CharmlessMan: Unintelligent and emotional

hotdangralph
I'm a bit suspicious of Malcom X as a source for your claim
12:09:27 hotdangralph
My view of Malcom X is that he was pretty intelligent, fairly emotional, and at least moderately racist
12:10:03 hotdangralph
You've offered this as support of your fascist claim?
12:10:06 commie
Perhaps emotional, was not racist.
12:10:17 hotdangralph
This video appears to offer precisely zero support for anything related to fascism
12:10:19 CharmlessMan
we're all a bit racist aren't we?
12:10:23 CharmlessMan
even if we don't think we are
12:10:31 commie
We exist in a racist system
12:10:33 hotdangralph
commie, he was explicitly racist
12:10:38 hotdangralph
CharmlessMan, there are no human races
12:10:41 commie
Doesn't matter the general people's attitudes on race so much.
12:10:53 commie
hotdangralph: In what manner? His push for black nationalism?
12:10:54 CharmlessMan
if there were no human races racism wouldn't be a thing
12:11:05 hotdangralph
False
12:11:11 hotdangralph
There are no gods, and theism is a thing
12:11:22 CharmlessMan
a made up thing
12:11:23 commie
Race is a social construct.
12:11:27 hotdangralph
commie, at times, he refused to work with people based off their putative race
12:11:28 commie
It was made up
12:11:33 commie
But it still holds power
12:11:36 CharmlessMan
anyway how do you know there are no gods?
12:11:40 hotdangralph
I think he may have abandoned that after his separation from the Nation of Islam
12:11:50 commie
hotdangralph: I mean, given the history of white radicals and their history with blacks it is not surprising.
12:11:51 hotdangralph
CharmlessMan, that was proved by science several decades ago, if not longer
12:11:56 CharmlessMan
it was?
12:12:12 hotdangralph
Charmless, do you think any science post 1860 has been down with theism as a legitimate explanatory framework?
12:12:16 hotdangralph
In any domain of science
12:12:32 hotdangralph
That is, the scientists went in and said, I really think theism is the likely explanatory framework for this phenomenon
12:12:41 hotdangralph
Whether that was life, movement of light, gravity, how minds work, etc.
12:12:49 CharmlessMan
well theism isn't scientific is it
12:12:53 hotdangralph
heh
12:12:58
→ DreamsXX_ ([email protected]) has joined
12:13:05
ⓘ Mabus set +v DreamsXX_
12:13:11 hotdangralph
That's quite a moving of the goal posts in 40 seconds
12:13:12 CharmlessMan
so science doesn't give a fuck anymore than it gives a fuck whether harry potter can do real magic
12:13:25 hotdangralph
So we agree science has disproved theism, it sounds like
12:13:31 CharmlessMan
not quite
12:13:37 CharmlessMan
we agree theism is bullshit
12:13:38 hotdangralph
It's not scientific, but it hasn't been disproved
12:13:41 CharmlessMan
can you disprove a god?
12:13:43 CharmlessMan
i'm not sure you can
12:14:01 hotdangralph
Charmless, you are not pushing current scientific epistemology
12:14:07 hotdangralph
Current scientific epistemology is Bayesian
12:14:13 CharmlessMan
i'm not pushing anything in particular
12:14:15 CharmlessMan
just having a chat
12:14:21 hotdangralph
That is, there are an infinite number of possible explanatory frameworks for all observed phenomena
12:14:29 hotdangralph
We have prior beliefs on which of these models are most likely
12:14:35 hotdangralph
We collect data, and we recompute posteriors
12:14:36 CharmlessMan
which observed phenomena are you talking about
12:14:37 hotdangralph
That's all there is
12:14:41 CharmlessMan
no gods have been observed that i'm aware of
12:14:51 hotdangralph
The posteriors on theistic models are very near zero
12:14:57 hotdangralph
There's nothing about 'disproving gods'
12:15:05 hotdangralph
The posterior never goes to zero
12:15:07 CharmlessMan
you said science had already proven that there are no gods
12:15:15 hotdangralph
When I say science has disproved theism, I mean the posteriors are very near zero
12:15:19 hotdangralph
Charmless, correct
12:15:33 hotdangralph
The expected value of posterior probability distributions ranges from 0 to 1, open interval
12:15:38 CharmlessMan
i thought science was more concerned with doing science than trying to disprove silly prehistoric belief systems
12:15:40 hotdangralph
That's how scientific epistemology works
12:15:54 ReRun
i like the female posterior
12:15:54 Infradead
Infinite beings are not a proper subject for empirical investigation.
12:15:55 hotdangralph
CharmlessMan, observed data does not support theistic explanatory frameworks
12:16:07 hotdangralph
Therefore, the posterior probability distributions have means close to zero
12:16:13 CharmlessMan
it doesn't necessarily disprove a "god" though
12:16:15 hotdangralph
That emerges naturally from the scientific proces
12:16:17 commie
The existence of any supernatural being would pretty much destroy scientific understanding at the bsae :p
12:16:20 hotdangralph
We're stuck on 'disprove'
12:16:22 commie
base*
12:16:25 CharmlessMan
you started it
12:16:29 hotdangralph
You're using a Boolean, binary definition
12:16:33 CharmlessMan
i'm as atheist as they come
12:16:36 hotdangralph
Even though I have explicitly stated my definition
12:16:42 CharmlessMan
but that doesn't mean science has proved that no gods exist
12:16:43 hotdangralph
It appears we will not make progress
12:16:53 hotdangralph
I ended my engagement with you on this topic
12:16:59 CharmlessMan
that's a shame
12:17:07 hotdangralph
You refuse to read my posts
12:17:11 CharmlessMan
what would you like to talk about instead?
12:17:15 hotdangralph
What is the value in my being explicit
12:17:23 CharmlessMan
you type too quickly for me to keep up
12:17:42 commie
If you're going to discuss things it helps to get working parameters for the concepts used.
12:17:49 hotdangralph
Disprove, in science, means 'the expected value of the posterior probability distribution is very near zero, with high confidence'
12:17:58 hotdangralph
Science is not Boolean
12:18:11 CharmlessMan
that's not disproving anything though
12:18:18 hotdangralph
*head in hand*
12:18:24 commie
It's about as close appromixation as you are going to get.
12:18:25 hotdangralph
That is the *definition* of disprove
12:18:26 CharmlessMan
the probability of me being born is like 1 in a trillion trillion
12:18:27 CharmlessMan
yet here i am
12:18:44 commie
The probability of you being born is 100%... you are here.
12:18:50 CharmlessMan
yeh there is that
12:18:52 commie
actually
12:18:57 commie
99.99999% or something :p
12:18:59 CharmlessMan
but then if you go that way the probability of everything that happens in 100%
12:18:59 hotdangralph
CharmlessMan, probability is only defined, given a model
12:19:04 CharmlessMan
is
12:19:04 hotdangralph
What is your model of you being born
12:19:18 CharmlessMan
well there's the probability of this planet being formed
12:19:21 hotdangralph
It is very difficult to establish probability for events like you just described
12:19:30 CharmlessMan
the probability of it being habitable, the probability of life evolving
12:19:37 hotdangralph
Frequentist approaches generally don't work
12:19:37 CharmlessMan
the probability of all my ancestors surviving
12:19:43 CharmlessMan
the probability of my mum meeting my dad
12:19:56
← DreamsXX ([email protected]) has left (Ping timeout)
12:19:58 hotdangralph
So, we can use the chain rule here
12:20:08 CharmlessMan
etc etc
12:20:10 commie
What degree of confidence can you have in ruling out a deity in any given experiment or observation?
12:20:11 CharmlessMan
its a very big number anyway
12:20:17 hotdangralph
Given that your mum and dad had a child, what are the odds that child would say, Isn't it amazing I exist?
12:20:27 hotdangralph
Close to 1, perhaps
12:20:27 CharmlessMan
who cares
12:20:38 hotdangralph
CharmlessMan, I put you on ignore
12:20:57 hotdangralph
Reason: The cost/benefit analysis, based off your posts, does not support further engagement with you at this time
12:21:06 commie
lol
12:21:15 Infradead
Observation has nothing to do with non-finite objects; you don't ask for evidence of the set of natural numbers, for instance.
12:21:15 Plan
lol yeh bit of a tit
12:21:18 hotdangralph
Specifically, your intelligence is to low, given your interest in learning and your emotional profile
12:21:34 hotdangralph
More specifically, you have a combative emotional profile, low learning, and moderate intelligence
12:21:40 hotdangralph
This is outside my acceptable range
12:21:46 Plan
is it mischeif night down there CharmlessMan ?
12:22:32 Plan
mizzy night here the kids are smashing bus stops and egging policecars
12:22:51 Plan
scouse/
12:22:56 *
No longer ignoring CharmlessMan
12:22:59 CharmlessMan
i remember you now
12:23:03 hotdangralph
I didn't see your messages, CharmlessMan
12:23:06 hotdangralph
Do you want to resend
12:23:14 CharmlessMan
you put me on ignore
12:23:21 hotdangralph
I did
12:23:24 CharmlessMan
so fuck off then
12:23:27 Plan
lol
12:23:29 hotdangralph
Okay
12:23:38 CharmlessMan
thanks
12:23:44 hotdangralph
I saw that you reached out to me, and I thought this might mean you were demonstrating social values that are worthy of support
12:23:56 hotdangralph
Things like forgiveness, patience, etc.
12:24:06 hotdangralph
I took you off ignore because I felt an ethical obligation to support those values
12:24:14 CharmlessMan
find some other cunt to talk to hotdangralph
12:24:16 hotdangralph
There was a chance you'd use this as another opportunity to attack
12:24:20 hotdangralph
Which is what you have done
12:24:22 hotdangralph
I can handle that
12:24:27 CharmlessMan
actually i just called myself a cunt then, not you
12:24:29 hotdangralph
The effects are that you have further soured your reputation with me
12:24:40 hotdangralph
I put you back on ignore, CharmlessMan
12:24:59 hotdangralph
You will no longer be able to leverage my interest in building forgiveness, patience, etc.
12:25:06 hotdangralph
That is, you are a 'betrayer' in the game theoric sense
12:25:33 Plan
getting rare n rarer quiet country villages .. all the house building
12:25:40 hotdangralph
I will save this conversation to hold you accountable