The Religion Discussion

[Slartibartfast]

everybody belly get full from 2 fish and a bread. illogical. hinting at quantum mechanics. there is simply not enough matter and nutrients in 2 fish and a loaf of bread to feed a thousand people.

talk to me when science can do that. eat yuh cake and still have it to eat again after lol

Talk to me when there is actual proof that that happened.

Just because you are toting that science cannot feed 5,000 from 2 fish and a bread does not mean that it never happened.

Just because it is written in a book does not mean it did.

So you choose to ignore the possibility that it is true! Good way to evade the issue.

Good going Mr. Scientist.

Just give me some evidence and I'll be on my way.

[Habit7]

Lol. I thought you weren't arguing about Nazi Germany or North Korea. All that was dealt with already

If it was dealt already why are you asking the same question? And why are you sidestepping my questions?

[Slartibartfast]

Why do people constantly blame God for man's sins?

God gave us choice to do with as we please.

When a 90 year old man wants to marry an 8 year old girl, why blame God? Isn't that the exercise of choice?

When 'good' people are hurt by crime, isn't that choice? Why blame God.

When Job lost all his family and possessions, did he blame God?

because he allegedly created everything. Either he accepts responsibility for the bad along with the good or he doesn't take credit for the good or the bad.

Also, how can God be perfect od his creations aren't perfect? Shouldn't there have been nothing wrong with us if we were created by a perfect being?

[bluefete]

everybody belly get full from 2 fish and a bread. illogical. hinting at quantum mechanics. there is simply not enough matter and nutrients in 2 fish and a loaf of bread to feed a thousand people.

talk to me when science can do that. eat yuh cake and still have it to eat again after lol

Talk to me when there is actual proof that that happened.

Just because you are toting that science cannot feed 5,000 from 2 fish and a bread does not mean that it never happened.

Just because it is written in a book does not mean it did.

So you choose to ignore the possibility that it is true! Good way to evade the issue.

Good going Mr. Scientist.

Just give me some evidence and I'll be on my way.

Where is the evidence that Plato or Aristotle existed? Not in a book somewhere?

[Slartibartfast]

Lol. I thought you weren't arguing about Nazi Germany or North Korea. All that was dealt with already

If it was dealt already why are you asking the same question? And why are you sidestepping my questions?

Was asking to see if you came up with something new or just rehashing what wad dealt with. I just realised you were rehashing and I see no need to deal with it again as it was all dealt with already just a couple pages ago

[Slartibartfast]

everybody belly get full from 2 fish and a bread. illogical. hinting at quantum mechanics. there is simply not enough matter and nutrients in 2 fish and a loaf of bread to feed a thousand people.

talk to me when science can do that. eat yuh cake and still have it to eat again after lol

Talk to me when there is actual proof that that happened.

Just because you are toting that science cannot feed 5,000 from 2 fish and a bread does not mean that it never happened.

Just because it is written in a book does not mean it did.

So you choose to ignore the possibility that it is true! Good way to evade the issue.

Good going Mr. Scientist.

Just give me some evidence and I'll be on my way.

Where is the evidence that Plato or Aristotle existed? Not in a book somewhere?

:lol: my bad. I thought you were being serious.

[bluefete]

Why do people constantly blame God for man's sins?

God gave us choice to do with as we please.

When a 90 year old man wants to marry an 8 year old girl, why blame God? Isn't that the exercise of choice?

When 'good' people are hurt by crime, isn't that choice? Why blame God.

When Job lost all his family and possessions, did he blame God?

because he allegedly created everything. Either he accepts responsibility for the bad along with the good or he doesn't take credit for the good or the bad.

Also, how can God be perfect od his creations aren't perfect? Shouldn't there have been nothing wrong with us if we were created by a perfect being?

We were perfect when we were created. Even the angels trembled before Adam. When we sinned, everything turned ole mas. Then Adam trembled before the angels.

There was a premise to man remaining in his perfect and non-sinful state. That premise was obedience.

When man disobeyed, he lost his perfect nature. He chose to exercise his choice to disobey God,

[bluefete]

everybody belly get full from 2 fish and a bread. illogical. hinting at quantum mechanics. there is simply not enough matter and nutrients in 2 fish and a loaf of bread to feed a thousand people.

talk to me when science can do that. eat yuh cake and still have it to eat again after lol

Talk to me when there is actual proof that that happened.

Just because you are toting that science cannot feed 5,000 from 2 fish and a bread does not mean that it never happened.

Just because it is written in a book does not mean it did.

So you choose to ignore the possibility that it is true! Good way to evade the issue.

Good going Mr. Scientist.

Just give me some evidence and I'll be on my way.

Where is the evidence that Plato or Aristotle existed? Not in a book somewhere?

:lol: my bad. I thought you were being serious.

So where is the evidence? Do you have their birth certificates?

[Slartibartfast]

Now are there any other examples or we only able to become moral cavemen amd no more based on religion alone?

I could literally list hundreds of things science has gave us. Sure religion must have given ua more than one.

[Slartibartfast]

Why do people constantly blame God for man's sins?

God gave us choice to do with as we please.

When a 90 year old man wants to marry an 8 year old girl, why blame God? Isn't that the exercise of choice?

When 'good' people are hurt by crime, isn't that choice? Why blame God.

When Job lost all his family and possessions, did he blame God?

because he allegedly created everything. Either he accepts responsibility for the bad along with the good or he doesn't take credit for the good or the bad.

Also, how can God be perfect od his creations aren't perfect? Shouldn't there have been nothing wrong with us if we were created by a perfect being?

We were perfect when we were created. Even the angels trembled before Adam. When we sinned, everything turned ole mas. Then Adam trembled before the angels.

There was a premise to man remaining in his perfect and non-sinful state. That premise was obedience.

When man disobeyed, he lost his perfect nature. He chose to exercise his choice to disobey God,

How can a perfect being be disobedient if disobedience is not part of perfection.

[bluefete]

Now are there any other examples or we only able to become moral cavemen amd no more based on religion alone?

I could literally list hundreds of things science has gave us. Sure religion must have given ua more than one.

An entire value system for life.

[Habit7]

1. There are lots of examples moral codes being developed without God (outside of Nazi Germany and North Korea) and God cannot enforce his "given" rights. So there is no point.

2. Man does take away. Men have killed their sons (Eg. Marvin Gaye was killed by his father who was a minister). Where was God for this? What did God do?

1. Lots of examples like...?

2. Where did God say that we don't live our lives as free moral agents who will all give account of our lives when we die and if we are perfect like Jesus we are rewarded with heaven and if we have sinned (like patricide) we are punished in hell?

[Slartibartfast]

Lol ok. Still can't make a caveman any more civilised (assuming that is true). Surely you must have at least one good answer.

Edit. Also, of God created everything then that would have been there from the start so that would have been where society started and it therefore could not have advanced society.

[bluefete]

How ironic.

Robots could murder us out of KINDNESS unless they are taught the value of human life, engineer claims


By Ellie Zolfagharifard for MailOnline

Published: 12:01 GMT, 22 August 2014 | Updated: 17:03 GMT, 22 August 2014



The warning was made by Amsterdam-based engineer, Nell Watson at a recent conference


Future generations could be exterminated by Terminator-style robots unless machines are taught the value of human life.

This is the stark warning made by Amsterdam-based engineer Nell Watson, who believes droids could kill humans out of both malice and kindness.

Teaching machines to be kind is not enough, she says, as robots could decide that the greatest compassion to humans as a race is to get rid of everyone to end suffering.

'The most important work of our lifetime is to ensure that machines are capable of understanding human value,' she said at the recent 'Conference by Media Evolution' in Sweden.

'It is those values that will ensure machines don't end up killing us out of kindness.'

Ms Watson claims computer chips could soon have the same level of brain power as a bumblebee – allowing them to analyse social situations and their environment.

'Machines are going to be aware of the environments around them and, to a small extent, they're going to be aware of themselves,' said Ms Watson, who is also the chief executive of body scanning firm Poikos.


'We're starting to understand the secrets of the human brain,' she points out, while at the same time we're getting better at programming computers with deep learning.

'It's going to create a huge change in our society all around the world'.

For instance, Google is already working on self-driving cars that can automatically sense traffic and adjust their speed and direction.


Future generations could be exterminated by Terminator-style robots (pictured) unless machines are taught the value of human life, Ms Watson said


GOOGLE SETS UP AI ETHICS BOARD TO CURB THE RISE OF THE ROBOTS

Google has set up an ethics board to oversee its work in artificial intelligence.

The search giant has recently bought several robotics companies, along with Deep Mind, a British firm creating software that tries to help computers think like humans.

One of its founders warned artificial intelligence is 'number 1 risk for this century,' and believes it could play a part in human extinction

'Eventually, I think human extinction will probably occur, and technology will likely play a part in this,' DeepMind’s Shane Legg said in a recent interview.

Among all forms of technology that could wipe out the human species, he singled out artificial intelligence, or AI, as the 'number 1 risk for this century.'

The ethics board, revealed by web site The Information, is to ensure the projects are not abused.

Neuroscientist Demis Hassabis, 37, founded DeepMind two years ago with the aim of trying to help computers think like humans.

Meanwhile, Japan is leading the way in creating home-help robots for the elderly and injured.

While Ms Watson warning seems grim, she believes a robot uprising isn't necessarily a negative event. 'Machines can help us understand ourselves and gather self-knowledge,' she said.

'I can't help but look at these trends and imagine how then we shall live? When we start to see super-intelligent artificial intelligence are they going to be friendly or unfriendly?'

The warning echoes similar comments earlier this month by Tesla-founder, Elon Musk who said artificial intelligence could someday be more harmful than nuclear weapons.

Musk referred to the book ‘Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies’, a work by Nick Bostrom that asks major questions about how humanity will cope with super-intelligent computers.

Mr Bostrom has also argued that the world is fake and we are living in a computer simulation.

In a later comment, Musk wrote: ‘Hope we're not just the biological boot loader for digital superintelligence. Unfortunately, that is increasingly probable.’

The 42-year-old is so worried, he is now investing in AI companies, not to make money, but to keep an eye on the technology in case it gets out of hand.

In March, Musk made an investment San Francisco-based AI group Vicarious, along with Mark Zuckerberg and actor Ashton Kutcher.

Vicarious is currently attempting to build a program that mimics the brain’s neocortex.

The neocortex is the top layer of the cerebral hemispheres in the brain of mammals. It is around 3mm thick and has six layers, each involved with various functions.

These include sensory perception, spatial reasoning, conscious thought, and language in humans.

According to the company’s website: ‘Vicarious is developing machine learning software based on the computational principles of the human brain.


The warning echoes similar comments tweeted earlier this month by SpaceX founder, Elon Musk who said artificial intelligence could someday be more harmful than nuclear weapons



42-year-old Elon Musk (pictured) is so worried, he is investing in AI companies, not to make money, but to keep an eye on the technology in case it gets out of hand

‘Our first technology is a visual perception system that interprets the contents of photographs and videos in a manner similar to humans.

‘Powering this technology is a new computational paradigm we call the Recursive Cortical Network.’

In October 2013, the company announced it had developed an algorithm that ‘reliably’ solves modern Captchas - the world’s most widely used test of a machine’s ability to act human.

Captchas are used when filling in forms, for example, to make sure it’s not being completed by a bot. This prevents people programming computers to buy a bulk load of gig tickets, for example.

Professor Stephen Hawking has also warned that humanity faces an uncertain future as technology learns to think for itself and adapt to its environment.

Earlier this year, the renowned physicist discussed Jonny Depp's film Transcendence, which delves into a world where computers can surpass the abilities of humans.

Professor Hawking said dismissing the film as science fiction could be the ‘worst mistake in history’.


Stephen Hawking has warned that artificial intelligence has the potential to be the downfall of mankind. 'Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history,' he said writing in the Independent. 'Unfortunately, it might also be the last'





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z3B9nR5ZWU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[bluefete]

What dotishness Stephen Hawking talking there?

Artificial Intelligence thinking for itself? Really?

AI can only do what it is programmed by its designer to do. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Slartibartfast]

This concept was expanded on by Isaac Assimov in some of his novels. Very interesting read.

And why can't we make true AI? We have done lots of things that were considered impossible before. Why set limitations?

Also, you realise that human life is only important to us. We are more of a pest on this planet than anything else. But naturally we will not want to make something that coyld kill us. I don't see the irony here. These are the expected reactions.

Btw no good examples to give me yet?

[bluefete]

Why do people constantly blame God for man's sins?

God gave us choice to do with as we please.

When a 90 year old man wants to marry an 8 year old girl, why blame God? Isn't that the exercise of choice?

When 'good' people are hurt by crime, isn't that choice? Why blame God.

When Job lost all his family and possessions, did he blame God?

because he allegedly created everything. Either he accepts responsibility for the bad along with the good or he doesn't take credit for the good or the bad.

Also, how can God be perfect od his creations aren't perfect? Shouldn't there have been nothing wrong with us if we were created by a perfect being?

We were perfect when we were created. Even the angels trembled before Adam. When we sinned, everything turned ole mas. Then Adam trembled before the angels.

There was a premise to man remaining in his perfect and non-sinful state. That premise was obedience.

When man disobeyed, he lost his perfect nature. He chose to exercise his choice to disobey God,

How can a perfect being be disobedient if disobedience is not part of perfection.

Choice is part of perfection. Make the wrong choice and perfection goes.

Same thing happened with Satan.

[Slartibartfast]

Still doesn't make sense. A perfect creator will make perfect creations (people). And perfect people would make perfect choices.

[Habit7]

Why wouldn't a perfect creator make imperfect creations?

A perfect creator can do whatever he wants in accordance to his purposes, hence perfection along with omnipotence.

[bluesclues]

How ironic.

Robots could murder us out of KINDNESS unless they are taught the value of human life, engineer claims


By Ellie Zolfagharifard for MailOnline

Published: 12:01 GMT, 22 August 2014 | Updated: 17:03 GMT, 22 August 2014



The warning was made by Amsterdam-based engineer, Nell Watson at a recent conference


Future generations could be exterminated by Terminator-style robots unless machines are taught the value of human life.

This is the stark warning made by Amsterdam-based engineer Nell Watson, who believes droids could kill humans out of both malice and kindness.

Teaching machines to be kind is not enough, she says, as robots could decide that the greatest compassion to humans as a race is to get rid of everyone to end suffering.

'The most important work of our lifetime is to ensure that machines are capable of understanding human value,' she said at the recent 'Conference by Media Evolution' in Sweden.

'It is those values that will ensure machines don't end up killing us out of kindness.'

Ms Watson claims computer chips could soon have the same level of brain power as a bumblebee – allowing them to analyse social situations and their environment.

'Machines are going to be aware of the environments around them and, to a small extent, they're going to be aware of themselves,' said Ms Watson, who is also the chief executive of body scanning firm Poikos.


'We're starting to understand the secrets of the human brain,' she points out, while at the same time we're getting better at programming computers with deep learning.

'It's going to create a huge change in our society all around the world'.

For instance, Google is already working on self-driving cars that can automatically sense traffic and adjust their speed and direction.


Future generations could be exterminated by Terminator-style robots (pictured) unless machines are taught the value of human life, Ms Watson said


GOOGLE SETS UP AI ETHICS BOARD TO CURB THE RISE OF THE ROBOTS

Google has set up an ethics board to oversee its work in artificial intelligence.

The search giant has recently bought several robotics companies, along with Deep Mind, a British firm creating software that tries to help computers think like humans.

One of its founders warned artificial intelligence is 'number 1 risk for this century,' and believes it could play a part in human extinction

'Eventually, I think human extinction will probably occur, and technology will likely play a part in this,' DeepMind’s Shane Legg said in a recent interview.

Among all forms of technology that could wipe out the human species, he singled out artificial intelligence, or AI, as the 'number 1 risk for this century.'

The ethics board, revealed by web site The Information, is to ensure the projects are not abused.

Neuroscientist Demis Hassabis, 37, founded DeepMind two years ago with the aim of trying to help computers think like humans.

Meanwhile, Japan is leading the way in creating home-help robots for the elderly and injured.

While Ms Watson warning seems grim, she believes a robot uprising isn't necessarily a negative event. 'Machines can help us understand ourselves and gather self-knowledge,' she said.

'I can't help but look at these trends and imagine how then we shall live? When we start to see super-intelligent artificial intelligence are they going to be friendly or unfriendly?'

The warning echoes similar comments earlier this month by Tesla-founder, Elon Musk who said artificial intelligence could someday be more harmful than nuclear weapons.

Musk referred to the book ‘Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies’, a work by Nick Bostrom that asks major questions about how humanity will cope with super-intelligent computers.

Mr Bostrom has also argued that the world is fake and we are living in a computer simulation.

In a later comment, Musk wrote: ‘Hope we're not just the biological boot loader for digital superintelligence. Unfortunately, that is increasingly probable.’

The 42-year-old is so worried, he is now investing in AI companies, not to make money, but to keep an eye on the technology in case it gets out of hand.

In March, Musk made an investment San Francisco-based AI group Vicarious, along with Mark Zuckerberg and actor Ashton Kutcher.

Vicarious is currently attempting to build a program that mimics the brain’s neocortex.

The neocortex is the top layer of the cerebral hemispheres in the brain of mammals. It is around 3mm thick and has six layers, each involved with various functions.

These include sensory perception, spatial reasoning, conscious thought, and language in humans.

According to the company’s website: ‘Vicarious is developing machine learning software based on the computational principles of the human brain.


The warning echoes similar comments tweeted earlier this month by SpaceX founder, Elon Musk who said artificial intelligence could someday be more harmful than nuclear weapons



42-year-old Elon Musk (pictured) is so worried, he is investing in AI companies, not to make money, but to keep an eye on the technology in case it gets out of hand

‘Our first technology is a visual perception system that interprets the contents of photographs and videos in a manner similar to humans.

‘Powering this technology is a new computational paradigm we call the Recursive Cortical Network.’

In October 2013, the company announced it had developed an algorithm that ‘reliably’ solves modern Captchas - the world’s most widely used test of a machine’s ability to act human.

Captchas are used when filling in forms, for example, to make sure it’s not being completed by a bot. This prevents people programming computers to buy a bulk load of gig tickets, for example.

Professor Stephen Hawking has also warned that humanity faces an uncertain future as technology learns to think for itself and adapt to its environment.

Earlier this year, the renowned physicist discussed Jonny Depp's film Transcendence, which delves into a world where computers can surpass the abilities of humans.

Professor Hawking said dismissing the film as science fiction could be the ‘worst mistake in history’.


Stephen Hawking has warned that artificial intelligence has the potential to be the downfall of mankind. 'Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history,' he said writing in the Independent. 'Unfortunately, it might also be the last'





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z3B9nR5ZWU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

right.. you see alllll this they talking about is only.. SIMULATIONS of the brains operation. and do not function like a real brain. when they say self awareness.. they talking about all the sensors that will be cewcking up on the robots parts. realtime diagnostics of its system and efficiency of all its sensors. it does not 'feel' anything. its just logical dead code. in a hot place the robot doesnt feel the heat, or pain. he just gets a reading from his sensors.

this is how it works in robotics and all science. they observe something naturally occuring, and try to mimic it. only the mimic is very poor copy of the original. in this case a simulation. where the robot isnt really thinking, but making itself appear outwardly that it is intelligent to conscious observers. that is why the machine.. without human compassion will kill us all.

all that needs to happen is that important logical factors line up and the 'kill all humans' program is launched without a second thought.

[bluefete]

^^ True talk there.

All they can only talk about are simulations. Scientists cannot reproduce the ideas of the mind in a robot.

Nor can they reproduce human emotions at will. Everything has to be programmed.

[Paratrooper]

^^ the truth is nothing from a slandering toungue like urs should be taken seriously. You too accustom taking advantage of weaker ppl who look to religion and find pharisites

[nareshseep]

Are we not programmed by books beliefs and culture?

[bluefete]

Are we not programmed by books beliefs and culture?

Don't we need a mind for that type of programming?

What does a robot need a mind for? Heck, can we design a 'mind' for a robot?

[Slartibartfast]

... this is how it works in robotics and all science. they observe something naturally occuring, and try to mimic it. only the mimic is very poor copy of the original. in this case a simulation. where the robot isnt really thinking, but making itself appear outwardly that it is intelligent to conscious observers. that is why the machine.. without human compassion will kill us all.

It's clear you guys don't understand science's approach or use. Science isn't concerned with "if", just how. By asking "if" you begin to limit yourself. You must also keep in mind that science requires a lot of funding in most cases. Most times this funding only comes if the research shows promise of a NET return.

Take a look at planes. Can you tell me which bird can fly above the speed of sound? Or maybe they were trying to mimc something else. Most inventions are created to fulfill a purpose. Why create a artificial voice box when alsmost everyone can talk and sign language can be used for a dumb person to communicate.

Also, you guys act as though our current capabilities are our limits. Maybe if religion decided to update it's text once every couple thousand years then you guys may be able to grasp the concepts of progress and change.

Also, what was stopping God from creating an imperfect bible if he can create imperfections and still be a perfect creator. If you guys want contradictory statement or belief, there is one for you.

Anyway, I'm jumping out of this thread for a bit as it has degraded to nothing more that a circlejerk of ignorant minds bashing science in an attempt to convince themselves that religion is still relevant outside of the groups of people that proclaim religion is still relevant.

PEACE!

[Paratrooper]

Nothings lower than a slandering scumbag preaching religion

[bluesclues]

... this is how it works in robotics and all science. they observe something naturally occuring, and try to mimic it. only the mimic is very poor copy of the original. in this case a simulation. where the robot isnt really thinking, but making itself appear outwardly that it is intelligent to conscious observers. that is why the machine.. without human compassion will kill us all.

It's clear you guys don't understand science's approach or use. Science isn't concerned with "if", just how. By asking "if" you begin to limit yourself. You must also keep in mind that science requires a lot of funding in most cases. Most times this funding only comes if the research shows promise of a NET return.

Take a look at planes. Can you tell me which bird can fly above the speed of sound? Or maybe they were trying to mimc something else. Most inventions are created to fulfill a purpose. Why create a artificial voice box when alsmost everyone can talk and sign language can be used for a dumb person to communicate.

Also, you guys act as though our current capabilities are our limits. Maybe if religion decided to update it's text once every couple thousand years then you guys may be able to grasp the concepts of progress and change.

Also, what was stopping God from creating an imperfect bible if he can create imperfections and still be a perfect creator. If you guys want contradictory statement or belief, there is one for you.

Anyway, I'm jumping out of this thread for a bit as it has degraded to nothing more that a circlejerk of ignorant minds bashing science in an attempt to convince themselves that religion is still relevant outside of the groups of people that proclaim religion is still relevant.

PEACE!

i understand it just fine. but you should probably revisit the title of the thread. it is the Religion discussion thread. not the why science is better than religion thread.

[RBphoto]

I love all of you, religious or not.

Your Atheist Friend.

[bluesclues]

I love all of you, religious or not.

Your Atheist Friend.

what is your idea of love?

[nareshseep]

I love all of you, religious or not.

Your Atheist Friend.

what is your idea of love?

Is like ah arrow on cupids bow...