ProHypster

Ross Scoot should totally do the hazard course once with Freeman's thoughts, what do you think.

Could that be the mystery episode btw?

I said, I don't want to ask them, not answer or contribute....

But really all science questions are answered, there's nothing to debate about in the science world, I'll just steal something from Encyclopaedia Brittanica

Most people, including me, think that empathy is there for control.

The two main thoughts are:

- Empathy is nature's way of keeping our greed to a limit.

- Empathy is God's way of... well we all know.

I was always fascinated by the question whether empathy is in a conflict with intelligence, what do you think?

Anyone want to comment on the ridiculous forced Ram usage with the new windows Op. systems?

I don't see what's f**ked up there, I'm going to smack my child until the age it's mature.

I think the "paranormal" is a manifestation of people not always being able to explain what they see, hear or experience. Doesn't mean there are no explanations.

Ehmm, there are explanations for almost all of them.

Both scientific and spiritual.

Because in the end, spiritism is a scientific subject.

Banned for being the second person to ban me for being a smart guy.

Banned for telling me something that I foresaw coming.

Bringing this topic back.

Dreaming the future is a big one a lot of friends experienced.

Expecially dreaming death of relatives.

Fine, I'm taking this to the highest level.

Excerpt from Encyclopaedia Brittanica:

atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

 

The dialectic of the argument between forms of belief and unbelief raises questions concerning the most perspicuous delineation, or characterization, of atheism, agnosticism, and theism. It is necessary not only to probe the warrant for atheism but also carefully to consider what is the most adequate definition of atheism. This article will start with what have been some widely accepted, but still in various ways mistaken or misleading, definitions of atheism and move to more adequate formulations that better capture the full range of atheist thought and more clearly separate unbelief from belief and atheism from agnosticism. In the course of this delineation the section also will consider key arguments for and against atheism.

To say that atheism is the denial of God or the gods and that it is the opposite of theism, a system of belief that affirms the reality of God and seeks to demonstrate his existence, is inadequate in a number of ways. First, not all theologians who regard themselves as defenders of the Christian faith or of Judaism or Islām regard themselves as defenders of theism. The influential 20th-century Protestant theologian Paul Tillich, for example, regards the God of theism as an idol and refuses to construe God as a being, even a supreme being, among beings or as an infinite being above finite beings. God, for him, is “being-itself,” the ground of being and meaning. The particulars of Tillich’s view are in certain ways idiosyncratic, as well as being obscure and problematic, but they have been influential; and his rejection of theism, while retaining a belief in God, is not eccentric in contemporary theology, though it may very well affront the plain believer.

 

Second, and more important, it is not the case that all theists seek to demonstrate or even in any way rationally to establish the existence of God. Many theists regard such a demonstration as impossible, and fideistic believers (e.g., Johann Hamann and Søren Kierkegaard) regard such a demonstration, even if it were possible, as undesirable, for in their view it would undermine faith. If it could be proved, or known for certain, that God exists, people would not be in a position to accept him as their sovereign Lord humbly on faith with all the risks that entails. There are theologians who have argued that for genuine faith to be possible God must necessarily be a hidden God, the mysterious ultimate reality, whose existence and authority must be accepted simply on faith. This fideistic view has not, of course, gone without challenge from inside the major faiths, but it is of sufficient importance to make the above characterization of atheism inadequate.

 

Finally, and most important, not all denials of God are denials of his existence. Believers sometimes deny God while not being at all in a state of doubt that God exists. They either willfully reject what they take to be his authority by not acting in accordance with what they take to be his will, or else they simply live their lives as if God did not exist. In this important way they deny him. Such deniers are not atheists (unless we wish, misleadingly, to call them “practical atheists”). They are not even agnostics. They do not question that God exists; they deny him in other ways. An atheist denies the existence of God. As it is frequently said, atheists believe that it is false that God exists, or that God’s existence is a speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability.

 

Yet it remains the case that such a characterization of atheism is inadequate in other ways. For one it is too narrow. There are atheists who believe that the very concept of God, at least in developed and less anthropomorphic forms of Judeo-Christianity and Islām, is so incoherent that certain central religious claims, such as “God is my creator to whom everything is owed,” are not genuine truth-claims; i.e., the claims could not be either true or false. Believers hold that such religious propositions are true, some atheists believe that they are false, and there are agnostics who cannot make up their minds whether to believe that they are true or false. (Agnostics think that the propositions are one or the other but believe that it is not possible to determine which.) But all three are mistaken, some atheists argue, for such putative truth-claims are not sufficiently intelligible to be genuine truth-claims that are either true or false. In reality there is nothing in them to be believed or disbelieved, though there is for the believer the powerful and humanly comforting illusion that there is. Such an atheism, it should be added, rooted for some conceptions of God in considerations about intelligibility and what it makes sense to say, has been strongly resisted by some pragmatists and logical empiricists.

Check whole argument here:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism

The damage can also easily be modified in the skills.cfg file.

Just use logitech, all of the ones made after 2006 are good quality

This one's mine:

Oh, yes, it's for laptop or netbooks.

Banned for having "Hyundai" suspiciously laying in the CPU-Z Validator, suggesting them being some kind of computer manufacturer.

Fine, don't answer the question, I won't ask any more "Weak questions" here.

But I don't want to ask science questions here either, boooring.

@Danielsangeo

Yeah I know what you mean, but I'm not going to post everything what you did and for the sake of clear communication I just said "smartest" in quotes.

And, of course we aren't the most developed either, we are equally developed, but "developed" by power/influence on nature values I meant.

EDIT: let's not bother clearing up every terminology untill it comes to a direct conflict where someone in the argument got the wrong term meaning.

I tried to clear every important term in the begining of Atheism: Philosophicaly redundant and people still misused them and got confused.

Okay, let me take a step back here.

 

There are certain rules of nature. A weak species (one unable to adapt to its surroundings and the changes inherent therein) will eventually die out where a stronger species (one that is able to adapt) will survive and possibly thrive. Leaving evolution out of it all together, this is exactly what we see in nature.

 

That is what this person coded into the simulation.

 

Step 1: Nothing is guided, except for natural affinities.

Step 2: These natural affinities will eventually form a pseudo-clock (a gear attached to an arm that swings back and forth). No, you can't tell what time a day it is from a single pendulum, but it keeps time.

Step 3: This is selected for, while others, such as non-pendulums, are selected against. Again, this is all natural and what we see every day in nature.

Step 4: A hand attaches to a spring (natural affinity) and the spring turns as the pendulum swings back and forth. This type of clock is selected for.

...

Step 158,293: Three handed clocks form, showing hours, minutes, seconds.

 

Again, all natural. Mutation + Natural selection = Evolution

 

This is what we see in nature. We have no evidence of an "intelligent guiding force". We do have evidence that, random occurrences (such as a hand attaching to a gear to form a pendulum) that are beneficial or neutral survive and random occurrences that are detrimental (such as two gears connecting to each other) die out.

 

Again, total common sense. Totally natural.

 

And thus, the great web of life.

 

The guy in the video simply programmed natural selection (which we see) and natural affinities (which we see) and let the computer program run. And clocks spontaneously formed on their own.

 

Maybe if you could be a bit more specific about what your issue with the video is...such as maybe pointing to a section of the video that you have questions on, I'd be happy to assist.

There's no section that's wrong. Everything is wrong. It's just a bad argument, by philosophical argumentation he is providing evidence by natural selection and natural affinities rules.

That is a weak argument to someone who doesn't have a logical foundation of thinking by those rules.

But that's not all of it, he also definetly assumes things one shouldn't assume, the data about time and speed + how fast the transitions are can not be coded accurately but only through personal bias/prediction. And of course the three gears are nothing like real life protons, atoms, neutrons, carbon etc.

The first part is why I don't accept the video.

The second is why scientists don't either.

EDIT: Guys, this topic was finished when Dan-95 answered my thread and we got to an agreeable conclusion, let's not start this again, all that's left in this post is Daniel challenging my post where I said

that both creationalists and evolutionists have "proof" for their theory.

Well, firstly, is it a coincidence that I also don't see Ross' image???

@Bjossi

Yeah I kind of hope for a minimalistic OS too, I think the problem is with an OS comes deals and sponsors and etc etc. And Microsoft has virtually all of the Manufacturing/Software industry behind them and as a partner. Hell, they even have games support through smart tactical business.

Mac has some Audio software supporting them (I know that for a fact, it's not a rumour), though it's better then on Microsoft, Microsoft's audio software isn't that much worse at all, merely a bit. We can see how Mac suffers though through the countless programs which just won't run on Mac and thus don't allow you to show what you did on a Mac to the rest of the Computer world that easily, as you will have to convert the file most of the time.

With this going on, we can understand why it is so hard to get into the OS business... It's all about sponsors, trade and support of software and hardware in the computer business.

@Alyxx That's why the OS is named after the smallest bird in the world.

Ok, the batteries are actually a very memorable part in the training... so you probably didn't play half-lfie much did you?

Remember the dark room? Security guard explaining to him?

My statement stays, that he forgot what they are due to super confidence and ignorance in the training.

Fits his type.

Who needs Bankruptcy when you've got Serious Topic Discussion ?

(Nice for that finally being realized, thx to admins who contributed)

So, here we can talk about what people think about Macs, "Pc's" (Microsoft) and alternatives on the topic of OS (Operating Systems, do not confuse with manufacturing)

What is the future of the market?

Is Microsoft going down from a monopoly to a competitor?

Are there any new promising companies you've heard of? How's Linux?

Whatever catches your fancy with OS, talk here.

Sorry for the bump, but the Black Mesa site seems to be down. This can only mean one thing...

...your browser is outdated, we know.

No, the results are completely unexpected, actually. All he did was fashion what evolution does: That is, certain things help advance and certain things are a detriment. Being able to eat is a helpful thing. Not being able to eat is a detriment. That is all he's coded into his program. If a clock organism is able to "tell time" more accurately than another, then that organism survives and propagates. That is what happens in the real world with actual organisms. As the generators continue, more things that help the organism tell time better come together until you have what looks like a "designed" clock.

 

But this doesn't happen in real life because clocks aren't alive and don't mutate or reproduce. Complexity comes from simplicity. The code wasn't made by evolutionary rules. The code was made according to basic biology. Biology has "certain things" that has to happen for an organism to survive.

What did you add here, that's exactly what I said.... except you converted it into a more pro-evolutionist statement

EDIT: Oh sorry, misread, I though you meant "It was made by Evolutionary rules" but you said it was made according to basic biology.

Although I do not see the difference.

The main thing is, I personally, find the video not enough as proof.

I can take it in as an argument maximum, and that argument to me is pretty weak...

On the other hand I know some, other, very good arguments and proof for arguments in evolution.

As I said before , I personally think there is proof in most, maybe half of evolution.

EDIT2:

No, but really I don't understand that argument.

What kind of argument is it when I simply say:

"Everything was made by God, and that is how it works in real life. Some people get born smarter, some dumber.

Heaven and hell are real as you can see by my code if I type in the code on how creationalism would work, and the graph would look like this...."

That is not an argument as much as a position in the creationalist theory.

The whole video is just the position in the evolutionary SCIENTIFIC (yes, it's scientific, so what?) theory.

FINAL EDIT:

And don't give me the bullsquid that being able to eat is a good thing and not is a bad thing is all he's coded to get those graphs... there is math involved and that math is definetly made by ebvolutionary (Biology or w/e you may call it) rules

To the posters above:

This is all facts that don't explain us. By the way, I found them pretty weak, but that's my opinion.

I will rephrase my question then, I guess you didn't understand it.

Why do we have unecessary choice? Is choice, (taking evolution as a fact) going to dissapear through evolution since choice kills nature and us

I voted yes... but really that was in frustration and not very though out.

Bump.

AS you can see on the results in Misc. AF, we agreed to do this, yet none of the mods were ready.

I mean, there is more and more topics every day, how much longer can we afford to wait....

Maybe someone would be willing to sacrifice their time for this holy task...

(Turning to Alyxx with a puppy face)

EDIT: Also, new people here, vote!

Bumping this thread up. No decision and no action yet.