By hereby splitting those posts into a different thread I hope to have improved the quality of that original thread.
There's little chance of that, as this discussion was the only potentially interesting thing in that thread to begin with. And if I may be so bold as to ask, mein fuhrer, why split off these posts if you are just going to delete them? You may be fooling yourself about your reasons, but you aren't fooling your God.
There have been lots of situations when I, Zurreco, Phil, Fabian etc have used strong language but I certainly do not recall being anywhere near to xebras level.
I suspect that the real reason many people are getting so riled up is that I'm talking unkindly about religion, and Bisqwit specifically because I seem to be focusing on his (one true) religion. I was much more unreasonable with JXQ in the Sonic 1 thread -- I wasn't even making points worthy of discussion! -- but no one really cared, and we worked it out in the end, the way grown men do.
Ask yourself this: would anyone be pissed off if I had been inflammatory toward Scientology? Would Bisqwit have banned me for cursing Tom Cruise, or if the Jesus Christ account had been named Xenu? Perhaps people should examine their own deficiencies before damning me for mine.
I don't think that passivity has a direct connection to religion. I think it is somewhat human nature to chose inaction when faced with a question with no right answer.
moozooh wrote:
I'd think it would boil down to personal indecisiveness, rather than having a connection to religion.
That wasn't really what I was getting at. Yes, other aspects of someone's personality may affect such a decision, but the point is that faith in a higher power specifically allows people to feel no sense of responsibility for inaction in situations where taking a rational action requires sinning.
Hebrew national makes some of the best tasting hot dogs on the market (I could give two shits about them being "coshure" or whatever that term is) but they come in packages of 7. Why in gods name would they short you on 1 per package? Who do they think they are fooling? They are already more costly then the others there, but only packaging 7 is just plain cruel.
How much do seven Hebrew National hot dogs weigh? Perhaps their seven weighs as much as another brand's eight, and abattoirs tend to package meat according to weight, not number? My question is motivated by a similar discussion on the Straight Dope.
As a general rule it is safe to say that most religious people would not choose to take an extremely negative action* that is nevertheless rational. Taking the negative action would actually necessitate you killing a man (even if it would save five), while if doing nothing does happen to kill five people, well, it's God's will, and God is inscrutable, but always right, there's a reason for everything, and thou shalt not kill and all that.
*Also assume that the negative action (such as molesting a child, or something) isn't prompted by some psychotic urge that overpowers their "beliefs."
So if this one "homo gene" as xebra calls it does exist as a simple dominant-recessive expression (either you have two of the gene and you're gay, or you have one or none and you're not), then it is possible to say it wouldn't die out due to 3/4 of the population having at least one recessive gene. I guess you could argue that it maybe has different levels of expression, so bisexuals just have less expressed homosexuality, but I don't know of any theories about that.
I think you missed the point of my post. There is no "homo gene." There is no "one gene coded to not replicate." However, even if there were, such a simple view is not sufficient for you to immediately assume that the gene would be selected against in all cases. Let's say there is a gene that causes one sex to prefer their own sex exclusively, and has no other effects. Such a gene would exert no selective pressure on females of species where males essentially rape females. Most animals where a herd of females mate exclusively with a dominant male qualify, for example, horses, lions, and sea lions. Significant populations of Homo sapiens also qualified throughout much of human history (and still do today), due to strict tribal structures, arranged marriages, religious rules, etc. Such a gene should also exert no selective pressure on modern human females since lesbians can (and do) choose to artificially inseminate. Such a gene should exert no selective pressure on many domesticated animals whose breeding is closely controlled by humans, and not the animals.
Now let's talk about another interesting effect. It is possible for it to be necessary for two genes to be found together. Quite recently there was an impressive bit of research done in the area of malaria resistant mosquitoes. Creating and breeding such mosquitoes is nothing new, but it's always been a problem figuring out how to make the antimalaria genes propagate in the wild. What the researchers did was to actually engineer two genes. One gene codes for sterility, and is dominant, so only requires one copy. The other gene, also dominant, codes for two things: it makes the mosquitoes resistant to malaria and it deactivates the sterility gene. Thus, the first generation offspring of such mosquitoes (even if they mate with wild mosquitoes) must carry the antimalaria gene or they can't reproduce themselves. Also, fully half of the first generation will carry both the antimalaria gene and the sterility gene. Both mathematical models and breeding studies with unaltered mosquitoes confirmed that this sort of scenario results in the both the antimalaria gene and the sterility gene becoming more common with each generation. That's a highly contrived, specific, and completely artificial example, but you can imagine how it's possible for similar effects to cause seemingly bad genes to propagate. It surely must be the case that many bad genes interact with other genes to allow them to express exceptionally positive traits more effectively.
If the environment decides who becomes a homosexual, why are there homosexual children in ALL kinds of families? You would expect that the deciding factor would be something in the parents, be it an overprotecting mother, an absent father or something like that. Why is there no pattern to who is a homosexual and who is not? Is it just some random factor which decides who becomes a homosexual?
Because both nature and nurture matter, obviously. ~20,000 genes, even larger amounts of non-protein encoding DNA, and endlessly variable environments interact in ways that are hard to predict.
I have a strong sense in biology and science, so this question is coming from that standpoint: How is it that people believe a person can be inherently born with homosexuality?
As pointed out in one of these ask me threads, the meaning of life from a biology standpoint is to reproduce. If there is a gene or trait passed down from parent to offspring that codes for the desire to only be with the same sex, wouldn't that child never reproduce, thus ending the genes existence? I understand in the past (and to a certain extent today) that social influences may have pushed someone who "felt" like they were supposed to be gay into heterosexual relationships. But with today's somewhat more accepting stance on the issue, if homosexuality is biologically driven, shouldn't we see the trait or gene die out due to it's inherent inability to reproduce?
You may usually have a "strong sense" in science, but you lack sophisticated thoughts concerning gene expression and heredity. Genes do not occur in isolation, they overlap and intertwine, interacting with each other in ways that are very difficult to understand, much less predict. I guarantee you there is no single gene that codes for homosexuality. Rather, there are a great many genes that may make it more or less likely that homosexuality is expressed in an individual, and they all affect the expression of other traits, as well. Even if you take the view that homosexuality is negative from an evolutionary standpoint (i.e. homosexuals don't reproduce, so "homo genes" shouldn't get passed on), you have to realize that many of the genes that promote homosexuality probably have various advantageous effects in heterosexuals. Also consider that it's likely that many of the genes that promote homosexuality differ between men and women, and that "dyke" genes may be advantageous for males, while "faggot" genes may be advantageous for females.
----
Leviticus 18 (TNIV)
22Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 20 (TNIV)
13If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Leviticus 28 (MUBT)
14But two chicks going at it is quite pleasing.
What is your personal favorite chapter/verse/other length of excerpt from the Bible?
Can I guess at yours?
1 Corinthians 14 (NIV)
34Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
1 Timothy 2 (NIV)
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
----
P.S. I have it on good authority (the Highest) that Phil favors these two:
Ezekiel 23 (NIV)
20There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
Deuteronomy 23 (FBM)
2No one with crushed testes or lopped member shall come into the LORD's assembly.
You asked "What do you think of some random guy's claim that 'nephesh' is mistranslated when rendered as 'soul'?" and I responded with "It's true, 'nphesh' is mistranslated when rendered as 'soul'"...where did I miss the question?
I didn't ask what Bisqwit thought of the claim, I asked what he thought of the analysis and its implications. Also, Robert Alter isn't some random guy, he is a preeminent old testament scholar and translator.
I'm also an expert on PHP programming, yet I do not know precisely how PHP implements Arrays.
I do not need to be obsessed with every little detail in order to be knowledgeable about something.
Your analogy is not apt, and surely you know this. First of all, Christianity is not PHP programming, and you don't believe PHP programming is capable of magic, and neither will it result in the eternal damnation of souls. Secondly, my (real, actual) example didn't nitpick some minor detail. It nitpicked the very concept of the soul. Thirdly, talking about the existence of the soul (and biblical support one way or the other) is not equivalent to talking about the inscrutable inner workings of complicated technology in any way.
Anyway, I would appreciate it if you switch to another topic. Obviously chances are that I am biased, but regardless, I don't think it's far fetched to say that from us two, it is you to whom the word "fanatic" applies more precisely.
English isn't your first language, so you are forgiven for not knowing exactly what fanatic means: "a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics." My enthusiasm may be extreme, but it is not uncritical. Unlike you, I am certainly willing to evaluate my own beliefs with a critical eye. If you hadn't been unartfully dodging every question I've asked in this thread, you might have had an opportunity to cause me to do so. Anyway, if you lied a few pages back and this discussion really does make you uncomfortable, then don't make a thread called "Ask Bisqwit" and then state you don't mind mocking questions about your faith. Or, hell, you could always do what Jesus would do and just ban me again.
[Edit by Bisqwit: Removed large picture that had no clear connection to message's content.]
What do you think of Robert Alter's exegesis in The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary concerning the pathological mistranslation of nefesh as "soul"?
I think that's something I haven't read.
And, I don't know Hebrew.
Is that responsible? Your "foundation is that the bible is right," and you, as a Christian, "utilize your expertise on the bible for spiritual consulting" and consider it your "job to tell frankly what the bible teaches." Yet you apparently have little actual expertise on the subject, nor seem to care to. (Or does expertise mean to you, "an interpretation that agrees with my indoctrination"?)
For something that is so central to your being, wouldn't it behoove you to educate yourself on that which you believe to be the absolute truth? Or is it good enough for you to believe in the absolute truth filtered through thousands of years of miscopying, mistranslating, political influence, and hidden agendas?
Nephesh means, more closely, "life" or "living thing" or "animating force". It's not exclusive to humans. The terms for these kinds of things are hard to render in English, so soul would be adequate except that there are other parts - like the ruach and the neshemah - who would like the term better.
I have no idea who that guy was, but there you go. I'll stop answering Bisqwit's questions now... (maybe I should make a religion topic?)
You actually can't stop answering Bisqwit's questions because you never started. Your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked.
What do you think of Robert Alter's exegesis in The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary concerning the pathological mistranslation of nefesh as "soul"?
As I said in my original post, the amount of mass and energy in the written paper is not all by itself the thing that transfers the information. The amount of mass and energy can be completely *identical* in another piece of paper, yet that another piece of paper may not transfer any information at all from one person to another. Given two papers with the *exact* same amount of mass and energy, what is it that makes one contain "more" than the other, what is it that makes one cause a reaction while the other doesn't? It's not energy. What is it, then?
I'm convinced by now you are just trolling, but I'll respond to your nonsense nonetheless. Two pieces of paper with the same mass are not black holes. Conglomerations of matter are defined by more than just their mass, spin, and charge. If the matter of one sheet of paper is arranged differently than the matter in another, then they are different. If the matter of one sheet of paper is arranged by one person to convey meaning through learned patterns to another person who also knows those patterns, then that sheet of paper is capable of transmitting information from one person to another. Information is not magical, and spouting stuff like "information has no energy" or whatever you said a few posts back doesn't make any sense at all.
The matter in our brains is configured in such a way that we can use learned patterns to evoke responses out of other brains that are similarly configured. It's no coincidence. It's because we were both exposed certain kinds of patterns that caused chemical responses in the neurons in our brains, forming links between some, severing links between others, etc. Now our brains respond one way to learned patterns, and another way to meaningless smudges. Even though it is seemingly infinitely more complex, this is little different than the fact that chemical compounds react to some things and not to others, for example N,N-diethyl-D-lysergamide is psychoactive, while N,N-diethyl-R-lysergamide is not, and they have the exact same atoms in them, information energy wtf omg! Hint: the atoms are arranged differently. Anyway, I don't really know what else to say since I don't actually understand what you think the problem is.
I have a bag of salt, and a bag of sugar. They are of arbitrary size (the sizes of the bags do not matter). I mix the two bags vigorously. What is the best way re-isolate the salt and sugar without changing the state of either (i.e. you can't use melting points to your advantage)? Is this possible without analyzing each grain of salt/sugar?
Kyrsimys gets points for the classical "lateral" solution to the puzzle, but as someone else already pointed out, you can't really get the sugar away from the ants.
Laughing_gas suggested you put the salt and sugar in a solution and then use a centrifuge, but that won't work. Putting the salt and sugar in a solution doesn't magically give you salt water and sugar water, it gives you salt-sugar water, so there aren't two liquids there to separate. Spinning the salt-sugar solution in a centrifuge will create a density gradient, but it won't separate the salt and the sugar. Rather, the concentration of both solutes will change along the gradient.
The only real solution I know of uses good old fashioned chemistry. In the general case, what is needed are two immiscible solvents, in one of which one solute has a high relative solubility, and in the other of which the other solute has a high relative solubility. Pour the hopelessly mixed solutes into a container with the solvents, and stir vigorously. Allow the mixture to sit for a while, and the two solvents will naturally separate. Once separated you can siphon the solvents off and allow them to evaporate, leaving two piles of purified solutes. You can repeat the process until you achieve a desired level of purity. This is a very common procedure used to separate all sorts of things, commonly known as solvent or "liquid-liquid" extraction. Also it should be pointed out that in our case we only need one solvent, namely dimethyl ether. Since ether doesn't dissolve salt at all, you can pour the sugar-salt into ether and remove the salt with a filter.
This may seem like a trivial question, but I've seriously wondered about it many times. The pages and ink used in many of my textbooks have some weird reflective properties that basically make them unreadable if the light source is within a certain distance or at a certain angle to the book. This is quite inconvenient, as you may imagine. Does anyone know why such paper and ink is used?
To follow up on Inzult's explanation, the glossy finish specifically prevents the paper from absorbing ink. The ink does not sink into the paper and spread, so you can print at a higher resolution and with less color diffusion. I think that's what Inzult means by optical density. You can confirm this by actually erasing ink from textbook pages, which is impossible with newspapers or inkjet printed pages. How to do it: take a normal pencil eraser and gently erase your target area over and over again. The ink will slowly fade away, and finally, vanish. Inevitably you will also erase a bit of the gloss finish on the paper itself, so if you hold it under light at an angle, you can tell it has been erased by the lack of a glossy reflection in the offending area, but you leave absolutely no trace of the ink you removed. I used to wile away many an hour in grade school erasing entire pages from my textbooks :) .
Is it the doctor's fault if he tells the patient that they have a lung cancer? Even if that's only what the doctor's education suggests from the patient's symptoms and from the patient's point of view, there is a chance that the doctor may be wrong.
Doctors based their diagnoses on verifiable evidence, you know. They also don't tell their patients they are morally corrupt for smoking, just that research has shown and most doctors agree that inhaling carcinogens tends to be unhealthy in the long run. Oh, and I forgot to call you a coward up there, as well.
xebra wrote:I was going to answer your questions, but the language you used in question 2 basically confirmed what Warp wrote; you aren't asking to get answers. You're just expressing your hatred. Your questions are loaded with offensive attitude towards Christianity.
Sorry to disappoint those who wanted actual answers.
I'm not Christian, so I really doubt I'm capable of the fervor required to actually hate something. I asked my questions because I wanted to hear actual responses to them. It's true they were phrased offensively, and intentionally so. My attitude is somewhat understandable, though, as I was miffed that you lied about not being bothered by taunting questions.
Also, get a fucking grip, man. You've told me in no uncertain terms that I am going to spend an eternity in agony in hell. You're pissed off because I called you a cock sucker? You are a cock sucker, and a hypocrite, and an irrational bigot, and so many other things that cause so much misery to so many people. And yet, I still won't brush you off and condemn you to eternal damnation just yet. God, I'm magnanimous!
1. You say blahblahblah only Christians get into heaven, Jesus this and that, yadda yadda. But if the body is fleeting and the soul/spirit (what is the difference there?) are everlasting, what in actuality is the significance of corporeal death with respect to affirming religious belief? That is, why is there a functional difference between accepting Jesus before and after death? I am an atheist and likely always will be one. Not because I am incapable of changing my mind, but because, let's be honest, magic isn't real. However, if, when I die, I am brought before Jesus/God (is there a difference there, either?), it seems likely that after a time I will be able to be convinced I am really dead, I'm not hallucinating, God is real, etc., then I would certainly be willing to admit to God that I believe in him. Furthermore, if God could then convince me that he has absolutely nothing in common with Christianity as it is represented today, and that he's as flabbergasted as the next deity as to how much we humans manage to fuck things up, I might even be willing to "accept him as my savior" inasmuch as that has any meaning. Supposing I do, why can't I get into heaven?
2. I'm actually a pretty decent guy. It's unlikely I'll ever do anything really bad in my life. For example, rape, murder, and religious indoctrination of innocent children are out of the question. Why do you want to believe in a god that would cast me down into eternal hellfire just because I won't suck his cock?
3. I've been told that the only unforgivable sin is to renounce God, or some such. Is that right? Why is that such a big deal? Is it really more acceptable for me to rape your mother, murder her, and then lock you in a cell with nothing to eat but her flesh? (P.S. I'd give you a stove if you don't like rare meat.) (P.P.S. I've read stories equally reprehensible in the Bible, why is God such a sick fuck?)
4. I renounce God. Am I even human any more? Do I deserve to live? Is it ok for people to kill me? I'm just going to hell anyway, right? Should I have any rights?
5. Is God powerful enough to create an angel stupid enough to fight him? I mean, he's all powerful. I guess the answer is yes by definition, but then who would be stupid enough to defy him? Especially if you have first hand experience that's he's real, as Lucifer surely did? None of this religious stuff makes any sense! I'm beginning to think Greedo shot first!
6. How come Christian mythology is more believable than that of any other religion? Had you been born in India, we can both agree it is almost a certainty you would not be Christian. So much of the bullshit that shapes our thoughts and beliefs is cultural, and culture is shaped by local tradition. Why do you believe the belief system into which you were born is the correct one?
7. Suppose you were in a position of power over a large number of people who are easily manipulated and didn't have too much common sense. Your task is to design a belief system you can push upon them that will solidify, perpetuate, and increase your power, as well as minimize the likelihood that a rebellion will form or succeed. How would your fictional belief system differ from Christianity? What would they have in common?
8. What is your take on various contradictions in the Bible? Also, why is there so much in the Bible that has no relevance to modern life? Why does it seem like theology is the only human pursuit that doesn't change and evolve to accommodate increases in knowledge? (Reluctantly changing to belatedly accommodate certain mores when under enormous social pressure doesn't count.) Will Christianity always be stuck in the past?
Thanks, but no thanks.
The strongest "drug" I ever take is an aspirin, and in average I take it approximately once a year. No kidding.
It sounds almost as if the concept of mind and mood altering drugs seems abhorrent to you. Might this sort of closed-minded attitude be part of the reason you have problems being as socially involved as you would like to be in the "real world"?
