Not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that, in general:
Criminals aren't criminals because they're smarter than average. (Maybe more arrogant than average?) If they were smart they'd realize that probability is always against someone trying to hide.
You may recall that one of the basic properties of any conception of God is that he is omnipresent. No. In fact, I'm aware of several conceptions of God that specifically don't have that property. (Some of them Christian, some not.)
I'm not trying to argue either way, but your first two answers don't answer the questions very well, from my perspective.
Both answers describe a probability of survival once the attribute already exists in the organism/population, but neither describes where the attribute came from, which is what the question pretty explicitly asked.
A lot of people think that "atheist" means simply not believing in God, when it really means believing that there is no God.
If you have this problem, you can solve it with a simple two step process:
1- Remember that etymology is often not the definition. 2- Look it up in a dictionary.
I'll do the second part for you, but you'll have to do the first part yourself.
atheist n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods
agnostic n.
1a One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2 One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
These definitions come from American Heritage Dictionary by way of dictionary.reference.com.
No, I wasn't under that impression, but I did think you were attempting to use some approximation of logic to make an argument. I just find it interesting when people (including me) use contradictory assumptions in their logic without even realizing it.
Fiction being implied or presupposed doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence for existence of god. I could see that you were extra-vehemently anti-religion, but I hadn't realized that you were so uninformed. There is a lot of evidence, from a lot of different sources. Some of the evidence is more credible than others, of course, but there is evidence.
The lack of information exhibited by this quote also helps me to understand why you lump all religions together, and don't seem to realize that makes as much sense as lumping all scientists (or geeks, politicians, "white" people, astronauts, monarchies, etc.) together.
I guess, in this instance, I would be more of a logic nazi than a grammar nazi. I hope that you'll recall, or re-read and notice, that the missed word wasn't my main point. Rather it was kind of a one-line aside.
You're kind of ignoring the work "fiction" in your definition of fairy tale. Let me further explain:
In order for something to be a fairly tale, according to your definition, it must be fiction. Momentarily ignoring that aspect, you use the other aspects of your "Judeo-Christian-Islamic myth*" to show that it's a fairy tale. And, since it's a fairy tale, the myth must be fiction. (i.e. If it meets all the other requirements to be a fairy tale, it must meet the fiction requirement as well.)
So, ignoring that word led you into a circular argument, in some sense.
To recap. Your "Judeo-Christian-Islamic myth*" may be false, but showing its a fairy tale doesn't make it false. Instead, being a fary tale presupposes its falsehood.
*I call it 'your "Judeo-Christian-Islamic myth"' because I've never met anyone, in person or in writing, that actually believes that mixture. However, in calling it 'your' myth I don't mean to imply that you made the mixture up yourself, or that you believe it. I also don't mean to suggest that I'm not aware that all three of those religious groupings have common roots. Of course, to many, the fact that religions have common roots seems like evidence for the existence of a real God, rather than evidence against.
Sorry. I guess I wasn't clear. The quoted definition seems complete, and it doesn't seem to me to be missing any words. I was trying to explain that when you *used* the definition, you ignored one of the words that you had included.
And once again someone mixes and matches. Science is composed of two parts: facts (i.e. gravity, light, sound, evolution, etc) and theory (that which describes the fact).
[Tangent away from anything to do with religion]I'm not sure I agree with your definition of science. I think of "science" as a method.
Although, because I disgreed with your definition, I looked up some, and it seems that both of yours, and mine are all pretty common definitions, along with others.[/Tangent, I hope]
FYI: You missed an important word in your quoted definition.
Also:
As long as we are not proposing that just because something is written in some book somewhere long time ago in a land far away - it is the truth.
I completely agree with that. I don't believe anything just because it's written in a book. I also doubted my textbooks before I had a good reason to believe them (some didn't ever make the cut), I tend to doubt unverified claims in the news, and I've never given Moller any money for a skycar.
Onthe other hand, once I've verified a source as good, I use it (with ongoing verification, of course).
Now, am I religious or scientific? (Hint: It's a trick question.)
It's just necessary to establish an environment where science isn't as highly valued as it was, say in the 40's, 50's, and 60's.
Well, since science has become more more valued every decade since then, at least commercially, politically and militarily, I'd say we have a LONG way to go before it dips below the mid-20th century point.
(You might live in some society other that the US, so your experience may vary.)
Of course these same fundamentalists were escaping persecution by a religious majority and saw the need to not allow a single religion to dominate all of society.
Actually, several groups with differing beliefs each tried to set up their own society dominated by a single religion. Early Christianity in what is now the US was mostly pretty intollerant of differing beliefs, though there were exceptions. It was later that the descendants of those groups "saw the need" to set up a society with freedom of religion.
Let me explain what I mean (also remember that I did include the caveat, "on some level")
Suppose I need to pay for a babysitter, and have two choices.
1- I can hire a 15-year old girl from down the road for $3/hour that doesn't really like young kids, but is reasonably competent.
2- I can hire a team that will have constand video footage sent to the laptop they provide me with, so I can observe the care of my child. One of the team is an experienced bodyguard, and the other is a child education PhD with 30 years experience, and knows (and loves) my child. They come in an ambulance and bring along a paramedic, just in case of a medical emergency. They charge $1500/hour.
I used a lot of exaggeration here, enough to kind of break the example, but I wanted to make sure the point is visible.
When people look for day care, do they spend more time researching the price and convenience, or the background of the people that will be caring for the child? It's just a guess, but my guess is that many people don't even know the names of all the people at the day care before they take their child there.
How it is not nice to leave your children to childcare?
When you pay someone to care for children, it is almost automatic that the money will, on some level, be more important to you and the caregiver than the children are.
Physical jobs often should have a gender bias. If a requirement for a certain job is being able to carry 20 kilos 10 kilometers in under 45 minutes, I'd expect there to be a lot more qualified men than women. So, if your military doesn't have a gender disparity in the people that qualify, the qulaifications aren't defined correctly (or aren't followed correctly).
Once I asked to speak to a manager, which meant that I was using the phone line and 2 people. When the mnanager got on, I explained that I was just trying to make that business model a little less profitable.
Once I offered to sell the telemarketer something (a doorstop-oblolete computer for $3000), and got pretty insistent about it.
You've got an offer and an acceptance, and thus a contract is formed... Breach of contract from one party does not legitimate breach of contract from the other.
Are you a lawyer? Is this legal advice? When I sign a mortgage contract "accepting" the "offer" of the lender, and then break the contract by non-payment, THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT????
This is GREAT!!! I'm going to have the BIGGEST house, and the FASTEST car, and the LOUDEST home stereo system, and the MOST POWERFUL gaming rig that breach of contract can get me!
And when they come for me, I'll just explain that they can go soak their heads because mr matticus (928346) told me, "The power to revoke is OVER." once the contract has been accepted.
That's like saying if you don't have a choice between whether or not a particular book is in a book or a movie or a comic.
I disagree. I think it would be more like if:
Independent publishers sell books that are financed by the authors (most would be people you've never heard of, Mark Twain* being one of the exceptions) that you can read with any lighting.
Authors that can convince someone else to underwrite the publishing expenses (Orson Scott Card, P.G. Wodehouse*, Louis L'Amour*, L.E. Modessit Jr., Steven King, Dan Brown, John Grisham, Charles Dickens*, Georgette Heyer*, Robert Jordan*, M.C. Beaton, Dave Barry) are published in books that only work with florescent lighting made (or lisenced) by GE.
Slashdot Mirror
...More like statistically accurate. Link?Not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that, in general:
Criminals aren't criminals because they're smarter than average.
(Maybe more arrogant than average?)
If they were smart they'd realize that probability is always against someone trying to hide.
disbelief n.
refusal or reluctance to believe
So, disbelief is not merely scepticism, and athiesm is still not agnosticism.
I'm not trying to argue either way, but your first two answers don't answer the questions very well, from my perspective.
Both answers describe a probability of survival once the attribute already exists in the organism/population, but neither describes where the attribute came from, which is what the question pretty explicitly asked.
Either you missed my point or I missed yours.
A lot of people think that "atheist" means simply not believing in God, when it really means believing that there is no God.
If you have this problem, you can solve it with a simple two step process:
1- Remember that etymology is often not the definition.
2- Look it up in a dictionary.
I'll do the second part for you, but you'll have to do the first part yourself.
atheist n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods
agnostic n.
1a One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2 One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
These definitions come from American Heritage Dictionary by way of dictionary.reference.com.
Sure. Easily.
And, while we're on the topic, it's much easier to do clean my kid's room than to get the kid to clean it.
(Sorry, "first off" made it impossible to resist.)
The lack of information exhibited by this quote also helps me to understand why you lump all religions together, and don't seem to realize that makes as much sense as lumping all scientists (or geeks, politicians, "white" people, astronauts, monarchies, etc.) together.
I guess, in this instance, I would be more of a logic nazi than a grammar nazi. I hope that you'll recall, or re-read and notice, that the missed word wasn't my main point. Rather it was kind of a one-line aside.
You're kind of ignoring the work "fiction" in your definition of fairy tale. Let me further explain:
In order for something to be a fairly tale, according to your definition, it must be fiction. Momentarily ignoring that aspect, you use the other aspects of your "Judeo-Christian-Islamic myth*" to show that it's a fairy tale. And, since it's a fairy tale, the myth must be fiction. (i.e. If it meets all the other requirements to be a fairy tale, it must meet the fiction requirement as well.)
So, ignoring that word led you into a circular argument, in some sense.
To recap. Your "Judeo-Christian-Islamic myth*" may be false, but showing its a fairy tale doesn't make it false. Instead, being a fary tale presupposes its falsehood.
*I call it 'your "Judeo-Christian-Islamic myth"' because I've never met anyone, in person or in writing, that actually believes that mixture. However, in calling it 'your' myth I don't mean to imply that you made the mixture up yourself, or that you believe it. I also don't mean to suggest that I'm not aware that all three of those religious groupings have common roots. Of course, to many, the fact that religions have common roots seems like evidence for the existence of a real God, rather than evidence against.
Sorry. I guess I wasn't clear. The quoted definition seems complete, and it doesn't seem to me to be missing any words. I was trying to explain that when you *used* the definition, you ignored one of the words that you had included.
So, what's the limit of the limits that we have to limit limiting?
And, if we take the limit of the limits as they approach the limit of limits...
Although, because I disgreed with your definition, I looked up some, and it seems that both of yours, and mine are all pretty common definitions, along with others.[/Tangent, I hope]
Also:I completely agree with that. I don't believe anything just because it's written in a book. I also doubted my textbooks before I had a good reason to believe them (some didn't ever make the cut), I tend to doubt unverified claims in the news, and I've never given Moller any money for a skycar.
Onthe other hand, once I've verified a source as good, I use it (with ongoing verification, of course).
Now, am I religious or scientific? (Hint: It's a trick question.)
(You might live in some society other that the US, so your experience may vary.)
Let me explain what I mean (also remember that I did include the caveat, "on some level")
Suppose I need to pay for a babysitter, and have two choices.
1- I can hire a 15-year old girl from down the road for $3/hour that doesn't really like young kids, but is reasonably competent.
2- I can hire a team that will have constand video footage sent to the laptop they provide me with, so I can observe the care of my child. One of the team is an experienced bodyguard, and the other is a child education PhD with 30 years experience, and knows (and loves) my child. They come in an ambulance and bring along a paramedic, just in case of a medical emergency. They charge $1500/hour.
I used a lot of exaggeration here, enough to kind of break the example, but I wanted to make sure the point is visible.
When people look for day care, do they spend more time researching the price and convenience, or the background of the people that will be caring for the child? It's just a guess, but my guess is that many people don't even know the names of all the people at the day care before they take their child there.
Well, the cockroaches that come across the Barney DVDs won't complain. They THRIVE on garbage.
Physical jobs often should have a gender bias. If a requirement for a certain job is being able to carry 20 kilos 10 kilometers in under 45 minutes, I'd expect there to be a lot more qualified men than women. So, if your military doesn't have a gender disparity in the people that qualify, the qulaifications aren't defined correctly (or aren't followed correctly).
Actually, when I read the first post, I assumed a woman wrote it.
I've done a couple of things like that.
Once I asked to speak to a manager, which meant that I was using the phone line and 2 people. When the mnanager got on, I explained that I was just trying to make that business model a little less profitable.
Once I offered to sell the telemarketer something (a doorstop-oblolete computer for $3000), and got pretty insistent about it.
This is GREAT!!! I'm going to have the BIGGEST house, and the FASTEST car, and the LOUDEST home stereo system, and the MOST POWERFUL gaming rig that breach of contract can get me!
And when they come for me, I'll just explain that they can go soak their heads because mr matticus (928346) told me, "The power to revoke is OVER." once the contract has been accepted.
Whoopeee!
Independent publishers sell books that are financed by the authors (most would be people you've never heard of, Mark Twain* being one of the exceptions) that you can read with any lighting.
Authors that can convince someone else to underwrite the publishing expenses (Orson Scott Card, P.G. Wodehouse*, Louis L'Amour*, L.E. Modessit Jr., Steven King, Dan Brown, John Grisham, Charles Dickens*, Georgette Heyer*, Robert Jordan*, M.C. Beaton, Dave Barry) are published in books that only work with florescent lighting made (or lisenced) by GE.
*deceased