Quantcast
Viewing all 11439 articles
Browse latest View live

Cat News

by Matthew Ellard (Posted Sat Dec 21, 2013 3:38 am)
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:I don't remember the "Micky Mouse Ears" camo as being that effective.
It wasn't and thus it is no longer used. It is the disruption pattern and light coloured bottoms that carried on.

The British had some odd ideas. You may remember that Lord Mountbatten's pink ships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountbatten_pink

Read Main Topic

A Muslim historian on Jesus

by nmblum (Posted Sat Dec 21, 2013 3:47 am)
Martin Brock wrote:Non-fundamentalist Christians don't need a pass from you.

There was never a time when most people feared being killed for saying that the Bible contains contradictions. Jews have always said that Christian interpretation of their texts is mistaken, and though antisemitism has always existed, Jews typically weren't killed for saying so. Jews weren't killed during the Holocaust for this reason for example. Islam is all about saying that literal interpretation of the Bible, by both Jews and Muslims, is mistaken and contradictory, and Muslims have never killed themselves for saying it.

Faith is called "faith" precisely because historical or scientific evidence does not substantiate the belief. Why would I care what sort of comforting fairy tales people tell themselves? Scientisticians imagine space elevators and terraforming Mars too, and I don't care about their faith either.


There is not an accurate sentence in the above:
There was never a time when religious heresies weren't tantamount to threatening the life of a king in terms of relative significance and the warranting of punishment..
Certainly the Hebrew bible is full of intimations of heresy as being worse than all other crimes and worthy of a death sentence.
Out of a mere 10 Commandments, fully 2 or 20% are devoted to the implacable and non negotiable demand to love god above all else, and to avoid taking his name in vain (blaspheming).
That does say something about keeping a civil tongue in your mouth when talking about god, in any other way than adoringly, uncritically.

And while it is true that the Jews of Europe were not slaughtered in the first half of the 20th Century, in the name of religion, it was the religion, in fact the Christian religion with it's insistent reference if not roots in the deicide for which Jews were deemed -unquestioningly so - the guilty instigators, that made the horrendous act of chilly, malice aforethought, mechanized slaughter possible.

And would make it possible again tomorrow.
No Jewish kid was chased down the streets by Christians kids screaming : "why do you have so many accountants?"
Not at all.. they chased them, and in certain places in the "Christian " world, still do, crying "Christ killer!!
So there IS that : once I've killed your god, why SHOULDN'T I be killed for it: an eye for an eye?
But there are also , and codified in the Hebrew Bible… as well as the Q'uran, suggestions that the punishment for heresy is without question, death….
Even Monty Python is aware of that.
And while I don't know what your experience of Muslim religion is, but mine is that while there are certainly nations and communities that are less than Orthodox (that is biblical literalists), the ones that are, do not permit heterodoxy, and have the options of following Allah's requirement to punish blasphemers and heretics to death…
(Thieves only have their hands chopped off.)
But that aside, it is also true that Muslims have, in the course of internecine strife, actually slaughtered each other in the name of being true believers versus heretics.
And most famously, the remarkably progressive Muslims who gave the period of the Moorish domination in Spain its reputation for tolerance and scholarly and scientific achievement, were forced out of their Arabian homelands, because they were made non grata for their iconoclasm.



NMB

Read Main Topic

Quiz Of The Year's News

by fromthehills (Posted Sat Dec 21, 2013 5:02 am)
I am proud to say that I got 4 out of twelve, and only knew 1. I don't remember what that was, though.

Read Main Topic

Holocaust Deniers are comedy gold

by Matthew Ellard (Posted Sat Dec 21, 2013 5:09 am)
David the blind holocaust denier wrote:There was not a farm house shown in any picture nor mentioned in any report. It is pure Believer BS.
Do you mean the farm house specifically identified in Caroline Colls report? You can't help yourself. You just lie without thinking. You're the world's most stupid holocaust denier.
Treblinka farm house.JPG
farm house.JPG


Read Main Topic

What are you listening to?

Blind chance vs Teleology and God

by She (Posted Sat Dec 21, 2013 5:28 am)
Good night, I have been reading about some news running through the web that Michio Kaku has shown there is a God. The "mind of God" expressed through the order of the universe and the developments of string theory. "It could have been chaotic", Kaku says; but it is beautifully ordered. It is the ultimate argument for design.

I know of course, this is nothing more than spam and that Kaku is agnostic or hold some kind of pantheistic belief. His terms about God are some kind of poetic like Einstein's, not assertions of the existence of such being.
Nevertheless, it has theological implications. The first could be that this would rule out the idea of personal gods; however I think, this would make deism stronger than atheism.

Consider the following case:

.The universe is ordered / Design.
.The universe is ordered / Blind Chance.

We should expect, that if deism were true, the universe would be ordered. But we cannot expect the same about blind chance.
So, inductively the confirmation of order should give design (which implies a God) higher plausibility than to blind chance (which implies atheism).

This is because we have inductive reasons to think is plausible the existence of a mind behind the order of the universe (because we know at least one intelligent mind does this – ours)

So, according to the order we see, it is reasonable to think there is God. While this cannot be said with the same confidence about blind chance.
_____

On the other hand for example, as Dennett points out, we as rational beings, find useful to think of things as involving a purpose, this makes easier for us to understand natural phenomena. This is quite true.
But if we accept that, shouldn't we also accept this may mean the universe does have a purpose?

I mean: if we can think of the universe as having a purpose - just for understanding issues. Couldn't we be saying that it may indeed have a purpose? What is the line between a rational tool and cognition about a purpose behind the universe? I think, the latter is what happens.

We as rational beings can comprehend such order because it expresses rationality. Or that we could not call natural phenomena as rational (even for reasons as Dennett's) if it didn't expresses rationality.

_____

This two things being said, I think deism has greater plausibility than atheism. That there is no better explanation from atheism, regarding to the way the universe is through order. How do you respond to this from an atheistic frame?

Thanks.

Read Main Topic

Facebook is Dangerous!

by fromthehills (Posted Sat Dec 21, 2013 7:35 am)
I thought it was for when you missed all the fun.

" Am I late?"
" Man, it oba!"



Yeah, yeah, whatever.

Read Main Topic

Belief does not die easily

by Shen1986 (Posted Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:02 am)
Detritus wrote:I was so struck by the idea that there is no mind/soul, only brain. Like you, I have spent hours with dementia and Alzheimer's patients. If there is a person in a diseased body, then shouldn't it be like talking to someone trapped in a broken car?


The problem with the broken car analogy is that what will be judged? There are already born people who have dementia or schizophrenia as children:

Chinese boy, 11, chained up like a dog by his own family after bump to the head left him suffering mental disorders.


Taken from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rders.html

So what will be judged if there is a soul? How can a child who is born with severe psychosis be judged for his crimes? Also it is not fair in logical sense that someone who is born this way should go to heaven because he was born this way when a healthy individual must be a believer and follow moral codes to go to heaven but a sick person will go to heaven even when he kills because he is born that way.

Another problem is that we already have neuroscience and new models and hypothesis are born how consciousness can be without the need of a soul. The problem is if there was a soul to begin with then we would already find it. Near-Death experiences would have prove a soul with no problem. We would have a army of confirmed hits where someone leaves the body and sees pictures generated on computers. Also like Out of body experiences they would also prove that we are able to see with our soul. However to this day nothing like this has happened even when the believing crowd points out to cases like Pam Raynolds or Mary Shoe case. However when you look into these cases they turn out to be just stories. Collected stories what someone said over some years. Another problem is that near-death experiences would not be able to be produced only thanks to fainting. Another problem is that we know about Near-death experiences from the year 1975:

Raymond A. Moody, Jr. (born June 30, 1944) is a psychologist and medical doctor. He is most famous as an author of books about life after death and near-death experiences (NDE), a term that he coined in 1975 in his best-selling book Life After Life.[1]


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Moody

To this day there is no evidence which would prove a soul and near-death experiences were studied and are studied to this day. Nothing has changed over the 38 years of the coining of the term. The only thing which was changed is that skeptics are more right and right then the believers. The more we learn about the brain the more it becomes a hard reality that there is nothing beyond the brain. We are already learning how memories are formed and how consciousness is coming to be. However there is nothing new in the parapsychology circles coming out lately only misleading words and even lies as can be seen when Sam Parnia is discussing Kevin Nelson because first Parnia agrees that it takes time for brain cells to die and later on claims the opposite that NDEs are after death experiences.

So therefore I stick with the idea that we have no soul. Its just the complex and mysterious brain at work which is material.

Read Main Topic

Sam Harris - How to talk to a Christian

by A Cup of Skepticism (Posted Sat Dec 21, 2013 9:23 am)
Kaepora Gaebora wrote:
A Cup of Skepticism wrote:
Lausten wrote:
Cup of Skepticism wrote:That's a pretty impressive misunderstanding of what I said, Lausten.

Good job at missing the point.

Have you considered a career in management? You are very good at acting as if you know more than others based only on who you are, not on any actual logical statements.

I don't know if I understood you or not, since as usual, you just make a blanket statement and expect everyone to know exactly what you are talking about. If you have a point, go ahead and make it. If not, keep whining about how unfair life is.


The point was that any pretense of the legitimacy of modern atheism is predicated on avoiding, as much as possible, any rational criticism of religion.

Modern atheism simply has no legs to stand on once it chooses to assess theism and religious claims rationally.


Yet you set up a strawman of atheism and expect everyone here to fit under your personal definition of the term.

You're free to prove me wrong. Until then, perhaps I'm not setting up the strawman, you are. Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
;)


Lausten wrote:
A Cup of Skepticism wrote:Modern atheism simply has no legs to stand on once it chooses to assess theism and religious claims rationally.

Rational criticisms of religion:

As historical evidence, it has consistently been proven wrong. All known religions have been shown to be, at best, exaggerations of historical events, i.e. legends.

Some scientific discoveries can be mapped back onto ancient scripture, making a claim that it was an allegory. Never has religion informed a scientific discovery.

Religions are almost always monarchies or some form of rule that comes from above. Show me a religion that says the law givers govern at the will of the people. Democracies, separated from religion, are currently considered the most just and peaceful way to rule.

Theism usually involves some sort of reward or salvation after death, taking focus off of this life. Atheism informs us that our time is short, putting great focus on doing what we can now so life will be better for those who come after.

Religion co-opts existing culture and claims that it is the source of it. Historical analysis exposes all of the influences and lays bear the good and bad of historical figures.

Religion provides community, but many things provide community. Not all of them require that you make an oath to believe in a virgin birth or accept a savior.

Fair enough?
Questions?
Comments?
What religious claims were you referring to?

I’ve got more, so don’t bother making an “is that all” post. That should give you something to chew on. I’d be glad to discuss any other rational claims you have.


Thank you. Finally some substance on this forum.

I'll promise an in-depth response if you'd like to start a new thread. Perhaps even take some time and revise your post with some of your buddies to make it the best possible case against religion you possibly can.

Read Main Topic

What I believe without evidence pt.1

by A Cup of Skepticism (Posted Sat Dec 21, 2013 9:43 am)
Kaepora Gaebora wrote:Cup,

You do realize that when referring to physical evidence, it means anything in the physical universe. A word is physical, electrons are physical, the written word tiger is physical, a thought is physical (involves neuron channel exchanges in the brain).

Whether or not such physical evidence is accepted is determined by the source and its credibility. Such stories from the Christian Holy Bible are of physical evidence, but some stories contradict other more reliable evidence such as those from geology, physics, anthropology, historical records, etc. Same thing with string theory; the math is there but it is based on premises that have not or likely cannot be proven.

Bottom line is that you can't prove something (some non-thing?) non-physical exists. You may have some ideas, but within our physical universe, there is nothing to show the non-physical non-objects exist. You can choose to believe all you like in some non-physical non-object, but in the physical universe, it's all conjecture based on non-provable premises.


Actually, I should point out that such views are demonstrably untrue.

For instance, words are decidedly not physical, although I can understand how a high school education in physics, chemistry and biology, combined with a healthy dose of scientism might convince you of that.

I can go into depth explaining why words are not matter, provided I'm in dialogue with someone who is capable of being rational.

Read Main Topic

Science vs. Pseudoscience

by A Cup of Skepticism (Posted Sat Dec 21, 2013 9:44 am)
kennyc wrote:What a total idiot. What a total troll. You really have the arrogance to believe that you can subvert skepticism. What stupidity. You really need to lean a lot instead of just running away and coming back to repeat the same tired BS.

The problem with theism is the same as the problem with philosophy -- they are both BS with nothing to support them. A lot like you.


Where's octopus1 when he's pronouncing righteous judgement on posts like this? Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
:D


Read Main Topic

School tries to silence fifth-grader’s speech on religion

by octopus1 (Posted Sun Dec 22, 2013 10:34 pm)
OlegTheBatty wrote:
octopus1 wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:I can't quite wrap myself around that... Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
:-P


A friend of mine sent me a card once. A very familiar card. A very unique and memorable card... Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
:lol:


She may have managed to cover over my previous greeting, but the bit on the front that said "2009" was a dead giveaway. Given that it was, at the time, 2010! Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
:-D


I admired her chutzpah!

What goes around comes around. Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
:halo:


Ah! If only I'd thought of that three years ago! Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
:lol:


Read Main Topic

Facebook is Dangerous!

by OlegTheBatty (Posted Sun Dec 22, 2013 10:45 pm)
fromthehills wrote:He He. You don't know, either. And can't unsee the crooked silencer.


Edit: I'm sure I'm wrong. Now the brain is saying it's always been that way.

I haven't touched the avatar since day one. I didn't choose it because of the length of his thingy, I chose it because he looks completely batty.

Read Main Topic

Quiz Of The Year's News

by OlegTheBatty (Posted Sun Dec 22, 2013 10:57 pm)
I think you should get more points for NOT getting a Beyonce question than for getting it.

Read Main Topic

Why do people make things up, only to risk public ridicule?

by OlegTheBatty (Posted Sun Dec 22, 2013 11:30 pm)
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Cobalt6 wrote:I know that there are many stories of fairy ''sightings'', but I would like to know why these people are so willing to fabricate such stories of mythical creatures, and place themselfs open to public ridicule. A non-cryptozoology related account of this phenomenon is the Amitiville Horror, which was admitted as a hoax by its primary perpretrator.

"Any attention is better than none."


The girls who perpetrated the cottingly fairies hoax had a grand old time.

Read Main Topic

Those that can

by kennyc (Posted Sun Dec 22, 2013 11:30 pm)
OlegTheBatty wrote:I worked in a fruit cannery for a few weeks, so, yes, I can. Or, at least, I canned.



Just like Cannery Row!

But probably with less fish smell. Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
:D


Read Main Topic

Americans do not trust scientists.

by kennyc (Posted Sun Dec 22, 2013 11:44 pm)
Kaepora Gaebora wrote:
Monster wrote:Meh. Overall, I'm unimpressed by the statistics in the opening post.

I went to Huffingtonpost and the link to the poll was not working.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/2 ... 81487.html

I'd like to see the question, and how it's worded. And the statistics in the opening post say that 86% of Americans have some trust in scientists, and only 6% have none.

This part:
while 26 percent said they don't trust journalists at all to accurately report on scientific studies.

Actually seems like it could be favorable to scientists, but unfavorable to journalists, which is totally reasonable. Even when a journalist is ethical and trying to report something accurately, he can make mistakes, which would then lead to someone saying he doesn't trust a journalist to accurately report on scientific studies. Radio talk show hosts that I listen to say that when a journalist writes an article about them, they are misquoted 100% of the time.


I'm in agreement. I trust reputable scientists much more than a journalist saying, "There is a new study that says..."

I'm quite tired of journalism reporting science. It always seems something is construed to be much more surprising that it really is, like a story being spread over Facebook about bras contributing to sag even though it was around a dozen people and hardly any data in the report. Even the guy doing it said it doesn't conclude anything. Yet, people press it like it is confirmed data all because of the media.


Yes, there's definitely an issue with reporting/communicating science as well as the legitimacy of certain journals.

Read Main Topic

Sam Harris - How to talk to a Christian

by Lausten (Posted Mon Dec 23, 2013 12:28 am)
doubting Thomas wrote:Moses found himself the leader of over a million people. All were former slaves and
incapable of self government. Moses provided a clever but simple method of communication which is essentially a hierarchy, still in use today by large organizations. He provided a system of preventing and curing disease and methods of dealing with predator groups. Most importantly, he united the Israelites under common principles that people believe in and strive for. The transformation required the equivalent of two generations for the group to shed the slave mentality and to become united in a common cause.


I listened to an online course on ancient Near East history, which included the period of the arrival of Israel. The professor summed it up better than anyone. She covered how this small kingdom was under the distant rule of Egypt then over a relatively short period development a system of self-rule focusing much more on justice than anyone else in the area. Unfortunately, she said, not much is known about how they did it and all we have is some rather cryptic narratives.

Read Main Topic

Universe likely to collapse! May have already started!

by Cobalt6 (Posted Mon Dec 23, 2013 12:39 am)
Bunch of crock. I'm still here. If it's being published in the Daily Mail, you know it's BS. They never explain WHAT causes this ''phase transition'', and argue as if the Higgs field will suddenly shift into the opposite of equilibrium. That's like saying all the molecules in the ocean will spontaneously meld themselves together to form a water behemoth. It just doesn't happen. Do these people not have any idea what equilibrium is? Does liquid become heavier as a gas? No! It does not. The big crunch is a science fantasy. It will never happen. It violates equilibrium laws.

Saying the universe will collapse and become super heavy due to some phase transition is like saying water turning into steam will cause the steam molecules to join together and form a black hole made of water, sucking up the remaining water.

The universe will ''end'' when stars become so far apart life will be impossible. This only makes sense as the universe is expanding. It isn't an elastic band.

Read Main Topic

Mary, the Mother of God, Annoys Me!

by octopus1 (Posted Mon Dec 23, 2013 2:04 am)
Gord wrote:
nmblum wrote:...I have a beautiful, rarely used 10 speed Italian bike to sell, and mentioning that here seems, suddenly, like a good , practical idea.

Norma Manna Blum

How much mileage has it seen?


With Norma at the handlebars?

Probably 3. If you don't count the awkward cab ride home...

"...So, a bike?"
"You are (I THINK) a purveyor of taxis ,
I do not wish to discuss
it. Further!
I imagine that your wit amazes your ,
fellows at the depot.
But, and please don't think me as rude as I am, much interested in your exploits LOL.
NMB."
"Get out..."

Read Main Topic
Viewing all 11439 articles
Browse latest View live