3,623 Forum Posts by "Ravariel"
At 2/5/07 12:10 AM, Dre-Man wrote: And about our little argument on the age of the earth, I don't believe that it's only 6,000 years old. And the bible doesn't say that it is either. I was simply stating that some radiometric dating results have pointed to a younger earth.
No, they haven't. Try again.
If you really want me to, I'll search until I find a website that confirms my statement, but then you'll just say that the website I linked to wasn't credible, so why should I even bother?
There, I did it for you.
That should keep the amusement flowing for quite some time.
And like I said with Noah's Ark, the world could have meant only the Fertile Crescent. And sybolism occurs very often in the Bible, which this could be another instance of.
Might the entirety of it be symbolic, then?
Imaginary time, does that have anything to do with imaginary wave functions in quantum mechanics, or where does it come from?What?
Take a gander at the post of mine at the top of this page... links and all... though I'd be surprised if you understood it all. No offense, but it's not an easy concept. We'll see, however, how well you take to new information.
At 2/4/07 07:58 AM, Ravariel wrote: It may be more powerful than anything else... it may even be asymptotical to infinite in power... however, it can not be powerful enough to limit its own power...
Sorry, that should read: "it cannot be so powerful that it cannot limit its own power"
At 2/3/07 08:08 PM, SevenSeize wrote: I just don't like the idea of forcing vaccinations.....
Agreed. Any parent retarded enough to not vaccinate their child (for anything, not just HPV) deserves whatever happens to them. It's just a shame that the child would have to suffer as well.
But you're right... there is no reason to make the vaccination mandatory. If death isn't a big enough motivator for people to get them, then maybe we're better off without their genes in our pool.
At 2/4/07 12:39 AM, Imperator wrote:I love this topic.Ditto.
Third'd
At 2/4/07 06:54 AM, Goldensheep wrote: 1) The Universe had to start from somewhere. I realise this is a bit of a "God of the gaps" explaination, but nothing in current physics can make something come from nothing (any bastard who quotes the Casimir effect at me gets beaten to death). Even if the 'God' that started everything off is an evil, stupid, vindictive God, there still must be an all powerful being to have started things off. Maybe; I'm open to further evidence.
Imaginary Time... I'll get to it in a bit since someone else asked... not that I don't understand your point.
2) Without a God, or religion, I do not see how you can defend absoloute moral standards, which I believe are vital. Otherwise, my argument that "murder is fun" is just as valid as your argument "murder is bad". Whether or not you agree, say, euthanasia is always wrong, you can be justified in saying that "Euthanasia is certainly either wrong or right", it does not depend on personal opinion.
An objectivist application of the "golden rule" is all that is really necessary to determine morality. That and the understanding that an action has both moral and immoral consequences, along with the understanding that the morality of such actions and consequences cannot be determined immediately, but can only be judged by the information and the reasonable assumption of deduction of the actor himself.
3) I cannot see a way out of the ontological argument. Kant tried, but Plantinga has come up with another theory, which is much better. Anyone who knows about these theories (myself included) finds them intuitively implausable, but no-one I know or have read has ever disproved them to my satisfaction. However, this does not mean that the "Greatest being" is, say, omnibenevolent. It just means he is the "greatest being".
If I understand these arguments correctly, they're basically the metaphysical equivalents of the Anthropic principles. The Universe exists, thus the conditions necessary for them to exist must also exist, on up to the final necessity of a greater than everything force, be it personal or not, that we choose to call "god". Am I getting that right?
Assuming I am, I'm down with that explanation... however the problem comes when we apply features to that force... namely omnipotence. Because by the same logic (axiom S5) self-contradiction cannot, necessarily, exist... and omnipotence is, by its very nature, self-contradictory. Whatever force it was that created this universe (or created what created the universe) cannot be infinitely powerful, because infinite power is irrational, and paradoxical. It may be more powerful than anything else... it may even be asymptotical to infinite in power... however, it can not be powerful enough to limit its own power... as that is a self-contradiction. It cannot do something both possible and impossible, by the very definition of the terms... and yet it must be able to by the very definition of the term omnipotent.
You see the problem...
4) I don't like the idea of just ceasing to exist after death, so to a certain extent I kid myself.
I'm with ya... death scares the living bejeezus outta me. The unknown always does... and that's the greatest unknown there is. I would love to be able to turn my brain off and believe in an afterlife... but until someone can explain me one that's actually plausible, I gotta stick with non-existance as being what's at the end of the line for us.
At 2/4/07 04:45 AM, Togukawa wrote: Imaginary time, does that have anything to do with imaginary wave functions in quantum mechanics, or where does it come from?
Yes, it does. Here is the wiki link for it, as it explains it in probably more consise terms than I could.
Basically it states that the "beginning" of the universe (big bang) isn't a singularity at all, rather it is just another point in spacetime. I.e. there is no "beginning" of the universe as we would understand it.
And it can be postulated that with no beginning, there needs be no beginnER.
At 2/4/07 12:54 AM, SolInvictus wrote: do you think those two are ever going to realise no one here is trying to disprove religion, or what =/= means?
doubt it...
At 2/3/07 09:57 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Oh yes Ravariel, teach me your infinite wisdom!
Phh, get lost.
Can't teach those unwilling to learn. Willful ignorance is one of the few things I actually find insulting. You're a true gem of humanity, Dre... congratulations.
At 2/3/07 10:27 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: And why would these natural factors exsist at all, there the laws of the universe that i was talking about, things dont just happen man.
Of course they do. Pair creation "just happens" with no causal event.
I could say the same about a deity. Where did the deity come from, what caused it, deities don't just happen, man. And the answer is that they are eternal...
Only if the universe were perfectly deterministic would it need a causal event to come about. And yet, if it were completely deterministic, free will wouldn't exist. Nevermind that we already know it's not deterministic, rather probabilistic. The No Boundary Proposal basically introduces a second dimension of time at right angles to normal time called "Imaginary Time" (misnomer of sorts... much like the square root of -1, it's considered imaginary, but it is quite real) that precludes the necessity of a causal event or actor by making the universe basically eternal... having no specific beginning.
At 2/3/07 09:56 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Well lets say there are no relligions, can you disprove the concept of theism with no dogmas? it would be like a theist trying to disprove atheism.
Not yet... but if the No Boundary Proposal gains more evidence, then the existance of any diety, dogma or no, becomes unneccessary for the beginning of anything. And that is really the question, after all. "What made the universe?" We don't know, so some people think that an entity of whatever sort must be the cause, while others believe natural factors brought it about.
However, when you start introducing dogmas, like the bible, torah, quran, upanishads, etc... then it gets much easier.
At 2/3/07 09:40 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Dre-man neads to learn some patiants. The Atheists should stop focasing on the bible and try to disprove that the concept of theism is at all true in any way, by the way no arguments i have head was like that, they all focased on one relligion (christianity moastly) and not against theism itself. That is ironic, being that atheism is the opposite of theism and not the opposite of one relligion you dont like.
Then what, exactly, are the exact tenets of "theism"? Belief in a "god"? Well, with so many of them out there... and a possibly infinite number, no reductive logic can be used in such a case. We need, for ease of discussion to keep ourselves to one or two (or three) major religions... otherwise the playing field is far too large for anyone to get anything done.
While the strict definition of atheism is a belief that there are no deities whatsoever, it can be also assumed to be the belief that all current concepts of that deity are untrue. As such, arguing against a specific religion is a fine way of evidencing your views, especially considering the prevalence of a certain religion prevalent in our current community.
At 2/3/07 09:03 PM, Dre-Man wrote: 3.) Shut the fuck up until you have proven at least one of your "scientific" theories to explain how the earth was created.
We've told you again and again... you just keep sticking your fingers in your ears, saying "LALALALALALAAA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!", then insulting us when we try to learn you something.
Wake up, grow up, and use that piece of meat above your shoulders once in a while. You might be surprised what you find out.
At 2/2/07 08:19 PM, Dre-Man wrote:At 2/2/07 08:16 PM, SolInvictus wrote: do you know what =/= means in math?Does it matter? You were saying that all christians were creationists, and were wrong.
Oh jezus, that's the funniest thing I've read in days!
Thank you Dre, you've made my day.
w00trhyme'd
At 2/2/07 10:44 PM, Imperator wrote: If that was the case, then you'd have to explain why nearly 90% of the world is religious, and only 16% is not.
Hooray for 106% of the population being surveyed!
At 2/2/07 10:31 PM, Imperator wrote:At 2/2/07 10:17 AM, Togukawa wrote:And the Bible is not meant to be taken literally, you know that as well as I do, with completely refutes your argument. Just because the Bible says to stone women doesn't mean you should do it. HOWEVER, just because it says stone women, doesn't mean you can't get the meaning out of that, ie, Adultury is bad.
Umm, I think you missed the sarcasm...
just sayin' is all...
At 2/2/07 09:52 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: I would disagree.
Mainly because the government of Switzerland should have the power of life or death over an individual that hasn't gone through due process.
It should be left to the family to decide.
Because some of you *cough* obviously didn't actually read the article, I'll highlight some important parts for you:
"It must be recognized that an incurable, permanent, serious mental disorder can cause similar suffering as a physical (disorder), making life appear unbearable to the patient in the long term," the ruling said.
"If the death wish is based on an autonomous decision which takes all circumstances into account, then a mentally ill person can be prescribed sodium-pentobarbital and thereby assisted in suicide," it added.
The judges made clear in their ruling that certain conditions would have to be met before a mentally ill person's request for suicide assistance could be considered justified.
"A distinction has to be made between a death wish which is an expression of a curable, psychiatric disorder and which requires treatment, and (a death wish) which is based on a person of sound judgment's own well-considered and permanent decision, which must be respected," they said.
The case was brought by a 53-year old man with serious bipolar affective disorder who asked the tribunal to allow him to acquire a lethal dose of pentobarbital without a doctor's prescription.
The tribunal ruled against his request, confirming the need for a thorough medical assessment of the patient's condition.
Not exactly the state-sponsored murder yall seem to think it is.
At 2/2/07 10:11 PM, Altarus wrote:At 2/2/07 10:09 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: You people know you can get stem cells from other places the just dead babies right?Such as..?
Umbilical cords, placentas, adults. All of which have their place in research, along with embryonic. And considering how many embryos are destroyed for in-vitro fertilization, NOT using them for this research seems to me to be the most compelling moral argument for it's continuation and expansion.
At 2/2/07 04:59 PM, BanditByte wrote: So, in conclusion, first and second trimester fetuses can be aborted because they aren't human yet, but third trimester ones shouldn't because they've developed every trait necessary to call them human-beings.
I am absolutely shocked that you would spout such amazingly rational arguments about this issue, especially considering how hard right you usually swing. Keep this up and I may have to change my opinion about you again... and boy oh boy do I ever hate doing that. >B)
By the way, I don't think I've heard two people agree with each other in such a bilious fashion in quite a while.
At 2/2/07 07:54 PM, Benovere wrote: If this is the cause for homosexuality, then 20% of the population should be gay. If it is sex-linked, there would be no homosexual girls, assuming the gay men do not try to reproduce, and even then, the eventual statistics (if you want i'll put them to the 50th generation ratio) will weed the small population that does decide to breed out.
So considering the real ratio is more like 10:1 or 15:1 depending on the survey (acknowledging that societal pressures could easily effect the number of people who actively identify themselves as homosexual), we may be safe to assume that it is not a single gene that effects it, rather a pair, or multiple genes that together cause homosexuality.
Removing the very real in-utero hormonal imbalances, possible mutations and childhood abuse causes will make a genetic homosexual cause even less common, possibly as high as 25:1 or 50:1... which tells us that we must be dealing with multiple genes, most likely all recessive, and carried by both parents.
At 2/1/07 06:57 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: The chance that all 2000 proteins neaded for a cell that would come together to form a living cell is 1 in 10 to the 40000 power, mathematicians dismiss as never taking place anything that has a probobility of less than 10 to the 50th power. So life being created like that is proboble how it happened, but not if there is no god, math is on my side.
Can you calculate the probability of me sneezing at exactly 4:22:15 pm on January 17th, 2007?
Of all the factors that would have to come together at precisely the right moment in space and time, it would be at least as improbable as abiogenesis.
Guess what? The exact probability of anything that happened in the past is 1 in 1. It happened, I sneezed, the towers came down, you were born, all of these incredibly improbably events happened. Using probability to discredit the ocurrence of past events is a logical fallacy and indicitive of nothing.
At 1/28/07 04:53 PM, Memorize wrote: If they don't want the US to invade them, then why do they fund the insurgents in Iraq?
Because as long as we're mired in Iraq, we wouldn't be able to field a force against Iran. And on the possibility of the insurgency succeeding there, we'd be extremely hesitant to invade another Mid-East country anytime soon. We did the same thing to Afghanistan in the 80s when Russia invaded. We armed the "insurgents" against the occupying force in order to keep them distracted, with the secondary result of speeding up the collapse of the USSR. That that action was one of the main financial and tactical catalysts that brought about our current situation is the morbid irony I spoke of before.
Let's face it... shit like this is the very reason yall watch this show. Acting all scandalized is a travesty. If things like this didn't happen, the only reason people would watch is to catch them screwing on the lawn or something.
At 1/31/07 11:31 PM, ViolentAJ wrote: Maybe so, but the LIBERAL ELITE that can aFFORD to send their kids to private schools will, to avoid them contacting and fighting with the MINORITIES (mainly Blacks) that the Libs try to force down the throats of others.
Or maybe the liberal elite, who can afford private schools, send their kids to private schools because they are generally better schools. Much like the conservative elite. The perception that they do it to avoid minorities is bogus, possuibly a twisted view of the fact that minorities have a lower enrollment in private schools due to the very expense you talked about.
The only thing worse than a racist is someone who screames "racism" at everything. You hurt your own cause by lashing out at everything. Take a deep breath and step back from the situation. The change in perspective might surprise you.
A) Zomgliberalmediabias! Only examples given were of incidents that harmed dems and helped repubs! </cellar>
B) Libel and Slander are already illegal... wouldn't it just be easier to persue these actions under those rules already in place?
At 1/28/07 02:57 PM, Grammer wrote: Calling them an international evil does not give them a reason or an excuse to fund insurgents. If anything, Bush was right in calling them that, but you're trying to make it seem like at least the Iranians have a reason to kill our soldiers.
I don't think he was saying they were justified in doing that. I believe he was saying it's not surprising given the circumstances.
Don't get me wrong, I think Iran may be the most dangerous country out there (only reason it's not N. Korea is that Iran has better infrastructure and more allies), but if you can get past your bias try to look at it from their perspective. The most powerful country in the world locks in on you as oe of the most evil and dangerous nations on the planet. Then they invade the country right next to you (which they also included in that list). Would that not make you a tid bit worried?
Tactics aside, can you really blame them for trying to keep our attention in Iraq for as long as possible?
Though I hae to admit the irony of the situation is somewhat amusing... would be more so if american soldiers weren't dying, of course.
At 1/23/07 09:01 PM, Tankdown wrote:At 1/23/07 01:57 AM, Ravariel wrote: Euclidean geometry = pwnd.This is bit of a unrelated question but...do you beleive in the work of Einstein? Because accounting to his Theory of General Relativity, there is no Euclidean geometry.
Of course I believe in the work of Einstein. His theories of relativity gave birth to much of the science and math we now use to describe the universe. It was an important stepping-stone to where we are today in physics. However, it doesn't erase Euclidean geometry altogether... it still works... as long as the planes described are perfectly flat... just so happens there are no perfectly flat planes in our universe...
Regardless, I bent the rules a bit... not showing that I could do the impossible but that the poster's assumtion of the nature was flawed.
Unfortunately, no such flaw has yet ben ascribed to the problem in question... which is this:
At 1/23/07 09:23 PM, Imperator wrote: If that's "cheating", then I'm gonna need you to provide a "rule book".
Rule book = logic.
Possible and impossible are both self-defining and mutually exclusive (by definition).
X cannot be both possible and impossible.
At 1/27/07 02:22 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Panda attack?
damn, beat me to it...
At 1/27/07 12:22 AM, JMHX wrote: "I think this is absolutely beyond the pale," Clinton said to Reuters. "Congress will be looking into this as soon as we get back in session on Tuesday."
For those that don't get the joke, that's the funniest part right there.
And far too few of you got the joke.
I'm looking at you, cellar...
At 1/26/07 03:08 PM, Boltrig wrote: Random8982, Ive noticed that. A few American ads that have flashed by theese peepers seemed to be advocating a college fund that was only for black people. Now think about what would happen in terms of public outcry if a caucasians only college fund was set up.
My god it would be a PC massacre
You're not wrong. But consider the fact that whites vastly outnumber blacks in college admissions, nevermind scholarship, grant, and loan money. We don't require a "special" fund. That the black community has set one up for themselves is just dandy and bully for them. My own ability to get money for college is not hurt by this... nor do I require a race-specific scholarship in order to afford school.
At 1/25/07 10:08 PM, 3tard wrote: There would be the occasional baby who isnt affected by the patch and is homosexual, then wouldnt that person be especially persecuted?
Ding ding ding ding!
Someone finally gets it!
At 1/25/07 06:10 PM, StCyril wrote: Which Doctor do you choose, knowing what you do about Affirmative Action?
Would that not give ANYONE pause?
You know what they call the person who graduated last in his class from Medical School?
Doctor.
At 1/22/07 03:57 AM, Imperator wrote: A is an impossible action IN A DEFINED setting. Change the setting, and you change A. Therefore, A may no longer become impossible.
Changing the definition of impossible by changing the setting is cheating. It's like god faking the inability to lift something. It's a lie. The rock was never unliftable, because the ability to change stuff around created it's liftability.
Shit, I can do that... no need for a god.lol. University of Michigan, creating gods since 1815.....
And since noone's asked, I'll tell you how. First the definition of a triangle:
tri·an·gle (trī'āng'gəl) Pronunciation Key
n. 1. The plane figure formed by connecting three points not in a straight line by straight line segments; a three-sided polygon.
Now we take a spherical plane, give it an arbitrary "North" pole, and place one point on the pole. Place your second point on the "equator". Place your third point also on the equator, on the point that desribes a 90 degree arc. Connect the three points. Triangle. The angles are 90, 90 and 90 degrees, adding up to 270.
Euclidean geometry = pwnd.
