Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Bertrand Russell

shakti
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 2:54:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes....A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men." Bertrand Russell on 'Why I Am Not A Christian'

Why are you not a Christian?

Why are you a Christian?

Personally, I am not a Christian because I can not in any certainty know the attributes of god. I have a very reduced version of spirituality. I believe in god yet I invest no particular attributes to god since I have no idea what form it takes. For that there is a god seems the simplest option to me in the want of proof either way. Science just confirms the idea of interconnectedness and reliance which I take as an indication for a purpose.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 3:05:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"Saying that God is outside of time and space is uhh (laughs) it's where they've gotten to, oh it's (laughs) it's really really sad to see that this crappy nonsensical bigoted biased prejudicial faith based "knowledge system" has fallen from Aquinus to people just saying "can't touch this". - Stefan Molyneux

More or less why I'm not religious in general. I could tell you all the logical reasons and why God doesn't exist or why God can't exist, but really, the fundamental reason, the reason behind all other reasons on why I'm not religious, is this. I just feel it's full of cráp.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 7:02:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If God knows everything, then he knows where the Invisible Pink Unicorn is located.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 7:29:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It can't be invisible and pink at the same time.

Why does everybody use the color pink for the invisible unicorns?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 7:39:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 7:29:54 PM, mongoose wrote:
It can't be invisible and pink at the same time.

Why does everybody use the color pink for the invisible unicorns?

Because it's funnier that way.
patsox834
Posts: 406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 8:23:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 7:29:54 PM, mongoose wrote:
It can't be invisible and pink at the same time.

I'd think it could, since humans can't perceive colors at certain wavelengths.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 8:49:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 8:23:22 PM, patsox834 wrote:
At 8/16/2009 7:29:54 PM, mongoose wrote:
It can't be invisible and pink at the same time.

I'd think it could, since humans can't perceive colors at certain wavelengths.

What does perception have to do with it?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
patsox834
Posts: 406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 8:51:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 8:49:24 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 8/16/2009 8:23:22 PM, patsox834 wrote:
At 8/16/2009 7:29:54 PM, mongoose wrote:
It can't be invisible and pink at the same time.

I'd think it could, since humans can't perceive colors at certain wavelengths.

What does perception have to do with it?

Everything?
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 9:03:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 8:23:22 PM, patsox834 wrote:
At 8/16/2009 7:29:54 PM, mongoose wrote:
It can't be invisible and pink at the same time.

I'd think it could, since humans can't perceive colors at certain wavelengths.

PHAIL - a color is by definition a wavelength we are capable of seeing. You cannot say that a gamma ray has a COLOR, because we cannot see it to assign it a color.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 9:06:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 8:23:22 PM, patsox834 wrote:
At 8/16/2009 7:29:54 PM, mongoose wrote:
It can't be invisible and pink at the same time.

I'd think it could, since humans can't perceive colors at certain wavelengths.

> Colors are, by definition, certain EM wavelengths.
> The range of visible light is between ~380nm and ~750nm.
> To be invisible, it must be outside that range of wavelengths.
> Pink is a type of red.
> Red is between ~620nm and ~750nm.

To be both inside (pink) and outside (invisible) the specified range of wavelengths is a contradiction, therefore the IPU cannot exist.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
patsox834
Posts: 406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 10:50:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 9:03:07 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 8/16/2009 8:23:22 PM, patsox834 wrote:
At 8/16/2009 7:29:54 PM, mongoose wrote:
It can't be invisible and pink at the same time.

I'd think it could, since humans can't perceive colors at certain wavelengths.

PHAIL - a color is by definition a wavelength we are capable of seeing. You cannot say that a gamma ray has a COLOR, because we cannot see it to assign it a color.

Firstly, I don't get all this childish "fail!11!1" stuff. Are you five?

Secondly, nah. Just because we don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. Visual perception is limited.

Keep up your semantical nonsense if you want, but when it comes down to it, there are certain wavelengths we're incapable of seeing, due to color receptor cells. These few "cells" each possess certain signals, for which the basis of is the degree of stimulation present -- these are called "tristimulus values."

But what we have to remember about tristimulus values is that some don't occur for any combination of perceived light -- like, it's not possible to stimulate only one cell. All of them will be stimulated. This means the colors that we visually perceive are, indeed, limited, though we can still see a sh-t-load of them.

This is a succinct explanation, so it might not be perfect -- but I can elaborate if needed.
patsox834
Posts: 406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 10:52:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 9:06:49 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/16/2009 8:23:22 PM, patsox834 wrote:
At 8/16/2009 7:29:54 PM, mongoose wrote:
It can't be invisible and pink at the same time.

I'd think it could, since humans can't perceive colors at certain wavelengths.

> Colors are, by definition, certain EM wavelengths.
> The range of visible light is between ~380nm and ~750nm.
> To be invisible, it must be outside that range of wavelengths.
> Pink is a type of red.
> Red is between ~620nm and ~750nm.

To be both inside (pink) and outside (invisible) the specified range of wavelengths is a contradiction, therefore the IPU cannot exist.

Uh, we can't see every type of red, you know.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 11:16:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 10:52:34 PM, patsox834 wrote:
At 8/16/2009 9:06:49 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/16/2009 8:23:22 PM, patsox834 wrote:
At 8/16/2009 7:29:54 PM, mongoose wrote:
It can't be invisible and pink at the same time.

I'd think it could, since humans can't perceive colors at certain wavelengths.

> Colors are, by definition, certain EM wavelengths.
> The range of visible light is between ~380nm and ~750nm.
> To be invisible, it must be outside that range of wavelengths.
> Pink is a type of red.
> Red is between ~620nm and ~750nm.

To be both inside (pink) and outside (invisible) the specified range of wavelengths is a contradiction, therefore the IPU cannot exist.

Uh, we can't see every type of red, you know.

I think by definition, we can see every type of red.

Which of the 5 parts are you contending is incorrect?

But a little off to the side, I think you're missing the point. The purpose of the IPU was, to the extent of my knowledge, to criticize the contradictions in religious Gods. "Invisible" and "Pink" in the same thing are a contradiction to laymen, so it works fine, more or less.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
patsox834
Posts: 406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 11:39:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 11:16:36 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/16/2009 10:52:34 PM, patsox834 wrote:
At 8/16/2009 9:06:49 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/16/2009 8:23:22 PM, patsox834 wrote:
At 8/16/2009 7:29:54 PM, mongoose wrote:
It can't be invisible and pink at the same time.

I'd think it could, since humans can't perceive colors at certain wavelengths.

> Colors are, by definition, certain EM wavelengths.
> The range of visible light is between ~380nm and ~750nm.
> To be invisible, it must be outside that range of wavelengths.
> Pink is a type of red.
> Red is between ~620nm and ~750nm.

To be both inside (pink) and outside (invisible) the specified range of wavelengths is a contradiction, therefore the IPU cannot exist.

Uh, we can't see every type of red, you know.

I think by definition, we can see every type of red.

No, we can't. I explained why earlier -- it has to do with cells in our eyes, and stuff like that.

Which of the 5 parts are you contending is incorrect?

I'm "contending" that the following parts are a bit misleading, since we can't see every type of red:

<"Pink is a type of red.
Red is between ~620nm and ~750nm.">

You see, the light spectrum's constituency is, in essence, the human color space -- it doesn't feature colors we can't see, for completely obvious reasons. And you're only including the red which is apart of the human color space, so yeah. My understanding is that we can't perceive red past ~ 700nm -- when it gets to, say, 705nm, I would think it's still red; it's just a shade of red that we can't perceive.

Again, I can elaborate on this if needed.

But a little off to the side, I think you're missing the point. The purpose of the IPU was, to the extent of my knowledge, to criticize the contradictions in religious Gods. "Invisible" and "Pink" in the same thing are a contradiction to laymen, so it works fine, more or less.

Yeah, I get that -- my comments were just tangential.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 11:43:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 11:39:46 PM, patsox834 wrote:
At 8/16/2009 11:16:36 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Which of the 5 parts are you contending is incorrect?

I'm "contending" that the following parts are a bit misleading, since we can't see every type of red:

<"Pink is a type of red.
Red is between ~620nm and ~750nm.">

You see, the light spectrum's constituency is, in essence, the human color space -- it doesn't feature colors we can't see, for completely obvious reasons. And you're only including the red which is apart of the human color space, so yeah. My understanding is that we can't perceive red past ~ 700nm -- when it gets to, say, 705nm, I would think it's still red; it's just a shade of red that we can't perceive.

Again, I can elaborate on this if needed.

lol, that'd be pretty funny if it were true. There is some visible light which is actually not visible...
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
patsox834
Posts: 406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 11:45:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 11:43:31 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/16/2009 11:39:46 PM, patsox834 wrote:
At 8/16/2009 11:16:36 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Which of the 5 parts are you contending is incorrect?

I'm "contending" that the following parts are a bit misleading, since we can't see every type of red:

<"Pink is a type of red.
Red is between ~620nm and ~750nm.">

You see, the light spectrum's constituency is, in essence, the human color space -- it doesn't feature colors we can't see, for completely obvious reasons. And you're only including the red which is apart of the human color space, so yeah. My understanding is that we can't perceive red past ~ 700nm -- when it gets to, say, 705nm, I would think it's still red; it's just a shade of red that we can't perceive.

Again, I can elaborate on this if needed.

lol, that'd be pretty funny if it were true. There is some visible light which is actually not visible...

That's not really what I'm saying, but alright....