******Official politics thread ******

[Daywolf]

Except this report is sort of old... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/p...e-really-have/
I mean regarding CERN. They have moved beyond the LHC and are getting ready to fire up the Awake project by September-October 2017 (overhauled over a couple years). This is a much shorter plasma conduit, estimated to reach speeds "faster than light" in fact. Though they are still going to use the LHC for the pre-ignition acceleration start, it feeds into the Awakes plasma conduit which then takes over the routing.

Massive amount of power, both raw power feed and computing power through the D-wave quantum computer (yes, my college maj was computer science). A resonance frequency of.... er 4096 off the top of my head. The same resonance frequency of crystal. I don't want to explain it here, but it is like moving a surfer in waves by the most efficient way (damn straight I'm from SoCal)

It actually has multiple applications. Likely will be misused. CERN engineers are completely nuts. After all, they are funded by nuts. Ultimately they are seeking the fountain of youth so to say, among other things, I have a list. Eternal life. Sorry, you won't be invited, global elites only club. If you want to look up it's real beginnings, research the "Nazi Bell". CERN is Hitlers baby, and from all those captured Nazi scientists likely. First we war, then we advance it looks to be. 2/3 of the world population will likely be wasted by then though.

edit: anyway, for the non-mockers that have taken me somewhat seriously at least, the link gives a brief history of research into higher dimensions as well as the purpose of CERN which is involving that. For the rest of youz...... LOOOOOLLLL LL LOL LOL LLL OLLO LOLLOOL LLOOLOLOOOOlL.lll
heh fucking clueless...

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Except this report is sort of old... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/p...e-really-have/
I mean regarding CERN. They have moved beyond the LHC and are getting ready to fire up the Awake project by September-October 2017 (overhauled over a couple years). This is a much shorter plasma conduit, estimated to reach speeds "faster than light" in fact. Though they are still going to use the LHC for the pre-ignition acceleration start, it feeds into the Awakes plasma conduit which then takes over the routing.

Massive amount of power, both raw power feed and computing power through the D-wave quantum computer (yes, my college maj was computer science). A resonance frequency of.... er 4096 off the top of my head. The same resonance frequency of crystal. I don't want to explain it here, but it is like moving a surfer in waves in the most efficient way (damn straight I'm from SoCal)

It actually has multiple applications. Likely will be misused. CERN engineers are completely nuts. After all, they are funded by nuts. Ultimately they are seeking the fountain of youth so to say, among other things, I have a list. Eternal life. Sorry, you won't be invited, global elites only club. If you want to look up it's real beginnings, research the "Nazi Bell". CERN is Hitlers baby, and from all those captured Nazi scientists likely. First we war, then we advance it looks to be. 2/3 of the world population will likely be wasted by then though.

edit: anyway, for the non-mockers that have taken me somewhat seriously at least, the link gives a brief history of research into higher dimensions as well as the purpose of CERN which is involving that. For the rest of youz...... LOOOOOLLLL LL LOL LOL LLL OLLO LOLLOOL LLOOLOLOOOOlL.lll
heh fucking clueless...

havent read anything yet, but quoted for posterity he is editing up a storm right now boys

as a box historian i felt the need to intervene immediately before any more data chips were lost by the swaying of the ship arrrrrrrrrrrrrrr *swigs rum*

[AzzarTheGod]

i will read these posts tomorrow though, I can make that promise.

[Daywolf]

I didn't edit anything out, just cleaned up my 50wpm mess after hitting submit too soon. And like changed "D-wave system" to D-wave quantum computer" etc. At least I didn't spend an hour deleting and reposting it 7 times like you do [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Csihar]

Originally Posted by Nilstoniakrath [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Cool, so as a climate change "atheist" I don't have to prove it doesn't exist, but you do.

Or, as a government is a good thing "atheist" I don't have to prove it sucks, but you have to prove it doesn't suck.

Nice logical thinker, you are.

That is actually logical yes. The burden of proof lies with theists to prove a god exists. "There is no god" is also a position that carries with it a burden of proof.

Man-made climate change is a position that needs to be proven. Correct.

The legitimacy of government also needs to be proven.

What's the problem?

[Csihar]

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is that really complicated for you to get that NOT BELIEVING IN SOMETHING = BELIEVING IN SOMETHING ? like.. really ?

And atheists don't have to prove anything.. you have. Or prove me that Eru Iluvatar didn't create earth. PRO TIP: YOU CAN'T ! so it must be it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

He simply doesn't understand that atheism doesn't mean the denial of the existence of a god. That is hard/strong/positive atheism.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

He simply doesn't understand that atheism doesn't mean the denial of the existence of a god. That is hard/strong/positive atheism.

This is true, but professing atheism is always the latter when operating under a system of binary logic simply because one can't "not have" a bag of Cheetos whilst also "not not having" a bag of Cheetos. A person either has a bag of Cheetos or ze do not.

One can however be unsure whether or not ze has a bag of Cheetos. The argument "I do not have a bag of Cheetos, but neither do i not not have a bag of Cheetos" is necessarily false. One does or one does not.

[Csihar]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is true, but professing atheism is always the latter when operating under a system of binary logic simply because one can't "not have" a bag of Cheetos whilst also "not not having" a bag of Cheetos. A person either has a bag of Cheetos or ze do not.

One can however be unsure whether or not ze has a bag of Cheetos. The argument "I do not have a bag of Cheetos, but neither do i not not have a bag of Cheetos" is necessarily false. One does or one does not.

The analogy doesn't quite hold I think. "One can however be unsure whether or not ze has a bag of Cheetos". You can indeed not know whether or not you have a bag of Cheetos. You can claim to not know whether or not there is a god (= agnosticism). Can you however be unsure of whether or not you believe in whether or not you have a bag of cheetos?
There is a god or there isn't. You can have a bag of Cheetos or you don't.
But that's not what atheism/theism is about. It's about believing in the existence of the bag of Cheetos or not.
If I'm not understanding you correctly, please rephrase and use small boy words.

There are plenty of theists out there who believe in a god and live their life according to a 'holy book'. If you ask them whether or not they know a god exists based on evidence they may (if they're intellectually honest) say they don't. That would make them agnostic theists.
If a theist claims he does know that makes them a hard/strong/positive theist.

Everyone grows up without belief/knowledge of a god. I wouldn't call babies atheists because they're incapable or being theists but that's the only reason. I have heard people talking about their god(s), I've read the Bible and Qur'an and it didn't convince me. Therefore I don't hold a belief in any gods. That makes me an atheist. It's not a position. The only reason why the word atheist exists is because the word theist exists. I believe in more ancient times the term atheist could actually mean people who didn't worship the traditional gods. Christians were one of the first people to be labeled 'atheists' (by the Romans). It could also mean people who were poor practitioners of religious rites. In that sense most religious people nowadays would be considered atheists back then.

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is true, but professing atheism is always the latter when operating under a system of binary logic simply because one can't "not have" a bag of Cheetos whilst also "not not having" a bag of Cheetos. A person either has a bag of Cheetos or ze do not.

One can however be unsure whether or not ze has a bag of Cheetos. The argument "I do not have a bag of Cheetos, but neither do i not not have a bag of Cheetos" is necessarily false. One does or one does not.

Thoughts and physical objects are different things

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The analogy doesn't quite hold I think. "One can however be unsure whether or not ze has a bag of Cheetos". You can indeed not know whether or not you have a bag of Cheetos. You can claim to not know whether or not there is a god (= agnosticism).

Can you however be unsure of whether or not you believe in whether or not you have a bag of Cheetos?

yes, why couldn't you? Adopting or rejecting a belief demands a decision, which is established with an argument. If you don't know, you don't decide and make no argument. Or are you arguing that belief is necessarily impulsive?

There is a god or there isn't. You can have a bag of Cheetos or you don't.
But that's not what atheism/theism is about. It's about believing in the existence of the bag of Cheetos or not.
If I'm not understanding you correctly, please rephrase and use small boy words.

:3 there is a belief or there is not. you believe or you do not. arguing that the absence of a belief does not constitute disbelief is arguing that disbelief is either not itself, or something else entirely.

There are plenty of theists out there who believe in a god and live their life according to a 'holy book'. If you ask them whether or not they know a god exists based on evidence they may (if they're intellectually honest) say they don't. That would make them agnostic theists.
If a theist claims he does know that makes them a hard/strong/positive theist.

Everyone grows up without belief/knowledge of a god. I wouldn't call babies atheists because they're incapable or being theists but that's the only reason. I have heard people talking about their god(s), I've read the Bible and Qur'an and it didn't convince me. Therefore I don't hold a belief in any gods. That makes me an atheist.

it does not necessarily follow that failing to be convinced by either the bible or qur'an would mean you do not hold belief in any gods, only that you do not hold belief in those gods. If we expand on the cheeto analogy, you do not believe you have a bag of jalapeño cheetos and you do not believe you have a bag of limon cheetos. Do those beliefs make you believe you do not have any bags of Cheetos?

It's not a position.

sure it is, you have made a decision. decisions are based in arguments whether they are sound or true or unsound or untrue.

not having a belief in god <in general> is different though from not having a belief in a <particular> god, which is why I asked my follow-up Cheetos question above :3

The only reason why the word atheist exists is because the word theist exists. I believe in more ancient times the term atheist could actually mean people who didn't worship the traditional gods. Christians were one of the first people to be labeled 'atheists' (by the Romans). It could also mean people who were poor practitioners of religious rites. In that sense most religious people nowadays would be considered atheists back then.

I entirely agree. We can define words however we like, but logic does not change ^^

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Thoughts and physical objects are different things

if that is true, can they also be not not the same?