I don't have a great deal of understanding of advanced physics, so I'll throw this out. Could extra dimensions as proposed by string theory help explain this type of stuff?
I'm saying an ultimately meaningful morality cannot exist if a person is consistent with their atheism. I also don't believe consistent atheists exist, since God-given conscience is ingrained into each human being. Atheists will exhibit morality and moral beliefs. They are horribly inconsistent when they do.
Just the fine-tuning of the universe. Read the latest book by Paul Davies to get an overview of the problem. Go for an overview of the Origin of Life situation. I retract the statement that they realize there is an intractible problem. They realize there is a problem, but their faith commitment to naturalism is preventing them from realizing there is no naturalistic solution.
Atheists believe human beings were designed for a purpose? That's a new one to me. Designed by whom? And there are atheists (of the materialist variety-let me be more specific) which believe there are thoughts in our heads which aren't due to physics and chemistry?
Those are not only the consequences of what atheism describes, it is generally what atheists believe. There always are inconsistent atheists, but I have never run across a thoughtful atheist who believed otherwise.
If "right" and "wrong" were fixed, immutable, objective truths, then these beliefs would still be true today and people that accepted the other "truths" of the christian religion would cling to these as well.
I've seen a lot of statements similar to this. It ignores a lot of Christian Scripture, theology, etc. Particulars can change while universals remain constant.
And that objection, to have any weight, relies on objective morality. Which is inconsistent with atheism. If atheism is true, it is all just matter in motion. No purpose. No right and wrong. Getting upset about theists or non-theists doing stuff to other collections of atoms is silly. Unless God exists and there can be an objective morality. Then such an objection could make sense.
The universe shows incredible fine-tuning to allow for life. Origin of Life researchers realize that there is an intractible chicken-and-egg problem about how life got off of the ground in the first place. And what do many with an atheistic predisposition do? Run away from the evidence and towards an untestable multiverse hypothesis.
Furthermore, atheists tell us 1) we weren't designed for any reason 2) all the thoughts in our head are the result of physics and chemistry. If atheists were consistent with their own atheism, that would leave us with absolutely no confidence in our own rational faculties to ascertain truth.
Then we have materialists (a version of atheism) who don't believe in any immaterial things. But they happen to use abstractions and immaterial laws of logic. The law of non-contradiction isn't orbiting around Jupiter.
So exuse me. I'm a little bit underwhelmed at the amazing rationality of atheists and atheism, especially the ones who want to speak ill of religion.
For what it's worth, your analysis is completely on-target for how I'll be making my next laptop purchase.
1) I want to be done with Windows (as much as possible). In the hopefully rare case where I need to load Windows, their decision to go with Intel helps.
2) I want the stability of Unix.
3) I don't want to be tinkering with Linux. I just want things to work.
If you set the legal precendent that you can sue in one country about something you were forced to do according to the laws of another country, chaos would ensue.
I'm not thrilled that Yahoo! did what they did. Primarily because I don't like putting exclamation points in the middle of my sentences, but I believe they are correct according to the law.
I'll grant you that they have the right to investigate whether their were using their office to investigate people for political reasons. But people were saying the firings in and of themselves were a problem or illegal. Which they weren't. In other words, it was an excuse to make political hay.
I keep thinking about the federal government paying farmers not to grow certain crops.
This seems like a bad idea. We could create a glut of students in a particular field, and that isn't necessarily the best for society. It may not be horrible, but it may not be optimal.
The article seems to say that structures come and go and can make different structures. Is this life? Or is this more like a crystal which can make other crystals. I'm specifically thinking of taking a super-saturated solution and pouring it over a crystal. It evolves and changes structure.
In other words, how are we defining life? Structure and change don't seem to be the essence of life. There is something about life where normal chemistry and physics isn't enough. My dog runs around.
If a cloud could move itself where a simulation couldn't predict it to go because of self-movement, then that would seem closer to life.
I guess I'm trying to figure out how exactly we are defining life.
Slashdot Mirror
So I guess the original article wasn't in USA Today if there wasn't a graph.
As far as these issues go:
Education is generally a local and parental matter. Not much the President can do.
Other issues are going to get lost in the shuffle of Presidential priorities. At least I think that's likely.
A good revamp of the patent system would, in my estimation, spur a lot of economic activity and decrease the amount of money wasted on lawyers.
You've been spending too much time on slashdot.
Let's say someone sues. They win. They don't charge any money in first place. Wouldn't the damages be zero?
If that's the case (and I have no idea if that is indeed the case), enforcement wouldn't have any teeth.
That was easy.
Seriously, no need to translate. Schadenfreude crossed from German to English.
I would like to see how people who have switched political sides during their lifetimes would be handled.
But the real question is: will anyone read my post after 1000 posts in this thread?
the universe will apparently head towards the Big Blue (screen of death). It is inevitable.
I don't have a great deal of understanding of advanced physics, so I'll throw this out. Could extra dimensions as proposed by string theory help explain this type of stuff?
I'm saying an ultimately meaningful morality cannot exist if a person is consistent with their atheism. I also don't believe consistent atheists exist, since God-given conscience is ingrained into each human being. Atheists will exhibit morality and moral beliefs. They are horribly inconsistent when they do.
What evidence?
Just the fine-tuning of the universe. Read the latest book by Paul Davies to get an overview of the problem. Go for an overview of the Origin of Life situation. I retract the statement that they realize there is an intractible problem. They realize there is a problem, but their faith commitment to naturalism is preventing them from realizing there is no naturalistic solution.
Atheists believe human beings were designed for a purpose? That's a new one to me. Designed by whom? And there are atheists (of the materialist variety-let me be more specific) which believe there are thoughts in our heads which aren't due to physics and chemistry?
Those are not only the consequences of what atheism describes, it is generally what atheists believe. There always are inconsistent atheists, but I have never run across a thoughtful atheist who believed otherwise.
If "right" and "wrong" were fixed, immutable, objective truths, then these beliefs would still be true today and people that accepted the other "truths" of the christian religion would cling to these as well.
I've seen a lot of statements similar to this. It ignores a lot of Christian Scripture, theology, etc. Particulars can change while universals remain constant.
And that objection, to have any weight, relies on objective morality. Which is inconsistent with atheism. If atheism is true, it is all just matter in motion. No purpose. No right and wrong. Getting upset about theists or non-theists doing stuff to other collections of atoms is silly. Unless God exists and there can be an objective morality. Then such an objection could make sense.
This is tiresome.
The universe shows incredible fine-tuning to allow for life. Origin of Life researchers realize that there is an intractible chicken-and-egg problem about how life got off of the ground in the first place. And what do many with an atheistic predisposition do? Run away from the evidence and towards an untestable multiverse hypothesis.
Furthermore, atheists tell us 1) we weren't designed for any reason 2) all the thoughts in our head are the result of physics and chemistry. If atheists were consistent with their own atheism, that would leave us with absolutely no confidence in our own rational faculties to ascertain truth.
Then we have materialists (a version of atheism) who don't believe in any immaterial things. But they happen to use abstractions and immaterial laws of logic. The law of non-contradiction isn't orbiting around Jupiter.
So exuse me. I'm a little bit underwhelmed at the amazing rationality of atheists and atheism, especially the ones who want to speak ill of religion.
You are living in a glass house.
For what it's worth, your analysis is completely on-target for how I'll be making my next laptop purchase.
1) I want to be done with Windows (as much as possible). In the hopefully rare case where I need to load Windows, their decision to go with Intel helps.
2) I want the stability of Unix.
3) I don't want to be tinkering with Linux. I just want things to work.
If you aren't free in your economic decisions (the ability to make contracts, work, etc.), you have a deficient understanding of freedom.
If you set the legal precendent that you can sue in one country about something you were forced to do according to the laws of another country, chaos would ensue.
I'm not thrilled that Yahoo! did what they did. Primarily because I don't like putting exclamation points in the middle of my sentences, but I believe they are correct according to the law.
Ok. Is there any decent evidence for that or just speculation?
I'll grant you that they have the right to investigate whether their were using their office to investigate people for political reasons. But people were saying the firings in and of themselves were a problem or illegal. Which they weren't. In other words, it was an excuse to make political hay.
Could someone explain to me what the big deal was with firing political appointees for political reasons?
The article mentions that life on Mars could be from Earth originally.
I keep thinking about the federal government paying farmers not to grow certain crops.
This seems like a bad idea. We could create a glut of students in a particular field, and that isn't necessarily the best for society. It may not be horrible, but it may not be optimal.
The article seems to say that structures come and go and can make different structures. Is this life? Or is this more like a crystal which can make other crystals. I'm specifically thinking of taking a super-saturated solution and pouring it over a crystal. It evolves and changes structure.
In other words, how are we defining life? Structure and change don't seem to be the essence of life. There is something about life where normal chemistry and physics isn't enough. My dog runs around.
If a cloud could move itself where a simulation couldn't predict it to go because of self-movement, then that would seem closer to life.
I guess I'm trying to figure out how exactly we are defining life.
We have to part company on your analysis that there are a ton of good options for Origin of Life research: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanId=sa003&arti cleId=B7AABF35-E7F2-99DF-309B8CEF02B5C4D7
Materialism is true, therefore there must be a materialistic answer to these problems. That is faith-based optimism.
88mph won't let you time travel. You have to be close to the speed of light like Superman: the Movie.
It's hard to remember the plot details. But I remember a lot of slow motion.