Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1546

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX

  1. Posted

    You can't apply Occam's Razor (which is in many cases an incorrect principle)

    Such as when?  

    Quote[/b] ]as you have no way of knowing which theory is more simple as you do not know the alternative theory

    W T F are you talking about?  Since when do you need to know all alternate theories to establish if an aspect of one theory is completely unnecessary?

    Quote[/b] ]Furthermore it's a principle derived from our system of reference (which could be a simulation) for which you have no guarentees is even remotely plausible.

    Its the best we have.  Thats enough.  For the 56034th time.

    Quote[/b] ]And how exactly would you know that? Do you think Newton knew he was dealing with an approximation?

    Once again I really have to draw issue with your understanding of science.  Why would he need to know that?  His theory fit the observed facts and had a working model.  The fact that it was later refined and improved is the whole aim behind science!  Are you seriously saying you don't understand this?

    Quote[/b] ]There must be a why because "why" is just a meta level of "how", and you can continue with those in infinity.

    There must be a why because 'glibarts' are out of season.  Oh look gobbledegook.  You can continue anything in infinity, thats what infinity means.

    Quote[/b] ]Also, you should have a respect for other people's religious beliefs

    Will somebody please answer this question: why do you respect someones belief that an invisible man is living in the sky watching everything you do, who has self contradictory properties; BUT you do NOT respect someone's belief that the sausage people have invaded and all must be tested in the holy meat grinder?

    Answer.  Answer.

  2. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]Dictionary definition:

    Quote

    the·o·ry

    1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena

    2. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment

    3. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

    None of which describes religion, hence why it is incorrect to refer to it as a theory. Especially so when used in the scientific sense.

    Quote[/b] ]Also, you should have a respect for other people's religious beliefs. You do know that most of the greatest scientist that have lived were religious - Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Schrödinger and even today people like Steven Hawking. Are you doubting their intelligence and their knowledge about science?

    Hawking is an atheist. He has said so himself. Einstein believed in a sort of Taoist 'god' which has no resemblance to what most people would call a god. What most intelligent people have in common is lack of religion. I'm not surprised Newton et al were slightly religious, there simply was not a better explanation in their time, coupled with immense social pressure and lack of data which we have now.

    Science is not perfect but rational thought and the scientific method are the only way to establish facts. You cannot determine what is true or not any other way. Theres nothing wrong with philosophy; there is a LOT wrong with religion.

  3. Posted

    You are going to have to clarify this.  

    It's simple, stop calling people and/or their beliefs stupid/foolish or whatever, if you disagree with them fine say "I disagree with you" or "I think you're wrong", telling them their beliefs are stupid is tandamount to flame baiting which as you'll see from the rules isn't on.

    Quote[/b] ]Was King Charles VI of France stupid because he believed his legs and anus were made of glass and would shatter if he sat in a coach? (apart from his being insane, is that a stupid belief?)

  4. Posted

    How will it "show up" if all our senses provide an arbitrary picture? The only reference we have are the information that we recieve through our senses. We can't compare them against anything absolute. Me talking to you right now might be a figment of my imagination. I cannot prove that this all is not just an elaborate fantasy. I see your text, I feel the keyboard I'm typing on.. but who is to say that anything of that is real. Within this imagination of mine there could be consistent laws (like physics) but I have no way of telling what is "outside". What the reality is.

    Even if all that is only a simulation, the rules of that simulation are consistent and can be discovered. All that adds is unnecessary complexity and can be removed via Occam's Razor. There is no need of such a hypothesis to explain the universe.

    Quote[/b] ]

    That's not a why, that's a how.

    The why needs to be no more than 'because thats how they work.
    Quote[/b] ]

    Why do they exert a force? To further my point, I'll be glad to tell you that you are wrong, stuck in 17th century Newtonian physics. Gravity is not a force, it's a deformation of space-time caused by matter. What you call a "force" is actually just the bodies sliding to the energy minima of the field.

    'Force' isn't wrong, its merely a simplified way of calculating the deformation. 'Invisible gravity fairies move everything about' would be 'wrong.' You are skirting the issue of why there must be a 'why'.
    Quote[/b] ]

    So, were you wrong? Or were you using just a radically different model to explain how the same phenomena works?

    Or was I using fairly standard terminology for calculating how that phenomena works?

    Quote[/b] ]

    We're not talking about the creation of the universe (btw, "creation"? are you getting religious on me? wink_o.gif ).

    I said formation, not creation ;)

    We're talking about the physics governing the universe. It's one meta level above.

    Now, since you seem to lack any form of scientific education, I'll give you one lesson for free:

    Any scientific model, theory or hypothesis has a:

    1) Frame of reference

    2) Boundary conditions

    Hey hey with the ad hominems! There's no need to add personal insults! If you do understand science, why did you use terminology incorrectly (eg calling religion a theory?)

    Quote[/b] ]

    The frame of reference is needed to relate it to other theories, measurements etc. The boundary condition are very necessary to define as there is no such thing as a complete physical model. They all have boundaries beyond which they don't work. You also have to realize the difference between a model and reality. The physical theories that we have are a projection of the real world, conformed in such ways that it fits our sensory input.

    Why is this important in our discussion?

    1) The frame of reference decides if we at all can form a theory. If you are sitting in a box, you can't very well describe how the outside of the box looks like. You can't model physics through physics. You can only build relative models. An absolute frame of reference has to be one level above the system you are studying.

    2) Recognizing the boundaries of the model is also extremely important. You have for instance quantum singularities where no normal physical laws apply. Know the limits of your system. That is basic science.

    Whats your point? That religion has no frame of reference or working model and science does? Why thank you, I agree.

  5. Posted

    Your beliefs are simply stupid and useless.

    Your attitude is continually being unpleasant, if you can't discuss this topic without calling people stupid, foolish, useless etc. etc. then you won't discuss it anymore, people have been civil to you, do the same to them. And before you try to be pedantic, as far as I'm concerned saying something such as what I quoted is the same as if you say "You are simply stupid and useless".

    You are going to have to clarify this. Personally I don't define people by their beliefs. To me, an otherwise intelligent person can hold stupid beliefs. That doesn't define them. Are you saying that someones beliefs in invisible fairies is *the* defining feature about them?

    Was King Charles VI of France stupid because he believed his legs and anus were made of glass and would shatter if he sat in a coach? (apart from his being insane, is that a stupid belief?)

    If someone has any other type of mental illness that manifests itself in hallucinations and delusions, they are held to be insane. The exact same symptoms with marginally different settings are held in high esteem. Why?

  6. Posted

    At the time Jesus was alive. He was real and nothing stopped you from interacting with him. Today it's again matter of faith.

    As you conveniently side step the main point of that quote, which was that jesus threatened to kill people, with a sword, if, say, a mother loved her child more than him.  Not 'if she didn't love Jesus' - if she loved someone SLIGHTLY MORE THAN him.

    Quote[/b] ]

    In that verse Jesus is talking about the future persecution against the crhistians.

    Ohhhh no he isnt.  Your interpretation is wrong*
    Quote[/b] ]

    He's teaching us to live by the will of God

    Which includes such nifty things as slitting open the stomachs of pregnant women, sacrificing your own children, rules governing and condoning slavery, laws stating that rape victims could be bought by the rapist for a pittance, laws banning women from [speaking in church, holding public official jobs, teaching etc], promising rewards for those who kill handicapped people (2 sam 5;8, in case you think I'm making that up) and a lot more things equally bad.  The 'Will of God' you refer to was as inhuman as it was evil and barbaric.  The Old Testament is full of disgusting, evil acts, which is why Xians normally make such a song and dance about how Jesus changed some of the rules.

    Quote[/b] ]

    As I said before, if you say "I don't believe in God and Jesus it's bullshit" That's when you're going to hell. This time Jesus had shown them Gods power in their cities, but still they did not believe.

    He went round to every single house and showed them did he?  Every single child lying in a crib, too young to walk, talk or understand anything, every single bed ridden cripple was shown?  In the couple of days he was there?

    All those people were innocent and were killed for spite (in the story, as it didn't really happen)

    Quote[/b] ]

    You cannot justify any of the cruelties you mentioned in your previous post with that. It says in the bible that when the end of the world comes, Jesus will condemn us. Excactly what happens in Revelations 19:20-21. That does not give us the right to condemn those who do not believe in god.

    This was simply an example of biblical cruelty.  And it stands.
    Quote[/b] ]

    The idea behind these cruel punishments is fear. You are so frightened for the punishment that you obey the rules.

    If you have to be motivated by fear to be a moral person, there is something seriously wrong with you.  Get help, please.

    Quote[/b] ]

    Leaving your wife and children for Jesus is not a prerequisite for getting to heaven. Jesus does not say that you must do it. It's a test of faith, how far are you willing to go for God?

    'Jesus asks that his followers abandon their children to follow him.'

    That is child cruelty, plain and simple.  Its evil and its disgusting.

    [quoteThis is the same incident than in Matthew 15:4-7

    And its similarly wrong and evil.

    Quote[/b] ]

    That is an out-of-content quote. Read Mark 4:21-25  I'll let you solve the metaphore yourself.

    In your opinion/ interpretation it is.  In others it is not.  I thought that this book was simple and easy to understand (your words.)  You are contradicting yourself. (again)

    [quoteJesus didn't put the devils in the pigs. The devils prayed him to let them go in to the pigs.

    So you're saying that devils can tell jesus what to do now?

    Yet more examples of your interpretation diverging from others, proving the point of my post  - that anyone can make their own interpretation.

    Quote[/b] ]

    He didn't kill the tree.

    Yes he did.  Once again, you are ignoring the point and trying to divert attention with squabbling over ambiguous words.
    Quote[/b] ]

    Great job with that totally out-of-content quote. mad_o.gif Read Luke 12:35-48. Again I'll let you solve the metaphore yourself.

    Ahh the christian solution to everything: 'thats out of context'.  I have read it.  I think its completely in context.  More examples of selective interpretation.

    Quote[/b] ]keep 'em coming

    no, I think I'll wait for you to answer these ones correctly first.

    *I am aware of the irony of what I just said, that was the whole point of that line.  I was going to leave it at that but undoubtedly someone who cant read would think I was being hypocritical.  the point is that he is dismissing everyone elses interpretations and proclaiming that his is the only correct one.

  7. Posted

    Our instruments are only as good as our senses. Without our senses we could not use them. And if the manipulation is global of all individuals, there would be no difference in observations. It would still be the same for everyone.

    Wrong.  All facets of the universe are linked in some way.  It is not possible to manipulate mass without manipulating gravity, without in turn changing energy, etc etc ; all things are interconnected by the basic laws of physics.  If something is changed it WILL show up, and it does not.  One might argue on philosophical grounds that a god whose interference with the universe appears exactly the same as no interference at all is an unessesary entitity and should be removed by Ooccam's Razor.  In other words, what good is a god that does nothing?

    Quote[/b] ]Also as appealing as science is, it only answers the "how" question, and not the "why" question that humans are so fond of. Physics explains how gravity works, but it does not explain why there is gravity in the first place.

    You are assuming that there even is a 'why' question.  Mistake.  Just because our primitive animal brains are scared of the immensity of the cosmos does not mean that there must be an invisible fairy in the sky.

    I think you'll find, however, that physics has already answered that question: because two bodies which have mass exert a force on each other.  It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

    I've said it before, and I shall reiterate: Religions are *NOT* theories, nor hypotheses.

    Quote[/b] ]1) The physical laws were created through the self-organization of the universe

    2) The physical laws were created by a huge pink bunny

    are just as provable and just as plausible.

    Sack whooever taught you science.  Rubbish.  I'm not dignifying that with a response.

    Also, science does not pretend to have all the answers.  Not knowing with 100% certainty exactly how the universe came into being does not mean that 'GAWD DID IT' is any more plausible.

    Quote[/b] ] We don't have any frames of reference or any posibility to perform empirical experiments on that.

    There are currently hundreds of experiments going on around the world researching the formation of the universe.  You are simply wrong here.  From temperature plotting of ancient stars and interstellar space to the analysis of  the composition of stars and stellar phenomena, there is evidence which is being experimented with.

  9. Posted

    Our senses percieve the universe in a way which is both the same for everyone and consistent. Our instruments verify this. If individuals were being manipulated, or basic physical laws were being manipulated, this would show up as differences in observations and results of tests. It doesn't.

    The mistake you are using is confusing the mathematical definition of proof with the common usage: its impossible to 'prove mathmetically' anything except maths and some physics. Its possible to 'prove beyond reasonable doubt' anything which has sufficient evidence.

    Quote[/b] ]
    Quote[/b] ]
    Quote[/b] ]You can't stop serial killers by locking them up
    watch me
    Then you're no better than the serial killers themselves

  10. Posted

    Its not like I'm going to come to your house and kill you. Your beliefs are simply stupid and useless.

    Much like why you don't respect the beliefs of psychopathic serial killers that they should be able to kill whooever they want, I don't respect similarly insane and hateful beliefs.

  11. Posted

    Thats the 'beauty' of the bible, its so ambiguous and vague and self contradictory it can be (and has been) used to justify genocide, slavery, treating women as second class citizens, racism, homophobia, torture and other unspeakable cruelties.  These are all backed up by quotes from the bible (and not just from the OT).

    AFAIK you can't back up anything like that with quotes from Jesus. As I said in my previous post, today you can go and check if that's what Jesus teached.

    Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has “come not to send peace, but a sword.†Matthew 10:34

    Jesus says, “Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth! No, rather a sword lf you love your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. “The real beauty of this verse is that Jesus demands people truly love him more then they love their own family. I ask you how can we love someone that we can not see or interact with? Love is an emotion pertaining to physical existence not to faithful ideologies, yet God threatens you with Death just because your love for your mother maybe stronger than your love for him. Matthew 11:34

    Families will be torn apart because of Jesus. “Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. Matthew 10:21

    Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17

    Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20

    Jesus, whose clothes are dipped in blood, has a sharp sword sticking out of his mouth. Thus attired, he treads the winepress of the wrath of God.(The winepress is the actual press that humans shall be put into so that we may be ground up.) Revelations 19:13-15

    The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into a lake of fire. The rest of us the unchosen will be killed with the sword of Jesus. “An all the fowls were filled with their flesh.†Revelations 19:20-21

    Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.†Matthew 15:4-7

    Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he’ll give your a big reward. Jesus asks that his followers abandon their children to follow him. To leave your child is abuse, it’s called neglect, pure and simple. Matthew 19:29

    Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark 7:9

    Jesus says that those who have been less fortunate in this life will have it even worse in the life to come. Mark 4:25

    Jesus sends the devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. Clearly Jesus could have simply sent the devils out, yet he chose instead to place them into pigs and kill them. This is called animal abuse. Mark 5:12-13

    Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season. Jesus must not be as smart as Christians would have us believe, for he was retarded enough to do something this silly. You’d think the son of god (god incarnate) would know that trees don’t bear fruit in dry season. Mark 11:13

    Luke 12:47 Jesus okays beating slaves.

    I have more.

  13. Posted

    They didn't live by the bible, they lived by what the pope and the other leaders said the bible says.

    Which is different from how christians live now how? If you are trying to say that only you know how to interpret the book and everyone else is wrong, you're just deluded. If you can interpret the book any way you like it loses ALL worth. By the way, they would say that YOU are not living by what the bible says. Thats the 'beauty' of the bible, its so ambiguous and vague and self contradictory it can be (and has been) used to justify genocide, slavery, treating women as second class citizens, racism, homophobia, torture and other unspeakable cruelties. These are all backed up by quotes from the bible (and not just from the OT).

    *You* don't get to call everyone else that has different interpretations of the bible wrong, they are no more wrong and no less christians than you.

  14. Posted

    Religion is a huge drag weight on humankind.  It leads to division, hatred and intolerance.  It impedes scientific progress that could make the world a better place for all.  It causes innocents to suffer and is completely unnessesary.

    That sure isn't chrisianity you're speaking about. It never has and it never will affect science in anyway. Read the 10 Commandments (or whatever you call them in english) Don't you think that living by them would make the world a better place?

    Ever hear of a chap called Gallileo?

    There was a time when everyone lived by the bible... it was known as the Dark Ages and was one of the worst periods in human history.

  15. Posted

    Religion is a huge drag weight on humankind. It leads to division, hatred and intolerance. It impedes scientific progress that could make the world a better place for all. It causes innocents to suffer and is completely unnessesary.

    Quote[/b] ]Either way you can't prove what is right.
    Yes you can.
    Quote[/b] ]You can't attack religion by reason.
    Watch me.
    Quote[/b] ]which is why religion requires faith

    Thats a handy little get out of jail free card, isn't it. Not at all what you'd expect as an excuse made up by the fake holyman who doesn't want his gravy train to stop :rolleyes:

    Quote[/b] ]There is no hard scientific proof that extraterrestrial life exists either, but would you dismiss entirely the possibility that it could? Do you consider the people of the SETI programme to be fools the same way you consider those who are religious?

    There is at least a possibility of extraterrestrial life. Religions are simply lies.

    Look at it this way:

    If a guy was wandering about the streets hallucinating that everyone else around him was a giraffe with knives for teeth that were trying to kill him -and was attempting to kill them - would you say that man's beliefs were

    a) wrong

    b) harmful?

    So whats so different about an irrational belief that is if anything more insane?

  17. Posted

    Anyone that believes or follows a philosophy just because their parents did so is a fool.  I don't listen to fools.

    And he's obviously talking nonsense because anyone with even high school level education can find hundreds of contradictions in the bible. That is pure propoganda.

  22. Posted

    God doesn't exist and the bible is made up fairy stories.

    Sources for these 'answers'?

    There is no evidence for any gods and the events in the bible simply did not happen.  Historical records and archaeological digs concur.

    *edit*

    I appreciate your point, but the fact it that I'm not the one making the assertion, religion is. They say 'this this and this happened, because we say so' and I'm saying 'evidence- without evidence your claim has no merit'

  24. Posted

    @ Aug. 02 2003,20:17)]
    Science and religion do not rule each other out.

    Science answers to the question: How?

    Religion answers to the question:Who?

    religions answers no questions at all.

    It does, it just doesn't answer them in a way satisfactory to you. As FS pointed out, the answers are fairly straight forward, which is (in my opinion) a very attractive aspect of religion. All you need to accept these answers is faith, which some have the capacity for, and others don't. You and I don't, others do.

    Pretty simple. And depending on how you interpret faith , this can translate to a rather entertaining commentary on the credulity of humanity in general.

    Those are *not* answers. Replying to a question with 5 more questions is not an answer.

    Name 1 answer any religion has that is (a) demonstrably correct and (b) not open to interpretation (read- can mean anything you want it to)

  25. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]
    religions answers no questions at all.

    Which religion are yout alking about?  My religion answers plenty questions.

    Not without raising more questions than it solves, and not by answering those questions in a meaningful/ userful way.

    "How was the world created?" - God created it

    Who created god?  Why?  Why did god create the world?  Which god?  Why that god and not another god?

    "Is there an afterlife?" - Yes

    Why?  Who gets to go?  What is this place like?  Where is it?  

    "Is there a good place and a bad place?" - Yes, heaven and hell

    "Will I go to hell?" - Unless you have Jesus as your savior

    So if I lead a completely sin free, blameless life, but it was on some isolated island and I never heard of Jesus (and never had that 'opportunity') -I'd go to hell?  forever?  You think this a good ethos?  

    Millions of people who follow the same religion as you disagree on these points, who is right?  They all have the same amount of evidence on their side (ie none).  matter of fact, all religions claim the others are wrong, how can you tell which is right?  Most people simply go with the religion they were brought up with.  How in Zeus's butthole can that possibly be a guide to whats right?

    "How will the world end?" - Detailed in revelations

    very very very ambiguously, not enough to be an answer.

    I could go on but I need to go buy some stuff.

    You'd just get more wrong as time goes on.

×