Gawdzila: Brainmeat: For intensive purposes, it was.

I disagree. What about tides and gravity?
Those things affect you, and neither would work if the Earth were flat.


Brainmeat: Nothing really is, until it is proven.

Not really. I think it is useful to make a distinction between what "actually is" and what society treats as correct (which is what you seem to hold up as "what is"). How you're treated by society is dependent on the latter, but everything else depends on the latter.

What is true and what is perceived to be true can be fundamentally different, and when they disagree with one another, what is true is still true and what is believed to true is also true, to the person who believes it. It is like arguing politics on fark, one side believes what they want based on their evidence, the other side does the same to their point of view. Both look like warglble to each other. My point was, which I guess I stated poorly, that even a well argued point, based in reality and proven by whatever science is necessary, can still be considered by the majority to be incorrect, because they choose not to believe it. Once the majority follows the science and proofs, can it be considered to be seen as true, since although it was actually true, it was not thought so by the masses. I think I mucked it up quite a bit and do apologize for any confusion. I think the only further way to clarify would be to tell you that we have always been at war with East Asia.

/I appreciate your conversation
//Not snark

Cornelius Dribble: letrole: If you're an Atheist, then there is no moral difference between killing a man and blowing out a candle.

A troll by any other name would smell as rank...

Yeah - but at least he has the balls to come out and say what he means, and not cloak it in phony "questions".

JQPublic: What if one puts the man and the candle into the box with Schrodinger's Cat?

Pussy death thought experiment!!!

As soon as this thread becomes longer than the Steve McNair one I will surely do a mandatory facepalm
------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a Steve McNair thread?

MorganFreeman: It's like calling not believing in aliens a religion, and it's stupid.

Well, if not believing in aliens isn't a religion, then why do these antialienists insist on ridiculing us true believers? Why do you have to mock us?

The saucer people WILL smite you for your blasphemy. And when you stand before the throne of the Supreme Lizard Person begging for your life, don't say I didn't warn you.

I've heard all these arguments a hundred times before, so I've come here for the funny pictures. More funny pictures!

Earguy: After seeing the billboard, Team of Life community activist Essie "Big Mama" Reed brought her students out to protest it Wednesday afternoon.

Oh, no, you got Big Mama upset.



/actual picture of Big Mama

SHE'S upset about a sign that essentially says "be good for goodness' sake"?!

/santa dress

Armandeus: I've heard all these arguments a hundred times before, so I've come here for the funny pictures. More funny pictures!

I second the motion.

/and the sentiment

Armandeus: I've heard all these arguments a hundred times before, so I've come here for the funny pictures. More funny pictures!



Hot.

vertiaset: Really? So, either you are saying that Dolphins have a neocortex, that they have an equivalent structure or the neocortex is not the seat of self. Which is it? In any case it will be news to the field of neuroscience the world over. Maybe a link or two would help us understand your earth shattering pronouncements.

I'm a little bored, so I'll argue it your way.

Really? So you're saying that gorillas' haven't learned international sign language and communicated all the emotions associated with the concept of self? I'm sure the scientific community awaits your findings on this alternate reality. Please provide a link, or just wish really hard, and I'm sure you'll be rewarded.

See? I can be a lowbrow smartass too.

"Religion has convinced people that there is an invisible man living in the sky, who watches everything you do for every minute of every day.

And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things that he doesn't want you to do.

If you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place of burning and fire and smoke and anguish for you to live forever and suffer and burn and scream until the end of TIME!!!

But he loves you." George Carlin

vertiaset: They do not have a sense of self in the way that humans do for the same reason that I cannot play World of Warcraft on my IBM AT. They do not have the hardware to run the software.

Yes but, as with your IBM AT, it isn't that they are missing some essential piece of hardware so much as it is that the hardware they have isn't quite up to snuff. That doesn't mean it can't run some facsimile of WoW though.

I might also point out that we don't exactly know everything about brains (although we do know a lot), and we are still often surprised by the capabilities and behaviors of some animals. I'm not suggesting that a dolphin is like a person. What I am suggesting is that we don't know the capabilities of their hardware exactly, and it would be a mistake to be too sure in our assumptions about what they do or do not think.


vertiaset: Our neocortex serves as its primary function providing us with the ability to think abstractly.

You're mistaken.
The neocortex refers to the six-layered arrangement of neurons covering the entirety of the cerebral hemispheres. ALL mammals have a neocortex. Neocortex covers all areas of the brain (except the older brain structures such as the hippocampus which are covered in the three-layered archicortex), including areas not related to abstract thought, such as primary motor cortex.

As for your explanation of human behavior, I am well aware of how learning and abstract thought work. But your biological explanation is just wrong. As I said, all mammals have neocortex. The part of our brain that allows for abstract thought and information synthesis is called "association cortex". Humans have, compared to overall brain size, a larger association cortex than any other animal, but other animals DO have association cortex.

madblader: Militant Atheists is the term used by religious idiots when they can't win a debate against a smart Atheist.

or, more likely, it's used to describe anti-theistic hate rhetoric and behaviour by some atheists, and frustration a gnostic atheist feels when he / she realizes they can no more prove their philosophical position than any gnostic theist but insist on continuing to argue with everyone about it.

BTW - I'm really getting a laugh out of this and similar threads while reading excerpts of Hawking's essay addressing Fermi's paradox and colonizing other planets through the equivalent of intelligent design from his Life in the Universe lecture series. (circa 2007)

http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4487687 (pops)

bartink: Armandeus: I've heard all these arguments a hundred times before, so I've come here for the funny pictures. More funny pictures!



Hot.

Now, you see, you have raised a far deeper and more troubling question than any so far addressed here - namely: "Who the hell dresses their baby up like a SANDWICH?"

eraser8: MorganFreeman: It's like calling not believing in aliens a religion, and it's stupid.

Well, if not believing in aliens isn't a religion, then why do these antialienists insist on ridiculing us true believers? Why do you have to mock us?

The saucer people WILL smite you for your blasphemy. And when you stand before the throne of the Supreme Lizard Person begging for your life, don't say I didn't warn you.

jso2897: bartink: Armandeus: I've heard all these arguments a hundred times before, so I've come here for the funny pictures. More funny pictures!



Hot.

Now, you see, you have raised a far deeper and more troubling question than any so far addressed here - namely: "Who the hell dresses their baby up like a SANDWICH?"

I can't answer that question but I can raise yet another: Would someone please pass the mustard?

I find it interesting that the Communist Chinese, the Fundamentalist Muslims and the Fundamentalist Christians agree on so many issues, but none of them like one another.

bartink: JQPublic: What if one puts the man and the candle into the box with Schrodinger's Cat?

Pussy death thought experiment!!!

you've changed the outcome just talking about it.

versiaset's profile pic:

jso2897: Now, you see, you have raised a far deeper and more troubling question than any so far addressed here - namely: "Who the hell dresses their baby up like a SANDWICH?"

I am ashamed to say at one point my child may have been dressed as some form of berry for Halloween. That's all I will say.

kerpal32: you've changed the outcome just talking about it.

If only that were more true.

If you locked me in a box with Selma Hayek, when would we be considered to have consummated the relationship?

I'm guessing something approaching infinity.

TigerStar: I find it interesting that the Communist Chinese, the Fundamentalist Muslims and the Fundamentalist Christians agree on so many issues, but none of them like one another.

you'd be surprised at the number of things they have in common.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_religion (pops)

as well as the similarities to various theories under physical cosmology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology (pops)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology (pops)

Gawdzila: vertiaset: They do not have a sense of self in the way that humans do for the same reason that I cannot play World of Warcraft on my IBM AT. They do not have the hardware to run the software...[snip]

I feel the need for an oh snap pic, but I have none amusing enough that I can find at work right now...

Is this the lake of fire?
http://seds.org/hst/ngc4261.html

Either God had reasons to make actions good or evil, or he had no reasons.

If God had no reasons to make actions good or evil, then all morality is completely arbitrary. It is random chance that rape, murder, and theft are evil acts and kindness, charity, and honesty are good acts.

If God had reasons to make actions good or evil, then those actions are good or evil because of those reasons, and not because of God.

Theists have never been able to get around this simple problem with morality-by-the-word-of-God. They have no answer to it.

letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

Like not collecting stamps is a hobby...

Armandeus: I've heard all these arguments a hundred times before, so I've come here for the funny pictures. More funny pictures!

Just trying to help.

Hindmost: Why would an atheist pay money for an ad? I sure as fark wouldn't bother.

What about the tooth fairy? Also not real, but sure as shiat not paying to broadcast that to the commoners. wtf?

Anyone who's visited Fark knows that it's fun to incense the mentally degenerate. It doesn't do anything to further the cause, but it is the source of endless hours of entertainment.

This billboard does not do any of that, however, but it does raise awareness that just because you have doubts doesn't mean you're doomed to hell or, worse, isolation.

iaazathot: letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

Like not collecting stamps is a hobby...

bushbot111: Farkers are so confused....they hate religion but they love black people no matter what. What are they to do? This thread is full of torn emotions. I love it

-You're new here, yes?


/go back to FR

Brainmeat: The majority controls the truth until proof is made otherwise.

That isn't truth you're thinking of. I believe the term you're confusing it for is "wikiality."

icanhazstapler: Brainmeat: The majority controls the truth until proof is made otherwise.

That isn't truth you're thinking of. I believe the term you're confusing it for is "wikiality."

Thats truthiness you can believe in.

shipofthesun: Actually, yes, as seen through the lens of quantum physics, nothing really is, until it is chosen. So reality is a bleeding edge of consciousness sort of thing, that evolves every microsecond. Or not.

You're misusing the concept of uncertainty and superposition, this is NOT what it implies.
I guarantee my physics professors would be very upset at that argument.


Brainmeat: My point was, which I guess I stated poorly, that even a well argued point, based in reality and proven by whatever science is necessary, can still be considered by the majority to be incorrect, because they choose not to believe it.

That's true, but I still don't think that what people believe to be true has any affect on what is actually true.


Brainmeat: when they disagree with one another, what is true is still true and what is believed to true is also true, to the person who believes it.

This is what I really disagree with.
Something cannot be "true to the person who believes it". They can believe it and be wrong, but believing it does not make it true. If a lot of people believe something it can affect the way society behaves, but it can never affect the way nature behaves. Consider a plain enough example and this becomes obvious; if someone gives you a cyanide pill and tells you it is Tylenol, it will kill you whether you honestly believe it will cure your headache or not.

If reality could be different for a someone just because of what they believe to be true, it would imply that the world works differently for different people. In this case, two people performing the same experiment would get different results depending on what they expected to happen. The world would be incomprehensible and, in fact, what "really is" wouldn't exist; it would be a meaningless concept.

kerpal32: madblader: Militant Atheists is the term used by religious idiots when they can't win a debate against a smart Atheist.

or, more likely, it's used to describe anti-theistic hate rhetoric and behaviour by some atheists, and frustration a gnostic atheist feels when he / she realizes they can no more prove their philosophical position than any gnostic theist but insist on continuing to argue with everyone about it.

BTW - I'm really getting a laugh out of this and similar threads while reading excerpts of Hawking's essay addressing Fermi's paradox and colonizing other planets through the equivalent of intelligent design from his Life in the Universe lecture series. (circa 2007)

http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4487687 (pops)

Just because you can't disprove or prove God the default is not that there might be one. In fact, it is the opposite.

MorganFreeman: iaazathot: letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

Like not collecting stamps is a hobby...

Heh.

Not an original idea, but a few years ago I made a crapload of "Religious Tracts" that, on the cover, looked exactly like a Jack Chick publication.

The cover said, in an angry font, "WHAT GOD HAS REVEALED TO MAN" with the usual fanfare of design in the background.

Inside, the pages were all blank.

Most people that believe in god unquestioningly are morons. It's a troll thing to say, but it's also true

onebadgungan: Corvus: So my city having a giant cross on public land is ok but people privately having a billboard like this is not?

I immediately thought of San Diego, where I live.
(checks profile)

Yep. Cool deal. Fark party, y'all?

I hate all the "save our cross people".

If they want to "save the cross" how about they collect millions in private money and buy it privately and not have our public tax money pay for it.

They went it against that idea when they couldn't rig the auction to sell it to them for a cheap price.


It drives me nuts these are the same people who are against "government waste" and spending and when you say well it's a waste to spend money on a giant cross on a hill they flip out like that's the most important spending the government should do.

They are crazy lunatics.

From_The_Year_2000: Most people that believe in god unquestioningly are morons. It's a troll thing to say, but it's also true

Unquestioningly is the key term, but yeah. There's a ton of smart Christians, but anyone who doesn't question what they believe in and why isn't going to come off as a genius.

Gawdzila: You're misusing the concept of uncertainty and superposition, this is NOT what it implies.
I guarantee my physics professors would be very upset at that argument.

I'm sorry, are you trying to tell me how to interpret Heisenberg? And your professors can be as upset as they want, uncertainty is as uncertainty does. I'm not actually bound to think any specific way about how the universe operates, as nothing of any great importance rides on the outcome.

From_The_Year_2000: Most people that believe in god unquestioningly are morons. It's a troll thing to say, but it's also true

I think if you took a moment and considered the chart I posted above, you would realize that personality is more important to any given person's "religion" than their intelligence (or their ability to "win" an argument on the internet).

vertiaset: Somebody has Wikipedia bookmarked.

It had more to do with the class on brain biology that I took a couple quarters ago.


vertiaset: Your comment was first and foremost hairsplitting, this is Fark, not the Lancet. Secondly, in the latter part of your post you acknowledge I was correct. Now, why would you go to all that trouble?

The point seems to have eluded you..

First you said that morality required a sense of self and the ability for abstract thought, and that dolphins "don't have the hardware" for it, citing humans neocortex as the structure that gives us this unique ability.

I pointed out that, not only is the neocortex common to ALL mammals, but the structure that does give us abstract thought is a piece of hardware that many animals do have. On top of that, we have little idea of the relationship between the size of the association cortex and the sorts of mental dexterity it allows you to perform, meaning that nobody can say for certain what sort of mental capabilities many of the higher mammals have.

Not only is this NOT hairsplitting, but I didn't agree with you. I directly contradicted your position that other animals "do not have the hardware" necessary for abstraction, and especially your assertion that no person "of even moderate intelligence would make such a claim".

Was that easier to follow for you?

shipofthesun: I'm sorry, are you trying to tell me how to interpret Heisenberg?

No, I'm not telling you how to interpret it.
I'm just telling you that it doesn't support the argument you made.


shipofthesun: I'm not actually bound to think any specific way about how the universe operates, as nothing of any great importance rides on the outcome.

Agreed, but irrelevant.
I don't care if you're right or wrong about how the universe works, I just point out misuses of physics when they happen.
That sort of fast and loose interpretation is what results in crap like The Secret.

vertiaset: Perhaps, then true morality is a HUMAN thing, and that religious morality is just a part of our evolution toward true morality.

Not too horribly wrong, but multiply wrong.
1) Morality is not limited to humans.
2) "evolution toward" implies a linear path, as opposed to the non-uniform drunkard's walk in a minefield (in an n-dimensional space) that evolution uses
3) The phrase "toward true morality" implies the destination is reachable, rather than asymptotic approach
4) to maintain the useful distinction between my objects of the terms morality and ethics, "toward better ethics" would be preferred

vertiaset: Morality is purely a human construct.

Morality is a human concept. So, however, are the laws of thermodynamics.

vertiaset: When a cat tortures a mouse before eating it, the cat is not being immoral. It is not immoral when a black hole consumes an entire galaxy or when a wolf pack hunts a new born elk.

Morality requires choice. Your examples give no choices, they are only events; morality only enters in the consideration for multiple options.

Now, if you want to discuss the cat choosing between eating the mouse immediately versus doing more before that... yes, it's a question of morality. And we can get into that.

letrole: My point is that apart from God, there is no right and wrong, only results. I presented an example of men in the wild state who didn't have a full-blown sense of Western Ethics, as many "modern thinkers" seem to assume they would.

It's still ethics; merely a somewhat alien system of ethics, in part from the alien probabilities of the different environment.

vertiaset: There is no morality in nature beyond man


Any of the four will do.

vertiaset: I am sure I have a lot yet to learn.

Interesting.

So, would you agree with the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction -- that (P OR Q) is logically equivalent to (Q OR P), such that either might be inferred from the other?



vertiaset: Only humans, with their ability to see themselves as separate and distinct from the rest of creation and hence with free will, can be moral or immoral.

G2V:
That being said, I hate when atheists call themselves "Free thinkers," as an implicit differentiation between themselves and the religious. Yeah, that'll win people over.

Believe it or not, Atheism is not evangelical, we've no obligation to win people over whatsoever.

It's also a reasonably accurate, factual label as the religious (correct or not) are slaving their will intentionally to that of another (imaginary) being. It's not even being a dick, really.

For being a dick, see things like this:

From_The_Year_2000: Most people that believe in god unquestioningly are morons. It's a troll thing to say, but it's also true

//To be fair, most people, period, are morons, but the implication that it's restricted to the religious is kind of unfair.

JQPublic

That's funny right there. I could actually hear the background music from the mac ads accompanying the crack of the bat against the scientologist's head. Good stuff.

Wasn't somebody mentioning something about Atheism, not a religion, symbols, organizing, etc?

/just fuel for the fire, since it's hot, like my link