Yeah, that's a typical problem. It will come down to fundamental beliefs/propositions and that's a hard thing to shake. Eventually, you do have to supply your own contrary answers. But then at least, you're both answering the same question even if you answer it differently.
If you're answering the question "why is there a diversity of life on the planet, and why does it show similarity?" and they're answering "why does anything exist?" You're going to have an unreasonable discussion.
I can't help but feel that your argumentative style undermines any pathos your argument may have had. If your goal is to make yourself feel good about your position, congratulations. Being right(which you cannot be always be) is a far-cry from being convincing.
You can't simply see "the truth" and then know instantly that it is. A position is only as strong as its supporting argument, and most people are pretty bad at presenting arguments well. The fact that "the truth is out there" is not the same as someone having been presented with a compelling argument and deciding they were too lazy to deal with it.
Forgive me for being dismissive, but this is typical libertarian silliness.
My points of disagreement: 1. Governments are not the only organizations capable of coercion. One only need read about organized campaigns of threats and harassment against those observed entering abortion clinics to know how religious organizations can present threats entirely outside the law. Or for a more serious case from other religions, the so-called "honor killings" of Islam. 2. Knowledge, and the lack thereof has a perpetual feedback into the overall effectiveness of a democracy. Attempting to limit inhibiting factors like religion can have an underlying justification, even without any overt components represented in politics(we should be so lucky). 3. Not everything is about protecting yourself from harm. Dawkins, in particular, is a humanist, and his goals are oriented towards improving the overall quality of life for humanity. His position is that a lack of religion can be good in this regard.
Because you're equating belief to quality of character. Suffice to say you can believe true things and do horrible things, and believe false things and do good things.
Moreover, it is a position I've held for a long time that every person has at least one incorrect belief they hold because they've never been reasonable challenged on(no there's no direct evidence of that , it's an inductively concluded position based on personal observation. I'd change my mind in the face of actual evidence) .
Yep, because all people think exactly one way ever. Get over your discrimination. You seem to think that people who are religious have absolutely no choice in the matter, ignoring the fact many people have simply never been exposed to any sort of alternative underlying philosophies. It's simply unreasonable to assert that everyone who disagrees with your perspective is a moron incapable of rational thought.
In fact, I'd go as far as saying it's dogmatic and absurd.
The fundamental assertion you're making is that there exist people who are incapable of reevaluating their views. It casts off some people as literally inferior to others. Without going into specifics, I'd say that history has shown many such beliefs to be quite wrong. I understand where you're coming from, but be careful exactly what you imply.
He made a pretty good point there. There's only solution I've found to the problem of people taking your disagreement as an insult, and that is to pose every concern as a question for more detail. I've found it's a lot easier to do such conversations one on one as well, which I think is an often overlooked component of why debates on the internet seem so pointless and shouty.
Yes, but this actually COULD be a treatment for some caused by mutations(a fair percentage, I'm lead to believe). Sequence the tumors and the native cells. Make a virus that kills only cancer cells.
Besides, we've had nuclear weapons and mutated smallpox for years, ready to go. This is basically a NICER choice for genocide.
It takes the format that "X takes too strong a stance and should be distanced from; Y also takes too strong a stance as an opposite", that naturally implies a similarity that is not there.
I cannot believe the kind of false equivalency you just shoved out there. You just compared Dr. Dawkins who publishes well researched biological and philosophical books and levels disagreements with the religious against Coulter who literally calls for the outright slaughter(on multiple occasions) of those she disagrees with, and Limbaugh who makes a profession out of repeatedly misrepresenting facts. That's completely unreasonable.
You make it seem like having publicly stated atheist opinions is somehow equally vitriolic as calling for the murder of those you disagree with. This is why people like Dawkins speak out, because right now, its perfectly acceptable to equate atheists with monsters.
It seems more likely that he's trying to cover up the fact that there's fraud planned. Even a brain-dead moron would know how the supremacy clause worked if they ever passed the bar exam.
Yeah, I'm wondering that too. As of a few months ago my city put up electric charging stations all around the downtown area. If there wasn't a standard, then why did the stations lack any model information.
I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to any math more complicated than abstract algebra or basic combinatorial, but that paper was obviously bunk, and anyone should've been able to tell from the very first (approximate) equation.
Rights are only appropriately applied to liberties.
Not that I necessarily disagree, but how did you arrive at that definition of right? It seems to come from the bare assertion that liberty is the highest ideal. I'd like to see that assertion defended a little more clearly.
Ah, see, I can see how people might not take the current version of having two male parents as literal, but adoption is a natural and common enough process that it didn't even occur to me to parse it that way. "Biologically" might have communicated the concept better. Still, thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding.
That's 7 billion over the lifetime of the project. The 700 Billion to the military is per year. In fact, I would honestly assert that those costs could be controlled by doing more in-house and less using contractors, but reversing the privatization of government jobs is really unpopular with congress for some reason.
A. Never measured yet treated as commonplace and affecting the world B. Comes from a source that bares most of the genre defining hallmarks of folk-tales C. At odds with the scientific explanation of consciousness. D. Too good to be true, so it probably isn't, and someone can make money off you believing.
I'm sorry if you were expecting a logical proof of non-existence, but one doesn't generally prove fiction false. These set of 4 things are more than enough to dismiss any concept they all apply to.
Yep, I sure am ignorant of the consquences of my actions....Or you could acknowledge the underlying failings of a winner-take-all democracy that causes that to happen, and vote to limit the damage it causes. You seem to think I am somehow responsible for the set of candidates available, and that's absurd. You seem to assert that voting should not account for de-facto reality, and only happen in idealistic fantasy land. Please correct me about where I have mistaken your statements, but to me, this is a remarkably uninformed attitude.
Yep, that's the problem. There's no way someone can prefer one group to another and not leap into hyper-partisanship, and always choose one over the others. Grow up.
If you want to blame the two party system's problems on people having preferences, you have failed to grasp the underlying mechanisms that drive that quality quite completely.
To be completely fair, the republican party did, in fact, violate their own by-laws and ignore democratically elected representatives in an ostensibly democratic convention process. A consistent and substantial minority has no business being ignored. But that's what you get with a winner-take-all electoral system.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that's a typical problem. It will come down to fundamental beliefs/propositions and that's a hard thing to shake. Eventually, you do have to supply your own contrary answers. But then at least, you're both answering the same question even if you answer it differently.
If you're answering the question "why is there a diversity of life on the planet, and why does it show similarity?" and they're answering "why does anything exist?" You're going to have an unreasonable discussion.
I can't help but feel that your argumentative style undermines any pathos your argument may have had. If your goal is to make yourself feel good about your position, congratulations. Being right(which you cannot be always be) is a far-cry from being convincing.
You can't simply see "the truth" and then know instantly that it is. A position is only as strong as its supporting argument, and most people are pretty bad at presenting arguments well. The fact that "the truth is out there" is not the same as someone having been presented with a compelling argument and deciding they were too lazy to deal with it.
Forgive me for being dismissive, but this is typical libertarian silliness.
My points of disagreement:
1. Governments are not the only organizations capable of coercion. One only need read about organized campaigns of threats and harassment against those observed entering abortion clinics to know how religious organizations can present threats entirely outside the law. Or for a more serious case from other religions, the so-called "honor killings" of Islam.
2. Knowledge, and the lack thereof has a perpetual feedback into the overall effectiveness of a democracy. Attempting to limit inhibiting factors like religion can have an underlying justification, even without any overt components represented in politics(we should be so lucky).
3. Not everything is about protecting yourself from harm. Dawkins, in particular, is a humanist, and his goals are oriented towards improving the overall quality of life for humanity. His position is that a lack of religion can be good in this regard.
Because you're equating belief to quality of character. Suffice to say you can believe true things and do horrible things, and believe false things and do good things.
Moreover, it is a position I've held for a long time that every person has at least one incorrect belief they hold because they've never been reasonable challenged on(no there's no direct evidence of that , it's an inductively concluded position based on personal observation. I'd change my mind in the face of actual evidence) .
Yep, because all people think exactly one way ever. Get over your discrimination. You seem to think that people who are religious have absolutely no choice in the matter, ignoring the fact many people have simply never been exposed to any sort of alternative underlying philosophies. It's simply unreasonable to assert that everyone who disagrees with your perspective is a moron incapable of rational thought.
In fact, I'd go as far as saying it's dogmatic and absurd.
The fundamental assertion you're making is that there exist people who are incapable of reevaluating their views. It casts off some people as literally inferior to others. Without going into specifics, I'd say that history has shown many such beliefs to be quite wrong. I understand where you're coming from, but be careful exactly what you imply.
He made a pretty good point there. There's only solution I've found to the problem of people taking your disagreement as an insult, and that is to pose every concern as a question for more detail. I've found it's a lot easier to do such conversations one on one as well, which I think is an often overlooked component of why debates on the internet seem so pointless and shouty.
Yes, but this actually COULD be a treatment for some caused by mutations(a fair percentage, I'm lead to believe). Sequence the tumors and the native cells. Make a virus that kills only cancer cells.
Besides, we've had nuclear weapons and mutated smallpox for years, ready to go. This is basically a NICER choice for genocide.
Because that's a natural way to read it.
It takes the format that "X takes too strong a stance and should be distanced from; Y also takes too strong a stance as an opposite", that naturally implies a similarity that is not there.
I cannot believe the kind of false equivalency you just shoved out there. You just compared Dr. Dawkins who publishes well researched biological and philosophical books and levels disagreements with the religious against Coulter who literally calls for the outright slaughter(on multiple occasions) of those she disagrees with, and Limbaugh who makes a profession out of repeatedly misrepresenting facts. That's completely unreasonable.
You make it seem like having publicly stated atheist opinions is somehow equally vitriolic as calling for the murder of those you disagree with. This is why people like Dawkins speak out, because right now, its perfectly acceptable to equate atheists with monsters.
It seems more likely that he's trying to cover up the fact that there's fraud planned. Even a brain-dead moron would know how the supremacy clause worked if they ever passed the bar exam.
Yeah, I'm wondering that too. As of a few months ago my city put up electric charging stations all around the downtown area. If there wasn't a standard, then why did the stations lack any model information.
I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to any math more complicated than abstract algebra or basic combinatorial, but that paper was obviously bunk, and anyone should've been able to tell from the very first (approximate) equation.
This clearly calls for peer-review review.
Not that I necessarily disagree, but how did you arrive at that definition of right? It seems to come from the bare assertion that liberty is the highest ideal. I'd like to see that assertion defended a little more clearly.
Ah, see, I can see how people might not take the current version of having two male parents as literal, but adoption is a natural and common enough process that it didn't even occur to me to parse it that way. "Biologically" might have communicated the concept better. Still, thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding.
That's 7 billion over the lifetime of the project. The 700 Billion to the military is per year. In fact, I would honestly assert that those costs could be controlled by doing more in-house and less using contractors, but reversing the privatization of government jobs is really unpopular with congress for some reason.
A. Never measured yet treated as commonplace and affecting the world
B. Comes from a source that bares most of the genre defining hallmarks of folk-tales
C. At odds with the scientific explanation of consciousness.
D. Too good to be true, so it probably isn't, and someone can make money off you believing.
I'm sorry if you were expecting a logical proof of non-existence, but one doesn't generally prove fiction false. These set of 4 things are more than enough to dismiss any concept they all apply to.
Logical failure on your part: "On this planet"
Usable energy like fossil fuels are used, the energy goes to higher entropy state: i.e. heat.
Heat in the atmosphere radiates out. Total energy on the planet: lower.
Good news: souls are fictional. No need for debate.
literally -- is just around the corner.
Could you give me an address for this corner?
Yep, I sure am ignorant of the consquences of my actions. ...Or you could acknowledge the underlying failings of a winner-take-all democracy that causes that to happen, and vote to limit the damage it causes. You seem to think I am somehow responsible for the set of candidates available, and that's absurd. You seem to assert that voting should not account for de-facto reality, and only happen in idealistic fantasy land. Please correct me about where I have mistaken your statements, but to me, this is a remarkably uninformed attitude.
Yep, that's the problem. There's no way someone can prefer one group to another and not leap into hyper-partisanship, and always choose one over the others. Grow up.
If you want to blame the two party system's problems on people having preferences, you have failed to grasp the underlying mechanisms that drive that quality quite completely.
To be completely fair, the republican party did, in fact, violate their own by-laws and ignore democratically elected representatives in an ostensibly democratic convention process. A consistent and substantial minority has no business being ignored. But that's what you get with a winner-take-all electoral system.
Science grows more powerful as an explanatory tool as we grasp more of the world around us. Philosophical or logical power.
If you have premise p which is "science", the set of things you can derive or contradict from that grows quite rapidly.