Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:How do you define evil? (Score 0) 527

by tommy_servo (#29098847) Attached to: Team Aims To Create Pure Evil AI

Haha my well-thought out post was modded a troll. And then I'm accused of copying this from somewhere else by BOTH responses to it, although no one actually found an original.

But hey, mod the responder a +4 even though they never actually dealt with my arguments.

The slashdot gestapo in full effect.

No need to respond to the arguments, just mod me a troll and move on quickly so you can engage in some more anti-theistic groupthink. I must have struck a nerve if no one can actually respond logically. :)

Comment: Re:How do you define evil? (Score 0) 527

by tommy_servo (#29096763) Attached to: Team Aims To Create Pure Evil AI

That is utterly moronic. You just stated (or copied, more like - I doubt you are even capable of thinking for yourself...)

I assure you I didn't copy it from anywhere. I typed it myself. Yessir, I'mma dumb Christian, but ahsa can think fer misself.

a bunch of made up assumptions (just because they are in bold doesn't make them true) and then used those made up assumptions to justify themselves. Wow, a pillar of logic you are.

And to think you didn't even interact or even try to justify where logic, morality, dignity, and uniformity of nature come from. You seemed to have conceded my points to me and then attacked me as a person. Ad hominem, when used, shows how utterly pathetic your argument is.

Well I claim humans created religion. So from my single assumption, I can logically state that the very act of being human thus allows all of the things you claim don't exist if humans created religion.

So where do you get logic from then? You've ignored every one of my arguments, so, let's try this again. I'll even make it easier for you.

Where does logic come from? How can abstract, non-material, laws apply to the thoughts of men (in an atheistic worldview)? Are they only conventional--did we create some rules that just simply work? If that were the case, then why can't I just create my own laws of logic, ones that work for me? How could you say my laws were wrong with your conventional laws?

(Full disclosure: I copied that paragraph from my earlier post--because you didn't respond to it. I hope by copying my earlier paragraph that I have not made the questions invalid)

Try again now. Try to tell me where logic comes from based on your worldview. If you can account for it, then you are free to rely on the laws of logic. However, if you can't justify the use of logic, why do you insist that anyone behaves logically?

Atheists don't believe that religion doesn't exist - they just don't believe god has to exist for humans to create a religion.

Nice straw man. Now let's get philosophically tough minded and actually address the issues I brought up.

Comment: Re:How do you define evil? (Score -1, Troll) 527

by tommy_servo (#29071825) Attached to: Team Aims To Create Pure Evil AI

So says you.

One who subscribes to a set of presuppositions, however, believes in them because she accepts them as her starting point. Your presuppositions--your axioms--are your basis by which you interpret the world around you.

One must have faith in his presuppositions, because they are accepted without proof. Atheism is one of those beliefs that one must subscribe to without being able to prove it. The problem with assuming atheism as an axiom is that it does not comport with reality.

Atheism does not allow for uniformity of nature--how can one assume that the sun will rise tomorrow (in an atheistic worldview)? Because it rose yesterday? That only proves that it rose in our experience so far, but it doesn't prove it will rise again.

Atheism does not allow for laws of logic--how can abstract, non-material, laws apply to the thoughts of men (in an atheistic worldview)? Are they only conventional--did we create some rules that just simply work? If that were the case, then why can't I just create my own laws of logic, ones that work for me? How could you say my laws were wrong with your conventional laws?

Atheism does not allow for human dignity--the idea that humans have more dignity than say broccoli. Why is it permissible for the atheist to eat broccoli but not eat babies? Who says either one is any more valuable than the other?

Atheism does not allow for right or wrong. How can an atheist point to anyone else and say that they should stop doing it? A common response is that society adopts laws that determine the morality of the land. Okay, so might makes right? What would one say to the Germans of World War 2? It was legal to gas millions of Jews, so how can an atheist make a claim that their moral code is superior to anyone else's?

Theism (or more specifically, Christian Theism) is a presupposition that, when accepted, allows for and comports with uniformity of nature, laws of logic, human dignity, and right or wrong. The atheist that relies on those four things borrows from the Christian Theistic Worldview only to claim that the Christian God doesn't exist.

And yet, in doing so, they become their own refutation.

Comment: Re:I'm Atheist I suppose. (Score 1) 844

by tommy_servo (#26149069) Attached to: If Programming Languages Were Religions

Brian - Are you C Objective?
Member A - Fuck off! We're Objective C. Where is C Objective anyway?
Member B - There he is!
Member A - Splitter!!!!

BRIAN:
        I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate FORTRAN as much as anybody.
Objective C:
        Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
REG:
        Schtum.
JUDITH:
        Are you sure?
BRIAN:
        Oh, dead sure. I hate FORTRAN already.
REG:
        Listen. If you really wanted to join Objective C, you'd have to really hate FORTRAN.
BRIAN:
        I do!
REG:
        Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN:
        A lot!
REG:
        Right. You're in. Listen. The only language we hate more than FORTRAN is fucking C Objective.

Comment: Re:Big duh (Score 1) 436

by tommy_servo (#25842329) Attached to: Scientists Discover Proteins Controlling Evolution

Just in case any of you haven't noticed, there's no point in talking to this imbecile. I've talked to many people like him before, and I'll tell you what the deal is: as you've seen he simply assumes before all else his 'worldview' is correct. Even before logic itself, allegedly. All of his arguments will be based on this premise and he will never change it. He'll talk at length about logic originating from God. He will never establish this and may not even try, because in his mind it's a given. He'll argue as if reality itself changes based on one's presumptions. He's a fruitloop, just ignore him.

You don't understand transcendental argumentation.

You do understand ad hominem.

Nice retreat, though. :)

Comment: Re:Big duh (Score 1) 436

by tommy_servo (#25761379) Attached to: Scientists Discover Proteins Controlling Evolution

But my proof of God does not exist is that the CTW exists. If there existed a god he would not allow the existence of such a flawed philosophy as CTW hence God does not exist.

I noticed you dodged the logic question again. If you can't give an account for why you use and rely upon logic, I can't help but conclude that you have no answer and you concede the argument to me.

So let's recap. I've presented a worldview inside which logic makes sense. I gave a reason why I can rely upon and use laws of logic, and trust the results of them.

I've stated that I have yet to find a worldview inside which logic makes sense apart from the Christian Theistic Worldview (CTW). This is where you should present a worldview that comports with the laws of logic. If not, you are reasoning inconsistently. You are relying upon the benefits of the Christian Theistic Worldview while at the same time attacking it.

It's intellectual schizophrenia.

So, please stop trying to beg the question--why are you using logic? Is it consistent to rely upon laws of logic given an atheistic worldview? Do laws, being immaterial and universal, exist within your worldview?

I thought your argument was humorous, but it was very flawed. Try being rational and consistent within your worldview. It's fun!

Comment: Re:Big duh (Score 1) 436

by tommy_servo (#25757745) Attached to: Scientists Discover Proteins Controlling Evolution

I think you are a troll, but it is an enjoyable conversation. I would like to add that there are no natural laws, that convention has been abandoned. It is impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty. All a person can do is gather repeatable outcomes. Every time an action leads to the same outcome, a small bit of certainty is gained. That certainty can never be absolute for we are not omniscient.

How is knowledge possible given your view of the universe?

Why do you act as if you do know something with certainty? How would you go about proving the statement "It is impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty."?

You've demonstrated the intellectual bankruptcy that results when one rejects the Christian God.

Knowledge is impossible, rationality is impossible, and Science is nothing but educated guesses.

This doesn't comport with reality, nor with human experience.

"No job too big; no fee too big!" -- Dr. Peter Venkman, "Ghost-busters"

Working...