I think it's highly likely that no gods exist, but anyone who claims complete certainty on the subject is delusional. And yes, there certainly are delusional atheists out there. Theists don't have the monopoly on it.
FWIW, I blame language, or the poor or inaccurate use of it.
I blame fake news, laziness, and stupidity. When people start ranting about Monsanto as a reason they think GMOs should be banned, it immediately tells me 2 things:
1. They've heard all the usual bullshit about Monsanto, and either never bothered to try and verify it or don't know how to try and verify it.
2. They think it's perfectly OK to eliminate an entire field of research and development based solely on the fact that they dislike some of the people who are involved in it.
These are not language problems; these are problems created by misinformation and poor critical thinking skills.
That last bit gives CDC the ability to say things like 'everyone in this situation should have a blood transfusion, unless their religion instructs otherwise' or 'everyone should get inoculated unless they have strongly-held opinion not to'...
Well, that right there is the problem. It's a bit like the police saying "everyone should avoid drinking and driving, unless they really want to", or an air traffic controller saying "drop to FL 20 and reduce speed to 200 knots, unless your religion instructs otherwise".
What if EVERY single corporation using GMO's appear to be EVIL?
In that case:
1. You should probably stop getting all your information on the subject from National News and various mommy blogs, and
2. Even if every single corporation which did any kind of genetic engineering whatsoever actually were completely evil, it still would not be a valid reason to oppose genetic engineering or genetically modified organisms.
I think every major ISP is pretty fucking evil, but I don't oppose the internet. Even if every single ISP in existence were completely evil, I would not be opposed to the internet. I might demand more government oversight, or even nationalisation of the infrastructure in the most extreme case, but I would still think that the internet is a pretty great thing to have.
Many many years ago there was an exploit called "Back Orifice" which was more properly named "Cult of the Dead Cow".
Just for the record, Cult of the Dead Cow was the name of the group which created it; Back Orifice was the name of a program which they released.
And yes, it was tiny enough to be easily attached to even something as small as a keygen, turning it into an easy trojan, while also being a great remote administration tool for more legitimate use.
How can you possibly not know if you believe something? If you believed it, you would know that you believe it. You can't believe something and not realise that you believe it.
See, that's superficially a very reasonable argument, but aren't you looking at the wrong problem?
The actual problem is "we have a lot of false positives" combined with "people don't understand statistics very well". And your solution is "we shouldn't look so hard"?
Wouldn't the better solution be to work on improving accuracy while simultaneously working to improve the ability of our justice system to weed out and reject the remaining false positives?
To me your argument sounds a lot like saying "well a lot of drivers get killed in accidents, therefore we shouldn't put more cars on the road". I mean, sure, that's one way to address the problem, but it's pretty ass backwards.
I tried explaining to you why you're wrong, and it didn't work, so now please give me your address so that I and anyone else who thinks you're wrong can come over to your house and exercise our right to riot.
I suspect that's very much what would happen if a more advanced alien species took an interest in us. Assuming their goal wasn't genocide, they'd likely assimilate us. And I for one would gladly put on their space pants, learn to speak Keplerian, and join them amongst the starts, even if it meant being treated as a second class citizen for generations to come.
Maybe they would set aside Australia as a reservation for the humans who don't want to adapt.
To lack a belief tells says nothing about what you do believe, and unless you play semantic games, "atheism" means either you do not believe in god or you believe there is no god.
Correct! "Atheist" is not a statement of belief. It is a statement of the lack of a belief.
Those who have a belief that no gods exist are also atheists, but only because they must inherently lack a belief in gods. That doesn't make their additional belief a part of atheism, though, just like gnosticism is not a requirement of theism.
I only disagree that the statement "I do not believe in god" is equivalent to lacking a belief in god(s). In order to make the statement you have to have at least considered the concept, whereas a newborn baby or heathen may be entirely unfamiliar with the concept.
Why you lack the belief isn't relevant to whether or not you believe, though. A newborn baby is an atheist. So is a "heathen unfamiliar with the concept". The reason they're atheists may be different than mine, but they are still atheists. Just like two theists might have different reasons for being theists, but they're both still theists.
Of course if everyone agreed on these points, there'd be no debate. Yet there is, even after millennia of argument on the topic.
With 7 billion people on this planet it would be a goddamn miracle if we all agreed on pretty much anything. I mean, there are still people who believe the earth is flat.
Okay, but then you're not talking about atheists anymore, you're talking about agnostics or 'non-theists.'
And we have come full circle. As I said earlier, "atheist" and "agnostic" are not mutually exclusive. And "non-theist" is the same as "atheist".
I think you're confused because you don't realize that the two terms answer different questions. As I said earlier, "theism" refers to belief, "gnosticism" refers to knowledge. If I ask you "do you believe there's a god" and you answer "I'm agnostic", you haven't actually answered the question. I didn't ask what you know, I asked what you believe.
It's nonsensical for you to say "you're not talking about atheists, you're talking about agnostics". A person can be both, or neither, or some combination of the two. Examples:
1. Don't believe in a god, don't know if there are any gods - atheist agnostic. 2. Do believe in gods, don't know there are gods - theist agnostic. 3. Do believe in a god, know there's a god - theist gnostic. 4. Don't believe in gods, know there are no gods - atheist with a very loose definition of the word "know".
Most people whom I've spoken to who identify as "agnostic" are both atheist and agnostic. They just don't like the word "atheist" because it has negative connotations due to centuries of demonization by various religions.
Sure, in pedantic logical philosophical/theological terms, they are not the same.
No, in very real terms. I don't believe that there is life on Mars. But I also do not believe that there isn't life on Mars. I don't believe that your real name is John. But I also don't believe that your real name isn't John.
In the absence of sufficient evidence, the default position is a lack of belief. And "lack of belief" is not the same as "believing the opposite to be true".
Nobody who says "I don't believe in god" is simultaneously going to claim "I believe there's (at least one) god," which would be the contradiction of "I believe there is no god."
Of course not, that would be contradictory. But many people will say "I don't believe there is a god" as well as "I don't believe there aren't any gods", and those two positions are NOT contradictory.
I'm not arguing for any metaphor to be true; I'm pointing out that I do not need to have the answer in order to know that someone else's answer is wrong.
I don't know why you've got such a hardon for proving negatives, either. I'm well aware that you can't prove a negative. That has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. You seem horribly confused.
This is why Atheists are generally disgruntled Theists who are simply against what they used to be a member of, and probably still believe much of. Often they're actually cryptotheists who simply believe that the churches are full of liars, but actually do believe in the root metaphysics.
[Citation needed]
Atheist as a word would seem to mean "non-Theist," but it really means anti-theist, and agnostic means non-theist. Unfortunately this confuses many people. But it isn't actually very complicated.
Apple as a word would seem to mean apple, but it really means banana, and orange means pineapple. Unfortunately this confuses many people. But it isn't actually very complicated.
Sure I can. I may not know how far away the moon is, but I know it's not 5 miles. If he claims that it is 5 miles, then I know that he's wrong, and that he also doesn't know how far it is.
Unless he does know the real distance but is just lying to me when he says it's 5 miles. In which case he's still wrong, and also a liar.
Makes sense. I'm personally opposed to fire because people are stupid and irresponsible and might burn down the forest. Why can't they just keep eating their meat raw dammit.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's highly likely that no gods exist, but anyone who claims complete certainty on the subject is delusional. And yes, there certainly are delusional atheists out there. Theists don't have the monopoly on it.
So true. They should really have a 40 MW backup powerplant for their 40 MW backup powerplant. That's just poor planning right there.
FWIW, I blame language, or the poor or inaccurate use of it.
I blame fake news, laziness, and stupidity. When people start ranting about Monsanto as a reason they think GMOs should be banned, it immediately tells me 2 things:
1. They've heard all the usual bullshit about Monsanto, and either never bothered to try and verify it or don't know how to try and verify it.
2. They think it's perfectly OK to eliminate an entire field of research and development based solely on the fact that they dislike some of the people who are involved in it.
These are not language problems; these are problems created by misinformation and poor critical thinking skills.
That last bit gives CDC the ability to say things like 'everyone in this situation should have a blood transfusion, unless their religion instructs otherwise' or 'everyone should get inoculated unless they have strongly-held opinion not to'...
Well, that right there is the problem. It's a bit like the police saying "everyone should avoid drinking and driving, unless they really want to", or an air traffic controller saying "drop to FL 20 and reduce speed to 200 knots, unless your religion instructs otherwise".
No.
What if EVERY single corporation using GMO's appear to be EVIL?
In that case:
1. You should probably stop getting all your information on the subject from National News and various mommy blogs, and
2. Even if every single corporation which did any kind of genetic engineering whatsoever actually were completely evil, it still would not be a valid reason to oppose genetic engineering or genetically modified organisms.
I think every major ISP is pretty fucking evil, but I don't oppose the internet. Even if every single ISP in existence were completely evil, I would not be opposed to the internet. I might demand more government oversight, or even nationalisation of the infrastructure in the most extreme case, but I would still think that the internet is a pretty great thing to have.
I don't get your point. Are you saying that you're confused about why a person can own a plant, but not own another person?
Referring to 40 MW as "backup power" is a bit ridiculous. That's a whole new powerplant right there.
Anyway, it looks like there was a fire which not only cut power but also damaged some of the backup systems.
Many many years ago there was an exploit called "Back Orifice" which was more properly named "Cult of the Dead Cow".
Just for the record, Cult of the Dead Cow was the name of the group which created it; Back Orifice was the name of a program which they released.
And yes, it was tiny enough to be easily attached to even something as small as a keygen, turning it into an easy trojan, while also being a great remote administration tool for more legitimate use.
How can you possibly not know if you believe something? If you believed it, you would know that you believe it. You can't believe something and not realise that you believe it.
See, that's superficially a very reasonable argument, but aren't you looking at the wrong problem?
The actual problem is "we have a lot of false positives" combined with "people don't understand statistics very well". And your solution is "we shouldn't look so hard"?
Wouldn't the better solution be to work on improving accuracy while simultaneously working to improve the ability of our justice system to weed out and reject the remaining false positives?
To me your argument sounds a lot like saying "well a lot of drivers get killed in accidents, therefore we shouldn't put more cars on the road". I mean, sure, that's one way to address the problem, but it's pretty ass backwards.
I tried explaining to you why you're wrong, and it didn't work, so now please give me your address so that I and anyone else who thinks you're wrong can come over to your house and exercise our right to riot.
Thanks in advance.
I suspect that's very much what would happen if a more advanced alien species took an interest in us. Assuming their goal wasn't genocide, they'd likely assimilate us. And I for one would gladly put on their space pants, learn to speak Keplerian, and join them amongst the starts, even if it meant being treated as a second class citizen for generations to come.
Maybe they would set aside Australia as a reservation for the humans who don't want to adapt.
To lack a belief tells says nothing about what you do believe, and unless you play semantic games, "atheism" means either you do not believe in god or you believe there is no god.
Correct! "Atheist" is not a statement of belief. It is a statement of the lack of a belief.
Those who have a belief that no gods exist are also atheists, but only because they must inherently lack a belief in gods. That doesn't make their additional belief a part of atheism, though, just like gnosticism is not a requirement of theism.
I only disagree that the statement "I do not believe in god" is equivalent to lacking a belief in god(s). In order to make the statement you have to have at least considered the concept, whereas a newborn baby or heathen may be entirely unfamiliar with the concept.
Why you lack the belief isn't relevant to whether or not you believe, though. A newborn baby is an atheist. So is a "heathen unfamiliar with the concept". The reason they're atheists may be different than mine, but they are still atheists. Just like two theists might have different reasons for being theists, but they're both still theists.
Of course if everyone agreed on these points, there'd be no debate. Yet there is, even after millennia of argument on the topic.
With 7 billion people on this planet it would be a goddamn miracle if we all agreed on pretty much anything. I mean, there are still people who believe the earth is flat.
You tell me.
Okay, but then you're not talking about atheists anymore, you're talking about agnostics or 'non-theists.'
And we have come full circle. As I said earlier, "atheist" and "agnostic" are not mutually exclusive. And "non-theist" is the same as "atheist".
I think you're confused because you don't realize that the two terms answer different questions. As I said earlier, "theism" refers to belief, "gnosticism" refers to knowledge. If I ask you "do you believe there's a god" and you answer "I'm agnostic", you haven't actually answered the question. I didn't ask what you know, I asked what you believe.
It's nonsensical for you to say "you're not talking about atheists, you're talking about agnostics". A person can be both, or neither, or some combination of the two. Examples:
1. Don't believe in a god, don't know if there are any gods - atheist agnostic.
2. Do believe in gods, don't know there are gods - theist agnostic.
3. Do believe in a god, know there's a god - theist gnostic.
4. Don't believe in gods, know there are no gods - atheist with a very loose definition of the word "know".
Most people whom I've spoken to who identify as "agnostic" are both atheist and agnostic. They just don't like the word "atheist" because it has negative connotations due to centuries of demonization by various religions.
Sure, in pedantic logical philosophical/theological terms, they are not the same.
No, in very real terms. I don't believe that there is life on Mars. But I also do not believe that there isn't life on Mars. I don't believe that your real name is John. But I also don't believe that your real name isn't John.
In the absence of sufficient evidence, the default position is a lack of belief. And "lack of belief" is not the same as "believing the opposite to be true".
Nobody who says "I don't believe in god" is simultaneously going to claim "I believe there's (at least one) god," which would be the contradiction of "I believe there is no god."
Of course not, that would be contradictory. But many people will say "I don't believe there is a god" as well as "I don't believe there aren't any gods", and those two positions are NOT contradictory.
I'm not arguing for any metaphor to be true; I'm pointing out that I do not need to have the answer in order to know that someone else's answer is wrong.
I don't know why you've got such a hardon for proving negatives, either. I'm well aware that you can't prove a negative. That has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. You seem horribly confused.
Your primary document is your ass?
Neat.
This is why Atheists are generally disgruntled Theists who are simply against what they used to be a member of, and probably still believe much of. Often they're actually cryptotheists who simply believe that the churches are full of liars, but actually do believe in the root metaphysics.
[Citation needed]
Atheist as a word would seem to mean "non-Theist," but it really means anti-theist, and agnostic means non-theist. Unfortunately this confuses many people. But it isn't actually very complicated.
Apple as a word would seem to mean apple, but it really means banana, and orange means pineapple. Unfortunately this confuses many people. But it isn't actually very complicated.
Sure I can. I may not know how far away the moon is, but I know it's not 5 miles. If he claims that it is 5 miles, then I know that he's wrong, and that he also doesn't know how far it is.
Unless he does know the real distance but is just lying to me when he says it's 5 miles. In which case he's still wrong, and also a liar.
I don't think one needs to be a mind reader in order to read a Slashdot comment which says "I'm anti-GMO". Pretty sure we just call that "reading".
Mr Robot is about working in tech the same way that Die Hard is about working in law enforcement.
Makes sense. I'm personally opposed to fire because people are stupid and irresponsible and might burn down the forest. Why can't they just keep eating their meat raw dammit.
Saying "no I don't believe in god" is not the same as saying "I believe there is no god". They are two completely different statements.
The vast majority of people who call themselves "agnostic" also do not believe in any gods.