haha, thanks, entropy. My comment was a lame attempt at a joke. I think inverse correlation is correct >> ^entr0py:

>> ^Fusionaut:
Inverse correlation??

Seems correct. He's saying as educational level goes down belief in creationism goes up. Or do you mean he should have said 'negative correlation'? I'm not really sure if 'inverse correlation' is proper terminology, but it's common enough.

>> ^Fusionaut:

Inverse correlation??


Seems correct. He's saying as educational level goes down belief in creationism goes up. Or do you mean he should have said 'negative correlation'? I'm not really sure if 'inverse correlation' is proper terminology, but it's common enough.

Inverse correlation??

>> ^jonny:

Ok, I understand how they are able to provide inverse reactive current to the unilateral phase detractor, but unless they have a Turbo-Encabulator, how do they synchronize the cardinal grammeter? Even with a Turbo-Ecabulator driven with magneto-relecutance and capacitive diractance, it doesn't completely solve the problem of sinusoidal deplenaration.


Just send a polaron pulse set to the frequency of cosmic background radiation through the main deflector! Duh.

>> ^jonny:

Ok, I understand how they are able to provide inverse reactive current to the unilateral phase detractor, but unless they have a Turbo-Encabulator, how do they synchronize the cardinal grammeter? Even with a Turbo-Ecabulator driven with magneto-relecutance and capacitive diractance, it doesn't completely solve the problem of sinusoidal deplenaration.


I think they are planning to use a Johnson rod.

Ok, I understand how they are able to provide inverse reactive current to the unilateral phase detractor, but unless they have a Turbo-Encabulator, how do they synchronize the cardinal grammeter? Even with a Turbo-Ecabulator driven with magneto-relecutance and capacitive diractance, it doesn't completely solve the problem of sinusoidal deplenaration.

The first part is more about some pretty impressive inverse kinetics than it is about physics, really. I wanted to see more of the nuts and bolts of -that-

Well put, that is why I say no good without evil.
A world without varying colors would leave us all blind. That is technical. If we say good somethings exist in and of themselves, then we say goodness is absolute by itself.

>> ^gwiz665:
If you really want to get technical about it, there are no absolutely good or evil actions, there are only evaluations depending on any given point of view. We can to a certain degree say that some viewpoints are less valid than others, based on for instance "the good of mankind", which is what Sam Harris seems to be working towards in the Moral Landscape.
When you make your moral landscape, you map out actions on a scale of more than just good/evil, you essentially make a cost-benefit analysis of an action, and evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of that action. "How will this benefit [me,my children ...]" or using the golden rule to evaluate others' actions.
To see it as black and white, hero vs. villain, is wrong in my opinion. Hero != !Villain. There are more positions than the extremes.
Things can be partially good and evil too. "Sacrifice 10 people to save 1000" for instance, that's hard to evaluate. Strictly looking at it as a "greater good" then it's obviously good, but when you add a value of the individual's choice then it is evil to force 10 people to die, no matter what the result is.
"There is only good" is a very Christian way of thinking - "darkness is the absence of light" kinda thinking, I don't agree with that. It can certainly work the other way too - lack of evil makes your deeds good (or maybe rather neutral, really).
I postulate that there are only actions and evaluations of them based on given values. These values are not absolute, but we as a society hones in on a direction with some outliers, and make our laws, ethics etc. on this.
It's essentially how we can have difference of opinion.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
There can't be hero's without villan's. When A is created, !A is necessarily created. However, !A derives its creation from A. !A cannot exist without A. There is no such thing as evil, there is only good, and that which is not good (which we call evil). Good = !(evil) Evil = !(good)...in all cases good must exist first, it is semantically and logically necessary.
</end unnecessary and most likely uninteresting conversation topic>
(edit: and more specifically, I think what most people refer to as evil is actually good^-1, or the multiplicative inverse of good)

If you really want to get technical about it, there are no absolutely good or evil actions, there are only evaluations depending on any given point of view. We can to a certain degree say that some viewpoints are less valid than others, based on for instance "the good of mankind", which is what Sam Harris seems to be working towards in the Moral Landscape.

When you make your moral landscape, you map out actions on a scale of more than just good/evil, you essentially make a cost-benefit analysis of an action, and evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of that action. "How will this benefit [me,my children ...]" or using the golden rule to evaluate others' actions.

To see it as black and white, hero vs. villain, is wrong in my opinion. Hero != !Villain. There are more positions than the extremes.

Things can be partially good and evil too. "Sacrifice 10 people to save 1000" for instance, that's hard to evaluate. Strictly looking at it as a "greater good" then it's obviously good, but when you add a value of the individual's choice then it is evil to force 10 people to die, no matter what the result is.

"There is only good" is a very Christian way of thinking - "darkness is the absence of light" kinda thinking, I don't agree with that. It can certainly work the other way too - lack of evil makes your deeds good (or maybe rather neutral, really).

I postulate that there are only actions and evaluations of them based on given values. These values are not absolute, but we as a society hones in on a direction with some outliers, and make our laws, ethics etc. on this.

It's essentially how we can have difference of opinion.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

There can't be hero's without villan's. When A is created, !A is necessarily created. However, !A derives its creation from A. !A cannot exist without A. There is no such thing as evil, there is only good, and that which is not good (which we call evil). Good = !(evil) Evil = !(good)...in all cases good must exist first, it is semantically and logically necessary.
</end unnecessary and most likely uninteresting conversation topic>
(edit: and more specifically, I think what most people refer to as evil is actually good^-1, or the multiplicative inverse of good)

There can't be hero's without villan's. When A is created, !A is necessarily created. However, !A derives its creation from A. !A cannot exist without A. There is no such thing as evil, there is only good, and that which is not good (which we call evil). Good = !(evil) Evil = !(good)...in all cases good must exist first, it is semantically and logically necessary.

</end unnecessary and most likely uninteresting conversation topic>

(edit: and more specifically, I think what most people refer to as evil is actually good^-1, or the multiplicative inverse of good)

>> ^legacy0100:

THIS
IS
GODLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To be fair, Henry did approach the kids with already a preconception of what they are in his head even before talking to any of them. In fact he was actively provoking them and accusing them of these set images. Then again Rollins likes to engage. And the sad part is that despite Rollin's obvious and clear intent of provocation, they end up acting the exact same way Henry expected it to be.
They wound up validated Rollins' prejudicial point of view to the point where Rollins just had to sit back and watch them shat themselves. And Henry does something quite cruel. By showing great respect for Shirin Neshat he inversely was making it blatantly clear that he reserved no respect for what these young and impressionable kids were doing with their lives.

I'm pretty sure it was the "hipsters" doing the provoking by saying things like "Henry Rollins is in the store?" and "Get in the van!". It was only after that that he approached them. They made sure he heard them and he made sure to call them on their idiocy. Seems to me he was fighting fire with fire.

THIS
IS
GODLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


To be fair, Henry did approach the kids with already a preconception of what they are in his head even before talking to any of them. In fact he was actively provoking them and accusing them of these set images. Then again Rollins likes to engage. And the sad part is that despite Rollin's obvious and clear intent of provocation, they end up acting the exact same way Henry expected it to be.

They wound up validated Rollins' prejudicial point of view to the point where Rollins just had to sit back and watch them shat themselves. And Henry does something quite cruel. By showing great respect for Shirin Neshat he inversely was making it blatantly clear that he reserved no respect for what these young and impressionable kids were doing with their lives.

In my opinion, Marty McFly was the defining role for Michael J Fox. Nice to see that the inverse is also true.

Also, I always thought it was amazing that they shot BTTF 2 and 3 back-to-back.

Wow. Where'd all that anger come from? Which posts are you referring to exactly so I could reply more thoroughly? Maybe PM me with the details?

First off, major LOL, I'm an atheist, so thanks for assuming I'm Christian but I ain't. I believe Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and those like them are doing atheists everywhere a disservice with their absolutist language (i.e. all religious people are crazy, stupid, etc., all religions are evil, etc., and so on and so forth). This makes atheists everywhere look like some kind of reverse hate-mongers. It is exactly the kind of language of the fundamentalist opponents they profess to hate. Think about radical Islam--we're all Western devils because we don't subscribe to Sharia law, right?

The link I posted that compared Hitchens to Malcom X is spot on. Malcom X got a lot of media attention for his radical views, but in the end what did he accomplish? We don't celebrate Malcom X Day, you'll notice. Martin Luther King's Jr.'s message of cooperation and mutual understanding is what moved people's hearts on both sides of the divide and got us moving forward as a country, not Malcom X's divisiveness.

I absolutely agree there is a serious problem in the world in that some people try to use their religion to push their own worldly agendas (whether it be a political grab for power or what-not). Confronting and dealing with those people is going to require cooperation and dialogue between both the religious and non-religious people, between theists and atheists, between gnostics and agnostics. The failure of incredibly intelligent men like Hitchens to see this and their insistence on furthering the divisiveness on this issue is a great tragedy in my opinion. They don't see the forest through the trees. You want to prevent religion from dominating the political and cultural scene? So do a lot of religious people (the vast majority in most Western states). And their numbers VASTLY outnumber the atheists. Insulting those people who are clearly your potential allies hardly seems like a good way to go about getting them to see your point of view. When was the last time someone called you an idiot and you just sat there calmly and said, "You know what, you're right! I AM an idiot!"

On a side note, I included the clip from Hitchens' brother because he points out the fact that Hitchens has built himself a tower, secluded himself inside of it, and is simply hurling missiles at anything that moves outside without bothering to try to engage in real dialogue. I think the clip in this vid from the Glenn Beck show is the most telling of this, where Beck is trying to tell him that he doesn't consider Hitchens an enemy and Hitchens is actively trying to make Beck an enemy. He's not interested in real dialogue (to be fair to Hitchens, neither are many of his debate opponents). He's interested in making smart-alec comments and getting good sound bites--which is fine for an entertainer but doesn't get my respect for him as a thinker.

Hope that answers your question. I'm not going to respond to your other comments because, if you read my post again, you'd see clearly I was not at all making an attempt to defend any particular religion or religious activity.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

"I find it ironic that those such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, in their zeal to exterminate religion, have become such zealots unwilling to admit evidence contrary to their position that they now rival the fundamentalists they profess to be fighting against."
Examples, please. Put up or shut up. I am really getting sick and tired of you leaving your ineffable statements on video's regarding atheism without even the pretension of backing them up. How in the hell are you to persuade anyone by being so vague? Please show how Dawkins et al. are just as fundamentalist as those they deride. Show us this great evidence to the contrary. Those links you provided don't really help your argument at all. Where's the evidence that Christianity or ANY religion is true or that there is any GOOD reason for believing in something for which there is no evidence? Peter Hitchens lamenting the fact that everyone isn't a Christian or being afraid of God's wrath because he looked at a painting is NOT sufficient. Neither are his arguments that you must have an extensive knowledge of theology to make an assessment about the REAL WORLD claims that religion so carelessly expects everyone to accept by default. You're basically taking his word for it because hey, he's Christopher Hitchen's brother, he can't possibly be full of it! Which is a pretty weird inversion of argument from authority, the only reason it is authoritative at all is because he is related to the dude you think is so NOT authoritative, because I'm not seeing any coherent arguments from ole Petey.
Neither is the second link was which was just a bunch of waffling nonsense that was misleading and all over the place and inherently WRONG on the differences Chris has gone to great lengths to make between attacking religion and those who vary in their level of involvement in which they practice/contribute to it as an institution in his books. To compare him to a young white-hating Malcom-X is sheer hyperbole and a cheap caricature. It was so full of "gotcha!" moments that could only be called so because the author either didn't understand what he was reading or just flat out didn't read them (maybe he read the SparkNotes versions?); the article is based on a limited, superficial understanding of the New Atheist's position.
My question to you is: Why are you lying for Jebus? Is it intentional or can you just not help yourself?

"I find it ironic that those such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, in their zeal to exterminate religion, have become such zealots unwilling to admit evidence contrary to their position that they now rival the fundamentalists they profess to be fighting against."

Examples, please. Put up or shut up. I am really getting sick and tired of you leaving your ineffable statements on video's regarding atheism without even the pretension of backing them up. How in the hell are you to persuade anyone by being so vague? Please show how Dawkins et al. are just as fundamentalist as those they deride. Show us this great evidence to the contrary. Those links you provided don't really help your argument at all. Where's the evidence that Christianity or ANY religion is true or that there is any GOOD reason for believing in something for which there is no evidence? Peter Hitchens lamenting the fact that everyone isn't a Christian or being afraid of God's wrath because he looked at a painting is NOT sufficient. Neither are his arguments that you must have an extensive knowledge of theology to make an assessment about the REAL WORLD claims that religion so carelessly expects everyone to accept by default. You're basically taking his word for it because hey, he's Christopher Hitchen's brother, he can't possibly be full of it! Which is a pretty weird inversion of argument from authority, the only reason it is authoritative at all is because he is related to the dude you think is so NOT authoritative, because I'm not seeing any coherent arguments from ole Petey.

Neither is the second link was which was just a bunch of waffling nonsense that was misleading and all over the place and inherently WRONG on the differences Chris has gone to great lengths to make between attacking religion and those who vary in their level of involvement in which they practice/contribute to it as an institution in his books. To compare him to a young white-hating Malcom-X is sheer hyperbole and a cheap caricature. It was so full of "gotcha!" moments that could only be called so because the author either didn't understand what he was reading or just flat out didn't read them (maybe he read the SparkNotes versions?); the article is based on a limited, superficial understanding of the New Atheist's position.

My question to you is: Why are you lying for Jebus? Is it intentional or can you just not help yourself?