Recent posts by MrRubix on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Game Programming / AS3 Save/loadgame function

Ahh, interesting.

What I mean, though, is the actual implementation of the saving process. As in, a non-naive, decent way to pass in arbitrary parameters to be saved to the sol/sharedobject.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Game Programming / AS3 Save/loadgame function

Not exactly what I am asking (I think), but thanks for that anyway — what’s the difference?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Game Programming / AS3 Save/loadgame function

How do most of you go about these functions? Do you have implementation sort of sprawled out through the game or is it more prudent to simply make a centralized public static/singleton savegame/loadgame class that handles any number of arbitrary passed parameters or something?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Game Programming / Sprite clipping/chopping?

I made a basic Pong clone for practice. The ball, which is a simple drawCircle object, is fairly choppy when it moves. Most of the time it’s smooth, but from time to time, it appears to clip/chop and look like a fourth of the ball has been hacked off for a few seconds at a time.

I’ve tried fiddling with the speed of its movement and the framerate settings but to no avail. There’s nothing unreasonable or slow in the code either. What are the possible causes of this?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Game Programming / Good tutorials for FlashDevelop?

So I figured I’d give game design a crack, but I loathe the Adobe CS5 IDE and want to avoid it as much as I possibly can.

As a result, I installed FlashDevelop, which seems promising — but I can’t find any decent tutorials with good AS3 practices. I’ve already read through the stickies. Any further pointers in the right direction would be much appreciated. Thanks!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Official Kong Plus Thread

Seems a tad pricey for what you get; but then again this comes across to me as more of a “show your support” type of deal.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / World without Religion: Better or Worse?

Obviously better without

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / 99% vs 53%

Not at all, lol. You’d think that some people would learn, though, but eh.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / 99% vs 53%

The ignorance is this thread is so painful, aaagggghhhh

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Implications of Faster Than Light Neutrino Travel

Neutrinos are ****hard to detect as they are.

If you’ve got a neutrino going 730.085 kilometers at c, we would expect it to take:

7.30085 * 10^14 nanometers / (2.99792458 * 10^17 nanometers/sec) = 0.00243530142 seconds, or 2435301.42 nanoseconds.

Minus about 60 ns, that’s 2435241.42 nanoseconds. If we see that the neutrinos arrived 60 ns early, this implies:

7.30085 * 10^14 nanometers / 0.00243524142 seconds = 2.99799845 * 10^17 nanometers per second, or 299799845 meters per second, or a new “speed limit” of something like 1.00002464c, ballpark figure.

Consider supernova SN 1987A, the supernova that gave rise to neutrino astronomy, 168,000 lightyears away. If neutrinos are that much faster than light, we’d expect to see them arrive early by 168,000*(1-1/1.00002464) = about 4.139418 years. And yet, experimentally, that’s not what we saw. The neutrinos arrived something like 3 hours before the light did over a distance of 168,000 lightyears — NOT 4 years sooner.

So you might be wondering “OK Rubix, but the neutrinos still got here first! Explain THAT, whore!” When a supernova kicks off, the energy release begins in the core — it takes time for the shockwave to reach the surface, but neutrinos don’t have any such resistance from from the cool shock front and get a few hours head start. That time difference is exactly what we saw, even after all those years of traveling at crazy speeds over crazy distances.

In other words, I trust the data from the 168,000-lightyear supernova + the countless number of verifications we’ve had from Einstein’s theory, over some probably-bullshit miscalibration or software rounding error somewhere (especially in that PolaRx2e GPS receiver they used which probably isn’t typically used for nanosecond-magnitude measurements over hundreds of kilometers of distance).

I really, really expect this one to be put under.

Read this if you want to learn more about the experiment itself — it’s a solid experiment, but I don’t trust the software. It’s not normally used to perform nanosecond-level operations over such a large distance, which means less testing probably went into error corrections.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897

EDIT: Haha, Jan is still butthurt over those past arguments? The stuff I quizzed him on was actually very much relevant — it was aimed to reveal ignorance of vital points that shut down his entire stance. Resorting to character attacks is the last resort of someone who has no real argument and can’t admit that they are ill-equipped to understand what science is actually able to explain. I’m not bringing this up to start another fight, but I happened to notice Jan’s completely untrue comment and felt the need to correct the lie.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proof that god is fake

Not everything that is complex is created.

Explaining how human life, planets, galaxies, and so forth came about through natural laws of the universe is not hard to do. We’ve got that understanding pinned down.

The hard part is explaining where the universe came from. But even after you answer that, you have to ask where that entity came from. At some point, you have to just accept that existence exists.

There’s good evidence to suggest that our universe is not the only one. But it still doesn’t explain the mechanism behind cosmic evolution. We may never know the answer to that.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proof that god is fake

Originally posted by DarkBaron:

I must be missing something here. Why take offense at being called ignorant? I’m ignorant in so many fields, it’s not even funny — yet I have no problem admitting I don’t know stuff.

Since when is ignorance synonymous with stupidity? Take the Drake Equation for example, for funding extraterrestrial life. We’re basically organizing our ignorance into an equation, so as to better tackle it. Is this coming about from scientific illiteracy, or something?

Exactly. Like I said, ignorance is no crime. We’re all ignorant of things. But I wouldn’t dare say that I know something to be true in an area of which I am ignorant. That is close-minded arrogance.

I do think that “scientifically illiterate” is perhaps a less abrasive synonym because some people do interpret “ignorant” to mean “idiot” which isn’t the case (although many “idiots” are also ignorant).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proof that god is fake

Give me an example of an argument I put forth to which you responded back with the same logic that I called invalid.

It’s not a personal jab to call someone ignorant when they are ignorant of something. Ignorance is not just as valid as knowledge. It’s not mean or closeminded just because someone is not willing to blatantly ignore what they do know for the sake of entertaining a view that is already deeply understood as having plenty of problems for reasons explicitly stated.

It’s not trolling.

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification
http://people.howstuffworks.com/eyewitnesses-unreliable.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_religious_experience#Suggested_reasons_for_disputing_the_premise
http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/religexperience.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8VaBCikHGs

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proof that god is fake

You accused me of diverting funds away from nursing homes and churches “because they’re full of ignorants” for the sake of funding research laboratories. For one thing, this is completely unfounded and borderline trolling. Secondly, there is a difference between taking something at face value and taking something literally to the point of absurdity. When I said “we should divert funds to help the ignorants instead,” I was obviously referring to promoting and fueling education (which has been central to my arguments in every single one of these God threads to date). How on earth did you interpret any of that as “we should steal from people and skim people’s accounts on the sly, and since I work in finance, I am in a great spot to do this”?

Not only is this extremely illogical and hardly “filling in the dots,” but it’s ignorant of how finance works, ignorant of what I actually do in finance, and totally irrelevant to this discussion. It has no place in a serious discussion forum.

And you aren’t “using my own logic” back at me because your arguments do not carry the same logic my arguments are putting forth. I’ve explained to you why your arguments are invalid on their own grounds.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proof that god is fake

Vika:

This isn’t “my point of view.” It’s science. It’s true for you whether you want to believe it or not.

I claim that truths about our reality are scientific. We perform experiments all the time — we just don’t typically call it “the scientific method” in the way we think of people testing something in a controlled experiment/lab. But yes, truths about reality are empirical and scientific. It’s either got to be true or not. Otherwise, it’s simply down to your opinion, which may or may not be true.

I have plenty of right to report my car as stolen because I am the one who uses the car. If I find that my car is gone, the only way it would not be stolen is if my car were towed or if I had a wicked hangover I somehow forgot about, winding up in a “Dude Where’s My Car?”-esque scenario. But if no tow companies let me know or report that they’ve towed me, and I know I’ve maintained a clear head, I can safely claim my car was stolen (especially so if I am still holding the keys).

The scenario of claiming that my car was stolen, there, is much more valid than claiming souls exist because of some random experience you had one time where the evidence was shaky and likely to have multiple interpretations, all of which are much more likely to be empirically true.

Actually, they are, as both have -if you are prepared to step outside your comfort zone for the merest fraction of a second – actual evidence to support them. Not that I believe for a second you are willing to consider any evidence that conflicts with your already established views.

This is why I claim you’re pulling a false dialectic, because they are not equally valid claims. Just because I’m not going to entertain your eyewitness testimony doesn’t mean I’m refusing to “step outside my comfort zone” or accept evidence. As a scientist, one has to accept evidence. But eyewitness testimony is a well-understood and demonstrably shoddy metric of truth. If you want someone to accept your evidence as true, you need to offer something more definitive than eyewitness testimony. I feel like you don’t understand what it means to say one claim is more valid than another.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/valid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Grounds_of_validity_of_scientific_reasoning

Again, those two claims are not equally valid.

Exactly the same can be said for seyances, and video evidence of occurings within them. The difference is, your rigorous mind refuses to accept any evidence that disagrees with the conclusions you have already drawn; which evidence you will and will not accept.

Video evidence of what, precisely?

Because of course, many=all. Of course it does. Except when dealing with mainstream science. That is somehow special.

I say “many” because in some cases, no physical explanation has been found yet. That doesn’t mean you can invoke argument from ignorance and claim that just because you don’t know something, you can invoke something as true in its place.

1. You have never […] beliefs up?

I have been to a seance, actually. And there’s nothing there that can’t be explained in terms of misguided individuals or physical phenomena. I do not think religious people are drug addicts (wtf? What is with all the strawmen, today?), and obviously many people would wish they could contact those they knew in life.

But so what? What you are arguing is that something that occurs with little to no evidence is sufficient grounds for accepting something as true even though there are multiple alternative empirical explanations that are all infinitely more plausible.

I’m not saying all events need to be in triplicate in order for it to be true, but they need to rely on concepts that, sure, have been well-established. The case of having a car stolen is based on consistencies and constructs that have been tested countless times in our reality. Having some isolated religious experience is not based on anything consistent and is thusly arbitrary and prone to much empirical error.

Nope that was your logic. As you attacked both Janton and I with, if its not the scientific method we are clearly ignorants for believing in it. Thus if you see a surgeon operating by feel, I trust you will grab a fire extinguisher, rush in and club him soundly over the head with it. Then you will take over the operation. You might not be as good with your hands but at least you can use pure scientific method to complete the operation. Whether the patient lives or dies is irrelevant after all. That the scientific method was used for the operation is paramount.

Well, its either that, or you are forced to admit that sometimes there are cases when rigorous application of the scientific method is not the best way. But, I can see that happening when Neilhim freezes over.

You’re misinterpreting what is meant by “applying the scientific method.” It’s not always doing a controlled experiment in a lab repeatedly or something, which you seem to be implying. It’s using empirical reason and consistent frameworks we can rely on. They are still scientific. Doing something “by feel” falls into this. This is why your example is an inadequate counterpoint to my argument.

Wasn’t a strawman. It was a direct attack. One which you have conveniently neglected to answer. Since you are so adamant that we who are prepared to investigate or move through life using other methods as well as the scientific method are morons and ignorant savages, and further that you work in finance, it seems a foregone conclusion that you are perfectly placed to syphon funds from our accounts on the sly, so as to punish us for not holding your method most holy. Funnelling those funds into your own accounts or those of institutions you deem worthy.

Are you saying you were asking a direct question? In that case, I haven’t donated to churches, nor have I donated to science, either.

And holy crap, you’re seriously going to use my finance background in that kind of attack by implying I am somehow able to siphon funds from those I deem “unworthy”? This is outright ignorant and I can’t believe you’re seriously arguing that.

This is disgusting. I’m reporting both of you. The way you guys carry out these arguments has no place here if you’re going to weave arguments in these directions.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proof that god is fake

Jan:

I say “you can’t read” because you frequently misinterpret what I am saying to you. I don’t know how else to address that than by saying you either can’t read or you’re intentionally trolling me. Either way, you keep putting words in my mouth. I am telling you to take what I am saying at face value. Go ahead and pull a Vanguard on me and I’ll have you removed (“let’s see how long you last” indeed). I’m not the one being unreasonable, here. The onus is not on me to constantly need to “correct” myself when you’re intentionally choosing to skew what I am telling you and assume I mean something else when I’m not. Take what I am saying to you directly, stick to the points, or I will report you.

At any rate, I’m not calling people morons. I’m calling them ignorant. Everyone is guilty of ignorance. It’s a state of being unaware or not knowing something. Ignorance is no crime, but it requires correction.

It is your inability to understand logic because, for instance, you take my statement of “emotional appeals are a poor metric for establishing truths” and skew it by saying “well you must then think we shouldn’t use emotional appeals for moral cases like gay marriage” or something similar, when I am obviously not arguing this. I’m saying physical reality doesn’t conform to emotions. Period. It does not care about what you think. If you’re making a physical/scientific claim based off emotion, it’s not always going to be true. You also don’t really get around this by claiming that your belief is not physical or empirical in any way. If that’s the case, then what you’re describing is not a function of reality and is therefore indistinguishable from a non-claim altogether.

Ah, well here’s another problem. See, Vika and I aren’t going against ‘pure objective logic’ here. We’re going against YOUR take on logic. Hence ‘sufficient or correct’ doesn’t actually mean anything, except to you. And it offers no standard for what qualifies as evidence to you. But I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that it wouldn’t matter anyway. If you don’t believe in alternative forms of evidence, if you think everything except empiricism is bullshit, then I can name a hundred examples and you’ll call bullshit every time.

Answer me this: Define false dialectic for me. There is a good chance that you are not understanding what I mean when I say you continue to commit this fallacy because you repeatedly ignore it and continue committing the fallacy.

What I am arguing is not “my take on logic.” It’s just logic. Vika’s claim is demonstrably incorrect with respect to what she’s arguing. She argued that I was arguing that unless something conforms to the scientific method, it can’t be accurate or right. She then gave an example of a surgeon doing something “by feel” and posing a strawman scenario in which I get angry at him for doing this. This example is incorrect. For one thing, I’m not arguing that you need to apply the strict scientific method to every context. That is obviously nonsensical. What I am saying is that everything empirical still relies on a scientific basis, as we go through the scientific process all the time whether we realize it or not. Doing something “by feel” is still physical in its scope. You may as well call it a “theory of feeling.” You know that if you move your fingers to touch something, when that event occurs, you feel something, and what you feel corresponds to what you touch, which you can see with your eyes. This phenomenon is generally consistent and predictive. You can take this example further and further and further, but my point is that it’s all “scientific” at the most basic level.

You still have not given me an example of alternative evidence that isn’t a value claim or scientific in its scope.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proof that god is fake

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

The problem I am illustrating is precisely when you say “The difference is for me, that’s good enough.” This is my entire argument here. When you are ignorant, you’re more likely to accept emotional truths as “good enough.” Your “soul” belief might be benign, but for many other individuals, they will use their ignorance as an excuse to accept potentially harmful/hindering nonsense as “good enough.” Like I’ve said repeatedly, religious thought teaches you to be satisfied with non-explanation.

I’m still waiting for the logical connection between me and ‘many other individuals’. What gives you the right to tell anyone off for being ignorant, when you use such an incoherent argument to justify damning anything that isn’t empirically valid? My beliefs are a problem because other people unrelated to me may use them to force creationism into the classrooms, is that about the size of it?

Also, as Vika points out, there’s a great deal of subjects and topics that have nothing to do with religion, which also use alternative forms of evidence as justification. So please give your anti-religion bile a rest.

No, that is not the size of it, and I never said that at all. Honestly, read what I am saying.

I’m not attacking you personally and saying that your belief in a soul is somehow dangerous. It isn’t, because I don’t see you using that to justify impingement. Get off that subject, already. What I am saying is that while your belief is not harmful, it is still ignorant of the underlying science that shows what your belief is not likely to be true. I am saying that it is this type of mindset that people use to justify impingement in other cases because their “personal truths” are “good enough for them” and therefore that should be good enough to justify their actions. That’s all I am saying and that’s all I’ve ever said. There are serious problems when people use arbitrary non-explanations as justifications for something being “true.”

Re: your last paragraph, give me an example of something that uses an “alternative form of justification” that isn’t ultimately appealing to a value claim. Vika’s example was not a sufficient or correct example.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proof that god is fake

I do consider myself smart, but it’s not my problem if you’re putting forth an extremely poor analogy.

You are completely butchering definitions, here, and pandering to false dialectics. There is a difference between a truth and a personal opinion. Seeing your card get stolen may be a “personal truth” insofar as you know it’s true but nobody else can possibly support your stance. But this isn’t an “opinion.” It’d be an opinion if you suddenly noticed your card was gone and had no idea where it went. It could have been stolen, or you could have dropped it, or lost it, etc — in absence of any other evidence. You wouldn’t know until later (if charges showed up), but here, claiming any particular event as true in absence of evidence is just an arbitrary opinion. It’s not truth.

You might respond to this with “Well, you experienced seeing someone steal your card, and this is just as real as my experience of souls being true.” I’m saying these claims are not on equal grounds of validity. Seeing someone steal your card is something that has more evidence to substantiate it. We’ve seen such events before, know they are possible, and we’ve been able to prove it so in a great many cases. Many people have experienced them and those experiences can be substantiated. We know the kinds of events involved in having a card stolen, and they’re intuitively obvious to describe simply because there’s so much substantiation and evidence to describe those events.

Religious experiences have been shown to be, in many cases, misattributions of physical explanations or outright hallucinations. Seeing someone steal your card is not just as valid a claim of truth as coming into contact with the Great Juju of the Sea while high on LSD, or claiming that ghosts exists because you saw something wispy go through the door-real-quick-that-one-time. It’s low-count eyewitness testimony, which we know is extremely prone to error. You need something more definitive than that.

You also invoke a strawman with your surgeon example. “Doing it by feel” doesn’t have to be “by the scientific method.” Sometimes performing a surgery is accomplished “by feel” because we can explain the informational feedback of feeling/tactile sensation and why it’s useful to a particular surgical outcome based on what is trying to be performed. It’s still scientific in its basis, but it’s a horrible strawman to say that because it’s not “by the scientific method” it’s somehow “not right.” This is just utterly ridiculous.

Your last paragraph is also a strawman. I’m not arguing that we should divert funds away from ignorants. If anything, we need to divert funds to helping the ignorant.

Seriously, Vika, if this is your example of “being smart,” I’m glad you do not find me so.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proof that god is fake

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Personal truth is not nonsense. If your credit card is stolen, then, and you report it to the cops, and I see you, I can break into the conversation and say “Excuse me officer, but he hasn’t had it stolen. He’s lying. He loses them all the time and is just wasting your time.”

That is just as valid, as you have no empirical evidence that it was stolen rather than you losing it. You have no evidence other than your own memory – your personal truth – that it was stolen, and personal truth is as you say, irrelevant. The cop should by all rights boot you out the door or charge you for wasting police time, as you need solid empirical evidence that your card was actually stolen to begin with.

That is a really, really bad argument, and you’re honestly smarter than that, vika.

If you suddenly are without your credit card, you are just forming an opinion as to what happened. You think it was stolen. That’s not a personal “truth.” Your card was either taken/moved externally, or you lost it. Besides, what’s actually true is that the card is gone, and you can still get it replaced and have the old one shut down anyway.

If your card was actually stolen, and you know it was stolen based on some type of obvious evidence (you literally saw the guy take your card or you know your card was in your wallet that you set down on your desk while you had your back turned), that’s not an “opinion.” That actually happened, and there’s good reason for claiming it to be true even if you lack the evidence to substantiate that experience. This isn’t the same as holding an “opinion” that we have souls.

Is that seriously your argument? Again, you’re pandering to a false dialectic that all views are given equal grounds of validity when this just is not the case.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proof that god is fake

My entire point is that “personal truth” is not really truth. Just because you experience something doesn’t mean you suddenly know what it is or what it represents. That’s why we run into so many people who have “religious experiences.” You can call it a “personal truth” but all you’re really saying is that “this is what I believe.” What you believe may or may not be “true.” You’re devaluing what it means for something to be “true” by using it that way. There’s no such thing as a “personal truth” — just a personal opinion.

I’m not an arrogant prick because I call someone ignorant for espousing a view that demonstrably shows they do not understand the underlying physical implications that explicitly show that such a stance is not likely to be true or is fundamentally inconsistent. I don’t care if someone’s random belief “makes them happy” or helps them “live a fulfilling life” — reality doesn’t bend to those wills. Reality is what it is.

You can still live a fulfilling life under that framework. But this “personal truth” stuff is nonsense and it just adds fuel to the false dialectic that allows ignorance to permeate.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proof that god is fake

No, vika, because my point was that talking about external consciousnesses or “imprinted energies” are nonsensical terms that are wholly arbitrary and are not needed when you take provable, physical explanations into account.

It doesn’t matter that your belief may be “compatible” with science or that it doesn’t “devalue” the importance of a good life in this reality. That’s not the point, here. Obviously, I would agree with the notion that living a good, fulfilling life is what “matters” in this reality. But holding arbitrary beliefs as true is very much unscientific. It may be an emotional claim, but it’s not scientific truth. It doesn’t make sense to say “it’s true for me.” It’s either true for you because it’s a value claim (wholly subjective, which means all you can claim is true is that you feel a certain way), or it’s true because it’s scientifically true and thus true for everyone.

It’s not a matter of “lumping every belief that is not mine” into one category. What I’m advocating here isn’t a belief and you are committing the exact same fallacy that I’ve been bringing attention to.

I understand where the “other parties” are coming from, which is why I can say, with such strong confidence, that those beliefs are founded in ignorance.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proof that god is fake

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by MrRubix:

It makes a difference because you’re the one claiming to believe in souls when, if you actually “bought” evolution, you’d understand why your claim is a completely arbitrary emotion-based one and why evolution makes the soul a very unlikely thing indeed.

It really depends on how you are defining ‘soul’ now, doesn’t it? If you are defining it as modulated energy, it is still possible in an evolutionary world – even possible that niches that benefit from stronger ‘after images’ have been found.

Not to imply that it’s a bad thing to believe in souls, but it is indicative of your ignorance.

Not to imply that it’s a bad thing to believe in souls, but I’m just going to go ahead and tell you its a bad thing…

Perhaps that argument was not the best you have ever fielded, Rubix.


To me, evolution makes sense, but then again, medical field, its going to come up sooner or later that you’re going to be looking at the risks of passing a genetic condition on when casually discussing general matters with a client, over sandwiches and soup. An understanding of how mutation works is invaluable at such times.

My argument is fine. Not the best post of yours, perhaps.

I am addressing the way Jan defined “soul,” which was a notion of external consciousness that wasn’t empirically-based — in an earlier thread.

My statement about souls was that to believe in an afterlife/soul is not inherently harmful in the same way that “We should stone homosexuals” is harmful. But one could use belief in an afterlife to, for instance, devalue the importance of staying alive in this reality, which has obviously harmful implications to oneself and others (and such beliefs have led to/supported demonstrable harm in our history).

Belief in an external consciousness is ignorant in the exact same way that you’d be ignorant for thinking fairies were involved in the heating of boiling water, or that a computer was still a computer (or even continued to exist in a higher realm as a computer) even after you melted it down and used the metal for a variety of other applications.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proof that god is fake

I already understand it. Where, pray tell, did I offer empirical proof for my convictions? Or where did I pull out bible quotes and claim THAT as my proof. No, it’s a purely emotional-based argument. The difference is that for me, that’s good enough, whereas for you the idea of believing in something on the basis of an emotional appeal is heresy.

I’ll be very clear since, again, you have trouble reading. I’m not kidding. Read what I am saying slowly.

I know you know your belief has no empirical backing. I know that a belief in a “soul” is not necessarily a harmful thing (although it is in some cases). Don’t bother with the Bible quote strawman, as I never argued that. Yes, your argument is emotional-based and we agree on that. We’re all good and well, up to this point.

The problem I am illustrating is precisely when you say “The difference is for me, that’s good enough.” This is my entire argument here. When you are ignorant, you’re more likely to accept emotional truths as “good enough.” Your “soul” belief might be benign, but for many other individuals, they will use their ignorance as an excuse to accept potentially harmful/hindering nonsense as “good enough.” Like I’ve said repeatedly, religious thought teaches you to be satisfied with non-explanation.

Believing in something on the basis of emotional appeal is not a bad thing until you start stepping on the toes of science, especially when the science has good reason to show that your belief is either outright false or very unlikely to be true. If you want, I can give you a very strong physical argument against souls, but I know you won’t be interested in physical explanations because you advocate something unfalsifiably metaphysical, which is wholly arbitrary. But my point is that wholly arbitrary concepts are indistinguishable from untruths. Such a belief is effectively a waste as a truth metric, and is better served as an emotional condolence.

Problem is when people use those condolences in ways that screw with other people when the entire situation could have been avoided if they just picked up a damn book.

“I understand that to mean that to believe in anything on the basis of an emotional appeal is wrong, to your way of thinking.”

It is if you don’t accept that evolution fully explains why we don’t need souls in any way.

But according to you, since fundamentalists use emotional appeals in their arguments to condemn gay marriage, why, that means NOBODY should use them, otherwise they must be similarly ignorant

Ridiculous strawman, and I obviously don’t advocate this. What a hilarious misapplication of logic, lmfao.

Gay marriage is a moral concept, not one of science. Honestly, dude. The strawman-fu is strong in you, son.

Particularly given that I’ve steadfastly criticized attempts to impose religious belief on secular society.

Which is great, but there is a difference between criticizing it and understanding what steps are actually necessary to address the problem. Your view is demonstrably naive and pretty disingenuous.

And dude, take a logic class or something — this is just embarrassing.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proof that god is fake

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

As a general note, people who are ignorant of basic facts such as evolution probably are also ignorant of the basic way science works. To them, thousands of scientists claiming the same thing (through empirical research) is equal to a mob screaming the same thing. They are ignorant of how truth is derived. To them, truth might very well be personal opinion.

It is a shame that this generally can only be solved through better education, except that people are sending their children to religious education and they never learn to step out of that cycle.

That’s one of the biggest problems. People don’t understand that science is not about opinion or belief. Does science claim to be 100%? No — but what science does claim is to offer the best, consistent, predictive explanations for any metric of reality you care to choose, and you can’t do better than that. Trying to view science as a “limit” doesn’t mean you get around that limit by invoking unfalsifiable garbage that’s just as good as any other random explanation. There may be limits to what we can know, but that’s just an unfortunate eventuality of reality.

Likewise with religion, it doesn’t matter if you “don’t like the idea of there being no objective morality or purpose in life” — that’s too bad! Just because something makes you happy or unhappy doesn’t have any bearing on its truth.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proof that god is fake

It’s not insignificant. People find the heliocentric model obvious nowadays and yet the same can’t be said for evolution despite the fact it’s just as strong (if not stronger) in its evidence. It makes a difference because you’re the one claiming to believe in souls when, if you actually “bought” evolution, you’d understand why your claim is a completely arbitrary emotion-based one and why evolution makes the soul a very unlikely thing indeed. It matters because when you’re content with ignorance over knowledge, you run into all sorts of problems. Not to imply that it’s a bad thing to believe in souls, but it is indicative of your ignorance. People use that ignorance in pretty disgusting ways otherwise.

PS: It’s not “my field.” I’m just a voracious reader who values knowledge over ignorance — my “field” is finance/mathematics/computer science.