It's perfectly OK and equally 'intelligent' to assume a God or assume no God.
Whether it's OK or not depends on how your belief in a God manifests itself. If it causes harm, or lends credence to an organization that causes harm, then it is not OK.
As for equally intelligent, then by your argument it is equally intelligent to believe in any remotely feasible proposition. Like Santa Claus. And that's just ridiculous.
Re:EVERYONE IS SPECIAL! ALL LIFE IS MAGIC!!!!111
on
Is the Earth Special?
·
· Score: 1
The better answer is to say that we don't know... because the likelihood of extraterrestrial intelligence that is typically used is only extrapolated mathematically from the information that we have. But because of the size of the data set that we have relative to the actual size of the cosmos, the probability for error in that regard is, by my understanding, roughly equivalent to anticipating the results of a random coin toss.
Which is 50/50. I don't agree with your statement, but even those odds are hugely greater that the possibility that there is a God.
Simply put... we just don't know. And that's a *FAR* more truthful answer than "no"... or "yes", for that matter.
As things currently sit, based on our understanding of the universe, we might as well be the only intelligent beings in the whole cosmos, and so the answer might as well be no, even if such an answer turns out to be false. But if that actually were the case, and we were unique, then nothing would have any real reason to change. For some, such uniqueness might even be a compelling reason to believe in a god, but it is hardly irrefutable proof of even that.
Very very very far from irrefutable.
The way things currently sit, based on all the evidence that we have accumulated so far, and without any mathematical extrapolation, Earth does, indeed, appear to be special... We have not found any other worlds like it to date. And while our inability to do so might only be because of the limitations on extrasolar planet detection technology, that limitation is hardly remotely conclusive proof that such undetected earth-like planets actually do exist.
Not irrefutable, until we find one, but as with the argument that there is a god being very very very (I know, subjective) unlikely, the likelihood that there are other planets like Earth are almost certain.
So, that "we don't know" is an argument that the extremely unlikely can be held up against what is most likely on even terms? This is what your argument suggests. We haven't found many worlds, they are hard to find. So far there have been ~1,235 unconfirmed planetary candidates including 54 that may be in the habitable zone. Six candidates in this zone were thought to be smaller than twice the size of Earth
It's likely that there are a huge number planets that could support life, and it's also highly likely, I'd say almost certain, that many do.
That we "don't know" is not a better answer, it merely suggests a remote possibility. Not something to base an analysis on and not something that should be considered in an intelligent debate.
Maybe, but it's pretty obvious that the GP to your post is anti-Christian.
Just like reality. Ok, reality isn't anti-christian, it's just that christian beliefs are disproved by reality.
Not anti-Christian, anti-religion. It is generally "morally" upheld that people have a right to their beliefs. I see not harm in this, as long as their "beliefs" do no harm. It wouldn't be difficult to propose a set of beliefs that most would immediately reject, but this does not seem to be the case with religion. For some reason it gets a free pass. People uphold the good things in religion as an argument that excuses the bad things. They do not. That religion espouses some good things does not excuse all the harm that it has done and continues to be done in the name of a superior being.
How 'bout Einsteins "Magic Man in the Sky"? I recall his profession to the effect of "not believing that there 'couldn't' be a God".
The whole quote: I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.
By Spinoza's God he basically means nature, not a religious god. It's hard to resist using Einstein as an authority, but religious people keep missing the boat there. Einstein did not believe in an omniscient god.
For instance, I know that time is relative. If Genisis' time-frame is relative to Gods perspective we can accept the possibility of 7 days to
Same applies to 7 seconds or 7 millennia. If you propose that the scale is meaningless, so is any argument referring to it,
yesterday I even saw something about rats having
empathy).
Yes, that was interesting. How come they can't go to heaven then? But people are more concerned about their dogs. If lawyers can go to heaven, why not dogs?:) Human traits like awareness and morality in animals is something most theists would consider the highest form of heresy.
Like Thomas Jefferson, my faith is know only to me
and my creator and it involves questioning everything, differentiating between thoughts,feelings,knowledge and belief.
Jefferson rejected the church. While he did sustain a belief in a higher entity, I tend to believe that were he alive today, with the body of science that we have discovered since his time, it's likely that he would reject this as well.
Maybe Einstein was on to something there.
I tend to side with his (Spinozan) humanist notion that the likelihood of the religious god is close to nil. It's unfortunate that people, even great people, associate the wonders of nature with a concept that is so easily misused. Which is why I avoid it.
The argument that it is impossible to disprove something does not support the argument, it is a statement of uncertainty. There are many things that are uncertain, almost everything in fact. This doesn't have us running around believing in the infinite number of extremely unlikely things. Nor should it. That there is a remote possibility of a god is meaningless in this context. See the teapot argument.
It was hard to believe anyone would needed a calculator for 47 * 3,
Though I got the triangle one wrong, but realised it as soon as I clicked to get the answers, Its been too long since I used any real graph, I forgot I would only be putting one axis into the negative!
If it's any consolation, I almost flipped on the wrong axis. But I reviewed the question and corrected it. I work with coordinate geometry most days.
The lady I buy bus tickets from (Who is VERY sweet) told me a couple days ago that she is amazed that the school kids she sells stuff to can't count their money.
Contrary to popular belief you will not die if you are not able to operate a telephone computer device for the length of a day.
My daughter disagrees with you. She has lost several phones. Each loss is superceded by a grave illness, the cure for which can only be the acquisition of another phone.
And yet again, another atheist insists on posting religious flamebait in a thread that has nothing whatever to do with religion. God damned fanatics. Your religious trolling would be much more effective on a religious site, you'd piss far more people off.
Nah ah, I'm hear jest for you. Your special, like tha erth.
Now, someone obsessed with proving the unprovable might worry about intelligent design. But for me, intelligent design let's science do it's work. I don't fight it or try and prove the unprovable. Let them be.
Why try to prove the unprovable. Have faith!
Why? 'cause the bible proves that there is a God. We all know that. And Superman comics prove that there is a superman.
I want to be there when they meet. That's gonna be awesome. What with Superman spending all his time saving us from natural disasters. He's gonna be pissed at God.
This is all ridiculous. Everyone knows that ll of these things were engineered by the magic man in the sky. He is omnipotent, he can do anything, he loves us...
(to us Australians who aren't afraid of the human body, this seem pants on head retarded).
Is that the same Australia where a couple were arrested, tried and convicted for having sex in the lounge of their house, not visible from the street? When an off duty cop entered their garden 'looking for his lost dog' and saw them through the window?
And the cop was convicted of trespassing and voyeurism?
Please, stop spreading FUD. Where does it say in the article that you lose root access to HARDWARE?
Besides... simple solution... don't buy apps through the Windows Store. Don't install/use Windows 8 if it can't install/use normal software not purchased from the Store (they won't lock this down, it would kill the platform).
This is assuming that you are programming C# code in C# style, and actually utilizing the new namespaces / classes / functions that are available to you.
So when you say migrate, what you really mean is rewrite.
Not everyone has their home wired so that they can stream to a large screen television downstairs.
True, it does involve installing a cable and knowing how to use a computer. People who are a regular watchers of big media television don't have these capabilities.
Well, it does work nicely, albeit a) more slowly than Chrome and b) it tends to crash for stupid reasons (most often while typing up a comment on Facebook; then again, maybe the universe is trying to tell me something).
I do wish Firefox would implement Chrome’s method of auto-updating in the background (thus eliminating the wait at startup) and finally stop one tab or extension from crashing the whole browser.
I haven't had it crash on me, I run it on Linux boxes.
I use all of the browsers for dev, for personal use I use two, Firefox and Chrome.
Firefox for personal browsing. I can't see that changing any time soon. Chrome for HTML5.
Firefox beats the rest at privacy and user control hands down. As far as I'm concerned that makes it the best browser. Maybe they should keep all that and switch to webkit as an engine?
Slashdot Mirror
It's perfectly OK and equally 'intelligent' to assume a God or assume no God.
Whether it's OK or not depends on how your belief in a God manifests itself. If it causes harm, or lends credence to an organization that causes harm, then it is not OK.
As for equally intelligent, then by your argument it is equally intelligent to believe in any remotely feasible proposition. Like Santa Claus. And that's just ridiculous.
The better answer is to say that we don't know... because the likelihood of extraterrestrial intelligence that is typically used is only extrapolated mathematically from the information that we have. But because of the size of the data set that we have relative to the actual size of the cosmos, the probability for error in that regard is, by my understanding, roughly equivalent to anticipating the results of a random coin toss.
Which is 50/50. I don't agree with your statement, but even those odds are hugely greater that the possibility that there is a God.
Simply put... we just don't know. And that's a *FAR* more truthful answer than "no"... or "yes", for that matter.
As things currently sit, based on our understanding of the universe, we might as well be the only intelligent beings in the whole cosmos, and so the answer might as well be no, even if such an answer turns out to be false. But if that actually were the case, and we were unique, then nothing would have any real reason to change. For some, such uniqueness might even be a compelling reason to believe in a god, but it is hardly irrefutable proof of even that.
Very very very far from irrefutable.
The way things currently sit, based on all the evidence that we have accumulated so far, and without any mathematical extrapolation, Earth does, indeed, appear to be special... We have not found any other worlds like it to date. And while our inability to do so might only be because of the limitations on extrasolar planet detection technology, that limitation is hardly remotely conclusive proof that such undetected earth-like planets actually do exist.
Not irrefutable, until we find one, but as with the argument that there is a god being very very very (I know, subjective) unlikely, the likelihood that there are other planets like Earth are almost certain.
So, that "we don't know" is an argument that the extremely unlikely can be held up against what is most likely on even terms? This is what your argument suggests. We haven't found many worlds, they are hard to find. So far there have been ~1,235 unconfirmed planetary candidates including 54 that may be in the habitable zone. Six candidates in this zone were thought to be smaller than twice the size of Earth
It's likely that there are a huge number planets that could support life, and it's also highly likely, I'd say almost certain, that many do.
That we "don't know" is not a better answer, it merely suggests a remote possibility. Not something to base an analysis on and not something that should be considered in an intelligent debate.
Maybe, but it's pretty obvious that the GP to your post is anti-Christian.
Just like reality. Ok, reality isn't anti-christian, it's just that christian beliefs are disproved by reality.
Not anti-Christian, anti-religion. It is generally "morally" upheld that people have a right to their beliefs. I see not harm in this, as long as their "beliefs" do no harm. It wouldn't be difficult to propose a set of beliefs that most would immediately reject, but this does not seem to be the case with religion. For some reason it gets a free pass. People uphold the good things in religion as an argument that excuses the bad things. They do not. That religion espouses some good things does not excuse all the harm that it has done and continues to be done in the name of a superior being.
How 'bout Einsteins "Magic Man in the Sky"? I recall his profession to the effect of "not believing that there 'couldn't' be a God".
The whole quote: I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.
By Spinoza's God he basically means nature, not a religious god. It's hard to resist using Einstein as an authority, but religious people keep missing the boat there. Einstein did not believe in an omniscient god.
For instance, I know that time is relative. If Genisis' time-frame is relative to Gods perspective we can accept the possibility of 7 days to
Same applies to 7 seconds or 7 millennia. If you propose that the scale is meaningless, so is any argument referring to it,
yesterday I even saw something about rats having
empathy).
Yes, that was interesting. How come they can't go to heaven then? But people are more concerned about their dogs. If lawyers can go to heaven, why not dogs? :) Human traits like awareness and morality in animals is something most theists would consider the highest form of heresy.
Like Thomas Jefferson, my faith is know only to me
and my creator and it involves questioning everything, differentiating between thoughts,feelings,knowledge and belief.
Jefferson rejected the church. While he did sustain a belief in a higher entity, I tend to believe that were he alive today, with the body of science that we have discovered since his time, it's likely that he would reject this as well.
Maybe Einstein was on to something there.
I tend to side with his (Spinozan) humanist notion that the likelihood of the religious god is close to nil. It's unfortunate that people, even great people, associate the wonders of nature with a concept that is so easily misused. Which is why I avoid it.
The argument that it is impossible to disprove something does not support the argument, it is a statement of uncertainty. There are many things that are uncertain, almost everything in fact. This doesn't have us running around believing in the infinite number of extremely unlikely things. Nor should it. That there is a remote possibility of a god is meaningless in this context. See the teapot argument.
Then religious people get defensive and fight back.
So I troll sometimes, sue me.
Pretty slim pickings around here.
With a topic like "Is the Earth Special?" I figured there would be more sport. Alas, not on /.
It was hard to believe anyone would needed a calculator for 47 * 3,
Though I got the triangle one wrong, but realised it as soon as I clicked to get the answers, Its been too long since I used any real graph, I forgot I would only be putting one axis into the negative!
If it's any consolation, I almost flipped on the wrong axis. But I reviewed the question and corrected it. I work with coordinate geometry most days.
The lady I buy bus tickets from (Who is VERY sweet) told me a couple days ago that she is amazed that the school kids she sells stuff to can't count their money.
Contrary to popular belief you will not die if you are not able to operate a telephone computer device for the length of a day.
My daughter disagrees with you. She has lost several phones. Each loss is superceded by a grave illness, the cure for which can only be the acquisition of another phone.
And yet again, another atheist insists on posting religious flamebait in a thread that has nothing whatever to do with religion. God damned fanatics. Your religious trolling would be much more effective on a religious site, you'd piss far more people off.
Nah ah, I'm hear jest for you. Your special, like tha erth.
My favourite licence plate said :
Ontario
WOMEN
Yours to Discover
What are the odds of THAT!
Now, someone obsessed with proving the unprovable might worry about intelligent design. But for me, intelligent design let's science do it's work. I don't fight it or try and prove the unprovable. Let them be.
Why try to prove the unprovable. Have faith!
Why? 'cause the bible proves that there is a God. We all know that. And Superman comics prove that there is a superman.
I want to be there when they meet. That's gonna be awesome. What with Superman spending all his time saving us from natural disasters. He's gonna be pissed at God.
This is all ridiculous. Everyone knows that ll of these things were engineered by the magic man in the sky. He is omnipotent, he can do anything, he loves us...
AND HE NEEDS MONEY!
I thought this was going to be an article about the current election cycle.
You must have focused on the word 'rodent', and missed the terms 'empathy' and 'human'.
It's an easy mistake, anyone could have made it.
I give, filtering AC's out.
(to us Australians who aren't afraid of the human body, this seem pants on head retarded).
Is that the same Australia where a couple were arrested, tried and convicted for having sex in the lounge of their house, not visible from the street? When an off duty cop entered their garden 'looking for his lost dog' and saw them through the window?
And the cop was convicted of trespassing and voyeurism?
Please, stop spreading FUD. Where does it say in the article that you lose root access to HARDWARE?
Besides... simple solution... don't buy apps through the Windows Store. Don't install/use Windows 8 if it can't install/use normal software not purchased from the Store (they won't lock this down, it would kill the platform).
Better still, don't use windows.
This is assuming that you are programming C# code in C# style, and actually utilizing the new namespaces / classes / functions that are available to you.
So when you say migrate, what you really mean is rewrite.
Not everyone has their home wired so that they can stream to a large screen television downstairs.
True, it does involve installing a cable and knowing how to use a computer. People who are a regular watchers of big media television don't have these capabilities.
TV? Is that the thing that my computer and PS3 are hooked up to?
LOL! My setup exactly. Nice big HDTV hooked to puter and PS3, never once played a commercial.
Chrome is given one responsibility... manage my Google Account including E-mail and Calendar
That's an idea worth considering. GMail sucks on FFx.
Oh piss off. He made a completely valid point and you killed the possibility of rational conversation with your bullshit.
Both points are perfectly valid and worthy of discussion.
Because user GoogleChromeAndroidFTW on some discussion board told me that Firefox still sucks.
That way I don't have to evaluate it myself.
The NaziOldLadiesMustDieFTW discussion board says it's time for your Granny to die. Be a good lad and pull the plug will you?
You guys are such hypocrites.
LOL! Anonymously calling people hypocrites.
+3
Well, it does work nicely, albeit a) more slowly than Chrome and b) it tends to crash for stupid reasons (most often while typing up a comment on Facebook; then again, maybe the universe is trying to tell me something).
I do wish Firefox would implement Chrome’s method of auto-updating in the background (thus eliminating the wait at startup) and finally stop one tab or extension from crashing the whole browser.
I haven't had it crash on me, I run it on Linux boxes.
I use all of the browsers for dev, for personal use I use two, Firefox and Chrome.
Firefox for personal browsing. I can't see that changing any time soon. Chrome for HTML5.
Firefox beats the rest at privacy and user control hands down. As far as I'm concerned that makes it the best browser. Maybe they should keep all that and switch to webkit as an engine?
I like that idea.