Total posts: 5,653
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I was on Sir each and every night. I initially wanted to do Lunatic but felt that if he was going to be a likely NP0 target he would have been in the previous games, but he wasn't. I figured Sir might be the next likely one, then he basically confirmed himself as town so it was a priority to keep him alive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
The bible seems to support abiogenesis, which simply means that life arose from non-life.
I've made this point before, I agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
he fact that the universe was once so hot and dense that there weren't any planets, stars, or even atoms.If there were no atoms, what was "hot" and "dense"?
Quarks and gluons.
Do you know that "heat" is a property of matter?
I do, yes.
And you just admitted that there once wasn't a universe. Thanks.
I did not, but you are welcome anyway.
Right, but I have come to a conclusion based on evidence. Ergo it is not an assumption.Well, rational people usually require that evidence to be valid for the conclusion not to be considered assumption.
Agreed.
They're aware of it. It's where I got it from.OK. Perhaps one day they will share it with the rest of the world.
They have and continuously do so.
And there is evidence. That would be the main crux of my rebuttal to the OP.It'll be exciting and novel when you finally post it.
Numerous specific scientific concepts have been discussed in this thread. Which specific one would you like me to post evidence about? I would prefer to talk things one at a time.
I wasn't talking physics, I was talking geometry.That your ignorance covers multiple fields is not something to brag about.
I just want to be clear, you are claiming that "Regular shapes" isn't a thing in geometry?
If you had a sound education in physics you would know that there are many distinct elementary particles, all different from each other.But each type exactly like the others of that type. You should follow that instinct to not talk physics.
If you are saying that each instance of a specific kind of elementary particle is the same as all other instances of that specific kind (e.g. every electron is the same as every other electron) then yes, this is correct (but is also not what you originally said). Now that you've corrected your originally erroneous statement we can address the original objection that collections of atoms cannot result in conscious beings. Of course, the fact that elementary particles come in specific kinds that are all alike doesn't refute this notion.
It's not blind, I witness it all the time.I daresay you have powerful eyes if you see atoms all the time. But you're halfway there, at least you admit to it being faith.I can only wonder what you think you're seeing when you see things, if not atoms."Seeing" is another of those things that happen only in the brain. But it is photons, not atoms that excite the optic nerve.
When someone says that they can "see" something, this is exactly what they mean: that the object being seen emitted (or reflected) photons which were intercepted by the rods in cones in the retina of the eye, stimulating them into sending electrical impulses to the brain which then takes that information and constructs an image.
This is the general understood meaning of the word "see" and it is that meaning of the word I am using when I say I can "see atoms."
I have awareness of evidence for abiogenesis.By revelation? Because you sure did not observe any evidence for abiogenesis.
By reading and educating myself of the science of the matter.
I have.As a theist, I hesitate to trash a claim of revelation, I only think it highly unusual that your deity has "revealed" evidence for abiogenesis to you. But to each his own.
I have made no claim of revelation and I would appreciate it if you did not assign positions to me that I have not expressedly articulated (and that you know to be false). I would also appreciate it if you left out any disparaging remarks about my education or knowledge.
If the summation of your response to me can be accurately reduced to: "lol, ur an idoit" then we can just end the conversation now.
Created:
Posted in:
It's funny because a viable defense could have been me being protected/blocked by Lunatic(1)
Created:
Posted in:
I am not engaging in a religious topic.Ethan is representing the Theistic position, this is a religious forum. I'm sure he will be taking a religious stance.
The position being raised as the purpose of this thread, by n8nrgmi, is the atheistic one. That is the position I am addressing. If you wish to have a different conversation on a different topic, then I encourage you to create a thread for that purpose.
Since I am not aware of this god, your proposal is demonstrably false.You're aware now, and thanks for the opinion.
I am aware of a story that you have told. I am not aware that it is true.
Incorrect, that is not the definition of life being used in this conversation.But, it's the proposition I want you to consider. While you are here anyway.
I would just as well stick to the topic at hand.
<br>Energy and god are not proposed as the same nature with the same characteristics.Lol read that again. Energy is neither created or destroyed, energy exists at all places in the universe. God is not created or destroyed and exists in all places at all times (omnipresent). Energy exists because conscious activity exists, that is why energy is even there. They co-exist. Now before you make the claim you are not aware of that note that I'm bringing the awareness of it to your attention.
The only thing true in this statement is "Energy is neither created or destroyed"
Regardless, even if two things share characteristics, that doesn't meant they are the same thing or share other characteristics. Both a car and a house have windows, but I wouldn't say that makes them the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Now I see the problem, this unawareness thing you need to work on and like I said it wouldn't be a bad idea that you expand your data base especially if you want to engage in religious topics so you have some awareness and more strength to your position.
I am not engaging in a religious topic. OP is engaging in the atheist world view and I am rebutting his claims about it.
God is proposed as omnipresent, meaning that there is an omnipresent awareness of the nature of consciousness and God. In other words there is nowhere something exists where awareness is not present. What makes the awareness of God omnipresent is that it's not limited to time and space, to forms and bodies. It exists independent of those, so in essence God has no bodily form therefore has no need for environmental factors to sustain physical bodies of matter.
Since I am not aware of this god, your proposal is demonstrably false.
So when we use the term "life" we are not talking about life on earth alone. We are talking about the life of God or awareness that transcends what we observe within creation.
Incorrect, that is not the definition of life being used in this conversation.
Energy and god are not proposed as the same nature with the same characteristics.Now, this is why I bring up energy and processes and how they act out in creation. I do this because so you will no longer be unaware that these things don't take place by themselves, there are processes because there is intelligence behind creation. Accepting the omnipresence of the Creator is not a big deal if you can accept energy, that it is omnipresent and is not created or destroyed. What a coincidence that both energy and God are proposed as the same nature and have the same characteristics...correlation again.And, just like energy consciousness can exists within form and outside it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Yes.What is the evidence that there once wasn't life?
The fact that the universe was once so hot and dense that there weren't any planets, stars, or even atoms.
That is incorrect.Coming to a conclusion when there is no evidence is called an assumption.
Right, but I have come to a conclusion based on evidence. Ergo it is not an assumption.
Thank you, but unnecessary. There is evidence.You should alert the scientific community post haste.
They're aware of it. It's where I got it from.
And there is evidence. That would be the main crux of my rebuttal to the OP.It'll be exciting and novel when you finally post it.
No one has bothered to ask for it.
Incorrect.I'm not interested enough to teach you basic physics. Be well in your lack of knowledge.
I wasn't talking physics, I was talking geometry.
That is not correct.That is OK. A sound education in physics is no longer common these days. I'm sure your strengths are in other fields.
If you had a sound education in physics you would know that there are many distinct elementary particles, all different from each other. They are not "exactly" the same.
It's not blind, I witness it all the time.I daresay you have powerful eyes if you see atoms all the time. But you're halfway there, at least you admit to it being faith.
I can only wonder what you think you're seeing when you see things, if not atoms.
I have awareness of evidence for abiogenesis.By revelation? Because you sure did not observe any evidence for abiogenesis.
I have.
I'm just letting you know that those statements can, contrary to your claim, be dismissed.But facts cannot. And look, they still stand.
Ah, but I have, in fact dismissed then. So if facts cannot be dismissed, and I've dismissed then, then they aren't facts.
You were incorrect when you called them facts...Luckily for me, your words don't create reality.
Do you imagine that yours do?
...and you were incorrect when you said that they cannot be dismissedYet there they stand, in spite of your feelings. Perhaps you are confusing "ignore" with "dismiss".You can ignore a fact, but dismissing one does nothing.
Regardless of what effect dismissing has, you said it cannot be done, yet it has been done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I don't know that.But you did claim to know that "there once wasn’t life and evidence that there was life."
Yes.
It isn't an assumption, it is a conclusion based on the available evidence.That is what an assumption is.
That is incorrect.
And there is no evidence for abiogenesis whatsoever. But I affirm your right to believe in a concept without evidence.
Thank you, but unnecessary. There is evidence.
Things don't need to be observed in order to happen.But they do need evidence that they happened. Things not based on your faith anyhoo.
Correct. And there is evidence. That would be the main crux of my rebuttal to the OP.
Regular shapes are."Regular" is a concept in your mind, like color. It isn't in the shape.
Incorrect.
But there is a reason we tell little kids at first that you can't subtract a larger number from a smaller one. People can only deal with what they are capable of dealing with.Yes it can.No it cannot. Thanks for validating the OP's claim again.
Correcting your errors is not validation of OP's claim.
Correct, but certain collections of atoms can.One of the cornerstones of physics is that elementary particles are exactly alike.
That is not correct.
If you think a certain arrangement of atoms makes them alive and capable of being self-aware, I have not seen a better rendition of blind faith.
It's not blind, I witness it all the time.
Not that I'm aware of.You lack of awareness of any evidence for abiogenesis didn't stop you then.
I have awareness of evidence for abiogenesis.
It was this type of thinking Dawkins meant when he said, “Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, lack of evidence.”
Yes, I understand what is meant by this statement.
I dismiss them.Of course you do. But facts don't care about your feelings. That's why they are called "brute facts". Your " dismissal" means nothing. They continue to exist after you "dismiss" them.
I don't acknowledge that they are "facts," I'm just letting you know that those statements can, contrary to your claim, be dismissed. You were incorrect when you called them facts and you were incorrect when you said that they cannot be dismissed.
Created:
Posted in:
Part of me is like 95% sure Ragnar is maf.
5% of me is like this is some Galaxy Brain Lunatic bluff
Created:
Posted in:
You should have claimed his yesterday. Then press would be alive and have two nights worth of results.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Dude, if you're virgin then it's autowin. We lynch you, there is no night kill, ragnar is confirmed maf. We lynch him tomorrow.
Unvote. VTL Lunatic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
The best use if your role is probably stopping the night kill rather than protecting someone.
Created:
Posted in:
Though it's probably in your and Ragnar's best interest to claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Okay, so is the cause of that disproportion due to external or internal factors?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Oh okay. Let me know when you've settled on one story, then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I see that you asked a question. I don't see that you've answered mine. Which post is it in?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
The only systemic racism involved in that policy is anti-White and anti-Asian.It is a bad policy that hurts everyone, therefore it isn't a racist policy.
I'm confused, is it a racist policy or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I would say that would hurt such a society.
Now, that I have politely and simply answered your question, would you mind staking a stab at mine?
Do these policies harm minorities more than they help them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Okay, so then you agree there are governmental policies that disproportionately harm minorities. What is that if not systemic racism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Okay, but is it a bad policy that harms them more than it helps?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't mean it rhetorically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'm asking you. Do these policies hurt them or harm them or you don't know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
So you don't think that poverty affects people disproportionately based on skin color?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
So it harms them, rather than helps them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So... policies that harm blacks more than help them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
So your claim is that minorities just don't have good work ethic or a will to change?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
For BLM? That is not correct.
For KKK? How would they know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I said what my point was:
"[R]eceiving criticism for saying something stupid is not the same thing as not being allowed to speak."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
To be fair, nobody is saying this. Slavery ended 154 years ago. I'd hardly call that"overnight". Jim Crow laws were abolished more than 50 years ago. That's not "overnight" either.To put how long 50 years is in proper perspective, 50 years ago Singapore was more or less a 3rd world country. They themselves carried the stigma of having been colonial subjects but that didn't stop them from building a great country.
To put it in perspective, slavery and discriminatory policies existed, legally, for about 350 years and have been gone (only legally) for 50. That'd like me beating you up every day for a month, then, after half a week, being like, "We cool, now?"
That's perspective. And yeah, no one is saying it went away overnight. They're just implying it, or at least are unwilling to acknowledge that any present day condition is a consequence of that period of time. So it's pretty useless to acknowledge that the after effects generally exist while at the same time denying the existence of them specifically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Saying "cops lives matter" is stupid? You disgust me.
At a BLM rally in response to "Black lives matter"? Yeah. A stupid thing to do.
Just like going to a KKK meeting and saying "Black likes matter" would be a stupid thing to do.
And for example, white people are told they cannot have opinions on racism, and men are told they cannot have opinions on abortion.
No, other people having opinions you disagree with is not the same as you not being allowed to speak.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
The fact that we live in a world where garbage like that is published is enough for me.
What do you mean it's "enough"?
<br>I can think of plenty of places where white people aren't allowed. Ie. anti-white segregation.What do you define as "not being allowed to speak"? There are places where you will get booed and attacked for saying unpopular things. Like if a man said "cop lives matter" at a blm rally, they would probably get attacked.
No, receiving criticism for saying something stupid is not the same thing as not being allowed to speak.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
But you brought up a problem whose cause isn't clear. How does that serve either argument? And I explicitly said I was speaking hypothetically; I didn't say it is necessarily due to systemic racism. So where do you get off with these accusations?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
A hypothetical musing isn't an example of a "social circle where you are not even allowed to speak if you claim being straight while having white skin and a penis."
Listen, it's very simple.
Show me something that:
1. Actually exists in the real world.
2. Is a social circle (e.g. not a political structure or civic organization that Grey linked to)
3. Has white men in it.
4. The white men aren't allowed to speak (e.g. not simply one person wishing they didn't have to listen to white men)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's very interesting that you said that because I have statistics that show fatherlessness increasing AFTER the Civil Rights act.Did America become MORE racist after 1964? How?
If you want a single clear cut issue as to why that rate is the way it is, I don't have it. No one does. I don't even know why you brought it up.
No, I don't that's your projection.I am exactly like DreadPirate that acknowledges white supremacists and racism does exist, but it is a dwindling influence and insignificant compared to far more important pressing matters that exist in the present.
Of course it seems like it is dwindling when you attempt to reframe every issue surrounding people of a given race as being separate from racism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because if you acknowledge that the after affects didn't just magically go away, then we talk about what those affects are and how they resonate today. You want to act as if the state of affairs of black people just appeared out of a void with no connection to the history of their treatment in this country.
Created:
Posted in:
The goal posts move so fast in this thread, how do you guys keep track?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Okay, so they are black only spaces, which means white people literally aren't in them. So how could they be examples of social circles, with white people, where the white people aren't allowed to talk? ROFL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's a big problem, even if you hypothetically assume the father is there 100% of the time, and far more significant than historical slavery.
Unless it is the treatment of blacks on a historical scale that caused it.
That's like me shooting you in the liver and saying it's the hole in the liver that is causing your pain, not my gun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Right, ok, then the existence of those effects is what is being talked about. It just doesn't go away because someone put pen to paper. But we have people literally saying racism is dead because we had a black president.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No, you didn't. Those aren't examples of "social circles where you are not even allowed to speak if you claim being straight while having white skin and a penis."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They're not fatherless. Just unmarried.
I'm still waiting on an example of a "social circle where you are not even allowed to speak if you claim being straight while having white skin and a penis."
Created: