Alex, why such vitriolic responses? I don't suppose you see that you proving my point, as my first post mentions, that when a person bases their logic on a certain belief system they are set in stone that way and any dissention causes an emotional response. You seem to base yours in the physical, touchable world. Fair enough - you are entitled and should stand for what you believe, as you are doing. A religious person, whether a follower of Buddha, Shiva, or Jesus Christ, has their logic also deeply entrenched in their faith (and is equally entitled).
My contention is that there will be no "conversions" on either side but it is enjoyable - and educational - to read both sides of the argument. Religious people are often stereotyped as being close-minded and elitist. I would ask you to step back and think objectively about how you treat their ideas - would you fit into that same description? How would your description be different?
I ask for this introspection for one reason - not to insult, but to assert (as I did in my first post) that this is an emotional argument and will not be decided on by one's "logic". You mention that you are glad that opinions have no effect on facts - perhaps. I would contend that there are very few true facts - we find new "truths" all the time that change long held beliefs in the world around us. Today's truth may well be thought of as a quaint, simplistic idea in the not too distant future. And let's not even get started on historical facts - we both know how warped those are!
And the fallacy of Pascal's Gambit? From your point of view I understand your stance - but a person of faith would not see it as a fallacy as it works quite neatly into their version of logic. I really don't see how that was stupid to bring up - unless you feel that understanding other people's motivations is not worth your time. If so, from your perspective, it would not make sense. To me however it is always interesting to see/understand what makes people think the way they do.
And just for the sake of argument (I don't want you to think I'm glossing over anything):
How negation works with the cholesterol in eggs - enlighten me. Unless you are saying that the bad cholesterol cancels out whatever the good can do (not the current stand of the medical profession, by the way) I'm not sure how you are applying this. (go ahead with the "you're stupid" comments but please add an explanation - not too complicated, I am simple after all)
The wine comment - I disagree. (Note: I understand the comment about how wine is beneficial when there is no potable water - beer in the past was used in the same way - but I was referring to actual health benefits, especially for the heart, derived over time) They have not found ways to gain the same benefits that red wine provides (again I mention "in moderation"). It is not even understood completely - they have broken down what they consider to be the main benefactors, but are still lacking in find a way to deliver all that a simple glass does. And if they do, it will more than likely be presented as a supplement of some type. Although I'm sure there are a few, you would be hard-pressed to find a supplement that provides everything that is offered in nature. ( I know wine is not nature - just using that as an example. But red wine from grapes is made without additives such as sugar - some argue that this is one of the reasons if is different from other alcoholic beverages) Not to mention there is no standardization in supplements for quality/purity. If there was another form of delivery - would it be as easy, cost-effective and enjoyable as a glass of wine? I doubt it, but hey, you never know.
Although I've never heard of anyone being in ill health due to an excess of good cholesterol, I suppose it is possible. Do you have any reference to this? Not that it really matters - I'm just curious. My comment was directly related to the scientific view once held on eggs - that they were very bad due to the amount of cholesterol they contain. This was later reversed since it was decided/discovered that there is both good and bad cholesterol and eggs contained both. This meant that eggs, especially the whites of eggs, are very good for you when eaten in moderation.
Alcohol, in certain forms and amounts, is actually very healthy when ingested. In the past the same view you mentioned was widely believed - only recently has science started taking a different view. There is quite a bit of evidence mounting that a daily glass of red wine is very beneficial to one's heart health. They haven't really nailed down the exact reasons why it is - as far as I know - but it does seem to have an effect over time. Oddly enough, there is a verse in the New Testament of the Bible that states something similiar although it doesn't mentioon the heart specifically. (Sometimes both sides agree - scary, huh?)
I agree with what I think you were touching on in your second sentance - excess. These two mentioned items, eggs and alcohol (as well as anything else that I can think of), are harmful if used in excess.
As to why you seem angry/insulted concerning my post - I have no idea. Neither side is going to change their mind. The filter by which each assimilates information is different and neither will compromise their faith in their belief system by entertaining the idea that the other may be correct. It is an emotion driven argument - that was what I attempted to show by quoting the numbers of posts.
You assert, if I understand correctly, that science has always been closer to the truth than religion. I believe your opposite, someone who placed their faith in God, would argue that mankind has never been further away from God.
My assertion is just that your logic request is not possible - both sides view logic in a different way. An example: (I heard this logical argument a few years ago) If God does not exist and you follow His teachings, you would live a moral, civic life and when you died you would just be dead. If God does exist however and you did not follow His teachings you would die and face His judgement (which, as we know, in the Judeo-Christian tradition is condemnation to Hell if you have not accepted Him and His teachings). Using that argument, which is the logical course of action? I'm sure you disagree but how do you prove it? (it can't be the physical aspect - science uses faith in many ways to explain certain things that it does not understand because it can't be physically tested yet - but that's an entirely different discussion) The only way to be absolutely certain comes from information that can only be obtained after death - not exactly the most inviting way to test a hypothosis.
Just as an aside - and I don't mean this as insulting/condescending in any way - I found it interesting that you started your post with the phrase "sure as hell".
Based on logic...interesting concept. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, both are types of belief systems. Yes, yes, I know you can prove that 2+2=4 and - oh, wait - that widely accepted equation has a few caveats that go with it (yes, I have the shirt).
I do not consider myself very old but I distinctly remember some scientists declaring that our beloved coffee caused cancer, alcohol in any amount was bad, that there was no such thing as "good" cholesterol or "good" fat, or "good" carbohydrates, or, well, you get the point. And yes I concede that for the most part science changes its tune when more information comes in and shows how arrogant they were to declare something impossible or bad with so little information. Yet, at the time, they believed they were correct based on what they had in front of them. Their belief that their "facts" trumped everything else is consistant with a belief system.
If you would, take a quick look at the/. home page and notice the numbers of comments for each topic. I think you will notice that none of the totals even come close to half of the number this one has until you get to the one posted around 9 am (EST)this morning (OS X Leak). Take into account that this is a geek/techie news/dicussion site. Linux World Expo (at this moment) has 27 comments (5 hours earlier)and the article on Dark Matter has 172 (3 hours prior to this one). This one, at this moment has 594! It's been posted only 1.5 hours! That doesn't bespeak logic - that screams emotion!
There is no logic in this discussion - the mere suggestion that either side use logic is laughable. Both have their own logic that they base thier decisions on - but each see/define logic as rooted in something completely different.
Don't condecendingly sigh that you wish one side would use logic (your perception of logic, I would guess) - just side back and watch the fireworks. Neither side will change their minds so just enjoy it!
Slashdot Mirror
Alex, why such vitriolic responses? I don't suppose you see that you proving my point, as my first post mentions, that when a person bases their logic on a certain belief system they are set in stone that way and any dissention causes an emotional response. You seem to base yours in the physical, touchable world. Fair enough - you are entitled and should stand for what you believe, as you are doing. A religious person, whether a follower of Buddha, Shiva, or Jesus Christ, has their logic also deeply entrenched in their faith (and is equally entitled).
My contention is that there will be no "conversions" on either side but it is enjoyable - and educational - to read both sides of the argument. Religious people are often stereotyped as being close-minded and elitist. I would ask you to step back and think objectively about how you treat their ideas - would you fit into that same description? How would your description be different?
I ask for this introspection for one reason - not to insult, but to assert (as I did in my first post) that this is an emotional argument and will not be decided on by one's "logic". You mention that you are glad that opinions have no effect on facts - perhaps. I would contend that there are very few true facts - we find new "truths" all the time that change long held beliefs in the world around us. Today's truth may well be thought of as a quaint, simplistic idea in the not too distant future. And let's not even get started on historical facts - we both know how warped those are!
And the fallacy of Pascal's Gambit? From your point of view I understand your stance - but a person of faith would not see it as a fallacy as it works quite neatly into their version of logic. I really don't see how that was stupid to bring up - unless you feel that understanding other people's motivations is not worth your time. If so, from your perspective, it would not make sense. To me however it is always interesting to see/understand what makes people think the way they do.
And just for the sake of argument (I don't want you to think I'm glossing over anything):
How negation works with the cholesterol in eggs - enlighten me. Unless you are saying that the bad cholesterol cancels out whatever the good can do (not the current stand of the medical profession, by the way) I'm not sure how you are applying this. (go ahead with the "you're stupid" comments but please add an explanation - not too complicated, I am simple after all)
The wine comment - I disagree. (Note: I understand the comment about how wine is beneficial when there is no potable water - beer in the past was used in the same way - but I was referring to actual health benefits, especially for the heart, derived over time) They have not found ways to gain the same benefits that red wine provides (again I mention "in moderation"). It is not even understood completely - they have broken down what they consider to be the main benefactors, but are still lacking in find a way to deliver all that a simple glass does. And if they do, it will more than likely be presented as a supplement of some type. Although I'm sure there are a few, you would be hard-pressed to find a supplement that provides everything that is offered in nature. ( I know wine is not nature - just using that as an example. But red wine from grapes is made without additives such as sugar - some argue that this is one of the reasons if is different from other alcoholic beverages) Not to mention there is no standardization in supplements for quality/purity. If there was another form of delivery - would it be as easy, cost-effective and enjoyable as a glass of wine? I doubt it, but hey, you never know.
Generalizations - beautiful!
Although I've never heard of anyone being in ill health due to an excess of good cholesterol, I suppose it is possible. Do you have any reference to this? Not that it really matters - I'm just curious. My comment was directly related to the scientific view once held on eggs - that they were very bad due to the amount of cholesterol they contain. This was later reversed since it was decided/discovered that there is both good and bad cholesterol and eggs contained both. This meant that eggs, especially the whites of eggs, are very good for you when eaten in moderation.
Alcohol, in certain forms and amounts, is actually very healthy when ingested. In the past the same view you mentioned was widely believed - only recently has science started taking a different view. There is quite a bit of evidence mounting that a daily glass of red wine is very beneficial to one's heart health. They haven't really nailed down the exact reasons why it is - as far as I know - but it does seem to have an effect over time. Oddly enough, there is a verse in the New Testament of the Bible that states something similiar although it doesn't mentioon the heart specifically. (Sometimes both sides agree - scary, huh?)
I agree with what I think you were touching on in your second sentance - excess. These two mentioned items, eggs and alcohol (as well as anything else that I can think of), are harmful if used in excess.
As to why you seem angry/insulted concerning my post - I have no idea. Neither side is going to change their mind. The filter by which each assimilates information is different and neither will compromise their faith in their belief system by entertaining the idea that the other may be correct. It is an emotion driven argument - that was what I attempted to show by quoting the numbers of posts.
You assert, if I understand correctly, that science has always been closer to the truth than religion. I believe your opposite, someone who placed their faith in God, would argue that mankind has never been further away from God.
My assertion is just that your logic request is not possible - both sides view logic in a different way. An example: (I heard this logical argument a few years ago) If God does not exist and you follow His teachings, you would live a moral, civic life and when you died you would just be dead. If God does exist however and you did not follow His teachings you would die and face His judgement (which, as we know, in the Judeo-Christian tradition is condemnation to Hell if you have not accepted Him and His teachings). Using that argument, which is the logical course of action? I'm sure you disagree but how do you prove it? (it can't be the physical aspect - science uses faith in many ways to explain certain things that it does not understand because it can't be physically tested yet - but that's an entirely different discussion) The only way to be absolutely certain comes from information that can only be obtained after death - not exactly the most inviting way to test a hypothosis.
Just as an aside - and I don't mean this as insulting/condescending in any way - I found it interesting that you started your post with the phrase "sure as hell".
Based on logic...interesting concept. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, both are types of belief systems. Yes, yes, I know you can prove that 2+2=4 and - oh, wait - that widely accepted equation has a few caveats that go with it (yes, I have the shirt).
/. home page and notice the numbers of comments for each topic. I think you will notice that none of the totals even come close to half of the number this one has until you get to the one posted around 9 am (EST)this morning (OS X Leak). Take into account that this is a geek/techie news/dicussion site. Linux World Expo (at this moment) has 27 comments (5 hours earlier)and the article on Dark Matter has 172 (3 hours prior to this one). This one, at this moment has 594! It's been posted only 1.5 hours! That doesn't bespeak logic - that screams emotion!
I do not consider myself very old but I distinctly remember some scientists declaring that our beloved coffee caused cancer, alcohol in any amount was bad, that there was no such thing as "good" cholesterol or "good" fat, or "good" carbohydrates, or, well, you get the point. And yes I concede that for the most part science changes its tune when more information comes in and shows how arrogant they were to declare something impossible or bad with so little information. Yet, at the time, they believed they were correct based on what they had in front of them. Their belief that their "facts" trumped everything else is consistant with a belief system.
If you would, take a quick look at the
There is no logic in this discussion - the mere suggestion that either side use logic is laughable. Both have their own logic that they base thier decisions on - but each see/define logic as rooted in something completely different.
Don't condecendingly sigh that you wish one side would use logic (your perception of logic, I would guess) - just side back and watch the fireworks. Neither side will change their minds so just enjoy it!