I keep killing them, they keep coming back. This zombie thread may think it is immortal, but I’ve got plenty of ammo.
TZT
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
I keep killing them, they keep coming back. This zombie thread may think it is immortal, but I’ve got plenty of ammo.
It looks like Zombie Jesus has good teeth. Can Zombie Jesus have good teeth? If he’s eating their brains, can he take their teeth too? So many questions, so few answers.
He died to take away your
sinsbrains.At least give him a nibble.
Glen Davidson
Do so not by threatening people with banhammers and bans and calling them trolls
I don’t recall that I did.
I rather think I used variations on the word “stupid”.
not an ad-hom in your case.
There’s more of them than us, and the Bullets of Reason™ don’t seem to have any effect.
theophontes
‘Tis Himself
theo (may I call you theo?) Now, I ask, which one is better?
You should be ashamed .
Wow, amazing. Rajkumar actually didn’t return after saying bye.
ibyea
***yet***
more scary organ music
@a3kr0n
We need a metaphorical Hershel’s shotgun.
I’m actually starting to wonder if he really meant it this time. It’s been nearly a full day since his last flounce. But you never know… {Scary orchestral music}
What the fuck IS a zombie thread, anyway?
Last rajkumar on TZT was 20 April 2012 at 5:48 pm (Pharyngula Standard Time).
Was he anywhere else?
@ chigau
Salutations Oh Great chigau, Queen of TZT and Ruler of all that is sacred and Godly.Such lazyness on the part of my minions in the Department. Recycling a panegyric to Zeus.Huh! Here the revised edition:
Salutations Oh Great chigau, Twoic of TZT and Destroyer of all that is sacred and Godly.
If this does not trump ‘Tis outright then I throw all eight paws in the air in defeat.
theophontes
oooh! much better!
Can I still thunder-belch?
—-
Azkyroth
If you hafta ask ...
Salutations Oh Great chigau, Twoic of TZT and Destroyer of all that is sacred and Godly, Whose tread shakes the Earth and Whose belches are thunder in the hills!
Aaah! That is starting to look good. Remember also, that this is just the heading to the panegyric itself. No expense to be spared in this here endeavor.
I saw a zombie tonight! He crossed a street as I passed by in the truck, his arms hanging like dead weights at his side, he’s knees bent slightly as he took each plodding step. He stared straight ahead with those dead eyes as he moved slowly toward a group of people out enjoying a stroll in the evening air and crossing directly in his path. You could practically smell the streams of bloody drool foaming down his cheeks as he hungered for brains. It was a scene too horrible to watch…so I drove on. I had to get back to warm up the baby meat spaghetti sauce for the spawn who I have raised to be a godless atheist ghoul.
test
robro
That was DH666!
Which way did he go?
That’s better.
I blame Zombie Jesus for all my troubles.
ohwell
You can tell Zombie Jesus is an old zombie; his quality teeth show he predates the rampage of meth addiction among younger zombies.
Brains?! Nahhhhh, the Jebus movement hasn’t got anything to do with brains.
Except the prevention of their correct operation!
On Darwin’s patience and data collection: one word – barnacles.
I don’t speak Lithuanian. And don’t I get a vocative?
So did I right after I wrote it, and so would Freud’s patients – assuming they knew such words.
Day saved!
This sounds obvious, but it’s complete bullshit. It’s yet another example of a failure of philosophy.
Nobody can imagine all the weirdness of quantum physics. But nobody needs to.
We can just calculate it. That’s enough to make reliable predictions. That’s all we need!
In the middle 20th century, physicists had tried very hard for some time to develop a theory of the strong nuclear interaction. Their failure was so persistent that some of them resorted to explanations similar to yours: the brain works by electromagnetics, not by the strong nuclear force, so we can’t understand the strong nuclear force.
Shortly thereafter, the theory of quantum chromodynamics was developed. It explains the strong nuclear force in full detail.
Well if you were a fair sample of that world, I would be obliged to radically recalibrate my estimate of its stupidity in the opposite direction to that which you suggest.
In other words, he has found a couple of gullible people who thinks he is “deep”.
Not everyone in the world is stupid?
BIG NEWS!
Louis
P.S. Rajkumar, you’re still stupid. Don’t worry.
Nerd,
But have you, like, ever really looked at your hand? It can touch everything except itself man.
Louis
My hand can touch itself. I bend my finger and oh wow!
Am I a mutant?
@David Marjanović:
We American Lithuanians mix up our English and Lith creatively and haphazardly, but I’ll give you your vocative! (I didn’t do it in the first place because “David” is not a Lith name…)
Nuostabu, Davidai, nuostabu. (“Nuostabu” = “wonderful”)
So, you don’t speak Lithuanian but you noticed that I didn’t use the vocative… Bloody brilliant polyglot. :)
Catnip,
But that’s not like, truly touching itself, that’s like just a finger touching some part of your hand. It’s not, like, your hand truly> touching something like the sky or a child’s hair or something.
I’ve celebrated 420 day too long haven’t I?
Louis
Only if it can touch its own back.
Without multiple fractures.
I’m part mutant. My thumb can do that.
Depends. What year do you think it is?
Well, that’s the problem.
Like most of theses new-agey types, he can’t. Doesn’t have the math.
For such people quantum physics becomes something discovered by Deepak Chopra that means anything at all is possible, especially if it makes no sense. Chopra is even pompous enough to berate actual physicists for “stealing ‘his’ word”.
Ogvorbis, #33,
Year?
[Sarcasm]
Oh thanks. Start with an easy one why don’t you.
[/Sarcasm]
Ummm it is mostly some time after Queen Victoria* left the throne.
Louis
* I used to score killer bud from that chick.
Oh, a Kinks fan. Now I understand.
SallyStrange,
“I don’t just want acceptance, I want to destroy the idea that faith is a virtue”
But how do you destroy the idea of faith as a virtue by posting something that is offensive to that faith which only causes them to be pissed off and place more barriers against any meaningful discussions? You say you want acceptance and I understand that, but you are going up against a much larger majority. I would think your best means is to continue to fight for change, and coming across as a jerk wont aid you in this cause.
Anri,
“Actually, atheists would just like to have the rights outlines in the US Constitution applied to them equally. I know that’s a radical idea, and possibly one that you don’t think is worth bothering with for only 15% of the population.
Just so I’ll know when I can begin being a full citizen, what percentage of the populace would atheists have to be to make you think their rights are worth protecting? Round numbers are fine.”
I couldn’t agree with you more that atheists should have the rights outlined in the US Constitution applied equally, but we both know that so long as a majority believes one way, it isn’t going to happen without a fight. And things are definitely getting worse now that the right wing religious groups are trying hard to gain control of the Republican party. It wasn’t hard to see that they have succeeded. I watched a get together of the presidential Republican candidates and they were falling all over themselves trying to show how religious they were in attempt to get the right wing religious vote. Mostly what you heard is how they wanted to discriminate against gays and to control women’s bodies. But it was A-OK to cheat on your wives. The one person who was really scary was Santorum. Fortunately, Romney is more moderate, but may be forced to follow the right wing mantra. Obama may have his faults, but taking everything into consideration, he is by far the best choice.
Oh lookie, the presuppositional “agnostic” godbot is also an accommodationist tone troll. The lies and bullshit keep on coming.
scifi #37
Why am I thinking “concern troll”?
opposablethumbs,
“Does that mean Jews should have fewer rights than non-religious people? If so, why?”
No, I wasn’t saying that you should have less rights. What I am saying is that even though everyone is supposed to have equal rights, you are still the minority and you know your rights are going to get pushed aside. Jews may be a minority religion, but they are still a religion and can be bunched together with the Christians who do have a common ground in the Old Testament. You have extremist Christian groups who want to take away all atheists rights but there are moderates too. They are the ones who are more apt to listen to you, so why go out of your way by posting something disgusting that will only push them away? Often you get more by using honey than bile.
The problem is, our mere existence is enough to piss off those of faith. Politeness, or rudeness, has nothing to do with it. No matter what an atheist says or does, we are an affront to the faithful.
And yet you complain that atheists come across as jerks when we do stand up.
Don’t you know, we should be like gays in the old days. Quiet and invisible. All the concern/tone trolling accommodationists essentially say that.
Scifi #37
Or, alternatively, you could allow people to decide for themselves how they want to affect change…
On a slightly different note, I am not convinced that all forms of faith are a bad thing. Religious faith, sure, but what about having faith in a friend, in love, in humanity? Or am I confusing the discussion by using the term incorrectly?
Scifi,
DING DING DING DING!
“You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”.
Ahhh the old aphorisms are the best.
You catch more flies with shit. What’s your point?
Louis
P.S. We’re aware of the plurality of communication tactics, thanks. Just because many people think you are a total moron because your claims are fallacious crap, and thus you get treated with disdain and scorn here, it does not follow that people here think everyone who makes any claim is a moron, nor that they should be treated with disdain and scorn everywhere. Do you see how that works?
Faith is required when evidence is lacking, like for a deity or babble. Godbots like scifi have faith a deity exists (necessity for a creator). Faith in a friend means the friend has usually behaved in a fashion to generate trust. More of a conclusion than true faith, although there may also be an element of that present.
Other than you and a couple of other idiotic trolls, which fucking “religious moderates”* do you think are supposed to be listening to us on the zombie thread? Do you think it’s the case that everything atheists do should be put in the context of what hurts religious people’s poor little fee-fees, under the assumption that they forget how to think when that happens? On that note, how often and in which contexts do you think “religious moderates” consider atheists’ feelings?
*The more I hear it, the more I can’t stand this fucking term. Not being a religious extremist is the lowest bar I can imagine, so if that’s all it takes to be a “moderate,” they can go fuck themselves too for all I care.
Faith: 1) believing without sufficient evidence, 2) trust or confidence.
You’re confusing them.
And if you leave some dead bodies laying about, you can raise your own flies. Hence zombie jesus.
Scifi, show us the evidence where social changed occurred simply because people were just nice. The evidence indicates that both a loud group and a quieter group is most effective. Everybody being nice, nothing changes, as it can’t overcome social inertia. We are the loud group here.
As long as we’re into cheezy aphorisms, I’ll give you that one :
Rough translation, “if you feed a pig, it’ll come back to shit on your balcony”.
‘Honey’ isn’t always an effective way to get what you want. Some people will take you politeness as weakness and submission.
I’m not sure it’s the right message to transmit when one is already discriminated against.
And after years of being quiet and invisible, they are suddenly fully accepted and gay marriage is on the table. All it took was quiet patience. Just as for women, blacks, Native Americans . . . .
Nerd #46
consciousness razor #48
Thank you both. I guess I do use ‘faith’ interchangeably with ‘trust’. I shall attempt to beak that habit to avoid future confusion!
However, if you are in the majority, and see change as a zero-sum game, it is the right message for the discriminated group to embrace.
kemist #51
Or, as here in the south (Tennessee), as a dose of passive-aggressiveness.
Not only that, but when, as in the USA for the last 30 years, the religious extremists keep moving further and further towards the illogical extremity, moderates are pulled along, too. Some religious ‘moderates’ hold views that, in the 1970s, would have been considered extreme. Just like politics.
Nerd of a redhead,
“Don’t you know, we should be like gays in the old days.”
No, like gays today. They bring suits against discrimination. What I’m saying is that pissing the majority off is not going to help your cause. Makes them think that if you were the majority, you would discriminate against them.
“‘Honey’ isn’t always an effective way to get what you want. Some people will take you politeness as weakness and submission.”
Ok, perhaps I put that wrong. I agree that you should fight tooth and nail for your rights. What I was trying to say is that you are only going to cause the opposition to fight that much harder against you when go out of your way to piss them off with such vile stuff like the “Zombie Jesus” post.
Like Jessica Ahlquist of Rhode Island? Yeah, I can see how that polite and legal remedy to theistic discrimination against non-Christians worked wonderfully. No one got mad at her, did they?
My mere existence as an atheist already pisses off the majority. What do I, or an other atheist, have to lose by standing up and saying, in or out of a court of law, “I am a human being, too! I am a citizen of my country and am entitled to the full civil rights gauranteed by my constitution!”?
Actually Mythbusters determined that you draw more flies with balsamic vinegar than honey.
[…]
Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless by Greta Christina
That was an experiment. It used evidence. Automatically suspect in the eyes of some.
Hey, I’ve just been commenting on a rather silly “universal male castration” YT video and have a rabid rad-fem trying to castrate me here. Was I completely off-the-mark to say:
Rape is not about libido, but control and abusers who undergo voluntary castration (in my country, CZ this is an option) aren’t necessarily freed of their instinct but have less hormonal pressure, and anti-rape education of males is an easily identifiable and effective means of reducing male-on-female violence. (?)(her response was that scientists have proven rapists have higher testosterone levels and libido, castration was a viable option).
I’ve come to pharyngula for my feminism before (and been beaten down as an ignoramus as well before), but could anyone link me to some studies/ study me in the nuances of this issue?
Also was I being a manipulating and controlling prick when I said that the first person (since confirmed) that would be against me getting castrated?
Thx for any answers and all praise the zombie Jeebus! He has risen!
scifi #57
So what should we be doing? Rolling over and playing dead? Going back into the closet? Asking the majority “please, good sirs and/or madams, would you be kind as to allow us a mere modicum of attention while we explain how we don’t believe quite in the same way as you noble folk”?
Fuck that noise. We’ll do like the gays: “We’re here and we’re queer (except for those of us who are straight, bi, trans, asexual, or any other orientation)!” And if suckass accomodationists like you don’t like it, that’s too fucking bad. Suck it up, asswipe!
Yeah, bringing suits don’t piss people off. Assertion without evidence, ergo POOF, dismissed without evidence.
Pissing people off can cause them to stop and think, if they realize you are pissed off, and maybe rightly so. That is what the vocal gnu atheist does. The equivalent of the militant Black Muslim movement in the civil rights era, the women who chained themselves to buildings to get the right to vote, and the gays of the “we’re, we’re queer, you deal with it” openness. Yes, all the above pissed people off. But it also brought attention and the spotlight, and caused those sympathetic their cause to actually start standing up for the oppressed, as they were no longer being totally shouted down by the bigots.
And if I stop saying “Jehovah” I suppose they won’t stone me to death as much.
So have a bunch of people who seem to believe that a guy rose from the dead 2000 years ago, and that failing to buy into that idea results in eternal torture, makes us less trustworthy than convicted rapists, and should (some think) disqualify us from being citizens etc etc etc. And yet it’s the zombie Jesus cartoon posted on a blog that you think is “vile.”
Your concern is noted. Your priorities are whacked.
Now I remember why I had you killfiled. Back you go.
You call that vile? Does your mom know you’re out playing on the big bad intertubes, youngster?
Only a presuppositional godbot, not a true agnostic who doesn’t have a theology, would consider this vile. More lies and bullshit.
Re: Caine, Fleur du mal
yes, I know I’m an asshole and have been assigned the “troll-asshole” distinction by comenters on pharyngula in the past (mainly due to being used to YT comments rather than blogs and forums). But really I’m just trying to find out about these things, I mean I was a fundamentalist Catholic a few years back.
I am sincerely asking for some resources on what actually works to reduce frequency of rape. Am I completely off the charts if I think there are people who are “radical feminists” (for me that includes people who advocate that “all men are rapists”, “women can’t consent to having sex” and my current question: universal male castration).
“and have a rabid rad-fem trying to castrate me here”.
Meaning we are discussing (what to me seems absurd) universal male castration.
Thanks for any responses and I’ve really learnt a lot reading pharyngula comments on these issues.
=8)-DX
But ridicule does work against rabid religion.
I come from a place where the RCC ruled every single aspect of the life of citizens, from the way they voted to whether girls are allowed to ride bicycles. I have had teachers who remember seeing the first women admitted to universities – in the 1960’s.
The main movement that started a (bloodless) revolution against it was composed of irreverent artists, some of which fought for the right to blaspheme.
It worked.
Churches are empty, except for very old people. People don’t care what the pope has to say. We’re free.
=8)-DX,
If you’re not just bullshitting, as I rather suspect you are, tell us how to find this YT video (don’t link to it, as it will embed, break up the URL).
ibeya @6
NOTHING MAKES SENSE ANYMORE – I CAN’T GO ON
Yes and no.
No, you are not completely off the charts that there are people who really do equate feminism with “all men are rapists”, “women can’t consent to having sex” and “universal male castration.” These are accusations thrown at feminists by those who are afraid and are in the same vein as the accusations of sodomy brought against groups as diverse as the Bogomils and the Knights Templar, or the accusations of devil worship, drunken orgies, and cannibalism hurled at atheists. This is a way of demonizing ones opponent to silence them.
You are way the fuck off the charts if you actually think these are valid questions. “Schroedinger’s rapist” does not mean that all men are rapists. It does mean that there is no way for a woman to know if a man is, or is not a rapist until it is too late (the box has been opened and the quantum indeterminacy is resolved). When this conversational road is followed, almost every time, someone will insist that this means that feminists think all men are rapists.
The “women cannot consent to having sex” is thrown out there as a way of marginalizing people who think that enthusiastic consent is necessary. The dishonest argument used in this case can be, “Well, I had sex with a woman who was passed out drunk and I’m not rapist,” followed by a feminist pointing out that if she cannot give consent, it is rape. And almost every time, the conversation quickly descends into an argument over how drunk is too drunk, followed by accusations that feminists don’t think any woman can give consent for sex and thus the accusation that all men are rapists.
The “castrate all males” is another cannard thrown into the mix to demonize and/or silence feminists. Somehow, implying that men and women are all humans and should thus have equal rights creates, in the brains of some men (and even some women), a bizarre castration anxiety. Somehow, treating women as human beings is viewed as castrating the men.
Seriously, though, if you really do think that these three ideas are somehow a part of feminism, you are sadly mistaken. In fact, it would, in my mind, characterize you as an MRA — a Men’s Rights Activist — a group of people for whom treating women as human beings is somehow a threat to their manhood, their machismo, their breeding rights, and their entire way of life.
As to whether castration — chemical or other — is a valid ‘treatment’ for rapists, I do not know. Though it may remove the sexual release, it will not do anything about the violence, the hatred, and sadism, and even the sexual fantasies the rapist is trying to live out. There have been, and no doubt are, serial killers who achieved a sexual thrill out of the murder even though the killer was unable to achieve orgasm. The violence and dominance are still there whether the sexual release is obtainable.
I hope that this answers your question.
Be forewarned, though, that continuing to argue these strawman positions will result in feminists (and yes, that includes me!) coming down on you like a ton of bricks.
Damn. Sorry for the wall o’ text, regulars.
Strewth, be strong. As Professor Krassman says in The Muppet Movie: “Take it like a frog, not like a little toad.”
Nothing to apologize for. You had to explain the real world to the MRA and you did a good job of it.
Ogvorbis:
The douchetart in question is a complete asspimple and not worth bothering with, in my opinion. YMMV, of course.
I don’t think it is. It’s generally never brought up in the case of a rapist who rapes adults, it’s mostly reserved for child rapists. It doesn’t rewire the brain, it doesn’t remove desire and while it makes things easier, a functioning penis is not required to rape someone. In some cases, a rapist being unable to achieve or maintain an erection leads to murder.
First time I’ve dealt with hir, so I figure that’s only 2 out of hir 3 freebies. Besides, this way if xe starts claiming, “Why are you so mean I was just asking questions waah!” I can point to them being answered.
Thanks. That’s pretty darn close to what I was trying to get across but nowhere near as eloquenter.
scifi, I’ll copy my questions, so maybe this time you’ll read them. It’ll give you a bit of practice: sound the words out, look them up in the dictionary if you have to, make sure you’ve got the sentence figured out before moving on. Then, when you don’t respond to them again, drop the act that you have slightest bit of ground to stand on.
Other than you and a couple of other idiotic trolls, which fucking “religious moderates”* do you think are supposed to be listening to us on the zombie thread? Do you think it’s the case that everything atheists do should be put in the context of what hurts religious people’s poor little fee-fees, under the assumption that they forget how to think when that happens? On that note, how often and in which contexts do you think “religious moderates” consider atheists’ feelings?
Speaking of lack of writing skills, that should have read: “That’s pretty darn close to what I was trying to get across but I was nowhwere near as eloquenter.”
NOTHING MAKES SENSE ANYMORE – I CAN’T GO ON
…Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer the outrageous burning stupidity, or to take arms against a sea of demented fuckwits, and by opposing end them…
Ichthyic:
+10
that should have read
orly?
I have a lot of theoretical knowledge about a lot of languages.
And that ending surprises me, to be honest, but it makes some sense.
First of all, why do you bother commenting on YouTube?!?!?
Second, Radical Feminism™ is a precisely defined ideology, just like how not every fundamentalist Mormon is a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS).
Only if you post the naked URL, not if you use a proper <a> tag.
Great Chigau #17 — South
Apologies for the slow reply. I’ve been in a spaghetti stupor all day. Completely missed church again. Damn, I’m damned!
I just noticed that Zombie Jesus has long straight brown hair. Makes sense. Nazis said Jesus wasn’t Jewish but Aryan, so I guess that makes him a German Nazi Zombie Jesus (GNZJ). Awesome.
Caine Fleur du mal,
“But moderate and progressive religion still does harm. And it still pisses me off. Moderate and progressive religion still encourages people to believe in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces and events and judgments that happen after we die. And therefore, it still disables reality checks, making people more vulnerable to oppression, fraud and abuse.”
It is true that religions require the followers to follow certain man made rules claimed to be inspired by a god, but I think you know as well as I do that there is a tendency of humans to desire hope in a higher power that they can go to when things get tough as well as the hope of continuation of life after death. As long as these things are not forced on you, why take away this hope from those who desire it. As far as people being more vulnerable to oppression, you merely have to look around the world to see that there is oppression from dictators whether or not there is religion. The problem is who is in power. We all know what happened when the Catholic Church was in power and believed that they were following the correct religion. Russia did the same thing in the past, and tried to put down religion.
As far as objecting to religion promoting a creator, science feels that everything came about from nothing by natural means. Theists believe it had to be a creator. At this point, neither side can show evidence for either. As far as objecting to religion knowing what this creator, if it exists, requires of us, if it requires anything, it can be shown that all these attempts are man-made and not inspired by a creator. Since neither side can prove their stance as far as whether or not a creator or natural means was the first cause, perhaps it is finally time for each to tolerate the other.
Nerd of a redhead,
“Only a presuppositional godbot, not a true agnostic who doesn’t have a theology, would consider this vile.”
Wrong!!! Any civil person should consider this vile. Funny, you want to be treated equally under the law, but it sounds more like you want to be treated as the majority and the hell with the religious majority. In other words, if atheists were the majority, you would wish to discriminate against the religious people. You would probably be the first in line to throw them to the lions. So, I find your wish for equal treatment disingenuous.
So a cartoon lampooning Buddha, or Joseph Smith, or Quetzalcoatl, or Thor, or Athena, or any of the other tens of thousands of fictional gods would also be considered vile by any civil person? Or is it just when your particular sacred cow is up on the barbie?
Back that up with a citation, you hypocrite!
I appreciate that Syfy takes the extra step of being stupid in both presentation and content.
Ing:
Yes, it’s an extra-special brand of stupid. Xe really works at it.
‘Scuse me, just dropped in to see what’s going on ’round here.
Nicely done, scifi!
You’ve managed to pack a whole lot of bullshit in a very small space.
I particularly like “I think you know as well as I do”! Brava!
scifi wrote:
Because bad people are misusing the hope of others for their own gain – money and political power and influence. If people know the truth, they’re less likely to be manipulated in that way.
Also because truth matters to the intellectually honest; there doesn’t need to be another reason.
You have been told numerous times that this is not true, and that to say it is true is a lie. Stop lying.
Another lie. Science has evidence to suggest there never was ‘nothing’. Stop lying.
You’re obviously as ignorant of history as you are of science. Tolerate each other? Religious believers have been killing those who don’t share their beliefs for millenia. For the first period in history atheists are able to be open about their unbelief, and you’re suggesting that wanting to discuss the issues surrounding religion is ‘intolerant’? You’re a fucking idiot.
Sorry I can’t stay a little longer, but I have to be to work early. I’m off to bed to read Stenger for a bit.
I appreciate that Syfy takes the extra step of being stupid in both presentation and content.”
Now that is a really DUMB statement. About the dumbest I’ve heard in a long time. It even rivals statements by creationists who state that everything was created withing the last 5 or 6000 years.
Lampooning or ridiculing a deity has nothing to do with discriminating against followers of that deity.
scifi wrote:
Well, I guess that answers the question about whether or not your read what you write before you post it.
scifi:
Apparently you haven’t bothered to read the turds you’ve dropped in this thread.
Wrong. Science doesn’t have to show evidence. Those claiming the creator must do so. Or, shut the fuck up. Where is your evidence, or your shut the fuck up?
Why? Answer the above question…
No, we are required by the constitution to treated equally under the law. Now, fuckwits like you need to acknowledge that is the fact, not endpoint.
Why do presuppositional religious fuckwits like scifi always think we want everybody to become atheists? We just want them to put their religion where it belongs. In their home and church, not in the public square.
Oh no spare me your words sting like the barbs of a thousand thorns. *files nails*
Eternal inflation.
And, scifi, stop that nonsense about “first cause”. The idea that every event must have a cause moved from sci to fi in 1927 when Heisenberg published his uncertainty relation. Stuff happens for no reason all the time, just because it can. Radioactive decay is never caused.
I know it’s hypocritical of me to giggle at this, but yeah…stupid in content and presentation.
Pronounced “stupid ing content and presentation”! :-)
@DM
*grumbling chortle* aha well played good sir *monocle and harrumph while tugging suspenders*
Scifi, you keep forgetting, being a presuppositionalist, that the null hypothesis for your creator is non-existence by science. So science doesn’t ever need to prove the non-existence of your presupposed creator, you do. Ergo, those who think a creator exists and caused the universe (never mind you can’t create the creator, just presuppose it), it is up to them to provide the conclusive physical evidence for said creator before even including it in a viable theory. Put up or shut the fuck up…
Wobagger,
“Because bad people are misusing the hope of others for their own gain – money and political power and influence. If people know the truth, they’re less likely to be manipulated in that way.”
Great point. You can see that from the way the right wing Republican candidates have acted.
“As far as objecting to religion promoting a creator, science feels that everything came about from nothing by natural means.
You have been told numerous times that this is not true, and that to say it is true is a lie.”
You still haven’t gotten this right, have you. I direct your attention to Lawrence M. Krauss’ book, A Universe from Nothing. Don’t you ever tire playing the idiot? Not only does Krauss state that quantum mechanics indicates that nothing is unstable and that matter appeared from this instability, but that it happened multiple times resulting in multiple universes of which ours just happened to have all the required finely tuned parameters required for life as we know it. He goes on to admit that he doesn’t have proof of this. Ahhh! Someone who is honest and admits that, unlike most people I’ve encountered on this blog.
“You’re obviously as ignorant of history as you are of science.”
I’m afraid that that would be you, not me. I already mentioned that whomever gains control of power is a threat. The Catholic Church was there, so was Russia who at the time also banned religion. So, religion is NOT the catalyst. Try getting your own ducks in order before you make a fool out of yourself calling someone else an idiot.
Nerd of a Redhead,
“Scifi, you keep forgetting, being a presuppositionalist, that the null hypothesis for your creator is non-existence by science.”
How many times are you going to keep repeating this nonsense? I have numerous times asked you for your proof that our universe came about by natural means and you keep ignoring that and insist that I put up or shut up that a creator was the first cause. OK, then YOU PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Give me proof that the first cause was a natural one. Again, I’m not asking you to disprove a creator. I’m asking you for evidence how our universe started. I’M STILL WAITING.
David,
Physicists state that matter came from nothing and expanded into the big bang. Some state that this has happened multiple times resulting in multiple universes, thus explaining how we ended up with a finely tuned universe that supports life. Please show me the evidence. Even Lawrence Krauss states that he has none. I believe scientific theory requires this evidence.
Syfy, your attitude has made you unliked and into little more than an amusing distraction. Why the fuck do you bother?
scifi wrote:
If ‘nothing’ can be unstable, then it’s not ‘nothing’, is it? That’s what Krauss is saying; this is what I heard him say IN PERSON just over a week ago – there is no ‘nothing’; there’s always ‘something’.
You are the one with the nonsense. SCIENCE is by natural means. You prove the science wrong, by proving your imaginary creator exists outside of your demented brain, and actually did something. EVIDENCE, where is YOUR EVIDENCE??
Your assertion that science needs to prove the non-existence of your imaginary creator is bullshit. So says the philosophers. Care to tell me how to disprove your imaginary creator?
<blockquote> is probably one of the easiest HTML things to use.
Actually you’re talking about deism, not theism. Theism presupposes a deity that actually interferes with the universe, and there’s no evidence for that whatsoever.
Theists are not very tolerant of deists, nor do I notice any theists calling for tolerance of deists, let alone tolerance of atheists.
As far as the philosophical argument for deism, I never really bought it. If the universe really needs a supernatural first cause you might as well call it “the supernatural first cause” and admit that it looks more like an excess of matter over anti-matter than anything old bully in an ancient book.
Are you saying that you’re a deist?
Scifi:
Science isn’t driven by proof, it is driven by resolving apparent contradictions between theory and evidence. Evidence will either support or contradict our understanding of our universe. Without evidence, you don’t even have a hypothesis.
Krauss describes a coherent model consistent with the evidence. There are some implications of the model that remain unsupported by evidence, but are not inconsistent with it. Krauss points these out, because these ideas are only speculation until they are tested.
There is a huge difference between science and the wishful thinking that is religion, based on no evidence at all.
@Syfy
There’s a reason NotRH keeps repeating himself, and it’s quite amusing you can’t see it.
Scifi the presuppositionalist is still trying to pull the shit that there are two equal and competing theories of creation. There aren’t. There is the naturalistic science theories, and then there is the stupornatural creationist theories. With no evidence that the stupornatural exists, or should even be considered by rational scientists. Unequal, and science wins every time, as if the stupornatural is ignored, the same results happen with a less cumbersome theory. Parsimony at work.
Santa lives in the North Pole but never leaves to give presents.
You admit that Krauss says that universes come from nothing and then pretend we’re not honest when we say the same thing. You’re not only stupid but you’re a hypocrite. Or are you too stupid to realize you’re a hypocrite?
Nowhere has Nerd asked for proof. He’s asked for evidence. Even a stupid hypocrite like you should be able to figure out the difference between the two.
Science is not about proof. Proof in only in mathematics and logic. You’ve been shown evidence for a natural cause for the universe. Fuck, asshole, you even admitted Krauss’s book was about natural causes for the universe. Now we want you to provide evidence that your sadistic bully of a god caused the universe. We all know, including you, that you can’t produce any evidence for a divine “creator”.
Am I the only one who am growing to loath “agnostics” on principle? “theists” at least are honest
Go look up parsimony.
Why?
In a truly secular society, run according to the principles that most atheists that post here would no doubt subscribe to, theists would not be prevented from worshipping whatever piece of rock, moss or ether they want. As long as their behaviour does not interfere with the lives of others.
For example:
Theists would not get to veto the marriage of any 2 people that wanted to do so. Whatever their sexual orientation.
For example:
Theists would not get to insist that other peoples children have to be taught their particular brand of delusion as though it were the Truth ™
For example:
Theists would not get to tell women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.
For example:
Theists would not get to subvert science education with myth, and thus contribute to the poorer education outcomes that they want for themselves and their own offspring in other people’s children.
Theists would not:
Be prevented from believing whatever fairytale they want.
Be put to death for it
Be silenced.
Be immune from being laughed at for claiming their delusion was the One True Delusion ™
Be allowed to scam innocent, albeit gullible, people for their own gain.
So the difference that atheists want is that you don’t get to tell us how to live. In contrast to now, when you thinkyou have a right to tell us how to live.
Really, it’s not that difficult.
Scicfi, if you are going to use “whomever” in a sentence, like you did in 119, make sure you are using it correctly. Getting it wrong makes you look like you are pretending to be smart, and failing badly. It’s archaic enough that tit is not necessary to use whom. As a guide, don’t use “whom” for the subject of a sentence, but “for whom” and “with whom” are pretty safe.
Scifi
I really don’t think you have grasped what Krauss is saying, because he is quite specific on what is speculation and what is supported by the evidence, and you are getting it wrong. Try reading the book you keep referring to (again if you already have), and watch his video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
QFT.
Scifi is deliberately misstating what I ask of him. The burden of proof (where the burden lies) is upon scifi to provide the conclusive physical EVIDENCE for his imaginary creator. Just like the burden of proof is upon the prosecution in criminal trials here in the US to provide sufficient EVIDENCE to convince a judge a jury should even look at the evidence, or convince the jury for a guilty verdict. Deliberately conflating these terms is a form of godbot lying.
1) blaspheming != discriminating (except in the deluded persecution-complex-riddled heads of the rabidly religious)
2) blaspheming != killing (again, except in the heads of would-be xian “martyrs”)
Blaspheming is a legitimate and essential means to express oneself. It is the first step to a truly secular society, ie, a place where your religion or lack thereof is irrelevant where public life is concerned.
It has happened here, and no xians were eaten by lions, or lost anything besides their unjust and unwarranted priviledges.
They get to live their lives as they see fit, we get to live our lives as we see fit. They lost the unjust priviledge of getting to tell us how to live our lives, which was frankly not of their damn business in the first place.
Stop being a drama queen.
dramaholic
Science does not feel anything. Please define nothing, and cite why science has no evidence for it.
Drama llama
Dr. Audley
drama llama
or
drama lama?
I think I prefer the furry ;)
Llama.
Or possibly “Lllama” like I typed it the first time. :D
Catnip,
“In a truly secular society, run according to the principles that most atheists that post here would no doubt subscribe to, theists would not be prevented from worshipping whatever piece of rock, moss or ether they want. As long as their behaviour does not interfere with the lives of others.
For example:
Theists would not get to veto the marriage of any 2 people that wanted to do so. Whatever their sexual orientation.
For example:
Theists would not get to insist that other peoples children have to be taught their particular brand of delusion as though it were the Truth ™
For example:
Theists would not get to tell women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.
For example:
Theists would not get to subvert science education with myth, and thus contribute to the poorer education outcomes that they want for themselves and their own offspring in other people’s children.
Theists would not:
Be prevented from believing whatever fairytale they want.
Be put to death for it
Be silenced.
Be immune from being laughed at for claiming their delusion was the One True Delusion ™
Be allowed to scam innocent, albeit gullible, people for their own gain.
So the difference that atheists want is that you don’t get to tell us how to live. In contrast to now, when you thinkyou have a right to tell us how to live.”
I thought this was worth repeating. I couldn’t agree more. I luv it!!! Hopefully, that is what the rest of the atheists believe.
Wobagger,
Krauss is basing his something from nothing on the evidence that particle pairs of matter/antimatter pop into existence and then out in an instance on the quantum level. He is extending this to the possibility that matter appears out of nothing and then expands into the the big bang and that it does it numerous times creating numerous universes. Science has no EVIDENCE, I capitalized it and I change my proof to evidence, that our universe actually started this way and that there are multiverses out there. No matter how you put it, there is no evidence to this speculation. I am basing the possibility of a creator on reasoning that matter popping into existence by itself and expanding into a finally tuned universe capable of supporting life may have required a creator. Neither of us have the evidence, but one of them could be wrong. You think by itself, I think by a creator, but I will admit that I don’t know. You on the other hand seem to indicate that you know even though you have no evidence to support this. You have FAITH that a creator can only be fiction, me, I’m not sure and admit I don’t know, making me an agnostic and more honest. You on the other hand, are dishonest since, though you have no evidence, you will insist you have to be right.
Ing sez: “Am I the only one who am growing to loath “agnostics” on principle? “theists” at least are honest”
I think that “agnostic” has two meanings. There are those who profess to know that God is unknowable–too big for our little brains to comprehend. There are also those who just don’t know whether God exists or not.
I tend to loathe them both.
The idea that God is special because we can’t comprehend him is laughable–I can’t comprehend my wife, some days. I think they are just making choosing a slightly more academic way of making faith the point of their religion.
The people who just don’t know whether God exists or not are also irritating. If there is a vindictive little Jehovah running the universe, getting on his good side is the difference between Heaven and Hell–it isn’t something to be shrugged off. If there is no God, understanding what is going on is very insightful into human nature, and standing up to the deluded bastards is very important politically–a casual dismissal is, to me, a denial of one’s humanity.
The theist folks who assume that a god exists and that they will be fine are taking an awful chance, I think, but they are at least honest.
Dr. Audley
In that case we should do all-out consonant profligacy
drdraaammaa llllaammmaaa (vowels, too!)
scifi
You dishonest condescending piece of shit. What do you mean by “hopefully, that is what the rest of the atheists believe”? You know that’s what the rest of them has been saying the whole time. That is what secular value means. Unless you are a total moron, there is no way you could have missed that. Unless, of course, you haven’t been listening, which then means you were never interested in an honest conversation in the first place.
Well, here you have EVIDENCE of something coming from nothing. But no evidence of a god causing something to come from nothing. Therefore the balance of evidence suggests that it would be more parsimonious to deduce that the universe came into existence via a mechanism we have already observed, rather than via a mechanism we have not observed. That IS evidence. It’s kind of hilarious, but also sad, to see you proclaiming that “science has no EVIDENCE” in the very same paragraph as you describe that self-same evidence.
Except for the evidence you yourself just described. If this is humor, it’s quite subtle. If not, well, you are as dumb as people have been saying.
You have evidence for matter popping into existence by itself. That the universe is expanding is pretty well established. If we know that matter can pop into existence by itself, and that the universe is expanding, it’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that this is a plausible mechanism for the origin of the universe. There may be a small amount of evidence for the theory, but it is more evidence for the theory you present, of a god-creator with a mind. There is zero evidence for your theory. Some evidence, no matter how small, always trumps zero evidence.
Again, this is not true. You don’t have evidence.
Actually, given that you yourself have just recited the evidence you deny exists, I think we can reasonably conclude that you are not being honest. It’s not an article of faith that a creator god is a fiction, it’s a reasonable inference from the fact that there’s zero evidence for such an entity’s existence. Your claim to “not know” flies in the face of your reluctance to let go of this unsupported theory, and your dishonest denial of the evidence for the theory that leaves no room for your creator god.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
WORD!
(my bolding)
PS Aaarrghhh, not eat to much brain for while, need food.
Ahem,
What the fuck kind of bullshite is this!? You, sir, are no DH666. Your words are simple bland stupidity, easily and obviously ridiculed. There is only one thing dumber than a dumb creationist, and that is a smart accomodationist.
At least danielhaven666 brought a certain verve, a certain je ne sais quoi that induced marvel and wonderment and slamming of head with vodca bottles.
You are a zero. On the scale of demeritorious accomplishment, a mere protazoa in a lands of the tartigrade…. sigh
That’s how to play the no evidence card, FFS!!
BTW, I’ve developed a new sonic disruptor, oh majestic undeadness
Then go do it.
Seriously! Go git ‘er dun!
Show us all up, prove us all wrong! Give us all of the examples throughout history of the massive number of minority groups that got anything vaguely like equal treatment without pissing the majority off.
. . .
As far as initial conditions of the universe being fine-tuned, I’ll ask again: what is the observed probability that a universe will have properties identical to this one?
(And once again, the math is dead flat easy – it’s the concepts that some people find difficult.)
We have lots of evidence suggesting that intelligence does not exist without a supporting medium of matter. No matter, no intelligence.
We have lots of evidence suggesting that intelligence takes a lot of evolutionary time to develop. No time, no intelligence.
We have lots of evidence suggesting that intelligence is strictly a property of living things. No life, no intelligence.
Please give examples to the contrary if you have them.
Therefore, the idea that a disembodied, non-evolved, nonliving intelligence created the universe is substantially at odds with everything we have been able to establish about the nature of intelligence. The notion that matter, even a hell of a lot of matter, could spontaneously come into being and expand into the universe is strange, but not at odds with what we know about matter.
These are not equivalent positions, and believing in one is not as sensible as believing in the other. One is essentially a faith position, and the other is essentially playing the odds in favor of what we understand about the universe.
Fucking bullshit.
Which do you think is more probable?
1) That’s the best explanation of origins of the universe, and it happened with a god, or
2) it happened without a god, or
3) it most likely did not happen, because that’s not the best explanation, regardless of whether or not there is a god.
Because you seem to be arguing both that it did and did not happen that way. Instead of paying attention to what you’re even saying, you immediately slide into apologist garbage about fine tuning and shove your deity in at the end for no apparent reason. And I do mean no reason. You have nothing but fallacies and vacuous nonsense about “a creator,” which we’ve explained to you numerous times. Whatever your choice above is, why do you think that’s more likely to be right? You just say “reasoning” about it makes you think it requires a creator, but I see no reasoning. What is the reasoning?
That’s a “god of the gaps” thing. And the gaps are getting smaller and smaller everyday, with your creator getting to do less and less. It has absolutely nothing in common with the god of the vast majority of the religious, since it is unpersonal and irrevocably bound by the laws of physics and thus powerless. It is completely pointless to pray or worship it, for instance.
I do not understand how this small, pointless god has anything to do with what the religious call by that name.
You creator explains nothing better than the other hypotheses, and spawns its own series of unanswered questions and problems. It goes against parsimony – adding an unneeded element to a theory which already works, without it adding anything useful to it, whether in explanatory or predictive power.
It’s a bit as if I added that a nanoscale little green elf to the process of chemical reactions which are already explained by thermodynamics, on the pretext that I have seen nothing actually grabbing and pushing molecules together, and then demanded evidence that it doesn’t exist.
That’s why the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that the god of the gaps is, in fact, needed.
didn’t we ban this clown from the previous site?
he’s just as tedious and inane as ever, I see.
Also, THE UNIVERSE IS NOT FINE TUNED!!!!! Gah! Seriously, how many times do I have to hear the same dumb point over and over again? Scifi, us fleshy organic life forms are alive at a very special time in the universe. It is the time of stars and galaxies and gas clouds. Relatively speaking, all of it will soon go away, and the vast majority of the lifespan of the universe will be cold and matterless. How is that for fine tuned?
Oh yeah. “Fine tuning” my ass. If it’s so fine-tuned, why is the universe 99.99% hostile to life??
But, but, but beautiful sunset, children’s smiles and luuuuurve.
If scifi is the same clown as Shiloh, yes. So far, no confirmation of that though. Scifi’s too busy with repeating the same tedious inanity to bother.
How is arthritis “fine-tuned”?
Or are we back to punishment for my many (many, many) sins?
(many)
Shit, most of the Earth is not fine tuned enough to allow we humans to survive.
Not to mention birthing chilluns out of the same orifice into which sperm is deposited. Why not have a convenient abdominal flap or aperture for convenient removal of the fetus? Such a design is certainly not fine-tuned for women’s life.
SallyStrange, remember the words of a glib and nasty recently banned troll; the big sky daddy wanted the act of birth to be memorable.
What is the death of women and the ripping apart of families in the face of such majesty.
A nice piece of dishonesty here, conflating two separate things and claiming that lack of evidence for one means lack of evidence for both.
There is PLENTY of evidence that our universe started out precisely this way. What we don’t have any evidence for is the existence of other universes being produced from the same general process of inflation. The math of inflation theory suggests that other universes should be produced in this way, making multiverses a PREDICTION of inflation theory. A prediction which could in theory be tested by searching for evidence of other universes.
And right now, NO ONE in the scientific community is claiming multiverses as fact, only as a hypothesis.
Ah yes, because silly ladies with their fuzzy pink lady-brains might forget otherwise. “Whoops! I almost forgot I created a new human being over the course of the last nine months! I was so distracted by that Mad Men episode during the birth, I almost left the little whippersnapper at the hospital!”
Fine-tunes, eh? Well, let’s see.
The sun is too big and too hot. If it were somewhat smaller and cooler, it would be a longer lived star, and life on earth would have lasted several billion years more than it would as things are right now.
The earth is too close to the sun. If it were just 10-15% further away, life on earth would have been able to survive on the planet for several billion more years. It would also have been able to support a biosphere with more carbon, and therefore more biomass. And human civilization would have been able to use more fossil fuels more quickly without producing serious problems with global warming, and the quality of life for the majority of people would have been improved.
The earth is too big. A slightly lower gravity would have reduced the severity of most forms of trauma, and would also have been a boon to human space exploration.
The earth has too little land, and too much water. Just shift the ratio a little closer to 50:50, and there would have been much more land for humans to live on.
The moon is too small. A larger moon would have had a chance to be a habitable world in its own right, which would have been a huge boon to human space exploration, and would have been very helpful for jumpstarting human colonization of space, which is the only way humanity can ensure its long-term survival.
Jupiter is the wrong size and location. As a “guardian” of the inner solar system, sweeping up and expelling comets and asteroids and preventing catastrophic impacts on earth, it is not as effective as it should be, actually pushing rocks into impact trajectories with earth about as often as it diverts them.
The metallicity of the galaxy is not the best for producing habitable solar systems. This means fewer habitable worlds more sparsely distributed for humans to find and settle.
The value for the strength of dark energy is a little too high. This results in an ever expanding universe that will suffer a cold, desolate heat death, with a stelliferous era during which complex life like ours can evolve constituting only a tiny fraction of the universe’s total lifespan. A tiny bit smaller value, and the expansion of the universe would be a just a little bit slower, and endless expansion into heat death will not occur as quickly.
Scifi, the universe is still pretty much nothing. Inside each atom is mostly empty space, between each atom is, on average, a foot or so of nothing. A creator would have no reason to make so much emptiness, or so much besides the earth.
When you start yapping about order, you are also wrong. Most is randomness. The rotation of the earth has no relationship at all to its revolution around the sun, while its weather bears only a vague relationship to the revolution.
The fact that we are alive to observe requires a universe that allows life–universes that prevent life have no life in them. You blatter about tuning, as if that proves God, but folks like you insist that your God has ineffable reasons for demanding faith–is your god proven, or to be taken on faith?
You believe all kinds of odd shit, but that doesn’t mean that we do. You really have a very poor grasp of science, atheism, reality or your own dimwit religion.
scifi wrote:
What ‘reasoning’? You haven’t done anything resembling reasoning. All you’ve done is employ fallacious thinking, specifically the argument from ignorance and/or the argument from incredulity.
Science – as you admit – includes an explanation for how the universe could have formed, with evidence to support that – as you admit. Where is your equivalent evidence for a creator? What we have is ‘some’. Now, ‘some’ isn’t much, but it’s infinitely more than zero, which is what you have.
Except that there is – you just admitted it! And I quote: “Krauss is basing his something from nothing on the evidence that particle pairs of matter/antimatter pop into existence and then out in an instance on the quantum level.”
Evidence. We haz it.
God-of-the-gaps is not honest. Claiming to be ‘agnostic’ yet continuing to argue for the god you clearly believe exists and lying about not being sure is not honest.
As I’ve noted, you’ve already admitted there’s evidence to support my claim. It’s like you have handed me a photo of you doing something illegal but are still trying to claim you didn’t do it.
Syfy is an agnostic. That means that believes in the possibility of a creator of the gap in his brain.
Even if
youone believes that a god or a committee of gods started the universe, what has that to do with your underwear or diet?—–
I like the Old Testament God.
Straight-up tyrant.
“Do this or DIE.”
and HE made good the threats.
New Testament God does nothing and expects us to have FAITH.
How stupid is that?
scifi, if you’re going to claim the universe was fine-tuned, you have to show your work.
What’s your evidence the values (gravity etc.) were somehow adjusted? Because that’s what ‘tuning’ means.
Alternatively, you could show how you (or anyone else) has established that life couldn’t exist if one or more of those values were different.
No, don’t just quote ‘scientists say…’ – cite the data that those who make that claim used to reach that conclusion.
Fine-tuning, my aching ass. I’m sitting here with my backside hurting because the gravity pulls bits of me out the wrong orifice if I sit up straight, and my back and knees keep aching no matter what I do. I’m huddled inside a very expensive structure for protection from the environment, listening to my furnace burn expensive fuel to keep me warm, and I still have to wear clothes to keep me warm and supported. I’ve some dark patches on my skin where the sunlight damaged me. My nasal passages are inflamed because the local vegetation can’t reproduce in an orderly manner.
And all the wonders of technology that the internet represents are being used to argue with some dumbass whose brain is stuck in the bronze age.
What a fucking mess.
Here, listen to Ukulele Weeps by Jake Shimabukuro, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puSkP3uym5k . That’s what the internet is for.
Menyambal
Thanks for the Jake Shimabukuro link.
I didn’t know that was possible.
—-
and have you considered SIN as the reason for your pain? (see my #146)
*looks at paws in puzzled fashion*
@ scifi
Hey! It has cost a lot of us a lot of hard work and a string of hecatombs to get this thread into its current state. You should be thankful, in that you have a site were you can state your goddist case. (In spite of what you say, we are actually helping zombie jezus, by giving its apologists a platform here. This thread is jeebus approved, god damn it!!!)
@ mikmik
DH666 has escaped and leaped the fence. We need to get it back here before it jumps the shark and gets banned somewhere else on Pharyngula. That would be a tragic waste.
@ Ichthyic
This site is for recycling godbots, trolls and menZ. In principle it gives them a second life in situations that would have got them dungeoned or banhammered. A form of purgatory as it were. In principle they could amend their trollish ways and come across to the dark side. In practice I doubt this will happen much.
Catnip
scifi has not mastered the Strange and Obscure Art of <blockquote>
so it is sometimes really, really difficult to understand who xe is quoting.
theophontes
We™ are the Light Side (possibly the Lite Side).
not dark
never dark
dark is scary
@ chigau (Twoic)
We are? We still have cookies right?
@ Ichthyic
Please strike my reference to the dark side in #162. We’ll get back to you after our next Plenary Meeting of TZT Uberleadership.
Chigau,
I got that scifi was quoting my comment @121 in hir 131
I am puzzled at the enthusiasm shown. Given ibyea’s comment at 135, who pointed out that my original post at 121 was not *ahem* original, I keep going back and rereading my comment to see if I mis worded it somehow.
Hence the puzzlement.
[meta]
<Looks at the gore trail and chewed bone bits>
Nothing left for scavengers. :{
Assertion without evidence. POOF, dismissed, like all lies and bullshit should be. The science is also the evidence, and facts.
Nope, I have no faith, that is belief without evidence. There is no evidence to date for a creator, ergo it doesn’t exist, conclusion not belief. Null hypothesis is therefore non-existence. Now, if you wish to make your creator a reality, evidence is needed. Solid and conclusive physical evidence. I’ll check out your evidence. But not your lies, bullshit, and sophist posturing, which is all you have presented to date. NOT ONE IOTA OF EVIDENCE (YOUR SOPHISTRY IS OPINION, NOT EVIDENCE) FOR YOUR IMAGINARY CREATOR PRESENTED BY YOU SCIFI.
Here’s a compromise: god IS nothing.
Try it in a few sentences…
“The universe came from, nothing.”
“Evidence of nothing”
“You believe in nothing.”
“Nothing poked my eye out.”
“Nothing in the chalice, except wine.”
Yep that’s about the size of god…
Ah, on a serious note, there’s a poll needs Pharyngulitin’ and I was wondering if you, PZ Oberlawd, would give the command. It’s at Alberta today so could you, oh wise one(I’m just saying that, theo), get some drogs over to there in case a global warming denierist wins, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaze?
@ John Morales
Actually, gore is exactly what the undead love to eat. It is what reanimates them:
@ mikmik
Teh interwebz is ginormous. Perhaps post a little itty bitty linky pooh…
I’m not sure how old this is, but the Christian Science Monitor has a quiz up entitled Are you smarter than an athiest?
Despite guessing at three of the answers (The Great Awakening? Wassat?), I managed to get 32/32. I’m startled that the average result on this was 50%. I thought it was a pretty easy test overall.
theophontes
mikmik is referring to our provincial election in Alberta today.
There is really nothing else that can be done so mikmik is praying to all deity-like entities.
Yep, 32 out of 32, with 3 good guesses.
The questions are reprinted from a Pew Research poll (not an internet poll, an actual poll) of 2010. As they note, atheist/agnostic are the highest scorers on average. But white evangelicals outdo the average atheist on twelve questions specifically about the Bible/Protestant history, while we outdo them on world religion and religion-in-public-life questions.
http://www.pewforum.org/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx
I got an easy 32/32. And people wonder why atheists laugh at religion. This quiz would seem to show that we’re the among the only people who know just how batshit it all is.
No. We have the cookies.
Or maybe you have cookies, but they have raisins.
Pah! I’m obviously the slow one of the group. I only managed 28.
**mutters to self “stupid bloody religious shit anyway” mumble mumble mumble**
Ooh… not good: 27/32
(Who teh fuck is Jonathan Edwards?) My xtian knowledge is not so hot. Perhaps I should be less critical of them?
You still knew loads more than the average Christian.
Jonathan Edwards?
Isn’t he the physic scam guy that had a T.V show to talk to people’s dead relatives? It was all bullshit obviously and I don’t know what happened to him. He used, whatitscalled, cold reading? and people would jump up when he spat out a popular name saying “That’s my uncle!”. South Park did an episode making fun of him.
@ kemist
raisins?
@ Matt
Scifi should check that guy out. He has all the answers: “The End For Which God Created the World”.
He was also killed by science:
His coolest writing must be: “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”. It could really contend with “Catholic high-school girls … in TROUBLE!” as the title of a naughty magazine. {cue paddles and high heels}
The joys of Pffft…
There’s no evidence to the contrary so in lack of any evidence it’s an opinion. I say that I’m agnostic to it, but think he is Shiloh and that any one who thinks it isn’t is being irrational. AGNOSTIC!
The gross guy who rips off bereaved people is John Edwards. Subtle name differences count. Jonathan Edwards was the greatest bible-thumper who ever was. Check out his apocalyptic writings in which he proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt that bible prophecy has finally come to pass and we are finally in the last days! Er, in 1723. But if you’re looking to read some of that stuff he’s way more fun than that Left Behind drivel.
Whoops, the gross guy who rips off bereaved people is John Edward. The adulterous politician is John Edwards. So sorry!
What’s the difference?
One plays off people’s grief and fear of death….the other ….uuummm…. So yeah.
Johnathan Edwards IIRC is the asshole who encouraged a young girl to starve herself to death.
See, there’s your standard syndicated on cable institutional grade asshole, and there’s your grade-A gourmet classic asshole. There’s the difference.
@David Marjanović #102
What? Not even in chain reactions?
However in most cases there does not appear to be a trigger for spontaneous radioactive decay.
Sally:
This!
Hell, Mr Darkheart and I were musing about how much more convenient that egg laying could be– we could share incubation duties!
*eyeroll*
Proof?
There is no such thing as proof in science. There’s only falsification and parsimony.
*howl*
I send scifi to the Wikipedia article on Eternal Fucking Inflation, and scifi comes back and lectures me on how ! The Big Bang is the expansion of space itself, it's not an explosion of matter.
Ah, suddenly you say "evidence" instead of "proof". That's not the same, you know.
You say the universe is finely tuned. But is it? If only one parameter varied, most resulting universes would not be habitable. But if any two parameters varied at a time (Stenger has done the computer simulation), no less than 21 % of the resulting universes would be habitable.
Fine...
No. Read again what he wrote.
I love the indefinite article. ♥
Listening?
The fear that we might be Stalinists who'll send scifi to the Gulag at the first opportunity is simply louder than anything we say.
Or at the very least a fucking decent connection between pelvis and sacrum, so that the pelvis doesn't need to be a fucking ring. That's how all birds do it today. That's what allows kiwis to lay eggs of stupefying size.
*headdesk* That could have been accomplished by the endorphins alone, without the ring of bone. Stupid Design.
If there's not enough water, though, plate tectonics can never begin, and you run into trouble with things like the geochemical carbon cycle; if a body is too small, it cools out too quickly, and both plate tectonics and the magnetic field stop.
Each decay in a chain merely creates the next radioactive nucleus – it doesn't cause that nucleus to decay.
Exactly.
That's indeed how it's done in many bird species.
Oh. I forgot to close that <code> tag. The last line is supposed to be in the normal font, and the Gumby quote is supposed to be in Comic Sans:
Wow. Ya’ll have been workin’ so hard. Take a break and enjoy some bacon.
Every day I learn new and interesting things on Pharyngula. Thanks, David! :)
That’s what allows kiwis to lay eggs of stupefying size.
Hey now, that’s news. We lay eggs. And of stupefying size no less!
Hey honey, can you lay an egg for us for breaky?
what?
oh.
Not even in chain reactions?
that’s not decay.
Ibea,
“What do you mean by “hopefully, that is what the rest of the atheists believe”? ”
I mean exactly that. I’ve seen comments that appear that there are some here who would tend to discriminate against religions if they were able to.
Menyambal — making sambal is the purpose of the universe
The reason some atheists do not like us agnostics is because we are in your face telling you that no one can know whether or not our universe began naturally or by a creator and we take you to task and ask you for your evidence, which you have none. It would be better that you admit that you don’t know but have leanings towards atheism.
Citation needed you blockheaded dullard.
—
From the nature of this comment, it would seem that you are closer to being religious than agnostic. As for evidence, I’s been given, and if you can’t trust us to give you good links, there is a magical tool called “Google” that you can use.
I’ve seen comments that appear that there are some here who would tend to discriminate against religions if they were able to.
this is such an inane statement I don’t even know where to begin dismantling it.
able to discriminate HOW exactly? by doing what?
you mean like atheists are documented to be discriminated against in places where there is religious privilege?
how would that work, exactly? What would be the point of it?
your thinking is so muddled and inane it’s bloody impenetrable.
The reason some
atheistsrationalists do not likeus agnosticsdemented fuckwits is because we are in your facetelling youpretending we have a clue what we’re talking about.FTFY
…you demented fuckwit.
I’ve been tidying up my bookmarks.
Did y’all notice that the switch to 500 comments per page was retroactive?
Some of our witticisms based on comment #’s seem a bit … um … demented now.
Link, or it didn’t happen liar and bullshitter. Unevidenced accusation, POOF, didn’t happen.
We, unlike you, have scientific evidence. You have nothing but OPINION. We know that. Science requires evidence. You might not like said evidence, but it is orders of magnitude better than anything you have for your imaginary creator fuckwit. And you know that, which is why you are also a liar and bullshitter…
Not knowing how something happened does not mean that magical elves did it.
It just means that you don’t know.
It’s you who can’t accept that, and drag magic powers in things you don’t understand.
God(s) explain nothing. They are inscrutable black boxes that people put in their model of the world instead of leaving a blank while trying to understand what’s really going on.
Scifi, the fact I need to link to this, Scientific Theory, tells all the lurkers are one sad and ignorant sophist, who’s word needs a link for each and every point you try to make. You lie and bullshit until you do so.
From reading this discussion, I get the distinct impression that “there is as much evidence for a creator as there is for a naturalistic explanation of the origin of the universe” constitutes the central dogma of scifi’s agnosticism. Attempts to challenge this position are met with further repetition of the dogma.
scifi wrote:
I’ll join in the chorus of ‘citation needed’.
But, given scifi’s demonstrated poor comprehension skills, the word ‘discriminate against’ probably means ‘treat as something other than privileged’ or ‘limit the unjust power of’ – something a secret believer like scifi couldn’t abide.
Yep, as fuckwitted and wrong religious dogma on its part. There is always evidence for a scientific theory, as any theory requires some evidence. It has acknowledged it has no real evidence for its religious and presupposed theory. All it has is uberskepticism toward any and all scientific evidence. Typical religious thinking, not agnostic thinking, which would take any and all scientific evidence at face value. It lies and bullshits.
Well, the reason I don’t care for you in particular is that you appear to be perfectly happy to consider creator/no creator explanations for the universe existing to be in some way equally in line with our knowledge of the universe.
This isn’t true.
And, since a number of people (including myself) have shown you repeatedly that they are not equally reasonable positions, I am beginning to suspect you’re not ignorant, nor stupid, but rather dishonest. I have a suspicion that you’re deliberately ignoring the lines of reasoning being put before you as to their non-equivalence. I suspect this because you are apparently reading and to some extent understanding the responses in the thread, yet never address the issues raised.
So, I can’t speak for my fellow atheists, and I’m not claiming that you are representative of self-proclaimed agnostics, but I dislike you, individually, because you are apparently a liar.
+1
Why the fuck would anyone want to attract flies? Flies are filthy and disgusting.
And, by the way, as any gardener knows, when you really want to attract flies to keep them out of your house or garden, guess what you use in your trap?
Not honey, but vinegar, particularly apple cider or balsamic. It’s easier for the flies to consume!
Anybody who’s made homemade fly traps knows this.
What a fucking moron not to know that.
Actually, I didn’t know that until I read it upthread, but then, I haven’t ever had need to know. Hope that doesn’t make me a moron! ;-)
The reason some atheists do not like us agnostics is because
You’re delusional pieces of shit who don’t know what the fuck words MEAN.
Agnosticism isn’t some happy medium between atheism and theism, you fucking moron.
Good grief, look at the words themselves:
Agnostic is derived from a-without, and gnosis–knowledge. A + Gnosis + WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE.
Atheism is derived from a-without and theism–belief in genocidal sky fairies. A + Theism = WITHOUT BELIEF.
Knowledge isn’t belief, you cretinous sack of shit.
If you’re agnostic you can still be a theist. You might not know, but you believe there’s a genocidal scumbag in the sky anyway.
Or you can–like most of the people here–be agnostic atheists. You don’t know, and as long as you don’t know, you don’t believe. AGNOSTIC ATHEISTS.
You’re the one who’s too fucking stupid to know what words fucking mean, and are trying to have it both ways, sitting on the fence, like the fucking liars and cowards you are.
That’s why we hate scumbags like you. You’re liars. You’re morons. And, worst of all you’re pompous assholes about it.
Try–try–to keep up.
I’m taking a guess that if he bothers to link Sci-fi will give the link to where Brownian and I are accepting the role of Atheist Inquisitors seeking to kill X-ians for the sake of mocking YEC
Oh–and rather than making up persecution fantasies for why people hate you for being a cowardly lying moron, you might–oh, ask us why, rather than putting your lying scumbag words in our mouths.
Most of us will be quite happy to tell a piece of shit like you what we think of you.
Ah, Aquaria.
I’ve missed you.
I personally dislike sci-fi for being a gonadless x-ian posing as an ‘agnostic’
+1
Sally Strange,
“Well, here you have EVIDENCE of something coming from nothing. But no evidence of a god causing something to come from nothing. ”
Excellent point except that Krauss still admits that this does not prove that our universe came about by natural means without a creator.
BTW, you objected to my statement of fine tuned universe because 99% is hostile to life. What I am saying is that if the gravitational constant is 1% weaker the stars and planets could not form and we would have ended up with cosmic dust. If 1% stronger then the big bang would have collapsed on itself. In either case, no life of any kind could have formed. Krauss actually mentions either this or for dark energy. The point is there a number of constants like this that have to be finally tuned or no life of any kind could formed. Theist will argue that this requires a creator. Krauss and other physicists will argue for multiple universes. However, there is no evidence for this. So, it has to be based on faith. Therefore, the fact that 99% is hostile to life is irrelevant.
Amphiox,
“The math of inflation theory suggests that other universes should be produced in this way, making multiverses a PREDICTION of inflation theory. ”
You still have to show that matter appearing from nothing and expanding into a universe was started by a natural means. What if it were started by a creator? Then all bets are off.
Ok, once again (I think this is the third time I’ve asked you this, but what the hey) – based on real-world observations, what is the probability that a universe will have a set of characteristics identical to our own universe?
Seriously, try to answer this one, if only in your own mind, to understand the problem with your line of argument.
I assume you are raising this point to suggest that the way the universe is situated is highly improbable… so, just how improbable? Really, give this question a shot. I suspect it will go to the heart of your misunderstanding.
Or… (and again, I only suggest this with the sinking suspicion that you’re just arguing dishonestly) is that the very reason you won’t address it?
People, let me make one concession here. Krauss’ book is the best thing I have read so far with the argument for a natural means of something coming from nothing. It has pulled me back closer to center, but I still have reservations that quantum particle pairs popping in and out of existence can be extrapolated as possible evidence that mass greater than atomic particles could do the same thing and then expand into a universe because quantum mechanics is talking about the atomic level which the mass that expanded in the big bang doesn’t appear to be.
Anri,
“Ok, once again (I think this is the third time I’ve asked you this, but what the hey) – based on real-world observations, what is the probability that a universe will have a set of characteristics identical to our own universe?”
Obviously, it is extremely low. So low that it is unlikely to come about by chance. OK?
Because, once again, we have observed matter doing this. Matter appearing out of nothingness is consistent with our understanding of matter.
Immaterial, unevolved intelligence is utterly incompatible with our understanding of intelligence.
We have evidence for one.
We have no evidence for the other – in fact, all evidence points to the vast likelihood that such a thing does not exist.
These are not equivalent positions, please stop treating them as such.
Wrong.
We observe one universe.
It has characteristics identical to a universe compatible with life.
1/1=1.
The observed probability of a universe having properties making it hospitable for life is 100%.
That’s actually pretty high. Like, um, very high. Perfect confidence, in fact.
What factors are you comparing to get you result of low probability?
Shiloh, sorry I mean shiloh, I mean Shiloh; how is God different from Universe Creating Cosmic Prawns?
Btw, we heard you the first time. You don’t actually resolve anything when you just repeat it again.
Also, Shiloh, stop fucking lying. You’re not in the goddamn center. You’re “agnostic” but argue that the odds are exactly 50/50…but apparently can’t stand the idea of someone else taking the opposite position of you. What both sides have equal evidence but your evidence is more equal?
You’re the reason why agnostic == cowardly smug asshole.
You act like you’re Prof Hawking but you’re actually Doc Smith
No, actually, you don’t. If you were arguing in favor of specific natural means against other natural means, you would need evidence favoring one over the other. But if you are just blanket comparing ALL hypotheses involving natural means with creator hypotheses, all you need is parsimony to favor any and all natural means hypotheses over creator hypotheses.
Invoking a creator raises an entire new set of questions. Is the creator made of matter? If not, then what is it made of? In what universe was the creator standing in before the appearance of this universe? And so forth.
Parsimony favors natural means every time. Without actual positie evidence in support of a creator’s existence, natural hypotheses are automatically preferred, always.
Obviously, it is extremely low.
compared to…?
So low that it is unlikely to come about by chance.
relative to?
OK?
no, not at all. You clearly do not understand probability.
And no, for this, I DEFINITELY don’t. Since I was talking only specifically about multiverse hypotheses emerging from inflation theory, ALL of which occurs AFTER the initial appearance of matter and energy before (or perhaps at the beginning of) the inflationary period.
I find this deliberate twisting of my words to suit a rhetorical purpose for which they were not addressed to rather dishonest.
People, let me make one concession here.
the only concession any of us are really interested in is the one where you admit you have inane preconceptions based on NOTHING, and aren’t informed enough on the subject you’re trying to talk about to seem anything but an ignorant ass.
go on and read your book, and then read the references cited IN the book.
then get the educational background needed to UNDERSTAND the material he uses in the book, and in the references.
THEN come back, and you’ll be on even par with everyone else here who are now calling you a fucking idiot.
I hope you have some serious time on your hands?
Therefore, a magical person with superpowers may have intentionally made the gravitational constant the way it is? What a bullshitter.
IF everything else remained exactly the same and only gravity were different and IF gravity can be different than it is and IF no other universes exist in which gravity is such that life can exist, you presuppositionalist little shit.
You merely argue that it may have required a creator, based on no reasoning whatsoever, like a spineless, lying idiot.
They’re looking for evidence and may find it. It is not taken on faith that this is true no matter what. Why do you so consistently and utterly fail at not being a dishonest, fuckwitted shithead?
False. The claim is that some being intentionally made the universe the way it is because it cares about life. Whether or not the universe is hostile to life is precisely what we’d have to consider, but you just don’t want to accept there is any way you could be wrong or are too stupid understand what the argument is about. An agnostic, my ass.
You act like you’re Prof Hawking but you’re actually Doc Smith
*DANGER WILL ROBINSON!*
<blockquote>copypaste here</blockquote>
makes
easy
Until you want to claw your eyes out.
So, it has to be based on faith.
funny, and here I thought those models were based on what fell out of the math.
umm, I’ll take false equivalency for 500, Alex.
scifi wrote:
What’s the evidence for this tuning? Don’t just write ‘scientists say’, cite their exact words. You can’t do that, can you?
Similarly, cite the exact words of the scientist you insist claim that ‘no life of any kind could be formed’, and how they calculated that.
If it was started off from ‘nothing’, there couldn’t have been a creator, could there? Nothing + a creator = ‘something’.
It is evidence that on some level, something can come from ‘nothing’. Therefore, it counts as something. You, on the other hand, have zero evidence for your creator.
So, you are lying when you say the two claims have equal merit. One claim – ours – has some evidence. The other claim – yours – has zero evidence. The two are not equal.
Oh, and your ‘reservations’? They aren’t evidence either – well, except for the fact that you’re suffering from the logical fallacy of the argument from incredulity.
SAlly sez:
“Well, here you have EVIDENCE of something coming from nothing. But no evidence of a god causing something to come from nothing. ”
demented fuckwit moves goalposts:
Excellent point except that Krauss still admits that this does not prove that our universe came about by natural means without a creator.
you are one horribly dishonest git.
get lost.
scifi using creotard logic: “I refuse to believe it because, while I accept that the evidence shows
a small something can come from ‘nothing’microevolution happens, that doesn’t mean thatsomething as big the universe can form from ‘nothing’macroevolution happens.”Or, in other words, he’s totes okay with you walking across the street, but refuses to believe you could walk across, say, the great state of Delaware.
I don’t like this thread tonight.
scifi said:
Your reservations count for shit.
Your logic is also poor. There’s a general rule that a series of small events can be extrapolated to larger events happening less frequently. For instance, we are constantly being peppered with small meteors, and sometime whacked with larger ones and rarely destroyed by huge ones.
Plus, there is nothing to say that the original Big Bang particle had a scale that in any way relates to what we who live in its debris see. The particle didn’t come from itself.
No, our universe must have the characteristics it has, just as the content of this page must be what they are. The chances of this combination of people arriving and by chance writing this mix of words is infinitesimally small—so frickin’ what?
Our universe must also be capable of supporting life, as we are here to see it. Any observed universe must be able to support observers.
I said that once before, by the way.
@ David Marjanović
Unless one wished to argue from Antipositivism. (Linky in your linky.) In which case fairytales are given significance. I can understand this in the realm of sociology or anthropology. But in physics or biology? Goddists, like scifi, bringing it into such sciences are being willfully stoopid and/or dishonest.
@ chigau
Oh lordy… My nym is now meaningless! And DH666 now becomes DH166?
The quality of troll has been shot to hell.
@ Aquaria
In line with this, we are fully justified in calling ALL goddists agnostics. For some reason scifi seems to think the term cloaks ta’s goddism. It does not.
@ scifi
I cannot fathom why you are so hard pressed to defend a Deist position. It is rather trivial and goes no-where in proving teh skydaddy ™ or jeebus. Further, it would appear that the most one can say, if one were to accept a Deist deity, is that that deity is currently stone fekking dead.
We may not be able (currently) to know the exact conditions at the Big Bang itself. But we do know, and can further measure, the conditions in the here and now. I hate to break it to you: No gods! Not one. Zip, nada, niets…
Why is it that people seem to assume that low probability = zero possibilty? These word have meanings.
Wowbagger
That is a very good question.
Why is it that people seem to assume that low probability = zero possibilty?
they play the lotto a lot?
seriously though, it’s been my experience the more ignorant someone is, the more likely it is that they will not comprehend the significance of either very large, or very small, numbers.
It’s like they can only comprehend numbers they have counted in their lives.
No.
Those of us who buy the Lotto tickets know the difference between 1/13,983,816 and 1/0.
I often put it this way:
they can understand that a drop of water is quite small.
They can’t seem to understand that all the water in the world is just one drop of water, times a very large number.
likewise, although they seem to think that somehow they can calculate “the odds” of life in a specific universe (laughable in and of itself), even IF it’s a tiny probability, you are dealing with VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY large spaces and timeframes (maybe even multiple!) in order to roll those dice in.
theophontes
How is “Twoic” pronounced?
@ chigau
Twoic comes from 2ic, so I guess: two + ik ?
(As the only known Twoic in the entire universe, it is your call.)
Now that my nym is irrelevant and redundant (due to the unfortunate “500-comment” incident) I shall have to start hunting around for a new one. Something spiffy, with CL-20 in the title. And perhaps a real live gecko?
theophontes
I was going for something like “twoy-k”, with one of those glottal-stop things. But the etymology gets weird.
re: 777 yeah, it’s not fun anymore with danielhaven gone.
I like the gecko.
Kagato
Please. π=3
You just hafta beennnnd it a little, into another spacial dimension
@ chigau
We can call on a weird etymologist. (…or David Marjanović may be around to help fix. Or we can launch the pelamun signal)
gecko… No, I couldn’t…
What if the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the great green arklseizure? You can’t “prove” that it’s not scifi. How come you aren’t arguing for this equally plausible option? Is it because it doesn’t fit with your religious preconceptions?
The ole anthropic argument. Yawn.
Pi is obviously fine-tuned
likely infinitely so.
And not only that — but pi is in the set of irrational numbers which is uncountable, so there are infinite other possible values!
And since the odds of pulling this one specific value out of an infinite set by random chance is zero*, it’s therefore impossible that this value came about through undirected means†, and means that there must be a creator!††
@ Ichthyic
@ Kagato
Oh snap!
I always wonder why Gawd is so scared of mathematics. I can’t imagine someone like scifi trying to peddle his nonsense in mathematical terms. IIRC, The closest the babble has ventured was into astronomy, as in Joshua 10:13.
And then there was Al-Ghazali, whose condemnation of mathematics sounded the death knell for islamic science. Perhaps it is best xtians just remain the fuck away.
Anyway, if this is supposed to be a universe finely tuned for life, “the creator” has a bloody strange imagination and no sense of efficiency.
Life only exists on the land, in the water, and in a thin strip of atmosphere of (so far as we know) a single planet. The only part of the universe not utterly inhospitable to life is so small it could be a rounding error; but not only that, almost all of the rest is completely unreachable by us. Ever.
No, if there was a creator designing a universe for us, surely it would suit us.
No billions of billions of useless spheres in the void, just one infinite plane of pleasant countryside. “Down” is down. Nowhere is too hot or too cold to survive comfortably, but there’s plenty of variety to keep us interested.
None of this mucking about with russian dolls of subatomic particles that act all weird depending on how you look at them. Everything could be made of a mix of uniform substances (like the classic elements). No messy relativity, just a single experience of time.
The world wouldn’t have to be perfectly safe (assuming we were created with our same sense of curiosity & adventure), but all dangers would be easily avoidable if we chose.
And (most importantly), if there was anything we wanted to change about the world, we could appeal directly to the creator and expect to see some results at some point.
…
I guess that was argumentum ad Minecraft.
Praise Notch! Praise Jeb_us!
The so-called “fine-tuning argument” is so full of holes it would make a serviceable colander.
1) We don’t know what sets of constants permit the emergence of life. Not life like ours, but any form of life. Even if stars and planets would not form, or the Big Bang would collapse within a yoctosecond, how do we know that life could not emerge in that environment?
2) Even if we did know the range of life-friendly sets of costants, we would have no way of knowing what the probability of the universe having constants within that set would be. In order to assign probabilities, you have to know what the entire set of possible outcomes is, and what the subsets of equiprobable outcomes are within that set. We don’t.
3) Even if we did, and the probability of a universe permitting the emergence of life turned out to be very low, all that would mean was that in this respect, we live in a low-probability universe. So what? If we hadn’t, there would have been no-one to worry about it. Every time a bridge player deals four hands, the result is a very low probability one. Only if this hand has been predicted in advance do we have grounds for suspecting that it is the result of purposeful action (i.e., cheating or conjuring) and not of random chance.
Going back to (1), the so-called argument actually manages to cut away the ground from underneath itself rather neatly. Let’s hypothesise that there is a creator, which was able to make and carry through decisions about our universe. Where does this creator live? If it resides in a physical universe, then clearly we have solved nothing at all: if it is highly unlikely that a physical universe can support life, and a fortiori unlikely that it can support an intelligent being capable of creating universes with specific properties, how did this creator come to exist? We need a meta-creator, a meta-meta-creator, and so ad infinitum. If the creator, or another in this series, does not reside in a physical universe, then clearly not even a physical universe of any sort is necessary to support intelligent life – and the so-called argument collapses completely as its main premise does not hold.
Kagato,
But then, god mode for Minecraft doesn’t involve any gods, does it?
(Just programmers and users ;) )
—
PS: +1 for #151.
I see scifi/shiloh is still trying the argument from authority. With themselves as the authority. Except, we have absolutely no reason to believe it is any type of authority, other than about how to be a dishonest liar and bullshitter who distorts how to do logic.
Douglas Adams on fine tuning:
We adapted and arose from what was available. That is what science says. Fine tuning is a religious bullshit argument. Your creator is still imaginary scifi/shiloh, and will remain imaginary until you provide conclusive physical evidence for it. And that evidence isn’t in the “fine-tuning” argument, which isn’t even suggestive without presupposition on your part.
scifi,
When you can show that the gravitational constant could be varied, get back to us.
“Gosh! This hole is perfectly formed to fit me!” said the puddle.
Louis
Nerd,
Sorry — fine tuning is “We adapted because what was available was provided.” which is not incompatible with “We adapted and arose from what was available.”
(Not that I’m calling you an accommodationist, of course!
(God forbid!))
:)
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Universe Creating Cosmic Prawns and grits
What I love about fine-tuning arguments is how easily you can replace in and out various items in the universe and it would still hold. Replace humans with ants, and all the same facts still hold!
Hail ants ;)
We don’t have to show nothin’, FFS! But since you mentioned it, Ethan here has about elebenty kadzillion articles that will address your every curiosity: The Physics of Nothing; The Philosophy of Everything
Category: Gravity • Physics • big bang
Posted on: August 16, 2011 4:17 PM, by Ethan Siegel
It’s often said that you can’t get something from nothing. And while this may be true for most practical applications of your life, it isn’t true for our physical Universe.
Finally, someone noticed! Say it aren’t so, mwu-AAhahahahahaaaaaaaaa..cough..*wuheeeeezz*…somebody help, *gasp*…water, get me some water…….
Uh, do you mean fizz?
Just pretend I blockquoted correctly, thanks.
If what was provided was by happenstance, science. If by an imaginary and unevidenced creator, religious presuppositional bullshit. There is a natural explanation (science) that doesn’t involved imaginary deities, ergo fine-tuning is not a “proof of god”. Any scientifically explained evidence isn’t “proof of god” without presupposition looming large and dishonestly over the argument.
In order to tell the difference, the existence of the imaginary creator must be evidenced by other means, with the burden of proof (finding and presenting the positive evidence for it) on those making the claim for the creator, not by those for the creator saying it isn’t disproven, which is tacitly acknowledging it doesn’t exist.
People who babble endlessly about “fine tuning” seem to think of physical constants as separated balls picked randomly out of some unfathomable bag.
That thinking shows a deep misunderstanding of both math and physics.
Nope. You are making a positive claim, we’re just saying we don’t completely know yet, but have observed matter behave in a way that suggests this is possible.
It’s a bit like positing an invisible planet. We don’t have to show that it doesn’t exists – that would be absurd as well as impossible. You have to show that it is there. If it exists it has an effect on the real world, therefore you can find evidence of its presence. If you don’t find anything, it is safe and reasonable to conclude (provisionally) that it doesn’t exist. This will be revised upon presentation of proper evidence.
All knowledge is provisional in science. True until falsified. And that’s the very best level of confidence we can ever achieve for anything.
1) tautology
2) By definition is the odds of something are low, it’s a GUARANTEE that they CAN happen by chance. That’s what the odds mean. On average out of blank attempts we get blank results. This is why to our knowledge the universe has odds of 1 in 1. A horse that has odds of 3 in 500 still will win about 3 races in every 500 even without cheating or outside interference. That’s what the odds mean.
By definition you can’t have low odds of something impossible happening, you would have a probability of 0/X not 0+n/X
What’s your range of error?
Because if you’re insisting that a 1% difference means it can’t happen…yet your range of error for measuring the constant is +/- say 2% than you’re basically babbling.
For example:
Engineer 1: OH MY GOD! Our numbers shwo that if that truck carrying bricks takes on 5 more lbs the tires will blow out!?
Engineer 2: Gracious!? What is the range of error for the tire durability
Engineer 1: +/- 10 lbs.
Engineer 1:….So we’re either perfectly fine, already screwed, can add up to 10 more lbs or anything in-between?
Did we lose scifi?
That would almost be a pity, it actually felt like we were getting somewhere.
Oh, well, I guess I’m
young andnaive.Full-time TZT acolytes: We have an issue.
@ A.R
*cough*
ChasCPeterson
ChasCPeterson
ChasCPeterson
—-
bwahhahahah!!!!
@ Nerd
Just the meaning they’ve chosen for the term is presuppositionalist in itself. “Something” had to do the fine tuning of the universe is the over-riding premise. “Tuning” is a verb. It needs an agent, which conveniently happens to be that jaded old hack, YHWH and his travelling magic show.
Hint for the goddists: The “fine-tuning” is done by physicists and mathematicians to a model. It is not to be used in the way you are using it. It is this model that needs the tweaking. The universe is getting along just fine.
Capice?
@ Kel
Heh… and I thought my Kentucky Fried Movie reference was obscure. Time to move TZT up to Phase IV…
@ kemist
Sentience on such a scale as Gawd would fail under the problems of its own practical requirements. In our own heads the distances between interacting components are fairly negligible. But spread over googolplexes of light years? And then the energy required to run such a device!
I also wonder what an all-knowing and omnipotent deity does all day long in the 99.9999999…% of the universe that is stone cold dead. Watch stuff happen? Or guide every single aspect of the dead universe in a magnificent feat of micromanagement?
@ chigau
!
theophontes
re: Phase IV
*reporting from a quivvering heap on the floor*
I saw that when it was released.
*Sit down.*
I paid money to see it.
And what is it going to do after the (relatively) short-lived stelliferous era is over, and there’s a looooooong time to go until heat-death is complete? Why faff around with carbon-based life-forms when what you spend most of your time doing is watching protons decay? (or, if you’re interested in carbon-based life-forms (and how they have sex) why create a universe in which you’re going to spend the vast majority of your time watching protons decay?)
And we can’t discount the possibility that the universe was just ejaculated out of the Great Invisible Phallus after God ™ had a particularly nice session with his latest copy of “play being” that was just delivered.
How long does the average human spend examining semen? Would god spend longer? Does he care what the individual atoms in a single strand of DNA in the head of one planetazoa are doing?
Referencing The Simpsons is about as anti-obscure as one can get. The only thing that’s surprising is someone didn’t beat me to it. :)
これはコンピューターです。
ಹೌದು, ಅದು.
Correction: ಹೌದು ಅದು
Jissus mavis! Ons gaan nou ook die taal op TZT verander?
theophontes: Potest, sed considerans malum quale available translationem ratio, mutatis notas cito esset malum idea.
@ A.R
We should set up a poll to decide on the lingua franca on TZT. (My vote is for Afrikaans, in the Cape dialect.) It is a good idea to differentiate ourselves in a very tight market, crushed between so many competing threads.
Traffic here is simply not enough to support my extravagant lifestyle. This has become even more critical, given that Lamborghini have just brought out a new SUV.
I think it is time to pray to Teh Ebil Oberlawd again. Perhaps we can sluice all the goddist detritus from run-down threads into here. And extend our reanimation and purgatory services across the entire FTB blogoshere.
{theophontes dials the number for }
theophontes:
If you refer to DH666, its dialect is “incoherent ignorant foolishness’, which is hardly unique to SA.
Nee ou … er … Jan, ek gooi ook die Taal, ‘k sê!
just…
just …
fekinfookn
feckov
th lot o yez
dammit!
wake up!
AMUSE ME!!!!
T…Zzzzzzzzzz …T
Tea, not TZT, time in China.
我: [pharyngula standard time]+13hrs
I’ve never seen tzt so quiet! Where are all the Zs?
I’m not here. Shhhh.
Louis
Or am I?
Louis
Louis,
A more relevant question is: Does anyone care?
Fine by me… Actually I don’t know Afrikaans, but Dutch is close enough, right?
No Dutch or Afrikaans. All perverts, pooves and racists the lot of them. I’ve never met a nice one. They should all be bally well shot until it jolly hurts.
Just like the French, Germans, Spanish, Welsh, Scots, Irish, Austrians, Australians, Polish, Estonians, Lithuanians, Russians, Greeks, Turks, Arabs, Farsis, Indians, Pakistanis, other Africans, Aborignals, Eskimos, Scandiwegians, Icelanders, Greenlanders, Americans…especially Americans, Canadians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, any Asians really, all Europeans, the Brazilians, Uruguayans, Paraguayans, don’t start me on the fucking Argies, Chileans, Peruvians, Mexicans, Swiss….ooooh the fucking Swiss, Hungarians, Belarussians, Macedonians, Luxembourgians, Georgians, Kamchatkans, Uzbeks, Pakistanis, Mongols, Tuvans, Chechens, fucking world cup winning Kiwi bastards, Thais, Singaporeans, ooh ooh and the Polynesians of all kinds, not to mention the Portuguese, and last but by no means least, the Italians.
Plus of course, women, the gays, those trans thingummies, the handicapped, the mad, the bit-foreign-looking, Guardian readers, Lefties, Commies, bleeding fucking heart liberals, atheists, believers in hippy dippy eastern false religions, other funny fuckers, people who park their cars badly, people who text whilst driving, people who tailgate me, people, dole scum, benefit frauds, politicians, rich people, poor people, bureaucrats, eurocrats, technocrats, anyone in a cravat, Dick Van fucking Dyke (whose real name is Penis van Lesbian), celebrities, reality show contestants, godless heathens trying to get Thought for the Day secularised, bummers, brown hatters, tuppence lickers, dickydoodlers, kiddy fiddlers, nonces, ponces, sconces, scousers, northerners, gyppos, geordies, folkies, yokels, hicks, spics, wops, dicks, arseholes, tits, morons, and fuckwits.
That should cover it.
Louis
@ Louis
You’re not trying to tell me that the English Are Best?
Or that you’ve never met a nice South African?
{theophontes sneakily sets up very large soundsystem outside Louis’s window, presses play}
New TZT national anthem.
Louis
Do I need to brew some herbal tea?
私 [pharyngula standard time]–1hr.
Theophontes,
Impressive, most impressive! I was also thinking about this.
And Chigau, I’m okay now. I went off and had a danged hard think about myself and apparently I don’t hate any of those people and don’t want them shot. Even the French.
Louis
@ pentatomid
Het is vandaag koninginnedag in China. 0_o
Koninginnedag in China?! Vandaag?! Feestje!!!
So waarom is ons veronderstel is om te begin plaas in Afrikaans op die zombie draad?
Ek weier om Afrikaans te doen.
日本語を使用のはいいですか。
@ Brogg
FIFY:
So waarom is ons veronderstel is om te begin plaas in Afrikaans op die zombie draad?So, waarom is ons veronderstel om in Afrikaans te begin praat op die zombie …draad?
Die Antwoord (nie daardie Die Antwoord nie!): Omdat julle Weldadige Diktator ™ dit voorstel!
…
In praise of your attempt, I pour a libation to your Godddes Tpyos.
@ chigau
Ag nee, alle maatjies moet saamspeel.
{theophontes gryp sy selfoon en bestel ‘n casspir en ‘n buffel …}
As jy aandring op Afrikaans, moet jy dit met die googlefish-vertalings.
Chans yo nan konfizyon yo anpil anpil.
嘿很危险
@ chigau
Ja, dit kan baie gevaarlik wees.
Wat is dit nie erg genoeg erg dat ek onsamehangend in Engels, nou wil jy my onsamehangende in Afrikaans, ook?Ek het gedink ons afgesit dat die diktator deur die oprigting van ‘n nuwe komitee.En nou het ons nie net nog dieselfde fokken diktator, maar ons het in ‘n nuwe fokken taal te plaas, ook!Wel, fuck!
Ef þú vilt annað tungumál, þá skrúfa þig. Ég athugasemd á tungumáli nafna minn, Saint Ogvorbis og þú allt getur bara þjást í gegnum íslenska stafsetningu og greinarmerki og þeir litlu skytta fyrir ofan og neðan stafina!
Anri,
“Because, once again, we have observed matter doing this. Matter appearing out of nothingness is consistent with our understanding of matter.”
We have observed particle pairs appearing and then disappearing within our universe. This does not mean that the same thing happens before our universe was formed when there was absolutely nothing. Also, Krauss is referring to quantum mechanics which works at the atomic level. I believe that mass that appeared out of nothing was larger than the atomic level.
Anri,
“The observed probability of a universe having properties making it hospitable for life is 100%”
Yes, our universe is hospitable for life, but that doesn’t prove that it came about by natural means, nor can it be claimed as evidence as such. And the probability that it came about by chance with all the finely tuned properties necessary for life is extremely minute.
કદાચ અમે ભાષા સારી રીતે ભાષાંતર મદદથી નક્કી કરવી જોઇએ
Stejně jako německý
अन्य भाषाओं के बारे में निश्चित नहीं है.अफ्रीकी हालांकि अच्छी तरह से करता है.
Efallai y byddai Cymru yn gweithio’n dda?
scifi
Learn to
And your point is? What, that there must be gods who pulled out a giant electronic tuner to make sure that the G-string was tight enough?
Is daar iemand weet van ‘n betroubare Latynse vertaler?My Latyn is verroes, maar ek wil baie graag die draad besigheid te doen in Latyn.
Quod dependet. Vis actu Latine, vel quod sonat quadam confusa quasi latine quod arguere qui sunt non vetus satis meminisse cum Latina requiritur in schola?
Ég, ég stafur með því tungumáli sem var nógu góður fyrir nafna minn!
Daar is ‘n probleem. Om kommentaar in nie-Latynse tale in die geheime boodskap maak dit onmoontlik om te vertaal.
Probabilities aren’t assertions. What is the number and how do you think you got it? Show us the math.
Actually, it does, as your creator is imaginary until you provide conclusive physical evidence for it. *looks around for said evidence, finds none* Your “disprove” argument isn’t sound, rational, or logical, as it involves proving a negative, and you know that. It is a presuppositional “gottcha” argument on your part. Poof, your evidenceless presupposition disappears due to lack of evidence FOR it. Universe by natural means, QED. So, why are you repeating yourself with your presuppositional and well refuted nonsense?
En það er tungumál nafna míns, Saint Ogvorbis! Hefur nefndin þinn þora að benda til þess að ég yfirgefa tungumál dulnefni nafna míns? Ekki að við höfum ekki lengur nein réttindi eða góða vinstrisinnar, hér?
Bíi ril óowamid botheha wa.
On Tuesday. Trust me.
Og: Vere historical Latin would exsisto optimus. And if I stuck with the Language that gave me my name, it wold be pretty boring. And vaguely French.
Okay.
Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open eye-
(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
And specially from every shires ende
Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
The hooly blisful martir for to seke
That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke.
Bíi ril di óowamid, “Dóo, ril néde lehóo webe íi wa!”
chigau: Geen tale wat maklik vertaal word nie. Laadan ingesluit.
Og: O ja, het vergeet dat “Latynse” word soms vertaal as “Engels.” Jy weet wat ek bedoel.
Nei, ég get ekki sagt að ég geri.
Og: Die tzt regering moet ‘n amptelike taal.Latyns werk goed.
私も本当にわかりません。
chigau: O, vertaling fout. Bedoel om te sê dat ons moet beperk tot tale wat maklik is om te vertaal. Dit sluit Laadan.
ٹھیک ہے، کس طرح اردو کے بارے میں؟
تواند به کارکرد
I can’t translate Láadan, I’m cutpasting.
I can manage simple sentences in 日本語.
chigau: Je suis en fait assez couramment en français.
A. R
Pas moi. Je n’ai pas ecrit en francais pendant 30+ ans.
(and I don’t know how to type the accents)
—
Did you that google translate won’t translate “embiggen” or “cromulent”?
know
insert as needed
chigau: Yeah, diacritical marks are problematic. I just import them from MS Word. I don’t think Google trans recognizes those as words, unfortunately.
Damn. Sorry, A.R. I was aiming at Urdu. Missed by at least one international border.
Og: You got Urdu, I just replied in Persian!
This thread is dead, fred.
Where is doctor Herbert West when you need him?
Amphiox,
“all you need is parsimony to favor any and all natural means hypotheses over creator hypotheses.”
On the surface, your argument is well taken, however, parsimony may not be so straight forward here considering that the alternative argument suggests that extremely compressed matter appears from nothing and expands either into a single universe which is finely tuned for many parameters, required for life, an unlikely scenario or occurs repeatedly resulting in numerous universes with one or two having the required parameters necessary for life. Yes, I know Krauss argues that nothing is unstable and that it could have resulted in the appearance of matter. He bases this on particle pairs, one matter and the other antimatter, but we are talking about quantum mechanics which deals only on the atomic level and within our universe, not before our universe came about. Even he admits that there is no evidence. However, his is the best argument I’ve heard and I am willing to entertain it but, as I explained above, it doesn’t necessarily rule out a creator and I don’t think you can positively say that the natural answer is the only one that should be considered.
Holy crap!
Dr West responds on cue!
this thread has been…
REANIMATORED
On the surface, your argument is well taken
YES, BUT…
and the intellectual dishonesty parade continues!
always good for a laugh there, scifi.
man, you’re fucked up.
This thread is still alive…
It wasn’t Southwark, but I had a night like that in a pub in west London once.
Never again. *shudder*
scifi wrote:
What is the evidence for ‘tuning’, i.e. an adjustment of the parameters? If you are going to claim that ‘scientists say…’, please cite their exact words and the relevant data used.
He does? Where? Please cite his exact words.
You are lying when you say you are ‘willing to entertain it’, because you’ve been told over and over and over again that no-one, anywhere, ever has ever claimed that it ‘rules out a creator’, only that the evidence suggests a creator is not necessary, and that parsimony necessarily implies that that which is not necessary is the far better explanation.
Stop lying, scifi. There is one reason and one reason only for your continuing insistence that a creator is ‘just as reasonable a hypothesis’ as the universe existing without one – because you’re emotionally attached to the concept. You want it to be true, and as a result you refuse to accept that the evidence is in favour of it not being true.
At least have the character to admit that.
WRONG. Parsimony is VERY straightforward here.
That’s NOT what the “alternative” argument suggests, but we’ll leave your wilful ignorance of this point for the time being, as it is actually not relevant to the question of parsimony.
The issue relevant to parsimony is simply this: WHAT IS A CREATOR? Is a creator life, or not life? If not life, how is a creator different from life? Is a creator more complex than life, or less complex than life?
And finally:
HOW MANY PARAMETERS, AND HOW FINELY TUNED, ARE REQUIRED FOR A CREATOR?
If that number is ZERO, then AT BEST, a creator hypothesis is EQUALLY parsimonious with a fully natural one. If that number is even JUST ONE or more, then a creator hypothesis is LESS PARSIMONIOUS than a natural one.
Thus, a creator hypothesis is ALWAYS less parsimonious than a natural one. Always. Even in sciences that specifically deal with creator hypotheses, this is always true. In forensics, we ALWAYS rule out natural causes FIRST, before considering the possibility of human intent. Same in anthropoloy and archeology. Even in SETI, we RULE OUT NATURAL CAUSES FIRST.
And so it is with cosmology. And since WE HAVE NOT YET RULED OUT NATURAL CAUSES, we don’t bother considering creator hypotheses yet.
Not really. But your continued wilful ignorance on this point is noted as irrelevant.
However unlikely it might be, the moment you add a creator to the mix, you automatically INCREASE THE UNLIKELIHOOD by AT LEAST A FACTOR OF ONE (and this is ONLY if you reduce your creator to something no more complicated than a random quantum fluctuation spanning a single Planck length), and most probably more (for any and all other conceptions of ‘creator’).
I will repeat: Creator hypotheses are ALWAYS less parsimonious than natural ones, for the simple reason that YOU HAVE TO ADD A CREATOR, and that is one additional assumption that you have explain.
Yep it does. There is still no evidence for your imaginary creator. And it remains imaginary until you provide said conclusive physical evidence for it. This isn’t philosophy, but science, and the rules of science require evidence. Pure philosophy doesn’t cut anything, but it gets cut on Occam’s razor.
Besides, after expecting us to prove a negative, your opinion of what constitutes a good argument is in the toilet, with the turds of your presuppositional argument. Don’t bother to come back unless you do something other than repeat your soundly refuted fuckwittery.
And you are still stupid….
It doesn’t have to.
It is more parsimonious than a creator hypothesis, and therefore should be considered and evaluated first.
Nerd, I came back to ask you a question. How could you demand ‘conclusive physical evidence’ for something that is most likely anything BUT physical IF it exists???
rajkumar,
That’s the problem the goddist have. They don’t have any evidence and they know they don’t have any. Nerd is merely emphasizing this point to them.
Incidentally, they get around the problem of no evidence by saying, “we’ve got faith in our gods, we don’t need mere evidence as long as we’ve got faith.” That doesn’t actually solve the problem, but it gives the goddists an excuse to pretend the problem is unimportant.
rajkumar wrote:
If it has no physical aspect, how can it interact with human beings for them to know it exists?
Your last sentence is your problem. The null hypothesis for anything stupornatural, be it souls, leprechauns, pixies, or deities, is non-existence as there is no evidence for it. In order to prove existence, you must show it does interact with the material universe. Otherwise, it can’t be shown to either exist or not exist, as it is all mental masturbation. And parsimony requires non-existence, as the same explanations occur, only simpler without attempting to invoke the stupornatural.
So, if it can interact with the material universe, like a soul, a manifestation of the meatware of the brain, it has to make it presence felt in some fashion (i.e. EEG). That means solid and physical of some sort.
But then, if you had any idea of skeptical thinking, this is ABC’s learned in the first lesson. Try reading a years worth of Skeptical Inquiry before you post again.
What’s the difference between something that has no physical basis and something that does not exist?
Look, if IT exists, either it interacts with the physical world (and leaves evidence of having done so) or it doesn’t. And if it doesn’t, it’s indistinguishable from something that doesn’t exist.
You’re trying to define god in such a manner as to render him invulnerable to any argument, evidence, or disproof. You end up with something so vague or all-encompassing as to be utterly useless to any attempt to increase understanding of the universe.
Oh, Scifi and rajkumar, Amphiox in #356 gives a wonderful example of using Parsimony, or Occam’s razor if you prefer. No matter how you define the stupornatural/deity, it is always simpler if such an explanation is left out as it adds nothing but a degree of complexity. Now this can change with solid and conclusive physical evidence for your claims; be it creator, deity, or soul.
rajkumar #360 wrote:
I have a question for you: what is your alternative to ‘physical evidence?’ Mental evidence?
What would be an example of ‘mental evidence’ — and how would you check it for errors?
Fecal Evidence
You are saying the same thing again. So, I’ll ask you the same question again, but I’ll pose it differently….
Suppose I am trying to prove the existence of leprechauns. You inform me that leprechauns do not exist until I provide you with some ‘conclusive physical evidence’. I agree, and I start looking for some ‘conclusive physical evidence’ to prove the existence leprechauns. How do I start looking for this evidence when I have never seen any **real** leprechauns in my life? I form a mental picture of leprechauns based on how they have been described and painted in books, or how people have described them verbally. So far so good.
But when I am trying to prove the existence of God, and you again give me the same answer and demand a ‘conclusive physical evidence’ for God… I have a problem now. I knew what ‘leprechauns’ looked like, but I do not know what God looks like. How would I form a mental picture of God? How would **you** tell me what God is, and what God looks like, so I can provide you with a ‘conclusive physical evidence’ for **that** God? You could ask me to define God and then provide a ‘conclusive physical evidence’ for that God??? Right? What if I defined God as the entire universe, with all the mysteries, all the laws, all the objects of the universe included? Were you prepared to accept such a definition of God? If you couldn’t accept that definition of God, then it is obvious that you do have **some** definition of your own about what God is, or what God **should** be if he/it/she was real. What is it? What is your definition of God? This is the question I ask.
Note, describing God as something ‘supernatural’ is not good enough. Also note, ‘the burden of proof is on believers’ is also not good enough, because I am asking you a different question.
Well, this should tell you something. But it doesn’t. But then, there are these things call libraries, and they might have the myths and lore of Ireland for a start…There is no excuse to argue from ignorance. Just explanations of WHY YOU DO SO…
@rajkumar
You idiot. One doesn’t have to know what something looks like to know it exists. Ex: atoms, dark matter, neutron stars, black hole, etc. They have effects on the real world.
Also, if god is defined as the universe, then the entire concept of god is pointless. Just call it the universe.
What do you mean? Didn’t you read the entire post?
Oh, and physical evidence for a leprechaun? Same as for bigfoot. Capture creature, actual dead body, skeletal remains with DNA, skat with DNA. All potentially solid and conclusive evidence.
What isn’t evidence? Good ol’ boy pulling a fast one on the stranger (typical flying saucer/bright lights reports here in the states), or anything other than solid physical evidence. Ireland isn’t that big of a place.
Yeah, but we have other means to prove they exist? We know their properties? What are God’s properties?
Yes, the entire concept of god IS pointless. And this is exactly what I have been trying to say here. These concepts are all creations of people like you and me. It’s a waste of time discussing them.
@rajkumar
Properties? Like oh jeez, I don’t know, like the whole ANSWERING PRAYERS THING! Which is what most theists believe in.
Oh, and since you just admitted that the concept of god is pointless, what have you been doing the whole time, then, eh? Trolling?
Look, knucklehead.
“God” means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. I’m hardly going to argue that any of those definitions are wrong. However, most are incoherent, some are trivial (like the gem you provided), and those that aren’t incoherent or trivial delimit an entity that doesn’t exist (has been falsified). I’ll agree to any definition you like, and explain why I don’t believe it. I’ll let theists be in charge of Defining God as They Understand Herm.
This line of thinking hardly requires a degree in philosophy. You can snarl the conversation up with semantics all day, but that achieves a little less than fuck all. In any case, Karl Popper, one of the more productive philosophers of the 20th century pointed out that arguing about definitions is futile. To discuss something, I only need to know what you mean by it, and I’ll agree to that definition. I challenge you to provide one widely held (and non-trivial) concept of god (I won’t quibble with your definition) that requires agnosticism. I cannot think of one myself.
Rajkumar: I posted before I saw your 377. This does not appear to be the stance that you have been taking.
rajkumar #374 wrote:
I think you contradict yourself here. You can’t admit that the concept of God is pointless because, apparently, nobody has any concept of God … and then go on to say that all the concepts of God are created by people. Pick one. Can’t have it both ways.
What are the properties of God?
Pure Mentality. A Mind or aspect of mind which is independent of, and prior to, the physical.
Find a concept of ‘God’ which doesn’t involve that.
rajkumar wrote:
Then why do you keep coming back and raising the topic?
Wow, did raj say something that made sense?
Our second favorite troll is back and apparently even more stupid than ever. TZT will continue to be undead forever at this rate! Now we just two trolls to put together. We have two of our favorites here, Scifi and Raj, so it can be done. This must be done!!
Rajkumar, I can lead to you how to parse fuckwittery from reality, but I can’t make you actually learn and act on the difference. I have better things to do than to teach someone who has stopped learning, and can’t do basic research in a library/online on their own, and asks stupid questions that could be solved in even a half-hour online acting like an adult. I learned how to do that as a teenager many moons ago. So I’ll ignore you, and go about my business, which now involves getting my night’s sleep. So I can get up tomorrow, do my work for pay, and then be responsible to someone important to me who needs assistance. All without imaginary things, or wanking about them, a useless and unproductive of my attentions.
Shit. wat veronderstel was om in Afrikaans te wees.
Dit is duidelik dat die Paradys sal nie meer reageer op ons begeertes as hy lees die onvertaalde post.Nood voorstelle iemand?Dit is hoekom ons nodig het om ‘n delete knoppie.
I don’t know. Maybe to tell you just how pointless this whole thing is….That you are trying to hold an impossible position…
Let’s do some programming here…
God=X
ATHEISTS BELIEVE X DOES NOT EXIST .AND.
IF X DOES NOT exist THEN
X CANNOT BE DEFINED
IF X CANNOT BE DEFINED THEN
NOONE COULD GIVE YOU EVIDENCE FOR X
ENDIF
ENDIF
The Argument from Generalized Vagueness:
God is like a lot of things: it’s like love; it’s like hope; it’s like Goodness; it’s like a heavenly father; it’s like a mighty king; it’s like pure mind; it’s like the fundamental ground of reality. But those are only rough analogies, human attempts to understand the inexplicable. God is actually like NONE of those things!
It’s not like anything you’re familiar with. We just use familiar things to try to understand it — which we don’t. Except that we sort of do … assuming, of course, that the atheists have left the room and now we can address God as a heavenly father king of love and cosmic consciousness and so good and so wise and so …. no. None of that! No concepts! Those are approximations. Bad approximations.
Here come the atheists. Here arises my critical thoughts. Now begone — God is too VAGUE to be wrong!
Right. Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt.
rajkumar #385 wrote:
Wait, what? That’s wrong.
I could ask you to list things that don’t exist, and if you were in a generous mood you could do so. Easily.
It’s one thing to complain that the definitions of God are inadequate or incoherent. Some people take a noncognitivist position on God (though theists legitimately cannot.)
But trying to make this into a general principle? Now you’re just being silly.
A purple pimple with a red flag does not exist on your nose. I define this pimple as purple. And it has a red flag.
Not there, is it?
You program like crap.
And one thing that you do not seem to understand is that things do not need to exist – or believed to exist – to be defined.
The luminiferous ether does not exist but was well enough defined for scientists to search for it.
The definition did not go away when its existence was disproven.
rajkumar wrote:
That makes…no sense. We are holding the only position one can hold, assuming reality is consistent and explicable. If you want to argue that those assumptions aren’t true, good luck – because it means that anything is possible and life (as we know it) is meaningless.
But you just said that X = God. Which is it?
That’s really the heart of the problem, rajkumar; you want to have it both ways – a god you can claim to believe in, but one that simultaneously can’t be disproven. This is a paradox, and one that we’re not going to let you wriggle out of.
@rajkumar
WRONG!
“X can’t be defined” does not follow from “X doesn’t exist”. Your logic sucks. Santa doesn’t exist, yet I can define it. What, are you going to tell me that I can’t define Santa? You can tell me that, of course, but then you would be making your stupidest comment yet.
Without a definition of god, it’s impossible to conceive of the difference between “god” and “not god.” A theist is someone who conceives of such a difference. Therefore a definition of god must exist.
You can tell me that, of course, but then you would be making your stupidest comment yet.
I’m refraining from comment to stay out of his way, so he can.
I agree. It’s a little **confusing**. But let me try.
First, yeah I did say X=God. But I did this because this is how ‘variables’ and ‘constants’ are declared in computer programming. I just assigned X a value. In short, instead of using the highly controversial word GOD, I used the neutral sounding letter X. That was the whole purpose of using X = God.
Second, no, I am not saying God can’t be disproven. I am saying, God can’t be ‘defined’ to begin with. And if something can’t be defined, because of whatever reasons, then we simply can’t proceed any further. The argument stops right here.
People here have been saying that it is believers who need to ‘define’ God. They are saying atheists do not need to define God because, for one reason, they hold a ‘lack of belief’ position. I have been saying, atheists also need to ‘define’ God, just as much as believers need to, because if atheists hold a ‘lack of belief’ position, then this ‘lack of belief’ must also be be in *something*. This something is GOD in your case. But the question is, what is God?
Here is an example:
This is from dictionary.com:
ATHEISM=”the doctrine or belief that there is no God.”
Fine. But what is GOD?
GOD=”the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.”
Is this how **you** define God? If you don’t, then how would you define God?
Amphiox,
“HOW MANY PARAMETERS, AND HOW FINELY TUNED, ARE REQUIRED FOR A CREATOR?
If that number is ZERO, then AT BEST, a creator hypothesis is EQUALLY parsimonious with a fully natural one. If that number is even JUST ONE or more, then a creator hypothesis is LESS PARSIMONIOUS than a natural one.”
You said above that if the number is even just one or more, then a creator hypothesis is less parsimonious. I think you mean that it is more likely than a natural one, because you said that if there is no parameters, then the parsimony would be equal. I can name at least 4, and I understand that there are a lot more. The more finely tuned parameters there are, the more unlikely that this universe could have come about by chance.
rajkumar wrote:
Oh, I agree – but it’s you that keeps coming back and bringing it up. We’re happy to say that something that can’t be defined is functionally irrelevant, but you keep insisting that it’s not.
rajkumar and scifi, together at last!
But will they talk to each other?
—
A. R
Wat is die “Nood”?
googletranslate failed
scifi wrote:
Okay, if this is true, you’ll have no problems showing your work and can demonstrate – not just claim but demonstrate – that life could not exist if those values were any different from how they are now.
Unless you can do that, you need to stop making this claim.
NO. Your failure to understand both simple english and simple math would be astonishing, if I were not currently suspecting you of deliberately dishonest obtuseness.
The TOTAL number of parameters required for a creator hypothesis for the universe is ALL NATURAL PARAMETERS + ALL PARAMETERS NECESSARY FOR A CREATOR TO EXIST AND BE ABLE TO ADJUST OTHER PARAMETERS
Therefore, if the total parameters necessary for a creator is ZERO, the the TOTAL parameters for that particular creator theory is ALL NATURAL PARAMETERS + 0 = ALL NATURAL PARAMETERS, and parsimony would therefore be equal to a natural hypothesis.
But, a creator with ZERO parameters is a creator that can’t do anything, and is a creator that is no different from a creator that doesn’t exist.
YOU are postulating a creator that both exists, and has the ability to intelligently ADJUST other parameters.
The existence of such a creator is ONE PARAMETER, and the ability of that creator to adjust another parameter is ITSELF A PARAMETER, and indeed is a ADDITIONAL PARAMETER FOR EACH AND EVERY OTHER PARAMETER THE CREATOR CAN ADJUST.
The creator hypothesis you are suggesting, of a creator deliberately adjusting multiple parameters, therefore requires ALL NATURAL PARAMETERS(n) PLUS ONE PARAMETER FOR THE CREATOR’S EXISTENCE PLUS ONE PARAMETER FOR THE CREATOR’S ABILITY TO ADJUST EACH NATURAL PARAMTER(n).
Irrespective of how many parameters there are to be fine tuned, a natural hypothesis has n parameters, and the very simplest creator hypothesis, wherein a creator exists and adjusts parameters, and CAN DO NOTHING ELSE AT ALL, is 2n+1.
Even if you fudge it and declare that the creator’s ability to adjust a parameter and that parameter itself count for just one parameter total (and there is absolutely NOTHING that can justify this assertion), YOU STILL END UP, AT BEST, with n+1.
n is more parsimonious than n+1.
Name as many as you want. Four. Forty. Forty trillion. Doesn’t matter.
2n+1 > n.
n+1 > n.
Is simple addition such a difficult concept for you? Does the expression +1 baffle you so?
No matter how “unlikely” a universe is likely to come about “by chance”, adding a creator to the mix MAKES IT EVEN MORE UNLIKELY.
That is why the stupid “fine-tuning” argument has never been, and never will be, a credible argument for a creator.
And don’t forget, a creator of universes has to do MORE than just adjust parameters, it ALSO HAS TO BE ABLE TO CREATE STUFF, ex nihilo, as it were.
That is yet an additional parameter for EVERY CLASS OF THING THAT THIS CREATOR HAS TO BE ABLE TO CREATE.
Even if you try to argue that everything in this diverse universe counts as one class of thing, that is still ONE MORE PARAMETER that a creator hypothesis has to account for.
The VERY SIMPLEST POSSIBLE creator hypothesis is, at best, n + 1 (creator must exist) + 1 (creator must be able to adjust natural parameters) + 1 (creator must be able to actually create stuff) = n + 3, where n is however many fine-tuned parameters a natural hypothesis has to account for.
The natural hypothesis, of course, will have n parameters. Whether n is one or four or 22 or fourteen googleplex is irrelevant.
n is more parsimonious than n + 3.
All it takes to dismiss the asinine creator fine-tuning argument is the ability to count to three.
Rajkumar:
Look, just because you refuse to define God doesn’t mean nobody else does.
Theists say things like
* God is all-powerful
* God is all-knowing
* God is merciful
* God is great
* God wants you to be happy
* God will punish you for your sins
* God will come back to Earth some day
* God lives in a magical land
* God made the universe
* God is three people
* God is one person
* God turns into a cracker
* God hates fags
* God loves everyone
* God wants you to send 10% of your income to this guy
* God wants you to give all your stuff to the poor
* God wants you to blow yourself up
* God doesn’t want you to have an abortion
* God is everywhere
* God is male
* God is female
* God is the universe
* God is pure spirit
* God is incarnate as a human
* God died on a cross
* God came back from the dead
* God wants you to vote Republican
Whereas the only thing you can say is “God can’t be described”. Which is, in itself, a description and is thus self-refuting.
Point is, _all_ of these propositions are garbage. We (and by which I mean “atheists”) know they’re garbage because a) they’re unfalsifiable, b) they are falsifiable and have been falsified, or c) they’re void of any meaningful semantic content.
So no, being an atheist _isn’t_ pointless. If every theist was like you and said, “oh well, we can’t know anything about God, let’s go do something productive” then maybe you’d have an argument that we’re wasting our time. But there are real people in the real world whose god-beliefs are causing suffering, and that’s why atheism is relevant.
A fine-tuning creator ALSO needs to have the capacity to FORESEE, in advance, that fine-tuning the set of parameters just so, would result in the outcome that is the universe as we observe it.
That makes it n + 4 for the creator hypothesis.
AND the creator hypothesis ALSO has to account for WHY a creator would WANT to fine-tune the universe in the way we observe it to be, rather than some other way. The creator needs INTENT and MOTIVATION.
That makes it n + FIVE.
A synonym for “can’t be described” is “nonexistent”.
wow, the stupid is just incredible!
well done you two!
you know who you are… or maybe not?
The undefinable is indistinguishable from the nonexistent.
Yes we can. We can proceed exactly one step further. We can dismiss it as irrelevant to our practical reality and move on to more useful activities.
And yet here you are, starting the argument and continuing it.
Mmmm. Depends on your definition of existence. I’m fairly sure Gandalf the Grey doesn’t exist, but I can describe him pretty well.
Although I guess he’s not so much “nonexistent” as “exists as an idea but not as a physical entity”.
Oh hai Scifi.
I’m afraid you misunderstood me earlier.
My point about the universe being 99.99% hostile to life spatially and 99.99% hostile to life temporally is perfectly relevant, because you are positing a creator that tweaked the parameters of the big bang, specifically in order to create life.
Unless you are positing a creator that has the power to tweak the big bang, yet is utterly incompetent. Is that what you are positing?
And Raj. How to put this? You are as dense as a singularity. Listen, why would you be looking for leprechauns in the first place? Either because someone told you they exist or because you observed some phenomenon–ethereal fiddle music in the meadow at midnight, for example–that could be plausibly explained by the leprechaun hypothesis. So, apply that to god. We have some people claiming god exists; so far there are no phenomena that are plausibly explained by the god hypothesis.
What would you have us do? There are plenty of people who have very specific, concrete definitions of their god, and those defined gods have been disproven. Then there are those who refuse to define god, but also insist that it exists. This is just silly solpsistic sophistry. I don’t see why you would have us give credence to people in the latter category.
Actually, INTENT and MOTIVATION are TWO SEPARATE parameters.
That makes in n + SIX.
And ACTING ON MOTIVATION to actually go do it, is ANOTHER PARAMETER.
That makes in n + SEVEN.
This universe, if it is fine-tuned at all, is fine-tuned to produce either black holes, or dark energy (or both).
It is not optimized at all for anything else.
Gandalf the Grey does exist. As a fictional literary character.
Which can be described.
Which is something goddists and woo-ists get confused about a lot. “Oh, you don’t believe in god or the afterlife?” they cry. “Well, how can you believe in love, or justice, or beauty? There’s no evidence for the existence of those things either!” Except that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of the idea of love, justice, or beauty. It’s evident in human behavior on a daily basis.
I’d be quite happy to concede that gods are just as real as Gandalf. Or justice. Gods are human ideas, full stop. If there were no humans to imagine gods, there would be no god. But the universe would still be here.
Why is the only god in this discussion the Abrahamic monogod?
Hoekom is die enigste God in hierdie gesprek die Abrahamitiese monogod?
Kodėl šioje diskusijoje abrahamowe monogod tik dievas?
@ A.R
Ons kan ook jou #326 gebruik om in die geheim te praat.
@ chigau
*hoes*
@ rajkumar
Therefore my imaginary cat exists! (Don’t tell Molly!)
How is
your Godmy imaginary cat any different frommy imaginary catyour God? Please elaborate.Heilige Jesus op ‘n stok! Dit gebeur!Twee trolle is op TZT op dieselfde tyd. Vinnig, dat tardigrade kry hier. Ek start die nood logika kragopwekkers op die LOLstar aan die mag van die logika skild. Die fallacies gaan binnekort begin vlieg!
rajkumar (#393)
But I proved definitions of god necessarily exist (in #391). Therefore, god can be defined.
God is whatever matches the definition of god. God is defined by whatever any given theist or deist is using to conceive of “god” as distinct from “not god.”
If nothing matches a particular definition, there is no such god. If nothing matches any definitions of god, then god doesn’t exist at all.
Believers need to define god because atheists don’t have a concept of “god” that is distinct from “not god.” We can use the definitions provided by believers and speak hypothetically, but we have none of our own that don’t in some way reference a definition held by a believer.
I think you’re confused by the difference between having a definition and being able to articulate a definition.
@rajkumar
So, rajkumar, is Santa Claus undefinable? Santa Claus doesn’t exist, so he must be undefinable according to your logic. RIGHT?!!!
theophontes
ખોખલો
yer fekin’ right I don’t understand!
and my imaginary cat can beat the crap out of your imaginary cat.
any day
any time
No, no, no, no, no.
Atheists do not believe that God exists.
There is no faith, there is no belief, there is no illusion. An atheist does not believe.
It’s hard to get across to a believer, but atheists simply have no faith. They rely on logic and science–they do not just believe in made-up stuff.
To say that an atheist believes that God does not exist shows a profound misunderstanding of atheism. To not understand what that sentence means shows a profound lack of understanding.
Oh, bullshit.
A pink bunkerdoo: a shrubbery 200 feet tall, bright pink and smells terrible.
God: The Yahweh of the Bible, in whose image we were made, who walked in the garden in the cool of the evening, and who showed his backside to Moses.
Which is just a form of agnosticism, and you just defined God as that which cannot be defined.
No, no, no. Atheism is the lack of a doctrine that God does exist. Atheism is the lack of a belief that there is a God.
Atheists are people who do not go to church.
It’s that simple. Atheists do not go to church because they have no reason to. They do not believe that they must stay home or bad things will happen to them, they just sleep late on Sundays.
No, it must not.
I lack an interest in child pornography, and I do not have to precisely define it to lack that interest. I do not have to tote around a briefcase full of kiddy porn to show you what I am not interested in.
I lack an interest in your god and your game.
But I will say that your definition, “GOD=”the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.””, is damned sure not the Yahweh of the old testament. The universe as we now know it is not a firmament covered with a canopy.
The people who have discovered the universe have discovered no need for a creator.
Lousy showoff bilinguals!
A. R
Google vertaal volg:
Kan dit werk?
Sal dit werklik nie die moeite met die vertaling?
@ A.R
Is dit nie wonderlik nie? Ons het so lang gewag en nou het ons gebed gewerk. Bakgat! (Video van ‘n
kiemtardigrade wat Afrikaans praat (maar nie die officieele aksent nie.)chigau: Ek is nie seker wat jy bedoel. Maar wat ek wel weet is dat ek nodig het om te gou te slaap!
Wowbagger, Madman of Insleyfarne
google translate is your very, very, best friend forever.
(and just have FAITH in it)
Where’s Insleyfarne?
Are you angry about anything specific?
Sorry, I didn’t check my source material—
Kevin: Pink Bunkadoo?
Randall: Yeah. Beautiful tree that was. Og designed it. 600 feet high, bright red, and smelt terrible.
@ chigau
Nooo… I meant we need a means to communicate in plain view on TZT. Our technology is advancing, but we’re not there yet.
My imaginary cat is currently beating seven kinds of crap out of rajkumar’s argument. But start putting the imaginary gloves onto your imaginary cat. This won’t take long.
A. R #422
No shit‽
Maybe it was theophontes who said something about hiding secret plan in the translations.
aannyyhhooo
Afrikaans is a pain.
Let’s switch to Haitian Creole.
OK?
cross-posting!
My real cat had a couple of ingrown toenails, which the vet fixed.
She can now beat the crap out of any number if imaginary gods and/or cats.
Anda mungkin berbicara dalam bahasa Indonesia.
Saya mau tidur.
Selamat malam.
oh goody
I have attained total incoherence.
There is nothing to be done but have another
glassmug of wine.Menyambal
(trusting in the powers of google translate)
Mempunyai tidur yang baik.
Ag nee, almal gaan slaap.
…
Ingrown toenails … ouch! {throws in towel}
Rather than Malay, could we use the language of the Cape Malays?
I aten’t asleep.
Damn you, WordPress, what did you do with my last comment?
Whoa, that’s freaky. Preview is showing Wordpress autocorrects itself to WordPress. (Unless you trick it by sticking empty HTML tags in the middle.)
It also replaces double hyphens with en dashes and triple hyphens with em dashes.
Apparently I’m not allowed to post in Japanese?
Cape Malaise?
—
A. Noyd
wordpress
Wordpress
WordPress
No autocorrect here.
except for the dash thing
–
—
—
—-
Don’t you love browsers?
A. Noyd
私は日本語でコメントすることができます。
うっそー！くたばれ！
Well, that went through, so the site must be objecting to something about what I originally tried to submit.
Me neither. And it’s really not a good thing. I really frickin’ need to sleep.
Someone sing me a lullabye. Quick!
(/Mebbe somethin’ by Eugene Chadbourne? Always found his ‘Evil Filthy Preacher’ soothing.)
Incoherence is not a step up from false, it’s a step down. If God is so ill-defined as to not even be able to make coherent statements about, then the lack of disproof isn’t a problem – indeed why would someone expect a disproof on the nonsensical? In effect, the disproof is that it’s nonsensical!
Why do people think that mystery refutes atheism in any way? God is nonsense either way, it’s either nonsense by virtue of the claims people make about God or by virtue of not having any claim made at all.
It’s the catch-22 of atheism, that we’re irrational by trying to put rationality over that which is completely irrational to begin with! So calling God irrational is itself irrational, because to call an irrational concept irrational is an irrational move. Accepting that God is inherently irrational would be the only rational thing to do, but that would be accepting an irrationality which by itself is irrational.
My mind is blown. Blown!
Wow. That purported “programming” by rajkumar is so sublimely ignorant!
LOL.
(later)
Unbe-fucking-lievable.
(On multiple levels!)
Wait, wait, is rajkumar that super-brilliant programmer who bragged once about participating in the free online course of Machine Learning, taught by a Stanford professor? When I pointed out that the class was good, but a bit basic and the assignments didn’t exactly require some great knowledge and therefore were hardly a proof of his brilliance, he ignored it?
If God=X and X=God are the same to him, even ignoring the rest of the idiocy…
Yeah.
Oh Thanks John Morales for pointing that out. My mistake indeed.
The correct way to write it is, X=God, since I am assigning X the definition, or the value, of God.
Insleyfarne is a fictional place in Scotland, and appears in the children’s book The Great Ghost Rescue by Eva Ibbotson.
No. I am the programmer who is working on the idea of writing philosophical arguments in what is called ‘pseudo code’ or ‘pseudo programming’.I think I can use some help from John Morales.
rajkumar:
First you do the assignation, then you test for existence?
(Elite!)
You know fuck-all about programming; that much is obvious.
(Want help? Don’t try to pretend)
Please! Do help… And while you are at it, don’t mind me telling why you are so enraged? I don’t remember saying anything personal to you… Except perhaps calling you a leaky lifeboat on a couple of occasions. I take it back.
It’s the same boring bullshitism we get from godbots all the time. Reinvent a broken wheel all you like, but don’t feel like you need to do it here. We’re certainly not going to learn anything from it.
Yeah. Ask the godbots, and I am sure they have the same sentiments about you atheist-bots. By the way, it was just a joke. Where is your sense of humour???
rajkumar:
You don’t notice the bile?
Hey, rajkumar, just to make it clear: you do only believe in the one god, right?
(Not zero or many, just one)
If you have to explain that something is a joke, that’s a good clue that it wasn’t funny. Being funny is a major requirement for jokes.
Incidentally, using more than two question marks at the end of a sentence is a sign you wear your underpants on your head.
I wouldn’t really call it ‘believing’. It’s more like a subtle ‘knowing’. The knowing at this stage doesn’t tell me what God is, or what the universe is, but the knowing does tell me what God is NOT and what the universe is NOT. God is NOT how religions and myths defined him so far. The universe is NOT how some people have defined it so far. Maybe I am wrong. This is why I am doing some exploring here…
You are the joke. It is your rampant stupidity.
In my brain. Where is your god?
So, it wasn’t a funny joke. So what? It was a joke nonetheless.
Does that annoy you? I remember someone else pointing that out too. I am just trying to create an effect … you know how they create dramatic effects in movies by using music and various camera angles? Maybe the multiple question marks are not creating the right effect, so I will stop using them. Just one question mark from now on…
By the way, what do you **really** think about German cars and American cars? My father owned a Buick Century when I was in school. Actually two. This was when I started disliking American cars. But it is my understanding that they do make good cars in America?
rajkumar,
(Ooooh, I like your quaintness!)
I see you are unfamiliar with the semantic fields (or ontological dependency) corresponding to ‘belief’ and ‘knowledge’.
(Perhaps a Venn diagram simile would make it simple for you: knowledge is encompassed by belief, but not so the converse)
rajkumar, please stop giving programmers a bad name!
Nope. Same chance as the universe existing without a creator. 1.0. The universe exists, as there is evidence for that. Your creator is imaginary, as there is no evidence for one. End of story. You can repeat your fuckwittery until the cows come home, but until you pony up solid and conclusive physical evidence, not just a desire for one to exist (your presupposition), it will remain imaginary to science and us.
[meta]
rajkumar, here’s a heads-up.
Here in Pharyngula, Sastra is (IMNSHO) the wisest and most insightful commenter on these topics.
(Hands down)
Look, numbskull, there are an infinite number of things I don’t believe in, and the same is true even for a fuckwit like you. Belief and disbelief are dispositional properties: they primarily (but not exclusively) specify what a person’s (sincere) answer would be to the question “Do you believe in ?”, where is a description or definition of something, and may be as exact or as vague as you like. So if you ask “Do you believe in God?” I can readily answer “No”, because I don’t believe in any entity satisfying any of the descriptions or definitions of “God” that I know of, including “Entity that can’t be defined but which I’m nevertheless going to call “God”.”
OK, let’s try a Sastra-style comment.
So God is a sense of some possibility that you can’t justify but you also daren’t exclude. For some reason.
And you shan’t dare exclude it until everything is known and it still hasn’t showed up. Which will be never.
—
(I suck at this)
The problem with rajkumar’s notion of God being indefinable is that he tries to sneak in defined concepts like intelligence, then make those unintelligible too. What we’re left with is describing God in deliberately nonsensical terms then acting as if this is somehow profound. It’s not, it’s drivel, and worse is that drivel is substituting as a refutation of the idea God is nonsense.
It’s wordplay, and bad wordplay at that too. If God is truly as indescribable as rajkumar is asserting, then it would make no sense to call it God. It’s a rhetorical sleight of hand, taking our traditional notions and validating them through making them completely indescribable. And for what? So rajkumar can continue to call atheists irrational while defining God as being inherently so. And to me, nothing says “God is nonsense” better than someone coming out and defining God in nonsensical terms.
If God is truly nonsensical, then atheists are right!
Rajkumar is hung up on defining god. I don’t need to fully define it, as a partial definition is sufficient to start one looking for evidence. And if the evidence is absent, which is the case, the lack of evidence, if it becomes large and consistent enough, as it has, becomes evidence of absence. Works for leprechauns, works for deities/creators.
[meta]
Yeah, Kel.
(You have the knack)
Oh great. You are back. I was just idling in your absence, feeding myself on low grade fuels. Compared to others, you’re an octane booster. Your return is highly appreciated, at least, by me….
Now, back to defining God. I would say some things simply cannot be defined, but can only be experienced subjectively. For instance, colours cannot be defined, but can be experienced subjectively. Now, if I was a red-green colourblind, and I asked you to define the colour green for me, so I’d be able to visualize it just like a person with normal colour vision can, how would you define it for me? Do you think it is possible?
rajkumar #457
No, it was an attempt at a joke.
It doesn’t annoy me. It tells me that your grasp on reality is not secure. But I knew that already.
I own a Japanese and a Korean cars so obviously my opinion of German and American cars is not as good as my opinion of other cars. Actually the particular brand and model of car is more important than the nationality of the car. Both Mercedes and Trabants are German cars.
rajkumar,
I surmise that the ignoramus inchoately refers to qualia, here.
(Heh)
[musing]
quantum : how much? :: qualia : the what?
(¿Qué?)
False. What makes you think “god” merits special pleading?
False. The visible spectrum for humans is generally 390-750nm. Our visual systems’ encoding of those wavelengths is an objectively observable and testable phenomenon. There really are photons which really do have frequencies. Also, there really are neurons responding to and representing them, which generate our experiences.
You, on the other hand, can only waffle and play bullshit word games because you’ve got nothing.
Wrong. Anything can be defined. Otherwise, your “subjective” experience is bullshit and irrelevant. If you can’t describe your “subjective” experience and it isn’t reproducible, it didn’t happen except as a delusion in your mind. This isn’t a hard concept. Evidence separates reality from delusion. If all you have are delusions you can’t describe, we had better get you institutionalized.
Colors can be described and defined by science. This one needs a large dose of real education.
As consiousnessrazor points out, colors have specific frequencies. Just look up “color” in wikipedia. There are some nice tables which define the colours very clearly.
Anyone who uses multiple question marks doesn’t have a secure grasp on reality? He or she is just breaking a tiny punctuation rule…! Rules are meant to be broken, don’t you think? I mean, some rules, such as these stupid punctuation rules that make your head spin.
Good point. Though I had to look up what ‘Trabants’ was. Turns out, it was in EAST Germany they produced these cars. In WEST Germany they were producing Audi’s, BMWs, Benz, Porsche’s, VW Beetles and all the finest cars you can find on the planet. Yes, this is what I meant when I said ‘German Cars’.
Anyway, it surprise me you don’t own any American cars, given what you said about the American way of doing things, and how it is THE best in the world. Or was it someone else who said that? That was way back in the thread where PZ Myers was complaining about the Internet connection in his hotel in Melbourne.
Next on:
But you can’t define love or hate or that peculiar feel of nausea when one reads too much stupid in one go.
(Or alternatively, tide goes tide goes out, but I’m giving rajkumar more credit than that.)
So, you are saying you can describe what the colour green looks like to a red-green colourblind person by explaining the science behind colour perception? No, you can’t. By doing this, you’d just be telling the person what colours are, and how we perceive them. You can’t make the person imagine or visualize the colour green if he or she is red-green colourblind, no matter how hard you try. Not possible. It is simple enough to understand. Assuming you have normal colour vision, can you visualize the colours on the colour spectrum that are invisible to the naked human eye? For example, do you know what infra-red looks like?
Morales, #452: I laughed audibly.
And it’s back to this drivel.
Spectroscopy, knucklehead.
It doesn’t look like anything, you simple sack of stupid. We can still define it objectively. The properties of radiation exist regardless of their visibility.
You know, there is a reason we call those people colorblind and when they see green instead of red we don’t start calling it green, it’s still red. Your example actually shows perfectly that colors can indeed be defined.
The definition of gods or colors is what gods are or what colors are, dimwit.
Your claim is that gods can be subjectively experienced. If that is so, there is evidence for them, just like there is evidence of color vision or color-blindness or any other aspect of experience. You have no such evidence for subjective experiences of gods.
Nope, science can explain what the color is. The person may have trouble seeing it, but that doesn’t make the color unreal or undefinable. The only thing here unreal and undefinable is your inane attempts to sound cogent while showing great stupidity and ignorance. Along with an anti-science bias the size of the Himalayas.
Here’s a concept for you to think about. You will sound smarter if you say nothing.
Subjective experience really isn’t that mysterious these days. Heck, certain forms of subjective experience can be simulated by careful use of chemical or electromagnetic stimulation. That our brains detect, perceive, and even invent agency, is well documented and studied.
Ugh. Failure to remember you can’t use angle brackets. That should be:
This is not what I asked.
Suppose I am red-green colourblind and because of this condition, I cannot see green. And because I have never seen this colour in my whole life, I don’t know what it looks like. Now, if I can’t see green and I don’t know how to visualize it, how would you make me visualize this colour in my mind, as you can? Tell me how would you describe this colour to me, so I can visualize it in my mind? Can you describe it to me now, here?
In that case, instead of sounding smarter to you, I would rather say something, because I do not know what translates into ‘smartness’ for you. The art of avoidance is not being smart, you know. You know I am not asking a very hard question. Don’t you? But if you are unable to answer and comprehend a simple question, then I won’t insist. I just thought you were smarter than that…
@raj:
Let me just make sure of something first:
You are aware that red-green colorblind people don’t see green as a grey color, right? (They see it as yellow.) I only ask because there are people who are ignorant of what colorblindness is (I was for the longest time.)
Of course colours can be defined objectively: we can specify the objective conditions under which a human being with normal colour vision will (and will not) see green. There will be borderline cases, as green shades into yellow, blue, black, white or grey, but the fact that the borderline cases are with these other colours (and not with red) is also an indication that colours are not, as the naive subjectivist believes, incommunicable “qualia”.
Yeah, I know that. But how red-green colourblinds see green, as a rule of thumb, should depend on the particular shade of green. I know it because I have at least three acquaintances who are red-green colourblind.
You know how green is made up of blue and yellow? So, if a shade of green has more blue in it, then it would look more like the shades of blue. Such as blue-green or sea green or the traffic light green, they see all of these colours as almost pure blue. However, if a shade of green has more yellow in it, then it would look more like the shades of yellow/red. Such as lime green, yellow green, they see both of these colours as almost like pure yellow. And Forest green looks almost pure red to them. When they see pure green, such as fresh grass, they get somewhat confused. They sometimes call it orange, sometimes brown, and sometimes yellow. So, in short, they see almost every colour **except** the colour green.
[interlude]
Green Is The Colour
@rajkumar:
Right exactly. Colorblindness is weird, but interesting at the same time. Carry on, everyone else is doing a fine enough job of answering you, don’t need someone like me kludging up the atmosphere.
Easy Cricket, something that isn’t druggie sophistry about subjective experiences being meaningful to scientific reality. I heard that bullshit about fory years ago. Bullshit then, bullshit now. And stoopid (not even stupid).
Yeah right. But the point is, a red-green colourblind person cannot imagine or visualize green, no matter how hard you try to ‘describe’ this colour to him. And this strengthens the point that colours cannot be defined, but can only be experienced subjectively. And this further strengthen the point that some things simply cannot be defined or described, but can only be experiences subjectively. Which, in turns, open the debate for what is meant by ‘raising the consciousness’ in order to experience God.
You know, like a red-green colour blind person cannot see the colour green even when it is right there in front of him, and everyone else around him can perfectly see this colour, except him? All this colourblind person needed here was some fixing in the eye, if it was possible, and the colour would have become visible to him in its **original form**. Now, according to the theory, God is all around us all the time, but we can’t feel or experience God for the same reason. The **fixing of the eye** in the colourblind person’s case translates into ‘raising the consciousness’ here.
I have to go now.
See ya
Bye
I thought you knew what colorblindness is. If your eye doesn’t have receptors for a certain color, you won’t be able to visualize it because you have never seen it. It still doesn’t change the definition of the color.
Well, then stop using the word ‘bullshit’ so often for starters. Einstein never used it, Darwin never used it, Newton never used it, even Richard Dawkins doesn’t use it — at least, not in the public. Why do you? Have you forgotten how our minds project?
And BYE FOR NOW
NERD.
Actually, green is a primary colour in light, along with red and blue (Think RGB displays).
Does this count as a flounce?
But people can verify that green exists independently of whether they can see it or not. Green is needed to fill the gap in the visible spectrum between 520-570 nm. It is a necessary part of a coherent theory of radiation. God is unverifiable outside of our subjective experience, and is theoretically kludgy. At best. Really just nonsense.
This is fucking obvious to anyone. Regardless of the low esteem I have for your intelligence, I believe that even you, a brain-stem with the miraculous ability to type, must understand this. Your propensity for dishonesty is singular.
Jesus what a stupid fucking argument.
Apparently you are completely unaware of the entire field of color science and a huge chunk of physics.
Ooh. Did the bad words hurt little trolliewollie? If something is bullshit, we will call it bullshit. Who the fuck cares if Darwin or Einstein or Newton used those words? You’re a gorram asshat.