Very little actual sense in it at all, from conflating the science-ignorant goat-herders of the past with today's deep understanding of the process, to your strawman extraordinaire that tries to equate suffering being absent due to no actual creature existing, and the suffering of a formed human being.
Oh, and plants with feelings. Oy. Typically, and certainly in the case of plants, multiple, interrelated systems exist in balance; when that balance is disturbed, these systems alter in ways that compensate to some degree. Flowers turn to follow the sun, grass breaks through concrete, trees bud and emit toxins when various bogs come to visit, the Venus Fly Trap snaps shut when its trigger hairs are disturbed.
None of this is, or implies, "suffering"; there is zero evidence supporting the idea that you can have suffering without a nervous system embodying a conscious component or something analogous to one. Zero. Plants, as far as science knows, have no such thing -- it's never, ever been demonstrated.
Groups of undifferentiated cells don't have any systems that can support consciousness either (and they react even less than plants do, because they don't have systems above the cellular level at this point. Differentiation does not occur until a ways along in the process, and even then, it take a while longer before you have functional systems.
You're really, really out in cloud-cuckoo land. Straight up wacky. It's always distressing to encounter arguments as deeply based in ignorance as yours are. I'd like to think we're better than that, but there you are, definitively proving otherwise.
It's science, not something I pulled out of my ass. Do you even know how the process works? What would *you* call a clump of undifferentiated cells?
Are the number of chromosomes different from that of a human being? Is this entity more of a squirrel? What exactly are you saying here? Is the boundary line a matter of convenience for those who have more power over this entity (e.g. desperate parents)?
There is no "entity" at this point. No nervous system, no brain, no thoughts, no feelings, no bones, no organs, no skin, no fat, no eyes, no legs, no arms, no torso, no nothing. It's just a mass of identical cells that have not yet begun to specialize into those types of cells that form the systems that in turn form human beings. Again, this is basic science. You are attempting to argue from a standpoint that simply does not exist.
Add time, and you get those things. Stop the process before that time passes, and you don't. This isn't open for debate. That's how it works. Period.
It's healthcare, both indirect and direct. Encouraging and/or insisting on birth no matter what the cost brings unwanted children, and often disadvantaged children, into the world, as well as back-alley and home abortions. These things are not good for anyone. Taxes (fundamentally, anyway) pay for what the representatives decide they need to pay for. We don't get a say. I could scream forever about funding wars I don't believe in, bridges I see no infrastructure purpose for, ridiculous monuments, tobacco and oil subsidies, and every penny that goes towards bad law -- but it does no good, because our system is structured as a constitutional republic -- top down decisions only amenable to pushback via bottom up, after-the-fact elections. SCOTUS is part and parcel of the top-down mechanism.
When we turn to the constitution, religious freedom is pretty much laid out; the problem, as I see it, with Hobby Lobby is that they employ the public, but they want Hobby Lobby's religious freedom to trump the employee's religious freedom (and medical care) via government authority. If they want to impose their religious beliefs upon employees, then they should form a church. When the public is involved in an employer-to-employee relationship, it's pretty clear that the employer's religious dogma may not be imposed upon another person, any more than the employer's sexual outlook or political views may be forced upon the employees.
SCOTUS made a huge mistake here (several actually, and no surprise) but again, our form of government is top down, not bottom up, so there it is.
It is also worth noting that "plan B" is not an abortifacient. It stops ovulation if it has not yet occurred; if it has occurred, then it can prevent fertilization, and should fertilization occur, then it may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. If the egg is already fertilized and implanted, it does nothing. Plan B is a method that prevents conception, if taken at the right time.
So let's not get too tied up in Hobby Lobby's claim to the high road, or supposed adherence to "biblical principles." As near as I can tell, they're operating down in the gutter and have been all along. In the final analysis, this appears to be just another attack on the ACA. Exaggeration, emotion based on misinformation, hypocrisy, and the usual blundering of the fossils in the US supreme court have led to a very poor outcome for women, for families, and for children.
Not in any way. Atheists don't hold a belief in a god or god. This in no way defines any other outlook, and sure enough, there are many from there, exactly because the pivot here is extremely simple. Do you believe in a god or gods, or do you not? That's the question. Atheist and Theist are the only words that define the answers.
Everything else you bring up -- without exception -- is about outlooks beyond that of the essential question of atheism. In particular, as pointed out extensively elsewhere in the thread, knowledge is not the same domain or question as belief -- agnosticism is not a third position, it's an add-on concept from another domain entirely.
Your comment and those responding to you usually don't recognize that a term like "atheist" is actually incredibly non-specific
Because it isn't. The fact that you think it is shows merely that you've not thought about it deeply enough.
No. I'm not an agnostic atheist. My general approach (to everything) is when there is no evidence whatsoever for something, particularly if that evidence has been diligently searched for, then that something isn't worthy of consideration. I no more give credence to stories of "gods" than I do stories of magic pink unicorns. I am perfectly open to evidence, of course; the thing is, none has been forthcoming. Absence of evidence, particularly duly searched for evidence, is evidence of absence. It isn't proof of absence (the usual cognitive error people who argue the point make), but it's definitely evidence. And I always lean the way the preponderance of evidence points.
If you cannot prove there is no god, then it is just a belief.
In the ultimate sense, no one can prove anything. We might all be constructs in a simulation. I doubt it, but it's a tenable idea. So what it boils down to is, look at the evidence. Is it convincing? And the evidence, in this case the complete failure to uncover even one viable scrap of supporting data despite thousands of years of effort, plus the serious contradictions to known science in almost all the various myths and dogma, point strongly towards No Such Thing. Exactly the same way it points towards No Magic Pink Unicorns and No Santa Claus. Every indicator points towards identification of these stories as just more (of our plentiful) mythology. Which is just a nice way of saying wishful thinking in vogue at some point(s) in time.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Not proof: But definitely evidence.
What if your position is that you don't fuckin' know? Why is that not possible?
Certainly it's possible. But it's a different question. The distinction of atheism and theism is drawn on the basis of belief -- not of knowledge. You remember the Heaven's Gate folk, the ones who killed themselves so they could be "picked up" by an "alien spacecraft" they thought was out there somewhere? Obviously, they believed it -- killing themselves pretty much tells you that in the most unquestionable manner possible. But they didn't *know* it, did they? Because it's nonsense from word one. Likewise a devout Muslim believes things wholly, and Christians believe other things. These things are incompatible conceptually, so even if one is right, the other is wrong. They both believed -- but at least one (almost certainly both) are wrong. Belief is not knowledge. That is why protesting one does not know does not answer, or even address, the question of "do you believe in a god or gods, or do you not?"
So ask yourself this simple question: Do you believe there is a god or gods? Note the complete absence of the word "know" or "knowledge" in that question. Belief is predicated upon faith -- not knowledge. We've already established that. And that's all you're being asked. Do you believe, or not?
If the answer is yes, you're a theist. If the answer is no, you're an atheist. If you mumble something about "I don't know", you're avoiding the question. You either believe in a god or gods, or you don't. No one asked you why, because it isn't relevant to the answer.
A single sperm or unfertilized egg isn't a human being.
Neither is a mass of undifferentiated cells. Exactly my point. Without adding time, they're nothing. Stop their development, the time is not utilized, no further development occurs, and they never become a human being. Hence, disposing of them is not the act of disposing of a human being.
I already explained it. You should read more carefully. If there is a nervous system, there can be suffering. That's the line I draw. It occurs quite early. But at conception, there is no human being. Then, after much cell division and some time, a creature that can feel and suffer develops -- that's the line I draw, right there. Presuming there is no special risk to the mother and that the fetus is not known to be defective to the point where its survival is unlikely anyway, I would argue against abortion at any time thereafter. However, I *also* think that it is ethically bankrupt for me to impose my will on the mother. Wouldn't stop me from arguing to try to change her mind, though.
A blade of grass can never be more than a blade of grass.
Yes, exactly my point.
An embryo does not remain an embryo, and has the potential to become you.
This, however, *requires* the addition of time. Without such time, the potential does not exist. If the development stops prior to differentiation, for instance, no human ever came into existence, and no issues of humanity actually arise except in one's imagination. No human was harmed. Exactly the same as if a sperm fails to fertilize an egg, or the fertilization itself is defective and the body naturally tosses the result.
even the winner of that race 'dies'.
No. That's not how the process works at all. Remedial science 101 for you.
Life is Life. Human Life is human life, plant life is plant life. If you are ok with ending life at the embryonic stage, surely you would be ok with ending it at the 1 week stage, or the 3 month stage, or the 9 month stage.
Ridiculous strawman, untrue and totally unworthy of addressing.
If someone were to end your life, without you being aware, and without any suffering, has anyone been 'harmed'?
Yes. However, I am human. I have dependents and a life full of achievements which is still ongoing. I earn, and I contribute. I have deep personal interactions I maintain. And more. But a group of undifferentiated cells cannot be said to be, have done, or be able to do, any of those things. Absent time to develop, there is no capability for any of it, or any of the other things that define a living human being for that matter. Your question tries to ignore these basic, obvious facts and appeal to the idea that, if given time, a human would be present. But in my case, I've already had the time, and a human *is* present. That single fact undermines your entire rationale.
The question is not that difficult if you consider the people you love, or yourself, may not have ever been born if your idea's of 'life' and 'suffering' were held by their and your parents.
On the contrary. I already know that many were not born whom I might have liked, loved or otherwise been pleased with their presence in the world. Pregnancies end naturally. Sometimes they don't get started. It happens all the time, and there isn't much that can be done about it. I just don't draw a distinction between a mass of undifferentiated cells that go down the toilet because the body's autonomic processes tosses them out and a mass of undifferentiated cells where the choice of the woman's brain tosses them out.
The idea that potential should be treated as if it was reality is nonsensical. You *could* have been president. But you can bet I am not going to give you the respect I would give an *actual* president, that is, the person who *realizes* that potential. Nor should opportunity be treated that way. If you had, and took advantage of the opportunity to become a great surgeon, I'd offer you great respect for that as well. However, if you don't get there, I won't. Because it's not about opportunity any more than it is potential. It's about *actuality*. And the actuality of a group of undifferentiated cells is that it is of no particular consequence at that point in time.
The criteria for murder isn't "it's a living organism", it's "it's a living Homo Sapiens organism".
First, in order to follow what I was saying, you have to read it in context with the previous post which I was replying to. You should definitely read more carefully. However:
The question at hand now is asking if it is so that a group of undifferentiated cells is "a home sapiens organism", basically the same question one would ask about a sperm cell. Sure, *later* it will be a home sapiens organism, but what about when there is no nervous system, no brain? What is it then? Without these characteristics, might it be ok for a woman to say "oh no, I think it is very wrong to bring an unwanted child into the world"? And if she chooses to terminate the pregnancy, does this -- by definition, no nervous system equates directly to no pain, no brain, and, I would strongly argue, no humanity -- procedure rise to the level of killing, for instance, a five year old child?
I think it's pretty clear that an organism with a nervous system is a vasty different one than an organism without a nervous system. As far as I'm concerned, it's in no way a human being. That's because I observe that time changes many very important things. The most important of which is the development of a sophisticated nervous system. And yes, before you ask, I consider all higher animals worthy of such consideration.
But sticking with humans for the moment, why should a woman who has been raped allow a pregnancy to continue? Why should a woman who will die as a result of childbirth allow a pregnancy to continue? Why should a woman who is pregnant with a seriously defective embryo continue to carry it? Why should a woman be forced to bring unwanted children into the world?
What right do we have to tell a woman what to do with her own body? Seems to me that every one of those cases should defer to the woman's choice. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. However, I think it is entirely wrong to assert that you have the right to impose your opinion on women in general. I cannot imagine where that right would come from.
Theism: Belief that there is at least one god. Atheism: Belief that there is no god. Both are beliefs.
Is baldness a hair color?
Is not collecting stamps a hobby?
Is not kicking a kitten an exercise in animal abuse?
What kind of murder is not killing someone?
I hope you're beginning to grasp the idea. Lacking belief in a god or gods is not "believing there is no god or gods", that's an entirely separate issue (and yes, some atheists will go there, but specifically because it is only some of us, it can't define atheism.) We all share just one thing: We lack belief in a god or gods. That's the common pivot.
Belief, as any theist will tell you, is predicated upon faith. I have no faith there is a god or gods. Never saw any reason whatsoever to take such a step. Ergo, no belief arises. Don't have any. Zero. In fact, the only things that seem to provoke a faith-like response in me are those that I have become convinced that have a serious pile of consensually experiential, repeatable, testable evidence behind them -- those things that have been vetted by the scientific method, which is a method that I personally have seen in action, am aware of many results of, each of which has consistently turned out to be reliably entwined with the objective reality I perceive.
So my confidence in the method is very high, and my presumption is that anything I am told by what I consider reliable sources has passed through this method and come out as validated as we can manage to get it, is probably a close approximation of reality -- at the very least. And the cool thing is, if it's not close enough, the method itself will eventually turn that up, and we'll get a better approximation.
This method is known to me to have produced technology of a very wide and useful variety, as well as an amazingly interrelated body of information of an almost uniformly inter-supporting nature, especially of those issues that have been worked on by many, and these things in turn bolster my confidence in it (the method.)
Theism? Nothing from its root concepts. Plenty of mundane things -- charity, art, architecture (alas, I repeat myself), even science. Also war, torture, etc. But eruptions from the core beliefs? Zip. No manifestations, no miracles, no fairness, no honor, no rewards, no devils, no angels, not a single sign of kindness, nor of anything remotely resembling good parenting. Absolutely nothing. Ergo, no confidence, and certainly no belief.
While we're at it, claiming lack of knowledge isn't a middle ground between theism and atheism, either. We're all either theists or atheists. Just as we're all stamp collectors, or not. The agnostic claiming a third position is either bewildered or disingenuous. In order to be agnostic (or claim knowledge, for that matter), one has to take either the theist or atheist stance. No way around it.
Atheism is... rather a philosophy opposed to [religion].
Completely, 100% wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. That's all it is. Anything else, *anything*, is an add on from some other idea. I'm absolutely, completely, atheist -- I hold no belief in a god or gods whatsoever -- but I am not opposed to religion, in fact, I can cite you chapter and verse as to many of the benefits religion brings, and has brought, to our society. I live in a church. What I am opposed to is any particular religion getting control of law and/or government. Because that has demonstrably caused harm almost without surcease. But again, even this is not a consequence of my position that the idea of god or gods is ridiculous, rather it is a consequence of my observation that every religiously influenced law I know of is extremely bad law, and furthermore, tends to favor group A over group B in such a way that there is no sane basis for it.
New here, then? That kind of moderation is not only common, there are times it comes from those in control of the site. Just read the rules: They have infinite mod points, and they aren't afraid to use them. Your post suddenly take a multi-point drop? You know it isn't a normal moderator.
This is why they never fix the mod system. If confers limitless, attribution-free power on site operators. They love it.
The good news? You can read at -1 and ignore moderation completely.:)
A blade of grass is a distinct organism. Would you then never walk on a lawn?
A single sperm or egg has DNA, regardless of fertilization. Those sperm have relatively equal potential, too, but too bad for them that last little bit of motion by the coupling partners that made sperm number 43,235,22 win the race. Are you a mass murderer for those sperm that don't meet and proceed to spawn a new organism? Of course not. It's not about DNA.
And further, the question isn't, or at least should not be, about "life." That's just too simplistic to be useful unless you're quite insane. Moss is alive. Bacteria are alive. Etc, ad infinitum. What are you going to do, off yourself so you can't interfere with any of them?
The question is, and or at least definitely should be, are you doing harm to something that can suffer? here's the key issue: Does it have a nervous system, and does that nervous system couple to something sophisticated enough to convert those signals into suffering?
Just think about it. The question's really not that difficult, and you don't have to invoke either the hucksterism of philosophy or the juju of religion to resolve it cleanly and ethically.
Is a baby chicken a baby chicken when the fertilized egg/sperm combo has divided into 16 cells, none of which have differentiated, none of which are nerves, spine, brain, eye, etc.?
The answer to that -- obviously, unless you're utterly bewildered or completely ignorant of the process itself -- is no. It's not philosophical; it's fact-based science. A potato is more sophisticated. Its cells even have more chromosomes than humans do.
The line is blurry, all right, but it isn't blurry at conception (that's not a person OR a chicken) and it isn't blurry anywhere near term (that IS a person or a chicken.) The blurry part, that's the real problem, because the determination needs to be based on something rational and functionally able to ensure we do not do unintended harm or harm in ignorance. Religious hucksterism aside, there are readily determinable progressions in the process that cross various well defined lines.
Personally, I view it this way: If the organism doesn't have a differentiated nervous system, at best, it is directly comparable in its current state to plant life. As soon as it does, however, you've got animal life, and now we've crossed a line where the well-being of something that can feel is at stake.
The entire argument is muddied by the concept of potential; I agree potential is there, but it was also there for every sperm that missed the mark and every egg that remained unfertilized.
So -- were I able to make it so, which is not only not the case but laughably far from the case -- I'd draw the line for abortion that is not directly amelioration for serious health risk to the mother, or a consequence of known problems with the growing organism (no brain, etc.) right where the nervous system begins to develop such that there are actual nerves present.
If you upgrade your OS. Which brings you a lot more than RAW support. It also beings you massive incompatibility, new bugs, unfixed old bugs, aberrant behavior by programs that stuck to Apple's own dev guidelines like glue, and most recently, the world's most drag-assed USB support ever.
You were already better off finding another way than Aperture, this just puts the icing on the cake.
On my desk, I run 10.6.8. I have numerous reasons for sticking with it, not least that it still runs the PPC apps I paid good money for and continue to use, and that it has significantly better USB performance than Mavericks (not sure about 10.7...10.8, but 10.9.3 USB sucks dishrags. I've been running it on the [identical] machine in my radio room, and brother, what a clusterfark. Borken by design, near as I can tell.)
So anyway, being a camera person, I bought Aperture 1 (I had a Canon 50D at the time), then upgraded, paying for version two, then upgraded paying for version 3. Then I bought a Canon 6D. Wonderful camera. So Aperture, yes? No.
Here's what I got for my dollar-driven adventure in Apple "professional" software:
A program that won't read my 6D's images, that's what.
So I moved to Lightroom, a version of which did (a) run under 10.6.8 and (b) does support my camera. Works fine, I'm shooting all the time. Aperture is no longer part of my workflow. Why should it be? It's useless to me because Apple, in a fit of whatever, moved camera support to the OS, and then failed, as per usual, to support the OS versions they already had in the field.
Speaking as an Apple user, and a previous fan of Aperture, Lightroom will do for now, thanks.
There's no obstacle to generation that isn't a simple technical solution away. We have *huge* surplus generation capacity during off-peak hours; so the obvious solution is that the charging stations charge up during off-peak, then the driver taps the charging station as is convenient. This of course only applies to cases where the vehicle is in use during off peak hours. If it's parked during those times, it can draw directly without problems.
In the sense of actual technical challenge, there's only storage to deal with. Everything else is just engineering.
Actually, we do. Electric will win in every category that it isn't winning now, with the simple, predictable, and already-in-the-lab advances. Mostly, it's already winning anyway:
Simpler mechanically; significantly better torque curves; ultimate performance, considerably more horsepower for less weight and complexity (four 250 hp motors per wheel gives you a 1000hp 4wd vehicle with more torque than you can put on the ground -- you're gonna need a padded headrest and a massive tire budget); higher efficiency than any other technology, most especially including IC engines; lighter; direct drive or geared drive capable; greener both by virtue of efficiency and because as power sources become greener (for instance, a coal plant is replaced by a solar array), the car becomes that much greener as well; easier replacement; ease of recovery of energy at braking; no need for a new national energy distribution system as with hydrogen or ammonia; ability to move charge acquisition to off-peak hours; quick recharge by pack swap; fully amenable to ultracap power, presuming someone ever gets a decent, affordable high voltage ultracap to market; Agnostic to fuel cells, generators, line power, staged storage systems, solar, etc.; excellent for keeping center of gravity low; easy to produce; no inherent waste emissions (meaning that if the power source is clean, so is the vehicle); scalable to almost any imaginable vehicle from a bicycle to heavy equipment; allows much more practical utilization of petroleum in other sectors such as lubricants, plastics; fibers, synthetic rubber, etc.; and believe it or not, I could still go on.:)
There's only one serious remaining obstacle, and that is power supply, which puts the onus squarely on new storage tech. From my POV, betting that such tech will not come to market seems like a foolish thing to do. One moderately careful look at current battery and/or ultracap research will turn up significant discoveries and prototypes utilizing various technologies that show gains in everything from charge rates to size to discharge rates to longevity and thermal manageability.
No doubt early adopters will pay boutique, small-quantity prices for truly adequate vehicles, but that shouldn't last too long in terms of our current technological revolution.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, your entire post was hucksterism.
Very little actual sense in it at all, from conflating the science-ignorant goat-herders of the past with today's deep understanding of the process, to your strawman extraordinaire that tries to equate suffering being absent due to no actual creature existing, and the suffering of a formed human being.
Oh, and plants with feelings. Oy. Typically, and certainly in the case of plants, multiple, interrelated systems exist in balance; when that balance is disturbed, these systems alter in ways that compensate to some degree. Flowers turn to follow the sun, grass breaks through concrete, trees bud and emit toxins when various bogs come to visit, the Venus Fly Trap snaps shut when its trigger hairs are disturbed.
None of this is, or implies, "suffering"; there is zero evidence supporting the idea that you can have suffering without a nervous system embodying a conscious component or something analogous to one. Zero. Plants, as far as science knows, have no such thing -- it's never, ever been demonstrated.
Groups of undifferentiated cells don't have any systems that can support consciousness either (and they react even less than plants do, because they don't have systems above the cellular level at this point. Differentiation does not occur until a ways along in the process, and even then, it take a while longer before you have functional systems.
You're really, really out in cloud-cuckoo land. Straight up wacky. It's always distressing to encounter arguments as deeply based in ignorance as yours are. I'd like to think we're better than that, but there you are, definitively proving otherwise.
It's science, not something I pulled out of my ass. Do you even know how the process works? What would *you* call a clump of undifferentiated cells?
There is no "entity" at this point. No nervous system, no brain, no thoughts, no feelings, no bones, no organs, no skin, no fat, no eyes, no legs, no arms, no torso, no nothing. It's just a mass of identical cells that have not yet begun to specialize into those types of cells that form the systems that in turn form human beings. Again, this is basic science. You are attempting to argue from a standpoint that simply does not exist.
Add time, and you get those things. Stop the process before that time passes, and you don't. This isn't open for debate. That's how it works. Period.
It's healthcare, both indirect and direct. Encouraging and/or insisting on birth no matter what the cost brings unwanted children, and often disadvantaged children, into the world, as well as back-alley and home abortions. These things are not good for anyone. Taxes (fundamentally, anyway) pay for what the representatives decide they need to pay for. We don't get a say. I could scream forever about funding wars I don't believe in, bridges I see no infrastructure purpose for, ridiculous monuments, tobacco and oil subsidies, and every penny that goes towards bad law -- but it does no good, because our system is structured as a constitutional republic -- top down decisions only amenable to pushback via bottom up, after-the-fact elections. SCOTUS is part and parcel of the top-down mechanism.
When we turn to the constitution, religious freedom is pretty much laid out; the problem, as I see it, with Hobby Lobby is that they employ the public, but they want Hobby Lobby's religious freedom to trump the employee's religious freedom (and medical care) via government authority. If they want to impose their religious beliefs upon employees, then they should form a church. When the public is involved in an employer-to-employee relationship, it's pretty clear that the employer's religious dogma may not be imposed upon another person, any more than the employer's sexual outlook or political views may be forced upon the employees.
SCOTUS made a huge mistake here (several actually, and no surprise) but again, our form of government is top down, not bottom up, so there it is.
It is also worth noting that "plan B" is not an abortifacient. It stops ovulation if it has not yet occurred; if it has occurred, then it can prevent fertilization, and should fertilization occur, then it may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. If the egg is already fertilized and implanted, it does nothing. Plan B is a method that prevents conception, if taken at the right time.
Turning to Hobby Lobby, let's also not forget that they carry huge numbers of products from China; a country that forces abortion upon its citizens by imposing policy ("one-child") that leaves mid-level officials little choice in the matter. Furthermore, they invest in companies that produce birth control, including abortifacients.
So let's not get too tied up in Hobby Lobby's claim to the high road, or supposed adherence to "biblical principles." As near as I can tell, they're operating down in the gutter and have been all along. In the final analysis, this appears to be just another attack on the ACA. Exaggeration, emotion based on misinformation, hypocrisy, and the usual blundering of the fossils in the US supreme court have led to a very poor outcome for women, for families, and for children.
Can't say I'm surprised, either.
Not in any way. Atheists don't hold a belief in a god or god. This in no way defines any other outlook, and sure enough, there are many from there, exactly because the pivot here is extremely simple. Do you believe in a god or gods, or do you not? That's the question. Atheist and Theist are the only words that define the answers.
Everything else you bring up -- without exception -- is about outlooks beyond that of the essential question of atheism. In particular, as pointed out extensively elsewhere in the thread, knowledge is not the same domain or question as belief -- agnosticism is not a third position, it's an add-on concept from another domain entirely.
Because it isn't. The fact that you think it is shows merely that you've not thought about it deeply enough.
Is a lack of hair a hair color?
Is a completely dry atmosphere a type of H2O precipitation?
No. See the above posts. You're confused.
No. I'm not an agnostic atheist. My general approach (to everything) is when there is no evidence whatsoever for something, particularly if that evidence has been diligently searched for, then that something isn't worthy of consideration. I no more give credence to stories of "gods" than I do stories of magic pink unicorns. I am perfectly open to evidence, of course; the thing is, none has been forthcoming. Absence of evidence, particularly duly searched for evidence, is evidence of absence. It isn't proof of absence (the usual cognitive error people who argue the point make), but it's definitely evidence. And I always lean the way the preponderance of evidence points.
In the ultimate sense, no one can prove anything. We might all be constructs in a simulation. I doubt it, but it's a tenable idea. So what it boils down to is, look at the evidence. Is it convincing? And the evidence, in this case the complete failure to uncover even one viable scrap of supporting data despite thousands of years of effort, plus the serious contradictions to known science in almost all the various myths and dogma, point strongly towards No Such Thing. Exactly the same way it points towards No Magic Pink Unicorns and No Santa Claus. Every indicator points towards identification of these stories as just more (of our plentiful) mythology. Which is just a nice way of saying wishful thinking in vogue at some point(s) in time.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Not proof: But definitely evidence.
Certainly it's possible. But it's a different question. The distinction of atheism and theism is drawn on the basis of belief -- not of knowledge. You remember the Heaven's Gate folk, the ones who killed themselves so they could be "picked up" by an "alien spacecraft" they thought was out there somewhere? Obviously, they believed it -- killing themselves pretty much tells you that in the most unquestionable manner possible. But they didn't *know* it, did they? Because it's nonsense from word one. Likewise a devout Muslim believes things wholly, and Christians believe other things. These things are incompatible conceptually, so even if one is right, the other is wrong. They both believed -- but at least one (almost certainly both) are wrong. Belief is not knowledge. That is why protesting one does not know does not answer, or even address, the question of "do you believe in a god or gods, or do you not?"
So ask yourself this simple question: Do you believe there is a god or gods? Note the complete absence of the word "know" or "knowledge" in that question. Belief is predicated upon faith -- not knowledge. We've already established that. And that's all you're being asked. Do you believe, or not?
If the answer is yes, you're a theist. If the answer is no, you're an atheist. If you mumble something about "I don't know", you're avoiding the question. You either believe in a god or gods, or you don't. No one asked you why, because it isn't relevant to the answer.
Neither is a mass of undifferentiated cells. Exactly my point. Without adding time, they're nothing. Stop their development, the time is not utilized, no further development occurs, and they never become a human being. Hence, disposing of them is not the act of disposing of a human being.
No. Pain is certainly one element; but suffering is another, and your stupid proposal completely skirts that.
I already explained it. You should read more carefully. If there is a nervous system, there can be suffering. That's the line I draw. It occurs quite early. But at conception, there is no human being. Then, after much cell division and some time, a creature that can feel and suffer develops -- that's the line I draw, right there. Presuming there is no special risk to the mother and that the fetus is not known to be defective to the point where its survival is unlikely anyway, I would argue against abortion at any time thereafter. However, I *also* think that it is ethically bankrupt for me to impose my will on the mother. Wouldn't stop me from arguing to try to change her mind, though.
Yes, exactly my point.
This, however, *requires* the addition of time. Without such time, the potential does not exist. If the development stops prior to differentiation, for instance, no human ever came into existence, and no issues of humanity actually arise except in one's imagination. No human was harmed. Exactly the same as if a sperm fails to fertilize an egg, or the fertilization itself is defective and the body naturally tosses the result.
No. That's not how the process works at all. Remedial science 101 for you.
Ridiculous strawman, untrue and totally unworthy of addressing.
Yes. However, I am human. I have dependents and a life full of achievements which is still ongoing. I earn, and I contribute. I have deep personal interactions I maintain. And more. But a group of undifferentiated cells cannot be said to be, have done, or be able to do, any of those things. Absent time to develop, there is no capability for any of it, or any of the other things that define a living human being for that matter. Your question tries to ignore these basic, obvious facts and appeal to the idea that, if given time, a human would be present. But in my case, I've already had the time, and a human *is* present. That single fact undermines your entire rationale.
On the contrary. I already know that many were not born whom I might have liked, loved or otherwise been pleased with their presence in the world. Pregnancies end naturally. Sometimes they don't get started. It happens all the time, and there isn't much that can be done about it. I just don't draw a distinction between a mass of undifferentiated cells that go down the toilet because the body's autonomic processes tosses them out and a mass of undifferentiated cells where the choice of the woman's brain tosses them out.
The idea that potential should be treated as if it was reality is nonsensical. You *could* have been president. But you can bet I am not going to give you the respect I would give an *actual* president, that is, the person who *realizes* that potential. Nor should opportunity be treated that way. If you had, and took advantage of the opportunity to become a great surgeon, I'd offer you great respect for that as well. However, if you don't get there, I won't. Because it's not about opportunity any more than it is potential. It's about *actuality*. And the actuality of a group of undifferentiated cells is that it is of no particular consequence at that point in time.
First, in order to follow what I was saying, you have to read it in context with the previous post which I was replying to. You should definitely read more carefully. However:
The question at hand now is asking if it is so that a group of undifferentiated cells is "a home sapiens organism", basically the same question one would ask about a sperm cell. Sure, *later* it will be a home sapiens organism, but what about when there is no nervous system, no brain? What is it then? Without these characteristics, might it be ok for a woman to say "oh no, I think it is very wrong to bring an unwanted child into the world"? And if she chooses to terminate the pregnancy, does this -- by definition, no nervous system equates directly to no pain, no brain, and, I would strongly argue, no humanity -- procedure rise to the level of killing, for instance, a five year old child?
I think it's pretty clear that an organism with a nervous system is a vasty different one than an organism without a nervous system. As far as I'm concerned, it's in no way a human being. That's because I observe that time changes many very important things. The most important of which is the development of a sophisticated nervous system. And yes, before you ask, I consider all higher animals worthy of such consideration.
But sticking with humans for the moment, why should a woman who has been raped allow a pregnancy to continue? Why should a woman who will die as a result of childbirth allow a pregnancy to continue? Why should a woman who is pregnant with a seriously defective embryo continue to carry it? Why should a woman be forced to bring unwanted children into the world?
What right do we have to tell a woman what to do with her own body? Seems to me that every one of those cases should defer to the woman's choice. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. However, I think it is entirely wrong to assert that you have the right to impose your opinion on women in general. I cannot imagine where that right would come from.
Is baldness a hair color?
Is not collecting stamps a hobby?
Is not kicking a kitten an exercise in animal abuse?
What kind of murder is not killing someone?
I hope you're beginning to grasp the idea. Lacking belief in a god or gods is not "believing there is no god or gods", that's an entirely separate issue (and yes, some atheists will go there, but specifically because it is only some of us, it can't define atheism.) We all share just one thing: We lack belief in a god or gods. That's the common pivot.
Belief, as any theist will tell you, is predicated upon faith. I have no faith there is a god or gods. Never saw any reason whatsoever to take such a step. Ergo, no belief arises. Don't have any. Zero. In fact, the only things that seem to provoke a faith-like response in me are those that I have become convinced that have a serious pile of consensually experiential, repeatable, testable evidence behind them -- those things that have been vetted by the scientific method, which is a method that I personally have seen in action, am aware of many results of, each of which has consistently turned out to be reliably entwined with the objective reality I perceive.
So my confidence in the method is very high, and my presumption is that anything I am told by what I consider reliable sources has passed through this method and come out as validated as we can manage to get it, is probably a close approximation of reality -- at the very least. And the cool thing is, if it's not close enough, the method itself will eventually turn that up, and we'll get a better approximation.
This method is known to me to have produced technology of a very wide and useful variety, as well as an amazingly interrelated body of information of an almost uniformly inter-supporting nature, especially of those issues that have been worked on by many, and these things in turn bolster my confidence in it (the method.)
Theism? Nothing from its root concepts. Plenty of mundane things -- charity, art, architecture (alas, I repeat myself), even science. Also war, torture, etc. But eruptions from the core beliefs? Zip. No manifestations, no miracles, no fairness, no honor, no rewards, no devils, no angels, not a single sign of kindness, nor of anything remotely resembling good parenting. Absolutely nothing. Ergo, no confidence, and certainly no belief.
While we're at it, claiming lack of knowledge isn't a middle ground between theism and atheism, either. We're all either theists or atheists. Just as we're all stamp collectors, or not. The agnostic claiming a third position is either bewildered or disingenuous. In order to be agnostic (or claim knowledge, for that matter), one has to take either the theist or atheist stance. No way around it.
Completely, 100% wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. That's all it is. Anything else, *anything*, is an add on from some other idea. I'm absolutely, completely, atheist -- I hold no belief in a god or gods whatsoever -- but I am not opposed to religion, in fact, I can cite you chapter and verse as to many of the benefits religion brings, and has brought, to our society. I live in a church. What I am opposed to is any particular religion getting control of law and/or government. Because that has demonstrably caused harm almost without surcease. But again, even this is not a consequence of my position that the idea of god or gods is ridiculous, rather it is a consequence of my observation that every religiously influenced law I know of is extremely bad law, and furthermore, tends to favor group A over group B in such a way that there is no sane basis for it.
Theism: Belief in a god or gods.
Atheism: Without belief in a god or gods.
New here, then? That kind of moderation is not only common, there are times it comes from those in control of the site. Just read the rules: They have infinite mod points, and they aren't afraid to use them. Your post suddenly take a multi-point drop? You know it isn't a normal moderator.
This is why they never fix the mod system. If confers limitless, attribution-free power on site operators. They love it.
The good news? You can read at -1 and ignore moderation completely. :)
A blade of grass is a distinct organism. Would you then never walk on a lawn?
A single sperm or egg has DNA, regardless of fertilization. Those sperm have relatively equal potential, too, but too bad for them that last little bit of motion by the coupling partners that made sperm number 43,235,22 win the race. Are you a mass murderer for those sperm that don't meet and proceed to spawn a new organism? Of course not. It's not about DNA.
And further, the question isn't, or at least should not be, about "life." That's just too simplistic to be useful unless you're quite insane. Moss is alive. Bacteria are alive. Etc, ad infinitum. What are you going to do, off yourself so you can't interfere with any of them?
The question is, and or at least definitely should be, are you doing harm to something that can suffer? here's the key issue: Does it have a nervous system, and does that nervous system couple to something sophisticated enough to convert those signals into suffering?
Just think about it. The question's really not that difficult, and you don't have to invoke either the hucksterism of philosophy or the juju of religion to resolve it cleanly and ethically.
Is a baby chicken a baby chicken when the fertilized egg/sperm combo has divided into 16 cells, none of which have differentiated, none of which are nerves, spine, brain, eye, etc.?
The answer to that -- obviously, unless you're utterly bewildered or completely ignorant of the process itself -- is no. It's not philosophical; it's fact-based science. A potato is more sophisticated. Its cells even have more chromosomes than humans do.
The line is blurry, all right, but it isn't blurry at conception (that's not a person OR a chicken) and it isn't blurry anywhere near term (that IS a person or a chicken.) The blurry part, that's the real problem, because the determination needs to be based on something rational and functionally able to ensure we do not do unintended harm or harm in ignorance. Religious hucksterism aside, there are readily determinable progressions in the process that cross various well defined lines.
Personally, I view it this way: If the organism doesn't have a differentiated nervous system, at best, it is directly comparable in its current state to plant life. As soon as it does, however, you've got animal life, and now we've crossed a line where the well-being of something that can feel is at stake.
The entire argument is muddied by the concept of potential; I agree potential is there, but it was also there for every sperm that missed the mark and every egg that remained unfertilized.
So -- were I able to make it so, which is not only not the case but laughably far from the case -- I'd draw the line for abortion that is not directly amelioration for serious health risk to the mother, or a consequence of known problems with the growing organism (no brain, etc.) right where the nervous system begins to develop such that there are actual nerves present.
If you upgrade your OS. Which brings you a lot more than RAW support. It also beings you massive incompatibility, new bugs, unfixed old bugs, aberrant behavior by programs that stuck to Apple's own dev guidelines like glue, and most recently, the world's most drag-assed USB support ever.
You were already better off finding another way than Aperture, this just puts the icing on the cake.
On my desk, I run 10.6.8. I have numerous reasons for sticking with it, not least that it still runs the PPC apps I paid good money for and continue to use, and that it has significantly better USB performance than Mavericks (not sure about 10.7...10.8, but 10.9.3 USB sucks dishrags. I've been running it on the [identical] machine in my radio room, and brother, what a clusterfark. Borken by design, near as I can tell.)
So anyway, being a camera person, I bought Aperture 1 (I had a Canon 50D at the time), then upgraded, paying for version two, then upgraded paying for version 3. Then I bought a Canon 6D. Wonderful camera. So Aperture, yes? No.
Here's what I got for my dollar-driven adventure in Apple "professional" software:
A program that won't read my 6D's images, that's what.
So I moved to Lightroom, a version of which did (a) run under 10.6.8 and (b) does support my camera. Works fine, I'm shooting all the time. Aperture is no longer part of my workflow. Why should it be? It's useless to me because Apple, in a fit of whatever, moved camera support to the OS, and then failed, as per usual, to support the OS versions they already had in the field.
Speaking as an Apple user, and a previous fan of Aperture, Lightroom will do for now, thanks.
Non, monsieur. Just able to use more than just one language. Sadly, slashdot, still stuck in the non-unicode dark ages, can't handle my favorites.
But I'll settle for irritating you in English. m'kay? :)
There's no obstacle to generation that isn't a simple technical solution away. We have *huge* surplus generation capacity during off-peak hours; so the obvious solution is that the charging stations charge up during off-peak, then the driver taps the charging station as is convenient. This of course only applies to cases where the vehicle is in use during off peak hours. If it's parked during those times, it can draw directly without problems.
In the sense of actual technical challenge, there's only storage to deal with. Everything else is just engineering.
Actually, we do. Electric will win in every category that it isn't winning now, with the simple, predictable, and already-in-the-lab advances. Mostly, it's already winning anyway:
Simpler mechanically; significantly better torque curves; ultimate performance, considerably more horsepower for less weight and complexity (four 250 hp motors per wheel gives you a 1000hp 4wd vehicle with more torque than you can put on the ground -- you're gonna need a padded headrest and a massive tire budget); higher efficiency than any other technology, most especially including IC engines; lighter; direct drive or geared drive capable; greener both by virtue of efficiency and because as power sources become greener (for instance, a coal plant is replaced by a solar array), the car becomes that much greener as well; easier replacement; ease of recovery of energy at braking; no need for a new national energy distribution system as with hydrogen or ammonia; ability to move charge acquisition to off-peak hours; quick recharge by pack swap; fully amenable to ultracap power, presuming someone ever gets a decent, affordable high voltage ultracap to market; Agnostic to fuel cells, generators, line power, staged storage systems, solar, etc.; excellent for keeping center of gravity low; easy to produce; no inherent waste emissions (meaning that if the power source is clean, so is the vehicle); scalable to almost any imaginable vehicle from a bicycle to heavy equipment; allows much more practical utilization of petroleum in other sectors such as lubricants, plastics; fibers, synthetic rubber, etc.; and believe it or not, I could still go on. :)
There's only one serious remaining obstacle, and that is power supply, which puts the onus squarely on new storage tech. From my POV, betting that such tech will not come to market seems like a foolish thing to do. One moderately careful look at current battery and/or ultracap research will turn up significant discoveries and prototypes utilizing various technologies that show gains in everything from charge rates to size to discharge rates to longevity and thermal manageability.
No doubt early adopters will pay boutique, small-quantity prices for truly adequate vehicles, but that shouldn't last too long in terms of our current technological revolution.
Is that what the cool kids are saying now? "Mom, I'm going to go publish for a while, don't worry, I'll spray some Glade"
Footnote: A quick perusal of Amazon's self-published material indicates the likely answer is yes...
I'm a musician. I meant exactly what I said, you Gallophile. Also, À goupil endormi rien ne tombe en la gueule.