Huh? Are you nuts? It might be just me, but there's this bit about "cruel and unusual punishment" in that old document... it's called the "Bill of Rights". Ever heard of it?
I've never cared too much about this. Maybe that's because I'm not a criminal trying to get away with something. Hm.
The whole idea is a pathetic admission on the part of the US that it is no longer even pretending to uphold its so-called "ideals" and is simply now engaged in "might is right" approach to building a hegemony.
Ultimately, might is right. There is no universal moral constant that we could cite to prove whether a particular action is acceptable. It's all based on human interpretation.
During WWII, the Axis powers fell to the Allies because the Allies were a superior military force, not because the Axis was "evil". The notion of Good always triumphing over Evil is for works of fiction; there is no such guarantee in real life.
By living in the United States, a citizen agrees to give a percentage of their own income to the government. That's one of the rules of this club that we're all in. If you don't like that, you are free to leave and join a different club.
DON'T brake hard at the last second, especially when approaching an intersection. It makes other people at the intersection nervous.
DO pay attention to traffic lights, especially when first in line. React promptly when they change.
DON'T attempt to perform a task that requires the continuous use of one or both hands. (Using a phone, eating, shaving, etc.)
DON'T follow closely, especially at high speed. During normal traffic flow on the highway, you shouldn't need to use the brakes. If you are braking periodically to avoid running into the back of the car in front of you, then you are too close.
DON'T use the horn when stopped in heavy traffic. It's not because someone forgot to continue driving that traffic isn't moving, so reminding them won't help.
DO pull off in a safe place to consult a map (or ask for directions) when unfamiliar with an area. Do NOT simply drive very slowly while searching for your destination.
DO drive with appropriate equipment in adverse weather conditions. Summer tires on a rear-wheel-drive car in the snow is a hazard to yourself and other drivers.
1. the materialist world view is correct
2. the materialist world view says supernatural is impossible
No, the definition of supernatural implicitly says that the supernatural is impossible. You might as well just replace the word "supernatural" with "impossible": "Religion depends on the impossible."
Jump on the train at any step you want - it doesn't matter. The logic just goes round and round in an unbroken, utterly perfect, and utterly irrelevant circle. Spare us all the trouble of pretending to have an argument and just say it: you're a materialist because you're a materialist.
Damn straight. We have exactly zero evidence to support anything other than a materialistic view of the universe, so I am as correct as any person could possibly be at this point in time.
The definitino of supernatural - and of physics - is not constant. 1,000 years ago radiation would not have been physics. It would have been superstition. Because what we can observe is a function of the tools we have. So the observable universe is expanding, meaning physics is expanding. So while religion is supernatural today, it may be natural given enough knowledge. I certainly believe that.
Your philosophy prevents anything from ever being knowable. If you're ready to believe in an non-falsifiable theory (i.e., a god), then why not believe that you yourself don't even exist? Perhaps your thoughts are merely some "supernatural" phenomenon. You can't prove that isn't true!
The point is: without making basic assumptions, you are doomed to ignorance. As soon as those basic logical assumptions are made, silly fantasies crumble. Anyone in support of Santa Claus, God, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy therefore needs to have a goofy argument along the lines of yours.
I'm not going to tell you whether or not you've had any sort of supernatural experience, but I'm impressed that you can tell me whether or not I have.
You shouldn't be too impressed. It's not that hard to do. The word "supernatural" describes things outside the realm of physics. By definition, everything in the universe that you could possibly experience is governed by physics. Normal, non-supernatural laws were behind everything that you have ever experienced or ever will experience.
Tell me, is that a proposition for which you have scientific proof - or are you just espousing a theory on blind faith?;-)
Do you realize that you just asked me for proof that a non-falsifiable theory is false? The fact that something can be described as "supernatural" means that, by definition, we can't show its existence to be impossible. What good is a theory that can't possibly be falsified?
What I'm getting with this is that the scientific method is inapplicable to most of our actual lives. But logic and reason are still applicable. I can argue happily about my favorite books forever - but that doesn't make it scientific.
How is something like the existence or non-existence of a god part of our "actual lives"? I've certainly never had any sort of supernatural experience, and neither has anyone else. Science puts so much pressure on religion today that religious people need to pretend that the issues that faith deals with are somehow untouchable by science.
Are you seriously maintaining that in order to be a scientist you must refrain from believing anything in any aspect of your life that's non-scientific? 'Cause we can have some fun with that.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Any scientist who rigorously applies the scientific method in his work and then goes to worship a god on the weekend is a charlatan and a fraud. He or she would taint the name of Science. I'm not saying that such a person would be incapable of making discoveries and contributions, but they'd just better not call themselves a "scientist".
What, precisely, would a person be trying to say with such behavior? Science is good enough for their trivial laboratory experiments, but not good enough to govern analysis of matters in their personal life? Or perhaps, they are so completely controlled by their emotions that they try to force science to take a back seat to their own comfort.
You seem to be confusing logic with Popperian philosophy of science.
Correct. Usually, logic and scientific method are so closely applied that I didn't think to make the distinction. However, calling a religious person "perfectly logical" -- while it may be technically correct -- seems to be a desperate attempt to credit the soundness of their reasoning where no credit is due.
Yes, because (despite the opinion of most of Slashdot) most Christians are perfectly reasonable and logical people. Also, there is nothing in microevolution that conflicts biblical belief.
Excuse me? How is belief in an unsupported, un-falsifiable theory considered "perfectly logical"? By definition, Christians (and anyone else believing in a god) are perfectly illogical.
1 - You can be devoutly religious and also logical/rational/scientific.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The existence of a god is not falsifiable. If you disagree with that statement, then tell me what experiment would conclusively disprove a god's existence. Otherwise, I shall assume that we agree on that point. If you choose to "devoutly" believe in something that is not falsifiable and has nothing but circumstantial evidence in support of it, you are not scientific. That's not open to discussion; it has to do with the very definition of science. It's even worse if you choose to apply the scientific method in some areas of your life but not in others. Why should certain things about the universe be exempt from physics?
2 - Some "scientific" and anti-religious people are just as bigoted, and illogical as the religious nuts.
It's a good thing you quoted "scientific", because a person who is actually scientific is not illogical. Sure, they can be bigoted, but what does that have to do with being correct about scientific matters?
In other news: This has never stopped me from running any software the way I want to use it.
The same goes for millions of other people, too. Which raises the question: why have restrictive licenses? If you have a good product, people will buy it -- even if it's very easy to pirate. History shows this to be true.
It's just more freeloaders who don't want to pay for stuff and think that's a valid reason to pirate everything under the sun.
If they actually wouldn't have bought it anyway, Apple has lost nothing. You'll have a hard time convincing people that "getting something of questionable tangible value for free -- even when it costs others nothing -- is criminal."
Many atheists, myself included, don't see a viable option.
I think you meant "another viable option", but yeah, I'm an atheist and I'll second that. Atheism has the "notion" of being the One True Thing in the same way that pi has the "notion" of being the One True Circumference-to-Diameter Ratio. It's just the way it is.
Being an astronaut sounds cool when you're 12 years old, but really, we shouldn't go back to the moon at all. People don't seem to understand how expensive it is to get humans to the surface and back safely. There is no conceivable way to make money (or even break even) by going there, so an economic argument is right out. There aren't any valuable or useful minerals there. Even if there were, it would cost a ridiculous amount of money to get significant quantities back to Earth. The moon isn't a good place for a base of any kind. It doesn't even have an atmosphere -- space junk will pulverize anything big that's there for a long period of time.
The most valuable things you can get on the moon, we already have: nice pictures of Earth.
Good idea: Going to the moon in 1969. It showed the Russians who was in charge.
Bad idea: Going back. The moon is dusty, boring, and useless.
...the mindless jingoism that you need to have to conduct a war.
"Mindless jingoism"... or worthy cause. Feel free to just leave that second reason out of your discussion, though. I'm sure it was mindless jingoism that drove the Allies in WWI and WWII.
One of the best pieces of advice that I've heard was that if you do have contraband in your car and a police officer demands to search it without a warrant, to simply get out of your vehicle, lock all the doors, and close your door after putting your car keys into the car as well.
That's funny. My advice in this situation is "get arrested" because it sounds like you'd deserve it for having contraband in your car.
Re:Obesity comes from a simple condition...
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 1
I don't mean to say that your amazing sample of 3 isn't a crushing statistics juggernaut of information, but it could certainly be that you have an unusually high metabolism, and that your friends appear, by comparison, like they're obese-in-spite-of-doing-everything-right.
Slashdot Mirror
During WWII, the Axis powers fell to the Allies because the Allies were a superior military force, not because the Axis was "evil". The notion of Good always triumphing over Evil is for works of fiction; there is no such guarantee in real life.
By living in the United States, a citizen agrees to give a percentage of their own income to the government. That's one of the rules of this club that we're all in. If you don't like that, you are free to leave and join a different club.
I'd like to add some:
DON'T brake hard at the last second, especially when approaching an intersection. It makes other people at the intersection nervous.
DO pay attention to traffic lights, especially when first in line. React promptly when they change.
DON'T attempt to perform a task that requires the continuous use of one or both hands. (Using a phone, eating, shaving, etc.)
DON'T follow closely, especially at high speed. During normal traffic flow on the highway, you shouldn't need to use the brakes. If you are braking periodically to avoid running into the back of the car in front of you, then you are too close.
DON'T use the horn when stopped in heavy traffic. It's not because someone forgot to continue driving that traffic isn't moving, so reminding them won't help.
DO pull off in a safe place to consult a map (or ask for directions) when unfamiliar with an area. Do NOT simply drive very slowly while searching for your destination.
DO drive with appropriate equipment in adverse weather conditions. Summer tires on a rear-wheel-drive car in the snow is a hazard to yourself and other drivers.
The point is: without making basic assumptions, you are doomed to ignorance. As soon as those basic logical assumptions are made, silly fantasies crumble. Anyone in support of Santa Claus, God, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy therefore needs to have a goofy argument along the lines of yours.
What, precisely, would a person be trying to say with such behavior? Science is good enough for their trivial laboratory experiments, but not good enough to govern analysis of matters in their personal life? Or perhaps, they are so completely controlled by their emotions that they try to force science to take a back seat to their own comfort.
Yeah, I guess I already know the answer. (It's "emotional weakness".)
It's a good thing you quoted "scientific", because a person who is actually scientific is not illogical. Sure, they can be bigoted, but what does that have to do with being correct about scientific matters?
...to a religious person, or a secular humanist or anyone else, life is sacred.
What?
In other news: This has never stopped me from running any software the way I want to use it.
The same goes for millions of other people, too. Which raises the question: why have restrictive licenses? If you have a good product, people will buy it -- even if it's very easy to pirate. History shows this to be true.
It's just more freeloaders who don't want to pay for stuff and think that's a valid reason to pirate everything under the sun.
If they actually wouldn't have bought it anyway, Apple has lost nothing. You'll have a hard time convincing people that "getting something of questionable tangible value for free -- even when it costs others nothing -- is criminal."
Yeah, I know. It's so horrible how we're all forced to used this free service.
Many atheists, myself included, don't see a viable option.
I think you meant "another viable option", but yeah, I'm an atheist and I'll second that. Atheism has the "notion" of being the One True Thing in the same way that pi has the "notion" of being the One True Circumference-to-Diameter Ratio. It's just the way it is.
It's also easy to point a finger when you're just correct, as is the case with the GP poster. Religion is garbage.
Being an astronaut sounds cool when you're 12 years old, but really, we shouldn't go back to the moon at all. People don't seem to understand how expensive it is to get humans to the surface and back safely. There is no conceivable way to make money (or even break even) by going there, so an economic argument is right out. There aren't any valuable or useful minerals there. Even if there were, it would cost a ridiculous amount of money to get significant quantities back to Earth. The moon isn't a good place for a base of any kind. It doesn't even have an atmosphere -- space junk will pulverize anything big that's there for a long period of time.
The most valuable things you can get on the moon, we already have: nice pictures of Earth.
Good idea: Going to the moon in 1969. It showed the Russians who was in charge.
Bad idea: Going back. The moon is dusty, boring, and useless.
"Insightful"? This argument seems to hinge on religious rhetoric.
...the mindless jingoism that you need to have to conduct a war.
"Mindless jingoism"... or worthy cause. Feel free to just leave that second reason out of your discussion, though. I'm sure it was mindless jingoism that drove the Allies in WWI and WWII.
One of the best pieces of advice that I've heard was that if you do have contraband in your car and a police officer demands to search it without a warrant, to simply get out of your vehicle, lock all the doors, and close your door after putting your car keys into the car as well.
That's funny. My advice in this situation is "get arrested" because it sounds like you'd deserve it for having contraband in your car.
I don't mean to say that your amazing sample of 3 isn't a crushing statistics juggernaut of information, but it could certainly be that you have an unusually high metabolism, and that your friends appear, by comparison, like they're obese-in-spite-of-doing-everything-right.