At no point is an agnostic and an atheist in conflict over knowledge, or lack thereof. The agnostic knows of no god or gods, the atheist doesn't know either, the agnostic might be an atheist or theist, and the oddballs are those who think they're gnostic, or know that god is real. Yet what is knowledge to them, a half-cocked idea of knowing via experience or faith, or pseudoscience and fallacies. This isn't knowledge, even if it were true the knowledge or informational claim is false.
As an atheist, I am saying I act acceptance of the claim, your god because I have not been convinced. Other atheists may go as far as to say there is no god or gods, but they don't know this as an absolute, and the vast major of that group will not say they need absolutes in this regard because they're always ready to change their minds based on the evidence. Real evidence, not magical proof claims.
A theist of any kind will doubt rival gods, calling them false or even demonic, they believe and doubt in gods based on what they accept as true and will often use good arguments when pointing out the errors in a claim, but on when it's rival versions of the divine. For example, they'll point out the frauds in hundu gurus worship and miracles but then fail to apply the same logic to their specific beliefs. Even if there is a cross over between the claims made.
A proclaimed agnostic, one who says they're not theistic nor an atheist is one who is normally atheistic but the label doesn't matter or is seen as too harsh to use for their opinion, often due to them not knowing the definition. Agnostic as far as Atheism?? If they say that there isn't enough evidence to say god exists but I keep an open mind to knowledge that may appear then they're the same as almost any "militant" atheist.
The key point here is we do not know, no special proof will do, and what some call "knowledge" is unfalsiable and so not knowledge. If you nearly die and see a so-called "afterlife", but without knowing how reliable that is you know nothing than you did before such an experience took place.
Monday 5 November 2018
At no point is any mainstream Atheist seriously suggesting . . .
A common trait amongst many people is to paint the enemy as these evil doers, horrid humans, but often it is false. As far as Atheists and sceptics it is false to judge all by whichever troll you've been messed around by online. Equally, one must not jump to conclusions. The position of many is to build on ignorance, which is a poor foundation to say the least. From a position of ignorance and a belief in knowledge, the arrogant form serious opinions, and the validity of which will be, by definition, in error.
In my experience, although it is amusing to me, I have witnessed many nonsensical claims. Some were trolling, but many are so messed up that they believe in these irrational points. These range from claims of a political alignment, such as saying all Atheists are big government supporters, even though many are libertarian. Or that all atheists are liberal, some really really are not liberal. Some believe that Atheists are communists or fascists or Nazis, etc. No proof that all are, nor that most are, nor that you, personally, agree with those ideologies.
Some claims are that we Atheists want to ban religion, that we want atheist governments, that churches will be destroyed and bibles burnt. Of the sum of western Atheists, a small proportion may want to do that, mostly sad cases on the internet, many of whom are after attention and offer anti-intellectual arguments for their extremism. We Atheists, the average non-believers of any title or stripe, we do not seek such things out. We don't want religion and government to mingle, we believe we are all better off letting believers live with their choices and not being dictated to by other believers or by those who lack belief in religion and the supernatural. If you don't break the law then there is no real problem we will have, if you aren't trying to manipulate politics by telling your flock how to vote then we'll respect you are far more.
At the worst, the extreme end of everyday Atheism says you shouldn't be able to have tax free status or that you should earn your status through good deeds. I would be far happier to see the very rich church do more soup kitchens for the homeless and elderly to earn a tax status, and I would love to see the money grabbing cult leaders get jail time or get hit with a big tax bill. If you're a good church ad you help people, do good for goddness sake, nothing would change, but televangelists would suffer a tax bill. This doesn't sound extreme to me.
Now, one thing I wish to bring up is the repeated claim by believing New Age Spiritualists that I want to put them in camps. I have never said I want to, I do not want to, no mainstream atheist says as much, and it wouldn't help to deconvert magical thinking pseudoreligious nutcases anyway. And, for goodness sake can't we have a discussion about the evidence without most believers employing fallacies all the time. I know experience is important to you, as might be stories from others or holy texts, but religious and spiritual people need to know how untrue their evidence claims are. You do not know how deceptive you're being.
Lastly, I just want to make clear that most Atheists are moderate, they enjoy sports, entertainment, raising their families, socialising, comunity, and many other things that you probably enjoy. They just don't buy into the god claim because of the lack of evidence for the claim and many rival claims that are equally as nonfalsiable. So we don't know you're right, we don't know you're wrong either, but that's true of all other gods and magical beings and superadvanced alien beliefs, you can't prove a negative.
In my experience, although it is amusing to me, I have witnessed many nonsensical claims. Some were trolling, but many are so messed up that they believe in these irrational points. These range from claims of a political alignment, such as saying all Atheists are big government supporters, even though many are libertarian. Or that all atheists are liberal, some really really are not liberal. Some believe that Atheists are communists or fascists or Nazis, etc. No proof that all are, nor that most are, nor that you, personally, agree with those ideologies.
Some claims are that we Atheists want to ban religion, that we want atheist governments, that churches will be destroyed and bibles burnt. Of the sum of western Atheists, a small proportion may want to do that, mostly sad cases on the internet, many of whom are after attention and offer anti-intellectual arguments for their extremism. We Atheists, the average non-believers of any title or stripe, we do not seek such things out. We don't want religion and government to mingle, we believe we are all better off letting believers live with their choices and not being dictated to by other believers or by those who lack belief in religion and the supernatural. If you don't break the law then there is no real problem we will have, if you aren't trying to manipulate politics by telling your flock how to vote then we'll respect you are far more.
At the worst, the extreme end of everyday Atheism says you shouldn't be able to have tax free status or that you should earn your status through good deeds. I would be far happier to see the very rich church do more soup kitchens for the homeless and elderly to earn a tax status, and I would love to see the money grabbing cult leaders get jail time or get hit with a big tax bill. If you're a good church ad you help people, do good for goddness sake, nothing would change, but televangelists would suffer a tax bill. This doesn't sound extreme to me.
Now, one thing I wish to bring up is the repeated claim by believing New Age Spiritualists that I want to put them in camps. I have never said I want to, I do not want to, no mainstream atheist says as much, and it wouldn't help to deconvert magical thinking pseudoreligious nutcases anyway. And, for goodness sake can't we have a discussion about the evidence without most believers employing fallacies all the time. I know experience is important to you, as might be stories from others or holy texts, but religious and spiritual people need to know how untrue their evidence claims are. You do not know how deceptive you're being.
Lastly, I just want to make clear that most Atheists are moderate, they enjoy sports, entertainment, raising their families, socialising, comunity, and many other things that you probably enjoy. They just don't buy into the god claim because of the lack of evidence for the claim and many rival claims that are equally as nonfalsiable. So we don't know you're right, we don't know you're wrong either, but that's true of all other gods and magical beings and superadvanced alien beliefs, you can't prove a negative.
Ramble about 35mm f1.2 lens for Sony E Mount.
Despite the claim of being F1.2 and metal body, it didn't offer the best results. mediocre when compared to my Kamlan 50mm f1.1 and other wide aperture lenses. in fact, some cheap as hell CCTV lenses do as good of a job.
Don't get me wrong, wide open isn't horrid, but it just isn't good enough. It's soft and needs to be closed in a little to for 2.8 to get fair results, which is similar to results you might get with an F1.4 CCTV lens of the same focal length. The low light performance isn't horrid but I get better results from a F1.4 lens, even though the Neewer lens is sharper than a CCTV lens on a CCTV or C mount adapter to NEX or Sony E mount. So it isn't my cup of tea.
The focus isn't bad, not loose, not hard to turn, aperture ring works well too, smooth turning so great for video. but I'd say you don't get enough light for an f1.2. Since F-stops will differ when we look to T-stops, as I don't have the still to test the T-stop I will just say there is some loss. More loss than a CCTV 25mm f1.4, more than a Kamlan 50mm f1.1. Or so it seemed while testing on various cameras with manual settings and accounting for focal distance. The focus range wasn't too bad, for a 35 it was great for anything at a distance, not unexpected. close up was good. All this said, maybe I got a bad batch item. Not the first time this has happened with Chinese products.
FOR BOKEH FANS,
Some good bokeh close up but as expected it isn't so good at distance, you'd be better off getting a fast 50mm for that. Which links back to my point on the 50mm Kamlan.
In fact, as far as boke, I have got great results from lenses made for 35mm film cameras, grab an old nikkor or Pentax or Canon FD lens with an f1.2 or f1.4 or f1.8 aperture and adapt it to Sony-E or another system. but light loss due to sensor size means you'll get a darker image than an APS-C specific lens. So using a 50mm Nikkor lens on APS-C is a 1.5 crop factor, meaning it will be portrait more than standard, but bokeh will be very nice.
Technically your 35 isn't a 35, but if you want less than a 75mm equivalent then buy a good 35mm lens. Good as in f2 if possible, adapt it to sony-e, and it will act as a 50(52mm in effect). Much better for everyday use than a 50mm that acts as a 75mm due to the crop sensor. As with A6000, A6300, A5100, and the NEX range, etc. If you do daytime images then Iso won't be a big issue, if you want natural light then buy a 35mm f1.8 if it's as cheap as the neewer 35mm f1.2, you'll probably get sharper results. If you're doing low light then the Neewer f1.2 might help, but other factors will help too, like knowing how to light an area, correct use of flash and flash compensation.
Enough rambling from me. . . Let's just say if you see it for cheap, buy it. If not don't think it's a dreamboat of a lens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)