Pascal with his famous "Pascal's Gamble" also provided the topic some thought
A "proof" (Pascal's wager) that is so easily disposed of...
even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose.
Substitute "belief in god" for "belief that I (trolltalk.com) am god". If you're right, you potentially gain everything. And there's certainly more proof that I exist than that god exists, so why take the risk? Especially since I can promise you so much MORE than god can... freedom from guilt about following all other religious holidays except "Troll Tuesday", for one.
Well, for the most part...I say it is generally safer to go the speed of surrounding traffic...and down here...65mph on a highway would get you killed...generally you'll get passed pretty quick if you are going 75 even.
Slow down and save gas, repair bills, wear and tear, etc. Then you'll have more $$$, which means less financial strain, which means less stress and rage of all kinds. If youthink $4/gallon is a lot, wait until it hits $6/gallong in a couple of years.
Today, I had faith that I could fix a software bug. If I didn't have the belief I could fix the bug, I never would of acted in the first place.
More bullshit. I've worked on software that was buggy that I didn't believe could be fixed. In some cases, I was able to fix it, in others, it just wasn't fixable. However, in all cases, a "best effort" was required. It's part of what I'm paid to do.
Some go the extra mile and prove their beliefs by their actions.
Your actions in no way "prove" the existence of god. Millions of people can run their lives as if god exists - doesn't make it true. Same as lots of people used to believe that the world was the center of the universe. Believing it doesn't make it so. Or, more recently, the millions who believed "Real Estate prices NEVER go down." Bwahahahah!
Proof, not belief, is what counts. Something that can be observed, measured, analysed. Not "I believe because I have faith." That's like saying "I believe because I believe" or "I have faith because I have faith." Pretty dumbass either way.
Lighten up. It doesn't take a course in philosophy to see the stupidity in someone claiming that they're not worried about Friday the 13th because "God will protect them, they're not superstitious". If they're not superstitious, why the FUCK do they need "protection" from the "bad things that can hapen" on "Friday the 13th"? To claim that you're not superstitious, and also claim that *anyone* or *anything* will protect you from Friday the 13th, is the essential, and for most of us, obvious contradiction.
But to state the obvious, since you missed it, if you're *not* superstitious, you don't need any sort of protection against Friday the 13th.
You're over-analysing, and in doing so, you ignore the obvious. In short, you lack the critical skills to see the obvious incongruity in the original statement.
There's no need to prove or disprove the existence of god to show how utterly stupid the original statement was - it doesn't matter whether you posit the existence of god or not for the original statement to be a complete screw-up. Then again, people who believe in god... well, they're a pretty gullable lot, aren't they, believing in stuff with no proof, to the point of needing to make god an axiom.
o, what IS the preferred way of 'cold-calling' someone via email?
What IS a good way to email-market, especially the first time? Thoughts?
There isn't a *good* way to cold-call email. All unsolicited email is spam. In the travel agency's place, instead of spamming people, they could get off their fat arses and visit the companies where these people work, introduce themselves, and offer their services... but that's actual WORK!
Or they can run ads, or host a local event, or help out with a local charity, or all those other wonderful ways to actually make yourself known. The "I'll sit on my fat ass and make tons of money off the innerweb" meme won't die, because people are fat, stupid, and lazy.
No, because we want to distinguish between a supposed god and "just nature.' If everything can be explained by nature, then there is no need to even bother positing the existence of god.
For example, we can tell the difference between live people and dead people. Live people do things, dead people take up space in congress.
Lewis didn't use the term "fagging" - his description was more detailed, and left no doubt as to what was going on. Borrow a copy and read it. Previous to reading it, I had enjoyed the Screwtape letters, etc. - but that book was a real eye-opener. His semi-justifying his taking part in gang rapes of other boys, because he had to go through the same thing earlier, was disgustingly cowardly.
The religious statement that I poked fun of was absurd on its' face. The people who indulge in such absurdities need to either grow up, get a life, or put their faith to the test by eating a bullet or three - (they believe) they'll go to heaven, and we won't have to listen to them any more, a win-win if there ever was one.
Really, it doesn't need to be any more "subtle" or "nuanced" than that. They believe god looks out for them? This is one way to prove it, or show that they lack the courage of their convictions.
the bible has been debunked enough elsewhere - it is so full of contradictions that its best use is as toilet paper when you run short. As a reference for "critical thinking" it is more a parody than anything else.
It is the religions of the world that insult people's intelligence, not me. That most believe is irrelevant to what is true. After all, if everyone else was jumping off a bridge, would you? Some people used to believe the world was flat,or that it was the center of the universe, or that meat spontaneously degenerated into flies, or that sperm were little people, perfect in every form, or that women shouldn't have the right to vote, or that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, or that stealing a loaf of bread warranted the death penalty, or that blacks shouldn't marry whites.
If people want to have their silly superstitious beliefs, that's their business - and I have every right to say "you've already ruined the lives of many generations, so unless you have proof, fuck off and die".
People making extrordinary claims should be required to show at least SOME proof. That they don't is more a paen to human's credulity and talent for self-deception than any ability to think critically.
You don't understand faith. It is "belief in action."
If you have ever built, or created, anything, you would understand this.
You mis-spelled "bullshit".
Believing something doesn't change the facts. You can believe all you want that you can live without water, but your belief won't make it so. You can act on your beliefs, and we'll watch you shrivel up and die.
It's said there are no atheists in foxholes. So how come there are so many dead soldiers? They were certainly motivated to believe...
You admit it requires a "leap of faith." In other words, there is no proof, just wishful thinking. Your "leap of faith" requires the same "suspension of disbelief" as when we watch a movie. It doesn't survive critical thinking, is totally illogical, and ultimately very stupid. You wouldn't believe in Teenage Ninja Mutant Turtles, but it's okay to suspend your disbelief for a supernatural god?
If it were any other topic except religion, you'd be castigating the person for being a naive, easily-led fool. Religion is a sacred cow - time to get out the barbeque and make hamburgers out if it.
>> critical thinking and logic are anathema to anyone who believes in god.
> First, define "god"...
People have been "defining god" for 30,000 years, and we have yet to see one that survives the test of time. It's about as nonsensical as "defining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". Theologians engage in great mental masturbatory circle jerks over such things, because many of them are too uptight to deal with sex (or they ain't gettin' any, and want to make sure that everyone else is equally frustrated/miserable).
The actual terms C.S. Lewis used went into more graphical detail than the term I used. It included anal sexual assault of other boys by Lewis himself, after being similarly victimized. Read it - the context and content are undeniable - he preyed upon others as he had himself been preyed upon.
Logic is not binary. that's why we have a field called boolean logic, which is only a subset of logic. Considering that it's less than 200 years old, to imply that logical thought can only be binary (true/false) would mean that there was no possibility of logical thought prior to that date. Obviously not a very logical way of looking at things.
Logic can encompass more than true/false w/o being fuzzy.
False - by the same token, I can define a Pop Tart as "god" - but that doesn't mean anyone should worship Britney Speares.
Make it consistent with observations of a "supernatural force" and maybe you'd have something. Defining god as the universe leaves god entirely a natural phenomena, and as such, not a god.
Show me ANY proof that ANY of the gods that man has devised in the last 30,000 years exist. Religion is a crock. Don't like it? Tough shit, but the facts are against religion, always have been, and always will be.
Also, you still haven't addressed the main point - the contradiction between someone saying Friday the 13th isn't bad luck for them because they have god to protect them, and claiming they aren't superstitious. Either god acts in a "supernatural" way, or its just "natural causes." People who defend religion are defending the "supernatural" - they are, by definition, superstitious, since they believe that forces outside of nature can control their destiny.
I didn't redefine superstition. Superstition is the belief in something "outside nature." A belief in god certainly meets that definition; after all, otherwise the purported "miracles" couldn't be "acts of god" - they'd have an entirely natural explanation.
It is the religious crowd who wants to redefine superstition so that it includes everyone else's belief systems but their own particular brand.
Belief in anything (including religion) without proof, is a lack of critical thinking. Attempting to smear people who insist on proof for any "extraordinary claims" as being anti-religious bigots, rather than hard-nosed realists, is not going to win any awards.
Not one religion to date has been able to provide any sort of evidence for the existence of any sort of "god" being. Given that lousy track record, anyone trying to defend said religions better be prepared for a roasting.
And yes, anyone who believes in god, sans any proof, given the track record of superstition, hucksterism, ignorance, and fraud over the last 30,000 years, is not thinking critically. If you want to call that stupid, I won't disagree. Even intelligent people do stupid things. Belief in god is just one example.
Subjective truth does not require objective proof.
Subjective "truth" is just opinion without any supporting facts.
In other words, its no more true than believing that the moon is made out of green cheese. It doesn't require objective proof to believe it, just being willing to believe without regard to any of those pesky facts.
So, do you believe in reason? Prove to me that reason exists. Give me some facts, something objective and reproducible, that proves reason to be a real thing, not just the imagination of a frenzied mind. You ought to live up to the standards that you profess.
That we're having this discussion is proof that I believe in reason, but what I believe is immaterial. That others indulge in superstitious beliefs, absent ANY external proof to back them up, is the issue at question - are these people lacking in the ability to think rationally about their superstitious beliefs? My take is that they aren't, and that they are wilfully blind, having invested a portion of their self-image in "validated/approved of by god".
I notice nobody addressed the unsolicited credit card issue, which was the "serious" one. Must be the Friday 13th curse... or at least I'd say that if I believed in the supernatural, but I'm not the religious type.
The Roadrunner has been up only for about a week, and researchers from Los Alamos National Lab are already reporting inaugural simulations of the human visual system, aiming to produce a machine that can see and interpret as well as a human
Or history has shown that we have a terrible history of completely misunderstanding that which may be defined as 'God.
My original post (and still the subject line) is "Since you brought up religion..."
The purported existence of god has always been made absent any proof. Not one of the "gods" that has been put forward by people has been shown to exist. To the contrary, while some of them become popular for a time, they all end up in the same place - the dung heap.
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. Until such time as anyone shows that there is any such thing as a god, I'm going to stick with my coffee cup being a coffee cup, and the rest of the univers being what it is, sans superstition.
Slashdot Mirror
A "proof" (Pascal's wager) that is so easily disposed of ...
Substitute "belief in god" for "belief that I (trolltalk.com) am god". If you're right, you potentially gain everything. And there's certainly more proof that I exist than that god exists, so why take the risk? Especially since I can promise you so much MORE than god canThere *IS* one uber-predator. Look in the mirror.
Slow down and save gas, repair bills, wear and tear, etc. Then you'll have more $$$, which means less financial strain, which means less stress and rage of all kinds. If youthink $4/gallon is a lot, wait until it hits $6/gallong in a couple of years.
More bullshit. I've worked on software that was buggy that I didn't believe could be fixed. In some cases, I was able to fix it, in others, it just wasn't fixable. However, in all cases, a "best effort" was required. It's part of what I'm paid to do.
Your actions in no way "prove" the existence of god. Millions of people can run their lives as if god exists - doesn't make it true. Same as lots of people used to believe that the world was the center of the universe. Believing it doesn't make it so. Or, more recently, the millions who believed "Real Estate prices NEVER go down." Bwahahahah!
Proof, not belief, is what counts. Something that can be observed, measured, analysed. Not "I believe because I have faith." That's like saying "I believe because I believe" or "I have faith because I have faith." Pretty dumbass either way.
[citation needed]
So show some proof that god exists. One shred of physical evidence that ANY of the gods humans have invented over the last 30,000 years is real.
Lighten up. It doesn't take a course in philosophy to see the stupidity in someone claiming that they're not worried about Friday the 13th because "God will protect them, they're not superstitious". If they're not superstitious, why the FUCK do they need "protection" from the "bad things that can hapen" on "Friday the 13th"? To claim that you're not superstitious, and also claim that *anyone* or *anything* will protect you from Friday the 13th, is the essential, and for most of us, obvious contradiction.
But to state the obvious, since you missed it, if you're *not* superstitious, you don't need any sort of protection against Friday the 13th.
You're over-analysing, and in doing so, you ignore the obvious. In short, you lack the critical skills to see the obvious incongruity in the original statement.
There's no need to prove or disprove the existence of god to show how utterly stupid the original statement was - it doesn't matter whether you posit the existence of god or not for the original statement to be a complete screw-up. Then again, people who believe in god ... well, they're a pretty gullable lot, aren't they, believing in stuff with no proof, to the point of needing to make god an axiom.
That sort of god, if it existed, can kiss my ass.
There isn't a *good* way to cold-call email. All unsolicited email is spam. In the travel agency's place, instead of spamming people, they could get off their fat arses and visit the companies where these people work, introduce themselves, and offer their services ... but that's actual WORK!
Or they can run ads, or host a local event, or help out with a local charity, or all those other wonderful ways to actually make yourself known. The "I'll sit on my fat ass and make tons of money off the innerweb" meme won't die, because people are fat, stupid, and lazy.
No, because we want to distinguish between a supposed god and "just nature.' If everything can be explained by nature, then there is no need to even bother positing the existence of god.
For example, we can tell the difference between live people and dead people. Live people do things, dead people take up space in congress.
Lewis didn't use the term "fagging" - his description was more detailed, and left no doubt as to what was going on. Borrow a copy and read it. Previous to reading it, I had enjoyed the Screwtape letters, etc. - but that book was a real eye-opener. His semi-justifying his taking part in gang rapes of other boys, because he had to go through the same thing earlier, was disgustingly cowardly.
The religious statement that I poked fun of was absurd on its' face. The people who indulge in such absurdities need to either grow up, get a life, or put their faith to the test by eating a bullet or three - (they believe) they'll go to heaven, and we won't have to listen to them any more, a win-win if there ever was one.
Really, it doesn't need to be any more "subtle" or "nuanced" than that. They believe god looks out for them? This is one way to prove it, or show that they lack the courage of their convictions.
the bible has been debunked enough elsewhere - it is so full of contradictions that its best use is as toilet paper when you run short. As a reference for "critical thinking" it is more a parody than anything else.
It is the religions of the world that insult people's intelligence, not me. That most believe is irrelevant to what is true. After all, if everyone else was jumping off a bridge, would you? Some people used to believe the world was flat,or that it was the center of the universe, or that meat spontaneously degenerated into flies, or that sperm were little people, perfect in every form, or that women shouldn't have the right to vote, or that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, or that stealing a loaf of bread warranted the death penalty, or that blacks shouldn't marry whites.
If people want to have their silly superstitious beliefs, that's their business - and I have every right to say "you've already ruined the lives of many generations, so unless you have proof, fuck off and die".
People making extrordinary claims should be required to show at least SOME proof. That they don't is more a paen to human's credulity and talent for self-deception than any ability to think critically.
You mis-spelled "bullshit".
Believing something doesn't change the facts. You can believe all you want that you can live without water, but your belief won't make it so. You can act on your beliefs, and we'll watch you shrivel up and die.
It's said there are no atheists in foxholes. So how come there are so many dead soldiers? They were certainly motivated to believe ...
You admit it requires a "leap of faith." In other words, there is no proof, just wishful thinking. Your "leap of faith" requires the same "suspension of disbelief" as when we watch a movie. It doesn't survive critical thinking, is totally illogical, and ultimately very stupid. You wouldn't believe in Teenage Ninja Mutant Turtles, but it's okay to suspend your disbelief for a supernatural god?
If it were any other topic except religion, you'd be castigating the person for being a naive, easily-led fool. Religion is a sacred cow - time to get out the barbeque and make hamburgers out if it.
>> critical thinking and logic are anathema to anyone who believes in god.
> First, define "god" ...
People have been "defining god" for 30,000 years, and we have yet to see one that survives the test of time. It's about as nonsensical as "defining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". Theologians engage in great mental masturbatory circle jerks over such things, because many of them are too uptight to deal with sex (or they ain't gettin' any, and want to make sure that everyone else is equally frustrated/miserable).
The actual terms C.S. Lewis used went into more graphical detail than the term I used. It included anal sexual assault of other boys by Lewis himself, after being similarly victimized. Read it - the context and content are undeniable - he preyed upon others as he had himself been preyed upon.
Logic is not binary. that's why we have a field called boolean logic, which is only a subset of logic. Considering that it's less than 200 years old, to imply that logical thought can only be binary (true/false) would mean that there was no possibility of logical thought prior to that date. Obviously not a very logical way of looking at things.
Logic can encompass more than true/false w/o being fuzzy.
False - by the same token, I can define a Pop Tart as "god" - but that doesn't mean anyone should worship Britney Speares.
Make it consistent with observations of a "supernatural force" and maybe you'd have something. Defining god as the universe leaves god entirely a natural phenomena, and as such, not a god.
Show me ANY proof that ANY of the gods that man has devised in the last 30,000 years exist. Religion is a crock. Don't like it? Tough shit, but the facts are against religion, always have been, and always will be.
Also, you still haven't addressed the main point - the contradiction between someone saying Friday the 13th isn't bad luck for them because they have god to protect them, and claiming they aren't superstitious. Either god acts in a "supernatural" way, or its just "natural causes." People who defend religion are defending the "supernatural" - they are, by definition, superstitious, since they believe that forces outside of nature can control their destiny.
I didn't redefine superstition. Superstition is the belief in something "outside nature." A belief in god certainly meets that definition; after all, otherwise the purported "miracles" couldn't be "acts of god" - they'd have an entirely natural explanation.
It is the religious crowd who wants to redefine superstition so that it includes everyone else's belief systems but their own particular brand.
Belief in anything (including religion) without proof, is a lack of critical thinking. Attempting to smear people who insist on proof for any "extraordinary claims" as being anti-religious bigots, rather than hard-nosed realists, is not going to win any awards.
Not one religion to date has been able to provide any sort of evidence for the existence of any sort of "god" being. Given that lousy track record, anyone trying to defend said religions better be prepared for a roasting.
And yes, anyone who believes in god, sans any proof, given the track record of superstition, hucksterism, ignorance, and fraud over the last 30,000 years, is not thinking critically. If you want to call that stupid, I won't disagree. Even intelligent people do stupid things. Belief in god is just one example.
Subjective "truth" is just opinion without any supporting facts.
In other words, its no more true than believing that the moon is made out of green cheese. It doesn't require objective proof to believe it, just being willing to believe without regard to any of those pesky facts.
I notice nobody addressed the unsolicited credit card issue, which was the "serious" one. Must be the Friday 13th curse ... or at least I'd say that if I believed in the supernatural, but I'm not the religious type.
(./ dons asbesto underwear ...)
That's totally ridicuSEGV core dumped to /home/god/sims/universes/humans-manifold/humans-manifold.core
You must have missed the last few words - It's FRIDAY !!!!!!! What better things to do on a Friday afternoon at the office?
My original post (and still the subject line) is "Since you brought up religion ..."
The purported existence of god has always been made absent any proof. Not one of the "gods" that has been put forward by people has been shown to exist. To the contrary, while some of them become popular for a time, they all end up in the same place - the dung heap.
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. Until such time as anyone shows that there is any such thing as a god, I'm going to stick with my coffee cup being a coffee cup, and the rest of the univers being what it is, sans superstition.