Atheism is a belief based on an unsubstantiated claim and as such is no different than religion.
No, atheism is the lack of a belief. The prefix "a" means "without". A-theism. Literally "without theism".
Agnosticism: being smart and sane enough to admit that you don't fucking know.
And in this case, the prefix "a" still means "without". A-gnosticism. Literally " without knowledge".
Ironically enough, the term "gnosticism" itself refers to religious ideas. Both gnosticism and theism effectively describe the same thing - religious beliefs and religious knowledge. So saying you're an atheist is saying you have no religious beliefs, and saying you're agnostic is saying that you have no religious knowledge.
Unfortunately you don't get to be a smug holier-than-thou douche if you acknowledge that the terms are essentially identical, so many people like to pretend that atheism is some strong antireligious ideology, while agnosticism is a middle-of-the-road kind of "open mindedness".
They also like to ignore the fact that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. One can have belief but not knowledge, or have no belief and no knowledge.
Well, he probably doesn't mind farmers breeding their own seeds. But industrial gene-splicing GMO is only sustainable in corporate contexts.
That's just total nonsense. There is absolutely nothing about gene splicing which requires corporations at all, let alone which would make it "only sustainable in corporate contexts".
They'll tell you how wonderful it is to breed, nay, fabricate soy seeds that will make the intestines of soy beetles melt. The problem is that soy beetles did not magically appear out of thin air when soy went into agriculture. Preexisting plant eaters become superpests because of monocultures creating large habitats where they flourish.
This is more nonsense. Pests don't just magically appear when we introduce monoculture. Do you know anything at all about ecosystems? About the history of farming? Pests, weeds, and blights have always existed and will always exist, regardless of the farming methods we employ. Monoculture may exacerbate the problem, but it doesn't create it. Even if it did, though, how in the world is that supposed to be an argument against creating BT producing crops?
That will not be different with GMO seeds. Wherever you draw the line, the pests will follow.
No shit. Kinda like wherever we draw the line when it comes to our health, viruses and bacteria will follow.
Nature evolves, that's a given. And we keep improving our technology. What's your alternative, exactly? Some Avatar fantasy where if we are just really nice to the bugs they'll stop eating our crops? If we say kind words to the viruses, they'll stop ravaging our bodies?
Larger corporate-based monocultures are not the answer. They are the problem.
They are only a problem if your goal is mass starvation. "Larger corporate-based monocultures" have done more to elevate people out of poverty and starvation than any other technological improvement in history.
Theres been a 500 year trend of advancement coming from Christian western societies. 500 years of correlation is not a random coincidence.
There's been a 500 year trend of non-advancement coming from nations where most people have black skin. I guess that's not random coincidence either, eh?
I love that you started off by saying that you're not confusing correlation with causation, and then went on to demonstrate that you're doing exactly that.
Yes, that would be equally stupid. Again, you're opposed to a technology because you don't like corporations. If you don't see how foolish that is... I really don't know how to dumb it down for you any further.
Then why has the majority of the technological advances that benefitted humanity come from nations with their roots in Christianity?
Because they had to come from somewhere. You may as well ask why the majority of technological advances came from countries where people have white skin, or from countries which descended from the Roman Empire. You're confusing correlation and causation.
That's like being anti-electronics because Microsoft sucks. It's stupid. If your problem is with a corporation, or with corporations in general, then you should be anti-corporation, not anti-gmo.
Why is that a problem? If you tell me that the distance between the earth and the moon is 5 miles, do I have to know the actual distance in order to tell you that you're wrong? Why do you think that "I don't know, and you don't either" is "a problem"?
If you took 10 minutes to think about philosophy (translated: the love of knowledge) you'd stumble upon the fact that the universe was clearly created.
If you took a fee years to study and really understand logic, reason, and the scientific method, you'd stumble upon the fact that all claimed "evidence" for a "created universe" is in fact nothing more than a gargantuan argument from ignorance.
If you reject religion you should also reject theists like Newton and LeMaitre and start from scratch.
Only theists think this way. Once you classify someone as a heathen, you must automatically reject anything they've ever done or said. Rational people do not think that way. I am perfectly fine with accepting Newtons contributions to mathematics and physics without also having to accept his musings on alchemy and religion. I don't subscribe to your absurd absolutism.
I'd say atheism is the hallmark of the uneducated.
That must be why scientists are far more likely to be atheists than the general public, and why elite scientists are more likely to be atheists than scientists as a whole. Because scientists are clearly far less educated than Jim Bob the plumber, and elite scientists are obviously the most uneducated of all.
As soon as I hear someone is an atheist I know they're still on the bottom rung of the thinking ladder. Science and religion do not conflict despite what an edgy meme on Reddit may have led you to believe. God bless.
What you know and what you think you know are obviously two very different things.
Not at all; you can already do that. How do you think warrants work? There are databases which list known fugitives, and police use those databases to figure out who to arrest. If you convince someone to enter a warrant into the system, they will be arrested the next time a cop pulls them over, or recognises them from the photo.
Adding computerised facial recognition into the mix does nothing except decrease the amount of time it takes to locate the person you've targeted.
Whether or not they would have been right is debatable, given that most of their decline happened before The Arrival. We would have to weigh the negative aspects against the positive ones. But, even if I accept that proposition with no qualifications, it just makes the original argument look even more silly; the fact that they WEREN'T flipping out and panicking when they had good reason to do so makes it rather irrational to assume that our populations would flip out if an alien species showed up.
Except it's not. For one thing, I try not to confuse the words "professional" and "college degree" with "smart". They do not mean the same thing.
Also I know dozens of people (some with college degrees, some without) who have an android based Kodi box by their TV, and use it to stream movies from ice films and similar Kodi channels. While that may not be what you typically think of when someone says the word "piracy", it does certainly fall into that category, and it's about as simple as using Netflix.
The more tech-savy people I know tend to use pirate bay, and then stream with Plex or Kodi.
And if it actually found something (and who is to say it hasn't? oooooh), then it would have been very well worth the investment for the military to know that aliens are among us -- knowing whether your country is being surveilled or infiltrated (and by whom) is considered very important to know in defense circles.
This is why I've always argued that the military should have a real program in place to try and locate Santa Claus. I mean, sure, the likelihood of every finding him is slim, but think of the benefits if we DID find him! Not only could we stop that goddamn commie from invading our houses every year, but we could put his slave elf labour pool to work building weapons and ammunition.
For some reason I have been unable to convince my local government representative to put $20 million into this project, but I remain hopeful!
Liars and frauds. If you're pretending to be a large American company when you're a single guy in a basement in Minsk, we've already established that you're a liar. No need to give you any free publicity.
I know, that's pretty much what happened when the white man showed up in the Americas. Excrement hit the leaf-fan, natives running every which way, medicine men screaming about the end of the world. Total chaos.
OK, since we've established that you're insane I know this won't mean much to you, but I'll say it anyway: not everyone who protests is either reasonable, or right. Case in point; I'm sure when you go protest it's probably about some insane thing like wanting a free unicorn in every garage. Even if we wanted to placate every single protestor by changing laws, it would be impossible.
Effectively, it is. We jail people for felonies for tactics (like blocking streets) that are run-of-the-mill in more civilized countries like France. It's not a protest unless it causes a bit of discomfort -- people confined to "free speech zones" don't count.
Your right to protest does not trump my freedom of travel. If you and your goons want to hold me hostage by blocking my car on the highway, I'm fully in favour of the cops dragging your asses to jail. If you think it's "more civilized" to allow every pissed off asshat to disrupt the lives of thousands of people, you're insane.
Slashdot Mirror
Atheism is a belief based on an unsubstantiated claim and as such is no different than religion.
No, atheism is the lack of a belief. The prefix "a" means "without". A-theism. Literally "without theism".
Agnosticism: being smart and sane enough to admit that you don't fucking know.
And in this case, the prefix "a" still means "without". A-gnosticism. Literally " without knowledge".
Ironically enough, the term "gnosticism" itself refers to religious ideas. Both gnosticism and theism effectively describe the same thing - religious beliefs and religious knowledge. So saying you're an atheist is saying you have no religious beliefs, and saying you're agnostic is saying that you have no religious knowledge.
Unfortunately you don't get to be a smug holier-than-thou douche if you acknowledge that the terms are essentially identical, so many people like to pretend that atheism is some strong antireligious ideology, while agnosticism is a middle-of-the-road kind of "open mindedness".
They also like to ignore the fact that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. One can have belief but not knowledge, or have no belief and no knowledge.
Well, he probably doesn't mind farmers breeding their own seeds. But industrial gene-splicing GMO is only sustainable in corporate contexts.
That's just total nonsense. There is absolutely nothing about gene splicing which requires corporations at all, let alone which would make it "only sustainable in corporate contexts".
They'll tell you how wonderful it is to breed, nay, fabricate soy seeds that will make the intestines of soy beetles melt. The problem is that soy beetles did not magically appear out of thin air when soy went into agriculture. Preexisting plant eaters become superpests because of monocultures creating large habitats where they flourish.
This is more nonsense. Pests don't just magically appear when we introduce monoculture. Do you know anything at all about ecosystems? About the history of farming? Pests, weeds, and blights have always existed and will always exist, regardless of the farming methods we employ. Monoculture may exacerbate the problem, but it doesn't create it. Even if it did, though, how in the world is that supposed to be an argument against creating BT producing crops?
That will not be different with GMO seeds. Wherever you draw the line, the pests will follow.
No shit. Kinda like wherever we draw the line when it comes to our health, viruses and bacteria will follow.
Nature evolves, that's a given. And we keep improving our technology. What's your alternative, exactly? Some Avatar fantasy where if we are just really nice to the bugs they'll stop eating our crops? If we say kind words to the viruses, they'll stop ravaging our bodies?
Larger corporate-based monocultures are not the answer. They are the problem.
They are only a problem if your goal is mass starvation. "Larger corporate-based monocultures" have done more to elevate people out of poverty and starvation than any other technological improvement in history.
That was actually my reaction to your previous comment, but I thought I would have one more try at explaining correlation vs causation to you.
Apparently the effort was wasted.
Ah, so clearly having black skin causes people to not be Christians. 1,000 years of correlation can't be a coincidence!
Theres been a 500 year trend of advancement coming from Christian western societies. 500 years of correlation is not a random coincidence.
There's been a 500 year trend of non-advancement coming from nations where most people have black skin. I guess that's not random coincidence either, eh?
I love that you started off by saying that you're not confusing correlation with causation, and then went on to demonstrate that you're doing exactly that.
Yeah, that's what I said.
Yes, that would be equally stupid. Again, you're opposed to a technology because you don't like corporations. If you don't see how foolish that is ... I really don't know how to dumb it down for you any further.
Then why has the majority of the technological advances that benefitted humanity come from nations with their roots in Christianity?
Because they had to come from somewhere. You may as well ask why the majority of technological advances came from countries where people have white skin, or from countries which descended from the Roman Empire. You're confusing correlation and causation.
That's like being anti-electronics because Microsoft sucks. It's stupid. If your problem is with a corporation, or with corporations in general, then you should be anti-corporation, not anti-gmo.
Why is that a problem? If you tell me that the distance between the earth and the moon is 5 miles, do I have to know the actual distance in order to tell you that you're wrong? Why do you think that "I don't know, and you don't either" is "a problem"?
Atheism is a null hypothesis. If you do not understand that, you do not understand science.
If you took 10 minutes to think about philosophy (translated: the love of knowledge) you'd stumble upon the fact that the universe was clearly created.
If you took a fee years to study and really understand logic, reason, and the scientific method, you'd stumble upon the fact that all claimed "evidence" for a "created universe" is in fact nothing more than a gargantuan argument from ignorance.
If you reject religion you should also reject theists like Newton and LeMaitre and start from scratch.
Only theists think this way. Once you classify someone as a heathen, you must automatically reject anything they've ever done or said. Rational people do not think that way. I am perfectly fine with accepting Newtons contributions to mathematics and physics without also having to accept his musings on alchemy and religion. I don't subscribe to your absurd absolutism.
I'd say atheism is the hallmark of the uneducated.
That must be why scientists are far more likely to be atheists than the general public, and why elite scientists are more likely to be atheists than scientists as a whole. Because scientists are clearly far less educated than Jim Bob the plumber, and elite scientists are obviously the most uneducated of all.
As soon as I hear someone is an atheist I know they're still on the bottom rung of the thinking ladder. Science and religion do not conflict despite what an edgy meme on Reddit may have led you to believe. God bless.
What you know and what you think you know are obviously two very different things.
May the FSM embrace you with his noodly love.
Not at all; you can already do that. How do you think warrants work? There are databases which list known fugitives, and police use those databases to figure out who to arrest. If you convince someone to enter a warrant into the system, they will be arrested the next time a cop pulls them over, or recognises them from the photo.
Adding computerised facial recognition into the mix does nothing except decrease the amount of time it takes to locate the person you've targeted.
No different than your boss sending you an email asking you to do the same thing. Except the email is spoofed and coming from a hacker.
Most people have never been able to do that. I mean, just look at how popular religion is.
Whether or not they would have been right is debatable, given that most of their decline happened before The Arrival. We would have to weigh the negative aspects against the positive ones. But, even if I accept that proposition with no qualifications, it just makes the original argument look even more silly; the fact that they WEREN'T flipping out and panicking when they had good reason to do so makes it rather irrational to assume that our populations would flip out if an alien species showed up.
On behalf of everyone who understands that "no conventional explanation" doesn't mean "I can make up whatever explanation I like", grow up.
Except it's not. For one thing, I try not to confuse the words "professional" and "college degree" with "smart". They do not mean the same thing.
Also I know dozens of people (some with college degrees, some without) who have an android based Kodi box by their TV, and use it to stream movies from ice films and similar Kodi channels. While that may not be what you typically think of when someone says the word "piracy", it does certainly fall into that category, and it's about as simple as using Netflix.
The more tech-savy people I know tend to use pirate bay, and then stream with Plex or Kodi.
You should probably stop doing that. Or at least not brag about it in public, where a cop might see it.
And if it actually found something (and who is to say it hasn't? oooooh), then it would have been very well worth the investment for the military to know that aliens are among us -- knowing whether your country is being surveilled or infiltrated (and by whom) is considered very important to know in defense circles.
This is why I've always argued that the military should have a real program in place to try and locate Santa Claus. I mean, sure, the likelihood of every finding him is slim, but think of the benefits if we DID find him! Not only could we stop that goddamn commie from invading our houses every year, but we could put his slave elf labour pool to work building weapons and ammunition.
For some reason I have been unable to convince my local government representative to put $20 million into this project, but I remain hopeful!
Defense against what?
Liars and frauds. If you're pretending to be a large American company when you're a single guy in a basement in Minsk, we've already established that you're a liar. No need to give you any free publicity.
I suspect you have a very funny definition of the word "verified".
I know, that's pretty much what happened when the white man showed up in the Americas. Excrement hit the leaf-fan, natives running every which way, medicine men screaming about the end of the world. Total chaos.
OK, since we've established that you're insane I know this won't mean much to you, but I'll say it anyway: not everyone who protests is either reasonable, or right. Case in point; I'm sure when you go protest it's probably about some insane thing like wanting a free unicorn in every garage. Even if we wanted to placate every single protestor by changing laws, it would be impossible.
Effectively, it is. We jail people for felonies for tactics (like blocking streets) that are run-of-the-mill in more civilized countries like France. It's not a protest unless it causes a bit of discomfort -- people confined to "free speech zones" don't count.
Your right to protest does not trump my freedom of travel. If you and your goons want to hold me hostage by blocking my car on the highway, I'm fully in favour of the cops dragging your asses to jail. If you think it's "more civilized" to allow every pissed off asshat to disrupt the lives of thousands of people, you're insane.