Monday, August 12, 2013
I Have Become a Christian Again
The Shepherd has found me lost and confused, and I have returned to the fold. I can always rely on God to forgive me and to be there for me even when I have decided I want nothing to do with Him.
I have made the decision to grow steadily in my relationship with Jesus Christ;
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Freedom from Freedom
“Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.”
― Oscar Wilde
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
― Harlan Ellison
No one is entitled to be free. For what is an informed opinion if it is not a fact? And what sort of opinion can we be entitled to have if it is not an informed opinion? Furthermore, the more dissident this opinion's nature, the more informed it must be. I think we can all agree that the closer one comes to evidencing an opinion, the closer one comes to proving said opinion against all reasonable doubt. And so, it is exactly this that to which we are not entitled: we are not entitled to reasonable doubt.
I think our situation makes some sense. How can one be opinionated without also belying a distrust for one's State? One may have a dissenting opinion, but only so long as it's not important enough for anyone to really care about it. Opinions about which sports team will win the championship, for instance, make no difference to the total functioning of our civilization. While even in such a situation, one may be punished for expressing a dissident opinion, in such a situation your opinion literally does not matter.
Dissident opinions harm the proper functioning of the State, and as such, we should not be free to have them. Ironically (perhaps a very opinionated word!), it is a dissident opinion that we ought not to be free to have dissident opinions, and thus I am not free to have this dissident opinion. I am in some very real sense, breaking the rules by doing so. I believe that I could effectively be punished by the State for writing this.
So why would I continue? Well, I guess it's just inertia. It's the vestige of a time when I believed, as I was supposed to, that we live in a land with Freedom of Speech. I have since come to understand the falsity of this claim. But through my curiosity, have I done anything else but to make myself a victim, one might say, of my own failure to embrace hypocrisy?
I think this is my last opinionated gift to humankind. I leave you with the truth that we are not free, and I encourage you to make the most of it. Get comfortable and believe what the strongest people tell you to believe. Pursue your dreams only in the context of what the State allows. Do not be disappointed if the State does not treat you fairly. Do not question the decisions of the State. And content yourself in the delusion of it all. It's really a beautiful reality, whether we happen to live in freedom or whether otherwise.
― Oscar Wilde
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
― Harlan Ellison
No one is entitled to be free. For what is an informed opinion if it is not a fact? And what sort of opinion can we be entitled to have if it is not an informed opinion? Furthermore, the more dissident this opinion's nature, the more informed it must be. I think we can all agree that the closer one comes to evidencing an opinion, the closer one comes to proving said opinion against all reasonable doubt. And so, it is exactly this that to which we are not entitled: we are not entitled to reasonable doubt.
I think our situation makes some sense. How can one be opinionated without also belying a distrust for one's State? One may have a dissenting opinion, but only so long as it's not important enough for anyone to really care about it. Opinions about which sports team will win the championship, for instance, make no difference to the total functioning of our civilization. While even in such a situation, one may be punished for expressing a dissident opinion, in such a situation your opinion literally does not matter.
Dissident opinions harm the proper functioning of the State, and as such, we should not be free to have them. Ironically (perhaps a very opinionated word!), it is a dissident opinion that we ought not to be free to have dissident opinions, and thus I am not free to have this dissident opinion. I am in some very real sense, breaking the rules by doing so. I believe that I could effectively be punished by the State for writing this.
So why would I continue? Well, I guess it's just inertia. It's the vestige of a time when I believed, as I was supposed to, that we live in a land with Freedom of Speech. I have since come to understand the falsity of this claim. But through my curiosity, have I done anything else but to make myself a victim, one might say, of my own failure to embrace hypocrisy?
I think this is my last opinionated gift to humankind. I leave you with the truth that we are not free, and I encourage you to make the most of it. Get comfortable and believe what the strongest people tell you to believe. Pursue your dreams only in the context of what the State allows. Do not be disappointed if the State does not treat you fairly. Do not question the decisions of the State. And content yourself in the delusion of it all. It's really a beautiful reality, whether we happen to live in freedom or whether otherwise.
"Freedom is a bourgeois prejudice. We repudiate all morality which
proceeds from supernatural ideas or ideas which are outside the class
conception. In our opinion, morality is entirely subordinate to the
interests of the class war. Everything is moral which is necessary for
the annihilation of the old exploiting order and for uniting the
proletariat. Our morality consists solely in close discipline and
conscious warfare against the exploiters."
―V.I. Lenin
―V.I. Lenin
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Number Trick
Here is a clever number trick. I will attempt to demonstrate that a decimal 9 is entangled somewhat, cognitively, with a binary 1. A high-information power system could get even closer to being entangled with 1. An infinitely high-information power system could describe 1 absolutely, even though any digit could only really consist of an invisible shade of meaning between 0 and 1.
Let me demonstrate this argument: Imaging reading the following number, digit by digit: 13.72. Each digit in your mind corresponds to a packet of information that signifies some value between negative and positive, or zero and one. As you read that number, your mind processes it in terms of shades of meaning between zero and one for each decimal place. Basically, it is a mere simplification to intuition of a binary system, which would convey the meaning discretely. Following this, a user who could manipulate an infinite number system could think in shades of somewhere between complete negative or positive certainty, and this would have meaning even though it would also have no meaning.
Before humans had mathematics, this is exactly what they did all the time! They still do it when their brains decide which action to take next. It follows from the correctness of a Fermi problem that multiple pieces of information that constitute an informative estimation of a problem will together produce an average estimate that grows closer and closer to the answer.
Well, human consciousnesses are pieces of information that attempt to think in shades of infinitely negative or infinitly positive. Hence, our collective consciousness together estimates reality. We estimate an optimistic universe. And science confirms this simple intuition though its description of an accelerating universe with explosive emptiness. Thus, this is how it is, and we are parts of it. This is important self-definitionally. Anything that stagnates cannot exist in an accelerating universe, and so we will not stagnate.
Let me demonstrate this argument: Imaging reading the following number, digit by digit: 13.72. Each digit in your mind corresponds to a packet of information that signifies some value between negative and positive, or zero and one. As you read that number, your mind processes it in terms of shades of meaning between zero and one for each decimal place. Basically, it is a mere simplification to intuition of a binary system, which would convey the meaning discretely. Following this, a user who could manipulate an infinite number system could think in shades of somewhere between complete negative or positive certainty, and this would have meaning even though it would also have no meaning.
Before humans had mathematics, this is exactly what they did all the time! They still do it when their brains decide which action to take next. It follows from the correctness of a Fermi problem that multiple pieces of information that constitute an informative estimation of a problem will together produce an average estimate that grows closer and closer to the answer.
Well, human consciousnesses are pieces of information that attempt to think in shades of infinitely negative or infinitly positive. Hence, our collective consciousness together estimates reality. We estimate an optimistic universe. And science confirms this simple intuition though its description of an accelerating universe with explosive emptiness. Thus, this is how it is, and we are parts of it. This is important self-definitionally. Anything that stagnates cannot exist in an accelerating universe, and so we will not stagnate.
I am a Liberal Shill
Yes, this is somewhat of a confession. Actually, I never haven't been liberal. I am just a liberal who had quite different life experiences and who experienced them through a quite different perspective. I was already an atheist by the time I reached middle school. I remember the exact moment I lost my faith, and I was very young then. I remember walking out of chapel thinking that life seemed a lot dimmer than it did before. It's sad, really. Yet, I was a child and naturally unable to disagree with the world-view of my superiors. So I repressed this knowledge, but it was not like I did not know it after that.
Once I reached high school, well that was the death-knell for any conservatism I may have once had, since I started to think differently, more abstractly, and I had access to authors like Richard Dawkins, or even to a proper biology textbook. I mean, seriously, I think my having been put into such a restrictive environment as a kid drove my love of science. You've heard that you don't know what you're taking for granted until you don't have it anymore. Well, it works the other way, too. You don't know what you have unless there was a time when you lacked it.
Of course, just like I was doing here, I toyed around with pretending. I did it so well I confused myself about my own history a couple of times. But in the end, no. Of course not. I am not conservative at all. I never was, and honestly, I think that's how I ended up in such a different place to begin with. It's like my conservative family reacted against my liberalism and put me in the place they thought I would be least likely to escape. Conservatives have been trained to crush free spirited children.
Or maybe I was just a spazz. I dunno. That's still not entirely clear. I know I asked my brother if he wanted to be gay or married when he grew up, and my dad went to yell at the principal. He came home telling my brother (who resented me for a long time for this) and I that we would be attending a Christian school the following year.
Why was I told officially we were going to switch schools? My mom told me I was having trouble learning to read. So, if that's not true, it's sort of a mean thing to say, I think. But why would they have moved my brother if that was the case? And considering that I went from the 1st to the 8th grade reading level in one year after the transition, I'm not sure it was entirely true that I did not learn how to read in the slightest. I mean, that would have had to be one hell of a new program. Why wouldn't the public school system just copy the hell out of it? I find it hard to believe that Fellowship Christian Academy had and may still possess secretly the elusive and eureka-inspiring answer for teaching kids to read.
I do not know , but I view one opinion as being fairly undeniable.
If I had continued in public school, I don't think my understanding of conservatives would have extended beyond a 2nd or 3rd grade memory. I am really not very conservative at all. I would have gone *NUTS* given even an ounce of freedom. (Maybe my parents were prescient in this regard.) In fact, how I define my conservatism is based on some scientific data I read regarding potential neuroanatomical origins of conservatism. (I reject the idea that it is purely a problem with intelligence.) So I would often say things to indicate I have an anxiety disorder (an easy thing to fake when you don't have many friends and you suspect the world may be in peril), and I would even have to concede that I tend to hang onto prejudices more than Liberals. (That should have been a dead give away right there, since ain't no way a true conservative will admit he is prejudiced. He or she is, in fact, too prejudiced to do so.)
I guess I am just admitting this because I just don't want to have to pretend anymore. I thought about continuing to pretend for the long haul in order to get conservatives to listen, but it's just too depressing. I would rather be loved by the community, and I know that no double-agent honestly could be.
Liberals are not "taking over" science, the media, goverment, and etc because they are evil and want to ruin your way of life. They are doing it because the world has real serious problems that people never think about when they believe they are going to Heaven. We are afraid, and I can only imagine how stiff the competition must be in order to become a liberal cultural figure. That explains why all the comedians are liberals, right?
If you are a liberal and you can get people to listen to you, you do it by any means necessary. I guess I tried that and went a little too far. It doesn't help that most people, liberal or otherwise, were not very nice to me from highschool onwards until quite recently. Perhaps it was a bit my fault for not just trying to fit in, but at the same time I had been taught to be principled, and by golly, I was going to be principled. You know? From that position it can take a few turns to come to the final conclusion that one just ought not pretend to be conservative. There's more negative in it than positive.
And if you want to ever have the hope of affecting any positive change at all in society, well you had better be a liberal. To do so being a conservative, presumably you would have to become a dictator first. I do not seriously imagine this happening for me. But believe it or not, I considered that, too. You know? How do you become one? Maybe you just become one by acting like one at exactly the right time and by doing all the right things as they come up.
P.S. I didn't care about using the Jews as bait because fuck religion.
Once I reached high school, well that was the death-knell for any conservatism I may have once had, since I started to think differently, more abstractly, and I had access to authors like Richard Dawkins, or even to a proper biology textbook. I mean, seriously, I think my having been put into such a restrictive environment as a kid drove my love of science. You've heard that you don't know what you're taking for granted until you don't have it anymore. Well, it works the other way, too. You don't know what you have unless there was a time when you lacked it.
Of course, just like I was doing here, I toyed around with pretending. I did it so well I confused myself about my own history a couple of times. But in the end, no. Of course not. I am not conservative at all. I never was, and honestly, I think that's how I ended up in such a different place to begin with. It's like my conservative family reacted against my liberalism and put me in the place they thought I would be least likely to escape. Conservatives have been trained to crush free spirited children.
Or maybe I was just a spazz. I dunno. That's still not entirely clear. I know I asked my brother if he wanted to be gay or married when he grew up, and my dad went to yell at the principal. He came home telling my brother (who resented me for a long time for this) and I that we would be attending a Christian school the following year.
Why was I told officially we were going to switch schools? My mom told me I was having trouble learning to read. So, if that's not true, it's sort of a mean thing to say, I think. But why would they have moved my brother if that was the case? And considering that I went from the 1st to the 8th grade reading level in one year after the transition, I'm not sure it was entirely true that I did not learn how to read in the slightest. I mean, that would have had to be one hell of a new program. Why wouldn't the public school system just copy the hell out of it? I find it hard to believe that Fellowship Christian Academy had and may still possess secretly the elusive and eureka-inspiring answer for teaching kids to read.
I do not know , but I view one opinion as being fairly undeniable.
If I had continued in public school, I don't think my understanding of conservatives would have extended beyond a 2nd or 3rd grade memory. I am really not very conservative at all. I would have gone *NUTS* given even an ounce of freedom. (Maybe my parents were prescient in this regard.) In fact, how I define my conservatism is based on some scientific data I read regarding potential neuroanatomical origins of conservatism. (I reject the idea that it is purely a problem with intelligence.) So I would often say things to indicate I have an anxiety disorder (an easy thing to fake when you don't have many friends and you suspect the world may be in peril), and I would even have to concede that I tend to hang onto prejudices more than Liberals. (That should have been a dead give away right there, since ain't no way a true conservative will admit he is prejudiced. He or she is, in fact, too prejudiced to do so.)
I guess I am just admitting this because I just don't want to have to pretend anymore. I thought about continuing to pretend for the long haul in order to get conservatives to listen, but it's just too depressing. I would rather be loved by the community, and I know that no double-agent honestly could be.
Liberals are not "taking over" science, the media, goverment, and etc because they are evil and want to ruin your way of life. They are doing it because the world has real serious problems that people never think about when they believe they are going to Heaven. We are afraid, and I can only imagine how stiff the competition must be in order to become a liberal cultural figure. That explains why all the comedians are liberals, right?
If you are a liberal and you can get people to listen to you, you do it by any means necessary. I guess I tried that and went a little too far. It doesn't help that most people, liberal or otherwise, were not very nice to me from highschool onwards until quite recently. Perhaps it was a bit my fault for not just trying to fit in, but at the same time I had been taught to be principled, and by golly, I was going to be principled. You know? From that position it can take a few turns to come to the final conclusion that one just ought not pretend to be conservative. There's more negative in it than positive.
And if you want to ever have the hope of affecting any positive change at all in society, well you had better be a liberal. To do so being a conservative, presumably you would have to become a dictator first. I do not seriously imagine this happening for me. But believe it or not, I considered that, too. You know? How do you become one? Maybe you just become one by acting like one at exactly the right time and by doing all the right things as they come up.
P.S. I didn't care about using the Jews as bait because fuck religion.
El Estados Granujas
We cannot have government with a bunch of people who worship freedom, their own self-destruction, and uncertainty. We must hate them. It's the brain of the institution that we must hate, and it's a liberal brain. We cannot have our enemies as our leaders. We cannot have people who value uncertainty making decisions! Our leaders must be confident.
And fuck liberals and their attachment to our science. No nihilists need apply. Except now they control everything, and we are left with Bachmann and Perry, who are theocrats and morons. I really do hate liberals, and I have to pretend to love them. I hate liberal pseudo-scientist victim complex assholes.
I just remembered how hard it's going to be to pretend to be able to enjoy the smell of a liberal. Meanwhile they will try to destroy the world in their arrogance and haste, the quiotic victims. They have monopolized academia, which is something we really should have *never* given up to our enemies. I wasn't born when it happened.
It's supersitition: Chrisitanity. It caused conservatives to fail. If we could destroy every last liberal professor, that would be a great boon for our future. The world could move on and deal with its problems, instead of sitting on its ass wondering if it is mere prejudice to live.
Can you believe we basically pay for these idiots to live? The government disburses a lot of grant money. We should not be funding liberals; we should only fund conservative scientists.And then when the parasites switch to being conservatives to try to suck more blood from society that way, only the people who can notice this sort of thing will be in the position to do so.
Whatever. If it comes down to civil war, you will expect to find me on the side of the people who want to win the most , and that will be conservatives. Liberals can dick around questioning whether they ought to win, and that's when we will destroy them. We will give them a reason to bitch about being victims by making them real ones.
I hate "scientists". I hate them as much as I love science. I think we should just blow up the world instead of letting them win. It would be better, perhaps. Humanity can pick up from the scrap heaps, and you'd better believe that only conservatives will survive in that environment. Liberals can kiss it goodbye.
Other conservatives sometimes think I am a liberal, but of course I am not. Whenever i catch the scent of such an abomination of life, I am stirred to anger, an unfulfilled desire to destroy . What a horrible way of being is liberalism!
So, no. not a liberal shill :)
Liberals like to claim to be the group that wants progress, but that's just part of their infinite vicitim complex. Of course conservatives want progress. We just want it to be more ordered, since nothing interesting can happen in disorganization. We want to be less wishy washy about whether we ought to live at all . With us in charge, it would be survival at all costs. Survival!
I really do hate pompous liberals. They think they are so much smarter and better. It's a defense mechanism. They try to be better than everyone else so they can exploit others for their own happiness. Well fuck em' . They don't even care about survival. They are the natural enemy of humanity.
We need a revolution. I think that america minus the liberals is a much better place. I wish the military would do this, but it is not my decision unfortunately . Do you see yourself as leaning more towards liberalism or conservatism? I suspect you are conservative if you ended up in the same position as me. But I could be wrong.
What is a liberal? It has always been radical: anti-monarchy, anti-order, anti-everything, even anti life in most horrifying cases. I would think I am liberal as well, except I don't get along with those snotty rich kids . So the proof is in the pudding. I must be conservative.
Liberals are some of the most intolerant people I have ever seen, and so it has always been ironic to me that they victimize themselves into being believing they are tolerant. If there were even one thing I would say about liberals for certain, it's that they aren't tolerant.
Liberals are not our friends. They are as bad for us as are the theocrats posing as enlightened conservatives. America has been from its inception a liberal state. It was born in the bloodshed of a monarchy trying to reunite this liberal colony. It has been from its inception a nation of suicide, a nation of blind selfish hedonism,and of course the God to go along with it. It abandoned the wisdom of ages.
I love the American people, but our government only exists to prevent a real government from forming.
Liberals tend to think that they own science, since they try to prevent conservatives from becoming scientists. But science is an object with no political orientation. Laboratories, on the other hand, have a definite liberal hue. I mean, I love science. So, to claim that "For science!" is even somewhat resembling a liberal mantra, this is bogus . It's just as untrue as the Christian who says that no one else knows about love because love must come from Jesus. Science not only doesn't come from liberalism, but also liberalism damages science.
All the politicization of science happening today has either a liberal or theocratic bent. Liberal relativity predicts that all cultures are equal, so that's what they try to demonstrate, against the total face of evidence. In fact, what they should discover is that their own culture is extremely lacking. But how could a liberal suppose something that makes him not a victim but an oppressor?
How can evil exist if it means that one may in fact be performing it? Nothing makes me more pissed than a bunch of snotty "POC" and Jewish rich privileged kids who think they are right about everything meanwhile exploiting humanity. I mean, what about the CEO's of these big companies? They are usually democrats. So why don't they make life better for their workers? Why do they enable Chinese factory conditions?
Take Tim Cook, for instance, the new CEO of Apple. He's a Democrat, and I'm sure he considers himself very Liberal. He even thought about running for office. And yet, he employs millions of Chinese sweatshop workers.I suppose it's not really his fault, though. Since he's not one of the Lberals in DC who do exactly the same thing. Those people could actually make a difference if they actually cared.
Liberals hate poor people. It's the biggest lie they ever told. They are completely devoid of noblis oblige. Of course, someone who does not believe in honor, respect, loyalty, etc, why would this person care about people?
I am not merely a political dissident. I am the political inclination of the majority of humanity, most of whom would like to think of themselves as being part of something bigger and better rather than as "free" selfish entities. Humanity itself is mostly conservative. And so the liberals have declared war on humanity. They, with Jewish help, have captured our media, our educational system, every product of the conservative imagination in this country. These were all things designed to help us to function as a whole organism. And the liberals have turned it into some big fest for freedom and selfishness.
Humanity is Dalit.
We are the oppressed.
And freedom is our oppressor.
You will be punished by the rogue state.
El Estados Granujas.
The United Rogue States of America.
Friday, July 19, 2013
Is Government Good?
So, I went to this website called Omegle.com, and I asked this question. A series of pairs of people, who may not have even been American, responded. This is the first lengthy conversation that resulted:
I believe that Stranger 2 is probably an American "conservative" because he thinks so positively about corporations and so negatively about parts of the government that prevent corporations from doing everything they want to do. Am I being presumptuous?
I believe that Stranger 2 is probably an American "conservative" because he thinks so positively about corporations and so negatively about parts of the government that prevent corporations from doing everything they want to do. Am I being presumptuous?
Thursday, June 20, 2013
How to Overcome Other People in Order to Accomplish Your Goals
When people do not like you, they will viciously assault your self-perception of intelligence, hard-workingness, reasonability, etc. Anyone can see this happening on an almost daily basis. Whenever one person disagrees with another, that person's first course of action is usually to call the other person stupid. I argue that the first person does this for two reasons.
First, the accuser intends for surrounding people to believe the claim, since if the opponent possesses no intelligence, no one need listen to his or her arguments. Would someone, for instance, listen to a retarded person? No, and the accuser believes that less people will listen to his or her opponent if they believe the opponent to be stupid. This really hits someone below the belt, but it happens in almost every debate imaginable.
Second, and many people do not think about this, the accuser intends to damage the opponent's self-esteem. People tend to derive much of what they think about themselves from the opinions of others. Humans are profoundly social beings. So, if an accuser can convince an opponent him or herself that the opponent has no intelligence, this serves to depress the opponent and to prevent his or her further attempts to demonstrate the opposing position. The opponent simply does not desire to argue anymore because the opponent feels depressed.
Both of these strategies hit below the belt. In the first case, the accuser poses a lie against his oer her opponent intending to discredit the opposing position without tending to the arguments. In the second case, the accuser intends to use the accuser's own influence and the influence of others whom the accuser may convince in order to convince the opponent him or herself that the opponent either has an unsound argument or has an argument less important than the pain of rejection.
If you know something that others do not know and that they do not want to hear, expect not only to be publicly accused of being unintelligent, expect the opposition to literally try to convince you youself that this is true. Do not for one second believe them, as this will modify your motivation in such a way that would make it significantly more difficult to proceed. Your biology will not care how right you are, since your biology has been tasked with keeping you alive and maximizing your biological fitness.
First, the accuser intends for surrounding people to believe the claim, since if the opponent possesses no intelligence, no one need listen to his or her arguments. Would someone, for instance, listen to a retarded person? No, and the accuser believes that less people will listen to his or her opponent if they believe the opponent to be stupid. This really hits someone below the belt, but it happens in almost every debate imaginable.
Second, and many people do not think about this, the accuser intends to damage the opponent's self-esteem. People tend to derive much of what they think about themselves from the opinions of others. Humans are profoundly social beings. So, if an accuser can convince an opponent him or herself that the opponent has no intelligence, this serves to depress the opponent and to prevent his or her further attempts to demonstrate the opposing position. The opponent simply does not desire to argue anymore because the opponent feels depressed.
Both of these strategies hit below the belt. In the first case, the accuser poses a lie against his oer her opponent intending to discredit the opposing position without tending to the arguments. In the second case, the accuser intends to use the accuser's own influence and the influence of others whom the accuser may convince in order to convince the opponent him or herself that the opponent either has an unsound argument or has an argument less important than the pain of rejection.
If you know something that others do not know and that they do not want to hear, expect not only to be publicly accused of being unintelligent, expect the opposition to literally try to convince you youself that this is true. Do not for one second believe them, as this will modify your motivation in such a way that would make it significantly more difficult to proceed. Your biology will not care how right you are, since your biology has been tasked with keeping you alive and maximizing your biological fitness.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Debate: Atheist vs Muslim (Lawrence Krauss vs Hamza Tzortzis)
This is a record of my posts on VeganTruth's Kruass v. Tzortzis debate reproduction on YouTube.
_______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Half way through and I already half saw the destruction of his arguments. Hamza is philosophically smarter than Krauss any day. Kraus at least learn the art of Buddhism or Christianity before you argue with a Muslim. Might look into Taoism, and Hinduism too so you can get an idea of what you are speaking about. Saying well I base my arguments starting from no belief is nonsense.
·
I disagree. Think about for instance how you would base an argument on who will when the World Cup a year from now. One does not assume one team will win and then try to prove it. It is better not to assume, and instead to collect data about each of the teams and compare statistics. You would predict that the team with the best statistics will win, but even then you cannot be sure. By the way no need to do this because team USA is going to win :)
_______________________________________________________________________________
indeed, i think its absurd to debate religion and science, two different ideologies -no one wins
I do not think it is absurd to debate because these Muslims were willing to state that the rational faculty leads us to conclude that Islam is true. This should have been like taking candy from a baby, but we selected a speaker with below genius verbal intelligence. Islam picked one of their finest orators. If they had stated that humans ought not to be reasonable, then there is no longer a good reason to debate, since no one can win a debate against an insane opponent.
·in reply to plusus logicus
_______________________________________________________________________________
I love that Mr Krause is dedicated to teaching and learning about the space and time that we live in! I am not sure his time is well spent trying to save people from brain washing and mythology. although I appreciate he is trying :)
·
I disagree. This is even more important than him discovering the answers to everything, if he can actually succeed. It would be quite ironic to know how the universe works and then blow up because no one else figured it out. The future of mankind has a stake in the outcome of debates such as these, even if it's just a small stake. I am not saying reason is doomed because one physicist lost one debate against one Muslim, but it does not help our case. I wish Krauss had prepared better.
I agree with you. I often think that Krauss just expects people to be smarter...I love learning and when your pitted against someone who clearly doesn't want to evolve or even accept known truths it makes you a bit crazy.
·in reply to QQminusS
_________________________________________________________________________________
Comment removed
·
I agree. The debate did not cover whether Islam was good. It covered whether Islam explains reality. In my humble opinion, the answer is no in both cases. Although I imagine Islam functions better than anarchy, culture does not operate using reason.
·in reply to Olgerman
__________________________________________________________________________________
I agree with Richard Dawkins who believes that to push a religion on a child can be considered abuse. A child needs to develop a reasonable mind before it can consider the soundness of religious ideas. Also, no child can be said "born Jewish" or "born Catholic." These cultures must be indoctrinated.
___________________________________________________________________________________
It's not even about resources necessary to create an Universe such as our own; since Theists claim their "God" intended it to be precisely the way it is, "God" must've had a SET of possible Universes that WEREN'T like ours, but possible/probable. So he had to SIMULATE all the Universes and say "THAT'S the one I choose, because after 14bn years or so, there will be an illiterate warmonger and epileptic living in Arabia on that speck of dust called Earth; I'll explain my whole plan to him!" W-T-F?
Clearly the story holds little water. But a debater must find a way to demonstrate that to someone who has invested heavily in ego on the idea that it must be true. How do you tell someone his or her entire worldview makes no rational sense? This cannot be done rudely, to start.
I agree and disagree. It SHOULDN'T be done rudely, unless you are faced with bold-faced arrogance of a mentally challenged ignoramus. And that is often the case. When you are faced with simple ignorance, it would be rude not to share your knowledge and educate the individual/help him find the knowledge necessary to understand his mistake; when you are faced with arrogant ignoramuses though, no respect should be given and their world-view ridiculed as much as possible; namely, respect is earned
Tzortzis never intentionally attempted to deceive his audience. This makes a lot of sense, Sherlock, because Tzortzis is in fact an Islamic scholar and truly believes his own views! And actually, unless you can can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that your opponent is truly using deceitful arguments on purpose, you should be as understanding as possible. Idiot. :)
·in reply to HuntingGoodWill
__________________________________________________________________________________
That's a bad example; you actually have "mirror-neurons", which let you not understand but to a degree "feel" other animal's pain. Watch a video of a BMX biker jumping too high and breaking his leg and I can guarantee you, you will feel unrest about it. Yes, it is completely possible to act in a sociopathic manner, but you have to re-programm your psyche; "dehumanizing" or equating other groups of humans to lower animals we don't care for works (rats/spiders/bats/etc...). No "metaphysics" here.
Actually, I do not see why it would be ok to treat bats in the way that humans often treat each other. I like bats.
You are basically denying the existence of the concept, "good." The human psyche has evolved to experience the perspective of another (though I don't see a lot of that happening on this comment section). And it makes sense that this would be because in any case I can imagine in the real world, acting communally works better than sociopathy. However, even if I did not feel another's pain and it cost me nothing to create suffering, it would still be "metaphysically" evil for me to do so.
You are coming to this conclusion (and I can understand the logic behind it) based on the premise, that the reproduction of DNA, therefore its "products" (species/animals/"Life") is something objectively Good. But think about it, really, that's not the case! If your premise is wrong, how can your logical conclusion be RATIONAL? It cannot be.Therefore, start at step 1 and first show, that Life is better than non-existence. You are ascribing value ("Evil") to something there's no value-system for.
Pure mathematics contains many such metaphysical concepts! In fact, physicists invoke ideas that might *have been* metaphysical would they not have described the outcome of experiments. I would not call infinity "metaphysical," as I believe that infinity does exist in the real world, though it cannot be measured discretely for obvious reasons. The infinitely small point in space exemplifies this idea.
I do not believe that "God" makes any sense beyond a representation for metaphysical "good."
I do not believe that "God" makes any sense beyond a representation for metaphysical "good."
ha ha i skipped right past the muslim and straight onto krauss all the way through..i only listen to logical opinions:))
·
I was going to do that as well but I did not. You did not miss anything. If your mind is tuned to logic you pretty quickly stop paying attention to the words coming out of the Charlatan's mouth.
Hamza is not really a Charlatan. Here is his argument. He spells it out very clearly:
Premise 1) The universe has a beginning.
Premise 2) The universe was created by something uncreated.
Premise 3) The something uncreated must be eternal.
Premise 4) The something uncreated must be distinct.
Premise 5) The somthing uncreated must have a will.
6) Must be powerful.
7) Must be omniscient.
8) Must be one.
Conclusion: Allah exists.
Premise 1) The universe has a beginning.
Premise 2) The universe was created by something uncreated.
Premise 3) The something uncreated must be eternal.
Premise 4) The something uncreated must be distinct.
Premise 5) The somthing uncreated must have a will.
6) Must be powerful.
7) Must be omniscient.
8) Must be one.
Conclusion: Allah exists.
The logical flaw happens in premise 5, where the uncreated need not have a will. It could simply be as Krauss describes, a sludge of possibilities that will create absolutely *anything* possible without "selecting" an outcome rationally. This breaks his argument. Otherwise, he would have proven God.
P.S. Calling your opponent a charlatan because you disagree with him will only convince the opponent that you don't give a shit. And he would be right it seems. Hamza only started playing unfair when Krauss broke the rules. He did this because Krauss's intellect intimidated him. He knew Krauss could say something Hamza had not prepared for. According to the rules of the forum, this *was* unfair. None of you bastards are using reason at all. So shutup about science.
__________________________________________________________________________
When we say nothing is not really nothing we mean that there is something therefore not a sludge of possibilities that will create absolutely *anything* possible without "selecting" an outcome rationally.
First, do not lump yourself in with us scientists. I don't care what communist university you attended. Second, a sludge of possibilities *really* is nothing. If this were not so, to begin with it would violate the conservation of matter. Also, it would mean potential outcomes really exist. It would also imply that something like the square root of -1 actually exists. This cannot be so.
·in reply to MrCostiZz
This has been flagged as spamshowhide• Not Spam
You apply that if the answer is God then you get rib of the sludge of possibilities. So whats the difference if in place of God you have a code with this kind of attributes. How will it violate the conservation of matter? No you don't need potential outcomes when you replace nothing always existed to "but nothing is not really nothing" you only change the framework. Due to thermodynamics the square root of -1 actually exists. You have a negative to every positive in nature.
·in reply to QQminusS
The something uncreated must be eternal.=No as time started together with the Universe so eternal has no meaning. The universe was created by something uncreated. = The framework which created the Universe was always there replacing nothing. But this is a simple code circular thing not a complicated person...The somthing uncreated must have a will. No because will needs agenda which apply something or someone being imperfect. Conclusion the only thing Hamza got = the UNVRS had a beginning
There are no deductive problems with his first four premises. The something uncreated in fact must be eternal, in whatever sense of the word retains meaning when linear time no longer exists. Also, the *framework* actually *is* nothing. This is similar to saying ( -1 + -2 + 0 + 2 + 1 == 0 ) == true.
You demonstrate a reason bound by pre given rules of nature logical or not though Eternal has no sense absent time....No matter how we rationalize in our Evolution bounded mind.
·in reply to QQminusS
QQminusS 1 day ago
What difference is there in saying that reason is not bound and in saying that there is no reason? Reason, by its very nature, must be bound. Else anything is reasonable! In fact, that is the very argument that theologians make. God is a contradiction, and the reason we cannot understand him is that we are incapable of doing so. Anything that has no pattern or sense cannot be understood or predicted.
·in reply to MrCostiZz
MrCostiZz 1 day ago
Reason is simply acting in a given environment and having a certain result...Intelligence needs nature is not beyond nature...In quantum environment for example 1+1 is not 2....The logical absolutes you apply in reality is something that human mind agreed is like i say to you i choose to call this animal a cat and then say a cat is always a cat.... I don't believe in logical absolutes. And i really don't believe intelligence or love being the picture they are just colors.
Do you absolutely believe that there are no logical absolutes? If in the quantum environment 1+1 != 2, then 1+1 = {x} or Pr(x).
·in reply to MrCostiZz
It does not really matter what this mathematical gibberish means. It is enough to say that no matter in what environment 1 + 1 = *something* ! That is, reason breaks down where 1 + 1 = *anything*. If 1 + 1 = *anything*, then *anything* is always true. Since *everything* is not true, *anything* is not true.
Yes you just describe the quantum world (1+1 = {x} or Pr(x).) What i try to say is that perhaps our world seem structured in logic due to an underline code which apply to everything the ancient Greeks called the 'low" which even God submit. Why that must be God...Isn't intelligence the description of that code "low". Why should we believe that this thing needed a person to make it...1+eternal=0 you don't need a mind to conceive it.
QQminusS 1 day ago
QQminusS 1 day ago
I do not believe in God. Did you not realize this? I believe in metaphysical "good." This is a philosophical concept which means the maximization of *happiness* and *longevity* in all existence.
happiness = the desire to continue life
longevity = the continuation of life
MrCostiZz 21 hours ago
happiness = the desire to continue life
longevity = the continuation of life
MrCostiZz 21 hours ago
I am sorry i didn't realize that.
But again isn't happiness subjective
How can Happiness even be conceived without Unhappiness in other words you believe in Unhappiness as well.
Life is just a result of certain conditions of existence. If we take into account that there are probably eternal Universes then life is inevitable eternal...Just some thoughts
But again isn't happiness subjective
How can Happiness even be conceived without Unhappiness in other words you believe in Unhappiness as well.
Life is just a result of certain conditions of existence. If we take into account that there are probably eternal Universes then life is inevitable eternal...Just some thoughts
QQminusS 21 hours ago
Q : How can Happiness even be conceived without Unhappiness in other words you believe in Unhappiness as well.
A : True, I believe in Unhappiness.
Q: But again isn't happiness subjective?
A: Yes. But set the subject as everything that exists and attempt to maximize it. Everything is connected.
QQminusS 21 hours ago
A : True, I believe in Unhappiness.
Q: But again isn't happiness subjective?
A: Yes. But set the subject as everything that exists and attempt to maximize it. Everything is connected.
QQminusS 21 hours ago
"Life is just a result of certain conditions of existence. If we take into account that there are probably eternal Universes then life is inevitable eternal...Just some thoughts"
Life is indeed eternal. And life is good. Else, life would not exist. It would choose not to survive, or it would be unable to. I do not believe that life is *maximally* good. Life could could be happier and longer.
MrCostiZz 21 hours ago
Life is indeed eternal. And life is good. Else, life would not exist. It would choose not to survive, or it would be unable to. I do not believe that life is *maximally* good. Life could could be happier and longer.
MrCostiZz 21 hours ago
I respect what you say and it seems like a good philosophy my personal view thought is that good is subjective. For example if we were so over populated on earth that we could't yet breathe then murder suddenly becomes good. The most life bringing phenomenon in the Universe are the most destructive ones again all are into perspective.
It isn't good to become overpopulated!! Self-defense is not murder. Humanity collapses at the point you describe. Reason becomes merely a tool for survival, ego against nature. Humanity should do everything in its power to preserve order, which includes uniting and regulating world population.
From whose perspective are happiness and continuation of life not the good? I looked for fundamentals. Even a chicken agrees. Nevertheless, good should be made to descibe all perspectives.
From whose perspective are happiness and continuation of life not the good? I looked for fundamentals. Even a chicken agrees. Nevertheless, good should be made to descibe all perspectives.
Question if you had the opportunity to kill Hitler when he was an innocent child will you do it?.....You see good is in relation to the conscious state we are while if we had the perfect conscious state everything is neutral....
A question like that is hard to answer because it requires a lot of information to answer properly. I think it would be dangerous to alter the timeline in a way not directed to bring humans together, since as I suspect you understand, the future is in danger. Human ego, our own natures, threaten our existence. I believe we will prevail.
Otherwise, who would not act to save so many people? This person would be a hero to tens of millions.
Otherwise, who would not act to save so many people? This person would be a hero to tens of millions.
MrCostiZz 20 hours ago
Humans as every other species act favoring their survival good is simply every action to these direction. Do you believe babes eating their mother is evil? I guess Yes!! Well there are some spider species ho do that to survive. Good is the evolution of our two basic instincts. There is no actual Good is subjective and in perception it depends on our physiology and its equal important with bad.
QQminusS 20 hours ago
Both matriophagy and carnivorism in general fall short of optimal good. W. D. Hamilton showed that organisms first use their resources to ensure they surivive and remain happy. Then they ensure these things for their close relatives, then they engage in more generalized altruism. If resources run out, each individual tries to survive. When they are abundant, altruism ought to occur.
Are you a biologist?
Are you a biologist?
MrCostiZz 20 hours ago This has been flagged as spamshowhide• Not Spam
No i am not a biologist but i know there is a very good explanation on how altruism can be explained on simple evolutionary terms...Thats way the always we have the same serial as you said 1)ensure they survive 2) Then they ensure these things for their close relatives 3) generalized altruism...If those things were not connected to evolution...You might had altruism first in some cases and then survival
____________________________________________________________________________
I would encourage you to read an essay from a Rutgers University professor of philosophy named Prof. Jeff McMahan entitled The Meat Eaters. Ironically, McMahan is religious! However, I believe his philosophy to be sound.
Thank you:-) I will do that!! I enjoy this stuff....
For instance,
a) humans could learn to live in peace
b) humans could learn to share with each other
c) humans could make life better for other lifeforms
d) humans could avoid inevitable world ending events and survive elsewhere.
e) humans could learn to preserve their consciousnesses in computers in order to prolong life
f) humans could alter their own nature to allow any of these things or could build machines that can achieve them.
a) humans could learn to live in peace
b) humans could learn to share with each other
c) humans could make life better for other lifeforms
d) humans could avoid inevitable world ending events and survive elsewhere.
e) humans could learn to preserve their consciousnesses in computers in order to prolong life
f) humans could alter their own nature to allow any of these things or could build machines that can achieve them.
·in reply to MrCostiZz
I get what you mean and i believe is a very nobel way of thinking but i yet think that those are true in human perspective not in a Universal objective sense ...Nevertheless a great philosophy.
MrCostiZz 1 day ago
MrCostiZz 1 day ago
How can you come around though the fact that if God choses then he inevitably in imperfect as by choosing you need a will to alter you condition.
QQminusS 1 day ago
Well, I would get around it by pointing out that one can *choose* to *continue* *perfection* *or* can *choose* to *end* it. However, a *perfect* entity would *always* *choose* to *continue* it.
** = keyword or "operationally defined" word
** = keyword or "operationally defined" word
_______________________________________________________________________________
ha ha i skipped right past the muslim and straight onto krauss all the way through..i only listen to logical opinions:))
·
Wait, you are telling me you didn't hear the part where Hamza mathematically proves the existence of God? Holy shit, they are about to give him the Nobel Prize in every field!! How did you miss that?!
______________________________________________________________________________
Hamza Tzortzis is trying and use the english language to try and sound smart with his incoherent language that not even dawkins uses and the fact hamza uses the same argument word for word in all his debated.(plus incoherent language he has plucked out the oxford dictionary .makes him not worthy of debate. as he just repeats himself over and over without addressing the real evidence.further he sounds like a kindergarten pupil trying to take on a uni professor
·
He uses the same fallazy used by social scientists to push a false conclusion in a paper that shows no results. Argumentum verbiosum followed by an unsupported conclusion. The trick lies in understanding the meanings of his statements or at least what the audience will perceive from hearing them and to counter those points effectively.
·in reply to tyroneuva1
QQminusS 1 day ago
For example, when Hamza says that the universe must have been created because an infinite regress is impossible, I would contend his premise that infinity is impossible. For example, there is no smallest unit of space, even if there is an *end* to it. A point can be infinitely small. I would also contend his premise that anything uncreated must be the god Allah as described by the Quran. It could simply be a sea of possibilities that has no personality or consciousness or will.
QQminusS 1 day ago
QQminusS 1 day ago
Futhermore, as Richard Dawkins has pointed out, any god such as Allah must be extremely complex, and such complexity would then warrant explanation. A quantum haze is actually the least complex entity that can be imagined. It is basically a sludge of possibilities that do not even exist in a way that can be measured. Alah is more than possibility. He is an all powerful embodiment of our metaphysical concept of good, with infinite powers and knowledge. Something complex comes from > complex.
QQminusS 1 day ago
QQminusS 1 day ago
In this case, the human mind imagined God to explain how, for instance, it is possible that something can be evil when it does not cost the actor any resources. It is theoretically possible to inflict suffering on thousands of people without self-consequence. However, the act would still be evil, even if not punished by evolution. This is a "metaphysical" concept, since it does not exist in the natural world, though it helps to explain such a world.
QQminusS 1 day ago
Godtardism 2 days ago
QQminusS 1 day ago
Pure mathematics contains many such metaphysical concepts! In fact, physicists invoke ideas that might *have been* metaphysical would they not have described the outcome of experiments. I would not call infinity "metaphysical," as I believe that infinity does exist in the real world, though it cannot be measured discretely for obvious reasons. The infinitely small point in space exemplifies this idea.
I do not believe that "God" makes any sense beyond a representation for metaphysical "good."
_______________________________________________________________________________
Does itMatter 1 day ago
QQminusS 1 day ago
I do not believe that "God" makes any sense beyond a representation for metaphysical "good."
_______________________________________________________________________________
Does itMatter 1 day ago
Hamza Won...:D eh eh .. Answer Krauss one question why is Islam special.. oh rite it was word of god!! and rest is full of crap right?? enjoy your nice dreams Muslim bros.. I will see you in Hell ;)
To begin with, I disagree with using rude statements when talking about Muslims. Their culture values honor and manners almost to a fault, and this will not be perceived kindly. Second, Krauss does not clearly address Hamza's, I believe, flimsy arguments. This is especially strange because Krauss had foreknowledge of the arguments he would face! Why not demonstrate their falsity through a series of counter examples in rebuttal?
_______________________________________________________________________________
@AdamForExample I disagree. These Muslims acted graciously to invite Dr. Krauss to debate them. Krauss improperly understood the forum, and to be honest, made me suspicious that he did not care to learn his opponent's side at all! Unfortunately for reason, no amount of prejudice changes the outcome of this debate: Hamza won. Hamza states that he read Dr. Krauss's book but that Krauss never took the time to understand his perspective. To the Muslim perspective, reason sounds just as untrue!
·
@SamosIMP My idea of real can be described thusly: anything that exists. Binary information exists. So does quantum information. Your brain can be considered a computer that simulates surrounding information and computes output, which it stores in memory. And yet you exist! P.s. cannot respond quickly | on phone
_____________________________________________________________________________
@SamosIMP I think simulations produce real information, yes. An object on the web exists on the web. I presume you to be real for moral reasons. If you embody some subconscious conspiracy of mine, I could murder you with impunity. Notably, if you were a simulation of my subconscious, you would still exist.
·
So you think that when you watch a Pixar movie the characters in it are real? Do you think they breathe and eat and love for real? How about AI in a video game..do you think the characters programmed to run around and shoot at you are real? Better yet how about on Star Trek when they enter the holodeck..(technology like this could be possible) do you think the holograms are real? Actually If I exist in your mind then I am not real but in fact a figment of your imagination..
·
@SamosIMP Pixar characters have scripted actions. They are real characters but not artificial intelligence. If such a scripted "conspiracy" happened in my subconscious, then not real. If you were a simulation, like hologram, then real and even dignified.
QQminusS 1 day ago
@SamosIMP Also, how does living in a computer simulation negate existence? Even if I live in a computer, I still exist. I accept existence as fact apriori because all of life serves as a continuous experiment verifying that we exist. One cannot question existence because evidence to the contrary presupposes that questioning is not possible.___________________________________________________________________
Godtardism 2 days ago
Just wondering, are you as stupid as you sound?
Why don't you say that in a debate with Muslims? Just wondering, whose side are you on?
Science is based on facts..religion has no facts..the idea of debating with fairy tales is a joke. However I guess you need to speak out so the dumbasses can understand this.
·
I contend your conclusion that science bases its claims on facts. You premise that theories such as evolution rest on mathematically proven hypotheses. To the contrary, neither evolution nor even gravity can be considered an "a priori" fact. Scientists accept these theories because in a world of doubt, they provide the safest conclusions on which to base real world decisions. The fact is that existence is the only fact.
It is arguable that existence is a fact. Scientists are currently running experiments to see if we are actually a computer simulation. If we are simulated there would still be facts inside that simulation so it does not make facts in our reality moot. There is a law of gravity & a theory of gravity. General Relativity is the theory which tries to explain the "why" behind gravity but the law is fact, gravity holds us to the Earth, that is a fact. Evolution as Krauss points out is highly likely.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Oh shit Krauss. You are a bold man. You will receive help in any way the allies of reason may provide it.
·
P.S. If what you are trying to do were easy, then Islam would not be taking over Europe right now! You begin by observing how respectful these people treat you. Did it never occur to you what kind of strategy that indicates or what kind of trap it sets for you? We need the doctor of words back!
·in reply to QQminusS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)