a guy dying signs an affidavit, and its still not enough. what would prove alien existence then
How about, I dunno, some evidence?
I mean, literally billions of people have made dying claims to be able to see various deities, and yet not one person in the world believes that every religion is completely true. How unreasonable is that? Holy fucking crap. The first person in this entire thread to ask for evidence was an AC. I'd add you as a friend if you were a registered user.
In fact we change the "Laws of Physics" all the time, whenever we create a new theory, so it's pretty obvious that what we're changing is just a human invention to help us understand how Reality behaves. I know this is a slightly petty point, but I feel it is worth mentioning. We never actually change the laws of physics, we just change our ideas about what's behind them and what they can be used to predict. Laws are simple observations about what happens. Apples fall down, energy can't escape a closed system, objects at rest, that sort of thing.
Are you kidding me? The attitude on Slashdot is that the scientists/experts are always wrong. No, no, no! That is totally wrong. Scientists are either right or wrong depending on who funds them!
I hope you're trolling, but I'm starting to believe you're not. It's sad that anyone would still harbor these fantasies in this modern age of readily-accessible information and knowledge.
You use the word faith in multiple senses and claim it to be the same. It is not. Faith and belief, in the religion sense, are, by definition, beliefs without evidence. There is an incredible mountain of evidence to back the scientific method as well as every modern accepted theory. There is, by definition, absolutely no real evidence to back your religious faith in a personal god.
You claim to have "seen God act". Your claims, like the millions of claims before it, can be readily dismissed with simple explanations. If your mind is predisposed to believe that natural disasters, human acts of goodness, and coincidences are the work of a god, then that is what you will see. That does not, in any sense, make such events supernatural. Call me when you have accurate predictions of the future, knowledge above and beyond the capabilities of modern science, or events that defy the laws of physics. Since I already know you don't, I'll just repeat that all you have is your own slightly delusional perceptions.
I take it on faith that atoms exist, having never seen a good enough picture of one. I've seen God act. More than I can say for an atom. Having refuted your claim of seeing God act, let's go back to your discussion of faith that atoms exist. As the rest of us already know, you have solid evidence that atoms exist. It's actually fairly undeniable at this point. One trip to Hiroshima or Nagasaki will give you some more evidence if you'd like it to be a bit more personal.
You claim to support the scientific method, but you don't apply it in your personal beliefs and you then equate the results of the scientific process with the results of your own upbringing. You're currently reaping the fruits of the seeds sown by scientists. The computer you're using, the internet it's connected to, the electricity powering it, all of them stem from the basic knowledge that atoms and electrons exist and their power can be harnessed. Do you think any of this would be around today if scientists think like you do? Scientists would still be trying to find god's invisible hand and trying to find new ways of identifying witches.
Faith is belief without evidence. Ignorance is "The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed." I would say it's fair to equate "uninformed" with "no evidence", so beliefs regarding gods is, by definition, ignorant. Of course you may be very informed about the topic of evolution, but then you would also understand that the process works without "God" factored in, just as Laplace told Napoleon that his model of the solar system worked just as well without calculating the work of God into it.
Most modern religions have long accepted the idea that their gods no longer interfere with the natural workings of the universe. Any scientist will also tell you that, if your hypothesis or calculations leave an "x" for "the work of God", they are incomplete.
You're the first reply arguing with me that I'm actually inclined to agree with. I still don't entirely see it that way, probably because dehumanizing people is a pet peeve of mine, but I'll acknowledge that you have a good point even if I won't use those words in the future.
As for the atheist/creature thing, creature comes from creatura (to create). It's saying people/animals/things were created. I obviously feel this is an incorrect description of me. Although my parents played a role in my "creation", my parents were not creators. They did not design or select a sperm to meet with a certain egg. They had very little control over my development in the womb. They also had very little control over many of the events that have shaped me into what I am today. I am much more a product of chance than I am my parents' creation, and I obviously dismiss the notion that a god had anything to do with it.
Sorry, bad answer on my part. Obviously I'm not a physicist. Information, it appears, like energy and matter can not go faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. I still don't understand how light being able to go faster != information being able to go faster, but I'll accept it for now. The speed of light or the speed of sound in a particular medium may be slower or faster than the other, and the speed of light in a medium can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. It now appears that the speed of sound in a medium can indeed exceed the speed of light in a vacuum.
You're asking the wrong question. Light (and information) can go faster than c. Matter can not. "The speed of light" is really "the speed of light in a vacuum". There have already been a ton of experiments in which the speed of light in matter exceeded the speed of light in a vacuum. That's old news. The real limitation is on how dense something can be and still remain intact.
It is possible that, prior to the big bang, the universe was a perfectly rigid substance. As soon as the universe realized this, it corrected the situation. IAMNAQP, but I'd imagine that a black hole is what you get when matter tries to become perfectly rigid/dense. Perfect rigidity requires perfect density. There can not be room for matter to compress in such a substance.
I'm not a lowly white p'tak like that Barclay guy I don't need a holodeck to get a parma'kai When the ladies see the beast I got between my thighs They say "Perhaps today is a good day to die" I hit Ezri,Troi, Jadzia too Watch out Janeway I'm coming for you Cause I'm the MacDad Klingon with the humaniod bitches My head ain't the only part of me that's got ridges
Damn you for beating me to it! This one has irked me for years! Primarily because I had a..7th? grade math teacher mark me as incorrect for putting "1" instead of "0.9 bar" on a test. I asked her what the difference was, but nobody laughed. Sad, sad day.
Did you just call the jews living in Nazi concentration camps wretched creatures? So what if he did? "Wretched" is not necessarily a derogatory adjective. His use of it clearly fits the definition of "deeply afflicted, dejected, or distressed in body or mind". His usage indicates he's fairly literate. Your judgmental comments do not say the same of you. See my reply just a minute ago. "Wretched" is indeed a fair word to use. Wretched prisoners would've been a good choice. It's mainly the combination of wretched and creature that gives it a negative connotation. Although you will find some literary examples of people referring to themselves as wretched creatures, you won't find many of people using it in a positive way about other people.
"That is possible at present," replied Cyrus Harding, "but only a few months ago the wretched creature was a man like you and me. And who knows what will become of the survivor of us after a long solitude on this island? It is a great misfortune to be alone, my friends; and it must be believed that solitude can quickly destroy reason, since you have found this poor creature in such a state!"
"But, captain," asked Herbert, "what leads you to think that the brutishness of the unfortunate man began only a few months back?" (emphasis mine)
I agree that he used the term "unfortunate man" immediately after, but I think it's still significant. Was a man. No longer a man. Dehumanizing at its finest. Of course like all things it doesn't actually matter whether this usage is correct. If you used this terminology on national television or in any other form while dealing with the public you'd get a negative reaction from the public. They would interpret it in the same way I do.
Of course, being an atheist, I also have an issue with the term "creature".
But that's what they called themselves, if you read survivors' testimony. The camps were designed to strip the dignity and humanity of anybody who passed through them. I've read and talked to them. I agree that the camps were designed to strip people of their dignity and humanity. This is necessary not only to have obedience from the prisoners, but to allow the guards to be cruel. The biggest mistake one can make in a situation like that is to go along with it. Fight the dehumanization process every step of the way, because you're pretty much fucked after it happens.
Thank you, I'm well aware of the value of a dictionary. What you're skipping is the connotation. "Wretched creature" has a negative one. As is seen in "1. an animal, esp. a nonhuman: the creatures of the woods and fields; a creature from outer space". It is just another way to dehumanize people. Dehumanizing is the first step in treating people like animals. If you think "unfortunate people" and "wretched creatures" are really interchangeable in this situation, I pity you.
How can we assume that future wars will be in any way conventional, or otherwise? Quite easily. The US had a nearly guaranteed victory over Iraq, in terms of regime change. There was little doubt that the US would decimate Iraq's standing military and police and install a new regime. The obvious remaining question was how stable of a regime could be setup, but regime change was accomplished. Likewise, the liberation of Kuwait was nearly assured. We weren't quite sure how much of the earth Iraq was going to be able to scorch before we kicked them out, but we knew it wouldn't be that much of a challenge to push them back. We also know that the US could, if it wanted to, kill nearly every living thing in the middle east, or nearly any other region for that matter.
The pure destructive power of a country is objectively measurable. When we're talking about superpowers fighting wars, the real question is the aftermath. Will one side be able to win the hearts and minds? Will they have the willpower to see a conflict through to the end? Will they be able to suppress their morals and use the required force to accomplish their objectives? These are all human factors which are much more difficult to measure. Effective, charismatic leaders can make a world of difference in these areas. I do believe that we will eventually be able to predict the behavioral patterns of societies much more accurately, but right now it's hard to do so with consistency.
Obviously, the person who developed this little method should get an "F, Stupid!" written on her paper. Military planners have known all of this for a very long time. Move on, folks, nothing to see here.
Man is an amazingly adaptable creature. After all, the conditions would be far superior to those, say, of the Nazi concentration camps, where there is ample evidence most of the wretched creatures clung desperately to life. Did you just call the jews living in Nazi concentration camps wretched creatures?
Well no, actually it takes just two men: Bush meeting his old friend Osama, saying "You know, I really wouldn't mind if, say, the WTC was blown up by an 'accident' of yours." Job done, and looks perfectly real - because it is. Not that I believe in any of this shit, but it's kinda nice to stir up new conspiracy theories:-) Well, if Osama really hated Bush he could've released a tape saying they did exactly that. It wouldn't be enough evidence for impeachment, but it'd certainly help the Bush-bashers and give them another thing to drone on about.
I believe GP was simply pointing out that, other than being human and speaking English, one cannot really say that "most" New Yorkers have anything in common, including a hatred of their former mayor. Nothing xenophobic there; just ordinary logic. I'm not even sure that it's safe to claim that "most" New Yorkers speak English. In fact, many people have serious doubts about whether or not the majority of New Yorkers are human.
To me, "hardcore" includes altering your appearance so you don't get spotted at random. That works well until the plastic surgeon who worked on you shows off the before and after shots on his website to advertise for himself.
Downside: Now we can clone Cowboy Neal by sampling his keyboard. I'm pretty sure you could already clone most computer nerds by sampling their keyboards.
I think he was referring to the third rock around the sun, but you have definitely shot down his intelligent life argument.
Since when do we consider knowledge of intelligent life on earth a discovery? Who claims this discovery anyway? Shall I also consider my house a discovery of settlement of the North American continent? I didn't know the obvious could be considered a discovery.
Refer to the other reply below mine. The AC stated that life didn't exist on any known planet. Quite obviously the person he was replying to was referring to the Earth, as was I. The argument isn't "out of all 7 (or 8) planets we've somewhat looked at, none have life." The argument is that "we've only explored 8 (or 9) planets, and we already know life exists on one of them." There is no reason to believe that the conditions to create and sustain life on earth are unique in the universe, therefor it is reasonable to believe that there is a decent chance of life existing elsewhere even though we haven't discovered it yet.
Although my reply was satirical, I was hoping to prove the point. Obviously that didn't happen. I never said life was discovered on the Earth, although it actually was several times. Europeans thought they were the only ones on the planet for quite some time. Then they explored a bit more and discovered that there were other, non-Christian people in Asia. Then they explored some more and found a whole new continent. One of their reasons for not believing that nobody else was on the planet was that it wasn't mentioned in the bible. I'm too lazy to pull references, but this caused some problems for some of the early explorers as well as the church.
If you don't consider any religious texts to contain all of the knowledge of the current state of the universe then you have no reason to believe that life doesn't exist elsewhere. It's all probabilities, and most calculations show that it is unlikely to believe that man is alone in the universe, even though we could be the only life we'll ever find due to distances. It is extremely unlikely that Earth is the only planet in the universe that ever has and will harbor life. The real question is how close to us are the other life-harboring planets in terms of time and space.
Funny, I was about to reply to the GP with: "You know how I know you're not a quantum physicist? What you said just made sense." Since you already proved my point and proved him wrong, I don't feel there's any work left for me here. Thank you. I'm glad a few people who know what they're talking about still hang out here.
Thank you, that was actually a very good post and insightful reply. I feel like an idiot for failing to consider the effects of decommissioned missiles. It makes sense that it could enable a first strike, but I still dislike the name.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, literally billions of people have made dying claims to be able to see various deities, and yet not one person in the world believes that every religion is completely true. How unreasonable is that? Holy fucking crap. The first person in this entire thread to ask for evidence was an AC. I'd add you as a friend if you were a registered user.
I prefer Death By Snu Snu.
You use the word faith in multiple senses and claim it to be the same. It is not. Faith and belief, in the religion sense, are, by definition, beliefs without evidence. There is an incredible mountain of evidence to back the scientific method as well as every modern accepted theory. There is, by definition, absolutely no real evidence to back your religious faith in a personal god.
You claim to have "seen God act". Your claims, like the millions of claims before it, can be readily dismissed with simple explanations. If your mind is predisposed to believe that natural disasters, human acts of goodness, and coincidences are the work of a god, then that is what you will see. That does not, in any sense, make such events supernatural. Call me when you have accurate predictions of the future, knowledge above and beyond the capabilities of modern science, or events that defy the laws of physics. Since I already know you don't, I'll just repeat that all you have is your own slightly delusional perceptions. I take it on faith that atoms exist, having never seen a good enough picture of one. I've seen God act. More than I can say for an atom. Having refuted your claim of seeing God act, let's go back to your discussion of faith that atoms exist. As the rest of us already know, you have solid evidence that atoms exist. It's actually fairly undeniable at this point. One trip to Hiroshima or Nagasaki will give you some more evidence if you'd like it to be a bit more personal.
You claim to support the scientific method, but you don't apply it in your personal beliefs and you then equate the results of the scientific process with the results of your own upbringing. You're currently reaping the fruits of the seeds sown by scientists. The computer you're using, the internet it's connected to, the electricity powering it, all of them stem from the basic knowledge that atoms and electrons exist and their power can be harnessed. Do you think any of this would be around today if scientists think like you do? Scientists would still be trying to find god's invisible hand and trying to find new ways of identifying witches.
Faith is belief without evidence. Ignorance is "The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed." I would say it's fair to equate "uninformed" with "no evidence", so beliefs regarding gods is, by definition, ignorant. Of course you may be very informed about the topic of evolution, but then you would also understand that the process works without "God" factored in, just as Laplace told Napoleon that his model of the solar system worked just as well without calculating the work of God into it.
Most modern religions have long accepted the idea that their gods no longer interfere with the natural workings of the universe. Any scientist will also tell you that, if your hypothesis or calculations leave an "x" for "the work of God", they are incomplete.
You're the first reply arguing with me that I'm actually inclined to agree with. I still don't entirely see it that way, probably because dehumanizing people is a pet peeve of mine, but I'll acknowledge that you have a good point even if I won't use those words in the future.
As for the atheist/creature thing, creature comes from creatura (to create). It's saying people/animals/things were created. I obviously feel this is an incorrect description of me. Although my parents played a role in my "creation", my parents were not creators. They did not design or select a sperm to meet with a certain egg. They had very little control over my development in the womb. They also had very little control over many of the events that have shaped me into what I am today. I am much more a product of chance than I am my parents' creation, and I obviously dismiss the notion that a god had anything to do with it.
Sorry, bad answer on my part. Obviously I'm not a physicist. Information, it appears, like energy and matter can not go faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. I still don't understand how light being able to go faster != information being able to go faster, but I'll accept it for now. The speed of light or the speed of sound in a particular medium may be slower or faster than the other, and the speed of light in a medium can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. It now appears that the speed of sound in a medium can indeed exceed the speed of light in a vacuum.
Feel free to tell me if I'm missing something.
You're asking the wrong question. Light (and information) can go faster than c. Matter can not. "The speed of light" is really "the speed of light in a vacuum". There have already been a ton of experiments in which the speed of light in matter exceeded the speed of light in a vacuum. That's old news. The real limitation is on how dense something can be and still remain intact.
It is possible that, prior to the big bang, the universe was a perfectly rigid substance. As soon as the universe realized this, it corrected the situation. IAMNAQP, but I'd imagine that a black hole is what you get when matter tries to become perfectly rigid/dense. Perfect rigidity requires perfect density. There can not be room for matter to compress in such a substance.
From Voltaire's "Worf's Revenge":
,Troi, Jadzia too
I'm not a lowly white p'tak like that Barclay guy
I don't need a holodeck to get a parma'kai
When the ladies see the beast I got between my thighs
They say "Perhaps today is a good day to die"
I hit Ezri
Watch out Janeway I'm coming for you
Cause I'm the MacDad Klingon with the humaniod bitches
My head ain't the only part of me that's got ridges
Damn you for beating me to it! This one has irked me for years! Primarily because I had a ..7th? grade math teacher mark me as incorrect for putting "1" instead of "0.9 bar" on a test. I asked her what the difference was, but nobody laughed. Sad, sad day.
Jules Verne seemed to agree with me in the The Mysterious Island
I agree that he used the term "unfortunate man" immediately after, but I think it's still significant. Was a man. No longer a man. Dehumanizing at its finest. Of course like all things it doesn't actually matter whether this usage is correct. If you used this terminology on national television or in any other form while dealing with the public you'd get a negative reaction from the public. They would interpret it in the same way I do.
Of course, being an atheist, I also have an issue with the term "creature".
Thank you, I'm well aware of the value of a dictionary. What you're skipping is the connotation. "Wretched creature" has a negative one. As is seen in "1. an animal, esp. a nonhuman: the creatures of the woods and fields; a creature from outer space". It is just another way to dehumanize people. Dehumanizing is the first step in treating people like animals. If you think "unfortunate people" and "wretched creatures" are really interchangeable in this situation, I pity you.
The pure destructive power of a country is objectively measurable. When we're talking about superpowers fighting wars, the real question is the aftermath. Will one side be able to win the hearts and minds? Will they have the willpower to see a conflict through to the end? Will they be able to suppress their morals and use the required force to accomplish their objectives? These are all human factors which are much more difficult to measure. Effective, charismatic leaders can make a world of difference in these areas. I do believe that we will eventually be able to predict the behavioral patterns of societies much more accurately, but right now it's hard to do so with consistency.
Obviously, the person who developed this little method should get an "F, Stupid!" written on her paper. Military planners have known all of this for a very long time. Move on, folks, nothing to see here.
Give me fuel
give me fire
give me that which I desire!
I think he was referring to the third rock around the sun, but you have definitely shot down his intelligent life argument.
Since when do we consider knowledge of intelligent life on earth a discovery? Who claims this discovery anyway? Shall I also consider my house a discovery of settlement of the North American continent? I didn't know the obvious could be considered a discovery.
Refer to the other reply below mine. The AC stated that life didn't exist on any known planet. Quite obviously the person he was replying to was referring to the Earth, as was I. The argument isn't "out of all 7 (or 8) planets we've somewhat looked at, none have life." The argument is that "we've only explored 8 (or 9) planets, and we already know life exists on one of them." There is no reason to believe that the conditions to create and sustain life on earth are unique in the universe, therefor it is reasonable to believe that there is a decent chance of life existing elsewhere even though we haven't discovered it yet.Although my reply was satirical, I was hoping to prove the point. Obviously that didn't happen. I never said life was discovered on the Earth, although it actually was several times. Europeans thought they were the only ones on the planet for quite some time. Then they explored a bit more and discovered that there were other, non-Christian people in Asia. Then they explored some more and found a whole new continent. One of their reasons for not believing that nobody else was on the planet was that it wasn't mentioned in the bible. I'm too lazy to pull references, but this caused some problems for some of the early explorers as well as the church.
If you don't consider any religious texts to contain all of the knowledge of the current state of the universe then you have no reason to believe that life doesn't exist elsewhere. It's all probabilities, and most calculations show that it is unlikely to believe that man is alone in the universe, even though we could be the only life we'll ever find due to distances. It is extremely unlikely that Earth is the only planet in the universe that ever has and will harbor life. The real question is how close to us are the other life-harboring planets in terms of time and space.
Go hug a tree.
Funny, I was about to reply to the GP with: "You know how I know you're not a quantum physicist? What you said just made sense." Since you already proved my point and proved him wrong, I don't feel there's any work left for me here. Thank you. I'm glad a few people who know what they're talking about still hang out here.
Thank you, that was actually a very good post and insightful reply. I feel like an idiot for failing to consider the effects of decommissioned missiles. It makes sense that it could enable a first strike, but I still dislike the name.