I think the problem is exactly that religions have anything to say about how one deals with others. How you deal with others is something that should be based in demonstrable reality instead. Religion can often lead people to think that there's only one anointed way to do things, even when they go against our best interests.
Now, assuming there is a religion that is correct about the afterlife, then following that religion's tenets is indeed in our best interests. But that remains to be shown in any convincing way.
Evolutionarily speaking, you haven't made a choice in this instance that is relevant at all. But unless you are afflicted by psychopathy, you will typically experience a rewarding sensation when you give the money back to the lady. This reaction in your brain may not help you spread your genes in this instance, but the same mechanism will lead you to do many things that will. Not everything that happens as a result of evolution will result in actions that "make sense" evolutionarily, as evolution leads to ad-hoc solutions instead of well designed solutions.
Some people would point out that the psychopath has the biggest advantage of all- free from impulses of guilt and free to act in direct self interest at all times. I recently read Sam Harris's book The Moral Landscape, and in it he pointed out that for most of our history we lived in small communities. Within a small community, a psychopath is at an extreme disadvantage because his behavior patterns will become well known. Psychopathy would not have been selected for in these situations.
Free will seems to be illusory in the first place, so what does the word voluntary even mean in that context? If it aligns best with your interests, is it voluntary?
It's probably true that in most cases ridicule doesn't sway many opinions. However, I used to be pretty religious myself. Friends would point out how silly some of my beliefs were and sure enough, it made me defensive and angry. But it did make me carefully consider my beliefs to try to explain to them why I believed what I did. My transition to atheism started then, when I discovered that I actually had no reason to believe any of it. My experience is just a single data point, but it's plausible to me that the same thing could happen to many young religious people.
When it comes to knocking China's problems, we certainly don't have the moral high ground. Same shit, different culture.
Until the US starts putting people in labor camps for not being harmonious enough, I would say that we do.
I don't think we need to be perfect before we point out the shortcomings of other governments.
Where does this position come from? Can't you see that the whole situation warrants a bit more of a nuanced view? "Bad things have happened before, so we should never do it again" is a pretty underwhelming argument, especially when the cause of these problems is well understood and could be mitigated.
You may not agree with him, but sickeningly biased? His main point seemed to be that "the jury is still out" and that some of the benefits listed in the materials presented by proponents are unproven.
Four Loko being banned or discouraged in certain locations in the USA is an example of the opposite, almost. It's being banned because of mass hysteria and hype, not the whim of a totalitarian government.
The US government is sufficiently large that there isn't a single entity which can be called "the government". One part may well be genuinely interested in protecting privacy, while another part is doing its best to have the Fourth Amendment repealed. Schizophrenic? Oh yes.
Hey! That's not what schizophrenic means!
You should instead have said "Does the US government appear to have dissociative identity disorder? Oh yes."
Slashdot Mirror
These games should be played with buttons. Touch screen virtual buttons are awful for these things.
I think the problem is exactly that religions have anything to say about how one deals with others. How you deal with others is something that should be based in demonstrable reality instead. Religion can often lead people to think that there's only one anointed way to do things, even when they go against our best interests. Now, assuming there is a religion that is correct about the afterlife, then following that religion's tenets is indeed in our best interests. But that remains to be shown in any convincing way.
Evolutionarily speaking, you haven't made a choice in this instance that is relevant at all. But unless you are afflicted by psychopathy, you will typically experience a rewarding sensation when you give the money back to the lady. This reaction in your brain may not help you spread your genes in this instance, but the same mechanism will lead you to do many things that will. Not everything that happens as a result of evolution will result in actions that "make sense" evolutionarily, as evolution leads to ad-hoc solutions instead of well designed solutions. Some people would point out that the psychopath has the biggest advantage of all- free from impulses of guilt and free to act in direct self interest at all times. I recently read Sam Harris's book The Moral Landscape, and in it he pointed out that for most of our history we lived in small communities. Within a small community, a psychopath is at an extreme disadvantage because his behavior patterns will become well known. Psychopathy would not have been selected for in these situations.
Free will seems to be illusory in the first place, so what does the word voluntary even mean in that context? If it aligns best with your interests, is it voluntary?
Widescreen is actually fully supported by the console interface itself and every single game I have played.
I use my wii remote with my PC all the time. It's just a bluetooth input device, drivers are available even if not provided by Nintendo.
Which is extraordinarily appealing.
First thing I thought of as well... http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Helios_One
I don't think "anonymous" has proven effective against anything but Scientologists. I don't think Sony has much to worry about.
It's probably true that in most cases ridicule doesn't sway many opinions. However, I used to be pretty religious myself. Friends would point out how silly some of my beliefs were and sure enough, it made me defensive and angry. But it did make me carefully consider my beliefs to try to explain to them why I believed what I did. My transition to atheism started then, when I discovered that I actually had no reason to believe any of it. My experience is just a single data point, but it's plausible to me that the same thing could happen to many young religious people.
I actually love the awesome bar. I don't bookmark anything anymore.
When it comes to knocking China's problems, we certainly don't have the moral high ground. Same shit, different culture.
Until the US starts putting people in labor camps for not being harmonious enough, I would say that we do. I don't think we need to be perfect before we point out the shortcomings of other governments.
Where does this position come from? Can't you see that the whole situation warrants a bit more of a nuanced view? "Bad things have happened before, so we should never do it again" is a pretty underwhelming argument, especially when the cause of these problems is well understood and could be mitigated.
You may not agree with him, but sickeningly biased? His main point seemed to be that "the jury is still out" and that some of the benefits listed in the materials presented by proponents are unproven.
The Christian God as described in the bible, especially the old testament, certainly would approve of killing, even genocide. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
Are you referring to the Cinco Facts Machine?
Please explain the difference between makeup and cinnamon rolls.
They have jurisdiction over all of those, actually. Not necessarily the server/data, but certainly the .com and .net domains.
Four Loko being banned or discouraged in certain locations in the USA is an example of the opposite, almost. It's being banned because of mass hysteria and hype, not the whim of a totalitarian government.
The US government is sufficiently large that there isn't a single entity which can be called "the government". One part may well be genuinely interested in protecting privacy, while another part is doing its best to have the Fourth Amendment repealed. Schizophrenic? Oh yes.
Hey! That's not what schizophrenic means! You should instead have said "Does the US government appear to have dissociative identity disorder? Oh yes."
Destruction of property goes beyond simply offending people, don't you think?
Ninjavideo did seem to host the files somewhere. They even provided download links. They provided links to megavideo as well though, as a back up.