Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Team Aims To Create Pure Evil AI

tommy_servo Re:How do you define evil? (527 comments)

WHAT??????
Are you really that ignorant or is this some kind of joke?

Where is my ignorance? Where do the laws of logic come from if not from God?

more than 5 years ago
top

Team Aims To Create Pure Evil AI

tommy_servo Re:How do you define evil? (527 comments)

Haha my well-thought out post was modded a troll. And then I'm accused of copying this from somewhere else by BOTH responses to it, although no one actually found an original.

But hey, mod the responder a +4 even though they never actually dealt with my arguments.

The slashdot gestapo in full effect.

No need to respond to the arguments, just mod me a troll and move on quickly so you can engage in some more anti-theistic groupthink. I must have struck a nerve if no one can actually respond logically. :)

more than 5 years ago
top

Team Aims To Create Pure Evil AI

tommy_servo Re:How do you define evil? (527 comments)

That is utterly moronic. You just stated (or copied, more like - I doubt you are even capable of thinking for yourself...)

I assure you I didn't copy it from anywhere. I typed it myself. Yessir, I'mma dumb Christian, but ahsa can think fer misself.

a bunch of made up assumptions (just because they are in bold doesn't make them true) and then used those made up assumptions to justify themselves. Wow, a pillar of logic you are.

And to think you didn't even interact or even try to justify where logic, morality, dignity, and uniformity of nature come from. You seemed to have conceded my points to me and then attacked me as a person. Ad hominem, when used, shows how utterly pathetic your argument is.

Well I claim humans created religion. So from my single assumption, I can logically state that the very act of being human thus allows all of the things you claim don't exist if humans created religion.

So where do you get logic from then? You've ignored every one of my arguments, so, let's try this again. I'll even make it easier for you.

Where does logic come from? How can abstract, non-material, laws apply to the thoughts of men (in an atheistic worldview)? Are they only conventional--did we create some rules that just simply work? If that were the case, then why can't I just create my own laws of logic, ones that work for me? How could you say my laws were wrong with your conventional laws?

(Full disclosure: I copied that paragraph from my earlier post--because you didn't respond to it. I hope by copying my earlier paragraph that I have not made the questions invalid)

Try again now. Try to tell me where logic comes from based on your worldview. If you can account for it, then you are free to rely on the laws of logic. However, if you can't justify the use of logic, why do you insist that anyone behaves logically?

Atheists don't believe that religion doesn't exist - they just don't believe god has to exist for humans to create a religion.

Nice straw man. Now let's get philosophically tough minded and actually address the issues I brought up.

more than 5 years ago
top

Team Aims To Create Pure Evil AI

tommy_servo Re:How do you define evil? (527 comments)

Where did I copy it from?

Nice baseless accusation.

more than 5 years ago
top

Team Aims To Create Pure Evil AI

tommy_servo Re:How do you define evil? (527 comments)

So says you.

One who subscribes to a set of presuppositions, however, believes in them because she accepts them as her starting point. Your presuppositions--your axioms--are your basis by which you interpret the world around you.

One must have faith in his presuppositions, because they are accepted without proof. Atheism is one of those beliefs that one must subscribe to without being able to prove it. The problem with assuming atheism as an axiom is that it does not comport with reality.

Atheism does not allow for uniformity of nature--how can one assume that the sun will rise tomorrow (in an atheistic worldview)? Because it rose yesterday? That only proves that it rose in our experience so far, but it doesn't prove it will rise again.

Atheism does not allow for laws of logic--how can abstract, non-material, laws apply to the thoughts of men (in an atheistic worldview)? Are they only conventional--did we create some rules that just simply work? If that were the case, then why can't I just create my own laws of logic, ones that work for me? How could you say my laws were wrong with your conventional laws?

Atheism does not allow for human dignity--the idea that humans have more dignity than say broccoli. Why is it permissible for the atheist to eat broccoli but not eat babies? Who says either one is any more valuable than the other?

Atheism does not allow for right or wrong. How can an atheist point to anyone else and say that they should stop doing it? A common response is that society adopts laws that determine the morality of the land. Okay, so might makes right? What would one say to the Germans of World War 2? It was legal to gas millions of Jews, so how can an atheist make a claim that their moral code is superior to anyone else's?

Theism (or more specifically, Christian Theism) is a presupposition that, when accepted, allows for and comports with uniformity of nature, laws of logic, human dignity, and right or wrong. The atheist that relies on those four things borrows from the Christian Theistic Worldview only to claim that the Christian God doesn't exist.

And yet, in doing so, they become their own refutation.

more than 5 years ago
top

If Programming Languages Were Religions

tommy_servo Re:I'm Atheist I suppose. (844 comments)

Brian - Are you C Objective?
Member A - Fuck off! We're Objective C. Where is C Objective anyway?
Member B - There he is!
Member A - Splitter!!!!

BRIAN:
        I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate FORTRAN as much as anybody.
Objective C:
        Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
REG:
        Schtum.
JUDITH:
        Are you sure?
BRIAN:
        Oh, dead sure. I hate FORTRAN already.
REG:
        Listen. If you really wanted to join Objective C, you'd have to really hate FORTRAN.
BRIAN:
        I do!
REG:
        Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN:
        A lot!
REG:
        Right. You're in. Listen. The only language we hate more than FORTRAN is fucking C Objective.

more than 5 years ago
top

IT Job Without a Degree?

tommy_servo Re:Don't think so! (1123 comments)

WTH are you talking about? Maybe Ivy League colleges are easier if your dad went there, but that doesn't mean it's easier for a Caucasian either.

Have you looked at the scholarships available for minorities lately?

Ivy League schools aren't the only game in town.

more than 5 years ago
top

Scientists Discover Proteins Controlling Evolution

tommy_servo Re:Big duh (436 comments)

Where do you get the idea that the Christian worldview is the only one where the laws of logic make sense? Wasn't Aristotle dead 300 years before Christ was even born?

How did Aristotle explain that immaterial, abstract laws govern the physical world?

As a complete rebuttal to your post, simply switch the words Christian with Flying Spaghetti Monster, then see how laughable it is.

Nice try. I wouldn't have to look far to see that the FSM is a farce made up to mock Christians. It doesn't have one-trillionth the credentials of Christianity as a realistic worldview: namely scriptural evidence, manuscriptural evidence, historical evidence and so forth. Nor does the FSM make the same claims that the Christian Theistic Worldview does. To say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a viable alternative to Christianity is akin to saying that a tricycle is just like a Toyota Avalon.

Must be sad, having an inferior mind. ;)

Even sadder that you must resort to ad hominem to cover the holes in your argument.

more than 5 years ago
top

Scientists Discover Proteins Controlling Evolution

tommy_servo Re:Big duh (436 comments)

Just in case any of you haven't noticed, there's no point in talking to this imbecile. I've talked to many people like him before, and I'll tell you what the deal is: as you've seen he simply assumes before all else his 'worldview' is correct. Even before logic itself, allegedly. All of his arguments will be based on this premise and he will never change it. He'll talk at length about logic originating from God. He will never establish this and may not even try, because in his mind it's a given. He'll argue as if reality itself changes based on one's presumptions. He's a fruitloop, just ignore him.

You don't understand transcendental argumentation.

You do understand ad hominem.

Nice retreat, though. :)

more than 5 years ago
top

Scientists Discover Proteins Controlling Evolution

tommy_servo Re:Big duh (436 comments)

This coming from the guy who's oblivious to the distinction between supernatural and non-material.

How so?

more than 5 years ago
top

Scientists Discover Proteins Controlling Evolution

tommy_servo Re:Big duh (436 comments)

Great discussion. Sorry, I had an accounting final to take and now I have a final paper to write. I'll try to respond regularly.

We need some definitions for this conversation to be meaningful - can you define what you mean by "non-material"? There's a difference between something that is (1)imaginary or a concept("non-material") (2)a property or state ("non-material"), and something that is (3) supernatural ("non-material").

I would say things like logic and beauty fall into category 1, laws of physics, energy, velocity fall in to category 2 and god falls in to category 3. Perhaps there are other categories i have missed.

It seems you aren't a strict materialist then (the problem with atheists is that there are so many different kinds.) :)

You do actually believe there are laws that govern the physical world. So you are more like a dualist like Plato. You will allow for a world of laws and a world of matter. The only problem Plato had is he couldn't understand how the two interacted with each other. He essentially said that he needed one exception...an idea gave birth to something in the physical world and the item "remembered" the world of ideas. It was actually a weak argument and Plato recognized it. He could never reconcile the two worlds.

You have the same problem. Without the CTW, you don't have a good way to get the world of laws (logic, physical laws) to interact with the physical world.

In category 1, self awareness is self evident. That's how you know you are real and it's the only thing you can know for sure.

What makes you so sure? Remember that "I think, therefore I am." is a flawed argument out of the gate. You must first assume you exist before you say the phrase because the word "I" assumes you exist! It begs the question.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that our existence is self-evident. But I can know it within my worldview. You on the other hand have no such security. You must arbitrarily assume it.

Logic itself is just a pattern of thought that is capable of being followed by the human mind in order to extract information about things it hasn't experienced yet by extrapolating the information that is has experienced.

If it's just a "pattern" yet not a system of laws, then how can you bind it on the toughts of others? Whose pattern is the true pattern of logic?

Logic relies on causality which is a fundamental property of the universe - thus causality falls in to category 2.

This is question begging--it is to say, "I don't have an answer." "The universe is just that way," you argue. "Logic is just the way the universe works."

I'm sorry, but I won't let you get off that easy! Please tell me how the world of laws interacts with the physical world? Of course you accept it, but why? It doesn't follow that the material shall be governed by the non-material.

Category 2 i am prepared to accept as existing since the alternative is that the universe is incomprehensible or nonexistant, and i don't think it's possible for the human brain to accept that.

You're arguing in the same way I am! Kudos to you. I'm saying that to deny my worldview is to render the universe unintelligible. And that all our assumptions make sense within the CTW--and I have yet to find another worldview that can account for them. Your arguing the same thing, except your only assuming laws that interact with the physical world and that you exist.

I just ask you to go one step farther, dig one layer deeper. How is reason and logic possible without laws that are universal and are binding on the thoughts of men? Where do these laws come from? Do they make sense given your three categories? How can you know your categories are correct without arbitrarily assuming them?

more than 5 years ago
top

Scientists Discover Proteins Controlling Evolution

tommy_servo Re:Big duh (436 comments)

Where in the bible is rationality favored over faith in god?
It says that the logic of men is flawed and god trumps all.

The Bible does say "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge;Fools despise wisdom and instruction." (Proverbs 1:7) Which is what I think you're referring to...but that proves my point. Without first assuming the Christian Theistic Worldview, knowledge is impossible.

No strawmen please: I've never claimed that the Bible teaches "rationality over faith in God." I've argued that without first accepting the CTW, rationality is impossible. Because "laws" of thought make no sense unless they are outside of our thoughts, are universal, and binding. The Bible does account for this concept. It praises those who reason (Isaiah 1:18, Acts 17-18, 1 Cor 13:11). It teaches plainly that truth/knowledge are possible (Luke 1:4, John 8:32, 1 Tim 2:4, 1 Tim 4:3, 2 Tim 2:25).

This is fine, IF you can prove god. If not it's no better than whatever the nearest witch doctor preaches.

You don't understand yet. (1) I've provided the proof for God. We are reasoning together, and you are insisting on the use of logic--which makes no sense apart from the Christian Theistic Worldview. You've accepted my worldview by yielding to logic.

(2) You do violence to fairness in claiming that a witch doctor is just as good as the Christian God. I know of no other witch doctor that claims that by denying him knowledge is impossible and that human experience is rendered meaningless. There is a huge difference between the Christian God all the red herring worldviews (Koran, witch doctors) that keep getting trotted out. They are either internally inconsistent or cannot account for laws of logic, absolute morality, and the Inductive Principle.

1. We can with our actions, influence society.

2. We can by living a "moral" life, encourage others to do the same.

3. We can be living an "immoral" life, encourage others to do the same.

So, as you sow so shall you reap. It's a vote for societal behavior. You can't control society, just influence it, but you're going to try to live a life that won't encourage a society that'll kick your door down, shoot you and take all you've built up for yourself as soon as they think you're too old to fight back.

What's more, the value of one's word is still important. If I get a reputation as a liar, no one will believe me.

I missed the part where you can tell someone else how they should behave. By whose authority? Your own? That's arbitrary. Society's? Again, arbitrary. Remember Hitler's Germany decided that Jews were non-humans and therefore it wasn't murder to kill them. Who are you to say he's wrong? You're a part of American society in 2008, not Hitler's Germany in 1944. On what basis would the non-Christian say anyone is wrong? Isn't it more accurate for the materialist to say that he doesn't like what the other person is doing, but that it isn't "wrong?"

How do laws of thought comport with your worldview? How does the non-material interact with the material?

more than 5 years ago
top

Scientists Discover Proteins Controlling Evolution

tommy_servo Re:Big duh (436 comments)

A worldview is "a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic makeup of our world."

more than 5 years ago
top

Scientists Discover Proteins Controlling Evolution

tommy_servo Re:Big duh (436 comments)

in what way do i need to account for them?

Just show that they are consistent given a materialistic worldview. Show how a non-material entity can universally apply to thoughts given your assumptions about the universe.

Does there exist anything non-material?

and if it isn't possible to account for them in the way you require, how does that affect the validity of my worldview?

I require consistency within your worldview. Shouldn't you wish for the same? If you cannot demonstrate that your worldview is consistent, then your worldview is invalid. :)

and what aspect of my worldview is it that is in question? Presumably it's that i am not a theist?

I question your use of logic when I haven't found a non-Christian Theistic Worldview that can account for laws of logic. I may be wrong, maybe yours can account for them. Maybe laws of logic can be treated as universal abstract absolutes that can be imposed upon our arguments within a non-CTW. Can you show me how they exist and fit within your axioms? If not, then you are presuming upon my worldview for a while, only to attack it--which is intellectually dishonest.

To be explicit, i accept that scientifically we know nothing about what exists outside the universe, or what caused the big bang. At the same time i see no reason to assume any intelligent agent had or has any part in it.

Fair enough, I see you are an intelligent person who has put some thought into this. Now, let me ask, how is knowledge possible within your worldview? How can you know something?

I appreciate the tone of your post--thanks for the civility. It's a breath of fresh air on /. :)

more than 5 years ago
top

Scientists Discover Proteins Controlling Evolution

tommy_servo Re:Big duh (436 comments)

bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!gaspAhahahahaaaa!!!!!!!!one!!!!!

No argument. Thought so. :)

more than 5 years ago
top

Scientists Discover Proteins Controlling Evolution

tommy_servo Re:Big duh (436 comments)

Seriously, where the fuck do you get this drivel? Atheism is completely consistent with saying that 1 + 1 = 2.

Ipse Dixit fallacy. It's true because I say so! Atheism is not consistent with "There is a logical law called the Law of Non-Contradiction which exists and should be imposed upon men's thoughts."

So is any other religious or philosophical position because it just doesn't have any bearing on the matter.

Then you haven't studied epistemology or worldviews. I think you should go back and brush up on these topics before you go on another epic rant that reveals the holes in your knowledge.

And please, the Christian God is the God of Reason? Let's just assume that the Bible is true, and ignore the inconsistencies in it. God is a narcissistic, homicidal maniac (serial and mass murderer, what a guy) with multiple personality disorder and all-encompassing supernatural powers, who is described on multiple occasions as deceiving people, driving them mad, poofing things in and out of existence and/or altering reality whenever he feels like it. This God is the god of reason? This religion is reasonable? Ridiculous.

The shotgun approach. Your first flaw (which is inescapable) is that you are applying (ill-used) logic--without telling me why you should be able to use logic. I could go into each of your charges and systematically defend my position against yours, but then we're both arguing within my worldview. In essence, we'd have to both assume the Christian Theistic Worldview in order to do it. In doing so, you have already lost the argument--because you can't stand within your worldview and use logic unless you can give a reasonable explanation for how you can account for these immaterial laws.

Another flaw is that you are applying your arbitrarily chosen morality code against the God of the Bible--but praytell, why would you do that? Do you believe in absolute morality, then, too? Doesn't the atheist believe that morals are relative? Can't we all choose our own moral code and try to be nice to each other? Why should anyone, let alone God, answer to your personal opinion of morality? Why must you attack God for "deceiving" others? Are you saying it's "wrong" to deceive someone? Says who? Given the atheistic worldview the most you can say is "I don't like that God decieved people," but you could never say "it is wrong for God to deceive people."

Once you say something is wrong, you must borrow from a worldview that allows for wrong and right...namely the Christian Theistic Worldview. It is consistent within the CTW to say that something is "wrong" because we believe the Christian God created a moral code that is a standard outside of ourselves. You are trying to steal that concept (saying something is "wrong") and apply it to Christianity. You're being inconsistent.

But this is pointless. You've demonstrated in your many postings to not have the faintest idea of how to construct a logical argument that doesn't collapse after a half second's worth of scrutiny, and are so horribly God-besotted there probably is no hope of recovery. Either that or you, sir, are an epic troll and I take my hat off to you.

This is funny. You still don't understand your predicament. You insist upon using logic--yet no one here, none of your materialistic compadres--has been able to give justification for immaterial laws within their worldviews. How can laws exist in a world where only matter exists? Once you are able to do that, then you can use logic. Otherwise you use logic at your own peril--because then you are assuming my worldview is true (the Christian Theistic Worldview) first. Which is, of course, the concession of the argument.

more than 5 years ago
top

Scientists Discover Proteins Controlling Evolution

tommy_servo Re:Big duh (436 comments)

But didn't you get the memo(also called the Koran) - God isnt Christian. Time to rethink your philosophy :)

Ahh, you fell into my trap. Notice how you now lie and try to claim refuge inside a different worldview (Muslim Theistic Worldview) in order to escape the force of my argument? Why not try remaining inside your own worldview and defending it instead of jumping into others?

Now if you were truly a Muslim, claiming that the Koran provides a consistent worldview for which logic and laws make sense--I'd deal with your argument differently. First I'd point out the incinsistency within your worldview. For example, the Muslims accept the Old Testament which speaks of the need for blood sacrifice for atonement. The Muslims no longer do this. It's true that the Christians no longer practice this--but that's because Jesus fulfilled that requirement when He died on the cross.

Now, before you resort to your mocking, smart-alec style of argumentation: why can't you defend your own worldview? Please tell me why you insist on using laws of logic when your own worldview can't account for them?

more than 5 years ago
top

Scientists Discover Proteins Controlling Evolution

tommy_servo Re:Big duh (436 comments)

But my proof of God does not exist is that the CTW exists. If there existed a god he would not allow the existence of such a flawed philosophy as CTW hence God does not exist.

I noticed you dodged the logic question again. If you can't give an account for why you use and rely upon logic, I can't help but conclude that you have no answer and you concede the argument to me.

So let's recap. I've presented a worldview inside which logic makes sense. I gave a reason why I can rely upon and use laws of logic, and trust the results of them.

I've stated that I have yet to find a worldview inside which logic makes sense apart from the Christian Theistic Worldview (CTW). This is where you should present a worldview that comports with the laws of logic. If not, you are reasoning inconsistently. You are relying upon the benefits of the Christian Theistic Worldview while at the same time attacking it.

It's intellectual schizophrenia.

So, please stop trying to beg the question--why are you using logic? Is it consistent to rely upon laws of logic given an atheistic worldview? Do laws, being immaterial and universal, exist within your worldview?

I thought your argument was humorous, but it was very flawed. Try being rational and consistent within your worldview. It's fun!

more than 5 years ago
top

Scientists Discover Proteins Controlling Evolution

tommy_servo Re:Big duh (436 comments)

I think you are a troll, but it is an enjoyable conversation. I would like to add that there are no natural laws, that convention has been abandoned. It is impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty. All a person can do is gather repeatable outcomes. Every time an action leads to the same outcome, a small bit of certainty is gained. That certainty can never be absolute for we are not omniscient.

How is knowledge possible given your view of the universe?

Why do you act as if you do know something with certainty? How would you go about proving the statement "It is impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty."?

You've demonstrated the intellectual bankruptcy that results when one rejects the Christian God.

Knowledge is impossible, rationality is impossible, and Science is nothing but educated guesses.

This doesn't comport with reality, nor with human experience.

more than 5 years ago

Submissions

tommy_servo hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

tommy_servo has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?