Ah, good point. You would have to lock in the spending with a requirement of massive majority to change it... but you're still right. I'm arguing from utopia... not reality.
(1) Just because theists claim some "absolute morality that transcends all men" does not make it a valid claim.
Sure... claims mean nothing. The question is whether or not the claim is true. If there is a God then it matters, the claims don't, the fact that God exists does.
Someone with a gun can win declare that 2+2=5, and can force people to use it in all their calculations, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would accept that as a valid basis to determine "right" or "good".
You're logic is wrong here. 2+2=5 is an observable truth. The "rightness" or "wrongess" from a moral standpoint isn't observable. You cannot calculate or measure the morality of something without a standard. People define all sorts of standards.
Symmetry... you've selected this as a rule, but why should I care? Why would I not say that I'll do what is in my own best interst all of the time and call that "right". Even the concept of morality... why have it... why is it required? We're all going to die, assuming their is no afterlife, why follow any manmade moral code that claims "universiality" if it doesn't serve my purpose?
That's kind of my point... if we can prosecute CEOs because they misuse funds and mislead investors we should also be able set strict guidelines in place for public funds and prosecute politicians who do not use them correctly.
I agree with you though, right now we give them money for one thing and they use it on another.
these people who complain about this stuff must go through every day as the realize how pathetic their lives are and try and find the most rediculous things to criticize and critique in order to try and give themselves some sense of value. Lame.
Seriously, we're going to be hearing from someone soon that fans of sports teams may not have an unbiased opinion or the home shopping network tends to put products they sell in the best possible light. This is obvious stuff. We're talking about miliary recruiters, they're salespeople... they're job is to get recruits. They're going to sell and spin. Simulations are just that, they're simulations... they're not meant to cover every possible scenario... maybe your character could have a case of the runs... or you could simulate the excitement of gaurding a base in Iowa in real time. Idiots.
I'm not too worried about 550 million Chinese fighters as long as we have a few soldiers with superior training and proper motivation. I saw a John Woo movie and from what I can tell one decent guy with a good motivation can take out hundreds of Chinese fighters pretty quickly. Especially if you get them in close combat in a house or a warehoue.
Redically reducing our use of fossil fuels is what we need to be doing. The local (and possibly global?) environmental implications are obvious, but for the West the elimination of a financial base of many unstable or anti-Western regiemes has political and economic benefits. I like Richard Branson's strategy to invest heavily in alternative fuels and transport technology.
Any tax should have extremely rigid rules about how the money would be used and accounted for. Extra cash in politicians coffers is the last thing we need. The money should be used to invest and subsidize productive research in alternative fuels.
Spinning off of what others have already said I think this will only be successful if they modify the code to allow individuals to run a single server with a piece of a world and a somewhat standard ruleset. Without that, you're dependant on another business (or a very generous individual) to run multiple servers to host the game. A peer-to-peer MMORPG would be a major step forward.
It seems to me that this group is going to be as successful as the Star Trek nerds that tried to keep Star Trek: Enterprise on the aire.
Interesting opinion... doesn't Buddhism offer enlightenment as the ultimate goal and the path to attaining enlightment requires practicing, at least to some degree, the principles that it teaches? I've never studied Buddhist morality models... that may be interesting.
I agree with yoru second point, but restress that the humanists view of morality is no more valid then Pol Pot's. We all think Pol Pot was an evil guy who did terrible and wrong things... and we think that because we have views of morality different then Pol Pot's, but without any sort of objective non-human standard to measure morality by there is no real difference. Morality, under these systems, is a way of describing one's opinions on a particular action, but is not universal, it's entirely and completely relative.
I noticed a difference, maybe I didn't have that tweaked out MP3 codec command line. Vorbis is too incompatible for regular use (MP3 player, PC, in-Car CDR, etc.). Who cares about low bit rates... I'm not streaming this stuff. I've seen plenty of reviews and similar studies saying that WMA is better... maybe I need to take a closer look.
I assume you mean "wma". WMA provides a higher quality sound at a lower file size/bit rate. This means more songs per player and if you happen to pay per MB downloaded it means more music for your money. Of course you can't use an iPod for most of your music which pretty much sucks.
No, you misunderstand. I'm not talking about each person having a basic axiom or believing in some higher power... I'm saying that morality based on a true real existing higher power that has a moral system and intends to at some level enforce it. Personal beliefs and axioms are subjective and individual.
If your choose a supreme axiom, who cares? I don't. So your axiom has not value to me unless you and others who accept it intend to enforce it on others. When morality, the actual defintions of "right" and "wrong", is based in any human system and truly open to human interpretation is doesn't matter what you choose as your moral system only how well you can enforce it and act it out in your own life (meaning others will not enforce their views on you). For example, in Christian systems, Christians (or at least people who claimed to be Christians) slaughtered thousands of people during the crusades. It's honestly and ultimately not up to them to determine if it was right, they would say it was... the Muslims woudl say it wasn't... today we may say it wasn't... but that's all irrelevant. God sets the standard and ulitmately God will hold them accountable for His standard. Outside of this, a moral standard outside of man, you cannot have a universal morality.
Belief does not make for reality.
So at the risk of extending this longer... it's odd to me that someone who doesn't believe in a higher power and doesn't believe in an after life would honestly accept something like the "Maximum happiness for the maximum number of people". Why should any one else honestly matter to you? You will die. You don't realy know when... would it not be more honest to seek pleasure for yourself at all costs. Now obviously a sophisticated person realizes they have to compromise and play nice with others b/c others have power and others will not take being mistreated or treated unfairly for too long... but given the chance shouldn't you always do whatever is in your own best interest? I also wonder why someone would actually care about what happens after they die? It seem that that is the most meaningless of all pursuits... you're dead... you have no idea what happened, whether it was good or bad. You get no real reward... who cares if everyone thinks you're the greatest person who ever lived and celebrates your life every other day... you're dead and rotting just like Pol Pot. It seems to me that this type of system is just an elected set of beliefs to make someone feel important and meaningful and less hopeless, and is promoted by many because it does a wonderful job of keeping the masses in check.
I think I will not post again so one last thought: you said "The basic axioms you start with... lead you to a moral life." What do you mean by "moral life"? I think you've predefined this term based on your personal moral system or upbringing or culture. I think your "moral life" may differ very much from that of a Muslim extermist or Amish.
Because there are contradictory points of view on God, doesn't mean that God didn't speak.
the only reason people follow some particular book is hereditary indoctrination. This is stupid. People convert from Islam to Christianity, from Athiests/Agnostics to Islam, from Christian to Buddhist. Hereditary indocrination has as much to do with what religion people choose as it does in what they consider "right" and "wrong". Either way, it still doesn't free you up from the ultimate question of whether or not God exists and if so how does He interact with you.
I happen to beleive that if there is a God and he did hand down true-word-of-God-Scripture...
Great, so you have a belief. And you've chosen to elevate your belief about the beliefs of others... that's fine for you, make your own choices, but it doesn't give you belief any creedance outside of your own head.
Your logic is flawed... as I understand it you seem to think that if God spoke He must speak in a way that everyone would be forced to beleive He spoke (you're defining what your God would do... and if the real God doesn't live up to this then you write Him off, and since things haven't unfolded in the way you have defined you're essentially justifying your own conclusion).
Show me your athiest statistics. Your two possible options fail to include the fact that the study may be wrong, that people may choose religion after they have been convicted or committed a crime, that many people say they are some religion but don't practice its tenents, etc. And of course at best... you end up with a situation where you have a correlation which as we all know doesn't prove causation.
My original point and the point I still stand by is that athiests cannot claim any sort of absolute morality that transcends all men. There is no universal "right" and "wrong" in an athiest morality model. There is only the choices men make and the consequences and viewpoints imposed upon those choices by other men. Moral norms are are just norms, cultural artifacts, and are only as relevant as the power they have supporting and enforcing them. Pol Pot is wrong now only because our society thinks he is wrong, not because he violated any sort of universal principles. If Pol Pot had some how gained power then he would not be "wrong" today... at least according to the limits of non-God/higher power moral systems.
The weakness of this system is that society's values can be hijacked (and example are strewn throughout this thread). An element of pragmatism, intelligence, and personal responsibility is necessary for a practicing humanist.
I disagree. The weakness of the system is that it's only power is based on the societies power to enforce its norms. If a stronger society with a moral norm of violence and opperession of a different societies was to exist it's system would be "right". Right and wrong, in any non-universal system, will be determined by the society with the most power. Ultimately even God-based morality systems are based in this understanding... except God has the ultimate power to excert His system of morality and hold humans accountable to it.
A moral system without the power (not always violent power is required) to enforce it is a pretty meaningless sytem.
I actually think we agree. Without a universal standard of right and wrong it's up to each person to choose what is right for them in any given situation and that decision is based entirely on their situation and desires (however "healthy" or "twisted" they may be). Nonviolence was "right" for Gandhi and extreme violence was "right" for Pol Pot.
I've never understood the position of "Without God I might as well go out and kill people in the streets and rape babies".
I agree that killing people and raping babies isn't something most people want to do even if they could do so without consequences. My point is that without a universal standard for "right" and "wrong", a standard that could only be provided by something outside of man... you can't say killing people and raping babies is "wrong" and mean it any way other then "I don't like it". Morality simply becomes a way to express your personal feelings towards particular actions.
To your second point about moral norms. I don't entirely disagree that peopel have interpreted God's word differently or slightly differently troughoutout history. But the point isn't the interpretation... the point is that God has set a universal moral standard that He will hold people accountable to. A universal moral standard outside of man is radically different philosophically then a standard deduced and created entirely by men (and therefore subject to change by men).
To your last point. Relgion is powerful because it explains things... Athiesm, Agnosticism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc. all explain things. The only thing that really matters is if your beliefs are right. If you believe in God and there isn't one... you're probably not too bad off. If you believe in Buddah, but there is only Allah then you're in some trouble I think. A higher power is only irrelevant if he/she/it doesn't actually exists or if they do exist doesn't give a flying fuck about you. If however a higher power does exist and does expect something from you and intends to act on that expectation... well that matters.
My point, is that your morality is only relevant to you and those who agree with you. If there was a larger/stronger group of people who had a different sent of values your view of "right" means shit. Furthermore, your morality is exactly like you defined it... entirely deduced... if I was a miserable person who found great pleasure and only great pleasure in butchering helpless puppy dogs it would be "right" for me to gain as much pleasure for my miserable existance by butchering those little puppies.
If there is a God and He has a standard by which He expects us all to live and will judge us by (say like the Muslim Allah) then you might want to do what He wants. If there isn't... then fuck it all live for yourself now because tomorrow you die.
That's fine. That's what you've decided... but someone else may have decided something different. I'm simply saying, unless you cite a higher power, you can't say your view of things is "right" and someone elses is "wrong". Of course... you can "say" that, but the only way it realy matters is if you have the power to make them change their behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
they should make a movie about a software company trying to dominate the world.
and the crackpots who love to hate them. A tragic love story.
BloodRayne was on of the worst movies ever made... House of the Dead may was only slightly less revolting.
Of course... I think that to not put Al Gore's name on the film probably would have meant it was pretty much ignored.
Ah, good point. You would have to lock in the spending with a requirement of massive majority to change it... but you're still right. I'm arguing from utopia... not reality.
Screw the politicians.
(1) Just because theists claim some "absolute morality that transcends all men" does not make it a valid claim.
Sure... claims mean nothing. The question is whether or not the claim is true. If there is a God then it matters, the claims don't, the fact that God exists does.
Someone with a gun can win declare that 2+2=5, and can force people to use it in all their calculations, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would accept that as a valid basis to determine "right" or "good".
You're logic is wrong here. 2+2=5 is an observable truth. The "rightness" or "wrongess" from a moral standpoint isn't observable. You cannot calculate or measure the morality of something without a standard. People define all sorts of standards.
Symmetry... you've selected this as a rule, but why should I care? Why would I not say that I'll do what is in my own best interst all of the time and call that "right". Even the concept of morality... why have it... why is it required? We're all going to die, assuming their is no afterlife, why follow any manmade moral code that claims "universiality" if it doesn't serve my purpose?
That's kind of my point... if we can prosecute CEOs because they misuse funds and mislead investors we should also be able set strict guidelines in place for public funds and prosecute politicians who do not use them correctly.
I agree with you though, right now we give them money for one thing and they use it on another.
these people who complain about this stuff must go through every day as the realize how pathetic their lives are and try and find the most rediculous things to criticize and critique in order to try and give themselves some sense of value. Lame.
/.
The sequal would be a simlation of a poster on
Seriously, we're going to be hearing from someone soon that fans of sports teams may not have an unbiased opinion or the home shopping network tends to put products they sell in the best possible light. This is obvious stuff. We're talking about miliary recruiters, they're salespeople... they're job is to get recruits. They're going to sell and spin. Simulations are just that, they're simulations... they're not meant to cover every possible scenario... maybe your character could have a case of the runs... or you could simulate the excitement of gaurding a base in Iowa in real time. Idiots.
I'm not too worried about 550 million Chinese fighters as long as we have a few soldiers with superior training and proper motivation. I saw a John Woo movie and from what I can tell one decent guy with a good motivation can take out hundreds of Chinese fighters pretty quickly. Especially if you get them in close combat in a house or a warehoue.
Redically reducing our use of fossil fuels is what we need to be doing. The local (and possibly global?) environmental implications are obvious, but for the West the elimination of a financial base of many unstable or anti-Western regiemes has political and economic benefits. I like Richard Branson's strategy to invest heavily in alternative fuels and transport technology.
Any tax should have extremely rigid rules about how the money would be used and accounted for. Extra cash in politicians coffers is the last thing we need. The money should be used to invest and subsidize productive research in alternative fuels.
Yup... looking at this from the advertisers perspective is wrong.
Reminded me of Wes Mantooth.
Spinning off of what others have already said I think this will only be successful if they modify the code to allow individuals to run a single server with a piece of a world and a somewhat standard ruleset. Without that, you're dependant on another business (or a very generous individual) to run multiple servers to host the game. A peer-to-peer MMORPG would be a major step forward.
It seems to me that this group is going to be as successful as the Star Trek nerds that tried to keep Star Trek: Enterprise on the aire.
Interesting opinion... doesn't Buddhism offer enlightenment as the ultimate goal and the path to attaining enlightment requires practicing, at least to some degree, the principles that it teaches? I've never studied Buddhist morality models... that may be interesting.
I agree with yoru second point, but restress that the humanists view of morality is no more valid then Pol Pot's. We all think Pol Pot was an evil guy who did terrible and wrong things... and we think that because we have views of morality different then Pol Pot's, but without any sort of objective non-human standard to measure morality by there is no real difference. Morality, under these systems, is a way of describing one's opinions on a particular action, but is not universal, it's entirely and completely relative.
Productivity would be UP if Windows did not have to reboot everytime I clic somewhere.
1995 called and they want their Windows jokes back.
hold on... apparently 2001 is calling and they want their "1995 called..." jokes back.
I noticed a difference, maybe I didn't have that tweaked out MP3 codec command line. Vorbis is too incompatible for regular use (MP3 player, PC, in-Car CDR, etc.). Who cares about low bit rates... I'm not streaming this stuff. I've seen plenty of reviews and similar studies saying that WMA is better... maybe I need to take a closer look.
Is AAC locked in with Apple?
I assume you mean "wma". WMA provides a higher quality sound at a lower file size/bit rate. This means more songs per player and if you happen to pay per MB downloaded it means more music for your money. Of course you can't use an iPod for most of your music which pretty much sucks.
No, you misunderstand. I'm not talking about each person having a basic axiom or believing in some higher power... I'm saying that morality based on a true real existing higher power that has a moral system and intends to at some level enforce it. Personal beliefs and axioms are subjective and individual.
... lead you to a moral life." What do you mean by "moral life"? I think you've predefined this term based on your personal moral system or upbringing or culture. I think your "moral life" may differ very much from that of a Muslim extermist or Amish.
If your choose a supreme axiom, who cares? I don't. So your axiom has not value to me unless you and others who accept it intend to enforce it on others. When morality, the actual defintions of "right" and "wrong", is based in any human system and truly open to human interpretation is doesn't matter what you choose as your moral system only how well you can enforce it and act it out in your own life (meaning others will not enforce their views on you). For example, in Christian systems, Christians (or at least people who claimed to be Christians) slaughtered thousands of people during the crusades. It's honestly and ultimately not up to them to determine if it was right, they would say it was... the Muslims woudl say it wasn't... today we may say it wasn't... but that's all irrelevant. God sets the standard and ulitmately God will hold them accountable for His standard. Outside of this, a moral standard outside of man, you cannot have a universal morality.
Belief does not make for reality.
So at the risk of extending this longer... it's odd to me that someone who doesn't believe in a higher power and doesn't believe in an after life would honestly accept something like the "Maximum happiness for the maximum number of people". Why should any one else honestly matter to you? You will die. You don't realy know when... would it not be more honest to seek pleasure for yourself at all costs. Now obviously a sophisticated person realizes they have to compromise and play nice with others b/c others have power and others will not take being mistreated or treated unfairly for too long... but given the chance shouldn't you always do whatever is in your own best interest? I also wonder why someone would actually care about what happens after they die? It seem that that is the most meaningless of all pursuits... you're dead... you have no idea what happened, whether it was good or bad. You get no real reward... who cares if everyone thinks you're the greatest person who ever lived and celebrates your life every other day... you're dead and rotting just like Pol Pot. It seems to me that this type of system is just an elected set of beliefs to make someone feel important and meaningful and less hopeless, and is promoted by many because it does a wonderful job of keeping the masses in check.
I think I will not post again so one last thought: you said "The basic axioms you start with
Because there are contradictory points of view on God, doesn't mean that God didn't speak.
the only reason people follow some particular book is hereditary indoctrination.
This is stupid. People convert from Islam to Christianity, from Athiests/Agnostics to Islam, from Christian to Buddhist. Hereditary indocrination has as much to do with what religion people choose as it does in what they consider "right" and "wrong". Either way, it still doesn't free you up from the ultimate question of whether or not God exists and if so how does He interact with you.
I happen to beleive that if there is a God and he did hand down true-word-of-God-Scripture...
Great, so you have a belief. And you've chosen to elevate your belief about the beliefs of others... that's fine for you, make your own choices, but it doesn't give you belief any creedance outside of your own head.
Your logic is flawed... as I understand it you seem to think that if God spoke He must speak in a way that everyone would be forced to beleive He spoke (you're defining what your God would do... and if the real God doesn't live up to this then you write Him off, and since things haven't unfolded in the way you have defined you're essentially justifying your own conclusion).
Show me your athiest statistics. Your two possible options fail to include the fact that the study may be wrong, that people may choose religion after they have been convicted or committed a crime, that many people say they are some religion but don't practice its tenents, etc. And of course at best... you end up with a situation where you have a correlation which as we all know doesn't prove causation.
My original point and the point I still stand by is that athiests cannot claim any sort of absolute morality that transcends all men. There is no universal "right" and "wrong" in an athiest morality model. There is only the choices men make and the consequences and viewpoints imposed upon those choices by other men. Moral norms are are just norms, cultural artifacts, and are only as relevant as the power they have supporting and enforcing them. Pol Pot is wrong now only because our society thinks he is wrong, not because he violated any sort of universal principles. If Pol Pot had some how gained power then he would not be "wrong" today... at least according to the limits of non-God/higher power moral systems.
The weakness of this system is that society's values can be hijacked (and example are strewn throughout this thread). An element of pragmatism, intelligence, and personal responsibility is necessary for a practicing humanist.
I disagree. The weakness of the system is that it's only power is based on the societies power to enforce its norms. If a stronger society with a moral norm of violence and opperession of a different societies was to exist it's system would be "right". Right and wrong, in any non-universal system, will be determined by the society with the most power. Ultimately even God-based morality systems are based in this understanding... except God has the ultimate power to excert His system of morality and hold humans accountable to it.
A moral system without the power (not always violent power is required) to enforce it is a pretty meaningless sytem.
I actually think we agree. Without a universal standard of right and wrong it's up to each person to choose what is right for them in any given situation and that decision is based entirely on their situation and desires (however "healthy" or "twisted" they may be). Nonviolence was "right" for Gandhi and extreme violence was "right" for Pol Pot.
I've never understood the position of "Without God I might as well go out and kill people in the streets and rape babies".
I agree that killing people and raping babies isn't something most people want to do even if they could do so without consequences. My point is that without a universal standard for "right" and "wrong", a standard that could only be provided by something outside of man... you can't say killing people and raping babies is "wrong" and mean it any way other then "I don't like it". Morality simply becomes a way to express your personal feelings towards particular actions.
To your second point about moral norms. I don't entirely disagree that peopel have interpreted God's word differently or slightly differently troughoutout history. But the point isn't the interpretation... the point is that God has set a universal moral standard that He will hold people accountable to. A universal moral standard outside of man is radically different philosophically then a standard deduced and created entirely by men (and therefore subject to change by men).
To your last point. Relgion is powerful because it explains things... Athiesm, Agnosticism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc. all explain things. The only thing that really matters is if your beliefs are right. If you believe in God and there isn't one... you're probably not too bad off. If you believe in Buddah, but there is only Allah then you're in some trouble I think. A higher power is only irrelevant if he/she/it doesn't actually exists or if they do exist doesn't give a flying fuck about you. If however a higher power does exist and does expect something from you and intends to act on that expectation... well that matters.
My point, is that your morality is only relevant to you and those who agree with you. If there was a larger/stronger group of people who had a different sent of values your view of "right" means shit. Furthermore, your morality is exactly like you defined it... entirely deduced... if I was a miserable person who found great pleasure and only great pleasure in butchering helpless puppy dogs it would be "right" for me to gain as much pleasure for my miserable existance by butchering those little puppies.
If there is a God and He has a standard by which He expects us all to live and will judge us by (say like the Muslim Allah) then you might want to do what He wants. If there isn't... then fuck it all live for yourself now because tomorrow you die.
That's fine. That's what you've decided... but someone else may have decided something different. I'm simply saying, unless you cite a higher power, you can't say your view of things is "right" and someone elses is "wrong". Of course... you can "say" that, but the only way it realy matters is if you have the power to make them change their behavior.
I think ascerbic rants are quite funny.