"I won't believe one exists unless new evidence comes to light and compels me to do so."
Not believing in gods is atheism - full stop.
All of the people I listed previously are agnostic atheists, meaning that they don't know for certain, but they don't believe. They don't use 'agnostic' on its own because they are willing to make the best guess they can, or are willing to defend atheism as the default position (i.e. the side advocating belief has the burden of proof). They also don't call themselves 'agnostic atheists' because it's pretty much redundant, the number of gnostic atheists, the ones that claim to know as an absolute that there isn't a deity, are such a small minority as to be nearly non-existent.
Its absurd as a Princess Peach saying the Mushroom Kingdom universe must have been spontaneously created from nothing because its 2x as silly to think there is some sort of creator."
The bold sections are messing you up. If we assume she has no evidence one way or the other, it makes perfect sense for PP to use Ockham's razor and favor spontaneous creation, even though she'd be wrong. Suggesting a creator as a hypothesis would be fine, but it really would be silly for her to insist that there must be one, or even to favor that hypothesis over the other.
The atheistic point of view means you know there isn't a God.
I'm sorry, but that isn't true. Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, A. C. Greyling - all have quite clearly said that they can't rule out the possibility that some kind of god exists.
Can you name any well-known, modern atheist (other than P. Z. Myers) who is completely certain that all gods are impossible?
If I remember correctly, escaping the dictatorial rule of people with your point of view was one of the primary reasons this country was founded.
No. They left to escape violence, legal persecution and laws that forced them to support things they didn't believe.
To conflate that kind of treatment with being taunted on the internet is an insult to both to the intelligence of those that read your post and the people who gave us freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
But IIRC, men with children make more than both. And that's all kind of fucked, don't you think?
Not if they're working more hours or being more productive because they now have more financial responsibilities. If a guy goes from working 40 hours a week to 50 in order to pay child support, is he really benefiting from discrimination against women? But that's what it will look like if you only look at average salaries...
How on Earth this comment gets modded "5: Insightful" is beyond me.
The poster did a good job explaining a good (if rather old) argument.
It essentially suggest that women are paid less because it was the result of a concerted strategy to dump salaries.
No, it suggests that something other than simple discrimination is creating the "pay gap".
The only problem is that the statistics are there and nobody wants to recognise them.
No, we just aren't willing to jump to the conclusion that you want to get to.
Another statistic is that unmarried, childless women under 35 make almost exactly what similarly-situated men make - are they somehow immune to discrimination?
Why else would they... They didn't get 'their cut'? Sounds more like the mafia than a government.
What do you think the mafia is? It's a (primitive, might-makes-right) government that regulates the black market. The only difference between Al Capone and a third-world warlord is that Al had a big, well-established organization that had already claimed his territory.
And as a side note, this guy already gave up his citizenship, the law in question would only add an 'exit tax' - like the gangs make you pay when you get out of prison.
Look around you, how many of those born did have a say there?
All of them. Excepting the profoundly unhealthy, they can always walk to the next town, meet a new person, do something outside, etc.
A lot of people are basically slaves, making ends meet on minimum wage.
I'm embarrassed to be of the same species as someone who could make that repugnant comparison.
Going through space in a spaceship sounds like a one up on that
Only because for you it would be new and exciting. To a person who has never known another life, flipping burgers on Earth and then going to a park or a museum might seem immeasurably better than flipping burgers in space and having nothing new to do afterward, ever.
having multiple generations in space like that would probably mean whatever being got to the destination would be like no human on earth...
Evolution doesn't work that quickly.
Because you want a private police force that you have no recourse against doing this exact same thing?
I'm no Paulite, but I would rather have a private security force that I might be able to successfully sue or boycott, as opposed to a government force that I can't. Really, my chances of successfully suing the TSA for something non-lethal are only slightly better than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's chances of getting compensation from the US military for being waterboarded.
The big question has always been, how far do those trends extend? It's hard to measure them once they get down into the noise. It's a valid and useful question.
Yes. It's too bad the authors of the original article weren't interested in asking the question, but rather giving their preferred answer.
I know you're not really trying to make a valid argument, but I'll point out the flaw anyway.... Your response is simply childish.
Making a point that you disagree with in a humorous manner is not childish.
Not if it is still cheaper to do it from Earth. If it costs a penny more than doing it from Earth, then it is worth nothing.
Um... if you spend 25 billion and get back 24 billion, you still have 24 billion. It might not be worth doing, but it's not worthless.
Barely. Orbiting the earth a few hundred miles up...
Geostationary satellites are tens of thousands of miles up. Still not that far, but so what?
There is an axiomatic assumption that mining materials in space will somehow reduce costs.
I don't think that any knowledgeable person thinks that anything is guaranteed. But with a potential $10,000/lb price advantage, it would be stupid not to give it a serious look.
Well, to a certain extent, yes. Just refueling satellites with reaction mass would be worth billions. And if you could also manufacture some basic, but heavy, parts like casing, support structures, antennas and solar cells, you could under-bid everyone else and have an effective monopoly on communication satellites, etc.
Yes, "WE are ALREADY in space", and we're going to keep going there, so why does trying to do it in a more efficient way make someone a 'space nutter'?
>>At the same time, you have some incredibly well targeted toxins. Imagine a researcher discovering the unique enough markers for certain families or racial groups (if such a thing exists).
>Sssh, we can't let Time Hitler get wind of this.
Time Hitler has already won. Haven't you ever wondered why there's only one extant species of hominid left, one with such limited genetic diversity that we're practically clones of each other?
So, then, all commodities should be priced based off of their lowest common denominator in the free market, otherwise they risk being unfair? When you take that approach then you are promoting a further segregation between first and third world countries.
You realize that you're arguing that treating people equally causes segregation? The segregation already exists, treating them equally is just not using one clumsy, improper tool to fix it.
Besides, what makes USA vs Africa different than rich USA vs poor USA? Companies may charge a lot more at fancier stores in the 'burbs, but they still let rich people buy at Wal-Mart if they want to do so. Is that 'unfair' because it keeps Wal-Mart from dropping prices even further?
Nice! But confused about writeup:
on
Mechanical CPU Clock
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Brilliant work, but I find his terminology confusing.
From what I can see, there's really only one register - since the "registers" are linked, he can only store a 4-bit number (plus an instruction counter in the form of the track "flag"). "Register B" is really an instruction to clear both the register and the instruction pointer, and "'registers A&C"' are really an [inc A, if A<11 then IP=0 else IP=1] instruction. From this perspective, it's a two-instruction, one-register machine.
I only did that because I just couldn't get nine instructions and three different registers from watching the device function.
Am I the only one to see it that way? Are both ways (at least partially) valid?
Slashdot Mirror
"I won't believe one exists unless new evidence comes to light and compels me to do so."
Not believing in gods is atheism - full stop.
All of the people I listed previously are agnostic atheists, meaning that they don't know for certain, but they don't believe. They don't use 'agnostic' on its own because they are willing to make the best guess they can, or are willing to defend atheism as the default position (i.e. the side advocating belief has the burden of proof). They also don't call themselves 'agnostic atheists' because it's pretty much redundant, the number of gnostic atheists, the ones that claim to know as an absolute that there isn't a deity, are such a small minority as to be nearly non-existent.
Are you then saying all of them are actually agnostics rather than atheists?
No, I'm saying that they're both agnostic and atheistic - they are both, to loosely translate, "without knowledge" and "without gods".
Your opinion suggests that you mistake irreducible/specified complexity for science and argument from ignorance for evidence.
Its absurd as a Princess Peach saying the Mushroom Kingdom universe must have been spontaneously created from nothing because its 2x as silly to think there is some sort of creator."
The bold sections are messing you up. If we assume she has no evidence one way or the other, it makes perfect sense for PP to use Ockham's razor and favor spontaneous creation, even though she'd be wrong. Suggesting a creator as a hypothesis would be fine, but it really would be silly for her to insist that there must be one, or even to favor that hypothesis over the other.
The atheistic point of view means you know there isn't a God.
I'm sorry, but that isn't true. Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, A. C. Greyling - all have quite clearly said that they can't rule out the possibility that some kind of god exists.
Can you name any well-known, modern atheist (other than P. Z. Myers) who is completely certain that all gods are impossible?
If I remember correctly, escaping the dictatorial rule of people with your point of view was one of the primary reasons this country was founded.
No. They left to escape violence, legal persecution and laws that forced them to support things they didn't believe.
To conflate that kind of treatment with being taunted on the internet is an insult to both to the intelligence of those that read your post and the people who gave us freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
So, who's working on a faith vaccine?
We have one, it's called 'critical thinking'.
But IIRC, men with children make more than both. And that's all kind of fucked, don't you think?
Not if they're working more hours or being more productive because they now have more financial responsibilities. If a guy goes from working 40 hours a week to 50 in order to pay child support, is he really benefiting from discrimination against women? But that's what it will look like if you only look at average salaries...
How on Earth this comment gets modded "5: Insightful" is beyond me.
The poster did a good job explaining a good (if rather old) argument.
It essentially suggest that women are paid less because it was the result of a concerted strategy to dump salaries.
No, it suggests that something other than simple discrimination is creating the "pay gap".
The only problem is that the statistics are there and nobody wants to recognise them.
No, we just aren't willing to jump to the conclusion that you want to get to.
Another statistic is that unmarried, childless women under 35 make almost exactly what similarly-situated men make - are they somehow immune to discrimination?
Why else would they... They didn't get 'their cut'? Sounds more like the mafia than a government.
What do you think the mafia is? It's a (primitive, might-makes-right) government that regulates the black market. The only difference between Al Capone and a third-world warlord is that Al had a big, well-established organization that had already claimed his territory.
And as a side note, this guy already gave up his citizenship, the law in question would only add an 'exit tax' - like the gangs make you pay when you get out of prison.
918 year old? So, thats a what G^34GILF? A GGILF to the 34th degree?
If she really had 34 generations of progeny, I'd call her a MEILF - referencing mitochondrial Eve.
you're right, there's no point in it unless we can fuck hot young women until the end.
If they don't age, why would we care if they're young?
The looks and energy of an 18 year old combined with the fertility and experience of a 918 year old sounds like the perfect combination to me!
That depends, is a enlarged penis a super power?
Of course it is! What kind of question is that?
Look around you, how many of those born did have a say there?
All of them. Excepting the profoundly unhealthy, they can always walk to the next town, meet a new person, do something outside, etc.
A lot of people are basically slaves, making ends meet on minimum wage.
I'm embarrassed to be of the same species as someone who could make that repugnant comparison.
Going through space in a spaceship sounds like a one up on that
Only because for you it would be new and exciting. To a person who has never known another life, flipping burgers on Earth and then going to a park or a museum might seem immeasurably better than flipping burgers in space and having nothing new to do afterward, ever.
having multiple generations in space like that would probably mean whatever being got to the destination would be like no human on earth...
Evolution doesn't work that quickly.
Because you want a private police force that you have no recourse against doing this exact same thing?
I'm no Paulite, but I would rather have a private security force that I might be able to successfully sue or boycott, as opposed to a government force that I can't. Really, my chances of successfully suing the TSA for something non-lethal are only slightly better than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's chances of getting compensation from the US military for being waterboarded.
The big question has always been, how far do those trends extend? It's hard to measure them once they get down into the noise. It's a valid and useful question.
Yes. It's too bad the authors of the original article weren't interested in asking the question, but rather giving their preferred answer.
I know you're not really trying to make a valid argument, but I'll point out the flaw anyway. ... Your response is simply childish.
Making a point that you disagree with in a humorous manner is not childish.
Segmentation Fault, Core Dump:
14 billionths of a second != 14 billion per second
Damn.
14 billion divided by 2 billion would be 7.
Right?
Not if it is still cheaper to do it from Earth. If it costs a penny more than doing it from Earth, then it is worth nothing. ... if you spend 25 billion and get back 24 billion, you still have 24 billion. It might not be worth doing, but it's not worthless.
Um
Barely. Orbiting the earth a few hundred miles up...
Geostationary satellites are tens of thousands of miles up. Still not that far, but so what?
There is an axiomatic assumption that mining materials in space will somehow reduce costs.
I don't think that any knowledgeable person thinks that anything is guaranteed. But with a potential $10,000/lb price advantage, it would be stupid not to give it a serious look.
If it's in space, it's valuable by default.
Well, to a certain extent, yes. Just refueling satellites with reaction mass would be worth billions. And if you could also manufacture some basic, but heavy, parts like casing, support structures, antennas and solar cells, you could under-bid everyone else and have an effective monopoly on communication satellites, etc.
Yes, "WE are ALREADY in space", and we're going to keep going there, so why does trying to do it in a more efficient way make someone a 'space nutter'?
>>At the same time, you have some incredibly well targeted toxins. Imagine a researcher discovering the unique enough markers for certain families or racial groups (if such a thing exists).
>Sssh, we can't let Time Hitler get wind of this.
Time Hitler has already won. Haven't you ever wondered why there's only one extant species of hominid left, one with such limited genetic diversity that we're practically clones of each other?
No, sorry. Math is just the language used to express the ideas of physics.
You can't reduce a natural science to a formal science.
As Jefferson stated, that is the natural tendency of the party system: 1 for more government; 1 for less government ...
So, then, all commodities should be priced based off of their lowest common denominator in the free market, otherwise they risk being unfair? When you take that approach then you are promoting a further segregation between first and third world countries.
You realize that you're arguing that treating people equally causes segregation? The segregation already exists, treating them equally is just not using one clumsy, improper tool to fix it.
Besides, what makes USA vs Africa different than rich USA vs poor USA? Companies may charge a lot more at fancier stores in the 'burbs, but they still let rich people buy at Wal-Mart if they want to do so. Is that 'unfair' because it keeps Wal-Mart from dropping prices even further?
Brilliant work, but I find his terminology confusing.
From what I can see, there's really only one register - since the "registers" are linked, he can only store a 4-bit number (plus an instruction counter in the form of the track "flag"). "Register B" is really an instruction to clear both the register and the instruction pointer, and "'registers A&C"' are really an [inc A, if A<11 then IP=0 else IP=1] instruction. From this perspective, it's a two-instruction, one-register machine.
I only did that because I just couldn't get nine instructions and three different registers from watching the device function.
Am I the only one to see it that way? Are both ways (at least partially) valid?