quote:

Originally posted by Yohan what your saying is that science is 'good enough', not 'perfect' honestly. would you be satisfied with something that is 'good enough' and a 'best guess'?

its better then believing the earth was created in 7 days and adam and eve were the first animals on earth. Cmon Yohan i thought you were smarter then this.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit its better then believing the earth was created in 7 days and adam and eve were the first animals on earth. Cmon Yohan i thought you were smarter then this.

nah. i'm a dumb ass

i dont take literal interpretation of old testament. 'day' possibly means a period of time according to the old hebrew, not 24hr day as we reckon

as for adam and eve, i really have no idea exactly what that story means

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

I love how the burden of proof is on Atheists. Last time I checked there isn't a single shred of evidence of a God. Now, evolution on the other hand..

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan nah. i'm a dumb ass i dont take literal interpretation of old testament. 'day' possibly means a period of time according to the old hebrew, not 24hr day as we reckon as for adam and eve, i really have no idea exactly what that story means

Me neither so i will continue to trust science to get that plane off the ground and land it safely rather then a miracle


(ps i was kidding about the smartness remark )

at this time, science can only explain so much....at some point you have to believe in something that science just hasn't been able to explain.

That being said, I am not a religous person and scientific proof is where I look first for any explanation.

___________________

quote:

Scott has been introduced to the rave scene, and Ecstasy, by Craig. The two of them go out on the weekends, with some of Craigs friends, and stay up all night, dancing in a drug-fueled trance.

Last edited by Moral Hazard on Apr-26-2011 at 07:48

i love how choice and belief are considered the same here...

___________________
www.elkdee.com
Soundcloud sampler: www.soundcloud.com/elkdee

quote:

Originally posted by El K Dee i love how choice and belief are considered the same here...

Ha. Belief is the direct opposite of choice. Belief completely strips the critical thinking and rational senses out of you. Plus most people aren't religious by choice. Most have been bred into it like some kind of genetic disease. (or more like a neurological disorder).

quote:

Originally posted by dipsetrenegade I love how the burden of proof is on Atheists.

Not really... except until you come out and decide to push an agenda by asserting there's no God... or "probably no God".

Now since you all work on proof with this sort of thing... prove it!

(see where you get yourselves when you decide to play tit-for-tat with the very people you claim are full of shit)

quote:

Originally posted by dipsetrenegade Ha. Belief is the direct opposite of choice. Belief completely strips the critical thinking and rational senses out of you. Plus most people aren't religious by choice. Most have been bred into it like some kind of genetic disease. (or more like a neurological disorder).

If you truly believe in critical thinking and rational sense... you should have a huge problem with a group of so-called free thinkers who have to spend hundreds (or thousands?) of dollars that could much rationally be used elsewhere to make statements to the general public asserting that there's (probably) no God.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot ...but there's no scale by which to quantify what outweighs what, so its a pointless exercise.

Ah, I see. It's a pointless exercise trying to back up your assertions. Could that perhaps be because they are baseless?

quote:

I'm not really trying to argue this, though.

No, you aren't. You're stating it as a premise and basing your entire argument on that premise, without regard to the possibility of said premise being fundamentally flawed.

quote:

My main point is that if a community decides what actions to take based on rational arguments and truthful information derived in a scientifically sound manner, then the expected outcomes of those actions are ALWAYS better than it would be if decisions were made on incorrect or unverifiable information. This is a standard theorem in game theory--expected outcome increases as information increases. In other words, your odds can only increase if you can see the opponent's cards.

Define "better".

And what is this nonsense about game theory? Sure, it's an interesting field, I've read a lot of it myself, but it doesn't claim to be a model for social behaviour outside of... well, games.

Essentially you've given us an analogy in place of evidence and justified it with some excuse about it being too difficult to come up with direct evidence. As someone so deeply interested in mathematics, you really ought to be holding yourself to a higher standard than this. Analogies are the tools of writers and politicians, not mathematicians and scientists, and while they are excellent for explaining difficult concepts to unfamiliar audiences, they have zero value in deductive reasoning.

Real life is not game theory. Information is always constrained, resources usually are not, actors are not rational, and there are few if any clearly-defined rules and boundaries. Game theories are useful models for explaining and predicting a limited subset of social and psychological phenomena, but extrapolating it the way you have is just asinine, and I believe that the majority of practicing mathematicians and researchers in the field would laugh at you for trying to use it in such a way.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by dipsetrenegade I love how the burden of proof is on Atheists.

Well, yes, it is - if said atheists actually want to prove their position.

Atheism has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. Agnosticism places the burden of proof on the theists, stating "I refuse to accept any explanation without evidence." Atheism is the assertion of one particular explanation - that there is no god, creator, overarching intelligence, etc. - and therefore, as with any other hypothesis, requires supporting evidence. And its claims are every bit as vague and untestable as the claims of theists.

Modern incarnations of most major religions believe that the book of Genesis was a metaphor anyway, that the "days" merely refer to discrete stages in the development of life and that God (or whomever) might just have set some chain reaction in motion that caused evolution to occur.

I'm not saying I believe that; I don't. To me it's just another catch-all explanation that's impossible to prove or disprove. But it's rather shallow to place all theists under the umbrella of young-Earth creationists when most of them are no such thing.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here