Suppose that it were discovered that the digits of π or the natural logarithm, when expressed in terms of a particular base, perfectly encoded the complete text of the King James version of both testaments of the Christian bible. Would that be strong evidence supporting any of the following clai...
Has anyone else heard about that study where evolutionary algorithms were applied to chips, which resulted in pretty much life-like behavior of the chips?
I am wholeheartedly fine, thank you, Ami. And you?
There are times where I think atheists go a little too far in assertions. For instance, I thought it was idiotic for David Silverman to argue that Christmas trees in the workspace are offensive.
"so many people fall into sentiments like "the militant atheists" are just another brand of fundamentalism so I'll stick to my modest Christian beliefs"
If a loved one is in the hospital or going through a hardship and asks that you pray for them. What should you do?
You don't want them to feel as if you don't care. Should you just do it anyways even though you feel you are praying to no one?
In my experience, one or other side of the (a)theism argument always tends to be vitriolic toward the other side. When a theist comes in here, they are going to be stoned with downvotes even though they may have a valid point.
You're going to need more than standard SE moderation.
Edit -- Proph...
I usually tell theists that if their religion told them to kill their own parents or kids (which the Old Testament does, as a matter of fact), they wouldn't follow their religion but rather their own intuitions; and therefore morality has biological origins.
However, the argument is a bit incoherent. I am not sure it qualifies as a refutation.
Someone there said that whilst going through the original sources of stupidity (theistic and pseudoscience websites in this case) they feel like being boxed in the head repeatedly.
@Josiah how could a theist ask a question about acquiring the necessary logic toolkits to be skeptic without the question being offtopic on Atheism.SE?
I got the chance to ask someone who denies evolution whether their watching nature shows (David Attenborough, Iain Stewart, BBC, National Geographic, etc) adds to their understanding of Nature.
The short answer is no.
They're amused and get to think that “God is cool because He thought of all that,” as opposed to picturing a more coherent map of the territory.
Learning and being amused by facts as opposed to actually understanding what's going on.
That's what you get without the solid framework of evolution to build on.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution —Theodosius Dobzhansky
Really? No, I mean, really? Does it never occur to them that what they get is a random mosaic?
I know I am committing the typical mind fallacy, but by gee by gosh by gum by jove by jingo, that's just… difficult to envisage.
The question is not about what they fight, the question is how they manage to completely miss the feeling of having a random mental mosaic instead of a coherent map of the territory?
When I feel that I am confused, I always take it as a clear signal that something is terribly wrong.
Some questions started getting a sh#tload of views.
Someone must have shared them or something
about time I started another bounty to attract more votes
there is a dirty manipulative trick I figured out: when your answer is at the top and has at least 5 votes, you won't lose reputation by starting a bounty
because it would attract more people who would quickly give another bunch of votes to compensate