In addition might be added that Jinge does a really careful job of removing comments... he really can't handle arguments he can't answer! He makes traditional Chomsky cooks look sane.
MySQL has had scaling problems [under load] with trying to handle multiple writes to the database.
Was that with InnoDB too?
(My only showstopping problem with either one is that PostgreSQL had bad support for sorting on different character sets on a table basis. Didn't even sort on spaces for many collations, iirc. Don't know if I did something wrong or if it is better in the last version.)
Sounds like a good choice -- Microsoft is well known for promoting open standards and publishing protocols. You know your product won't stop working in subtle ways with other products in the next version.
Oh, by the way, I have a contract to sell the Golden Gate bridge for scrap? You could be interested... I promise a good price.
Consider -- a state stupidly votes through a law that might kneecap Google's earnings. The champion of the law even insults the EFF.
Looks like a typical case of Microsoft removing a competitor's oxygen supply. It is not a conspiracy since Msoft are documented as astroturfers...
You might be right in arguing "Never assume malice if it can be explained by stupidity" -- but in today's world even Utah law makers should have more insight.
For the third time: You haven't answered when I wrote: Now, how can you use solipsism to prove the existence of just the hanging god Oden -- and not any of the other thousand theories about existence which people are certain of? (Buddha, allah, etc?)
(I'm still laughing at your argument for god's existence, btw...:-)
Evolutionary Stable Strategies. You did not appear to be able to find them for yourself
At last you accept that evolutionary stable strategies etc are new for you. They are best described in Selfish Gene, of all sources I've seen. This is a step up -- you refused repeatedly to believe that any of this could be new. (The insults because I wouldn't find alternative sources for you than one of the best sellers of all time in popular science books weren't exactly impressive...)
You also missed commenting on: AGAIN: You are certain about the existence of an Absolute Moral -- while obviously not even having learned about the relevant research. It seems you are arguing just to bury that in lots of text.
The next step is reading quite a bit more. Then you'll realize that it is immoral to argue for a strategy (moral) that can never work in a given society and e.g. will degenerate into clan feuds. Which quite neatly kneecaps arguments for an Absolute Moral. (Which was why I brought it up from the beginning.)
You originally argued that the existence of hell made god a torturer like Hitler of Stalin. You apparently cannot see the difference between vengefully consigning people to torture and allowing them choosing it for themselves.
You argued against that the theory of torture in Hell wasn't a central part of Xianity, despite central bible quotes. By misusing quotes that seemed to be arguing if Hell's torture came from a physical fire or not. Or if the tortured souls were visible from Heaven or not.
This description of the argument don't only do a straw man argument not only on my position -- but on your own!!
So you are arguing it is equal to torture people for eternity if they say they might like it once? That was an interesting Absolute Moral you have! Makes Hitler look like a humanist.
And also... ah, why bother. That "argument" must be trolling.
The closest thing you have found to your point of view is the argument that if God is just, then he must impose some punishment on the wicked
I quoted old catholic dogma about Hell's existence and torture -- I didn't embrace that.
My conclusion is that either the Hell with fire exists (which makes god much worse than Stalin and other beginners) or the churches rewrite thousands years old dogma so they don't have to defend their god as the ultimate torturing bastard (which makes xianity just a theory that is rewritten for social reasons, not an Absolute Truth).
I find it funny that your own sources contradict you.
He he, I admitted that it seems that even the catholics have rewritten their millenia old absolute truths(!!). I doubt you can admit being wrong in this subject, because as a religious person you identify these opinions as a central part of your personality.
Ever heard of mutations? The plant you ate your corn off might have mutated and generates some nerve poison...
I doubt the allegations, since if Monsanto really tried to cover up toxic effects in food that it was selling, it'll lose much more than it ever could earn.
I'll wait for more dependable sources like NY Times or Washington Post (Sci American took a downturn a decade or two ago; seems to be argue politics a lot).
No, I am arguing for the necessity of starting knowledge from some fundamental.
1. You argue philosophy as a basis for your world view -- and that was the best you can do as support?!:-(
2. You strangely didn't comment on: Now, how can you use solipsism to prove the existence of just the hanging god Oden -- and not any of the other thousand theories about existence which people are certain of? (Buddha, allah, etc?)
I realize that I attack something which is as central to you as anything in your personality, but please... at least use a good argument for explaining why you should assume that there is a god and it has to be a xian one (if there are any good arguments, which I doubt), that was sad.
I am familiar with Game Theory, although not primarilly in the context of evolution. I am also familiar with the central argument of The Selfish Gene. You were so adamant that it somehow disproved my point that I thought I must have got something wrong. Looking at the Wikipedia summary, it appears not.
As I wrote in my comment, too shallow overview of the interesting game theory. I seriously doubt that you are arguing honestly here. But maybe you just do mistakes on this point since you don't know about Williams' research (see e.g.
this, it is still not comprehensive. Read up on different genetic interests for e.g. children and parents, between the sexes, etc.).
Of course it shows how evolution could produce "moral", (e.g. altruistic) instincts (what else would anyone expect? They clearly did evolve). The problem in this context, is the obvious reply is "so what?". It merely adds detail to what we knew already.
AGAIN: You are certain about the existence of an Absolute Moral -- while obviously not even having learned about the relevant research. It seems you are arguing just to bury that in lots of text.
1) The issue here is not the existence of hell, but its nature. If you had read the things I linked to earlier, one of the early ideas was that it is not a place, but it lies in people's reaction to God's presence. Those that love God find joy, those that hate God find pain, in the very same thing.
I argued for Hell-as-torture and it is very well supported by the Catholic Encyc (as I quoted). The exact implementation of Hell's torture is irrelevant (physical or not, the fire seems to be pain according to all sources). That is my position --
2) Can you also not understand that the very fact that your Catholic Encylcopedia feels it has to argue for its position, shows that it is a matter of controversy.
Everything you read an argument for/against is controversial?!:-) (Please note that I wrote about when they argued for the Xian god as a sun god...)
3) Can you be bothered to read the links you have already provided. For example, from wikipedia: "For many ancient Christians, Hell was the same "place" as Heaven: living in the presence of God and directly experiencing God's love"
Lazarus and the rich man: Also irrelevant, since that doesn't contradict torture.
You definitely need to read some philosophy. How to you prove that anything exists outside people's head's? Because you have seen something? How do you distinguish an illusion from reality? I am spending time arguing with you, but I have better proof of God's existence than yours.
He he, you use solipsism to prove existence of god?!:-) That was... new. Now, how can you use solipsism to prove the existence of just the hanging god Oden -- and not any of the other thousand theories about existence which people are certain of? (Buddha, allah, etc?)
For the third time -- just read up on the subject instead of arguing about things you don't have even a popular background in.
Given that you will not even clearly state what you are talking about, how do you know that I do not know it?
For the fourth time... Not only do you sound naive, you didn't understand when I used the terms "game theory", "evolution", "animal behaviour" as discussed in the uniquely popular treatment of Williams' research -- the "Selfish Gene". Check e.g. Wikipedia for a too shallow overview of the interesting game theory. (You claim to live where it would take weeks to get one of the best selling books about science in all of history which still is in print... I won't call you a liar but note that I envy you -- is it cold in Antarctica this time of the year?)
And it makes it clear that the idea of Hell as a place of suffering is a controversial doctrine. "from Catharinus (d. 1553)
Here I call you straight up dishonest. The full quote re Catharinus is below (my emphasis). That teaching is something
The poena sensus, or pain of sense, consists in the torment of fire so frequently mentioned in the Holy Bible. According to the greater number of theologians the term fire denotes a material fire, and so a real fire. We hold to this teaching as absolutely true and correct. However, we must not forget two things: from Catharinus (d. 1553) to our times there have never been wanting theologians who interpret the Scriptural term fire metaphorically, as denoting an incorporeal fire; and secondly, thus far the Church has not censured their opinion.
Some few of the Fathers also thought of a metaphorical explanation. Nevertheless, Scripture and tradition speak again and again of the fire of hell, and there is no sufficient reason for taking the term as a mere metaphor. It is urged: How can a material fire torment demons, or human souls before the resurrection of the body? But, if our soul is so joined to the body as to be keenly sensitive to the pain of fire, why should the omnipotent God be unable to bind even pure spirits to some material substance in such a manner that they suffer a torment more or less similar to the pain of fire which the soul can feel on earth? The reply indicates, as far as possible, how we may form an idea of the pain of fire which the demons suffer. Theologians have elaborated various theories on this subject, which, however, we do not wish to detail here (cf. the very minute study by Franz Schmid, "Quaestiones selectae ex theol. dogm.", Paderborn, 1891, q. iii; also Guthberlet, "Die poena sensus" in "Katholik", II, 1901, 305 sqq., 385 sqq.).
[..] The pain of sense is the natural consequence of that inordinate turning to creatures which is involved in every mortal sin. It is meet that whoever seeks forbidden pleasure should find pain in return. (Cf. Heuse, "Das Feuer der Hölle" in "Katholik", II, 1878, 225 sqq., 337 sqq., 486 sqq., 581 sqq.; "Etudes religieuses", L, 1890, II, 309, report of an answer of the Poenitentiaria, 30 April, 1890; Knabenbauer, "In Matth., xxv, 41".)
In short, refusing the physical existence of fire was not
There is clearly an implicit assumption about the nature of religion there - as well as a grotesque distortion of what I said earlier
Just an obvious note re the status of support for your theories re religion -- i.e. lots of contradicting theories that make claims about reality without support outside of people's heads.
I am certain that religious people see something else as the "nature" of their theory of the world's reason to exist. I don't really care any more about that than philosophical implications for the flogiston theory. (-: I won't read books about string theory until it is testable either.:-)
If I am cherry picking, how come I can provide documentation, and you cannot?
Gud i Helvete! (Anachronistic Swedish curse from the west coast, "God in Hell". A milder version is "Gud i London").
It seems you are right! Catholicism has rewritten.. sorry, reinterpreted... the basic facts about their religion's afterlife that they were given by divine inspiration! After a couple of thousands of years!!
This is really funny. I am quite old, so I read up on the subject more than a decade ago in books that were older. The Catholic encyclopedia is quite old, so it has not been updated to show the new reality yet!! More modern references show the less sadistic version. (-: I didn't even read the content on Wikipedia, so sure was I...:-)
I thought the Catholics if anyone would stay with integrity above details like their religion making Hitler look good...:-) Let me guess, in a decade the muslims will reinterpret their Hell?? He he he... I almost fell off the chair laughing.
The problem is that you are trying to apply the label efficient
For the third time -- just read up on the subject instead of arguing about things you don't have even a popular background in. Partly because I'm a bad pedagogue and don't have much time now -- and partly because Dawkins really got "Selfish gene" right (read the notes in the 2nd ed, they are as good as the book itself).
No, simply wrong about the nature of religion.I am wondering whether you actually understood ANY of what I wrote earler.
You are doing a straw man. I was obviously not discussing the nature of religion, I was claiming that "To make [extreme claims without any basis in proof or reason -- when there are many competing theories and no reason any of them should be true] is very similar to religion".
And re "nature" -- I could not care less what religious people see as the most important in their political/religious beliefs (-: symbolic cannibalism? No more details, please...:-).
I am beginning to be certain that you have been trolling me.
God does not torture anyone
Again -- that contradicts the position of most Xian churches since very early years. You can continue to cherry pick quotes all you want, but that is well documented.
So from what point of view are you arguing it is "efficient" for.
You didn't quote -- "Read up on the subject instead.", since you seemed really confused -- and you earlier admitted to not know the subject. I only discussed efficiency because you wrote "efficient stratagy for survival for humanity" (which looks like pre-1960s "good for the species"-thinking.)
Wrong (troll?) [...] Obviously no point of morality is univerally accepted
You make a claim about the world -- there exists an Absolute moral that should be followed by all humans -- without being able to give any reasoned support or even examples. Except belief.
To make claims about how the world is made without any reasons (and with thousands of competing theories at least as likely) is very similar to religion.
Even the source you are quoting makes the most sense if the fire is interpreted metaphorically
Again. You are arguing against Catholic dogma -- and you supported your own position with a non-representative quote... that breaks my moral.
The support for Hell in early Xianity is well documented by researchers (no English references but here are two WikiPedia pages).
Some churches don't want their god to be much worse than Hitler raised to Stalin, so I must applaud their humanity -- and they also do a service by entertaining me with Absolute Definitions from god about how the world is (Morals, Hell, etc) which are rewritten completely every second century... I think the relevant expression among non-computer people is "LOL".
It is also fun to read e.g. arguments that consistent descriptions of the afterlife in the New Testament etc are just parables without descriptions of what the different parts in the story are shown to be in the "real world". (The bible authors invented some other world with a Hell -- and wrote morally uplifting stories about that world without mentioning that little fact and assuming everyone would guess that circumstance?!)
Are you implying that it should be changed if another strategy looked more efficient? [...] why should you care whether something is an efficient stratagy for survival for humanity or not?
I'm sorry, but that was just naive ("good for the species" argument?!) Read up on the subject instead.
CS Lewis never commented on it, and may not have even being aware of it (I commented on that as well - I was not aware of British law on this point till the publicity that arose when it was changed).
The problem with that argument is that the law was not particularly English -- afaik, it was universal over the western world (and probably still is in the books over most of the rest of the world).
My point was/is that it was an obvious part of how the world worked in CS Lewis' time (and earlier).
You have given no reason for your belief in the existence of an absolute moral. Despite admitting not being faintly familiar with the relevant research on evol behavior.
You know that you have not full information but have an opinion anyway, because of how you feel the world should be -- the definition of religion!
Any example is bound to have some people disagree with it, which you say invalidates it.
Oh, get real. I pointed out that the only example of absolute moral you gave was not agreed by society at the time CS Lewis held the speech... and that CS Lewis did not speak out against it either.
I think that you are objecting to a concept of hell that I do not agree with [..]. In brief and VERY superficialy, hell is not torture. [..] To quote from the chatechism of the Catholic Church hell is "self- exclusion from communion with God and the blessed" and "The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God".
Without background in theology, I do think that disagrees with the research on early Christian attitudes. And to insinuate that the Catholics don't believe in a hell with fire and pain must be trolling.
PS sorry to go on about spelling, but it is "moral", not "morale". The meaning of morale is altogether different.
Same spelling in my native tongue.:-)
That is an absolute moral position, even if a very minimal one (not that much more minimal than the two key commandments of Christianity). It is certainly not moral relativism.
It can also be argued to be an efficient strategy in many human cultures, as seen in game theory.
More fundamentally, any attempt to get to the roots of any subject ends in philosophy (which is why there are such things as "philosophy of science", Ibiblio even has some lecture notes on "philosophical issues in economics")
I don't disagree, but:
there are lots of schools in philosophy which doesn't advocate absolute morals (well, this might be defined: "try to avoid hurting people when possible")
the only example you gave from an absolute morale was not part of the Xian Morale for the first 1800++ years(!!) and CS Lewis didn't seem to have any problems with it either.
any morale treatment by someone unaware of evolutionary issues (like Lewis) seems like speaking about astronomy before telescopes.
You really need to present support for what an absolute morale might contain. You have just asserted belief in the concepts existence. Logical position for someone religious, of course.
Also, the morale of any non-religious person says that any god which makes Hitler, Stalin and Mao look nice can go fsck itself. A religious person either has to rewrite Xianity to not have a Hell -- or has to say that it is OK with torture chambers and to do things which normally gets you to Hague, charged with crimes against humanity... (Only -- infinitely worse than Hitler's and Stalin's torturers because it'll be for eternity.)
Ah, now I see the problem. You do not mean the same thing as me by moral absolute.
You take it to mean a known, legalistic code of right and wrong.
Ah, now even I see... you talk philosophy and religion while I discuss game theory and computation.:-)
After reading about game theory and behaviour in "Selfish Gene" I could never be enthusiastic about philosophical reasoning about morals (-: unless the SENS program do succeed and we get hundreds of years of life:-).
You denied, for example, that Israel killed a family on a Palestinian beach, which triggered the latest round of attrocities against Palestine, as well as the Lebanon war
Ahh... the old standard for non-serious debaters -- accuse the other side of doing the same lies as you do yourself, so anyone reading will just see two people calling each others the same names!
I didn't deny anything. You lie about what I wrote and do a straw man attack. I wrote:
Everyone that disagree with you is a Jew? The Israelis motivated why it probably wasn't a miss from their artillery but a Palestinian mine on the beach -- did the IDF lie or was it wrong? I don't know. You don't know either -- but you are certain who is guilty! It is always the Jews!!
(You stopped racist attacks after I pointed out in that message how bad they are in the West...)
Google for Pallywood to find out why I don't trust either side (the Israeli side probably do something similar). You might make a good argument that the media planning seems more important than any weapons.
I note that the IDF don't earn political points by killing civilians (you argue that Israel is evil -- still no comments to my references to the Israeli peace movement, btw?). After the start of a civil war, few doubts the Palestinians lack the will to kill a family of some other clan.
What happened at that beach? Again -- I don't have enough information to have an opinion -- and you lie about what I wrote. Business as usual.
(The articles I quoted had some references to where I've shown you wrong. I have lost count since this garbage began about here.)
Hold on, you want me to make a case for regarding rape a wrong? What sort of example do you want. I would say it is evident that rape is absolutely wrong, and those societies that condoned it were wrong to do so. That is an example.
Are you trolling me? Sigh, I guess this is more my lacking pedagogical talent.:-(
You took rape as an example -- and I pointed out that in CS Lewis' time it was legally impossible to rape your own wife, since you owned her sexuality. This lack of human rights for females was embraced as an obvious part of Absolute Morale in the west just a scant few decades ago -- and almost certainly still is by the majority of the planet's population.
I am not arguing that rape is morally right in any Absolute Moralistic way -- I am arguing that your argument for Absolute Morale as metaphysics is weak.
Then I noted that you need to read up on the relevant research on evolved behaviour.
That was my argument... my discussion afterwards wasn't that well written and I'm sorry if it was confusing.
Failing to take action against something is different from advocating it
If rape was accepted someplace in my country (not USA, obviously), the majority would see it as a moral objective to force the politicians to stop it -- my point was that in a few decades it will probably be an obvious part of the Absolute Morale to stop that kind of atrocities wherever they happen to humans. And the future population will probably judge us as bastards without compassion.
For another example, consider the outrage against child labour -- we did that in the west less than a century ago when we probably still had better economy than the areas where it is implemented now. We condemn it is as immoral and Absolutely morally wrong, since children should play and study. (While human children, of course, has worked as long as there has been humans!)
You could say that history and trends seem to show that the argument about Absolute Morale will continue to be universal -- but the content of the Absolute Morale changes time and again...
So why did you previously agree that it would be immoral to change human nature?
There are limits to human plasticity. When we change how humans work and interact in groups, there are bound to be mistakes... shudder
Why [didn't historical societies have the luxury to make societies to be as flexible as we do now]
I am sorry if this wasn't clear. Consider again women's role -- before the modern times a family needed a slave at home to keep everything going. (before the high child mortality went down, people had to have many children.) Also, see my argument above for how morale will change when resources increases and we can implement human rights for everyone. Interpolate that backwards (hmm.. backwards? Should be another term) to earlier times for an analogy about what we e.g. think of accepting ownership of women.
That would only be true if we claimed to be able to exactly lay out the absolute morality. Given that we (Lewis says so in one of his books, I agree) accept that we might be mistaken about particular points of morality (and,no doubt, are) the accusation fails.
From the end:
My position is that there is a right and wrong that is more fundamental the genetic and cultural factors in our behaviour. This means it is meaningful to say that some things that our genes pre-dispose us to do are morally wrong - what Christians call original sin.
You are certain some Absolute Moral exists beyond genes and game theory, but can't give arguments or examples. You can't even make an good case about rape!!
Religion need that morale is absolute -- since the argument is important to you, read up on the evolutionary arguments on behaviour so you can begin to think/argue about it. My honest opinion is that you just don't have the mental tools to discuss the subject.
With that I end the argument. The rest is discussion.
So would you advocate rape if you a set of circumstances arose in which it worked better?
But we both do, or are you active against e.g. this or Sudan? In a few decades, the obvious moral answer to what I'd guess a future morale is -- "What, not your country? What has that to do with anything?!" I'd guess that the next logical step is to take responsibility for more than your own country. Then they will argue that is the Absolute morale...
And you don't need to think something is right -- it is necessary in some cases, because the alternatives don't work. These days, we in the west have a larger leeway in deciding what we do -- in the west. I see it as morally wrong to condemn others for what they had to do.
No he did not [limit to modern societies]
(See what I quoted from you.)
That explains the the difference. However I would say that that makes modern society morally better than those societies in that respect (we are probably worse in others. Your position implies that both are equally valid, and there is no way of making a moral comparison and say one is better.
This is the sum of my position:
The point of morale is that it is adjusted after the technical reality (population density etc gave very different cultures) -- perfect for a generalist species living in. That is why it is so fluid and change so much. They didn't have the luxury to choose as much as we do -- since there is no world police, we can't control Human Rights in e.g. Sudan but that will probably not stop future generations from condemning us as totally inhumane.
[..] instinct is not the fundamental basis of morality. I understood you to be saying that if there is a shared morality, then it is based on genetics.
I think I've made this point twice before: ".. result of genetic and cultural evolution -- I think few if any argue that morale is primarily genetic in humans".
Humans compete with other animals by being able to change behaviour really fast. We are genetically programmed to function with very different cultures (which in turn evolve to function with the environment, both natural and technical).
As for the acceptability of rape in some societies, I would say that those societies are simply wrong.
You, like most everyone, argue that rape is an obvious part of human morale.
The rape issue was brought up by me, not CS Lewis, so it is a bit unfair to blame him for not trying to change it. In Britain hardly anyone even seemed to know about the exemption for marital rape until it hit the newspaper when a court ruling changed the law in 1991.
You brought rape up as an example of something that was an obvious part of absolute morale while CS Lewis didn't even see it in his own society for some cases!!
I have a new technical name for Absolute Morale arguments -- "nearsightedness"!
(-: Philosophers discuss and write papers about these kinds of problems in generations -- I am not surprised if someone from outside the field writing popular books don't impress even me.:-)
As for the acceptability of rape in some societies, I would say that those societies are simply wrong. This brings us to the nub of the issue. A moral relativist would say that it is right in the context of those societies.
I think very few people are moral relativists to the extent of agreeing that such actions are OK in any modern society, however culturally different. So where does their morality come from?
First, did CSL really limit the argument to modern societies like you do here?! We have only found one good way to organize a working modern society -- democracy with a state control of violence. That results in automatic limits, especially if women has the vote. Hardly universal, is it?
Societies that accept rape and war generally do that because it works better than if they don't. Morals have to work in the real world or the culture that use them will quickly be replaced with cultures using another moral... (Without being an expert -- I believe there were a less violent culture in Scandinavia before the one worshipping the Asa (Norse) religion took control.)
In a hundred years, people will still argue that there is an absolute morale -- and no polite person will argue morale positions that we take for granted. That is because they can afford better morals. Consider how Hezbollah et al describe open democracies -- "cobweb, you touch it -- it breaks". If they are right (which I personally doubt, but don't know), we will have to change.
Technology and necessity make limits for societies that impinge most any Absolutes (before the 20th century families needed women at home, for instance -- so it was seen as natural). Before the modern state, clan societies ruled. Read up on how they "worked" in the police department and you'll understand why war and other atrocities were natural for them.
Morale has to work -- I have already argued that some morale is built into both genes and culture -- for game theoretical reasons. My point is that if you study morals, it is less universal than what you and CS Lewis seems to think. (-: To get dizzy, read up on random drift in Selfish Gene or some other evol book -- then consider cultures and morals...:-)
I can sympathize with CS Lewis' emotional argument -- I might agree that it is reasonable thinking about "rules to build a good society". But you really need more support to make metaphysical claims from this.
Sounds like you can't handle reality. You still haven't responded to any of my points
I get tired of adding this reference to where I showed you wrong -- I should add a bunch of places where you repeated that claim, ignoring that I had answered.
This is a good review of some of your pathetic tries to argue (should add references to your straw man attacks on this point -- and lies when you claim I haven't answered).
instead using the typical Zionist defense: "Help! Help! I'm being lied to by a racist!"
I took the time to point out where you lie in some more paragraphs. I didn't have the energy to read them all -- you lie continuously about what I've written and attack that.
You claim that Palestinians have killed Israelis. Sure they have. I don't deny that. But you refuse to accept the reason why this is happening. You refuse to admit reality, and without this, there really is no forum for discussion.
You do a straw man attack on what I have written -- that means you lie a description of my position and then attack what you described. I have not discussed the Israel-Palestina conflict at all (as I wrote here).
I have just pointed out where you make statements you can't defend and then lie when denying them. Here you lie so that people browsing won't find e.g. when you used racist slurs like "You stupid fucking retarded Jew!", racist asshole.
It is heartening, however, to read that just recently, a group of Jewish scholars in the UK released a statement calling on Jews to allow other, non-fundamentalist views to be expressed in their community... in particular, to allow for critical analysis of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and others
Are you lying here or just totally uneducated about the peace movement (see also this) in Israel and all the very varied political standpoints? Please note what a demonstration of 400,000 means in a country with that low population... You are probably lying since I pointed out this before.
If I remember correctly, you responded by claiming that Israel was the model of democracy and peace. That's hardly a well thought through response. [...]
I pointed out that Israel is a working democracy and that you lied when you claimed that Arab citizens (20% of the population) didn't have votes... That was not the full argument I gave -- you do another straw man here. I used that as argument here.
You didn't show anything. You lied, claiming that the event didn't happen as it did. See my above comments re: Holocaust deniers.
As I commented in the other message, you lie here. I gave a reference here -- and you gave none. I think your position is normal Arab antisemitic propaganda.
One of my best friends is a Jew
You are joking -- not even you with your lies, racist slurs and shameless straw man attacks would write that!?
That is true if you think the absolute morality does have a primarily genetic base. I am not convinced. This is primarily because I believe in God, and therefore something beyond the natural universe.
What I wrote was that morale was a result of genetic and cultural evolution -- I think few if any argue that morale is primarily genetic in humans. So... you base your opinions on how the world is built on how you feel it should be? I'd argue that the world is never how we feel it should be (-: where are my yachts?!:-) Your next sentence make me think that you don't really understand the subject:
[..] mismatch between what is generally regarded as moral and the best behaviour for survival. Many behaviours that are good at spreading your genes around (e.g. rape) are undoubtedly immoral
Frankly, this sounds a bit naive -- are you trolling me?
At the time C S Lews wrote, it was impossible to rape your wife in most of the Western world. I am not aware of CSL making speaches against that exact law? But law, morals and culture change. You could write a good argument for the most constant thing over the centuries is an inability to realize how much morals change about "obvious" subjects...
For instance, rape of slaves was socially accepted in many places, as was rape in war time. Rape is also a common tactic among animals. Even war in itself -- with abduction, rape and sale of females etc -- was mostly seen as a good and necessary fact in all historical cultures -- while they were clan societies.
To get a more insight into what is the "best behaviour for survival", I'd recommend you to get "Selfish Gene" by Dawkins and read up on evolutionary analysis of behaviour. It is both a really fascinating subject and one of the best written books I've ever read. (Don't claim to have already read it after that naive statement -- if you did, you didn't understand it.)
Incidentally, I came was convinced an essentially literary and psychological argument for accepting the Gospel of St John as the most accurate account of the life of Jesus in a book by a physicist (Russell Stannard).
I agree that psychology and literature might be a relevant tool to evaluate the quality of different accounts of a given event. That is not relevant to when I question that central facts about the universe can be deduced by a literary man reasoning in a domain far from his expertise.
The particular argument Lewis makes for absolute morality (at least in The Abolition of Man, which I am familiar with) is not really likely to be that affected by those advances. It rests on on the intrinsic contradition in moral relativism, the way in which arguments for any particular position develop, and similarities between moral teachings in different cultures, religions and times.
Morals are (genetically and culturally) evolved and some things will be mostly universal, just because of game theory. (Postmodernists or marxists might disagree, but afaik this is widely accepted today.) So some values will be mostly universal for humans and (at least) higher primates. Some probably even for aliens. Some change with increasing wealth (e.g. women got better rights when society had technology enough that it was possible).
Your claim that C S Lewis makes a believable god proof without even understanding how game theory relates to behavior (research starting mostly from the sixties) seems really strange. I can't see how Abolition even makes a serious argument for the existence of god.
Here is the book. Could you give exact references to what you consider the strong god argument? And also reasons for the Xian god to be the real one and not the Norse gods, the invisible unicorn, the Jewish one, etc etc.
From some fast skimming of the book and reviews, it fails to realize that the sum of morals has evolved genetically as well as culturally -- so its absolute moral is a slowly moving target. Otherwise, it is an interesting argument -- if you accept that the basis of human instincts and built in morals are "sacred". I can agree with that it would be really dangerous, immoral and illegal to mess with the basic design of emotions!
And another question -- as I understand, you claim that your belief in Oden is based on an intellectual argument and not hearing voices like Son of Sam? If you found this argument to be bad, would you change position? I just note that philosophers (not literary people) have tried to write arguments showing religion to be true since milennia -- and everyone are embarrassed afterwards.
I just read your first half paragraph since that was enough to find shameless lies. Since I didn't read the rest, I don't know if there are more racist attacks there, you extreme troll and/or lying asshole.
Well. No you've really just repeated the same lies. You've denied the Palestinian Holocaust, putting yourself on the level of the Nazis.
I gave a reference to
WikiPedia (which agrees with every non-antisemite source I've seen) that showed your version to be a pack of lies. The first time you made that claim, it might have been stupidity -- but you do lie here. As usual.
And you've failed to respond to the 4 examples I gave you of your people killing hundreds of Palestinians at a time
"Strange" that you didn't give references to these "4 examples"!! Here is where I showed you wrong first. You then tried Jenin and Nakba -- I showed Nakba wrong in the Wikipedia reference above and Jenin here.. Now you invent more examples that you can't give references to! How pathetic you are. (And here is a short list of a few more of all your lies.)
Well, we Christians, prefer evidence and logic, and leave appeals to authority to you athiests;-). Judge the arguments not the man.
The point, when I wrote "let us trust a literary professor on science and mathematical models of morals", was that Lewis was not only light years outside his domain of expertise when he discussed human behaviour and morals in different cultures (anthropology and evolutionary biology) -- but that even most of the relevant research was done far after the book was written...
Certainly, some things are universal and built in -- anger, sadness, grief, etc. Most of these are even identifiable in animals with complex brains. Also, some things are universal in all cultures like rape, religion, murder, some morals, war and theft. Most of those are identifiable in chimpanzees, too. That is quite logical -- just game theory. I really can't see how you can reach the idea of a god from that -- and think it is Xian.
But maybe I should read C S Lewis. How does he answer the basic problem of theology -- why accept something for true without any reason? (Consider that (a) there are innumerable theories and (b) a very small percentage of people brought up in a religion switches, and most I've seen haven't been that mentally stable. So Dawkin's indoctrination argument seem good.)
CS Lewis was very fond of Norse mythology, as was his friend JRR Tolkien.
I know so much. Quite a few years ago, I read the start of his biography until he got religion. I remember that I wasn't impressed by his reasoning.
Slashdot Mirror
In addition might be added that Jinge does a really careful job of removing comments... he really can't handle arguments he can't answer! He makes traditional Chomsky cooks look sane.
See e.g. this or this.
(Hint: B doesn't stand for binary.)
Was that with InnoDB too?
(My only showstopping problem with either one is that PostgreSQL had bad support for sorting on different character sets on a table basis. Didn't even sort on spaces for many collations, iirc. Don't know if I did something wrong or if it is better in the last version.)
Sounds like a good choice -- Microsoft is well known for promoting open standards and publishing protocols. You know your product won't stop working in subtle ways with other products in the next version.
Oh, by the way, I have a contract to sell the Golden Gate bridge for scrap? You could be interested... I promise a good price.
Consider -- a state stupidly votes through a law that might kneecap Google's earnings. The champion of the law even insults the EFF.
Looks like a typical case of Microsoft removing a competitor's oxygen supply. It is not a conspiracy since Msoft are documented as astroturfers...
You might be right in arguing "Never assume malice if it can be explained by stupidity" -- but in today's world even Utah law makers should have more insight.
For the third time: You haven't answered when I wrote: Now, how can you use solipsism to prove the existence of just the hanging god Oden -- and not any of the other thousand theories about existence which people are certain of? (Buddha, allah, etc?)
(I'm still laughing at your argument for god's existence, btw... :-)
At last you accept that evolutionary stable strategies etc are new for you. They are best described in Selfish Gene, of all sources I've seen. This is a step up -- you refused repeatedly to believe that any of this could be new. (The insults because I wouldn't find alternative sources for you than one of the best sellers of all time in popular science books weren't exactly impressive...)
You also missed commenting on: AGAIN: You are certain about the existence of an Absolute Moral -- while obviously not even having learned about the relevant research. It seems you are arguing just to bury that in lots of text.
The next step is reading quite a bit more. Then you'll realize that it is immoral to argue for a strategy (moral) that can never work in a given society and e.g. will degenerate into clan feuds. Which quite neatly kneecaps arguments for an Absolute Moral. (Which was why I brought it up from the beginning.)
You argued against that the theory of torture in Hell wasn't a central part of Xianity, despite central bible quotes. By misusing quotes that seemed to be arguing if Hell's torture came from a physical fire or not. Or if the tortured souls were visible from Heaven or not.
This description of the argument don't only do a straw man argument not only on my position -- but on your own!!
So you are arguing it is equal to torture people for eternity if they say they might like it once? That was an interesting Absolute Moral you have! Makes Hitler look like a humanist.
And also... ah, why bother. That "argument" must be trolling.
I quoted old catholic dogma about Hell's existence and torture -- I didn't embrace that.
My conclusion is that either the Hell with fire exists (which makes god much worse than Stalin and other beginners) or the churches rewrite thousands years old dogma so they don't have to defend their god as the ultimate torturing bastard (which makes xianity just a theory that is rewritten for social reasons, not an Absolute Truth).
He he, I admitted that it seems that even the catholics have rewritten their millenia old absolute truths(!!). I doubt you can admit being wrong in this subject, because as a religious person you identify these opinions as a central part of your personality.
Ever heard of mutations? The plant you ate your corn off might have mutated and generates some nerve poison...
I doubt the allegations, since if Monsanto really tried to cover up toxic effects in food that it was selling, it'll lose much more than it ever could earn.
I'll wait for more dependable sources like NY Times or Washington Post (Sci American took a downturn a decade or two ago; seems to be argue politics a lot).
1. You argue philosophy as a basis for your world view -- and that was the best you can do as support?! :-(
2. You strangely didn't comment on: Now, how can you use solipsism to prove the existence of just the hanging god Oden -- and not any of the other thousand theories about existence which people are certain of? (Buddha, allah, etc?)
I realize that I attack something which is as central to you as anything in your personality, but please... at least use a good argument for explaining why you should assume that there is a god and it has to be a xian one (if there are any good arguments, which I doubt), that was sad.
As I wrote in my comment, too shallow overview of the interesting game theory. I seriously doubt that you are arguing honestly here. But maybe you just do mistakes on this point since you don't know about Williams' research (see e.g. this, it is still not comprehensive. Read up on different genetic interests for e.g. children and parents, between the sexes, etc.).
AGAIN: You are certain about the existence of an Absolute Moral -- while obviously not even having learned about the relevant research. It seems you are arguing just to bury that in lots of text.
I argued for Hell-as-torture and it is very well supported by the Catholic Encyc (as I quoted). The exact implementation of Hell's torture is irrelevant (physical or not, the fire seems to be pain according to all sources). That is my position --
Everything you read an argument for/against is controversial?! :-) (Please note that I wrote about when they argued for the Xian god as a sun god...)
Lazarus and the rich man: Also irrelevant, since that doesn't contradict torture.
He he, you use solipsism to prove existence of god?! :-) That was ... new. Now, how can you use solipsism to prove the existence of just the hanging god Oden -- and not any of the other thousand theories about existence which people are certain of? (Buddha, allah, etc?)
For the fourth time... Not only do you sound naive, you didn't understand when I used the terms "game theory", "evolution", "animal behaviour" as discussed in the uniquely popular treatment of Williams' research -- the "Selfish Gene". Check e.g. Wikipedia for a too shallow overview of the interesting game theory. (You claim to live where it would take weeks to get one of the best selling books about science in all of history which still is in print... I won't call you a liar but note that I envy you -- is it cold in Antarctica this time of the year?)
Here I call you straight up dishonest. The full quote re Catharinus is below (my emphasis). That teaching is something
In short, refusing the physical existence of fire was not
Just an obvious note re the status of support for your theories re religion -- i.e. lots of contradicting theories that make claims about reality without support outside of people's heads.
I am certain that religious people see something else as the "nature" of their theory of the world's reason to exist. I don't really care any more about that than philosophical implications for the flogiston theory. (-: I won't read books about string theory until it is testable either. :-)
Gud i Helvete! (Anachronistic Swedish curse from the west coast, "God in Hell". A milder version is "Gud i London").
It seems you are right! Catholicism has rewritten.. sorry, reinterpreted ... the basic facts about their religion's afterlife that they were given by divine inspiration! After a couple of thousands of years!!
This is really funny. I am quite old, so I read up on the subject more than a decade ago in books that were older. The Catholic encyclopedia is quite old, so it has not been updated to show the new reality yet!! More modern references show the less sadistic version. (-: I didn't even read the content on Wikipedia, so sure was I... :-)
I thought the Catholics if anyone would stay with integrity above details like their religion making Hitler look good... :-) Let me guess, in a decade the muslims will reinterpret their Hell?? He he he... I almost fell off the chair laughing.
For the third time -- just read up on the subject instead of arguing about things you don't have even a popular background in. Partly because I'm a bad pedagogue and don't have much time now -- and partly because Dawkins really got "Selfish gene" right (read the notes in the 2nd ed, they are as good as the book itself).
You are doing a straw man. I was obviously not discussing the nature of religion, I was claiming that "To make [extreme claims without any basis in proof or reason -- when there are many competing theories and no reason any of them should be true] is very similar to religion".
And re "nature" -- I could not care less what religious people see as the most important in their political/religious beliefs (-: symbolic cannibalism? No more details, please... :-).
I am beginning to be certain that you have been trolling me.Again -- that contradicts the position of most Xian churches since very early years. You can continue to cherry pick quotes all you want, but that is well documented.
You didn't quote -- "Read up on the subject instead.", since you seemed really confused -- and you earlier admitted to not know the subject. I only discussed efficiency because you wrote "efficient stratagy for survival for humanity" (which looks like pre-1960s "good for the species"-thinking.)
You make a claim about the world -- there exists an Absolute moral that should be followed by all humans -- without being able to give any reasoned support or even examples. Except belief.
To make claims about how the world is made without any reasons (and with thousands of competing theories at least as likely) is very similar to religion.
Again. You are arguing against Catholic dogma -- and you supported your own position with a non-representative quote... that breaks my moral.
The support for Hell in early Xianity is well documented by researchers (no English references but here are two WikiPedia pages).
Some churches don't want their god to be much worse than Hitler raised to Stalin, so I must applaud their humanity -- and they also do a service by entertaining me with Absolute Definitions from god about how the world is (Morals, Hell, etc) which are rewritten completely every second century... I think the relevant expression among non-computer people is "LOL".
It is also fun to read e.g. arguments that consistent descriptions of the afterlife in the New Testament etc are just parables without descriptions of what the different parts in the story are shown to be in the "real world". (The bible authors invented some other world with a Hell -- and wrote morally uplifting stories about that world without mentioning that little fact and assuming everyone would guess that circumstance?!)
I'm sorry, but that was just naive ("good for the species" argument?!) Read up on the subject instead.
The problem with that argument is that the law was not particularly English -- afaik, it was universal over the western world (and probably still is in the books over most of the rest of the world).
My point was/is that it was an obvious part of how the world worked in CS Lewis' time (and earlier).
You have given no reason for your belief in the existence of an absolute moral. Despite admitting not being faintly familiar with the relevant research on evol behavior.
You know that you have not full information but have an opinion anyway, because of how you feel the world should be -- the definition of religion!
Oh, get real. I pointed out that the only example of absolute moral you gave was not agreed by society at the time CS Lewis held the speech... and that CS Lewis did not speak out against it either.
Without background in theology, I do think that disagrees with the research on early Christian attitudes. And to insinuate that the Catholics don't believe in a hell with fire and pain must be trolling.
Same spelling in my native tongue. :-)
It can also be argued to be an efficient strategy in many human cultures, as seen in game theory.
I don't disagree, but:
You really need to present support for what an absolute morale might contain. You have just asserted belief in the concepts existence. Logical position for someone religious, of course.
Also, the morale of any non-religious person says that any god which makes Hitler, Stalin and Mao look nice can go fsck itself. A religious person either has to rewrite Xianity to not have a Hell -- or has to say that it is OK with torture chambers and to do things which normally gets you to Hague, charged with crimes against humanity... (Only -- infinitely worse than Hitler's and Stalin's torturers because it'll be for eternity.)
Ah, now even I see... you talk philosophy and religion while I discuss game theory and computation. :-)
After reading about game theory and behaviour in "Selfish Gene" I could never be enthusiastic about philosophical reasoning about morals (-: unless the SENS program do succeed and we get hundreds of years of life :-).
Ahh... the old standard for non-serious debaters -- accuse the other side of doing the same lies as you do yourself, so anyone reading will just see two people calling each others the same names!
I didn't deny anything. You lie about what I wrote and do a straw man attack. I wrote:
(You stopped racist attacks after I pointed out in that message how bad they are in the West...)
Google for Pallywood to find out why I don't trust either side (the Israeli side probably do something similar). You might make a good argument that the media planning seems more important than any weapons.
I note that the IDF don't earn political points by killing civilians (you argue that Israel is evil -- still no comments to my references to the Israeli peace movement, btw?). After the start of a civil war, few doubts the Palestinians lack the will to kill a family of some other clan.
What happened at that beach? Again -- I don't have enough information to have an opinion -- and you lie about what I wrote. Business as usual.
(The articles I quoted had some references to where I've shown you wrong. I have lost count since this garbage began about here.)
Are you trolling me? Sigh, I guess this is more my lacking pedagogical talent. :-(
You took rape as an example -- and I pointed out that in CS Lewis' time it was legally impossible to rape your own wife, since you owned her sexuality. This lack of human rights for females was embraced as an obvious part of Absolute Morale in the west just a scant few decades ago -- and almost certainly still is by the majority of the planet's population.
I am not arguing that rape is morally right in any Absolute Moralistic way -- I am arguing that your argument for Absolute Morale as metaphysics is weak.
Then I noted that you need to read up on the relevant research on evolved behaviour.
That was my argument... my discussion afterwards wasn't that well written and I'm sorry if it was confusing.
If rape was accepted someplace in my country (not USA, obviously), the majority would see it as a moral objective to force the politicians to stop it -- my point was that in a few decades it will probably be an obvious part of the Absolute Morale to stop that kind of atrocities wherever they happen to humans. And the future population will probably judge us as bastards without compassion.
For another example, consider the outrage against child labour -- we did that in the west less than a century ago when we probably still had better economy than the areas where it is implemented now. We condemn it is as immoral and Absolutely morally wrong, since children should play and study. (While human children, of course, has worked as long as there has been humans!)
You could say that history and trends seem to show that the argument about Absolute Morale will continue to be universal -- but the content of the Absolute Morale changes time and again...
There are limits to human plasticity. When we change how humans work and interact in groups, there are bound to be mistakes... shudderI am sorry if this wasn't clear. Consider again women's role -- before the modern times a family needed a slave at home to keep everything going. (before the high child mortality went down, people had to have many children.) Also, see my argument above for how morale will change when resources increases and we can implement human rights for everyone. Interpolate that backwards (hmm.. backwards? Should be another term) to earlier times for an analogy about what we e.g. think of accepting ownership of women.
You are certain some Absolute Moral exists beyond genes and game theory, but can't give arguments or examples. You can't even make an good case about rape!!
Religion need that morale is absolute -- since the argument is important to you, read up on the evolutionary arguments on behaviour so you can begin to think/argue about it. My honest opinion is that you just don't have the mental tools to discuss the subject.
With that I end the argument. The rest is discussion.
But we both do, or are you active against e.g. this or Sudan? In a few decades, the obvious moral answer to what I'd guess a future morale is -- "What, not your country? What has that to do with anything?!" I'd guess that the next logical step is to take responsibility for more than your own country. Then they will argue that is the Absolute morale...
And you don't need to think something is right -- it is necessary in some cases, because the alternatives don't work. These days, we in the west have a larger leeway in deciding what we do -- in the west. I see it as morally wrong to condemn others for what they had to do.
(See what I quoted from you.) This is the sum of my position:The point of morale is that it is adjusted after the technical reality (population density etc gave very different cultures) -- perfect for a generalist species living in. That is why it is so fluid and change so much. They didn't have the luxury to choose as much as we do -- since there is no world police, we can't control Human Rights in e.g. Sudan but that will probably not stop future generations from condemning us as totally inhumane.
I think I've made this point twice before: ".. result of genetic and cultural evolution -- I think few if any argue that morale is primarily genetic in humans".
Humans compete with other animals by being able to change behaviour really fast. We are genetically programmed to function with very different cultures (which in turn evolve to function with the environment, both natural and technical).
You, like most everyone, argue that rape is an obvious part of human morale.
You brought rape up as an example of something that was an obvious part of absolute morale while CS Lewis didn't even see it in his own society for some cases!!
I have a new technical name for Absolute Morale arguments -- "nearsightedness"!
(-: Philosophers discuss and write papers about these kinds of problems in generations -- I am not surprised if someone from outside the field writing popular books don't impress even me. :-)
First, did CSL really limit the argument to modern societies like you do here?! We have only found one good way to organize a working modern society -- democracy with a state control of violence. That results in automatic limits, especially if women has the vote. Hardly universal, is it?
Societies that accept rape and war generally do that because it works better than if they don't. Morals have to work in the real world or the culture that use them will quickly be replaced with cultures using another moral... (Without being an expert -- I believe there were a less violent culture in Scandinavia before the one worshipping the Asa (Norse) religion took control.)
In a hundred years, people will still argue that there is an absolute morale -- and no polite person will argue morale positions that we take for granted. That is because they can afford better morals. Consider how Hezbollah et al describe open democracies -- "cobweb, you touch it -- it breaks". If they are right (which I personally doubt, but don't know), we will have to change.
Technology and necessity make limits for societies that impinge most any Absolutes (before the 20th century families needed women at home, for instance -- so it was seen as natural). Before the modern state, clan societies ruled. Read up on how they "worked" in the police department and you'll understand why war and other atrocities were natural for them.
Morale has to work -- I have already argued that some morale is built into both genes and culture -- for game theoretical reasons. My point is that if you study morals, it is less universal than what you and CS Lewis seems to think. (-: To get dizzy, read up on random drift in Selfish Gene or some other evol book -- then consider cultures and morals... :-)
I can sympathize with CS Lewis' emotional argument -- I might agree that it is reasonable thinking about "rules to build a good society". But you really need more support to make metaphysical claims from this.
I get tired of adding this reference to where I showed you wrong -- I should add a bunch of places where you repeated that claim, ignoring that I had answered.
This is a good review of some of your pathetic tries to argue (should add references to your straw man attacks on this point -- and lies when you claim I haven't answered).
Wow, that was really impressive dishonesty when commenting on a quote of yours -- "You stupid fucking retarded Jew!".
And I also noted that I don't really care about the Mid East either, so your racist attacks only speaks volumes about yourself.
You do a straw man attack on what I have written -- that means you lie a description of my position and then attack what you described. I have not discussed the Israel-Palestina conflict at all (as I wrote here).
I have just pointed out where you make statements you can't defend and then lie when denying them. Here you lie so that people browsing won't find e.g. when you used racist slurs like "You stupid fucking retarded Jew!", racist asshole.
Are you lying here or just totally uneducated about the peace movement (see also this) in Israel and all the very varied political standpoints? Please note what a demonstration of 400,000 means in a country with that low population... You are probably lying since I pointed out this before.
I pointed out that Israel is a working democracy and that you lied when you claimed that Arab citizens (20% of the population) didn't have votes... That was not the full argument I gave -- you do another straw man here. I used that as argument here.
As I commented in the other message, you lie here. I gave a reference here -- and you gave none. I think your position is normal Arab antisemitic propaganda.
You are joking -- not even you with your lies, racist slurs and shameless straw man attacks would write that!?
This is just too... much.
What I wrote was that morale was a result of genetic and cultural evolution -- I think few if any argue that morale is primarily genetic in humans. So... you base your opinions on how the world is built on how you feel it should be? I'd argue that the world is never how we feel it should be (-: where are my yachts?! :-) Your next sentence make me think that you don't really understand the subject:
Frankly, this sounds a bit naive -- are you trolling me?
At the time C S Lews wrote, it was impossible to rape your wife in most of the Western world. I am not aware of CSL making speaches against that exact law? But law, morals and culture change. You could write a good argument for the most constant thing over the centuries is an inability to realize how much morals change about "obvious" subjects...
For instance, rape of slaves was socially accepted in many places, as was rape in war time. Rape is also a common tactic among animals. Even war in itself -- with abduction, rape and sale of females etc -- was mostly seen as a good and necessary fact in all historical cultures -- while they were clan societies.
To get a more insight into what is the "best behaviour for survival", I'd recommend you to get "Selfish Gene" by Dawkins and read up on evolutionary analysis of behaviour. It is both a really fascinating subject and one of the best written books I've ever read. (Don't claim to have already read it after that naive statement -- if you did, you didn't understand it.)
I agree that psychology and literature might be a relevant tool to evaluate the quality of different accounts of a given event. That is not relevant to when I question that central facts about the universe can be deduced by a literary man reasoning in a domain far from his expertise.
Morals are (genetically and culturally) evolved and some things will be mostly universal, just because of game theory. (Postmodernists or marxists might disagree, but afaik this is widely accepted today.) So some values will be mostly universal for humans and (at least) higher primates. Some probably even for aliens. Some change with increasing wealth (e.g. women got better rights when society had technology enough that it was possible).
Your claim that C S Lewis makes a believable god proof without even understanding how game theory relates to behavior (research starting mostly from the sixties) seems really strange. I can't see how Abolition even makes a serious argument for the existence of god.
Here is the book. Could you give exact references to what you consider the strong god argument? And also reasons for the Xian god to be the real one and not the Norse gods, the invisible unicorn, the Jewish one, etc etc.
From some fast skimming of the book and reviews, it fails to realize that the sum of morals has evolved genetically as well as culturally -- so its absolute moral is a slowly moving target. Otherwise, it is an interesting argument -- if you accept that the basis of human instincts and built in morals are "sacred". I can agree with that it would be really dangerous, immoral and illegal to mess with the basic design of emotions!
And another question -- as I understand, you claim that your belief in Oden is based on an intellectual argument and not hearing voices like Son of Sam? If you found this argument to be bad, would you change position? I just note that philosophers (not literary people) have tried to write arguments showing religion to be true since milennia -- and everyone are embarrassed afterwards.
I just read your first half paragraph since that was enough to find shameless lies. Since I didn't read the rest, I don't know if there are more racist attacks there, you extreme troll and/or lying asshole.
I gave a reference to WikiPedia (which agrees with every non-antisemite source I've seen) that showed your version to be a pack of lies. The first time you made that claim, it might have been stupidity -- but you do lie here. As usual.
"Strange" that you didn't give references to these "4 examples"!! Here is where I showed you wrong first. You then tried Jenin and Nakba -- I showed Nakba wrong in the Wikipedia reference above and Jenin here.. Now you invent more examples that you can't give references to! How pathetic you are. (And here is a short list of a few more of all your lies.)
The point, when I wrote "let us trust a literary professor on science and mathematical models of morals", was that Lewis was not only light years outside his domain of expertise when he discussed human behaviour and morals in different cultures (anthropology and evolutionary biology) -- but that even most of the relevant research was done far after the book was written...
Certainly, some things are universal and built in -- anger, sadness, grief, etc. Most of these are even identifiable in animals with complex brains. Also, some things are universal in all cultures like rape, religion, murder, some morals, war and theft. Most of those are identifiable in chimpanzees, too. That is quite logical -- just game theory. I really can't see how you can reach the idea of a god from that -- and think it is Xian.
But maybe I should read C S Lewis. How does he answer the basic problem of theology -- why accept something for true without any reason? (Consider that (a) there are innumerable theories and (b) a very small percentage of people brought up in a religion switches, and most I've seen haven't been that mentally stable. So Dawkin's indoctrination argument seem good.)
I know so much. Quite a few years ago, I read the start of his biography until he got religion. I remember that I wasn't impressed by his reasoning.