The proof that women are evil!

[Niles09]

Harloff - 11/24/2005  1:16 PM

*grins* I think a monk in the "dark ages" *a wolf howles* proved the exsistence of god by some kind of philosophical argument. Unfortunately the argument later turned out to be faulty.

Hmmm, I think that one of the things that really corrupt people is indeed love. What people will do for love is truely incredible killing, lying, stealing, etc. I see no proof in the world around me that love doesn't corrupt, even very religious people can be corrupted by this feeling. e.g. the swedish priest that convinced his housekeeper/lover to kill his wife for him, and she did it out of love for him and god...

But i guess that math is as god a way to proof the exsistence of god as any. To put it simple math is not a set of man made rules, math is logic in its finest form. Every part of math can be proven and this is the reason why it can be used as a common language in science. So saying that it can't be used is the same as saying that the exsistance of god is ilogical.

Love cant corrupt, cause the essence of it is not ot harm others. Though it can be corrupted by evil, in some cases. We are all humans, and no matter how clever we are, or in what we believe we can do bad things, even with good intentions (though killing people is really far out), we tend to cast our love on only some few persons, and then, as your own example says, we can create destruction on others.
But! Love cant be corrupted if it is complete, if you love every being in the universe, your love cant be corrupted, since no one is better than the other.
by the way ther is one "love" tat can coruupt. The love to yourself, your ego.
About math, right it is logical, but putting God into something so simple as the example above, cant be done, he is much much more advanced. Anyway I am studing matthematics, physics, chemics and so on for the moment. And the fact that the world is putted together in such an advanced, and though complete logical way, proofs that there is something greater. Trust me, you cant just say, "everything is maked of atoms and paticles, and thats pretty simple?!" Every science guy would laugh at you.

And about math, solve this:
A runner and a toad is compeeting. The toad starts ten meters ahead, and then moves 1/10 the runner's speed. When the runner has moved 10 meters, the toad is one meter ahead, eleven meters the toad is 1/10 meter ahead. how can the runner ever get past the toad?

[Meizter]

Niles09 - 11/25/2005  12:22 PM
And about math, solve this:
A runner and a toad is compeeting. The toad starts ten meters ahead, and then moves 1/10 the runner's speed. When the runner has moved 10 meters, the toad is one meter ahead, eleven meters the toad is 1/10 meter ahead. how can the runner ever get past the toad?

The runner easily get's past the toad. I know the riddle and at 12 meters the toad would be a 1/100th of a meter ahead. It's like the one where you say when you sit and try to stand you first move half the distance, then you move half the distance of the remaining distance again and so forth untill you will realise you will never reach standing because there's always half a distance left, but we all know that is not true. You have to be careful not to get into places like this where you end up with a solution that perhaps sounds right when you look at it but still you will see your solution has no physical basis.

just to finish the toad and the runner off. If we state that the runner moves at 10 m/s and the toad then at 1 m/s then even with 10m head start it is obvious that the toad would be passed within seconds. distances are as follows:
postition runner [m]   position toad [m]   speed runner [m/s]    speed toad [m/s]   time
0   10   10   1   0
10   11   10   1   1
20   12   10   1   2
30   13   10   1   3
40   14   10   1   4
50   15   10   1   5
60   16   10   1   6
70   17   10   1   7
80   18   10   1   8

so already after 2 seconds the toad is overtaken. The riddle is fun enough, but you just can't look at things that way.

hehe as a small addition I would call myself a "science guy" to use that term , and still I say the world is indeed made of atoms, they are everywhere and in everything, even we are made of them. I don't say the physics of atoms is simple, but it is what the world is made of. and yes I know we could go into smaller parts like protons, but that is beyond the point.

[NEXUS7]

I am 100% science and think the world is not “Turtles all the way down”

To add

See you can not use Logic against firth for firth precludes logic.
You can not use faith against logic for logic precludes faith.

Or put this way

Is it not amazing that the gap from your ass to the floor is exactly the same size as your legs. All hail god/gods for it/they do in deed move in strange ways.

Ouch I have just been shot by an Arrow that passed throw an infonaut number of fractions to hit me.
Ouch ouch help Medic!

>And about math, solve this:
>A runner and a toad is compeeting. The toad starts ten meters ahead, and then moves 1/10 the
>runner's speed. When the runner has moved 10 meters, the toad is one meter ahead, eleven
>meters the toad is 1/10 meter ahead. how can the runner ever get past the toad?

[Meizter]

NEXUS7 - 11/25/2005  12:56 PM

Ouch I have just been shot by an Arrow that passed throw and infonaut number of fractions to hit me.
Ouch ouch help Medic!


>And about math, solve this:
>A runner and a toad is compeeting. The toad starts ten meters ahead, and then moves 1/10 the
>runner's speed. When the runner has moved 10 meters, the toad is one meter ahead, eleven
>meters the toad is 1/10 meter ahead. how can the runner ever get past the toad?

hehe

[Niles09]

"See you can not use Logic against firth for firth precludes logic.
You can not use faith against logic for logic precludes faith."

That is indeed a very very one-dimensial way to look at things. The more I learn about science, the more my own religion makes sense.
Since Ive both a religious person and a science guy, Ive know both kind of people:
Ultra-one-dimensional-religious person... Religous sane person.... religous sane science guy.... sane science guy.... ultra-one-dimensional-science-guy...
ok what Ive seen is the first person from right throw rocks on the fifth person, and vice verca. There are big gabs in both camps, thoguh I dont see any in the middle.
oh yes and the toad thing, i didnt make the question, it was some ancient greek aristoles or something like that.

About the atom things. yse the world are mad of atoms, but its not that simple, cause then I would be able to make a nuclearbomb.

[NEXUS7]

Stop stop my hands from there flame intent *slaps hands*

Well that’s Logic for you all one-dimension, dorm that scientific methodology
It’s just so restrictive.

I will say this you have a lot of sanity in your
Statements of types

I would say with Science you have to privet sanity
but with religion you can just take it on faith.
Dont know if thats good or bad

I think that’s why the Scientologist have such a downer on psychiatrists

Which rases the point how would a LG, LN and LE PC think of the scientific methodology sould it
ever get out in to Layonara

Are if only our world had provably and repeatable magic

I think that one of the main facters in why Harry Potter such a hit

All that magic with out the religion and always provably and repeatable.

*points wand* Evalushearnus!

Hummmm

[Harloff]

Niles09 - 11/25/2005  12:22 PM

Love cant corrupt, cause the essence of it is not ot harm others. Though it can be corrupted by evil, in some cases. We are all humans, and no matter how clever we are, or in what we believe we can do bad things, even with good intentions (though killing people is really far out), we tend to cast our love on only some few persons, and then, as your own example says, we can create destruction on others.
But! Love cant be corrupted if it is complete, if you love every being in the universe, your love cant be corrupted, since no one is better than the other.
by the way ther is one "love" tat can coruupt. The love to yourself, your ego.
About math, right it is logical, but putting God into something so simple as the example above, cant be done, he is much much more advanced. Anyway I am studing matthematics, physics, chemics and so on for the moment. And the fact that the world is putted together in such an advanced, and though complete logical way, proofs that there is something greater. Trust me, you cant just say, "everything is maked of atoms and paticles, and thats pretty simple?!" Every science guy would laugh at you.

And about math, solve this:
A runner and a toad is compeeting. The toad starts ten meters ahead, and then moves 1/10 the runner's speed. When the runner has moved 10 meters, the toad is one meter ahead, eleven meters the toad is 1/10 meter ahead. how can the runner ever get past the toad?

First of all, all "science guys" would indeed laugh at me for saying that everything was made of particles and that it was simple because it isn't simple it is actually quite complex, quantum physics and all. As far as I understand it only a very small number of scientist actually understand quantum physics. But most sceintist are atheist like me (I count my self to "science guys" due to my education as civilingeneer and the Ph.d. studies that i have just finished.), eventhough about 40 % of scientist are religious (these are the figures I have heard).

The math example you mention is indeed inveted aristotele, and is normally used in education systems as an example of faulty arguments. So like the other guys here i find it hard to see the point of you mentioning it.

Love... As i stated before I find love more corrupting than anything else. Another examle is that the love of the christian god has killed more human beings than anything else in human history. dispite the fact that is is stated in the bible that "you shall not kill", yet people tend to forget this if others whorship another god. Or as in the example of the inqusition they just killed people if they had another believe system than the church allowed. And i guess the more complete your love is the closer it is to a state of madness and you would do anything in the name of this love.

Even though you could prove the existance of a greater being creating the earth, you would still have the problem that you wouldn't know whether this greater being was the christian god, the muslim god, the jewish god, or if he/she was just a part of many gods as the wikings believed. There is no proof that god inspired the writing of the bible, eventhough it is written in the bible that he did it. But that is no more proof than a writer like Dan Brown stating "everything from this page forward is true". Hence in the end it all boils down to a religious person believing that there is a god, and that this god wants him to behave in a particular way, and thiswill earn him a reward. There is simply no proff that this is so, just a lot of people believing that it is. But science is not a democracy, you don't win by being many believing something you win by presenting the most solid evidence. But Nexus put it very elequantly:

NEXUS7 - 11/25/2005  12:56 PM

See you can not use Logic against fiath for fiath precludes logic.
You can not use faith against logic for logic precludes faith.

This sums it up... On a side note it must be mentioned that many of historys great scientist were religious men e.g. Charles Darwin and Gallieo Gallilei.

Niles09 - 11/25/2005  2:19 PM

About the atom things. yes the world are made of atoms, but its not that simple, cause then I would be able to make a nuclearbomb.

But you would be able to make an atomic bomb it is just a matter of passing the critical weight, if you pile a sufficiently large amount of uranium 235 together, it will blow up. The trick is of course to control it n such a way that you survive, and that you do as much damage to your fellow human beings as possible.

[Niles09]

Harloff - 11/25/2005  5:37 AM

Love... As i stated before I find love more corrupting than anything else. Another examle is that the love of the christian god has killed more human beings than anything else in human history. dispite the fact that is is stated in the bible that "you shall not kill", yet people tend to forget this if others whorship another god. Or as in the example of the inqusition they just killed people if they had another believe system than the church allowed. And i guess the more complete your love is the closer it is to a state of madness and you would do anything in the name of this love.

Even though you could prove the existance of a greater being creating the earth, you would still have the problem that you wouldn't know whether this greater being was the christian god, the muslim god, the jewish god, or if he/she was just a part of many gods as the wikings believed. There is no proof that god inspired the writing of the bible, eventhough it is written in the bible that he did it. But that is no more proof than a writer like Dan Brown stating "everything from this page forward is true". Hence in the end it all boils down to a religious person believing that there is a god, and that this god wants him to behave in a particular way, and thiswill earn him a reward. There is simply no proff that this is so, just a lot of people believing that it is. But science is not a democracy, you don't win by being many believing something you win by presenting the most solid evidence. But Nexus put it very elequantly:

ahh there is a problem there you see, most of those things wasnt done in the name of God, although it should look that way, it was done for power and well, sometimes maybe in the name of God, but that only proofs what I said, love can be corrupted by evil. My point was that God himself, is not corrupt, cause he cares for us all. And by the way, if you look back to fx the spanish invasion of Mexico they slaughtered the population. Though if you read some of their diaries and stuff, the soldiers and commanders wrote about gold, power in the name of the queen. Some of the monks wrote about how deeply disgusted they were, seeing how children was killed. They didnt think things would end up that way.
About proving what God is true. The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the "same" be origen. All three religions starts the same way, the jewish and muslims was splitted up from one family (that is both in the old testament and the muslims book). About which one is true, that is a matter of believe. I believe in forgiving people, love etc even though I must admit Im not always good at it, but I cant see any other way, to make the world a good place to be. I dont know what the muslims believe, but so far I know Messia exists in their religion as well, though as a profet, exactly like in the jewish religion.

Oh yes and thanks for the recipe of the nuclear bomb. Har! Im going to blow up every science place in the world, since I cant be both religious and a science guy!
No guys, I cant say I preclude science or religion, so either I (logically) doesnt exist, or maybe your were wrong. There are gabs in the traditional christian way of how the earth was created, gabs as big as those in the darwin theori. Intelligent design = no gabs

[Ne'er]

*scratches head and looks back at the topic name*

Got a little off topic, did we?

[Harloff]

Niles09 - 11/25/2005  6:17 PM

ahh there is a problem there you see, most of those things wasnt done in the name of God, although it should look that way, it was done for power and well, sometimes maybe in the name of God, but that only proofs what I said, love can be corrupted by evil. My point was that God himself, is not corrupt, cause he cares for us all. And by the way, if you look back to fx the spanish invasion of Mexico they slaughtered the population. Though if you read some of their diaries and stuff, the soldiers and commanders wrote about gold, power in the name of the queen. Some of the monks wrote about how deeply disgusted they were, seeing how children was killed. They didnt think things would end up that way.
About proving what God is true. The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the "same" be origen. All three religions starts the same way, the jewish and muslims was splitted up from one family (that is both in the old testament and the muslims book). About which one is true, that is a matter of believe. I believe in forgiving people, love etc even though I must admit Im not always good at it, but I cant see any other way, to make the world a good place to be. I dont know what the muslims believe, but so far I know Messia exists in their religion as well, though as a profet, exactly like in the jewish religion.

No guys, I cant say I preclude science or religion, so either I (logically) doesnt exist, or maybe your were wrong. There are gabs in the traditional christian way of how the earth was created, gabs as big as those in the darwin theori. Intelligent design = no gabs

*grins* I know that most of the killings were done in the name of god but in the quest of power/gold/fame. But some of the murders were done of religious people because they felt they were doing the right thing. Similar to the suicede bombers killing people in the middleeast.

I know that many people think that it is the same god, and perhaps it is but then you have a real problem. Is god the kind loving chrisian god? The vengeful (jewish) god from the old testamente with his flame sword? or is he more like the muslim god (havent got around to reading the Coran yet), or is he perhaps a third god that is neither of these possibileties (perhaps the corrupt god that just like letting people think that there is an afterlife). It is really a gamble to try and live by a set of rules hoping to be rewarded afterwards. I must admit that i look forward to hear a christian saying that we should live by the bible and start stoning women to death that aren't virgins when they marry "5th book of moses" 22.13-21 . At that point i will shout "let the ones without sin throw the first stone" (technically i could throw the stone since i cannot sin not believing in suc a notion).

Not suprisingly I disagree with you on the matter of inteligent design versus darwinism. The huge difference between the two is that darwinism is theory based on experimental evidence. Wereas inteligent design is a philosopical/religious theory, that cannot even be tested. It all boils down to "this looks to complex to be natural, ergo someone must have designed it" however this cannot be tested. Testing is however a prequsite for all scientific theories, which means that intelligent design is not more scientific than the bible. You can choose to believe it out of personal reasons like any other religion, but it will always remain a religious belief. Unless god suddently chooses to reveal himself to us and say, "I made this" and prove that he really did. but until that day it is just another religion be it false or true but a science it is not.

An to quote Karl Marx on the subject religion: "It is the opium of the people."

Niles09 - 11/25/2005  6:17 PM
gabs as big as those in the darwin theori"

*grins* I guess that is your opinion on the matter, however none of the things in the creation from the bibe was ever proven. The gaps in Darwinism are actually filled with other theories that have been veriefied by experiments/observations as well.

[Niles09]

*Sighs* There are things that have proven to me, that God is a god of love, logiacally proofs by the way. About intelligent design and darwism. Darwism isnt all proven by experiments its a theory, every physic teacher says that. Intelligent design is indeed proven logically, not by faith, scientits that believe in intelligent design, dont nesacary have a religion, they just see the logic. About the jewesh god, he aint that revengeful. Look at the ten commands and tell if any of them is meant bad?

[Filatus]

Love is like eating chocolate.

[Harloff]

Niles09 - 11/26/2005  3:11 AM

*Sighs* There are things that have proven to me, that God is a god of love, logiacally proofs by the way. About intelligent design and darwism. Darwism isnt all proven by experiments its a theory, every physic teacher says that. Intelligent design is indeed proven logically, not by faith, scientits that believe in intelligent design, dont nesacary have a religion, they just see the logic. About the jewesh god, he aint that revengeful. Look at the ten commands and tell if any of them is meant bad?

That is correct all scientific theories are indeed theories that is why we call them theories, otherwise we would call the rules. Fyrthermore, a common trait for all scientific theories is that they can not be proven, false theories can be disproven, but none can be proven. This is caused by the way scientific research is done: 1) formulate a theory. 2) analyse the consequences of the theory. 3) test the consequences of the theory by experiments. This sceme ensures that all models that predict something faulty will be rejectet, but those that have predictions similar to the observation wil survive. However, there is never any garuentee that an experiment in the furture won't disprove the theory. This has been shown many times in history, e.g. Newtons theory proved to be inadequate and was replaced by Eisteins special theory of relativety, however, when Newton lived there was no evidence that contradicted his theory.

Back to darwinism, darwinism says that the fittest species will survive. This is in agrement with what experiments show. The famous finch observations from the galapagos islands show that: In case of a draught where the only remaining food supply is nuts with very hard shells, the finches with sufficiently strong beaks are the only ones that survive. However this does not prove darwinism it only shows that it is a plauseble theory, but darwinism can not be rejected cause no evidence show that it is faulty. Furthermore, darwinism doesn't state that surviving of the fittest is the only mechanism that drives evolution, other mechanism are also foun to be important and together all of these theories are the "theory of evolution". And this joint theory has yet to be disproven.

Intelligent design: intelligent design say that some sort of intelligens has created animals/us. There is however no veryfiable consequences of such a theory, which means that it lacks the common trait of scientific resarch. Hence it isn't a scientific theory, it is a simple as that. This is also seen in what you state "the scientist that believe in ID" well scientific theories is something that you prove or not, not a thing that you believe in. Beliefs are as I stated ealier religions and not science.

Religion: correct there is nothing vengeful in the 10 commandments. however this is just one tiny little bit of the old testament. Examples of a vengeful god: sodoma and gomore, Lots wife, the 7 plagues (Everytime god has given the egyptians a plague, he acts his will on the farao and gets him to keep the isralites in egypt. so that he can give them yet another plague just to show his power. (if you don't belive me read the section in the bible)), a man is collecting wood on the sabbat the isralites ask god what to do about him and he says "kill him", the earlier mentioned rule about stoning women that are no longer virgins to death, other rules about stoning people, everytime the isralites abandon god he acts his wrath on them, etc. etc. That is the vengeful god that i am talking about.

It is fine that you say that many things a proven to you, yet there is no evidence for what you claim, which means that these are not things that are proven to you but things you believe in, hence a faith or religion call it what you want. I think that it is fine that you have a religion and i am not trying to convince you to abadon your religion. I just say don't mix science and religion, cause science is the land where things can be disproven or shown plauseble. But religion is the land where you have no evidence you just have to believe in the things that you are presented with nothing more. Hence we are back to where we started religions and science can not be mixed.

Filatus - 11/26/2005  3:41 AM


Love is like eating chocolate.

you don't have any proofs for this statement Filatus, it is unscientific.

[Filatus]

*coughs* It contains phenylethylamine. There are researchers who believe the substance is also released when someone interacts with his/her 'loved' one.

Of course you miss the physical and emotional attraction.

[Niles09]

About things that have proven to me, it was scientinfic proofs, and there is evidence, yet that is something personal to me. About God striking when people abondon him. Really I dont think any human could have done better. About what books are true. There are many archelogic researches that proff the existense of David fx. Ofcourse that doesnt proofs that God helped him. Its also aknowlegded that Messia did walk on the earth, and that was my old not-at-all religious history teacher (who truly believe in Darwin) who said that. About the inteligent design. Most people have their own vision of things, and my "inteligent design" is at most partr scientific at other parts just logical. There aer things in the darwism, that is so far out, that it annoys me that the sciencemen just skip it but also makes me laugh.
And this should be it, the both of us have our own believes, and it doesnt look like any of us are going to convince the other.

[PsychicToaster]

Harloff's longer explanation does it more justice, but I'll reiterate a key point.  There is no such thing as scientific proof.  Things cannot be scientifically proven.  Anyone who said they can be lied to you.  They can only be confirmed or contradicted.  Confirmation is not proof since no theory can possibly account for all contingencies.  Nor does contradiction mean that every part of the initial theory is false.

There is no such thing as scientific proof.

Mathematic proofs are very different from scientific ones.  

Speaking of mathematic proofs, to return to the original topic.  This proof has always bothered me because of the word "And" in the original premise.  And, as was already pointed out, is defined as addition.  I am currently at a loss for a better wording.

[NEXUS7]

Niles
With intelligent design see

http://www.venganza.org/

Also good fight last night in Minator Land )

[Niles09]

It was indeed fun to get off Mistone!

About the proof that woman are evil, I thought of the "and" first time I heard it too. But really, it is just for fun.. We dont need mathematical things to proof the evil of woman, we know it all ready;)

[Niles09]

Ok, the theoretic proof that woman are evil:

1. Their nails.. It cant be pleasant to have such long nails, they must constantly be in the way, so "they" should only have them if the loos is weightened up by something good (for them!). They are pointy! I think most of us have feeled how they can be used as weapons as their last desperate act in a conversation.
2. They wear dresses, but when we do they laugh at us.. Why cant we wear those cool dresses:( Its  sex discrimination!
3. Ever seen the movie "evil woman"? (I havent)
4. They always go into toilets in big groups, hah! surely they must be planning something!
5. Wasnt it Icedragon... that admitted her evil herself?
6. Actually once in physics, we calculated which was worst, an a stamp of an elephants foot, or a stamp of a lady's shoe. And given the small (we used a 1 x 1cm) area of the womans shoe, the power in N was actually greater than a stamp with an elephant's big foot. EVIL!

[freemen2]

1.Those very same sharp claws can be quite nice when their running over your body
2.Well wear a kilt and if you got the legs for it, women wont be laughing, the men yes :p
3.Same for the movie never heard of it...irrelevant then for either of us then
4.Yup like most males have to watch sport games together...just more human quikrs if you ask me.
5.If Ice be evil I be the devil himself :p
6.Yup high heals shoes are considered a weapon in most court of laws 1. But where most likelly invented by a male (Leonardo DeVinci very probably) and 2. well think of all the foot fetchists out there with drooling smiles, ever since :p

Women can be evil only because they are part of the human race...hmmmm, kind of like us males, hey? :p

Skarp, love isn't evil, it's the little plug-ins we add to it that can turn it into that...see the 7capitals sins to keep with the religious talks, for starters

Which takes us to that :p Written scriptures, from religions had to be written by humans, a wee burning bush beeing one of the exceptions? and thus warped either from the start or soon enough by humans...so how does that make it a god, who gaved humans: freedom of choice, responsible?

Oh and yeah Chocolate's yumm, there's even a little mexicain recipe which mixes it with chili peppers...if you thought just chocolate gaved you a high, you should try that