True. For example, it's true there's been a handful of more or less credible threats against Norway, and it's perfectly possible that sooner or later we'll get an attack of some kind or other.
However, it's *also* true that theres ~10million plane-rides in Norway every year, and that each and every one of those waste atleast a minute/passenger for largely pointless security-posturing. (No, I don't think we're very much safer from terrorism because I can no longer go with a tube of toothpaste in my hand-luggage)
10 million times 1 minute is on the order of 115 *years*. Which adds up to the wake part of 2 human lifes. So, we're wasting 2 lifes/year on this particular measure alone. Add in the time wasted by those manning the security-checkpoints and we're up to wasting a dozen lifes a year, more or less. And that's before even *mentioning* the cost of it all.
Perhaps. But nevertheless everyone is *also* influenced by their surroundings.
So, true, it's perfectly possible that two kids go trough similar childhoods yet one ends up as a responsible human being, and the other ends up as a sociopath.
But also true, most people who end up being nothing but a dead-weigth and an irritant in society have fairly obvious, serious, problems in their childhood.
rpm really should be statically linked. What he did to "unrecoverably" fuck his system was removing a library that is needed by rpm -- thus making it impossible to *reinstall* that library because that this point rpm won't start anymore. (yeah, I knwo, not really impossible, but impossible to fix using rpm alone anyway)
I don't really see the downside of compiling rpm statically -- it's a trivial fix, and it *does* help the user in a few scenarios.
If the thing we disagree over is a matter of truth or falsehood then yes. At most one of two conflicting truths can be correct.
But different interpretations of poems do not usually conflict. There is no law saying a poem can't mean *2* different things (or 5).
People, in *general* come up with wildly conflicting ideas about God. The similarities there is tends to be according to those around you. This is indicative of the influence that gives you these ideas being those surrounding you, and not anything divine. Unless you believe in a God that gives different advice based on which particular region the prayer originally came from. But that's a fairly silly idea -- indeed all religions that believe in a God claim that his wishes, desires and rules are universal.
You're missing my point. One of the things that make human beings special is that we are capable of sharing knowledge. I have not personally undertaken any concrete measures to verify the existence of electrons, gamma-radiation, australia, the HIV-virus or the speed of ligth.
But I don't have to. There exist hundreds of detailed descriptions of experiments one can perform to measure the speed of ligth. Along with these descriptions, there are reports from lots of people who have actually performed these experiments, and the results. Yes, in -principle- they could all be lying. In practice it's probably a good assumption that the speed of ligth really is aproximately 300.000km/s. And if I was skeptical, I could always do the experiment myself.
You're missing the point about the hummin ligth-detector too. The point isn't that it proves that there is "ligth", it most certainly doesn't. What it does is show that there is *something*. The blind person can hold it under a piece of glass and it'll hum, then under a piece of wood, and it won't. This allows him to conclude there is *SOME* difference between wood and glass that influences the machine.
Now, he doesn't at this point know *WHAT* the difference is. But he knows that it's there. Further experiments can teach him more about the properties of whatever is influencing the machine.
After a while, he'll know that there is a SOMETHING with the following properties: (long list here), it makes sense to assign a name to this phenomenon. Sure, he doesn't need to label it "ligth", but regardless of the label, he has actually discovered the thing. It'd still *be* ligth even if he choose to call the phenomenon "FlobbyFarlans".
This, as I've pointed out a few times now, does not work for your concept "God". There is no experiment that can show that there is *anything* there. Your suggestion to pray for a year does not work. It's been tried. By lots of different people. We know the outcome: the outcome is they end up believing fully different things, there is not a *SINGLE* aspect of "God" that people will consistently agree on after having prayed for a year. The experiment isn't *reproducible* if 2 different people make the same experiment, they'll get 2 different results. (mostly they'll get whatever result their parents/surrounding-culture get, which is a fairly strong indication that this is something you learn from your surroundings, not something coming from a divine being.
You also miss the point on your ethics. I'm saying I just flat out don't believe you'd have acted less decently in the absence of religion. And yes, willingly keeping money when you notice that someone gives you too much by mistake is dishonest. (it's not a huge deal perhaps, but it's definitely not the "rigth" thing to do.)
But just b/c you have never seen any indication of God in your life, you assume that everybody else must not have, either,
No. That's not the reason. The reason is that if you deliberately search for verifiable indications that God exists, you find none. For example, I've never seen an electron in my life either, nevertheless I believe they exist, for the reason that they actually explain something. For the reason that there's literally *hundreds* or *thousands* of things I could do to observe their effect, if I cared to.
For that matter, I've never seen Australia either. I still believe in it. The problem isn't others doing the observations. The problem is observations that are inherently baseless, coupled with the power to explain nothing whatsoever.
It's like a blind man refusing to believe there is such a thing as light - just b/c you can't see it, you assume everyone else is imagining it.
Good example !
It is not difficult in general to convince blind people that light, transparency or seeing exists. You see, even though they cannot directly observe it themselves, they can indirectly observe its effects. They cannot see light -- but they can observe that in actual practice you *are* capable of somehow recognizing people from a distance, read a book trough a solid sheet of glass or any of a million other things. It's also possible to design and build instruments that react to ligth in a way a blind person can observe. For example a machine which beeps louder the more ligth is shone on a sensor on it. This doesn't let the blind see. but it convinces him that the machine reacts to *something* and that *something* may just aswell be labeled "light".
Notice how this example COMPLETELY fails to work for your "God". Convincing non-believers of his existence is not easy -- because you have nothing to show for it. Convincing someone of something you have actual evidence for tends to be easy -- unless they are stupid or sufficiently religious to let faith overrule facts.
I'm sure my understanding of Big Bang & QM is shaky, since I am not a physicist. But I'm pretty sure QM states that quantum particles exist as a wave of probabilities until they are observed, at which point they collapse into a particle. That implies to me that sentient observation influences their behavior. Feel free to explain why that is wrong,
It is wrong because "observation" as used in QM does not imply sentience.
Well, it's hard to say how much of the changes I have experienced are due to religion, growing older and wiser, and any number of other factors. But I imagine I would be more selfish and uncaring without faith, since those are the two things I struggle with the most. Instead of concerning myself with the welfare of others, I would likely lie & cheat in small ways that benefited me and didn't harm others TOO much.
Honestly, I don't believe you. You're saying you act like a decent human being *because* of religion and that you'd not behave (as) decently if you wheren't religious.
I think you're underestimating yourself. Most people are actually pretty decent, and most of the time manage to resist the temptation to act selfish. This is true regardless of their religion or lack thereof.
In other words, I think you'd be acting just as nicely towards other without the big Daddy in the sky to watch over you. You'd feel better about it too -- because you'd know you alone carry all blame, and also all praise for your own actions.
Utter bullshit. It *is* true that heat rises, so roof-temperature is typically a bit higher than floor-temperature, especially in poorly insulated houses.
But it's like perhaps 5 degrees warmer under the roof than at floor-level, and heat-loss is proportional to temperature-difference. So, if there's 30 centigrade difference between floor and outside temperature (say 20 plus indoors, 10 minus outdoors) and 35 centigrade difference between roof and outdoors, then yeah, the heat will leak out 7/6 or about 15% faster than if the same heat had been at floor-level.
This assumes, offcourse, that all ligthbulbs are on the top floor of a building, which is not actually the case. If you live in a block, or if you have a 2-story house, your statement is even more bullshit.
The warm air itself does not, by the way, leave the house, unless you've got a house with actual *holes* in it. I realize building-standards are mindbogglingly low in the USA, but really, if your house isn't atleast reasonably hole-free, you're throwing money out the window (or in this case out the holes) for heating and/or cooling (depending on your climate) anyway.
In countries with sane building-standards, even a house built to the minimum legal standard will be essentially airtigth. (it's fairly routine to test this even, by the simple expedient of closing all ventilation, pumping a sligth overpressure in the house and seeing how fast the pressure falls back down to normal)
If none of the camera-images where recorded, if we had some kind of guarantee that they won't ever be hooked up to face-recognition, then I'd be inclined to agree with you. It makes little difference if a cop looks at you using his own eyes, or using a camera.
That's not reality though. Reality is that these things *are* recorded and kept for varying amounts of time, and that the government would just *love* to hook the things up to face-recognition, provided that stuff would actually work.
Agreed. Just outlawing refuses to acknowledge that there are people who have important reasons (important to them!) for using old-fashioned bulbs. Putting a price on it is the sensible approach; it allows people to vote with their money.
Strange thing is this is really already the case. But people are stupid. They see only up-front cost and fail to include the power-consumption when buying bulbs and/or lamps.
A 60w bulb with 2000h lifetime will consume 120Kwh before it burns out.
A 12w efficient bulb with 6000h lifetime will consume 72Kwh before it burns out.
You need 3 of the former to get the lifespan of the latter.
What is the rational choice for providing 6000 hours of ligth:
Buying 3 bulbs for $1, and pay ~$55 for power. (total $56]
Buying 1 bulb for $5 and pay ~$10 for power. (total $15)
In warm climates its worse: The extra power is converted to *heat* and you'll spend additional energy in your AC-unit getting rid of that heat again, probably you'll end up spending another $10 or so getting rid of the heat.
Conversely, in cold climates where heating is *needed* the calculation turns the other way: the heat ain't wasted at all. In the extreme case, where you're heating electrically anyway you'll save nothing whatsoever by replacing the bulbs.
It certainly is ! If it's an *important* issue is individual; some people don't care much, to others its absolutely vital. But it's definitely an issue.
But I don't modern ligthing in general is uglier than old bulbs, so that point is moot in most settings. I can see it being relevant for someone that on purpose has furnished their house in a nostalgic way, with lots of old stuff. LED-ligths would look totally out of place in such a setting.
The Australian approach is superior: It's directly attacking the problem (low energy-efficiency) rather than indirectly attcking the product *because* it has the problem.
It does. The summary also claim that Google found no infant-mortality effect. Which is patently wrong, Google *definitely* showed a reasonably strong infant-mortality effect, particularily strong in high-load uses.
I crashed IIS the other day with a long-running memory-consuming script. Fortunately the crash didn't affect any of the nuclear warheads on the planet.:-)
probably more people throughout history HAVE believed in God than HAVE NOT.
So ? Truth ain't determined by popularity-contest.
Science has not, infact, provided evidence that God is "likely" to exist. To the contrary every single experiment has always consistently turned out negative. Which proves nothing. (not found is not the same as not existing) Your understanding of Big Bang and QM is shaky too, but I don't feel like giving a lecture, so I'll ignore that and instead jump straigth to:
You answer my question with "no" -- atleast that's how I interpret you. You *don't* believe there are *any* god-given rules for behaviour that compel you to behave in a way you otherwise wouldn't.
You do however believe that god has "principles" by which he "expects" us to make judgements as to appropriate behaviour.
So -- you did the typical religious thing: you avoided the question. You see, renaming doesn't fundamentally change anything. I asked what rules you followed (only) for religious reasons. You answered: there are no religious "rules" per se but there are "principles" that god "expects" you to follow when making judgements. Renaming "rules" to "principles" leaves the question unanswered.
My new question (after your renaming-operation) turns into:
Do you actually follow any *principles* for *making judgements* that you wouldn't if you didn't believe in God ?
In other words, how would your method for making judgements change if you didn't believe in God ?
I didn't in the least mean abstract. All of the examples I mentioned are harms that I personally have felt directly.
It is me *personally* who have friends that I can't in practice visit because of repressive religion.
It is me *personally* who get less time to spend with *my* children (I get twins in march, in addition to the son I have already) than I'd be allowed if I was female. The relevant laws are religiously motivated.
Money which I earned is taken from me (by force if nessecary) and handed over to priests performing a function which I consider not only pointless, but actively harmful. Being forced to finance the religion of others is a disgrace in a modern society, but it's quite normal in practice.
The only sligthly abstract notion is the holdback on medical research. I have strong *suspicions* that a certain branch of medical research would've been able to ease a certain (minor, but real nevertheless) problem of mine better if the religious whackjobs hadn't outlawed certain lines of research. I can't know for sure what the scientists *would* have discovered if they'd have been allowed the research though, so I admit this is a abstract point.
I hear the claim often: Religion "used to be" repressive, but *today* modern western christianity is, well, *modern*, *tolerant* and don't actually harm the non-believers living in societies where it's widespread.
It's bullshit. Christianity is still ass-backwards. They still want to control peoples lifes. The improvements they've made over the last century or two they've made reluctantly, in some cases being forcibly dragged, kicking and screaming, into compliance with what we consider acceptable behaviour. Witness their tantrums over equal rigths for women, or over refraining from discriminating against people based on their choice of sexual partner.
These are issues that the rest of society dealt with half a century ago. The church, however, is still going at it. I expect in another 50 years they may have managed to arrive where the rest of us has been for *decades*. How very impressive. Not.
Sure we are vulnerable. I just don't think we're more vulnerable than sharks. Infact I think we're orders of magnitude less likely to die out in the next millenium than sharks are.
Cockroaches, on the other hand, may well outlive us.
But there is evidence that supports the belief that there is not life on Mars,
No there isn't. Not other than the fact that we've looked and seen no indication whatsoever that there is life.
That's true for Gods too: We've looked (far more of us, and for a far longer period than mars has been observed) and we've seen no indication whatsoever that Gods exist.Same for dollar-bills: Up until now our experience tells us that they normally do not spontaneously disintegrate. The same applies to gods; up until now we've got no evidence whatsoever that the word correspond to any actual entity whatsoever, much less that anything more specific.
Saying that God only wishes you to do something that'd be worth doing anyway is chickening out: You don't *need* god for those things. When I say *adjust* your behaviour I mean doing something *because* there is a God that you otherwise *wouldn't* do.
Do you actually ? Are there any moral or ethical rules that you follow because you consider it (for reasons unapparent to me) likely that "God" wishes you to, but which you wouldn't otherwise follow ? If so, which ?
You're overstating the vulnerability. Yes, we're vulnerable, in the sense that lots of disasters have the capability of setting us back decades or centuries. But there's a long way from there to extinction. And there's a long way from being set back a century and to the stoneago too, for that matter.
The middle-ages was a few hundred years of stagnation, with some lost tech and knowledge in some areas, and some minor discoveries in other. It also was before the start of the scientific revoloution with systematic gathering, storage, duplication and disemmination of knowledge.
You could kill 99% of the population of USA, and give the remaining ones *nothing* other than the clothes they're wearing at the moment, wait 100 years, and have a civilization more advanced than many in the world today -- certainly nowhere even *near* stone-age level.
Meanwhile, dozens of species of shark are endangered, some of them critically so, mainly as a consequence of a very minor human activity. We'll need luck to avoid extinct shark-species in the next few decades, quite *without* any disasters.
True. But I don't think it is likely that human beings will die out simply due to lack of wanting to reproduce. Our current trend towards stabilization is the result of deliberate brakes being put on in several countries where they otherwise would've had a population-explosion.
Obviously, if human population peaks, and then starts falling, that'll be a good argument for releasing those brakes. I realize population may still be growing in china, and falling in for example Europe, but Europe is in a position to do a lot more to encourage children, and would if falling population was a real problem. (which it ain't currently).
I don't see any reason to assume that human population will ever again fall under say 5 billion. Fluctuating in the 5-10 billion range counts as stable for these purposes.
That's not true. No species I know of uses the large amount of fusible hydrogen we have lying around on this planet. Nor, for that matter, does fission-powered life seem all that common on earth.
How about this for an argument ? (I'm not sure it holds water, I'm just airing it)
Let's accept your starting-position: Human population on earth will stabilize. Lets say at ~10 billion just to have a number.
The following seems reasonable assumptions to me:
Earth has a final, unchanging, amount of land.
Even if we used the oceans too, the amount is still final.
Humanity as a whole tends to get richer over time.
The price of land will tend to be proportional to the *number* of people who wishes land times the *wealth* of those people times the *strength* of their desire for land.
From these, it follows that land will continue to rise in value (compared to other goods).
At the same time, technological progress makes "artificial land" in the form of habitable space-stations, and livable land on other planets become ever cheaper.
If both trends continue, then at some point the curves cross.
Also, you claim that religion is not a "legitimate belief system". How is a belief system legitimate or not legitimate?
Good question !
As you point out, all belief-systems are unproven. Most of them deal with untestable hypothesis anyway, so can never be proven rigth or wrong, which is why we call it *belief*-system.
I consider a belief-system legitimate (in the sense of reconsilable with sane-ness and logical thinking) if there is a reason for every claim, and everything is debatable.
So, a belief-system that states that such and such is wrong just because it *IS* is not legitimate. Also, if you posit that it is wrong because God doesn't approve, then that doesn't help, unless you're also prepared to argue *why* he doesn't approve.
I believe, for example, that minimizing human suffering is a worthwhile goal. I have no proof for this. And I never will. I nevertheless believe it for the time being. I base that plainly on the observation that I myself desire not to suffer, and the behaviour I observe in humans around me indicate to me that they also wish not to suffer. I'm perfectly willing to reconsider this view if new evidence should show up. (I don't think it will, but if it does, so be it)
religious belief-systems on the other hand always fail this test. There are rules that are, in the end, supported by nothing other than "because god says so". Which doesn't explain anything aslong as you don't also say *why* he says so. If you did say why, and where convinced by it, then God is an unneded concept and can be dropped from the equation. Example:
2 year old: Why is it bad to use my hammer on this glass ?
Because mamma says so. (arbitrarily)
3 year old: Why does mamma dislike glasses getting broken ?
Because it takes unpleasant work to tidy it up. Because it takes more work to make new glasses (or earn money for buying them)
Because mamma would rather not having to do that work. She could spend that time (and/or money) more pleasantly if you didn't break the glass.
Notice how, if you believe in and accept the final explanation, you no longer need the *mamma* in there. (i.e in the future you'll be able to explain to yourself and others why you don't like glasses being broken, *without* mentioning mamma or her wishes at all)
The final explanation is superior in other respects too: Once you know *why* you can also understand the limits to the rule, and when it makes sense to break it. If you believed in rule1 (Don't break 'cos mamma says so) you'd take care not to break glasses that are on the way to the recycling-station anyway. You'd take care to transport them whole and unbroken to the recycler, where they'll be melted down anyway. In other words, you'll be wasting time and resources.
The example is contrived, but it applies to many religious dogmas and taboos.
If incest is wrong because of the high risk of genetically sick children -- then it's ok with contraception.
If polygami is wrong because (why really, among consenting adults?) then it's OK when whatever reason disappears.
If pre-marital sex is wrong because its best for children to grow up with a stable couple, then the "stable couple" part is the important thing. And besides, the argument doesn't hold with contraception.
If killing is wrong because it deprives other of happiness, then killing a terminally ill person who wishes it is OK.
If harmful medical experiments on human beings is wrong becuase we are self-aware creatures, then research on human egg-cells (fertilized or not) is perfectly ok.
However, if any of these things are wrong simply "because" or alternatively "because it annoys God", then no rational evaluation is possible.
Really ? Where'd you grow up ? I consider that claim downrigth amazing.
I grew up in Norway, which compared to most other places is very low on religion (despite a nominal state-church), despite this I've been harmed by religion (or more correctly: by religious people, with religious motivation) lots and lots and LOTS of times.
Most of the time its tiny small things that don't matter much, and indeed when you're grown up with them, you tend to not even *notice* them. You've seen them so often that they in effect become invisible.
Medical research is held back. Arbitrary restrictions are put on what activities you may perform at what days. Time is wasted in schools on religious drivel. People are prevented from spending time with their friends. Taxes are spent paying priests. Suffering is glorified as 'the wish of God'. Nonsensical taboos contribute to spread of disease, to traumas, to pointless shame. Children end up in custody because the logical person to take care of them has the wrong sex. I'm prevented from spending the same time with my kids that a woman could in my position. Hell, Its even codified into law that you get *fined* if you dare breaking the arbitrary and pointless taboos on nudity.
These are just of the top of my head. There's thousands more. Some of these are a mixture of culture and religion. But even there, religion seems to be the strongest force opposing modernisation of the culture.
For example, the most recent example I can think of where I was prevented from spending times with people I care for was my penpal in the united arab emirates, a girl. Local culture makes it -- in practice -- impossible to visit her and spend time with her. Despite the fact that I'd have loved spending a week or two touring the country with her as a guide. It'll never happen though, local religion and/or culture is repressive enough that if we should meet at all it'd have to be outside the UAE. (and probably in secrecy to avoid spoiling her social life there after the return) It's up to you if you want to blame religion or culture. But it seems to me religion plays a large role in practice in such opressive cultures.
Slashdot Mirror
However, it's *also* true that theres ~10million plane-rides in Norway every year, and that each and every one of those waste atleast a minute/passenger for largely pointless security-posturing. (No, I don't think we're very much safer from terrorism because I can no longer go with a tube of toothpaste in my hand-luggage)
10 million times 1 minute is on the order of 115 *years*. Which adds up to the wake part of 2 human lifes. So, we're wasting 2 lifes/year on this particular measure alone. Add in the time wasted by those manning the security-checkpoints and we're up to wasting a dozen lifes a year, more or less. And that's before even *mentioning* the cost of it all.
So, true, it's perfectly possible that two kids go trough similar childhoods yet one ends up as a responsible human being, and the other ends up as a sociopath.
But also true, most people who end up being nothing but a dead-weigth and an irritant in society have fairly obvious, serious, problems in their childhood.
One doesn't exclude the other.
rpm really should be statically linked. What he did to "unrecoverably" fuck his system was removing a library that is needed by rpm -- thus making it impossible to *reinstall* that library because that this point rpm won't start anymore. (yeah, I knwo, not really impossible, but impossible to fix using rpm alone anyway)
I don't really see the downside of compiling rpm statically -- it's a trivial fix, and it *does* help the user in a few scenarios.
But different interpretations of poems do not usually conflict. There is no law saying a poem can't mean *2* different things (or 5).
People, in *general* come up with wildly conflicting ideas about God. The similarities there is tends to be according to those around you. This is indicative of the influence that gives you these ideas being those surrounding you, and not anything divine. Unless you believe in a God that gives different advice based on which particular region the prayer originally came from. But that's a fairly silly idea -- indeed all religions that believe in a God claim that his wishes, desires and rules are universal.
But I don't have to. There exist hundreds of detailed descriptions of experiments one can perform to measure the speed of ligth. Along with these descriptions, there are reports from lots of people who have actually performed these experiments, and the results. Yes, in -principle- they could all be lying. In practice it's probably a good assumption that the speed of ligth really is aproximately 300.000km/s. And if I was skeptical, I could always do the experiment myself.
You're missing the point about the hummin ligth-detector too. The point isn't that it proves that there is "ligth", it most certainly doesn't. What it does is show that there is *something*. The blind person can hold it under a piece of glass and it'll hum, then under a piece of wood, and it won't. This allows him to conclude there is *SOME* difference between wood and glass that influences the machine.
Now, he doesn't at this point know *WHAT* the difference is. But he knows that it's there. Further experiments can teach him more about the properties of whatever is influencing the machine.
After a while, he'll know that there is a SOMETHING with the following properties: (long list here), it makes sense to assign a name to this phenomenon. Sure, he doesn't need to label it "ligth", but regardless of the label, he has actually discovered the thing. It'd still *be* ligth even if he choose to call the phenomenon "FlobbyFarlans".
This, as I've pointed out a few times now, does not work for your concept "God". There is no experiment that can show that there is *anything* there. Your suggestion to pray for a year does not work. It's been tried. By lots of different people. We know the outcome: the outcome is they end up believing fully different things, there is not a *SINGLE* aspect of "God" that people will consistently agree on after having prayed for a year. The experiment isn't *reproducible* if 2 different people make the same experiment, they'll get 2 different results. (mostly they'll get whatever result their parents/surrounding-culture get, which is a fairly strong indication that this is something you learn from your surroundings, not something coming from a divine being.
You also miss the point on your ethics. I'm saying I just flat out don't believe you'd have acted less decently in the absence of religion. And yes, willingly keeping money when you notice that someone gives you too much by mistake is dishonest. (it's not a huge deal perhaps, but it's definitely not the "rigth" thing to do.)
No. That's not the reason. The reason is that if you deliberately search for verifiable indications that God exists, you find none. For example, I've never seen an electron in my life either, nevertheless I believe they exist, for the reason that they actually explain something. For the reason that there's literally *hundreds* or *thousands* of things I could do to observe their effect, if I cared to.
For that matter, I've never seen Australia either. I still believe in it. The problem isn't others doing the observations. The problem is observations that are inherently baseless, coupled with the power to explain nothing whatsoever.
It's like a blind man refusing to believe there is such a thing as light - just b/c you can't see it, you assume everyone else is imagining it.
Good example !
It is not difficult in general to convince blind people that light, transparency or seeing exists. You see, even though they cannot directly observe it themselves, they can indirectly observe its effects. They cannot see light -- but they can observe that in actual practice you *are* capable of somehow recognizing people from a distance, read a book trough a solid sheet of glass or any of a million other things. It's also possible to design and build instruments that react to ligth in a way a blind person can observe. For example a machine which beeps louder the more ligth is shone on a sensor on it. This doesn't let the blind see. but it convinces him that the machine reacts to *something* and that *something* may just aswell be labeled "light".
Notice how this example COMPLETELY fails to work for your "God". Convincing non-believers of his existence is not easy -- because you have nothing to show for it. Convincing someone of something you have actual evidence for tends to be easy -- unless they are stupid or sufficiently religious to let faith overrule facts.
I'm sure my understanding of Big Bang & QM is shaky, since I am not a physicist. But I'm pretty sure QM states that quantum particles exist as a wave of probabilities until they are observed, at which point they collapse into a particle. That implies to me that sentient observation influences their behavior. Feel free to explain why that is wrong,
It is wrong because "observation" as used in QM does not imply sentience.
Well, it's hard to say how much of the changes I have experienced are due to religion, growing older and wiser, and any number of other factors. But I imagine I would be more selfish and uncaring without faith, since those are the two things I struggle with the most. Instead of concerning myself with the welfare of others, I would likely lie & cheat in small ways that benefited me and didn't harm others TOO much.
Honestly, I don't believe you. You're saying you act like a decent human being *because* of religion and that you'd not behave (as) decently if you wheren't religious.
I think you're underestimating yourself. Most people are actually pretty decent, and most of the time manage to resist the temptation to act selfish. This is true regardless of their religion or lack thereof.
In other words, I think you'd be acting just as nicely towards other without the big Daddy in the sky to watch over you. You'd feel better about it too -- because you'd know you alone carry all blame, and also all praise for your own actions.
But it's like perhaps 5 degrees warmer under the roof than at floor-level, and heat-loss is proportional to temperature-difference. So, if there's 30 centigrade difference between floor and outside temperature (say 20 plus indoors, 10 minus outdoors) and 35 centigrade difference between roof and outdoors, then yeah, the heat will leak out 7/6 or about 15% faster than if the same heat had been at floor-level.
This assumes, offcourse, that all ligthbulbs are on the top floor of a building, which is not actually the case. If you live in a block, or if you have a 2-story house, your statement is even more bullshit.
The warm air itself does not, by the way, leave the house, unless you've got a house with actual *holes* in it. I realize building-standards are mindbogglingly low in the USA, but really, if your house isn't atleast reasonably hole-free, you're throwing money out the window (or in this case out the holes) for heating and/or cooling (depending on your climate) anyway.
In countries with sane building-standards, even a house built to the minimum legal standard will be essentially airtigth. (it's fairly routine to test this even, by the simple expedient of closing all ventilation, pumping a sligth overpressure in the house and seeing how fast the pressure falls back down to normal)
That's not reality though. Reality is that these things *are* recorded and kept for varying amounts of time, and that the government would just *love* to hook the things up to face-recognition, provided that stuff would actually work.
Strange thing is this is really already the case. But people are stupid. They see only up-front cost and fail to include the power-consumption when buying bulbs and/or lamps.
- A 60w bulb with 2000h lifetime will consume 120Kwh before it burns out.
- A 12w efficient bulb with 6000h lifetime will consume 72Kwh before it burns out.
- You need 3 of the former to get the lifespan of the latter.
What is the rational choice for providing 6000 hours of ligth:In warm climates its worse: The extra power is converted to *heat* and you'll spend additional energy in your AC-unit getting rid of that heat again, probably you'll end up spending another $10 or so getting rid of the heat.
Conversely, in cold climates where heating is *needed* the calculation turns the other way: the heat ain't wasted at all. In the extreme case, where you're heating electrically anyway you'll save nothing whatsoever by replacing the bulbs.
But I don't modern ligthing in general is uglier than old bulbs, so that point is moot in most settings. I can see it being relevant for someone that on purpose has furnished their house in a nostalgic way, with lots of old stuff. LED-ligths would look totally out of place in such a setting.
The Australian approach is superior: It's directly attacking the problem (low energy-efficiency) rather than indirectly attcking the product *because* it has the problem.
It does. The summary also claim that Google found no infant-mortality effect. Which is patently wrong, Google *definitely* showed a reasonably strong infant-mortality effect, particularily strong in high-load uses.
Just for your information, this stopped being funny about a decade ago. Half the slashdotters I know are 30 and married.
I crashed IIS the other day with a long-running memory-consuming script. Fortunately the crash didn't affect any of the nuclear warheads on the planet. :-)
So ? Truth ain't determined by popularity-contest.
Science has not, infact, provided evidence that God is "likely" to exist. To the contrary every single experiment has always consistently turned out negative. Which proves nothing. (not found is not the same as not existing) Your understanding of Big Bang and QM is shaky too, but I don't feel like giving a lecture, so I'll ignore that and instead jump straigth to:
You answer my question with "no" -- atleast that's how I interpret you. You *don't* believe there are *any* god-given rules for behaviour that compel you to behave in a way you otherwise wouldn't.
You do however believe that god has "principles" by which he "expects" us to make judgements as to appropriate behaviour.
So -- you did the typical religious thing: you avoided the question. You see, renaming doesn't fundamentally change anything. I asked what rules you followed (only) for religious reasons. You answered: there are no religious "rules" per se but there are "principles" that god "expects" you to follow when making judgements. Renaming "rules" to "principles" leaves the question unanswered.
My new question (after your renaming-operation) turns into:
Do you actually follow any *principles* for *making judgements* that you wouldn't if you didn't believe in God ?
In other words, how would your method for making judgements change if you didn't believe in God ?
It is me *personally* who have friends that I can't in practice visit because of repressive religion.
It is me *personally* who get less time to spend with *my* children (I get twins in march, in addition to the son I have already) than I'd be allowed if I was female. The relevant laws are religiously motivated.
Money which I earned is taken from me (by force if nessecary) and handed over to priests performing a function which I consider not only pointless, but actively harmful. Being forced to finance the religion of others is a disgrace in a modern society, but it's quite normal in practice.
The only sligthly abstract notion is the holdback on medical research. I have strong *suspicions* that a certain branch of medical research would've been able to ease a certain (minor, but real nevertheless) problem of mine better if the religious whackjobs hadn't outlawed certain lines of research. I can't know for sure what the scientists *would* have discovered if they'd have been allowed the research though, so I admit this is a abstract point.
I hear the claim often: Religion "used to be" repressive, but *today* modern western christianity is, well, *modern*, *tolerant* and don't actually harm the non-believers living in societies where it's widespread.
It's bullshit. Christianity is still ass-backwards. They still want to control peoples lifes. The improvements they've made over the last century or two they've made reluctantly, in some cases being forcibly dragged, kicking and screaming, into compliance with what we consider acceptable behaviour. Witness their tantrums over equal rigths for women, or over refraining from discriminating against people based on their choice of sexual partner.
These are issues that the rest of society dealt with half a century ago. The church, however, is still going at it. I expect in another 50 years they may have managed to arrive where the rest of us has been for *decades*. How very impressive. Not.
Cockroaches, on the other hand, may well outlive us.
I said "illegitimate". Perhaps even that was a poor choice of wording. What I meant is nonsensical, indefensible, arbitrary, illogical.
No there isn't. Not other than the fact that we've looked and seen no indication whatsoever that there is life. That's true for Gods too: We've looked (far more of us, and for a far longer period than mars has been observed) and we've seen no indication whatsoever that Gods exist.Same for dollar-bills: Up until now our experience tells us that they normally do not spontaneously disintegrate. The same applies to gods; up until now we've got no evidence whatsoever that the word correspond to any actual entity whatsoever, much less that anything more specific.
Saying that God only wishes you to do something that'd be worth doing anyway is chickening out: You don't *need* god for those things. When I say *adjust* your behaviour I mean doing something *because* there is a God that you otherwise *wouldn't* do.
Do you actually ? Are there any moral or ethical rules that you follow because you consider it (for reasons unapparent to me) likely that "God" wishes you to, but which you wouldn't otherwise follow ? If so, which ?
The middle-ages was a few hundred years of stagnation, with some lost tech and knowledge in some areas, and some minor discoveries in other. It also was before the start of the scientific revoloution with systematic gathering, storage, duplication and disemmination of knowledge.
You could kill 99% of the population of USA, and give the remaining ones *nothing* other than the clothes they're wearing at the moment, wait 100 years, and have a civilization more advanced than many in the world today -- certainly nowhere even *near* stone-age level.
Meanwhile, dozens of species of shark are endangered, some of them critically so, mainly as a consequence of a very minor human activity. We'll need luck to avoid extinct shark-species in the next few decades, quite *without* any disasters.
Obviously, if human population peaks, and then starts falling, that'll be a good argument for releasing those brakes. I realize population may still be growing in china, and falling in for example Europe, but Europe is in a position to do a lot more to encourage children, and would if falling population was a real problem. (which it ain't currently). I don't see any reason to assume that human population will ever again fall under say 5 billion. Fluctuating in the 5-10 billion range counts as stable for these purposes.
That's not true. No species I know of uses the large amount of fusible hydrogen we have lying around on this planet. Nor, for that matter, does fission-powered life seem all that common on earth.
Let's accept your starting-position: Human population on earth will stabilize. Lets say at ~10 billion just to have a number.
The following seems reasonable assumptions to me:
- Earth has a final, unchanging, amount of land.
- Even if we used the oceans too, the amount is still final.
- Humanity as a whole tends to get richer over time.
- The price of land will tend to be proportional to the *number* of people who wishes land times the *wealth* of those people times the *strength* of their desire for land.
From these, it follows that land will continue to rise in value (compared to other goods).At the same time, technological progress makes "artificial land" in the form of habitable space-stations, and livable land on other planets become ever cheaper.
If both trends continue, then at some point the curves cross.
We're very very far from that point now though.
Good question !
As you point out, all belief-systems are unproven. Most of them deal with untestable hypothesis anyway, so can never be proven rigth or wrong, which is why we call it *belief*-system.
I consider a belief-system legitimate (in the sense of reconsilable with sane-ness and logical thinking) if there is a reason for every claim, and everything is debatable.
So, a belief-system that states that such and such is wrong just because it *IS* is not legitimate. Also, if you posit that it is wrong because God doesn't approve, then that doesn't help, unless you're also prepared to argue *why* he doesn't approve.
I believe, for example, that minimizing human suffering is a worthwhile goal. I have no proof for this. And I never will. I nevertheless believe it for the time being. I base that plainly on the observation that I myself desire not to suffer, and the behaviour I observe in humans around me indicate to me that they also wish not to suffer. I'm perfectly willing to reconsider this view if new evidence should show up. (I don't think it will, but if it does, so be it)
religious belief-systems on the other hand always fail this test. There are rules that are, in the end, supported by nothing other than "because god says so". Which doesn't explain anything aslong as you don't also say *why* he says so. If you did say why, and where convinced by it, then God is an unneded concept and can be dropped from the equation. Example:
- 2 year old: Why is it bad to use my hammer on this glass ?
- Because mamma says so. (arbitrarily)
- 3 year old: Why does mamma dislike glasses getting broken ?
- Because it takes unpleasant work to tidy it up. Because it takes more work to make new glasses (or earn money for buying them)
Because mamma would rather not having to do that work. She could spend that time (and/or money) more pleasantly if you didn't break the glass.
Notice how, if you believe in and accept the final explanation, you no longer need the *mamma* in there. (i.e in the future you'll be able to explain to yourself and others why you don't like glasses being broken, *without* mentioning mamma or her wishes at all)The final explanation is superior in other respects too: Once you know *why* you can also understand the limits to the rule, and when it makes sense to break it. If you believed in rule1 (Don't break 'cos mamma says so) you'd take care not to break glasses that are on the way to the recycling-station anyway. You'd take care to transport them whole and unbroken to the recycler, where they'll be melted down anyway. In other words, you'll be wasting time and resources.
The example is contrived, but it applies to many religious dogmas and taboos.
However, if any of these things are wrong simply "because" or alternatively "because it annoys God", then no rational evaluation is possible.
Really ? Where'd you grow up ? I consider that claim downrigth amazing.
I grew up in Norway, which compared to most other places is very low on religion (despite a nominal state-church), despite this I've been harmed by religion (or more correctly: by religious people, with religious motivation) lots and lots and LOTS of times.
Most of the time its tiny small things that don't matter much, and indeed when you're grown up with them, you tend to not even *notice* them. You've seen them so often that they in effect become invisible.
Medical research is held back. Arbitrary restrictions are put on what activities you may perform at what days. Time is wasted in schools on religious drivel. People are prevented from spending time with their friends. Taxes are spent paying priests. Suffering is glorified as 'the wish of God'. Nonsensical taboos contribute to spread of disease, to traumas, to pointless shame. Children end up in custody because the logical person to take care of them has the wrong sex. I'm prevented from spending the same time with my kids that a woman could in my position. Hell, Its even codified into law that you get *fined* if you dare breaking the arbitrary and pointless taboos on nudity.
These are just of the top of my head. There's thousands more. Some of these are a mixture of culture and religion. But even there, religion seems to be the strongest force opposing modernisation of the culture.
For example, the most recent example I can think of where I was prevented from spending times with people I care for was my penpal in the united arab emirates, a girl. Local culture makes it -- in practice -- impossible to visit her and spend time with her. Despite the fact that I'd have loved spending a week or two touring the country with her as a guide. It'll never happen though, local religion and/or culture is repressive enough that if we should meet at all it'd have to be outside the UAE. (and probably in secrecy to avoid spoiling her social life there after the return) It's up to you if you want to blame religion or culture. But it seems to me religion plays a large role in practice in such opressive cultures.