Posts made by FinsterniS

Poor Nazi’s. Just because they lost the war, they get sentanced for a little bit of genocide. Boy, it sure sucks to be them.

You know that not what i said

There is no question that religion has helped in the creation of laws/moral codes/ethics.

Yea… a black and white moral code base on “revelation”… It help a lot…

by the way i was sarcastic…

The droppings of the atomic bombs are justified. It was a military means of ending the war and it was not a deliberate act to kill civillians and destroy cities. In effect, the droppings saved lives.

I’m not fully read up on Sherman and his “march to the sea” to contemplate whether his actions warranted a war crimes trial.

This was idiots, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just place to show how powerfull their little toy were, no real stategic importance. Those who send those bomb get no sentence at the end of the war but they sentence Goring and other Nazi to death; like Goring said at the judgement; “we are here because we loose”. American should have send a bomb on a desolated island first, it would have save life and the japanse would have understand, or at least they would have try to save life, also the number of death was really high, i am not sure it has save life, maybe American life, but not civillian life. But like Great Brittain that throw in the melee people from their colonies in wwi; no americans were judged for their war crime because they win.

Everything design we understand have no designer. Also for Mountain and snowflake, i really don’t understand the need of a designer, you are adding the concept just because it caution your believe, there is no reason to believe that.

About the “sun is at the right place” argument, if it where not at the right place, we would’nt be there to question how it was at the right place, i mean if you roll 10 time a dice with 6 face and you chosse that you will have a baby only if you get 10 time 6, then you roll. There is only 1/(6^10) chance you wil have a baby, if you don,t get 10 time 6, you won’t have a baby so he won’t question anything.

Also if you take all suns and all planet, the probability there is planet at the right place is high, also maybe there is a physical explanation why there is a planet at this place, and if not; there is a probabilictic explanation, so i don,t see anything special in it.

Certainly there is “evidence” - all over the place. The question is what is it evidence of?

evidence of evolution, evidence the young earth creationist are stuck in time. If we look at bacteria; they breed faster than us and they change faster too, virus change very fast, they evolve. Also the dinosaur are a very great pain to those who believe the earth was created 10 000 years ago… (note that their explication is very funny).

If you believe evolution occur, but with the help of god, well that’s a little more coherent, but there is a logico-empirical problem in the reasonning, also a good exemple of the incapacities of the human mind to conceive that intelligence is not the only designer. And the “evey design need designer” argument can be refute by every design we understand… a mountain, a star, a snowflake… The earth itself.

@Wild2000:

@Yanny:

Christians themselves can’t even agree.

Neither can evolutionists. Strange thing is that evolution is based on “hard, undeniable evidence.”

Nothing strange, evolution is based on undeniable evidence, they are just looking how it happen.

About Christianism; it is clearly monotheistic. There is one god.

BTW You did’nt answer me YB.

“I defend the Good God against the idea of a continuous game of dice.”
-Albert Einstein

do you know what it mean ?

Nothing causeless happens.

He certainly know nothing about Quantum physics…

And all the other argument for Desing can be not only correctly and logicaly apply to the “physic’s law”, they can be apply without any disruption of the occam’s razor nor any disruption of anything. YB, i won’t take time to counter evey argument in it; and the “prime factor” argument is for me enough, if god is exluded from the creation of the universe, he is excluded for a lots of things… I explain my view on it lots of time, Falk too, god can hardly be a valid “prime factor” to the universe, you are, as an answer, only showing us your inhability to conceive another creator than your god. The text you send is a well formulated one, but it is still not very scientific in it’s reasonning (the morality part is very funny).

Also CC, by poiting Star, i am pointing out a big desing, that can be explain only by laws without any mythological help. You cannot prove any theory about a desinger with in hand a desing that we understand. If we take life; we put a “desinger” in it because we don’t understand everything, when we will religion will as always retreat. That’s why i am repeating that to prove god; you need ignorance. That is the basis of the god explanation…

Just an exemple about order; n(2^.5) mod1 for n = 1 to 30. While there is no order in 2^.5 modulo 1, there is an order when we look at the graphic of it when multiply by n 30 times, it’s an equipartial, very strange… If this phenomena where in our physic world; like the “earth is perfect place for life” argument of your little PhD, it would have been god ! When there is a strange order somewhere; it is god…

@F_alk:

@yourbuttocks:

Ooh, that is an infinite geometric series, right?

It can be seen as an infinite series, but it’s not at all geometric.

It can a problem in geometry; but in this question it was only an arithmetic question; related to the paradox of the arithmetic continuum.

An other strange one is when you look at two series…

The N numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7…
The “pair”* number; 2, 4, 6, 8, 10…

There is an infinity of N numbers; give any N number X, there is a X + 1 number.

There is an infinity of even number, give any “pair” number X, there is a X + 2 “pair” numbers.

So the two series constitutes an infinity…

It seem to be evident there is more Natural numbers, because all “pair” Number are natural, but all natural numbers are not “pair”, also if you take more than 3 following number, there will always be more Natural numbers… If i ask the question, how many Natural numbers there is ? An infinity… and how many “pair” number ? and infinity.

It does’nt make sence because it implie there is a “larger” infinity, while infinity is the maximum.

• Sorry about the French word, but i really don’t know how “pair” can be translate, par ? even ?

haha, infinity my old friend, we can’t live with it, and we can’t live without it. Don’t worry i will answer, but i’ll wait a little…

I read through the first section, and it was a pain. It hurt, being so full of inconsistencies.
That’s too much to go into detail, unless you ask politely for it .

For the last section, the infinite time argument, i will make up another thread.

Completly agree, it is full of logical fallacies.

I also find it pretty dishonorable from YB, i can give you entire and long text about why god does exist, that you will need a week to refute. This text is not always stupid, but when it come to the conclusion that “god exist”, it is incoherent. Also the guys clearly lack some knowledge in physics, when he say everything is caused, he lack some basic understanding of quantum physics. When he say the argument about intelligent desing, he is completly incoherent with himself; the simple exemple of a Star can disprove most of his claim about desing and why physical law cannot be the disigner. Also he is making a very poor fallacies when stating that the cause of the universe must be god. And the morality thing is clearly funny, when he say “morality” exist, then god exist, he only refer as evidence the fact that morality exist.

If you want to use his text to help you make argument against me; it’s ok, but don’t throw at me text like that; it will never finish and if you are unable to formulate an argument yourself even with text; you will have problem in university.

@TG:

Yes, another problem would be if there would be capital punishment under the ICC.

I don’t think Europe would accept capital punishment.

Also why i vote yes is that one day, we will need an international court to juge war crime fairly, not the “justice of the victor”, but a fair judgement. I don’t know if this court will work out, but i think we must put hope in it.

Also i am strongly against what Horten said about “immunity for NATO member”, no single country should have immunity, this is against every basic principle of justice. All country outise NATO would find this to be unfair; and it would be !

Moses, I agree that the U.S. has impacted Africa negatively, however, not nearly as much as France, Britian, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Portugal, or the Netherlands. I explained this in the humanitarian post.

Why France is always the first on your list ? Simple coincidence ?

Exactly, you seem more to be like the complete opposite of communism economically and also from an ideological point of view…

Apparently, producers don’t like to raise their stock in open door environments – it makes the meat
tough, though your “egg info” might be correct.

oh no no, it’s more simple, produces don’t like to raise their stock in open door; it cost more than puting them in small case. And No, in does’nt make the meat tough, the animal live with less stress, chicken make tougher egg and the meat is tender… But this is maybe not all due to the “open door” thing, they also don’t get hormone to grow faster.

@TM:

“Beef, it’s what’s for dinner.”

The world can not go around eating meat forever. Animals have rights too! :(

You forget they have no soul, they have been created by the almighy god to serve us.

No seriously, if we could only eat chicken it would be enough… And we sould treat them a little better. My wife get me into an abbatoir once… that is really sick. We are kind of hypocrit, we eat them like they are objects, but we would certainly not all be able to kill the animals ourself. Anyway, we should’nt eat beef and things like that so expensive for our natural ressource, and we should at least give the animal a little more space before they die. If not for them then for ourself ! Is someone here ever bought eggs from free chicken ? Well the shell is harder and the egg taste better (really)… Same thing for chicken.

If I may not trouble anyone so much, but what is wrong with the ‘International Criminal Court treaty?’ I think it would be a step up from the United Nations, and that most European countries are for the treaty. What is wrong with this?

Americans are afraid their own CO would be judged :)

I find ridicoulus the “America have immunity” thing… That is’nt justice.

I just wish this Court will work out, it could be a great thing if it work…

First YB, Most buddhist does not believe in a personnal god, they are NOT theist in a very large proportion.

And i am a left-liberal, so you have the right to call me a leftish-european.

@cystic:

My support of the “85%” argument is simply that if it is unlikely that the concept of “god” to be the product of some psychosis, or a simple irrational (childlike - if you will) belief - i.e. there are more numbers supporting a real “god” than the number of crazy people who also support a real “toothfairy”.

I partially agree

First i agree that it is not a mental sickess, but it IS an irrational belief for most people.

We must look at the history behind religion, in the first step of judaism, the Hebrew create a global philosophy, just like Plato and Aristotle, that was an explanation of Moral, of the Human race, of Animals and also of Nature. A religion is a philosophy frozen in time, it does not evolve, or if it does; very slowly.

Also - most people do not know how to treat a sickness, however clinical trials use many people to show us how to treat an illness, and we use the numbers to determine whether or not to use a drug.

Most people does not have any reason to believe in god.

Also - it is unscientific to say “God created the world - i know for a fact” just as it is also unscientific to say “There is no God - i know for a fact”. Also science is not the enemy of religion, but a complimentor of it. But we’ve been through this before.

I disagree, there is nothing unscientific not to believe in a myth created by human being 2 000 years ago, if there was evidence for god, i would be more sceptical, but what i heard is only fallacious argument, scientific deformation, attack against current scientific theory (well, that’s a fallacious argument) and the “There is so much evidence you just don’t see them” argument… So i won’t be convinced easily.

I have not a lot of certitude; but god is a lie. I am as certain he does not exist as i am certain the earth is not flat, and every year.

With regards to the staying power of Christianity - i was referring to the fact that so many people are martyred for their faith, keeping Christianity and various sects of it alive. That’s kind of: A) crazy or B) evidence of something powerful working in their lives.

We can argue forever about it, i cannot disprove god by A and you cannot prove god by B. But people die for other false god, for other religion, human sacriface were common in some polytheistic religion. Were they fool ? Sure they did not all decided to do so… but somes does.

Really, i don’t know. you havn’t really posed a question. You are correct, that statement would be fallacious, but again, i think that YB’s argument is that there might be something behind a concept if it is widely supported. Maybe not always a good thing, but there is a real force behind it.

Sure there is a real force behind religion ! The will of those who strongly believe is the force behind religion. People in general are really slow, i don’t think evolution is a very common belief, while most scientist are’nt working on proving evolution occur anymore but just how it occur.

Falk,

I understand, and i will crush the last particles of determinist i have gather :) . That would not be too hard, i don’t like to be in the same side as Einstein on this subject, i don’t consider he was really objective and his view on determinism were close to fanatism (like i think, but i am not sure, he continue to teach theory about a Static universe while the theory was rather weak)

@TG:

Along with other information when relating to this article, “you cannot deny the existence of the paranormal”

Well, a lot of thing we consider paranormal now are part of our vision of the world. Nonlocality is a good exemple of it… The fact that an atom can influence another without touching it would have been consider paranormal by Newton… Other phenomena like invisibility can seem paranormal for someone without any scientific knowledge… All is a question of standpoint. What now is paranormal, can be consider scientific tomorrow.