16:08-16:38

"...you could start with absolutely nothing; that means, unlike the Cardinal said and unlike some people argue, no particles, but not even empty space -- no space whatsoever, and maybe even no laws governing that space and we can plausibly understand how you could arrive, without any miracles, without any need for a creator, without any supernatural creation, you could produce everything we see."

They know when you are talking about them!

>> ^UsesProzac:

It's like this talk about blue jays cursed me! Today the jays are out in force and they've commandeered all three feeding areas. When I first noticed the unusual activity, I thought I saw a new blue woodpecker because it was hopping around the tree and pecking like one, but when it came around, it was a blue jay, eating all the woodpecker suet I'd shoved into knotholes around the tree.
They are currently dive bombing the cardinals on the feeders they are too big to perch on. I put out special feed just for the jays and they've been decent all through winter until now!!

It's like this talk about blue jays cursed me! Today the jays are out in force and they've commandeered all three feeding areas. When I first noticed the unusual activity, I thought I saw a new blue woodpecker because it was hopping around the tree and pecking like one, but when it came around, it was a blue jay, eating all the woodpecker suet I'd shoved into knotholes around the tree.

They are currently dive bombing the cardinals on the feeders they are too big to perch on. I put out special feed just for the jays and they've been decent all through winter until now!!

Cardinal Pell just game across as a politician. Forever not really answering the question, forever going off on anecdotes. Painful.

Also, this suffered from the usual problem I have with Q&A in that they almost never get to properly answer a question. They get most of the way through some point and then have to finish, so we never get to the 'gotcha' moments.

I do find, though, that Dawkins does come across as a bit harsh to natural responses sometimes. Him getting aggravated to people laughing about the question of 'nothing' just serves to alienate him.

Rather than going 'What's funny about that?', he could MUCH better say 'It sounds funny doesn't it? But in fact it's a really important question... and here's why'.

So yeah, I wish we had a better spokesman than him sometimes.

But I watched it all the way through (on our original ABC website where they put all their shows after they air), and found it enlightening as I didn't know Cardinal Pell's views on various things, and now I do.

The cardinal really had no idea how to answer many of those questions, his response about being descended from Neanderthals was particularly cringe-worthy, although apparently some of our DNA is Neanderthal (at least 1-4% in non-Africans), so I felt Dawkins could have mentioned that.

Just watched Se7en again last night. Gluttony was one of the seven cardinal sins, not something to be celebrated. Where's Kevin Spacey when you need him?

>> ^quantumushroom:

All too easy, Slapnuts.

Now deny it cause the stats don't come from SocialistWorker.org

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Drug use, rapes, murders and random deaths are in every camp, all the attendant chaos one would expect when socialists, anarchists, code pink commies and feed-the-flames libmedia descend anywhere. These protestors are not even 1% of the 99%.

Citation needed, motherfucker.



Idiots put all their links in an image, so you can't click on them and read the reports for yourself... hmm, I wonder why?? Oh, it's because there were no reported murders in the links! And no reported rapes in the links! Lesser events? Yes, a few. Completely unrelated events? Why, yes, several!

Here, for your reading pleasure, are all the links the right-wing crypto-fascist zombie airheads can come up with to marginalize the "dirty hippies" on the lawn:

Links originally from Pundit Press:

From Oregon Live: Primarily about a man who showed up at Occupy Portland, dismissed it as "an eyesore" and criticized its "lack of cohesion", and was arrested within days for starting fires. Also includes a few other accounts of minor drug posession, disorderly conduct, a weapons charge, and arrests of people for charges unrelated to the Occupy camp. Occupy Portland had a problem from near the beginning with homeless people joining the camp, and there were no services from the city or state to help them.

From Denver Post: A man who made an impassioned speech in favor of the Occupy Fort Collins camp was arrested as a suspect in an ENTIRELY UNRELATED arson charge.

From Gawker: A military veteran died of a self-inflicted gunshot, and the city used it as an excuse to halt all camping.

From Fox News: A "rash" of reports that consists of 1 accusation of sexual abuse and 1 accusation of sexual assault in Zuccotti park, 1 accusation of sex with a minor in Dallas, and 1 alleged sexual assault in Cleveland. Fox inflates this to "nearly a half-dozen" reports. The article also includes a number of unsubstantiated rumors of destructive behavior by Occupy protestors in various locations around the country.

From Komo News: A man accused of indecent exposure (completely unrelated to the Occupy movement) is arrested when spotted taking part in an Occupy Seattle protest.

From Redstate: Blantaly right-wing opinion piece which includes a number of links purportedly supporting the premise that the Occupy movement is full of criminals. The very first link is about the police entrapment on the Brooklyn Bridge. One of the links is the above piece from Komo News about an unrelated exposure charge. And another is about how Iran supports the Occupy movement (fear the boogeyman!).

From Reuters: This article is about the man shot by Berkeley police in a computer lab at UC Berkeley. No ties to the Occupy movement at all. But the Occupy protest was nearby, so it must be related, right???

From ABC News: A man is arrested for firing an assault rifle at the White House. He "may have spent time with Occupy D.C. protesters."

From The Daily Cardinal: Link broken; defaults to University of Wisconsin's Daily Cardinal homepage.

From New York Post: Article is about theives preying on the lack of security at the Occupy camp. Apparently all that police overtime is really helping...

So! All these articles, and they amount to... a few isolated issues that don't nearly account for all the numbers posted, and a couple of them are for unrelated charges where the person might have been caught in or near an Occupy event.

My overall analysis: Aside from QM being full of shit as usual, it's time to let the camps go. They made a splash, but now they are just being used as fodder for the right wing lie-machines. There are just too many unrelated crazies that come to the camps and interfere with the message. It's time to Occupy the polls, and put the energy into publicly supported legislation.

I will put this forth:
A God is the absence of imagination.

The universe is queerer that we can imagine, putting the label "God" on something as mysterious as Origin or Meaning, even, dumbs it down and again obfuscates the term with the straight forward crazies.

What kind of non-contradictory way of existence are you imagining? I have yet to see any implication of any form of God really, the world explains itself quite fine without one, so why try to invent one?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Big words to shrink down my overly verbose explanations, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Existing outside existence wouldn't make sense, but existing in a different way does. I don't exist in the same way a computer program exists, without running a program I can construct its logical here's and there's. I suggest a "computer programmer" sort of metaphysical explanation as one of a near infinite number of non-contradictory ways a "god" could exist. It is also likely he not exist. For me, the jury is out, but I like to not rule things out or mock them when they are still on the table, even if I can't show one way or they other...perhaps even especially then. Many of Einstein's great ideas can be traced back to the "wacky" metaphysics of Schopenhauer, but who knows what even greater "wackiness" awaits us behind discoveries next great door...the imagination tingles with anticipation. Like Popper suggests, great theories are born from great imaginations, the once impossible becomes possible with the changing of the guard of certain theories of physics or the like. I would suggest that dreamers have made the bold leaps in science more than the lab tech. Strick adherence to testing and retesting still leaves us lacking in the truly creative ways to construct them and bind them together.
O wait, hijacked again. I liked the part in the video where people posted annotations in a very cruel way to mock a person who had the best of intentions, it reminds me of something I have seen somewhere else before?!
>> ^gwiz665:
You're just saying big words to sound smart now, obfuscating the transreal statements with vagueries and doubletalk like a true soothsayer.
You are essentially saying we are dreamed up by the being that exists outside of existence. That sorta disproves itself, doesn't it?
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^gwiz665:
If he defines what "God" is, then I'll happily disprove it. If I have to define it as well, then I'll just do an easy one: Creationism. False. There, disproved.

What about a being of multidimensional time considering the platonic relationship of transfinite ideas, and thus, summoning all existence? That the ordinals and cardinals of it's maths are the thing we call existence?
O wait, this is a funny video. I farted, hehehehe.

Big words to shrink down my overly verbose explanations, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Existing outside existence wouldn't make sense, but existing in a different way does. I don't exist in the same way a computer program exists, without running a program I can construct its logical here's and there's. I suggest a "computer programmer" sort of metaphysical explanation as one of a near infinite number of non-contradictory ways a "god" could exist. It is also likely he not exist. For me, the jury is out, but I like to not rule things out or mock them when they are still on the table, even if I can't show one way or they other...perhaps even especially then. Many of Einstein's great ideas can be traced back to the "wacky" metaphysics of Schopenhauer, but who knows what even greater "wackiness" awaits us behind discoveries next great door...the imagination tingles with anticipation. Like Popper suggests, great theories are born from great imaginations, the once impossible becomes possible with the changing of the guard of certain theories of physics or the like. I would suggest that dreamers have made the bold leaps in science more than the lab tech. Strick adherence to testing and retesting still leaves us lacking in the truly creative ways to construct them and bind them together.

O wait, hijacked again. I liked the part in the video where people posted annotations in a very cruel way to mock a person who had the best of intentions, it reminds me of something I have seen somewhere else before?!

>> ^gwiz665:

You're just saying big words to sound smart now, obfuscating the transreal statements with vagueries and doubletalk like a true soothsayer.
You are essentially saying we are dreamed up by the being that exists outside of existence. That sorta disproves itself, doesn't it?
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^gwiz665:
If he defines what "God" is, then I'll happily disprove it. If I have to define it as well, then I'll just do an easy one: Creationism. False. There, disproved.

What about a being of multidimensional time considering the platonic relationship of transfinite ideas, and thus, summoning all existence? That the ordinals and cardinals of it's maths are the thing we call existence?
O wait, this is a funny video. I farted, hehehehe.

You're just saying big words to sound smart now, obfuscating the transreal statements with vagueries and doubletalk like a true soothsayer.

You are essentially saying we are dreamed up by the being that exists outside of existence. That sorta disproves itself, doesn't it?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^gwiz665:
If he defines what "God" is, then I'll happily disprove it. If I have to define it as well, then I'll just do an easy one: Creationism. False. There, disproved.

What about a being of multidimensional time considering the platonic relationship of transfinite ideas, and thus, summoning all existence? That the ordinals and cardinals of it's maths are the thing we call existence?
O wait, this is a funny video. I farted, hehehehe.

>> ^gwiz665:

If he defines what "God" is, then I'll happily disprove it. If I have to define it as well, then I'll just do an easy one: Creationism. False. There, disproved.


What about a being of multidimensional time considering the platonic relationship of transfinite ideas, and thus, summoning all existence? That the ordinals and cardinals of it's maths are the thing we call existence?

O wait, this is a funny video. I farted, hehehehe.

How does a baby fair to the idea of a yes or no statement about a concept he has no idea of? Further, how can you say no to a concept than you don't understand to be true? Moreover, how is abstaining from a decision about something not a 3rd choice? For instance, what do you believe about the cardinality of infinities being infinite as they relate to the divisibility of finite sums? Huh? Not thought about it before? Need more information or time to form an opinion, I know I do. Abstaining from making a choice is not a no, yet, but nor is it a yes. Both yes and no require a justification, and for myself, that justification needs to be something more than just an inclining.

I agree; this is saying "I don't know", which I think is a legitimate answer, and the only intellectually honest one barring actual knowledge. This was my point that the atheist position is "no" to the proposition "does God exist?", which requires a justification.

As to belief, I think you are misusing the word here. Everything one thinks about something is a belief. Belief is the cognitive recognition of an idea. So yes, while the answer to the certain knowledge of God's existence is, indeed yes or no, the tribulation of the human experience is that we have few good ways of "knowing", and for the agnostic, we have no good way of "knowing" God's existence.

This was my position as an agnostic, so I understand what you mean. It was very difficult to even define what truth could be in that mode of thinking. When I understood that truth was a tangible concept that could be grasped, it blew me away. I will say that you have a good way of knowing whether God exists. If you prayed to Jesus and asked Him what the truth is, He would show it to you.

When I refer to knowing, I refer back to the Cartesian understanding of knowledge (which has been challenged rather unsuccessfully, imo, by Popper); justified, true, belief. True is uppercase true, belief is cognitively asserting the true belief, and justified is a more complex idea in that you need some way of asserting this IS the way it has to be and not some other, a possition that can't be reduced away froml by reductio ad absurdum, for example, or any other means.

The tension is between the objective and the subjective viewpoint. To define a universal concept such as truth, you would need an objective viewpoint. God is the only being which could have such a viewpoint, so therefore, unless God tells us, we have no way of knowing. Finite human beings are locked into their subjective bias. We cannot get outside of the Universe to look in and see what is really going on.

I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes, they do like to posit that. When asked for that evidence however, they like to say they merely "lack belief", which is meaningless. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say no to the question of whether God exists but escape the burden of proof. That is what this "lack of belief" is all about. It's not an "i don't know", it's a "no, but i dont have to provide any evidence for that".

There is no compelling reason, to me, to decide either way. So in that, I am an Atheist because there is no overwhelming compelling story, beyond all doubt, what the idea of God should even be. I am Agnostic because I don't think there is a way we will ever be able to know. This is one area I would hope to be wrong on. I would prefer there to be some order, some cause, some point to life beyond some cosmic hapistance, but so far, I have no real reason to believe either story; purpose or accident.

That you're interested in the truth, and you are open to what it could be, is a very good thing. When I was agnostic, I felt much the same way. When I found out God is real, I wasn't even specifically looking for Him. I was searching for that truth and it ended up finding me. God rewards that open mindedness, that curiosity and drive to know what is real. What I suggested above is the shortcut; just ask Him and He will show you.

By the way, there is a whole area of computer science based in this idea. Multi-valued logic is my current area of study for developing asynchronous computing systems. The Aristotelian view of logic; of values being true or false, is, like I mentioned before, still the ontological certain position of outcomes (if you don't consider Turing's halting problem that is), but many times, the certainty of outcomes isn't needed to continue process on some other value of computing (like waiting on the slow ass system clock, when the ram is ready for more data from the bus, which is also ready). In that same way, I realize the great value in answering the question of God, it forever consumes my thoughts, but this doesn't have to halt me to processed onto other thoughts without a current answer. Humans are, in fact, natures most amazing asymmetric processor after all

I agree, and I will submit to you that all other truths are relevant to this question, and in fact, their ultimate reality could only be determined by the answer to that question. The funny thing about it is, the answer to it could only ever be yes. If it is no, you will never hear about it. The only thing you will ever hear is yes.

Your work sounds highly interesting. Could you direct me to any resources which would describe it in more detail?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Hey @hpqp, I'd like to thank you for your reply and let you know I plan to have a furthering of that discussion when I get off work (on lunch break), but I had to address @shinyblurry rock argument.
How does a baby fair to the idea of a yes or no statement about a concept he has no idea of? Further, how can you say no to a concept than you don't understand to be true? Moreover, how is abstaining from a decision about something not a 3rd choice? For instance, what do you believe about the cardinality of infinities being infinite as they relate to the divisibility of finite sums? Huh? Not thought about it before? Need more information or time to form an opinion, I know I do. Abstaining from making a choice is not a no, yet, but nor is it a yes. Both yes and no require a justification, and for myself, that justification needs to be something more than just an inclining.
As to belief, I think you are misusing the word here. Everything one thinks about something is a belief. Belief is the cognitive recognition of an idea. So yes, while the answer to the certain knowledge of God's existence is, indeed yes or no, the tribulation of the human experience is that we have few good ways of "knowing", and for the agnostic, we have no good way of "knowing" God's existence.
When I refer to knowing, I refer back to the Cartesian understanding of knowledge (which has been challenged rather unsuccessfully, imo, by Popper); justified, true, belief. True is uppercase true, belief is cognitively asserting the true belief, and justified is a more complex idea in that you need some way of asserting this IS the way it has to be and not some other, a possition that can't be reduced away froml by reductio ad absurdum, for example, or any other means.
I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no compelling reason, to me, to decide either way. So in that, I am an Atheist because there is no overwhelming compelling story, beyond all doubt, what the idea of God should even be. I am Agnostic because I don't think there is a way we will ever be able to know. This is one area I would hope to be wrong on. I would prefer there to be some order, some cause, some point to life beyond some cosmic hapistance, but so far, I have no real reason to believe either story; purpose or accident.
By the way, there is a whole area of computer science based in this idea. Multi-valued logic is my current area of study for developing asynchronous computing systems. The Aristotelian view of logic; of values being true or false, is, like I mentioned before, still the ontological certain position of outcomes (if you don't consider Turing's halting problem that is), but many times, the certainty of outcomes isn't needed to continue process on some other value of computing (like waiting on the slow ass system clock, when the ram is ready for more data from the bus, which is also ready). In that same way, I realize the great value in answering the question of God, it forever consumes my thoughts, but this doesn't have to halt me to processed onto other thoughts without a current answer. Humans are, in fact, natures most amazing asymmetric processor after all <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">
Ok, rant over! Back to work, slave!

Hey @hpqp, I'd like to thank you for your reply and let you know I plan to have a furthering of that discussion when I get off work (on lunch break), but I had to address @shinyblurry rock argument.

How does a baby fair to the idea of a yes or no statement about a concept he has no idea of? Further, how can you say no to a concept than you don't understand to be true? Moreover, how is abstaining from a decision about something not a 3rd choice? For instance, what do you believe about the cardinality of infinities being infinite as they relate to the divisibility of finite sums? Huh? Not thought about it before? Need more information or time to form an opinion, I know I do. Abstaining from making a choice is not a no, yet, but nor is it a yes. Both yes and no require a justification, and for myself, that justification needs to be something more than just an inclining.

As to belief, I think you are misusing the word here. Everything one thinks about something is a belief. Belief is the cognitive recognition of an idea. So yes, while the answer to the certain knowledge of God's existence is, indeed yes or no, the tribulation of the human experience is that we have few good ways of "knowing", and for the agnostic, we have no good way of "knowing" God's existence.

When I refer to knowing, I refer back to the Cartesian understanding of knowledge (which has been challenged rather unsuccessfully, imo, by Popper); justified, true, belief. True is uppercase true, belief is cognitively asserting the true belief, and justified is a more complex idea in that you need some way of asserting this IS the way it has to be and not some other, a possition that can't be reduced away froml by reductio ad absurdum, for example, or any other means.

I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no compelling reason, to me, to decide either way. So in that, I am an Atheist because there is no overwhelming compelling story, beyond all doubt, what the idea of God should even be. I am Agnostic because I don't think there is a way we will ever be able to know. This is one area I would hope to be wrong on. I would prefer there to be some order, some cause, some point to life beyond some cosmic hapistance, but so far, I have no real reason to believe either story; purpose or accident.

By the way, there is a whole area of computer science based in this idea. Multi-valued logic is my current area of study for developing asynchronous computing systems. The Aristotelian view of logic; of values being true or false, is, like I mentioned before, still the ontological certain position of outcomes (if you don't consider Turing's halting problem that is), but many times, the certainty of outcomes isn't needed to continue process on some other value of computing (like waiting on the slow ass system clock, when the ram is ready for more data from the bus, which is also ready). In that same way, I realize the great value in answering the question of God, it forever consumes my thoughts, but this doesn't have to halt me to processed onto other thoughts without a current answer. Humans are, in fact, natures most amazing asymmetric processor after all

Ok, rant over! Back to work, slave!

*length=3:51
*fear

Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)
Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Christopher Coons (D-DE)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Kay Hagan (D-NC)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

This is a list of the clueless idiots and corporate shills who are bringing us this abomination.