My position has always been weak atheism and that trying to answer questions whose answers have no testable implications is meaningless dickwanking. I can't prove that the claim "like, what if, this is like, totally a dream, man" is false, but writing that fact into my model of the universe as true has the exact same implications as writing it into my model as false; it changes nothing. An interesting consequence of a claim being untestable is that the observable world continues to function in exactly the same way if that claim is true as if it is false. Untestable claims are fundamentally meaningless, which is exactly what makes them untestable to begin with.Kaelik wrote:Well since you are addressing this to the TGD crowd of hardcore atheists who say the same thing about religious people all the time...TiaC wrote:"I'm a fox trapped in a man's body" does not seem any more insane than "This cracker becomes the flesh of a middle-eastern jew who died 2000 years ago when I eat it." or "Invisible sky man hates you for something your ancestor did, but he loves everyone and will forgive you if you ask correctly."
Although I vaguely recall DSM being wrong about this a long time ago in the agnosticism direction.
So I piss on most religions for the obvious reason that they contain false claims and contradictions. And I piss on theists in general because they are asserting as true arbitrary theories without any evidence. And if you asked me to undertake the monumentally impossible task of comprehensively listing everything I knew about the universe, answers to questions like "is this a solipsist hell?" or "does god exist?" simply would not make an appearance. Because they're stupid meaningless questions and answering them doesn't actually tell anyone anything.
@TiaC and Grek: you are talking to someone who is totally comfortable saying religion is just a particularly infectious shared delusion. If anything believing that you have the soul of a fox is less crazy than the stupid shit people believe in the name of religion and substantially less harmful. But still definitely crazy.
Kaelik nailed the problem.brized wrote:Thoughts on this study?DSMatticus wrote:You will note that African Americans have higher unemployment rates, not lower. Also, it has been demonstrated that between two identical resumes for two fictional people the one with the less "ethnic" name is far more likely to be given an interview for a position.
The implication of the "resumes and ethnic names" observation is not that employers are less likely to hire you if you have a black name, it is that employers are less likely to hire you if you are black - the name is simply a signal that tells people that without them seeing your face, which makes it possible to do studies using fictional people's fictional resumes.
The conclusion of this study is basically that all of those employers who tossed out resumes based on how black the names were won't hire minorities with white names either. Surprising, am I right?