Upscaling includes deinterlacing. Upconverting does *more* than deinterlacing. It actually enlargens the picture AND makes it pretty. It smooths edges so it isn't blocky, etc. I've seen regular DVD players on 1080p displays and a ps3 upconvert the same DVD on the same TV. It's *much* nicer. When talking in this context, upscaling includes deinterlacing, but beyond that, it just does a 'zoom' so to speak. Upconverting does the deinterlacing, enlargens the picture, THEN it makes it look nicer as well. There is a huge difference between upscaling and upconverting. Most TVs that have a native 1080p resolution will only do the deinterlacing and upscale. Upconverting DVD players do the deinterlacing, upscaling, and image processing. Trust me, there is a HUGE difference between the two. While technically going from an interlaced signal to a progressive scan is 'converting', that's not the process being referred to in "upscaling" and "upconverting"
No, the argument would not go away. There are still plenty of xbox's out there with small harddrives or no harddrives at all. That was a great thing about the ps3, they were all guaranteed to have at least 20gig harddrives.
The PS3 hardware *is* better. I own both and played Assassin's Creed through to the end on both. The 360 paled in comparison. I've played other games on both systems (not to completion) and have to say that I'm constantly giving better marks to the PS3. It's just better. The shadowing on the 360 *sucks*. I've seen better shadowing on the ps2 than on the 360. I've had more sound issues with the 360 for whatever reason (sounds continually repeating in a loop, etc.). In terms of quality hardware, at least people aren't sending in PS3s continually because they just decided to up and die.
That's not a fair use of bricked because if you know what you're doing, you can still get your data without backing it up.
Netflix is available on the Roku box which, with MS's track record, with have a better interface than the XBox and also won't sound like you're running a server box. Anyone who voluntarily uses the 360 as a media center *must* have great speakers because you're required to listen to them at high volumes to drown out that jet engine they must have built into the system. Anyway, the Netflix offering sucks because you can't get any movie you want, just really crappy ones. I have Netflix and very rarely use its Instant Watch services. Plus, Sony has already stated they intend to bring similar services in the future. As I have both systems, I don't have to care how long that is, but if I had to choose, I'd rather wait for Sony's as it will most likely be a better experience.
XBox Live *is* better than Sony's online offering which is barely existent. However, that doesn't make the 360 superior to the PS3. There are plenty of people who don't even care about online gameplay, plus Sony is continually working on its online service offerings. Even if it eventually mirrors Live, it'll still be there. I have plenty of friends and we all have 360s, yet I still don't play with them that often on Live. I'm just not into online gameplay.
Most of your reasoning is either wrong or has already been stated as being addressed by Sony. The PS3 was for all intents and purposes released mid-production due to Blu-Ray. I have plenty of patience to wait for a superior product to match most if not all of your complaints. The system itself is already worth it. If I plan on doing something that could be done on either system, I *always* choose the PS3.
You're confusing upconvert and upscaling. Native 1080p televisions (unless stated otherwise) *scale* to 1080p just so it can display it. Scaling is basically an enlargement process. Upconverting however is different. It's a processing algorithm that makes the new bigger picture much more clear than if it were simply upscaled.
Last I checked, you aren't going to even be allowed to purchase a 3G iphone online because they actually require you to sign up for the contract at the store.
Not true. In many states yes, but not all. They're only allowed to fire people for any ol' reason if the state is an "at will employment." It means you or the employer can use any reason whatsoever to stop working. Technically, i think in any state someone can quit for any reason, but... i dunno... thats how the law was always explained to me. i could be mistaken.
i have no problem admitting that it had absolutely nothing to do with prayer and i didn't intend to make it sound that way. its just that its possible that there are things that exist that we have no way of measuring. not saying there could be absolutely no scientific explanation, just that there may be the existence of some sort of connection between people that we have yet been able to detect. it was more a proof of concept argument, not actual evidence. i'll have to search for the study, i read about it a loooong time ago. its possible it may have been flawed for all i know because, honestly, i would have expected further investigation into it and probably would have heard more about it.
dunno how widespread the problem was, but my "home" button on firefox 3 (using hardy heron if that makes any difference) was nowhere to be found. ends up it was somehow part of the bookmarks toolbar (which i don't use). had to move it back into the navigation bar. i know it happened to others because i wasn't the one who figured out how to fix it. i never would have thought to look in a different toolbar.
Ugh... to state the obvious, since you are so dense as to have missed it... I never once argued that your original "friday the 13th" statement wasn't ironic. I've never each touched upon that statement. The statement I took offense with is when you went off and applied a blanket statement to a majority of the world. Before trying to take care of your inability to think critically, you really need to work on your reading comprehension.
I don't care what your feelings towards a god who doesn't feel the need to prove him/her/itself to you . I don't care if that god exists either. I never said I did believe in its existence. I just said that critical thinking, depending on what you're thinking about, requires you to think more openly than you have shown yourself capable of. Maybe you're an engineer and you're great at critical thinking with that sort of problem solving. But as a reference, just remember, when you're trying to solve a problem, one of the best methods is to try and forget all the supposed rules and then find an answer. I know a lot of people who are great at problem solving and never had an education as an engineer. They're good because they don't have rules and laws to limit what they're thinking.
As a note, I would have simply laughed if you never added on your little jab at the end against anyone who believed in something other than science. The only time I take offense with any atheists (or theists) for that matter are when they show such animosity to the other side. Its silly.
First, why couldn't all matter and energy have existed for an infinite amount of time up until now? Because an entirely closed system would have reached a state of equilibrium after an infinite amount of time unless there's an infinite amount of energy pouring into it. Newton's laws actually fall apart the farther you get away from Earth. It's not so much he was wrong, its just his laws took various variables for earth as constants so to speak, they were just special cases. Secondly, thermodynamics absolutely *depends* on conservation of energy. It's the first law of thermodynamics pretty much. So a lot of science does require it to be true. Anything that exists outside of this realm would be by definition "higher," or "super," in the strict definition of the word. I've stated somewhere (maybe I was mistaken and it wasn't in this exact thread) that I do believe most religions are mistaken and I've never been able to logically conclude that this higher existence is even a conscious entity, just that something outside of our existence influenced this one. Whether I can go as far as saying its from another dimension, I'm not sure. Technically, another dimension may still be part of our existence. And its funny you bring up string theory, because last I checked, its completely a thought experiment with no physical proof whatsoever. And in terms of usefulness, people aren't even sure what it would really mean if it were actually true.
When talking about something like existence, its difficult for me to logically restrict myself to something thats only been proven within the framework of that said existence. You have the US, with its own laws, but those laws don't necessarily exist outside of the country. It's a terrible analogy, but it works. You have existence, it has its laws within it, but there's no logical reason to assume they exist outside of it. So at that point, there's absolutely no theory thats more likely than any other. Of course, most religions include information that pertain to events on earth and could therefore be doubted, but not all of it can be completely discounted. I just don't see why we have to immediately assume its absurd. You like to use it, but pink unicorns and the FSM are *not* logical arguments. For a rumor not to die after thousands of years is something to consider. Random attributes thrown on by humans are of course something to be doubted and some of them are easily logically shown to be most unlikely, but some of them are completely unverifiable. I say, if I have no outright proof against it, if I can't *actually* say its false, then let it be. If it doesn't harm me, so be it. I've met people who've said they've had religious experiences and some of them are quite bright and while I still doubt them, they have circumstantial evidence to back it up. Science can't debunk it, but it also hasn't been proven either. So, if it makes her want to believe in something, so be it. I just don't see why we have to approach something with such animosity. Maybe it comes from me majoring in computer engineering and minoring in philosophy (for no real reason other than i enjoyed philosophy... it obviously doesn't really add much to a resume =P) that its not that I'm more open to believing these things, but I'm just less inclined to have any negative reaction to them unless they start to interfere with my being. That's really the biggest problem I have with people on this thread. It's not so much being an atheist. That in and of itself doesn't necessarily imply narrow-mindedness. But to have animosity towards something you don't understand (understanding one religion is not the same as understanding all religion) seems to be such a terrible thing. I mean, if thats what is going to be replacing religion in the world, then I'm sure we're not going to have peace any time soon either. If you're going to start with undercurrents of hate towards something you disagree with, well, thats a problem.
I give up. Until you stop making assumptions before you start 'critically thinking,' there's really no point in responding to you. You drag out the bible (which, i'm not sure you're aware of this, but not every religion follows it) which has never been 100% debunked and then say religion is false.
Do I have to remind you that science and mathematics are based on a foundation of postulates and axioms that are completely impossible to prove? They're accepted as true because it's just 'self-evident.' Hmm... I've heard that argument from another group of people too... yet... for some reason they're called, 'silly.'
As long as you start off with assumptions, you can never be a critical thinker on a grand scale. Yea, maybe in engineering or a narrow field, but as far as I'm concerned, you'd fail at philosophy. You're too obsessed and can't deal without limitations, so you place them there on your own and get all cranky when someone steps outside of them.
But you see, you said you described the Old Testament. Thats called "a reason." (unless the Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in the Old Testament... in which case its an illogical argument, and well, my next point will probably still apply though) I have no problem with doing whatever you deem to be the best way of expelling someone from your presence that you do not want there. However, that intention doesn't translate to a message board. The only way you'll have an intelligent conversation is simply by starting intelligent discourse. If they don't respond in the same manner, the best course of action is to then ignore them. There's no reason why falling into name-calling would ever be the best course of action to lead to intelligent conversation.
It's still analogous. Someone believes in a certain definition of god. Something pops up saying its not god, but something else. They then redefine their definition of god. This is the same as, someone has a definition of 'scientific idea'. Something pops up saying its not that, but something else. They then redefine their definition of that scientific idea. You're extrapolating way too far and twisting the situation to get your subtle difference. Definitions change on both sides due to new evidence. Definitions aren't always dropped on either side as well just because they don't understand it fully.
Based on my experience -- that makes it my informed opinion.
Under that definition, all opinions are informed. So... it really doesn't change anything.
And with most people, their experience actually gives them no more evidence of the supernatural than mine, but their confirmation bias is just a bit higher.
Unless you lack some faculty of the mind that they do not. If we're talking about the supernatural, its a possibility that cannot be ruled out. If you start with the assumption that there's no supernatural activity, obviously you'll work everything to fit. If you start with no assumptions, then you will have to assume that its a possibility. You have a confirmation bias towards the non-supernatural just as someone may have it the other way. I'm not about to presume why.
Certainly, if someone claims to have directly experienced something, I tend not to bother them about it -- either they're right, or they're on drugs, and either way, nothing I say will change their mind.
Why are you trying to convince them otherwise anyway? If they're right, that means you're wrong. You failed to account for that possibility.
In that case, that fits into the second part of my atheistic assertion. I assert that either no god exists, or if any kind of One God does, I want nothing to do with it.
That tends to be more agnostic than atheistic. Atheism does not contend that if there is a god, i want nothing to do with it. Thats just a denial of existence. If you are going to have any aspect of your belief include the possibility of a god, then its closer to agnostic.
It's been said that the only difference between a cult and a religion is time and real estate. That seems to fit with your argument here.
I'm sure the rule was the same back then too. Look at all the religions that have died out over the years... yet some still remain. If a cult lasted long enough, then maybe its deserving to be called a religion and maybe it might have something that shouldn't be outright dismissed.
Actually, I kind of can. The appendix has existed almost that long, right? Whatever purpose it may have once had, all it can do now is get infected and be surgically removed. We'd be better off without it.
That's a possibility, but you've offered no reason to assume thats true. Of course I've considered the possibility that religion was an evolutionary trait. However, I found that unlikely because seeing as how it is almost as old as humankind, i found it unlikely to randomly evolve almost immediately at the time it would have served a purpose to cause society to organize. plus, many religions are vastly different, therefore, it'd be difficult to have some faculty that is so extremely general that it could encompass the creation of all religions. Critical thinking is *not* the same as thinking of a cute little anecdote that could possibly explain away something. Critical thinking is covering all your bases and considering as many possibilities as possible. Considering only one possibility is the definition of narrow-mindedness.
Which also fits into the "which is more credible" argument.
The people who look out into the world and can't possibly fathom god's nonexistence -- these are the Intelligent Design people, right? Two problems with this: First, it proves nothing about the nature of a "god" -- unless these people constantly "see" or "feel" his maleness, how do we even know god is male? How do we know it's benevolent?
First of all, the ID people are only a subset of those who say they can see god. You're again trying to pigeon hole my argument so you can just disprove some silly claim and then say you won. I've never seen a lot of things like quasars, solar eclipses, tornadoes, hurricanes, supernovae, great white sharks, etc. with my own eyes. I'm basing it solely on second-hand evidence. I doubt you've seen all of those things with your own eyes as well. Does that me
I didn't say it was a weakness or even hinted at it as a possible conclusion. I'm a believer in science. I believe change is a strong point. Someone implied that since the definition of god is always changing and not concrete that its a weak belief system. I was pointing out that science shares the same attribute which he attacked. He was saying he wouldn't listen to anybody until they defined exactly what god is. I said it was hypocritical because its also impossible to define a huge amount of things in science to a 't' as well. I never proposed to say science isn't worthwhile. I put science above all else. I just don't like people who illogically discount another belief system which may very well be in harmony with science (at least i believe it is). If you couldn't understand that, you lack reading comprehension. Period.
Don't join in the middle of an argument until you know what is being argued about. I don't like it when people assume things (like you did). It makes an 'ass' out of 'u' in front of 'me.'
I'm using science as a belief system, not under the definition of being instructive. Yes, science is easy to use as a tool to find out answers. However, science as a belief system is still full of holes. We can't even prove why matter has mass (read about the higgs boson, sometimes nicknamed the 'god particle', which i only point out of irony, not because i think it has anything to do with god). there are so many hypotheticals in science thats its ridiculous to assume its "well defined." As a body of knowledge, there are so many areas that are uncertain. There are so many things have have been constantly changed and updated. Things that were believed to be true in the past or no longer thought of as such. Quantum physics is constantly changing. Core beliefs are being swapped in and out all over science. So, no, science is not 100% understood.
I wish I could use a different word than science so I can differentiate between science being used in place of the scientific method or science as the belief system, because no matter what you want to think, science is a belief system. its not a religion, but it is a belief system.
Unfortunately, the people who have always outright said which side is right have never used rational thought process to arrive at such a conclusion.
Also, I may not have explained myself clearly when i was using the zealots phrase. I intended that more for the "religious people are stupid cause if there was a god, there'd be no evil" type of people or the "duh, of course god exists, the bible says so, you're stupid" type of people. I in know way intended it toward the, "i respect your beliefs, but i unfortunately believe you're most likely mistaken and here are some reasons why. of course, i could be wrong, but i think it unlikely."
A rational thought process can't really discount the existence of a higher power, but i'll admit it could lead to a strong foundation for not believing in virtually all organized religions to their strict definitions. It still can't certainly discount them, but they aren't likely to be true when compared with other alternatives. Since I'm operating under the assumption that a higher power is a possibility, there are certain elements i can't discount and therefore can't rule out organized religions since it relies on a belief structure that can involve things we may deem illogical. its just the nature of the beast.
Well, that can lead to doubt. It'd be foolish to assume to know the answer until further investigation. If someone said they saw someone raised from the dead and they seem sincere and there's no obvious reason they're lying or are mentally unstable, i'd probably look into the situation if possible. if not, well, i could have my doubts, but i wouldn't really be able to dismiss it. It's less likely someone raised from the dead, but it doesn't mean it definitely didn't happen.
Except mine is a possibility, and I think a good deal more credible than a mythical sky-wizard.
In your opinion. Each of us has distinct experiences and in certain situations, each of us may disagree with what is more credible than not. One could argue that the laws of the universe are so tidy and neat that its impossible that to have happened randomly. Another could argue that its not credible to assume that an existence could exist with anything less than such well ordered laws, therefore you can't use that as an argument. Neither of them can be right nor wrong because there is zero evidence about what laws existence (ours or any others) generally would have to follow. So, without knowing ones full set of beliefs (ie, which organized religion, if any, they follow), its silly to say one belief is more credible than another. You have no clue what assumptions he's making, just as you yourself have assumptions. When you have different assumptions, you really can't say what conclusions are more likely.
And, seeing as how I'm pretty sure we all agree that God, by definition, is not supposed to make mistakes, why would he choose Manson?
Maybe that could be used to argue against that person's definition of god, but there are plenty of people out there who assume that the god, gods, or higher entity have unknown attributes and therefore its unknown what they would do. plus, the first portion of my argument was that maybe what manson did served its purpose but we can't see the 'big picture.' its cliche and kind of vague, and kind of all encompassing and can lead to so many different conclusions, but as such, it can still be used to arrive at conclusions that there's a higher power (whether that power is good, evil, ambivalent, conscious, etc.).
Well, it's incredibly, insanely silly to believe in an invisible pink unicorn. Yet it's socially accepted to believe in a sky-wizard.
Your belief in pink unicorns existed for a negligible amount of time compared to the rumored existence of a higher power. if the rumor of pink unicorns existed since almost the beginning of human existence, then it wouldn't be as silly.
Your entire argument seems to be a wishy-washy Agnostic "Well, maybe it could be true!" That applies to anything. If belief in God is critical thinking, I don't know what isn't.
My entire argument can't be applied to just anything. A critical thinker can not dismiss the fact that religious beliefs have existed almost as long as humans themselves. Therefore, it can't be easily dismissed.
You see, I never did that. To quote myself:
You're quite right, you didn't. I kind of jumped to conclusions too quickly. I apologize.
But the vast majority of us have not seen angels, or anything else truly supernatural. The vast majority of us should, therefore, be atheist by default, if we wish to believe what is actually true.
A large portion of humans (not including me) have said they feel their god or gods or whatever. So, its not necessarily true to assume a vast majority have not experienced anything truly supernatural. Some people (other than us) have even said they can't possibly fathom god's nonexistence whenever they look upon the world. Is it just them forcing what they see to fit their views? Maybe. Is it possible they are more open to 'seeing god in everything' than we are? Maybe.
I've just never been able to rule out the existence of a higher power (not saying a god, though i can't discount that either, but i find it unlikely any religion has it right). I find it more likely that religions are trying to get it right, but there's also going to be corruption within any human institution and there's also going to be mistakes, arrogance, and misguided intentions. So, i usually take more offense to people who write off those who believe in a higher existence than i do when they write off those who believe in specific religions, but even then, whats the h
The purported existence of god has always been made absent any proof. That's not necessarily true. Some of the people who wrote in the Bible or other's who claimed they were prophets claimed visions, divine intervention, etc., etc., etc. That would be enough proof from them to put for the existence of a god or gods. Look at it as an experiment that can't be successfully duplicated. It doesn't mean that it didn't really happen the first time around, its just that something else is missing. Just because *you* don't see the evidence doesn't mean its not there.
If you want to manipulate the definition of "god", you can prove the existence of god by defining it as, say, a coffee cup, in which case god is sitting on my desk. Trying to provide silly arguments as this detracts from what I originally stated. You were saying a bunch of people all had different definitions for God or thought they had different gods, etc., etc.
All I responded with is that there is the possibility they were all talking about the same god or gods, they just couldn't describe it exactly. Sort of like trying to describe the same thing, but they're all getting different bits and pieces of a larger object they cannot see. Under the assumption that a higher entity exists, its *extremely* easy to explain why there have been so many different versions of god or gods throughout history. Therefore, using that as an argument against a god or god(s) isn't quite substantial. Its fine if you don't want to believe in any sort of higher power, but critical thinkers can arrive at a multitude of conclusions. A narrow minded thinker would arrive at only one (which is because they're not setting out to find the answer, they're setting out to prove the answer they already have).
All I'm disagreeing with is the logic you gave in your posts, not your end result. Maybe you have other arguments which would be better, but you failed to provide them, therefore your post doesn't really have continuity. You say one thing, then give some conclusion that billions of people disagree with and then also blanket them all as having the inability to be critical thinkers. I would just hope that if you were going to insult a majority of the world (more people believe in some sort of organized religion than not, at least according to this report though I really can't say how well it was conducted, its just the first thing on the topic i found) you would have provided a better argument in response to someone disagreeing with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Upscaling includes deinterlacing. Upconverting does *more* than deinterlacing. It actually enlargens the picture AND makes it pretty. It smooths edges so it isn't blocky, etc. I've seen regular DVD players on 1080p displays and a ps3 upconvert the same DVD on the same TV. It's *much* nicer. When talking in this context, upscaling includes deinterlacing, but beyond that, it just does a 'zoom' so to speak. Upconverting does the deinterlacing, enlargens the picture, THEN it makes it look nicer as well. There is a huge difference between upscaling and upconverting. Most TVs that have a native 1080p resolution will only do the deinterlacing and upscale. Upconverting DVD players do the deinterlacing, upscaling, and image processing. Trust me, there is a HUGE difference between the two. While technically going from an interlaced signal to a progressive scan is 'converting', that's not the process being referred to in "upscaling" and "upconverting"
No, the argument would not go away. There are still plenty of xbox's out there with small harddrives or no harddrives at all. That was a great thing about the ps3, they were all guaranteed to have at least 20gig harddrives.
The PS3 hardware *is* better. I own both and played Assassin's Creed through to the end on both. The 360 paled in comparison. I've played other games on both systems (not to completion) and have to say that I'm constantly giving better marks to the PS3. It's just better. The shadowing on the 360 *sucks*. I've seen better shadowing on the ps2 than on the 360. I've had more sound issues with the 360 for whatever reason (sounds continually repeating in a loop, etc.). In terms of quality hardware, at least people aren't sending in PS3s continually because they just decided to up and die.
That's not a fair use of bricked because if you know what you're doing, you can still get your data without backing it up.
Netflix is available on the Roku box which, with MS's track record, with have a better interface than the XBox and also won't sound like you're running a server box. Anyone who voluntarily uses the 360 as a media center *must* have great speakers because you're required to listen to them at high volumes to drown out that jet engine they must have built into the system. Anyway, the Netflix offering sucks because you can't get any movie you want, just really crappy ones. I have Netflix and very rarely use its Instant Watch services. Plus, Sony has already stated they intend to bring similar services in the future. As I have both systems, I don't have to care how long that is, but if I had to choose, I'd rather wait for Sony's as it will most likely be a better experience.
XBox Live *is* better than Sony's online offering which is barely existent. However, that doesn't make the 360 superior to the PS3. There are plenty of people who don't even care about online gameplay, plus Sony is continually working on its online service offerings. Even if it eventually mirrors Live, it'll still be there. I have plenty of friends and we all have 360s, yet I still don't play with them that often on Live. I'm just not into online gameplay.
Most of your reasoning is either wrong or has already been stated as being addressed by Sony. The PS3 was for all intents and purposes released mid-production due to Blu-Ray. I have plenty of patience to wait for a superior product to match most if not all of your complaints. The system itself is already worth it. If I plan on doing something that could be done on either system, I *always* choose the PS3.
You're confusing upconvert and upscaling. Native 1080p televisions (unless stated otherwise) *scale* to 1080p just so it can display it. Scaling is basically an enlargement process. Upconverting however is different. It's a processing algorithm that makes the new bigger picture much more clear than if it were simply upscaled.
I suppose I would feel sorry for a logged in user shuddering at ACs as well. Good thing I didn't say I shuddered.
AC shuddering at an AC shuddering at an AC with... ah nevermind...
I think its a slashdotting symptom. I search linuxdevices.com for the article and even their link goes to that page.
1973 != freerunner
freerunner is basically v2.
Last I checked, you aren't going to even be allowed to purchase a 3G iphone online because they actually require you to sign up for the contract at the store.
Not true. In many states yes, but not all. They're only allowed to fire people for any ol' reason if the state is an "at will employment." It means you or the employer can use any reason whatsoever to stop working. Technically, i think in any state someone can quit for any reason, but... i dunno... thats how the law was always explained to me. i could be mistaken.
i have no problem admitting that it had absolutely nothing to do with prayer and i didn't intend to make it sound that way. its just that its possible that there are things that exist that we have no way of measuring. not saying there could be absolutely no scientific explanation, just that there may be the existence of some sort of connection between people that we have yet been able to detect. it was more a proof of concept argument, not actual evidence. i'll have to search for the study, i read about it a loooong time ago. its possible it may have been flawed for all i know because, honestly, i would have expected further investigation into it and probably would have heard more about it.
dunno how widespread the problem was, but my "home" button on firefox 3 (using hardy heron if that makes any difference) was nowhere to be found. ends up it was somehow part of the bookmarks toolbar (which i don't use). had to move it back into the navigation bar. i know it happened to others because i wasn't the one who figured out how to fix it. i never would have thought to look in a different toolbar.
Ugh... to state the obvious, since you are so dense as to have missed it... I never once argued that your original "friday the 13th" statement wasn't ironic. I've never each touched upon that statement. The statement I took offense with is when you went off and applied a blanket statement to a majority of the world. Before trying to take care of your inability to think critically, you really need to work on your reading comprehension.
I don't care what your feelings towards a god who doesn't feel the need to prove him/her/itself to you . I don't care if that god exists either. I never said I did believe in its existence. I just said that critical thinking, depending on what you're thinking about, requires you to think more openly than you have shown yourself capable of. Maybe you're an engineer and you're great at critical thinking with that sort of problem solving. But as a reference, just remember, when you're trying to solve a problem, one of the best methods is to try and forget all the supposed rules and then find an answer. I know a lot of people who are great at problem solving and never had an education as an engineer. They're good because they don't have rules and laws to limit what they're thinking.
As a note, I would have simply laughed if you never added on your little jab at the end against anyone who believed in something other than science. The only time I take offense with any atheists (or theists) for that matter are when they show such animosity to the other side. Its silly.
When talking about something like existence, its difficult for me to logically restrict myself to something thats only been proven within the framework of that said existence. You have the US, with its own laws, but those laws don't necessarily exist outside of the country. It's a terrible analogy, but it works. You have existence, it has its laws within it, but there's no logical reason to assume they exist outside of it. So at that point, there's absolutely no theory thats more likely than any other. Of course, most religions include information that pertain to events on earth and could therefore be doubted, but not all of it can be completely discounted. I just don't see why we have to immediately assume its absurd. You like to use it, but pink unicorns and the FSM are *not* logical arguments. For a rumor not to die after thousands of years is something to consider. Random attributes thrown on by humans are of course something to be doubted and some of them are easily logically shown to be most unlikely, but some of them are completely unverifiable. I say, if I have no outright proof against it, if I can't *actually* say its false, then let it be. If it doesn't harm me, so be it. I've met people who've said they've had religious experiences and some of them are quite bright and while I still doubt them, they have circumstantial evidence to back it up. Science can't debunk it, but it also hasn't been proven either. So, if it makes her want to believe in something, so be it. I just don't see why we have to approach something with such animosity. Maybe it comes from me majoring in computer engineering and minoring in philosophy (for no real reason other than i enjoyed philosophy... it obviously doesn't really add much to a resume =P) that its not that I'm more open to believing these things, but I'm just less inclined to have any negative reaction to them unless they start to interfere with my being. That's really the biggest problem I have with people on this thread. It's not so much being an atheist. That in and of itself doesn't necessarily imply narrow-mindedness. But to have animosity towards something you don't understand (understanding one religion is not the same as understanding all religion) seems to be such a terrible thing. I mean, if thats what is going to be replacing religion in the world, then I'm sure we're not going to have peace any time soon either. If you're going to start with undercurrents of hate towards something you disagree with, well, thats a problem.
I give up. Until you stop making assumptions before you start 'critically thinking,' there's really no point in responding to you. You drag out the bible (which, i'm not sure you're aware of this, but not every religion follows it) which has never been 100% debunked and then say religion is false.
Do I have to remind you that science and mathematics are based on a foundation of postulates and axioms that are completely impossible to prove? They're accepted as true because it's just 'self-evident.' Hmm... I've heard that argument from another group of people too... yet... for some reason they're called, 'silly.'
As long as you start off with assumptions, you can never be a critical thinker on a grand scale. Yea, maybe in engineering or a narrow field, but as far as I'm concerned, you'd fail at philosophy. You're too obsessed and can't deal without limitations, so you place them there on your own and get all cranky when someone steps outside of them.
But you see, you said you described the Old Testament. Thats called "a reason." (unless the Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in the Old Testament... in which case its an illogical argument, and well, my next point will probably still apply though) I have no problem with doing whatever you deem to be the best way of expelling someone from your presence that you do not want there. However, that intention doesn't translate to a message board. The only way you'll have an intelligent conversation is simply by starting intelligent discourse. If they don't respond in the same manner, the best course of action is to then ignore them. There's no reason why falling into name-calling would ever be the best course of action to lead to intelligent conversation.
It's still analogous. Someone believes in a certain definition of god. Something pops up saying its not god, but something else. They then redefine their definition of god. This is the same as, someone has a definition of 'scientific idea'. Something pops up saying its not that, but something else. They then redefine their definition of that scientific idea. You're extrapolating way too far and twisting the situation to get your subtle difference. Definitions change on both sides due to new evidence. Definitions aren't always dropped on either side as well just because they don't understand it fully.
Based on my experience -- that makes it my informed opinion.
Under that definition, all opinions are informed. So... it really doesn't change anything.
And with most people, their experience actually gives them no more evidence of the supernatural than mine, but their confirmation bias is just a bit higher.
Unless you lack some faculty of the mind that they do not. If we're talking about the supernatural, its a possibility that cannot be ruled out. If you start with the assumption that there's no supernatural activity, obviously you'll work everything to fit. If you start with no assumptions, then you will have to assume that its a possibility. You have a confirmation bias towards the non-supernatural just as someone may have it the other way. I'm not about to presume why.
Certainly, if someone claims to have directly experienced something, I tend not to bother them about it -- either they're right, or they're on drugs, and either way, nothing I say will change their mind.
Why are you trying to convince them otherwise anyway? If they're right, that means you're wrong. You failed to account for that possibility.
In that case, that fits into the second part of my atheistic assertion. I assert that either no god exists, or if any kind of One God does, I want nothing to do with it.
That tends to be more agnostic than atheistic. Atheism does not contend that if there is a god, i want nothing to do with it. Thats just a denial of existence. If you are going to have any aspect of your belief include the possibility of a god, then its closer to agnostic.
It's been said that the only difference between a cult and a religion is time and real estate. That seems to fit with your argument here.
I'm sure the rule was the same back then too. Look at all the religions that have died out over the years... yet some still remain. If a cult lasted long enough, then maybe its deserving to be called a religion and maybe it might have something that shouldn't be outright dismissed.
Actually, I kind of can. The appendix has existed almost that long, right? Whatever purpose it may have once had, all it can do now is get infected and be surgically removed. We'd be better off without it.
That's a possibility, but you've offered no reason to assume thats true. Of course I've considered the possibility that religion was an evolutionary trait. However, I found that unlikely because seeing as how it is almost as old as humankind, i found it unlikely to randomly evolve almost immediately at the time it would have served a purpose to cause society to organize. plus, many religions are vastly different, therefore, it'd be difficult to have some faculty that is so extremely general that it could encompass the creation of all religions. Critical thinking is *not* the same as thinking of a cute little anecdote that could possibly explain away something. Critical thinking is covering all your bases and considering as many possibilities as possible. Considering only one possibility is the definition of narrow-mindedness.
Which also fits into the "which is more credible" argument. The people who look out into the world and can't possibly fathom god's nonexistence -- these are the Intelligent Design people, right? Two problems with this: First, it proves nothing about the nature of a "god" -- unless these people constantly "see" or "feel" his maleness, how do we even know god is male? How do we know it's benevolent?
First of all, the ID people are only a subset of those who say they can see god. You're again trying to pigeon hole my argument so you can just disprove some silly claim and then say you won. I've never seen a lot of things like quasars, solar eclipses, tornadoes, hurricanes, supernovae, great white sharks, etc. with my own eyes. I'm basing it solely on second-hand evidence. I doubt you've seen all of those things with your own eyes as well. Does that me
I didn't say it was a weakness or even hinted at it as a possible conclusion. I'm a believer in science. I believe change is a strong point. Someone implied that since the definition of god is always changing and not concrete that its a weak belief system. I was pointing out that science shares the same attribute which he attacked. He was saying he wouldn't listen to anybody until they defined exactly what god is. I said it was hypocritical because its also impossible to define a huge amount of things in science to a 't' as well. I never proposed to say science isn't worthwhile. I put science above all else. I just don't like people who illogically discount another belief system which may very well be in harmony with science (at least i believe it is). If you couldn't understand that, you lack reading comprehension. Period.
Don't join in the middle of an argument until you know what is being argued about. I don't like it when people assume things (like you did). It makes an 'ass' out of 'u' in front of 'me.'
I'm using science as a belief system, not under the definition of being instructive. Yes, science is easy to use as a tool to find out answers. However, science as a belief system is still full of holes. We can't even prove why matter has mass (read about the higgs boson, sometimes nicknamed the 'god particle', which i only point out of irony, not because i think it has anything to do with god). there are so many hypotheticals in science thats its ridiculous to assume its "well defined." As a body of knowledge, there are so many areas that are uncertain. There are so many things have have been constantly changed and updated. Things that were believed to be true in the past or no longer thought of as such. Quantum physics is constantly changing. Core beliefs are being swapped in and out all over science. So, no, science is not 100% understood.
I wish I could use a different word than science so I can differentiate between science being used in place of the scientific method or science as the belief system, because no matter what you want to think, science is a belief system. its not a religion, but it is a belief system.
Unfortunately, the people who have always outright said which side is right have never used rational thought process to arrive at such a conclusion.
Also, I may not have explained myself clearly when i was using the zealots phrase. I intended that more for the "religious people are stupid cause if there was a god, there'd be no evil" type of people or the "duh, of course god exists, the bible says so, you're stupid" type of people. I in know way intended it toward the, "i respect your beliefs, but i unfortunately believe you're most likely mistaken and here are some reasons why. of course, i could be wrong, but i think it unlikely."
A rational thought process can't really discount the existence of a higher power, but i'll admit it could lead to a strong foundation for not believing in virtually all organized religions to their strict definitions. It still can't certainly discount them, but they aren't likely to be true when compared with other alternatives. Since I'm operating under the assumption that a higher power is a possibility, there are certain elements i can't discount and therefore can't rule out organized religions since it relies on a belief structure that can involve things we may deem illogical. its just the nature of the beast.
Well, that can lead to doubt. It'd be foolish to assume to know the answer until further investigation. If someone said they saw someone raised from the dead and they seem sincere and there's no obvious reason they're lying or are mentally unstable, i'd probably look into the situation if possible. if not, well, i could have my doubts, but i wouldn't really be able to dismiss it. It's less likely someone raised from the dead, but it doesn't mean it definitely didn't happen.
Except mine is a possibility, and I think a good deal more credible than a mythical sky-wizard.
In your opinion. Each of us has distinct experiences and in certain situations, each of us may disagree with what is more credible than not. One could argue that the laws of the universe are so tidy and neat that its impossible that to have happened randomly. Another could argue that its not credible to assume that an existence could exist with anything less than such well ordered laws, therefore you can't use that as an argument. Neither of them can be right nor wrong because there is zero evidence about what laws existence (ours or any others) generally would have to follow. So, without knowing ones full set of beliefs (ie, which organized religion, if any, they follow), its silly to say one belief is more credible than another. You have no clue what assumptions he's making, just as you yourself have assumptions. When you have different assumptions, you really can't say what conclusions are more likely.
And, seeing as how I'm pretty sure we all agree that God, by definition, is not supposed to make mistakes, why would he choose Manson?
Maybe that could be used to argue against that person's definition of god, but there are plenty of people out there who assume that the god, gods, or higher entity have unknown attributes and therefore its unknown what they would do. plus, the first portion of my argument was that maybe what manson did served its purpose but we can't see the 'big picture.' its cliche and kind of vague, and kind of all encompassing and can lead to so many different conclusions, but as such, it can still be used to arrive at conclusions that there's a higher power (whether that power is good, evil, ambivalent, conscious, etc.).
Well, it's incredibly, insanely silly to believe in an invisible pink unicorn. Yet it's socially accepted to believe in a sky-wizard.
Your belief in pink unicorns existed for a negligible amount of time compared to the rumored existence of a higher power. if the rumor of pink unicorns existed since almost the beginning of human existence, then it wouldn't be as silly.
Your entire argument seems to be a wishy-washy Agnostic "Well, maybe it could be true!" That applies to anything. If belief in God is critical thinking, I don't know what isn't.
My entire argument can't be applied to just anything. A critical thinker can not dismiss the fact that religious beliefs have existed almost as long as humans themselves. Therefore, it can't be easily dismissed.
You see, I never did that. To quote myself:
You're quite right, you didn't. I kind of jumped to conclusions too quickly. I apologize.
But the vast majority of us have not seen angels, or anything else truly supernatural. The vast majority of us should, therefore, be atheist by default, if we wish to believe what is actually true.
A large portion of humans (not including me) have said they feel their god or gods or whatever. So, its not necessarily true to assume a vast majority have not experienced anything truly supernatural. Some people (other than us) have even said they can't possibly fathom god's nonexistence whenever they look upon the world. Is it just them forcing what they see to fit their views? Maybe. Is it possible they are more open to 'seeing god in everything' than we are? Maybe.
I've just never been able to rule out the existence of a higher power (not saying a god, though i can't discount that either, but i find it unlikely any religion has it right). I find it more likely that religions are trying to get it right, but there's also going to be corruption within any human institution and there's also going to be mistakes, arrogance, and misguided intentions. So, i usually take more offense to people who write off those who believe in a higher existence than i do when they write off those who believe in specific religions, but even then, whats the h
All I responded with is that there is the possibility they were all talking about the same god or gods, they just couldn't describe it exactly. Sort of like trying to describe the same thing, but they're all getting different bits and pieces of a larger object they cannot see. Under the assumption that a higher entity exists, its *extremely* easy to explain why there have been so many different versions of god or gods throughout history. Therefore, using that as an argument against a god or god(s) isn't quite substantial. Its fine if you don't want to believe in any sort of higher power, but critical thinkers can arrive at a multitude of conclusions. A narrow minded thinker would arrive at only one (which is because they're not setting out to find the answer, they're setting out to prove the answer they already have).
All I'm disagreeing with is the logic you gave in your posts, not your end result. Maybe you have other arguments which would be better, but you failed to provide them, therefore your post doesn't really have continuity. You say one thing, then give some conclusion that billions of people disagree with and then also blanket them all as having the inability to be critical thinkers. I would just hope that if you were going to insult a majority of the world (more people believe in some sort of organized religion than not, at least according to this report though I really can't say how well it was conducted, its just the first thing on the topic i found) you would have provided a better argument in response to someone disagreeing with it.