MonDie

When I'm actually mistreated, not just criticized, I find it difficult to determine whether it's because I'm an atheist, not entirely gender conforming, generally nonconforming, struggle to socialize normally, some combination, or for some other imagined or real reason. Tell me what sneaky trick or degrading harassment did they inflict, and how do you know why they did it? Remember that 70% of the US is Christian, and yet you were singled out.

His brain may be atrophying from a disease. He's 64. Regardless of his positions, he would get even more votes if he defended them well.

It was just getting so repetitive. Let's stay on topic. I don't harass golfers without golf clubs to demonstrate my lack of dedication to not playing golf.

The word "traitor" comes to mind.

Even if some subset of atheism can be a proxy for intolerance, why even bother using a proxy? There are many kinds of prejudices, and many proxies for intolerance and prejudice: right wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), low openness to experience, and, to a degree... religiosity. Why not just say, "people who are intolerant"? It's much more to the point. Is the bigoted unbeliever some special case of bigot that deserves special attention?

Why have a leader? Why not a technocracy?

This whole thread isn't worth reading.

However, if we collectively have failed to sufficiently describe the god to where it can be predicted, then how does any individual know that their observation was predicted by there being a god? It seems paradoxical.

More resources means higher carrying capacity means more individuals means more mutations to select from means faster evolution. Tada! Your hypothesis is unnecessary. edit Maybe that's overly simplistic. I was thinking genetic variability. If biodiversity is the number of species, however, then we must consider the formation of barriers to reproduction, which are what cause speciation.

If he is elected, it will be a sad day for the advancement of African Americans.

The problem is that you've assumed too much. It's like falsifying evolution by testing it under the assumption that hormones, not DNA, are the basis for heredity. Suppose that all religions have failed to accurately describe the real god. Its effects might be identified as yet unexplained laws, or else go unidentified because of their complexity. Science might eventually discover something like a god, for example the simulation hypothesis, and we shouldn't dismiss it just because 93% of the population has gotten way ahead of itself. However, I reemphasize the uselessness of a hypothesis that can explain anything.

It lies in the direction of, "This hypothesis explains anything and predicts nothing."

There will be no consistent frequency. You might take average frequency, but even that will probably be influenced by posture, self-presentation, or even mood.

BOOM! https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf

The gospels can be read socialistically since Jesus was so against materialism and the rich, but communism is an entirely different beast. It's at least as likely that communism leads to atheism rather than the reverse. How atheism leads to anything needs elaboration since there are no leaders or definitive texts.

We speak of rights belonging to individuals, yet I cannot take my rights with me to Africa. A right is a type of agreement serving as part of a compromise. The subject of the right is promised that some favored circumstance, such as a freedom, power, or possession, will not incur interference from another restrained party, such as a government, or else that interference can be considered grounds for recourse, as when the restrained party is another citizen.

A halloweenish sort of gothic blue grass fit for the predominant age group of this forum.

to OP Religious groups pick on eachother. You don't need atheists for that. In order to want God's nonexistence, you have to make some kind of investment on that assumption. A dedicated proponent of humanism, for example, might be reluctant to accept it since it would prove his efforts misguided. My guess is that scientists and those dedicated to finding the truth would be the least reluctant since, after all, there is practically nothing that could undercut their cause.

Whether or not consciouness is something physical, it clearly has a two-way interaction with physical surroundings.

I think you're confused about the problem. Scientifically, to say electrical currents cause consciousness is no less satisfying than saying electrical currents cause light bulbs to shine. Both can be dependent variables in an experiment. What you want to know is how a physical event can cause a phenomenological one. Not "Does A cause B", but "How can A cause B?" In truth, how anything can cause anything is a tough question that AFAIK isn't amenable to experiment. The hard problem of consciousness is arguably just another variation on this problem.

I often feel I'm doing good only to find I did okay, or break a record completely by accident. https://www.strava.com http://www.mapmyride.com/ They both seem to require registration on desktop, but I'll see whether the apps can measure distance. Anyway it's hard to control data as it is. I broke my old record twice in a row on this new course (12:50, 13:25).

Sexual orientation is determined very early in life, most likely in the womb. We just aren't convinced that you're using the term "feminized" in a scientifically meaningful way.

Your rewording still involves a claim being made to justify an imperative. I don't see the difference between oblgiation and right. Explain it. The government has an obligation not to "abridge (I)", "infringe (II)", or "violate (IV)" our rights. Rights are a kind of obligation. The supreme court agrees that it's a because statement. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

If a man can have it too, is it really feminine?

An if/then would be clearer, but it's clearly a because/therefore. Regardless, falsifying the premise calls the conclusion into question. They clearly thought the premise was true, and their judgment arguably supersedes ours. However they were judging the state of affairs in 1789, not 2015. By denying this point, you deny half the amendment, junking it as though superfluous rubbish. Falsifying the premise doesn't falsify the conclusion, but it does call it into question. 1) It can be read as an argument. Suppose you're told, "The garbage being full, take it out." If it's actually empty, you should not obey anyway, but inform your fallible boss, who then reconsiders. 2) As we can see from amendments I and IV additionally, a right is often established with the statement that it must not be "abridged", "infringed", or "violated", thus the operative clause establishes a right. Why a right cannot be revoked should be elaborated.