Slashdot Mirror
Share Your Most Dangerous Idea
GabrielF writes "Every year The Edge asks over 100 top scientists and thinkers a question, and the responses are fascinating and widely quoted. This year, psychologist Steven Pinker suggested they ask "What is your most dangerous idea?" The 117 respondents include Richard Dawkins, Freeman Dyson, Daniel Dennett, Jared Diamond -- and that's just the D's! As you might expect, the submissions are brilliant and very controversial."
I wonder how many of these ideas while eventually some day be implemented.
LINUX ONLINE POKER: Linux Poker
This is very simliar to this piece from Foreign Policy Magazine in September of 2004 "The World's Most Dangerous Ideas" tcd004
Ironic how the human instinct to stick to what we're familiar with impedes us even in supposedly objective fields of science and research. I wonder if this gentle nudge will succeed in returning us to a path of progress.
1. Shaving my back with rubbing alcohol and fire+.
2. Testing for the presence of pheromones in ball sweat by putting my hand down my pants, cupping my balls, and holding my hand over my sleeping girlfriend's face while she slept.*
+ I was going to do this while in the shower with the water running off to the side so I could hop into the water in the event of the inevitable accident
* Danger: She's a biter thus the reluctance to tea bag her directly
If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
I found David Buss's article interesting. He sums up with the following, "On reflection, the dangerous idea may not be that murder historically has been advantageous to the reproductive success of killers; nor that we all house homicidal circuits within our brains; nor even that all of us are lineal descendants of ancestors who murdered. The danger comes from people who refuse to recognize that there are dark sides of human nature that cannot be wished away by attributing them to the modern ills of culture, poverty, pathology, or exposure to media violence. The danger comes from failing to gaze into the mirror and come to grips the capacity for evil in all of us."
"The hyper-Islamicist critique of the West as a decadent force that is already on a downhill course might be true" - somebody give this guy a research grant.
Why would you trust a testimonial when choosing hosting?
This has to be the biggest "article" submitted to Slashdot ever.
Here's my idea: If you have a Bose-Einstein condensate of heavy atoms, why happens when they radioactively decay? Does every atom decay simultaniously? Wouldn't that be kinda like a bomb?
How we know is more important than what we know.
How about this one: a majority of people will become bisexual as social controls are removed, say over the next 50 years.
Let's make our own list.
/. posters what their most dangerous idea is. :)
My most dangerous idea: Asking
Humor aside, I am serious, let's make a list.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
That looks like a one-time pad bounded by meaningless but seemingly meaningful non-pad data.
Unbreakable encryption - very dangerous idea indeed. You should be shot.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"Hold my beer and watch this".
"Better light a match to see where that gas is coming from."
"Yeah honey, you do look kind of fat in that dress."
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I think trying to split the Moon in half with our nuclear weapons would be an interesting thing to try, even though it'd probably would be the end of us.
Reading Slashdot every day is pretty dangerous as far as ideas go. Never know when you're going to read something insightful, scream "Eureka!" and your head explodes like a nasty toliet.
Not so far from the truth. Mod parent insightful, and RTFA. Many of the ideas published focus on science overcoming religion, or visa versa. You have to admit, when a person's individual belief's and values are threatened, many bad things happen, and the idea that discredits any type of religion is a very dangerous one.
What the hell's a "gewie?"
"Mama, the dentist can't figure out why I have so many cavities when there's no bacteria."
"Son, those are craters."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
...was putting ALL my assets into Google.
But the bet paid off. And now I can buy my own island. And a death ray.
Most of these don't seem really dangerous, just some ideas of what might come or be accepted in the future. Ideas that some iconoclasts already accepted but the masses have not. Like the idea of humans having no souls.
The ones that are dangerous are not dangerous in the "omg someone could kill millions with this idea" way. They are dangerous in the "our society will be even more effed up if this idea catches on" way. Like the idea that we can't win the war on climate change. If everyone accepted this how many countries would even try to reduce emissions? Or the idea that there really are fundamental differences between the "races". That would make the next genocide just a little bit easier.
This is funny, but I'm also totally serious:
Several times in my life, I've thought that I might be able to fix a broken object by using the process of melting. No matter how right I thought I was when I started, I've always, ALWAYS, regretted the idea.
Even knowing this, I'll probably try it again.
Dan Gilbert is a bit of a hero of mine. His research basically is about happiness--it's all any of us really, universally, want, so why, after millions of years of evolution, are we so bad at finding it? We should be experts! His stuff on affective forecasting and rationalization is amazing. I highly recommend his papers--and hearing him talk, if you ever have the opportunity, even more so! Anyway, he's a REAL character, and his response betrays that:
DANIEL GILBERT
Psychologist, Harvard University
The idea that ideas can be dangerous
Dangerous does not mean exciting or bold. It means likely to cause great harm. The most dangerous idea is the only dangerous idea: The idea that ideas can be dangerous.
We live in a world in which people are beheaded, imprisoned, demoted, and censured simply because they have opened their mouths, flapped their lips, and vibrated some air. Yes, those vibrations can make us feel sad or stupid or alienated. Tough shit. That's the price of admission to the marketplace of ideas. Hateful, blasphemous, prejudiced, vulgar, rude, or ignorant remarks are the music of a free society, and the relentless patter of idiots is how we know we're in one. When all the words in our public conversation are fair, good, and true, it's time to make a run for the fence.
Well, Dan, have you read Slashdot lately? I think we're still all right. For now.
one word - Peace
Intelligent Design. Sorry, I had to.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
.. yes, if people could one day track all their socks, where they came from or where the missing half of the pair is then someday it will revolutionize the way you and I live.
The government is currently rejecting any patents for such technology since it's so dangerous and detrimental to society. The want to cover up the gnome conspiracy, but no, we need to start a revolution and take back our socks.
JOIN THE REVOLUTION TODAY!
In Linux - everyone seems to think that the technology is more important that the freedom in making the business case for using it.
In monitary policy - everyone seems to think that other measures of inflation and growth are more important, than the freedom from controll that the gold standard offers.
In public education - everyone talks about what kind of education the kids need, and noone talks about the financial freedom lost in paying for it, or the very influence that such has on the kids.
In social security and medicade/ medical care - everyones worried about how will we take care of the needy and elderly and noone talks about the people that need to be financially coerced to make these systems work.
In copyrights and patents - everyone talks about the poor starving inventor or creator, and noone talks about all the people that need to be coerced to make these systems of incentive work.
In the genocide of the poor - noone would even dare mention that the best solution would be to arm them and seciure their right to bear arms first.
Yes, I know it is an insanely radical shocking "lunatic" proposal and people would shudder at the thought that people might actually be "allowed" freedom and empowerment. Perhaps you should just mod me to minus infinity now to save society from the terror that such an outlandish notion would inflict.
This thing seems like a few gems from genuinely insightful people, and a whole lot of buzzword babble junk. My personal favorite so far is the "headaches are like a spoon" drivel that says we should abandon the idea of physical objects and that everything we think we know is just our brain's interpretation, and there's no reason for that interpretation to match reality in any way. Only problem is - the reality of a wolf ripping out my throat is a pretty good reason to evolve senses that give me a good picture of that reality. I swear, the matrix gave this crap a whole new motivation - and it makes me wanna barf.
I shall call it "thought vehicle" or short TV. - Sounds good too.. I should patent this idea.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
Many of the ideas published focus on science overcoming religion, or visa versa.
Proper religion is both the gateway to science, and is then inevitably reinforced
by the successes it has. Remember our favorites like 'algorithm' and 'algebra' come from
arabic words back from when Islam was filled with love.
BTW, religion (and the mysticism that goes with it) is the gateway to science because
this universe's Creator created it to be accessible to us. Our human mind is designed to
interact with its Creator. No, we cannot quite fathom It, but there's so much to learn
about the universe itself that we couldn't discover a tenth of it in ten lifetimes.
Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened.
This isn't just about spiritual pursuits, it's about knowledge itself.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
My most dangerous idea:
Teach people to think for themselves.
Someone hates these cans.
This is for the questions that don't have any answers.
Someone hates these cans.
I'm sorry for responding to my own post, but no argument about freedom would be complete without mentioning the "war on drugs". God forbid that people actually be "allowed" to act in ways that may not be in their own best interest. Even worse, God forbid that they might be "allowed" to decide what drugs might be in their own best interest. Yeah, if not for the war on drugs "we would have so much crime and violence" .... .... .... hmmmmmmmm.
leave bush as the pres?
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Fairly self-explanatory... make a porno image... or even... eeep... goatse guy... default Windows wallpaper via virus/worm, set default homepage to nambla.org.... then disable ability to change these back.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Asking your wife to hold your beer in an underground gas mine so that you can light a match to check if she looks fat.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Well, I'm really busy at the moment, but maybe I'll just check slashdot one more time, just for a quick breather... I'm sure I won't be surfing for too long and will get straight back to work as soon as I've caught up on the news...
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
Religion was invented as a method to control primitive people. Don't do this and don't do that or else the invisible being watching you will smack you.
Worse yet - Atheism! Zoot Alors! The thought that the basis of their belief system is pure fiction... really bugs those religious wackos.
Really, it does.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Gain control of Microsoft and release all the source-code and to open up the document formats. I can't do this alone but if all the /. readers are kind enough to send me a donation, I can start buying M$ stock.
We are increasingly building a world where the rich are free and the poor are subjugated. People who are wealthy and well-connected can command outrageous salaries and bonuses, year after year, even with a history of failure. The middle class are herded by the media through a life of monotonous work and consumption. Poor people, trapped by limited economic mobility, are preyed upon by everyone. We have created a society which is increasingly unequal economically, and I believe this will translate into major social inequality soon. Rich people will enjoy more rights and freedoms, poor people will live in a prison without walls, and the middle class will have satellite TV.
Who is this Gottman prick? And why does he feel threatened by "emotional intelligence"?
Emotional intelligence is not a dangerous idea, merely an expression of maturity without reguard to scholarly learning, as many intellectual elitists are fucking keen on to operate without maturity whatsoever. I believe the notion behind it is that actual ethical good trumps academic research, as academic research is completely fruitless without the purpose to better the lives of the people of the world.
Let me simplify my thoughts: Who is the better man, a simpleton who emulates Ghandi based on emotional intuition, or someone who sharpens his intellect to the point of brilliance if only to raise himself in the world?
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Think about it. Everyone's pissing and moaning about the coming oil shortages, and so on, and NOBODY is thinking about how conveniently flammable alcohol is.
We have an entire Midwest full of Great Plains which are very well suited to growing grains which could produce alcohol.
It has been demonstrated that you can run a car on alcohol. Dragsters do it all the time.
It has been demonstrated that a fuel cell can generate electricity from methanol.
Alcohol doesn't poison the environment if you spill some. It burns clean if you have a darwinian-selection moment and light it up. And in a pinch, you can drink it. Try THAT with petroleum.
Well? Wouldn't an alcohol economy be easier than a hydrogen one?
Just a thought...
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Actually the 'smack' is the built-in system that let's us know when
we're f*cking up. Happiness and unhappiness are the result of the
Law of Karma, which is as much a law as Conservation of Mass or
Universal Gravitation, just it's only operable on the human level,
because we are the only beings with free will.
Religion is rules of how to deal with other human beings. Its
purpose is to promote study, peace and the creation of more and more
happy human beings. Why? To have more consciousness, because we
are the only beings who can appreciate this marvelous creation.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
I was thinking of installing the latest Longhorn beta, or playing Russian roulette with an automatic - haven't decided yet.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
And you have proof of this other than some book written (and rewritten and reinterpreted) by humans, right?
Or should we just accept your version of reality and ignore others?
Is it possible, just possible, that you could be wrong? Seriously, please consider that for a few moments, and respond.
Now, there MAY be a way to use a BEC more destructively. If you have a BEC that consists of pure deuterium, use magnetic containment to prevent the BEC from expanding back out at all, raise the temperature as close to instantaneously as possible to the point where fusion can occur...
The BEC obviously can't remain a BEC at superhigh temperatures, so must unfold to some degree. The structure is guaranteed to move to the lowest possible energy state, because that is what atomic structures do. This is part of why it would be important to raise the temperature rapidly. You want it so that there simply is no valid state with deuterium nucleii.
If deuterium is simply not an option, the nucleii will fuse. They have no alternative. Here is where it gets fun, though. If the energies are high enough and the compression great enough, you can produce elements as far up the periodic table as you like. Unlike normal particle accelerator efforts to produce super-massive atoms, these will actually last for a while - there won't be room for them to fall apart.
The difficulty in producing the correct conditions would be enormous, but if you could crack that nut, there'd be no theoretical reason why you couldn't push for a nucleus with an atomic mass of a thousand or so.
The energy to produce such a monster atom would be guaranteed much greater than ALL of the energy output by the fusion reactions. (Iron takes more energy to fuse than it gives out and we're talking something a couple of orders of magnitude larger.) Sustaining it might even be worse.
The fun part, though, will be in letting it collapse after a time. A very substantial part of the energy put into the fusion of the nucleii would be released in a matter of microseconds over an extremely small space. Current physics predicts that if you exceed a certain energy density, space will "inflate". This might cause the whole of space/time to explode, it might form a pocket universe, or it might do all sorts of other strange things. Nobody knows much about energy densities of that magnitude.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
KAI KRAUSE
"The relative innocence and stable period of the last 50 years may spiral into a nearly inevitable exposure to real chaos. What if it isn't haphazard testosterone driven riots, where they cannibalize their own neighborhood, much like in L.A. in the 80s, but someone with real insight behind that criminal energy ? What if Slashdotters start musing aloud about "Gee, the L.A. water supply is rather simplistic, isn't it?" An Open Source crime web, a Wiki for real WTO opposition ? Hacking L.A. may be a lot easier than hacking IE."
Don't Tread on Me
...but weaponized strangelets spring to mind. Whether they have to be added to standard matter at sufficient temperature is moot; one could just lob 'em into the sun and wait a few months for them to get there. Or not, if you've got a particle accelerator of sufficient power.
I'd say the most dangerous idea is the sentiment of (far too) many people nowadays that science and rational thought is too complicated and doesn't give any real answers.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
Pick a list of people to ask that isn't the same !@$%^&* names again and again.
Rudy Rucker? Stewart Brand? Danny Hillis?
FOR !@$%^&* SAKE, I am so sick and tired of hearing from these people.
There are so many legitimately fascinating brilliant thinkers, writers, artists, poets, scientists, and on and on living on this planet.
How is this for a DANGEROUS IDEA? PICK SOME NOVEL NAMES.
Sheesh.
My ideas that are most dangerous to human life on earth are to invent the transporter, and also warp speed, or impulse spacecraft. Just one spaceship the size of Enterprise A tearing through the Earth at Warp 1 would in theory destroy the earth into a cloud of planet vapour. Transporters would be used to rob every bank devised, and kidnap world leaders. Everyone would have to have a transporter inhibitor, or you'd be kidnapped almost right away, and probably not by aliens, but by the Swords of Righteousness Brigade or their ilk in Iraq.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Look at Iran... and try to say that again with a straight face.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Man, I've kept skimming the articles - and they are just getting worse. I can't believe they gave the "electric universe" nutjobs any space in here.
my dangerous idea:
the internet has replaced the encyclopedia
it is replacing want ads, real estate agents, auctions, music companies, publishers, etc.
it will someday replace government
but hold on, there's a catch:
if the internet does this, it will do it the same way it is defeating the music industry: not through any conscience effort, but just a gradual, inevitable, unfightable erosion of relevancy by little efforts made by individuals not even consciously trying to do anything coherent
in other words, if you are actively seeking to defeat government and promote anarchy/ libertarianism/ revolution, or whatever, you are way off
because you are making a conscience effort
because if and when it happens, no one will notice it starting
just like the guys who built the original arpanet in the 1960s didn't say "hey! let's build a radically superior music distribution model that cuts out the middle man and removes the economic incentive!"
except that's exactly what they did
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Zealots hate agnosticism even more. They can't stand being ignored, or kindly smiled upon...
Oh well, what the hell...
Sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!
Sorry, couldn't help myself
-Brandon
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Fortunately, the USA is severely hobbled by its patent system and divided by its religious zealots...
Oh well, what the hell...
A number of times I've come to the conclusion that I could very easily inflict some major terrorist type damage to various public/infrastructure type assets without working very hard. Scientists have a HUGE advantage in knowing where the weaknesses of various things are and a lot of our national infrastructure is VERY prone to attacks. People even trust us.
I've come to the conclusion that terrorists are either very dumb or they are too busy to attack us right now or they are saving up for the next big attack.
Morbid, I know. Scary too.
In fact, none of the respondents answered "religion," but professions of atheism were, by far, the most common response among those I read in the article. So good for you for picking the "right" answer.
Here is an idea that is considered highly dangerous and will scare any corporate know-nothing CxO....
....now once you stop turning white in fear and start breathing again, can we get back to work?
Ready?
Here it is....My idea is that we eliminate Microsoft Windows totally from use in our company.
Oh I said it...it's out there in the open... I'm not prowd of it, but gosh darn it I have these thoughts about things being better for the company in the long run and stuff, and they just won't go away.
-- Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventualy invent UNIX.
Good Lord some of these people love to read themselves ramble on. I think there was a misconception between "dangerous" and "boring."
Well, at the risk of being labeled a traitor... ***THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED***
7h3$3 4r3n'7 7h3 Ðr01Ð$ ¥0 4r3 £00|{1n9 f0r. M0v3 4£0n9. --OB1
Share Your Most Dangerous Idea
This one is really scary so put away the kids, the scary idea is:
Sharing
*gasp*
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
ROBERT R. PROVINE's response was almost exactly that religion -- or rather the complete lack thereof -- was his dangerous idea.
My first reaction when my friend said "NO" was "if he doesn't like it, then this must be a really good idea. He eventually talked me out of it, but it's still there in the back of my mind.
As for the most dangerous idea that's come to fruition? Pouring gasoline down the barrel of a potato gun and tying a burning piece of newspaper to the end. Two Important facts: You get a HUGE jet of fire and not all the gasoline will combust. Clear the area immediately.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
If you had a truely dangerous idea, and you knew it, and you were a world renowned scientist, you'd have to be either an egomaniac with no morals, or a fool to share it.
These scientists won't tell you their most dangerous ideas. The less scrupulous might just sell them to the military though.
Anyway, you'd have all manner of government agency after you if you went public with a really good idea.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
> That there is a being called the Devil that is the source of all human
urges towards violence and selfishness.
Yes, the notion that we should blame evil on some supernatural being is a very dangerous idea.
As is the notion that we should turn to another supernatural being to save us.
The world would be a far safer place if people would learn to be responsible for their own behavior, and for the governance of their societies, and for cooperation between their society and others.
Bin Laden and Pat Robertson are the monsters that we should teach our children to fear.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Eh, no.
Religions form important social systems that have kept bad things from happening over the centuries. Dietary laws kept disease out of the ghettos during the plagues in Western and Central Europe. Laws agains inbreeding kept small populations from having genetic degradation from inbreeding. When we look at religions for thier social systems, they have served well in the past and present.
The Chinese gov't would also back you on that one, I suspect. The idea that religion is the most dangerous idea in the world has thus far been able to make several forms of atheism into the most dangerous idea in several of our larger nations.
Create an Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky bridge.
http://outcampaign.org/
You are right. The only problem to this is that everyone believes in a religon. Even Atheism has no proof and therefore must be based on "belief".
I submit that religon itself is not a problem. The problem comes when people base it as a sole reason for their actions, or try to force their religous belief upon someone else. Ignorance to facts that contradict your belief are ignored, factons are formed, biases are made, and wars are started. And thus, the danger.
I agree with you that religion is one of the most dangerous aspects of this world. I would , however, say that knowing God and living a life dedicated to God is different from being religious. Actually, I think if one truly lives a life dedicated to God, one cannot be religious.
Being religious is to be dogmatic. Knowing God, on the other hand, is having a relationship.
take a submarine or mini-sub, load it with the attacking/owning country's most powerful nuclear bomb in their arsenal, send it to the bottom of the ocean about 500 to a 1000 miles off the coast of the enemy nation you are attacking, then detonate the bomb, the displacement from the bomb should create one helluva tsunami... (it is (I figure) semi-plausible for this to have been the cause for the tsunami of December 2004 that obliterated a good most of the Phillipines)
"Religions form important social systems that have kept bad things from happening over the centuries."
Yeah, like the Crusades! Religion reeeeealy helped out there.
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
That's right, and the complete lack of religion is better known as atheism. So he's one of many whose answer was atheism.
The idea that scares me the most is the threat of viruses tailored to attack (or not attack) a particular racial group. It's not so much that I think such things are really viable weapons, but rather I fear that major militaries in the world will actively research the idea "just in case". Bioweapons strike me as high destablizing - very difficult to disprove that an adversary has them, high deniability in a release (leading to potential paranoia/misplaced accusation; eg: AIDS skeptics), high error in trying to predict the outcome of a release (outbreak might quickly burn itself out Ebola style, might quickly mutate into a non-leathal form, might become a pandemic). Then for fun, throw in movements advocating willful ignorance of basic biology concepts in powerful countries (*cough*ID*cough*).
(of course, the best defence against a potential race-targetting weapon is a highly diverse society, so guess there is potential for some social good)
This isn't my idea, can't remember where I saw it.
Suppose a virus grepped your Outlook/Outlook Express address book for people's names. Then it grepped all the emails/documents/spreadsheets/whatever on all drives it could reach for those names.
Once it found a document with someone's name, it emails that document to them.
Imagine the chaos as confidential HR memos, payroll spreadsheets, legal documents, and just plain gossip are indiscriminately sent out.
"The only problem to this is that everyone believes in a religon."
Hm. No. I'm an agnostic, and believe in nothing. If there is a god, fine, if there isn't, whatever. I just don't care one way or the other.
This is NOT to be confused with atheism, which as you are likely aware a belief that there is NO god.
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
As one glance at either (or both) Einstein and a person with a typical case of Down's syndrome will tell you, equal mental capacities are not uniformly available.
As one glance at either (or both) Arab women and US feminists will tell you, equal rights are not uniformly available.
As one glance at either Jeffery Dalmer (or both) and Martin Luther King will tell you, equal consideration is not uniformly available.
In summary, the very idea that "we are all created equal" is a mindless, pointless statement that speaks only to turning a blind eye to reality.
I have always thought that we should be saying that we would attempt to afford equal opportunity to our fellows at each set of choices in life, and let them make of it both what they may, and what they are capable of.
But as your premise is trivially demonstrated to be false, you should probably reformulate. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Laws against inbreeding? Just how many Adams and how many Eves does your bible profess?
-William
God is everything science has yet to explain.
I have to say, of all of these entries here, this one is the one that made me stop and think the most. The concept of civilisation when it mets resource limitations and pollution impacts with selfish and individualistic mindsets self-destructing has a certain truth to it.
The majority of the population work all their time from childhood till death, for the express ability to....well.....keep on doing it. There really is no difference between "work to live" and "live to work" anymore in the world we inhabit. This is a bit of a puzzler given our cave man cousins also had to work to survive. Where's the progress really? Where is the ability of people to develop themselves in that world of leisure we were all promised in the 1970s?
The possibility/probability of a large group saying "to hell with it" is very real. If the flavour presented was right it could snowball in a very short period of time with an impact that would dwarf other realistic dangerous ideas.
Maybe the future belongs to those that say no?
A quick Google search will confirm that you're not the only one who's thought of burning alcohol as a fuel.
Replacing oil with alcohol would not solve our problems.
Sure, it would invest in agriculture rather than exploiting technology to find, extract and refine crude oil. But It would replace the known problems associated with enriching arab states with a history of bad civil rights, with some unknown problems related to a huge mega-farm raising a monoculture crop. Pesticides, GMO, soil depletion are issues we know would be involved, but what else is involved with monobreed farming on that scale?
There's also the problem that American bio-energy fuel production could only generate a 10th of the fuel supply that the USA currently uses - and that's only gasoline. There are lots of products we get from crude oil that we can't press out of biomass: think about plastics, asphalt, lubricants.
Then there's the issue of what we're fueling in the first place: the realized dream of cheap fuel for vehicle freedom has resulted in a transportation engineering crisis that requires moving around and storing enormous cars rather than people. That creates sprawl that eats up farmland so we can have a parking lot around WalMart and sprawling acres of land devoted to roadways, driveways and freeways to link far flung suburban housing developments and equally sprawling office parks, and the previously mentioned WalMarts. Not to mention vehicle's polluting of the the environment.
And yes you can drink alcohol, but not the 85% Ethanol/15% Gasoline mix we create for cars. It also is only about 30% cleaner than burning raw gasoline, so you might not want to light up indoors. It's also significantly more expensive, even if you ignore the farming subsidies that artificially cheapen it.
Sometimes the simplest solution is also the least well thought out.
I would suggest determining the real problems before offering a solution. A nation designed around cars instead of people is definitely part of the problem, and alternative fuel doesn't solve that particular problem at all.
No, we can only blame ourself, if we are honest. Read carefully, it says that
the Devil gives us the urge, it is our human free will that he is trying
to corrupt, yet it is always us who makes the choice to act upon the urge.
And, no, God is not supernatural, He is out of time, the Creator of time
itself, the Creator of physics and the Setter of all cosmological constants and
relationships. Remember E=mc^2 means nothing gets created and nothing gets
destroyed, but there's a sh*t load of stuff here? Does anyone you know have a
physics principle for where it all came from? How about why doesn't everything
just implode into a big friggin black hole? Where'd all that kinetic energy
come from?
And yes, you are right: Bin Laden and Bin Robertson are two sides of the same
stank-ass coin. Devil's mighty proud of them two boys.
And yes, your statement three is excellent but I can add that also no person
would be hungry, without clothes or shelter, or sick. How? If only the
military budgets of the world were spent solely on humanitarian effort.
May we all live to see the day!
Peace be with us all,
bmac
onto a Win XP machine.
It's called "fluoride," and not only does it make your tooth enamel nice and firm, but it is also a neurotoxin. It helps people become docile and consentful.
People say that fluoride is "not lethal in small doses" - of course it isn't lethal in 1 or 4 ppm, but that's not the point: it still effects you, especially as the fluoride builds up in your body over time.
Unfortunately, fluoride in drinking water (common in the United States) is only one tiny part of your daily exposure - almost any product processed with water probably contains fluoride, as well as tea.
So, because it is so pervasive, I have given up on trying to avoid fluoride... or is that the fluoride talking?
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
I've been working on a side-mounted flamethrower device using pressurized butane, a flexi-pipe pump system, a perfume atomizer, and a spark valve.
When activated, it'll launch out a fireball a la Dan Hibiki's Gadouken.
Now if that ain't dangerous, tell me what is.
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
That technology could reveal an extremely easy way to cause enormous amounts of damage. That in itself presents the darwinistic challenge to our whole species into the hands of a few individuals. Perhaps something that can destroy our entire universe via locally initiated big-bang event (maybe something silly as massive superposition of photonic waves beyond some unknown breaking point), or tweaking the rule base of every particle in the universe by as yet unknown quantum entanglement tricks. If something like this is theorized then social devolvement may be nightmarish to say the least. Knowledge control, civilization & universe teetering on the brink of devastation. Forced psychological medications to keep everybody 'happy', surveiling those who know too much, vaporizing those who tinker with it, communications monitored, encryption illegal, unsanctioned Internet transmissions banned. Then there's all those X billions of worlds out there each with potential civilization of aliens pondering the same thing, perhaps some realize it's in their interest to destroy every other planet as fast as possible since every other civilization ultimately poses a serious threat. Movie plot? game plot? real plot?
That's utter drivel. My cat knows the difference between being cold and wet and miserable and scared and being cuddled up before the fire in a pair of loving arms. My cat will signal her appreciation in a completely unequivocal manner by purring and loving up. Her level of appreciation is different, but it is not lacking.
Humans are simply animals. We're smarter, certainly, but there is zero evidence that we are different in any other way that makes any difference at all. Personally, I take religion (and astrology, and crystal gazing, and a bunch of other things) as evidence we're not nearly as smart as we'd like to think we are.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Here is an even more dangerous idea.
Forgo alcohol/biodiesel.
Switch to a large number of Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactors like China is doing, and use this energy to run run cars on Hydrogen or electricity.
Believe it or not, Nuclear power is actually CLEANER ounce per ounce than most other energy methods (Try comparing it to coal, for example, which is still currently used, or many other things.) However, most people are scared of it, because they dont understand it.
For those about to reply OMG! Nuclear power ZOMG!!!111!!11One!!! You should perhaps read the wikipedia article.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
So where do I file this? As a child, we would tape .177" metal balls (BBs) over the primer of a 12 gauge shotgun shell, glue 3 feet of light plastic ribbon to the crimped end, and hurl them as far as we could before taking cover behind whatever was near. Sort of an improvised hand grenade. Sometimes it worked, but if too much horizontal, you would just dent the rim of the shell.
-William
God is everything science has yet to explain.
Agnosticism does not create a stance apart from atheism or theism. If you hold a belief in a god or gods, you're a theist. If you don't, you're an atheist. Agnosticism (usually) describes why the proponent doesn't hold a belief, so it's usually simply a description of the atheist stance.
There's a technical reason lying in wait as well; the theism/atheism boundry is defined by belief, or lack thereof. The stance of the self-professed agnostic is one predicated on knowledge, which actually has no bearing on the state of belief. This is why we have believers in UFOs, Phrenology, Homeopathhy, Astrology and so forth — because knowledge is not a required precursor for belief.
Belief is about faith in some degree of the unknown. Knowledge is about collecting, correlating, and developing relationships amongst instances of objective fact. Ther is no requirement whatsoever that they ever cross paths.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'll share my most dangerous idea soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Our ideas may not matter much after all, as suggested by John Allen Paulos. His idea is short, sweet, and simple: we are not much more than "nominal, marginally integrated entities having convenient labels." Combine this with the anti-anthropocentric ideas of Irene Pepperberg, the pan-psychism of Rudy Rucker, and the eco-dynamics of Scott Sampson, along with the nuclear doubts raised by Jeremy Bernstein, and it all seems to make sense after all. We build thermo-nuclear devices becuase we need to help Gaia redistribute excess energy, not because we need the weapons for war. So, this dangerous idea implies no matter what our governments do with the stockpile of weapons grade plutonium, its not going to have much impact off-world.
Software freedom...I love it!
I'm not sharing my most dangerous idea until I get a patent.
That is incorrect. Atheism is the state of being without a belief in a god or gods.
It is the polar opposite of theism — belief in a god or gods.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Anti-religion
No, agnostics simply don't give a damn: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/
Oh well, what the hell...
The Crusades would have happened without Christianity. The Crusades were the product of two societies trying to stop infighting by picking on someone else. When Mohammed founded his empire he had to forge together many warring tribes who had bad feelings going back generations. Just like Ghengis Khan, he did this by constantly expanding outward through military conquest. This expansion eventually brought the Moslem empire into Europe. They were defeated by Charlemagne, but they were always threatening to enter Europe. In Europe, the same solution was found. The Pope, in an effort to get most of Christendom to stop beating the crap out of each other, started the crusades. In both cases, the supposedly faithful zealots were barely literate of their faith. Most moslems joined Mohammed for pillage, and most Christians at that time could barely read, much less read the Bible. The same thing would have happened in your atheistic paradise.
While I respect what you said, I was simply going to point out a few facts for the science snobs/anti-religion bigots...
Science brought us the atom bomb and all the hight tech weapons of war by which millions are oppressed around the globe.
Before someone misses the point of my post, it's not to say that science is evil or anything. I'm not blind to the sweet fruits of science, nor am I an anti-science bigot. I personally don't care for religion myself, and prefer science to it, BUT THAT'S MY CHOICE AND IT'S NOT MY PLACE TO SHIT ON OTHER PEOPLE FOR MAKING DIFFERENT CHOICES.
Seriously, to suggest that religion is more dangerous than science while ignoring the fact that science handed us the means by which to fuck this planet up, is simply stupid to the extreme.
Peace to the students of science and religion. We are in this together, let us have our differing opinions and defend each others right to them. Your freedom is my freedom. Your sovereignty is my sovereignty. Your liberty is my liberty. Long live the individual.
Read the story, then combine with nanotech:
"Whoops! We meant to build a DNA repair nanobot, but we've released DNA disassemblers by mistake. Oh well."
"Those who attacked Huxley and agnosticism tended to ignore the careful distinctions which he made, lumping agnostics in with atheists, materialists, and other "infidels." Taken in addition to the very traditional and conservative morals of the first Agnostics, who were careful to comport themselves like model middle-class Victorians, the distinctions are important to an explanation of the movement's influence. Where the atheist says that God does not exist, the agnostic says that reason can never be used to prove the existence of a being who transcends reason, and whether or not He exists, He does not intervene in human affairs, making speculation about His existence moot. We are on our own."
Oh well, what the hell...
Do me a favor.. Kill yourself and ask your god to come down here and DO SOMETHING.. preferably something usefull. dont care what it is just as long as it is perceived to be usefull. Good luck with that.
If something exists that does not need a creator (god) then why must the cosmos need one?
It has abandoned it's principles, and the population shows no sign of concern.
If you're saying that as an American, you're dumb. If you're saying that as an external observer, a huge portion of the population is concerned, and we're working on it. Unfortunately, most of the concerned, like most of the unconcerned, are loud-mouthed, counter-productive jackasses. But give us a minute. We'll work it out.
(rolls eyes) yeah, someone needs to do something about pacifist buddhist monks. they're ruining everything.
/ disproof by counterexample
Exactly right.
Although it must be said (and slightly changed from Yoda) that ignorance leads to fear. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
a) Suicide is an immediate ticket to hell.
b) God gave us free will. He does not give like the white men
who landed in North America (who have the audacity to call it
"Indian giving"); He gave it and even He will not impinge on
it, unless *we ask*. Beyond that He created us within this
magnificent universe and He gave us means to make things either
really nice for ourselves, or really horrible.
I do ask and He does what He Wills. I try to accept that, and I try to
try harder. I suggest that you make a few prayers; you would be
happier. One caveat: be careful what you wish for, you just might get
it.
BTW, God has never done anything bad to anyone; all our ills are the
result of bad human choices.
Peace be with you,
bmac
No, there are certainly more dangerous ideas. (Depending on your definition of "religion", I suppose.)
I think the most dangerous is "You are always right." This idea creates sociopaths, yet it is what we are teaching our children under the guise of building their self esteem. Sure, it's almost never worded that way, but the idea is there.
Religion sometimes tells you that you are wrong, that you must change. That's a bit unpleasant. This idea does not tell you that. You are just fine as you are, because you are always right. Other people sometimes tell you that you need to change, they're just stupid and arrogant.
Religion typically puts some diety or system of ideas in control. This idea puts you in control. There is no higher power to tell you what to do, you are it. Forget laws too, except of course the ones you agree with.
With religion, some things are right and others are wrong. If you want something that the religion says is wrong, it's still wrong. Here, none of that matters. You want it, you are right to want it, therefore it is right. It doesn't matter if it was wrong yesterday. It doesn't matter if it was wrong when someone else did it. It's right now.
Some people have a hard time believing this idea, but that's ok. There is a way to ease into it if you're not comfortable. Next time you think you may be or have been wrong, rationalize it. Try to think of some way to interpret the facts that makes it, if not right, at least acceptible. Take it one step at a time and eventually you will always be right.
(And if you disagree with any of this, too bad. I am always right.)
Dangerous ideas?
I had expected to see a lot more "Installing Windows"
Galileo's idea that a heliocentric model for the solar system was correct was not and is not dangerous by itself. It became dangerous to Galileo when it intersected with the church dogma of the day that held to the belief of a geocentric model of reality. To hold and idea contrary to that enforced belief was dangerous, as Galileo discovered.
Similarly take the idea of evolution. Not dangerous, rather sensible and supported by many facts related and unrelated to biology. Mix that with whatever collection of fairly tales and bible quotes the Christian fundamentalists want to belief this week, and you get a very dangerous mix.
Or consider this: The idea that an operating system designed for internal network applications can be extended to the Internet without problems can be debated and laughed at as we please. A belief in this would lead us to where we are now, with a laughable security situation that long ago ceased to be funny.
I know this is in vain, but anyway, for the umpteenth time (this goes for both parent and grandparent posts):
Atheism is NOT a belief there is/are no god(s). Atheism is a LACK of belief in any gods. A lack of belief is not a belief.
Could you explain the Conservation of Mass, Conservation of Energy,
Einstein's formula e=mc^2 in relation to the *ginormous* amount of
matter and energy in the universe?
But then again, I can't really explain it either except to say that
God created it. That's what He does: creates. (And maintains).
And for all the big bang theorists around here, even those scientists
know for a fact that we can't understand what was going on at like
10^-33 sec after the big bang. Castaneda would call that region
the Unknowable.
Peace be with you,
bmac
I found MARTIN E.P. SELIGMAN's thoughts on relativism to be pretty intriguing. My thoughts on cultural relativism in ethics is that it isn't so much a statement of the innate nature of ethics or moral truths as it's an observation of de facto conditions that influence our personal observations or our subjective realities. In other words, there may be absolute moral values/imperatives but our moral standards are always skewed by cultural influences--that is why in any given society you have what is considered common sense morality, which the majority of the population adheres to, yet common sense morality may vary greatly from culture to culture. So I think this has more to do with sociology and psychology than philosophy since it's a phenomenon that arrises from human psychological development and social interactions. That allays, in me atleast, any fears of humanity descending into a pit of moral nihilism.
As far as relativism in evolution, I hadn't really read or heard of anything about this up until today. But it does seem to make some sense to me. One example that's crossed my mind is the common cold. Our body's defenses are in a constant arms race against the various strains of the cold virus floating about. Our body adapts to fight off these pathogens, and the viruses adapt to circumvent these defenses. And after hundreds of thousands of years of evolution we are still at a stalemate--why? Because although r-strategists favor small organisms that are relatively simple biologically compared to k-strategists, that's just part of their evolutionary strategy. An r-strategist like cold viruses doesn't need to retain many evolutionary changes to develop into more complex organisms over time because their biological simplicity is their evolutionary advantage, just as our biological complexity is our evolutionary advantage. Small simple r-strategists can adapt much quicker than large complex k-strategists, but k-strategists typically have lower attrition rates, and adapt more "intelligently," with fewer evolutionary changes spreading through its entire population over time than r-strategists.
By and large it seems that even though each species takes a different evolutionary path, most that live in the same environment at the same time have equally evolutionarily viable living strategies that they are biologically adapted to. Environmental changes may tip the balance from time to time, but in the grand scale of things, any two systems of genes that have survived the same amount of natural selection as each other should reasonably be equally "mature." Right now man may seem to have the upper-hand, but if nuke ourselves out of existence, the r-strategists may gain the upperhand.
This notion also carries into intraspecies evolution. Being smart, or artistic, or athletic, or aesthetically appealing are all seen as positive traits while being dumb, or uncreative, or unathetlic, or ugly are seen as negative traits. But in most of the population these traits seem to be evenly distributed in a way that there would seem to be a correlation between certain seemingly positive traits and certain negative traits. If you are beautiful and athletic in our society, you may be able to get by very well on those traits alone, but perhaps because of this you do not need to develop much intelligence to get by. Or perhaps someone who is both intelligent, athletic, and beautiful may get by very easily without treating others very nicely and as a result don't develop much empathy for others, and may even develop sociopathic characteristics. It's also proven that creative geniuses like writers and painters have a higher susceptibility to depression, while mathematical geniuses have a higher susceptibility to asperger's and autism.
I imagine that if you could assign a Net Evolutionary Desirability Coefficient to every organism in a certain population, you will find that the standard deviation of the NEDC in the population is very low compared to the standard deviation between the Evolutio
Seriously, if every liberal person here on Slashdot (which I think is the majority, it seems like the hacker nature) decided to link up, create a small encrypted network for communication and plan something like, say, kill George W. Bush and take over the white house - it would most likely succeed.
I believe, and have seen evidence to support, that the collective brain power of Slashdot, trolls excluded, is exceptional. What other public Internet site has that many postgrads, engineers, former students of the most respected colleges, and just plain smart thinking people? I think none.
Your comments remind me of the story of an old woman living in the old Soviet Union.
She was very concerned about reformists that wanted to make steps towards democracy. She had concerns and questions very similiar to yours like, "if the government doesn't provide bread, then 'where' will I get it?" Sure, she could understand that enslaving people was wrong, idealistly, but ideals weren't going to give her any bread.
The point of the story is that some people are unable to understand what democracy is, what liberty is, what freedom is. In a free country, store shelves are filled from top to bottom with loaves, and at every store. This isn't because they are a "rich" nation, it's because they are "free" one.
Free to work, free to sell ones labor, free to keep what you have earned, and free to spend that which you have earned. The government is there to 'protect' these freedoms, not bake bread.
(Note for those that don't understand analogies, "bread" is being used in this story to relate to the parent poster's comments about the government being a 'nanny' state that 'provides' all things, like education, food, health care, jobs, etc... by forced enslavement of the populace, rather than the populace freely electing representatives to protect thier freedom.)
We're smarter, certainly, but there is zero evidence that we are different in any other way that makes any difference at all.
Our intellegence does exactly that. We (humans) affect our environment. We can conserve or destroy. We have law. We have technology. We have morals (or lack thereof.) We have religion, and we also have science.
Equating one's self to a mere animal is effectively relinquishing that which makes us unique and special as beings. I would also argue that this is a most dangerous idea as well. If animalistic behaviour becomes the mean, then humanity will very quickly reach its end.
sig: sauer
What if... Time cube is correct?
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
Why does anyone take this jackass seriously?
Dog is my co-pilot.
Wow. Only a psychologist would come up with an idea like this. It's clearly a straw-man argument. The simpler version we've all heard for years: if a tree falls in the forest and noone is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The answer is of course it does. The weight of the tree crashing against the ground via the force of gravity sends a shockwave through the air. Whether or not a person is in range of the shockwave is completely irrelevant.
This is the highest form of hubris: it takes people/intelligence for quantifications to have meaning. Bullshit.
Take a universe exactly like ours in every respect with the very minor alteration that life never got started on earth. Well guess what? It still takes a minimum threshold of matter to condense and form a burning star. The label we've given to that threshold is nothing; a mere convienience. The real important fact is that matter *can* condense into a burning star, and it will do so even if there's no humans around to pontificate.
End rant.
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
My cat knows the difference between being cold and wet...
That's not appreciating the beauty of creation, that's appreciating
being in a comfortable situation.
Humans are simply animals.
They are if they don't ask why they're here. The Qur'an even puts
it as such:
They have eyes that don't see, ears that don't hear and hearts that
don't understand. They are like animals - no they are worse than
the animals.
The reason such humans are worse is because they use our advanced
reasoning and imagining capabilities to act as animals, actually,
more like mammals: pack behavior (gangs, racism and always seeking
to be the alpha male/female) especially.
but there is zero evidence that we are different in any other way that
makes any difference at all.
Well, we use language to discuss concepts and use local experiments to
propose theorems that apply to the fabric of space-time itself.
Specifically, though, the difference is that we have a free will and,
as such, we fall under the Law of Karma while living, and, after death,
get judged for what we have done with our tremendous human abilities.
Personally, I take religion (...) as evidence we're not nearly as smart as
we'd like to think we are.
Well, the Devil has done his work well within the religions, so I agree with
you here, kinda. The fact is that all the atrocities being committed in the
name of religion can in no way be put on their founders who are long dead.
It would be more proper to call evil the result, not of stupidity, but of human
susceptibility to evil impulse. In the end though, we all choose either right
or wrong, to seek our greater purpose (to find God Himself) or to live in the
lesser purposes of the worldly life.
In any event, peace be with you.
bmac
Control in a way, and I wouldn't say invented. There is strong evidence that our brains are wired for religion. In other words, religion helped early humans in some way probably by letting them explain the world around them and explaining why certain social norms should be followed. In other words it's the flip side of rationality and logic.
Now that in itself says nothing about it being required or useful in the modern day (or counterproductive). However, one of the above has been replaced with science and the other isn't required (atheists aren't all moraless bastards).
Religious fundamentalism?
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
Specifically, though, the difference is that we have a free will
So does a cat, at least as much as a human. It can decide what to do just as well as a human.
we fall under the Law of Karma while living, and, after death, get judged for what we have done with our tremendous human abilities.
Which religion's system of Karma is this? Buddhism (or at least some schools of it) for example says that your actions after being reincarnated as an animal are just like those of a human, although humans have various advantages (achieving enlightenment for example).
nuff said.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
No, I do not follow the teachings of Satan, because the evidence is
quite simple:
"You shall know them by their fruits"
Now, that is not to say that I am beyond sinning. Nosir. But I am seeking
to achieve that level of development; it is a tough struggle, and it is the
basis for the word "jihad". The real jihad is the internal struggle from the
good impulse and the bad impulse.
My knowledge of this struggle, my experiences with both the good, the bad
and the perfect (only two, maybe three) human beings I have encountered have
proven this to me. My happiness and peace prove it to me. And, the efforts
Satan still puts forth to corrupt me show me every day.
The Qur'an says quite simply how to know: Does the person lead you to God?
I do. I say "Seek to reach Him spiritually within your lifetime". I have lived
the experience of happiness (and struggle) that occurs when this wish is made.
I know the company of those who are in various stages of this struggle. Weak as
I am, I do not council others badly.
So I *know*. Not *think*. *Know*. I understand (on a basic level) the premise
of the Old Testament, New Testament and Qur'an. I am in the midst of the personal
struggle to transmute my vices into their corresponding virtues. I succeed some
and I fail some, but I know the teachings of the Lord, our Creator. Whether I am
made of enough strength to not fall off the path is for my Lord to decide, but I
will at least go to my end having learned what I at least *should have* done.
Every human being is made to understand why we are here and what we are to do.
May peace be with us all.
bmac
it won't be a flashy revolution, it will be a gradual, boring replacement, piece by piece
zoning decisions, financial budgetting, appointment of the dog catcher, then public advocate, then chief of police, then mayor, etc.
until traditional government is all hollowed out and depends utterly on the internet to function
sure there will still be elected officials and appointed officials making decisions, but it will all be transparent, and they will get where they are through internet participation, both in building constituencies, continuing to feel them out, and hedging bets and flouting topics
if you have a problem with the concept, it is because you are thinking about it in revoltuionary dramatic terms
but if i am right, it will be the most boring glacial kind of change, so slow and gradual you won't even think any of it is special or notable in the least, it won't be dynamic or volatile in the least
in other words, viva la anemic revolution
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
*Agnosticism* is the state of being without a belief in a god or gods; *Atheism* is the state of believing in godlessness.
This guy doesn't realize that most slashdotters would not be up to this. Most have never even left their parent's basement...
Blah blah blah. People keep talking about religion, but no one has mentioned home-made x-ray machines.
After all, I am strangely colored.
See the subject line.
Because I'm sure you're serious, I'll do you the courtesy of taking your assertions at face value, and treat them one by one.
Cats affect their environment. This is obvious and trivial. They exhibit numerous traits that we would consider to be environmentally enlightened, from burying their waste to grooming themselves to rarely killing for sport.
Cats can conserve or destroy. They make choices about this as well. For instance, my couch has been conserved. The doorjamb to the bathroom, however, has not. I think this is amusing, and the cat knows this because I take care to demonstrate it to her. From my point of view, the doorjamb is trivial and inexpensive to replace; consequently, I am delighted with the cat's choice of claw-sharpening targets.
Cats have rules/law. Drag a laser pointer across the floor. The cat will follow and play and pounce. Drag the laser pointer across another cat. The original, playful cat will proceed to ignore the laser, even if it was in the midst of crazed play with the beam. There are rules, and one of them is you don't pounce on things that are on other cats. This, interestingly, is a very good rule. Humans can be distinguished, perhaps, by the number of very bad rules we make, but not by rulemaking itself. Any tribe of monkeys has rules, as do many other types of animals, including, as I have shown, cats.
Cats have technology. They will create nests out of raw materials, they utilize knocking your crap off the dresser in order to get your attention. They understand that burial is good for anything that will reveal their presence, and anything that is dead and rotting. Other animals use sticks to fetch ants from holes, and will fashion tools from rocks and sticks. Beavers build dams. Termites build, arguably, castles.
Cats have morals. Mothers rarely eat their young. Cats rarely eat their owners, unless the owner dies. Even then, some cats cannot overcome that predjudice, though they will eat other animals.
Cats don't have religion, near as I can tell, but that's a point in their favor from where I stand, quite seriously. Cats do, however, exhibit faith. Both at the habituation level (they expect their human to come home to them again, because so far, that's what has happened) and they expect their human to take care of them, again because that's been established; and at the abstract level — once trust has been established, many wary behaviours are discarded. This occurs in cat-cat relationships and cat-human relationships, and more rarely, between cats and other species.
We do have science and science is a very complex product of advanced thinking. I don't expect science from cats for that reason. Doesn't change my point; I specifically said we differ in degree here.
Cats also experience every emotion humans do, as well as numerous behaviours and traits we like to think of as our own. They can be both selfish and generous, loving and hateful, vicious and kind, protective and defensive, careless and careful, clever and witless, and so on for quite a long list.
My position is that when we have established a level of hubris that disallows seeing that we are one of the set of animals, we have taken a step back on the very path most of us wish to tread. I recognize it's a handy mental trick when the task at hand is the consumption of a hamburger, but that makes it no more respectable.
One final point: If most humans behaved as well as my cat does, we'd be a damn sight better off. Your statement, in light of this, is ludicrous.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
That's where I thought Dawkins was going to go, but I was pleasantly surprised to see him veer slightly off message for a bit and come up with something interesting. That said, I agree with you.
501 Not Implemented
... OK, how about Iran?
I invite you to come on over to http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/ you will have lots of fun. Read it all and then come share your genius with everybody in the forums.
If something exists that does not need a creator (god) then why must the cosmos need one?
the agnostic says that reason can never be used to prove the existence of a being who transcends reason
Many Christians agree with that part.
and whether or not He exists, He does not intervene in human affairs
That's perhaps the most preposterous thing I've ever read. If a divine creator exists, then by definition He intervened in human affairs at least once, because if you are going to have human affairs at all, creating humans is a pretty fucking important first step. To say He has no influence on humanity is the same as saying He's not the Creator, and therefore a Creator does not exist, and then you're right back to atheism.
Likewise, by saying "He does not intervene in human affairs," you are clearly taking a position that all accounts of God doing exactly that (including the ministries of Christ and St. Paul) must all be bullshit. Not "probably bullshit", but "bullshit."
That's not a doubting, reasoned, agnostic view, but a pig-headed, dogmatic belief of atheism.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
"Creation" is myth — or at the very least, unencountered objective fact. As such, there's no reason to appreciate it. There is reason to appreciate the portion of the universe one can wrap one's head around, and cats and people both do this.
Either we are, or we aren't. It's a question of biological objective fact, not opinion or subject to any number of philosophical angels, pins and dances.
Parrots use language - ours, in point of fact. Topically and with great humor. Cats and dogs use language as well, though they don't speak ours, they certainly understand some of it. As for what is under discussion betwen them, this is a matter of what the particular brain is specialized to do. Aside from language itself, sound processing is not something we're uniformly best at. Cats can do things like locate a sound to within 8 degrees, reliably and repeatedly. It's been useful to them to specialize this way. You and I really suck at this. We use our brains for other things, and frankly, these things would not benefit cats in the roles they have performed to date. Directivity does. That may change, what with our just beginning to get a handle on the control of DNA. Should be fun. :) In any case, mental and language superiority is not the hands-down win you seem to think it is. Then there is body language and sign language and scent language and gifting. It's almost never as simple as people would like it to be when they're trying to pretend they're really, really special. :) Oh, and I should also point out that cats experiment constantly. With how far their human's patience may be stretched, for one thing, but with many other things as well.
You think a cat doesn't have free will? Don't feed it and then tell me what you think motivated it to take a crap in your headphones one time. Or a piss in the toaster. Cat piss in a toaster is worse than mustard gas — press that level down and you've got what we call a serious situation. Classic free will is what every animal has. This one you don't even get a fraction of a point for.
I don't blame the founders for later generations of followers pillaging, raping, flying into buildings and so forth. The founders had the perfectly common motivation to control their fellows, the very same motivation any modern politician, social worker, psychobabbler or cop has; they just had more of it. The thing is, not one of them was smart enough to see that it couldn't work. That's what all religious founders have in common: They were far too optimistic about human nature. I find that pitiful, but not blameworthy. I blame individuals for their own acts. If a Christian plants a bomb, I blame the Christian. If a corporate flunky rips me off because it is company policy, I blame the flunky directly. If a tax agent takes my money for a war I don't support, I blame the tax agent directly. Being a member of an immoral structure in no way magically propogates your own responsibilities elsewhere. It is a common thing to think it does, and that is one of the key reasons society is in such trouble — many people accept this shuffling off of blame by flunkies. Which is not to say that the structure can shuffle blame downhill, either.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
And in so doing, will typically find with even the most childish and simplistic bit of introspection, that they are entirely without belief, which makes them atheists.
Which is what I said in the first place.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Ignoring for this post the historic meaning of agnosticism and the "everybody else" meaning of atheism, there's certainly room for people who neither believe, nor disbelieve. I personally think having the guts to say "I have no way of knowing" is the sanest approach. Much better than yelling "GOD EXISTS BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO" or "GOD DOESN'T EXIST BECAUSE RELIGION IS STUPID."
The spirit of the original post that this not believing anything is most dangerous to religion (and anti-religion) might be true. Rather than countering religious belief with anti-religious belief, the non-believer points out that both sides aren't really contributing anything particularly useful.
It's a bit like taking liquid hydrogen and exerting enough pressure on it to turn it into solid metal. The temperature technically goes up, but it can't remain liquid or convert to a gas because the volume is too small. The most stable state it can enter is a "high-temperature" solid.
In this case, what we're doing is compressing a BEC "superatom" to a temperature in which it can no longer remain a BEC, but it cannot revert to deuterium atoms either. Neither is stable, under the conditions imposed. The only alternative is for the nuclei to fuse together, because it is the only valid way left that they can reduce the space requirements to what they have.
You'd need to be a little careful, though. You don't want to leave any nuclei with no valid state, or you're going to squish the lot into a quark-gluon soup. Again, that could be nasty, as I'm not sure you can magnetically contain the gluons... which ARE going to react with the containment system.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Please don't mistake this for me being closed-minded. I'm listening. I'm just waiting for something that counts as an actual plan.
No problem, but bear with me as this might seem like I'm repeating what I said.
1) Baker processes ingrediants to manufacture bread.
2) Baker sells bread to stores.
3) Baker saves his money in bank.
4) Baker spends his money for more ingrediants.
5) Baker repeats.
Before someone comments that this explained nothing, let's 'read between the lines'.
1.5) Baker is processing the ingrediants because he 'wants' to. (self interest)
2.5) Baker is selling bread because he's free to do so. (free trade)
3.5) Baker feels 'safe' that his money won't be stolen or 'nationalized'. (private property + rule of law)
4.5) Baker is profiting, and likes it (positive response). (capitalism)
5.5) Positive responses reinforce Baker behavior. (Pavlov's dog)
Now that you've read this, instead of asking "How will I get 'bread' if the government doesn't provide it?", you can go out and make it. If you want to help someone, then give them some of your bread, or hire them at your bakery, or cooperate with others (an organization) to help others to help themseleves.
You keep asking the same question "how" are you going to do it, and I'm asking you "who" is stopping you from doing it! *maximum encouragement voice*
"The atheist" doesn't say anything of the kind. "The atheist" says they don't hold a belief in a god or gods. Existance, or not, is an issue of objective fact. Belief is not. Belief is faith. Athiests do not have any faith that god exists. They are, as the etymology of the word clearly suggests, without belief, without faith in the issue at hand, which is god or gods.
What is so funny about this is that you're up on your high horse about "careful distinctions" and right up front, you can't be bothered to make even simple distinctions.
The key thing about the atheist/theist divide is that it is simple. That's what absolutely prevents agnosticism from carving out a third position. The idea that there is a third position apart from theism/atheism is invalid. Either you hold a belief in a god or gods, or you don't. Which side of that line you land on is what is at issue. Nothing more; certainly not any claim of objective fact. I would make no such claim, no more than I would for the existance of martian prosititutes in 1830. I have no information, and without information, I lack faith because that is how I am inclined to triage beliefs.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
By this I mean that our existence on this planet is an incredible fluke, and there is nothing in Nature that says we are wanted or needed. All that we have could be lost if we don't take care of it ourselves, and Nature will not be doing us any favors - she could hardly care less.
Most importantly: the "prime mover" in the destruction of this planet is the number of people on it; if the numbers were lower, so would the damage. I don't like the idea either, and have no idea what to do about it; I can't think of anything humane, but I won't be surprised to see at least one destructive war in our future.
(this is not a
When the word was coined, the original meaning of "agnostic" was that one admits to not _knowing_, and being intellectually honest about that, instead of saying that one knows there is (a) god, or knows there isn't. Some people of conscience cannot do otherwise than declare that they don't know, no matter what they still put their faith in.
It is right there in the word: "a-gnostic", where gnostic refers to knowledge, and agnostic refers to the lack of it.
Nowadays, "agnosticism" is often taken to mean declaring a lack of _belief_ either way - and here "belief" refers to "have faith in", not "known to be true beyond doubt". (The word "belief" is itself confusing, because different people take it to mean different things, or even the same people in different contexts, without making those differences plain).
My guess is that this change in the word "agnostic" over time makes sense as more and more people, including devout religious people and atheists, analyse their beliefs to the degree that they accept their knowledge is not absolute, but they have faith or commit to following the implications of their beliefs anyway. In a sense, the original idea "agnostic" has become more widespread, so the word isn't used for that so much now.
The upshot is that "agnostic" does _not_ mean "atheist" in another guise. Because an atheist puts his/her belief (as in motivation/faith) in "there is no god". That is different from the agnostic's belief (as in motivation/faith): "I don't know if there is god" - the latter being more intellectually honest for many people. Some agnostics put their faith in god while acknowledging they don't know if god exists. That is intellectually honest for some meanings of the word "faith", but not others. A genuine atheist would not do that.
I admit the above explanation is a little messy, because I don't define the terms very well, and it's been a while since I thought about the topic. Sorry; I'm tired. The points are valid, but not so well explained in the above. Study theories of knowledge - epistemology - to gain clearer insights into the range of meanings assigned to the terms like "belief" and "know".
-- Jamie
That's not appreciating the beauty of creation, that's appreciating
being in a comfortable situation.
Have you actually looked out of a window lately?
Your "beautiful creation" is, at it's core, nasty. Filled with pain, suffering, stupidity and pointlessness.
Anyone responsible for creating it should be given the middle finger, not worshipped.
Theism and Gnosticism are not the same thing.
Atheism and Agnosticism therefore cannot be the same thing either.
Oh well, what the hell...
Yes, certainly. This is a well known subset of the atheist community. Lacking belief makes them atheist; lacking disbelief makes them uncritical of the position of others.
Other subsets include those that lack belief, but also disbelieve, that is, attempt to make a case for the non-existance of god (and) gods. Then there is the crew that lacks belief but is curious, and their opposites, those that lack belief and could care less.
They're all atheists, just as Muslims and Christians and Hindus are all theists. Why some people think all variety must exist on the theist side of the question has always been quite beyond me. But then again, so is religion.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
BTW, it is no use arguing with me. Rather read what Prof. Huxley said about the matter - he invented the term: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/guide13.html
Unfortunately, he is long gone...
Oh well, what the hell...
As other people have pointed out, not everyone believes in a religion. Some people are willing to say "I don't know" or "I can't know." The problem is people who aren't able to either do that, or, if they do believe one way or the other, realize "it's possible I'm not right."
Right under Dawkins (yes the first name I clicked) was this guy "KAI KRAUSE"
My first thought was: what if any really smart set of people really set their mind to it...how utterly and scarily trivial it would be, to disrupt the very fabric of life, to bring society to a dead stop?
The relative innocence and stable period of the last 50 years may spiral into a nearly inevitable exposure to real chaos. What if it isn't haphazard testosterone driven riots, where they cannibalize their own neighborhood, much like in L.A. in the 80s, but someone with real insight behind that criminal energy ? What if Slashdotters start musing aloud about "Gee, the L.A. water supply is rather simplistic, isn't it?" An Open Source crime web, a Wiki for real WTO opposition ? Hacking L.A. may be a lot easier than hacking IE.
Web Developers: Celebrate to our roots! Animated Gifs and Tiled Backgrounds, dont let our history die!
If a create a worm, then I'm responsible for the damage it causes.
God created the devil, therefore he's responsible for the damage he causes.
Therefore God is evil. QED
Because the prefix "a" having a meaning equivalent to the logical NOT operator is beyond most people. ;)
according to the new accurate data acquired from the old soviet intelligence service files only about 1.4 millions died because of stalin's repressions and about a million died because of famine in winter 1932/1933. that is kind of all.
but even if you hadn't that new data, stalin's victims never ever can number as high as 50 millions, because, adding the 20 millions soviet sitizens who were killed by germans in ww2 this would be 70 millions, exactly the half of the whole soviet population back those days.
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
"It is an important and popular fact that things are not always what they seem. For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars and so on -- whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man -- for precisely the same reasons." - DNA
To paraphrase Dawkins, "Without religion, good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things, but only religion makes good people do evil things.".
I never said any such thing; that ought to be a big red flag for how you're thinking about this. Read again. Don't skim. Concentrate. I'll be pleased to respond to any reasoned point you have to make.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Everything since then is downhill.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Although interesting, the survey was slightly screwed up by lack of clarity of in the question. Some interpreted it as asking for something false which other people believe to be true, others as something true which other people believe to be false. (Thus both "there is a God" and "there is not a God" were posited as dangerous ideas by non-believers.)
A more interesting interpretation is an idea you _hope_ is false but are afraid might be true. I would suggest the following as a dangerous idea: the benefits of liberal democracy are wholly dependent on the immoral economic exploitation of the third world and the unsustainable exploitation of limited planetary resources.
I certainly hope it's false. I would like to believe that the prosperity of the West could be exported to the rest of the world and we could all live happily ever after. But I have this nagging, nasty fear that it's all a short-lived dream based on turning a blind-eye to ruthless economic imperialism and the laws of science.
This is in response to this and the other posts on atheism.
A lack of belief in God does not necessarily mean a lack of belief in anything. You must lack belief in God in order to believe there isnt one.
Dictionary.com definition of atheism.
'Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods'
My handy pocket dictionary backs it up.
The denial of God when there is no scientific theory nor test to disprove its existence is as much a belief as any religeous idea.
There is a get out clause in the 'disbelief' part of the definition. Disbelief can mean simple skeptisicm, however, if you look at the etymology of the word atheism it literally means Godless. Not really any room for it being just a reluctance to believe, more the outright refusal definition of disbelief. This is further backed up by the definition of agnostic that refers to an agnostic as not taking there disbelief to the same extent as a true atheist.
Of course definitions are changing all the time but I really dont think there is much doubt here. An Atheist has a belief, even if it flies in the face of the beliefs involved in religeon. (I have to say before seeing the posts around this thread all the atheists I know of are rather proud of that fact.)
you might want to watch this movie, it illustrates a similar idea.
Also, some time in the past I read a book by the Strugatski brothers, ah, I forgot the title; anyway, there was this state that placed special towers all over their territory, and the towers had an impact on the population's way of thinking. Therefore it was easier to control them. There were also a few people who were not affected by the towers, they had to get outta there, because the government kept searching and eliminating them, one by one.
Anyway, the point is that this idea has been explored multiple times.
The saddest poem
Science
My page.
I consider myself agnostic because (to me at least) atheism is the "no" checkbox on the part of the questionaire that asks if you believe in anything beyond the physical world. I'm not comfortable answering "yes" or "no," because there's no way for me to know either way, or even form a reasonable theory.
I don't believe in anything per se, but I don't disbelieve either. It's like asking if Schroedinger's cat is dead before you open the box. Sooner or later I'll die and either find out for myself or I won't exist to care.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
The fundies demanding special treatment for human beings in these posts have obviously never closely observed another reasonably advanced mammalian species. Our spaniel has a well developed sense of right and wrong and you can easily see the debate ranging in his little mind as he wonders whether he can or should do something he is not allowed to do but wants to. In a small compass he displays much of the typical human behaviour - you can see the roots of religion, society and inquisitiveness.
Unfortunately there is a sequence of ideas here with an evil end. "Mere animals" - "humans who aren't like me so are mere animals" - "it's OK to kill people who aren't like me because they are just animals." You find this thinking wherever you find fundamentalist Semitic religions (mainly Christianity and Islam- this is nothing to do with being Jewish), whereas many Eastern religions are less likely to suffer from this anthroposupremacist error.
Pining for the fjords
not as Anonymously Coward.
You are saying that a 3rd position is impossible. You therefore deny the existence of both Gnosticism and Agnosticism and thereby run the risk of drawing the wrath of some tens of millions of Gnostics - fortunately the Agnostics don't care, so they won't bother you :-)
Agnostics merely hold that the existence of a Super Being cannot be proven or disproven, therefore the whole argument is moot. This is a 3rd position, which I tend to summarize as HFC (Hoo F*ing Cares). ;-)
Oh well, what the hell...
I know that Dawkins sometimes plays the shock jock, but his own response to the question is indeed dangerous. It is a fantastically dangerous concept to believe that we are simply the sum of our parts. If a person does not function correctly (as measured by some powerful external social construct), then that person must be repaired. It strikes at the heart of the Holocaust, in which it was supposedly determined that a whole population was broken (and Dr. Dawkins is not so far off the mark, as he views religion of any sort as a mental virus) and the only practical solution was extermination. Dawkins' response fails to take into consideration any respect for individual human beings, hobbled or otherwise.
Just another bit of proof that scientists generally suck at philosophy.
What does equal rights have to do with whether we were created equal or not??
God does not exist.. oh for crying out loud.
No Free will.. yawn.
We are alone.. yawn.
Media violence induces real violence.. yawn.
WTF?!!!!!
Even the powerful & famous are timid.
I only found one dangerous existing technology, but the idea with which it is presented is not dangerous. which leads me to conclude that the tech is not as great as the following quote implies.
Never vote for an organic chemist.. no mater how much you trust her/him. :)
Here's my summary of the rest worth noting.
There aren't enough minds to house the population explosion of memes.
"The rapture of the Nerds" explained well, but it's still bunk. If forgetting a bit of common knowledge is harmful to interaction then it will be relearned. If that bit of common knowledge is used often enough it will not be forgotten again. Ergo there will always be just enough common knowledge so that frequently interacting nodes will be able to interact.
The purpose of life is to disperse energy.
His logic is just plain faulty. The author is confused by the classical convection cell examples (oceanic, solar, lab) all of which are forms of self organized complexity (SOC) which form explicitly to transmit energy and do so in the most efficient manner. But life (an eg of SOC) is the exact opposite wrt energy usage, it conserves as much energy as possible. SOC requires energy gradients. Requiring and using a gradient do not imply purpose, let alone "purpose is to eliminate the gradient".
Democratizing access to the means of invention. (BTW: The id attribute on the link destination is currently wrong, so use this link until they fix the other one).
Not dangerous.. actually quite good. What makes this dangerous?
Open Source Currency.
Still trying to get my head around it.. A concrete example would help. How much for that dough naught?
The free market.
The idea is true, but what a ride.. oohhh shiny toys.. cheap plentiful food, plenty of circuses. It's the best of the worst (so far). Yeah, it is leading to the destruction of the world and we'll all die; que sera sera.
Actual dangerous ideas worth reading.
Laws requiring parental licensure.What a dystopian idea.. to bad it isn't novel. But he adds some stats to spice it up.
Actual dangerous ideas not worth reading.
Biotechnology will be thoroughly domesticated in the next fifty years, and Science may be 'running out of control'.
Again.. not novel. Apocalypse by sci/tech.
You assume "taking the dough by force" will work. It won't. You will either end up in jail yourself, or the baker will not repeat the process, and there won't be bread on any store shelves.
:-)
Thanks for the course on bread making. Already had that down, though. I'm still waiting for a course of action for a government to take.
As I said before, the government should not bake the bread. The government should protect the freedom of farmer, baker, and banker. Do you think the government should provide Slashdot moderators too?
I cleaned up a lot of puke.
And my thumb smelt like a strippers ass.
This is not funny. It's just sad.
/John Sjolander, project manager Contribio
Well, if your handy pocket dictionary backs it up, then it's settled, I suppose.
Look, it's really not that hard. Religion makes a claim that there is a god. It offers zero evidence for this (rather extraordinary) claim, it offers no means of proving it, it even - by it's definition - makes it impossible to prove the claim is wrong. From what I've seen so far, there is absolutely zero reasons for me to accept the ideas propagated by religion, or even to waste my time thinking about it. It's just another fairytale, which happens to claim to be true. If I wanted, I could find much more apealing fairytales to waste my time on.
Now, does it mean I have a "belief" religion is wrong? Absolutely not! Most probably it is, otherwise it would be able to come up with at least *some* evidence, or it would at least finaly stop trying to come up with laughable "scientific" proofs of it's correctness (see talk.origins FAQ if you want to know more), but frankly - I don't care. It doesn't offer enough substance for me to even find it worth thinking about it.
If you and your "handy pocket dictionary" feel better by calling my stance a "belief" (i.e. an act of faith), so be it. It won't be any more true, of course.
If you have a BEC that consists of pure deuterium, use magnetic containment to prevent the BEC from expanding back out at all, raise the temperature as close to instantaneously as possible to the point where fusion can occur...
'kay. Got it. What next?
Indeed, the idea of soul as an emergent property of a human system is quite enough, even in a teleporter which just "copies the bits", and treating people as machines which process bits.
However, quantum physics provides additional support to the idea of teleportation, if it transports the quantum state, being fundamentally physically indistinguishable from simply moving the object in the ordinary way, no matter what is going on with the object. Philosophically, this allows for (but does not require) the idea of a soul which is attached to a specific human system, and which is properly transported by quantum teleportation.
Certain aspects of physical systems cannot be duplicated, due to fundamental principles of quantum physics. They can't be turned into ordinary binary information and back, either. They can't be copied, and they can't be analysed. It's simply physically impossible. Reality simply doesn't do that. That could mean there is no mechanism available, but it could equally mean that there is no difference between teleportation and ordinary motion, other than what other people watching see.
It is like the teleportation version of relativity: those outside the teleporter see an object that appears to move from one place to another. Those inside the teleporter see the outside world appear to move from one place to another. And neither is more valid than the other, in the same way that no reference frame is more valid than another in relativity.
A teleporter which transports quantum state cannot dissect, record, or recreate the quantum state of the physical object being teleported. It can only transform the state of the object to something which travels over space, and transform it back to material form at the other end.
From the perspective of the object being teleported, those transformations cannot violate the object's integrity at any time. So, for the object, the experience is no different, to being stretched, squashed, irradiated, accelerated, etc. Generally, mangled about a bit, but from the reference frame of the object being teleported, at no point is the object's structural integrity violated.
From the object's perspective, this is no different than ordinary physical motion in a field. This is fundamental, assuming the principle of quantum identity is upheld(*). It's not "as if", in the way that we might say that duplicating a computer to run elsewhere gives the computer the experience of being transported. It's more basic than that: as a result of quantum identity of physical systems, from the object's reference frame there is no difference between teleportation, and ordinary motion in a field. The field may of course be damaging - experienced from the object's reference frame as excessive acceleration, radiation, or other shocks. But not entirely damaging the object's physical integrity at any time, otherwise the quantum state is not transported.(*)
And so, quantum teleportation, provided the quantum state is transported sufficiently purely(*) will tell us nothing about whether the physical system transported has a soul or not. Because if a soul exists and moves when the object moves normally, well, there is really no difference when it's teleported like this.
(*) - All that said, we really don't know much about the quantum structure of large, complex systems like a human being. We don't know much about the myriad nuances of it's structure, nor it's relationship with the environment which would not be teleported. We don't know with what kind fidelity we can transport such a large quantum state. We know there will be some aspects of the state not transported, or modified in the process, and we don't know how those would manifest physically in the reference frame of the object being transported. For example, the equivalent of "data corruption" when transmitting a dematerialised quantum state might be experienced by the object itself as random, destructive radiation, or other weirder forces.
-- Jamie
The trouble is that the solution people offer to inequity is usually what caused the problem in the first place.
ok so let me guess... it's government, right! the old 'drown it in the bathtub' boogeyman. distribution of equity is _definitely_ the governments fault. bad government! bad! we surely shouldn't blame generation after generation of capital holders bleeding the GDP of the nation and gaining a greater and greater percentage of total wealth that has left the expanding population with less and less to go around, how should we?.
in the 70's wages was 70% of received GDP... now it's under %50. less money is being paid to more people while rich individuals and corporations further consolidate (and don't spend!) their wealth. governments, in general, spend in ways to reduce this inequality - e.g. social security. i can say that private capitalists are rapacious misers, and that eric raymond is a racist gun nut; and in the end me calling people names is just as childish as you crying tinfoil tears at the government.
hey, who needs causality! I can say 'dogs + chili = economics' but trying to pass it off as cause+effect is nonsense. at the very least, how about some evidential proof of a correlation?
the idea of the state (should be) to foster administration of the wider community for the good of all. the state should be as decentralized as possible; local community leaders should be invested with as much power as possible to determine their own affairs and the (incredibly difficult) job of prioritising the allocation of monies should be determined by a safeguarded, corruption-resistant regime - we call it the beauracracy. most public servants i have met are stout personalities with a sense of due diligence, fairness and social responsibilty. and yes the rest were slackers but the rate has been signicantly less than my experience in prviate organisations, where the majority (more name-calling) are greedy, self-centred ingrates.
If you truly want equality, then you would support decentralization of power, and the reduction and/or elimination of the state. Inequality comes from violence...
decentralization of power=decentralized state. you know, city councils, first responders, utility managers; those awful people who do nothing for us. how about your local social security office, rape crisis centre, orphanage, school. we surely don't need any of _those_ now do we. and we surely shouldn't have rigid protections and assurances of these services via.. wait for it... _government_, now should we?
further decentralization comes from _expansion_ of the state; tribal/cultural leaders, church deacons, scout troops, little leaguers, big sister/brother etc. funding these and similar programs in order to foster them in communities which lack them will give more and more power to _local_ people to make a positive change in their _local_ communities.
and yes it costs more in taxes - so what? is it better that bill gates pays less tax so he can buy him and ballmer a double-headed dildo made of interleaved gold? or is it better that the money raised be given to social workers to help disadvantaged kids and battered women escape their nightmare existences?
oh no! I'm in america! i'm super rich in comparision to everyone in the world! even my poor, poor neighbor earns more than an african villiage! i have unlimited opportunities thanks to my business leaders raping and pillaging the natural resources and labour of poor peoples around the globe! and oh my god i have the lowest income tax rates in the OECD! how _dare_ they take my money from me! they are a wasteful, wasteful, evil beauracracy! excuse me while i drive my three ton truck to the woods so i can shoot near-extinct animals with my lovingly oiled fantasy
My Bible doesn't profess any Adams and Eves since I don't have a Bible. I'm not religious in the least. If pushed I'd say I am a Classical Deist along the Clockmaker line. If there is a God, it created the Universe, then went off to read some books and hasn't looked back to see what is going on. God is the Clockmaker - the clockmaker does not do anything other than make the clock, wind it up, and let it run.
Then if your child, that you helped create, is under 18 and murders someone...you should get life in prison (or the death penalty). (Not that that's necessarily a bad idea. I'd imagine that parents would take a LOT more interest in actually raising their children if laws like that were in effect.) ;)
1 is the square root of all evil.
Happiness and unhappiness are the result of the
Law of Karma, which is as much a law as Conservation of Mass or
Universal Gravitation
If Karma is as much a law as conservation of mass/energy or gravitation then it's in the range of science. That means it's falsifiable. I suggest karma believers should go about trying to prove or disprove this so called law.
Religion is rules of how to deal with other human beings. Its
purpose is to promote study, peace and the creation of more and more
happy human beings.
You must be new to this religion thing. The empirical evidence would suggest that religion (in general) doesn't make people any happier. One need only look at all the religious wars to realize that.
Just because your relgion is about promoting peace and happiness doesn't mean all religions are. If you really believe that I'd suggest a bit more study of world religions.
AccountKiller
I am only willing to give credit to an idea if it can demonstrate a base in objective fact. Hope and optimism don't count.
Your definition cannot, by its very nature, be used to define the impossibility of mine. They're not operating in the same sphere.
Therefore, when I say that objectively speaking, or in other words, in reality, humans are not created equal, I am being quite clear about what I am saying. You can object, or not, on that basis. Because that's all I am saying.
Philosophy, while not by any means void of goodness, is also the breeding ground for reams and reams of errant nonsense which the naive (and thoughtless, I would argue) then try to apply to objective reality. The post I replied to was trying to make that leap. I simply pointed out that it would not work, because the idea can't make the transition from philosophy to reality. At least, not yet. Aside from our being very much beginners at engineering human DNA, we have all that early 20th century eugenics guilt to get over, both Germany's and the USA's versions. I don't expect that to be managed quickly.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Agnostics say that the existance or non-existence of super beings cannot be proven. Intervention of super beings in our life cannot be proven either. There is no factual evidence of any super being activity on earth.
Therefore, praying about a problem is exactly the same as ignoring the problem and talking about Gods (Theism) is just learned idling, as Nietche put it.
See this: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/guide13.html
Oh well, what the hell...
It has everything to do with it. If you demonstrate the characteristics of common sense, ingenious solutions to tough problems, compassion and charity, and are generally of great service to the tribe, wheras I demonstrate an innate tendancy to eat young children, abuse the weak, and generally fail to observe the ground rules of the tribe (property, propriety, whatever they might be) then your rights should be superior to mine in any sensible arrangement of social underpinnings.
It shouldn't be about equal rights. It should be about equal opportunity.
There is also a problem with me telling you what your rights are. For instance, it is very doubtful that I should ever have the right to tell you that you cannot sell yourself into slavery. No one has ever made even a slightly compelling argument for that position outside of highly dubious philosophical bunkum. Extremely strong and quite objective counter-arguments exist. But that's a different discussion.
There's a good argument for you telling me where my rights end, and here the Libertarians have it nailed down: My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins, barring extennuating circumstances residing entirely outside of the act itself.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Absolutely fantastic idea, considering I was sterilised at age 20! ^_^
my problem is that i don't believe it'll happen, not that i am thinking of it happening in a certain way. in some communities, the internet might be used to facilitate local planning decisions etc., but the bigger the government-handled-issue you talk about, the less faith i have that the internet will be involved in taking away from the government and putting decisions in the hands of the public.
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
A democracy where the people get to vote on every decision.
Carbon based humanoid in training.
Gotta like this one, if only for the term it uses : http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_6.html#rushkoff
:-)
I wish I'd seen it when I had this discussion.
Tonnes of other products NEED oil, such as fertilizers and plastics etc....
What are you gona do? use everyones toilets to mature the land to make the fuel?
Besides there are theories that there is infinite oil around, due to it being constantly fed up from the mantal.
Hydrocarbons are common in all asteroids too. Besides, I dont buy oil from plants ending up 10km below the surface
where those rocks have never seen the sun since 4bya when there was NO LIFE. If anything, all the shit inthe world
made from animals would produce more oil if 1% of all shit is part oil. Trillions of tonnes of droppings from
birds/dinos/insects could make more that sink down, but then again water sinks faster than oil.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Sad to say, but a random selection of the thinkers and scientists quoted here didn't do much for me. Many of the ideas seemed rather dull and occasionally pompous as well. These are not new ideas; they are simply ideas that are already in the air. I can come across them on TV, in an upmarket newspaper or good journal or in a hundred books in my local bookstore.
The trouble is that this is a very, very narrow selection of people. It would be more enlightening, perhaps, to choose a much broader selection of people (not only scientists and academic thinkers) from all over the world. It's rather silly to think that scientists can solve all our problems or even ask all the right questions. Even sillier is the notion that we - our culture - have all the answers and need ask no questions outside it. Whether that is also dangerous I cannot say.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
Bush/Cheney '08, yee-haw!
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
None of your statements has anything to do with creation at all. That we're all created equal is pretty much correct, as any given clump of cells resulting from a fusion of male and female genetic material is roughly identical to any other such clump so far as practical abilities go. Just because factors from a bit before birth onward shape us into beings which are eventually unequal does not negate the common thread of our origin.
The philosophical bit of "All men are created equal" is the implication that this common origin should tie us together, not that we continue to be equal during the entire period following creation. The former is a nice thought, and a wish shared by a lot of philosophers. The latter is a rather obviously stupid idea which I'm pretty sure no one could think about for more than a minute without rejecting.
That said, the 'inherent rights' stuff is bullshit, though it would almost work if you replaced 'should not' with 'cannot'. Actually, wait, no, the idea is still bullshit.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
I'll be impressed when I meet a cat that appreciates quantum physics...
By almost any available metric equality simply does not exist. Any reasonably apt person has looked at the standard distribution of intelligence and the mathematically certainty has hit them; 'average is pretty stupid, and half the population has to be less'. Countless other examples exist, including the golden calves of race and gender. These thoughts have been used and abused throughout all history. People react in differing ways, some want to crush those 'beneath them', others want to ignore it and embrace everyone as 'one'.
A thought that weighed heavily on Shakespeare's mind, among many others, were the things that are universal, the things that do bind us as equals. Life and death.
Choice! Aye there is the rub. We do not choose the manner of our birth nor (for the most part) our death. I think it was Adam Johnson who first linked this concept with that of equality. The analogy of birth was taking all the characteristics of humanity; our personality, our physicality, our experiences, our potential and our opportunities and putting them in a opaque bag which, once shuffled, would be redistributed at birth. With this is mind, now design a society, a government, an economy and a culture around this limitation. With this in mind, design how you would wish to live and what kind of world you would want passed on to your descendants.
This is the only way I have been able to retain my sanity and hold the apparently mutually exclusive concepts of 'there is no equality' and 'striving for equality is noble' as both true.
And I applaud this article, because I have long believed that the most dangerous of all things is thought.
Keep that nonsense to yourself and ye shall be thanked.
I consider myself agnostic because (to me at least) atheism is the "no" checkbox on the part of the questionaire that asks if you believe in anything beyond the physical world. I'm not comfortable answering "yes" or "no," because there's no way for me to know either way, or even form a reasonable theory.
Atheist, strictly speaking, means non-theist... in exactly the same way that atypical means non-typical. So if you're not a theist, then you are by definition an atheist. Atheism doesn't imply an active belief that there is no god/gods, but rather a lack of belief in a god/gods.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Actually, they did. Brought back valuable fragments of preserved greek culture from the Arabs, pushed the study of mathematics and engineering to new levels (had to keep up with those clever Caliphate siege engineers), and kept restless and heavily-armed feudal chiefs from creating the wars that kept them in business within the borders of the kingdom of Christianity. The crusades were one of the best things that ever happened to Europe. I'd hardly call them 'bad', except maybe on the individual level of the people that died, and if you use that scale, then pretty much everything you can think of is 'bad'. The advent of modern farming allowed overpopulation, which led to poor people! Farming is bad! Let's complain about farming!
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
>That's utter drivel. My cat knows the difference between being cold and wet and miserable and scared and being cuddled up before the fire in a pair of loving arms.
On the other hand, I can appreciate the beauty of a snowbank in -40 degrees celsius weather. The cat could not possibly care any less, and would far rather be inside.
>My cat will signal her appreciation in a completely unequivocal manner by purring and loving up. Her level of appreciation is different, but it is not lacking.
True, but, I think it is quite significant that the cat is happy in a purely physical way. I can be happy when I am warm, well fed, and not thirsty. But I can also be happy even if I'm colder than I'd like, hungrier than I'd like, and thirstier than I'd like.
>Humans are simply animals. We're smarter, certainly, but there is zero evidence that we are different in any other way that makes any difference at all.
Which is why we're here discussing this on the internet, and not sniffing each other's butts and picking lice out of our hair. Because we're not any different from the rest of the animals, who also have worldwide computer networks and use them to talk to animals on the other side of the world whom they have never perceived in any way besides the imagination and cognitave communication (i.e. no physical senses, you have to use your brain to communicate since reading and writing are required).
Do animals have imagination?
Do animals have an appreciation for anything which doesn't physically affect them (make them feel good)?
I think there's ample evidence of humans being far superior to animals. You're just not looking at it.
Early bird may get the worm.. but the second mouse gets the cheese.
However atheists often conveniently neglect that they have been brought up within a society that has been shaped by religion over thousands of years. So although atheists themselves have no religious beliefs, their morals are still affected by the religious beliefs and traditions of others via social processes.
Oh well, "pretty much correct".
Right, there are only very few differences in the DNA/Clump of cells right after insemination. But that is only the quantitative aspect. A tiny teeny difference in only one gene can decide everything, over death and life. And that isn't just an exception. It's happening millions/billions of times every second in every human, in every organism. Every germ that enters our body, every chmical that enters our body, every radiation we are exposed to and all the other factors, one tiny differeny in just one gene can make us die from it, or live. And that life/death is just the most severe consequence it can have on an individual. It has the most profound influence on every aspect of our development.
The start may be very very similar for all. But it's not. Not even there. And this very fact is, what made us what we are, is the premise for all biological evolution. It may only be a small difference in quantity. But it's a crucial difference. A difference in quality. It's like barely being missed by a truck or being distributed over 100m of asphalt.
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
You should read the paper that the article you linked to references. Rieger et al had to do some incredible gymnastics to get from their data to their predetermined conclusion that male bisexuality doesn't exist. He was kind enough to send his original data to a friend who is also a professional psychologist, and any more straightforward analysis brings you to the conclusion that sexuality is a continuum and men lie all across it.
And that's only one of the flaws. Would research on female bisexuality assume that a women who didn't get turned on by watching gay male porn wasn't attracted to men? That's just the assumption Rieger's paper makes.
I don't think there can be any serious doubt that I'm attracted to both men and women, and I know lots of other counterexamples. In fact I've slept with them!
Xenu loves you!
Aye, religion is thinking in advance about what's moral and what isn't, so you're prepared when the time comes. Knowing god is making the wrong descision based on an arbitrary gut feeling, and being a self-righteous prick to cover up the fact that your philosophy and actions are not internally consistent.
(/grew up in baptist land, i know this one)
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Almost. Religion on its own, in private, is pretty harmless. It's combining religion and politics - religions trying to take power, groups trying to enforce their religions, and so on - that's really dangerous.
I am trolling
Bhuddism is considered a religion now? When did that happen? Did they revoke the 'worship something'/'mythology about the origin of the universe' requirement while I wasn't looking?
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein
"If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
In fact, we constantly do things for inexplicable reasons. We watch our own lives and imagine that we are making ourselves act, but in truth we're deluding ourselves. Our "will" is just a fantasy, no less of a reaction to what's going on around us than our emotions are.
Things we do repeatedly we imagine we do based on our inclinations and from these inclinations we construct personality, but in reality they are just things that happen to us more often than others.
Things we do that we don't like or can't explain we blame on "the unconscious," "insanity," "God's will" or some other mysticism where a nebulous force acts on us from beyond (or within). In truth, some of us have purposes that are quite unpleasant to experience in the context of society.
You, sir, are my hero.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Actually, if you give one man all of the power, you have complete and exact political equality with one outlier, which can be rejected as statistically irrelevant. Do I win? Do I get a cookie?
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
The Bible says (pooh pooh on it all u like, but it does make some good points) .. and how is it in the national interest to piss off God ..he can take down nations can't he? .. It's one of the proverbs (16:8 I think).. look it up.:
"Better a little gain by righteousness than a lot by injustice"
And to answer out of Shakespeare:
"Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall"
and to further rob Quiz show of some of its Shakespeare quotations:
"To do a great right do a little wrong"
It is not always in our power to make goodness and righteousness prevail by their own devices. We may fight for them, and if we do, then we should fight hard, but that may mean dipping into more unsavory ideas. It is then also our duty not to destroy what we are trying to protect.
This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
In summary, the very idea that "we are all created equal" is a mindless, pointless statement that speaks only to turning a blind eye to reality.
The method you used to disprove the statement can also be used in support of it. The statement does not mention in what way men(mankkind, humankind, whatever. I'm using the Declaration of Independence wording) are equal. All it says is that they are equal at their creation. This part of the statement actually eliminates at least one of your arguments(we aren't born with the same amount of consideration that we have when we mature).
One way that all people are equal at the moment of their birth is their experience. Newborn children have done neither good nor ill to anyone. This is actually the only way that I see people as being naturally equal upon their creation. Rights and opportunities are more dependent upon the actions of others.
Affording "equal opportunity to our fellows at each set of choices in life" is a somewhat narrowminded(or, perhaps, narrow-worded) idea. You brought up Dahmer and King: had not Dahmer in his infamous crimes unearned opportunities that King should have kept upon the realizing of his fame? Had Dahmer not forfeited rights that any decent person should have?
This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
Just out of curiosity, what sect of Buddhist are you?
"What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?"
--From Hamlet (II, ii, 115-117ish)
Most of the people who are, or will argue with you will likely cite art, and the appreciation of abstract beauty in their proofs. For me, I'd include those, and also that it is what I want to believe.
Why are you attached to the idea of setting us so low?
This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
Other definitions clearly state that atheism is a doctrine or belief that there is no god.
So you can take your pick which definition to use.
The ones that I and others choose to use is that atheism is the belief that god does not exist (i.e., that there is no god).
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
It's not Islam or Christianity or any religion that is full of love, it's the people. And people are also full of greed and stupidity.
All religion is doing is giving people a tool to make stupidity and love useful for greed.
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
George Gallup said "I could prove God statistically". I think that sums up the reasons for belief in superbeings rather nicely.
The fact is that, when unlikely events continue to happen against their probability -- not just once, not twice, but over a person's entire lifetime -- that influences people to believe that some power is working against the natural flow of events.
When those things lead to much better outcomes than one might suppose the alternatives would have been (I might not have met my wife, I might not have ever ______), one begins to believe that the Power is a beneficent one, holding a plan for their lives and wishing the best for them.
What people here tend not to realize is that, when you tell someone that they believe in a work of fiction, you're telling them to ignore a lifetime's accumulated "evidence" to the contrary. I quote "evidence" here not to trivialize it, but to mean that it's not evidence in the experimental sense, but in the anecdotal sense, which is still extremely powerful - even if it doesn't live up to "The Scientific Method".
And perhaps that's where the rub is. There's no control group for an individual's life. What muddies the water even more is that some atheists thrive while some Christians suffer. And, even more, it's difficult to tell what was "best" for each person. For some people, "best" is a little house in suburbia with their wife and kids. For others, extreme wealth, others, a life of slavery or prison. Saint Paul "endured hardships on [his] journeys: he was imprisoned in Philippi, was lashed and stoned several times and almost murdered once", but he believed it all to be in God's plan for his life.
The point is that people have their own perceptions of God in their lives, and simply claiming that it's unprovable doesn't make it any less real to them. For them, it's not only NOT 'unprovable', is's already proven through a lifetime of experiences.
If you're not afraid to challenge your "unprovable" assertion, then do an experiement. Ask God to do something completely unpredictable and that wouldn't harm anyone else, and then wait and honestly observe. You just might be surprised.
>>Do animals have an appreciation for anything which doesn't physically affect them (make them feel good)?
Hey jackass, they do. Humans are animals and so some animals have all abilities humans do..
I believe the word you were looking for was 'non-human animals'.
"Everyone's always in favour of saving Hitler's brain. But when you put it in the body of a great white shark, ooohh! Suddenly you've gone too far!" -- Professor Farnsworth
Spine World
No offense, but --
Hey Mods! "Insightful?" Come on, that's "Troll" if I ever saw it.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
"Every year The Edge asks over 100 top scientists and thinkers a question, and the responses are fascinating and widely quoted. This year, psychologist Steven Pinker suggested they ask "What is your most dangerous idea?" The 117 respondents include Richard Dawkins, Freeman Dyson, Daniel Dennett, Jared Diamond -- and that's just the D's! As you might expect, the submissions are brilliant and very controversial."
My "most dangerous idea": Perhaps this competition is baseless because it includes mostly US-American and English-speaking white persons, not really the edge of the scientific community. Many of these are braggarts. American eloquence beats human intelligence.
I'm surprised that no one here discussed Geoffrey Miller's entry, which IMO is the most brilliant in the article. Perhaps no one read this far down the list.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Unfortunately, there is a staggering number of people who think they know their chosen deity but in fact are religious.
My opinion? See above.
Christianity
Opponents can tell me to RTFA, since I only got as far as page 6, but a lot of what I saw were comments about science overcoming our current social norms. Well, most of those norms (in this country, anyway) are based loosely on Christian beliefs, so (regardless of the writers' actual beliefs) the opinions are generally anti-Christian as well (see the one about marriage for a particularly inflammatory example). I'll admit, there are few, if any, examples of authors coming right out and saying Christianity is bad or wrong, but the undercurrent does seem to be there.
What's funny to me is that this article seems to support my theory that 'smart' people (I leave it up to /.ers to figure out what I mean by that) tend to subscribe less to religion in general and Christianity in particular than Average Joe.
So, picture this. The Book of Revelations is coming true. The Apocalypse is occurring. And all of us are standing around with that 'oh s**t' look on our faces while a small minority of the population (whose average IQ is about 80, perhaps?) start floating away to a bright light on the horizon.
Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. - John 14:6 NLT
Did I miss something or were there no dark skinned people interviewed? A couple of Indians, a 'dread', no Africans, African Americans etc ...
I'm not for quotas or anything but this seems strange.
Skip the: racist jokes, assumptions (I'm a multicolored freak==white hippy)
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
"well known"? To who?
Sorry but you simply don't understand the meaning of the word. Theist believes in God. Atheist believes there is no God. Agnostic does not KNOW if there is a God. Notice the agnostic definition is about knowledge NOT belief.
To Muslims, Christians were considered "infidels" ie those without faith. If you do not believe in Allah, then some may consider you to be an atheist by your definition. Is this the definition you want? Or perhaps you should consider that the opposite of an idea is not its set complement. The opposite of White is Black, not non-white ... you don't say that light grey is the opposite of White do you?
Bitter and proud of it.
The expression "All men are created equal" comes from the 1st article of the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen", now the basis for the Universal Human Rights Declaration:
"Tous les hommes naissent et demeurent libres et egaux en droits."
"All men are born and remain free and equal in rights."
The sentence is to be understood in the context of the French Revolution, as a rejection of the concept of hereditary aristocracy.
Thomas-
The trouble is that the solution people offer to inequity is usually what caused the problem in the first place.
No, there is inequity because that is because people are different.
Government equals power. Remove any official government and all you end up with is the powerful people as government.
Government is a social technology that works. If it didn't, we would not have had it for 6000+ years. If it didn't work you would not notice it evolving, changing to better suit peoples need. More evolution still needs to happen but regressing to a single cell organism while a nice notion isn't going to solve any problems.
Government has gotten bigger over the last 6000 years, not smaller. One perspective of a democratic ideal would be for EVERYONE to be government, which i suppose from one perspective would count as completely decentralized.
I mod everyone down who says "I'll get modded down for this." I hate to disappoint.
There was a great racist theory going around for a long time, that sounded remarkably like what you've described above. We didn't understand the language of the African persons, or Indian persons, and as such there was no evidence they were having deep reflective thoughts. And without deep reflective thoughts, they aren't human. (Of course, many African tribes thought the same about the white people. Many still do, basically correctly).
Because we didn't understand their language, we wrote them off completely as being outside the sphere of "us" and undeserving of protection.
Now we're in a similar position with many animals. We know chimpanzees exhibit behaviors consistent with emotions like love, respect, disappointment, devotion, etc. We've seen elephants exhibit behaviors that look like religious ceremonies, and who hold grave sites in high reverence. Heck, I've seen an eel that was so emotionally distraught over it's partner being thrown out of the water to her death during an earthquake that a week later he threw himself to his death too. We've all known household pets that show jealousy and passive-agressive tendencies in no uncertain terms.
How does the argument, then, that these animals have no emotions, and therefore no "soul" still hold water? Because we don't understand their language. We know they have one. Dolphins and Whales are the most obvious examples of mammals with the capability for complex language, but chimps, cats, dogs, birds... basically every animal that we've really spent time studying has shown such capacity, many of which clearly exhibit that capacity in the wild. And if you include gestural languages, the amount of communication going on in the animal kingdom goes up tremendously.
We also know they have higher cognition. They can extrapolate from past experience, they can make predictions about the future based upon incomplete knowledge, they can solve basically all of the puzzles we put in front of them. There is the famous example of the bird that reasoned out the concept of zero on it's own. A bird, mind you, not a chimp or a dolphin. If you've ever seen a raccoon try to reason its way through all of the pitfalls between it and the garbage you're trying to keep from it, you'll see intelligence in action. And again, mathematics, logic, and other abstract functions are not at all beyond most animals.
So yes, the moral of the story is that we don't speak Swahili, we don't know exactly what the black people are saying, but we know they're saying something and what they're doing seems consistent with what we would do so it is reasonable to inferr that we're not fundamentally different.
The ______ Agenda
Very true.
There are people who have both lived exceptionally sacrificial lives and who have touched the lives of thousands because of their deep faith in God and His goodness. Mother Teresa is an example. She wasn't a "self-righteous prick" either.
Being religious, on the other hand, is about following a set of rules to be seen to be righteous before others while actually being full of crap on the inside. God is real and can be known.
Take the research that's been done to create a virus that causes sterility. Make it airborne or easily transmissible. The vast majority of the world's population would likely be rendered sterile.
Since the virus stimulates the woman's immune system to attack their own eggs, most in vivo fertilization techniques would fail. All faithful Catholics would be unable to reproduce. All countries without access to expensive technology would be unable to reproduce. The world's population would dramatically age and then plummet.
Freaks me out just posting it here.
Everyone being created equal is a philosophical ideal, not a practical or factual one. Demanding factual proof for that statement is sorta've like demanding factual proof for the existence of god...
It's a guiding ideal based on the essential quality of being Human, not intellectual or physical ability. To deny that everyone is created equal is to say that some people are intrinsically more "human" than others, better, more deserving of life, etc. That is an equally baseless philosophical ideal that encourages abhorrent laws like, say, "Black people are intrinsically lesser than White people, therefore they should all be slaves."
You have to be willing to accept philosophy as a valid subject of debate before you can start arguing about it. If you insist on ignoring the entire basis for one particular statement, you may as well just ignore the argument entirely, since all you're going to accomplish is, well, trolling the thread.
Measured in bang per character, that has to be the best troll ever, whether you meant it that way or not.
For a response to a post that said "people are not animals because I said so" by a poster who was probably thinking "people are not animals because the bible said so", I thought it was fairly well reasoned.
Perhaps it's because I own several cats who exhibit similar behavior.
I seem to remember a document 13 years prior that read, in part, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.."
I can appreciate the beauty of a snowbank in -40 degrees celsius weather.
Why the distinction?
Humans are simply animals. We're smarter, certainly, but there is zero evidence that we are different in any other way that makes any difference at all.
The very fact that you can ponder this question sets you apart from animals.
The flaw in the reasoning is the "free will" part. If free will exists, then I'm not necessarily at fault for the decisions of my children, because they can choose for themselves whether to do right or wrong. If it doesn't, then I'm not at fault for anything, because I'm just a puppet.
That's clever reasoning, but the dictionary disagrees with you:
atheist: one who believes that there is no deity
agnostic: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/agnostic
And, looking closer, it appears that Jefferson borrowed the phrase from George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights, written shortly before the DoI.
I'm not sure if I would describe cat religion as Secular Felinism or the simple belief that if one is a cat, one is a god. Does it count as polytheism if multiple cats believe that they are each the one and only True God?
Dogs, of course, clearly do have religion.
I'll be impressed when I meet a cat that appreciates quantum physics...
/. hordes, of course)
I'll be impressed when I meet a person that appreciates quantum physics (outside of the rarified atmosphere occupied by the
Basically correctly? Surely you don't agree with them that white people aren't human?
If atheism is a [belief], then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
/repost
//still works
///still true ;P
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Everyone knows the fundamental difference between us and the animals is that the animals are so delicious.
- Animals lack a "theory of mind"
- Animals lack the ability to create new words
- Animals lack syntax in their communications
The paper goes into great detail about these, but we can obviously see that even the youngest children have these three things, and they manifest themselves through their communications. The "great racist theory" you're mentioning may have existed at one point (although even in the 1600's, at the birth of linguistics, people were documenting Native American languages and African languages and learning how they worked, so I'm not sure if the theory you're talking about ever was taken seriously), but it sure does not exist now. FYI, Here's a shorter article by a woman who lived with one of the "talking apes" for four years: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~lpetitto/ape.html. Here's an academic paper about what she observed: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~lpetitto/Science1979.pdI think the point of the statement "we are all created equal" really means that when a human being is born, anywhere in the world, it is equal to every other baby that is being born at that instant, all babies born in the past, and all yet to be born in the future. What it then implicitly means is that it is society which imposes equal or inequal rights for all different kinds of people. If you are lucky enough to live in a society (as I do) with a fair and accomodating social security system, and legislation in place to prevent all sorts of discrimination, then you must remember that not everbody does. Rousseau said "Man is free yet everywhere he is in chains", and that can mean many things from the legislative restraints placed on us by our society, or the atrocities such as the apartheid in south africa or slavery in the US in the 18th century. The point of the statement "we are all created equal" is to point out that although all the people in the world begin their lives as equals, we very quickly become subject to the influences and rules of the societies that we are born into. If you are lucky enough to live in the West then often the greatest inconvenience is having to drive at the speed limit or having to pay extra tax when you buy cigarettes. It isn't the same the world over, but it is something that we must hope will rectify it's self with time.
If you're interested in the subject, there are many good books to read, but the best are Animal Farm by George Orwell, and Sacred Hunger by Barry Unsworth. Both tackle the issues of the equalities and inequalties of the natural human state and those imposed on us by established societies.
Insane people are always sure they are fine. It is only the sane people who are willing to admit that they are crazy.
The etymology is not the definition.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
Note, this is not a judgement on any of the answers given, just a general disappointment in the areas of which they cover.
Look at the whole picture, not just the hole in the picture.
Perhaps that's why the 9th season of Stargate SG-1 is so interesting to me
So it's *not* because you like crappy shows?
No sig
Divide by zero
Look at the whole picture, not just the hole in the picture.
Nothing more dangerous than to tell your wife that you are leaving your day job to devote your time to playing World of Warcraft and then actually do it.
Nuclear terrorism, global warming, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. are nothing compared to the wrath of a pissed off woman.
Does a dog have Buddha nature?
Professional Stranger
For example, he couldn't stand to be alone--and so he learned that the sound of the doorbell, combined with the sound of the phone could get you back into the room (at least until you realized you had been duped). He also seemed to have a pretty good understanding of what certain words meant (he knew when it was morning, knew how to tell you he was sleepy, etc.).
And he most definitely had discernible emotional states that would elicit different sounds depending on his mood. These sounds seemed to evolve over time, too, with increasing subtlety for a wider variety of moods. I'm not sure if that would count as "developing a language," but it sure was an evolving form of communication.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
This isn't so much about you have the right to do. This is about what is done with the authority power created by taxpayer money. I agree that in the course of normal events maybe I can sell myself into slavery (though I personally disagree but I'm accepting it to get to the point). When it comes time to decide that slavery truly does suck, however, the law of the government does not empower them to aid the slaveowner.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Someone call the RIAA. Jefferson clearly stole Mason's lyrics without having obtained the proper copyrights.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
A 2008 Presidential Win by some combination of Hillary and Nader...
How about these variations. Strong Agnosticism The view that the existence (or not) of a supernatural God (or gods) is not something that can be classified as knowledge. By this definition, a person can simultaneously be a strong agnostic and a theist (or atheist) if he believes that no kind of evidence justifies belief in the existence or nonexistence of God, but chooses believe that God exists (or not) anyhow as a matter of faith or principle. Weak Agnosticism The weak agnostic does not take a position on whether the existence of God is a possible subject of knowledge, but merely asserts that he is not aware of any evidence that justifies belief one way or the other. A weak agnostic could also be a theist or atheist, but will typically hold the position only tentatively on the basis that a proof one way or the other may show up eventually. Non-Agnostic ("Gnostic" not used because it is associated with an early quasi-Christian sect.) Someone who is not agnostic takes the position that there exists an acceptable proof either for or against the existence of God or gods. We might further categorise this as "weak" (the belief that such proof is possible in principle) or "strong" (the assertion that a specific argument constitutes valid proof). Strong Atheism A strict denial of all god-like entities. A bold assertion that no such thing exists. Weak Atheism Scepticism with regard to the proposition that there exists a God or god-like entities in general. Weak atheists feel that the non-existence of godlike beings is more likely to be true than the alternative, but aren't certain about it. Weak Theism Scepticism with regard to the proposition that no godlike beings exist. Symmetric opposite of weak atheism. Weak theists suspect that there is some kind of supernatural God, but lack assurance as to detail. Strong Theism A bold assertion that a specific God or gods exist. Also covers "deism", which is the position that God exists, but is disinterested and/or impersonal. If there is a genuinely neutral position between the weak forms of theism and atheism, I'm neither familiar with its name, nor sure how such a person would behave (although "erratically" springs to mind).
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
If you teach *everyone* up to the highest levels of science, pretty soon, everyone will be capable of designing ways to kill off everyone.
The ultimate cold war.
The difference between dogs and cats. Put a bowl of food in front of each.
The dog will think, "Hey! They're feeding me! They must be Gods!
The cat will think, "Hey! They're feeding me! I must be a God!
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
"It's a guiding ideal based on the essential quality of being Human"
Which is?
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
Why should cats appreciate Quantum? All it ever does for them is stick them in a box and kill them. No tuna to be found anywhere in Cohen-Tannouji, so why should cats appreciate it?
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
I think my IQ's gotta be no more than 12 for even attempting to reply to this, but I can't resist anyway.
First, yeah, I'm American and looking at the world through red-white-and-blue glasses. Oh well, don't plan on fixing that problem any time soon.
Second, I'll admit that Christianity in America has been affected terribly by American Christians. But what I failed to express was my sentiment that there's Christians (even in America) who are going to be saved, and that they don't have to be rocket scientists. Yeah, some have an IQ of 80, some 8, and some 180.
But what I see day in and day out are a whole lot of people in the scientific community who dismiss the Bible as mainstream rubbish, and instead develop this 'fight the establishment' mentality, when in fact I think they're now the establishment and those of us who consider the Bible the one Truth are the outcasts. The various opinions in the article seemed, IMO, to support that notion.
And no, I'm not accusing all smart people of being anti-Christian. The head pastor at our church is one of the most educated and intelligent people I've ever met. By 'smart', I was referring to the culture whose opinions were solicited for the article. I should have made that clearer.
In case you haven't guessed by now, I'm one of those outcasts. Unfortunately for me (and, believe it or not, partly because I'm a willing participant in American culture), I don't know if I'll be one of those riding off into the sunset come Judgment Day. Nonetheless, I think it's a dangerous idea; not only is it as unpopular as ever (even many Christian sects sadly don't take the Bible 100% literally), but I think it carries a stigma that, if you're smart, you don't believe in that rubbish. So 'smart' people don't believe. Ergo, the average IQ is lowered.
Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. - John 14:6 NLT
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
Zealots hate agnosticism even more. They can't stand being ignored, or kindly smiled upon...
Strictly speaking, zealots hate anyone who disagrees with them about equally.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
1. Time is infinate because is repeats (Loops) itself. That's why prophets/psychics/etc can see the future as it already happened and their subconscious remembered it from the last time through.
2. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, they evolved from rodents. If you think about it many people fit into rodentia categories: That mousey girl at school, that weasel across the street, that rat that sold you out, and that badger who thinks you are his best friend.
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
As a former religion major, I've got to jump in here. I have yet to see a good definition of an agnostic on Slashdot, so I'll clarify.
Agnostics believe that it is logically impossible to understand God (or the Divine, or Reality, or whatever you want to call it). The argument goes like this:
GIVEN:
1. God is inifite.
Stop right there. As soon you assert that anything has infinite being, that is the last thing you can say about it. Anything else you say about it becomes a limiting factor on the infinite. ("God is male", "God has will", "God wants"...all have counters based on our first assertion.) This is actually the first thing they teach you in Philosophy of Religion, which is why I ultimately decided the entire field was mental masturabtion. (Really. They assert God is infinite, and then refuse to discuss it. The pointlessness of it is staggering.)
Agnosticism meant "I believe perhaps there may be a higher power, but I do not have any idea WTF it really is." Where Aetheism I believed meant "God? Gods? WTF are those? I don't need no steenking gods!"
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
There was a time before Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Therefore there is no reason to make assumptions about what life "would" be like without these institutions--we have decades of data about what it actually *was* like.
Here's the summary--there was greater relief in between the socio-economic classes. The successful and well-off were very successful and well-off because there was little economic or regulatory drag on their success. But the destitute and poor were really destitute and really poor, with no safety net to protect them or help them better their lot in life.
Providing such safety nets benefits everyone, including the captains of industry. An educated and healthy population is a productive population. And in fact the data bear this out--since enactment of many of the social programs, the U.S. has grown from a successful and influential nation to the most economically and militarily powerful nation on earth.
And it's funny you mention Switzerland after that rant, because they have a tightly regulated health care system with mandated universal coverage, a well-funded public education system, a well-funded social insurance program, and mandatory gun training. If we're going to emulate the Swiss, we ought to at least acknowledge, if not understand, their system as a whole.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I'm glad you can because when I see a snowbank in -40 degree weather all I can think is, "Where's that ticket to Aruba?"
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Agnosticism originally meant the view that it's impossible to know if a god or gods exist or not.
"Strong" Atheism is having the belief that there are no gods.
"Weak" Atheism is just not having a belief that any gods exist. (Which, yes, corresponds to the way the term "agnosticism" is more commonly used today.)
-- dR.fuZZo
In summary, the very idea that "we are all created equal" is a mindless, pointless statement that speaks only to turning a blind eye to reality.
No, you are wrong. The idea that "we are all created equal" is correct: it refers to the fact that, within each society, all members have the same rights and obligations. It is totally irrelevant that one person is more capable or more fortunate than another. Equality refers to possibilities, not to capabilities.
Seemed like a bunch of bitching about religion, not really "my most dangerous idea", but more like "hot topics that everyone is talking about these days that I want to intellectually wank off about in public, ooo lookit me I'm a perfessor!"
Science is a religion.
"Nobody's ever going to make any money on the internet"
--VP of the company I worked for, circa 1995
I think that you are correct--the outcomes will never be equal, because nothing that goes into making a human life can be perfectly duplicated; niether the nature nor the nurture. Even identical twins are "unequal" in this respect. But the phrase "All men are created equal" is pointing out equality under the law, not economic, physical, or mental equality.
The nub of the issue is that if we operate under the political fiction that everyone is equal, there's a greater chance for equality of opportunity and less chance for political repression. The real problem with rejecting "we are all created equal" isn't that it's not true (because as you have pointed out, economically, socially, physically, and mentally--it isn't) the problem lies in the area of deciding what will be done about it.
As soon as you decide that the little girl with Down's syndrome is "less equal" than the little boy genius, you're on a slippery slope. Should we "waste" precious resources on someone less equal? Does it mean that we provide less educational help for the girl, because it won't benefit her as much? If they both need a kidney transplant and there's only one available, who gets it?
But much more importantly, who decides? If you give the power to decide who is "more equal" to someone, you are giving them the power of life and death over others--a power that has been far too often abused.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Everything should run by electricity now, produced at zero cost by harnessing the Sun's power. Just place some big solar panels in high mountains above clouds, and have free electricity for all.
With the unwritten addendum: 'that's WHITE men, of course. Not black or red.'
The French, at least, meant all men. As far as I know, the law in revolutionary France didn't distinguish on the grounds of race, only on whether or not you'd managed to get on the wrong side of Citizen Robespierre.
That said, neither great revolutionary manifesto addressed the obvious further objection 'so, what about women, then?'
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
In any event, peace be with you.
So I'm living for a lesser purpose, because I am not seeking your god? Then I'll see you in Hell.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Google search:
virus filetype:wmf
"I'm Feeling Lucky".
If google recognized the type at all, that'd be pretty dangerous...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I especially liked Geoffery Miller's dangerous idea: the reason we haven't made contact with ET is that advanced alien civlizations become too self-absorbed in the virtual universe to pay any attention to the physical universe. I think it's especially applicable to those of us who spend way too much time browsing and posting to slashdot (go out an procreate instead!).
I suppose our only hope is that some of the leaders of our virtual world (Bezos, Carmack, Allen) are also the pioneers of space exploration. Maybe we're not as doomed as Miller proposes.
Even Atheism has no proof...
I see this a lot from theists and fuzzy-headed agnostics. However, atheism has proof.
The proof: There is no good reason to belive in a god or gods.
Not happy about this proof? Then give me an example of a "proven fact". But remember: if I can come up with some claim - any claim - that contradicts your "fact", then by the usual agnostic standards you have no real proof. Pointing out that there's no good reason to believe my claim won't do. Even if you find some additional "proof" to contradict my claim, I can keep it up forever by introducing some far fetched explanation for why your new proof doesn't apply, ad nauseam. Old favorites like "I think therefore I am" are easily countered by positing that while it *seems* logical enough, we could be making an unspecified mistake of some sort. Or maybe the incorporeal and invisible Martians hiding in the center of the moon makes us *think* it makes sense with their magical mind-control ray. Or maybe an incomprehensible God with incomprehensible powers is manipulating us for some incomprehensible reason. Who *knows*, right?
This is all very silly of course. In order for words like "proof", "fact" and "know" to have any real meaning to anyone but lofty philosophers you need the assumption that claims need only be considered if there is a good reason to. People can and do disagree endlessly over what constitutes a "good reason", but they should agree that such a reason (or reasons) must be present.
(I won't even get into disproving the non-existence of specific, defined, gods.)
The difference responsibble for all others is simply (primarily) the pronounced frontal lobe of the brain. It is where our consciousness lyes, our ability to understand consequences ( a high level process of the brain ), and where our ability to reason is derived from. All differences stem from the frontal lobe (generally in size); the only or one of the only other animals possessing similar proportioned frontal lobes (and hence functionality) are the great apes and lesser apes.
Here is my "dangerous idea": that most of the forms of group-behaviour we have on the planet, are more or less cults. The idea is that we have the basic social pattern for a "group" programmed in our brains, and it is the lowest level of organization possible. It is the mental equivalent of the ROM BIOS, in that it once served a purpose in simpler life forms (lizards, and other reptiles) but it has no purpose in modern life. We have much more brain capacity today, so there is no need to follow the old standards--any more than there is a need to use int10 video services to draw pixels to the screen. There are more advanced methods of doing things now. This reptilian behaviour is exemplified best by most cults, although many other forms of social organization fall-back into this level of behaviour when they don't have any other choice. The boss who declares a disaster and "pulls out all the stops" when the deadline approaches, and starts yelling and barking orders and expecting instant reflexive responses back is doing just that. The bad parent who freaks out at you for not listening to them, everything outside the class in high school, the army, all use this low form of social control. It's fast, simple, requires no programming and is almost always guaranteed to work in the face of any danger, since there is no way to overcome it except via common sense. Religion knew about this form of thought (they called it "the lower soul") and called it "Satan", and it was aptly symbolized by a snake. The irony is that they are the ones most often accused of seeing the world in that "reptilian" black-and-white way. If you sit in a group of people where they have all more or less agreed to turn off their higher rational faculties of mind, (any cult or Amway meeting or car full of teenagers will provide a suitable group to observe) you will see just how this mode of social organization operates. Here are a few of the rules which I will share with you from my own personal experience: * everyone constantly chuckles and jabs at each other, to communicate the shared group-state to each other via pitch and timing (since grunts are passe now) * everyone constantly reinforces the group (like a network with its heartbeat messages), * there is a strict hierachy of control--defined by physical size or stamina and not by any other real-life means (which is why the cool kid can take control over even a more wiser and saner adult), * don't even think of leaving the group, since as we all know you will die of starvation or be eaten by the wolves sitting outside the light of the fire * anyone who acts in any sort of individualistic way is a threat to the entire groups survival, and must be dealt with as a threat or a risk * don't even think of joining another group, you will be followed, hunted down and killed--since that sort of behaviour leads to bad blood. * you are encourages, allowed, and even expected to be as aggressive as possible towards other memebers of the group, since as we all know the only reason you would not try to dominate the other members of the group--is if you can't. None of these behaviours are unknown to anyone reading this message, but the interesting thing is that they are not from our culture but are hard-wired within the brain--and all come from the same region of the brain--the brainstem, the lowest portion of the brain, aka the reptilian brain. The social manifestation of these things is in aggressive behaviour, violent actions and self-preservation instincts. In a persons personal life, you can tell from their face if they have used this form of social behaviour too much in the past (they look "evil") or if they are using it right now ("their eyes glass over.") I think it is the most dangerous and evil thing in the world today, as bad as if the servers on the internet suddenly started using BIOS services to do DISK and video IO -- for no other reason than that they felt insecure all of a sudden as a result of a hacker attack. The wizard's advice is so obvious: nobody in their right mind needs to even know about the BIOS services--unless you are a kernel progammer. Hasan
Hasan
Uh, that's it. Being Human.
Used in a Sentence, "I'm more human than you are"
or "I'm a better human being than you."
etc. etc.
I was listening to George Carlin a month or so back, and he said something that I found somewhat amusing and insightful (which is what I like about Mr. Carlin's brand of humor). You reminded me of it. It was along the lines of questioning the idea of asking God for things when the religion teaches that God will do what he wills. Basically, if God's gonna do whatever he wants either way, and you accept that, what does it matter if you're constantly asking for things? Seems like you're just bugging him all the time for no good reason. He's believed to be all-knowing and all-powerful, so it's not like he needs your input in order to decide what to do. "Oh, thanks for the idea, Bob. I hadn't thought of that, nor did I know you wanted that to happen!" So quit hassling him. I don't think that constantly asking for favors is the way to get into anyone's good graces. :)
I guess it's a race then to see which Star Trek technology will destroy the world first then? It might not be photon torpedoes as some might have suspected.
The other day I was musing what it would be like if intoxication could be simulated through an electricly generated field, which would presumably be set up in bars, and people would consume a liquid that would be tagged to respond as alcohol does, but only when in the right proximity to the "drunk " generator. Imagine being completely drunk in the bar, but when you leave for your car, nothing is the matter with you.
Something could go arwy though, where a larger field could end up intoxicating people when they don't expect to be, sort of like the evil plot in Batman Begins.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
It's worse than that! He proceeded to place them in the public domain, thus preventing step 4: profit!
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
How does one select an event that's entirely unpredictable?
Well, according to some of the canibals, humans are delicious also.
"The founders had the perfectly common motivation to control their fellows"
So when Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life" and told us to rid ourselves of our worldly possessions, he just wanted control???
I am scientifically inaccurate.
Without a definition of "human" that does not involve circular reasoning, your prior statement is completely devoid of meaning.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
Yes, but the solar system as a whole is indeed a closed system. Here, I can re-enact your argument:
"Dude, it's raining! What are you doing?"
"I'm standing under this tree to remain dry."
"But what are you going to do when the tree soaks through, and water starts falling on you again?"
"Oh, I'll just run under another tree."
With apologies to Asimov.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
That's utter drivel. My cat knows the difference between being cold and wet and miserable and scared and being cuddled up before the fire in a pair of loving arms. My cat will signal her appreciation in a completely unequivocal manner by purring and loving up. Her level of appreciation is different, but it is not lacking.
No matter how conciouss or enlightened your cat is, I doubt he/she has the ability to save all forms of sentient life.
Of course by some change of fate, your cat lives to see the singularity and its brain is fused with a super computer as an experient and he becomes sentient and figures out how to reverse the 2nd law of thermodynamics brining all forms of life in the universe peace and eternal life, but I'm getting side trakced.
Your cat nor any aninal (including man) without technology can prevent the sun from dying... Or a meteror from hitting nor maybe the second ice age from happening.
Your cat is simply ignorant of this fact and even if he is aware about the possiblity of Heat Death of the Universe, it isn't making strides to overcome this issue.
Then again... Neither is man at the present moment except save a handful of enlightened psysicists and a few ramblers on slashdot.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
"Religion makes a claim that there is a god."
Religion claims that there gods. Some individual religions are based around monotheism, but religion is an inclusive word which includes polytheistic ones as well.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
Don't be so sure about everything you read. Question authority. Question yourself.
You may not like or agree with the parent post, but it is not "flamebait". It is at least as valid a viewpoint as the GP.
Yet, the problem is, you aren't being objective. Unless you are omniscient, you can't objectively assign values to various states of being, and I doubt that you are, or that anyone else I have encountered is. In other words, what you are stating has no basis in objective fact. Since you can't know the value of someone's life (including your own), including the consequences of their existance (ALL of the consequences), you can't say in any objective way how "good" or "bad" their existance is.
In the grand scheme of things (with or without some concept of God/Creation/etc), perhaps none of these states actually matter. Perhaps they matter a great deal and have weights assigned to them as being "good" or "bad". However, useful as it may be, assigning weights and values to these things in the case of humanity is still subjective interpretation based on our small sphere of experience. Is it useful within a society, more than likely, but that doesn't make it objective. It doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean that somewhere out there some alien species would assign the same values to these things, and even then it's their subjective interpretation based on their own sphere of experience. It doesn't mean that on a universal scale these things have any kind of value, and it doesn't mean that if there is some kind of universal value we are assigning the correct one to an attribute.
Note, the above has nothing to do with optimism and hope, it has to do with facing the idea that we, as humans, aren't objective. Rather simple, really. Perhaps no one is created equal to anyone else. Perhaps we are all created equal. We can't know, because we are bound by the confines of our subjectivity, or at least, that's my admittedly subjective interpretation of it.
Just a little something to think about.
Like 99.9% of slashdot's denizens, you've equated religion with a small subset of religion (although hopefully you are not also equating religion with fundamentist Xianity, or making the even worse mistake of redefining the nature of religion to suit American cultural biases).
Talk to a non-murtipujak Jain, or a Zen Bhuddist, or a Unitarian Universalist. Belief in deity is not required in any of those religions. Although belief in coffee is generally a UU requirement.
...here the Libertarians have it nailed down: My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins, barring extennuating circumstances residing entirely outside of the act itself.
The Libertarians have it wrong. Swinging your fists around within inches of my nose is an act of agression. I have no way of telling whether you are just posturing or whether you intend to hurt me until after you have hurt me. Therefore, as soon as you start swinging fists close to my face my rights are violated because I have to drop everything I am doing and pay full attention in order to make certain that I don't get hurt in case I move unexpectedly or you decide to go from posturing to fighting.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Yep. Combining two separate sounds into a third one is definitely creating new words.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
Some cars are unfixable and some people can't be rehabilitated. So, to remove the danger they present to society, we remove them from society.
No, you're getting slightly confused. While entirely historically a-religious groups [eg animals] will exhibit some morals/social behaviour (although the animal example is not as close as you would claim), the morals of any particular human, atheist or not, are affected by the society he/she has been brought up in, which is always affected by religion since no human society has been religion-free for its entire existence.
Secondly, animal moral behaviours do not "closely resemble" our own except for an extraordinarily broad interpretation of "closely resemble". Animals do not have organ-transplants to have morals about whether the family of the donor should have to assent, they do not have courts to have moral beliefs about whether they should present false evidence in them, they do not have abortions to debate how close to term the foetus has to be before it has the same rights as its mother, etc etc. Those who wish to claim animals are morally "very close" are left discussing a few small similarities around rights to territory, mating partners, food, and the fact that animals tend to form a social pecking order. And the rest is wild extrapolation.
So when Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life" and told us to rid ourselves of our worldly possessions, he just wanted control???
Did Jesus write the bible? Or did someone do so 100-200 years after the fact.
I tend to view Christianity like the Cathars (the people the pope declared as heretics in the middle aages and exterminated), "Jesus is cool and all but the bible and the church is fallable because it has been touched by the hand of man."
It is just as easy for a man to twist the bible and the name Jesus in order to do bad things as it is for one to create good. For your example, I could see a type of leadership using this quote in order to strip the food and land of peasants in order for the greater good of the state leaving them to starve. One must be ever aware of this fact and be able to search for the truth by other means than litteral interpetation.
Otherwise one fails in what Jesus was really trying to teach.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
To add to what the other poster said, I see religion as a way of justifying already existing or emerging morals. There are many different religions however the general moral codes stay rather similar.
What shapes society is also irrelevant, it's already been shaped. Just because thousands of years of belief in spirits/demons, ruthless dictators, and wars shaped society doesn't mean we need all of them for society to exist (we're just very likely to keep getting them). I'm sure Christians would be quite happy if I told them we need pagan beliefs because otherwise society will collapse.
I said religion isn't specifically required, not that our current human population doesn't require it. Not everyone is an atheist, and the genetics or situations (extremely poor... hmm that is another good justification for religion: keeps suicide rates down) of many people may require religion for them to function. A society of real atheists would be interesting and probably functional assuming the correct people are chosen (genetics is a bitch), however it wouldn't be modern society nor can it be.
In the end I don't see much to worry about really; religion will not cease existing until the people who require it cease to exist and naturally they never will. You can't force atheism; at best you can get rid of showy "religious" displays (see China or USSR).
Mu.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I suppose you think that all new words are just created out of nothingness?
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
There are no definitions (for anything) that would both be devoid of circular reasoning and not rely on other, nondefined things. Therefore, by your logic, all statements are completely devoid of meaning, including your own.
After all, defining a term means describing it in other terms. Either you leave these terms undefined, or you keep on defining them and the terms you defined them in and so worth ad infinitum, or you come up with a chain of definitions that loops back to itself - circular reasoning, in other words.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I'm sorry, but you are displaying a complete lack of knowledge of any research in Theory of Mind from the last century.
The simplest rebuttal to your statements follows.
Behavioral patterns are not the equivalent of laws or morals.
Classical or Operant conditioning is not the same as decision making.
Enjoyment of comfort implies no knowledge of self.
Abandoning the cat for a moment, it's easy to see that we are different from other animals by comparing us to other primates. It is still unclear whether our closest relatives (the chimpanzee)have the ability to act deceitfully based on another's mental state. Some question how solid their knowledge of self is, and how well they grasp basic mechanics. Move outside of chimpanzees and these type of abilities are almost nonexistant. We have fully formed written and spoken languages. We understand both our perspective and that of others. We can question our existance. While we are only a small evolutionary step from the chimps, the difference between us is significant, and we are certainly different from other animals.
If quantum mechanics is true -then 1) there is a possibility of a local big bang etc. 2) there are parallel universes where everything happens; you roll a (trully random) dice - then you (6 of "you") end up in 6 different parallel universes where each of you observes 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 respectively. Now take a revolver. Load 5 chambers, leave one empty. Spin the drum. Aim at your forhead and pull the trigger. In five parallel universes you are dead. In one - you survive and observe that result. Now repeat the experiment. You'll find out that you are still alive, after thousands attempts (you, of course cant find out that you are dead in all the other paralel universes). And the conclusion is? Events that kill all observers "appear" to never happen; chance intervenes. PS. This would have been the case even if all 6 chambers were loaded - then the gun would appear to constantly jam. You might even draw the conclusion that there is an universal law "guns dont fire". Laws of physics that lead to the extermination of all obsevers never manifest themselves..or happen to remain "never investigated".
You are attempting to place a binary choice where there is none. It's along the lines of "either you're with us, or aginst us." No, we don't have to have a belief in god/s or a belief in no god/s. I have no belief in either of those positions. I do not know if they are correct, I do not believe either of your choices are correct, and I don't care if they are correct. There may be a god/s and there may not. Does that make me a theisic atheist, or an atheistic theist?
Seems like practically every other author in the article is a Psychologist. This cheapens the article by giving many more neuroscience ideas airplay than others. There also seem to be an over-representation of discussion of relativism in all its forms. Perhaps Psychologists have more time than most to answer survey questions like this?
-- IV
http://www.LinuxMedNews.com Revolutionizing Medical Education and Practice.
It is you who seem to be confused. For example:
"animal moral behaviours do not "closely resemble" our own except for an extraordinarily broad interpretation of "closely resemble". Animals do not have organ-transplants to have morals about whether the family of the donor should have to assent, they do not have courts to have moral beliefs about whether they should present false evidence in them, they do not have abortions to debate how close to term the foetus has to be before it has the same rights as its mother, etc etc."
The above are all examples of ethics, not morals. A moral is "it is wrong to kill another person"; whether an unborn foetus counts as a person (and indeed at what stage of development such "person-ness" appears) is an ethical matter. Morals cover broad issues, ethics are an attempt to reconcile morals with situations where the moral in and of itself cannot be unambiguously applied. We thus have a number of situations where certain types of behaviour cannot be shown to be immoral, but are considered to be unethical.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
Creation is not a myth. Let alone the fact that we do not fully understand the physics of the universe, when we're born out of our mom, we are more than just a wad of carbon and water molecules.
'If you and your "handy pocket dictionary" feel better by calling my stance a "belief" (i.e. an act of faith), so be it. It won't be any more true, of course.'
Im not calling your stance anything. This is an argument about semantics not your faith. The word atheism means that you _believe_ there is no God the whole pocket dictionary thing was trying to stress the fact that this is the very definition of the word across the board.
Atheism by _definition_ means Godless as in you have no God. There is no evidence to prove that you have no God therefore it is a belief. This is a fact. Indisputable perfectly logical fact.
If you simply believe God is impossible to prove you are not Atheist you are by _definition_ an Agnostic. You dont believe in God but neither do you believe for certain there is non. This is the _definition_ of agnostic.
Im stressing the word definition because this has nothing to do with me making myself 'feel better' this is simply the way the English language currently is. This does _not_ imply you believe in anything it implies that you arnt using the correct word.
This whole thing was never about ridiculing atheists it is simply proving that buck wild's original post is perfectly acurate. Agnostics remain the only people, by definition, that do not have a faith.
*Sigh*
Human
Quit attacking semantics, and start attacking the arguement.
"...the eternal God has slain and annihilated these lands and peoples, because they neither adhered to Ghengis Khan, nor to the Khagan, both of whom have been sent to make known God's command." --Guyuk Khan, 1246, letter to Pope Innocent IV
Perhaps clever, but I did say "strictly speaking"... check out the Wikipedia article under the strong and weak atheism section. It is the weak atheism definition to which I refer. For those who don't RTFLinks:
"Weak atheism, sometimes called soft atheism, negative atheism or neutral atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. Strong atheism, also known as hard atheism or positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist."
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Suppose feynman's "many universes" explanation of quantum phenomena is true, and that we could, at some point blow ourselves up completely and totaly. But, if there are parallel universes where everything happens; then you roll a (trully random) dice - then you (6 of "you") end up in 6 different parallel universes where each of you observes 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 respectively. Now take a revolver. Load 5 chambers, leave one empty. Spin the drum. Aim at your forhead and pull the trigger. In five parallel universes you are dead. In one - you survive and observe that result. Now repeat the experiment. You'll find out that you are still alive, after thousands attempts (you, of course cant find out that you are dead in all the other paralel universes). And the conclusion is? Events that kill all observers "appear" to never happen; chance intervenes. PS. This would have been the case even if all 6 chambers were loaded - then the gun would appear to constantly jam. You might even draw the conclusion that there is an universal law "guns dont fire". Laws of physics that lead to the extermination of all obsevers never manifest themselves..or happen to remain "never investigated". Or you can derive the same result by induction. Do we know of a time where we (an inteligent life form) were "extinct"? No. Have we observed another inteligent life form going extinct? No. (We havent observed other observers (alien civilizations) at all). Therefore, by induction, we will never die out... uhm, as long as we are alone in the universe :)
Most any lawyer will take your case, if any of those people you mentioned truly deprived you of being able to work, sell, or save.
On second reflection, your comments all sound like whiny excuses for justifing ones own inexcusable behaviors. "Wah, that meanie baker expects me to freely pay him THIS month, not next year." or "Wah, that meanie baker controls 90% of the bread he makes, I guess I'll have to steal it as there's no rice or other foods I could cook."
Oh, wait, you guys control all the armed forces of the western hemisphere. D'OH!
If you need me, I'll be down the street wailing and gnashing my teeth.
"There are no definitions (for anything) that would both be devoid of circular reasoning and not rely on other, nondefined things."
Proof? This is a bold assertion that requires rather more to back it up than you merely stating that it is so.
"After all, defining a term means describing it in other terms."
Which you did not do. You defined "human" as "human", thereby describing it entirely in terms of itself. Thus, the initial definition is completely based on circular reasoning, not part of a chain that ultimately resolves to unprovable axioms or undefinable references.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
"Atheism is a non-prophet organization"
"Never underestimate the power of the Slashdot!"
I think you've identified a few symptoms of the basic problem.
Our current dilemma is that we have created a modern slave economy and, like any slave economy, once the slaves can no longer perform the economy goes right into the crapper. So much of civilization depends upon oil that it's frightening to contemplate. It's become a toss-up as to what will destroy us first: running out of oil or not running out of oil.
So, like any slave economy, we design our civilization around our slaves. It only makes sense to use alternative fuels because without some fuel we can't use our slaves and because any alternative to the use of slaves is unthinkable. If the slaves need food and the food is running out then go find new food.
So I think the real question is, "How do we move away from a slave economy without destroying civilization?" And maybe that question will be solved technologically by some miracle fuel. Or by some pandemic.
Maybe the invention of agriculture was our biggest mistake after all.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
.....What does equal rights have to do with whether we were created equal or not??.....
/. readers.
Our constitutional government was put in place by people who believed that humans "are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights". Human rights do not come from governments or one another, but ultimately from our Creator. We humans have no more control over the innateness and absoluteness over right and wrong than we have over the laws of physics. Whether we like it or not, the One who came up with the natural laws under which the whole cosmos operates and by which evolution itself works, also formulated moral absolutes of right and wrong. Unlike physical laws, which we MUST obey, the Creator has seen fit for now, to allow humans to choose, which, if any of His moral laws we will abide by. Every person has the right and the ability to choose to do what is right or wrong. Unfortunately, even if we know what is right in a certain cirumstance, we often do not go that way.
Both the natural and the moral laws have the same Source. Whether we want to attribute both to impersonal forces or to a personal God is left up to us. Both physical and moral choices have consequences and nobody is ever going to get around that fact. "Whatosever a man soewth, he shall also reap" has been and always will be true.
Right now, the good and the bad are intertwined and mixed together and nobody has been able to separate them in all of human history. Every technology or discovery man has ever made was used both for good and evil. A look at the Internet and its means for distributing knowledge and computer worms is an examle very familiar to
My most dangerous thought is that one day soon, the Creator is going to implement His promise to return to this planet and FORCE everyone to abide by His moral code in the same manner everyone must now obey His laws of physics. If you tell a lie, the consequences thereof will be just as quick and devastating as jumping off a 20 story building or touching a 100KV power line is today.
All theory is gray
1. Wikkipedia is not an authority. It is a bunch of stuff that some people felt like putting in there, and therefore carries no more weight than a slashdot post.
2. This is slashdot. Petty squabbles about semantics, spelling, punctuation, definitions, etc., are part and parcel of it, and always have been.
3. This part of the thread revolves around whether being human is a qualitative or quantitative attribute (i.e. whether we are evolved animals, or something more). Such an argument is meaningless unless a concrete definition of what is meant _in this context_ by "human" can be arrived at.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
JAMES O'DONNELL
Classicist; Cultural Historian; Provost, Georgetown University; Author, Avatars of the Word
From the earliest Babylonian and Chinese moments of "civilization", we have agreed that human affairs depend on an organizing power in the hands of a few people (usually with religious charisma to undergird their authority) who reside in a functionally central location. "Political science" assumes in its etymology the "polis" or city-state of Greece as the model for community and government.
But it is remarkable how little of human excellence and achievement has ever taken place in capital cities and around those elites, whose cultural history is one of self-mockery and implicit acceptance of the marginalization of the powerful. Borderlands and frontiers (and even suburbs) are where the action is.
Said conclusion financed by tax dollars collected and distributed by a strong nation-state.
Trying to convince others to not collect stamps, to the point of posting absurd analogies to Slashdot and inventing spaghetti monsters and pink unicorns as a pathetic attempt to ridicule stamp collectors, and complaining how collecting stamps is unscientific and irrational, while not collecting them is scientific despite there being no evidence either way, is either a hobby or an unhealthy obsession. Take your pick.
And atheism is a belief, a belief that there is no god, no matter how often atheists try to hijack agnostics to augment their own ranks.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
It's an interesting story, but I don't think it constitutes language. How many other sounds did he make that you ignored while you were in the other room? If he by chance combined the doorbell and phone sounds, and you appeared, he associated that sound with you showing up. Since it had a favorable effect, he tried it again, and the feedback loop was strengthened. Most linguists would not consider that a form of language.
ROBERT R. PROVINE
Psychologist and Neuroscientist, University of Maryland; Author, Laughter
The empirically testable idea that the here and now is all there is and that life begins at birth and ends at death is so dangerous that it has cost the lives of millions and threatens the future of civilization.
I won't address the question of whether or not the idea that "the here and now is all there is" is testable, because I frankly don't know whether it's testable or not, and agree with your conclusion that it's a true statement.
However, the second question you tried to lump together as a single one, that "life begins at birth and ends at death" is either meaningless or wrong, depending on how you define "birth" and "death". If you define "birth" as "when life begins", then your statement is meaningless. If, however, you define "birth" as "when the baby exits the birth canal entirely", then your statement is demonstrably wrong; there is no quantitative difference between a fetus halfway down the birth canal and one that has exited it other than relative position. Please don't attempt to argue that the intake of breath is a quantitative difference present only after birth, because I have two weeks of my life spent in a hospital to demonstrate that sometimes this occurs while still inside the mother.
Similarly, if death is defined as "when life ends", then again, you've tacked on meaningless words. But if it's defined as almost anything else commonly used by the medical profession, there are examples of people resuming function after these conditions have passed.
The reason the fight between your point of view on this question and the point of view of the other side is so acrimonious isn't because they cling to a demonstrably-false proposition; it's because you claim your side is demonstrably true when it's just as much a religious belief as theirs.
Precisely. Justifications happen after the fact. I can guarantee you that the common European farmer at the time didn't go sign up for the crusades, because he thought God wanted him to. There might have been maybe 3% of the population that thought that. The others heard that there was going to be plunder, women to rape, and bragging rights. Just like most people sign up for the military today for the benefits and so they can tell everyone they're a badass. After all, no one wanted to look like a sissy when his bud was bragging about those 10 moslems he killed single handedly. Probably a few where persuaded by their women at home to defend their country. I'm sure the rulers of the day asserted that the moslems were just waiting for their chance.
Are you channeling Aquinas or something?
> I am only willing to give credit to an idea if it can demonstrate a base in
> objective fact.
A philosophy which precludes itself, since you can't "demonstrate a base [for it] in objective fact". Maybe you should spend a bit more reading books, and discovering how observation and theory are inexorably intertwined in the human mind, instead of spouting 200 year old nonsense. Then we can start arguing as to whether your philosophy of a putative objective reality is a reasonable one.
Is that philosophy even falsifiable? Discuss.
I'll bet Schrodingers cat appreciates it 50% of the time.
"I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability."-Oscar Wilde
I only read the responses from the first page of eggheads, and only one of them sounded like he didn't a) just eat a dictionary or b) just eat a clown (and still had that funny taste in his mouth.)
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
I think that one of the most detrimental notions of all time has been the supposition that we exist for some purpose, to fulfill some design, and that if we could only find it and align ourselves with it we would find happiness.
Too many young men and women kill themselves in despair when their search for this "purpose" has failed. Swindlers and megalomaniacs have exploited masses of people for the dubious "comfort of knowing".
It would be more noble to say to our children, "I don't know exactly how we got here, but here we are; free to think, to make and to do whatever we dare."
Of course this philosophy might work against the type of person who would be more inclined to say, "Hold my beer and watch this!"
Scientists should get on with their experiments and leave metaphysics alone.
There is no good reason for scientists to be taking their work as an excuse to tell us whether or not we have free will or souls, how to govern societies, where the universe Came From (in a strictly metaphysical sense), or how to raise our children. When they do so they make science into a religion, and this religion has an unfortunate history of becoming the state religion ("Let's kill the Jews because they believe humans are metaphysically better than mere animals!" was Hitlers main reason for wanting them dead).
1. the word human has been defined countless times. If you have trouble with that, open a dictionary.
2. That's called trolling.
3. Hmm, I'm not even going to address point 3, as point 2, and a review of the thread, tells me I've just been taken for a ride. Congratulations, I don't usually get taken in, I guess it's how damned sincere you sounded, like you really -meant- what you were saying.
My cat kills for sport, and frequently.
She has brought trophies home of rats, lizards, birds (even hummingbirds, once a crow), frogs, and insects (usually butterflies), and once, a fish from the neighbor's koi pond (she also killed several of our goldfish before we gave up on fish) covering all major families of fauna (excluding only marsupials and monotremes). One day she brought home a rat, and laid it down neatly next to her bird, a double-kill.
I'm impressed with her prowess as a hunter. And she knows it. But she also knows I like to pet her, and she often won't allow it. She's not hunting to please me. She's hunting to amuse herself.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
That would sap my motivation to show up for class!
Trying to convince others to not collect stamps, to the point of posting absurd analogies to Slashdot and inventing spaghetti monsters and pink unicorns as a pathetic attempt to ridicule stamp collectors, and complaining how collecting stamps is unscientific and irrational, while not collecting them is scientific despite there being no evidence either way, is either a hobby or an unhealthy obsession. Take your pick.
The win!!!
Take a step back from any discussion between a strident atheist and believers (of anything), and the atheist sounds an awful lot like an raging evangelical fundamentalist. It's not enough for them to believe as they do, for the sake of their own self-worth they must convince others to think as they do, and pour hate and derision on those who refuse to take up their banner.
Hense, atheism is a religion; one which often has no tollerance for heresy.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
nope, you simply have your requirements wrong. worship and mythology about the origin of the universe are not qualifying characteristics of a religion.
(in fact, "religion" is a notoriously difficult thing to define, in academic circles.)
a lot of people think of religion and base their model on the canonical examples of christianity, islam, and judaism, but of course this is a teensy weensy slice of the human religious landscape (although, today, they represent the majority of individuals). i'm not clear on what other religions you might be thinking of having worship and origin-of-universe.
funny, many people equate religion with belief in a god or gods, but of course this too is not a universal characteristic of religion. (maybe you equate "worship" with "worship of a god", but again of course that isn't universally true.)
.....One need only look at all the religious wars....
There never has been and never will be a "religious" war. Religion has been used as a means of persuading people by other people to go to war for what were always economic reasons or quests for control over others to get an advantage. Wars are caused by somone or a group who desires to take a shortcut to a need or want. A thief will steal your goods as a shortcut to getting what he wants. He could get what you have by working for it, but it is easier and above all quicker to just take it from you. If you are successful because you have worked harder, or just been lucky, there will ALWAYS be someone who will envy you and try to take what you have worked for. Only pure force, either by you or someone on your behalf will deter the thief from taking such a shortcut.
In the absence of belief in a just Creator who will judge good and bad behavior, the only thing left is what Mao said: "Power comes form the barrel of a gun." So then I just have to make sure that if I want to keep what I have, to have the biggest gun or hire someone who has such a gun. For us here that hireling is the US military, which right now happens to have the biggest gun. In our society, lawyers have become an effective subtitute for guns because ultimately they have the power of the biggest guns behind them.
All theory is gray
No, the Libertarians have it right. Swinging my fist, although it may be construed as an act of agression, by your definition, doesn't acutally harm you, therefore it does not violate your rights. It may inconvenience you, as you may feel the need to "pay full attention" to your agressor, but that is no more a violation of your rights than the actions of the asshole who cut me off this morning.
Thinking like yours is what has earned us our current nanny-state which seeks to regulate our behavior from cradle-to-grave in order not to offend or inconvenence our neighbors.
The flaw with the free will argument is that if God created everything, then that includes concepts, e.g. good and evil. If he hadn't created evil, then you'd still have free will, but wouldn't be able to be evil. Therefore he purposely created evil, which means he's either insane or nasty, neither properties in anyone worthy of worship.
Personally, I all think it's bumpf, knowing as I do that the life I experience is merely one of the infinitesimal facets making up both the universe and my true being (both being one and the same).
TFA has the title:
What We Believe But Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty
One of the oft-repeated important points about scientific methodology is that science very rarely, if ever, actually proves anything. Rather, science mostly gives us results in the form of a double negative: We've tried, and found that we can't disprove a hypothesis. After sufficiently many such tries, such an "undisprovable" hypothesis graduates to the class of theory, which really just means that it's tentatively accepted as the best exlanation so far, until something better comes along.
I'd expect that any purported Leading Thinkers on Science would happily agree that they can't really prove anything that they believe. Proof is for mathematicians, not scientists.
But some of their comments are well worth reading and thinking about.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
.......Morals are a result of social and biological evolution, not religion......
There is no way to prove this. It is an assertion of faith. It is also an assertion of faith that God put certain physical and moral laws into His creation, which includes mankind and animals. Man is incurably religious and evolution mechanisms, such as natural selection and survival of the fittest do not include religion. Religion in humans do not make them any more fit or less fit to survive and propagate than the absence of religion in a snail make any difference one way or the other to the snail's survival. Religion does not promote nor hinder survival of man or any other organism. Whatever the reasons for man's religious nature, survival and evolution do not enter the picture in any way.
All theory is gray
Sure. Sometimes the gov't is the slaveowner, too. That's called enlisting in the army. They can use you any way they like, up to and including offering up your death to obtain any goal they feel is worthwhile. You can't quit, right now you can't quit even when your time is up (see "stop loss" policies.) You will do whatever they tell you based on the contract type you made.
If you make a contract to voluntarily go into slavery, you should have made sure that the exchange you got was sufficient -- for instance, money to support several children for life, or cancer treatment for your spouse. If you regret your choice later, see your contract. If it's a lifetime contract, STFU. If not, maybe you're smarter than the average bear.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"Cats have rules/law. Drag a laser pointer across the floor. "
By rules and laws the poster is talking about self imposed rules for the benefit of culture.
Laws usually overiding basic intincts.
When the cat community passes a law saying they will no longer chase little red dots, and adhear to the law, call me.
"Cats have technology"
Call me when a cat builds something new and not found in nature. Or at least builds something new based upon what a previous cat has built.
And knowking things off is not a technology. Building a machine that does it is an indicator of an understanding technology.
"Cats have morals. Mothers rarely eat their young. Cats rarely eat their owners, unless the owner dies. Even then, some cats cannot overcome that predjudice, though they will eat other animals."
not morals, instinctive preogatve based on human imposed training.
Now, come up with morals that are outside there natural instancts, then you have something.
"Cats don't have religion, near as I can tell, but that's a point in their favor from where I stand, quite seriously."
the belief in a 'supreme being' is a sign of the begining of intellegence. It is the mind looking for answers. Of course it is utterly useless once scientific method begins being utilized.
"Both at the habituation level (they expect their human to come home to them again, because so far, that's what has happened) and they expect their human to take care of them, again because that's been established;"
neither of which is faith. It is habit.
"They can be both selfish and generous, loving and hateful, vicious and kind, protective and defensive, careless and careful, clever and witless, and so on for quite a long list."
each of which is ingrained in the cats personality and habits. When a cat can choose to change, let me know.
"One final point: If most humans behaved as well as my cat does, we'd be a damn sight better off. Your statement, in light of this, is ludicrous."
sure, if by better off, you mean dependant on a being to take care of are every single need, and all we have to do is say "I'm hungry now" "Let me out" and let them clean us if it brings them pleasure(i.e. petting)
If your ideas where true, we would all be living in the trees.
Humans have the ability to rise above themselves, cats do not.
I think you anthormorphize to much.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It is pretty radical to say that freedom matters at all. Look at any public debate in which safety is at issue. The proponents of a law say "Banning X will save N lives."; can the opponents respond "Well that would be quite an instrusive law, being free would be worth M lives"? In public debate today M=0 and N > 0 carries the day.
Sorry, but no. Just because you cannot see the differences in those clumps of cells does not mean that there are none. If you would like to change the statement to "all men are created similarly", I would accept it. I would even accept all identical twins are created equal, but that still doesn't imply that they will remain equal.
Face facts, the great egalitarian society is the great lie. No amount of socialism, communism, political correctness, wealth redistribution, or social experiments will ever change it. As another poster has already pointed out, the best we can ever hope for is equal opportunity.
So, considering that this is absolutely untrue in the objective fact sense, my point stands.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Why shouldn't we strive not to offend or inconvenience our neighbors? It shouldn't be mandated by the government, but since people won't take it upon themselves not to be a hassle to everyone else, then somebody has to make people behave as they ought to in a civilised society. Think of how people act on the road. If someone travelling in the left lane suddenly realises they need to turn right, rather than say "I screwed up" and take the next turn, they will inconvenience or even endanger dozens of people and stop in the middle of the road and attempt to make thir right turn.
I don't have any problem with people swining their fists, but there is no reason they should need to do it right in front of my face. It inconveniences me while not benefiting them at all over swinging their fists somewhere else.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
If I were omniscient and omnipotent, yeh. I should get the chair.
I explained my reasoning in the paragraph following the one you quoted.
I did not. Xaositecte did.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Could you quantify the ratio of energy we get from the sun compared to energy we get from that cosmic background radiation? Now, it's quite true that the sun is radiating its energy into the black, but I don't think you'll be extracting much usable energy from CBR, which was the original point of this thread.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I don't think it's logically consistent to say that God created everything (as opposed to "everything creatable"). Is a concept created? In the story, evil is the opposite of the traits of God and God has always existed, so therefore the concept of evil has also always existed. Actualized or manifested evil is the act of a created being, at which point we're back to the question of free will.
A trait cannot exist without its complement also existing, so it can't be claimed that the concept of good can exist apart from evil. Good and evil are simply labels applied to actions. If there is no free will, then God is directly responsible for all evil acts. If there is free will, then sentient beings are free to choose good or evil and God is off the hook.
OTOH, it _is_ about dangerous ideas ... oh. Never mind.
What a long, strange trip it's been.
Everyone being created equal is a philosophical ideal, not a practical or factual one. Demanding factual proof for that statement is sorta've like demanding factual proof for the existence of god...
Like this?
From the link 'AN ITALIAN [caps in original] judge has ordered a priest to appear in court this month to prove that Jesus Christ existed.'
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
Schroedinger's cat has at least a very personal interest in quantum physics.
What a long, strange trip it's been.
Not at all. What I am displaying is a complete lack of respect for said research.
As for the rest, I know we're different from animals, but my assertion is that we are different in degree, not in kind. Having higher power minds is a gift that gives a lot; but it also has spawned religion, nuclear weapons, and prime time television, demonstrating that it's not all that, all the time.
To disprove my assertion, we'll have to be able to understand what animals are thinking, since they decline to tell us and we are left to intuit what we will from their actions, anthropomophizing or not, as our various predispositions lead us hither and yon.
What you have to remember is that all of this is "soft science" as almost everything in inferred, and very little is cold, hard fact. From soft science, I can only draw soft conclusions. If you want to go further, I decline to go with you.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
*drum roll*
disbelief!
*symbol crash*
[/ducks and runs in fear of anti-religious bashing that is about to ensue from non-relgious zealotry in reply to joking about religion with those that do not believe in any religion yet are unable to explain why they are so zealous for their beliefs that they'd spend so much time posting about them but deny their actions are religious... aghh!!]
"There are no definitions (for anything) that would both be devoid of circular reasoning and not rely on other, nondefined things."
Proof? This is a bold assertion that requires rather more to back it up than you merely stating that it is so.
Rene Descartes (1595-1650), famous French Mathmatition, philosopher, and scientist.
His "I am thinking therefore I exist." (Latin: Cogito ergo sum) is his effort to find ANYTHING that is not defined in terms of something else.
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
The question deliberately seeks to incite an emotional reply. I am curious. How do you choose to allocate your own financial resources? Do you choose based upon return-on-investment, or social concience?
If you want true equality, consider this: Doesn't equality demand the boy genius receive his "equal share" of finite educational resources despite the fact that the girl with Down's Syndrome necessarily consumes more resources? (i.e. money and labor)
Egalitarians often confuse equal opportunity with equal outcome. I don't understand how they can reconcile things like how Dave Thomas, who started with nothing, built a fast food empire, but Rodney King, after winning the lawsuit lottery, is now bankrupt.
She's killing to impress/gift you. Not for sport. Gifting is a well known behaviour that is quite distinct from sport killing -- it can be identified by the simple means of the cat dumping the victim at your feet or on your doorstep. Cats in the wild are quite parsimonious about killing prey; they kill to eat or in defense, and that's pretty much it, unless they are ill or wounded or otherwise driven off their usual behavior patternss. Cats in domestic situations have an esablished heirarchy to deal with (you) and that's what you are seeing.
None of which says they don't enjoy hunting. They do. All the more interesting that they will refrain from it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
>>I can appreciate the beauty of a snowbank in -40 degrees celsius weather.
>Why the distinction?
What I mean is, despite the fact that it causes me physical *dis*comfort to stand there and look at it (it's *cold*), I can still appreciate it.
Early bird may get the worm.. but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Free people from a giant, violent, centralized authority like a government, and equality, prosperity, and peace are the natural result.
Not necessarily. Instead, you get many competing violent authorities who pile up a lot of bodies fulfilling the natural human desires to get higher in the pecking order until peace is established by one of them becoming the single giant, centralized authority.
Of course, this is technically a straw man argument about anarchy since you haven't truly argued for statelessness, but constant references to violence in minarchist arguments tend to lead one to the natural assumption that you are arguing against any sort of government violence against the people instead of just the law standing behind the tax collectors.
In a minarchist's perfect world, government only exists to keep men from pursuing direct violence against one another and from misappropriating legally owned private property. This world in and of itself does not guarantee utopia. It all rests on one assumption which you voice right here:
Inequality comes from violence... it comes from situations where people are not allowed to make decisions for themselves and instead are forced to do something under the threat of violence.
Not always. Sometimes people are forced to do things to avoid starvation or lesser problems. The only reason we have a market for menial labor is because it is the only way that uneducated people can feed and clothes themselves and their children. You need to read "Nickled and Dimed" to see how desperate the situation is for the working majority of poor people. There honestly isn't a lot of freedom when you don't have enough money to put down the first month's rent for an apartment and have to instead take the more expensive and less secure option of renting week-to-week at a motel. You can't take time off from work to go to the doctor (even if you could afford it) because you wouldn't earn enough money to feed yourself. You won't tell a cruel boss to shove it and go look for a new job because you don't have the money to survive multiple weeks of unemployment. You can't afford to take time off to retrain and get better skills because you;re working 11-15 hours a day on multiple jobs.
These people already are economically subjugated but not by government. They're subjugated by a largely distributed private sector instead of a centralized government. They don't have opportunities because opportunity requires the ability to have a period of self-sufficiency and free time that aren't available to people in their economic state. Without government or enough private charity funding (which would probably indicate enough of a public sentiment to have government handle it), these people would have no future. If you took away public education, social security, and medicare & medicaid, they wouldn't received back nearly enough taxes to make up the difference to pay for these essential services themselves. Without labor laws, unemployment laws, the minimum wage (which has already atrophied almost to the point of uselessness thanks to inflation), these people would be little more than slaves with the ability to choose their master.
It doesn't take violence to grind away a person's spirit and to make them a slave. The callous apathy of society at large and financial desperation are more than enough. I remember from History what the so-called "Gilded Age" was like, and I personally don't want to see a return of those days when the only law of business was that of the contract and the life of labor was cheap and expendable.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The crusades are extremely well documented. The "common European farmer" did not sign up for the crusades at all. The people who signed up were mostly religious fanatics, although there was a very large minority of unlanded nobility - third sons of the aristocracy are a chestnut of period literature - who were not always religiously motivated.
Don't try to put the motivations and rationalizations of modern people into a medieval setting - having read hundreds of first-person manuscripts written at the time, I can tell you that's a mistake.
Most crusaders went to the Holy Land because charismatic leaders (like Peter the Hermit for example) told them to. Most of these leaders were insane religious fruitcakes by modern standards, who promised total absolution for crusaders regardless of what atrocities they committed, and eternal fiery damnation for those who "disregarded the call of the Lord".
That was exactly my point. The instinct is to chase the dot. But if the dot is on another cat, they won't do that. This is a rule that overrides the instinct. Cats will also obey rules that you lay down. Learned behaviors, as well as rule of law. As well as criminals who simply will not obey no matter what you do. There are parallels at every level. My point stands. :)
Consider yourself called. Cats (and birds) build nests. Beavers build dams. They're not doing it to copy nature. They're doing it to facilitate their own goals. Just like people do.
Already did. When starving, they make very difficult (and sometimes fatal) choices about what they are willing to eat. And I can only laugh at your idea that humans train them not to eat them. "Fluffy! Stop eating Johnny Jr!" No such training occurs. However, we know from experience how cats behave when trapped with dead owners. My point stands.
Expectation is faith. The expectation may indeed be from habituation, but it in and of itself is not habit. Humans develop faith in a similar way, particularly in the matter of religion. People tell them stories over and over acting as if these stories were true, and eventually, the listener becomes habituated to the expectation that they are true and begins to act on that expectation. Other areas are similar. "I've been married to John for 20 years and he's never cheated, I can't believe he's cheating now." Clearly, habituation instantiates faith.
Ok. We have a loving siamese named Gwai. He was loving to *everyone*. One day one of my kids, Mike, brought a girlfriend, Anna, to the house. Anna called Gwai names and pushed him off the couch. The next time she came over, Gwai jumped up from behind the couch and clawed her a good one. She never came back, and he's never done it since (or prior.) Clearly, he was able to choose when and where he was willing to be good natured. There are a million stories just like this. Cats usually act one way, but under circumstances they find sufficient, they change those behaviors. Just like people, I might add. The point stands.
Utter nonsense. If you let a cat out and ignore them, they'll at first act on prior expectations, then eventually they'll decide that's not working out, and go hunting, possibly even feral. They're quite astute in this particular area. They're dependent as long as it serves their purposes. Then they will assert their independence. Just like people. And there are exceptions; those that will starve rather than leave the porch. Again, just like people, for some of them affection overrides all.
Oh, really? What about cats that go into a fire to rescue kittens, or to lead firemen to their human? Speaking of animals generally, what about animals that navigate half the continent to get back home? What about that fish that every feeding, pushes his paralyzed fellow fish to the surface so he can feed? What about dolphin that fight off sharks for stranded floating humans? What about dogs that defend babies? Your ignorance
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
We could have a slashcode government! You go to a site with news, comment threads and the usual, and laws could be started like articles, being debated online and eventually voted on... with only the really high karma folks (virtual politicians) being able to vote :)
Well, it certainly addresses what I see as one of the biggest flaws in modern government: stupid, uneducated voters. In a way...
It seems we agree. It should NOT be mandated by the government.
Society should have rules and codes of conduct for behavior, but those rules should not be policed by government. Society itself should enforce those rules. If I think you are a dick, it should be my right not to associate nor do business with you. It should also be my right to associate with like-minded individuals and ostracize you until your behavior improves.
Please describe the objective facts in your possession that clearly indicate that the universe was created, as opposed to was always there. The floor is yours. I'll respond to your post.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
a hs-witn/msg/d7aef3818e7ab1e6?dmode=source&hl=en .
- Albert Einstein
If you read that quote in context ( http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/einbucky.htm ) you'll see that it's highly misleading quoted alone. By "religion" he seems to mean "admiration for the mysteries of the universe". (My attempt at a summary, not a direct quote.) Einstein's ideas about "religion" aren't exactly mainstream.
A Usenet post (via Google) with some interesting quotes: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.jehov
Samples:
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." -- Albert Einstein, "The World as I See It"
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -- "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", Princeton University Press.
Yes, you bet -- Christianity is a system designed to control the little people and keep them down, to move their expectations from the current life to the imaginary one beyond, to make them behave when no one is watching by making them think that someone is not only watching, but will take it out of their hide later on in a way they will be unable to ignore. In the process of formalizing Christianity, many sub-domains and sub-methods of control have been established. They work really, really well. Go into a Catholic church and do some counting of expensive objects some time. Check out the Vatican. Note that churches don't pay property taxes -- we pay them instead, even if we disagree. Beautiful job of assuming control for their own benefit, right there.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I don't think it's logically consistent to say that God created everything
Since when has anything to do with Christianity and related religions been logically consistent? Anyone with experience of tripping can see where the creators of the religions got many of their ideas.
They also have politics - they're fascists! After all, I've never seen a Police Cat!
I'm sorry, but you are displaying a complete lack of knowledge of any research in Theory of Mind from the last century.
A large overdose of magic mushrooms will quickly render the Theory of Mind laughable to you.
Eh? What part of that are you unfamilar with? Any cat owner who has been around birthing cycles knows about mothers not eating the kittens. Do I really have to explain this to you?
The news is replete with stories about cats who get trapped with owners and what happens; cat rescue stories are good press and appear after almost every earthquake, along with teary-eyed descriptions of how they managed to live some improbable number of days. Do you not follow the news?
Top tip for you: If it's common knowledge, you don't need to explain it unless someone makes a point that indicates they don't possess that knowledge. Which you didn't do, I might add...
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Atheist means without belief in a god or gods. That's it. No more, no less. It's not a matter of cleverness, that's what it *means*.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
actually, the only dangerous thing about the idea is that it is off topic and the rest of the slashdot crowd will flame me for it :) but i just wanted to float the idea, and maybe someone else will have a suggestion of how to make it dangerous.
Anyway, the idea is said balloon would be able change shape to:
- be squeezed to expell all the gas inside downwards to provide thrust, once the ballon has risen as high into the atmosphere as possible, and to leave a planets gravity.
- be deployed as a solar sail
- be spread out as a parachute to land on planets with atmospheres
See my art -> http://herbevore.deviantart.com
I'm not sure if that post should be modded down for content, or up because it makes fun of the point. :)
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
...was in an excellent science fiction novel "The Dark Cloud", by Sir Fred Hoyle. It won't spoil anything if I said that part of the novel dealt with super-intelligent aliens spontaneously exploding whenever they advanced beyond a certain point.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
However wired for culture seems plausible, and religion is just an instance of culture. From Timothy Taylor's essay:
The underdeveloped brains of hominin infants were culture-prone, and in this sense, I do not dissent from Dan Sperber's dangerous idea that 'culture is natural'. But human culture, unlike the basic culture of learned routines and tool-using observed in various mammals, is a system of signs -- essentially the association of words with things and the ascription and recognition of value in relation to this.
Seriously, though, if there was obvious evidence, we'd all be really committed to that fight, wouldn't we? It would so scare the living crap out of us that nothing else would matter.
This particular variant of the "free will" argument for the lack of proof of God's existance is so bad I wonder how it has persisited for so many centuries. People do stuff they know is stupid, counter-productive, and will hurt them in the long run all the time. It's just human nature. There could be clear evidence of God's existance that no rational person could argue with, and still the majority of humans would act the same way the do today.
Therefore, (1) the argument you present is very weak, and (2) God has a lot to answer for in the nature he gave humans. We could have free will without the tendency to be such bastards at every opportunity.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
And, no, God is not supernatural, He is out of time, the Creator of time
itself, the Creator of physics and the Setter of all cosmological constants and
relationships.
That's pretty much the definition of supernatural right there. The natural laws are what science studies. The supernatural is anything not bound by those laws.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Knowledge is not belief. No amoung of wordplay by gnostics or anyone else can make it so. Either you believe in a god or gods, or you don't. If that position is leveraged by knowledge, so be it, but it's still either belief, or lack of it, hence theism or atheism.
It is my *opinion* that most declared agnostics don't believe, but do not have the stones to come out and say so. But that's just my opinion. They may mostly be believers, hiding from atheists, though I think that's a little unlikely.
They have to be one or the other, though.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Because we're not any different from the rest of the animals, who [...] talk to animals on the other side of the world whom they have never perceived in any way besides the imagination and cognitave communication [...].
Do animals have imagination?
Do animals have an appreciation for anything which doesn't physically affect them (make them feel good)?
All good questions, and a good counter-point to GP. But there's one thing lacking - how do we know? Cats don't use computers (except when they walk across keyboards), but can we really know they aren't communicating with other cats or other animals, around the world, using "cognitive communication" (ie some form of telepathy or universal consciousness)? Sure it seems outlandish to think this, but its an assumption you implicitly make. Let's be explicit and say that, given our understanding of feline communication skills & abilities, we don't believe they have any form of telepathic communication. But perhaps our understanding of how the brain (human or feline) works is insufficient.
And I think you could make a fair argument (not conclusive, but fair), that animals do have imagination. We used to have horses, and one of them would get scared of a scary-looking tree on the driveway. The tree never did anything to this horse, but the horse would always get very nervous around that tree. Now, perhaps the horse was "imagining" something scary; or perhaps the horse really did sense something dangerous there that we humans could not. I don't know.
And again, perhaps all we can perceive of animal happiness is their physical expressions; but do we have any way of knowing their internal state? And I think you overstate human capability. Can you really appreciate a snowbank in -40 C weather if you were standing there naked? I would tend to think not, unless it was a dying, delusional thought. You can appreciate the snowbank only when you have a sufficient level of physical comfort.
In fact, I'll really play devil's advocate and say animals have a greater appreciation for nature than humans do. [Some] animals have the ability to change their surroundings - a beaver, for example, will dam a creek and build a home. They don't destroy their surroundings in the same way humans do.
Yes, but with religion it's especially potent. People care about their religion on a fundamental level, and will fight and die for it like for nothing else.
On a seperate note I disagree with Dawkins as there is no definition of good or evil without religion,
That's entirely false. Morality and religion are basically independent - many religions have teachings about morality, but they have teachings about a lot of things.
I am trolling
So does a cat, at least as much as a human.
That's not true. We have far greater capabilities; specifically, we have
the capability to differentiate, and therefore choose, between good and
evil. Nothing an animal ever does is evil; it is only for their survival
or needs-of-the-moment, never with ill-will or malice.
Which religion's system of Karma is this?
This is a universal law and resides within all religions, though with varying
degrees of comprehension. "As ye sow so shall ye reap". The laws that govern
what a human being receives for its actions are independent of any one religion;
they are like the Law of Universal Gravitation when experienced on different
planets.
after being reincarnated
Reincarnation is a trick of the devil to make human beings believe that their
life means nothing ~ there is no do-over. It's one and out. Think about it
logically: where are all these human souls coming from, seeing as how there
were only 50 million people on earth 2000 years ago? It doesn't make sense.
We get one shot, and everything counts. You think this beautiful creation that
is our body and its cognitive senses are an accident? We all have a purpose,
and the universe itself is designed both as the means to help us attain that
information and as an obstacle to achieiving our potential. It is all up to
our choices and desires.
Peace be with us all,
bmac
Going back to your bold claim that 'creation is a myth', when we get outta our mother's womb, you ever wonder why you are an uniquely thinking individual instead of a clone, or a wad of H20 and carbon molecules flowing in space? I need some answers to explain the physics of things that we can't see or touch.
Funny, your sig said something about Photoshop having 20 layers, yet everything is black and white for you - no gray scale - so why do you use photoshop?
Theist:
The invisible green dragon in my basement is the only true green dragon and believing in any other invisible dragons is blasphemy. I have made up my mind, so don't confuse me with facts. I'll wage a jihad against all non-believers.
Atheist:
There are no dragons. I have made up my mind, so don't confuse me with facts. Bring on the jihad, I will defend myself against opression.
Agnostic:
I don't care about your invisible green dragon, since its existence cannot be proven. There are no facts. Therefore the whole argument is moot. Now go and play jihad over there and keep it down would you?
Oh well, what the hell...
Within our universe, the Law of Conservation of Mass, the Law of Conservation
of Energy and Einstein's Law E=mc^2 are proven *Laws*. Yet there is an
enormous amount of matter and energy. Explain where it came from.
You can't. No human being can fathom how it came to be. No human being can
fathom the nature of such a Being Who could create such a fast and perfect
system.
Your logic has reached a cold dead-end. If you are at-all logical and truthful
you must admit that something beyond your comprehension created this universe
as a self-contained and self-consistent and unchangeable in its total amount of
content system.
Nothing here is ever created. Nothing here is ever destroyed. Figure it out.
...made by Microsoft?
$5 says it doesn't suck.
Logical consistency is not difficult for a religion (or any worldview for that matter) to achieve, especially if you limit the scope to a subset of that religion/worldview (as "anything to do" allows). The key is in the axioms of one's belief system.
Classic free will is what every animal has.
No. Free will is the ability to differentiate between good and evil. No
animal ever commits an evil act. Pissing in your toaster is only his way
of getting fed. Nothing more. He only knows that that's going to get him
his result. If he got a better result from cleaning your house, he'd do
that instead. It's all a somewhat calculated expectation of reaction from
given action - all to satisfy a need.
Human beings live in the world of choice between good and evil. Of course
there is an enormous amount of gray area where such distinctions are not
obvious, yet we are always moving towards one or the other. Regardless, if
we choose to pull over and help the woman change her tire, or choose to keep
the wallet we just saw the guy drop, these choices reside within a different
realm: the realm of the choice between good and evil. Each person must
explain to God what they used their magnificent gifts of free will, intellect
and free time for.
There is no excuse for anyone, for we all receive the message:
Choose to reach our Creator in your lifetime or suffer the result of not living
according to the purpose of your design.
Good luck,
bmac
You have to understand the nature, purpose and context of our creation.
Our nature is that we have a vice-filled soul, a virtue-filled incorruptable
spirit, and a free will which uses the mind to make choices and then
command the physical body.
Our purpose is to transmute all the vices in our soul so that our soul becomes
like our spirit: filled with only virtues. This process is the basis of
religion, though the details of how to achieve this purification are always
mostly lost / forgotten / covered-up.
Our context is to have an enemy we can't see (the devil and his legions) that
can give impulses to our soul's vices which make us want (by giving us feelings
and thoughts/reasons) to act selfishlessly / wrongly. It is this being that
constantly works to pervert humankind's true purpose.
Now, after our life (and we only get one, you reincarnation people) our actions
are judged (with an 'intention' multiplier) for the purpose of rewarding the
worthy with an almost-eternal energy body whose imagination becomes real. So,
you see, the test of this earth and its travails is for our imagination to be
set free for an apparent eternity (it fill feel like eternity for a human being,
but really only our Creator is truly eternal.)
Praise be to God, that's human life in a nutshell.
BTW, I take no credit for this information; I have a Murshid (teacher, spiritual
guide) who has taught me all of this. I am merely passing along the combination
of theoretical knowledge and real experience.
Peace be with us all,
bmac
Actually, if the IQ 80 fundies suddenly 'floated away' that would solve a lot of our problems.
What the white people have done to the earth's peoples for the hundreds of years since
the first ocean-going ships is in no-uncertain-terms evil. But it is not confined to
white people. It is one of the potentials of human vice and is not limited to any
group of humans, whether you divide them by race, culture, or gender.
The reason that the this evil of the past 4-5 centuries seems so horrible is that
the technology used to manifest it is so far beyond what was available before it.
And, really, it's just another story of the strong preying upon the weak, which was
happening in every nation on a much smaller scale before the white man took it to a
whole other level.
Humans have both the capacity for evil and the capacity for good. When we act like
animals, we use our vastly superior cognitive abilities to create horror upon the
earth. In acting like animals, I mean exhibiting mammalian traits such as the pack
mentality (racism, gangsterism and the domination of inferior groups/individuals) and
the ever-present fight to be the alpha-male/female, we become the one-and-only creators
of evil in the universe.
All human beings are capable of rising above the mammalian instincts and becoming truly
human, with having compassion without regard to "type" of human being as a hallmark of such
a one. This is what all the messengers and prophets of God have come to Earth to bring,
because it is only through seeking this human ideal that we can live in peace, harmony,
safety, health and abundance.
Imagine what the earth would be like if all military budgets were reallocated to
humanitarian endeavors, without regard to race or country borders. Imagine if all the
religions realized that religion is between one person and God and is not to be pushed
upon another. That would be the realization of the human ideal.
May we all survive the ruckus to see that beautiful day.
Peace be with us all,
bmac
Who ... ?
Human beings who don't seek to reach their Creator spiritually in their lifetime
so as to escape the yoke of Satan.
They span all human races, cultures, religions and genders. It is a purely human
potential, just as being a saint is also a purely human potential, available to
everyone who seeks for such a thing.
The Qur'an is no different in its practical teachings than the Old Testament (Torah),
New Testament, or Confucian writings to give a small number of examples. The message
is clear and simple and the rise to sainthood is what all Messengers of God teach,
and they come to all peoples in all nations in all languages. This all part of the
design of our Creator, praise be to Him.
Love, kindness, selflessness, prayerfulness; there is no room for hatred or bigotry
after a human being fills themselves with them.
With strength of heart and out loud, make the wish to reach God spiritually within
your lifetime and you will cross the threshold whereupon true happiness begins.
Peace be with you,
bmac
I entirely disagree. While members of the academic community and relevant professionals such as doctors and legislators study these issues as ethics, members of the general populace tend to have fairly unambiguous moral stances on them. People do not tend to study ethics before they express the moral principle that the berieved relative must assent before a loved one's organs are harvested. Neither do they tend to weigh up purjury even though they may feel that lying in other areas of life is 'ok'. And while for doctors and legislators the abortion debate is an ethical issue, for the pro-life US Conservatives and the pro-choice feminists it is simply a moral issue. (the conservatives do not accept the feminists' moral that a woman has complete rights over her own body at all times, and the feminists do not accept the conservatives' moral that any taking of life is wrong - there is no "weighing up" or "application of morals" but simply one not accepting the other's morals)
I am a Sufi Muslim, but know that there are people in all faiths of the world ...
...) and alpha-dominance ...).
that are rightly called "Muslim" (meaning one who submits to the Divine Will),
whether they call themselves Hindi, Buddhist, Taoist, Jewish, Christian,
We are human beings. We seek to reach God with our spirit and thereafter see
Him spiritually. This is the essense of human life and the message of the
prophets and messengers of God.
Human beings are divided basically into two groups: those who make the deep,
heartfelt wish to reach God spiritually before dying, and those who don't and
live for the life of this world. What God calls them to do after they make
that wish is not of our concern, but it is guaranteed that that person will
manifest all the traits of Buddha, Christ, Abraham, Confucious - whoever -
after making that wish (with the caveat that they must struggle to the end
of the path, where they have with the help of the Lord transmuted all their
vices into virtues.)
Those who don't make that wish have our love and help, but they are not quite
functioning humans because they tend to the mammalian behaviors such as pack
mentality (racism, nationalism, religious bigotry,
seeking (domination over the weak, belittling others,
We are all human beings, yet the laws of the universe dictate that certain
changes happen to a human being that makes the "Wish to reach Allah" within
his/her lifetime. A different set of changes happen to the human beings who
ignore the message (which is delivered to all human beings in their own
language) or, worse yet, treat the message with animosity.
We live the results of our choices and the choice to love and serve God brings
truly unbelievable peace and happiness. I wish that all these unhappy people
I see driving and barely subsisting here in America could have what I have
been given. Of course, they can, but they must accept the invitation. A lot
of bullsh*t has to be jettisoned to accept the simple truth of life - you can
obviously see that bs in what all these so-called Muslims are doing with
such vehemence.
They do not know that unless one wages the big Jihad that is waged within our
own hearts against our own vices, they can never fight a righteous war, which we
are rarely called upon for. What we are constantly called upon for, however, is
to love and serve humanity, and to bring the example that all the messengers bring,
which says to "Love thy enemies", and "that which you do to the least of my
brothers and sisters, that you do unto me."
Peace be with you,
bmac
"opposite" is an imprecise term, but I'd say "absence of light".
What's the problem with emptiness ("absence of matter") being the opposite of matter?
We keep looking for this proof or that proof, playing with strings and branes and quantum wierdness...
What if the Universe doesn't work that way?.?..?... We keep assuming that it will all boil down to a set of rules that we can identify, catagorise, and cognify.
Maybe it doesn't.
"Fear is the rootkit of democracy.." Blarkon
Without darkness, light has no meaning.
We live in a world of polarities, and in the human dimension, our free will
lives having to constantly choose between good and evil. Good is found in
honoring our Creator's intent for creating the human beings, summed up most
succinctly in Acts of the Apostles 17:24-27:
"to seek Him, perhaps reach out for Him, and find Him."
You are correct, God not only created the devil, but gave him the ability
to tempt human beings into evil, but God did not give the devil any power
to make us do anything. He can only suggest. We have the real
power, which is the power of free will, which is simply the power to choose
good over evil.
Without the possibly to choose evil, a good choice has no meaning. Without
the possibility of the punishment of hell, the reward of paradise is without
merit. And such a reward it is! To live a veritable eternity where your every
imagining is immediately, physically granted is the pinnacle of gifts, IMHO.
That reward does not come cheaply, nor does it come without sweat and the
striving in the face of great resistence, both from the energy beings (called
Jinn, the basis for the word Genie) and from the human beings who ignore the
message and follow their own vain desires, creating mischief on their way.
Yet the path is filled with unbelievable love and peace. Read the poems of
Jelallidin Rumi if you wish to know what it's like. His words are extraordinary
and show the fulfillment of God's greatest commandment, as so said by Jesus,
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with
all your mind and with all your strength." (Mark 12:30)
Peace be with you,
bmac
Yeah, I kinda realized it, but my intent was to speak to the utter incomprehensibility
of the Creator of all that we exist within.
Supernatural just seems kinda weak.
Yeah, I know I'm splitting hairs.
Peace be with you,
bmac
If you read my other responses to various posters in this topic, you can receive
the entire picture, but the essense of why we can be such bastards is that there
is no sainthood without evilhood. It all makes the releasing of the imagination
for an eternity in heaven mean something, because of what had to be overcome.
See my other posts.
Peace be with you,
bmac
You are still arguing semantics though and taking the quote out of context.
"All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
The second part of the quote is very important in that it defines the equality that is spoken of. It does not attempt to show that all men are created equal in every way, but rather, that all men share, at their creation, an unalienable right to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness, and these rights being unalienable, it is the duty of a just society to protect those rights in all individuals. If the quote were "...life, intellect, birthrights, physical makeup and sense of humor" then you would be dead on, and the quote would be rediculous, but in this case, the quote is specifically enumerating only 3 qualities that all men are created equal in, that being that they are all 1) Alive, and "deserve to be" in that their life should not be taken away willfully, they all deserve liberty, and no one should be allowed to restrict their freedom to do what they desire unless it restrict the freedom of another, and they all have an equal right to pursue happiness. These rights can be trampled upon by their society, for if they couldn't, there would be no need for such an enumeration, but the fact that a right is breached does not invalidate the right.
Now, if you would like to restate your objection sans out of context strawman...
I have questioned everything, and then I asked my Creator for the answers and He
gave me more than I could have imagined.
It is in the design specs of the human being to be able to query God directly
and receive the information immediately and directly, but a person must accept His
invitation before that can become possible.
Make a deep and heartfelt prayer (out loud) to have God take your spirit into
Himself within your lifetime so that you may reach Him and see Him.
This is the key to life itself.
There are many more details strewn about in my posts in this topic, but you only
need to make that prayer (and then follow the path that ensues) to experience lasting
peace and happiness.
Peace be with you,
bmac
There is no addendum. The writers of the document wrote these words purposefully in the context of a society that rejected the idea in the hopes that the society, by accepting the principle for it's own benefit, would later have to defend those rights for all men lest they betray the very foundation for their institution. That's exactly what happened; the pressure of the foundations of all law caused mounting tension between the status quo and the ideal philosophy, which ultimately erupted in civil war.
If the writers had meant for there to be a distinction, they would have written in a distinction. THe fact that they didn't is very telling, even though it was very contemptuous towards the powers that be. Just because it took time to overthrow those powers, through legislation and arms, doesn't mean the intent wasn't evident.
The very fact that you feel the need to modify the wording of the document to suit your arguement shows that it's a complete strawman. The accompanying writings of the authors shows meticulously worded arguments even in non-official writings. For you to say that they made a glaring mistake in the one document that their lives and fortunes would be measured by shows extreme ignorance.
In addition, at the time (and even in modern times) "men", when referring to a society or populous, is always synonymous with "humankind".
That's one way of looking at it, but if you understood why He created us and what
he created us for you would see it as such:
He wants us to ask Him because He is beyond lonely. The Creator of time itself!
Physics, chemistry, and the 70 trillion cells working together electrically that
called called a human being -- these are all His creations, yet there is nothing in
the universe like Him, so He created human beings. We have the cognitive and
mystical abilities to experience Him as fully as any creation can. That is why we
are special.
The clincher here is that the greatest gift He gave us was the free will to ignore
Him. Why? IMO, I liken it to this situation:
Say you are single and a beautiful woman comes up to you and says, "My father has
commanded me to marry you and love and serve you in every way." How would that
compare to meeting a girl, getting to know her, and then her *choosing* to love
you, marry you and serve you. I don't know about you, but I would choose the latter.
You see, God has already created legions of angels who do nothing but sing His praises,
but they have no comparison to a human being who eschews all the trappings of the
Garden of Eden to choose to love Him. That is love, indeed. That is why there is the
reward of an eternity of doing whatever your imagination can come up with. Furthermore,
that is why there has to be a hell. The "Hakk" aspect of our Creator is His Divine and
Perfect Righteousness. We've got life, fantastic abilities and the ability to choose,
and we will be judged for what we do with it.
The most essential prayer that every human can make is mentioned in my other posts
within this topic numerous times. As well, there is a great deal of other information
as to the nature of human existence and the world we live in.
Believe it or not, we are created to be happy. To submit to God is to submit to a loving
father-figure who only wants our happiness. He makes us unhappy as a negative reinforcement
so that we will realize that we were screwing up. No, we cannot add a jot to His Magnificence;
we seek Him and serve Him for our own benefit, and it is a mighty reward, both here in and
in the hereafter. It is His Design, and it is the purpose of this universe.
Seek Him with all your heart, and happiness will be yours (tho with its share of struggle,
as our vices are tough to overcome.) Every person was created to be a saint of God, and He
will give you such help as you ask for and are worthy for.
Peace be with you,
bmac
You are technically correct, for all people go to hell, though the ones who will go
to heaven will merely have a fly-by as an opportunity to see what their service and
the graciousness of our Lord have saved them from.
But before you are so flippant consider this:
We are given a brand-new energy body (somewhere between 18-33 years old, approx) for
our eternal life. This body does not decay or change and is reconstituted immediately
if any damage is dealt to it.
The Qur'an says that the dwellers of the hellfire will *themselves* be the fuel of
the fire, with the stones. This is because as their flesh burns off them and falls
into the fire, it adds to the flames; of course, their flesh has re-generated and the
cycle of torment is repeated.
All you must do is wish to reach God spiritually within your lifetime (as a heartfelt
and verbal prayer). Do this and salvation can be yours, should you persist upon the
path. Happiness and peace will be yours both here and then in the hereafter.
All praise be to God. He is The Compassionate and The Merciful. His Design is perfect
and wondrous and we are built to live a life of perfect happiness, regardless of the
circumstances.
I wish all this and more for you.
Peace be with you,
bmac
Just look at the Athiest fundamentalists boycotting "Narnia" because of their objections to "Christian Themes".
Athiestism is one of the most evangelical religions there is. I think the GGP meant "Agnosticism".
Thank you for explaining it better than I did.
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Campaigning against the collecting of stamps would indeed be a hobby. I think you mean "Agnosticism", which is the lack of a belief. Athiesm is the fervent belief in the non-existence of God.
Why would you think I would be inclined to do that? I left the floor open for either possibility. It was the response that flat-out asserted that "creation isn't a myth."
Hold on there. You have to read the whole sentence. Quoting sentence fragments as if they were complete statements isn't going to cut it. I specifically allowed for the possibility of creation. What I was indicating is that there is nothing that I am aware of that makes the conclusion of creation particularly likely, much less fact.
No. I am what I am. There is no apparent reason to begin asking why as far as I am concerned, it's just the way things are. I am quite comfortable not knowing the answers to certain types/classes of questions, especially if they are formulated as "why" in a universe that has given us every indication of being a combination of random interactions of natural processes.
Well, that's perfectly OK for you, but I don't -- at least if you include "measure" as a form of touch. I'm also less than comfortable with drawing absolute conclusions from faulty or severely incomplete data sets. Which puts the big bang theory, for one, right out of consideration, right along with "some dude did it."
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The empirical evidence would suggest that religion (in general) doesn't make people
... the list goes on and on, for in every country in
any happier. One need only look at all the religious wars to realize that.
You are mistaking people who call themselves religious with people who are truly
religious. Those of us (and we exist as a minority within all of the religions of
the world) who are truly practicing religion never participate in a war of religious
bigotry. We also are trying to manifest the traits that all the prophets and
messengers of God have taught us to manifest, be they Buddha, Muhammed, Christ,
Abraham, Moses, Confucious,
every language the message is being broadcast:
Seek to reach your Lord spiritually with all your heart and you will be honoring
His Design and He will subsequently honor you.
Those that accept the invitation can manifest all the qualities of sainthood if they
persevere upon the path, regardless of whether it's within a Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim -
or any so-called religion's - context. This manifestation includes the most sublime
and permanent peace and happiness. So, find a real man or woman of God and you will
find someone whose happiness and peace are unflappable.
Just because your relgion is about promoting peace and happiness doesn't mean all
religions are. If you really believe that I'd suggest a bit more study of world religions.
You don't understand; there is just one religion at the core of all religions, but the devil
perverts them only a few generations after the messenger or prophet has died. Then, they
fall into decay, which usually involves religious & racial bigotry-inspired violence. The
Spanish Inquisition was the same pattern as is in evidence in today's Muslims. Yet neither
of these two groups of hateful people were/are really practicing religion. They were simply
grafting the name of religion onto their mammalian urge to dominate.
A true practitioner of religion behaves with the same level of goodness (when he/she is
behaving rightly, for purification takes a long time, granted the person has the perseverance
to tread all the way to the end of the path.) as is taught by Buddha or Christ. It is merely
the same religion clothed in different garments; yet, with all the esoteric differences, the
resultant effects upon the truly-seeking human being are the same.
So, I bid you read other posts I have made in this topic, for you will see much that many
people who claim to be "religious" do not know. Of course, the drum-banging, noise-making
people always get the press.
And, yes, I have studied much, including meeting a primary disciple of Paramahansa Yogananda,
and shaking the Dalai Lama's hand. I previously met a Sufi Sheikh, and now study under a
Sufi Murshid, of which all this information is sourced. I am merely relaying what I have
learned, and all the studying that I did before I met my Murshid was worthless compared to
the volumes that I have learned under him.
In summary, do not confuse what human beings have done to corrupt religion with what religion
really is and what its effects upon a human being will be. And this is a deadly serious
matter, for the purpose of why we are here is at the heart of religion. To neglect it is
worse than forgetting to eat or drink or breathe.
Peace be with you,
bmac
That's not true. We have far greater capabilities; specifically, we have
the capability to differentiate, and therefore choose, between good and
evil. Nothing an animal ever does is evil; it is only for their survival
or needs-of-the-moment, never with ill-will or malice.
How do you define ill-will or malice? A cat can attack other cats, is that ill-will?
This is a universal law and resides within all religions, though with varying
degrees of comprehension. "As ye sow so shall ye reap". The laws that govern
what a human being receives for its actions are independent of any one religion;
they are like the Law of Universal Gravitation when experienced on different
planets.
You mean like religions which had human sacrifice, or do you mean the ones where killing people in war is your way into heaven? Or ones which talk about mass suicide?
See, such religions simply don't last long although it says nothing about some universal law. It simply says that human groups which don't have certain laws governing their behavior don't last long. Animal groups have similar behaviors so it's nothing religious.
Reincarnation is a trick of the devil to make human beings believe that their
life means nothing ~ there is no do-over. It's one and out. Think about it
logically: where are all these human souls coming from, seeing as how there
were only 50 million people on earth 2000 years ago? It doesn't make sense.
We get one shot, and everything counts.
Sure it does, you're simply not reading what I wrote. I guess your own beliefs are blinding you. Reincarnation, as I specifically said in Buddhism, need not be into a human form and indeed one of the main concepts is that if you're bad enough you come back as an animal. Do you wish to count how many bugs there were x years ago? Also, nothing says you get reincarnated right away.
You think this beautiful creation that is our body and its cognitive senses are an accident? We all have a purpose, and the universe itself is designed both as the means to help us attain that information and as an obstacle to achieiving our potential. It is all up to
our choices and desires.
Yes we're probably an accident, and as people like yourself (and me as well in a way) show most humans simply cannot comprehend the fact that their lives are utterly meaningless outside their own definition. From personal experience it only seems to matter during philosophical discussions, most everyday functions can be done perfectly normally no matter how you view your existence.
Uhhhh.... Sorry about that. I didn't realize you weren't the original guy. :)
Ah, well, no harm no foul.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
"... equal opportunity to our fellows at each set of choices in life, and let them make of it both what they may, and what they are capable of. "
equal opportunity is bullshit, everyone gets stuck in the places their potential puts them. Economic equality where everyone has economic security for basics (food, water, electricity, housing) is the only way out of a hellish society, anything luxurious they can go ahead and compete for, but if we want a peaceful world we have to stop using free market principles the divide between rich and poor will get so great something will snap eventually.
Maybe you should learn to think for yourself, instead of following around doctrine that was used hundreds and before that, thousands of years ago to control other people.
And understand this, though I have the utmost comtempt for all religion, your supposed god, and your views, I wish no harm upon you, nor anyone for that matter.
Now, explain to me how your fucking god is so damn compassionate?
I'm sorry that you have, possibly for the rest of your life, trapped yourself into the viral, circular logic known as religion.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
This is my response to "Science Must Destroy Religion," posted on Page 7
While your argument is well intentioned and rational on the surface, its fatal flaw is the presumption that society is capable of behaving rationally rather than emotionally. You might as well argue that people stop eating candy. Further, the benefits of science versus religion are not as clear-cut as you presume.
Firstly, and most importantly, I'll address the aspect of human behavior. To assert that religion is dangerous is to imply that religion is an impetus for negative behavior rather than a channel through which such behavior may be expressed. Religion may be yet another division of people into groups who plot against one another, but to believe that such division would cease to exist without religion is fantastical. Religion exists because people form groups, not the other way around. Religion is a result, or at least a byproduct, of the human condition.
If religion is a symptom of the human psyche, then the elimination of religion is an exercise in futility, and the benefits of such elimination would be nonexistent. People will continue to create artificial divides, and conflict will result. Further, since religion predicates, or at least coincides with, the existence of science, it would appear to be one of the most basic of human constructs. Therefore, we can presume that new individuals will continue to invent the idea of a supreme being, regardless of what we teach them. In fact, many ideas spring from the opposition of established concepts and beliefs, so it's likely that any suppression of religion would only be a finger in the dyke, so to speak, since eliminating one source would only cause it to spring up elsewhere. The same creative power which fuels art will eventually convince someone, somewhere, that they have had contact with such a supreme being, and others will be inclined to believe them, because people are inclined to believe charismatic individuals. It is unrealistic to believe that the void in "knowledge," left by the absense of religion would remain unfilled.
Religion is, by definition, a non-disprovable idea. Further, by definition, it is impossible to eliminate a non-disprovable idea through logic. You may not directly promote, or even consciously acknowledge, that the elimination of religion would be violent, but such a scenario would be inevitable. Since religion is a belief, it is immune to the effects of logic and reason. If one cannot use reason to counter an opposing idea, the only alternative is to eliminate the source of that idea, which is the person harboring it. Therefore, the only way to deliberately eliminate religion is through force, which would be a greater wrong than allowing it to exist; to criminalize religion is to criminalize free thought. In addition, the use of force is, of course, a form of oppression, and oppression has historically resulted in a massive backlash through direct and sympathetic resistance. Of course, some religious groups are attempting to use force to further their cause, but that's their own mistake; there's no need to follow them on the path of failure.
You assert that the danger of religious fanatics obtaining nuclear weaponry is grounds for the elimination of religion, however a more accurate interpretation would be that it's grounds to keep nuclear weaponry out of the hands of fanatics, whether they support religion, democracy, communism, or purple dinosaurs. Using fanaticism as a basis to reject religion is a non sequitur. The fact is that religious fanaticism is a subset of fanaticism, not the other way around. Fanatics will always exist, and some will always adopt an attitude of "victory at all costs." Whether they are fighting for mindshare, land, oil, fissionable material, women, or clothes is irrelevant. Irrational behavior cannot be eliminated by eliminating irrational etablished belief systems, even if such a thing was possible.
To extol the benefits
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Blame radiates. In the case of the Christian bomber, I blame the bomber, but also the people who inculcated him, helped him plan, and made the bomb. In the case of the flunky, I blame him and whoever created the policy.
If you don't support a war, it is your responsibility to withhold tax money if you want to be blameless. You could go to prison for it, but couldn't the tax collector be punished for not collecting taxes?
The key is that tracing blame is counter-productive, particularly if you're not religious. Blame is a tool to track who's been naughty and nice.
This isn't to say you shouldn't recall that your cat will piss in the toaster. It's just that you should remember it so you remember to feed your cat rather than to perform any vindictive deed.
I'm Abram Bender. You're not.
- That page was written by someone that I don't know, and he states in his opening paragraph that it represents "only one viewpoint" -- his own.
- The last time that I was in a church was sometime in the 1990s, and that was only to attend a wedding.
- I'm agnostic (definition 1b) (or a "weak" atheist, to use your definition of atheist).
- It's spelled "heard", not "heared", and "Sunday" should be capitalized.
I am a bit surprised that you seem to think that I am religious.I prefer more authoritative sources, such as the ones at dictionary.com
In the 1980s, I went maybe 3 or 4 times, to weddings and funeral services.
I've never been to a "Sunday service" in my entire life, that I can recall.
Actually, to be more accurate, I'm an "agnostic apatheist", which is a term that I made up.
An agnostic apatheist is a person who is skeptical (UK: sceptical) about the existence of a god or gods, and furthermore doesn't care whether or not a god or gods exist.
Nowhere in my post did I indicate that I was religious, nor did my post advocate any religious viewpoint.
The fact that I didn't capitalize the word "god" (except when quoting dictionary.com) should have clued you in that I'm not a religious person.
Considering the current state of our universe, if a god or creator does exist, then I don't really have a very high opinion of him/her/it.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
I'm already immortal and universal, with my every imagining merely an expression of another facet of the infinite, so I'll pass. Thanks for the offer though.
You have to understand the nature, purpose and context of our creation.
Our nature is that we have a vice-filled soul, a virtue-filled incorruptable
spirit, and a free will which uses the mind to make choices and then
command the physical body.
That may be your understanding and your nature.
I'm merely one facet of the infinite. In order for the infinite to have meaning it must contain everything. The same universe repeated over and over again, each time with only the tiniest particles state being different. My soul has experienced not only this life, not only every life, but every possible life.
Polar opposites rule "creation". It simultaneously is everything and nothing. It has no purpose whilst having every purpose. My nature is duality, an expression of every pair of opposites. My soul and spirit are infinitely perfect whilst infinitely corrupt. Free will is merely an illusion because in the infinite everything must exist, including concepts.
It's all very zen. Yet not at all too.
It generally helps if axioms aren't disprovable.
No. The word "atheism" means "I have no gods", in other words "I have no belief that there is a god".
/., but it misses a very important point: I don't need a proof that I have no gods in order to... well, to have none. It's you (or the religious ones) who need to provide a proof. Until you (or the religious bunch) do so, the topic is not even a topic for me.
Your analysis is way better than what I've seen lately on the
Let me put it another way. The whole idea of a (christian) god is based on nothing else but an extremely old book, which contradicts itself in quite a few places and is overall not at all convincing. Moreover, the book was written by multiple authors *MANY* years after what the book tries to describe has happened (or, most probably, has not happened). This book is not a historical document, by any stretch of imagination. As a matter of fact, I don't see a big difference between this book and, say, the fairytale of a "Little Mermaid". Both of them describe a world which manifests itself in no other way but through those books. I don't see why a sensible, thinking person would even want to give one of those books the benefit of doubt by saying "I don't know whether the book is a fairytale or a document." Sure, the theoretical possibility does exist, that both of these books are actually correct. However, this possibility seems to be so far fetched, that I don't even want to waste my time with it. If you come up with something resembling a proof, I'll gladly look at it. Until then, as I said, the topic is not a topic for me. If I wanted to pursue a fairytale, I'd be able to find much nicer and much more inspiring ones then the fairytale christians base their faith on.
The idea of agnosticism was - at a time it was coined - a different one than what it seems to be today. Originally, agnosticism was about "there is no proof for or against god, and there is even no way to prove it one way or the other". In the mean time, it seems to be more along the lines of "the data is inconclusive, so I simply don't know". While the agnostic point of view does have some appeal to me, it gives the idea of "god" too much privilege of doubt. A *real* agnostic would have to take exactly the same stance also with respect to, say, "The Little Mermaid", which no agnostic that I know of has ever done. For that reason, I view agnostics simply as atheists who are afraid of openly declaring themselves as such.
If I were forced to say whether a god exists or not, I'd say there is no god - not because I "believe" there is none, but because nobody managed to convince me there is one. I don't have to engage in an act of faith in order to not be convinced by a bad book.
You are mistaking people who call themselves religious with people who are truly
religious. Those of us (and we exist as a minority within all of the religions of
the world)
A nice piece of sophistry. So your logic is that anyone not happier through religion isn't doing it right. Religion makes people happier that became happier after trying religion. Umm.. yah. If you claim a equals b, then ignore any counterexamples where a isn't equal to b, then of course a equals b. Of course that's just simple dishonesty and a logical falacy, but most religions are full of those.
You don't understand; there is just one religion at the core of all religions, but the devil perverts them only a few generations after the messenger or prophet has died.
Pleease study more than just your own religion before you make ridiculous statements like this (or maybe you need some basic corses in logic, reason, and philosophy). Most non christian religions don't have a concept of the devil. Many religions don't have a prophet. All religions aren't the same. If you strip off enough layers of anything they're the same at whatever "core" you arrive at. I'm the same as the sun because we're both made of matter. Pure nonsense.
It's too bad you've been corrupted by some "prophet" who's taught you to be a fanatic. I suggest looking up the definition of cult and start thinking for yourself instead of believing whatever some religion has taught you.
AccountKiller
There never has been and never will be a "religious" war.
Pure nonsense. As you said yourself religion is used as a tool to start and continue wars. I call that a religious war, since one of its major causes is fanaticism, a major component of many religions. Simply claiming that the "true" cause is needs or wants is really an oversimplification. There's plenty of blame to go around in a war, and religion is one of the recipients of that blame.
AccountKiller
If you swing your fist towards my face, there is two possibilities. Either you are posturing, or you are trying to hurt me. It is in my best interests to assume the latter, since assuming the former and being wrong will lead to serious injury to me, and act accordingly: dodge and counterattack. This means that threats have the same potential to cause fights as actual attacks, and need to be controlled for the same reason: to prevent people living in close quarters from killing each other.
Furthermore, my personal space extends beyond my skin; the second your fist entered that region of space, you violated my claim to it. If I have a reason to assume that you did so with hostile intention, such as you swinging your fists at me, I have a good reason to assume that you're trying to start a fight, and that I need to defend myself. This should be understandable even to a libertarian, with their obsession on property.
Misbehaving in traffick has a very real chance of causing an accident and getting someone killed. Endangering the lives of others is most certainly a violation of their rights.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
"I guess it's how damned sincere you sounded, like you really -meant- what you were saying."
I was sincerely interested in what the definition of "human" was in that particular context. I was not asking for your definition of human or Wikipedia's, but rather the definition that those who base an entire philosophical, religious, or legal framework on humans being somehow special use. I think you will agree that without such a concrete definition, any contrary arguments become extremely difficult to make, because those in the counter-position can simply move the goal-posts whenever they wish to.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
I am aware of Descartes, as well as the works of subsequent philosophers who quite successfully refute much of what he wrote. However, for the sake of argument, Descartes can indeed be cited as _a_ proof (which is what I asked for), and I shall therefore concede this particular line of argument to you.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
But America DOES require more exercise and less dependency on fossil fuels. It's not something we've tried lately.
Yes, but bicycles can't put a measurable dent in that dependency. Who's going to bike trucks full of Chinese goods from Los Angeles to the East Coast for Walmart? For that matter who's going to bike that ship across the Pacific? Or bike the generators in the factory or bike the lights at Walmart? Or bike home that 200 pounds of groceries and particleboard furniture from Walmart.
And that's just one microsliver of the economy. Remember, passenger vehicles use less than 20% of the fossil fuels consumed in America.
It would be good to get Americans exercising more and possibly commuting. But there are no bike-safe metro areas in America. The death-rate per mile is much higher on bicycle than by car.
The real question is what effect would the combination of modern medicine have on an agrarian society, where everybody still plowed their own fields, tended to their livestock, and chopped their own firewood? That's what used to keep Americans thin and strong. But the life expectancy was 37 years. Besides, if everybody had to fend for themselves, it would be hard to further modern medicine. That three hours spent biking to and from work and showering could be one hour in a car plus two hours of productive research. The Internet can change all this but we're still married to commuting with the current crop of CxO's.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"While members of the academic community and relevant professionals such as doctors and legislators study these issues as ethics, members of the general populace tend to have fairly unambiguous moral stances on them. People do not tend to study ethics before they express the moral principle that the berieved relative must assent before a loved one's organs are harvested."
Firstly, the study of ethics is entirely separate from whether something is an ethical or moral issue. Secondly, I would argue that the stance most of the general populace takes on any of these issues is neither unambiguous or based on any particular moral position, but is instead usually an emotional response to a particular situation which the responder cannot describe in anything like unambiguous terms, or is based on religious dogma which may actually run contrary to the common moral base of a society.
"Neither do they tend to weigh up purjury even though they may feel that lying in other areas of life is 'ok'."
Perjury is a legal construct, not a moral or ethical one. It is thus quite possible to commit perjury while behaving in a manner that is both moral and ethical, while refusing to do so would be legal, but in some cases neither moral or ethical. Good laws may embody or reflect a society's morality, but they do not define it.
"And while for doctors and legislators the abortion debate is an ethical issue, for the pro-life US Conservatives and the pro-choice feminists it is simply a moral issue."
It is an emotional issue for both sides. Morals are sets of behaviours that are accepted by general consensus, not something that is imposed by one part of society on an equally large but dissident portion -- that is the job of laws, which I have already stated should (but often don't) reflect and even embody a society's morals but do not define them. And both sides of the debate obviously share a common morality which states that killing another human is wrong except under certain extenuating circumstances: what they disagree on is whether an unborn foetus is a human being or a part of its mother, and in many cases the point at which it ceases to be one and becomes the other. And their arguments about this definition all essentially boil down to either raw emotions, religious dogma, or a mixture of both.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
No, you're going down your own line of trying to cherry-pick a carefully engineered definition "ethic" and "moral" to suit your own circular argument, and you're even attempting to redefine "emotional" to try to cover your back where several things obviously do not fit. ("Emotional issues" means "issues that tend to stir up people's emotions" but does not mean that a person's stance on the issue depends on their emotional state at the time you ask the question). For example, in order to support your assertion [actually the OP's] that morals only evolve and are unaffected by religious affiliation, you have attempted to define "moral" as requiring a "general consensus [across all of society], not something that is imposed by one part of society on an equally large but dissident portion" and are attempting to use your own artificial re-definition of the word to define out morals influenced by religion on the grounds that members of other religions do not have the same ones. That is circular. A reasonable person would describe the two sections of the community as having differing moral stances on the issue. For you're next step, you'll define cats as "felines without tails" and use this to show that only the manx species is a cat because all others have tails!
To provide some external backing for my comment about your attempt to cherry-pick a favoured definition of moral and ethic just in case you don't believe me (and to save you the trouble of hunting for a favourable definition in a random dictionary), let's do a quick online lookup in the Oxford English Dictionary http://www.oed.com/. We get definitions of "ethic" which include:
"The moral principles by which a person is guided.",
"Relating to morals.".
(and about a dozen others including references to their first documented usages)
Similarly, "moral" gives us entries including:
"Thought and discourse about moral questions; moral philosophy, ethics. Also occas. in sing. Cf. MORALITY n. 7a. Now arch. and hist."
"In pl. (earlier in sing.). Originally: the title of St Gregory the Great's moral exposition of the biblical Book of Job. Later also: the collective title given to Plutarch's writings other than the 'Lives', to the ethical writings of Seneca, etc. Now rare."
(again plus a dozen others)
And you will notice there is no such artificially inserted distinction to try to save your argument. Indeed not only is ethic used as a synonym for morals, but moral is also used for thought and discourse which you would attempt to define as only being ethics. There is an entry for ethics as a subject of science - the academic study of ethics - as I used it, but not one that would help you.
A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
I haven't been using any extrodinary definition of the word human, and it should have been fairly obvious from the context.
Craig Venter, founder of the J Craig Venter Science Foundation, said [...]"The danger rests with what we already know: that we are not all created equal," [...]
That's the old testement fire and brimstone God you speak of. Eye for an eye, etc. God gave us frre will to do whatever we wish, even if directly against his wishes. Why don't you look it up yourself.
The most dangerous strategy is to jump a chasm in two leaps. - Benjamin Disraeli
""Emotional issues" means "issues that tend to stir up people's emotions" but does not mean that a person's stance on the issue depends on their emotional state at the time you ask the question".
I never said otherwise. I distinguish between an emotional response to a situation and a moralistic response solely by the respondent's ability (to paraphrase you) to unambiguously identify the foundation for their assertion that something is "wrong" rather than merely reacting against it "because". Morals (or usually contravention of them) is clearly capable of promoting an emotional response, but not all emotional responses have a corresponding moral foundation.
"For example, in order to support your assertion [actually the OP's] that morals only evolve and are unaffected by religious affiliation, you have attempted to define "moral" as requiring a "general consensus [across all of society], not something that is imposed by one part of society on an equally large but dissident portion"
I fail to see anything in the part of my text that you are quoting which implies or denies any particular source for a society's moral framework. I only state that collective morality must be agreed upon rather than imposed, i.e. that it is a shared belief, not a tyranny which is forced on large numbers of others against their will. This in no way precludes it being derived from a religious foundation if that religion is shared by the majority, neither does it presuppose that religion is the only possible foundation for a collective morality.
"[you are] attempting to use your own artificial re-definition of the word to define out morals influenced by religion on the grounds that members of other religions do not have the same ones."
I have written nothing which implies that religion cannot be the source of a society's shared morality, because many societies have moral codes which are clearly derived from a religious foundation. I do however distinguish between religiously inspired collective morality, and a selective interpretation of that morality which is not universally accepted being forced on everyone. Societies which do that sort of thing are known as theocracies.
You cite some things from the OED (an excellent dictionary):
Firstly, the etymology of a word and information on when it was first published have no relevance to this argument, because meanings of words regularly change over time, hence the fact that good dictionaries such as the OED have several definitions for most of them, including obsolete ones.
Secondly, I fail to see where you think the OED refutes anything I said, as I never claimed that morals and ethics are unrelated (in fact, I said the opposite). I distinguish between them merely in terms of scope: morality establishes a set of agreed behavioural guidelines, and ethics apply these morals to specific situations, some of which may not have existed when the original moral code was established.
NB: It seems that you are rather emotionally bound to this, and are therefore misreading a great deal of what I have said as being some sort of attack on you and your beliefs. I shall therefore terminate this debate by conceding victory to you, as it is only of interest to me from an academic viewpoint.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
"I haven't been using any extrodinary definition of the word human, and it should have been fairly obvious from the context."
I know you weren't, but some of the things you were citing (and not necessarily agreeing with) did depend rather heavily on a specific definition of "human" in the context of the citation. For some, it could be simply "that which was created in God's image and imbued with an immortal soul", whereas others require a more complex and / or significantly less mystical definition to make sense.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
IANAPhil, but here goes...
"Campaigning against the collecting of stamps would indeed be a hobby."
So if an atheist campaigned against religion, it would be a hobby as well. Agreed. I fail to see how that makes atheism a belief, though.
"Athiesm is the fervent belief in the non-existence of God."
This is a common misconception about atheism. The literal meaning of the word comes from the greek a + theos, so essentially "without god" or "lack of belief in god". However, the lack of belief in something does not imply belief in the negation. For example, a mathematician working on a problem may not know how it will turn out: it could go one way or the other. His lack of belief in one alternative over the other does not imply that he has some prior belief, or bias, as to the outcome. Thus an atheist is one who lacks belief in god, but may not explicitly believe that there is no god.
"I think you mean 'Agnosticism', which is the lack of a belief."
No, agnosticism itself is a belief. It is the belief that claims about the existence of god cannot possibly be (or at least have not yet been) resolved. From the greek: "a"+"gnosis"="no knowledge". Agnostics are allowed to believe whatever they want, with one exception: they also believe that they don't really know. Agnostics make no ontological claim, only an epistemological one. For example, a devout Christian is agnostic if he or she believes that the question of the existence or non-existence of god is inherently beyond the grasp of human capacity: nothing will ever prove or disprove it. Many members of any major religion would probably fall into this category -- notably Christians, who seem to value faith above all else.
Atheism is the ontological counterpart to agnosticism. One version says, simply, that if we don't know that something exists, we ought not to believe it. For instance, if asked, "Will you let Jesus into your heart and soul", an atheist says: "No, I won't, because I have no evidence that Jesus had any mystical powers and believing in his supposed almighty glory would likely be a waste of time." Bertrand Russell states it well:
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there [is not a flying spaghetti monster].
Hasta la pasta,
Liam O'ohay
No, not really. Nothing I've said requires the existence of a soul.
"The Essential Quality of being human" is pretty wordy, but you could have figured out I wasn't talking about a soul and moved on to actually, y'know, debating, after the first post. You probably did.
Hence why arguing semantics is little more than trolling.
Very well... My personal space by my own definition now extends for one square mile. The second you enter that region of space, you violate my claim to it. If you drive your vehicle within my personal space, I may be injured by it, therefore the government must ban all motor traffic within a one square mile area around me. Since I cannot be sure of your intentions as to whether you are travelling innocently or attempting to run me over, this is a sound policy decision to prevent aggression toward me. Endangering the lives of others is most certainly a violation of their rights.
Any time you cede a right, privilege, or freedom to the government, you can guarantee you will never receive it back. And I have noticed that those without an "obsession" over property usually have none.
"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves." -- Thomas Jefferson
:) I definatelly think Russell stated it well.
I used your exact argument on a Rabbi once, however, and I recall him eating my lunch. He had some very good arguments as to why Atheism is the fervent belief against the existence of God, everything else being Agnosticism. Unfortunately, I do not recall his exact argument, only the conclusion. I think he settled on calling me an "Atheistic Agnostic" after breaking Agnosticism into about 6 very different categories.
I do think that Russell's statement is very accurate: I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. In fact, IIRC this has been logically proved beyond a doubt multiple times by multiple philosophers, and makes perfect sense. Anyone who falls into this category cannot be a true Athiest, and anyone who does not, has either a logically unfounded belief in the existence or non-existence of God. Atheism is the belief in an unprovable, and only a subsect of Agnosticism is truely without unfounded belief.
Now, explain to me how your fucking god is so damn compassionate?
:-) Anyway, the prophets are the same. They are gifted
The reason a person burns in hell is not because they reject Him - it's because that
to reject Him is to reject His Command to love everyone. The people who reject Him
cause incomprehensible pain and mischief in the world because they are the pawn
of the devil. There is no coasting here, you're either getting better or getting
worse. And those who never seek Him spend their lives chasing pleasure at the
maximal level while risking societal rejection on whatever level they deem acceptible.
It is terrible, I know, because I wandered for many years.
You have to understand that God wants everyone to go to heaven and to be happy for
their entire lives here. This system is designed as such. The thing is, tho, He gave
us the free will to choose to ignore the system. He gave us this life and He placed
no strings on it, except that we are accountable for how we treat people. If he just
made this a place where everyone could only do good, it wouldn't have much allure,
would it? Think about a movie that doesn't have a bad guy or some tension: no one's
gonna see it. Choice is interesting and valuable and he gave it to us with a set of
rules. It's quite amazing and every choice counts.
The only religion is the religion of love, both for God and for all the earth. That's
not doctrine, that's the way to make a perfect society, the kind that I wish as part
of instead of The United Corporations of America (though I love most of my fellow
Americans).
And I think of Michael Jordan, who at 6'6" was an incredibly gifted athlete for a man
that tall, with all the mental characteristics that gave him the drive to succeed.
Now, imagine that my 5'6" had the same drive - it just doesn't matter, because I don't
have the same tools to achieve what he did, no matter my love for the game (and forget
my white man's jumping ability
in their creation to be able to get the answers to how we should live; and they are all
universally gifted with love, whether it's Buddha, Christ, Confucious, Muhammed or
Guru Nanak. We have to respect their acheivements just as we watched Jordan - with jaws
dropping at the unbelievability of it. It's all quite impressive, as everything is in
this wonderful creation.
I wish you all peace and happiness.
bmac
How do you define ill-will or malice? A cat can attack other cats, is that ill-will?
No, it's survival. Too many cats in one area mean not enough food, or too much possibility
for disease. It's pure instinct to survive. We human beings have another level of
potential, that is, to rise above such animal instincts and embrace love and service.
religions which had human sacrifice
The examples you gave are simply people creating a bunch of dumb laws and then *calling*
it a religion. A real religion comes from God and has love as its guiding principle.
Without love, what a person is doing is definitely *not* religion.
Reincarnation, as I specifically said in Buddhism, need not be into a human form
Well, as I understand it, the point of reincarnation was that the human form was the
highest form and that any sin committed as a human had to be then later experienced
as a receiver *in human form*. In any event, if you think that you're going to return
as a bug, you're believing the same type of nonsense that you criticized in your previous
section. And any religion that says that your life's decisions don't count, or can be
forgiven after your dead, is wasting their life.
show most humans simply cannot comprehend the fact that their lives are utterly meaningless
Well, I understand my "mote"-ness. But I also respect the miracle of 70ish trillion cells working
in electrical and chemical harmony to be the me that I have.
There is a great Sufi story about a Sufi holy man who was challenged to a debate with a scientific
atheist. It was due to begin at 7pm and it was raining terribly. At 8pm the Sufi shows up
late and the atheist asks him why he was late. The Sufi says that because of the rain the
river was flooded and he couldn't ford it and the nearest bridge was 20 miles away. Then, he
said, as he was standing there, the trees started cutting themselves down, started turning their
branches into rope and started shaping itself into a bridge, and that he crossed over on that
bridge.
The atheist said to the Sufi, "What do you take me for, a fool? Trees cannot turn themselves
into a bridge." To which the Sufi replies, "And so your unbelievably complex body didn't have
a designer and builder?"
Peace be with you,
bmac
Yes, but there is a part of us (our spirit) that always knows; we also call it our
conscience. I was listening to a report recently on some admitted genocidal killers
from Bosnia (or Serbia, I don't remember exactly). They said that when the order to
begin killing the group with their rifles was given, they were reluctant and afraid.
Then, after they killed one, they felt bad, but that killing the second one was easier.
And so on. He said that after awhile it was no problem at all.
The key is that at first we all know, and we will be judged because we all *do* know,
no matter how deep we bury it.
Peace be with you,
bmac
The point is that the OED does not concur with your distinction, and neither do I because I don't feel it's a useful distinction to make in this forum. "Ethics" is a term for the study of morality, and within that academic field the words may have particular jargon meanings that are no doubt open to academic debate, but beyond that both historical and common contemporary usage shows them to be interchangeable and without a clear single definition. (From a cognitive viewpoint, I also suspect morals/applications works the other way around -- that morals are shortcut rules for a connected sequence of thoughts, and thus applications are likely to turn into morals rather than morals simply leading to applications).
I don't feel your distinction is useful in this forum because for the whole of this conversation you've been saying "X is not a moral, it's just an ethical application of morals Y, and Z" giving us the silly amateur psychology game of debating which might be "base morals" on your terms. Morals as atomic units rather than thought-out applications can come from a wide variety of sources, everything from Aesop's fables and common literary background to law to religion to, in weaker cases, simple experience ("don't mix family and business") or what your gran kept telling you when you were young. So I don't feel it's worthwhile debating specific examples of which might be an atomic moral and which might be a compound application of different morals. At least not here, and not without a large quantity of experimental data to back it up (and even then it's likely to vary from community to community). Nonetheless, being a bit argumentative, I felt I should refute your rhetorical allegation that I was "confused" about any of this.
Not at all - just my argumentative side kicking in. As for "misreading" what you said - you might wish to check the context of your original post to see why I naturally assumed you were concurring with the OP's assertion that morals are unaffected by religion. You replied in rhetorically strong tones to my reply to him - I believe your first line was "it is you who appears to be confused", [where my post had indicated the OP had confused two issues together], which I naturally took as indicating both your opposition to my post and your alignment with his.
"The point is that the OED does not concur with your distinction, and neither do I because I don't feel it's a useful distinction to make in this forum."
A fair point.
"From a cognitive viewpoint, I also suspect morals/applications works the other way around -- that morals are shortcut rules for a connected sequence of thoughts, and thus applications are likely to turn into morals rather than morals simply leading to applications."
That is an extremely interesting observation, because a society's morality is usually at least in part a reflection of the environment in which it exists. Peoples who live in extremely harsh environments for example often have moral codes which demand that they treat any traveller as an honoured guest because failing to do so would be tantamount to condemning them to death, while most modern city dwellers in the Western world feel no moral obligation to passing strangers whatsoever.
"Morals as atomic units rather than thought-out applications can come from a wide variety of sources, everything from Aesop's fables and common literary background to law to religion to, in weaker cases, simple experience ("don't mix family and business") or what your gran kept telling you when you were young."
I don't think we're talking about quite the same thing, here. The sort of morals I was arguing about are those that form a social framework which allows an individual to interact with his or her peer group, i.e. basic behavioural rules that help promote harmonious co-existence (don't kill other people, don't take their stuff without asking, etc.). You on the other hand are using a more expansive definition which includes such things such as "the moral of this story", which while perfectly valid, has much which falls outside the scope of what I was arguing about. For example, Aesop's fables would not be examples of morals by my more restrictive definition, whereas Jesus' "The Good Samaritan" is (and on many more levels than traditional Christian teachings suggest). The difference here revolves around the inverse of "moral", i.e. "immoral": not looking before you leap may be a bad idea, but it isn't considered immoral, whereas wandering past a severely injured person without assisting them in any way definitely would be immoral by the standards of almost any society.
"without a large quantity of experimental data to back it up (and even then it's likely to vary from community to community)."
It does vary from community to community, even within the same nation, especially those such as the United States whose populations are spread over a very large geographical area. Consider for example the "moral relativism" that the neo-cons detest with such vehemence: it is still extremely strong in secular areas such as San Francisco, yet has never really had any notable presence at all in the "Bible Belt", even when it was the prevailing moral model of much of the rest of the country. Historical evidence indicates that it varies considerably over time as well, and that profound changes can happen very suddenly indeed, e.g. when the Roman Empire changed from a largely Greek-influenced secular moral base to a Judaeo-Cristian one in the space of a few years.
"Nonetheless, being a bit argumentative, I felt I should refute your rhetorical allegation that I was "confused" about any of this."
You have done so very successfully indeed.
"just my argumentative side kicking in. As for "misreading" what you said - you might wish to check the context of your original post to see why I naturally assumed you were concurring with the OP's assertion that morals are unaffected by religion."
I can indeed see why you would easily think that this was the case. And I did make various references to "religious dogma", but that was not because I any way refute the role that religions have played in either providing moral foundations or codifying existing ones (a chicken and egg subject that could in itself be the subject of considerable debate!). My point was simply t
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
I used to consider myself an agnostic, until a philosophy professor asked me if I believed that Santa Claus might exist. Since then, I've discovered that I'm a weak friendly atheist. Strong atheism denies the existence of any god, while weak atheism denies the existence of a particular god. Also, unfriendly atheism denies that rational bases for religious belief exist, while friendly atheism admits of possible rational bases for religious belief.
A few years ago, I would have denied that anything existed beyond the physical world. I've since become less dogmatic. Who knows what strange mysteries the universe might hold?
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
The examples you gave are simply people creating a bunch of dumb laws and then *calling* it a religion. A real religion comes from God and has love as its guiding principle. Without love, what a person is doing is definitely *not* religion.
No, it's you redefining religion for your own purposes. Those are much religions as anything else.
Well, as I understand it, the point of reincarnation was that the human form was the
highest form and that any sin committed as a human had to be then later experienced
as a receiver *in human form*. In any event, if you think that you're going to return
as a bug, you're believing the same type of nonsense that you criticized in your previous
section. And any religion that says that your life's decisions don't count, or can be
forgiven after your dead, is wasting their life.
I always find people like you funny. I never said I believe so, I'm simply pointing out examples from other religions. Amazingly enough unlike you I don't have to believe things to know about them at anything more than a cursory level.
And of course, what you do matters in Buddhism that is WHY you become a bug. The whole point of existence is to reach enlightenment, which in general only a human can do or at least it is much easier for a human to do. They also have around a dozen hells, quasi-heavens in addition to coming back as an animal. The only difference from Christianity really is that Buddhism doesn't say "too bad, you went to Hell have fun" but rather "too bad, you went to Hell; hope you learn something at a subconscious level and do better next time" (Hell is temporary in Buddhism).
The atheist said to the Sufi, "What do you take me for, a fool? Trees cannot turn themselves into a bridge." To which the Sufi replies, "And so your unbelievably complex body didn't have a designer and builder?"
Of course I do, then again I don't need to deal with metaphors since I understand enough biology to see the process as amusingly likely (granted it does remove meaning from our lives since we're simply on of many potential results). At least you didn't mention the "airlines assembling itself during a tornado" story. Also human bodies don't assemble themselves; we're the result of billions of years of processes which slowly build more and more complex structures.
It's like saying the Greek could never build a stone arch because they could never lift all the stones into place at once (while ignoring the fact that support structures could first be built and the stones put on one by one).
First, and almost offhand, they aren't laws, they're the currently reigning theories, which means they are our current best candidate of human metaphor for observed behavior. They may yet, or may not, be superceded, extended, and/or reduced. We'll see. Not that they are particularly relevant to your point, but your understanding of them is flawed.
Second, why would I have to explain where anything came from? I wasn't there if and when anything "came from" anywhere, nor was I around to observe that anything was always there, nor was I around to observe a continuing cycle of collapse and expansion, nor was I around to see dimensions interact... basically, I'm smart enough to know that it is outright folly to assume I know what happened umpty-ump billion years ago. I don't expect to ever know, and although I am certainly curious, my curiosity does not drive me to make ridiculous pronouncements that "this" or "that" is "how everything began" — I am comfortable not knowing. When other people make such pronouncements (for instance, when they assume "creation" by God, gods, or via "the monobloc") I just laugh at them, because they're being very silly, and furthermore, they're not even answering the question, they're just extending it to a new domain. Where did God come from? Where did the monobloc come from? Etc., ad infinitum.
If a being existed outside what you're calling "creation", then there was something already, and you've not addressed how he (or it) came to be. Postulating one unanswerable, impossible to confirm situation in order to conjure up another is not only fruitless (in the gain-of-knowledge sense), it is outright stupid.
However, your claim that no human can know is without foundation in fact. You don't know where humanity will go in the future. Our scientific progress may include being able to observe long-past events. It's technically possible — in fact, you do it every time you look at the stars. I don't know if we'll figure it out, but I do know that guessing at it won't resolve the question, no matter how entertaining it is for scientists and no matter how comforting it is for theists. Why? Because given the current state of science, even if you got the right answer, you wouldn't know you had. To confirm such speculation will require observation.
No, I don't have to admit that at all. I am fully ready to admit that the universe is here, but that's no reason to assume it was created, or unchangable. In fact, our observations of the universe may be the very best evidence that it has always been here in one form or another. We have no information that would make any rational person assume power could accrue to one being such that said being could create what we dimly perceive in the Hubble telescope's deep-field samples. This is one of the best evidentiary points in favor of discarding theism — the presumption of such power in the hands of one being makes no sense. And of course, I don't count the bible as "information" — it is a book written by a crew of scientifically illiterate early middle easterners, and as such, one of the very last places I would turn for answers to real scientific issues.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Ok. So using your own approach, the fact that your fellow human, Jeff Dahlmer, ate young boys parts means that you have no sense of morality.
See the problem with your line of reasoning?
You'll need to work a little harder on your argument if you want to be taken seriously. Making up fragile, poorly reasoned analogies won't cut it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
It's bullshit. Some men are born dead. Some men are born into slavery. Some men are born unable to pursue happiness, and then it gets worse. Women too, all three conditions. It's bullshit. Doesn't matter how you elaborate upon it, doesn't matter how far you restrict it, doesn't matter if you bring some bullshit idea of a "creator" into it, doesn't matter if you try and abstract it into "unalienable rights" that some paper is going to try and formalize. The whole idea of everyone being "created equal" is still bullshit from end to end and top to bottom. Pure, unadulterated bullshit. No straw man required. We already have one made out of bullshit, anyway.
People aren't equal. On any level. At creation, birth, midlife, or end of life. I suggest you get used to the idea. Otherwise you'll spend all your time shoveling... yes, bullshit. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
When confronted with the question, "Are you human", I answer "yes", rather than some in-between answer. When confronted with the question "is your cat human", I answer "no." These are simple questions. There is no need to make up a third position, an agnostic position on homo sapiens and/or felines.
Similarly, there are only two positions with regard to belief in a god or gods. Either you have some, or you don't. Therefore, you are either theist or atheist. That whole agnostic thing is just confusion at best, and cowardice at worst.
Thanks for the thread. By all means, have the last word. Slashdot will archive it shortly.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No, I wouldn't. Because your "experiment" is only speculation, drawing a conclusion from it is invalid.
Also — I do have real world experience here. The fact is, in most cases, the mother feeds the kittens until she is too weak to move, with her dugs drying up as they go. It's really quite pitiful, and in the end, it doesn't usually save them because whatever it is that has isolated the mother from food sources also isolates the kittens.
My company specializes in charity towards animals; although that is rewarding on many levels, sadly, it also means I know far more than I really want to about the bad things that happen to them.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
So, this "they" - who are no better than animals etc etc - in fact refers to anyone who doesn't agree with you? Way to go, religion of peace!
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
> but those rules should not be policed by government
If the government doesn't police them, who does? Private security? Posses? Vigilantes? Surely you aren't suggesting we have no system of enforcement of agreed-upon rules for conduct.
Etc, etc, ad nauseam, and so on and so forth.
No, I am right.
Rights: Does a Down's syndrome sufferer truly deserve the same right to speak up in a classroom where string theory is being discussed as those who understand the discussion? Obviously not. Does a person born with a highly communicable disease expect the right to sit hide to hide with a healthy person? Obviously not. Clearly, individual rights depend directly upon our makeup, not just some philosophical mumbo jumbo. Rights are real things; consequently, they depend upon real things. Furthermore, they are socially relative, not some fairy-absolute the founding fathers (or anyone else) can lay down.
Obligations: Does a congenitally armless person have the obligation to hold the door for you? Do you have the obligation to hold the door for them? Is this situation in any way unclear to you, that you would argue that you have equal obligations? Does a rich man have an obligation towards charity? Does a poor man? Are they equal? Postulate: You have a family to support. Medical care, school, shelter, food, etc. Do you have an equal obligation to work for an individual with no money, as compared to one with lots and lots of money and who is prepared to give a sizable chunk of that to you? Is this situation in any way unclear to you in that traditionally (and for very good reason) the obligation to support one's offspring and mate(s) causes other obligations to arise, obligations that are not in any way equal with, for instance, someone who has no family, regardless of if they would prefer to have one, or not?
Equality as objective fact is an illusion on every level. Should you attempt to invoke or force it upon people, you are almost certainly doing the exact opposite of what you thought you were doing: Making people more unequal, and not only that, but unfairly so. Until you understand that, you will be arguing from a false and misleading premise.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.