Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Bad science (Score 1) 198

I did not say that meteorites are a myth

Actually, you did:

An asteroid hitting the Earth is a myth

I guess it all depends on what you accept for evidence.

Of course. If you take a thousands of years old, massively inconsistent and largely edited book to be a 100% true version of events, then so be it. For the majority of the scientific world, you'll find that it takes a lot more.

they are predicated on the observable natural law.

Of course they are, not only is there no evidence for anything existing outside of the observable natural world, is it the consistency of the universe that allows us to survive. This comes back to why planes stay in the air. If the universe's laws for physics were variable, we'd have no way of building planes. Today they work, tomorrow airfoils have to be reversed to match the changing rules. Today the petrol in your car is just flammable enough to run the engine, tomorrow your engine explodes and the day after, petrol is as reactive as water.

why is it that you cannot put your faith in an infallible, eternal God

This question assumes that a god exists. Since there is no evidence for a god, why would I believe in one?
If there was evidence for a god, I'd believe. If god was performing miracles left right and center now (like the bible says he was thousands of years ago), I'd be more inclined to believe. This isn't a "god exists and people don't believe in him" game, this is a "god may or may not exist, and the only evidence for his existence is the bible" game.

Maybe you can tell me of another human ability OTHER than faith, that God could use to determine whether a person is acceptable or rejected

With no god, this point is moot, but perhaps we could look to other religions for your answer? Muslims need to uphold the 5 pillars, 4 of which are physical actions. In the case of Islam, faith alone is not enough to garner "acceptance" or "rejection".

You appear to be of the firm belief that man controls its own destiny

There are things that are out of man's control (such as meteorites, for now), but other than natural events, there is no reason to believe that man's "destiny" is controlled or even influenced by external factors. With this being the case, why would anyone trust in a source that says that man's "destiny" is controlled by supernatural factors? The reason is that they were raised to believe so, or were convinced by someone.

Comment Re:Silly (Score 1) 482

experiencing the colour green the way we do

Who's we? How do I know YOU experience green the same as I do? Computers today are not advanced enough, but this article discussed advanced, conscious Artificial Intelligence. There is no evidence for a soul, and no reason that the physical events inside the human brain can not account for qualia and consciousness. If the brain is just electrical and chemical reactions on a hugely complex scale, why can't we simulate that in silicon or some other medium?

Just as well that the soul is a separate entity from the body then.

I'm at most what you could call agnostic.

These two statements are contradictory. If you assert that the soul is separate from the body, you assert that the "soul" exists, making you a believer in the supernatural. There isn't anything wrong with you being a believer, but as stated by GP:

You are on Slashdot, which is supposedly tech news, not some "imaginary entity" discussion website.

Asserting that souls exist and then claiming that the existence of souls is unknown are not compatible.

Comment Re:This is a simple decision for me. (Score 1) 232

For CGI there should already be depthiness coding.

I'm pretty sure they could easily offset the "camera" by 2-3cm to the left, render the movie, offset to the right, rerender and there you are! This is why the new Pixar movies in "actual 3D" are such a rip, they didn't actually do any more work, it just took twice as long to render because they used an additional viewpoint.

Also, "depthiness" is an awesome word

Comment Re:Bad science (Score 1) 198

Ok, you have clearly failed to fully read my post.

I think you'll find that there have been many others [link]. Why exactly do you think that Jesus is special in this regard?

In addition to the fact that you didn't try to back up your claim that Jesus was the only one who claimed to be resurrected, you also missed the next important part:

Remember won't you that the deities listed in the article all had their backing in a book or mythology of some kind, this means that your bible is also not special.

If you discount the Christian bible, the first two paragraphs of your response are meaningless.

One of the strongest reasons why I believe that the resurrection actually took place,... ...is the change in his disciples who proclaimed this message in the hostile Roman empire.

Another one of the things in the account of the resurrection is the fact that it was first announced to women.

They found an empty grave and the Roman guard had disappeared.

Jesus was not in the grave anymore and he is alive today

None of these assertions have any evidence for them. They are all anecdotal evidence from a book that has been translated and manipulated over centuries.

All this is a matter of faith because none of us were there. This is true of all of history, because none of us can go back to check it out to see if it really happened that way.

This is true, but usually when we have more than one record, we take these records to be a little more credible (as long as they agree with each other). Even if we completely ignore the internal inconsistency of the bible, there are no third-party sources that could not have been influenced by the bible. For example, if god had stopped the Sun in the sky for three days, don't you think the Aztecs and American Indians would have recorded an unusually long night (and the Chinese an unusually long twilight, and possibly the Icelanders/Greenlanders a long morning)?
The bible is NOT EVIDENCE.

Life is lived more by faith than we realize.

This is a total non-sequitur. Of course we live putting our trust in others. But religious faith is not the same as trusting that your cereal is not infected with salmonella. The main reason for this is that companies that provide us with these goods exist today. I can actually go and visit their factories and find out what food handling procedures they have in place. No one can actually visit god, or the people who wrote the bible and thus no trust should be put in them. I know the science behind why planes fly and it is not faith that keeps them up there.

I believe I will live again with him.

Well, you believe whatever you want to believe. But when you come into a discussion saying that meteorites are myths and that we as a species have nothing to fear from them because humans won't go extinct "at least not before the second coming of Jesus Christ to this earth and then not either", you should expect to be modded down.

Comment Re:Bad science (Score 1) 198

Do you really only believe what your senses tell you?

My senses, and the senses of my (and the rest of humanity's) equipment. I'd believe your senses too if you can describe an objective way for me to repeat your experiences.

There are four questions that every THINKING person should ask at one time or another in their life.

And where did you get these questions from? Why are these questions important? Personally, I think these questions are flawed, allow me to elaborate...

1) Where did I come from?

I came from my parents. They came from their parents, who came from their parents and so on. All the way back to the common ancestor between humans and all other animals, and even back further than that to the common ancestor of all life on earth. I don't know exactly how that particular organism came about, but I don't really see why it's important for me to know the specifics.*

2) Who am I really:

Who else could I be than the person that I am while alive? This question implies that I could be something other than what I am now. This is absurd.

3) What, if any is the purpose of my existence?

The purpose of my existence is to propagate the genes that made me. This is also the purpose of my ancestors and descendants.
Why should my life have a "greater" purpose than this? This question implies that everything (or at least humans) has a purpose, whereas our observations show that there isn't really any (deliberate) purpose in the (non-manmade) universe.

4) What will happen to me after I die?

The electrical signals that keep your brain active will stop. Your consciousness will cease to exist and nothing will happen. Why does something have to happen? What did you experience before you were born? Before you were conceived and before your brain began to function, you experienced nothing, so why should death be any different?

Of all the religious leaders and teachers that have come and gone in human history, only Jesus even makes a claim of resurrection.

I think you'll find that there have been many others. Why exactly do you think that Jesus is special in this regard?
Remember won't you that the deities listed in the article all had their backing in a book or mythology of some kind, this means that your bible is also not special.

You worship anything that you value very highly

Does this mean that I also worship my house, my computer, my girlfriend? I don't pray to science. I don't make offerings to science and I don't think any part of science is beyond being questioned. Other things that are worshiped are not treated the same by their worshipers. Hence, I still disagree with your statement about worshiping science.

*: The exception here (ie, the reason we would need to know this) is when determining the existence or probability of existence of life on other planets

Comment Re:Bad science (Score 1) 198

Of course all those billions are wrong, but you and your disbelief are correct.

It is an undeniable fact that mankind, at least most people, are inexplicably religious and believe lots of stuff outside of the realm of science.

Having more people beleive a particular thing has no influence on how true or untrue it is.
I beleive what I can observe, or what others observe and describe to me as long as it meets the scientific method. That is, is the experience repeatable? Can it be explained in a way that does not invalidate other verified observations (which themselves have been explained in a scientific way)? etc...

That makes you a worshiper of science.

Science is not a "thing". You can't worship science any more than you can worship art or engineering. In any case, what good would worshipping science be since science won't gain anything from my worship and I won't gain anything from my worship?

Carl Sagan is now dead but now knows better than that the cosmos he was measuring through science is all there is and ever will be.

The first five words were enough. Surely you realise that saying that Carl Sagan is more knowledgeable as a corpse (or was he cremated?) sounds ridiculous to those who don't beleive in an "afterlife"? It's like me trying to convince you that Jesus has now completely decomposed and doesn't exist at all (well, the atoms that made up his body do, but not in anything near the same form) outside the minds of those who "worship" him?

The object of that war will be that city itself

Sadly, that city and the surrounding area are already the subject of wars. And the people fighting those wars are following their beleifs so blindly that they can't see the futility.

Slashdot Top Deals

Thufir's a Harkonnen now.