Creationists Manipulating Search Results 445
reallocate writes: It looks like some Creationists are manipulating search results to ensure websites pushing religion are appearing in response to queries about science. Ask Google "What happened to the dinosaurs?" and you'll see links to Creationist sites right at the top. (And, right now, several hits to sites taking note of it.) Google has a feedback link waiting for you to use it.
"What happened to the dinosaurs?" (Score:5, Funny)
The answer is that they're still here, SEO-ing the search results.
Dinosaurs, the ones related to lizards, can be traced through the fossil record to a number of extinction events.
Dinosaurs, the ones related to creationism, can be traced through the search results to the pages they've tweaked for rankings.
Re:"What happened to the dinosaurs?" (Score:5, Funny)
As they call it, intelligently designing the search results.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I am sure the author didn't want it to read "How Evolutionists (You ;^) Are Manipulating Google!"
Re:"What happened to the dinosaurs?" (Score:5, Informative)
Dinosaurs, the ones related to lizards
Uhh...wut? Just because they looked like overgrown lizards in Jurassic Park, doesn't mean they're related to lizards.
Here's Jur ass has had it Park's raptor:
http://jurassicpark.wikia.com/... [wikia.com]
Here's what a raptor probably looked like IRL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Now what modern animal does the likely IRL version of a raptor resemble? If you guessed lizard, then I'm sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW that post sounds kind of mean spirited to the OP in retrospect, which isn't intended, I'm just poking fun at creationist websites claiming that dinosaurs espousing the idea that "god let lizards live a long time so they grew big" which isn't supported by the fossil record.
Re: (Score:3)
Btw. lizard is no cladistic category. Lizard is a habitus that often appears in certain groups of amniotes. But the lizards within the amniotes are not closely related to each other, or at least not more closely than to other amniotes. The lizardlike crocodiles are more closely related to birds (both are archosauria) than for instance to the Komodo dragon, though they look very similar.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they are anti-porn (at least of the heterosexual variety) and I am also pretty sure that that is half their problem.
Re:"What happened to the dinosaurs?" (Score:4, Insightful)
I think they are anti-porn, when asked in public. If you check their internet history, you are likely to get a different version of events...
Re: (Score:2)
That does not explain their curmudgeon attitude and other idiocy. It can't (I hope) be entirely due to their lack of intellect or logic. There must be a physical component and I am thinking it is due to frustration for a disaffected libido.
Hmm... Disaffected Libido... Band name, maybe? I have never typed that before and I hope I never type it again. It was wrong and I should feel bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "What happened to the dinosaurs?" (Score:3)
There was a YouTube creationist called nephilmfree who was a fervent believer in "the flood" amongst other things. He accidentally showed his favourites menu in a video, which people noticed contained links to escort agencies. The video was re-uploaded with the link removed, but as he learned -nothing gets deemed from the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait ... are you telling me there was some random user on YouTube that wasn't competent? That produced poorly edited content? That said and did odd things?
Impossible!
Re:"What happened to the dinosaurs?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny, how you, and many of your kind, never consider that you may be the ones burning in Hell. Lying, even to ourselves, would seem to be a mortal sin (if we are to believe in the holy books as you are suggesting). Wanting something to be true, even wanting something to be true really, really passionately, is not the same thing as knowing something is true. Science, so far, is the best system we have to find those truths. The fact that "The Scientific Method" has found (continues to find) its mistakes is not its weakness, it is its strength.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you're reading ancient aramaic and greek, you're interpreting an interpretation of words whose original meanings and connotations are speculative anyway. You're speculating on speculation, even assuming the original text was authoritative.
Of course, the canonical texts of the New Testament were chosen by some guy named Athanasius who lived 300 years after Jesus, and you probably didn't know of until reading this. If you did, you'd be an exception. And why are there four gospels? Because of such a
Alternate story title (Score:5, Insightful)
"Everyone trying to manipulate search results"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Though just because "everyone else is doing it" doesn't make it right. This particular one is just something more people would like to see action taken on.
(I won't shed a single tear for scientologists gettting a slashdot effect)
Re: (Score:2)
To paraphrase Yossarian, "Then, I'd certainly be a damned fool to do it any other way, wouldn't I?"
Re: (Score:2)
"Everyone trying to manipulate search results"
Yep. Don't like it? Use duckduckgo.com. Meh. A non-story.
Re:Alternate story title (Score:4, Interesting)
I liken this to an expression of belief.
An expression in which I advocate the freedom of, even (and especially) if it makes throw up in my mouth a tiny bit.
Re: (Score:2)
"Everyone trying to manipulate search results"
Yep. Don't like it? Use duckduckgo.com. Meh. A non-story.
DuckDuckGo has the same problem. Ditto Bing, Yahoo Search, and of course Amazon.
Re: (Score:3)
"Everyone trying to manipulate search results"
Yep. Don't like it? Use duckduckgo.com. Meh. A non-story.
Did you actually try DDG that before posting? DuckDuckGo gave its top result to a fruitcake link saying "Genesis can explain everything...."
No, I didn't click it....
Genesis does what paleontologydon't (Score:5, Funny)
DuckDuckGo gave its top result to a fruitcake link saying "Genesis can explain everything...."
Phil Collins or Sega?
Re: Genesis does what paleontologydon't (Score:2)
Neither - The Wrath of Khan.
Re:Alternate story title (Score:5, Funny)
It occurs to me you knew that and got me to search there anyway, you clever bastard.
1)You can't wash your eyes with soap.
2)You can't count your hair.
3)You can't breathe through your nose with your tongue out.
4)You just tried number 3.
6)When you tried #3, you realized it's it's possible, you just look like a dog.
7) You're smiling right now because you know you were fooled.
8) you skipped number 5.
9)You just checked to see if there was a #5.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
7) You're smiling right now because you know you were fooled.
Damn you, damn you to hell.
Re:Alternate story title (Score:5, Interesting)
SEO/Marketing Asshole here:
This is slightly different than your typical manipulation in that Google is showing the result outside of the typical organic results. Google has been pulling in 'facts' under its Knowledge Graph program to return 'factual' information for common search terms (a common example is the generic name for name-brand medicine).
Having read the patent that describes the Knowledge Graph they're suppose to validate any 'facts' with Wikipedia and other trusted data sources before returning those 'facts' in the Knowledge Graph.
This is a serious fuck up on Google's part if jerks like Ham can get his stupid book and obviously-wrong facts into the Knowledge Graph. In reality the story should be about Google getting played not more focus on made-up bullshit that people made up to rectify the bible with science.
Re:Alternate story title (Score:5, Interesting)
Bing returns the same results so unless both knowledge graphs are operating the same I would imagine it's a much simpler explanation: both sites rely on "answer" websites for answers. If you ask any question most often the results are Yahoo.Answers, Answers.com and wikihow. My guess would be that "Answers in Genesis" overloads their weighting for "answers" URLs associated with "Questions" on this topic.
If they actually overloaded the Knowledge Graph it would appear in a special box at the top of the results. In this instance it's still just a link. If you search "Circumference of the earth" you'll get a knowledge graph result with an "official answer".
Re:Alternate story title (Score:4, Funny)
It's called "Yahoo! Answers" -- how do people not realize that these answer come from Yahoos?
Re: Alternate story title (Score:3, Interesting)
Yep. But christians are supposedly not supposed to lie. SEO of that sort is a form of lying.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. But christians are supposedly not supposed to lie. SEO of that sort is a form of lying.
Many "modern" Christians believe that it's OK to lie if your goal is to convert the people to Christianity. After all, there is only one "Truth."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Alternate story title (Score:5, Funny)
Amazing isn't it ? It's like watching people covered in shit, sniffing around looking for something that stinks.
Damn. I don't get that...
Is that a focking premium cable channel?
Re: (Score:2)
when I think of all the mod points I let expire...
Heh.
One web site. (Score:5, Insightful)
The actual article seems to only say that one web site, titled "What really happened to the dinosaurs", appears in response to one particular search query, "What happened to the dinosaurs".
That's annoying and stupid... but it's not the same as the hyped headline "creationists manipulating results."
Re:One web site. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the fear is more that kids will see this stuff while doing research for school (especially in earlier grades where they don't necessarily know better) and take it for granted. I had a professor in college who showed me a site that popped up when searching for information about the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King, Jr. that was actually run by a racist group, which contained blatantly false information. As I recall, it appeared near the top of Google results at the time, but this was five or six years ago.
I think this kind of stuff should remain up, though. There's the free speech issue, but I think it's a really good way to teach kids how to find proper sources of information.
Re: (Score:3)
this is an old tactic.
a long time ago, i picked up a random book in the library about the Aktion T4 program and read it while i should have been writing my thesis. it was interesting enough, until the last two chapters which ranted about how, obviously, pro-choicers were pushing America down the same path. it was annoying, but a nice reminder; i had to fact-check everything i read. i did, and the facts about T4 checked out, which suggests that they just took some legitimate research and bolted their drivel [barnesandnoble.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. In this day and age, kids MUST learn to filter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One web site. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe that's because no real scientist (all of us are scientists) would ever google "What really happened to the dinosaurs". (I guess starting tonight we have)
The question itself is intended to solicit creationist answers. So the query results are accurate.
This is a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure every ideologue out there wanting to brand their dogmatic bullshit as truth is doing the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Like the OP?
Re: (Score:3)
The Lord YOUR GOD sayeth so. All you have to do is listen and believe. Why is that so hard?
Re: (Score:3)
The Lord YOUR GOD sayeth so. All you have to do is listen and believe. Why is that so hard?
Because it's all unsubstantiated hearsay that contradicts itself and fails to map to observable reality in any meaningful way. All the while threatening infinite punishment for being unconvinced and calling it "love."
So, the Creationists ate all the Dinosaurs . . . ? (Score:3)
That what it seems to be from TFS:
Ask Google "What happened to the dinosaurs?" and you'll see links to Creationist sites right at the top."
It's kinda cute (Score:5, Interesting)
Their zeal to push their bullshit in a vain attempt to still appear relevant. Kinda like dinosaurs in a tar pit... how fitting.
Maybe someone should tell them that nobody outside the US even remotely takes that "controversy" serious? I do not know a single politician outside the US who would think that even remotely considering pushing an agenda as harebrained as creationism is anything but political suicide. Hell, even our ultra-conservatives would not even touch that shit with a 10 foot pole, knowing that they'd be looked at like they just claimed the tooth fairy existed.
Re:It's kinda cute (Score:4, Insightful)
nobody outside the US even remotely takes that "controversy" serious
Hell, most scientists inside the US don't take the "controversy" seriously, or even notice it most of the time. The only reason most of us care is because those fuckwits keep trying to legislate their mythology into the public schools, otherwise they'd be worth no more thought than, say, flat-earthers or faith healers. And in large parts of the country, e.g. liberal urban areas like the one I live in, it's not even an issue in schools either. (God knows our public schools have enough other problems...)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not know a single politician outside the US who would think that even remotely considering pushing an agenda as harebrained as creationism is anything but political suicide. ...well, except in Canada these days. A couple years ago, our minister of *science* was refusing to answer questions about whether he believed in evolution [www.cbc.ca]. More recently, Alberta also had a creationist minister of education. [nationalpost.com]. So unfortunately, some of the madness has escaped North of the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe someone should tell them that nobody outside the US even remotely takes that "controversy" serious?
I don't know if you realize this, but "outside the US" is an area that contains countries which are not among the developed nations, and in poor countries with limited access to schools and low literacy rates, a lot of people do take the controversy seriously. Heck, Turkey, which is actually part of the EU, has a ever-so-slightly higher rate of evolution-rejectionism than even the US does. (Although it's the only country in the EU with more anti-science idiots than the US.) :)
Brazil also seems to have a lot
Suppose a Christian search term was hijacked? (Score:4, Funny)
It would be a major national news story. There would be editorials in news outlets large and small. Fox News and the right wing press would call it a terrorist act. There would be hearings in Congress, and calls for laws protecting religion. It would be a three ring media circus.
All truths are not created equal. Some points of view are more equal then others [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
It would be weird, would it not? I would hope most news outlets would run that story.
Congress would mandate search results? Hm.
And if an act inspires terror in a populace, then it would be a terrorist's act, no?
In any case, how you see a correlation worthy of note in a tale about the inevitable corrupting influence of power; well it makes me worry about you. :)
Re: (Score:2)
You did not read my post carefully. I said that there would be huge media frenzy, and that political opportunists would use it to whip up public opinion to their advantage.
I wonder about your reading comprehension. You seem to know what most of the words mean, but do not seem to grasp the actual content of the sta
Comedy gold (Score:5, Funny)
C'mon guys. you just can't make that kind of shit up. There isn't enough weed on the planet for that. It must be divinely inspired.
Re: (Score:2)
4300 years ago...
I guess the Sixth Dynasty of Old Kingdom Egypt didn't notice they got washed away, and went on building their pyramids like nothing had happened.
And Sargon must have clung to the side of the ark - or snuck on disguised as a dinosaur - so he could get back to building his empire as soon as the ground dried out.
I reckon the author is better at manipulating reality than he is at manipulating search results.
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with slashdot indentation? (Score:2)
I thought it was cosmetic, but deeply threaded discussions are really messed up as can be seen here [imgur.com].
Posting in this discussion as it's both the most recent and a boring one.
Lisa Simpson... (Score:5, Funny)
"I find the defendant not guilty. As for Science versus Religion, I'm issuing a restraining order. Religion must stay 500 yards from Science at all times"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Blashpemer! Imperial are the one true units of measure!
Bow down before your Rod.
thought the article was joking ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously this is a grievous error which should be fixed, but I can definitely see how a machine learning system could pick up this answer as a false positive with no foul play*: extinction through biblical flood may be the most commonly held hypothesis in the US.
42% of Americans [gallup.com] believe in creationism, and it's not unlikely that they'd all believe dinosaurs were killed in a flood.
The other 58% could be split between asteroids, volcanos, continental drift, "other" and "don't know", with no single group havi
Re: (Score:2)
You sure there wasn't a big ass flood when that asteroid hit?
It could be that their timing is just off. That would be far less stupid.
I'm just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
Machine learning is hard even when you've got good input data. The internet is full of lies.
Reminds me of the Siri clone, Isis - a program that was supposed to index knowledge, but assimilated a number of pro-life sites a bit too well. Queries about abortion or contraception were met with a long rambling monologue about sin, with a few insults thrown in against anyone who would consider such things.
Wait what? (Score:4, Funny)
"Paleontology (the study of fossils) is much like politics: passions run high, and it’s easy to draw very different conclusions from the same set of facts." M. Lemonick, Parenthood, dino-style, Time, p. 48, January 8, 1996.
And I felt just like waking up from a priest/pastor's best wet dream (sans pre-pubescent kids). Lord Baby Jesus. Fucking politics. I think I laughed for like 2 minutes straight like a nutcase. Imagine voting for your favorite paleontologist for the best excavation. Creationists have THE best comparisons ever. Period.
Creationism (Score:5, Insightful)
If creationists wants to be taken seriously they need to create a reason for God to exist, that doesn't fall back on weak, shallow, sad logic paradoxes which don't make sense.
If creationists wants to be taken seriously, they need to prove aspects of there given religion.
The problem is, no creationist has ever been able to do this, they always have to result to shallow, weak, sad and pathetic arguments, against topics they don't understand and using logic that doesn't work. Just saying a theory doesn't make sense, doesn't make it false and doesn't make valid controversy. You can't just radically claim that Dinosaurs don't exist and never once provide evidence of that, that isn't a separate view, it's just a wrong view until you have evidence. Creationism has become the new face of the uneducated adult, and the worst part about this is that it's being pushed onto kids. Creationism can't be taken seriously until it starts making serious, adult arguments. Just because a creationist is to scared to grow up and drop the security blanket, doesn't mean they have a point, they don't.
Manipulate all search results to relevent xkcd (Score:5, Funny)
Sunday Morning Breakfast Cereal (Score:2)
We need to work together to manipulate all search results to lead to whichever xkcd is most relevant to the topic.
I think this Sunday Morning Breakfast Cereal [smbc-comics.com] would be perfect.
Bing did OK for me (Score:3)
On Bing, my response to
What happened to the dinosaurs?
(no quotes) is pretty benign - pbs, wikipedia, and national geographic in that order, and then Answers in Genesis.org, followed by slate. Only 2 of the 8 links on the first response page are fundamentalist, the AIG site and a kiddie site. Finally, while I don't agree with Answers in Genesis, they are certainly not a stealth site, and I don't think it is objectionable just by itself that they in the mix.
Of course, "Your results are personalized" so other people may get different responses.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, subby was doing the same thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"anti-Christian witch hunters"
ROTFLMAO
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe the anti-creationist, anti-Christian witch hunters set this bogus thing up, just to have an excuse to go after the Christians. Something looks bogus, but I'm nowhere near convinced that some church is responsible for it.
Who else would care? Fundamentalists have long lost the science war, so they go for the court of public opinion .
Also noted your completely whacked conspiracy theory that a group of anti-cheristian witch hunters set this up so they have another thing to go after.
Seen any suspicious rainbows lately? This might fill you in on what the governmen is doing I hear it targets Christians:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:Why is this dribble on the front page? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, there was a big stunning double rainbow over Dublin last week as the people of Ireland rejected the teachings of the Church and approved same sex marriage.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/u... [mirror.co.uk]
Texas, on the other hand, outlawed gay marriage and got deadly floods and tornadoes.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/26/... [cnn.com]
Coincidence?
Re: (Score:3)
Texas, on the other hand, outlawed gay marriage and got deadly floods and tornadoes.
Don't forget another state blessed by God, Oklahoma. They are getting hammered too.I think that falls under the "working in mysterious ways" escape clause.
Seriously I do feel awful badly for those folks. I hate when bad things happen to anyone, even if they hate me with a passion.
Re:Why is this dribble on the front page? (Score:5, Insightful)
identified Christians as potential extremists
Identified specific Christians as potential extremists. And they do exist - why is this in any way a surprise? Every faith-based ideology (Marxism obviously falls into this category) eventually attracts violent nutjobs. Even Buddhism has violent extremists, some of whom are currently hard at work ethnically cleansing a Muslim minority in Myanmar. There are also left-wing environmentalist extremists, along with Maoists and anarchists, all of whom the DHS and FBI also track.
Among other things, I find it curious that DHS was searching so hard for "non-Islamist" extremists - almost like Islamist extremists had DHS tacit approval.
The fact that most worldwide religious extremists are currently Muslim does not mean we should give a free pass to domestic extremists just because they happen to follow your preferred religion. (And what makes you so certain that the DHS wasn't investigating domestic Islamists too?) Since Christians are an overwhelming majority in the US, it is certainly logical to look for extremists in that population, especially since they may have an easier time blending in, and there are existing organized extremist groups, some of which have a long history of violence. (I should note that Timothy McVeigh was an "honorably discharged military veteran".)
Re: (Score:2)
the puppet master in the White House is a Muslim. And, by "puppet master" I am not referring to Obama - he is the puppet!
Um... what? I can't tell if this is satire or not.
Re: (Score:2)
That's...plausible.
But maybe the Creationists set it up just to make it look like the anti-Christian witch hunters set it up so that then they could say, "Look how we're being made to look stupid and a little evil by the anti-Christian witch hunters who are all hiding in plain sight just steps away from the Christian churches that are on every other block throughout the United
Re: (Score:3)
The real problem is, in an infinite, probabilistic universe, even the smallest chance that God exists is a certainty.
Not any god that a christian would accept. Their god is outside the universe, and created it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not any god that a christian would accept. Their god is outside the universe, and created it.
Panentheism (meaning "all-in-God", from the Ancient Greek pân ("all"), en ("in") and Theós ("God")) is a belief system which posits that the divine – whether as a single God, number of gods, or other form of "cosmic animating force"[1] – interpenetrates every part of the universe and extends, timelessly (and, presumably, spacelessly) beyond it. Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical.
Re:Why is this dribble on the front page? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your theory requires that the universe be infinite. No proof of that yet, and maybe never.
What is so hard to believe that we created the "god" myth? It's been done many times over the ages, so we have more proof of that than the other way around.
Otherwise, who created god?
Re:Why is this dribble on the front page? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but all those other people who created gods were just making them up, whereas the god we made up is the Real Thing!
Re:Why is this dribble on the front page? (Score:4, Insightful)
An interesting science fiction plot that has been used so many times it is hackneyed.
It is also a horrendous abuse of the concepts of quantum theory. The problem with the hypothesis of God is that there has been no reproducible, objective, measurement or observation of God. Quite the contrary. The Universe unfolds precisely as if there were no such thing as God, with truly awesome, mind-boggling consistency, follow rules known only approximately (so far) as the "Laws of Nature" which leave no room whatsoever for God, unless it is God's will that the Universe evolve in time as if there were no God.
This is a far cry from asserting that the Aharanov-Bohm effect implies God, even allowing for the imprecision of stating that particles can be "controlled" by observing them, and worshipping something has never, as far as I know, caused that something to come to be.
Finally, there is an information-theoretic argument that proves it quite impossible to create a God by any means such as you suggest. It is quite literally as impossible as reconstructing an encoded string a gazillion bytes long from a single tiny fragment of that encoded string. The information content of God has to be greater than or equal to the information content of the Universe (this is literally the God-property of omniscience). I am a (very) finite part of the Universe. I have enormous (information) entropy relative to the Universe quite aside of the possibility that I have in some sense a quantum indeterminacy in my state. God (if God exists) has zero entropy, quantum Universe or not. There is simply no way the former can generate the latter. Violating the second law of thermodynamics is an understatement.
rgb
root knows all (Score:3)
The information content of God has to be greater than or equal to the information content of the Universe (this is literally the God-property of omniscience).
That's not how God's omniscience was explained to me. It's more "all seeing" than "all knowing". It's not that God knows every detail of everything in the universe as much as that he can know anything he needs. It's like having a debugger.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is the first time I have heard of this God thing being referred to a programming tool. That analogy makes more sense than you may have intended but I will assume you meant it in a broader scope as well.
Re: (Score:2)
So you mean, God's omniscience is, well, sort of like not being omniscient at all. I mean I can look at the Universe and get all of the information I "need". Well, at least I can get all of the information I need if I'm omniscient enough to know what information I need before I look at it, or if I have moderate needs.
Next you'll be telling me It didn't really create the Universe, it just sort of nudged already existing stuff around, sort of like using a debugger to rewrite existing code. And that It does
Re: (Score:3)
No, I got the bit about fiction. I just finished reading recent science fiction that utilizes very similar plot lines in several distinct stories, that's all. Even in the movie "Merlin", Mab's existence was contingent on belief. I think American Gods by Neil Gaiman is pretty much precisely that as well. To quote from its Wikipedia page:
The central premise of the novel is that gods and mythological creatures exist because people believe in them (a form of thoughtform).
So as I said, yes, you are quite rig
Re: (Score:3)
We wouldn't know. We do know that perceptual errors, emotional disturbances, and the rest are possible.
You are simply saying that we cannot disprove God, that absence of evidence is not conclusive evidence of absence. Sure. But so what? We can go down an enormously -- actually uncountably infinite -- list of propositions for which we have no evidence. If we are sane, we do not grab arbitrary entries from this list and promote them to plausible beliefs, no matter how pretty a story they make.
Your argum
Re: (Score:3)
Why? For asking for some evidence? That out of all the gods that man has had, that even ONE of them has some actual basis in fact? Because I'm not willing to believe in any of them just because someone says that their bible says so (the fallacy of argument from authority).
Many of the same people who refuse to accept tons of evidence for global warming) accept the bible without a shred of evidence. "You gotta believe ." No, I don't. It's not intolerant to point out that the emperor hasn't had clothes for th
Re:Why is this dribble on the front page? (Score:5, Informative)
The real problem is, in an infinite, probabilistic universe, even the smallest chance that God exists is a certainty. Of course, there is no shortage of conflicting, self defeating pseudo-science airheads that will believe anything else rather than making an attempt at living a Christian life with a little less ego.
I do not think that this "probability" means what you think it means.
I will try to tell you. No, it is too much, I will sum up.
Suppose you have an infinite barrel of marbles, 10% of which are green. Then the probability of drawing a green marble is (wait for it) 10%. This isn't a particularly small probability. If there is a single green marble, somewhere in the barrel, the probability of drawing it is asymptotically zero, statistically neglible, less than the chance of winning the lottery, and winning the lottery in one try is far from certain. If the probability that God exists is 1 x 10^{-403} in an infinite, probabilistic Universe, then the probability that God exists is (gasp) 1 x 10^{-403}. This is most definitely not certainty. Certainty isn't the "smallest chance", it is probability 1. It is the largest (possible) chance.
Even 1 x 10^{-403} isn't in the same ballpark as "the smallest chance", by the way. It is enormous compared to the probability that all of the air molecules in the room I'm in will suddenly (by pure chance) happen to bounce in just the right way to form a big blob of liquid air in the middle of the room and leave me gasping in a vacuum as air molecules outside of the house by strange chance miss all of the myriad pathways into the room. Which in turn is unbelievably, awesomely hugely enormous compared to the probability that the infinite, probabilistic Universe is in fact determined and known at the subatomic level by a perfectly organized, uncreated, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent superbeing that created it all by pure magic from nothing.
Oh, wait -- that's a contradiction, isn't it! If the Universe is infinite and probabilistic, then it can't be infinite and deterministic and hence known by an omniscient, omnipotent being, because there is nothing less probabilistic than something that is completely determined by an all powerful, all-knowing being. So your premises directly contradict your conclusion, in addition to demonstrating nothing more than the simple fact that you have absolutely no clue about probability distributions on continuous spaces.
Ego aside, you might want to contemplate learning something about probability and reason itself before you argue in favor of something empirically, logically, and statistically indefensible. God (as a concept) is all three.
rgb
Re:Why is this dribble on the front page? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have an infinite barrel of marbles, you can't make a statement such as "10% of them are green".
You absolutely can. Let me give a simple example: the positive integers. That is, unquestionably, an infinite set. And it also is quite clear that precisely 10% of them are divisible by 10.
Mathematically, here's how we would describe it. Consider the set of integers from 1 to N. Let x(N) be the fraction of members in that set that are divisible by 10. It's quite easy to show that as N->infinity, x(N)->1/10.
Re:Why is this dribble on the front page? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most atheists/agnostics at this point will insist upon their own definitions. It becomes a semantic argument, and if you insist upon your own definitions, you have effectively erected a straw man. Perhaps this is not the best approach.
I think you have it exactly backwards. The meaning of omniscient and omnipotent are perfectly clear and are contained in any dictionary. As you say above, every religion, including the many sects and branches of "Christianity", faced with the obvious fact that their god(s) is/are not possessing of either quality in its true formal meaning, adopt some weaker definition, so that God isn't all-knowing (the literal meaning of omniscient) or all-powerful (the literal meaning of omnipotent) or all-good (omnibenevolent) or ubiquitous (omnipresent) or "perfect" or any other infinite quality that would get them in the kind of obvious trouble any sort of infinite attribute is likely to lead to. At the same time, they have to assert that this really really big, mostly knowing, somewhat powerful, occasionally incredibly cruel being was knowing enough and powerful enough to be the proximate cause of the entire visible Universe as well as any still unseen invisible parts, which he (masculine gender usually assigned) created out of nothing, because otherwise most of us wouldn't consider even a really big, really smart, mostly good space alien to be a god, we'd consider them to be somebody like us, living in time's stream with every moment mostly a surprise because our finite information capacity is "infinitely" smaller than the information content of the Universe.
So yes, I've learned the hard way that there is little point in discussing Christianity in a reasoned way with a Christian. The fact that they are still a Christian is de facto proof that they have already arrived at a state of cognitive dissonance wherein all the myriad contradictions in (e.g.) the Bible itself or between bald assertions in the Bible (old and/or new testaments and/or apocrypha) and mere reality are smoothly elided and rationalized by doing what you're doing, bending the clear definitions of the simple terms used to describe God with a capital G.
One has to do this, because otherwise the problem of theodicy is a crushing burden for any religion claiming any significant fraction of the "omni"-properties conjoined with the assertion that god is good. One has to literally turn off one's common sense to believe that a being exists that on the one hand created the entire Universe out of nothing in some sort of state of knowledge of its future course (in most of the Bible, it is pretty clear that this state is supposed to be perfect knowledge beginning to end, alpha and omega and predestination and all that) but who created the Universe filled with evil as experienced by humans (undeniable) but was at the same time all-good and who runs things so that one can never detect Its existence because the visible Universe appears to follow rigorous rules that are never violated and that are utterly indifferent to human suffering.
That's actually the more interesting aspect of Chrisitianity in particular. Since Jesus is advanced as being God and Human and all-compassionate and perfectly good, and since the New Testament is full of direct quotes of Jesus asserting that he can do literally anything (and so can all of us) just by "having faith" and wishing it into being, Christians have to engage in the most incredible mental distortions to explain the mind of God/Jesus in such a way that there is room for the existence of human suffering on Earth and Hell for unbelievers and all of the other madness while the principle parties remain hidden.
So next time somebody dies slowly of cancer, next time a baby is born in innocence with the terrible affliction of Down's syndrome, the next time a small child dies of starvation or from malaria or from being bitten by a snake, the next time you are directly confronted with the cogniti
Re:wha (Score:5, Insightful)
Creation, evolution... it is all based on belief since you can't prove either.
Can you pick which one has vastly more evidence for it?
Re:wha (Score:4, Insightful)
And - in response to the inevitable follow-up comment "give me an example" - you are more than capable of finding them on your own - there's no shortage.
No, give me an example. We can make this about my refusal to do your work for you, or we could make it about this alleged evidence you speak of.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take "Poor Thinkers are Also Poor Spellers" for $1000, Alex.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is not public property...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is better than passive voice...
Re: Biblical truth (Score:2)
Did Cedric get a rainbow too?
Re: (Score:3)