$3200/500cd's=$6.40 a cd. Sell it for $10,that's $3.60 profit * 500cd's = $1800 profit plus what your making on gigs plus sponsorship. It's do-able. It's NOT easy. But nothing worth while ever is.
Religion is not science, it does not need to conform to the ideas of science. If someone holds a religious belief and you can't prove them wrong, then their belief is valid. I am aware that you cannot disprove the existence of god as well as the fact that you cannot prove the existance of god. If factual proofs were possible religion wouldn't be a question as it is today. The only proofs available are personal ones which is why the conclusions they reach are deemed beliefs and not facts.
You're scewing the math. You use 1-A as the probability that the green method is correct and then insert that into your equation. But what you need to insert into the equation is the probability of viewing a green cow if green is correct. That probability, depending on which cow worshiper you ask, is going to either be zero or infinitely close to zero. If the existence of a green cow is a 100% certainty the probability of your viewing one is still going to be infinitely close or equal to zero. Hence the prosecutorial fallacy, your probability of zero or infinitely close to zero does not enhance your case because it is identical or infinitly close to the probability determined if the converse is true.
This test was not designed to be applied to this type of situation. The test was designed to determine one probability given another. For instance if we had a farm with two cow pens, one with 100 b/w cows and one with 99 b/w cows and one green cow, and we had one of our farmhands pull a cow out of one of the pens and show it to us, and it happened to be a b/w cow, we could determine the probability for the cow coming from either pen. But the probability of the cow coming from either pen does not prove where the cow came from, nor is the existence of god accurately modeled by a farm with 99 b/w cows and 1 green cow. God cannot be 'pulled from the pen' so to speak. Also the test is intended as a one time test of probability, it should not be applied cumulatively to reduce to zero.
Also, because we are debating whether such beliefs are consistent with reality your test example is misplaced. If god were to come here and answer the question that would certainly prove his existence, but that is not a test that god exists, that is a proof that god exists. It does not qualify as a test because you can't instigate that action. A test to prove gods non-existance would be a situation, that is within your power to create, of which at least one of the outcomes is possible only if there is no god. There is no such situation, so you can't disprove the existence of god. Thus belief in god is valid. You can claim that the god hypothesis smells like bullshit but that is a belief, not a fact. Any conclusions you make based on that belief are no more or less valid then the conclusions made by an individual who believes the opposite.
Also I believe I forgot to respond to this from your previous post:
We are discussing whether religious beliefs should be tolerated. One argument for that is people make their own choice and we ought to respect that. If it happens that people do not make the choice, but are forced to adopt religion, it removes one of the reasons to respect religious beliefs. I think it is very relevant
Someone being forced into a particular religion is outside the scope of this debate because that person does not truly believe, he is forced to live his life as if he believes. If you want to debate that issue we can but I have a feeling that would be a pretty boring debate. Were both going to agree that forcing any belief on anyone is wrong, even christians (at least the non-radical ones) will agree with that. But the possibility of a belief being forced on someone is not a cause to not respect that belief in people who hold it by their own choice. This discussion is about the validity of faith in god vs. the validity in believing that there is no god. I believe them to be equal.
Defense does not need proof. Attack needs proof. For a position to be considered defensible one only needs to be able survive an attack. Your arguments that god does not exist are an attack. But you cannot prove that god does not exist therefore the theorum that god does exist survives the attack.
just because some things are good for some people doesn't mean they will be good for everyone and for society in general
It doesn't mean it's bad either. And again were not talking about christianity in general. This argument stems from a discussion about one persons faith and about the validity on one persons faith. Not about the positive or negative effects of christianity as a whole.
1) Bayes' theorem can only be applied to problems in which all statements are about experimental variables alone, and therefore some non-probabilistic inference mechanism must be used to reason about any other kind of statement. [wiki]
This is not a situation where Bayes' Theorem applies. For starters this is non-probablistic situation. More information then just the probability of god goes into the decision to believe in god. Also you cannot test for the existence of god so any application of those test to the existance of that God is inconclusive. Also refer to the prosecutor's fallacy, even if Bayes theorum applied a low probability of god does not denote a low probability that the belief in god is incorrect.
2) This is not a bifurication because we are talking about a boolean question. Does god exist or does god not exist, yes or no? If I were to say did god create the universe or did the big bang happen that would be a bifurication because of the existence of genisis theories involving neither god nor a big bang. But because I center the issue on the existence of a supreme being all the scientific theories are represented in the choice of non-existance.
3) I brought it up, I don't need to read about it. It was only brought up in passing anyway, certainly not deserving of it's own number; go reread my post.
The theory of green cows includes the existence of black and white cows. Everytime you see a black cow you witness an event that is consistent with both theories, neither probability is reduced.
It wouldn't be any harder to get it to the sun either. All we gotta do is give it a tiny nudge in the right direction. Who cares if it takes 50,000 years to get there?
I think thats a fairly bad attitude. Some people do the best with what they've got. Maybe they don't want to sped the money on a steadycam, maybe the money is better spent on actors. Saving where you can isn't a vice. Also I think directors are talented because they can direct, being a bad executive producer doesn't neccisarily make you a bad director.
I'm not going to argue about the wiki article. All I will say is that changes in articles are reviewed fairly quickly by others. If NPoV is suspect the article will clearly state that. Choose to believe the article or not, its relevence to the discussion is minimal at best.
Allergory is not information, it's merely someone's opinion on some topics... so the information content [of the bible] would be zero.
An allegory is a figurative representation conveying a meaning other than and in addition to the literal. [wiki] (emphasis mine)
Thus the information is there, it just requires interpretation.
there are probably also some people, who were victims of rape and who are better off now because of that
I doubt that, and its a stupid example anyway. You would be hard pressed to make a common sense argument in favor of rape.
If people choose to believe then that is their choice. First of all, very often it's not their choice...
Irrelevent, I'm sure you know why.....
We have a lot of indirect evidence that there is no god and the world is governed by laws of nature
God and the laws of nature are not mutually exclusive. The existance of natural laws does preclude the possibility of a being capable of breaking those laws, nor does it exclude the possibility that a being created those laws in the process of creating our reality. There are two options. a) Reality is infinite, is here, allways has been here, and allways will be here reguardless of whether we or our universe exist in it or not. b) Reality was created by a supreme being. Scientific knowledge has advanced signifigantly in understanding the present state of our reality and the existance/creation of our universe inside that reality. There is not now nor has there ever been any scientific evidence about the genesis of our reality. I would venture a guess that in keeping with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem it is impossible for science to provide us with that knowledge. Anyway, 2 choices, a and b. Neither can be proven nor disproven; neither conflict with our perception of reality. Therefore while you are entitled to believe in your side, your belief is no more valid then the beliefs of those who support the other side.
Capable of being defended != capable of being proven. A defensable position in terms of faith is one that can not be proven incorrect. The fact that they cannot prove their beliefs as true to you is irrelevent. Your beliefs do not affect the validity of their faith.
That would be your interpretation. Christian's obviously see their belief as 'Seemingly or apparently valid' so their interpretation would differ from yours.
The NPoV of the Wiki article is not under suspition. So I tend to take that as a more credible source then you.
The bible was not written by God, I've never met any Christians who seriosly believed that. There's the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament has many authors and is said to be the transcription of many years of oral tradition. Some say that the new testament is said to be written by Jesus's disciples, others say it was written by authors who knew the disciples and recorded their story, sometimes using the others gospels as a source. In either case. I have never met a christian who thought the bible was written by god.
If anything is subject to interpretation, then there is zero information content
Wrong. The bible is considered by most to be allegorical.
And it is my opinion that the net effect of christianity is negative... religion [trys] to sway the society in the wrong direction
That's a perfectly valid opinion, I'm not going to argue that. But it would be a fallacy of division to argue that every individual christian has a negative effect. Also keep in mind that what you consider to be the wrong direction does not coincide with what they consider to be the wrong direction.
Getting back to the central issue. I'm not saying anyone should be christian. I'm not even christian. All I'm saying is that there is no undisputable evidence either for or against the faith. If people choose to believe then that is their choice. Their belief that God does exist is no more valid then anothers belief that god doesn't exist.
Taking out the taxes beforehand is just a better idea on the whole. The goverment gets the same amount of money, people can't accidentally spend what they owe in taxes, and as stupid as it may sound its easyer on people too see that slip away in small bits instead of having to hand it over in one huge check. It's just all around a better idea.
Slashdot Mirror
$3200/500cd's=$6.40 a cd. Sell it for $10,that's $3.60 profit * 500cd's = $1800 profit plus what your making on gigs plus sponsorship. It's do-able. It's NOT easy. But nothing worth while ever is.
They sue us when we do that.
XM radio is kick ass as it is. If that were physically possible with their format it would fucking soar.
Religion is not science, it does not need to conform to the ideas of science. If someone holds a religious belief and you can't prove them wrong, then their belief is valid. I am aware that you cannot disprove the existence of god as well as the fact that you cannot prove the existance of god. If factual proofs were possible religion wouldn't be a question as it is today. The only proofs available are personal ones which is why the conclusions they reach are deemed beliefs and not facts.
This test was not designed to be applied to this type of situation. The test was designed to determine one probability given another. For instance if we had a farm with two cow pens, one with 100 b/w cows and one with 99 b/w cows and one green cow, and we had one of our farmhands pull a cow out of one of the pens and show it to us, and it happened to be a b/w cow, we could determine the probability for the cow coming from either pen. But the probability of the cow coming from either pen does not prove where the cow came from, nor is the existence of god accurately modeled by a farm with 99 b/w cows and 1 green cow. God cannot be 'pulled from the pen' so to speak. Also the test is intended as a one time test of probability, it should not be applied cumulatively to reduce to zero.
Also, because we are debating whether such beliefs are consistent with reality your test example is misplaced. If god were to come here and answer the question that would certainly prove his existence, but that is not a test that god exists, that is a proof that god exists. It does not qualify as a test because you can't instigate that action. A test to prove gods non-existance would be a situation, that is within your power to create, of which at least one of the outcomes is possible only if there is no god. There is no such situation, so you can't disprove the existence of god. Thus belief in god is valid. You can claim that the god hypothesis smells like bullshit but that is a belief, not a fact. Any conclusions you make based on that belief are no more or less valid then the conclusions made by an individual who believes the opposite.
Also I believe I forgot to respond to this from your previous post:
We are discussing whether religious beliefs should be tolerated. One argument for that is people make their own choice and we ought to respect that. If it happens that people do not make the choice, but are forced to adopt religion, it removes one of the reasons to respect religious beliefs. I think it is very relevant
Someone being forced into a particular religion is outside the scope of this debate because that person does not truly believe, he is forced to live his life as if he believes. If you want to debate that issue we can but I have a feeling that would be a pretty boring debate. Were both going to agree that forcing any belief on anyone is wrong, even christians (at least the non-radical ones) will agree with that. But the possibility of a belief being forced on someone is not a cause to not respect that belief in people who hold it by their own choice. This discussion is about the validity of faith in god vs. the validity in believing that there is no god. I believe them to be equal.
Defense does not need proof. Attack needs proof. For a position to be considered defensible one only needs to be able survive an attack. Your arguments that god does not exist are an attack. But you cannot prove that god does not exist therefore the theorum that god does exist survives the attack.
It doesn't mean it's bad either. And again were not talking about christianity in general. This argument stems from a discussion about one persons faith and about the validity on one persons faith. Not about the positive or negative effects of christianity as a whole.
1) Bayes' theorem can only be applied to problems in which all statements are about experimental variables alone, and therefore some non-probabilistic inference mechanism must be used to reason about any other kind of statement. [wiki]
This is not a situation where Bayes' Theorem applies. For starters this is non-probablistic situation. More information then just the probability of god goes into the decision to believe in god. Also you cannot test for the existence of god so any application of those test to the existance of that God is inconclusive. Also refer to the prosecutor's fallacy, even if Bayes theorum applied a low probability of god does not denote a low probability that the belief in god is incorrect.
2) This is not a bifurication because we are talking about a boolean question. Does god exist or does god not exist, yes or no? If I were to say did god create the universe or did the big bang happen that would be a bifurication because of the existence of genisis theories involving neither god nor a big bang. But because I center the issue on the existence of a supreme being all the scientific theories are represented in the choice of non-existance.
3) I brought it up, I don't need to read about it. It was only brought up in passing anyway, certainly not deserving of it's own number; go reread my post.
The theory of green cows includes the existence of black and white cows. Everytime you see a black cow you witness an event that is consistent with both theories, neither probability is reduced.
I don't think is intended for the type of filmmaker who's going to have a seperate director and cinematographer.
They believe it to be true and they cannot be proven wrong. That is a defensible position.
I've already said there are bad songs that I like.
Things wouldn't decompose on the moon.
It wouldn't be any harder to get it to the sun either. All we gotta do is give it a tiny nudge in the right direction. Who cares if it takes 50,000 years to get there?
I think thats a fairly bad attitude. Some people do the best with what they've got. Maybe they don't want to sped the money on a steadycam, maybe the money is better spent on actors. Saving where you can isn't a vice. Also I think directors are talented because they can direct, being a bad executive producer doesn't neccisarily make you a bad director.
Allergory is not information, it's merely someone's opinion on some topics ... so the information content [of the bible] would be zero.
An allegory is a figurative representation conveying a meaning other than and in addition to the literal. [wiki] (emphasis mine)
Thus the information is there, it just requires interpretation.
there are probably also some people, who were victims of rape and who are better off now because of that
I doubt that, and its a stupid example anyway. You would be hard pressed to make a common sense argument in favor of rape.
If people choose to believe then that is their choice.
First of all, very often it's not their choice...
Irrelevent, I'm sure you know why.....
We have a lot of indirect evidence that there is no god and the world is governed by laws of nature
God and the laws of nature are not mutually exclusive. The existance of natural laws does preclude the possibility of a being capable of breaking those laws, nor does it exclude the possibility that a being created those laws in the process of creating our reality. There are two options. a) Reality is infinite, is here, allways has been here, and allways will be here reguardless of whether we or our universe exist in it or not. b) Reality was created by a supreme being. Scientific knowledge has advanced signifigantly in understanding the present state of our reality and the existance/creation of our universe inside that reality. There is not now nor has there ever been any scientific evidence about the genesis of our reality. I would venture a guess that in keeping with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem it is impossible for science to provide us with that knowledge. Anyway, 2 choices, a and b. Neither can be proven nor disproven; neither conflict with our perception of reality. Therefore while you are entitled to believe in your side, your belief is no more valid then the beliefs of those who support the other side.
1. Grass can't jump.
Oh the horror.... I can see it now... a "Beware of Grass" sign on every lawn....
Capable of being defended != capable of being proven. A defensable position in terms of faith is one that can not be proven incorrect. The fact that they cannot prove their beliefs as true to you is irrelevent. Your beliefs do not affect the validity of their faith.
The point of the article is that you can make this for only 14 bucks. If you ship it for 100 that kinda defeats said point...
So if you don't have the money to it "right" you shouldn't try?? That seems off...
That would be your interpretation. Christian's obviously see their belief as 'Seemingly or apparently valid' so their interpretation would differ from yours.
The bible was not written by God, I've never met any Christians who seriosly believed that. There's the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament has many authors and is said to be the transcription of many years of oral tradition. Some say that the new testament is said to be written by Jesus's disciples, others say it was written by authors who knew the disciples and recorded their story, sometimes using the others gospels as a source. In either case. I have never met a christian who thought the bible was written by god.
If anything is subject to interpretation, then there is zero information content
Wrong. The bible is considered by most to be allegorical.
And it is my opinion that the net effect of christianity is negative ... religion [trys] to sway the society in the wrong direction
That's a perfectly valid opinion, I'm not going to argue that. But it would be a fallacy of division to argue that every individual christian has a negative effect. Also keep in mind that what you consider to be the wrong direction does not coincide with what they consider to be the wrong direction.
Getting back to the central issue. I'm not saying anyone should be christian. I'm not even christian. All I'm saying is that there is no undisputable evidence either for or against the faith. If people choose to believe then that is their choice. Their belief that God does exist is no more valid then anothers belief that god doesn't exist.
There's too many reporters in the world to keep track of.
By your standards it does. But your standards do not apply to their beliefs.
Again, proof is not a reasonable requirment for a credible belief.
Taking out the taxes beforehand is just a better idea on the whole. The goverment gets the same amount of money, people can't accidentally spend what they owe in taxes, and as stupid as it may sound its easyer on people too see that slip away in small bits instead of having to hand it over in one huge check. It's just all around a better idea.