 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:19:10 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2009 13:25:47 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:20:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>If we keep going, we could probably solve world hunger, too, along
>>>>with all the other major problems out there. :-)
>>>>
>>> That's the plan :)
>>
>>It's always good to have a plan. :-)
>>
>>
> And someone to blame ;)
Oh yes, that's also useful. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> You missed out: God exists but he is occupied ATM or his timescale is too slow
> to respond.
If he isn't responding, he's still negligent.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:58:16 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> It wasn't until the NT
>> that hell really became defined
>
> You may not have noticed, but I wasn't actually speaking solely of
> Christianity - or any individual religion. ;-)
>
> Jim
True, but I was referring in mine specifically to the last sentence.
Prior... most of them where a lot more vague about what did or didn't
happen to you.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 12-7-2009 8:04, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> I think the difference is significant. "I don't know" implies that
>>> you can still look for an answer, whereas "I can't know" means that
>>> the search ended. The former means that you are open to suggestions
>>> from others who claim that they know more, whereas the latter is a
>>> sound basis to build your own ethics.
>>> I don't like the "I don't care".
>>
>> On the contrary, how is "I can't know" a grounds to build anything?
>
> Easy. If you are convinced that you can not know if God exists or not
> (which is what agnosticism is about, all your other examples are
> irrelevant here), it means that you have to build an ethics that will
> work in both cases. You can not assume there is someone else that knows
> better (a god or her representative on earth), nor can you be certain
> that you won't be judged after death on what you did in your entire
> life. That means that you have to think about what you are doing and you
> will have to make the right choice everytime by yourself. With 'right'
> defined by a much broader spectrum of ethics than that of a single
> religion. E.g. simply defining another group as non-human won't work.
> (i.e. if your current social environment allows you to recognize this as
> an item, but that is a whole different discussion.)
>
> Believe me, simply being one in a crowd of atheists or believers is much
> more simple. (BTW I am not an agnostic, in case you are wondering).
Uh.. But, in that case, you are not basing it on the "unknowability",
your doing it the same way that you would if no one had ever presented
the idea that one existed in the first place. You might as well claim
that you are, "building your system of ethics on a lack of being able to
know if there is a tea pot in orbit." Its a meaningless statement. Well,
unless you where describing it to someone that insists that all of
creation is defined by how many invisible tea pots are orbiting life
bearing planets, but, then its only meaningful in context of
"attempting" to explain it to the person making that assertion, which is
basically the same thing as saying, it is meaningless. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Watchmaker: Something complex like a watch must be designed, so God
> exists to design it.
So, complexity indicates intelligent design? That doesn't make sense.
A result of Occam's Razor would be that unnecessary complexity is
evidence of unknown influences... but that's hardly the same thing.
> Clockmaker: God started the universe, wound it up like a clock, and now
> it just ticks along with no further need for attention from the clockmaker.
Yes, this is the one I was referring to.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 5-7-2009 19:57, Darren New wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>> I.e., it's the same bit as prayer. Surely if 50% of the Catholics with
>> cancer who prayed for remission got better, and only 10% of the
>> non-Catholic population got better from the same kind of cancer, you'd
>> say "Hey, maybe the Catholics are on to something." But when there's
>> no difference at all, you kind of have to discount the effacy of prayer.
>>
> Wasn't that one tested a couple of years ago? With surprising results?
> Anyone can find that reference?
It's the kind of study that always gets mentioned in churches, but never
referenced in papers. I've heard countless stories of such things, but
never seen a reputable reference to it.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
> > You missed out: God exists but he is occupied ATM or his timescale is too slow
> > to respond.
>
> If he isn't responding, he's still negligent.
>
you hava a contract with a SLA?
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> > On 5-7-2009 19:57, Darren New wrote:
> >> Darren New wrote:
> >> I.e., it's the same bit as prayer. Surely if 50% of the Catholics with
> >> cancer who prayed for remission got better, and only 10% of the
> >> non-Catholic population got better from the same kind of cancer, you'd
> >> say "Hey, maybe the Catholics are on to something." But when there's
> >> no difference at all, you kind of have to discount the effacy of prayer.
> >>
> > Wasn't that one tested a couple of years ago? With surprising results?
> > Anyone can find that reference?
>
> It's the kind of study that always gets mentioned in churches, but never
> referenced in papers. I've heard countless stories of such things, but
> never seen a reputable reference to it.
>
But it is mentioned in papers. Is that not what faith healing and juju/Obeah is
all about?
Well maybe not *all*
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Watchmaker: Something complex like a watch must be designed, so God
>> exists to design it.
>
> So, complexity indicates intelligent design? That doesn't make sense.
I'm just telling you what it says. I don't think it's so much the
complexity - soap foam is complex - as it is the complex usefulness.
Of course, when you put watch parts in an environment of mutation and
natural selection, you get watches evolving too.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: An example of confirmation bias?
Date: 14 Jul 2009 13:28:00
Message: <4a5cc020@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Watchmaker: Something complex like a watch must be designed, so God
>>> exists to design it.
>>
>> So, complexity indicates intelligent design? That doesn't make sense.
>
> I'm just telling you what it says. I don't think it's so much the
> complexity - soap foam is complex - as it is the complex usefulness.
>
> Of course, when you put watch parts in an environment of mutation and
> natural selection, you get watches evolving too.
>
The usual argument is actually something like, "You can't get there from
here." The idea being a bit like the age old, "A giant must have placed
that boulder on top of the pillar, because there is no way it just
'formed' there." I.e., irreducible complexity, which really just means,
"We don't know precisely how it got there, but some idiot thinks it had
to be designed, because we can't see the transitional state where the
new and original copies existed, and you could still remove the new one,
and removing any parts will break it." The problem starts with the false
premise that you can't "get" to irreducibility save by design, and is
further mangled by people like Dumbski, who are supposed math experts,
but somehow can't do "basic" statistics correctly, with the result that
they do stupid BS like suggesting that if the odds of something
happening is 1:10,000,000, it will *never* happen, even if you have
1,000,000 trillion attempts, in a span of a billion years...
No, design implies design. How do you determine design? Some sort of
tool marks help, but the "design" needs to show some consistent
implication that it does what it does "specifically", and not via
accident. Well.. DNA show a "lot" of accidents, and no "design".
Stupidest thing I recently saw was, "Well, obviously dinosaur feet where
designed, how else do you get only fingers 2-4?" Uh.. By knowing what
the frack you are talking about? lol Fingers are numbered starting with
the thumb, because humans didn't know any better. They "grow" in this
order: 4 -> 5 -> 3 -> 2 -> 1 - stop, in humans. So, to get a dinosaur
(and birds) you need two mutations:
Mutation #1 - Stop short.
4 -> 5 -> 3 -> 2 - stop (no thumb)
Mutation #2 - Frame shift.
3 -> 4 -> 2 - stop
Since only one step is "ever" taken from the start towards the "pinky",
only digit 4 is produced, before #2 starts growing. But, since #2 is the
index digit, the "stop short" prevents a "thumb/big toe" forming. Some
bozo named Safarti tried to make the argument that the difference had to
be "design", not mutations.. lol
Full article on what he gets wrong, and why here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/bird_and_frog_development.html
They keep looking, and looking, and looking, for a smoking gun, and all
they find is this kind of silly BS, where they don't get the actual
details of what is going on, or worse, make shit up, claim its true,
then whine when its pointed out that they made it up (same bozo also
claims that he mechanisms by which frogs and humans develop are
completely different. In reality, most of it is identical, with the main
differences being in a "few" new tweaks (some of them rather stupid
ones, from a design perspective), and a lot of stuff involved in telling
things to turn on/off at different times between the two (which can also
include some damn stupid flaws).
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
