Theology Non-Rule #4 - Anybody who cannot be convinced by absolutely no evidence and nothing but some special pleading and logical fallacies is close minded. These individuals have closed their eyes to the truth, which requires you have faith (close your eyes and mind) in order to believe. In the world of theology, being compelled by strong evidence and not by special pleading means that your mind is closed.
In reality, not everybody you fail to convinced to believe what you believe has a closed mind... you could be full of crap and have no evidence.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Baby Bible Bashers...
Apparently it's British so Bible Basher means Bible Thumper rather than Bible Basher which in the US means somebody who "bashes" the Bible. It's apparently about mindfucked kids preaching the word of God to disinterested people. Two of the three kids are well managed and are fulfilling what they are good for... making money. However the last (presented first) is just confused and kind of pathetic.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Barker Postulate
There exists an inverse relationship between the truth of a religious position and the number of gods proscribed. If you have five million gods, your religion is less valid than if you have 5 gods. If your religion has twenty gods is less true than if you have three. If your religion has three gods it is less true than having one god.
Truth value = (1)/(1 + (number of gods))
Truth value = (1)/(1 + (number of gods))
Woman set to have her baby on her 7th birthday.
Oddly enough, Michelle Birnbaum is born the day before my 27 year old brother's birthday. On her 7th birthday she is set to have a baby girl... congratulations.
Sarah Connor Chronicles: Robot Souls
The latest failing. Yes, robots lack souls. They can't have faith or commune with God. My god! I'm a robot!
Stargate SG1 had similar lines where Daniel Jackson said something similar to Replicarter.
*sigh*
Apparently robots don't have interests groups and you can malign them to your hearts content. Soulless automatons unable to ascend or commune with the non-existent.
Stargate SG1 had similar lines where Daniel Jackson said something similar to Replicarter.
*sigh*
Apparently robots don't have interests groups and you can malign them to your hearts content. Soulless automatons unable to ascend or commune with the non-existent.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Motivation Poster: Fractal Wrongness.
Testing out a nice DIY parody motivator generator. Toss in a nice image stole from some site. And... Done.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Who's at fault for my atheism?
"it's not my fault tatarize doesn't believe in God."
It's nobody's fault I don't believe in God. Fault isn't the right word as I'm quite happy as an atheist. I wasn't indoctrinated as a child and by the time I learned what religion was my brain was fully functional. Children will believe lies, even absurd lies. At a certain age, though, people will just laugh at silly things. I became an vociferous atheist ten seconds after I first learned about religion, eight seconds after I laughed.
Fractal Wrongness and Pwned.
The first is to popularize a very useful term of Fractal Wrongness. It has been batting around for a while showing up in the Computer Science lexicon or two for a while. Mentioned on both the Non-Prophets and the Atheist Experience.
I've met many people exactly like this, amazingly as wrong in their entire view as they are on the little subpoints that views that view is built upon. Leading to an odd sort of paradox where not only are none of the premises acceptable but the entire argument itself fails and is itself being used to build up an impossibly wrong conclusion. If you look into why the premises fail, you'll see they are accepted on reasons equally as bad as the conclusion they are attempting force out of this silly exercise.
Second, suggested by two headed boy on some philosophy blog comment.
(Via Ethics in Science entry)
The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.
Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of logic, and outright lies, that requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the Mandelbrot set in finite time.
If you ever get embroiled in a discussion with a fractally wrong person on the Internet--in mailing lists, newsgroups, or website forums--your best bet is to say your piece once and ignore any replies, thus saving yourself time.
I've met many people exactly like this, amazingly as wrong in their entire view as they are on the little subpoints that views that view is built upon. Leading to an odd sort of paradox where not only are none of the premises acceptable but the entire argument itself fails and is itself being used to build up an impossibly wrong conclusion. If you look into why the premises fail, you'll see they are accepted on reasons equally as bad as the conclusion they are attempting force out of this silly exercise.
Second, suggested by two headed boy on some philosophy blog comment.
instead of writing "QED" at the end of proofs, I think we should all start writing "pwned."
(Via Ethics in Science entry)
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Newdow, much hated, for so little.
The Non-Profits latest episode did had a great cite to a page about Michael Newdow.
Wow, the hate and utter stupidity of the average American is horrifically lacking.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=67117
--
* ""Under God" was added in the 1950's to combat the 'godless communists' - it's propaganda, and it SHOULD be removed."
* "For the deist and atheist who deny GOD and the Biblical foundation of the United States of America… they would do well to objectively consider the truth of the matter: For my brothers and sisters in Christ, please pray that GOD will pour out His Grace on those who are blind by choice. "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, is of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." - C.S. Lewis JOHN 3:16"
* "Take it out or not, I will ALWAYS, REPEAT ALWAYS, say ONE NATION UNDER GOD when I make the pledge."
* "Lil ole Newdow at it again eh? Not surprised. Anyway, the phrase which he bases his lawsuit on "seperation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution or in any Founding document. I agree with the comment that if Newdow doesn't like it here, well, go live somewhere else."
* "Why do they allow Michael to continue with his diatribe on this issue??? One nation under God. There can be no other way. Like it or not we are a Christian nation only by the grace of an Almighty God."
--
These are just taken one after another. These are tame (I chose them at random) but even that crap... tame.
Wow, the hate and utter stupidity of the average American is horrifically lacking.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=67117
--
* ""Under God" was added in the 1950's to combat the 'godless communists' - it's propaganda, and it SHOULD be removed."
* "For the deist and atheist who deny GOD and the Biblical foundation of the United States of America… they would do well to objectively consider the truth of the matter: For my brothers and sisters in Christ, please pray that GOD will pour out His Grace on those who are blind by choice. "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, is of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." - C.S. Lewis JOHN 3:16"
* "Take it out or not, I will ALWAYS, REPEAT ALWAYS, say ONE NATION UNDER GOD when I make the pledge."
* "Lil ole Newdow at it again eh? Not surprised. Anyway, the phrase which he bases his lawsuit on "seperation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution or in any Founding document. I agree with the comment that if Newdow doesn't like it here, well, go live somewhere else."
* "Why do they allow Michael to continue with his diatribe on this issue??? One nation under God. There can be no other way. Like it or not we are a Christian nation only by the grace of an Almighty God."
--
These are just taken one after another. These are tame (I chose them at random) but even that crap... tame.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
People are Scary.
I am glad to know that Bush is really a bad Christian. A good Christian wouldn't have screwed up. We should bring the troops home. There's never going to be peace in the middle east until judgment day. Why waste our troops in the mean time?
Sarah Connor Chronicles: Genetics
Not that much for genetics, though the rest is pretty stellar.
- Medic: "He's lost a lot of blood"
- Robot: "Sarah Connor is O-. Universal donor."
- Medic: "He needs at least three pints of his own blood type: AB-"
- John: "Test mine."
If your mother is O, the chance you're AB is 0%. My mother is AB the chance that I could be O is 0%. You get one gene or the other, if you have no gene to give you have O. Regardless what version of the gene John got from his father, his mother doesn't have the other gene to give him. With a mother who has AB, I can have A, B, or AB. Depending on my father's blood type (B heterozygous). I have B.
John, ofcourse, had the right blood type. This forces me to conclude that John's mother is not Sarah Connor. -- Odd. I understand the switching to a new timeline, but why exactly are they changing facts established prior to John's conception?
Update:
A commenter informed me of a good explanation of this.
Linda Hamilton's Sarah Connor must have had a blood type to allow John to have AB- whereas Lena Headey's Sarah Connor has type O- blood. The mother currently in this show is clearly different than the mother who gave birth to him; everything makes perfect sense now.
- Medic: "He's lost a lot of blood"
- Robot: "Sarah Connor is O-. Universal donor."
- Medic: "He needs at least three pints of his own blood type: AB-"
- John: "Test mine."
If your mother is O, the chance you're AB is 0%. My mother is AB the chance that I could be O is 0%. You get one gene or the other, if you have no gene to give you have O. Regardless what version of the gene John got from his father, his mother doesn't have the other gene to give him. With a mother who has AB, I can have A, B, or AB. Depending on my father's blood type (B heterozygous). I have B.
John, ofcourse, had the right blood type. This forces me to conclude that John's mother is not Sarah Connor. -- Odd. I understand the switching to a new timeline, but why exactly are they changing facts established prior to John's conception?
Update:
A commenter informed me of a good explanation of this.
Linda Hamilton's Sarah Connor must have had a blood type to allow John to have AB- whereas Lena Headey's Sarah Connor has type O- blood. The mother currently in this show is clearly different than the mother who gave birth to him; everything makes perfect sense now.
Sarah Connor Chronicles...
Why do some awesome shows have crap for intros?
Battlestar Galactica use to, as a general rule, spoil the episode before showing the episode during the intro. Sitting down to watch the show and *pow* what you're going to see in this episode you've already decided to watch!
Well, Sarah Connor Chronicles isn't that annoying but the intro was written by a MORON!
No. Skynet was not programmed to destroy the world. Skynet isn't trying to destroy the world... it's trying to kill all humans. Skynet was not programmed to destroy all humans. It became conscious and decided to do that! The former (destroy world) would be a stupid thing for a robot to do, and, being human, I reserve judgment on the latter (kill all humans). Skynet never sent the "one [robot] to protect him". -- Clearly that robot is reprogrammed and being used to protect him, but was not sent by Skynet!
Battlestar Galactica use to, as a general rule, spoil the episode before showing the episode during the intro. Sitting down to watch the show and *pow* what you're going to see in this episode you've already decided to watch!
Well, Sarah Connor Chronicles isn't that annoying but the intro was written by a MORON!
In the future, my son will lead mankind in a war against Skynet, a computer system programed to destroy the world. It has sent machines back through time, some to kill him, one to protect him. Today we fight to stop Skynet from ever being created. To change our future. To change his fate. The war to save mankind, begins now!
No. Skynet was not programmed to destroy the world. Skynet isn't trying to destroy the world... it's trying to kill all humans. Skynet was not programmed to destroy all humans. It became conscious and decided to do that! The former (destroy world) would be a stupid thing for a robot to do, and, being human, I reserve judgment on the latter (kill all humans). Skynet never sent the "one [robot] to protect him". -- Clearly that robot is reprogrammed and being used to protect him, but was not sent by Skynet!
Monday, February 18, 2008
Debate: Hitchens Boteach
You'll never guess who wins.
Shorter version of the debate:
Boteach: The Jews are special and God gave us moral laws, but the Jews are not special and those moral laws are inherent within us. Hitches is depressing because evolution is depressing, which Stephen J. Gould didn't believe in, and you shouldn't either because its false and simply replacing God with time; but I believe it!
Hitchens: *POW*
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)