(October 4, 2015 at 9:36 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(October 4, 2015 at 9:18 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: And yet Alex K is here.  I hope he does not leave as a result of your post.

(And he likes scotch, not cigars.  You don't know scientists very well.)

Yes. Because I'm sure he would burst into tears at the sight of this tongue in cheek post implying a greatly increased quality of life due to career choices and opportunities. 
How dare I.

And you don't care that he is running away crying?  You insensitive brute!

(October 4, 2015 at 9:40 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(October 4, 2015 at 9:36 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Yes. Because I'm sure he would burst into tears at the sight of this tongue in cheek post implying a greatly increased quality of life due to career choices and opportunities. 
How dare I.

And you don't care that he is running away crying?  You insensitive brute!

Hes got a sex droids supple upgraded nipples to cry into. We don't.

(October 4, 2015 at 9:42 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(October 4, 2015 at 9:40 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: And you don't care that he is running away crying?  You insensitive brute!

Hes got a sex droids supple upgraded nipples to cry into. We don't.

I think he has something better than that.  But maybe we should wait for his reply so that we know how good his life really is.

(October 4, 2015 at 9:45 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(October 4, 2015 at 9:42 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Hes got a sex droids supple upgraded nipples to cry into. We don't.

I think he has something better than that.  But maybe we should wait for his reply so that we know how good his life really is.

Your face is going to be so red when he tells you all the steamy details about "Orgasmitron".

Sure, not caring is a valid response. No one is obliged to answer any particular question.

I don't personally care about the question, you could call me an apatheist. I care about the question only in as much as it is of huge importance to lots of people. But I am also happy to be called an atheist because it reflects reality / the "evidence", and hopefully provides support for others to have more open atheists. Anyone who seeks to convert me to a religion has an awful lot more work than just establishing existence of the leader. Hitler existed, remember. Good old Hitler. Can't have a debate about atheism without him.

(October 4, 2015 at 9:14 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Well theres not caring. Thats definitely an option.
Alot of scientists fall into that camp. They get shit done., they don't have time for theological debates.
I mean, have you ever noticed how few scientists there are round here? They lead meaningful lives devoid of crackpots.
You think they're going to debate some creationist after making a nobel winning medicine? No. They're going to bang their ex-model wife underneath silk sheets, smoke a cuban cigar and watch cable on their 70 inch 3D 4K ultra platinum penis compensater 4000 home entertainment system with surround sound.

The scientists that are out and out atheists will say something like "Live your life to the fullest" when asked how we should approach death. Dawkins says it alot. Pisses me off because he should know better. Of course *they're* saying that. They've won life. They're sitting at home with their latest MK-V sex droid complete with mp3 compatibility and all seasons of breaking bad pre-installed in a wood cabin in the alps completely baffled why everyone else isn't completely fine with the idea this is the only life we have. Its like playing leapfrog infront of a paraplegic.
This is the only life I have. That doesn't mean I don't get to be bitter about it. Fuck you Dawkins. -.-

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh. *Sob* Boooohooooooohooooo *sob*

All I can do to cheer myself up is reiterate that Dawkins isn't much of a scientist. His job is and has been getting called one by his adorating fans, but he hasn't done much peer reviewed research. No, I'm not saying that because I'm jealous that he's worth a 100 mill.

... No, really!
Make no mistake, I love reading his stuff, but he has been remarkably good at convincing the general public that he is this greatest scientist ever. If you ask him about his scientific credentials, he will likely point to a book he's written 40 years ago. Now I know it's not good style to badmouth others to boost one's ego, but that guy really doesn't leave me much choice!

(October 4, 2015 at 9:42 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(October 4, 2015 at 9:40 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: And you don't care that he is running away crying?  You insensitive brute!

Hes got a sex droids supple upgraded nipples to cry into. We don't.

I'm not sure. Now, I could ask my wife whether she's really a sex droid with upgraded nipples, but she is 6 ft and pretty strong, and I kinda like my gonads unflattened.

(October 4, 2015 at 9:16 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(October 4, 2015 at 8:55 pm)EvidenceVersusFaith Wrote: The verb, defined from google.com:

lack=


It's the deficient part that pisses me off. Pet peeve of mine, years ago I used to say lack and I saw that - as a thesaurus reader, I spent 8 months reading a thesaurus-  and it pissed me right off lol.

So I just say absence, meh. Without works but I usually hear people say "lack" half the time and "absence" half the time, I stick with "absence".

My two cents,

Silly pet peeve,

Peace out,

EvF

So you object to being deficient in stupidity, foolishness, insanity, assholishness, etc.?  Lacking something is a good thing, if what one lacks is bad.  It is only if one lacks something good that lacking something may be bad.

The point is kind of that "to lack something bad" or be "deficient in something bad" makes no sense. You can by definition only lack a good thing. To be without or absent of something bad makes sense however. To say I lack belief seems to suggest not only that I don't believe but that I believe I ought to.

(October 5, 2015 at 11:52 am)EvidenceVersusFaith Wrote:

(October 4, 2015 at 9:16 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: So you object to being deficient in stupidity, foolishness, insanity, assholishness, etc.?  Lacking something is a good thing, if what one lacks is bad.  It is only if one lacks something good that lacking something may be bad.

The point is kind of that "to lack something bad" or be "deficient in something bad" makes no sense. You can by definition only lack a good thing. To be without or absent of something bad makes sense however. To say I lack belief seems to suggest not only that I don't believe but that I believe I ought to.

Look again at the definition you quoted for "lack":

"be without or deficient in."

First, the word "or" means that lack can be either one of the things.  So "be without" is a possible meaning for "lack."

Second, be "deficient in" is suggestive not of a good, but of a purpose.  Here are a couple of definitions of "deficient":

Quote:deficient
adjective
1Not having enough of a specified quality or ingredient:this diet is deficient in vitamin B

1.1Insufficient or inadequate:the documentary evidence is deficient

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ctCode=all

Not having enough for what purpose?  Or insufficient or inadequate for what purpose?  The answers to those questions need not involve a good.  It can be that one ingested a deficient amount of poison to kill one.

This can apply to stupidity as well, as one might not be stupid enough to do a certain action.  One would be deficient in stupidity for the purpose of doing that particular action.  A con man may find his targets to be deficient in stupidity and thus his con (his purpose) may fail.

(October 5, 2015 at 11:52 am)EvidenceVersusFaith Wrote:

(October 4, 2015 at 9:16 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: So you object to being deficient in stupidity, foolishness, insanity, assholishness, etc.?  Lacking something is a good thing, if what one lacks is bad.  It is only if one lacks something good that lacking something may be bad.

The point is kind of that "to lack something bad" or be "deficient in something bad" makes no sense. You can by definition only lack a good thing. To be without or absent of something bad makes sense however. To say I lack belief seems to suggest not only that I don't believe but that I believe I ought to.

It took me forever to understand "lack of belief." How I understand it now is contingency. Being an atheist doesn't appear until someone is being a theist. I think you're reading more into it than needs to be read into it.