Comments
504,221 - 504,240 of 720,497 Comments Last updated 33 min ago

“Jesus is Love”

Since: Jul 12

Hutchinson, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527674
Aug 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Take your own poll, walk up to random Christians and ask what the "First Council of Nicea" was, if you get more blank stares than not, you lose!
Do you mind if I show them your hateful posts before I ask that question??? I always am prepared to show people the ugliness of atheism whenever I bring up the subject.

I show your rude and vile posts with my smart phone at restaurants, at doctor's waiting rooms, seminars, while meeting folks at the mall, family gatherings, in church, at ballgames, etc, etc.

I always get a crowd gathered around me and every person present agrees that you are a sick mentally disturbed and ANGRY individual. You can tell everyone pities you before we adjourn.

I hope that every Christian does this, and together we can destroy atheism . Topix has made it so simple.

Just showing 5 people a day posts like yours will do major destruction to your pathetic cult.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527675
Aug 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Part 7

Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to constantly consider what was right and what was wrong? In a society of ever changing lifestyles and values, we must evaluate behavior to determine if it is good or bad, or maybe neither, or maybe both. It's so hard to determine. You have to think about it, a lot. Sometimes you get it wrong. Sometimes WE make mistakes in considering what mistakes ARE. How could we ever avoid this?

We could have dogmatic rules of morality. We could decide what is right and wrong, good and evil, and just write it down and follow those rules, without ever having to think about them again. What's better, generations later, nobody knows why the rules were made the way they were, but it's always been that way. Those are the rules. It's so much easier to just check the appropriate boxes, deflect the responsibility back to whoever or whatever made the rules, and go about your day oblivious to the huge decision you just made. Who wants all that responsibility and work?

Well, I don't mind it. It keeps my mind sharp having to constantly reevaluate my ethical ideologies. It may not be ideal, or easy, but it is the best way. Best is better, in my view.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527676
Aug 17, 2012
 
Gray_Box wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I would prefer to write your post for you. You seem to always do that to others.
Actually, if you do not know who Rev. Ralph Abernathy and Rev. Al Sharpton are, then you do not know who Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. are.
Based on your posts, you think that Reverend King and Jackson were idiots, fools, and idiots for believing in talking snakes and Noah's Ark. Gosh, according to you, King was an idiot and a mad man and his "I had a Dream" speech was from a fool who thought that God talked to him in dreams.
Gosh, according to you, these four fools, Reverends and Christians, were and are dumb enough to believe in a promise land, heaven, and a God who could deliver them there.
How does my saying that I respect those men extrapolate to the fact I am calling them idiots for believing in God. My respecting them is to do with the work they have done for equal rights for their people and for all men. Their beliefs regarding a god doesn't mean that I have no respect for them

I don't judge people based on their beliefs; I judge people (if I actually judge people) based on their behavior.

I respect a lot of people and many of them are believers in God. How about sticking to the topic and stop trying to find fault with me, because we don't agree on everything posted here.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527677
Aug 17, 2012
 
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I've seen pretty much every scifi movie or series that deals with artificial intelligence.
It might be possible, I don't know, for us to digitize the human brain, or in other words, make a copy that can exist inside an artificial brain. It might also be possible to grow copies of specific human brains, or generic ones.
Artificial intelligence could be modeled on human perceptions or decision making processes. I don't know if we could ever "improve" on the human brain, outside of the human brain. We could make a substantial improvement in brain function by advancing in our knowledge of the brain and methodologies for education. I don't see how we could ever create something with more abilities than us without having those abilities ourselves. How else could we implement them? It's possible we may stumble across a way of creating an AI with better learning capabilities, but we would have to sacrifice those things that hinder those abilities in us, things that are helpful (for us), mostly emotional things. It depends on what our goals are for the AI.
Actually, it would not be possible to transfer an organic brain between mediums. There are very small but important physical differences between the neural networks of each brain, so copying the data from one source then putting it to another would be like trying to put the puzzle pieces of two different puzzles together in the exact same order. That analogy fails I think, I can't think of one that describes what I am saying well though.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527678
Aug 17, 2012
 

Judged:

2

Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
You're jealous of my confidence,
it doesn't have to make sense,
I'll show you how insecure you are,
with my analogies and pretense!
I'm so confident!
I say it in the mirror!
I'm so confident!
I say it without fear!
You can't stand it, I know,
all the evidence I show,
because you don't understand it,
don't blame me because you're slow.
I'm so confident!
I say it in the mirror!
I'm so confident!
I say it without fear!
You're afraid of my apologetics,
your understanding is pathetic,
I know so much theology,
my words are almost prophetic.
I'm so confident!
I say it in the mirror!
I'm so confident!
I say it without fear!
I believe, which makes it true,
no matter what you say or do,
I know what I know and I know,
that you know what I know too!
I'm so confident!
I say it in the mirror!
I'm so confident!
I say it without fear!
Gold star Tide.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527679
Aug 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Gray_Box wrote:
<quoted text>You know, I usually do not try to engage you in debate, so please "white sheet" the post. Hopefully, you will read it adn then ignore it.
Slander is verbal communication, libel is written defamatory communication.
In any case, I have done neither. Let me edcuate you to the meanign of racism.
Wikepedia is basic, and therefor sufficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
Racism is generally defined as actions, practices, or beliefs that reflect the racial worldview: the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called "races". This ideology entails the belief that members of a race share a set of characteristic traits, abilities, or qualities, that traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral characteristics are inherited, and that this inheritance means that races can be ranked as innately superior or inferior to others.[1][2][3]
The exact definition of racism is controversial both because there is little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race", and because there is also little agreement about what does and doesn't constitute discrimination
Man has categorized humans under several races which they invented, based on certain physical characteristics. Whether these are true differences or just terminology to help us sort out humans based on certain common traits, such as skin color, eye shape is debatable.

Technically your definition of a racist may be correct; ie categorizing people based on differences. However I think most of us understand the word racist in its more common form, to be prejudiced against people of other races than your own just because they are different. If that is not the true definition, all definitions were created by man, so if man commonly uses the word as a derogatory word, then so be it.

As you said racism is to judge some races as superior or inferior to others. If that is done for the purpose of denigrating a race then it is a bad thing. Humans are all individuals. We cannot classify a whole group as to their value to the human species based on what 'race' they belong to. Irregardless of whether there is any significant differences, all humans, since we are all part of the human species, should be treated equally and those that advocate otherwise are hate mongers and evil.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527680
Aug 17, 2012
 
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I've seen pretty much every scifi movie or series that deals with artificial intelligence.
It might be possible, I don't know, for us to digitize the human brain, or in other words, make a copy that can exist inside an artificial brain. It might also be possible to grow copies of specific human brains, or generic ones.
Artificial intelligence could be modeled on human perceptions or decision making processes. I don't know if we could ever "improve" on the human brain, outside of the human brain. We could make a substantial improvement in brain function by advancing in our knowledge of the brain and methodologies for education. I don't see how we could ever create something with more abilities than us without having those abilities ourselves. How else could we implement them? It's possible we may stumble across a way of creating an AI with better learning capabilities, but we would have to sacrifice those things that hinder those abilities in us, things that are helpful (for us), mostly emotional things. It depends on what our goals are for the AI.
Already been done. Supercomputers can and do calculate any given equation thousans of times faster than any human. Perhaps because they do not the inhibiting factors of emotion and latent "survival" lattice interfering with calculation.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527681
Aug 17, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it would not be possible to transfer an organic brain between mediums. There are very small but important physical differences between the neural networks of each brain, so copying the data from one source then putting it to another would be like trying to put the puzzle pieces of two different puzzles together in the exact same order. That analogy fails I think, I can't think of one that describes what I am saying well though.
I agree. Transferring a complete consciousness to an artificial medium, one that would end up behaving as if it's in an organic brain, may not be technically possible, but surely isn't practically possible.

I don't know if we'll ever even understand the human brain well enough to outline such an idea. I think we will eventually do things like outputting sensory data to computers, maybe visual memories or something. We should be able to increase our brain-to-technology connections to various ends. I've always been intrigued by the idea of dream sharing, though I don't know how that would be technically possible either.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527682
Aug 17, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it would not be possible to transfer an organic brain between mediums. There are very small but important physical differences between the neural networks of each brain, so copying the data from one source then putting it to another would be like trying to put the puzzle pieces of two different puzzles together in the exact same order. That analogy fails I think, I can't think of one that describes what I am saying well though.
You mean like trying to place an AMD processor in an Intel socket?
The processor would be incapable of transmitting the proper information, as their pin alignment is not in the correct placement.

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527683
Aug 17, 2012
 
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> I don't see where any of your 2 links contain the quote of the Priest mentioned. Never heard of him.
That's odd, I supplied two links that spoke about him(Faustus of Riez), did you go to the links?
lightbeamrider wrote:
'A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.'' Joseph Stalin.
But when a mythical deity drowns an entire planet in a mythic deluge, it's considered divine and holy. Worthy of worship.

Context.

Eh?

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527684
Aug 17, 2012
 
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>Already been done. Supercomputers can and do calculate any given equation thousans of times faster than any human. Perhaps because they do not the inhibiting factors of emotion and latent "survival" lattice interfering with calculation.
A cell phone can out-calculate any human.

That doesn't make it an AI.

Humans can perform acrobatics, requiring highly complex calculations, and we do it without being aware of it. An acrobat AI should be able to get something wrong ten times in a row, learn, and start getting it right on the eleventh time, because it knows how to make the improvements, because it knows it's wrong, and because it wants to be right. It should quit after five hundred attempts, but not after 20, depending on the individual situation. It should not only consider if it can be correct, eventually, but if it is worth the resources to try, and determine (somehow) where to draw the line.

We can create something with focused abilities, but nothing that can best us at everything. I don't know why we would even try to do that though. We should have fairly specific goals for our AIs so that they can do something specific, and do it much better than us, more efficiently.

“I am who I am”

Since: Jun 11

Upstate NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527685
Aug 17, 2012
 
Gray_Box wrote:
<quoted text>Great post and thanks for sharing with us all. However sadly I must tell you that although you put him in his place, he will likely find a new place and claim he was there all along.:) smile.
Isn't that usually the way?:)

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527686
Aug 17, 2012
 
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>You mean like trying to place an AMD processor in an Intel socket?
The processor would be incapable of transmitting the proper information, as their pin alignment is not in the correct placement.
That is a much better analogy, thank you.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527687
Aug 17, 2012
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I have it spot-on.
It is your allegation that God is fake. Since He's not been proven either way, that makes it your OPINION. If you have fact to back up that opinion, please share with the rest of the class.
You have none. I have my opinion that God is real. I know this personally & since it's a spiritual thing, I can't prove it to anyone. That doesn't change my fact that God is real.
It doesn't change the fact that you think there is a God, however we know that humans can have various psychological or spiritual experiences, or can be in certain highly emotionally charged situations think they experience something outside themselves, but that can be shown to be their body and nervous system, including the brain, reacting to certain self imposed or external stimuli.

There are all kinds of examples of humans reacting certain ways to certain stimuli, and also it can be shown and has been that during brain surgery when certain parts of the brain are stimulated, the person experiences certain feelings. An American born, but famous Canadian neuro-surgeon, Wilder Penfield, considered the top of his profession at the time, made several discoveries about how people react when certain parts of the brain are stimulated.

Some of his work, was adapted by others as the basis for the I'm OK- You're Okay Psychology which was very popular back in the 1970s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilder_Penfield

Out of body experiences and NDE have been simulated in laboratory situations. It is quite conceivable that what you believe is your proof of God can be explained naturally, though you may not be aware of that natural explanation.

Since you haven't actually told us what "proof" you personally experienced, we are at somewhat of a disadvantage to be able to have any opinion on it.

Personally, without even knowing what experience gave you the proof that God exists, I am sure that what you experienced was totally manifested by you or was a reaction of you to whatever situation you were in at the time, and it doesn't require any belief in the supernatural to explain it. I say that only because I don't believe there is a supernatural that humans can experience. If humans have an experience then that is natural and so natural reasons should be able to explain it. I could be wrong.

Maybe it is something that can't be explained to someone else, and I can accept that, however it would not in any way help to lead anyone else to believing in a god, without knowing something more about what it is. Some other person might experience the exact same thing, but attach some entirely different meaning. But since we don't know what it is we cannot even offer alternative suggestions to your interpretation.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527688
Aug 17, 2012
 
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. Transferring a complete consciousness to an artificial medium, one that would end up behaving as if it's in an organic brain, may not be technically possible, but surely isn't practically possible.
I don't know if we'll ever even understand the human brain well enough to outline such an idea. I think we will eventually do things like outputting sensory data to computers, maybe visual memories or something. We should be able to increase our brain-to-technology connections to various ends. I've always been intrigued by the idea of dream sharing, though I don't know how that would be technically possible either.
Actually, we do understand it well enough, that's why we know it would not be possible. Each organic brain is unique in the physical layout, as I said the differences are very few but changing the value of one of the neurons can have a huge impact on the outcome. Because of this difference and exact copy is impossible, it's also the same reason we could not transfer one person's consciousness to another. The neuron values and connections would not all align correctly resulting in jumbling of data as well as altering the personality, perhaps even resulting in an infant personality.

It would be like dropping an 286 processor into a Macintosh computer, the instructions would not be correct for the hardware layout and you'd have to relearn everything. Now you could copy the brain to another storage device, clone the person, then upload to that clone with little to no damage, but even then there will be difference in the virgin neural network.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527689
Aug 17, 2012
 
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
A cell phone can out-calculate any human.
That doesn't make it an AI.
Humans can perform acrobatics, requiring highly complex calculations, and we do it without being aware of it. An acrobat AI should be able to get something wrong ten times in a row, learn, and start getting it right on the eleventh time, because it knows how to make the improvements, because it knows it's wrong, and because it wants to be right. It should quit after five hundred attempts, but not after 20, depending on the individual situation. It should not only consider if it can be correct, eventually, but if it is worth the resources to try, and determine (somehow) where to draw the line.
We can create something with focused abilities, but nothing that can best us at everything. I don't know why we would even try to do that though. We should have fairly specific goals for our AIs so that they can do something specific, and do it much better than us, more efficiently.
I agree.

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527690
Aug 17, 2012
 
lightbeamrider wrote:
''Thou goest to woman? Do not forget thy whip!'' Neitzsche.
Sorta kinky, lightbeamrider. You ole dog, you.

I would have never thought you were into Nietzsche. Maybe you'll like this.

"All truly great thoughts are conceived by walking."- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

Some of his musings are okay, but I'm not a fan. Even though I quite agree with that one.

Never saw the whip comment, ummm, thanks... I guess.
lightbeamrider wrote:
BS
Don't be angry.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Yeah well time will tell.
There it is.

Time will tell what?
lightbeamrider wrote:
Who you trying to convince? Me or you?
Just offering alternative views. Not everyone thinks like you.
lightbeamrider wrote:
With your selective quotes void of context?


Here you go.

http://lmgtfy.com/... +

http://lmgtfy.com/...

You choose the context.

If it says something like; “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”- Matthew 24:34

That's your Jesus words, and according to Christians, it meant a generation of people that live over two thousand years later, not the people he was supposedly talking to, his inner circle, the disciples, in private.

That's in context, according to Christianity, right? "This generation" in those days meant 30 to 40 generations later. Not those guys.

In context.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527691
Aug 17, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, we do understand it well enough, that's why we know it would not be possible. Each organic brain is unique in the physical layout, as I said the differences are very few but changing the value of one of the neurons can have a huge impact on the outcome. Because of this difference and exact copy is impossible, it's also the same reason we could not transfer one person's consciousness to another. The neuron values and connections would not all align correctly resulting in jumbling of data as well as altering the personality, perhaps even resulting in an infant personality.
It would be like dropping an 286 processor into a Macintosh computer, the instructions would not be correct for the hardware layout and you'd have to relearn everything. Now you could copy the brain to another storage device, clone the person, then upload to that clone with little to no damage, but even then there will be difference in the virgin neural network.
I don't often say that something is impossible. I don't know enough to say so. I know enough to see how extremely difficult it would be. I think that's where our knowledge of the human brain is. Perhaps if we understood it more, the impossible could be possible. You've obviously done a lot of research in the area though, so I refer to you for the technicalities.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527692
Aug 17, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, we do understand it well enough, that's why we know it would not be possible. Each organic brain is unique in the physical layout, as I said the differences are very few but changing the value of one of the neurons can have a huge impact on the outcome. Because of this difference and exact copy is impossible, it's also the same reason we could not transfer one person's consciousness to another. The neuron values and connections would not all align correctly resulting in jumbling of data as well as altering the personality, perhaps even resulting in an infant personality.
It would be like dropping an 286 processor into a Macintosh computer, the instructions would not be correct for the hardware layout and you'd have to relearn everything. Now you could copy the brain to another storage device, clone the person, then upload to that clone with little to no damage, but even then there will be difference in the virgin neural network.
Yah! Then there is still the logistics of the multitude of synapse duplication.

“I am who I am”

Since: Jun 11

Upstate NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527693
Aug 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
You're jealous of my confidence,
it doesn't have to make sense,
I'll show you how insecure you are,
with my analogies and pretense!
I'm so confident!
I say it in the mirror!
I'm so confident!
I say it without fear!
You can't stand it, I know,
all the evidence I show,
because you don't understand it,
don't blame me because you're slow.
I'm so confident!
I say it in the mirror!
I'm so confident!
I say it without fear!
You're afraid of my apologetics,
your understanding is pathetic,
I know so much theology,
my words are almost prophetic.
I'm so confident!
I say it in the mirror!
I'm so confident!
I say it without fear!
I believe, which makes it true,
no matter what you say or do,
I know what I know and I know,
that you know what I know too!
I'm so confident!
I say it in the mirror!
I'm so confident!
I say it without fear!
You've almost got it right. I'll show the corrected version below.
Tide with Beach and corrected by Brother Marine wrote:
You're annoyed by my confidence,
exactly because it does make sense,
I'd offer to teach you Catcher
but you're just too dense.
I am confident in Christ
and it's something you can't beat.
So you run away and hide
beneath your own white sheets.
The evidence I show
is too much for your superficial mind,
you go through life with blinders on
but then tell me that I'm blind.
It's true I have no fear of atheism
but I don't need to say so in a mirror.
It's the truth of the resurrection
that allows me to debate you without fear.
You're annoyed by my apologetics,
because your lack of understanding is so pathetic.
I'm not an expert in theology
but you won't even bother to debate it with me.
Yes I am confident!
Because of Christ I don't need to fear
I'm free of the tumor that is atheism
with all of it's smoke and mirrors.
I believe because of the evidence
and no matter what you say or do,
I am filled with hope and confidence
which is more than I can say for you.
Yes I'm so confident!
But only because of God's grace
I just wish I could see you read this
so I could see the stunned look upon your smug face!
There..

... all better now! LMAO :D :D :D

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

548 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 6 min RoSesz 532,735
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 9 min EdmondWA 93,708
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 11 min number four 224,168
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 34 min The Awakener 172,368
Last Word + 2 44 min Richies Cool Man Diary 70
Shock Poll: 40% Still not Sure Obama is America... 56 min WasteWater 19
Hot gays in Abu Dhabi (Nov '13) 1 hr sonu 400
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 1 hr An NFL Fan 115,080
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr WasteWater 256,491
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 6 hr bRB 74
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••