CFI Forums

Republican race to the Prezidency wide open, place your bets

2012-02-08T20:25:53-05:00

Now the real excitement is in the Republican prez dog’n pony show,
I mean horse race.

Santorum coming up from behind,
Gingrich choking,
Romney stumbling, but remains the great white hope,
well unless tea bagging is where your at, then perhaps it’s Santorum,
but Gingrich has the money.
Oh my.

So what’s your bet?

I’m still fantasizing about the dream team of Santorum & Bachmann leading the Republican party to an ass whopping.

Put your money down folks. . .

It Only Just Happened

2012-01-30T11:56:52-05:00

Here Mark Twain gives us a fictitious conversation between Jim and Huck Finn where they discuss whether the stars were made or “only just happened”:

“It’s lovely to live on a raft. We had the sky up there, all speckled with stars, and we used to lay on our backs and look up at them, and discuss about whether they was made or only just happened. Jim he allowed they was made, but I allowed they happened; I judged it would have took too long to MAKE so many. Jim said the moon could a LAID them; well, that looked kind of reasonable, so I didn’t say nothing against it, because I’ve seen a frog lay most as many, so of course it could be done. We used to watch the stars that fell, too, and see them streak down. Jim allowed they’d got spoiled and was hove out of the nest” (Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Chapter 19).

Today more and more scientists are coming to the conclusion that it did not “just happen” but instead it was made by God. Alan Sandage, the winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy, wrote that “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing” (Willford, J.N., March 12, 1991, “Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest,” New York Times, p. B9).

Professor Antony Flew, age 81, has been a legendary proponent and debater ‘for’ atheism for decades but now says that “the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.” In a recent interview, Flew stated, “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution:

“It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.”

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/flew.html

It seems to me that it takes a much larger leap of faith to believe that the universe “just happened” than it does to believe that God created it.

The two envelopes problem

2012-01-04T20:27:52-05:00

What is it? From the wiki

The problem:

The two envelopes problem, also known as the exchange paradox, is a brain teaser, puzzle or paradox in logic, philosophy, probability and recreational mathematics, of special interest in decision theory and for the Bayesian interpretation of probability theory.

Specifically:

Let us say you are given two indistinguishable envelopes, each of which contains a positive sum of money. One envelope contains twice as much as the other. You may pick one envelope and keep whatever amount it contains. You pick one envelope at random but before you open it you are offered the possibility to take the other envelope instead.

The implications of switching:

The switching argument: Now suppose you reason as follows:

1. I denote by A the amount in my selected envelope.
2. The probability that A is the smaller amount is 1/2, and that it is the larger amount is also 1/2.
3. The other envelope may contain either 2A or A/2.
4. If A is the smaller amount the other envelope contains 2A.
5. If A is the larger amount the other envelope contains A/2.
6. Thus the other envelope contains 2A with probability 1/2 and A/2 with probability 1/2.
7. So the expected value of the money in the other envelope is

8. This is greater than A, so I gain on average by swapping.
9. After the switch, I can denote that content by B and reason in exactly the same manner as above.
10. I will conclude that the most rational thing to do is to swap back again.
11. To be rational, I will thus end up swapping envelopes indefinitely.
12. As it seems more rational to open just any envelope than to swap indefinitely, we have a contradiction.

The puzzle: The puzzle is to find the flaw in the very compelling line of reasoning above.

Non-probabilistic variant:

The following plainly logical arguments lead to conflicting conclusions:

1. Let the amount in the envelope chosen by the player be A. By swapping, the player may gain A or lose A/2. So the potential gain is strictly greater than the potential loss.

2. Let the amounts in the envelopes be Y and 2Y. Now by swapping, the player may gain Y or lose Y. So the potential gain is equal to the potential loss.

The conflict between human reasoning, logic and rationality. To switch or not to switch?

Some info for those interested in universal health care

2012-02-08T17:15:37-05:00

There has been a lot said in the media regarding this subject. Much of it motivated by one political extreme or the other. As a physician I am in the unusual position of actually supporting the idea of universal health care. I think its insane that the lives and health of people depend on having a job that provides health insurance. Here’s a site that has some interesting info about how the rest of the world deals with this issue.

http://www.npr.org/series/91972152/health-care-for-all

Physics & Skyscrapers

2011-02-10T20:42:04-05:00

I moved this out of crop circles and pseudo-science since skyscrapers are grade school physics.

Rocinante - 10 February 2011 12:14 PM
psikeyhackr - 10 February 2011 11:38 AM

I’m sorry. I didn’t know I had to specify a VERTICAL STRUCTURE.

That is what WTC 1 & 2 were. The conservation of momentum doesn’t apply to a bridge falling down through empty space like the mass of the top of the north tower falling down into mass designed to support it.

I purposely chose bridges to point out how silly your implication is. Bridges don’t have story after story of excess weight on top of them.

So now it is your turn. You show me any other self-supporting vertical structure that:

Was already weakened by being slammed into at 500 MPH by a jetliner

Had its fire proofing knocked off its trusses

Burned uncontrollably from a combination of jet-fuel and office furniture

Had its steel load lateral holding columns sheared off by a jetliner

Oh and while your at it, find me one controlled demolition crew that can drill thousands of holes in concrete, cut and pre-score thousands of support beams, insert hundreds of pounds of explosives, run thousands of feet of wiring for the weeks on end it would require and all in an occupied building without anyone noticing anything unusual…and keeping quite about it for nearly 10 years!

Even though you can’t show any of those, I can show you a self-supporting vertical structures that collapsed from fire:

Steel-Framed Building Collapses from Fire

You will notice it was a toilet paper factory. Appropriate for all the shit that comes from the vile and disgusting Troofers!

You brought up the bridges because you are STUPID!

And can you tell us the TONS of steel on every level of these self supporting vertical structures?

The NIST couldn’t do it for the WTC in 3 years with 10,000 pages and $20,000,000.

So if the airliner could do so much damage then why did the building only move 15 inches due to the impact?

It seems you can’t handle any rational physics since you need to come up with the moronically emotional “all the shit that comes from the vile and disgusting Troofers!”

And then the example you use is a ROOF COLLAPSE. A horizontal structure like a bridge. It was not a vertical structure having to hold dozens of levels of its own weight.

He added: “Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof.”

So how thick does the steel have to be to support a roof?

psik

Religious values underpin his policies, Obama says

2012-02-03T04:28:01-05:00

Religious values underpin his policies, Obama says

By Lesley Clark
McClatchy Newspapers
Feb. 3, 2012
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/03/4235782/religious-values-underpin-his.html

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama, who rarely speaks of his faith, defended some of his administration’s policies Thursday by saying they reflect his religious convictions.

Speaking at the annual National Prayer Breakfast . . . Obama, who has proposed a tax on the richest Americans to pay for a payroll tax break for the middle class, suggested religious underpinnings to his call for “shared responsibility,” saying that asking those who have been “extraordinarily blessed” to give up some tax breaks makes economic sense.

But, he added, “For me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’ teaching that ‘For unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’ It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.” . . .

Obama offered a glimpse of his spiritual life Thursday, telling the crowd that he says a brief prayer upon waking each morning and spends time “in Scripture and devotion.” He said he prayed “from time to time” in the Oval Office or by phone with several pastors who were present.
He alluded to his own religious upbringing, noting that he grew up in a household “that wasn’t particularly religious” and found Christ “when I wasn’t even looking for him.”

He recounted visiting the Rev. Billy Graham while on a family vacation in Asheville, N.C., calling it “one of the great honors of my life.
“I have fallen on my knees with great regularity since that moment, asking God for guidance not just in my personal life and my Christian walk, but in the life of this nation and in the values that hold us together and keep us strong.”

REASON podcast: Seperation of Church and State

2012-01-28T07:34:56-05:00

This week we’re doing a show about seperation of church and state at REASON podcast, and i realized that most of the CFI fourm fans don’t even know we exist! Well, fret no more, becuase I’ve got something neat for you.

We’ll be talking about why and whether church and state should be separate with film maker Scott Burdick as our special guest.

Call in at 8pm Tomorrow (sunday) night to ask questions, give opinion or just shout back the tide at (424) 243-9589.

You can find our show page at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/reasonpodcast/2012/01/30/reason-podcast or at our jump-site wnyatheist.org

Black Hole Eats Asteroids, Burps Out X-Rays

2012-02-08T18:05:49-05:00

By Adam Mann February 8, 2012

The supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy may be constantly snacking on asteroids. A new study finds that asteroids at least 12 miles wide falling into the black hole would account for the regular bright x-ray flares seen through telescopes.

{...}

For several years, NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory has spotted daily fluctuations in the emissions coming from the Milky Way’s central black hole. Known as Sagittarius A*, this 2-million- to 4-million-solar-mass black hole is approximately 26,000 light-years from Earth near the border of the constellations Sagittarius and Scorpius.

Sagittarius A*’s daily flares generally last a few hours and increase the black hole’s brightness by a hundred times. Scientists have been at a loss to explain why the black hole would have such regular eruptions.

Researchers now suggest that tens of trillions of asteroids and comets, stolen from their parent stars. . . . . . .

How’s that for exciting?

Sure beats endlessly beating that dead WTC horse.
Visiting that thing helps me appreciate how people can cling to believing Earth is six thousand years old . . . after all there’s plenty of “proof” the scientists are all screwed up

It’s big, it’s old and it lives under the sea

2012-02-07T15:41:28-05:00

Always happy to oblige, and I won’t even do it on an AGW related topic, though I’ve got plenty of them stored up

George - 07 February 2012 01:15 PM
Today is the Sophie’s Choice day on our forum: it’s between 9/11 conspiracy, the envelope problem, and sports. Can somebody start a new thread on something else?

Cool stuff and I didn’t even have to go far to find it.

Just imagine it. . . . . . . our oldest common ancestor.

Ancient Seagrass Holds Secrets of the Oldest Living Organism On Earth

ScienceDaily (Feb. 7, 2012) — It’s big, it’s old and it lives under the sea—and now an international research collaboration with The University of Western Australia’s Ocean’s Institute has confirmed that an ancient seagrass holds the secrets of the oldest living organism on Earth.

God cannot know everything. Carnal love, reproduction or sex.

2012-02-09T13:35:20-05:00

God cannot know everything. Carnal love, reproduction or sex.

Believers are constantly saying impossible things of God. They make many definitive statement of God’s attribute while claiming that he is unfathomable, unknowable, immutable and works in mysterious ways. These are clear contradictions and un-provable truths that no judge could or would accept. Yet believers think the atheist should just swallow these lies whole. And when atheists do not, believers get into their condescending mode; treat the non-believer like a child; while it is believers themselves who are action in a non-adult way,——led by fantasy,———- when atheists will just not accept something unproven as truth.

Whenever the discussions of God get into explaining his irrational, immoral or strange attributes, believers deny it through evasion. They do so by hiding behind some evasive statement or other. These include silly irrational or unknowable adjectives and phrases like; God works in mysterious ways; God can do whatever he wants; God owns us; God does not have to follow his laws because they are for man and not himself; God’s action may look immoral but it is because he knows so much more than we do. Discussion end with the believer chanting one of these mantras of self-deception. Almost like a parent telling his child that it is that way because it is that way and expecting the child to accept this condescending statement and evasive lie. Believers are not honest enough to just say, I don’t know.

Anyone with experience in debated with believers expects these yet they are not applicable or relevant to moral issues. Regardless, believers use them to justify God’s immoral action and to explain away attributes that are impossible to apply to God.

God is not corporeal. He is immaterial. He cannot reproduce true. He cannot have sex. He cannot know the effects on our psyches from chemical reactions that trigger human sexual activity and desire.

Knowing this, any moral person will know that God should not dictate to man how to handle sexual matters. God cannot know what the feelings and emotions are that drive sex in man and thus it is immoral for him to demand that we do as he wishes. Because of this, he also has no right to punish man for ignoring his unlearned dictates of issues that he himself cannot possibly fathom.

There are likely many things that God cannot know. I have chosen three that I think are obvious. Carnal love, reproduction and the emotions and physical feelings that go with sex.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL