Well, it seems like you are saying that if organisms are more prone to blind Darwinian processes that would make organisms less prone for survival. And putting the brakes on mutations and changes which are at the heart of the Darwinian mechanism would make an organism more prone to for survival.
So if Darwinian processes produce the survival of the fittest, the first thing those processes have to do is protect an organism from random mutation and error.
Anything useful can be used for good or ill depending on the heart of the user. Cell phones can be used to coordinate between gang members or to call the police for help. Databases can keep track of charitible giving or can help genocidal dictators.
Sometimes donations and campaign contributions are more akin to extortion payments than bribes.
Like Microsoft's monopoly or not (I don't), they ran into problems in the late 90s because they didn't give out much campaign contributions. They learned their lesson well.
It's not a strawman. I'm not saying that atheists believe such and such. It's just I described the logical conclusions if you are consistent with an atheistic worldview.
Under an atheist's worldview, all our thoughts are constrained by the laws of physics. An atheist cannot say that he believes something because it is true. You wouldn't believe anything because it is true. You would believe something because the atoms in your brain are bouncing around in a certain way. An atheist couldn't trust their own rational capabilities, if they are to be consistent in their atheism.
So if you are a strict materialist, you would have to say that not only do religious people have pre-determined conclusions, but that is the case for everyone.
If there is a cost to their beliefs, they won't stand by them.
This should show some the difference between a truly bad regime and the current American government, regarless of your beliefs of whether the American government violated privacy rights.
They will grovel before people complaining about Danish cartoons. They only stand up to people who won't kill them or harm them. In fact, they aren't even protecting a Somali-born politician (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/391 2042.html) who is in danger from radicals.
The French backed down from sane free-market reforms in order to improve their high unemployment rate. They backed down due to the protests. No backbone there either.
I see no backbone in Europe. They might as well enact sharia law and get it over with.
I had another thought and it relates to the point of taxes not going way.
In Pa. you have something similar. That whole alcohol system was developed. And now, today, it remains the way it is not because of people's views of alcohol but mainly because it is an entrenched system. There are people with a vested stake in it remaining the same. And they will care more and have a louder voice than the vast majority of people who want change. The average person, in this case, is annoyed by the system but doesn't have a vested interest.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not disagreeing with you.
Well, it seems like you are saying that if organisms are more prone to blind Darwinian processes that would make organisms less prone for survival. And putting the brakes on mutations and changes which are at the heart of the Darwinian mechanism would make an organism more prone to for survival.
So if Darwinian processes produce the survival of the fittest, the first thing those processes have to do is protect an organism from random mutation and error.
I'll go with that and agree with you.
Error control mechanisms, at the very least, would very much run against the flow of blind Darwinian processes.
Yes, this discovery does not hurt the ID movement at all.
The RIAA was right. Life as we know it is endangered by free, unhindered downloads.
Some outlier who makes a bunch of money could skew the average.
Anything useful can be used for good or ill depending on the heart of the user. Cell phones can be used to coordinate between gang members or to call the police for help. Databases can keep track of charitible giving or can help genocidal dictators.
Some say "censor"?
You can't be censored by a private citizen.
You can be told to shut up. Your post can be deleted. But you weren't censored.
http://www.donsautopages.co.nz/microsoftgm.htm
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/index.cfm?fa=vi ewfeature&id=1497
Lawmakers don't know enough technically to make a law that wouldn't have unforeseen and damaging consequences, even if they supported net neutrality.
Sometimes donations and campaign contributions are more akin to extortion payments than bribes.
Like Microsoft's monopoly or not (I don't), they ran into problems in the late 90s because they didn't give out much campaign contributions. They learned their lesson well.
It's not a strawman. I'm not saying that atheists believe such and such. It's just I described the logical conclusions if you are consistent with an atheistic worldview.
Under an atheist's worldview, all our thoughts are constrained by the laws of physics. An atheist cannot say that he believes something because it is true. You wouldn't believe anything because it is true. You would believe something because the atoms in your brain are bouncing around in a certain way. An atheist couldn't trust their own rational capabilities, if they are to be consistent in their atheism.
So if you are a strict materialist, you would have to say that not only do religious people have pre-determined conclusions, but that is the case for everyone.
I'm not Roman Catholic, but I would have to agree.
Often it is your job description and duty to be an advocate for your client/employer.
Could you imagine a defense lawyer saying in his opening argument "my client is guilty"?
If there is a cost to their beliefs, they won't stand by them.
This should show some the difference between a truly bad regime and the current American government, regarless of your beliefs of whether the American government violated privacy rights.
Law itself is based on morality. I cannot think of any law which you cannot tie directly or indirectly to morality. Murder, stealing, etc.
Speeding? Concern for the safety of others.
So the "don't legislate morality" argument is a canard.
That homeless guy has a rough life. No home. No family.
Let's harvest his organs.
How about...this will be useful when Darth Vader cuts my hand off?
When you take away greed you are left with laziness.
I'm not saying they must enact reforms. The French, like everyone else in a functioning democracy, have the right to keep themselves unemployed.
They will grovel before people complaining about Danish cartoons. They only stand up to people who won't kill them or harm them. In fact, they aren't even protecting a Somali-born politician (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/391 2042.html) who is in danger from radicals.
The French backed down from sane free-market reforms in order to improve their high unemployment rate. They backed down due to the protests. No backbone there either.
I see no backbone in Europe. They might as well enact sharia law and get it over with.
I so badly wish I had mod points to give you.
I had another thought and it relates to the point of taxes not going way.
In Pa. you have something similar. That whole alcohol system was developed. And now, today, it remains the way it is not because of people's views of alcohol but mainly because it is an entrenched system. There are people with a vested stake in it remaining the same. And they will care more and have a louder voice than the vast majority of people who want change. The average person, in this case, is annoyed by the system but doesn't have a vested interest.
Please don't underestimate the entrenched problems in Philadelphia.
But yes, the case law for beer, state stores, etc. needs to go. Although they do get good discounts on wine due to volume purchases.
Emergency taxes should have expiration dates on them to prevent such a thing.