Dragon Ball Z Uncensored

[8 bit orgy]

You have to be fucking kidding me.

[GimpMask]

Go to the match 2 server

[Stupid Fucking Faggot]

I believe that I have read enough of Richard Dawkins, and yes in his own words, to have formed an opinion of him (that he is shrill, bellicose fundamentalist). Most of this is magazine articles and excerpts from The God Delusion. I have not read the whole book.

I've read The Selfish Gene, and I actually really like that one, because in that he's talking about stuff that he actually has the authority to talk about.

That doesn't mean that I have read, or that it's fair of you to have expected me to have read, everything he has written. I don't know what his particular argument about irreducible complexity is, but I know what the concept means. I also understand the "god of the gaps" concept.

All I have said was:
- Dawkins is a shithead when it comes to his atheism;
- I am highly skeptical of the idea of an "irrefutable" argument. Arguments can be sound, but the premises on which an argument is based can pretty much always be questioned, because they will stem from other premises that can be questioned, which will stem from others that can be questioned, etc.

[Theldorrin]

You don't understand what sound means, then. Sound means that the argument is valid (Ie. the reasoning is correct) and the premises are all true. A sound argument is irrefutable, since it means that the argument is true. You can't refute something that is true by nature of logic. If you agree with the rationale but disagree with the premises then the argument may be valid, but the premises are false.

Irreducible complexity is a major component of the God Delusion.



Anyway, the irreducible thing is really contingent on their views to begin with. It's another case of Christians defining their beliefs in such a way that they can't exist, because they're stupid and they can't reason their way out of a paper bag. You'd think they'd bother believing in a god that at least has the potential to exist, rather one that can't exist given their own viewpoint.

[MADali]

I just scanned through this thread, but I guess, its nice that people are debating something, instead of masturbating each other over Smash Bros characters.

But really, a double feature of Chris VS Theldorrin & Big Fagot VS 8 Bit Orgy? Little uninteresting.

[Stupid Fucking Faggot]

I actually meant to say that "the reasoning can be sound," not the argument. (Premises + reasoning = argument.)

Anyway, reasoning/extrapolating can be as solid as a rock, but premises are where there's always going to be room for debate, unless the person you are arguing against already agrees with your premises, and the only thing being manipulated to come to a conclusion based on these agreed-upon premises is the reasoning/extrapolating.

So if his arguments are irrefutable, they're only irrefutable from within the closed system of somebody who has already agreed to his premises.

[Theldorrin]

Yeah, but the people being criticized do agree with the premises. Or at least pretend to. You don't need to defend the irrational behaviour of Christians just because you have your own irrational behaviour, Christopher.

[Stupid Fucking Faggot]

Anyway, here's what's gay/weird/fallacious about Big Fagot's perception of things:

Basically he takes a view of the universe where humanity is just some dumb, lonely, desperate, falsely-hopeful animal, which is fine, but the problem is that he presumes that the universe is comprehensible to humans. This is absurd, unless you take the view that everything just happens to exist on such a level that it can be grasped by the human mind; that there is nothing FUNDAMENTAL about existence that could simply be beyond human consciousness to comprehend.

This is very anthrocentric. This assumes that, with homo sapiens sapiens, consciousness has reached a point where we can more or less **get** everything, and that any evolution of consciousness past this will just be fine-tuning. On what basis can you assume that?

This is easier with an example: imagine trying to teach a frog math. Not only could the frog not begin to understand, he wouldn't even be capable of understanding that there is something to be understood. Yet, math exists. WE know this. But the frog doesn't, and never will.

If you take the view that human beings are just "more evolved" than the frog mind, such that now the human mind can handle things like math whereas it couldn't earlier in the evolutionary line, then isn't it logical to assume that there are things further down the evolutionary line that the next smart animal will be conscious of that we can't begin to conceive of?

From a randomist, non-anthrocentric point of view of the universe, then, it's just absurd for human beings to think that there is any use at all in trying to talk about existence on the larger scale, or to think that existence can be comprehended. Because all we are is just smarter than the fucking frogs. If the frogs can't get math, then what might we not be getting? There's no way to know what you don't know there is to know.

Now, on the other hand, if you believe that the universe exists at a level where human consciousness (or the alien equivalent) can comprehend it, then this isn't a problem. But that is an ASSUMPTION you have to make. Any human believing that he can comprehend the universe is 100% a matter of faith. Personally, I don't have a problem with faith. Do you?

[Theldorrin]

I'm not sure what you're saying about math.

[Action Hank]

What evil have I unleashed?

There is a dark spirit here that wants to destroy you. Dispel the evil. Save my soul... And your own lives.

[Big Fagot]

That's a good point, Chris. I have no problem assuming we are capable of understanding, or making ourselves capable of understanding, anything that can be conceived up to some inconceivable limit, but your caveat is valid.

Valid is also the word you were looking for regarding irrefutable arguments. A valid argument uses solid logic to present a conclusion which is definitely true if the premises are true. A sound argument presents a conclusion that is guaranteed to be true because the premises are true and the logic is valid.

Your ideas about quantum physics are opportunistic new age crap preying on the failure of the physics community to give a shit about the underlying nature of QM, though.

[GimpMask]

o.o

[Matthew Outland]

most religions are butt-headedly self righteous, rigid, and condescending towards the intellect, and even politically biased. In fact thats almost the difference between a religion and a philosophy

[GimpMask]

I hope you all get AIDs from brutal animeal shit

[Theldorrin]

I'm not sure what Chris is talking about with frogs and math. Doing something like arithmetic or calculus is so simple that unintelligent machines can do it. Of course any animal can do arithmetic provided it responds to stimuli and has a memory.

Thinking and proving something original is something else entirely. Most humans can't do that.

[Action Hank]

Fuck Chris for mucking up my thread.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/crowdfarm-0725.html?tr=y&auid=2932799

This could be an interesting way to generate power. I still think we could solve a lot of problems by turning buildings into solar collectors. There is a new type of solar panel that is very thin and can take on any shape, but they're only marketing it in Germany and Japan.

It's US made.

[Theldorrin]

Yeah, that thing is old news and stupid. The cost is prohibitive for the mild benefits.

[Ryoko's Biatch]

lol science

[8 bit orgy]

I think this man has the information we need for that....

[Action Hank]

http://www.scribd.com/word/html_iframe/1063?guid=27zta2fh7pppm

Yay science!