Yes, THERE IS. One is belief that it’s impossible to know (that’s a maybe) and the other is a belief that there is no god (that’s a no). You can’t say maybe and no at the same time.
I agree that many people (including Dawkins) are atheists without the requisite evidence to entirely dismiss the idea that there is no god, but that’s not them fence-sitting (which is what agnosticism is) - that’s merely atheism giving the respect to religion that religion doesn’t pay back. Dawkins and many atheists accept that there’s no complete proof that god doesn’t exist and leave open the (albeit very tiny) possibility that he/she does (thereby allowing space for religious ideleogy to coexist) while religion, by virtue of belief in it, is an express dismissal of the idea that there is no god.
Upon reflection, to my knowledge Google does tailor it’s image search results to specific user inputs. This presumably is what accounts for the discrepancies in our received search results - our search histories differ and the resultant images we receive for the same query therefor differ.
As for not wanting to be associated with Ms. Fenty, the mosque has that right. I personally wouldn’t want to be associated with her either. That neither makes me a misogynist nor a censor, and neither does it make the mosque. They have made no attempts to “hide, remove, or censor” the images in question, and consequently the Streisand Effect fails to apply.
On a separate note, it strikes me that you’re going to an awful lot of trouble to defend someone who acted in a dishonest and disrespectful manner, and to try to find fault with those who removed her from their house of worship in response to that dishonesty and disrespect. You seem intent on creating a controversy where none exists, while ignoring the misdeeds of the one you seek to paint as a victim.
You have failed to make any compelling argumentation. You are entitled to your opinions regarding the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque Centre, you are free to believe whatever you want about their treatment of women and alleged misogyny, but please realize you have no rational evidence of discrimination of any kind.
Upon reflection, to my knowledge Google does tailor it’s image search results to specific user inputs.
Wrong. My guess is you have safesearch on, under which fewer images show up.
The mosque does have that right. My point was in response to your suggestion that this isn’t related to the Streisand effect.
How is this dishonest or disrespectful? There are pictures of other people doing the exact same things who presumably weren’t kicked out because they’re not famous music icons who are renowned for their sexualised performances. They didn’t like HER doing that there, not because of the actions but because of who she is. That’s what I have a problem with.
You have failed to make any compelling argumentation.
Where does your linked page say that? The only place the two words are together is in the chapter title:
Agnosticism not necessarily Atheism Dr Bitbells
Which, without having read the book, would presumably align more with my point than ol’ Glitchy-boy’s. I’m glad some dudes over 100 years ago got it as well.
(2) The full title is “Not necessarily atheism, although atheism is often agnosticism”. I am not sure how you jumped from that to what you wrote. Also, the name is Bithell.
Regarding the Google image search, searching for “sheikh zayed grand mosque” produces no Rihanna pictures for me while adding “center” or “centre” to the end does.
For whatever reason I am unable to read from this book on Google books.
That full title is listed nowhere I can see and, even after doing a search for that exact phrase the full text on archive.org doesn’t contain the phrase “atheism is often agnosticism” at all.
Furthermore I agree that atheism is often agnosticism: my point above about Dawkins was exactly that. My argument is that it’s hard/impossible to be both at the same time.
Edit Re Google search: That’s probably because she was at the centre not the mosque. She was kicked out before entering the mosque. I just googled that place name as listed in the BBC article. Simple.
Is your search broken? Because this is what your link shows me:
III. NOT NECESSARILY ATHEISM, ALTHOUGH ATHEISM IS OFTEN AGNOSTICISM. DR BITHELL’S POSITION.
Agnosticism is not to be identified with a know-nothing position in religion or as to the object of religious faith and worship. This is often done in popular religious discourse and literature, but it is an error in defence of which little can be relevantly said.
Or can you not read the text in your link either?
Figuring out why people might be seeing different results instead of immediately insulting them. Simple.
This is not the Streisand Effect. That’s when someone tries to remove information from the internet and fails. All the mosque tried to do was remove Rhianna from the mosque, and succeeded. They’re not trying to censor or suppress information beyond that; indeed, it seems they’re being pretty open about what happened.
I was suggesting that you’re high and encouraging you to give me some.
discussion of agnostic atheism
^ I’m still not seeing this anywhere. Your linked text is exploring the idea that what some people believe to be atheism is actually agnosticism.
Anyway, smart guy, your original link didn’t contain that phrase… am I supposed to just ESP me up an understanding of your point? FWIW it didn’t show up in my search because it’s in caps.
Dude, I’m insulting the guy because instead of saying “ah, you’re right about google” he makes some entirely bullshit claim about search history affecting our respective image search results. In any case his own google search link contained the word “centre” so your point is moot bud.
There is a difference between taking tourist photos in an area open to tourists, and staging an unannounced photo shoot there. I really have no trouble with Rhianna being politely asked to leave under these circumstances, whether she was touring a mosque, a cathedral, or the US Senate. My feelings about Islamic fundamentalism don’t really figure into it.
I agree it’s not a clear cut case of it but I think it’s well within the bounds of the definition (information control) since they didn’t want Rihana associated with their mosque centre. Now she’s right there in the search results for the place for everyone to see, even people like you and I who would likely never read anything about her, let alone click on a link to her [*shudder*] instagram.
My contention is that there’s no evidence this was some photoshoot as people are trying to claim. The article itself quotes the officials from the centre saying their problem was with her poses, not that photos were being taken. They also say some other crap about her not coordinating her visit with ‘administration’. Do the other visitors there approve their arrival ahead of time too? Do you see any such suggestion or even which rule she allegedly broke on their official website? http://www.szgmc.ae/en/plan-your-visit
I’m not saying they don’t have the right to ask her to leave, I’m saying they did it because they hate what she represents, not what she was doing - and that’s pretty shameful.
Or, just in case, Google’s tailoring the results, here’s Google’s policy on personalizing searches: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/54041?hl=en. They personalize searches for people who are signed into their Google account, and also for people who aren’t.
I thought you could not read the text at my original link? If you could, you would see that it includes the phrase “agnostic atheism” (and “atheistic agnosticism” and “atheism with agnosticism” and so on).
My point was that agnostic atheism is not some thing that someone came up with last month. It is something that has been discussed for a long time. So, if you feel so passionately about the subject that you are going to argue about it, then maybe you should read about it. I am not going to copy pages worth of text for you to read.
No, you were being rude.
No, my point is still valid (dropping “centre” changes the results that people see). His point is also still valid (Google customizes search results unless you make an effort to stop it, but even then it will customize your results based on location). Also, a simple test shows that if a person has “safe search” on and then does a search, the URL will reflect that setting (I see safe=active).
Fair point, but I have never seen this affect image results pages, ever. I do web and graphics stuff so have tested this across many machines, mobile devices and browsers.
I especially don’t think it’s relevant in this case since he’s presumably searching the same phrase as I am and neither of us have searched for it before.
Correction: I was being rude and suggesting that you’re high and encouraging you to give me some.
I thought you could not read the text at my original link?
I couldn’t - I had to look it up on archive.org. As I said: your point was useless without first figuring out what the hell you were even talking about. I cannot divine your intended chapter from a book that isn’t visible. Now I can see it, thanks for your input.
It is something that has been discussed for a long time. Sweet, well add my discussion to the collection.
No, my point is still valid (dropping “centre” changes the results that people see)
Good point. The only problem is that he didn’t drop the word centre… it was contained in his own link. Try to keep up.
