"What is hitting your head? An electromagnetic force that gets translated into electrical signals by your nerves and processed through your brain. What if the wall was an illusion and the force was caused by something else. It doesn't deny the "truth" that you observed yourself hitting a wall, but at the same time your observation doesn't make hitting the wall true (you hit something else)."
Yes, but that doesn't really matter. for two reasons. First, the semantic one: you ask 'what if the if the wall was an illusion, and the force was caused by something else'. Well, I feel a force which comes from something else, and it has all the characteristics of a wall...does it matter if I call it a 'wall' which I bumped at, or 'something that looks exactly like a wall but is another force'? the truth remains the same: that you observed something which looks and feels like a wall. I could as well call that 'unknown force that looks like a wall'...wall. Or whatever. It wouldn't change the fact I oberved it.
The second thing is, it doesn't matter in the context I used it; namely as an example of why a theory that says something only exists when an individual observes it, if there is no external reality to which it refers (be it a wall or a force, or whatever we call it). The wall (/force) doesn't exist only because I observe it as an indicidual, otherwise, other indivduals wouldn't experience that wall/force when I'm not observing it anymore.
Meh. All this is getting too much into a philosophical debate, instead of a scientific debate.
Anway, I think we both agree there is 'some' external reality which we observe, not that that external reality creates itself when an individual tries to observe it.
While, seen as a general statement, anyone with common sense will not deny that the USA is not *intrinsical* acting diferently then most other countries, I feel you are a bit to easy going in glaring over the differences of *degree* and *level* at which the USA tries to impose it's will, military, economical and otherwise, on others.
Certainly, other countries do the same, but the degree in which the USA does it, currently dwarfs all other western countries. One has to acknowledge that, while almost all countries have, during one time in their history, had imperialistic tendencies, tho ONLY one who is CURRENTLY pursuing it with so much vigot, is the USA. It's a bit too easy to my taste, to just glare over the things they do, with as excuse that 'oh, well, other countries have done it too, nothing new to see here'.
The current anti-americanism (depending on how you define it) is well deserved, because of two reasons: they are the ones who are most aggressive in their international dealings with other countries *while at the same time* claiming the loudest how other people/countries should behave, while doing the opposite themselves (e.g. they're currently the biggest hypocrites on the block). One would have to look at the last empirialistic empire, the U.K. in the 19th century when they 'rules the waves' to find such a stupifying behaviour with total disregard of other people and countries, and the willingness to solely act as ruler or 'policeman' of the world. I don't see any current european country trying to be the boss of the planet, or acting as if the world is their playground - certainly not with the vigor and zeal that the US shows these last decenia.
Thus, while you may argue: other countries do it or have done it too - which is true - it denies that the level or degree in which you do something matters much. I refute that. It would be akin to saying: "well, all kids are rough" and thus acting as if all rough things kids do are nothing special, when one has one kid giving a kick now and then, and another kid who constantly stomps every other kid around untill they bleed or have broken bones.
Yes, both kids hurt other kids...but I would claim the latter kid is a far greater problem.
The same goes for countries and their behaviour. If you look at the last two decades; who refused to sign the kyoto protocol because they didn't give a damn about our environment (compared to the sweet bucks they got from corporations)? Who was against the creation of an international court? Who was the main instigator and participant of the Iraqi war? Which country is most aggressively condemning countries which seek nuclear power, while they themselves have tons of nukes?
Was it any of those myriads of other countries you claim do the same?
There is no denying that, at least for the last decades, while some countries do some of the same things some of the time, the USA does all of those things all of the time.
There is a difference in degree and level at which countries are flaunting international agreements, being hypocritical in world-affairs, having imperialistic tendencies, trying to coerce other governments in doing their bidding, ivading other countries, etc. The criticism should reflect that degree, and therefor, I don't find it unwaranted per se if the USA gets more criticism for their behaviour than other countries; they currently act the worst too, on the international stage.
In essence, it's not so much as 'fear' (well, if one would mean 'irrational fear') as common sense, not to allow it untill it's proven to be safe as a food, and as a new organism into the ecology (at the very least, when genes are incorporated which are cross-species). And there is also the principle question about who should be legally responsibe; currently, a GM company can sue me, if their GM-genes pop-up in my plants (and seen this is about living organisms, one can not control the dispersion of it). So, potentially, a farmer would have to pay up, because of the patents on those genes which polluted the DNA of his own plants (even if he he actually wanted to keep his own plants pure for his own breeding purposes. What I would want to see, is a law against 'gentic pollution', where the *poluter* (such as monsanto) has to pay for the polution it cause to the farmers' plants.
After all, if a chemical company has a patent on a chemical component, but by accident it gets on the land of somebody else, then it's THEY which have to clean it (and pay) up. I don't think anyone would accept that chemical factory to sue the landowner saying there is a patented component on his property which he didn't pay for. There need to be a law governing these things for GM-crops too, BEFORE we allow it. I'm really curious to see what Monsanto would do, if it risks getting sued by everyone their patented DNA-strings pop up.
Btw, I'm preparing a rebutal to your parent post, though I consider myself 'moderate', since there is little doubt the USA has also great people and done great things. But hey, this is slashdot, if it weren't for the (more interesting) discussions, I wouldn't be here.;-)
"Whether or not you consider the US a "shining example to the world" depends a lot on the time scale you consider."
That's why I said: 'First of all, the respect and love has changed (going up and down) throughout the history of the USA'. However, if you're comparing different time-periods, it gets rather complicated; for instance, the mass-flux of Irish people in the 19th century, was that due to the fact they all thought the USA was such a shining example, or because they we're starving due to failed crops?
In any case, maybe the USA had a certain elan back then; seeing documentaries about and books written by immigrants of that time, one must admit that for many of the dirt-poor working-class people of europe, the USA surely seemed like something shiny to those people back then. That said, OUR timeframe is the 21st century, and the time that the USA probably was that shining example, has long since past. The problem is, most americans don't seem to realise that. It seems like they're still half-convinced they're the best thing that walk this Earth, that their country is the best to live in, etc. As a european, I simply do not understand where this ego-flattery is comming from. Is it a compensation for some kind of inferiority-complex? Is it just chauvinsim at one side, and ignorance of the world on the other?
If I look it at my own country, I can look at it in far more objective terms, and I have no problem with acknowledging the superiority of other countries in many aspects. We have top-notch medical care and have an exellent educationsystem. Our economy and living standard is also pretty good, though the scandinavian countries do better. Our military might is puny and laughable, and one of the weakest of any european country. Our taxes completely suck and are close to the worst in the whole of Europe.
There you have it, the strong and weak points of my country. I do not feel the need to portray my country as the pinacle of democracy (even though we have a more elaborate system then the two-party system used in anglo-saxon countries). I do not feel like indulging myself (or other citizens) in self-flattery as if we are being 'loved' by all other people who dwell this planet.
"These days, you're not even considered a respectable country unless you have a democratic government, and the US deserves a hell of a lot of the credit for it. If that's not being a shining example, I don't know what is"
You DID say 'these days', right? These days, you're far from being a shining example of a democratic governent. In fact, since the debacle with the elections (Al Gore), the democracy as it is practised in the US, has become something of laughing stock to many democratic countries in europe. I'm sure it was quite an impressive feat back in the founding days, but then again, the UK had already a parliament: pretty impressive too. the french had the french revolution, overthrowing the monarchy, which had held absolutepower for centuries; an ipressive feat too. In fact, the city-state of ancient greece, Athens, had one of the first democratic systems in the history of men: quite impressive, for that time.
Moral of the story: the USA has certainly done good things, has achieved great things, etc. But so have other countries. Do not expect (or delude yourself in thinking that there is) some sort of worldwide 'awe' or 'love', certainly not in our current timeframe, and *certainly* not since Bush came to power.
If the americans (well, their mentality) could show a little less arrogance, I'm sure international relations would improve a lot. And yes, Europeans are well aware that the USA isn't a coherent entity in that respect; not all americans are ignorant rednecks. But there still are an awful lot of them... and what's worse, they're currently in power.
"Throw the mob enough bones and they'll be happy; that's the democratic principle."
Well, actually, that's an ancient principle used by that other imperialistic power (who did a far better job at conquering, though); the Roman Empire. The principle is traditionaly known as 'panem et circensis', which litery means 'bread and play'. Thus, the governing elite of that time already knew quite well how to keep the populace at bay; give it food (grain) and entertainment (arena-fights). As long as the hoi palloi could be dulled by those two things, where their stomac was filled and they were kept busy with trivial amusement, they could manipalute the grey masses.
Sadly enough, after 2000 years, we aren't one iota better. While the bread has become 'charity' and the arena-fights 'media-entertainment', the basic principle has remained the same. Of course, this is not limited to USA-politicians, though they have such a high degree of perfection in using this principle to manipulate their citizens, that it has almost become an art on itself.
What does your examples have anything to do with the used reasoning?
If your country/companies DID allow drinking, porn, drugs, etc. inside your own country, but forbade it when other countries/companies would offer the same services or goods, THEN the WTO would rightfully give a reprimande. This has nothing to do with morals on itself, but with a consistent implementation of the rules of free trade.
In any case, because I suspect you're just trolling: the USA signed up with the WTO and agreed to abide by it's rules and decisions; so fucking abide by it already! If you didn't like to have to abide by WTO rules, you shouldn't have entered it!
"One could argue that making possession of marijuana illegal is also arbitrary since cigarettes and alcohol are also legal."
One most certainly could, indeed. And rightfully so.
"Despite whatever misguided beliefs you may have, America has always been highly respected and loved by people all over the world."
Not true. First of all, the respect and love has changed (going up and down) throughout the history of the USA, and secondly, the respect and love has never been universal 'all over the world'. In fact, I don't think there has ever been a time where the USA wasn't hated or disrespected by at least *some* part of the world.
And even in the best of times, I'm not sure one could say any population of a foreign country really 'loved' americans. Of course, that would depend on your interpretation of 'love'; if you mean by that a general 'goodwill' or 'liking' it would be more correct then something like 'adoring'.
"This was illustrated by the response immediately after 9/11. Remember "We All Today are USA"? Remember people in every city on the planet marching, crying, holding vigils and saying they love America and that the attacks broke their hearts?"
No, I don't remember that. First of all, I doubt it was in 'every city on the planet' - that reeks hyperbole, actually. Secondly, in some cities, they were marching and crying allright, but rather of joy that the USA got hit. This s particular the case in a lot of cities in the Middle East, where the USA has been seen as an imperialistic agressor since the last decade.
There was a lot of sympathy in Europe and other countries, however. But that sympathy shouldn't be construed as 'love for america and amercans', but rather sympathy for the thousands of victims of such a brutal act, regardless of their country of origin.
"For a moment in time, we held the sympathy of a world that looked to us. And then we blew it."
True.
"Some people hate America, including some Americans."
Well, more correct would be to say that *a lot* of people hate americans. And even more *dislike* America, or at least its current government (and by extension sometimes half of its population). You find the former more with middle-east countries, but the latter is currently wide spread, even among traditional allies like the europeans.
"They love Americans and they loved the America that gave them hope. That stood for ideals, cared about peace and freedom and being both an example to and a beacon for other free civilizations world-wide.[snip]"
I think you're being way off here, in an over-optimistic, self-indulgent way. I would rather say that some parts of the world, especially Europe, was considerable more sympathetic towards the USA (the 'love' and 'hope' thing is largely hyperbole, sorry) after WW2. In fact, Europeans had a reasonable amount of sympathy for the USA under the Clinton-administration; I can't remember the same anti-amercanism-feelings back then (at least not to the huge degree it has today), and it's not like it's THAT long ago.
"Just because they criticize the country doesn't mean they hate it."
Well, large parts of middle-east populations do actually hate the country. Western countries are more moderate, but there too (at least nowadays) large parts hate the bush-government, and to an extension, part of the populace too (since half voted for bush, after all). Though I think 'despise' would be a better term than 'hate' where European feelings are concerned.
"try considering that just maybe we lost the sympathy, affection and respect of the entire world on our own watch and of our own accord"
True.
"Let's do a little less flag-waving[]"
Good idea. But note that your own post isn't completely void of such (slightly veiled) flag-waving.
I think, all by all, you did try to give an honest post about your own people/country, without trying to blame everyone else but the USA. In that respect, you are to be applauded, and way more sincere than a lot of other USA-posters around here.
That said, you still have some of that weird, self-flattering, narcistic worldview about the world and the place of the USA in it. I think that's largely due
"The point the parent was so logically trying to make is that we cannot possibly know the purpose of omnipotent, omniscient God."
The point of the parent poster was, that this doesn't matter. *Omnipotent* actually wants to say he is completely ALL powerful, he can do ANYTHING, he has an INFINITE number of possibilities to arive to whatever goal he wants to arrive.
Therefor, whatever purpose God wanted to achieve, he could have achieved it by other means, without involving any suffering - unless the suffering was the endgoal itself, in which case the proclaimed 'love' he has for us is either false, or is a very sadistic, twisted kind of love.
Now, one could argue that when god said 'love' he meant something like 'hate' or 'spite', but that's only semantic wordplay. If he really meant the reverse of what he said, being omnipotent, he should have known how humans interpreted those terms, and thus he could as wel have chosen the right terms. If he intentionally didn't use the right terms, he was already proving he wasn't all that benevolent and good in the sense that we think about being benevolent and good. And if He isn't benevolent and good, why would anyone want to believe in him, unless out of fear, perhaps?
"Parents often cause "pain" on the part of their children to re-inforce a behavioral standard. This does not need to constitute spanking, because even a "time-out" can be considered very "painful" to a young child. However, you would not consider a parent who is trying to guide their child toward adulthood as not loving their child. Rather, the parent who never disciplines their child and never re-directs their immaturity is the one who hates their child because they do not want them to grow up to be well-adjusted adults who are mentally prepared to face the world."
This is all a very interesting analogy, with one major difference: parents are no omnipotent beings. In fact, you actually make the case that God isn't either omnipotent, or isn't loving/caring. Say, using your example, parents are omnipotent and love their children. Being omnipotent, they can choose whatever they want to guide their child, including options where the child is guided, WITHOUT hurting it, or - to counter any further semantics about the term 'hurt' - where the child does not experience the guidence as hurtfull or painful.
Now, if a parent had those oportunities, but STILL went for the option to guide his child in a way that it hurts the child, would you call those parents 'loving'? If the guidance can be arrived at with or without causing pain (which an omnipotent being would be able to), then obviously, a parent not wanting to cause pain to their child would with the latter option.
"Who are you to tell God that His way is the wrong way or that He is not loving? Can we even be totally sure that we completely understand what love really is?"
As said before, this doesn't matter. Whatever his goals or intentions or reasonings are, if he's omnipotent and omniscient he should know how WE feel about things, also in regard to what we consider love and pain. He still had the choice to not let us suffer in the sense that WE experience suffering. A god as you would have it, lacks anything what *we* would consider empathy, love, pain, suffering, etc. If he lacks those feelings - even in the presumed 'limited' manner as we experience them - he can't be omnipotent and omniscient.
All this would also lead to another contradiction, since another important tenent in christian belief is that 'we were created in his image'. In that case, it is difficult to believe he has no understanding about what love/pain/suffering/caring means to us. That, or he doesn't care about it.
Your mistake is trying to point out that we can't possibly know what an omnipotent being has in store for us, while the point rather is that it doesn't matter what he has in store for us (or what the endgoal is); as an *omnipotent* being, he could have chosen a way to reach that goal in a way we didn't need to suffer as
"The bottom line is that if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient creator, then you believe in an evil, sadistic being, by definition[]"
Indeed, this is the only logical deduction one can make. If you accept it as a given that God is omnipotent, omniscient and cares and loves about us, humans, then there is a clear contradictio in terminis.
I'll respond to some critics of your post below.;-)
Well, actually, many animals do adapt to their environment (to varying degrees), but that change in behaviour isn't hereditary (which otherwise would constitute the obsolete Lamarckism, as you correctly point out).
You know, pondering about it, there is only one thing I have difficulty understanding with evolutionism (which I am a strong proponent of). I don't know if you're a biologist or not, but if someone could give me a good explanation I would be glad.
In the case of social groups of insects, like bees and ants, you have different classes/groups of individual insects within one hive, some of which are highly specialised. I can't quite understand how that works, using darwinistic evolution. When one follows the theory of evolutionism with, say, mammals, it makes sense: a genetic change in sperm or egg can lead to an indivdual who is less or more adapted to their environment, and this indivdual passes those traits to his/her offspring.
But, in the case of social insects like ants, you have one queen (and usually one dar) who supplies all the sperm and eggs that the queen uses to create her offspring, resulting in sometimes very specialised ants/bees. But how did that specialisation come about in a heritary sense, when those specialised ants are unfertile, and can't reproduce themselves?
So, how does it work? Say, the queen lays an egg, which has a mutation in it, which evolves into a more specialised ant which is beneficial for the whole hive. Very well. The hive survives better through it. But HOW does that ant give its benefical adaptation/specialisation to any offspring, when it can't reproduce?
This too, is subtly wrong. An animal can (in varying degrees) adapt to it's surroundings, but that adaptive behaviour on itself isn't hereditary (well, unless one is still a believer of Lamarckism;-)
"and the different ones either are already adapted or are not already adapted at the moment they're born"
This too is subtly wrong. The term 'adapted' makes only sense if you're talking about an organism in relation to its environment. Since the environments in which an organism lives can change, it is not necessarily true that an organism is adapted or not the moment they are born.
To give an example: say, a bird on an island gets born with a bigger beak. That beak makes it more difficult to catch flies, but easier to eat seeds. Now, is that bird (more) adapted, or not? The question can not be answered without knowing the environment in which it lives, but even then it is possible that, due to drought, for instance, the environment changes. So the bird may be born in an environment which makes it a disadvantage to have a big (or small) beak, but live (and prosper) in the changed environment where he lives his life.
There is no such thing as a predetermined 'adapted or not', since adaptation has always to be seen in relation to the (changing) environment in which the organism will live.
All by all, you made good points, though. It shows why ID is extremely unlikely, unless 'the creator' didn't know anything about what he was doing and his work isn't anything better then what a blind force like evolution would come at.
"To demonstrate the difference, I'll make a theory that all objects have a tendency to move towards their natural position in space, which in the hammers case happens to be Earth's center; the hammer falling fits this theory, but does it prove it ?"
If your theory would have fitted every observation thusfar (and better then any other theory), you would actually have a claim that it is 'proven' (with the notion that no theory is ever *absolutely* proven, ofcourse, but that would be more of a semantic interpretation about what constitutes 'proof'. No (absolute) proof of *anything* can be given, not even Descartes' "I think, therefor I am". The concept 'proof', thus, must be viewed in a pragmatic sense, as most humans understand and use it. Much like legal terms, it would be more like 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' rather than absolute proof - which is a purely imaginary, philosophical concept).
But, well, actually, it doesn't fit the theory, because, if you take that same hammer to the moon, it falls towards the center of the moon. If the natural tendency of a hammer is to move to its 'natural position in space', and Earth's center is that natural position for hammers (dixit yourself), the hammer should 'fall' away from the moon towards Earth.
I believe an astronaut already did that actual thing (releasing a feather and a hammer), and since the hammer did not fall towards earth, your theory does not fit the observed reality.:-)
"Observations are trivial truths, and such truth only exists for the observing individual."
I don't think this is actually true, as it would dispute the notion that there is any reality outside that which an individual observes. It's just that we can't say anything about it, unless it is observed (which is where the xians get it wrong)...but on itself, it's not dependend on the observation of an individual. 'Observing' is a dual concept: for it to do so, you need an observer and something to observe. Clearly, you are (half) right: if you don't have the observer, there can't be an observation. But, clearly there has to be a reality to be observed too, because if there was nothing to observe, no observation would be possible neither.
Say, in its simplest form, I see a wall. When I try to go through it, I bump my head. Does that mean the truth of the existance of that wall only exist to me, as an indivual, who observed it? If so, it would be difficult to argue how that would be the case, if all other individuals (even blindfolded) would hit that wall (which is supposed to be only there by *my* observation of it).
Since they are all (other) individuals, some of which can't even observe the wall untill they hit it, one would statistically expect that at least some didn't hit anything if the wall was only there through my personal observation.
Unless ofcourse, one would claim the wall didn't start to be truelly there untill the moment I observed it, but it was a reality from that moment on. Such a reasoning is solipsistic in nature however, and leads to a lot of other contradictions.
In any pragmatical sense, I think we all know there *is* a reality out there, which exist independend of the observer. The *form* in which it is observed may vary, the explanation/interpretation of the observation may vary, the question what is the best approximation of that observable truth may vary... but the fact that there IS a 'truth out there';-) can hardly be disputed (well, unless purely philosophically).
Exactly, and why would anyone want to follow a petty god anyway?;-)
Xian belief (as described in the bible) is so piled up with contradictions, that it is mindboggling some people just keep using it as anything more then a fairy-tale composed by a group of superstitious nomads.
The discrepancies between the god described in the old testament and the new one, alone, would already indicate a shizofrenic God.
In a certain sense, however, many things would make more sense if, indeed, God was a petty and jealous being, who didn't mind ordering His people to destroy a city and kill everyone in it, including women and children. However, this is something most xians vehemently deny.
"There's no reason not to provide child molestors with psychiatric treatment."
True in principle, in as far as people who commit crimes due to mental illnesses deserve treatement.
"After all, they are quite clearly mentally ill."
Well, that would actually depend on the historical context (and the society in which it happens). I know it's not a popular thing to say, but it just so happens I recently read in a scientific magazine about homosexuality (including what we now would call pedophilia) which actually shows that it was rather common, accepted and often seen as beneficial (also for and by the youngster) in ancient times and in different cultures (ancient -greek, -roman, -japanese culture, etc.) Just to show that 'quite clearly mentally ill' is not quite as clear; it's rather a fairly recent view we have of it (which, according to the article, started only in the 17th century in Europe), which has primarily to do with how our current society views it, not (inherently) on the behaviour itself. I'm not debating the value (or lack thereof) of those other viewpoints, but the least one should acknowledge is, that 'quite clearly', in different times or in other cultures it wasn't considered a mental illness at all.
Just to caution you about making broad statements which would imply a universal truth which isn't universal at all.
"Half the problem with western criminal justice systems is that they think punishment is enough, and never try to actually correct the behaviour."
True. Though in all honesty, I don't think the Russian/chinese/japanese/etc. justice systems do much better, and, in fact, often are worse.
"And I suggest hanging George Bush in order to protect the Iraqi people."
I'm actually hoping you use hyperbole, here. At the point where the USA/Iraq is at now, and without knowing who would replace Bush, it is doubtful anything drastic would change for the iraqi people. In any case, it's highly unlikely that it would actually protect Iraqis, if you look at it in a practical sense.
"World War 2 was caused by the fact that Germany was imposed with crippling war reparations after World War 1, and suffered under terms of surrender that were destroying their entire society. That's why the US had the sense to help rebuild Germany and the rest of Europe after WW2 (that, and the fact that it served as a form of workfare to keep Americans employed, since Marshall plan dollars had to be spent on American goods). "
Largely true. And, of course, because they feared the growing influence of communism in europe, and thought this would also be a way to combat it. That said, the marshallplan did help europe back then, we should acknowledge that too, whatever the reasons were. (Not that it serves as an excuse to try to quench EU-criticism of the USA today).
"Rabid nationalism and prejudice have never caused anything more serious than a civil protest or a rally. War is about economics -- period."
I have to disagree with that one. Certainly, in most wars, economics have played a part, but it's certainly not the only cause or reason why countries fought eachother. For instance, I think it has as much to do with simply the ego's of monarchs (and later on, dictators) which ruled the european countries for the majority of warridden times in Europe. Also, there have been wars where whole tribes were exterminated as an act of revenge (or the showing of supremacy), where, after the victory, they just went back, and did no effort to economically benefit from that victory.
Ofcourse, most of the time, there is an economical aspect in it, and one would be a fool to claim otherwise. However, rabid nationalism (or chauvinism) is much more dangerous in getting countries to fight eachother than you seem to imply.
"It's caused by the fact that Americans are a) stupid, b) gullible, and c) religious zealots."
This is, again, a rather dubious claim, because it's too broad a statement. Americans are just like any other people, at least in essence. Yo
"[]you take one thing to mean another and then attempt to generically imply everyone in the religion is of that opinion."
Let's say, for arguments' sake, this is true. What about a refined (similar) question, then? Who would be most suited for the project, if the project was directly related to evolutionism, and one of the candidates was a christian with a strict interpretation of the Bible (including the creation-tale), and the other, say, an atheist who uses only logic and observational evidence as a basis of his believes?
If you still argue that both are equal because both are qualified and belief is of no influence on it, then the premise is, that it DOES NOT have influence on his work. It therefor follows, that he has to act on the observational evidence he finds, not on his beliefs. In that sense, the parent poster was right to claim they can't let their belief change their behaviour in the real world (at least, as far as the project is involved).
"If he were to put the secrets of the universe in front of us on a silver platter, that would destroy faith."
Not at all, unless you mean *blind* faith.
If I were to suddenly see all the secrets of the universe on a silver platter, my faith would certainly augment that there is a being powerful and all-knowing enough to be called god.
In fact, if such a thing would happen, I suspect milions would have more faith in such a being than that which they have now.
A master chef doesn't want to impart his recipes, because he's petty enough to consider those his own property, which only he has the right to it. Basically, he wants to 'guard' his recipes from being used by others. Are you claiming God has the same tendencies?
"Might I ask, is that necessary for science? Because if so, it sort of contradicts what you've said."
Yes, it is necessary for science to accept there is a reality. It doesn't have a preconceived idea about how that reality is or should be, however. Nor does it claim to have found the ultimate reality; science only postulates the closest approximation of observational reality, nothing more, nothing less.
I don't see how that contradicts anything he said.
People arguing against science on the grounds that all things are based on those beliefs of the scientists, effectively deny that there would be a reality outside what which people believe. Thus, they argue, belief in god or belief in science is on equal grounds.
This reasoning is solipsistic in nature; all reality is only part of ones' one mind (or belief). Two counterarguments can be given for this reasoning:
The first one is, that people who say that, don't actually follow what they preach, and thus show a high degree of hypocrisy within the context of their worldview. Even you (or posters of the same ilk before) do not really act as if no reality outside yourself exist (well, maybe if you're a particlar case of a sociopath). You *argument* as if you do (like with your speedometer example), but in a practical sense, you are well aware that if you see a wall, there is a reality of that wall, and that wall is not something you just happen to believe in. (If you truelly belief there is no wall where observation tells you there is one; please run through it, and thus prove that it was only imaginary).
The second point is, that using that defense, it is impossible to explain how science would make any progress - nay - have ANY change not conforming to the 'general wisdom' at all. If science is just about 'believing' stuff, just like believing in God, then how do you explain that science proved the earth wasn't flat, while, during that time, the general belief was that it WAS flat. Or that the Earth wasn't the center of our solarsystem, when all people during that time (including the majority of the scientists) believed it was.
If science couldn't observe something what constitutes a reality, outside ones' belief, then science would have concluded that Earth was the center, because that was the general accepted belief during that time.
Both points indicate a severe weakness in the claim that science is just what scientists 'believe'. In contrast, the 'belief' in God (as described in the bible) has no means of establishing anything about the reality outside ones' (the believers') belief.
A manner in which to combat global warming is to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching earth! Now, instead of the ridulous expensive and unfeasable giant space-reflectors, thanks to human waste management (well, rather the lack of it) we have a viable means to do so!
Without knowing it, we are already heading in the good direction; we only need a concerted effort to further improve upon. If we can muster enough fine particles and bring a dustcloud of debris around our planet in low orbit, thick enough to temper the suns rays, we're compensating for our pollution here down on earth!
When I say "severely restricted, if not forbidden outright", I mean in regard to treating them as animals.
I had to think about the SF-book 'startide rising' where dolphins and apes are genetically altered to be as intelligent as us. If we ever create a chimera individual (or a race) with an intelligence comming close to our own (note: how to evaluate that, though?) they should have the same rights as ordinary people.
The problem is, you will always have a grey area.
Then again, I already think expirements on primates should be illegal now too. (I am, however, not a green tree-hugger zealot who thinks all animal testing should stop; as long as there are no viable alternatives to it, I think some animal testing to ensure the safety for humans is acceptable).
Anyway, I think, in the future, sooner or later this issue is going to become one of the great ethical dillema's (together with the classics of abortion and euthanasia).
Isn't that term used to describe *animals* which have cells originated from different zygotes?
Or, it could be that the parents are named Typhon and Echidna.
In a slightly related note: we've seen on slashdot FA about mouse with human braintissue, recently sheep with 15% human DNA in it, etc. I'm curious how far one will go in this, and where to draw the line. I can accept most human-like organs grown in animals for the benefit of medical advancement (e.g.replacing ones' organs without the current difficulties would be a huge bonus), but of course, there is the problem of easier animal-to-human virus contamination.
That said, what about the brain? Surely, people must realise there are ethical dillema's in regard to this. (And, no, I'm not arguing from religious grounds; I'm an atheist). The problem is, what do you do with, say, a monkey who has 30% human braintissue, or 50%, or 70%? when does it stop being a monkey, and when does it start being human?
Politicians and courts don't seem to have thought about the matter yet. I guess it will remain thus, untill some medical experiments are done on an ape who actually is more human than ape, and has a scientist willing to acknowledge that. When you have a chimera that is half human and half animal (including the brains), and thus the distinction becomes blurred; what or whome are you experimenting on? Is it still ethical? Is it solely a matter of being able to communicate one is selfconscious? (To remain consistent in that case, one should allow experiments on infants an severely retarded people too).
My two euro's on the matter is, that research where the brains of animals are genetically altered into a more human form should be severely restricted, if not forbidden outright.
"I try to reprimand my fellow atheists occasionally when they step out of line[]"
If you reprimande me, you're not my fellow atheist!
(well, I'm trying to uphold the sheep-like groupthink here;-)
Maybe I should say: "Never noticed it!":-)
"We're good, normal people who just happen to not believe in a deity or deities."
Heh. Well, even that could be construed as: 'good, normal people = do not believe in a deity'.
But, seriously, one has fanatics on every side. Personally, I don't care too much as long as xians (and the like) leave other people alone. Being a libertarian atheist, I think the right of people to choose to believe in anything they want is paramount, as long as it's confined to a personal matter. That said - and here many xians feel offended - one can not give people who believe in the idea of a 'god' (as described in the bible) any more credibility than those who would believe in Allah, or in Shiva, or Inti (the Inca Sun god), or in tooth-fairies. Believers don't seem to comprehend that this is inherent to the fact that there is equal proof for any of those concepts (which is actually none at all). If one wants to remain consistent; if one gives value to one such concept or 'belief', one has to give as much value to the other concepts, since they all have the same validity.
It is strange, then, that xians often portray atheists as intolerant, while, in fact, it are they that find it difficult to accept that someone believing in a magical dragon in his garage has the same credibility as someone claiming there is a god. In a pragmatic sense, they'll probably think: 'A dragon?! That guy must be a nutcase!'. So why do they get upset if some people say the same of them? I too think such a guy is a nutcase, I confess (though strictly speaking, one would have to follow the reasoning of Carl Sagan on this, to be fair). But then, why not think Xians (and their ilk) are nutcases too, for exactly the same reasons?
But you know, that's ok: people have the right to believe in crazy things, it's their right - as long as they don't bother others with it. Many people think homeopatic water works too; they may believe so if they wish - as long as they don't expect me to tax-pay the social-medical expenses of it. I, for one, think it's more valuable to use logic and rational thinking, when debating the value of a claim. Everything else amounts to opinion-spouting, and there are thirteen in a dozen of that.
"After a point, I wonder if they're really preventing monopolistic practices are just preventing competition altogether."
It's difficult to imagine how the EU would prevent competition altogether if they fine corporations for anti-competitive behaviour.
The notion that *only* USA companies would be sued for that is totally bogus and plainly untrue. It may be that USA-ones *seem* to happen more because:
1)It gets a higher profile when one is sued, because they make more fuss about it (together with the 'look, it's the EU against USA' attitude)
2)USA corporations are more prone to anti-competitive behaviour (maybe due to the inherent strong corporatism in the USA where one easily buys politicians)
3)EU-corporations are as bad as USA ones, only they can cover it up better
Those 3 options are each more likely than the EU-courts singling out companies because they're from the USA.
Slashdot Mirror
"What is hitting your head? An electromagnetic force that gets translated into electrical signals by your nerves and processed through your brain. What if the wall was an illusion and the force was caused by something else. It doesn't deny the "truth" that you observed yourself hitting a wall, but at the same time your observation doesn't make hitting the wall true (you hit something else)."
Yes, but that doesn't really matter. for two reasons. First, the semantic one: you ask 'what if the if the wall was an illusion, and the force was caused by something else'. Well, I feel a force which comes from something else, and it has all the characteristics of a wall...does it matter if I call it a 'wall' which I bumped at, or 'something that looks exactly like a wall but is another force'? the truth remains the same: that you observed something which looks and feels like a wall. I could as well call that 'unknown force that looks like a wall'...wall. Or whatever. It wouldn't change the fact I oberved it.
The second thing is, it doesn't matter in the context I used it; namely as an example of why a theory that says something only exists when an individual observes it, if there is no external reality to which it refers (be it a wall or a force, or whatever we call it). The wall (/force) doesn't exist only because I observe it as an indicidual, otherwise, other indivduals wouldn't experience that wall/force when I'm not observing it anymore.
Meh. All this is getting too much into a philosophical debate, instead of a scientific debate.
Anway, I think we both agree there is 'some' external reality which we observe, not that that external reality creates itself when an individual tries to observe it.
While, seen as a general statement, anyone with common sense will not deny that the USA is not *intrinsical* acting diferently then most other countries, I feel you are a bit to easy going in glaring over the differences of *degree* and *level* at which the USA tries to impose it's will, military, economical and otherwise, on others.
Certainly, other countries do the same, but the degree in which the USA does it, currently dwarfs all other western countries. One has to acknowledge that, while almost all countries have, during one time in their history, had imperialistic tendencies, tho ONLY one who is CURRENTLY pursuing it with so much vigot, is the USA. It's a bit too easy to my taste, to just glare over the things they do, with as excuse that 'oh, well, other countries have done it too, nothing new to see here'.
The current anti-americanism (depending on how you define it) is well deserved, because of two reasons: they are the ones who are most aggressive in their international dealings with other countries *while at the same time* claiming the loudest how other people/countries should behave, while doing the opposite themselves (e.g. they're currently the biggest hypocrites on the block). One would have to look at the last empirialistic empire, the U.K. in the 19th century when they 'rules the waves' to find such a stupifying behaviour with total disregard of other people and countries, and the willingness to solely act as ruler or 'policeman' of the world. I don't see any current european country trying to be the boss of the planet, or acting as if the world is their playground - certainly not with the vigor and zeal that the US shows these last decenia.
Thus, while you may argue: other countries do it or have done it too - which is true - it denies that the level or degree in which you do something matters much. I refute that. It would be akin to saying: "well, all kids are rough" and thus acting as if all rough things kids do are nothing special, when one has one kid giving a kick now and then, and another kid who constantly stomps every other kid around untill they bleed or have broken bones.
Yes, both kids hurt other kids...but I would claim the latter kid is a far greater problem.
The same goes for countries and their behaviour. If you look at the last two decades; who refused to sign the kyoto protocol because they didn't give a damn about our environment (compared to the sweet bucks they got from corporations)? Who was against the creation of an international court? Who was the main instigator and participant of the Iraqi war? Which country is most aggressively condemning countries which seek nuclear power, while they themselves have tons of nukes?
Was it any of those myriads of other countries you claim do the same?
There is no denying that, at least for the last decades, while some countries do some of the same things some of the time, the USA does all of those things all of the time.
There is a difference in degree and level at which countries are flaunting international agreements, being hypocritical in world-affairs, having imperialistic tendencies, trying to coerce other governments in doing their bidding, ivading other countries, etc. The criticism should reflect that degree, and therefor, I don't find it unwaranted per se if the USA gets more criticism for their behaviour than other countries; they currently act the worst too, on the international stage.
Here you go:
o d-giants_115144066169369785.html
;-)
http://newsbyte.blogspot.com/2006/06/attack-of-fo
In essence, it's not so much as 'fear' (well, if one would mean 'irrational fear') as common sense, not to allow it untill it's proven to be safe as a food, and as a new organism into the ecology (at the very least, when genes are incorporated which are cross-species). And there is also the principle question about who should be legally responsibe; currently, a GM company can sue me, if their GM-genes pop-up in my plants (and seen this is about living organisms, one can not control the dispersion of it). So, potentially, a farmer would have to pay up, because of the patents on those genes which polluted the DNA of his own plants (even if he he actually wanted to keep his own plants pure for his own breeding purposes. What I would want to see, is a law against 'gentic pollution', where the *poluter* (such as monsanto) has to pay for the polution it cause to the farmers' plants.
After all, if a chemical company has a patent on a chemical component, but by accident it gets on the land of somebody else, then it's THEY which have to clean it (and pay) up. I don't think anyone would accept that chemical factory to sue the landowner saying there is a patented component on his property which he didn't pay for. There need to be a law governing these things for GM-crops too, BEFORE we allow it. I'm really curious to see what Monsanto would do, if it risks getting sued by everyone their patented DNA-strings pop up.
Btw, I'm preparing a rebutal to your parent post, though I consider myself 'moderate', since there is little doubt the USA has also great people and done great things. But hey, this is slashdot, if it weren't for the (more interesting) discussions, I wouldn't be here.
"What the majority of people think is not necessarily the best course of action -- the will of the people can be a very dangerous thing."
While true, this is a non-argument. *Exactly* the same can be said of any system consisting of humans that rule other humans.
What a small, chosen elite of people think is not necessarily the best course of action -- the will of that oligarchy can be a very dangerous thing.
See?
"Whether or not you consider the US a "shining example to the world" depends a lot on the time scale you consider."
That's why I said: 'First of all, the respect and love has changed (going up and down) throughout the history of the USA'. However, if you're comparing different time-periods, it gets rather complicated; for instance, the mass-flux of Irish people in the 19th century, was that due to the fact they all thought the USA was such a shining example, or because they we're starving due to failed crops?
In any case, maybe the USA had a certain elan back then; seeing documentaries about and books written by immigrants of that time, one must admit that for many of the dirt-poor working-class people of europe, the USA surely seemed like something shiny to those people back then. That said, OUR timeframe is the 21st century, and the time that the USA probably was that shining example, has long since past. The problem is, most americans don't seem to realise that. It seems like they're still half-convinced they're the best thing that walk this Earth, that their country is the best to live in, etc. As a european, I simply do not understand where this ego-flattery is comming from. Is it a compensation for some kind of inferiority-complex? Is it just chauvinsim at one side, and ignorance of the world on the other?
If I look it at my own country, I can look at it in far more objective terms, and I have no problem with acknowledging the superiority of other countries in many aspects. We have top-notch medical care and have an exellent educationsystem. Our economy and living standard is also pretty good, though the scandinavian countries do better. Our military might is puny and laughable, and one of the weakest of any european country. Our taxes completely suck and are close to the worst in the whole of Europe.
There you have it, the strong and weak points of my country. I do not feel the need to portray my country as the pinacle of democracy (even though we have a more elaborate system then the two-party system used in anglo-saxon countries). I do not feel like indulging myself (or other citizens) in self-flattery as if we are being 'loved' by all other people who dwell this planet.
"These days, you're not even considered a respectable country unless you have a democratic government, and the US deserves a hell of a lot of the credit for it. If that's not being a shining example, I don't know what is"
You DID say 'these days', right? These days, you're far from being a shining example of a democratic governent. In fact, since the debacle with the elections (Al Gore), the democracy as it is practised in the US, has become something of laughing stock to many democratic countries in europe. I'm sure it was quite an impressive feat back in the founding days, but then again, the UK had already a parliament: pretty impressive too. the french had the french revolution, overthrowing the monarchy, which had held absolutepower for centuries; an ipressive feat too. In fact, the city-state of ancient greece, Athens, had one of the first democratic systems in the history of men: quite impressive, for that time.
Moral of the story: the USA has certainly done good things, has achieved great things, etc. But so have other countries. Do not expect (or delude yourself in thinking that there is) some sort of worldwide 'awe' or 'love', certainly not in our current timeframe, and *certainly* not since Bush came to power.
If the americans (well, their mentality) could show a little less arrogance, I'm sure international relations would improve a lot. And yes, Europeans are well aware that the USA isn't a coherent entity in that respect; not all americans are ignorant rednecks. But there still are an awful lot of them... and what's worse, they're currently in power.
"Throw the mob enough bones and they'll be happy; that's the democratic principle."
Well, actually, that's an ancient principle used by that other imperialistic power (who did a far better job at conquering, though); the Roman Empire. The principle is traditionaly known as 'panem et circensis', which litery means 'bread and play'. Thus, the governing elite of that time already knew quite well how to keep the populace at bay; give it food (grain) and entertainment (arena-fights). As long as the hoi palloi could be dulled by those two things, where their stomac was filled and they were kept busy with trivial amusement, they could manipalute the grey masses.
Sadly enough, after 2000 years, we aren't one iota better. While the bread has become 'charity' and the arena-fights 'media-entertainment', the basic principle has remained the same. Of course, this is not limited to USA-politicians, though they have such a high degree of perfection in using this principle to manipulate their citizens, that it has almost become an art on itself.
You're not being deliberatly daft, are you?
What does your examples have anything to do with the used reasoning?
If your country/companies DID allow drinking, porn, drugs, etc. inside your own country, but forbade it when other countries/companies would offer the same services or goods, THEN the WTO would rightfully give a reprimande. This has nothing to do with morals on itself, but with a consistent implementation of the rules of free trade.
In any case, because I suspect you're just trolling: the USA signed up with the WTO and agreed to abide by it's rules and decisions; so fucking abide by it already! If you didn't like to have to abide by WTO rules, you shouldn't have entered it!
"One could argue that making possession of marijuana illegal is also arbitrary since cigarettes and alcohol are also legal."
One most certainly could, indeed. And rightfully so.
Yes, we can all see the irony, but few of us are surprised at the continuing hypocrisy of the USA.
"Despite whatever misguided beliefs you may have, America has always been highly respected and loved by people all over the world."
Not true. First of all, the respect and love has changed (going up and down) throughout the history of the USA, and secondly, the respect and love has never been universal 'all over the world'. In fact, I don't think there has ever been a time where the USA wasn't hated or disrespected by at least *some* part of the world.
And even in the best of times, I'm not sure one could say any population of a foreign country really 'loved' americans. Of course, that would depend on your interpretation of 'love'; if you mean by that a general 'goodwill' or 'liking' it would be more correct then something like 'adoring'.
"This was illustrated by the response immediately after 9/11. Remember "We All Today are USA"? Remember people in every city on the planet marching, crying, holding vigils and saying they love America and that the attacks broke their hearts?"
No, I don't remember that. First of all, I doubt it was in 'every city on the planet' - that reeks hyperbole, actually. Secondly, in some cities, they were marching and crying allright, but rather of joy that the USA got hit. This s particular the case in a lot of cities in the Middle East, where the USA has been seen as an imperialistic agressor since the last decade.
There was a lot of sympathy in Europe and other countries, however. But that sympathy shouldn't be construed as 'love for america and amercans', but rather sympathy for the thousands of victims of such a brutal act, regardless of their country of origin.
"For a moment in time, we held the sympathy of a world that looked to us. And then we blew it."
True.
"Some people hate America, including some Americans."
Well, more correct would be to say that *a lot* of people hate americans. And even more *dislike* America, or at least its current government (and by extension sometimes half of its population). You find the former more with middle-east countries, but the latter is currently wide spread, even among traditional allies like the europeans.
"They love Americans and they loved the America that gave them hope. That stood for ideals, cared about peace and freedom and being both an example to and a beacon for other free civilizations world-wide.[snip]"
I think you're being way off here, in an over-optimistic, self-indulgent way. I would rather say that some parts of the world, especially Europe, was considerable more sympathetic towards the USA (the 'love' and 'hope' thing is largely hyperbole, sorry) after WW2. In fact, Europeans had a reasonable amount of sympathy for the USA under the Clinton-administration; I can't remember the same anti-amercanism-feelings back then (at least not to the huge degree it has today), and it's not like it's THAT long ago.
"Just because they criticize the country doesn't mean they hate it."
Well, large parts of middle-east populations do actually hate the country. Western countries are more moderate, but there too (at least nowadays) large parts hate the bush-government, and to an extension, part of the populace too (since half voted for bush, after all). Though I think 'despise' would be a better term than 'hate' where European feelings are concerned.
"try considering that just maybe we lost the sympathy, affection and respect of the entire world on our own watch and of our own accord"
True.
"Let's do a little less flag-waving[]"
Good idea. But note that your own post isn't completely void of such (slightly veiled) flag-waving.
I think, all by all, you did try to give an honest post about your own people/country, without trying to blame everyone else but the USA. In that respect, you are to be applauded, and way more sincere than a lot of other USA-posters around here.
That said, you still have some of that weird, self-flattering, narcistic worldview about the world and the place of the USA in it. I think that's largely due
"The point the parent was so logically trying to make is that we cannot possibly know the purpose of omnipotent, omniscient God."
The point of the parent poster was, that this doesn't matter. *Omnipotent* actually wants to say he is completely ALL powerful, he can do ANYTHING, he has an INFINITE number of possibilities to arive to whatever goal he wants to arrive.
Therefor, whatever purpose God wanted to achieve, he could have achieved it by other means, without involving any suffering - unless the suffering was the endgoal itself, in which case the proclaimed 'love' he has for us is either false, or is a very sadistic, twisted kind of love.
Now, one could argue that when god said 'love' he meant something like 'hate' or 'spite', but that's only semantic wordplay. If he really meant the reverse of what he said, being omnipotent, he should have known how humans interpreted those terms, and thus he could as wel have chosen the right terms. If he intentionally didn't use the right terms, he was already proving he wasn't all that benevolent and good in the sense that we think about being benevolent and good. And if He isn't benevolent and good, why would anyone want to believe in him, unless out of fear, perhaps?
"Parents often cause "pain" on the part of their children to re-inforce a behavioral standard. This does not need to constitute spanking, because even a "time-out" can be considered very "painful" to a young child. However, you would not consider a parent who is trying to guide their child toward adulthood as not loving their child. Rather, the parent who never disciplines their child and never re-directs their immaturity is the one who hates their child because they do not want them to grow up to be well-adjusted adults who are mentally prepared to face the world."
This is all a very interesting analogy, with one major difference: parents are no omnipotent beings. In fact, you actually make the case that God isn't either omnipotent, or isn't loving/caring. Say, using your example, parents are omnipotent and love their children. Being omnipotent, they can choose whatever they want to guide their child, including options where the child is guided, WITHOUT hurting it, or - to counter any further semantics about the term 'hurt' - where the child does not experience the guidence as hurtfull or painful.
Now, if a parent had those oportunities, but STILL went for the option to guide his child in a way that it hurts the child, would you call those parents 'loving'? If the guidance can be arrived at with or without causing pain (which an omnipotent being would be able to), then obviously, a parent not wanting to cause pain to their child would with the latter option.
"Who are you to tell God that His way is the wrong way or that He is not loving? Can we even be totally sure that we completely understand what love really is?"
As said before, this doesn't matter. Whatever his goals or intentions or reasonings are, if he's omnipotent and omniscient he should know how WE feel about things, also in regard to what we consider love and pain. He still had the choice to not let us suffer in the sense that WE experience suffering. A god as you would have it, lacks anything what *we* would consider empathy, love, pain, suffering, etc. If he lacks those feelings - even in the presumed 'limited' manner as we experience them - he can't be omnipotent and omniscient.
All this would also lead to another contradiction, since another important tenent in christian belief is that 'we were created in his image'. In that case, it is difficult to believe he has no understanding about what love/pain/suffering/caring means to us. That, or he doesn't care about it.
Your mistake is trying to point out that we can't possibly know what an omnipotent being has in store for us, while the point rather is that it doesn't matter what he has in store for us (or what the endgoal is); as an *omnipotent* being, he could have chosen a way to reach that goal in a way we didn't need to suffer as
"The bottom line is that if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient creator, then you believe in an evil, sadistic being, by definition[]"
;-)
Indeed, this is the only logical deduction one can make. If you accept it as a given that God is omnipotent, omniscient and cares and loves about us, humans, then there is a clear contradictio in terminis.
I'll respond to some critics of your post below.
"Animals don't adapt to their environment."
Well, actually, many animals do adapt to their environment (to varying degrees), but that change in behaviour isn't hereditary (which otherwise would constitute the obsolete Lamarckism, as you correctly point out).
You know, pondering about it, there is only one thing I have difficulty understanding with evolutionism (which I am a strong proponent of). I don't know if you're a biologist or not, but if someone could give me a good explanation I would be glad.
In the case of social groups of insects, like bees and ants, you have different classes/groups of individual insects within one hive, some of which are highly specialised. I can't quite understand how that works, using darwinistic evolution. When one follows the theory of evolutionism with, say, mammals, it makes sense: a genetic change in sperm or egg can lead to an indivdual who is less or more adapted to their environment, and this indivdual passes those traits to his/her offspring.
But, in the case of social insects like ants, you have one queen (and usually one dar) who supplies all the sperm and eggs that the queen uses to create her offspring, resulting in sometimes very specialised ants/bees. But how did that specialisation come about in a heritary sense, when those specialised ants are unfertile, and can't reproduce themselves?
So, how does it work? Say, the queen lays an egg, which has a mutation in it, which evolves into a more specialised ant which is beneficial for the whole hive. Very well. The hive survives better through it. But HOW does that ant give its benefical adaptation/specialisation to any offspring, when it can't reproduce?
"An animal does not adapt."
;-)
This too, is subtly wrong. An animal can (in varying degrees) adapt to it's surroundings, but that adaptive behaviour on itself isn't hereditary (well, unless one is still a believer of Lamarckism
"and the different ones either are already adapted or are not already adapted at the moment they're born"
This too is subtly wrong. The term 'adapted' makes only sense if you're talking about an organism in relation to its environment. Since the environments in which an organism lives can change, it is not necessarily true that an organism is adapted or not the moment they are born.
To give an example: say, a bird on an island gets born with a bigger beak. That beak makes it more difficult to catch flies, but easier to eat seeds. Now, is that bird (more) adapted, or not? The question can not be answered without knowing the environment in which it lives, but even then it is possible that, due to drought, for instance, the environment changes. So the bird may be born in an environment which makes it a disadvantage to have a big (or small) beak, but live (and prosper) in the changed environment where he lives his life.
There is no such thing as a predetermined 'adapted or not', since adaptation has always to be seen in relation to the (changing) environment in which the organism will live.
All by all, you made good points, though. It shows why ID is extremely unlikely, unless 'the creator' didn't know anything about what he was doing and his work isn't anything better then what a blind force like evolution would come at.
"To demonstrate the difference, I'll make a theory that all objects have a tendency to move towards their natural position in space, which in the hammers case happens to be Earth's center; the hammer falling fits this theory, but does it prove it ?"
:-)
If your theory would have fitted every observation thusfar (and better then any other theory), you would actually have a claim that it is 'proven' (with the notion that no theory is ever *absolutely* proven, ofcourse, but that would be more of a semantic interpretation about what constitutes 'proof'. No (absolute) proof of *anything* can be given, not even Descartes' "I think, therefor I am". The concept 'proof', thus, must be viewed in a pragmatic sense, as most humans understand and use it. Much like legal terms, it would be more like 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' rather than absolute proof - which is a purely imaginary, philosophical concept).
But, well, actually, it doesn't fit the theory, because, if you take that same hammer to the moon, it falls towards the center of the moon. If the natural tendency of a hammer is to move to its 'natural position in space', and Earth's center is that natural position for hammers (dixit yourself), the hammer should 'fall' away from the moon towards Earth.
I believe an astronaut already did that actual thing (releasing a feather and a hammer), and since the hammer did not fall towards earth, your theory does not fit the observed reality.
"Observations are trivial truths, and such truth only exists for the observing individual."
;-) can hardly be disputed (well, unless purely philosophically).
I don't think this is actually true, as it would dispute the notion that there is any reality outside that which an individual observes. It's just that we can't say anything about it, unless it is observed (which is where the xians get it wrong)...but on itself, it's not dependend on the observation of an individual. 'Observing' is a dual concept: for it to do so, you need an observer and something to observe. Clearly, you are (half) right: if you don't have the observer, there can't be an observation. But, clearly there has to be a reality to be observed too, because if there was nothing to observe, no observation would be possible neither.
Say, in its simplest form, I see a wall. When I try to go through it, I bump my head. Does that mean the truth of the existance of that wall only exist to me, as an indivual, who observed it? If so, it would be difficult to argue how that would be the case, if all other individuals (even blindfolded) would hit that wall (which is supposed to be only there by *my* observation of it).
Since they are all (other) individuals, some of which can't even observe the wall untill they hit it, one would statistically expect that at least some didn't hit anything if the wall was only there through my personal observation.
Unless ofcourse, one would claim the wall didn't start to be truelly there untill the moment I observed it, but it was a reality from that moment on. Such a reasoning is solipsistic in nature however, and leads to a lot of other contradictions.
In any pragmatical sense, I think we all know there *is* a reality out there, which exist independend of the observer. The *form* in which it is observed may vary, the explanation/interpretation of the observation may vary, the question what is the best approximation of that observable truth may vary... but the fact that there IS a 'truth out there'
Exactly, and why would anyone want to follow a petty god anyway? ;-)
Xian belief (as described in the bible) is so piled up with contradictions, that it is mindboggling some people just keep using it as anything more then a fairy-tale composed by a group of superstitious nomads.
The discrepancies between the god described in the old testament and the new one, alone, would already indicate a shizofrenic God.
In a certain sense, however, many things would make more sense if, indeed, God was a petty and jealous being, who didn't mind ordering His people to destroy a city and kill everyone in it, including women and children. However, this is something most xians vehemently deny.
"There's no reason not to provide child molestors with psychiatric treatment."
True in principle, in as far as people who commit crimes due to mental illnesses deserve treatement.
"After all, they are quite clearly mentally ill."
Well, that would actually depend on the historical context (and the society in which it happens). I know it's not a popular thing to say, but it just so happens I recently read in a scientific magazine about homosexuality (including what we now would call pedophilia) which actually shows that it was rather common, accepted and often seen as beneficial (also for and by the youngster) in ancient times and in different cultures (ancient -greek, -roman, -japanese culture, etc.) Just to show that 'quite clearly mentally ill' is not quite as clear; it's rather a fairly recent view we have of it (which, according to the article, started only in the 17th century in Europe), which has primarily to do with how our current society views it, not (inherently) on the behaviour itself. I'm not debating the value (or lack thereof) of those other viewpoints, but the least one should acknowledge is, that 'quite clearly', in different times or in other cultures it wasn't considered a mental illness at all.
Just to caution you about making broad statements which would imply a universal truth which isn't universal at all.
"Half the problem with western criminal justice systems is that they think punishment is enough, and never try to actually correct the behaviour."
True. Though in all honesty, I don't think the Russian/chinese/japanese/etc. justice systems do much better, and, in fact, often are worse.
"And I suggest hanging George Bush in order to protect the Iraqi people."
I'm actually hoping you use hyperbole, here. At the point where the USA/Iraq is at now, and without knowing who would replace Bush, it is doubtful anything drastic would change for the iraqi people. In any case, it's highly unlikely that it would actually protect Iraqis, if you look at it in a practical sense.
"World War 2 was caused by the fact that Germany was imposed with crippling war reparations after World War 1, and suffered under terms of surrender that were destroying their entire society. That's why the US had the sense to help rebuild Germany and the rest of Europe after WW2 (that, and the fact that it served as a form of workfare to keep Americans employed, since Marshall plan dollars had to be spent on American goods). "
Largely true. And, of course, because they feared the growing influence of communism in europe, and thought this would also be a way to combat it. That said, the marshallplan did help europe back then, we should acknowledge that too, whatever the reasons were. (Not that it serves as an excuse to try to quench EU-criticism of the USA today).
"Rabid nationalism and prejudice have never caused anything more serious than a civil protest or a rally. War is about economics -- period."
I have to disagree with that one. Certainly, in most wars, economics have played a part, but it's certainly not the only cause or reason why countries fought eachother. For instance, I think it has as much to do with simply the ego's of monarchs (and later on, dictators) which ruled the european countries for the majority of warridden times in Europe. Also, there have been wars where whole tribes were exterminated as an act of revenge (or the showing of supremacy), where, after the victory, they just went back, and did no effort to economically benefit from that victory.
Ofcourse, most of the time, there is an economical aspect in it, and one would be a fool to claim otherwise. However, rabid nationalism (or chauvinism) is much more dangerous in getting countries to fight eachother than you seem to imply.
"It's caused by the fact that Americans are a) stupid, b) gullible, and c) religious zealots."
This is, again, a rather dubious claim, because it's too broad a statement. Americans are just like any other people, at least in essence. Yo
"[]you take one thing to mean another and then attempt to generically imply everyone in the religion is of that opinion."
Let's say, for arguments' sake, this is true. What about a refined (similar) question, then? Who would be most suited for the project, if the project was directly related to evolutionism, and one of the candidates was a christian with a strict interpretation of the Bible (including the creation-tale), and the other, say, an atheist who uses only logic and observational evidence as a basis of his believes?
If you still argue that both are equal because both are qualified and belief is of no influence on it, then the premise is, that it DOES NOT have influence on his work. It therefor follows, that he has to act on the observational evidence he finds, not on his beliefs. In that sense, the parent poster was right to claim they can't let their belief change their behaviour in the real world (at least, as far as the project is involved).
"If he were to put the secrets of the universe in front of us on a silver platter, that would destroy faith."
Not at all, unless you mean *blind* faith.
If I were to suddenly see all the secrets of the universe on a silver platter, my faith would certainly augment that there is a being powerful and all-knowing enough to be called god.
In fact, if such a thing would happen, I suspect milions would have more faith in such a being than that which they have now.
A master chef doesn't want to impart his recipes, because he's petty enough to consider those his own property, which only he has the right to it. Basically, he wants to 'guard' his recipes from being used by others. Are you claiming God has the same tendencies?
"Might I ask, is that necessary for science? Because if so, it sort of contradicts what you've said."
Yes, it is necessary for science to accept there is a reality. It doesn't have a preconceived idea about how that reality is or should be, however. Nor does it claim to have found the ultimate reality; science only postulates the closest approximation of observational reality, nothing more, nothing less.
I don't see how that contradicts anything he said.
People arguing against science on the grounds that all things are based on those beliefs of the scientists, effectively deny that there would be a reality outside what which people believe. Thus, they argue, belief in god or belief in science is on equal grounds.
This reasoning is solipsistic in nature; all reality is only part of ones' one mind (or belief). Two counterarguments can be given for this reasoning:
The first one is, that people who say that, don't actually follow what they preach, and thus show a high degree of hypocrisy within the context of their worldview. Even you (or posters of the same ilk before) do not really act as if no reality outside yourself exist (well, maybe if you're a particlar case of a sociopath). You *argument* as if you do (like with your speedometer example), but in a practical sense, you are well aware that if you see a wall, there is a reality of that wall, and that wall is not something you just happen to believe in. (If you truelly belief there is no wall where observation tells you there is one; please run through it, and thus prove that it was only imaginary).
The second point is, that using that defense, it is impossible to explain how science would make any progress - nay - have ANY change not conforming to the 'general wisdom' at all. If science is just about 'believing' stuff, just like believing in God, then how do you explain that science proved the earth wasn't flat, while, during that time, the general belief was that it WAS flat. Or that the Earth wasn't the center of our solarsystem, when all people during that time (including the majority of the scientists) believed it was.
If science couldn't observe something what constitutes a reality, outside ones' belief, then science would have concluded that Earth was the center, because that was the general accepted belief during that time.
Both points indicate a severe weakness in the claim that science is just what scientists 'believe'. In contrast, the 'belief' in God (as described in the bible) has no means of establishing anything about the reality outside ones' (the believers') belief.
A manner in which to combat global warming is to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching earth! Now, instead of the ridulous expensive and unfeasable giant space-reflectors, thanks to human waste management (well, rather the lack of it) we have a viable means to do so!
Without knowing it, we are already heading in the good direction; we only need a concerted effort to further improve upon. If we can muster enough fine particles and bring a dustcloud of debris around our planet in low orbit, thick enough to temper the suns rays, we're compensating for our pollution here down on earth!
Pollution is the problem, but also the solution!!
Hurray!
When I say "severely restricted, if not forbidden outright", I mean in regard to treating them as animals.
I had to think about the SF-book 'startide rising' where dolphins and apes are genetically altered to be as intelligent as us. If we ever create a chimera individual (or a race) with an intelligence comming close to our own (note: how to evaluate that, though?) they should have the same rights as ordinary people.
The problem is, you will always have a grey area.
Then again, I already think expirements on primates should be illegal now too. (I am, however, not a green tree-hugger zealot who thinks all animal testing should stop; as long as there are no viable alternatives to it, I think some animal testing to ensure the safety for humans is acceptable).
Anyway, I think, in the future, sooner or later this issue is going to become one of the great ethical dillema's (together with the classics of abortion and euthanasia).
Isn't that term used to describe *animals* which have cells originated from different zygotes?
Or, it could be that the parents are named Typhon and Echidna.
In a slightly related note: we've seen on slashdot FA about mouse with human braintissue, recently sheep with 15% human DNA in it, etc. I'm curious how far one will go in this, and where to draw the line. I can accept most human-like organs grown in animals for the benefit of medical advancement (e.g.replacing ones' organs without the current difficulties would be a huge bonus), but of course, there is the problem of easier animal-to-human virus contamination.
That said, what about the brain? Surely, people must realise there are ethical dillema's in regard to this. (And, no, I'm not arguing from religious grounds; I'm an atheist). The problem is, what do you do with, say, a monkey who has 30% human braintissue, or 50%, or 70%? when does it stop being a monkey, and when does it start being human?
Politicians and courts don't seem to have thought about the matter yet. I guess it will remain thus, untill some medical experiments are done on an ape who actually is more human than ape, and has a scientist willing to acknowledge that. When you have a chimera that is half human and half animal (including the brains), and thus the distinction becomes blurred; what or whome are you experimenting on? Is it still ethical? Is it solely a matter of being able to communicate one is selfconscious? (To remain consistent in that case, one should allow experiments on infants an severely retarded people too).
My two euro's on the matter is, that research where the brains of animals are genetically altered into a more human form should be severely restricted, if not forbidden outright.
"I try to reprimand my fellow atheists occasionally when they step out of line[]"
;-)
:-)
If you reprimande me, you're not my fellow atheist!
(well, I'm trying to uphold the sheep-like groupthink here
Maybe I should say: "Never noticed it!"
"We're good, normal people who just happen to not believe in a deity or deities."
Heh. Well, even that could be construed as: 'good, normal people = do not believe in a deity'.
But, seriously, one has fanatics on every side. Personally, I don't care too much as long as xians (and the like) leave other people alone. Being a libertarian atheist, I think the right of people to choose to believe in anything they want is paramount, as long as it's confined to a personal matter. That said - and here many xians feel offended - one can not give people who believe in the idea of a 'god' (as described in the bible) any more credibility than those who would believe in Allah, or in Shiva, or Inti (the Inca Sun god), or in tooth-fairies. Believers don't seem to comprehend that this is inherent to the fact that there is equal proof for any of those concepts (which is actually none at all). If one wants to remain consistent; if one gives value to one such concept or 'belief', one has to give as much value to the other concepts, since they all have the same validity.
It is strange, then, that xians often portray atheists as intolerant, while, in fact, it are they that find it difficult to accept that someone believing in a magical dragon in his garage has the same credibility as someone claiming there is a god. In a pragmatic sense, they'll probably think: 'A dragon?! That guy must be a nutcase!'. So why do they get upset if some people say the same of them? I too think such a guy is a nutcase, I confess (though strictly speaking, one would have to follow the reasoning of Carl Sagan on this, to be fair). But then, why not think Xians (and their ilk) are nutcases too, for exactly the same reasons?
But you know, that's ok: people have the right to believe in crazy things, it's their right - as long as they don't bother others with it. Many people think homeopatic water works too; they may believe so if they wish - as long as they don't expect me to tax-pay the social-medical expenses of it. I, for one, think it's more valuable to use logic and rational thinking, when debating the value of a claim. Everything else amounts to opinion-spouting, and there are thirteen in a dozen of that.
"After a point, I wonder if they're really preventing monopolistic practices are just preventing competition altogether."
It's difficult to imagine how the EU would prevent competition altogether if they fine corporations for anti-competitive behaviour.
The notion that *only* USA companies would be sued for that is totally bogus and plainly untrue. It may be that USA-ones *seem* to happen more because:
1)It gets a higher profile when one is sued, because they make more fuss about it (together with the 'look, it's the EU against USA' attitude)
2)USA corporations are more prone to anti-competitive behaviour (maybe due to the inherent strong corporatism in the USA where one easily buys politicians)
3)EU-corporations are as bad as USA ones, only they can cover it up better
Those 3 options are each more likely than the EU-courts singling out companies because they're from the USA.