Yes, I've read it -- and all the rest, and the OT, and a whole bunch more. I've been through it in every modern English translation. My library contains more spiritual works than most small town libraries, and I've been through them all multiple times. This includes not only the bible, but numerous text-specific apologetics, others more general, scholarly works on textual criticism, and versions in other languages I read to exercise my Spanish, Chinese and Korean skills. I've been at this for forty years; this isn't an offhand reading, or a "cherry-picking", as you hope; this is a careful, reasoned take on what the book actually says.
Now, for one thing, you're quoting a modern, revisionist formalization; But what is actually written in Matthew 7:12 is this (ref KJV [Original, 2003, English and Cambridge], ESV 2001, Douay-Rheems, Darby, Webster's, Young's, many other less used translations, and a whole bunch of non-bible scholarly works):
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
Even were your quote correct -- which it isn't, it's an incorrect re-take (probably from the 1984 NIV, is that your source?) for modern readers that doesn't convey the is properly -- your reading is unjustifiable. I'll go into that in a moment.
But let me suggest to you that first, you look at the KJV, which has it pretty much literally from the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Then look at the 2007 NLT, which also retakes it, but in a much more honest fashion: "Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets." Most translations stick with the "is", because that's the literal translation. Most others, when they retake it, don't try to cast this as summing up the OT, but instead, like 2007 NLT, try not to stomp on the original meaning. For instance, a significant retake that is still spot on is found in 1995 GW as "Always do for other people everything you want them to do for you. That is [the meaning of] Moses' Teachings and the Prophets." You see what they're trying to say? The remark is a behavioral guide, justified by the content of the OT -- not an instruction to abandon the OT, or a link to a hidden thought you have to make a loop through the text to even construct.
Now, as to your perception of your retake as a callback:
It no more functions as a callback than when, after years of martial arts class class, I tell my students "So in everything, avoid conflict and be humble, for this is (or even, "sums up") the true martial spirit." Sure, it's a valid way to provide a core generalization. It's even an important way to do so. IT DOESN'T MAKE THE DETAILS NOT EXIST.
But, inasmuch as the original text doesn't actually say what you think it says, I wouldn't worry about that too much. I'd concentrate more on actually researching the various translations, and chucking whatever you're using out the window, except perhaps as an example of what not to do.
The other two are, and that's where your thinking falls off the cognitive cliff. The probability of "god" being real is exactly the same, and exactly as likely, as that unicorn, or anything else you, or anyone else makes up out of whole cloth. Exactly. And for precisely the same reasons. Which is to say, sitting right at zero.
The assertion god does not exist is based upon millennia of claimants producing no evidence of any kind, despite an almost infinite number of contexts within which such existence could have been quite conclusively demonstrated. But somehow, as soon as Bacon really laid out how we should go about testing things, every supposed happening dried right the heck up. You'd almost think they wanted us to think they were nothing but charlatans, herding the deluded.
And hey, I'm with the program. Bunch of charlatans herding the deluded, clearly.
The assertion god does exist is based on nothing at all. The assertion god does not exist: extremely well supported.
Ergo, non-existence is the way to bet. By a huge margin.
Oh yes, them too. And republicans -- basically anyone who actually thinks those groups actually serve anything but corporations and rich fucks. Quite right.
As I like to say:
Keep electing the rich. Keep wondering why tax laws screw everyone else. It's a mystery!
Here's the flaw in your argument: When you attempt to retrieve validity for claims outside of the ability of science to address them, you don't get to pick and choose. Whatever validity you assign to the existence of your unprovable diety is the exact same as the validity assigned to little invisible and undetectable pink ultra-intelligent unicorns that run around upside down along and through the earth's crust, eating magical beanstalk pies and who are *actually* the cause of earthquakes. Science can't disprove them, either, see. Or the magic 1 cm teapot that is zipping around Pluto, actually running the show by fractal progression of its ceramic patterns and application of the changes via Magical Ceramic HooHa. Or anything else unprovable that anyone makes up about anything. Is that really the amazingly shitty company you want to be in? Holy crap, really?
You see, saying "science can't address this" isn't actually something that adds credibility of any kind. What it does is slots the subject matter squarely in the "bullshit" hole.
That whole "non-overlapping magisteria" thing? On the one side, we have magisteria indeed: Science and technology and how we integrate those developing understandings of reality with our lives; on the other, we have a load of crap. And the only thing that's "right" about the non-overlapping magisteria nonsense is the whole "doesn't overlap" thing. Because you don't actually get to say "it's supernatural so you can't think about it." We do think about it. And we've concluded it's unmitigated bullshit.
All this is quite aside from the fact that some atheists are perfectly willing to stand up and mention the fact that claims for god are not only not present within themselves, but they *also* recognize them as absurd. They might also like pizza. Doesn't make them any more, or any less, of an atheist, and if Joe Atheist thinks Chicago Pizza is as good as NY pizza, he's still an atheist, even though he's obviously and completely wrong about the pizza.
None of that defines atheism any differently. It's just a one-point thing; without belief in a god or gods.
Speaking as an atheist, I prefer the KJV because (a) it is considerably more lyrical (and yes, that's an artifact of Ye Olde Englishe), and (b) reading it, you're reading the actual formative context that landed the US in such religious fuckery rather than some jollied-up modern version, and (c) having dug through this a bit and compared a number of the modern interpretations with textual criticism references close at hand, I find they have taken fairly obvious liberties. Textual criticism, the study of "getting the bible right", basically, also shows the KJV to be an *extremely* accurate translation; they worked really hard on it, they were 700 years closer to the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, and it's withstood the scrutiny of scholars comparing about 5000 known scriptural fragments for this entire time... and it is only recently that people have had the urge to rewrite the thing. So it's the KJV that I use, though I usually look also at several others to see how they've mishmoshed some of the more critical details.
Quite aside from the fact that most modern scholars have begun throwing out the Pauline epistles as forgeries Jesus himself says (in Matthew 17...18) that the OT stands until the earth ends. Which, I guess I have to point out, it hasn't done.
Now, given that what we know of Paul illuminates him as a misogynist idiot, and that some of "his" letters are forgeries, and that the counter opinion comes from Jesus himself...
Yep, the OT is still in force.
It was only an etch-a-sketch moment in the sense that it was made up bullshit, being replaced with more made up bullshit. But if you want to follow the bible, then Jesus is your guide, brother. Not Paul.
Of course, if you don't follow the bible, that's A-OK with me, but that means you're no Christian -- because the bible is Christianity, for all intents and purposes.
It's not there "for context." Jesus himself explicitly says they remain in force.
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled
Got that? Not one jot or tittle. Hint for interpretation: The earth has not passed.
Further hint: When Jesus says he comes to fulful, he doesn't mean fulfil all, or he wouldn't have drawn the distinction that the OT was in force until the world ended -- the two make zero lexical sense if you try to read them as if his fulfilling of prophecy is also the actual ending of the world.
Consequence: The OT is still 100% in force, and should you ignore it, you're toast. And that, my friend, is actual Christianity. Enjoy.:)
There's no getting away from religion's track record; so yes, religion needs to be neutered most thoroughly anywhere it even begins to impinge on governance. Look around you: Can't buy alcohol on Sunday (Why? What the fuck is Sunday to me?), six state constitutions officially include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness, then there's that whole "swear on a bible" bucket of shit, there's the would-be laughable "creationism" thing (laughable except it snares a whole bunch of the bewildered and leads them down a most unscientific aisle full of crapola), there's toxic avengers like the Westboro pond scum, there's the whole "we can re-educate gays" idiocy...
Then historically speaking, we've got the inquisitions, the crusades, witch burnings, jihads, vilification of sexuality (we're still trying to dig out of that one: religion's biggest accomplishment ever was to convince people that sex was a bad thing except under aegis of the church, which really just means under the dictates of religious structures... you evil scumbags REALLY fucked up sexuality), murder of "heretics", suppression of science, burnings at the stake (eg. Giordano Bruno), blue laws, climic bombings...
I mean, really. Religion fucks up just about everything in touches. We don't need to speculate about this, we know it. So the best answer is, don't let it touch anything. You can think about your imaginary friend all you want. You can talk about him. But you can't make laws from your collection of imaginary crapola or force people to listen (eg, school prayer, etc.) That is best.
When someone is actually stupid, and the motivation for their actions is under examination as it is in these cases, it's simply diagnostic to call them stupid -- and it's 100% true. Avoiding saying so at that point is just politically correct nonsense.
Or, we could just say they are unique and happy snowflakes, eh?
I saw things like that too. When I took LSD. And in flashbacks, without benefit of LSD.
So I know you can definitely "see" things that are amazing and inexplicable in terms of the mundane world and physics. However, where we differ is that I also know that just because I can imagine and visualize something in glorious visual, aural and other sense detail... that still doesn't make it real. It's only real if it is real. Which means other people will see it as well, and that repeatability and testability will be there.
I know that facts trump conviction every time; that physics always wins while prayer grabs its wins from random coincidence; and I know that there has never been a recorded case of superstitious presumption having made its way into known reality.
Perhaps it's simpler than that. They loved women; they loved their ships. A backhanded complement to the ladies, methinks. Ever looked at figureheads? You'll find a lot of ladies, and generally very complementary artwork, too. Add that to the tendency to anthropomorphize things you depend upon, and... yep, seems pretty natural.
Ladies on ships of old would have been bad luck, too -- fights over them, rape, etc. Your average sailor didn't tend to come from the most cultured of roots, and privation doesn't tend to enhance behavior, either.
Yeah if they're not 100% accurate, what's the point in studying weather at all! Just let it happen. Fuck early warnings! Just let those people fend for themselves. Right...?...really? That's the opinion you're going with?
No, I said nothing of the kind. Perhaps you might read my post again, this time, you know, actually paying attention to the words I used.
Fella, when I say the courts are doing it wrong, explain my reasoning, and you launch with "but the courts say otherwise", you have well and truly lost your way in the discussion. Cheers.
The Magellanic cloud hereby invites you to a party. Also attending will be the Oort cloud, the Milky Way gas clouds, a molecular cloud from Andromeda, and an alcohol cloud of considerable refinement*. CHON will be served. Entertainment will be provided by black holes stripping electrons.
*Only those from planets understood to be older than 6000 years may attend.
The weather forecast for today, here? Wrong. Quite often is, even just one day out. Heck, a couple days ago they were saying 0% chance of snow yesterday... and it snowed all evening and night. This, in an area that gets, on average, about 10 inches of moisture total.
The forecast track for Sandy? And the amount of rain coming? And the actual wind impacts? Really quite uncertain -- and we certainly know where these things are (as opposed to where they're going to go) from non-satellite sources when they're closer to home. So we know they're near or here or maybe they're going to go somewhere -- and that's about all we know anyway.
I'm not saying it isn't a good idea to have satellites and to try to learn to predict the weather from them and every other source possible, of course it is, but I *am* saying that should we lack them for five years, I'm not going to see a significant difference in my quality of life, because weather prediction basically sucks in its current state.
It seems to me it's far more important to have doppler radar of high quality and close spacing so we know when severe weather is immanent.
So by all means launch the new sats, and hopefully it'll go well, but I can't see it as it significant WRT weather and me if it doesn't.
Now, if they actually could give reliable predictions... that'd be something else, because I'd be losing something of value. But we're just not there yet.
When the PC stops catering to dinosaurs, it will stop catering to any users needs
No, that doesn't follow. Can you develop on a microwave? No. Does it cater to its user's needs? Certainly. PCs are the same, only they cover more ground than a microwave. iPads are an excellent example of this type of approach. You can run all manner of applications (compare to microwaves, toasters, blenders), but you can't just reprogram the thing to do whatever you want without some significant hoop-jumping - and distribution of such a work requires even more hoop jumping.
It will essentially be a TV that constantly monitors your behavior and is connected to your bank account. Cheers.
That's probably spot on. And people love their TV's, don't they? And the convenience of being connected to your bank account can hardly be understated. And — sad to say — people in general seem to be pretty accepting of government snooping. They've accepted it all across their finances; in reading their email; in groping at airports and borders (and within 100 miles of one); So while you and I may find that distasteful (and the US constitution would probably self-immolate if it could know how it's been ignored and misused), it apparently doesn't serve as any particular barrier to implementation. And of course corporate snooping is everywhere, and again, there's little backlash there, either.
Atheism never requires those things. Theism is rife with precisely those things, particularly mainstream theist practice. Can one believe in a god or gods without any of these trappings? Certainly. Now, out of a pool of theists representative of the general population, is this likely? Not at all.
In the case of Christians, what do we have that defines their theism? The New and/or Old Testament. In the case of Islam? The Quran. In the case of Mormonism? The Book of Mormon. Judaism? The Tanakh and the Talmud. Likewise with those other metrics: dogma, structure, leaders, followers, morals, ethics, and laws. All of those religions bring all those things to the table. And in those cases, you can indeed ascribe numerous behaviors and practices as consequential to the religion, and therefore the specific theism that underlies them; atheism, however, carries none of them, ever.
The vast majority of religions, and therefore the underlying theisms, present as a spectrum of predefined behaviors and metrics that have a direct relationship with the theist root, the god or gods. The religion is in fact a definition of the person's relationship to that god or gods; in honest comparison, atheism isn't a spectrum, it's a point outside every extent of those spectrums. For the atheist, in not asserting the existence of a god or gods, there's no relationship to be had. It's the empty set.
Nonetheless, I didn't present those things as a definition of atheism; I presented them to make the point that ascribing that kind of thinking to a lack of belief in a god or gods is disingenuous (or clueless.)
The entire definition of atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. The rest of my post deals with misconceptions about atheism.
And I said nothing about "unbelieving truth", or even truth. Atheism isn't a positive assertion of fact; it is the lack of one. The theist is the one making the assertion: "There is a/are several (whatever(s).)" The atheist doesn't make this assertion. It's not a belief, or a belief system; in fact, it's not a system at all. Just something I can answer "no" to if asked whether I am theist, or religious, or superstitious.
I don't claim, or hold a belief in: devils, angels, ghosts, unicorns, santa, god or gods, mermaids, kobolds, banshees, giants, elves, fairies, trolls.... etc. It's all the same: these things are uniformly meaningless, empty concepts of equal weight: none at all.
The role of "unreasonable" (and therefore "reasonable" as well) within the context of the 4th amendment seems to me to be crystal clear: it is defined by the restrictions laid out next.
A reasonable search is one that has the predicates: probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, clear description of who, and what, is to be searched, and a warrant.
An unreasonable search is any search that does not meet those requirements. And, as the amendment says, you are to be free from those.
Ask yourself this: Does it make sense to say that the government is limited to searching only with these predicates... "unless it feels it's reasonable", where reasonable is left to an unknown, that is to say ultimately vague, definition?
Or would they more likely lay out those limits to, you know, actually limit the government?
Look at the other amendments. They're all explicit limits on the government. Why in the world would they take the time to write an amendment that only appears to be a limit, but isn't, based upon anyone's particular definition of reasonable at the moment?
Why not just say: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against searches and seizures, shall not be violated unless the government says it is reasonable to do so"?
Looks pretty strange that way, doesn't it? It certainly wouldn't be construed as a limit -- instead, that's how you would lay out a power. But it means exactly the same thing as your reading: If they think it's reasonable, they can just do it.
Why, if "reasonable" is the actual criteria in play, would they need a warrant at all? Why mention all those things, if they are completely optional, based upon someone simply saying "well, it was reasonable"?
Now let's flip it around: if a search can be performed without the laid-out predicates if someone (who is left undefined by the 4th) simply thinks it's reasonable, then the only time you'd need a warrant is when someone thinks that a search is unreasonable in the first place. Now: Is a known factor of probable cause a marker for an unreasonable search? Is the oath of some person something that makes a search unreasonable? Ultimately, if reasonable searches are free of encumbrance, when are the predicates intended to come into play?
It appears to me that any claim that unreasonable — and reasonable — are not defined by those predicates in the context of the 4th amendment requires an extremely strained, and ultimately unsupportable reading.
they have held that administrative searches were separate and legal due to the interests of the state.
Well, do you see any such specifics in the 4th amendment? For that matter, can you cite anything in the constitution that says that the government is not held to the document's restrictions, or authorized powers enumerated therein, if it decides it wants something different or "other" at any particular point in time?
And let me ask you this: If the government can just make up what it wants any time, and the constitution isn't really a limiting factor, just sort of a starting point for any claim they want to make, why provide for amendment at all? If the government can add powers without amendment, and they can violate restrictions without amendment, what the heck is the purpose of amendment at all? And, why does it have such a high set of bars to implementation, if the idea wasn't that (a), the government is limited as described, no excuses, and (b) they can change that, but they have to work for it, that is, article five.
Again, the idea that the government can just do what it wants if it thinks it "has an interest" is contrary to the entire idea of the constitution. Were that the operative mode, the constitution is entirely superfluous. I submit to you that its very existence and wording cries out to say that it was not intended to be superfluous, but an absolute set of limits on government, both in authorized power, and restrictions on power.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I've read it -- and all the rest, and the OT, and a whole bunch more. I've been through it in every modern English translation. My library contains more spiritual works than most small town libraries, and I've been through them all multiple times. This includes not only the bible, but numerous text-specific apologetics, others more general, scholarly works on textual criticism, and versions in other languages I read to exercise my Spanish, Chinese and Korean skills. I've been at this for forty years; this isn't an offhand reading, or a "cherry-picking", as you hope; this is a careful, reasoned take on what the book actually says.
Now, for one thing, you're quoting a modern, revisionist formalization; But what is actually written in Matthew 7:12 is this (ref KJV [Original, 2003, English and Cambridge], ESV 2001, Douay-Rheems, Darby, Webster's, Young's, many other less used translations, and a whole bunch of non-bible scholarly works):
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
Even were your quote correct -- which it isn't, it's an incorrect re-take (probably from the 1984 NIV, is that your source?) for modern readers that doesn't convey the is properly -- your reading is unjustifiable. I'll go into that in a moment.
But let me suggest to you that first, you look at the KJV, which has it pretty much literally from the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Then look at the 2007 NLT, which also retakes it, but in a much more honest fashion: "Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets." Most translations stick with the "is", because that's the literal translation. Most others, when they retake it, don't try to cast this as summing up the OT, but instead, like 2007 NLT, try not to stomp on the original meaning. For instance, a significant retake that is still spot on is found in 1995 GW as "Always do for other people everything you want them to do for you. That is [the meaning of] Moses' Teachings and the Prophets." You see what they're trying to say? The remark is a behavioral guide, justified by the content of the OT -- not an instruction to abandon the OT, or a link to a hidden thought you have to make a loop through the text to even construct.
Now, as to your perception of your retake as a callback:
It no more functions as a callback than when, after years of martial arts class class, I tell my students "So in everything, avoid conflict and be humble, for this is (or even, "sums up") the true martial spirit." Sure, it's a valid way to provide a core generalization. It's even an important way to do so. IT DOESN'T MAKE THE DETAILS NOT EXIST.
But, inasmuch as the original text doesn't actually say what you think it says, I wouldn't worry about that too much. I'd concentrate more on actually researching the various translations, and chucking whatever you're using out the window, except perhaps as an example of what not to do.
The other two are, and that's where your thinking falls off the cognitive cliff. The probability of "god" being real is exactly the same, and exactly as likely, as that unicorn, or anything else you, or anyone else makes up out of whole cloth. Exactly. And for precisely the same reasons. Which is to say, sitting right at zero.
The assertion god does not exist is based upon millennia of claimants producing no evidence of any kind, despite an almost infinite number of contexts within which such existence could have been quite conclusively demonstrated. But somehow, as soon as Bacon really laid out how we should go about testing things, every supposed happening dried right the heck up. You'd almost think they wanted us to think they were nothing but charlatans, herding the deluded.
And hey, I'm with the program. Bunch of charlatans herding the deluded, clearly.
The assertion god does exist is based on nothing at all. The assertion god does not exist: extremely well supported.
Ergo, non-existence is the way to bet. By a huge margin.
Oh yes, them too. And republicans -- basically anyone who actually thinks those groups actually serve anything but corporations and rich fucks. Quite right.
As I like to say:
Keep electing the rich.
Keep wondering why tax laws screw everyone else.
It's a mystery!
Here's the flaw in your argument: When you attempt to retrieve validity for claims outside of the ability of science to address them, you don't get to pick and choose. Whatever validity you assign to the existence of your unprovable diety is the exact same as the validity assigned to little invisible and undetectable pink ultra-intelligent unicorns that run around upside down along and through the earth's crust, eating magical beanstalk pies and who are *actually* the cause of earthquakes. Science can't disprove them, either, see. Or the magic 1 cm teapot that is zipping around Pluto, actually running the show by fractal progression of its ceramic patterns and application of the changes via Magical Ceramic HooHa. Or anything else unprovable that anyone makes up about anything. Is that really the amazingly shitty company you want to be in? Holy crap, really?
You see, saying "science can't address this" isn't actually something that adds credibility of any kind. What it does is slots the subject matter squarely in the "bullshit" hole.
That whole "non-overlapping magisteria" thing? On the one side, we have magisteria indeed: Science and technology and how we integrate those developing understandings of reality with our lives; on the other, we have a load of crap. And the only thing that's "right" about the non-overlapping magisteria nonsense is the whole "doesn't overlap" thing. Because you don't actually get to say "it's supernatural so you can't think about it." We do think about it. And we've concluded it's unmitigated bullshit.
All this is quite aside from the fact that some atheists are perfectly willing to stand up and mention the fact that claims for god are not only not present within themselves, but they *also* recognize them as absurd. They might also like pizza. Doesn't make them any more, or any less, of an atheist, and if Joe Atheist thinks Chicago Pizza is as good as NY pizza, he's still an atheist, even though he's obviously and completely wrong about the pizza.
None of that defines atheism any differently. It's just a one-point thing; without belief in a god or gods.
Speaking as an atheist, I prefer the KJV because (a) it is considerably more lyrical (and yes, that's an artifact of Ye Olde Englishe), and (b) reading it, you're reading the actual formative context that landed the US in such religious fuckery rather than some jollied-up modern version, and (c) having dug through this a bit and compared a number of the modern interpretations with textual criticism references close at hand, I find they have taken fairly obvious liberties. Textual criticism, the study of "getting the bible right", basically, also shows the KJV to be an *extremely* accurate translation; they worked really hard on it, they were 700 years closer to the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, and it's withstood the scrutiny of scholars comparing about 5000 known scriptural fragments for this entire time... and it is only recently that people have had the urge to rewrite the thing. So it's the KJV that I use, though I usually look also at several others to see how they've mishmoshed some of the more critical details.
Quite aside from the fact that most modern scholars have begun throwing out the Pauline epistles as forgeries Jesus himself says (in Matthew 17...18) that the OT stands until the earth ends. Which, I guess I have to point out, it hasn't done.
Now, given that what we know of Paul illuminates him as a misogynist idiot, and that some of "his" letters are forgeries, and that the counter opinion comes from Jesus himself...
Yep, the OT is still in force.
It was only an etch-a-sketch moment in the sense that it was made up bullshit, being replaced with more made up bullshit. But if you want to follow the bible, then Jesus is your guide, brother. Not Paul.
Of course, if you don't follow the bible, that's A-OK with me, but that means you're no Christian -- because the bible is Christianity, for all intents and purposes.
It's not there "for context." Jesus himself explicitly says they remain in force.
Got that? Not one jot or tittle. Hint for interpretation: The earth has not passed.
Further hint: When Jesus says he comes to fulful, he doesn't mean fulfil all, or he wouldn't have drawn the distinction that the OT was in force until the world ended -- the two make zero lexical sense if you try to read them as if his fulfilling of prophecy is also the actual ending of the world.
Consequence: The OT is still 100% in force, and should you ignore it, you're toast. And that, my friend, is actual Christianity. Enjoy. :)
There's no getting away from religion's track record; so yes, religion needs to be neutered most thoroughly anywhere it even begins to impinge on governance. Look around you: Can't buy alcohol on Sunday (Why? What the fuck is Sunday to me?), six state constitutions officially include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness, then there's that whole "swear on a bible" bucket of shit, there's the would-be laughable "creationism" thing (laughable except it snares a whole bunch of the bewildered and leads them down a most unscientific aisle full of crapola), there's toxic avengers like the Westboro pond scum, there's the whole "we can re-educate gays" idiocy...
Then historically speaking, we've got the inquisitions, the crusades, witch burnings, jihads, vilification of sexuality (we're still trying to dig out of that one: religion's biggest accomplishment ever was to convince people that sex was a bad thing except under aegis of the church, which really just means under the dictates of religious structures... you evil scumbags REALLY fucked up sexuality), murder of "heretics", suppression of science, burnings at the stake (eg. Giordano Bruno), blue laws, climic bombings...
I mean, really. Religion fucks up just about everything in touches. We don't need to speculate about this, we know it. So the best answer is, don't let it touch anything. You can think about your imaginary friend all you want. You can talk about him. But you can't make laws from your collection of imaginary crapola or force people to listen (eg, school prayer, etc.) That is best.
That's not definitive of atheism. That's definitive of Dawkins, which is describing a much broader palette than atheist, or not.
Son, that horse isn't dead -- it's made of straw.
When someone is actually stupid, and the motivation for their actions is under examination as it is in these cases, it's simply diagnostic to call them stupid -- and it's 100% true. Avoiding saying so at that point is just politically correct nonsense.
Or, we could just say they are unique and happy snowflakes, eh?
Well then, what would you call an unthinking, ignorant, brainwashed, delusional person?
"Religious"?
I saw things like that too. When I took LSD. And in flashbacks, without benefit of LSD.
So I know you can definitely "see" things that are amazing and inexplicable in terms of the mundane world and physics. However, where we differ is that I also know that just because I can imagine and visualize something in glorious visual, aural and other sense detail... that still doesn't make it real. It's only real if it is real. Which means other people will see it as well, and that repeatability and testability will be there.
I know that facts trump conviction every time; that physics always wins while prayer grabs its wins from random coincidence; and I know that there has never been a recorded case of superstitious presumption having made its way into known reality.
Very interesting, thank you.
Russian is hard. :)
Dude, come on, just look!
Oh, that won't be a problem here. That thing has no style.
Perhaps it's simpler than that. They loved women; they loved their ships. A backhanded complement to the ladies, methinks. Ever looked at figureheads? You'll find a lot of ladies, and generally very complementary artwork, too. Add that to the tendency to anthropomorphize things you depend upon, and... yep, seems pretty natural.
Ladies on ships of old would have been bad luck, too -- fights over them, rape, etc. Your average sailor didn't tend to come from the most cultured of roots, and privation doesn't tend to enhance behavior, either.
Just my opinion.
Russians like to refer to a boat or ship as "he"
Does that make you feel better?
lol
No, I said nothing of the kind. Perhaps you might read my post again, this time, you know, actually paying attention to the words I used.
Fella, when I say the courts are doing it wrong, explain my reasoning, and you launch with "but the courts say otherwise", you have well and truly lost your way in the discussion. Cheers.
The Magellanic cloud hereby invites you to a party. Also attending will be the Oort cloud, the Milky Way gas clouds, a molecular cloud from Andromeda, and an alcohol cloud of considerable refinement*. CHON will be served. Entertainment will be provided by black holes stripping electrons.
*Only those from planets understood to be older than 6000 years may attend.
The weather forecast for today, here? Wrong. Quite often is, even just one day out. Heck, a couple days ago they were saying 0% chance of snow yesterday... and it snowed all evening and night. This, in an area that gets, on average, about 10 inches of moisture total.
The forecast track for Sandy? And the amount of rain coming? And the actual wind impacts? Really quite uncertain -- and we certainly know where these things are (as opposed to where they're going to go) from non-satellite sources when they're closer to home. So we know they're near or here or maybe they're going to go somewhere -- and that's about all we know anyway.
I'm not saying it isn't a good idea to have satellites and to try to learn to predict the weather from them and every other source possible, of course it is, but I *am* saying that should we lack them for five years, I'm not going to see a significant difference in my quality of life, because weather prediction basically sucks in its current state.
It seems to me it's far more important to have doppler radar of high quality and close spacing so we know when severe weather is immanent.
So by all means launch the new sats, and hopefully it'll go well, but I can't see it as it significant WRT weather and me if it doesn't.
Now, if they actually could give reliable predictions... that'd be something else, because I'd be losing something of value. But we're just not there yet.
No, that doesn't follow. Can you develop on a microwave? No. Does it cater to its user's needs? Certainly. PCs are the same, only they cover more ground than a microwave. iPads are an excellent example of this type of approach. You can run all manner of applications (compare to microwaves, toasters, blenders), but you can't just reprogram the thing to do whatever you want without some significant hoop-jumping - and distribution of such a work requires even more hoop jumping.
That's probably spot on. And people love their TV's, don't they? And the convenience of being connected to your bank account can hardly be understated. And — sad to say — people in general seem to be pretty accepting of government snooping. They've accepted it all across their finances; in reading their email; in groping at airports and borders (and within 100 miles of one); So while you and I may find that distasteful (and the US constitution would probably self-immolate if it could know how it's been ignored and misused), it apparently doesn't serve as any particular barrier to implementation. And of course corporate snooping is everywhere, and again, there's little backlash there, either.
Atheism never requires those things. Theism is rife with precisely those things, particularly mainstream theist practice. Can one believe in a god or gods without any of these trappings? Certainly. Now, out of a pool of theists representative of the general population, is this likely? Not at all.
In the case of Christians, what do we have that defines their theism? The New and/or Old Testament. In the case of Islam? The Quran. In the case of Mormonism? The Book of Mormon. Judaism? The Tanakh and the Talmud. Likewise with those other metrics: dogma, structure, leaders, followers, morals, ethics, and laws. All of those religions bring all those things to the table. And in those cases, you can indeed ascribe numerous behaviors and practices as consequential to the religion, and therefore the specific theism that underlies them; atheism, however, carries none of them, ever.
The vast majority of religions, and therefore the underlying theisms, present as a spectrum of predefined behaviors and metrics that have a direct relationship with the theist root, the god or gods. The religion is in fact a definition of the person's relationship to that god or gods; in honest comparison, atheism isn't a spectrum, it's a point outside every extent of those spectrums. For the atheist, in not asserting the existence of a god or gods, there's no relationship to be had. It's the empty set.
Nonetheless, I didn't present those things as a definition of atheism; I presented them to make the point that ascribing that kind of thinking to a lack of belief in a god or gods is disingenuous (or clueless.)
The entire definition of atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. The rest of my post deals with misconceptions about atheism.
And I said nothing about "unbelieving truth", or even truth. Atheism isn't a positive assertion of fact; it is the lack of one. The theist is the one making the assertion: "There is a/are several (whatever(s).)" The atheist doesn't make this assertion. It's not a belief, or a belief system; in fact, it's not a system at all. Just something I can answer "no" to if asked whether I am theist, or religious, or superstitious.
I don't claim, or hold a belief in: devils, angels, ghosts, unicorns, santa, god or gods, mermaids, kobolds, banshees, giants, elves, fairies, trolls.... etc. It's all the same: these things are uniformly meaningless, empty concepts of equal weight: none at all.
The role of "unreasonable" (and therefore "reasonable" as well) within the context of the 4th amendment seems to me to be crystal clear: it is defined by the restrictions laid out next.
A reasonable search is one that has the predicates: probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, clear description of who, and what, is to be searched, and a warrant.
An unreasonable search is any search that does not meet those requirements. And, as the amendment says, you are to be free from those.
Ask yourself this: Does it make sense to say that the government is limited to searching only with these predicates... "unless it feels it's reasonable", where reasonable is left to an unknown, that is to say ultimately vague, definition?
Or would they more likely lay out those limits to, you know, actually limit the government?
Look at the other amendments. They're all explicit limits on the government. Why in the world would they take the time to write an amendment that only appears to be a limit, but isn't, based upon anyone's particular definition of reasonable at the moment?
Why not just say: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against searches and seizures, shall not be violated unless the government says it is reasonable to do so"?
Looks pretty strange that way, doesn't it? It certainly wouldn't be construed as a limit -- instead, that's how you would lay out a power. But it means exactly the same thing as your reading: If they think it's reasonable, they can just do it.
Why, if "reasonable" is the actual criteria in play, would they need a warrant at all? Why mention all those things, if they are completely optional, based upon someone simply saying "well, it was reasonable"?
Now let's flip it around: if a search can be performed without the laid-out predicates if someone (who is left undefined by the 4th) simply thinks it's reasonable, then the only time you'd need a warrant is when someone thinks that a search is unreasonable in the first place. Now: Is a known factor of probable cause a marker for an unreasonable search? Is the oath of some person something that makes a search unreasonable? Ultimately, if reasonable searches are free of encumbrance, when are the predicates intended to come into play?
It appears to me that any claim that unreasonable — and reasonable — are not defined by those predicates in the context of the 4th amendment requires an extremely strained, and ultimately unsupportable reading.
Well, do you see any such specifics in the 4th amendment? For that matter, can you cite anything in the constitution that says that the government is not held to the document's restrictions, or authorized powers enumerated therein, if it decides it wants something different or "other" at any particular point in time?
And let me ask you this: If the government can just make up what it wants any time, and the constitution isn't really a limiting factor, just sort of a starting point for any claim they want to make, why provide for amendment at all? If the government can add powers without amendment, and they can violate restrictions without amendment, what the heck is the purpose of amendment at all? And, why does it have such a high set of bars to implementation, if the idea wasn't that (a), the government is limited as described, no excuses, and (b) they can change that, but they have to work for it, that is, article five.
Again, the idea that the government can just do what it wants if it thinks it "has an interest" is contrary to the entire idea of the constitution. Were that the operative mode, the constitution is entirely superfluous. I submit to you that its very existence and wording cries out to say that it was not intended to be superfluous, but an absolute set of limits on government, both in authorized power, and restrictions on power.