Lack of Pirates is causing global warming

[grizzaholic]

Both of you are failures.

Unlike Joe, I can admit to that.

See...this right fucking here. Simply hilarious, because it is, in fact, NOT true....and only partially true when he lets SE hang around.

[kalm]

I guess irony's not your strong suit either.

Or perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe smug and condescending jokes are only funny if you are making them, not when you're the butt of one.

Which probably means you don't have a sense of humor.

Ah, irony, again.

Actually I always find smug & condescending jokes funny, doesn't matter the target or subject, so fire away.

Honesty will get you nowhere here. You simply cannot win this one.

[Ivytalk]

Everybody on this thread is wrong. It's the lack of PILATES -- hot, pulsating, exercising chicks -- that's causing global warming!

[youngterrier]

Hadn't read that letter before, but it of course makes perfect sense. I think I brought up the pastafarianism in a religious thread once and JJ was not pleased. Not please at all.

Religious bigots.

I think what I said is that the so-called pastafarianism movement involves a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals who use humor to try to mask their ignorance. I've never encountered a well-read "pastafarian," but they all think they're so smart.

Chances are, intellectuals will agree with the Pastafarian movement instead of you.....

only 33% of scientists believe in God
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-an ... -americans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

while 15% of philosophers are Theists
http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is your definition of intellectual so broad that you can include so many people that less disagree with your position in comparison to those who agree, or is your definition so narrow that it only includes people who agree with you?

[kalm]

I think what I said is that the so-called pastafarianism movement involves a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals who use humor to try to mask their ignorance. I've never encountered a well-read "pastafarian," but they all think they're so smart.

Chances are, intellectuals will agree with the Pastafarian movement instead of you.....

only 33% of scientists believe in God
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-an ... -americans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

while 15% of philosophers are Theists
http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is your definition of intellectual so broad that you can include so many people that less disagree with your position in comparison to those who agree, or is your definition so narrow that it only includes people who agree with you?

Nice knowin' ya YT.

[youngterrier]

Chances are, intellectuals will agree with the Pastafarian movement instead of you.....

only 33% of scientists believe in God
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-an ... -americans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

while 15% of philosophers are Theists
http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is your definition of intellectual so broad that you can include so many people that less disagree with your position in comparison to those who agree, or is your definition so narrow that it only includes people who agree with you?

Nice knowin' ya YT.

I'm just throwing it out there...... I've held my own quite well again JJ in the past.

[JoltinJoe]

Nice knowin' ya YT.

I'm just throwing it out there...... I've held my own quite well again JJ in the past.

Saying you've held you own doesn't make it so, no matter how abusive you get. Fact is your abusiveness is a sign of weakness. You keep that up, you'll end up like D1B some day.

Anyway, I was speaking about self-identifying "pastafarians."

Not all atheists call themselves pastafarians.

However, I would hesitate to rely on the opinions of scientists regarding the existence of God. Many of them are so narrowly trained that they have virtually no background in the liberal arts, notably in philosophy and theology. In fact, most philosophers have a far better grasp of quantum physics than scientists have of philosophy.

About a year-and-half ago, Leonard Mlodinow was a guest on Larry King, along with the Jesuit priest Robert Spitzer, both a philosopher and a scientist with an emphasis in physics. Mlodinow had just completed a book with Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, which made the grand claim that physics could explain everything without any need of God. Mlodinow started the panel discussion with that point, but after a relentless examination of his ideas by Spitzer, let's see what he was saying at the end:

[youtube][/youtube]

[youngterrier]

I'm just throwing it out there...... I've held my own quite well again JJ in the past.

Saying you've held you own doesn't make it so, no matter how abusive you get. Fact is your abusiveness is a sign of weakness. You keep that up, you'll end up like D1B some day.

Anyway, I was speaking about self-identifying "pastafarians."

Not all atheists call themselves pastafarians.

However, I would hesitate to rely on the opinions of scientists regarding the existence of God. Many of them are so narrowly trained that they have virtually no background in the liberal arts, notably in philosophy and theology. In fact, most philosophers have a far better grasp of quantum physics than scientists have of philosophy.

About a year-and-half ago, Leonard Mlodinow was a guest on Larry King, along with the Jesuit priest Robert Spitzer, both a philosopher and a scientist with an emphasis in physics. Mlodinow had just completed a book with Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, which made the grand claim that physics could explain everything without any need of God. Mlodinow started the panel discussion with that point, but after a relentless examination of his ideas by Spitzer, let's see what he was saying at the end:

[youtube][/youtube]

But, as I showed you on the statistic, 86% of philosophers did not identify themselves as theists........

As for Mlodinow, you completely misunderstand the statement. Philosophically speaking, science doesn't make you not believe in God, it makes it possible for you to not have to.

Essentially, what he's saying is, you can believe God did everything, but he's an unnecessary agent. Physics explains most everything in our universe. Occam's Razor.

You can continue to post the endings of such discussions, but let's not post the discussions themselves

Scientifically speaking, God isn't necessary for anything, and when treating the Abrahamic God, or any God of a theistic religion as a scientific postulation or explanation for anything, it is the equivalent of postulating the FSM as a scientific postulation or explanation. That's the point of the FSM "movement," if that's what you want to call it. It's satire. And seeing as most scientists would agree with the logic on a scientific basis, especially when it's advocated to be taught in public schools, I'd say they would disagree with you.

So are scientists intellectual or aren't they? What of Philosophers?

[JoltinJoe]

Saying you've held you own doesn't make it so, no matter how abusive you get. Fact is your abusiveness is a sign of weakness. You keep that up, you'll end up like D1B some day.

Anyway, I was speaking about self-identifying "pastafarians."

Not all atheists call themselves pastafarians.

However, I would hesitate to rely on the opinions of scientists regarding the existence of God. Many of them are so narrowly trained that they have virtually no background in the liberal arts, notably in philosophy and theology. In fact, most philosophers have a far better grasp of quantum physics than scientists have of philosophy.

About a year-and-half ago, Leonard Mlodinow was a guest on Larry King, along with the Jesuit priest Robert Spitzer, both a philosopher and a scientist with an emphasis in physics. Mlodinow had just completed a book with Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, which made the grand claim that physics could explain everything without any need of God. Mlodinow started the panel discussion with that point, but after a relentless examination of his ideas by Spitzer, let's see what he was saying at the end:

[youtube][/youtube]

But, as I showed you on the statistic, 86% of philosophers did not identify themselves as theists........

As for Mlodinow, you completely misunderstand the statement. Philosophically speaking, science doesn't make you not believe in God, it makes it possible for you to not have to.

Essentially, what he's saying is, you can believe God did everything, but he's an unnecessary agent. Physics explains most everything in our universe. Occam's Razor.

You can continue to post the endings of such discussions, but let's not post the discussions themselves

Scientifically speaking, God isn't necessary for anything, and when treating the Abrahamic God, or any God of a theistic religion as a scientific postulation or explanation for anything, it is the equivalent of postulating the FSM as a scientific postulation or explanation. That's the point of the FSM "movement," if that's what you want to call it. It's satire. And seeing as most scientists would agree with the logic on a scientific basis, especially when it's advocated to be taught in public schools, I'd say they would disagree with you.

So are scientists intellectual or aren't they? What of Philosophers?

I understood Mdlodinow just fine, thank you. The guy backtracked the entire discussion and then finally said the book was not about telling us not to believe in God.

As for the question about philosophers, I don't care what number of philosophers overall profess atheism or theism. Philosophy is a broad field which includes numerous sub-disciplines. As for philosophers who explicitly specialize in the fields of transcendentalism, philosophical cosmology, ontology, teleology, morality and ethics, etc., the number of believers no doubt far exceed non-believers.

A little knowledge leads to atheism. But more reading and knowledge compel belief.

Finally, if you think the FSM and the Abrahamic God are the product of the same type of reasoning, you plainly have a lot of reading ahead of you.

[youngterrier]

But, as I showed you on the statistic, 86% of philosophers did not identify themselves as theists........

As for Mlodinow, you completely misunderstand the statement. Philosophically speaking, science doesn't make you not believe in God, it makes it possible for you to not have to.

Essentially, what he's saying is, you can believe God did everything, but he's an unnecessary agent. Physics explains most everything in our universe. Occam's Razor.

You can continue to post the endings of such discussions, but let's not post the discussions themselves

Scientifically speaking, God isn't necessary for anything, and when treating the Abrahamic God, or any God of a theistic religion as a scientific postulation or explanation for anything, it is the equivalent of postulating the FSM as a scientific postulation or explanation. That's the point of the FSM "movement," if that's what you want to call it. It's satire. And seeing as most scientists would agree with the logic on a scientific basis, especially when it's advocated to be taught in public schools, I'd say they would disagree with you.

So are scientists intellectual or aren't they? What of Philosophers?

I understood Mdlodinow just fine, thank you. The guy backtracked the entire discussion and then finally said the book was not about telling us not to believe in God.

As for the question about philosophers, I don't care what number profess atheism or theism. Philosophy is a broad field which includes numerous sub-disciplines. As for philosophers who explicitly specialize in the fields of transcendentalism, philosophical cosmology, ontology, teleology, morality and ethics, etc., the number of believers no doubt far exceed non-believers.

A little knowledge leads to atheism. But more reading and knowledge compel belief.

You're clearly consumed by your presuppositions. You keep stating things, without citing facts or statistics to prove your point. The problem you have is that you don't question anything, you pursue knowledge to confirm what you believe, rather to truly learn and challenge your beliefs.

Tell me, scientifically, why should I believe in the God of Abraham more than the FSM.

[grizzaholic]

JJ...this thread is about pirates and global warming...NOT your god shit. You are just as bad as that doofus from Iowa.

[citdog]

[JoltinJoe]

I understood Mdlodinow just fine, thank you. The guy backtracked the entire discussion and then finally said the book was not about telling us not to believe in God.

As for the question about philosophers, I don't care what number profess atheism or theism. Philosophy is a broad field which includes numerous sub-disciplines. As for philosophers who explicitly specialize in the fields of transcendentalism, philosophical cosmology, ontology, teleology, morality and ethics, etc., the number of believers no doubt far exceed non-believers.

A little knowledge leads to atheism. But more reading and knowledge compel belief.

You're clearly consumed by your presuppositions. You keep stating things, without citing facts or statistics to prove your point. The problem you have is that you don't question anything, you pursue knowledge to confirm what you believe, rather to truly learn and challenge your beliefs.

Tell me, scientifically, why should I believe in the God of Abraham more than the FSM.

So sad. You were once a nice kid. You're going to wind up single, no kids, sitting in a basement somewhere surfing for porn and believing everything you read on the internet.

[youngterrier]

You're clearly consumed by your presuppositions. You keep stating things, without citing facts or statistics to prove your point. The problem you have is that you don't question anything, you pursue knowledge to confirm what you believe, rather to truly learn and challenge your beliefs.

Tell me, scientifically, why should I believe in the God of Abraham more than the FSM.

So sad. You were once a nice kid. You're going to wind up single, no kids, sitting in a basement somewhere surfing for porn and believing everything you read on the internet.

Answer the question. I sincerely hope you are trolling, because if you honestly convey these viewpoints without backing them up in any scientific way, you're nothing but a hack, a Kent Hovind with a college degree. It's funny that you confront the weak opposition of your viewpoints, but when legitimate discussions arises, you retreat to ad hominems. You're nothing but D1B, except you give one or two decent posts before you remiss into delusion.

[kalm]

You're clearly consumed by your presuppositions. You keep stating things, without citing facts or statistics to prove your point. The problem you have is that you don't question anything, you pursue knowledge to confirm what you believe, rather to truly learn and challenge your beliefs.

Tell me, scientifically, why should I believe in the God of Abraham more than the FSM.

So sad. You were once a nice kid. You're going to wind up single, no kids, sitting in a basement somewhere surfing for porn and believing everything you read on the internet.

Doing your best D1B impersonation I see.

[JoltinJoe]

So sad. You were once a nice kid. You're going to wind up single, no kids, sitting in a basement somewhere surfing for porn and believing everything you read on the internet.

Answer the question. I sincerely hope you are trolling, because if you honestly convey these viewpoints without backing them up in any scientific way, you're nothing but a hack, a Kent Hovind with a college degree. It's funny that you confront the weak opposition of your viewpoints, but when legitimate discussions arises, you retreat to ad hominems. You're nothing but D1B, except you give one or two decent posts before you remiss into delusion.

Pipe down, twerp.

Science has no answer for the existence of God. It's not a matter for scientific discussion. I don't have to answer a question with such a silly premise. Don't think you can ask flawed, loaded questions and pretend you're having a "legitimate discussion." You want a "scientific" explanation for the Abrahamic God? There is none, but you knew that already. You were just trying to be a wiseass.

If you are going to go through life looking for "scientific" answers for everything, you are going to end up up single, no kids, sitting in a basement somewhere surfing for porn and believing everything you read on the internet. Science has no answer for human love either. Get it??

I know you're going to say that love is a product of simple biology. You see, but that's your problem.

[JoltinJoe]

So sad. You were once a nice kid. You're going to wind up single, no kids, sitting in a basement somewhere surfing for porn and believing everything you read on the internet.

Doing your best D1B impersonation I see.

No, just giving him tough love.

[Grizo406]

I can't put my finger on it, but I think there's somethin' fishy goin' on here!??!

[youngterrier]

Answer the question. I sincerely hope you are trolling, because if you honestly convey these viewpoints without backing them up in any scientific way, you're nothing but a hack, a Kent Hovind with a college degree. It's funny that you confront the weak opposition of your viewpoints, but when legitimate discussions arises, you retreat to ad hominems. You're nothing but D1B, except you give one or two decent posts before you remiss into delusion.

Pipe down, twerp.

Science has no answer for the existence of God. It's not a matter for scientific discussion. I don't have to answer a question with such a silly premise. Don't think you can ask flawed, loaded questions and pretend you're having a "legitimate discussion." You want a "scientific" explanation for the Abrahamic God? There is none, but you knew that already. You were just trying to be a wiseass.

If you are going to go through life looking for "scientific" answers for everything, you are going to end up up single, no kids, sitting in a basement somewhere surfing for porn and believing everything you read on the internet. Science has no answer for human love either. Get it??

I know you're going to say that love is a product of simple biology. You see, but that's your problem.

I wouldn't say it's a problem, in fact I'd say that understanding of what something is, its roots, its function, etc. can be used in a better application to solve problems then by simply conceding mystery. For instance, Life is mysterious, and many of religious conviction feel that it devalues life when we learn more about it, especially with neuroscience and maybe even psychology. To the contrary, if we know what we think, how we think, and why we think it, there would be a lot less conflict in the world and more solidarity in knowledge.

And you proved my point, it's an underlying difference between theists and atheists. Scientifically speaking, everything has an explanation, an algorithm if you will. Essentially, the only thing scientifically giving the possibility of the existence of God is what we don't know, the God of the gaps if you will. Since it's a futile claim, there's no sense in having it. Philosophically, everything has a derivative, a cause, a root, etc. For Science and atheism, it's the laws of physics. For Theists, it's God. Essentially, you can't make the logic leap of "who created the laws of physics" because you can make the same claim for God. We have to stop somewhere at a beginning to derive reality. A theist just says God is, basically "just because." Now that's not a persecution of their logic, because really on the naturalist perspective, the laws of physics is the derivative "just because." What Hawking, et all, are saying is that logically, one does not need God, and he's right.

Back to Pastafarianism, I still think it's an adequate comparison when discussing scientific theories and the rejections of theistic "science," simply because it's a great comparison, the only difference is that no one legit believes in the FSM so no one gives it credence as a theory. On the flip side, people tend to believe in the Abrahamic God, so they give those kind of theories credence

[JoltinJoe]

Pipe down, twerp.

Science has no answer for the existence of God. It's not a matter for scientific discussion. I don't have to answer a question with such a silly premise. Don't think you can ask flawed, loaded questions and pretend you're having a "legitimate discussion." You want a "scientific" explanation for the Abrahamic God? There is none, but you knew that already. You were just trying to be a wiseass.

If you are going to go through life looking for "scientific" answers for everything, you are going to end up up single, no kids, sitting in a basement somewhere surfing for porn and believing everything you read on the internet. Science has no answer for human love either. Get it??

I know you're going to say that love is a product of simple biology. You see, but that's your problem.

I wouldn't say it's a problem, in fact I'd say that understanding of what something is, its roots, its function, etc. can be used in a better application to solve problems then by simply conceding mystery. For instance, Life is mysterious, and many of religious conviction feel that it devalues life when we learn more about it, especially with neuroscience and maybe even psychology. To the contrary, if we know what we think, how we think, and why we think it, there would be a lot less conflict in the world and more solidarity in knowledge.

And you proved my point, it's an underlying difference between theists and atheists. Scientifically speaking, everything has an explanation, an algorithm if you will. Essentially, the only thing scientifically giving the possibility of the existence of God is what we don't know, the God of the gaps if you will. Since it's a futile claim, there's no sense in having it. Philosophically, everything has a derivative, a cause, a root, etc. For Science and atheism, it's the laws of physics. For Theists, it's God. Essentially, you can't make the logic leap of "who created the laws of physics" because you can make the same claim for God. We have to stop somewhere at a beginning to derive reality. A theist just says God is, basically "just because." Now that's not a persecution of their logic, because really on the naturalist perspective, the laws of physics is the derivative "just because." What Hawking, et all, are saying is that logically, one does not need God, and he's right.

Back to Pastafarianism, I still think it's an adequate comparison when discussing scientific theories and the rejections of theistic "science," simply because it's a great comparison, the only difference is that no one legit believes in the FSM so no one gives it credence as a theory. On the flip side, people tend to believe in the Abrahamic God, so they give those kind of theories credence

You grasp so little.

[youngterrier]

I wouldn't say it's a problem, in fact I'd say that understanding of what something is, its roots, its function, etc. can be used in a better application to solve problems then by simply conceding mystery. For instance, Life is mysterious, and many of religious conviction feel that it devalues life when we learn more about it, especially with neuroscience and maybe even psychology. To the contrary, if we know what we think, how we think, and why we think it, there would be a lot less conflict in the world and more solidarity in knowledge.

And you proved my point, it's an underlying difference between theists and atheists. Scientifically speaking, everything has an explanation, an algorithm if you will. Essentially, the only thing scientifically giving the possibility of the existence of God is what we don't know, the God of the gaps if you will. Since it's a futile claim, there's no sense in having it. Philosophically, everything has a derivative, a cause, a root, etc. For Science and atheism, it's the laws of physics. For Theists, it's God. Essentially, you can't make the logic leap of "who created the laws of physics" because you can make the same claim for God. We have to stop somewhere at a beginning to derive reality. A theist just says God is, basically "just because." Now that's not a persecution of their logic, because really on the naturalist perspective, the laws of physics is the derivative "just because." What Hawking, et all, are saying is that logically, one does not need God, and he's right.

Back to Pastafarianism, I still think it's an adequate comparison when discussing scientific theories and the rejections of theistic "science," simply because it's a great comparison, the only difference is that no one legit believes in the FSM so no one gives it credence as a theory. On the flip side, people tend to believe in the Abrahamic God, so they give those kind of theories credence

You grasp so little.

Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true

[kalm]

I wouldn't say it's a problem, in fact I'd say that understanding of what something is, its roots, its function, etc. can be used in a better application to solve problems then by simply conceding mystery. For instance, Life is mysterious, and many of religious conviction feel that it devalues life when we learn more about it, especially with neuroscience and maybe even psychology. To the contrary, if we know what we think, how we think, and why we think it, there would be a lot less conflict in the world and more solidarity in knowledge.

And you proved my point, it's an underlying difference between theists and atheists. Scientifically speaking, everything has an explanation, an algorithm if you will. Essentially, the only thing scientifically giving the possibility of the existence of God is what we don't know, the God of the gaps if you will. Since it's a futile claim, there's no sense in having it. Philosophically, everything has a derivative, a cause, a root, etc. For Science and atheism, it's the laws of physics. For Theists, it's God. Essentially, you can't make the logic leap of "who created the laws of physics" because you can make the same claim for God. We have to stop somewhere at a beginning to derive reality. A theist just says God is, basically "just because." Now that's not a persecution of their logic, because really on the naturalist perspective, the laws of physics is the derivative "just because." What Hawking, et all, are saying is that logically, one does not need God, and he's right.

Back to Pastafarianism, I still think it's an adequate comparison when discussing scientific theories and the rejections of theistic "science," simply because it's a great comparison, the only difference is that no one legit believes in the FSM so no one gives it credence as a theory. On the flip side, people tend to believe in the Abrahamic God, so they give those kind of theories credence

You grasp so little.

Joe the Black Knight, getting owned by a teenager again.

You make many great points about the logical, scientific arguments made by the priesthood. Must just be a pastime.

[JoltinJoe]

You grasp so little.

Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true

Get an education and then speak to me.

[polsongrizz]

Hadn't read that letter before, but it of course makes perfect sense. I think I brought up the pastafarianism in a religious thread once and JJ was not pleased. Not please at all.

Religious bigots.

I think what I said is that the so-called pastafarianism movement involves a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals who use humor to try to mask their ignorance. I've never encountered a well-read "pastafarian," but they all think they're so smart.

Just like churchers then it would seem.

[youngterrier]

Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true

Get an education and then speak to me.

I have the temptation to say the same thing to you sometimes