Bleeding from the Bunghole

[heddle]

Oh... I see now. Heddle is an idiot. I haven't seen you here before Heddle. Now that I know you are an idiot I will treat you with sympathy and generosity... and I will say things like... "Gee Wiz... aint nobody know the answer to that!" My apologies. Carry on!

Well, actually not:
*snip*

An idiot with credentials is the worst kind of idiot. Example provided from Wikipedia:

Deepak Chopra (/ˈdiːpɑːk ˈtʃoʊprə/; born October 22, 1947) is an Indian-American author, holistic health/New Age guru,[1][2] and alternative medicine practitioner.[3] Chopra began a mainstream medical career in hospitals and universities in the Northeastern United States, becoming Chief of Staff at the New England Memorial Hospital (NEMH).[1]

A fail by someone with credentials is the most epic and entertaining kind of fail. It is fun to watch.

Now of course it is one thing to say that someone is an epic fail and it's sooooo fun to break out the popcorn and watch the train wreck. It is quite another to demonstrate where that fail occurred. As far as I see you can claim my "fail" occurred in one of two places, or both:

1) I am a theist
2) I claim that cosmological fine-tuning is a real problem in physics

If it is 1) then of course that's an argument stopper. If, in your view, all theists are idiots then I at least know what type of person you are. (Proceed to Pharyngula and collect your OM). If it is 2), then where have you demonstrated that the cosmological fine-tuning is not an actual problem? Where have you addressed my point--to any extent let alone to the extent that you can smirk and call "epic fail" --that the physicists (you can limit it to atheists like Krauss and Suskind) are wrong when they characterize the cosmological fine-tuning as one of the worst problems in physics?

You have not addressed that. You have declared victory and hope nobody notices that you have not made a substantive argument.

[Sulman]

Now of course it is one thing to say that someone is an epic fail and it's sooooo fun to break out the popcorn and watch the train wreck. It is quite another to demonstrate where that fail occurred. As far as I see you can claim my "fail" occurred in one of two places, or both:

1) I am a theist
2) I claim that cosmological fine-tuning is a real problem in physics

If it is 1) then of course that's an argument stopper. If, in your view, all theists are idiots then I at least know what type of person you are. (Proceed to Pharyngula and collect your OM). If it is 2), then where have you demonstrated that the cosmological fine-tuning is not an actual problem? Where have you addressed my point--to any extent let alone to the extent that you can smirk and call "epic fail" --that the physicists (you can limit it to atheists like Krauss and Suskind) are wrong when they characterize the cosmological fine-tuning as one of the worst problems in physics?

You have not addressed that. You have declared victory and hope nobody notices that you have not made a substantive argument.

As an aside to you two making out, I wasn't familiar with the fine tuning argument. It's been a fascinating read. Cheers. :popcorn:

[AndrewV69]

Just dropping by with this burning question of the day:

[Dave2]

If it is 1) then of course that's an argument stopper. If, in your view, all theists are idiots then I at least know what type of person you are. (Proceed to Pharyngula and collect your OM). If it is 2), then where have you demonstrated that the cosmological fine-tuning is not an actual problem? Where have you addressed my point--to any extent let alone to the extent that you can smirk and call "epic fail" --that the physicists (you can limit it to atheists like Krauss and Suskind) are wrong when they characterize the cosmological fine-tuning as one of the worst problems in physics?

You have not addressed that. You have declared victory and hope nobody notices that you have not made a substantive argument.

Regarding (2) - whilst any query without a full answer remains a "problem" for physics I doubt anyone of an atheistic persuasion finds it a problem for lack of belief in a God for one of two reasons (both of which others here have stated in different words, so I apologise if this is nothing new).

God isn't a satisfactory answer to a problem without a solution.

Fine tuning is just fine tuning for existence as we know it - alternatives could be equally complicated, so why is the fact that the settings are as they are even that interesting?

[Mykeru]

http://i.imgur.com/wtnfELT.jpg

Bravo! But did you really need a whole fig leaf? Surely an acorn would have been more than ample.

Hehe!

I like how Mykeru is lurking frighteningly in the background, knowing RW will be reaching for one of the tantalizingly colored bottles of booze and budweiser in the tree. A 'lushly' green Xmas for Rebecca! Can't be a tree of knowledge though. More like oblivion and narcissism.

Sublime as always, Ape+Lust

Just as great as the graphic, and my cameo, is the phrase "posturing pheminism". We needed a term for the sort of pop feminism by which one can dye one's hair a color that doesn't occur in nature, wear hipster glasses to look "intelligent" and dress lout of grandma's consignment shop and magically one's every whim becomes a social imperative.

[heddle]

If it is 1) then of course that's an argument stopper. If, in your view, all theists are idiots then I at least know what type of person you are. (Proceed to Pharyngula and collect your OM). If it is 2), then where have you demonstrated that the cosmological fine-tuning is not an actual problem? Where have you addressed my point--to any extent let alone to the extent that you can smirk and call "epic fail" --that the physicists (you can limit it to atheists like Krauss and Suskind) are wrong when they characterize the cosmological fine-tuning as one of the worst problems in physics?

You have not addressed that. You have declared victory and hope nobody notices that you have not made a substantive argument.

Regarding (2) - whilst any query without a full answer remains a "problem" for physics I doubt anyone of an atheistic persuasion finds it a problem for lack of belief in a God for one of two reasons (both of which others here have stated in different words, so I apologise if this is nothing new).

God isn't a satisfactory answer to a problem without a solution.

Fine tuning is just fine tuning for existence as we know it - alternatives could be equally complicated, so why is the fact that the settings are as they are even that interesting?

You'll note that nowhere have I indicated that cosmological fine-tuning argues for god*. On the contrary, I have stated that the existing evidence of no explanation of the constants (apparent randomness) plus fine-tuning favors the multiverse view--for it is exactly what you'd expect. And fine-tuning is not just for existence "as we know it" if by existence you mean life. It is fine-tuning for any kind of life. As to the question "why is the fact that the settings are as they are even that interesting?" I don't know how to respond other than to say that scientists live for the question "why are things as they are?".
----------
*The most I have said in that regard is that the (almost certainly impossible) scenario of a theory with no free-parameters predicting the constants (or, equivalently, if all universes have exactly the same physics) would, in my opinion, be the most favorable outcome for theists. But that is not where we are nor is it likely to even be possible.

[Pitchguest]

Anyone up for parenting advice from the Skepchicks? From Elyse Mofo Anders, no less?

http://groundedparents.com/

In my mind's eye, "F#!@CK the Birth Experience"

Well played, Skepchick parent squad. Well played.

[Pitchguest]

Time to see what Clementine's been up to.

[Badger3k]

I really didn't need to know Rick was killed by The Governor. Stopped me from watching the last episode.

I hope that's satire or something - he's the main character and is alive in the comics as of the last I read. I'd hate to think the writer of the series is going to screw with his own story that way.

[Badger3k]

Has the statute of limitation run out on telling people what rosebud refers to in Citizen Cane ?

His bunghole? :D

[ROBOKiTTY]

I wonder what the actual content of the Tweets was that led to their arrest? If it was death and rape threats (which, I think should be punished with the law) then the charges would have mentioned that. Instead it's this hazy "misuse of a communication network" bullshit.


If it was just abuse and insults then, as long as there's a block function available, I don't see what the problem is.

The guy was @beware008, which The Daily Mail somehow terms 'sinister', has been suspended.

The woman is @IssySorley. The tweets in question are from 28 July and seem to be intact still, unless some had been deleted. None of the tweets come across as remotely illegal even by SJW standards.

[JAB]

It's about the power. The actual apology is meaningless; but the fact that X was forced to do something at Y's bidding indicates that X is Y's bitch, so much so that Y has a woody and now looks like K.

[youtube]KniUNdVZvH4[/youtube]

[JAB]

http://news.yahoo.com/teacher-disciplin ... 21412.html

Teacher disciplined for 'Santa is white' remark

In other words, Northern and Western Europeans, from where we get out Santa, are not allowed to keep their cultural myths. Fuckin' A.

If the teacher did actually say, as the article states, "Don't you know Santa Clause is white? Why are you wearing that?" to a black kid for wearing a Santa costume then I think he's a complete cunt and deserves everything he gets.

Yes, the teacher should just have admonished the kid for cultural appropriation.

[JAB]

Has the statute of limitation run out on telling people what rosebud refers to in Citizen Cane ?

His bunghole? :D

Are you asking me to utter the most long standing spoiler in filmdom? Nah uh.

[JAB]

Hey is that my first threefer?

[bhoytony]

Wow, you glossy, highly-polished bellend. How would you like it if someone ruined something you cared about? Like, um...golf? Airplanes? I don't actually know anything about you, so you win this round.

Also it's impossible to ruin Wicker Man. It has Nicholas Cage punting a woman into a wall, then sprinting across a field (while dressed as a bear) and punching another woman directly in the face, and then enjoying a beekkake. In fact, if you told someone they'd have to sit through about 40 minutes of boring "movie" before Nicholas Cage happened, you'd probably save them a lot of time and trouble.

It's not Nicolas Cage, it's Callan.

[Badger3k]

My LOL for the day. Mocking people for having ginger hair is like racism and it's also anti-semitic:

Next week: How the struggle of people with bushy eyebrows mirrors the man-made Ukranian famine of the 1930's.

Gingers are Jewish? WTF?

[JAB]

Shouldn't count though since they were all a bit OB (ie more quoted content than original)

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I've finally gotten to watch 'John Dies at the End' (talk about spoilers), based on Cracked editor David Wong's book of the same name. I didn't dislike it.

[Tribble]

In an infinite number of universes, some will be (as physicists use the concept of 'fine tuning') fine tuned for certain processes. Others will not. Some will be more fit for life. Some will be fit for life that can't exist here. Others, like ours, will be marginally fit for life.

An idiot with credentials is the worst kind of idiot. Example provided from Wikipedia:

Deepak Chopra (/ˈdiːpɑːk ˈtʃoʊprə/; born October 22, 1947) is an Indian-American author, holistic health/New Age guru,[1][2] and alternative medicine practitioner.[3] Chopra began a mainstream medical career in hospitals and universities in the Northeastern United States, becoming Chief of Staff at the New England Memorial Hospital (NEMH).[1]

A fail by someone with credentials is the most epic and entertaining kind of fail. It is fun to watch.[/quote]


Yeah, that's a false-equivalency as Chopra is nothing more than a con-man at this point. Heddle is not. And there is nothing of woo in anything he wrote. It's unproven. But physicists are clear that the multiverse hypothesis is not yet proven. Just like, back in the late '30s and early 40's, quantum mechanics were not proven, but physicists realized that Einstein's theory was the end-all of nuclear physics.

[John D]

Anyone up for parenting advice from the Skepchicks? From Elyse Mofo Anders, no less?

http://groundedparents.com/

Also known as "How to blame all your parenting challenges on everyone else!"

[Za-zen]

Heddle:

It's good to see a open theist on the forum.

I've seen WlC use a very similar argument to make the position of a belief for the existence of a prime mover (god) justifiable. What usually happens is himself and his opponent go round in circles for a bit before his opponent (if he is intellectually honest) concedes that, yes, some intelligence may have caused the existence of the known universe.

But here's the kicker, theism, is a whole other proposition to deism.

A god outside of time and space who set the whole thing in motion, fine, you choose to believe that, good for you, your pattern seeking brain finds patterns and you find god. Great.

Now get from that to theism please, because i'm atheist, not adeist. I live my life as adeist in practice, because whether a deity in that form exists is an irrelevance. Because whether we are a cosmic accident where a giant space turtle took a shit, or an intergalactic Merlin poofed us into existence and then fucked off would sure be interesting to know, but it doesn't make any claim in and of itself. Since i have no theism which hinges upon deism, i can afford to be agnostic upon the question, you unfortunately can't, you have to believe the proposition.

Craig bridges his deism dance into theism, with the claim of "if a god created us it has to be personal" that's a rickety bridge if ever i saw one, especially for a man who at other times uses the argument "we can't know the mind of god".

How do you make the leap?

[dogen]

I've finally gotten to watch 'John Dies at the End' (talk about spoilers), based on Cracked editor David Wong's book of the same name. I didn't dislike it.

The first time I saw it, I had a similar reaction -- it was kinda good, but not stand-out. The second and third times, it only got better as I saw stuff that I'd missed before. Definitely one to re-watch, if only for the lead character's "WTF" faces. Oh, and the Door that Cannot be Opened.

[justinvacula]

http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundatio ... el-shermer

Richard Dawkins Foundation
Secular VIP of Week: Michael Shermer
posted on December 17, 2013 05:50PM GMT

[Dick Strawkins]

Wow, you glossy, highly-polished bellend. How would you like it if someone ruined something you cared about? Like, um...golf? Airplanes? I don't actually know anything about you, so you win this round.

Also it's impossible to ruin Wicker Man. It has Nicholas Cage punting a woman into a wall, then sprinting across a field (while dressed as a bear) and punching another woman directly in the face, and then enjoying a beekkake. In fact, if you told someone they'd have to sit through about 40 minutes of boring "movie" before Nicholas Cage happened, you'd probably save them a lot of time and trouble.

It's not Nicolas Cage, it's Callan.

The Nicholas Cage remake of the Wicker Man was an abomination that deserved being dragged to the site of sacrifice and have wowbagger do the deed.

However, I much preferred the Muppet version.

[youtube]JLvTwBWS9v0[/youtube]

[Steersman]

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2849/1141 ... b205_o.png

:lol: And another trans-gender-fluid angel gets his/her/zir wings! ’Tis the season after all. ;-)

[Steersman]

Why am I fearful that ROBOKiTTY is secretly:

http://i.imgur.com/g03QNlm.jpg

Nothing is naturally that cute.

Don't judge me. :snooty:

http://standinginadictionary.files.word ... puter1.jpg

Thanks in any case. Though I hope it wasn’t because my “deathless prose” is more soporific than not. :-)

[Za-zen]

On a more serious not, steersman how the fuck have you more posts than me, if content is measured (not quality ;) ) your posting eclipses mine as the the horny leg biting rabbits deathstar eclipses watsons ass, or the other way about, you get my meaning.

[heddle]

Heddle:

It's good to see a open theist on the forum.

I've seen WlC use a very similar argument to make the position of a belief for the existence of a prime mover (god) justifiable. What usually happens is himself and his opponent go round in circles for a bit before his opponent (if he is intellectually honest) concedes that, yes, some intelligence may have caused the existence of the known universe.

But here's the kicker, theism, is a whole other proposition to deism.

A god outside of time and space who set the whole thing in motion, fine, you choose to believe that, good for you, your pattern seeking brain finds patterns and you find god. Great.

Now get from that to theism please, because i'm atheist, not adeist. I live my life as adeist in practice, because whether a deity in that form exists is an irrelevance. Because whether we are a cosmic accident where a giant space turtle took a shit, or an intergalactic Merlin poofed us into existence and then fucked off would sure be interesting to know, but it doesn't make any claim in and of itself. Since i have no theism which hinges upon deism, i can afford to be agnostic upon the question, you unfortunately can't, you have to believe the proposition.

Craig bridges his deism dance into theism, with the claim of "if a god created us it has to be personal" that's a rickety bridge if ever i saw one, especially for a man who at other times uses the argument "we can't know the mind of god".

How do you make the leap?

I don't know what you mean by "a similar argument." To which argument do you refer? I have not made the argument that cosmological fine-tuning --> god and I think it is a very bad argument. (As an aside I am not a fan, at all, of the apologetics of WLC.) I don't use any argument to "make the leap." I have not reasoned myself into Christianity. Now if you want to know what aspect of science I find the best apologetic (and I think apologetics is only for believers, not to convince atheists of anything, which I think is impossible) it is what has been called by many (Christian and atheist) the unreasonable success of science (and mathematics.) I don't expect any atheist to have or to admit any sort of surprise that the universe is, at a profound level, understandable--and that the necessary mathematics--though at times difficult, is nevertheless attainable--and that science is not a fool's errand--to be compelling--but I find it so. I always imagine this: If Newton's 2nd Law was a nonlinear differential equation instead of a simple second order linear diffyQ--science would probably have died on the vine. My guess. But I certainly don't expect anyone on here (or anywhere else) to agree. The unreasonable success of science and math comforts me. What it does for other theists--I don't know or particularly care.

[Guest]

In other words, Northern and Western Europeans are not allowed to keep their cultural myths.

Good news. Make the wankers suffer.

[Tribble]

http://news.yahoo.com/teacher-disciplin ... 21412.html

Teacher disciplined for 'Santa is white' remark

In other words, Northern and Western Europeans, from where we get out Santa, are not allowed to keep their cultural myths. Fuckin' A.

If the teacher did actually say, as the article states, "Don't you know Santa Clause is white? Why are you wearing that?" to a black kid for wearing a Santa costume then I think he's a complete cunt and deserves everything he gets.

Yes, and white kid dresses up with black-face to be MLK? I do believe he gets suspended. Or dress up like Pancho Villa? More suspension! Or gets in an argument with someone about Beethoven and puts an afro on his picture and writes "Beethoven was black" to sarcastically mock the idiot who was making the case for real? (Beethoven's mother was Spanish and part-Moor (1/16th) which could be black or Arabic.)

WHEN TWO WHITE students defaced a poster of Beethoven by giving the composer black features and an Afro, then hung the picture near tile door of a black student in the same dormitory—the African-American theme house, Ujamaa—Stanford was immediately added to the growing list of campuses where white racism was said to be on the upswing. But the actually incident was rather different from the version given in many press accounts.

One October evening, some undergraduates in Ujamaa had argued over a black student’s claim that all music in America has African origins. When the discussion turned to Beethoven, the black student said that Beethoven was black. Several white students openly doubted the claim. The student who admitted to defacing the Beethoven poster later said he had done it because it was “a good opportunity to show the black students how ridiculous it was to focus on race” and that it was intended as “satirical humor.” Still, most newspapers reported the defacement as an act of racial aggression rather than a tasteless joke.

It should be noted that the three students were actually friends and the poster was hung at the door of their friend. It was some third-parties that saw it and got all SJW over it. If I remember right, the white kids almost got expelled.

And so on and so on and so on... Because, in America, white people don't get to keep their myths as they evolved in Europe. And anyone is allowed to do whatever they want, however they want, to those myths on a complete free pass. But if you do anything with any minorities culture, like Day of the Dead or Kwanza, you're an evil culture stealer!

In 2010 Sandra Lee, the blonde Food Network host of "Semi-Homemade," baked a "Kwanzaa cake" that had critics pointing out the problems with indiscriminate inclusiveness. Blogger Tami Winfrey Harris wrote:

Are you happy Kwanzaa-celebrating black folks? You have been “included” in a holiday baking segment on a popular cooking show. Never mind that Kwanzaa is not traditionally celebrated with loads of baking and that there is no such thing as a Kwanzaa Cake. Never mind that Kwanzaa was specifically designed to celebrate African American culture and that nothing about this cake, save the red, black and green candles, has anything to do with the traditions of the African diaspora.

See what I'm saying? Sandra Lee, as white as Sour Cream, makes a "Kwanza Cake" and got dinged for it.

So all I'm doing is apply the same self-righteous fuck-wittery to make a point about sauce for the goose also being sauce for the gander. Because, honestly, I don't really give much of a crap about Christmas. My celebration of Christmas is limited to ordering five gift baskets (mother, father, mother-in-law, oldest daughter, wife's best friend) and giving the youngest a bunch of money because she's still a kid.

[Guest]

And so on and so on and so on... Because, in America, white people don't get to keep their myths as they evolved in Europe

:( :eusa-violin: :( :eusa-violin: :( :eusa-violin:

[Tapir]

Heddle:

It's good to see a open theist on the forum.

.................

But here's the kicker, theism, is a whole other proposition to deism.

.................

Craig bridges his deism dance into theism, with the claim of "if a god created us it has to be personal" that's a rickety bridge if ever i saw one, especially for a man who at other times uses the argument "we can't know the mind of god".

How do you make the leap?

You're getting your terms mixed up.

Deism is a subset of theism. A theist believes in god; a deist also believes in god - but a particular variety of god (an un-knowable god, generally).

The conceptual leap you are talking about is the leap from mere theism to any of the innumerable and mutually exclusive gods and religions that have sprung up to embellish that claim. And you're right it's impossible to do so without turning ones brain off.

Heddle is a Calvinist and so believes that he (and his ilk) were chosen before the beginning of time to live with god in heaven, while everybody else burns in hell. So it goes. And one of the funnier aspects of his theology is that he believes that the reason we (or anyone else) aren't falling for this crap is because we are under the bondage of sin. It's not that the arguments and evidence for the Calvinist claims are embarrassing to anyone with a modicum of sense. Oh, no - it's because you're irreparably brain damaged. And only god can fix that.

So even a Ph.D in nuclear physics doesn't guarantee you won't fall for this hokum.

[Brive1987]

"Isabella Sorley, 23, from Newcastle and John Nimmon, 25, from South Shields, were charged with improper use of a communications network."

How the fuck is this even a charge? Pray tell, exactly what the fuck is "proper use of a communications network" outside of a private company, TOS, or north Korea.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25408993

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/comm ... nces/#an11

"persistent misuse intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety"

Actually a prescient description of Watson's Patreon channel.

[tina]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/british-police ... nance.html

LONDON - British police will charge two people over a storm of offensive tweets sent to a feminist activist, an online onslaught that sparked a national debate over the limits of free speech and pushed Twitter to revamp its abuse reporting worldwide.

Prosecutors said in a statement Monday that 23-year-old Isabella Sorley and 25-year-old John Nimmo, both from northern England, would be charged with "improper use of a communications network" over messages to Caroline Criado-Perez.

Two other suspects will not be charged, while the statement said a fifth was still being investigated.

Criado-Perez was one of several women who went public earlier this year to complain about sexually explicit abuse received on Twitter from online bullies and provocateurs, often nicknamed "trolls." Twitter responded in August by making it easier to report abuse.

Read it and weep....

UK Communications Act 2003

Section 127 - Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).


UK Public Order Act 1986

Section 5 Harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(c)that his conduct was reasonable.

(4)A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—

(a)he engages in offensive conduct which [F1a] constable warns him to stop, and

(b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.

(5)In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.

(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

..............Liberal democracy huh? :whistle:

[Za-zen]

Heddle:

It's good to see a open theist on the forum.

I've seen WlC use a very similar argument to make the position of a belief for the existence of a prime mover (god) justifiable. What usually happens is himself and his opponent go round in circles for a bit before his opponent (if he is intellectually honest) concedes that, yes, some intelligence may have caused the existence of the known universe.

But here's the kicker, theism, is a whole other proposition to deism.

A god outside of time and space who set the whole thing in motion, fine, you choose to believe that, good for you, your pattern seeking brain finds patterns and you find god. Great.

Now get from that to theism please, because i'm atheist, not adeist. I live my life as adeist in practice, because whether a deity in that form exists is an irrelevance. Because whether we are a cosmic accident where a giant space turtle took a shit, or an intergalactic Merlin poofed us into existence and then fucked off would sure be interesting to know, but it doesn't make any claim in and of itself. Since i have no theism which hinges upon deism, i can afford to be agnostic upon the question, you unfortunately can't, you have to believe the proposition.

Craig bridges his deism dance into theism, with the claim of "if a god created us it has to be personal" that's a rickety bridge if ever i saw one, especially for a man who at other times uses the argument "we can't know the mind of god".

How do you make the leap?

I don't know what you mean by "a similar argument." To which argument do you refer? I have not made the argument that cosmological fine-tuning --> god and I think it is a very bad argument.

My apologies for misunderstanding

I don't use any argument to "make the leap." I have not reasoned myself into Christianity.

That i find interesting, then why do you persist with belief?

Now if you want to know what aspect of science I find the best apologetic (and I think apologetics is only for believers, not to convince atheists of anything, which I think is impossible) it is what has been called by many (Christian and atheist) the unreasonable success of science (and mathematics.) I don't expect any atheist to have or to admit any sort of surprise that the universe is, at a profound level, understandable--and that the necessary mathematics--though at times difficult, is nevertheless attainable--and that science is not a fool's errand--to be compelling--but I find it so. I always imagine this: If Newton's 2nd Law was a nonlinear differential equation instead of a simple second order linear diffyQ--science would probably have died on the vine. My guess. But I certainly don't expect anyone on here (or anywhere else) to agree. The unreasonable success of science and math comforts me. What it does for other theists--I don't know or particularly care.

If that is the answer to the last question, i have to ask, why christianity? Why not buddhism, or willywonkaism?

[Za-zen]

Apologies for the quote disaster in the last post

[Brive1987]

I really didn't need to know Rick was killed by The Governor. Stopped me from watching the last episode.

I hope that's satire or something - he's the main character and is alive in the comics as of the last I read. I'd hate to think the writer of the series is going to screw with his own story that way.

My jokes rarely amuse anyone - sometimes not even myself. :?

[tina]

Read it and weep....

UK Communications Act 2003

Section 127 - Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).


UK Public Order Act 1986

Section 5 Harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(c)that his conduct was reasonable.

(4)A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—

(a)he engages in offensive conduct which [F1a] constable warns him to stop, and

(b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.

(5)In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.

(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

..............Liberal democracy huh? :whistle:

Which is why UK Slymers rarely refer to Lusoma as a doubly incontinent jack-booted facist overlord tit...just in case he gets offended. :whistle:

[Steersman]

On a more serious note, steersman how the fuck have you more posts than me, if content is measured (not quality ;) ) your posting eclipses mine as the the horny leg biting rabbits deathstar eclipses watsons ass, or the other way about, you get my meaning.

And I started posting later than you to boot!

But apart from the question of quantity versus quality – and I’ll certainly grant that many of yours seem to have no small amount of the latter, although I really have to squint to see much in that “rabbit leg” analogy – I expect a large part of the reason for the difference in the former is that I am largely or mostly retired.

I think that one of the “claims to fame” of the Pit is, apart from the not inconsiderable amount humour and satire, that with a large number of people commenting and virtually no banning or censorship there is an awful lot of interesting ground that is covered. Which tends to justify and call for engaging in the conversations. To coin a phrase, “Warp factor 10 Mr. Sulu!” :-)

[Guest]

My LOL for the day. Mocking people for having ginger hair is like racism and it's also anti-semitic:

Next week: How the struggle of people with bushy eyebrows mirrors the man-made Ukranian famine of the 1930's.

Gingers are Jewish? WTF?

Not saying all gingers are Jewish, but my dad's wwii nickname was Red for his red hair and when I was younger, my beard would grow out red then turn brown.

[Brive1987]

Heddle:

It's good to see a open theist on the forum.

I've seen WlC use a very similar argument to make the position of a belief for the existence of a prime mover (god) justifiable. What usually happens is himself and his opponent go round in circles for a bit before his opponent (if he is intellectually honest) concedes that, yes, some intelligence may have caused the existence of the known universe.

But here's the kicker, theism, is a whole other proposition to deism.

A god outside of time and space who set the whole thing in motion, fine, you choose to believe that, good for you, your pattern seeking brain finds patterns and you find god. Great.

Now get from that to theism please, because i'm atheist, not adeist. I live my life as adeist in practice, because whether a deity in that form exists is an irrelevance. Because whether we are a cosmic accident where a giant space turtle took a shit, or an intergalactic Merlin poofed us into existence and then fucked off would sure be interesting to know, but it doesn't make any claim in and of itself. Since i have no theism which hinges upon deism, i can afford to be agnostic upon the question, you unfortunately can't, you have to believe the proposition.

Craig bridges his deism dance into theism, with the claim of "if a god created us it has to be personal" that's a rickety bridge if ever i saw one, especially for a man who at other times uses the argument "we can't know the mind of god".

How do you make the leap?

WLC building a rickety bridge between a prime mover, a disembodied intelligence, a personal god and the truth of the resurrection. Garnished with personal gut feel. The resurrection is the most important element to Christianity and also the most tenuous as Bert showed. You have to assume the resurrection is as likely and as "in play" as any other explanation. A stretch to be sure.

[Brive1987]

But if you have already "established" a personal god who is the basis for morality - then it's probably not such a great stretch as if you had begun with the resurrection as a premise

[Joanne Guest]

If an infinite amount of universes are possible, isn't it then possible that there's one universe where no other universes exist?

[VickyCaramel]

As for cosmological evolution, it would solve the fine tuning problem (as most multiverse theories do) in a most ingenious manner:

1) Life requires stars
2) Stars make black holes
3) Black holes make universes
4) At least some of the physics from the parent universe is passed to the child, therefore the child universe is likely to be able to produce stars and black holes, and as a side benefit produce life
5) Therefore we should see universes that have been bred to produce black holes (and also support life.)

However, the prediction of this model is too vague. It is something like "our universe should be near optimal at producing black holes." Also, as far as I know, there is only handwaving to support the idea that "cosmic DNA" would be passed from the black hole to the new universe.

There are some tough questions here, but I think I have the solution.

1) Our universe seems to have appeared as if by magic.
2) Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
3) In the future we become so technologically advance that we invent a time machine.
3) We go back in time and create the big bang with everything fine tuned.

Nailed it.

Oh, and what would be really cool is if they picked up Hitchens on the way back in time and let him hit the big red button.

[Bhurzum]

If an infinite amount of universes are possible, isn't it then possible that there's one universe where no other universes exist?

No robot heaven? Then where do all the toasters go?

Need...time...to...think!

[Brive1987]

http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundatio ... el-shermer

Richard Dawkins Foundation
Secular VIP of Week: Michael Shermer
posted on December 17, 2013 05:50PM GMT

It's good to see a triple entente form between Darwkins, Nugent and Shermer. It's like they are trying to goad PZ into nailing his rotting colours to the mast once and for all.

[Brive1987]

Umm Dawkins. That's one miss I won't let pass.

[VickyCaramel]

:hankey:

I just thought I would mention that today is the 16th birthday of Mr Hanky the Christmas Poo.

I have never actually seen anybody use that emoticon here, but every time I post here, seeing it reminds me of what kind of forum this is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Hankey ... istmas_Poo

[heddle]

As for cosmological evolution, it would solve the fine tuning problem (as most multiverse theories do) in a most ingenious manner:

1) Life requires stars
2) Stars make black holes
3) Black holes make universes
4) At least some of the physics from the parent universe is passed to the child, therefore the child universe is likely to be able to produce stars and black holes, and as a side benefit produce life
5) Therefore we should see universes that have been bred to produce black holes (and also support life.)

However, the prediction of this model is too vague. It is something like "our universe should be near optimal at producing black holes." Also, as far as I know, there is only handwaving to support the idea that "cosmic DNA" would be passed from the black hole to the new universe.

There are some tough questions here, but I think I have the solution.

1) Our universe seems to have appeared as if by magic.
2) Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
3) In the future we become so technologically advance that we invent a time machine.
3) We go back in time and create the big bang with everything fine tuned.

Nailed it.

Oh, and what would be really cool is if they picked up Hitchens on the way back in time and let him hit the big red button.

You refer to the Participatory Anthropic Principle:

http://physics.about.com/od/physicsmtop ... nciple.htm

[Tony Parsehole]

Wow, you glossy, highly-polished bellend. How would you like it if someone ruined something you cared about? Like, um...golf? Airplanes? I don't actually know anything about you, so you win this round.

Also it's impossible to ruin Wicker Man. It has Nicholas Cage punting a woman into a wall, then sprinting across a field (while dressed as a bear) and punching another woman directly in the face, and then enjoying a beekkake. In fact, if you told someone they'd have to sit through about 40 minutes of boring "movie" before Nicholas Cage happened, you'd probably save them a lot of time and trouble.

It's not Nicolas Cage, it's Callan.

The Nicholas Cage remake of the Wicker Man was an abomination that deserved being dragged to the site of sacrifice and have wowbagger do the deed.

However, I much preferred the Muppet version.

[youtube]JLvTwBWS9v0[/youtube]

Fuck me. I loved that.

[VickyCaramel]

As for cosmological evolution, it would solve the fine tuning problem (as most multiverse theories do) in a most ingenious manner:

1) Life requires stars
2) Stars make black holes
3) Black holes make universes
4) At least some of the physics from the parent universe is passed to the child, therefore the child universe is likely to be able to produce stars and black holes, and as a side benefit produce life
5) Therefore we should see universes that have been bred to produce black holes (and also support life.)

However, the prediction of this model is too vague. It is something like "our universe should be near optimal at producing black holes." Also, as far as I know, there is only handwaving to support the idea that "cosmic DNA" would be passed from the black hole to the new universe.

There are some tough questions here, but I think I have the solution.

1) Our universe seems to have appeared as if by magic.
2) Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
3) In the future we become so technologically advance that we invent a time machine.
3) We go back in time and create the big bang with everything fine tuned.

Nailed it.

Oh, and what would be really cool is if they picked up Hitchens on the way back in time and let him hit the big red button.

You refer to the Participatory Anthropic Principle:

http://physics.about.com/od/physicsmtop ... nciple.htm

I'll take your word for it.

[Dick Strawkins]

Read it and weep....

UK Communications Act 2003

Section 127 - Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).


UK Public Order Act 1986

Section 5 Harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(c)that his conduct was reasonable.

(4)A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—

(a)he engages in offensive conduct which [F1a] constable warns him to stop, and

(b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.

(5)In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.

(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

..............Liberal democracy huh? :whistle:

This is what happens when you don't have a constitutional right to freedom of speech.
Can you imagine how someone like Ophelia Benson or Melody Hensley would implement such a law in the US if they had half a chance?
Persistently tweeting messages that annoy someone else seems to be grounds for a guilty verdict that could result in a six month prison sentence. Wouldn't any twitter argument involving Ophelia inevitably result in someone technically falling foul of this law?

[John D]

This is what happens when you don't have a constitutional right to freedom of speech.
Can you imagine how someone like Ophelia Benson or Melody Hensley would implement such a law in the US if they had half a chance?
Persistently tweeting messages that annoy someone else seems to be grounds for a guilty verdict that could result in a six month prison sentence. Wouldn't any twitter argument involving Ophelia inevitably result in someone technically falling foul of this law?

America.... FUCK YEAH!

[Tony Parsehole]

Fuck the Eskimo's. Pack of meat-eating cunts. They should all eat organically sourced pineapples and carrots from Waitrose.

[Joseph Porter, KCB]

And fine-tuning is not just for existence "as we know it" if by existence you mean life. It is fine-tuning for any kind of life.

If we take the strong Darwinian stance, all we need for life is:

• * a replicator (heredity)
  * that mostly replicates accurately, but sometimes doesn't (variation)
  * and limited resources such that some copies make more copies than others (fitness)

Given this, you get life. It may not be RNA life, carbon life, or life on a rocky world close enough to a star that water is wet, but it'll be life.

[VickyCaramel]

This is what happens when you don't have a constitutional right to freedom of speech.
Can you imagine how someone like Ophelia Benson or Melody Hensley would implement such a law in the US if they had half a chance?
Persistently tweeting messages that annoy someone else seems to be grounds for a guilty verdict that could result in a six month prison sentence. Wouldn't any twitter argument involving Ophelia inevitably result in someone technically falling foul of this law?

From my understanding of the implementation of the law, You call the police and tell them that somebody is harassing you on Facebook or Twitter. If it is a really quiet night, they send an officer around to your house and they tell you to grow the fuck up or they will charge you with wasting police time.

[katamari Damassi]

Wow, you glossy, highly-polished bellend. How would you like it if someone ruined something you cared about? Like, um...golf? Airplanes? I don't actually know anything about you, so you win this round.

Also it's impossible to ruin Wicker Man. It has Nicholas Cage punting a woman into a wall, then sprinting across a field (while dressed as a bear) and punching another woman directly in the face, and then enjoying a beekkake. In fact, if you told someone they'd have to sit through about 40 minutes of boring "movie" before Nicholas Cage happened, you'd probably save them a lot of time and trouble.

It's not Nicolas Cage, it's Callan.

Have you seen the original Wicker Man with Christopher Lee and Edward Woodward in the Cage role? It's a really good movie and the twist at the end is important. It's a shame that shitty remake ruined it for everyone.

[Dick Strawkins]

This is what happens when you don't have a constitutional right to freedom of speech.
Can you imagine how someone like Ophelia Benson or Melody Hensley would implement such a law in the US if they had half a chance?
Persistently tweeting messages that annoy someone else seems to be grounds for a guilty verdict that could result in a six month prison sentence. Wouldn't any twitter argument involving Ophelia inevitably result in someone technically falling foul of this law?

From my understanding of the implementation of the law, You call the police and tell them that somebody is harassing you on Facebook or Twitter. If it is a really quiet night, they send an officer around to your house and they tell you to grow the fuck up or they will charge you with wasting police time.

I fully expect that would happen if the complainer was the likes of me.
But if the complainer was someone well connected in the media, and known for kicking up a fuss if they don't get their own way, I suspect the police might take a different approach and try to humor them.

[BarnOwl]

The association between Jews and ginger hair can in part be blamed on Shakespeare, I think. In the US, lots of Mormons have red hair, and most of the rest of them have blond hair; I think more USAians would associate red hair with Mormons, or perhaps Irish-Americans, than with Jews.

If you want real hair oppression, try being a blue-eyed white person with very (naturally) curly hair. My hair is mostly type 3B, with a bit of 3A and 3C, on this scale. I am such a victim of my hair texture! WAHHHH!!!!

Being serious, though, hair texture amuses me because it fits with my opinion that race is, or should be, a pretty meaningless concept in modern society. Of course there are a few exceptions, mostly regarding prevalence of genetic diseases or predispositions to certain illnesses, in which the concept might improve healthcare, or might be important for understanding human migration patterns in prehistory. Mostly, though, the concept of race just leads to trouble and prejudice, IMHO.