On Linux: Ctrl+Shift U0246 or Ctrl+Shift+U 0246

On MacOS: Option+U o

I know. I answered the question you asked. Both of them, actually, assuming that you're not an idiot. (Did I give you too much credit?)

I think I see the confusion:

246 -- it's right there in my previous answer. I'm sorry you missed it, it would have saved you quite a bit of trouble.

(BTW, you're not a native speaker so you might have missed the obvious. My "rock star" post was a joke. A good one, I might add, as it even got a +5 funny. Go read it again, you'll figure it out.)

ALT+0246

öööööööööööööööööööööööö

Thankfully, vivisection is no longer widely practiced. Though you'll still find quite a bit of animal sacrifice in science. Far more, I suspect, that you'll find from all religious groups combined.

It doesn't deal in that at all. It wouldn't work if it did!

He's from Germany. So... yes.

Oops, you forgot that Sam Harris is incompetent ... or that Dan Dennet isn't a very good philosopher. Depending on who you read that gave you such a silly idea.

If awareness was epiphenomenal, it wouldn't be possible for us to report on the content of our subjective experience. (The brain wouldn't have access to that content, by definition.)

Dennet knows this, but ignores it to sell pop-philosophy books. Harris might not, so I'll give him a pass.

Yes, I do. I'm a big fan of reality, after all. Are you really claiming that all of the various atheist sites, blogs, forums, etc. are all hoaxes created by theists to ... do what, exactly?

Not just in the USA, there are atheist groups all over the world -- including Germany. You can pretend that they don't exist if you like. You don't seem fond of reality.

Then why are you participating in the discussion here? Your actions are clearly contrary to your stated goals!

I thought that nonsense belief died with the last of the Vienna Circle. I mean, I understand why you'd want to believe it, but, at this point, it's completely irrational.

Not to my knowledge.

Yes. There are a number of atheist churches -- enough, at least, that one made the news some time ago for breaking-off from their parent church over some silly difference.

Yes, including television shows. This isn't counting the countless online radio, video streaming, podcasts, video series, and other similar media programs. Yes, some even ask for money.

Yes. Yes they do. Not just specific atheists churches, mind you, but outreach is a big part of a number of atheist communities.

That's just for fun. The trouble you're having is in defining religion through superficial trappings. It's like saying something isn't science because there aren't sufficient beakers and lab coats around.

Color 7? That's yellow on the C64; white/gray on the ZX Spectrum, IBM's CGA, and a host of others; and a not quite, but almost, black blue in modern 24-bit RGB.

Ideally, yes, but we all know that that's not all there is to it these days.

Then why, when I visit atheist websites sites, atheist discussion forums, and talk with local atheists, that's all they want to talk about?

Like hell there isn't! To belong to any atheist community, you need to align with their dogma, have read and agree with their favorite authors, and "other thingamajigs" or you'll be ousted as a troll or worse.

You've probably noticed that there's more than one schism dividing atheists. With various atheist groups at each others throats over things not even remotely related to the existence of god. You'd have to be blind not to see that.

To say that atheism, to most/every atheist (as we're talking about the broader atheist community), is merely "the lack of belief in a god" is either delusional or deliberately dishonest.

I agree. A theory is, after all, a predictive model, and science wouldn't work if any theory was considered unassailable truth. This brings up a couple other problems with the public understanding of science that are often overlooked: The belief that science ultimately leads to truth (a failure of our educations system, no doubt) and the belief that we've got it all just about sorted, with a few details left to be filled-in.

It's worse. Most people who complain about the use of the word 'theory' don't know what it means in a scientific context either, and spread one of several nonsense definitions they saw on a forum or heard on a youtube video.

Damn, how many lunch breaks do you need?

People seem to want a smart watch that is, at a minimum, as useful as their smart phone. The trouble, of course, is that no one has any idea what such a device would be like.

I was completely surprised that Apple announced a watch. If I were a betting man, I'd have lost my shirt. While they delivered something different, with a novel interface (I do like the 'crown' control, it reminds me of the jog-wheel on my old 7290) they didn't deliver the mythical "wrist computer" that the wearable computing crowd wanted.

I don't blame them for being disappointed. After all, the die-hard Apple fans all but guaranteed that Cupertino could deliver. The sentiment was: "if anyone can do it, Apple can!"

I didn't think that Apple could deliver -- I'm not sure anyone could deliver -- which is why I was struck when they revealed it. I'll give them this: They did better than I expected. We'll see how this influences future watch offerings from Apple and their competitors. If it's at all possible, healthy competition should help crack that nut.