This. It wouldn't have to be socialist, but it seems there would need to be a full-fledged welfare system to ensure an individual's percentage of wealth and opportunity.
How many replies do you have to make? That rambling certainly supports your claim to have a higher IQ than Stephen Hawking. Are you sure you didn't get IQ confused with your SAT score?
You didn't correct any "dichotomy". You spouted nonsense that you thought made you sound smart- it didn't.
You have been unable to articulate and support a position. Yes, my IQ is higher than Stephen Hawking's. Surprise, not all intelligent people are physicists. Just because you were unable to understand my "ramblings", does not make it nonsense.
You created at least two dichotomies: natural and supernatural, religion and science, and insinuated natural law as being empirical -- that which has yet to be proven/verified with mathematical logic must not exist.
Careful there, it's supported by over three schools of philosophical thought, quantum mechanics, and every poet.
I'm really not sure what you claim is supported. I assume wanting things to happen can make them happen. If that is the case then no- it is not supported by anything. A poet is less qualified to weigh in on matters of physics than Jenny McCarthy is on matters of medicin.
"Wanting" things to happen is not the same as "believing" something will happen. And yes, it's all well documented. Google it or go to your local university's library. You completely ignored my other example that's well discussed in metaphysics. Stop nit-picking to suit your agenda, and stop attacking people who are being friendly.
You might want to ask Einstein where he got his general theory of relativity. A physicist is only useful when he's properly educated in poetics and philosophy.
Stay in school. It seems to be the only hope for hopelessness.
I would suggest you try going to school instead of making up IQ scores.
You continue droning on with the coherence of a Markov chain also indicating a troll.
You do not understand Markov's chain.
Again, your insults are in vain. I had to correct your every irrational dichotomy. Your intelligence is revealed when you make this a personal affair. Glad we got to the heart of the matter.
my IQ = 220 your IQ = 120 at best.
How's that for your dumb thick head? The disparity in our intellect alone is comparing Einstein with a monkey.
You seem to have a misunderstanding of the words you are using. To clarify...
Supernatural doesn't equal religion. However, religion relies upon moral law which is traditionally seen as being dictated by the supernatural. If you want to debate moral law, that's fine, but I think you'd might want to find a different website. Also read Nietzsche, Kant, and Schopenhauer before doing so. For the record, I am more in agreement with Nietzsche.
"Science", in modern context, refers to the scientific philosophy practiced by neo-positivists. It's fashionable these days to dismiss reality when it can't be verified by mathematical logic. But I guess it's always been trendy to be stupid, arrogant, and foolish. No one wants to think anymore.
Furthermore, there is no religion/science dichotomy. It is stupid and simpleminded to even try to frame a debate or argument with this pretense. I know it's popular, but it's tiresome. I will ignore it. It's fueled by people's petty personal insecurities and psychological disorders. It is just as stupid and childish as saying you are "atheist", "agnostic", or "religious".
Trust thyself. The universe is too beautiful and awe-inspiring to be so dismissive.
However, once you stop equating the supernatural with religion,
You cannot stop equating the supernatural and religion. They are one in the same no matter what you want to believe.
You are talking in absolutes and creating a dichotomy that doesn't exist. I think you are also failing to understand both religion and science. Maybe you are a student. You are also holding a childish caricature of what is often attributed to the supernatural (e.g. "purple fish in your head")
Religion has nothing to do with the supernatural. It is a social construct. Religion has, however, created a mythos, fables of sort, to help define how one should live. Sometimes it relates to the supernatural. That certainly isn't one and the same.
Regardless, I won't be discussing religion with you nor is it relevant to this thread...
it begins to make sense that there are invisible laws that govern that natural law is incapable of evaluating.
There is absolutely no reasoning behind that assertion other than to make people feel better about holding beliefs that all evidence contradicts. It is complete nonsense. Spurious reasoning and pseudo-insightfulness is not an argument.
First, I hold no beliefs and only speak from experience, insight, and education. The same with those who came before me. So what does that say about your ability to reason? It means what you just said was nonsense (i.e. not applicable). That's a failure of reasoning and comprehension on your part. You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss thousands of years of thought; that's naively dangerous.
Neither does evidence contradict the supernatural, quite the contrary. This is a thread on the topic of cosmology, which is a subset of metaphysical philosophy which sets out to explain both the natural and supernatural.
Let's take a moment to describe what the supernatural is...
I will use the word you just used, "belief". If I believe something will happen, the likelihood of it occurring has been increased beyond measure. It's a paradox. Belief itself is power and has the ability to bend natural law. Science is beginning to recognize this in theory.
Take another example... for instance, higher thought itself is independent of a singular mind and is transcendental. I would attribute this to the supernatural. What about you? It certainly doesn't involve natural law.
Science is only one method of reason and measurement
Another statement complete void of meaning. Name one other method- one that isn't purely begging the question.
Sure... Poetry, Philosophy, Art-- all higher schools of thought and reasoning that science derives its pursuits from.
What you are doing by holding the science of natural law as some supreme form of thought is dismissing its very origin. You are divorcing it from all beauty and higher purpose.
Let's take poetic symbolism as an example of a predecessor, as it is regarded as the highest form of thought and consciousness:
"the sound of stars" or "the grinding of cosmos". Only until recently did science recognize that stars emit sound and is actually a useful way to deduce their internal composition.
Same applies to the work of Newton and Einstein.
What we attribute to being of the supernatural is the occurrence of the improbable and impossible.
Bolded for emphasis. We call it "impossible" because it can't actually happen, like the supernatural. The improbable is not supernatural. Rolling 10 sixes in a row on an unweighted die is improbable but not supernatural. Things considered supernatural are not improbable- they are impossible. That is why they are labelled supernatural.
Take your 10 sixes and roll them again a billion times. Would you say that was impossible or improbable? Can you fu
Sort of. The God question is for children; you'd first have to define God. Good luck! However, once you stop equating the supernatural with religion, it begins to make sense that there are invisible laws that govern that natural law is incapable of evaluating.
Science is only one method of reason and measurement, math as its metric, and relies upon repeatable results. Therein is why it is limited in evaluating the supernatural. What we attribute to being of the supernatural is the occurrence of the improbable and impossible.
Science is still in its infancy and today depends upon higher schools of thought to direct its pursuits. Perhaps one day it will have a broader reach.
There are some cases of legally owned guns being used illegally but that is not the norm.
Depends where you are. There is a large percentage in cities like Philadelphia. The reason for this is guns are purchased legally in surrounding areas and then sold to the black market. There isn't a strict limit to the amount of guns one can purchase within a set timeframe.
These guns can be bought legally and then sold illegally at a higher rate. Rinse and repeat.
This is why today's poor are wealthier than ever, and food is cheaper than ever.
In other words, who needs a middle class when the poor have a higher standard of living today than the middle class and even some of the wealthy of any period earlier than the 60's? The difference between middle class after all is just an arbitrary number on a spreadsheet that some government bureaucrat decided upon.
This is completely untrue and a tiresome argument from people who *have* wealth. The poor were far more wealthy in the 60s than now. The cost of living is exponentially higher today. We are entering an era of serfdom.
Unless you think having a cheap cellphone as being some form of "wealth" when it's a necessary, burdensome expense to even seek employment. The "wealth" you refer to is the exact opposite.... it's more burden and more expense while adding 0 value to the quality of life.
International laws? what? They only arose after the nuclear arms race and have never been abided by. There is only one justified cause for warfare and that's self defense, and even then it raises moral objections.
i kan reed already clarified, but I think I could help out a bit more.
Think more of the "human spirit" and all that that entails. A malaise is a lessening of consciousness. Asimov was a writer; his usage of "spiritual" has no religious connotations.
The premise is that spirituality is not directly coupled with religion or God, but that spirituality (e.g. soul, faith, belief, intuition, love, higher thought) is a fundamental human characteristic that defines our existence (i.e. consciousness).
"Spiritual malaise" would mean a lack of or lessening of human consciousness.
And some smart people have also pointed out that they may have tried to do the exact same thing with Syria, since an apparent chemical weapons attack came shortly after Obama said that the use of chemical weapons would trigger a US military response.
There is no theocracy, there is no meaningful movement towards theocracy, and it is unclear what one would even look like since there doesn't seem to be a biblical model for it this side of Christ's return. So your post on that is nonsense.
There is a meaningful movement towards theocracy in the U.S. whether it be intentional or not. The "Christian Right" does have a large role to play in both U.S. domestic and foreign policies. It's a large constituency of Republican base. If you don't think so, let me know when I can buy beer on Sundays and fuck someone in the ass in my hometown.
Missionaries have caused genocides. Enough said.
Dawkins and the modern atheist movement are idiots. Come on, you can do better than that. I'm not making a stance of support in the belief of God (will capitalize for respect) or the lack of. Regardless, I have no dog in the fight. Throw me a bone.
You conveniently skimmed over my statement that is more important than any scripture in the Bible and more important than any of Christ's teachings: "The problem with the world is people trying to force their beliefs on others when the truth they proclaim is not even instilled in themselves."
Jesus never fulfilled any prophecies. His life has been massaged by those who wish to put him in a divine light. And no, he never made one statement declaring himself as God or the son of God. He also never penned a word, hence the attribution of being a Socrates of sorts.
As for his followers, many people to this day will die a painful death rather than denounce their faith. Really, are you going to use that as justification for them being in the right? You might want to retract that.
Right on. Yeah, I think they should do it. I'm just saying I doubt any of these folks are actually self-proclaimed "Satanists", but that they're doing it to prove a point and put the legal aspects of religion+state into perspective and back within the confines of constitutional law..
Ultimately they want to see the US converted to Islam, and living under Sharia law.
I hate absolutes like "ultimately". Having said that, no, they want the middle east under sharia law without western influence and intervention.
On the other hand, here in the U.S., "Christians" want the world living under their bastardized and blasphemous rule that is altogether anti-Christian. Guess which is more of a threat to the world?
Missionaries have done more harm the world, caused more wars and deaths, than a petty "terrorist" group could ever wish for.
But you see, that's how it goes. The problem with the world is people trying to force their beliefs on others when the truth they proclaim is not even instilled in themselves.
Bickering and arguing about religious semantics is dangerous, it continues the cycle of dehumanization and warfare that has stricken humanity for thousands of years.
Here, this will fuck your head: Christianity and Islam has nothing to do with a God. In fact, Jesus Christ was nothing more than a philosopher; a Socrates of sorts.
Slashdot Mirror
This. It wouldn't have to be socialist, but it seems there would need to be a full-fledged welfare system to ensure an individual's percentage of wealth and opportunity.
How many replies do you have to make? That rambling certainly supports your claim to have a higher IQ than Stephen Hawking. Are you sure you didn't get IQ confused with your SAT score?
You didn't correct any "dichotomy". You spouted nonsense that you thought made you sound smart- it didn't.
You have been unable to articulate and support a position. Yes, my IQ is higher than Stephen Hawking's. Surprise, not all intelligent people are physicists. Just because you were unable to understand my "ramblings", does not make it nonsense.
You created at least two dichotomies: natural and supernatural, religion and science, and insinuated natural law as being empirical -- that which has yet to be proven/verified with mathematical logic must not exist.
Careful there, it's supported by over three schools of philosophical thought, quantum mechanics, and every poet.
I'm really not sure what you claim is supported. I assume wanting things to happen can make them happen. If that is the case then no- it is not supported by anything. A poet is less qualified to weigh in on matters of physics than Jenny McCarthy is on matters of medicin.
"Wanting" things to happen is not the same as "believing" something will happen. And yes, it's all well documented. Google it or go to your local university's library. You completely ignored my other example that's well discussed in metaphysics. Stop nit-picking to suit your agenda, and stop attacking people who are being friendly.
You might want to ask Einstein where he got his general theory of relativity. A physicist is only useful when he's properly educated in poetics and philosophy.
Stay in school. It seems to be the only hope for hopelessness.
I would suggest you try going to school instead of making up IQ scores.
Again, stay in school.
You continue droning on with the coherence of a Markov chain also indicating a troll.
You do not understand Markov's chain.
Again, your insults are in vain. I had to correct your every irrational dichotomy. Your intelligence is revealed when you make this a personal affair. Glad we got to the heart of the matter.
my IQ = 220
your IQ = 120 at best.
How's that for your dumb thick head? The disparity in our intellect alone is comparing Einstein with a monkey.
Suck it.
Careful there, it's supported by over three schools of philosophical thought, quantum mechanics, and every poet.
Stay in school. It seems to be the only hope for hopelessness.
You are the one speaking in absolutes, narrowed-mindedness, and empirical bullshit. That is the very definition of stupidity.
Congrats, kid. You've just shown yourself as an ignorant beast. Look for another website that is more suitable to your intellect.
You seem to have a misunderstanding of the words you are using. To clarify...
Supernatural doesn't equal religion. However, religion relies upon moral law which is traditionally seen as being dictated by the supernatural. If you want to debate moral law, that's fine, but I think you'd might want to find a different website. Also read Nietzsche, Kant, and Schopenhauer before doing so. For the record, I am more in agreement with Nietzsche.
"Science", in modern context, refers to the scientific philosophy practiced by neo-positivists. It's fashionable these days to dismiss reality when it can't be verified by mathematical logic. But I guess it's always been trendy to be stupid, arrogant, and foolish. No one wants to think anymore.
Furthermore, there is no religion/science dichotomy. It is stupid and simpleminded to even try to frame a debate or argument with this pretense. I know it's popular, but it's tiresome. I will ignore it. It's fueled by people's petty personal insecurities and psychological disorders. It is just as stupid and childish as saying you are "atheist", "agnostic", or "religious".
Trust thyself. The universe is too beautiful and awe-inspiring to be so dismissive.
However, once you stop equating the supernatural with religion,
You cannot stop equating the supernatural and religion. They are one in the same no matter what you want to believe.
You are talking in absolutes and creating a dichotomy that doesn't exist. I think you are also failing to understand both religion and science. Maybe you are a student. You are also holding a childish caricature of what is often attributed to the supernatural (e.g. "purple fish in your head")
Religion has nothing to do with the supernatural. It is a social construct. Religion has, however, created a mythos, fables of sort, to help define how one should live. Sometimes it relates to the supernatural. That certainly isn't one and the same.
Regardless, I won't be discussing religion with you nor is it relevant to this thread...
it begins to make sense that there are invisible laws that govern that natural law is incapable of evaluating.
There is absolutely no reasoning behind that assertion other than to make people feel better about holding beliefs that all evidence contradicts. It is complete nonsense. Spurious reasoning and pseudo-insightfulness is not an argument.
First, I hold no beliefs and only speak from experience, insight, and education. The same with those who came before me. So what does that say about your ability to reason? It means what you just said was nonsense (i.e. not applicable). That's a failure of reasoning and comprehension on your part. You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss thousands of years of thought; that's naively dangerous.
Neither does evidence contradict the supernatural, quite the contrary. This is a thread on the topic of cosmology, which is a subset of metaphysical philosophy which sets out to explain both the natural and supernatural.
Let's take a moment to describe what the supernatural is...
I will use the word you just used, "belief". If I believe something will happen, the likelihood of it occurring has been increased beyond measure. It's a paradox. Belief itself is power and has the ability to bend natural law. Science is beginning to recognize this in theory.
Take another example... for instance, higher thought itself is independent of a singular mind and is transcendental. I would attribute this to the supernatural. What about you? It certainly doesn't involve natural law.
Science is only one method of reason and measurement
Another statement complete void of meaning. Name one other method- one that isn't purely begging the question.
Sure... Poetry, Philosophy, Art-- all higher schools of thought and reasoning that science derives its pursuits from.
What you are doing by holding the science of natural law as some supreme form of thought is dismissing its very origin. You are divorcing it from all beauty and higher purpose.
Let's take poetic symbolism as an example of a predecessor, as it is regarded as the highest form of thought and consciousness:
"the sound of stars" or "the grinding of cosmos". Only until recently did science recognize that stars emit sound and is actually a useful way to deduce their internal composition.
Same applies to the work of Newton and Einstein.
What we attribute to being of the supernatural is the occurrence of the improbable and impossible.
Bolded for emphasis. We call it "impossible" because it can't actually happen, like the supernatural. The improbable is not supernatural. Rolling 10 sixes in a row on an unweighted die is improbable but not supernatural. Things considered supernatural are not improbable- they are impossible. That is why they are labelled supernatural.
Take your 10 sixes and roll them again a billion times. Would you say that was impossible or improbable? Can you fu
Sort of. The God question is for children; you'd first have to define God. Good luck! However, once you stop equating the supernatural with religion, it begins to make sense that there are invisible laws that govern that natural law is incapable of evaluating.
Science is only one method of reason and measurement, math as its metric, and relies upon repeatable results. Therein is why it is limited in evaluating the supernatural. What we attribute to being of the supernatural is the occurrence of the improbable and impossible.
Science is still in its infancy and today depends upon higher schools of thought to direct its pursuits. Perhaps one day it will have a broader reach.
The Iroquois had something like this. The "fourth branch" being a panel of women who could oust and exile a chief.
There is a larger problem here. Many of the disenfranchised do not have the skills to cook for themselves.
Depends where you are. There is a large percentage in cities like Philadelphia. The reason for this is guns are purchased legally in surrounding areas and then sold to the black market. There isn't a strict limit to the amount of guns one can purchase within a set timeframe.
These guns can be bought legally and then sold illegally at a higher rate. Rinse and repeat.
citation needed.
Data suggests exact opposite.
This is completely untrue and a tiresome argument from people who *have* wealth. The poor were far more wealthy in the 60s than now. The cost of living is exponentially higher today. We are entering an era of serfdom.
Unless you think having a cheap cellphone as being some form of "wealth" when it's a necessary, burdensome expense to even seek employment. The "wealth" you refer to is the exact opposite.... it's more burden and more expense while adding 0 value to the quality of life.
International laws? what? They only arose after the nuclear arms race and have never been abided by. There is only one justified cause for warfare and that's self defense, and even then it raises moral objections.
i kan reed already clarified, but I think I could help out a bit more.
Think more of the "human spirit" and all that that entails. A malaise is a lessening of consciousness. Asimov was a writer; his usage of "spiritual" has no religious connotations.
+5
The premise is that spirituality is not directly coupled with religion or God, but that spirituality (e.g. soul, faith, belief, intuition, love, higher thought) is a fundamental human characteristic that defines our existence (i.e. consciousness).
"Spiritual malaise" would mean a lack of or lessening of human consciousness.
For the senior web developers out there, browse to netflix.com, view source, and have a fun time critiquing. Netflix consists of average developers.
Surveillance is power and all pillars of power need to be checked by a counter force, else they will be abused.
Kerry dropped the ball on that one.
There is a meaningful movement towards theocracy in the U.S. whether it be intentional or not. The "Christian Right" does have a large role to play in both U.S. domestic and foreign policies. It's a large constituency of Republican base. If you don't think so, let me know when I can buy beer on Sundays and fuck someone in the ass in my hometown.
Missionaries have caused genocides. Enough said.
Dawkins and the modern atheist movement are idiots. Come on, you can do better than that. I'm not making a stance of support in the belief of God (will capitalize for respect) or the lack of. Regardless, I have no dog in the fight. Throw me a bone.
You conveniently skimmed over my statement that is more important than any scripture in the Bible and more important than any of Christ's teachings: "The problem with the world is people trying to force their beliefs on others when the truth they proclaim is not even instilled in themselves."
Jesus never fulfilled any prophecies. His life has been massaged by those who wish to put him in a divine light. And no, he never made one statement declaring himself as God or the son of God. He also never penned a word, hence the attribution of being a Socrates of sorts.
As for his followers, many people to this day will die a painful death rather than denounce their faith. Really, are you going to use that as justification for them being in the right? You might want to retract that.
Right on. Yeah, I think they should do it. I'm just saying I doubt any of these folks are actually self-proclaimed "Satanists", but that they're doing it to prove a point and put the legal aspects of religion+state into perspective and back within the confines of constitutional law..
Oh, I thought it was the new Ford Taurus.
I hate absolutes like "ultimately". Having said that, no, they want the middle east under sharia law without western influence and intervention.
On the other hand, here in the U.S., "Christians" want the world living under their bastardized and blasphemous rule that is altogether anti-Christian. Guess which is more of a threat to the world?
Missionaries have done more harm the world, caused more wars and deaths, than a petty "terrorist" group could ever wish for.
But you see, that's how it goes. The problem with the world is people trying to force their beliefs on others when the truth they proclaim is not even instilled in themselves.
Bickering and arguing about religious semantics is dangerous, it continues the cycle of dehumanization and warfare that has stricken humanity for thousands of years.
Here, this will fuck your head: Christianity and Islam has nothing to do with a God. In fact, Jesus Christ was nothing more than a philosopher; a Socrates of sorts.
The essence of your statement insinuates that *your* religion is the only religion and my faith is secondary.
Thanks.
Which is exactly why these "Satanists" are turning this into legal theater. That's what it is, pure sensational theater.
The irony is not missed by most of us.