What do you lot think of this?
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Which has no effect on my point.
That half the data points are false does not effect your point that it's a trend?:confused:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As I said... I'm no historian, and frankly I don't care enough about this issue to research more of them.
But you care about it enough to make claims based on what you haven't researched. That goes back to this being a belief for you. You have faith in your argument, and don't care to do the research to support it by facts.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
They aren't claiming that "god" makes transistors work. They know that it's science, and it can be PROVEN.
No. They are blindly believing that they work on a basis they do not fathom. While empirically that it works, it's no different than believing the sun is a flaming kitten being dragged through the sky bay a guy on an invisible pink elephant. They do not have less ignorance, and so it does not cut into the cracks you think God can fit in. They believe it is science, they've been told it can be proven. They don't know.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
All theistic religions are pretty much the same. A bunch of people claiming that some magical father figure is their only reason for acting ethically. Why should I capitalize "god" if I'm not going to capitalize "invisible flying pink elephants?"
Where did the ethically come into this argument? Is that part of your issue? Because one of them is named George, and when you speak of him directly, calling him george doesn't even satisfy the spell checker, let alone logic and specificity.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Except you've claimed repeatedly that the only logical position would be agnosticism.
Sure. I have life experience that helped me come to my conclusions. Is there a snowball's chance that makes a difference to you? That you would think it is evidence? Nope. That is why I say agnosticism is the only logical choice. I did not say it was the only rational choice. It goes back to knowing and admitting my biases. It goes back to you not admitting your biases.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
That half the data points are false does not effect your point that it's a trend?
It doesn't matter whether Darwin invented the whole thing himself. It only matters that evolution was discovered, which it was. The person behind it is superfluous.
RichardM1 wrote:
But you care about it enough to make claims based on what you haven't researched. That goes back to this being a belief for you. You have faith in your argument, and don't care to do the research to support it by facts.
I have the two endpoints of the line, and given human nature, it's reasonable to assume that there were intermediate points in between. If I took the time to research every little fact connected to every conversation I ever had, my life would be even more dull than it is now.
RichardM1 wrote:
No. They are blindly believing that they work on a basis they do not fathom. While empirically that it works, it's no different than believing the sun is a flaming kitten being dragged through the sky bay a guy on an invisible pink elephant. They do not have less ignorance, and so it does not cut into the cracks you think God can fit in. They believe it is science, they've been told it can be proven. They don't know.
It's very different. The difference is that if they wanted to know exactly how transistors work, they could open one of hundreds of textbooks and learn it exactly. If they didn't believe the books, there are scientific experiments that could be done to analyze exactly how it works. Can religion do that?
RichardM1 wrote:
Where did the ethically come into this argument? Is that part of your issue? Because one of them is named George, and when you speak of him directly, calling him george doesn't even satisfy the spell checker, let alone logic and specificity.
Are you going to nitpick every single word I type, however unrelated it is to the issue at hand?
RichardM1 wrote:
Sure. I have life experience that helped me come to my conclusions. Is there a snowball's chance that makes a difference to you? That you would think it is evidence? Nope. That is why I say agnosticism is the only logical choice. I did not say it was the only rational choice. It goes back to knowing and admitting my biases. It goes back to you not admitting you
-
RichardM1 wrote:
That half the data points are false does not effect your point that it's a trend?
It doesn't matter whether Darwin invented the whole thing himself. It only matters that evolution was discovered, which it was. The person behind it is superfluous.
RichardM1 wrote:
But you care about it enough to make claims based on what you haven't researched. That goes back to this being a belief for you. You have faith in your argument, and don't care to do the research to support it by facts.
I have the two endpoints of the line, and given human nature, it's reasonable to assume that there were intermediate points in between. If I took the time to research every little fact connected to every conversation I ever had, my life would be even more dull than it is now.
RichardM1 wrote:
No. They are blindly believing that they work on a basis they do not fathom. While empirically that it works, it's no different than believing the sun is a flaming kitten being dragged through the sky bay a guy on an invisible pink elephant. They do not have less ignorance, and so it does not cut into the cracks you think God can fit in. They believe it is science, they've been told it can be proven. They don't know.
It's very different. The difference is that if they wanted to know exactly how transistors work, they could open one of hundreds of textbooks and learn it exactly. If they didn't believe the books, there are scientific experiments that could be done to analyze exactly how it works. Can religion do that?
RichardM1 wrote:
Where did the ethically come into this argument? Is that part of your issue? Because one of them is named George, and when you speak of him directly, calling him george doesn't even satisfy the spell checker, let alone logic and specificity.
Are you going to nitpick every single word I type, however unrelated it is to the issue at hand?
RichardM1 wrote:
Sure. I have life experience that helped me come to my conclusions. Is there a snowball's chance that makes a difference to you? That you would think it is evidence? Nope. That is why I say agnosticism is the only logical choice. I did not say it was the only rational choice. It goes back to knowing and admitting my biases. It goes back to you not admitting you
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The person behind it is superfluous.
Darwin and evolution wasn't the issue, he had nothing to do with the 6k year thing you said. The issue is you are putting "facts" forward to support your argument, when you don't know them. Lord knows if I did that I'd be called an irrational religious nut.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I have the two endpoints of the line, and given human nature, it's reasonable to assume that there were intermediate points in between.
- you don't have 2 endpoints when one of them is wrong. 2) So you see a straight line between between the greco-roman pantheon and atheism? You think there was not maybe a twist or two in there, you know, given human nature?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If I took the time to research every little fact connected to every conversation I ever had, my life would be even more dull than it is now.
OK, so you don't mind if I just kind of make up facts that fit my argument? And this is not "every little fact". Just the 50% that are incorrect.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's very different. The difference is that if they wanted to know exactly how transistors work, they could open one of hundreds of textbooks and learn it exactly. If they didn't believe the books, there are scientific experiments that could be done to analyze exactly how it works. Can religion do that?
The difference is that people tell them they can, and they believe it. That they can or can't prove it, if they tried, does not diminish that it is belief, not knowledge. But as far as the "trend" goes, how many people do you think fit in this category? Lets say a billion people have enough belief in science to, as you say, ring God into a tiny little space. That only leaves 5 billion who don't. How does that make a trend?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Are you going to nitpick every single word I type, however unrelated it is to the issue at hand?
Trying to understand why you are at a place why you seem so hostile to religion. Do you say "the c-word" about communism? It has done no better than religion. Which it brings back to an earlier question: on what evidence do you base your percentages that you use to give existence of a god an infinitely small probability? Are they as reliable as the facts you used? Y
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The person behind it is superfluous.
Darwin and evolution wasn't the issue, he had nothing to do with the 6k year thing you said. The issue is you are putting "facts" forward to support your argument, when you don't know them. Lord knows if I did that I'd be called an irrational religious nut.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I have the two endpoints of the line, and given human nature, it's reasonable to assume that there were intermediate points in between.
- you don't have 2 endpoints when one of them is wrong. 2) So you see a straight line between between the greco-roman pantheon and atheism? You think there was not maybe a twist or two in there, you know, given human nature?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If I took the time to research every little fact connected to every conversation I ever had, my life would be even more dull than it is now.
OK, so you don't mind if I just kind of make up facts that fit my argument? And this is not "every little fact". Just the 50% that are incorrect.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's very different. The difference is that if they wanted to know exactly how transistors work, they could open one of hundreds of textbooks and learn it exactly. If they didn't believe the books, there are scientific experiments that could be done to analyze exactly how it works. Can religion do that?
The difference is that people tell them they can, and they believe it. That they can or can't prove it, if they tried, does not diminish that it is belief, not knowledge. But as far as the "trend" goes, how many people do you think fit in this category? Lets say a billion people have enough belief in science to, as you say, ring God into a tiny little space. That only leaves 5 billion who don't. How does that make a trend?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Are you going to nitpick every single word I type, however unrelated it is to the issue at hand?
Trying to understand why you are at a place why you seem so hostile to religion. Do you say "the c-word" about communism? It has done no better than religion. Which it brings back to an earlier question: on what evidence do you base your percentages that you use to give existence of a god an infinitely small probability? Are they as reliable as the facts you used? Y
RichardM1 wrote:
Darwin and evolution wasn't the issue, he had nothing to do with the 6k year thing you said. The issue is you are putting "facts" forward to support your argument, when you don't know them. Lord knows if I did that I'd be called an irrational religious nut.
Oh bloody hell... You understood my point just fine, and that's what matters. Don't expect perfect facts when I'm writing replies first thing in the morning while my breakfast cooks. Evolution made Intelligent Design obsolete (Or at least abstracted "god's" role to guiding it instead of just *poof*ing animals into place). Geology and Astronomy made Creationism obsolete, because we know that the Earth isn't 6,000 years old. See? Now we've got two points on this end of the graph instead of one.
RichardM1 wrote:
The difference is that people tell them they can, and they believe it. That they can or can't prove it, if they tried, does not diminish that it is belief, not knowledge. But as far as the "trend" goes, how many people do you think fit in this category? Lets say a billion people have enough belief in science to, as you say, ring God into a tiny little space. That only leaves 5 billion who don't. How does that make a trend?
Exactly what point are you trying to make here? People may be stupid, but I think they can tell the difference between religious stuff with zero proof, and scientific facts which theoretically can be proven. You're trying to advocate that anything other than omniscience is "belief" in this context.
RichardM1 wrote:
Trying to understand why you are at a place why you seem so hostile to religion. Do you say "the c-word" about communism? It has done no better than religion.
Because atheism is more persecuted than any religion, and I got sick of people telling me I was going to hell because I didn't believe in "god," when I was growing up.
RichardM1 wrote:
Which it brings back to an earlier question: on what evidence do you base your percentages that you use to give existence of a god an infinitely small probability? Are they as reliable as the facts you used? You said 90 and 10, but not to use those as though they are real. Which makes sense. Infinitesimally small would be 99.9[bar] to 0.0...01, where the "..." represents an infinite number of zeros. We got on this unrelated "trend" issue
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Darwin and evolution wasn't the issue, he had nothing to do with the 6k year thing you said. The issue is you are putting "facts" forward to support your argument, when you don't know them. Lord knows if I did that I'd be called an irrational religious nut.
Oh bloody hell... You understood my point just fine, and that's what matters. Don't expect perfect facts when I'm writing replies first thing in the morning while my breakfast cooks. Evolution made Intelligent Design obsolete (Or at least abstracted "god's" role to guiding it instead of just *poof*ing animals into place). Geology and Astronomy made Creationism obsolete, because we know that the Earth isn't 6,000 years old. See? Now we've got two points on this end of the graph instead of one.
RichardM1 wrote:
The difference is that people tell them they can, and they believe it. That they can or can't prove it, if they tried, does not diminish that it is belief, not knowledge. But as far as the "trend" goes, how many people do you think fit in this category? Lets say a billion people have enough belief in science to, as you say, ring God into a tiny little space. That only leaves 5 billion who don't. How does that make a trend?
Exactly what point are you trying to make here? People may be stupid, but I think they can tell the difference between religious stuff with zero proof, and scientific facts which theoretically can be proven. You're trying to advocate that anything other than omniscience is "belief" in this context.
RichardM1 wrote:
Trying to understand why you are at a place why you seem so hostile to religion. Do you say "the c-word" about communism? It has done no better than religion.
Because atheism is more persecuted than any religion, and I got sick of people telling me I was going to hell because I didn't believe in "god," when I was growing up.
RichardM1 wrote:
Which it brings back to an earlier question: on what evidence do you base your percentages that you use to give existence of a god an infinitely small probability? Are they as reliable as the facts you used? You said 90 and 10, but not to use those as though they are real. Which makes sense. Infinitesimally small would be 99.9[bar] to 0.0...01, where the "..." represents an infinite number of zeros. We got on this unrelated "trend" issue
Busy week. :|
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now we've got two points on this end of the graph instead of one.
There is no linear process associated with human belief trends. Sure, I understood what you were trying to say. But it is only valid for people who think anything God does has to involve fire from the sky, burning bushes and slaps to the forehead, who think the understood can't be God's work. I can make a trend out of people not believing in God ending up with somewhere between 75 and 150 MILLION people dead last century, at the hands of their own countryman, in the name of communism. Just internal persecution and mismanagement. Does that count against everyone who doesn't believes in God? I gave you a real account of an end point that does not follow your trend, and you didn't even bother addressing it. Did you see my point?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
How about this one... You claim that "god's" role is to define the universal constants and the laws of nature and such... Since we have zero proof of any of this, then the impetus behind their creation/selection could be absolutely anything. It could be totally random, it could be one of your gods, it could be designed by committee, or by an entire multi-dimensional alien race working in concert... Maybe one of those constants and laws actually exist, but are an artifact of the way we perceive the universe around us. With enough imagination, I could probably think of a dozen more possibilities, and the more different ones you can think of, the less likely any individual one is, since we have no evidence that would lend more weight to any single option. Since there are a potentially-infinite number of possibilities, choosing one specific one as the answer seems kind of silly. Play with that one for a while Smile
Man, it took you long enough to get there. :laugh: "No god" is one of those infinitely numerous options. That is what I have argued the whole time. I'm not trying to convince you there is a god, I've just argued there is not evidence to support either that there is, or isn't, a god. Agnosticism is the only logical choice. Going back to the start of this:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's not a matter of believing in the negative. It's a matter of NOT believing in the positive. It doesn't take "belief" or "faith" to see the utter lack of pink elephants flying around my head. It just takes working eyes.<
-
Busy week. :|
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now we've got two points on this end of the graph instead of one.
There is no linear process associated with human belief trends. Sure, I understood what you were trying to say. But it is only valid for people who think anything God does has to involve fire from the sky, burning bushes and slaps to the forehead, who think the understood can't be God's work. I can make a trend out of people not believing in God ending up with somewhere between 75 and 150 MILLION people dead last century, at the hands of their own countryman, in the name of communism. Just internal persecution and mismanagement. Does that count against everyone who doesn't believes in God? I gave you a real account of an end point that does not follow your trend, and you didn't even bother addressing it. Did you see my point?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
How about this one... You claim that "god's" role is to define the universal constants and the laws of nature and such... Since we have zero proof of any of this, then the impetus behind their creation/selection could be absolutely anything. It could be totally random, it could be one of your gods, it could be designed by committee, or by an entire multi-dimensional alien race working in concert... Maybe one of those constants and laws actually exist, but are an artifact of the way we perceive the universe around us. With enough imagination, I could probably think of a dozen more possibilities, and the more different ones you can think of, the less likely any individual one is, since we have no evidence that would lend more weight to any single option. Since there are a potentially-infinite number of possibilities, choosing one specific one as the answer seems kind of silly. Play with that one for a while Smile
Man, it took you long enough to get there. :laugh: "No god" is one of those infinitely numerous options. That is what I have argued the whole time. I'm not trying to convince you there is a god, I've just argued there is not evidence to support either that there is, or isn't, a god. Agnosticism is the only logical choice. Going back to the start of this:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's not a matter of believing in the negative. It's a matter of NOT believing in the positive. It doesn't take "belief" or "faith" to see the utter lack of pink elephants flying around my head. It just takes working eyes.<
RichardM1 wrote:
There is no linear process associated with human belief trends. Sure, I understood what you were trying to say. But it is only valid for people who think anything God does has to involve fire from the sky, burning bushes and slaps to the forehead, who think the understood can't be God's work.
If we understand it, we know it wasn't done by "god." You've made it pretty clear that you don't think "god" just went *poof* and created everything... You credited him/her/it for the basic laws of the universe, the things we don't understand (We know what they are, but not WHY they are what they are).
RichardM1 wrote:
I can make a trend out of people not believing in God ending up with somewhere between 75 and 150 MILLION people dead last century, at the hands of their own countryman, in the name of communism. Just internal persecution and mismanagement. Does that count against everyone who doesn't believes in God? I gave you a real account of an end point that does not follow your trend, and you didn't even bother addressing it. Did you see my point?
What does people killing people have to do with "god?" You're reaching.
RichardM1 wrote:
Man, it took you long enough to get there. "No god" is one of those infinitely numerous options. That is what I have argued the whole time. I'm not trying to convince you there is a god, I've just argued there is not evidence to support either that there is, or isn't, a god. Agnosticism is the only logical choice. Going back to the start of this:
"No god" isn't just one of those infinite arguments. It's every argument that doesn't include "god." But that's irrelevant, since any number divided by infinity is, for all intents and purposes, zero.
RichardM1 wrote:
The difference between pink elephants and gods is that we have parameters for detecting pink elephants, and can verify that they are there are not. We do not have detection parameters for gods, so we can not just look around and not see them.
Not if they're invisible, undetectable pink elephants. So should I say that I can't decide whether there are invisible, undetectable pink elephants flying around my head, or should I just assume that there aren't, unless proven otherwise?
RichardM1 wrote:
You think the warnings of hel
-
RichardM1 wrote:
There is no linear process associated with human belief trends. Sure, I understood what you were trying to say. But it is only valid for people who think anything God does has to involve fire from the sky, burning bushes and slaps to the forehead, who think the understood can't be God's work.
If we understand it, we know it wasn't done by "god." You've made it pretty clear that you don't think "god" just went *poof* and created everything... You credited him/her/it for the basic laws of the universe, the things we don't understand (We know what they are, but not WHY they are what they are).
RichardM1 wrote:
I can make a trend out of people not believing in God ending up with somewhere between 75 and 150 MILLION people dead last century, at the hands of their own countryman, in the name of communism. Just internal persecution and mismanagement. Does that count against everyone who doesn't believes in God? I gave you a real account of an end point that does not follow your trend, and you didn't even bother addressing it. Did you see my point?
What does people killing people have to do with "god?" You're reaching.
RichardM1 wrote:
Man, it took you long enough to get there. "No god" is one of those infinitely numerous options. That is what I have argued the whole time. I'm not trying to convince you there is a god, I've just argued there is not evidence to support either that there is, or isn't, a god. Agnosticism is the only logical choice. Going back to the start of this:
"No god" isn't just one of those infinite arguments. It's every argument that doesn't include "god." But that's irrelevant, since any number divided by infinity is, for all intents and purposes, zero.
RichardM1 wrote:
The difference between pink elephants and gods is that we have parameters for detecting pink elephants, and can verify that they are there are not. We do not have detection parameters for gods, so we can not just look around and not see them.
Not if they're invisible, undetectable pink elephants. So should I say that I can't decide whether there are invisible, undetectable pink elephants flying around my head, or should I just assume that there aren't, unless proven otherwise?
RichardM1 wrote:
You think the warnings of hel
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If we understand it, we know it wasn't done by "god."
Nice for you to say, but not true. If you know how it was done, or not, you know it was not done by god. If I know how it was done, or not, I know it was done by God. I believe God did it all, and is doing it and controlling it, now. I brought up the fundamentals because you were making an opposing claim of science explaining all, when, in general, it just describes. Don't claim I think that's the only place God works, because I do not, and I did not say I did.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
What does people killing people have to do with "god?" You're reaching.
To quote you:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Oh bloody hell... You understood my point just fine, and that's what matters.
You showed two points, admitting they where not researched. I showed a trend that as atheist governments take over, mass murders becomes the norm. The trend you apply to all theists has as much support as the trend that all atheists are mass murders. 100% of the people in this argument don't follow your trend. You don't think any god ever had any room, and I know God has all of it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
"No god" isn't just one of those infinite arguments.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Oh bloody hell...
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Not if they're invisible, undetectable pink elephants.
Except you are redefining something that is known into something that is not. You are going from a ridiculous, but defined, image to something that does not fit that definition. In effect, you say: "He's a rich man. Except he's not human. They have 15 sexes, two of which correspond to male, and "he" is three that don't correspond to female, either. And "he's" here because "he" was kicked off the home planet for having no material goods. Turns out "he" doesn't have jack here, either. But other than that, hes a rich man."
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If you tell a Muslim that he's going to hell because he isn't a Christian, that's religious persecution.
Is it? Here in the US? Can you show me precedent? I don't doubt it, I just don't know it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:<
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If we understand it, we know it wasn't done by "god."
Nice for you to say, but not true. If you know how it was done, or not, you know it was not done by god. If I know how it was done, or not, I know it was done by God. I believe God did it all, and is doing it and controlling it, now. I brought up the fundamentals because you were making an opposing claim of science explaining all, when, in general, it just describes. Don't claim I think that's the only place God works, because I do not, and I did not say I did.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
What does people killing people have to do with "god?" You're reaching.
To quote you:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Oh bloody hell... You understood my point just fine, and that's what matters.
You showed two points, admitting they where not researched. I showed a trend that as atheist governments take over, mass murders becomes the norm. The trend you apply to all theists has as much support as the trend that all atheists are mass murders. 100% of the people in this argument don't follow your trend. You don't think any god ever had any room, and I know God has all of it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
"No god" isn't just one of those infinite arguments.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Oh bloody hell...
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Not if they're invisible, undetectable pink elephants.
Except you are redefining something that is known into something that is not. You are going from a ridiculous, but defined, image to something that does not fit that definition. In effect, you say: "He's a rich man. Except he's not human. They have 15 sexes, two of which correspond to male, and "he" is three that don't correspond to female, either. And "he's" here because "he" was kicked off the home planet for having no material goods. Turns out "he" doesn't have jack here, either. But other than that, hes a rich man."
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If you tell a Muslim that he's going to hell because he isn't a Christian, that's religious persecution.
Is it? Here in the US? Can you show me precedent? I don't doubt it, I just don't know it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:<
RichardM1 wrote:
Nice for you to say, but not true. If you know how it was done, or not, you know it was not done by god. If I know how it was done, or not, I know it was done by God. I believe God did it all, and is doing it and controlling it, now.
If I know that hurricanes are caused by temperature differentials and atmospheric humidity, I know they aren't created by "god." As long as the cause-effect chain can be traced backward, there's no room for "god" as the cause.
RichardM1 wrote:
Except you are redefining something that is known into something that is not. You are going from a ridiculous, but defined, image to something that does not fit that definition. In effect, you say: "He's a rich man. Except he's not human. They have 15 sexes, two of which correspond to male, and "he" is three that don't correspond to female, either. And "he's" here because "he" was kicked off the home planet for having no material goods. Turns out "he" doesn't have jack here, either. But other than that, hes a rich man."
Which, to me, seems just as credible as your idea of a "god." I give a ridiculous definition, and you just skip that by saying that he defies all logic and definitions.
RichardM1 wrote:
Is it? Here in the US? Can you show me precedent? I don't doubt it, I just don't know it.
The law isn't going to do anything about it, but then, the law doesn't do anything about the "god hates fags" signs either, and those are pretty obviously persecution.
RichardM1 wrote:
You made reference to my beliefs being drug induced, twice. Wolfbinary thinks I'm one of the small minded bigots and carnival barkers of politics and fear. If either of you think your comments were made of anything less than derision, I would be amused by my over sensitivity.
I can't claim innocence. I have my viewpoints too, and I do express them strongly on occasion, when my right NOT to have those beliefs is challenged. My general attitude is that everyone can believe whatever they want, so long as they don't try to push it on me.
RichardM1 wrote:
But the people who treated you like that were not doing anyone a favor. Christianity is not a convert by the sword religion, though people did it and probably still do. There are ash holes everywhere. There are people wh
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Nice for you to say, but not true. If you know how it was done, or not, you know it was not done by god. If I know how it was done, or not, I know it was done by God. I believe God did it all, and is doing it and controlling it, now.
If I know that hurricanes are caused by temperature differentials and atmospheric humidity, I know they aren't created by "god." As long as the cause-effect chain can be traced backward, there's no room for "god" as the cause.
RichardM1 wrote:
Except you are redefining something that is known into something that is not. You are going from a ridiculous, but defined, image to something that does not fit that definition. In effect, you say: "He's a rich man. Except he's not human. They have 15 sexes, two of which correspond to male, and "he" is three that don't correspond to female, either. And "he's" here because "he" was kicked off the home planet for having no material goods. Turns out "he" doesn't have jack here, either. But other than that, hes a rich man."
Which, to me, seems just as credible as your idea of a "god." I give a ridiculous definition, and you just skip that by saying that he defies all logic and definitions.
RichardM1 wrote:
Is it? Here in the US? Can you show me precedent? I don't doubt it, I just don't know it.
The law isn't going to do anything about it, but then, the law doesn't do anything about the "god hates fags" signs either, and those are pretty obviously persecution.
RichardM1 wrote:
You made reference to my beliefs being drug induced, twice. Wolfbinary thinks I'm one of the small minded bigots and carnival barkers of politics and fear. If either of you think your comments were made of anything less than derision, I would be amused by my over sensitivity.
I can't claim innocence. I have my viewpoints too, and I do express them strongly on occasion, when my right NOT to have those beliefs is challenged. My general attitude is that everyone can believe whatever they want, so long as they don't try to push it on me.
RichardM1 wrote:
But the people who treated you like that were not doing anyone a favor. Christianity is not a convert by the sword religion, though people did it and probably still do. There are ash holes everywhere. There are people wh
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As long as the cause-effect chain can be traced backward, there's no room for "god" as the cause.
Again, even if there is no causal chain, you do not believe it is done by a god, right? But you are not limiting my understanding or belief by saying so. Stuff happens. The sun fuses more or less intensely, heating the water. The wind blows east or west, responding to that butterfly in Australia. The butterfly takes the day off, or gets eaten by a bird. The bird doesn't gets hit by a car the day before, blown by a gust of wind that is the chaotic result of (among other things) a moth in Malaysia. The hurricane is the result of a complex chain of events, all going back as far as how the probability wave for a couple of particles collapses (trillions of trillions of times). Or maybe further, we don't even know what is under that. The results of the collapses follow a slew of complex, chaotic processes that make seemingly unrelated things happen. Those collapses heat the sun, transport heat through the air and ocean, cause the air and water currents, make you like Hellman's versus Heinz mustard. It is not a deterministic universe we live in. When you drive to the store, you move your arm. You don't have to consciously run a thread of thought for each muscle to fire in the appropriate way, you just "move" your arm. Or higher, "turn the car left", "down shift", "speed up". Even higher "Avoid that lady in the street", "get to White Street", "Park the car". These are much higher level functions, driven by even higher level functions. Underneath, through much complexity, but still causal, is the thought of "Maybe I should try Grey Poupon". Lets say God wants Jack to learn something. This high level goal, molded together with His other high level goals, requires a hurricane to go up the Atlantic coast, versus into the Gulf. The same way your "try mustard" goes through a series of lower and lower level tasks and goals, which finally gets down to neurons firing, God's high level goals fire lower and lower level intermediate tasks, all the way down to the butterfly flapping its wings, and down to particle interactions. I'm sure you will say that just makes QM the "crack", but that "crack" is causal to everything that happens in this universe. Everything.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Which, to me, seems just as credible as your idea of a "god." I give a ridiculous definition, and you just skip tha
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As long as the cause-effect chain can be traced backward, there's no room for "god" as the cause.
Again, even if there is no causal chain, you do not believe it is done by a god, right? But you are not limiting my understanding or belief by saying so. Stuff happens. The sun fuses more or less intensely, heating the water. The wind blows east or west, responding to that butterfly in Australia. The butterfly takes the day off, or gets eaten by a bird. The bird doesn't gets hit by a car the day before, blown by a gust of wind that is the chaotic result of (among other things) a moth in Malaysia. The hurricane is the result of a complex chain of events, all going back as far as how the probability wave for a couple of particles collapses (trillions of trillions of times). Or maybe further, we don't even know what is under that. The results of the collapses follow a slew of complex, chaotic processes that make seemingly unrelated things happen. Those collapses heat the sun, transport heat through the air and ocean, cause the air and water currents, make you like Hellman's versus Heinz mustard. It is not a deterministic universe we live in. When you drive to the store, you move your arm. You don't have to consciously run a thread of thought for each muscle to fire in the appropriate way, you just "move" your arm. Or higher, "turn the car left", "down shift", "speed up". Even higher "Avoid that lady in the street", "get to White Street", "Park the car". These are much higher level functions, driven by even higher level functions. Underneath, through much complexity, but still causal, is the thought of "Maybe I should try Grey Poupon". Lets say God wants Jack to learn something. This high level goal, molded together with His other high level goals, requires a hurricane to go up the Atlantic coast, versus into the Gulf. The same way your "try mustard" goes through a series of lower and lower level tasks and goals, which finally gets down to neurons firing, God's high level goals fire lower and lower level intermediate tasks, all the way down to the butterfly flapping its wings, and down to particle interactions. I'm sure you will say that just makes QM the "crack", but that "crack" is causal to everything that happens in this universe. Everything.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Which, to me, seems just as credible as your idea of a "god." I give a ridiculous definition, and you just skip tha
RichardM1 wrote:
I'm sure you will say that just makes QM the "crack", but that "crack" is causal to everything that happens in this universe. Everything.
That's exactly what I'm going to say... Yes, that's causal to everything else, but you're just making my argument... The role of "god" has been moved up and up the chain, from effect to cause, until we hit the "I don't know" point. That's EXACTLY what the "crack" is.
RichardM1 wrote:
I start with one fuzzy definition, and stay with it. You start with a hard definition of a physical thing, and then redefine it into obscurity.
You're criticizing my definition as absurd, then claiming that something is more credible because its only definition is effectively "infinity" or "unknown."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
I'm sure you will say that just makes QM the "crack", but that "crack" is causal to everything that happens in this universe. Everything.
That's exactly what I'm going to say... Yes, that's causal to everything else, but you're just making my argument... The role of "god" has been moved up and up the chain, from effect to cause, until we hit the "I don't know" point. That's EXACTLY what the "crack" is.
RichardM1 wrote:
I start with one fuzzy definition, and stay with it. You start with a hard definition of a physical thing, and then redefine it into obscurity.
You're criticizing my definition as absurd, then claiming that something is more credible because its only definition is effectively "infinity" or "unknown."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's exactly what I'm going to say... Yes, that's causal to everything else, but you're just making my argument... The role of "god" has been moved up and up the chain, from effect to cause, until we hit the "I don't know" point. That's EXACTLY what the "crack" is.
God was never an effect, he was always causality, so I don't see the move up the chain. What you see it as the "I don't know" point, to me explains how God can be fully involved in everything, all the time. It started as "water falling from the sky? WTF? HAND OF GOD! RUN FOR THE CAVE!", nothing understood, everything caused by gods. It got to be a set of deterministic processes in the Newtonian universe, which didn't seem to leave "room" for a god to interact. Theory was, at one point, that with enough computing power, you could predict everything. The evaporation you mentioned earlier was hard coded into the universe, it literally could do not have done anything else, since the beginning of time, short of divine intervention. Then a group of fundamental ideas came from science, and their description of the universe became much more like the Bible's, not less. Cosmology showed a hard creation event ('c', not 'C'). The Standard Model described the mechanics involved just after the initial period, pushing out until near where quantum effects conflicted with relativistic ones. Shortly thereafter relativity and cosmology describe it fairly well, right through to now. From the very beginning, it was a universe where anything could happen, one that was open to direct interaction by a deity at all levels. It went from a Newtonian place, where a god could only interact by breaking physics, to one where the fundamental fabric is open to manipulation, without destruction of the rules it was built on. As I have been saying all along, there is no proof, either for, or against. If the hand of God comes out and thumps me in the head, right in front of you, you'll say "just an alien". You will always be able to point to the unknown and say that's the only place a god could operate. The universe was set up that way. First, we are not smart enough to know everything, except at a very abstract level. Second, If you believe in God, as described in the Bible, it is clear there can be no proof for God. God specifically calls out that faith is required, not knowledge, so unknown is built right in. I'm sure you will agree with the first reason. :)
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's exactly what I'm going to say... Yes, that's causal to everything else, but you're just making my argument... The role of "god" has been moved up and up the chain, from effect to cause, until we hit the "I don't know" point. That's EXACTLY what the "crack" is.
God was never an effect, he was always causality, so I don't see the move up the chain. What you see it as the "I don't know" point, to me explains how God can be fully involved in everything, all the time. It started as "water falling from the sky? WTF? HAND OF GOD! RUN FOR THE CAVE!", nothing understood, everything caused by gods. It got to be a set of deterministic processes in the Newtonian universe, which didn't seem to leave "room" for a god to interact. Theory was, at one point, that with enough computing power, you could predict everything. The evaporation you mentioned earlier was hard coded into the universe, it literally could do not have done anything else, since the beginning of time, short of divine intervention. Then a group of fundamental ideas came from science, and their description of the universe became much more like the Bible's, not less. Cosmology showed a hard creation event ('c', not 'C'). The Standard Model described the mechanics involved just after the initial period, pushing out until near where quantum effects conflicted with relativistic ones. Shortly thereafter relativity and cosmology describe it fairly well, right through to now. From the very beginning, it was a universe where anything could happen, one that was open to direct interaction by a deity at all levels. It went from a Newtonian place, where a god could only interact by breaking physics, to one where the fundamental fabric is open to manipulation, without destruction of the rules it was built on. As I have been saying all along, there is no proof, either for, or against. If the hand of God comes out and thumps me in the head, right in front of you, you'll say "just an alien". You will always be able to point to the unknown and say that's the only place a god could operate. The universe was set up that way. First, we are not smart enough to know everything, except at a very abstract level. Second, If you believe in God, as described in the Bible, it is clear there can be no proof for God. God specifically calls out that faith is required, not knowledge, so unknown is built right in. I'm sure you will agree with the first reason. :)
RichardM1 wrote:
It went from a Newtonian place, where a god could only interact by breaking physics, to one where the fundamental fabric is open to manipulation, without destruction of the rules it was built on. As I have been saying all along, there is no proof, either for, or against. If the hand of God comes out and thumps me in the head, right in front of you, you'll say "just an alien". You will always be able to point to the unknown and say that's the only place a god could operate. The universe was set up that way. First, we are not smart enough to know everything, except at a very abstract level. Second, If you believe in God, as described in the Bible, it is clear there can be no proof for God. God specifically calls out that faith is required, not knowledge, so unknown is built right in. I'm sure you will agree with the first reason.
Or, from another perspective, it went from a world where we could only explain natural phenomena through deities, to one where we understand how things work, right down to the quantum level. But see, science teaches us that there IS an explanation, though we may not know it yet. Religion tries to teach you that their answer is correct, but there will NEVER be proof. Never. The entire argument for the existence of "god" is "Trust me." That, to me, kills its credibility entirely. And if the argument FOR the existence of "god" has no credibility, then why should I even consider the possibility to be statistically significant? Since I have no "faith," and therefore no reason to believe in "god," then why should the possibility of its existence be weighted equally?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)