[sarcasm]yeah, nothing but advertising and market share. I mean if they really wanted to make a difference, why don't they just target the causes of problems?[/sarcasm] seriously people... yes, google (or anyone for that matter) could pump this money into feeding people for a year or two, but after that, things would still be the same. Western civilisation has been giving aid for how long now? And how much difference has it made (apart from keeping people alive another day so they can suffer tomorrow instead)? I am all for help for the poor and needy, it - but I beg to differ on what constitutes REAL help. I used to think that we should just support poor countries as much as we can, but now I know that the only way any country will ever learn to stand on its own two feet is if (well meaning but ultimately flawed) handouts stop.
The economic recovery of Germany after WW2 didn't occur because people just 'gave' Germany food and medical care. It occurred because under the Marshall plan, the US made long term investments into infrastructure and the economy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaftswunder
I'm not saying that google has no other motives than helping the needy, but neither did the US with post WW2 Germany. If they can make a buck while doing good, then good on 'em!
Please people - read, and then think before you form an opinion!
finally! I got sick and tired of my mates being able to cheat in multiplayer games by flicking the remote instead of doing the proper motions. It just takes the whole point out of it. I hope it really is nearly 1:1, but I'm pretty sure I'll be disappointed again....
I know, I know, they're powerful and all, but when a company becomes too ignorant and irritates its customers too much (by that I mean the sellers) they inevitably give the competition (even if they're only small start-ups) a huge chance to start taking over.
Here in Australia, alternative sites like Oztion have started to become much bigger since ebay started screwing its sellers. It is getting to the point where they are nearly a local alternative for sellers (especially for sellers who don't sell overseas anyway). Especially since evays little paypal experiment many sellers are looking for alternatives. In New Zealand there's Trademe, and it is also becoming bigger and better every day.
As ebay becomes more and more reckless, sites like Bidtopia, eBid, OnlineAuctions, WeBidz and uBid will start seeing more and more sellers flock to them as they are getting sick of ebay screwing them around.
Serves 'em right...
I explained my view better here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=553532&cid=23422342
have a look at that and then tell me what you'd call it. (I'd be glad to know if there's a good word to describe it, because most 'ism' words seem too narrow to define my views)
(except to note that just because we have no proof either way does not imply that each claim is necessarily equally likely). I agree - not necessarily equally likely, BUT equally possible. That may sound like I'm just twisting words, but i'm using the word 'possible' in this sense: something either is possible or isn't, there are no degrees. Something can't be half-possible.
Regarding your jury example - if you couldn't decide either way whether he was guilty or innocent, would you say that letting him go free is just as irrational as sending him to prison? Of course not - the burden is upon those who want to send him to prison (i.e., making the positive claim he has committed a crime) to prove their case; it isn't for others to prove it didn't happen. yes, the burden of proof lies with those making a positive claim, but strong atheists make just as much of a positive claim when they state that god doesn't exist. Maybe the jury thing was a bad example, because of the ingrained concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'. I'll try again: before modern physics, somebody may have denied that there are such things as electrons. Some may say that this is the most rational position to hold according to the info available to that person at the time. But I'm saying that this person should have been smart enough to realise: 'hey, there's no way I could know if there are or aren't electrons, so I won't worry about it. Maybe there are, but maybe not.' Doubting is fine, but completely denying what you can't possibly know is in my view irrational.
because surely, if neither position can be proven - then it is the most rational decision to withhold judgment! A good analogy is this: if I'm selected for jury duty and I don't know anything about the case yet (the guilt or innocence of the accused is unknowable to me at this stage), it would be foolish to make a judgment already, wouldn't it? And the reason the existence/non-existance of a god is unknowable is because of the nature of the concept 'god'. There is sipmly no convincing argument (either way) that I've come across. One could for example always resort to: "god is so much above what we can conceive of that our thoughts could never explain/prove/disprove her/him/it." And for all I know, that statement could be true!
by the way, 'the other post' i was referring to is this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=553532&cid=23422342
The problem is that there are (if what you said about 'any intelligent atheist..' is true) too many unintelligent atheists around, who are just as dogmatic as most theists are.
The reason I said that agnosticism (in my mixed sense) is the most rational position is this: Technically none of us can prove or disprove any type of imperceptible god/fairy/spaghetti-monster we can come up with, so suspending judgment and not letting these unknowable possibilities influence ourselves is the most reasonable thing to do.
I really hope that we don't have to go into the individual arguments for/against any type of god to explore this further, because that's exactly what lead me to this position. There will always be another reply to any argument put forward to prove/disprove a god, but if there really was a god that was so much above human perception (like most religions believe), then how can we even entertain the idea that any of our arguments could prove or disprove her/him?
well, i'll explain my position properly then: I really think that most 'ism'-words are too restrictive and tend to categorise people too much. In reality I'm a mix between (a) an agnostic and (b) a critical atheist. This is because (a) I believe that it is ultimately stupid to make a strict decision about something you can't possibly know, and (b) that in favour of what I do know, it is more rational not to let the possibility of what may or may not be (i.e. what I cannot know either way) influence my daily life. Note that in (b) I don't make a decision invalidating (a), I am just saying I won't let the suspension of judgement influence my life (i.e. pray to a god which to all my knowledge may or may not exist). This is just because when we go down to the basics (eg. brain in a vat etc) then philosophically speaking we can't be sure of anything, whether we experience it or not. That doesn't mean that it is irrational to believe that I am actually sitting on my pc typing right now. I just find that a lot of atheists close their minds completely to any other possibility, and this I DO find irrational. So i suppose I agree with what you said, I just didn't explain myself proplerly the first time around...
but that's exactly the point! I can niether disprove the teapot nor the spaghetti monster, just like I can't disprove any other type of god that anybody wants to stipulate - that's exactly what being an agnostic is about! I explained in another reply that I'm a mix between agnostic and critical atheist, in that I do suspend judgment, but I don't let this influence my life. In other words, I don't think we should worship a 'possible' god any more than I think we should worship a possible spaghetti monster! I admit that my original post was a bit wishy-washy, but i wanted to keep it short. We could all write whole essays about our opinions and still completely talk past each other...
And since you believe all new age philosophy to be crap, you are probably a closed minded athiest so why does it matter how I came up with my opinion? that's a great strategy, if you run out of arguments to back up your theory, just attack the opponent with assumptions.
Basically I don't believe the universe exists independent of the observer. And if you somehow do believe the universe can exist independent on the observer then the burden is on you to prove something can exist without being observed by anything in the universe. ever heard of the Bertrand Russell's teapot? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
It is exactly the same as you are saying. You also can't prove that there are 'invisible faires running around in my garden, which make my plants grow'. Normally theists would reply that there are no reasons to believe in these fairies, and there ARE reasons to believe in god, like our experiences etc. My reply is: there IS a reason to believe in my fairies, see - the grass grows. If you think about this analogy carefully you'll see that it's exactly the same.
To kestasjk and AuMatar: THIS is philosophy of religion, not what you probably had in mind when you posted about it. Philosophy of religion can be (and is best) done in a secular, unbiased way. And secular doesn't mean atheist, it just means that you don't let any religious presumptions influence your reasoning. If that secular reasoning leads you to a religious perception of the universe, then so be it. But in my experience it leads to agnosticism.
nope. I have studied a fair bit of philosophy of religion. And I came out way more balanced than before.
I used to call myself an atheist. I believed in Kant's ideas of rationalism and that any form of theology is just the irrational 'opium for the masses'. After learning more about arguments for/against and generally more about religious ideas I've realised that agnosticism is a much more rational position on the whole idea of a god.
couldn't agree with this post more!
There is one quote from Einstein that pretty much clears up this whole discussion. I don't know it word for word, but this is a close paraphrase:
"The only rational idea of any sort of God would be a kind of cosmological theism" He didn't say he even believed in that though. He only said that this would be the only rational conception of a "God" that he could imagine. Of course the term 'cosmological theism' is open to interpretation. Having said that, I could imagine he would have meant something along the lines of God is the complete 'equation' of the universe. (Not conscious, not all good, not even an entity at all, just physics)
Slashdot Mirror
[sarcasm]yeah, nothing but advertising and market share. I mean if they really wanted to make a difference, why don't they just target the causes of problems?[/sarcasm] seriously people... yes, google (or anyone for that matter) could pump this money into feeding people for a year or two, but after that, things would still be the same. Western civilisation has been giving aid for how long now? And how much difference has it made (apart from keeping people alive another day so they can suffer tomorrow instead)? I am all for help for the poor and needy, it - but I beg to differ on what constitutes REAL help. I used to think that we should just support poor countries as much as we can, but now I know that the only way any country will ever learn to stand on its own two feet is if (well meaning but ultimately flawed) handouts stop. The economic recovery of Germany after WW2 didn't occur because people just 'gave' Germany food and medical care. It occurred because under the Marshall plan, the US made long term investments into infrastructure and the economy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaftswunder I'm not saying that google has no other motives than helping the needy, but neither did the US with post WW2 Germany. If they can make a buck while doing good, then good on 'em! Please people - read, and then think before you form an opinion!
finally! I got sick and tired of my mates being able to cheat in multiplayer games by flicking the remote instead of doing the proper motions. It just takes the whole point out of it. I hope it really is nearly 1:1, but I'm pretty sure I'll be disappointed again....
I know, I know, they're powerful and all, but when a company becomes too ignorant and irritates its customers too much (by that I mean the sellers) they inevitably give the competition (even if they're only small start-ups) a huge chance to start taking over. Here in Australia, alternative sites like Oztion have started to become much bigger since ebay started screwing its sellers. It is getting to the point where they are nearly a local alternative for sellers (especially for sellers who don't sell overseas anyway). Especially since evays little paypal experiment many sellers are looking for alternatives. In New Zealand there's Trademe, and it is also becoming bigger and better every day. As ebay becomes more and more reckless, sites like Bidtopia, eBid, OnlineAuctions, WeBidz and uBid will start seeing more and more sellers flock to them as they are getting sick of ebay screwing them around. Serves 'em right...
exactly! well explained..
because surely, if neither position can be proven - then it is the most rational decision to withhold judgment! A good analogy is this: if I'm selected for jury duty and I don't know anything about the case yet (the guilt or innocence of the accused is unknowable to me at this stage), it would be foolish to make a judgment already, wouldn't it? And the reason the existence/non-existance of a god is unknowable is because of the nature of the concept 'god'. There is sipmly no convincing argument (either way) that I've come across. One could for example always resort to: "god is so much above what we can conceive of that our thoughts could never explain/prove/disprove her/him/it." And for all I know, that statement could be true!
by the way, 'the other post' i was referring to is this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=553532&cid=23422342 The problem is that there are (if what you said about 'any intelligent atheist..' is true) too many unintelligent atheists around, who are just as dogmatic as most theists are. The reason I said that agnosticism (in my mixed sense) is the most rational position is this: Technically none of us can prove or disprove any type of imperceptible god/fairy/spaghetti-monster we can come up with, so suspending judgment and not letting these unknowable possibilities influence ourselves is the most reasonable thing to do. I really hope that we don't have to go into the individual arguments for/against any type of god to explore this further, because that's exactly what lead me to this position. There will always be another reply to any argument put forward to prove/disprove a god, but if there really was a god that was so much above human perception (like most religions believe), then how can we even entertain the idea that any of our arguments could prove or disprove her/him?
well, i'll explain my position properly then: I really think that most 'ism'-words are too restrictive and tend to categorise people too much. In reality I'm a mix between (a) an agnostic and (b) a critical atheist. This is because (a) I believe that it is ultimately stupid to make a strict decision about something you can't possibly know, and (b) that in favour of what I do know, it is more rational not to let the possibility of what may or may not be (i.e. what I cannot know either way) influence my daily life. Note that in (b) I don't make a decision invalidating (a), I am just saying I won't let the suspension of judgement influence my life (i.e. pray to a god which to all my knowledge may or may not exist). This is just because when we go down to the basics (eg. brain in a vat etc) then philosophically speaking we can't be sure of anything, whether we experience it or not. That doesn't mean that it is irrational to believe that I am actually sitting on my pc typing right now. I just find that a lot of atheists close their minds completely to any other possibility, and this I DO find irrational. So i suppose I agree with what you said, I just didn't explain myself proplerly the first time around...
I hope I haven't made my position more confusing!
but that's exactly the point! I can niether disprove the teapot nor the spaghetti monster, just like I can't disprove any other type of god that anybody wants to stipulate - that's exactly what being an agnostic is about! I explained in another reply that I'm a mix between agnostic and critical atheist, in that I do suspend judgment, but I don't let this influence my life. In other words, I don't think we should worship a 'possible' god any more than I think we should worship a possible spaghetti monster! I admit that my original post was a bit wishy-washy, but i wanted to keep it short. We could all write whole essays about our opinions and still completely talk past each other...
exactly.
so true, sums it up perfectly!
nope. I have studied a fair bit of philosophy of religion. And I came out way more balanced than before. I used to call myself an atheist. I believed in Kant's ideas of rationalism and that any form of theology is just the irrational 'opium for the masses'. After learning more about arguments for/against and generally more about religious ideas I've realised that agnosticism is a much more rational position on the whole idea of a god.
I don't know, I find the whole "what isn't perceived doesn't exist" theory a little too egocentric.. just my 2 cents..
couldn't agree with this post more! There is one quote from Einstein that pretty much clears up this whole discussion. I don't know it word for word, but this is a close paraphrase: "The only rational idea of any sort of God would be a kind of cosmological theism" He didn't say he even believed in that though. He only said that this would be the only rational conception of a "God" that he could imagine. Of course the term 'cosmological theism' is open to interpretation. Having said that, I could imagine he would have meant something along the lines of God is the complete 'equation' of the universe. (Not conscious, not all good, not even an entity at all, just physics)