Atheist Activism with Dollars

[51cards]

This was mentioned on the iidb.org forums.

They wern't talking seriously of doing it, but I think it would rock. Every time you get new dollars use a sharpie to black out "In God We Trust". I think it would make quite a statement.

I'm not sure, but I don't think it would be illegal. Not sure how to tell, but Where's George stamps don't seem to have any legal problems.

Would you do it if lots of others started doing it too? I'd like to hear any thoughts.


Afterthough: It isn't that I'm 'offended' by IGWT being on money, but I do think it's inappropriate. Mostly it just seems like it would be a great way to remind people that we exist.

[benjdm]

I do it when I get bored. I usually put 'NESB' in place of God (Non-Existent Supreme Being), but I vary it up some. Someone made a stamp to make it say 'In Pasta We Trust' - you can see an image of a dollar with that stamped over at www.venganza.org (http://www.venganza.org), home of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Stu Pidasso]

People like you(and Collegekid for that matter) fascinate me. You have this need to treat atheism like a religion. It makes me wonder if humans beings arn't genetically programmed to be religious.

Stu

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
People like you(and Collegekid for that matter) fascinate me. You have this need to treat atheism like a religion. It makes me wonder if humans beings arn't genetically programmed to be religious.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

By your logic crime prevention would be just be another example of criminal activity.

[Stu Pidasso]

Hi thylacine

[ QUOTE ]
By your logic crime prevention would be just be another example of criminal activity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post makes you look foolish. Quick there is still time to delete. For the record my logic might make me think that humans are genetically programmed to prevent crime(and now that I think about it, thats not an absurd speculation).

Stu

[thylacine]

Is Stu Pidasso your real name?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Is Stu Pidasso your real name?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its one I once earned. However on this particular day, there is another more deserving of the title.

Stu

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
People like you(and Collegekid for that matter) fascinate me. You have this need to treat atheism like a religion. It makes me wonder if humans beings arn't genetically programmed to be religious.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you implying its a fundamental component of a religion that it needs to stamp out all other religions? I think some theists would disagree with you there.

Otherwise I don't see how the OP is acting like a 'religious' atheist. Its a little foolish, I agree, but its probably fun for him.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
People like you(and Collegekid for that matter) fascinate me. You have this need to treat atheism like a religion. It makes me wonder if humans beings arn't genetically programmed to be religious.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

It does seem that there's some component of young Atheists to organize and proselytize. Strikes me kinda like an anarchist's union.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People like you(and Collegekid for that matter) fascinate me. You have this need to treat atheism like a religion. It makes me wonder if humans beings arn't genetically programmed to be religious.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

It does seem that there's some component of young Atheists to organize and proselytize. Strike me kinda like an anarchist's union.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or like GLBT groups on campus, or like Young Republican groups on campus, or like every other group on campus...

[Prodigy54321]

meh, unless they group a bunch of changes together (maybe changing its shape to help out the blind /images/graemlins/grin.gif) I really don't care if it's on there anyway...it's just unnecessary...hell, if the whole of the US turned atheist..we should be fine with leaving it on there just to save the cost of printing new bills.

it would be encouraging to see more and more bills having it crossed out though...so go nuts

when atheists become the majority, you may be looked at as a Rosa Parks figure /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
when atheists become the majority, you may be looked at as a Rosa Parks figure /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, did she put blackface on Washington?

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when atheists become the majority, you may be looked at as a Rosa Parks figure /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, did she put blackface on Washington?

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when atheists become the majority, you may be looked at as a Rosa Parks figure /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, did she put blackface on Washington?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[51cards]

[ QUOTE ]
I do it when I get bored. I usually put 'NESB' in place of God (Non-Existent Supreme Being), but I vary it up some. Someone made a stamp to make it say 'In Pasta We Trust' - you can see an image of a dollar with that stamped over at www.venganza.org (http://www.venganza.org), home of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome. Thanks.

[51cards]

[ QUOTE ]
People like you(and Collegekid for that matter) fascinate me. You have this need to treat atheism like a religion. It makes me wonder if humans beings arn't genetically programmed to be religious.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think people are programmed to wear clothes? Do nudist colonies prove this?

[madnak]

He actually has a very strong point. But not for the reasons he thinks.

Almost all primitive cultures have some form of religion - it's very likely, then, that religious groups were selected for. And every culture includes some form of spiritual experience, so there is clearly some biological capacity for that experience (whether it "evolved" or is just a "side effect").

This isn't exactly a support for religion, although it only refutes fundamentalism. It actually provides a strong empirical basis for religion and thus indicates that there need be no supernatural basis.

[51cards]

I sort of agree, Madnak. He used bad logic to arrive at a truish statement (that there might be biological basis for spirituality) and used it wrongly as evidence of the divine.

If dollar bills said 2 + 2 = 5 would crossing it out be evidence for it?

[benjdm]

I cross it out because I have a problem with the national currency denying that I am a part of 'We.'

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People like you(and Collegekid for that matter) fascinate me. You have this need to treat atheism like a religion. It makes me wonder if humans beings arn't genetically programmed to be religious.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

It does seem that there's some component of young Atheists to organize and proselytize. Strike me kinda like an anarchist's union.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or like GLBT groups on campus, or like Young Republican groups on campus, or like every other group on campus...

[/ QUOTE ]

Not gonna go for it. Political power <> philosophy.

[ojc02]

Along these lines - I've been trying to say "Thank reason" rather than "Thank god", but it's hard to break the habit /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Edit: Hmm, maybe "Thank Pasta" would be more catchy /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People like you(and Collegekid for that matter) fascinate me. You have this need to treat atheism like a religion. It makes me wonder if humans beings arn't genetically programmed to be religious.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

It does seem that there's some component of young Atheists to organize and proselytize. Strike me kinda like an anarchist's union.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or like GLBT groups on campus, or like Young Republican groups on campus, or like every other group on campus...

[/ QUOTE ]

Not gonna go for it. Political power <> philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously I agree but it has to do more with bucking a perceived stigma or ostracisation, whether that stigma is there or not.

[MaxWeiss]

I'm so touched, I get a mention! There are biological components to group-think and spiritual experiences and all that other good stuff. Dawkins goes over it quite a lot on his book and presents ideas of "mis-firing" of biological roots for these types of things. Religion may be programmed in, or it may be a mis-firing or byproduct of some other thing we are programmed for. I don't know, and I know so little I can't even make an educated guess.

As for treating atheism as a religion--I must quote Dawkins again. Crap, I can't find the quote, but it's something along the lines of "It's not that I enjoy being confrontational--I just care passionately about the truth." I do not wish to create a "religion" out of atheism. I simply call a spade when I see a spade. And it's nice to enlist help, especially in a world where so many people think a spade is--god--. It's also nice to chat with like-minded people. I see nothing fundamentalist about believing something based on evidence and calling people out when they have no evidence to support their beliefs. Nor do I see like-minded people congregating and attempting to heighten a cause as inherently religious.

In what way are we treating atheism as a religion???

Edit: Oh, and that dollar bill idea sounds like fun. I think I'll do that!!!

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
Along these lines - I've been trying to say "Thank reason" rather than "Thank god", but it's hard to break the habit /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Edit: Hmm, maybe "Thank Pasta" would be more catchy /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

"Oh my Science!" "Science damn you!"

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: Oh, and that dollar bill idea sounds like fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Marking up dollar bills are "fun" in the same way that atheist youth group meetings are "nonreligious."

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'll do that!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt you will. While you're fighting the power, I'll be enjoying the irony of your Pharisaic zeal. It warms my irrational, theistic heart.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Edit: Oh, and that dollar bill idea sounds like fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Marking up dollar bills are "fun" in the same way that atheist youth group meetings are "nonreligious."



[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly?

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
You have this need to treat atheism like a religion.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

I see this problem also. From atheists.org on "coming out" as an atheist (http://www.atheists.org/comingout/othercloset.html):

Degree 5:
Completely open. Every time the subject comes up, you state your disbelief with pride and frankness. Anyone who doesn't like you because of your atheism is a bigot and is not your concern. You've written letters to the editors of newspapers on the topic, and you may have an atheist bumper sticker on your car.


It seems to me that this is almost the same as being any other religious evangelist. Evangelism is one of the things that annoys me most about religion. I have no problem lashing out at evangelists with my own atheist thoughts, but preaching them to people who really don't care and don't want to know what I believe is obnoxious.

~MagicMan

[Stu Pidasso]

Hi College Kid,

I thought about this some more. I remembered thinking the same thing about a poster in the Politics forum named Grey. Sometimes that guy preaches the democratic talking points with an almost religious ferver.

Perhaps people are not genetically programmed to be religious. It may be that humans are genetically programmed to latch onto a particular paradigm or world veiw and promote it.

A lot of people on this forum believe religion is an evil and is the cause of human conflict and misery. I've always thought that ideal was ridiculous. It seems people naturally desire to force thier own world views on other people; regardless wether their veiw is secular or religious.

Stu

[MaxWeiss]

What exactly do you think religion is??? And what exactly do you think atheism is???? I always thought a religious person believed in a god/gods. And I'm pretty sure an atheist believes there is no such god/gods.

Clearly you think "religious" means meeting with people of similar views. That what it seems from this post anyway. If that's wrong, please let me know how an atheist youth group is religious.

Let me also be clear: I do not have an express objection to much of what organized religion does (though there are many things I DO object to). All the evils that many "non-religious, but spiritual" people who believe in god think that organized religion does STEMS from their own faith.

[MaxWeiss]

Being passionate about something is not inherently religious. Are all good public speakers and speeches religious???

And I am sure that without religion, the world would have all the same evils it does today, though for different reasons. BUT I am confident there would be MUCH less of those evils, and they would also be SEEN as evil by everybody, and not tolerated by nearly as many people.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]

What exactly do you think religion is??? And what exactly do you think atheism is???? I always thought a religious person believed in a god/gods. And I'm pretty sure an atheist believes there is no such god/gods.

Clearly you think "religious" means meeting with people of similar views. That what it seems from this post anyway. If that's wrong, please let me know how an atheist youth group is religious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am using the word "religious" connotatively. Your description of the group led me to believe that your purpose was evangelical, in that you spoke of the active recruitment of agnostics who could be shown the light by way of discounted scripture (e.g. Dawkins' The God Delusion) and amateur sermonizing.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What exactly do you think religion is??? And what exactly do you think atheism is???? I always thought a religious person believed in a god/gods. And I'm pretty sure an atheist believes there is no such god/gods.

Clearly you think "religious" means meeting with people of similar views. That what it seems from this post anyway. If that's wrong, please let me know how an atheist youth group is religious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am using the word "religious" connotatively. Your description of the group led me to believe that your purpose was evangelical, in that you spoke of the active recruitment of agnostics who could be shown the light by way of discounted scripture (e.g. Dawkins' The God Delusion) and amateur sermonizing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a heck of a lot of 'reading between the lines' for a day called "Its ok not to believe." Its definitely possible thats how college kid intends to proceed but there sure isn't much evidence for it.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats a heck of a lot of 'reading between the lines' for a day called "Its ok not to believe." Its definitely possible thats how college kid intends to proceed but there sure isn't much evidence for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I'm referring to the thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=8288536&page=) in which he writes:

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to host an event in an auditorium at my school with an "it's okay to not believe" theme where I will lecture for a bit, show some videos of Dawkins and Harris, and generally try to convince agnostics that it's okay to be an atheist, for those that really don't believe but haven't come out for social reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

AND:

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to not spend too much money, say no more than $500, and would like to make it a happy and festive type of affair, with cheap copies of Dawkins' book and Harris' book, and maybe some free food to eat while we watch either one of the lecture videos of Harris or Dawkins or possible The Root of All Evil video.

[/ QUOTE ]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thats a heck of a lot of 'reading between the lines' for a day called "Its ok not to believe." Its definitely possible thats how college kid intends to proceed but there sure isn't much evidence for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I'm referring to the thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=8288536&page=) in which he writes:

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to host an event in an auditorium at my school with an "it's okay to not believe" theme where I will lecture for a bit, show some videos of Dawkins and Harris, and generally try to convince agnostics that it's okay to be an atheist, for those that really don't believe but haven't come out for social reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

AND:

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to not spend too much money, say no more than $500, and would like to make it a happy and festive type of affair, with cheap copies of Dawkins' book and Harris' book, and maybe some free food to eat while we watch either one of the lecture videos of Harris or Dawkins or possible The Root of All Evil video.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hilarious use of bolding, "OMG HE USED THE WORD CONVINCE." He said convince them its ok, not convince them its gospel.

But honestly I don't really get what the deal is. Are you trying to be perjorative with your branding it 'religious?' If this fits into that category then its a very broad definition, which would certainly count a Latin Club or a Book Club, not to mention basically any campus club or organization. And if that is how you mean it, then its not in any way hypocritical or ironic for an atheist organization to be 'religious.'

But probably this was just something you thought would be one of those "Gotcha!" moments. I'll try to come up with some way to incorporate the word 'secular' into my next description of a religious group if that would make you feel better.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Hilarious use of bolding, "OMG HE USED THE WORD CONVINCE." He said convince them its ok, not convince them its gospel.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you also find Carrot Top hilarious. The OMG reaction you ascribe to me is a misread; my bolding of "convince" seemed relevent given that I accused him of "sermonizing." I don't usually bold posts, but your reaction to my reply suggested that you might need things spelled out for you.

[ QUOTE ]
But honestly I don't really get what the deal is. Are you trying to be perjorative with your branding it 'religious?' If this fits into that category then its a very broad definition, which would certainly count a Latin Club or a Book Club, not to mention basically any campus club or organization. And if that is how you mean it, then its not in any way hypocritical or ironic for an atheist organization to be 'religious.'

[/ QUOTE ]

The Book Club and The Latin Club aren't trying to modify my worldview. Anyway, I don't have a problem with groups who wish to do so, but I think it's dumb for College Kid to pretend that only The Other Guys would stoop so low while he was in the midst of planning The Atheist Tent Revival (you don't need to point out that this is hyperbole).

[ QUOTE ]
But probably this was just something you thought would be one of those "Gotcha!" moments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another bad read. You accused me of "reading between the lines." I showed you why I was not. It's just that simple.

[vhawk01]

Of course they are trying to modify your world view. I take it you don't already think its "ok to find Latin interesting" or else you'd be in the club. Damn their proselytizing ways!

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
I take it you don't already think its "ok to find Latin interesting" or else you'd be in the club.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate it when they shove their message down your throat. Also, I thought they were going to make me get a Caesar cut.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I take it you don't already think its "ok to find Latin interesting" or else you'd be in the club.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate it when they shove their message down your throat. Also, I thought they were going to make me get a Caesar cut.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Yo_Respek]

[ QUOTE ]
This was mentioned on the iidb.org forums.

They wern't talking seriously of doing it, but I think it would rock. Every time you get new dollars use a sharpie to black out "In God We Trust". I think it would make quite a statement.

I'm not sure, but I don't think it would be illegal. Not sure how to tell, but Where's George stamps don't seem to have any legal problems.

Would you do it if lots of others started doing it too? I'd like to hear any thoughts.


Afterthough: It isn't that I'm 'offended' by IGWT being on money, but I do think it's inappropriate. Mostly it just seems like it would be a great way to remind people that we exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

The nation humbles itself by putting that on our money. There is nothing evil about it. I agree with you that many of the people who try to spread God's message do it in a bad way. They misrepresent and sell their own agenda to you. That's the nature of the world. For most of those people they mean well. They are just trying to spread a message of hope. I'm not a Christian because I am selfish. I'm not a Christain because I am lazy and self absorbed. I'm not a Christain because I like to sin. That's the real truth for me. It's hard for me to look around and say everything is just random. Did you know that science is actually proving God? Quantum Physics,Quantum Mechanics have turned the rules of Physics upside down. Scientists can't even explain what is going on. There are many things in science that cannot be explained.

A good example are symbiotic relationships in nature. There are systems in our bodys where all parts of the system have to be present for the system to function. If you take even one part away they fail to work. These systems could not evolve. If you need more examples I will give them.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
These systems could not evolve. If you need more examples I will give them.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, what is your PhD in?

luckyme

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
The Book Club and The Latin Club aren't trying to modify my worldview. Anyway, I don't have a problem with groups who wish to do so, but I think it's dumb for College Kid to pretend that only The Other Guys would stoop so low while he was in the midst of planning The Atheist Tent Revival (you don't need to point out that this is hyperbole).

[/ QUOTE ]

I also don't have a problem with groups. I thought this was clear, but evidently it's not. I don't have a problem with tent revivals or groups talking, or some guy preaching truth to people. What I have a problem about is what that truth is. If the guy is preaching "think for yourself" and "wait until you get more information to make up your mind" I'm all for an assembly of people. What I am completely berserk about is when that preacher teaches people to believe things that by definition cannot be proved and that he and they cannot possibly know. When the preacher goes from preaching truth or being good for the sake of being good to brainwashing and/or absolute conformity and/or unquestionable faith or obedience, especially towards a 2000 year old book which is despicable to begin with--that's when I call him on it.

It's not preaching in general. It's WHAT they are saying.

And again, individual faith is bad as well. Individual belief in god is the seed form which organized religion grows.

[MaxWeiss]

I wish there was a way to embed music with UBBCode. I really want to add Ray Charles and Nora Jones singing "Here We Go Again" here. I mean honestly.... Come on... Again with this????

[ QUOTE ]
That's the real truth for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome, good for you. That doesn't make it actually true.

[ QUOTE ]
It's hard for me to look around and say everything is just random.

[/ QUOTE ]

One, it's not. Two, even if it was, that would be your problem if it's hard for you to accept it. (Again though, it's not.)

[ QUOTE ]
Did you know that science is actually proving God? Quantum Physics,Quantum Mechanics have turned the rules of Physics upside down. Scientists can't even explain what is going on. There are many things in science that cannot be explained.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science is not proving god. These oddities are only proving that there is a lot we still don't know and don't understand about how things work-- (if they are even proving that! You fail to realize that nature does not have to be intuitive to us humans or conceptually easy to grasp for it to be true.) Also, a big point you are missing is mixing up "do not yet know" with "don't know therefore it's god".

[ QUOTE ]
There are systems in our bodys (sic) where all parts of the system have to be present for the system to function. If you take even one part away they fail to work. These systems could not evolve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, do your research. You are just flat out wrong. Period. This is not an argument. It is not a "personal difference" on which there can be debate. There are facts and truths about evolution and complex systems. The systems can and in fact very likely DID evolve.

[ QUOTE ]
If you need more examples I will give them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can give them, but I promise you I can shoot them down. The thing is that this is not an actual discussion. It is not a difference of opinion. There are facts and evidence, and then there is god, magic, fairies, and his holiness the great Flying Spaghetti Monster. Promoting the latter is intellectual genocide and that is why it angers me so much.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you know that science is actually proving God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and the God science is proving is definitely not the Christian God. Which explains why most theoretical physicists are atheists, hm?

[ QUOTE ]
A good example are symbiotic relationships in nature. There are systems in our bodys where all parts of the system have to be present for the system to function. If you take even one part away they fail to work. These systems could not evolve. If you need more examples I will give them.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's either false or a drastic oversimplification. I'm having trouble deciding.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These systems could not evolve. If you need more examples I will give them.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, what is your PhD in?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you say 'fresh meat?'

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These systems could not evolve. If you need more examples I will give them.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, what is your PhD in?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

neurotheisticology?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These systems could not evolve. If you need more examples I will give them.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, what is your PhD in?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you say 'fresh meat?'

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, what I meant to say was "OMG I know, like the eye, how can you possibly have half an eye that wouldnt work at all! Silly evolutionists, this stuff is so obvious!"

[Yo_Respek]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Book Club and The Latin Club aren't trying to modify my worldview. Anyway, I don't have a problem with groups who wish to do so, but I think it's dumb for College Kid to pretend that only The Other Guys would stoop so low while he was in the midst of planning The Atheist Tent Revival (you don't need to point out that this is hyperbole).

[/ QUOTE ]

I also don't have a problem with groups. I thought this was clear, but evidently it's not. I don't have a problem with tent revivals or groups talking, or some guy preaching truth to people. What I have a problem about is what that truth is. If the guy is preaching "think for yourself" and "wait until you get more information to make up your mind" I'm all for an assembly of people. What I am completely berserk about is when that preacher teaches people to believe things that by definition cannot be proved and that he and they cannot possibly know. When the preacher goes from preaching truth or being good for the sake of being good to brainwashing and/or absolute conformity and/or unquestionable faith or obedience, especially towards a 2000 year old book which is despicable to begin with--that's when I call him on it.

It's not preaching in general. It's WHAT they are saying.

And again, individual faith is bad as well. Individual belief in god is the seed form which organized religion grows.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution is the same thing. It's a form of faith. They teach it in schools like it is fact.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Book Club and The Latin Club aren't trying to modify my worldview. Anyway, I don't have a problem with groups who wish to do so, but I think it's dumb for College Kid to pretend that only The Other Guys would stoop so low while he was in the midst of planning The Atheist Tent Revival (you don't need to point out that this is hyperbole).

[/ QUOTE ]

I also don't have a problem with groups. I thought this was clear, but evidently it's not. I don't have a problem with tent revivals or groups talking, or some guy preaching truth to people. What I have a problem about is what that truth is. If the guy is preaching "think for yourself" and "wait until you get more information to make up your mind" I'm all for an assembly of people. What I am completely berserk about is when that preacher teaches people to believe things that by definition cannot be proved and that he and they cannot possibly know. When the preacher goes from preaching truth or being good for the sake of being good to brainwashing and/or absolute conformity and/or unquestionable faith or obedience, especially towards a 2000 year old book which is despicable to begin with--that's when I call him on it.

It's not preaching in general. It's WHAT they are saying.

And again, individual faith is bad as well. Individual belief in god is the seed form which organized religion grows.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution is the same thing. It's a form of faith. They teach it in schools like it is fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy man, you are going to give up the game too early. You gotta finesse it a little. Posts like this only make it obvious.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Easy man, you are going to give up the game too early. You gotta finesse it a little. Posts like this only make it obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. Back to the drawing board, huh?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Easy man, you are going to give up the game too early. You gotta finesse it a little. Posts like this only make it obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. Back to the drawing board, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you care to, do a little post sleuthing on our new friend here. You won't be disappointed.

[madnak]

Hmm. I should be more careful. Especially with a title like that. They're really popping up all over the place lately. I wonder if it's David's grandstanding?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm. I should be more careful. Especially with a title like that. They're really popping up all over the place lately. I wonder if it's David's grandstanding?

[/ QUOTE ]


Probably. He really awoke the MMA community, he cross-posted some stuff on Christian boards, its really no surprise.

[Yo_Respek]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish there was a way to embed music with UBBCode. I really want to add Ray Charles and Nora Jones singing "Here We Go Again" here. I mean honestly.... Come on... Again with this????

[ QUOTE ]
That's the real truth for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome, good for you. That doesn't make it actually true.

[ QUOTE ]
It's hard for me to look around and say everything is just random.

[/ QUOTE ]

One, it's not. Two, even if it was, that would be your problem if it's hard for you to accept it. (Again though, it's not.)

[ QUOTE ]
Did you know that science is actually proving God? Quantum Physics,Quantum Mechanics have turned the rules of Physics upside down. Scientists can't even explain what is going on. There are many things in science that cannot be explained.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science is not proving god. These oddities are only proving that there is a lot we still don't know and don't understand about how things work-- (if they are even proving that! You fail to realize that nature does not have to be intuitive to us humans or conceptually easy to grasp for it to be true.) Also, a big point you are missing is mixing up "do not yet know" with "don't know therefore it's god".

[ QUOTE ]
There are systems in our bodys (sic) where all parts of the system have to be present for the system to function. If you take even one part away they fail to work. These systems could not evolve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, do your research. You are just flat out wrong. Period. This is not an argument. It is not a "personal difference" on which there can be debate. There are facts and truths about evolution and complex systems. The systems can and in fact very likely DID evolve.

[ QUOTE ]
If you need more examples I will give them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can give them, but I promise you I can shoot them down. The thing is that this is not an actual discussion. It is not a difference of opinion. There are facts and evidence, and then there is god, magic, fairies, and his holiness the great Flying Spaghetti Monster. Promoting the latter is intellectual genocide and that is why it angers me so much. [/quote




How about this article

The Optimal Human Brain Mark Ward New Scientist 25 Jan 97

'We have reached our maximum information processing capacity'

HUMANS are about as smart as they are going to get. Researchers at BT Laboratories in lpswich have modelled the informationprocessing capacity of the brain and found that any radical improvement is impossible because of the careful balance maintained between the size and number of neurons and the blood vessels which nourish them. They claim that we have reached our maximum informationprocessing capacity, or at best are within 20 per cent of it. While brain size is a poor index of intelligence, the number of neurons and the number of connections between them are thought to be crucial. On this basis, the human brain is the most complex in the animal kingdom: it contains between 1010 and 1011 neurons interconnected at 1014 F junctions or synapses. The only creatures with brains of comparable size and complexity are dolphins and whales. in proportion to body size, human brains are about three times as big as chimpanzee brains. Chimps also lack the human brain's deep cortex, believed to be the seat of consciousness and the centre of higher thought processes such as speech and memory. Peter Cochrane and his colleagues at the Advanced Applications and Technologies section of BT Laboratories looked at different ways the brain could evolve to process more information or work more efficiently. A bigger brain is theoretically possible, they say, because our hearts could evolve to pump more blood at greater pressures to meet the increased demand. However, to produce a significant rise in processing power, the axons of nerve cells would have to be wider than they are now to speed up the rate at which they pass signals. This in turn would demand equivalent increases in the amount of insulation along the axons and a better blood supply, which would take up extra space in the brain cavity, leaving less room for more axons. The researchers also point out that the human brain is designed so that the chemical signals which pass impulses from one nerve to another are transmitted as fast as possible. The larger the brain grew, the less efficient it would become, thus limiting any improvement in processing power. "There is no incremental improvement path available to the brain, which makes evolution difficult," says Chris Winter, another member of the BT team. It would be hard to improve on the fine balance between neurons and blood vessels that has already evolved in the human brain, he says. Robert Barton, a lecturer in biological anthropology at the University of Durham, gave a cautious welcome to the new work. But he suggested that the researchers were being unfair on the brain by treating it as a homogenous system. "They assume that processing information involves the whole brain, and that is not necessarily the case." Barton also points out that the researchers did not consider the possibility of new structures evolving in the brain, or a greater degree of specialisation of existing structures, both of which could improve our ability to process information and make intelligent decisions.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
Probably. He really awoke the MMA community, he cross-posted some stuff on Christian boards, its really no surprise.

[/ QUOTE ]
MMA ?

[Yo_Respek]

Is string theory in trouble?
17 December 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Amanda Gefter

Tools







Ever since Albert Einstein wondered whether the world might have been different, physicists have been searching for a “theory of everything” to explain why the universe is the way it is. Now string theory, one of today's leading candidates, is in trouble. A growing number of physicists claim it is ill-defined and based on crude assumptions. Something fundamental is missing, they say. The main complaint is that rather than describing one universe, the theory describes 10500, each with different constants of nature, even different laws of physics.

But the inventor of string theory, physicist Leonard Susskind, sees this “landscape” of universes as a solution rather than a problem. He says it could answer the most perplexing question in physics: why the value of the cosmological constant, which describes the expansion rate of the universe, appears improbably fine-tuned for life. A little bigger or smaller and life could not exist. With an infinite number of universes, says Susskind, there is bound to be one with a cosmological constant like ours.

The idea is controversial, because it changes how physics is done, and it means that the basic features of our universe are just a random luck of the draw. He explains to Amanda Gefter why he thinks it's a possibility we cannot ignore.


Does the man who invented string theory make a good job of defending it?
Discuss this story >> Why are physicists taking the idea of multiple universes seriously now?

First, there was the discovery in the past few years that inflation seems right. This theory that the universe expanded spectacularly in the first fraction of a second fits a lot of data. Inflation tells us that the universe is probably extremely big and necessarily diverse. On sufficiently big scales, and if inflation lasts long enough, this diversity will produce every possible universe. The same process that forged our universe in a big bang will happen over and over. The mathematics are rickety, but that's what inflation implies: a huge universe with patches that are very different from one another. The bottom line is that we no longer have any good reason to believe that our tiny patch of universe is representative of the whole thing.

Second was the discovery that the value of the cosmological constant - the energy of empty space which contributes to the expansion rate of the universe - seems absurdly improbable, and nothing in fundamental physics is able to explain why. I remember when Steven Weinberg first suggested that the cosmological constant might be anthropically determined - that it has to be this way otherwise we would not be here to observe it. I was very impressed with the argument, but troubled by it. Like everybody else, I thought the cosmological constant was probably zero - meaning that all the quantum fluctuations that make up the vacuum energy cancel out, and gravity alone affects the expansion of the universe. It would be much easier to explain if they cancelled out to zero, rather than to nearly zero. The discovery that there is a non-zero cosmological constant changed everything. Still, those two things were not enough to tip the balance for me.

What finally convinced you?

The discovery in string theory of this large landscape of solutions, of different vacuums, which describe very different physical environments, tipped the scales for me. At first, string theorists thought there were about a million solutions. Thinking about Weinberg's argument and about the non-zero cosmological constant, I used to go around asking my mathematician friends: are you sure it's only a million? They all assured me it was the best bet.

But a million is not enough for anthropic explanations - the chances of one of the universes being suitable for life are still too small. When Joe Polchinski and Raphael Bousso wrote their paper in 2000 that revealed there are more like 10500 vacuums in string theory, that to me was the tipping point. The three things seemed to be coming together. I felt I couldn't ignore this possibility, so I wrote a paper saying so. The initial reaction was very hostile, but over the past couple of years people are taking it more seriously. They are worried that it might be true.

Steven Weinberg recently said that this is one of the great sea changes in fundamental science since Einstein, that it changes the nature of science itself. Is it such a radical change?

In a way it is very radical but in another way it isn't. The great ambition of physicists like myself was to explain why the laws of nature are just what they are. Why is the proton just about 1800 times heavier than the electron? Why do neutrinos exist? The great hope was that some deep mathematical principle would determine all the constants of nature, like Newton's constant. But it seems increasingly likely that the constants of nature are more like the temperature of the Earth - properties of our local environment that vary from place to place. Like the temperature, many of the constants have to be just so if intelligent life is to exist. So we live where life is possible.

For some physicists this idea is an incredible disappointment. Personally, I don't see it that way. I find it exciting to think that the universe may be much bigger, richer and full of variety than we ever expected. And it doesn't seem so incredibly philosophically radical to think that some things may be environmental.

In order to accept the idea that we live in a hospitable patch of a multiverse, must a physicist trade in that dream of a final theory?

Absolutely not. No more than when physicists discovered that the radii of planetary orbits were not determined by some elegant mathematical equation, or by Kepler's idea of nested Platonic solids. We simply have to reassess which things will be universal consequences of the theory and which will be consequences of cosmic history and local conditions.

So even if you accept the multiverse and the idea that certain local physical laws are anthropically determined, you still need a unique mega-theory to describe the whole multiverse? Surely it just pushs the question back?

Yes, absolutely. The bottom line is that we need to describe the whole thing, the whole universe or multiverse. It's a scientific question: is the universe on the largest scales big and diverse or is it homogeneous? We can hope to get an answer from string theory and we can hope to get some information from cosmology.

There is a philosophical objection called Popperism that people raise against the landscape idea. Popperism [after the philosopher Karl Popper] is the assertion that a scientific hypothesis has to be falsifiable, otherwise it's just metaphysics. Other worlds, alternative universes, things we can't see because they are beyond horizons, are in principle unfalsifiable and therefore metaphysical - that's the objection. But the belief that the universe beyond our causal horizon is homogeneous is just as speculative and just as susceptible to the Popperazzi.

Could there be some kind of selection principle that will emerge and pick out one unique string theory and one unique universe?

Anything is possible. My friend David Gross hopes that no selection principle will be necessary because only one universe will prove to make sense mathematically, or something like that. But so far there is no evidence for this view. Even most of the hard-core adherents to the uniqueness view admit that it looks bad.

Is it premature to invoke anthropic arguments - which assume that the conditions for life are extremely improbable - when we don't know how to define life?

The logic of the anthropic principle requires the strong assumption that our kind of life is the only kind possible. Why should we presume that all life is like us - carbon-based, needs water, and so forth? How do we know that life cannot exist in radically different environments? If life could exist without galaxies, the argument that the cosmological constant seems improbably fine-tuned for life would lose all of its force. And we don't know that life of all kinds can't exist in a wide variety of circumstances, maybe in all circumstances. It a valid objection. But in my heart of hearts, I just don't believe that life could exist in the interior of a star, for instance, or in a black hole.

Is it possible to test the landscape idea through observation?

One idea is to look for signs that space is negatively curved, meaning the geometry of space-time is saddle-shaped as opposed to flat or like the surface of a sphere. It's a long shot but not as unlikely as I previously thought. Inflation tells us that our observable universe likely began in a different vacuum state, that decayed into our current vacuum state. It's hard to believe that's the whole story. It seems more probable that our universe began in some other vacuum state with a much higher cosmological constant, and that the history of the multiverse is a series of quantum tunnelling events from one vacuum to another. If our universe came out of another, it must be negatively curved, and we might see evidence of that today on the largest scales of the cosmic microwave background. So the landscape, at least in principle, is testable.

If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?

I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.

From issue 2530 of New Scientist magazine, 17 December 2005, page 48

[Sephus]

did you even read the brain article? how does it present an example of

[ QUOTE ]
There are systems in our bodys (sic) where all parts of the system have to be present for the system to function. If you take even one part away they fail to work. These systems could not evolve.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Yo_Respek]

I'm not a Christian or anything else. I'm going to ask you what seems more likely.

Ok let's say you had to create perfect conditions for the Possibility of intelligent life. Practically every scientist would agree that a number of things have to be precise for life to be even POSSIBLE. First the gravity of the planet has to be within a certain range. The temperature has to be within certain ranges. The atmosphere as to be a certain composition. Earth happens to be a pretty good place for life.

Ok now you have your close to perfect enviornment for life. From a primordial soup of nonliving material a single cell organism has to form. Let's say everything lines up to make this organism perfectly. Remember the probability of this is practically zero. But let's say it happens. Now we have one cell. The cell has some precoded dna that also happened to randomly line up and it tells it to become two cells.

This process is all random remember. This would be the same as taking apart a car and throwing it in a lake and having it eventually come out fully assembled. And that is only to get one cell! To get a human being it would be like having a piece of chalk painting the mona lisa or the sistine chapel all on its' own.

The premise for this theory is just stupid. In all the math calculations scientists are losing their common sense. I just find it funny that people actually take scientists seriously when they promote these things.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
How about this article

[/ QUOTE ]


How about it??

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a Christian or anything else. I'm going to ask you what seems more likely.

Ok let's say you had to create perfect conditions for the Possibility of intelligent life. Practically every scientist would agree that a number of things have to be precise for life to be even POSSIBLE. First the gravity of the planet has to be within a certain range. The temperature has to be within certain ranges. The atmosphere as to be a certain composition. Earth happens to be a pretty good place for life.

Ok now you have your close to perfect enviornment for life. From a primordial soup of nonliving material a single cell organism has to form. Let's say everything lines up to make this organism perfectly. Remember the probability of this is practically zero. But let's say it happens. Now we have one cell. The cell has some precoded dna that also happened to randomly line up and it tells it to become two cells.

This process is all random remember. This would be the same as taking apart a car and throwing it in a lake and having it eventually come out fully assembled. And that is only to get one cell! To get a human being it would be like having a piece of chalk painting the mona lisa or the sistine chapel all on its' own.

The premise for this theory is just stupid. In all the math calculations scientists are losing their common sense. I just find it funny that people actually take scientists seriously when they promote these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Careful now, we've had people deny their religious viewpoints in order to gain some supposed credibility in the past. Are you sure you don't just have 'next to no faith?' Also, I doubt God enjoys you pretending you don't believe, even if it is for the greater good of converting heathens.

And congrats on packing so many of the same tired agruments into one post. Very concise for those of a mind to refute you. You've got "its all entirely random" mixed in with some weird uses of the anthropic principle, a little argument from incredulity, and even a subtle invocation of Occam's razor. Well played. Tell me about why atheism is a bad gamble, I'm dying to hear it! -EV?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a Christian or anything else. I'm going to ask you what seems more likely.

Ok let's say you had to create perfect conditions for the Possibility of intelligent life. Practically every scientist would agree that a number of things have to be precise for life to be even POSSIBLE. First the gravity of the planet has to be within a certain range. The temperature has to be within certain ranges. The atmosphere as to be a certain composition. Earth happens to be a pretty good place for life.

Ok now you have your close to perfect enviornment for life. From a primordial soup of nonliving material a single cell organism has to form. Let's say everything lines up to make this organism perfectly. Remember the probability of this is practically zero. But let's say it happens. Now we have one cell. The cell has some precoded dna that also happened to randomly line up and it tells it to become two cells.

This process is all random remember. This would be the same as taking apart a car and throwing it in a lake and having it eventually come out fully assembled. And that is only to get one cell! To get a human being it would be like having a piece of chalk painting the mona lisa or the sistine chapel all on its' own.

The premise for this theory is just stupid. In all the math calculations scientists are losing their common sense. I just find it funny that people actually take scientists seriously when they promote these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wanted to withhold judgement for at least a few posts...I've seen enough...

you're a moran

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a Christian or anything else. I'm going to ask you what seems more likely.

Ok let's say you had to create perfect conditions for the Possibility of intelligent life. Practically every scientist would agree that a number of things have to be precise for life to be even POSSIBLE. First the gravity of the planet has to be within a certain range. The temperature has to be within certain ranges. The atmosphere as to be a certain composition. Earth happens to be a pretty good place for life.

Ok now you have your close to perfect enviornment for life. From a primordial soup of nonliving material a single cell organism has to form. Let's say everything lines up to make this organism perfectly. Remember the probability of this is practically zero. But let's say it happens. Now we have one cell. The cell has some precoded dna that also happened to randomly line up and it tells it to become two cells.

This process is all random remember. This would be the same as taking apart a car and throwing it in a lake and having it eventually come out fully assembled. And that is only to get one cell! To get a human being it would be like having a piece of chalk painting the mona lisa or the sistine chapel all on its' own.

The premise for this theory is just stupid. In all the math calculations scientists are losing their common sense. I just find it funny that people actually take scientists seriously when they promote these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wanted to withhold judgement for at least a few posts...I've seen enough...

you're a moran

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey now! I used 'idiot' for a a poster who is clearly not as cogent as this guy, and was (rightly) reminded to keep it civil...I'm not criticizing...just asking if 'moran' is ok. Does the ironic spelling make it ok?

I've never understood the 'talking points' mentality of people like this. I realize his position is impossible to defend, but can't people at least come up with their own non-sensical arguments? I guess the argument needs to carry the weight of some presumed authority figure like Behe...But since the argument won't convince anyone but people like this guy, why bother with appeals to authority? Is there a group on the fence somewhere dumb enough to not know any facts, but 'smart' enough to demand that an educated person believe the argument before they will?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a Christian or anything else. I'm going to ask you what seems more likely.

Ok let's say you had to create perfect conditions for the Possibility of intelligent life. Practically every scientist would agree that a number of things have to be precise for life to be even POSSIBLE. First the gravity of the planet has to be within a certain range. The temperature has to be within certain ranges. The atmosphere as to be a certain composition. Earth happens to be a pretty good place for life.

Ok now you have your close to perfect enviornment for life. From a primordial soup of nonliving material a single cell organism has to form. Let's say everything lines up to make this organism perfectly. Remember the probability of this is practically zero. But let's say it happens. Now we have one cell. The cell has some precoded dna that also happened to randomly line up and it tells it to become two cells.

This process is all random remember. This would be the same as taking apart a car and throwing it in a lake and having it eventually come out fully assembled. And that is only to get one cell! To get a human being it would be like having a piece of chalk painting the mona lisa or the sistine chapel all on its' own.

The premise for this theory is just stupid. In all the math calculations scientists are losing their common sense. I just find it funny that people actually take scientists seriously when they promote these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wanted to withhold judgement for at least a few posts...I've seen enough...

you're a moran

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey now! I used 'idiot' for a a poster who is clearly not as cogent as this guy, and was (rightly) reminded to keep it civil...I'm not criticizing...just asking if 'moran' is ok. Does the ironic spelling make it ok?

I've never understood the 'talking points' mentality of people like this. I realize his position is impossible to defend, but can't people at least come up with their own non-sensical arguments? I guess the argument needs to carry the weight of some presumed authority figure like Behe...But since the argument won't convince anyone but people like this guy, why bother with appeals to authority? Is there a group on the fence somewhere dumb enough to not know any facts, but 'smart' enough to demand that an educated person believe the argument before they will?

[/ QUOTE ]

you do know that I meant to spell it "moran"..right?

I criticized someone in another thread yesterday for offering a statement of disagreement with a witty remark rather than any substance...I have since realized that I rather enjoy them...

I don't make remarks like that often..but when I do, they are pretty clearly deserved...

even the critics of evolution on this board are not stupid enough to think that his ridiculous statements are any more than just that

EDIT: I'd also like to add that calling someone a moron, or the like, does actually help that person to see their mistake...

it has happened to me at least a few times around here..by seeing that people who I believe to be more intelligent than I am disagree with my position or argument, it makes me go back and look at it more throughly..and I often discover where I have erred

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
I criticized someone in another thread yesterday for offering a statement of disagreement with a witty remark rather than any substance...I have since realized that I rather enjoy them...

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean I don't get to tell the fart jokes?

[Yo_Respek]

[ QUOTE ]
did you even read the brain article? how does it present an example of

[ QUOTE ]
There are systems in our bodys (sic) where all parts of the system have to be present for the system to function. If you take even one part away they fail to work. These systems could not evolve.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

The brain article was to show the complexity that had to evolve randomly. The brain is optimal. The article is essentially saying that no improvements are likely or even possible.

As humans we haven't even designed one system that comes even CLOSE to the complexity of the single cell organism. That is with full intent of making it happen. They are trying to create conditions for a single cell to develop randomly and they can't even come close. Even when they try to create a cell they can't do it using the peices of the cell that have already "evolved".

It took Thomas Edison about 1000 tries just to build a light bulb he was TRYING to build.

The Theory Of Survivial Mentality

sur·viv·al (sr-vvl)
n.
1.
a. The act or process of surviving.
b. The fact of having survived

Survival instinct in evolution cannot be a process because all processes require intent. Therefore in order for a creature to want to survive it has to be programmed by a non random process.

[kurto]

Did someone suggest this guy was DS? I don't think DS could fake this.

This guy just seems to drop random factoids and wander into vaguely related other facts... then think he's proven something.

[Yo_Respek]

[ QUOTE ]
Did someone suggest this guy was DS? I don't think DS could fake this.

This guy just seems to drop random factoids and wander into vaguely related other facts... then think he's proven something.

[/ QUOTE ]

I question the premise of science itself. The process of science tends to act in a bubble. If I don't explain everything I say according to the scientific process it can't even be considered. The burden of this test dampens creative thought. Which of course is a big part of the reason that scientists love it so much. Why the readers of this blog love it so much. It gives them a reason to feel superior. If my argument isn't perfectly constructed it will be attacked. "This guy must be dumb because he just gave his opinion".

The irony of this is that the thinkers in science are the people who get the most glory. Eienstein,Hawkings etc. were all THINKERS. A lot of the research was done in their own brains.

Everyone is looking for a stamp of approval or some type of certification from someone. This is the attitude of most of society.

The people who tend to have the most success are people who are able to analyze ideas on their own merit. I personally don't care who writes an idea or concept if the concept has merit. It's called trusting yourself. It's called vision. If NO ONE agrees with me I am willing to stand alone if I know I am right. Here's a great Helen Keller quote to tie it all toghether.

“The most pathetic person in the world is someone who has sight, but has no vision.” Helen Keller

[kurto]

This is like a comedy routine. I just can't tell if he's in on the joke.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally don't care who writes an idea or concept if the concept has merit. It's called trusting yourself. It's called vision. If NO ONE agrees with me I am willing to stand alone if I know I am right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which says, " I don't care who writes a concept .. as long as I decide it's right, it has merit. etc. And I know I'm right, because, because... well, I just KNOW, dammit. cheesh, I have Vision."

luckyme

[Yo_Respek]

[ QUOTE ]
This is like a comedy routine. I just can't tell if he's in on the joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny to you because you assume what you are reading and what you know is indisputable. You assume you are operating from a position of knowledge strength and that anyone who questions science must not have enough information.

I'm operating from a position of understanding human nature. There are certain things science does well. This gives people the impression that those achievements mean that non scientific issues can be solved by scientists. Scientists are not using enough of the spectrum of intelligences to prove their theorys. This is based on the type of people who tend to make up the scientific community along with pressure within the scientific community to be predisposed to certain methods to acheive answers.

[Yo_Respek]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I personally don't care who writes an idea or concept if the concept has merit. It's called trusting yourself. It's called vision. If NO ONE agrees with me I am willing to stand alone if I know I am right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which says, " I don't care who writes a concept .. as long as I decide it's right, it has merit. etc. And I know I'm right, because, because... well, I just KNOW, dammit. cheesh, I have Vision."

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

It's based on empirical reasoning. When I don't feel I have enough information as a basis for empirical reasoning I do research. Even when I am doing that research I base the individual facets on logic and empirical reasoning.

Empirical: Based on experience and observation, rather than systematic logic. Experienced physicians often use empirical reasoning to make diagnoses, based on having seen many cases over the years. Less-experienced physicians are more likely to use diagnostic guides and manuals. In practice, both approaches (if properly applied) will usually come up with the same diagnosis.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is like a comedy routine. I just can't tell if he's in on the joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny to you because you assume what you are reading and what you know is indisputable. You assume you are operating from a position of knowledge strength and that anyone who questions science must not have enough information.

I'm operating from a position of understanding human nature. There are certain things science does well. This gives people the impression that those achievements mean that non scientific issues can be solved by scientists. Scientists are not using enough of the spectrum of intelligences to prove their theorys. This is based on the type of people who tend to make up the scientific community along with pressure within the scientific community to be predisposed to certain methods to acheive answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry. I just can't take you seriously. I do look forward to your posts though. I'm waiting for 'the big reveal.'

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]

Why, did she put blackface on Washington?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its already been done on the $2.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/US_%242_reverse.jpg

Stu

[MaxWeiss]

Ok, first, what the hell are you talking about????

Second, science is a process, not some mysterious arbitrary field of study separate from everything else.

The "burden" of testing an idea does not dampen creativity, it just gives a thumbs up or down for if that creative idea has some kind of truth to it. Einstein took away the ether, certainly an interesting and creative idea for the time. Subsequent predictions made my his hypothesis and further testing followed and his theory held up to all of it. If it had failed, that wouldn't go against the creativity of the idea.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
The brain article was to show the complexity that had to evolve randomly. The brain is optimal. The article is essentially saying that no improvements are likely or even possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, evolution is NOT random. You have to get that. While many random things happen during the process, survival of the fittest means that the fittest survive and the rest die out. Clearly that process is not random and yet, it occurs naturally. Also, I have not studied neurophysiology, but how do you know the brain is "optimal" and where in that article does it state that. The article just says that at the current stage, the brain is getting full. That doesn't mean it's optimized it's space. BUT even if you are right, you are wrong in saying that that system cannot evolve. Think about a bee's brain. Just a few little neural connection. Why is it so hard to imagine a bunch more developing and (through an evolutionary process) learning to work together and create a being of higher thought and brain power???

And as for your irreducible complexity argument about things, imagine a very simple system which piece by piece gets added to. Each piece relies on the fact that the other parts of the system are already functioning and requires them to continue functioning. If you do that a bunch, you get a complex system which will fail if you remove a part because those other parts rely on it. That doesn't mean it has to all magically appear at once.

Do you understand how that process can take place?


[ QUOTE ]
As humans we haven't even designed one system that comes even CLOSE to the complexity of the single cell organism. That is with full intent of making it happen. They are trying to create conditions for a single cell to develop randomly and they can't even come close. Even when they try to create a cell they can't do it using the peices of the cell that have already "evolved".

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot vouch for the validity of that first sentence, but we DO KNOW how life begins. We understand the conditions and what happens. It's just that making the leap occurs very rarely.

Evolution and science aren't up for debate. They also aren't magic, and they certainly are not prohibitive to creativity or emotional well being. I don't know why so many people feel this is so (though you didn't actually say that).

If evolution turns out to be wrong, that's all well and good (though based on current evidence and knowledge, I think it's unlikely). The PROCESS of coming up with the idea is self-correcting and leads to the best way to understand things.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[It's based on empirical reasoning. When I don't feel I have enough information as a basis for empirical reasoning I do research. Even when I am doing that research I base the individual facets on logic and empirical reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well there's your problem right there...you're trying to use science!

[Mike Jett]

[ QUOTE ]
I sort of agree, Madnak. He used bad logic to arrive at a truish statement (that there might be biological basis for spirituality) and used it wrongly as evidence of the divine.

If dollar bills said 2 + 2 = 5 would crossing it out be evidence for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheists do not need evidence.

[MaxWeiss]

The premise for your theory is stupid.

Thank goodness that your theory is not close to the actual theory of what happened.

[MaxWeiss]

Interesting article. Did you notice how he kept mentioning "data" and "evidence" and the "consequences of the equations"??? You see, even when theories are wrong, they are developed from evidence as a way to explain what is going on. The theories can be tested (maybe not yet, I don't know much about the topic) and refined or confirmed/denied. That's what makes them "scientific" and what science is about-- self-correction.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is the same thing. It's a form of faith. They teach it in schools like it is fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution is based on a rational conclusion which fits the evidence. Unless you are talking about faith in the accuracy of our measuring instruments (which can be tested) or faith that every other person knowledgeable about the subject isn't lying to us, then no, it's not based on faith.

They do teach it in schools like it is fact, and for a good reason. (Go ahead, guess the reason.)

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]

They do teach it in schools like it is fact, and for a good reason. (Go ahead, guess the reason.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I've always assumed it had something to do with the Freemasons...right?

[AlienBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
It's based on empirical reasoning. When I don't feel I have enough information as a basis for empirical reasoning I do research. Even when I am doing that research I base the individual facets on logic and empirical reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]



Ah yes, empirical reasoning. I presume this is the same way you came up with this "miracle" wagering system??

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rue#Post8428778 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=other&Number=8428778&Sear chpage=2&Main=8428778&Words=Yo_Respek&topic=&Searc h=true#Post8428778)

By the way, I'm playing at the Hustler tonight, please come sit at my table.

PLEASE.

AB

[MaxWeiss]

What are you talking about!? Clearly he has a keen understanding of gambling and life in general. I praise him, for he said

[ QUOTE ]
I do not see this system there. I included the disadvantage in the math. If I always have a higher bet when I win and a lower bet when I lose that will overcome the house advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Yo_Respek]

[ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about!? Clearly he has a keen understanding of gambling and life in general. I praise him, for he said

[ QUOTE ]
I do not see this system there. I included the disadvantage in the math. If I always have a higher bet when I win and a lower bet when I lose that will overcome the house advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

That's taken out of context and I admitted that I mis said what I really meant.

I would like to know what you are so angry about. What makes you hate a potential God so much? Most people would want God to exist because then they might have a chance to live forever. I sense a hatred for people that have faith in God from you.

Would you be happy if you found out that God existed?

[Yo_Respek]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The brain article was to show the complexity that had to evolve randomly. The brain is optimal. The article is essentially saying that no improvements are likely or even possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, evolution is NOT random. You have to get that. While many random things happen during the process, survival of the fittest means that the fittest survive and the rest die out. Clearly that process is not random and yet, it occurs naturally. Also, I have not studied neurophysiology, but how do you know the brain is "optimal" and where in that article does it state that. The article just says that at the current stage, the brain is getting full. That doesn't mean it's optimized it's space. BUT even if you are right, you are wrong in saying that that system cannot evolve. Think about a bee's brain. Just a few little neural connection. Why is it so hard to imagine a bunch more developing and (through an evolutionary process) learning to work together and create a being of higher thought and brain power???

And as for your irreducible complexity argument about things, imagine a very simple system which piece by piece gets added to. Each piece relies on the fact that the other parts of the system are already functioning and requires them to continue functioning. If you do that a bunch, you get a complex system which will fail if you remove a part because those other parts rely on it. That doesn't mean it has to all magically appear at once.

Do you understand how that process can take place?


[ QUOTE ]
As humans we haven't even designed one system that comes even CLOSE to the complexity of the single cell organism. That is with full intent of making it happen. They are trying to create conditions for a single cell to develop randomly and they can't even come close. Even when they try to create a cell they can't do it using the peices of the cell that have already "evolved".

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot vouch for the validity of that first sentence, but we DO KNOW how life begins. We understand the conditions and what happens. It's just that making the leap occurs very rarely.

Evolution and science aren't up for debate. They also aren't magic, and they certainly are not prohibitive to creativity or emotional well being. I don't know why so many people feel this is so (though you didn't actually say that).

If evolution turns out to be wrong, that's all well and good (though based on current evidence and knowledge, I think it's unlikely). The PROCESS of coming up with the idea is self-correcting and leads to the best way to understand things.

[/ QUOTE ]

The leap CANNOT occur. They DO NOT have ANY CLUE how a single cell can be constructed randomly.

ireducible complexity: If all parts of a system have to have a function to be selected for the next generation how can you explain the ear canal? The eye? Every previous part of the overall system would have to have a function for it to be selected. That's a pretty hard test. Scientists come up with lame examples for this type of thing. The only example for instance of how the eye can form is of a simple patch on a lizard that acts as an eye. Then they skip on to the next subject. When they know that the leap from that patch to our eye is extremely complex. The design of the eye is used as a model to design cameras. Also it's very disputable that the selections that would cause an animal to be more likely to survive would lead to highly specialized systems. Optimal is a different standard than survivial. You see clear evidence in nature of optimizing being the goal. Optimizing is a design trait.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about!? Clearly he has a keen understanding of gambling and life in general. I praise him, for he said

[ QUOTE ]
I do not see this system there. I included the disadvantage in the math. If I always have a higher bet when I win and a lower bet when I lose that will overcome the house advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

That's taken out of context and I admitted that I mis said what I really meant.


[/ QUOTE ]

i would love to hear "what you really meant" and have you try to show that it isn't totally retarded.

[Sephus]

Yo_Respek

[ QUOTE ]
I would be willing to admit I am very very stupid if the system is not profitable over 10 million or more hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Based on the simulation I agree that this isn't possible with this betting system.

[/ QUOTE ]

did the admission come? not quite.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah you are arrogant for no reason at all!! You aren't that smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I have made a lot of money with this betting idea. One of the negative aspects of running a computer simulation is that it doesn't mimick my actual behavior. For example if I was up a couple of hundred dollars I would get up and leave or start the betting over. It's hard to simulate that on a computer. Maybe the real reason I have made money is because any time variance gives me a reasonable win I leave and don't gamble it back. That kind of discipline in poker has served me very well.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Yo_Respek]

This is clearly reflected in an interview which Einstein later in life gave to an American magazine, The Saturday Evening Post, in 1929:

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

"Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?"

"Emil Ludwig's Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."

"You accept the historical Jesus?"

"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life

[Yo_Respek]

[ QUOTE ]
Yo_Respek

[ QUOTE ]
I would be willing to admit I am very very stupid if the system is not profitable over 10 million or more hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Based on the simulation I agree that this isn't possible with this betting system.

[/ QUOTE ]

did the admission come? not quite.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah you are arrogant for no reason at all!! You aren't that smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I have made a lot of money with this betting idea. One of the negative aspects of running a computer simulation is that it doesn't mimick my actual behavior. For example if I was up a couple of hundred dollars I would get up and leave or start the betting over. It's hard to simulate that on a computer. Maybe the real reason I have made money is because any time variance gives me a reasonable win I leave and don't gamble it back. That kind of discipline in poker has served me very well.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

He never ran it for 10 million hands. Always leave yourself outs buddy!!

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess what that guy is saying is that I don't know enough about poker to invent a poker game. I would agree that it helps to understand everyones motives and reasons behind their decisions in poker. That would probably contribute to me being a pretty good poker player. I am a pretty good poker player. So that's out of the way now. Because I understand what most people want in a poker game I thought up a way to give most people what they want in a poker game. I know my ideas are good because I would play in a game that used my ideas. I can anticpate that other people would play in a game with my ideas because they currently play in games that I play in.

[/ QUOTE ]

[AlienBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
This is clearly reflected in an interview which Einstein later in life gave to an American magazine,

[/ QUOTE ]


Einstein was a high functioning autistic (what is now called "Asperger syndrome".)

As a savant, he made extraordinary discoveries in theoretical physics as a young man (though nothing but failed hypothesis and retracted papers later).

That he made some groundbreaking revelations in theoretical physics does not mean he is any kind of authority in any other field.


AB

[AlienBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
This is like a comedy routine. I just can't tell if he's in on the joke.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm pretty sure that Yo_Respek is a gimmick account by a *brilliant* user, who delights in entertaining us all.

AB

[MaxWeiss]

Okay, first of all, optimizing is not a design trait as it relate to life. Things which help alive beings live longer will out-last those that don't! Optimizing will occur naturally in that sense.

Secondly, I will happily take an even money bet with you on whether your system will be profitable over ten million hands of blackjack (shuffled every hand, with an inherent disadvantage) or baccarat, or craps or roulette. We can have a third party write the sim and hold the money in escrow. Please PM me all the specifications of your system so we can agree on the details. You have my word of honor I won't use your system for my own gambling purposes until after our arrangement is concluded.