I don't believe there are any strong historical credentials in the Bible. I don't believe the gospels are consistent and coherent, and I asked for that kind of conviction with all my heart and got nothing. Evidently, God plays favorites. Some honest seekers get conviction, some get touched by priests (not that I was, I was an adult when I gave Christianity a try.)
Yes, I'm married. For eight years. Yes, I use the scientific method in my marriage, as I use it in every relationship. I make a hypothesis regarding the other person's mental state. I act on that hypothesis. I observe, using all my senses, and my empathy, the results of my actions. Based on the results, I revise my behavior. If you have a better way, I'd love to hear it.
"A guy died" is to "I killed a guy" as "a guy died" is to "an avalanche killed a guy." Intent doesn't enter into it at the level you've laid out. It's a simple matter of fact. Intent, in this case, is like the snowflake that finally set off the avalanche. A decision to kill some guy happened, that is the meaning of that occurence. Sure, you can bring more detail into it, but then you are talking about a broader set of occurrences.
Of course you can reduce a relationship to scientific statements. Your entire range of experiences could be described purely by physics and chemistry. Your relationship with your brother can be explained through psychology. As you are an educated person, you should know that. Religion has evidently damaged your critical faculties. Let us hope the damage isn't permanent.
How do we know Jesus rose from the dead? Gospels written mostly by men who didn't know him? Gospels that contain contradictions even between themselves? Why would you believe the gospels over any other ancient text that describes miracles?
I really thought the GP couldn't put it any simpler, but let me try: you assume god exists. Your relationship with your brother could very easily be analyzed by the scientific method, because your brother exists.
the core idea of religion is that there is *meaning in, around, behind, or through the things that occur in the universe. Why does anyone need to invent more meaning than the occurrence itself? It occurred, that is exactly it means, anything more is not just gilding the lily, it is smearing the lily with shit. I mean, if you want to do that, I won't stop you, but if you try to convince other people that making up arbitrary stories helps anything, I'll respectfully point out that it doesn't. Making up stories because you can't face the world as it is is exactly like taking drugs for the same reason. Religion really is the opiate of the masses. Now even Karl Marx admitted that sometimes, when people are really hurting, opium helps. But for healthy, sane people, it's not only unnecessary, it's dangerous.
I've trusted enough to accept Christ as my personal savior, back in the day. You know what I got? Jack shit. Absolutely nothing. Well, not nothing. I felt like a chump for believing such fairy tales. Then I found eastern philosophies and I got mystical experiences and peace of mind, all through practices anyone can try and verify for themselves. The existence, or lack thereof, of God, a personal soul, or an afterlife is utterly unimportant to me now. Those kind of questions are only important to someone who sees themselves as fundamentally separate from the world. I know that I am one with the unending chain of cause and effect. That is enough to provide me with total, utter, and complete peace of mind.
No, because it makes no sense to kill others. Killing you does not profit me as much as having you alive. With two or more people, each of us can specialize and produce more than either one of us could alone. We can also look after each other when we are sick, or otherwise weak. Disagreements can only strengthen both of us, as we are forced to question our assumptions and come to stronger positions. Science and logic provide us with the means to arrive at that which is truly beneficial to us. Buddha and Lao Tzu were scientists, and founded philosophies that had the moral strengths of religion, without the weaknesses, because they both said, "Don't accept anything anyone, even me, says unless it agrees with your experience and common sense."
Guess what? In societies that do not forbid adultery, there is less of it on average than in societies that do. Turns out "Stubbornly doing what you are told not to, when you know it should be okay" is another trait we've evolved. My wife and I practice adultery, with each other's full knowledge and support, and guess what? No one gets hurt because no one feels the need to lie about it.
Another trait we've evolved is "logically considering the world and the consequences of our actions in it; and modifying our behavior to be more effective." And you know what? That's gotten us further than any other trait. Cooperation is effective. Honesty is effective. All those things your religion tells you to do because they are good? They are good only because they are effective. Anyone can figure out how to be a good person, and why, if only other people didn't screw them up with lies, guilt and other unnecessary bullshit.
Nice way to redefine religion to suit your argument. It's interesting you mention those questions. Buddha was asked those same questions, and he wouldn't answer. I'll explain my understanding of why. 1.) Where did I come from? It doesn't matter.
2.) Who am I, really? You're the one who knows that, how can someone else answer that?
3.) What, if any, is the purpose of my existence? The purpose of your existence is to be here and ask these dumb questions, among other things.
4.) What will happen to me after I die? It doesn't matter.
But then, guys like Buddha and Lao Tzu were scientists, not preachers. Maybe you should ask yourself, why do those questions seem so important?
What special criteria doe someone have to meet to be considered an expert witness? You have to, you know, witness a lot of stuff, and you have to be really good at witnessing stuff. Me, I've witnessed stuff all my life, but I never really paid attention, so although I'm a good witness, I'm not an expert.
Uh, most of Asia? Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism are philosophies, not religions, as they do not really speak of Gods, or the afterlife. So I'd have to respectfully disagree that 'most' societies throughout human history have been religious. For that matter, most human societies throughout human history have been breeding grounds for disease, but we don't think of disease as something valuable. You'll have to come up with a better argument than that.
That's not how scientists think. If it were, there would be no scientific progress. Instead, young scientists seeking to make a name for themselves routinely question the status quo. You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis, they are two different fields of study. And there are no reputable scientists who simply stop at "Life was created by random chance." Instead, they are making plenty of testable hypothesis, unlike the ID crowd, who make no testable hypothesis.
Well, you would take no joy in seeing justice served, either. You might still do it from a sense of duty, but fulfilling a duty would also not give you any pleasure.
Marx was a hack. Bakunin and the other anarchists told him exactly what would happen but he didn't listen. I'm sure Mises tries to make like he is carrying on in the grand anarchist tradition, but libertarian and 'individualist anarchists' are flat out sellouts who are only in it because they want to be the next overlords and masters. They just want to use economic power so that they can make some fucked up social-Darwinist justification for owning slaves.
We use clustered VMWare on IBM Blades. With resource pools and automigratation, load spikes are handled automatically as other VMs are moved off of the server with the spike. Pretty spiffy, actually.
Put some big old advertising on it, call it Verizon Awesome Space Planet Finder. Offer to let sponsoring corporations name the first earth-like planet found. You'd have funding coming out your black hole, I tell ya'.
Please, for the love of science, don't anyone take this seriously, m'kay?
You have your belief, I have mine. You think I'm a brutish ugly liar, I think you are an elitist hypocrite who can't follow basic logic and acts in a self serving manner without looking or caring how his actions impact others.
Answer me this, in your hypothetical free trade utopia, what would keep resource owners from voluntarily colluding to keep resource prices high and wages low? If anyone tried to butt into their oligopoly, they could refuse to trade vital resources, or temporarily undercut him until he's out of business and once again a wage slave. You simply haven't thought this through, because subconsciously you believe you would be in the owning class and free to oppress the plebes like you really want to in your greedy, black little heart.
Trade only *ever* occurs because that which is received is valued more than that which is given away in exchange.
Fuck you and your oversimplifications. How much is your life worth to you? You need to eat to live, if people use economic means to oppress you, you have to get your food through them, and you pay ANY price.
Mises.org sucks ass. Mises was an elitist idiot who wanted the power to economically oppress people into wage slavery. He was a power hungry madman who loved the status quo, HE just wanted to be the one with the power. You are the one who has been brainwashed, no mainstream economists listen to anyone who spouts Mises nonsense.
Bullshit. I said cooperation is voluntary, meaning we don't have to cooperate with non-cooperators. You want the power to economically oppress people, well we aren't going to let you own slaves, sorry.
Cooperation and consent don't exist in a free market where a small oligarchy controls all the resources. Capitalism invariably leads to empire building, read some history. The free market is an unbalanced system with no checks and balances and a bunch or runaway feedback loops. Once again, we you libertarians offer simple solutions to complex problems that just don't pan out in the real world. You see, we tried lassez faire, and it failed miserably, leading to robber barons, 7 day work weeks, rampant poverty, dangerous working conditions, and pollution. You know what saved us? Wasn't the free market, bub, it was people organizing together voluntarily to protect their interests against fat-cat would be slave owners like you, you oppressive little elitist git.
Are you crazy, man! Every DNS, NTP, and DHCP server out there needs it's own quad core with 8GB RAM! Our departmental wiki needs a whole load balanced cluster.
Healthy, non desperate people are a common good we all benefit from. Desperate people are a negative externality that hurts everyone. Low income inequality is another public good. We have decades of economic data showing that economic inequality leads to rising crime rates, while low income inequality leads to economic expansion. Vaccination is a great example of the problem of public health. It protects everyone, even those who don't get the vaccine, because the disease can not spread. But it only works that way when enough people do it.
Government may not be there to support or take care of me, but it should be there to protect me from exploitation. In a totally free market system, what happens to the people who don't own property and must work for someone else in order to make enough money to live? Aren't they virtual slaves? What's to keep the owners from banding together and price fixing the labor market? If I own all the land around yours, what's to prevent me from keeping all shipments and customers away from you?
Almost everyone takes pleasure in fairness. This has been shown in dozens of recent economic experiments. People feel good when other people's excellence is rewarded. They feel bad when others get something unfairly. This even applies to chimpanzees. We are born and bred to be cooperators, that is our greatest strength. The free market creates conditions where people feel they have to go against their natural instincts for fairness and reciprocity because otherwise, they will be taken advantage of. It is destructive to the true nature of humanity, although it seems tailor made for sociopaths.
Why did the previous comment get modded down to 1 instead of the 2 my comments usually start at? All without any kind of moderation attributed to it, not even an 'overrated' or 'offtopic' Hehe, I think I pissed off Slashdot's resident right wing assclown Pudge the other day.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe there are any strong historical credentials in the Bible. I don't believe the gospels are consistent and coherent, and I asked for that kind of conviction with all my heart and got nothing. Evidently, God plays favorites. Some honest seekers get conviction, some get touched by priests (not that I was, I was an adult when I gave Christianity a try.)
Yes, I'm married. For eight years. Yes, I use the scientific method in my marriage, as I use it in every relationship. I make a hypothesis regarding the other person's mental state. I act on that hypothesis. I observe, using all my senses, and my empathy, the results of my actions. Based on the results, I revise my behavior. If you have a better way, I'd love to hear it.
"A guy died" is to "I killed a guy" as "a guy died" is to "an avalanche killed a guy." Intent doesn't enter into it at the level you've laid out. It's a simple matter of fact. Intent, in this case, is like the snowflake that finally set off the avalanche. A decision to kill some guy happened, that is the meaning of that occurence. Sure, you can bring more detail into it, but then you are talking about a broader set of occurrences.
Of course you can reduce a relationship to scientific statements. Your entire range of experiences could be described purely by physics and chemistry. Your relationship with your brother can be explained through psychology. As you are an educated person, you should know that. Religion has evidently damaged your critical faculties. Let us hope the damage isn't permanent.
How do we know Jesus rose from the dead? Gospels written mostly by men who didn't know him? Gospels that contain contradictions even between themselves? Why would you believe the gospels over any other ancient text that describes miracles?
I really thought the GP couldn't put it any simpler, but let me try: you assume god exists. Your relationship with your brother could very easily be analyzed by the scientific method, because your brother exists.
I've trusted enough to accept Christ as my personal savior, back in the day. You know what I got? Jack shit. Absolutely nothing. Well, not nothing. I felt like a chump for believing such fairy tales. Then I found eastern philosophies and I got mystical experiences and peace of mind, all through practices anyone can try and verify for themselves. The existence, or lack thereof, of God, a personal soul, or an afterlife is utterly unimportant to me now. Those kind of questions are only important to someone who sees themselves as fundamentally separate from the world. I know that I am one with the unending chain of cause and effect. That is enough to provide me with total, utter, and complete peace of mind.
No, because it makes no sense to kill others. Killing you does not profit me as much as having you alive. With two or more people, each of us can specialize and produce more than either one of us could alone. We can also look after each other when we are sick, or otherwise weak. Disagreements can only strengthen both of us, as we are forced to question our assumptions and come to stronger positions. Science and logic provide us with the means to arrive at that which is truly beneficial to us. Buddha and Lao Tzu were scientists, and founded philosophies that had the moral strengths of religion, without the weaknesses, because they both said, "Don't accept anything anyone, even me, says unless it agrees with your experience and common sense."
Guess what? In societies that do not forbid adultery, there is less of it on average than in societies that do. Turns out "Stubbornly doing what you are told not to, when you know it should be okay" is another trait we've evolved. My wife and I practice adultery, with each other's full knowledge and support, and guess what? No one gets hurt because no one feels the need to lie about it.
Another trait we've evolved is "logically considering the world and the consequences of our actions in it; and modifying our behavior to be more effective." And you know what? That's gotten us further than any other trait. Cooperation is effective. Honesty is effective. All those things your religion tells you to do because they are good? They are good only because they are effective. Anyone can figure out how to be a good person, and why, if only other people didn't screw them up with lies, guilt and other unnecessary bullshit.
Is it weird that I find those answers far more comforting than any fairy tale?
Nice way to redefine religion to suit your argument. It's interesting you mention those questions. Buddha was asked those same questions, and he wouldn't answer. I'll explain my understanding of why.
1.) Where did I come from?
It doesn't matter.
2.) Who am I, really?
You're the one who knows that, how can someone else answer that?
3.) What, if any, is the purpose of my existence?
The purpose of your existence is to be here and ask these dumb questions, among other things.
4.) What will happen to me after I die?
It doesn't matter.
But then, guys like Buddha and Lao Tzu were scientists, not preachers. Maybe you should ask yourself, why do those questions seem so important?
Uh, most of Asia? Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism are philosophies, not religions, as they do not really speak of Gods, or the afterlife. So I'd have to respectfully disagree that 'most' societies throughout human history have been religious. For that matter, most human societies throughout human history have been breeding grounds for disease, but we don't think of disease as something valuable. You'll have to come up with a better argument than that.
That's not how scientists think. If it were, there would be no scientific progress. Instead, young scientists seeking to make a name for themselves routinely question the status quo. You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis, they are two different fields of study. And there are no reputable scientists who simply stop at "Life was created by random chance." Instead, they are making plenty of testable hypothesis, unlike the ID crowd, who make no testable hypothesis.
Well, you would take no joy in seeing justice served, either. You might still do it from a sense of duty, but fulfilling a duty would also not give you any pleasure.
Marx was a hack. Bakunin and the other anarchists told him exactly what would happen but he didn't listen. I'm sure Mises tries to make like he is carrying on in the grand anarchist tradition, but libertarian and 'individualist anarchists' are flat out sellouts who are only in it because they want to be the next overlords and masters. They just want to use economic power so that they can make some fucked up social-Darwinist justification for owning slaves.
We use clustered VMWare on IBM Blades. With resource pools and automigratation, load spikes are handled automatically as other VMs are moved off of the server with the spike. Pretty spiffy, actually.
Put some big old advertising on it, call it Verizon Awesome Space Planet Finder. Offer to let sponsoring corporations name the first earth-like planet found. You'd have funding coming out your black hole, I tell ya'.
Please, for the love of science, don't anyone take this seriously, m'kay?
You have your belief, I have mine. You think I'm a brutish ugly liar, I think you are an elitist hypocrite who can't follow basic logic and acts in a self serving manner without looking or caring how his actions impact others.
Answer me this, in your hypothetical free trade utopia, what would keep resource owners from voluntarily colluding to keep resource prices high and wages low? If anyone tried to butt into their oligopoly, they could refuse to trade vital resources, or temporarily undercut him until he's out of business and once again a wage slave. You simply haven't thought this through, because subconsciously you believe you would be in the owning class and free to oppress the plebes like you really want to in your greedy, black little heart.
Mises.org sucks ass. Mises was an elitist idiot who wanted the power to economically oppress people into wage slavery. He was a power hungry madman who loved the status quo, HE just wanted to be the one with the power. You are the one who has been brainwashed, no mainstream economists listen to anyone who spouts Mises nonsense.
Bullshit. I said cooperation is voluntary, meaning we don't have to cooperate with non-cooperators. You want the power to economically oppress people, well we aren't going to let you own slaves, sorry.
Cooperation and consent don't exist in a free market where a small oligarchy controls all the resources. Capitalism invariably leads to empire building, read some history. The free market is an unbalanced system with no checks and balances and a bunch or runaway feedback loops. Once again, we you libertarians offer simple solutions to complex problems that just don't pan out in the real world. You see, we tried lassez faire, and it failed miserably, leading to robber barons, 7 day work weeks, rampant poverty, dangerous working conditions, and pollution. You know what saved us? Wasn't the free market, bub, it was people organizing together voluntarily to protect their interests against fat-cat would be slave owners like you, you oppressive little elitist git.
Are you crazy, man! Every DNS, NTP, and DHCP server out there needs it's own quad core with 8GB RAM! Our departmental wiki needs a whole load balanced cluster.
Healthy, non desperate people are a common good we all benefit from. Desperate people are a negative externality that hurts everyone. Low income inequality is another public good. We have decades of economic data showing that economic inequality leads to rising crime rates, while low income inequality leads to economic expansion. Vaccination is a great example of the problem of public health. It protects everyone, even those who don't get the vaccine, because the disease can not spread. But it only works that way when enough people do it.
Government may not be there to support or take care of me, but it should be there to protect me from exploitation. In a totally free market system, what happens to the people who don't own property and must work for someone else in order to make enough money to live? Aren't they virtual slaves? What's to keep the owners from banding together and price fixing the labor market? If I own all the land around yours, what's to prevent me from keeping all shipments and customers away from you?
Almost everyone takes pleasure in fairness. This has been shown in dozens of recent economic experiments. People feel good when other people's excellence is rewarded. They feel bad when others get something unfairly. This even applies to chimpanzees. We are born and bred to be cooperators, that is our greatest strength. The free market creates conditions where people feel they have to go against their natural instincts for fairness and reciprocity because otherwise, they will be taken advantage of. It is destructive to the true nature of humanity, although it seems tailor made for sociopaths.
Why did the previous comment get modded down to 1 instead of the 2 my comments usually start at? All without any kind of moderation attributed to it, not even an 'overrated' or 'offtopic' Hehe, I think I pissed off Slashdot's resident right wing assclown Pudge the other day.