Having communists in your camp is a very significant aspect of atheism
Yes, in the same way that having communists in your camp is a very significant aspect of Christianity, Hinduism, Republicanism. It is significant in the same way that the color white is a car. The odd thing is that even though I have demonstrated the falseness in what you are saying, you keep lying about it. Did your parents bang you over the head with a hammer when you were a child? Your brain damage appears to be worsening.
No other community has used communism to kill so many people.
Are you saying that communists killing people have anything to do with atheism. If you are, you have again proven beyond any doubt that the brain-replacement surgery you had failed.
Atheists using communism
I can't believe you would say something as stupid as this. I am serious. Was your father and mother siblings? I mean, I can detect no trace of brain activity behind your arguments whatsoever. Adolph him self was a good Christian. Most top-level Nazis were good Christians. I would not be so dumb as to say that the execution of 6 million Jews was Christianity using Nazism to kill Jews. Now, since that is exactly what you are saying, perhaps we should ban Christianity in Europe and put all current priests on trial for the Holocaust.
Damn, I have never had a discussion with someone as retarded as you have turned out to be.
You will probably argue that atheism is unrelated to communism
I will not argue it, there would be no point. Atheism is unrelated to communism. That is a statement of fact, not an argument. Atheism is to communism as white is to car. Unrelated.
Atheism is very much needed by communism on such a wide scale
Since I have just shown you that there are Hindu communists, Christian communists and amazingly communists in the Republican camp, you have simply been proven wrong. Since you are not a scientists, being proven wrong was not a pleasurable thing for you. It made you lose face, and you think that the fact that I proved you wrong makes you look bad. You are wrong. I did not make you look bad. Every time you state something in a public forum you look bad. That is because you are a brainless idiot.
Oh, and I forgot, I had not shown you the communists in the Republican camp. The most prominent is Paul Wolfowitz, the strategist behind the war in Iraq during the Bush Jr. era. Paul Wolfowitz is a Leninist, a student of Leo Strauss of the neoconservative movement. Neocons in the US are from the far left, not (as many would think) the far right. If you want to learn more about how communists took control over the Republican party during the Bush Jr. administration, just google "neoconservative" and "the bush doctrine".
I'm trying to insist to other people that you have communists in your camp.
You are lying through your teeth now. That is not at all what you were aiming to do. Since there are communists in all camps, if that was what you were trying to do, you would not have mentioned it. Why mention it if that is not a distinguishing feature of atheism? There are Christian, Muslim and Hindu communists. Heck, some of the leading thinkers in the Republican party these days are Communists. What was your point?
Atheists love to talk about how altruistic and honest they are
Rubbish. You are reaching. You have no clue whatsoever about what atheists love, and why would atheists love that more than Christians or Rastafarians? Again, you are reaching and you are not making any sense at all. You have been crushed in public debate and you are trying to save face.
I still remember how Slashdotters said that scientists love to be proven wrong.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make here, but yes, all scientists love to be proven wrong. It is the only way they can move forward. Outside of the limited field of mathematics, you can not be proven right in science, you can only be proven wrong. Until you are however, if you have postulated a well-formed theory, it is assumed that you are probably right. This is why it is such a grand thing to be proven wrong. As long as you are not proven wrong you have not learned anything new.
Nope. Google, by releasing Android, doesn't infringe. The party that deploys on actual devices is the party that infringe (if infringement occurs). This is why Microsoft explicitly takes on the role as the "infringer" in contracts with its OEMs.
Care to show me an example of somebody from another country showing American ignorance?
I just did.
the link that I provided clearly show that communism as it is commonly portrayed is very much linked to atheism
Yes, in your head. Let me use an analogy to see if you can understand. The most popular car color (in the US) is white, with about one quarter of all cars in the US being white. So, according to you, "White is a car". Since white is the dominant color property or a car, they are the same thing. White is a car. You are unable to distinguish between a property common to an object and the object it self. That should be very worrying to your parents.
I'm an American? There is another conclusion that you jump to.
Nope, I said you had an American ignorance. An ignorance typical of Americans.
Yes, Communists [in the case of the Soviets] clearly meant atheist... You couldn't subscribe to communism without the atheism.
Nope. Lots of communists in the USSR were not atheists but quite religious. So, you are both wrong and dumb. Stalin him self would some times try to silence the Church and in many occasions he would work closely with the church and endorse it. To say that being communist is being atheist is like saying being European means you are a Christian. It is simply just a dumb statement.
Outside of the USSR (historically), there are a number of communist leaders that have also been religious. Lots of Indian communists are devout Hindus for example.
You can cure some of your ignorance by reading this or for example this.
Communists as a whole are atheists
Does it hurt to be as ignorant and dogmatic as you are?
Here is the problem. Communism is a political idea, it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Many communists, Marx and Lenin among them, felt that organized religion and in some cases religion as such, was bad for the people, but that is not a basic tenant of communism. Never has been. In many ways, it could be argued that a number of religious groups are communist in their nature, in so far as that they are communal, sharing, "you get what you need and add what you can" types of societies.
You are essentially saying that the color black is a car and has to be a car and only a car since Mr Ford him self would only produce black cards (back then). You do not realize that the color black and the concept of a car are completely disconnected, even if all cars are black (which they are not and have almost never been). Lumping religion in with political ideas is ignorant and dumb, hence the question above if it hurts.
I gave you a clear example of atheists doing something
No, you did not. You gave an example of a Communist doing something, and that is not relevant. Communist is not === to Atheist. Sorry. You are simply wrong, and showing your American ignorance. The Communist === Atheist argument is typical for the American extreme right, and it is childish.
Anyhow, this website [smith.edu] shows that atheists will resort to creating media in a similar style
If you don't know the difference between a communist and an atheist, not even a brain transplant will help. Besides, communists have far more in common with religious people than they have with the common atheist (who is rarely a socialist, but often a scientist). Communists believe that an idea is more important than reality, just like religious people. When a communist is presented with facts showing him his superstition is bunk, he chooses to believe his dogma rather than the reality. In fact, that word basically shows how similar communists and Christians are. Dogma is more important than reality.
The common name for attitudes like that is "magical thinking". It is absurd.
and in another year...They really need a slow moving Cooperate Windows...this is the next 10 year upgrade
They did, it was called XP. XP was released eleven (more than ten - see?) years ago. Now it is time to upgrade. Ten years later. Business who upgrade to Windows 7 will probably be supported at least until 2019, which means that is when Business next has to upgrade. They have the slow moving Cooperate Windows, it's called a support contract.
What value is Microsoft providing with newer versions of Windows?
Supportability. It simply isn't possible to support ancient versions of software indefinitely. Nobody is going to force enterprise users to upgrade, but if they want to use newer software they'll have to. If they are happy with a Windows that is the way it is and runs what it runs, they'll be fine, but they'll get zero upgrades, even when serious bugs are found.
Yet some of them are arguable more democratic than the US.
There is a problem with your argument. If there is a restriction on political speech, there is no democracy. Look at Germany for example. Germany has (almost understandably) quite strong limits on speech that one would call fascist or neo-nazi in its nature. This means that it is not possible for a fascist or a neo-nazi to run for election. They are not allowed to utter the political message they are running on. Once you have banned someone from running in an election due to their political views, you no longer have a democracy. Of any kind. You have a totalitarian, non-democratic society. Like the USSR where there was also elections, but only approved messages were allowed.
You only have free speech when even those with revolting opinions are allowed to express them. Free speech is a requirement for democracy, without it you can't have a democracy. Germany is therefore not a democracy, it only claims to be. So did the USSR.
This is not unique for Germany. I live in Norway, which has elections every year, but where political correctness have made all political parties the same. We recently had a finance minister from the extreme left, she was praised by the OECD for her policies during the 2008 fiscal situation. OECD and that finance minister are at the opposite ends of the political spectrum. The finance minister did what she was told by the bureaucracy was required in that situation, not what she had run on as a politician. In fact, at no time did she ever try to institute policies that were in line with her political standpoint, her policies were all determined by the bureaucracy. That is not democracy, if one is to put a nice spin on it, it is perhaps a meritocracy, assuming the bureaucracy could be said to warrant the label "merits".
When I was young, dumb and on the left in politics, one of the most debated meta-aspects of politics was the danger of democracy falling to the bureaucracy. We knew it was a real possibility, but didn't realize it had already happened in most of Europe way back in the 1950s, particularly in Scandinavia, Germany etc. The EU strengthens the power of the bureaucracy at the expense of the democracy. Today I am a libertarian who realizes that democracy needs defending again, and that the EU is the most serious threat to European democracy since 1918.
They can elect to be offended, but it is immature.
I'm an atheist, but I'm sick and tired of this difference in how the media treat different religions
Me too, which is why I think someone should make one such video a week until they grow up and stop acting like mentally handicapped children who have OD'ed on some bad testosterone.
That wasn't a conclusion, that was a known fact. The identities of the people involved in making the movie is known, so knowing that they are theists, given the information we have on their backgrounds, was not difficult.
Is it possible that an atheist could have made that video to express his views?
Is it possible? Technically, yes. Is it likely, no. Why? There has been no such behavior on part of atheists that I know of, but there has been a large number of such activities from a handful of fundamentalist Christians. Since I know that the people who made the video, both the primary maker and his backers are fundamentalist religious people, it was not jumping to conclusions.
You believe that it is impossible
No, not impossible, just extremely unlikely. I would of course have refrained from using the verbiage I used had I know you had a broken humor gland. Sorry for the confusion caused.
You can't "know" that it doesn't likely exist, because these claims are, by definition, beyond human knowledge
Yes, I can. I can know that it doesn't likely exist simply because nobody has ever seen it, interacted with it or demonstrated the effects of its existence. Something that does nothing, is nothing, impacts nothing and has been seen by nobody has e very low likelihood of existing. The fact that some ignorant goat herders claim it does exist, and people who 2000 years later still believe them claim that it is beyond human knowledge doesn't increase its likelihood of existing. Quite the contrary.
Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence (or non-existence) of God
You are half right and half wrong. Science can easily prove the existence of God. He can just pop 'round a science lab some time, have the scientists interview him, shoot some pictures, take some measurements, and voila, his existence is proven. You are right they can not prove the non-existence though. This is a crucial point. The non-existence of anything can not be proven. So...
There is exactly an infinite, plus minus 5, things that we can not prove the non-existence of. I can not prove that there are not little green elves in the forest that go invisible when glanced at or in the presence of a camera. I can't prove they do not exist. I can not prove the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns. I can not prove that there is not a tea cup with little pink hearts in approximately the same orbit around the sun as Pluto has, plus minus an arbitrary number.
Now, this is the cool thing about science, since there is exactly a infinite (plus minus five) things science can not prove the non-existence of, the chance of any one of them actually existing is exactly like 0%, plus minus nothing at all.
Believing in things just because science can not prove they don't exist is 100% moronic, plus minis zero.
Belief and non-belief are both judgments
Nope, they are not. Belief is judgement, non-belief is lack of action or judgement. Atheism is an act or a personal judgement in the same way that "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.
We're talking about statistics on atheists electing to produce *only* good stuff
Wow. OK. Seriously? Well, I'd take a trip to the doctor if I was you. You see, your humor gland appears to be malfunctioning. I really didn't think your questions "Do you have any compelling evidence that demonstrats that atheists can't produce bad stuff? Do you have any compelling evidence that demonstrates that atheists can only produce good stuff?" were serious. Really. Honestly. Why would I think they were serious questions, it's like asking "do you think all all Repugnicans wear pink boxers with little hearts on them?"
Wow. I have never seen anyone more dense than you. Were you hit repeatedly over the head with a hammer as a child? That would explain your lack of brain function.
This is the title of the article you were given: "Stanford researchers calculate global health impacts of the Fukushima nuclear disaster". Not "Stanford researches check out the reporting of a disaster". The ingress includes: "the first detailed analysis of the event's global health effects".
You have latched on to "But the paper also notes that nearly 600 deaths were reported as a result of the evacuation process itself" and for some reason you think that this is reported as in printed in a newspaper. Where do you get such ideas from? If someone writes a report, it "is reported".
You completely missed "Ten Hoeve and Jacobson used a 3-D global atmospheric model, developed over 20 years of research, to predict the transport of radioactive material" and a wealth of other clues that this was in fact original research. Given the fact that the study revised the numbers slightly up, only a complete retard would think it was an article about other researchers. If it was about other researchers it could not have come up with new numbers.
You should have your mother demand her money back from your primary school given that they failed to teach you how to read at a basic level.
you said Stanford researchers claim that the evacuation caused 600 additional death by car traffic, didn't you
Nope.
After all I don't know the "stanford researchers" or their data as you did not provide a link.
I did provide a hint. I assume you know how to use other websites than/. Perhaps my assumption was not valid. Do you know what Stanford is?
if someone shows me so called "data" that contradicts everything I know, the first thing is skepticism
So you are saying that your personal beliefs (often called religion) makes any claims based on real data invalid? Do you know what Stanford is?
I suggest you simply fly to japan and visit the evacuated area
It's been four years since I was in Japan last. I would love to go. Not to look at the geography of an area to determine how many people died though. You see, that isn't even remotely possible. So, where does your data (you haven't actually presented any so far) come from? Why would you have better knowledge than the researchers at Stanford?
Here is an article from Stanford on the research. I used something kinda cool called google and input "stanford" and "fukushima". this is what I got.. Magic.
There are entire professions dedicated to intentionally offending people
Yes, and their primary task is identifying children who will listen and then make them selves to be offended.
I am not saying there are no people who will be offended, I am saying they would not be offended had they been grown-ups rather than little children with even littler egos.
Denying the existence of the intent to offend is utterly ridiculous
Yes, I should have phrased that slightly different. I movie can not have the intent to offend, it can only have the intent to have some immature ego-less moron create offence in his brain (what little there is).
In the USA and the UK, if you deliberately provoke someone and they become violent, the Judge will blame you, not them
So, if I call you a moron and you punch me, then the judge will blame me? Just shows how un-civilized people are.
test out your local laws
They are quite definite, the response must be measured against the provocation. In other words, if your response to my "you're a moron" is violent, you will be the one to blame. As in any civilized society. A measured response would be "at least I know who my father is". An adult response would be a lifted eye brow and turning ones back on the retard. Perhaps you and your kind are not adult.
Yeah, right. Stanford researchers who have collected a good amount of data are clueless. The fact that their findings adjusted up the previous consensus on people damaged is somewhere around zero. Now, you can of course rely on junk science like this mentioned here since you clearly are one of those people who will not believe the data if the data goes against your beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
Hitler most likely believed in Odinism
Hitler was a devout Christian. No matter what you believe he was. He wrote extensively about it.
There were way less than 6 million Jews executed
Moron
Having communists in your camp is a very significant aspect of atheism
Yes, in the same way that having communists in your camp is a very significant aspect of Christianity, Hinduism, Republicanism. It is significant in the same way that the color white is a car. The odd thing is that even though I have demonstrated the falseness in what you are saying, you keep lying about it. Did your parents bang you over the head with a hammer when you were a child? Your brain damage appears to be worsening.
No other community has used communism to kill so many people.
Are you saying that communists killing people have anything to do with atheism. If you are, you have again proven beyond any doubt that the brain-replacement surgery you had failed.
Atheists using communism
I can't believe you would say something as stupid as this. I am serious. Was your father and mother siblings? I mean, I can detect no trace of brain activity behind your arguments whatsoever. Adolph him self was a good Christian. Most top-level Nazis were good Christians. I would not be so dumb as to say that the execution of 6 million Jews was Christianity using Nazism to kill Jews. Now, since that is exactly what you are saying, perhaps we should ban Christianity in Europe and put all current priests on trial for the Holocaust.
Damn, I have never had a discussion with someone as retarded as you have turned out to be.
You will probably argue that atheism is unrelated to communism
I will not argue it, there would be no point. Atheism is unrelated to communism. That is a statement of fact, not an argument. Atheism is to communism as white is to car. Unrelated.
Atheism is very much needed by communism on such a wide scale
Since I have just shown you that there are Hindu communists, Christian communists and amazingly communists in the Republican camp, you have simply been proven wrong. Since you are not a scientists, being proven wrong was not a pleasurable thing for you. It made you lose face, and you think that the fact that I proved you wrong makes you look bad. You are wrong. I did not make you look bad. Every time you state something in a public forum you look bad. That is because you are a brainless idiot.
Oh, and I forgot, I had not shown you the communists in the Republican camp. The most prominent is Paul Wolfowitz, the strategist behind the war in Iraq during the Bush Jr. era. Paul Wolfowitz is a Leninist, a student of Leo Strauss of the neoconservative movement. Neocons in the US are from the far left, not (as many would think) the far right. If you want to learn more about how communists took control over the Republican party during the Bush Jr. administration, just google "neoconservative" and "the bush doctrine".
I'm trying to insist to other people that you have communists in your camp.
You are lying through your teeth now. That is not at all what you were aiming to do. Since there are communists in all camps, if that was what you were trying to do, you would not have mentioned it. Why mention it if that is not a distinguishing feature of atheism? There are Christian, Muslim and Hindu communists. Heck, some of the leading thinkers in the Republican party these days are Communists. What was your point?
Atheists love to talk about how altruistic and honest they are
Rubbish. You are reaching. You have no clue whatsoever about what atheists love, and why would atheists love that more than Christians or Rastafarians? Again, you are reaching and you are not making any sense at all. You have been crushed in public debate and you are trying to save face.
I still remember how Slashdotters said that scientists love to be proven wrong.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make here, but yes, all scientists love to be proven wrong. It is the only way they can move forward. Outside of the limited field of mathematics, you can not be proven right in science, you can only be proven wrong. Until you are however, if you have postulated a well-formed theory, it is assumed that you are probably right. This is why it is such a grand thing to be proven wrong. As long as you are not proven wrong you have not learned anything new.
Nope. Google, by releasing Android, doesn't infringe. The party that deploys on actual devices is the party that infringe (if infringement occurs). This is why Microsoft explicitly takes on the role as the "infringer" in contracts with its OEMs.
BTW, have you ever heard of Ayn Rand? Would you call her a communist?
Care to show me an example of somebody from another country showing American ignorance?
I just did.
the link that I provided clearly show that communism as it is commonly portrayed is very much linked to atheism
Yes, in your head. Let me use an analogy to see if you can understand. The most popular car color (in the US) is white, with about one quarter of all cars in the US being white. So, according to you, "White is a car". Since white is the dominant color property or a car, they are the same thing. White is a car. You are unable to distinguish between a property common to an object and the object it self. That should be very worrying to your parents.
I'm an American? There is another conclusion that you jump to.
Nope, I said you had an American ignorance. An ignorance typical of Americans.
Yes, Communists [in the case of the Soviets] clearly meant atheist ... You couldn't subscribe to communism without the atheism.
Nope. Lots of communists in the USSR were not atheists but quite religious. So, you are both wrong and dumb. Stalin him self would some times try to silence the Church and in many occasions he would work closely with the church and endorse it. To say that being communist is being atheist is like saying being European means you are a Christian. It is simply just a dumb statement.
Outside of the USSR (historically), there are a number of communist leaders that have also been religious. Lots of Indian communists are devout Hindus for example.
You can cure some of your ignorance by reading this or for example this.
Communists as a whole are atheists
Does it hurt to be as ignorant and dogmatic as you are?
Here is the problem. Communism is a political idea, it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Many communists, Marx and Lenin among them, felt that organized religion and in some cases religion as such, was bad for the people, but that is not a basic tenant of communism. Never has been. In many ways, it could be argued that a number of religious groups are communist in their nature, in so far as that they are communal, sharing, "you get what you need and add what you can" types of societies.
You are essentially saying that the color black is a car and has to be a car and only a car since Mr Ford him self would only produce black cards (back then). You do not realize that the color black and the concept of a car are completely disconnected, even if all cars are black (which they are not and have almost never been). Lumping religion in with political ideas is ignorant and dumb, hence the question above if it hurts.
I gave you a clear example of atheists doing something
No, you did not. You gave an example of a Communist doing something, and that is not relevant. Communist is not === to Atheist. Sorry. You are simply wrong, and showing your American ignorance. The Communist === Atheist argument is typical for the American extreme right, and it is childish.
Anyhow, this website [smith.edu] shows that atheists will resort to creating media in a similar style
If you don't know the difference between a communist and an atheist, not even a brain transplant will help. Besides, communists have far more in common with religious people than they have with the common atheist (who is rarely a socialist, but often a scientist). Communists believe that an idea is more important than reality, just like religious people. When a communist is presented with facts showing him his superstition is bunk, he chooses to believe his dogma rather than the reality. In fact, that word basically shows how similar communists and Christians are. Dogma is more important than reality.
The common name for attitudes like that is "magical thinking". It is absurd.
and in another year...They really need a slow moving Cooperate Windows...this is the next 10 year upgrade
They did, it was called XP. XP was released eleven (more than ten - see?) years ago. Now it is time to upgrade. Ten years later. Business who upgrade to Windows 7 will probably be supported at least until 2019, which means that is when Business next has to upgrade. They have the slow moving Cooperate Windows, it's called a support contract.
What value is Microsoft providing with newer versions of Windows?
Supportability. It simply isn't possible to support ancient versions of software indefinitely. Nobody is going to force enterprise users to upgrade, but if they want to use newer software they'll have to. If they are happy with a Windows that is the way it is and runs what it runs, they'll be fine, but they'll get zero upgrades, even when serious bugs are found.
That wooooshing sound you just heard was the point wizzing behind you without you getting it.
Yet some of them are arguable more democratic than the US.
There is a problem with your argument. If there is a restriction on political speech, there is no democracy. Look at Germany for example. Germany has (almost understandably) quite strong limits on speech that one would call fascist or neo-nazi in its nature. This means that it is not possible for a fascist or a neo-nazi to run for election. They are not allowed to utter the political message they are running on. Once you have banned someone from running in an election due to their political views, you no longer have a democracy. Of any kind. You have a totalitarian, non-democratic society. Like the USSR where there was also elections, but only approved messages were allowed.
You only have free speech when even those with revolting opinions are allowed to express them. Free speech is a requirement for democracy, without it you can't have a democracy. Germany is therefore not a democracy, it only claims to be. So did the USSR.
This is not unique for Germany. I live in Norway, which has elections every year, but where political correctness have made all political parties the same. We recently had a finance minister from the extreme left, she was praised by the OECD for her policies during the 2008 fiscal situation. OECD and that finance minister are at the opposite ends of the political spectrum. The finance minister did what she was told by the bureaucracy was required in that situation, not what she had run on as a politician. In fact, at no time did she ever try to institute policies that were in line with her political standpoint, her policies were all determined by the bureaucracy. That is not democracy, if one is to put a nice spin on it, it is perhaps a meritocracy, assuming the bureaucracy could be said to warrant the label "merits".
When I was young, dumb and on the left in politics, one of the most debated meta-aspects of politics was the danger of democracy falling to the bureaucracy. We knew it was a real possibility, but didn't realize it had already happened in most of Europe way back in the 1950s, particularly in Scandinavia, Germany etc. The EU strengthens the power of the bureaucracy at the expense of the democracy. Today I am a libertarian who realizes that democracy needs defending again, and that the EU is the most serious threat to European democracy since 1918.
That's an oxymoron. A country without free speech can not, per definition, be a democracy.
Even grown-ups can be offended
They can elect to be offended, but it is immature.
I'm an atheist, but I'm sick and tired of this difference in how the media treat different religions
Me too, which is why I think someone should make one such video a week until they grow up and stop acting like mentally handicapped children who have OD'ed on some bad testosterone.
You conclude that the video was made by theists
That wasn't a conclusion, that was a known fact. The identities of the people involved in making the movie is known, so knowing that they are theists, given the information we have on their backgrounds, was not difficult.
Is it possible that an atheist could have made that video to express his views?
Is it possible? Technically, yes. Is it likely, no. Why? There has been no such behavior on part of atheists that I know of, but there has been a large number of such activities from a handful of fundamentalist Christians. Since I know that the people who made the video, both the primary maker and his backers are fundamentalist religious people, it was not jumping to conclusions.
You believe that it is impossible
No, not impossible, just extremely unlikely. I would of course have refrained from using the verbiage I used had I know you had a broken humor gland. Sorry for the confusion caused.
I did. I quoted the relevant passages. I hope you get well soon, though I hear brain-removal surgery has a low expectation of a functional future.
You can't "know" that it doesn't likely exist, because these claims are, by definition, beyond human knowledge
Yes, I can. I can know that it doesn't likely exist simply because nobody has ever seen it, interacted with it or demonstrated the effects of its existence. Something that does nothing, is nothing, impacts nothing and has been seen by nobody has e very low likelihood of existing. The fact that some ignorant goat herders claim it does exist, and people who 2000 years later still believe them claim that it is beyond human knowledge doesn't increase its likelihood of existing. Quite the contrary.
Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence (or non-existence) of God
You are half right and half wrong. Science can easily prove the existence of God. He can just pop 'round a science lab some time, have the scientists interview him, shoot some pictures, take some measurements, and voila, his existence is proven. You are right they can not prove the non-existence though. This is a crucial point. The non-existence of anything can not be proven. So...
There is exactly an infinite, plus minus 5, things that we can not prove the non-existence of. I can not prove that there are not little green elves in the forest that go invisible when glanced at or in the presence of a camera. I can't prove they do not exist. I can not prove the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns. I can not prove that there is not a tea cup with little pink hearts in approximately the same orbit around the sun as Pluto has, plus minus an arbitrary number.
Now, this is the cool thing about science, since there is exactly a infinite (plus minus five) things science can not prove the non-existence of, the chance of any one of them actually existing is exactly like 0%, plus minus nothing at all.
Believing in things just because science can not prove they don't exist is 100% moronic, plus minis zero.
Belief and non-belief are both judgments
Nope, they are not. Belief is judgement, non-belief is lack of action or judgement. Atheism is an act or a personal judgement in the same way that "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.
We're talking about statistics on atheists electing to produce *only* good stuff
Wow. OK. Seriously? Well, I'd take a trip to the doctor if I was you. You see, your humor gland appears to be malfunctioning. I really didn't think your questions "Do you have any compelling evidence that demonstrats that atheists can't produce bad stuff? Do you have any compelling evidence that demonstrates that atheists can only produce good stuff?" were serious. Really. Honestly. Why would I think they were serious questions, it's like asking "do you think all all Repugnicans wear pink boxers with little hearts on them?"
Wow. I have never seen anyone more dense than you. Were you hit repeatedly over the head with a hammer as a child? That would explain your lack of brain function.
This is the title of the article you were given: "Stanford researchers calculate global health impacts of the Fukushima nuclear disaster". Not "Stanford researches check out the reporting of a disaster". The ingress includes: "the first detailed analysis of the event's global health effects".
You have latched on to "But the paper also notes that nearly 600 deaths were reported as a result of the evacuation process itself" and for some reason you think that this is reported as in printed in a newspaper. Where do you get such ideas from? If someone writes a report, it "is reported".
You completely missed "Ten Hoeve and Jacobson used a 3-D global atmospheric model, developed over 20 years of research, to predict the transport of radioactive material" and a wealth of other clues that this was in fact original research. Given the fact that the study revised the numbers slightly up, only a complete retard would think it was an article about other researchers. If it was about other researchers it could not have come up with new numbers.
You should have your mother demand her money back from your primary school given that they failed to teach you how to read at a basic level.
you said Stanford researchers claim that the evacuation caused 600 additional death by car traffic, didn't you
Nope.
After all I don't know the "stanford researchers" or their data as you did not provide a link.
I did provide a hint. I assume you know how to use other websites than /. Perhaps my assumption was not valid. Do you know what Stanford is?
if someone shows me so called "data" that contradicts everything I know, the first thing is skepticism
So you are saying that your personal beliefs (often called religion) makes any claims based on real data invalid? Do you know what Stanford is?
I suggest you simply fly to japan and visit the evacuated area
It's been four years since I was in Japan last. I would love to go. Not to look at the geography of an area to determine how many people died though. You see, that isn't even remotely possible. So, where does your data (you haven't actually presented any so far) come from? Why would you have better knowledge than the researchers at Stanford?
Here is an article from Stanford on the research. I used something kinda cool called google and input "stanford" and "fukushima". this is what I got.. Magic.
There are entire professions dedicated to intentionally offending people
Yes, and their primary task is identifying children who will listen and then make them selves to be offended.
I am not saying there are no people who will be offended, I am saying they would not be offended had they been grown-ups rather than little children with even littler egos.
Denying the existence of the intent to offend is utterly ridiculous
Yes, I should have phrased that slightly different. I movie can not have the intent to offend, it can only have the intent to have some immature ego-less moron create offence in his brain (what little there is).
Never heard of "fighting words" have you?
Yes, when five year old (and equivalents) talk.
In the USA and the UK, if you deliberately provoke someone and they become violent, the Judge will blame you, not them
So, if I call you a moron and you punch me, then the judge will blame me? Just shows how un-civilized people are.
test out your local laws
They are quite definite, the response must be measured against the provocation. In other words, if your response to my "you're a moron" is violent, you will be the one to blame. As in any civilized society. A measured response would be "at least I know who my father is". An adult response would be a lifted eye brow and turning ones back on the retard. Perhaps you and your kind are not adult.
Yes, I assume they are clueless.
Yeah, right. Stanford researchers who have collected a good amount of data are clueless. The fact that their findings adjusted up the previous consensus on people damaged is somewhere around zero. Now, you can of course rely on junk science like this mentioned here since you clearly are one of those people who will not believe the data if the data goes against your beliefs.