Comments by Wosret

Comment #274829 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 12:02 pm

9825. Comment #274828 by decius

Yes, but why is that important? Why should an event that might have utility trump one that does not? Isn't it because you think so?

1152. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #274826 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 11:59 am

9819. Comment #274813 by Frankus1122

Inherent, and intrinsic excellence is what does that for me.

1153. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #274820 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 11:56 am

9817. Comment #274809 by decius

I see the importance being assigned in all cases. You merely agree with one, and not the other.

1154. Atheist Bus Campaign Comic

Comment #274817 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 11:53 am

15. Comment #274773 by mismos00

Only the ugly and stupid ones do.

1155. Atheist Bus Campaign Comic

Comment #274815 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 11:51 am

10. Comment #274743 by notreallyalice

Wow, you deciphered that enigma...I'm impressed.

1156. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #274799 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 11:36 am

9811. Comment #274794 by decius

What is the standard by which somethings importantness is judged? Or is importantness a quality of the thing itself?

1157. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #274791 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 11:28 am

9801. Comment #274784 by decius

What is "naturally important"?

1158. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #274789 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 11:26 am

9797. Comment #274780 by decius

As a matter of fact, I don't celebrate mine

Me either...but that's because no one loves me...it's too painful...

1159. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #274785 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 11:23 am

Also, for the record. I am above puns. Puns are lame.

Now, double entendres, those are were it's at!

1160. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #274783 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 11:21 am

9774. Comment #274748 by decius

I watched the move "The Number 23" while I was 23 years old. That must mean something!

1161. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #274711 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 10:39 am

98. Comment #274694 by Steve Zara

Then I think we have reached a stalemate. You can take solus in knowing that you are largely responsible for swaying my opinions on the multiverse, but I remain far more skeptical of "fine tuning".

Perhaps with time you will soften me to that as well.

1162. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #274702 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 10:33 am

199. Comment #274405 by Mark Barratt

I should apologize. When I first replied to you, I said that your post was "nonsense" which was tactless, and needlessly confrontational.

You would have been almost certainly far more amendable to my criticism if I wasn't such a dick about it.

Sorry.

1163. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #274692 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 10:25 am

96. Comment #274679 by Steve Zara

How do they test their viability?

1164. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #274688 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 10:23 am

202. Comment #274681 by Steve Zara

What I find bizarre is the idea that you can decide an event supernatural even before it occurs, let alone after.

Almost every event was claimed to be supernatural at one time or another.

1165. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #274680 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 10:11 am

You are attacking the very idea of using so-called “supernatural” events as evidence of the supernatural. This is fine, but as events presented by supernaturalists as evidence for the “supernatural” are never actually shown to happen, your point is entirely hypothetical. You are talking about approaches to dealing with a situation that never occurs. If it did come up, then you’d have the response ready, but as far as I know it is yet to be an issue.

...
...
...
...

I see no reason to continue reading if you think this is what I've been saying. I repeatedly made the point that it was not hypothetical. I gave examples of events that do occur and are claimed to be supernatural.

1166. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #274678 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 10:06 am

91. Comment #274672 by Steve Zara

On the contrary, it looks very likely. As I have posted on other threads, the models of forces and particles that are thought of as likely to be the best explanation for the way things are don't have unique solutions.

We don't know what the actual possible physical parameters allowed in any possible universe is, so it remains conjecture. When they figure that out, I'll be interested.

There is also the Copernican Principle. Every time we have tried to put limits on our place in reality, we have been wrong. First the Earth was at the centre of things, then the Sun, then the Solar System was considered special, then we thought our galaxy was all that there was, and now some people think our cosmos is the limit. I think there is a lesson to be learned here.

I agree, it warns against positing flimsy conjecture without sufficient physical evidence, and basing your assertions off of models and mathematics that you do not know if they accurately represent the world.

I don't think the universe is special. I see no reason to assume that.

The universe, as I understand it, and use the word, is the totality of known and supposed things in existence. It isn't a thing, in and of itself, it is the totality of everything, so your statement makes no sense with respect to how I use the word.

If there is a multiverse, and it appears likely to me (keep in mind that disagreeing with the premise of fine tuning is not the same as disagreeing with the premise of the multiverse. Every local universe could be life sustaining for all we know. We don't know what the physical parameters allowed for are.), it is part of the universe by virtue of existing.

1167. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #274671 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 9:54 am

89. Comment #274668 by NewEnglandBob

Apologists lay out their arguments, as he did, and then use a principle called "inference to the best explanation". Meaning that if you can't give an explanation, that makes theirs superior in virtue of being one.

You should not attempt to play their game, as Hitchens did not. You should point out the inanity of their foundations instead.

Personally I would have pointed out that his "explanation" is merely a conspiracy theory that basically goes "at some time, some person, did something, somehow". They can give absolutely no evidence, or even coherent musings about the details, so it is not an explanation in any sense of the word.

1168. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #274665 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 9:46 am

86. Comment #274659 by Steve Zara

I think that I have real solid criticisms to the idea, and this: "After all, if the atoms we are made of were in a different configuration, we would not be here to talk about it, so the problem is meaningless." is not one of them. I know that you meant to highlight that you don't mean me, but addressing that some people may latch onto the idea that there isn't a problem for emotional reasons is neither here nor there. This is likely true, and equally true of the antitheses.

I never suggested that we shouldn't trying to explain the universe, or try to explain anything. What I have said is that saying that the universe could have turned out a trillion different ways is unjustified. Until we know whether, and to what degrees the parameters of the universe can vary, I think that asserting this is at the very least unhelpful.

I am not skeptical that there is a "fine tuning" problem because I'm afraid theists latch on. They latch on to everything. My epistemological arguments I think are more than sufficient to refute any supernatural assertions, and in any situation. In fact, if I were in a debate, that is almost certainly how I would attempt to refute the cosmological argument. I would likely also use some information about physics, but tentatively because I don't understand it very well, and I wouldn't want to get anything wrong. I think that denying that there is a problem in that platform would look like I was attempting to dodge it, so whether I agreed with it or not, I think that it is quite refutable even if it is the case. So that would be, I think, the best thing to do in that situation.

1169. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #274654 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 9:26 am

80. Comment #274633 by Steve Zara

That is fine. That is not the same as saying that the problem of fine tuning does not exist. That is all I am saying.

It isn't obvious to me that there is a problem. No more than why a coin lands on either heads or tails when I flip it. I can construct a million scenarios where it does a million different possible things, that it won't do when I actually flip the coin.

If more physicists and cosmologists agreed that there was a problem, then I would take their word for it, but from what I've read, there are a significant number that don't think that there is.

1170. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #274643 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 9:09 am

9741. Comment #274639 by Steve Zara

Makes sense. Then I'll back your nomination of Titania, despite her making of the fun.

1171. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #274637 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 9:05 am

9724. Comment #274616 by Steve Zara

I nominate myself! Because I'm awesome, and thus deserve it by virtue of that fact.

1172. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #274625 by Wosret on October 30, 2008 at 8:54 am

9676. Comment #274316 by Laurie Fraser

Rofl! That has to be tongue-in-cheek. The proposition isn't even coherent.

I'm not the marrying type, but there are plenty of them I wouldn't mind having marital relations with.

Though, I'm actually mostly a fan of romance, so I like couples, not so much individuals. Though I like Tenjou Utena enough, and dislike Himemiya Anthy enough that I wouldn't be adversed to stealing Utena away. She can be my prince any time.

1173. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #274283 by Wosret on October 29, 2008 at 9:18 pm

9662. Comment #274278 by Sarmatae1

So a third candidate has a chance of winning? Is this what you are saying?

Do I vote for someone because they are popular? No I voted in hopes of getting Stephane Dion as Prime Minister. Even though he was my Candidate of choice, I was most interested in keeping Stephen Harbor from acquiring a majority government, so I would have voted NDP if they had been ahead of the Liberals in my area.

You have to be realistic. It matters not who you think is best for the job (taking the wheel of the van), what happens is who is available to actually take the wheel. Voting for someone who doesn't have a possibility of taking the wheel is just throwing your vote away, and not recognizing that even if the two available drivers are not your favorite choice, that one of them is better, in comparison to the other.

1174. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #274266 by Wosret on October 29, 2008 at 8:23 pm

9652. Comment #274243 by Sarmatae1

You forgot to mention that driver A isn't in the van, and thus has absolutely no possibility of taking the wheel.

1175. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #274262 by Wosret on October 29, 2008 at 8:19 pm

My ??? works. Proof 9,467,248 of my greatness.

1176. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #274237 by Wosret on October 29, 2008 at 7:22 pm

I thought that Hitchens didn't get interesting until the question period. Only then did he start to turn on his characteristic charm and wit.

26. Comment #274225 by Count von Count

The concept of universal justice, eternal life, and supernatural powers. I find those very appealing on an emotional level.

There has never been an argument for theism that I didn't find absurd, or completely obliterated by the evidence on an intellectual level however.

Take Turek's proposition at the end of his "cosmological argument" (that revealed less knowledge in the field than I possess, and I possess very little). Pretend that his argument was coherent, and just take his proposition. "What is more likely, that a supernatural person caused the universe, or some natural physical event did?" (this isn't precisely how he put it, but I don't think it is a misrepresentation). I find the answer to that to be clear.

1177. Dole Ad Fabricates Audio Of Opponent Yelling 'There Is No God'

Comment #274162 by Wosret on October 29, 2008 at 4:56 pm

It must sting being an atheist in North Carolina right about now.

P.S. I hope she still delivers the blood of christian virgins that Hagan promised for that atheist money. We totally need that!

1178. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #274024 by Wosret on October 29, 2008 at 2:05 pm

195. Comment #273630 by Mark Barratt

You appear congenitally incapable of grasping my criticism. I'll attempt to explain it a third time.

By talking about "such events" you are merely talking about things that are claimed to have supernaturally origins, and then by allowing this classification you are tacitly accepting the premise.

Life, the universe, and consciousness are constantly asserted as having supernatural origins, and their natural origins we cannot fully explain. There is no difference. The only difference is that these events occur, while the others -- to the best of our knowledge -- do not. So what if they did? You have yet again failed to elucidate a point. The assertion that they are supernatural is not justified -- whether they occur or not -- and your acceptance of them as such is misleading, and only works to confuse -- whether they occur or not.

You are denying events as a class, when the class itself isn't a class at all. All they are is events without natural explanations.

I am not saying that if "such events" (events without natural explanations, which actually do occur) occurred it would then be unjustified to call them supernatural. I am saying that it is fundamentally and in principle always unjustified to do this, whether an event occurs or not.

(because nature is all that exists, so anything that isn’t part of nature cannot exist by definition, let alone interfere with nature)

Now it makes sense why you are not understanding my criticism. That is not why the supernatural should be rejected. That is an argument by assertion, which requires the same omniscience that asserting that something is supernatural does.

As I argued above, the supernatural should be rejected on epistemic grounds. Based on the limits of human knowledge. It isn't because the supernatural is impossible (I suspect that it is, but I can't know this without a complete knowledge of all that exists), it is because identifying whether an event was a supernatural event or not is impossible.

It is rather vexing how many people just reject the supernatural as impossible, and thus all events that are decidedly supernatural -- under what criterion, I don't know -- are merely rejected as impossible. Then they call themselves "rationalists". The reasoning underlining such a position is anything but.

1179. Richard Dawkins embarrassed after death and subsequent resurrection

Comment #273967 by Wosret on October 29, 2008 at 12:57 pm

28. Comment #273907 by Ascaphus

Nothing.

1180. Richard Dawkins embarrassed after death and subsequent resurrection

Comment #273913 by Wosret on October 29, 2008 at 12:02 pm

32. Comment #273911 by Steve Zara

I wouldn't. Though I'd far rather Son Goku's power.

I've thought about that at lot, I'd only be able to ever use a minute, insignificant fraction of it for fear of hurting something though...so lame.

1181. Richard Dawkins embarrassed after death and subsequent resurrection

Comment #273887 by Wosret on October 29, 2008 at 11:34 am

Funny...

1182. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #273825 by Wosret on October 29, 2008 at 10:15 am

9537. Comment #273814 by Sciros

I have a degree in 3d graphic design, which included work with photoshop. I have CS3 photoshop and illustrator.

I find Ulead is good for turning video into animated gifs. It is rather time consuming though. It only allows ten frames per second, so I need to remove roughly 60-70% of the frames in a video. This has to be done by hand, so that no important frames are removed, during faster motion.

I cut some corners though. I use winAVI to reduce the size, and then double the speed in windows movie maker. Increasing the speed by any more than that will result in too many important frames missing. I have to manually remove the frames required to make it move at a normal speed from there.

There could be better ways to make these, I didn't read any tutorials, I just invented this method.

1183. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #273796 by Wosret on October 29, 2008 at 9:39 am

9529. Comment #273792 by Sciros

Yeah, my connection is pretty fast, and I live in the middle of no where, beside a swamp. Yeah, I could reduce the quality, but I did the opposite, I increased the default quality to as good as it could go. I don't think it's really worth the effort otherwise.

I use Ulead GIF Animator 5.

1184. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #273788 by Wosret on October 29, 2008 at 9:31 am

9525. Comment #273784 by Sciros

Nah, the website I started with my friend is where I'm hosting it. He has unlimited bandwidth, so it's cool. I was worried about finding a place to host them. This one is a monster too, it's just under 8mb. Froze my gif program making this about 6 times. Really pushed the frame limit. 4gb of memory and it was a real strain on my machine to make this.

I will likely make one of the Hare Hare Yukai dance once I get sick of this one.

Thanks for the offer though.

1185. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #273781 by Wosret on October 29, 2008 at 9:22 am

9520. Comment #273775 by Sciros

Totally. Took like two hours to make, and I have to host it myself, but it is totally worth it.

1186. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #273772 by Wosret on October 29, 2008 at 9:12 am

9517. Comment #273771 by Titania

Thought you weren't bothered by lawyer jokes? Weakness revealed!!

1187. Sarah Palin's War on Science

Comment #273485 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 6:49 pm

36. Comment #273482 by Bonzai

Lame!

1188. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #273483 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 6:48 pm

385. Comment #273472 by Bonzai

"Women, eh? Who needs 'em!"

"You a quarterback, or a receiver?"

"Want to double your wardrobe?"

"You look good in those chaps."

1189. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #273461 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 6:00 pm

378. Comment #273459 by Steve Zara

I think he means "ice breakers". Something to start a conversation with.

"So...I see that you are also in this general location."

1190. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #273455 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 5:43 pm

9422. Comment #273438 by Brian English

Modesty is for people that suck.

1191. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #273453 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 5:42 pm

9421. Comment #273437 by Bonzai

Indeed quite brilliant.

I refrain from eating out because of the high waste margin of resturaunts. Also because I'm poor, but mostly the former reason.

I also buy the food that will soon expire when I shop, so that it is not thrown away.

When I'm not poor, someday -- if that ever happens -- I have an ultimate goal of growing my own food.

I agree with everything you've said. Very well stated.

1192. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #273448 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 5:20 pm

373. Comment #273445 by Brian English

"Are your legs tired? Because you've been runnin' in and out of my head all day".

"Show me your genitals".

"I have copons for a reasonably priced resturaunt".

"We're probably not really related."

"You're fat, and you're ugly, but I'll fuck you anyway".

"What do you charge for an hour?"

"Please, accept this one-hundred pecent not drugged beverage."

"I just got out of prison, would you care to join me in my minivan?"

"Could you put on this squirrel costume for me?"

"What is your bloodtype, and do you have any history of mental illness in your family?"

Those are only a few of the pickup lines I occasionally employ.

1193. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #273443 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Wish Vulcans were real. They are so much like elves that it isn't funny.

They are taller, more slender, have pointy ears, and live hundreds of years.

Both elf girls, and vulcan girls are damn hot. Plus, as you aged, they wouldn't. Score!

1194. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #273418 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Comment 251, Steve.

1195. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #273416 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 4:36 pm

355. Comment #273414 by Steve Zara

For the pages of reasons I gave in my exchange. I also recall you saying something that seemed like agreement to me... Let me look.

1196. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #273412 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Since this conversation has continued, I feel that I should again reiterate that I am not adverse to the multiverse theory, and I think that it is quite possibly correct. I was specificially taking a position against the notion that it can be invoked to explain away apparent "fine tuning".

1197. Sarah Palin's War on Science

Comment #273334 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Superb as always. I very much hope that everyone sees the importance of keeping her as far away from the White House as possible.

1198. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #273293 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 1:03 pm

185. Comment #273289 by Mark Barratt

...define "such events" and then explain why they belong in a certain class, and what the significance of them are.

The argument I put forward was simply a way to show how the way things work in well-thought out fantasy worlds can be used by sceptics to effectively repudiate charges of closed-mindedness when we reject paranormal claims.

Not without accepting that if they occurred they would have supernatural origins.

So it is a very poor argument indeed.

1199. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #273286 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 12:44 pm

182. Comment #273272 by Mark Barratt

You clearly said, and multiple times that events happening in the real world like that would be evidence/proof of the supernatural. They would not be. In any sense. For the reasons given.

Nothing can serve as such evidence.

Taking this away, then I see no point left in your post. Perhaps I'm just slow though, and you could outline it for me. Precisely what you mean.

We deny (the ones that know better) the supernatural on epistemic grounds. It doesn't matter if all of the events taken as supernatural started happening -- or were proved to happen -- this does not in any way serve as evidence for the supernatural.

The supernatural is in principle unprovable.

1200. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #273248 by Wosret on October 28, 2008 at 11:18 am

Marry was suppose to be a thirteen year old girl at the time too wasn't she? So even if she did consent, in most western countries that would be statutory rape.

So no matter which way you look at it, Yahweh is a rapist.