I actually did read this quite some time ago, in fact so long ago I had forgotten about it. It's an interesting read, but my position does not change. The main reason my position does not change is found in the opening paragraph.
This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.
Item number 3 pretty much destroys any credibility the paper has for being factual. I believe the sequence was intentionally laid out way to be misleading since item 3 should be a disclosure. For entertainment purposes, I do understand why it sits in it's location. If you never studied Descartes and are not sure of your existence this paper could seem factual. I have studied Descartes, and am positive that I exist so see the "story" for what it is.
Liar! There is absolutely zero evidence that life can spontaneously occur. I hope your teeny tiny penis falls off for being a liar! Just like there is no proof that a human could evolve from an ape. It is absolutely speculation. Evolution has never been proven, and never witnessed. Go ahead and Google that. You will find one example that claims they witnessed it, in which a bird gets a variation in beak. Look very closely at the image shown.. it's the same fucking bird.
To be as clear as possible, I'm not claiming I know answers. I'm claiming that anyone that claims to have an answer is a liar. At present, we don't know what causes life to exist. We can't make something alive, we can only make things dead. We know the symptoms of life and death but we sure as hell have no idea what causes it. Similarly we can split genes to make new things, but we have not seen it occur in nature. We "know" very little on either subject.
Actually I don't count/. in gauging what atheists believe, but I did say you can see some of the same rhetoric here repeated over and over again. The same exact rhetoric you will get when you go to a University by countless professors. The same rhetoric you find on The Daily show, or Colbert Report, or presentations by Cosmologists and Theoretical Physicists.
Atheism is bias that is taught, just like Religion _used_ to be taught. How many University Professors use the term "bully in the sky" or "invisible bogey man" or some other transformation of the same term? Quite a few. Most of the same students that listen to this believe it as holy gospel, and never ever go looking for answers to the real question: "Is there a creator?".
Theology does not come until _after_ that question is answered! If you can answer that question, Theology becomes important. People are being taught never to look at the root question! Tricked out of it rather, by rhetorical fallacy!
If you seriously call bullshit, you fail to see what has been happening for over 40 years. Not just in main stream media, but in public and private education.
You went a bit far in assumptions regarding survival. I'm not fool enough to ignore the fact that humans are human. I will agree with your statement that my argument replacing power with religion is not a valid argument. I do however believe it's more accurate in explaining the dilemma, which is how to assign blame to immoral human actions.
In regards to my last statement, I would also agree that such a task is not really possible. There are many reasons given for why people do shitty things. However, if you read the Republic you would see where Socrates discusses how Tyrants become abusive over time. This is why the "perfect" form of Government did not have a ruling class, nor a set ruler. It required an educated society and a shifting of power rather rapidly in order to succeed.
You see; The problem is not that a ruler can become a murderous tyrant or that a citizen can become a murderer. The problem is that a murdering tyrant can do far more damage to a society than a citizen that becomes a murderer. Many rulers try to increase their level of power without considering that very thing. Citizens of the Republic should be well guarded against someone attempting to gain increasing amounts of power.
Many many people, and therefor companies, are under the delusion that business is fair. Facebook would never do them wrong, hell they gave me an API right? They ignore what business practices are at the level of Facebook. It's parasitic at worst, thuggery most of the time, and the occasional tip to the waiter when things are just right.
It's really really hard to explain this to people that are brought up without the ability to see what is actually happening, but rather rely on voices to tell them what they should do.
This is a razors edge, and I'm not sure you are looking at the correct side for the post you responded to. Are there times when the preservation of liberty requires the giving of life? Absolutely. Are there times when saving a life requires giving up Liberty? Absolutely.
The point I believe being made, it's not mind so feel free to correct me, requires looking at society and not the individual. In order to establish and maintain liberty in a society at times there must be some sacrifice.
It's also important to note that the founders never stated that "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" were mutually exclusive. Those three things, in all of their complex definitions are entitled to everyone.
And we increasingly elect idiots who think they know what's best for us. Witness the "assault weapon" ban conversations. it's nauseating.
Partial truth, but not quite. What the people vote for is the candidates that they are given to choose from. Of course I'm thinking mostly of the big elections, Congress/Senate/President. But it's not limited to those. In more local elections, it's similar. They don't know who they vote for, they vote for who's sign they have seen the most. Often, those signs are paid for by 3rd parties wanting a particular candidate to win.
People don't want to pick the biggest turd in the pond, but they are given no choice. If you are not a turd, good luck getting media attention or funding for campaigns.
In theory you are correct, and that is how it is supposed to work. In practice we see the exact opposite. The only people in the US that are innocent until proven guilty have paid a legal team an enormous amount of money. Go spend a day in circuit court watching cases. Usually they are open to the public. You may find it rather enlightening.
Wrong! There is absolutely something you can do about it. You can wake people up to the problem. This a first and necessary step in order to facilitate change.
The reason the US was able to revolt against England a couple hundred plus years ago is that the people wanted (majority) to revolt. To get the populace to that point it took people like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Revere to wake them!
The US was not freed from British rule because Washington went out and kicked every British soldiers ass. The US was freed because the majority of people were awake and fought for change.
Being a defeatist will never change anything. Waiting on other people to wake the masses won't work either. Not while the media is controlled at least. It takes people actively waking others up to the problems, and those people waking others, and those people waking others, until there is enough critical mass to force the change.
First of all, I'm religious and I believe in God. I don't believe in an invisible man in the sky, or any conscious entity for that matter, that created and oversees the universe.
You sound like a very confused person. You just stated that you believe in God followed by you don't believe in God.
I really don't know where to start with the rest of your post. You don't really debunk anything I say.
Huh? If you make a false statement, and I show that it's false I believe this is debunking something you say. You were wrong to claim that Intelligent design and Evolution are competing theories. Your statement was absolutely false. If by debunk you mean that I did not provide citations, why should I bother? It's not like Google is broken and the theories are hard to find.
2) Intelligent design doesn't give a reason for evolution. Evolution gives a reason for evolution. Ockam's Razor, 'nuff said.
What? followed by Just because you know a term does not mean that you understand it's purpose or use. Intelligent Design (for the second time) does not compete with Evolution. It attempts to explain "why" things evolve (through divine intervention). You are still wrong, and now more wrong since you brought an irrelevant philosophical term into your statements in an attempt to look intelligent.
The Big Bang theory doesn't suggest that things pop in and out of existence at any time. Unlike any other theory of existence there are mathematical models to support the Big Bang theory that utilizes the laws of physics.
The big bang does work on the principle of a giant ball of mass just popping in to existence. Go read the theory! Not only does that giant ball of mass just magically appear, it starts spinning at incredible speed causing it to explode. So energy just appears also. Good lord man, do you know the theory at all or do you just listen to what people tell you?
3) Of couse everything in my post was my opinion. I debate the factual part. Einstein's theological beliefs are highly debated and I, for one, won't attempt to put words in his mouth. Even if he did believe in a creator, as smart as Einstein was, he wasn't infallible and much has been discovered since his death.
You brought up an appeal to authority argument, I returned the favor. Now you claim "So what" to my argument, which means that your appeal to authority was invalid also. Thanks for making the point.
4) I never defined the unmoved mover theory, so it makes sense that your misinterpretation of what I wrote wasn't a definition of it. I outlined some assumptions that ancient Greeks had, that were logical at the time, that predicated such a theory. Newton's theories made the theory questionable, man's expeditions to outer space empirically demonstrated combined with the Big Bang theory made the unmoved mover fully anachronistic.
Simply put, you are telling lies now. You stated emphatically that (and I quote) "It's sort of like the 'unmoved mover' theory. It made sense when one's assumption was that 'what goes up, must come down,' or that, 'an object's natural state is to remain still.' Modern physics, both in theory and empirically, tell us otherwise."! That is absolutely false! The unmoved mover states exactly what we know and prove in physics all the time. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Everything we observe is caused by something else happening. We use this same principle normally in science. Newton's work did not change or diminish the theory, and neither did our trips to outer space. You obviously don't understand the theory or would not make such bogus claims. (geez, I guess that's more than 1 for the debunked category).
Now, an exception to the unmoved mover theory, that we use in Physics every day, would be Kraus' work on the expanding vacuum (Which is theory, just like th
I didn't watch the video and have no need to do so. I don't understand how your logic could work in the world. German military uniforms were basically crosses and eagles, which includes the Nazi uniforms. Elite units had skull patches, but at the time that was not uncommon for any elite military unit. While today we don't have any sanctioned military unit patches with a skull (that I know of) many soldiers get tattoos of them to commemorate their belonging to elite units.
Being former military I know to look for unit patches. Not many civilians do though. The crossed swords I wore were never discussed among civilians because they never noticed. They would ask about the rank, wings and other markings. Like the expert marksman medal which looks surprisingly similar to a German cross.
The world is still flat also right? We of course can't have quantum anything because nothing advances right? In fact there are no nuclear weapons or atomic energy programs and we still have trouble making iron let alone steel right? That was sarcasm if you didn't catch on. Come on now, you have to have better logic than that. Many many things have improved over time, including Religions.
Even if Religion didn't change the logic you are using is invalid and is completely phony (does not match history). Look at what societies did at the time. Slavery was common everywhere, not just with the wandering Jewish people who actually did not own any slaves (go read it again). If slavery is discussed in the Bible you don't find it relevant when every single society at the time had slavery (many of the slaves _were_ Jewish)? Stop believing everything you are told and go actually learn something!
Sorry for being a logic nazi, but logic is like math: immutable but prone to abuse.
Ditto, and something in your post is very incorrect.(see my last statement). My correction of the statement "religion = bad" is absolutely correct. The logic used to make such a statement is invalid. My logic showing that correlation is not equal causation is well proven though I didn't spell it out that clearly. That is the easiest proof. However, I gave a prime example used frequently attempting to shift blame to religion and showed that logic is faulty also.
On a personal note, i agree with you right up to the point where you approach blaming survival and instead note that the concept of blame requires a massive reduction in situational complexity and an increase in attribution to a single entity.
Did you perhaps respond to the wrong post? I don't see anywhere in this thread where I stated or blamed survival. In fact I searched the thread for the word survival and it occurs presently twice. The first time by yourself, and the second where I quoted you. Are you referencing something outside of this post you should cite so that I understand your reference?
I'll accept we don't know as an answer and even agree to it. The odds I have seen depicting real scenario are zero. We get to 1 in 54billion around the time the Universe reaches a trillion years old. Even if we found single cell life on Mars what would that prove? We still have no idea what it takes for mutation and evolution to occur in terms of time. It also does not prove that life is accidental. That question and answer will remain completely philosophical for the time being, and I don't see it changing any time soon (if at all).
While well spoken, I can't say I agree in general terms. For a Religion to be responsible for human death for example, it must be part of their doctrine to teach killing of humans. In general terms, Religions do not teach killing but teach against killing. I use general terms to encompass Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Muslim, etc..
I can't say that there are not back door meetings where religious people meet and conspire and even kill people, but in that case: It is not in religious doctrine that kills people or the Religion that kills people. The people conspiring are the problem.
Perhaps it would be more fair to claim that "Power" or the quest for Power is the problem. Blaming Religion is not realistic.
I'll answer this one: It doesn't matter what one's religious persuasion is, they cannot reasonably believe in a form of intelligent design. Intelligent design fails the test of reason, and even if it didn't, it fails empirically.
That is absolutely false. Statistically speaking, there is absolutely no chance of life happening accidentally. You read someone's BS and never read real statistics.
Most importantly, the theory it attempts to compete with, evolution, passes both logical and empirical tests.
What? Intelligent design gives a reason for evolution. It does not change what evolution is or how it works. It's not competing at all. From an atheist perspective there is no "why" things occur. We are just supposed to believe that things can pop in and out of existence at any time.. like a Universe. Which is not logical by the way. If that were true, we would never have existed since Universes would be popping up inside of our Universe all the time causing collapses.
It made sense for ancient Greeks to argue over such things, it even made sense for people such as Thomas Aquinas all the way up to Hume. It stopped making sense when Darwin was published.
In your opinion, but your opinion is not factual. For example, Einstein was pretty smart and well aware of Darwin's theories. While he was not a fan of "Theology" he still understood the need for a creator. He is one of countless scientists that believe in a creator (though not necessarily a specific Theology).
It's sort of like the 'unmoved mover' theory. It made sense when one's assumption was that 'what goes up, must come down,' or that, 'an object's natural state is to remain still.' Modern physics, both in theory and empirically, tell us otherwise.
Wow, you should actually study some Philosophy and Science. That's not what the unmoved mover theory was at all. Aristotle's work is very logical and as far as we know accurate. Plato's definition of a Republic still works too. Those ancient Greek's were not as backward as you seem to be implying.
Krause's expanding vacuum work is exceptional, but still does not deny the need for a creator.
In summary, you are making a few mistakes in logic which I find rather common. First is you fail to understand things you are speaking against. Intelligent Design is something you completely misunderstand or portray incorrectly. The biggest is that you deny what Theology does. Theology attempts to give a "why" to events as well as explain the events. Not all schools of theology do a good job of that mind you, many deny the action if the "why" becomes threatened. I'm giving the purist model, not the actual model.
Not my experience. Quite the opposite really. Because of the general default of religion, most atheists I know have had to come to those conclusions by themselves. As a result they tend to be quite knowledgable.
Absolutely rare, not the normal. The majority of atheist are bigoted and won't learn about any theism. Just read/. for a while. The same stereotypes or childhood memories always repeat. Actual knowledge of Philosophy and theory do not exist. Perhaps you are an exception, or you have met a couple. I admit to meeting a few knowledgable atheists, but it's maybe 1% that know anything about 1 Religion. To be fair, most theists only know about their religion and don't know the Philosophy any better than an atheist.
And for mainstream parties, it's true to a first order approximation. Sure, there's some fiddling round the edges and leaning left or right (neither of which are remotely choerent positions in either way), but mostly they do more or less the same as each other. That's why I put in my protest vote
I can't agree with you, and defer my beliefs to the person you responded to. Many people get in to politics because there is so much shit in the system. I don't mean to imply that it's a large percentage, but to deny they exist is not fair to those trying to make things different/better.
Now if you did actually protest vote, and vote for neither of the John's and voted off party or penciled in someone.. Kudo's to you! We need everyone to do that in order to flush the shit out of the pipes. I may not have understood your point exactly.
but every church and temple that I dropped by did have prominently placed donation boxes that everyone was expected to contribute to
Delusional much? You don't have to pay to enter or stay all the way through a service at any Churches, Synagogues, or Mosques. The person you responded to was exactly correct.
All FREE institutions ask for donations over and over. Donations are how they exist. Which is different than say.. COS that you must pay to enter. It's fine to be biased, but at least _try_ to be honest in your bigoted rantings.
Just as Hitler did not represent what every German believed, neither do the actions of any person of "faith" mean that they are the embodiment of their religion.
Just a side note on this comment. I have relatives from Germany that were dumbfounded when WW II ended and they found out what Hitler had been doing. The government controlled media portrayed things very differently for the German citizens. German media told the Germans how American and British soldiers were massacring Germans and never mentioned the concentration camps. US Soldiers toured countless German citizens through the camps to open their eyes, nobody believed them at first.
That should be a warning today, but nobody believes that the US Government is controlling their media, or perhaps it's visa versa.
What one is born in too is not the same as practicing. There is also the issue of what one self proclaims versus what one is and does. I know many self proclaimed Christian people that are absolutely not Christians. Countless examples of hypocrites are found in the history books.
That is probably accurate. I have reviewed lots of things on Youtube, but would have never signed up and would be completely anonymous if they did not force me to use my G+ account for access. While I don't mind watching movies of kitten boxing, I'm not about to start composing and posting such things...
Where your logic fails is blaming Religion for Human actions. There have been a lot of shitty people in the world that do shitty things to people. Blaming Religion is idiocy. Mao for example was an atheist and has the highest body count ever at 80million, followed by Stalin at roughly 20 million (Mao's numbers are easy to find, I used the standard average for Stalin though this is interesting). Hitler was into the occult, not Religion, and boasts some hefty numbers as well.
Blaming Religion becomes rather foolish rather quickly if you actually study history and ignore rhetoric. None of the people I mentioned were in the distant past, like the Crusades (which was more a war for territory than Religion.. but you need to understand history to get that).
Not to belittle what Google has done and purchased, but what other options were and are there? Google was supposed to be more secure than 1 other social network company. It is, though many distrust Google as much as they distrust Facebook when it comes to releasing information to Governments. Youtube was acquired, and for "Movies" and "Videos" was already a healthy and stable company. If it was launched as a social media site, I doubt it would have the depth it does. An alternative would have popped up in my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually did read this quite some time ago, in fact so long ago I had forgotten about it. It's an interesting read, but my position does not change. The main reason my position does not change is found in the opening paragraph.
This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.
Item number 3 pretty much destroys any credibility the paper has for being factual. I believe the sequence was intentionally laid out way to be misleading since item 3 should be a disclosure. For entertainment purposes, I do understand why it sits in it's location. If you never studied Descartes and are not sure of your existence this paper could seem factual. I have studied Descartes, and am positive that I exist so see the "story" for what it is.
Liar! There is absolutely zero evidence that life can spontaneously occur. I hope your teeny tiny penis falls off for being a liar! Just like there is no proof that a human could evolve from an ape. It is absolutely speculation. Evolution has never been proven, and never witnessed. Go ahead and Google that. You will find one example that claims they witnessed it, in which a bird gets a variation in beak. Look very closely at the image shown.. it's the same fucking bird.
To be as clear as possible, I'm not claiming I know answers. I'm claiming that anyone that claims to have an answer is a liar. At present, we don't know what causes life to exist. We can't make something alive, we can only make things dead. We know the symptoms of life and death but we sure as hell have no idea what causes it. Similarly we can split genes to make new things, but we have not seen it occur in nature. We "know" very little on either subject.
Actually I don't count /. in gauging what atheists believe, but I did say you can see some of the same rhetoric here repeated over and over again. The same exact rhetoric you will get when you go to a University by countless professors. The same rhetoric you find on The Daily show, or Colbert Report, or presentations by Cosmologists and Theoretical Physicists.
Atheism is bias that is taught, just like Religion _used_ to be taught. How many University Professors use the term "bully in the sky" or "invisible bogey man" or some other transformation of the same term? Quite a few. Most of the same students that listen to this believe it as holy gospel, and never ever go looking for answers to the real question: "Is there a creator?".
Theology does not come until _after_ that question is answered! If you can answer that question, Theology becomes important. People are being taught never to look at the root question! Tricked out of it rather, by rhetorical fallacy!
If you seriously call bullshit, you fail to see what has been happening for over 40 years. Not just in main stream media, but in public and private education.
You went a bit far in assumptions regarding survival. I'm not fool enough to ignore the fact that humans are human. I will agree with your statement that my argument replacing power with religion is not a valid argument. I do however believe it's more accurate in explaining the dilemma, which is how to assign blame to immoral human actions.
In regards to my last statement, I would also agree that such a task is not really possible. There are many reasons given for why people do shitty things. However, if you read the Republic you would see where Socrates discusses how Tyrants become abusive over time. This is why the "perfect" form of Government did not have a ruling class, nor a set ruler. It required an educated society and a shifting of power rather rapidly in order to succeed.
You see; The problem is not that a ruler can become a murderous tyrant or that a citizen can become a murderer. The problem is that a murdering tyrant can do far more damage to a society than a citizen that becomes a murderer. Many rulers try to increase their level of power without considering that very thing. Citizens of the Republic should be well guarded against someone attempting to gain increasing amounts of power.
Many many people, and therefor companies, are under the delusion that business is fair. Facebook would never do them wrong, hell they gave me an API right? They ignore what business practices are at the level of Facebook. It's parasitic at worst, thuggery most of the time, and the occasional tip to the waiter when things are just right.
It's really really hard to explain this to people that are brought up without the ability to see what is actually happening, but rather rely on voices to tell them what they should do.
Just trust me and take the blue pill!
This is a razors edge, and I'm not sure you are looking at the correct side for the post you responded to. Are there times when the preservation of liberty requires the giving of life? Absolutely. Are there times when saving a life requires giving up Liberty? Absolutely.
The point I believe being made, it's not mind so feel free to correct me, requires looking at society and not the individual. In order to establish and maintain liberty in a society at times there must be some sacrifice.
It's also important to note that the founders never stated that "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" were mutually exclusive. Those three things, in all of their complex definitions are entitled to everyone.
And we increasingly elect idiots who think they know what's best for us. Witness the "assault weapon" ban conversations. it's nauseating.
Partial truth, but not quite. What the people vote for is the candidates that they are given to choose from. Of course I'm thinking mostly of the big elections, Congress/Senate/President. But it's not limited to those. In more local elections, it's similar. They don't know who they vote for, they vote for who's sign they have seen the most. Often, those signs are paid for by 3rd parties wanting a particular candidate to win.
People don't want to pick the biggest turd in the pond, but they are given no choice. If you are not a turd, good luck getting media attention or funding for campaigns.
Well stated, too bad I have no mod points today :(
In theory you are correct, and that is how it is supposed to work. In practice we see the exact opposite. The only people in the US that are innocent until proven guilty have paid a legal team an enormous amount of money. Go spend a day in circuit court watching cases. Usually they are open to the public. You may find it rather enlightening.
Wrong! There is absolutely something you can do about it. You can wake people up to the problem. This a first and necessary step in order to facilitate change.
The reason the US was able to revolt against England a couple hundred plus years ago is that the people wanted (majority) to revolt. To get the populace to that point it took people like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Revere to wake them!
The US was not freed from British rule because Washington went out and kicked every British soldiers ass. The US was freed because the majority of people were awake and fought for change.
Being a defeatist will never change anything. Waiting on other people to wake the masses won't work either. Not while the media is controlled at least. It takes people actively waking others up to the problems, and those people waking others, and those people waking others, until there is enough critical mass to force the change.
First of all, I'm religious and I believe in God. I don't believe in an invisible man in the sky, or any conscious entity for that matter, that created and oversees the universe.
You sound like a very confused person. You just stated that you believe in God followed by you don't believe in God.
I really don't know where to start with the rest of your post. You don't really debunk anything I say.
Huh? If you make a false statement, and I show that it's false I believe this is debunking something you say. You were wrong to claim that Intelligent design and Evolution are competing theories. Your statement was absolutely false. If by debunk you mean that I did not provide citations, why should I bother? It's not like Google is broken and the theories are hard to find.
2) Intelligent design doesn't give a reason for evolution. Evolution gives a reason for evolution. Ockam's Razor, 'nuff said.
What? followed by Just because you know a term does not mean that you understand it's purpose or use. Intelligent Design (for the second time) does not compete with Evolution. It attempts to explain "why" things evolve (through divine intervention). You are still wrong, and now more wrong since you brought an irrelevant philosophical term into your statements in an attempt to look intelligent.
The Big Bang theory doesn't suggest that things pop in and out of existence at any time. Unlike any other theory of existence there are mathematical models to support the Big Bang theory that utilizes the laws of physics.
The big bang does work on the principle of a giant ball of mass just popping in to existence. Go read the theory! Not only does that giant ball of mass just magically appear, it starts spinning at incredible speed causing it to explode. So energy just appears also. Good lord man, do you know the theory at all or do you just listen to what people tell you?
3) Of couse everything in my post was my opinion. I debate the factual part. Einstein's theological beliefs are highly debated and I, for one, won't attempt to put words in his mouth. Even if he did believe in a creator, as smart as Einstein was, he wasn't infallible and much has been discovered since his death.
You brought up an appeal to authority argument, I returned the favor. Now you claim "So what" to my argument, which means that your appeal to authority was invalid also. Thanks for making the point.
4) I never defined the unmoved mover theory, so it makes sense that your misinterpretation of what I wrote wasn't a definition of it. I outlined some assumptions that ancient Greeks had, that were logical at the time, that predicated such a theory. Newton's theories made the theory questionable, man's expeditions to outer space empirically demonstrated combined with the Big Bang theory made the unmoved mover fully anachronistic.
Simply put, you are telling lies now. You stated emphatically that (and I quote) "It's sort of like the 'unmoved mover' theory. It made sense when one's assumption was that 'what goes up, must come down,' or that, 'an object's natural state is to remain still.' Modern physics, both in theory and empirically, tell us otherwise."! That is absolutely false! The unmoved mover states exactly what we know and prove in physics all the time. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Everything we observe is caused by something else happening. We use this same principle normally in science. Newton's work did not change or diminish the theory, and neither did our trips to outer space. You obviously don't understand the theory or would not make such bogus claims. (geez, I guess that's more than 1 for the debunked category).
Now, an exception to the unmoved mover theory, that we use in Physics every day, would be Kraus' work on the expanding vacuum (Which is theory, just like th
I didn't watch the video and have no need to do so. I don't understand how your logic could work in the world. German military uniforms were basically crosses and eagles, which includes the Nazi uniforms. Elite units had skull patches, but at the time that was not uncommon for any elite military unit. While today we don't have any sanctioned military unit patches with a skull (that I know of) many soldiers get tattoos of them to commemorate their belonging to elite units.
Being former military I know to look for unit patches. Not many civilians do though. The crossed swords I wore were never discussed among civilians because they never noticed. They would ask about the rank, wings and other markings. Like the expert marksman medal which looks surprisingly similar to a German cross.
The world is still flat also right? We of course can't have quantum anything because nothing advances right? In fact there are no nuclear weapons or atomic energy programs and we still have trouble making iron let alone steel right? That was sarcasm if you didn't catch on. Come on now, you have to have better logic than that. Many many things have improved over time, including Religions.
Even if Religion didn't change the logic you are using is invalid and is completely phony (does not match history). Look at what societies did at the time. Slavery was common everywhere, not just with the wandering Jewish people who actually did not own any slaves (go read it again). If slavery is discussed in the Bible you don't find it relevant when every single society at the time had slavery (many of the slaves _were_ Jewish)? Stop believing everything you are told and go actually learn something!
Sorry for being a logic nazi, but logic is like math: immutable but prone to abuse.
Ditto, and something in your post is very incorrect.(see my last statement). My correction of the statement "religion = bad" is absolutely correct. The logic used to make such a statement is invalid. My logic showing that correlation is not equal causation is well proven though I didn't spell it out that clearly. That is the easiest proof. However, I gave a prime example used frequently attempting to shift blame to religion and showed that logic is faulty also.
On a personal note, i agree with you right up to the point where you approach blaming survival and instead note that the concept of blame requires a massive reduction in situational complexity and an increase in attribution to a single entity.
Did you perhaps respond to the wrong post? I don't see anywhere in this thread where I stated or blamed survival. In fact I searched the thread for the word survival and it occurs presently twice. The first time by yourself, and the second where I quoted you. Are you referencing something outside of this post you should cite so that I understand your reference?
I'll accept we don't know as an answer and even agree to it. The odds I have seen depicting real scenario are zero. We get to 1 in 54billion around the time the Universe reaches a trillion years old. Even if we found single cell life on Mars what would that prove? We still have no idea what it takes for mutation and evolution to occur in terms of time. It also does not prove that life is accidental. That question and answer will remain completely philosophical for the time being, and I don't see it changing any time soon (if at all).
While well spoken, I can't say I agree in general terms. For a Religion to be responsible for human death for example, it must be part of their doctrine to teach killing of humans. In general terms, Religions do not teach killing but teach against killing. I use general terms to encompass Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Muslim, etc..
I can't say that there are not back door meetings where religious people meet and conspire and even kill people, but in that case: It is not in religious doctrine that kills people or the Religion that kills people. The people conspiring are the problem.
Perhaps it would be more fair to claim that "Power" or the quest for Power is the problem. Blaming Religion is not realistic.
I'll answer this one: It doesn't matter what one's religious persuasion is, they cannot reasonably believe in a form of intelligent design. Intelligent design fails the test of reason, and even if it didn't, it fails empirically.
That is absolutely false. Statistically speaking, there is absolutely no chance of life happening accidentally. You read someone's BS and never read real statistics.
Most importantly, the theory it attempts to compete with, evolution, passes both logical and empirical tests.
What? Intelligent design gives a reason for evolution. It does not change what evolution is or how it works. It's not competing at all. From an atheist perspective there is no "why" things occur. We are just supposed to believe that things can pop in and out of existence at any time.. like a Universe. Which is not logical by the way. If that were true, we would never have existed since Universes would be popping up inside of our Universe all the time causing collapses.
It made sense for ancient Greeks to argue over such things, it even made sense for people such as Thomas Aquinas all the way up to Hume. It stopped making sense when Darwin was published.
In your opinion, but your opinion is not factual. For example, Einstein was pretty smart and well aware of Darwin's theories. While he was not a fan of "Theology" he still understood the need for a creator. He is one of countless scientists that believe in a creator (though not necessarily a specific Theology).
It's sort of like the 'unmoved mover' theory. It made sense when one's assumption was that 'what goes up, must come down,' or that, 'an object's natural state is to remain still.' Modern physics, both in theory and empirically, tell us otherwise.
Wow, you should actually study some Philosophy and Science. That's not what the unmoved mover theory was at all. Aristotle's work is very logical and as far as we know accurate. Plato's definition of a Republic still works too. Those ancient Greek's were not as backward as you seem to be implying.
Krause's expanding vacuum work is exceptional, but still does not deny the need for a creator.
In summary, you are making a few mistakes in logic which I find rather common. First is you fail to understand things you are speaking against. Intelligent Design is something you completely misunderstand or portray incorrectly. The biggest is that you deny what Theology does. Theology attempts to give a "why" to events as well as explain the events. Not all schools of theology do a good job of that mind you, many deny the action if the "why" becomes threatened. I'm giving the purist model, not the actual model.
Not my experience. Quite the opposite really. Because of the general default of religion, most atheists I know have had to come to those conclusions by themselves. As a result they tend to be quite knowledgable.
Absolutely rare, not the normal. The majority of atheist are bigoted and won't learn about any theism. Just read /. for a while. The same stereotypes or childhood memories always repeat. Actual knowledge of Philosophy and theory do not exist. Perhaps you are an exception, or you have met a couple. I admit to meeting a few knowledgable atheists, but it's maybe 1% that know anything about 1 Religion. To be fair, most theists only know about their religion and don't know the Philosophy any better than an atheist.
And for mainstream parties, it's true to a first order approximation. Sure, there's some fiddling round the edges and leaning left or right (neither of which are remotely choerent positions in either way), but mostly they do more or less the same as each other. That's why I put in my protest vote
I can't agree with you, and defer my beliefs to the person you responded to. Many people get in to politics because there is so much shit in the system. I don't mean to imply that it's a large percentage, but to deny they exist is not fair to those trying to make things different/better.
Now if you did actually protest vote, and vote for neither of the John's and voted off party or penciled in someone.. Kudo's to you! We need everyone to do that in order to flush the shit out of the pipes. I may not have understood your point exactly.
but every church and temple that I dropped by did have prominently placed donation boxes that everyone was expected to contribute to
Delusional much? You don't have to pay to enter or stay all the way through a service at any Churches, Synagogues, or Mosques. The person you responded to was exactly correct.
All FREE institutions ask for donations over and over. Donations are how they exist. Which is different than say.. COS that you must pay to enter. It's fine to be biased, but at least _try_ to be honest in your bigoted rantings.
Just as Hitler did not represent what every German believed, neither do the actions of any person of "faith" mean that they are the embodiment of their religion.
Just a side note on this comment. I have relatives from Germany that were dumbfounded when WW II ended and they found out what Hitler had been doing. The government controlled media portrayed things very differently for the German citizens. German media told the Germans how American and British soldiers were massacring Germans and never mentioned the concentration camps. US Soldiers toured countless German citizens through the camps to open their eyes, nobody believed them at first.
That should be a warning today, but nobody believes that the US Government is controlling their media, or perhaps it's visa versa.
What one is born in too is not the same as practicing. There is also the issue of what one self proclaims versus what one is and does. I know many self proclaimed Christian people that are absolutely not Christians. Countless examples of hypocrites are found in the history books.
That is probably accurate. I have reviewed lots of things on Youtube, but would have never signed up and would be completely anonymous if they did not force me to use my G+ account for access. While I don't mind watching movies of kitten boxing, I'm not about to start composing and posting such things...
Where your logic fails is blaming Religion for Human actions. There have been a lot of shitty people in the world that do shitty things to people. Blaming Religion is idiocy. Mao for example was an atheist and has the highest body count ever at 80million, followed by Stalin at roughly 20 million (Mao's numbers are easy to find, I used the standard average for Stalin though this is interesting). Hitler was into the occult, not Religion, and boasts some hefty numbers as well.
Blaming Religion becomes rather foolish rather quickly if you actually study history and ignore rhetoric. None of the people I mentioned were in the distant past, like the Crusades (which was more a war for territory than Religion.. but you need to understand history to get that).
Not to belittle what Google has done and purchased, but what other options were and are there? Google was supposed to be more secure than 1 other social network company. It is, though many distrust Google as much as they distrust Facebook when it comes to releasing information to Governments. Youtube was acquired, and for "Movies" and "Videos" was already a healthy and stable company. If it was launched as a social media site, I doubt it would have the depth it does. An alternative would have popped up in my opinion.