Originally posted by RJHinds Okay, I understand. Anyone that dares to question evilution must be stupid from the viewpoint of the atheist, because to them it is proven fact. 😏 You better tell sunhouse, he thinks you were serious and is worked up about it.
The Instructor
Naw, I think it would be easier for him to believe I'm delusional. Besides, explaining it wouldn't do any good. How does someone go about explaining humor? Either they get it or they don't.
Actually, now that I think of it there is a way to explain it. We have a small patch of neural tissue located on the front part of the frontal lobe, and this is where contradictions and odd match-ups are detected and delt with. It's where mental hickups and contradictions in logic are processed, and laughter is often the reaction set off by this relatively small area of the brain. I don't know if this is unique to humans or not, but I suspect other mammals might have a similar version of this funny little information processing system.
Originally posted by RJHinds Okay, I understand. Anyone that dares to question evilution must be stupid from the viewpoint of the atheist, because to them it is proven fact. 😏 You better tell sunhouse, he thinks you were serious and is worked up about it.
The Instructor
Wow, you weren't kidding! It seems sonhouse would like to see me burned, shot at and then tossed off a building. Those were some rather violent examples he used in his explanation of delusions. Delusions of grandeur don't worry me, but when it includes a violent fantasy component then I'm content to stay here on my side of the computer screen.
Originally posted by lemon lime Wow, you weren't kidding! It seems sonhouse would like to see me burned, shot at and then tossed off a building. Those were some rather violent examples he used in his explanation of delusions. Delusions of grandeur don't worry me, but when it includes a violent fantasy component then I'm content to stay here on my side of the computer screen.
His reply was to RJ, the violent imagery was probably triggered by RJ's argumentum ad nauseam approach which is designed to goad an opponent into such an outburst with the aim of later self-righteous condemnation, and is a fairly tedious rhetorical trick.
Originally posted by DeepThought His reply was to RJ, the violent imagery was probably triggered by RJ's argumentum ad nauseam approach which is designed to goad an opponent into such an outburst with the aim of later self-righteous condemnation, and is a fairly tedious rhetorical trick.
I was trying to point out there is no religion in physics like gravity. You don't 'believe' in gravity, it acts on you whether you believe it or not. So you can go
'My god will protect me from gravity if I jump off this cliff' and you will find for 100% certain your god did NOT protect you from the inevitable consequence of gravity.
That is the essence of the non-religious nature of physics.
Originally posted by lemon lime Naw, I think it would be easier for him to believe I'm delusional. Besides, explaining it wouldn't do any good. How does someone go about explaining humor? Either they get it or they don't.
Actually, now that I think of it there is a way to explain it. We have a small patch of neural tissue located on the front part of the frontal lobe, a ...[text shortened]... als might have a similar version of this funny little information processing system.
Two problems.
One: poe's law... It's impossible (or nearly impossible) to tell the difference between
sarcasm and 'humour' and someone who actually believes what they are saying
without some kind of hint (like [/sarcasm] or smileys).
Originally posted by DeepThought His reply was to RJ, the violent imagery was probably triggered by RJ's argumentum ad nauseam approach which is designed to goad an opponent into such an outburst with the aim of later self-righteous condemnation, and is a fairly tedious rhetorical trick.
Okay, I see it now. RJ was responding to me, and sonhouse was responding to RJ. I assumed it was a response to me (albeit indirectly) since I was the one who supposedly equated physics with religion. RJ's response to me however didn't make that claim, so that's why I probably missed who sonhouse was really angry with. I haven't been here very long and I'm already tired of the ongoing tedious rhetorical trickery. It's difficult for me to continue talking to people who see this as only a contest, rather than as something to think about.
One: poe's law... It's impossible (or nearly impossible) to tell the difference between
sarcasm and 'humour' and someone who actually believes what they are saying
without some kind of hint (like [/sarcasm] or smileys).
Two: What you said was not actually funny.
Are you aware of the fact the name big bang was not coined by the proponents of this theory?
Originally posted by sonhouse I was trying to point out there is no religion in physics like gravity. You don't 'believe' in gravity, it acts on you whether you believe it or not. So you can go
'My god will protect me from gravity if I jump off this cliff' and you will find for 100% certain your god did NOT protect you from the inevitable consequence of gravity.
That is the essence of the non-religious nature of physics.
The point of my intentionally skewed rant was not to equate science with religion, nor was it to bait anyone into simply reacting to it. It was to point out how fear of theism has caused some people to become so worked up they will actually ignore any science that may be involved, especially if it appears to invalidate their own pet theories.
This is Human Nature 101, and scientists are only human... they are not automatically exempt from whatever faith based beliefs they may have simply because we call them scientists.
It happened when big bang theory was first being argued, and it happened when fractals were a relatively new idea. At one time both of these were viewed with suspicion and equated with religion. But as I have already pointed out (in another thread) no one today argues with these or presumes they have anything to do with religion.
And it was a sarcastic term meant to poke fun at the theory. And the term was adopted by the proponents of the theory. And do I really need to say more? The origin of the name was a sarcastic remark by someone wishing to discredit the theory. The theory was also under attack for being something concocted to give credence to the Biblical account of creation.
So, do you believe the big bang theory is simply a creationist trick to fool you into believing the Bible? Or do you live in the here and now?
Originally posted by lemon lime And it was a sarcastic term meant to poke fun at the theory. And the term was adopted by the proponents of the theory. And do I really need to say more? The origin of the name was a sarcastic remark by someone wishing to discredit the theory. The theory was also under attack for being something concocted to give credence to the Biblic ...[text shortened]... some creationist trick to fool you into believing the Bible? Or do you live in the here and now?
I studied physics at university...
I think you have got confused about who you are talking to.
Originally posted by googlefudge I studied physics at university...
I think you have got confused about who you are talking to.
I think you may be confused by who you think you are. I studied at a university too, but that doesn't make me some kind of intellectual god who is worthy of worship and adoration. Wearing a badge to prove who you are doesn't actually prove anything about you.
Originally posted by lemon lime I think you may be confused by who you think you are. I studied at a university too, but that doesn't make me some kind of intellectual god who is worthy of worship and adoration. Wearing a badge to prove who you are doesn't actually prove anything about you.
I think I get it now. You and RJ are the same person with different persona's. You talk to each other like a multiple personality, trying to make us think you are passing the Turing test.
Originally posted by sonhouse I think I get it now. You and RJ are the same person with different persona's. You talk to each other like a multiple personality, trying to make us think you are passing the Turing test.
According to your theory, googlefudge could be the same person as you, since he agrees with most of the things you say, but just states it in a way that makes him seem more intelligent than you.
Originally posted by RJHinds According to your theory, googlefudge could be the same person as you, since he agrees with most of the things you say, but just states it in a way that makes him seem more intelligent than you.
The Instructor
Yes, the point is that a well designed Turing test should be able to distinguish two different entities from one entity pretending to be two people.
Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design
17 Jul '13 23:452 edits
Back to Top