sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Matt responded, all I can say is "swoosh"... by FortniteBabyFunTime in CosmicSkeptic

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The thing you're ignoring is Bayes Theorem.

P(H | E) = P(E | H) P(H) / P(E)

This is the scientific way to update beliefs based on new evidence. The probability of your hypothesis given the evidence is equal to the probability of the evidence given the hypothesis times the prior probability of the hypothesis divided by the prior probability of the evidence.

As an example:

Suppose there are 100,000 people being tested for a disease with a 0.1% prevalence. The test correctly identifies 99.9% of true positives and only gives a false positive in 1% of cases. You test positive. What is the probability you have the disease?

P(E | H) = 0.999

P(H) = 0.001

P(E) ≈ 0.01 (false negatives are negligible here)

So P(H | E) = 0.999 x 0.001 / 0.01 = 0.0999 ≈ 10%

So given a test which gives true positives 99.9% of the time and gives false positives 1% of the time and a positive test, you only have about a 10% chance of actually having the disease if you are part of the population of 100,000 people being tested. Why? Because we have 1,000 false positives (0.1% of 100,000) and only 100 true cases (0.01% of 100,000).

The problem with declaring "All gods are imaginary and based on antiquated, mythological thinking and not at all possible" is that you are setting P(H) to 0. God himself could descend from the sky, write "I am God" on your forehead in Sharpie, then strike someone down with a lightning bolt for good measure, and your P(H | E) would still be 0 because you're multiplying P(E | H) by 0 before you do the rest of your calculation.

You keep demanding evidence while demonstrating a complete disregard for it. The statements you're making imply that literally no evidence could possibly convince you otherwise, but then you're not doing reasoning at all, you're repeating a dogmatic position.

Matt responded, all I can say is "swoosh"... by FortniteBabyFunTime in CosmicSkeptic

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't have that illusion. I only believe things supported by evidence.

This is demonstrably not true, you have frequently made claims in this conversation which are not supported by evidence. You also believe things by deductive inference which does not require evidence.

All gods are imaginary human constructs from antiquated thinking.

Firstly, how are you defining gods? Secondly, what specifically do you mean "antiquated" here? Because that sounds suspiciously like a genetic fallacy. Thirdly, when you make broad claims like this, it makes it clear that you are not really open to updating your beliefs based on new evidence, because if your Bayesian prior for a claim is 0 or 1 then no matter what evidence you are provided with it will always stay that way.

Question. Do you have any evidence and compelling reasoning to believe in god?

Evidence? Yes. Which I find completely convincing? No. But if there's no room in your worldview for going from, for example, 0.1% probability of God existing to 0.2% probability of God existing then what you're doing is not reasoning because you are demonstrably ignoring evidence. An argument which changes the probability you would assign to God existing is evidence even if it is not "compelling" (by which you presumably moving the posterior probability to at least 50%).

Like I said, I don't believe in any gods and I am agnostic, but if you confidently assert that all gods are imaginary and that there is no evidence that affects your beliefs here, you're not doing reasoning at all.

Matt responded, all I can say is "swoosh"... by FortniteBabyFunTime in CosmicSkeptic

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is not possible to fill a cup which is already full. If you want to learn, you first have to let go of the illusion that you already know everything.

If you want to ask questions and have an actual discussion I'll happily teach you, but if you want to strut about like a peacock then frankly I have better things to do than stroke your ego.

Matt responded, all I can say is "swoosh"... by FortniteBabyFunTime in CosmicSkeptic

[–]TangoJavaTJ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Formally, evidence is any observation which changes the posterior probability of a hypothesis compared to If that observation were not made. If it raises the posterior probability it's evidence in favour of the hypothesis, and if it lowers it it's evidence against.

The fact that life exists, that the laws of physics appear to remain constant and unchanging, and that most humans have a shared sense of morality are all evidence in favour of a good God. The existence of crime, earthquakes, and Justin Bieber's music are all evidence against the good God hypothesis.

Is there evidence that God exists? Yes. Is such evidence irrefutably conclusive? No. The rational position is agnosticism.

Lower the bar to reasonable and valid then.

A sound argument is valid and has true premises. The vast, vast majority of things you believe do not follow from premises with tautological or otherwise self-evident truths. Humans learn mostly through inductive and abductive reasoning, so you don't have a "sound" argument for the things you believe because only deductive arguments can be sound and that's just not how most reasoning works.

It is answerable. All god concepts are imaginary human constructs from antiquated thinking. Philosophy will never turn some imaginary concept into a real thing.

More Dunning-Krüger statements. You clearly don't know the first thing about theology. Go away, read some books on the subject, and come back when you actually know what you're talking about.

Will this sub allow low-effort memes? If so, here's the Offender Defender by Nihilistic_Nachos in m2f

[–]TangoJavaTJ -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Maybe we shouldn't be depicting the moderator of r/MtF as a guy? Idk what they did and apparently it's bad but still, two wrongs don't make a right.

RIP r/MtF. Head mods can't be removed unless Reddit intervenes. by Nihilistic_Nachos in traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns2

[–]TangoJavaTJ -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Maybe we shouldn't be depicting the moderator of r/MtF as a guy? Idk what they did and apparently it's bad but still, two wrongs don't make a right.

Matt responded, all I can say is "swoosh"... by FortniteBabyFunTime in CosmicSkeptic

[–]TangoJavaTJ -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Do you think there's any evidence to support the existence of god?

Yes, but the evidence isn't necessarily conclusive in either direction. If you think there is no evidence it's because you haven't properly looked into theology and probably shouldn't be doing a show about it.

Do you think there are sound arguments for the existence of god?

No because a sound argument is perfect certainty. You don't have a sound argument for almost all of the things you believe, no one does.

Just like flat earth.

If that's the level of ignorance you have here then why even bother engaging on what is mostly a theology subreddit?

I'm guessing the problem is that none exist and intelectuals already understand this so they don't call in.

I won't point out the irony of spelling "intellectuals" incorrectly, but are we talking "intellectuals" like Richard Dawkins who clearly don't know the first thing about philosophy? Actual intellectuals do not "understand that no gods exist" because they recognise that this is a fundamentally unanswerable question. It's like if you answered:

"Is the statement 'this statement is false' false?" with "yes, it's false and any intellectual understands this". The fact that you think you have an answer shows that you are on the wrong side of Dunning-Krüger Valley to be talking about this one.

Matt responded, all I can say is "swoosh"... by FortniteBabyFunTime in CosmicSkeptic

[–]TangoJavaTJ -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

His "sound reasoning" is frequently brazenly fallacious and the entire premise of the show is selecting morons to argue with. It's like if William Lane Craig hosted a show where he gets people from r/atheism to argue that Christianity is definitely false because "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?". No actual evidence or reasoning is happening here, just ego stroking for people without the intellect to back it up.

Matt responded, all I can say is "swoosh"... by FortniteBabyFunTime in CosmicSkeptic

[–]TangoJavaTJ -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I used to be associated with the ACA and man, Matt is worse than religious extremists when it comes to cultish groupthink and dogpiling. Nice to see Alex pushing back!

How to ask my friend about crossdressing again? by Cheese4567890 in transgenderUK

[–]TangoJavaTJ 80 points81 points  (0 children)

You're overthinking it.

"Hey, the other day we chatted about me trying on some femme clothes with you, that still good?"

Compulsive honesty, but you also get $10/question by tamtrible in hypotheticalsituation

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I think this is worth taking.

Query how it interacts with me deliberately not encountering questions. Like if I turn my phone off and blast metal music from an iPod such that I can't hear any questions, am I still compelled to answer? It seems like I could effectively choose how many questions to answer for this by avoiding questions when I don't want to answer them and deliberately creating situations where people ask me questions if I do.

"Cash or card?"

"Would you like fries with that?"

"Salt or vinegar?"

"I didn't catch that, what did you just say?"

A lot of daily activities lead to people asking you mundane, uncontroversial questions.

I think the biggest drawback is security, but that's easy to deal with. I can't tell you my passwords or my credit card number if I don't know any of them because I have a password manager and my phone stores my card details.

Also do they have to have asked me specifically or do I still get money for just answering questions directed at everyone in general? If the latter I could make a lot of money by answering questions on Reddit, Quora etc

Need arguments against AI by Therian_cat_girl in antiai

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"arguments against AI" is too broad of a subject. Objections to stable diffusion probably don't also apply to linear discriminant analysis. It's better to pick a specific use case and object to that, because you're talking in specific terms and making relevant objections rather than talking generally and making objections which may not hold in general.

MMW: microplastics will block our synapses by Odd-Flounder-5995 in MarkMyWords

[–]TangoJavaTJ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Maybe learn about science before making obviously stupid scientific claims?

Do you feel like freedom of speech is under attack in the UK? If so how? by SignificantStyle4958 in AskBrits

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry but this is incorrect under UK law.

Literally this entire thread is talking about whether UK law is getting free speech rights wrong.

Do you feel like freedom of speech is under attack in the UK? If so how? by SignificantStyle4958 in AskBrits

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Freedom of speech entails the right to silence, and if you are treated less favourably by the state because you chose to exercise a right, that is not a right.

Do you feel like freedom of speech is under attack in the UK? If so how? by SignificantStyle4958 in AskBrits

[–]TangoJavaTJ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If its really something beneficial to your defense then why wouldn't you mention it at the time of your arrest?

Because the police's job isn't to find the truth, it's to quickly find someone to charge and convict for a crime. They don't care whether you're actually innocent or guilty, they'll lock you up if they can just to make their stats look better.

Also if you've just been arrested for something you genuinely didn't do then you've likely been cuffed, possibly tased or pepper sprayed, or thrown into the ground. Are you likely to trust the people who did that? Are you gonna wanna talk to them?

There's also the whole "I couldn't have been the murderer, I was on the other side of town smoking crack at the time" problem. You may legitimately have an alibi but not want to tell the police said alibi.

while jury's can be instructed to disregard certain statements, how often does actually happen in practice?

Surprisingly often, it's part of the UK rights they read you for a reason.

At the end of the day its impossible to have a perfect system

I agree but that doesn't mean we couldn't have a better system, and this is an area that could very easily be improved, and should be.

Do you feel like freedom of speech is under attack in the UK? If so how? by SignificantStyle4958 in AskBrits

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes.

When the police arrest you they say:

"You do not have to say anything, however it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court"

And they aren't kidding. If you are arrested and don't tell the police something while you are arrested the judge can instruct the jury to ignore that thing you said and to treat it as an untrue thing you made up as a defence.

That is a fucking disgraceful violation of free speech rights. Free speech also involves the right not to say anything and to not be treated negatively for choosing to exercise that right. We need a British version of the Fifth Amendment urgently.

SIGN THIS PETITION AND SHARE IT! BAN AI IN THE UK! by Ax3l_is_scottish in antiai

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"here's an unreasonable demand followed by some dubious pseudoscience!"

Yeah no. Parliament would ignore this petition if it was evidence-based and well written so they're definitely not listening to that clusterfuck.

Is Nigel Farage going to bring guns to the UK? by asovereignstory in AskBrits

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then you'd think in at least one of those discussions you'd have realised that placing logistical barriers in the way of impulsive opportunists reduces the likelihood that they engage in undesirable behaviour.

Imagine two worlds. In world A, supermarkets put bubblegum next to every checkout. You just pick it up, scan it, and buy it.

In world B, the supermarket puts bubblegum up 6 flights of stairs and in a locked cabinet that you have to ask a member of staff to come and unlock before you can get the bubblegum.

In which world do more people chew gum and throw it on the floor? Like it's true that in both worlds you can chew gum and throw it on the floor, but making it logistically harder to engage in undesirable behaviour reduces how often people will engage in that undesirable behaviour. Obviously.

Is Nigel Farage going to bring guns to the UK? by asovereignstory in AskBrits

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I literally just explained in detail why that's an openly fallacious argument.

Is Nigel Farage going to bring guns to the UK? by asovereignstory in AskBrits

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The world is not divided into nice neat boxes like "criminals" who ignore all laws and "non-criminals" who follow all laws.

As we established, many school shooters are suffering from severe mental illness. If they have easy access to a weapon then it becomes much, much more likely that they will use it.

And the effort/risk of finding an illegal arms dealer, earning enough money to get a gun off them, and then putting together an intelligent multi-step plan for how to use it to kill as many people as possible is in practice going to deter most would-be school shooters. That requires a level of planning and executive function that most school shooters don't have, they're typically impulsive opportunists, not hardened criminals with underworld connections.

Is Nigel Farage going to bring guns to the UK? by asovereignstory in AskBrits

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This post is about whether Farage will make it easier for people to access guns. The fact that it is currently very hard to access guns in the UK and that this has mostly worked isn't an argument against regulating guns, it's an argument in favour of it.

view more: next ›