.

[burzumfan420]

japan. bitch. noob. owned.

[me003]

Just because a theory models the results really well, even perfectly, doesn't make it true. So yeah, tldr trust the power of the model but don't assume it's cold hard truth (whatever that is).

This.

[/quote]

if a giant mirror was placed far far away in space can people look into the past?  

i tried to really think about that, but the question is vague as is my answer; yes.

edit*** i think i figured it out. For one, we wouldn't see ourselves necessarily because the Earth doesn't emit light, so if we were looking for our star, the Sun, in the mirror we could find it, but if the mirror is say 10 lightyears away from the sun, it would take 10 years for the light to travel to the mirror, and 10 years for it to travel back. So we would see the sun 20 years ago.

[Travis]

I didn't read most of this thread, but in my experience I feel like it's just as ignorant to claim yourself as an atheist as it is to put faith behind a deity/religion.

THANK YOU

[Daddy]

I didn't read most of this thread, but in my experience I feel like it's just as ignorant to claim yourself as an aghostist/a-unicornist as it is to put faith behind a paranormal

seems silly now doesn't it

once again disbelief in something due to absence of supporting empirical evidence is not comparable to belief in something in spite of the absence of such evidence

[wawi]

seems silly now doesn't it

once again disbelief in something due to absence of supporting empirical evidence is not comparable to belief in something in spite of lack absence of such evidence

I think he means that thinking that there is no possible way any kind of god could exist is just as ignorant as saying any kind of god exists.

[Thyme]

seems silly now doesn't it

once again disbelief in something due to absence of supporting empirical evidence is not comparable to belief in something in spite of the absence of such evidence

THANK YOU

[Daddy]

I think he means that thinking that there is no possible way any kind of god could exist is just as ignorant as saying any kind of god exists.

saying there is no god is not the same as saying there is no possible way that any kind of god could exist.

99% of atheists have not made such a claim.

conversely, a huge majority of theists have much the claim that there is no possible way that anything could exist without a god.


hold on let me find the copypaste thing since people still seem not get it

[Daddy]

Contrary to Huxley, I shall suggest that the existence of God is
a scientific hypothesis like any other. Even if hard to test in practice,
it belongs in the same TAP or temporary agnosticism box as the
controversies over the Permian and Cretaceous extinctions. God's
existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, dis-
coverable in principle if not in practice. If he existed and chose to
reveal it, God himself could clinch the argument, noisily and
unequivocally, in his favour. And even if God's existence is never
proved or disproved with certainty one way or the other, available
evidence and reasoning may yield an estimate of probability far
from 50 per cent.
Let us, then, take the idea of a spectrum of probabilities
seriously, and place human judgements about the existence of God
along it, between two extremes of opposite certainty. The spectrum
is continuous, but it can be represented by the following seven
milestones along the way.


1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of
C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto
theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe
in God and live my life on the assumption that he is
there.'
3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic
but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am
inclined to believe in God.'
4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's
existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic
but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists
but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable,
and I live my life on the assumption that he is not
there.'
7 Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same
conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include
it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated. It is in the
nature of faith that one is capable, like Jung, of holding a belief
without adequate reason to do so (Jung also believed that particular
books on his shelf spontaneously exploded with a loud bang).
Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one
to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist. Hence
category 7 is in practice rather emptier than its opposite number,
category 1, which has many devoted inhabitants. I count
myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7-1 am agnostic only to
the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the
garden.
The spectrum of probabilities works well for TAP (temporary
agnosticism in practice). It is superficially tempting to place PAP
(permanent agnosticism in principle) in the middle of the spectrum,
with a 50 per cent probability of God's existence, but this is not
correct. PAP agnostics aver that we cannot say anything, one way
or the other, on the question of whether or not God exists. The
question, for PAP agnostics, is in principle unanswerable, and they
should strictly refuse to place themselves anywhere on the spectrum
of probabilities. The fact that I cannot know whether your red is
the same as my green doesn't make the probability 50 per cent. The
proposition on offer is too meaningless to be dignified with a prob-
ability. Nevertheless, it is a common error, which we shall meet
again, to leap from the premise that the question of God's existence
is in principle unanswerable to the conclusion that his existence and
his non-existence are equiprobable.

oh then more lol russells teapot
[spoiler]

Another way to express that error is in terms of the burden of
proof, and in this form it is pleasingly demonstrated by Bertrand
Russell's parable of the celestial teapot.
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the
business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather
than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a
mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and
Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an
elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my
assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is
too small to be revealed even by our most powerful
telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my
assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable pre-
sumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I
should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, how-
ever, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in
ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday,
and instilled into the minds of children at school,
hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark
of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of
the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor
in an earlier time.
We would not waste time saying so because nobody, so far as I
know, worships teapots;* but, if pressed, we would not hesitate to
declare our strong belief that there is positively no orbiting teapot.
Yet strictly we should all be teapot agnostics: we cannot prove, for
sure, that there is no celestial teapot. In practice, we move away
from teapot agnosticism towards a-teapotisin.
A friend, who was brought up a Jew and still observes the
sabbath and other Jewish customs out of loyalty to his heritage,
describes himself as a 'tooth fairy agnostic'. He regards God as no
more probable than the tooth fairy. You can't disprove either
hypothesis, and both are equally improbable. He is an a-theist to
exactly the same large extent that he is an a-fairyist. And agnostic
about both, to the same small extent.

[/spoiler]

[wawi]

saying there is no god is not the same as saying there is no possible way that any kind of god could exist.

99% of atheists have not made such a claim.

conversely, a huge majority of theists have much the claim that there is no possible way that anything could exist without a god.


hold on let me find the copypaste thing since people still seem not get it

I was just trying to reword what he said...
However, isn't atheism the belief that there is no god?
Also, a lot of theists also have doubts. You're overly generalizing.

[Daddy]

I was just trying to reword what he said...
However, isn't atheism the belief that there is no god?
Also, a lot of theists also have doubts. You're overly generalizing.

trying to reword what he said doesn't make sense when such a rewording does not fit the context of the conversation

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god: such includes believing there is no god

there are billions of theists so even 1% is a lot. an over generalization is not such when people are killed due to those beliefs which should not occur in the presence of doubt.

and going back to the 1-7 thing i posted, you will find far more in 1 than you will find in 7.

[wawi]

trying to reword what he said doesn't make sense when such a rewording does not fit the context of the conversation

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god: such includes believing there is no god

there are billions of theists so even 1% is a lot. an over generalization is not such when people are killed due to those beliefs which should not occur in the presence of doubt.

and going back to the 1-7 thing i posted, you will find far more in 1 than you will find in 7.

You're too biased to have a conversation with on this subject.

[??????]

You're too biased to have a conversation with on this subject.

coughcough

i want to be like jung and have an identity from the past possess me

[Daddy]

You're too biased to have a conversation with on this subject.

Ad hominem: surrogate for having ample supporting details for an argument since ~298,000BCE

[wawi]

Ad hominem: surrogate for having ample supporting details for an argument since ~298,000BCE

You always have to be right.
You're implying only theists kill people for their beliefs. You claim to know how billions of people think and what they believe. You're anti-religious, biased, and ignorant. However, that is nothing new. All of Boyah knows that.

[?????]

You always have to be right.
You're implying only theists kill people for their beliefs. You claim to know how billions of people think and what they believe. You're anti-religious, biased, and ignorant. However, that is nothing new. All of Boyah knows that.

PROOF