So why bother with the whole death thing? I understand the added baggage of the blood sacrifice, but the entire exercise seems futile if it's done for no reason at all. Wouldn't it have spared people a lot of grief to just ascend to heaven without the whole death thing. I understand the desire to ignore the stupid parts, but they do seem to tie together in the larger theology. And the entire death for sin sake seems to require a literal Adam and Eve story, a literal Jesus, and a literal death (at least for a couple days). There's something noble about remaking your religion into a form you can show your neighbors without too much embarrassment, but I've always thought that if you're throwing out the baby... there's no point keeping the bathwater.
It isn't that this seems to be a small subsection of Christian theology... it seems to be the core.
The point of a dictionary is to show how a word is used in general. If enough people misuse a word it should have that definition added. As such, some dictionaries cite a definition of atheist meaning 'wicked'. It isn't the job of dictionaries to provide definitions of how those people who describe themselves with a word use the word. Even though weak atheist is categorically not agnosticism and agnosticism is a completely disconnected claim from one of theism/atheism that isn't the way it is generally understood and thus isn't the way the dictionaries have the word listed. Atheism is without a theistic belief, whether unbelief or disbelief (as disbelief automatically assumes unbelief). Whereas agnosticism is a knowledge claim which, by and large, says nothing about belief in God (one can be agnostic and atheist or theist).
>>>>PPM are not science. >>Yes, that is my point. Glad you finally discovered it among you snarkery.
You were attempting to draw a distinction between the analogy of PPM and God. Neither are science. That's not a distinction, that's a... what do you call it when things are the same... similarity. I hate to be snarky, but apparently your point is that you are wrong. You should make points which further your own goal in the future, that or get different goals.
Well, Christianity is a religion... the largest religion in fact. I dare say debunking Christianity is about 30% of the job. Also, have you seen the beliefs? Might as well start off with the easy pray (pun intended) first.
Yes. I have actually read all those works. And the Bible, Koran, and Book of Mormon. Now can I say that the very concept of God is so absurd as to not even be amusing? At least concepts like Santa Claus are vaguely coherent. AiG is a joke and anybody who understands the smallest amount of science will join me in chuckling at their nonsense. If you do not, I recommend http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html as a great response to all of their claims. I wouldn't call sitting there with ones fingers in their ears and eyes closed a valid side to an argument. Also, would it be true to say that you do not believe in the Koran because you do not wish the implications of Allah to be brought to bear the way you live? I hear he has fruit like molten metal which the unbelievers are to choke upon in the hereafter for those who make partners unto Allah. Shouldn't that qualify as a side of the argument?
The idea that Christianity and not Christianity are the only sides which exist is nothing short of naive. Really, there is non-religion and thousands of highly silly and contradictory faiths. In short, you are being extremely unfair to the Flying Spaghetti Monster side of the argument. Have you read the Cookbook?
>>The difference with PPM, however, is that I know my belief in God is based on faith.
One could believe PPM would work based on faith.
>>I don't claim it is science.
PPM are not science.
>>God is simply outside the realm of science and the observable material universe.
Many supporters of PPM quite commonly claim that their energy comes from some place outside the realm of traditional science, from outside the observable material universe. And, as such, we have no evidence or reason to suppose that there is anything outside the observable material universe. In fact, the idea seems to be rather absurd, though slightly less absurd than to have a reason to suppose that there is something there that does something here, when by definition that isn't what happens.
I am always amazed by this tu quoque. As if the greatest insult the religious can muster against the non-religious is to call them, religious. The irony is sadly lost to most.
To misapply Occam's razor in such a sense is to really bastardize everything you said or implied. The idea behind "brain in a jar" does require that there is a brain within a jar and that this somehow exists and that there is an extraordinary extremely complex machine feeding you all this information. When, in reality, the idea behind "brain in a jar" requires so many supporting premises that it spirals well beyond the assumption that what you see is what you get. This is in the same thread as concluding that Occam's Razor supports the idea that "God Did It" because all scientific explanations require more than three words, it must be the best explanation out there. As if the matrix within a massive machine isn't necessarily more complex than existence within reality, not simulating a sub-reality.
Faith is nothing more than surrender. A logical fallacy that allows me to accept a belief without evidence. To compare the faith in belief of God with the faith that I am typing on a computer, is nothing short of intellectual abandon.
>>we all will say we think the idea of a god existing is wildly improbable given the evidence, but none I know will say with belief that there is no god.
The idea of God is beyond wildly improbable given the evidence. There is no God. I so define God as to be the Abrahamic sort, which categorically does not and can not exist. In the Spinoza sense, the Scipan sense, or the sun worshiper sense... there may be reason to conclude something else (existence or preference toward non-belief rather than disbelief). But, given the under the general colloquial understand of God, it is absolute fiction. Just as the idea of Santa Claus is wildly improbable enough to justify an active disbelief in such a character.
That said, I reject Christianity because it is based on the idea of blood sacrifice. That in order to clear the original sin of all people who originally didn't sin themselves (but get credit by way of parents), God needed to sacrifice Himself to Himself, to wash away this baggage of a crime against Him that the people themselves never did. And those who did do, didn't know right from wrong at the time.
And to a lesser extent, I am opposed to the idea that this suicidal deity didn't stay dead. I'm to believe that All Mighty God lost the metaphysical equivalent of a round of counterstrike then screams "You did this"-- and I am suppose to love this character for it? And if I don't, he's going to rejoin the server someday 'soon' (though that was a few thousand years ago) and pwn everybody.
Which law of physics is it again which allows unknown entities the ability to fiddle with all aspects of life? Which permits the spontaneous creation of organisms in extremely complex forms which resemble closely what organisms should look like after a billion years of evolution or the like? How is it that an all-good all-knowing god exists while suffering, pain, rape, genocide, natural disasters and all manner of things which are well enough to spring even the most feeble among us to action, aren't deemed worthy by the infinitely strong and infinitely good of some alleviation?
The strong evidence, as I suggested is that this universe, with the trillion trillion stars and one known life-holding planet, with naked apes filled with ego (with large power consuming brains which when damaged causes massive changes to personality) is exactly what we should find in a universe coming into existence by itself 14 billion years ago and undergoing a billion years of evolution. Which, coincidentally is also a universe in which PPM should be impossible.
Well, really, it would seem that the Earth's magnetic field is probably too weak to really provide much power. However, if this individual managed to convert sunlight (very energy rich) into electric power... that would be amazingly useful and would have near limitless potential.
>>"The only analogy I can give is if you had absolute proof that God wasn't real."
There's some really strong evidence that God isn't real. There's no strong evidence that PPM work. In fact, there's a number of things about the universe which strongly suggest that PPM are impossible, just as there's some things which strong suggest God is impossible. Really, even from a 'making an analogy' point of view: this machine is like having proof God exists.
Well, actually... that's just half the problem. It's so much cheaper to just give the hospitals all the money for the services rendered than to force private citizens to get insurance. I am very opposed to the government requiring us to get certain services unless they are themselves offering the services directly. This law really does just feed the health insurance industry without providing the needed care. We could do the same exact thing without the paperwork and for cheaper if we let Medicare cover it. Really I hate this law. I do, I hate it. And few things are enough to inspire hate in me. Requiring everybody to have health insurance is the worst solution they can have, mostly because it's reasonably close to the best... provide everybody with health care.
Also, I think the government should offer at cost liability car insurance.
What part of a signed and sealed affidavit on a death bed did you not understand? Not only does nobody ever lie on their death bed, he signed an affidavit (that you aren't allowed to see) and if he lied he can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law (considering he's dead this involves not being prosecuted at all).
I mean, would you disbelieve the guy who on his deathbed said that he actually faked those Loch Ness pictures? How about the guy who after he died had his family expose how exactly he faked those nice big foot pictures and tracks?
Well, I knew this guy and have a signed and sealed affidavit from him that their signed and sealed affidavit was acquired by threatening his family.
The damn thing is a trooper. Seriously for the 70 bucks I can clock the thing at 2.7 ghz even though it's base is 1.9. That damned Brisbane core is a trooper. Seriously, it overclocks 42%. Really it's enough for what I do, that I don't bother (also as a downside the chip has poor temp readings, everything says something different so I can't tell a meltdown condition from room temp) -- Honestly, I'd buy another of the $73 if it cost $113 and the $113 was $73.
If the detector used 100% cpu speed on multiple identical labtops. At the end of detection, you could simply see which one processed the most. This would result in the ones with the added blue pill having given this freaky detection manner the fewest clock cycles.
Nope it's tool use. That's what makes species win this great species race. It's the only thing we humans have. So it MUST be tool use!
Not only is it tool use... it's male tool use. Sure, if you look back at stone age female tools like fishing nets and sewing needles they obviously don't make humans better than whales (certainly smaller). But male tools. Spears make humans the most awesomest species ever! Guns make humans the most awesomest species ever! Bombs make humans the most awesomest species ever! And if you don't believe that, remember... I have spears, guns and bombs.
>>Your plants example is flawed. The plant doe not chose to release chemicals, they are just programmed to do it. >>A moral being in a dangerous situation would make reasoned value judgments and sometimes may decide not to warn fellow beings.
Nothing against egoism. But, that's not really the way morality works. It's not exactly like there's this morality thing which we can think ourselves into. It's programmed into us the same way it's programed into plants. Morality is the chief game plan evolution came up with for the given situation. If you think humans sit around thinking trying to make a "reasoned value judgment" in a "dangerous situation" -- you're kidding yourself. The answer is just as easy as the plants triggered reaction. We snap to it and perform the moral action, just as chimps do, just as dogs do, just as plants do. The only difference between them and us is we have this neocortex which after the decision is made, takes credit for it. For example, when a baseball is pitched a batter hit the ball. The decision to hit the ball wasn't conscious. To consciously make that decision would require too much time, so we swing and get the thought of the decision filled in later. The same is true for morality. I have access to other people's stuff all the time... it never occurs to me to steal it. There's no decision there at all. As far as altruism is concerned, what we understand to be altruistic exists even in plants.
Really, as fast as we go with antibiotics it's hard to outpace how fast bacteria evolve. That's the reason we have TB which is nearly immune to all antibiotics.
Are you sure that "God demands faith", couldn't it rather be that there is no evidence for this non-existing God fellow and this entire faith thing is setup to prop the idea up. Honestly, can you think of any premise which the lack of evidence is given such a high priority? If there were any evidence for God, that would mean he exists or doesn't exist? It creates an odd sort of win-win. Evidence or no-evidence is used support the same idea. You could faith Allah into existence as easy as any other gods, Zeus? Just have faith? Brigid? Faith. Thor? Faith.
-- Just seems pretty dumb if you ask me. There's absolutely nothing in the entire universe which suggest this premise could possibly be true... therefore, this premise is true. I'm sure cigarette advertisers wished they had this kind of power. Our cigarettes cause cancer! That's how you know they are good!
Slashdot Mirror
So why bother with the whole death thing? I understand the added baggage of the blood sacrifice, but the entire exercise seems futile if it's done for no reason at all. Wouldn't it have spared people a lot of grief to just ascend to heaven without the whole death thing. I understand the desire to ignore the stupid parts, but they do seem to tie together in the larger theology. And the entire death for sin sake seems to require a literal Adam and Eve story, a literal Jesus, and a literal death (at least for a couple days). There's something noble about remaking your religion into a form you can show your neighbors without too much embarrassment, but I've always thought that if you're throwing out the baby... there's no point keeping the bathwater.
It isn't that this seems to be a small subsection of Christian theology... it seems to be the core.
So Christ didn't die for the sins of mankind. Whew. Because that would have been stupid.
The point of a dictionary is to show how a word is used in general. If enough people misuse a word it should have that definition added. As such, some dictionaries cite a definition of atheist meaning 'wicked'. It isn't the job of dictionaries to provide definitions of how those people who describe themselves with a word use the word. Even though weak atheist is categorically not agnosticism and agnosticism is a completely disconnected claim from one of theism/atheism that isn't the way it is generally understood and thus isn't the way the dictionaries have the word listed. Atheism is without a theistic belief, whether unbelief or disbelief (as disbelief automatically assumes unbelief). Whereas agnosticism is a knowledge claim which, by and large, says nothing about belief in God (one can be agnostic and atheist or theist).
/ overview.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/p
>>>>PPM are not science.
>>Yes, that is my point. Glad you finally discovered it among you snarkery.
You were attempting to draw a distinction between the analogy of PPM and God. Neither are science. That's not a distinction, that's a... what do you call it when things are the same... similarity. I hate to be snarky, but apparently your point is that you are wrong. You should make points which further your own goal in the future, that or get different goals.
Well, Christianity is a religion... the largest religion in fact. I dare say debunking Christianity is about 30% of the job. Also, have you seen the beliefs? Might as well start off with the easy pray (pun intended) first.
Yes. I have actually read all those works. And the Bible, Koran, and Book of Mormon. Now can I say that the very concept of God is so absurd as to not even be amusing? At least concepts like Santa Claus are vaguely coherent. AiG is a joke and anybody who understands the smallest amount of science will join me in chuckling at their nonsense. If you do not, I recommend http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html as a great response to all of their claims. I wouldn't call sitting there with ones fingers in their ears and eyes closed a valid side to an argument. Also, would it be true to say that you do not believe in the Koran because you do not wish the implications of Allah to be brought to bear the way you live? I hear he has fruit like molten metal which the unbelievers are to choke upon in the hereafter for those who make partners unto Allah. Shouldn't that qualify as a side of the argument?
The idea that Christianity and not Christianity are the only sides which exist is nothing short of naive. Really, there is non-religion and thousands of highly silly and contradictory faiths. In short, you are being extremely unfair to the Flying Spaghetti Monster side of the argument. Have you read the Cookbook?
>>I believe in God.
My condolences.
>>The difference with PPM, however, is that I know my belief in God is based on faith.
One could believe PPM would work based on faith.
>>I don't claim it is science.
PPM are not science.
>>God is simply outside the realm of science and the observable material universe.
Many supporters of PPM quite commonly claim that their energy comes from some place outside the realm of traditional science, from outside the observable material universe. And, as such, we have no evidence or reason to suppose that there is anything outside the observable material universe. In fact, the idea seems to be rather absurd, though slightly less absurd than to have a reason to suppose that there is something there that does something here, when by definition that isn't what happens.
I am always amazed by this tu quoque. As if the greatest insult the religious can muster against the non-religious is to call them, religious. The irony is sadly lost to most.
To misapply Occam's razor in such a sense is to really bastardize everything you said or implied. The idea behind "brain in a jar" does require that there is a brain within a jar and that this somehow exists and that there is an extraordinary extremely complex machine feeding you all this information. When, in reality, the idea behind "brain in a jar" requires so many supporting premises that it spirals well beyond the assumption that what you see is what you get. This is in the same thread as concluding that Occam's Razor supports the idea that "God Did It" because all scientific explanations require more than three words, it must be the best explanation out there. As if the matrix within a massive machine isn't necessarily more complex than existence within reality, not simulating a sub-reality.
Faith is nothing more than surrender. A logical fallacy that allows me to accept a belief without evidence. To compare the faith in belief of God with the faith that I am typing on a computer, is nothing short of intellectual abandon.
>>we all will say we think the idea of a god existing is wildly improbable given the evidence, but none I know will say with belief that there is no god.
The idea of God is beyond wildly improbable given the evidence. There is no God. I so define God as to be the Abrahamic sort, which categorically does not and can not exist. In the Spinoza sense, the Scipan sense, or the sun worshiper sense... there may be reason to conclude something else (existence or preference toward non-belief rather than disbelief). But, given the under the general colloquial understand of God, it is absolute fiction. Just as the idea of Santa Claus is wildly improbable enough to justify an active disbelief in such a character.
That said, I reject Christianity because it is based on the idea of blood sacrifice. That in order to clear the original sin of all people who originally didn't sin themselves (but get credit by way of parents), God needed to sacrifice Himself to Himself, to wash away this baggage of a crime against Him that the people themselves never did. And those who did do, didn't know right from wrong at the time.
And to a lesser extent, I am opposed to the idea that this suicidal deity didn't stay dead. I'm to believe that All Mighty God lost the metaphysical equivalent of a round of counterstrike then screams "You did this"-- and I am suppose to love this character for it? And if I don't, he's going to rejoin the server someday 'soon' (though that was a few thousand years ago) and pwn everybody.
Which law of physics is it again which allows unknown entities the ability to fiddle with all aspects of life? Which permits the spontaneous creation of organisms in extremely complex forms which resemble closely what organisms should look like after a billion years of evolution or the like? How is it that an all-good all-knowing god exists while suffering, pain, rape, genocide, natural disasters and all manner of things which are well enough to spring even the most feeble among us to action, aren't deemed worthy by the infinitely strong and infinitely good of some alleviation?
The strong evidence, as I suggested is that this universe, with the trillion trillion stars and one known life-holding planet, with naked apes filled with ego (with large power consuming brains which when damaged causes massive changes to personality) is exactly what we should find in a universe coming into existence by itself 14 billion years ago and undergoing a billion years of evolution. Which, coincidentally is also a universe in which PPM should be impossible.
Well, really, it would seem that the Earth's magnetic field is probably too weak to really provide much power. However, if this individual managed to convert sunlight (very energy rich) into electric power... that would be amazingly useful and would have near limitless potential.
>>"The only analogy I can give is if you had absolute proof that God wasn't real."
There's some really strong evidence that God isn't real. There's no strong evidence that PPM work. In fact, there's a number of things about the universe which strongly suggest that PPM are impossible, just as there's some things which strong suggest God is impossible. Really, even from a 'making an analogy' point of view: this machine is like having proof God exists.
If that's true than we can't really use em. Wouldn't that drain off the magnetic field a bit? Wouldn't that get us bombarded with radiation?
*puts on tin foil hat*
Must protect myself from radiation! Is there nothing this thing can't do!
Well, actually... that's just half the problem. It's so much cheaper to just give the hospitals all the money for the services rendered than to force private citizens to get insurance. I am very opposed to the government requiring us to get certain services unless they are themselves offering the services directly. This law really does just feed the health insurance industry without providing the needed care. We could do the same exact thing without the paperwork and for cheaper if we let Medicare cover it. Really I hate this law. I do, I hate it. And few things are enough to inspire hate in me. Requiring everybody to have health insurance is the worst solution they can have, mostly because it's reasonably close to the best... provide everybody with health care.
Also, I think the government should offer at cost liability car insurance.
What part of a signed and sealed affidavit on a death bed did you not understand? Not only does nobody ever lie on their death bed, he signed an affidavit (that you aren't allowed to see) and if he lied he can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law (considering he's dead this involves not being prosecuted at all).
I mean, would you disbelieve the guy who on his deathbed said that he actually faked those Loch Ness pictures? How about the guy who after he died had his family expose how exactly he faked those nice big foot pictures and tracks?
Well, I knew this guy and have a signed and sealed affidavit from him that their signed and sealed affidavit was acquired by threatening his family.
The damn thing is a trooper. Seriously for the 70 bucks I can clock the thing at 2.7 ghz even though it's base is 1.9. That damned Brisbane core is a trooper. Seriously, it overclocks 42%. Really it's enough for what I do, that I don't bother (also as a downside the chip has poor temp readings, everything says something different so I can't tell a meltdown condition from room temp) -- Honestly, I'd buy another of the $73 if it cost $113 and the $113 was $73.
If the detector used 100% cpu speed on multiple identical labtops. At the end of detection, you could simply see which one processed the most. This would result in the ones with the added blue pill having given this freaky detection manner the fewest clock cycles.
Nearly "immune to all antibiotics" -- There's still a couple in reserve which still tend to work.
Nope it's tool use. That's what makes species win this great species race. It's the only thing we humans have. So it MUST be tool use!
Not only is it tool use... it's male tool use. Sure, if you look back at stone age female tools like fishing nets and sewing needles they obviously don't make humans better than whales (certainly smaller). But male tools. Spears make humans the most awesomest species ever! Guns make humans the most awesomest species ever! Bombs make humans the most awesomest species ever! And if you don't believe that, remember... I have spears, guns and bombs.
>>Your plants example is flawed. The plant doe not chose to release chemicals, they are just programmed to do it.
>>A moral being in a dangerous situation would make reasoned value judgments and sometimes may decide not to warn fellow beings.
Nothing against egoism. But, that's not really the way morality works. It's not exactly like there's this morality thing which we can think ourselves into. It's programmed into us the same way it's programed into plants. Morality is the chief game plan evolution came up with for the given situation. If you think humans sit around thinking trying to make a "reasoned value judgment" in a "dangerous situation" -- you're kidding yourself. The answer is just as easy as the plants triggered reaction. We snap to it and perform the moral action, just as chimps do, just as dogs do, just as plants do. The only difference between them and us is we have this neocortex which after the decision is made, takes credit for it. For example, when a baseball is pitched a batter hit the ball. The decision to hit the ball wasn't conscious. To consciously make that decision would require too much time, so we swing and get the thought of the decision filled in later. The same is true for morality. I have access to other people's stuff all the time... it never occurs to me to steal it. There's no decision there at all. As far as altruism is concerned, what we understand to be altruistic exists even in plants.
Really, as fast as we go with antibiotics it's hard to outpace how fast bacteria evolve. That's the reason we have TB which is nearly immune to all antibiotics.
That's it. It's over. Evolution has jumped the shark.
Are you sure that "God demands faith", couldn't it rather be that there is no evidence for this non-existing God fellow and this entire faith thing is setup to prop the idea up. Honestly, can you think of any premise which the lack of evidence is given such a high priority? If there were any evidence for God, that would mean he exists or doesn't exist? It creates an odd sort of win-win. Evidence or no-evidence is used support the same idea. You could faith Allah into existence as easy as any other gods, Zeus? Just have faith? Brigid? Faith. Thor? Faith.
-- Just seems pretty dumb if you ask me. There's absolutely nothing in the entire universe which suggest this premise could possibly be true... therefore, this premise is true. I'm sure cigarette advertisers wished they had this kind of power. Our cigarettes cause cancer! That's how you know they are good!