The problem is if you look at what people actually believe by survey, they really do take huge swaths of the bible literally. Here's 64+% of U.S. (self-identified) Christians in 2006. You're accusing what appears to be a super-majority of your religion of not having half a brain.
Well, it's colorless and pink. Believe it or not the "invisible and pink" part of invisible pink unicorn is part of the satire. The concept of God contains many such apparent contradictions, and if someone latched onto "invisible pink" as a counter-argument, it would set the debater up for identically structured arguments directed at God.
It's like if you simultaneously play to chess grandmasters, you can either beat one or tie both for sure.
Yes, that's actually somewhat consistent with paranoid personality disorder. But there's more than one symptom to that, and it would be insanity to diagnose a stranger on the internet from 2 sentences.
I think the sarcasm is an inherent part of what makes it a straw man. You're misrepresenting the reasons the anti-science crowd really latch onto for the defense of their opinions. If you're doing it for humor, it's really weak. Acting like a childish version of those you disagree with is itself really childish. It's what children in elementary school do when they disagree, and it's painfully unfunny for much the same reason.
As an software engineer(and thus not an IT admin), IT admins have it much worse than most middle class office workers. They get shit on over the smallest thing, and are the only IT employees who are expected to deliver within minutes of being asked. I don't think it's a stretch to say their stress levels might be higher than yours.
Fine, when was it observed, exactly? I won't beat around the bush. Who raised that objection? When? What evidence do you have that anyone(actually studying the phenomenon) said otherwise? I'm not going to chase goalposts forever. How old does your prediction need to be? Remember that the mid 1970s were the beginning of serious study on AGW, and thus absurd requests are not going to be honored.
Fair enough, I can't really deny that. But the default behavior is not to record, so it still requires external intervention to spy, which is exactly what is requisite for current technology. The only discernible difference is a little green LED.
Look. Stop. When you're about to post in a climate thread, ask yourself "Does this debate need another flimsy strawman argument?" If you answered "yes", regardless of what you believe, you are part of the problem, and why there is still "debate".
Let's see, here's an academic paper mentioning cooler winters as an artifact of global warming, dated from before I was born. And I'm more than old enough to be having this debate with you. What exactly wasn't predicted?
Yep, I've been increasingly considering taking what money and skills I have and trying to immigrate to a more sane country. Then I think it's an extreme solution, then the next bit of U.S. insanity takes hold, and I'm considering it again.
You're wrong. When it comes to people who say explicitly they are atheist, there are more Muslims, rapists, and Christians, by a substantial margin, in fact. If they were blaming the most likely group by population, they'd say Christians. That's a weak argument, and you're defending absurd levels discrimination.
They weren't making that up. A quick search reveals that atheists make up about 0.21% of the prison population, and depending on how you ask, anywhere between 2 and 15% of the U.S. population.
Even at the low end of that assessment, they're underrepresented in prison by about a 10-1 margin.
Well, a memetic equivalent of a virus, more like. Has target receptors(fear of mortality, desire for justice), dumps its entire memetic content into the host(brain), which it then turns into a virus factory(evangelism built into most successful religions).
But I don't like the word disease for it, because that implies harmful symptoms, which seems a bit judgmental when we're all flawed humans of one stripe or another.
To me, it's not weird at all. If you look at religion as a self-creating meme that particularly uses social pressure to recreate itself, rural areas that are very religious are the natural result of rural areas that are religious. High population density exposes people to social outlets to escape the assumption of religion, and a lack of religious dominance in an area does something similar.
I'd like to say this, but seriously. The Christian religion has as many good seeds for fantasy as ancient greek, norse, or egyptian religions do. If there weren't so many people taking it so seriously, we could get some awesome movies out of the bible.
Ok, I know my way around Austrian Economics, and it seriously lacks credibility due to its complete reliance on the efficient market hypothesis. It's putting a lot of complex math on a couple of premises one of which is critically flawed.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that most Christians are ignorant of their own religion? In what way does that relate to the debate at hand?
The problem is if you look at what people actually believe by survey, they really do take huge swaths of the bible literally. Here's 64+% of U.S. (self-identified) Christians in 2006. You're accusing what appears to be a super-majority of your religion of not having half a brain.
Well, it's colorless and pink. Believe it or not the "invisible and pink" part of invisible pink unicorn is part of the satire. The concept of God contains many such apparent contradictions, and if someone latched onto "invisible pink" as a counter-argument, it would set the debater up for identically structured arguments directed at God.
It's like if you simultaneously play to chess grandmasters, you can either beat one or tie both for sure.
That's logical or mathematical proof. It has nothing to do with scientific or observational proof.
Every day, I'm reminded that all my best arguments will be undermined by the audacity and absurdity of those who agree with me.
There is a threshold of abuse whereupon the problem is you being a doormat, not others laying too much on you.
If you're really so critical that you've got to be around 90% of the time, leaving would ruin the company, and you'd have leverage.
Yes, that's actually somewhat consistent with paranoid personality disorder. But there's more than one symptom to that, and it would be insanity to diagnose a stranger on the internet from 2 sentences.
I think the sarcasm is an inherent part of what makes it a straw man. You're misrepresenting the reasons the anti-science crowd really latch onto for the defense of their opinions. If you're doing it for humor, it's really weak. Acting like a childish version of those you disagree with is itself really childish. It's what children in elementary school do when they disagree, and it's painfully unfunny for much the same reason.
As an software engineer(and thus not an IT admin), IT admins have it much worse than most middle class office workers. They get shit on over the smallest thing, and are the only IT employees who are expected to deliver within minutes of being asked. I don't think it's a stretch to say their stress levels might be higher than yours.
Fine, when was it observed, exactly? I won't beat around the bush. Who raised that objection? When? What evidence do you have that anyone(actually studying the phenomenon) said otherwise? I'm not going to chase goalposts forever. How old does your prediction need to be? Remember that the mid 1970s were the beginning of serious study on AGW, and thus absurd requests are not going to be honored.
Fair enough, I can't really deny that. But the default behavior is not to record, so it still requires external intervention to spy, which is exactly what is requisite for current technology. The only discernible difference is a little green LED.
Look. Stop. When you're about to post in a climate thread, ask yourself "Does this debate need another flimsy strawman argument?" If you answered "yes", regardless of what you believe, you are part of the problem, and why there is still "debate".
Let's see, here's an academic paper mentioning cooler winters as an artifact of global warming, dated from before I was born. And I'm more than old enough to be having this debate with you. What exactly wasn't predicted?
First: "Global warming enthusiast"? Really? Come on.
Second: I don't think you're considering what a neo-tropical environment would actually be like.
With respect to watching you without your permission due to unspecified hax.
Virtually every laptop sold in the country has a built-in camera. What's the distinction of this?
Yep, I've been increasingly considering taking what money and skills I have and trying to immigrate to a more sane country. Then I think it's an extreme solution, then the next bit of U.S. insanity takes hold, and I'm considering it again.
Observational data=delusions apparently. And calling you out when you lie is apparently "shameless attacks".
You're wrong. When it comes to people who say explicitly they are atheist, there are more Muslims, rapists, and Christians, by a substantial margin, in fact. If they were blaming the most likely group by population, they'd say Christians. That's a weak argument, and you're defending absurd levels discrimination.
They weren't making that up. A quick search reveals that atheists make up about 0.21% of the prison population, and depending on how you ask, anywhere between 2 and 15% of the U.S. population.
Even at the low end of that assessment, they're underrepresented in prison by about a 10-1 margin.
Well, a memetic equivalent of a virus, more like. Has target receptors(fear of mortality, desire for justice), dumps its entire memetic content into the host(brain), which it then turns into a virus factory(evangelism built into most successful religions).
But I don't like the word disease for it, because that implies harmful symptoms, which seems a bit judgmental when we're all flawed humans of one stripe or another.
To me, it's not weird at all. If you look at religion as a self-creating meme that particularly uses social pressure to recreate itself, rural areas that are very religious are the natural result of rural areas that are religious. High population density exposes people to social outlets to escape the assumption of religion, and a lack of religious dominance in an area does something similar.
I'd like to say this, but seriously. The Christian religion has as many good seeds for fantasy as ancient greek, norse, or egyptian religions do. If there weren't so many people taking it so seriously, we could get some awesome movies out of the bible.
FYI, general precedent is that lie detectors aren't allowed in court rooms.
Ok, I know my way around Austrian Economics, and it seriously lacks credibility due to its complete reliance on the efficient market hypothesis. It's putting a lot of complex math on a couple of premises one of which is critically flawed.