An argument unto itself that arose to refute the ontological 'proof' for the existence of a guiding intelligence that created the universe with a 'purpose' behind the many observable processes.
According to this theory, on-tology is invalid un-til a process is discovered that requires an omnipotent intelligence at the core of it's genesis. Until then, such conjectures will be categorized onto the class of unsubstantiated presuppostions.
According to this theory, on-tology is invalid un-til a process is discovered that requires an omnipotent intelligence at the core of it's genesis. Until then, such conjectures will be categorized onto the class of unsubstantiated presuppostions.
It is possible that atheists will find themselves in an untological cul-de-sac if they continue to reject any form of purpose or objective in the process of evolution. It may not be sound science, but it would be pragmatic politically.
by Recursive Prophet January 01, 2008
'Futronym' is an antologym for 'retronym'. An antologym is the same as an antonym, except that it applies to neologisms instead of words already in the lexicon.
by Recursive Prophet November 07, 2007
Creationists often came to the science sub-forums at RDF to try and derail the dialectic. When a cliqster finds one posting their sermons, he sends a 'batch' pm to all the others. It includes a link to 'click,' which takes them right to the current point of discussion on the flagged thread. They thereby maximize the visibility of their consensus viewpoint by presenting it on many different debates they might have missed without being part of the cliq.
by Recursive Prophet April 20, 2009
Thinking of the girls he had known when young, the old man could still get momentarily horny. But he never had such feelings about women he didn't know and lust after in the past, and had no desire to reconnect with those he did, except in his memories of them; in the bloom of their youth.
He was a true retrosexual.
He was a true retrosexual.
by Recursive Prophet December 12, 2007
A 'sock-puppet' on a message board that is not very active and remains low profile over many months. At a key moment on a debate, this 'mole' can be deployed to support the puppet master's argument without arousing any suspicion. They have a history that doesn't support any.
When Sidhe returned to the dirtybutrational.org website and was suddenly supported by other members, none of his detractors suspected any were a 'mole puppet.' He had established several way back, and used them sparingly to reply on various threads.
by Recursive Prophet August 28, 2011
When a moderator on a discussion forum splits off a batch of replies to another thread for purposes primarily related to censoring viewpoints they disagree with by removing them from the larger, ongoing debate and marginalizing their impact.
While the site was owned by well known skeptic educational foundation, staff were apparently instructed to use a 'divide and conquer' strategy in dealing with any dissent. Arguments critical of policy were often split to new threads for being 'off topic,' thus diluting both their continuity and traction. It was a subtle form of censorship one wag dubbed as the 'censorsplit strategy.'
by Recursive Prophet September 12, 2009
1. Arpie is an initialization morphed into an acronym. (a retro or redux acronym?) Role Player=RP=arpie. Note the initialization is also contained within the homonym.
2. In complexity theory, RP ("randomized polynomial time") is the complexity class of problems for which a probabilistic Turing machine exists with these properties.
Arpie: Anonymous Role Player Inserting Epiphytics; or
algorithmic randomized polynomial interaction e (2.718282... in geek-speak)
2. In complexity theory, RP ("randomized polynomial time") is the complexity class of problems for which a probabilistic Turing machine exists with these properties.
Arpie: Anonymous Role Player Inserting Epiphytics; or
algorithmic randomized polynomial interaction e (2.718282... in geek-speak)
Is that Arpie a Role Player or a Randomized Polynomial? (If the correct answer to the latter is YES, then it returns YES with probability at least ½ (otherwise, it returns NO)
by Recursive Prophet October 14, 2007