1003: "Hitler and Eve"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

atrahasis
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:03 pm UTC

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby atrahasis » Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:58 pm UTC

We'd accept that Darwin was a real human being whose existence is supported by evidence and entirely falsifiable, and accept that he was an ordinary human being who was subject to the natural urges that apply to any human being.

As such, the possibility that he was unfaithful is entirely possible. In fact, if any such evidence is available then it would be historically significant but would have no bearing on his work.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5419
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby doogly » Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:58 pm UTC

1) Nobody cares. Darwin is *not* to scientific method following folks as any biblical figure is to the bible folks. Maybe if you repeatable falsifiable controlled experiments cheating on their partners, we would be offended. I hold those guys pretty sacred. Then again, it might be amusing.
2) There is no reason to suspect Darwin did. What would motivate such a comic other than spite? But, if you believe Adam, Eve and Seth exist as described by the book of genesis, then you believe Eve had sex with both Adam and their son Seth. That's what's in there. Are you offended that Randall *noticed?* It's in the book! He didn't make it up, the Jahwist did!
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Jared the Great
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:26 am UTC

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby Jared the Great » Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:13 am UTC

Partyr101 wrote:I'm a creationist and to be honest, I'm somewhat offended by this. How would atheists feel if we made a comic about Darwin cheating on his wife?

I'd laugh if it was funny, not laugh if it wasn't.
Sodium Sodium Sodium Sodium Sodium Sodium Sodium Sodium
Spoiler:
Batman!

Meteoric
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:43 am UTC

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby Meteoric » Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:37 am UTC

The Moomin wrote:Is there a chance that the particle may affect the atoms in the slit causing the following particles to deflect differently, you say there is, but then say why would you think that when you can say the particle must go through both slits? That's not science, or even an argument.

But if we perform the experiment with only one slit, we don't get an interference pattern. How does that fit with your interpretation?
No, even in theory, you cannot build a rocket more massive than the visible universe.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby SlyReaper » Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:06 am UTC

Partyr101 wrote:I'm a creationist and to be honest, I'm somewhat offended by this. How would atheists feel if we made a comic about Darwin cheating on his wife?

We would rise up and declare a holy scientific war against those who dare mock the great Darwin. Our petri dishes would blot out the sun, and you wouldn't get to fight in the shade because we'd use optics to redirect it.

Or nobody would give a shit because Darwin is not some holy figure for atheists. Either or.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
The Moomin
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:59 am UTC
Location: Yorkshire

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby The Moomin » Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:06 am UTC

Meteoric wrote:
The Moomin wrote:Is there a chance that the particle may affect the atoms in the slit causing the following particles to deflect differently, you say there is, but then say why would you think that when you can say the particle must go through both slits? That's not science, or even an argument.

But if we perform the experiment with only one slit, we don't get an interference pattern. How does that fit with your interpretation?


Firstly I'd be confused as to why you were responding to a comment in which I was 'Bazingaed'.

Then I'd say that having only the single slit makes the barrier of more robust construction and less likely for atoms to be dislodged.

Thirdly I'd state that in the original post I was replying to they stated there's a possibility that the presence of the second slit would affect the magnetic/electric field patterns around the slit. The removal of the second slit changing the patterns emerging could support this.

Finally, I have a gym sock and a shovel. I'm leaving.
I possibly don't pay enough attention to what's going on.
I help make architect's dreams flesh.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby Pfhorrest » Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:13 am UTC

JohnTheWysard wrote:In fact, it's plausible that Abel was killed (by his brother Cain) before any opportunity to father anyone (on anyone). The implication is that we're all descended from a brother-murderer.

Or one of Adam and Eve's many other children (and whoever they slept with). Particularly Seth, the third son, and direct paternal ancestor of Noah, father of the only survivors of the flood (except the people they were sleeping with).
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Use The Bug Luke
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:53 am UTC

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby Use The Bug Luke » Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:53 am UTC

Ah, thanks for the explanations people, otherwise I would have been totally in the dark!
I dont follow any of these quaint old mind-drugs so wouldnt have had the information to follow.

Anyway - bashing Christianity is excellent! Bashing any religion is good!
Hopefully all the xtians and musi's will leave these threads forever and go and inbreed until a(nother) virus wipes them out!

Not trolling, either! :mrgreen:

User was warned for this post.
Last edited by Felstaff on Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:50 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: You are, indeed, trolling

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby J Thomas » Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:59 am UTC

Meteoric wrote:
The Moomin wrote:Is there a chance that the particle may affect the atoms in the slit causing the following particles to deflect differently, you say there is, but then say why would you think that when you can say the particle must go through both slits? That's not science, or even an argument.

But if we perform the experiment with only one slit, we don't get an interference pattern. How does that fit with your interpretation?


With one slit we do get a diffraction pattern. The particles don't just travel in straight lines through the slit.

With two slits you get a different diffraction pattern that isn't the same as two independent single-slit patterns superimposed.

We know we can get interference with waves, so whenever we see interference it's natural to suspect waves. Do you know you can 't get interference without waves? Regardless, one natural interpretation is that buckyballs travel as waves and not particles.

But it makes sense that buckyballs ought to travel as particles. Only then how can they interfere? Say that it's a rotating particle, and it has to rotate to be detected. If the particle takes two different paths at the same time but one of them is longer so it arrives half a revolution later, maybe the rotations cancel out. And so we have a single particle which takes two different paths and arrives at two different times. Maybe it works best for it to take every single path.

So one way, we might suppose that there might be unknown things going on when particles travel through passages in solid mass which is made of atoms that are held together with electric and magnetic fields. Or there might be unknown things going on at the detectors, or at the emitters. It's possible.

Another way, we suppose that we have particles which each take at least two distinct paths that have a bar of solid mass between them. Maybe they take all possible paths. Maybe they go backward and forward through time while they take every possible path.

Which seems intuitively more plausible? That there is something going on that we don't understand yet? Or we do understand it, and buckyballs each travel through multiple paths to interfere with themselves? For myself, I say that averaged over large numbers buckyballs do display interference. And beyond that, I say good day to you, sir!
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

Heahengel
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:44 am UTC

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby Heahengel » Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:02 am UTC

I don't know what it says about me that I was trying to figure out what the Abel prize had to do with anything for a little bit.

User avatar
Ideas sleep furiously.
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:07 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby Ideas sleep furiously. » Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:16 am UTC

Partyr101 wrote:I'm a creationist and to be honest, I'm somewhat offended by this. How would atheists feel if we made a comic about Darwin cheating on his wife?


You could mock anyone who is remotely a symbol for aethism and I couldn't care less.
In-fact, if you made it funny, I would laugh.

If you are truley solid in your belief, then you have nothing to fear from other people's opinions.
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. - Friedrich Nietzsche

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5419
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby doogly » Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:32 am UTC

J Thomas wrote:Which seems intuitively more plausible? That there is something going on that we don't understand yet? Or we do understand it, and buckyballs each travel through multiple paths to interfere with themselves? For myself, I say that averaged over large numbers buckyballs do display interference. And beyond that, I say good day to you, sir!

If you want to propose alternate models of quantum mechanics, by all means do so, and demonstrate how those models can reproduce the observed experiments. But quantum mechanics can give predictions for all of these experiments that are verified conclusively. This doesn't mean no other explanation could reproduce the predictions; it's... maybe not feasible. Not impossible though. So, please exhibit how your proposals do, if you think they can. And be sure to count how many free parameters you need to make them fit.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Randomizer
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:23 am UTC
Location: My walls are full of hungry wolves.
Contact:

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby Randomizer » Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:53 am UTC

And one day the realization hits - All sex is incest.

All of it.

If you start with 4,294,967,296 magically unrelated people, after 32 generations of no inbreeding, the offspring are all related. If everyone reproduced at age 40 that would take 1280 years. The only way to prevent everyone from ending up related is for the population to split completely and for inbreeding to start before the 33rd generation. But how can the population stay split? People migrate, different groups mingle. We had about 200 million people about 2000 years ago. Humans have been around a lot longer than that, with a smaller population than that.

You hear about common ancestors. You do the math. You hear "If you go back far enough..." You think, "Starting with two people? That's silly, there's no way to avoid inbreeding. Adam and Eve? Hah!" But one day you're not just abstractly thinking about these things, it finally clicks. It would happen if you started with two billion. We didn't even start with that. Then comes the dawning realization; It wouldn't have mattered who you'd been with, the conclusion is inescapable. "Oh, shit..."

I had been fucking my relative. :shock:
Belial wrote:I'm all outraged out. Call me when the violent rebellion starts.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby J Thomas » Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:59 am UTC

doogly wrote:
J Thomas wrote:Which seems intuitively more plausible? That there is something going on that we don't understand yet? Or we do understand it, and buckyballs each travel through multiple paths to interfere with themselves? For myself, I say that averaged over large numbers buckyballs do display interference. And beyond that, I say good day to you, sir!

If you want to propose alternate models of quantum mechanics, by all means do so, and demonstrate how those models can reproduce the observed experiments. But quantum mechanics can give predictions for all of these experiments that are verified conclusively. This doesn't mean no other explanation could reproduce the predictions; it's... maybe not feasible. Not impossible though. So, please exhibit how your proposals do, if you think they can. And be sure to count how many free parameters you need to make them fit.


I'm not ready to do that. I can imagine various things that might work, that might be ruled out if I had a detailed understanding of the equipment used for the experiments. Just because I don't know they're ruled out, doesn't mean they aren't ruled out.

But I say that QM does not in fact require models for the things which are unobserved and which must remain unobservable. If you make no statement about what happens to buckyballs traveling through slits when you don't observe them, QM still works the same. You don't have to postulate that each buckyball travels through both slits. You don't have to postulate that each buckyball interferes with itself. You don't even have to postulate how interference works. QM correctly predicts a result, and your nonsensical story about how reality produces that result is simply not needed.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:00 am UTC

Randomizer: The obvious solution is abstinence. Obviously.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5419
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby doogly » Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:20 am UTC

J Thomas wrote:But I say that QM does not in fact require models for the things which are unobserved and which must remain unobservable. If you make no statement about what happens to buckyballs traveling through slits when you don't observe them, QM still works the same. You don't have to postulate that each buckyball travels through both slits. You don't have to postulate that each buckyball interferes with itself. You don't even have to postulate how interference works. QM correctly predicts a result, and your nonsensical story about how reality produces that result is simply not needed.

So you want interference patterns without interference. Fantastic.
Look, you can work on alternatives to QM, that's fine, I am not stopping you. But this is definitely how QM mechanics work. Perhaps you have not met my good friends Griffiths, Sakurai, Landau, etc., but I encourage spending some time with the actual heavy lifting of physics before suggesting it may or may not work a certain way.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Plasma Mongoose
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:09 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby Plasma Mongoose » Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:51 am UTC

AvatarIII wrote:
Plasma Mongoose wrote:Eve was made from Adam's rib, so you could say that Eve is his opposite-sex clone.


I was reading the other day, that apparently, since humans are rare within mammals by being without a baculum, (or penis bone), that it is theorised that Eve was created from Adam's baculum, since the Hebrew translation of rib in the bible is actually more like "bony part".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baculum#Cu ... gnificance


The idea that Eve actually was made from Adam's boner intrigues, disturbs and amuses me all at the same time.
A virus walks into a bar, the bartender says "We don't serve viruses in here".
The virus replaces the bartender and says "Now we do!"

diab0l
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:09 pm UTC

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby diab0l » Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:57 am UTC

Partyr101 wrote:I'm a creationist and to be honest, I'm somewhat offended by this. How would atheists feel if we made a comic about Darwin cheating on his wife?


We would go on about how it's natural, because men try to get their seed EVERYWHERE.
Same as if the wife cheated on him, because she probably wants one man with strong gens to create her offspring and another who cares about her to be the husband.

To be honest, i think people being offended when you talk (negatively) about their religion is the same as people talking (negatively) about somebody's football club. Regardless, evolution has a place for you and your behavior :)

User avatar
J L
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:03 am UTC
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby J L » Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:00 am UTC

Ideas sleep furiously. wrote:
Partyr101 wrote:I'm a creationist and to be honest, I'm somewhat offended by this. How would atheists feel if we made a comic about Darwin cheating on his wife?


You could mock anyone who is remotely a symbol for aethism and I couldn't care less.
In-fact, if you made it funny, I would laugh.

If you are truley solid in your belief, then you have nothing to fear from other people's opinions.


I'd like to add that atheism is not a belief, but the very, unblemished absence of it. Therefore, no feelings to be hurt. (Just stressing this point cause believers have so often missed it, just like they mix up "theory" and "belief").

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby J Thomas » Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:18 am UTC

doogly wrote:
J Thomas wrote:But I say that QM does not in fact require models for the things which are unobserved and which must remain unobservable. If you make no statement about what happens to buckyballs traveling through slits when you don't observe them, QM still works the same. You don't have to postulate that each buckyball travels through both slits. You don't have to postulate that each buckyball interferes with itself. You don't even have to postulate how interference works. QM correctly predicts a result, and your nonsensical story about how reality produces that result is simply not needed.

So you want interference patterns without interference. Fantastic.
Look, you can work on alternatives to QM, that's fine, I am not stopping you. But this is definitely how QM mechanics work. Perhaps you have not met my good friends Griffiths, Sakurai, Landau, etc., but I encourage spending some time with the actual heavy lifting of physics before suggesting it may or may not work a certain way.


Doogly, I'm not saying it does or does not work a certain way. You are doing that and I am not.

I am merely saying that the way you say it works is clearly absurd and goes beyond any evidence.

The math works, in a statistical sense. You have no way to get full data about individual events but can only collect statistics about many events. There's a theory that no way can ever be found to get further data about individual events, and there is no experimental evidence to say this theory is wrong. So the argument is that since this is all the information we can ever have about individual events, this must be a perfect representation of individual events.

You have a model which goes beyond the known facts, which makes it harder to think about them. This is not useful.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby J Thomas » Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:29 am UTC

J L wrote:
Ideas sleep furiously. wrote:
Partyr101 wrote:I'd like to add that atheism is not a belief, but the very, unblemished absence of it.


The way I use the language, an agnostic can have the unblemished absence of belief.
Atheists claim there is no god, which does involve a belief.

It's a peculiar sort of belief. If you see a picture of a platypus or a wildebeeste or a jackalope you can say there's no such thing, that it was Photoshopped. Then you know what it is you disbelieve in. Herodotus said that some people believed the Greek gods were very tall immortal people who lived on Mount Olympus. There was a temple that had a 12-foot sandal one of the gods had left behind, and once a political party paraded a very tall country girl around claiming she was Athena. It's easy to disbelieve in Greek gods. But what about a god who's outside of the universe who never does anything detectable? I'm not sure what it means to disbelieve in a god like that, or why it ought to matter whether you disbelieve in him or why it ought to matter whether he exists.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

s271
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:14 am UTC

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby s271 » Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:27 am UTC

Is it has something to with commutative groups?

User avatar
Monika
Welcoming Aarvark
Posts: 3661
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:03 am UTC
Location: Germany, near Heidelberg
Contact:

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby Monika » Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:24 pm UTC

Partyr101 wrote:I'd like to add that atheism is not a belief, but the very, unblemished absence of it.

I disagree somewhat. I feel there is no significant difference between "I do not believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god". I am an atheist and for me this means I believe there is no god.
Still atheism is not a religion. It lacks many of the properties of a religion.

I also do not believe in the existence of the IPU (Invisible Pink Unicorn), dragons, elves, or the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster). I think it makes no difference to say "I do not believe in their existence" or "I lack the believe in their existence".

While the existence of e.g. elves cannot be disproven, the existence of a god with certain sets of properties, e.g. the God as assumed by Christians, is disprovable. I am therefore not an agnostic (in terms of the knowability of the Christian God).

I would not call my disbelief in elves a "belief". I accept that some atheists would therefore also not call atheism a belief.

J Thomas wrote:The way I use the language, an agnostic can have the unblemished absence of belief.
Atheists claim there is no god, which does involve a belief.

You are using the words incorrectly.
Atheism => without a god, no god
Agnosticism => without knowledge, no knowledge, not knowable

Atheists can be categorized into positive atheists who feel it is knowable (provable) that god does not exist and negative atheists who feel it is not knowable. (Not all use the words positive and negative for this. It has nothing to with good or bad, though.)
Agnostics can be categorized into atheist agnostics, who believe there is no god, even though it is not knowable, theist agnostics, who believe there is a god, even though it is not knowable/provable, and those agnostics in the middle who do not make up their mind (and do not feel there is a need to decide), so essentially they are saying "maybe there is a god / are gods".

So you see atheism and agnosticism are two different categorizations. Someone might be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time (and even a Christian and an agnostic at the same time). Very many people are (positive atheists and theist agnostics are relati (most atheists do not spend much time and thinking about the provability of the non-existence of god, so they just say/think it's not provable, which is okay)vely rare). Some of those call themselves atheists because for them the probable non-existence of god is the more important aspect. Some of those call themselves agnostics because for them the non-knowability is the more important aspect.

Sidenote: Atheists could also be subcategorized in other ways besides positive/negative regarding the knowability. E.g. they could be categorized into those who see atheism as a belief and those who see at as a non-belief and those who think this makes no difference ;) .
#xkcd-q on irc.foonetic.net - the LGBTIQQA support channel
Please donate to help these people

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9967
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby addams » Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:03 pm UTC

rhomboidal wrote:Cain: "Damn it, Abel gets EVERYTHING!"


You are so funny.

Cain was the bad guy. Right?
Eww. What a weird Fairy Tail.

Cain kills his brother. Then, he sleeps with his lovely 30 something Mother. The Father wants to know where Able is.

No, That is not right. Able is with his Mom and Cain is covering for him. What a good brother.

Families get complex. Mix bible stories with Science and Shakespeare; Toss in a bowl of sound bites and Politics; And, there ya' go. Able and Eve. It is as believable a story as many.

Bible storyies are fun. Lot's wife. Turned to salt for looking back at her homeland.
I have beaten this bush nearly to death with other people that read the same story.

Bible Stories. I read that book. There is a chuckle here and a chuckle there.

Who translated that thing? That is a question that will make me stop walking to laugh. Who? You let WHO!? Translate? So, funny.

Are you reading a translation of a translation. Back to basic Science.

Learn languages children. Learn as many languages as you can. They are so handy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0lQ0bdcjfY

Math is the language of the Universe. Do you want to talk to the Universe or listen to it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVK7rXSi ... re=related

Listening? Listening for what?

Carl and Able and Lurche's little sister? What?!
Religion is great fun and helps provide meaning for some people.
It is funny stuff, too.

It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt.
Be careful.
addams wrote:Bible storyies are fun. Lot's wife. Turned to salt for looking back at her homeland.
I have beaten this bush nearly to death with other people that read the same story.


What's so funny about it? I only read a feminist blog about this bible story and it said it's sexist (women are so stupid they look back when it's life-threatening).

Who translated that thing? That is a question that will make me stop walking to laugh. Who? You let WHO!? Translate? So, funny.

I got the following in a PM.
I know most current bible translations are way off, and the much adored King James Version is one of the worst-translated (because it was based on a bad Latin translation.
What's the funny thing about who translated it?


I would like to answer the question. What is funny about who translated it?!

Oh me yarm! I have had two very close friends that are intelligent and competent translators.

We have a hard time getting through lunch, sometimes. That's funny.

Lost in Translation. Oh, yeah. And; It does not matter what you say. You said what the translator said you said. That's funny, too. Ethics. Ethics is a weighty subject.

Then there are the simple honest mistakes. Mir means world in Russian. Mir means peace in Russian. Sometimes, I miss the Cold War.

One guy said, "We want Peace."
The translator said. "We want the World."
See?

Another example. A rich guy a long time ago wanted a statue of Moses. He was a convert or something.
Moses was to be wearing a crown. Moses got a pair of goat horns. So, funny. That thing is kept in a museum and is protected as an example of how "Lost in Translation" even the simplest things can be.

Lot's Wife? Oh, a whole different story. Looking back. Oh; How can a person not look back at what he or she has loved? When my friend goes away; I watch. I watch until I can't see the plane or the train any more.
It is such a sad story. If you want to laugh at Bible stories, then, let us do it out in the open.
Last edited by addams on Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:00 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
J L
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:03 am UTC
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby J L » Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:49 pm UTC

J Thomas wrote:Atheists claim there is no god, which does involve a belief.

Monika wrote:I feel there is no significant difference between "I do not believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god". I am an atheist and for me this means I believe there is no god.

You never have to prove a negative. My lack of belief is not a belief in itself. The moment you claim something exists, you have to prove it ... any other approach makes no sense, cf. flying spaghetti monster et al.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9967
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby addams » Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:06 pm UTC

Back to the comic.
What did he, just, walk in on?

Oh, It could be so many things.
Funny. This guy is funny.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
neoliminal
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby neoliminal » Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:24 pm UTC

You never have to prove a negative. My lack of belief is not a belief in itself. The moment you claim something exists, you have to prove it ... any other approach makes no sense, cf. flying spaghetti monster et al.[/quote]

1. The belief of a God exists.
2. The belief of a specific God requires the validity of a written text..
3. The text in question was written by humans, some of whom claim to have been specifically to have direct contact with said deity.
4. Humans have neural transmitters that when activated create a sensation of imminent divinity. 1
5. Hence all belief in this God can be traced to a natural desire for the existence of divinity and a very distant, unverifiable series of events which are claimed to have occurred.

I am, of course, speaking of Oden.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0073YYXRC
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby J Thomas » Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:53 pm UTC

J L wrote:
J Thomas wrote:Atheists claim there is no god, which does involve a belief.

Monika wrote:I feel there is no significant difference between "I do not believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god". I am an atheist and for me this means I believe there is no god.

You never have to prove a negative. My lack of belief is not a belief in itself. The moment you claim something exists, you have to prove it ... any other approach makes no sense, cf. flying spaghetti monster et al.


I think it would be possible to construct valid definitions along Monika's lines. You can say "I don't know X but I believe X" and have them be two distinct things.

But to me there is a difference between "I don't know whether or not the Higgs boson exists" versus "I know there is no such thing as a Higgs boson". To me those two statements do not say the same thing at all.

There is a big difference between "I do not claim there is a god" versus "I claim there is no god".

If you want to claim something does not exist then you have as much obligation to prove it as you do if you claim it does exist. So for example I would argue that vegetarian cats are rare because we know most cats cannot make their own taurine but must get it from animal sources. So a vegetarian cat would get sick fairly fast, unless it was an unknown mutant cat which could make its own taurine.

I have reason to believe though I cannot prove that there are no nymphomaniacs. The concept of "nymphomaniac" was invented as a wish-fulfillment fantasy and there is no reason to believe in them any more than Santa Claus's elves.

Some negatives can be proven by sleight-of-language. There cannot be any such thing as an electron with a positive electric charge, because if you show me such a thing it will be a positron. If your uncle was a woman she would be your aunt. Etc.

Again, there is a big difference in general between "I do not claim X is true" versus "I claim X is false". It is not a matter of opinion whether these are different. They are different.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

Jamaican Castle
Posts: 151
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:10 pm UTC

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby Jamaican Castle » Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:14 pm UTC

A troubling bit of logic:

It's well known that Cain invented murder (presumably with a rock, since I don't think drive-bys were invented yet).
And as Randall posits, Abel invented sleeping with another man's wife (presumably before getting killed, or this comic just got a fair bit creepier).
Therefore, I would suggest that Adam's role in all this was to invent putting out a hit on the other guy.

Also, incidentally, Oedipus didn't have any kind of complex - he was just screwed over by fate (and one or more gods) in a typically Greek way.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5419
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby doogly » Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:19 pm UTC

J Thomas wrote:You have a model which goes beyond the known facts, which makes it harder to think about them. This is not useful.

No, I am just an actual, practicing, professional physicist. You need to try to actually do some of the physics to offer nonstandard interpretations about it.
I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.
Or, you could go check in with the science subforum, that's a place.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby J Thomas » Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:04 pm UTC

doogly wrote:
J Thomas wrote:You have a model which goes beyond the known facts, which makes it harder to think about them. This is not useful.

No, I am just an actual, practicing, professional physicist. You need to try to actually do some of the physics to offer nonstandard interpretations about it.
I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.
Or, you could go check in with the science subforum, that's a place.


I've been here before. When the actual, practicing, professional astrologer tells you that you're not qualified to have an opinion about astrology, it's time to stop arguing.

But one last time -- some physicists prefer the Many Worlds model while others prefer the Copenhagen interpretation. QM solves real-world problems equally well for both. There appears to be nothing in QM that shows which interpretation to choose. It doesn't matter which you prefer, all tangible results will come out the same. So I say that it makes no difference which you prefer, that preference is beyond science and has nothing to do with science. There is no necessity even to choose an interpretation at all. You'll get results just as good if you simply solve your real-world problems.

Similarly, it's possible to interpret the diffraction patterns as buckyballs which travel as waves but which get detected by buckyball detectors as discrete single particles. Or it's possible to interpret them as discrete particulate buckyballs which each individually travel multiple different paths and arrive at the detector at different times where each interferes with its own detection. There is nothing in QM which says how to interpret the diffraction patterns. QM gives reproducible useful results independent of your model. You currently lack any model which makes sense, and that's OK. You don't need a model, and none of the nonsensical models (which go beyond the data and the math) actually adds anything useful to physics.

I could be wrong. I could also be wrong about astrology.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby SlyReaper » Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:28 pm UTC

J Thomas wrote:
doogly wrote:
J Thomas wrote:You have a model which goes beyond the known facts, which makes it harder to think about them. This is not useful.

No, I am just an actual, practicing, professional physicist. You need to try to actually do some of the physics to offer nonstandard interpretations about it.
I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.
Or, you could go check in with the science subforum, that's a place.


I've been here before. When the actual, practicing, professional astrologer tells you that you're not qualified to have an opinion about astrology, it's time to stop arguing.

You can have as many opinions as you want, it's just that without scientific training, the chances that those opinions will turn out to be both correct and useful are vanishingly small.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

Randomizer
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:23 am UTC
Location: My walls are full of hungry wolves.
Contact:

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby Randomizer » Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:48 pm UTC

Image
Belial wrote:I'm all outraged out. Call me when the violent rebellion starts.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5419
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby doogly » Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:17 pm UTC

The first thing to do is to distinguish between "diffraction" and "interference."
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Footnotes
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:59 pm UTC

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby Footnotes » Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:26 pm UTC

J Thomas wrote:
J L wrote:
J Thomas wrote:Atheists claim there is no god, which does involve a belief.

Monika wrote:I feel there is no significant difference between "I do not believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god". I am an atheist and for me this means I believe there is no god.

You never have to prove a negative. My lack of belief is not a belief in itself. The moment you claim something exists, you have to prove it ... any other approach makes no sense, cf. flying spaghetti monster et al.


I think it would be possible to construct valid definitions along Monika's lines. You can say "I don't know X but I believe X" and have them be two distinct things.

But to me there is a difference between "I don't know whether or not the Higgs boson exists" versus "I know there is no such thing as a Higgs boson". To me those two statements do not say the same thing at all.

There is a big difference between "I do not claim there is a god" versus "I claim there is no god".

If you want to claim something does not exist then you have as much obligation to prove it as you do if you claim it does exist. So for example I would argue that vegetarian cats are rare because we know most cats cannot make their own taurine but must get it from animal sources. So a vegetarian cat would get sick fairly fast, unless it was an unknown mutant cat which could make its own taurine.

I have reason to believe though I cannot prove that there are no nymphomaniacs. The concept of "nymphomaniac" was invented as a wish-fulfillment fantasy and there is no reason to believe in them any more than Santa Claus's elves.

Some negatives can be proven by sleight-of-language. There cannot be any such thing as an electron with a positive electric charge, because if you show me such a thing it will be a positron. If your uncle was a woman she would be your aunt. Etc.

Again, there is a big difference in general between "I do not claim X is true" versus "I claim X is false". It is not a matter of opinion whether these are different. They are different.


Obviously I cannot prove that their is absolutely no god, but I choose to call myself an atheist because I give significantly more weight to the proposal that their is no god than the proposal that their is. I do not claim to be able to disprove the existence of something which has no observable effect on the universe (Deist God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Intangible Inaudible Unicorn, etc.), but I say that these are very poor theories because they say nothing meaningful about the universe. From a positivist perspective, any theory which is not testable is a foolish one, and it is simpler to cut out the unnecessary. As for the god as posited by many religions, he would have observable consequences, and as these have not been observed, I say that he does not exist.

As for your example with cats, I agree: vegetarian cats don't exist. However, I cannot prove that by the same standard as you demand disproof of God. What if there's a vegetarian cat that gets its taurine by magic? I do not believe this. I cannot prove that it is impossible, but I can say that it highly unlikely, just like God. It simplifies everything to simply say "I don't believe in magical vegetarian cats" or "I don't believe in God."

I consider these ideas atheism, as I think agnosticism to gives undue weight to the belief that god exists as opposed to the alternative non-existence, and because I disbelieve in the god as described by any religion. It seems that you have very similar beliefs, but choose to call it agnosticism, which is fine. However, I think at this point the argument has been reduced to one of semantics, and has strayed far from the original topic of discussion (Haha! The Bible implies incest!).

Partyr101
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:44 pm UTC

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby Partyr101 » Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:32 pm UTC

I guess atheists have a more accepting view of cheating, so my comparison didn't get a very strong reaction.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:46 pm UTC

Sad troll is sad.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby J Thomas » Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:58 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:
J Thomas wrote:
doogly wrote:
J Thomas wrote:You have a model which goes beyond the known facts, which makes it harder to think about them. This is not useful.

No, I am just an actual, practicing, professional physicist. You need to try to actually do some of the physics to offer nonstandard interpretations about it.
I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.
Or, you could go check in with the science subforum, that's a place.


I've been here before. When the actual, practicing, professional astrologer tells you that you're not qualified to have an opinion about astrology, it's time to stop arguing.

You can have as many opinions as you want, it's just that without scientific training, the chances that those opinions will turn out to be both correct and useful are vanishingly small.


Sure. The astrologer said exactly the same.

You may not have noticed, but you have stopped responding with any sort of factual content and have descended entirely into insult and stupid attempts to pull rank over the internet. It's possible that you are really a professional physicist and not a dog or a cabbage or something. It's even possible that you are competent at your work when you are not spouting unscientific opinions about it. But no one could tell that from your recent comments, which display none of your abilities. Unless you have something substantive to add this conversation ended with my last post. In case you didn't notice....

This comment is intended to note the end, not continue beyond it.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby Pfhorrest » Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:21 pm UTC

J L wrote:You never have to prove a negative. My lack of belief is not a belief in itself. The moment you claim something exists, you have to prove it ... any other approach makes no sense, cf. flying spaghetti monster et al.

Giving either affirmation or denial priority yields nonsense results. You're right that you can't give affirmation priority because then you assume everyone's crazy pet theory is true until you can show otherwise (and what about when they contradict?). But giving denial priority has its own problems, because it's not possible to ever concretely verify any specific state of affairs to be true; at most you can falsify alternatives, but there will always still be more alternatives (this is called the curve-fitting problem: there is always another curve [equation] which fits the same data points). So if you refuse to believe anything until it's conclusively proven, you will end up permanently believing nothing, as nothing will ever be sufficiently proven.

The only reasonable stance to default to in absence of proof either way is "maybe, maybe not". Reject anything you can disprove, and from what remains, tentatively accept what seems most plausible to you, but recognize that that is a subjective assessment. If you meet someone who disagrees with you, offer disproofs of what you can, and accept any sound disproofs he offers, and if, when you're both down to the same set of remaining possibilities, you still disagree on which of them is more plausible, agree to disagree until one of you can show the other to be wrong. That still doesn't make you right; there is always still another alternative possibility he might accept. But if you keep this up you will continually get closer and closer to the truth as more and more possibilities are ruled out.

TL;DR: If you believe something exists and someone else believes it does not, and neither of you can conclusively show the other to be incorrect, agree to disagree for now and move on until you have something to show for your position.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
J L
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:03 am UTC
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: 1003: "Adam and Eve"

Postby J L » Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:26 pm UTC

J Thomas wrote:There is a big difference between "I do not claim there is a god" versus "I claim there is no god".

If you want to claim something does not exist then you have as much obligation to prove it as you do if you claim it does exist.

If it existed in the first place, yes.

I think we're running the risk of just arguing personal opinions here, but to explain my point of view: as long as the existence of something hasn't been proven, that means (at least to me) behaving like it wasn't true, to all intents and purposes. So I don't claim it doesn't exist, or know it doesn't exist, but just stick to what is known for fact. Everything else, as intriguing and colorful as it might be, just doesn't play a role in my life.

In my opinion, there is no more evidence for the existence for gods than for the existence of the FSM, pink unicorns or Santa's elves. They just don't happen in the world I perceive, never have. So I feel no need to even start arguing about them, and honestly, I don't have the slightest idea why other people keep bringing them up. In fact I strongly dislike the term "atheist" because it makes it sound like an aberration from the usual, like "non-swimmer".


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Eoink and 35 guests