It's not about societal influence methinks. Your male ego refuses to acknowledge the attractiveness of the male to the other sex just like many women make fun of other women in an envious manner - a part of our egoistical nature that would require you look into the idea of the "ego" itself and how it may have helped survival. Add into that the relationship (the very strong relationship) between dominance and sex and you will see why males may have trouble admitting being attracted to a guy, although, like you said, we all seem to fit in part of a spectrum of masculinity and feminine desire (as opposed to absolute identity). This dominance issue is also behind all the hatred for male gays I believe, including religious prejudice. Even in nature, dogs, bisons..etc will attempt to assert their complete victory in battle by sodomizing the defeated individual. It is the ultimate expression of dominance. People in some jails will understand this. And while intercourse between males actually involves penetration (of a "filthy" tract) by genital organs, it is not the case with females, unless you are talking about plastic "toys". Needless to say, feelings between homosexuals are far more intricate, but that's how people perceive "gayness" all around the world.
Gay females are generally not considered sexy globally, unless you are talking about porn or something related. In fact, the hormonal makeup required for many females to be "gay" produces some pretty weird effects on their facial complexions and of course the body. Lesbians are glamorized in pornographic productions because the male ego makes it much easier to be aroused when there is no other male in the environment. Females do not seem to care either way. It's a very complex part of psychology, but it definitely is not exclusively American.
First of all, human evolution and the state you are in right now was only possible due to the mechanisms of reproduction that you apparently don't see any value in. If the world was entirely gay, we would be wiped out in one single life cycle. Homosexuality is evolutionary suicide, and it doesn't matter whether you like that or not. Gay people are inherently able but not willing to reproduce naturally because their inherent sexual attraction(a major factor in reproduction) is to members of their own gender, meaning they would have to go against their feelings and reproduce 1984 style if they "wanted children". It is a sick idea. I would not want a gay person to have to do that, and that is why I think it is very unfortunate to be attracted sexually to your own gender. I say this even though I strongly defend gay rights and readily respect anyone regardless of what they hump, so if you take offense at that then that is your own damn problem.
While strengthening the gene pool (the GP argument)may not be paramount, and your choice of how to reproduce may not be anybody else's business, it is probably not wise to jump on completely revolutionary methods like these without understanding the consequences they may have on the offspring. Anything that deviates from the normal in highly evolved species like ourselves tends to be very destructive.
And since I'm throwing political correctness out the window, allow me to add that the male phallus was not evolved to be inserted into the digestive tract, and that females using hand made tools that mimic male organs to have sex is pretty funny, and that things CAN be both natural (i.e occuring in nature) but abnormal (i.e non-ideal and even destructive from a biological viewpoint) at the same time.
Re:I thought those things were already broken
on
Yahoo CAPTCHA Hacked
·
· Score: 1
That's got to be just about the funniest thing ever:)
'Another threatened to rape and sodomize her, the documents said."
Hmm, I didn't know you could sodomize a woman! I thought that was strictly a male activity. Do court documents have to be as specific as to what exact orifice the guy threatened to penetrate? Highly entertaining stuff.
Way to go with that website. Not only is the music good(some of the work is fantastic actually), but the philosophy behind the whole thing is very worthy of mod points, and page hits, and large-scale fame.
After looking through your "production" section though, I couldn't really find a specific place where you discussed equipment, recording, software and/or a basic setup that artists who wanted to produce for themselves could use. This would be very valuable info, especially as most of the artists on the "RPM" awards linked in today's article seem to be a little..lacking on recording skills, among other things.
Does anyone else here also have experience with recording/mixing decent quality music outside a studio environment using minimal software and cheap equipment? Any help would be appreciated.
John W. Dozier, Jr., Esq., President of Dozier Internet Law, PC, was not surprised by the decision.
Of course he wasn't: it was in Idaho that this happened. The state that has more cows than people. I am not about to gasp anytime soon.
Meanwhile, the judge obviously has no idea whatsoever what copyright means or was devised for. I know you're in Idaho, but have an idea out there, moron. The intellectual property of the lawyer (assuming he has any) is not protected by this law. It is not in any way relevant to this law. And reading that article, I was seriously starting to get scared when the journalists in that incognito paper began using terms like "'free speech' groups" in actual quotes, like there was some sort of profound controversy over the matter at hand, and normal people like ourselves are suddenly part of a fringe mentality that embodies itself in organised "groups" of extremists. George f*cking Orwell, baby. You get an unsolicited letter in the mail threatening you, and you can't let other people know?
That is not the same as what I said and I invite you to study the problem of induction in greater detail. Actually, I think that is exactly what you were saying. You wanted to know what evidence we had of the past being representative of the future (universe tomorrow being the same as today). This is a common question to anyone who has studied machine learning, followed statisticians' debates or even done some casual reading on the matter. I answered by giving you the basic idea of evidence we had, from the definition of what evidence means. I also pointed out how we have used that evidence to build a tangibly successful model of the universe. Science: it works, bitches:)
http://xkcd.com/54/
Indeed and I agree we ought to use it--but we do not know that it tells us anything about the real world as it actually exists (cf Kant). Kant came a long time ago. We are not interested today in illusions and bizarre tricks being played on our minds, we are interested in reproducible experiments and extremely accurate and falsifiable predictions, that can be verified in that same universe by those same minds. We are modeling what the universe seems to be and how it behaves, not what it is in some abstract philosophical meta-universe. Maybe our quest will lead us their too, our of mathematical necessity, but we are pursuing the only rational thing we can pursue. Our evidence that we have done the right thing and made sensible claims by looking at the world around us, is again: human scientific achievement (and the civilization built on it).
My purpose here, as I said, is to respond to the assertion that scientists "know" and "can prove" everything they believe, and that conversely, that scientists refrain from making assumptions that lack an empirical or rational basis. The fact is, it's impossible to do so. "Know" and "prove" mean different things to the physicist than the mathematician. The mathematic axioms that allow you to use logic to make provably correct statements do not exist (until now) in the physical world. Axioms are inferred empirically, and we've already talked about that. When I say "know" I mean according to all the available information, and despite all efforts to prove you wrong, both empirically and mathematically. Science is always logical and always rational. We would not be able to pursue it otherwise. The universe may have illogical and probabilistic foundations, yes, but science as a method does not. That's why it works. That's why we have been able to play golf on the moon.
"Beliefs" in religion are a very different thing, therefore, than "beliefs" in science. The former are by definition irrational, the latter are not.
If you can give an example of just one "irrational" or baseless assumption an established scientific theory has made, you are en route to a Nobel Prize.
These are not without evidence. The universe has always acted such that in time t+1 it had properties satisfying theorems based on observations made in time t. In fact, that's how we are able to do science. There is no reason compelling us to believe otherwise, whereas our human civilization (the tangible achievements of our science) compels us to believe thus. We have made predictions about the universe that invariably held the test of time. It is an absurd question that you chose to ask, and even if for some reason I couldn't prove it, that doesn't mean the nonsensical and logically flawed philosophy of religion is on par with the scientific method because of your little nitpick on what could be provably unknowable statements.
As for empirical observtion being an accurate way of knowing things about the world, it is the only option we have at the moment. Once we do compose a complete theory we will be able to reason mathematically from scratch, but right now we need hard evidence about the world FROM the world. And given the fact that you can post here on slashdot today due to the accumulative result of human achievement based on empirical observation as a starting point, I'd say it's a pretty darn good system we have. It sure as hell beats pulling crap out of texts written by lunatics thousands of years ago.
Now compare that to the "assumptions" (more like outrages) made by religion. Any religion. And remember that faith by definition defies reason. You will see that our conversation is not really on track at all.
"I will say this again: religion and science do not have to be mutually exclusive. "
Of course they do. They are completely different things. Any statement religion makes about the world is either unscientific or totally abstract so as to avoid collision with science. In the past, this collision stuff didn't matter because religion could just torture the scientists in jail for saying the truth. Now it's all about engineering statements that appeal to the layman while being vague enough to not be held accountable.
"Your view of God as some guy playing the Sims only works if you do not believe God is our father"
Err.. what? Very funny by the way. I hope you can see how comical this all is. I don't care if some goof think He's our father or our mother or some 3-in-1 shampoo mix of fathers and sons and deities, or maybe some distant cousin with a grudge. The central tenet of all these faiths that have god being oh-so-pissed about you not believing in him is that he has a mentality of a child. He wants you to "believe" in him and not all the other millions of versions of him, or he'll put you in hell. And if your'e christian, that version holds that he popped you into existence with "sin" inherited from people youve never seen. And if you're jewish, you are chosen because god likes some racial profiles and not others. Muslims also have some great stuff. Sounds like The Sims to me.
Gimme a break. I dont mean to insult you, man. I swear I don't. I am happy that you are happy in your belief, whatever it is. I just want to point out why people find it comical to believe in a deity in this day and age, let alone let the religious institution that did so much to hamper the advance of science, come to speak at a university.
These are principles not beliefs. They are elevated to this level due to millions of empirical observations that give us cause to assert they are true. The universe, for the most part, obeys causality and is rational, leading us to hold such "beliefs" while being able to make falsifiable predictions based on them, and deducing other "beliefs" which also involve the real world around us and are similarly falsifiable. We do not want them to be true, and in fact we abandon them every time a great discovery is made.
Big difference between that and the bullshit some priest pulls out of his ass. I wouldn't mind very much if the clergy stuck to the invisible world of souls and bearded gods and heavens and hell and angels with wings. But they won't - they have to go around talking about things that do not concern them or their "reasoning" in the least. Leave science to its people.
A system of thought that produces 99.99999% accurate predictions can easily ridicule one that is not based on any form of acceptable logic let alone making falsifiable predictions. Certainty will only come with a theory of everything based, on mathematical axioms that are correct by definition. Lack of such a theory does not mean I believe in any silly nonsense thrown at me by any one of the millions of religions out there.
"Circumstantial evidence" is ultimately what gets you on slashdot here today. It's a very big phrase. It gives you truths, and apparent truths, and the entirety of human civilization. Religion gives you bullshit. There is no basis for a comparison.
PS: If I can't ridicule the silliness of religious theology and the invariably laughable premise of 'belief' and existence, as outlined in my previous post, then I might as well go shoot myself right now. I'm sorry, but no educated adult can take that crap with a straight face.
That's easy to say now, hundreds of years after Galileo was threatened with torture and death for it by the catholic Inquisition, eh? And no I'm not Catholic, nor do I believe in friends in the sky in general.
So matters of faith don't involve things clearly laid out in the bible (like geocentricism) but pertaining to the world around us? Wonderful. That just means the pope is infallible on matters involving philosophical debate on invisible things, which is just great. I am also infallible on these domains. Just watch me.
That's probably because "beliefs" don't take up much time in the day of a rational, sane scientist. Either you know something (and can "prove" it) or you don't. Everything in between is called the scientific method (and that includes mathematical reasoning from principles, such as Einsteins relativity theorems).
Making up (or "believing", or getting handed down from ancient texts) some absurd, senseless claims about the world being under effect from an unseen being who "created" a universe larger than human conception to play a sick version of SimCity with us to justify a predefined ending in which billions of people get sadistic torture in hell "for ever" because they "believe" otherwise, is just stupid. It's not just about coherence - it's way beyond that. It's comical. The whole idea of "belief" itself defies reason. And when it involves gods with the minds of six-year-olds, it really does not make sense for educated, mature people to listen to anyone trying to speak with these "beliefs" as a platform. We have better things to do, frankly. Like playing beach volleyball, and reading slashdot, and doing science. Anything that doesn't involve drama and bizarre scenarios with unseen beings and fucked up philosophy.
Plus, most deep thinkers, esp. physicists, do have a coherent view of the world, or at least SEEK, through science, a coherent view. Science aims to remove mystery. Religion thrives on mystery. The two don't mix.
What I find very funny, and utterly confusing, is that fear-mongering, war-waging politicians who are perfectly OK with us going to war with non-threatening nations half way around the world and killing (or indirectly causing the death of) hundreds of thousands of innocent people, are making all kinds of accusations against video games being encouraging of violence. Holy shit, ya know? I am perfectly willing to accept some sort of objective psychological study that manages to make a good case for that sort of thing (although I doubt it will ever happen). But politicians? American politicians? Gimme a break.
Chuck Norris gets beaten up by the leave-britney-alone kid, and Bruce Schnier gets r00ted.... by Martha Stewart! Social engineering.
Because in Soviet Redmond, the chairs fear YOU!
Seriously, MS has apologized. To a competitor. On a technical subject. Holy friggin WOW. Since god now obviously exists, here's what I'm going to be praying for over the course of the next few years:
-Physics grant gets awarded to grad student who does not have lips wrapped tightly around String Theory schlong
-Dell admits that their computer cases are uglier than your face.
-Apple fanbois shut up. For good. (and I'm typing this on a macbook pro)
-America elects a Good president.
-Myspace creators realize the magnitude of their crime against human civilization and turn themselves in to local authorities.
If they were orthogonal concepts they would not need reconciling. Religious dogma has to talk about the world because it discusses the deity that "created" everything, and uses the mysteries in the universe - mysteries as far as human knowledge, at some point, is concerned - as motivation for belief in the existence of the deity, and evidence of its actions.
And science explains those mysteries. It shows how "god" didn't "do it". It pushes back the god factor further and further into philosophical abstraction, hence any attempt to reconcile religion and faith is therefore doomed to fail. It is best that they ignore each other.
Ssh, don't tell anyone! There are too many people here with preconceived agendas wherein science and religion are in conflict. It's going to disrupt their world view if they find out that, no, religion is not opposed to science and is in no way threatened by it. The reverse should also be true.
Preconceived my ass. Religion has always put God at the limit of scientific knowledge, and so was always threatened by scientific advance, and both Galileo and Darwin know a thing or two about that. The mysteries explained by science are the source of wonder that people are supposed to take as blinding evidence of bearded friends in the sky. Take away the mystery and you suddenly get a bunch of embarrassed preachers left holding their dicks and looking confused. I'm tired of reading this thread and seeing how everybody is making the astute observation that not all christians are "extreme" like ID nutjobs. Well guess what guys, your extreme is yesterday's norm. Every time science collides with some religious "belief" about the universe, it takes a while to convince the clergy to come up with some half-assed explanation of how "abstract" the biblical account actually is(we're not orbited by the sun after all, sorry) and how there really is no problem in the least. And the honest few who still cling to the words handed down to them (from people who are more religious than this generation, and who will go to heaven for believing in these ideas) are called "extreme". These are people who lived and died by the books you're talking about, and who would call YOU heretics. What kind of sick deity would think up this sort of scenario?
In fact, science has covered so much ground today that "rational" christians are forced to reduce godly activity to a bare minimum of meta-physical abstraction. They talk "first causes" and quantum behavior and other cute topics, because that's where the knowledge (god did it!) barrier lies. And as soon as the next breakthrough happens, the rhetoric will change.
I normally do not care to excite emotions by attacking the beliefs that make people happy. I honestly don't care if someone thinks we are here because a snake covinced a woman in a garden in the sky to make her man eat from a magical tree, or that the millions of other religions (and sects of those religions) are going to suffer eternal damnation in Hell because of technical differences in their version of the story about the deity that is playing The Sims with us as characters. Believe what you want. Have a blast. Drinks are on the house. That's what freedom is all about. But all the nonsense posted here today needed reality check. You are trying to be more rational than the books you follow. Religion is at odds with science because religion depends on ignorance as "evidence" for its outrageous claims, and science has always suffered, and continues to suffer.
Interesting stuff, although the rationalist who partakes in such belief will probably find no reason to indulge in religion. Maybe the word "illusion" is meant to belittle the lesser pleasures of life or something like that, but if the whole ordeal is a solid illusion, then why participate?
It is specifically this non-testability that makes it "nonsense". I can make any number of (non-testable) statements that are even more outrageous - whether or not they seem like a "distinct possibility" is unimportant. Things that are "outside the realm of science" should not concern us, because we cannot waste our time on things that "may" be true while stating that they are positively unprovable. It's a dead end. We get nothing out of it, except slashdot stories.
As for simulating the quantum mechanical universe, that is a debatable topic, and we definitely will not have the resources to have that kind of simulation on the scale of a universe anytime soon methinks. I'd like to see a complete model of quantum physics first before we talk about simulating things.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about societal influence methinks. Your male ego refuses to acknowledge the attractiveness of the male to the other sex just like many women make fun of other women in an envious manner - a part of our egoistical nature that would require you look into the idea of the "ego" itself and how it may have helped survival. Add into that the relationship (the very strong relationship) between dominance and sex and you will see why males may have trouble admitting being attracted to a guy, although, like you said, we all seem to fit in part of a spectrum of masculinity and feminine desire (as opposed to absolute identity). This dominance issue is also behind all the hatred for male gays I believe, including religious prejudice. Even in nature, dogs, bisons..etc will attempt to assert their complete victory in battle by sodomizing the defeated individual. It is the ultimate expression of dominance. People in some jails will understand this. And while intercourse between males actually involves penetration (of a "filthy" tract) by genital organs, it is not the case with females, unless you are talking about plastic "toys". Needless to say, feelings between homosexuals are far more intricate, but that's how people perceive "gayness" all around the world.
Gay females are generally not considered sexy globally, unless you are talking about porn or something related. In fact, the hormonal makeup required for many females to be "gay" produces some pretty weird effects on their facial complexions and of course the body. Lesbians are glamorized in pornographic productions because the male ego makes it much easier to be aroused when there is no other male in the environment. Females do not seem to care either way. It's a very complex part of psychology, but it definitely is not exclusively American.
Insecurity much?
First of all, human evolution and the state you are in right now was only possible due to the mechanisms of reproduction that you apparently don't see any value in. If the world was entirely gay, we would be wiped out in one single life cycle. Homosexuality is evolutionary suicide, and it doesn't matter whether you like that or not. Gay people are inherently able but not willing to reproduce naturally because their inherent sexual attraction(a major factor in reproduction) is to members of their own gender, meaning they would have to go against their feelings and reproduce 1984 style if they "wanted children". It is a sick idea. I would not want a gay person to have to do that, and that is why I think it is very unfortunate to be attracted sexually to your own gender. I say this even though I strongly defend gay rights and readily respect anyone regardless of what they hump, so if you take offense at that then that is your own damn problem.
While strengthening the gene pool (the GP argument)may not be paramount, and your choice of how to reproduce may not be anybody else's business, it is probably not wise to jump on completely revolutionary methods like these without understanding the consequences they may have on the offspring. Anything that deviates from the normal in highly evolved species like ourselves tends to be very destructive.
And since I'm throwing political correctness out the window, allow me to add that the male phallus was not evolved to be inserted into the digestive tract, and that females using hand made tools that mimic male organs to have sex is pretty funny, and that things CAN be both natural (i.e occuring in nature) but abnormal (i.e non-ideal and even destructive from a biological viewpoint) at the same time.
That's got to be just about the funniest thing ever :)
'Another threatened to rape and sodomize her, the documents said."
Hmm, I didn't know you could sodomize a woman! I thought that was strictly a male activity. Do court documents have to be as specific as to what exact orifice the guy threatened to penetrate? Highly entertaining stuff.
Way to go with that website. Not only is the music good(some of the work is fantastic actually), but the philosophy behind the whole thing is very worthy of mod points, and page hits, and large-scale fame.
After looking through your "production" section though, I couldn't really find a specific place where you discussed equipment, recording, software and/or a basic setup that artists who wanted to produce for themselves could use. This would be very valuable info, especially as most of the artists on the "RPM" awards linked in today's article seem to be a little..lacking on recording skills, among other things.
Does anyone else here also have experience with recording/mixing decent quality music outside a studio environment using minimal software and cheap equipment? Any help would be appreciated.
John W. Dozier, Jr., Esq., President of Dozier Internet Law, PC, was not surprised by the decision.
Of course he wasn't: it was in Idaho that this happened. The state that has more cows than people. I am not about to gasp anytime soon.
Meanwhile, the judge obviously has no idea whatsoever what copyright means or was devised for. I know you're in Idaho, but have an idea out there, moron. The intellectual property of the lawyer (assuming he has any) is not protected by this law. It is not in any way relevant to this law. And reading that article, I was seriously starting to get scared when the journalists in that incognito paper began using terms like "'free speech' groups" in actual quotes, like there was some sort of profound controversy over the matter at hand, and normal people like ourselves are suddenly part of a fringe mentality that embodies itself in organised "groups" of extremists. George f*cking Orwell, baby. You get an unsolicited letter in the mail threatening you, and you can't let other people know?
Very funny.
flamebait? This was supposed to be funny you freaks. I hope your dicks drop off and your moms get diarrhea tonight.
Remember ladies, this is what George W. Bush's go-away speech is going to be like. Don't be too scathing. Let them have their moment.
Windows 7 announcement in 3..2..1
Too bad for you I've *patented* the idea of open sourcing tasers a long time ago. What, why are looking at me like that?
http://xkcd.com/54/ Indeed and I agree we ought to use it--but we do not know that it tells us anything about the real world as it actually exists (cf Kant). Kant came a long time ago. We are not interested today in illusions and bizarre tricks being played on our minds, we are interested in reproducible experiments and extremely accurate and falsifiable predictions, that can be verified in that same universe by those same minds. We are modeling what the universe seems to be and how it behaves, not what it is in some abstract philosophical meta-universe. Maybe our quest will lead us their too, our of mathematical necessity, but we are pursuing the only rational thing we can pursue. Our evidence that we have done the right thing and made sensible claims by looking at the world around us, is again: human scientific achievement (and the civilization built on it). My purpose here, as I said, is to respond to the assertion that scientists "know" and "can prove" everything they believe, and that conversely, that scientists refrain from making assumptions that lack an empirical or rational basis. The fact is, it's impossible to do so. "Know" and "prove" mean different things to the physicist than the mathematician. The mathematic axioms that allow you to use logic to make provably correct statements do not exist (until now) in the physical world. Axioms are inferred empirically, and we've already talked about that. When I say "know" I mean according to all the available information, and despite all efforts to prove you wrong, both empirically and mathematically. Science is always logical and always rational. We would not be able to pursue it otherwise. The universe may have illogical and probabilistic foundations, yes, but science as a method does not. That's why it works. That's why we have been able to play golf on the moon.
"Beliefs" in religion are a very different thing, therefore, than "beliefs" in science. The former are by definition irrational, the latter are not.
If you can give an example of just one "irrational" or baseless assumption an established scientific theory has made, you are en route to a Nobel Prize.
These are not without evidence. The universe has always acted such that in time t+1 it had properties satisfying theorems based on observations made in time t. In fact, that's how we are able to do science. There is no reason compelling us to believe otherwise, whereas our human civilization (the tangible achievements of our science) compels us to believe thus. We have made predictions about the universe that invariably held the test of time. It is an absurd question that you chose to ask, and even if for some reason I couldn't prove it, that doesn't mean the nonsensical and logically flawed philosophy of religion is on par with the scientific method because of your little nitpick on what could be provably unknowable statements.
As for empirical observtion being an accurate way of knowing things about the world, it is the only option we have at the moment. Once we do compose a complete theory we will be able to reason mathematically from scratch, but right now we need hard evidence about the world FROM the world. And given the fact that you can post here on slashdot today due to the accumulative result of human achievement based on empirical observation as a starting point, I'd say it's a pretty darn good system we have. It sure as hell beats pulling crap out of texts written by lunatics thousands of years ago.
Now compare that to the "assumptions" (more like outrages) made by religion. Any religion. And remember that faith by definition defies reason. You will see that our conversation is not really on track at all.
"I will say this again: religion and science do not have to be mutually exclusive. "
Of course they do. They are completely different things. Any statement religion makes about the world is either unscientific or totally abstract so as to avoid collision with science. In the past, this collision stuff didn't matter because religion could just torture the scientists in jail for saying the truth. Now it's all about engineering statements that appeal to the layman while being vague enough to not be held accountable.
"Your view of God as some guy playing the Sims only works if you do not believe God is our father"
Err.. what? Very funny by the way. I hope you can see how comical this all is. I don't care if some goof think He's our father or our mother or some 3-in-1 shampoo mix of fathers and sons and deities, or maybe some distant cousin with a grudge. The central tenet of all these faiths that have god being oh-so-pissed about you not believing in him is that he has a mentality of a child. He wants you to "believe" in him and not all the other millions of versions of him, or he'll put you in hell. And if your'e christian, that version holds that he popped you into existence with "sin" inherited from people youve never seen. And if you're jewish, you are chosen because god likes some racial profiles and not others. Muslims also have some great stuff. Sounds like The Sims to me.
Gimme a break. I dont mean to insult you, man. I swear I don't. I am happy that you are happy in your belief, whatever it is. I just want to point out why people find it comical to believe in a deity in this day and age, let alone let the religious institution that did so much to hamper the advance of science, come to speak at a university.
These are principles not beliefs. They are elevated to this level due to millions of empirical observations that give us cause to assert they are true. The universe, for the most part, obeys causality and is rational, leading us to hold such "beliefs" while being able to make falsifiable predictions based on them, and deducing other "beliefs" which also involve the real world around us and are similarly falsifiable. We do not want them to be true, and in fact we abandon them every time a great discovery is made.
Big difference between that and the bullshit some priest pulls out of his ass. I wouldn't mind very much if the clergy stuck to the invisible world of souls and bearded gods and heavens and hell and angels with wings. But they won't - they have to go around talking about things that do not concern them or their "reasoning" in the least. Leave science to its people.
A system of thought that produces 99.99999% accurate predictions can easily ridicule one that is not based on any form of acceptable logic let alone making falsifiable predictions. Certainty will only come with a theory of everything based, on mathematical axioms that are correct by definition. Lack of such a theory does not mean I believe in any silly nonsense thrown at me by any one of the millions of religions out there.
"Circumstantial evidence" is ultimately what gets you on slashdot here today. It's a very big phrase. It gives you truths, and apparent truths, and the entirety of human civilization. Religion gives you bullshit. There is no basis for a comparison.
PS: If I can't ridicule the silliness of religious theology and the invariably laughable premise of 'belief' and existence, as outlined in my previous post, then I might as well go shoot myself right now. I'm sorry, but no educated adult can take that crap with a straight face.
That's easy to say now, hundreds of years after Galileo was threatened with torture and death for it by the catholic Inquisition, eh? And no I'm not Catholic, nor do I believe in friends in the sky in general.
So matters of faith don't involve things clearly laid out in the bible (like geocentricism) but pertaining to the world around us? Wonderful. That just means the pope is infallible on matters involving philosophical debate on invisible things, which is just great. I am also infallible on these domains. Just watch me.
That's probably because "beliefs" don't take up much time in the day of a rational, sane scientist. Either you know something (and can "prove" it) or you don't. Everything in between is called the scientific method (and that includes mathematical reasoning from principles, such as Einsteins relativity theorems).
Making up (or "believing", or getting handed down from ancient texts) some absurd, senseless claims about the world being under effect from an unseen being who "created" a universe larger than human conception to play a sick version of SimCity with us to justify a predefined ending in which billions of people get sadistic torture in hell "for ever" because they "believe" otherwise, is just stupid. It's not just about coherence - it's way beyond that. It's comical. The whole idea of "belief" itself defies reason. And when it involves gods with the minds of six-year-olds, it really does not make sense for educated, mature people to listen to anyone trying to speak with these "beliefs" as a platform. We have better things to do, frankly. Like playing beach volleyball, and reading slashdot, and doing science. Anything that doesn't involve drama and bizarre scenarios with unseen beings and fucked up philosophy.
Plus, most deep thinkers, esp. physicists, do have a coherent view of the world, or at least SEEK, through science, a coherent view. Science aims to remove mystery. Religion thrives on mystery. The two don't mix.
Allow me to introduce the iGerbil:
:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=136cNGNd7Yg
Not quite the same thing, but I saw this today and had to share
What I find very funny, and utterly confusing, is that fear-mongering, war-waging politicians who are perfectly OK with us going to war with non-threatening nations half way around the world and killing (or indirectly causing the death of) hundreds of thousands of innocent people, are making all kinds of accusations against video games being encouraging of violence. Holy shit, ya know? I am perfectly willing to accept some sort of objective psychological study that manages to make a good case for that sort of thing (although I doubt it will ever happen). But politicians? American politicians? Gimme a break.
Chuck Norris gets beaten up by the leave-britney-alone kid, and Bruce Schnier gets r00ted.... by Martha Stewart! Social engineering.
Because in Soviet Redmond, the chairs fear YOU!
Seriously, MS has apologized. To a competitor. On a technical subject. Holy friggin WOW. Since god now obviously exists, here's what I'm going to be praying for over the course of the next few years:
-Physics grant gets awarded to grad student who does not have lips wrapped tightly around String Theory schlong
-Dell admits that their computer cases are uglier than your face.
-Apple fanbois shut up. For good. (and I'm typing this on a macbook pro)
-America elects a Good president.
-Myspace creators realize the magnitude of their crime against human civilization and turn themselves in to local authorities.
-I stop wasting my time on slashdot.
If they were orthogonal concepts they would not need reconciling. Religious dogma has to talk about the world because it discusses the deity that "created" everything, and uses the mysteries in the universe - mysteries as far as human knowledge, at some point, is concerned - as motivation for belief in the existence of the deity, and evidence of its actions.
And science explains those mysteries. It shows how "god" didn't "do it". It pushes back the god factor further and further into philosophical abstraction, hence any attempt to reconcile religion and faith is therefore doomed to fail. It is best that they ignore each other.
More on this ridiculous "there is no conflict" notion here:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=406050&cid=21919780
Preconceived my ass. Religion has always put God at the limit of scientific knowledge, and so was always threatened by scientific advance, and both Galileo and Darwin know a thing or two about that. The mysteries explained by science are the source of wonder that people are supposed to take as blinding evidence of bearded friends in the sky. Take away the mystery and you suddenly get a bunch of embarrassed preachers left holding their dicks and looking confused. I'm tired of reading this thread and seeing how everybody is making the astute observation that not all christians are "extreme" like ID nutjobs. Well guess what guys, your extreme is yesterday's norm. Every time science collides with some religious "belief" about the universe, it takes a while to convince the clergy to come up with some half-assed explanation of how "abstract" the biblical account actually is(we're not orbited by the sun after all, sorry) and how there really is no problem in the least. And the honest few who still cling to the words handed down to them (from people who are more religious than this generation, and who will go to heaven for believing in these ideas) are called "extreme". These are people who lived and died by the books you're talking about, and who would call YOU heretics. What kind of sick deity would think up this sort of scenario?
In fact, science has covered so much ground today that "rational" christians are forced to reduce godly activity to a bare minimum of meta-physical abstraction. They talk "first causes" and quantum behavior and other cute topics, because that's where the knowledge (god did it!) barrier lies. And as soon as the next breakthrough happens, the rhetoric will change.
I normally do not care to excite emotions by attacking the beliefs that make people happy. I honestly don't care if someone thinks we are here because a snake covinced a woman in a garden in the sky to make her man eat from a magical tree, or that the millions of other religions (and sects of those religions) are going to suffer eternal damnation in Hell because of technical differences in their version of the story about the deity that is playing The Sims with us as characters. Believe what you want. Have a blast. Drinks are on the house. That's what freedom is all about.
But all the nonsense posted here today needed reality check. You are trying to be more rational than the books you follow. Religion is at odds with science because religion depends on ignorance as "evidence" for its outrageous claims, and science has always suffered, and continues to suffer.
Interesting stuff, although the rationalist who partakes in such belief will probably find no reason to indulge in religion. Maybe the word "illusion" is meant to belittle the lesser pleasures of life or something like that, but if the whole ordeal is a solid illusion, then why participate?
It is specifically this non-testability that makes it "nonsense". I can make any number of (non-testable) statements that are even more outrageous - whether or not they seem like a "distinct possibility" is unimportant. Things that are "outside the realm of science" should not concern us, because we cannot waste our time on things that "may" be true while stating that they are positively unprovable. It's a dead end. We get nothing out of it, except slashdot stories.
As for simulating the quantum mechanical universe, that is a debatable topic, and we definitely will not have the resources to have that kind of simulation on the scale of a universe anytime soon methinks. I'd like to see a complete model of quantum physics first before we talk about simulating things.