"God did not create Universe!", says Hawking.

[Tyrath]

Of course science doesn't have all the answers now and I respect that, but they apparently have enough to deny the existence of a god, which I find ludicrous.

How dare science deny the existence of something that can't be proven?!

[Max™]

All I said was, there is a reason people love eating sugar, and why your brain rewards you in the manner it does.
Your brain is a crackhead, your body is a dealer, and it happily sucks your cock to get more sugar.

Assburgers are not very nutrious, unless you're a zombie.

Heya Tom it's Bob, from the office down the hall.
It's good to see ya buddy, how've ya been?
Things have been ok for me, except that I'm a zombie now.

I really wish you'd let us in.
I think I speak for all of us when I say I understand,
Why you folks might hesitate to submit to our demand.
But here's an FYI: you're all gonna die screaming.

All we wanna do is eat your brains.
We're not unreasonable, I mean, noones gonna eat your eyes.
All we wanna do is eat your brains.
We're at an impasse here, maybe we should compromise?
If you open up the door,
We'll all come inside, and eat your brain!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjMiDZIY1bM

[Kuya]

Max, shut up, you missed his point.

[Max™]

Kuya, shut up, you're not qualified to make such a statement. His point about kids not knowing what is best for them was made using an example of something which is stupidly vilified.

[Kuya]

His point was legitimate, you twat. His example might not have been appropriate, which is, i think, what you're screeching about.

edit: the problem, if you didn't get it. Is how you went about his post as if his argument was wrong. The meaning he was trying to convey was accurate, but his example might have been wrong. You attacked him like a complete idiot.

[wagon]

Seriously, why would a guy who has spent in a wheelchair for more than half of his life believes in god and been deprived all the joy of physical activities to which a normal human is entitled to and capable of? His reaction to his ALS diagnosis was probably "There's no god!!"

Kudo to him for speaking up though, people nowadays are too politically correct to say what they really think about religion, mainly the obsolescence of it.

[Max™]

His point was legitimate, you twat. His example might not have been appropriate, which is, i think, what you're screeching about.

That is what I said, sweetheart, thanks for catching up.

edit: the problem, if you didn't get it. Is how you went about his post as if his argument was wrong. The meaning he was trying to convey was accurate, but his example might have been wrong. You attacked him like a complete idiot.

He chose something which happens to be regularly treated as if it is wrong, that the enjoyment derived from eating sweets means it must be bad for you or something even dumber like it being a sin.

If you set out a table covered in nuts, meat, cheese, bread, fruit, vegetables, and twinkies. I don't think it makes much sense to assume kids would exclusively eat the twinkies, and demand more if there were none left. Naturally the most highly rewarded forms of glucose intake are a source of constant cravings in a growing child with a developing brain, but people crave more than just sugar.

Kids are not mindless hedonistic barbarians, contrary to the bullshit you may have heard, raise some kids before you make such a stupid example to try to prove a point.

[Kuya]

Okay then, thanks for tearing into someone's argument by focusing intently on an aspect that, true or false, wouldn't have changed the point behind the argument's structure. And in the process of this, you managed to act like a complete imbecile over something that didn't matter, because, apparently, not only do you not have a grasp of debate etiquette, you also don't have a grasp over logic.

Cheers

[Gadritan]

debate etiquette

"Right." rofl.

[Kuya]

Oh, right. The internet.

[Max™]

I wonder why I'd be bad at etiquette, anyways... "I was inclined to eat only sugar, thankfully I was taught the science of nutrition" is a bad comparison to a discussion about "children naturally look for pattern and meaning, therefore they are inclined to believe in god", with the followup I assume he was getting at being: "...thankfully they are taught the science of reality" in comparison to the skyparent hypothesis.

The problem being the implied values of his statement being compared against the implied values of the discussion topic at hand, is based on the utterly incorrect idea that the urge to eat only sugar is somehow wrong.

Thus my shock, and rather acidic response to something which I personally am irritated to great lengths by.

[guartz]

that the enjoyment derived from eating sweets means it must be bad for you or something even dumber like it being a sin.

20 years ago .....


Max: Mom.. Dad. I want candy.
Parents: No young man, sweets are bad.
Max: /revenge face

[guartz]

Here is a shocker, I wasn't even responding to you Max, in my original statement.

[Kuya]

I wonder why I'd be bad at etiquette, anyways... "I was inclined to eat only sugar, thankfully I was taught the science of nutrition" is a bad comparison to a discussion about "children naturally look for pattern and meaning, therefore they are inclined to believe in god", with the followup I assume he was getting at being: "...thankfully they are taught the science of reality" in comparison to the skyparent hypothesis.

The problem being the implied values of his statement being compared against the implied values of the discussion topic at hand, is based on the utterly incorrect idea that the urge to eat only sugar is somehow wrong.

Thus my shock, and rather acidic response to something which I personally am irritated to great lengths by.

When you choose to attack a specific part of a person's argument that isn't necessary for it to be wrong or true in its entirety, it is always a good idea to inform the person that you're not trying to debate their main argument, but rather, that you're going to focus on a specific aspect of it, because it is your pet peeve. That way, the person making the argument wont feel you're engaging in fallacious and disingenuous behaviour via the well known fallacy of confusing one part of a person's argument for the entire argument. Kind of like attacking someone's spelling rather than the argument itself.

I knew that you weren't trying to engage in fallacy, because i knew you agreed with guartz's point in its essence, but anyone else who doesn't know you, would think you a complete moron.

[guartz]

My working theory on Max is more plausible Kuya.

Max is... Willy Wonka.

[Kuya]

How did you arrive at this theory?

[guartz]

I don't have any empirical evidence, however there are two similar traits. Max admitted to have a pet peeve regarding the 'misunderstanding' of child's need for candy. If you seen the latest Willy Wonka Documentary, (played by Johnny Depp) it is revealed in the flashback scene that Willy Wonka was too, sensitive to such 'misunderstanding'.

[Max™]

I'm sorry, you must have meant to say Gene Wilder, no one else has ever played Willy Wonka.

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com...make-sucks.jpg

I didn't assume it was in response to me, incidentally, but it did trigger one of those things that set me off. Hearing shit like ADHD "epidemics" being attributed to candy/sugar, rather than constant TV access, along with the ever present "children are hedonistic savages" idea.

I wanted revenge on my dad for abusing my mom, btw, I wasn't denied candy or sugar or whatnot.

[Kaylia]

But there is no debate:

- Either you approach the question from a purely logical standpoint, i.e. theology vs philosophy and the debate is solved (conferatur page 1 or 2).

- Or you approach the question indirectly, i.e. religion vs science and the debate is completely misguided.

The only reason there is debate is because most religious people of today don't believe out of faith (believing despite the odds) but out of ignorance and/or stupidity (miscontruing the odds as being in your favor).

I agree with everything you said except for one part, it's not just "religious people" who believe out of faith. Most atheists you encounter have no idea what they believe in. People hate religion for all the wrong reasons and claim they came up to that conclusion using logic or sciences, but in the end, it's just a wild uneducated guess (there is no such thing as "educated guess" for something we have absolutely no idea)

I'm a major in maths and physics, and I don't believe in anything remotely close to religionl, I simply hate when people "side" with science for the wrong reasons. I'm not here to side with anyone.

The difference is that religion claims to explain it all in a convincing way ; science only claims to have a plausible but unproven theory about how it all started and philosophy claims very little.



Science doesn't try to explain "why", it is merely concerned with "how".
"Why" is the domain of philosophy.
Hence why "religion vs science" is a misguided debate.



My mate Ockham has this pretty cool razor : when confronted with "why does the universe exist ?", he examines the possibilities :

1. The universe exists because god/YHWH/"72virgins with big breasts and as many boys as you want"/a sausage created it.

From this possibility, another question arises : "why does the sausage exist ?"

1.1. A bavarian supergod in lederhosen created it but got so drunk he forgot to eat it.

1.2. It just does.

2. The universe exists because Odin and his brothers decided to splatter Ymir's brains everywhere.

2.1 Fuck, Odin's awesome.

3. The universe just exists. (i.e. "we don't know")

From this, he determines that "the universe just exists" is more plausible than "the universe exists because god created it and god just exists." Afterwards, he shaves his neckbeard with the razor.

I don't feel like having this debate again, it's the same thing every damn time.

You're not using occam's razor properly here. To use it, the hypothesis need to be of equal nature, which is not the case in this kind of scenario. "The universe just exists", and "the universe was created" are not equals hypothesis that lead to the same answer/conclusion. Beside, "the universe exist" is a premise, not the answer to the question.

Going to quote wiki, but many people seem to ignore this when to come up with Occam razor argument

In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[5][6] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result

Where Occam shine is in mathematics, when you're trying to simplify something. For example, if you have a system where
1) Every A > B
2) Every B < A
You could (and should) simplify it without losing any generality to 1) or 2) alone.

[Mizango]

Seriously, why would a guy who has spent in a wheelchair for more than half of his life believes in god and been deprived all the joy of physical activities to which a normal human is entitled to and capable of? His reaction to his ALS diagnosis was probably "There's no god!!"

All of you have been saying the same thing forever, it means you have no clue what the fuck youre talking about so lets attack his wheelchair. Welcome to 30 years ago. It doesnt stop him for holding the prestigious Lucasian chair and being one of the greatest minds (Alan Guth is a close 1a in my book) to ever "walk" the planet, see I can do that too. Blaming it on a handicap is dumb as shit and speaks levels of your own levels of retardation. Whats your excuse for being able bodied and wasting your life? I mean if some bitter asshole in a wheelchair can hold one of Earths most glorious positions, then go take it from him. Last I checked walking wasn't a prerequisite for genius.

Im not in a wheelchair, have no disease, am very happy and live a fantastic life... your god is a man constructed lie and will forever be a placebo that makes you feel good about waking up every day. If he helps you, fantastic! But leave the pinhead comments at the door, because when you respond with a "PH YA< HIZ WHEELCHAIR IS UGLY" then you basically confirmed to everyone here that you have no idea what the fuck youre talking about. He even jokes about that "burn" in interviews, in his book 'a brief history of time' and how he first heard it when he was 30, which was 10 years into his disease. Either contribute or shut the fuck up already.