Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/22/08 02:48 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Those things have all been created by man poxpower.

There's your book right there.

I wonder why people keep ignoring you.

Nevermind, I know why.

At 5/22/08 04:05 AM, Drakim wrote: Hmm, the only language I know other than Norwegian/Swedish and English is JavaScript. >>.

Fack. I meant to say, Norwegian/Swedish and English and JavaScript. I ended up making my joke into an statement of error. Don't beat me D:

At 5/22/08 11:00 AM, riemannSum wrote:
I wonder why people keep ignoring you.

Nevermind, I know why.

It's because you can't argue with the notion of truth, the simple belief in knowledge, the practice in discipline of logic and humble practices. No claims, no half-truths, no empty reasons.

Religion and science are interpreting the same thing, it's silly to call the other person wrong, because it's like calling a tree leafy.

At 5/22/08 06:35 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: It's because you can't argue with the notion of truth, the simple belief in knowledge, the practice in discipline of logic and humble practices. No claims, no half-truths, no empty reasons.

Religion and science are interpreting the same thing, it's silly to call the other person wrong, because it's like calling a tree leafy.

I love your posts. They make hee-haw sense, but they're always fun to read. You also never seem to take a side.

So the fact that both religion and science interpret existence and earth in universally similar ways--a beginning, a middle, and an end (christianity, big bang/big crunch); an infinite number of universes/dimensions (multiverse/string theory, buddhism)--is just hee haw?

Whatever.

At 5/22/08 07:54 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: So the fact that both religion and science interpret existence and earth in universally similar ways--a beginning, a middle, and an end (christianity, big bang/big crunch); an infinite number of universes/dimensions (multiverse/string theory, buddhism)--is just hee haw?

Whatever.

The problem is that religion does this by guessing. And it doesn't see it as a problem at all when things doesn't fit the guess.

At 5/22/08 07:54 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Whatever.

D'you not think you're reinterpreting modern science in such a way as to be very generous to religion?

it's like when people use quantum theory to justify the afterlife

At 5/23/08 01:37 PM, Earfetish wrote:
it's like when people use quantum theory to justify the afterlife

I'm doing nothing but justifying the notion of all possibilities.

At 5/23/08 04:55 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 5/23/08 01:37 PM, Earfetish wrote:
it's like when people use quantum theory to justify the afterlife

I'm doing nothing but justifying the notion of all possibilities.

Go one step further and acknowledge that there is a spectrum of possibility, with many things firmly rooted at particular ends.

At 5/23/08 05:01 PM, Earfetish wrote:
Go one step further and acknowledge that there is a spectrum of possibility, with many things firmly rooted at particular ends.

Yes, but this spectrum is by no means a straight line.

absolutely the point! A spectrum of possibility is undeniable, therefor any argument within the context is equally likely to be valid.

its what that belief instigates within a person that could be interesting. is a theist more prone to "sin" because he believes all will be forgiven?

At 5/23/08 05:07 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Yes, but this spectrum is by no means a straight line.

I really don't know what you mean by this. Any numerical ordering of possibility is a straight line. Some things are 50% possible, some things are over 99% possible, and some things are under 0.0001% possible. A lot of religion-specific claims are under 0.0001%, or as many 0s as you chose to use, which is why they're miracles. There's no 3Dness about my understanding of probability.

Well that's if you're just using integers, of course it's a straight line. but a graph of our environment, of events, is three dimensional, because we take up space.

At 5/24/08 04:17 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Well that's if you're just using integers, of course it's a straight line. but a graph of our environment, of events, is three dimensional, because we take up space.

This is probably the most nonsensical thing you have said thus far.
Congratulations!

At 5/24/08 06:39 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/24/08 04:17 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Well that's if you're just using integers, of course it's a straight line. but a graph of our environment, of events, is three dimensional, because we take up space.

This is probably the most nonsensical thing you have said thus far.
Congratulations!

Not really. Space is 3dimensional. To map it, you need several dimensions/variables.

At 5/24/08 06:56 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:
Not really. Space is 3dimensional. To map it, you need several dimensions/variables.

you could graph it either way really. i'm probably mistaken, I didn't do well in calculus but I do remember lots of curves and there were lots of x,y, AND z's.

Measurements are lines, but you can also have adjacent measurements, which would give the point a height or width, etc.

Right?

Explain where I'm wrong.

At 5/24/08 07:02 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

Explain where I'm wrong.

He's talking about probabilities which falls on a straight line, from 0% to 100%.
One dimension. You can go left, or right but no lower than 0 and no higher than 100.

I don't see how hard that is to understand.

Ah well I guess was taking it a step further and adding other variables. If you were to graph all the factors that make up any given probablitity it would be much more than two lines. The final is that though you're right.

Atheists really piss me off. They think they're so intelligent and above religious people, when actually most of them are just immature pricks who think they're rebelling against a system that isn't there.
wankers

At 5/24/08 07:39 PM, bill-the-donkey wrote: Atheists really piss me off. They think they're so intelligent and above religious people, when actually most of them are just immature pricks who think they're rebelling against a system that isn't there.
wankers

Generalizing and stereotyping with a hint of stupidity? Good boy!!

But seriously, this must be some sort of satire. You can't be that stupid and post such an....agressive post.

Sometimes I think Jack is actually trolling religion threads by saying stuff that is amazingly nonsensical and ambiguous to confuse atheists. Although I would admit some people are like 'oh right on Jack, right on'.

but I don't understand a fucking thing about his philosophy and everything he says just confuses it more

no disrespect to the right honourable gentleman

I don't get what's ambiguous about the idea that there are more variables than numbers when it comes to probability.

I mean I guess I'm a little vague, I'm just trying to push the conversation to a place that's a more reasonable area for ideas and thoughts that can't be proven one way or another at all. Is that wrong? I'll try to be more specific I guess.