Your mistake is that you think atheists declare there is proof there is no god, they never will, in essence agnostics are just 'politically correct' atheists.
I've actually heard self-proclaimed atheists make such a claim. I generally shrug it off and think of it as no different than self-proclaimed Christians saying/doing very anti-Christian things. (That is not to say that one much be perfect to be a Christian, but to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what Christianity is makes the claim a bit disingenuous.)
The last time I heard such a statement was somebody saying, "Science has disproven the existence of God." To which I naturally replied, "Really? What test was performed?" We then got into a short debate on the scientific method. Turns out this particular atheist was just some random blow-hard who wanted his passing whim of an opinion to be heard. I guess religious groups aren't the only ones with zealous outlying cultists who make the rest of them look bad.
There are definitely different "flavors" of atheists out there. There are those who do not believe in God, and there are those who firmly believe in no God. Many of my friends sit comfortably in the former category. Those in the latter category have an admirable amount of faith, even if they deny having it. Much like people who do believe in God (or any god), it's the few who leave us with a sour feeling about the subject whom we remember most, unfortunately.
I really don't think you do.
By your logic we can reduce the effect of the fine by having them pay it in 50-kroner notes. That way they only have to pay 40 of them instead of 2,000 of them. 40 is less, so it's not as big a deal.
with a series of infinitely improbable
Given a large enough sample set, even the least likely of occurrences becomes highly probable. The universe and several billion years make up a pretty large sample set.
Maybe Ken Burns will revisit that period of the galactic history and we'll get a more neutral viewpoint of the conflict.
Depending on how long ago and how far away, we might be getting a neutral viewpoint of it right now.
it means intentionally taking your own life
Fair enough. I guess in keeping with the parent post it's more a question of the psychological definition of being "suicidal" rather than the definition of the word suicide. The former may have more of a psychological medical definition than the latter. And even then there would be a lot of interpretation involved in the evaluation of the patient.
ain't no sunshine when she's gone - a song... Bob Marley did it, not sure if he penned it tho
Bill Withers. Man, what do they teach you kids these days?
the self-righteous goody-goody people in our society who never drink, never screw, never do anything wrong at all
Man, if only that were the case. Then they would be nothing more than an evolutionary anomaly that would take exactly one generation to correct.
So don't put your dirty laundry on the internet.
The key problem here is that, in cases such as the given example, it's not dirty laundry. The social issue at hand isn't so much the retention of information, but the ability (or, in this case, inability) of people in society to properly parse and understand that information. A company would seriously be fooling itself if it thinks it preserved some kind of integrity by not hiring someone who occasionally unwinds with friends at a party. They already have employees who do that, they just ignore the fact that they don't actively know about it. The fact that they can't distinguish between the two is a problem.
"Ask not what A Group of Employees can do for you. But ask what can All Employees do for A Group of Employees." -- Mike Dennison