Hub of Reason

Josiah

1:18 AM

taaaalk

Evan Carroll

google.com/…

how depressing

i hope it isn't indicative of the audience we should expect more of

Josiah

1:36 AM

The ones on the right are hilarious

they look like shitty metal band tshirts

Evan Carroll

they are.

i think anyay

Josiah

one says Band in the title

I want to make one that says God doesn't believe in atheists

then on the back

So either God doesn't exist or I don't exist

Evan Carroll

hhahah

I'd fucking love it...

Borror0

2:57 AM

The Pierre Karl Péladeau has been named "person of the year" by a poll by TVA. -_-' That's the French Canadian equivalent of Québec equivalent to Fox News declaring Rupert Murdoch personality of the year.

Vitaly

Wow.

Borror0

A journalist commented on Twitter "The QMI Peladeau Person of the Year Poll is sorta like PKP saying: who has 2 thumbs and is the coolest? 'THIS GUY!'" Pretty much sums it up.

Vitaly

3:31 AM

I hate theists, and Christians in particular, because every time I read or watch something about rising sea levels, I cannot but visualise a deranged Christian shouting, “SEE?!! This is the proof of the Flood!!!” This time, I was watching BBC: Coast and the story of Cantre'r Gwaelod came up.

Borror0

I love it when theists claim that the Grand Canyon was created by the flood in like 7s

Because then hilarity ensues: youtube.com/watch?v=BdEZTdOlGss

oops, wrong video

Whatever

Borror0

5:28 AM

-1

A: How can I avoid defending the theory of evolution?

If you ask them to justify their belief in the existence of a god, and they reply by asking you to explain the theory of evolution, call them out on the non sequitur they just committed. If they want you to learn more about the theory of evolution, that's fine, but it's a separate discussion. If...

Any idea why I got downvoted here?

Vitaly

I was just wondering.

Evan Carroll just commented.

Borror0

That may be arrogant, but as far as I can tell only @Yasir and I actually answered the question. Others told him how to defend the theory of evolution, which is the eaxt opposite of what he asked for...

Vitaly

And how do you deal with great answers that are off-topic?

Borror0

Personally, I downvote them and explain why they are not answering

Vitaly

@ThisIstheId's answer is good, in my opinion, but it is off-topic since it doesn't answer the question

Borror0

5:35 AM

Exactly. Same for Mudak's.

It wouldn't be a bad answer, if the question was different.

I'm trying to follow @Evan's logic and I just don't see how it's equivocation.

Vitaly

I cannot follow his logic either, but that's because I'm not a native speaker of English. lol.

What he wants to say just escapes me.

Borror0

Basically, he says that theists don't agree with premise #4.

So my argument doesn't work

Vitaly

Oh.

Borror0

I have no idea what's the deal with equivocation though

Vitaly

But they do disagree with that premise, don't they?

Borror0

5:43 AM

That makes no sense

@Vitaly It depends on their epistemology. Many theists do agree that there is no proof for the existence of God, and that they must rely on faith.

Vitaly

@Borror0 it's difficult to envisage that those theists would explicitly oppose evolution, though.

Borror0

Most really religious Christians I have met, when you push them to answer "How do you know god exists?" will say "I just know it" rather than their to legitimize their belief.

At worse, though, it forces them to debate the existence of god

which is what the asker wanted!

Yasir Arsanukaev

heyas chaps

Borror0

yo

Evan Carroll

6:02 AM

HALLO

@Borror0

Borror0

Hi

Evan Carroll

Great!

This is the deal:

Borror0

Changing the answer. I see your point

Evan Carroll

Ah, good ;)

Borror0

I wouldn't have called that equivocation. That's what confused me.

Evan Carroll

6:04 AM

Equivocation is when you're comparing scenarios that don't quite fall in line, this is a logical equivocation.

Yasir Arsanukaev

Moin @Evan

Borror0

Isn't equivocation when you use two different definitions of the same word to make an fallacious argument? If so, what was the misuse?

Evan Carroll

No, equivocation is more broad that: it is defined in regards to an "invalid equivalence"

like I said, its confusing you go 1..6, rather than two sets of 1..3

but, I can follow that

you're trying to compare logic that involves swapping the agent of evolution with the agent of god, but the logic was not the same.

Borror0

Changed it

Let me know if you see any other problem

Evan Carroll

Because only the first set was predicated

cool

I also replied to the biological one.

Borror0

6:08 AM

@EvanCarroll This is not a good day for me. :P

Evan Carroll

=) it will get better

It's only 12:09

Vitaly

Why, why, why you asked that question @EvanCarroll

Borror0

Not really. I have a 11 hours bus trip that awaits me.

Vitaly

It made me read this when I googled relevant resources: mathematicsofevolution.com

It hurts.

Yasir Arsanukaev

@Vitaly Is it of creationists ?

Vitaly

6:13 AM

yes it is

Evan Carroll

I will read this book in its entirety, that is a very good find Vitality.

Yasir Arsanukaev

Fuck, Darwin is probably turning over in his grave.

Borror0

"This book makes no excuses for the theory of evolution and instead calls the theory of evolution 'scientific nonsense.' Indeed it is, as will be seen by reading this book."
*dies a little bit*

Vitaly

A book by a creationist named Mathematics of Evolution with the same old fallacious arguments is a good find?

How on Earth?

Borror0

@Vitaly He was clearly not talking about that. He was talking about the LDS version of the book.

Vitaly

6:17 AM

what? lol

Yasir Arsanukaev

"Such a conversion has never been demonstrated and such a conversion has never been proven to be possible. For example, the complex chemical binding of many amino acids, necessary to create proteins, has never been demonstrated to be possible outside of cells." I may be wrong, but I can remember some similar researches which was successful.

Vitaly

I am pretty sure I saw a decent scientific book someone on Amazon, but I cannot remember its title

Which is why I am googlin'

Borror0

Ya. There's an Latter Day Saints version of the book!
"There are actually two different versions of this book. This website has the version for the general public. The second version of this book has some additional chapters for members of the LDS church. The LDS version is at:
[The LDS Version of This Book](http://www.prophetsorevolution.com/)"

Evan Carroll

I'm depressed you know

I really expect my answers and questions to get upvoted in light of us not being in beta, and so much trite shit being wielded for EXP-whoring

I've formulated a theory: being the second most EXPed on this game, I wonder if people don't upvote me because atheists are distrustful of authority, as compared to MSO where they all worship it like mindless members of the borg.

Vitaly

Another odd find:

amazon.com/Mathematics-Evolution-Fred-Hoyle/dp/0966993403

The reviews state that the author rejects Darwinian macroevolution

Evan Carroll

6:24 AM

Wow freddy

Vitaly

And yes, it's a different author

Evan Carroll

interesting

Vitaly

What's up with those mathematicians?

Evan Carroll

really =(

not the real fred hoyle =(

fuck that would have made my day

did you know hawking was denied entrance into his class, and that's why he got stuck with the big-bang rejects

Vitaly

Yes the real Fred Hoyle

Yasir Arsanukaev

6:29 AM

If I downvote the preachers, I will lose all my rep :-]

Borror0

@Evan Now that I corrected the fallacy in my answer, is it still deserving of a downvote?

If you can persuade me my answer is crap, I'll just delete it to reduce noise.

Evan Carroll

There are still a few issues with it, I don't see where non sequitur comes in.

as a logic term, or as a literary device

Certainly, not as a literary device ;)

I had to look up that one wikipedia to make sure I was understanding all of the meanings of it

Secondly, I had to read the wiki page for the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Which was interesting for me, and usually means I'd upvote

Borror0

If the discussion is about the existence of god, changing the topic to the theory of evolution is a non sequitur.

Evan Carroll

but i'm not sure that can apply in the negative at all in anyway useful.

I think if what you're trying to say is the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the theory of god, you'd have to isolate a non-deist theory of God, and you'd have to admit that you're not wanting to meet the same criteria.

I agree, you don't need evolution to be an atheist, I'm not sure you can ignore it in a debate with a deist as easily as you present.

It certainly isn't humorously not following the topic which seems to be a stipulation on non sequitur

but anyway back to wikipedia's Philosophic burden of proof

Borror0

6:45 AM

@EvanCarroll I copied the link for "negative proof fallacy" on this page. I didn't realize it didn't link to a page about the fallacy per say. Anyway, the negative proof fallacy is "that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false."

Basically, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Evan Carroll

ah!, that's a lot clearer.

Borror0

I'll change the link to argument from ignorance

Or whatever Wikipedia will call it

Yasir Arsanukaev

Evidence of absence

Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests (via certain types of inference or deduction) the non-existence or non-presence of something. A simple example of evidence of absence: checking one's pocket for spare change and finding nothing but being confident that one would have found it if it was there. This is a an example of Modus tollens - a type of logical argument. In this regard Irving Marmer Copi writes: Of course, in practice, it can be difficult to agree whether a particular experiment was a sufficiently "qualified investigation". Overview The difference betw...

prolly this one

Borror0

Nope, this one:

Argument from ignorance

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false. In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof. Carl Sagan famously criticized the practice by referring to it as "impatience with ambiguity", point...

Vitaly

Nope, this one: lesswrong.com/lw/ih/absence_of_evidence_is_evidence_of_absence :PPPP @Borror0

Yasir Arsanukaev

6:54 AM

Gawd, why don't we speak just one language.

Borror0

Is that a serious question or just rhetorical?

Evan Carroll

1

A: How can I avoid defending the theory of evolution?

If you ask them to justify their belief in the existence of a god, and they reply by asking you to explain the theory of evolution, call them out on the non sequitur they just committed. If they want you to learn more about the theory of evolution, that's fine, but it's a separate discussion. Of...

Yasir Arsanukaev

@Borror0 The latter :-)

Evan Carroll

Borror0

I went ahead and edited to make the point a little more brute

i think keeping 2/3 the same makes it easier to follow

and I can't make sense of these wiki articles yet

(which says something of the needless complexity and poor organization of these fallacies on WP)

Borror0

@EvanCarroll Cool. Thank you.

Yasir Arsanukaev

6:58 AM

@Borror0 @EvanCarroll Beware, you may inadvertently make it cw.

Borror0

It takes 10 of my edits, or five other users (including Evan) to edit it.

It'll take a while.

Honestly, I wouldn't really mind the answer becoming CW for being edited too much. I want my time to be useful, not to have a high imaginary number beside my name on the internet.

Evan Carroll

Everyone wants a high imaginary number, don't lie -- how else will you win the game.

Yasir Arsanukaev

@Borror0 This number is helpful when it comes to dealing with preachers! ;-)

Evan Carroll

I actually think your answer is quite good now that I understand where you're going

Yasir Arsanukaev

The higher the number (rep), the more girls love you.

Evan Carroll

7:03 AM

jesus christ... why am I married...

Borror0

I have thousands of edits on DDOwiki (and god knows how many on Wikipedia, as I never log on to edit there). I'm just to thankless contributions.

Yasir Arsanukaev

@EvanCarroll You don't need rep then, give it away :-)

@Borror0 I would log in, this will help you track your edits.

Borror0

I said I don't need rep, but I do want power. And I need a certain minimum of rep for power.

Yasir Arsanukaev

@Borror0 This was for @EvanCarroll ;-)

Borror0

Ah. LOL!

Evan Carroll

7:06 AM

I can always get a second wife.

Borror0

Exactly. Who said polygamy was only for theists?

Evan Carroll

i didn't do to bad around the first time

►

Yasir Arsanukaev

I just have an idea of converting the rep into money. 600$ wouldn't do any harm.

@EvanCarroll Who the heck is that? :-)

Evan Carroll

wife

Yasir Arsanukaev

Oh, have shitty internet speed, would watch it, looks nice :)

Rumba !! \o o/ /| |\ \o/ /\

Borror0

7:11 AM

Talking about significant other, would you date/marry someone who is believe in a god and, if yes, how religious can you tolerate?

Vitaly

No.

Borror0

Edited question to include deists.

Yasir Arsanukaev

I'm inclined to not tie my life with religious people.

Evan Carroll

My wife is non-theist.

whatever branch of that she falls under, i don't really care.

She would be a strong A Apatheism

she emphatically doesn't care.

she's literally more concerned about Kim Kardashian and fashion

which is kind of amazing to me, and obscene in a totally different way.

Vitaly

Why I wouldn't marry someone religious? Simple: if I have a heart attack, I don't want my spouse to start praying or something. I want her to perform emergency services and call 911. In other words, I want someone whose brain I can trust.

And I can never trust a religious brain.

It requires a very specific brain to believe in deities, unicorns, and homeopathy.

Evan Carroll

7:16 AM

... that's rather silly

most Christians would not pray at the expense of a materialist alternative, call it a hypocritical but prayer is typically a last resort, and something they can do , if they can do nothing else.

I also live in Kingwood TX, which is one of the most religious parts of the US.

Vitaly

Only if they can weigh alternatives.

Under emergency situations, no. They become totally unreliable. Speaking from experience.

Yasir Arsanukaev

@Vitaly I believe there's still a possibility that a believer will get better and wake up a rationalist in him.

Vitaly

@YasirArsanukaev it isn't worth the time and effort. ;)

Borror0

@Vitaly Most theists don't really believe in their religion. They only do so by wishful thinking, to address a deeper worry (fear of death, feeling of meaninglessness, etc.)

Yasir Arsanukaev

3

Q: Why most atheists I see are men

Most of well-known atheists and sceptics are men. My grandfather never gave a shit about religion unlike grandmother, and if I remember a few families I would say women tend to be more religious than men. What might be the cause of it: social influence, culture, or.. nature?

cultural-identity

A subject of my question.

Evan Carroll

7:19 AM

I disagree. I'm satisfied with my own personal experience on the subject to know that more Christians than not (for what it's worth) would seek the same medical treatments as nonbelievers.

Borror0

@Vitaly So, in any situation, they will always try the materialistic approach first.

Yasir Arsanukaev

@Borror0 Like Dawkins said "They hold belief in belief" or something.

Vitaly

@Borror0 that still doesn't make them reliable, because with a reliable brain they would realise that they don't really believe in a religion, and do so by wishful thinking etc, etc, etc. As long as they don't realise it, they're unreliable.

Evan Carroll

@Vitality, let me amuse you with an analogy to homosexuals: As long as men that are proven homosexuals don't identify as non-heterosexual they'll be unfaithful in a monogamous relationship with another man...

reliability with regards to choosing a materialist form of medicine has nothing to do with the fault of being unable to de-compartmentalize the existence of a god that would professedly not advise them of a non-materialist solution to a physical ailment

Borror0

It's wishful thinking, self-deception if you prefer. A good example of that is the after life. Try the following thought experiment on a theists who says he is *certain* that there is a life after death:

Your best friend has, for as long as he can remember, wanted to be an astronaut. Nothing is more important for him than being an astronaut. That's his biggest dream. Now, he finally accomplished his dream: he's going in space. However, he won't come back. He's living to explore our solar system and the ship won't come back for several decades. He'll be dead by then.

Evan Carroll

7:28 AM

@Vitality want to respond? Or, I'm going to bed...

there we go ;)

someone.

Vitaly

@EvenCoral, it may be that our understandings of the word “reliable” differ in this context. I mean it roughly as “coherent,” “consistent.”

Borror0

@Vitaly Usually, they feel sadness in the first case but grief in the other. Which is silly, because he's in the after life according to them. (Of course, the argument doesn't work on those who admit doubt about the after life.)

Evan Carroll

anyway, i'm off to bed.. what the modern Christian majority elieve in -- by practice only -- does not advise them to opt for non-materialist solutions to these problems. It's a straw-man. They pray because it gives them something to do. And, after they've exhausted all other courses of actions. Not in the stead of other more materialist courses of actions.

Borror0

7:48 AM

4

Q: What did you lose? What did you gain?

Many people paid significant prices for the change in their beliefs but, also found unexpected gifts. For me it ultimately cost me my wife, the person I believe was my "soul mate", but I gained a chance to be free of guilt and learned to accept personal responsibility for my life. What did this ...

coming-out tolerance

Oh look, another poll. /votes to close

Josiah

8:08 AM

@Borror0, bandwagoned.

Borror0

@vitaly @josiah It just occurred to me that the existence of a Creator would violate the first law of thermodynamics so, by my own standards, god is fantasy. :)

Josiah

I thought we established that when you joined atheism.se

SPY

You forget that he exists outside of nature, thus acting as an external source of energy or something.

Borror0

I meant to say "the bible is fantasy"

D'oh

It was meant to be a literature joke

-2

A: How can I avoid defending the theory of evolution?

Proving that God exists is very logical. Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJmsK2s0uI

He HAS to be trolling.

Borror0

9:34 AM

@Josiah When you put a bounty for Evan's question, and no one answered at all, what happened?

Yasir Arsanukaev

10:19 AM

@Borror0 IIRC in this case one just loses rep he has put as a bounty.

Borror0

11:35 AM

1

Q: Aside from reason and evidence, what would convince you to become a religious believer?

I've always valued truth above other things and it's hard for me to imagine that other people wouldn't. There are masses of otherwise intelligent people who really believe in absurd things like the resurrection of Jesus, Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, Abraham and Isaac, and Jonah and the Whale, yet ...

religion belief myths

And another poll.

Borror0

2:15 PM

You had me excited that the chat had soem action

False advertizing

Vitaly

Sorry. :P

mfg

@Bor can the preferred reply to polls be CW or die

Vitaly

Are you familiar with RFC 2397?

Borror0

Honestly, I prefer die.

Vitaly

Well anyway, Kris Kaspersky posted an interesting RFC 2397 exploitation: rsdn.ru/forum/web/4086359.1.aspx

It's best supported by Opera, then Chrome, then Firefox, and IE does not support that stuff at all

Borror0

2:17 PM

Perhaps later, when the community more established, polls may be allowed but right now we should strive to have pretty good questions being asked.

Vitaly

The first link is a simple URL like on many forums, but it embeds a JS message

Borror0

"What is needed to be an atheist on a boat?" isn't really the type of questions you want new users to see.

Vitaly

And check the address of the picture: it is embedded right into the page. In Opera, there should be a picture displayed.

In Chrome, too.

mfg

so i like the honesty in the how-can-i-avoid-defending-the-theory-of-evolution question

but i just noticed the @noma and @john conversation in the comments

Borror0

honesty?

mfg

2:23 PM

i think we need to come up with a list of points that are basically settled.

the whole evolution isn't settled is a drag on actual conversation, has no place being on an atheism q/a, and i think that it needs to be smacked down

Borror0

@mfg You mean you like how intellectually honest the asker is in his question?

mfg

oh, 'honesty' as in, i also can't fight my way out of a paper bag when it comes to defending evolution, so i build other arguments. we frequently avoid areas mired in either our ignorance or others confusion

yeah, i like the question asker's honesty

Josiah

@Borror0, the points just went poof

Borror0

@mfg When I first saw John's comment, I thought it was innocuous. We have "faith" in science, in that we have to assume certain things are true before taking scientific evidences as fact. If you have fuzzy epistemology, that can be called faith. ...but then I saw the rest of the conversation and I wanted to cry.

mfg

but i am trying to hit a harder line on people asking science-y questions and opening the gates to a flood of atheist speculation/research on a topic they are not likely suited to answer, or that would be better answered elsewhere

@Borror0 i agree. im of the opinion that empiricism and materialism are both faiths. but those are opinions and not answers to questions.

i think it was Rob Schneider and I were going back and forth on this one, and it dropped, and then after i was just thinking about how on this matter i was just being opinonated.

Vitaly

2:34 PM

@mfg empiricism and materialism are both faiths ← Please elaborate.

Borror0

I think we need to punish people answering question without evidence, where evidence is obviously required. I think questions that require expert knowledge about sociology, evolution, etc. are fine for as long as they are really applicable to atheism.

It's not like it's a crime to have a backlog of unanswered questions

Evan Carrol had a question go unanswered over two weeks. Josiah even put a bounty on it. No one could answer it. Then I found the answer.

I wouldn't have found the question if it had tons of upvoted crappy answers though.

Basically, no answer is better than crap.

Josiah

@Borror0, no need to punish yet.

The entire SE isn't of the quality we want, so it's a bit harsh to do that to answerers and not the questioners that make it seem okay.

Vitaly

Why do I have to feel as if I'm being directly accused everytime when someone says that something is wrong with the SE?

Josiah

@Vitaly, insecurity.

Vitaly

It was a rhetorical question. :P

Josiah

2:42 PM

I admit I've been a part of the problem, so the insecurity isn't as bad for me.

Borror0

@Josiah It's not punishment; it's the system. If all answers have a score 0 score (or lower), it will be marked as unanswered. The moment an answer reaches 1, it is considered answer even if it's a unsatisfying answer.

Josiah

@Borror0, you did say punishment bro.

And I agree the system should be used as intended, and that we have a lot of power to shape it.

The questions we've been getting are pretty herp derp to require great answers is all.

Borror0

You can't think of a good question that has got lame answers at the top?

Vitaly

@EvanCarroll books.google.com/…

Borror0

2

Q: What causes theists to abstract their personal feelings into religious ideas?

I don't know how many times I've encountered a religious person who, when sincerely hoping for a particular event or outcome, abstracts away their personal involvement and says something to the effect of "It's in God's hands now". Atheists, in my experience, tend to be much more practical and act...

religion philosophy freewill

This is off topic

Vitaly

2:58 PM

I am still looking for a good book that would do just that, describe the mathematical approach to evolution

Many articles in the Evolution journal use mathematical modelling, but the topic hasn't been presented coherently as far as I know

There is a decent amount of mathematics in Mark Ridley's Evolution, but I have no clue how to summarise all the stuff in a SE answer

Evolutionary dynamics is basically population dynamics + evolutionary game theory

There are good textbooks addressing both of those scientific fields

mfg

@Vitaly @vit i don't really feel like elaborating on those being faiths because it's opinion based semantics. that's a stance i wish more people adopted, analyzing whether one is having a convo about definitions, actually just being pedantic about their usage of a word and its connotation. it would nip a lot of noise in the bud

Vitaly

@mfg Ok.

Borror0

@Vitaly mfg can correct me if I'm wrong but "How do you know you can trust your senses?" might cover it well

Vitaly

3:17 PM

evolutionary dynamics seems like a field where everyone and his uncle could contribute

game theory was born in the 40s, evolutionary game theory was born in the 80s, and evolutionary dynamics? IDK, the 90s?

mfg

@bor yeah its a whole rats nest that we'

re better off not bothering embroiling ourselves in

i guess everybody contributes to evolutionary dynamics whether they want to or not

Vitaly

ha

mfg

ha. ha. uhh

hey guys, that art question i posted before, im half way to closing it myself but i wanted to see if i could maybe get some edit suggestions first, or if it is just unanswerable/too hypothetical

0

Q: Editing: How can I fix my question?

I'm having trouble getting answers that apply to my question. Does anybody have any feedback? The media enjoys the revenues of a good shock story about a shocking work of art involving theism or atheism. As with any other polarizing conversation, the two are not served by fanning the vitriol. ...

discussion editing

whats the word for when a father kills his son, not patercide...

Vitaly

Filicide

Filicide is the deliberate act of a parent killing their own son or daughter. The word filicide derives from the Latin words filius meaning "son" or filia meaning daughter and the suffix -cide meaning to kill, murder, or cause death. In some cultures, killing a daughter who is deemed to have disgraced the family is a common occurrence (see honor killing). A 1999 [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wo.txt US Department of Justice Study] concluded that between 1976 and 1997 in the United States, mothers were responsible for a higher share of children killed during infancy while fathe...

Yasir Arsanukaev

3:33 PM

How disgusting that is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

jjnguy

@YasirArsanukaev Yeah, that's not my favorite thing in the world...

mfg

yeah, i was just thinking of killing my own post. and fratercide kept hitting me in the head but i knew it was wrong

Im so glad the DOJ conducted a study of stats on moms and dads cold-killing their kids though

jeebs

Yasir Arsanukaev

evolution-related Qs are hot // Your Captain Obvious

jjnguy

Everyone loves a good argument!

(Or circle jerk)

Evan Carroll

I love both, at the same time.

mfg

3:45 PM

hate sex never looks so good as on an lcd

Yasir Arsanukaev

@mfg 'hate sex' ?..

mfg

never mind, i was referring to sex with a person you hate out of spite, corollary to after-fight sex

mfg

4:01 PM

zomg i just popped @satanicpuppy over the 1k mark. what have i just done.

Borror0

4:23 PM

@mfg Reasserted your status of heathen by given an hellhound new powers.

jjnguy

What new powers are gained at 1k in public beta?

mfg

yeah i know, it always pains me when i know a +1 equals some random mod privie

Borror0

@jjnguy atheism.stackexchange.com/privileges

mfg

atheism.stackexchange.com/privileges/moderator-tools

oh well they can't one box that can they

hrpmh

jjnguy

Ah, mot tools.

Deleting questions I guess.

mfg

4:28 PM

cast delete and undelete votes on questions
view deleted posts
see spam and offensive flags on posts
have access to moderator tools

jjnguy

mod*

It's like 10k

mfg

i thought it was either 1.5k or 3k on live sites

oh yeah youre right 10k

jjnguy

@mfg on SO and MetaSO 10k is all of the above.

mfg

yeah, i just checked my cooking acct and its the same on the area 51 sites too

man, i was all psyched to be at 1492. all i get to do is edit tag wikis, which was a 1k privie before.

jjnguy

:( Sorry

mfg

4:33 PM

ha, how about this exchange about polls

1

A: Is "Atheism" community extremely inconsistent in judging what to close?

Kill the polls I disagree that if we close polls "there will be almost nothing left on this site". The polls are self-absorbed and self-propagating. One poll spawns another poll, and then more and more and they crowd out the good questions because every jack and jill has an opinion and if they c...

@Romy nah. there's always a few crappy questions that get up there in the first few days, and are too popular and the community embraces them. I think it's a terrible question. it's a poll. but do i want to go uphill against a CW to get it closed now that nobody is getting rep rewards from it? not so much

(he was asking about how the 'is it tough being atheist in your country' wasn't closed)

Borror0

I'm not touching the country thread because it's actually interesting to read

Personally

And, like you said, it's CW

mfg

yeah. thats one of the things that goes into a CW. if the conmmunity embraces it, it elevates beyond a poll and becomes a resource of sorts. in this case of anecdotes. a list of fave books becomes an essential reading list

the problem is embracing polling generally, which youre forced to either embrace or shun or ignore them. good CWs dont need to start as polls is how i see it. good CWs come from a question that really has a lot of background

romkyns

5:14 PM

I really totally don't get this, guys. I can't mark a poll CW myself. It gets closed quickly and thus has no time to become CW. You are saying that it's acceptable to leave some questions that by SHEER LUCK got through the initial phase and became CW. Correct?

jjnguy

@romkyns I agree that it is kinda odd.

romkyns

@Borror, so you're saying that you vote close based on personal interest, as opposed to whether it's a poll? Hypocrisy or what?

jjnguy

Unrelated question: What is the name of the theory(or whatever) that states that since no harm can come from believing in god, there is no good reason not to.

(Or something like that)

romkyns

Pascal's Wager

jjnguy

@romkyns Thanks!

Ustice

5:22 PM

@jjnguy Also, hedging your bets, and cowardes. ;)

And then there is still the question of WHICH god or subset of the ones available.

jjnguy

@Ustice, I see nothing wrong with that...

@Ustice ALL OF THEM!!!

I'm gonna be really fucking busy praying and worshiping!

Ustice

Ah, but you can't do that, since the Christian god forbids that, so if you include him, then you can't follow the rest.

jjnguy

But I'd going to heaven/nirvana/enlightenment/whatever

Ustice

XD

jjnguy

@Ustice Obviously I'm not gonna tell the other gods I follow all the rest...

Ustice

5:24 PM

It's Rule #1.

jjnguy

The first commandment...

Ustice

Something tells me that they can read your email. They'll find out. :D

jjnguy

My email is encrypted...

romkyns

Hi

Ustice

Seriously though, Pascal's Wager is based on a false premise. There IS harm is believing (as if one could really choose to truly believe), in that you waste time spent on performing rituals, and adhering to unnecessary taboos, or possibly causing harm in following religious directives.

It only works if you already believe in an eternal afterlife.

Since you are maximizing your happiness over your entire of consciousness.

If you don't believe in an afterlife, then any time spent trying to hedge your bet is wasted, and could have been better spent on other things.

@jjnguy Some of those gods are omniscient. Encryption is nothing to them. ;)

Which begs the question, can God encrypt a message so well that even he can not decrypt it without the key (assuming that he can forget the key)? :D

jjnguy

5:31 PM

@Ustice, hmm, that makes sense.

@Ustice, and With God P = NP, so he can decrypt any message he needs. So, god could most definitely read my email.

Ustice

So, does that mean that if P = NP is disproven that God cannot exist?

jjnguy

@Ustice, Not sure about that one...

Actually, I'm pretty sure that anything we prove here on earth wouldn't necessarily be applicable to god.

Ustice

@jjnguy Ya, there is always SOME gap for that slippery little bastard to hide in. ;)

Timwi

Hm. Theists keep coming up with proofs for God’s existence, but no-one attempts to prove a more interesting statement such as “If P=NP, then God exists” or “If the Riemann hypothesis is true, then God exists” :)

Ustice

I think that it is more that if P != NP, then God doesn't exist, but the opposite isn't necessarily true.

P = NP could still be true without a god.

jjnguy

5:38 PM

@Timwi Good point. I think we should start a new branch of learning. "Proofs that prove god doesn't exist."

We wouldn't prove the proofs, we would just prove that if the proofs hold true/false god does/doesn't exist.

Ustice

Some of them are pretty easy.

Mount Olympus has no gods on it, so they can't be right.

But omniscience would require that P=NP, wouldn't it?

jjnguy