Well, we can't explain that. However, what I mean is that we put a tremendous amount of faith just in our basic ability to rationally comprehend the world around us. Our worldly knowledge is hopelessly incomplete and constantly changing, and must be continually re-evaluated. It's the same thing for science; it doesn't prove anything. Here's a letter to the editor quote from Science magazine:

The title of the 6 May News of the Week story “At long last, Gravity Probe B satellite proves Einstein right” (p. 649) made me cringe. I find myself frequently repeating to students and the public that science doesn’t “prove” theories. Scientific measurements can only disprove theories or be consistent with them. Any theory that is consistent with measurements could be disproved by a future measurement. I wouldn’t have expected Science magazine, of all places, to say a theory was “proved.”

The reply:

Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.

As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:

27th February, 1942, midday

"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)

Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..



>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.


May as well be saying the following:
"The tide comes in, the tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that."
- Bill O'Reilly
Hitler and the Nazis claimed to be devout Christians. Learn a lil history before you go around blaming that shit on atheists, please.

Good. More continuous less constant changes would be better, but that is kids for ya.

>> ^jmzero:

coughoverratedcough

That description doesn't really make sense for a comic. I mean, if people think he's funny... then.. uh, that's it: he is funny. It's like saying "strawberry" is overrated (ie. "You think strawberries taste good, but they don't"). There is no funny (or flavor) standard that we can objectively compare him to and find out that he's not as funny as people think.
He is exactly as funny as people think he is. That's the only definition we can have for funny.
To be clear, lots of things can be overrated. People can think a boxer is great, but then find out he wasn't so good when he fights better opposition. People might think a plan is good, then it fails. People might rate a car's fuel efficiency too high, when we know it's lower. Lots of things have objective ways to test that can be contrasted against people's perceptions.
But if some new comedian comes along and is funnier (and I imagine most people think someone is funnier than Jimmy already - I think David Mitchell is funnier), that doesn't make Jimmy less funny or mean it was wrong to think Jimmy was very funny. If you found him very funny (and lots of people do), then nothing can change that. If you rewatch Jimmy in later years and find him less funny, even that doesn't make him less funny now. Funny isn't a universal truth - it is extremely subjective and constantly changing.
There's lots of things that many people like and I don't. This doesn't make me cooler than everyone, and it doesn't make the thing they like "overrated". It means I like different things.


you forgot to cough.

coughoverratedcough


That description doesn't really make sense for a comic. I mean, if people think he's funny... then.. uh, that's it: he is funny. It's like saying "strawberry" is overrated (ie. "You think strawberries taste good, but they don't"). There is no funny (or flavor) standard that we can objectively compare him to and find out that he's not as funny as people think.

He is exactly as funny as people think he is. That's the only definition we can have for funny.

To be clear, lots of things can be overrated. People can think a boxer is great, but then find out he wasn't so good when he fights better opposition. People might think a plan is good, then it fails. People might rate a car's fuel efficiency too high, when we know it's lower. Lots of things have objective ways to test that can be contrasted against people's perceptions.

But if some new comedian comes along and is funnier (and I imagine most people think someone is funnier than Jimmy already - I think David Mitchell is funnier), that doesn't make Jimmy less funny or mean it was wrong to think Jimmy was very funny. If you found him very funny (and lots of people do), then nothing can change that. If you rewatch Jimmy in later years and find him less funny, even that doesn't make him less funny now. Funny isn't a universal truth - it is extremely subjective and constantly changing.

There's lots of things that many people like and I don't. This doesn't make me cooler than everyone, and it doesn't make the thing they like "overrated". It means I like different things.

Man, what kind of doctor is Yogi, anyway, if that's his attitude?

Any doctor that tells you, "I'm right because I'm a doctor," hasn't been paying attention.
Any doctor that tells you, "Shut up I don't want to hear your argument," is dangerous.

We're not perfect or infallible just because of our education, training, or experience.
The answer is never, "Because I'm a doctor," because I guarantee I can find a hundred doctors who disagree with you on just about any point you care to make. Thousands when it comes to controversial topics like vaccination risks.
A doctor should be able to explain the whys and the hows and understand the evidence for whatever claims they make. Current evidence, no less, because our fields are constantly changing. Attitudes shift as our understanding increases and situations change.

Getting down to the argument at hand (although only tangentially), case studies are weak evidence because they're very susceptible to pollution by coincident factors. Correlation ≠ causation and all that.

Yes, but dildo are funny after all >> ^mxxcon:

>> ^garmachi:
There must be something cylindrical in that box to keep its center of gravity shifting at a rate equal to the upward velocity of that incline.
In other words, a dildo.
(We never say your dildo... just a dildo...)

doesn't have to be cylindrical, just perfectly centered in the box.
or maybe it is isolating/vibrating and constantly changing the center of gravity.

>> ^garmachi:

There must be something cylindrical in that box to keep its center of gravity shifting at a rate equal to the upward velocity of that incline.
In other words, a dildo.
(We never say your dildo... just a dildo...)

doesn't have to be cylindrical, just perfectly centered in the box.
or maybe it is isolating/vibrating and constantly changing the center of gravity.

@rebuilder

I'm not trying to defend everything the guy says, but I think you're simplifying the nuance of his argument a little. He used the simplified example of chess to illustrate a point and then expanded it to another subject, female bodies, which he discussed in much greater detail. In real life, the example of chess would be expanded to include the option of not playing, or something like playing in a way that tries to prove a point to your opponent rather than just to win.

When he presents the argument about the Dalai Llama and Ted Bundy, I don't see how that could make you repulsed. How is it exactly that saying it's possible to be right or wrong about a moral choice naturally leads to genocide in your mind?

Moral decisions don't happen in a vacuum. They happen in a continuum of human existence. They happen in a factual situation. So, imagine your community is starving and you or a friend of yours makes the decision that to kill your/their child to serve the greater good by reducing the number of mouths to feed...or imagine someone who chooses cannibalism like in the movie "Alive". That might normally be considered morally wrong, but in a specific situation it could be considered understandable. Well, we all live in specific situations, and as a global community, that continuum of situations is constantly changing. The only way we can make proper moral judgments is to continually examine our situation and evolve our morals along with the course of human events. Even religions can change when presented with new information (Galileo, evolution), so doesn't that mean that information is affecting our morals? So, why not embrace and study that information which affects us so?

Double standards galore.

You can't talk about nuclear energy incurring taxpayer liabilities, giving preferential treatment and distorting capital markets without conceding the fact that when you're funding other green energy jobs like wind power, geothermal and tide you're doing the exact same thing.

If what's needed are tighter emission standards among other regulations, then say that, rather than blanketly dismissing it as a possible alternative.

Part of the reason that nuclear energy has had patchy financing in the past is that governmental positions have constantly changed at the whims of those in power. The threat of tighter regulations and a general lack of consistency has created uncertainty.

To me, this stance on energy, and the left's positions on free trade stand out as the two most hypocritical positions of the left.

>> ^deathcow:
I'd say YES all stars are round. Planets become spherical (or oblately spheroidal ; ) at much smaller sizes than required to become stars. So naturally, stars would be spherical or oblate spheroids for very fast rotating stars.


Aren't some stars are oscillating in vibrational modes? That would mean they have a constantly changing shape:

http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2008/09/25/0803748105.DCSupplemental/SM2.gif

Though I guess that means spheroidal and oblately spheroidal.

1). I am quiet.
2). I do not fit in with the world around me.
3). My world does not have conflict. I don’t understand it; it only frustrates me.
4). Laid back. Take it as it comes. Don’t plan too far ahead but don’t change what is already planned.
5). I’m a bad speller. I don’t care to remember, my memory is poor and I’m sure it is getting worse.
6). I live in the now and feel life as I live it.
7). When I work out my creativity, I must work in a vacuum.
. When I enjoy the company of others, I like to shine brightly.
9). Music is my muse of learning.
10). I want to know as much as I can about everything and everyone around me and share everything I know.
11). When I create, I feel alive. My mind is at work. For me, an idle mind is like dying a little bit each time I stop. I need to feel the charge of creation and discovery.
12). Collecting, yes, I am a collector. It must be my need to be complete, to not leave something unfinished. (I have over 500 Star Wars actions figures – all still in package.)
13). I horror at chaos. Chaos undermines me every time.
14). I am trying to grasp what is me. I am original. I think only like me.
15). I make choices for me. I am selfish. I don’t like to share.
16). I am shy. I am scared. I am insecure. I am afraid.
17). It is preferable to sink into my creativity than to deal with reality. I must have my creativity or I will go mad. It is my only outlet. It is my life, my being.
18). My mind and my opinions are constantly changing. Always learning, always updating. What I believed yesterday, I may not believe today. What I believe today, I feel very strong about. What I believed yesterday, I’d rather leave behind.
19). I am not perfect. I don’t pretend to be. I know my limits and I know my dreams. I know my shortcomings and I feel my faults.
20). I am easily pushed around and bullied.
21). I fear change. I like finding one way of doing something and sticking with it.
22). I fear choice. Don’t make me decide from a list. I want all or I want nothing.
231). I cry myself to sleep. Sometimes I feel like I am on a speeding train going in the wrong direction.
24). I need to feel accomplished. I need to leave something forever behind for others to see and feel. I need to be remembered. I refuse to just be another countless person in history that didn’t make a difference.
25). So far, my life has been pointless.

>> ^Wingoguy:
"Someone living in Oregon is an Oregonian, much more than they are an American, really"
Baseless and false. Very, very few Americans would identify themselves by their state before their country. The only people that may even come close may be Texans. And no, I not counting extreme minorities such as Alaskan secessionists and native Hawaiians.
lies (if I could) for that comment alone
And then the blurb, "freedom of speech is a concept, justice is concrete"
Well that's about as subjective and biased a statement you can make, especially coming from an "empirical" culture. To me, freedom of speech is very well defined, written in law, and relatively non-malleable.
I believe "justice" is a relative concept. Ask someone who's been a victim or a criminal.
Downvote if I could


Good points, but the way I see it, he did not say anything about people from Oregon willingly identifying themselves as Oregonians before saying they are Americans; just that due to the vast size and therefore variety of this country, an American can obviously identify themselves as American, but this idea of what makes one American is so vague, and constantly changing (even without taking into consideration the vast numbers of people from other cultures coming to the US to live permanently) than in reality they are more Oregonian or Floridian or Californian than they are 'American'

At least that is what I am getting from his statements.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
I wish people would get their facts straight on this issue.
1) No one who actually understands the theory of evolution says "We came from monkeys"
- The theory actually states that both humans and other primates came from a common ancestor
2) On the issue of morality, God cannot validate some kind of morality. Either a moral principle is intrinsically valid or it is not. I like the example given by Colin McGinn which goes something like this:
If someone says 'It's wrong to murder,' OK why is it wrong to murder? 'Well God says it's wrong.' And that almost seems to work but try it the other way around, 'It's right to murder,' Wait a minute, murder is wrong, 'Well God says it's right to murder.' That second go-around doesn't all of a sudden convince you that it's right to murder. The reason for that is God (or anyone for that matter) cannot simply put a stamp on something and make it right or wrong, the moral rules we have are intrinsically valid or invalid.


I disagree, our moral rules are not intrinsically anything, and they have constantly changed over time. Your example of murder can easily be modified by adding a situation such as "either you murder this person or I kill your entire family or entire city or entire country or entire world" at some point you'd be willing to murder that person. You could argue that its different because the reason for committing murder is so drastic but theres no objective line of whats a justifiable reason to kill someone and what is murder and thus you end up in a practice of subjectivity.

>> ^gwiz665:
You don't have an explanation for God, thus your "explanation" for anything God did is not valid. It is YOU sir, who is the idiot.


This also isnt true, because you're applying the rules of logic and science to a supernatural entity. See creationists have an easy out because they believe in a divine being of uncomprehensible power that is not of this universe (since he created it)and so they dont have to abide by our universes rules. They can just say "he created himself" and how can you argue with that unless you have a thorough understanding of the nature of God, which you can't and thus its not provable or disprovable. It might seem like circular logic if you give it hard thought but the luxury of the faithful is it doesnt matter, all they need is faith that he exists and everything follows neatly after that.

Athiests have it much more difficult because they're trying to explain the world within a very rigid rule set and through our fairly insuffecient (though constantly progressing) technological and academic observation/reasoning. Even more difficult is the fact that even if you could explain everything in the universe with science, the argument can still be made that it all makes sense because God made it in this way. This might seem unfair but again its not something you can prove or disprove and its not something they have to justify based on their faith in an all powerful divine being.

My biggest concern with science trying to explain existence is that at somepoint there had to be "nothing" and this is not the nothingness of vacuum in space, because even that is something. It is a nothingness in which there is no existence at all, time, space (the 3 dimensional space we exist in not the kind we orbit in), or matter. So the question is how did something come from nothing in a scientific and provable way. Now you could argue that because time did not exist then its not a factor prior to the beginning of the universe, however at that point i think we move outside of our ability to comprehend anythng since our very existence functions based on time existing.

To try and explain waht i mean, imagine a cup falling and breaking, this is time in its forward direction. Now imagine it going backwards in time and it flies back up and back together. Easy enough right? So what happens to the cup with no time? Does anything happen? Does something "happening" require time as a precursor to exist? If so then how can anything "happen" without time? I dont know that we can reason that out, however theres always the possibility of mathematics being able to "describe" it as it does dimensions beyond the 4 we're familiar with. As to whether we can ever go much further than a mathematic understanding of such things I sadly doubt.

I'm fresh out of weed so I don't think I can debate you on the merits of the intangible but I will say this -

Permanence is no more a thing than the idea of reality or existence. And they're all permanent.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Your claim of checkmate is mistaken. Impermanence is not a thing. And even that is not necessarily permanent. The universe will close. Who knows what rules will apply when it does.

Besides, your queue is constantly changing. There is nothing to upvote.

Your claim of checkmate is mistaken. Impermanence is not a thing. And even that is not necessarily permanent. The universe will close. Who knows what rules will apply when it does.

Besides, your queue is constantly changing. There is nothing to upvote.

In reply to this comment by Edeot:
Impermanence is permanent. Checkmate.

You must now upvote my queue.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Can you name anything which is permanent?