Ding Dong the Ding Dong's dead

[Rev Dark]

Catty; I have heard of the Simulation Argument before; but up to your post had not read the paper itself. Thank you; I quite enjoyed it, and spend several hours of shop time contemplating several of the implications (although in the spirit of multi-tasking I was also listening to Hitchens at the time.)
Math and logic are tools used by the scientific method (and I am fond of both of them) however there are limits to constructions of pure math and logic; and we have to be wary of these limits. If your constants (logical or mathematical as it were) do not have an observable reality, you can logically prove damn near anything. The author is aware of this, and takes pains to elucidate this in the presentation of his argument, which is appreciated, especially when compared to the puerile proofs of Aquinas. While this makes for interesting reading, it ultimately feels like a very subtle satire; though it could certainly spawn many a late night conversation.
I do like how you could substitute post-human or simulator into any phrase currently containing the word god. We truly cannot know the mind of the simulator. In simulator we trust. But for the grace of simulator go I. As amusing as this is; the same argument that you bring against the existence of god can be brought against the existence of the simulator -who may be simulated by an even greater simulator. The foremost being there is no proof and no apparent means of proof.
Fidhooki quoth

---

No atheism is not a bigoted beleif. There are many athiests who get along just fine with those that believe. However, in your words, I am 'delusional' and anything I say would be be suspect because I believe in god. So that must extend to anyone else that believes as well. Now would you hire a person who has such a delusion since their views and opinions would also be 'suspect'? Discriminating against someone just because of their religous beliefs is bigotry no matter the reason you use to hide it

---

I see that you are unable to distinguish rhetorical flourish. Your persecution complex just went condo. No I dont discriminate against the religious. My barb was directed specifically at you for presenting opinion without evidence; appealing only to an imaginary higher authority as the basis for your argument. Everyone has opinions. Not all opinions are equal. Douglas Adams said it very well.

---

All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.

---

(The rest of the interview is here - it is worth a read)
www.americanatheist.org/w...erman.html
Fidhooki

---

Anyway, I think our problem is we do not see words the same way.

---

No, your problem is that you use words (racist, bigot, zealot, etc.) without knowing what they mean. These are not ad-homonym attacks to use your inappropriate rake analogy; but fundamental misunderstandings in the definitions themselves. By the way the ad-homonym attack is a homophone not a homonym pun.
Fidhooki again

---

That's the main reason. Falwell spouted his beliefs for good or ill. To oppose those beliefs and debate them openly as to whether they are right or wrong is the way it should be done. But to hate the man that says them just because he did is another matter. I could say with some certainty that Rev doesn't know Falwell good enough to hate him or not.

---

Falwell did not just speak; he acted. Badly. With malice and enough temporal power to enact change. He did not want debate, he wanted submission, and the temporal power (political and financial) to enforce that submission.
I think it is safe to say that the pronouncements and actions of Falwell are sufficient to engender hatred. His opinions were elucidated clearly; his actions well documented and easily researched. As to not killing people his ministry was and still is against HPV vaccinations. Cervical cancer must be the gift of a loving god who wants to dirt-nap a whole bunch of people in a painful way. I like Mahers take on this

---

Now for the bad news: Not everyone is pleased with this vaccine. That prevents cancer. Christian parent groups and churches nationwide are fighting it. Bridget Maher -- no relation, and none planned -- of the Family Research Council says giving girls the vaccine is bad, because the girls "may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex." Which is really a stretch. People don't get the vaccine for typhoid and say, "Great, now I can drink the sewer water in Bombay." It's like saying if you give a kid a tetanus shot she'll want to jab rusty nails in her feet.

---

Falwell was a charlatan and a huckster. Hoovering money out of the faithful, eroding the separation of church and state; engaging on attacks on science or at least the sciences that he felt threatened his racket he may not have liked evolution, but he was first in line to avail himself of the advances in biology and medicine.
Another lovely little Jerry Story what a twat.
www.talk2action.org/story...213627/818
Shayne