The death of Atheism

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Ooh did I hit a nerve...

Don't flatter yourself. It takes a lot more than an asinine canard to get on my nerves.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Well since atheist generally don't claim that there is no God, just that they don't believe the claims of people who say there is, I don't see how this would be the "death of atheism".

You have yet to prove that there in fact is a God and until you do, I have no reason to believe you. Funny coincidences not being proof of anything other than a funny coincidence.

My atheism remains intact.

 

[quatona]

Hello.

I singed up to spread the word of the death of athesim.

Hang on, before we get to your (imo pretty wild) conclusion, can we first take a closer look at the method itself?

Apperently, the frequencies of sound waves look like Hebrew letters. I've recorded a video that presents this scientific discovery, and explains how it kills atheism. This discovery is completely scientific and empirical and I though Christians will be interested.

I have two requests:

1. When two different persons say the same word (or even the same person in different ways), the resulting frequency spectrums will surely look different.
I´m sure you did a lot of recordings, and finally picked the best matching ones. Could we see the rest of them, please?

2. In the video you mentioned that you had to tweak the parameters in order to get things right.
Could we please get some examples of the unedited vs. the edited versions?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Belk]

Hello.

I singed up to spread the word of the death of athesim.

Apperently, the frequencies of sound waves look like Hebrew letters. I've recorded a video that presents this scientific discovery, and explains how it kills atheism. This discovery is completely scientific and empirical and I though Christians will be interested.

Please excuse my English and accent.

I'll just go ahead and wait for your peer reviewed study to come out shall I? What publication will it be reviewed in?

 

[variant]

There is some rough (read subjective) correlation between the spoken letter in a language that has been Fourier transformed and mathematically "filtered" and the written version of that letter, therefore God must exist.

Well that sounds very convincing.

 

[Deidre32]

Well since atheist generally don't claim that there is no God, just that they don't believe the claims of people who say there is, I don't see how this would be the "death of atheism".

I thought this, as well.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hang on, before we get to your (imo pretty wild) conclusion, can we first take a closer look at the method itself?



I have two requests:

1. When two different persons say the same word (or even the same person in different ways), the resulting frequency spectrums will surely look different.
I´m sure you did a lot of recordings, and finally picked the best matching ones. Could we see the rest of them, please?

2. In the video you mentioned that you had to tweak the parameters in order to get things right.
Could we please get some examples of the unedited vs. the edited versions?

Thanks in advance.

This is pretty much what I thought...why the need for a filter at all? Surely god could've made them look exactly as he wants them to?

It's almost a metaphor for religion itself...

"Hey guys, I got a filter here that makes things look the way you want them to...."

 

[Davian]

This is pretty much what I thought...why the need for a filter at all? Surely god could've made them look exactly as he wants them to?

It's almost a metaphor for religion itself...

"Hey guys, I got a filter here that makes things look the way you want them to...."

From the books of the Wizard of Oz:

<warning - spoilers!>

For those that have read it, recall how it was a requirement to wear lockable (as in locked-and-needing-a-key-to-remove) glasses that were tinted green, to give the city the appearance of emeralds, while disguising the fact it was simply tinsel, glass, and foil.

"11. The Wonderful City of Oz

Even with eyes protected by the green spectacles, Dorothy and her
friends were at first dazzled by the brilliancy of the wonderful City.
The streets were lined with beautiful houses all built of green marble
and studded everywhere with sparkling emeralds. They walked over a
pavement of the same green marble, and where the blocks were joined
together were rows of emeralds, set closely, and glittering in the
brightness of the sun. The window panes were of green glass; even the
sky above the City had a green tint, and the rays of the sun were green."


The citizens were forbidden to remove them, lest they see that the city was a sham.

 

[Ana the Ist]

From the books of the Wizard of Oz:

<warning - spoilers!>

For those that have read it, recall how it was a requirement to wear lockable (as in locked-and-needing-a-key-to-remove) glasses that were tinted green, to give the city the appearance of emeralds, while disguising the fact it was simply tinsel, glass, and foil.

"11. The Wonderful City of Oz

Even with eyes protected by the green spectacles, Dorothy and her
friends were at first dazzled by the brilliancy of the wonderful City.
The streets were lined with beautiful houses all built of green marble
and studded everywhere with sparkling emeralds. They walked over a
pavement of the same green marble, and where the blocks were joined
together were rows of emeralds, set closely, and glittering in the
brightness of the sun. The window panes were of green glass; even the
sky above the City had a green tint, and the rays of the sun were green."


The citizens were forbidden to remove them, lest they see that the city was a sham.

There was a book?!?

 

[Davian]

There was a book?!?

http://oz.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Oz_books

I have them all in epub; My son read them on his e-reader (he didn't get the pictures like I did with the hardcovers, but my books were ruined by mold.

 

[oi_antz]

Some people just can't reconcile the belief, with reality..

Others can. Why does one who can't, get so confident that their understanding of the belief is correct?

 

[Davian]

Others can. Why does one who can't, get so confident that their understanding of the belief is correct?

It was explained to me by a fellow site member here with a particularly high post count that the mocking and "persecution" that religionists receive, particularly those of the Christian YEC bent, was "prophesied" in the Bible, and is, in his interpretation, a validation of sorts that he/they are on the right path.

Thus, Bible interpretations trump observations of reality. Or something like that.

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. - Carl Sagan

 

[Eudaimonist]

There was a book?!?

Yes, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was written by L Frank Baum, and published in 1900.

One of these days, I'll get around to reading it.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Holoman]

It was explained to me by a fellow site member here with a particularly high post count that the mocking and "persecution" that religionists receive, particularly those of the Christian YEC bent, was "prophesied" in the Bible, and is, in his interpretation, a validation of sorts that he/they are on the right path.

Thus, Bible interpretations trump observations of reality. Or something like that.

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. - Carl Sagan

hmm, I don't think you can call being mocked on an internet forum persecution. Christians have been, and still are more than any other religion, subject to real persecution throughout the world for their faith, that was what was prophesied.

 

[Armoured]

hmm, I don't think you can call being mocked on an internet forum persecution.

You wouldn't think so, yet people claim it all the time.
What I like to call “armchair” persecution.

I theorise that since the Bible speaks about how the true believers will find themselves being persecuted, and that such persecution is a sign you’re on the right path, it pulls at the conscience of many overweight, under exercised middle class westerners that their lives are somewhat lacking in persecution, and so to cover this seeming gap in their spiritual lives, they’ll desperately take anything remotely misconstruable as persecution and wrap it around themselves like a big reasuring blanket.

…”unfounded internet rumour that one of the Columbine murderers asked someone if they were a Christian before he killed her? HE WAS PERSECUTING CHRISTIANS! Thank goodness, Christians are being persecuted, I am a Christian, therefore I am being persecuted, QED. I’m so glad I can sleep soundly in my warm queen size bed after eating twice my daily recomended caloric requirement and not feel guilty about the world’s poor or starving. What with me being PERSECUTED and all, I must be on the right track. I can’t wait for the “war on Christmas” to start up to make me feel even more persecuted and thereby justify my blatant crass consumerism!”

 

[Dave Ellis]

There's something very special about this phenomenon. It's the language we speak and use in writing.

The difference between phylosophy and physics is that physics asks: "what this is", and phylosophy asks "what can it be".

If it can only be 1 or 2, and it is not 2, than it is one. I don't have to find evidence to 1 when I have evidence that excludes 2. If you truly belive that alians invented the hebrew letters, then you found your refuge, but it is quite a pathetic refuge.

You haven't demonstrated there couldn't possibly be a 3 or 4, or 5, etc yet though.

Simply asserting it could only be 1 or 2 doesn't make it so.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You haven't demonstrated there couldn't possibly be a 3 or 4, or 5, etc yet though.

Even worse, it excludes "I don't know" as a valid response, and that means that it all too conveniently drops any necessity for providing a positive case for one's conclusion.

That is sham reasoning that apologetics too often resorts to.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

I looked at it and had my friend Charles run the program. Wow! Strange as it is, you are correct. Well done....there is no rational logical explanation for this phenomenon by purely materialistic means...

Lots of possibilities :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfitting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/defi... and do not curse][bless and do not curse]+up

 

[Eudaimonist]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defi... and do not curse][bless and do not curse]+up

The urban dictionary doesn't know this one.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

The urban dictionary doesn't know this one.

I could probably find a way to make the link work, but I think I've made my point