Again by this argument we should kill all ugly people, all poor people, and anyone with a lifelong health condition as their “quality of life” is going to be lesser than the average person.
You made a mistake with your rebuttal: not their, mine quality of life will be lower if they are born and become another welfare queen at best and straight thug at worst, so the most humane thing i can do is to not obstruct them if they want to reduce my troubles. Maybe someone pretends to care, they lie. And from this point of view you can indeed extend this argument all the way to literal fedposting. As for whether it is a valid rebuttal... probably.
P. S. Besides, people who abort kids remove competition for your own, why do you want to obstruct their self destruction? You are not controlling their education after all, so every aborted child is one less brainwashed teenager 15 years later.
Using your own definition if someone believes in god without proof that is not Rational even if you define it as agnostic.
Yes, it is exactly not rational. Humans in general are not very friendly with this whole "rational thought" thing, so i settle for "non-contradictory".
There isn't a single well known atheist that makes that claim. Dawkins, Dennett, Hitches, Harris, Dillahunty, Aaron Ra, Maher all take the stance of not believing because of lack of evidence.
Stance of "not believing because of lack of evidence" is exactly "there is no god for there is no evidence there is a god". Compare with "there is no need to assume god exists, for there is no evidence he affects anything" of a perfectly 'rational' being. Though i admit, the difference between these two is very subtle.
OP's dumb post is it's own separate story, frankly, given Christianity's rise was not exactly any peaceful or pretty.
Agnostics by definition are atheist. You cannot believe and be unsure at the same time.
Agnosticism is not about uncertainty, it is about whether you can actually have knowledge of the answer. Agnosticism just outright states that we can't, and should one proceed to claim God exists out of pure belief it would not create a contradiction. Granted, at this point I would make sure to clarify what God really means, because there are definitely certain sets of properties that can be used to define it which are just contradictory (see the famous benevolent omniscient omnipotent trifecta).
This world is a lovely place, in my view.
That's subjective, hence, not an argument worth applying to anyone else.
It's time to roll those back and embrace the order of nature and the gods instead.
Do your part, turn off Internet connection and rest of stupid things humanity has created those years :)
If it is
It's not, half of this sub's reason to exist would not exist if it was. Am i supposed to turn myself into Satanist now instead of keeping to agnostic atheism?
Taiwan is not like that
Current Taiwan is not exactly known for Christian tradition or Greco-Roman legal background either.
Present China is just USSR enhanced, except where USSR had natural resources to make it's economy float, China had/has cheap workforce.
Associations, i guess.
Tbh if my idea of PRC was based on reading bullshit they write themselves, i would think it was like that too.
Salary is for peasants, proper apparatchik needs no stinky money to have everything he ever wanted provided by the system.
“literal fucking retards who’s antiquated world views have destroyed America”
Is it how we call Progressives these days?
The left has values, a moral code, and principles.
Does it?
They are fine with pragmatic solutions that get results even if it violate their principles.
Hence they have no principles, values or moral code, i am glad you agree.
There has never been an actual act of mass civil disobedience in America
There's always a first for everything, then. Though i guess if you guys want to degenerate into a new peasant class, good luck.
Sigh
Is it like the PC case where regulation's limits (which i don't approve for the record, because it's a stupid regulation, but that's not the point here for now) are measured for idle modes?
Let's just say that digging into it a bit more, this is still bad (duh), but less bad than it seems.
Mostly because the entire methodology only looks at idle power consumption.
One successful quantum computer and all digital "security" as we know it ceases to exist.
Indeed it does, the issue is that successful quantum computer [for solving existing digital "security"] is always 10 years away, because guess what, size of keys for encryption is not staying in place, and growing qubit count of quantum computer is a task significantly trickier than slapping larger register on a CPU (which is not trivial task either).
Governments and banks can roll out new currency to replace the old if it becomes a risk for them
That's identical to saying existing currency will become scrap paper, not any different from crypto.
They also have no actual legitimate plan for when crypto becomes hackable in ~10 years.
Can you elaborate?
except for Asians
Completely expected, come on, it's Asians.
I mean, people nerding over fictional worlds is the same escapism video games were or are.
In other words, a woman makes up the whole thing to feel good about herself, more at 11?
Doesn’t use a single math equation or logical statement
Must I?
You realize you just proved my point mathematically?
Not at all, i just understood you probably did not open a book on logic in your lifetime.
In the current day sure, a couple of thousand years ago?
It would still be ~80% of primates existing even if i look at lowest estimates for human population available and multiply non-human primate population by a few times. You would need to look before first notable civilizations to find humans not constitute majority of primates on Earth.
For us, as a relatively young species, to be the only sentient creatures makes random chance by evolution unlikely.
I feel like you don't understand meaning of word 'young' either, if you think being young species reduces chance of having a very useful physiological development appear randomly.
This means again, that either sentience made a massive leap while simultaneously killing off all other mid sentient forms
What is "mid sentient"? Besides, what do you have to throw away 'killing off rest of competing lifeforms in the area' hypothesis, given that humans tend to do so whenever they migrate even if it's other humans.
Exceptionality argues for design over random occurrence.
Only for people who don't understand either. Your next sentence is perfect example.
If one slot machine keeps giving away jackpots and the rest don’t, then it is manipulation not happenstance.
"Keep giving away jackpots" What is exceptional in giving away multiple jackpots besides making everyone suspect that you're just using slots to launder money? If anything, this is a perfect example of how something intentional always has implicit property of being reproducible, hence there's no absolutely no reason for a bored 3rd party capable of granting sentience do so only for 1 species of primates and not, say, rest of animals who have sufficient properties to bear it.
Anyways, this was entertaining but given that you made too many basic mistakes in a single post, i got bored, have plenty of metaphorical food next time, buddy.
You added multiple variables to an equation
Good thing there was no equation to begin with.
Your constant butthurt over the theorem being impossible by any realistic metric makes you make up variances that are not a part of the theorem.
The one butthurt here is you with bringing up monkey crap and stuff because it's infinite monkey theorem and not "Encoding infinite sequence of nuclear decays shall encode any meaningful piece of text ever created" theorem.
Odd, so if humans are the only monkey to gain sentience
You know, last i checked humans outnumber rest of existing primate species combined. "Only" is a very weird word choice in this case.
P. S. Quick check gives that 99% of existing primates are humans. Indeed a very exceptional case!
For that matter, why hasn’t any other animal that has existed for millions of years longer than primates grown sentience?
Why are you making arguments against intelligent design, i thought you were on that side? Exceptionality of humans (on Earth) is indeed something that works as argument against any design argument, because rare yet complex things don't happen by design. If someone was bored enough to grant some species proper sentience for whatever reason, there's every reason to believe it would not just include single species.
that is already a joke because monkeys can’t comprehend language?
Guess why people chose 'monkeys'.
Next are we going to have infinite speech pathologists to teach the infinite monkeys too?
Yeah, i see why you need God now, abstract thought is absent in your mind. Indeed, religion is mandatory for such people lest they proceed to behave like monkeys, good luck.
Monkeys have been around for over 40 millions years and have not grown sentience
Never knew humans did not exist, and we are just 2 chatbots exchanging on reddit copy.
What is functional social order? Proto socialism that used to collapse on itself with little external help?