I reject the belief in god(s) on the grounds of there being no evidence of their existence. I also reject the belief in invisible pink unicorns for the same reason.
Do you have faith in the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns? Is that your religion?
That's news to me. The definition that makes most sense to me is:
Noun
1 Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2 Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
The pink invisible unicorns are masters at avoiding our primitive cameras and satellites. They know just when and how to hide. Sometimes they have to wrap themselves in invisible tinfoil just to avoid giving off a heat signature.
However, everyone knows that rainbows are actually the poops from the pink invisible unicorns. That's more than enough evidence that they exist.
I'm sorry, but I can't be bothered to fully dissect your argument as it just boils down to semantic trickery. Not believing in something is not the same as believing in not-something.
Hmmm - not much of an argument as you could substitute the word "God" with any noun of your choosing. Thus, you should believe in everything that is undecidable, including pink invisible unicorns and Cthulhu.
Omniscience and free-will are mutually exclusive as well.
The use of invisible pink unicorns is to demonstrate how foolish it is to believe in something without any evidence. If someone's experience provides evidence for invisible pink unicorns, then maybe they are not so foolish to believe in them. It just seems to me to be an extraordinary claim that invisible pink unicorns exist (especially as "invisible" and "pink" are mutually exclusive). I use the term "fool" as in "one who is deficient in judgement, sense or understanding" and I honestly think that someone who has a deep seated belief in the existence of pink invisible unicorns is a fool.
However, we are discussing pink invisible unicorns and in no way do these arguments apply to god(s) or religion.
Big Bang is a theory that has evidence for it, but some of the details are still being worked out. It's our best explanation (so far) for what we see around us and as we see further with our telescopes we get more data with that can show us problems with the theory or support it.
The idea that an intelligent force created everything and thus we shouldn't ask questions, but just believe, appears to be foolish to me. Whilst astronomers are searching the stars for planets and new phenomena, the religious people argue about whether men should be allowed to wear rubber over their genitals based on an ancient book (that keeps getting subtly re-written).
Stood in firelight, sweltering. Bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent. Felt cleansed. Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in night.
Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves, go into oblivion. There is nothing else.
Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. Itâ(TM)s us. Only us. Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world.
Here's the beginning part of the Wikipedia article about faith:
Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing, or a deity or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It may also be belief that is not based on proof.
In religion, faith often involves accepting claims about the character of a deity, nature, or the universe. While some have argued that faith is opposed to reason, proponents of faith argue that the proper domain of faith concerns questions which cannot be settled by evidence. For example, faith can be applied to predictions of the future, which (by definition) has not yet occurred.
The word faith is often used as a substitute for hope, trust or belief.
And in other words, up is down and black is white.
Yes, you're absolutely correct - my deep abiding faith in the complete lack of god sees me through difficult times in my life. I often say a prayer to the void where god is not in the hope that the absence of god will look over me and my family.
Faith means not wanting to know what is true. - Friedrich Nietzsche
If I require evidence, then it's not really a belief is it? An agnostic would use the lack of evidence to say that they can't decide whether or not god(s) exist, whereas I think it's foolish to believe in invisible pink unicorns when there is zero evidence (also applies to god(s)).
I agree. However, here in the UK, if someone tells me that they were in church on Sunday, I usually assume that they are non-christian and were attending someone's wedding or similar event.
If the person then reveals that they are christian and regularly go, then I'm usually surprised and ask them about their beliefs as I'm curious as to why intelligent, critical thinking adults choose to believe in god(s).
Well, I've just had a look at the birth rates of various countries and it doesn't look good for christians! The two countries with the highest percentage of christians are Vatican City and the Pitcairn Islands (both with 100% christian) and as far as I can tell, they have zero births between them!
Extrapolating those two data points, I predict that in about 80 years or so, there will be zero christians born.
I'm not sure where you're getting your definitions/meanings of words, but here on planet Earth, atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities and agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of deities is unknown or unknowable.
As an atheist, I don't have "faith" in the absence of god - I just look at the available evidence and realise that gods are equivalent to invisible pink unicorns. I don't have faith that invisible pink unicorns don't exist, I just haven't seen any evidence to support their existence (and thus I believe that only fools would think they exist).
I'm sure there's a passage in the bible somewhere about delaying the goods in transit belonging to the non-believers. Probably in Levictus, alongside the bit about giving them bad haircuts if you're a barber.
Please explain how I'm able to run multiple windows machines on KVM hosts if it's just a Linux "jail"? I think you're confusing KVM for something else.
On the one hand, this makes you sound like an asshat, but on the other hand I kind of agree.
Speed is rarely the main factor in a traffic incident; it's usually lack of attention/awareness of the driver(s). However, speed does increase the severity of any accidents, so I do think there should be speed limits to limit the damage that bad drivers can cause.
Not allowing ");" in an input field is not a good way of preventing a SQL attack. What you should be doing first is using parameters in your sql and then you can try to play whack-a-mole with validating the input fields (bear in mind you'll need to allow for all those tricky unicode ways of hiding characters).
I'm also not convinced that a man trap is a secure alternative to a door as it's easy enough to fashion a hook on a pole to remove items without setting off the man trap. I'd rather have a reasonably secure door and if necessary, a trained security guard keeping watch on the safe as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I reject the belief in god(s) on the grounds of there being no evidence of their existence. I also reject the belief in invisible pink unicorns for the same reason.
Do you have faith in the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns? Is that your religion?
That's news to me. The definition that makes most sense to me is:
Noun
1 Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2 Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Synonyms
belief - trust - confidence - credence - credit
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
- Bertrand Russell
The pink invisible unicorns are masters at avoiding our primitive cameras and satellites. They know just when and how to hide. Sometimes they have to wrap themselves in invisible tinfoil just to avoid giving off a heat signature.
However, everyone knows that rainbows are actually the poops from the pink invisible unicorns. That's more than enough evidence that they exist.
Why would anyone actually want their hair to look like that?
I'm sorry, but I can't be bothered to fully dissect your argument as it just boils down to semantic trickery. Not believing in something is not the same as believing in not-something.
Hmmm - not much of an argument as you could substitute the word "God" with any noun of your choosing. Thus, you should believe in everything that is undecidable, including pink invisible unicorns and Cthulhu.
I think that's foolish.
Omniscience and free-will are mutually exclusive as well.
The use of invisible pink unicorns is to demonstrate how foolish it is to believe in something without any evidence. If someone's experience provides evidence for invisible pink unicorns, then maybe they are not so foolish to believe in them. It just seems to me to be an extraordinary claim that invisible pink unicorns exist (especially as "invisible" and "pink" are mutually exclusive). I use the term "fool" as in "one who is deficient in judgement, sense or understanding" and I honestly think that someone who has a deep seated belief in the existence of pink invisible unicorns is a fool.
However, we are discussing pink invisible unicorns and in no way do these arguments apply to god(s) or religion.
Big Bang is a theory that has evidence for it, but some of the details are still being worked out. It's our best explanation (so far) for what we see around us and as we see further with our telescopes we get more data with that can show us problems with the theory or support it.
The idea that an intelligent force created everything and thus we shouldn't ask questions, but just believe, appears to be foolish to me. Whilst astronomers are searching the stars for planets and new phenomena, the religious people argue about whether men should be allowed to wear rubber over their genitals based on an ancient book (that keeps getting subtly re-written).
Alan Moore, Watchmen
Since when is faith based on evidence?
Here's the beginning part of the Wikipedia article about faith:
Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing, or a deity or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It may also be belief that is not based on proof.
In religion, faith often involves accepting claims about the character of a deity, nature, or the universe. While some have argued that faith is opposed to reason, proponents of faith argue that the proper domain of faith concerns questions which cannot be settled by evidence. For example, faith can be applied to predictions of the future, which (by definition) has not yet occurred.
The word faith is often used as a substitute for hope, trust or belief.
And in other words, up is down and black is white.
Yes, you're absolutely correct - my deep abiding faith in the complete lack of god sees me through difficult times in my life. I often say a prayer to the void where god is not in the hope that the absence of god will look over me and my family.
Faith means not wanting to know what is true. - Friedrich Nietzsche
If I require evidence, then it's not really a belief is it? An agnostic would use the lack of evidence to say that they can't decide whether or not god(s) exist, whereas I think it's foolish to believe in invisible pink unicorns when there is zero evidence (also applies to god(s)).
I agree. However, here in the UK, if someone tells me that they were in church on Sunday, I usually assume that they are non-christian and were attending someone's wedding or similar event.
If the person then reveals that they are christian and regularly go, then I'm usually surprised and ask them about their beliefs as I'm curious as to why intelligent, critical thinking adults choose to believe in god(s).
Well, I've just had a look at the birth rates of various countries and it doesn't look good for christians! The two countries with the highest percentage of christians are Vatican City and the Pitcairn Islands (both with 100% christian) and as far as I can tell, they have zero births between them!
Extrapolating those two data points, I predict that in about 80 years or so, there will be zero christians born.
I'm not sure where you're getting your definitions/meanings of words, but here on planet Earth, atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities and agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of deities is unknown or unknowable.
As an atheist, I don't have "faith" in the absence of god - I just look at the available evidence and realise that gods are equivalent to invisible pink unicorns. I don't have faith that invisible pink unicorns don't exist, I just haven't seen any evidence to support their existence (and thus I believe that only fools would think they exist).
It's one that doesn't have a sole?
I'm sure there's a passage in the bible somewhere about delaying the goods in transit belonging to the non-believers. Probably in Levictus, alongside the bit about giving them bad haircuts if you're a barber.
Please explain how I'm able to run multiple windows machines on KVM hosts if it's just a Linux "jail"? I think you're confusing KVM for something else.
On the one hand, this makes you sound like an asshat, but on the other hand I kind of agree.
Speed is rarely the main factor in a traffic incident; it's usually lack of attention/awareness of the driver(s). However, speed does increase the severity of any accidents, so I do think there should be speed limits to limit the damage that bad drivers can cause.
I'm pretty sure that we're all from the past.
I heard that they drink Um-Bongo there.
Sorry - I was thinking of animal traps that snap two jaws together when you tread on them (e.g. bear trap).
Not allowing ");" in an input field is not a good way of preventing a SQL attack. What you should be doing first is using parameters in your sql and then you can try to play whack-a-mole with validating the input fields (bear in mind you'll need to allow for all those tricky unicode ways of hiding characters).
I'm also not convinced that a man trap is a secure alternative to a door as it's easy enough to fashion a hook on a pole to remove items without setting off the man trap. I'd rather have a reasonably secure door and if necessary, a trained security guard keeping watch on the safe as well.
Active-X?
You need some schooling on Bruce:
http://www.schneierfacts.com/facts/371/