beliefs in a way that is consistent with them and new evidence is precisely what Bayes theorem--and nothing else--allows us to do.
And this is precisely why I selected it--that in fact we have no ongoing "new evidence" available. We have only inferential techniques based on a fixed set of knowns and assumptions. Much like broad swaths of anything having to do with historical events, of which previous infidelity would be one. Please be clear that I'm only addressing the technique's suitability for the -factual question- of whether it occurred or not--there isn't even the merest broad outline of how this gets connected to any resolution of "evil" or moral/normative evaluations by the OP.
It's become apparently in-vogue lately to, when faced with the reality that the arguments of certain worldviews work best within the context of Scientific Method and certain related techniques, to simplify the overall stance by just going ahead and blankly asserting that nothing exists anywhere in reality but questions resolvable by that methodology. We need only to step over to politics or any number of the "softer" sciences to correct this notion--and invalidation of the majority of entire scientific fields and people's entire careers because he says we should use this approach for all issues of knowledge, whether possible or not, is not a useful stance. If you're going to restate Bayesian techniques as simple probabilistic inference of any kind, as you have, then we have a much different argument. However, this is not what "Bayesian" means to me as a software developer, and is not in-line with the much more quantifiable and systematic presentation of its scope given, say, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference I think, in reality, this was just a switch from one form of unworkable epistemology, "scientific method resolves anything" (and there is no such thing as a "pre-scientific epistemology", there are domains which science can address and those it cannot--irrespective of any "religion"--this has historically been the case, and will permanently remain the case), to a hopefully less-familiar technique, and address by an Argument By Intimidation what can't be supported on the merits of the position.
Spoken like someone who can't stand well-vetted core branches of philosophy to be polluted with nonsense, rather.
We aren't even getting started on the question of "evil", at this point, and I've stated no assertion here to defend. Yes, I'm assuming at this point that the functional definition of "evil" being offered is also indefensible subjective nonsense, but we're getting off-track.
The poster has asserted that applying -any other- technique than Bayesian techniques is "evil", hence presumably it can be applied to any given domain, to avoid the "evil"--something for which it is definitely not recognized as having the applicability for.
We have a simple test-case provided. I suggest testing the premise. If nothing else, the example can be applied via Bayesian techniques to the basic premise, as a statistical data point demonstrating the overall notion utterly fails.
Did you seriously just elevate a technique useful for spam filtering to be the One True Epistemology and One True Morality?
Your premise in your second sentence is, at least, utter nonsense factually on its face, leaving aside the wild hyperbole of "the most fundamental act of evil possible". Your friend claims his wife is cheating on him. She denies it. Show me how "Bayesian reasoning" resolves this, and describe the degree of "profound evil" involved of someone forming an opinion as to reality on this issue by alternate means. That's one of, oh, about a trillion alternate questions of problems in the same or similar epistemological (hopefully you've heard the term?) domains.
Many "additions" are fatal during early development...
Then this cannot be an "addition" in a sequence by which you explain the end result. You either mean a series of sequential changes by "addition", or you don't. If you mean a series of changes, each one must be survivable in itself to the point of reproduction.
The causes of "random mutation" are well-known...
Consider carefully what you are saying here. If you know the exhaustive set of causal factors, and their relative influence, the event is not random. If it is not random, why call it random? If it is random, you by definition cannot stipulate all the causal factors, per what "random" means. This may seem to be a semantic point, but it actually isn't. You either need, fundamentally, to admit the -metaphysical inescapability- of acknowledging permanently the kind of causal "gap" Naturalism asserts it will close, or use accurate terms for the theory--because going by actual, precise meaning, you are not proposing it is random at all, and ascribing "random" (and using that non-deterministic word in the context of supposedly-scientific chemistry, period) as a causal explanation is pseudoscience (easily as much so as proposing the term "design" as a causal factor).
The fundamental difference is, to use your words, things need to "add up", and by definition has to remain continually viable with each "addition".
We can argue about the degree of difference, but the standard response there is "no difference" here is essentially the same as saying "There's no difference between winning a coin flip and winning the lottery, they're both just randomness".
Bonus points: Enumerate the set of predictable scientific causal factors that produce the specific values of random in "random mutation". Yes, I do know what I'm asking for there--do you?
That way, I'll know that "random" isn't, as an absolutely core premise of the theory, an "uncaused cause" pseudoscience, and that it isn't just a placeholder word for "we don't know the full causes".
...about how the only man who survived from Sodom and Gomorrah (saved personally by God) offered up his two virgin daughters to a violent crowd bent on rape to "do to them whatever you like" is okay...
That'd be an interesting point, but again, that offer is a described event, it is not being advocated, in fact it is the exact opposite of being advocated. The authoritative representatives of God in the story, the angels, put a stop to the idea immediately.
Back to the previous analogy, the WW2 history book says the Nazis invaded Russia, and the Russian book author describes positively the actions of his fellow Russians in responding against it immediately, and you end up by some twist of logic telling us that the historian sides with the Nazis.
I'm usually quite specific in my qualifications of what somebody else said. You said that the bible provided "glorification" of the "morals" you semi-accurately asserted were there, without quoting the actual text and allowing the reader to form their own conclusion as to your characterization. "Glorification" seems quite sufficient to conclude that you were asserting that all of the presented "morals" were advocated. I think we can fairly dispense with the notion that you "didn't ever say you didn't like the bible" by asking any given person if your original snarky post expressed approval or disapproval. That is, though, the common problem with presenting sarcasm as if it had serious argument value--since it doesn't, and it's open to... interpretation... and can be semantically backed-off pretty easily, as you are doing.
If you feel like you got hit in a head with a stone, my apologies. Usually TCP/IP doesn't support solid object transfer. As Jesus did in that precise scenario, though, I'm quite free to still express disagreement with a position or behavior.
"It doesn't."
There is no such thing as an invalid question.
You're distorting the comparison again. Do I think a -visual depiction- would be appropriate for children, or a statement in text that it occurred, as in a history book? These are not comparable forms of presentation.
As for the subset of your claims for which there actually can be said to be a directive, I'm guessing you're used to "apologists" who respond something like "Well, yes, but that was as of a particular historical and social context, during wartime...".
I don't do that. I double-down. "I know exactly what it actually says... atheist."
Since you don't like the bible, perhaps an extracanonical would be more to your liking, so I'll cite Thomas Saying 41.
Maybe it's time for you to provide yours.
So, basically complete evasion of the question, then.
Saying "We not only don't have any consensus, we don't have any specific beliefs at all!" hardly addresses the issue.
-As a person-, you must have a coherent philosophical stance that, by definition, includes -ethics- as one of the core branches of philosophy. If you can't provide it, claiming or disclaiming "atheism" at the moment as convenient, you fail at life.
As for Christianity, there is differentiation on specific points, but the broad, core positions correlate very highly across denominations. We have every single day here atheists asserting what "Christians say", as evidence of that very fact.
Haven't heard of Diablo, I take it.
*citations needed
Sure, I can see how its fun to claim that because something is mentioned in a book, the author fully advocates it and is "glorifying" it, even if he directly says the opposite viewpoint about the event, but the only problem there is its completely invalid. Unless you have some insight to share on how every historian writing about World War 2 is thereby of course saying we should all be Nazis, because they are mentioned in the book, that is. Why the double-standard with the knowledge of your own brain, and how you react to every other book in existence, every single day?
Okay, I'm listening. What points of consensus on morality has the atheist community reached? Just a "Top 5" moral axioms that you'd say we could ask another atheist at random on and see that there's agreement with you on validity and priority.
A review of the history of Western Philosophy will show clearly that no secular consensus on the most basic points (see e.g. Hedonism, Utilitarianism, Altruism, Egoism, Stoicism, Pragmatism, etc., etc., etc.) has been achieved in 4000 years, and it isn't going to start now. In reality, unless you can specify your justification for your moral axioms in terms of them being objectively valid and have the means to demonstrate that validity, chances are you have a generalized set of views you can't actually defend, and have assimilated them indirectly from theism as the cultural background norms. On that level, though, it's just subjective opinion you can ignore at will, and not a system of "morality" at all, rather just using the word "moral" in lieu of having any specific content to it. Getting credit merely for using the word "morality" while feeling free to ignore any and all specific expectations of any moral system, whenever and however you wish, though, seems to generally be the actual goal in the first place.
But, again, we're listening.
Yes. No. Depends. Depends.
If you prefer not to refer to her summarization, though, the entirety of Western Philosophy will note that simply dismissing an argument as "psychosis" or, going back to the first parrot in the chain, a "delusion" is merely a thinly-veiled Ad Hominem. Likewise, the field of history will agree that to argue that, via one religion or the other, virtually the entirety of humanity for thousands of years B.C. to, say, around the year 1800, was in a state of "psychosis" is meaningless. As, indeed, actual psychiatry would agree. If the majority of humanity has a certain pattern of cognitive processing or belief, it is -by definition- not "psychosis" by any accurate use of the term.
"Religion" is a bigger scope than my post. Naturally, you'd want some evidence of its veracity. Well, actually you absolutely do not want to actually receive evidence at the same time you're stating you want evidence, and likely per standard practice whatever evidence you're given you'll simply assert it isn't enough, and conflate "evidence" to mean "proof", such that before you'll make a decision on the topic, you demand a degree of proof so overwhelming it would force your assent, and you'd have no chosen decision in the first place, but...
Here's a peer-reviewed study quantifying eye-witness reports corresponding to theistic prediction, as published in the medical journal The Lancet:
http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
More evidence can be googled at will, or you could, you know, directly ask for it from the entity in question.
No, your position is false and in fact, clearly indicative of psychosis.
Your position is not merely unproven, it's presented as a sheer Bare Assertion Fallacy. Your position is true because you say it's true, period.
Since it's your stance insofar as presented that is -formally- irrational, and thus demonstrably indicative of mental illness, perhaps some reconsideration of the notion of "winning the argument automatically by means of psychological labeling" would be worth consideration.
Since I'm confident you'll assume I'm theist and therefore dismiss me out-of-hand, here's a link from a fellow strident atheist who is also a rather systematic individual well-versed in the nature and scope of valid argument, on this very question. I hope you'll find it useful.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/psychologizing.html
Yes, I've never understood the conflation by the "Religious Right" of "marriage" in a secular sense versus "marriage" in a religious sense. Their stance equating the two seems to imply either a) God can be "forced" to recognize gay marriage in a -religious- sense by a vote of politicians, or b) the validity of marriage in a religious sense (and God per se, to some extent) is contingent upon public agreement.
Neither of which seems to be a stance a theist would actually want to take. Seems much more reasonable to leave the secular and religious scope of "marriage" to the sphere at hand, and not doing so seems much more indicative of political gamesmanship than dedication to one's religion.
As an aside, it's actually quite debatable whether the primary reason for censure of "gay sex" (not "homosexuality", as gay -orientation- in itself has not a single censure anywhere in the bible), is because it is homosexual, or whether it is because by definition as of the historical context, it would be unmarried, promiscuous sex, which is equally condemned for heterosexuals. But that, again, would be a debate for the religious sense of "marriage", and distinct from secular issues...
Factually erroneous on every point, but out of curiosity, what do you mean by "evil" per -your- definition and objective justification, rather than parasiting off of Christianity's as you attack it?
Are you saying that any of this behavior reduces the likelihood of the DNA of the theism advocates propagating maximally, as a Naturalism criticism that would validly remain open to you? Because at this point, you haven't suggested anything that gives any weight, validity, or significance to your characterizations.
Yawn. It is "the same" as would be any religious claim about anything whatsoever, right?
If you're going to link it, you should at least address your own link's statements, otherwise it is a citation refuting, not supporting, your claim/snark.
De Marchi claims that the prediction of an unspecified "miracle", the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied religious backgrounds of the observers, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any known scientific causative factor make a mass hallucination unlikely.[25] That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometres (11 mi) away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria.
In any case, these are not analogous. The presence or absence of a poison can be tested by quite-direct means, and in its absence, hysteria becomes a likely explanation.
He're a peer-reviewed medical journal article to help you see the difference per eye-witness reports.
I'll leave the sizable distinction between the success rate at predicting future events between God and Xenu for another day.
I really wish I could work myself up to this level of self-congratulation over self-made-up trivialities.
Keep on with your edgy self.
You seem to be suspiciously avoiding the term "mass" media.
The cover-up of the Higgs' nefarious role in the conspiracy's broadcast disinformation campaign has already begun, clearly.
I'm not thinking of whitelists at all, rather the nature of a "sandbox" environment like the JVM. Through Java, for example, you are limited to a subset of the computer's functionality--that which the sandbox design allows for. Your API and local storage examples are the type of thing at issue for me. In effect, what the sandbox "allows for" can ultimately be whatever the company controlling the platform says it will be.
Basically, I don't want a Windows that is "a device marketed for accessing web sites"--I want a computer that is fully accessible to whatever code I want to run on the platform, and equally-so for any an all developers out there, including open-source ones. While there can be an argument that a controlled channel and sandboxed runtime environment can increase the security of the system relative to malware and such, and so actually be of tangible benefit to the user, I suspect that the primary rationale would be to get a "cut" of the sales of every application written, as in the Apple App Store and Xbox Marketplace. Microsoft certainly would have reason to look at Apple and Android and see a profitable model there, I just hope that at least with some subset of their platforms, MS remains an exception to the trend.