"The reason for this disbelief is so simple that it is sometimes hard to understand: there is no evidence either way."
I think at this point, we reach an argument over semantics.
My view is that I disbelieve in God (I consider that disbelieving in the existence of a thing is equivalent to believing in the non-existence of that thing) because there is no evidence. For the same reason, I also disbelieve in Allah, Thor, Yahweh, Amun-Re, etc.. Having said that, I don't have proof of their non-existence, and so must concede that I could be wrong. I call this position atheism, perhaps you would call it agnosticism...
Just further to this post, and to clarify my point, I could better have written the last paragraph as:
I think it's totally defensible to describe oneself as an atheist while conceding that one might be wrong. That is not zealotry. In fact, it is the _only_ defensible position with regard to believing something for which there is no evidence; for once you go down that road you have to also concede the possibility* of a flying spaghetti monster, and then a flying macaroni monster (because after all, that's just as likely), then a flying lasagna monster, etc, etc.
*I'm trying not to confuse the idea of belief with a-lack-of-disbelief
Well, to know something you need to believe it, but to know it it also has to be _true_.
Since this is something we can never resolve, I am happy to put any god in the same box as Bertrand Russel's invisible teapot that might-or-might-not be flying around in space.
Saying that you're agnostic because you can't _know_ one way or the other, is like saying we shouldn't teach evolutionary theory in school because we haven't _proved_ it.
I think it's totally defensible to describe oneself as an atheist while conceding that one might be wrong. That is not zealotry. In fact, it is the _only_ defensible position with regard to believing something for which there is no evidence; for once you go down that road you have to also believe in a flying spaghetti monster, and then a flying macaroni monster (because after all, that's just as likely), then a flying lasagna monster, etc, etc.
"I wouldn't be terribly surprised, to be honest. I'd be even less surprised if they were doing that with my text messages. Or using the photos I take on that camera for promotional purposes. But I wouldn't be terribly horrified. I do use the phone for business, so there might be some confidentiality concerns with some of our clients... But I don't generally say anything terribly private on the phone. Important stuff is best handled face-to-face."
I think this statement is pretty glib, and I'm quite skeptical. I don't think you've thought through the implications of what you are saying, despite your cynical-and-savvy tone. I think if you were making an appointment with a medical specialist because a routine prostate examination had highlighted anomalies, and your medical insurance company found out care of your cell phone company -- I think you'd be justifiably outraged.
Obviously, this is hypothetical, and currently unlikely, but it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to see how such a thing would be possible, and why preserving privacy is important.
What you say would be true for people who make their facebook profile public, but what about those with private profiles that are visible only to their friends, and are basically being leaked to third parties?
How would you feel if your cell phone company were selling transcripts of your phone calls to advertisers and potential employers without your consent (ie. considering your use of their system as you granting your implicit consent)?
What on earth are you talking about? Psychology is as much a science as physics.
>> Theres no way to "prove" any of it especially when correlation != causation
In science, you never _prove_ anything - you can only disprove. What we call "scientific truth" are merely the hypotheses/theories that we're yet to disprove. Read about this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
I love listening to Democrat-supporters and Republican-supporters argue..
Democrats-supporter: "Bush is a fundamentalist nutcase who wants to turn the US into a militarised fascist theocracy!"
Republican-supporter: "Clinton/Obama is an atheist scumbag who wants to destroy the family and turn the US into a drug-addicted gay playground!"
I mean really -- what ever happened to the middle-ground in US politics? Can't people recognise that most of the time politicians (on both sides) actually are doing what they think is right? (I'm not saying any are perfect, but neither are they the devil-incarnate).
"looks like I have to come up with a random noise generator to hook up to the ground of my power outlets."
There would already be a lot of noise in the signal which they must be able to filter already. You'd probably be better off connecting something that mimicked a series of keyboards with keystrokes that were plausible. This would not be random at all, and your keyboard would then be one keyboard hiding among many keyboards, rather than a single keyboard hiding within (approximately white) noise -- which could actually be quite conspicuous.
"but in this day and age the probability points otherwise" Are you suggesting that people today are less moral or more dangerous than in previous ages? If so, would you care to provide some evidence of that?
While there's some truth in what you say, such behaviour is in no way restricted to baby-boomers (IANABB;-)
Give today's kids half a chance and they'll do the same thing - people are people. That's why our economic and political systems need to be premised on the idea that people tend to be greedy and selfish.
Isn't the fantastic thing about Wave that it _is_ anti-web? I mean, it is distributed and decentralised, which is the antithesis of what the WWW is about.
IMO, moving to such a decentralised internet is critical to the future of the web, which is why I think projects like this and OneSwarm, etc, are so important.
My understanding is that one packager screwed up one package (openssl), which (while a _big_ screw-up) would hardly amount to a "history of fucking up packages". Can you cite any other examples that would indicate such a trend?
You make a good point, and I certainly wouldn't say that "everything that is natural is good for you".
However, there are foods that we have 10000 years' experience eating, and foods that we have 10 years' experience eating.... I'm not saying that all "artificial" foods are bad, but some of them _surely_ are, and at this stage we don't know which.
"The Bible says that God is the creator the heavens and the earth." hearsay.
"That means that the universe had a creation." speculation + hearsay = false conclusion.
Look, I don't care if people believe in god, but you shouldn't be looking for my approval anyway. Please don't try and use scientific arguments to support that which is inherently faith-based and is _not_ provable (nor disprovable). Having said that, to try and use the absence of evidence against god as evidence for god is pathetic. Why do theists suddenly (after thousands of years) require proof for their beliefs?!?
Also, a god that is outside space and time, "kicked-off" the universe at the big-bang, and then left it to its own devices, is starting to sound very different from the Christian god...
My post was referring to young-earth creationists.
Having said this, to describe the big-bang theory as supporting "the idea that God created the universe" is ridiculous. While it seems possible that a "first mover" could have started the big-bang and created the universe, there is no evidence. In fact, we have no empirical evidence for god whatsoever.
I am also confused by your links, since neither of them even contain the word "god"!
Let's just think for a moment about which branches of science contradict creationism: biology biochemistry genetics physics astronomy astrophysics
I'm sure there are other _genres_ of science too. Are you really saying that it doesn't matter if a leader of society believes that all the scientists working in these fields are wrong?
Believing in creationism is like believing the earth is flat, and would have huge consequences in many many public policy areas.
Slashdot Mirror
"The reason for this disbelief is so simple that it is sometimes hard to understand: there is no evidence either way."
I think at this point, we reach an argument over semantics.
My view is that I disbelieve in God (I consider that disbelieving in the existence of a thing is equivalent to believing in the non-existence of that thing) because there is no evidence. For the same reason, I also disbelieve in Allah, Thor, Yahweh, Amun-Re, etc.. Having said that, I don't have proof of their non-existence, and so must concede that I could be wrong.
I call this position atheism, perhaps you would call it agnosticism...
Just further to this post, and to clarify my point, I could better have written the last paragraph as:
I think it's totally defensible to describe oneself as an atheist while conceding that one might be wrong. That is not zealotry. In fact, it is the _only_ defensible position with regard to believing something for which there is no evidence; for once you go down that road you have to also concede the possibility* of a flying spaghetti monster, and then a flying macaroni monster (because after all, that's just as likely), then a flying lasagna monster, etc, etc.
*I'm trying not to confuse the idea of belief with a-lack-of-disbelief
Well, to know something you need to believe it, but to know it it also has to be _true_.
Since this is something we can never resolve, I am happy to put any god in the same box as Bertrand Russel's invisible teapot that might-or-might-not be flying around in space.
Saying that you're agnostic because you can't _know_ one way or the other, is like saying we shouldn't teach evolutionary theory in school because we haven't _proved_ it.
I think it's totally defensible to describe oneself as an atheist while conceding that one might be wrong. That is not zealotry. In fact, it is the _only_ defensible position with regard to believing something for which there is no evidence; for once you go down that road you have to also believe in a flying spaghetti monster, and then a flying macaroni monster (because after all, that's just as likely), then a flying lasagna monster, etc, etc.
"I wouldn't be terribly surprised, to be honest.
I'd be even less surprised if they were doing that with my text messages. Or using the photos I take on that camera for promotional purposes.
But I wouldn't be terribly horrified. I do use the phone for business, so there might be some confidentiality concerns with some of our clients... But I don't generally say anything terribly private on the phone. Important stuff is best handled face-to-face."
I think this statement is pretty glib, and I'm quite skeptical. I don't think you've thought through the implications of what you are saying, despite your cynical-and-savvy tone. I think if you were making an appointment with a medical specialist because a routine prostate examination had highlighted anomalies, and your medical insurance company found out care of your cell phone company -- I think you'd be justifiably outraged.
Obviously, this is hypothetical, and currently unlikely, but it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to see how such a thing would be possible, and why preserving privacy is important.
What you say would be true for people who make their facebook profile public, but what about those with private profiles that are visible only to their friends, and are basically being leaked to third parties?
How would you feel if your cell phone company were selling transcripts of your phone calls to advertisers and potential employers without your consent (ie. considering your use of their system as you granting your implicit consent)?
C'mon - next you'll be trying to tell me that the Earth orbits the sun...
What on earth are you talking about? Psychology is as much a science as physics.
>> Theres no way to "prove" any of it especially when correlation != causation
In science, you never _prove_ anything - you can only disprove. What we call "scientific truth" are merely the hypotheses/theories that we're yet to disprove.
Read about this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
I love listening to Democrat-supporters and Republican-supporters argue..
Democrats-supporter: "Bush is a fundamentalist nutcase who wants to turn the US into a militarised fascist theocracy!"
Republican-supporter: "Clinton/Obama is an atheist scumbag who wants to destroy the family and turn the US into a drug-addicted gay playground!"
I mean really -- what ever happened to the middle-ground in US politics? Can't people recognise that most of the time politicians (on both sides) actually are doing what they think is right? (I'm not saying any are perfect, but neither are they the devil-incarnate).
Agreed - you'd want to use a laser that was not in the visible spectrum.
"looks like I have to come up with a random noise generator to hook up to the ground of my power outlets."
There would already be a lot of noise in the signal which they must be able to filter already. You'd probably be better off connecting something that mimicked a series of keyboards with keystrokes that were plausible. This would not be random at all, and your keyboard would then be one keyboard hiding among many keyboards, rather than a single keyboard hiding within (approximately white) noise -- which could actually be quite conspicuous.
Great story - really enjoyed reading that - cheers! :-)
"but in this day and age the probability points otherwise"
Are you suggesting that people today are less moral or more dangerous than in previous ages? If so, would you care to provide some evidence of that?
Joe, Slashdot isn't for you. I suggest you try MySpace or Facebook.
While there's some truth in what you say, such behaviour is in no way restricted to baby-boomers (IANABB ;-)
Give today's kids half a chance and they'll do the same thing - people are people. That's why our economic and political systems need to be premised on the idea that people tend to be greedy and selfish.
"moving to such a decentralised internet is critical to the future of the web, "
Damn it - I can't even get the bloody jargon right. :-)
Critical to the future of the internet - the Internet!
Isn't the fantastic thing about Wave that it _is_ anti-web? I mean, it is distributed and decentralised, which is the antithesis of what the WWW is about.
IMO, moving to such a decentralised internet is critical to the future of the web, which is why I think projects like this and OneSwarm, etc, are so important.
I think it's fascinating that you've been moderated "redundant" -- I wonder what went through that person's mind?
Is criticism of one's government now unpatriotic?
Which is supported by the fact that things completely in Apple's control, like the App store, lack DRM.
Oh, wait...
My understanding is that one packager screwed up one package (openssl), which (while a _big_ screw-up) would hardly amount to a "history of fucking up packages".
Can you cite any other examples that would indicate such a trend?
You make a good point, and I certainly wouldn't say that "everything that is natural is good for you".
However, there are foods that we have 10000 years' experience eating, and foods that we have 10 years' experience eating....
I'm not saying that all "artificial" foods are bad, but some of them _surely_ are, and at this stage we don't know which.
"Lematre was driven by God."
Speculation.
"The Bible says that God is the creator the heavens and the earth."
hearsay.
"That means that the universe had a creation."
speculation + hearsay = false conclusion.
Look, I don't care if people believe in god, but you shouldn't be looking for my approval anyway. Please don't try and use scientific arguments to support that which is inherently faith-based and is _not_ provable (nor disprovable). Having said that, to try and use the absence of evidence against god as evidence for god is pathetic. Why do theists suddenly (after thousands of years) require proof for their beliefs?!?
Also, a god that is outside space and time, "kicked-off" the universe at the big-bang, and then left it to its own devices, is starting to sound very different from the Christian god...
My post was referring to young-earth creationists.
Having said this, to describe the big-bang theory as supporting "the idea that God created the universe" is ridiculous. While it seems possible that a "first mover" could have started the big-bang and created the universe, there is no evidence. In fact, we have no empirical evidence for god whatsoever.
I am also confused by your links, since neither of them even contain the word "god"!
Let's just think for a moment about which branches of science contradict creationism:
biology
biochemistry
genetics
physics
astronomy
astrophysics
I'm sure there are other _genres_ of science too. Are you really saying that it doesn't matter if a leader of society believes that all the scientists working in these fields are wrong?
Believing in creationism is like believing the earth is flat, and would have huge consequences in many many public policy areas.
"the only reason anyone ought to care what a politician thinks about creationism is if they decide what's taught in public schools..."
Except that some bible-thumping politicians are trying to engineer the "end times"...
GGP is really just calling him names. If I called him a poo-head, would that be considered constructive? It does sound like tall-poppy syndrome to me.
(I am not familiar with Doctorow's site or writings)