So, I asked Andrew Tamm, who filled my Stream with a hundred (sarcasm there) animated gifs and cat pictures to remove me from whatever Circle he has me in where he posts the animated gifs and cat pictures. It was either that or unfollow him and I didn't see any reason to unfollow him. Me asking https://plus.google.com/112885755521259735422/posts/78dwnvvgh4p Then he plusses me onto Public posts of animated cat gifs : https://plus.google.com/u/0/112885755521259735422/posts/EuuR1tnU3vJ https://plus.google.com/u/0/112885755521259735422/posts/8r6Grcm2Jpj https://plus.google.com/u/0/112885755521259735422/posts/74PgSu6iL2s Then one of his friends (or Circlers) starts plussing me into posts of animated cat gifs : https://plus.google.com/u/0/107120198886093172821/posts/gRW9JhWLs5T Don't get me wrong, I'm all about sarcasm and messing with people, but this seems sort of childish to me. Am I the only one who thinks so? So far I have only blocked people who have overtly spammed a thr...
Comments
There is an infinity of things in which we all do not believe. That does not make all of us "believers in an infinity of non-things". Same with atheists. We simply reject one more thing than most people do. But anyone with a bit of mathematical saaavy knows that infinity + 1 is just still the same value of infinity.
And no. Consensus plays no role in truth. We cannot form a commttee to decide whether 2 + 2 = 5. Or rather, we could, but it's deliberations would be meaningless.
And Eli Fennell, I'm afraid you've got the problem induction exactly right. I can no more disprove the existence of god than I can the existence of the easter bunny. But if you have good inductive reasons to believe in some kind of god -- or the easter bunny -- then it is rational (e.g., from a Bayesian perspective) to believe in said god or bunny. But it's an inductive inference and so never guaranteed to be right.