Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster ER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne - Australia
    Posts
    13,620

    Do you see what I see?

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater

    What get's me thinking is not so much the image but the light!

    My smart backside 13 yo Godson, thinks it is not the actual light that I see but an inner reflection of my pupil which is somehow irritated by the 40 sec concentration on the image.

    I don't claim it's a miracle but there must be some more profound explanation.

    BTW I have tried it in a well lit room as well as in a semi darkened environment. The effect is almost the same, although more impressive in the darker room!
    Last edited by ER; 18-07-2014 at 02:14 AM.
    https://www.nswca.org.au/index.php
    ACF 3118316
    FIDE 3201457

    From this day (13-11-20) onwards, I will only be posting, shouting and reading none other than chess related posts.

  2. #2
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    You don't have to do the staring for 30-40 seconds thing afterimage. Just squint at the image and you can make out the intended image pretty easily.

    Here is another one. I think it is the same guy pretty much...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterim...afterimage.jpg
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster ER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne - Australia
    Posts
    13,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    You don't have to do the staring for 30-40 seconds thing afterimage. Just squint at the image and you can make out the intended image pretty easily.

    Here is another one. I think it is the same guy pretty much...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterim...afterimage.jpg
    lol Hasta la Victoria siempre!
    https://www.nswca.org.au/index.php
    ACF 3118316
    FIDE 3201457

    From this day (13-11-20) onwards, I will only be posting, shouting and reading none other than chess related posts.

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    14,212
    Jesus with 2 blacks eyes? Guess he's a slow learner and had to be told twice.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  5. #5
    CC Grandmaster ER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne - Australia
    Posts
    13,620
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    Jesus with 2 blacks eyes? Guess he's a slow learner and had to be told twice.
    LOL Repent sinner, it's the light that shines between them and not their colour that matters!
    https://www.nswca.org.au/index.php
    ACF 3118316
    FIDE 3201457

    From this day (13-11-20) onwards, I will only be posting, shouting and reading none other than chess related posts.

  6. #6
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,131
    Poll shows Atheists and Christians are Using a Different Defintion of Faith
    8 June 2014

    Poll question: do Christians use the word “faith” to mean “believing something even though it is not supported by evidence”. 91% of Christians deny that they mean this. It doesn't stop a lot of dishonest atheopaths, including the late Bertrand Russell and his thrall RinceWind from falsely attributing this meaning to them. Note that atheopaths might fondly imagine that there is no evidence for the Christian faith, but they are still mendacious to claim that the Christian believes that there is no evidence.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  7. #7
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Poll shows Atheists and Christians are Using a Different Defintion of Faith
    8 June 2014

    Poll question: do Christians use the word “faith” to mean “believing something even though it is not supported by evidence”. 91% of Christians deny that they mean this. It doesn't stop a lot of dishonest atheopaths, including the late Bertrand Russell and his thrall RinceWind from falsely attributing this meaning to them. Note that atheopaths might fondly imagine that there is no evidence for the Christian faith, but they are still mendacious to claim that the Christian believes that there is no evidence.
    I'm afraid you are barking up the wrong tree there.

    Bertrand Russell never said Christians did not believe that their position was without evidence or that all christian beliefs are entirely without evidence. Just that when one says that one has faith in some position that actually means that the evidence is lacking (or is not worth checking since the source is trusted).
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  8. #8
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,388
    It sounds like the poll is an opt-in rather than a random sample; all the same I'd expect some of that discrepancy between the two groups even with a random sample. The problem is in the wording: "not supported". While that can be taken to mean just that the evidence provides no positive reason to believe, it can also be taken to mean that the evidence contradicts belief. Quite possibly the two sample groups are interpreting "not supported" differently.

    A better question might be "Do you agree that when most Christians use the word "faith" they mean "very strongly believing something without requiring conclusive evidence that it is true?"
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  9. #9
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    The whole thing is a beat up anyway since ignoring the self-reporting bias the poll is really about how Boghossian wants to define faith which I think probably goes too far. It has nothing to do with Russell's usage which is standard dictionary which means "taken on trust".

    However given that there is more than one major world religion each reporting that they have faith in their tenets, then at least some of that trust has been misplaced.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  10. #10
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    I'm afraid you are barking up the wrong tree there.

    Bertrand Russell never said Christians did not believe that their position was without evidence or that all christian beliefs are entirely without evidence. Just that when one says that one has faith in some position that actually means that the evidence is lacking (or is not worth checking since the source is trusted).
    But clearly that is not what most Christians mean, and this poll didn't even have me answering, or even someone as poor as John Dickson who was at least right about:
    Tip #2. Notice how believers use the word 'faith'

    One of the things that becomes apparent in serious Christian literature is that no one uses 'faith' in the sense of believing things without reasons. That might be Richard Dawkins' preferred definition - except when he was publicly asked by Oxford's Professor John Lennox whether he had 'faith' in his lovely wife - but it is important to know that in theology 'faith' always means personal trust in the God whose existence one accepts on other grounds. I think God is real for philosophical, historical, and experiential reasons. Only on the basis of my reasoned conviction can I then trust God - have faith in him - in the sense meant in theology.

    That poll was consistent with what Christian authors have also long taught.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  11. #11
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    With all due respect Jono you have faith in some pretty bizarre things which go counter to historical and scientific evidence. So you are not the best example of someone with faith that is supported by evidence.

    However you also fail to address the point that there are a multitude of disparate and mutually exclusive religious belief systems with no evidential grounds for choosing between them. Unless you admit the assumption that the truth is a multivalued quantity you would have to admit that many religious faiths are objectively mistaken on a number of issues. One explanation for this (together with the information that adherents believe their faith is supported by evidence) is that religious adherents are not very objective when it comes to assessing what makes good evidence on questions of faith.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,131

    Angry See the amazingly coherent arguments by a leading atheopathic evolutionist

    Why do half of Britons not believe in evolution?
    Examiner.com, 26 July 2014

    "Half of Britons do not believe in evolution (Riazat Butt, February 1, 2009 AD). Teach both evolution and creationism say 54% of Britons (Jessica Shepherd, October 25, 2009 AD). Thus half do not believe in it and more than half believe that both views should be taught.

    Lewis Wolpert, emeritus professor of biology at University College London (UCL), who is vice-president of the British Humanist Association, said:

    "I am appalled. It shows how ignorant the public is. Intelligent design and creationism have no connection with science and are purely religious concepts. There is no evidence for them at all."...

    Yet Intelligent design and creationism are the very premise upon which science was established in the first place; anyone with any knowledge of the history of science would know this....

    What scientific, evidence based, academic, scholarly reasons does Wolpert himself offer for having become an Atheist?:

    "[I] stopped believing in God when I was 15 or 16 because he didn’t give me what I asked for."

    Lewis Wolpert stated, “I used to pray but I gave it up because when I asked God to help me find my cricket bat, he didn’t help.” Thus, Justin Brieley stated, “Right, and that was enough for you to prove that God did not exist” to which Wolpert replied, “Well, yes. I just gave it up completely.”
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •