Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - troubadour

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will Vs Determinism
« on: May 29, 2007, 02:11:13 PM »
the answer is easy:


how do i shot web?

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What Happens When You Die?
« on: May 25, 2007, 06:54:40 AM »
Actually, if Quantum Mechanics continues to hold true none of us will ever die.

In the Schrödinger's cat experiment, what would happen from the cat's point of view? Would the cat's consciousness be split in two, with one consciousness living and the other vanishing into the sweet hereafter? Or would the cat, having the special status of being an observer, perceive itself as following the more fortunate fork in the quantum road and thus avoid death?

According to the many worlds interpretation, the cat would experience only the worlds in which it exists as a thinking entity after the experiment was held.

Here's a quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality ;

-

    "Imagine that a physicist detonates a nuclear bomb beside himself. In almost all parallel universes, the nuclear explosion will vaporize the physicist. However, there should be a small set of alternative universes in which the physicist somehow survives (i.e. the set of universes which support a "miraculous" survival scenario). The idea behind quantum immortality is that the physicist will remain alive in, and thus remain able to experience, at least one of the universes in this set, even though these universes form a tiny subset of all possible universes. Over time the physicist would therefore never perceive his or her own death.

    Another example is one provided by quantum suicide, where a physicist sits in front of a gun which is triggered, or not triggered, by radioactive decay. With each run of the experiment there is a fifty-fifty chance that the gun will be triggered and the physicist will die. If the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, then the gun will eventually be triggered and the physicist will die. If the many-worlds interpretation is correct, then at each run of the experiment the physicist will be split into one or more worlds in which he lives and one or more worlds in which he dies. In the worlds where the physicist dies, his consciousness will cease to exist. However, from the point of view of the physicist, the experiment will continue running without his ceasing to exist, because at each branch, he will only be able to observe the result in the world in which he survives, and if many-worlds is correct, the physicist will notice that he never seems to die, therefore "proving" himself to be immortal, at least from his own point of view."

-

Technically, only the consciousness would continue. That says nothing about the body. Since your consciousness is seated in the brain, there's no need for the rest of your body to exist. Over the years, after enduring impossible survival scenarios, your body will continue to degrade and fall apart as normal.

If Quantum Mechanics is accurate and true then a trillion years from now, only your brain will remain, quivering, spinning through the void, conscious only because of an infinitely improbable sequence of quantum events which lets your synapses keep firing.

The world you know will be gone and dead, your loved ones having passed away around you long ago. You will be alone in the universe, blind and deaf, trapped in your thoughts for all eternity. Such is the dismal fate of every living creature, of every human who has ever lived or ever will live.

Except if you had read any books on string or M theory in the last 20 years you would know that the many worlds interpretation is not accurate. 40 year old physics 4tl.


3
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Matrix-stylie
« on: May 24, 2007, 07:52:17 AM »
without pain how would you know pleasure?

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The truth.
« on: May 21, 2007, 12:30:33 PM »
With absolutely no valid historical proof outside of the bible itself, how can you prove Jesus actually existed. How do we know he is real, but Addonis, Osiris, Mithra, Horus, etc etc, are not? They all have extremely similar stories. But why are all the other ones considered myths, but jesus is considered real? Don't bring up those interpolations in Josephus or Tacticus as some kind of proof because they aren't.

Give me some kind of proof he existed even. Even the most of the early Christians didn't believe he was an actual person. Instead they treat him like all of the other messiah figures in other mystery cults of the time, as a fictional spiritual figure that represents their values, but never existed historically. It took 300 years of infighting among Christians to convince them all that there actually WAS a real jesus. Don't you think if there was a real jesus, there wouldn't be so much doubt as to his existence right from the get-go?

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ah, The Wisdom of Webcomics
« on: May 21, 2007, 12:16:29 PM »
I do not respect religious beliefs nor do many of you in here. How can you say you respect someone's belief and then turn around and berate their entire ridiculous belief system. The fact is that you don't. You don't respect their beliefs, and you don't have to. So why is it so many people feel the need to almost apologize for their criticism of religion by saying crap like "I don't agree with you but I still respect your beliefs." Who cares. You are going to crack some eggs and hurt some feelings no matter what you say when you talk about a subject as apparently touchy as religion. You shouldn't be bothered by that. It's not your job to coax them to not believe their juvenile fairy tales, but you can make them feel like idiots for doing so.

There is nothing special about religion that should make it socially untouchable. Religious beliefs should be held to the same standards as scientific or medical beliefs. Just because you BELIEVE that draining yourself of blood is going to get the sick of you, doesn't mean it will actually work. Just because you believe that a bowling ball will fall faster then a feather even on the moon with no atmosphere, doesn't mean it will. In the face of mountains of evidence against them, nobody would hold these beliefs and still be considered sane. Yet this is exactly the sort of thing that happens with religion. People believe that there is an almighty creator that will take them to heaven if they obey the rules here on earth. In itself it's a harmless belief. But when they start doing things like blocking medical research or procedures and affecting the way other people have to live their lives, it has gone too far. These people need to be put in their place. Faith is a flaw, not a virtue.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Jerry Falwell is dead
« on: May 19, 2007, 11:53:18 AM »
What I meant is that the vast majority of people pick and choose from the bible what they like or what sounds good and disregard what they don't like, rather then take it for what is is. Meaning that they already have an innate sense of what is moral and what isn't. So what is the point of the bible it people already know what is moral or ethical and what is not? So those crazy idiots protesting at dead soldier's funerals and retards like falwell are far closer to what the christian religion is then a moderate protestant or unitarian (or even catholic). What most people have brainwashed into them is that religion, especially Christianity, is somehow all about love and peace. With this idea they take everything that supports it out of the bible, skimming over all of the horrible atrocities, homicidal, and other oppressive behavior condoned in it. They teach this to children and converts alike, alluring them into the faith on the false pretenses that their god is loving and accepting. So when even when they are grown adults capable of reason and a thought process, they have ingrained in them so deep that the christian god is loving and caring that they can rationalize any horrible act in the bible. The fact of the matter is that if you take the bible for what it is and don't selectively rule out what doesn't sound good to you, you end up like those crazy baptist idiots that claim god kills soldiers because of gay people, or that 9/11 happened because of gay people.

If this were a science experiment, you wouldn't make a hypothesis, and then only look for evidence that confirmed it and skip over anything that did not. If your hypothesis doesn't make sense for all of the facts and observations, it's wrong. God kills people, god condones and downright demands some idiotic behavior that if you want to be a real christian, you have to observe.

Don't go near a woman on the rag: Lev.  15:19-24

Kill anyone that works on the sabbath: Exodus 35:2

Hey I can have slaves!: Lev. 25:44

I can't go near the altar if my ability to see is corrupted (ie not 20/20): Lev. 21:20

those are just a few.

People don't get their morality from the bible, most people don't anyway. They already HAVE a sense of right and wrong, the bible is just the medium they use to try to justify it.


7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Jerry Falwell is dead
« on: May 18, 2007, 11:27:08 AM »
Jerry Falwell was a great christain leader and was one of the few people with the courage to stand up to this country's moral and ethical issues. I was sad to learn of such a great soldier of God had died.

Please tell me that's some kind of poorly-constructed joke.

No it wasn't a joke. Falwell was a great religous leader; he did everything he could to stop the decay of this countries morals.

I don't find my morality from a 2000 year old book, nobody does.

8
hey retard, there are like 2 FEers on this whole forum. most of this forum is just random people looking to have conversations about almost any subject under the sun not really related to FE-theory.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Jerry Falwell is dead
« on: May 16, 2007, 06:29:35 AM »
I caught some hilarious wiki-vandalism after he died yesterday:

http://home.comcast.net/~fse452/falwell.jpg

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The inexorable proof of God:
« on: May 07, 2007, 07:03:52 AM »


All I say is that you must respect the other side, even if you don't agree with it. Getting angry because someone disagrees with you is just ridiculous, and continuing to do so will bring you nothing but ignorance and disrespect.


Why should I respect people that honestly believe there is a man in heaven that they can speak to through their minds that is with them all the time and that will save them when they die?
My freedom of expression does not stop at your feelings. If I offend a religious person because I denounce them to their face, so be it. I'm offended everyday by their lack of awareness to reality, by not stopping to think and ask, "Gee, are we really so special that this universe was created all for us?"

There is nothing ignorant about not respecting religion. Just because it is a touchy subject because it's drilled into people since birth that it's somehow important, does not make those who speak out against it ignorant. Much the opposite.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion Gone To Far?
« on: April 25, 2007, 08:02:02 PM »
lol, i love this link from that evolutionists want to kill you page: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp it's when you click Creationism: where is the proof?

It's an article that goes on and on but offers no proof.

12
midnight = forum troll, just ignore him. When he has something to add to the conversation other then "OMFG U STARTED A NEW TOPIC!" or him trying to pick apart the way you debate (a tell-tale sign that someone has a weak or no argument in the first place), then respond to him.


13
Out comes the true EvilToothPaste, that we already see all the time anyway, spouting bollocks. If you and Diego ever bothered to read anyone's posts you would both concede that the original debate is well and truely over and Diego has simply started a new one by carrying on the claim that this is a real religion when the founders don't even claim it to be one.

Can't for the life of me work out how I am trolling this thread. Diego might be though, ever thought of that Captain Comprehension? You're right, opinion based on pretense does not matter which is why yours and Diego's do not matter but mine does. Mine is based on examining the facts you see. That's why I don't go for the Devil's Advocate route at every God Damn opportunity like you and Diego do. Carry on with your head up your arse though.

To sit there and make claims about what is a "real" religion and what isn't is to bath in ignorance.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Evolution "Debate"
« on: April 25, 2007, 07:53:31 AM »
i forget the *chan raid site but i'm sure you could rally up some people to quietly reg accounts with you then when you all get thru nuke the forums.

15
What you people that are trying to define religion are missing is that the constitution does not define what a religion is, nor should it. Because if there was a definition of what a "valid" religion was, it would automatically mean that there was inequality for those of the religions not considered "valid", which misses the whole point of the first amendment.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Putting a legal definition of what constitutes a "real" religion is against the first amendment. So by saying that Pastafarianism is any less of a "valid" religion then christianity, you are being unamerican, and missing the entire point of the founding of the country int he first place. The first freaking line of the first amendment is the founding fathers putting their foot down on religious bullshit, saying practice what you want and we won't repress you, but we are not giving any of you special status either.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Evolution "Debate"
« on: April 25, 2007, 06:56:00 AM »
wow. something if definitely going on over there. I tryed to register to give them all a hard time and got:

Sorry, but this e-mail address has been banned.

I've never even visited the site before... odd.

17
Yeh the whole point of this argument is religious double-standards. In reality, how much more silly is it to wear an eyepatch then to wear a burka? What about a big exposed cross? One wears the eyepatch as a sign of belief in the great spaghetti monster, the other wears the veil because she is afraid of going to hell and angering the invisable allah when she dies, the last wears the cross as a sign of belief in the 1/2 god 1/2 man son of the one true god that is the third part of one god that resides up in heaven.

They all sound pretty stupid to me, but equally protected under the first amendment.

18
Yeah but....that's not the topic of debate is it? I see your point entirely but this kid was just taking the piss in class and he got punished for it. A Jew wearing a skull-cap in class is not taking the piss. That's the difference.

To the first amendment there is no difference. Religious expression is religious expression.

19
It's either one or the other it can't be both.

that's the point. Imagine if people actually believed the ridiculous crap that pastafarianism taught, wait, don't christians believe the same kind of baseless crap that pastafarians believe?

The only difference between the two is that for some reason people take Christianity seriously. It's teachings are just as ridiculous. The same goes for any religion.

And anyway, the law doesn't distinguish between what is and what isn't a religion. If someone claims to believe in something, and must do something publicly like say WEAR AN EYEPATCH to participate in the customs of that religion, it's protected, regardless of the opinions of others.

20
So it's a joke? Yet you argue he should be allowed to express it as his religion in the classroom? Now I am confused.

It's a religion, as valid as any other with the same sort of logical and intellectual basis. It is a parody though, created to show just how ridiculous religions are.

21
Wow are you fucking retarded? Do you not understand satire and parody? I think you missed the entire point. First of all Pastafarianism and the church of the flying spaghetti monster are the same thing you dolt. Created by the same guy, for the same reason, to point out the retardedness of intelligent design. Second of all, Coloation and managed hosting are a common solution nowadays for those without the means or bandwidth of a data center. I infact colocate a server I built in Brooklyn, NY, even though I live in Boston. for $99 a month I get a steady and reliable 10mbps and 99% uptime. Being that even a monkey nowadays can remotely administer servers, it's really silly to make comments like "reputable religions have all of their data in their own personal data centers!" when it's massively cheaper to colocate or hire managed hosting.

The fact you have never heard of pastafarianism is evidence that you know nothing about popular-culture, internet-culture, or current counter-culture. I suggest before typing one more sentence, you go and read everything you can, until you get the joke. Then come back.

22
In most schools it is not ok to wear hats, yet it is fine for a Jewish person to wear a yammika or a muslim girl to wear a veil?  That is what we are discussing. The eyepatch and sword were displayed for religious reasons. The fact that they removed him from the classroom and suspended reeks of religious bias. The first amendment is the first amendment, and it applies here. I think this kid has every right to be pissed off and take action against the school district.

If you really believe his 'religion' was legit, then no amount of discourse will get anywhere. There is no tax-exempt, government list that includes "The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster". All religions that are viewed as serious, actual faiths, with a following, and actual dogma, rites, and materials, are granted Federal Protections. Spare me.


I'm sorry, I thought that the first amendment protects the right to freedom of religion? Like I've stated before, wearing an eyepatch is no more disruptive then a muslim with a veil on, or a christian with a big old cross on their neck. Infact I wouldn't be surprised if there were more Pastafarians in the US then muslims(muslims make up less then .5%). Ontop of this, Pastafarianism has the same intellectual basis as pretty much every other organized religion. So why is it not allowed and the rest are? Sounds like discrimination to me.

Tell that to Dubya, not me. LOL.

I agree that it is stated in the first amendment. The problem here is, the kid was using a false claim of religion to strengthen his defense for his behavior problems at school. Show me the official website, or links to official doctrine, for the 'Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster'.

Your basic argument is the saying that he was being persecuted for his religion. And yet, where is this religion? Where are the tabernacles, the meeting places, the ranks of the leadership for his "church". A live journal page and some myspace comments? Please.

http://www.venganza.org/
There is a whole book of teachings that are to be followed. Pastafarianism is considered a religion in that it has tax-exempt status.

23
In most schools it is not ok to wear hats, yet it is fine for a Jewish person to wear a yammika or a muslim girl to wear a veil?  That is what we are discussing. The eyepatch and sword were displayed for religious reasons. The fact that they removed him from the classroom and suspended reeks of religious bias. The first amendment is the first amendment, and it applies here. I think this kid has every right to be pissed off and take action against the school district.

If you really believe his 'religion' was legit, then no amount of discourse will get anywhere. There is no tax-exempt, government list that includes "The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster". All religions that are viewed as serious, actual faiths, with a following, and actual dogma, rites, and materials, are granted Federal Protections. Spare me.


I'm sorry, I thought that the first amendment protects the right to freedom of religion? Like I've stated before, wearing an eyepatch is no more disruptive then a muslim with a veil on, or a christian with a big old cross on their neck. Infact I wouldn't be surprised if there were more Pastafarians in the US then muslims(muslims make up less then .5%). Ontop of this, Pastafarianism has the same intellectual basis as pretty much every other organized religion. So why is it not allowed and the rest are? Sounds like discrimination to me.

24


Public school grounds are not private property. Public schools have to respect the constitutional rights of everyone.

Yeah and other kids have the right to an education without being distracted by an attention-seeker. Going to school dressed as a Pirate is going to cause some level of disruption/distraction and it is entirely within the school's rights to stop it happening. I'm not American and have not ever studied American history so I'm not up on the constitution but I am very much up on common sense and that is what usually prevails. If he was so serious about his made-up religion why doesn't he just create a necklace or a badge or some other small indication of his "faith". He doesn't need an inflatable sword and an eye-patch.

Alright, why don't we tell muslim girls that wearing Burkas in school is distracting. Why don't we tell them to find a substitute that is more appropriate or less "disruptive." Why don't we tell catholics on ash Wendsday that is it disruptive to the class to have ash on their heads and they have to wash it off before coming into class. Why do we give a day off for Yom Kippur in public schools, a religious holiday. Certainly missing an ENTIRE DAY of classes is far more disruptive then wearing eyepatches. Why do we make these distinctions among what is valid and what isn't as far as religion is concerned. Pastafarians have as much a logical and historical basis for their beliefs as Christians do. Each have little or no factual historical basis, why do we distinguish one from the other? They are both as made up as each other, as well a Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc etc. We should make people keep their religions at home all together if you want to use the disruptive argument. It's not my problem if you choose to believe that if you don't wear a veil on your head you are going to hell. If you don't want to not wear one, don't go to a public school.

And that is what this is really about. Showing how retarded religion is, and how biased people are. Sheer passage of time does not make a religion any truer. They should all be treated as Pastafarianism is, as loads of crap.

25
Why should the first amendment apply totally if the kid is on private property? I think they did have the right to punish him. Whether they should have or not is entirely up to them.

Public school grounds are not private property. Public schools have to respect the constitutional rights of everyone.

Actually, they have to follow the code enforced at the federal level for schools. These codes vary by state. I have yet to find a state that allows children to wear inflatable swords and eye patches when both eyes work fine, and it is an institution of learning, rather than how to plunder the 7 seas.

In most schools it is not ok to wear hats, yet it is fine for a Jewish person to wear a yammika or a muslim girl to wear a veil?  That is what we are discussing. The eyepatch and sword were displayed for religious reasons. The fact that they removed him from the classroom and suspended reeks of religious bias. The first amendment is the first amendment, and it applies here. I think this kid has every right to be pissed off and take action against the school district.

Also, each state does not have a federal law. If a state has a law, it is a state law, not a federal law. The US federal government are the ones that create and enforce federal law.

26
Why should the first amendment apply totally if the kid is on private property? I think they did have the right to punish him. Whether they should have or not is entirely up to them.

Public school grounds are not private property. Public schools have to respect the constitutional rights of everyone.

27
Schools get away with so much in the US nowadays. The first amendment is the first amendment. If someone wants to wear an eyepatch in school, they should be able too. This crap about it being disruptive is just an excuse. The teacher and probably the principal just didn't approve or were offended. I would not be surprised if the student had harsh anti-Christian opinions which many of the staff/faculty did not agree with. I don't care how much you believe your fairy tales, if this kid can't wear an eyepatch, then nobody should be allowed to display ANY kind of religious symbols in schools. Crosses, veils, yammikas(spelling), carrying around bibles or torahs, it should all be banned. There is no reason to put one fake religion above another in a supposed country of equality.

It would be interesting to see a social experiment done with another kid bringing in an inflatable cross or star of david and seeing the reaction of the staff.

28
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheist Club
« on: April 21, 2007, 04:15:13 PM »
There is no evidence that the Jesus in the bible even existed as a real person.   
There is historical evidence (not Biblical) that Jesus existed.

"And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place ...” -Celsus (Second century Greek historian)

"Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus and no other (eclipse); it is clear that he did not know from his sources about any (similar) eclipse in previous times . . . and this is shown by the historical account of Tiberius Caesar." Origen and Philopon, De. opif. mund. II21
Origen was also a second century philosopher and historian

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."Annals 15 -44
Tacitus was a Roman historian, who wrote this in AD 115.


Keep in mind that Tacitus was not Christian, and Celsus was known to be an opponent of Christianity.
 
(I wrote this earlier for some other thread, but for the sake of simplicity I just copied and pasted it here)

lol. Celsus spoke of Jesus, but only to ridicule. Saying he was an opponent of christianity is an understatement, he outright fought it. Nowhere does Celsus actually confirm the existance of Jesus in a literal and secular sense. Let's keep in mind he comes 200+ years after the supposed existance of Jesus.

The passage in Tacitus does not appear in his writings until around 1300AD. Infact it seems all the stories about Nero killing christians and purposely burning Rome don't exist much prior to then. The passage is accepted as an interpolation to historians, meaning it was put there at a later date by someone else. The same is for the Testamonium Flaavinum in Flaavius' writings.

Origen did not live when Jesus was supposed to of lived (184-254AD) therefore he is not able to give a first-hand account of anything. Origen did nothing different then other philosophical mystery cult writers at the time, taking the stories and myths recycled by earlier christians and adding on and making them his own. Read about Logos. Also, it's debateable if he even believed in an actual historical Jesus (Most early christians did not, The story of Jesus was just symbolic of their values).

29
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheist Club
« on: April 21, 2007, 11:52:14 AM »
Seriously, this is retarded.
There is no reason to believe that a god exists, therefore there is no reason to believe in one. This argument is fine and logically works. But to say "Well there is no reason to believe he does not exist either so there." First of all this reasoning is retarded. There is no reason I can't believe that the universe is actually contained in a giant cosmic bowling ball. Also, people miss the fact that yes, there are plenty of reasons and evidence why you should not believe in a god. Not one person has come back from the dead to tell us about heaven or hell, or any afterlife whatsoever, let alone a god. Things like the bible and other religious texts around the same time in the middle east were common and have been sourced back to other myths and mystery cults several times over. The Christian religion is nothing more then rehashed egyptian and greek mythology, sometimes even word for word.(see horus, mithra, etc) There is no evidence that the Jesus in the bible even existed as a real person. Sorry to pick on Christianity, but they make up the majority of religious people in the world (2billion people, about 45%), and let's face it, they are jerks and they deserve it.

As science discovers more and more about our world and universe, we also fall back on god and other supernatural explanations less. Newton fell back on god and said that we couldn't understand it any further when he couldn't compute more the 2 objects in a system using his laws. 100 years later it was solved. Einstein fell back on god when he could not understand quantum physics (or refused too, which is more likely the case), Later he called it his biggest blunder(after the overwhelming evidence against him).

The idea of a god or creator is silly and juvenile. It should be retired and left to remain in the adolescent stages of human civilization, where it was a valid explanatory tool for the unknown. In the age of science, reason, and discovery, it's just irresponsible to believe such things. Anyone foolish enough to have a blind and baseless faith that we are hear because of some kind of grand creator should be considered dangerous and be deprogrammed. 

30
The Lounge / Re: Gunman kills 30 on Virginia Tech Campus
« on: April 19, 2007, 07:10:05 AM »
Tighter gun laws wouldn’t have stopped him and won’t stop people like him.
Unless guns were completely outlawed, but I don't agree with that on the basis that I really don't agree with a government infringing on the people's rights.  Cho was a nut; that's pretty much been proven.  I have my doubts, though, that he would have known where to get a gun if the only place to get them was the black market.

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.   

Any pawn broker can sell you a handgun for the right amount of cash.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19