Messages

Ok, sure, there are probably plenty of people who say something along the lines of, "I know for a fact that there is no God," and it's true that those people are working on the same kind of faith-based belief system as the worshippers.  But as Kai pointed out, there is also the Beysean position that the probability of a God is so astronomically low that it's quite possible to say that functionally, you can reasonably say and behave as if there is no god (leaving open the possibility to update your priors, as astronomically improbable as that is).  

The only noticable difference between the two is that the former has the monkey's habit of evangelizing, and the latter doesn't see the need to.

What I was saying before but I'm not sure slyph got was that the Beysean logic works on on reasonable issues. I was saying the term god is unreasonable because it has no definition or meaning, just a bunch of not necessarily inclusive characteristics based on hearsay. Applying most logical systems to "is there a god" wont give you any kind of proper result.

Humans need to figure out what they are looking and make sure they are all talking about the same thing before they start discussing the question of its existence.

Alright, for succinctness, let's shift the burden. You name a God, I'll tell you whether or whether not I believe in it.

I am a god.

[All "Gods" are allegedly supernatural]

One unifying characteristic: All supernatural claims are arbitrary. All "Gods" are allegedly supernatural. All Arbitrary claims are irrational, all God-belief is irrational.

I disagree with the olded parts for incorrect or generalizations
All gods supernatural: The Greeks had several mortal, horribly fallible and apart from being fictional were otherwise human. There is also the gaia as god (obviously not the hippy personification or consciousness idea, but the idea of god as the natural process of nature. There are also those that use the term to apply to themselves but imply no supernatural aspect, the "I am god" crowd.

All god belief is irrational, but so is the statement "There is no god". Atheism as belief is just another unfounded belief. All religious discussion is speculation on absurdity and lacks scientific value.

To clarify my point-

God: Is it something that is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is some old man with a long beard? Is it something that is blind in one eye and had to sacrifice itself to itself in order to see the future and will one day be killed by a frost giant? Is it some sort of weird race of people that can be killed in combat with a human being capable and wily enough? Is it something that can be swallowed by another of its kind and not die? These all fit some definition of a god.

But these in no way encompass even a small amount of the various characteristics used to define the term god. In fact the ones you listed area all from a very similar set of characteristics.

It gets complicated when god means 'the sum of the natural universe' or 'the unknown' to others. The word god is useless and should not be used in any debate of existence. If "God" the word has no anchoring then the question "Does God exist" is absurdest no matter what stance you take "No god does not exist" "Yes god exists" "maybe god exists" are all completely meaningless exercises in navel gazing.

Okay, just had to confirm he said that.

Thanks for that quote (couldnt display the image).  I knew Dawkins was a douche but i didnt think he was stupid.

_{Given that Islam is such an unmitigated evil, and looking at the map supplied by this Christian site, should we be supporting Christian missions in Africa? My answer is still no, but I thought it was worth raising the question. Given that atheism hasn't any chance in Africa for the foreseeable future, could our enemy's enemy be our friend?}

I think he's trying to reach a point somewhere in here, but even with the benefit of the doubt he needs to qualify a lot of these terms.  For example, unmitigated evil?  Give me a fucking break.  If Christian's want to give aid directly to suffering people and tell them fairy tales as well, that's fine with me.  No one is required to convert to receive aid as far as i know.  I suppose they should be grateful of the enlightenment he's offering from his high-horse... you know, instead of worrying about getting hacked apart by machetes, being forced to set their own children on fire, killed in other gruesome ways, or just plain ol' surviving after avoiding all of that.  

Goddamn Atheists are just another religion.

For the people who's beliefs he represents certainly they realize they are taking some of the worst traits of religion FFS.  I'd say really real scientists don't know anything until it has been proven (or disproven).  Certainly everyone can have ideas about what is true and untrue, but an Atheist's disbelief is based on faith that their grid is correct... not evidence for OR against.

Actually, atheism (with a lowercase a) is a clear Bayesian reasoning chain in action. If you have so little evidence for something (essentially zero in this case), and your probability drops so close to zero, you take that position as false. Unless, of course, someone were to provide evidence, which would raise the probability, but no one has provided that evidence in the thousands of years people have been trying to. It's all either been antedoctal (like every holy book in existence) or filling in mysteries (which have been subsequently solved with science). It's simply a position, and there's no more to say about it than "I don't anticipate any deities or gods."

Of course the word god is meaningless in a scientific context due to it having no clear definition. One can easily say all religious beliefs are false using the above reasoning, but the statement  "I don't anticipate any deities or gods." Is absolutely meaningless and doesn't pertain to anything. Ask any two people to define god and you get different answers. The issues is scientifically moot.

What's scary is trying to come up with a reasonable explanation as to why the writer and director ever thought it could be a good idea to put that in. It felt way too similar to the climax of Poltergeist, but executed in a really shitty and derivative way.

Pirates is fun, if peppered full of plot holes.
Insidious is scary until the last half hour at which point it goes to shit.
That's all I've seen of the recent crop.
If source code is still in though I doubt it is, it was excellent.

seen their places of power and soon the last will be revealed on the dark side of the moon.

I'm probably reading too much into it but is that an Iron Sky reference?

It is indeed. I can't explain why I thought it worked at the current time or what my idea by including it was but it is. I'm filled with both dread and joy at the movie itself but I think it'll just be bad and not bruce campbell bad.

The concept alone makes me want to see it... and while the first trailer is truly awful the second one doesn't seem half bad.

seen their places of power and soon the last will be revealed on the dark side of the moon.

I'm probably reading too much into it but is that an Iron Sky reference?

"Hey, Mike...That arrogance of yours comes cheap!  Only a $10,000 instrument and a ruined batch!"

This is disgusting, that prick will probably squeeze that back out of the people below him. People like that deserve to be shot.

He hasn't got anyone below him.  He has been banned from managing by the president of North American operations.

That is a huge relief.

Engineers tend to suffer from Dunning-Krueger syndrome.  They think that everyone around them are idiots, and that a millwright with 30 years of experience doesn't know what he's talking about because he has no degree.

Worse, if the engineer gets his PE stamp, he suddenly becomes an expert on ALL subjects, and forgets how to say "I don't know" or "Let me look that up" or "Whoops.  I made a mistake."

Basically, the whole field is full of Requia.

My god. Well, they're not scientists. They like to play pretend sometimes, but they're not. It's a technical skill set, like medicine, or psychiatry, not a field of research.

Thats not true at all, there are huge areas of research in electronics, robotics and automation which is primarily dominated by industry.
I agree the word engineer is tossed around too loosely, but there are those that are far more competent scientists then the majority of lazy hacks you see in the public sector and academia.

"Hey, Mike...That arrogance of yours comes cheap!  Only a $10,000 instrument and a ruined batch!"

This is disgusting, that prick will probably squeeze that back out of the people below him. People like that deserve to be shot.

In any case, I won't be posting on the same board as a Nazi.

Except maybe to hound him.

Won't be my decision if he stays or not.

Both IP's resolve to the same area, I cant see past the providers machine for the area. But I know CU didn't get home until last night.

I can see past it.

Also, I got an email from him during his "vacation".

We'll I guess your info is better then mine.

In any case, I won't be posting on the same board as a Nazi.

Except maybe to hound him.

Won't be my decision if he stays or not.

Both IP's resolve to the same area, I cant see past the providers machine for the area. But I know CU didn't get home until last night.

Oh, and Doctor X is definitely not CU.
Its just some shit stirring.

Not sure how you're getting that.  The IPs resolved to the exact same location.

They both resolve to the same part of the country he was in. But from the times Doctor X was posting I know CU definitely wasn't online.

Oh, and Doctor X is definitely not CU.
Its just some shit stirring.