|
A book of anecdotes isn't the least bit convincing. Show me the article published in a scientific journal.
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
Its not a good source. Stop citing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:disagree. On average the standard of living has improved. Measured by things such as access to clean water, food, clothes, shelter, less disease etc And the prevalence of violence. Most crimes (per capita) are way down almost everywhere compared to most of history. Sorry, going to have to side with the troll on this one. The modern world is far from perfect, in fact it's arguably really poo poo, but the past was even shittier. Who What Now posted:No, I'm not confident there was nothing, I'm confident that the question is not valid to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:I am a physicist, and what is this? Seriously, I'm in school for physics as well, and his argument about The Big Bang theory makes zero sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You do realize that both of the contradictory genesis accounts lists the order of creation in impossible orders so if you see the Big Bang and evolution in there you clearly don't understand either of them. And going by your other posts that does seem to be the case. one of the genesis stories has things in the right order so its a paradox? why all the hoopla demanding I should accept nothing existed before the big bang if matter should exist before the big bang?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:And the prevalence of violence. Most crimes (per capita) are way down almost everywhere compared to most of history. Sorry, going to have to side with the troll on this one. The modern world is far from perfect, in fact it's arguably really poo poo, but the past was even shittier. Can you explain how you can have a temporal event (before) occur before time?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its not a good source. Stop citing it. whats wrong with the source?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Can you explain how you can have a temporal event (before) occur before time? That isn't what he is implying, he is more implying that something might have existed prior to the Big Bang, but even then that is as conjecture. logosanatic posted:whats wrong with the source? I pointed that out prior already. quote:The idea of "the wisdom of the crowd" does not hold where the the knowledge is poorly defined. An exact outcome, such as the "number of beans in a jar" discussed above, is very well defined, but the results of the lottery (which Derren Brown cheekily tried to claim he predicted using the "wisdom of the crowd" method) isn't, and thus isn't subject to the method. Similarly, the Who Wants to be a Millionaire scenario works because the questions are on general knowledge, there are limited options and enough of the population will be expected to know the right answer. If the answer was more open-ended, subjective or far fewer individuals would be expected to know the right answer - so few that their contribution would be statistically significant - then the system would fail. The whole wisdom of crowds, therefore, falls short when the "crowd" in question is subject to groupthink or other biases, in including a lack of specialist knowledge. quote:In his book Embracing the Wide Sky, Daniel Tammet finds fault with this notion. He explains that this notion may work in the Who Wants to be a Millionaire scenario because audience members have various levels of knowledge that can be coordinated to provide a correct answer in aggregate: Some persons will know the correct answer, others will know what are not the right answers and some will have no clue. Those who know the right answer will choose it, and the others will choose among what might seem the possible answers. The result will be to give a slight edge to the correct answer, even if only a few actually know the correct answer. Its one giant anecdote fallacy, and citing it as reliable does not help your argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:A book of anecdotes isn't the least bit convincing. Show me the article published in a scientific journal. the book presents numerous case studies
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Can you explain how you can have a temporal event (before) occur before time? I'm not saying you can't have GR mess up a finite time in the past, you can, and you're right, there's no consistent way for something to happen before that. I'm saying I neither know how gravity works at high energies nor the conditions of the very early universe. Do you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its a neat idea, but it doesn't mean anything, especially not what you are implying. the book presents case studies. The majority can be wrong. But on average its more right than wrong. Its just one more point of interest why I would bother with religion
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:the book presents case studies. The majority can be wrong. But on average its more right than wrong. Its just one more point of interest why I would bother with religion On average people are extremely wrong about quite a lot of specific subjects. That people may, on average, be correct about the colour of the sky, does not mean that, on average, they will be very good at virology.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Not really? People not in first world nations still frequently have problems with all of those things. Hell a lot of people who are in first world nations don't have very good access to them. Im really surprised that of all the things were having the discussion whether life now is better than life 2000 year ago. on average life is much better per capita
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That isn't what he is implying, he is more implying that something might have existed prior to the Big Bang, but even then that is as conjecture. He's pretty obviously trying to imply events happening before the Big Bang and specifically that this made matter because he's talking about how he thinks it had to come from something. logosanatic posted:one of the genesis stories has things in the right order For the last time I didn't say nothing existed, I said temporal events can't happen before time. You can't have a "before" if there isn't time yet. But let's look at the events of genesis: Day one: God creates heaven and earth, and light and dark. Day two: God creates the firmament. Day three: God creates land in the water, then plants. Day four: God creates the sun and moon; then, as an afterthought, he creates the other stars. Day five: God creates water animals, then birds. Day six: God creates land animals, then Adam. Day seven: God rests. So it has the earth created before the sun, water before land (this might be true depending on what you consider "land"), the sun before all other stars, and birds before land animals. None of the that is accurate. The second account also has Adam created before all other animals, who were created for him to name. So no, neither is accurate. -edit- Dzhay posted:I'm not saying you can't have GR mess up a finite time in the past, you can, and you're right, there's no consistent way for something to happen before that. I'm saying I neither know how gravity works at high energies nor the conditions of the very early universe. Do you? No? But I'm also not claiming to? I'm pointing of the logical inconsistency of asking "before" the start of time. I'd also point out that asking what's faster than the fastest thing is logically inconsistent but I'm not going to claim to have knowledge of particle physics and I don't need to. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:On average people are extremely wrong about quite a lot of specific subjects. whether people feel theres a god is simpler than virology and I feel it falls into the type of category where the masses would on average be right. lets say 51% likelihood something like god exists and that's why the majority reaches out to him
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:whether people feel theres a god is simpler than virology and I feel it falls into the type of category where the masses would on average be right. lets say 51% likelihood something like god exists and that's why the majority reaches out to him How can you possibly put a number on the probability of god existing? What's your criteria?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:whether people feel theres a god is simpler than virology and I feel it falls into the type of category where the masses would on average be right. lets say 51% likelihood something like god exists and that's why the majority reaches out to him Except god is completely undetectable, god doesn't show up on telescopes, in microscopes, in any scientific theory describing the understood laws of physics, we haven't bounced any satellites of the pearly gates nor dug into hell, the very finest minds and scientific equipment in the world have yet to find one single iota of evidence for the existence of god. So, suggesting that finding god is easier than medicine, that's rather a large leap. Finding god is so difficult that nobody in the world has yet to manage it, in all of human history. Now, believing in something because it's fuzzy and you don't really want to think very much about it, that is easy, and that the majority of people are willing to do that, really only tells you that fuzzy thoughts are popular.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:whether people feel theres a god is simpler than virology and I feel it falls into the type of category where the masses would on average be right. lets say 51% likelihood something like god exists and that's why the majority reaches out to him
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:There is no "pre" big bang, and such a concept in nonsensical. you've been told this half a dozen times now......For the last time I didn't say nothing existed matter existed pre big bang...maybe. time is flexible, slows down. our concept of time has a lot to be developed and Im surprised at your confidence that pre big bang has been figured out enough to make the statements your making. basically pre big bang is a black box of unknowns Who What Now posted:
I didn't catch the wrong order before. He made the light and the dark so at that point in my mind the sun existed. But then he goes and makes the sun again(plus moon and stars). Also birds before land animals. So close, but not perfect. Thanks for teaching me that
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Nessus posted:If you're trying to get across the concept of, "the psychological experience which could be called 'experiencing the divine' is readily available and commonly reached by the great mass of humanity," you're doing a pretty piss-poor job of it. no Im not implying that the masses have a divine experience. Ive never had a divine experience. Im implying the masses are reaching out, seeking god and the result is religion or theories about god
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Except god is completely undetectable, god doesn't show up on telescopes, in microscopes, in any scientific theory describing the understood laws of physics, we haven't bounced any satellites of the pearly gates nor dug into hell, the very finest minds and scientific equipment in the world have yet to find one single iota of evidence for the existence of god. We may be looking god right in the face everytime we do science and not know it. If hes more than 3 dimensional we may never find him. He could be sitting on the 25th dimension watching all possible timelines unfold. finding god may not be easy but humans reaching out to him on mass could mean something
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:agreed the majority doesn't make something valid or real. But the majority opinion does actually have a statistical track record of picking the right answer even if it does get it wrong sometimes. No they don't, what are you talking about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No they don't, what are you talking about. Ive been told not to link citation for this so read further up
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:Ive been told not to link citation for this so read further up No, the last one you posted was simply invalid as a reputable source. Feel free to post published articles that show your case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:Ive been told not to link citation for this so read further up Hahaha, no one told you not to link a source. They rightly pointed out that the source you do link basically says "yeah, this is a neat idea that can have some limited application, but it's really not consistently true enough to think of as an actual rule", which you somehow take to mean "crowds are almost always right, and since most people believe in God, he exists, which somehow also proves my version of God is the right one". Look, you're posting a bunch of flowery poetic bullshit that makes you sleep easier at night but really has no place in a serious discussion. That's great for you, but it's honestly not relevant to this thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:They rightly pointed out that the source you do link basically says "yeah, this is a neat idea that can have some limited application, but it's really not consistently true enough to think of as an actual rule", which you somehow take to mean "crowds are almost always right, and since most people believe in God, he exists, which somehow also proves my version of God is the right one". I said crowds on average are right more than their wrong. That can be 50.005% vs 49.995% or some such. which is ONE reason why religion is worth looking into. In a vacuum of concrete reasons for wasting any time on religion that's one on the list. Or we can just put words in my mouth and crowds are almost always right so god exists. My posts aren't relevant to this thread? that's weird. Kyrie do you want me out of your topic? you say yes Im gone
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:I said crowds on average are right more than their wrong. That can be 50.005% vs 49.995% or some such. which is ONE reason why religion is worth looking into. In a vacuum of concrete reasons for wasting any time on religion that's one on the list. Or we can just put words in my mouth and crowds are almost always right so god exists. The can be right 50.005% of the time but unless you can demonstrate this to be the case it's not justifiable to believe it to be true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:My posts aren't relevant to this thread? that's weird. Kyrie do you want me out of your topic? you say yes Im gone I don't personally mind you posting here. Live free
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:theres a dry, boring book showing 500 pages of connections between Christianity, jesus, god, mary, john Baptist and Egyptian culture Yeah and it was used as part of the basis for Zeitgeist, which is full of poo poo and completely fabricated stories of Egyptian mythology. So basically you're appealing to a book that people with even the most basic knowledge of Egypt realize is full of poo poo. I'd like to hope you realize how this completely undermines your point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:I said crowds on average are right more than their wrong. Yeah and that's wrong, and the pop psychology/economics book you cited doesn't even say that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
This sounds no different than Conservapedia's 'Best of the Public' idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
1) Market forces are the best way to figure out what kind of toothpaste people want 2) Therefore, the NSDAP was clearly the right choice to govern Germany
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:If this thing's idea of wisdom and/or morality is so radically different to my own, why should I care? Because it created you. You wouldn't exist without it, and you wouldn't know good without it. And in your current state, without depending on God, you are dead in your sin. Who What Now posted:How do you know this is at all true? How did you test god's attributes? The scripture provides a glimpse of this being. Nessus posted:So just to be clear, are you saying that all megadeath incidents are good, or only ones which are directly attributed to God? By this logic presumably Satan's rebellion is also for the greater good, and by being in league with the Devil I am just serving God's will further. We have free will to choose Satan or God. Satan's rebellion must be for the 'Greater Good' of God's mysterious and unfulfilled plan because God is sovereign and because we have faith Christ will win the battle and Christians know how it will end. But that doesn't mean at all that it is for our good - on the contrary, we are called to turn our back on Satan and this world. We are given the Scripture to have a glimpse of these divine matters and to know and fear God. quote:Alternately you are saying we should thank God for dead babies, perhaps also dead soldiers, and so forth. This is exactly correct. These kinds of things are perhaps the hardest to accept on the road to salvation. We are all pained and hurt when we consider these realities - what a place of torment and evil this world is. Trust in God, not evil, whether of the 'natural' or human-created kind. Believe that God is in control. Faithlessness leaves one choking on emptiness in the end. The fact that these brutal realities are part of God's plan makes him all the more incredible, as well as mysterious. God is certainly awesome being that is to be feared. But If you place your trust in him, who can stand against you? What then in this world can ever shake you? quote:I have had mystical experiences myself and I do not see much in your construction to persuade me of the infinite goodness of God. You are essentially creating a syllogism; God is infinitely good and wise and loving; God did these awful things; therefore, these awful things must have been good things, because God is infinitely good, wise and loving. If we heard this logic while describing a spouse we would assume horrible domestic abuse. Perhaps it is a syllogism within the confines of human logic, but it is a truth greater than human understanding that is grasped by faith alone. CommieGIR posted:Genocide is evil, I don't care how many ways you 'justify' it, but the fact that this excuse was used by a guy who basically admits to being a creepy stalker and 'justifies' that as well is so ironic. Genocide is a product of humanity who exist in a state of total depravity. Whether or not you try to rebel against God, you can place the blame for such evils only on us. I can tell the difference between right and wrong because the Scripture shows me how. I am no better than you at heart - we are both awful sinners. But by placing my faith in the Lord I am promised salvation, and in this life that glimpse of eternity offers me comfort, hope, and improves my character. The Scripture offers me a blueprint for living a good and happy life. By placing God at the center of my heart, I strive more and more to know him and let his excellence be reflected in my character and I want to do everything for him. Whatever one values is bound to be the thing that shapes him or her - one becomes like that which is the object of their affections. There is nothing greater to contemplate and love than the divine and so I choose it over anything on this earth. Genocide is an evil if it is perpetrated by humans on humans - only genocide commanded directly by God is something we could know for certain is Good and not Evil. Otherwise, Good and Evil from the point of the view of the divine is something of which we are offered only a glimpse and we cannot presume to know it ourselves - ridiculous. We have nothing better then to place our faith and trust in God because humanity has nothing Good to offer apart from him. Genocide exists and will continue to exist regardless because we are Evil by nature. The atheist or the unbeliever is certainly in no better position on the topic of genocide. Who else is there to blame for these evils but humanity? 'Blaming' God is ridiculous - God is can never be blamed for our free choices to be Evil, even if his sovereign will is ultimately stronger. For believers, there is the hope that ultimately God is in control and there will be a day of justice to rectify for all of those human evils. quote:Here's a news flash: Its all fiction. All of it. The Greeks, The Romans, The Christians, the Pagans, all of it. None of them have any more proof than you do of your own personal faith, and you don't GET to declare the Greek Gods and Goddess 'fiction' while tooting your own horn about your own mythos. On the contrary, it's an inconvenient truth for the rebel. If I were you, I could challenge myself to consider the terrifyingly unpalatable idea that you are wrong and one religion is in fact correct. The God of the Bible is unlike any other. Take a look and search with all of your heart as well as your mind and you will find him. quote:The only difference being: I will fully admit being unable to 'disprove' God, its your faith to have, and not mine to 'disprove'. But you also have no more proof to 'disprove' the Greeks than I do to disprove yours, so quit with the 'My god is greater than thine' fallacies. My God is a far greater God by its very nature. It simply is. All 'gods' are equivalent - invisible sky wizards. There is no God but Jehovah. quote:Also, as for us 'anthropomorphizing' god: Go read Genesis 1:27. What a wonderful revelation of the Scripture! We are somehow made in his image - imperfect shadows. What a privilege to have ever been made at all to contemplate the beauty of creation, let alone this way. We are given a glimpse in order to contemplate the beauty if our own creation. God is revealed to be of a personal character in the Bible, as well as the sovereign of the universe. Christians believe that the God of the old testament appears to humanity as the Son of God in dealing with humanity - fully divine and fully human. Christ is our mediator to the father. He is not a neutral, gray, bland, passionless being, or watchmaker alone. He is fully Good as well as powerful, and Good and Evil are infused in our reality. Genesis is really a story of that truth - the nature of who we are and our spiritual condition. He his fully happy, self-sufficient, good, and powerful without ever having made us! His choice to create us was purely a product of his own good pleasure. How wondrous!
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:The scripture provides a glimpse of this being. The scripture is a comedy of errors and is absolutely unreliable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:Because it created you. You wouldn't exist without it, and you wouldn't know good without it. Crom laughs at the god of scripture. He laughs from his mountain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:On the contrary, it's an inconvenient truth for the rebel. If I were you, I could challenge myself to consider the terrifyingly unpalatable idea that you are wrong and one religion is in fact correct. Here's a question for you: What if it turns out that one religion is in fact correct... and it's not yours? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So you're Kyrie's parachute account, eh? Then he'll stalk it for rejecting him and send off really passive-aggressive emails to all its friends just so it knows how wrong it was to pass him by. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:We have free will to choose Satan or God. Satan's rebellion must be for the 'Greater Good' of God's mysterious and unfulfilled plan because God is sovereign and because we have faith Christ will win the battle and Christians know how it will end. But that doesn't mean at all that it is for our good - on the contrary, we are called to turn our back on Satan and this world. We are given the Scripture to have a glimpse of these divine matters and to know and fear God. Hey, let me ask you something: what the hell is the point? All of this mysterious plan and battle and end of days talk - what is God looking to gain out of this? What does his plan accomplish? He creates the heavens and the earth and all of humanity and sets forth this millennia-long master plan in order to...what? Prove a point to Satan? Gain legions of followers and worshipers? Just have a bit of fun watching humans gently caress each other over and die? What? quote:If I were you, I could challenge myself to consider the terrifyingly unpalatable idea that you are wrong and one religion is in fact correct. The God of the Bible is unlike any other. Take a look and search with all of your heart as well as your mind and you will find him. I have considered and constantly consider this. You are so far up your own rear end that you can't imagine someone genuinely investigating Christianity and finding it wanting. Obviously if someone isn't a Christian, they just haven't searched sincerely enough! You arrogant gently caress. And the God of the Bible is not "unlike any other". Matter of fact, he's the same God as two other major world religions (Islam and Judaism), and shares much in common with gods of other faiths. Did you know that in Hinduism, the God-equivalent of that faith impregnated a virgin to give birth to a son who would cleanse the world of sin? Did you know that in Zoroastrianism, a savior of the world is said to one day be born of a virgin, in order to deliver the final judgment at the end of the world? There is no good reason to take the claims of your faith any more seriously than the claims of any other. And the classic "well what if you're wrong???  " retort is the most meaningless and empty bullshit you could possibly ask. What if you're wrong, motherfucker? And I don't mean in a Pascal's Wager, "there would be no downside because belief in God when there isn't one does no harm" kind of way, but in a "what if Islam is true, and your worship of a human in addition to God gets you thrown into the fiery pit?" kind of way. Why don't you "challenge yourself to consider the terrifyingly unpalatable idea that you are wrong"? Oh that's right, because you're so super connected to God and you have all the answers, unlike those godless heathens with evil in their heart and all those obviously backwards brown people that believe in the wrong God.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Actually, COC how did you determine that God is the good one and Satan is the evil one and not the other way around?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
Is God okay with your repeated attempts to get in touch with a girl you stalked to 'school' her? Also: Can you tell that you a reprehensible rear end, are you capable of that level of self-awareness yet? CowOnCrack posted:I can tell the difference between right and wrong because the Scripture shows me how. I am no better than you at heart - we are both awful sinners. But by placing my faith in the Lord I am promised salvation, and in this life that glimpse of eternity offers me comfort, hope, and improves my character. The Scripture offers me a blueprint for living a good and happy life. By placing God at the center of my heart, I strive more and more to know him and let his excellence be reflected in my character and I want to do everything for him. Whatever one values is bound to be the thing that shapes him or her - one becomes like that which is the object of their affections. There is nothing greater to contemplate and love than the divine and so I choose it over anything on this earth.  You are a piece of work. What if God ordered Heinrich Himmler to gas the jews. How do you know he didn't CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 05:07
|
|