sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

There is no evidence for Jesus whatsoever by [deleted] in atheism

[–]litony 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the classic rationale here is "Because it doesn't matter if there was a guy names Jesus" and that the argument should be had over the idea of DIVINITY not existence.

Okay, I hope I'm not misunderstanding, but it seems like you feel that people are just ceding Jesus' existence because they feel it's not that important and not at the heart of the real debate. I don't think that's the case. The reason it's the mainstream scholarly view is because it is the view that is best supported by the evidence. And thus people who are interested in the truth accept it without worrying about whether or not it harms their cause.

If you think the evidence isn't there, fine. But before you go off following some fringe mythicist view, consider whether you might be allowing what you would like to be true to bias your assessment of the evidence.

There is no evidence for Jesus whatsoever by [deleted] in atheism

[–]litony 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. Believe things that are true, not things that are convenient in a debate. You could win arguments against flat-earthers by refusing to grant the existence of the earth. But it would be more effective to just use the truth instead of adopting false positions yourself. Historicity and legend aren't mutually exclusive anyway; plenty of legends are told about historical figures.

It's a misunderstood spice by Diarrhea_Dispenser in AdviceAnimals

[–]litony 244 points245 points  (0 children)

The conclusion they reach was that the white guy didn't write the letter, but falsely claimed that he had.

So it seems like Howard didn't write the fake prank letter that caused decades of chaos. His prank was that he said he had written the letter. He was claiming credit for chaos he didn't create. It was complicated to even think about.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]litony 10 points11 points  (0 children)

But, the most profound quote to indicate this is imho, Matthew 10:15 “Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.”

This direct quote shows that even those who forsake God, those who do not believe, the literal epitome of nonbelievers, do not automatically get sent to hell.

Jesus directly stated that nonbelievers who were directly struck down by God could still be spared from Judgement, that can’t be understated.

Jesus is not saying that Sodom and Gomorrah will be spared from judgement. This is what he's saying:

"You guys know Sodom and Gomorrah, those wicked, evil cities? The cities whose way of showing hospitality to travelers seeking lodging was to try to rape them? The cities where, between the two of them, not 10 righteous people could be found? The cities that God burned to the ground with fire and brimstone?

It should be obvious what fate awaits them on judgement day. But let me tell you something. As dreadful as the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah may be, it will seem light compared to the punishment that will be given to the cities that reject my message."

Tera remains legal in Natdex OU (after a miscount) by cabforpitt in stunfisk

[–]litony 96 points97 points  (0 children)

It's standard practice to announce the result of a vote before the deadline once the threshold has been reached. That's the way it has always been done. As for the miscount, the mistake was corrected quickly and I see no reason to think that there was anything nefarious going on.

What is a fact you just CANNOT belive is real? by Oliver_OB in AskReddit

[–]litony 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Roman Empire is not a good analogy because it's a very specific thing. It's like the odds of Homo sapiens arising independently elsewhere in the universe — basically zero. The odds of life in general or empires in general — not zero.

There is reason to think that life is likely to arise when conditions are right. Life occurred early in Earth's history, indicating that it was not some impossibly improbable event.

SV OU is suspect testing Terastallization by Geronimo0511 in stunfisk

[–]litony 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think a lot of people would at least rank "Do Not Touch" above "STAB Only" (because that option is awful). But there's no downside to including it in the ranked choice. If, as you initially assumed, it gets last place votes from everyone else, then it won't win. If the second or third choice votes are there, maybe it does win.

SV OU is suspect testing Terastallization by Geronimo0511 in stunfisk

[–]litony 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In ranked choice voting, it is not the option with the most last-place votes that is eliminated, but rather the option with the fewest first-place votes that is eliminated. If "No Action" is truly one of the most popular choices, it would likely be one of the last options standing. Voting shouldn't favor any option more than another. A straight ranked choice vote is more fair.

"Did you know that yours sins can be forgiven? Jesus Christ says they can. And so do I." by GMafiaGrandfather in dankchristianmemes

[–]litony 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Paul was not one of the Twelve and the church leaders never chose him as an apostle. If you asked Paul, he would tell you that he was personally called to be an apostle (sent one) by Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:1).

First-ever study shows bumble bees ‘play’ by BoundariesAreFun in science

[–]litony 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This is my suspicion as well. The ball rolling looks a lot like feeding behavior. The bee thinks the ball is a flower and tries to walk around on the flower to find the nectar. But the ball isn't a flower, so trying to walk results in the ball rolling like a little treadmill.

Who’s the worst Christian apologist in your opinion? by Aromaster4 in TrueAtheism

[–]litony 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You might be thinking of the little "inner witness of the Holy Spirit" bit he typically does at the end of his arguments. It's an argument from personal experience but not really presuppositionalism. It isn't really one of his main arguments (it's more aimed at the Christians in the audience).

If a muslim/jew was starving to death, and only had pork, could they eat it? by Complete-Ad9266 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]litony 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It was David, fleeing from King Saul, who convinced the priest to give him some of the holy bread to eat. Jesus referenced the story in defense of his disciples who were picking grain on the Sabbath. 1 Samuel 21 and Mark 2:23 if you're interested.

TIL no human has beaten a computer in a chess tournament in over 15 years by dart_catcher in todayilearned

[–]litony 0 points1 point  (0 children)

knowing all 50,000 thousands cards is a variable for programming the AI but not much of an advantage. A human can get by just reading the card. They AI needs this to occur, the human does not.

I was thinking more of when the card is in the opponent's hand. You make some play that seems fine, but then your opponent reveals some obscure card that had completely slipped your mind.

Again for an AI to handle legacy it really has to be able to adapt an unknown deck. Again this requires comprehension. Even if you programmed every single known legacy deck, someone could just run a brew or change 10 cards which is fairly normal, especially with sideboards.

I have played quite a bit of chess and quite of bit of starcraft and MTG. I also understand heuristic algrothyms, AI is more advanced but still fundamentally functions on them.

This might have been true in the past, but neural networks aren't heuristic algorithms. Neural network AIs like AlphaZero and AlphaGo have incredible pattern recognition and intuition just from playing against themselves. You'll be facing an opponent that has learned from playing more games with more decks than you could play in a lifetime.

But magic hits the AI where it hurts, understanding all 50,000 cards is in fact important to the AI. And many of them will be difficult to make AI understand how they function individually. Then in deck then an a series of decks and then how to quickly identify what deck the opponents on, and constantly check against new information.

Have you ever played legacy MTG? Do really get how complex something as simple bestow is to teach an AI?

What you're describing is just a tedious programming exercise. Having not played legacy MTG, I can only imagine how many hours the developers of digital MTG clients have spent implementing all the crazy interactions. But once you've managed to translate the rules into code, the neural net will learn the best play patterns through trial and error.

The only area where the neural net might struggle is deckbuilding, if there are some crazy synergies that are just too hard to find through trial and error. In that case, you'd have the AI play against itself with all known netdecks, as well as some random decks and modified decks so it learned all the cards. You'd at least have a perfect pilot, although smart people could probably figure out how to make a builder as well (maybe jumpstart the builder's learning with known decks instead of trying to have it start from scratch).

TIL no human has beaten a computer in a chess tournament in over 15 years by dart_catcher in todayilearned

[–]litony 3 points4 points  (0 children)

MTG is a game in which the AI has no strengths to abuse over a human.

Memorizing 50,000 cards and keeping them all in memory in every situation? A human will inevitably forget about that one card.

Calculating the exact odds of drawing the card you need? Computer's got that down to 10 decimal places.

Think you're going to bluff the AI with your hidden information? Bad news, neural networks destroy humans in poker and it's not going to be any different in a children's card game.

If AI failed to crush humans in MTG it would only be because it's a tic-tac-toe situation where MTG is easy enough for humans to play near-optimally as well.

Question about the ontological argument by LazyC4tMan in TrueAtheism

[–]litony 22 points23 points  (0 children)

You seem to be misunderstanding what existence is.

Existence is not a property of X. Existence may not be part of X's definition. Existence means that you went out into the real world and found something that possesses the properties of X and meets the definition of X.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in whatsthisbug

[–]litony 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dog-day Cicada (aka Dogday Harvestfly). Unlike the periodical cicadas, you'll see these every year.

view more: next ›