I can never quite understand how people think that making a copy of themselves means they personally will live forever.
Well, at the point where we're making copies of people's brains, our intuition about what constitutes a 'self' gets all messed up. This is similar to the same way that our idea of a 'planet' has changed - first the sun and moon count, then the earth does, then the sun and moon don't, then asteroids are discovered and are planets, and then aren't, Pluto's a planet, then it isn't. I'm just suggesting that our everyday intuitions are built with a lot of expectations, and won't suffice when those expectations are broken.
If you assume that people's minds are products of their brains, then there are a few things that might work:
One scenario would be if the original was destroyed in the process of making the copy - when the copy "wakes up" its mind is identical to the original's. At least for some people, that's essentially just moving to a new body - no experiences, personality, etc. have been lost.
Another idea would be to keep one copy inactive until the death of the other, the practical effect would be the same as amnesia. I wouldn't like that, but plenty of people voluntarily get drunk enough to forget large parts of their lives, so it might not be an issue for them.
Tang and Velcro existed before they were used by the space program - NASA had nothing to do with their creation. Reverse osmosis was funded under the slogan "Go to the moon and make the desert bloom.", but it could have been developed just as easily without using anything related to space.
As much as I like space travel, most of "NASA's" practical developments are just things they took credit for, or situations where they just added funds to existing research. Research into space tells us a lot about space, and helps with satellite-based developments, but that's about it for widespread, current, practical benefits.
You are confusing "evidence" and "proof." It absolutely is evidence. It absolutely is not proof.
It is evidence that something is going on (this kind of thinking causes that kind of sensory reaction), but it doesn't favor "my arm is real" over "my arm is fake". If video game monsters had true, sentient AI, they could preform the same experiment, watch their arm wave, and using your logic, come to the conclusion that the game was reality.
You are confusing "belief" with "knowledge."... It is what the word actually means.
Well, I might disagree, but now I know how you're using the words - and that's the important thing.
Yes, of course you empathize with characters in a movie, but you truly, to your core, love your family (for example... I dunno, maybe YOU don't:-). It's a very different thing.
"We assume that the people we love are real, even though they might not be." If that's what you've been meaning to say, I think we got that worked out.
And people who are not religious, as demonstrated time and again. You have not even begun to make the case that this happens more with religious people than others, unless one counts assertion as making a case, and I don't.:-)
And your assertions don't prove the opposite. We seem to get sidetracked a lot.
No - the resulting sensations and images could just as easily come from a simulation (or even a dream), so that isn't evidence either way. You don't seem to get that the whole point of the argument is that you can't tell the difference between reality and the simulation. How would the characters in The Matrix, The 13th Floor, Vanilla Sky, etc. know that they're in a simulation (without a simulation error, someone telling them, or having prior knowledge)?
You do believe you are more than a head in a jar. That doesn't mean you don't accept the possibility you're wrong...
We seem to be using different definitions. I'm using a strict definition of belief (since we're talking epistemology) - if I truely believe something, I can't think that I could be wrong at the same time.
Everyone does it, including you, no matter how much you deny it. NOT taking things on faith is irrational.
Again, we're using the words differently. We all make assumptions about things just to get through the day, but that's not the way most people use the word "faith". People who are saying "I have faith in God" don't mean "I assume God exists", do they?
If you have the same attachments to people you know are fictional... as to people you believe are not, then you have serious psychological problems.
They don't have to be identical, but if people didn't empathize with characters in fiction then most kinds of entertainment would be pointless.
You said, "when religion comes first there can be no room for doubt."... Whether they should have been more tolerant is beside the point: there was clearly room for doubt. Others had doubt, and formed their own communities.
You're taking my description of an attitude that some people have and taking it far too literally. In general, the more influence religion has the less tolerant the believers are of skepticism. As far as I can tell, when a person believes something and a doubt appears, their mind has to either accept that the belief is merely an assumption or get rid of the doubt. And psychologically it's far harder to accept uncertainty than to find a way to block the doubt with a rationalization. Which would explain why the arguments of the religious seem so odd to skeptics (and often people of other religions).
That's quite a false dilemma you have there. Why not (as an example) just punish the ones who committed the violation, and allow the illegally obtained evidence to be used in court? Sure there are downsides to that as well, but the idea of suppressing evidence isn't inherent in the idea of protecting a person's rights.
That's great! If you could tell me what that evidence is, I think I'd have an easier time understanding your point of view.
First, no one chooses to believe anything.
Well, that's just the common phrase. I know you can't just choose a belief from a menu.
You do believe you are more than a head in a jar. Everyone does. That doesn't mean you don't accept the possibility you're wrong, but you take it as an article of faith, because you cannot practically function otherwise.
No, I don't. I function perfectly well knowing that this could all be an illusion. It just doesn't make a practical difference - how should I act differently if this is all just a simulation?
Have you ever worried or been concerned about anything that happens to you, or your family? Ever cared about someone else, had feelings about them? That is because you believe this world and your loved ones exist, despite your inability to prove it, despite your intellectual recognition that it may all be a dream.
If I can grow attached to people that I know are fictional, why is is so hard to believe that I can have feelings for people that may possibly be fictional?
Why do you care about my beliefs, since they do not threaten you?
Your beliefs may affect how you vote, and you also spread the idea that taking things on faith is acceptable. Both of these things directly affect me. Plus this is a great learning experience.:)
It's been that way in the U.S. since shortly after the Pilgrims got here...
So after fleeing to the edge of the know world, risking their lives, and essentially isolating themselves from the rest of the western world, they managed to break away to start their own colony that could kick out people that they considered heretics. Is that supposed to illustrate tolerance of doubt?
Further, for those people who DO disallow doubt, they are no different from the non-religious people who disallow doubt.
Right, but I still think that religion encourages people not to doubt, and not to tolerate doubt.
That you are more than just a head in a jar imagining the universe is based on faith. Do you believe that, too, is irrational?
Yes, there isn't any evidence either way (which is the while point of using that concept in philosophy).
I hope not.
Why? As long as people understand that they can't really know whether it's true or not, it doesn't matter what they choose to believe because it doesn't make a practical difference.
On the other hand, suppose you meet Alice and Bob, who both say that they believe that we're all brains in jars, based on faith and revelations (or whatever else you feel supports religious beliefs), and our brains are being supported by "Makers" - would you believe them? What if Alice says that the dream given to her by the Makers tells her that our simulated reality is a nursery to teach us to be socially mature, so we should form a global communistic society, prove our worth, and thus be allowed to join the real world. Bob says that that we're just here to be toyed with, so a hedonistic lifestyle is fine even if it leads to early death, because none of it really matters.
I assume you would find their beliefs ridiculous, and even dangerous (given the things they advocate). What's the real difference between Alice and Bob's belief in the Makers and a religious person's belief in God?
It is so common now that it doesn't require any group, let alone fanfare or special attention.
Right - now that life primarily revolves around secular pursuits that's true, but when religion is the center of public life it doesn't tend to be that way. Just look at any society where religion was primary - the Middle Ages, the Middle East, the Greeks who put Socrates on trial, any time there was a "divine right of kings" or something equivalent, Fundamentalist Mormons,... As far as I can tell, when religion comes first there can be no room for doubt, because that's the first step toward heresy.
Yeah, I think this part of our discussion, like a lot of philosophy, has turned into a disagreement on word usage.
First, religion is not irrational.
Religion is based on faith. Faith is, by definition, believing in something without a rationally justifiable reason.
The Reformation -- one of the most powerful forces of the last millennium -- existed BECAUSE religious people rejected the "bad things" told to them by religious authorities.
Right, one of the most unique events in history is a group of religious people breaking away from their leaders. If this was an everyday kind of thing, it wouldn't be in every history book. I think that kind of proves that original thought (or breaking away from authority) in religion is somewhat unusual - why wasn't there a Martin Luther in every village?
Perhaps, but that is how MOST atheists use the word today, that I run into, whether it's Penn Jillette or Richard Dawkins or many of my friends. Overwhelmingly, they use the definition "lack of belief" instead of "belief in lack."
That's because they're trying to move the definition of "atheist" back to its roots - but you'll note that they still go out of their way to specify that they're using the non-standard definition - most of the time people still use "atheist" to mean "belief in lack". And as far as I know, none of them have used the phrase "atheist regime" to refer to a country.
That's where I have to take issue - you weren't just using the nonstandard definition that Jillette and Dawkins do, you were going even further, and you skipped by a perfectly good, unambiguous word that would have done the job, without so much as a hint that you were doing so.
Backing up a bit: So I reject your premise on two fronts: that any torture or murder done on behalf of religion has specifically religious motive, rather than deeper motives of control of people who are different, and further, that what "theocracies" do are representative of religion.
I would agree with you that when the state gets involved in a religious issue nothing good can come of it, and that the ills it inflicts can't be blamed on the beliefs being taken advantage of. On the other hand, I still feel that by getting people to believe in benign irrational thinking, religion makes people more susceptible to malign irrational thinking. Once someone is willing to accept good things based on faith or the authority of a religious figure, what prevents them from accepting the bad things as well? Certainly not critical thinking.
The only way it can be abused is if it is left unprotected by the network administrator, much the same as a house can be abused if you leave your doors and windows unlocked."
No, no, no. The doors weren't just unlocked - the butler invited you in, offered you a drink, and lent you an extra pair of gloves for your trip back home. But now that the owner is back he wants to have you arrested for stealing his gloves and his brandy.
If you don't let agents that work on your behalf know what you want, that's your problem.
Any one who believes religion is blocking science has clearly paid more attention to the 1% of the time when it has instead of the 99% of the time it hasn't.
If you're just going to assert that without evidence, I can assert the opposite - 99% of the potential scientists for most of history got derailed by religion. Who knows how fast science could have developed if people had been taught to question, rather than obey, authority. If people hadn't been told that disease was caused by demons and God's curses, so prayer was the only answer. If the money for opulent temples had been spent on research. If the smartest and most educated people hadn't been pushed into being priests.
If one ancient culture had torn themselves away from superstition, we could have had the Enlightenment thousands of years ago. It took 5000 years to get from wooden boats and riding horses bareback, to slightly better wooden boats and riding in saddles, all while the divine right of kings and religious explanations were virtually unopposed. Then in 2% of that time span, while civilization has been more secular, we've gone from the first real alternative to wind and muscle (steam) to nuclear submarines and spacecraft. To me, that says a lot.
Now that I'm done with my rant, how do you reconcile your beliefs with the fact that scientists are the least religious segment of our society? Doesn't that suggest that there's some correlation between a lack of religion and success in science?
This is a horrible article, is false/misleading, and missing some information.
No, it just didn't spell it out that well:
The MSRP of a book is (for example) $8. Amazon sells the book for $8, and includes free shipping. France says that the shipping is really worth $2, so the real price that Amazon is selling for is $6 - which is illegally cheap.
According to the article, they claim that the courts found against Amazon because of their free shipping, and then go off on a tangent, referring to a law that doesn't seem to even mention shipping.
That's why a lot of us think this is absurd. But this kind thing is common with price controls even in the US - gas stations fined because they sold gas for the legal minimum and gave a free newspaper with every purchase, in flight meals can only be so large, prices can only change on a certain schedule, etc.
And I submit that a secular state -- which can be defined as one that rejects all recognition of religion -- is synonymous with an atheist state
Well, I can quote the Wikipedia page: Despite occasional confusion, secularity is not synonymous with atheism. You do have a point about the origin of the word, but but when people use the "lack of belief" definition, they clearly state their intent to use the word in a way that's different than many readers would expect. When I've come across "atheistic regime" it's always referred to one that "rejects all recognition of religion", while "secular state" has referred to one that is neutral toward religion.
On the other hand, America is not such a secular state. Far from rejecting recognition of religion, it merely rejects special recognition of any particular religion.
Actually, that's what secular means: dealing with worldly matters rather than spiritual ones. Favoring one religion over another, or officially rejecting religion, would mean that the government was dealing with spiritual matters, and was no longer secular.
Heh. So now YOU are smearing atheism, because...
I stated something I thought was true, included the caveat that the statement only included what I knew, and then spent four times as many words describing why I thought that the fact was only true due to an accident of history. Using your own criteria for determining what counts as an insult, how could I have included that information without being insulting?
That is, communism -- as you said -- used atheism as a way to control the people. It wasn't an essential feature of the regime, or a cause of the deaths, it was a means.
Right - and that was my point. The only time a state has had an official atheistic stance was when it was merely politically useful.
Please read any Papal Encyclical before being derogatory.
If you think that describing someones speeches as "ramblings" is so derogatory that you need to protest, you need thicker skin. Worry about the people that describe the Pope as "a delusional cult leader bent on world domination", or whatever the anti-Catholics are spewing today.
I'm not being paranoid. I'm being defensive to an asshole that clearly relished what the radicals got away with.
What did they "get away with"? Free speech?
I'd be willing to lay cash that if it were Richard Dawkins that was prevented from speaking at the same university...
Nobody was prevented from speaking. Reread the article - some people protested, and the Pope chose not to speak - this isn't any different than any other protest linked to a particular speaker.
... you'd be pretty pissed.
I might not like it, but I'd never suggest that they "got away" with something - a phrase which, to me, suggests a crime or deeply immoral act.
If you would prefer "secular" to "atheist," fine. I don't care. The point is not to beat up on atheists, far from it.
What the fuck?!?!?
"Atheist" and "secular" have very different meanings - the vast majority of western countries are secular, but none of them are atheistic. The US has no official religion, but it certainly isn't an atheistic country. The only reason that you would mix the two up is a great deal of ignorance about the meanings of those two words, or an attempt to smear atheism with every bad act not clearly motivated by religion.
The only officially atheistic regimes I know of were communist, and they were that way only because Marx saw priests as complicit in holding down the masses, and the dictators that took up his philosophy saw it as a good way to keep from sharing power and preventing revolutions. And there's no way in hell that they managed to catch up with thousands of years of bad acts motivated by religion, any more than the "religious" bad acts have caught up with the bad acts brought on by purely economic issues (land, food, who rules, etc).
How about something simple like being able to enjoy the "free exercise thereof" part of the establishment clause...
He has that. Nobody has suggested that he be detained, censored, injured, or kept off public property.
... without bigoted attacks, such as yours?
If freedom of speech includes Nazi rallies, KKK marches, and the Pope's ramblings, it also has to include the right of other people to say that they don't like it.
And you have experimental evidence to back all this up, or is everyone still just pretending that economics is a science and therefore provably correct?
It isn't an economic theory, it's a logical fallacy that happens to be common in economic discussions. When someone says they've doubled the efficiency of a motor, and proudly points to the extra torque, a good engineer knows to check that it isn't turning slower or using four times the fuel. When someone says that a project has 'created jobs' or that it 'helps middle-class Americans', and points to the workers at a publicly-funded project, a good economist knows to look at what else could have been done with the money and how many of those jobs would still be there without the funding. Even though the argument is the same, the first example is seen as so obvious that it doesn't need to be pointed out, while the second one is 'insulting' or 'anti-American' or 'free-market lunacy'. Human psychology is strange that way.
The problem with repeating the broken window fallacy over and over like some sort of mantra is that it assumes that the benefit from breaking the window can never be greater than the opportunity cost. What if the glazier, in a hurry for a dinner date, slaps some goo on the glass and in the process discovers $25 windshield repairs while-u-wait? That outcome is never discussed by economists.
I could argue against that is several ways, but none of that matters. As long as you aren't even giving lip service to the opportunities missed, it wouldn't even matter if your conclusion was correct - you argument would still be fallacious.
Sorry, but show me a man who questions the concepts of property, and I'll show you a man who wants a piece of what I've worked hard for.
This has nothing to do with property, this has to do with copyright. "Intellectual property" is an oxymoron generated by a PR campaign.
Actual property is recognized in common law, and is also implicitly recognized in the Constitution in the Takings Clause - a natural right that can only be revoked under very limited circumstances. Intellectual "property" from the Copyright Clause is something that can be granted by Congress, if it wishes to do so - a limited right that can be revoked or altered at any time.
There is a vast and unbridgeable gap between the right to own physical things, and the possibility of being granted a privilege by the government.
The lab experiment proves things evolve. Great, I agree. So does Ron Paul. So does everyone I've ever talked to about the subject.
Great! We have a good starting point.
Where's the evidence that we evolved from monkeys? Or whatever we evolved from? And can we even test that it's possible?
Morphology, genetics, protein sequences, and behavioral similarities to start with. Plus odd smaller things, like the fact that, other than guinea pigs, primates (including humans) are the only animals that get scurvy, great apes are found in the same area of the world that humans originated in, infectious diseases are similar (human AIDS is almost identical to simian AIDS), etc. Keep in mind that almost every line of evidence that suggest a common ancestry for all humans also implies a common ancestry for all primates, humans included.
How often do these theories change as new things are discovered?
The basic concept hasn't changed - human beings and other living things have a common ancestor, and apes and monkeys are the closest surviving relatives - that hasn't changed since Darwin. New discoveries just help us flesh out the details.
So why should i believe in somethign that's likely to change in year?
Theories of gravity have changed many times (Aristotle, Newton, Einstein) and many things remain unexplained (Pioneer anomaly, how quantum phenomena interact with gravity), but Ron Paul isn't doubting that things fall down, is he?
Sounds a lot like a religion to me.
Why is that?
I dunno, but in the end, to dismiss someone from being a medical doctor because he doesn't believe we evolved from monkeys, is short sighted, imo.
RP is dismissing a major conclusion of biology, and medicine is based on biology - he's not uneducated in biology, and he isn't giving his opinion on some unrelated field. If your electrician doesn't believe that lighting is electrical (even if he can wire your house correctly), wouldn't you have concerns?
I'm glad to see that there are at least a few veins of common sense among the Libertarians, though, because the extreme sort are the most noisy.
Libertarians run the gamut from Ayn Rand worshipers to people that are merely fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The problem is that with a system that's only balanced with two parties, the moderates have to choose - and end up labeled as "neo-liberals" or "pro gay marriage conservatives" - while the reputation of the term "libertarian" ends up being set by the extremists.
Imagine how liberals would look if the parties were The Authoritarians and The Libertarians - the average liberal would have to choose the lesser of two evils, and most people that describe themselves as "liberals" would be the most extreme ones.
I've seen plenty of Libertarians that don't want the government to fund much of anything, ever, because "taxation is theft" or something like that.
Taxation is essentially theft - but it's inevitable. Someone is going to have the power to steal, and it will eventually be abused. But we can choose the best kind of theft - muggers (like warlords) are random and do a lot of collateral damage, we'd rather just pay consistent, proportional-to-our-income protection money to the mafia (monarchy). Improvements can then be made by splitting power between parts of the mafia, voting on who gets to run it, and choosing traditions that are more to our liking (democracy).
But no matter how palatable it is, don't forget that if you don't give them an amount of money that they get to choose, they'll take it from you and/or imprison you - and that's theft.
This isn't "insightful" because it's factually incorrect, and it's isn't "troll" because he isn't trying to incite or annoy anyone. If you think it's modded up too much, use "overrated".
Slashdot Mirror
Well, at the point where we're making copies of people's brains, our intuition about what constitutes a 'self' gets all messed up. This is similar to the same way that our idea of a 'planet' has changed - first the sun and moon count, then the earth does, then the sun and moon don't, then asteroids are discovered and are planets, and then aren't, Pluto's a planet, then it isn't. I'm just suggesting that our everyday intuitions are built with a lot of expectations, and won't suffice when those expectations are broken.
If you assume that people's minds are products of their brains, then there are a few things that might work:
One scenario would be if the original was destroyed in the process of making the copy - when the copy "wakes up" its mind is identical to the original's. At least for some people, that's essentially just moving to a new body - no experiences, personality, etc. have been lost.
Another idea would be to keep one copy inactive until the death of the other, the practical effect would be the same as amnesia. I wouldn't like that, but plenty of people voluntarily get drunk enough to forget large parts of their lives, so it might not be an issue for them.
As much as I like space travel, most of "NASA's" practical developments are just things they took credit for, or situations where they just added funds to existing research. Research into space tells us a lot about space, and helps with satellite-based developments, but that's about it for widespread, current, practical benefits.
It is evidence that something is going on (this kind of thinking causes that kind of sensory reaction), but it doesn't favor "my arm is real" over "my arm is fake". If video game monsters had true, sentient AI, they could preform the same experiment, watch their arm wave, and using your logic, come to the conclusion that the game was reality.
You are confusing "belief" with "knowledge." ... It is what the word actually means.
Well, I might disagree, but now I know how you're using the words - and that's the important thing.
Yes, of course you empathize with characters in a movie, but you truly, to your core, love your family (for example ... I dunno, maybe YOU don't :-). It's a very different thing.
"We assume that the people we love are real, even though they might not be." If that's what you've been meaning to say, I think we got that worked out.
And people who are not religious, as demonstrated time and again. You have not even begun to make the case that this happens more with religious people than others, unless one counts assertion as making a case, and I don't. :-)
And your assertions don't prove the opposite. We seem to get sidetracked a lot.
No - the resulting sensations and images could just as easily come from a simulation (or even a dream), so that isn't evidence either way. You don't seem to get that the whole point of the argument is that you can't tell the difference between reality and the simulation. How would the characters in The Matrix, The 13th Floor, Vanilla Sky, etc. know that they're in a simulation (without a simulation error, someone telling them, or having prior knowledge)?
You do believe you are more than a head in a jar. That doesn't mean you don't accept the possibility you're wrong...
We seem to be using different definitions. I'm using a strict definition of belief (since we're talking epistemology) - if I truely believe something, I can't think that I could be wrong at the same time.
Everyone does it, including you, no matter how much you deny it. NOT taking things on faith is irrational.
Again, we're using the words differently. We all make assumptions about things just to get through the day, but that's not the way most people use the word "faith". People who are saying "I have faith in God" don't mean "I assume God exists", do they?
If you have the same attachments to people you know are fictional ... as to people you believe are not, then you have serious psychological problems.
They don't have to be identical, but if people didn't empathize with characters in fiction then most kinds of entertainment would be pointless.
You said, "when religion comes first there can be no room for doubt." ... Whether they should have been more tolerant is beside the point: there was clearly room for doubt. Others had doubt, and formed their own communities.
You're taking my description of an attitude that some people have and taking it far too literally. In general, the more influence religion has the less tolerant the believers are of skepticism. As far as I can tell, when a person believes something and a doubt appears, their mind has to either accept that the belief is merely an assumption or get rid of the doubt. And psychologically it's far harder to accept uncertainty than to find a way to block the doubt with a rationalization. Which would explain why the arguments of the religious seem so odd to skeptics (and often people of other religions).
That's quite a false dilemma you have there. Why not (as an example) just punish the ones who committed the violation, and allow the illegally obtained evidence to be used in court? Sure there are downsides to that as well, but the idea of suppressing evidence isn't inherent in the idea of protecting a person's rights.
That's great! If you could tell me what that evidence is, I think I'd have an easier time understanding your point of view.
First, no one chooses to believe anything.
Well, that's just the common phrase. I know you can't just choose a belief from a menu.
You do believe you are more than a head in a jar. Everyone does. That doesn't mean you don't accept the possibility you're wrong, but you take it as an article of faith, because you cannot practically function otherwise.
No, I don't. I function perfectly well knowing that this could all be an illusion. It just doesn't make a practical difference - how should I act differently if this is all just a simulation?
Have you ever worried or been concerned about anything that happens to you, or your family? Ever cared about someone else, had feelings about them? That is because you believe this world and your loved ones exist, despite your inability to prove it, despite your intellectual recognition that it may all be a dream.
If I can grow attached to people that I know are fictional, why is is so hard to believe that I can have feelings for people that may possibly be fictional?
Why do you care about my beliefs, since they do not threaten you?
Your beliefs may affect how you vote, and you also spread the idea that taking things on faith is acceptable. Both of these things directly affect me. Plus this is a great learning experience. :)
It's been that way in the U.S. since shortly after the Pilgrims got here ...
So after fleeing to the edge of the know world, risking their lives, and essentially isolating themselves from the rest of the western world, they managed to break away to start their own colony that could kick out people that they considered heretics. Is that supposed to illustrate tolerance of doubt?
Further, for those people who DO disallow doubt, they are no different from the non-religious people who disallow doubt.
Right, but I still think that religion encourages people not to doubt, and not to tolerate doubt.
Yes, there isn't any evidence either way (which is the while point of using that concept in philosophy).
I hope not.
Why? As long as people understand that they can't really know whether it's true or not, it doesn't matter what they choose to believe because it doesn't make a practical difference.
On the other hand, suppose you meet Alice and Bob, who both say that they believe that we're all brains in jars, based on faith and revelations (or whatever else you feel supports religious beliefs), and our brains are being supported by "Makers" - would you believe them? What if Alice says that the dream given to her by the Makers tells her that our simulated reality is a nursery to teach us to be socially mature, so we should form a global communistic society, prove our worth, and thus be allowed to join the real world. Bob says that that we're just here to be toyed with, so a hedonistic lifestyle is fine even if it leads to early death, because none of it really matters.
I assume you would find their beliefs ridiculous, and even dangerous (given the things they advocate). What's the real difference between Alice and Bob's belief in the Makers and a religious person's belief in God?
It is so common now that it doesn't require any group, let alone fanfare or special attention.
Right - now that life primarily revolves around secular pursuits that's true, but when religion is the center of public life it doesn't tend to be that way. Just look at any society where religion was primary - the Middle Ages, the Middle East, the Greeks who put Socrates on trial, any time there was a "divine right of kings" or something equivalent, Fundamentalist Mormons, ... As far as I can tell, when religion comes first there can be no room for doubt, because that's the first step toward heresy.
He wasn't suggesting privatization, and what does Russia's corrupt, crime-riddled economy have to do with US tax policy?
Yeah, I think this part of our discussion, like a lot of philosophy, has turned into a disagreement on word usage.
First, religion is not irrational.
Religion is based on faith. Faith is, by definition, believing in something without a rationally justifiable reason.
The Reformation -- one of the most powerful forces of the last millennium -- existed BECAUSE religious people rejected the "bad things" told to them by religious authorities.
Right, one of the most unique events in history is a group of religious people breaking away from their leaders. If this was an everyday kind of thing, it wouldn't be in every history book. I think that kind of proves that original thought (or breaking away from authority) in religion is somewhat unusual - why wasn't there a Martin Luther in every village?
That's because they're trying to move the definition of "atheist" back to its roots - but you'll note that they still go out of their way to specify that they're using the non-standard definition - most of the time people still use "atheist" to mean "belief in lack". And as far as I know, none of them have used the phrase "atheist regime" to refer to a country.
That's where I have to take issue - you weren't just using the nonstandard definition that Jillette and Dawkins do, you were going even further, and you skipped by a perfectly good, unambiguous word that would have done the job, without so much as a hint that you were doing so.
Backing up a bit: So I reject your premise on two fronts: that any torture or murder done on behalf of religion has specifically religious motive, rather than deeper motives of control of people who are different, and further, that what "theocracies" do are representative of religion.
I would agree with you that when the state gets involved in a religious issue nothing good can come of it, and that the ills it inflicts can't be blamed on the beliefs being taken advantage of. On the other hand, I still feel that by getting people to believe in benign irrational thinking, religion makes people more susceptible to malign irrational thinking. Once someone is willing to accept good things based on faith or the authority of a religious figure, what prevents them from accepting the bad things as well? Certainly not critical thinking.
No, no, no. The doors weren't just unlocked - the butler invited you in, offered you a drink, and lent you an extra pair of gloves for your trip back home. But now that the owner is back he wants to have you arrested for stealing his gloves and his brandy.
If you don't let agents that work on your behalf know what you want, that's your problem.
If you're just going to assert that without evidence, I can assert the opposite - 99% of the potential scientists for most of history got derailed by religion. Who knows how fast science could have developed if people had been taught to question, rather than obey, authority. If people hadn't been told that disease was caused by demons and God's curses, so prayer was the only answer. If the money for opulent temples had been spent on research. If the smartest and most educated people hadn't been pushed into being priests.
If one ancient culture had torn themselves away from superstition, we could have had the Enlightenment thousands of years ago. It took 5000 years to get from wooden boats and riding horses bareback, to slightly better wooden boats and riding in saddles, all while the divine right of kings and religious explanations were virtually unopposed. Then in 2% of that time span, while civilization has been more secular, we've gone from the first real alternative to wind and muscle (steam) to nuclear submarines and spacecraft. To me, that says a lot.
Now that I'm done with my rant, how do you reconcile your beliefs with the fact that scientists are the least religious segment of our society? Doesn't that suggest that there's some correlation between a lack of religion and success in science?
No, it just didn't spell it out that well:
The MSRP of a book is (for example) $8. Amazon sells the book for $8, and includes free shipping. France says that the shipping is really worth $2, so the real price that Amazon is selling for is $6 - which is illegally cheap.
According to the article, they claim that the courts found against Amazon because of their free shipping, and then go off on a tangent, referring to a law that doesn't seem to even mention shipping.
That's why a lot of us think this is absurd. But this kind thing is common with price controls even in the US - gas stations fined because they sold gas for the legal minimum and gave a free newspaper with every purchase, in flight meals can only be so large, prices can only change on a certain schedule, etc.
Well, I can quote the Wikipedia page: Despite occasional confusion, secularity is not synonymous with atheism. You do have a point about the origin of the word, but but when people use the "lack of belief" definition, they clearly state their intent to use the word in a way that's different than many readers would expect. When I've come across "atheistic regime" it's always referred to one that "rejects all recognition of religion", while "secular state" has referred to one that is neutral toward religion.
On the other hand, America is not such a secular state. Far from rejecting recognition of religion, it merely rejects special recognition of any particular religion.
Actually, that's what secular means: dealing with worldly matters rather than spiritual ones. Favoring one religion over another, or officially rejecting religion, would mean that the government was dealing with spiritual matters, and was no longer secular.
Heh. So now YOU are smearing atheism, because ...
I stated something I thought was true, included the caveat that the statement only included what I knew, and then spent four times as many words describing why I thought that the fact was only true due to an accident of history. Using your own criteria for determining what counts as an insult, how could I have included that information without being insulting?
That is, communism -- as you said -- used atheism as a way to control the people. It wasn't an essential feature of the regime, or a cause of the deaths, it was a means.
Right - and that was my point. The only time a state has had an official atheistic stance was when it was merely politically useful.
If you think that describing someones speeches as "ramblings" is so derogatory that you need to protest, you need thicker skin. Worry about the people that describe the Pope as "a delusional cult leader bent on world domination", or whatever the anti-Catholics are spewing today.
What did they "get away with"? Free speech?
I'd be willing to lay cash that if it were Richard Dawkins that was prevented from speaking at the same university ...
Nobody was prevented from speaking. Reread the article - some people protested, and the Pope chose not to speak - this isn't any different than any other protest linked to a particular speaker.
I might not like it, but I'd never suggest that they "got away" with something - a phrase which, to me, suggests a crime or deeply immoral act.
What the fuck?!?!?
"Atheist" and "secular" have very different meanings - the vast majority of western countries are secular, but none of them are atheistic. The US has no official religion, but it certainly isn't an atheistic country. The only reason that you would mix the two up is a great deal of ignorance about the meanings of those two words, or an attempt to smear atheism with every bad act not clearly motivated by religion.
The only officially atheistic regimes I know of were communist, and they were that way only because Marx saw priests as complicit in holding down the masses, and the dictators that took up his philosophy saw it as a good way to keep from sharing power and preventing revolutions. And there's no way in hell that they managed to catch up with thousands of years of bad acts motivated by religion, any more than the "religious" bad acts have caught up with the bad acts brought on by purely economic issues (land, food, who rules, etc).
I think I've found your problem ...
What persecution?
How about something simple like being able to enjoy the "free exercise thereof" part of the establishment clause ...
He has that. Nobody has suggested that he be detained, censored, injured, or kept off public property.
If freedom of speech includes Nazi rallies, KKK marches, and the Pope's ramblings, it also has to include the right of other people to say that they don't like it.
It isn't an economic theory, it's a logical fallacy that happens to be common in economic discussions. When someone says they've doubled the efficiency of a motor, and proudly points to the extra torque, a good engineer knows to check that it isn't turning slower or using four times the fuel. When someone says that a project has 'created jobs' or that it 'helps middle-class Americans', and points to the workers at a publicly-funded project, a good economist knows to look at what else could have been done with the money and how many of those jobs would still be there without the funding. Even though the argument is the same, the first example is seen as so obvious that it doesn't need to be pointed out, while the second one is 'insulting' or 'anti-American' or 'free-market lunacy'. Human psychology is strange that way.
The problem with repeating the broken window fallacy over and over like some sort of mantra is that it assumes that the benefit from breaking the window can never be greater than the opportunity cost. What if the glazier, in a hurry for a dinner date, slaps some goo on the glass and in the process discovers $25 windshield repairs while-u-wait? That outcome is never discussed by economists.
I could argue against that is several ways, but none of that matters. As long as you aren't even giving lip service to the opportunities missed, it wouldn't even matter if your conclusion was correct - you argument would still be fallacious.
This has nothing to do with property, this has to do with copyright. "Intellectual property" is an oxymoron generated by a PR campaign.
Actual property is recognized in common law, and is also implicitly recognized in the Constitution in the Takings Clause - a natural right that can only be revoked under very limited circumstances. Intellectual "property" from the Copyright Clause is something that can be granted by Congress, if it wishes to do so - a limited right that can be revoked or altered at any time.
There is a vast and unbridgeable gap between the right to own physical things, and the possibility of being granted a privilege by the government.
Great! We have a good starting point.
Where's the evidence that we evolved from monkeys? Or whatever we evolved from? And can we even test that it's possible?
Morphology, genetics, protein sequences, and behavioral similarities to start with. Plus odd smaller things, like the fact that, other than guinea pigs, primates (including humans) are the only animals that get scurvy, great apes are found in the same area of the world that humans originated in, infectious diseases are similar (human AIDS is almost identical to simian AIDS), etc. Keep in mind that almost every line of evidence that suggest a common ancestry for all humans also implies a common ancestry for all primates, humans included.
How often do these theories change as new things are discovered?
The basic concept hasn't changed - human beings and other living things have a common ancestor, and apes and monkeys are the closest surviving relatives - that hasn't changed since Darwin. New discoveries just help us flesh out the details.
So why should i believe in somethign that's likely to change in year?
Theories of gravity have changed many times (Aristotle, Newton, Einstein) and many things remain unexplained (Pioneer anomaly, how quantum phenomena interact with gravity), but Ron Paul isn't doubting that things fall down, is he?
Sounds a lot like a religion to me.
Why is that?
I dunno, but in the end, to dismiss someone from being a medical doctor because he doesn't believe we evolved from monkeys, is short sighted, imo.
RP is dismissing a major conclusion of biology, and medicine is based on biology - he's not uneducated in biology, and he isn't giving his opinion on some unrelated field. If your electrician doesn't believe that lighting is electrical (even if he can wire your house correctly), wouldn't you have concerns?
It's "Give me liberty or give me death!" not "Do what you want, just don't hurt me!".
Seriously, how can the most powerful nation on earth be so full of pansies?
Libertarians run the gamut from Ayn Rand worshipers to people that are merely fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The problem is that with a system that's only balanced with two parties, the moderates have to choose - and end up labeled as "neo-liberals" or "pro gay marriage conservatives" - while the reputation of the term "libertarian" ends up being set by the extremists.
Imagine how liberals would look if the parties were The Authoritarians and The Libertarians - the average liberal would have to choose the lesser of two evils, and most people that describe themselves as "liberals" would be the most extreme ones.
I've seen plenty of Libertarians that don't want the government to fund much of anything, ever, because "taxation is theft" or something like that.
Taxation is essentially theft - but it's inevitable. Someone is going to have the power to steal, and it will eventually be abused. But we can choose the best kind of theft - muggers (like warlords) are random and do a lot of collateral damage, we'd rather just pay consistent, proportional-to-our-income protection money to the mafia (monarchy). Improvements can then be made by splitting power between parts of the mafia, voting on who gets to run it, and choosing traditions that are more to our liking (democracy).
But no matter how palatable it is, don't forget that if you don't give them an amount of money that they get to choose, they'll take it from you and/or imprison you - and that's theft.
This isn't "insightful" because it's factually incorrect, and it's isn't "troll" because he isn't trying to incite or annoy anyone. If you think it's modded up too much, use "overrated".