To say that these religious systems don't make useful predictions is false. These systems must be useful, or they would have driven their adherents to extinction many generations ago.
Religion preys on the fear of life and death. Its success has nothing to do with it making "useful predictions".
You want an example of destructive religious predictions? How about the apocalyptic prophecies that George W. Bush cited in his decisions regarding the war in Iraq and up to 16 million American "end timers" believe to be about to come true.
From Wikipedia (you don't like my source, feel free to find one of your own - maybe then you can respond to my arguments rather than making me do the work):
Atheism tends towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence.
Remember how I said this in the post you replied to saying I didn't know what atheism was?
But you know what, I'm going to simplify things because I've realised this word "atheism" is just a way for people like you to contort things to fit your bullshit. So I am no longer calling myself an atheist. This is my stance: I think that the devotion to people or lifestyles, imaginary or otherwise, based on the belief in wholly unproven facts (that have a very tiny probability of truth on the same order of the probability of, for example, Greek mythology being truth), is irrational. I have provided examples of how this is irrational. I don't care if the object of the devotion is a god, a heaven, the E-meter, a pink unicorn or candy trees on the Moon. It is irrational if it is based on a lack of empirical evidence or if there is evidence to the contrary, just like it would be irrational for you to send me a wire transfer of your entire savings account based on an assertion that I would double your money and send it back. You don't know me and you have no evidence to suggest I could (or would) honour my word. Despite the fact that there is a small possibility that I might do as I say, you would be acting irrationally.
the logical requirements for different sorts of claims
Why don't you tell me, what the "logical requirements" for Christianity's many, many disputed claims are? This is what David Hume has to say:
All rational statements that assert a factual claim about the universe that begin "I believe that...." are simply shorthand for, "Based on my knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of the prevailing evidence, I tentatively believe that...." For instance, when one says, "I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy," one is not asserting an absolute truth but a tentative belief based on interpretation of the assembled evidence. Even though one may set an alarm clock prior to the following day, believing that waking up will be possible, that belief is tentative, tempered by a small but finite degree of doubt (the earth might be destroyed, or one might die before the alarm goes off).
If you cannot understand what I am saying and see how it is rational after reading this, then I really don't know what else I can say to you. You and this other guy talk as if I'm talking crazy. This is, by its definition, a rational way to view the world. I can't express any more clearly, I'm sorry. And I mean that genuinely. If you don't see what I am saying then I really wish I could help, not to make you agree with me, but just to give you the option to. But this is as explicit as my explanation can get.
the fields of anthropology
Do you not realise how religion has been consistently used to control the masses in almost every civilised nation on the planet? I would tell you to read a history book if it wasn't so incredibly patronising. Incidentally, your allusion to Stalin is intellectually dishonest - his atrocities were by no means connected to his rejection of religion, they were attributable to the fact that he was fucking bat shit insane.
I think your ideas about human nature are interesting, but I strongly disagree with them. Human nature is malleable. Someone who grows up, for example, not questioning authority or engaging in rational thought because such things have been discouraged in order for them to be successfully religiously indoctrinated will have a very different nature to someone brought up by parents who have encouraged them to keep their minds open, critical and rational. It is on this fundamental level that I think the danger l
You know what, your ignorance got to me so much I had to reply to you properly. It's a quicky, though. David Hume on rationalism:
All rational statements that assert a factual claim about the universe that begin "I believe that...." are simply shorthand for, "Based on my knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of the prevailing evidence, I tentatively believe that...." For instance, when one says, "I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy," one is not asserting an absolute truth but a tentative belief based on interpretation of the assembled evidence. Even though one may set an alarm clock prior to the following day, believing that waking up will be possible, that belief is tentative, tempered by a small but finite degree of doubt (the earth might be destroyed, or one might die before the alarm goes off).
If you can't now see how probability and rationalism play a part in this debate, then I'm afraid you are a lost cause. Either that or you're religious, in which case I don't want to receive any more posts from you.
I'd be quite willing to wager that over history, more people have believed in divinity than have not.
Religion is a part of culture. It survives because generation after generation pass it along. Just like language.
I see what you mean about it being "default" in the sense that people tend to be drawn to religion. But I would suggest that this is because we tend to fall back onto our imaginations when our reason fails to provide an answer. We are, by nature, rational beings.
Oh, and your arguments on this sort of topic will be taken better if you leave the emotional content such as "grow up" out
I'll make a deal with you: when people stop suffering at the hands of religion, I'll stop getting emotional about it.
I have to take issue with your definitions of atheism/agnosticism. See this post.
Nice sound bites, but you ignore reality and conveniently ignore what atheism is. You ignore probability. You ignore everything that doesn't fit within your apologist viewpoint.
The fact is that there is no way to rationally believe in a Christian god any more than there is to believe in Zeus. Sure, there's a miniscule probability that Christianity is correct in its teachings, but this probability is comparable to the probability of, for example, Zeus existing and Greek mythology being correct. To that extent, atheists are saying "I don't know". That's why the difference between atheism and agnosticism is fallacious. Agnostics are merely affording extra weight to a purported fact for which there is no evidence for an irrational reason.
people like you need to stop pushing false dichotamies and pretending that we're all out here to "take sides."
False dichotamies? Try Israel and Palestine. Or the Irish Republicans and the Unionists. You're right - we're not all out to take sides, but we need to be, because until enough people abandon religion, civilisation will remain shackled by conflict and segregation.
It is in fact quite possible to reject every religious text and still be agnostic.
That's because agnosticism, as I have already said, is a faux concept and merely a degree of theism.
Zealotry in favor of atheism is no better a government policy than zealotry in favor of Christianity.
OK, I'm going to define my terms very clearly so that you understand. Atheism is just the word used to describe a rational approach to religion. A rational approach to religion is the same as a rational approach to anything else. Information is weighed according to evidence and a conclusion is reached. That is all atheism means. In fact, I think it's pretty absurd there's a word for it, because as I said, for rational beings it's the default position! Can an atheist tell you that he is 100% certain that x deity does not exist? No. What he can tell you is that according to the evidence available, it is highly unlikely that they exist.
So, should governments approach matters in a zealously rational way? Yes, of course they should.
there is also no direct proof that there is no god
There are invisible pink unicorns everywhere. You can't see them and they avoid touching people by shifting between spatial dimensions. But they are there, and there is no scientific evidence to prove otherwise. You consider believing me?
Trying to prove a negative is an exercise in futility. Using the mere fact that a theory is proposed as an excuse to suggest that its probability is anything but miniscule (on the same level as any similar theory like the pink unicorns) is illogical and will lead to a life of religious fear and existential confusion. Avoid!
The point is that atheism is as much an act of faith as any theism.
No it isn't. Atheism is the default position. It is, simply, a case of not endorsing or subscribing to purported religious facts for which there is no evidence. Faith has nothing to do with it. Your logic doesn't make sense.
Countries are making the kind of legislation this article talks about and you don't think some rational zealotry is in order?
Seriously, people like you need to pick a side. Religion has damaged society for too long. We're so close to killing it and the last thing we need is morons like you who, through cowardice or indecision or existential angst, end up validating those insane enough to actually believe the shit they're told by their religions. People make the mistake of thinking that this is harmless philosophical debate. It isn't. Religion in all its forms is holding humanity back.
Don't you see how your friend was being rational, and was probably shocked by your inability to follow his very simple logic that, applied in any other context, you would have agreed to be sound?
I'll put it another way, care of Doug Stanhope: being an intelligent, rational. educated person, but having never come into contact with any religion, would you afford any weight to <insert religious text here>, let alone wholeheartedly believe in it, despite evidence to the contrary? Can you see what I'm saying?
Incidentally, the Zeus argument is exactly the same thing. Someone has told you something for which you are required to categorise as fact or fiction. You suggest it absurd to think that Zeus would be real (presumably because an all-powerful being seems absurd to you), but you don't find the story of a Christian god (for whom there is no evidence and serious credibility issues surrounding the text that describes it) ridiculous.
You know the only difference? When your teachers/parents/priest taught you about the latter, they drilled it into you that it was true, and they did so from such an early age that it has created enough doubt to cause you this brain attack in adulthood. Either that or you're scared of dying/being alone, yada yada. Grow up. The world needs you to stick up for what's right, not what makes you feel warm at night at the expense of others.
To hell with you and to hell with the Internet. It's distracting. It's meaningless; it's not real. It's in the air somewhere.
It helps drive the economy forward. It helps people keep in touch. It allows people to access resources (such as Bradbury's works) they otherwise wouldn't be able to.
It's a shame how foolish and ignorant his remarks are.
You should try using a Zune. Its interface is very innovative and very different from the iPod's.
I know many iPod users who have seen and preferred my Zune, but because we're in the UK they haven't been able to get hold of one.
I think there's a real chance that the Zune will catch on and gain significant market share, especially with modern, sexy features that people go crazy for (like a touch screen and HD output). I know I'll be buying one, despite having a Zune 2 that's only a year old.
Just give up and focus on your own studies. He's gone.
Really? I was expecting some better advice considering the rest of your post. I have trouble accepting that nothing can be done for people in these situations. Surely with hindsight you can think of something?
Owning a TV and claiming it's not connected to an aerial/cable/satellite/etc is not sufficient.
This is completely incorrect. The licensing rules clearly state:
You must be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV. It makes no difference what equipment you use.
If you have a TV that isn't being used to watch TV as it is broadcast (e.g. just to play a games console), you are not required to have a licence.
Note that it is probably the case that having a TV connected to an aerial is strong (perhaps sufficient) evidence that it is being used to watch/record TV as it is being shown, but possession of a TV in that configuration is not an offence in itself. Similarly, possession of a TV not connected to an aerial/satellite does not require a licence.
Firstly, it's doubtful that any company would agree to a force majeure clause encompassing economic instability. Secondly, such a condition would only be enforceable if agreed - how do you know that Microsoft agreed such a clause?
The real issue here is a simple privity of contract one. This doctrine dictates that only parties to a contract can benefit from it and be subjected to obligations under it. Microsoft's contract is with the MCPs, not the businesses. Thus, their only recourse is against the MCPs. There is nothing unusual about this.
If it isn't 99.99% compatible, it isn't getting on my machine.
What the fuck does that mean? If it's compatible with your hardware, then you should run it; if it's not, then you shouldn't. Where did that number come from? It implies that your decision to run software on your own hardware is dependent on its compatibility with the rest of the world's hardware.
You know, Microsoft bashing hysteria used to be funny, and largely warranted, but Windows is so much better now than it used to be. If the trade-off for more stability and a finally shifting security paradigm is some hardware incompatibility, then I'm happy to accept. Maybe a corporate customer running legacy PCs won't, but that's not me so I really don't care. Let Microsoft lose customers - maybe the resulting increase in competition will make their software better.
I have a mobile broadband (HSDPA) service with Vodafone (they own 45% of Verizon Wireless in the US) in the UK. Occasionally, something will go wrong with a mast that I'm connected to and I'll give Vodafone a call to check if they have any reported problems in the area. The thing is, my account with them has my home post code (equivalent to a ZIP code) associated with it, and back home I don't have 3G coverage. As you can imagine, every time I call them they try and tell me that the lack of coverage in my area (having looked up my home post code) is causing the problem - this seems to instil in them a stubborn scepticism that persists even when I tell them that I'm not at home, and that until 5 minutes ago the signal bars on my laptop were full and I was connected at full speed.
Why call centre workers in the business of troubleshooting mobile data services don't consider that users may not be at their registered home addresses, completely bemuses me.
Re:That's one way KDE/GNOME should emulate Windows
on
A Real Bill Gates Rant
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You have to understand that the original poster was coming from the "my dream is that Linux becomes the only OS used in the world" perspective.
The idea that different software suits different people is lost on those with this mentality.
Slashdot Mirror
To say that these religious systems don't make useful predictions is false. These systems must be useful, or they would have driven their adherents to extinction many generations ago.
Religion preys on the fear of life and death. Its success has nothing to do with it making "useful predictions".
You want an example of destructive religious predictions? How about the apocalyptic prophecies that George W. Bush cited in his decisions regarding the war in Iraq and up to 16 million American "end timers" believe to be about to come true.
Atheism tends towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence.
Remember how I said this in the post you replied to saying I didn't know what atheism was?
But you know what, I'm going to simplify things because I've realised this word "atheism" is just a way for people like you to contort things to fit your bullshit. So I am no longer calling myself an atheist. This is my stance: I think that the devotion to people or lifestyles, imaginary or otherwise, based on the belief in wholly unproven facts (that have a very tiny probability of truth on the same order of the probability of, for example, Greek mythology being truth), is irrational. I have provided examples of how this is irrational. I don't care if the object of the devotion is a god, a heaven, the E-meter, a pink unicorn or candy trees on the Moon. It is irrational if it is based on a lack of empirical evidence or if there is evidence to the contrary, just like it would be irrational for you to send me a wire transfer of your entire savings account based on an assertion that I would double your money and send it back. You don't know me and you have no evidence to suggest I could (or would) honour my word. Despite the fact that there is a small possibility that I might do as I say, you would be acting irrationally.
the logical requirements for different sorts of claims
Why don't you tell me, what the "logical requirements" for Christianity's many, many disputed claims are? This is what David Hume has to say:
All rational statements that assert a factual claim about the universe that begin "I believe that ...." are simply shorthand for, "Based on my knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of the prevailing evidence, I tentatively believe that...." For instance, when one says, "I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy," one is not asserting an absolute truth but a tentative belief based on interpretation of the assembled evidence. Even though one may set an alarm clock prior to the following day, believing that waking up will be possible, that belief is tentative, tempered by a small but finite degree of doubt (the earth might be destroyed, or one might die before the alarm goes off).
If you cannot understand what I am saying and see how it is rational after reading this, then I really don't know what else I can say to you. You and this other guy talk as if I'm talking crazy. This is, by its definition, a rational way to view the world. I can't express any more clearly, I'm sorry. And I mean that genuinely. If you don't see what I am saying then I really wish I could help, not to make you agree with me, but just to give you the option to. But this is as explicit as my explanation can get.
the fields of anthropology
Do you not realise how religion has been consistently used to control the masses in almost every civilised nation on the planet? I would tell you to read a history book if it wasn't so incredibly patronising. Incidentally, your allusion to Stalin is intellectually dishonest - his atrocities were by no means connected to his rejection of religion, they were attributable to the fact that he was fucking bat shit insane.
I think your ideas about human nature are interesting, but I strongly disagree with them. Human nature is malleable. Someone who grows up, for example, not questioning authority or engaging in rational thought because such things have been discouraged in order for them to be successfully religiously indoctrinated will have a very different nature to someone brought up by parents who have encouraged them to keep their minds open, critical and rational. It is on this fundamental level that I think the danger l
All rational statements that assert a factual claim about the universe that begin "I believe that ...." are simply shorthand for, "Based on my knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of the prevailing evidence, I tentatively believe that...." For instance, when one says, "I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy," one is not asserting an absolute truth but a tentative belief based on interpretation of the assembled evidence. Even though one may set an alarm clock prior to the following day, believing that waking up will be possible, that belief is tentative, tempered by a small but finite degree of doubt (the earth might be destroyed, or one might die before the alarm goes off).
If you can't now see how probability and rationalism play a part in this debate, then I'm afraid you are a lost cause. Either that or you're religious, in which case I don't want to receive any more posts from you.
Try reading my post properly, then reply to it.
I'd be quite willing to wager that over history, more people have believed in divinity than have not.
Religion is a part of culture. It survives because generation after generation pass it along. Just like language.
I see what you mean about it being "default" in the sense that people tend to be drawn to religion. But I would suggest that this is because we tend to fall back onto our imaginations when our reason fails to provide an answer. We are, by nature, rational beings.
Oh, and your arguments on this sort of topic will be taken better if you leave the emotional content such as "grow up" out
I'll make a deal with you: when people stop suffering at the hands of religion, I'll stop getting emotional about it.
I have to take issue with your definitions of atheism/agnosticism. See this post.
Haha I love it. GP saddens me.
Oh man, come on. The number of intelligent people who come out with this shit.
Please read this post and understand what I'm saying!
The fact is that there is no way to rationally believe in a Christian god any more than there is to believe in Zeus. Sure, there's a miniscule probability that Christianity is correct in its teachings, but this probability is comparable to the probability of, for example, Zeus existing and Greek mythology being correct. To that extent, atheists are saying "I don't know". That's why the difference between atheism and agnosticism is fallacious. Agnostics are merely affording extra weight to a purported fact for which there is no evidence for an irrational reason.
people like you need to stop pushing false dichotamies and pretending that we're all out here to "take sides."
False dichotamies? Try Israel and Palestine. Or the Irish Republicans and the Unionists. You're right - we're not all out to take sides, but we need to be, because until enough people abandon religion, civilisation will remain shackled by conflict and segregation.
It is in fact quite possible to reject every religious text and still be agnostic.
That's because agnosticism, as I have already said, is a faux concept and merely a degree of theism.
Zealotry in favor of atheism is no better a government policy than zealotry in favor of Christianity.
OK, I'm going to define my terms very clearly so that you understand. Atheism is just the word used to describe a rational approach to religion. A rational approach to religion is the same as a rational approach to anything else. Information is weighed according to evidence and a conclusion is reached. That is all atheism means. In fact, I think it's pretty absurd there's a word for it, because as I said, for rational beings it's the default position! Can an atheist tell you that he is 100% certain that x deity does not exist? No. What he can tell you is that according to the evidence available, it is highly unlikely that they exist.
So, should governments approach matters in a zealously rational way? Yes, of course they should.
there is also no direct proof that there is no god
There are invisible pink unicorns everywhere. You can't see them and they avoid touching people by shifting between spatial dimensions. But they are there, and there is no scientific evidence to prove otherwise. You consider believing me?
Trying to prove a negative is an exercise in futility. Using the mere fact that a theory is proposed as an excuse to suggest that its probability is anything but miniscule (on the same level as any similar theory like the pink unicorns) is illogical and will lead to a life of religious fear and existential confusion. Avoid!
The point is that atheism is as much an act of faith as any theism.
No it isn't. Atheism is the default position. It is, simply, a case of not endorsing or subscribing to purported religious facts for which there is no evidence. Faith has nothing to do with it. Your logic doesn't make sense.
Countries are making the kind of legislation this article talks about and you don't think some rational zealotry is in order?
Seriously, people like you need to pick a side. Religion has damaged society for too long. We're so close to killing it and the last thing we need is morons like you who, through cowardice or indecision or existential angst, end up validating those insane enough to actually believe the shit they're told by their religions. People make the mistake of thinking that this is harmless philosophical debate. It isn't. Religion in all its forms is holding humanity back.
Don't you see how your friend was being rational, and was probably shocked by your inability to follow his very simple logic that, applied in any other context, you would have agreed to be sound?
I'll put it another way, care of Doug Stanhope: being an intelligent, rational. educated person, but having never come into contact with any religion, would you afford any weight to <insert religious text here>, let alone wholeheartedly believe in it, despite evidence to the contrary? Can you see what I'm saying?
Incidentally, the Zeus argument is exactly the same thing. Someone has told you something for which you are required to categorise as fact or fiction. You suggest it absurd to think that Zeus would be real (presumably because an all-powerful being seems absurd to you), but you don't find the story of a Christian god (for whom there is no evidence and serious credibility issues surrounding the text that describes it) ridiculous.
You know the only difference? When your teachers/parents/priest taught you about the latter, they drilled it into you that it was true, and they did so from such an early age that it has created enough doubt to cause you this brain attack in adulthood. Either that or you're scared of dying/being alone, yada yada. Grow up. The world needs you to stick up for what's right, not what makes you feel warm at night at the expense of others.
To hell with you and to hell with the Internet. It's distracting. It's meaningless; it's not real. It's in the air somewhere.
It helps drive the economy forward. It helps people keep in touch. It allows people to access resources (such as Bradbury's works) they otherwise wouldn't be able to.
It's a shame how foolish and ignorant his remarks are.
Damn, you're right. That's shitty. And what a crappy website.
There is no way that this website is endorsed by Asus/Microsoft.
I think you've been had, Slashdot.
You're lame for not even reading the summary properly. It outputs in HD. It displays in 480x320.
You should try using a Zune. Its interface is very innovative and very different from the iPod's.
I know many iPod users who have seen and preferred my Zune, but because we're in the UK they haven't been able to get hold of one.
I think there's a real chance that the Zune will catch on and gain significant market share, especially with modern, sexy features that people go crazy for (like a touch screen and HD output). I know I'll be buying one, despite having a Zune 2 that's only a year old.
Just give up and focus on your own studies. He's gone.
Really? I was expecting some better advice considering the rest of your post. I have trouble accepting that nothing can be done for people in these situations. Surely with hindsight you can think of something?
It's only an addiction when it hurts the people around you.
You obviously don't know much about addiction.
Owning a TV and claiming it's not connected to an aerial/cable/satellite/etc is not sufficient.
This is completely incorrect. The licensing rules clearly state:
You must be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV. It makes no difference what equipment you use.
If you have a TV that isn't being used to watch TV as it is broadcast (e.g. just to play a games console), you are not required to have a licence.
Note that it is probably the case that having a TV connected to an aerial is strong (perhaps sufficient) evidence that it is being used to watch/record TV as it is being shown, but possession of a TV in that configuration is not an offence in itself. Similarly, possession of a TV not connected to an aerial/satellite does not require a licence.
Exactly. It makes sense that religious people believe what they do to avoid confronting their mortality.
Then, when death approaches, their lack of self-awareness makes it all the more difficult to accept.
Firstly, it's doubtful that any company would agree to a force majeure clause encompassing economic instability. Secondly, such a condition would only be enforceable if agreed - how do you know that Microsoft agreed such a clause?
The real issue here is a simple privity of contract one. This doctrine dictates that only parties to a contract can benefit from it and be subjected to obligations under it. Microsoft's contract is with the MCPs, not the businesses. Thus, their only recourse is against the MCPs. There is nothing unusual about this.
NOD32 is great as well. Really low performance impact and a very accurate heuristics engine. Highly recommended.
Don't forget the 100MB of RAM it takes to run a anti-virus *suite*. I'm still wondering why people accept *that*.
They shouldn't.
If it isn't 99.99% compatible, it isn't getting on my machine.
What the fuck does that mean? If it's compatible with your hardware, then you should run it; if it's not, then you shouldn't. Where did that number come from? It implies that your decision to run software on your own hardware is dependent on its compatibility with the rest of the world's hardware.
You know, Microsoft bashing hysteria used to be funny, and largely warranted, but Windows is so much better now than it used to be. If the trade-off for more stability and a finally shifting security paradigm is some hardware incompatibility, then I'm happy to accept. Maybe a corporate customer running legacy PCs won't, but that's not me so I really don't care. Let Microsoft lose customers - maybe the resulting increase in competition will make their software better.
I have a mobile broadband (HSDPA) service with Vodafone (they own 45% of Verizon Wireless in the US) in the UK. Occasionally, something will go wrong with a mast that I'm connected to and I'll give Vodafone a call to check if they have any reported problems in the area. The thing is, my account with them has my home post code (equivalent to a ZIP code) associated with it, and back home I don't have 3G coverage. As you can imagine, every time I call them they try and tell me that the lack of coverage in my area (having looked up my home post code) is causing the problem - this seems to instil in them a stubborn scepticism that persists even when I tell them that I'm not at home, and that until 5 minutes ago the signal bars on my laptop were full and I was connected at full speed.
Why call centre workers in the business of troubleshooting mobile data services don't consider that users may not be at their registered home addresses, completely bemuses me.
You have to understand that the original poster was coming from the "my dream is that Linux becomes the only OS used in the world" perspective.
The idea that different software suits different people is lost on those with this mentality.