Individual phishing events are the least of ones worries these days. Even if you're able to completely avoid fraud yourself, you're likely to have your account detailes exposed in a breach of a credit card processor.
some top managers develop such an inflated sense of entitlement that they believe they are worth far more than what they legitimately earn, deserve whatever they can take and that they will never get caught when they break the law.
You're exactly right. This kind of electrical stimulation ends up overstimulating neurons and leading to a downregulation of excitatory neurotransmitter activity, much like that seen in NMDA receptor antagonists. And so it happens that at least one NMDA receptor antagonist, ketamine has remarkable antidepressive activity, producing relief in hard to treat patients withn a day of treatment. It also induces profound out of body experiences, and has been a popular recreational drug.
I'd suggest that learning to enjoy the dissociative experience is probably a superior option to having electrodes implanted in one's head.
The almost blindingly obvious reason 1/5 of the population doesn't use the net is its almost impossible and fairly pointless if you're functionally illiterate.
Wait, you're telling me 1/5 of the internet using population isn't functionally illiterate?
I just switched back to the proprietary driver, because Nouveau doesn't control my fan's speed, and can't adjust brightness contrast. All it took was removing the driver with apt-get, putting nomodeset back in my/boot/grub/menu.lst, and running the nVidia installer again. 5 minutes, tops.
"The scientism dogma that it's all there is" is hardly tautological.
Like I said, I don't know anyone who claims that. The claim is that anything we can't determine empirically, we cannot determine. There are almost certainly true statements we cannot demonstrate, but since we can't demonstrate them they are irrelevant to anything that happens.
I can't prove that there's not a God. I can't prove there's not a Flying Spaghetti Monster either. Why should I believe in one and not the other? Without any actual data, aren't they equally rational?
Something some religious people aren't disposed to do. But my whole discussion is about those that do, and there are a lot of them.
Such as? How do they deal with conflicting results from methods such as revelation?
You can't. But there's a vast grey area where it's unclear whether you can do a valid experiment or not, so it's unclear whether it's science or not. Much of neuroscience is in denial about the assumptions it is making about what it is or isn't measuring, for example.
Ah, there I agree. There's a lot of so called science that isn't science at all. Look at the recent Nature paper showing that the published results of most major cancer studies cannot be replicated. But saying that a lot of science isn't science doesn't mean religion is.
Your strawman religious person might not, but I am talking about the thinking theists who really have gone through this in far more detail than you seem to have done.
I am as skeptical of their existence as I am of God's. Rationalizing is not the same as reasoning.
And I'm not defending a "god of the gaps", these are areas where science cannot be confident.
I understand, there are areas where science cannot be confident. But if science cannot be confident there is no other way of determining the truth. None whatsoever. So why should we pay any attention to anyone who claims to know anything about anything beyond the scope of science?
It often depends on whether Leibniz' principle of sufficient reason is true or false.
The pure randomness of quantum mechanics would seem to indicate that it is false.
I don't know - the average American doesn't seem to inspire much confidence about that. Isn't that how we get the birther movement or that Obama is Muslim?
This is the government's fault for not making critical thinking an educational priority.
Education of the populace is the responsibility of government. If your people aren't educated enough to fight speech with speech, educate them more. Curtailing free speech is never an option.
It's not Catholics problem that many can not keep dicks in their pants.
It's the Catholics fault for failing to understand this reality and adapt their social programs accordingly. If their desire is to save lives, then they should be guided by what actually works. Since they are not, it's pretty clear that they don't give a shit what happens to people.
That's not the claim at all. The claim is that no one can know whatever else there is.
It is certainly the claim of some.
It's barely even a claim, it's practically tautological. Whatever means you can use to determine if something supernatural exists can be repeated by others. That's empiricism.
Well, that's logic and mathematics out of the window, then, because they're not part of science (they're things that science depends on).
You're right. There's absolutely no a priori reason to expect that math and logic would correlate with the phenomena we observe in reality. We only know their value because we have empirically determined it.
All means are known to be faulty, including those used in science.
Yes, that's why we check each others work. Something religious people aren't disposed to do.
If you think there's a clear-cut division between science and metaphysics then I suggest that it's time to catch up with the 20th century.
Then how does one do a metaphysical experiment?
The religious person doesn't necessarily "know" revelation to be "faulty"
Only because he didn't care enough to check.
Unfortunately most of the militant atheists are still logical positivists and don't understand why that position collapsed (and often aren't aware that it did).
Logical positivism is too strong a claim to be supported by the evidence we have. There are absolutely true things that we cannot observe or determine empirically. But since we can't determine them empirically, no one knows what they are.
if you know your stuff I reckon you're far more likely to take a position along the lines of William Rowe's, that "some theists are justified in believing in God, even if it is the case that God doesn't exist".
Once upon a time it was justifiable to believe in Newton's laws of motion, even though they are not actually true. We just didn't have the means to rigorously test them. So yes, it's possible in principle to justifiably believe in something that is not true.
However, if you have the means to test your belief and fail to do so, that's not justifiable. If you make an argument based on revelation, and don't do the leg work to demonstrate that revelation is accurate, then it's not justifiable at all.
That's not the claim at all. The claim is that no one can know whatever else there is. The obvious corollary is that anyone who claims to know something about whatever else there is is at best misguided and using methods that are known to be faulty, and at worst is running a scam.
How can a religious person claim to have special knowledge of the supernatural, through means that we know are faulty (e.g. revelation), and still be considered a "reasonable" person?
A properly functioning brake system will be able to overcome any force the engine can can produce. If you stand on both pedals, your car should go nowhere.
Philosophically, solipsism is not falsifiable yes. But practically it's useless. Reason and the scientific method are verified as much as anything can be by the technology it produces. We can do things now that we couldn't before because we used reason. You can't say the same about faith.
Nuclear isn't perfect magic, but it's already superior to anything else we have. Even with the outdated, and politicially crippled technology we have today it's superior to wind and solar.
Poe's Law. It's not our fault we can't distinguish parody from actual religious belief. No matter how wacky you try to be, someone actually believes that.
Slashdot Mirror
Louis CK is the finest living comedian, hands down. He's right up there with George Carlin, Bill HIcks, and Richard Pryor.
As an American, yes. We are nothing more than livestock.
Individual phishing events are the least of ones worries these days. Even if you're able to completely avoid fraud yourself, you're likely to have your account detailes exposed in a breach of a credit card processor.
some top managers develop such an inflated sense of entitlement that they believe they are worth far more than what they legitimately earn, deserve whatever they can take and that they will never get caught when they break the law.
And more often than not, they're right.
You're exactly right. This kind of electrical stimulation ends up overstimulating neurons and leading to a downregulation of excitatory neurotransmitter activity, much like that seen in NMDA receptor antagonists. And so it happens that at least one NMDA receptor antagonist, ketamine has remarkable antidepressive activity, producing relief in hard to treat patients withn a day of treatment. It also induces profound out of body experiences, and has been a popular recreational drug.
I'd suggest that learning to enjoy the dissociative experience is probably a superior option to having electrodes implanted in one's head.
The almost blindingly obvious reason 1/5 of the population doesn't use the net is its almost impossible and fairly pointless if you're functionally illiterate.
Wait, you're telling me 1/5 of the internet using population isn't functionally illiterate?
THE POLICE DON'T KEEP THE MONEY. The money from ticket revenues goes to the general fund
Are you fucking stupid? Where do you think the police get their money from?
The point is, it's the wealthy, influential people who are the problem.
I just switched back to the proprietary driver, because Nouveau doesn't control my fan's speed, and can't adjust brightness contrast. All it took was removing the driver with apt-get, putting nomodeset back in my /boot/grub/menu.lst, and running the nVidia installer again. 5 minutes, tops.
I say "Oh God" when I'm having sex, doesn't mean I believe in god one bit.
Just because it's adaptive doesn't mean that it is correct.
That's a classical analogy, but it could be rephrased in terms of memetic competition if that makes you more comfortable.
Like I said, I don't know anyone who claims that. The claim is that anything we can't determine empirically, we cannot determine. There are almost certainly true statements we cannot demonstrate, but since we can't demonstrate them they are irrelevant to anything that happens.
I can't prove that there's not a God. I can't prove there's not a Flying Spaghetti Monster either. Why should I believe in one and not the other? Without any actual data, aren't they equally rational?
Such as? How do they deal with conflicting results from methods such as revelation?
Ah, there I agree. There's a lot of so called science that isn't science at all. Look at the recent Nature paper showing that the published results of most major cancer studies cannot be replicated. But saying that a lot of science isn't science doesn't mean religion is.
I am as skeptical of their existence as I am of God's. Rationalizing is not the same as reasoning.
I understand, there are areas where science cannot be confident. But if science cannot be confident there is no other way of determining the truth. None whatsoever. So why should we pay any attention to anyone who claims to know anything about anything beyond the scope of science?
The pure randomness of quantum mechanics would seem to indicate that it is false.
BTW, thanks for the enjoyable debate.
Free speech is the only way to let the marketplace of ideas choose the best one.
I don't know - the average American doesn't seem to inspire much confidence about that. Isn't that how we get the birther movement or that Obama is Muslim?
This is the government's fault for not making critical thinking an educational priority.
Education of the populace is the responsibility of government. If your people aren't educated enough to fight speech with speech, educate them more. Curtailing free speech is never an option.
It's not Catholics problem that many can not keep dicks in their pants.
It's the Catholics fault for failing to understand this reality and adapt their social programs accordingly. If their desire is to save lives, then they should be guided by what actually works. Since they are not, it's pretty clear that they don't give a shit what happens to people.
It's barely even a claim, it's practically tautological. Whatever means you can use to determine if something supernatural exists can be repeated by others. That's empiricism.
You're right. There's absolutely no a priori reason to expect that math and logic would correlate with the phenomena we observe in reality. We only know their value because we have empirically determined it.
Yes, that's why we check each others work. Something religious people aren't disposed to do.
Then how does one do a metaphysical experiment?
Only because he didn't care enough to check.
Logical positivism is too strong a claim to be supported by the evidence we have. There are absolutely true things that we cannot observe or determine empirically. But since we can't determine them empirically, no one knows what they are.
Once upon a time it was justifiable to believe in Newton's laws of motion, even though they are not actually true. We just didn't have the means to rigorously test them. So yes, it's possible in principle to justifiably believe in something that is not true.
However, if you have the means to test your belief and fail to do so, that's not justifiable. If you make an argument based on revelation, and don't do the leg work to demonstrate that revelation is accurate, then it's not justifiable at all.
It provides a motivation for avoiding some unhealthy behaviors, such as drunkenness and promiscuity.
It also provides cover for exercising some of humanities most unhealthy behaviors. Wars, sexual abuse, witch hunts, bigotry of all types.
Every human being on the planet has some beliefs, with varying degrees of reasonableness, that they accept without scientific evidence.
It is the duty of reasonable men to take every step to ensure that their belief system is built on as few and as accurate axioms as possible.
the scientism dogma that it's all there is.
That's not the claim at all. The claim is that no one can know whatever else there is. The obvious corollary is that anyone who claims to know something about whatever else there is is at best misguided and using methods that are known to be faulty, and at worst is running a scam.
How can a religious person claim to have special knowledge of the supernatural, through means that we know are faulty (e.g. revelation), and still be considered a "reasonable" person?
A properly functioning brake system will be able to overcome any force the engine can can produce. If you stand on both pedals, your car should go nowhere.
Philosophically, solipsism is not falsifiable yes. But practically it's useless. Reason and the scientific method are verified as much as anything can be by the technology it produces. We can do things now that we couldn't before because we used reason. You can't say the same about faith.
Nuclear isn't perfect magic, but it's already superior to anything else we have. Even with the outdated, and politicially crippled technology we have today it's superior to wind and solar.
I'm a Christian, don't defend anything, don't push any agenda.
If you're not spreading the word of Christ, you're not a very good Christian.
Poe's Law. It's not our fault we can't distinguish parody from actual religious belief. No matter how wacky you try to be, someone actually believes that.