No one's disputing that. The issue was raised that you felt the need to call someone an idiot over the non-preference of a search engine. That's on par to a clothing store employee going up to an IT guy saying "Black shoes and a brown belt?! What a moron!"
I like this response, not the way you intended, but I like it because it demonstrates a very common mental shortcut made by believers: I don't yet know, therefore we won't ever know.
But why do I like cars? Why do I think they're worth putting so much effort into?
I'd start by finding information on behavioral and neuro science, particularly on the topic of obsession. But I guess that's the inevitable nihilist in me talking.
I agree, and that's what's so annoying about hearing my fellow atheists talking about how all religion is evil, cause that's utter bullshit. The mythology may be bogus, the Catholic priests may be worse paedophiles than school teachers, religion may have played nasty roles throughout history, but the everyday reality of a community in which religion is important is actually pretty good.
Prove you can't have the community without religion. If anything, it sounds like you're making the case that religion was the one dark spot in western culture.
Religious events are occasions for people in the community to get together, members of the lower clergy have great social functions within the community, the values and philosophies preached are mostly all great for people to follow, they have great role models to make us look up to (no one in their right mind would argue that that Jesus guy isn't a great role model, I'm pretty sure one of the reasons for the success of Christianity has to do with Jesus being the perfect role model)
Stop giving them that excuse; you don't need religion to have morality. That story book they tout as the end-all for morality and philosophy... have you actually taken a look at any of it? Imagine if you left your kids with someone who told them this: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Do I really need to cite the speaker? Here's a hint: John Lennon once claimed to be more popular than him.
Cults are different in that they're not there to help you or make your community a better place, they're there for their own profit, and that's what makes a world of difference between Scientology and Islam, Judaism or Christianity.
But there isn't a difference: you think Tom Cruise does that bullshit for the Lulz? No, he honestly thinks he's making a difference and making people's lives and their communities better. That rocker he fell off on Oprah: he believes that; just as millions believe that letting an old man leetch off them so he can live a life of luxury while claiming to speak for Yahweh. Meanwhile, they write off their personal gain as being rewarded for doing the lords work, or some equivalent hand-waiving that leaves them guilt-free.
Supporting those who seek the abolition of Scientology is one thing, and I support such an end goal myself.
Calling for the end of theism in all forms, however, is something else entirely. I realise that atheism (or at least fashionable agnosticism) is part of the established groupthink here on Slashdot, but as difficult as this may be to comprehend, for some of us, theistic belief is nothing but positive, and it doesn't inspire us to go out and rape, murder, or rob anybody either.
Despite the request, let's look at the common trait that all of these groups share: the subcategory of delusion known as belief.
It wouldn't matter if all a cult was compelled to do was be happy and pick blueberries in a meadow; the situation remains that they are pushing claims that cannot be proven, yet insist on their validity. That in itself holds us back as a civilization because everytime someone shows yet another proof that we don't have to pick blueberries, we've got a large demographic who won't acknowledge the QED because in their head, belief somehow trumps scientific rigor. Compound that a few generations and non-blueberry picking proofs into the future, and come to find we're gimping along at a pace that's embarrassing when compared to where we should be.
Oh, and I have to call you on this: so the only explanation to the large number of vocal non-theists on the site is groupthink? Nevermind that every study you're going to find on the matter shows that nontheism increases with education and this site is "News for Nerds." Nope, it's all just groupthink. And here I thought my renouncement of delusion at sunday school in the early 90s was from my own thoughts. Turns out slashdotters have the technology to go back in time and trick elementary students into thinking that the one true invisible telepathic sky god doesn't exist. Thanks for straightening that all out for us!
Oh, I'll readily admit some of what I referencing when I said that was superficial, in particular the rants on ending research on bear dna and fruitfly research without actually taking the time to figure out why the projects were proposed in the first place. And those didn't even contradict any popular faith. Once again, I know those examples were superficial in the sense that the research was carried out regardless, but that's the message I hear from the leaders of the right: If it sounds boring when reduced to a sentence fragment, it's not worthwhile.
Now if we wanted to look at their stance on evolutionary biology, was it really necessary to try to ban Richard Dawkins from the state of Oklahoma? Or there's the global warming position where Michelle Bachmann's science lecture in Congress 'proved' that it can't be happening because CO2 is 'natural' and is already 3% of the atmosphere (for reference, it's 0.04% CO2). That's why I think of them as having an anti-science perspective.
I've always wondered why so much of US R&D is done under the military, either directly or contracted. Considering the anti-science position in an influential proportion of the conservative base has, I can't help but think that some sort of compromise is taking place in the research spending habits.
I am the head witchdoctor in the church of Atriqus. All I reply to are instantly stripped of their prior affiliations. Nevermind your convictions that oppose the notion, for they are nothing but evils spirits of a former deviant way of life. Voice those thoughts if you must without worry because we all know they're not actually from you.
So be off now, new atriquan, with confidence in knowing there is nothing you nor anyone can do to change the fact that you are an atriquan, now and forever.
Stop trying to pretend evolutionary biology is on par with the mythologies they keep trying to push into the non-fiction classes! It isn't a static claim. More than that, it's not a claim with evidence "coming soon!" like its supposed competitor.
Can someone please point out a "weakness"? What is this part of the body of knowledge that makes up evolutionary biology that runs counter to observations in nature that the scientific community refuses to account for? I ask because the telepathic invisible sky deity fans really like to talk about it a lot. Then again, with all their talk you'd think they already derived exactly how many Hail Marys you have to say to consistently cure Parkinsons.
If Groening does sign back on to FOX, there better be a can't-dick-with-our-time-slot clause. At least break the monotony and stick it somewhere in the middle of Seth MacFarlane's (soon-to-be) hour and a half of Sunday night. I figure since they've finally learned not to disturb anything MacFarlane, putting a show within the borders of his time slot should be safe... should.
Slashdot Mirror
No one's disputing that. The issue was raised that you felt the need to call someone an idiot over the non-preference of a search engine. That's on par to a clothing store employee going up to an IT guy saying "Black shoes and a brown belt?! What a moron!"
Heh, so was Warty written by Candlejack or someth
I like this response, not the way you intended, but I like it because it demonstrates a very common mental shortcut made by believers: I don't yet know, therefore we won't ever know.
But why do I like cars? Why do I think they're worth putting so much effort into?
I'd start by finding information on behavioral and neuro science, particularly on the topic of obsession. But I guess that's the inevitable nihilist in me talking.
I agree, and that's what's so annoying about hearing my fellow atheists talking about how all religion is evil, cause that's utter bullshit. The mythology may be bogus, the Catholic priests may be worse paedophiles than school teachers, religion may have played nasty roles throughout history, but the everyday reality of a community in which religion is important is actually pretty good.
Prove you can't have the community without religion. If anything, it sounds like you're making the case that religion was the one dark spot in western culture.
Religious events are occasions for people in the community to get together, members of the lower clergy have great social functions within the community, the values and philosophies preached are mostly all great for people to follow, they have great role models to make us look up to (no one in their right mind would argue that that Jesus guy isn't a great role model, I'm pretty sure one of the reasons for the success of Christianity has to do with Jesus being the perfect role model)
Stop giving them that excuse; you don't need religion to have morality. That story book they tout as the end-all for morality and philosophy... have you actually taken a look at any of it? Imagine if you left your kids with someone who told them this: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Do I really need to cite the speaker? Here's a hint: John Lennon once claimed to be more popular than him.
Cults are different in that they're not there to help you or make your community a better place, they're there for their own profit, and that's what makes a world of difference between Scientology and Islam, Judaism or Christianity.
But there isn't a difference: you think Tom Cruise does that bullshit for the Lulz? No, he honestly thinks he's making a difference and making people's lives and their communities better. That rocker he fell off on Oprah: he believes that; just as millions believe that letting an old man leetch off them so he can live a life of luxury while claiming to speak for Yahweh. Meanwhile, they write off their personal gain as being rewarded for doing the lords work, or some equivalent hand-waiving that leaves them guilt-free.
Supporting those who seek the abolition of Scientology is one thing, and I support such an end goal myself.
Calling for the end of theism in all forms, however, is something else entirely. I realise that atheism (or at least fashionable agnosticism) is part of the established groupthink here on Slashdot, but as difficult as this may be to comprehend, for some of us, theistic belief is nothing but positive, and it doesn't inspire us to go out and rape, murder, or rob anybody either.
Despite the request, let's look at the common trait that all of these groups share: the subcategory of delusion known as belief.
It wouldn't matter if all a cult was compelled to do was be happy and pick blueberries in a meadow; the situation remains that they are pushing claims that cannot be proven, yet insist on their validity. That in itself holds us back as a civilization because everytime someone shows yet another proof that we don't have to pick blueberries, we've got a large demographic who won't acknowledge the QED because in their head, belief somehow trumps scientific rigor. Compound that a few generations and non-blueberry picking proofs into the future, and come to find we're gimping along at a pace that's embarrassing when compared to where we should be.
Oh, and I have to call you on this: so the only explanation to the large number of vocal non-theists on the site is groupthink? Nevermind that every study you're going to find on the matter shows that nontheism increases with education and this site is "News for Nerds." Nope, it's all just groupthink. And here I thought my renouncement of delusion at sunday school in the early 90s was from my own thoughts. Turns out slashdotters have the technology to go back in time and trick elementary students into thinking that the one true invisible telepathic sky god doesn't exist. Thanks for straightening that all out for us!
Yeah, fuck everyone who can't afford to live closer to where they work. That'll show 'em!
I'd imagine something action-packed with as many logical fallacies as the initial assertion that said concept was impossible.
Oh, I'll readily admit some of what I referencing when I said that was superficial, in particular the rants on ending research on bear dna and fruitfly research without actually taking the time to figure out why the projects were proposed in the first place. And those didn't even contradict any popular faith. Once again, I know those examples were superficial in the sense that the research was carried out regardless, but that's the message I hear from the leaders of the right: If it sounds boring when reduced to a sentence fragment, it's not worthwhile.
Now if we wanted to look at their stance on evolutionary biology, was it really necessary to try to ban Richard Dawkins from the state of Oklahoma? Or there's the global warming position where Michelle Bachmann's science lecture in Congress 'proved' that it can't be happening because CO2 is 'natural' and is already 3% of the atmosphere (for reference, it's 0.04% CO2). That's why I think of them as having an anti-science perspective.
Isn't the DI done with their research... and by research someone just said, "This shit is hard, therefore Yahweh exists and he did it."
:D
What else is there to do, I mean FFS look that mountain of assertions they've made. I know I'm sold!
I've always wondered why so much of US R&D is done under the military, either directly or contracted. Considering the anti-science position in an influential proportion of the conservative base has, I can't help but think that some sort of compromise is taking place in the research spending habits.
How would free will be explained on the quantum level?
I would imagine it would be similar to explaining a lolcat at the register transfer level.
I am the head witchdoctor in the church of Atriqus. All I reply to are instantly stripped of their prior affiliations. Nevermind your convictions that oppose the notion, for they are nothing but evils spirits of a former deviant way of life. Voice those thoughts if you must without worry because we all know they're not actually from you.
So be off now, new atriquan, with confidence in knowing there is nothing you nor anyone can do to change the fact that you are an atriquan, now and forever.
Stop trying to pretend evolutionary biology is on par with the mythologies they keep trying to push into the non-fiction classes! It isn't a static claim. More than that, it's not a claim with evidence "coming soon!" like its supposed competitor.
Can someone please point out a "weakness"? What is this part of the body of knowledge that makes up evolutionary biology that runs counter to observations in nature that the scientific community refuses to account for? I ask because the telepathic invisible sky deity fans really like to talk about it a lot. Then again, with all their talk you'd think they already derived exactly how many Hail Marys you have to say to consistently cure Parkinsons.
mock a Jew and it's hate
Then I take it you don't get Comedy Central in your area.
Then shouldn't the face of Linux be Rebecca Romijn?
If this is true of Christians it's certainly true of Atheists.
I often ask Atheists how they explain the remarkable fine tuning that the universe displays in the absence of a creator God.
I would venture to assume that the physical constants that allow us to exist made it impossible for an infinite number of other types of beings.
The question essentially draws the target around the landing point of the arrow.
Wow, that was one hell of a typo. It's spelled "First Post."
If Groening does sign back on to FOX, there better be a can't-dick-with-our-time-slot clause. At least break the monotony and stick it somewhere in the middle of Seth MacFarlane's (soon-to-be) hour and a half of Sunday night. I figure since they've finally learned not to disturb anything MacFarlane, putting a show within the borders of his time slot should be safe... should.
That better have been sarcasm, else I'm putting you on notice!
The apple store, got it. I'm on my way!
Is it a rapid increase in the actual condition in industrialized nations, or a rapid increase in the ability to identify the condition?
WASP?
I think in Bill's case, the acronym is WASA.
Hell if you spun the context, that could have been on the Discovery Channel.
(And yes that wording is begging for an innuendo-based reply)
Probably still trying to make hardware that can run OpenGL 3.0, I'd imagine :D
Edit -> Preferences -> Privacy -> Tick "Always clear my private data when I close [Browser Name] -> Settings -> Tick at least Cookies -> OK -> Close