Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

KeensMustard Re:No, no. Let's not go there. Please. (903 comments)

Perhaps they have never even thought about the topic at all (no thoughts == no knowledge). Nor do they form their identity through comparison with others.

These are not the issue, though.

I assure you it's an issue for agnostics. A taxonomy of belief which excludes/ignores a whole group of people or classifies them under positions which they strenuously disagree with is an invalid taxonomy.

If they hold a belief in a god or gods, they are theist. If they don't, they are atheist.

Incorrect.

"I have no belief" is not a valid answer to the question "Is there a deity or deities?" If there is a deity, it exists independently of what people believe, because belief doesn't actualise the deity into being, and non-belief doesn't cause the deity to stop existing.

There are only 3 possible answers to the question: is there a deity of deities:

1. Yes (Theism)

2. No (Atheism)

3. I don't know (Agnosticism)

yesterday
top

Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

KeensMustard Re:No, no. Let's not go there. Please. (903 comments)

For some reason you've chosen to misquote me. This is generally an indicator that you are uncomfortable addressing the topic. I say this so that you may reflect on why that might be.

Is there a difference between knowledge and belief when it comes to assertions re: the existence of deities?

Yes. Always.

Knowledge is based, either directly or through a proxy, upon known facts that are some combination of repeatable, consensually experiential, and testable. Sound travels at a particular speed in our atmosphere. This is knowledge.

Beliefs are based upon faith, and cannot be proven, although they can be described and so passed along. Animals cross the rainbow bridge when they die. This is belief.

According to this definition then the statement there is no deity would qualify as belief, since it is not based on anything repeatable, consensually experiential, and testable and is in fact based upon faith, and cannot be proven, although [it] can be described and so passed along.

Correct?

yesterday
top

Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

KeensMustard Re:No, no. Let's not go there. Please. (903 comments)

Is there a difference between knowledge and belief when it comes to assertions re: the existence of deities? I'm not even sure that there is a difference even in the general case i.e. knowledge and belief are the same.

So then a lack of belief and a lack of knowledge are the same (agnosticism == no belief).

Agnostics that entertain any measure of belief are theists.

I don't think Agnostics are prevaricating between theism and atheism. Perhaps they have never even thought about the topic at all (no thoughts == no knowledge). Nor do they form their identity through comparison with others.

about a week ago
top

Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

KeensMustard Re:No, no. Let's not go there. Please. (903 comments)

Plenty of people (other than atheists) lack a belief in a deity or deities. For instance, agnostics. So this is not the defining characteristic of atheism. Atheists happen to share that characteristic with various other belief systems. The defining characteristic of atheism (the characteristic which sets it apart from, say, agnosticism) is the belief that there is no deity or deities.

So whilst it is correct to say "atheists lack a belief in a god or gods" it is incorrect to say "atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods".

about a week ago
top

Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

KeensMustard Re:unfair policy (302 comments)

Sure, find a better survey lol.

Not my job to prove your assertions. And if your assertion was correct, there would be theories that these scientists have articulated, and you would be able to describe those theories and the observational basis for them. You can't, I conclude your/their assertion "there is no recent warming trend"? is bunk.

Find out what those 3% are thinking, because I don't know.

You said you did know. You said they were claiming there hasn't been a warming trend. Here.

about two weeks ago
top

Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

KeensMustard Re:unfair policy (302 comments)

Yes, you need to buy a book about logic, or take a course.

You failed to articulate a scientific basis for you theorem nor a clear statement on why you believe you are not required to do so. You failed.

I can't teach a moron.

Your local fallacy is ad hominem. Your failures are your own problem.

about two weeks ago
top

Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

KeensMustard Re:unfair policy (302 comments)

Most of those scientists can already recognize a loaded question. They don't need help.

I gave you an opportunity to prove that the question was somehow loaded. You declined. Don't imagine you can now return to your pool of vomit and gulp it down again.

You say there are thousands of climate scientists that attribute the recent warming to something other than GHGs. If they ARE scientists, then this attribution means they have a theory.

What is this theory?

Where have they published this theory?

about two weeks ago
top

Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

KeensMustard Re:unfair policy (302 comments)

I don't know, the survey isn't very good, and doesn't ask that would help understand what they are thinking.

The survey didn't occur in isolation. They are scientists. What do their published results say? Have they published any results? If not, why not?

Of course we can guess.

No, not good enough. That is not believable. This is not a smorgasbord. We are not "choosing a truth" that makes us comfortable. Where are the facts to support the theory "there is no recent warming trend"?

about two weeks ago
top

Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

KeensMustard Re:unfair policy (302 comments)

Well, it IS true you can't help me,. Neither, apparently, can you help the thousands of scientists whom you say attribute the recent warming trend to something other than an increase in CO2. They apparently can't detail their findings: you apparently can't help because you can't even describe their findings at any level. What help are you? They apparently can't even put their hand up and say "here I am!" - you can't help because apparently you don't know who they are, you just believe they exist. Like unicorns.

You had an opportunity to articulate this alternate theory and you muffed it. I feel pity.

about two weeks ago
top

Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

KeensMustard Re:unfair policy (302 comments)

So if a large proportion of these climate scientists don't think that doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause problematic warming what (according to them) is causing the current problematic warming trend?

Do you understand the logical fallacy of "loaded question?" Look it up, because your question commits that fallacy.

No. If you want to convince me that this, simple, logical question is somehow "loaded", then by any means present evidence to that effect. But this is a weak argument, and you know it. You claim that these scientists attribute the present warming to some cause other than CO2, but you can't explain what that cause is. Is this true?

Is it also true that they themselves can't explain the present warming?

Can you link us to some of their published works so we can see and understand the underlying mechanism, plus some detail of the research re: new and apparently lower climate sensitivity and the alignment of this sensitivity with the historical climate record?

Can you link to this explanatory material?

about three weeks ago
top

Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

KeensMustard Re:unfair policy (302 comments)

If a survey says 97% think there's been warming, then it means 3% don't think there's been warming.

And this 3% who think there has has been no warming. Have they any evidence to present to that effect?

about three weeks ago
top

Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

KeensMustard Re:unfair policy (302 comments)

So if a large proportion of these climate scientists don't think that doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause problematic warming what (according to them) is causing the current problematic warming trend?

Can you link us to some of their published works so we can see and understand the underlying mechanism, plus some detail of the research re: new and apparently lower climate sensitivity and the alignment of this sensitivity with the historical climate record?

about three weeks ago
top

Numerous Methane Leaks Found On Atlantic Sea Floor

KeensMustard Re:Global Warming? (273 comments)

I do believe (snip)

And should we be concerned about your beliefs? Why?

about three weeks ago
top

Numerous Methane Leaks Found On Atlantic Sea Floor

KeensMustard Re:Global Warming? (273 comments)

So I guess all those scientists searching for the cause and the IPPC are just wasting their time eh?

Hard to make judgement call on the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and whether they are wasting their time, but I'd say it seems like a worthy cause - unless you meant the International Plasma Protein Congress (IPPC)? Or perhaps the International Probabilistic Planning Competition? or the The International Pastors' and Partners' Conference (IPPC)?

about three weeks ago
top

Numerous Methane Leaks Found On Atlantic Sea Floor

KeensMustard Re:Global Warming? (273 comments)

If anything, the models being wrong would make us MORE pessimistic and increase the urgency of action to prevent further climate change. Because if the models don't correlate to actual temperature then it is just as likely they will underestimate future temperature rises as overestimate. The view 'the models are wrong' is actually a pessimistic view.

about three weeks ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (174 comments)

I'm not drawing a damn picture for you. I

You are drawing a picture for me, because your refusal to answer a simple question paints the picture as clearly as an essay on the subject would do.

If you cannot see that people are skipping the cost of fixing global warming and opting to endure its consequences, then you really need to sit down and shut up.

Well, firstly, nothing you do or say is going to make me shut up. No amount of hand gesticulation will halt the growing wave of tsunami of community anger and frustration at denial. You imagine that our patience is infinite. It is not.

Secondly you seem to be confused about exactly what your assertion was. You said that the cost of mitigation is more expensive than the cost of not mitigating and adapting (thus contradicting Stern et al). To put it into slow words for the slow among us, this has nothing to do with the choice or lack of choice.

Now cite a paper or article that proves your assertion ( the cost of mitigation is more expensive than the cost of not mitigating and adapting), or do so yourself.

about a month ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (174 comments)

Reality proves my assertion.

You need to be more specific. Narrow your description of your proof down from "something, somewhere" proves your assertion, to an actual, verifiable and believable reason. Otherwise, your proof has all the credibility of a guy screaming "A Wizard did it!"

about 1 month ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (174 comments)

The claim I'm making is that AGW is hopelessly over-hyped, that climate sensitivity is far lower than scientists assert, t

I see. Then what is the actual rate of climate sensitivity to CO2? Demonstrate your estimate of sensitivity with reference to the climate record and allowing for differences in feedbacks.

hat's OK because 97% of climate models disagree with actual reality.

So in fact the impacts of climate change could be far worse than current predictions?

about 1 month ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (174 comments)

I do not need to cite any papers for a political and economical solution.

If you can't prove your assertion, it has all the credibility of screaming "A Wizard did it!"

about 1 month ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (174 comments)

No, saying a given theory is wrong is certainly not another theory.

Which is your claim: that they are mysteriously right but nobody can explain why, and nobody can demonstrate the truth of what they are saying empirically or even summarise it, using, you know, words, and we should just believe them. In other words, a wizard did it. IF there is some proof that the theory of AGW is wrong, provide this proof (as published in a reputable journal) along with working. We're waiting.

about 1 month ago

Submissions

Journals

KeensMustard has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>