EDIT: "Why are you so obsessed with being right, and trying to get people to stop believing in God?"
You are obsessed with being right and trying to prove what you believe in is right, and everyone else is wrong, in the same way they are obsessed with converting people. I consider the liberation of your mind from the lies of superstition to be among my ethical duties as a person possessing exceptional intellectual acuity who is also a compassionate citizen of this hivemind we call the internet. First, let me acknowledge that I'm a narcissist. But, hey, at least I acknowledge it. Second, that being said, what does your "intellectual acuity" suggest to you when you -- intentionally or unintentionally, I do not know -- fail to respond to the instances in which your core arguments against Intelligent Design have been proven totally false beyond all possible doubt? Examples: 1) You close your case (i.e. "case closed") against a belief in God based upon the premise of a total a lack of empirical evidence, though it has been both proven and referenced to you that this is a completely invalid and irrelevant argument. We can toss that argument of yours in the trash. 2) There is no #2. Number 1 is all you've proposed, and it's false. You've demonstrated no other argument. Here is your debating style in a nutshell: You: There is no evidence for God or unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters. Correct person: False analogy, and it's also irrelevant in that, axiomatically, physical evidence can neither prove nor disprove the existence of something with a non-physical component(s). You: Blah blah blah, superstition. Correct person: But, you didn't even rebut the point. You just kept going. You: I am so smart. Correct Person:  ...And repeat. Sound about right? Wow. Some acuity. You're essentially a character foil to BADecker. It seems no amount of sound reason will convince either of you to admit you're wrong. I readily await the ad hominems to follow -- unless, you know, you actually want to discuss ideas. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think a viable solution to gun control can ever be reached simply by looking at gun statistics, e.g. by controlling or various SES or demographic factors that seem like they should be controlled for because they 'look nice,' and then seeing how certain other variables such as gun ownership, mental illness, etc. relates to gun deaths and violence.
This seems to be missing the bigger picture. As far as I'm aware, there are no studies that examine and control for govenment controlin general. Government control is not only a mediating factor of gun control and gun ownership as it relates to gun deaths and violence, and not only does it mediate all of the variables which are controlled for in various studies, but its overarching implications are vast in terms of its effects on human behavior.
Think about it -- government control in general contributes to a cultureof government-controlled societies. Things such as government-controlled education (telling people what is appropriate to learn), economics (setting a standard for societal contribution), food, drugs, and medicine (setting a standard for 'appropriate' self-care), etc. all have a profound effect on human behavior. It's my belief that government control encourages gun violence and violence in general because it places constraints upon, and therefore is at odds with, human nature. Consequently, even if more stringent gun control measures were put in place, this does not reduce the overall detriment to people in terms of government control in general, but rather adds to it. But really, how would we know?
Basically, it's my hypothesis that most violence (and probably mental illness) is a result of an ongoing conflict between government (tending towards control) and human nature (tending toward freedom). Adding additional constraints will only compound the problem in a much more general sense. I think it's a myth that people would be at each other's throats in the absence of government. In the total absence of structure, maybe -- but structure and order does not necessarily equate to governments or government control.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think a viable solution to gun control can ever be reached simply by looking at gun statistics, e.g. by controlling or various SES or demographic factors that seem like they should be controlled for because they 'look nice,' and then seeing how certain other variables such as gun ownership, mental illness, etc. relates to gun deaths and violence.
This seems to be missing the bigger picture. As far as I'm aware, there are no studies that examine and control for govenment control[i/] in general. Government control is not only a mediating factor of gun control and gun ownership as it relates to gun deaths and violence, and not only does it mediate all of the variables which are controlled for in various studies, but it's overarching implications are vast in terms of its effects on human behavior.
Think about it -- government control in general contributes to a culture[i/] of government-controlled societies. Things such as government-controlled education (telling people what is appropriate to learn), economics (setting a standard for societal contribution), food, drugs, and medicine (setting a standard for 'appropriate' self-care), etc. all have a profound effect on human behavior. It's my belief that government control encourages gun violence and violence in general because it places constraints upon, and therefore is at odds with, human nature. Consequently, even if more stringent gun control measures were put in
|
|
|
|
Aww, he doesn't even realized he has already forfeited the privilege of communicating with me, he still thinks I can read his shitposts! That's adorable.
Oh, that response will surely give you the credibility and acknowledgement you're looking for from your peers. Who are you talking to? |
|
|
|
|
I'm going to suggest armory, but please note that this recommendation is biased in terms of my own experience with it. But honestly, I don't see much wrong with a safely-generated core wallet encrypted and backed up on a few USB sticks. This is a reasonable option, especially if you aren't stashing a significant amount. I have little experience with hardware cold-storage options, so I'm uncomfortable recommending them.
|
|
|
|
I didn't say sex is a drug, nor did I say it's necessarily unhealthy. What do you think would happen to a person who has with many partners frequently?
People respond to sex much like they do drugs. Some people do okay living life completely sober, and others do just fine with moderate, controlled drug use. Virtually nobody functions optimally when they use drugs perpetually https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleadingThis is a joke, right? Your logical fallacy is straw man, and it's prompted by your intellectually dishonest habit of perpetual selective reading, a form of confirmation bias. Of course you're going to think that you've proven everyone false if you make up their arguments for them |
|
|
|
Virtually nobody functions optimally when they use drugs perpetually, especially many different kinds, and this is especially true when you initially take those drugs away from them. People respond similarly in many ways to sexual engagement. Sex is not a drug, it's completely natural and both mentally and physically healthy for you (excluding STIs obviously). In fact, sex preserves youthful vitality, where as most drugs age you. This comparison is not at all apt. http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-healthThat's making a straw man of the point. I didn't say sex is a drug, nor did I say it's necessarily unhealthy. |
|
|
|
Do you think people with 50 marriages in a lifetime are happier than those with 1? I think people with zero marriages in a lifetime are happier than those with 1. The stories of miserable marriage and divorce are everywhere in modern culture, pay attention. Also pay attention to the immense social pressure to be sexy, to the glorification of sexual promiscuity in the media linked to social status, to the breakdown in effective person-to-person communication as a result of digital technology, to the exponential increase in ADHD diagnoses in adults, etc. Didn't you say you were a psychology major or something? How do you explain the scientific evidence that people are happiest when they have exactly 1 (no more, no less) sexual partners per year? I'm not saying it can't be explained away, but it's there. People with one sexual partner are accepted by society. If you have multiple sexual partners, you have to hide it from the world, especially in political or other prestigious careers. The same was true about homosexuals 25 years ago. Contextual question: Do you believe that a person who has sex with 10 people a year will be happier than 1? I think it depends on the individual and upon individual circumstances. This isn't a huge difference by today's standards. Comparison question: Do you think that a person who has sex with 365 people in a year will be happier than 1? The point of this question is to ask you whether a person's satisfaction will continually increase on to infinity if they keep having more and more sexual partners. This is a rhetorical question, because we both know the answer is no. So, then, why is the answer no? Idea for reflection: What do you think would happen to a person who has with many partners frequently, versus a person who does not, if that person is placed into a situation where they are no longer able to (e.g. graduating college, getting too old, too ugly, or too busy, put in jail, becoming sick or medically incapable, etc.)? People respond to sex much like they do drugs. Some people do okay living life completely sober, and others do just fine with moderate, controlled drug use. Virtually nobody functions optimally when they use drugs perpetually, especially many different kinds, and this is especially true when you initially take those drugs away from them. People respond similarly in many ways to sexual engagement. |
|
|
|
Meh, this bores me to be honest. Everybody fucks, what of it?
This guy fucks. Correct. Meh, this bores me to be honest. Everybody fucks, what of it?
This isn't about having sex. This is about going through the act of marriage, pledging oneself to be faithful and then cheating The mistake these people made wasn't cheating, it was getting married. They have been lied to about human nature, by people who in turn have been lied to about human nature, who were in turn lied to by non-scientists who didn't know jackshit about human nature. All the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Homo Sapiens are promiscuous by nature, meant to fuck with many different partners, not at all monogamous. This is why the institution of marriage is imploding.How do you explain the scientific evidence that people are happiest when they have exactly 1 (no more, no less) sexual partners per year? I'm not saying it can't be explained away, but it's there. https://books.google.com/books?id=bI-Jau14aLAC&pg=PA210&lpg=PA210&dq=people+are+happier+with+1+sex+partner&source=bl&ots=EbfjH4_yzn&sig=bU2ISvTA43wMhQaBUgj7eD-Phkw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAzgKahUKEwit7LOg5e_GAhVLOz4KHTMmDQQ#v=onepage&q=people%20are%20happier%20with%201%20sex%20partner&f=falseSo what...one marriage per year? Do you think people with 50 marriages in a lifetime are happier than those with 1? |
|
|
|
Meh, this bores me to be honest. Everybody fucks, what of it?
This guy fucks. Correct. Meh, this bores me to be honest. Everybody fucks, what of it?
This isn't about having sex. This is about going through the act of marriage, pledging oneself to be faithful and then cheating The mistake these people made wasn't cheating, it was getting married. They have been lied to about human nature, by people who in turn have been lied to about human nature, who were in turn lied to by non-scientists who didn't know jackshit about human nature. All the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Homo Sapiens are promiscuous by nature, meant to fuck with many different partners, not at all monogamous. This is why the institution of marriage is imploding.How do you explain the scientific evidence that people are happiest when they have exactly 1 (no more, no less) sexual partners per year? I'm not saying it can't be explained away, but it's there. https://books.google.com/books?id=bI-Jau14aLAC&pg=PA210&lpg=PA210&dq=people+are+happier+with+1+sex+partner&source=bl&ots=EbfjH4_yzn&sig=bU2ISvTA43wMhQaBUgj7eD-Phkw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAzgKahUKEwit7LOg5e_GAhVLOz4KHTMmDQQ#v=onepage&q=people%20are%20happier%20with%201%20sex%20partner&f=false |
|
|
|
I don't see "action" listed as a verb anywhere in the definition. Since the word "action" is a noun, and it is being compared to "reaction," another noun, Newtons Third Law is talking about "things," which are not verbs.  The WORD action is a noun. Things that ARE actions, are verbs. Are you really this simple? Actions: Running, breathing, sitting, talking, explaining to BADecker first-grade level grammar rules Nouns: Electrons, Electrolytes, neurons, anything else you said... When you look back at your posts, do you even realize that you've demonstrated ignorance of things they teach to 6 year-olds in order to prove your interpretation of Newton's Third Law? Does that not strike you as utterly hilarious? Okay. Since you are so good at editing out the rest of what I had to say, why don't you explain how brain activity creates free will? Remember, the brain activity action has to produce an equal and opposite reaction. You might want to consider that you lack the capacity to engage in a free-will debate if you don't even grasp parts of speech. Another political science representative? Come on, jointy. I thought at least you had the dignity to remain in the pure sciences. I'ts just that it's pretty important to understand the language you're using to express your ideas, don't you think? |
|
|
|
I don't see "action" listed as a verb anywhere in the definition. Since the word "action" is a noun, and it is being compared to "reaction," another noun, Newtons Third Law is talking about "things," which are not verbs. The WORD action is a noun. Things that ARE actions, are verbs. Are you really this simple? Actions: Running, breathing, sitting, talking, explaining to BADecker first-grade level grammar rules Nouns: Electrons, Electrolytes, neurons, anything else you said... When you look back at your posts, do you even realize that you've demonstrated ignorance of things they teach to 6 year-olds in order to prove your interpretation of Newton's Third Law? Does that not strike you as utterly hilarious? Okay. Since you are so good at editing out the rest of what I had to say, why don't you explain how brain activity creates free will? Remember, the brain activity action has to produce an equal and opposite reaction. You might want to consider that you lack the capacity to engage in a free-will debate if you don't even grasp parts of speech. |
|
|
|
I will admit, I think compassion, patience, and understanding is always the noblest course of action on both sides. It's easy to become jaded and frustrated at each other, but Carl Sagan said it best: On the other hand, when I'm under attack by theists for valiantly attempting to liberate their minds from the shackles of superstition, I often find myself feeling this: Intelligent design does not require emotion or benevolence (...) I'm sorry, are you disputing the God claims of the Holy Bible? Because the Bible claims that God loves everyone deeply, and wants to save our immortal souls. That's basic shit. But what scientific evidence suggests does not say anything about God one way or the other. A fair statement would be: There is equal evidence to support the existence of the God of the Holy Bible, as there is to support the existence of Allah, Yahweh, Zues, Gaia, Thor, Obi-Wan Kenobi's blue ghost, Jenova, Jibbers Crabst, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Given that knowledge, I suppose my question for Christians becomes: Why did you choose Christianity over all the other (more interesting) options out there? For me, nothing beats the evidence supporting Norse Mythology.  I'm thinking you're just trolling now. Would you please read what you're reaponding to? Thanks. 1) I had already disproved your false analogies in previous posts. A Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other thing whose topological constraints constitute any portion of their identity, is a false analogy to an intelligent designer (i.e. if a Creator creates topological constraints but exists prior to them, it follows its identity is not constituted by topological constraints). All entities whose identities consist of topological constraints could be empirically verified or falsified should they exist; an intelligent designer cannot be empirically verified or falsified should it exist. But it is not exempt from logical verification or falsification, which is precisely why it's an appropriate topic for rational discourse. 2) I'm not a Christian, nor do I follow any religion. I challenge you to write a response to me that does not contain a strawman. I can't remember any. For someone who prides himself on reason and intellectual capacity, you disappoint at both. 3) You still fail to demonstrate even a basic understanding of empirical exploration. A fair (and true) statement is that the evidence does not suggest anything about a god or no god, in the same way the evidence does not suggest anything about mathematics or no mathematics. 4) Please think for yourself. Your botched understanding of what top scientists actually say (e.g. Hawking, deGrasse Tyson, etc.) makes your posts look silly. When you parrot things willy-nilly, it shows. |
|
|
|
The point is simple -- if an Intelligent Designer exists, there is no physical evidence that could theoretical exist that would prove it. all the evidence strongly suggests (...) Irrelevant. That right there is why science brings us computers, space rockets, and artificial limbs, while religion brings us church shootings, gay bashing, and flagellation. Science merely gives us an insight into the protocol of the operating system. While religion only provides insight about one's own anus. But what scientific evidence suggests does not say anything about God one way or the other. It is totally false when you say something like, "The evidence suggests there is no God who cares about us," for it is just as much of a woo-ful statement as someone who says that quantum entanglement suggests we are all one consciousness, or something equaly woo-like. You're engaging in the same nonsensical reasoning that you deplore, and apparently you don't care. I have a feeling you're wrapped up in a false dichotomy you're unaware of. Your apparent false premise is that belief in Intelligent Design must stem from some book or supposed holy person whose word must be taken axiomatically. Consequently, your consideration of the debate is naive at best. You completely ignore the possibility that some people may have a means of deriving a belief in God from logical principles, or at least deriving its plausibility -- a means you have not considered. Empiricism is the sea scientists swim in, and far too many overstep their bounds and falsely believe science can conclude upon *every*thing. It can't. Philosophers and logicians know this well, and despite many philosophers' comparative lack of concrete knowledge regarding various scientific findings, they can often school most scientists in terms of understanding the general conceptual strengths and limitations of their field. |
|
|
|
The point is simple -- if an Intelligent Designer exists, there is no physical evidence that could theoretical exist that would prove it. all the evidence strongly suggests (...) Irrelevant. That right there is why science brings us computers, space rockets, and artificial limbs, while religion brings us church shootings, gay bashing, and flagellation. And logic tells us what is possible (e.g. proof for real-but-non-physical constructs) and impossible (e.g. physical evidence for real-but-non-physical constructs), and in some cases that which is logically necessary or unnecessary. Again, your "but there's no evidence!" claims are totally and utterly inapplicable...provably. |
|
|
|
Lol, what the heck, dude. One paragraph...
The opposite reaction is therefore, not real.
... vs. other paragraph Newton's Third Law is about action and reaction, cause and effect. You're not even trying anymore. Go lay down or something. electrons, electrolytes, chemicals, all working in the brain = reality = action free will = illusion = reaction For every ACTION there is an equal and opposite REACTION. Reaction opposite action. Illusion opposite reality. Free will opposite brain activity. Let's see if we can clear this up concisely. For every ACTION, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Do you know what an ACTION is? Actions are verbs, not nouns. Here's a list to help you, since now I'm in a listing mood. Things BADecker things are actions, but aren't:- Electrons
- Electrolytes
- Chemicals
- Reality
- Illusion
- Free will
Therefore, because none of the things you are talking about are ACTIONS, Newton's Third Law cannot be invoked to prove they have an opposite. Here I thought your problem was of science illiteracy, and it turns out, it's just regular illiteracy. Solomon says in the Bible O.T., that if you laugh at someone's trouble, the same thing will happen to you. I wouldn't have laughed, anyway. But Solomon gives me all the more reason not to laugh. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/action?s=t: action[ak-shuh n] noun1. the process or state of acting or of being active: The machine is not in action now. 2. something done or performed; act; deed. 3. an act that one consciously wills and that may be characterized by physical or mental activity: a crisis that demands action instead of debate; hoping for constructive action by the landlord. 4. actions, habitual or usual acts; conduct: He is responsible for his actions. 5. energetic activity: a man of action. 6. an exertion of power or force: the action of wind upon a ship's sails. 7. effect or influence: the action of morphine. 8. Physiology. a change in organs, tissues, or cells leading to performance of a function, as in muscular contraction. 9. way or manner of moving: the action of a machine or of a horse. 10. the mechanism by which something is operated, as that of a gun or a piano. 11. a military encounter or engagement; battle, skirmish, or the like. 12. actual engagement in fighting an enemy; military or naval combat: He saw action in Vietnam. 13. Literature. the main subject or story, as distinguished from an incidental episode. 14. Theater. an event or series of events that form part of a dramatic plot: the action of a scene. one of the three unities. Compare unity (def  . 15. the gestures or deportment of an actor or speaker. 16. Fine Arts. the appearance of animation, movement, or emotion given to figures by their attitude, position, or expression. 17. Law. a proceeding instituted by one party against another. the right of bringing it. 18. Slang. interesting or exciting activity, often of an illicit nature: He gave us some tips on where the action was. gambling or the excitement of gambling: The casino usually offers plenty of action. money bet in gambling, especially illegally. 19. Ecclesiastical. a religious ceremony, especially a Eucharistic service. the canon of the Mass. those parts of a service of worship in which the congregation participates. adjective20. characterized by brisk or dynamic action: an action car; an action melodrama. Idioms 21. in action, performing or taking part in a characteristic act: The school baseball team is in action tonight. working; functioning: His rescuing the child was bravery in action. 22. out of action, removed from action, as by sudden disability: The star halfback is out of action with a bad knee. 23. piece of the action, Informal. a share of the proceeds or profits: Cut me in for a piece of the action. 24. take action, to start doing something: As soon as we get his decision, we'll take action. to start a legal procedure. I don't see "action" listed as a verb anywhere in the definition. Since the word "action" is a noun, and it is being compared to "reaction," another noun, Newtons Third Law is talking about "things," which are not verbs. Holy crap, this is absurd. Dude, the word "verb" is defined as a noun, too: verb
vərb/
nounGRAMMAR
1.
a word used to describe an action, state, or occurrence, and forming the main part of the predicate of a sentence, such as hear, become, happen. Listen more. Talk less. The word action is a noun, but actions are verbs. Just like the word verb is a noun, but verbs are actions. |
|
|
|
The point is simple -- if an Intelligent Designer exists, there is no physical evidence that could theoretical exist that would prove it. The point is simple, all the evidence strongly suggests there is no intelligent designer that cares about humanity. For example: Microbes are trying to hijack our bodies all the time, trying to parasitize, poison, digest, and consume our flesh. Some children are born with no immune system, most of them suffer and die. We can't live on 2/3rds of the Earth's surface. Half of the 1/3rd that remains is also inhospitable to life as we'll freeze or starve to death. 90% of all life that has ever existed on this planet is now extinct. Our inner solar-system is a shooting gallery of asteroids and comets. Mass extinctions are common throughout history, whether by disease, climate shift, killer asteroids. Very nearly all the volume of space in the universe will kill life instantly, whether from heat, radiation, or cold. Galactic orbits bring us close to supernovas which will wipe out Earth's ozone layer. We're on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy. Our sun will eventually go Red Giant and wipe out all life in this solar system. The universe is stretching at an every-accelerating pace as approach our inevitable oblivion as the temperature of the universe approaches absolute-zero asymptotically. All this is nature killing us without the help of human hatred and ignorance. Irrelevant. Read it again. It is a sound conclusion that if an I.D. exists it would be a theoretical impossibility for there to be physical evidence of it. It's no different than the sound conclusion that there is no physical evidence for the abstract laws of mathematics. The laws of mathematics are not proven with evidence, but with abstract proof. Your "but there's no evidence!" wailing is irrelevant. Provide a purely logical argument against an I.D. that doesn't rely upon physical evidence, or just submit your claims as unfounded opinion. |
|
|
|
okey, this topic is very hurd. It's extremely easy. Is there any evidence for an invisible Sky Father? No. Is there any evidence for talking snakes? No. Is there any evidence for winged sky humans? No. Case fucking closed. Dude, for the last time, it's already been proven this is a BS argument. You seriously need to go back to a science textbook and read about what Empiricism is. By definition, anything with a real-but-abstract component cannot be comprehensively explored by science. The point is simple -- if an Intelligent Designer exists, there is no physical evidence that could theoretical exist that would prove it. "Case fucking closed." You are correct there is no [empirical] evidence, but there never could be even if an I.D. exists. You'd be wise to concede this point. |
|
|
|
Lol, what the heck, dude. One paragraph...
The opposite reaction is therefore, not real.
... vs. other paragraph Newton's Third Law is about action and reaction, cause and effect. You're not even trying anymore. Go lay down or something. |
|
|
|
Every 3 days (on average) a block will take more than an hour to solve. Although 10 minutes is the average, occasionally it could be much more than this.
An hour is a long time to wait for a single confirmation, especially if Bitcoin becomes widely adopted.
It might not happen very often but this doesn't mean it's acceptable - ( once every 3 years a block will takes more than 2 hours to solve! )
I guess it's hard to propose a solution to this but could the difficulty be reduced (temporarily) if a block has not been solved in say, 20 minutes?
I realize that time is a fuzzy concept in the Bitcoin network so this might fall down if the nodes can't agree on what actually is 20 minutes.
This is just a natural result of probabilities. Sometimes you will need to wait a few hours for a confirmation, and sometimes you will wait a few seconds. As block confirmation times get further away from the 10-minute average (in either direction) the less probable it is. Ten minutes is just the expected time to solve a block based upon difficulty as it relates to network hashrate, but there will always be some variance because solving blocks is a random process. If you want, you can transact in a currency with a shorter average confirmation time. Litecoin's average block confirmation time is 2.5 minutes, but you'll still find occurrences where a litecoin block takes a half-hour or more. It would be about as likely for a litecoin block to be solved in 30 minutes as it would a bitcoin block in two hours. There are also coins which retarget difficulty much more quickly, but this tends towards network instability (i.e. the difficulty varies greatly, and accordingly so do the number of miners). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
