 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)belb Tony Danza ...and 66 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2609024 Today 8 Topics 127236 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
in that case, he pretend got his ass kicked |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Now that's a concept I don't want to think about. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
http://www.billabongsanctuary.com.au/ apparantly, the mother kangaroo licks the pouch clean. now that's an intelligent design! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hahaha! amazing... i now... hate kangaroos... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I heard there are some species of dogs and cats that lick their own asses! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hay, wait! I didn't loose! If america was a normal place, and not the twilight zone, that is. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I won the world championship, just not the US open. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh you fucking well did not win. I backed you into a corner and pummelled you with empiricism until you cried like a baby. Want me to do it again? :sound of facts being sharpened: |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hahaha! if it's just empiricism being used, observing gods presence/influence is easy: it's exactly what the creationists have done.. just look at.. everything. The only observable things are results (you can't observe a hypothesis, and even causes are results when a hypothesis is formed), and any result may have an unlimited amount of explanations. How, then, do they choose which hypothesis will be the main hypothesis? They take the ones that most fully explains the result they have observed. However, with god having ultimate force of explanation, they needed another criterium... Thus, the common thing to do is to find the easiest explanation.. the one that has.. the least strings attached; the most concise explanation wins out. This seems a bit weird, as most things, in the end, are more complicated than the first hypothesis would have them to be, so they ultimately have to change it anyway. Anyway, wanting the most concise explanation is the only thing that rules god out of the picture... that and falsifiability, but falsifiability is too narrow. anyway, I won 'cause I have a ninja on my team! |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Don't be silly. What rules God out as the cause for any phenomenon is finding a naturalistic explanation for the phenomenon. Then God is superfluous - I don't even have to break out occam's razor to show that he's not involved. Otherwise you'd have to blame God for everything. Is there hairball puke on your carpet? Blame your cat... AND God. That's why modern relatively sophisticated excuses for God (that is, those of theist logicians, not the idiot fundies who think the world is 6000 years old) only say he's the cause of the universe or ground of being or necessary being - because we haven't ruled that one out yet. |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You know what, what I just wrote is actually kind of indistinguishable from occam's razor so please come on my face and tits. M O R E C O F F E E ! ! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh, how I wish I had hairball puke on my carpet. anyway, wasn't what I said about the simplest explanation occams razor, and also why that too doesn't really work in real life? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What Occam said was "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" which means don't make up unnecessary factors or entities. It is not the same thing as saying avoid complexity. Obviously, some very complex explanations are required for what on first glance are simple phenomena. In explaining the phenomenon of hairball puke, all sorts of complex facts about cat biology are necessary, but patriarchal tribal gods are not. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Pfffft... Occam... I meant William of Ockham. Whatever. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
HA HA OH OUY WROTES THE NAMES SO WQRONG YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW NOTHING OF TEH MATTER! ok, I didn't read much about occams razor before, but I'd like to know how he justifies his principle. What's the reasoning he uses? Using "common sense" as a basis wouldn't please anyone but Moore and such. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh now we're getting into brains in jars and other idiotic shit. nice work drunken mastah. :( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's one component in a methodology, and methodologies defend themselves by working. If you want to explain phenomena by hypothesizing as many entities as necessary plus one for good luck, or as many entities as you can think of plus the contents of a Sears catalog, go ahead. See if it works better. I think what you're looking for is some kind of a priori rational justification and I don't think there is one. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I found his justification mentioned briefly, and it was founded on something like "nature strives to be simple" or "nature is simple." It seems to be kind of silly, as todays beliefs about the nature of nature goes. I'm kind of worried that I may never have a chance to defend "the other side" (your side), as there never seem to be any people here making posts saying "science is bullshit" without it (1) turning against that one person, leaving him at a disadvantage (making joining the "science side" boring) (2) being meant as a joke or (3) turn into a shitfest. What's the point in an argument where everyone agrees? 1 is the most common unless 2 is true, and 3 is the unevitable result of any such thread. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
haha, don't think I won't! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
end of discussion |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What has you day consisted of big? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
nothing, i made some fine spaghetti though |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
did you do anything? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, took the girlfriend to the airport, learnt a new machine, cooked a goose with my sister and now I'm playing with the machine I learnt. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Did you make the pasta fresh? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
:) i'm not that good yet, just the sauce with fresh tomatoes, that's it really spaghetti with tomatoes, simplicity what kind of machine? where'd your girlfriend go? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
packet pasta? slack. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You need to get one of . It's really easy once you get the hang of the winding and holding thing. You can make Ravioli with any of your favourite stuff, chilli, basil, chorizio and ricotta is my favourite! Shit, I'm really hungry now... The girlfriend's gone home to see her friend that's just had a baby a few days ago |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ill ask mummy for it |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door today. True Story. ...Did I kill the thread yet? = ) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
haha. 8 ) do that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Unless of course you INTEND to CAUSE an EFFECT, as the fairy tale suggests. "And the Lord SAID 'Let there be light'. AND THERE WAS LIGHT" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ID's not just for americans, apparently. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I imagine even God gets tired of this sort of reducto absurdum fucking yeah whatever universe in a pinprick with the emphasis on penis type bollock. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I agree. For a scientific question, a scientific answer is the simplest. (What the hell I am agreeing with, I am not sure.) I would think that more people would have a problem with ID, as it kind of wants to bring God into science, thus making God observable empircally, and pretty much destroying religion, at least, in my opinion it would... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, it's more like having their cake (god) and eating it too (science). you see science is a lot like eating cake and nobody, i mean nobody, wants to miss out on eating a bit of cake. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
actually, I think that there is a reason why so many believe in creationism.. it is because it isn't presented at school. And that people over 55 are more likely to select creationism is just a result of the more rigid "REMEMBER THIS OR DIE!!!" teaching back in the days... if they'd gotten a proper presentation of both and had to consciously choose which to believe, the amount of evidence pointing to evolution would be overwhelming. As we currently don't have to "defend" evolution when we're teaching it, no-one knows why it is superior to ID as an explanatory theory, so when faced with people who believe in ID, who actually have to defend their views and knows the strong points of their belief, they have no positive things to put on their side of the scale, and are thus more easily presuaded into believing in ID. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
one of the preferred ways of presenting it would be dividing a class into two -- one should defend evolution and one should defend ID (preferrably the ones who are most naturalistic to start with should be defeinding ID). They'd have to find arguments for themselves, but the teacher should also be an active participant in the following debate, throwing both sides off balance if their arguments didn't hold... I did something like this once when we were having "students teach day" or something like that.. it was about gays (no, I'm not gay you wanker), and even some of the people who, when we started, hated gay people realised there were no reasons for them to do so.. not all, but two or so did... I also originally had a third faction defending marriage between a gay person and a gay person who'd had a sex change, but they couldn't figure out what they were fighting for, as they figured it was the same as being straight, almost... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
just mention some people believe in god creaing earth in biology class. and in some religion- or societystudies class |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Drunken Mastah, you are obviously a very intelligent guy who went to / goes to good schools, and you're far on your way onto the academic track rather than the vocational track. I think one of the problems you have is you lack an appreciation for exactly how deeply, irredeemably stupid, ignorant, manipulable and lazy the great majority of people are. They can't hold one complex idea in their heads, never mind two and be able to critique them and judge their relative merits. If some simple idea gets into their head first, it will be almost impossible to replace it with a more complex idea later. Evolution is not easy to understand. The principle - population variation and selective pressure - is easy to state but it's difficult to grasp the overall picture in an intuitive, gut-level way without imagining some kind of teleological principle or force. Every minute you're teaching people creationism or ID in, say, high school, takes away from time that would be better spent explicating evolution in a way that makes it easier to make intuitive sense of. I think it's a bad move to teach wrong, simply wrong ideas out of the mistaken belief that people will be able to reconstitute hundreds of years of debate in their heads and come to the correct conclusion. All you'll do is legitimize superstition. Now on the one hand a university level course that examines the history of science and theories of origins is a smashing idea but let's be realistic and teach people basic facts in secondary education because many will not go on to uni and they need the tools to evaluate ideas and participate politically and socially. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
schools should not teach evolution, but instead the EVIDENCE FOR evolution (which is in massive abundance), so people finally stop believing these fairy tales about a big man with a beard who lives in the clouds. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The neutral theory of molecular evolution. (Motoo Kimura). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
link that complicated religion discussion board that made my head melt in 10 seconds |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh you mean Carm? They're closing it down and moving to a subscriber-only policy! Smart people were going there and kicking the Christians' asses, and everyone could go to the site and watch it happen. Now they'll be able to just ban anyone who argues well against them and outsiders won't be able to watch and laugh. is also good and probably has smarter people and higher level discussions. is good and lively and has lots of good intelligent debate. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
internet kills scholasticism |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
silly biglet, you cannot kill scholasticism. There are still people willing to defend Anselm's ontological argument to the grave. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sign him up! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Anslem? OK, you dig him up and I'll prepare a syringe full of Herbert West re-animator juice. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, what I was trying to say up there was: what if the current level of stupidity in the general populace is due to the fact that they never got any reasons why they should believe what they believe and are thus more easily persuaded? What if people would get harder to manipulate and actually smarter if they had to think for themselves to know why one thing is better than the other? As I said in that other topic, Mill (and possibly Nietzsce in parts of his Human All Too Human) is better at explaining this than me (I don't have a very structured mind, as you may have guessed by now)... On Liberty is a relatively small text (~128 pages in the edition I have) and he gives a more organised view on it... (as for Nietzsche, his style of writing would make it possible to only read the relevant paragraph(s), so if I could find their numbers, it should be easy). Maybe an additional "class" or "subject" should be added to schools.. it could be the equivalent (or substitute) of theology classes (they're called that now (or.. "Kristendom, Religion og Livssyn" which translates as "Christianity, Religion and 'ways-of-seeing-life (stuff like New Age and humanism)'"), but christianity still gets the major focus sadly)... the classes would be like I described in that other post with two groups; one group would defend and the other would attack. Subjects could be.. well, whatever was important or relevant at the time.. right now, that could mean something like evolution vs intelligent design... that wouldn't interfere with methodology classes (like the bio class and maths class), and possibly/hopefully increase peoples understanding of the things they are doing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Bill Hicks said "isn't it funny that all the people who are into creationism have eyes really close together and look really unevolved." or something like that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
