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


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Religion is a mental disorder (Score 1) 325

No need. You've demonstrated your inability to address anything substantive about these topics, with the 30 or so points you've skipped over so far due to complete inability to respond.

Your pithy little conclusion won't change the reality, reviewable by anyone. You don't know terminology, you don't know the theoretical structures involved, you understand neither the philosophy of science, nor science itself.

You know that whatever it takes, your "science" must protect you from reality and the evidence within it you prefer to run from. Fortunately, you can't damage religion, and you can only damage science to a limited extent, before you get naturally deselected. Fair enough.

Comment The IRS ? (Score 1) 105

I went so far as to look into the IRS Criminal Investigation manual, and I will admit it was a challenge to take it all in. But I found it quite curious that the IRS were the ones who initiated this investigation. (see page 21 of https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/file/877591/download ) Not much more is said about it, but I have to question why was the IRS investigating a torrent site? Is it because someone running it may have been in the US, and may have been profiting from it? That is the only thing I can think of, but that leads to all kinds of other questions.

Comment +1 Re:Thanks Nvidia (Score 0) 134

I too thought it had something to do with the programming language. I remember taking C and Pascal the same semester in college. Big mistake!
Why not just refer to it as "Pascal architecture" in the story summary? I get that people who follow this might know that is what was meant, but not everyone spends thousands of dollars on video cards or follows things like this. I would think that for a summary story, it would be a little more front-page-friendly. But then again, I prefer the /. of old.

Comment Re:Religion is a mental disorder (Score 1) 325

Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method.

Well, your link. A "principle" is not an absolute requirement, and scientific method is a -subset- of science.

Read down in your own link for cases of domains that are definitely considered science that currently have reproducibility issues. Still science.

Or, note any of my previous examples that are definitely science without entirely reproducible propositions.

Or, well, get a clue. I feel comfortable saying that since you'll have no choice. As you encounter actual science as actually practiced, no other result can happen.

Comment Re:Religion is a mental disorder (Score 1) 325

To have any scientific value, it would first and foremost have to be repeatable, falsifiable and make predictions that will come true without fail.

This is flatly untrue. Stop misrepresenting and damaging science.

There is, like it or not, a great deal that is in the scope of science that is not directly testable. QM Interpretations, for one. Most any anthropological conclusion, as the circumstances are not replicable. Domains where results are, and can only be, statistical, and not "every time", such as sociology. I know you want a personal definition of science that just happens to match precisely what you need it to, to feel you can exclude theism. If you wish to simply be wrong about science, feel free. Don't damage others' understanding, however.

Logical Positivism has thoroughly addressed this, running aground decades ago with a very systematic attempt to frame science, and reality, in the context of notions like "everything is falsifiable, or else wrong, or at minimum unsupportable". It was an utter failure, and you repeating this course (along with your favorite atheist thought-leaders) will likewise result in failure. That battle is over. "Is Beethoven a better composer than Mozart, or vice-versa?" Frame that scientifically, and answer it. Or, recognize this along with a vast number of domains you encounter every day, is outside of the scope of science. This is why I find it difficult to credit you with honesty--it is literally impossible that you apply the same criteria to religion as you do to your other thoughts every single day. You are attempting to make science synonymous with epistemology. It is not.

Never in the classical mechanics.

See, here is the issue. You make claims representing science that neither science would accept, nor are even logically coherent. How do you know this? Psychic powers? You see, presumably you consider me someone rhetorically applying theological assumptions to science--that I'm saying such things as "a theory means a theory" because I'm attempting to weaken some assertion. No, in fact, this is derived entirely from my secular science education. If someone stood up in the classroom and announced, "we shouldn't be calling these 'theories', we should be calling them 'facts'"... they would have been laughed out of the room, and not for theological reasons, but because this violates and misrepresents the basic nature of science. We explicitly -do not know- what observations will be made in the future, or new observations regarding the distant past, and to claim otherwise is to introduce -psychic assertions- into the core of science. Yet, this is precisely what Dawkins, Hitchens, Nye, Tyson, and the rest of their crowd do on a regular basis, for political and philosophical, not scientific, reasons. You can with the smallest effort find statements by all of the above which are based on untestable inference, not science. So, agreed, first thing is the baseline of what constitutes "evidence", and what constitutes "science".

Your current notions of both, are simply wrong. Testability is a scientific positive. Falsifiability is a positive. However, these do -not- scope science. Logical inference from data and tested knowns are also validly in the domain of science, and to deny this would be to chop away so much of science it would be unrecognizable. As well as stopping future science at the root, since formulation of a hypothesis -always- precedes formulating a test for it, by definition. You are suggesting "science" may not include its own established methods--which absolutely include a scientist thinking something is likely true based on inferential assumptions of his knowledge domain, -before- a test can be performed or can even be defined. That's the reality. "Science" is indeed happening there, even when it isn't testable, and that interim period can last decades. Still science.

As for the 6000 years, you'll have to provide some basis for saying snakes could not evolve another characteristic in that time frame. Such propositions regarding a great many organisms are regularly proposed, such as the Peppered Moths example I already gave. Nor are you providing a biological rationale why it is not possible. Perhaps it's a certain incredulity on your part of evolutionary mechanisms that is resulting in this conclusion, I don't know. What I do know is, this point being correct or not, does not advance a refutation of theism, as theism is far broader than Young Earth Creationism. You're giving me a red herring to chase. I decline.

Comment Re:Religion is a mental disorder (Score 1) 325

You cannot verify or falsify a great deal of science, vast amounts of which is, nonetheless, peer-reviewed. I presume you then no papers regarding the various Interpretations of QM are peer-reviewed, since which is accurate cannot be empirically verified?

You have a purely imaginary notion of science and most of the core attributes of it. Feel free to start with answering any of my first response, and show a basic understanding of what "evidence" apart from "proof" is, what QM agrees is possible, what a theory means, or... just anything. Failure to understand what "peer reviewed" means is simply an additional failure of your scientific non-knowledge.

Just even basic, I mean the most basic level of coherent thought and baseline honesty allows it to be clear that because I say something is an analogy, I am not saying everything is an analogy. You see clearly how stupid that claim otherwise is, no? Yes.

I have made no assertions of "proof", so try to avoid conflating "evidence" and "proof". Any thought you have following that is likewise irrational. Do we have "evidence" of aliens and Bigfoot? Indeed we do. Very poor evidence, and, as you well know, nothing for them remotely approximating a multiple-PhD authored, peer reviewed study as published in the Lancet. As -one- source of theistic evidence. People err and people lie, true. You have given no reason they would in this case. In no other case can you dismiss hundreds of eyewitness reports with a smarmy "people lie", either.

It doesn't translate into our normal space... so, then, quantum computing is an impossible lie? There can be no macro-scale effects of quantum behavior? Do tell, how you know this. You can make a killing in the market short-selling these companies. You can spend the money in this universe that, according to the only viable position left to you, is -entirely- a macro scale effect of quantum behavior. Perhaps it doesn't exist, then?

I have made no claim it happened in 6000 years, I am in the camp of theistic evolution. Again, point at whatever Straw Man you wish, your generalized dismissal of theism does not in any way logically follow. And, in fact, evolutionary evidence has shown such changes in far less than 6000 years, Peppered Moths happened in 50 years, according to mainline evolutionary theory. But if the topic is religion, oh, then no, that's an impossibly short timeframe.

Is there a topic somewhere you can address honestly or correctly?

Comment Re:Religion is a mental disorder (Score 1) 325

Since most of this was answered to the other AC, or the OP, I'll address the part that wasn't.

As for "God of the gaps", you completely misunderstand what it is. A god of the gaps argument is one used by theists, and it has been used by theists, that because a scientist/atheist/whatever cannot explain X (yet), X is evidence for God/the supernatural. It doesn't require any theist to hold the false dichotomy you think people assume theists hold.

No, it's not. I have never once heard a theist state this in my life, and naturally enough, since it's a horrible argument. It have heard it used repeatedly and exclusively by atheists, as an empty claim of "what theists say". Well, we don't. I suppose if you simply make up our position, and argue against the resultant Straw Man, you're likely to be successful arguing with yourself. But let's take it down to the basics. That we know or don't know more causal attributes of an event says -nothing- about whether God is the original cause. No more than saying that if we describe nuclear fission in detail, that means President Truman didn't order the bombing of Nagasaki. It's an irrational claim, if made by a theist or an atheist, and I challenge you to provide a single theist who has.

The ball is in YOUR court on how to continue.

Okay, I wait, you get deselected, I win. Or, from your stance, the best you can say is we both lose. Feel free to choose either. I know the answer.

Comment Re:Religion is a mental disorder (Score 1) 325

Check the study, the experiences are complex and well beyond "white light". It is wholly unrealistic, if you check the actual experiences, to dismiss them as simple brain failure.

And if you read the study, and assert otherwise, you indeed also know you are lying. It's manifestly obvious it is evidence, as much so as any other example of "evidence". Note, as well, that you have an alternate explanation, does -not-, in this case or any other whatsoever, mean it is not evidence for the original scenario. At best (from your perspective), it is then evidence for -both- possibilities. Pointing out the guy whose apartment has the smoking gun has a roommate, does -not- change the fact it is still evidence against the suspect.

Comment Re:They sound completely insane (Score 2) 325

"The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it,â Francis said, speaking at a ceremony in the Vatican Gardens inaugurating a bronze bust in honor of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. "The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve."


You may be thinking of an atheistic assertion of evolution. That part is a non-sequitur leap from biological evolution, a leap which is both untestable and unscientific. I am not suggesting the illogical "evolution, therefore atheism".

Comment Re: They sound completely insane (Score 1) 325

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."


Rather sums it up. You may choose that he actively asserted God's existence rather than simply keeping quiet about his lack of belief, but I'll apply reason instead.

And, I think it unlikely he would. Even for the time "heresy" (perceived corruption of Christian belief), would be more problematic than atheism (outright denial of Christian belief).

Slashdot Top Deals

The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. -- Paul Erlich