"You twice mention "mathematical proof", but that's not what I'm after - heck I'm not even after evidence, since most [intellectual] people admit that there's no evidence. What I want to know is how you can be convinced, when you yourself admit that there's no reason to be convinced."
There are the predictions of Christ's coming in the old Testament. There is that the religious establishment in the time of Christ's coming rejected him, as predicted. There is all that the Bible has to say about the human heart, how we think we are good, but then can turn around and do things that do not qualify as good.
"That's circular reasoning." No, that is the claim the Bible makes about itself. It could be wrong, it could be right. To the best of my knowledge, there is no way to test this hypothesis.
"OK, but then what? Why would God hide the vast majority of the evidence a fact from me, and then judge me based on being fooled by Him? Then He wants me to thank Him for sacrificing Himself, to Himself, to save me from His own rage at something I didn't do, and He knew would happen ahead of time and could have prevented. I'm sorry, but every time I look more deeply at religious beliefs the more they seem to be a vast network of patches to fix holes in a quilt that wasn't there in the first place." If He exists, he has hidden from us the ability to *prove* ( in the mathematical sense ) his existence. Why? I don't have an answer to that. I would argue there is evidence of God, but nothing that rises to the level that anyone can use to prove Him. As to the rest, it isn't a matter of him fooling you, it is you believing or not based on what you have in front of you. On His sacrificing himself, it wasn't *to* himself, but *for* us. You are correct, he could have made things work out as he wanted, that there would be any of something where transgressions would not have consequences, or where we were incapable of doing anything evil, or there were no evil. But look at the world, when do people do their best? When under trial and stresses. "Why is that?" is the next question, I don't know. I have had those same questions. I don't know the answers. I just have my beliefs.
"An absolute lack of evidence is a perfectly good reason for not being convinced. Right?" I understand how you might not be convinced. In equal measure, I am comfortable with believing without mathematical proof of His existence.
"True, and that kind of agnosticism seems perfectly reasonable. But you (and others) have actually chosen one of them, and when I try to find out why all I get is a variation of "it fulfills a psychological need" and "you just don't get it"." Personally, I don't like the "psychological need", or "you don't get it" options. Either God exists as outlined or he does not. Why do I believe as I do? I was brought up Catholic, but did not follow it for a long while. Perhaps that is it. I don't think that is all of it, but you could advance that argument. I did not believe for a while. Then I started in with a Church and started ( learning | being brainwashed ). What I have read, studied, lived etc, has convinced me that there is a God, as outlined in the Christian Bible. From that position, I found I needed to chose. I cant point to one event or fact as "this is the core of it". And in believing, I find that I have had to chose. I see that it is possible that I am incorrect. If so, I have given up a lot for nothing. ( in case you are curious, I am not going down the Pascal's wager line of reasoning, either believe because that is what your life/ heart/ head points you at, or don't, hedging bets here seems wrong ).
"If he were to come and prove himself to you, your only choice would be between obedience and rebellion. OK, but what's wrong with that? Satan and the fallen angels, Judas and other "bad examples", and Moses and many of the "good examples" are given that proof. So what's the issue?"
Nothing is *wrong* with it.
"If we Christians are right, then patently, he wants our faith and belief, not knowledge.
But why?"
I don't know. I'll ask him when I see him. I have been curious about that for a long time.
"This isn't asking us to trust Him (it's asking us to trust old books),"
The claim is that the books are written just as he wants them to be. 2 Timothy 3:16
"it isn't asking us to choose to be good (which we could choose just as freely with clear proof of His existence, see above). So, other than covering up for a lack of evidence, what's the purpose of this "test"?"
The choice is not about good/evil the choice is about believing or not.
"From my perspective, this is simply the kind of rationalization people come up with when they want to make excuses for a lack of evidence. It does a good job of making believers feel like they have good reasons for their beliefs, but doesn't provide an actual good reason."
And from my perspective this is an argument to support a decision not to believe. Which, of course, is your right.
There is no evidence for or against, that leaves a bunch of hypotheses on the table to chose from.
"...intelligent being who would not want to associate with people who spent their lives believing in him without adequate proof."
If we Christians are right, then patently, he wants our faith and belief, not knowledge. Monty Python got it right, we each have to make a choice. If he were to come and prove himself to you, your only choice would be between obedience and rebellion. To the best of my knowledge, no one can prove God exists, and no one can prove that he does not.
Because only people should exercise responsibility. Not corporations.
What is the argument always advanced on "Tort reform"? Business needs a stable environment. Translation: you cant make us responsible for our mistakes, that would cut into the profits!
What I don't get is why the "conservatives" ( minimum govt, personal responsibility, etc, etc ) think we don't see straight to the real motivation when they get going on these things.
The "oh my, that turkey at ATT was right all along, Google is a freeloader" comments ( with the "they should be paying!" ) from "industry pundits" will commence in 5.. 4.. 3..
There is much to what you say, but I think you are missing an important point. Wages are being depressed by outsourcing and corporate shenanigans of various sorts. But the cost to keep oneself alive is not falling. My wages fall, but does my mortgage/rent? My hours are cut, but my health insurance is skyrocketing. Etc, etc.
I don't think the numbers you request will give you "manufacturing jobs". Total economy size and % of that that is company revenue will not tell you jobs. I think you want the true number of jobs. I further think you need the wages spent on those jobs ( and some scale against how much purchasing power those wages have ) to be able to assess what you are discussing.
Except that you are missing that that 50k/year ( times the number of employees being "released" ) is no longer being spend on economic activity here. So, some other companies that used to get a fraction of that ( rent, bills, spending ) don't. So, they lay off, and the circle tightens until the US is a junkyard.
Also, the reason there is a pay differential is because there is a cost differential to the workers. The items these companies are selling, they are selling to Americans at higher prices. Rent/mortgage costs are higher. Food costs more. And the worker is in no way completely to blame for this, the companies selling have much more control of parts of this at least.
I don't expect charity. But perhaps a reduction in greedy short term thinking stupidity would be in order.
So, why should they pay 50k/year? Because they are selling their goods and services here at first world prices. That is why. If they don't, they will not be able to sell here at those prices in the longer term because the support for that ( higher wages ) will not be there.
"The shareholders love this strategy since it maximizes their return on investment."
That is really not the only problem. And it is only for a short term. Sorta like eating your seed cord. The people who used to receive those paychecks will not be, for a short while at least. Some may go on to find other jobs, but due to many doing this, wages in that sector will fall here, disposable income will go down, less money makes people spent less, causing an economic impact here. Which will then cause other companies to have reduced revenues, causing them to need to lay off, lather rinse repeat.....
In college I was asked to allow others to see/copy my work. I refused. I grant you the biggest problem is the others submitting the work of others as their own, but it is not "normal honest business".
Slashdot Mirror
Well said.
"You twice mention "mathematical proof", but that's not what I'm after - heck I'm not even after evidence, since most [intellectual] people admit that there's no evidence. What I want to know is how you can be convinced, when you yourself admit that there's no reason to be convinced."
There are the predictions of Christ's coming in the old Testament.
There is that the religious establishment in the time of Christ's coming rejected him, as predicted.
There is all that the Bible has to say about the human heart, how we think we are good, but then can turn around and do things that do not qualify as good.
"That's circular reasoning."
No, that is the claim the Bible makes about itself. It could be wrong, it could be right. To the best of my knowledge, there is no way to test this hypothesis.
"OK, but then what? Why would God hide the vast majority of the evidence a fact from me, and then judge me based on being fooled by Him? Then He wants me to thank Him for sacrificing Himself, to Himself, to save me from His own rage at something I didn't do, and He knew would happen ahead of time and could have prevented. I'm sorry, but every time I look more deeply at religious beliefs the more they seem to be a vast network of patches to fix holes in a quilt that wasn't there in the first place."
If He exists, he has hidden from us the ability to *prove* ( in the mathematical sense ) his existence. Why? I don't have an answer to that. I would argue there is evidence of God, but nothing that rises to the level that anyone can use to prove Him. As to the rest, it isn't a matter of him fooling you, it is you believing or not based on what you have in front of you. On His sacrificing himself, it wasn't *to* himself, but *for* us. You are correct, he could have made things work out as he wanted, that there would be any of something where transgressions would not have consequences, or where we were incapable of doing anything evil, or there were no evil. But look at the world, when do people do their best? When under trial and stresses. "Why is that?" is the next question, I don't know.
I have had those same questions. I don't know the answers. I just have my beliefs.
"An absolute lack of evidence is a perfectly good reason for not being convinced. Right?"
I understand how you might not be convinced. In equal measure, I am comfortable with believing without mathematical proof of His existence.
"True, and that kind of agnosticism seems perfectly reasonable. But you (and others) have actually chosen one of them, and when I try to find out why all I get is a variation of "it fulfills a psychological need" and "you just don't get it"."
Personally, I don't like the "psychological need", or "you don't get it" options. Either God exists as outlined or he does not. Why do I believe as I do? I was brought up Catholic, but did not follow it for a long while. Perhaps that is it. I don't think that is all of it, but you could advance that argument. I did not believe for a while. Then I started in with a Church and started ( learning | being brainwashed ). What I have read, studied, lived etc, has convinced me that there is a God, as outlined in the Christian Bible. From that position, I found I needed to chose. I cant point to one event or fact as "this is the core of it". And in believing, I find that I have had to chose. I see that it is possible that I am incorrect. If so, I have given up a lot for nothing. ( in case you are curious, I am not going down the Pascal's wager line of reasoning, either believe because that is what your life/ heart/ head points you at, or don't, hedging bets here seems wrong ).
"If he were to come and prove himself to you, your only choice would be between obedience and rebellion.
OK, but what's wrong with that? Satan and the fallen angels, Judas and other "bad examples", and Moses and many of the "good examples" are given that proof. So what's the issue?"
Nothing is *wrong* with it.
"If we Christians are right, then patently, he wants our faith and belief, not knowledge.
But why?"
I don't know. I'll ask him when I see him. I have been curious about that for a long time.
"This isn't asking us to trust Him (it's asking us to trust old books),"
The claim is that the books are written just as he wants them to be.
2 Timothy 3:16
"it isn't asking us to choose to be good (which we could choose just as freely with clear proof of His existence, see above). So, other than covering up for a lack of evidence, what's the purpose of this "test"?"
The choice is not about good/evil the choice is about believing or not.
"From my perspective, this is simply the kind of rationalization people come up with when they want to make excuses for a lack of evidence. It does a good job of making believers feel like they have good reasons for their beliefs, but doesn't provide an actual good reason."
And from my perspective this is an argument to support a decision not to believe. Which, of course, is your right.
There is no evidence for or against, that leaves a bunch of hypotheses on the table to chose from.
"...intelligent being who would not want to associate with people who spent their lives believing in him without adequate proof."
If we Christians are right, then patently, he wants our faith and belief, not knowledge. Monty Python got it right, we each have to make a choice. If he were to come and prove himself to you, your only choice would be between obedience and rebellion. To the best of my knowledge, no one can prove God exists, and no one can prove that he does not.
Isn't there a wikipedia article on the fact that people that use wikipedia are idiots?
( page create in 10, 9... )
"Why in the hell is the max $75 million?"
Because only people should exercise responsibility. Not corporations.
What is the argument always advanced on "Tort reform"? Business needs a stable environment. Translation: you cant make us responsible for our mistakes, that would cut into the profits!
What I don't get is why the "conservatives" ( minimum govt, personal responsibility, etc, etc ) think we don't see straight to the real motivation when they get going on these things.
Which sounds like a really good reason to exclude corporations from being able to make political contributions.
I will pray you find something sustainable soon.
Hang in there.
Na. Make it look like an accident. Give the CEO of GM a free Toyoda!
The "oh my, that turkey at ATT was right all along, Google is a freeloader" comments ( with the "they should be paying!" ) from "industry pundits" will commence in 5.. 4.. 3..
So, no law that attempts a good thing that corporation might not like should be put on the books?
They have their fingers on your throat, don't struggle, they will squeeze harder.
It's true, what you say, but also, so very very sad.
What happened to liberty?
Here is a solution: Don't file suit against yourself.
But even if you should, I think the fact that you were not attempting to deceive or mislead will get you off the hook. ( pun intended ).
There is much to what you say, but I think you are missing an important point. Wages are being depressed by outsourcing and corporate shenanigans of various sorts. But the cost to keep oneself alive is not falling. My wages fall, but does my mortgage/rent? My hours are cut, but my health insurance is skyrocketing. Etc, etc.
I don't think the numbers you request will give you "manufacturing jobs". Total economy size and % of that that is company revenue will not tell you jobs. I think you want the true number of jobs. I further think you need the wages spent on those jobs ( and some scale against how much purchasing power those wages have ) to be able to assess what you are discussing.
"You can't swap out many parts of the kernel."
My thought there is that you could make the hardware perform these tasks, then I think you *could* do the swapping out required.
Except that you are missing that that 50k/year ( times the number of employees being "released" ) is no longer being spend on economic activity here. So, some other companies that used to get a fraction of that ( rent, bills, spending ) don't. So, they lay off, and the circle tightens until the US is a junkyard.
Also, the reason there is a pay differential is because there is a cost differential to the workers. The items these companies are selling, they are selling to Americans at higher prices. Rent/mortgage costs are higher. Food costs more. And the worker is in no way completely to blame for this, the companies selling have much more control of parts of this at least.
I don't expect charity. But perhaps a reduction in greedy short term thinking stupidity would be in order.
So, why should they pay 50k/year? Because they are selling their goods and services here at first world prices. That is why. If they don't, they will not be able to sell here at those prices in the longer term because the support for that ( higher wages ) will not be there.
"The shareholders love this strategy since it maximizes their return on investment."
That is really not the only problem. And it is only for a short term. Sorta like eating your seed cord. The people who used to receive those paychecks will not be, for a short while at least. Some may go on to find other jobs, but due to many doing this, wages in that sector will fall here, disposable income will go down, less money makes people spent less, causing an economic impact here. Which will then cause other companies to have reduced revenues, causing them to need to lay off, lather rinse repeat.....
Or! we could realize that *someone* has to schlepp drinks and clean toilets etc, etc, and pay them something reasonable.
What if I send half a ninja? Will that half be even more powerful than one ninja?
Well said!
You are right, and this is why corporations should not have any involvement in politics.
In college I was asked to allow others to see/copy my work. I refused. I grant you the biggest problem is the others submitting the work of others as their own, but it is not "normal honest business".
Wouldn't that tend to spin the car, if one were lost? Not as bad as a right/left split. I had thought the split would be front/back.
They also have enough money to purchase or lease any number of Congress Critters.